[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.




File: PF2E.jpg (203 KB, 806x1000)
203 KB
203 KB JPG
Is it really as bad as people say? Why? And how did Paizo fuck up this bad when they've been making RPGs for like a decade now?
>>
>>61983020
It's edition war bullshit, anon.
>>
>>61983020
They could only copy, not create
>>
Isn't it to 5e what Pathfinder was to 3.5?
>>
>>61983498
So it's near identical to 5e? Who asked for this?
>>
>>61983498
Wait, really? I haven't actually heard any denials, just that it was shit
>>
>>61983498
>>61983568
>>61983609
It's not. It's a different approach to the same concepts, though.
>>
>>61983020
Not sure what you heard but the core foundation that the system is solid. It's a far better system than what pathfinder uses or even 5e. It's just everything else that sucks. They also fuck up the monster balance so GM are unknowingly throwing players against near unwinnable battles.
>>
>>61983020

It's a beta. Some classes dont work as intended and need urgent fixing.
>>
>>61983498
That would imply it got simpler. Imagine the caster supremacy and ivory tower design of 3.pf, the gamist writing and bad early monster math of 4e, and the lower power scale and lack of options of 5e. It has none of the upsides of any of them, and various rules from critical hits to lighting are conspiring to kill you. That is PF 2e.
>>
>>61984410
>ivory tower design
retard alert
>>
>>61984442
There are options in the game clearly designed to be bad and straight worse than other options. That is ivory tower game design
>>
>>61984616
>There are options in the game clearly designed to be bad
This is why you are a retard. The options can be circumstantial but not bad by design in every application. You memeing, brainless idiots cannot grasp it. Your dishonesty and functional illiteracy make you repeat ad nauseam a meme years old.
>>
>>61983020
>Is it really as bad as people say? Why? And how did Paizo fuck up this bad when they've been making RPGs for like a decade now?

It's bad because it's a mishmash of ideas from the last 15 years that doesn't really get anything straight. There are things that were already done by other 3.5 forks, things from 4e, and a desire to be like 5e when the biggest selling point of 5e is that it's light. The only people defending it are those who only read 3.5 and Pathfinder and have no notion of any other game.
>>
>>61984724
If an option is extremely circumstantial, it is bad, if it is circumstantial and still barely par in the circumstances it is designed for, like power attack in PF2e, then it is really bad.

There's two options here, either 1. Paizo intentionally made a bunch of options subpar, in which case they're using Ivory Tower design, or 2. They're massively incompetent and don't realise that extremely circumstantial options are not worth taking, in which case they're just bad at their jobs
>>
>>61984724
>Wizard gets to replenish it's spells at level 10
>Barbarian gets 1d extra critical damage at level 18
>I-it's working as intended guys
>>
>>61984822
I feel like anyone that attached to 3.5 and Pathfinder will reject it on principle, like they did for 4e
>>
>>61984860
>>61984865
Not defending Paizo. Just stating that anyone that uses the term "ivory Tower" for this kind of situation is functionally illiterate.
>>
>>61984903
It's as ivory tower as 3rd edition, a game for which the term "ivory tower game design" was coined by it's creator to refer to that game

If PF2e isn't Ivory Tower game design, then nothing is and the term is completely meaningless, is that what you're trying to say?
>>
>>61983020
SJWs
J
W
s
>>
>>61984948
No. It's a meme. But keep being retarded, you just cast a shadow on any perhaps legitimate criticism on PF2.
>>
>D&D 5e Core Ranger
>PF 2e Playtest Ranger
Why do game designers hate Rangers so much?
>>
>>61984903
Maybe I agree with you that it wasn't intentional, but they made a game with a ton of moving pieces (everything is feats now) and it's pretty clear that at a given level some are definitely wider and/or have bigger effects than others.
>>
>>61985018
>4e ranger still the best class of the game since day 1
>>
>>61985067
plz giv
>>
>>61985087
4e rangers sort of play like 3.5 monks, but good

They're entirely focused on doing a lot of attacks, and 4e is a system that greatly rewards multiattacks over single big hits
>>
>>61984157
>They also fuck up the monster balance so GM are unknowingly throwing players against near unwinnable battles.

Only 6% of PCs died in The Lost Star.
>>
>>61985034
Fair enough for me.
>>
>>61985113
They don't play like monks at all. 4e melee rangers are all about moving around the battlefield and cutting bitches, the 3.5 monk had the usual issue of having to stand still to flurry.
>>
>>61985184
I think he meant that 4e rangers play the way a 3.5 monk would have played if it had been competently designed.
>>
>>61985246
Yeah this

Although there are ways to jump about the battlefield as a 3.5 monk without giving up your full attack. A single level in barbarian is usually the best choice, as you can combine it with flying kick, snap kick, power attack, leap attack, and shock trooper. It's just always worse than just being one of the actually decent front-line attacker classes
>>
>>61985087
>he doesn't remember Kenshiro the orcus slayer
>>
>>61985719
Well that doesn't help now. Is their current state some kind of revenge?
>>
>>61985719
Blade Cascade got nerfed in the first 4e errata, it now maxes out at 5 attacks, Kenshiro's unstoppable storm isn't so unstoppable

It's still fucking devastating, and building a ranger who can blow all his resources to kill level 30 solos in a single round is still entirely possible, but Kenshiro is no longer the king of the ring
>>
>>61985760
He still lives on in our hearts anon
>>
>>61983020
>making RPGs for like a decade now?

>making RPGs worse for like a decade now?
>stealing RPGs for like a decade now?

Here's two different FTFYs just for you.
>>
>>61985783
No his blades live on in our hearts
>>
>>61985127
To be fair, only 6% of PCs that -filled out the survey- died.
I imagine that a lot of groups that TPK'd got angry and decided "well fuck this" and didn't finish it off.

>>61984724
There are a few super situational or underwhelming options, which I'd definitely pin down to 'devs thought it sounded cool, but didn't think it through'. Which is fair, because they're throwing things at walls to see if things stick, not everything should be expected to work perfectly at first, but people like getting angry.

>>61984822
I'm not sure about that; I like it, and I hate 3.5/pf, and like 2e because it's different.

>>61985018
The ranger is in an awkward position. Now that 2e has removed most of it's really bad ideas, it just doesn't have anything left. It's entirely made up of bad ideas. All that's left when that's stripped away is a archer or dual-wielding fighter with (maybe) an animal companion, and a maxed out Survival skill.

>>61985184
Thankfully, the pf2 monk benefits from doing a moderate flurry, and using the rest of their actions to move around.
>>
I like it. It's just that it is very much a playtest. Like, i dunno, dnd 3.0 compared to later versions. It's not finished yet. I like the ideas that are there, but you might want to wait a year or so for it to actually be done.
>>
File: 1536801126862.jpg (155 KB, 707x1000)
155 KB
155 KB JPG
>>61983020
A lot of its about brand
The type of people who play pathfinder inherently hate change, which is the whole basis for pathfinder's existence. From an outsiders perspective, its probably a good system with lots of content and a clear rule system, but to pathfinder players, its different. All they want is more pathfinder or 3.5e, and they detest anything they view as breaking their formula
>>
>>61987054

i see you share my appreciation for coneheads
>>
>>61987103
Its aesthetic as fuck
>>
>>61987054
I hate pathfinder, and I think it looks pretty alright (with some time to smooth out the edges).
Biggest complaints are it not changing enough.
>>
>>61987054
If the system base is fine, but the options within it like classes and feats are fucked up, is the game fucked or just the options?

Because this situation is true for both PF1e and PF2e
>>
>>61987292
PF1e's base system is ass.
Also, I'd say the game was fucked up, although it *is* a playtest, with the bones being the main thing tested, so they are somewhat subject to change.
>>
>>61987352
How so?

I mean, I wouldn't say the base system is faultlss, but ignoring additional stuff like class features, feats, spells and monster design, what is ass about the base system?
>>
>>61987383
Mostly the action economy. That, and a lot of numbers don't scale properly with levels (like AC), in such a way that strike me as them just not thinking it through (because doing double damage at level 1 is always going to be double damage at level 20, but having double the attack bonus at level 1 would give like a +20% chance to attack, but at level 20 would give like +300% chance to hit, for example).
Full attacks and Attacks of Opportunity make martial fights incredibly static and boring
Binary success/failure isn't terrible, but having degrees of success is a lot more fun.
>>
>>61985034
I'd say it's more Paizo is shit at writing content, as they always have.
Even during the 3.5 days, when they wrote Dragon and Dungeon magazines, the general consensus on their shit was 'either horribly broken or utterly worthless, only the adventures are worth a damn, nothing else should be allowed at the table'
>>
There are a great many small problems, but the big ones are as follows:
- Action Economy: Characters now get three actions that can theoretically be used for whatever they want. This effectively brings the full-attack all day everyday problem down to level one. This is mitigated somewhat by doing away with requiring an action to perform things that were free or swift before.

Crits: PF2 moved away from the binary pass/fail system used in most RPGs, but it doesn't use a die pool either. Instead, if you beat the DC by 10 or more it's a critical success and if you fail by 10 of more it's a critical fail.

The rules aren't very consistent about applying them, however, with most instanced being identical which would seem to go against the game's mathetmatical underpinnings which overvalue numerical bonuses on the basis that they increase the likelihood of a critical success while decreasing the likelihood of critical failure - this is technically true, it's just that in most cases it just doesn't matter. One place where it does is combat where it means that most monsters receive three attacks which results in problems when 1/4 attacks will result in critical hits against lightly armoured characters - HP has been increased, slightly at low-level, but it's pitiful in the face of more frequent higher damaging attacks.

Scaling: DCs autoscale with PCs abilities, but spells, feats and similar generally do not and even those that do nominally scale are generally obsolete a few levels after receiving them - if they were ever useful in the first place.
>>
>>61987976
>This effectively brings the full-attack all day everyday problem down to level one. This is mitigated somewhat by doing away with requiring an action to perform things that were free or swift before.
To be fair, since the 3rd attack is generally unexpected to actually hit (since AC is supposed to -actually- scale this time), you can expect people to do, say, 2 attacks and a move, or 2 attacks and a demoralise, or 1 attack and a special 2-action attack, etc.

And due to AC actually scaling, even your second attack isn't quite as valuable, as there becomes a moderate chance of it missing
>>
>>61983020
They made alchemist way less interesting when it was literally the only good part of pathfinder 1
>>
>>61988118
Please tell me they aren't still using the retarded bab-5/bab-10/3.x iterative attacks style.
>>
>>61988468
There's something sorta similar.

You can use any actions in any order, but if you do multiple attacks, then the second one has a -5 penalty, and the third has a -10. Implication being that you would want to swap out the -10 one for something else. Certain weapons get smaller penalties.
You also don't have BaB anymore, but that's not that relevant
>>
>>61988468
They are.
>>
How is Barbarian in the 2e playtest? I haven't gotten to play it yet, but I'm wondering if it's still just bad Fighter or not.
>>
>>61983498
Not at all. They basically saw that 5e got lots of complaints for making feats rare, and not letting you customize, so they built a game that was 100% feats and customization
>>
>>61988868
Well, they're definitely worse than Fighters, but then only Clerics come close to equaling them so Barbarians are probably mid-tier as they're apparently much superior to Alchemists, Rangers, and their ilk..
>>
>>61989009
American frogmouths
>>
>>61983020
>And how did Paizo fuck up this bad when they've been making RPGs for like a decade now?
Because they didn't actually USE any of that experience and instead just went with random stuff gleaned from elsewhere.
>>
I finally started skimming through the playtest PDF and was wondering why they bothered with a split between Occult and Arcane. The occultism and arcana skills are super-similar and the spell lists are more overlapped than not. Is there a reason I'd want to have one in my setting but not the other? Or why I'd want both?
>>
I dont like how pathfinder is spreadsheets the rpg. I like complexity and i've played pathfinder but its a pain the ass the sift through hundreds of pages of stuff in order to know whats good
>>
>>61983020
>Stole almost every idea from D&D 4e and 5e, if you want you can even cross reference the stuff they stole almost verbatim.
>Some of the classes are downright inferior in all aspects to other classes. Like how the Paladin is way weaker now for no real reason.
>Lots of unnecessary bloat.
>Have to waste a feat, to choose a special heritage feat, in order to play as a half-orc or half-elf.

These are all problems, but it is a playtest after all. However, that's the biggest problem, the company behind said playtest is Paizo. So in all likelihood these problems will probably never be addressed, especially since any integrity that Paizo could have had died around 2015.
>>
>>61990395
I get the impression that if I were to join in on an in-progress campaign at, say, 7th level I'd basically be taking on a second job just putting my character together.
>>
>>61990395
This is straight up why Im taking over as my groups DM so I can force 5e on them and actually get games moving.

Everyone thinks they love the complexity of pathfinder but they keep bring their wives to the games and those bitches take 5+ minutes every single turn trying to figure out what to do, and when they do decide what they want to do they have no idea how to do it.

I'm going to show them that we don't need all this damn bloat to have a good time.
>>
>>61983020
>they've been making RPGs for like a decade now
They've been making AN RPG. A single one. At least according to what I know. They've made Pathfinder and Starfinder, and as far as I am aware Starfinder is basically Pathfinder in space with different races and classes, so in my opinion it doesn't really qualify as its own game. I feel that would be like saying each GURPS splat is its own game.
>>
>>61990039
material (physical things, the elements, etc.)
mental (the mind, thoughts, dreams)
vital (life and death, health)
spiritual (alignment, spirits, force, sonic energy, the soul)

Each spell list is a combination of two of these things. Occult is mental/vital. Arcane is material/mental. There is the overlap.
Just to show how the other lists work, Druids primal magic is material/vital, while Divine is vital/spiritual.

The separation may not seem important right now because only two classes really use the Occult list, bards and occult style bloodline sorcerers. But in the future when there are more options and more classes, occult will see heavy investment and differentiation. It is primed to hold all the weird psychic magic and all things associated with psionics.
>>
>>61992249
I mean, you don't need a game to have a good time either. I remember back in the day just bullshitting adventures with friends and coming up with reactions to whatever they were doing on the spot.
>>
>>61990039
A longstanding complaint of the company is how much room spell lists take up in the books and so now there are only ever going to be 4 spell lists. In PF1 you had a lot of classes with unique spell lists that were similar but not identical to the core rulebook spell lists.

So Occult and Arcane isn't different than there being the Witch and Sorcerer/Wizard spell lists. It's not that you wouldn't use both, it's that they don't want the Bard and Wizard to have an identical spell list but there is still a lot of overlap just as there was in 3.PF.
>>
>>61993383
OK, but why not just make one spell-list? It would take less space, be less arbitrary, and allow theme to be taken into account more when creating characters...
>>
>>61993573
Flavor. Quite simply its about having variety and making various classes different from each other in what they can use. Occult magic is magic that deal with the mind, thoughts and dreams and also with aspects of life and death. In PF1 it was the domain of psychic magic and stuff that dealt with spirits and ghosts. This is an entirely different magical grouping from magic that manipulates the material essences of the world, such as much of arcane magic. Which is different from magic that deals with aspects of divinity and the domains the gods have power over. Which is different from the primal magic of nature and its fey guardians.

In addition having a single long spell list requires each class to list what spells it can use from that list which will take much more room than dividing them up between four groups who have thematic elements that provide specific flavor for the game world. With these four lists, all you need to do is literally say which list or lists a class can pull from, and your done. Your way would require each class to list every single spell it could use, massively bloating the class pages with needless lists and eliminating the ability to include other things in the books due to restrictions on page counts. Or you eliminate a whole bunch of flavor and make everything uniform and boring when it comes to magic. More flavor and variety is always better than simplistic uniform flavor that's easier to remember for morons and retards.
>>
>>61983020
It's a mix between 5e and 4e and monks suck really really bad
>>
>>61985016
Retard alert.
>>
>>61983020
They've never made their own RPG, they just copied others. And in this case they continue to copy the Ivory Tower game design concepts that made 3.5 and 4e so mediocre.
>>
its not bad
it just has a lot of really silly problems

basically the devs went one level deep on identifying problems in their previous game

things like people getting wands of cure light wounds at level 1 in order to mitigate the damage between combats

they decided to fix this by making it so that characters can only use magic items a very limited number of times per day rather than recognizing that the problem here was that players were losing too much health from a single combat and as humans that are pretty good at risk evaluation in games did not want to continue when not at an optimal health total

so now what is most likely going to happen is groups are going to have to be made with some kind of level 1 healbot character that doesn't really do anything except heal the other players inside and outside of combat so that an adventure day can be extend beyond a single combat

when if they had just looked at damage numbers for levels 1-5 and maybe made things less able to take 80% of your level 1 HP in a single hit they might have found a better solution

this kind of design is everywhere in PF2 fixes to player built solutions to underlying problems
>>
>>61992521
Ah, so they're tying to protect themselves from themselves. Probably smart.
>>
>>61994793
>things like people getting wands of cure light wounds at level 1 in order to mitigate the damage between combats
This wasn't the problem, and the rest of your post is just as bad. The problem was mass CLW spam at mid to high levels instead of investment in proper level wands. As part of a redo of the magic item system and to address certain issues with the 1e systems weird effects on magical items, resonance was introduced.

This was designed to eliminate the Big 6 items, which was accomplished by rolling many of the effects of those items into armor, with the rest being eliminated or made part of the limited resource magic item pool. Another way was the curbing the Christmas tree syndrome, by again, limiting the magic item pool but also eliminating the incentive to fill out slots, by just plain getting rid of them. The slot like restrictions that remain are to eliminate stupid edge cases autistics and rules lawyers will argue over, and have a base with which to rule for future items like them.

CLW spam, and the general use of wands and consumables is the only problem area within Resonance. It has solved the problem with CLW spam but at the cost of increased complexity via multiple resource use (wand charges and resonance used at the same time). Lots of people are very upset a two decade old play style has now been deemed bad and basically nerfed to hell. However, as it's still early in the playtest, and the company isnt satisfied with current iteration of the Resonance system in regard to consumables, there will be a change coming but only after some more testing with higher level scenarios in the coming weeks.

>>61994936
Future proofing and making sure the base system is robust for future flavor options found in 1e is a decent way of setting up the system. A strong foundation to build off of is good.
>>
File: 1521091862922.jpg (101 KB, 472x750)
101 KB
101 KB JPG
Can anyone give me a summary of what is shit in pf3e?
>>
>>61987292
>Because this situation is true for both PF1e and PF2e
PF1's core system is most certainly not fine. It's hundreds of pages of rules that don't actually lead to interesting gameplay choices. It's a fucking clusterfuck and an even greater issue than the terrible balancing.
>>
>>61994280
It makes sense. A tag-based system (like D&D already almost has) would probably be even better. But RPGs are kinda stuck in the past with physical books and those aren't great with tags.
>>
>>61997334
>pf3e
?
You mean 3.PF as in 3.5 and PF? or PF 3e that doesn't exist?
>>
Listening to Mark Seifter podcast.
-There's lots and lots of data
-Playtests, especially later ones, are supposed to be prioritising testing over fun, so some of the more heavy test parts might get frustrating. Goal is to properly identify 'Pain Points', so as to avoid them in the future/change the rules to get rid of them. Will get more intense as time goes on (iirc chapter 5 is supposed to be a total meat grinder). "Rule is, when you're driving yourself crazy playing our little game, we meant for that to happen." (Mostly, he clarifies that some of them are accents (Except for Chapter 1, chapter 1 was pretty much meant to be a fun, generic dungeon.)).
-Monster Math is definitely overtuned, but they don't think it'd be feasible to change 300 monsters at once
-Death and dying rules will probably change again. Old rules were too killy, new rules aren't quite killy enough. Will likely go through a lot of renditions until they find the one they like.
-Next update is supposed to be big (but probably not change death and dying yet)
-Apparently rogues die waaay more than other classes. In playtest chapter 2, at least. Waiting for other chapters to come in to see if it happens there too.
-If they need to extend the year-long playtest, then they will
-They're bringing in a Class Survey on Monday, separate from the Doomsday Dawn survey. One question they're gonna ask is "what alignment should paladin be?. Also asks about races and skills and monsters and formatting, so it's just a general survey, really.
>>
>>61999611
>Apparently rogues die waaay more than other classes
?
I thought those were monks, they're crit meat. At least in my personal case and those I've seen here and in paizo blog.
>>
>>61983020
They entire success is based off rip off 3.5 dnd.
>>
>>61999637
>I thought those were monks
They're, but Paizo refuses to admit their monks are worthless crap
>>
>>61997989
It... really isn't

Maybe you don't like it, and I can understand that, but no matter how bad it is, I assure you that it is not worse than the godawful balance problems of PF
>>
>>61999657
Well they made Unchained monks, that's at least a partial admission that their monks are hot garbage
>>
>>61999677
Believe it or not Umonk is not that much of improvement, PHB WITH archetypes manages to be better in several cases, master of many styles being the most obvious.
>>
>>61999703
Is MoMS really that much better? Sure you can stack a bunch of styles, but with low BAB and no flurry you can't really use a lot of them
>>
-Mark doesn't actually know how shield rules work himself; he didn't design them.
-Starfinder Stamina was there because they didn't want long rests or so much magic healing in a sci-fi, but do want long rests and magic healing in fantasy.
-Non-cleric healing is acknowledged as a bit undertuned.
-If people keep rolling secret checks non-secretly, then they might as well make it an optional thing.
-Mark agrees that barbarians should get rage bonus to thrown weapons.
-They're a little undecided on how much you should get from knowledge checks. Like whether identification should require training and to what degree (like, you could untrained Arcane to identify a monster, but maybe trained Arcane to identify it's special abilities.)
-Scrapping Resonance is not off the table. Waiting for more data. They realise that it's "All stick and no carrot", which he understands that people don't like. One idea floating around is that using resonance will boost the amount of health you get from a potion, and not using resonance will just give you a base amount of health.
-He can't usually answer very specific questions about rules, like... the mechanics for cutting yourself out of the inside of a monsters mouth.
-Early into the playtest they considered getting rid of sorcerer and making every spellcaster work like the Arcanist.
-Rogues will get two-weapon-fighting feats somewhere down the line, but rogue-specific ones.

>>61999677
That's pf1 monks
>>61999657
What's the issue with 2e monks?
>>
>>61999783
>What's the issue with 2e monks?
MAD
Worthless AC which means you get critted A LOT
Meh damage

Its very mobile though
>>
>>61999739
>low BAB
You get a bonus to attack rolls equal to the number of styles you have so your BaB will be as high as your Level. You only lose extra attacks because no Flurry, but if you have crane/snake style you make an attack everytime someone misses you, making more attacks. There're other style combos to get more attacks.

I know because I play one and I make like 9 attacks at 8th level. Aldo qiggonk (though umonks have it per se) and hungry ghost for infinite ki.
>>
>>61999796
I think the MAD thing isn't so much of an issue with the new way that ability scores are generated. Especially if you aren't speccing in to Ki
>>
>>61999815
>I think the MAD thing isn't so much of an issue with the new way that ability scores are generated. Especially if you aren't speccing in to Ki

It's still a pretty bad design decision.
>>
>>61999815
>the MAD thing isn't so much of an issue
Oh believe me, is still an issue
>>
>>61999825
How?
I'd think the score boosts (and the ability to not need wis, which basically makes it not MAD anymore) would basically fix it.
>>
>>61999844
They made Cha now a must in every class, specially martials
>>
>>61999796
>Worthless AC which means you get critted A LOT
Monks should never be in a place to be critted. With the new acton system and the way flurry works, monks are literally meant to be highly mobile skirmishers literally darting from back row to the enemy and then back again in a single turn. Move, flurry/style attack, move. With the much higher move speed they should out be able to move around and away from enemies.

This isnt 1e where the monk was expected to sit and full attack flurry and basically ignore the whole point of being a highly mobile striker.
>>
>>61999855
Oh yeah, I made a level 12 one for one of the playtests and he's got like 70ft of speed.
>>
>>61999853
Is there a new designated dump stat? Or are martials all doomed to be MAD?
>>
>>61999855
Mobility means pinballing from one target to another

Running in, attacking, then bitching out back to safety seems a lot more like a rogue thing than a monk thing
>>
>>61999870
Charisma has a use, so it'd probably be Int, with how skills are done differently.
>>
>>61999672
Well the balancing can be patched to semi-workable. The core system you're just stuck with. I mean unless you just choose to play something else.
>>
>>61983020
>I've been thinking about this
>but I haven't actually attempted to read or play any of it
The absolute state of bait
>>
>>61999878
It's how the game simulates the monk who stands still and dodges every blow.
>>
>>61983020
>People a paying for physical copies of a playtest
Empirical proof Pathfinder causes brain damage.
>>
>>61999855
except most monsters move more than monks for most of the game, so even if you flee they can follow you and rape you
>>
>>62000036
But wouldn't that be better handled by, I dunno, giving the monk high AC?

It's not like the system inherently disallows it, you're locked into your first class so they could just give monks a big AC bonus as a class feature. They might as well take advantage of the lazy, boring multiclass system they're using
>>
>>62000058
No they dont.

The list of creatures with speeds exceeding 35 ft, minimum medium sized human monk speed:
Banshee (fly 60)
Boar (40)
Bullette (40)
Bunyip (swim 40)
Chimera (fly 40)
Couple of demons with high fly speeds.
Devastator (45, fly 60)
Few devils with high fly speed
Deinonychus (50)
Tyrano (40)
Dragons as a whole have massive fly speeds.
Air elementals with high speeds (starts at 80)
Water (swim 50)
Gargoyle (fly 50)
Ghost mage (fly 40)
Goblin Dog (40)
Grendel (60)
Grim Reaper (50, fly 75)
Harpy (fly 70)
Hell Hound (40)
Jabberwocky
Hyena
Horses
Kraken (swim)
Leng Spider
Manticore (flying)
Mu Spore
Nightmare
Norn
Oni
Phoenix (flying)
Pterosaur (flying)
Purple Worm
Redcap

And a few more monsters/animals you'd expect to have high speeds in their specific environment that isnt land. This is maybe a third of the Playtest Bestiary at best, and most of these monsters won't see combat usually. Whereas the various humanoids and monstrous humanoids will see plenty of combat, and the monk generally starts out faster than them. In addition monks should never be high priority targets unless they do something dumb and start combat without backup from their heavily armored friends who like stepping up and making sure people fight them.

Generally, what you'll find is 40 ft on land with high fly or swim speeds, some of which monks will barely ever get too in that environment. On land a monk eventually outclasses all but a very few specific high level monsters by level 9, on land. If an elf, even faster, by level 6. An elf who takes nimble outclasses most land bound monsters when fast movement kicks in. Pretty much every race outclasses humanoids when they gain fast movement.
>>
>>61984881
Those people became Paizo fanboys and will accept anything given to them.
>>
>>61999611
>>61999783
Still nothing on Ranger?
>>
>>62000906
>No they dont.
yes they do, monk reaches at best 65 ft speed at 20th level. You'll be moving at 40-45 for most of the game though, and the monsters you posted either have that or surpass that. So yes, most monsters move as much as the monk.
>>
>>61999637
They're both lightly armoured, can't hit anything, field poor HP, and do mediocre damage, but are incentivized to close with the enemy..
>>
>>61999783
A minor problem I have is that styles have no "ultimate" Attack. It's just 2 attacks and nothing else. I'm not asking to shake the world, just a ki based dragon breath for dragon style or a super jump that let's you pounce enemies for tiger
>>
>>62001620
Objectively wrong, but pointless to argue after the another anon gave you a bunch of examples and you just went
>nuh-uh
>>
>>62001670
oooh
I feel like they should be able to do that after like 3 rounds of combat, sort of like the Solarion supernova from starfinder

>>62001620
You can pick up elf stuff to hit 65 at level 12 (to a max of 75)
>>
>>61985018
Because mechanically they've always been a mess, and even thematically other classes do their shit better.
>>
I've been running one for two sessions so far starting at level 3 and it's been a blast. The new system for character actions is great, the monsters all have a schtick that makes running them and facing them fun, and while I was initially worried about the number of conditions and keywords, it's actually not all that bad at the table and makes every combat feel different very easily. I have a list printed out that everyone can access easily.

Right now I'm really not liking magic items, specifically resonance, but also not liking how they aren't feeling unique or fun. They all seem pretty boring and/or niche. Alchemy has this problem too. Character creation is a bit more complex than 5e, but less so than 4e or pathfinder 1e. Even for 3rd level characters.

Character options are all over the place too and I don't like the boring option vs. exciting option ratio for a lot of the feats. Hopefully they fix it...nobody cares if you can make a gather info check 5 times in downtime or 6 and it isn't worth a feat pazio...
>>
>>61994345
Functional illiterate alert
>>
>>62003968
But what if it was SEVEN TIMES?
>>
>>62004125
Shit you just changed everything we know about tabletop games
>>
>>61987976
>This is mitigated somewhat by doing away with requiring an action to perform things that were free or swift before.

I don't know, making the full tilt player have to give up options to not charge in try to beat the shit out of everyone gets rough.
>>
>>61999982
>core system

Can you define what you think the Core system is?

I assume it's more than (roll a single die for success/failure, apply modifers) and you should probably use a grid?


Because I think you want something that seperates 3.PF from say, 4e D&D and say, Dark Heresy.
>>
>>61983020
The core concepts are solid, with a few minor flaws. Ancestries need a bit more work to allow people to be hybrid races, instead of the half assed held-elf/Orc system they have now. Especially noticeable in the case of half-orcs where you can take Orc racial feats... except that orcs aren’t a playable race so you can’t.

The archetype/multiclass system is pretty rad, but god damn they need to hurry up and add ALL of the classes to the multiclass system. Currently you can only multiclass into Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard and it’s kinda bullshit.

The new crit rules go a long way towards balancing casters, as it needed the shit out of every single “save or suck” spell in the game.

They finally changed healing to count as necromancy. It’s a minor thing and it’s mostly just fluff, but it’s something I have been waiting for for a fucking decade but most systems have been too afraid to allow for good aligned necromancy spells.

The part where the system breaks down is that they horribly fucked up all the math. Combats take forever because even though they are resolved in only a few hits, the actual hit rate is barely 50% so you have a lot of wasted turns.
>>
>>62006460

… Why is healing good aligned?
>>
GM is going to implement mythic tiers...whats a good start for a Dex debuff magus?
>>
>>62006920
fuck, wrong thread
>>
>>62006460
>They finally changed healing to count as necromancy. It’s a minor thing and it’s mostly just fluff, but it’s something I have been waiting for for a fucking decade but most systems have been too afraid to allow for good aligned necromancy spells
love this, I edited it in my 3.PF games, in fact
>>
File: CurseOfStrahd-featured.jpg (68 KB, 1200x600)
68 KB
68 KB JPG
>mfw I play Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D, and 5e and don't waste time trying to keep an inferior game on life support

If Paizo chooses death, why stop them?
>>
>>61983734
Translation: it's shit, but I am shill and will go to any length to avoid saying it.
>>
>>61983020
Yes, it is as bad as people say.

And Paizo fucked it up because they've not been "making RPGs for like a decade now" - they've been rehashing the ONE RPG with minimal tweaks to appeal to a particularly large group of suckered-in fans.

Pathfinder's entire existence is built on capturing and retaining as many disgruntled 3e fans as possible. Pathfinder 1e was D&D 3.75; a few basic tweaks, but the same underlying game, much like the difference between 3.5 and 3.0.

PF2e is their first ever attempt to make a "new" RPG, and it's clearly shown that they' learned nothing... but what would you expect from a game that literally was just coasting on nostalgia?
>>
>>61985018
Maybe because D&D's ranger archetype really overlaps so much with the fighter? It's a fighter with a specific background gimmick, when you cut it down.
>>
>>62008628

Eh, by that logic, every caster is basically just the friggin' wizard. Or if you think wearing armor and being the hype man for the LORD is enough to have a separate archetype, cleric.
>>
>>61990970
I'm actually legitimately interested in what they stole from 4th edition, if you care to share?
>>
>>61994402
Except 4e literally abandoned Ivory Tower and made it a selling point that they had. Except for the Essentials classes and the under-supported Seeker & Runepriest, you have to be deliberately TRYING to make a useless PC in 4e.
>>
>>62008628
>Can track people
>Specializes in fighting creatures larger than themselves, isn't as good at dealing with human-sized opponents
>Learns the basics of both kinds of magic so that they'll be ready for anything
>Can see long distances, which extends to boosting the power of scrying spells and items
>Has a small number of powerful followers rather than a large number of weaker ones like the fighter. Their followers aren't limited to being other fighters - they can be anything, even monsters.
>>
>>61984881
>>62001413
Everyone rejected fourth outside of a handful of retards on 4chan
>>
>>62009591
>I'm actually legitimately interested in what they stole from 4th edition, if you care to share?
The layout
>>
>>62008653
In terms of basic spellcasting mechanics, they are; the primary source of distinction is within those spell mechanics. There's not as much variety within hitting things with a stick, so there's correspondingly less variety between nature-bow-man and holy-sword-man than there is between book-spell-man and cross-spell-man.
>>
>>62009591
>+Level to everything
>Scaling DCs
>General monster design
>Keywords-based design
>Scaling weapon damage dice
>Generic (save ends)
These are just a few I remember from looking at the book when it came out.
>>
>>62013010

I disagree.

The bow guy shoots you with arrows, and gets into hard positions. He also knows minor nature magic.

The holy sword guy has light effects on some of his hits, and has a close range healing spell.


... Clerics and Wizards just magic slightly differently.
>>
>>62013014
>Feat-based multiclassing
>Martial class feats resembling 4e at-will abilities

The first two that really jumped out at me





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.