>>93161278
Stay in your containment general.

>>93161278
Hopefully a 3rd edition, which becomes massively popular but then they release a radically different 4th edition, which prompts a third party company to make a hack for Pathfinder 3rd edition...

>>93161278
I am curious because the release of 2e was completely baffling to me, as if 4rries took over the company.
Also the art. Like in 5e, it's becoming more and more inoffensive and cartoony.

>>93161278
>What future holds
Choke or submission, probably.

They should have downscaled and kept doing 1E.
2E will be their undoing.

If they're smart, a superior digital tabletop video game simulator.
Too big to profit from making an actual good ttrpg at this point.

>>93161278
>I'll make a perception check
I've never heard this phrase more often than in PF2e. The game is so mechanized that its players are incapable of describing what their characters are doing, or coming up with something that isn't written on their character sheet.

>>93162124
5e suffers from this too in my experience

>>93162117
>2E will be their undoing.
>more popular than ever

>>93162210
Lol, 5e has the opposite problem. It's players are drama-club fans who ignore all the rules to do improv-theater instead.

>>93162257
>more popular than ever
2E has 4 free games on roll20
1E has 8 free games on roll20
5E has 100 free games.

>>93162482
No one plays 2e on roll20...

>>93162482
2e is officially supported on Foundry, nobody plays it on Roll20. It's losing hard to D&D but so is everything that isn't D&D. They didn't take over the industry with 2E and it's difficult to get real numbers since none of these companies share, but what they successfully did was get most of the 1E player-base on board, which I have to assume was the goal. That was the thing that D&D 4E couldn't do. Somehow, Paizo managed it--maybe because it just took ten more years of 3.5E before players were finally willing to jump ship.

Regarding the future, I hope 3E diverges from D&D even further. My biggest pet peeve with 2E is spell slots. Just get rid of them Paizo, I know you want to. 1E stuck around for ten years, so if we assume the same timeline for 2E we're about halfway through its lifetime. We'll see how it goes.

>>93162124
I'm stuck on the opposite end of this. GM has my character rolling crafting and perception and whatever else every time I walk in the room and take a look at the place. My luck this campaign has been awful too, so I just wind up feeling like my PC is walking around with one of his eyes closed.

Probably as good a place to ask as any.
I just got into Savage Pathfinder but the Core book has literally 4 pages of Golarion lore, including the money and names of the weekdays but no mention about the world, nations, factions, gods or literally anything. What is a good bang for buck book that describes these? Could be either regular Pathfinder or Savage Pathfinder, doesn't matter which as I don't care about mechanics, just the worldbuilding.

>>93162539
>I hope 3E diverges from D&D even further.
PF2e, for the good or the bad, is not 3e. If PF2e is 3e, also AD&D 2e and 5e are 3e.

>>93163026
Just read tvtropes

>>93163072
Exactly. I love that it was willing to differentiate itself and I want it to continue doing that. I consider the 3-action economy 2E's biggest win, both compared to 1E and to D&D's Standard/Move/Bonus (or "Minor" in 4E) system. I do think that it held onto some things that maybe it shouldn't have--I mentioned spell slots in my previous post. I think they may have had some ideas of aping 4E's encounter powers (which I would wholeheartedly approve of) with the Focus Spell system, but they never really committed to it. Focus spells ended up being a pretty marginal part of the end product.

I think that 2E and D&D4E were faced with the same starting point--how to improve D&D 3.5. I think they came to a lot of the same conclusions. However, I think Paizo, having seen what happened to 4E, was a little bit more wary of making drastic changes in a single edition, and pulled their punches when maybe they didn't have to for fear of scaring off too much of their playerbase. After all, their company was literally built off a customer base who refused to leave D&D 3.5 for 4E.

>>93161431
Troll.

>>93163179
In no way did 2e pull it's punches, it ripped up 99% of 3.pf mechanics
It's playerbase isn't 3.pf players, it's 5e refugees looking for whatever else is mainstream

>>93163179
>I think they came to a lot of the same conclusions.
And these conclusions are utterly retarded. They are safe, boring, defanged games on a threadmill.
It's really sad PF development was taken over by lazy people that decided that the best course to "fix" a complex system was to create a glorified heroquest instead.
PF2e is slightly better than 4e in this regard tho, even if 4e has other aspects that are better developed.
But it still sucks.

File: 81iMpl6yMmL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (117 KB, 654x1000)

117 KB JPG

>>93163026
Savage Pathfinder has its own setting companion (pic related) which covers a lot of it.

>>93163199
Ah, you say that like you're not speaking to someone who played 1E for ten years.

>>93163206
No accounting for taste I suppose, I'm thrilled with the direction they're taking. There's always Corefinder (Pathfinder 1.5) to look forward to for another decade of D&D 3.5-compatibility. Their project's still pretty active.

>>93163251
>No accounting for taste I suppose
truly, anon

>>93163251
Eh.
I have to say that like 4e, there is some good idea.
In 4e, I like [w].
In PF2e I like rarity.
But this us all stuff that not only can be transposed to 3.PF, it arguably works better or is more impactful there.

>>93163251
No idea how you managed to play 1e for a decade and don't notice how dramatically different spellcasting changes alone make 2e

>>93162025
Kek.

>>93163251
Im a big 2e guy and even i will call out the designer's obsession with "balance" being a detriment to the game. Too many times ive read through the content and i can tell the designers were thinking "how do i make sure this isnt too powerful" instead of thinking "how do i make this fun".

>>93163357
>Too many times ive read through the content and i can tell the designers were thinking "how do i make sure this isnt too powerful" instead of thinking "how do i make this fun".
That's a cyclical issue influenced by a certain online discourse.

>>93162124
The game is literally
>cutscene
>battle
>repeat
Pathfinder niggas are just playing tabletop Monster Hunter, game should stop pretending it has anything to do with roleplaying

>>93163433
Explain.

>>93163470
For understandable reasons, people online whine a lot about issues a game can have and how much X can be viable.
Which is understandable, especially when they are egregious, but it can lead the designers to a distorted view of what priorities for most people are.
I knew what was broken in 3e, designers read people complaining and they nuked it into 4e instead of having a nuanced approach to it.
4e didn't go well with too many people.

>>93163251
>There's always Corefinder (Pathfinder 1.5)
Is there a SRD? Because their blog is mixed with 5e stuff, 2e stuff and is a MESS to explore.

>>93163531
Yeah their website's a pain for sure. Corefinder isn't released yet but they've got the project up on their Patreon and update pretty regularly (their last update was last week). As far as I know there isn't a release date, but so long as they're updating stuff we at least know it's not dead.

>https://www.patreon.com/LegendaryGames

>>93163504
>For understandable reasons, people online
And you can stop there. Anyone who thinks online is real life is retarded, no exceptions.

Objectively, by every possible metric that could ever be invented, 2E Pathfinder was a horrible misfire and mistake. It lacked sufficient support from the Pathfinder community, most of whom that actively play a lot of Pathfinder and monetarily support the buying of books and stuff, have no interest in just tossing their huge collection of content in the trash for a new and unsupported product line. No one in the audience asked for it, and as a result all you have is the actual customer base fractured in half (though I would argue less than half actually went on to buy 2E content). On top of that, it released pretty close to the high water mark of D&D 5E, without the advertising or budget to even swing at them, much less entice new customers from there. And even more so, Paizo is too retarded to make real deals so the only VTT that "officially" supports 2E is the one that costs $60 to buy and no one uses.

2E Pathfinder is absolutely the worst possible financial and design decision Paizo could have ever made. Literally all they had to do was make more good 1E content, that would have been fine. But instead, they did the worst thing and no one likes it.

>>93163679
I am not saying one should listen, but I think they do.

>>93163749
I'll have what he's having.

>>93163765
I am saying they're retarded for doing so and should know better.

Newfag who missed the edition wars
Is the difference between 3.5e and 4e basically the difference between GURPS and HERO System/Champions? One cares about how you're buying ammo, the other says your gun comes with ammo? One says "a gun deals 2d6 damage", the other says "a ranged attack deals 2d6 damage"?

Because if so, that's honestly retarded. From my perspective as someone who started roleplaying around the time 5e came out, these are just different approaches for the same thing. GURPS and HERO System to me are basically behemoths of their respective niche synonymous with the terms crunch, tactics and character builds. Players of each game respect the other camp and there is naturally crossover interest. Literally the only distinction is that one cares about the fluff being represented mechanically, the other doesn't. Did people seriously start flamewars over fluff? Is that what was happening?

>>93163824
The difference between 3.5 and 4E is more akin to...the former is a game that takes place mostly on a character sheet and in your head. Yes, you can have minis or a map, but you as the player are expected to use your skills and stats to invent ways to engage with the world (and by that I mean combat). You have the action "Attack", so you have to figure out how to make that more than just rolling a D20 every round.

4E was based on every character coming with baked-in Powers and Abilities, sort of in the same way a video game character would be. You don't "Attack roll", you have like, Hewing Strike, Piranha Dagger, and Jaws of the White Wolf. Some of those are per-turn, some of those can only be used once-per-encounter, and some can only be used once per day. They all do different things, have their own rolls, secondary effects, etc. that happen with them. And as a knock-on effect, the game basically required a grid map to play with since it would be impossible without.

So whereas 3.5E was basically a system where you were encouraged to stack feats, class levels, and items to create increasing bonuses to make your Attack better and out-build encounters with your system mastery, 4E was more about getting the optimal amount of or selection of Powers for your character. Things like feats, stacking bonuses, etc. were very secondary.

>>93162539
>They didn't take over the industry with 2E
Which is why their current company size will be their undoing.
How could I know where PF2 is played, it’s a nothing burger game made by an interesting company

>>93163824
3.5e was a convoluted pile of splatbooks without even a semblance of balance. If you've ever seen a greentext where someone builds a character to completely break the game, it was probably 3.5e.
4e tried to fix this problem by MMO-ifying the game and making everything standardized, with every class falling into 4 defined roles and every class having balanced resources between rests.
As much as 4e did do some things right, being so candid about how the game should be played really stripped away the magic.

File: 1718708443881671.png (457 KB, 650x740)

457 KB PNG

>>93164166
>If you've ever seen a greentext where someone builds a character to completely break the game, it was probably 3.5e

>>93163967
>So whereas 3.5E was basically a system where you were encouraged to stack feats, class levels, and items to create increasing bonuses to make your Attack better and out-build encounters with your system mastery,
3ed had "feats as special effects/attacks" since the beginning anon, 4e just framed those differently.
You have feats that inflict fear effects, special charges, special avoidance, counter attacks like Karmic Strike or Robilar in 3e. Some people prefer how 4e does it because these are more frequent and less chained in 4e, which is admittedly true, saying it as someone that prefer the overall 3e framework with devastating power attack and crits.

>>93164166
3e was a toolbox. You can decide to break it or not, it's up to you.
It's also up to you to decide when something is broken, or when is in fact inappropriate for level 4 but appropriate for level 22.

/tg/ ios the only place online where people swear up and down that paizo is dying and that 2e was a commerical failure

What I still don't get is what was the point of even making a 2e for Pathfinder that changed everything when the whole premise of Pathfinder was to be Protestant D&D with their core audience being people who liked 3.5 and didn't like the direction D&D was going.

This shit just needed to be scaled down, not rewritten. Could have just released an updated core rulebook fixing some of the most egregious problems people have found over the years while addressing the power creep and updating all the base classes and material. Now your game's not an impenetrable brick wall to newbies and all the grogs who care about their build autism get new shit to pick and choose to play with and they still get to use their giant pile of trash books they've been hoarding over the years.

>>93164250
One glance, and I already see a massive issue with the bucklers.
Also WARRIOR is an NPC class in 3e.

>>93164544
2e sold more books in its first couple years then 1e did in it's life line. The system and community is doing fine

>>93164856
This sounds a lot like
>b-but 4e outsold 3e
which is something repeated by people that have all the reasons to make you and their employer believe that, but is unsupported by what happened to 4e and to the overall look (mostly skin deep) of 5e.

>>93164893
anon we have more ways to measure a games health then we did during 4e. Even ignoring sales numbers like you want community places like reddit and subreddit are thriving. No matter how much you want it to be 2e is not a failure of a system.

>>93162117
I like this idea, I think 2e is too big, they should have stripped out more intricacies and made it more streamlined instead.

>>93162482
If you had any idea how shit PF2E is on roll20 you would know why that is a retarded comparison. It's borderline nonfunctional.

>>93164544
Because, like 3E before it, it proved to be an unsustainable model.

>>93163026
Don't use Golarion, awful setting.

>>93163618
It's been what, four years since it was announced now? How long does it take to release a system when almost all of the work is already done for you?

>>93165467
>anon we have more ways to measure a games health then we did during 4e
May we see them? You keep claiming that PF2 is doing great but I don't see any evidence.

>>93161278
It really bugs me that 1e's whole purpose was to continue the legacy of 3.5 and then they just pissed all over that to make a quick buck and discarded all the previous stuff.

I'm not saying all that material was perfect, but there was a thread there that is gone forever.

>>93167078
What made it unsustainable?

>>93167297
Yeah, 3.5 had a lot of problems that PF1 made no real attempt to fix and PF2 could've just done that. Instead they just threw the whole thing out and replaced it with something utterly soulless.

>>93162025
full circle

>>93161278
More powergaming autists, obviously.

>>93166520
It's big, but it's really not that intricate. It's got 3 different kinds of bonuses, you add your proficiency and relevant attribute to checks. Most checks have the 4 degrees of succes. Things have traits that are relevant in some situations and not in others.

File: JESUS CHRIST.png (1.32 MB, 1041x1125)

1.32 MB PNG

>>93161278
>What future holds for pathfinder?
Nothing. Paizo and PF2 made sure that Pathfinder doesn't really have a future. Or at least no future worth having. But to be fair, the writing was on the wall with Starfinder already. So much wasted potential.

>>93169077
>Paizo and PF2 made sure that Pathfinder doesn't really have a future
By releasing second most popular set of rules on the market, right behind 5e? Really?

>>93163749
>the only VTT that "officially" supports 2E is the one that costs $60 to buy and no one uses.
Are you retarded? Legitimate question, how in the fuck did you get that "no one" uses Foundry?

>>93163749
>Objectively, by every possible metric that could ever be invented, 2E Pathfinder was a horrible misfire and mistak
And it stayed active on the market for longer than 4e

>>93169077
Its amazing how much the people here desperately want Paizo to be dying with every product they come out with. PF1 is discontinued because of massively failing sales, so they make a new edition and it sells like gangbusters, but /tg/ will tell you its a failure even after 5 years of being sold. Starfinder never sold and was a bad product you should be chastised for liking! But please ignore the subreddits, discord, and other places where Starfinder has massive communities that arent 4chan. SF2e is a future failure of a product that will never sell, despite a fuckton of the community wanting it so they can play Solarions on Golarion, or take their gunslinging lizardfolk, dwarven thaumaturges, and minotaur exemplars to space and beyond.

1e was a slow failure that nearly killed Paizo. 2e saved the company and WotCs fuckery only made its newest edition even more popular. Starfinder 1e sold well, and its sequel edition is well anticipated. But you wouldn't know this because you only know the discourse of /tg/ which has hated SF and 2e since they were made, and its many haters desperately yearn for Paizo to fail and fold.

>>93169669
Because WotC had the resources to quickly sweep their fuckup under the carpet and cover it up with the next new thing.
Paizo lets their fuckup rot in public view, because they know they can't cover it up or offer anything better.

>>93169709
/tg/ is historically firstmost a Warhammer board and secondmost a D&D 3.5e board.
The majority of culture and memes that came from /here/ related to fantasy were coming from a place of 3.5 as the played edition and this was solidified by the conflict over 4e creating a tribal mentality. Pathfinder 1e is really just 3.75 so obviously the people here love it and they hate the changeover to 2e.

>>93164609
It's amazing how many editions were printed without anyone bothering to look up what a buckler is.

>>93169860
Ok, 2 issues
1) What you said, bucklers don't work like that albeit kinda similar shoulder strapped shield were used by Marissa or bow users
2) what I meant - bucklers and shields in general don't stack

>>93170770
*sarissa not Marissa fuck

>>93169709
I don't like 2e but I understand it's working, even if it baffles me.
I agree some here are delusional but here
>1e was a slow failure
You are showing you are the same. 1e was a huge success, only when pauzo started to run out of ideas and refused to tackle system issues natural for a 10 years game it declined. But it was the very last period.
You aren't different from those biased against 2e. Practice what you preach, please

>>93167332
He's a schizophrenic 4rrie or OSRfag still mad, just enjoy the seethe

>>93164856
They used to say this for 4e then recently a thread in ENword with actual data has shown it was false.
They managed to make 3e look like it sold less by only keeping part of the data.
BTW 3e sold less than AD&D it seems.
4rries were mad they basically nuked the thread with the usual bullshit.

>>93162482
>playing on roll20
anon... Some of us have actual friends. And some use foundry instead of trying to wrangle the shitty roll20 website

If 2e is so popular and well like. Why are the two video game that came out use 1e ruleset

>>93167229
It's a best setting in the entire trpg industry, you, special snowflake

>>93163072
Hey, i'm still playing 1E but it seems for me it is time to move to 2E finally. I think 2E has already enough building options, to make it as interesting, as 1E was.

And now i see this comment. Why aren't you happy with 2E? I'm interested.

>>93162067
Please tell us how 2e reminded you of 4e anon. I promise nobody is going to make fun of you.

>>93163179
>3-action economy
Wha is "3-action economy" in PF2E? Don't they have the same actions as previously? But named differently?

>>93171109
No anon, not at all. There's only 'actions' and 'reactions'. You get 1 reaction per round and can use it conditionally on or outside your turn, like if you have the correct class feature you can use your reaction to do an attack of opportunity on an enemy who makes a move action in your reach.

You have 3 actions to use during your turn, which you can spend to move, cast spells, attack etc. Some things need you to spend more than 1 action - charging for example is a 2-action maneuver, as is many spells, while normal attacks and commanding a summon or pet only takes 1 action.

There's no bonus actions or swift actions or whatever. There are 'move' actions, but only insofar as some actions are tagged wit the 'move' trait for mechanical effects. Move actions trigger AoO, move actions are prevented by being immobilized etc.

>>93171075
Because of practical reasons? Kingmaker released before 2E. Rewriting an entire engine to fit 2E rules is a huge undertaking way out of Owlcat's grasp.

>>93170866
Source your data.

>>93171075
Pretty sure other pathfinder games use 2e or bastardized 2e

>>93171240
Correct.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2693730/Dawnsbury_Days/
https://pseudodragon-studios.itch.io/archquest-alpha-demo
Are they simple indie affairs? Yes. Are they PF2E? Also yes.

>>93169213
You keep insisting this but you still aren't providing any evidence.
>>93171240
Such as?

>>93170819
>1e was a huge success
By RPG standards, not by D&D standards. We know how big PF1E's consumer base was at its peak because we were literally told and it doesn't paint a pretty sight.

>>93171239
ENworld is a major rpg news site just google you fucking nigger

>>93171263
pathfinder gallowspire survivors
pathfinder abomination vaults

>>93171268
>we were literally told
By whom?
And if this is the case, how badly was 4e doing?
5e is made to calque 3e aesthetics, this suggests 4e was an utter catastrophe.

>>93171095
Is more the threadmill-like math and the "inoffensive" game design that an anon above perfectly illustrated.
No need to be condescending dipshit-kun, I know PF2e is not AEDU-based like 4e, has vancian, and a shred of the old magic.

>>93171169
The result is the same as 5e. everybody has Spring Attack because there are almost no AOOs.
The result is that a band of goblin at low levels must be played like a bunch of retards or they TPK you.

File: taking 20.png (1 MB, 1640x448)

1 MB PNG

>>93171282
>By whom?
A major PF2E dev, putting into context how damaging that shitstain Puffin Forest and others like him could have been.
>Streamers with subscriber bases more than twice the size of the entire PF1 consumer base at its height made "PF2 dunk videos" to boost their followings at Paizo's expense.
In context, he was talking about them releasing these during the pandemic and piling on problems when the pandemic was already a huge problem that caused production and shipping costs to shoot through the roof. Taking20, one of those channels, had 254k subscribers at roughly the time he released the video. I screencapped to prove I'm not bullshitting, you can type the URL in yourself if you think I'm trying to pull a fast one.

254k being over twice as much as PF1E's total consumer base at its height gives you a ceiling of 127k, and very likely less; it's probably somewhere around 100k or 110k. That's nothing compared to what 3E had.

>>93171301
That's not how PF2E works. It is absolutely how 5E works because of bounded accuracy being fucking idiotic and goblins starting with a bonus of +4 to hit and 1d6+2 damage. You could remove AoOs from 3.5 completely and goblins there still wouldn't be even half as powerful as 5E goblins.

>>93171398
>A major PF2E dev
So it's like 4e, this is only stated by people that have all the reasons to make you believe so.
4e was also the edition that sold the most until it really, really wasn't.
I am sorry but I just don't believe these people.
>Puffin Forest
Who?
>Pandemic
So it was an issue pandemic-related? Or because 5e exploded during the pandemic?

>>93171417
>That's not how PF2E works.
Are you implying that in PF2e you cannot move, attack move, and everyone can do that?
Because that is not correct.

>>93171517
You can. You have better things to do with your third action most of the time.

>>93171513
Do you not understand they are not trying to tell you PF1E was a shit game or trying to diminish it in any way?

>>93171530
You are making so many assumptions anon.
I am just telling you that LIKE FOR 4E, there is only a certain group of people that is telling us these "facts".
And again - who is Puffin Forest? Googling it, only bad drawings that feel made by a 5 y.o. pop out.

>>93171522
If you have a group of goblin that can gank on a target because, like in 5e, everyone, even lame ogres, have spring attack, I guess it's a proper use of your third action.

>>93171550
>And again - who is Puffin Forest?
A Youtuber whose entire career can be summed up as 'literally That Guy with ADHD doing completely retarded shit at the table nonstop because he thinks it's funny who is incapable of understanding anything' except because those types flocked to RPGs en masse thanks to 5E he has over 700k subscribers.

>>93171558
Spring Attack never enabled you to gank a target with impunity.

File: 1688520792321321.gif (1.52 MB, 640x640)

1.52 MB GIF

>>93171301
A band of anything at low levels has to be played stupid in PF2e because player characters are squishier than a ripe peach until they get some HP under their belts. A human fighter starts off with around 20 HP. Four normal hits or one crit and two hits puts them to Dying, which isn't insane if you have two shitass goblin archers plinking at him every round and a third trying to shank him.

>>93171572
>over 700k subscribers.
lmao this hobby is finished.
Thanks for the explanation btw

>>93171601
True, because it wasn't universal.
Now 5e and PF2e removed most of positional punishments because people like the one this anon is talking about >>93171572
probably think it makes brain hurty-hurty

>>93171643
How is that any different from 3E except this time around you have more actions to stop it from happening? Raising your shield, shield block, tower shields and taking cover behind them not being mutually exclusive with attacking. Champion can lower enemy damage against allies directly.

>>93171693
NTA but in 3e I can use narrow corridors to mitigate being swarmed if I am outnumbered.
In 5e and PF2e, if you play enemies intelligently, that's not going to help much.

>>93171693
I've never played 3E. I'm just saying that you have to be careful at low levels because there's always a risk of you accidentally exploding a PC with a hot streak.

>>93171728
And I'm telling you it's less true of PF2E than it is of every other edition of the game but 4E. Much less so than the worst of what we're talking about, 40% hit rate 1d6+2 against 1st level HP totals ranging from 8 to 12 usually.

>>93171756
NTA but the issue for me (I am this anon) >>93171705
Is that in 3e you can work on positioning. You INTERACT WITH THE ENVIRONMENT to address your fragility.
5e and PF2e (to a way lesser extent) require the monsters to be played dumb.

>>93171774
You need Combat Reflexes for you to not be at square 1 in a narrow hallway because you only have one AoO otherwise. In a 5x5 hallway, nothing changes between 3E and PF2E except that the PF2E character can engage while blocking and taking cover with a tower shield. They've potentially got Shield Block to lower their damage taken too.

>>93171790
>You need Combat Reflexes
You aren't even understanding what the issue is here.
I am not talking about controlling the goblins through AOOs, but about limiting their mass attacks using a narrow corridor because in 3e not everyone can spring attack.
In 2e you need to look at your character sheet. In 3e your feats will help, but also the way you interact with the environment.

>>93171855
Or, you can be mature enough to not play with asshole gms who put 3 goblins on first level just to kill your characters with unlucky rolls
Guess that's too hard for pf2e hater though

>>93171855
What even is Spring Attack?

>>93171892
lmao. It's not a matter of maturity, and I am not a killer GM or my GM were, I consider my groups very narrative focused in fact.
But 5e and PF2e rules created an universe in which everyone is very agile but for the sake of not breaking it, everyone forgets it.
It's DUMB and IMMERSION BREAKING.
>>93171910
In 3e and PF1e is a feat that allows you to move attack move with no AOO. Back then, it was considered a feat of high skill you frankly paid too much for. Now, a lame blind kobold can do that. If people know those games is used as a shortcut but (my fault here) one should include new people that didn't play those.

>>93171940
Have you considered that what 3E did might have been really really dumb and an artifact of an artificial system to begin with?

>>93172055
Not really, since it better simulates a battle like a clash of formations and not a ballet in which everyone goes back and forth unpunished.
Have you considered you are playing games written for retards by contemptuous, frustrated designers?

>>93172091
>since it better simulates a battle
Not at all.

>>93172120
But it does. You literally said that I shouldn't use 5e or pf2e rules as written. Playing by the rules breaks them.
>>93171892

>>93172147
That's a different poster.

>>93172153
You are both retards.

>>93164250
Shield AC doesn't stack
If you use your buckled hand to attack you get -1 to attack and don't get that shield AC bonus for the round

>>93171082
because a planet sized theme park is so riveting

>>93167229
>>93172263
Example of a good setting? Different anon.

File: Spoiler Image (94 KB, 656x1000)

94 KB JPG

>>93172301
For me it's
But doubt this thread would appreciate it

>>93172301
Not any of those anons, either.
AD&D-3e Ravenloft, AD&D Planescape, 3e Eberron, AD&D-3e Forgotten Realms (what Golarion tried and failed to be), Blackmoor, and Ghostwalk for starters.

>>93172301
Mystara

>>93172422
>>93172548
>>93172660
OK - now I say this as someone that used his own setting with elements from the D&D ones, and never Golarion.
My BECMI GM used Mystara of course.
Is Golarion that different from the conventional ones (so FR Mystara as conventional, Ravenloft or Eberron as non-conventional, albeit Eberron is debatable because Dungeonpunk-ish stuff is nowadays more the norm than anything else).

>>93171855
Goblins being able to skirmish effectively is not a flaw in the system, them not being able to do it in 3E is.

>>93174407
The character not able to exploit bottlenecks defensively is, and in 5e and PF2e lame fat ogres can skirmish.
Don't try to frame it as something about goblins only.

Am I the only one that actually liked PF2E?

>>93174506
Doubt it, it seems reasonably popular around me.
And I say this as someone that thinks of PF2e like 4e - some neat ideas in the wrong package, will copy but not my cup of tea.

>>93174458
>The character not able to exploit bottlenecks defensively is
You can though, you're just not thinking hard enough. There are only so many spaces enemies can shuffle around to attack you from in a bottleneck and it's reliant on you being in their range. Keep moving back yourself so enemies have to burn moves to get to you. Grab one that comes at you so the others have to try to tumble past. Throw a net. Trip them.

>>93174661
You can do all of that in 3.PF and the movement is less stupid anyway, or better - it allows me to tell apart a nimble enemy (or player) from a not-so-nimble one.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?

>>93174749
>3.PF
>the movement is less stupid
3.0 invented a problem to give you the solution at a later level and then 3.5 took away the solution. 3E's turn structure makes the hard cutoffs of movement unbelievably stupid.

>>93174834
There is literally no problem.
3.X movement was a problem for retards like you that fear commitment (movement-wise I mean) and AOOs because thinking before acting is "unfun".

>>93174988
Wrong. The game was designed around an option that no longer existed in 3.5. This is not the way the game is intended to play.

>>93175006
>le haste
You are an utter retard.
On top of that, between 3.5 and PF2e there is PF1e - Full Attack is still king, but you have plenty of options to move + attack properly.
In late 3.5 too.
Seriously, just shut the fuck up, retard. You just make people less likely to try PF2e because how can a game appreciated by such cretin be good?

>>93175117
No, I'm literally right. You're jerking off a crippled game.

>>93175164
A "crippled game" that can tell apart creatures with different mobility while your newer shiny version is expected to be played by drooling retards.
Gotcha.

>>93175251
>your
I don't even like PF2E

>>93175279
same with 5e.
Or you are some butthurt OSRfag/4rrie?
The amount of seethe 3.X still causes to countless dipshits after all these years is one of its best features.

>>93174506
I enjoy the system a lot but it definitely has some BIG problems that shills will ignore/downplay.

>>93175304
It's not seething to point out that you're literally holding up an unintentional flaw of the game as a feature. Combat is supposed to be dynamic, not static.

>>93175323
No, you are insisting that a set of rules that perfectly models engagement and that can tell apart creatures of a different mobility is for some insane reason you cannot defend... is a flaw.
AND THEN you insist a movement bug with Haste that was patched in 3.5 is what 3e movement was always supposed to be... because you are an utter retard that thinks in memes and is stuck in 2000s charopt dipshit mentality, should grow up or kill himself.
Stop.

>>93175348
>AND THEN you insist a movement bug with Haste
>BUGGED MOVEMENT MECHANICS!!!!
Okay Darksydephil.

>>93175355
>Okay Darksydephil.
what

>>93175369
You're the one calling an intended result a bug. The reason haste got nerfed was because it broke spellcasting by doubling action economy.

>>93175414
Yes, Haste was bugged all over. This adds literally NOTHING to your retarded argument.
I still don't know what "Darksydephil" means but I assume you are some mindbroken retard.

>>93163967
>You don't "Attack roll"
Actually, you can use a Basic Melee or Ranged Attack in 4e. It's just generally less optimal than using an At Will Power. Which will probably involve making an attack roll against a given monster's AC or Relevant save.

>>93175457
Adding extra movement actions or melee attacks was not the problem.

>>93175348
>perfectly models engagement

>>93175472
To be honest I can't think of any real scenario where I wouldn't use an at-will over a basic attack unless like, all of my powers are melee and I need to hit at a range or something.

>>93175506
It partially was retard and more importantly, it wasn't the BASE of the system as you imply here >>93174834 in an absolutely insane delirious state - this is why it was removed.

The movement rules were written to make running around punishing because
1) Coming from AD&D blocking by positioning was considered problematic to implement systematically
2) back then, the design team didn't assume the worst from the playerbase

Stop. You fucking retard. Cease at once.

>>93175532
No it wasn't. The idea was entirely characters getting Boots of Speed and using them to get around.

>>93175557
No. The idea of character optimization was. Which is fine.
But the movement system was written for the reasons I explained, retard-kun.

>>93175557
So Dragons and other high-number-of-attacks monsters like Balors were also all wearing boots?
I can see an elder dragon getting haste but you need to go through more loops to have the same with a Balor or Pit Fiend.
At least not as straightforward, as with assumed as directly understood from the designer to the player.
You are probably repeating things you read about 3.X online with no understanding.

>>93175586
>So Dragons and other high-number-of-attacks monsters like Balors were also all wearing boots?
Or drinking potions of haste or casting it themselves. It's a net positive for peanuts.

>>93175624
Anon.
That's an ok way to play an optimized 3.0 but that wasn't clearly the assumed buff anyone would have or they would have just given Haste as a spell-like to way more high level monsters, for one.
If you are debating dishonestly just to shit on 3e - that's fine, the edition attracts so many butthurt dipshits.
But if you genuinely believe this, you are a brain-rotten cretin.

>>93171169
Thanks for explaining. BTW, system you described sounds good to me. So why people aren’t happy?

>>93173375
>Is Golarion that different from the conventional ones (so FR Mystara as conventional, Ravenloft or Eberron as non-conventional, albeit Eberron is debatable because Dungeonpunk-ish stuff is nowadays more the norm than anything else).
It is a kitchen sink where every thing in the setting is some weird bullshit. It's not like Ravenloft or Eberron because those settings have a single "thing" they are trying to do/be (horror, pulp), whereas Golarion is weird bullshit. Devil-worshiping slavers one place, Conan magic robots another, not-France, etc. Every planet in their solar system is occupied by some bullshit, too.

>>93173375
>Is Golarion that different from the conventional ones (so FR Mystara as conventional,
Golarion is too neatly partitioned compared to Toril (the world of Forgotten Realms) and leans heavily into scifi. If you made of a list of the Golarion regions (hollywood film sets, basically) you really liked and filled in the other regions with untamed borderlands, you would lose nothing and the campaign would only benefit.

>>93167332
They already sold you all the books so they need a new edition so they can sell you them all over again.

>>93175974
Brother Fen detected.

>>93175677
because they made a bunch of filler actions such that the action economy barely feels different
It will be shit like
>action 1, take on X stance for your next attack
>action 2, attack
>action 3, move
which is doing nothing more than swift actions did before
Because they overloaded the game with tedious filler actions you arent getting much of an improvement. At best you get iterative attacks a bit earlier but at such massive penalties youre not hitting anything

>>93171263
>You keep insisting this but you still aren't providing any evidence.
According to one of the devs:
>The core line and design hardcovers have blown away past benchmarks for PF1 and Starfinder in both physical and digital sales. The Lost Omens line sells more copies than the old PF1 Campaign Setting and Player Companion lines combined.

They also sold eight months of product in two weeks during the OGL thing.

It seems like they're doing financially fine, as also shown by them continuing to publish books at a breakneck pace and not transitioning to a new edition and other decisions consistent with making money.

>>93175677
The 3 action system is generally considered one of the strong points of the system so I wouldn't say most people are unhappy. It does have it's action taxes, especially for some classes like Swashbuckler, but for the most part it's pretty fun if you don't just attack 3 times every turn like a retard.

>>93162025
>which becomes massively popular
For this to be actually accurate, PF3E should be about half as popular as PF1e.

>>93162482
Alot of people cope and go "Muh foundry", but then you realize that PF2e had the same percentage of players on roll20 both before and after Foundry was a thing.

>>93163749
>he is paying for foundry
>paying for foundry
lmao look at this guy

>>93176985
I'm not sure how it's cope unless you can prove there's almost nobody playing on Foundry, which has had a hard tie-in to 2e for ages now. People already running games on one VTT aren't gonna all swap to the other at once.

>>93172091
>Not really, since it better simulates a battle like a clash of formations and not a ballet in which everyone goes back and forth unpunished.
Seems lame compared to stuff like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liZD1qScUYA

>>93162025
are you.. are you human? an actual human being? on 4chan?

>>93177084
>I'm not sure how it's cope
There's no reason roll20 numbers would stay the same if foundry was massively popular for pf2e instead. There was pretty obviously no great move over to it or anything.
Plus, Paizo still refuses to put out actual proof of sales and instead goes for corporate speak and unverified claims whenever they try to hype it up. There's no reason to trust them when they do retarded shit and have a history of lying.

>>93178395
>There's no reason roll20 numbers would stay the same if foundry was massively popular for pf2e instead.
Yes there is.
>Paizo still refuses to put out actual proof of sales
Why the fuck would you invite speculators? RPGs aren't a big enough market, they can completely fuck everything up for you.

>>93178421
>Yes there is.
No there's not.
>Why the fuck would you invite speculators?
They're not a publicly traded company, retard.

>>93178395
The other anon is right, you're just being retarded. Anyone still trying to play PF2e on Roll20 is also retarded, it's a god awful platform. There wouldn't be the amount of investment of time and official modules coming from the Foundry team itself if there wasn't a market for it.

>>93178477
>Anyone still trying to play PF2e on Roll20 is also retarded
Pathfinder is for the retarded so I don't see a contradiction here, and the stats back it up.
>There wouldn't be the amount of investment of time and official modules coming from the Foundry team itself if there wasn't a market for it.
"The cart exists, therefore there must be a horse" is not sound logic. Perhaps they have a deal, perhaps Paizo is funding it (Which seems likely given their statements), who can say? All that can be said is that Pf2e has consistently had an objectively smaller userbase by any numerical measurements we can make, foundry and no foundry.
Anything else is pure cope.

>>93178568
Everything you've been arguing has nothing to back it up. You're just spouting nonsense to get (you)'s.

>>93178675
>I'm too stupid to know what the ORR report is
That's okay, Pftards can't even figure out how to switch from 3.5e to 5e, I don't expect you mongoloids to know how to use google either.

>>93178568
This one is some 4rrie still mad PF1e destroyed 4e.

>>93171048
How is foundry anyways? Our group has been looking into roll20 alternatives because the site keeps giving our DMs issues.
If it matters we mostly play a homebrew system the DM made lately.

File: dungeon-meshi-izutsumi.gif (11 KB, 221x296)

11 KB GIF

>>93175677
Paizo didn't leverage it very well. For example, almost all spells (or spell adjacent stuff like consumables) cost two actions, so for casters not much changed. Some spells have variable action cost with scaling effects but these are largely underutilized.

Also, like the other anon said, there's a lot of tax actions. Entering a stance is an action, Inventor using Overdrive is an action (and a failable check), Rangers using their Hunt Prey is an action. You don't benefit from holding a shield unless you spend an action to raise it for the AC bonus, and you can't use it to block at all unless it's raised and you have a general feat/class feature that says you can. There are feats that let you raise as a reaction but then you can't spend that reaction to block.

Then, on top of that there's also MAP (Multi Attack Penalty). Every time you swing, your next attack that turn takes a -5 to hit, up to -10. This is to discourage the Fighter from murderblendering their way through the entire campaign but the annoying part is that it counts for stuff like grappling and tripping as well, so if you attack someone and then go in to trip, that second check has a -5.

The chief progression for Martial characters is usually via action or MAP compression. For example, Rangers can eventually get a feat to hunt two targets at once, Fighters can get a feat that let's them pay two actions in exchange for two movement actions and a Strike. The Slam Down feat is two actions: you make a strike and if it hits you make a check to trip. MAP stacks normally but doesn't apply until after the trip (although Slam Down is a tax feat for a later one that let's you skip the second check entirely, which feels counterintuitive).

Overall it serves to make combat feel... odd. Less braindead than 5e but every option you can take comes with a long list of conditions and yeah-buts and tradeoffs. Lots of things you CAN do are not actually worth trying until you've made significant investment.

>>93180535
>but the annoying part is that it counts for stuff like grappling and tripping as well, so if you attack someone and then go in to trip, that second check has a -5.
This is interesting because it was also a sensible change in the 3.5 to PF1e passage.
In 3.5, to trip etc you needed 2 rolls which is annoying, but before the second roll (str vs str check) you had a TOUCH attack - which meant you could use an iterative or two to inflict a status condition.
Now is not all bad because current CMB takes advantage of most bonus to hit (while CMD gous up too much for many).

>>93180535
>Overall it serves to make combat feel... odd. Less braindead than 5e but every option you can take comes with a long list of conditions and yeah-buts and tradeoffs. Lots of things you CAN do are not actually worth trying until you've made significant investment.
That's really annoying because IMHO a truly fun martial framework would be to have the freedom to have X attacks available during your turn in base of your level.

>>93180705
The difference is that your first attack in 3.5 would end up with a 95% hit rate almost guaranteed before you do anything. In Pathfinder 2E, it's going to be 55%. 65% if you're a Fighter. This will only go downwards if you build wrong. You can stack conditional bonuses afterward, but most of those aren't guaranteed to apply either.

>>93180714
That'd be too strong in the current setup. Fighter is already kinda Paizo's wunderkid and the only class better than them at full-round-attacking is a specific subset of Ranger, and said Ranger's base accuracy is still lower.

The idea is that you build a martial around doing more interesting stuff than just hitting the bad guy. Brawling, tripping, flanking, etc. What makes the situation awkward is that technically everyone can do these things already they just do them really badly so it becomes easy to build poorly if you don't have a good grasp on the system.
>well I'm Expert at X so that's probably OK
>Actually being Expert at something is medicore/bad and you will struggle against anything your level or higher.
>doubly so if your stats werent optimized for the skill in question
>Skills and saves don't actually get reliable unless you're Master or Legendary and have the appropriate stats.

The system is filled with weird breakpoints in general.
>all armor winds up at the same AC, heavy armor just let's you dump DEX
>if you actually want to have high AC you need a shield, which will require you spend an action for that AC
>larger, more protective shields require ANOTHER action before you can benefit past the normal AC bonus
Although tower shields do allow you to count as cover for your allies, which is neat.
>the easiest inclusion on almost any character is a buckler because they don't occupy your hand and you can just get +1 AC if there's nothing to do with your third action
>there are large stretches of levels where your accuracy doesn't change even with stat investment due to moving from +4 to +5 costing two stat increases; you're faced with an awkward choice between shoring up weaknesses for immediate gain or being behind on a key stat five levels from now, by which point the campaign might be over
>DC calculations include optimal item bonuses as a given so if you don't have your +2 item you're actually at -2 mechanically

>>93163749
Sales for 1E books were dogshit near the end of 1E's life. If they didn't do a new edition, the company would have went bankrupt.

Now 2E is more popular and played than 1E ever was. They'd be idiots to stop making 2E books to go back to 1E. Sorry your favorite game is dead anon, but your shit take on Paizo's business is exactly that: Shit.

>>93181062
NTA
>Sales for 1E books were dogshit near the end of 1E's life.
This is perfectly believable, it happened literally in every edition.
>Now 2E is more popular and played than 1E ever was
This sounds like what people used to say of 4e.
But frankly? A new edition HAD to be done, even if we can discuss their choices.

>>93181088
>This sounds like what people used to say of 4e.
But the difference between then and now is that we have better ways of telling through secondary sources. Look at subrebbits for instance. Pathfinder RPG
April 2014: 15,567
May 2018: 51.2k
Currently: 149k(While split between 1E and 2E)

Pathfinder 2E
Currently: 117k

>>93181201
I don't get it, explain

>>93181341
>generic Pathfinder sub has ~150k users
>the 2e exclusive sub has 80% the userbase while only catering to a single edition
>most of the generic sub's user count came in after 2e was launched, not before.

>>93181377
So second edition is way more popular?

>>93181389
That's what it looks like if it's an equally representative slice of the community. Is it possible it's not? Yes. But all indicators aside from roll fucking 20, an environment where roll20's tools suck shit for PF2E, point that way.

>>93176985
Fuck you're stupid. Foundry's first real release that wasn't a beta came out December 20, 2021. The last Orr Report was Q4 2021. I'm sure Foundry was going to wipe PF2E out on roll20 hard over the whole 11 days it had. Fucking moron.

>>93181201
>Look at subrebbits
No, because is not a reliable information.

>>93171774
>5e and PF2e (to a way lesser extent) require the monsters to be played dumb.
Because that's what players want. Play them smart in 3.x, and their damage and/or save-or-lose output at high levels becomes eye-watering. Don't like that, play 4e, and most players don't actually enjoy thinking about positioning.

These are the changes we fucking deserve.

>>93181618
And neither is roll20 for the exact same reason you don't judge a game by its Mac install base.

>>93181621
>Never thought I’d die fighting side by side with a 4rrie!
>What about side by side with someone that doesn't play like a retard?
>Aye, I could do that

>>93181651
>And neither is roll20
Oh, I agree. I mean people could really be right about how much more 2e is successful.
As an example: small % of the market, but larger pie (larger market overall) because of a trail effect from 5e.
But what I hear is still he said she said and today we also know designers lie for survival.

>>93181656
I've seen so many players bitch when you run Party Size - 1 or 2 encounters with monsters a few CR below the party average. Having to think instead of ganging up on one big monster and tempoing him to death makes the typical 5e player upset and confused

>>93181595
Foundry released in May retard.

>>93181892
>0.8.3 through 0.8.6
The fuck it did.

File: Doric.png (860 KB, 1000x677)

860 KB PNG

>>93172422
So you like settings that don't get released?

>>93161278
Because of the Progressive infection there at Paizo, probably the same fate as DnD, just slower. They may be small enough to maneuver out of the way of the coming iceberg...maybe.

>>93161278
More disappointment, most likely. I haven't liked a single one of the new APs for 2e that I've seen, and the mechanics don't do anything for me. I'd rather play Pathfinder 1e and D&D 5e for my varying types of D20 needs than Pathfinder 1e & 2e both.

>>93180363
Depends on what the DM is willing to do. Are they fine setting up a port and hosting the game themselves? If not, are they fine paying for hosting, though this would be no more expensive than Roll20's subscription.

Beyond that though it is the best option for most game systems.

>>93181029
>doubly so if your stats werent optimized for the skill in question
But that's okay! You can take Assurance which ignores stats anyway
>it never works vs the targets that matter
God. What a missed opportunity for the design.
Goes in line with the whole system: if they weren't adamant about shutting every option down, there could have been a chance to have fun in the system.

>>93184570
I really feel like a problem is that most of the official shit tosses PL+3/+4 encounters at you like they're candy. One of the former devs from the company claims you can throw Low to Moderate encounters at the party and still challenge them, but apparently nobody making the adventures got the fucking memo.

In the end it's like a reverse of WotCs bullshit, where everything ends up being too easy. I feel like these higher level solo fights should be much fewer and farther between.

File: 1697046114136168.jpg (389 KB, 750x729)

389 KB JPG

>>93184570
I was very disappointed to learn that Assurance doesn't work with Sneak Savant, which is a mid/high level feat that allows you to take a success on stealth rolls even if you roll a failure (but not a critical failure). It would basically turn Assurance into taking 20 + proficiency. Dope as hell, right? But guess what? Assurance doesn't count as a roll. Because heaven forbid you take a skill called Sneak Savant and become an actual savant at sneaking. Always have to have that 5% chance I guess.

>>93164250
Wow. That guy looks like he can almost keep up with a wizard who chose his spells using a dartboard.

>>93161278
Death, hopefully. The shit system doesn't deserve to continue with its overwanked "balance" that removes any kind of creativity or synergy.

>>93164250
>Edgelord rule's lawyered character whos almost trivializes combat.

Great! I thought I had to wait until level 12+ for players to start trivializing combat. Now that that's out of the way we can just delved into the the High level Castle, Guild, and Magic politicking that caps off the best part of D&D games.

>>93175962
Isn’t that what you’re supposed to do? I can’t imagine running Kingmaker and someone suddenly mentions the Numerian cyborgs or the Wild West of Alkenstar

If I am playing my first pathfinder 2e campaign which classes should I definitely NOT pick? (Kingmaker)

>>93198365
Alchemist
Every class in the game can work and will be at least functional EXCEPT alchemist. Your class fantasy boils down to “walking vending machine.”

>>93198365
Alchemist and Inventor are kinda fucked.

>>93199745
>>93199837
tf are you talking about alchemist is amazing
It's got spammable AoE attacks that can be adjusted depending on your opponent's vulnerabilities, not to mention being able to asspull solutions for niche situations on the fly with your invocations. Half of the monsters on my last campaign were dealt with easily due to being able to turn our weapons silvered or cold-ironed.

>>93176970
the fact that history was rewritten online and everyone believes 3.5 was somehow the "golden age" of the hobby is really bizarre

>>93204013
Yeah 4e was the best it got. Never should've strayed from it.

>>93204181
I gotta be honest, I didn't really like 3.5, and I didn't care for the Troika games. It was just too much complexity spread out over everywhere. I didn't really like 1st ed AD&D either.

>>93205555
There was this asian guy at UCI, Mike, and Mike was kind of a cunt. He was very pervy but was also very judgemental, he was always hung up on the rules and would make these fucking broken ass character builds by exploiting all the loopholes in 3.5

I used to kind of feel sorry for him but when I think back I just remember him being sort of an overbearing ass, and really hypocritical to boot.

I don't like playing with people like Mike. He didn't break any rules, he was just obnoxious.

>>93205601
I think people like Mike make the kind of games Troika made. Just unending slogs of detail after detail of endless rules minutia, dull, colorless, lifeless graphics, quests and xp grinding that never ends.. just like the most dull, boring type of rpg imaginable.

>>93205607
3.5 had so many splatbooks, nobody just wanted to play with the core books. The only reason I was upset about it was because I was so far behind that I thought 3.5 WAS the new edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and 4th had just came out and was what everyone was playing. I'd just spent 100 bucks on the corebooks for 3.5 and was pissed that there were like, 6 4th ed core books already.

>>93205619
A lot of people were selling it as World of Warcraft on tabletop, and that kind of turned me off, I'd heard a lot of bad things from grogs who didn't want to move on to 4th, I was just getting familiarized with 3.5 and was wondering how I was ever going to catch up. I didn't want to start collecting 4th until i finished collecting 3rd, and that looked like it was going to take forever. By the time I finally played 4th it was nearing the end of its life cycle.

I'm always behind on editions, I can never keep up.

>>93205633
I mean, its just a lot of fucking rules, and they really aren't as neat or streamlined as a lot of games during that time, which were excellent, complex but easy to understand.

>>93205645
4e was just like a total cleanup of d&d, it was like, 'if i had to make a game thats rules would be acceptable to a computer simulation, how would I format it?'

It played just like a computer game, but we got to do things outside the scope of what a computer game allows for.

>>93205555
There was nothing really complex about 3.5
It just had a LOT of things, while races and classes were more standardized so we didn't had shit like some races being level locked or couldn't pick some classes anymore
Literally the pinnacle of tabletop games design
>>93204181
Hey, 4e added catnips for casters to spam on low levels, it was great and very clever addition, no wonder pathfinder stole it. But they scalled in 4e which made them better

>>93205607
And nobody could agree on 3.5 rules, someone was always arguing. 4th didn't have that problem, everything just flowed, people didn't get into fights over how to interpret them because the rules were laid out plain as day; it was impossible to misinterpret them unless you were doing it on purpose.

Combat encounters were over in less than 15 minutes, which is like a record at a table with 6 people. They were drawn out and fun, everybody understood how the rules worked and nobody needed to have them explained.

It was like a frictionless work-grind

>>93205666
Pathfinder was a little better than 3.5, but..

It still had all those fiddly rules like full round actions, multiple attacks at cumulative penalty, meta magic feats, just on and on with fiddly bits that were easy to break the game with.

>>93171643
>gif
bro spoiler that shit at least I mean goddam