5e < PF1 < 3.5e < PF2Shrimple as that.
those aren't the only systems that exist
As someone who only played PF1, why does everyone shit on PF2?
>>96506591>why does everyone shit on PF2?You're on /tg/, being contrarian is like the most coolest thinguest ever. You can read a bunch of opinions from experienced 5e DMs breaking down how the game works extremely smoothly even at higher levels, and then you come to /tg/ and some faggot is screeching about the game being "extremely imbalanced".You should try it. It's peak 3.5 style gaming.
>>96506591PF2 has one of the biggest problems from PF1 with build optimization being considered the "correct" way to play in all published adventures and supplements.It further compounds this by making TURN optimization the "correct" way to play in the same adventures and supplements.The result is a system that, on paper, offers you a large amount of customization in character options and turn options, but, in practice, is a stifling piece of shit that could theoretically play itself because every round and character will be following an "If, then" flow chart.If you ignore all the published adventures and shit? It's fine. The same could be said about PF1 and SF1 too. Since most will learn from prepublished shit and that will teach people the "correct" way to play, it is not shocking people who are only familiar with official stuff walk away feeling like it's kinda shit. Every single enemy and event properly scaled will assume you are a build and turn autist though, so it will require the DM to kinda cull that bullshit on a fundamental level which is a pretty massive ding against the system.
>>96506624>that could theoretically play itself because every round and character will be following an "If, then" flow chart.What a nothing burger of a statement, what the fuck does this even mean? Any tactical game is able to be reduced to an "if, then" flowchart if there is no question about what the opponent is going to do.
>>96506657>Any tactical gameYeah, and PF is a ROLE PLAYING GAME and not a tactical game.If it marketed itself as a tactics game? Then that would be a different story. As it stands now, being tactics forward is the same kind of shit that made people pass on 4e. Don't misunderstand, anything being built off 3e's bones is gonna be pretty heavily focused on tactical combat, however, there was enough additional stuff in the packaging that you could run RPG focused games well if you desired. PF2? It's not as bad as 4e was in basically jettisoning the RPG stuff, but it's not far behind it either.Combat is an ELEMENT of an RPG and PF2 is just a cunt hair away from making it the FOCUS of the game and that's where it fucks up.
>>965067083.5, pf1 and pf2 are games with heavy focus on tactical combat. That doesn't mean it's the only thing they can do, but they're dungeon crawlers first and foremost, where you kill monsters and loot weapons and money to kill more powerful monsters. Not only that, but you are specifically talking about combat, so I don't even know what you're saying right now. TURNS are non-existent outside of combat, and your argument applies to the TACTICAL COMBAT section of the game with TACTICAL COMBAT, so you basically went:>The TACTICAL COMBAT in this game is an "if then" chart, and that is le bad>Uhm, actually anon, every TACTICAL COMBAT game could be an "if then" chart if the opponents moves are already known to you>B-but it's still bad because it's a TACTICAL COMBAT game, ok?Completely incoherent.Thank you for proving my point, holy shit. Go play Fate.
>>96506582No one.. said they were? Do you understand the concept of a subset of things?
>>96506708>Yeah, and PF is a ROLE PLAYING GAME and not a tactical game.Also just because you say things doesn't mean they're true. Lots of people seem to forget that D&D 3rd was a combat game first and foremost. The slogan when it was released was literally "Back to the Dungeon" or some shit. It's a miniature war game at its core where you play a single character. "ROLE PLAYING GAME" doesn't mean shit; you can play the role of a character in a tactical combat situation as well.>B-but I can't play a wizard who instantly goes into melee because of his personality, THE GAME ISN'T ACCOMMODATING ME!!! Everything I want to play has to be easy to play otherwise it's like the game isn't ALLOWING ME TO DO IT!!!!Actually fuck off.Literally every version of D&D bar 5 was combat focused.
>>96506735>Turns are non-existent outside of combatYou CLEARLY never played an organized game. Turns exist in combat, exploration, setting up camp, and other shit.
>>96506754>Every version bar 5 was combat focusedWrong, shithead.Fighting shit was a bad idea in general until 2e started putting XP values onto monsters.
I can already tell that in 12 hours this thread will have 200+ posts of meaningless autistic back and forth. I genuinely question the value of such an exchange and ask the participants: Do you not have anything better to do?
>>96506591It has great combat but absolutely sucks at anything outside of it
>>96506754Except mid-high level 3.x was more like a puzzle of finding what of your available bullshit can fuck over a particular opponent harder. It played decently well as preparation focused puzzle. As 'tactical' game it sucked.In dnd-like family, only 4e and pf2 are designed to be encounter focused in their gameplay. And in practice, it indeed devolves to standardised dynamics and decisions when playing them.
>>96506809Everyone participating in this is proving every disappointed thing their father's ever said about this correct.
>>96506828Oh really? Lemme go ahead and crack open some PF1 adventure paths written by the devs and see what the developers intended. Oh, right...Combat.
>>96506852Rocket tag and 'tactical combat' are not the same thing
>>96506792>Wrong, shithead.Nope, it's not wrong. Read the books. Read the dugeon creation guidelines from Gary Gygax himself. The origins of D&D are dungeon crawling, and the bulk of the rules have always been focused on combat. D&D has always been about solving problems with the resources you have available, and combat.>Fighting shit was a bad ideaThese things aren't mutually exclusive. Fighting shit you can't easily beat is a bad idea, that doesn't mean you won't do it often. Why do you think every edition had monster manuals? Tip: you didn't talk to most of these monsters.>>96506828>Except mid-high level 3.x was more like a puzzle of finding what of your available bullshit can fuck over a particular opponent harder.Yes, and this highly depends on the encounters themselves. If you know exactly what to do, 3.5 will be no less "if, then" than PF2, because rules are what matter if you're going down that road. The whole point is that "if, then" as an argument for why any kind of tactical combat is bad, is retarded. Unless you're arguing that D&D 3.5 didn't have tactical combat, which... ok.>>96506809Why are you on /tg/? Why did you choose to respond to a thread you dislike? I raise you an exercising roach granny, what now?
thing you hate a lot < thing you hate a little less < ok thing < pretty good thingShrimple as that
>>96506875Except I don't hate any of them?
>>96506624>>96506708Was 2hu your DM or what? It's not supposed to be that hard.
>>96506624>PF2 has one of the biggest problems from PF1 with build optimization being considered the "correct" way to play in all published adventures and supplements.>published adventures, the exact kind of adventures that are meant to be bought and played by casuals, are reliant on build optimizationI somehow doubt this is true.
>>96506864The difference between 3.x and 4e/PF2, is that in the former 'what to do' depends much more on a particular encounter. Where in the later it's more about universal interactions and strategies, leading to very similar experience regardless of what you play or what you fight.And it was indirectly caused by the line of thought that "every combat should be tactically challenging" - this put much stronger emphasis on balance, which in turned required standardisation of interactions to keep everything predictable, which in turn destroyed variety in experience.
>>96506864No, man. You didn't get ANY benefit from combat in earlier games most of the time. Monsters didn't carry gold or gear worth note and it was a shit idea to confront them because you were going to lose something and gain nothing.Dungeon crawling had a much bigger emphasis on hazards, traps, and survival as opposed to actually fighting stuff.Hell, the earliest rules for combat were "Just use the rules for Chain Mail".
>>96506591Pathfinder exists to pander to a niche to start with, so changing up the formulae is always gonna cause friction within the community
>>96506900You're just conflating knowledge with mechanics. You can run PF2 exactly as you run 3.5, there are very few new rules in PF2, and there's nothing stopping you from using monsters in creative ways or obfuscating the challenge so that players have to think outside the box. Nothing in PF2 clashes with this, the rules are nearly the same, except with simpler modifiers. I don't know about 4e though, I read it like 10 years ago and I played 1 game of it, and didn't touch it again. 4e just read like a pure wargame, and it just wasn't evocative to me.Unless you're specifically talking about published adventures.>>96506924>You didn't get ANY benefit from combatI don't care, the GM would still make you fight monsters for the loot, how is this hard to understand, lol?>Dungeon crawling had a much bigger emphasis on hazards, traps, and survival as opposed to actually fighting stuff.Yes, and fighting was still a big part of the equation, and a big factor in survival and resource management.>Hell, the earliest rules for combat wereThe original D&D was an addon for chainmail. Do you know what chainmail is? It's a war game with miniatures. A game doesn't have to have complex rules to have tactics.
>>96506936>Rules are nearly the same, except with simpler modifiersYou say this as if character abilities are the sameYou say this as if spells haven't changed drastically in effectYou say this as if relative number progression hasn't changedYou say this as if monster type interactions haven't changedUnder the hood, PF2 is only marginally less of a wargame focused than 4e was.Granted, you can dick around with it in any way imaginable as a DM with varrying success - as with every other system in existence. This doesn't change what the underlaying mechanics were designed for.
>>96506987To me it just looks like 3.5 is already perfect, and the urge to "always progress beyond" ends up in a dumb unprofitable clusterfuck.
>>96506987>You say this as if character abilities are the same>Let me grapple with my sorcererYou know as well as I do that saying everyone could make effective use of all the rules in 3.5 (and PF1) is a weasel rat dishonest statement. I also like that not everyone has attacks of opportunity by default. And what about the stuff you can do now thanks to the new rules?>You say this as if spells haven't changed drastically in effectCompared to PF1? It has essentially the same spells. I don't see it.You also made me go and download the PDF for 4e to check this, but go read the spells from 4e. If you think 4e spells are in any way comparable to PF2 you're on the kush and it's hitting hard.>You say this as if relative number progression hasn't changedThis doesn't matter at all.>You say this as if monster type interactions haven't changedOk, in what sense? What do you mean by this?I'm starting to think you don't actually know the game you're trying to criticize.
>>96506566I've wanked at porn of this goonblin.please stop using porn characters, its not subtle at all.
Why don't people like X?>Because YRETARD! Y DOESN'T EXIST/ALWAYS EXISTED!Every time. PF got the 3e crowd and now PF2 is getting the 4e crowd. Like pottery.
>>96507122PF2 is not like 4e and will never be, no matter how much you seethe about it:)
>>96507125Close enough to attract the same level of retards, anon.
>>96507144Great opinion. Shame you don't know PF2 at all, and you probably don't know 4e either. They are nothing alike, but you wouldn't know, of course.
>>96506735>TURNS are non-existent outside of combat
>>96507150They both went hard into being combat first systems.More importantly though, I am saying PF2tards are like 4rries more than I am comparing systems here, ya dingus.
>>96507125No, it's worse in every way.
>>96507190PF2 is no more combat focused than 3.5 or pf1. Of course you wouldn't know that because you don't actually know the game you're trying to criticize.
>>96506591Pf2 is the best d20 system. But it's not pf1 or 3.x so idiots online scream about it.
>>96506899It's not. Adventures are brain dead easy unless you're the kind of sperg that facechecks every encounter.Pf2 can be way more lethal if your GM feels like being mean, because damage can pile up quick especially at low levels.
>>96507230>Pf2 is the best d20 systemlol
>>96507251
>>96506566I only ever played 5e and 3.5e and I dearly love 3.5e for the beautiful mess that it is.It's like an infinite playground of content and subsystems. It's so fun to fuck around with and to actually play.Fucking bummed we won't have a session this week.Anyhow, I only know of PF1e by playing the Owlcat videogames and looking at forum discussions and such, and it seems to me to not be much of an upgrade over 3.5e if at all. A "sidegrade" at most.PF2e seems cool on paper, but it also looks like it has a lot in the way of illusion of choice.From a player's perspective, it seems like the game gives you the idea that you have all these wild ways to build a character, but then you choose a class and you are very constrained on what that class can actually do. You can never try to go "off type" if that makes sense. Or at least that's what it looks like to me. I guess that's why that Free Archetype rule is so beloved.From a DM's perspective it does seem like a great system to run, although the lack of symmetry between characters and creatures/npcs does bother me.As far as d20 systems that are not D&D 3.5e go, Shadow of the Demon Lord and Weird Wizard look a lot more interesting in comparison if I'm allowed to add to that list, what's with being quite different with a flatter progression and such.
>>96506591It's a bloated monstrosity that's also completely soulless.
>>96507350PF2e does take a lot of what used to be part and parcel of basic class identity and make them character options, forcing you to choose between them. Free Archetype is beloved because it gives more wiggle room to experiment without sacrificing class identity.
>>96507350>It's like an infinite playground of content and subsystems.Well, yeah, but at that point you're bringing third party stuff into the mix which almost equates to homebrewing. Lets not pretend many of those classes weren't broken in some way.I get the content argument (it's one of the reasons I also really like 3.5 above similar games), but I don't think it's fair to judge the core game based on that. If we do compare core games, I'd wager PF2 has a lot more viable options than 3.5 gave you, in terms of both being balanced and enjoyable in the sense of allowing you to play the archetype you're trying to play. If by "illusion of choice" you mean "there are lots of suboptimal choices", there are a lot of those in D&D as well. You play something suboptimal sometimes because it's interesting. If you leave the min-max mindset behind you stop having this problem.Besides, helping the DM run the game is a very important part of game quality, which is an something I think a lot of people forget (even DMs sometimes). A game that is easier to DM correctly but isn't as mechanically complex will likely be more enjoyable in the long run than a game where every other spellcaster gets a spell that can blow a hole in your shit. I get that as a player it's cool to "be able to do whatever you want" (the 5e mindset), but lets be real.
>>96506754>bar 5Combat is the only thing 5e has rules for.
>>96507433How is it in any way bloated, lmao? Have you ever played 3.5 or 1e at all?
PF2e has a very real issue that the single most important stat a character has is level and despite all the options, characters are more defined by what important thing they don't have than by what they do have There's also another issue that often the least interesting options are by far the best, such as magic weapon being the best possible spell to cast at low levels
>>9650656613e > Torchbarer > Icon > 4e > 3.5 > ACKS > DCC> PF1 > 5e > PF2
>>96507566>but at that point you're bringing third party stuff into the mixNot really. Just the official stuff is so much god damn stuff.Then there's "second party stuff" like some dragon magazine content, dragonlance, etc.I never actually touched third party stuff thinking about it now.
>>96506774Now RAW they don't.
>>96507633Someone once claimed to me that D&D 5e was a bloated edition. People just say anything these days.
Kobolds or goblins?
>>96507943As enemies? Kobolds. As party members? Goblins.I’m shamelessly including somewhat conventionally attractive goblins as a player race in my game.
>>96507943Kobolds.
>>96506582Post your list of all systems that exist from worst to best
>>96506566>goblinpedoOpinion discarded.
>>96508050>Stuff < Sword World < Some other stuff
>>96508050NTA but of the systems I own, I can tell you what I personally like, but I fully acknowledge my choices have a lot of problems mechanically while I still enjoy them.
>>96507026six infinite power loops lol
>>96507116Make me.
>>96507186Yeah, that's what I said, and it's correct. Retard.
>>96507566Core only 3.5 is the most broken version of the game that exists.
>>96507633Have you?
>>96507965Not conventionally attractive. Attractive.
>>96508146Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are core, and so are their most powerful/"problematic" spells, so yeah.
>>96508104Stuff in parentheses are settings I own outside the CRB>Best generic systemGenesys (Terrinoth, Android, Twilight Imperium, Keyforge)>Best generic that I can get others to playSavage Worlds (Savage Pathfinder, Deadlands, Deadlands Lost Colony, RIFTS, Rippers)>Best d20 systemShadow of the Demon lord (Godless). I give no damns about Weird Wizard, DL fills this role good enough, I ain't looking elsewhere>Best for one shotsMonster of the Week>Best for batshit one shotsMAIDI got more than those.>Starfinder (all hardcovers, pawns, and some maps/tiles)>Pathfinder>D&D 3.5 (around thirty or so books)>Necronautilus>Astro Inferno>Kobolds Ate My Baby>The Adventure of Baron Munchausen (probably the only true RPG I own)>Warhammer Fantasy 3e (literally everything ever made including POD stuff and extra dice packs)>End of the World series (zombies, gods, aliens, robots)>Gamma World (whatever edition that uses the D&D 4e ruleset)>Bunkers and BadassesI'm sure I'm missing something, that's just the physical stuff I got laying around that I can recall.
>>96508161To be fair, balance is kind of a retarded mindset to have when making an RPG.
>>96508202So is designing a system from the ground-up to punish martials because you're a die-hard mage fanboy, which is exactly what happened with 3rd Edition. Hell, 3.5 was written because Monte Cook destroyed the action economy with 3rd Edition Haste.
>>96508213Idk, man. Every time I've had a similar level martial vs caster, it usually comes down to whoever happens to get the higher initiative roll.
>>96506591PF's success was pretty much entirely a result of sticking with the D&D 3.5 system design when WotC overhauled it with 4E. PF2E is the 4E of Pathfinder.
>>96506899it really is though.PF2 has the same issue as 1 in that there are many 'trap' options when it comes to customization.
>>96508282Depends. If they are in a room, likely in movement range of each other? They year martial has a shot if he gets the init.Otherwise? A higher level wizard has plenty to stop them with.It gets tricker with longbow martials though there are spells that cancel out that too.
>>96508202Ok, then play D&D where everything beyond level 10 is an unworkable shit show.You sound like a forever player.
>>96506735>3.5, pf1 and pf2 are games with heavy focus on tactical combat. That doesn't mean it's the only thing they can do, but they're dungeon crawlers first and foremost, where you kill monsters and loot weapons and money to kill more powerful monsters.That is in fact the only thing PF2 can do. It can't even do dungeon crawling properly.
/tg/ is the only place online where people say that PF2e is a commercial failure and that Paizo is a dying company with a straight face
>>96506566>level 17 demigod gangster girl boss and her level 12 thugs, each as dangerous as a dragon or lich, gets in your path
>>96508420it's kind of telling that the single biggest AP 2e has consists of nothing but endless encounter rooms where you fight enemies in a largely featureless room for balance purpose 2e is literally designed around entering combat with full health and resources (except for casters who end up being dead weight in anything but the easiest AP's), no attrition gameplay is really encouraged or even possible
>>96508463Didn't it get a huge influx when WotC tried to pull their OGL bullshit?
>>96508475just a reminder that by 2e rules it is literally impossible for even a lv 5 experienced city guard to hit her even if she's tied up, paralyzed and sleeping at the same time and yet somehow she's a gangster instead of solo'ing entire battlefields
>>96508482Yes, it's never going to straight up eat into DNDs marketshare but paizo as a company isnt struggling and 2e games have been selling extremely well for them despite what this board tells you
>>96508475>>96508489Where do you meet her? Some interplanar sigil like city? If she shows up in a normal city where guards are > lv 5 experienced city guard then, what the fuck?
>>96508489There's a variant rule that removes level bonuses from proficiency, which keeps stuff like that from happening. Useful if you're not looking to have "mundane" encounters scaling into apotheotic territory.
>>96508534Reminds me of some shitty manga I saw about how villagers living near the evil overlord's castle are absurdly strong from all the endgame monsters that pop up nearby.
>>96508534It's in fantasy New Yorknot interplanar, big important city for sure but it's no Sigil
>>96506566Eh, I read PF2 for a bit and it looked super boring to play. PF1 was super cool because it had so many different options and weapons that you could nearly do anything, but PF2 doubled down on the 5E minimalism.
>>96508202Not at all.
>>96508282Which will always be the caster. Thanks for joining us.
>>96508282How is the martial going to locate the wizard, or for that matter do anything that will make the wizard care that he exists?
>>96508475The players can become as powerful as dragons, so other creatures can too.
>>96508489Organized crime is a far better way to acquire wealth, yes.
>>965065663.5e is the only one of those games worth your time, and you should still be playing 2E.
>>96508489And?I am never going to use the rules to do combat between a lvl 5 character and a lvl 17 one, these are completely different power levels that d20 isn't good at anyway. Why do no-games always gush about inconsequential shit like this?
>>96508920>im never going to use the rules because it’s shit design lol>nogames btw
>>96508934>If the system cannot simulate the minutia of a combat encounter between the lady of pain and a frog it's a bad systemOk.
>>96507990Why did you post shoonies instead of a kobold?>>96508475>level 17 demigod gangster girlShe isn't a demigod.Why do you think only PCs can get xp? If you have a criminal gang who regularly fleece, stickup, and generaly commit tons of various crimes against adventurers of all levels, would these thugs not get stronger and more powerful?>>96508534>Where do you meet her?Absalom, the City at the Center of the World. Former home to the now dead God of Humanity, home to the godmaking Starstone Cathedral, and the single most important city in the entire world. Overflowing with adventurers, cult leaders, and all kinds of weirdos of varying level, the place is a hub of information, strange markets, and lots of attempts to becoming a god.Sad Liza and her twin brother are the heads of the largest and most powerful gang, one that controls a large section of the under city. The current ruler is a level 17 fighter who was a former guard and then soldier of the city. The High Council that governs the city institutions varies from level 10 to 15.She really isn't out of place in that city.
>>965065665E is definitely the worst of all of those for having no fucking interesting content at all. PF2 is the boring version of 4E though so it's really 5E<<<<<<<PF2<early 3E<PF1<late 3E=4E
>>96508590>many different options and weapons that you could nearly do anything, but PF2 doubled down on the 5E minimalismIm not sure what books you've been reading but PF2e is very much not like 5es shitty minimalism and utter lack of options.
The proficiency added to level shit is one of the things I've come to dislike about the system, despite me originally finding it interesting. I feel like it should never apply to something that is Medium sized, though the game is so hard-balanced that using it for things that are Huge+ would just mean players could never hit them even at Level 20.Game is completely shit if you're running anything remotely like a hexcrawl. Kingmaker really doesn't work great in it, and I'm not sure I have ever seen a higher level Kingmaker game in action using the PF2e ruleset. If you run into something that is "suitable" for Level 15 while you're Level 6? The party is gone, dead. Even with the vaguely usable chase rules, being instantly critted is going to lead to the party being picked off.Finally it's shit to try to "convert" into. You don't convert, you remake from scratch.
>>96509060But you don't know PF2, why do you think you should have an opinion on it?
>>96508475>Unique>Stats get reusedCome the fuck on.
>>96509085Seven of the weapons in your image are Uncommon, race specific, or class specific. That brings to mind another thing that annoys the fuck out of me. The "rarity" traits. They can't decide if it's meant to denote power, or to be about rarity based on the region. It can't be both.
>>96509108Yes I do.
>>96508463The only people who say that are completely delusional 3aboos. You have to ignore every single piece of evidence to believe it.
>>96509115Ah, so you're just lying. Gotcha.
>>96509096>You don't convert, you remake from scratch.Thats generally what conversion means for most systems, yes.>>96509113She has a twin brother. They have the same stats because they are twins.>>96509114>It can't be both.Sure it can. Ive found little problem with the rarity tags, and have actually quite liked them as they are because its a built-in excuse for me shut off or deny certain things without players throwing a temper tantrum. I can simply point to the rarity and tell them to find something else. Or tell them to find something else because that belongs to a specific class they arent playing, or many other things. It works quite well even if isn't up to your autistic need for a more granular system that distinguishes between region, power, class, and whatever.
>>96509134>lyingNo retard I can just see the clear commonalities the game has and that its design team had several 4E design team alumni so pretending it doesn't have anything to do with 4E is braindead.
>>96508158Fair. I am insisting they still have big noses. And gerbil-like tails.
>>96508482And most of those people went right back once WotC put the OGL into creative commons. Or they bounced off of PF2e because it wasn't what they expected and/or were promised it would be.
>>96508132Have you never heard of turns in dungeon crawls? Did you not play earlier editions?
>>96509184It doesn't. They're completely different games. But of course you'd know this if you knew the games you're trying to criticize.Which you don't.Liar :)
>>96509039lv 17 is absurd for a gang leader and you absolutely know itthere's no good reason why they're casually capable of killing dragons as a result of fleecing a city for a couple years
>>96509172We're all autistic here, anon. And I have made good use of the "rarity" for my own game. Along with outright banning the vast majority of the stupid race options, and simply using it to denote what is allowable for the world I run in. To the point that I only allow 2 Uncommon, or 1 Rare race choice for the group as a whole.
>>96509184Don't worry about the idiots, anyone trying to claim PF2e isn't trying to cling to D&D4e is retarded. But they really fucked up... instead of healing surges, they have the medicine checks and the endless Focus healing spells.
>>96509253D&D5 has more in common with 4e than PF2 does.
>>96509039They are completely out of place.She uses a fucking razor!I would not mind a super strong gang boss if they even attempted to make it make sesne.She is stronger than the majority of monsters in the game, so there better be a damn good reason she is running a gang in a city and not being a conquering robber baron. But no, there really isnt. A good gang boss would be like The Xanathar not some bitch with a magic shaving razor.
>>96508704And they choose to be... petty gangers?How the fuck did they even get that strong as gangers?
>>96509290Dude, it's a fucking black mobster character in a medieval high fantasy game. Maybe don't use shit settings?
>>96508463it far underperformed 5e. It is overall profitable, but not near what they wanted. Even with the OGL bump.
>>96509337Underperforming 5E doesn't mean it underperformed Paizo's expectations you actual retard.
>>96509333oh i dont. Im just passionately angry as pathfinder 1e was my first tabletop game so i got some attachment and hate seeing it turned to... whatever the fuck that is.Not that 1e was by any means perfect, fucking trap / tax feats, mandatory buffs, and outright bad subclass options.
>>96509356They literally, paizo themselves, have said as much ya cunt.They cant outright say "oh yeah this is far less than we hoped" due to legal stuff and shareholders. But they will say shit like "expected higher growth, but still profitable results" or "Overall decline in the gaming market led to revaluation of earlier speculations"
>>96509362Pathfinder settings have always been bootleg trash. The world for their main setting is called "Golarion" for fucks sake, we aren't exactly dealing with top-gun material here. Just use one of the many AD&D settings instead.
>>96509234>Logan Bonner, the current lead designer of PF2, didn't work extensively on 4E>Stephen Radney-MacFarland, a senior designer before, during, and after PF2's release, didn't work extensively on 4EFuck off.
>>96509378No they haven't. Their expectations were PF1, which it blew out of the water despite way more setbacks than PF1 ever had.
>>96509382This doesn't matter, retard. Just because someone worked on product A and then on product B that doesn't mean they're similar products. Why are you motherfuckers so dumb? Do you subside on toilet paper or something? Read both systems you doublenigger, they are completely different games.>Hurr its the same game cause you can heal in combat
>>96509039Shoonies are pugs, though.
>>96509381the world got neutered in 2e thoughat least in 1e it had a bit of edge and complexity to it2e version feels more corporate safe than even fucking forgotten realmsEven the literal devil worshippers now think slavery is too evil for them
>>96509402I've read and played both games. It is NOT my fucking problem that you can't see the commonalities and that you write 4E off at AEDU.
>>96509453>You roll d20 in both games, can't you see the communalities?! THEY ARE LITERALLY THE SAME GAME!
>>96509402No they ain’t you fucking dipshit
every thread is a 4e thread if u try hard enough
>>96509236>there's no good reason why they're casually capable of killing dragons as a result of fleecing a city for a couple yearsSure there is, they fleece "adventurers" of all kinds of levels. And it isn't a couple years, its many years having grown up in the city.>>96509408Yeah, but from now on I'm calling dogbolds shoonies, especially because dogbolds share very little in the way of being a kobold.>>96509290>They are completely out of place.How? Spell it out, don't just claim it.>She uses a fucking razor!She likes to kill up close and personal. They are also called the Bloody Barbers, so its also thematic for them.>She is stronger than the majority of monsters in the gameSo what? And the reason she isn't out being a warlord is that comes with very different risks than hiding under the main hub city of the setting, doing shit like smuggling, ransoms, drugs, robbery, and other fun crimes mafias and gangs get up to. It really is that fucking simple. Not every bad guy want to be some bloody warlord conquering tiny villages in some backwater and getting the various armies of various nations involved in putting them down. Some like being in a metropolis shaking down adventurers and cultists for their money and their lives.What part of this is so hard to understand?Also the Xanathar is shit. Beholders are too paranoid and narcissistic to live that way.
>>96509416>Even the literal devil worshippers now think slavery is too evil for themThat's mega gayBut also lets not pretend PF1 wasn't kinda mega gay already.This whole timeline is mega gay. I want to go back
>>965065664e > BECMI/RC > 2e > BX > 5e > 1e > Basic> OD&DPF2e > PF1e
3.5e was better than Pathfinder. Half of the Pathfinder bestiaries were "lol here's another faction of epic level world shaking outsiders" which except for the daemons and sakhils were mostly fucking gay. Pathfinder fucking ruined obyriths by making them into qlippoths which were mostly söy-facing stuffed animal looking things. Also adding gunshit and techshit to the game. The new skill system made wizards OP cause they could just take every skill and be better than most skill monkey classes. They improved Dodge and Toughness objectively, I'll give them that. CMB/CMD was a fucking awful system, it just made every combat maneuver size based and strength based and just made no fucking sense. Deadly Aim and Deadly Agility were good feats. What else? Multiclassing got cucked. The occult book was fucking dogshit. All the fun experimental rules from 3.5e were forgotten, even though most of them would have been easy to change just enough to dodge copyright, while also being fixed. They tried that with Warlock and made the gay-ass kineticist which fucking sucks. I never heard nearly that many complaints about 3.5e warlock. Then 5e shit all over the warlock's mechanical identity anyway and made it a complete joke. Fuck Paizo and fuck everyone at WotC post-2008.
>>96509674Shut the fuck up tabletoptruth.
>>96509674>CMB/CMDI hated this, not from a gameplay perspective, it was just kind of a weird random patch set of attributes.
>>96509637PF1e had at least some sections of the world that were okaybut I kid you not half the rulers in the game were replaced by strong women who abolished slavery
>>96509674one thing I have to give 1e credit forit actually made playing a fighter 1 to 20 fun and rewardingkineticist also isn't the worst, it could have definitely existed side by side with the warlockpsychic however is indeed budget psion in the worst possible way, the entire reason psion was fun in 3.5 was being able to dynamically spend power points
>>96509674yeah pathfinder's quality dropped hard when the front page of the SRD replaced dreamscarred press with the occult adventures book. Pathfinder got carried by its SRD for many years
>>96509970The SRD dumping every character option into the hands of normalfags made it shit. Also Paizo adding a fucking feat for everything retarded under the sun made it shit. That's how you get retards looking up a gigantic 3rd party summon monster table in the middle of the session on their phones, the SRD literally encourages these mouthdrooling retards to be on their phones.>b-b-b-but I can build anything in Pathfinder!Yeah and your character is a lolrandumb mess from you looking up random shit to use in the middle of a session.
>>96506591Have you ever been annoyed at all the feats in pf1 that were incredibly situational +1 bonus that were complete ass?Now imagine the entire system being designed around this. And not just designed but entirely balanced around this to Oblivion level scaling degrees.
>>96510184what kind of dumbass GM allows 3pp summon monster tables3pp content is always something a GM has to vet, and any reasonable player will agree with that
>>96509637What's more hilarious to me is how people say Starfinder is a shit setting.It's a god damn universe. Literally.It's ALL the settings. It can be Bunny Fu-Fu's Happy town frolic and 40k all at once with whatever the fuck you want to focus on for any given planet, however, Paizo fags treat ANYTHING not in the official books or APs as something that simply cannot exist. You got an infinite setting where your ship could be the one that crashed into White Plume Mountain, but the average player will just treat it like Pathfinder with chrome and lasers and that is incredibly sad.
