Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

251 to 300 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Agreeing with gorbacz so many times in a single thread make me feels uneasy.


Redelia wrote:
The issue here is that I don't think Pathfinder's problems are at high level play, they are at low level play. Play before level 7 or 8 isn't much fun, because spellcasters don't have enough spells to be able to use at least a minor spell every round of combat, and the martials don't have their iterative attacks yet.

I don't see the fun in being locked to 5-ft in order to do the job.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. It's okay to explain why you don't play another system, but you need to steer clear of insulting language and name calling. Additionally, we do not tolerate edition warring on our website so if you are making comparisons, you need to steer clear of language that would be considered edition warring or incite that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Or they will work around them, telling new players "avoid the fourth step, it's loose."

I feel like a lot of Pathfinder Partisans, for the reason that Daw pointed to, fix problems inside the game when they come up by playing fast and loose with some (or many) of the rules. Whatever problems a game has, people at a given table will find house rules they like to resolve the vast majority of them.

Any game being played in its "pure" by-the-book form is very rare outside of something like organized play, in my experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't get 5e's popularity either, but mostly because for what it is, there are a ton more games that do the job better and are less clunky. about the only real merit I really see that differentiates from other similar RPGs is that enough of it lines up with Pathfinder that you can easily run adventure pathswith it only faster and less complicated.

But for anything else I have True 20, Tri-stat, OVA, Savage Worlds, FATE, all things I'd prefer to go with.


Gorbacz wrote:
Daw wrote:

OK, the reason 5e is popular will not register to most Forum-Folk. You see, for a lot of people, apparently a growing percentage of them, Pathfinder's ever expanding war-gamey crunchiness gets in the way of "fun" for them. This is exacerbated by wargame style-zealots and rules lawyers who happily trash sessions because of their Drive to be Right. When people reasonably propose that Pathfinder can be played in a less "crunchy" manner, they are often told that they should be playing another system.

Guess what? This advice is being taken, to the Pathfinder™ producers' and players' detriments.

Exactly. Pathfinder did have its moment, because that advice took you pretty much nowhere before 5E came along.

But now you can play a leaner, lighter Real Deal complete with beholders, Mordenkainen and Blibdoolpoolp. You can't run an expanding business based on people who have emotional problem with WotC, people who enjoy 3-hour long encounters, people who play with their four pals from high school since 1978 and don't see the "we really need new people in this tiny hobby" issue and people who keep talking about linear Fighters but what they truly, really enjoy about the game is playing 15 minute adventure day Wizards because they know every spell in the game and that makes them feel like WINNING.

If you do that, you'll just slowly watch the freight train of newbie-friendly D&D run you over. The best thing you can do is first, start another train on a track where WotC has nothing on you (done) and two, make Pathfinder more approachable.

I'm not at all convinced that's true. The "leaner, lighter Real Deal" is really automatically overwhelmingly dominant. 3.x was really popular and not just because of the lack of alternatives. It revitalized a moribund D&D.

Evidence does suggest a lot of people really like the basic 3.x design and especially the build game. This idea that less crunchy systems are inevitably more popular or are more popular with gamers today isn't well supported. And I say this as a fan of much lighter rules systems than PF. Or than 5E, for that matter.

Now, PF has certainly lost players to 5E and 5E is bringing new players in (or old players back) - the first because, as you say, there wasn't a big name D&D alternative other than 4E which PF players had already rejected, the second because "New D&D, big hype, etc".

I don't have stats. We don't have stats. Paizo has stats. If sales started to drop with 5E and are still doing so, then you've got a point. If they've stabilized after a drop, then there likely was an effect from 5E and they've settled onto a lower curve. It's also possible that 5E's a net win for the hobby and that the new players it brings in move on to other systems including PF.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

IME, 5E does well because its familiar and it's easy. 5E appeals to an entire crowd of folks that will never learn about feats, magic items, etc. wrecking the game balance. Hell, most folks I meet outside of forums have never experienced the 15 min work day or caster martial disparity. They have experienced a heavy system that makes play a chore, something which 5E doesn't seem to do.

What I am hearing is some folks want a 5E type of system coupled with the adventure writing and options of PF. Sort of like a goldilocks edition of the game. My vision is that 5E is going to be the easy going game and PF the more complex choice. Both serve different markets. Yeah I know there is a lot of overlap, but ditching an entire crowd to chase another is risky business IMHO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:
A tRPG that makes life hard for the GM, is going to have niche appeal. No GM = no game.

Agreed. Which is exactly the problem Pathfinder is now tripping over...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
∆∆ thread title.

No thanks. There are to many things in Starfinder I don't like and many things are oversimplified.

I canceled my subscription to starfinder as I learned more about it I do not want pathfinder going the same way.

just my 2 cents.


Interesting, thanks Cylerist

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Rhedyn wrote:
It's not noob friendly if only experienced GMs can run the game without it imploding.

You don't need an experienced GM to say "hey guys, this is kind of stupid so I'm handwaving it".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

A nod to the Angst that people feel that their favorite game is under existential threat.

I do need to clarify my earlier statement. The actual volume of stuff available would not be a problem at all were it not for the Optimalization Phenomenon. "System Mastery" is a goal requiring access and familiarity with every possible option, even when, or even especially when, said options are not thematically correct for the milieus in question. Feats and traits are no longer a mechanism for giving a character some extra flavor and individuality, but are narrowly defined as Optimal or Trap.

The basic assumption of many many many players is that optimizing/hyperoptimizing is the Prime Directive. They will feel utterly justified in trashing tables/games not designed to deal with their "level of play". This is prevalent enough that Pathfinder™ Itself has been equated with this phenomenon. Our reputation and persuant popularity suffers from this. The most horrible quote I have heard on this regard was, "5e is really a lot like a jack***-lite Pathfinder." I disagree with that on many levels, but it is close enough to reality to be resonant with many gamers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ill agree 5E is boring to play, but it is much easier to run. Clearly YMMV.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:
It's not noob friendly if only experienced GMs can run the game without it imploding.
You don't need an experienced GM to say "hey guys, this is kind of stupid so I'm handwaving it".

Like playing a paladin?

It passively generates auras that break other mechanics and that class itself demands that you run 6 encounter days. Is your boss smart enough to not feed waves of minions at the party? Well too bad. You have a long rest based class in the party. Your narrative pacing will break the game.

Or you could just houserule actual abilities on monsters, but then if that kills pcs, it's on you the GM. Not the system or the players decision. Not a lot of GMs like unfairly killing the party and just try to run rules legal NPCs creatively.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I did just fine, there's nothing implodey about my head.

Unless people are just being polite.

Edit: I see where I got confused, never mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Daw wrote:

A nod to the Angst that people feel that their favorite game is under existential threat.

I do need to clarify my earlier statement. The actual volume of stuff available would not be a problem at all were it not for the Optimalization Phenomenon. "System Mastery" is a goal requiring access and familiarity with every possible option, even when, or even especially when, said options are not thematically correct for the milieus in question. Feats and traits are no longer a mechanism for giving a character some extra flavor and individuality, but are narrowly defined as Optimal or Trap.

I've seen new players taking some "flavorful" options just to get disappointed and not wanting to play PF again. I can't really blame them or any optimizer out there.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Daw wrote:

A nod to the Angst that people feel that their favorite game is under existential threat.

I do need to clarify my earlier statement. The actual volume of stuff available would not be a problem at all were it not for the Optimalization Phenomenon. "System Mastery" is a goal requiring access and familiarity with every possible option, even when, or even especially when, said options are not thematically correct for the milieus in question. Feats and traits are no longer a mechanism for giving a character some extra flavor and individuality, but are narrowly defined as Optimal or Trap.

I've seen new players taking some "flavorful" options just to get disappointed and not wanting to play PF again. I can't really blame them or any optimizer out there.

How badly were they "punished" for going with flavorful but sub-optimal feats? Were they marginalized by players/GMs with "higher levels of play"?


Stop it Bug.
This thread needs to tone down clever but "tone-deaf" comments, not ramp them up. This thread is at its core a rather emotional one for Forum-Folk.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

To reply to the core point, I expect an 'Advanced Pathfinder' or Pathfinder Evolved sort of book for GenCon 2020. Give them some time to see what works best with Starfinder and what needs tweaking.

I expect this version will be backwards compatible along the line of Pathfinder Unchained, but still expand and modify the core classes to be less based on the 3.x basis and more in a new direction.


Daw wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
Daw wrote:

A nod to the Angst that people feel that their favorite game is under existential threat.

I do need to clarify my earlier statement. The actual volume of stuff available would not be a problem at all were it not for the Optimalization Phenomenon. "System Mastery" is a goal requiring access and familiarity with every possible option, even when, or even especially when, said options are not thematically correct for the milieus in question. Feats and traits are no longer a mechanism for giving a character some extra flavor and individuality, but are narrowly defined as Optimal or Trap.

I've seen new players taking some "flavorful" options just to get disappointed and not wanting to play PF again. I can't really blame them or any optimizer out there.
How badly were they "punished" for going with flavorful but sub-optimal feats? Were they marginalized by players/GMs with "higher levels of play"?

To give an example, IN a group of three, The core monk with scorpion style felt quite bad when the (totally not optimized) sorceress with a crossbow and the bard where better at killing things than him. He was quite puzzled that trying to use his special trick actively punished him and was shocked when told than he needed much more strength and less dex and wis in order to punch things.

BUt there are many example. The str 12 dex 18 TWF fighter feeling bad because he can't kill a thing. Or the poor crossbow guys.

Now, I admit that not all of them quitted the game. Some of them learned to choose the abilities for their power and houserules and GM willingness solved the issue for others. But In a game where scorpion style is printed side to side to craft wondrous item complaining about system mastery is puzzling for me.


Daw wrote:

Stop it Bug.

This thread needs to tone down clever but "tone-deaf" comments, not ramp them up. This thread is at its core a rather emotional one for Forum-Folk.

*runs away chastised*

Shadow Lodge

To be fair, he's not wrong.


LOL, thanks TOZ, always reliable under any mask. ^-^

Paizo Employee Customer Service Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Folks, reign in the baiting comments about 5e. The discussion is "So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when?" And while you are welcome to include comparisons to the evolutions of editions in D&D if you wish, your posts and direction of this thread should be to discussing your thoughts or discussion points about Starfinder and Pathfinder. There are plenty of other websites you can visit if you wish to discuss your opinions on the merits of 5e.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have read a bit of this thread. There is a lot of emotional stuff here. I do think a couple things need to be pointed out. Note, I am mostly a pathfinder player due to my like of the huge number of build options.

1. The 5e phb has out sold the 3.5, 3, & 4 phb lifetime sales. This is individually not collectively of course. Mike Mearls was pretty happy when he made that tweet a year ago. There is a large market out there for a rules lite system.

2. 5e Dnd has a huge presence on twitch and podcasts (Critical Role is really good imho). I think advertising is very important in expanding your market. This is an area that Paizo could improve.

3. Critical Roll plus tons of pod casts have shown that a high level 5e game can be both entertaining and fun for the players. The quality of a DM is very important of course especially for high level campaigns. The enjoyment level of campaigns is set by the DM and players. I had a large amount of fun with my old Rifts group for example despite the system.

Now, I am going to talk about anecdotal observations. My local game stores just are not carrying a lot of pathfinder product these days. I think that Paizo needs something new to keep them in the public eye.

However, a large number of my pathfinder buddies have ordered StarFinder. I am hopeful that Starfinder does well.


Never.


Late to the party but I'm willing to join.

I've always seen 3.x/path feats like in card games. The options are there and the player is 'free' to pick them, supposedly to help him refine the concept/idea of the character he has in mind. We have flat bonus feats, "combo" chain feats, arguably trap feats, feats that are fine until they print one that do the job better, "pack filler" feats that nobody would want to pick... you get the point.

And I think every feat in the game is at least fine, but it's also true that some of them have non exploited hidden potential.

When I've discovered Combat Stamina I fell in love at first sight. It's a feat that allows to do combat tricks while using other feats. Well balanced enough to not call it useles or broken/op/whatever. Have any of you ever played a campaign with Book of Nine Swords allowed? Martial classes with "maneuvers and stances" emulating spells alike powers. Holly molly that was bonkers, my fighter wanted to burn himself alive while screaming Cthulhu incantations.

Unchained skill abilities with Signature Skill feat? Hey sexy... that's what I love to see, and I want more. There's a 3.x book called Complete Scoundrel that introduced Skill tricks. In short, you can learn a skill trick at the cost of 2 skill rank points that lets you do cool stuff. I am but a humble man, but imagine for a moment if: Signature Skill Acrobatics + Athletic feat + 2 skill ranks = you character can try to do now cool deeds like in Shadow of the Colossus (yes I'm a huge fan of that game). Of course this idea can be polished by brighter minds but this would be also interesting to see implemented.

Where I'm trying to get is that there's still improvement for pathfinder as it is until a new 2.0 edition comes up.

As somebody noted, I also think the game need a rules Overhaul. Every time new content is released unclear/weird interactions appear and the Rules forum sometimes prove inefective to deal clear answers to them.

I'd like to test (if possible) Starfinder before comparing both games.

Cheers everyone.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For me, PF 2.0 really needs the following:

- iteratives done away with,
- ditto for prepared casters and spell levels 7-9,
- monster/NPCs a'la SF/5E,
- Stamina/HP/Resolve.

aaand we're rolling. These are changes sine qua non for me.

Other things I'd love to see gone:

- complex environmental rules thrown out. Seriously, those "A forest fire can be spotted from as far away as 2d6 × 100 feet by a character who makes a Perception check, treating the fire as a Colossal creature" moments break my heart, so do Fort DC 15 +1 for every hour cold weather checks. It's time we acknowledge that, assign -1/-2/-4 to all d20 rolls in moderate/difficult/exxxtreme conditions and move on,
- The Big Six,
- manoeuvres done SF style.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I could do without the pointless die rolls. "There is 1d6 inches of snow on the ground." STOP WASTING MY TIME.


Alceste008 wrote:
The quality of a DM is very important of course especially for high level campaigns.

I would not say the ability to design game rules is part of what makes a GM good or bad. But that skill is required to be a good GM in certain rules light systems.

SF seems to have struck a happy medium. Do I really need to make this table 5x larger to handle a minority of situations poorly? Or do I throw some of that to the GM to adjudicate?

What I like about SF is that the combat is rules heavy, but some of the niche corner case skill rules like "can I see the sun?" are left to the GM.


Gorbacz wrote:

For me, PF 2.0 really needs the following:

- iteratives done away with,
- ditto for prepared casters and spell levels 7-9,
- monster/NPCs a'la SF/5E,
- Stamina/HP/Resolve.

aaand we're rolling. These are changes sine qua non for me.

For monsters/NPCs, do you mean not building them with PC mechanics?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thejeff wrote:
I don't have stats. We don't have stats. Paizo has stats. If sales started to drop with 5E and are still doing so, then you've got a point. If they've stabilized after a drop, then there likely was an effect from 5E and they've settled onto a lower curve. It's also possible that 5E's a net win for the hobby and that the new players it brings in move on to other systems including PF.

It's more than a year out of date, but Erik Mona commented at one point to the effect that the bolded was what they were seeing. It was one of the ICv2 threads where people were interpreting PF's reduction in market share as a decline in demand. In fact, he reported that PF was still growing (or at least holding strong) but the market as a whole was growing more rapidly.

Granted that was a good eighteen months ago, so who knows how things are travelling now. Nonetheless, in terms of PF continuing to thrive, what matters is nominal sales, not market share.

I've been encouraged by recent decisions regarding incorporating more flavour into the rulebooks. Similarly, the upcoming tweaks to the campaign setting and player companion product lines suggest to me that Paizo will continue doing what it has always done - innovating and experimenting, whilst keeping their attention focussed on the fans. Taking risks as necessary, but modifying and responding to our ever-eager feedback.

PF will no doubt conclude at some point. Whether it's replaced with a PF2 or not, I'm very confident it's ending will be managed thoughtfully and well.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Uqbarian wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

For me, PF 2.0 really needs the following:

- iteratives done away with,
- ditto for prepared casters and spell levels 7-9,
- monster/NPCs a'la SF/5E,
- Stamina/HP/Resolve.

aaand we're rolling. These are changes sine qua non for me.

For monsters/NPCs, do you mean not building them with PC mechanics?

Yep. A high-level monster should have ca. 5 combat options to choose from that are quick to resolve yet high on "whoa" factor. What we have now are titanic stablocks which you need to analyse in order to find out just what the monster/NPC can do.

Even worse, some monsters feature non-obvious synergies between their abilities, feats, spells and the environment of the encounter which you need to decipher in order to run the combat in a challenging way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only tangentially related, but I just ran across an old reminder that edition wars are timeless. It's also a reminder that periodic overhauls are a good thing for any complicated system. Having not yet looked at Starfinder I can't comment on whether Pathfinder should follow it. However, as William Werminster pointed out, the system has room for improvement, which has so far been done with optional "patches": Combat Stamina, Unchained Skills, and so on. Patches can certainly improve the game (or not, remember Wordcasting?) but they also add complexity, in terms of both gameplay mechanics and in the number of books you have to consult while playing. There's surely a place for a single book that incorporates, tweaks, and simplifies the best of Pathfinder to date.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Class Deck, Maps, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Athaleon wrote:
Only tangentially related, but I just ran across an old reminder that edition wars are timeless, and that periodic overhauls are a good thing for any complicated system.

I'm still fuming over 2nd edition.


So am I, especially that misbegotten rules set that they called skills and powers and what went with it, all power to the clerics, and no way to use the new rules on a magic user without actually crippling its magic use abilities.

I seldom get rid of outdated or otherwise no longer used games in my collection (I still have most of my AD&D stuff), but 2nd ed is a notable exception to that rule, I even gifted it away rather than trying to sell it off.


Gorbacz wrote:

Yep. A high-level monster should have ca. 5 combat options to choose from that are quick to resolve yet high on "whoa" factor. What we have now are titanic stablocks which you need to analyse in order to find out just what the monster/NPC can do.

Even worse, some monsters feature non-obvious synergies between their abilities, feats, spells and the environment of the encounter which you need to decipher in order to run the combat in a challenging way.

Got it. Yeah, I'd be hugely in favour of changing to simpler statblocks (and simpler monster construction) in a hypothetical PF 2.0.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

2E is when I came in and I never played 1st so I am not bitter about how 2E was done:)

I love the monster stat blocks as is, I have no problem using them.

As usual I don't agree with Gorbacz. The only thing that would be interesting is this optional rule.

You can move and get all your attacks with the standard -5 for each iterative attack. But your full attack does not receive any penalties.

Fighter

moves and attacks +15/+10/+5

full attack +15/+15/+15


Dragon78 wrote:

2E is when I came in and I never played 1st so I am not bitter about how 2E was done:)

I love the monster stat blocks as is, I have no problem using them.

As usual I don't agree with Gorbacz. The only thing that would be interesting is this optional rule.

You can move and get all your attacks with the standard -5 for each iterative attack. But your full attack does not receive any penalties.

Fighter

moves and attacks +15/+10/+5

full attack +15/+15/+15

I came at 2E as well when I was a wee lad, but let's be realistic: THAC0 was (and still is) a BS system that was overly convoluted. (Which is perhaps a big reason why 3.X was much better, since it didn't rely on extreme math nerds to make it work.)

Your solution only shifts the problem into a different direction, not solves or removes it completely. Now, instead of "I need to Full Attack to get all of my attacks in," it's "I need to Full Attack so I don't suffer these abysmal penalties on my other attacks." On top of that, the game wasn't designed so that you get full bonuses on your iteratives, or that all of your attacks were going to hit, and it outright destroys feats like the Vital Strike feat chain (I think it sucks regardless, but my opinion doesn't matter in this respect), so I don't find it to be a valid solution without major tweaks to the system; AKA, Pathfinder 2.0.


Gorbacz wrote:
Uqbarian wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

For me, PF 2.0 really needs the following:

- iteratives done away with,
- ditto for prepared casters and spell levels 7-9,
- monster/NPCs a'la SF/5E,
- Stamina/HP/Resolve.

aaand we're rolling. These are changes sine qua non for me.

For monsters/NPCs, do you mean not building them with PC mechanics?

Yep. A high-level monster should have ca. 5 combat options to choose from that are quick to resolve yet high on "whoa" factor. What we have now are titanic stablocks which you need to analyse in order to find out just what the monster/NPC can do.

Even worse, some monsters feature non-obvious synergies between their abilities, feats, spells and the environment of the encounter which you need to decipher in order to run the combat in a challenging way.

If the monsters were truly built differently than PCs, then PCs would not have an effective CR like in 5e.

More likely, they are just trying to layout monsters in a more GM useful manner and the differences between PCs and monsters are no more different than in PF.

My experience with 5e states that simple monsters really are just weak monsters that the party can roflstomp over even if they are apl+12 in cr.


Rhedyn wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Uqbarian wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

For me, PF 2.0 really needs the following:

- iteratives done away with,
- ditto for prepared casters and spell levels 7-9,
- monster/NPCs a'la SF/5E,
- Stamina/HP/Resolve.

aaand we're rolling. These are changes sine qua non for me.

For monsters/NPCs, do you mean not building them with PC mechanics?

Yep. A high-level monster should have ca. 5 combat options to choose from that are quick to resolve yet high on "whoa" factor. What we have now are titanic stablocks which you need to analyse in order to find out just what the monster/NPC can do.

Even worse, some monsters feature non-obvious synergies between their abilities, feats, spells and the environment of the encounter which you need to decipher in order to run the combat in a challenging way.

If the monsters were truly built differently than PCs, then PCs would not have an effective CR like in 5e.

More likely, they are just trying to layout monsters in a more GM useful manner and the differences between PCs and monsters are no more different than in PF.

My experience with 5e states that simple monsters really are just weak monsters that the party can roflstomp over even if they are apl+12 in cr.

I'd figure that's more systematic of poor internal balance than anything else (haven't done 5th so can't vouch for it). I mean, PF's block-o-text monsters certainly aren't a seal of quality in and of themselves especially considering how often they tend to get instantly vaporized by enterprising PCs (Easy examples being stuff like majority of end-AP bosses which more often than not end with a permutation of '...and then he got bashed in the face for 600 damage and died/suck-saved and then got mopped up" inside turn 2).

251 to 300 of 351 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / So, Pathfinder 2.0 based on Starfinder chassis when? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.