Oh that third category definitely caused the most pain in the latter years of PFRPG.
Those of you who insist on realism in your games, are you going to let any human who gets to a 125 ft land speed with the Run feat run on water?
I’m new to using Kineticist, but why does every guide for Kineticist I see say to avoid weapons and dump Strength?
Love: the evolutionary game design, archetypes, traits, the customizability, the fact that pcs npcs and monsters all run off the same basic rules, point buy stat generation, the old PRD only containing setting neutral core books and organizing the information by book
Hate: occult instead of psionics, the explosion of classes that started with the ACG, how badly they messed up the shifter, faqs/errata made in response to PFS problems that don't come up in non-PFS games, the increasingly-dismal-now-dropped faq schedule, the fact that PF2 is not another evolutionary step of the system
Will Miss: being excited over new releases, as I'll doggedly stick to Pathfinder and don't see myself enjoying PF2
It's not a development of PF1 or D&D 3.X, rather it is its own thing. For better or worse. A new version number - PF2 - is IMO the best description. Or a new name, but they didn't go there.
Yeah, pretty much that. If it was an evolutionary step then we could be messing with decimal version numbers, but it's an entirely different thing compared to its predecessor.
Well, as I’ve advocated in other threads and venues, D&D 4.5 is the *most* accurate (said with love).
Now that you mention it, I'd have to go with that one.
To me, new Amiri looks emaciated and sickly. Certainly not someone who likely has a 16-18 str and 14-16 con. Her skin's gone past pale into ashen, and the bags around her eyes look like she hasn't slept in 3 days.
Droogami looks less like a snow leopard and more like a tiny bandersnatch.
I'm not sure if I like Harsk's new tartan. The dwarves=scottish trope is dangerously close to played out to me.
I will say that overall I like that several of the new looks are a lot less busy, with fewer random bits and bobs.
Dragonborn are indeed terrible. But it's because they're so bad at being dragons. Kobolds get closer to playing a dragon than dragonborn do.
So, you're saying every archer with more than one attack per round has to ask their GM for permission to draw additional arrows?
Tim Emrick wrote:
You should call that team "the A-Men".
Cones I would narrow from 90 degrees to 60 to make it easier to plot on the hex.
EDIT: also make sure you know how you want larger creatures to take up space. Personally, I go:
EDIT2: Now with visual
Depends on what definition you're attributing to the term "Min-Maxing"
Agreed on all counts. Though RE:1 I'd say PF1 has a lot more good in it than bad.
I'd welcome that in a heartbeat.
Every time I see someone whining about "I don't like anime in my medieval fantasy" I can almost always find a european myth that goes even more over the top with it, while also finding plenty of examples about how far most campaign setting diverge from "medieval" without even taking the existence of magic into account.
Warped Savant wrote:
27: "My character sits down with everyone at the inn, pulls out a bag of dice and hands each character a piece of parchment. 'okay,' she says, 'let's play a game where we pretend to be other people." and go on to create an RPG with an RPG.
The main issue I have with ABP is that it doesn't let you keep your AC as high as I would like (~15+Lv). And a minor nitpick is that you have to pick a mental attribute earlier than a physical one, but that's an easy houserule (let them pick any attribute to boost, then next level has to be mental if they picked a physical and vise versa).