GLD's page

GLD wrote:

jquest716 wrote:

I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

shadowrun is amazing, it is super crunchy, and can be complex. however once you get, of all the games, I think mechanically it gives the greatest immersion because of it's simlulation-esue aesthetic. the biggest problem is the rulebook much like this playtest, is just not well thought out, with rules appearing in different sections.

I found that combat just takes way too long. Some people have told me it's because the game isn't about combat. But that sounds like an argument to make fighting simpler and faster than something like D&D (where it very much is the point) rather than more complex. Nothing takes me out of a game faster than stopping to do long division.

But on the other hand, there is a lot about Shadowrun I love. Character generation is great, the lore is great, the variety of gear and mechanical crunch makes it really rewarding to put a plan together and pull it off perfectly or pull out of a nosedive when shot hits the fan. I just think it needs to really consider an overhaul to a lot of its subsystems.

GLD wrote:

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

Except next year at GenCon there aren't going to be Pathfinder 1 tables for me to play my characters I've spent the past two years building at.

I'm going to either have to switch to PF2 (haven't seen anything to make me want to yet), switch to another system (or more of another system- this year I did 4 slots 5E, 4 slots Pathfinder, but I've played Shadowrun before and if I'm trying a game that's completely new, which PF2 is there are many other options out there), or just not go.

I agree- they could have done another Unchained ruleset, then they could have even made those rules the baseline for PFS going forward if that's what they wanted to fix.

But they wanted to toss everything out, babies and bathwater, and start fresh. So here we are.

I get it, that's kinda sucky and I'm sympathetic. I don't do Con or Society play or anything. I'm an anti-social dude and I only really enjoy RPGs when I'm playing with friends in a more personal setting. So I was writing from that perspective, as a guy that just plays with people I know, rather than in any officially supported capacity, so I didn't think about that.

GLD wrote:

jquest716 wrote:

I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

Your afraid if Shadowrun after playing Hero? Is it 5th?

Crazy man. I can revel in making a starting rigger for hours but 30 pages into READING Hero 5th I get a migraine and gave up. Never have made it past chapter 2... I still give it a try once in awhile when I'm feeling saucy.

Hero is harder to learn but easier to play than Shadowrun. It's still bonkers complicated, but a standard attack is still just two rolls and only basic math. I roll, compare my accuracy to your defense. If I hit, I roll damage and subtract your armour.

Unlike Shadowruns's, do I hit, do you dodge, how effective is your armour? Add my hits to the damage, subtract my AP value from your armour divide by the phase of the moon.

And as a fan, I will fully admit that the Hero books are poorly laid out and written with all the excitement of an algebra text book. As far as presentation and communication goes, Shadowrun obliterates it.

GLD wrote:

jquest716 wrote:

I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.

Yeah man. I know I'm in the minority on this in Pathfinder communities, but 5e is lit. Harkens back a lot to the more straightforward nature of Second Edition and brings D&D back to its roots. Not to say it's better than Pathfinder, but they're different and both enjoyable in their own ways.

Like, if you want to keep playing the same game you've had for 15 years, you can do that. Nobody will stop you. But this is something new. Paizo is distancing itself from its D&D roots and establishing its own identity and I support that.

"Hey you want to play this game"

"Isn't that out of print? Agh, why would I play that game. Hey DnD has support let's play that".

Hyperbole, maybe. But given most my games are on roll20, the community seems well not dead but the amount of games offered really crashed after DnD 5 took off. And when PF2 takes of(If. Hope so for Paizo's sake), it's going to be even harder to get people into PF1.

More so when most the comments online these days are about just how old, broken, unfun, and trash 3.5/Pathfinder is.

I can play it all I want, no one's stopping me. Getting a GROUP together in a few years..., that's going to be harder.

Well with all the people on here complaining about how 3.5 is dying, I find it hard to believe there aren't any people out there to play with.

And if people have started to sour on 3.X, what better reason than that Paizo to move on from it? It's an unfortunate outcome for people who still love it but that doesn't make it valid criticism. Basically, and I know how callous this sounds but it is simply the best possible way to put this, that sounds like a you problem.

Any system with opposed die rolls is inherently bad. that's what makes D&D/Pathfinder so good, it's all about single die rolls vs target numbers. simple, straightforward and most importantly, quick.

I can hear the Shadowrunners weeping in the distance.

I've already decided that all players will start with 2 points with a third available from doing something cool in-game. I don't want a player feeling like they weren't rewarded when maybe there was nothing they could have done to help the out-of-game experience or having to codify what gets you that second Hero Point. It just feels like something that's going to lead to a lot of small moments of resentment.

Edit: As an example of why I don't like this, one of my GMs initially would reward people who showed up on time with a small amount of bonus experience. And on the surface that was fine, but in the end it felt more punitive for things like being forced to work late than it did rewarding for those that showed up on time.

Yeah, it's just kind of a weird system. Your reward for showing up on time should be playing a fun game with your friends. Your reward for taking notes or bringing snacks or picking people up for the game, should just be the gratitude of your friends for being a cool person.

I just plan on rewarding all 3 Hero Points for good roleplaying at different points in the game. I'm also probably going to have them evaporate at the end of an adventure, rather than a session, because a session just isn't a reliable metric.

Pretty sure this is a section of rules that's going to bet barely playtested. I've played in three playtest events, and I've never seen a Hero Point awarded or used. In the first playtest, run by one of the developers, Hero Points were explained. In the latter two the GM never mentioned them. Feels like its likely to be missed/skipped by a lot of GMs running things.

Hero Point-esque mechanics are pretty prominent in other games I play. I'm doing my first playtest next week, so I'll likely make use of the mechanic.

One issue I am having with the proficiency system is that the different levels are supposed to feel like more than numbers, but they don't really yet. The gate is real with some skills (especially at very high levels) but it takes level 4 or 7 before the difference between those levels really feel meaningful (trained to expert and expert to master), and even then. Characters just don't get enough options for proficiency = feat gate to feel as relevant.

My proposal would be to tag on a rider to each proficiency level that is automatic. Some specific proficiencies get this (like class boosts to saves) but if every proficiency level gave you one free reroll a day when making those proficiency checks, it would already feel massively more significant.

One free reroll per tier of proficiency seems like a lot, but I do like the direction you're going.

Expert = Free reroll a day.
Master = 1 Proficiency surge a day, where you double the prof bonus for a single check.
Legendary = Turn one success into a crit per day.

Those are off the top of my head and probably not the best suggestions, but a nice benefit to really emphasize mastery of a skill for each tier would cool.

Am I the only one that hates this idea? Like, this sounds like a system ripe for abuse. Giving players in game benefits for bringing snacks or drawing a map? That's just antithetical to everything I've learned as a dungeon master.

What happens outside the game doesn't affect game mechanics, or does so as little as possible. I suppose DMs are free to ignore this option but I don't like its presence in core rules.

I understand the goal. To encourage being a good player and helping out in all facets of the game. But if you need to bribe your players with mechanical benefits to be helpful, then they're dicks and you should stop playing with them.

Hero points to reward good roleplaying is great. It's a system that works well in many other games and I usually houserule it into games that don't have it because any way to gently push my players into taking actions other than the most mechanically effective choice is a boon.

Staff said previously that it would be all new art.

If I have time to dig up the quote, I'll edit this post

Cool, thanks man.

I was a 5e player both in d&d and shadowrun. And my 5e d&d table (6 of us and a DM) of 4yrs just unanimously decided to,switch over to PF2. D&D 5e got a bit stale and pathfinder 2 is a breath of fresh air for us. But thats just My store atm

Oh god, Shadowrun. How do you do it? How does anyone do it? I love the lore, but man is that game brutal on crunch. Just this past month, I tried to finally give it a go after enjoying the video games for years and spent days figuring out all the little rules, building characters, so on and so forth. I love the priority mechanics for character building and sifting through all the gear and options is a great way to waste an entire day.

But actually playing it is just such a slog. I gave up after a few sessions after I found a HERO System conversion that transfers the whole economy, Matrix, Spells, races etcetera from Shadowrun. HERO is no less complicated than Shadowrun if we're being fair, but I've been playing it long enough that I have house rules, tricks and all the tables memorized to counter-balance the crunch.

A lot of 5E's success has to do with media deciding that Nerd Culture is 'in' at the moment. People rightfully associate RPGs with that and D&D is the instantly recognizable brand in that field.

If people on a TV show are playing RPGs, they are playing D&D, because it is known by the casual viewer, D&D therefore is the first and logical choice for a RPG they try if they decide to give it a chance. That 5E is very simpel and easy to understand without too many brain hurty thingies...helps.
PF, no matter what edition, will never have the same brand recognition, but at least PF1 had a very specific niche carved out for itself right from the start. The target group was clear.
I'm not sure yet who the target group for PF2 will be. The 3.5 Diaspora will be driven away for the most part or will stick with PF1 either converting future APs or go to 3rd parties or make up their own adventures. The 5E crowd, I'm not sure, but I have a hunch they mostly will stick with 5E

Agreed, mostly. D&D is a GREAT introductory RPG for new people. And even as a guy who's been playing table top RPGs since he was 6 years old, I still have a good time with it. 5E is my go to when a friend says, "Hey, I wanna try that D&D stuff," or if I'm running a game on short notice and don't wanna devote time to a whole lot of crunch.

This is probably a small concern and not really even helpful from a playtesting standpoint. But I'm seeing a lot of reused art assets from previous PF books. Are these just placeholders for when the actual book drops or are we going to get mostly repurposed visuals for PF2?

The art of Pathfinder is undeniably well done. It's high quality, detailed, colourful and paints a unique fantasy world. Certain designs, such as Pathfinder's lovable goblins, have become iconic. Hell, they even made gnomes a unique looking race, rather than just standing around in the empty space between halflings and dwarves.

But I've always been of the opinion that some of the designs should adhere to the "Less is more," philosophy and strip away some of the extraneous details. Every character walks around with tons of junk just haphazardly strapped to their outfits.

I agree with GLD if you are arguing that PF2 isnt PF1 then why are you here. Pazio was very open with saying PF2 is a new system and not 3.8 or a patch to PF1. I remember when a lot of people were saying D&D 5e was DOA but look at the speed and fame it has gained. You have to understand people playing PF1 own everything already and the sale of books is shown since its being over taken by Starfinder. If you enjoy PF1 keep on keeping on but if you cant accept a new edition with new rules that arent 3.5 then why keep posting these hate post. Pazio isnt going to go oh snap we made a mistake we need to switch everytjing back to 3.5. Please review the game for what it is and not in the lens of PF1.

Yeah man. I know I'm in the minority on this in Pathfinder communities, but 5e is lit. Harkens back a lot to the more straightforward nature of Second Edition and brings D&D back to its roots. Not to say it's better than Pathfinder, but they're different and both enjoyable in their own ways.

Like, if you want to keep playing the same game you've had for 15 years, you can do that. Nobody will stop you. But this is something new. Paizo is distancing itself from its D&D roots and establishing its own identity and I support that.

I feel like the cracks in the 3.X engine were becoming pretty prevalent and I was actually glad to see a lot of its relics be written out.

Honestly, if it's not a complete overhaul, what's the point? If you're just tweaking the existing mechanics then don't bother with a new edition. Just release a book of variant rules and be done with it. And they already did that with Unchained and sprinkled throughout a myriad of other books over the last decade.

If you have criticisms about the new game, go for it. But the fact that it's distancing itself from 3.X isn't a valid one in my mind.

If you just want more Pathfinder 1, well you're set. Between Pathfinder's ridiculous amount of official material, all the 3rd party stuff and all the fully compatible 3.5 books put out by Wizards (and that is well into the hundreds) you are set. There is more content than you could ever hope to absorb and the system is weathered enough that you and tens of thousands of other fans have produced a nearly infinite number of variations, house rules, extra content and so forth, to tweak the game into exactly what you want.

I think the proficiency mechanic is both my favourite and least favourite part about this game. There's a lot of potential, but it seems misdirected. You're right that the gap should be widened between proficiency tiers.

I think that the tiers should be a lot more impactful overall. Achieving master or legendary status should really feel like a big step.

Right there with you. I think it's a system with a lot of potential. I honestly think the best way to implement it is to remove the level based bonuses altogether and increase the effect of Proficiency tiers.

Perhaps an additional +2 or even +3 for each level. Reduce the numbers overall for saves, attack bonus, AC, skills and so on, thus making the small bonuses (and penalties) gained from other places like magic items, conditional modifiers and so on, a lot more impactful.

Your math looks to be about 15 off on the AC. +5 Full Plate is 6+5, a Heavy Shield is +2, Legendary Armor Proficiency at 15 is 3+15, 18 dex is +4 and AC starts at 10 for a total of 6+5+2+3+15+4+10 = 45. Did you forget that your Armor Proficiency bonus also scales with level?

I could not find that written anywhere in the book. Where is that, out of curiosity?

So I've gone over the book and I feel like this is a pretty glaring issue. Attack bonuses scale up way faster than AC. Your attack bonus is equivalent to your level, for everyone. But AC doesn't seem to go up in any meaningful way outside of runes and proficiency.

Legendary Full plate +5, heavy shield, Legendary Armor Proficiency, 18 Dex gives you an AC of 30. This is, as I understand it, the highest your AC can get (not counting temporary bonuses.) You'd need to be 15th level in order to get Legendary gear.

So a 15th level character, with a +5 legendary weapon, legendary proficiency and strength score of 22, would be swinging with a bonus of +34. And that's without any magic items to boost strength or any other ways to increase attack bonus that I may not have found yet.

So, unless I roll a 1, I will hit a similarly levelled player or NPC character, every single time. And hell, if I use all my actions to attack, I have two all but guaranteed hits and a third that hits on anything about five.

What am I missing here? There is no way that a group of professional game designers didn't notice this? Please tell me I'm just an idiot and missed some crucial bit of information.

I'm gonna argue the point about magic items. Magic items have always been a broken system, as long as any 3.X system has existed. The entire game is balanced with the expectation that players are loaded down with boring magic items to shore up Attack Bonus, Saves and AC in order to remain remotely competitive with the basic threats of the game. So at higher levels, it's tantamount to suicide to go anywhere without two rings, a necklace, magic boots, magic armour, magic belt, magic cape, magic underwear, a few magic weapons, a circlet and so on.

Now, I'm not totally sure if resonance really helps with that issue, as I'm still going over the book in finer detail after my initial glossing over, but something DEFINITELY needs to be done about that.

Thanks. Honestly I think it'd be better to just allow characters to fill multiple roles, so long as they occur in different phases. I'll try the game out as is and maybe homebrew that in if I feel it'd more if fun (if not exactly more balanced.)

I haven't played yet, but I'm preparing for my first game soon.

As I was reading the rules I found had a question about starship combat. It is very similar to Star Wars Saga's ship combat which I really enjoyed. But my main concern here is whether or not a character can perform multiple roles on a ship.

I can't find anything in the rules that specifically comes down on this one way or another, but they seem to imply that you cannot.

So now I wonder, how do you handle single pilot fighter crafts? Obviously things that require a specific location, like being in the engine room away from the cockpit/bridge would be required of an engineer. And if you're manning a turret weapon, that would prevent you from filling other roles as well. But can the pilot not also fire a forward facing weapon? Or lock on to enemy ships and target specific systems, if they have the skills to do so?

Like, I'm remembering iconic starship battles from science fiction and these are not uncommon things.

No.

Bonus of the same type or from the same source never stack.

Even though the bonus from Sudden Speed is an untyped bonus to land speed, using Sudden Speed multiples times is definitely the same source for the increase and thus not allowed.

All the other movement bonuses you mention are different untyped source bonus to movement speed, and thus they stack.

Thanks.

Really simple question that I can't seem to find an answer for, can I stack this ability? I'm making a monk character that is all about mobility, kind of a fun gimmick where I put every feat into fleet to make a monk that can bolt between villages in the blink of an eye.

So I'm wondering, if I use multiple actions in preparation, can I just burn out all my ki to cast sudden speed a bunch of times?

I am aware of the rules on stacking. Dodge is the only bonus type that stacks with itself, untyped bonuses from different sources stack but untyped bonuses from the same source do not, but I'm not sure how this applies to movement bonuses. In general, all movement bonuses stack. Boots of speed, fleet, fast movement from monks and barbarians.