Doomgrinder's page

The concept of Aggro like this wouldn't work with me as a GM. The enemies attack based on their own threat perceptions, and as a GM, I will sometimes use fiat so that I don't have a TPK. I don't like to pull punches, but when a party does nothing wrong but are just horribly unlucky that day... well...

That being said however, there aren't a lot of ways to ensure that you get the attention of all the bad guys. I guess go into combat alone.

bugleyman wrote:

Skeld wrote:

PFRPG has been a thing since 2009 and people have been speculating about a new edition for at least a couple years now. I've yet to see anyone put forth a compelling argument for why a new edition is needed.

-Skeld

"Compelling" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I'd find a better-organized Core Rule Book compelling (though I'd certainly prefer more substantive change).

It's funny you say that because I originally had something to that effect in my post, but I edited it out.

A revised CRB would be nice, the problem is that a revision would require a change to the pagination and that is something Paizo has been hesitant to do because it would break the CRB references in every other thing they've published. That's a value judgement on Paizo's part: is a revised CRB worth breaking references everywhere else?

The problem with PF2e (at least right now) is that everyone has a different idea of what it should be, what constitutes too many changes, and what isn't enough. It's a lot of uncertainty, which means a lot of risk.

-Skeld

You know, I really didn't think about the page references, but that could be a bit confusing to someone. Good notice, thanks for that.

The issue here is that was needs to be fixed, and what is broken, useless, OP, and so on are subjective.

I am sure there is someone who thinks the new rogue is gamebreaking.

Someone tried to argue the slayer was broken, even though it is not the best martial class, and still is not on the same level as even the 4th level casters, such as paladins and rangers.

You are very correct. Personally, I see no way of totally balancing all the classes. Too many moving parts... and some people are just better at figuring out the tweaks to make it appear broken.

Rather than a version 2.0, I'd be happy if Paizo simply combined the Unchained and Core book into one book removing the things that are totally broken/useless.

I love D&D 5E, hated 4E, and have played PF since it was in Beta. These are for three different play groups...

5E is for a "simpler" crowd that doesn't want the crunchiness of PF. 4E is for those that love the battlemat. Pathfinder is for the ones that love to optimize. You can RP in all of them, so there's no difference there.

I play 5E with one group, and PF with another. Both have their places. No, I don't want a new edition, I'd like maybe just an updated PHB w/ material from the supplements.

As an aside, I have heard people say PF is too complicated and needs to be simplified... I disagree in principal... correct the ambiguous parts, yes, simplify like D&D? No...

I find it great that my 10 year old pulled out my PF Core Rulebook and created his own Wizard by himself this past weekend. He made a few mistakes, but was 95%+ correct.