Stop. Just stop. I want a new edition of Pathfinder that emphasizes

Why are you even playing a D&D-esq game?

giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279503-D-amp-D-in-M-amp-M-a-new-approach-to-rebalancing-3-5-PF

Here

>Implying pathfinders 2.0 would fix martial/caster disparity when the designers have already said it doesn't exist.

You're mentioning most of the central defining characteristics of Pathfinder, and saying that you want a version of it that doesn't have those.

It's like saying you want a version of a hotdog without the bun, the ketchup, the mustard, and the sausage.

Have you tried not playing pathfinder?

God pathfinder players are a bunch of man children. I get that pf captured the 3.5 audience that didn't like 4e but to scream no new edition because my shelf can't be used, is so entitled. The DnD they came from had 3 1/2 editions before pf...

Play a different game? You can't emphasize roleplaying if people don't want to roleplay.
I don't know of any system that doesn't have minmaxing and isn't almost completely theater of the mind.
If your DM only wants spellcasting battles consider finding a DM that has a different approach. This is not the fault of the system but of choices people make.

Chances are OP's group refuses to switch from Pathfinder, which is why he can't just play 5e or any other good fantasy game.

Then you aren't looking for Pathfinder 2E. You're looking for a completely different game entirely. When you completely throw out the underpinnings of a game, what are you clinging to? Swingy 1d20 resolution? Six stats that are mostly invalidated by their own modifiers? An inane, tedious skill system? Magic item dependence? Vancian magic? Tier queer class system? Tons of poorly thought out splatbooks?

When you remove the skin and muscle and bone and organs and nerves from something, what is left? When you remove the autistic minmaxing and multi-hour combats from Pathfinder, what is left?

Essentially just 3 editions with some rules errata sold as updated core books and a free reference document. Pathfinder is 3.5 with a setting change, some errata, and new content tacked on.

To get to the 3rd edition took about 25 years, to get to the 5th from 3rd took about 14 years. It leads to lots of rehashed work and total reinterpretation of standard things when your business model is to churn out new editions as quickly as ccg editions.

A robust skill system isn't tedious. You're not supposed to be able to train and specialize in everything. Actually pathfinder dumbed skills down and then added a lot of extra BS like unchained skills. I'll concede that flat skill resolutions are better when people have 50 PhDs in the real world.

How is it robust to constantly put one point in a time in the same few things every single level?
There's effectively no difference between choosing a few skills to simply "be good at" without all the makework shit.

I understand pathfags are literally unable to conceive of a game that doesn't revolve around meticulous, granular MUH BUILD but please for the love of god, in one game try just marking an X next to a handful of skills and be done with it.

Starfinder did a decent job.

Pathfinder 2e would totally defeat the point of Pathfinder. Paizo's whole business model is to get people more and more invested until they're reluctant to try anything else, at least anything else PF can do (no matter how awkwardly). They could have made a more streamlined, balanced version of 3.PF, but if they ever wanted to do that they were beaten to the punch by WotC, and everyone that would have wanted to switch over to that system is already playing 5e.

What do you think was the point of Starfinder?
>Hey look everyone, now you can run scifi games without having to leave your comfort zone!

>sunk cost fallacy

Play B/X

>roleplaying
>adventuring
>exploring
>decision making
How does Pathfinder stop you from doing any of these things?

>5e
>"Lol bro I just built this character with X background and Y class and it gives me like a +8 to Persuasion bro!"
I hear this on a weekly basis at my FLGS. 5e isn't any different. It just starves powergamers, and starves people who enjoy interesting chargen at the same time. It's a bland, empty game with a fairly solid framework. If its ideas were applied to Pathfinder the result would be a very solid game.

Pathfinder sucks ass, too. D&D 3.5 was nice if you played it with old people or your family like I did, and if they were shit at minmaxing. That's what I had and as a result I thought that 3.5's biggest problem was the base attack bonuses going up too fast compared to AC. Then I started playing with REAL 3.5 players and they tore me a new one when I GM'd. Now I hate every edition of D&D except AD&D and I hate that one too just not as much as the others. Oh and I still run Pathfinder and 5e both on a weekly basis. What the fuck is wrong with me.

Unironically this. If you want to play a game with a focus on adventuring and exploration instead of mind-numbingly long combats, you have to incentivize players to explore the environment. Earning most of your XP by getting treasure and getting almost nothing from killing monsters does exactly this, and is probably the single most important difference between old-school and new-school D&D.

I wonder if anyone has tried to overhaul Pathfinder or 5e's experience system to the treasure for experience points model.

Starfinder wasn't made by the core Pathfinder devs.

It is easier in Pathfinder because you can just use WBL as a guide. 5e assumes you get a magic weapon to overcome DR and that's about it.

That said, leveling by sinking treasure into a pit appeals to me over experience points.

a +8 at level one is flat impossible for most characters, since even with +5 from a stat you would only get +2 from proficiency, unless you had a class feature that boosts it, which is only available to bards and rogues

and obviously, its not just 5e, my dark heresy and star wars players have pulled stunts that dwarf anything I have seen in dnd

So basically, you want to play Mr. Shakedown: The RPG.
And somehow you want this to NOT be about combat?

>star wars players have pulled stunts that dwarf anything I have seen in dnd

Like what?

Not to mentioned they've already shown a willingness to release patch books in the Unchained book, which is basically a stealth fragment of an edition change.

It was not hard for a Jedi in D6 SW to be as good as dedicated pc types in their field for a fraction of the time and xp devoted.
They couldn't do it all the time, but in a pinch, you could have the jedi replace another pc at their preferred task.
You could make a CC DH pc that can throw down with a space marine given similar equipment at 10k xp and probably win, they just lacked the durability. Once the numbers get high enough, the built in differences get moot.

>You could make a CC DH pc that can throw down with a space marine given similar equipment at 10k xp and probably win

I can vouch for this. One of my mid level PC guardsmen got his hands on a power fist and from that point onward unless we were going full daemon he was a fisting god of death. Also could do a nice amount of shit outside of combat compared to a Pathfinder martial class.

>Also could do a nice amount of shit outside of combat compared to a Pathfinder martial class.
This.
You can make a guy that is excellent in a fight, has great skills at tracking, stealth, a host of survival skills for not that much input. You may not be social or that smart, but you can do a bunch of shit.
Hell, I took such a pc, made him a psyker, too, and can do a bunch of magic shit on top of it all.

>roleplaying over minmaxing
>adventuring over character building
>exploring over fighting
>decision making over spellcasting
Honestly? You want my opinion?
Lasers and Feelings/Scrolls and Swords.
Prove me wrong. Fucking do it, I dare you.

>is that so much to ask for
No, if that were what you were asking for. It's not.
What you're asking for is a reason to be mad and make stupid threads like this.

There are literally hundreds of alternatives to Pathfinder that could provide you all of these things, including 5e, 2e, oldschool systems, fantasycraft, runequest, dungeon world (ugh), fate, gurps (maybe), and the vast majority of not-fantasy RPGs.

Now, stop bitching and play one of these. A thread died for this.

Tell me more.

You don't put one point at a time in the same few things every level. You have many skills, if you took 3.5 skill list or even expanded with 3.0 folded skills, and the various extended skill branches, plus some third party skills you would have a few hundred. Not having any points precludes you from having any real experience with the subject. If you want to be the expert that never fails then always keep your core set of skills at maximum. If you want to be the intellectual dilettante that dabbles in many things to gain a broader understanding then you put points in many different skills.

Your reply hints at obvious prejudice and lack of knowledge so you should be grateful anyone bothered to take the time at all to explain why it's good.

Comparisons with other systems that do it differently are as follows. (1) Good in one thing makes you good in almost everything. (2) There is no difference in skill level between anyone. (3) Skill is based on class or character level and limited to one or two choices.

It has less to do with builds. Fewer skills are actually much better for build and minmaxing play. Robust skills are there to broaden roleplaying.

A warrior type in pathfinder or 3.5 can do that too, to much greater effect. They can invest in skills to protect their party from harsh climates, deal with traps, to stealth, craft, and even act as the face of the group.

If you want those things, why even play Pathfinder when you could just play another system that does those things?

I actually haven't looked at all at Starfinder, how does it do that? Isn't it supposed to be PF compatible?

Is the answer "there are no casters"?

>to much greater effect
Unlikely, user.
In DH, bolstering those skills sets is trivial for the cost alongside a smaller skill list with more applications. You could functionally max out a survivalist's skills in less than 3k xp, the result of maybe 2 months worth of gaming once a week and still be more than capable in a fight.

Unless you count individual Craft and Profession subcategories as individual skills, you'll be pushing 50 tops.

If you don't max your ranks for the skills that matter, IE most skills that involve opposed checks or scaling checks, you might as well not have bothered. The 5th level character with +2 to a skill might as well have +0.

A caster type can deal with harsh climates, traps, stealth, crafting, and facery with spells, though. You know, that thing they get as a class feature.

So you don't want to play pathfinder at all? Why do you want them to make a system literally directly defying what they do? I actually don't understand, why not play a different system, you appear to literally hate everything about pathfinder, but want specifically a version of pathfinder that appeals to you?

To be fair, if they're used to the D&D way of doing editions, then they probably think a new edition will be an entirely new game with no backwards compability at all. For most other systems, the step from 3.0 to 3.5 would be a normal edition change, not the monstrous changes from 3.5 to 4th and then to 5th.
Yes, such things happen from time to time, Warhammer did it once for example, but it's not how other games usually handle editions.

no, there are casters but they max out at 6th level spells, and tech has advanced to the point where a laser rifle is as good (if not better) than a fireball spell. so depending on the tech loadout a noncaster can do as well as a caster in damage dealing.
I don't know if it will be my go to for space opera, but I'd run or play the game.

DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD DUNGEON WORLD

OP you should try DUNGEON WORLD it would really solve those problems

All of these except the last are a GM problem and can be solved by talking with your players. The last can be also soved by beign a better GM.

The most annoying part of this is that these are problems that come up in many games, but no one likes to admit their preferred games have issues.

Because a shakedown doesn't involve roleplay or consequence?

>The most annoying part of this is that these are problems that come up in many games
I don't have this problem in AD&D, Dark Heresy, Hunter: the Vigil, Shadowrun, Fantasycraft, Degenesis, not to the extent of 3.PF.

Lighting my apartment complex on fire would salve the bedbug problem too.

You don't want Pathfinder then.

>IS THAT SO MUCH TO ASK FOR.
That would be like making a luxury car and branding it Lada.

>To get to the 3rd edition took about 25 years, to get to the 5th from 3rd took about 14 years.
There were multiple different editions before AD&D, though.

Play a different game then. Pathfinder is made for a completely different audience than you.

Have you tried not playing D&D?

Not putting a point in a skill means you're 1 point behind in that skill.
Every time you choose to branch out and spread your points around, you're shooting yourself in the foot, becoming de-facto worse.

To be fair, that only really applies to opposed skill checks. If you can reliably make a DC 15 fly check, that's sufficient in most situations and there aren't many reasons to put more points into the skill after that, for instance.

Most of the skills that matter are opposed, though.
And many DMs scale the DCs they assign to tasks based on the party level when the rules don't already specify one.