Paizo Games General /pgg/

He's not wrong though.

Silly user. Facts are sexist.

Care to post certified research on the subject seeing as you're so knowledgeable?

Oh wait you don't have anything. You're just a bunch of bitter incel faggots.

Barbarian, actually. Boar skinwalkers make the best ones for natural attackers.

There are plenty of female players out there who play 'rules complex' ttrpgs. The majority of my own group is female and the only help they ever needed is being directed to a decent charop guide.

It's actually been the revolving door of other guys that I've had issues with them not paying attention or learning mechanics they build their entire character around, such as grappling.

>Can you guys convince me that ditching NPC/Player stat parity in PF2 will be good? I like most of what I've read about the system changes, but that really the only thing that scares me.

One of the core issues with parity is that PCs and NPCs are built for, fundamentally, different things. Limited use resources are not particularly limited for an NPC built for a fight, who doesn't really care if he's using a 1/day ability. He's less likely to have another fight today than a PC, as he doesn't live in the same 4 encounters a day world that PCs do.

Having everyone work on the same rules means different balancing between classes based on 'Used by a PC' and 'Used by an NPC', while different stats for NPCs and PCs means that they are both rather reliable to judge for a GM in how powerful it will be.

Barbarian, vivisectionist alchemist is good for it too.

In my experience, having a simpler framework for monsters makes prep and improv MUCH easier for the DM. Stupidly so.

It also doesn't usually break continuity because I can just roleplay them realistically instead of thinking about every aspect of their stats like a PC.

Things I am legit excited to see:
>Feat trees that are limited to your class.
This lets you put actually meaningful feats in without fearing that they will be gamebreaking in concert with other characters.
>Archetypes and alchemist in the corebook
Finally, archetypes are the best part of customization.

Things I am not excited for AT ALL
>Goblin iconic means goblin base race
Please no.

Shoo, shoo shill.
>This lets you put actually meaningful feats in without fearing that they will be gamebreaking in concert with other characters.
No, this means classes are going to be hard locked into ass tier or decent with no hope using good feats to actually fucking fix them. This is Paizo we're talking about it
>>Archetypes and alchemist in the corebook
This is pretty okay
>Goblin iconic means goblin base race
>Please no
Faggot. And just because something is a base race doesn't mean you can't bar it from players at your table. But Paizo goblins are pretty good honestly, I'd rather have them as chaotic quirky tiny people than Gnomes or Halfings because Goblins are significantly distinct from humans instead of being tiny Tumblrinas or the or literally the fucking Welsh.

>Literally the Welsh
Too far, take it back, no RPG race deserves that comparison.

>This is Paizo we're talking about
What a boring, empty rationalization.

Are you saying having lolsorandum-the-class is good? Why not just have Kender?

>Are you saying having lolsorandum-the-class is good? Why not just have Kender?
We already have Gnomes, though. What are you talking about? Goblins aren't really stupid lol random retards outside that one instance in Runelords. The Goblin PF comics actually have some good examples of how goblins can be chaotic, dumb, and very much evil comic releif, but still cunning, kinda interesting and even sometimes a teensy bit sympathetic.

Even if they're closer to Goblin Slayer goblins and have low-cunning. Do you think they make good PCs? They're making the alchemist iconic the pyromaniac manic pixie dream girl.

>Even if they're closer to Goblin Slayer goblins and have low-cunning. Do you think they make good PCs?
Yes actually. Probably the best idea for a core race that's meaningfully distinct from humans in a while.
>They're making the alchemist iconic the pyromaniac manic pixie dream girl.
I mean people are still going to that with literally any character that can use supernatural fire abilities anyway. And I honestly don't even have a problem with that archetype.

Manic Pyromaniac is still more personality than most of the iconics have lumped together? What can you tell me about Kyra's personality outside her being in lesbians with Merisel. Seoni's? Hardmode: Don't look anything up and thick thighs don't count as a personality.

Isn't this a case where "More is better" is obviously wrong?

>Even if they're closer to Goblin Slayer goblins and have low-cunning.
Pathfinder goblins can actually be pretty cunning in the right environment. They have the same average Int most of the "civilized" races. And Orcs, with their Int malus, have cities and cultures comparable to the Ulfen.

I'm not sure why you need convincing. I don't like the idea either, so in games like these I just create the opponents using the same rules as for the PCs. With a roaster of pregenned chars I'm not any slower than I'd be with picking them from the MM or whatever. Play the game your way.

That doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm saying but even amongst the core iconic, there's a severe lack of personality. Erzen is insecure about his age and Valoros is the cocksure plucky fighter that likes booze and women but at the end of the day is an alright dude. That's pretty much it.

See

You're still not making a point. The post you quoted is in direct response to your "answer".

It doesn't answer user, it just ignores it and rambles on about other iconics being simple instead of annoying and disruptive.

I'm making an item and I want for it to be both practical and interesting, so here is the question:
What kind of cool bonuses can you apply to saving throws? Not just numerical ones, but something more roundabout - I only know about those:

1. Rerolls, but those are kind of trivial and overlap often with abilities
2. Multiple rolls, but, again, kind of boring and overlapping all the time
3. No autofail on 1, but very situational, sometimes people don't even use this rule altogether

Are there anything more? I was thinking about "no damage instead of half-damage on a successful save", but isn't such abilities\spells only affect Reflex saves?
Post your ideas, please.

>Reroll natural 1's
>Make rolls for people near you (could include enemies)
>Shunt half of the consequences onto others

>annoying and disruptive.
That's completely subjective though. And still kind of wrong considering Merisiel is a thing and is right in core.

Can you use UMD to emulate an alignment in order to not get penalties from being, say, a good character using an unholy weapon or does the "Being this alignment is baaaad" overrule UMD checks?

It's unavoidable you munchkin cunt

Hard question time, will maneuvers still suck ass?

What's a maneuver?

Trip, disarm, grapple, etc.

Has anyone listened to the playtest? One character got a 20 on their knowledge check and got bonus info.

Skill check crits.

It's over, I take back all the nice things I said upthread

Get in here and comment on this podcast goddamnit
docs.google.com/document/d/1KP_HXAxeXTy7Z0OZWA0_dbMwUmBaZS5ah_nKbzZOMLA/edit?usp=sharing

Excuse me for asking a question.

No it isn't, you dumb fuck.

regular tamamo is cuter

>Skill check crits.
Pack it up boys if this gets into the full game I'm going to stage a heist on my local Barnes and Noble to take all their 2e books and burn them so that there's no normies who get to scream every time they get a NATURAL FUCKING TWENTY!!!!!!!!!!!!

>Skill check crits

It's worse than you think, all you have to do is exceed the DC by 10 or more. Nat 20 on the die doesn't even matter anymore. That means a high AC fighter can be literally invincible to gobbo's.

cont. and crit fails are just failing by 10 or more, meaning that low rolls can fuck you up

Is that new Monk archetype in Ultimate Wilderness any good for that? The one that can flurry with shifter claws?

That's not what says. And we're talking about crits on skill checks, not attack rolls(which may or may not be an entirely separate mechanic)

It's not? Did I click a different link?

>Pathfinder 2e
Wait, that's a thing now? Since when? What is it? WHAT'S GOING ON!?

Playtest was announced yesterday, the news is trickling in.

It's not good.

Yeah, I don't know what those morons were thinking. When all you do is trickle news in, people assume the worst.

I more kinda figured it was about trap options n what not.

Is there a link?

In the reddit thread it links, it says if you exceed the AC by 10 or more, you deal double damage. I'm going to gib so many PC's.

>Goblins are crying, in pain and confusion.
>One stands, accidentally stabs himself in the eyes. Falls to the ground screaming.
>In the center stands a man in shining steel plate, holding two shields. The man is laughing.

It's not the only system to have done that to be fair. My Anima book has a goddamn table for damage multipliers based on how high you roll vs the defense. I assume it's something like that, with bonuses if you happen to also roll a 20.

>Pathfinder 2e
I can't wait for it to flop just as hard as Starfinder due to the "muh 3.pf" fags that make of Paizo's main consumer base

>anima
Man my copy of this book has pretty art, I wonder if there are people who can play it.

Is there anything in Pathfinder that's actually fun at 1st level?

This definitely leads to slapstick moments if you choose to use that instead of the badass. If all those gobbo's are failing by 10+ to hit the fighters 35 AC, then they're all critically failing.

It could play out like Tenra Bansho Zero, where the fighter is countering and slaughtering them, or your DM could play it out like an episode of Monty Python.

Not going to lie, I bought the book almost because of the art alone. And I've been trying man, but my in-person group evaporated in college.

I've heard it's biggest in Spain, but almost unplayable even there.

Anima isnt all that bad when you get used to it. The tables are kind of a meme

I'm thinking about removing all Small races from my games because for some reason they all have to be chaotic quirky little chucklefucks and it pisses me off.

Well it was a Spanish game wasn't it? So that makes sense, but it's still a shame. Doesn't help that the game's chargen makes PF look simple and would likely give lesser players an aneurysm just from looking at it.

Being a fighter in a party 1/2 Bab classes and watching their caster superiority fail them once you bar their access to five minute adventuring days.

What's with this meme that Starfinder "flopped"?

playing with good friends

street gang

He meant at level 1, not level 1 through 6.

Because no /pgg/ games popped up, they chose to have a slower release schedule by choice and since most games are offline by the early adapters/paizo fans they have very little presence online (read: Roll20) so the memers' frame of reference is narrowed quite a lot, like how something like Snowpiercer was a huge hit outside of the States, where it got a limited release due to distributors being Americans.

The fragility of level 1 in DnD 1-3 and PF is what I call for my players "the formative years".
You can immediately tell that someone is an immature faggot if despises level 1.

Me thinks less if they despise and more straight refuse level 1 gameplay as badwrongfun or as a pointless step in the game.

It's a dead game that got reeed hard by its own community due to being "not Pathfinder" despite being arguably better designed

>The fragility of level 1 in DnD 1-3 and PF is what I call for my players "the formative years".
Except despising level 1 is legitimate. Fights can't be interesting as everyone dies in 1 hit. Players have almost no abilities and classes are more or less indistinct from each other. Level 3 is where classes start to take their stride and level 5 is where most not shitty ones become more or less realized.
>straight refuse level 1 game play as badwrongfun or as a pointless step in the game.
I believe it's pointless in Pathfinder outside teaching people how to play(and even then I feel like I could argue starting them at level 3 or 2 would make them better players/give them an easier time adjusting).

Almost every positive quality that you can attribute to level 1 play can be done better in an OSR game or 5e.

Have you read Starfinders equipment organization? If someone actually likes that I hope they stay offline for good.

I love to have on-shots especially to test new books, mind it. So It happened to me to ASK my players to build, say, 10th level characters.
But long campaign start from level 1. Is where you learn to be afraid of the world, you have some more background running, and since you have nothing, you learnto do more with literally (10 foot) sticks and stones.
This will be useful later, because when one is disarmed of the +1000 sword or is in a plane where magic is wonky, thinks instead of crying.
But I am being unfair to my players, 95% of times behave very well.

>Except despising level 1 is legitimate. Fights can't be interesting as everyone dies in 1 hit
The game is not only fighting. The exploration and ambush part is essential in the early games. As is retreating, short travels.
You are exactly the kind of massive faggot that is filtered out by level1 adventures.

>The game is not only fighting. The exploration and ambush part is essential in the early games. As is retreating, short travels.
Pathfidner is 95% combat my man. But even in terms of eploration, level 1 characters have no options aside from "go where the GM tells you and get murderized by the goblin ambush that you have a less than 20% change of noticing or running away from"
>You are exactly the kind of massive faggot that is filtered out by level1 adventures.
And you sound like a wannabe grognard faggot trying to force old school D&D design in a game where that shit will not work out well.

I'm sure there are better/easier ways for neckbeards/grognards/thatguys to keep normies/roasties away from their games.

To give support to this as a different user, I was running 5e last night at level 1, and a brand new player learned to be fearful and run away from things he can't beat.

If he was level 3 he would have just lolsofurious pounded himself against it and not learned.

>95% combat
Okay, 6/10, you got me to respond. Have you tried playing 4e dnd?

>ambush part is essential in the early games. As is retreating, short travels.
If anything all of these things are still valid tactics, if not more valid tactics at higher levels as players have more tools at their disposal than "hope the GM says the goblins that move just as fucking fast as the party" so that he can say his game encourages ""lateral thinking"" or whatever buzzword you bandy about so you can feel intelligent and sophisticated about your elf games..

And at higher levels running away is counter inituitive again, because anything that can force a party to run away can easily outrun the party anyway.

>retreating
Not an option 90% of the time.

>Pathfidner is 95% combat my man. But even in terms of eploration, level 1 characters have no options aside fro
Pathfinder, or DnD in general, is as much combat as you make it. Older edition actually reward you if you avoid combat, sometimes.
Even in PF
>Keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters the PCs overcome. At the end of each session, award XP to each PC that participated.
Even "monster defeated" does not necessarily mean killed.

I have to ask you: what do you think of the object "10 foot pole"?

And at the end, more power to you. I can only say that I played BECMI, ADnD 2nd, 3.0, 3.5, and PF and 1st level is what I said above.
I just have to go to my players and tell them how lucky I am to have them instead of having you.

I am not surprised, Veeky Forums is shit at games as always.

Stop responding to him you literal retard. He has never played an RPG, hide his posts.

>The exploration and ambush part is essential in the early games. As is retreating, short travels.
At that point you may as well not be playing Pathfinder as you won't be taking advantage of any of the system mechanics or features, and instead should just play a narrative-focused system

I think you mean "half a ladder"

>try to escape from the enemy Wizard
>he flies after you and rains death from above

You don't have to necessarily retreat mid-combat. You can have a number of encounters, things go to shit, you fuck off.
Who ever played the solo adventure in the red book of BECMI?
I think none of you, you show the usual easy frustration of youngfags.
>Not an option 90% of the time.
Not an option with your shitty GM, you mean.

>Not an option with your shitty GM, you mean.
You mean a GM is shitty if he throws non-cripples at the party?

anecdotal evidence of a single player an argument does not make.

>post yfw 4e ruined the idea of math based combat design and pathfinder will always be retarded rocket race

Page space means just that need more detail, not that is necessarily more important. See the spells vs combat rule. You just need more detail for the former.
And you DO use the fight rule, you just avoid do all the fights at once. If you are such a huge repressed fag that needs to be a superhero from level 1 instead of slowly enjoying the building up of a character, is not my problem.
You a right, better let it go.
@58353103
Avoid replying you massive, pathetic failure.