Pathfinder Second Edition

Are you comparing mechanics, or what effect they have on the table?

They're already giving martials the ability to bypass the standard action economy that everyone else is forced to adhere to (readying a shield grants an extra reaction that other classes don't get as well as damage mitigation they don't get; the martial can charge and attack using two actions instead of the three everyone else would use).

I'm with this user. PoW is neat, but it's really just spells for martials, no matter how you explain the mechanics not being magical.

Both. I want martials to get super abilities, but they should fall as far from spells as possible.

Honestly I don't know pathfinder that well. My knowledge mostly comes from 3.5. The question I'd like to know is, can martials actually do anything worthwhile with these extra actions?

History shows that PF devs can't into school grade math. You could check SF release for that evidence. I don't care what they endorse, because those things are not done by them. You are basically crediting them for the fact that other people did the work that shouldn't have been needed in the first place.

I expect that the result would be the same clusterfuck just screwed up in the different direction.

It was a first level playtest. the fact that they can break action economy at all ~at first level~ is significant in and of itself. Taking the example listed, anyone can move, move, attack and have a reaction; or move, attack, ready a shield (AC bonus), and have a reaction. The martial can Charge (move, move, attack), and ready a shield (reaction, reaction, AC bonus, damage reduction). Or charge (move, move attack)+attack again, while anyone else can charge (move, move attack) and that's all they can do.

So, at first level martials are kicking action economy to the curb in a way that used to be casters only using time stop or time stutter and can gain damage reduction for a round.

>but remember, errata is only okay if it's not Pathfinder!

Errata is okay. Living broken things in release that could be spotted by 5th grader is not. It's not even a misprint - it's classical retardation. They have a limited die (d20), they have limited amount of levels (20) and they use multiplication to get their DCs. Fuck those guys.

....I am so tempted to point out this exact problem in other games, but you'll scream about how Pf players blame 4e for eveything. Fuck it.

You mean like WotC skill challenges and monster hit point bloat?

>skill challenges
The numbers got fixed, the real issue was people using them poorly.
>monster hit point bloat
Was also addressed, user.

Yes? Did I say I liked them? Did I say it was okay? Truenamer had the same exact problem and the devs were trashed like they deserved it. This retarded problem crops up here and there because I don't know - people can't add 2 and 2 ? Who knows.

The skill challenge numbers got fixed by fans, user. WotC 'fixes' didn't.

So it's okay if WotC puts out errata and has other people fix their mistakes, but not Paizo.

I think we're done here.

You are implying that if WotC makes shitty rules it's okay for Paizo to do the same and people should eat it up?

High lvl spells are broken, not the casters themselves.

>The skill challenge numbers got fixed by fans, user. WotC 'fixes' didn't.
Rules Compendium disagrees, user.
Even then, the problem with the numbers were the base DCs, which were redone by Wizards.

No, just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying it's okay for WotC to fix things and allow fans to fix things but not okay for Paizo to do the same. One person here at least recognized it's hypocrisy, at least, as opposed to claiming that WotC doing something is all right but if Paizo does the same it's not all right - like you just implied.

Either errata and fan-fixes are okay, or they're not.

>errata is okay
>but not when Paizo does it
And Paizo fixed the DCs for the starfighter combat in a FAQ that will be published in the equipment book.

You are moving the goal really far from the basic premise which was the fact that Paizo is shit at making rules and seem incapable to check even basic math. That fact that they allow other people to shovel the shit after them is irrelevant to this. The fact that WotC does the same too.

I never said that it was bad when Paizo does it.
What I will say is that they have repeatedly refused to errata some things that needed it, errata'd things that didn't need it, and they have repeatedly made questionable mechanics choices on an already proven shaky base.

Nobody ever said that. Now get out of your jungle.

>What do you think guys ?

Wasn't the whole idea behind Pathfinder that you don't have to throw away all your 3.5 books or learn a new system?

This action routine looks similar to 5e.
Are they actually doing 5e?

I want it to be genuinely good because the sheer volume of astounded butthurt and smashed egos here on Veeky Forums would be hilarious.

No reason to pick it over OSR games or 5e

No. In 5e attacks after first do not get penalties.

Wait, they're making you PAY for the playtest rules? Come the fuck on people. You can't be this stupid.

they put too much sjw in their lore and artwork so I´m gonna pass

...

The written material is for sale, the PDFs are free.

If it's good, it'll be yet another decent fantasy game in a market that's saturated with them. Nobody would care.
If it's bad, we'll have laughing materials for years.

I would be willing to bet money that were any of those things introduced to the game you'd call them spells that you cast with your sword. I'm entirely on board with the idea of special abilities for martials but to make any progress on that we need to acknowledge that most are going to be similar to spells with slightly different fluff.

You keep saying this every thread.

In some cases that's okay. I would much rather see a suite of special abilities to be chosen from that grant permanent effective benefits to the fighter - not like rage powers or momentary exploits, but literal 'you gain this permanent ability to use', 'you gain a +1 bonus to this stat permanently', 'you gain a +10 move speed bonus permanently stacking with any feats or other bonuses to movement', 'you gain this damage penetration permanently with any weapon you use'.

As the guy who always picks passive perks in Vidya, that could be cool, but they have to be worth it.

That's what would make for a fighter unique ability. Paladins got a lot of them, but they weren't chosen. Rangers got some too, but limited choices and types. Fighters got shafted, so passive ability picks would be good.

It literally CAN'T be good. The kind of people who still play Pathfinder as opposed to moving on to any of the thousands of other games that aren't horribly broken will not accept any change lightly. The developers won't be able to change much or their existing base will reject them. This can be seen in PF's core design where it is almost a plagarization of 3.5 and they didn't fix any of the fucked up "sacred cows" for fear of alienating the existing base of players.

It's such a massive system I genuinely hope it is an improvement because it is the introduction to RPGs for so many players, myself included, but I'm sure it'll be another iteration of the exact same shit.

>most stupid reason ever

Everyone is already on that bandwagon user.

Every thread we've had on the subject shows plenty of fans are intrigued by the idea. The only significant source of autism has been from angry folks with hateboners such as yourself.

...

This is the unheard truth.
Give better saves/resistances to martials
Give better reactions/axction economy
Keep the occasional spell sunder or whatever
Nerf specific problematic spells
Nerf concentration
Optionally, nerf the christmas tree somehow.

I prefer a PF with the turn similar to 5e honestly, instead of the unchained-like actions.
Is not difficult for a newcomer to remember full round + immediate or standard + move + immediate.
Is the fact that they will ask "can I do X" and they will be told "you don't have feat X" that will make them disinterested.

Designers in general are shit at math.
4edition monsters worked after a while, and let's not start to look at games like Warhammer.

>Everyone is already on that bandwagon user.
what do you mean?

Isn't that a playtest book, probably subject to change charged at full price with an hardcover?

>cherrypick

No need, they're all idiots

>paizo.com/pathfinderplaytest
>4rries

Lost me there immediately. The post showed its contemptuous, vapid agenda before it wasted my time.

Well, it'll have to be so thoroughly altered that it doesn't even remotely resemble what it is now, because in its present state it is a complete and utter mess.

Hating Paizo for putting SJW shit in their lore is like hating raw onions because they smell.

Everyone knows they smell. It’s basically a non-reason by this point.

Luckily, the playtest materialwill be free as a PDF on august, so we can see if its bador good before buying anything.

Damn, going this hard this early in thread.

/thread

4th edition, nWoD, and Starfinder have burned me enough for me to stick with what I like and look at anything new that plans to change things heavily from what was before with trepidation at best

>d-d-d-dem 4rries!

Fucking pathetic, holy shit.

Paizo did not errata the SF dc issues

>passive ability picks would be good.
They're called combat feats. they get 10

I really don't know what to think of this. I cut my teeth on PF but really grew to dislike its autismal obsessions with math and fake options. I understand there is a market for this, but it's not for me. Thus I'm looking at this as an external observer and right off the bat:

>daring to provoke the MUH SHELF retards that make up so much of Paizo's loyal fanbase
>unironically charging for hardback copies of a fucking playtest
>not even really bothering to innovate, just sanding down the most egregious of the game's rough edges
>I'm sure it's just going to get bloated to hell and back just like PF1E because Paizo's existence relies on chumming the waters with cheap books every month
>Paizo palpably assblasted that their market domination has been annihilated by the very brand they sought to supplant
>apparently their last big release, Starfinder, was a flop anyway

Yet despite all these things there are STILL people acting like this is gonna be a slamdunk. Why? I really don't get it. I'm apprehensive at best, and I'm not even invested. Maybe it'll be good, it's possible, but all these signs point to it being mediocre at best.

It's like you haven't kept up with the hundreds of books offering thousands of options or something.

If Paizos still around for when the moment inevitably comes, I could see pathfinder 3rd edition being D&D 5.5/75

Above and beyond feats. Everything and it's mother started getting bonus feats because the devs realized that they needed too many chained feats to cope. So fighters specifically need something more than just feats.

>big flop
>can't keep the books on the damn shelves because they keep selling out
Whatever.

>can't keep the books on the damn shelves because they keep selling out
Do you have any figures on this either way? Like I said I don't really follow Paizo stuff, that's just what I've heard on the street.

>we'll ignore the 800 odd posts who like the idea and focus on these 20 that don't
Literal definition of cherrypicking.

They think 3.P is good. Reason enough my dude.

Your frame of reference is just way too small to be making this argument user. I'm not convinced it'll be good either, but as an external observer, you're making way too many sweeping judgments you don't know about. To touch on a few things though:

The shelf retards are retards but they're always going to be a vocal minority. I'm not sure a majority of Paizofags are actually looking forward to the game, but I can assure you that most of the playerbase will at least give it a look at. If it's fucked, it'll be fucked on its own qualities, not because of some inane fanbase.

The hardcovers are a jew ploy but that's because there're enough dumbasses in the fanbase who'd genuinely want one. For the rest of us, we're getting the PDFs for free with the open test.

Starfinder isn't a flop, and while I think the game is shit, it actually did fix a lot that was wrong with Pathfinder while introducing its own mistake. This proves that Paizo is capable of reining in some problems, and unlike SF, 2e has obviously been in testing for awhile and will have an open testing period that'll likely run for over a year.

I'm not about to take either side here, I just think that taking a knee-jerk reaction based off hearsay is stupid.

Think the intrigue rules or a half decent social system are going to be there from the start?

I can see an attempt of one, but then again, I'm of the opinion that roleplay mechanics are stupid af when RP is as simple as talking in-character.

>it must be a flop because that's what people say
You know, they used to say "burden of proof lies on the claimant", but just for you...

!C2V states that as of Dec 17, 2017 every single copy of Starfinder sold at GenCon. Starfinder was restocked at every store that sold it because they ran out and Amazon actually sold out as well, though Paizo itself did not run out of copies. The quarter finals aren't published for 2018 yet (which makes the numbers that people rely on based solely on what people claim to have seen posted in places like Roll20 (where most of the games never actually survive even though they were made, meaning there were many 5e, PF, and 4e games that never actually happened even though they 'exist').

This took 30 seconds to find out on yahoo search.

That's D&D 5e.
Pathfinder is weebs and furries.

paizo.com/starfinder/faq

Use the following DC calculations instead of the calculations presented in the Starfinder Core Rulebook. If an action isn't listed, the stated DC remains the same.

Stunts

For the back off stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the barrel roll stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the evade stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the flip and burn stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the flyby stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the slide stunt, the DC of the Piloting check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.

Restoring Shields and Repairing Damage

The DC of the Engineering check to double the recharge rate for your shields equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
The DC of the Engineering check to halve the cost or time for repairing damage your starship's hill equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.

Crew Actions

If an action isn't listed, the stated DC remains the same.

Captain Actions

For the demand action, the DC of the Intimidate check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the encourage action, the DC of the Diplomacy check is 15; the DC for checks using other skills remains 10.
For the taunt action, the DC of the Bluff or Intimidate check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times the enemy starship's tier.
For the orders action, the DC of the check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the moving speech action, the DC of the Diplomacy check equals 20 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.

OP asked for a hot take, he got a hot take. Did you expect anything else out of this thread?

For the divert action, the DC of the Engineering check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the hold it together action, the DC of the Engineering check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the patch action, the DCs of the Engineering check equal 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier to patch the glitching critical damage condition, 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier to patch the malfunctioning critical damage condition, and 20 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier to patch the wrecked critical damage condition.
For the overpower action, the DC of the Engineering check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the quick fix action, the DC of the Engineering check equals 20 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.

Pilot Actions

For the maneuver action, the DC of the Piloting check equals 15 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the audacious gambit action, the DC of the Piloting check equals 20 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.

Science Officer Actions

For the balance action, the DC of the Computers check equals 10 + 1-1/2 times your starship's tier.
For the scan action, the DC of the Computers check equals 5 + 1-1/2 times the tier of the starship being scanned + its bonus from defensive countermeasures.
For the target system action, the DC of the Computers check equals 5 + 1-1/2 times the tier of the enemy starship + its bonus from defensive countermeasures.
For the lock on action, the DC of the Computers check equals 5 + 1-1/2 times the tier of the target starship + its bonus from defensive countermeasures.
For the improve countermeasures action, the DC of the Computers check equals 5 + 1-1/2 times the tier of the target starship + its bonus from defensive countermeasures.

Posted in November. Guess you're a little behind the times.

I'm getting the hardcover to infiltrate PFS games and lure them into playing DCC or OSR games.

>I wasn't around for the edition wars, I dunno what you're talking about
It's okay to be new.

I'll just stick to Heroquest.

This post might actually be for you:

It's like you haven't gotten with the times and started playing 5e.

Are you aware that Heroquest came out 2006 and certainly isn't "retrogaming" ?

Here is a character sheet, all of it. it's certainly not "grognard oldschool" aka, filling out tax files and is bloody fun to play and GM.

The playtest is going to be free so why not try it i like pathfinder and 5e for different reasons i hope gunslinger comes back though

>Came out over 12 years ago
>Isn't retrogaming
Choose one.

...

btw, Heroquest:Glorantha is from 2015

I'm going to explain what skill challenges actually are once. ONCE.

So, you assign an ammount of HP to the problem, then have the player fight it by rolling attacks with his skills against the problem's AC. If the player hits, he deals some predetermined damage based on the skill or just a set ammount, depending on faggot gm. Failing means you are further from beating the problem because you have a predetermined ammount of attempts to hit.

It's literally fighting a monster that will run away if you don't beat him fast enough. And this may not be to the liking of many people (who the fuck likes fighting cactuars?), but i never see anyone talking about it as though they understood what they are beyond a blanket "it's bad!1!1!1" and "but the fix was by playerz!1!?!".

This post is so ridiculously naive, there are software developers right NOW who are essentially reimplementing software from the 90s in the browser for who knows what fucking reason, programming as if it’s windows 3.1.

Also HQ isn't a freak copy of something that is already over 40 years old.

So i would say that somethign that is rather "new" would be still more fresh than 5e even if it's older than 5e.

Of course still talking about HQ 1e which is nice but i'm pretty sure that HQG is made out of meta-physical cocain.

can't be a coincidence that the majority of the most based shit itt has been dubs

>OP asks a question
>REEEE he's trying to make us look stupid and unstable!
Too late, user, too late.

If it's genuinely good the only people who'll be butthurt are the ones who liked Pathfinder 1e.

>It's such a massive system I genuinely hope it is an improvement because it is the introduction to RPGs for so many players, myself included, but I'm sure it'll be another iteration of the exact same shit.
Are you me?

kel blesses speakers of truth.

*Kek

Putting alchemist in core shows that they aren't completely stupid, since alchemist is the best part of pathfinder by far to the point where the game gets way better if you make it the only class

They lost me at 5th edition style proficiency bonus. It is the single reason I never switched to 5th edition from a houseruled pathfinder.