Is Pathfinder 2e doomed, or will it revitalize the brand? Will it be good or terrible?

That's not a list of requirements for Pathfinder 2e, that's you pitching your own personal fantasy heartbreaker.

Shit, I dunno. I do kind of wish Pathfinder 2e was a bunch of Golarion-themed supplements for DnD 5e though.

I remember the first little burst of info I saw about 2e looked really promising. I'm guessing more, less impressive stuff has come out since then? Or has Paizo already started backpedaling on changes to not lose the spergs that form the bulk of their customer base?

If they go the sjw route and try to cater to assholes who don't even play the game and try to make everything a big diverse pile of shit, it will bomb terribly.

If they don't, it may be better than before.

>pathfinder

you answered your own question

Some of it is, but the numbers bloat, fuck-huge numbers of spells, and dependence on magic items are actual problems, as well as ability bloat and dead levels.

Fighters can use a shield to give a small bonus against AoEs to people behind him at level 14 now.

>One splatbook per year results in a ridiculous content drought
>But even then, Mearls clearly has no idea what he's doing, so he pumps out shit like Healing Spirit and Loremaster Wizard
>There will never be Tome of Battle for 5e
>There will never be a fix for Sorcerer

I don't think that it is too bad as most of the posts in OP's screenshots are cherrypicked. People on the Paizo forums are fine with 2E so far, but there will always be some salty grognards.

Return to caster supremacy
Lack of content making things super boring
power level so low in general that I fall asleep narrating games.

Half of this is good shit and the other half just shit, but
>add rules for innate damage reduction for very large creatures
makes no sense. DR represents hard to damage entities while XBOXHUEG monsters aren't naturally harder to damage, they can just survive more damage. Making them have more HP instead of DR makes more sense.

If you go that route, you also need to up AC to avoid them getting nickel and dime'd to death by swarms of chumps. However, that also makes it harder for actual warriors to hit them either.

>If you go that route, you also need to up AC to avoid them getting nickel and dime'd to death by swarms of chumps.
Why? That's exactly what should happen if they were swarmed. It's what happens when a medium sized creature meets a creature with the swarm subtype, why should massive cretures be immune to that fate?

>power level so low
This gets me especially. Long gone are the days of scared adventurers in sword and sorcery dungeon crawls struggling for their very lives, that went out the window with 3.0. I'd be fine with low power levels if the game and setting were built around it but D&D is built around being high magical and breaks down otherwise. Why can't we just accept that people play D&D to be big fucking heroes and will play other systems if they want to be dirt farmers defending their homesteads.

>DR represents hard to damage entities
Yeah, like giant creatures with proportionally thick skin.

Mammoths didn't exist

>Colossal monster dies from village peasants 1d4ing it in the toe despite it's hide/scales/whatever being thicker than any human armor.

That's a case for DR as A.C.

You guys are wrong, power level is not the issue here. Whether a single sword swing kills a goblin or a thousand of them is irrelevant if the only options you have are 'attack #1' and 'attack #2'. The problem is that the system has so many working parts that it's hard to make judgements on the fly that don't render either maneuvers or feats/class abilities useless.

Meanwhile, a level 3 rogue in my B/X game tossed a chair at an enemy, slid between their legs, and backstabbed them for massive damage.

An elephant can break its bones just as easily as a human from a well placed blunt strike. Thick skin is hardly going to provide resistance to that sort of damage. And a medium creature being swarmed by fine creatures is more comparable to a colossal creature being swarmed by medium creatures instead of a colossal creature being swarmed by fine creatures.

>Humans are the dominant species despite a single CR 10 fire giant foot soldier being able to wipe out armies of them.

>An elephant can break its bones just as easily as a human from a well placed blunt strike.
lmao

Fire giants are only size large.

There's a video of a bunch of poo's savagely beating up an elephant with canes (not weapons designed to inflict maximum blunt trauma with a strike, but canes) and break its leg. Just because they're big doesn't mean they're impossible to damage.

That's why elephant hunting has traditionally been one of the easier sports.

I hear hippos are only a tiny bit tougher too.

Standard Edition war stuff. Not that I'm trying to discount that opinion, as I am almost exclusively on the side of the grognards in edition wars, but it's not special or noteworthy in this case.

Make them storm or cloud giants them. Walking huge sized human genocide machines.

The danger with Hippo hunting lies in the fact that a hippoes are a lot dangerous than what they look like.

>What is whaling?

>hahaha, look at how fat it is!
>ripped as fuck normal hippo: "Fat?"

They're the sumo wrestlers of nature. Look fat as fuck but are actually made mostly out of muscle.

Attached: 1430686424211.png (559x128, 10K)

This.
Sort of this. 5e isn't OSR enough for my tastes. They went too far down the "Let's win back 3.5 fans" route.

I saw the video. You're very naive. The "broken bone" claim is PETA clickbait. The elephant sat down to do nothing because it was being punished for every movement.

Storm giants are still just three to four times the height of a human. They're small enough to get their dicks chopped off with swords.

Yeah I admit that part was just shitposting, the rest of it I agree with though.

>The elephant sat down to do nothing because it was being punished for every movement.
Meaning there was even less stress on its bones than there would have been if it were standing. And a leg was still broken. With a cane.
If you're going to claim PETA clickbait, provide some proof as an elephant with a broken leg is nothing unheard of, it happens more often than you'd think.
And as a side note, this incident doesn't really fit the MO of PETA. They tend to not give too many shits on singular incidents in the 3rd world (or 3rd world as a whole) and usually just concentrate on animal abuse in the west like how feminists are awfully quiet when it comes to the arab world, but more than vocal about the west.

How large must we go? Rune giants being Gargantuan CR 17 creatures that could conquer kingdoms singlehandedly should suffice, right?

I do like your suggestions that try to reign in power creep. I doubt Paizo will do anything about that, but a man can hope.

Tome of Battle was utter garbage.

>Tome of Battle was the best book printed for 3.5
Fixed.

They won't. That's why homebrew is the ultimate redpill.

There is zero evidence its leg was broken, and there has never before been a case of an elephant's legs being broken by a cane beating. It's not physically possible; a wooden cane like that breaks long before a bone like that.

Elephants do obviously sometimes break their leg bones, but in those cases the culprit is their own enormous body weight acting on the bone under a bad angle.

We have the incident reported by several different media outlets with zero doubt on the state of its leg. You have not stated any proof to the contary, just denied what's already presented.

Attached: Wrong.gif (480x287, 1.21M)

Well, what kind of a fighting force does this hypothetical kingdom have? Rune giants are 40 feet tall; their feet are longer than a man is tall. Tap your finger hard against your naked foot (let's assume the giant doesn't even wear shoes) to simulate a club blow. It might hurt a little, but do you think you just dealt some non-negligible amount of damage that, repeated a hundred times, should kill you? Because that's what letting a peasant deal 1d4 damage to a rune giant by clubbing his feet amounts to.

>several different media outlets

When not a single one of them employs any dedicated Indian journalists, that lends the story negative credibility. Trust your lying eyes, you cannot break an elephant's leg with a stick.

Why stop at gargantuan? Lets go all the way to Colossal. There's no way medium 1d8+2 harpoons are eventually going to take down a blue whale, since that just doesn't happen in real life.

Show me a single source that has done anything but repeat the click bait put out this Save the Asian Elephant (STAE) organization. There was zero independent verification, and there was zero evidence to require refutation in the first place. Even clickbait news on this admit as much in the article body (independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/elephant-leg-broken-india-tourist-trade-rides-a8093231.html)
>The men allegedly beat the animal so hard they broke one of its hind legs, animal charity Save the Asian Elephant (STAE) said.
Note the use of "allegedly".

>You can't do that
>Yes you can
>No you can't
>Yes you can
My answer to you is yes you can.

Whalers use granade harpoons, for your information.

Whaling has been around before 1844.

Black powder has been around for much longer than that. There are whaling methods that don't rely on explosives (or guns), but those typically involve beaching the whale first and then attacking its weak spots at leisure.

The Basque people used to whale without gun powder or beaching them. Just Harpoons and spears.

>Meanwhile, a level 3 rogue in my B/X game tossed a chair at an enemy, slid between their legs, and backstabbed them for massive damage.
sounds like a lot of mother may i impromptu improv homebrew

Have you been keeping up with the information being released by Paizo concerning the new system? It’s really quite promising.

I for one am happy Paizo, even though the likelihood of them making something halfway playable is slim, is there to push Wizards.
Having competition that repeatedly capitalizes on your weaknesses forces you to actually, ya know, try.

The Basque didn't use their harpoons to kill the whales either. And of course nobody suggested giving all gargantuan creatures DRs so high as to make them immune to all weapons in the first place, so this entire whaling discussion is a useless distraction. It's not reasonable that peasants can kill 40 foot giants by clubbing their toes.

>And of course nobody suggested giving all gargantuan creatures DRs so high as to make them immune to all weapons in the first place, so this entire whaling discussion is a useless distraction
No. What was suggested was giving very large creatures innate DR. Blue whales are colossal and most certainly qualify.
>It's not reasonable that peasants can kill 40 foot giants by clubbing their toes
But they can stab it enough to bleed it out. Get enough 1d8 long swords or 1d6 spears and death by a thousand cuts becomes a real possibility.

The Basque didn't hunt blue whales, but other, smaller whales. They did that by harpooning those whales, following them until exhaustion, and then sending in teams of lancers to close in for the kill. Unless you want to pretend anybody suggested giving whales DRs above 16, you're wasting time with this red herring.

do these people know they can still play 1.x version?

Are you saying the tactics used by basques wouldn't work against blue whales due to their apparent immunity to stabbing? And the whales hunted by the Basque were still large enough to qualify as Gargantuan which, in my opinion, is large enough to be "very large".

>Are you saying the tactics used by basques wouldn't work against blue whales due to their apparent immunity to stabbing?
Where did I say that? I'm simply trying to correct your misunderstanding that blue whales were hunted using 1d8 harpoons.
>And the whales hunted by the Basque were still large enough to qualify as Gargantuan which, in my opinion, is large enough to be "very large".
For the third time, nobody suggested giving them such high DRs as to make them immune to all normal weapons. Are you capable of making a coherent point that addresses anything anybody here actually said, or are you just shitposting?

>were hunted using 1d8 harpoons.
were hunted by killing them using 1d8 harpoons*

>For the third time, nobody suggested giving them such high DRs as to make them immune to all normal weapons
No. It's you who brought up giving them high DR. It was clearly suggested here that "add rules for innate damage reduction for very large creatures". Nowhere does it give any indication on how large the DR should be. Stop putting words in my mouth, I have made no claim on the size of the DR suggested. The first time DR high enough to make them immune to normal weapons was brought up was by you, here , completely out of the blue.
It seems that you are arguing against something you think I said instead of what I actually said.

Dude you're mental. Here is what you said >Why stop at gargantuan? Lets go all the way to Colossal. There's no way medium 1d8+2 harpoons are eventually going to take down a blue whale, since that just doesn't happen in real life.
This response is retarded in two ways:

First, because it implies that hunting blue whales by killing them with harpoons is something that happens in real life. But that's not how whaling works, as explained.

Second, because it implies that anybody suggested giving colossal creatures DR numbers so high that they would be immune to being killed by such means in the first place. But nobody did that, so your retarded post had no point regardless of how whaling actually works.

Get a grip.

>First, because it implies that hunting blue whales by killing them with harpoons is something that happens in real life. But that's not how whaling works, as explained.
The main difference between blue whales and other large whales in terms of whaling is that blue whales are harder to catch, not damage. Even if the example was flawed, the point still stands. Very large creatures have been taken down routinely by relatively unadvanced means.
>Second, because it implies that anybody suggested giving colossal creatures DR numbers so high that they would be immune to being killed by such means in the first place.
This is not implied in the slightest. A well placed spear or harpoon to a vital spot of a blue whale is going to be just as devastating to a whale than any other mammal, it makes no sense to apply DR when your lung is ruptured. This is exactly what whaling is about, hitting weak spots.
If you want a target that's hard to damage, but still has a chance of taking massive damage like a real life organism, use high AC instead. For fighting something like a Golem where every hit is as damaging as the one before or after it DR makes sense.

>This is not implied in the slightest.
Obviously untrue. If the possiblity of killing a colossal creature like a blue whale using 1d8+2 harpoons is to constitute a counter-argument to a position on innate DR anybody here actually holds, then that position would have to be in contradiction to this possibility. The only way for this contradiction to arise would be if the proposed DR was so high that 1d8+2 harpoons were unable to deal any damage to colossal creatures like blue whales. But nobody proposed such a high DR, hence you were arguing against a strawman. Your denial proves that you're either retarded or dishonst, so there is no point in continuing this conversation.

>But nobody proposed such a high DR, hence you were arguing against a strawman.
See here >Rune giants are 40 feet tall; their feet are longer than a man is tall. Tap your finger hard against your naked foot (let's assume the giant doesn't even wear shoes) to simulate a club blow. It might hurt a little, but do you think you just dealt some non-negligible amount of damage that, repeated a hundred times, should kill you?
I was incorrect earlier. This is the first instance of DR high enough to be immune to normal weapons was brought up. Again by you. If you suggest that a gargantuan giant should have DR high enough to be immune to normal weapons, then why shouldn't a colossal whale have an even higher DR if it scales with size?
You were right about one thing, though
>there is no point in continuing this conversation

that doesnt invalidate the statement
+14 to any strength check vs a human (like bull rush or overrun)
using a greatsword, it threatens 32 squares, with an attack bonus of like +20 and damage like 3d6+15 or something, before power attack, has great cleave, AC in the 20's

>a rune giant should not be killable by peasants clubbing his foot
>all gargantuan creatures and above should be immune to all damage from all weapons
Spot the difference, you colossal imbecile. The above is a very specific case inviting discussion about possible implementations of innate DR that satisfy the proposed case requirement. I was not even the first one bringing up such a case either, as seen here . Possible implementations could consist of a flat 4 DR for the giant (maybe even only partially from size, hence possibly even higher than hte blue whale), maybe variable DR dependent on damage type (only/higher against blunt, none/lower against piercing/slashing), or even some hit location dependence (bypassable by climbing the giant and stabbing at his dick/eyes, for example).

None of this implies that blue whales be immune to 1d8+2 harpoon damage, contrary to your retarded strawman. You're so far off the mark that it's pathetic. Think before posting or go back to lurking.

The discussion was specifically on innate DR for very large creatures. No damage type specified. My argument was against specifically this type of DR, while your rebuttal only dealt with a single damage type and was in favor of the original argument. Don't lecture me on strawmans when you're the one who originally constructed them.
And if you're arguing for innate DR against a single type of damage for very large creatures, take a wild guess what that is going to lead to in terms of weapon selection by the PCs.
Instead of giving every creature some innate DR irregardless of any of its qualities except for size serves no purpose when creatures can be dealt individually as they are now. There is nothing to gain from this addition, it only limits the possibilities already available.

I just put those extra conditions out there for discussion purposes you subnormal brainlet; obviously a simple, flat 4 size DR for the giant and a DR below what 1d8+2 can maximally deal (10, ignoring crits) for colossal creatures like the blue whale satisfies my requirement while refuting your strawman.

And what is the benefit from all this? I fail to see what difference a miniscule DR would make if it's still possible for a group of average town guards with the right equipment, given enough of them, to swarm a massive creature. Martials that fight gargantuan or colossal creatures tend to have damage outputs high enough for a DR of the order of 4/whatever to not make much of a difference.
A small innate DR provides nothing that couldn't already be accomplised by other means (modifying AC or HP, for example) and is as a concept strictly inferior to the current case-by-case approach that is used.

They could have kept playing 3.5 instead of moving to pathfinder, so... No?

>A small innate DR provides nothing that couldn't already be accomplised by other means (modifying AC or HP, for example)
That's not true because AC/HP can never make a creature invulnerable to sufficiently insignificant damage. If you want 40 foot tall storm giants unkillable by clubbing commoners, DR is how you do it. Whether this fix succeeds without creating too many problems of its own to be worth it is another matter. I also happen to disagree that it should be an absolute rule that creatures of above a certain size must all have some amount of DR. If (for some reason) you want to create a colossal baloon monster that can be killed by pricking it with a needle, then that should be possible within the ruleset. But this should be the exception given special treatment, and not the rune giant with enough DR to not be clubbable by peasants.

Apart from game world coherence, another gameplay benefit of using DR by damage type in particular is that it would open up a special niche for the fighter as the weapon master. If there was any benefit in regularly changing to different weapon types because of DR, then the fighter have some character as the armed to the teeth guy who has the right weapon for every combat situation, instead of being the blandest class in the game. Then add different DR by hit location and you add incentives to climb/maneauver on and around huge creates in order to deal optimal damage to their weakspots, which would contribute to moving high level gameplay (where fuckhuge creatures begin to show up) away from just boring full attack round after round for martials, and at least a little towards the growing tactical complexity high level casters experience as they get more and more spells.

You guys mean The Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic / Tome of Battle: Nine Euphemisms for My Dick?

This

I think it'll work out fine, closed-minded oldfags who only play 3.PF wizards/clerics notwithstanding

Post yfw when

Attached: banned for mod sass.png (990x174, 20K)

I'm not arguing against DR itself, it certainly serves a purpose. It's just that if a creature isn't invulnerable to damage from a low enough source, the time it takes to kill it by said source (on average) can be made the same (or at least very close to it) by removing the DR and adjusting AC and HP. If the DR is high enough that it completely negates the damage done, then no amount of AC or HP can make a creature unkillable (by itself) due to a nat20 being autohit.

>Apart from game world coherence, another gameplay benefit of using DR by damage type in particular is that it would open up a special niche for the fighter as the weapon master. If there was any benefit in regularly changing to different weapon types because of DR, then the fighter have some character as the armed to the teeth guy who has the right weapon for every combat situation, instead of being the blandest class in the game.
This really is the only worthwhile improvement idea on fighter as a class that I've heard. The only problem with it is that players usually tend to have a single expensive high enhancement bonus weapon, and encouraging players to not use it can be met with frustration. On the other hand, it discourages martials to invest everything in a single weapon and instead spread the gp to multiple decent ones. It also makes it something for the other party martials like rogue and ranger to consider before picking a weapon and a damage type.

>Then add different DR by hit location and you add incentives to climb/maneauver on and around huge creates in order to deal optimal damage to their weakspots, which would contribute to moving high level gameplay (where fuckhuge creatures begin to show up) away from just boring full attack round after round for martials
The Shadow of the Colossus type of climbing on monsters is something I could see especially rogues aim for as a way to get sneak attacks. Maybe make certain weakspots always make a hit on them a sneak attack?

pathfinder instantly becomes a much better game if you ban every single class besides alchemist and investigator

youtube.com/watch?v=Xr9Oubxw1gA

>most of which i haven't really gotten a chance to use
jesus christ, imagine spending so much for something you use so little.

Attached: the virgin chad.png (846x90, 9K)

>your face when when
christ I'm tired

Shit I use 1e and 2e D&D stuff for 5e... I didn't realize they were supposed to be worthless now. I don't really know what to do...

You mean you didn't get a visit from WOTC's Fireman Squads when new editions came out? I guess they only implemented those for 4e.

I don't see your ass playing 4th ed though.
people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

>sounds like a lot of mother may i impromptu improv homebrew

Which is an objectively superior form of gameplay anyway.

>If there was any benefit in regularly changing to different weapon types because of DR, then the fighter have some character as the armed to the teeth guy who has the right weapon for every combat situation, instead of being the blandest class in the game.
Nice idea in your head but how it would actually work with out in a real game
>Player: Okay I attack the skeleton. 23 to hit, rolled 6 damage.
>DM: Wait what weapon are you attacking with
>Player: (I don't fucking care, fuck) I sword I guess
>DM: Okay the skeleton has damage reduction against slashing so that's 3 damage
>Player: Oh wait I forgot about that I have a mace too can I just say I used that instead?
>The weapon type never comes up again until a similar situation comes up
Repeat every encounter, occasionally combat ends 1 turn later because the player forgot to think about damage reduction when narrating which weapon is being used.
DR is a retarded gameplay slower for very little benefit and there is a reason the designers can't be bothered with that shit

I dont think its bad because it encourages PCs preparing for fights and makes Knowledge skills more relevant. Maybe it would be more rewarding if the relevant weapon types actually did bonus damage.

That doesnt make sense with everything though. Things like werewolves and vampires typically take no damage except for the specific things they're weak to.