this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2025
2 points (100.0% liked)

RPGMemes

16220 readers
84 users here now

Humor, jokes, memes about TTRPGs

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago (7 children)

I like pathfinder(2e) more in every way except less people play it

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago (9 children)

Is it still compatible with all the money I wasted on 3.x Hasbro D&D?

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

First edition Pathfinder should be. Second edition is more like 5e, but actually thought out. I don't think it's natively compatible with D&D5e though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

3.x was not some perfect, untouchable version of the game rules. PF2e isn't either, but acting like 3.x is this finely-tuned specimen of the game is ludicrous. That game was janky.

If you like the game (and I did!), that's fine! If you like the jank (and I did not), that's also fine. But don't act like 2e isn't worth your consideration just because it's a different game. It sounds just as ridiculous as refusing to consider a SNES because you poured "all this money" into an NES. Just say "eh, I like what I've got, it's enough for me" and move on.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I mean, that's part of why I preferred the Sega & NEC ecosystems in the 16-bit era, and why I preferred the 3DO later, but never bought the full console (I did have the 3DO Blaster). With a Genesis (not a Nomad), you could use the Power Base Converter to play SMS games, plus if you wanted, there were the CD & 32x setups as well. If Sega had looked at the CD & 32x the way they did the Mark 2 & Mark 3/SMS, and hadn't been so damn beholden to Yuji Naka, it would have been much better. Then again, if they had done the SG-1000 / SC-3000 thing with the Genesis, we could have had another PowerPC based OS in the world.

Plus, the SNES was initially planned with backwards compatibility, but they ripped it out late in development. So, why should I give them money? It's not like Ninja Gaiden Trilogy plays so much better than the NES carts.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

They ripped it out because their "backwards compatibility" was literally just grafting an NES to the SNES. I think it even had a toggle switch you had to flip between the two. It was going to make the thing cost tons of money and nobody was ever going to use it, and anyone who cared could just plug their old NES back in whenever they wanted to use it.

But the people who didn't upgrade never got to play Star Fox. Man, I love Star Fox.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

No, but it is much improved and streamlined

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago

That's the 4e & 5e sales pitch. No interest then.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

2e did the 5e thing of filing down a table top game to a video game.

Doesn't help that we've got metric tons of content in the old system. Why retrofit what didn't really need fixing? Just give me more APs.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago

Eh? It absolutely did not do that thing.

So first of all, if you like D&D 3.x or Pathfinder 1e, I'm glad! It's a fun system. I have many great memories of amazing campaigns in that system, and I think it's most important that you play the game you like. But I've been hearing this "video game" thing for half a decade now, which means I've got a whole big rant prepared. I'm...I'm sorry.

Ok. So. Yes, 5e filed off all of the stuff that was interesting, the big numbers that make people feel powerful, the stuff that made characters unique, etc. in its pursuit of making D&D like a video game. But Pathfinder went the opposite direction.

  • You can make 238,140 mechanically distinct level two characters based on ancestry, class, and archetype alone (that's not a random guess, I did the math); and while they won't all have the same power level, they will all likely be able to contribute meaningfully. And that's not even counting all the class-specific choices and options, or the other feats you could take. Paizo is six years into PF2e right now, and even though they had to waste a bunch of time dealing with WotC's OGL nonsense, they're up to nearly a quarter million different combinations; but 3.x didn't get anywhere near that level of meaningful customization until Pathfinder debuted archetypes in the APG in 2010---a full decade after 3.0 came out.

  • The 3-action economy is so much easier to play and explain than "wait, what's a 'swift' action again?" (I've taught a seven-year-old how to play successfully), but it doesn't feel like a video game like 5e does because there are actual, meaningful choices you can make with each of your three actions. While 5e (and 3.x before it) often devolves into "conga line of death" (surround the bad guy for flanking, whomp him with your biggest weapon twice per turn, don't move because he'll AOO you into powder), you can do essentially whatever you want with each of your three actions and make a difference.

  • Plus, where 5e aimed at making things even more same-y with "bounded accuracy," PF2e leaned into crits so hard that they had to lean into crit fails, too, in order to balance them. You can crit succeed and fail at skill checks, and the APs have rules for what happens when you do. Some weapons are built around crits, and they're not a 1-in-20 chance anymore. You can do them quite often with the right build.

  • As far as setting, the Forgotten Realms were probably interesting back when Greenwood came up with them, but putting a billion authors into the world has made it into the same bland, boring, Wal-Mart-Brand-Middle-Earth that Greyhawk was; but Golarion has something like three different continents for every possible type of fantasy setting you might want (that is a random guess, and probably an exaggeration).

And with the addition of Starfinder to the system a few weeks ago, all of that gets doubled or more.

Plus, it's so much easier to run as a GM than the 3.x games were. I remember the first time I put a "hard" encounter together for PF2e. I looked at it and was like, "whoa, that can't be right, I'm gonna have a TPK!" So I nerfed the encounter, and the players stomped it in two rounds. When I built an encounter the next week using the rules as written, it was a fun and dynamic encounter that lasted the entire session. One character went down. Everyone used their consumables and resources. It worked perfectly. Ever since, I trust that the encounter math knows what it's talking about. When was the last time you were able to say that in 3.x?

Doesn't help that we've got metric tons of content in the old system.

A lot of the really good stuff has been updated for the new system, either officially or by the community.

Why retrofit what didn't really need fixing?

I mean...3.x was kind of janky. Yeah, it was better than AD&D, and yeah, it was awesome in its time, but it's based on a 25-year-old system. People know a lot more about game design now, and it shows. Pathfinder 1e did noble work trying to make everything fit together, but they deployed a lot of duct tape over the nine years they were essentially "in charge of" the d20 system. When the "Pathfinder Unchained" classes came out, and you could see the difference between a modern approach and an original approach at the same table, it was like night and day. Some tables even banned Unchained classes because they would outshine the PHB/CRB classes, even though their damage output was still balanced.

I don't think Pathfinder 2e is a perfect system. But it's definitely better than the 3.x rules. That thing did, in fact, need fixing.

Just give me more APs.

They have! And they're great! You just have to play PF2e, or convert them to your system, in order to play them. Or you can play third-party adventures, which are still coming out for PF1e/3.x as recently as yesterday.

Like I said, if you still like 3.x, I'm glad! Enjoy what you enjoy. I think it's most important that people play the game they like at their tables. But 2e didn't make it "video game-y."

[–] kichae@wanderingadventure.party 0 points 8 months ago

It's only a TTRPG if you can win it in character creation. Everything else is just sparkling video game.

[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago (5 children)

Hey everyone has their preferences but these posts gatekeeping what's called an rpg always confuse me. And I'm even more confused by choosing to call it a video game. But you do you. Pf1 wasn't a fun system to me 🤷‍♂️

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I haven't really played PF2e, but from reading it I don't really love that it does the "numbers go way up" thing. I did 3e and I didn't like the "I rolled a 4, but I have a +47 on my check" thing. I'm told PF2e has a "without level bonus" mode, but I don't know if anyone plays it.

[–] SuperNovaStar@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think the level scaling fits Golarion, since "becoming a god" is a semi realistic goal for someone to set for themselves :P

But people who want to play in grittier settings do use the proficiency without level rules, and from what I've seen all the major third party tools support that option. As a gm, It can be hard to balance for though! The +level to everything mostly serves to give your level 10 cleric a fighting chance on their stealth checks, and without that boost there are some actions some characters just can't perform.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

I think the level scaling fits Golarion, since "becoming a god" is a semi realistic goal for someone to set for themselves :P

First you get really really drunk.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

To me it feels meaningful in a way that the ludicrous numbers never did in previous versions. The expanded crit system makes degrees of success matter, and they do a great job of making you feel heroic; especially when you go back and fight underleveled enemies and crit on every attack. (Or, alternatively, when you roll a natural 20 and it just upgrades your crit fail to a regular fail. That's when you know it's time to run.)

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 8 months ago (3 children)

How often do pathfinder games do the thing like "The soldiers in the first area attack at +4, but these basically identical soldiers two plot beats later attack at +12, because you're higher level and I want the math to be challenging"? Because I've always disliked that in games. That's more of a video game trope, but I've seen it leak into tabletop games before. I liked the idea of bounded accuracy, and how a goblin is always a goblin. You don't need to make mega-goblins to fight the higher level party, because even the little ones can still hit and wear you down.

[–] Endymion_Mallorn@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

That's down to the GM in any system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] definitelycodex@ttrpg.network 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Either you send mega-goblins, or you send MORE goblins.

A lower level party might fight 3 goblins fair and square, so 4 levels later they confront 6 goblins and 2 lieutenants.

The idea that the same enemy stays a challenge despite the level increase is actually what I despise in D&D. My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 8 months ago (4 children)

My character has grown in power, why is the rat from the beginning still able to down me?

I read an article online somewhere about bounded accuracy, and it brought a question like that as a litmus test for if you like the idea. Should a novice archer, no matter how lucky they are, be able to shoot the ominous black knight? For a scratch? Or a lucky hit in the throat?

D&D 3e says no. You can only hit them on a natural 20. I think PF2e also says no in the same way.

D&D 5e tried to say yes, the archer should be able to hit the knight. The knight's armor is probably ~22, and the archer is rolling at +5, so there's decent odds. But he certainly won't be able to kill him, because HP is what scales up with power.

Other systems are more deadly.

Personally, I don't like the "these goblins can't even touch me anymore" mode that much. I prefer less superhero heroics, where a goblin with a knife can be a real threat

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago (18 children)

What are some highlights that make you feel that way? I've never played.

[–] supersonicstork@sopuli.xyz 0 points 8 months ago

Not OP but the top 3 for me are

  1. Martial - Caster balance
  2. 3 action economy
  3. A much better framework for GMs
[–] nimble@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

As a GM i love the balance. Martial-caster balance is overall pretty good. Player options across the board seem fairly well balanced. And as a GM i love that the creatures are all balanced as well. They have this whole set of easy to use guidelines on how to build an encounter based on the party level and how challenging you want it to be. I don't have to keep throwing monsters at the party to see what sticks, i can instead craft an encounter in a minute and know pretty darn well how tough it will be for the party. I cannot express to you how amazing that feels to take the guess work out of things. It makes my party going off the rails easier to manage because i can create fun and challenging encounters on the fly

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DahGangalang@infosec.pub 0 points 8 months ago

Two big things I love:

  • Three action system: every "activity" (strike, stride, cast a spell, etc) has an action cost. On a standard turn, your character gets 3 actions to spend on those various activities. This obviates the need for DnD's rules about spending a whole turn running since you can just spend multiple actions striding.

  • Keyword system: PF2e leans more onto standardized keywords and uses them appropriately. Everything (all actions, weapons, items, even statuses) has a set of traits that (usually) briefly explains how the thing acts. It allows for standardized templates for interactions between different elements of the game. This takes a HUGE burden off the GM during game play, esp for modules that weren't written to think about each other. All the examples I can think of would take several pages to explain, but you can look up some things on Easy Tools and see their traits.

Bonus thing I love: all the rules are openly published, leading to TONS of extra tools that just make the game easier to run. (That said you should buy a set of books to help the publishers after you've been converted).

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I think one of the biggest things, besides not being owned by WOTC, is that it doesn't have a million exceptions you have to remember.

D&D5e: Want to use your bonus action? Cool. Is it for a spell? Have you cast a spell this round? Is it a spell that's allowed to be cast even if you've cast a spell?

Pathfinder2e: Do you have enough actions to perform an action? OK, do it.

[–] Paradachshund@lemmy.today 0 points 8 months ago

That does seem nice. One of the many reasons I DM 5e from a "does it make sense" perspective over a rules as written perspective.

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)