Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

I do not know hero. But PF2e combat is simpler (at level 1) than GURPS 4e per second rounds of combat nor does PF2e require a hex map so that people can turn around correctly.

Once PF2e mechanics start ramping up, it's far more complicated than GURPS 4e.

Something PF2e does deliver on is that you are probably doing some damage each round, while in GURPS you will wiff a lot of attacks or spend rounds setting up a single good attack / channeling a spell.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072343Something PF2e does deliver on is that you are probably doing some damage each round, while in GURPS you will wiff a lot of attacks or spend rounds setting up a single good attack / channeling a spell.

Guaranteed damage each round sounds almost as bad as failing forward.

A smarter method would be just get rid of the shit feats and the must have feats.  Instead feats should allow you to do amazing things that is unique to the character.  OH WAIT!  5E DOES THAT!!!

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072346Guaranteed damage each round sounds almost as bad as failing forward.

So, Magic is failure?

Quote from: Daztur;1072321The valuation of the feats is hilariously wrong in ways that are really obvious to anyone who's played 3ed. His point values would be more accurate if they were inverted.

Feats have always been traps.  Most are never worth the cost.

Quote from: Daztur;1072321It'd be like if you balance 3.5ed by giving wizards and cleric MORE abilities. Oh wait, Pathfinder already did that.

That IS what their audience wanted, after all.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072361So, Magic is failure?

Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072371Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

Most spells that do damage, do half damage when the effect is resisted.  Fireball, Lightning Bolt and Disintegrate being the big examples.  Half-damage is still damage.

Quote from: Ninneveh;1072371Please explain further, so that I may be able to furnish a reasonable response.

I believe he means that many magic spells still do damage (often half) when the target makes their save (which means guaranteed damage every round).

My thoughts:
I trust the Pundit instincts in general, but I wont be suprized if he is wrong.
That's because I also trust the folk in paizo know more or less what they are doing.
I remember people were pretty negative in the days of 5th edition beta, or am I wrong? So maybe the whole negative take is just a normal reaction.
On the other hand creating a new edition from basicly zero is a very difficult to do, due to too many variables.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

It is a game, instead of building blocks for a game. (As are all 3rd edition dnd variants).
Also it goes even further (as all versions of dnd do) and has a specific system for awarding experience and treasure, based on specific things that happen in the game.

Gurps is an awesome system but for me is very different than dnd, though I do believe if SJG wanted they could go the complete game route (and they partially have with DF).

Quote from: Malfi;1072385I remember people were pretty negative in the days of 5th edition beta, or am I wrong?

I know in 2013 I wasn't keen on switching to a new edition. By 2015 I was happy to. I don't know about PF fans but I expect many will be happy to switch. But surely it is extremely unlikely that PF 2e will bring over many 5e D&D fans, or new players. So all it can achieve is splitting the PF player base.

I expect PF 2e to do fine.

5e has been around years now. PF 2e will offer something new, and crunchier, and the "new hotness" will gather fans.

Also, since 5e brought new blood into the hobby, some of that new blood will want to try a crunchier game.

AKA, same reason why many crunchier systems evolved in the 80s and drew fans from AD&D...and why 3e was crunchier than 2e...and why 4e reacted against 3e...and why 5e went back to not crunchy.

And PF 2e will have awesome art, unlike 5e whose art is a joke.

And I'm not a Paizo fan whatsoever.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1072391I expect PF 2e to do fine.

5e has been around years now. PF 2e will offer something new, and crunchier, and the "new hotness" will gather fans.

Also, since 5e brought new blood into the hobby, some of that new blood will want to try a crunchier game.

AKA, same reason why many crunchier systems evolved in the 80s and drew fans from AD&D...and why 3e was crunchier than 2e...and why 4e reacted against 3e...and why 5e went back to not crunchy.

And PF 2e will have awesome art, unlike 5e whose art is a joke.

And I'm not a Paizo fan whatsoever.

Greetings!

Why does 5E's art suck so much? I know WOTC has a stable of good artists. They've had many good artists in the past. What's their reasons for such shitty art currently?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I'm the opposite I find Wayne Reynolds art boring. I was a huge fan at first but like Vanilla ice cream after awhile it just looks to much like the same.

Not to say I like all of 5E art  it is varied enough to be less boring for me at least.

Quote from: sureshot;1072397I'm the opposite I find Wayne Reynolds art boring. I was a huge fan at first but like Vanilla ice cream after awhile it just looks to much like the same.

I think he's quite good, but ultimately he's working for Paizo and Paizo has a very specific kitchen sink style - or I should say, "Seattle Style" with copy-cat anime weapons and smirking 90s tattooed hipsters trying but not succeeding at cool.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072332Cursory assessment: the martial feats are overcosted at 8s and 9s (near full 10 feat points = feat per lvl), while most of the spell metamagics (silent, sculpt, widen) are undercosted at 5s. And feat points are locked into one's class atop that. Looks functionally broken without me even trying, and my 3e-fu is old, tired, and decades rusty.

Though Daztur or Tenbones could probably do a more in depth breakdown. (Namely it does jack shit in fixing the kludge of Feats as a "shitty fixed-spell slot." All the while introducing Skill-based System point-value delusions as the ideal 'balancing' solution (to a level-based system, no less!) -- not all of imagination's settings are equal, ergo the context flux cannot give a meaningful fixed point-value objectivity, so point-value balancing is a fool's errand in 'system failsafes'.)

Right it's an onion of fail. On one level it worsens the problem of turning D&D into GURPS, it doesn't take into account feat synergy at all (one of the focuses of 3ed charop) and then on top of that the actual point valuations make things worse but consistently having good feats cost less than bad feats (power attack is really the exception for being properly recognized as a good feat). And then on top of THAT it makes the bread and butter feats of the weak classes cost more than the ones used by the strong classes.

I mean Natural Spell (possibly the best 3ed feat) costs half of fucking Skill Focus and less than Simple Weapon Proficiency, which is possibly the single most useless feat in 3ed.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1072340What drove me out of the 3.5/PF mechanics was that it was trying too hard to be D&D GURPS or D&D Hero System.  (I think there was even a comment from one of the original 3E devs that this was intentional.)  By the time 3.5 came around, I decided if they wanted to go that route, I'd rather play GURPS or Hero to scratch that itch, since they were built by someone with a better understanding of how to design such a thing.  Heck, my house ruled Hero in the Forgotten Realms played smoother than parts of 3.5, and those house rules were definitely rough around the edges and missing a few things.  

For those still in it, is there anything that PF2 does better than GURPS or Hero?

I think you're referring to the dumbest thing ever written by a WotC dev: https://4thmaster.wordpress.com/2014/06/26/ivory-tower-game-design/

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1072361Feats have always been traps.  Most are never worth the cost.



That IS what their audience wanted, after all.

Nah a lot of 3ed charop is based on feats. What happens is that there's was no real coordination between different splatbooks so that splatbooks A, B and C would all have mechanically separate feats that give you bonsues to ass scratching. So then if you go through all of those books and cherry pick every feat that gives you a bonus to ass scratching and stack them then you'll get a character who's ungodly good at ass scratching. You'll have a boring one trick pony character but damn will he be good at it. These builds were usually based around stacking feats to make you really good at tripping or (especially) charging with a power attack.

Of course caster based charop is more powerful since you get flexibility with spells.

As for that's what the PF audience wanted. That's when I noped out of PF1. I was arguing that it didn't make sense to balance 3.5ed by buffing the most powerful classes and i got told that they needed to buff core casters in order to make them balanced with 3.5ed splatbook classes. Which showed a complete misunderstanding of the reasons behind 3.5ed power creep. Splatbook content wasn't more powerful than core content (on average it was weaker) it's just that if you have a big stack of books and cherry pick a bunch of things that stack you'll get a much more powerful character than with core alone. Giving stuff in core a boost doesn't help with that problem at all.

This also shows why PF is running into trouble. PF1 was basically 3.5ed with some new bells and whistles but you just can't keep on adding those forever.