Board 8 > man, how did i manage to love d&d and pathfinder so much in the past?

(+) Yeah! (+)

any roleplayers (or roll players) in the house?

when i was a nerd hermit teenager (i've since graduated to nerd hermit adult) i spent a lot of time reading d&d books, building adventure modules, and min/maxing character builds. inspired by a few books my parents had lying around from the 70s or 80s, i ran a couple campaigns for siblings and friends, and it was a really good time.

i still love the idea, and i could still go on some crazy rants about it. but i guess now that i have unlimited access to whatever video games and internet junk i want i'm no longer inspired. i've been away for a very long time.

i'm thinking about this now because i received "pathfinder: kingmaker" from the humble bundle this month. i was hit by nostalgia, but i'm absolutely not ready to jump back in to the crazy character building systems and laborious combat.

i think it was just a different time in life- restrictions & boredom breed creativity. back in the day i'd happily spend hours plotting out an ultimate build, but now i just want an auto-creator that'll save me from myself. i wonder if there's a way to get back into that mentality. work might be draining my creativity.

anyone still into the genre? fifth edition, stranger things, and a few youtube channels seemed to be t

*write in vote for Pathfinder 2E*

---

oh god damnit i didn't realize that had come out. failed poll. what are the major differences?

---

Critical Role, along with other casts like Adventure Zone et al, have really brought D&D and similar games into the mainstream more now than it has ever been before.

---

Proud to have enjoyed the worst edition and would jump happily into games with it, but I was brought into Pathfinder 2e early in its playtest, been following it since, and think it's got a ton of potential.

Expansion creep is a real interest killer, which is why it's nice to be in on the game before it starts to set in like it massively has for PF1.

I think the main things PF2 is defined by are a strict three action economy, without subdividing into standard or minor or whatever, and a universal proficiency (untrained/trained/expert/master/legend) applied to all checks and DCs.

---

I was invited to a D&D1 campaign once. The DM had us pre-generate characters, 3d6 straight down, no customisation. 18 DEX- nice, I wanted to be a rogue. 18 INT "Oh good, we need a wizard and no one else has a decent INT". Great, I get to be useful for three rounds per long rest. I hate having to manage limited resources. 8 CON. So my life expectancy is about thirty seconds.

'Luckily', I sprained my ankle and had to miss the first two sessions due to being unwilling to drive with a sore foot. By the time I could have rejoined, it had already fallen apart.
---

I find PF2 utterly miserable for a bunch of reasons and I miss 3.5/PF1. Starfinder is good though

Insanely byzantine custom systems are where it's at though

Pathfinder or 5th. We tried pathfinder 2 and no one really got into it.

Also, My husband is trying to get rid of the books of the edition that shall not be named.

---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

Critical Role, along with other casts like Adventure Zone et al, have really brought D&D and similar games into the mainstream more now than it has ever been before.

yeah, that more than anything else was what people were citing as their inspiration back when i last paid attention (2016? 2017?), and i assume it's chugging along. I will say that it gave them all pretty amusing expectations in terms of voice acting and theatrics

Sceptilesolar posted...

Proud to have enjoyed the worst edition and would jump happily into games with it, but I was brought into Pathfinder 2e early in its playtest, been following it since, and think it's got a ton of potential.

Expansion creep is a real interest killer, which is why it's nice to be in on the game before it starts to set in like it massively has for PF1.

I think the main things PF2 is defined by are a strict three action economy, without subdividing into standard or minor or whatever, and a universal proficiency (untrained/trained/expert/master/legend) applied to all checks and DCs.

I do think the goals of 4th edition were admirable, but it swung way too far in the opposite direction. 5th edition does seem like a better compromise.

In terms of expansion creep, i've never had problems telling players that splatbooks weren't going to be accepted. just takes a little mental discipline to not be tempted by the overpowered or super flavorful stuff. i'll grant it is confusing when they release 'balance patches' to the main handbook to nerf specific spells/feats, though.

those simplifications to pathfinder sound pretty good. i think the main thing that makes pen & paper roleplaying feel better is that you can get the DM to agree to let you re-choose things that you're theoretically locked into. i hate having to choose a 'favored weapon' at level 1 or whatever

BlackMageJawa posted...

I was invited to a D&D1 campaign once. The DM had us pre-generate characters, 3d6 straight down, no customisation. 18 DEX- nice, I wanted to be a rogue. 18 INT "Oh good, we need a wizard and no one else has a decent INT". Great, I get to be useful for three rounds per long rest. I hate having to manage limited resources. 8 CON. So my life expectancy is about thirty seconds.

'Luckily', I sprained my ankle and had to miss the first two sessions due to being unwilling to drive with a sore foot. By the time I could have rejoined, it had already fallen apart.

I've learned a lot from trying to play in various groups in my early 20s. the best way to do it is to start with friends, then play with them. not the other way around- joining a group before you know the people. there are almost as many ways to play as there are groups, so finding the right people is the most important part.

overall, i highly recommend against letting yourself be funneled into a role. pick what you want. the difficulty of the game is supposed to be scaled to the group. i once let myself be cajoled into being a bard when i really didn't want to, and that was a bittersweet experience.

Paratroopa1 posted...

I find PF2 utterly miserable for a bunch of reasons and I miss 3.5/PF1. Starfinder is good though

Insanely byzantine custom systems are where it's at though

never heard of starfinder, sounds worth a look. i do remember using some kind of d20 sci fi system from dungeon magazine way back in the day

what custom systems are you thinking of? rift was an old one i enjoyed reading. there was another system i got off the internet with a name i can't remember- maybe dark horizons- that i played a few sessions with. the one person who picked the snake people with six arms (holding six guns or 3 laser rifles) made me realize balance was not the designer's goal. then again, it somehow all worked, since the octopus hacker could do practically anything and the mineral man was practically invincible.

i've talked to some people that are into the opposite- RPG systems with paper thin mechanics designed to be excuses to narrate your own stories. nobilis, and some other one about gods. i guess the white wolf books fall into this category, too

Alanna82 posted...

Pathfinder or 5th. We tried pathfinder 2 and no one really got into it.

Also, My husband is trying to get rid of the books of the edition that shall not be named.

do you think pathfinder 2 was a dud because of the actual game, or just burnout from learning new systems in general?

yeah, that edition was a huge disappointment

---

banananor posted...

never heard of starfinder, sounds worth a look. i do remember using some kind of d20 sci fi system from dungeon magazine way back in the day

what custom systems are you thinking of? rift was an old one i enjoyed reading. there was another system i got off the internet with a name i can't remember- maybe dark horizons- that i played a few sessions with. the one person who picked the snake people with six arms (holding six guns or 3 laser rifles) made me realize balance was not the designer's goal. then again, it somehow all worked, since the octopus hacker could do practically anything and the mineral man was practically invincible.

i've talked to some people that are into the opposite- RPG systems with paper thin mechanics designed to be excuses to narrate your own stories. nobilis, and some other one about gods. i guess the white wolf books fall into this category, too

oh no, I mean like, a friend has been running a custom game of his for us for a long time, and I just play that instead of actually knowing any mainstream games

TotallyNotMI posted...

*write in vote for Pathfinder 2E*

*vomits all over MI*

---

I've been a Venture Officer for Paizos organized play stuff going back to 2015.

I really enjoy Pathfinder and to the extent its even still possible to go back 3.5 has its fun stuff.

Pathfinder 2 is proof that the good people at Paizo cannot do even basic math. The entire system is predicated on the math being very tight. As a result the game is basically disasterpiece theater starting at around level 6.

Starfinder ALSO proves they can't do basic math but they cushioned the system out in ways where the math doesnt need to be tight and its a fun game as a result.

I can literally rant on all three of these systems for ages.

D&D 5 is fine. It's basically the beige of role-playing games though. It doesn't do anything particularly well but it also doesn't suck.

---

My 2E campaign is only 2nd level. I love the 3 action system. When we get to higher level I'll see if I feel it falls apart

---

I'm also not a huge fan of 5E. DMGuild in place of Wizards releasing new content has been a huge miss for me.

---

Paratroopa1 posted...

oh no, I mean like, a friend has been running a custom game of his for us for a long time, and I just play that instead of actually knowing any mainstream games

sounds like a good group of friends, and the right way to do it

Eddv posted...

Pathfinder 2 is proof that the good people at Paizo cannot do even basic math. The entire system is predicated on the math being very tight. As a result the game is basically disasterpiece theater starting at around level 6.

at this point, i think it might just be an inherent weakness of all d&d style power-advancement adventuring games. i don't think i've played a campaign that felt good beyond level... 8? 12? somewhere around there either combat falls apart or the video-gamey nature of the systems fully reveals itself

---

level 6 is usually best yeah

---

I voted 5e because that's the only system I've actually had a chance to play.

---

4E was good

---

I like playing D&D but scheduling and actually fully finishing games was always an issue and brought down my overall motivation to keep playing them

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

I'm also not a huge fan of 5E. DMGuild in place of Wizards releasing new content has been a huge miss for me.

Thats a feature, not a bug.

The fact that WotC has been pretty hands-off with most of 5e instead of getting mired in the Splatbook Hell of 3.5 (which carried over to Paizos work on PF) has been a godsend. Granted, much of that was also due to OGL, too.

The framework is solid, its easy to pick up and play, and while its certainly easier than previous editions for the players, I think its the best D&D has ever been. Concentration requirements on mages helps too.

I am playing in one game and running another one, and its a blast.

---

As I said 5e is a fine beige. It does most things okay. It's a good starting game for people who don't know What they want out of tabletop.

But if I wanna just do theatre of the mind in depth storytelling? Eventually I want to ditch the dice entirely. Or to the extent that I do have dice I want the game structured differently like 13th age, ApocalypseRPG, True20, and the Chaosium games like Call of Cthulu and 7th Sea are better by a lot.

I wanna do tactical combat and make that my focus? Pathfinder 1 and Starfinder are a straight well rounded upgrade but also Hackmaster and The Dark Eye are much better games for that. Even if you don't want to go into super crunch, Savage Worlds and True20 straight up have better math cores.

I want an old school OD&D experience with some modern conveniences? This is admittedly the closest 5e gets to having a specialty but Dungeon Crawl Classics does a way better job. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay also does a really good job in this vein as does Castles and Crusades.


---

I agree that 5E is a great starting point.

But after playing a few campaigns of it, I'm bored. I feel like I've seen all the archetypes played and I don't see new builds anymore. I like there being new options and content released regularly to keep things fresh.

---

Yeah this was really the great strength of Pathfinder 1 - while a few mega-powerful builds pop up everywhere you were always liable to see something a little different and new popping up thanks to new options. Not just because the new options were better but because sometimes they would breathe new life into older options that could now be used differently.

---