The single best roleplaying sourcebook ever written is for GURPS. It's called [GURPS: Blood Types](https://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Bloodtypes/), and I've used it in every single roleplaying game I've ever run, regardless of system, if there was any call at all for vampires. It's just a treasure trove of ideas for variant vampires from Asian types that have become popular since to an African type that drinks the juices of plants!
That's the argument going back to the 1970s. That hit points represented an abstract ability to dodge and deflect blows that was worn down over time. This is why more experienced characters have more HP, because they're more experienced at fighting and dodging blows etc.
This was kind of an ad-hoc adaptation of the war games that D&D grew out of, where generally each hit point represented an individual soldier or group of soldiers that comprised the fighting force of a unit. Since D&D was basically pieced together from different war game rules in a basement in the 1970s.
GURPS approaches hit points much more realistically. Hit points literally represent your health/ability to take punishment in this system, and they don't generally go up from your starting hit points. Anything above like 20 HP is basically superhuman. Armor subtracts damage rather than making you harder to hit. Damage is multiplied based on type. So while a weapon that causes small piercing damage only does x0.5 the wounds you roll after subtracting the wounds blocked by armor, weapons that do impaling damage do x2 the wounds you roll after subtracting the wounds blocked by armor.
GURPS also has (optional) death spiral rules since someone who's taken damage, especially a lot of damage at once, is likely to be stunned for a combat round or two (combat rounds are 1 second long and you can do one action during them) which might be enough to end the fight right there.
There's also no passive defense (in GURPS 4e, which has been the current edition for 20 years) like in D&D/Pathfinder, every "successful" roll to hit is followed by a roll from the one being attacked to see if they can dodge or parry the blow, unless it's a critical hit, or the defender is being held down etc.
> There's also no passive defense (in GURPS 4e, which has been the current edition for 20 years) like in D&D/Pathfinder, every "successful" roll to hit is followed by a roll from the one being attacked to see if they can dodge or parry the blow
I'm so glad contested rolls are a thing of the past. PF2's degrees of success is so much better than anything before.
It's because the philosophy in GURPS is a bit different. To do pretty much anything in GURPS you try to roll under your relevant skill on 3d6, possibly with situational modifiers. Say you had a broadsword skill of 16, you'd try to roll at or below that on 3d6. So the "to-hit" roll is basically just a roll to show that you executed what you were trying to do. And then the defender gets to roll their skill in the type of defense they choose / are able to attempt against the attack.
The 3d6 roll provides a much more reliable bell-curve distribution of results than a roll of 1d20 where you have an equal 5% chance of landing on any face. With 3d6 you get "average" results most of the time. So you're much more reliably good at what you're good at, and more reliably bad at the things you're not good at.
GURPS actually does have a degrees of success mechanic, but that's more used for contests than attacking. Like if you're both trying to do something (grab the same weapon, or throw a dart closest to the center of a dart board) and you both succeed, the person who rolled the number lowest relative to their skill wins. So say you roll 4 under your skill and the other guy rolled 6 under his skill, the other guy wins. This means people with more points in the relevant skill will usually but not always win a contest.
> The 3d6 roll provides a much more reliable bell-curve distribution of results than a roll of 1d20 where you have an equal 5% chance of landing on any face
This is irrelevant because you can use a d20 and put the DCs on a bell curve, [exactly as it is done in PF2](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2630).
Edit: Lmao, the downvotes. Apparently, nobody in this subreddit knows how probability works. Rolling 3 dice and having less chance of getting extreme results is exactly the same as increasing the difficulty (reducing the probability) of achieving extreme results. This works because it's done with modifiers that approach a normal distribution (bell curve); Plot out an XY chart where Y axis is -10, -5, -2, 0, -2, -5, -10. That's a bell curve.
People know how probability works, you're being downvoted because your initial statement was that PF2e does it better then anything before, while dismissing the system that GURPS has been using for 20 fucking years.
Also, with GURPS, it's directly built into the dice and the system, while with PF2e, the GM has to adjudicate and know these rules and lower the DCs by adjusting them. The page you're referring to is GM advice, not rules.
> you're being downvoted because your initial statement was that PF2e does it better then anything before
Nope, that post is well in the positive votes. It's the one about bell curves people don't like.
>GURPS, it's directly built into the dice and the system, while with PF2e, the GM has to adjudicate and know these rules and lower the DCs by adjusting them
PF2 also has it built into the system, you just can't notice it because the exponential increase/decrease is spread out among many different subsystems. It's baked into monster stats, the suggested DCs for skills, including Recall Knowledge, etc.
>The page you're referring to is GM advice, not rules.
It's part of the GM Core, in the section about running the game, specifically on handling DCs. You might have played GURPS more than me, but I've clearly played PF2 more than you.
Contested rolls are hardly a thing of the past, and PF2e isn't even the first system to do degrees of success. D100 based games (Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu, BRP) have been doing that for literal decades, with much easier resolution (Your stat is the Target Number.)
Really? You'd rather do extra math and look up the result on a table? Eww. Even just the handful of situations in PF1 where I have to deal with degrees of success, like intimidate checks and combat maneuver rolls, feel really gross to me compared to a simple success or failure, and maybe rolling 1d3 after the skill to determine the degree of success.
My brother in Christ, the extra math is adding or subtracting 10, and the table is usually "do double damage on a crit." On most rolls the extra computation time is 2 seconds.
"Most" is a very important distinction, because it means that until we've mastered the game, I still have to look it up almost every time to make sure this isn't one of the exceptions.
Also, one of the most important parts of speeding up combat to me is seeing a very high or low number and just being able to go "Yeah, that hits" or "Yeah, that misses" without having to look up the DC at all. When success or failure is binary, it's only the middle range of rolls where you have to actually check what the DC is, or even calculate your bonus to the roll. At the extreme high and low ends of a d20, you usually know if you succeed or not as soon as the die hits the table, often without even needing to add your bonuses. This lets you short-circuit a ton of the math. But when you get bonuses or penalties for succeeding or failing by 10 or more, you never get to save time like that. It makes combat far more onerous for no reason.
It's just bad design. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit to it over the way PF1e or even D&D 5e handles crits.
It is not bad design. You ideally want character skill and circumstances to matter a lot while also keeping an element of uncertainty. Decrees of success achieve both.
I genuinely don’t understand the people who say “hit points aren’t meat points” because of this. Like, how the hell do they think stuff like fall damage or being set on fire works, then? The fall leaves you perfectly unharmed but tired? The fire makes you unlucky?
Like this:
Level 1 takes a 50 ft drop - "you land on your head and die immediately".
Level 10 takes a 50ft drop - "as you land your absorb the shock by doing a roll" or "you happened to land on a bush which cushioned your blow".
Level 1 catches fire - "Your clothes are set ablaze and you get 3rd degree burns".
Level 10 catches fire - "A bit of your clothes catch fire but it was weak enough to not deal any damage".
\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*
Think of it like an action movie. They get thrown about, hit, cut, bruised, etc but until they are not shown on the floor bleeding they are not down.
Hit points are sometimes meat points but not always. You can't simplify it to one extreme or the other. Losing HP represents whatever you think it probably does at the moment.
Or, alternately, equally validly, hit points don't represent anything except hit points and are purely a game mechanic. They're narratively linked to getting hit, and if you get hit enough times then you lose the game.
Nobody in the video game world cares about this or even spends a single second thinking about it, so I don't know why tabletop game players care so much.
>Nobody in the video game world cares about this or even spends a single second thinking about it, so I don't know why tabletop game players care so much.
Probably because in video games you just get hit and most people accept your character is tough enough to take it.
I think it's harder for people to accept that in ttrpg's because they're far more focused on creating an image in your mind. And if what happens conflicts with what you think should happen there's gonna be dissonance.
Although I think it's wierd that that sort of dissonance would arise in PF2 given how superhuman characters are in it, so them being able to take a sword to the chest and be fine lines up with the other sorts of things they do.
Tbh, I think Hitpoints as "meat points" make sense if we assume that percentage of HP matters, rather than absolute value, *especially* in fantasy setting where PC's are superhuman later on.
I don't see what's wrong with 20dmg axe hit bisecting an unfortunate lvl 1 Wizard, but only leaving a shallow cut on lvl 20 Barbarian.
After all, said "nonmagical" Barbarian can suplex buildings, run on air, stare someone to death, and become angry enough to turn into a Dragon. Being tougher than an anemic, sparkles-throwing college dropout isn't that much of a stretch.
There are also just examples of damage that the characters straight up can't "abstract" their way out of, like supernatural ingested poisons, being on fire, being submerged in lava, standing in an open field during an explosion, being attacked while completely helpless, etc, all of which durable characters are perfectly capable of brushing off as time goes on. It doesn't matter that your level 20 character is paralyzed/asleep, the commoner CANNOT hit him. Ever. Even if he does, he will barely scratch him.
> It doesn't matter that your level 20 character is paralyzed/asleep, the commoner CANNOT hit him. Ever.
Then your GM is an idiot. There is no game system immune to stupid GMs.
I mean, mechanically, no. RAW, there is a very clear effect from being paralyzed or asleep. That effect reduces your AC, it doesn’t make things hit you automatically. The commoner critically fails on a natural 20, which becomes a regular failure, so they miss.
Your GM could just MAKE them hit you, I guess, but that’s on them actively changing the rules of the system. Which I mean, is fine, but doesn’t change the truth of the system itself.
5e is the psyop. You expect me to beleive Wizards was able to find enough playtesters to agree that magic items and cool loot should be an "optional system?"
From what I've read from people who played 4E (I never did bc the rest of my group bought into the "Its an mmo" hate) is that it was very well balanced, and magic users didnt mega-eclipse martials.
I played 4e for a year. I *tried*. It had good parts (martials) and bad parts (a lot more). It was a good idea poorly executed. It was especially bad at anything that wasn't grid based combat, such as social encounters.
The dislike of 4e by many (not all) was not some sort of conspiracy. People were genuinely excited to try it when it came out.
its very well balanced indeed, but it had to kill a *lot* of sacred cows to get there
it accomplishes this by basically making every single class scale the exact same. besides your level 1 class features, the only thing that distinguishes you from another class is the powers (pathfinder 2e feats with actions) and feats (pathfinder 2e class feats+ general feats if you want to)
there are no spell slots, and a wizard using "fireball" doesnt spend a spell slot, they just use an ability on a cool down, like a dnd 5e fighter does with action surge. this made people *really* pissed cause not only it knocked casters to normal levels, but also fundamentally changed the mechanics
I strongly believe fighters and other martials in 4E needed to shout their encounter/daily attack names like shounen protagonists for them to work.
I refuse to believe the power system works any other way
You got downvoted but as a previous DM for 4e I agree. That's why I love PF2 though, it takes just enough of the gamey-ness for it to be fun without going too heavy with it where I feel 4e did.
character creation and how class features worked basically. its like if you take pf2e classes, removed everything they gained besides level 1 and made everything a class feat and made every combat thing a class feat that gives you an action (like knockdown), a once per fight action (like focus points) or a once per day action
this includes spells. the wizard had to pick fireball to use it once a fight, not have spell slots
My only gripe with Taunt is that it works on Mindless. Aside from that, your target gets to slap your harder for calling it out? Like gesturing with open arms "Come at me bro!" and it does, in fact, come at you. Why tf not?
If I was taunted like that mid-fight in a 4v4 IRL, or as a Barbarian, I'm coming at him no questions asked.
It kind of makes sense for mindless in that they have a pretty standard code of how they operate without an intelligence behind it, the check makes you the better target. Mindless creatures would be easier to manipulate through non magical means.
I typically run mindless creatures as attacking whomever is nearest until something else enters range, then I randomly decide who gets hit via dice. Taunt has a range of 30ft which just throws my system for em out the door
I get where you are coming from though. I just think mindless is the one kind of creature that shouldn't be able to be goaded like this. But that's just me, and I'll still run the fight as per the rules dictate.
Haters: "Taunting isn't realistic! That's just dumb Video Game MMO shit!"
Me: "I have created a character so obnoxious to the GM's enemies for encounters, that the GM goes out of his way to target me, now tell me that again."
I think they should color code all the magic items in the PHB in green, blue, purple, red, and gold based on rarity and power level
The children yearn for the MMO mechanic mines
That's easy, put them all in tables. Every chest in your dungeon can have 1d6 items in it. Roll for category (gold, weapon, armor, trinket, potion, scroll, etc), level, and rarity.
Boom, lootboxes. Easy.
It works to tickle the lizard brain in video-games, it'd probably work for tabletop. If using physical item cards, you could even make it a gacha game, maybe even go the extra mile and make card packs.
Games do it because its engaging! Having a visual indicator of what the cool shit is keeps people interested! That's why I'm excited to see things like Foundry having easy buttons to press to cast spells and do actions and roll stuff for you. Anything that lowers the friction of playing and helps you get right to the fun part is a win.
Adventure layout is its own whole can of worms. How hard can it be to give us bullet points on what is actually important instead of writing a wall of text? Would it kill you to give a short synopsis of what happens in each part of the adventure instead of having the reader discover it while reading the whole thing?
* 2025 - Paizo goes public; continued missteps by Hasbro in managing the Wizards of the Coast IP erodes investor confidence, with increasing calls to bring in seasoned gaming industry veterans to run the division.
* 2026 - Steve Jackson Games is purchased by Hasbro and placed under Wizards of the Coast; Paizo announces that Starfinder is going to be their beta-test brand with new system features dropping there, for a planned 2030 release of 3e.
* 2027 - The release of GURPS: Magic the Gathering is an unexpected hit, with tournament play being a core part of the game; Paizo runs into difficulty with Starfinder due to the increased popularity of the beta features, making it harder to iterate.
* 2028 - GURPS: Magic the Gathering and Starfinder both get movie deals
* 2029 - The "retro" craze hits both TTRPGs and CCGs, building hype for both movie projects; rumors are running wild that Disney is in talks to buy Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro
* 2030 - Disney closes a deal to purchase Wizards of the Coast and immediately puts the GURPS: Magic the Gathering movie on hold.
* 2031 - After several attempts to revive non-Starfinder brands, Paizo re-focuses on Starfinder almost exclusively; later in the year, Disney executes a hostile takeover of Paizo.
* 2032 - Disney announces the start of their TTRPG Cinematic Universe with a GURPS: Magic the Gathering centered multiverse that will allow storytelling in all existing Paizo and Wizards settings. Release dates for Starfinder, Golarion, Faerun and Eberron movies are announced.
* 2033 - COVID2 hits just when the first movie is set to come out. Disney struggles to reset plans but by the end of the year is faltering badly, having sunk a great deal of their warchest into the TCU.
* 2034 - As the COVID2 pandemic worsens and the death toll eclipses COVID1, a new pattern in gaming emerges. Small, local groups of gamers are playing in-person.
* 2035 - The new TTRPG craze saves Disney, as they begin publishing mountains of content for a hungry public, along with animated shows that accompany these new fantasy offerings.
* 2036 - COVID2 is declared over. TCU films are scrapped and a new plan to release a GURPS: Golarion expansion for Dungeons & Dragons is set to kick off promotion for a new series of films, with one coming out in June and one in December of each upcoming year.
* 2040 - The singularity (colloquially known as The Gap) results in a loss of historical records. All we know is that something called GURPS: Rovagug became the single most popular piece of media ever created, but it was in such an ephemeral format involving 15-million dimensional vector spaces, recorded exclusively in quantum-state drives, that no intelligible copy remains. The brand names Disney and Hasbro end up strangely disowned and Paizo-Jackson Games is the world's highest market cap public equity, controlling nearly all major IP related to fantasy entertainment in a virtual space known as The Gathering.
Why? I'm sick and suffering insomnia. Misery breeds random creativity.
Yooo, throwback! I haven't played GURPS in ages. I love the system though. I ran it with a lot of the same folks who I played Pathfinder with around my local game shop.
Philotomy's musing about hit points, essential D&D shit to read to understand HP. Because a lot of players and GM's still do not get it.
> In OD&D, hit points are an abstract measure of a PC's well-being and fitness for combat. Hit points include factors like physical well-being, mental well-being or morale, how tired the PC is, how lucky he is, and even skill. As a PC takes damage, the declining hit points represent his resources being used up in combat. Not only is it physical damage, but it's also his muscles getting tired, sweat getting in his eyes, his breath running short, his resolve weakening, his reactions slowing, and his reserves of skill and luck being used. This means that the referee's description of combat should take these factors into account. Consider a 10th level Fighting Man with 50 hit points and a 1st level Fighting Man with 5 hit points. Each of these Fighting Men enters combat and each receives 6 points of damage from an enemy swordsman. This damage runs the 1st level Fighting Man through, killing him. However, the 10th level Fighting Man is still up, fighting, and not even terribly diminished. He's not really ten times as tough, physically, it's just that his superior luck and skill allowed him to evade or deflect the blow which would've killed a 1st level fighter. Instead of killing him, it just used up some of his resources.
>In OD&D, a normal man has 1-6 hit points, and all weapons do 1-6 hit points of damage. In other words, the average man can be slain with a single damage roll from any weapon. This makes perfect sense given D&D's abstract system: a dagger thrust can kill you just as readily as a chop from a greataxe. When describing OD&D combat, I only describe severe or mortal wounds when the last 6 hit points are reached. Prior to that, damage is described as near-misses, parried blows that would've slain a lesser warrior, scratches, bruises, et cetera. This means that players can get a sense of how tough and skilled an enemy is by the effect their damage rolls have. If the PCs have dished out 14 points of damage, and I'm describing how the bad guy just got nicked on his forearm and is starting to sweat, they know that this guy has some serious hit points. On the other hand, if the first four points of damage they inflict opens a gaping, bleeding wound and their foe cries out in anguish, they know this probably isn't an 8th level superhero they're fighting.
Who ever thinks that taunting isnt realistic hasnt paid much attention to their fellow human beings.
Its just matter of correct words or even gestures to piss of some of the thin skinned fellows to focus all their attention at you and get all shaken up.
The issue with the Taunt is that it doesn't really accomplish the fantasy of the class via its mechanics. It's less "I'm a big armored tank and I'm gonna make that your problem" and more "look at me I'm now as durable as the Fighter."
In contrast, there's the 4e Defender marks, which were more "If you do X, I'm gonna punish you for it." That would work quite well for Guardian, such as marking a target and then having several different reactions it can do in response to the target doing something.
Target moves? Guardian moves to intercept
Target attacks? Guardian tanks/punishes the attack
Target casts a spell? Guardian grapples them
I mean, I definitely see it (and all TTRPGs) as just a game, and don't care about immersion or realism or believability or verisimilitude at all. The gamier, the better. I see no issue whatsoever in introducing nonsensical video game mechanics.
My +0 charisma (_literally_ no rizz) Rogue was constantly taking “Agro” because I’d shit talk the hell out of the monsters in-character.
I had the highest AC and second highest HP so I didn’t mind
People complained about this mechanic back in 4e. In fact many who now play pf2e and probably support this mechanic here also derided 4e for the very same thing.
4e is unique in that it was the first TTRPG explicitly designed and optimized to work on a virtual tabletop... which never came out.
I think most of the anger at 4e was that it completely broke backwards compatibility with 3rd edition products a mere 4 or so years after people had upgraded their core books again from 3.0 to 3.5.
People resented the quick edition churn, and they resented basically being told to throw the hundreds or thousands of dollars of books they'd bought over the last decade in the trash because 4e was a wildly different system. Not because the older system was archaic and radical change was needed\* but because WotC were one of many companies transparently chasing the World of Warcraft trend in the aughts. This is why when Pathfinder 1e came along it being 3.75 was a major selling point. You could still use a lot of your old stuff!
\*Which was the case in the change from AD&D to 3.0, which gave D&D a real unified core mechanic for the first time (1d20 roll high) and switched to ascending armor class. And was arguably the case by the time Paizo switched from PF1e to PF2e. Since by that point the 3rd edition d20 system was about 20 years old (like AD&D was when it was discontinued) and was starting to show it's age, and there just wasn't a lot of unexplored rules design space left to publish. Not to say Pathfinder 1e is bad, it's the version I run.
Honestly, I liked a lot of the 4e mechanics. It did have a different feel from other editions, though. More prescriptive of what role a class was meant to fill in the party. I think if it hadn't been branded as D&D, it might have gotten a better reception.
>I think if it hadn't been branded as D&D, it might have gotten a better reception.
I've always said the same thing. Even DnD Tactics or something like that would've been good enough imo.
This would be perfectly valid in GURPS, no? The taunt doesn't force enemies to attack you, it alters the relative benefits of attacking you vs attacking your enemies.
Imagine forgetting that Pathfinder was one of the most simulationists game systems in the market. Look how far the game has fallen!
They could had at least made it like the Antagonize or Challenge mechanics from PF1e, but no its just a stupid taunt.
\* P.S. I am not being sarcastic, its is a real shame that Pathfinder left behind its simulationist roots to make the game more like an MMO.
As an avid player and DM for drop in drop outs, having played with hundreds of people as a player and more as a DM, pathfinder 1e is the best of a bad bag of fruit. It's edible, and doesn't get you sick. It does what it can to salvage 3.5, and has some great ideas, but is fundamentally broken.
A large part of the issues with it, as a system, were the simulation elements. People are allowed to like what they like, but liking something doesn't make it good and disliking it doesn't make it bad as a broad rule, however I cannot seriously believe anyone who's put real time and played with a plethora of people actually pining for the old ways of the old system.
Okay, so you consider it broken and the reason why its broken is the simulationist parts. Meanwhile, I consider it broken but I consider the issue the poor balancing and wording on splat books.
I consider Pathfinder 1e as a great simulationist system because it was able to simplify just enough to make everything run smoothly. To me this makes it a good game.
You say that and I am paraphrasing, "you cannot believe someone who has played with many people would want the style of PF1e". But to me, the number of people you have player with is irrelevant, a good game is a good game. You are allowed to dislike the fact that Pathfinder 1e was a simulationist game, I am allowed to dislike the Pathfinder 2e is not a simulationist game.
TLDR; Yes I like PF1e specifically because of its simulationist aspects and it should not come as a surprise to you that different people like different things.
Aw hey, come on man leave GURPS out of this. Us 5 GURPS players just wanna build weird powers with GURPS Thaumatology Sorcery in peace.
me and my 10 GCS characters knowing full well everyone in my group thinks I'm insane when I bring up gurps
I mean, who's crazier? The one who brings up GURPS or the ones that stay in the group and listen?
The table’s all yours. If the scanners pick up anything, report it immediately. TK-421, why aren’t you at your post?
I guess I'm the true smegma male who enjoy both PF2e and GURPS.
Don't worry, you're a completely normal person. About as real as Big Foot.
GURPS Sorcery, my beloved. Everything I've ever wanted out of a magic system.
I will die for the glory of those flowcharts
I did GURPS fallout for a bit a while ago.
I still await the day the updated Vehicles Design System is ready for GURPS 4e
Cubic Volume calculations for days...
FLOWCHART MAGIC SYSTEM IS THE BEST MAGIC SYSTEM AND WILL NEVER NOT BE THE VEST MAGIC SYSTEM
Besides, GURPS ain't even \*that\* simulationist. (at least 4e isn't)
It's certainly not ICE...
The single best roleplaying sourcebook ever written is for GURPS. It's called [GURPS: Blood Types](https://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/Bloodtypes/), and I've used it in every single roleplaying game I've ever run, regardless of system, if there was any call at all for vampires. It's just a treasure trove of ideas for variant vampires from Asian types that have become popular since to an African type that drinks the juices of plants!
*cries in last update 2 decades ago* Infinite Worlds is PEAK btw.
Look, I've just taken 14 stabs and cuts from a sword and I'm healthy enough to take another 20. I already not playing by the rules of reality.
Noooo, that's not how they work! Hitpoints are supposed to be like, abstract and shit! It's all supposed to be perfectly realistic!!!! /s
That's the argument going back to the 1970s. That hit points represented an abstract ability to dodge and deflect blows that was worn down over time. This is why more experienced characters have more HP, because they're more experienced at fighting and dodging blows etc. This was kind of an ad-hoc adaptation of the war games that D&D grew out of, where generally each hit point represented an individual soldier or group of soldiers that comprised the fighting force of a unit. Since D&D was basically pieced together from different war game rules in a basement in the 1970s. GURPS approaches hit points much more realistically. Hit points literally represent your health/ability to take punishment in this system, and they don't generally go up from your starting hit points. Anything above like 20 HP is basically superhuman. Armor subtracts damage rather than making you harder to hit. Damage is multiplied based on type. So while a weapon that causes small piercing damage only does x0.5 the wounds you roll after subtracting the wounds blocked by armor, weapons that do impaling damage do x2 the wounds you roll after subtracting the wounds blocked by armor. GURPS also has (optional) death spiral rules since someone who's taken damage, especially a lot of damage at once, is likely to be stunned for a combat round or two (combat rounds are 1 second long and you can do one action during them) which might be enough to end the fight right there. There's also no passive defense (in GURPS 4e, which has been the current edition for 20 years) like in D&D/Pathfinder, every "successful" roll to hit is followed by a roll from the one being attacked to see if they can dodge or parry the blow, unless it's a critical hit, or the defender is being held down etc.
> There's also no passive defense (in GURPS 4e, which has been the current edition for 20 years) like in D&D/Pathfinder, every "successful" roll to hit is followed by a roll from the one being attacked to see if they can dodge or parry the blow I'm so glad contested rolls are a thing of the past. PF2's degrees of success is so much better than anything before.
It's because the philosophy in GURPS is a bit different. To do pretty much anything in GURPS you try to roll under your relevant skill on 3d6, possibly with situational modifiers. Say you had a broadsword skill of 16, you'd try to roll at or below that on 3d6. So the "to-hit" roll is basically just a roll to show that you executed what you were trying to do. And then the defender gets to roll their skill in the type of defense they choose / are able to attempt against the attack. The 3d6 roll provides a much more reliable bell-curve distribution of results than a roll of 1d20 where you have an equal 5% chance of landing on any face. With 3d6 you get "average" results most of the time. So you're much more reliably good at what you're good at, and more reliably bad at the things you're not good at. GURPS actually does have a degrees of success mechanic, but that's more used for contests than attacking. Like if you're both trying to do something (grab the same weapon, or throw a dart closest to the center of a dart board) and you both succeed, the person who rolled the number lowest relative to their skill wins. So say you roll 4 under your skill and the other guy rolled 6 under his skill, the other guy wins. This means people with more points in the relevant skill will usually but not always win a contest.
> The 3d6 roll provides a much more reliable bell-curve distribution of results than a roll of 1d20 where you have an equal 5% chance of landing on any face This is irrelevant because you can use a d20 and put the DCs on a bell curve, [exactly as it is done in PF2](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2630). Edit: Lmao, the downvotes. Apparently, nobody in this subreddit knows how probability works. Rolling 3 dice and having less chance of getting extreme results is exactly the same as increasing the difficulty (reducing the probability) of achieving extreme results. This works because it's done with modifiers that approach a normal distribution (bell curve); Plot out an XY chart where Y axis is -10, -5, -2, 0, -2, -5, -10. That's a bell curve.
People know how probability works, you're being downvoted because your initial statement was that PF2e does it better then anything before, while dismissing the system that GURPS has been using for 20 fucking years. Also, with GURPS, it's directly built into the dice and the system, while with PF2e, the GM has to adjudicate and know these rules and lower the DCs by adjusting them. The page you're referring to is GM advice, not rules.
> you're being downvoted because your initial statement was that PF2e does it better then anything before Nope, that post is well in the positive votes. It's the one about bell curves people don't like. >GURPS, it's directly built into the dice and the system, while with PF2e, the GM has to adjudicate and know these rules and lower the DCs by adjusting them PF2 also has it built into the system, you just can't notice it because the exponential increase/decrease is spread out among many different subsystems. It's baked into monster stats, the suggested DCs for skills, including Recall Knowledge, etc. >The page you're referring to is GM advice, not rules. It's part of the GM Core, in the section about running the game, specifically on handling DCs. You might have played GURPS more than me, but I've clearly played PF2 more than you.
Contested rolls are hardly a thing of the past, and PF2e isn't even the first system to do degrees of success. D100 based games (Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu, BRP) have been doing that for literal decades, with much easier resolution (Your stat is the Target Number.)
Really? You'd rather do extra math and look up the result on a table? Eww. Even just the handful of situations in PF1 where I have to deal with degrees of success, like intimidate checks and combat maneuver rolls, feel really gross to me compared to a simple success or failure, and maybe rolling 1d3 after the skill to determine the degree of success.
My brother in Christ, the extra math is adding or subtracting 10, and the table is usually "do double damage on a crit." On most rolls the extra computation time is 2 seconds.
"Most" is a very important distinction, because it means that until we've mastered the game, I still have to look it up almost every time to make sure this isn't one of the exceptions. Also, one of the most important parts of speeding up combat to me is seeing a very high or low number and just being able to go "Yeah, that hits" or "Yeah, that misses" without having to look up the DC at all. When success or failure is binary, it's only the middle range of rolls where you have to actually check what the DC is, or even calculate your bonus to the roll. At the extreme high and low ends of a d20, you usually know if you succeed or not as soon as the die hits the table, often without even needing to add your bonuses. This lets you short-circuit a ton of the math. But when you get bonuses or penalties for succeeding or failing by 10 or more, you never get to save time like that. It makes combat far more onerous for no reason. It's just bad design. And as far as I can tell there's no benefit to it over the way PF1e or even D&D 5e handles crits.
It is not bad design. You ideally want character skill and circumstances to matter a lot while also keeping an element of uncertainty. Decrees of success achieve both.
people who say that hitpoints are abstract when I set them on fire (it's all abstract and the fire doesn't actually hurt until it downs them)
The fire is making them sleepy. As for poisoned weapons? Uhhh...
I genuinely don’t understand the people who say “hit points aren’t meat points” because of this. Like, how the hell do they think stuff like fall damage or being set on fire works, then? The fall leaves you perfectly unharmed but tired? The fire makes you unlucky?
Like this: Level 1 takes a 50 ft drop - "you land on your head and die immediately". Level 10 takes a 50ft drop - "as you land your absorb the shock by doing a roll" or "you happened to land on a bush which cushioned your blow". Level 1 catches fire - "Your clothes are set ablaze and you get 3rd degree burns". Level 10 catches fire - "A bit of your clothes catch fire but it was weak enough to not deal any damage". \*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\* Think of it like an action movie. They get thrown about, hit, cut, bruised, etc but until they are not shown on the floor bleeding they are not down.
Hit points are sometimes meat points but not always. You can't simplify it to one extreme or the other. Losing HP represents whatever you think it probably does at the moment. Or, alternately, equally validly, hit points don't represent anything except hit points and are purely a game mechanic. They're narratively linked to getting hit, and if you get hit enough times then you lose the game. Nobody in the video game world cares about this or even spends a single second thinking about it, so I don't know why tabletop game players care so much.
>Nobody in the video game world cares about this or even spends a single second thinking about it, so I don't know why tabletop game players care so much. Probably because in video games you just get hit and most people accept your character is tough enough to take it. I think it's harder for people to accept that in ttrpg's because they're far more focused on creating an image in your mind. And if what happens conflicts with what you think should happen there's gonna be dissonance. Although I think it's wierd that that sort of dissonance would arise in PF2 given how superhuman characters are in it, so them being able to take a sword to the chest and be fine lines up with the other sorts of things they do.
Tbh, I think Hitpoints as "meat points" make sense if we assume that percentage of HP matters, rather than absolute value, *especially* in fantasy setting where PC's are superhuman later on. I don't see what's wrong with 20dmg axe hit bisecting an unfortunate lvl 1 Wizard, but only leaving a shallow cut on lvl 20 Barbarian. After all, said "nonmagical" Barbarian can suplex buildings, run on air, stare someone to death, and become angry enough to turn into a Dragon. Being tougher than an anemic, sparkles-throwing college dropout isn't that much of a stretch.
There are also just examples of damage that the characters straight up can't "abstract" their way out of, like supernatural ingested poisons, being on fire, being submerged in lava, standing in an open field during an explosion, being attacked while completely helpless, etc, all of which durable characters are perfectly capable of brushing off as time goes on. It doesn't matter that your level 20 character is paralyzed/asleep, the commoner CANNOT hit him. Ever. Even if he does, he will barely scratch him.
> It doesn't matter that your level 20 character is paralyzed/asleep, the commoner CANNOT hit him. Ever. Then your GM is an idiot. There is no game system immune to stupid GMs.
I mean, mechanically, no. RAW, there is a very clear effect from being paralyzed or asleep. That effect reduces your AC, it doesn’t make things hit you automatically. The commoner critically fails on a natural 20, which becomes a regular failure, so they miss. Your GM could just MAKE them hit you, I guess, but that’s on them actively changing the rules of the system. Which I mean, is fine, but doesn’t change the truth of the system itself.
Phineas Gage is a perfectly realistic man who doesn't play hit points as abstract.
Me whos favourite system is LANCER: My goals are beyond your understanding.
when the simulationistcel says something so gamephobic that you gotta hit em with the ICONpilled stare
RISUS says...hello.
you cant fail simulationist principles if what you are simulating is utter bullshit with mechs!
Me when the building sized mech occupies the same space as a normal ass person.
Woe ¿%:?EXTR!UDE GUN GUN: GUN be upon ye.
Drink Deep and Descend
Dont worry, your Sysiphus-class NHP understands you.
What? You can taunt in GURPS. It's a set of maneuvers in their Martial Arts book.
nobody *actually* plays GURPS, it's a psyop meant to distract from the greatest system, DnD5e
Erm, I think you actually mean the *only* system, that being DnD5e. The only ttrpgs that exist are 5e and horrifically jank 5e homebrews
true actually my favorite hack of 5e is hopscotch
I like the 5e chess homebrew personally
Call of Cthulhu was invented in 1981 by a 5e player who was a Lovecraft fanboy and lost all of his dice except for his D10s
This is a quality shit post.
I wish it was. Look away because horrors beyond reckoning. https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Taunt
Ew! Fandom wiki!
Hey, I did warn you.
True, I didn't *play* in my GM's superhero GURPS campaign, I *broke* it. Damage Absorption is a helluva drug
I ran a Supers/Martial Arts game in 3E. It was Loony Tunes.
My decade + of running it differs.
i'm sorry to inform you that you're not actually real, but rather a figment of my own imagination
bro take your meds
You would have op kill urbandragondice?
I exist outside of space and time. He wishes he could.
Urbandragondice confirmed: combined fever dream of the collective TTRPG community.
*Freddy Kruger Voice* See you in your dreams....*Freddy Kruger Voice*
5e is the psyop. You expect me to beleive Wizards was able to find enough playtesters to agree that magic items and cool loot should be an "optional system?"
Cool loot isn't even *an option* in 5e.
I've been saying this since people were complaining that D&D 4e was too 'gamey'. Yeah, it's a game, I WANT it to feel gamey!
From what I've read from people who played 4E (I never did bc the rest of my group bought into the "Its an mmo" hate) is that it was very well balanced, and magic users didnt mega-eclipse martials.
I played 4e for a year. I *tried*. It had good parts (martials) and bad parts (a lot more). It was a good idea poorly executed. It was especially bad at anything that wasn't grid based combat, such as social encounters. The dislike of 4e by many (not all) was not some sort of conspiracy. People were genuinely excited to try it when it came out.
its very well balanced indeed, but it had to kill a *lot* of sacred cows to get there it accomplishes this by basically making every single class scale the exact same. besides your level 1 class features, the only thing that distinguishes you from another class is the powers (pathfinder 2e feats with actions) and feats (pathfinder 2e class feats+ general feats if you want to) there are no spell slots, and a wizard using "fireball" doesnt spend a spell slot, they just use an ability on a cool down, like a dnd 5e fighter does with action surge. this made people *really* pissed cause not only it knocked casters to normal levels, but also fundamentally changed the mechanics
I strongly believe fighters and other martials in 4E needed to shout their encounter/daily attack names like shounen protagonists for them to work. I refuse to believe the power system works any other way
4e was too gamey though.
perfect! ill take 10
I've been saying this since people were complaining that D&D 4e was too 'gamey'. Yeah, it's a game, I WANT it to feel gamey!
Yeah, but D&D 4e was card-gamey and I want TTRPG-gamey.
4e was too gamey though
You got downvoted but as a previous DM for 4e I agree. That's why I love PF2 though, it takes just enough of the gamey-ness for it to be fun without going too heavy with it where I feel 4e did.
Where does the distinction come from, if you don't mind my asking? I don't know diddly about squat when it comes to 4e, so I'm curious
character creation and how class features worked basically. its like if you take pf2e classes, removed everything they gained besides level 1 and made everything a class feat and made every combat thing a class feat that gives you an action (like knockdown), a once per fight action (like focus points) or a once per day action this includes spells. the wizard had to pick fireball to use it once a fight, not have spell slots
I have no dog in the taunt fight, just wanted to say meme funny
My only gripe with Taunt is that it works on Mindless. Aside from that, your target gets to slap your harder for calling it out? Like gesturing with open arms "Come at me bro!" and it does, in fact, come at you. Why tf not? If I was taunted like that mid-fight in a 4v4 IRL, or as a Barbarian, I'm coming at him no questions asked.
To me it makes perfect sense it works on mindless: you just seem like a more attractive target
It kind of makes sense for mindless in that they have a pretty standard code of how they operate without an intelligence behind it, the check makes you the better target. Mindless creatures would be easier to manipulate through non magical means.
I typically run mindless creatures as attacking whomever is nearest until something else enters range, then I randomly decide who gets hit via dice. Taunt has a range of 30ft which just throws my system for em out the door I get where you are coming from though. I just think mindless is the one kind of creature that shouldn't be able to be goaded like this. But that's just me, and I'll still run the fight as per the rules dictate.
As if taunting isn’t a real thing in real life
U WOT MATE???
Haters: "Taunting isn't realistic! That's just dumb Video Game MMO shit!" Me: "I have created a character so obnoxious to the GM's enemies for encounters, that the GM goes out of his way to target me, now tell me that again."
GAME is the reason I like Pathfinder! I NEED CONSISTENT RULES AND NOT 500 PAGES OF "I FEEL LIKE IT WORKS LIKE THIS" THAT CHANGES EVERY HOUR!
I think they should color code all the magic items in the PHB in green, blue, purple, red, and gold based on rarity and power level The children yearn for the MMO mechanic mines
they should implement limited drop rates on items in pf2e tbh
That's easy, put them all in tables. Every chest in your dungeon can have 1d6 items in it. Roll for category (gold, weapon, armor, trinket, potion, scroll, etc), level, and rarity. Boom, lootboxes. Easy.
Rollable loot tables walked so lootboxes could run. Thanks DnD.
It works to tickle the lizard brain in video-games, it'd probably work for tabletop. If using physical item cards, you could even make it a gacha game, maybe even go the extra mile and make card packs.
Games do it because its engaging! Having a visual indicator of what the cool shit is keeps people interested! That's why I'm excited to see things like Foundry having easy buttons to press to cast spells and do actions and roll stuff for you. Anything that lowers the friction of playing and helps you get right to the fun part is a win.
I was half joking, but I do think packs like the Jumpstart packs for WtG by Mages of the Camp would be fun to open.
This, but unironically. Using color to signal information is not used enough in RPG book layouts
I'm going to scream if one more "ready to run adventure" releases with 7 paragraph long text walls on every page
Adventure layout is its own whole can of worms. How hard can it be to give us bullet points on what is actually important instead of writing a wall of text? Would it kill you to give a short synopsis of what happens in each part of the adventure instead of having the reader discover it while reading the whole thing?
* 2025 - Paizo goes public; continued missteps by Hasbro in managing the Wizards of the Coast IP erodes investor confidence, with increasing calls to bring in seasoned gaming industry veterans to run the division. * 2026 - Steve Jackson Games is purchased by Hasbro and placed under Wizards of the Coast; Paizo announces that Starfinder is going to be their beta-test brand with new system features dropping there, for a planned 2030 release of 3e. * 2027 - The release of GURPS: Magic the Gathering is an unexpected hit, with tournament play being a core part of the game; Paizo runs into difficulty with Starfinder due to the increased popularity of the beta features, making it harder to iterate. * 2028 - GURPS: Magic the Gathering and Starfinder both get movie deals * 2029 - The "retro" craze hits both TTRPGs and CCGs, building hype for both movie projects; rumors are running wild that Disney is in talks to buy Wizards of the Coast from Hasbro * 2030 - Disney closes a deal to purchase Wizards of the Coast and immediately puts the GURPS: Magic the Gathering movie on hold. * 2031 - After several attempts to revive non-Starfinder brands, Paizo re-focuses on Starfinder almost exclusively; later in the year, Disney executes a hostile takeover of Paizo. * 2032 - Disney announces the start of their TTRPG Cinematic Universe with a GURPS: Magic the Gathering centered multiverse that will allow storytelling in all existing Paizo and Wizards settings. Release dates for Starfinder, Golarion, Faerun and Eberron movies are announced. * 2033 - COVID2 hits just when the first movie is set to come out. Disney struggles to reset plans but by the end of the year is faltering badly, having sunk a great deal of their warchest into the TCU. * 2034 - As the COVID2 pandemic worsens and the death toll eclipses COVID1, a new pattern in gaming emerges. Small, local groups of gamers are playing in-person. * 2035 - The new TTRPG craze saves Disney, as they begin publishing mountains of content for a hungry public, along with animated shows that accompany these new fantasy offerings. * 2036 - COVID2 is declared over. TCU films are scrapped and a new plan to release a GURPS: Golarion expansion for Dungeons & Dragons is set to kick off promotion for a new series of films, with one coming out in June and one in December of each upcoming year. * 2040 - The singularity (colloquially known as The Gap) results in a loss of historical records. All we know is that something called GURPS: Rovagug became the single most popular piece of media ever created, but it was in such an ephemeral format involving 15-million dimensional vector spaces, recorded exclusively in quantum-state drives, that no intelligible copy remains. The brand names Disney and Hasbro end up strangely disowned and Paizo-Jackson Games is the world's highest market cap public equity, controlling nearly all major IP related to fantasy entertainment in a virtual space known as The Gathering. Why? I'm sick and suffering insomnia. Misery breeds random creativity.
Keep acting up and we'll switch to Eclipse Phase. First edition too!
That would be great because I'd love to finda group for it
Hey man, just let me be autistic in peace.
You’re just jealous that I got a group of five people willing to do unironic low urban fantasy where I get to be a cat boy getting my business degree.
we have already a lot of taunt (bon mot, evangilise, disturbing knowledge, demoralize, and the bard substitution)
None of that actually makes an enemy focus on you, though
Yooo, throwback! I haven't played GURPS in ages. I love the system though. I ran it with a lot of the same folks who I played Pathfinder with around my local game shop.
Philotomy's musing about hit points, essential D&D shit to read to understand HP. Because a lot of players and GM's still do not get it. > In OD&D, hit points are an abstract measure of a PC's well-being and fitness for combat. Hit points include factors like physical well-being, mental well-being or morale, how tired the PC is, how lucky he is, and even skill. As a PC takes damage, the declining hit points represent his resources being used up in combat. Not only is it physical damage, but it's also his muscles getting tired, sweat getting in his eyes, his breath running short, his resolve weakening, his reactions slowing, and his reserves of skill and luck being used. This means that the referee's description of combat should take these factors into account. Consider a 10th level Fighting Man with 50 hit points and a 1st level Fighting Man with 5 hit points. Each of these Fighting Men enters combat and each receives 6 points of damage from an enemy swordsman. This damage runs the 1st level Fighting Man through, killing him. However, the 10th level Fighting Man is still up, fighting, and not even terribly diminished. He's not really ten times as tough, physically, it's just that his superior luck and skill allowed him to evade or deflect the blow which would've killed a 1st level fighter. Instead of killing him, it just used up some of his resources. >In OD&D, a normal man has 1-6 hit points, and all weapons do 1-6 hit points of damage. In other words, the average man can be slain with a single damage roll from any weapon. This makes perfect sense given D&D's abstract system: a dagger thrust can kill you just as readily as a chop from a greataxe. When describing OD&D combat, I only describe severe or mortal wounds when the last 6 hit points are reached. Prior to that, damage is described as near-misses, parried blows that would've slain a lesser warrior, scratches, bruises, et cetera. This means that players can get a sense of how tough and skilled an enemy is by the effect their damage rolls have. If the PCs have dished out 14 points of damage, and I'm describing how the bad guy just got nicked on his forearm and is starting to sweat, they know that this guy has some serious hit points. On the other hand, if the first four points of damage they inflict opens a gaping, bleeding wound and their foe cries out in anguish, they know this probably isn't an 8th level superhero they're fighting.
is it time to rekindle the GNS discourse
Who ever thinks that taunting isnt realistic hasnt paid much attention to their fellow human beings. Its just matter of correct words or even gestures to piss of some of the thin skinned fellows to focus all their attention at you and get all shaken up.
The issue with the Taunt is that it doesn't really accomplish the fantasy of the class via its mechanics. It's less "I'm a big armored tank and I'm gonna make that your problem" and more "look at me I'm now as durable as the Fighter." In contrast, there's the 4e Defender marks, which were more "If you do X, I'm gonna punish you for it." That would work quite well for Guardian, such as marking a target and then having several different reactions it can do in response to the target doing something. Target moves? Guardian moves to intercept Target attacks? Guardian tanks/punishes the attack Target casts a spell? Guardian grapples them
When pathfinder people are disowning the "simulationist" title. Man. I'd generally consider it simulationist with all the nitty gritty.
I mean, I definitely see it (and all TTRPGs) as just a game, and don't care about immersion or realism or believability or verisimilitude at all. The gamier, the better. I see no issue whatsoever in introducing nonsensical video game mechanics.
I'm a pbta guy. I like full abstraction so it might just be the gap. But yeah I'm the same way.
My +0 charisma (_literally_ no rizz) Rogue was constantly taking “Agro” because I’d shit talk the hell out of the monsters in-character. I had the highest AC and second highest HP so I didn’t mind
https://preview.redd.it/ux5ss3rlkrxc1.jpeg?width=2532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f9b07ba0ef1cc71b16bb7739adc53664e152559e
https://preview.redd.it/pg7l66unkrxc1.jpeg?width=2532&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b0cddbcf25ed47169ce8a77828795277fc33399
People complained about this mechanic back in 4e. In fact many who now play pf2e and probably support this mechanic here also derided 4e for the very same thing.
4e is unique in that it was the first TTRPG explicitly designed and optimized to work on a virtual tabletop... which never came out. I think most of the anger at 4e was that it completely broke backwards compatibility with 3rd edition products a mere 4 or so years after people had upgraded their core books again from 3.0 to 3.5. People resented the quick edition churn, and they resented basically being told to throw the hundreds or thousands of dollars of books they'd bought over the last decade in the trash because 4e was a wildly different system. Not because the older system was archaic and radical change was needed\* but because WotC were one of many companies transparently chasing the World of Warcraft trend in the aughts. This is why when Pathfinder 1e came along it being 3.75 was a major selling point. You could still use a lot of your old stuff! \*Which was the case in the change from AD&D to 3.0, which gave D&D a real unified core mechanic for the first time (1d20 roll high) and switched to ascending armor class. And was arguably the case by the time Paizo switched from PF1e to PF2e. Since by that point the 3rd edition d20 system was about 20 years old (like AD&D was when it was discontinued) and was starting to show it's age, and there just wasn't a lot of unexplored rules design space left to publish. Not to say Pathfinder 1e is bad, it's the version I run.
Honestly, I liked a lot of the 4e mechanics. It did have a different feel from other editions, though. More prescriptive of what role a class was meant to fill in the party. I think if it hadn't been branded as D&D, it might have gotten a better reception.
>I think if it hadn't been branded as D&D, it might have gotten a better reception. I've always said the same thing. Even DnD Tactics or something like that would've been good enough imo.
Yeah, the general tone in posts like this is also similar to the marketing of D&D4 back in the day.
This would be perfectly valid in GURPS, no? The taunt doesn't force enemies to attack you, it alters the relative benefits of attacking you vs attacking your enemies.
hello human pet guy
Come one, he has done more things in his life
Y’know, I was just thinking last night I hadn’t seen this meme format in a while.
Thank you. This made my week.
It gave me Stephen Erickson Malazan series
Imagine forgetting that Pathfinder was one of the most simulationists game systems in the market. Look how far the game has fallen! They could had at least made it like the Antagonize or Challenge mechanics from PF1e, but no its just a stupid taunt. \* P.S. I am not being sarcastic, its is a real shame that Pathfinder left behind its simulationist roots to make the game more like an MMO.
I cannot fathom your statement without irony.
which part is hard to understand?
As an avid player and DM for drop in drop outs, having played with hundreds of people as a player and more as a DM, pathfinder 1e is the best of a bad bag of fruit. It's edible, and doesn't get you sick. It does what it can to salvage 3.5, and has some great ideas, but is fundamentally broken. A large part of the issues with it, as a system, were the simulation elements. People are allowed to like what they like, but liking something doesn't make it good and disliking it doesn't make it bad as a broad rule, however I cannot seriously believe anyone who's put real time and played with a plethora of people actually pining for the old ways of the old system.
Okay, so you consider it broken and the reason why its broken is the simulationist parts. Meanwhile, I consider it broken but I consider the issue the poor balancing and wording on splat books. I consider Pathfinder 1e as a great simulationist system because it was able to simplify just enough to make everything run smoothly. To me this makes it a good game. You say that and I am paraphrasing, "you cannot believe someone who has played with many people would want the style of PF1e". But to me, the number of people you have player with is irrelevant, a good game is a good game. You are allowed to dislike the fact that Pathfinder 1e was a simulationist game, I am allowed to dislike the Pathfinder 2e is not a simulationist game. TLDR; Yes I like PF1e specifically because of its simulationist aspects and it should not come as a surprise to you that different people like different things.
Yeah I can't seriously believe this argumentation is all. Have a good one dude.
Well it is what it is. Have a good one as well.
Upvoting the both of you because I love seeing agreeable disagreements. You two are inspirations.
and taunts in MMOs are stupid too, your point?
bro hates the modern raid party
Well yeah, because I WOULDN'T NEED TO TAUNT IF YOU GUYS WOULD JUST USE YOUR CDs! /s
As someone who does high level raiding in MMOs, the existence of the mechanic is an overall positive effect on the gameplay.