Quote from: Willie the Duck;988233I am going to take a guess that you live in urban North America, correct? Now, the farther you go from that, or the farther your tastes diverge from the Basic and Expert Moldvays and Mentzers, plus core AD&D and maybe UA, or the 2e reprints, the less and less frequent successful garage sale finds are going to be.

You can luck into weird stuff though. I found a proof Not-For-Sale copy of The World Tree once. It was the only gaming book the guy had. Should have asked him why.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;988398Shadowrun is for people who are afraid to play in cyberpunk settings without their tolkien pastiche blankie.

Or maybe it's for people who want to play in a Tolkien world without their cyberpunk pastiche blankie HMMMMMMMMMM REALLY MAKES YOU THINK.

Just as long as there's something leftover for us guys who don't like Tolkien pastiche or cyberpunk!

Quote from: Dumarest;988517Just as long as there's something leftover for us guys who don't like Tolkien pastiche or cyberpunk!

Is this one of those chocolate and peanut butter things or more like eggplant in lasagna?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;988523Is this one of those chocolate and peanut butter things or more like eggplant in lasagna?

Easy Eggplant Lasagna Recipe
Roast in the oven until tender, about 10 minutes. Mix together Ricotta cheese, eggs, and Parmesan cheese in a separate bowl. Prepare a large baking dish with non-stick cooking spray and begin layering lasagna as follows: sauce, cheese mixture, eggplant, cheese mixture, sauce and then top with Mozzarella cheese.

Quote from: Dumarest;988222I'm going to have to disagree with you there because I constantly see old copies of Basic and AD&D for sale cheap, and have seen them for sale cheap everywhere from used book stores to garage sales for ages.

Edit: Also, the used shelf at the local game store used to have at least a dozen old copies of various editions and supplements for them, as well as old copies of Dragon and Rifter and various other magazines; I don't know if they are still there as I haven't been inside in probably 18 months. I bought extra copies of Basic, Expert, and Companion for $2 to $3 per book.

You have a local game store? and it has a used shelf? and you have used bookstores?  These things do not exist where I live.  I am not kidding.
 
DriveThru is our FLGS

Quote from: DavetheLost;988527You have a local game store? and it has a used shelf? and you have used bookstores?  These things do not exist where I live.  I am not kidding.
 
DriveThru is our FLGS

I feel for you...I like to actually hold a book and look at it before I buy anything.

Coupla thoughts responding to no one in particular:

I have developed the belief that Paizo can't design RPGs worth a damn. None of the changes they made to 3.5 impressed me, and in some ways made it more complicated. There's a lot that could have been done to make 3.5 work better, and they largely didn't do those things.

Then there's a bit of hubris. It appears that over the years, they have developed the belief that they actually have developed this amazing "Pathfinder Role-Playing System" and convinced themselves that it's far more than 3.5 with a few underlying rule changes and a giant pile of splats, and that's what people really love.

IMO there's not really a good reason to go with d20 yet again, except for the fact that the giant pile of turgid, unplayable games out there suggests that designing a fresh set of RPG rules is far more difficult than most people give it credit for, and I have no reason to believe anyone at Paizo is really up for it.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;988534Coupla thoughts responding to no one in particular:

I have developed the belief that Paizo can't design RPGs worth a damn. None of the changes they made to 3.5 impressed me, and in some ways made it more complicated. There's a lot that could have been done to make 3.5 work better, and they largely didn't do those things.

Then there's a bit of hubris. It appears that over the years, they have developed the belief that they actually have developed this amazing "Pathfinder Role-Playing System" and convinced themselves that it's far more than 3.5 with a few underlying rule changes and a giant pile of splats, and that's what people really love.

IMO there's not really a good reason to go with d20 yet again, except for the fact that the giant pile of turgid, unplayable games out there suggests that designing a fresh set of RPG rules is far more difficult than most people give it credit for, and I have no reason to believe anyone at Paizo is really up for it.

And yet some of us love the system. It's almost, *almost*, as though it is entirely subjective.

Quote from: Tetsubo;988546And yet some of us love the system. It's almost, *almost*, as though it is entirely subjective.

Wasn't 3.5 your favorite edition prior to PF?


I do agree that Paizo acts like they created the system that powered PF and it doesn't sit well but then I remember that for a lot of folks PF was their intro to their hobby

Are people really in love with Full Attack and feat chains? Starfinder was an opportunity to make an ambitious redesign to d20 and call it their own, and instead, they just kind of tacitly admitted that they have no idea how to un-break high level magic, seem to have tried to make fewer useless feats, and crammed even more widgets onto the character sheet.

Paizo's developers seem to understand that 3.5 had a lot of problems, but not the underlying reasons why, and so their fixes are usually to add widgets. 5e solves the problem of Full Attack by just getting rid of variable BAB and restrictions on moving and attacking, then tuning the damage options to make sure they don't get out of control. Reduce the variables, and you can balance the system better. Starfinder just makes BAB even more complicated. Depending on how many times you attack and who you attack, a Soldier might have a +0, -3,-4,-5, or -6 to your BAB just from full attacking. That's sticking with a 3.5 trope for no real reason other than "3.5 had Full Attacks and weaker BAB if you iterated, so we should keep that."

Not only have they somehow managed to make BAB more complicated, but unlike 3.5 and Pathfinder, now whether or not Full Attacking is a good idea is entirely dependent on enemy defenses! If you need a 12 or better to hit, never full attack. If you need an 11, two attacks are good, one and three are bad. 10 and below? Go with three.

What exactly are they achieving with this kind of design?

Quote from: fearsomepirate;988609What exactly are they achieving with this kind of design?

Money.  They understand gamers.  Gamers hate anything new, and Pathfinder players are among those who are the most vocal.  Also, they have a system they effective (if legally and intelligently) stole for their own use, which cuts down on the work required into making a system, they just need to copy and paste after all.  They have a built in audience and they know that this audience will buy it.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;988628Money.  They understand gamers.  Gamers hate anything new, and Pathfinder players are among those who are the most vocal.  Also, they have a system they effective (if legally and intelligently) stole for their own use, which cuts down on the work required into making a system, they just need to copy and paste after all.  They have a built in audience and they know that this audience will buy it.

I'm not so sure. They changed the system, it's just that the changes make things worse instead of better.

3.5/Pathfinder:  BAB = +11/+6/+1 for an 11th-level fighter.
Starfinder, Soldier Sharpshooter: BAB = (shit, I have to make a table)

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 500]
[TR]
[TD]Attack
[/TD]
[TD]+11
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack x2
[/TD]
[TD]+8/+8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack x3
[/TD]
[TD]+5/+5/+5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack Ranged x2, 1 Target
[/TD]
[TD]+9/+9
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack Range x3, 1 Target
[/TD]
[TD]+6/+6/+6
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack Range x2, 1st target dies
[/TD]
[TD]+9/+8
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Full Attack Range x3, 1st target dies
[/TD]
[TD]+6/+6/+5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]...or this
[/TD]
[TD]+6/+5/+5
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

At this point, they're not still keeping the 3rd edition system in place for its own sake. It appears to me that they vaguely understood that having +1 on your third attack is kind of stupid and pointless, but never questioned the initial premise that a Fighter being able to move and make his full attack, or being able to make multiple attacks all with the same bonus, was somehow game-breaking (it's not). So instead they somehow made the 3.x system even messier. I don't see any evidence that they had coherent design goals.

Quote from: fearsomepirate;988641At this point, they're not still keeping the 3rd edition system in place for its own sake. It appears to me that they vaguely understood that having +1 on your third attack is kind of stupid and pointless, but never questioned the initial premise that a Fighter being able to move and make his full attack, or being able to make multiple attacks all with the same bonus, was somehow game-breaking (it's not). So instead they somehow made the 3.x system even messier. I don't see any evidence that they had coherent design goals.

I don't know if you actually play the game, but I am having trouble reconciling your attack with reality. Iterative attacks suck. It's fidgety in play managing different attack bonuses. Boiling things down to a single attack bonus is much better.

I was in a game store on Thursday and the owner told me that Starfinder has totally outsold expectations and that the first print run is totally gone. He said it would be a while before he could get more inventory. (Turns out that a different local store had a couple of copies and I decided to buy one.) Dunno if this is accurate or not, it's just what he told me.