Is Pathfinder good yet?

>>52636087
Depends on what you want out of an RPG, but because you're asking this question the answer is probably a hard "no" for you (not that there's anything wrong with that).

>>52636122
A game that isn't shit.

>>52636191
thanks for contributing nothing.

>>52637774
Thanks for not just letting this thread die. Like seriously, why dig this back up?

>>52636087
It was never good.

>>52637818
i like watching some fire, y'know?

>>52636087
Who gives a frogs fat ads, as long as you and the group are having fun, who cares what game you play?
>I'm not bumping this

>>52636087

It's a bloated, ill-balanced clusterfuck that fixes few of 3.5's problems while introducing many more. It will always be this way. Even if a new streamlined PF came out in the hazy future, PF is so bloated right now that a thinned-out version would still be lardy compared to other systems.

Can't say I really care for the official setting either.

>>52636087
Pathfinder 2 will be
it will be 3 base classes.
then a feat every level, in a form of a feat tree, based on your build class.

the art will remain super dungeon punk flat blade'n'belts

a fux ton of furry races
magic will be mp based

>>52641013
A thinned out version would remove all of the things people like about pathfinder

>>52641013
>Even if a new streamlined PF
You'd need to gut the system to the level of Fantasycraft or M&M to make it workable imo. I also feel like Pathfinder got rid of the gonzo fun of a 3.5 party consisting entirely of Tier 3 and 4 characters.

PsyWar, Warblade, Barbarian, Warlock, and Beguiler won't get out of hand and has a lot of flavor for a setting, especially if there are a lot of other Tier 3-5 characters running around.

>>52636087
better than AD$D and 4th D(WOW)D. Can see both side of 5th ed even it is just reskined 4th to look like 3th.

>>52641542
>better than AD&D, 4th edition and 5th ed
>ohnoitsretarded.jpg

>>52637818
Bumping just to spite you, anon. Fite me.