Two thoughts on Pathfinder 2e playtest - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by DMMike View Post
    The way I play, circumstance bonus/penalty, conditional bonus/penalty, item bonus/penalty, and untyped penalties are all rolled into one number called Difficulty. But from what I've seen, Pathfinder players are perfectly cool with that long list.
    I agree. I think this difference in style comes down to a difference in who the rules are written for. Pathfinder has always been what I would consider a ďplayersí game,Ē and difficulty is squarely in the hands of the GM. If all the circumstantial, conditional, and miscellaneous sources that might modify the difficulty of a check are rolled into setting the DC, then the GM has all the power. The players canít rely on the player-facing rules to confirm that the DC is being set ďfairly,Ē they just have to trust the GMís judgment.

    For the record, I think mutual trust leads to better games, and think that rolling bonuses and penalties into the DC is the better way to go. But I can see where the other side is coming from, even if itís not my preference.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Parmandur View Post
    It's a product that they have sold people and expect them to use,it gosh golly darn better be readable and useable.
    It is readable and useable.

    What an odd thing to say.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrus View Post
    It is readable and useable.

    What an odd thing to say.
    I added a ":P" to make the joke-y tone more clear.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by mellored View Post
    Well, there's a trade off.

    5e: don't need to track the bonus type. Simply add everything together.
    PF2: track types to limits stacking. You can't add everything together.
    Yeah I think itís a solid one. 5e you can stack stuff, but itís very short term and takes decent resources. PF2 the resources are a bit more open, but the math comes down to one person one buff. (Because all buffs are a single type, there is no 5 different types of buffs like PF1 where you did have to track types) Whether itís bless, heroism, etc just one is all you need. I think PF2 goes even harder to restricting buffs than 5e because the rule basically now is you can benefit from one attack buff and youíre done.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Ft Wayne IN
    Quote Originally Posted by robus View Post
    1) This seems like madness!

    On page 291 of the rulebook:

    How does anyone look at that and think fun?!
    I look at that (the big blank is where your quoted text ought to be) and think "I need to write up a table to list each PC's normal mods."

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Miami, FL
    While I find it interesting, and will likely play it, it's starting to look very 4e-ish in certain areas. Not always a bad thing, but in this case, possibly a bad thing.
    Lots of actions (action cards here we come), a basic strike action, the action economy...
    While this is fine for myself and most of my players who can strategize and math on the fly, I can see it grinding to a halt with players that wait until their turn to make decisions.
    I foresee a return of Turn Sandtimers.
    XP Starfox gave XP for this post

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts