Kurviak
Explorer
... or with enough level in monk, or just plain enough hp. A high level barbarian can easily survive 20d6 dmg...
landing safely and surviving are not the same
... or with enough level in monk, or just plain enough hp. A high level barbarian can easily survive 20d6 dmg...
... or with enough level in monk, or just plain enough hp. A high level barbarian can easily survive 20d6 dmg...
I think that you are being a bit disingenuous to suggest that these are equivalent scales or scopes of fantasy, particularly in regards to mechanical support provided. Similar, but not identical. Hopefully you can at least recognize that the fantasy power level of 3e/Pathfinder extends beyond what is normal in 5e. As I suggested earlier, I think that Pathfinder 1/2 is oriented towards a "higher" epic fantasy than 5e, perhaps even more along the lines of "mythic" or "legendary."With spells, expertise and stat increase , high level PCs can hit pretty high DCs. A shadow monk rogue multi class can have + 27 to stealth.
A high level fighter can easily defeat most giants, an epic feat of martial prowess a first level fighter never could.
Correct me if I am wrong, but PHB+1 is for Adventurer's League play. So worrying about the influence of AL in D&D while also lauding AL's greatest unofficial influence on non-AL D&D table play seems perplexing. (I say this because some people seem to operate as if PHB+1 is a rule for all play not not just AL play.)What [MENTION=15901]wakedown[/MENTION] said.
In fact I worry about the influence of AL in D&D. So happy things like Critical Role and the current designers themselves are pulling in the opposite way. PHB+1 was pure genius.
I was Pathfinder's biggest proponent and defender in my local circles for years, but have certainly grown empathetic to various players moreso than I was in the 2015-2016 era. I certainly had to be as most fled to 5e from Pathfinder and finally even my home campaigns have flipped to 5e.
I loved feats, I really did. But so many gamers here are so thrilled to play feat-less and just show up to the session without character building "homework" in between sessions, where the penalty for not doing that homework was severe in terms of game balance.
I think that perhaps one of the biggest accomplishments of 5e is diminishing the range between a "vanilla, not much effort" PC and one that is fully optimized. I think that it is ok that a good character build be rewarded by being a little better, but in 3.x and even more so pathfinder, the difference is *massive*
So the more choice in pathfinder is an illusion, because most of these choices are bad. Meanwhile in 5e I once made a "suboptimal " character (gnome ranger meleeist) and it worked out fine - in other words, the "bad" choices are still actually options.
Anyway... that was my experience with 1e. Is Pathfinder 2e better balanced in this regard?
Hopefully you can at least recognize that the fantasy power level of 3e/Pathfinder extends beyond what is normal in 5e. As I suggested earlier, I think that Pathfinder 1/2 is oriented towards a "higher" epic fantasy than 5e, perhaps even more along the lines of "mythic" or "legendary."
Somebody earlier in this discussion listed something like "greater character choices" as an advantage for PF2. Those who have liked the PF2 playtest will likely say they feel your issue is addressed.
Combat is just about the only area where a 5E character scales reasonably well, but they're still complete chumps when it comes to climbing a wall or swimming any significant distance. The difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter is only +7, which still pales in comparison to the randomness of the d20. That doesn't allow for a good sandbox, where high-level characters get to interact with low-level characters and utterly dominate them due to their inherent superiority. The lies of a powerful sorcerer will still be seen through frequently enough by anyone listening to them, because the fundamental game mechanics are designed to support low-level chumps being nearly as competent as high-level PCs in any area that doesn't involve HP damage.And in conjunction with what was said above, once again 5e also lends itself to the type of playstyle that one wants in their game. 5e is also perfect for a type of sandbox one wants to play, and just because you may be able to scratch that legendary dragon...you will probably still be absolutely destroyed by it if you are low level.
I think that you are being a bit disingenuous to suggest that these are equivalent scales or scopes of fantasy, particularly in regards to mechanical support provided. Similar, but not identical. Hopefully you can at least recognize that the fantasy power level of 3e/Pathfinder extends beyond what is normal in 5e. As I suggested earlier, I think that Pathfinder 1/2 is oriented towards a "higher" epic fantasy than 5e, perhaps even more along the lines of "mythic" or "legendary."
Correct me if I am wrong, but PHB+1 is for Adventurer's League play. So worrying about the influence of AL in D&D while also lauding AL's greatest unofficial influence on non-AL D&D table play seems perplexing. (I say this because some people seem to operate as if PHB+1 is a rule for all play not not just AL play.)
But so many gamers here are so thrilled to play feat-less and just show up to the session without character building "homework" in between sessions, where the penalty for not doing that homework was severe in terms of game balance.