CapnZapp
Legend
Theoretically, yes indeed. However, we've already got 5E where 1 was sacrificed (but not for the benefit of 3).Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.
So it feels like more of a market to offer 1 & 2
Theoretically, yes indeed. However, we've already got 5E where 1 was sacrificed (but not for the benefit of 3).Sacrificing 1 for the benefit of 3 is an equally valid solution.
A very wise choice after all, a player has one (1) character to worry about, while the DM has a dozen.But that’s not the route Paizo choose for PF2. They went with different methods for players vs non players characters
The issue was never that they used the same math. The issue is that they were too complicated to create.
It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.Same difference. For X amount of HD, they had Y feats, Z skill points, and if they had any class levels, Q amount of magical items to equip. All of those elements made monster and NPC creation a huge headache.
It's only the same if the PC math is complicated, as was the case in 3.x/PF1. It was never a problem to use PC math for NPCs when playing AD&D, though.
...which went on to command such loyalty from fans that Paizo has been selling PF1 to that base for an extra decade past it's end of life.
Right, but the inherent problem with that edition was specifically the combination of complex PCs with NPC symmetry. NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.I believe I was referring explicitly to 3.x/PF1.
True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.NPC symmetry, by itself, is not an inherent problem of any edition.
End of life? Pfft. I think PF's record shows that the 3.5 rules had a lot more life in them.
Not when the topic of discussion is Pathfinder 2E, and whether or not it will do to Paizo what 4E did to WotC.True, but also a huge nitpick and wildly irrelevant to the discussion.