Search results

I am a big booster of it, but as you describe it, it really sounds like Pathfinder 2E might be the thing you want? Looking at your group: The DM: PF2 definitely has crunchier, tactical combat on a grid with rather fantastic VTT support on Foundry VTT. You'd have to learn how to use Foundry...

Thank you. I know I've seen them elsewhere (I think Reddit?), but I'm not on the forums and Google's search is terrible nowadays. Edit: Wow, actually missing some interesting discussions on their forum. That second one regarding moving away from the 6-Part AP is interesting, as it really does...

I'll be real: the big reason why I had to make up monsters in 5E was because most of them really sucked, and making them interesting was not something I typically did on the fly. You can make up NPCs on the fly without problem in PF2; you just need to know what you want out of them and the...

Proficiency will come naturally. Honestly it's basically the same as 5E but adding level. I do get being overwhelmed with Traits/Tags, largely because some of them use verbiage that is similar to 5E but not in the same way. I remember looking at the "Concentrate" tag and trying to figure out...

I will say that the youngins I used to play 5E with have converted over to playing an in-person version of PF2 with like a 6-person party. There are a decent amount of open Pathbuilder instances, but several of them still use sheets.

I believe they had stated as such with the release of PF2, saying that they could see the writing on the wall if they didn't do something different because sales were starting to trail off. I can't find it right now because Google sucks, but I know they have basically stated so in the past.

Starfinder 2E might be a bit easier because you're at the start of the cycle, rather than after several big books and a whole remaster. Might help you get over the hump of learning/knowing things by not feeling like you have a whole bunch of "homework", but are starting with everyone else. I...

VTT integration has been a lifesaver for a bunch of games I like, particularly games that run with dice pools. I'm a guy who computes quickly, so it never bothered me, but it definitely helped many in my group.

Maybe. I think when people talk about "PC Power", it's more wrapped in other abilities like spells and such or unbalanced features. Doing something that increased PCs basically across the board seems less controversial, but I could be wrong.

Ah cool, like to know that this works in a particular set of circumstances and not most of them. Again, if we have to get very specific, that's not exactly the "practice" as much as "what we need to get it to work". I think you mean "Not forgoing", as that means to not do something. FOB can...

But that's basically just taking an ASI with a feat. Like, by that logic if I gave you an ASI plus a Feat, that's just a feat with a custom ASI on it.

That doesn't make my fighter a better speaker or my Rogue wiser. The problem is that we are talking about a system based around numerical rolls and to be better at things, we ostensible need two things: better stats or better proficiency. The problem is that proficiency is locked in, so the only...

Because, largely speaking, there are so few ways to do it already? I mean, I know 5E is a low numbers game, but that's kind of what you get when you make it like that. I don't think ASIs are necessarily the most interesting thing in the world, but they also let you overcome the basic limitations...

Uh, who are they falling behind? The enemy? Everyone getting more is fine. MAD classes have problems because they don't have enough stats to go around and get hamstrung by lacking something; giving them more helps them out. Who cares if a fighter gets another boost, the Monk can get a feat as...

Not really? Like, in choosing both it creates more potential split points as well as allowing MAD characters to fill out better. Forcing a choice between the two things doesn't add to customization because it prevents it: it forces you away from certain choices because you have to abandon them...

It feels bad to me because it's just an unnecessary limit: why do I have to choose between the two when I could simply have both? In a game where there are very limited choices outside of the class ones, allowing more options to customize them beyond the class structure would seem good. I...

For certain classes it means more than others. Martials, in particular, probably get more benefits from feats because (so far in 5E, at least) feats have had big implications on how they interact with combat. +1 to hit is always good, but the +1 to damage is less meaningful. For Spellcasters...

I "don't understand" it because it's a bad design decision. I've never heard a good argument for it, hence I "never understood". I'm not sure what point you're trying to make other than not grokking casual idioms.