Search results

It's limited only in a very abstract sense, and at mid to higher levels it is functionally at-will.

Have they nerfed shield?

A tactile feeling is important to me, but I don't mind playing online. If I play in person I pretty much require real dice, though. I prefer small metal dice, because I like the weight. Light dice are the worst.

Monsters being built like PCs is great in theory, but it's sooooo much work in practice. I personally love the idea of it, but man I do not feel like it works well when you sit down to play. Too much prep.

As the age of a D&D edition approaches infinity, the number of spells available approaches infinity The only way to avoid power creep in D&D is to avoid having generalised features. That is: Any feature that belongs to a class belongs to that class only, and later books cannot add new...

I dislike the whole exhaustion system because it doesn't really punish characters equally. I'm not even objecting to this because it is unbalanced, but because I think it's aesthetically bad. It has an important problem: It doesn't really inhibit spell casting. A caster can have multiple levels...

I have to admit i was wrong. My perspective in this case comes from being mostly on the player side of 5E, and never having the sense that anything in the survival side of the system was anything but arbitrary GM fiat.

What skill check? What does a success mean? What does a failure mean? Can you get lost in the wilds? How much food do you get when you hunt? How difficult would these checks be?

Lock picking as a skill is already actionable. There already IS a system to engage with and the purpose of the rogue isn't to just pick locks. it's to be sneaky and thiefy in general. Even if the rogue sucks as a class the class still has mechanics to engage with the core concept of the class...

No. If I wanted a simple system with few options, I'd go for one that is fundamentally better designed from the get go. The attraction of D&D itself is options. No options? No fun. I don't feel like D&D is well enough designed to function well long term with few options.

So something around 2 or between 2 and 3. Image below is by a pathfinder illustrator I can't find the name of right now. I love her approach though. It avoids what are to me the typical furry pitfalls where they look too much like Rakshasa.

Strong disagreement with the question in the title. My RPG history: D&D 3.0 -> D&D 3.5 -> PF1 & D&D 4E -> D&D 5 & PF2 An attempting at ranking the above: PF2 > PF1 > 4E > 3.5 > 3.0 > 5E Someone might argue that my tastes have been set: I like crunch. Except I love a lot of systems not listed...

A few paragraphs into the System II description and my eyes glaze over. This is hilariously bad.

I think PF2 benefits greatly from having a few players at the table being well read as far as the rules are concerned. This means that the game will never be stuck for too long if some kind of rules oddity appears (which does from time to time) My group for example tries to be very fair in...

Kingmaker is excellent, though some encounters are unbalanced. The finale is pretty good, if a bit weird. Abomination Vault is great, but the GM and the players need to spice it up a bit or else you will get endless dungeon stuff and nothing else. </sidenote>

Can you point me to a rulebook covering this original thief? It sounds extremely interesting.

That's Ysgard. Pandemonium is where everything is loud, windy and insane.

I'll update in a while. Started researching, but then had to interrupt that for other reasons.

MV's plane reviews: Arborea: I keep forgetting this one exists. Ysgard: It's OK. The place isn't really inspiring. Beastlands: Now we're talking. I love the whole feral thing here. Elysium: Pretty cool place with all the rivers and the weird terrain. Arcadia: Same problem as Ysgard. Not really...

Thanks, but my hesitation was because I did not have an account on Patreon. I got one just now. Reluctantly.