Search results

I fail to see the distinction in your second comparison. The design of 4E was too different than past editions, making it unpopular. It, by design, fixed problems that many didn't feel existed. Now, these articles explain the reasons for those design decisions being made were to satisfy the...

From what I understand, Paizo built up a lot of goodwill with their adventure paths, and this might have caused people dependent on modules to convert to 4E over staying with 3.5. This wouldn't affect the decisions of homebrewers or people who disliked 4E on its own merits, though. I also don't...

The point he's trying to make is that Resonance is a crappy mechanic that is also pretty well divorced from verisimilitude, but doesn't have the advantage of having been baked into the system for 40 years.

I'm not sure why you think you're not getting with PF2 class feats what you were getting from PF1 archetypes. It seems to me that they took all the class features and made them class feats that you take at the levels where you used to get a class feature. With archetypes, you traded specific...

I didn't have a hard time learning them as well, but 3.0's unified mechanics were a breath of fresh air nonetheless and I didn't miss the old ways one bit.

Unified mechanics all the way. It's ironic that grognards who dislike the complexity of 3.PF would want to retain the old mess that was pre-3,0: Low THAC0 is good, low save thresholds are good, high ability scores are good. Roll high when you swing your sword, roll low when you're picking a...

Just reading the headline, Artemis Entreri came immediately to mind, even though he's a "ranger" as much as Elminster is a "fighter". :)

In 3.PF, leveling was the only way to get better at farming (provided you opted to sink points into Profession (Farming)), but leveling didn't automatically make you better at farming the way PF2 does. 5E's system is bad on the other extreme. The only way to get better at the skills you have...

I mistyped that; I knew it was an action, but I typed "reaction". I don't have a problem with having to spend an action to get the AC bonus, nor with having to spend a reaction to absorb the damage. It's the arbitrary limit on how often that reaction can be taken that I have a problem with; it's...

It certainly is weird. This article even gives such things a name: Dissociated Mechanics.

Oh, so the shield heals itself. That makes it much better. :)

So I guess a compound bow would best be modeled as the composite bow is now. It has a Strength rating, and you need to be that strong to pull it back and get the extra damage out of it. Give a +2 (circumstance?) bonus to hit if you only make one attack per round. Maybe require special arrows due...

That it only applies to shields doesn't really address my complaint much, it just makes me less likely to roll up a shield-using character. It's either over-simulationist (shields have durability) or over-gamist (an arbitrary limit on how often you can use a mundane ability), and neither of...

I would guess that applications of gunpowder were able to be scaled down to be feasible as personal weaponry before people considered that pulleys could be applied to bows was an accident of history, rather than a case of compound bows requiring 20th century technology to manufacture, so I...

A piece of counter-anecdata: when our group switched from Pathfinder to 5E, the DM didn't explicitly allow MC/feats, but we all assumed those options were allowed. I would bet that a particular DM's favorite flavor of pre-5E D&D (and I would include PF as such a flavor for this purpose) has a...

I'm willing to submit to having to use a reaction to gain an AC bonus with a shield. However, that last part sounds like they're introducing durability to equipment, and even though I tend to be a simulationist in my preferences, this is a bridge too far.

All other considerations aside, I like that the resource used to buy ASI/feats is character-based and not class-based.

I don't have any experience with GWM, but quite a bit with SS. As others have said, it's easy to mitigate the accuracy penalty with your own class features, externally applied buffs, and situational advantage to turn the feat into a pure damage boost. Even so, the damage boost is gravy on top of...

These statements: don't support this assertion: Quite the opposite, in fact. I think the designer was quite good at min-maxing. :)

How is this unique to spell points? A spontaneous caster can use up all of their slots on magic missile, if they so desire. A prepared caster can likewise prepare magic missile in all of their slots if they so desire.