Search results

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.

Can you summarise his opinion on Druid?

I might make a thread about this later. The problem is that there are two ways to interact, with explicit mechanical support, with the world. Either skills or explicit abilities (these being class abilities or spells). Skills in D&D are both weak and they do not scale properly. Sure you...

You sound like the NICEST person on this forum. Obvious difference between using the work of someone else, like "my" avatar, and commercial mass reuse or replication, as which happens with generative AI.

Do you run the exhaustion system as is? I think it has potential, but I'd add some increasing chance of spell failure as you gain levels of exhaustion, otherwise it seems like the system unfairly favours spells. You can be near death, unable to move, yet still be able to cast spells without issue.

I meant that some of these house rules presented in here make a level 1 wizard more capable of surviving long falls than a level 20 fighter. Which was my point. Sure, even a level 20 wizard might not have prepared Featherfall, but he probably has prepared Fly, so he can just fly down. I think...

I'm not seeing the problem that solves, though. A wizard could do it from level one.

I think that's because rule book writers don't want to have to explain the background of each rule and the rules are the work. Sometimes it's simply less clear what the intent is for various reasons. It would be pretty nice if they did, though. Regarding Forge, I think it's natural that there...

Can you give a concrete example?