Search results

I kind of like the simplicity of replacing feats with ability score increases. Definitely reduces complexity all around. The fixed spell DC sounds interesting too, although I'd be curious to see how it plays out in practice. Two hurdles that come to mind: monsters and their feats, and magic...

Average damage would probably work better. Maximum damage is what critical hits are in 4e, although magic weapons and implements add damage die on crits (1 die per plus). The hp issue isn't really an issue at all if you play with MM3, Monster Vault, and MV: Threats to Nentir Vale creatures...

Maybe cap it to 5th-level, automatically gain one level of exhaustion, takes an hour per spell level, no checks? Something simple and straightforward.

I think the topic is about rules that play well vs. rules that read well. A lot of people read the rules instead of playing games with the rules. I think this is something that'll always happen because it's a lot easier to find time to read books than to organize a game. I'm pretty sure WotC...

In the past few years, turn-based RPGs have been much more popular than RTwP RPGs. Why would they go RTwP when turn-based sells a lot more? Also, the two high-profile RTwP RPGs of the last few years (Pillars 2 and Pathfinder: Kingmaker) both added turn-based modes post-launch. Isn't it obvious...

Isn't that just a general personal preference gripe with regards to how PF2 handles information? Getting information is gated behind a rather elaborate process through Recall Knowledge, whereas some folks prefer to resolve it much quicker and without too much difficulty. To me it looks like...

Isn't Recall Knowledge meant for knowing how to disable a hazard? In the Game Mastering section of the CRB it says (about Recall Knowledge), "For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed)."

I agree, but I've seen players frustrated because they can't hide on the same turn as they become invisible. You can pull that off in other editions but not in 5e, so maybe they did that with another character in another game and find it annoying when invisibility doesn't allow you to become...

One of the issues is that hiding takes up your action, unless you're a rogue. I think this is rogue niche protection and speeding up play. You could become invisible and hide on your turn in previous editions. I guess a house rule could be to allow hiding as a bonus action when you're invisible.

Now close your eyes and start hurrying and dashing about. Is it more difficult to maintain balance when your eyes are closed? Do you bump into things? Not in 5e. Can you run 30 feet, then change course 180 degrees and not lose momentum? In 5e that's no problem. Can you jump off a building and...

Hp in PF2 kind of leans towards meat points as default because of bleed damage and stuff like drained. You could take bleed damage from at or near full hp, and there’s no other way to narrate that than straight up physical bleeding. There are creatures immune to bleeding because of physiology...

@CapnZapp I don’t quite understand why you think 4e is an irrelevant edition when you’d like to implement 4e’s short rest healing into PF2. 🤔

PF2 rules say fairly little about the nature of hit points. The CRB says: Then in the Dying condition it says: And in the Wounded condition (which you always get when reduced to 0 hp, but which you can remove in 10 minutes with Medicine): Pretty standard stuff for a game with hp.

I think the reason why Paizo restricted creature knowledge checks in the first place (from 3.5 to PF1) was to reduce rolling. In 3.5 anyone who’s trained in the relevant skill could know something useful, so if you have 3 new monsters in an encounter, you could technically have 3 PCs each make 3...

5e doesn't have any rules for identifying monsters. The DM can let the players roll whatever they feel is necessary of course. In Tomb of Annihilation the player characters can purchase a book that gives information on the creatures of Chult. It's essentially a binary yes-or-no situation: if...

PF2 is more complex than 4e. For example, you don’t have to calculate anything resembling MAP and things that modify it in 4e, nor do you have weapon traits like forceful or sweeping. You don’t heighten spells or track spell slots in 4e (except wizard, and even then it’s simpler). No...

I’m talking about things like skill check resolution. You try to find a hidden enemy? 4e and 5e, you roll the check and on success you know where the enemy is. PF2 it’s a secret check, and there’s 2 degrees of success. Want to let another PC know the location? In PF2 that’s a codified action, in...

The “accusations” of PF2 being like 4e are weird when 5e is much closer to 4e than PF2! The core structures of 5e and 4e are much more alike than 4e and PF2. PF2 is a whole lot more crunchy and detailed. 4e and 5e both share an approach of higher degree of abstraction for checks. Look at skills...

Officially there’s no “surprise round” in 5e. You can be surprised, but that ends after your first turn, not first round. So if the assassin’s initiative is lower than an enemy who is surprised, the assassin can’t get the automatic critical hit against that target because the surprised condition...

I don’t know how fun the piety system is in play. Has anyone tried it extensively? It looks a little tricky since a party could easily have 4 different patron gods, and the rules assume one piety increase per session or so. And then some of the favored and disliked activities are pretty varied...