Search results

Definitly not. PF2 is far far far away from what people want to create. People want to streamline things and make it easy to understand. PF2 is exactly the opposite. It wants to create depth by complexity and has as the target audience people who like to feel clever by having system mastery...

This is really not what I experience. I have this experience even with experienced people who know many classes and spells, but they forget some details about it etc. And even beginners who have problem with the system do not want to play a champion fighter. The only person I know who liked...

i would say having rarely people play high levels has to do also with people struggling. I see regularily even in low levels people struggle with spells and we lose time to look up exact wordings of spells.

You mean like paragon classes in 4e? Which you got at level 11 and which could depend on your class, but also could have different requirements (like just race or even broader like spellcasting etc.) Or if it needs to be more epic then like epic destinies from 4E? Where you get one way to be...

That is one of my points. Its really easy to "fix" one problem, by introducing other ones. Thats why I prefer people to fix problems which did not create them in the first place because in gamedesign you see sooo often this "I can fix this problem (lets ignore others)" mentality. Especially...

Because mearls was responsible for all the worst books/releases of 4e. What I mentioned here are the books mearls was in charge of. Errata is not bad per se. It just shows that people cared about updating things which dont work as well as expected. 5e did not update the non functional ranger...

Which work specifically? I am honest here because the things I can remember from him where all things which dint really work. Keep on the shadowfell was so bad it was pulled from sale less than 1 year after release and then an updated version was handet out for free online. The original...

Its 1st and 2nd level spells on level 17. At this point a cantrip does more damage than a level 1 spell and you can already do 1 basic attack + 1 cantrip. So only way this does more damage is if you spend 2 spell slots. Also wasnt the "only 1 leveled spell" already in 5.14?

It makes people not need to take the warcaster feat. Its not like that is mandatory to take. Well its clearly meant that you can replace 1 or 2 of the attacks each with casting a spell. So allowing you to cast 2 spells or do 1 attack and a spell. Badly worded but intend is quite clear.

Oh I verry much think they would. No risk, just the same, less is more works well for D&D and they for sure dont want to make fans angry, rather bore them.

Yeah I dont see them taking any risks at the moment. So no innovation most likely.... I dont think having designers who want to do this is a problem, the executive part is though.

Well just because they made it in a not so ideal way does not mean it needs to be bad. Also they did not compare this with 3 subclasses for different classes giving the same 1/3 spellcasting... Sometimes it feels like they just made bad playtests as excuses to not having to do new things...

This is another reason why having the same subclass progression for all classes would make sense. Than the "one third caster subclass" could have been just 1 subclass for all martials, instead of 4 slightly varying subclasses...

My guess is more that modern fans like modern gamedesign and are used to it from other games. So having an imbalance between 2 groups of classes (martials and casters) is for many just not fun. Also peole are used to modern media where there are cool "martial characters" doing maneuvers...

Beacon: BEACON TTRPG by Pirate Gonzalez Games its a better Lancer in fantasy with really clever design and a lot easier to get into than lancer thanks to better formatting, explanation and simpler design and it still has a lot of innovation.

Which is natural. Shadowdark is a 5E "but OSR" hack, so people who try to do the same thing, taking 5E and make it more like OSR, will come to the same result.

The by far fastest way to do turns is to just do them in turn order. The simplest way to do this is to just have a fixed turn order for players and GM. Players can decide how they sit. On first round of combat everyone who beats initiative (median of enemies) just gets 1 turn before...

A simpler solution would be to just end the game at level 10. Especially when almost no campaign reaches above level 10 anyway.

Well you can do minions in any way you like, the question is always just what you want to achieve with it. Originally minions had the 2 purposes I quoted: 1. Allow the mass fight fantasy 2. Allow to easily run many enemies With a 3rd indirect point being: 3. Make combats varied So from this...

Because when I am responsible for a problem, going around and telling people how to fix it, is like if some arsonist becomes a fire fighter. If you are responsible for problems you should apologize for them, and not assume /behave like you have the actual capazity to solve them, else you...