Search results

In PF1 so normally do not have to think about drawing a weapon because you can just draw it while moving, at least from level 2 (most weapon using classes from level 1) in PF2 this always needs an action and you need to think about it. Being able to just ignore this makes it easier. In PF1...

And in PF2 you have Free action, reaction, 1 action action (with symbol), 2 action action (with symbol), 3 action action (with symbol), you have class feats, general feats, racial feats, skill feats, all from different buckets at different levels. I read only digitally I find archives of...

I have the same experience, PF2 rulebooks are really a huge pain, I find PF1 to be less extreme in this sense. I think its more that people who are familiar with PF2, and its huge vocabulary and with it the huge mental load, underestimate how this is for someone who does not know all these...

At level 1 you have how many iterative attacks? And how big is the BAB? Most people start playing a game at level 1 and most campaigns go never above level 7. Also "variable bab" is not hard to understand there is a literal table in PF1. Meanwhile in PF2 you have no such thing, you must look...

How many hours have you spent reading PF2 rules to get it? Not having it explained to you by someone, reading it yourself? Because PF2 has a way bigger complexity to read rules because all keywords etc. than if someone explains it and leaves all the (for the moment) unnecessary things away...

Sure levels will have some othet stuffs I am sure, I am asking more why not do the othet stuff also over equipment, since hp (or wounds) are one thing ehich most often comes with levels and even this can be made with equipment so maybe everything could? Like in Beacon where your character is...

I do think its clever that a character is only/mainly determined through its items. This also works well in some boardgames like Arcadia Quest (where also some characters have advantages using specific kind of equipment). Thats why I ask myself (not only in this game but also others I saw)...

I feel way too many games are designed by GMs... Many inconvenient things often feel its just thete because some GMs like it. This is a bit sad especially since normally GMs only are like 1/5 of the players playing a game. Would love to see some games made purely by players. Then maybe more...

I wanted to suggest the same about the DC. This is about the same as an opposed bluff check or deception check in 5e. The different statistics does make it more complex. The 4E form was meant to be (sometimes) also used in combat, as you can transform for mobility. And next turn transform...

I can see that, I have heard about similar stories, but the thing is, if you have a normal fight and roll 10+ or 4- your modifiers dont matter, unless you have extreme values, so you dont have to calculate them often. But yeah the small modifiers were too much for sure.

Its about mechanics not names. Cantrips = ressourceless casting. = At will powers Spell slots = needs daily ressources to casting. = Daily powers Short rest casting = can be used most combats = encounter powers There is not that much more. Sure there can be punishment for flavour, and you...

But the number of options which 4e has are still way higher which is something Reynard mentions. 5.24 has like 100 feats, 4E has 3000+, 5.24 has maybe 300 spells, 4E has 9000+, even classes has 4E with 40+ (sure with all material) like 3 times as much as 5E. 5E has more wonky rules, but 4E...

I have exactly the same problem. There is not really enough space above 5e at a 6 to clearly classify the complexity I like and difference from the complexity I dont like. (Phoenix command is at 10 according to op). And in addition to that in RPGs games complecity is not consistent. Many...

Honestly for me this is kinda hard to answer because I really have problems with placing games on this scale. Where would Pathfinder 1 be? Where pathfinder 2? Where D&D 4e? And where a really streamlined game like Beacon? I in general want depth not complexity, but I know that games need a...

I definitly am a fan of keeping low level spells useful, I was more thinking that the low level spells being easier to cast (with getting a spell slot back) might triumpf over high level spells. I agree that its a bit wasteful if low level spells cant be used at higher levels you design a lot...

In general gamedesign this is normally called depth vs complexity: Defining Complexity and Depth in Game Design | An Alternate Perspective It is less broad than what you describe here, but it goes in the same connection, and your terms might confuse people who are familiar with general...

And even here one could make it even closer by going the 13th age way. You just prepare spells. No matter if cantrip or other spells. (If one wants). Yes this is an easy fix. Let cantrips scale with caster level not class level. Similar to barbarian rage damage and many other things.

Upcasting lower level spells is mot worth it because mearls and the othet 5e designers did a bad job at balancing. They at some point rven proudly said they have no math guy in the team. This is not the fault of cantrips, its just bad math from designers. 13th age does have cantrips and...

Who says one does allow stupid level dibs in 6E to start with? Or that the cantrips scale with player level instead of class level? This is purely a 5E problem not an inherent problem. What is special about cantrips is that they dont use ressources. This removes the "oh should I spend a...

I dont think there are any real holes, but its just a high amount of randomness involved, since the number of spell slots each day can varry a lot. And with your critical rule its even worse, if anything I would do the opposite. If misscast (and losing a spell slot) then the spell is more...