Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 8133143" data-attributes="member: 2804">Thanks for this thread. I have no experience with PF2, but this is intriguing to me. I loved 4e precisely because it was oriented to climactic set piece battles, and eschewed what I called 'trash fights'. Meaningless battles that pose no dramatic risk, but existed to spiphon resources so later fights are artificially 'harder'. I hate the attrition model of D&D, where you are expected to manage your resources and rests across 6-8 encounters. I walked away from 3e and PF1 because both were mired in this type of play and it was too much work to rewrite the systems. I loved 4e, but my critique is that it swung the pendulumn a bit too far in homogenized game class mechanics. But it was a dream to DM!I love 5e, but my two biggest complaints are a return to emphasizing the attrition model of play, and monster stat blocks that are no longer self-contained and tactically lacking. Most 5e monsters are boring one note wonders. I also hate looking up spells and feats to run monsters. I want to run them right out of the book with no flipping around. 4e did this right. If PF2 is built around per encounter play where it assumes PC's are full strength at every encounter, that is very appealing to me.I've been tinkering with 5e house rules to get that style of play in 5e. Seems like I should check out PF2.</blockquote>