Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7821636" data-attributes="member: 996">That's only to be expected, I suppose, but how hard/risky the native system is, itself, might have a lot to do with the contrast.&nbsp; 3.5/PF1 was a bear to build monsters/NPCs, let alone encounters under, and the results were unpredictable, 5e monsters are easier to build than 3e, but the encounter design guidelines more complicated, and not exactly more dependable - though, for a lot of folks they seem to break low, they can instead break high when the party is outnumbered. It sounds like PF2 combats are less dependable in terms of intended/expected challenge, to begin with, even than PF1 or 5e, which is saying something. (But, then, in general, D&amp;D(ish) games have never been at all dependable or simple in terms of encounter design, with guidelines either absent or complicated, and prone to delivering unanticipated results... with 4e, as always, the outlier you'd rather not discuss, of course.)Ultimately, it sounds like a problem that's not new nor unique to PF2, and, thus, probably not much of a problem.&nbsp; (It might be off-putting to new players, or very hypothetical* players with only 4e experience bypassing 5e to go straight to PF2.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7821636, member: 996"] That's only to be expected, I suppose, but how hard/risky the native system is, itself, might have a lot to do with the contrast. 3.5/PF1 was a bear to build monsters/NPCs, let alone encounters under, and the results were unpredictable, 5e monsters are easier to build than 3e, but the encounter design guidelines more complicated, and not exactly more dependable - though, for a lot of folks they seem to break low, they can instead break high when the party is outnumbered. It sounds like PF2 combats are less dependable in terms of intended/expected challenge, to begin with, even than PF1 or 5e, which is saying something. (But, then, in general, D&D(ish) games have never been at all dependable or simple in terms of encounter design, with guidelines either absent or complicated, and prone to delivering unanticipated results... with 4e, as always, the outlier you'd rather not discuss, of course.) Ultimately, it sounds like a problem that's not new nor unique to PF2, and, thus, probably not much of a problem. (It might be off-putting to new players, or very hypothetical* players with only 4e experience bypassing 5e to go straight to PF2.) [/QUOTE]

Verification