Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7822209" data-attributes="member: 996">So you're aware of D&amp;D's stellar track record when it comes to easy-to-use, dependable encounter guidelines.&nbsp; Like, there were none the first few eds,&nbsp; Then 3.0 finally introduced formal guidelines where you 'split up' monsters into two CR-2 monsters, repeatedly if necessary, to calculate larger encounters - which was a little goofy, perhaps, but, hey, at least I can still remember how to do it - but they did not give at all dependable results.&nbsp; 3.5's weren't any different.&nbsp; (4e you don't want to discuss).&nbsp; And, 5e's guidelines are, if anything, more complicated to use, and no more dependable.&nbsp; So, with that experience, why would you form an expectation that PF2 was going to have easy-to-use, dependable encounter design?&nbsp; Why would you harp about it on line as if it were some fatal flaw, when it's just par for the course for this whole category of games?&nbsp;Doesn't sound any different than 5e, or 3.x/PF, or TSR era D&amp;D.&nbsp; They all require the DM be on the ball.See, it sounded like a complaint.&nbsp; So 5e &amp; PF2 encounter guidelines both give unintuitive results - you just find that, for your players, 5e breaks low, while PF2 breaks high.&nbsp; As sober observation, rather than a shocked complaint, that's interesting.&nbsp; It's indicative of a game tuned to provide more challenge to the players, which seems reasonable considering how experienced the PF1 player base must be by now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7822209, member: 996"] So you're aware of D&D's stellar track record when it comes to easy-to-use, dependable encounter guidelines. Like, there were none the first few eds, Then 3.0 finally introduced formal guidelines where you 'split up' monsters into two CR-2 monsters, repeatedly if necessary, to calculate larger encounters - which was a little goofy, perhaps, but, hey, at least I can still remember how to do it - but they did not give at all dependable results. 3.5's weren't any different. (4e you don't want to discuss). And, 5e's guidelines are, if anything, more complicated to use, and no more dependable. So, with that experience, why would you form an expectation that PF2 was going to have easy-to-use, dependable encounter design? Why would you harp about it on line as if it were some fatal flaw, when it's just par for the course for this whole category of games? Doesn't sound any different than 5e, or 3.x/PF, or TSR era D&D. They all require the DM be on the ball. See, it sounded like a complaint. So 5e & PF2 encounter guidelines both give unintuitive results - you just find that, for your players, 5e breaks low, while PF2 breaks high. As sober observation, rather than a shocked complaint, that's interesting. It's indicative of a game tuned to provide more challenge to the players, which seems reasonable considering how experienced the PF1 player base must be by now. [/QUOTE]

Verification