Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 7785336" data-attributes="member: 83242">To be clear here, the reference was to newer 5e monsters.&nbsp; The monsters since the MM have tended to have more interesting abilities.&nbsp; Your example does nothing to explain how PF2e is improvement vs. newer 5e monsters.&nbsp; Newer 5e monsters a many abilities at least as interesting at that.That being said, I do agree the MM or a bit vanilla (I'm looking at you dragons!).&nbsp; However, personally like that in most of my monsters.&nbsp; I just want certain ones to be more interesting / tactical.This is purely preference and I assume PF1 fans like the direction here.&nbsp; Personally, I like customization as a player, less so as a DM (means I have to know all the player options).&nbsp; However, at first glance, for me this looks a bit like to much of a good thing.&nbsp; I think I would prefer you get X number of feats per level and you can chose weather they are ancestry, class, or skill feats.&nbsp; That seems simpler and deeper to me.I go back and forth about the 3 action economy (I think I like it), but it really isn't much different than the 5e action economy (move, standard, possible bonus, reaction).&nbsp; By itself, I don't know that it adds more depth vs complexity.&nbsp; 5e already has reactions that add to you AC.&nbsp; That does the same as the shield action your talking about.&nbsp; I think I would have to play a bit.&nbsp; What other maneuvers provide tactical options?Same as 5e, not completely self-contained when it comes to spells. However, there is no more feat lookup required (which is a huge improvement over PF1). There are some rules that will need to be looked up (from the statblock) until you are familiar with them. For example, what an &quot;agile&quot; attack means.</blockquote>Yes, the jargon (like 4e) adds some complexity.&nbsp; However, I found that was one of the things in 4e that added some up front complexity, it did streamline things once everyone was up to speed.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 7785336, member: 83242"] To be clear here, the reference was to [I][U]newer[/U][/I] 5e monsters. The monsters since the MM have tended to have more interesting abilities. Your example does nothing to explain how PF2e is improvement vs. newer 5e monsters. Newer 5e monsters a many abilities at least as interesting at that. That being said, I do agree the MM or a bit vanilla (I'm looking at you dragons!). However, personally like that in most of my monsters. I just want certain ones to be more interesting / tactical. This is purely preference and I assume PF1 fans like the direction here. Personally, I like customization as a player, less so as a DM (means I have to know all the player options). However, at first glance, for me this looks a bit like to much of a good thing. I think I would prefer you get X number of feats per level and you can chose weather they are ancestry, class, or skill feats. That seems simpler and deeper to me. I go back and forth about the 3 action economy (I think I like it), but it really isn't much different than the 5e action economy (move, standard, possible bonus, reaction). By itself, I don't know that it adds more depth vs complexity. 5e already has reactions that add to you AC. That does the same as the shield action your talking about. I think I would have to play a bit. What other maneuvers provide tactical options? Same as 5e, not completely self-contained when it comes to spells. However, there is no more feat lookup required (which is a huge improvement over PF1). There are some rules that will need to be looked up (from the statblock) until you are familiar with them. For example, what an "agile" attack means.[/QUOTE] Yes, the jargon (like 4e) adds some complexity. However, I found that was one of the things in 4e that added some up front complexity, it did streamline things once everyone was up to speed. [/QUOTE]

Verification