Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7738918" data-attributes="member: 6779196">It’s closer to the latter, but it’s not just my opinion. It’s an opinion I have anecdotally seen to be shared by many players. Case in point, the observation that players tend to assume Feats are allowed despite being listed as “optional” and DMs generally needing to put their feet down if they want to run 5e without Feats.Yes you are, don’t give me that. You are implying by contrast that I do “need the rules to tell me its ok for one of my fighters to be different.” That is either a gross misunderstanding of the reason behind me liking “differentiation of character activities enforced by the rules structure”, or an intentional mischaricterization of it meant to demean my position. And I rather doubt it’s the former because it should be extremely obvious that I know you can describe two mechanically identical Fighters differently.For a given value of “finely,” yes. 5e is not fine enough. PF1 is too fine.Now that simply isn’t true. Just because the “produce flame” spell exists doesn’t mean characters who don’t take it can’t start a fire. It just means they don’t have a mechanically codified way of doing it. They are still capable of engaging in the conversation of the game, describing their goal (“start a fire”) and their method (“rubbing sticks together”) and the DM adjudicating the results, potentially calling for a dice roll to resolve any uncertainty in the outcome. Likewise, just because a Feat exists that lets you make an attack at a penalty to hit with a bonus to damage doesn’t mean a player without that Feat can’t make a reckless attack through the conversation of the game. What the Feat does is gives you a codified way to do it.I don’t, actually. PF1 is unnecessarily complex for the amount of mechanical depth it offers. I ultimately prefer 5e for its simplicity, but I do find it a little lacking. As I mentioned earlier, 4e found a great balance between depth and complexity (for me), but it is difficult to find a group for. My hope (and so far it seems supported by the spoilers) is that PF2 will be a little closer to the balance 4e struck.Of course. There is demand for both styles, like I said. Unfortunately, PF1 is currently the go-to game to satisfy the demand for “front loaded” games as you call them, and like I said, it’s too complex for what it is, leaving those of us who desire depth but appreciate simplicity between a rock and a hard place. Hopefully PF2 will be the midway point many of us want.If, however, you were looking for PF2 to be a... uhh... back-loaded(?) game... That was a very strange expectation for you to have, since Pathfinder’s existing fan base is playing it specifically because they want a “front loaded” game enough that they’re willing to stomach its complexity.</blockquote>

Verification