Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thullgrim" data-source="post: 9118393" data-attributes="member: 8103">This post may end up being incoherent.  I guess what it all boils down to is how rigid and procedural the game is.  The most common example of this I tend to cite is the way PF2 handles Stealth resolution, but it manifests itself in other areas reaching from the foundational math, to actions, to skill feats, and beyond. Skill Actions, Action Names, the jargon.  So much jargon.  I'm a believer that casters needed reigned in, and they succeeded, but none of my players has had fun playing a caster in PF2, which is a problem. I've never seen the characters have the opportunity to show they are bad asses.  Everything feels like a life or death struggle.  I'm not opposed to that kind of gameplay.  I run WHFRP 4e and GURPS as well, but it's not what I'm looking for in ostensibly Heroic Fantasy.  I've run a combination of AP modules and converted/homebrew materials. I've not seen the game at any level beyond 6th so I may be off base here, but I don't think the gameplay will change appreciably as the characters gain levels.  They are still always going to be subject to the MATH.  This is good, in that the MATH allows for a CR system that works.  The two most common fixes I've seen for this are to play published material a level up, or push the encounters down.  Both solutions cause their own problems. There are some inexplicable decisions to me.  A game that realistically wants you to begin most fights at or near full health with weird timing issues and cooldown timers. The Three-Action-Economy.  Meh..it's just another action point system.  I guess it's' new to D&D but not or revolutionary, and again I like action points. I hate the way Ancestries are built.  It feels like you have to be 10th level before you get to be a real elf or dwarf. It's combat isn't much more dynamic, from a movement standpoint, than 3.x games were.  At least in my experience.  I really think the game needs larger encounter spaces and additional voluntary and forced movement options.  Actually, I think the game needs a re-think in encounter design in general.  It feels like they want to build adventures in same way 3.x does, as an attrition based model, but I think the game would actually work better with fewer bigger, more dynamic encounters. There's more but at the end of the day it just isn't for me.  I have other games that do what PF2 wants to do better, in my opinion.  I can play 4e for a hyper tactical game, or GURPS, or even Savage Worlds.  I run a lot of Savage Worlds and Savage Pathfinder; I still like 3.5/PF1 and would definitely consider running that again for the content available. I'm not sure if that answered your question or not.</blockquote>

Verification