Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9341518" data-attributes="member: 90374">5E doesn't rub me the wrong way. Its just not enough. I want more adventures, more feats, more sub-classes, more sub-systems,...just more. I was hopeful about modularity during the NEXT playtest. I thought I would get my more once a good base was designed, but thats just not in the cards. That said, I think 5E is a good base and likely right where it needs to be for D&amp;D. Accessible to the most folks without being too much. The not enough is a me thing; not a 5E thing.For PF2, the +x/level and &lt;10&gt; crit system creates what I like to call a &quot;must be this tall to ride&quot; effect. Combats are set to your watch predictable. Within a few rolls of combat I know exactly how that fight is going to go. Some folks find that refreshing, there is a lot of complaints about 5E for not having a accurate CR. On one hand, this system does make solos possible and engaging fights. On the other it sets a ceiling that is too low for my taste. I am curious about experimenting with the level without proficiency variant rule. I think it might allow a slightly better band of possible encounters that PF2 doesnt currently. Again, this is a me thing; not a PF2 thing.&nbsp; &nbsp; Further thoughts on PF2, I am not a big fan of tactical combat systems like 4E/PF2. I prefer quicker combat like that of 3E/PF1/5E where more thought lies in the strategy than the tactics. I like all classes MAD, not all classes SAD design. I am not a fan of hybrid multiclassing at all, and its even worse in PF2 becasue multiclassing competes with archetypes! (This can be allievitaed a bit with the free archetype variant which is very popular in PF2 groups.) I do think that PF2 is a fine game, and Paizo is a great company, but I just have preferences that lean out of the chosen design space.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="payn, post: 9341518, member: 90374"] 5E doesn't rub me the wrong way. Its just not enough. I want more adventures, more feats, more sub-classes, more sub-systems,...just more. I was hopeful about modularity during the NEXT playtest. I thought I would get my more once a good base was designed, but thats just not in the cards. That said, I think 5E is a good base and likely right where it needs to be for D&D. Accessible to the most folks without being too much. The not enough is a me thing; not a 5E thing. For PF2, the +x/level and <10> crit system creates what I like to call a "must be this tall to ride" effect. Combats are set to your watch predictable. Within a few rolls of combat I know exactly how that fight is going to go. Some folks find that refreshing, there is a lot of complaints about 5E for not having a accurate CR. On one hand, this system does make solos possible and engaging fights. On the other it sets a ceiling that is too low for my taste. I am curious about experimenting with the level without proficiency variant rule. I think it might allow a slightly better band of possible encounters that PF2 doesnt currently. Again, this is a me thing; not a PF2 thing. Further thoughts on PF2, I am not a big fan of tactical combat systems like 4E/PF2. I prefer quicker combat like that of 3E/PF1/5E where more thought lies in the strategy than the tactics. I like all classes MAD, not all classes SAD design. I am not a fan of hybrid multiclassing at all, and its even worse in PF2 becasue multiclassing competes with archetypes! (This can be allievitaed a bit with the free archetype variant which is very popular in PF2 groups.) I do think that PF2 is a fine game, and Paizo is a great company, but I just have preferences that lean out of the chosen design space. [/QUOTE]

Verification