Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 8006831" data-attributes="member: 5834">You're really asking this? Paizo owns PF, not 5E. They responded to their PF base because that is their fan base and who they were listening to when designing PF2. Nearly everything I see in PF2 is criticisms levered at PF1.1. PF1 isn't balanced at higher levels: Now it is balanced at higher levels unlike say 5E, which min-maxers can still very much build into a DM nightmare game. I don't care how many 5E people tell me that never happens to them or how they can DM against it, the fact is 5E still very much allows highly imbalanced characters that make life more difficult for the DM. I have not seen that in PF2 yet up to level 12. If this imbalance occurs at later levels, I will make sure to bring it up.2. Martial Caster Balance: Martials and casters are very balanced against each other. 3. Why can't APs take us all to level 20? What's the point of these level 20 abilities if no one ever reaches level 20?: Now the APs run to level 20 and are balanced to level 20.The design of PF2 was specifically made to fix metagame balance issues with PF1. Balance was the great problem of PF1. And I would say is even a problem in 5E if you use additional options like multiclassing, magic items, and feats. PF2 ensured balance with feats, multiclassing, and magic items.I figured you understood PF2 was directly created to fix the problems in PF1 with a heavy focus on balance and was not interested in becoming a different version of 5E. Is it perfect? Nope. Did it accomplish what it set out to accomplish? I would say yes, very much so. It addressed every major issue I saw leveled at PF1 over its decade plus run.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 8006831, member: 5834"] You're really asking this? Paizo owns PF, not 5E. They responded to their PF base because that is their fan base and who they were listening to when designing PF2. Nearly everything I see in PF2 is criticisms levered at PF1. 1. PF1 isn't balanced at higher levels: Now it is balanced at higher levels unlike say 5E, which min-maxers can still very much build into a DM nightmare game. I don't care how many 5E people tell me that never happens to them or how they can DM against it, the fact is 5E still very much allows highly imbalanced characters that make life more difficult for the DM. I have not seen that in PF2 yet up to level 12. If this imbalance occurs at later levels, I will make sure to bring it up. 2. Martial Caster Balance: Martials and casters are very balanced against each other. 3. Why can't APs take us all to level 20? What's the point of these level 20 abilities if no one ever reaches level 20?: Now the APs run to level 20 and are balanced to level 20. The design of PF2 was specifically made to fix metagame balance issues with PF1. Balance was the great problem of PF1. And I would say is even a problem in 5E if you use additional options like multiclassing, magic items, and feats. PF2 ensured balance with feats, multiclassing, and magic items. I figured you understood PF2 was directly created to fix the problems in PF1 with a heavy focus on balance and was not interested in becoming a different version of 5E. Is it perfect? Nope. Did it accomplish what it set out to accomplish? I would say yes, very much so. It addressed every major issue I saw leveled at PF1 over its decade plus run. [/QUOTE]

Verification