Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 9374362" data-attributes="member: 12731">I really tried Pathfinder 2, but it's far too rigid and inflexible. I still can't fathom why anyone looked at the troubles D&amp;D 4 brought WotC and decided &quot;let's take the most extreme aspects of that game!&quot;Just like D&amp;D 4, a Pathfinder 2 adventure feels not like D&amp;D, but specifically D&amp;D4 and PF2 respectively. That is, you need to set up a PF2 adventure specifically as such, as evidenced by Paizo's adventure paths - they clearly come across as PF2 adventures, not very useful for general D&amp;D usage. That's the core of these systems' downfall. It just doesn't feel like D&amp;D anymore. In contrast, OD&amp;D, AD&amp;D, 3E and 5E all feel much MUCH more interoperable, and an adventure written for one system can easily be run for another ruleset. I love the martial combat system, and really tried to stick with PF2, running more than an entire adventure path (all 20 levels). But in the end the inflexible &quot;set piece&quot; mentality of combat just wore me down. A number of plain bad subsystems didn't help. Had I gotten the feeling &quot;this can be a good system, it just isn't for me&quot; that would have been one thing. But that's not my takeaway. Just like with 4E I'm convinced PF2 is fundamentally and fatally flawed, not useful to run D&amp;D-like campaigns, spending far too much effort on controlling and limiting both the game and the gamers. In the end, the extra control and balance just isn't worth the extra clutter and the heavy toll on pure gameplay fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 9374362, member: 12731"] I really tried Pathfinder 2, but it's far too rigid and inflexible. I still can't fathom why anyone looked at the troubles D&D 4 brought WotC and decided "let's take the most extreme aspects of that game!" Just like D&D 4, a Pathfinder 2 adventure feels not like D&D, but specifically D&D4 and PF2 respectively. That is, you need to set up a PF2 adventure specifically as such, as evidenced by Paizo's adventure paths - they clearly come across as PF2 adventures, not very useful for general D&D usage. That's the core of these systems' downfall. It just doesn't feel like D&D anymore. In contrast, OD&D, AD&D, 3E and 5E all feel much MUCH more interoperable, and an adventure written for one system can easily be run for another ruleset. I love the martial combat system, and really tried to stick with PF2, running more than an entire adventure path (all 20 levels). But in the end the inflexible "set piece" mentality of combat just wore me down. A number of plain bad subsystems didn't help. Had I gotten the feeling "this can be a good system, it just isn't for me" that would have been one thing. But that's not my takeaway. Just like with 4E I'm convinced PF2 is fundamentally and fatally flawed, not useful to run D&D-like campaigns, spending far too much effort on controlling and limiting both the game and the gamers. In the end, the extra control and balance just isn't worth the extra clutter and the heavy toll on pure gameplay fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification