Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MNblockhead" data-source="post: 8046938" data-attributes="member: 6796661">The more I read about PF1 / DD3/3.5 the less interested I am in it. But I didn't get this feeling with the PF 2e games I played at conventions. Has 2e curbed some 1e's excesses successfully? I haven't bought 2e because there are enough games to play that I don't need another D&amp;D-style fantasy game. If want D&amp;D with more crunch, I can add more crunch to my 5e game without having to buy a new library of books. My experience is with 1e, 5e, and a bunch of games in other genres. I'm not sure I am buying into some of the criticisms of 5e that I'm reading in this thread, but I'm not sure if thats because the weakness isn't in the rules OR if my group has just found ways around, or just living with, those weaknesses that work for us.INT as a dump stat.&nbsp; Obviously if you are an INT-based caster, that's not true. But even beyond that, the exploration pillar is probably the biggest pillar in most of my games. All five of the INT skills see heavy use in my games.&nbsp; Especially investigation.&nbsp; Arcana, Nature, History, and Religion get more or less use depending upon the campaign and session, but rarely is there a sessions that goes buy without one or more rolls with these skills.&nbsp; I can only see INT as a dump stat in combat, if you are not an INT-based caster. Which is a feature, not a flaw.Concentration. Love it. Without it I don't think I don't know that I would like running games past Tier 1.&nbsp; You want multiple buffs and want to control the battlefield while still making attacks, get multiple casters in your party. Concentration makes the game better for me. The &quot;gold problem.&quot;&nbsp; I kinda get this.&nbsp; Many tables just want to play the adventure. The characters' motivations, especially at higher levels, just isn't getting loot. But if you want gold to mean something to players at higher levels, the DMG and Xanathars give you plenty of ways to spend it. Including buying magic if you want to play a more high-magic game.&nbsp; I do think, however, allowing players to just buy magic items can quickly unbalance the game in the party's favor. From what I'm reading, PF1 handles this better by working this into the rules, assuming a high-magic style of play.&nbsp;&nbsp; I prefer GP to be spent on strongholds, supporting villages, strengthening or weakening factions, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MNblockhead, post: 8046938, member: 6796661"] The more I read about PF1 / DD3/3.5 the less interested I am in it. But I didn't get this feeling with the PF 2e games I played at conventions. Has 2e curbed some 1e's excesses successfully? I haven't bought 2e because there are enough games to play that I don't need another D&D-style fantasy game. If want D&D with more crunch, I can add more crunch to my 5e game without having to buy a new library of books. My experience is with 1e, 5e, and a bunch of games in other genres. I'm not sure I am buying into some of the criticisms of 5e that I'm reading in this thread, but I'm not sure if thats because the weakness isn't in the rules OR if my group has just found ways around, or just living with, those weaknesses that work for us. INT as a dump stat. Obviously if you are an INT-based caster, that's not true. But even beyond that, the exploration pillar is probably the biggest pillar in most of my games. All five of the INT skills see heavy use in my games. Especially investigation. Arcana, Nature, History, and Religion get more or less use depending upon the campaign and session, but rarely is there a sessions that goes buy without one or more rolls with these skills. I can only see INT as a dump stat in combat, if you are not an INT-based caster. Which is a feature, not a flaw. Concentration. Love it. Without it I don't think I don't know that I would like running games past Tier 1. You want multiple buffs and want to control the battlefield while still making attacks, get multiple casters in your party. Concentration makes the game better for me. The "gold problem." I kinda get this. Many tables just want to play the adventure. The characters' motivations, especially at higher levels, just isn't getting loot. But if you want gold to mean something to players at higher levels, the DMG and Xanathars give you plenty of ways to spend it. Including buying magic if you want to play a more high-magic game. I do think, however, allowing players to just buy magic items can quickly unbalance the game in the party's favor. From what I'm reading, PF1 handles this better by working this into the rules, assuming a high-magic style of play. I prefer GP to be spent on strongholds, supporting villages, strengthening or weakening factions, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification