Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheWriterFantastic™" data-source="post: 7755523" data-attributes="member: 88534">To the rules, yes, the layout is remarkably similar to 4E D&D. Keywords are rampant, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Single class characters are the assumption, with multi-classing as a feat system, like 4E attempted. After re-reading it exhaustively, it's definitely an improvement on 4E's attempt, though I'm still torn about it. Sacrificing class optional class features or archetype features, to replace with secondary class features has, at least in writing, doesn't seem to provide much flexibility in a system advertised on exhaustive customization. I'm curious to see it in actual play. I would have like to see both a true multiclassing option and a feat dipping option, which has been offered in other games, but I am truly excited by risks they've taken with the new system - PF1 was blatantly D&D 3.5, revised again. PF2 is clearly a game inspired by D&D and d20, but with some innovative options that could draw me, at least occasionally, from other games. I just hope it doesn't suffer from the same combat minutiae that torpedoed 3.5, PF1, and 4E for me.Maybe consider that the inclusion of that topic, pun partially intended, is to offer said inclusion to potential players that may feel excluded, otherwise? No one has said, or even implied, that you specifically are excluding players, either. And there's no need for shouting. Some players may find that Pulp style cover art inspired games are their bag, while others feel excluded by it, due to the objectification and sexualization they frequently depict. Taking an inclusive approach, especially toward diversity in gaming, doesn't prevent the former group from still enjoying the game their way, and also invites others potentially turned off by former approaches to tone inherent in earlier editions of our games, which weren't necessarily consciously intended, but endemic in our society at the time of earlier publications. Prominent older gamers, the grognards of OD&D, and earlier, have recently been called out for various acts of unsavory -isms, even ones that have publicly espoused support for inclusion and diversity, especially in the #MeToo environment, and I think we need to try to be better as a society. Change isn't going to happen overnight, but it doesn't hurt to reexamine personal approaches and attitudes, to become better toward each other. There's a lot of butthurt over "Social Justice," but if someone is made uncomfortable by another's actions, intended or not, instead of the other party instinctively getting bent out of shape, maybe it would be beneficially to at least consider why the uncomfortable party was bothered. No one is saying that everyone need be Legendary in Perception and Diplomacy, but it wouldn't hurt for some to consider getting Trained.</blockquote>

Verification