Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="noodohs" data-source="post: 9091444" data-attributes="member: 7033037">Interesting. I would be curious to know how you were playing: VTT? Pen and paper? I ask only because back in my PF1e days, we were playing with paper and it really did get annoying tracking things. But PF2e (and A5e), we are playing with a VTT and even PF2e doesn't seem too crunchy anymore. Everything is just there and easy to track. I rarely have to remember anything.We've been playing our game for a while now and expertise has been my favorite addition by far. Not only does it allow me to excel more at something than other players, but it also provides additional situational bonuses that give me a reason to solve problems more creatively. With O5e, my biggest complaint is that every character winds up being only marginally different from other characters because proficiency is static. Yeah, I might have more or less bonus from my ability score, but one person being good at arcana is the same as another. Now we can focus on specific aspects of it and with some DM creativity, get different narrative results from our rolls. PF2e essentially operates the same way but with a fixed bonus instead of dice (though the average is about the same, IIRC).Regarding the subclasses/archetypes, I do think it's hard to really judge the A5e ones if you're not playing them. This would also make it hard to really grasp expertise and maneuvers since O5e ones don't grant those. However, it is unsurprising that a player who is an optimizer might not be so into the more balanced archetypes in A5e. But the rebalancing is why I like A5e; a lot of things needed to be toned down. I would be curious if they actually mean "stronger/more powerful in combat" rather than "better" as I do not think these things are the same.Maneuvers have been a mixed bag. I am always looking for opportunities to use them, but they end up being very situational and I don't often seem to be in the right situation. Partly this is because I wanted to play a ranged ranger and all the ranged maneuvers are pretty... non-existent, but I also feel like I'm just not in the right situation enough. I wonder if being able to switch them out on a long rest might alleviate that. I understand the idea of having a character who has signature moves, so to speak, but if you have a character who can, say, blind people and now you're fighting exclusively things without eyes, I can imagine that getting tiresome.I also agree that having certain things rely on the DM to dole out rewards and others not isn't the best. It is one of my complaints about the artificer. If you have the right DM, it's fine, but if you don't, you might just never get inspiration or new schematics or this or that thing, but other players are getting inspiration or the wizard does get new spells because that's just the rules. Sometimes the DM just forgets, but other times they're just a dick and I don't think core features should be tied to DM whims.Supply... I think I agree with Morrus. If you're frequently in towns, of course you can get supply. It's mainly there for when taking long journeys. Your strength score dictates how much free supply you can carry and additional rations can get heavy, so there's only so much you can carry. If you're just giving people bags of holding, yeah, you're going to completely defeat the mechanic.</blockquote>

Verification