Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philip Benz" data-source="post: 9375079" data-attributes="member: 6975782">I've seen these arguments before, but never collected in one place, with so much... &quot;yuck&quot; to them.I feel like Goldilocks, 3 actions is just right.1) The name changes are cosmetic at worst. WotC is the culprit.2) Hard disagree, but I do need to keep my DM screen handy as a quick reference sheet for those conditions. At the tabletop, we also use condition cards laid down next to the figures. On Foundry, condition tracking is seamless and transparent.4) Hard disagree, especially since it's super easy to take any adversary and make it higher or lower level. I use a lot of NPC adversaries, making it even less of a problem.5) Don't know where you're getting this stuff from, creatures below the party level aren't intrinsically complex. It's true, when you have a lot of critters on the battlemap, combats take longer to run. Maybe you just need a better combat tracker.6) &quot;Too many options&quot; is an advantage, not a drawback. But I'll certainly agree that using a tool like Pathbuilder for character creation is much, much faster than flipping through pages in multiple books, or even just one. The important difference between PF2 and earlier systems like DD3.x and PF1 is that you can't &quot;win&quot; the game at character creation, by finding the optimal combination of broken feats.7) Running Pathfinder around the tabletop is anything but a &quot;Herculean task&quot;. Many would argue that it's far easier than that other popular RPG, for reasons too numerous to name, but starting with the fact that the Building Encounters table actually works, and you don't have to make up rules on the fly just to keep your game running.I'm going to stop here. It's clear you have your position and there's zero chance of convincing you. My experience is vastly different. Thanks for sharing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philip Benz, post: 9375079, member: 6975782"] I've seen these arguments before, but never collected in one place, with so much... "yuck" to them. I feel like Goldilocks, 3 actions is just right. 1) The name changes are cosmetic at worst. WotC is the culprit. 2) Hard disagree, but I do need to keep my DM screen handy as a quick reference sheet for those conditions. At the tabletop, we also use condition cards laid down next to the figures. On Foundry, condition tracking is seamless and transparent. 4) Hard disagree, especially since it's super easy to take any adversary and make it higher or lower level. I use a lot of NPC adversaries, making it even less of a problem. 5) Don't know where you're getting this stuff from, creatures below the party level aren't intrinsically complex. It's true, when you have a lot of critters on the battlemap, combats take longer to run. Maybe you just need a better combat tracker. 6) "Too many options" is an advantage, not a drawback. But I'll certainly agree that using a tool like Pathbuilder for character creation is much, much faster than flipping through pages in multiple books, or even just one. The important difference between PF2 and earlier systems like DD3.x and PF1 is that you can't "win" the game at character creation, by finding the optimal combination of broken feats. 7) Running Pathfinder around the tabletop is anything but a "Herculean task". Many would argue that it's far easier than that other popular RPG, for reasons too numerous to name, but starting with the fact that the Building Encounters table actually works, and you don't have to make up rules on the fly just to keep your game running. I'm going to stop here. It's clear you have your position and there's zero chance of convincing you. My experience is vastly different. Thanks for sharing. [/QUOTE]

Verification