• COMING SOON! -- Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition! Level up your 5E game! The standalone advanced 5E tabletop RPG adds depth and diversity to the game you love!
log in or register to remove this ad

 

Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and support for other playing styles/subgenres

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
Since we’re discussing creature identification again, one should note that Recall Knowledge does not tell you a monster’s weakest saves. You need a rogue with Battle Assessment to find out that. Recall Knowledge for creature identification is poorly specified and of limited practical use.

No, this is wrong. Battle Assessment is a Perception check, thus you can have a Rogue who has no Knowledge skills but can instinctively know what your weaknesses are.

Edit: Also worth noting that Battle Assessment can give you knowledge unique to a certain creature as well (since resistances and saves can be modified by magical items and such), which I don't think I'd allow for a generic Recall Knowledge check.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

transmission89

Adventurer
Oh Jesus, now we resort to self victimisation, one of the last few refuges of the scoundrel. The only ad hominem I’ve thrown is this recent one declaring you a troll, yet it is an accurate one.

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging flaws in the system (I have done so, literally no one has declared this system as perfect here). Nor is this my favourite game. I have indeed engaged in these threads, discussing different game design factors (including ones at your behest). If perhaps you feel a certain degree of hostility, allow me to hold a mirror up as to how you come across (a collection from across multiple threads). I shall use 5e as the subject as that is what you are using as a measuring stick against pf2.

A critique of 5e dungeons and dragons - a homage to our dear captain

5e is objectively, completely and utterly a failure of a game. This is irrefutable and based on no bias of my own. Most particularly, in comparison to my beloved B/X.
I cannot believe, that in a post B/X world, wotc developed this. It’s like they weren’t even paying attention to the lessons learnt.

I shall use B/X as my measuring stick of success criteria here (though wotc has never declared that this is their basis) but please, in any response, do not bring up B/X, the relativism and what aboutism does my head in.

5e is complete, over engineered crap. THREE books alone for the core of the game! It’s beyond ridiculously over designed, needlessly complicated and engineered. In a post B/X world of two slim books that contain every thing you need, nearly a thousand pages of material is just ridiculous, and for what? All these words for poorly defined rules that require numerous conflicting tweets to actually explain what is supposed to happen. This is a complete failure on wotc’s part.


Firstly, the DMG. Absolute crap. Can any one tell me honestly how we run a dungeon crawl with this? All those pages and no procedure laid out. Traps and hazards are mentioned as examples, but not in enough detail. How do players interact with these?

The PHB. What an absolute mess! Everything is over engineered and convoluted. Actions, bonus actions, interact actions? Over 6 seconds? Whats the point? 10 second rounds were perfectly logical. Nice and round. Plus, just move and do an action. That’s it. No need for all these user hostile types of actions. This is just a complete failure of over engineering.

Skills, why do we need all these skills telling us what we can do, how we can do it etc? It’s like there’s a core idea here, but this just adds unnecessary clutter and complications. Complete failure.

Feats. Crap. User hostile. You have to trawl through this list to realise there are two or three good ones, the rest are awful And poorly designed. This takes up too many pages in an already crowded book.

Magic. The magic in this system is just crap. It’s ridiculous how much they’ve limited it. Charm person lasts an hour?! A wish with enough stipulations that you might as well not bother? This is definitely hostile to magic users (I mean wizards, what’s up with that name change?). Also, a limit of three magic items? It’s like they were trying to nerf the magic balance a bit, but went so far, they’ve completely upset the mood and feel of the game. An utter failure.

Monsters. Ugh, the hit point bloat, the size of the stat blocks and for what? Combat drags on. It takes far too long and gets away from the dungeon exploration purpose (which as I’ve said above, it doesn’t even properly detail). An absolute failure of design with unnecessary complication that detracts from the game.

This is all completely objective fact. I will only discuss these cherry picked examples, I will entertain no other form of discussion. Your response must also be objective (by which I mean must have written rule book citations with no actual opinion from yourself, else that is subjective). Rest assured, should you still be able to respond, my goal posts do have wheels and I am quite adept at pushing them.

You may think I really dislike this game, so this will be the only evaluative piece I do on it as I’ve found it not for me. You are quite mistaken. I shall make a new thread on each topic outlined above at least once a week.

Anyone who criticises this approach is just resorting to personal attacks and not worth responding too.

——————————————————————————————————————

This. This is what you are constantly presenting to the forum.
Also, whilst I have left 5e, I actually don’t think it as bad as I’ve posted above, purely for effect.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
No, this is wrong. Battle Assessment is a Perception check, thus you can have a Rogue who has no Knowledge skills but can instinctively know what your weaknesses are.
I’m not sure I follow. I wasn’t saying you needed Battle Assessment for the knowledge check. Like you say, it involved a Perception check. What I was saying is that you need that feat to get specific information like weakest saves.

All that creature identification gives you is, “one of (the creature’s) best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes.” You get a bit more on a critical success, “something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.”

Using Recall Knowledge to get specific information (such as weakest saves) may be a popular way to run it, but that’s not how creature identification is written to work. Hence, it’s poorly specified and of limited practical use. It’s (also) arguably a regression from PF1 where you could get that information (and more with a high enough roll).
 


kenada

Legend
Supporter
Oh Jesus, now we resort to self victimisation, one of the last few refuges of the scoundrel. The only ad hominem I’ve thrown is this recent one declaring you a troll, yet it is an accurate one.

I am perfectly capable of acknowledging flaws in the system (I have done so, literally no one has declared this system as perfect here). Nor is this my favourite game. I have indeed engaged in these threads, discussing different game design factors (including ones at your behest). If perhaps you feel a certain degree of hostility, allow me to hold a mirror up as to how you come across (a collection from across multiple threads). I shall use 5e as the subject as that is what you are using as a measuring stick against pf2.

A critique of 5e dungeons and dragons - a homage to our dear captain

5e is objectively, completely and utterly a failure of a game. This is irrefutable and based on no bias of my own. Most particularly, in comparison to my beloved B/X.
I cannot believe, that in a post B/X world, wotc developed this. It’s like they weren’t even paying attention to the lessons learnt.

I shall use B/X as my measuring stick of success criteria here (though wotc has never declared that this is their basis) but please, in any response, do not bring up B/X, the relativism and what aboutism does my head in.

5e is complete, over engineered crap. THREE books alone for the core of the game! It’s beyond ridiculously over designed, needlessly complicated and engineered. In a post B/X world of two slim books that contain every thing you need, nearly a thousand pages of material is just ridiculous, and for what? All these words for poorly defined rules that require numerous conflicting tweets to actually explain what is supposed to happen. This is a complete failure on wotc’s part.


Firstly, the DMG. Absolute crap. Can any one tell me honestly how we run a dungeon crawl with this? All those pages and no procedure laid out. Traps and hazards are mentioned as examples, but not in enough detail. How do players interact with these?

The PHB. What an absolute mess! Everything is over engineered and convoluted. Actions, bonus actions, interact actions? Over 6 seconds? Whats the point? 10 second rounds were perfectly logical. Nice and round. Plus, just move and do an action. That’s it. No need for all these user hostile types of actions. This is just a complete failure of over engineering.

Skills, why do we need all these skills telling us what we can do, how we can do it etc? It’s like there’s a core idea here, but this just adds unnecessary clutter and complications. Complete failure.

Feats. Crap. User hostile. You have to trawl through this list to realise there are two or three good ones, the rest are awful And poorly designed. This takes up too many pages in an already crowded book.

Magic. The magic in this system is just crap. It’s ridiculous how much they’ve limited it. Charm person lasts an hour?! A wish with enough stipulations that you might as well not bother? This is definitely hostile to magic users (I mean wizards, what’s up with that name change?). Also, a limit of three magic items? It’s like they were trying to nerf the magic balance a bit, but went so far, they’ve completely upset the mood and feel of the game. An utter failure.

Monsters. Ugh, the hit point bloat, the size of the stat blocks and for what? Combat drags on. It takes far too long and gets away from the dungeon exploration purpose (which as I’ve said above, it doesn’t even properly detail). An absolute failure of design with unnecessary complication that detracts from the game.

This is all completely objective fact. I will only discuss these cherry picked examples, I will entertain no other form of discussion. Your response must also be objective (by which I mean must have written rule book citations with no actual opinion from yourself, else that is subjective). Rest assured, should you still be able to respond, my goal posts do have wheels and I am quite adept at pushing them.

You may think I really dislike this game, so this will be the only evaluative piece I do on it as I’ve found it not for me. You are quite mistaken. I shall make a new thread on each topic outlined above at least once a week.

Anyone who criticises this approach is just resorting to personal attacks and not worth responding too.

——————————————————————————————————————

This. This is what you are constantly presenting to the forum.
Also, whilst I have left 5e, I actually don’t think it as bad as I’ve posted above, purely for effect.
What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.
 

transmission89

Adventurer
Just in case you don't know, CZ's critique of 5e is equally as strong and he left 5e to try PF2.
I get that absolutely. My point here wasn’t to specifically target 5e. It was to point out the absurdities of his arguments (using hyperbole and absolutism) with his vocabulary to highlight that just by swapping out the two systems in discussions, the exact same arguments can be made pretty much word for word.

EDIT: And for the suggestions to fix the issues in the mock review, just append “do it like b/x did“ at the end of every line.

No system is perfect. Every system has flaws. Every system has good aspects (except FATAL but shh). But guaranteed, if I’d posted that review as genuine of 5e, comparing it to b/x, you best believe I’d be catching hell to pay).

The root of the issue, is, as a player, can you accept the system’s warts and derive entertainment from it? If not, if It’s not for you, after making a thread describing why you’ve bounced off it, why waste time and energy constantly making negative threads on it?

If there are elements you find insufferable but still wish to play it, why not make a thread stating the problem with that aspect, whilst providing your home solution as a starting discussion point?

Making a new thread every week saying: this aspect is crap, end of, is just pointless and as i said, borderlines trolling.
 
Last edited:

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
I’m not sure I follow. I wasn’t saying you needed Battle Assessment for the knowledge check. Like you say, it involved a Perception check. What I was saying is that you need that feat to get specific information like weakest saves.

No, but what I'm saying is while that will give you specifically what you want, but does not restrict getting such information simply to that feat. What that feat does is gives a Rogue the ability to get specific information as well as not have to rely on a Knowledge Skill (which means they don't need to invest heavily in Knowledge skills to keep up given that their Perception is going to be damn good).

All that creature identification gives you is, “one of (the creature’s) best-known attributes—such as a troll’s regeneration (and the fact that it can be stopped by acid or fire) or a manticore’s tail spikes.” You get a bit more on a critical success, “something subtler, like a demon’s weakness or the trigger for one of the creature’s reactions.”

Using Recall Knowledge to get specific information (such as weakest saves) may be a popular way to run it, but that’s not how creature identification is written to work. Hence, it’s poorly specified and of limited practical use. It’s (also) arguably a regression from PF1 where you could get that information (and more with a high enough roll).

I don't think I agree to that view on it. "One of it's best known attributes" could absolutely reference a save, like an Ogre's stupidity (and thus weak Will save). I know you've talked about being prescriptive, but this feels more proscriptive to me given the breadth of what they the subject they are talking about.

Just in case you don't know, CZ's critique of 5e is equally as strong and he left 5e to try PF2.

Ehhhhhhh I don't see them starting a bunch of threads in the D&D Forum, nor linking back to their critiques of the system in posts there. Honestly it's less about their critique of the system and more that it is constantly brought up all the time no matter what.

What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.

Hey, don't talk about Lathander like that!
 
Last edited:

transmission89

Adventurer
What’s even worse is that clerics are allowed to have not just one but two spells. They haven’t even proven to their deity yet that they’re worthy of casting a spell once per day, but they actually get two and cantrips. Apparently 5e rolled on the harlot table and got nothing but cheap trollops for the deities.
You’re right, I’ve missed that. I’ll make a new forum thread on that topic next week! Along with the two starter boxes (I mean both are beginner level boxes set in the same location). It’s that much of a failure, they had to do it twice. That can be the only possible explanation.
 

dave2008

Legend
Ehhhhhhh I don't see him starting a bunch of threads in the D&D Forum, nor linking back to his critiques of the system in posts there. Honestly it's less about his critique of the system and more that it is constantly brought up all the time no matter what.
That is because he doesn't really post in the D&D forums anymore. As I mentioned he is no longer playing D&D. If you search for his post from 2015-2019 you will see what I mean.
 

dave2008

Legend
I get that absolutely. My point here wasn’t to specifically target 5e. It was to point out the absurdities of his arguments (using hyperbole and absolutism) with his vocabulary to highlight that just by swapping out the two systems in discussions, the exact same arguments can be made pretty much word for word.

EDIT: And for the suggestions to fix the issues in the mock review, just append “do it like b/x did“ at the end of every line.

No system is perfect. Every system has flaws. Every system has good aspects (except FATAL but shh). But guaranteed, if I’d posted that review as genuine of 5e, comparing it to b/x, you best believe I’d be catching hell to pay).

The root of the issue, is, as a player, can you accept the system’s warts and derive entertainment from it? If not, if It’s not for you, after making a thread describing why you’ve bounced off it, why waste time and energy constantly making negative threads on it?

If there are elements you find insufferable but still wish to play it, why not make a thread stating the problem with that aspect, whilst providing your home solution as a starting discussion point?

Making a new thread every week saying: this aspect is crap, end of, is just pointless and as i said, borderlines trolling.
What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.
 

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
That is because he doesn't really post in the D&D forums anymore. As I mentioned he is no longer playing D&D. If you search for his post from 2015-2019 you will see what I mean.

That's great and all, but we've come to a point where he's constantly threadcrapping how much better 5E is at things, which tells me that even if he has problems with 5E he likes it more. Moreover, if you don't like something at a certain point you just step away from talking about it if all you can do is complain about it.

What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.

It's not about venting about the system, it's constantly venting about the system and telling us we're all wrong. And I mean that latter part literally, as they've literally declared victory in his arguments before.

If we didn't like that someone had problems with a system, I would be yelling at @kenada instead of just discussing our different views. But that's not what Cap does. Instead, they have multi-post rants about how they view things differently and how people won't argue with them and when we do, they just ignore our arguments and declares victory. Like, we all saw that and it's why we're at this point with them.

I honestly don't care if a person likes the system or not, but Cap is disruptive in a way others aren't. That's the long and short of it.
 
Last edited:

transmission89

Adventurer
What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.

If you don’t like a system, fine, vent away, make thread and purge that out.

But multiple threads made? Driving by into other threads? Like for example, the beginner box release news thread. Lots of comments of people curious about the product, lots of positivity, people asking questions or maybe having issues they weren’t sure about, then just an absolute massive dump On it.

Like, if its not for you, and as such you have no desire to purchase the product, why would you then hijack a thread about a beginner box to continue your rant about the full rules system?

I am not saying his issues are non existent. I acknowledge there are indeed many issues. The key here is: presentation. If you are going to argue in absolutes claiming an objective position (the system is definitively a failure, there is no other possible view point) then this is where we have problems.

I could agree (and in fact do) with many of his critiques. He often offers very insightful analysis. But they need to come from a common ground, an acceptance that these are subjective issues, or things that many might agree on (such as the crb needing another editing pass or those hideous character sheets) aren‘t objectively nails in the coffin of a system. They are what they are, warts.

My parody review is there to highlight what is being presented, just an overwhelming wall of unnecessary negativity in every. Single. Thread. Often multiple times.
 

dave2008

Legend
That's great and all, but we've come to a point where he's constantly threadcrapping how much better 5E is at things, which tells me that even if he has problems with 5E he likes it more. Moreover, if you don't like something at a certain point you just step away from talking about it if all you can do is complain about it.
That is a misreading of his posts IMO. He has been saying PF2 didn't learn from 5e. However, I am sure he thinks some things in 5e are better, what is wrong with that? His group just got to level 20 in PF2, so who knows where he will go from here.

Also, there are definitely things he likes about PF2, and he has commented on those as well. In particular he likes PF2 monster design (something he hates in 5e).
It's not about venting about the system, it's constantly venting about the system and telling us we're all wrong. And I mean that latter part literally, as he's literally declared victory in his arguments before.
Yep, he did the same thing in his 5e posts. He even used some of the same blaming language (just at WotC instead of Paizo). Even some of the same type of subsystems (crafting comes to mind).
If we didn't like that someone had problems with a system, I would be yelling at @kenada instead of just discussing our different views. But that's not what Cap does. Instead, they have multi-post rants about how they view things differently and how people won't argue with them and when we do, he just ignores our arguments and declares victory. Like, we all saw that and it's why we're at this point with him,


I honestly don't care if a person likes the system or not, but Cap is disruptive in a way others aren't. That's the long and short of it.
Maybe I am just used to his approach from his 5e days, I'm just used to it now.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
No, but what I'm saying is while that will give you specifically what you want, but does not restrict getting such information simply to that feat. What that feat does is gives a Rogue the ability to get specific information as well as not have to rely on a Knowledge Skill (which means they don't need to invest heavily in Knowledge skills to keep up given that their Perception is going to be damn good).
You make a good point. You can’t do that normally with Perception, so it’s at the adding options rather than limiting the baseline.

I don't think I agree to that view on it. "One of it's best known attributes" could absolutely reference a save, like an Ogre's stupidity (and thus weak Will save). I know you've talked about being prescriptive, but this feels more proscriptive to me given the breadth of what they the subject they are talking about.
I started to write a post ending with a wish for an example, but there is one.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook (pages 14–15) said:
Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?
Erik: You use an action to recall your training about the living dead. Give me a Religion skill check.

Judy rolls a 16, adding Kyra’s +8 with Religion to get a total of 24. (note mine: Recall Knowledge is a secret check, so Erik should be rolling not Judy.)

Erik: At fifirst, you thought this thing might be a ghoul, which is a type of undead that feasts on the flflesh of the dead, but the terrible smell reveals the truth. This thing is a ghast, a more powerful type of ghoul. You are pretty sure that its stench can make you sick and that its claws can paralyze you with a touch.
Judy: This is bad. I am going to spend my last two actions to cast bless. It gives anyone next to me a +1 bonus to attack rolls.

The way the example of play is written suggests the GM decides what information to provide. For example, a wizard may want to know whether to favor Will-targeting spells against a troll, but the GM could recount the example from the CRB verbatim and argue that that’s fair because it’s literally what the book says in its example. At the very least, I think this supports that creature identification is poorly specified.
 

dave2008

Legend
This caught my attention:

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"


Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead! ;)
 

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
That is a misreading of his posts IMO. He has been saying PF2 didn't learn from 5e. However, I am sure he thinks some things in 5e are better, what is wrong with that? His group just got to level 20 in PF2, so who knows where he will go from here.

Also, there are definitely things he likes about PF2, and he has commented on those as well. In particular he likes PF2 monster design (something he hates in 5e).

It's not about them liking or disliking something. It's that it is constantly, unendingly brought up. I have my problems with 5E, but I don't go over there and just constantly systemcrap on it because I don't find that to be productive or helpful. This is less complaining and coming closer to picking fights.

Yep, he did the same thing in his 5e posts. He even used some of the same blaming language (just at WotC instead of Paizo). Even some of the same type of subsystems (crafting comes to mind).

I don't like 5E crafting, too, but I moved on to positive things rather than constantly harp on what I don't like. And if someone bounces off PF2, I'm okay with suggesting other options so that they find something they are happy with: it's why I suggested Spheres of Power & Spheres of Might in another thread.

Maybe I am just used to his approach from his 5e days, I'm just used to it now.

I've seen Cap elsewhere; they even sold me on an RPG system before. But this style of posting is just unendingly frustrating. Perhaps if this board had the same amount of traffic as the D&D board I could toss it away, but obviously that is not the case.

You make a good point. You can’t do that normally with Perception, so it’s at the adding options rather than limiting the baseline.

Yeah, it's an interesting workaround. I kind of wish Fighters got that as well; make Combat Assessment a requirement if there needs to be a balance or something.

I started to write a post ending with a wish for an example, but there is one.

(...)

The way the example of play is written suggests the GM decides what information to provide. For example, a wizard may want to know whether to favor Will-targeting spells against a troll, but the GM could recount the example from the CRB verbatim and argue that that’s fair because it’s literally what the book says in its example. At the very least, I think this supports that creature identification is poorly specified.

I do think this is an instance where the GM has a lot of leeway in what they hand out, which means the skill can have very different impacts depending on what kind of GM you have. On one level I get why they don't want someone to be able to pinpoint target what a weakness is (or at least why it's a feat for some), but at the same time I do agree that it's such a broad-reaching skill that it's something where you could put in some examples of what sort of success might be required to figure something out or not.
 
Last edited:

Justice and Rule

Adventurer
This caught my attention:

"
Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"

Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead! ;)

She could just be really deadpan snarky. :p
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
What is wrong with someone venting about a system? Listen, I didn't agree with a lot of his critiques of 5e*, but I think he has a right to make them. He is often correct from a particular perspective as well (you just have to be open minded). The issue I have is that my perspective often differs from his and that is OK. You are attacking him, but he is usually not the only one agreeing with his issues. If others see the issue, then it is likely not just a CapnZapp thing, right?

*I imagine this applied to PF2 as well, but I just don't know the system well enough.
I could post why I stopped running PF2 — specifically why and what those things are. Most responses would follow in two categories:
  • agreement that it doesn’t do what I want, and
  • argument over my basis.
How I go about making that post and framing my arguments will likely correlate with the distribution of responses between those two things. If I frame it as trying to demonstrate how the designer/publisher blew it or educate everyone on the system’s problems, then I should expect a fair amount of pushback.

To put it another way, the criticisms of 5e that @transmission89 posted are all things I’ve seen from an OSR perspective. They’re even reasonable criticisms from that perspective. They are not necessarily indicative of systemic failure 5e’s part (though I’d argue the lack of concrete play procedures is at the least problematic, or just link this article from the Alexandrian like I did now).
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
This caught my attention:

Erik: It hisses as the blade sinks into its shoulder. That looks like it hurt, but the undead thing doesn’t appear to be slowing down. James, that was all three of your actions. Next up is Kyra!
Judy: I think this is undead. What do I know about it?"


Dammit Judy, Erik just told you it is an undead! ;)
Seems like a fair portrayal of how well players pay attention sometimes. 😂
 

transmission89

Adventurer
I could post why I stopped running PF2 — specifically why and what those things are. Most responses would follow in two categories:
  • agreement that it doesn’t do what I want, and
  • argument over my basis.
How I go about making that post and framing my arguments will likely correlate with the distribution of responses between those two things. If I frame it as trying to demonstrate how the designer/publisher blew it or educate everyone on the system’s problems, then I should expect a fair amount of pushback.

To put it another way, the criticisms of 5e that @transmission89 posted are all things I’ve seen from an OSR perspective. They’re even reasonable criticisms from that perspective. They are not necessarily indicative of systemic failure 5e’s part (though I’d argue the lack of concrete play procedures is at the least problematic, or just link this article from the Alexandrian like I did now).
This is actually the article I was referring too! Bravo for linking it. It’s a great read.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top