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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7739897" data-attributes="member: 48965">Allright so since this is leaning towards bashing 5e as opposed to hyping your game up on it's own merits...here we go... Basically you're saying that the consumers got very close to or exactly the game they wanted, through the developers actually engaging with them and letting them have a say in the design... and yet somehow you're trying to spin this as both...a. not a challenging thing (Because letting direct fan feedback influence development had been done...well let's see... I guess never in the history of D&D.  Yep, nothing challenging there whatsoever  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />)b. and involving no risk (because fans are all known for their ability to come together as a whole on what they want, while communicating that clearly, along with the fact that the previous edition had done wonders to solidify an abundance of resources for this editions development... wait no, that's not right   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />)Again your biases for a particular system are showing.  You can like 4e more than 5e but claiming that the design of 5e didn't involve taking risks and challenges is just constructing a silly argument.  Now whether you personally liked the fruit of said risks and challenges is another thing entirely and not what you are stating or what I am arguing against. And the rogue in turn performs different actions from either of those two... so basically your claim that they all do the same thing and they can only move and attack are both provably false.  thanks for that and I'll assume we can move forward from that ridiculous argument.Now we're getting somewhere, see you stated this as an opinion and even admitted it boils down to preference.That's understandable but then it doesn't boil down to amount of customization as much as it boils down to your preference for a certain type of (more granular?) customization.  Again I have no problem with an argument stated in that way. Yes but isn't the point for those options to be meaningful... or do you just want to make choices irregardless of the actual impact they have.  In Pathfinder 1 you receive more feats but is a single feat a meaningful choice, does it have a meaningful impact on your character?  I think that's why 5e feats are multifaceted (for breadth and meaning) and with the constraints of Bounded Accuracy (where necessary) provide meaningful choice number wise.  I can't say for sure in Pathfinder 2 if it will be the same as 1 but it seems logical to assume that when handing out a multitude of a particular resource a singular instance of said resource will by necessity be constrained in how meaningful it can be in isolation...  In other words I can't fault you for wanting a more granular system of choice, it's personal preference, but I can fault your earlier arguments and their fallacious statements claiming there isn't real choice or difference in the options presented in 5e.</blockquote>

Verification