Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philip Benz" data-source="post: 8537702" data-attributes="member: 6975782">Yeah, Dave, that seems pretty far out of the PF2 wheelhouse. It sounds to me like you want a low-level game, but with small increments of advancement. Let's look at your list.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Low magic: this is easy to achieve by simply stating that magic shops don't exist, that formulae for crafting are exceedingly rare and hard to find (thus limiting crafting to mundane items, until such time as the DM drops a formula as loot).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lower bonuses: This sounds a lot like the Proficiency Without Level variant rule, so there are already provisions for that. However, I remain convinced that such a system will require a large amount of work on the part of the DM to rebuild the rest of the game to align with PWL standards.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Magic items don't give a bonus to hit: This sounds a lot like the  Automatic Bonus Progression variant rules. Hit bonuses and additional damage dice are built in to level progression. But that would conflict (at least conceptually) with the previous point.</li> </ul>Another way to approach it, would simply be to have different powers for the very rare magic items that the DM gives out. If there are no magic items (or very, very few magic items) then you don't really need to worry about whether or not they give a bonus to hit.- Max PC ability score of 18: This is already true for 1st level PCs. You could simply declare that there are no stat bonuses at 5th, 10th, 15th and 20th level, and your dream would come true.What's left?<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You would still have a very robust skill, feat and class system. Huge quantities of material for character customization there.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Since all your modifications take stuff away from martial characters (and take some but far less away from spellcasting characters), spellcasters would be comparatively far more powerful. Spellcasters are far less gear-dependent than martials are, and their spell progression currently stacks up against the expected gear that martials get in standard PF2. Unless you also did something to radically nerf spellcasters, they'd become far more attractive.</li> </ul>It would be a very different game.Is there some reason you're dissatisfied with a heavily homebrewed version of DD5? You'd want to have some feeling for what the "value added" factor of this heavily homebrewed version of PF2 would be compared to what you're already doing with DD5.Not having played D&D since DD3.5, I can't really judge. I suspect the big difference would be the skill, feat and class options which are far more extensive (and balanced) in PF2 than in DD5, at least from what I have been able to surmise from similar discussions.Is this the kind of game you're talking about, Dave?</blockquote>

Verification