Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7887229" data-attributes="member: 12731">You have completely lost me here. 5E and PF2 is built differently, yes. But how is a decision to make monsters competent and well-equipped not monster design?My experience with 5E was that the PHB headed out abilities that made heroes run circles around monsters. To me, that suggests anemic monster design, as if the MM designers only saw the boilerplate fighter with no bells and whistles and made monsters to face that. Then, when class abilities, feats, spells, charop and party tactics are added, monsters just stand there like chumps to be mowed down at leisure. At times, I shook my head: how could anyone think this to be a challenge?!PF2 couldn't be more different. Even two dozen sessions in, I still get amazed with what the devs consider a monster of, say, PL+2. Yikes, how deadly things are! I'm constantly reminded to stick to the guidelines or risk a TPK. I never got that feeling in 5E, where the guidelines were utter drek.Call that whatever kind of design you like. Myself I associate it with the Bestiary more than the CRB, so I'll keep calling it "monster design" for short of you don't mind! [emoji846]</blockquote>