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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 7887291" data-attributes="member: 83242">You mentioned success rate, criticals, and + level as contributing factors which I see as system design. It is, but that is were I generally disagree with you.  I see many monsters in 5e that are better equipped than their PF2e counterparts.  And there are many PF2e monsters that are better equipped and  there are many that are similar.  I ado agree that as [USER=2057]@Zaukrie[/USER] noted PF2e generally gives each monster a range of attack options, which I think is generally better design. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it was the correct approach for that game.  I know that the 5e monsters don't work for you, but they routinely challenge my group.  I think the issue is the system allows for a huge gulf between groups playing the same game and they haven't provided any advice on how to adjust monsters / encounters to accommodate those differences.  I guess I see that as system design, but it can be monster design too I guess. Yep, I agree here - but again, to me that is the guidelines, not the monsters themselves. I guess I just disagree with this viewpoint.  I think if I take a PF2e monster and play it in a 5e game, it will play very much like a 5e monster.  And if I take a 5e monster and play it in PF2e game it will play very much like a PF2e monster.  If they played very differently, that would, to me, indicate a difference in monster design.I do want to be clear, I definitely thin there are some general things and specific monsters that are better in PF2e than 5e; but I don't see the vast difference you describe.  To me, that vast difference is in the system and encounter guidelines.</blockquote>

Verification