dave2008
Legend
You may not know this, but before CapnZ spent time here pointing out flaws in PF2e he spent 4-5 years in the D&D forum pointing out the flaws in 5e. So, they are well versed in the flaws of 5e.
Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
dave2008
Legend
We dropped ASIs entirely (feats only). I don't like them in 5e, and I like them even less in PF2.
dave2008
Legend
Yes, that is true of most systems / people though, IMO. I personally have few or none of the terrible problems with an edition that others claim ruins the game for them. I didn't have those issues in 1e, 4e, or 5e. I have my own issues, but rarely the ones everyone complains about. In fact, my biggest issue with 5e is the same in PF2.
PS I didn't play 2e or 3e and I have yet to get the chance to play PF2.
Justice and Rule
Legend
Oh, I know. I've seen Capp post elsewhere, too. It was meant to be rhetorical question.
That's an interesting way of playing. Do you do point buy, standard array, or rolls?
dave2008
Legend
Player choice, though I've never had anyone take the standard array. Typically it is 4d6, drop lowest or point buy. It is worth noting a few things:
- You don't need great stats to be effective in 5e
- There are many feats that give a +1 to an ability score (plus other features)
- I allow my players to use UA feats (and variant features), before many became official in the latest book and some still are not.
- I restrict max ability score to 18 (+ racial bonus). So a dragonborn could have up to a 20 strength and 19 charisma.
Thomas Shey
Legend
Yeah, but I think its possible to derive trend-lines and see where some structures cause problems for some people and why, and extend that to other similar people. For example, I think the tendency to see feats as saying more than they are (as in, reading a feat that says you can do X specific thing in Y fashion as saying without it you can't do X specific thing at all without it, rather than the Y fashion being the point) is common enough that, though its a categorical error, its enough of a common one it bares engaging with. Similarly, some of the issues people had with the pre-errata Alchemist were spelled out enough even if they didn't bother me it was easy to understand why it bothers others. Another (albeit one I'm less sympathetic about) was the way people used to PF1e or D&D3e find arcanists, particularly wizards unsatisfying, or the way people who want to be able to play in a more casual way find PF2e's need to actually engage with the tactics undesirable.
But some of these are, essentially, complaining that a wrench isn't a screwdriver, and some are still based on blindspots. And some complaints you can find only make sense with an extremely specific and honestly quirky set of expectations.
Jumping in late to the "GP for XP" discussion, I just started this in my new Barrowmaze 5e adventure and the players love it. It's got a good pace for advancement (coupled with XP for monsters too), gives the players options for how fast to level, incentivises exploration. I'm going to keep testing it, but it is certainly a good way to push through lower levels when you have a deadly adventure to explore.
I’ve tried doing something different using the treasure-per-encounter table to calculate additional “encounters” worth of XP, but it was clunky and did not work very well in practice.
I’m going to go back to basics and do something similar to what @CapnZapp did in his thread and base it on a direct correspondence of gp to XP (by rescaling the XP progression overall). Taking a cue from OSE, you’ll only be rewarded for treasure bring back from an adventure (i.e., “currency” not magic items). I’d like to do the same for XP generally, but I’ll need to discuss that with my group before making the change.
I don’t want treasure for XP to be most of your XP while leveling. I want it to be a mix of treasure, combat, and accomplishments with the bulk coming from accomplishments. I’m thinking of a balance something like 30%/20%/50% for treasure, combat, and accomplishments respectively. I’ve already tweaked the XP scale (to progressively slow down progression at higher levels), so I’ll just tweak it again to make this work.
I’m going to go back to basics and do something similar to what @CapnZapp did in his thread and base it on a direct correspondence of gp to XP (by rescaling the XP progression overall). Taking a cue from OSE, you’ll only be rewarded for treasure bring back from an adventure (i.e., “currency” not magic items). I’d like to do the same for XP generally, but I’ll need to discuss that with my group before making the change.
I don’t want treasure for XP to be most of your XP while leveling. I want it to be a mix of treasure, combat, and accomplishments with the bulk coming from accomplishments. I’m thinking of a balance something like 30%/20%/50% for treasure, combat, and accomplishments respectively. I’ve already tweaked the XP scale (to progressively slow down progression at higher levels), so I’ll just tweak it again to make this work.
glass
(he, him)
AIUI in 1e and OD&D, you get a lot less XP for fighting the dragon than you do for carting off its treasure. Which is a perfectly fine idea if you want to encourage and reward a playstyle that avoids fighting wherever possible. But they never bothered to explain at the time what playstyle they were aiming at.
_
glass.
