Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8101550" data-attributes="member: 12731">As far as I can understand this revolves around the difference betweenIf you simplify PF2 you end up with 5E.If you simplify PF2 you end up with... a better PF2 with fewer unnecessary fiddly bits. (First, I do think Level Up has the better general idea, before we even start discussing the specifics of Pathfinder 2.That said, I think PF2 could have scared away fewer potential customers without sacrificing its &quot;essence&quot; or &quot;soul&quot; or otherwise be reduced to 5E with better control at the overall design level.What's good about PF2 is the three-action system and monster stat blocks. (There's lot of minor stuff that's good too, such as lots of hero archetype support or a functional magic item pricing system, but at its core, the 3-action system and the Bestiary is what's clearly superior to 5E) Classes are weirdly locked down. There are too many feats, like ridiculously so. Spells are mostly mediocre or utilitarian. Too many game options only exist to ameliorate limitations and restrictions that needn't be there in the first place. And there are lots of subsystems that can't justify their complexity. The presentation isn't helping.All in all, the game comes across as far less streamlined and polished than its chief competitor. Its added level of crunch could have been a much larger draw if Paizo didn't go overboard so many damn times.I clearly see what Paizo aimed for. But I also see where they went wrong and where they should have axed content.In the context of this post, I will have to ask [USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER] if this is in any way on-topic...? But I really want to keep the focus of the discussion on Pathfinder 2.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8101550, member: 12731"] As far as I can understand this revolves around the difference between [I]If you simplify PF2 you end up with 5E. If you simplify PF2 you end up with... a better PF2 with fewer unnecessary fiddly bits. ([/I] First, I do think Level Up has the better general idea, before we even start discussing the specifics of Pathfinder 2. That said, I think PF2 could have scared away fewer potential customers without sacrificing its "essence" or "soul" or otherwise be reduced to 5E with better control at the overall design level. What's good about PF2 is the three-action system and monster stat blocks. (There's lot of minor stuff that's good too, such as lots of hero archetype support or a functional magic item pricing system, but at its core, the 3-action system and the Bestiary is what's clearly superior to 5E) Classes are weirdly locked down. There are too many feats, like ridiculously so. Spells are mostly mediocre or utilitarian. Too many game options only exist to ameliorate limitations and restrictions that needn't be there in the first place. And there are lots of subsystems that can't justify their complexity. The presentation isn't helping. All in all, the game comes across as far less streamlined and polished than its chief competitor. Its added level of crunch could have been a much larger draw if Paizo didn't go overboard so many damn times. I clearly see what Paizo aimed for. But I also see where they went wrong and where they should have axed content. In the context of this post, I will have to ask [USER=83242]@dave2008[/USER] if this is in any way on-topic...? But I really want to keep the focus of the discussion on Pathfinder 2. [/QUOTE]

Verification