Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8106942" data-attributes="member: 70468">Do you have an example of what you mean? You mention Crafting, but I consider that an example of a fairly simple mechanic that’s presented in a way that’s needlessly complicated and confusing.Compare <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=43" target="_blank">this</a> to this:Yeah, it still has a lot of words. However, the original version mixes outcomes and requirements and procedural elements together. That makes it look complicated and confusing. PF2 has a standard format for these things (requirements, flavor, procedure, outcomes, special notes), but Crafting eschews that format — to its detriment. The original version uses “if” five times in the procedural part of the activity while mine uses it none (or one time if we count the special section for that purpose).Is that complicated? I don’t think so. Ultimately, it comes down to paying a cost and making a check. The requirements are wordy. If some things could be taken safely as assumptions (like the level 0 thing), then they probably be omitted. I almost deferred to the Crafting Requirements section on page 535, but I wasn’t sure how fair that would be. However, I think it still reads more clearly than the original version even as-is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8106942, member: 70468"] Do you have an example of what you mean? You mention Crafting, but I consider that an example of a fairly simple mechanic that’s presented in a way that’s needlessly complicated and confusing. Compare [URL='http://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=43']this[/URL] to this: Yeah, it still has a lot of words. However, the original version mixes outcomes and requirements and procedural elements together. That makes it look complicated and confusing. PF2 has a standard format for these things (requirements, flavor, procedure, outcomes, special notes), but Crafting eschews that format — to its detriment. The original version uses “if” five times in the procedural part of the activity while mine uses it none (or one time if we count the special section for that purpose). Is that complicated? I don’t think so. Ultimately, it comes down to paying a cost and making a check. The requirements are wordy. If some things could be taken safely as assumptions (like the level 0 thing), then they probably be omitted. I almost deferred to the Crafting Requirements section on page 535, but I wasn’t sure how fair that would be. However, I think it still reads more clearly than the original version even as-is. [/QUOTE]

Verification