Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MaskedGuy" data-source="post: 8108425" data-attributes="member: 6916225">Umm, its mostly the subjective opinions and experiences. Like I don't have enough 2e experience to say for sure, but my experience from playtest was that high level 2e wasn't much different than low level in terms of complexity. Examples about opening doors and gripping on weapons and crafting still being annoying doesn't really change much.I mean, unless you are again comparing it to 5e which is super milktoast simple(except when it isn't, 5e is annoying hybrid between &quot;Oh, there aren't rules for this, GM decides what happens and what you roll&quot; and &quot;Oh, there IS rule for this small thing), I haven't had that experience by level 8. PF 1e is complicated to GM because every single NPC is built like pc and changing small thing changes two other things, where 2e npc creation is &quot;they have stats you want them to have&quot; without need to reverse engineer them to basic root or search for feats you need for the monster. Player side it is complicated because at high levels it becomes matter of tracking dozen buffs and calculating them into stats.What I mean is, I have read your examples earlier in thread and while you weren't trying to convince me(as I wasn't part of conversation), I wasn't really convinced by your arguments and on some of them I had reaction of &quot;I don't see that as issue&quot; or even &quot;I prefer that to 5e or 1e&quot;. What I get from your arguments is that you believe you have discovered method to be surefire market success based on 5e and assume same works in PF 2e and that because paizo isn't following your ideas, they are going to fail eventually. Meanwhile I see that as &quot;If the system was too similar to 5e, the players would play 5e anyway&quot;ON sidenote since scenarios were discussed earlier, there is one thing that annoys me about encounter design in 1e and 2e PFS scenarios: Besides the apparently having quota of how many encounters there are in the adventure, I feel like the encounters try too hard to be tactically difficult. Like having complicated hazards/terrain unique to the adventure, meanwhile AP encounters tend to be more of &quot;And here is cool monster/scene&quot;. Its mostly thing in higher leveled scenarios, but I'm also kinda tired of every scenario(especially in 2e) having boss fight that feels like &quot;end of ap book or campaign final boss&quot; level difficulty <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="MaskedGuy, post: 8108425, member: 6916225"] Umm, its mostly the subjective opinions and experiences. Like I don't have enough 2e experience to say for sure, but my experience from playtest was that high level 2e wasn't much different than low level in terms of complexity. Examples about opening doors and gripping on weapons and crafting still being annoying doesn't really change much. I mean, unless you are again comparing it to 5e which is super milktoast simple(except when it isn't, 5e is annoying hybrid between "Oh, there aren't rules for this, GM decides what happens and what you roll" and "Oh, there IS rule for this small thing), I haven't had that experience by level 8. PF 1e is complicated to GM because every single NPC is built like pc and changing small thing changes two other things, where 2e npc creation is "they have stats you want them to have" without need to reverse engineer them to basic root or search for feats you need for the monster. Player side it is complicated because at high levels it becomes matter of tracking dozen buffs and calculating them into stats. What I mean is, I have read your examples earlier in thread and while you weren't trying to convince me(as I wasn't part of conversation), I wasn't really convinced by your arguments and on some of them I had reaction of "I don't see that as issue" or even "I prefer that to 5e or 1e". What I get from your arguments is that you believe you have discovered method to be surefire market success based on 5e and assume same works in PF 2e and that because paizo isn't following your ideas, they are going to fail eventually. Meanwhile I see that as "If the system was too similar to 5e, the players would play 5e anyway" ON sidenote since scenarios were discussed earlier, there is one thing that annoys me about encounter design in 1e and 2e PFS scenarios: Besides the apparently having quota of how many encounters there are in the adventure, I feel like the encounters try too hard to be tactically difficult. Like having complicated hazards/terrain unique to the adventure, meanwhile AP encounters tend to be more of "And here is cool monster/scene". Its mostly thing in higher leveled scenarios, but I'm also kinda tired of every scenario(especially in 2e) having boss fight that feels like "end of ap book or campaign final boss" level difficulty :p [/QUOTE]

Verification