Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8130048" data-attributes="member: 70468">We were going in circles, so I don’t blame you. Personally, the errata left me feeling a bit disillusioned.What’s allowed me to manage PF2’s complexity is the modular structure. I’ve said that here several times, so I won’t go into it again. The errata threatened to expose that as a façade, and maybe it still did in the end. I’m not sure right now. I really didn’t like the mess they made of attacks and MAP. I have devised a conceptual model around it, but I don’t feel like we should really need multiple ways to classify actions. Just use traits for everything! Anyway, I was disappointed that the errata didn’t address the difficulty issue but instead muddled things up for no gain (or more like a loss for characters who wanted to do combat maneuvers with finesse weapons).I’m at a point where I’d rather just run OSE. I appreciate the fact that PF2 is a crunchy system that lets me run the kind of game I do. I’ve said it probably here and definitely in other threads, but it actually seems better suited towards that style of play than the kind of kick-in-the-door game you’re doing. I have a mental model that lets me manage the game, so I’ll keep doing it as long as my players want to keep going (until I eventually say “no more!” like I did PF1). I’m not sure I could properly articulate a principle why I’d rather run OSE except that it presents its rules with outstanding clarity. I’d love if someone did that to PF2. I just don’t want to be the one to do it. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😅" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f605.png" title="Grinning face with sweat&nbsp; &nbsp; :sweat_smile:" data-shortname=":sweat_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8130048, member: 70468"] We were going in circles, so I don’t blame you. Personally, the errata left me feeling a bit disillusioned. What’s allowed me to manage PF2’s complexity is the modular structure. I’ve said that here several times, so I won’t go into it again. The errata threatened to expose that as a façade, and maybe it still did in the end. I’m not sure right now. I really didn’t like the mess they made of attacks and MAP. I have devised a conceptual model around it, but I don’t feel like we should really need multiple ways to classify actions. Just use traits for everything! Anyway, I was disappointed that the errata didn’t address the difficulty issue but instead muddled things up for no gain (or more like a loss for characters who wanted to do combat maneuvers with finesse weapons). I’m at a point where I’d rather just run OSE. I appreciate the fact that PF2 is a crunchy system that lets me run the kind of game I do. I’ve said it probably here and definitely in other threads, but it actually seems better suited towards that style of play than the kind of kick-in-the-door game you’re doing. I have a mental model that lets me manage the game, so I’ll keep doing it as long as my players want to keep going (until I eventually say “no more!” like I did PF1). I’m not sure I could properly articulate a principle why I’d rather run OSE except that it presents its rules with outstanding clarity. I’d love if someone did that to PF2. I just don’t want to be the one to do it. 😅 [/QUOTE]

Verification