Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RangerWickett" data-source="post: 8131378" data-attributes="member: 63">No, you see, I love the action economy.I hate making more than one attack for damage. Damage is a boring thing in d20 games, especially since hit points are just this abstract ablative shield that is gradually whittled away with no correlation to physical injuries or imposition. And as you've pointed out, the tight math seems to be designed to ensure that it's impossible to make an 'overpowered' build.But all the other stuff you can do with your actions: unbalancing someone, grabbing them, feinting, dirty tricks, all that stuff? I love it. I hated how in 3.5/PF you had to give up your turn to try any of those maneuvers, and unless you built your entire character specifically around throwing dirt into people's eyes, it was almost always better to just stab a b*tch than to do anything clever.That said, the resolution of those cool maneuvers is obnoxious and fiddly. Imposing a multiattack penalty on any sort of combat trick once again makes it kinda disheartening to use them. Having all sorts of skill feats and gating the interesting stuff behind them - and then, like, making all the feats feel real nickel-and-dime weak in a sense of, &quot;Hooray, now I am marginally less crappy at this thing that I rarely need to do,&quot; rather than the 5E style &quot;hey, you've got a cool new power that you're great at&quot; - produces gameplay that I personally find un-fun.The core idea of PF2's action economy enthralled me. The execution makes me want to take a nap. It might be great for a video game -- just like D&amp;D 4th edition would have been -- but it's not optimized for a story-driven free-form tabletop RPG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RangerWickett, post: 8131378, member: 63"] No, you see, I love the action economy. I hate making more than one attack for damage. Damage is a boring thing in d20 games, especially since hit points are just this abstract ablative shield that is gradually whittled away with no correlation to physical injuries or imposition. And as you've pointed out, the tight math seems to be designed to ensure that it's impossible to make an 'overpowered' build. But all the other stuff you can do with your actions: unbalancing someone, grabbing them, feinting, dirty tricks, all that stuff? I love it. I hated how in 3.5/PF you had to give up your turn to try any of those maneuvers, and unless you built your entire character specifically around throwing dirt into people's eyes, it was almost always better to just stab a b*tch than to do anything clever. That said, the [I]resolution [/I]of those cool maneuvers is obnoxious and fiddly. Imposing a multiattack penalty on any sort of combat trick once again makes it kinda disheartening to use them. Having all sorts of skill feats and gating the interesting stuff behind them - and then, like, making all the feats feel real nickel-and-dime weak in a sense of, "Hooray, now I am marginally less crappy at this thing that I rarely need to do," rather than the 5E style "hey, you've got a cool new power that you're great at" - produces gameplay that I personally find un-fun. The core idea of PF2's action economy enthralled me. The execution makes me want to take a nap. It might be great for a video game -- just like D&D 4th edition would have been -- but it's not optimized for a story-driven free-form tabletop RPG. [/QUOTE]

Verification