Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8131524" data-attributes="member: 70468">I started to go point by point, but I decided to mull over my response some before making it. Let me summarize to see if I (finally?) understand your position.What you’re saying is that PF2 should have aimed for a level of complexity similar to retroclones or OSR-inspired games. D&D 5e is an example of such a game, but the point isn’t necessarily to make PF2 like 5e. In essence, there should be parts of the system that are roped off from the rules.For example, anything involving skill checks should be off limits. That’s the GM’s playground. If the rules intrude on it, then it constrains what the GM can do regardless of whether we feel empowered or not to make a ruling allowing something.That’s not to say you can’t simplify the core while also having customization. Customization is fine and good, but it should be more substantive than ‘you get a +1 Circumstance bonus to Diplomacy when you wear a blue hat’.Essentially (and this is my editorializing), the things that PF2 got right were the action economy and math that works. However, the benefits of the math are limited because the GM can’t just decide to have someone make roll an AC check against a Performance DC because a feat might intrude on that some day.So PF2 can still be its own game, but it will be more in line with what people expect from a peer to 5e.I hope that’s a reasonably accurate summary. Let me know if not. I’m curious whether that would fly with PF’s core audience. I suspect there may be more than a few fans of 3e-style “player empowerment”. However, I want that game. I fear I may end up homebrewing my way towards it. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😬" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f62c.png" title="Grimacing face    :grimacing:" data-shortname=":grimacing:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification