For what it’s worth, Paizo posted the monster and hazard creation guidelines recently.the core book doesn't go into NPC design (that's going to wait until the GM Guide I believe),
For what it’s worth, Paizo posted the monster and hazard creation guidelines recently.the core book doesn't go into NPC design (that's going to wait until the GM Guide I believe),
Given that it will take us close to a year to complete, it's a fairly big decision as to whether to play PF1 or PF2.
PF1, which I find tends to fall apart after 10th level (crazy high skill bonuses, colossal amounts of feats & special abilities to track, etc.).
I do see some some improvements, especially in the way advancement feats are structured and the 3 action economy, but overall I don't see any compelling reason to change from PF 1.
All of these sound great, except this one:Based on the ongoing campaign I am playing in, I'd say the top reasons I prefer PF2 to PF1 are:
- Exceeding target by 20 => critical hit (and similar for fails) makes for more fun and varied combats, and rewards teamwork and clever thinking; you spend more time thinking "how can I get an extra advantage to have a good critical chance" and also "how can I make sure the big solo doesn't crit me on a 14"
A draw for some is that PF2 is far less abusable than it’s predecessor. If you’re tired of cheesy build-based shenanigans, and gentleman agreements being the only thing keeping the game from exploding, the sequel ( while maybe not as exciting or sexy as it’s progenitor) is much more even-keeled, a return to an older styles of play rather the 3x mini-game of finding the exploit combos. I’m terribly pleased they formally dismounted; that horse was dead.