Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Gorgon Zee" data-source="post: 7841299" data-attributes="member: 75787">Based on the ongoing campaign I am playing in, I'd say the top reasons I prefer PF2 to PF1 are:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Three action economy is complete win; more tactical options are available AND it runs faster.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Exceeding target by 20 =&gt; critical hit (and similar for fails) makes for more fun and varied combats, and rewards teamwork and clever thinking; you spend more time thinking &quot;how can I get an extra advantage to have a good critical chance&quot; and also &quot;how can I make sure the big solo doesn't crit me on a 14&quot;</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Character leveling. The balance of options versus complexity is great -- I don't feel snowed under (as PF1 / 4E made me feel) or locked into&nbsp; few choices (5E)</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Ancestry feats make me excited about my race and background; it's not just a set of stat bonuses. I loved the race-based options in 4E and these feel pretty close.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Reactions. I think reaction actions are necessary for tactical combat, but allowing many of them makes the game tiresome. One reaction, with rules for using if for feats (e.g. Nimble Dodge), shield usage -- the rules just work well. A minor but cool example is that when you ready an action, it gives you the readied action as a reaction -- no need to change initiative order, nor conflict with other reactions (because you can only do one) -- it makes GM and player lives simpler without removing a fun thing to do.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Spellcasting -- Tying actions to the VSM aspect is genius, with heal/harm and magic missile great examples of how to make variant spells for this. Having spell meta magic (reach, silent, widen) often take extra actions rather than change spell levels is another simple effective rule. I find the changes here very cool.</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Gorgon Zee, post: 7841299, member: 75787"] Based on the ongoing campaign I am playing in, I'd say the top reasons I prefer PF2 to PF1 are: [LIST] [*][B]Three action economy[/B] is complete win; more tactical options are available AND it runs faster. [*]Exceeding target by 20 => [B]critical[/B] 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" [*][B]Character leveling[/B]. The balance of options versus complexity is great -- I don't feel snowed under (as PF1 / 4E made me feel) or locked into few choices (5E) [*][B]Ancestry[/B] feats make me excited about my race and background; it's not just a set of stat bonuses. I loved the race-based options in 4E and these feel pretty close. [*][B]Reactions[/B]. I think reaction actions are necessary for tactical combat, but allowing many of them makes the game tiresome. One reaction, with rules for using if for feats (e.g. Nimble Dodge), shield usage -- the rules just work well. A minor but cool example is that when you ready an action, it gives you the readied action as a reaction -- no need to change initiative order, nor conflict with other reactions (because you can only do one) -- it makes GM and player lives simpler without removing a fun thing to do. [*][B]Spellcasting[/B] -- Tying actions to the VSM aspect is genius, with [I]heal/harm[/I] and [I]magic missile[/I] great examples of how to make variant spells for this. Having spell meta magic (reach, silent, widen) often take extra actions rather than change spell levels is another simple effective rule. I find the changes here very cool. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification