Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retreater" data-source="post: 8990461" data-attributes="member: 42040">Pathfinder 2e is simpler for a different side of the brain. I know I can run encounters and know they basically fit the challenge that I want. I know there are rules for most situations, and I don't have to make up stuff and try to be consistent with my house rules. Pathfinder is a stable system. However, sometimes it's too much to remember. Sometimes I want battles of attrition instead of fully healed between encounters. Sometimes I don't want to itemize the magic items of characters to make sure everyone has the +1's the system requires.D&amp;D 5e puts all of that on the DM, with nearly no help at all. I'm designing encounters, stories, fine tuning each encounter, explaining the nitpicky action economy (10 years down the road - still doesn't make sense to some players. Swear to Batman it's the Attack of Opportunity of 5e), trying to make the monsters fun and tactically interesting, etc. My in-person group of 7 players have shot down attempts to run simpler systems. (They are currently playing 5e.) My other group (online) are doing the PF2e AP that I'm complaining about as &quot;bloated.&quot; The 5e group is fine for the time (we're doing Curse of Strahd). I'm not overwhelmed by it because I basically understand the story and its villain. (Something that is absent in most PF APs I've seen.) In fact, I'd say that the adventures from 5e I like the best are the ones with a simple story and compelling villain (Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation.) But I don't trust my knowledge to reskin classic adventures to 5e (or especially, PF2 - and that campaign is the squeaky wheel at the moment.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retreater, post: 8990461, member: 42040"] Pathfinder 2e is simpler for a different side of the brain. I know I can run encounters and know they basically fit the challenge that I want. I know there are rules for most situations, and I don't have to make up stuff and try to be consistent with my house rules. Pathfinder is a stable system. However, sometimes it's too much to remember. Sometimes I want battles of attrition instead of fully healed between encounters. Sometimes I don't want to itemize the magic items of characters to make sure everyone has the +1's the system requires. D&D 5e puts all of that on the DM, with nearly no help at all. I'm designing encounters, stories, fine tuning each encounter, explaining the nitpicky action economy (10 years down the road - still doesn't make sense to some players. Swear to Batman it's the Attack of Opportunity of 5e), trying to make the monsters fun and tactically interesting, etc. My in-person group of 7 players have shot down attempts to run simpler systems. (They are currently playing 5e.) My other group (online) are doing the PF2e AP that I'm complaining about as "bloated." The 5e group is fine for the time (we're doing Curse of Strahd). I'm not overwhelmed by it because I basically understand the story and its villain. (Something that is absent in most PF APs I've seen.) In fact, I'd say that the adventures from 5e I like the best are the ones with a simple story and compelling villain (Curse of Strahd, Tomb of Annihilation.) But I don't trust my knowledge to reskin classic adventures to 5e (or especially, PF2 - and that campaign is the squeaky wheel at the moment.) [/QUOTE]

Verification