It could actually be a good thing...🎲 Get notified when the RPG Campaign goes live | https://mcdm.gg/RPGMatt's History of D&D Playlist | https://www.youtube...
Same! I don’t regret switching one bit. Now that I got back in contact again with the system through Baldurs gate 3, I notice all the flaws it has and can’t help but wish it would use another system
So many flaws haha! Like nearly all of the feats in the phb are useless. Or that they hardly even attempted to balance the different character options. As I play BG3 I can’t help but wish we had a PF2e video game.
As if most of the feats in pf2e aren’t? I enjoy pathfinder for what it is, and there definitely some things I like more than 5e. Pathfinder has more feats, and has more good feats, but also more underwhelming feats in my opinion. How many characters take abberation kinship?
The difference is that pf2e expexts you to have several feats by the time you’re even level 4, while 5e expects you to (optionally) have 1.
Pathfinder also uses feats in a very different way from D&D. Having lots of options is good. And it basically forces you to take some mediocre feats to help round out your character and make it hard to minmax perfectly
Yes, I agree. It does seem a little off base to leverage the ratio of good to bad feats as an advantage of the system though, when they both have good and bad feats in what seems like similar proportions.
I disagree. It’s not the ratio that’s important, but the absolute number of good feats. The bad feats can be safely ignored, and then it becomes a question of how many good feats you have to choose from. Like in BG3, every time I look at the list of feats, unless I’m playing a character that wants SS or GWM, I’m thinking I’d be better off taking ASI. In Pathfinder, the feat selection always feels like an interesting choice, even if there are some bad options I am discounting, there are still plenty of interesting choices for me to make.
To quote the video this post is about, I often see this happen:
“wow, these rules are so robust!” followed by, “wow… these rules are so… robust.”
Pathfinder is neat, I play in three 2e campaigns. I prefer 5e, and that’s okay. Personally, I think the rules get in the way of the fun for pf2e. I still have fun, I would just have more fun in a less rule-heavy game.
I shy away from saying 5e is better, because I know many people who prefer pf2e, just like I and many others prefer 5e, or savage worlds, or shadow dark. Different games will attract different players, and sometimes those players who like different things play together. When this happens, compromise happens in order to play the same game. The hobby is better served by us looking for ways to compromise, rather than divide.
Same! I don’t regret switching one bit. Now that I got back in contact again with the system through Baldurs gate 3, I notice all the flaws it has and can’t help but wish it would use another system
So many flaws haha! Like nearly all of the feats in the phb are useless. Or that they hardly even attempted to balance the different character options. As I play BG3 I can’t help but wish we had a PF2e video game.
As if most of the feats in pf2e aren’t? I enjoy pathfinder for what it is, and there definitely some things I like more than 5e. Pathfinder has more feats, and has more good feats, but also more underwhelming feats in my opinion. How many characters take abberation kinship?
The difference is that pf2e expexts you to have several feats by the time you’re even level 4, while 5e expects you to (optionally) have 1.
Pathfinder also uses feats in a very different way from D&D. Having lots of options is good. And it basically forces you to take some mediocre feats to help round out your character and make it hard to minmax perfectly
Yes, I agree. It does seem a little off base to leverage the ratio of good to bad feats as an advantage of the system though, when they both have good and bad feats in what seems like similar proportions.
I disagree. It’s not the ratio that’s important, but the absolute number of good feats. The bad feats can be safely ignored, and then it becomes a question of how many good feats you have to choose from. Like in BG3, every time I look at the list of feats, unless I’m playing a character that wants SS or GWM, I’m thinking I’d be better off taking ASI. In Pathfinder, the feat selection always feels like an interesting choice, even if there are some bad options I am discounting, there are still plenty of interesting choices for me to make.
To quote the video this post is about, I often see this happen:
“wow, these rules are so robust!” followed by, “wow… these rules are so… robust.”
Pathfinder is neat, I play in three 2e campaigns. I prefer 5e, and that’s okay. Personally, I think the rules get in the way of the fun for pf2e. I still have fun, I would just have more fun in a less rule-heavy game.
I shy away from saying 5e is better, because I know many people who prefer pf2e, just like I and many others prefer 5e, or savage worlds, or shadow dark. Different games will attract different players, and sometimes those players who like different things play together. When this happens, compromise happens in order to play the same game. The hobby is better served by us looking for ways to compromise, rather than divide.
This is 3rd edition thinking, trap options are awful and make the game worse for everyone not following a charop guide
It’s not the same as third edition because PF2e has more horizontal scaling than vertical scaling.
Wrath of the Righteous isn’t PF2e? I thought it was
WotR is PF1e. I still love the game but holy shit it was a real reminder of how busted PF1e was. I would love a cRPG in PF2e.
Nope. It and kingmaker are based on 1e
But there is a kingmaker module for the 2nd edition of the tabletop game now.