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...
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.
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.