And they didn’t even get full 3-actions economy.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    There’s a lot of stuff I don’t think I like from PF2e*, but from everything I’ve seen and read it seems like a better designed game.

    *I haven’t actually played it. I really burned out on 3.x, and my impression of PF1e was it’s 3.75, so that was a non-starter. Spells-per-day, 1d20+stuff, vertical power growth + high opportunity costs, are the main things off the top of my head I don’t like from this part of the subgenre and I think pf2e holds onto.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      PF1e was effectively 3.75, but PF2e is a considerably different game from PF1e. All that said, it kind of sounds like you aren’t a big fan of D&D, either, so I can understand not enjoying Pathfinder.

      • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I started a game of Fate this year and I’m pretty happy with it. It’s less crunchy and tactical than D&D most of the time, but it handles social conflict and losing conflicts much better. And does other stuff I like.

        I tried to get my old D&D group to play other games but it didn’t go super well. In retrospect, there were game agnostic reasons why I didn’t really gel with that group, so it’s for the best I left. But I think converting people who only really play D&D and close relatives to something else is hard.