Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Its the amount of them really, its a fraction of what older systems had both in terms of options and just how many were broken.
If you knew what you were doing in older editions there were actually numerous ways to get infinite damage combos or make yourself flat out immune to certain things (I had a 3.5 monk for instance that was flat out immune to magic)
I get why wotc wanted to not have that and streamline the build process but to a lot of older players it foes feel like they streamlined it at the cost of options and customization.
Disallowing nonsense like Pun-Pun means that the game is actually manageable to run without it just being pure power fantasy of smashing through everything c/o character optimization and buffing.
Options are good, but only when game balance is still considered so there's actually a meaningful game left to play once character creation and leveling are done; that there's more to it than just finding mechanics to cheese.
Its only nerfed in Honour Mode/Honour ruleset. On Tactician and below, it still has the same damage potential. They removed damage riders triggering more than once on a single hit based on other damaging effects triggering from that hit.
Yeah, that's part of the reason why the Owlcat Pathfinder games are kinda insufferable to actually play. Either you're sleepwalking through the combat scenarios, or you're getting bent over a barrel because they 'balance' the game around the broken combos which usually just boils down to pure math rather than interesting decision making.
True, but it still came at a heavy cost to customization and build choice that frankly feels like it was excessive.
Pathfinder 2e & several other systems have proven you can have mountains of build options but still keep balance so long as you paid attention to the math and what players already have access to.
This just translates into saying, "Do a crap ton of micromanaging that no one likes." Be it the ones micromanaging, or the ones being micromanaged. Remove what causes the need for micromanaging, and the insufferable crap is reduced.
Sadly Owlcat didn't seem to actually pay attention to the Dm's guide for pathfinder 1e.
Its advised in it that you are not supposed to bump numbers up beyond a certain amount for things based on what level they are supposed to be encountered at.
This is especially true in 2e where both armor proficiency and attack proficiency are tied to level & class.
In both 1 & 2e its very clearly spelled out in the DMG that you only want to increase stats on something by a small amount for an "elite" version and that over all its better to add more NPC's to a fight then to mess with the stats beyond that point.
The math in pathfinder 2e and some of those other systems is actually rather small and not much greater then 5e.
(they also got rid of the partial number increases from attack bonuses completely)
Especially in PF2e since there are very clearly defined caps on what can stack buff wise & there isn't true multi classing.
You spend a class feat there to optionally pick up some very clearly laid out features from another class or from an idea.
As for What I was referring to.
The developers are good with math and have paid attention to what they have allowed players to have in the past.
So the new stuff they release doesn't conflict or supercharge the old stuff and you don't end up with broken combos (which was the main problem with 3.x)
Because of this you don't really have anything that gets outlandishly broken (even an optimal character's damage per round isn't much more then 15-20% higher then someone built for flavor unless they put their stats in the wrong stats completely) until people end up with very high ranking spells like wish.
As Toaster pointed out below the real strength a player can achieve comes from working together with an ally.
This is because crits are achieved by passing a check by 10 or more.
So with the proper use of teamwork giving you a Status bonus, circumstance bonus etc... and to impose penalties on an enemy you can have a good 8 point swing in your favor.
The system is all about the teamwork and finding synergies to max it.
And it rewards people in combat for having lots of skills you wouldn't traditionally have uses for in combat in 5e like intimidation, diplomacy, various knowledge skills, acrobatics, athletics etc...
PF2e doesn't have a lot of micromanagement.
It does impose a certain burden on players to think tactically compared to D&D 5E, in particular if playing official adventures, because those often feature encounters where there might be a single enemy monster that's two or three levels above the party. With a PL+2 or PL+3 enemy, it's expected that the party takes advantage of positioning, their greater action economy, and other ways to eke out edges in combat. Somebody might demoralize an enemy, or trip him prone, or spend an action to recall knowledge in order to find out about weaknesses, etc. Disarming used to be a bad choice, but the remaster made it worth considering. The good part is that a lot of this can be quite situational, so players still need to think rather than executing a standard min-max'd routine all the time (e.g. some enemies aren't penalized by flanking, some are immune to being demoralized, some have access to action-compression techniques so trading actions is less of a win against them, some have reactive strikes or other interesting reactions, etc).
There's much less burden during character creation vs. PF1/D&D 3.5, because while there's a lot of options they're generally better balanced and thus a "reasonable" character concept is more likely to be practically workable, but neither exceptionally bad or exceptionally good.
In praxis at the table however, In all my years of DMing 5e I've not once ran into a situation where I couldn't offer the player what he wanted and be it by reflavouring or outright homebrewing. Both things that are encouraged to do by the official rules.
So it's a very weak argument in my eyes.
And I've mentioned it plenty of times already, the way pf1e at least (haven't looked at pf2e) does it, also has major drawbacks for some players. It absolutely bombards the players with so many options, that many feel a real decision paralysis and find the prospect of levelling up daunting, leading to them just using some guide online, which makes the whole "options" thing rather redundant, if those options don't get used....
Not even talking about the countless times I've been warned about all the noobtraps in the game, or feats that are widely regarded as essential.