this post was submitted on 30 Nov 2023
58 points (93.9% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11014 readers
1 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is 3rd edition thinking, trap options are awful and make the game worse for everyone not following a charop guide

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

It's not the same as third edition because PF2e has more horizontal scaling than vertical scaling.