Search results

Thanks for w everyone’s thoughts. It’s nice to hear a few people have been doing a similar thing for a while without issue.

The thought on limiting it is to counteract lowering the time required And to not throw off the balance between classes too much.

sometimes the party needs a short rest but it doesn’t make since story-wise to sit around for an hour. And it would put a hard cap on short rests before needing to take a long rest.

Yeah probably just a fixed number would be good. Maybe 2 or 3. That way the balance between classes doesn’t change as they level up.

I am thinking of a new house rule for 5e around short rests. the Idea is that short rests are only 5 minutes long but you can only get the benefits of a short rest twice a day. Thoughts? Issues?

Not to be all negative I do like a lot of the things I see with PF2. I am very intrigued by the three action economy and I really like the different degrees of success/failure on things like saves.

I guess I don’t see it as being a clumsy description. i think the keys words are more confusing and clumsy. But that’s me. YMMV.

I wouldn’t say they are very different but there is a difference there. I am just not sure there needs to be a game terminology for both of them. The circumstances are going to distinguish them. Are there any game mechanics that key off these two differently?

I have been watching some PF2 videos on YouTube and it seems way more complicated than it need to be. For example, do we really need separate terminology for unnoticed and undetected?

I see. When I use a game (like Pathfinder) for other setting I don’t create new races/ancestries and backgrounds. I typically just reskin things. I can see that creating issues.

I am curious what find intimidating about adapting PF2 to other setting.

But it’s only for a couple levels. I meant a complete game.

I picked up the beginner box PDF and will see if my groups wants to Al least try it out before we make a decision on the next campaign.

I do wish there were a lighter version of the game that had the same core mechanics.

None of them has played it and they don’t seem interested in learning a new system. I don’t think it had anything to do with the system itself. but to be fair what I have seen if PF2 it will take quite a learning curve to get up to speed on it. It is quite crunchy. At least one of the players...

Thanks everyone, but it doesn’t look like the PF 2e thing is happening with my group. They don’t seem to be interested in it. Right now only 5e and PF 1e are the only systems they are interested in. I was hoping to take a break from 5e (been playing 90%+ of the time over the last almost decade)...

I think I saw one of his also. I need to watch more.

I watched it this morning. 😁

Ok, I finally want to start learning PF 2e. I wasn’t a fan of 1e (or the 3/3.5 system in general). I primarily play D&D 5e and still do. The monster building look pretty straightforward and I hear they work very well. Is that true in your experience? Also, do the rules work well for monster...

There is nothing that WotC has on the docket in the near term I was super excited about. I probably have all the WotC stiff I need for what I have planned for most of the the remaining year. So I am in a wait and see posture for now. Maybe I will in the future and maybe I won’t. We will see.