How Crunchy is Too Crunchy, For You Personally

[Argyle King]

2nd Thoughts:

My previous post was alt ttrpgs in general. If asked more specifically about D&D, I would say that 5e is a little bit too light. 3e (and PF1) is good until about 6th level.

So, whatever would Fall somewhere between 5e and PF1 would be my D&D preference (and preferably with much less HP).

I liked encounter design in 4e.

 

[Reynard]

Is the standard test what's appropriate? Will the GM think so? If you don't think so as a player, what grounds will you have to suggest otherwise in a system that has limited samples to work from?

Unless you are playing a game with a player facing mechanic, why are you arguing with the GM? You said what you wanted to do and the GM told you what to roll. That's the deal. If the GM is bad at that, you do it.

(Yes, this is hyperbolic. My point is that "light" can still mean "traditional" and in that style authority rests with the GM.)

 

[Reynard]

2nd Thoughts:

My previous post was alt ttrpgs in general. If asked more specifically about D&D, I would say that 5e is a little bit too light. 3e (and PF1) is good until about 6th level.

So, whatever would Fall somewhere between 5e and PF1 would be my D&D preference (and preferably with much less HP).

I liked encounter design in 4e.

PF2E

 

[Argyle King]

PF2E

I've considered trying PF2E. Though, even after reading through a few previews and general info, I'm still not sure what playstyle and tone PF2E is built around.

 

[payn]

I've considered trying PF2E. Though, even after reading through a few previews and general info, I'm still not sure what playstyle and tone PF2E is built around.

Tactical team based in combat. Otherwise, not much different than PF1/D&D.

 

[Reynard]

I've considered trying PF2E. Though, even after reading through a few previews and general info, I'm still not sure what playstyle and tone PF2E is built around.

The same as D&D. It just fits in that crunch zone that 4E used to sit in (but doesn't necessarily play like 4E). It is more precise in its terminology and rules, as opposed to 5E's "natural language" philosophy, and provides much more character customization than 5E. The CR system also actually works, which is clutch.

 

[grimmgoose]

I play with two groups, and both are six-person groups, so while it's not necessarily crunchiness that can turn me off, wasting time certainly will. That being said, my biggest pet peeves:

• excessive modifier use. I generally prefer modifiers being "one way", ie, it's something the DM applies, not the player. (vs, say, in PF2E, a player can willingly take on a modifier penalty for an extra attack).
• spells/features that require lawyer reading. 5E in particular drives me up the wall about this. Spells are written in the most obtuse way possible. I hate having to say, "does the spell say you have to SEE the target?"
• Excessive use of conditions. I very rarely think 15+ conditions is good for your game. 10, maximum (though honestly, I think you could get just as much done with 5).

 

[CleverNickName]

For me, something becomes "too crunchy" if I have to stack more than two modifiers on it. This is why I love 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic...I burned out hard on 3.X and Pathfinder's nigh infinite stacking bonuses.

Prof + Ability is about as far as I want to go with it. For everything else, there's Advantage/Disadvantage.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

For me, something becomes "too crunchy" if I have to stack more than two modifiers on it. This is why I love 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic...I burned out hard on 3.X and Pathfinder's nigh infinite stacking bonuses.

Prof + Ability is about as far as I want to go with it. For everything else, there's Advantage/Disadvantage.

I would say 3e was my third favorite version of D&D…for this reason.

For me—-once you stack enough, your mind does not carry the vibe of ‘why.’

I can reckon strength leading to big hits. I can imagine a very sharp sword that is harder than steel. The cinema of my mind can hold that.

But +1 for this style and +1 for this conditional thing and this random thing…it becomes clutter in my imagination.

I am not slamming others who like stacking things, it just does not evoke much for me and does not add much value.

 

[Deset Gled]

For me, something becomes "too crunchy" if I have to stack more than two modifiers on it. This is why I love 5E's Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic...I burned out hard on 3.X and Pathfinder's nigh infinite stacking bonuses.

Prof + Ability is about as far as I want to go with it. For everything else, there's Advantage/Disadvantage.

While I understand the dislike for keeping track of many modifiers, this just swings to hard in the opposite direction for my taste. Prof+Ability+Advantage works fine for awhile, but eventually it just feels limiting. Especially once characters get to the teen levels, l need more synergies, and more degrees of skillfulness.