Pathfinder 2e niche

[siegfriedliner]

I got in to pathfinder 2e because a friend directed me to it and suggested it could scratch my d&d 4e itch (which wizard made harder to do) for a heavily tactical granular game.)

So in my opinion it doesn't really do that (it misses a lot of 4e flash and over the topness which I learnt to love).

It doesn't have the 3.5 you can do anything gimmick, players interactions with the world are far more prescribed and curtailed.

It doesn't have 5e ease of play, shallow learning curve and quick and straight forward combat.

So whilst there is certainly something great about pathfinder 2e I am not sure what it is. What do you think it is?

[Kasoh]

So far, the thing I love most about PF2 is the GM side. The monster to PC balance is tuned to a degree that I can follow the encounter guidelines and not end up with roflstomps on either particular side. Its a game where the PCs can feel challenged by the combats they face (reportedly at any power level, but I have yet to run high level content personally) which is nice when compared to some other systems.

[Tristan d'Ambrosius]

This is just going to turn into a PF1 vs PF2 thread.

[WWHsmackdown]

I love the amount of player agency in crafting exactly what they picture their character to be bc of the class feat/ archetype/ multiclass dedication system as well as the ease of play by means of pervasive internal logic with the degrees of success and the action system. Bonus points for the tight math making the cr system frighteningly accurate; an on level SOLO creature can be an affective encounter....it just works. Bosses are scary and moons are easy to dispatch. Team play is encouraged by means of offering increased success for allies and these debuffs as well as many other secondary actions provide for dynamic turns for those who don't want to full attack (full attacking is even discouraged by the successive strike rules). All in all its a very fluid and tactical system that is so tightly controlled by math that even the most undertuned of classes are only considered as such by small margins when the charts are pulled out. You can be what you want and you won't be bad. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing as both a player and a gm. I'll never run another 5e game again (I'll play in one bc I never turn down a chance to be a player in any system, but I digress).

[dirtypool]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

This is just going to turn into a PF1 vs PF2 thread.

Always does

[Kasoh]

dirtypool wrote:

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

This is just going to turn into a PF1 vs PF2 thread.

Always does

Could strive to make it PF2 vs Rollmaster or something. That'd be novel.

[fanatic66]

As someone that grew up on 3E, played 4E, and enjoyed 5E for a few years, PF2E definitely has some advantages. Since 5E is my alternative, I’ll mostly be comparing PF2E to that system.

One, as Kasoh mentioned, the encounter guidelines are so easy and actually work well. Monsters are flavorful and mechanically interesting.

Two, the character options are amazing. So many ancestries, classes, and archetypes. It means no two barbarians will play alike, which can be a problem in 5E. And Paizo is only making more content while WotC produces new character options at a snail’s pace. Not only that, the balance is pretty consistent across the board unlike earlier editions that also had a ton of character options but full of trap options.

Three, the martial caster disparity is handled better than 5e and definitely 3.5/PF1e by a wide gap. Martials actually have options in combat besides “I attack” and can get superhuman powers later on with skill feats like Scare to Death. After 5E, I was done with playing martial characters but this system got me excited again to make a fighter.

Four, tactical combat is way better than 5e without the bloat of earlier editions. The three types of modifiers adds more depth than advantage/disadvantage but without being overly complex. The 3 action economy is amazing.

Now there are things I don’t like about PF2e (champions, alignment, some overly complex rules) but no system is perfect. PF2e is great for my gaming group as we want a crunchier version of 5e but I personally wouldn’t want the unbalanced bloat of past editions.

[dirtypool]

Kasoh wrote:

Could strive to make it PF2 vs Rollmaster or something. That'd be novel.

A discussion of it in its own right, without comparisons, would be fairly unique around these parts as well.

That said, I will inelegantly use an older edition conversation to make my point about PF2e's niche in the market place. I want to make clear I'm not making a comparison though.

I think that we are in a market similar to the one in which both BX D&D and AD&D thrived alongside each other. One product served tables that wanted a simple consistent version of the game that was easy to run and easy to build for, while the other served tables that wanted more complexity to the kinds of encounters and abilities they could use to complete them.

The last almost 50 years of the iterations of this game have been boiled down to a modern version that exists in two similar forms. 5e is in some ways the BX D&D of this era, with PF2e filling the role of AD&D's enhanced complexity. It doesn't provide the tactical gameplay of 4e like OP was told, but it does offer more tactically oriented gameplay than 5e. It doesn't have the customizability of 3.X, but it does more customizability than 5e.

[siegfriedliner]

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

This is just going to turn into a PF1 vs PF2 thread.

Not necessarily pf1 and pf2 may share a name and setting but they are very different beasts. There doesn't seem to be much continuity betwixt the two to make the comparisons everyone loves all that useful.

As far as comparisons the sole meaningful truth is that the area's pathfinder 1 excels pathfinder 2 doesn't and the areas pathfinder 2 excels pathfinder 1 doesn't and which one you like more depends on the areas each system excels.

But that's by the by its is perfectly possible to talk about pathfinder 2e niche without talking about 1e because they are very much not the same niche.

PS I just realised you got me comparing the two... and that's what you call a self-fulfilling prophecy

[ikarinokami]

I don't think this will turn into a pf1 vs pf2 two thing at all. the question is a fair question.

I think the niche is that PF2 is TTRPG that's comes the closest to capturing the tropes in how most party based high fantasy novels are actually written.

Very rarely are bosses one shoted. The difficulty of challenges seem to scale even though the heroes themselves are getting more powerful.

One of the wierd things ive always found about both pathfinder novels and D&D novels, is I always felt, the games never play out the way the novels do.

[Cyouni]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I got in to pathfinder 2e because a friend directed me to it and suggested it could scratch my d&d 4e itch (which wizard made harder to do) for a heavily tactical granular game.)

So in my opinion it doesn't really do that (it misses a lot of 4e flash and over the topness which I learnt to love).

It doesn't have the 3.5 you can do anything gimmick, players interactions with the world are far more prescribed and curtailed.

It doesn't have 5e ease of play, shallow learning curve and quick and straight forward combat.

So whilst there is certainly something great about pathfinder 2e I am not sure what it is. What do you think it is?

Significantly higher customizability than anything 5e can remotely offer, while having a smoother learning curve, combat flexibility, and better balance across all the levels than PF1.

[Castilliano]

siegfriedliner wrote:

I got in to pathfinder 2e because a friend directed me to it and suggested it could scratch my d&d 4e itch (which wizard made harder to do) for a heavily tactical granular game.)

So in my opinion it doesn't really do that (it misses a lot of 4e flash and over the topness which I learnt to love).

It doesn't have the 3.5 you can do anything gimmick, players interactions with the world are far more prescribed and curtailed.

It doesn't have 5e ease of play, shallow learning curve and quick and straight forward combat.

So whilst there is certainly something great about pathfinder 2e I am not sure what it is. What do you think it is?

I disagree with the premise.

PF2 does have flash, whether it's jumping several stories and smashing a flying enemy into the ground, picking up and tossing one's enemy across the battlefield, or laying on some persistent damage via blade, burn, or acid. Plus there's a much more diverse set of spells for casters than 4E. And I liked the dynamic battles in 4E (!) until I realized so much of the pinball movement had little in-game effect! Not so in PF2 where a flashy action doesn't just look cool, it has a cool effect too.

3.5 had a do anything gimmick? Citation needed.
PF1 fixed 3.5's many holes and incongruities, so it feels odd to step even further backward for a comparison to PF2. Not to say there weren't god-builds if that's what one meant, but I hardly see that as a good thing for narrative or tactical balance.
And PF2 puts narrative (and GM adjudication) as primary when some other systems (like 3.5/PF1) cleaved tightly to RAW. In PF2, by RAW, RAW is not king. And PF2 "player interactions with the world are far more prescribed and curtailed"? Another citation needed. The heroes seem as capable as in any RPG of interacting with their worlds.

The three comments about 5E are redundant; it's a simple game.
Okay? I know it's a marketing point, but it dissuades me (and many RPGers in my region for that matter.)
You know what's also pretty simple? Building an effective PC in PF2.
Heck, in most RPGs building a PC alone can be difficult, much less an effective one.
Also simple? The three action system w/ action tags to guide you.
And battles run fast in PF2 too! That was perhaps the most common comment in the playtest: how fast the 3-action system made rounds go.

And that's if one were to assume a niche was needed!
If a niche is all you've got, what have you got? I'd rather a game strong in all areas than one only strong in one, even if the strongest there. I want a simple "RPG" I can play "DUNGEON" (or one of the many other fantasy board games.

And Golarion & its APs. :)

[Plane]

ikarinokami wrote:

I don't think this will turn into a pf1 vs pf2 two thing at all. the question is a fair question.

I think the niche is that PF2 is TTRPG that's comes the closest to capturing the tropes in how most party based high fantasy novels are actually written.

Very rarely are bosses one shoted. The difficulty of challenges seem to scale even though the heroes themselves are getting more powerful.

One of the wierd things ive always found about both pathfinder novels and D&D novels, is I always felt, the games never play out the way the novels do.

I like how you put this. It resonates with me this way, too.

For me, my first impression of P2 was wary acceptance. I had a feeling it was a better game. The action system was clearly superior, but my gut rebelled at some of the major changes. After reading it thoroughly and playing it, however, I was all in. P2 is my favorite iteration of the game ever, and I started playing 40 years ago.

OP, it's funny you came looking for 4E, because that's the system that drove me away from D&D to Pathfinder. The tactical nature was too MMOG imitating, and the game itself was unrecognizable as D&D for me. The irony of that is MMOGs were an imitation of TTRPGs, so 4E trying to compete with a shadow of itself that can run 24/7 seemed senseless.

To me, P2 feels like a recognizable and advanced evolution of the original game. If you had handed it to me in the 80s, I would have recognized it and come to the same conclusion that this was a superior way to enjoy the game the way I like it. I don't know where the game goes from here, but I love where it's at today. Actions, build choices, feat silos, and archetypes are genius, and the balance to it all is elegant.

[AnimatedPaper]

ikarinokami wrote:

I think the niche is that PF2 is TTRPG that's comes the closest to capturing the tropes in how most party based high fantasy novels are actually written.

I was just today thinking about how I could easily turn some of my old fantasy short story characters into PF2 NPCs, and have a good shot in faithfully translating them.

[keftiu]

(If you want a successor to 4e, you want Lancer - while it’s a mecha game, mechanically it feels like the heir to that particular throne).

[siegfriedliner]

So I will very briefly as it is a detour from the point explain what I meant.

In 4e especially in high-level play you were a lich, demigod, paragon and more for my particular amusement you could turn any battlefield into a ball of portal, strobe lighted hazards causing nasty statuses effects. You could also pull of awesome combos between party members like creating multiple hazards and then having your allies teleport or shift several enemies into them, or just pinballing from a daily leaders buff, to a controllers daily debuff into your martials daily ultimate combo to seriously hurt a big bad who should be massively out classing you (stuff that was more evocative than I give a something a -2 to their saves and ac with fear).

As for 3. 5/pathfinder 2e (I see them as as almost identical) it was a very flexible system. There was a class or arctype for nearly any gimmicks.

As for pathfinder 2e when it comes to prescribed I meant it mainly in that now there is now a feat for everything, a lot of things normal commoners and people should be able they can't because of the feat gate. It's to the point that a competent merchant needs to be a reasonably high level to have the social Feats to do what you would expect of a competent merchant. To quote pratchett you can't even have a.... If you don't have a chit or in this case a feat.

As for 5e checkers is as a good a game as chess and far easier to teach to your little sister. As most decent engineers will tell you complexity doesn't necessarily make systems better.

Sorry for the complete detour feel fee to ignore, also if this helps when people used to talk about fighting magic back in the day, I was always one to respond with yes more please.

[James Jacobs]

"Normal commoners and people" are by definition NPCs. In 2nd edition Pathifnder, one of its greatest strengths is that the GM, who builds all the NPCs they need, gets to give whatever things that they want to that NPC. That includes giving them whatever feats you want to give them. Or brand new things.

There is no "feat gate" for NPCs in 2nd edition Pathfinder, since they are not built as if they were PCs.

[Castilliano]

James Jacobs wrote:

"Normal commoners and people" are by definition NPCs. In 2nd edition Pathifnder, one of its greatest strengths is that the GM, who builds all the NPCs they need, gets to give whatever things that they want to that NPC. That includes giving them whatever feats you want to give them. Or brand new things.

There is no "feat gate" for NPCs in 2nd edition Pathfinder, since they are not built as if they were PCs.

Yes! This too.

I love that an NPC can now be Level 7 in a courtroom and Level 0 in battle. A GM doesn't need to do major manipulations or feel liking cheating over irrelevant details to get what suits the narrative.
And a guy loading freight can toss the box at you to explode in an AoE!
You get both realism and spectacle in whatever degrees you want.
And creatures, many who have just thug stats in other versions, all have at least one cool trick, if not several.
(I'd almost listed you as one reason PF2 rocks, and I should have! Oh, and I found out recently we went to the same university concurrently. :O)

[Deriven Firelion]

I can't speak for everyone in my group, but for me PF2 benefits:

1. It's much easier to DM from 1 to 20. Though you may not be able to get playing as fast as 5E, you can certainly DM with fewer modifications and still be challenging than 5E. It's the easiest edition of D&D to DM and challenge players I've ever played.

2. The 3 action system makes the narrative aspects of the game flow. You can see the combats happening and the action sequences are more varied and intuitive.

Characters aren't quite as fun as PF1 with their superhero like power levels at high level. I think as a player I enjoyed PF1 better. But I much prefer to DM PF2.

[Squiggit]

Cyouni wrote:

Significantly higher customizability than anything 5e can remotely offer, while having a smoother learning curve, combat flexibility, and better balance across all the levels than PF1.

This is a big one for me.

The action economy of PF2 and 5e legitimately make it kind of hard for me to play PF1 and SF anymore, at least as a martial. Full attacking feels so claustrophobic. There are always things that could probably be more refined but PF2's action economy just feels so good to me.

I don't dislike 5e but the system doesn't scratch that itch for mechanical crunchiness at all for me, there just aren't enough decisions you get to make (and the game doesn't even want you making some of them, feats or ASIs feels really bad for characters who desperately need the latter).

I do kinda wish PF2 leaned more into unique activities than it does. Martials have a handful, but a lot of them are still just regular attacks with slight modifications, where I think there's a real opportunity to create unique and powerful special abilities ala ToB/4e. .. I really sort of miss those big flashy character defining skills 4e had, most other systems don't really have anything to approximate that at all.

[James Jacobs]

Castilliano wrote:

(Oh, and I found out recently we went to the same university concurrently. :O)

OOOH A FELLOW AGGIE?

[Gaulin]

James Jacobs wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

(Oh, and I found out recently we went to the same university concurrently. :O)

OOOH A FELLOW AGGIE?

Thanks to band of bravos, I can hear this in your voice! Long live shensen

[Kasoh]

Squiggit wrote:

... I really sort of miss those big flashy character defining skills 4e had, most other systems don't really have anything to approximate that at all.

I still remember the outlandishness of activating a power that pulled in every enemy for like, 20 squares and then attacking all of them. The forced movement mechanics of 4e were probably the best part of combat.

[Staffan Johansson]

Kasoh wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

... I really sort of miss those big flashy character defining skills 4e had, most other systems don't really have anything to approximate that at all.

I still remember the outlandishness of activating a power that pulled in every enemy for like, 20 squares and then attacking all of them. The forced movement mechanics of 4e were probably the best part of combat.

Yeah, that's something I miss in PF2. I was hoping we could get some of that good stuff on the magus, but it seems they're more interested in keeping the old flavor than turning it into a 4e-style swordmage.

[Squiggit]

Still a chance for the final product. The magus is probably the perfect chassis for having some unique, slightly over the top combat activities that are magic adjacent but not actually spells.

[Arachnofiend]

PF2 is for people who liked PF1 but ended their campaigns around 8th level because they liked PF1 enough to know that it was fundamentally broken.

[thenobledrake]

Castilliano wrote:

3.5 had a do anything gimmick? Citation needed.

I was going to comment on that too, as out of all the things which gob-smacked me by being directly counter to my own experience with the same games mentioned, it was the one that most left me stunned.

The very core system of 3.5 was basically "pay a feat for it, or it doesn't actually work." when it came to "do anything."

For most illustrative example, the entire combat maneuver portion of the game defaulting to your target getting a free attack just because you wanted to try something, and if they hit you fail (and if they miss you get to roll, but you might just fail that too).

[TriOmegaZero]

And there were plenty of 'pay a feat and it STILL doesn't work' instances. You could make any choice, including the bad ones.

[Squiggit]

While true, I sort of get where the OP is coming from. 3.5 had a lot of ridiculous magic, extremely low hanging fruit class features martials could dip for (including easy access to pounce for anyone who wanted it) and then unique subsystems with their own over the top abilities like incarnum and tome of battle.

It's definitely not do whatever you want, but 3.5 CharOp and build design is kind of in a league of its own.

[Albatoonoe]

3.5 and PF1 had the most choices for you character. Most of them were bad. Quantity doesn't matter much if you don't actually want to take most of the options.

Concerning 4e, it is kind of a weird system. It had interesting things, but your toolbox cycled more than it expanded. Your toolbox only expands as your level up in PF2, which I think is honestly preferable.

I also find the idea that PF2 is super prescribed in its actions compared to other systems (especially 5e or 4e). There is a lot of stuff and they are adding rules all the time. It is also stable enough that you can improvise pretty easily without breaking things.

You should also look at the other side of the coin with all the feats for PF2. Sure, we have a fair amount of things gated by feats, but we also have solidly fun and new things given out, like Bon Mot or Risky Surgery. Also, feats are given out like tictacs, so it is less of a problem in actual play.

[Qbalrog]

Wasn't a fan of 4E although it was an interesting experiment. So if you love 4E, my opinion will probably not resonate with you.

As someone who has played all D&D editions since before there was even a Greyhawk supplement as well as lots of 1E and 2E, I love the 2E system.

The action overhaul and spell/special affect overhaul is well done, as is making almost every critter in the Bestiary unique in some way. I love the take on ancestries, backgrounds, and classes as well.

As a ref, I love the precision in the rules. As a (prospective) player, still only ref'd it so far :S, there are many character concepts that appeal to me. 5E doesn't grab me as a player (it's too simple and not well balanced across classes) or ref. 4E... it was interesting but found it hard to ref. Seemed more like a draft of a CPRG than something usable on a table top. And I would love it in a CRPG.

[Gortle]

Qbalrog wrote:

Wasn't a fan of 4E although it was an interesting experiment. So if you love 4E, my opinion will probably not resonate with you.

As a ref, I love the precision in the rules. As a (prospective) player, still only ref'd it so far :S, there are many character concepts that appeal to me. 5E doesn't grab me as a player (it's too simple and not well balanced across classes) or ref. 4E... it was interesting but found it hard to ref. Seemed more like a draft of a CPRG than something usable on a table top. And I would love it in a CRPG.

Yep 5e sucks. It is simple and playable, so if you don't care too much for mechanics it just works. That is is real strength.

But both AC and saving throws scale really badly. Further its just not balanced - so many classes have nothing useful to do with their bonus action, but almost all the newer ones do something quite good. You have the situation where a simple character will move and strike, but other characters will get a bonus action and say an action for their mount and maybe even a free action, and good reaction as well.

Actually having rules for most things in PF2 is nice - the GM can always adjust them if he wants. The action system is clear. Everyone can get useful thing to do with their 3rd action or reaction.

Much nicer.

[Thomas5251212]

My personal feeling is the game manages to be mechanically engaging while not exceeding my ability to keep track of a character's abilities (no small trick with exception based designs, since to some extent everything is a special case). I think there's also something to be said for manageability at the GM end, though you still have some issues with spellcasting opponents.

[Perpdepog]

Thomas5251212 wrote:

My personal feeling is the game manages to be mechanically engaging while not exceeding my ability to keep track of a character's abilities (no small trick with exception based designs, since to some extent everything is a special case). I think there's also something to be said for manageability at the GM end, though you still have some issues with spellcasting opponents.

Spells are still a bit of a headache, yeah, but at least casting enemies seem to have fewer of them on average, and usually have their higher-level spells filled out while skimming on the lower levels.

Though, and this might have just been me, that didn't feel like the case in B3. It seemed like more enemies with full spell lists were popping up again.

[Verdyn]

How will PF2's niche be infringed upon by Level-Up releasing and giving us AD&D5e? I know a lot of posters here probably won't switch but the general public might latch onto a D&D upgrade more readily than an entirely new system that they may have no prior experience with.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Do we actually think Level Up is going to catch on? My sense is that its probably going to be very niche and not really impact the larger 5e audience.

[fanatic66]

I haven't heard of Level-Up outside of Enworld and now here I guess. I frequent the r/dndnext (main 5E subreddit) often, and no one is discussing it. I think there's an appetite for "advanced" 5E from 5E folks, so I could see it gaining traction with enough marketing/awareness. However, the level of awareness isn't there now.

One of the big reason my group switched to PF2E is because after a few years of 5E, we wanted a system with more depth and tactics (thank you Paizo!). I haven't looked too deeply into Level-Up, so I don't have much opinion on it mechanics wise. I do think my ideal system would probably be a mix between 5E and PF2E, but I don't know what Level-Up will end up like.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Verdyn wrote:

How will PF2's niche be infringed upon by Level-Up releasing and giving us AD&D5e? I know a lot of posters here probably won't switch but the general public might latch onto a D&D upgrade more readily than an entirely new system that they may have no prior experience with.

Incredibly niche, the cover doesn't stand out and the name is too generic to allow for easy google search lookups.

It doesn't touch on what PF2e provides imo, it would need more work to do that.

[TriOmegaZero]

Still don't know what Level Up is. Might help if I actually get some 5E going.

[AnimatedPaper]

Verdyn wrote:

How will PF2's niche be infringed upon by Level-Up releasing and giving us AD&D5e? I know a lot of posters here probably won't switch but the general public might latch onto a D&D upgrade more readily than an entirely new system that they may have no prior experience with.

I might check it out once it is released, but probably won't switch, no.

And wow, yeah, being on the 2nd page of search results for me when I'm looking at TTRPG websites all the fricking time does not bode well.

[fanatic66]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Still don't know what Level Up is. Might help if I actually get some 5E going.

Its basically 5.5E or advanced 5E and being designed by creators of Enworld I believe. They have some playtest documents available but I haven't looked into it much.

[TriOmegaZero]

Oh, so it’s 5E’s version of Pathfinder.

[FowlJ]

Level Up doesn't look entirely uninteresting (only mostly uninteresting), but it's unfathomable why they picked the most uninspired, unsearchable name that they could think of. If they didn't run their own RPG news website, nobody would ever hear of this game.

[fanatic66]

Kind of, but I believe the changes will be more radical than 3.5 to PF, but I could be wrong (not very knowledgeable on 3.5 to PF1E). Paladin is getting renamed to Herald for example and a new class getting added (Warlord). Classes get more exploration abilities and martials can learn a number of combat maneuvers. I believe the idea is to add some complexity to 5E but still use the same framework.

[WatersLethe]

AD&D5e is *such* a confusing name. I was picturing AD&D and 5E smashed together in some kind of freak accident.

[Arachnofiend]

FowlJ wrote:

Level Up doesn't look entirely uninteresting (only mostly uninteresting), but it's unfathomable why they picked the most uninspired, unsearchable name that they could think of. If they didn't run their own RPG news website, nobody would ever hear of this game.

Calling it "Level Up" basically guarantees that it will be buried under reddit posts asking how to level up your 5e character forever.

[Verdyn]

Yeah, the name is awful but I assume that they couldn't use anything like D&D and wanted something that could append to it easily. So if it catches on you'll probably call it 'D&D: Level Up' or 'D&DLU'. Even so something like 'Crunch!' would have worked better as a name and a description of intent.

[Thomas5251212]

Perpdepog wrote:

Thomas5251212 wrote:

My personal feeling is the game manages to be mechanically engaging while not exceeding my ability to keep track of a character's abilities (no small trick with exception based designs, since to some extent everything is a special case). I think there's also something to be said for manageability at the GM end, though you still have some issues with spellcasting opponents.

Spells are still a bit of a headache, yeah, but at least casting enemies seem to have fewer of them on average, and usually have their higher-level spells filled out while skimming on the lower levels.

They clearly do seem to think that most of the time you can ignore all but the top three spell levels and cantrips, but that still can mean 8-12 different spells you have to be aware of with a casting opponent, and potentially a different casting opponent every fight (and at some levels likely a different one every session

Quote:

Though, and this might have just been me, that didn't feel like the case in B3. It seemed like more enemies with full spell lists were popping up again.

I'd noticed at least a couple of those myself. Honestly, if they assume you're not going to bother with the lower levels spells, it doesn't really matter other than taking up stat block landscape whether they list them or not.

[Thomas5251212]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Do we actually think Level Up is going to catch on? My sense is that its probably going to be very niche and not really impact the larger 5e audience.

I don't know about "very", but it seems like even less people are likely to ever hear about it than do so with PF2e. The ENWorld folks will, and probably people well into the 5e digital sphere, but that's still going to leave a lot of people out.

[Thomas5251212]

Verdyn wrote:

Yeah, the name is awful but I assume that they couldn't use anything like D&D and wanted something that could append to it easily. So if it catches on you'll probably call it 'D&D: Level Up' or 'D&DLU'. Even so something like 'Crunch!' would have worked better as a name and a description of intent.

I can't imagine that'd make search results any easier to sort out, however.