Here is another thread slagging PWL.

To me, the only alternative to PWL is to have the DM serve up a string of encounters that’s one-by-one “balanced” against the party at that level. Meaning that it’s in some way the DM’s fault if the party loses (overly easily wins). It’s a playstyle with some pros and cons.

The fun with PWL is that you can have a more exploratory type of game world where the world is what it is and the monsters in that world are what they are and you run into them or you run from them. It can be set up such that more distant = more dangerous, but monsters are only balanced relative each other, not the party“. That kind of game is my jam. It also has some pros and cons.

Main point is that PWL, or the gist behind PWL, isn’t just all bad, always bad, misguided, 5e-wannabee stuff. There is an actual point to it.

A frustrating thread about PF’s “Proficiency Without Level” variant because the upvoted commenters (who are slagging the variant) don’t address the reason for the variant, which is to enable more exploratory, less linear/​“curated”/​pathy play.

I’m grateful Paizo made the variant and put it in their book. I hear people say the math is a li’l off(…?) but this variant is almost necessary for play that stretches across larger locations. The traditional towns/overworlds/dungeons setups.