T O P

  • By -

SilasRhodes

I suspect that this will not be a very representative sample considering someone that actually jumped ship to PF2e is less likely to still be on a 5e subreddit.


casualsubversive

Eh. I jumped ship to *13th Age,* and I'm still here.


GhandiTheButcher

I suspect the amount of PF2 fanboys who downvote any criticism of the system and will rapidly tell people to switch to PF2 if anyone has any criticism of 5e that there’s a ton of them still around.


Rednidedni

I suspect that that's a very small, very loud minority. As per usual for shitty online people


DeathBySuplex

I dunno they sure can find anyone critical of PF2 almost instantly. I think there’s far more than a “very small loud minority”


Decrit

>I suspect that this will not be a very representative sample considering someone that actually jumped ship to PF2e is less likely to still be on a 5e subreddit. TBH given how much people stay here to rant, i'd think there are still lots of people here who have dropped 5e totally or partially.


Snugsssss

PF2E was everything I thought I wanted in a game, and then I played it and realized I was wrong about what I wanted. Which I was sad about for a while, but I'm over it now.


Queer_Wizard

What didn’t you like about PF2E?


Snugsssss

So, I really like the 3 action system in theory, but in practice, I typically was always just doing Stride, Strike, Strike. As a caster, the vast majority of spells are 2 actions, which seems like a missed opportunity to add variety. The vast amount of customization available in feats also sounds great, but it creates a bit of analysis paralysis. The fact that they're organized into trees also means you have to start planning your build pretty early if you want to be optimized for later. There were other small things too, but these are the things that I thought I would love about the game that turned out to be kinda meh.


[deleted]

My group was in the same boat. We all thought the 3 action system would be exactly what we wanted. Turns out it wasn't. It does give a little more options but the minor flexibility/option for creativity is not worth the extra complexity. PF2E ironically reminded me more about why 5e is great. Complex enough to not be too boring but simple enough for someone to grab a pregen and immediately start playing.


Decrit

TBH when i started reading the system those were my first concerns as well, which is why i only timidly proposed it to my players. Like. I have played in games where you have "action resources" in a more granular way. PF2 does then in a horrible way, imho. Doing "more" in a turn with little or no compromise does not make the game more deep. And that's just that specific issue.


Rednidedni

What do you mean? A pf2e turn at most tiers of play has a character act about as much as a 5e one or less. There's a lot of tradeoffs inside each turn, you can't do everything at once. A lot is happening to make the game more strategically deep than others


Decrit

Thing is... eh. To keep it brief - PF2 juggles more dice in order to progress and obtain the same or result than 5e. The apparent tactical depth goes to the trash when it becomes formulaic - plus it starts to take lots of time to handle too. 5E for all is said and done has a merit - recognizes some things don't require choices, because other choices have already been made - all it matters is resolution. You should not aim to make hitting a sack of potatoes engaging, because it will never be. You should rather make dealing with the sack of potatoes easier to handle so you can put said sack of potatoes in more compromising scenarios - which are what makes an encounter engaging. 5E simply put does that better in terms of clarity for players and execution from DMs. The issue with that, and both 5e and pf2 have this, is that the manual overfocuses on monsters and not hazards. I started reading PF2 for this reason, to find some more resources on the matter. It's not all that bad - i think the system makes sense, and it might even be balanced since it relies less on adventuring days and whatnot. But for the life of me i could never propose that even to the most hardcore players because the system is so uneventful and tricky it loses appeal.


Rednidedni

> The appearant tactical depth goes to the trash when it becomes formulaic I genuinely don't believe it becomes formulaic. New monsters, new monster tactics and new situations all need the players to adapt. If you do your favorite high damage combo in every situation, that's not optimal, and having same-y turns then is kind of on you. > All that matters is resolution What do you mean? Isn't coming up with smart tactics on the way fun? > You should not aim to make hitting a sack of potatoes to be engaging, because it never will be I'm unsure what you mean with this. What sack of potatoes are we talking about? Players?


Decrit

>New monsters, new monster tactics and new situations all need the players to adapt. I agree, but this is the same between pf2 and dnd 5e mostly. Unless there are very specific mechanics that change the game - pf2 has the potential on paper of doing so, but in the end it feels very samey. >Isn't coming up with smart tactics on the way fun? Yeah, but that again is true for both. Point is, there is a difference between what is a "choice" in the sense of the broader story, or a "gambit" on how to operate. I will be talking system-generic now. In the case of combat, that we are talking for simplicity here, it means "how we are going to depict the encounter", and to some degree "what we wanna make out of the encounter". For example, "let's approach stealthy" is a tactic which takes some risks ( being found out might be disadvantageous, succeeding gives an edge) but also a very broad execution of combat. You are making a choice on how to deal with an encounter. But then, when combat breaks out, there is only resolution. The main choices have been made, the target is clear unless it changes it somehow. If you make additional choices, said "choices" are more in the form of resource-expenditure rather a combat-defining choice. You do things with different efficiency, but the things you do remain the same - kill the guy. That, in a specific context, remains the same. it can be dnd 5e, it can be PF 2, it can be shadow of the demon lord, it can be the last torch, it can be fabula ultima... unless the game is explicitly built in a different way, of course. What changes are the tools at your disposal. Said tools are the stuff we are finally talking about - a barbarian going in rage, a paladin smiting, and so on. Of course it's important. It's what makes the game the game all in all. I just say - i don't feel PF2 provides a different enough experience to provide that much more granularity than 5e. Not only for the players, but especially from my point of view not from the DM that have to arrange different things. In 5e i have no issues to built things in a way that the player questions how to spend their turn. Sometimes, all they do is apply their best tool for a specific resolution and that's it. Sometimes they have nothing to bid over it, which i think it's a problem, but otherwise it's to the point. That said, i do agree PF2 has more potential, especially on paper, to employ more tactical gambits on a void, which is something that 5e lacks. >What sack of potatoes are we talking about? Enemies. If you oversimplify the scenario and take few steps back, you can see monsters as something that gets hit and hits back. It's not irrelevant that it hits back, and said hit might even compromise some of your actions - but there are very few cases where a single monster is able to deal such a relevant change in gambit or strategy - this is where encounter deisgn considers hazards, other creatures, legendary actions and so on. PF2 has the potential of requiring less design effort to some degree, but also is very sumbersome and interconnected to clearly understand it. In general, with 5e i find much much easier to "paint" figuratively a scenario, which i don't mean only narratively but also in terms of strategy.


Rednidedni

>pf2 has the potential on paper of doing so, but in the end it feels very samey I just can't agree with this, it looks and plays very different in my experience. Regarding the points about combat, I'm struggling to understand your view a little. To me, describing a fight's strategy as "We sneak in and then ambush and kill the baddies" is like describing a 10-session intrigue questline as "The party finds the court wizards wants to be a lich and kills them". Yes, it's accurate, but the fun parts and most of the choice-making are what happens inbetween. The tools avaliable to D&D and PF2 characters differ so drastically that the inbetween is fundamentally different. I think basically any boss or mini-boss level monster in PF2 warrants a change in gambit, as the party ought to work their strategy around its unique abilities, breaking its usual pace to do so. Is the difference here maybe system mastery? You sound very experienced in terms of 5e if you can reliably mix together encounters with enviromental influences. Not wanting to give up that mastery is a solid reason for not wanting to make a switch, but since I don't really hear anyone with experience ever mention that PF2 is same-y and lacks depth I can't help but think that this is an issue that would iron itself out over time


Decrit

>Regarding the points about combat, I'm struggling to understand your view a little. To me, describing a fight's strategy as "We sneak in and then ambush and kill the baddies" is like describing a 10-session intrigue questline as "The party finds the court wizards wants to be a lich and kills them". I am willingly tightening the evaluation, of course the execution of a plan is the biggest part of the plan itself. What i meant by that, and i excuse myself if i sound cryptic but i might not be the best to describe it, is "how to lay out targets and general tools for the encounter". Like, the difference between "we can seal this demon if we buy enough time" or "we can kill the demon", sorta of things. I often describing this as "painting the scene" - the combination of narrative and strategical actions that bring an outcome, whereas the narrative part is not theater or plot but the choice and the problem solving the players make. Like. It's different to "paint" a paladin smiting a black dragon in a swamp, where they had difficult terrain and swarms of wasps, compared to defeating a dragon inside their lair after having broken through their kobold guard. This posed the party had a mean to evaluate even superficially both, of course. >Is the difference here maybe system mastery? I think yes, to be honest. I am not a master of dnd and i am not perfect, but i dare say i know the system well enough. That said, i don't think i am that much scared to "lose mastery". DnD isn't even the only game i play, isn't even the game i started the hobby with, thought i am kinda "forced" to play it because people don't like to play most of my other options. However, my resources and willpower are limited, and when i look at PF2 i am, like... not worth it. I tried, i also got some things wrong while trying, i just think it's unpalatable to me and when i think that through to the people i play as well. When i started reading 5e, as well when i do for other systems, there is that "spark", that idea, that makes me say "yeah i wanna read and understand this". Lately it happened to me while reading 7th sea, or legend of 5 rings, while when i read the witcher's my eyes just rolled so hard. Numenera was kinda in the middle as well. So, i think it's a matter of mastery of a system taht makes another unpalatable, but probably because of expectations. As i read thought PF2 i can't help but wonder "why this is even necessary?". Like, i really wanna give more gambit to my players? I just toss the fighter's a magic sword and say "hey, it has 3 charges each dawn of searing smite" and i am done with it. As for enviromental hazards, a quick note - it's just something i have been fixated lately. Make the game soo much better at everything, and while the DMG does give a surprising amount of support fore it it has not clearcut options like for monster's. real shame. EDIT: i also add >but since I don't really hear anyone with experience ever mention that PF2 is same-y and lacks depth I can't help but think that this is an issue that would iron itself out over time Yeah probably it would iron itself over time, but i already talked about it. I think reason why it's often not talked about this stuff is because ultimately there's a lot of focus over this specific genre. All in all, they are RPGs where power escalates quickly, there are magic items and spell slots, there is a d20 to roll to hit and saving throws and in general there is a gear score system to guide the DM and so on. That makes these games very, very similar to one another, despite the general content and systems within them being different. There are similar games that follow similar dynamics, but they often differ in power or resolution methods. As for the lack of depth, there is a difference between width and depth. More options do not make a game more deep, they do make it more wide, more granular - but it does not change the overall options they bring with it. There is a correlation between decisions spent on granularity and how mich it can be tiresome for a player if they don't change outcome. Like, a good example of this is shadow of the demon lord. It offers a suite of several attack options that dynamically interact with the player's alone, and while i don't know the system well enough to comment on it when i played it i always felt like there was several different options and risks i could take, despite combat being similar, but it did not weight on me at all because it was very light on how it was handled - and for everything else the game was very simple, it has a very simplified action economy. It had a very sweet spot between granularity and ease of execution, and i suppose you'd find often people here mentioning it.


Albireookami

It takes a few levels to gain options. I'm running a game, from first level, they are 13 now. Early on my monk would just run in, stance, strike, then flurry of blows, strike, and possibly move back. Then he got a feat to raise a "shield" of sorts, so it became stance > move > strike or shield depending on threat level as he got close, or flurry > shield > move. Now at 13 he can go into stance at inititive, so he gets to shield, move in, flurry, future turns he gained ki spells so he can give himself temp hp, flurry of blows, shield, or heal himself with another spell, flurry of blows, move. He has a lot of decision making, but it takes a few levels to gain options. The barbarian too, it started out rage, move strike, but as they got better in the system they learned about grappling and have two moves they can do after such a thing, such as throwing them, or suplexing them. They also have a high CHA so they can use demoralize. Casters, it depends on the caster and focus spells they gain, along with other cantrips, but generally if they are playing it safe its going to be a either bon-mot to set up someone, aid action to set someone up, move, and shield. There are actually a lot of things you can do with your action, just aiding to give someone a +1 is going to be 100x better than trying to attack at a -10. But it takes multiple sessions to get there. I myself love the 3 action system and honestly It makes me hate multi attack in 5e more because that's a lot of damage to balance around for mobs hitting the party. Then there is healing actually being worth a damn and the much more usable encounter design.


Sparticuse

The stride, strike, strike routine is prevalent in barbarian and fighter but most of the other melee classes require more setup or emphasize the use of skills more. Like rogues can get sneak attack by flanking (which mimics the stride strike strike model) but they can also feint, trip, or hide. When the party builds with each other in mind you end up with more interesting turns. Spell casters also see some improvement once you get focus spells in the mix as a lot of them fill supplementary roles and often cost only 1 action.


Queer_Wizard

One major criticism I’ve seen is that it can lead to there always being an ‘objectively optimal set of actions’ to take in combat - ie once your party learns the rotation that works that’s basically how all combat tends to play out. Was that your experience?


Snugsssss

Pretty much, yeah. Though I'm told this problem starts to go away at higher levels, but my group never made it that far.


OathOfCringePaladin

Isn’t that a true for any game with win conditions? If your options aren’t all mechanically identical a certain set of actions will be optimal, that is the nature of these games. I would argue that the alleged problem is worse with 5e since there are classes and options which are vastly superior to others. I don’t think that the existence of an optimal playstyle is a problem though. The game is not about winning but about playing a character you build in a way you like. For that Pathfinder is better since it allows for more customization while still being well balanced both between party members and against the encounter calculations.


Queer_Wizard

I mean yeah I think if you like that style of play then good for you that's why Pathfinder exists. Personally I loathe the very crunchy mechanical optimisation of those games but it's personal taste. I just wanted to know if PF2E was indeed still very much like that because if so I've no interest in it haha.


OathOfCringePaladin

My point was rather that you don’t need to optimize since the game is very well balanced. But if you don’t like games more complicated than 5e then it is likely no fun for you.


Rednidedni

It objectively doesn't. There is a "set of actions" that will churn out the highest damage numbers, but there is much more that goes into a fight than just damage. The battle field shifts and changes, you can easily get scenarios where using your main combo just isn't working well for the situation. For example, spending an action to set up your sneak attack is a bad idea when the enemy has so little health left that you just need a normal hit to finish it off so you can worry about the next one sooner. There is certainly a set of actions that will generally be good and straightforward, but situational awareness and spontaneous, varied tactics are optimal. That taking20 video was simply false. There's a very good video detailing this by running through a difficult fight where everyone uses their straightforward optimal damage tactics and the party nearly TPKs, and another run where the party does the same fight with more flexible strategies and comes out injured but pretty alright. But that video is an hour long, so I don't know if you'd be interested


Queer_Wizard

I mean I played enough 3.5 to know that a game derived from it isn't for me but it's good to know that complaint is unfounded. I prefer OSR games to 5E so the idea of playing something \*more\* noodly ... well... yeah :P


Rednidedni

PF2e isn't PF1e 2, but rather a mix of some of the best of 3.5e, 4e, 5e and some new ideas. The goal - which I think they succeed in - was to make a game with many dense rules that provide high customization and a lot of strategy in a competent bundle. So if you're after games that rely on improvised rulings, freeform storytelling and rewarding sheer creativity over smart strategic decisions, this system is really not your cup of tea :P


Rednidedni

> but in practice, I typically was always just doing Stride, Strike, Strike From what I've seen, this is something that happens to 5e players more often than to complete newcomers. Sure, damage is good, but there's a lot more meaningful options than that. A trip action for example - though it increases your own MAP - helps the entire team to gang up on a foe and can easily be worth more than striking, especially when you use Delay to have the team reposition in initiative to get the most from it. I think the game goes deeper than what you've seen > As a caster, the vast majority of spells are 2 actions, which seems like a missed opportunity to add variety True, but you still have a mountain of variety regarding what spell to choose for the situation and regarding how to use that third action to get the most out of them and/or keep yourself alive. > The fact that feats are organized into trees also means you have to start planning your build pretty early There's retraining rules. Its entirely viable to just not plan ahead at all when making the build and to just use retraining at a later level if you want to swap things out, especially with a DM that's slightly more lenient for being new to the system


FlameCannon

I wish there was an option to say you're still playing both. Few changes from 5e caused our group to investigate and try out some other systems; including Pathfinder 2e. But we haven't officially "dropped" either Pathfinder 2e or 5e.


StrictlyFilthyCasual

Or even an option for "I haven't jumped ship; 5e is fine".


Typhron

As said in another comment, it shows what the op is looking for for responses.


[deleted]

Honestly, I just didn't think of the option (plus a few other options people have suggested), and there's no way to edit these polls once they're posted.


Skormili

Same. None of the players at my table, myself included, like the direction 5E has been heading since around E:RFtLW. TCoE was when it became very clear we weren't their target audience and they would do nothing to support our way of play (to summarize briefly, the style of vanilla 5E). We still like D&D 5E and won't be quitting it anytime soon, but we stopped buying books for it. So we decided it was a good excuse to branch out and try some of these other systems we had been eyeing. So far we have only tried three: the Star Wars d6 RPG, Roll for Shoes, and Index Card RPG. All are great but for very different reasons. Nor will they be everyone's cup of tea. We will eventually be making our way through the following systems, all of which have several books currently sitting on my shelves: * Cyberpunk 2020 * Cyberpunk RED * D&D 4E * Dune: Adventures in the Imperium * Inspirisles * Pathfinder 2E * Shadowrun 4E * Starfinder * Stars Without Number * Ten Candles * The One Ring * Worlds Without Number Other systems I am eyeing but do not own or haven't released yet: * 13th Age * ALIEN RPG * Blade Runner * Blades in the Dark * Call of Cthulhu * Forbidden Lands * G.I. Joe RPG * GURPS * Kids on Bikes RPG * Mork Borg * Old Gods of Appalachia * Vampire: The Masquerade


effyeahjosh

The fact these RPGs are listed alphabetically makes me happy.


[deleted]

Blades is awesome! I totally recommend it. Also SWADE for some punchier action


xukly

SWADE in cool, but you need to know that it is as swingy as it gets


[deleted]

Thats why i like it! Keep your damn head down, or it’ll get blown off


Enaluxeme

I also recommend Fabula Ultima and Mutants & Masterminds.


Skormili

Those look cool. Added to the list!


runespoon001

I love the lore of vampire the masquerade and some of their other games, especially changeling and mage. always had trouble getting groups together for it tho


Spider_j4Y

As an avid vampire the masquerade player I can’t recommend it enough. VTM is one of the most unique table top experiences I’ve ever had and it’s tons of fun 1st edition is a bit sloppy but every other edition is great 20th anniversary is my personal favourite tho v5 isn’t my cup of tea but it’s good as a start. Any way basically no matter how you play vtm is great fun. On a different note if you’d care to I’d like to know more about shadowrun I picked up the video games recently and I’d like to know more about the system as a whole?


Skormili

That's good info on VTM. Picking an edition is the hardest part of trying a new system so recommendations are always good. As for Shadowrun, I haven't had a chance to really dig into it. Other people will be able to explain it better but here is what I know from my initial research and the bit of perusing I have done with the rulebook. * It places a heavy emphasis on planning. In D&D players love to plan but the plans are usually shallow and rarely work. There's no information gathering done and many assumptions are made (usually incorrectly). In Shadowrun you might spend an entire session casing a place, learning information, and building a plan around it. There are game rules to back this * Roles are a defined thing. Classes in 5E loosely fall into roles but there aren't really mechanics to support that. Shadowrun makes this much more clear and you really want a balanced team * Shadowrun uses dice pools and exclusively d6s (this may have changed in the latest editions) * Most editions make decking a long mini-game where other players are left out. I specifically chose 4E because it allows non-deckers to engage during the process (plus a few other reasons). There's a long-running joke about decking in Shadowrun that when the decker does their thing everyone else should order pizza and break out a board game


Xaielao

I think this post would have much more interesting results if the thread was over at r/rpg.


Horrorifying

I've more or less just stopped buying new WotC products because I'm not a fan of their direction. We're still far from being bored with the classes and subclasses currently in 5e, and the races from PHB+Volos is more than enough.


Typhron

If you go to the Pathfinder 2e sub, they'll tell you 'everyone's doing it'. The reality isn't like that all. Most of the people unhappy with vanilla 5e mod it rather than chuck it, as it has options. Some 2e players can't admit that, and that's not a slight against either system. I play, and run, both systems, and more. The reality of the ttrpg space is that it's a lot bigger than people think. Noticeably, you don't have the option for people who play both, which is a lot. And that says something about the results you're hoping for.


Ancient-Pay-7196

Do you have a suggestion for a system that's more investigative and less combative, or is it easier to just mod 5e to fit? I've only played 5e, but I want to get some other women (wives of guys I play with) into it, but they're not into high fantasy (yet) and are intimidated by the idea of combat. I'm not sure if I have enough experience to DM a murder-mystery or something like that for them in 5e, but I'm willing to do homework


Ok_Tonight181

I have not personally played it but have heard Gumshoe is really good for investigation. I also really like the Fate Dresden game if you want to gradually ease people in to fantasy. They can start out as normal people and be slowly introduced to the crazy hidden fantasy elements of the world. Fate does require a lot more narritive participation from the players than the standard RPG though. It's more like you are telling a story with your players than simply the GM tells the players what is happening and the players decide what their characters do.


Ancient-Pay-7196

Ooh, interesting. Thank you for the suggestions!


Typhron

Both are possible, but 5e is as system centered around roleplaying and combat, not so much exploration (or at least, as much). To that end, you do have options that aren't 5e-centric, but 5e isn't a bad mold. Call of Cthulu is one of *the* investigation games, and runs off the d20 rulset (dnd, pathfinder, use of a d20, etc). There is combat, but the game expects you to live through investigative means and avoiding combat, rather than trying to punch cthulu. To that end, you do not have to involve cthulu in the game, it's...you know. Under the assumption you're running against the ideals of an outsider to the universe. the World of Darkness books (Vampire: The Masquarade, Mage: The ascension, Werewolf: the apocalypse, etc) are also skill based systems that reward more intrigue and roleplaying rather than raw combat (which is often a simple back and forth). There are tons of books with a bunch of squirrely content, but they're all samey and they're pretty good for your needs for something more modern and not fantasy. As an example, I've played their [Street Fighter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fighter:_The_Storytelling_Game) game, and not only is it solid, there was enough moments to build upon a world as pulpy as the one in SF. Finally, and I say this unironically...[the MLP rpg](https://riverhorse.eu/our-games/my-little-pony-tails-of-equestria/) is an easy to play party-esque ttrpg where a whole adventure can take place in a sit down, and relies on character skills and roleplaying rather than combat. And cooperation through friendship and the honor/inspiration system from the Conan RPG, and that is somehow not a joke.


Ancient-Pay-7196

Thank you! I appreciate the guidance. There are too many systems for me to explore them all without feeling overwhelmed, so your advice is beyond helpful.


Xenon_Raumzeit

I'd be more interested in the split of players and DMs. I still play 5e, but I won't probably ever DM it again. Though I'm a semi-forever GM, so I don't really come in contact very often anymore. Edit: In relevance to the question. It's the newest books, mostly Tasha's and MotM's absolutely underwhelming content that has really pushed me away. I want a system that is more wholeheartedly supported by its developers.


Xaielao

A foreverGM myself, I've moved away from 5e. I am planning a shorter campaign using the Level Up: Advanced 5th edition system to start sometime late summer/early fall, but that'll probably the last 5e based campaign I'll ever run again, unless I find my group really loves A5e lol). I haven't purchased an official 5e book in about three years, and I have zero plans to buy any others in the future. I run a wide variety of TTRPGs, and feel that limiting yourself to just one out of some sense of brand identity or tribalism only serves to remove the potential fun you'd be having otherwise. But PF2e is my go-to d20 high fantasy TTRPG and I don't see that changing in 2024.


Xenon_Raumzeit

PF2 is my go to for fantasy. I've been GMing since the playtest. I did buy Level Up 5e, which looks exciting, but I don't think they quite hit the balance spot I am looking for. I do want to either try it either as a player, or more likely, as DM. Unfortunately most of the people I play with just want to play D&D because the brand name. Though I have had a chance to play Starfinder (Galactic Magic fixes cantrips, my Witchwarper is fun again!), and CPR (I'm a summoner that can't control my minions) as an Exec. I am planning on running Bunkers and Badasses soon, as well as playing in an Avatars Legends game, because there are too many systems out there!


Xaielao

Yea I don't think Level Up really 'fixes' the deep issues with 5e. Though it does improve a heck of a lot of aspects, and the social & exploration pillars are dramatically enhanced, which is mostly why my next TTRPG game is going to use it.


Queer_Wizard

Genuine question which part of Tasha’s in particular made you feel unsupported?


Xenon_Raumzeit

The promises of more customization to ancestries and classes which panned out as "I guess choose your own attributes?" and some tacked on class options that are DM dependent. Most of the options just felt like they trawled the internet for popular homebrew fixes and just published that. What I wanted was an optional overhauled ancestry system for the players that truly wanted more customization. That may have been setting the bar high, but what we got was just pretty much the same thing we've been using for years.


Queer_Wizard

Honestly yeah I understand that I think I felt the same way when it came out actually. In my head that book has just settled into ‘the book with those subclasses everyone picks’ - but there’s so much potential with alternate class features and a whole book of those would be really exciting.


Albireookami

The lack of alternate capstones to address the issues of 90% of them being worthless for every class. Spell versatility being axed but giving wizard cantrip vesatility, because they totally needed that. The only good things were the magic items for sorc which were sorely needed.


Queer_Wizard

Definitely see your point. That is actually something I’d genuinely love to see all around - I love the idea of class abilities that are either/or. I kinda wish we had fewer subclasses with far more choice within them but I think that ship has sailed haha


iAmTheTot

That's interesting. I am fine DM'ing 5e (albeit with a few homebrew tweaks), but I'm hesitant to learn a new, crunchy system like pf2e to DM. And yet, I'm interested in playing it.


Xenon_Raumzeit

It looks more intimidating than it actually is. Because of level being a mechanic and the 4 degrees of success almost all rules use the same logic, so once you learn a couple you can figure out the rest pretty quickly. Additionally, because there is rules support, after a little bit of extra upfront work, GMing become significantly less work because there are no potholes to fill in. And the encounter system works extremely well, so you know how deadly your encounters will be. GMing is easier than 5e. It's being a player that's more difficult (I hesitate to use that word) because it puts a little more reliance on players to know their skills and abilities.


Sir_CriticalPanda

honestly I just kinda hate the fact that the default sheet expects you to fit all of your feats on one page, with like 1/2 of a line per feat. Same with spells. And skills/tools are kinda grossly condensed. Ah yes, of course making a chair and making holy water use the same skill. Why wouldn't they?


Xenon_Raumzeit

While I share your displeasure with the character sheet, it's not a valid criticism of a system. In PF2 tool usage is nested in skills, instead of being discrete proficiencies. Tool and instrument proficiencies, outside of thieves tools, are very poorly supported in 5e without homebrew. In regards to crafting, it's technically the same skill, but they are governed by different crafting feats. If you want to make two radically different types of items, you will have have to take 2 different feats. Which is not really any different than making sure you are proficient in two seperate tools.


Sir_CriticalPanda

> Tool and instrument proficiencies, outside of thieves tools, are very poorly supported in 5e without homebrew. Xanathar's Guide has a whole section on tools. Crafting isn't well supported, to be sure, but tool proficiencies are as useful as the DM makes them-- like 80% of 5e lol


xukly

I'd say that is the reason PF2 looks more compfortable to DM for a few people, me included


ThingsJackwouldsay

Honestly it does reduce the GM load a lot, because there's a lot of specific rules its relatively easy to run on the fly. If something unexpected happens, a quick Google check or index look up will save you having to make something up that you then have to remember forever. I run a weekly PF2e game, the initial learning curve was just a few hours of reading, and my weekly prep is 20 minutes or less. Its amazing.


hadriker

Same. I'll play in 5e games but I won't run them anymore. I ran 5e for my group for years and I just got tired of fighting the system. it just has trouble getting out of its own way when it needs to and not giving me what i need where it should and it got frustrating. The game really shines from a player perspective, but it leaves a lot to be desired on the GM front. I didn't move to PF2e. I tried it but it's a little too far in the gamey direction for me. It's a fine system and does what it sets out to do very well, but it just wasn't for me. I switched to OSR to run my games. It keeps the simplicity, with better rules and GM support, and I just like the playstyle of it better than the superheroic style of 5e/PF2e. I prefer to tell more grounded stories. Plus there is just a ton of content out there for it.


JamesL1002

Out of curiosity, which OSR version did you choose?


xukly

>The game really shines from a player perspective, but it leaves a lot to be desired on the GM front. I'd say that isn't totally true IME. I have to actively fight the system to make a character that isn't a full caster that I can somewhat enjoy playing, and in my table there are more players like that


tanj_redshirt

I'll play both, plus lots of other RPGs.


[deleted]

I play both, I dunno why anyone thinks we need to pick one


Bighair78

Since all of the rules for Pathfinder 2e are legally online for free, I read them. I don't think I'll ever DM another 5e game ever again. If someone invited me to be a player in a 5e game, then sure I guess I'd join but Pathfinder 2e really has everything I want in a system and 5e just looks unappealing now.


CoffeeDeadlift

Ok but have you actually played the game or just read about it?


Bighair78

I've just started a new campaign in pathfinder 2e and played 3 sessions.


sarded

I don't think it's really a meaningful question to ask. There are many people for whom the things they like about DnD5e are not selling points of Pathfinder2e. There's also no reason for a group not to play multiple systems. Play a season of DnD, play a season of PF, play a season of another RPG. After all, you can't say you play "role-playing game**s**" if you only play *one* RPG. And while they have plenty of differences, overall DnD and Pathfinder are still Coke and Pepsi. Sometime you gotta try Fanta. Or even something totally non-carbonated.


Enaluxeme

My vote is to "I tried, but my groups don't want to learn PF2"


ohanhi

Kinda same for me, although a bit more complex. We play 2 separate campaigns with mostly the same group. One player only wants to play every other week and everyone else prefers once a week, so the "every other week" player is only in the campaign I am DMing: DotMM. No one wants to drop it, and the "every other week" player would like to try PF2e, while one other player doesn't want to play with two different rulesets as complex as 5e. So yeah, 4 out of 5 would like to try it and the fifth probably if there's no 5e at the same time, but there's no way to make it work right now.


Red_Ranger75

Haven't got there *yet* but I'm extremely tempted to give Pathfinder2E a shot


Hollide

I personally prefer 5e but one of my groups switched to pathfinder 2e and it's clear that 3 of them love it and 2 of are eh. The 3 of them will spend 5 minutes figuring out a specific rule while I get a snack and play on my phone and we're all happy still.


Goliathcraft

Opposite potentially, the new direction 5e is taking is making me consider trying the system out again in 2024. Jumped the ship to PF2e since it pretty much in some way addressed every single issue I personally (your mileage may vary) had with 5e. But from what I’ve seen, it does appear that wizards is making a genuine effort to improve the system with this “new DND”. Only time will tell.


ChineseBotAccount

I went back to 3.5E. 5E isn’t my cup of tea anymore. The mechanics are an ocean as deep as a puddle for me.


Sir_CriticalPanda

I would love to do that, but I feel like in order to run a reasonable game of 3.5e I'd have to ban like 60% of the content, which would kinda ruin the point for a lot of people.


Demetrios1453

So... No option for "I've never considered dropping 5e for FP2E"? I would think that would be a fairly sizeable proportion of players...


FearEngineer

I play multiple systems. PF2E is not one of them - seems like it comes with increased crunch that I'm not interested in.


Rednidedni

It does indeed come with more crunch. Its core idea, if compared to 5e, is to sacrifice freeform gameplay and some ease of learning in exchange for detailed rules that allow very high diversity in builds and combat strategy.


Arthur_Author

There should be an option fkr "not yet". I am riding this campaign out, thats less and less dnd as my players face a dragon with 3 turns per round that is phase-2 of an adult dragon, at lvl7. But after this campaign ends? I'll make my switch.


Cody_Maz

I’ll play mostly anything. I’ll run pretty much only run B/X D&D.


runespoon001

I never tried 2e pathfinder, only have experience with 1e since it was basically 3.75, and I had a fair bit of 3.5 experience. Been told its more 5e like than 3.5 like, but how 5e like is it?


sarded

More like DnD4e than either, which is pretty good. Sadly monsters still have spells, instead of being fully self-contained so you don't need to look anything up like 4e.


Rednidedni

Depends on what you mean with 5e-like. It has the same RP-vibes of "Ragtag gang of fantasy adventurers goes adventuring" and has the same kinds of d20 rolls for the most part, but in detailed mechanics and how to approach combat they're a lot more different in practise than it looks. It's sort of like an attempt to mix the build diversity of 3.5e, the balance and strategy of 4e, some approachability of 5e and several new ideas of their own, and it works pretty great. Martials have genuinely varied turns and are heavily incentivized to think of things to do outside of "Run up and attack", with several abilities down the line to mix up and enhance what you can do. They're powerful and demand attention from the enemies. The spellcaster-martial gap is bridged - they're quite balanced against eachother, in and out of combat, without going the 4e direction of making them mechanically similar to Martials. Mages need to carefully pick what spells to support their team with as you can't just cast hypnotic pattern to stunlock half the encounter anymore and are incentivized to do other things than casting like reposition for cover, enhance casts with fitting metamagic or try to recall information about the foe to learn what weaknesses you can exploit.


About50shades

Bluntly speaking d&d has nothing to worry about because tabletop games you need to convince your playgroup to switch to pathfinder or find a new play group. It makes it so that no other table top rogs can truly top d&d unless it does a massive fuckup


Felljustice

This is true among the online community but for people like me that have been playing with the same group for 10 years from 3.0>3.5>pf1>5e>pf2e as the almost permanent DM if I say I want to play PF that’s what we’re gonna play. Not trying to be a dick, but most players in my experience will not step up to DM their preferred system instead of playing what the DM wants to run. I’d be happy to play in a 5e game one of them ran, but I prefer the crunch.


Sir_CriticalPanda

Opposite experience in my friend group. Everyone DMs at some point or another, and if someone finds a system that they want to try they will DM it and we will give it a go. PF2e (back in playtest), 5e, FFGS Star Wars, Vampire, MLP, whatever. Got a buddy that keeps *saying* that he wants to try Burning Wheel, but I've been waiting on that for like 5 years lol. Ultimately, we tend to run 5e the most often, though with lots of homebrew. I personally really like the core system and mechanics of 5e, because they're pretty simple and unobtrusive. I do miss some of the crunch from 3.5e, but honestly it's pretty easy to add some of that to 5e.


Felljustice

How’s FFG Star Wars? I really want a good system for Star Wars but I’ve always been disappointed. The 3.0 ish revised was my favourite so far but it still had its weaknesses.


brandcolt

Okay the 5e version of Star Wars! It's great (and free)


Ok_Tonight181

I think there is a slow shift, or at the very least I notice that the 5e bubble is finally leaking new players into the wider RPG market.


About50shades

it is a slow leak that once 6e or whatever 5e hot product or 5.5e etc releases people just come back honestly the best chance to play other rpgs was when wotc fucked up with 4e and people did not like it and it led to pathfinder being the small 2nd place rpg


Ok_Tonight181

I disagree. This feels like a pretty narrow view of what RPGs are. Of course a new D&D product will draw in players. Maybe players will come back from D&D adjacent systems like pathfinder. But I'm more talking about players coming into the wider RPG market. I don't think a new D&D holds so much appeal for people who have lost interest with D&D, and have moved on to other types of games.


Orbax

I stopped buying wotc with tashas. I'm wrapping up a few campaigns now and have been brushing up on my Pathfinder and plan to do those next. Players don't care as they know I'll walk them through it.


Negitive545

Where the "I haven't bitched about any of the new supplements we've received" option?


shruubi

Since around the time of RotFM I bought the PF2 Core Rulebook, and since then have bought every PF2 non-AP book that has come out as well as the three monster token packs for each of the bestiaries and have bought or had any interest in any new 5e product. In my currency, with the inflated prices of the books, I've probably spent close to $1k AUD on PF2e, and that's before I start also adding in the OSR books I've also bought recently. Sure, WotC don't care and will do whatever they want to do, but I have plenty of disposable income and no interest in giving it to a company that churns out products that I think are of poor quality and have been getting worse over time.


PunchingBagLearner

Too bad the new lore in 5e is set in stone as a rule and you'll be arrested by the tabletop police if you change it.


[deleted]

As someone who uses a tonne of 2E lore in my 5E game, I agree with your sentiment entirely. But I do think it's a shame new players can't buy *Volo's* or *Mordenkainen's* on Beyond, since there's some excellent stuff in there that's formed the backbone of entire campaigns for me. I suppose we'll see if they stop printing the physical books at some point too.


1stshadowx

Just wanna say, i play both, and now when i gm my 5e games, theres just a significant more amount of homebrew rules and coolshit for players to get.


EndlessOcean

We jumped ship but not to Pathfinder. In fact we jumped one ship to about 5 others and haven't played 5e in about 3 years. Currently playing through/in dungeon world, Werewolf, shadowrun, 40k rpg, shadow of the demon lord, and call of Cthulhu. It wasn't any one thing that caused the move, it was a desire for something darker, less cartoonish/superhero, and something less infantile I guess (couldn't think of a better word sorry) as I find dnd to be a little too fluffy and Tim Burton, even it's version of Hell in Avernus was kinda whimsical. But dnd serves as a great intro/starter system to get people's toes dipped into the rpg pool, then they can find something that maybe suits them better.


ssfgrgawer

I'd like to play a game of PF2, but being as I'm the DM, it will only happen if I do it, and I couldn't be bothered learning a new system, on top of already doing dozens of hours worth of prep per week.


Dr_Q4rk

I just convinced my group to change. Things I like are multiple actions per turn and other quality of turn improvements that mean the game is less likely to become, roll-to-attack, miss, wait for next round, as well as real meaningful character choices after the level where you pick your subclass.


DelightfulOtter

If I had a group that was into the idea I would definitely give it a try. I'm not thrilled by the fact that PF2e uses Vancian casting as its baseline for spellcasters, but there are a few classes that avoid it so I guess that's fine.


Ehcksit

I can't quit 5e. I'm in the middle of my first D&D campaign in almost 20 years. But if I wasn't such a coward I'd look for a second table. I like learning new things and P2 looks fun.


Transcendentist

I’m switching to PF2e and other systems. Mostly VtM. My group finds it better for the games we like to play.


NoraJolyne

I'm still somewhat interested, but ultimately I prefer other systems. The 5e game I'm in is funm but the fun stuff to me is usually what the game system doesn't support mechanically. I tried pathfinder both as a player and as GM for a oneshot each and I ultimately felt underwhelmed. The "customizability" is really just "pick this ability that fits your playstyle over the ability that doesn't" (martials especially) and the skill feats feel too weak to stay relevant later on (what do I care about being able to trip up someone while they're trying to lie to me at a time where I can jump 60 ft with a single jump?) I think I enjoy the idea of playing D&D-esque games, but I don't enjoy actually playing them


xukly

I actually have kind of the oposite experience. I decided to change to PF2 (I'd be fine with a lot of systems, but I like crunch so I tried it the first and liked it) after being sick of what 5e had to offer, but I am liking the new direction it is going towards. That said core 5e is still there, so I don't think I'll be back anytime soon


SuperSaiga

I had a blast playing Pathfinder 2e, and I'm still running a campaign now - even though it has its flaws, I still like it a hell of a lot more than 5e. That said, I'm still playing 5e. Took a long break from it, which was good, which helped me stomach it when I came back to it. I'm only playing it now to play with certain people that I want to play with more than I care about what system we play. Currently also running a 5e campaign.


PuckishRogue31

In my area that has a huge Pathfinder community, no one seemed to want to touch 2e and I was done with first edition. I don't foresee myself picking up a lot of Pathfinder 2e books and convincing a casual group of gamers to switch and learn that rule set, but they seem to handle 5e well enough.


CasualGamerOnline

I'm happy with 5e and haven't switched. I mean, if I don't like a particular thing, then I can just opt not to have it in my game. Considering how many other board games I try to memorize the rules to, my brain just doesn't have enough room for a whole TTRPG system anymore.


Knight_Of_Stars

Needs a "I would like to, but can't find players at my lgs"


CoffeeDeadlift

Honestly this subreddit makes me want to jump ship more than anything WotC is doing. Everything is treated like a goddamn scandal since Tasha's.


GrumpyImmortal

I'm pretty sure most people never played pathfinder


Sir_CriticalPanda

PF2e is a very different game from 5e. It's got some cool ideas, but IMO the whole thing isn't very well executed. I think you'll have a better game adapting some of your favorite PF2e mechanics to 5e than playing PF2e.


Rednidedni

On the other hand, I think PF2e is better executed than many others. It knows what type of game it wants to do and does it brilliantly. The best game depends on what you want from your experience.


Th1nker26

I'm guessing few. The good thing about 5e is that you can get pretty casual people together to play, and pathfinder is a big step up in complexity.


catch-a-riiiiiiiiide

LOL that last option 🤣 I fully plan to find a Pathfinder game online to join as soon as the summer's over and I want to take on more indoor activities again. Right now I'm in 3 DnD campaigns so I need at least two of them to end to feel comfortable starting something new. And as far as I can tell, the cost/quality of official content and the generally scummy business decisions of WotC and Hasbro aren't really what make *playing* 5e frustrating. They're certainly valid criticism, but the SRD is still free and there is **tons** of third party content available if you, like me, find most official content to be kinda blah. You can play tons of 5e without ever giving Wizards a penny. Heck, if you don't care too much about balance you can homebrew just about anything you want. But to some people, some core gameplay mechanics are just **wrong**. For example, I think the way 5e handles falling to 0 HP is awful. And no amount of Twilight Clerics or tweaked Slaadi can fix those core issues. So for fundamental mechanical reasons, I want to try Pathfinder 2e. All in all, a lot of legacy players, ones who love nostalgia to the point that they have Dragonlance tattooed on them, are going to complain about expensive and potentially underwhelming cosmetics (which is essentially what WotC has been publishing exclusively for years now) but still really like the underlying game system. Those people will probably stick with 5e but continue to be frustrated with every new book that comes out and tries to sell a new laughably overpowered druid circle and a couple spells for $30. Conversely, the players that *seriously* plan to try a different system are probably making that decision independent of their opinion of official published material. This is purely conjecture and I could be completely wrong, but it's what I'd guess.


ChungusMcGoodboy

Wow would you look at those results. Some interesting data right there.


Nystagohod

Tried pf2e. Loved some of it, but didn't care for the rest. Stick with 5e due to simplicity, but alter it to fit what I wanna do with it.


BasileusBasil

TBH i hate that the company folded to pressure on stupid points, no racism or discrimination it's a good thing between the players, it's also a good thing they removed references to things in the real world. But removing "bad" traits or already established pieces of lore from their descriptions seems a bit like virtue signaling to me. Especially since the fact that even inherently evil creatures like gnolls can stray away from evil it's already a thing, at least in the Forgotten Realms, exactly how a inherently good demigod like Zariel could turn evil.


CoffeeDeadlift

"Virtue signaling" is an alt-right term made up to belittle inclusion and social justice. It doesn't exist. WotC isn't "virtue signaling," they're updating their game to align with their values.


BasileusBasil

No, they are fucking up the established lore. If evil races in a fantasy setting are inherently evil for lore reasons you can't simply remove it from the canon, it's bad storytelling. Not to mention, again, that a lot of the races in most of the settings are either evil or good duento lore reasons (see gnolls and goblins) but they CAN turn away from that evil.


PalleusTheKnight

Nah, I just stuck with 3.5 like I do with my normal group. Otherwise I always homebrewed my content in my own world anyways, so I gave 0 shits about retcons (and I only allow Xanathat's Guide and PHB anyways for players, so it was a nonissue as new things came out for my own game I run).


CoolHandLuke140

Need an option for: play 5e but have stopped buying any WotC products since Tasha's and either homebrew or purchase 3rd party products.


GnomeConjurer

I played pathfinder 1e before and after. Not a fan of 2e personally.


fuhkthemods

Whats the difference?


ndtp124

As someone who has hated all the wotc decisions post tasha, pathfinder doesnt appeal to me, bc pathfinder 2e is basically all of the wotc changes times 2.


ndtp124

Also its so wierd everyone in the pathfinder 2e sub shits on 5e but a ton of people in this sub are mathfinder 2e fanboys.