D&D (2024) I'm a longtime player and there really is only one thing that will stop me from switching to 5.X

[payn]

Though I think some people overstate how much of that is true. I've seen people act like you have to have an 18 or its not worth walking out the door, and I don't think I started with that on any of the three PCs I've played.

I tried to go 16 hoping to get three stats average to try and be successful in several class abilities. I found out you are not going to be very versatile in PF2. Most of that is due to proficiency + level which brings me to my second favorite variant; Proficiency without level.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I tried to go 16 hoping to get three stats average to try and be successful in several class abilities. I found out you are not going to be very versatile in PF2. Most of that is due to proficiency + level which brings me to my second favorite variant; Proficiency without level.

You can, its just a question of how worthwhile it is. Which, honestly is true in a lot of games. But I found things like somewhat-high Constitution, Strength and Charisma (for a Champion) worthwhile. The important element was he wasn't overlapping with much of anyone else in the group in anything really important.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am saying that PF2 is very much a D&D 4E clone. Attacks scaling every even level. Feats at every even level. Feat taxes, spells being reduced in effectives drastically. Monster hit point bloat. Its all very 4E to me

In the details, no.

But philosophically speaking, yes kind of.

PF2 is incredibly tied down. Whenever possible the developers have nickle and dimed every build choice into as many steps as possible.

To think of it being developed even though 5E already existed is mindboggling. It basically takes everything that made 5E a great success and goes in the opposite direction.

 

[CapnZapp]

If 5.x were to move to a digital first priority, I am going to be turned off. If it moves to a model where I pay a subscription to play as a given, rather than as is, I am out.

Welcome to being old.

This is the way we all go out, unless we die young and beautiful.

Of course D&D will eventually stop publishing books. The money is in continuous subscriptions; pay per month. You already know this.

 

[payn]

In the details, no.

But philosophically speaking, yes kind of.

PF2 is incredibly tied down. Whenever possible the developers have nickle and dimed every build choice into as many steps as possible.

To think of it being developed even though 5E already existed is mindboggling. It basically takes everything that made 5E a great success and goes in the opposite direction.

I think a lot of this was intentional. PF2 is intended to be an alternative to 5E D&D.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To think of it being developed even though 5E already existed is mindboggling. It basically takes everything that made 5E a great success and goes in the opposite direction.

Because fishing in the same pond as an already extent, successful and large game is a loser. You want to go after the people that game is not serving, which is what PF2e did.

 

[Professor Murder]

Welcome to being old.

This is the way we all go out, unless we die young and beautiful.

Of course D&D will eventually stop publishing books. The money is in continuous subscriptions; pay per month. You already know this.

One way in which you are incorrect: If I stop buying books, I get to keep the ones I have. If we see a move to a pure subscription service, when I stop paying, I loose access.

 

[Vaalingrade]

One way in which you are incorrect: If I stop buying books, I get to keep the ones I have. If we see a move to a pure subscription service, when I stop paying, I loose access.

That's the point.

Instead of owning anything, you pay forever and if you stop paying, you end up with nothing. Thus, more money for the same or less product. That's the future we all wanted, right?

 

[CapnZapp]

I think a lot of this was intentional. PF2 is intended to be an alternative to 5E D&D.

I certainly hope it was intentional because if it wasn't, that's worse.

Still, doesn't explain why you would wilfully take the most successful game ever and go "nah... let's implement the opposite solution in every single instance, that must be the recipe of success!"

You could make an alternative to 5E that remains much more mainstream D&D, is what I'm saying. There was zero need to go to the frankly extreme lengths Paizo went when they designed PF2.

This doesn't even start with the 4E comparisons, because it's too depressing. But much like 4E, PF2 is its entirely unique thing, and shares exceedingly little with PF1. Much like a 4E adventure, a PF2 adventure is instantly recognizable as such, and much like 4E, you can't easily port scenarios to or from PF2.

 

[CapnZapp]

Because fishing in the same pond as an already extent, successful and large game is a loser. You want to go after the people that game is not serving, which is what PF2e did.

As a justification for making the design decisions Paizo went with, "at least it's not 5E" is exceedingly weak.