Kurviak
Explorer
landing safely and surviving are not the same
Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?
landing safely and surviving are not the same
Aldarc
Legend
I think that you are being a bit disingenuous to suggest that these are equivalent scales or scopes of fantasy, particularly in regards to mechanical support provided. Similar, but not identical. Hopefully you can at least recognize that the fantasy power level of 3e/Pathfinder extends beyond what is normal in 5e. As I suggested earlier, I think that Pathfinder 1/2 is oriented towards a "higher" epic fantasy than 5e, perhaps even more along the lines of "mythic" or "legendary."
Correct me if I am wrong, but PHB+1 is for Adventurer's League play. So worrying about the influence of AL in D&D while also lauding AL's greatest unofficial influence on non-AL D&D table play seems perplexing. (I say this because some people seem to operate as if PHB+1 is a rule for all play not not just AL play.)
Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
I think that perhaps one of the biggest accomplishments of 5e is diminishing the range between a "vanilla, not much effort" PC and one that is fully optimized. I think that it is ok that a good character build be rewarded by being a little better, but in 3.x and even more so pathfinder, the difference is *massive*
So the more choice in pathfinder is an illusion, because most of these choices are bad. Meanwhile in 5e I once made a "suboptimal " character (gnome ranger meleeist) and it worked out fine - in other words, the "bad" choices are still actually options.
Anyway... that was my experience with 1e. Is Pathfinder 2e better balanced in this regard?
Somebody earlier in this discussion listed something like "greater character choices" as an advantage for PF2. Those who have liked the PF2 playtest will likely say they feel your issue is addressed.
Thus far, I would disagree.
I had to make a lot of characters in the playtest and just recently another for a home-brew adventure that will be using the PF2 playtest rules. I loathe PF2 character generation because it wastes my time with lots of pointless choices. While I do like PF1, I do recognize it also had lots of pointless feats, specially when you get to later books/supplements. With PF2, I have felt the core rules start with mostly pointless choices from the start.
So, to me -- opinion, a Fighter (for example) might have a choice of 8 defining Feats at the start and lots of options for Feats as they level. This should provide lots of room for character conceptions. But what we saw in play was Fighter X and Fighter Y were defined by if they chose a two-handed weapon or weapon and shield. Feats didn't provide any real identity or support any conception, mostly because the Feats didn't do enough to affect play. And, that's not all bad. Characters being known by their player-supplied personality is actually good. But as far as a supporting system goes, you could play a version of the game without Feats and have the same result.
IMO, epic/high fantasy is more setting/world and plot than "character build".
Any edition is capable of taking unwitting teenager PCs into adulthood through a mysterious plot. Or being set in flying cloud giant fortresses where they ascend to such aboard dragons to rescue the princess before war breaks out between two nations. Epic fantasy was realizable in 1e/2e era gaming (consider a Dragonlance campaign in those days!). Powerful wizards have always been capable of landing Disintegrate and 3e/PF was the only era where it was mostly a PITA for an average player to do so (Spell Resistance and the DC scale).
One of my home groups (average caliber players) just switched about a month ago and our very discussion was they felt more epic from the get-go in 5e vs 3e...
The sorcerer: At 1st level his 3d4 (vs 1d4) Burning Hands took out out a "1st level mook warrior" adversary that jumped him when he was alone. His Sleep spell knew no limitations based on max HD and had no risk of retribution in the midst of casting, so he felt emboldened to use it a on 5th level baddie. At 3rd level he was capable of casting Fireball (which took 4th level before), at a solid 8d6 damage (vs 3d6 or 4d6 before).
The rogue: She was dancing into melee, sneak attacking, using two weapons and dancing away - all without a feat tax of Mobility, Spring Attack, TWF, etc. In 3e, she'd have to move then attack with only 1 weapon and end her turn next to that for (or she'd be waiting months to work up feat trees).
Also mentioned is 5e sessions advanced through plot must faster (2e speed) so we get to realize the epic fantasy faster in less game sessions/elapsed real life weeks. This was one of the biggest gripes from the same player group which attempted the PF2e playtest that used "3 actions per turn" and still required expending those actions in order to just move.
My sorcerer player just went through this during character creation.
In his 3e incarnation, his bloodline was Infernal, which he was able to realize with just the PF Core book as it shipped with 10 bloodlines. In 5e with just the PHB and Xanathar's available (twice as many books!) he only had 4 choices of "origins". He opted for the Variant Human to get a feat and was surprised at how few there were to choose from. He sat down at Session Zero feeling a bit empty as his character creation took under 60 minutes and that was with going over ALL of the available options for his first 3 levels.
There were other factors in the newer campaign - it was set in Oerth vs Golarion and it "went back to the roots" in how the game world operated - aka gone was the rush to obtain 750gp to buy a CLW wand. Once they started playing, they were hooked on 5e since it "felt more real" and "less like a game".
It's a bit hard to explain but part of this is due to the fact the players noses were less buried in HeroLab or their print-outs. They paid more attention to the random goblin attacker and spent more time trying to interact with "encounters" in non-combat ways. I want to say in 3e/PF they would have tried to slay twice as many monsters/encounters as they did in 5e. Something about 5e flipped a mental switch where instead of peppering 3 chained wolves with arrows they dug up some meat and tried to calm them instead. Or when the first BBEG pounced from the shadows they shouted "Parley!" instead of wanting to roll initiative.
I think the 3e/PF era favored players spending so much time "playing a game away from the game table" (that is the at-home character building side game) that when they finally sat down to play, their mindset was in stacking +1 or +2 riders to rolls as much as possible. With Advantage, they favor and are more creative at role-playing than roll-playing as their way of showing off prowess/system mastery to each other versus showcasing an esoteric feat/trait they found in countless hours of research.
The PF2e Playtest didn't really move away a ton from its PF1e roots in this regard. It's a subtle thing, but Page 130-131 of the Playtest (which shows the 6 sorcerer bloodlines) really sums it up. A player has to invest a lot of time parsing that page to build their sorcerer which carries baggage to the game table for that effort to pay back. Even in the Playtest's limited scope, the sorcerer needed to decide between 5 feats (Counterspell, Dangerous Sorcery, Familiar, Reach Spell and Widen Spell). There's a stress induced just deciding between these 5 options. Reach Spell? Is that something valuable? Are there spells I'd want to have more reach for and that would be a powerful choice? I need to go look at spells to see if this turns an average spell into something more powerful... except this adds a Somatic casting, but it's limited to spells that have a max of "two spellcasting actions". Head hurts. Dangerous Sorcerery, I can add a damage bonus to non-cantrips.. ah I was hoping this was for Cantrips since those are at-will, but is there some place good this applies? Familiar.. hmm maybe that's good, maybe I can use that to get more than 3 actions and have a better character that way...
I imagine the final product actually ships with more choices which means more character building/away-from-table time in their game. I'll admit I was very invested in the "character building" mini-game in my PFS days and it was fulfilling in its own unique way.
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Combat is just about the only area where a 5E character scales reasonably well, but they're still complete chumps when it comes to climbing a wall or swimming any significant distance. The difference between a level 1 fighter and a level 20 fighter is only +7, which still pales in comparison to the randomness of the d20. That doesn't allow for a good sandbox, where high-level characters get to interact with low-level characters and utterly dominate them due to their inherent superiority. The lies of a powerful sorcerer will still be seen through frequently enough by anyone listening to them, because the fundamental game mechanics are designed to support low-level chumps being nearly as competent as high-level PCs in any area that doesn't involve HP damage.
That's not a good sandbox, if your stats are meaningless because the die is too volatile. D&D 5E is mechanically incapable of supporting a good sandbox, and attempting such a thing will inevitably lead to disappointment. (Which would be forgivable, if the game was only designed to support combat, except combat is also meaningless in 5E.)
darjr
I crit!
PHB + 1 is an optional rule adopted by AL that counters many of the things that I think make sanctioned play bad. Paizo tried something like it and it didn’t seem to take off. I use it as default in my games.
Green Onceler
Explorer
This is one of the areas I found least satisfying with 5e. Our group played through Curse of Strahd and I found no joy at all from character creation or levelling up. I can totally understand how others may prefer this simplicity, but to me, it was pretty boring. We haven't played 5e since. It's just not for me. I feel it removes an enjoyable component of the game - crafting and personalising your character.
