D&D 2E What would you bring from PF2e to your 5e game?

[Lucas Yew]

How would you implement skill feats in 5e?

What do you mean by Fixed DCs. 5e already has fixed DCs, so I am not sure what you are talking about.

1. Put defined awesome abilities linked to each ability (skill) roll, as feats. I thought 5E already has some examples since core, though.

2. Yes, but they don't have definitive examples, like for example, a lenient DM might let you climb slippery walls on a 20, while another would barely let you climb a rough granite wall at a whopping 35, in 5E as of now. The expected result for each skill is not concrete, at all.
PF2 meanwhile, has this neat Sample (insert_skill_function) Tasks example for each skill printed in the rulebook as a definitive measurement. Good thing Paizo never completely forgot the simulationists...

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Have all monsters (not just the special ones) have at least ONE thing that they can do that's more interesting than just being a bag of HP that does X damage on a hit.

 

[zztong]

What would you bring from PF2e to your 5e game?

This is hard to say because I'm still very new to 5e. (Coming from PF2; made my first 5e character last night.)

I might be tempted to bring over parts of the action system, but it isn't a "must-have." For instance, I liked how the three-action system could lead to spells with different casting times and spending a little extra time casting could lead to a boost.

I liked that the Sorcerer could choose their spell list. That option was a good move for that class. Spell lists are still too constrained -- I'd like to see a "build your own spell list" system.

I'd be tempted to bring over something like the Dedication Feats (multiclassing) but I wouldn't want to get rid of the current multiclassing system. I'd like to have more multiclassing options in the toolbox, including AD&D1e multiclassing.

 

[dave2008]

Have all monsters (not just the special ones) have at least ONE thing that they can do that's more interesting than just being a bag of HP that does X damage on a hit.

Not really something from PF2e as there are plenty of boring monsters in that game too, but a good idea for improvement non-the-less. Thank you for sharing

However, I do think you need some simple monsters too. I like that there are simple orcs, gnolls, etc. and then more complex ones. If every monster had something special I think it could be a bit tedious. I will also note the neither 4e or PF2e give every monster something interesting.

 

[dave2008]

1. Put defined awesome abilities linked to each ability (skill) roll, as feats. I thought 5E already has some examples since core, though.

The was a UA for 5e with skill feats - is that what your looking for?

2. Yes, but they don't have definitive examples, like for example, a lenient DM might let you climb slippery walls on a 20, while another would barely let you climb a rough granite wall at a whopping 35, in 5E as of now. The expected result for each skill is not concrete, at all.
PF2 meanwhile, has this neat Sample (insert_skill_function) Tasks example for each skill printed in the rulebook as a definitive measurement. Good thing Paizo never completely forgot the simulationists...

Hmm I thought there was something like this in the DMG. Probably not as detailed as what you are after, but I will take a look when a get some free time.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Not really something from PF2e as there are plenty of boring monsters in that game too, but a good idea for improvement non-the-less. Thank you for sharing

Okay, you caught me speaking passionately and full of hyperbole. Truthfully, it looks like PF2 has a better balance IMO of intetesting things monsters can do to simplicity than 5e. Monster design is one of the very few things that disappoints me in 5e (followed by the skill system). For all it's faults, I think 4e monsters were better (at least later 4e monsters). PF2 monsters seem more like that.

You are absolutely right that not ALL monsters need cool stuff to do, but MORE do. I also feel like the other end is not great either - big monsters are too complicated in 5e, in particular spell casting ones.

 

[dave2008]

Okay, you caught me speaking passionately and full of hyperbole. Truthfully, it looks like PF2 has a better balance IMO of intetesting things monsters can do to simplicity than 5e. Monster design is one of the very few things that disappoints me in 5e (followed by the skill system). For all it's faults, I think 4e monsters were better (at least later 4e monsters). PF2 monsters seem more like that.

You are absolutely right that not ALL monsters need cool stuff to do, but MORE do. I also feel like the other end is not great either - big monsters are too complicated in 5e, in particular spell casting ones.

I do think there is one glaring exception to PF2e monsters being more interesting than 5e monsters. So far from what I have seen, every legendary monster in 5e has been more interesting than the equivalent monster in PF2e. Also, recent monsters from VGtM and MToG and GMGtR have mostly been on par with PF2e monsters IMO.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I like the idea of the 4 spell casting lists. I don't think I would have split the outsiders up by casting list the same way. Maybe all outer planes types are divine, but also access a different type of magic, so devils are divine and primal (lots of fire and ice), yugoloths are divine and arcane (arcanoloths), and demons are divine and occult (possession is nine tenths of the law....).

 

[RSIxidor]

I mainly want the three action system. I don't think it's impossible to bring over but it will take a LOT of work. Every spell has to be figured out. Most would just go to two actions but I could see arguments for a few to change number of actions. Movement would need to be reworked. Attacks would need to be reworked. Might be a way to change it to two-actions+movement but that's just as complicated, just removes one of the things you'd need to modify.

I'd be interested to see if we could manage something reasonably good with multiclassing-as-feats. We sort of have it already with feats like magic initiate, ritual caster, and martial adept but not to the point that it's that great. But I don't think 5E fits as well with having a feat-chain. Feels like they need to be maybe a handful of feats to get significant stuff from the other class. I haven't thought this through completely so haven't been able to work out good examples.

 

[Mistwell]

If I borrow anything it will probably be some monsters with interesting abilities. Though maybe an adventure if they come out with a good one that isn't rail-roadey.