Exactly, I agree. I own SotDL, but my playgroup has not been willing to try it yet. It seems like a good system from what I've read on the three books I own.
D&D 2E Which is the better fantasy rpg and why: D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e?
teitan
Legend
Why not Fantasy Age or Cypher?
Truth is, like others said, it depends on your group. I think that Pathfinder 2e is better for people who want to use big Dwarven Forge style set ups and tactical combats, those +1s here and there are more important. It's, like 3.5, a tactical miniatures roleplaying game. It does have a great balance of the three tiers of play that seems to have come out of nowhere and everyone wants to talk about. The system is very much rooted in D&D and D&D tropes. There is no debating it based on the core rulebooks alone. I really enjoy it but haven't had a chance to play it. Mainly because I am about to start a game with a bunch of noobs! I think a tactics heavy game like Pathfinder 2e doesn't work quite as well. It doesn't scale well from newb to advanced out of the box. Maybe when the beginner box comes out.
5e on the other hand scales extremely well out of the box with the optional rules. It reminds me a lot of 2e with the optional rules in the core and unlike 2e those optional rules are.... totally optional. You have a group of newbies? Just go with the flat line rules: no feats, no tactical combat rules, just straight theater of the mind stuff and unlike Pathfinder, 5e allows you to add that stuff in LATER with more ease. You don't really lose anything not using the optional rules and adding them in later doesn't really hurt either. The math still works out. I like that it works that way and allows for a variety of play styles. But 5e does lack the depth of Pathfinder, it doesn't get quite as deep in tactics, it doesn't have as fiddly of characters allowing for a lot of customization and system mastery. Some see that as a benefit of 5e, some a detriment. I'd need to play Pathfinder to be sure.
Somewhere in the middle your thing? 3.0. Blam. It is a little more complicated than 5e, doesn't default assume tactical miniature based combat and isn't as bad as some people want to act like it was. I'm one of those who bought and ran 3.5 because it was cool but I also think it came out about 3 years too soon. 3.0 was my favorite edition of D&D until 5e but I never got to play 4e.
Truth is, like others said, it depends on your group. I think that Pathfinder 2e is better for people who want to use big Dwarven Forge style set ups and tactical combats, those +1s here and there are more important. It's, like 3.5, a tactical miniatures roleplaying game. It does have a great balance of the three tiers of play that seems to have come out of nowhere and everyone wants to talk about. The system is very much rooted in D&D and D&D tropes. There is no debating it based on the core rulebooks alone. I really enjoy it but haven't had a chance to play it. Mainly because I am about to start a game with a bunch of noobs! I think a tactics heavy game like Pathfinder 2e doesn't work quite as well. It doesn't scale well from newb to advanced out of the box. Maybe when the beginner box comes out.
5e on the other hand scales extremely well out of the box with the optional rules. It reminds me a lot of 2e with the optional rules in the core and unlike 2e those optional rules are.... totally optional. You have a group of newbies? Just go with the flat line rules: no feats, no tactical combat rules, just straight theater of the mind stuff and unlike Pathfinder, 5e allows you to add that stuff in LATER with more ease. You don't really lose anything not using the optional rules and adding them in later doesn't really hurt either. The math still works out. I like that it works that way and allows for a variety of play styles. But 5e does lack the depth of Pathfinder, it doesn't get quite as deep in tactics, it doesn't have as fiddly of characters allowing for a lot of customization and system mastery. Some see that as a benefit of 5e, some a detriment. I'd need to play Pathfinder to be sure.
Somewhere in the middle your thing? 3.0. Blam. It is a little more complicated than 5e, doesn't default assume tactical miniature based combat and isn't as bad as some people want to act like it was. I'm one of those who bought and ran 3.5 because it was cool but I also think it came out about 3 years too soon. 3.0 was my favorite edition of D&D until 5e but I never got to play 4e.
ad_hoc
(they/them)
I'll just single out this example as it shows you don't understand 5e.
Magic items are supposed to be "unbalanced". They're magic. They're supposed to be special and able to do wondrous things.
They are extra things that are not part of the math. This isn't 3e D&D with WBL and there are no magic item shops. There are countless numbers of magic items that will make the early game "unbalanced." That isn't a design flaw.
It doesn't matter how many hours you've played a game if you don't understand it. And you know what? That's fine. It sounds like you are a Pathfinder player, so play that game. More power to you.
Millions of people find D&D 5e well balanced and it's not because we're 'inexperienced' or 'dumb'. We just understand how the game is designed and enjoy what it offers.
D&D 5e is very well designed, it just probably has different design goals than what you want in a game. And that's fine.
CapnZapp
Legend
That's some neat meta right there
Matrix Sorcica
Hero
Radical.
CapnZapp
Legend
Neither.
5E is, at the end of the day, too simple - not enough crunch. New content is mostly just new subclasses that rehash the same abilities just in different configurations. Truly new mechanisms are minimal at best - the Arcane Archer is a good example. There still is no real Beastmaster Ranger, no Warlord that can give its full unrestricted action to others, and no Psionics. (Not as reskinned spells, not at all). You're getting milked, people.
PF2 on the other hand, is too restricted. Yes, it's crunchy. But most of it is empty crunch, since the devs have spent considerable energies on locking down the system. The joy of building a character (an out of game pastime) is almost absent. Juggling your actions at the table can still be fun, but a proper successor to 3.x/PF it is not. Then there are completely bewildering design choices - such as reusing some of the worst aspects of 4th Edition, a game Paizo's fortunes rest on by virtue of their customer base hating it. (I'll just say Talismans and leave it at that).
The unfortunate truth is that the game everybody wants, that is, a friendly accessible 5E with actually fun and powerful magic and items, yet one with deeper crunch, simply isn't on offer.
A game where advantage is replaced/supplemented by more granular bonuses, yet not the feats nightmare of PF2 (where most feats just shuffle around your existing values not actually giving you something nobody else could do).
A game like PF2 with a clear and defined magic economy (unlike 5E where gold is worthless), yet one with actually good and fantastical items that you want to loot or buy.
Monsters-wise PF2 win, hands down. So here I'll just say "a 5E game with PF2 monsters".
A game with actual balance designed by a strong team of good designers. Like WotCs or Paizo's. That is, obscure 3PP efforts doesn't count since these rarely if ever reach the balancing standards that D&D and Pathfinder strive for.
CapnZapp
Legend
That's what discussion forums are for!
I'd say it depends on the game. PF2 is better for telling Paizo AP stories and D&D 5e is better for telling WotC adventures. For a homebrew game, it appears to me mostly to be a matter of how quickly you want character progression math to scale and player tolerance for complexity.
For one game, our casual players found PF2 to be too complex. Our hardcore players can get bored with 5e. It looks like the best mix for us is to go with 5e and let the hardcore players do things like make homebrew classes, etc.
For my other game, we're staying with PF1.
Tales and Chronicles
Jewel of the North, formerly know as vincegetorix
I'd day: D&D 5e with a bunch of homebrews?
- Shadow of the Demon lord's Dis/Advantage system (roll 1d6 per dis/advantages in a given situation, add/remove the highest d6 from the roll total)
- Numenera's rests (first short rest is 10 minutes, then 30, then 1 hour and the last one is a 8h long rest). Each rest gives 25% of max HP. No Hit Dice recovery mechanism.
- 4e's 4 stages diseases
etc
- Shadow of the Demon lord's Dis/Advantage system (roll 1d6 per dis/advantages in a given situation, add/remove the highest d6 from the roll total)
- Numenera's rests (first short rest is 10 minutes, then 30, then 1 hour and the last one is a 8h long rest). Each rest gives 25% of max HP. No Hit Dice recovery mechanism.
- 4e's 4 stages diseases
etc
Ok that pretty much comes down on which edition of D&D or D&D clones do you like best.
Without knowing PF 2e to much I definitely say 5e.
Although it has some system flaws (especially fluff wise so that is easily houseruled by an experienced DM)
it is the simple straightforward to play with PEN & PAPER.
And that is what I use it for. Other editions have their strong and weak points, many of them are big fun in CRPG applications, but all of the other editions have one thing in common: To play them pen & paper is vs 5e pen & paper is night and day. No silly adding up and down of + and - and noting spell durations, thinking about class balance etc. etc.
Instead it is just advantage disadvantage the rough and dirty melee combat thanks to BA and some other mechanical scaling.
Since PF is basically a 3E clone, an edition which is amongst the most notorious in plus and minus and feat bloat and Splat and Dip and Powergame and what you have, it is maybe suited for a good CRPG but I prefer 5e simplicity for a nice evening with my buddies playing old style pen and paper any time.
Conversion of older stuff is probably easy wit h3e material to PF2 but it is as easy for every edition since basic to 5e with few exemptions, with most of these you would have the same trouble if converting to PF2.
So 5e it is!
Without knowing PF 2e to much I definitely say 5e.
Although it has some system flaws (especially fluff wise so that is easily houseruled by an experienced DM)
it is the simple straightforward to play with PEN & PAPER.
And that is what I use it for. Other editions have their strong and weak points, many of them are big fun in CRPG applications, but all of the other editions have one thing in common: To play them pen & paper is vs 5e pen & paper is night and day. No silly adding up and down of + and - and noting spell durations, thinking about class balance etc. etc.
Instead it is just advantage disadvantage the rough and dirty melee combat thanks to BA and some other mechanical scaling.
Since PF is basically a 3E clone, an edition which is amongst the most notorious in plus and minus and feat bloat and Splat and Dip and Powergame and what you have, it is maybe suited for a good CRPG but I prefer 5e simplicity for a nice evening with my buddies playing old style pen and paper any time.
Conversion of older stuff is probably easy wit h3e material to PF2 but it is as easy for every edition since basic to 5e with few exemptions, with most of these you would have the same trouble if converting to PF2.
So 5e it is!
Similar Threads
