D&D 2E Which is the better fantasy rpg and why: D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e?

[CapnZapp]

This is arguably not so. 3.0 hit the reset after just two and a half years, to be replaced with 3.5 - and 4e lasted longer than 3.5. 4e also spammed out stuff to the point there were more official feats in 4e than 3.5.

I hope you're not making the argument 4E was in any aspect more successful or prominent than 3E, because that would baffle me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I hope you're not making the argument 4E was in any aspect more successful or prominent than 3E, because that would baffle me.

It made the specific claim that there were more feats in 4E than 3.5. Which there were. And that 4e lasted longer than either 3.0 or 3.5 (but not the two combined).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's sales really told that story: from 4th (when it became a universal system) on, the core rules would sell well, the supplements that merely used them to adapt to different genres would not. You just didn't really need them.

Nah mate.

People bought HERO because it had a really good rep thanks to a fanbase, got the corebook, realized it wasn't for them, and didn't buy the others. I know because that's exactly what happened to me and I've seen it happen to others.

As Doug says it's basically a squad combat game. And yeah it is forgivable in 1981, but it isn't actually good at anything else.

Hero Systems PCs have been the best-realized, most flavorful I've seen. Because you start with the concept - any concept you want - and adapt the system to it.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of systems where that's the case. HERO is particularly bad at simulating anything but semi-realistic small-scale combat.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Doug says it's basically a squad combat game. And yeah it is forgivable in 1981,

I know that games of that time period - D&D more than any - were dealing with an "all about combat" perception, and Champions! emulated a genre with similar issues.
But, those were very much outsider impressions.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of systems where that's the case. HERO

Name 72 other effects-based systems.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It made the specific claim that there were more feats in 4E than 3.5. Which there were. And that 4e lasted longer than either 3.0 or 3.5 (but not the two combined).

The former may be true - and arguably one of the worst things about 4e - but the latter makes no sense. 4e ran 2 years, 4 if you count Essentials & Essentials+. 3.5 went 5 years and 3.0 was 3 years from publication of its first book to that of the 3.5 PH, to the month, so 8 years altogether.

 

[Aldarc]

Honestly I find that one of my objections to D&D is how generic it isn't. With the highly specified riskless magic, the absurdly scaling hit point, the level and spell slot system, and so on the only type of fantasy I find most versions of D&D to support is either based on D&D or based on D&D at one remove - CRPGs/MMOs like World of Warcraft.

This is probably my greatest contention with D&D. It does D&D fantasy exceedingly well, but I always find myself fighting D&D when I wanna do anything that veers too much out of its brand of fantasy RPG. At that point, it's usually easier to find another system that does the sort of fantasy RPG I am looking for when brainstorming a particular campaign/setting idea.

 

[Rhenny]

I love playing both. I will only DM 5e. I got burnt out DMing 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder because it has more rules and more modifiers to keep track of. PF2 is an improvement, yet it still requires more rules knowledge than 5e. I just can’t go back.

 

[Gladius Legis]

PF2's class design is a major dealbreaker to me. 5e wins for that alone.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know that games of that time period - D&D more than any - were dealing with an "all about combat" perception, and Champions! emulated a genre with similar issues.
But, those were very much outsider impressions.

Being all about combat isn't the sole or primary problem though. The issue HERO has is that it ostensibly attempts to emulate superheroes, but does so via a system that, in practice, doesn't produce results that feel like superheroics, but rather like highly-tactical combat or precisely delinated abilities, where virtually all abilities are carefully pre-defined beforehand, and working out new stuff on the fly takes a while, and stunts and so on (a mainstay of comics and movies) are not really very workable.

I mean, we can turn the clock back to 1990, and pretend that systems don't influence the feel of an RPG, that a "True Roleplayer" can roleplay through any dreadful or inappropriate system, but that's a bit silly, frankly. HERO was a victim of dull and subject-inappropriate design, not a victim of being "so good you never need another". I mean, I have to ask though, have you actually played other supers RPGs? If so which?

(I'm sure there are people who have never played anything but HERO - but there are people who only played d20-based games, no matter how dreadful they were for what they were trying to emulate.)

Name 72 other effects-based systems.

You know what I mean. There are certainly plenty of others that are either primarily effects-based, or had an effects-based subsystem for dealing with/costing superpowers and/or magic, and I'm not going to argue the toss over exactly which ones count (M&M, BESM/Tri-stat/SAS, Godlike, GURPS superhero plug-in, some FUZION variants, off the top of my head and without delving into obscure stuff).

This is probably my greatest contention with D&D. It does D&D fantasy exceedingly well, but I always find myself fighting D&D when I wanna do anything that veers too much out of its brand of fantasy RPG. At that point, it's usually easier to find another system that does the sort of fantasy RPG I am looking for when brainstorming a particular campaign/setting idea.

Definitely agree that this is the biggest issue with D&D. I feel like in some alternate universe, 3E, instead of trading on nostalgia and going with weird ideas like trap feats, built a really strong basic game-chassis for a certain kind of fantasy RPG (whether modern or ancient), without the extreme-ness of D&D, and let D&D be merely "one take" on what it could be. Certainly 3E made some attempts in this direction, but these extremely linear nature of levels and HP and bonuses and so on meant that it doesn't work for most stuff (and this lead to a lot of d20-era RPGs being super-clunky, I'm looking at you d20 Modern and Spycraft).

 

[Paul Farquhar]

HERO was a victim of dull and subject-inappropriate design, not a victim of being "so good you never need another". I mean, I have to ask though, have you actually played other supers RPGs? If so which?

(I'm sure there are people who have never played anything but HERO - but there are people who only played d20-based games, no matter how dreadful they were for what they were trying to emulate.)

Interesting. I never played HERO, but I played Games Workshop's Golden Heroes in the mid 80s. That game was completely whacky - randomised powers and ability scores with no attempt to balance characters, "frames" instead of turns, and so on.

IMO It did a really good job in emulating comic book heroics.