D&D 5E 5e with PF2 Elements

[Snarf Zagyg]

What do you think?

Well, I'm not sure what those specific changes add to 5e? And the action economy, as frustrating as it can be in 5e, is woven throughout the rules; I think you'd run into more difficulties trying to adapt a completely different action economy into it.

It would seem that if you really like those changes, you should probably just enjoy PF2?

 

[Lefi2017]

Well, I'm not sure what those specific changes add to 5e? And the action economy, as frustrating as it can be in 5e, is woven throughout the rules; I think you'd run into more difficulties trying to adapt a completely different action economy into it.

It would seem that if you really like those changes, you should probably just enjoy PF2?

well not real
I like being a DM not player and no one has con winced me jet the gm prep and freed is better the in 5e

so the charter building is no draw for me for example most reviews are all from player perspective and less gm what makes DMing PF2e easier or more fun than 5e how easy is it to improves an encounter on the table if the need arises

for players, it looks good but I don't see the appeal
this is just to heal with player pet leaves that there is no real solo monster encounters that that work despite the 5-6 encounter per day design

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

well not real
I like being a DM not player and no one has con winced me jet the gm prep and freed is better the in 5e

so the charter building is no draw for me for example most reviews are all from player perspective and less gm what makes DMing PF2e easier or more fun than 5e how easy is it to improves an encounter on the table if the need arises

for players, it looks good but I don't see the appeal
this is just to heal with player pet leaves that there is no real solo monster encounters that that work despite the 5-6 encounter per day design

Well, the "solo monster" problem is a real one in 5e. You have lair actions and legendary critters, and, if you adopt the Theros rules, you can have special mythis creatures with mythic abilities to really spice it up.

But the idea of a solo BBEG is hard to pull off, and I don't think PF2 rules are going to help. Either go mythic, or try to have the Big Bad both do the combat in an intelligent way and have some spare cannon fodder around.

Long story short- it's really hard to get satisfying solo encounters in 5e with the 5-6 encounter, hit point attrition model. I don't think PF2 rules are going to help with that.

 

[dave2008]

Well, the "solo monster" problem is a real one in 5e. You have lair actions and legendary critters, and, if you adopt the Theros rules, you can have special mythis creatures with mythic abilities to really spice it up.

But the idea of a solo BBEG is hard to pull off, and I don't think PF2 rules are going to help. Either go mythic, or try to have the Big Bad both do the combat in an intelligent way and have some spare cannon fodder around.

Long story short- it's really hard to get satisfying solo encounters in 5e with the 5-6 encounter, hit point attrition model. I don't think PF2 rules are going to help with that.

Actually I think your wrong on both accounts.

1. PF2 does have pretty good way to make solo fights at least tough and deadly. Any monster lvl+5 is pretty much a solo because they are harder to hit and hit more often (+1/lvl) and be cause of the way crits work, they hit a lot more and do a lot of damage. The rest depends on monster design
2. There are a ton of ways to make 5e solo monsters interesting fights. However, which method to use depends a lot on your group and how they play. A simple approach is to make them more deadly: Have a legendary monster do max damage on hit and get +1 per tier to all saves, checks, and AC is a good universal rule of thumb which is the same basic approach as PF2, but still respecting BA

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Actually I think your wrong on both accounts.

1. PF2 does have pretty good way to make solo fights at least tough and deadly. Any monster lvl+5 is pretty much a solo because they are harder to hit and hit more often (+1/lvl) and be cause of the way crits work, they hit a lot more and do a lot of damage. The rest depends on monster design

....but incorporating random PF2 rules into 5e doesn't fix that, does it. You'd have to pretty much whole-sale adopt the PF2 action economy and combat system and monsters ... at which point, you're playing PF2, not 5e.

1. There are a ton of ways to make 5e solo monsters interesting fights. However, which method to use depends a lot on your group and how they play. A simple approach is to make them more deadly: Have a legendary monster do max damage on hit and get +1 per tier to all saves, checks, and AC is a good universal rule of thumb which is the same basic approach as PF2, but still respecting BA

Yes, if you're using houserules (which I did not use in my examples, as I was sticking to published rules) you can always make things more difficult. There are, quite literally, an infinite number of houserules that I did not name (or know) that can be used to change combat in 5e.

 

[Stormonu]

Out of curiosity, what is frustrating about the 5e action economy ? I actually find 5e to be too generous with actions - mostly bonus actions.

 

[Fanaelialae]

well not real
I like being a DM not player and no one has con winced me jet the gm prep and freed is better the in 5e

so the charter building is no draw for me for example most reviews are all from player perspective and less gm what makes DMing PF2e easier or more fun than 5e how easy is it to improves an encounter on the table if the need arises

for players, it looks good but I don't see the appeal
this is just to heal with player pet leaves that there is no real solo monster encounters that that work despite the 5-6 encounter per day design

If maintaining ease of prep is a priority, then this might not be the way to go.

You'll need to recalculate all of the bonuses the monsters use. You'd need to check for proficiency. For proficient rolls, you'd need to subtract proficiency and add CR. Certainly feasible, but I know that I would probably make mistakes if I had to calculate it while there's a lot going on or I'm just tired. Doing it during prep would certainly be more reliable, but more work.

(As for using HD, definitely don't go that route. HD vary wildly from creature to creature. CR is a much more reliable measure of how much challenge a creature is intended to provide.)

 

[Gadget]

Multi-attack-penalty 2ed attack disadvantage third (or higher) double disadvantage 3 3d20 (same for consecutive roles) take the lowest Multi attack and Extra Attack count as 1 action off hand attack doesn't suffer from the penalty but can only be used once per turn

This Sounds like the 3.x -5 per additional attack rule, and...it did not work out so well. 5e depends on melee classes increasing their damage via those multiple attacks, and--if I'm understanding this right--making attacks beyond the first one have disadvantage (or double disadvantage) feels wrong.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I don't like the skill business at all. I certainly have issues with the 5e skill approach, but I appreciate that it at least avoids the absurdity of being on a skill treadmill. I like adding a bonus for succeeding by a large margin, but in my experience most tables kind of do that anyway to whatever extent the DM can think of ways for the ability check to go extra specially well.

The crit business seems fun, but also seems like it slows things down by requiring one to actually do math for a lot of rolls where you can tell from the die it's substantially over the AC. I'm indifferent.

I think a 3 action economy system is great game design, but probably not something you can just graft onto 5e without breaking a couple hundred things.

 

[CubicsRube]

The only thing I would like to try porting over is the 3 action economy, but that would be a really fundamental rewrite of some core rules and I don't want to put in that effort!