• Welcome to this new upgrade of the site. We are now on a totally different software platform. Many things will be different, and bugs are expected. Certain areas (like downloads and reviews) will take longer to import. As always, please use the Meta Forum for site queries or bug reports. Note that we (the mods and admins) are also learning the new software.

PF2 Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

RSIxidor

Explorer
I probably will try to play some PF2 but 5E will remain my main game. I still really want something in between 5E and Pathfinder but I don't think PF2 is quite how I'd envisioned it. I really love the three-action system, though.
 

Imaro

Adventurer
I bought the corebook but I just don't see this replacing 5e for my group, honestly the character sheet alone is going to cause a massive NOPE when I try to get them to play it.

I'll be looking more closely at Pathfinder as I read over the book in the coming days but I'm starting to think my group and I just don't want or need that much complexity in our rpg's. Maybe somewhere down the road we might tire of 5e but right now we have enough options with the splats that I don't see that happening anytime soon.
 

Anand

2nd Level DM
There is definitely overlap between the 5e Warlock and the PF2 Warlock. It is certainly not perfect, but it is workable. (The playtest version of the PF2 Witch will also be available in October.) There are bloodlines that correspond fairly closely with the available Warlock patrons: GOO (Aberrant), Archfey (Fey, Hag), Fiend (Diabolic, Demonic), Undying (Undead), and Celestial (Angelic).
I assume you mean Sorcerer per the bloodlines, right? I thought that too. He is currently a Fighter 1/Warlock 5, and his patron is Vecna (don't ask :) ). I think the Undying Sorc with a Fighter Archetype might work.

It might be easier to just add the depth you want to your 5e game. There are lots of resources on these forums, UA reddit, and the DMsGuild to help with that task.
Well... It is just much more work, right? I don't want my campaign to start to derail to a lot of customizations when I can have it ready and accessible. I'm already using most of the officially released material for 5E, and there are barely any customizations for the wizard, for example. PF2 brings a lot of interesting character customization just with the Core book, with Class, Skill and Ancestry Feats.

What I expect to be the big reason for the move is to simplify the conversion, as 3E to 5E does not convert monsters very well, but the conversion from 3E to PF2 seems much more straightforward (i.e., I just switch from a Doppleganger 3E to a Doppleganger PF2. 5E very often requires adjusting hp or number of creatures). The main hinder is past content and the addition of magical items.

Thanks for the feedback!
 

dave2008

Explorer
Well... It is just much more work, right?
Not to me. It would be much more difficult for me and my group to completely switch systems. We introduce house rules all the time, so we can do that on the fly. But make a change from 5e to PF2e, that would be a hard stop reboot I would think.
 

Istbor

Explorer
Unlikely any moving over will happen. I am way too please with the ease of prep and running a 5e game is.

I will undoubtedly check PF2 out at some point however. Could be after our Starfinder campaign. My 5e group is pretty solidly in the D&D wagon, so they are unlikely to move over.
 

neobolts

Explorer
I am currently in a 5e game and will be adding a pf2 game. The two systems specifically appeal to the two sets of players in terms of complexity, mechanics choices, and combat structure. I expect 5e to continue be my main system, as I gravitate towards less rules heavy systems.
 

Aldarc

Explorer
I assume you mean Sorcerer per the bloodlines, right? I thought that too. He is currently a Fighter 1/Warlock 5, and his patron is Vecna (don't ask :) ). I think the Undying Sorc with a Fighter Archetype might work.
Yes, my mistake. I meant that the PF2 Sorcerer can work for the 5e Warlock. They could take Sorcerer (Undead Bloodline) with the Fighter dedication archetype. They will not get armor proficiencies, but armor proficiency in itself does not have the same weight in PF2 as it does in 5e. When they eventually open up Champion options for Neutral and Evil alignments, that would probably be a good choice for your player, since they could declare Vecna as their deity while picking up armor proficiencies.
 

pming

Explorer
Hiya!

While I'm not really "planning on switching", I am planning on giving it a shot. I/we (my group which is currently...semi-disbanded...still all here, but life and all that stuff over summer) tried PF1 for a good year, year and a half'ish? Also did little one-offs every now and then. Enjoyable when we were in the mood for it.

Last we left off was with 5e. I am interested in picking up PF2 and giving it a read and a play through. A good half-dozen sessions should give a nice estimate if we stick with it or put it up on the shelf with the PF1 stuff.

Long Story Short: Not "planning to switch", but definitely "planning to try".

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Nebulous

Explorer
I probably will try to play some PF2 but 5E will remain my main game. I still really want something in between 5E and Pathfinder but I don't think PF2 is quite how I'd envisioned it. I really love the three-action system, though.
Same here. I've played it twice now, and it's not the "crunchier version of 5e" that I wanted it to be. It is certainly crunchier though, and the variety of characters you can create is a thousand times bigger than 5e. And that 3 action system is great.
 

Markh3rd

Explorer
Well the game stores I have checked and the b&n store near me aren’t carrying it yet. One game store is hesitant to carry it because they sold none of the play test books so said they would wait and see if any interest came up. They currently have no plans to run PFS either. I guess it’s either amazon or wait. I do prefer to support the stores though.
 

ART!

Explorer
Played PF once or twice during it's first couple of years, didn't care for it. Been playing 5E weekly for 2.5+ years now, which is a major, major achievement for our group.

However!

@Morrus , the PF2 review on the podcast got me very interested in PF2. Your complexity/depth approach to looking at it made a big difference. I've been frustrated with the lack of choices as one levels up in 5E, for non-spellcasters in particular, but I didn't care for PF's complexity.

Thing is, I don't know if I could sell enough of the group on PF2 to make it happen, at least any time real soon. I guess if I bought PF2, read it through and through, maybe played it some elsewhere a little bit on the side, and then came to the group with excitement and selling points, I could make it happen. As it is, they would see it as "we're already playing D&D, why bother?"
 
Last edited:

Remus Lupin

Explorer
When I first heard about PF2, I was feeling a bit grognardish and really didn't want to switch, but I've mostly drunk the Koolaid on it now and I'm ready to dive in. But my group has mostly abandoned Pathfinder at this point. We've got a 3.5 campaign going and a 5e campaign going.

The other night at the table I was giving my overall assent of the rules, having just gotten the book and listened to some playthroughs. I told them my bottom line: I like it better than 5e. And everyone around the table nodded and said, "Yep, that sounds about right."

So I'm hopeful that we'll be making a switch over to PF2 some time soon, and putting 5e on the back burner, if not abandoning it entirely.
 

Agamon

Adventurer
It looks interesting. I'm going to talk to the players about giving it a try when our current 5e game ends. I want to try running it, which is more than I can say for the previous version.
 

Haffrung

Explorer
Now that I've read the core rules, I'm even more excited to run the game. Lots to cool elements to this design.

However, anyone who suggests this is a straightforward game is kidding themselves. It's a considerable step up in complexity from 5E. My worry is that I have a couple players at my table of the 'just show up and play' variety, so there will be a lot more hand holding than I have to do with 5E.
 

atanakar

Explorer
No. My group and I are enjoying 5e a lot. Currently running my third 5e campaign since it came out. We like the lighter and modular approach of 5e. With all the optional rules in the DMG and new class archetypes published regularly we are satisfied. As a DM I don't went to return to the d20 3.5, 4e style systems.
 

RSIxidor

Explorer
Now that I've read the core rules, I'm even more excited to run the game. Lots to cool elements to this design.

However, anyone who suggests this is a straightforward game is kidding themselves. It's a considerable step up in complexity from 5E. My worry is that I have a couple players at my table of the 'just show up and play' variety, so there will be a lot more hand holding than I have to do with 5E.
I think this edition could benefit from a more laid out "here's actions you can take on your turn" type of sheet, kind of like what was had with "power cards" in 4E. Maybe that would help with players who aren't as engaged by the tactical applications. Or maybe that would be even more confusing, I'm not sure.
 

Haffrung

Explorer
I think this edition could benefit from a more laid out "here's actions you can take on your turn" type of sheet, kind of like what was had with "power cards" in 4E.
Absolutely. The number of mechanically-defined actions a PC can take has to number in the dozens. At the very least a summary sheet would be extremely helpful. Because I sure as heck won't be able to remember them all when I'm running a game.
 

dave2008

Explorer
After reviewing the rules for a bit now I feel I can safely say we will not be switching. I definitely like some of the added depth vs 5e, but it is clearly a much more complex game as well and I am just not interested in that. At this point, I think it would be easier to achieve what I am looking for by taking some of the depth of PF2e and added to my next 5e game.
 
Last edited:

Advertisement

Top