Pathfinder 2E Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

[pcrotteau]

As a late bloomer to rpg running/playing, I'm not moving from 5e to PF2. I will naturally seek out a PF2 game over 5e.

I've run some of the 5e WotC adventures (only Curse of Strahd to completion) and had generally positive experiences. The party composition was almost always the same or had no real differences across the builds of the different classes. Sure the roleplay of each was different which is what set them apart, but this rogue or that rogue were always pretty similar in execution.

On the flip side I ran a couple hundred PF1 adventures for organized play and there were TOO many different builds coming at me. The mechanics were wildly differing. The occasional core class without an archetype was always a breath of fresh air.

PF2 is giving me a new system to run with the old setting, new ways of looking at old classes, and a reason to get back to the table again (was kind of burned out after running 2-3 games a week for a year and a half).

I'm not going to quit 5e, just not look for other sessions of it very hard. Most of the adventures coming out are retreads of old classics, some are better than others, but still no new ideas.

 

[dave2008]

Most of the adventures coming out are retreads of old classics, some are better than others, but still no new ideas.

I don't run published adventures, so I don't know if I am wrong, but the new adventure (Descent into Avernus) seems new and fresh to me. Am I wrong?

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

I don't run published adventures, so I don't know if I am wrong, but the new adventure (Descent into Avernus) seems new and fresh to me. Am I wrong?

No you are not wrong. WotC have stated they want every adventure to be different from the one before. Recently we have had Jungle flavoured sandbox moving to urban intrigue with mega dungeon and now we are moving to Mad Max in Hell. Not retreads.
Running 2-3 games a week will burn out anyone; blaming the adventures for being retreads is actually a nonsensical reason to look for a new game especially as they are not retreads. Sorry.

Of course, if we are talking about Curse of Strahd; the Tales of the Yawning Portal and The Ghosts of Salt marsh, then, yes, they are new editions of classic adventures which many players have never experienced. But nobody is forcing anybody to run those. It's not as though 5e is the first edition to re-publish new versions of old classics.

 

[Parmandur]

No you are not wrong. WotC have stated they want every adventure to be different from the one before. Recently we have had Jungle flavoured sandbox moving to urban intrigue with mega dungeon and now we are moving to Mad Max in Hell. Not retreads.
Running 2-3 games a week will burn out anyone; blaming the adventures for being retreads is actually a nonsensical reason to look for a new game especially as they are not retreads. Sorry.

Of course, if we are talking about Curse of Strahd; the Tales of the Yawning Portal and The Ghosts of Salt marsh, then, yes, they are new editions of classic adventures which many players have never experienced. But nobody is forcing anybody to run those. It's not as though 5e is the first edition to re-publish new versions of old classics.

It's a several years old criticism: Tyranny of Dragons, Elemental Evil, Out of the Abyss, and Storm King's Thunder all had obvious homsges at their hearts, but the Adventure paths have been getting bolder the last couple years.

 

[pcrotteau]

Running 2-3 games a week will burn out anyone; blaming the adventures for being retreads is actually a nonsensical reason to look for a new game especially as they are not retreads. Sorry.

It's not as though 5e is the first edition to re-publish new versions of old classics.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was running two games of Pathfinder Society and a game of 5e each week. It wasn't the system of 5e that is my problem, just straight burnout.

The retreads wasn't the issue. They were good attempts to restat or rewrite an old favorite (LOVED running Curse of Strahd to completion). I didn't feel that the characters had much variation from each other in the different games.

I will run 5e again, probably one of Goodman Games rewrites like Isle of Dread. Just not soon.

 

[jsaving]

On the flip side I ran a couple hundred PF1 adventures for organized play and there were TOO many different builds coming at me. The mechanics were wildly differing. The occasional core class without an archetype was always a breath of fresh air.

If you feel this way then my guess is you'll like PF2 quite a bit. Many of its innovations including the elimination of multiclassing, the simplification of skill points, and the sharp reduction in feat options at level-up are designed to streamline build diversity so players and DMs can more easily understand what is happening. Our group doesn't like that approach very much (it is why we left 4e for PF1) and we're not especially happy to see that kind of thinking make its way to PF2 (no such thing as "too many different builds" for us!). However my guess is a fair number of people will agree with you and we'd wish everyone the best as they figure out whether to adopt PF2 or give D&D another try.

 

[Mistwell]

True. But DM support content =/= rules bloat. Content a publisher can provide to DMs to help them run their own games without adding rules bloat:

Lairs
Standalone adventures
Tactical encounters
NPCs
Organizations (wizard's guilds, priestly orders, thieves' guilds, etc.)
Groups of rival adventurers
Merchant caravans and other groups encountered travelling
Ruins
Temples
Castles and forts
Adventure hooks and summaries
Etc.

Currently, WotC offers two approaches for DMs:

1) Level 1-20 mega-campaign presented in 256 page books of wall-to-wall text. All requiring extensive work, summaries, and aids to whip into a shape that is usable at the table.

2) Make up everything in your world from scratch. The campaign setting, factions, NPCs, geography, cities, lairs, temples, ruins, encounters, enemies, and adventures.

The first approach is made much more difficult than it needs to be due to the old-fashioned wall-of-text format. The second approach assumes DMs who like to run homebrew campaigns have the desire and the resources to make it all up from scratch.

Yawning Portal is full of stand alone adventures. In addition, the Adventurers League is FULL of official stand alone adventures, available on DMs Guild. Have you just not checked those out?

As for settings, they have one very fully supported setting - so does Pathfinder.

 

[Campbell]

If you feel this way then my guess is you'll like PF2 quite a bit. Many of its innovations including the elimination of multiclassing, the simplification of skill points, and the sharp reduction in feat options at level-up are designed to streamline build diversity so players and DMs can more easily understand what is happening. Our group doesn't like that approach very much (it is why we left 4e for PF1) and we're not especially happy to see that kind of thinking make its way to PF2 (no such thing as "too many different builds" for us!). However my guess is a fair number of people will agree with you and we'd wish everyone the best as they figure out whether to adopt PF2 or give D&D another try.

In many ways I feel like Pathfinder 2 allows for more diverse builds, but it is not as readily apparent because Pathfinder expresses character capability more in terms of the things your character can do than numbers on a character sheet. 2 Monks could look really similar in terms of the numbers on their character sheet even though they play dramatically differently.

Here are some areas where I think Pathfinder 2 excels in terms of character diversity :

• Classes have very few set in stone features. Most of the things that define your class have been diverted to class feats that allow you to customize what kind of Monk or Champion you want to be. A monk can be a pure brawler, extremely mystical, focused on athleticism, or whatever combination of things you want them to be. Most classes are extremely diverse in the sort of things they can do.
• Ancestries likewise come with fewer defined package features. You get to decide what kind of Dwarf or Elf you want to be.
• Every class can be as good at any skill in the game as any other class, barring special class features that extend skills. I can play the party face just as well as a fighter as with a bard. You can play a sneaky Barbarian. There is no need to multi-class with a Rogue just to be capable with skills. A human can even start with 3 additional trained skills so even with a Fighter or Barbarian you can play a renaissance man with 8 (9 if you count the lore skill from your background) trained skills with an Intelligence of 10.
• Skill feats allow characters with very similar skills to play out very differently at the table. Where you choose to invest skill feats can be character defining in a way that having a couple ranks of difference just would not.
• Archetype based multi-classing allows you to pick just the features of a class you want without incurring the baggage of the class that you do not want. You also give up far less for it because you still progress in your core class features. I can easily see a fighter who multi-classes into Monk specifically for stuff like water running, running up walls, and maybe a few ki spells to represent a mystical swordsman without the baggage of the unarmed fighting stuff.
• There is far better support for multi-class casters from either side. A fighter can gain up to 8th level spells multi-classing as a wizard. A wizard can become better at combat while retaining much of their spell casting prowess. Gishes are a lot stronger.
• Speaking of archetypes now most archetypes are meant for every class. Because classes have the same class feat progression they no longer have to design an archetype specifically for each class. So when the Advanced Player's Guide comes out your Wizard could be an Acrobat just as easily as a Rogue.
  
  I will concede that right now General Feats are fairly boring. Most of the time I would probably opt to pick up another skill feat than use one of the listed General Feats. I will also concede that level by level multi-classing allowed for some pretty potent combos even if it often involved a lot of conceptual baggage I often did not like.
  

 

[Imaro]

True. But DM support content =/= rules bloat. Content a publisher can provide to DMs to help them run their own games without adding rules bloat:

Lairs
Standalone adventures
Tactical encounters
NPCs
Organizations (wizard's guilds, priestly orders, thieves' guilds, etc.)
Groups of rival adventurers
Merchant caravans and other groups encountered travelling
Ruins
Temples
Castles and forts
Adventure hooks and summaries
Etc.

Currently, WotC offers two approaches for DMs:

1) Level 1-20 mega-campaign presented in 256 page books of wall-to-wall text. All requiring extensive work, summaries, and aids to whip into a shape that is usable at the table.

2) Make up everything in your world from scratch. The campaign setting, factions, NPCs, geography, cities, lairs, temples, ruins, encounters, enemies, and adventures.

The first approach is made much more difficult than it needs to be due to the old-fashioned wall-of-text format. The second approach assumes DMs who like to run homebrew campaigns have the desire and the resources to make it all up from scratch.

3. Collections of smaller adventures (Tales of the Yawning Portal/ Ghosts of Saltmarsh) that can be strung together or played as individual unconnected adventures.

 

[MoonSong]

In many ways I feel like Pathfinder 2 allows for more diverse builds, but it is not as readily apparent because Pathfinder expresses character capability more in terms of the things your character can do than numbers on a character sheet. 2 Monks could look really similar in terms of the numbers on their character sheet even though they play dramatically differently.

Here are some areas where I think Pathfinder 2 excels in terms of character diversity :

I don't know, I have my doubts.

• Classes have very few set in stone features. Most of the things that define your class have been diverted to class feats that allow you to customize what kind of Monk or Champion you want to be. A monk can be a pure brawler, extremely mystical, focused on athleticism, or whatever combination of things you want them to be. Most classes are extremely diverse in the sort of things they can do.

On the other hand, allowed equipment and combat styles got more restricted by class. And I don't really support all of the choices done. I'm used to put whatever weapon/combat style combo I feel like regardless of class. Why can't I have a dualwielding light blade paladin with no armor anymore?

Ancestries likewise come with fewer defined package features. You get to decide what kind of Dwarf or Elf you want to be.

And at the same time this watered down what it means to be an elf or dwarf. And thanks to adopted ancestry, that line gets even thinner

Every class can be as good at any skill in the game as any other class, barring special class features that extend skills. I can play the party face just as well as a fighter as with a bard. You can play a sneaky Barbarian. There is no need to multi-class with a Rogue just to be capable with skills. A human can even start with 3 additional trained skills so even with a Fighter or Barbarian you can play a renaissance man with 8 (9 if you count the lore skill from your background) trained skills with an Intelligence of 10.
[*]Skill feats allow characters with very similar skills to play out very differently at the table. Where you choose to invest skill feats can be character defining in a way that having a couple ranks of difference just would not.

This is a good thing, though I find it troubling that you can never start with an 18 on any score other than what is stereotypical for your class.

[*]Archetype based multi-classing allows you to pick just the features of a class you want without incurring the baggage of the class that you do not want. You also give up far less for it because you still progress in your core class features. I can easily see a fighter who multi-classes into Monk specifically for stuff like water running, running up walls, and maybe a few ki spells to represent a mystical swordsman without the baggage of the unarmed fighting stuff.
[*]There is far better support for multi-class casters from either side. A fighter can gain up to 8th level spells multi-classing as a wizard. A wizard can become better at combat while retaining much of their spell casting prowess. Gishes are a lot stronger.
[*]Speaking of archetypes now most archetypes are meant for every class. Because classes have the same class feat progression they no longer have to design an archetype specifically for each class. So when the Advanced Player's Guide comes out your Wizard could be an Acrobat just as easily as a Rogue.

However I think it would have benefited from more in deep playtesting. There is a lot of feat taxes and wasted levels involved I also consider that not being able to multiclass at first level was a wasted opportunity.

It also has a problem, it only covers sprinkling your main class with a bit of other, it doesn't cover going half and half well, and let's not get into switching focus.

I will concede that right now General Feats are fairly boring. Most of the time I would probably opt to pick up another skill feat than use one of the listed General Feats. I will also concede that level by level multi-classing allowed for some pretty potent combos even if it often involved a lot of conceptual baggage I often did not like.

Archetypes are riddled with tons of baggage anyway. (Want armor? well pick a god and make an oath!.) I don't see them as any objective improvement. Don't get me wrong, the game looks fun, but I would need to houserule it heavily -or way more content than we currently have-, and it is missing a hook to justify the effort. At least to me.