Introducing a new group to PF2 vs. 4E?

[Retreater]

I have a group that has largely played only 5e. If you've read my previous posts about them, you might know how I've struggled to present challenges in 5e (too hard or too easy). Having run both PF2 and 4E, I realize that either system would do what I want to do better - they want thrilling combats, character build options, etc.
My struggle is ... which system? There are pros and cons to each.

• I think 4E is smoother than PF2 (and I think better designed).
• But 4E has big HP bloat and combats can take 2 hours (or more).
• 4E is out of print and doesn't have easily accessible online tools, whereas PF2 has free access to their rules online, free character builders, and is currently in stock.

While the decision is months out, and I'm certainly going to be getting my group's feedback, I'd like to have my research ready to bring to the table.

Are there any more pros and cons I should bring to the discussion?

 

[billd91]

For a bunch of new(-ish) players who have the potential to carry on with the game if sufficiently impressed by it, that last bullet point carries a lot of weight.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think it will be a struggle to get the players invested in either of these games to begin with. First, I'd start by seriously thinking about what the players are looking for - not you. It is clear that you (as GM) are struggling to present appropriate challenges under your terms, but have you had an in-depth conversation with your players about their desires and feeling about the game? I know that you address this by saying that this is months out, but I'd have those conversations before even starting the research.

Next, I would really recommend running a few one-shots of different games just to do a palate cleanser before starting either 4e or PF2. Just something to get them out of the "5e thinking" box. It can be anything from rules-lite to an enjoyable Paranoia romp, but just something to get them into a different frame of mind, but that also doesn't require the time and resources that a full campaign would need.

Finally, I agree with @billd91 - at this point, I would probably go with the product that is actively supported. I'm not a PF2 guy, but it has an active and vibrant community and a constant stream of new products. That seems like the safer bet, all things considered.

Good luck, and good gaming!

 

[thullgrim]

the online tools are accessible but you have to work through the 4e discord server to get the most out of them. One issue is VTT play. If this were a live group I’d go with 4e. If it’s an online group I’d go with PF2.

There are some good suggestions out there for dealing with the combat length. They generally boil down to half the hit points on monsters and double the damage. For lore nuance you can use the new math in MM3 or the 4e monsters on a business card. Alternate win conditions and paring the skill challenge rules in combat can also work for some combats.

For my money 4e is still the best Fantasy Tabletop Tactics game around. I’d love a decent 4e game. I’m running 2d20 Achtung!Cthulhu for my in person group but after that I may try them on some 4e.

 

[payn]

• I think 4E is smoother than PF2 (and I think better designed).

I dont agree with this but...

• But 4E has big HP bloat and combats can take 2 hours (or more).

...ah these are some of the reasons I didnt agree with the above.

• 4E is out of print and doesn't have easily accessible online tools, whereas PF2 has free access to their rules online, free character builders, and is currently in stock.

A very strong pro in PF2s favor.

While the decision is months out, and I'm certainly going to be getting my group's feedback, I'd like to have my research ready to bring to the table.

Are there any more pros and cons I should bring to the discussion?

I do find playing in a system that a GM has much love for to be a pro. Its a very subjective one, but it can add to the enjoyment in my experience. So, Id pitch 4E as your favorite D&D and toss in an enticing campaign idea if you decide to offer it before the group.

Another idea for you is to develop a one shot in each system. Something easy that the players could experience in a single evening that highlights each system. Maybe like level 5 PCs in each system to try before they buy. Let them and you experience what the systems have to offer and find the best fit on the table instead of off it.

 

[Undrave]

If you keep the number of books you use low, you don’t really need the online tools, IMO for 4e. Printing your own power cars could be useful, however.

Just PHB1 and PHB2 will give you plenty of fun options, you don’t need to involve the Powers books, unless you got a player who would REALLY want to play an archer bard or a Beastmaster or something.

But the PF2 ongoing support is tempting, for sure.

Next, I would really recommend running a few one-shots of different games just to do a palate cleanser before starting either 4e or PF2. Just something to get them out of the "5e thinking" box. It can be anything from rules-lite to an enjoyable Paranoia romp, but just something to get them into a different frame of mind, but that also doesn't require the time and resources that a full campaign would need.

A campy one shot of Cartoon Action Hour made up of multiple episodes could work. It's a breezy game to play and if you don't let them pick combat themed abilities they'll have to figure out ways to overcome challenges without them.

 

[Blue]

Besides the feedback from the players, I'd also look towards their preferred level of system mastery. Casual vs. hardcore in terms of that would definitely a 4e vs. PF2 choice.

Also, what... tiers of play do you expect you and your players will be spending most of their time? Levels don't match up, but the concept of tiers do. Personally I found 4e lost some of it's strength of speed starting mid-paragon where there were too many distinct character choices.

Though that was exasperated in a game with one player with descision paralysis who needed to go through every power every turn to see what was best, and because of the highly dynamic nature of the game couldn't (/wouldn't) evaluate on others turns. That was the same game I found out that playing down someone who couldn't make a session was quite hard to run their characters with all of the subtle differences in powers.

I haven't run PF2, do you have a preference in terms of prep? Just want to make sure that you're happy with that for both at the tiers of play you want.

 

[Retreater]

I think 4E is smoother than PF2 (and I think better designed).

There's a lot I love about PF2, but for me 4E has edges in the following categories:

Saves are saves, maybe with a simple modifier.
No diagonal penalties and counting movement like chess.
Character creation is streamlined, with clear roles instead of traps.
You don't have so many traits and conditions to keep up with.
Easier to DM. Everything you need is in the stat block.

Honestly, as far as this group is concerned, I'd probably stick with 5e if I could find a way to make it work.

 

[thullgrim]

Honestly, as far as this group is concerned, I'd probably stick with 5e if I could find a way to make it work.

Is A5e an option? A bit more to it. Better monster design better tools. Same basic game.

 

[Retreater]

Is A5e an option? A bit more to it. Better monster design better tools. Same basic game.

The last time I tried to sneak in A5e elements into the ongoing 5e game, it proved a disaster. Whether starting from level 1 in A5e would take care of those issues, I don't know. I have a feeling it won't if the core game structure is the same.
I think the main problem with 5e is that the only way a monster can challenge the party is with spells (or spell-like effects), which completely overpower the group. For example, I can't reliably hit with the monster, or if I do it's something like 3 points of damage. Or I drop a fireball which kills half the party, even with successful saves. It's like there's no middle ground.