Is Pathfinder 2 Paizo's 4E?
I don't think either edition has really nailed feats. 5e, at least, has a strong idea, let's make feats bigger and more impactful to the character and also make them optional. I don't think they quite nailed that execution, a lot of them are pretty small.
But I'm even less a fan of Pathfinder 2's approach to feats. It's like 4e, so many tiny annoying feats. The feat bloat was a serious problem at the end of 4e's lifespan, and just looking at the SRD lists of feats, I'm already out on Pathfinder 2's feat bloat.
But I'm even less a fan of Pathfinder 2's approach to feats. It's like 4e, so many tiny annoying feats. The feat bloat was a serious problem at the end of 4e's lifespan, and just looking at the SRD lists of feats, I'm already out on Pathfinder 2's feat bloat.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
So, at a high level, pretty comparable, it sounds like....
...and spells, I assume? Or do the folks complaining about the wizard /really/ have something to complain about?
Oh, yes, Spells as well.
including only the big "ABCs" of Ancestry/Race-Background-Class, and ignoring Ideals/Bonds/Flaws, Feats (and any Feat chains), multi-classing and spells:
5E in Core has 14 Race options * 16 Backgrounds * 80 Class options = 17,920 basic characters.
PF2 Core has 6 race options * 35 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 2,520 basic characters.
Now, both provide tools to create more specific characters beyond the basic: and PF2 comes ahead in the crunch variation due to the multiple overlapping Feat chains, which include what are essentially equivalents to subraces and subclasses (you just have to work for them). The difference is that 5E provides more pre-set packages for players to choose from rather than building blocks, and focuses more on narrative tools like the Ideal/Bonds/Flaws (which really help make different characters different) and so on. I don't see how anybody could realistically accuse either game of lacking options.
Now, not having options that float one's boat, sure. PF2's Feat falls flat for me.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
Ignoring feats but counting sub-races & sub-classes does not sound right to me, so:
5E in Core has 9 Races * 16 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 1,728 basic characters.
PF2 Core has 6 race options * 35 Backgrounds * 12 Classes = 2,520 basic characters.
Still seems pretty comparable, at the high level.
5e's next level down sounds less granular, is all. A sub-race or sub-class is maybe comparable to a whole feat-tree, or at least, one branch thereof.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
Essentially, yes.
This can be viewed as a pro or a con in either direction, as taste dictates. For me, having the package ready to go makes it a viable option, rather than a pile of bricks.
Arilyn
Hero
Either game allows you to make fun characters. PF2 gives options for backing up personality characteristics with a wealth of small feats. 5e paints with broader brush strokes, with less chance there'll be a mechanical option to fine tune your concept. In exchange, 5e has a lighter system.
You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?
You can prefer one over the other or enjoy both games for bringing different things to the table. But since 5e is lauded as having less stuff, why are we now trying to argue that it has the same amount?
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
Let's engage in a little nuance here.
In Pathfinder Second Edition a feat is simply something you choose. Ancestries and Classes have very few bundled features, usually only the bare minimum required to realize it conceptually. Instead players design what their fighter or their dwarf looks like. Some classes are particularly good at this. You get to decide how mystical, how athletic, or how kung fu focused your Monk is by selecting only the features you want. Some classes have subclass like options, but you generally get to decide how deep you want to lean into your subclass. A dragon instinct Barbarian could have a breath weapon, grow wings, and eventually transform into a dragon. They could also just have a flaming sword and have fire resistance and resistance to piercing weapons.
Archetypes allow to venture away from the themes of your class, although the thematic core stays with you. You never stop being a Fighter or a Barbarian. You also get to choose exactly what you want from them although you cannot invest in another archetype until you have invested 3 class feats in the archetype.
The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.
The whole cow approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities designed to work in tandem. It also makes character creation much simpler.
The select cut approach allows the individual player the ability to design exactly what they want, but it's up to them to make it all work together in play.
At the table things tend to work out largely the same. You have the abilities you have and must face the opposition in front of you. So far the at the table the table complexity when it come to combat feels pretty similar to me. Pathfinder Second Edition has a lot more defined noncombat abilities so it feels more complex there.
In Pathfinder Second Edition a feat is simply something you choose. Ancestries and Classes have very few bundled features, usually only the bare minimum required to realize it conceptually. Instead players design what their fighter or their dwarf looks like. Some classes are particularly good at this. You get to decide how mystical, how athletic, or how kung fu focused your Monk is by selecting only the features you want. Some classes have subclass like options, but you generally get to decide how deep you want to lean into your subclass. A dragon instinct Barbarian could have a breath weapon, grow wings, and eventually transform into a dragon. They could also just have a flaming sword and have fire resistance and resistance to piercing weapons.
Archetypes allow to venture away from the themes of your class, although the thematic core stays with you. You never stop being a Fighter or a Barbarian. You also get to choose exactly what you want from them although you cannot invest in another archetype until you have invested 3 class feats in the archetype.
The big difference in how the two games approach character design is that in Fifth Edition you buy the whole cow. In Pathfinder Second Edition you get the individual cuts you want to. There are trade offs involved in either approach.
The whole cow approaches provides a compelling package of thematically appropriate abilities designed to work in tandem. It also makes character creation much simpler.
The select cut approach allows the individual player the ability to design exactly what they want, but it's up to them to make it all work together in play.
At the table things tend to work out largely the same. You have the abilities you have and must face the opposition in front of you. So far the at the table the table complexity when it come to combat feels pretty similar to me. Pathfinder Second Edition has a lot more defined noncombat abilities so it feels more complex there.
Parmandur
Book-Friend
5E has the same amount of narrative "Stuff," it's just not Lego-bricked out. Which isn't a knock against PF2, it's a different approach (just like buying Lego bricks and action figures are different toy experiences, even if creative play is creative play).
TBH, if I wanted to put that much effort into PC Gen, I would go for GURPs or HERO, not a Class based system.
Tony Vargas
Legend
Or d/l the basic pdf, and get the milk for free.
For instance, in PF2, the cow is necessarily dead.
I'm not sure what that extended metaphor implies, I just liked the sound of it.
Plus, y'know, it's Sacred.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
