Pathfinder 2 e vs D&D 5e (high lvl play)

[Mistborn]

In various discussions, there’s often information that most D&D players don’t play beyond level 12. Does Pathfinder 2e have a similar issue, or is this just something specific to D&D?

 

[DragonLancer]

I've not played PF2 to even 12th but their adventure paths are now a lot shorter, so my guess is that it has the same issue unfortunately.

 

[The Soloist]

In various discussions, there’s often information that most D&D players don’t play beyond level 12. Does Pathfinder 2e have a similar issue, or is this just something specific to D&D?

One of my players, is also a Pathfinder player, and he says PF2 is more stable than 5e at higher levels.

I would add that, beyond 12 level, from my personal experience, it's not the D&D rules that are a problem (regardless of the edition). Creating adventures is far more challenging because of powerful spells and magical items, that can solve a mystery or a challenge in seconds or minutes. I'm not interested in that.

 

[payn]

The high level issue is two fold. The first is preference and a lot of folks dont do it merely because they dont want a gonzo fantasy game. What do I mean by that? I mean, pocket dimensions, mass teleport, scry and fry, wish, among many others. The game changes in scope of adventure and adversary type. The second is mechanics tend to bend and break at higher levels and/or become cumbersome to run and play.

The second was really an issue with D&D during 3E. It's limitless ability stats, spells in cans, page long stat blocks, etc.. were a lot for the even high level enthusiast. I only got half way in 4E, but for a lot of folks playing for 30 levels was just too long to do. They tended to want to start over with new characters in a new campaign. 5E brought levels back to 20 and added bounded accuracy to rein in the math. Some spells were adjusted, magic items limited, etc..

PF1 obviously inherited all the limitless and unbounded math of 3E. For PF2, one of the design goals was specifically to make it easier to play high level fantasy RPG. Paizo uses a proficiency + level system. The math is very tight and the mechanics are designed were the players must work together tactically to be successful. All character abilities were silo'd into feats so character building is evenly spaced out, while giving some individual feel to each class.

Which one is for you?

Well, 5E with bounded accuracy means that everything remains relevant. Even high level PCs must fear armies of low level things. It creates a world that feels more logical in beings relation to one another. Advancement is less getting tons of +1s to offense and defense, and represented in more go power with HPs. Some of the downsides mean monsters often feel like punching bags, and are vulnerable to high level PC abilities. Which is why legendary resistances have been added to give "boss" creatures more staying power. Working as a team will make the game easier, but it isnt required to be successful. 5E, thus feels consistent in experience throughout the leveling process.

PF2, on the other hand, uses a level system. anytime you surpass a creatures defense by 10, it is a critical hit. This is important becasue it means certain creatures will die easily, and others will be invincible merely by being lower or higher level. Unlike a 5E team threatened by an army, a thousand goblins wouldn't scratch high level PF2 PCs. The interesting differentiation here is that by virtue of a higher defense, big powerful caster spells are rendered useless against "boss" creatures. The key will be working together as a team to defeat a solo challenge, making melee characters feel more important and casters lsightly less powerful than traditional approach. Unlike 5E, in PF2 if the players dont work their characters together like a team, they will be lose. Which is why if the challenge level seems too daunting, a GM ought to use moderate or lower encounters.

Pros of 5E;
More casual, game doesnt change much except a few power up spells.
Cons of 5E;
CR system is more horseshoes and handgrenades which takes practice to master. (This can be viewed as a feture as encoutner wont be entirely predictable for GM and players).

Pros of PF2;
Silo'd character generation makes it easy to level up and face the challeneges of high level play. Very accurate CR system (can be seen as a bug as it makes encoutner tooo predictable to GM and players).
Cons of PF2;
levleing up powerwise can seem less ogranic and more mechanical in nature. Facing the toughest challeneges requires a bit of system mastery and group organized thought that isnt for the casual group.

 

[Jahydin]

I would think Pathfinder is better at high level play. It was one of the reasons they even bothered making a new edition after all. Reading through it, I see the effort to get the math balanced perfectly 1-20. My current party is only Lv 4 though, so haven't actually experienced it yet.

D&D 5E I have though and completely burnt out at around 12th Level. Nothing made sense to me behind the screen at that point. PCs felt like walking gods that could attempt anything, battles felt like hour long shin-kicking contests, and sessions took ages to prep.

 

[Mistborn]

The high level issue is two fold. The first is preference and a lot of folks dont do it merely because they dont want a gonzo fantasy game. What do I mean by that? I mean, pocket dimensions, mass teleport, scry and fry, wish, among many others. The game changes in scope of adventure and adversary type. The second is mechanics tend to bend and break at higher levels and/or become cumbersome to run and play.

The second was really an issue with D&D during 3E. It's limitless ability stats, spells in cans, page long stat blocks, etc.. were a lot for the even high level enthusiast. I only got half way in 4E, but for a lot of folks playing for 30 levels was just too long to do. They tended to want to start over with new characters in a new campaign. 5E brought levels back to 20 and added bounded accuracy to rein in the math. Some spells were adjusted, magic items limited, etc..

PF1 obviously inherited all the limitless and unbounded math of 3E. For PF2, one of the design goals was specifically to make it easier to play high level fantasy RPG. Paizo uses a proficiency + level system. The math is very tight and the mechanics are designed were the players must work together tactically to be successful. All character abilities were silo'd into feats so character building is evenly spaced out, while giving some individual feel to each class.

Which one is for you?

Well, 5E with bounded accuracy means that everything remains relevant. Even high level PCs must fear armies of low level things. It creates a world that feels more logical in beings relation to one another. Advancement is less getting tons of +1s to offense and defense, and represented in more go power with HPs. Some of the downsides mean monsters often feel like punching bags, and are vulnerable to high level PC abilities. Which is why legendary resistances have been added to give "boss" creatures more staying power. Working as a team will make the game easier, but it isnt required to be successful. 5E, thus feels consistent in experience throughout the leveling process.

PF2, on the other hand, uses a level system. anytime you surpass a creatures defense by 10, it is a critical hit. This is important becasue it means certain creatures will die easily, and others will be invincible merely by being lower or higher level. Unlike a 5E team threatened by an army, a thousand goblins wouldn't scratch high level PF2 PCs. The interesting differentiation here is that by virtue of a higher defense, big powerful caster spells are rendered useless against "boss" creatures. The key will be working together as a team to defeat a solo challenge, making melee characters feel more important and casters lsightly less powerful than traditional approach. Unlike 5E, in PF2 if the players dont work their characters together like a team, they will be lose. Which is why if the challenge level seems too daunting, a GM ought to use moderate or lower encounters.

Pros of 5E;
More casual, game doesnt change much except a few power up spells.
Cons of 5E;
CR system is more horseshoes and handgrenades which takes practice to master. (This can be viewed as a feture as encoutner wont be entirely predictable for GM and players).

Pros of PF2;
Silo'd character generation makes it easy to level up and face the challeneges of high level play. Very accurate CR system (can be seen as a bug as it makes encoutner tooo predictable to GM and players).
Cons of PF2;
levleing up powerwise can seem less ogranic and more mechanical in nature. Facing the toughest challeneges requires a bit of system mastery and group organized thought that isnt for the casual group.

Thanks for the detailed analysis — it really captures the differences between the systems and their approach to high-level play. For me, though, the real issue isn’t the math or the balance, but the nature of what these games turn into at higher levels.


I agree that a lot of people simply don’t want to play in a “gonzo fantasy” style — and I find myself feeling the same way more and more. At a certain point, the scale of the story changes so much that what I found engaging disappears: the mystery, the tension, the sense of danger, the need to plan and think creatively. At lower levels you can still tell stories about flawed people, about intrigue and moral dilemmas. But as levels rise, it often becomes pure spectacle — a sequence of fights against increasingly flashy monsters.


Of course, that’s a matter of taste, but to me, fighting a criminal who has leverage over the characters’ loved ones can be far more compelling than battling an interdimensional blob that levels cities. And it’s that loss of human scale, rather than the mechanics “breaking down,” that disappoints me the most — regardless of edition or system.


In a way, it’s not even about rules — it’s about a shift in genre. What starts as dark fantasy, mystery, or drama about people struggling to survive gradually turns into myth — a tale of gods and cosmic forces. And while that can be fun in its own right, it no longer speaks to me in the same way, because with that escalation goes what I value most in RPGs: uncertainty, moral ambiguity, and the emotional weight of being human.

 

[Cergorach]

During the AD&D2e age we didn't do very high levels, don't know exactly, but I doubt we went beyond level 12 before starting a new party.

During the 3(.5e) age we did get to very high levels, 18th level if I remember correctly. But besides having a huge challenge with creating encounters, it was also a horror tracking those combats as a DM, I had to use a laptop to keep track of everything.

During the 5e (2014/2024) age we've recently played level 14 characters, even reaching level 15 before putting that campaign on pause and restarting a new campaign at level 1. There is room to play to level 20 (playing Dungeon of the Mad Mage + something else) and even beyond that. The question is of course, will we burn out before that happens or not? A huge benefit is that we're playing almost all of the time via VTT (Foundry), I can (most of the time) run through encounters very fast as a DM (and we're getting faster). Things that have slowed me down is not preparing the Ooze split ability and the Troll entry in FVTT was not correct (Regeneration). All this with no automation (beyond core) and the players still using their paper character sheets at home. So I have high hopes regarding the ease of how well I can run combats at high levels. It also helps that we have a groundhog day ability in effect, so dying has disadvantages (and advantages), but it's not rerolling characters or half the party backtracking for a resurrection...

I haven't played/DMed PF2e yet, but I've prepared to run it (before we decided to embrace 5e 2024), and it's way more crunchy then any D&D edition I played. I don't want to imagine how much a pain that would be to keep track of everything as a DM, especially at high levels without some computer help.

 

[Mistborn]

Unfortunately, I’m going through a sentimental return to D&D 5e. My players are at level 15, and we’ll play through to 20, but now every session is a struggle for me — even though things were fine up to around levels 10–12. Before the campaign, I thought that after finishing it we’d play D&D again or maybe Pathfinder 2e, but now I see that, at best, we’d go only up to level 10–12.
Or maybe not at all, since Imperium Maledictum, Warhammer: The Old World, Arkham Horror RPG, and Symbaroum are already waiting in line.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

One of my players, is also a Pathfinder player, and he says PF2 is more stable than 5e at higher levels.

I would add that, beyond 12 level, from my personal experience, it's not the D&D rules that are a problem (regardless of the edition). Creating adventures is far more challenging because of powerful spells and magical items, that can solve a mystery or a challenge in seconds or minutes. I'm not interested in that.

I have not played Pathfinder but in 5e this is true for me. It is not the at the table experience I have issues with it is the at the table experience.

 

[Velderan]

I will preface this by saying I have been a player in a 5e campaign that went to 20. The 2 campaigns I ran in 5e ended around level 7 and 12 and I was a player in another that ended at 13. I am currently GMing my first 1-20 PF2e campaign using 2 published APs, Abomination Vaults and Stolen Fate, so I have some experience with both systems, including high level play. All my 5e play was under the 2014 rules, I haven't used the 2024 rules or done much beyond flip through the book in a store so maybe the experience is better now. PF2e started off with the original rules and migrated to the Remaster rules around level 8, which wasn't particularly problematic.

The PF2e campaign I am currently GMing is at level 15 and for the most part the game holds up. If an encounter is rated as a Severe encounter, the party will be challenged and have to rely on good tactics and work together to make it through. I don't have any issues with knocking a PC or 2 unconscious in those fights. Moderate encounters still make the group use some tactics, but typically no one gets knocked out or is in any real danger. Low or trivial encounters are no challenge at all and typically are over quick.

IME the one thing I will say that both systems have is the fights tend to become longer as the party increases in level, so if you don't enjoy combat then high level play might not be your thing. We'll see how things go as we get closer to 20 but if it ends up like the last couple 5e sessions for our level 20 campaign where an entire 3 hour session could be a combat that needed to be finished the following week, I'll never run PF2e to 20 again.