What gets me playing Draw Steel and not Pathfinder 2e?

[Elvish Lore]

If I'm a 5e player who's interested in much more tactical play, why would I go to Draw Steel and not simply Pathfinder 2e which has way more content at this point?

This isn't a challenge to DS and I'm not trying to boost Pathfinder here. P2e is currently the biggest option for 5e players looking for a more tactical play experience. I'm honestly curious (and my personal stance is DS looks kind of cool and I want it to succeed and P2e combat bores me).

If we're marketing Draw Steel here...

• does it offer a more streamlined experience (vs P2e)?
• More dynamic combat?
• Does lack of content make the game easier to get into?
• Easier to GM for?
• lots of other potential reasons I'm not thinking of

 

[Velderan]

• Does lack of content make the game easier to get into?

That is definitely a selling point for some people. I’ve seen a lot of people come to the PF2e subreddit overwhelmed by all the material out there and not understanding where to begin or what to exclude from their games. Getting in while a game is new takes the “what content should I allow in my game?” question out.

 

[Enrahim]

Some observations based on my first impression skimming the pdfs.

Draw steel seem to have significantly more focus on battlefield positioning. Also the heroic resource management seem important for all classes - there isn't a similar theme for all classes in PF2.

At first glance it seem less deadly - easier healing, and a "dying" system that seem to give decent margins. I am curious if the system actually will get players to run away when aproperiate. But I have not compared the margins with expected monster damage output.

The setup seem to call for more frequent less individually dangerous battles than PF2 - at least early in the adventure. I am curious to see how robust their victory system is. I am a bit worried it might require DM content carefully tuned to it for it to work as intended. But if it works it provide a dimension not really found in PF2.

One thing I found a bit lacking was the class load-out (edit: after closer reading, the subclass from level 1 seem to provide more diversity than eviddent at first glance). If you have an idea and want to build that I think PF2 is going to serve you better. That said, if you are more happy to adapt to what is available I think there are likely enough options for you to find something you'll like.

When it come to setting, Golarion is of course a lot more fleshed out than the sneak peak we get on the draw steel world. Some of the races are not going to jam well with simple converting to other setting. So homebrewing, limiting, or some setting work is likely needed to run it.

Not been play testing, so obviously I cannot speak much to how it feels in actual play.

 

[stormwriter]

I think Draw Steel has even more focus on grid combat than Pathfinder (which, of course, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s more or less tactical). Draw Steel is specifically made for grid and I wouldn’t try to run it without it, but Pathfinder still works really well with or without grid. I even remember when PF2 was released there were some actual play videos GM’ed by one of the designers and they were running combats in theatre of the mind.

 

[Aldarc]

That was Mark Seifter.

 

[Retreater]

IME, the pros for PF2:
More content for players and GMs
Archives of Nethys is accessible
Great implementation on Foundry (we have no idea what Draw Steel will have)
More similarities to 5E (similar mechanics, terminology, etc)

I've only skimmed the DS PDFs, but I haven't seen anything that makes me want to play it or run it, so I can't give a fair list of the pros.

I can tell you the cons of PF2, IMO:
Lots of fiddliness that ultimately doesn't matter
Too many conditions
I hate how they measure squares on the grid
No minions (or solo monsters)
Repetitive combats that do get boring (I've been playing the same character for a year, and I can sleep walk through most fights)
Unimpressive magic items just there for tradition's sake
The rollout of Pathfinder 2.5 was a mess, unnecessary, and the game is still confused

 

[SteveC]

As someone who both plays and runs PF2, I’m going to give DS a try. Sometimes more is it always better, sometimes it’s just more. PF2 is very big at this point, and although I love it, it seems to have some serious differences in design between classes where some are designed with a different power level in mind.

I think the fact that there is one product for DS and it’s all been designed to work together is a strength. Now I may run it and not have fun but it’s worth a try.

 

[Retreater]

...some serious differences in design between classes...

Strangly, that's one of the things that causing my hangup in Draw Steel. The asymmetric class design that has different ways to accumulate powers, different ways to recharge them, etc, it's an added level of complexity I don't like in a game that seems pretty cumbersome.

 

[zakael19]

Strangly, that's one of the things that causing my hangup in Draw Steel. The asymmetric class design that has different ways to accumulate powers, different ways to recharge them, etc, it's an added level of complexity I don't like in a game that seems pretty cumbersome.

If classes have different ways they work, does it matter unless you're playing multiple classes at the same time?

Edit: DS seems to be designed to appeal to people who want to do some serious customization and skilled tactical play with their characters, people who are going to want to learn how their class works to make it function as part of a team.

 

[Retreater]

If classes have different ways they work, does it matter unless you're playing multiple classes at the same time?

Yes. When I'm the GM, trying to understand basic rules of the game, including pacing and resources. And usually having to explain how the game works for 4-6 other players who don't own the rules.