D&D 2E What would you bring from PF2e to your 5e game?

[RSIxidor]

I still see it as nerf for fighters. Currently in 5e an 11th level fighter can make 3 attacks and move, all others (with extra attack) can make 2 attacks and move.

Your suggestion removes the movement from the fighter. The fighter is basically stuck in place. So you have all other classes with extra attack can make 2 attacks with no penalty and can move (just like 5e but with less movement) and the fighter can make 3 attacks with no penalty, but no movement (which is a downgrade from they can do in 5e). Not to mention if the non-fighters get advantage (or a bless) they can essentially act like a fighter which means they are more versatile.

Shoot, I actually did forget about movement. Whoops. Maybe fighters at level 5 can attack twice with one action once a turn. Hmm, need to think on that some more. Or maybe I find another way to boost fighters damage and accuracy outside of attacking more. Back to drawing board.

 

[Ashrym]

Something that stood out to me was the standard ability score building. Flat 10's base with race adjustments, class adjustment, backgrounds, and then some selected choices. Background feats look like a version of 5e's features but I like moving some of the ability score distribution to the background. It's simple and looks easy to move over.

The other thing is sorcerer bloodlines dictating spell lists, but I think that might need a closer look at the class itself.

 

[RSIxidor]

The other thing is sorcerer bloodlines dictating spell lists, but I think that might need a closer look at the class itself.

This probably requires redoing all spell lists to separate lists n a way similar to what PF2 has.

 

[dave2008]

Something that stood out to me was the standard ability score building. Flat 10's base with race adjustments, class adjustment, backgrounds, and then some selected choices. Background feats look like a version of 5e's features but I like moving some of the ability score distribution to the background. It's simple and looks easy to move over.

The other thing is sorcerer bloodlines dictating spell lists, but I think that might need a closer look at the class itself.

Would you include the negative race adjustments?

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I think spells wouldn't be that hard in terms of the 3 action system. Basically every component is an action. Since divine word, for example, has just one component (V), it would take one action. You could cast a second spell if it had 2 or fewer components (say sacred flame with V,S). I would have it cost 1 action for any "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn to mark a new creature." The 3 action system would replace the bit about only being able to cast a cantrip on an OA if you have already cast another spell.

 

[Ashrym]

This probably requires redoing all spell lists to separate lists n a way similar to what PF2 has.

It might. I was already thinking of simply using divine for cleric, primal for druid, arcane for all wizard, and occult for the combination of sorcerer and warlock as a basis to test it. There's certainly nothing wrong with more sources than just arcane and divine. I'm not sure I would go as far as to separating the lists by those sources, however; I think a tailored list has more flavor.

Would you include the negative race adjustments?

Yes, because it's already built into 5e with the 8 base point buy instead of the 10 base PF uses with boosts.

 

[dave2008]

I think spells wouldn't be that hard in terms of the 3 action system. Basically every component is an action. Since divine word, for example, has just one component (V), it would take one action. You could cast a second spell if it had 2 or fewer components (say sacred flame with V,S). I would have it cost 1 action for any "you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn to mark a new creature." The 3 action system would replace the bit about only being able to cast a cantrip on an OA if you have already cast another spell.

I like the idea, but clearly it is a bit more complex as the 5e spells didn’t have this concept in mind whe they were designed.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Move = 1 action = 5 feet

Then to make a normal move in combat, you'd have to spend all your actions?

 

[dave2008]

Then to make a normal move in combat, you'd have to spend all your actions?

No, I just wasn’t thinking clearly when I typed that. It would need to be at least 10 feet per action I think.

 

[dave2008]

Then to make a normal move in combat, you'd have to spend all your actions?

Corrected! Thanks for catching that