D&D 2E Which is the better fantasy rpg and why: D&D 5e or Pathfinder 2e?

[Sacrosanct]

No. The core books are good. Outright. 8.5/10 or 9/10.

EDIT okay not the MM - it's lovely but the monster design is like 7/10, where later MM books were 9/10.

I know it's a matter of opinion, but I think the MM is the best designed out of the three. I love how they took time and effort to flesh out the lore and history of each monster. Because to me, that's more important than any ability in a stat block because it tells you how the monster plays in the game. And how something plays in the game has a bigger impact in my games than X ability or Y power. It reinforces how monsters are more than just stat blocks, and for someone who runs their games in a living world, that's important. YMMV of course.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well... it's rather simple.

Traditional Design: Copying other editions in terms of style and releases. 5E has advantage/disadvantage and a bunch of other things that make this less the case.

Safe Design: Not trying anything new, or releasing anything that expands upon the core rules.

Nailed it. I don't think I have anything more to add.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well... it's rather simple.

Traditional Design: Copying other editions in terms of style and releases. 5E has advantage/disadvantage and a bunch of other things that make this less the case.

Safe Design: Not trying anything new, or releasing anything that expands upon the core rules.

Here's where I'll disagree a bit. Tradition is doing things the way they've always been done because they've always been done that way. Safe means doing whatever you think the masses want--catering to the biggest demographic. And that doesn't mean not trying anything new. In fact, it can be something completely new, but it's safe because most people would like it anyway. Safe literally means less risk. And less risk doesn't mean not trying something different. Not always.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I know it's a matter of opinion, but I think the MM is the best designed out of the three. I love how they took time and effort to flesh out the lore and history of each monster. Because to me, that's more important than any ability in a stat block because it tells you how the monster plays in the game. And how something plays in the game has a bigger impact in my games than X ability or Y power. It reinforces how monsters are more than just stat blocks, and for someone who runs their games in a living world, that's important. YMMV of course.

I love those bits. I just think the stat-blocks are pretty bad in the original MM. Just giant blocks of HP with multi-attack, as someone said. Whereas the second two have some really good design in the exact what you're describing.

Safe means doing whatever you think the masses want--catering to the biggest demographic.

I would say that isn't full-on safe. That involves taking the risk of getting it wrong. 5E seems deeply scared to risk getting it wrong.

 

[generic]

Here's where I'll disagree a bit. Tradition is doing things the way they've always been done because they've always been done that way. Safe means doing whatever you think the masses want--catering to the biggest demographic. And that doesn't mean not trying anything new. In fact, it can be something completely new, but it's safe because most people would like it anyway. Safe literally means less risk. And less risk doesn't mean not trying something different. Not always.

I can see your viewpoint, but I think my definitions suit my ideals a bit more. Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[jayoungr]

Safe Design: Not trying anything new, or releasing anything that expands upon the core rules.

Nailed it. I don't think I have anything more to add.

So ... again, attempting to restate to prevent misunderstandings ... what both of you are saying is that not enough has been added to the game since the original core books, or that the things that have been added are not substantive/transformative enough for you to find them satisfying?

 

[dave2008]

If I were new, I would have see all the UAs with cool stuff in them (even my most casual players seem to somehow know about UA!), and how they all got deleted or not implemented or nerfed into the ground, and I would be disappointed.

I'm not new to the game or 5e, but I just happened to be looking at all of the UA articles that have been published so far and I was surprised by how much content had made it into published products. Some of the more interesting stuff (IMO) has not yet (weapon feats, skill feats, variant features), but I wouldn't be surprised if we get all or some of it eventually. I think the variant features UA got very good responses (definitely better than the skill and weapon feats did), so I would be surprised if we don't see those eventually.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can see your viewpoint, but I think my definitions suit my ideals a bit more. Fair enough, I suppose.

I'll give you an example. if safe meant not doing anything new, then the 5e books would still be predominantly white male representation in their art. But in reality, we know that that would be the less safe option, because peoples' views have progressed, and it's safer to be much more inclusive in the art work, considering the progressive nature of geek culture. So that's an example of doing something new is the more safe option. If they didn't do anything new in that regard, there would be a lot of criticism their way (rightfully so)

 

[generic]

So ... again, attempting to restate to prevent misunderstandings ... what both of you are saying is that not enough has been added to the game since the original core books, or that the things that have been added are not substantive/transformative enough for you to find them satisfying?

Let me use very concrete examples in explaining my opinions:

New systems and cool ideas introduced in the UA (mass combat rules, rules for future/modern day [a very old UA, but it exists!], and other ideas, like the Psion class, and different rules systems that they've considered over the years) were all scrapped without a second glance. I want occult rules, mass combat, rules, new classes, and new ideas. I want creativity, not "here's a Gith race, yet another thing from a previous edition". I want to see those things, not just more of what has already been released, in different variations.

 

[generic]

I'll give you an example. if safe meant not doing anything new, then the 5e books would still be predominantly white male representation in their art. But in reality, we know that that would be the less safe option, because peoples' views have progressed, and it's safer to be much more inclusive in the art work, considering the progressive nature of geek culture. So that's an example of doing something new is the more safe option. If they didn't do anything new in that regard, there would be a lot of criticism their way (rightfully so)

No, incorrect.

I meant, in the context of 5E. And also, my definitions apply to mechanics, not to social or cultural influences.