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

[dave2008]

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.

That is definitely not true for all monsters, in particular any monster with legendary actions. In general I would take any 5e MM monster with legendary actions over the equivalent monster in the PF2e Bestiary (which people seem to think is great monster design). That being said, I agree monster design has improved over time.

 

[jayoungr]

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.

So, going back to my very first comment in this thread that cause all the uproar, I still don't see why it was controversial. You may feel that Gith are old hat, but a new player won't.

 

[generic]

So, going back to my very first comment in this thread that cause all the uproar, I still don't see why it was controversial. You may feel that Gith are old hat, but a new player won't.

Well yes, and I don't think that releasing Gith as a race is bad, I quite like it, actually. I just think that the release of old races, or more of the same should not compromise the release of new subsystems and more substantial additions.

As for me saying that Gith are "old hat", I have no idea where you're getting that from.

 

[jayoungr]

As for me saying that Gith are "old hat", I have no idea where you're getting that from.

It was just my attempt to lighten the mood a little. Clearly it failed.

 

[generic]

It was just my attempt to lighten the mood a little. Clearly it failed.

Your attempt to lighten the mood was saying "So, going back to my very first comment in this thread that cause all the uproar, I still don't see why it was controversial. You may feel that Gith are old hat, but a new player won't"?

Um... no.

 

[jayoungr]

Your attempt to lighten the mood was saying "So, going back to my very first comment in this thread that cause all the uproar, I still don't see why it was controversial. You may feel that Gith are old hat, but a new player won't"?

No, my attempt to lighten the mood was the use of the term "old hat" as a slightly facetious way of restating your lack of excitement about the idea. And I didn't specify that that was the only part that was supposed to be lightening the mood because it was the only thing you asked about ("As for me saying Gith are 'old hat'...").

Like I said, it clearly didn't work.

 

[generic]

No, my attempt to lighten the mood was the use of the term "old hat" as a slightly facetious way of restating your lack of excitement about the idea. And I didn't specify that that was the only part that was supposed to be lightening the mood because it was the only thing you asked about ("As for me saying Gith are 'old hat'...").

Like I said, it clearly didn't work.

Sorry, it's just that I don't find condescension amusing.

Moving on...

I actually quite like Gith and the release of new races, but I wish new subsystems and new classes could be released as well.

 

[jayoungr]

Sorry, it's just that I don't find condescension amusing.

No condescension was intended, and I'm sorry if my posts caused you any level of annoyance.

 

[generic]

No condescension was intended, and I'm sorry if my posts caused you any level of annoyance.

The same can be said for me. Let's move past this.

 

[Haffrung]

Presentation- period- was 4e's downfall, It was never presented well at all. In the way they split the info up, the aesthetic, the marketing, and most importantly, it's presentation as combat as sole focus in rulebooks and adventures. This was an issue for core and Essentials,

I'm with you though- I love Essentials- and it' s my favorite WOTC version of the D&D game (I grudgingly give 5E the "best" iteration- as it is not terribly polarizing, is a smooth running game at the table without too many kinks and can accommodate casual players well).

I guess I'm out of step, but I though the presentation of Essentials was the best I've seen for an RPG. I didn't have any thought of playing 4E until I came across the Essentials books at my FLGS. Flipping through them, I could look at a stat block and understand what the PC or Monster could do without even knowing the system. Instead of walls of text, I was looking at game information displayed in a clear and intuitive fashion. I finally had, in my hands, an RPG that I knew would be easy to run at the table.

And I love the digest format. The only reason we still present RPG books in 8 1/2" x 11" hardcover format with walls of text in 7.5 pt fonts is legacy. If tabletop RPGs were invented today, there's zero chance they're be delivered in that format. 5E was a huge step back in book design, defying all modern layout and design principles out of, presumably, a goal of feeling familiar rather than being effective at conveying complex information.

Digest format books are light, easy to flip through and reference, easy to pass around and share. And presented with the reasonable font size and spacing between lines in Essentials, easier to read than the walls of tiny text in most RPG books.

Then there's the excellent Rules Compendium, with all the mechanics for the game summarized in a portable handbook you can fit in one hand - such an obvious innovation it's baffling nobody thought of it before.

I'm in the writing business, and I've GMed for over 35 years. The D&D Essentials books were the first RPG books I've seen that were clearly produced by instructional design and layout professionals, and not hobbyists who took a Adobe Publisher course.