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

[togashi_joe_enworld]

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'll rehash it here.

I hate flexing, so I'm just trying to show that I'm not a total newb when it comes to RPGs, but I have 3000 hours of experience DMing (mostly) and playing D&D 5e (and overall, 28 years of experience with tabletop RPGs, mostly D&D from 1e to 5e). I have played tons of D&D 3.5e as well, a couple of years of Pathfinder 1e, 7th Sea, Legend of the Five Rings (1e - 4e), and a year of Starfinder. I have even dabbled in game design over the years.

I can speak from experience that while 5e is a great RPG that is simple on the surface, but can be complex during optimization, it has some complications and some greater imbalances, even in just the core rules, than PF2e. To name a few, multiclassing can still create broken combinations, paladin smites are too powerful when combined with multiclassing, some feats are really weak, Dexterity is too strong as an Ability Score, wand of fireballs at early levels breaks encounters, some class archetypes are very lacking, resting is too easy, encounter design/CR calc just don't work sometimes, some spells are downright broken, crafting is too vague, etc.

I now have about 100 hours of experience playing PF2e , 20% of which has been DMing. 2e is hands down a much more balanced fantasy RPG experience so far. I've yet to see anything extraordinarily broken and nearly all of the classes, with the exception of the Alchemist, which seems underpowered at low levels, are pretty balanced. Of course, it's impossible at this point, without having played for a 1000+ hours, to know it inside and out. It's not a perfect game; Primal school of magic seems underpowered, Ranger's Flurry seems too good, the spellcasting system seems less versatile, recall knowledge is vague, but compared to the early days of 5e, this game does a lot of things right, and about triples the choices that a player can make over the course of a character's advancement, providing a happy medium between 5e and PF1e's choices in my opinion.

Compared to PF1e, PF2e is a very different game, and in my opinion, closer to an amalgamation between 5e, PF1e, and Starfinder. The 3 action economy, however, is the best system out of all of these RPGs in my opinion due to its versatility. Exploration and Encounter modes are clearly defined, crafting seems easy to understand and accomplish, items have clearly defined levels, multiclassing isn't broken, ancestry feat choices have an bigger impact on character development than 5e, magic items are toned way down, different levels of proficiency in skills is baked into the core rules, and overall, mechanics just make sense without becoming "mathfinder"-ish. The encounter design system is also a lot easier to understand and design encounters around.

Don't get me wrong, I love both games and choosing between them to answer "which one is better" is a subjective question that really shouldn't matter when the goal of either game is FUN, but try PF2 for a session or two with a good DM. Forget what you know about PF1e. You might like it.

 

[5atbu]

Mythras
13th Age
Shadow of the Demon Lord
Black Hack
WHFRP
GURPS

Why limit our options?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Between the two of them, I'd say 5e has the best engine, but Pathfinder is starting to look more promising as WotC shows no interest in developing their system.

Alright, fine, you sum up what was going to take me several paragraphs in a single sentence at the beginning of the thread! Hmph!

EDIT - I note that with 5E, one thing is, I initially got more and more impressed with it as I ran it and played it, but that ended a year or so ago, and now I feel like I'm on the downslope, and thinking more about how to mitigate weaknesses and address problems and the failure of WotC to really provide the kind of material I'd like to see (like, say, a psionic main class) after six years seems like an actual negative, where after three-four it seemed more like "Well, give them time...".

This isn't a typical curve with me with TT RPGs either. Most RPGs feel to me like they improve with time (unless they go off the deep end, looking at you Rifts!), refining themselves and improving themselves, or just adding tons of cool stuff that doesn't blow up the game (usually the worst damage is ton to a game is done by sourcebooks in years 1-3). 5E feels like, for better or worse, it's the same game it was in, say, year 2. That's not all bad but I'd like to see more. The recent features UA was very positive, but I'm cynical about UAs because most of the coolest have been thrown away or vaulted by WotC - I suspect most of this one will be outright abandoned, and a few random tweaks made, none of which amount to the kind of design improvement the UA offered.

PF2E also seems like it actually "got" the three pillars concept better than 5E, but I have yet to actually play it.

 

[ParanoydStyle]

I have a lot of trouble seeing why we need one thread about this, let alone three. It is the kind of topic that it seems impossible a community will ever reach a consensus on, and also one where it seems like discussing it is more likely to be counterproductive than fruitful. In other words...I am dubious about this thread doing anything but starting fights or worsening existing fights.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Most RPGs feel to me like they improve with time, refining themselves and improving themselves, or just adding tons of cool stuff that doesn't blow up the game. 5E feels like, for better or worse, it's the same game it was in, say, year 2. That's not all bad but I'd like to see more.

Y'know, it seems like D&D's lifecycle has been one of feeling too limited, at first, then adding options until they start to cause problems, then hitting the re-set button. 2e and 3e, in particular*, followed that pattern.

PF2E also seems like it actually "got" the three pillars concept better than 5E, but I have yet to actually play it.

Sounds like it really tried. I mean, if it's really real.






* Other TSR era eds just had mechanical problems from the beginning, and 4e had PR problems before it even hit the shelves.

 

[Zardnaar]

Y'know, it seems like D&D's lifecycle has been one of feeling too limited, at first, then adding options until they start to cause problems, then hitting the re-set button. 2e and 3e, in particular*, followed that pattern.

Sounds like it really tried. I mean, if it's really real.






* Other TSR era eds just had mechanical problems from the beginning, and 4e had PR problems before it even hit the shelves.

4E was spamming out stuff as fast as 3E, it didn't last long enough though to hit the same bloat levels.

 

[Carmen Sbordone]

Yeah... I wouldn’t use lazy here. I prefer to say that they’re lacking in ambition when it comes to further developing their ruleset. Or, as others have said around here, too conservative for my own taste.

Storylines have not been lazy at all, in my opinion. Even when they present a new take on an old module, I see a lot of effort from the designers to make them worth of playing/running. And it appears that some great research goes into each of them as well. Definitely not lazy.

I wouldnt say lazy. But reskinning old adventures into the new ruleset isnt exactly ground breaking. And at least 2 books- yawning portal and saltmarch are just rule updates to old adventures, not even redskinned and updated like say CoS/ ravenloft or elemental evils one.

P2 or rather piazo has 5e beat on that front. But to me 5e rules engine has P2 beat, especially porting in old 1st or 2nd adventures or newer ones like castles and crusades or any OSR advetures

 

[Zardnaar]

I own the PF2 PDF, it's just to hard to read need to buy the book.

Not buying the book because no one wants to play it anyway. I could probably get players onboard if I cared enough but I don't.

Well probably play D6 Star Wars or 2E to have a break.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4E was spamming out stuff as fast as 3E.

Faster, if anything, and a greater proportion of player-facing and 'Core' options (everything wasn't really Core but a whole lot was), too. But the simplified structure of classes &c, and the comparatively tight (for D&D) design discipline (until Mearls took over), there wasn't the diminishing returns, where new options are either worthless up-front, or invalidate more old options than they add, and the penalty for letting your system mastery lapse becomes severe.

5e's avoiding that by simply not adding much.
It'll be interesting to see if PF2 is robust enough to handle a surfeit of options, or needs to add material only very cautiously, as well. Not that it'd be able to compete with D&D either way, just that it'd be interesting.

 

[Azzy]

Which is the better fruit and why: strawberries or blueberries?