I have owned D&D 5E since released and find it to be one of my favorite editions of the game overall. I played Pathfinder 1E at release and for a while after bought decided it was too bloated and too rules intensive for my taste. I did not follow the development of 2E at all but became intrigued after seeing all the glowing reviews. I have now purchased Pathfinder 2E and am loving it so far since it seems to me to be just as good as 1E at options but with more streamlined mechanics.
My question to you all is which game would you choose between D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E and why?
5e. I was never impressed with 3e and PF is 3e with more widgets. PF2 then is 3e with streamlined widgets. Still not interested. I'll give it a whirl if chance presents. But that seems unlikely. Especially after the various antics of late by Paizo.
5E. I don't feel like learning something new, especially something as fiddly-looking as PF2.
I have 5E yet still undecided on PF 2E at least for now.
5e (or maybe turn back to 4E).
I burned out on D&D3.0, never bought into 3.5 but played in a PF1 campaign and I don't see why I would go back to that version of the game.
I have no idea how PF2 is different but I have enough other games to try out first.
C) none of the above.
I've got my own system 99% done mechanically (and about 90% on the fluff side) I use for fantasy settings that can do every character concept 4E D&D could do easily and 5e is a much tamer beast. I haven't checked out PF2e in any depth, but I'm pretty sure it can cover all the concepts there too.
If I had to pick an already published system I'd go 4E, then Palladium Fantasy 1e, then Mutants & Masterminds 3e with a fantasy setting before I'd do either 5e or PF2e.
If you put a gun to my head I'd do 5e over PF2e, but I'd demand ability arrays, feats and Xanthar's Guide be allowed.
I wouldn't pick either of those options.
If I had to pick one, 5e because at least I don't give to learn PF2e fiddly nonsense (hate 5e, our group plays other systems and has learned 4e D&D)
I love 5e, I'm willing to try PF2e if someone else GMs it, but I can't see myself switching my main game.
I have neither system. I'm more likely to pick up PF2, since PF1 is the system we're currently playing. that depends on when/if the groups switch over.
Well, since 5E is at least tied for 1st place in my list of D&D games, 3E is at the bottom, and PF doesn't even make the list ... You do the math. :)
If I want to do what 3E/PF thinks they are doing, I'll just play Hero or GURPS instead.
D & D 5E, without Feats.
Pathfinder 1E is more appealing to me than 2E is.
Well, Pathfinder is rooted in 3E and PF2 seems to be a lot more like 4E, so to me the choice is clear. I like D&D 5E a lot more than I liked either 3E or 4E, so 5E wins over Pathfinder 2.
It has to be Pathfinder 2e for me. I would probably play 4e before playing 5e which is saying a lot.
I tolerate 5E because it's what the group uses, but I have no real affection for it. OTOH, I've actively disliked Paizo's stuff for over a decade. :)
Neither. I'd go with Palladium.
Quote from: daddystabz;1099746IMy question to you all is which game would you choose between D&D 5E and Pathfinder 2E and why?
Neither. Fuck'em both.
If there was a great group of players for a 5e game, I might consider joining for the quality of the roleplay in spite of the system, but anything Pathfinder gets a hard pass from me.
Quote from: Ninneveh;1099834I'd go with Palladium.
Hell yeah!
Not even a question, 5e D&D hands down. :)
I want to retread 3.PF crunch like I want another RPG encyclopedia set to memorize. :rolleyes:
5E D&D and this is from someone who was a pathfinder fanboy.
Like many others here, D&D is not my main rpg.
I actually hardly ever GM it, but I'm happy to be a PC in a D&D game if my friends want to play it.
That said, if the choice is D&D 5E or PF2, then D&D 5E definately gets my vote.
My D&D preferences are:
1. AiME (5E variant)
2. D&D 5E
3. DCC
4. S&W
PF isn't even on my radar, let alone PF2...
Neither. 5e and PF2 are well designed games and I'm sure they make D&D players happy.
If I'm going to run anything D&D like, I will pick a retroclone that tickles my fancy. Fantastic Heroes & Witchery, DCC (just picked it up this weekend at Dragonflight, has some fun stuff in there...), ACKS... Just can't deal with the long slog of HP whiddling newer versions embrace. Combat just takes too damn long.
That recent Pathfinder 2e thread about characters really unsold me on that game (and I'm a big fan of D&D 3e), so I guess I'd have to pick 5e. 3e, for all it's problems, wasn't really that bad at lower levels, especially if you kept ability scores in check. It got crazy around 10th level but, by then, you've played for a year or so built up to it. I no longer have patience for all that Background and Inspiration crap at character generation that more recent games pile on.
5E for me.
Quick question: did I understand this right - any character in PF2e can attack up to 3 times per turn?
Quote from: Spinachcat;1099836Neither. Fuck'em both.
What he said.
So many other games I'd rather play, or at least try out.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099906Quick question: did I understand this right - any character in PF2e can attack up to 3 times per turn?
No. I don't think so.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1099906Quick question: did I understand this right - any character in PF2e can attack up to 3 times per turn?
Every character has three actions per round. Attacking takes one action. Each attack after the first gets a cumulative-5 penalty.
I looked at the PF2 book today and I thought it was visually unappealing. The pages remind me of the character sheet, and it looks way too "busy" and distracting. I also think they skimped on the covers; they are fairly thin for a hardcover and they flex way too much under the weight of the pages.
The PF2 gameplay is closer to my sensibilities at this point, so I'll pick that. The crunchier combat rules make combats less certain than they are in "bounded accuracy" 5e, especially the increased number of critical hits. And I think this makes for better, more memorable encounters.
I think the 5e adventures are better from what I've seen, but I'd rather use my own or convert smaller adventures than use the campaign style 6 book set or hardcover that these systems are using now.
Which will I choose? Both. No reason to stick to just one RPG. 5E and PF2 support difference approaches to D&D. Both can be fun.
As for the hypothetical situation of having to choose one, I suppose I'd pick 5E just because it's easier to get people to play.
I spent a ton of money on Pathfinder around 7 years ago - in hope that my son would get into playing it along with me - it didn't interest him at all ( his friends would always ask to look through my 1st E stuff) he went off to college and got into 4th ed. there, his group then switched to 5th and he didn't like it. ( I think he likes the tactical end of 4th) I raised him playing The Fantasy Trip Melee/Wizard and I'd just add role-playing into the battles. he now plays GURPS I started buying into 5th ed. but stopped. So for my solitaire games my framework is based in 1st ed. the older I get the less I want to buy into systems especially if they are just going to sit in the book case. I think I'm just going to stick with my old AD&D. been playing The Fantasy Trip more often as well. both just fit like an old baseball glove to me. it feels like with a lot of these new systems - that they are trying to re-invent the wheel. guess I'm just an old codger resistant to change, It's an expensive for me to buy all of the books all over again. I think neither of them are for me.
If I had to pick one, it would be 5e (pretty much no way I'd play Pathfinder -- just not my cup of tea). But neither would be my first choice.
I was reading through the PF Advanced Player's Guide tonight, and I am still inspired by it. I believe there will be some long time fans of 1E PF. Maybe not in huge numbers, but it will remain in play.
Quote from: Razor 007;1100009I was reading through the PF Advanced Player's Guide tonight, and I am still inspired by it. I believe there will be some long time fans of 1E PF. Maybe not in huge numbers, but it will remain in play.
I think that was the last truly great book from Paizo. Out of all the hardcovers that they released that next to the core is the second one I use the most. The rest for the most part gather dust as I find the options in them sub-par for the most part.
Quote from: Mor'du;1099988he now plays GURPS I started buying into 5th ed. but stopped.
Waaaaait a minute! I was being told everyone plays only Savage Worlds (or FATE) these days because GURPS was too complicated for the following generations.
Huh.
Quote from: Shasarak;1099922Every character has three actions per round. Attacking takes one action. Each attack after the first gets a cumulative-5 penalty.
I was being told D&D has no active defense because the additional roll would slow down the game too much.
Huh.
5e is what my group uses, and they're just not interested in checking out an alternative system of any kind. if I were to push them to try another system it would be a non-D&D system - because I am not going to spend that capital on a variant of what we're already doing (fantasy RPG).
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100017Waaaaait a minute! I was being told everyone plays only Savage Worlds (or FATE) these days because GURPS was too complicated for the following generations.
Huh.
As much as I wished everyone played Savage Worlds. Everyone plays D&D 5e.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1100023As much as I wished everyone played Savage Worlds. Everyone plays D&D 5e.
Yes, yes. I was referring to generic systems outside of the D&D d20 ecosystem. ;)
Anyway, I thought about it and from what I have heard about PF2e, I would probably prefer it. It doesn't have Advantage/Disadvantage, right? If sticks closer to D&D 3.x without repeating some of its biggest flaws that gives me at least some more solid world physics to work with.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100026If sticks closer to D&D 3.x without repeating some of its biggest flaws that gives me at least some more solid world physics to work with.
Hahaha, man that would have been something. PF2e has a legal, free online srd at Archive of Nethys. You can check out the game yourself and be as thoroughly disappointed as the rest of us.
Between the two, 5e. Easier to get new players into it and easier to find games for. Wizards has also gotten out of their own way and the system has good online support these days(Fantasy Grounds and DnDBeyond).
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100017Waaaaait a minute! I was being told everyone plays only Savage Worlds (or FATE) these days because GURPS was too complicated for the following generations.
Huh.
I was being told D&D has no active defense because the additional roll would slow down the game too much.
Huh.
Who is this person that is telling you stuff because honestly you need to stop listening to them.
I'm about to run my first set of 5e adventures. I have no idea how well the game will go over, but if it takes I'll likely keep running it for at least a while. OSE is really my "D&D" of choice these days though.
I took a serious look at Pathfinder 2e, and almost bought it, then I saw this character sheet (https://paizo.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/PZO2101-CharacterSheet-Color.pdf) and said "hell no"! In general, the closer I can get to having my character sheet fit on an index card (as with Traveller and PDQ), the better the game tends to be for me. There are exceptions, such as Mythras, that I love but those tend to have to "work harder" to sell me.
D&D 5e. As I own most of the rulebooks and rules supplements for it.
Pathfinder 2nd edition would be dipping my toe into new waters. And at this time, I am just not financially ready to commit to a new game.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1100144I took a serious look at Pathfinder 2e, and almost bought it, then I saw this character sheet (https://paizo.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/PZO2101-CharacterSheet-Color.pdf) and said "hell no"! In general, the closer I can get to having my character sheet fit on an index card (as with Traveller and PDQ), the better the game tends to be for me. There are exceptions, such as Mythras, that I love but those tend to have to "work harder" to sell me.
The official character sheet does look really, ah, striking. If you use it then you find that it is actually designed to hold your hand and walk you through
the whole process of character creation as well as being a normal character sheet. You could easily cut out all the unnecessary stuff to fit it onto an index card (although you will probably need a whole lot of cards for your spells like every DnD game)
Quote from: sureshot;1100012I think that was the last truly great book from Paizo. Out of all the hardcovers that they released that next to the core is the second one I use the most. The rest for the most part gather dust as I find the options in them sub-par for the most part.
The NPC Codex came out later; as well as the Monster Codex. Those were great books. The Bestiaries were also high quality; with Bestiary 4, and Bestiary 6 being very strong offerings.
Quote from: Razor 007;1100186The NPC Codex came out later; as well as the Monster Codex. Those were great books. The Bestiaries were also high quality. Bestiary 4, and Bestiary 6 being very strong offerings.
Seconded as well as Book of the Damned and the Inner Sea World Guide. After th APG was when the trend of making piss poor feats and archetypes began. Remove a major class ability to give two +1 bonuses instead. Allow one to Craft oozes with a feat just don't expect to control them boyo.
Quote from: sureshot;1100187Seconded as well as Book of the Damned and the Inner Sea World Guide. After th APG was when the trend of making piss poor feats and archetypes began. Remove a major class ability to give two +1 bonuses instead. Allow one to Craft oozes with a feat just don't expect to control them boyo.
Inner Sea World Guide was what pulled me into PF1 for a few years before the weight of the system forced me out. I really wish to see a well-developed world guide from WotC for 5e, but so far SCAG was a huge disappointment and Ravnica just isn't my thing (and it's not really all that well done either). I don't like Eberron, but I have some mild hopes that they might do OK with the new book coming out later this year.
I've only read through the Playtest document about a year ago, so I'm not sure what made the cut for the finalized published version but I wasn't all that impressed. I'll be sticking with 5th Edition over PF 2nd edition. Couple of reasons like requiring an action to raise your shield. I get that sometimes you forget but continually saying every round "I raise my shield" would make me lose my mind. Also, there's still a ton of dumb penalties to attacks. They're all over the place and it's really damn annoying. Also, your decisions are final and there's apparently no variation of choices once they're made. For example, a Ranger gets to choose his Ranger "feat" (a la Ranger power like 4e) but if you want to change that because you realize it's not very good, nope you're stuck with it. Same with things like the Paladin's mount. You'd think that the Special Mount ability would just be a spell by now? Nope, it's a class feature you choose and can never change.
overall just reading it I realized it wasn't my cup of tea.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100017Waaaaait a minute! I was being told everyone plays only Savage Worlds (or FATE) these days because GURPS was too complicated for the following generations.
Huh.
For certain people, that may just be how they've developed their tastes over the years. Or, perhaps the people harboring these sentiments are the same types who see anything heavier than Apocalypse World or Fate Accelerated as "too much" for new/young players, or recommend 1-page "RPGs" for anyone under 13. Then there are those people like me, who broke into this hobby starting with GURPS at ~10 years old and GM'ing it by ~14, not playing any incarnation of D&D until I was at least 16 or so...
Discussion of, and disagreements over, the modern zeitgeist in the RPG world seem primarily relegated to niche web forums to me. I think most kids are smart enough to learn/grasp anything that interests them enough to bother trying. Especially if it lets them commit some form of Fantasy Violence and go on Big Adventures in the process. It really seems to come down to personal taste to me, whether you're young or old; I don't notice appreciably less love for crunchy games than rules-lite ones these days, but rather just more love for rules-lite games (there are a lot of them, and they get pumped out really fucking fast, and a significant number are designed specifically to be run in a lazy/immediate reward sort of way).
Looking at what is selling on the game shelves in terms of non-D&D rpgs, I would say that the emphasis on rules-lite rpgs has waned somewhat.
Lots of other rpgs out there tend to have setting/genre as the main selling point. Some are backed up with rules-lite mechanics, but others seem to be happily humming with medium-crunch mechanics.
I don't see a huge market for heavy-crunch mechanics, but there does seem to be a return to more meat-on-the-bone with moderately crunchy rpgs selling alongside rules-lite ones.
I think that game designers are no longer making rpgs with game mechanics in isolation of genre/setting. There is much more awareness of the detail, tone, and pace of the game and how they want it to run, and how closely they see this working well with the genre/setting.
Playing rules-lite comes at a price: you're weakening the game aspect in RPGs, as you have fewer hard constraints to operate in. That's also a drawback to "rulings not rules".
I will readily agree though that there have been excesses in the late 80s and 90. I think we're going to see a movement towards more pinpoint accuracy rules in the 2020s. Optimization of what you can get out of the hobby (for example regarding emulation) within a given rules complexity budget.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100353Optimization of what you can get out of the hobby (for example regarding emulation) within a given rules complexity budget.
You sound like a Savage Worlds fan.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1100363You sound like a Savage Worlds fan.
And? Nothing wrong with being a Savage Worlds fan.
Quote from: sureshot;1100364And? Nothing wrong with being a Savage Worlds fan.
Yes, I was just pointing out the system in-case he hasn't looked at it yet.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1100367Yes, I was just pointing out the system in-case he hasn't looked at it yet.
My mistake. I apology for my post unecessairly rude.
Neither for me...
I've played a few sessions of pathfinder 2, and numerous of 5th edition over the years.
5th Edition
A much cleaner system as compared to PF2 and will provide a smoother gaming experience overall. This to me is due to Bounded Accuracy (which I prefer as a design fundamental) and the simplification of modifiers by including the Advantage\Disadvantage mechanic (not used enough imo). Even so, when I'm a 5th edition player I feel like character creation and level advancement options rarely support a predetermined character concept and instead I'm just along for a predestined ride. I just remember many times trying to use the mechanics to make a simple character concept and not being able to manage it, or having to change the concept along the way. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I've found the mechanics with regards to class features rarely go hand in hand with the heroes journey. Also, while classes are aesthetically different, far too much consideration has gone towards balancing them. This only ends up making each characters feel the same... Every class expects to have a competent degree of AC, damage output, and value in any given situation. It gets a bit boring.
Pathfinder 2
There are some things I like and some I hate. Compared to 5th Edition, character creation is versatile with so many options allowing a player to make unique characters. With no bounded accuracy, massive modifiers and DCs as you level are the norm (as they were in PF1), which to me just means the game doesn't get much different at later levels. At level 1 it may be a +3 against a DC 13 and at later levels it's +32 against a DC 42. The three action economy makes the game feel more cinematic - I actually like it. The game feels heroic, but steps too close to super-heroic for my liking. High hit points at level 1 and how dying seems to work suggest that character death is rarer than seen in 5th edition (which I usually house-rule to death), though I haven't read all the later level feats and spells yet. From what I've experienced thus far the game has a more 4th edition feel with how dynamic and complex combat can be.
I can't help but feel that Paizo has replaced PF1's hyper-specificity in situational rules for hyper-specificity in feat rules instead. The relatively simple system gains its burdensome complexity with numerous 'ifs'... If you have this feat, and you critical this check, then this also happens. If you have this feat, and you use this action, then this also happens... Good luck keeping track of your 50-100 situational abilities\feats at those higher levels, though this is each individual player's responsibility...
As a GM I feel like there is little leeway in the rules to make actual rulings. The philosophy written in the game suggests that changes to rules should always be agreed upon, which I can only imagine will cause a good amount of rules-lawyering to occur if the GM decides to insert some creative adversity in order to challenge the players. In 5th edition, a GM can give advantage or disadvantage at a whim if the situation warrants it, but in pathfinder 2, I see no way for a GM to insert their own flare other than how they design or run an adventure and the encounters within. Once the game hits the table it feels like PF2 has given all the power to the players and the role of the GM is just to dangle things in front of them so that players can use all their cool abilities and feel good about it.
So...
If I had to pick it'd be GM 5th Edition, play PF2.
5e. I'm more into rules-light systems, or at least semi-light, and 5e is about as cruncy/complex as I want to go. Basic 5e is my favorite 5e. So Pathfinder isn't even on my radar.
All Pathfinder is garbage.
I have no intention of playing or running PF2, although I wouldn't necessarily say no to a game invite if one came along. I picked up a copy of PF1 years ago and... meh. If I were really into D&D 3 or 3.5 I could see the appeal. I still have the book somewhere, but I can't imagine a world where I would run a game of PF as opposed to LotFP, Lion & Dragon, Crypts and Things, Swords and Wizardry, or just plain old BX or AD&D. This, to me, is the big problem with PF2. With the rise of 5E and the OSR, does PF2 help to generate a superior or even distinct play experience? I don't particularly care for the direction the company has taken, so I don't see myself picking up a copy anytime soon. if, however, it turns out to be some huge success I'll give it another look.
I have played in some D&D 5E games, and own the PH. They were... okay. Others have called 5E "everyone's second favorite edition". I think that's pretty apt. There's no real reason to hate 5E and, on paper at least, there are many things to like about it. The rules are clear, simple and easy to follow. It isn't loaded up with junk. It has almost all of the classic D&D "bits and bobs". Advantage/Disadvantage is, as Pundit has pointed out, D&Ds "killer app" I'll probably steal it for other games. Yet in play there has been something profoundly lacking in 5E play compared to my AD&D / 2nd edition glory days, or my more recent OSR games. I've always had this sense of it feeling more like 4E; like I'm moving chess pieces around a board rather than living AS a person in an imaginary world. I've struggled to articulate what exactly there is about 5E that produces this play style. I think Graytung hit it on the head.
Quote from: Graytung;11005225th Edition
Even so, when I'm a 5th edition player I feel like character creation and level advancement options rarely support a predetermined character concept and instead I'm just along for a predestined ride. I just remember many times trying to use the mechanics to make a simple character concept and not being able to manage it, or having to change the concept along the way. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but I've found the mechanics with regards to class features rarely go hand in hand with the heroes journey. Also, while classes are aesthetically different, far too much consideration has gone towards balancing them. This only ends up making each characters feel the same... Every class expects to have a competent degree of AC, damage output, and value in any given situation. It gets a bit boring.
Older styles of D&D didn't have that much to differentiate a character mechanically, so each one became unique mostly as a personality and as the result of choices made in game. D&D 3X introduced the whole meta-game of build customization, which meant well but got out of control. It was neat to be able to build your hero to be whatever you wanted, in theory. In practice, it turned into this giant abilities bloat and took away from immersion. The height of this thinking lead to the 4E disaster of D&D "Battletech". It could be fun, but it wasn't D&D. 5E has tried to reign that in, but in doing so its become a little bit like a generic Chinese restaurant: you get one from column A, one from column B, and some form of starch. Pretty much every class gets special effects at the same mile-stones. Characters get customization options, but these tend to be more mechanical / tactical than anything. Sure, your Barbarian pick a "totem" but what did that really mean beyond a bonus in certain situations? And everyone gets their same special bonus types at the same per-determined level, and all classes level at the same rate. There's no real "end game" to distinguish high level play from low level play, and even mid level characters don't feel that different from low level characters. I still like the 5E core rules and think it could be customized to fit what I want. Just out of the box it feels too generic and corporate. It's like going to fantasy Disneyland. It's fun with friends but lacks a certain depth of experience.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1101591All Pathfinder is garbage.
Stop being so vague, Pundit. Open up and tell us how you really feel.... Bwahaha!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: RPGPundit;1101591All Pathfinder is garbage.
You mean they did not ask you to consult for them?
To be fair, 5E is shit too but I don't have a micro-penis need to spoil others' fun.
I would probably go with RC nowadays.
I'm happy with 5e. Would still play PF1 if a group wanted to. Have no interest in PF2.
In the OSR realm, I would do C&C or DCC.
For a crunchier fantasy game, I've been thinking of getting a 13th Age game going here soon..