Honestly, the deciding factor for me is the popularity. 5e has a larger community and better online resources. Its easier to introduce to friends. Ultimately, its just far easier to assemble and play a game.
I personally like a bit of nitty gritty, so its possible that if I dove deep into PF2, I could like it more. But right now I don't really have much incentive to bother trying.
[5E and PF2] appeal to very different audiences typically ...
Really? I mean, they're both fantasy TTRPGs. How different can these audiences be? People have preferences, sure, but that doesn't mean two TTRPGs with the same flavour and coming from the same stock can't both appeal to the same people. It gets even more astounding when I look at the different types of players I see on these forums who all like 5E but often for different reasons and who play very different styles of games. Is this a Beatles vs Stones thing where you supposedly had to pick but in reality most people just liked both?
Theme is just one aspect - these two systems play drastically different. No different than when I play Settlers/Knights of Catan or Twilight Imperium… it’s still a board game with economies, strategy, and competitiveness, but you play them depending on how involved you want to be. I’m not saying they’re entirely two different audiences, it’s just that even if you’re in the mood for TTRPG medieval fantasy, PF2 and DND 5e are still VERY different.
IMO, that’s a good thing - no need to tread on the others’ market, because there are definitely fans of both systems.
[5E and PF2] appeal to very different audiences typically ...
Really? I mean, they're both fantasy TTRPGs. How different can these audiences be? People have preferences, sure, but that doesn't mean two TTRPGs with the same flavour and coming from the same stock can't both appeal to the same people. It gets even more astounding when I look at the different types of players I see on these forums who all like 5E but often for different reasons and who play very different styles of games. Is this a Beatles vs Stones thing where you supposedly had to pick but in reality most people just liked both?
Theme is just one aspect - these two systems play drastically different. No different than when I play Settlers/Knights of Catan or Twilight Imperium… it’s still a board game with economies, strategy, and competitiveness, but you play them depending on how involved you want to be. I’m not saying they’re entirely two different audiences, it’s just that even if you’re in the mood for TTRPG medieval fantasy, PF2 and DND 5e are still VERY different.
IMO, that’s a good thing - no need to tread on the others’ market, because there are definitely fans of both systems.
I have to disagree to be honest, but that goes into how (a lot of) players and DMs feel they have to treat the systems (and "system mastery", a term I've come to loathe) vs how relaxed and open they really can both be and is probably a little too far from the original topic to get into here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
[5E and PF2] appeal to very different audiences typically ...
Really? I mean, they're both fantasy TTRPGs. How different can these audiences be? People have preferences, sure, but that doesn't mean two TTRPGs with the same flavour and coming from the same stock can't both appeal to the same people. It gets even more astounding when I look at the different types of players I see on these forums who all like 5E but often for different reasons and who play very different styles of games. Is this a Beatles vs Stones thing where you supposedly had to pick but in reality most people just liked both?
Theme is just one aspect - these two systems play drastically different. No different than when I play Settlers/Knights of Catan or Twilight Imperium… it’s still a board game with economies, strategy, and competitiveness, but you play them depending on how involved you want to be. I’m not saying they’re entirely two different audiences, it’s just that even if you’re in the mood for TTRPG medieval fantasy, PF2 and DND 5e are still VERY different.
IMO, that’s a good thing - no need to tread on the others’ market, because there are definitely fans of both systems.
I have to disagree to be honest, but that goes into how (a lot of) players and DMs feel they have to treat the systems (and "system mastery", a term I've come to loathe) vs how relaxed and open they really can both be and is probably a little too far from the original topic to get into here.
The fact is that mechanically they are very different systems, if they where identical then pathfinder would not exist. If I am going to play pathfinder with players then I expect us to use the full rule set, otherwise what’s the point I might as well just play DnD 5E. Yes there are similarities, they both use the D20 system, which in my opinion is one of the weakest mechanics in ttrpg, give me roll and keep any day. But that’s a different conversation, the games are very different and I know many many people who have tried pathfinder and hated it who love 5th edition, I know a few people who love pathfinder and like 5th edition, one of them once told me it’s nice to have a game with a more relaxed rule set.
The fact is that mechanically they are very different systems, if they where identical then pathfinder would not exist.
I guess we have pretty dissimilar notions about what makes games mechanically very different, given that they both use a d20 system with checks and saves, are both class-based with race/ancestry and background to round out characters, and both use the exact same 6 abilities for pretty much the same things.
I've always said a competent DM can take someone from never having played any ttrpg to rolling for initiative in an hour or less, assuming the focus is on how to play and not delve any deeper than absolutely necessary in what to play, with 5E. I honestly believe the same is true for PF2, and many other systems (I should write out how to do this some time soon, though it'll take me considerably longer than one hour to do that). The greater majority of the mechanical differences between 5E and PF2 are superficial. How you define characters and resolve what they do and what happens to them is very comparable, and those are the mechanical aspects that really matter.
I'm sure there are lots of people who love one and hate the other. I'm convinced part of that is just being conditioned by which one is played first though, and for most it's really just a matter of preference rather than dislike.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The fact is that mechanically they are very different systems, if they where identical then pathfinder would not exist.
I guess we have pretty dissimilar notions about what makes games mechanically very different, given that they both use a d20 system with checks and saves, are both class-based with race/ancestry and background to round out characters, and both use the exact same 6 abilities for pretty much the same things.
I've always said a competent DM can take someone from never having played any ttrpg to rolling for initiative in an hour or less, assuming the focus is on how to play and not delve any deeper than absolutely necessary in what to play, with 5E. I honestly believe the same is true for PF2, and many other systems (I should write out how to do this some time soon, though it'll take me considerably longer than one hour to do that). The greater majority of the mechanical differences between 5E and PF2 are superficial. How you define characters and resolve what they do and what happens to them is very comparable, and those are the mechanical aspects that really matter.
I'm sure there are lots of people who love one and hate the other. I'm convinced part of that is just being conditioned by which one is played first though, and for most it's really just a matter of preference rather than dislike.
I came to the pathfinder DnD party late on, 15-20 years of ttrpgs before I picked up pathfinder. Yes you can get people playing it quickly but to get the most out of the system you have to dive into the rules that you yourself called out at the start as being why the system is better. Those rules are not easy to find scattered as they are through the books, the nuance and the details are in depth and complicated, combat can take much longer then DnD and the system as a whole is geared towards min maxing. You have loads of choice, most of which are pointless in taking for your character. The magic rules can be hard to get your head around and on a whole the system leads to a slower pace of game because it is so rules heavy. There is a reason Matt Mercer switched from pathfinder to 5th edition for his own campaign, because as he himself accepts pathfinder is a much slower rules heavy system, 5th edition is a far better storytelling system. It’s why I independently preferred 5th edition the first time i played it.
I am not saying that makes it worse, I am saying it explains why it is not as popular. You play what you want to play I will say coming to a forum of a Web App that is just for DnD 5th edition you should not be surprised that the majority disagree. Personally DnD is my system at home for fantasy magic and dragons. If I want to play something different I go for one of the many different systems out there that play in very different types of world.
The fact is that mechanically they are very different systems, if they where identical then pathfinder would not exist.
I guess we have pretty dissimilar notions about what makes games mechanically very different, given that they both use a d20 system with checks and saves, are both class-based with race/ancestry and background to round out characters, and both use the exact same 6 abilities for pretty much the same things.
I've always said a competent DM can take someone from never having played any ttrpg to rolling for initiative in an hour or less, assuming the focus is on how to play and not delve any deeper than absolutely necessary in what to play, with 5E. I honestly believe the same is true for PF2, and many other systems (I should write out how to do this some time soon, though it'll take me considerably longer than one hour to do that). The greater majority of the mechanical differences between 5E and PF2 are superficial. How you define characters and resolve what they do and what happens to them is very comparable, and those are the mechanical aspects that really matter.
I'm sure there are lots of people who love one and hate the other. I'm convinced part of that is just being conditioned by which one is played first though, and for most it's really just a matter of preference rather than dislike.
I came to the pathfinder DnD party late on, 15-20 years of ttrpgs before I picked up pathfinder. Yes you can get people playing it quickly but to get the most out of the system you have to dive into the rules that you yourself called out at the start as being why the system is better. Those rules are not easy to find scattered as they are through the books, the nuance and the details are in depth and complicated, combat can take much longer then DnD and the system as a whole is geared towards min maxing. You have loads of choice, most of which are pointless in taking for your character. The magic rules can be hard to get your head around and on a whole the system leads to a slower pace of game because it is so rules heavy. There is a reason Matt Mercer switched from pathfinder to 5th edition for his own campaign, because as he himself accepts pathfinder is a much slower rules heavy system, 5th edition is a far better storytelling system. It’s why I independently preferred 5th edition the first time i played it.
I am not saying that makes it worse, I am saying it explains why it is not as popular. You play what you want to play I will say coming to a forum of a Web App that is just for DnD 5th edition you should not be surprised that the majority disagree. Personally DnD is my system at home for fantasy magic and dragons. If I want to play something different I go for one of the many different systems out there that play in very different types of world.
I did not at any point claim PF2 is better. My two points I argued in this thread have been that certain comparisons with regards to content and cost were unfair and/or incorrect, and that the audiences for both games are not all that different because the systems are not all that different. There are sufficient implementation differences that it's only normal different players will have different preferences, and there are at least in my personal opinion aspects of 5E that I prefer over their PF2 counterparts and others for which I think PF2 handles them better - I expect I'm not alone in that - but differing preferences exist within each system as well. Some people love the ongoing changes to how race is treated in 5E, others find them unpalatable, but in the end players on both sides of this argument are still part of the D&D audience.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is overlap between the systems - yes. And I loved playing Basic, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e and 5e. But legitimately, arguing that players should like both because there isn’t much difference or that they’re both easily playable is ignoring the obvious.
Pf2 makes up a vastly smaller subset than 5e and that alone explains that these two things are not comparable. There’s a reason it split off from DnD 3.5e, there’s a reason *some* people that play 5e don’t play 3.5e anymore, and therefore any derivation of it.
Like I said before - I can play both: I’m a technical person and depending on my level of interest in getting bogged down with the technicality, I could play them quite easily. But my entire discord server of people would never play it - it’s too rules- and optimization-heavy.
If you want to claim that pf2 is somehow just as simple technically as dnd 5e, and adds no layers of technical or optimization on top, then I implore you to try telling a pf2 forum that, because they’d likely sit back and tell you how much better pf2 is because it has exactly those traits over 5e.
I don’t even know what I’m arguing for anymore. 5e is not equal to pf2 and each offshoot seems to be happily existing in their own ecosystems. What is there to disagree with?
Not to re-bump this topic or start things but I would like to offer a simple solution. Why not just bring over what you like in PF2 and 3.5e and just convert it over to 5E? I mean isn't 5E supposed to be easy to change and alter? I give my players special feats and stuff like that, sure do I as the GM have to put in extra work for those magic items, classes and etc. Sure but honestly isn't this game about having fun overall so why not make it more fun? Just my two cents.
Well, I am glad that you have a choice to play either one. So play the one you like. I don't understand what the purpose is of coming here to tell everyone you like PF2e better. Would the Pathfinder people be interested in hearing that I enjoy D&D 5e?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
But doesn't Pathfinder suffer from the so called "Illusion of choice"?
This is a factor in pretty much all roleplaying games, certainly no less nor more so in Pathfinder than in D&D (they're pretty much the same game anyway, peeps; different wrappers around similar experiences doesn't make for a different game), and the illusion of choice is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it's a good thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you're going to have to explain how the illusion of choice is a good thing. Because it's usually considered to be poor game mechanics if you've got ten theoretically options for a character but only one of them is actually helpful and the rest are going to make your character useless in two levels.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I was referring to the illusion that the players' choices determine what happens as opposed to the DM determining the story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but for the enjoyment of the game the illusion of absolute freedom is better.
That said, if a player's character/mechanical choices can't be made to be useful, I suggest the DM needs to step up their game - and this, again, goes for all RPGs. The notion that there is no choice because only one option will yield acceptable results is not a blame on the system, it's a blame on those who use it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’ve played them both. P2 is more gritty, tactical, and skill demanding combat wise and offers a much wider possibility of character, spell, and weapon mechanics.
However 5E is a much cleaner experience with simpler rules that are still satisfying. It doesn’t get bogged down with huge modifiers and nit pick.
Overall, I would rather play P2 assuming a good DM, but would rather DM for 5E if it were me
I have my cake and eat it! Play 5e rules with DNDB but use Golarion as the backdrop - I love the paizo adventure modules but.. for me 5e rules are simpler, I'd prefer even simpler to be honest. It takes a bit of effort having to create 5e stat blocks but once you have them made up its easy after that.
Not to re-bump this topic or start things but I would like to offer a simple solution. Why not just bring over what you like in PF2 and 3.5e and just convert it over to 5E? I mean isn't 5E supposed to be easy to change and alter? I give my players special feats and stuff like that, sure do I as the GM have to put in extra work for those magic items, classes and etc. Sure but honestly isn't this game about having fun overall so why not make it more fun? Just my two cents.
The 5e vs. PF2e thing is almost more of a culture clash than anything else. Many 5e players like to claim that ALL rules are Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Things that hurt their games, their players, their egos, and their tender bits. They champion the hyper-streamlining of D&D that 5e undertook and often quest for even more streamlining, simplification, and stripping-out of dense rules. The existence of Pathfinder as a successful (albeit not as successful, certainly) variant edition of "D&D" with all the 'rules bloat' that 5e threw out shoved right back in kinda offends them, and they will snap hard at anyone who tries to bring any of those rules into 5e. They claim that 5e is massively successful because it got rid of so many rules, and that the lack of rules Empowers The Player(TM) to do whatever they want and the GM will just figure it out, so the existence of Pathfinder is unnecessary and just a sad bad relic of a time when D&D hadn't figured out the unabashed joy and clearly unassailable ultra-superiority of rulesless play. Which is funny because other rules systems out there have drastically smaller rules sets, far more fluffy/abstracted systems, and often call out D&D 5e specifically for being a clunky, over-engineered junker far too deep into the rules weeds to make good stories.
Thing is? The existence of Pathfinder, the fact that it had enough support and momentum to get a PF2e in the first place, is an undeniable indicator that there is a demand for the style of game Pathfinder represents. Not everybody vibes on the oft-touted superiority of 5e's "narrate your stuff to sound different than everybody else's stuff even though it's not actually different than anybody else's stuff" method. Some people like having technical depth and additional rules to reference for certain things, as the wide offering of third-party rules supplements for 5e reinforces. Many of the most popular third-party books for 5e, including standbyes like Kingdoms and Strongholds that are frequently begged for inclusion in DDB, amount to "5e's rules for [X] suck donkey/don't exist. Here's our best shot at creating a fun system you can use."
Not every GM is a master of the sort of on-the-fly, invent-rules-as-you-go adjudication 5e is so clearly looking for. 5e habitually under-supplies its GMs with options, and many of them actively seek out either additional rules supplements or the advice of older, more established GMs on handling issues that Pathfinder simply bakes into its core rulebook. Crafting. Followers. Social events/galas. Things that new-to-tabletop 5e GMs often struggle to figure out how to run because the 5e DMG is a raging tire fire that does nothing to instruct new DMs on how to run games. It's almost worse than useless, I legitimately would recommend that a group entirely new to tabletop RPGs stick entirely to the PHB when doing their first game and ignore the existence of the 5e DMG. It's a poorly laid out, poorly organized, poorly written mess that wastes almost all its content on Creative Writing 101 instead of the nitty-gritty of running games.
All of which is to say that the people who want more depth in their games - the folks who would pull from PF2e in the first place - are often castigated, yelled at, and ostracized by 5e Diehards, and many of them are left not knowing how to pull from other source and adapt those sources to their own table because 5e doesn't bother telling them. When someone asks "I really like this idea from Pathfinder, how can I incorporate it into 5e?" and get the answer "you can't, you shouldn't, and you're a worse person for even just asking", it really sours the mood and makes it difficult for people to personalize their 5e experience the way 5e Diehards claim is one of 5e's strongest features.
Smooth move, Diehards. A+. Such fanbase. Much help. Wow.
Not a fan of PF2e... Feels/reads like an attempt to combine the aspects of PF1e that made it a solid popular system and the aspects of 5e that make it popular. And failed at identifying those elements in either system. (in short... IMO it managed to identity and incorporate the worst aspects of OGPF and 5e. Further shrinking their market appeal.)
Not to re-bump this topic or start things but I would like to offer a simple solution. Why not just bring over what you like in PF2 and 3.5e and just convert it over to 5E? I mean isn't 5E supposed to be easy to change and alter? I give my players special feats and stuff like that, sure do I as the GM have to put in extra work for those magic items, classes and etc. Sure but honestly isn't this game about having fun overall so why not make it more fun? Just my two cents.
The 5e vs. PF2e thing is almost more of a culture clash than anything else. Many 5e players like to claim that ALL rules are Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Things that hurt their games, their players, their egos, and their tender bits. They champion the hyper-streamlining of D&D that 5e undertook and often quest for even more streamlining, simplification, and stripping-out of dense rules. The existence of Pathfinder as a successful (albeit not as successful, certainly) variant edition of "D&D" with all the 'rules bloat' that 5e threw out shoved right back in kinda offends them, and they will snap hard at anyone who tries to bring any of those rules into 5e. They claim that 5e is massively successful because it got rid of so many rules, and that the lack of rules Empowers The Player(TM) to do whatever they want and the GM will just figure it out, so the existence of Pathfinder is unnecessary and just a sad bad relic of a time when D&D hadn't figured out the unabashed joy and clearly unassailable ultra-superiority of rulesless play. Which is funny because other rules systems out there have drastically smaller rules sets, far more fluffy/abstracted systems, and often call out D&D 5e specifically for being a clunky, over-engineered junker far too deep into the rules weeds to make good stories.
Thing is? The existence of Pathfinder, the fact that it had enough support and momentum to get a PF2e in the first place, is an undeniable indicator that there is a demand for the style of game Pathfinder represents. Not everybody vibes on the oft-touted superiority of 5e's "narrate your stuff to sound different than everybody else's stuff even though it's not actually different than anybody else's stuff" method. Some people like having technical depth and additional rules to reference for certain things, as the wide offering of third-party rules supplements for 5e reinforces. Many of the most popular third-party books for 5e, including standbyes like Kingdoms and Strongholds that are frequently begged for inclusion in DDB, amount to "5e's rules for [X] suck donkey/don't exist. Here's our best shot at creating a fun system you can use."
Not every GM is a master of the sort of on-the-fly, invent-rules-as-you-go adjudication 5e is so clearly looking for. 5e habitually under-supplies its GMs with options, and many of them actively seek out either additional rules supplements or the advice of older, more established GMs on handling issues that Pathfinder simply bakes into its core rulebook. Crafting. Followers. Social events/galas. Things that new-to-tabletop 5e GMs often struggle to figure out how to run because the 5e DMG is a raging tire fire that does nothing to instruct new DMs on how to run games. It's almost worse than useless, I legitimately would recommend that a group entirely new to tabletop RPGs stick entirely to the PHB when doing their first game and ignore the existence of the 5e DMG. It's a poorly laid out, poorly organized, poorly written mess that wastes almost all its content on Creative Writing 101 instead of the nitty-gritty of running games.
All of which is to say that the people who want more depth in their games - the folks who would pull from PF2e in the first place - are often castigated, yelled at, and ostracized by 5e Diehards, and many of them are left not knowing how to pull from other source and adapt those sources to their own table because 5e doesn't bother telling them. When someone asks "I really like this idea from Pathfinder, how can I incorporate it into 5e?" and get the answer "you can't, you shouldn't, and you're a worse person for even just asking", it really sours the mood and makes it difficult for people to personalize their 5e experience the way 5e Diehards claim is one of 5e's strongest features.
Smooth move, Diehards. A+. Such fanbase. Much help. Wow.
I mean I believe that choice is good, DnD is not my favourite TTRPG by any stretch, in fact personally I am not a huge fan of the D20 system, it makes for a very binary fail succeed ruleset. But DnD is, for me, my preferred fantasy setting for Roleplay, it is broad enough to allow me to tell a wide range of stories in a setting with dragons and magic, while also being lightweight enough rules wise that I don't have to spend loads of time diving headfirst into a rules set to work out the minutia.
My preferred systems mechanically are the Roll and Keep systems of first edition L5R and the evolution of this in 7th sea 2nd edition (I love 7th sea, mechanically it makes for far far better storytelling then DnD, but is less well supported online, for an in person game 7th sea is my go to) I also have a soft spot for the system used by Vampire the Masquerade/mage.
For me the argument between Pathfinder and DnD is pretty null and void, one is more involved and has more rules then the other but in many ways both are very similar, mechanically in terms of stats and the way you roll dice they are pretty much the same. They both have a number of stock standard "builds" that if a player tries to veer away from they may well find themselves becoming a hindrance to the party. I agree attempts to sway people one way or the other is really a pointless exercise, it is about personal preference and there is no right or wrong answer just pros and cons of each.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Honestly, the deciding factor for me is the popularity. 5e has a larger community and better online resources. Its easier to introduce to friends. Ultimately, its just far easier to assemble and play a game.
I personally like a bit of nitty gritty, so its possible that if I dove deep into PF2, I could like it more. But right now I don't really have much incentive to bother trying.
Theme is just one aspect - these two systems play drastically different. No different than when I play Settlers/Knights of Catan or Twilight Imperium… it’s still a board game with economies, strategy, and competitiveness, but you play them depending on how involved you want to be. I’m not saying they’re entirely two different audiences, it’s just that even if you’re in the mood for TTRPG medieval fantasy, PF2 and DND 5e are still VERY different.
IMO, that’s a good thing - no need to tread on the others’ market, because there are definitely fans of both systems.
I have to disagree to be honest, but that goes into how (a lot of) players and DMs feel they have to treat the systems (and "system mastery", a term I've come to loathe) vs how relaxed and open they really can both be and is probably a little too far from the original topic to get into here.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The fact is that mechanically they are very different systems, if they where identical then pathfinder would not exist. If I am going to play pathfinder with players then I expect us to use the full rule set, otherwise what’s the point I might as well just play DnD 5E. Yes there are similarities, they both use the D20 system, which in my opinion is one of the weakest mechanics in ttrpg, give me roll and keep any day. But that’s a different conversation, the games are very different and I know many many people who have tried pathfinder and hated it who love 5th edition, I know a few people who love pathfinder and like 5th edition, one of them once told me it’s nice to have a game with a more relaxed rule set.
I guess we have pretty dissimilar notions about what makes games mechanically very different, given that they both use a d20 system with checks and saves, are both class-based with race/ancestry and background to round out characters, and both use the exact same 6 abilities for pretty much the same things.
I've always said a competent DM can take someone from never having played any ttrpg to rolling for initiative in an hour or less, assuming the focus is on how to play and not delve any deeper than absolutely necessary in what to play, with 5E. I honestly believe the same is true for PF2, and many other systems (I should write out how to do this some time soon, though it'll take me considerably longer than one hour to do that). The greater majority of the mechanical differences between 5E and PF2 are superficial. How you define characters and resolve what they do and what happens to them is very comparable, and those are the mechanical aspects that really matter.
I'm sure there are lots of people who love one and hate the other. I'm convinced part of that is just being conditioned by which one is played first though, and for most it's really just a matter of preference rather than dislike.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I came to the pathfinder DnD party late on, 15-20 years of ttrpgs before I picked up pathfinder. Yes you can get people playing it quickly but to get the most out of the system you have to dive into the rules that you yourself called out at the start as being why the system is better. Those rules are not easy to find scattered as they are through the books, the nuance and the details are in depth and complicated, combat can take much longer then DnD and the system as a whole is geared towards min maxing. You have loads of choice, most of which are pointless in taking for your character. The magic rules can be hard to get your head around and on a whole the system leads to a slower pace of game because it is so rules heavy. There is a reason Matt Mercer switched from pathfinder to 5th edition for his own campaign, because as he himself accepts pathfinder is a much slower rules heavy system, 5th edition is a far better storytelling system. It’s why I independently preferred 5th edition the first time i played it.
I am not saying that makes it worse, I am saying it explains why it is not as popular. You play what you want to play I will say coming to a forum of a Web App that is just for DnD 5th edition you should not be surprised that the majority disagree. Personally DnD is my system at home for fantasy magic and dragons. If I want to play something different I go for one of the many different systems out there that play in very different types of world.
I did not at any point claim PF2 is better. My two points I argued in this thread have been that certain comparisons with regards to content and cost were unfair and/or incorrect, and that the audiences for both games are not all that different because the systems are not all that different. There are sufficient implementation differences that it's only normal different players will have different preferences, and there are at least in my personal opinion aspects of 5E that I prefer over their PF2 counterparts and others for which I think PF2 handles them better - I expect I'm not alone in that - but differing preferences exist within each system as well. Some people love the ongoing changes to how race is treated in 5E, others find them unpalatable, but in the end players on both sides of this argument are still part of the D&D audience.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
There is overlap between the systems - yes. And I loved playing Basic, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, 4e and 5e. But legitimately, arguing that players should like both because there isn’t much difference or that they’re both easily playable is ignoring the obvious.
Pf2 makes up a vastly smaller subset than 5e and that alone explains that these two things are not comparable. There’s a reason it split off from DnD 3.5e, there’s a reason *some* people that play 5e don’t play 3.5e anymore, and therefore any derivation of it.
Like I said before - I can play both: I’m a technical person and depending on my level of interest in getting bogged down with the technicality, I could play them quite easily. But my entire discord server of people would never play it - it’s too rules- and optimization-heavy.
If you want to claim that pf2 is somehow just as simple technically as dnd 5e, and adds no layers of technical or optimization on top, then I implore you to try telling a pf2 forum that, because they’d likely sit back and tell you how much better pf2 is because it has exactly those traits over 5e.
I don’t even know what I’m arguing for anymore. 5e is not equal to pf2 and each offshoot seems to be happily existing in their own ecosystems. What is there to disagree with?
Not to re-bump this topic or start things but I would like to offer a simple solution. Why not just bring over what you like in PF2 and 3.5e and just convert it over to 5E? I mean isn't 5E supposed to be easy to change and alter? I give my players special feats and stuff like that, sure do I as the GM have to put in extra work for those magic items, classes and etc. Sure but honestly isn't this game about having fun overall so why not make it more fun? Just my two cents.
Well, I am glad that you have a choice to play either one. So play the one you like. I don't understand what the purpose is of coming here to tell everyone you like PF2e better. Would the Pathfinder people be interested in hearing that I enjoy D&D 5e?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
But doesn't Pathfinder suffer from the so called "Illusion of choice"?
This is a factor in pretty much all roleplaying games, certainly no less nor more so in Pathfinder than in D&D (they're pretty much the same game anyway, peeps; different wrappers around similar experiences doesn't make for a different game), and the illusion of choice is not a bad thing. On the contrary, it's a good thing.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think you're going to have to explain how the illusion of choice is a good thing. Because it's usually considered to be poor game mechanics if you've got ten theoretically options for a character but only one of them is actually helpful and the rest are going to make your character useless in two levels.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I was referring to the illusion that the players' choices determine what happens as opposed to the DM determining the story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but for the enjoyment of the game the illusion of absolute freedom is better.
That said, if a player's character/mechanical choices can't be made to be useful, I suggest the DM needs to step up their game - and this, again, goes for all RPGs. The notion that there is no choice because only one option will yield acceptable results is not a blame on the system, it's a blame on those who use it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I’ve played them both. P2 is more gritty, tactical, and skill demanding combat wise and offers a much wider possibility of character, spell, and weapon mechanics.
However 5E is a much cleaner experience with simpler rules that are still satisfying. It doesn’t get bogged down with huge modifiers and nit pick.
Overall, I would rather play P2 assuming a good DM, but would rather DM for 5E if it were me
I have my cake and eat it! Play 5e rules with DNDB but use Golarion as the backdrop - I love the paizo adventure modules but.. for me 5e rules are simpler, I'd prefer even simpler to be honest. It takes a bit of effort having to create 5e stat blocks but once you have them made up its easy after that.
I just wish I could have the streamlined core gameplay rules of DnD 5e, with the race/class system of Pathfinder 2e in a single game.
Also things like the Pathfinder 2e monsters and decent levels of DM support.
The 5e vs. PF2e thing is almost more of a culture clash than anything else. Many 5e players like to claim that ALL rules are Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Things that hurt their games, their players, their egos, and their tender bits. They champion the hyper-streamlining of D&D that 5e undertook and often quest for even more streamlining, simplification, and stripping-out of dense rules. The existence of Pathfinder as a successful (albeit not as successful, certainly) variant edition of "D&D" with all the 'rules bloat' that 5e threw out shoved right back in kinda offends them, and they will snap hard at anyone who tries to bring any of those rules into 5e. They claim that 5e is massively successful because it got rid of so many rules, and that the lack of rules Empowers The Player(TM) to do whatever they want and the GM will just figure it out, so the existence of Pathfinder is unnecessary and just a sad bad relic of a time when D&D hadn't figured out the unabashed joy and clearly unassailable ultra-superiority of rulesless play. Which is funny because other rules systems out there have drastically smaller rules sets, far more fluffy/abstracted systems, and often call out D&D 5e specifically for being a clunky, over-engineered junker far too deep into the rules weeds to make good stories.
Thing is? The existence of Pathfinder, the fact that it had enough support and momentum to get a PF2e in the first place, is an undeniable indicator that there is a demand for the style of game Pathfinder represents. Not everybody vibes on the oft-touted superiority of 5e's "narrate your stuff to sound different than everybody else's stuff even though it's not actually different than anybody else's stuff" method. Some people like having technical depth and additional rules to reference for certain things, as the wide offering of third-party rules supplements for 5e reinforces. Many of the most popular third-party books for 5e, including standbyes like Kingdoms and Strongholds that are frequently begged for inclusion in DDB, amount to "5e's rules for [X] suck donkey/don't exist. Here's our best shot at creating a fun system you can use."
Not every GM is a master of the sort of on-the-fly, invent-rules-as-you-go adjudication 5e is so clearly looking for. 5e habitually under-supplies its GMs with options, and many of them actively seek out either additional rules supplements or the advice of older, more established GMs on handling issues that Pathfinder simply bakes into its core rulebook. Crafting. Followers. Social events/galas. Things that new-to-tabletop 5e GMs often struggle to figure out how to run because the 5e DMG is a raging tire fire that does nothing to instruct new DMs on how to run games. It's almost worse than useless, I legitimately would recommend that a group entirely new to tabletop RPGs stick entirely to the PHB when doing their first game and ignore the existence of the 5e DMG. It's a poorly laid out, poorly organized, poorly written mess that wastes almost all its content on Creative Writing 101 instead of the nitty-gritty of running games.
All of which is to say that the people who want more depth in their games - the folks who would pull from PF2e in the first place - are often castigated, yelled at, and ostracized by 5e Diehards, and many of them are left not knowing how to pull from other source and adapt those sources to their own table because 5e doesn't bother telling them. When someone asks "I really like this idea from Pathfinder, how can I incorporate it into 5e?" and get the answer "you can't, you shouldn't, and you're a worse person for even just asking", it really sours the mood and makes it difficult for people to personalize their 5e experience the way 5e Diehards claim is one of 5e's strongest features.
Smooth move, Diehards. A+. Such fanbase. Much help. Wow.
Please do not contact or message me.
Not a fan of PF2e... Feels/reads like an attempt to combine the aspects of PF1e that made it a solid popular system and the aspects of 5e that make it popular. And failed at identifying those elements in either system. (in short... IMO it managed to identity and incorporate the worst aspects of OGPF and 5e. Further shrinking their market appeal.)
I mean I believe that choice is good, DnD is not my favourite TTRPG by any stretch, in fact personally I am not a huge fan of the D20 system, it makes for a very binary fail succeed ruleset. But DnD is, for me, my preferred fantasy setting for Roleplay, it is broad enough to allow me to tell a wide range of stories in a setting with dragons and magic, while also being lightweight enough rules wise that I don't have to spend loads of time diving headfirst into a rules set to work out the minutia.
My preferred systems mechanically are the Roll and Keep systems of first edition L5R and the evolution of this in 7th sea 2nd edition (I love 7th sea, mechanically it makes for far far better storytelling then DnD, but is less well supported online, for an in person game 7th sea is my go to) I also have a soft spot for the system used by Vampire the Masquerade/mage.
For me the argument between Pathfinder and DnD is pretty null and void, one is more involved and has more rules then the other but in many ways both are very similar, mechanically in terms of stats and the way you roll dice they are pretty much the same. They both have a number of stock standard "builds" that if a player tries to veer away from they may well find themselves becoming a hindrance to the party. I agree attempts to sway people one way or the other is really a pointless exercise, it is about personal preference and there is no right or wrong answer just pros and cons of each.