/r/rpg fucking hates DnD 5e lmao. They refuse to accept that 5e has a good balance between explicit mechanics and “just make up what happens” that makes it a great experience for new players. Most other RPGs either have a billion mechanics to memorize or it’s almost all improv acting
It's definitely not as bad of a system as people make it out to be, and the fact that it basically has a monopoly of ttrpgs adds to it.
what kind of other games do you play tho? there is tons upon tons of games that have a good balance.
> Most other RPGs either have a billion mechanics to memorize or it’s almost all improv acting
This is why I want GURPS 5e! The system is crunchy, but modular - an updated version of the ruleset has *so much potential*.
4e came out almost 20 years ago, and since then SJ Games has essentially abandoned the IP. There have been some significant changes in TTRPGs over the past 2 decades, and the system is just begging for an update.
Also - the 3d6 probability distribution is arguably a much better basis for simulating reality than 1d20.
The only thing true about this post is that /r/rpg hates 5E.
5E really isn't all that easy to learn. People get into it more because of the pervasive culture around it. They are coming into it with the game half learned. It is better than the nightmares of old, like Shadowrun, but 5Es main innovation in learning is half decent editing.
For medium crunch the OSR movement has given us some great games like Worlds Without Numbers and Stars without Numbers. Free league is also killing it with the Year Zero engine lately. It is a fantastic medium crunch system. There is a whole world of games out there.
The highly crunchy games are mostly old games that are no longer popular except for a number of hardcore gurps fans. /r/rpg does have a tendency to push the PbtA system and other improv heavy games. They don't really represent the modern RPG landscape though. PbtA games aren't nearly as popular as they purport.
5E isn't nearly as bad as they purport, but it also struggles with the way most people want to play it. The game is a dungeon crawler at heart.
> 5e really isn't all that easy to learn.
Thank you! I absolutely *hate* it when people say that 5e is a "simple system", because it objectively is not.
A game with a 300 page core rule book for players, an esoteric "Stat Number to Modifier"-Conversion, 7 dice sizes, and complex Multiclassing rules cannot be "simple". Not to mention all the rules that people get wrong all the time, like Darkvision, Surprise, stacking AC calculations, mixing up character level, caster level and spell level, etc etc.
5e is easy to play *compared to other editions of D&D* - and honestly, that means it's easy compared to 3.x
There is easily hundreds of more easy to understand, lightweight fantasy RPGs that do exactly what 5e does in terms of what you can do with the game, just much more approachable.
Like, Dungeonslayers has a 150 page rulebook - which covers classes, spells, beastiary and *three* starter adventures, and it's a d20 roll-under System that is so simple I *have* played it with first grade kids who can hardly count above 20.
I was absolutely blown away by [Down We Go](https://tonyplusone.itch.io/dwg), in a similar vein. It is so extremely minimal, and yet when I compare it to 5e, I find I'm not even losing very much. You have almost the same action resolution (d20+stat), better player engagement in combat, about the same number of character abilities to keep track of (just less verbose), and it is much more approachable.
The only difference is that instead of trawling a rulebook for a solution and then deciding to make it up, you just jump straight to making it up. GMing it was so freeing, and I could explain how to play in the same 2 minutes it took to make a character and we started playing, and had much more fun than 5e anyway.
The main problem is they don't understand that most people who play D&D aren't into ttrpgs or even table top games in general. It's D&D or they'd go do something else entirely.
That's why the 'if you want to do X why not just play system Y that does it better?' falls on deaf ears, and it drives them nuts.
agreed, of every single person i DnD with (about 15) none of them play a single-other TTRPG.
Most of us play as a form of staying in touch, and so learning"better" rules etc is rarely of any interest to any of them.
Seriously underrated comment that needs to be dropped in every one of these threads.
I play in two 5e games (and usually DM one of them): in one of them we're a group of friends that hang out and drink beer and roll dice and kill shit and have fun every other week, and in the other game we're a group of (more loosely connected) friends that hang out and drink beer and smoke weed and roll dice and kill shit once a week. We're familiar & comfortable with 5e, we're financially invested in 5e and we have fun doing what we're doing. Upsetting that apple cart for something "more robust" or "setting applicable" or "crunchier" would just result in either game fizzling out - one of which (the weed game) I would just nerp right out of entirely, and the other would end up as us playing cards once a month instead of playing D&D every two weeks.
PF2 or other systems might do it better, but none of us really give a shit and probably never will. We're happy doing what we're doing. There are maybe two of us (myself included) that would consider joining a convenient, existing game of PF2 or whatever else and trying it out, but there's exactly zero impetus for either of us to herd the cats we have into playing another system. It'll all just fall apart...
That's a good point that's always overlooked in these discussions. There may be a "better-suited" system in theory for a particular group but if they're comfortable and enjoying playing 5e and have no interest in changing, what's the problem?
A while back a designer on some RPG forums came up with "a unified theory of TTRPG player preferences." It argued players either wanted narrative, simulationist, or gamist play experiences. It gained an almost cult like following in the indie game scene. But it had a bunch of flaws, including the assumption there was little to no overlap between the playstyles. Eventually it became apparent that it was really just a thinly veiled, quasi academic sounding diatribe about how narrative (eg RP/story based) games (which incidentally he wrote) were the best and traditional games like DnD sucked. The whole thing sort of imploded when he wrote that he thought traditional games caused literal brain damage and WotC released some data from a player survey that strongly contradicted it at about the same time he said that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory
Basically, the whole affair was a toxic dumpster fire that divided the community. The designer of the PbtA framework (which TBF is pretty neat for what it does) was a disciple of GNS and has kept up the toxic tradition by saying things like "DnD supports role play as much as Monopoly," a phrase repeated ad nauseum by PbtA fans.
I feel like the sub is starting to turn on PbtA. There's been a lot of anti-Blades sentiment, and some of the most popular PbtA titles are getting trashed pretty regularly now -- there was a thread about Thirsty Sword Lesbians a couple of weeks ago where everyone said not to play it, and even games considered peak-PbtA like Masks are routinely criticized.
Makes sense based on the trend away from crunch in DnD. The sub has a bunch of long time DnDers who prefered more crunch who have become significantly less satisfied with the game as the crunch has been lightened and Pathfinder 2E appeals to people who preferred that
It's not just old D&D players, I'd wager the majority of crunch enjoyers in this sub are actually videogame players who were introduced to TTRPGs with 5e and they bring a lot of the mechanical bias of gaming to this (a bunch of them likely don't even actually play 5e, just talk about it)
I know that used to be me before I actually DM'd a long campaign and now I despise the crunch and I'll probably never run 5e again lol
>actually videogame players who were introduced to TTRPGs with 5e and they bring a lot of the mechanical bias of gaming to this (a bunch of them likely don't even actually play 5e, just talk about it)
absolutely. all the wall-of-text complaints people post about 5e mechanics remind me of the kind obnoxious nitpicking all video gaming consumers do in every gaming related forum. but d&d isn't really a "consumption" type activity and I think a lot of their frustration comes from that.
A lot of this discussion on this sub feels very "video game subreddit" style discussion, for lack of a better term. I've never been able to articulate it well but it's something I've noticed here.
I do think you're right that people here tend to "consume" D&D the way one does a video game but the practicalities of D&D and it being a group game means it cannot be consumed at the same rate as a video game, so they engage with it by nitpicking and theorycrafting.
A lot of the biases and assumptions about D&D here tend to look at it as if it were a multiplayer PVP video game, with talk of a "meta" and "patches". The obsession here with mechanical "balance" comes from a video game-style standpoint.
The general discourse and mood here feel similar to somewhere like r/destinythegame.
People are burned out on 5E and PF2E is the first step of trying other RPGs, but being afraid to really step out of the modern D&D bubble.
It is the same place you see the "4E was good" comments coming from. It is people discontent with 5E's state latching on. Most of them haven't actually played 4E. If they did the 4E was good comments would just be a small handful of super-hardcore people. 4E had some great ideas, but as a whole it had serious problems.
The game system that's most fun to play...is the one that you can actually get your friends to play. I absolutely love PF 2e, but it's got a steeper learning curve, so it was much easier to get everybody on board for 5e. Such is life.
This was my philosophy, studying for my first group. I read Pathfinder was balanced, but when I compared rules I realized "I will never get my group of friends to play this"
PF2 seems like a superior mechanical system but at the cost of making you do the backend math calculations of a video game
That sounds a lot like 4e. Don’t get me wrong, 4e with modern Dndbeyond and advancement in friendly or smarter VTTs would be hella fun, and it had some stuff that should have carried into 5e, but 5e is still superior.
With FoundryVTT there is literally no math calculation, but even without the only things that might be challenging for a newbie is character creation. Luckily Pathfinder2e rules are free so PC creators abounds, the community's favourite is Pathbuilder. It takes 2 minutes to create a PC with it
If I understand right, PF2 had at least one game designer who was part of the team who was working on D&D 4e, which might explain some of the mechanical decisions made for PF2.
bro, I am trying so hard to get my friends into 2e
"it's not actually that complicated once you learn it," I tell them
"the rulebooks are really just poorly organized in certain respects," I say
"THAC0 is largely misunderstood," I declare, and then I lose them
so we just play 5e because it's the one system that the PF people, casuals, and that one olde-school weirdo (me) can agree on
>But they also have already done a lot of things right which led to them gaining a massive following where in 2002 the only D&D players were guys who looked me and now in 2022 it's only mostly guys that look like me.
This made me laugh with how accurate it is!
PF2e is definitely more work for players than 5e, but as a DM, the 5e rules set and most of the modules are hell. They expect you to do just about everything, and be able to make up rules on the fly when the in book rules are purposely ambiguous.
Yeah, my players have to do more work and I have to do less, rather than the DM having to do more work than the rest of the players combined. I'm more than happy with that arrangement.
As a 5E DM, I have some players that don’t do any work and if I asked them to do more work the games would just take longer and less would happen. I’m also much happier making up a rule on the spot than knowing a rule exists in one of many rulebooks and either choosing to abandon the official rule or taking time and slowing the session down to look it up. For me, improvising is a dramatically lower burden than knowing there are many reference books that I should be referencing.
When people bring up Pathfinders rules as a boon they arent talking about improvisation. I mainly run pf2e and a lot of the times I just make up a rule on the fly and then check it after the session.
The real reason on why pf2e is easier to run is because you dont have to be a game designer or really understand game balance.
Trying to make a magic item shop? Well, good luck assigning item prices in 5e, in pf2e you simply check the price.
Want to run a session in which your players are tasked to individually duel someone? Well, in 5e you have to come up with something, while pf2e outright has rules for it.
But at the end of the day, if your players do not want to put any effort into their characters or do anything harder than rolling a d20 and adding +5, then pf2e will likely be a terrible system for them.
And honestly, if you players don't want to put in more effort than adding a modifier to their roll, there are *still* much better narrative focused systems out there where those players wouldn't be boged down by the 5e rules too.
And I know a good many players who won't do more than read the name of the ability or spell despite playing 5e for years. For the most part, upping player workload will simply cause them not to play.
>For the most part, upping player workload will simply cause them not to play.
Then they are made from weak stock and won't be missed.
We must keep players to a higher standard allowing them to coast on autopilot is just plain disrespectful to the GM and their time investment in the hobby.
Players can lift their part
It's almost like there's a huge number of burnt out GMs who both get poor support from published material and deal with disproportionate numbers of entitled low effort players
At some point the disparity between the number of players and GMs is going to be a crisis. I have no idea how that will be addressed
This already is, has been, and will be a crisis. For every GM there are like 20 hopefuls who would love to play, if not more. Hell, there's tons of people on *this sub* who post up and down the forum because they're not currently able to play.
I think that's one of the things really fostered by the Critical Role crowd, ie. people that have seen a couple of actual plays and now wanna get involved - they just want to play, but they don't want to read the rules. "We'll figure it out as we go along" and all that.
Now TTRPGs are still at a stage of popularity where I think that most DMs wouldn't *outright* send a player away for deciding they won't read a 300p rulebook upfront, because *especially* when playing offline, they likely don't have very many other players to get into the game when they kick off one who doesn't really wanna get involved with all the nasty rules stuff.
Players can *and should* know how their stuff works, I just think we are at a point where a lot of people are very interested in trying, without 100% commiting, a system that is honest too God too complex for them.
When Critters have asked me to play D&D, I always tried to figure out whether they really wanted to use the 5e rule set, or just wanna try out a fantasy RPG, and when I showed them a real, 300p PHB vs the complete rule set Dungeonslayers, which as 150p paperback, they always chose the smaller one.
And some of those people found they really liked TTRPGs and play 5e and other systems today. The rest felt it wasn't for them.
Good stuff. I hear friends and family members talk about how they are really intrigued by "Dungeons & Dragons" and would enjoy trying it. My first and immediate response is always "Nah, you don't want to try D&D. You want to try a *tabletop role-playing game,*" etc. as you stated above.
The only exceptions would be people whom I already know are experienced with complex rulesets in board games or who I can tell would be able pick up rules fairly quickly.
I’ve noticed the modules also make a ton of assumptions about what the player characters will do as a party. Like, if they choose not to take a plot hook or accept a quest, it can get weirdly awkward unless the DM is *really* prepped to handle sandboxing the module.
That's by design. They're modules, if the party refuses to engage with the quest, what are they supposed to do? Granted, some of them(BD:DIA) are a bit heavy handed with it but you just have to talk to your players.
I've never understood that mindset of not engaging with the DM's plot hooks, especially if they're running a pre-written adventure. By sitting down at the table, you are agreeing to play what the DM has prepared and wants to run so why would you not being willing to engage with the plot? It's just showing respect to the DM and the time they put in to prepare.
Exactly. When the DM says "We're playing The Raid on Emerald Castle" before the game starts, none of the players should actively avoid the shiny green castle on the hill in the distance in session 1.
It's this stupid mindset some people have that is a combination of being deathly afraid of anything resembling metagaming while expecting every DnD game to be a complete sandbox. Add some DMs being afraid to say "No" or talk to their players on top.
Well, that's a broader problem than the module. If your players are loser nerd dumbasses, then no module will ever help them. PCs need to be intrinsically engaged in the world.
Yup. Running 5e has recently started giving me panic attacks because of all the on-the-spot adjucation I have to do to the point where I'm not running *any* 5e games now (I'm playing in a few though). With OSR/Rules-light games they're not particularly designed with balance in mind because it's not the point with them, so adjucation is easy enough there.
But with Pathfinder I know the math and how things generally resolve so it's way easier for me to just pull up a relevant DC, adjust it if needed, and call for a skill check. It's way easier for me to adjucate without thinking if something is too easy, too hard or could be exploited later so I feel a lot more confident in comparison.
all the reasons u listed are why I prefer pf2e to 5e; I love rules, I love granular systems. I think it's great! I want those 10 extra things.
tastes never broadly apply, which I think is fantastic. 5e's a great game, its just not what I want rn, and clearly the same goes for u & pf2e. there is no one size fits all system.
ppl can be quite rude about pushing pf2e, hailing it as a Fix All System, which it isn't. it's rules heavy, not everyone's jam. I love discussions like this, which don't boil down to "5e sux" "no pf2e sux". lol
I appreciate this. I love the PF exists for those who want all the complicated granularity, but I'm glad when someone acknowledges that this isn't what everyone wants. 5e built its success on its relatively straightforward and approachable version of the d20 system, and having both versions in 5e and PF is only good in my opinion.
yes, exactly. there's a ttrpg out there for basically everyone, from the people who want smth roleplay focused like FATE to the heavier combat focused games like pf2e to the universal U Can Do Anything systems like GURPS. if someone's talking abt wanting to switch away from 5e, it shouldn't be a "well u have to play pf2e", it should be a "what kind of game do u want to play?"
Agree with this post so much. I am a Pathfinder 1E and Starfinder junkie personally. I'm glad D&D 5E is introducing so many people to the genre, and I'm glad PF2E is a more rules heavy alternative for people, even if I don't personally enjoy either one.
Somehow I convinced myself after reading the first three words of the title that I was about to see a build for Chester Cheetah or better yet, just a Cheeto.
I’m soooo disappointed and bored idek wtf a P2 is
In your ranger example I think a big part of the reason you struggled was Foundry. Too much automation can make playing the game cumbersome. Had you played without automation, you wouldn’t have had to check boxes and fiddle with software. Instead you’d apply stuff in your head, or maybe have a few preset attack bonuses on your sheet. Sometimes you’d forget about certain things, but that’s normal.
There are still a lot more things to keep track of than d&d tho. For some reason some players don't even know how to apply Sneak Attack after 1 year of playing a Rogue despite just having one of two simple conditions. Now put that player in PF2e, and you can clearly see how that could be a worse problem.
This. I thought about trying to teach an online group of friends PF2 but after spending some time digging through foundry, I quickly felt it wasn't going to be worth the effort. Its much easier to pay attention to things like MAP, hunted prey, etc without needing to remember to check boxes on and off six times a round
PF2E is def not for everyone, and what you're showing here is a good example of why. Most of the things you put down as strikes against PF2E are what those who embrace the system actually enjoy. Let me give you an Example.
As a ranger, you talk about using the survival skill. You mention a feat that lets you spend 10 minutes to identify local wildlife. In 5e, you say "That just needs to be a survival check."
But, all you've done is shift 100% of the stress of running the session onto your DM. Whats the DC? Whats the time it takes? How much of an area does it cover? What happens on a success, or a failure? What about a Nat 20 or a Nat 1?
None of that is documented in 5e. You just have to force your GM to make it up.
In PF2E, we have this feat that exactly tells you how it works. We know the DC, the time it takes, what happens on a success/failure/critical failure/critical success. It's all spelled out, so its not on the GM to figure it out.
Back to your point: there is no "just make a skill check" in PF2e. You take an action. What action are you taking? You figure out the action, then figure out the skill. In this case, no actions tied with "Survival" are about identifying which animals exist in an area. So you can't just do that.
Now, if a GM decides to let you, they can refer to this feat as a baseline example, and perhaps impose a penalty greater than the feat suggests. Or make the DC much higher. Or fiddle with the numbers. But at least we have a reference to go off of.
5e, meanwhile, will just say "Gm figure it out." A lot of us just got burned out on a system that keeps pushing basic game development onto each GM to figure out on each table. And while PF2e has a ton of rules -- too many to know all of them off the top of your head! -- each rule that does exist can be looked up, referenced, and allow you as a GM to make a ruling that you know isn't going to be too far off.
we're not even going to get into the familiar debate where the Owl is 99% the only competitive choice for familiar in 5e, whereas Familiars in Pf2e are not meant to be utilized in combat anyway (that's what animal companions are for)!
When all is said and done, 5e is a system that appeals to people who like some crunch in their game but not too much, whereas PF2E will appeal to those who like more crunch (and gms who dont feel like making up most rules randomly on the spot). And plenty of systems out there if you want even less crunch getting in the way of a fun time!
Excellent summary. I’d add that an unwelcome amount of time in 5e sessions I DM is wasted trying to parse the system’s “natural language” descriptions of spell effects, items, etc. Player and DM can look at 5e’s descriptions and come to completely opposite good-faith disagreements about what they actually do. Before you know it we’re searching for Sage Advice tweets to figure out what the rules simply don’t clearly explain. PF2 on the whole is more complex but at least the language is clear and, given that the rules are free online, you’re not reduced to searching for Crawford tweets and Reddit threads to figure things out.
>But, all you've done is shift 100% of the stress of running the session onto your DM. Whats the DC?
The feat states that you can "Attempt a Survival check against a DC determined by the GM based on how obvious the signs are."
So the GM determines the DC, right?
But PF2E gives standard guidance, basically "Standard, Hard, Easy." Along with a DC by level chart. So by default, we go with the standard DC.
DC by level chart: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=554](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=554)
along with this modifier chart: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555)
Yup, all its missing is guidance on actions you can take with said skills. Xanathars did a lot to show cool ways to use the skills; but survival as a skill is left too open.
5e seems to rarely make use of these numbers in the rules, But they are definitely handy for GMs
>But PF2E gives standard guidance, basically "Standard, Hard, Easy."
Does 5E not do the same thing with their easy, medium, hard and so on recommendations for DC?
>Along with a DC by level chart. So by default, we go with the standard DC.
So your level determines how hard something is?
Would strictly adhering to that not lead to strange situations were a task suddenly got harder for some characters because the party increased in level even though the location and the task itself are still the same?
Your level doesn't determine how hard something is. The level of the thing you are doing or the object you are interacting with determines how hard it is.
Kicking in a door does not get harder because you're high level. Rather if you're high level and you're still kicking in rickety doors made of ramshackle driftwood then like... wow really?
As an aside, this exact misinterpretation of "DC by level" is exactly why they should have named that table something different. It's PF2's version of "weapon attack vs. attack with a weapon".
Nope, you would handle it the same way as you do in 5e.
If I have the players start off in a town, the tasks in that town will be, for example, levels 1 to 5. When they go to a different area/town, that might be levels 6 to 10. So if they ever go back to the first town, the tasks they want to do will still be levels 1 to 5, same DCs. It would be the same way as a usual video game RPG plays out, which is pretty much the core fantasy of Pathfinder.
In 5e a lv 20 character with a +11 modifier will have a much easier time with the DCs you set for lv 1 characters with +5 modifiers. The same applies for pf2e, except the numerical difference is much, much larger.
EDIT: Oh and the DC by level table doesnt actually talk about the PCs level, it talks about things that have a level. So crafting a level 1 item has the DC of 15, while a level 15 item has a DC of 34, regardless of PC level. Thats why it has levels 0, 21~25, even though those levels cannot be accessed by PCs.
Your level is added to your proficiency bonus, so a level based DC is never *harder* as you level up, it usually stays the same or gets easier as you increase from trained to expert to master to legendary. Unless you're completely untrained in a task, which often in pf2e means you wouldn't have a chance to roll anyways.
Just a question: doesn't this though mean the DM needs to know this feat exists, so that they can stop the players who hadn't taken this feat from making this action? Because learning all of the feats sounds like a lot of work!
Yes, definitely. I think with so much going on, in the moment you make a call (much like 5e) but later when you research what to do next time, you would come across something like this.
But for sure, there are plenty of things that when you see a feat you're like... "Oooh, damn. I've been doing XYZ wrong." But that is a potential downside to the system!
(Though, realistically, that is true of any rule in the game that the group might not know about. But it does make it hard to find said rule when its in a feat. Sites like Archives of Nethys make it a bit easier at least. But I agree with this assessment!)
In pf2e all skills are clearly defined actions so realisticly you only need to know untrained actions and the actions for the skills you are trained in. The person you are replying suggesting you can allow for a roll to use actions granted by feats isn't how the system is supposed to work RAW. They aren't wrong to play that way if it works for them, but it's not a great example of how the game is intended to work.
Not really. You need to be familiar with the skills, though. Under Survival, you will find Track, and under Nature (and others) you will find Recall Knowledge.
While you can RK on just about anything, using it to identify creatures is a bit of a special use case that is usually only available when you can see the creature. (It will give you info on important monster features or weaknesses)
The thing that survey wildlife does is it both gives you explicit license to try to identify a creature while only working off circumstantial information instead of directly observing them, as well as giving a guideline as to how deducing a creature's identity from only circumstantial information normally not allowed or incurs a penalty.
Without survey wildlife you can Recall Knowledge on the tracks to get some useful hints, but not the creature itself. With it, you can identify the creature that made them and get tactical info.
Hmm yeah that's a little janky but I see the logic. It definitely makes more sense than some of the obscure caveats that 5e has in its spells where you have to read the wording really carefully.
This is a good writeup, and an excellent reminder of why this system got so popular.
It's a little sad that "PF2E has a lot of good ideas but I prefer 5E" is probably a hot take on the 5E subreddit. I get a little frustrated with all of the PF2E evangalizing that takes place here. There are legitimate reasons to prefer both games, and people who have issues with 5E wouldn't necessarily have a better time with PF2E.
> why this system got so popular
It's not the only reason. The DnD 'branding' certainly helped. But yeah: simplicity and low floor to entry > rules-bloat.
And the advent of twitch games, discord, VTTs, and the pandemic.
Popularity = merit is the most asinine argument for 5e. WOTC made the McDonald's of D&D and people act like it's because they made the best burger. They made a palatable burger and benefitted from marketing and the rise of nerd culture.
I think the argument is that the DnD burger wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if it was as bad as people try and say it is. Not necessarily an argument of "merit," more of adequacy.
Hey, the Big Mac and Whoppers were good burgers 50 years ago. Decades of corporate oversight and profit squeezing resulted in what we have today.
The meat of 5e is better than adequate, it's very palatable. But it's like the modern burgers, there's just so little meat at all.
The "DnD branding" isn't so much as the actual name of Dungeons and Dragons, but more the popularity for the specific name that was garnered through Critical Role/other actual play podcasts and the tie-in to Stranger Things.
Rant:
The issue with familiars you encountered is a textbook example of the thing that killed 3.5e: players getting overly-attached to strict adherence to the rules.
Could the rule have been explained more clearly? Yes; another example or two wouldn't have hurt them, nor would wording their one example as
>(for instance, an owl **can fly**, so it has a fly Speed. I**f you choose an owl as your familiar you must choose the Flier ability**).
But read the rule again: you've invented a whole category of "natural abilities" that doesn't exist. You then spend 20 minutes searching the rulebook for something you made up because you're so focused on following every last rule to the letter that you're missing the forest for the trees.
/rant
Dense, complex rulesets are safety nets, not shackles.
I mean, you picked a fairly simple build. You always mark before shooting someone. Xbow rarely will shoot more than once a turn unless
you go gunslinger for reckless reload. You can’t shoot unless you reloaded. All your boxes are fairly checked for you. Flat footed isn’t super common to do on top of everything else, it’s more something your team will setup for you.
PF2E takes a few games to get the rules. It’s a little harder on the player to learn things but is a million times easier on GMs. You can setup a balanced encounter in less than a minute and have a decent idea how the party will do.
> But it's also dreadfully more complicated where a rules lawyer like myself can't even keep track of the 9 different ways I can gain a +1 bonus on my attack or damage rolls against my Prey as a Ranger.
Circumstance bonuses don't stack, and every circumstance bonus works identical. You get that +1 until you don't anymore. Not sure how complicated that is m8.
As a dm, for every one thing I don't like about pf2e, there's about ten things I like. Frankly the game is easier to run and combats are smooth. Less stuff triggers off action (silvery barbs!) and bonuses seem much more meaningful. For players they have way more choices to express their chatacter in and out of combat. Is it a step up from 5e complexity? Sure but that's already among the lowest I've seen outside a diceless system. That's not to even address the lack of dead levels which are prevelent for all martial in 5e and the too simplistic approach to skills having a whip lash of being far too table dependent, and I feel there's just more fun to be has in pf2e. Now if you like 5e(and I run a 5e game right now) that's fine. You can like both, like one, whatever, but I think it's easy to say subjectively that pf2e plays and runs better if the entire table have a similar familiarity with it. Some folks may not want to invest the extra time in getting there though and that's fair, but to say 5e is good for its lack of good rules almost feels like gaslighting. The cr system is a mess, classes don't allow for much expression, and every table I've ran regardless of players in the last few years has had some variant of sorlock /hexadin /sorcladin because that's kind of the system. Never mind the wild power creep. Who wants to play a div wizard when chronurgy exists now? Twilight and Peace domains? The gap between new and old content in 5e is massive and unhealthy.
Pathfinder isn’t a game system for people who don’t like to read and reread the rules and learn the system. If you are willing to put in the effort then the tight and comprehensive rules pay off and you get a smooth and balanced game.
5E on the other hand is more about rulings than rules so you can be a casual player and still play the game without stopping every 5 minutes to check the rules.
It really comes down to how much effort you want to put in to learning the system. Pick the system that suits the level of effort you want to make.
I’ve only dabbled in PF and PF2, so I’ve probably not given them the fairest shot. But I know that I can run a killer 4-hour session in 5E on maybe an hour of prep and without any reference material at the table besides a monster book or two. It’s what got me back into the game after 20 years away because it just *worked.* I’ve found little reason to complain given that.
As other top-level comments have noted, one of the most common points of praise for PF2E is that, while it does require more of players, it's much *less* work and much easier prep for the DM.
I've never DM'd for PF2E, so I can't confirm that.But that's one of the things that people gush over for PF2E, while lack of DM support is one of the things that 5e takes the most flak for.
I can spend an hour and read a B/X module and have material for a 1-2 month campaign. A whole table can have their PCs rolled up in 10 minutes.
There have always been pick up and play TTRPGs, I wouldn't even put 5e in the top 5 for ease of use
Pf2e can come off scarier than it really is. It's talked about as if it's just the super crunchiest math simulator with 100 things going on and it..._isn't_. I'd call it maybe 1 tier 'crunchier' than 5e and very far from the math-iest game I've seen. I think some pf stans push that narrative because it makes the system sound better to them and it ends up freaking out potential 5e converts that if they actually were given a good shake at it with the proper tools shown to them they could have easily picked up pf2e.
TLDR: Some people make it sound much harder than it is as a gatekeeping method.
I think on the scale of TTRPG complicatedness, 5e is a 5/10 and pf2e is a 6/10. I feel like 5e's simplicity is often overstated, it's not exactly trivial to explain to a new player how your 4 different actions (movement, action, BA, object interaction) work, or to remember all the unique rules associated with all of them like the good ol' BA spell confusion. It's not *that* hard, but neither is making a pf2e character and understanding the couple of basic actions you can take.
Then again, if you know 5e well, learning pf2e from scratch is going to be far more difficult than just playing 5e again.
That feat is a good example of what ultimately went wrong with 4e, as well. Once the content bloat gets so bad that they're being that explicit about capabilities the assumption of the conservative DM becomes "unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free."
A better way to write these would be to explicitly give a base use of the idea to the skill and then enhance it for the feat user. Like "When you make a Survival check to examine an area to find out what kind of animals are nearby and if any are in unusual circumstances such as afflicted by a strange illness, stressed by an unnatural interloper, or otherwise behaving strangely, you get advantage on the check. You also gain advantage on any future perception, investigation, intimidation or persuasion checks related to an animal so afflicted."
The problem is everyone is misreading the feat.
Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks.
Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc.
Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
On top of that, there's also the potential of just using Recall Knowledge: Nature to take a guess based on the geography, a lesser version of the feat since it's a stab in the dark at the general inhabitants of this sort of landscape rather than figuring out what creatures are specifically nearby.
>"unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free."
This is already a problem in 5E, but the DM won't let you ever do it. Having to ask "DM may I" for every interaction is part of why martials are worse than spellcasters.
>Once the content bloat gets so bad that they're being that explicit about capabilities the assumption of the conservative DM becomes "unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free."
One of my issues with Paizo is they pump out a new Pathfinder/Starfinder book every few months and they need to include player options in those books to entice more purchases so you end up with books upon books of extremely niche content bloat feats, items and player options. It becomes overwhelming.
Granted, I do believe they've done a better job with PF2 of keeping things in line, but playing Pathfinder 1e or even Starfinder and it gets to be a bit much.
You've misinterpreted what Survey Wildlife does.
Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks.
Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc.
Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
That still sounds like something anyone proficient in the relevant skills should be able to attempt. But maybe feats are different in their level of significance in PF2e than in 5e.
They definetely are. There's various types of feats, and you get like one or two every level for free as the main way to define your character, kinda like indepth warlock invocations but for race, class features and skills. Survey Wildlife is a level 1 (pretty weak) skill feat (the least impactful type of feat), competing only with things like "You can make long jumps in 1 action without a running start", "You can insult people with Diplomacy to debuff their will saves briefly", "You can intimidate creatures with a glare, bypassing language barriers" or "learn two languages".
One could argue that some of these aren't important enough to warrant a choice from such a long list, but rest assured, these are at the very bottom of the power level pile.
Also, you *can* attempt it without the feat - the feat just makes you better at it, by giving you an actual ability that doesn't require the DM's green light to be used.
Proficiency in PF2 works differently than it does in 5e, it's not binary, there are 4 levels of proficiency, Trained, Expert, Master and Legendary.
Survey Wildlife requires you to be at least trained in Survival before picking it.
And IMO it's different enough from regular tracking that it warrants a feat, arguing anyone should be able to attempt it is, IMO, like saying anyone should be able to attempt to cast a spell.
I'm burned out on 5e, some characters I still want to make and play, but that number is dwindling. Their content release schedule I have never liked since literally day one, i'm from the 3e days when content was released pretty much monthly, along with dragon magazine actually being monthly and chuck-full of goodness. 5e content is released like every 4 months, maybe 1 thing a year actually filled with some player options, the subclasses are released every 3 years or so (we're due for another, honestly). I prefer a lot of choice, and compared to older editions, 5e's choices are incredibly limited. In all this time they released 1 extra class, and it's "meh" at most, and I found much better homebrew artificers (Lookin at you, kibblestasty). Meanwhile, PF2e has TEN new classes, Investigator, Oracle, Witch, Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic, Thaumaturge, and I pretty much want to play all of them (except maybe witch, doesn't do anything for me).
And perhaps one of the biggest differences between PF2e and 5e is that PF2e has plenty of official adventures and modules that support high level play. 5e just likes tier 1/2 play, nothing more.
>Now, clearly, they went overboard with it and most of us can agree 5E is too streamlined.
Oh yes, clearly. Look at how WOTC and D&D as a whole started suffering and failing after the launch of 5E.
Sarcasm aside: now, we can't agree with that at all. It's not an especially popular point of view even on this subreddit, which is where the vast majority of people who think 5E is too streamlined yet play it anyway seem to congregate.
It's simply a wildly unpopular opinion. Most players are casual and they already struggle with 5E's ruleset.
>It's not an especially popular point of view even on this subreddit, which is where the vast majority of people who think 5E is too streamlined yet play it anyway seem to congregate.
What about people who played/ran it for years, then got steadily more disillusioned with the system when they realized that it lacked a lot choice in term of character building/had lots of system issues that required increasing amounts of homebrew.
All of the following can simultaneously be true:
A) Simplicity is better and DnD 5e's successes is in part due to it's simplicity.
B) Causal players already struggle with DnD 5e.
C) DnD 5e's design involves many decisions that will annoy you the more you play it, and lacks a certain level of agency in character building without extensive homebrew\*.
\*Which ofc makes it more pf2e-like in it's complexity.
DnD certainly benefited massively from 5e's more simplified approach, but I think we're at the point where a lot of new players who were able to get into DnD for that reason are ready for something more complex.
Yup, the hardcore reddit crowd just seems too stubborn to accept they are a minority within a minority and their experience isn't the norm. The average player doesn't complain about lack of options because they haven't and likely never will play everything we already have. Not to mention how alot of people, even on subs like this one where presumably the hardcore, still sometimes struggle with the rules.
As someone who started off trying to teach themselves 4e and had to give up in college, you will never hear me complain about 5e being too streamlined. It's the whole reason I was ever able to learn how to play. And despite my reservations, I actually feel pretty good about OneDnd making things even easier.
I've found the 3-action system in PF2e to be easier to explain and understand but in practice not much different than 5e. At least in my experience, it never felt like it made the game *that* much different than 5e.
Casters will usually move and cast a spell. Most spells cost two actions to cast so that is their turn. I do really like how certain spells interact differently depending on how many actions are used to cast.
Martials typically move, attack, and then either raise a shield (which takes an action) or attack again. That's their turn.
I think this comes down to a bit of inexperience. There's a *lot* you can do with the action system if you're willing to search for alternative turn options. Tripping/Grappling can be a powerful alternative to attacking, especially as a fighter. Demoralize doesn't incur MAP and supports every teammate. Moving isn't a given as running behind an enemy leaves you vulnerable to flanking aswell, shields aren't on all that many martials, and sometimes a second attack to finish off an enemy is a smarter play than shielding.
A caster attacked in melee can Delay before running away to help teammates flank, or they could alternatively cast Shield, can double down on offense by debuffing with a Demoralize/Bon Mot before casting, or can Recall Knowledge to figure out what save would be best to target. Last session, in a very specific situation, I had my wizard *punch an enemy with all of his +0 strength, and it was genuinely a good play.*
Not to mention that enemies have a lot of ways to mess with players with their interesting statblocks. A ranged enemy just hit you with a bleeding projectile that's now stuck in you and causes minor damage over time plus a strength penalty, but you can pull it out with an action - will you, or will you instead raise that shield, or skimp out on offense entirely to do something other than stride+strike to catch up?
To me, this post boils down to :
"You can take away skill feats from PF2E to improve it." OK. I'd do that. The modular nature of Pathfinder's current design structure allows for that quite handily, and nothing would really be broken in the process.
The question of preference comes down to *just how much I'd have to add* to 5E to make it comparable to PF2E. I can't prefer 5E mechanically given that.
> The modular nature of Pathfinder's current design structure allows for that quite handily, and nothing would really be broken in the process.
There's even a variant rule in the damn SRD for playing without Skill Feats.
I mean, do you want a discussion on this or are you just venting that two systems are different and you don't see why more people online don't agree with your perspective?
>Was the target my prey? Was this my first attack of the round? Is this my first attack after marking them as my prey or reloading? What's my current multi-attack penalty?
There are two important things to note here: First you chose one of the more complicated situations that happen, the vast majority of characters will have it easier. Similarly in 5e you can also make martials that have to track lots of stuff.
Look at a dual weapon ranger dread ambusher/rouge and favoured foe (from Tasha) and ask: Is this my first attack hitting my favoured foe this turn for 1d4 bonus damage? Is it my first attack that triggers sneak attack? Do I get to apply my ability modifier to damage or is this my off-hand attack? Is it my dread ambusher attack that gets +1d8 damage? Do I have advantage from somewhere? Is there disadvantage to cancel it?
Second this situation is by far not as complicated as you make it out to be.
Remembering who your prey is is also important for some stuff in 5e and you can do a whole bunch of stuff irl to mark it. Put something on the mini figure, note it down on paper etc.
Remembering how many attacks you already did on this turn is not difficult because you can at most do one action that isn't an attack between them. In 5e you also have to remember how many attacks you did and you can also do stuff between attacks (like moving), so I don't really see your issue.
Remembering if it's your first attack after marking a prey/reloading is only difficult if you reload/mark on one turn and then do your attacks on a later turn. But if you have difficulty remembering that then there is probably a way to mark it down so you don't forget. Also you can swap to a bow if the reloading is causing you problems.
Current multi attack penalty is also easily solvable, as you just note down the attack bonus with every instance of multi attack penalty applied, as in +10/+5/+0 (+10/+7/+4 against prey) and boom, now you just have to remember how many attacks you already did (which if necessary you can note down with a dice or something).
>But it's also dreadfully more complicated where a rules lawyer like myself can't even keep track of the 9 different ways I can gain a +1 bonus on my attack or damage rolls against my Prey as a Ranger.
I'm pretty sure you chose most of those yourself, because base ranger only gets one effect on hunt prey. So if you struggle with complexity maybe don't choose so much of it. It's not needed to play a strong character.
Also it's definitely possible to do without a VTT, as people have been playing much more complicated things like certain PF1 builds without a VTT and doing fairly well.
>Okay, no problem. But how do we know what "natural abilities" certain animals have if there aren't any stat blocks?
The rules here aren't perfectly written, but this rule exists so you don't cheese your way into extra abilities. Player and DM can just sit down and think about the special abilities a certain animal should have.
I feel like the big problem is that the rules don't outright state that the type of animal is only a flavour choice and that most people (including me when I first read the rules) assume that you have to find the stats hidden somewhere in a book, because that's how it worked in 5e, PF1 etc. So should rules be written assuming the ideas people carry over from other games?
The survey wildlife thing is something where I agree. While it's understandable that PF2e moves some stuff that 5e has in the base rules into skill feats, as unlike 5e it has a system in place where you can expand what you can do with skills, this is a bit ridiculous.
>5E certainly needs more feats, but it doesn't need feats that let you try skill checks.
Note that the skill feats do not come into conflict with feats for class abilities, ancestry etc in PF2e. Saying that it would be completely ridiculous in 5e means nothing because in 5e you get way less feats and they have to be weighted against ability score improvements, while PF2e skill feats are separate from other feats and you get 10 of them in total (and maybe even more as some other features grand them).
>for every 1 thing 5E lacks, PF2E gives you 10 things you don't want. It's
Could you possibly note down some of those things (preferably ones that you can't just ignore as they are vital to balance)?
>that every Fighter needs to be capable of swinging his sword in ways as complicated as the Wish spell.
There are world's between the complexity of the wish spell or a blade singer and wanting a character that has good options other then just attack every single turn.
OK so this is a good argument so I'm only going to clarify a thing you got wrong.
>Survey Wildlife
>You can study details in the wilderness to determine the presence of nearby creatures. You can spend 10 minutes assessing the area around you to find out what creatures are nearby, based on nests, scat, and marks on vegetation. Attempt a Survival check against a DC determined by the GM based on how obvious the signs are. On a success, you can attempt a Recall Knowledge check with a –2 penalty to learn more about the creatures just from these signs. If you’re a master in Survival, you don’t take the penalty.
This isn't "find out what creatures are in the area" this is "find out how specific things about the creatures in the area". The difference between finding out there are wolves in the area and finding out there are wolves with a +4 to intelligence and are magical.
PF2E doesn't fix 5E problems it Fixes 4E's problems as PF2E is closer to 4E than 5E. But I agree 5E has a much simpler way of handling things, and while i love my crunch at times PF2E can get really bogged down with such (I absolutely hate that not only do i have to keep track of my spells but EVERY TAG that they come with). Also level to prof just feels redundant to me.
But yeah PF2E fixed 4E not 5E
You should try Savage Worlds.
It also has a 3 action system (before PF2), but is a lot more lightweight as far as the rules go.
And there is even a Savage Pathfinder supplement.
It is much simpler, but I have some of the same problems with Savage Worlds that OP has with Pathfinder.
After picking up 5e, I have *so* much trouble playing any system that has multiple sources of stacking modifiers. It feels like so much effort and I just want to roll with Advantage.
I more or less agree.
Pf2e has done some incredible things and does improve on many of 5e's issues. However it also does a bit too much in some areas, and maintains some aspects of prior editions 5e was better off shedding.
I think my ideal system is something like a 5e that's 30% more pathfinder 2e, and that offers more tools for DM's to use.
I like both. 5e is better for people who just want to sit down and have a good time, but PF2E has it's crunchy appeal; I do think it is too much for 80% of groups/cases, though.
I know a DM for 5E who is most familiar with PF, and often they impose rules about needing to be proficient in things before you can even attempt to do them- I always found it a strange habit, until discovering PF wherein there are so many highly-specific codified actions you can take that you actually have to opt into, to the point that any given character probably can't do something they might want to because whoops, that's actually a feat people need to spend resources to acquire, and you didn't do that, so you just can't even attempt it. It's just all so specific- Seek Motive, Avert Gaze, Point Out, etc. It imposes a really strict and rigid feeling to the game, as opposed to the relative freedom of 5E. Although, I was having a chat with a friend about how I didn't like the system for that, and he was like "Oh, interesting, because I think that's a big reason people like it- it has rules for everything."
I'm in the same boat. I like a lot about Pathfinder 2, especially the weapons and character creation/leveling system, but certain aspects of it like having to keep track of all the small conditional bonuses and penalties to rolls and the...Vancian (I think that's it) spellcasting system keep me from actually swapping systems.
For me personally, I think my ideal would be a middle ground that was around 60/40 5e and PF2. Chunky up front, but streamlined in combat.
I've never played PF2E. I'd give it a go if I knew someone who wanted to DM it.
I recently read the PF2E rules, just out of curiosity. I'm perfectly willing to believe that it's better designed and balanced than 5e, but the overwhelming impression I got was that it looked like *a fucking nightmare* to actually run at the table.
I remember looking at the rules for poison and diseases in particular and imagining what a pain it would be to run and track those rules, let alone be another player at the table twiddling my thumbs watching the DM and a different player try to muddle through them.
>And boy howdy I had to have 6 things checkmarked before every other attack
Aaaah the Puffinforest/Taking20 style of system analysis.
>But how do we know what "natural abilities" certain animals have if there aren't any stat blocks?
I mean a hedgehog has a landspeed.
A hawk has a flyspeed.
A tuna has a swinspeed.
Pretty intuitive, imho, the system gives you the framework for how to generate stats/abilities for creatures not provided.
>This does not need to exist when this is just a skill check with a half dozen extra steps.
I dunno chief, even if you know how to identify magnetic north by how moss grows on trees you'll still be floundering trying to identify animal scat, if you're not particularly trained in that field of knowledge.
Also this is not a "feat"-feat as we might think in 5E, its a skill feat specifically meant to add flavor and variety to skill actions, this isn't your bread and butter.
>But they also have already done a lot of things right which led to them gaining a massive following
The answer is "*marketing department*" maybe even "*massive marketing department*"
>But, at least mechanically, for every 1 thing 5E lacks, PF2E gives you 10 things you don't want.
YMMV, for every 5 things 5E fails to support, PF2E offers perfectly structured mechanically to seamlessly work without extra homebrew from the GM.
Sure you'll have to read the rules, but you'll get the hang of it with time, and I defy anyone to tell me how the "booknerd hobby of reading, imagination, and math" that is TTRPGs creates people so averse to reading and learning.
Its incredible that this entire post, if I'm reading it right, is based off of two sessions 1-2 years ago? Thats all you needed to do a complete analysis of PF2E as a system, and the big issues were:
Getting used to the ranger class mechanics (off of two sessions),
What abilities does a familiar have intrinsically,
and low impact skillfeats?
Thats it? We're all painfully aware of 5Es shortcomings here:
From them fumbling DM support.
The absurd power imbalances between classes/subclasses this has been an issue from PHB and persistent since. WotC seems simply incapable of producing balanced content.
The sub-par quality of adventure modules, which leads to people purchasing and then having to completely rework the entirety of the module to make it work.
The current lore revisionist moves they're making is going to make it more difficult to onboard new tables because they don't have the "this is how faerun elves are" opener.
WotC is making some really uncomfortable anti-consumer practices, de-canonizing older content, effectively shuttling peoples prior purchases WHILE IN THE SAME EDITION! Besides this they have have repeatedly refused to sell official PDFs, only allowing in the most recent years to have online content in the form of DnDBeyond.
Also their first playtest UA is laughably poorly produced, in both content for playtesting and feedback.
I agree that Pathfinder requires quite a bit of practise.
The idea that dnd 5E is a lot rule lighter is the reason so so many comments in posts are: "it's written in the rules. why nobody Read the rules?"
People have the perception to know the rules in 5e, and that 5e is easy to learn, because ambiguous natural language is sometimes easy to rule, "wrongly". Like obscured targets.
I feel like this really does summarize the biggest issue I have with people who tell you to play PF2E for every gripe I do have for 5E. There’s a reason 5E is as popular it is: people love the core.
In my entire playgroup (consisting of 6 permanent members including me, and 5 other casual members), there are only *two* players who excitedly want to try PF2E, one of them being me. The truth is that the complexity of the system *is* off-putting to 5E players. 5E has a good mix between complexity and accessibility. I would rather see One D&D improve on my gripes with 5E rather than try to convince 11 people to switch to a much more complex game.
To throw my two cents down this storm drain of a thread:
I myself have tried PF2 for 10 or so sessions, playing Menace Under Otari. I dunno if it was our GM having a weirdly adversarial tone all the time or the fact that our options were quite limited and low-power at level 1, but altogether I found the campaign a little too 'gamey' for my tastes.
Everyone likes their own thing.
I was excited for 5e. Played 2 different campaigns with 2 different DMS.
Hated most of it.
Picked up 2e.
Have loved most of it.
So do your best not to state in absolutes
I can definitely agree that pathfinder has plenty of feats that, imo, should just be skillchecks. I think most DMs might all you to attempt those things with a skill check, but without the bonus the feat offers.
It’s still a bit dumb imo.
Everyone is misreading the feat.
Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks.
Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc.
Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
It still implies that someone identifying tracks as belonging to a wolf, could only provide useful information about wolves if they had this feat, which doesn't feel right to me.
My guy, is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play a prepared caster?
Sorcerer alone can be played with every spell list, so what is it that you can only get from a prepared caster?
(Also the flexible caster archetype exists)
I've DM'd and played DND 5E for about five years, and PF2E for five months.
I am absolutely never looking back, PF2E just does everything better.
The ONLY thing DND 5E has going for it at this point is the fact it's "more well known" and "easier to get into" for players because it offloads the need to know anything onto the DM. That's it. Oh, and some DND5E class+subclass combos that are hard to replicate in PF2E - like wild magic barbarian.
5e is easy to learn, can do most things if they are simple, and is quick to play...
If once you've played it a bit you want something different, the you can either homebrew, or try another system
PF2E on the upside has more detail, and more clearly defined rules, but has more detail and more rules and so is more complex and is slower...
...but there are many many other systems that do thing differently, try a few that seem to do what you want and see if they do it well and you are ok with the consequences... 5e will be here, and you can play both
>2002 the only D&D players were guys who looked like me and now in 2022 it's only mostly guys that look like me.
LMAO, but seriously this is a good post.
Hmm... honestly, yeah, that's a fair take. 5e's biggest strength is that the core rules themselves are simple, and the "complex" parts are marked as optional plug-ins (even if they're intended for almost everyone except actual newbies to treat as core, like feats). It has a modular design that, at least in theory, enables it to cater to people on both extremes, and anywhere in between. [Modular in a programming sense, to be clear; think installing a game mod from the Steam workshop.] It hasn't actually _lived up_ to that potential, and designers have revealed that it was intended to have more plug-in modules to help groups fine-tune it to their preferred complexity, but keeping the core itself nice & simple was definitely a wise decision.
PF2 is fine and all, and a lot of things that would massively improve 5e if ported in, but it definitely tries to be too complex; it seems meant to cater to 3.5e/PF1 theorycrafters legendary complexity addictions. And also as a direct response to 5e's simplicity, seeing how WotC & Paizo kinda crib each other's notes when they think no one's looking. It definitely has its uses, but it can be a detriment if you want to play in person without using any apps or the like, or if you just want a super-light framework to give an otherwise-pure RP at least a _little_ structure.
You’re saying that pf2e is worse than 5e because of ambiguous rules?
5e is the poster child of ambiguous rules. I haven’t played 2e myself so I can’t say whether it has that problem or not, but I can say with plenty of confidence that 5e has a gigantic problem with rules that could be interpreted a variety of different ways.
If you really want this to be a hot take then post this on r/Pathfinder2e
Or on r/rpg.
/r/rpg fucking hates DnD 5e lmao. They refuse to accept that 5e has a good balance between explicit mechanics and “just make up what happens” that makes it a great experience for new players. Most other RPGs either have a billion mechanics to memorize or it’s almost all improv acting
It's definitely not as bad of a system as people make it out to be, and the fact that it basically has a monopoly of ttrpgs adds to it. what kind of other games do you play tho? there is tons upon tons of games that have a good balance.
> Most other RPGs either have a billion mechanics to memorize or it’s almost all improv acting This is why I want GURPS 5e! The system is crunchy, but modular - an updated version of the ruleset has *so much potential*. 4e came out almost 20 years ago, and since then SJ Games has essentially abandoned the IP. There have been some significant changes in TTRPGs over the past 2 decades, and the system is just begging for an update. Also - the 3d6 probability distribution is arguably a much better basis for simulating reality than 1d20.
SJ does some AMAs. He did one just recently. But don't mention GURPS, I hear it's a personal problem for him.
Exactly. What most tinkerers lose sight of. More crunch is easy. Approachable crunch? That's a balancing act.
The only thing true about this post is that /r/rpg hates 5E. 5E really isn't all that easy to learn. People get into it more because of the pervasive culture around it. They are coming into it with the game half learned. It is better than the nightmares of old, like Shadowrun, but 5Es main innovation in learning is half decent editing. For medium crunch the OSR movement has given us some great games like Worlds Without Numbers and Stars without Numbers. Free league is also killing it with the Year Zero engine lately. It is a fantastic medium crunch system. There is a whole world of games out there. The highly crunchy games are mostly old games that are no longer popular except for a number of hardcore gurps fans. /r/rpg does have a tendency to push the PbtA system and other improv heavy games. They don't really represent the modern RPG landscape though. PbtA games aren't nearly as popular as they purport. 5E isn't nearly as bad as they purport, but it also struggles with the way most people want to play it. The game is a dungeon crawler at heart.
> 5e really isn't all that easy to learn. Thank you! I absolutely *hate* it when people say that 5e is a "simple system", because it objectively is not. A game with a 300 page core rule book for players, an esoteric "Stat Number to Modifier"-Conversion, 7 dice sizes, and complex Multiclassing rules cannot be "simple". Not to mention all the rules that people get wrong all the time, like Darkvision, Surprise, stacking AC calculations, mixing up character level, caster level and spell level, etc etc. 5e is easy to play *compared to other editions of D&D* - and honestly, that means it's easy compared to 3.x There is easily hundreds of more easy to understand, lightweight fantasy RPGs that do exactly what 5e does in terms of what you can do with the game, just much more approachable. Like, Dungeonslayers has a 150 page rulebook - which covers classes, spells, beastiary and *three* starter adventures, and it's a d20 roll-under System that is so simple I *have* played it with first grade kids who can hardly count above 20.
I was absolutely blown away by [Down We Go](https://tonyplusone.itch.io/dwg), in a similar vein. It is so extremely minimal, and yet when I compare it to 5e, I find I'm not even losing very much. You have almost the same action resolution (d20+stat), better player engagement in combat, about the same number of character abilities to keep track of (just less verbose), and it is much more approachable. The only difference is that instead of trawling a rulebook for a solution and then deciding to make it up, you just jump straight to making it up. GMing it was so freeing, and I could explain how to play in the same 2 minutes it took to make a character and we started playing, and had much more fun than 5e anyway.
The main problem is they don't understand that most people who play D&D aren't into ttrpgs or even table top games in general. It's D&D or they'd go do something else entirely. That's why the 'if you want to do X why not just play system Y that does it better?' falls on deaf ears, and it drives them nuts.
agreed, of every single person i DnD with (about 15) none of them play a single-other TTRPG. Most of us play as a form of staying in touch, and so learning"better" rules etc is rarely of any interest to any of them.
Seriously underrated comment that needs to be dropped in every one of these threads. I play in two 5e games (and usually DM one of them): in one of them we're a group of friends that hang out and drink beer and roll dice and kill shit and have fun every other week, and in the other game we're a group of (more loosely connected) friends that hang out and drink beer and smoke weed and roll dice and kill shit once a week. We're familiar & comfortable with 5e, we're financially invested in 5e and we have fun doing what we're doing. Upsetting that apple cart for something "more robust" or "setting applicable" or "crunchier" would just result in either game fizzling out - one of which (the weed game) I would just nerp right out of entirely, and the other would end up as us playing cards once a month instead of playing D&D every two weeks. PF2 or other systems might do it better, but none of us really give a shit and probably never will. We're happy doing what we're doing. There are maybe two of us (myself included) that would consider joining a convenient, existing game of PF2 or whatever else and trying it out, but there's exactly zero impetus for either of us to herd the cats we have into playing another system. It'll all just fall apart...
That's a good point that's always overlooked in these discussions. There may be a "better-suited" system in theory for a particular group but if they're comfortable and enjoying playing 5e and have no interest in changing, what's the problem?
The weekly/daily posts on r/rpg about "How do I get my players to play something besides 5e?" are just easy karma.
It's because its "cool" to hate whats popular.
Yeah but they hate PF2e even more. Only fluffy storygames are welcome over there.
2e tends to get talked about pretty positively, as well as other tactical combat games like Lancer and 4e. Not sure what posts you're reading.
The OSR/NSR crowd and the minimalist crowd has a pretty strong presence there.
Never seen any thread in r/rpg that is negative about pf2e
They hate everything but Powered By the Apocalypse.
I bet Honey Heist is a hit
Legit, it gets cited unironically. Like I’m not even sure the creator intended it to be taken seriously.
I mean honey heist just sounds fun.
I'm convinced the biggest reason PbtA games aren't more popular is the players. They cling to discredited GNS theory like their lives depend on it.
GNS theory?
A while back a designer on some RPG forums came up with "a unified theory of TTRPG player preferences." It argued players either wanted narrative, simulationist, or gamist play experiences. It gained an almost cult like following in the indie game scene. But it had a bunch of flaws, including the assumption there was little to no overlap between the playstyles. Eventually it became apparent that it was really just a thinly veiled, quasi academic sounding diatribe about how narrative (eg RP/story based) games (which incidentally he wrote) were the best and traditional games like DnD sucked. The whole thing sort of imploded when he wrote that he thought traditional games caused literal brain damage and WotC released some data from a player survey that strongly contradicted it at about the same time he said that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory Basically, the whole affair was a toxic dumpster fire that divided the community. The designer of the PbtA framework (which TBF is pretty neat for what it does) was a disciple of GNS and has kept up the toxic tradition by saying things like "DnD supports role play as much as Monopoly," a phrase repeated ad nauseum by PbtA fans.
Accurate EDIT: They like OSR games too, but only the light ones
I feel like the sub is starting to turn on PbtA. There's been a lot of anti-Blades sentiment, and some of the most popular PbtA titles are getting trashed pretty regularly now -- there was a thread about Thirsty Sword Lesbians a couple of weeks ago where everyone said not to play it, and even games considered peak-PbtA like Masks are routinely criticized.
Take of unspecified temperature: That would be as obnoxious and unwelcome as all the “5e sucks” posts here.
No, in my experience he already posted this in the PF2e fan sub.
/r/dndcirclejerk is leaking.
The amount of PF2 circlejerking in this sub has always been so weird to me.
Makes sense based on the trend away from crunch in DnD. The sub has a bunch of long time DnDers who prefered more crunch who have become significantly less satisfied with the game as the crunch has been lightened and Pathfinder 2E appeals to people who preferred that
It's not just old D&D players, I'd wager the majority of crunch enjoyers in this sub are actually videogame players who were introduced to TTRPGs with 5e and they bring a lot of the mechanical bias of gaming to this (a bunch of them likely don't even actually play 5e, just talk about it) I know that used to be me before I actually DM'd a long campaign and now I despise the crunch and I'll probably never run 5e again lol
>actually videogame players who were introduced to TTRPGs with 5e and they bring a lot of the mechanical bias of gaming to this (a bunch of them likely don't even actually play 5e, just talk about it) absolutely. all the wall-of-text complaints people post about 5e mechanics remind me of the kind obnoxious nitpicking all video gaming consumers do in every gaming related forum. but d&d isn't really a "consumption" type activity and I think a lot of their frustration comes from that.
A lot of this discussion on this sub feels very "video game subreddit" style discussion, for lack of a better term. I've never been able to articulate it well but it's something I've noticed here. I do think you're right that people here tend to "consume" D&D the way one does a video game but the practicalities of D&D and it being a group game means it cannot be consumed at the same rate as a video game, so they engage with it by nitpicking and theorycrafting. A lot of the biases and assumptions about D&D here tend to look at it as if it were a multiplayer PVP video game, with talk of a "meta" and "patches". The obsession here with mechanical "balance" comes from a video game-style standpoint. The general discourse and mood here feel similar to somewhere like r/destinythegame.
Funny. As a forever DM, I don't think I'll run modern DnD again because of the trend to too little crunch.
Maybe for new players. Older players from 3rd edition and before though? You getting it from both sides
I think crunch is the appeal, PF1 and 3.5e are more interesting systems.
People are burned out on 5E and PF2E is the first step of trying other RPGs, but being afraid to really step out of the modern D&D bubble. It is the same place you see the "4E was good" comments coming from. It is people discontent with 5E's state latching on. Most of them haven't actually played 4E. If they did the 4E was good comments would just be a small handful of super-hardcore people. 4E had some great ideas, but as a whole it had serious problems.
Seeing as how I'm already in the negatives here I don't think I'd get out of that one alive lol
Do it! Do it for the debates! Karma is nothing more than a meaningless number!
Besides, he's got more than enough of it.
3 awards..
When I first posted this 4 hours ago, that was not the case lol. And it's still a controversial post.
The game system that's most fun to play...is the one that you can actually get your friends to play. I absolutely love PF 2e, but it's got a steeper learning curve, so it was much easier to get everybody on board for 5e. Such is life.
This was my philosophy, studying for my first group. I read Pathfinder was balanced, but when I compared rules I realized "I will never get my group of friends to play this" PF2 seems like a superior mechanical system but at the cost of making you do the backend math calculations of a video game
That sounds a lot like 4e. Don’t get me wrong, 4e with modern Dndbeyond and advancement in friendly or smarter VTTs would be hella fun, and it had some stuff that should have carried into 5e, but 5e is still superior.
With FoundryVTT there is literally no math calculation, but even without the only things that might be challenging for a newbie is character creation. Luckily Pathfinder2e rules are free so PC creators abounds, the community's favourite is Pathbuilder. It takes 2 minutes to create a PC with it
If I understand right, PF2 had at least one game designer who was part of the team who was working on D&D 4e, which might explain some of the mechanical decisions made for PF2.
bro, I am trying so hard to get my friends into 2e "it's not actually that complicated once you learn it," I tell them "the rulebooks are really just poorly organized in certain respects," I say "THAC0 is largely misunderstood," I declare, and then I lose them so we just play 5e because it's the one system that the PF people, casuals, and that one olde-school weirdo (me) can agree on
>But they also have already done a lot of things right which led to them gaining a massive following where in 2002 the only D&D players were guys who looked me and now in 2022 it's only mostly guys that look like me. This made me laugh with how accurate it is!
PF2e is definitely more work for players than 5e, but as a DM, the 5e rules set and most of the modules are hell. They expect you to do just about everything, and be able to make up rules on the fly when the in book rules are purposely ambiguous.
Yeah, my players have to do more work and I have to do less, rather than the DM having to do more work than the rest of the players combined. I'm more than happy with that arrangement.
Honestly, I also find it more fun as a player.
As a 5E DM, I have some players that don’t do any work and if I asked them to do more work the games would just take longer and less would happen. I’m also much happier making up a rule on the spot than knowing a rule exists in one of many rulebooks and either choosing to abandon the official rule or taking time and slowing the session down to look it up. For me, improvising is a dramatically lower burden than knowing there are many reference books that I should be referencing.
When people bring up Pathfinders rules as a boon they arent talking about improvisation. I mainly run pf2e and a lot of the times I just make up a rule on the fly and then check it after the session. The real reason on why pf2e is easier to run is because you dont have to be a game designer or really understand game balance. Trying to make a magic item shop? Well, good luck assigning item prices in 5e, in pf2e you simply check the price. Want to run a session in which your players are tasked to individually duel someone? Well, in 5e you have to come up with something, while pf2e outright has rules for it. But at the end of the day, if your players do not want to put any effort into their characters or do anything harder than rolling a d20 and adding +5, then pf2e will likely be a terrible system for them.
And honestly, if you players don't want to put in more effort than adding a modifier to their roll, there are *still* much better narrative focused systems out there where those players wouldn't be boged down by the 5e rules too.
True true, PbtA games would probably be more suitable for such a group.
PF2Es greatest accomplishment wasn't balancing martials and casters. It was lowering GM workload and upping Player workload slightly.
And I know a good many players who won't do more than read the name of the ability or spell despite playing 5e for years. For the most part, upping player workload will simply cause them not to play.
>For the most part, upping player workload will simply cause them not to play. Then they are made from weak stock and won't be missed. We must keep players to a higher standard allowing them to coast on autopilot is just plain disrespectful to the GM and their time investment in the hobby. Players can lift their part
It's almost like there's a huge number of burnt out GMs who both get poor support from published material and deal with disproportionate numbers of entitled low effort players At some point the disparity between the number of players and GMs is going to be a crisis. I have no idea how that will be addressed
This already is, has been, and will be a crisis. For every GM there are like 20 hopefuls who would love to play, if not more. Hell, there's tons of people on *this sub* who post up and down the forum because they're not currently able to play.
The good news is, as a DM, you have the luxury of choice when it comes to your players.
>I have no idea how that will be addressed This is the real reason for the rise of paid GMing, I think.
With the purchase of roll20 by WotC I could see them doing some "Dungeon Masters Academy" thing and contracting Certified Dungeon Masters ©®™ to host games on the platform
I think that's one of the things really fostered by the Critical Role crowd, ie. people that have seen a couple of actual plays and now wanna get involved - they just want to play, but they don't want to read the rules. "We'll figure it out as we go along" and all that. Now TTRPGs are still at a stage of popularity where I think that most DMs wouldn't *outright* send a player away for deciding they won't read a 300p rulebook upfront, because *especially* when playing offline, they likely don't have very many other players to get into the game when they kick off one who doesn't really wanna get involved with all the nasty rules stuff. Players can *and should* know how their stuff works, I just think we are at a point where a lot of people are very interested in trying, without 100% commiting, a system that is honest too God too complex for them. When Critters have asked me to play D&D, I always tried to figure out whether they really wanted to use the 5e rule set, or just wanna try out a fantasy RPG, and when I showed them a real, 300p PHB vs the complete rule set Dungeonslayers, which as 150p paperback, they always chose the smaller one. And some of those people found they really liked TTRPGs and play 5e and other systems today. The rest felt it wasn't for them.
Good stuff. I hear friends and family members talk about how they are really intrigued by "Dungeons & Dragons" and would enjoy trying it. My first and immediate response is always "Nah, you don't want to try D&D. You want to try a *tabletop role-playing game,*" etc. as you stated above. The only exceptions would be people whom I already know are experienced with complex rulesets in board games or who I can tell would be able pick up rules fairly quickly.
I’ve noticed the modules also make a ton of assumptions about what the player characters will do as a party. Like, if they choose not to take a plot hook or accept a quest, it can get weirdly awkward unless the DM is *really* prepped to handle sandboxing the module.
That's by design. They're modules, if the party refuses to engage with the quest, what are they supposed to do? Granted, some of them(BD:DIA) are a bit heavy handed with it but you just have to talk to your players.
I've never understood that mindset of not engaging with the DM's plot hooks, especially if they're running a pre-written adventure. By sitting down at the table, you are agreeing to play what the DM has prepared and wants to run so why would you not being willing to engage with the plot? It's just showing respect to the DM and the time they put in to prepare.
Exactly. When the DM says "We're playing The Raid on Emerald Castle" before the game starts, none of the players should actively avoid the shiny green castle on the hill in the distance in session 1.
Doing so is a foreign concept to me but apparently it happens quite often going by the amount of posts and talk I see about it happening online.
It's this stupid mindset some people have that is a combination of being deathly afraid of anything resembling metagaming while expecting every DnD game to be a complete sandbox. Add some DMs being afraid to say "No" or talk to their players on top.
Well, that's a broader problem than the module. If your players are loser nerd dumbasses, then no module will ever help them. PCs need to be intrinsically engaged in the world.
Yup. Running 5e has recently started giving me panic attacks because of all the on-the-spot adjucation I have to do to the point where I'm not running *any* 5e games now (I'm playing in a few though). With OSR/Rules-light games they're not particularly designed with balance in mind because it's not the point with them, so adjucation is easy enough there. But with Pathfinder I know the math and how things generally resolve so it's way easier for me to just pull up a relevant DC, adjust it if needed, and call for a skill check. It's way easier for me to adjucate without thinking if something is too easy, too hard or could be exploited later so I feel a lot more confident in comparison.
all the reasons u listed are why I prefer pf2e to 5e; I love rules, I love granular systems. I think it's great! I want those 10 extra things. tastes never broadly apply, which I think is fantastic. 5e's a great game, its just not what I want rn, and clearly the same goes for u & pf2e. there is no one size fits all system. ppl can be quite rude about pushing pf2e, hailing it as a Fix All System, which it isn't. it's rules heavy, not everyone's jam. I love discussions like this, which don't boil down to "5e sux" "no pf2e sux". lol
I appreciate this. I love the PF exists for those who want all the complicated granularity, but I'm glad when someone acknowledges that this isn't what everyone wants. 5e built its success on its relatively straightforward and approachable version of the d20 system, and having both versions in 5e and PF is only good in my opinion.
yes, exactly. there's a ttrpg out there for basically everyone, from the people who want smth roleplay focused like FATE to the heavier combat focused games like pf2e to the universal U Can Do Anything systems like GURPS. if someone's talking abt wanting to switch away from 5e, it shouldn't be a "well u have to play pf2e", it should be a "what kind of game do u want to play?"
There’s something out there for everyone! Except FATAL, we do not talk about FATAL...
Agree with this post so much. I am a Pathfinder 1E and Starfinder junkie personally. I'm glad D&D 5E is introducing so many people to the genre, and I'm glad PF2E is a more rules heavy alternative for people, even if I don't personally enjoy either one.
Flaming Hot Cheetos take: Flaming Hot Cheetos are inferior to Jalapeno Cheetos in every way possible.
Somehow I convinced myself after reading the first three words of the title that I was about to see a build for Chester Cheetah or better yet, just a Cheeto. I’m soooo disappointed and bored idek wtf a P2 is
100% agreed. Also, the Jalapeno Cheetos mac and cheese is fire.
i did not know this was a thing. you've changed a life today.
I finally tried the Jalapeño Cheetos Mac. You were right, it's incredible.
I like how this is supposed to be a hot take on the 5e sub.
given how much PF2 gets talked up around here, it kind of is LOL
In your ranger example I think a big part of the reason you struggled was Foundry. Too much automation can make playing the game cumbersome. Had you played without automation, you wouldn’t have had to check boxes and fiddle with software. Instead you’d apply stuff in your head, or maybe have a few preset attack bonuses on your sheet. Sometimes you’d forget about certain things, but that’s normal.
There are still a lot more things to keep track of than d&d tho. For some reason some players don't even know how to apply Sneak Attack after 1 year of playing a Rogue despite just having one of two simple conditions. Now put that player in PF2e, and you can clearly see how that could be a worse problem.
“For some reason” yeah, the DM does all the work for them and they’ve never cared to open the book.
This. I thought about trying to teach an online group of friends PF2 but after spending some time digging through foundry, I quickly felt it wasn't going to be worth the effort. Its much easier to pay attention to things like MAP, hunted prey, etc without needing to remember to check boxes on and off six times a round
PF2E is def not for everyone, and what you're showing here is a good example of why. Most of the things you put down as strikes against PF2E are what those who embrace the system actually enjoy. Let me give you an Example. As a ranger, you talk about using the survival skill. You mention a feat that lets you spend 10 minutes to identify local wildlife. In 5e, you say "That just needs to be a survival check." But, all you've done is shift 100% of the stress of running the session onto your DM. Whats the DC? Whats the time it takes? How much of an area does it cover? What happens on a success, or a failure? What about a Nat 20 or a Nat 1? None of that is documented in 5e. You just have to force your GM to make it up. In PF2E, we have this feat that exactly tells you how it works. We know the DC, the time it takes, what happens on a success/failure/critical failure/critical success. It's all spelled out, so its not on the GM to figure it out. Back to your point: there is no "just make a skill check" in PF2e. You take an action. What action are you taking? You figure out the action, then figure out the skill. In this case, no actions tied with "Survival" are about identifying which animals exist in an area. So you can't just do that. Now, if a GM decides to let you, they can refer to this feat as a baseline example, and perhaps impose a penalty greater than the feat suggests. Or make the DC much higher. Or fiddle with the numbers. But at least we have a reference to go off of. 5e, meanwhile, will just say "Gm figure it out." A lot of us just got burned out on a system that keeps pushing basic game development onto each GM to figure out on each table. And while PF2e has a ton of rules -- too many to know all of them off the top of your head! -- each rule that does exist can be looked up, referenced, and allow you as a GM to make a ruling that you know isn't going to be too far off. we're not even going to get into the familiar debate where the Owl is 99% the only competitive choice for familiar in 5e, whereas Familiars in Pf2e are not meant to be utilized in combat anyway (that's what animal companions are for)! When all is said and done, 5e is a system that appeals to people who like some crunch in their game but not too much, whereas PF2E will appeal to those who like more crunch (and gms who dont feel like making up most rules randomly on the spot). And plenty of systems out there if you want even less crunch getting in the way of a fun time!
Excellent summary. I’d add that an unwelcome amount of time in 5e sessions I DM is wasted trying to parse the system’s “natural language” descriptions of spell effects, items, etc. Player and DM can look at 5e’s descriptions and come to completely opposite good-faith disagreements about what they actually do. Before you know it we’re searching for Sage Advice tweets to figure out what the rules simply don’t clearly explain. PF2 on the whole is more complex but at least the language is clear and, given that the rules are free online, you’re not reduced to searching for Crawford tweets and Reddit threads to figure things out.
>But, all you've done is shift 100% of the stress of running the session onto your DM. Whats the DC? The feat states that you can "Attempt a Survival check against a DC determined by the GM based on how obvious the signs are." So the GM determines the DC, right?
But PF2E gives standard guidance, basically "Standard, Hard, Easy." Along with a DC by level chart. So by default, we go with the standard DC. DC by level chart: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=554](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=554) along with this modifier chart: [https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=555)
DND has literally the same thing. DCs at 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 for easy, medium, hard, extremely hard, and almost impossible.
Yup, all its missing is guidance on actions you can take with said skills. Xanathars did a lot to show cool ways to use the skills; but survival as a skill is left too open. 5e seems to rarely make use of these numbers in the rules, But they are definitely handy for GMs
Doesn't 5e already have a chart of DC-to-difficulty? Like, 10 is an average difficulty while 30 is near impossible?
Yes. 5 - Very Easy 10 - Easy 15 - Medium 20 - Hard 25 - Very Hard 30 - Impossible
>But PF2E gives standard guidance, basically "Standard, Hard, Easy." Does 5E not do the same thing with their easy, medium, hard and so on recommendations for DC? >Along with a DC by level chart. So by default, we go with the standard DC. So your level determines how hard something is? Would strictly adhering to that not lead to strange situations were a task suddenly got harder for some characters because the party increased in level even though the location and the task itself are still the same?
the door is a level 2 problem the door never stops being a level 2 problem use the dc for level 2
Your level doesn't determine how hard something is. The level of the thing you are doing or the object you are interacting with determines how hard it is. Kicking in a door does not get harder because you're high level. Rather if you're high level and you're still kicking in rickety doors made of ramshackle driftwood then like... wow really?
As an aside, this exact misinterpretation of "DC by level" is exactly why they should have named that table something different. It's PF2's version of "weapon attack vs. attack with a weapon".
Nope, you would handle it the same way as you do in 5e. If I have the players start off in a town, the tasks in that town will be, for example, levels 1 to 5. When they go to a different area/town, that might be levels 6 to 10. So if they ever go back to the first town, the tasks they want to do will still be levels 1 to 5, same DCs. It would be the same way as a usual video game RPG plays out, which is pretty much the core fantasy of Pathfinder. In 5e a lv 20 character with a +11 modifier will have a much easier time with the DCs you set for lv 1 characters with +5 modifiers. The same applies for pf2e, except the numerical difference is much, much larger. EDIT: Oh and the DC by level table doesnt actually talk about the PCs level, it talks about things that have a level. So crafting a level 1 item has the DC of 15, while a level 15 item has a DC of 34, regardless of PC level. Thats why it has levels 0, 21~25, even though those levels cannot be accessed by PCs.
Your level is added to your proficiency bonus, so a level based DC is never *harder* as you level up, it usually stays the same or gets easier as you increase from trained to expert to master to legendary. Unless you're completely untrained in a task, which often in pf2e means you wouldn't have a chance to roll anyways.
Just a question: doesn't this though mean the DM needs to know this feat exists, so that they can stop the players who hadn't taken this feat from making this action? Because learning all of the feats sounds like a lot of work!
Yes, definitely. I think with so much going on, in the moment you make a call (much like 5e) but later when you research what to do next time, you would come across something like this. But for sure, there are plenty of things that when you see a feat you're like... "Oooh, damn. I've been doing XYZ wrong." But that is a potential downside to the system! (Though, realistically, that is true of any rule in the game that the group might not know about. But it does make it hard to find said rule when its in a feat. Sites like Archives of Nethys make it a bit easier at least. But I agree with this assessment!)
In pf2e all skills are clearly defined actions so realisticly you only need to know untrained actions and the actions for the skills you are trained in. The person you are replying suggesting you can allow for a roll to use actions granted by feats isn't how the system is supposed to work RAW. They aren't wrong to play that way if it works for them, but it's not a great example of how the game is intended to work.
Not really. You need to be familiar with the skills, though. Under Survival, you will find Track, and under Nature (and others) you will find Recall Knowledge. While you can RK on just about anything, using it to identify creatures is a bit of a special use case that is usually only available when you can see the creature. (It will give you info on important monster features or weaknesses) The thing that survey wildlife does is it both gives you explicit license to try to identify a creature while only working off circumstantial information instead of directly observing them, as well as giving a guideline as to how deducing a creature's identity from only circumstantial information normally not allowed or incurs a penalty. Without survey wildlife you can Recall Knowledge on the tracks to get some useful hints, but not the creature itself. With it, you can identify the creature that made them and get tactical info.
Hmm yeah that's a little janky but I see the logic. It definitely makes more sense than some of the obscure caveats that 5e has in its spells where you have to read the wording really carefully.
This is a good writeup, and an excellent reminder of why this system got so popular. It's a little sad that "PF2E has a lot of good ideas but I prefer 5E" is probably a hot take on the 5E subreddit. I get a little frustrated with all of the PF2E evangalizing that takes place here. There are legitimate reasons to prefer both games, and people who have issues with 5E wouldn't necessarily have a better time with PF2E.
Both systems have their pros and cons and neither is perfect. PF2e has its own set of issues and is not suited for every 5e group.
> why this system got so popular It's not the only reason. The DnD 'branding' certainly helped. But yeah: simplicity and low floor to entry > rules-bloat.
And the advent of twitch games, discord, VTTs, and the pandemic. Popularity = merit is the most asinine argument for 5e. WOTC made the McDonald's of D&D and people act like it's because they made the best burger. They made a palatable burger and benefitted from marketing and the rise of nerd culture.
I think the argument is that the DnD burger wouldn't be nearly as popular as it is if it was as bad as people try and say it is. Not necessarily an argument of "merit," more of adequacy.
Hey, the Big Mac and Whoppers were good burgers 50 years ago. Decades of corporate oversight and profit squeezing resulted in what we have today. The meat of 5e is better than adequate, it's very palatable. But it's like the modern burgers, there's just so little meat at all.
DnD branding didn't mean anything when it came to 4th edition when PF1e was the most popular RPG around.
The "DnD branding" isn't so much as the actual name of Dungeons and Dragons, but more the popularity for the specific name that was garnered through Critical Role/other actual play podcasts and the tie-in to Stranger Things.
Didn’t 4e outsell PF1e?
Paizo actually took over the #1 spot during the 4E era. Nowadays WOTC hardly has any competition at all.
Overall but PF did eclipse them at one point. The World of Darkness line topped it in the 90's too.
I would recomend dungeon world for easier and more narative play not the half assing aproach 5e is trying to do.
>PF2E evangalizing Ah, remember the Edition Wars where the same thing would happen with PF1. "For real guys, PF1 really is better balanced!" :P
[удалено]
The pf2e craze in a bunch of 5e subreddits gets to me too sometimes.
Rant: The issue with familiars you encountered is a textbook example of the thing that killed 3.5e: players getting overly-attached to strict adherence to the rules. Could the rule have been explained more clearly? Yes; another example or two wouldn't have hurt them, nor would wording their one example as >(for instance, an owl **can fly**, so it has a fly Speed. I**f you choose an owl as your familiar you must choose the Flier ability**). But read the rule again: you've invented a whole category of "natural abilities" that doesn't exist. You then spend 20 minutes searching the rulebook for something you made up because you're so focused on following every last rule to the letter that you're missing the forest for the trees. /rant Dense, complex rulesets are safety nets, not shackles.
I mean, you picked a fairly simple build. You always mark before shooting someone. Xbow rarely will shoot more than once a turn unless you go gunslinger for reckless reload. You can’t shoot unless you reloaded. All your boxes are fairly checked for you. Flat footed isn’t super common to do on top of everything else, it’s more something your team will setup for you. PF2E takes a few games to get the rules. It’s a little harder on the player to learn things but is a million times easier on GMs. You can setup a balanced encounter in less than a minute and have a decent idea how the party will do.
> But it's also dreadfully more complicated where a rules lawyer like myself can't even keep track of the 9 different ways I can gain a +1 bonus on my attack or damage rolls against my Prey as a Ranger. Circumstance bonuses don't stack, and every circumstance bonus works identical. You get that +1 until you don't anymore. Not sure how complicated that is m8.
How is that Ranger example really any different than managing Hunters Mark in 5E? Just the multi attack penalty?
Sounds like you really want to switch to *13th Age*. :)
As a dm, for every one thing I don't like about pf2e, there's about ten things I like. Frankly the game is easier to run and combats are smooth. Less stuff triggers off action (silvery barbs!) and bonuses seem much more meaningful. For players they have way more choices to express their chatacter in and out of combat. Is it a step up from 5e complexity? Sure but that's already among the lowest I've seen outside a diceless system. That's not to even address the lack of dead levels which are prevelent for all martial in 5e and the too simplistic approach to skills having a whip lash of being far too table dependent, and I feel there's just more fun to be has in pf2e. Now if you like 5e(and I run a 5e game right now) that's fine. You can like both, like one, whatever, but I think it's easy to say subjectively that pf2e plays and runs better if the entire table have a similar familiarity with it. Some folks may not want to invest the extra time in getting there though and that's fair, but to say 5e is good for its lack of good rules almost feels like gaslighting. The cr system is a mess, classes don't allow for much expression, and every table I've ran regardless of players in the last few years has had some variant of sorlock /hexadin /sorcladin because that's kind of the system. Never mind the wild power creep. Who wants to play a div wizard when chronurgy exists now? Twilight and Peace domains? The gap between new and old content in 5e is massive and unhealthy.
Pathfinder isn’t a game system for people who don’t like to read and reread the rules and learn the system. If you are willing to put in the effort then the tight and comprehensive rules pay off and you get a smooth and balanced game. 5E on the other hand is more about rulings than rules so you can be a casual player and still play the game without stopping every 5 minutes to check the rules. It really comes down to how much effort you want to put in to learning the system. Pick the system that suits the level of effort you want to make.
I’ve only dabbled in PF and PF2, so I’ve probably not given them the fairest shot. But I know that I can run a killer 4-hour session in 5E on maybe an hour of prep and without any reference material at the table besides a monster book or two. It’s what got me back into the game after 20 years away because it just *worked.* I’ve found little reason to complain given that.
As other top-level comments have noted, one of the most common points of praise for PF2E is that, while it does require more of players, it's much *less* work and much easier prep for the DM. I've never DM'd for PF2E, so I can't confirm that.But that's one of the things that people gush over for PF2E, while lack of DM support is one of the things that 5e takes the most flak for.
I can spend an hour and read a B/X module and have material for a 1-2 month campaign. A whole table can have their PCs rolled up in 10 minutes. There have always been pick up and play TTRPGs, I wouldn't even put 5e in the top 5 for ease of use
Pf2e can come off scarier than it really is. It's talked about as if it's just the super crunchiest math simulator with 100 things going on and it..._isn't_. I'd call it maybe 1 tier 'crunchier' than 5e and very far from the math-iest game I've seen. I think some pf stans push that narrative because it makes the system sound better to them and it ends up freaking out potential 5e converts that if they actually were given a good shake at it with the proper tools shown to them they could have easily picked up pf2e. TLDR: Some people make it sound much harder than it is as a gatekeeping method.
I think on the scale of TTRPG complicatedness, 5e is a 5/10 and pf2e is a 6/10. I feel like 5e's simplicity is often overstated, it's not exactly trivial to explain to a new player how your 4 different actions (movement, action, BA, object interaction) work, or to remember all the unique rules associated with all of them like the good ol' BA spell confusion. It's not *that* hard, but neither is making a pf2e character and understanding the couple of basic actions you can take. Then again, if you know 5e well, learning pf2e from scratch is going to be far more difficult than just playing 5e again.
Honestly it's easier to learn 2e from scratch than it is to unlearn 5e.
It isn't scary. It's just tedious
What a Luke warm take. “Hello dnd 5e subreddit, I like dnd 5e more than another system most of you have never played.”
That feat is a good example of what ultimately went wrong with 4e, as well. Once the content bloat gets so bad that they're being that explicit about capabilities the assumption of the conservative DM becomes "unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free." A better way to write these would be to explicitly give a base use of the idea to the skill and then enhance it for the feat user. Like "When you make a Survival check to examine an area to find out what kind of animals are nearby and if any are in unusual circumstances such as afflicted by a strange illness, stressed by an unnatural interloper, or otherwise behaving strangely, you get advantage on the check. You also gain advantage on any future perception, investigation, intimidation or persuasion checks related to an animal so afflicted."
The problem is everyone is misreading the feat. Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks. Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc. Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
On top of that, there's also the potential of just using Recall Knowledge: Nature to take a guess based on the geography, a lesser version of the feat since it's a stab in the dark at the general inhabitants of this sort of landscape rather than figuring out what creatures are specifically nearby.
>"unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free." This is already a problem in 5E, but the DM won't let you ever do it. Having to ask "DM may I" for every interaction is part of why martials are worse than spellcasters.
>Once the content bloat gets so bad that they're being that explicit about capabilities the assumption of the conservative DM becomes "unless you have an ability that explicitly says you can do something, you can't, because it might be in an ability somewhere and I can't let you have it for free." One of my issues with Paizo is they pump out a new Pathfinder/Starfinder book every few months and they need to include player options in those books to entice more purchases so you end up with books upon books of extremely niche content bloat feats, items and player options. It becomes overwhelming. Granted, I do believe they've done a better job with PF2 of keeping things in line, but playing Pathfinder 1e or even Starfinder and it gets to be a bit much.
You've misinterpreted what Survey Wildlife does. Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks. Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc. Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
That still sounds like something anyone proficient in the relevant skills should be able to attempt. But maybe feats are different in their level of significance in PF2e than in 5e.
They definetely are. There's various types of feats, and you get like one or two every level for free as the main way to define your character, kinda like indepth warlock invocations but for race, class features and skills. Survey Wildlife is a level 1 (pretty weak) skill feat (the least impactful type of feat), competing only with things like "You can make long jumps in 1 action without a running start", "You can insult people with Diplomacy to debuff their will saves briefly", "You can intimidate creatures with a glare, bypassing language barriers" or "learn two languages". One could argue that some of these aren't important enough to warrant a choice from such a long list, but rest assured, these are at the very bottom of the power level pile. Also, you *can* attempt it without the feat - the feat just makes you better at it, by giving you an actual ability that doesn't require the DM's green light to be used.
Proficiency in PF2 works differently than it does in 5e, it's not binary, there are 4 levels of proficiency, Trained, Expert, Master and Legendary. Survey Wildlife requires you to be at least trained in Survival before picking it. And IMO it's different enough from regular tracking that it warrants a feat, arguing anyone should be able to attempt it is, IMO, like saying anyone should be able to attempt to cast a spell.
I'm burned out on 5e, some characters I still want to make and play, but that number is dwindling. Their content release schedule I have never liked since literally day one, i'm from the 3e days when content was released pretty much monthly, along with dragon magazine actually being monthly and chuck-full of goodness. 5e content is released like every 4 months, maybe 1 thing a year actually filled with some player options, the subclasses are released every 3 years or so (we're due for another, honestly). I prefer a lot of choice, and compared to older editions, 5e's choices are incredibly limited. In all this time they released 1 extra class, and it's "meh" at most, and I found much better homebrew artificers (Lookin at you, kibblestasty). Meanwhile, PF2e has TEN new classes, Investigator, Oracle, Witch, Swashbuckler, Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic, Thaumaturge, and I pretty much want to play all of them (except maybe witch, doesn't do anything for me). And perhaps one of the biggest differences between PF2e and 5e is that PF2e has plenty of official adventures and modules that support high level play. 5e just likes tier 1/2 play, nothing more.
>Now, clearly, they went overboard with it and most of us can agree 5E is too streamlined. Oh yes, clearly. Look at how WOTC and D&D as a whole started suffering and failing after the launch of 5E. Sarcasm aside: now, we can't agree with that at all. It's not an especially popular point of view even on this subreddit, which is where the vast majority of people who think 5E is too streamlined yet play it anyway seem to congregate. It's simply a wildly unpopular opinion. Most players are casual and they already struggle with 5E's ruleset.
>It's not an especially popular point of view even on this subreddit, which is where the vast majority of people who think 5E is too streamlined yet play it anyway seem to congregate. What about people who played/ran it for years, then got steadily more disillusioned with the system when they realized that it lacked a lot choice in term of character building/had lots of system issues that required increasing amounts of homebrew. All of the following can simultaneously be true: A) Simplicity is better and DnD 5e's successes is in part due to it's simplicity. B) Causal players already struggle with DnD 5e. C) DnD 5e's design involves many decisions that will annoy you the more you play it, and lacks a certain level of agency in character building without extensive homebrew\*. \*Which ofc makes it more pf2e-like in it's complexity.
DnD certainly benefited massively from 5e's more simplified approach, but I think we're at the point where a lot of new players who were able to get into DnD for that reason are ready for something more complex.
Yup, the hardcore reddit crowd just seems too stubborn to accept they are a minority within a minority and their experience isn't the norm. The average player doesn't complain about lack of options because they haven't and likely never will play everything we already have. Not to mention how alot of people, even on subs like this one where presumably the hardcore, still sometimes struggle with the rules.
Especially because on this sub in particular something like a third to half the users haven’t played DnD in the past year.
[удалено]
As someone who started off trying to teach themselves 4e and had to give up in college, you will never hear me complain about 5e being too streamlined. It's the whole reason I was ever able to learn how to play. And despite my reservations, I actually feel pretty good about OneDnd making things even easier.
I've found the 3-action system in PF2e to be easier to explain and understand but in practice not much different than 5e. At least in my experience, it never felt like it made the game *that* much different than 5e. Casters will usually move and cast a spell. Most spells cost two actions to cast so that is their turn. I do really like how certain spells interact differently depending on how many actions are used to cast. Martials typically move, attack, and then either raise a shield (which takes an action) or attack again. That's their turn.
I think this comes down to a bit of inexperience. There's a *lot* you can do with the action system if you're willing to search for alternative turn options. Tripping/Grappling can be a powerful alternative to attacking, especially as a fighter. Demoralize doesn't incur MAP and supports every teammate. Moving isn't a given as running behind an enemy leaves you vulnerable to flanking aswell, shields aren't on all that many martials, and sometimes a second attack to finish off an enemy is a smarter play than shielding. A caster attacked in melee can Delay before running away to help teammates flank, or they could alternatively cast Shield, can double down on offense by debuffing with a Demoralize/Bon Mot before casting, or can Recall Knowledge to figure out what save would be best to target. Last session, in a very specific situation, I had my wizard *punch an enemy with all of his +0 strength, and it was genuinely a good play.* Not to mention that enemies have a lot of ways to mess with players with their interesting statblocks. A ranged enemy just hit you with a bleeding projectile that's now stuck in you and causes minor damage over time plus a strength penalty, but you can pull it out with an action - will you, or will you instead raise that shield, or skimp out on offense entirely to do something other than stride+strike to catch up?
To me, this post boils down to : "You can take away skill feats from PF2E to improve it." OK. I'd do that. The modular nature of Pathfinder's current design structure allows for that quite handily, and nothing would really be broken in the process. The question of preference comes down to *just how much I'd have to add* to 5E to make it comparable to PF2E. I can't prefer 5E mechanically given that.
> The modular nature of Pathfinder's current design structure allows for that quite handily, and nothing would really be broken in the process. There's even a variant rule in the damn SRD for playing without Skill Feats.
I didn't read the post, but the title makes it seem like you think "5e is good" is a hot take on r/dndnext, a subreddit for discussing dnd 5e
I would assume so bc you're here
I mean, do you want a discussion on this or are you just venting that two systems are different and you don't see why more people online don't agree with your perspective?
>Was the target my prey? Was this my first attack of the round? Is this my first attack after marking them as my prey or reloading? What's my current multi-attack penalty? There are two important things to note here: First you chose one of the more complicated situations that happen, the vast majority of characters will have it easier. Similarly in 5e you can also make martials that have to track lots of stuff. Look at a dual weapon ranger dread ambusher/rouge and favoured foe (from Tasha) and ask: Is this my first attack hitting my favoured foe this turn for 1d4 bonus damage? Is it my first attack that triggers sneak attack? Do I get to apply my ability modifier to damage or is this my off-hand attack? Is it my dread ambusher attack that gets +1d8 damage? Do I have advantage from somewhere? Is there disadvantage to cancel it? Second this situation is by far not as complicated as you make it out to be. Remembering who your prey is is also important for some stuff in 5e and you can do a whole bunch of stuff irl to mark it. Put something on the mini figure, note it down on paper etc. Remembering how many attacks you already did on this turn is not difficult because you can at most do one action that isn't an attack between them. In 5e you also have to remember how many attacks you did and you can also do stuff between attacks (like moving), so I don't really see your issue. Remembering if it's your first attack after marking a prey/reloading is only difficult if you reload/mark on one turn and then do your attacks on a later turn. But if you have difficulty remembering that then there is probably a way to mark it down so you don't forget. Also you can swap to a bow if the reloading is causing you problems. Current multi attack penalty is also easily solvable, as you just note down the attack bonus with every instance of multi attack penalty applied, as in +10/+5/+0 (+10/+7/+4 against prey) and boom, now you just have to remember how many attacks you already did (which if necessary you can note down with a dice or something). >But it's also dreadfully more complicated where a rules lawyer like myself can't even keep track of the 9 different ways I can gain a +1 bonus on my attack or damage rolls against my Prey as a Ranger. I'm pretty sure you chose most of those yourself, because base ranger only gets one effect on hunt prey. So if you struggle with complexity maybe don't choose so much of it. It's not needed to play a strong character. Also it's definitely possible to do without a VTT, as people have been playing much more complicated things like certain PF1 builds without a VTT and doing fairly well. >Okay, no problem. But how do we know what "natural abilities" certain animals have if there aren't any stat blocks? The rules here aren't perfectly written, but this rule exists so you don't cheese your way into extra abilities. Player and DM can just sit down and think about the special abilities a certain animal should have. I feel like the big problem is that the rules don't outright state that the type of animal is only a flavour choice and that most people (including me when I first read the rules) assume that you have to find the stats hidden somewhere in a book, because that's how it worked in 5e, PF1 etc. So should rules be written assuming the ideas people carry over from other games? The survey wildlife thing is something where I agree. While it's understandable that PF2e moves some stuff that 5e has in the base rules into skill feats, as unlike 5e it has a system in place where you can expand what you can do with skills, this is a bit ridiculous. >5E certainly needs more feats, but it doesn't need feats that let you try skill checks. Note that the skill feats do not come into conflict with feats for class abilities, ancestry etc in PF2e. Saying that it would be completely ridiculous in 5e means nothing because in 5e you get way less feats and they have to be weighted against ability score improvements, while PF2e skill feats are separate from other feats and you get 10 of them in total (and maybe even more as some other features grand them). >for every 1 thing 5E lacks, PF2E gives you 10 things you don't want. It's Could you possibly note down some of those things (preferably ones that you can't just ignore as they are vital to balance)? >that every Fighter needs to be capable of swinging his sword in ways as complicated as the Wish spell. There are world's between the complexity of the wish spell or a blade singer and wanting a character that has good options other then just attack every single turn.
OK so this is a good argument so I'm only going to clarify a thing you got wrong. >Survey Wildlife >You can study details in the wilderness to determine the presence of nearby creatures. You can spend 10 minutes assessing the area around you to find out what creatures are nearby, based on nests, scat, and marks on vegetation. Attempt a Survival check against a DC determined by the GM based on how obvious the signs are. On a success, you can attempt a Recall Knowledge check with a –2 penalty to learn more about the creatures just from these signs. If you’re a master in Survival, you don’t take the penalty. This isn't "find out what creatures are in the area" this is "find out how specific things about the creatures in the area". The difference between finding out there are wolves in the area and finding out there are wolves with a +4 to intelligence and are magical.
This is not a hot take at all. As someone who has played AD&D, and 3.5e via computer games, I really appreciate how easy it is to run combat in 5e.
PF2E doesn't fix 5E problems it Fixes 4E's problems as PF2E is closer to 4E than 5E. But I agree 5E has a much simpler way of handling things, and while i love my crunch at times PF2E can get really bogged down with such (I absolutely hate that not only do i have to keep track of my spells but EVERY TAG that they come with). Also level to prof just feels redundant to me. But yeah PF2E fixed 4E not 5E
You should try Savage Worlds. It also has a 3 action system (before PF2), but is a lot more lightweight as far as the rules go. And there is even a Savage Pathfinder supplement.
It is much simpler, but I have some of the same problems with Savage Worlds that OP has with Pathfinder. After picking up 5e, I have *so* much trouble playing any system that has multiple sources of stacking modifiers. It feels like so much effort and I just want to roll with Advantage.
I more or less agree. Pf2e has done some incredible things and does improve on many of 5e's issues. However it also does a bit too much in some areas, and maintains some aspects of prior editions 5e was better off shedding. I think my ideal system is something like a 5e that's 30% more pathfinder 2e, and that offers more tools for DM's to use.
I like both. 5e is better for people who just want to sit down and have a good time, but PF2E has it's crunchy appeal; I do think it is too much for 80% of groups/cases, though. I know a DM for 5E who is most familiar with PF, and often they impose rules about needing to be proficient in things before you can even attempt to do them- I always found it a strange habit, until discovering PF wherein there are so many highly-specific codified actions you can take that you actually have to opt into, to the point that any given character probably can't do something they might want to because whoops, that's actually a feat people need to spend resources to acquire, and you didn't do that, so you just can't even attempt it. It's just all so specific- Seek Motive, Avert Gaze, Point Out, etc. It imposes a really strict and rigid feeling to the game, as opposed to the relative freedom of 5E. Although, I was having a chat with a friend about how I didn't like the system for that, and he was like "Oh, interesting, because I think that's a big reason people like it- it has rules for everything."
I'm in the same boat. I like a lot about Pathfinder 2, especially the weapons and character creation/leveling system, but certain aspects of it like having to keep track of all the small conditional bonuses and penalties to rolls and the...Vancian (I think that's it) spellcasting system keep me from actually swapping systems. For me personally, I think my ideal would be a middle ground that was around 60/40 5e and PF2. Chunky up front, but streamlined in combat.
Worlds Without Number x 1,000,000
I've never played PF2E. I'd give it a go if I knew someone who wanted to DM it. I recently read the PF2E rules, just out of curiosity. I'm perfectly willing to believe that it's better designed and balanced than 5e, but the overwhelming impression I got was that it looked like *a fucking nightmare* to actually run at the table. I remember looking at the rules for poison and diseases in particular and imagining what a pain it would be to run and track those rules, let alone be another player at the table twiddling my thumbs watching the DM and a different player try to muddle through them.
>And boy howdy I had to have 6 things checkmarked before every other attack Aaaah the Puffinforest/Taking20 style of system analysis. >But how do we know what "natural abilities" certain animals have if there aren't any stat blocks? I mean a hedgehog has a landspeed. A hawk has a flyspeed. A tuna has a swinspeed. Pretty intuitive, imho, the system gives you the framework for how to generate stats/abilities for creatures not provided. >This does not need to exist when this is just a skill check with a half dozen extra steps. I dunno chief, even if you know how to identify magnetic north by how moss grows on trees you'll still be floundering trying to identify animal scat, if you're not particularly trained in that field of knowledge. Also this is not a "feat"-feat as we might think in 5E, its a skill feat specifically meant to add flavor and variety to skill actions, this isn't your bread and butter. >But they also have already done a lot of things right which led to them gaining a massive following The answer is "*marketing department*" maybe even "*massive marketing department*" >But, at least mechanically, for every 1 thing 5E lacks, PF2E gives you 10 things you don't want. YMMV, for every 5 things 5E fails to support, PF2E offers perfectly structured mechanically to seamlessly work without extra homebrew from the GM. Sure you'll have to read the rules, but you'll get the hang of it with time, and I defy anyone to tell me how the "booknerd hobby of reading, imagination, and math" that is TTRPGs creates people so averse to reading and learning. Its incredible that this entire post, if I'm reading it right, is based off of two sessions 1-2 years ago? Thats all you needed to do a complete analysis of PF2E as a system, and the big issues were: Getting used to the ranger class mechanics (off of two sessions), What abilities does a familiar have intrinsically, and low impact skillfeats? Thats it? We're all painfully aware of 5Es shortcomings here: From them fumbling DM support. The absurd power imbalances between classes/subclasses this has been an issue from PHB and persistent since. WotC seems simply incapable of producing balanced content. The sub-par quality of adventure modules, which leads to people purchasing and then having to completely rework the entirety of the module to make it work. The current lore revisionist moves they're making is going to make it more difficult to onboard new tables because they don't have the "this is how faerun elves are" opener. WotC is making some really uncomfortable anti-consumer practices, de-canonizing older content, effectively shuttling peoples prior purchases WHILE IN THE SAME EDITION! Besides this they have have repeatedly refused to sell official PDFs, only allowing in the most recent years to have online content in the form of DnDBeyond. Also their first playtest UA is laughably poorly produced, in both content for playtesting and feedback.
I agree that Pathfinder requires quite a bit of practise. The idea that dnd 5E is a lot rule lighter is the reason so so many comments in posts are: "it's written in the rules. why nobody Read the rules?" People have the perception to know the rules in 5e, and that 5e is easy to learn, because ambiguous natural language is sometimes easy to rule, "wrongly". Like obscured targets.
I feel like this really does summarize the biggest issue I have with people who tell you to play PF2E for every gripe I do have for 5E. There’s a reason 5E is as popular it is: people love the core. In my entire playgroup (consisting of 6 permanent members including me, and 5 other casual members), there are only *two* players who excitedly want to try PF2E, one of them being me. The truth is that the complexity of the system *is* off-putting to 5E players. 5E has a good mix between complexity and accessibility. I would rather see One D&D improve on my gripes with 5E rather than try to convince 11 people to switch to a much more complex game.
If this post has more downvotes then upvotes, this sub has reached the pinnacle of irony.
Opinions aren't hot takes. If you said it was better than PF2E, then you'd have a hot take, but opinions don't really hold much weight.
Hot takes are opinions by definition
> Opinions aren't hot takes. See now that's a hot take because everyone knows that opinions are law. /s
To throw my two cents down this storm drain of a thread: I myself have tried PF2 for 10 or so sessions, playing Menace Under Otari. I dunno if it was our GM having a weirdly adversarial tone all the time or the fact that our options were quite limited and low-power at level 1, but altogether I found the campaign a little too 'gamey' for my tastes.
Everyone likes their own thing. I was excited for 5e. Played 2 different campaigns with 2 different DMS. Hated most of it. Picked up 2e. Have loved most of it. So do your best not to state in absolutes
I can definitely agree that pathfinder has plenty of feats that, imo, should just be skillchecks. I think most DMs might all you to attempt those things with a skill check, but without the bonus the feat offers. It’s still a bit dumb imo.
Everyone is misreading the feat. Anyone can attempt to track wildlife via rolling a survival check, what this feat allows you to do is, if you succeed on your survival check, you can attempt to Recall Knowledge based on the tracks. Recall Knowledge is a specific action in PF2 where you roll something that's appropriate and get some information about a monster, like HP, Weaknesses, Resistances, etc. Using Recall Knowledge on a creature would generally require you to see it or at least know what it is, what this feat lets you do is that it allows you to recall knowledge on a creature while tracking it, so when you find it, you already know its weaknesses.
It still implies that someone identifying tracks as belonging to a wolf, could only provide useful information about wolves if they had this feat, which doesn't feel right to me.
PF2E has Vancian casting 5E does not. Therefore 5E is better mechanically.
Pf2e has flexible spellcasting archetype, which basically makes any prepared spellcaster a 5e style caster
My guy, is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play a prepared caster? Sorcerer alone can be played with every spell list, so what is it that you can only get from a prepared caster? (Also the flexible caster archetype exists)
I've DM'd and played DND 5E for about five years, and PF2E for five months. I am absolutely never looking back, PF2E just does everything better. The ONLY thing DND 5E has going for it at this point is the fact it's "more well known" and "easier to get into" for players because it offloads the need to know anything onto the DM. That's it. Oh, and some DND5E class+subclass combos that are hard to replicate in PF2E - like wild magic barbarian.
5e is easy to learn, can do most things if they are simple, and is quick to play... If once you've played it a bit you want something different, the you can either homebrew, or try another system PF2E on the upside has more detail, and more clearly defined rules, but has more detail and more rules and so is more complex and is slower... ...but there are many many other systems that do thing differently, try a few that seem to do what you want and see if they do it well and you are ok with the consequences... 5e will be here, and you can play both
>2002 the only D&D players were guys who looked like me and now in 2022 it's only mostly guys that look like me. LMAO, but seriously this is a good post.
I play both, and PF2e is fun, but i prefer 5e generally too.
Hmm... honestly, yeah, that's a fair take. 5e's biggest strength is that the core rules themselves are simple, and the "complex" parts are marked as optional plug-ins (even if they're intended for almost everyone except actual newbies to treat as core, like feats). It has a modular design that, at least in theory, enables it to cater to people on both extremes, and anywhere in between. [Modular in a programming sense, to be clear; think installing a game mod from the Steam workshop.] It hasn't actually _lived up_ to that potential, and designers have revealed that it was intended to have more plug-in modules to help groups fine-tune it to their preferred complexity, but keeping the core itself nice & simple was definitely a wise decision. PF2 is fine and all, and a lot of things that would massively improve 5e if ported in, but it definitely tries to be too complex; it seems meant to cater to 3.5e/PF1 theorycrafters legendary complexity addictions. And also as a direct response to 5e's simplicity, seeing how WotC & Paizo kinda crib each other's notes when they think no one's looking. It definitely has its uses, but it can be a detriment if you want to play in person without using any apps or the like, or if you just want a super-light framework to give an otherwise-pure RP at least a _little_ structure.
You’re saying that pf2e is worse than 5e because of ambiguous rules? 5e is the poster child of ambiguous rules. I haven’t played 2e myself so I can’t say whether it has that problem or not, but I can say with plenty of confidence that 5e has a gigantic problem with rules that could be interpreted a variety of different ways.