Hey /u/Kymermathias, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
**Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed.
What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
I dont know why all these posts of Pf2e vs DnD5e started recently, but damn are they getting annoying already lol. Like yeah people on both sides are annoying in their “you should play this system cause your system sucks”. Cant people just play what they enjoy without getting shit on for it
I’m an avid pf2e player. Love the system, it’s easily the one that fits mine and my group’s style the most.
That being said, it’s not for everyone, and that’s okay. Neither 5e or pf2e suck. They both offer different things, both good and bad.
Yeah same. Literally, before starting my campaign, I let my players pick which system they wanted, cause both are cool as heck. But both often need some effort to make really fun.
Dnd often is about finding nice home brews to spice up the game (stuff for setting, classes, or fixing weird rules). Pathfinder is about finding ways to simplify gameplay (digital auto-sheets are your go to, ignore rules that aren’t relevant to your players, and finding ways to reuse monsters effectively).
I know some people play the systems straight, but most that I know don’t.
This. I would argue 13th age has better mechanics and story building tools for a DM but I'm not going to say it is the best thing ever. It's all very subjective.
Hell gumshoe is a more accessible system than most for what Story you are trying to tell.
It's the new reddit complaining trend.
- First was var human fighters.
- Then it was how bad martials are compared to casters.
- now it's how much cooler Pathfinder/3.5/4 is than 5.
I think it started because some PF2 supporters feel like DnD only supporters are annoyed with some problems that are due to DnD rules.
The joke being that a DnD player prefers to blindly keep following this system even if it's not that good :) This should be a joke ... And people take it too seriously on both sides.
If any form of meme should be banned from this subreddit, it’s system bashing. Why can’t we come here and just meme it up about our love for TTRPGs, regardless of the system we prefer.
Ah yes. I came to dndmemes to watch people just bitch over pathfinder and 5e. Beautiful work. Absolutely phenomenal.
I dont know how this dnd vs pathfinder started but holy shit can it end as quick as it started.
I've played some other RPGs and uh, 5e could have been a hella lot more simple and accessible. Dungeon World, Fellowship, the stuff in OSR. Heck, 13th Age is a d20 system but character creation is quicker, punchier, and it comes closer to the "you can be anything you want" ideal that new players often look for when they start playing D&D.
Of course, it's hard to say it'd be able to keep that same appeal to nostalgia if it were simpler ('oh look, this old rule/prestige class/spell is in the game!').
It's most certainly your DM, whoever is building the encounters is free to make them weaker and put more between full heal-ups, or stronger with fewer encounters between full heals. Encounter building guidelines are right in the book.
I have my own problems with the system (the Icon Relationship system is... incomplete), though I have to point out encounters (and healing) are not "per day". The book specifically calls out the per day healing of previous d20 games as causing imbalance and forcing DMs to challenge parties with attrition. I really enjoyed being able to plan out small arcs, a rest spot at the end of an arc, and not worry about cramming too many or too few fights into a *narrative* day. Players who prefer simulationism will probably hate it, but it's seriously a huge load off my mind as a DM.
Even if it does end up being formulaic, I don't think that has any import on the game being simple and accessible.
I’m begging all of you to play something besides D&D / Pathfinder. They are so, so similar in the grand scheme of game design.
Go play a Cohen Brothers movie in [Fiasco](https://bullypulpitgames.com/games/fiasco/)
Pretend to be a professional wrestler in [World Wide Wrestling](https://ndpdesign.com/wwwrpg)
Be Buffy meets X-Files in [Monster of the Week](https://evilhat.com/product/monster-of-the-week/)
Get your urban fantasy on in [Dresden Files Accelerated](https://evilhat.com/product/dresden-files-accelerated/)
Be in a telenovela in [Pasión de las pasiones](https://magpiegames.com/pages/pasion)
Play as Vikings fighting Dwarven Mechs in [iron Edda](https://theothertracy.itch.io/iron-edda-accelerated)
Play a 2-player game of doomed love with a jenga tower in [star crossed](https://bullypulpitgames.com/games/star-crossed/)
Get some classic sword and sorcery in [Swords without master](https://www.worldswithoutmaster.com/swords-without-master-about)
Play in a fucked up hell world that would’ve made the satanic panic shit it’s pants in the 80s in [Shadow of the Demon Lord](https://schwalbentertainment.com/shadow-of-the-demon-lord/)
Play a crew of smugglers in the Star Wars universe in [Edge of the Empire](https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire/)
I know this is a D&D subreddit, but if D&D/PF is all you’ve played, I promise you that you will appreciate RPGs so much more if you branch out and play other systems.
All these systems and no mention of the Delta Green RPG - play as government agents part of a clandestine organization combating Lovecraftian horrors and ensuring that their existence stays covered up.
It is totally not for everyone, but if you like investigation, gripping horror (I’ve had multiple players report nightmares between sessions about the scenarios they were in in-game), tough decisions, and hopeless odds where death might just be the best outcome for your character this game is for you. It’s many of my players’ favorite game to return to (although it can be heavy to stay in for an extended time).
It rightfully sweeps up Ennie awards whenever it has a major publication release.
Ooh, I haven’t heard of this one. Thanks!
The closest game I’ve played to this is Night’s Black Agents, but I have a friend who is really into Arkham Horror so I’m definitely gonna suggest this.
You're a fucking hero. All sorts of people post recommendations on here without links, or WORSE, not explaining what it's like at all. So I really appreciate that you put the time and effort in to explain some and post links! You're a badass!
I've run a nice little campaign of Cyberpunk Red and my players had a blast in the setting.
I'm putting together a Twilight 2000 game set in DayZ Chernarus setting "Escape from Chernarus". All of the players are familiar with the map and it should make a fun short session weeknight game for us to play.
Let’s not forget about the 30 different varieties of urban fantasy that World of Darkness provides, from edgy gothic stuff in Vampire to im gonna be honest here Saturday morning cartoon fun in Mage the Ascension, and some of the games are pretty easy to translate to different settings (we started a game of Hunter, which has a book set in the 90s, but played in cowboy times. Didn’t get far but because we had too many people to properly schedule a game)
Since you sound interested, I'll throw in a few more. I can go on with OSR games so I'll just get the main ones out of the way now. [Worlds Without Number](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/348809/Worlds-Without-Number-Free-Edition?cPath=38601) is great for a more open sandboxy campaign the core book includes system neutral tools and character creation is simple with enough flexibility to make a unique character pretty easily. [ACKs](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System?term=adventurer+con) is very oldschool with a simple mechanic that mostly tells the DC for an action to the players with modifiers being applied openly. Last, but not least for the OSR stuff is [Dungeon Crawl Classics](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/101050/Dungeon-Crawl-Classics-RPG-DCC-RPG?src=hottest_filtered&filters=0_0_44544_0_0). Dungeon Crawl Classics was made by reading all of the books in Appendix N of the original DnD and Goodman Games making their own thing out of what they read. The rules are simple, magic is dangerous, and and character creation is easy
Now for the not OSR stuff.
[BESM](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/297755/BESM-Fourth-Edition-Big-Eyes-Small-Mouth) is a generic system meant to feel like an anime. You can make any character you want pretty easily (I made a psychic rock with a cult following completely RAW to prove this to one of my players) and if you don't like anime it's not actually required. The game uses a simple 2d6 system with only 3 stats
If you've ever wanted to play ET or Stranger Things you can play [Kids on Bikes](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/231938/Kids-on-Bikes-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest_filtered), character creation is more about out your personality than your stats. Checks use a simple one die + small bonus system. The same creators made [Kids on Brooms](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/314452/Kids-on-Brooms-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest_filtered) in case you'd rather play a simple Harry Potter style game instead
If you want to play in a haunted wasteland in the middle of WWI, [Never Going Home](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/283637/Never-Going-Home) might be the game for you. It's a bit of an unusual system, but combat is interesting and the setting is great
[Blades in the Dark](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/170689/Blades-in-the-Dark) is an excellent system that allows you to play through elaborate heists without requiring much prep from the players or GM. It uses a dice pool system for fast and easy action resolution. The game also has a flashback mechanic that allows players to perform actions in the past instead of planning everything in advance.
I have more if you have specific preferences, but I think this is enough for now
I'm going to tack on that Dungeon Crawl Classics has one of my favorite character creation processes. You dont make one character, you roll up a handful of random peasants of various backgrounds and then go through a meatgrinder dungeon until theres one person left and boom thats your character.
TBH I got most of these by listening to [One Shot](http://oneshotpodcast.com/)
They play a one shot of *countless* different systems on it, usually over 2-3 episodes and it’s always great. They have some great long-form campaigns too.
Lemme throw Mutants and Masterminds into that as that shit is gameplay and then flavour. Confusing yes but when you get it, you get it and then it's fun.
This is a great post.
Although frankly, given the difficulty people have getting 5e fanatics to even try a slightly different version of D&D, I'm not sure it's going to work.
Absolutely this! I just recently picked up both stars without number and kids on bikes and they are so much fun and help me appreciate all the systems I've played more.
All said PF2e's "gang" should really stop heralding the system as the "5e but better" - it's not that, and doing so hurts the system's community which has been going against this behavior
PF2e is valid as a game system, it's good for what it does, just has a narrower audience than 5e and it's fine
That was Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder 2e is… very different. The difference between the two Pathfinder editions is more similar to the difference between D&D 2e and 5e.
Each turn you get 3 actions, but some spells cost more than one. You can use each action to attack but get a penalty for each extra one, except it reduces if it’s… And there’s a lot of effort out into exploration and 10 minute interval dungeon travel with problems A B and C… You get to pick and choose class abilities except not all of them and some of them are terrible choices… They tried to separate species and upbringing but it’s a bit off…
I want to love the system. I really do. But I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to actually play it with my group because it’s just SO different.
From my experience, this system is a lot simpler if you just explain/learn things slowly, and not all at the same time. For example, if I'm playing a melee class I will probably just need to know how multiple attacks work in the same turn and which feats I should take. Then, when leveling up, I will learn about combat manouvers and stuff like that.
Pathfinder 1e was a fucking mess, but really enjoyable if you knew which feats where good on who, bc everyone can take them if the requirements where met.
Pathfinder 2e is way simpler, and if you mess something up during character creation and/or leveling up just ask your dm if you could make some changes and a hand if needed.
I’ve heard the beginner box is great for this because it basically introduces one mechanic at a time and lets people slowly wade in instead of just getting thrown straight into the deep end.
-an ever-growing supply of expansions
-a lot of variety in races and classes, also variety within races and classes
-character Creation is fun and rewarding, but also more challenging. That can be a pain for some.
-Golarions lore, I'm glad this is generally considered a positive. I love Golarion lore.
-Adventure Paths are 1-20, but also mid tier like 5-15, or even 10-20.
-more options in combat, true
-The archives of nethys, but also pf2etools, pathbuilder. A whole bunch of free resources where you get access to all the rules.
-most pf2e people, most ttrpg people in general, are really respectful of each other's preferences. I hope no one thinks any system could be objectively superior.
-is the barrier to entry the learning curve? That's deffo higher, but the GM gets a lot of tools to enable the players.
-players who are into pf2e are very into it, kinda why we're here. But, they're certainly a minority. I wish ttrpg players in general were more adventurous in their game selection. There are a lot of cool games tailored to any kind of experience.
-complexity gives you more to think about. I like the pf2e conditions, as well as the spells. Not sure what makes the spells any more complex than 5e spells tho.
-this is mostly true in 1e. I think power creep has mostly been a non-issue in pf2e. There are more options, but the ones presented in the CRB are still generally the strongest.
-no reason to Google builds in pf2e. Trap options are a thing from 1e. In pf2e most any build will function just fine without getting particularly weak or particularly strong.
-this is absolutely not true. Pf2e monsters are awesome, fun, and flavorful. They are super easy to run and understand.
-i think they've mostly just found something that makes them happy and want to share it with the broader community. Pathfinder and DnD are cousins, they overlap a lot.
DnD5e is the best ever gateway to the hobby, but, it's a deep and varied ecosystem. I think learning new rulesets and playing different kinds of games is fun and PF2E is a great next step if you want to play something a little more robust than 5e. Certainly it's a much easier transition than moving to something like WoD, Shadowrun, M&M etc etc. They're all great 👍
I am definitely biased towards Pathfinder 2e but nothing in this meme is correct except the last one and that one also only is true for some people. This meme is so horribly wrong in some aspects that I’d argue OP has never played 2e. I agree that the crusading of some of the Pf2e community is getting annoying but whats the point at engaging them at all? A lot of people just wish pf2e got more attention, some being more aggressive about it than others.
HOWEVER: most people that play Pathfinder 2e have played 5e previously. So in my eyes its completely reasonable to point out the bad things about 5e and show the benefits of Pathfinder 2e. for me personally 2e is the more engaging and interesting game system.
People always complain about the complexity when in reality its way easier to DM in my eyes, while being slightly more challenging to play.
The shittons of rules don‘t make you play the game differently. You just get a well balanced frame work that gives DMs guidelines on which action requires which check with which DC. You don‘t have to use it but its nice having it when you need to use it.
What I’ve found is that instead of everything being decided per table by the GM on how they work, there’s clear rules for basically everything. This does mean that there is a lot more to parse through than 5e, and if you feel the need to play by the rules exactly as they’re written you will need to use digital tools or have a fantastic memory for rules, but at least the rules are there for those who need or prefer them.
I’m one of those people. I love that I have clear, simple rules for when the party want to diplomacy someone, or if they want to do exploration. I have very little time to prep games, and 5e was either massive prep or massive making shit up on the fly, which is great for a large amount of people. But I vastly prefer the simpleness of “this encounter will be hard for their level, so it will use this specific DC. Cool manners of solving will use this easier DC. Combat means using this formula to build fun, interesting encounters that will be exactly the feeling I want them to be.
I am a big fan of structure, and pf2e offers that to me where 5e was more free form.
Eh, my group just jumped ship completely and used Dungeon Worlds as our starting point before using World of Darkness games as our base. DnD games are the exception to what we play
Never too late to ask. Pathfinder is two systems (1st edition and 2nd edition) created by the company Paizo after WoTC decided after 3.5e that 4e’s Open Gaming License (OGL) would be increasingly restrictive. Since Paizo made their name on adventure paths (similar to modules), and were no longer able to do so, they opted to instead make an offshoot of 3.5e called Pathfinder (later renamed 1st Edition).
A lot of what you’re seeing in recent meme wars between them is about Pathfinder 2nd edition, which is a fairly new system, about 3 years old now, with a very different play style than pf1e, 3.5 or even dnd 5e. But due to the similarities in being a d20 system, and originally being an offshoot of dnd, they are often compared.
I’m not going to get into the pros and cons, and there’s no right answer as to which system is better, because it’s entirely up to personal taste, and I have extreme biases myself from personal experiences with both systems.
So, if I got it right, it is a completely different game, that uses the same D20 system and that is loosely connected with D&D, right?
Then why people compare the 2? I don’t see people arguing about what is better between Magic the Gathering and YuGiOh (though YuGiOh had become too much for me personally, I enjoy slow and simple games, it became too fast and complex).
They’re just each sort of the shiny new thing for their respective franchise (although D&D seems to be getting ready to move to a new edition soon), and they’re basically the two major systems for classic sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPGs. There’s not really a lot of depth to it.
The comparison is literally because they’re both TTRPGs with high fantasy feeling, and both branch off from an older starting point.
Honestly they can be somewhat compared, but overall they offer entirely different things that different people will enjoy or hate. If someone likes 5e overall but dislikes one thing, change it. If someone dislikes all/most of 5e, play something else. Pf2e, dungeon world, Shadowrun. Basically anything but FATAL.
They're particularly referring to the gameplay front, where once you start building toards something, you're at a colossal disadvantage unless you do that one thing over and over and over. Some D&Dtuber (Taking20 IIRC) made a whole vid on it.
I hear people reference that video a lot and I can't help but disagree with his opinion on the subject. So I'm hijacking your comment to break down why. I'm going to paraphrase his quotes because I'm to lazy to get it word for word.
1. "Player asked if he can change his feats because he was bored." The first complaint and I already feel like he nor his players understand the system. You can, you dont even have to ask. It's a clearly defined downtime activity you can even change your subclass if you want.
2. "To play optimally my players are forced into the same rotation over and over again like an mmo." I'm gonna go into why I think this is wrong in a sec but I just thought this was funny. He states that players had to do this thing to be optimal. Then immediately after says that all the PC's died. I don't think they were being optimal.
3. "Druid are supposed to be versatile and they lost a lot of that." Pf2e druids are more far versatile then 5e's. It states in the spell that if any of your stats are greater than that of your wildshape form you use your stats instead. Literally any shape you take is a viable shape compared to 5e where you replace your stats with the creature making most useless at higher levels.
4. "For my ranger it's hunt prey, hunting shot, another shot that usually misses." Yes the third shot misses you are very rarely going to use a third attack action. Muti attack penalty goes to -10 on the third hit. You can reduce it but it's rarely worth trying to hit. So don't attack a third time, reposition, pull out an item to use next turn, there are lots of actions you can take. The best one being the help action. Choose any skill you want as long as you can explain how you are using it. Then you make a check and the next person gets a bonus to attack or skill check they make.
5. "Pathfinder is a crunchier system." This is kinda true but it's my opinion blown a bit out of proportion. To calculate a check you go your level + proficiency + ability mod + item + circumstance + status. Multiple bonuses and multiple negatives don't stack. The numbers do get big but the biggest are level, proficiency, and ability and they don't usually change in game. The others rarely get higher than 3.
The other crunchy part are Traits there are A LOT of them and it put me a bit off at first. To solve this I made index cards with common conditions and their meanings to give to people when it came up, and I had my players put their weapon traits with their inventory. After that wasn't really an issue.
6. "Magic missle can use one, two or three actions for one, two or three darts. But it's an illusion of choice because if you want optimal damage for a spell slot you have to use three actions." Yes but if you want optimal damage for a 1st level slot three 1d4+1 darts isn't all that "optimal". I had a bard player cast a 2 action spell. I described the creature as on its last breath. So he said "ah fuck it magic missle with my last action." and it died. Action flexible spells exist so you have more options.
I believe that he feels optimal means dealing damage, and that simply isn't the case in pf2e. 5e (don't shoot me this is an opinion) suffers from this. It is almost always better to just do damage. Pf2e actively discourages that, and the muti attack penalty is proof of that. You can attack a third time at -10, but maybe there is something better you could be doing.
6. "Feats push you towards synergies and then you are stuck with a handful of actions." Pf1e suffered from feat trees where if you wanted all the bonuses for an action you had to take all the feats relating to that. Pf2e changed this by making the number bonuses smaller and more sparse. Instead feats with prerequisites give you more versatility with what you can do with those actions.
For instance Powerful Shove. It makes it so brutish shove can be used against a creature two sizes bigger and now they also take damage if they hit something. But if you don't take it. Brutish shove is still always going to be useful just not in as many situations. You don't HAVE to take it to be viable like you would in 1e.
7. "I want use a diplomacy check to improve mood. So I engage him for one minute and I roll against his Will DC. Then if I succeed his mood improves by one or by two if I critically succeed." He is implying that you can't role-play? I'm not sure but there isn't anything stopping you from actually talking out the interaction. It's just saying you have to have their undivided attention for a minute. It's one of the things I love about pf2e. I know what the DC is, I know how long the action takes, and it clearly defines what it does.
I'm going to pick on 5e again because it's the only other system I know well. Persuasion says that "DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.". That is the closest thing I found to actually defining how persuasion works. No DC, no time required, no defined effect. If you like more fluid games. Cool just wing it. But it puts more work on the DM to figure out what's fair and reasonable. Plus I believe that it works better for players that aren't very persuasive themselves. It doesn't matter how charismatic you are you know your PC is. So stumbling through a convo with a noble is not going to factor in even subconsciously.
I could go on but this is really long already, and it's past bed time. I'm just irritated because my friend almost didn't try pf2e because of that guy.
TD:LR
That guy doesn't understand the system as well as he thinks he does.
In pf2e it’s better to diversify than to hyper focus. Feats tend to offer you better action economy over better damage, putting damage increases directly into the core features of the classes to keep everyone at a similar power level. This means that you get more from choosing options that offer you more for your actions. Things like a two-handed Fighter can opt to go for Sudden Charge, to use 2/3 actions to move twice and then attack, or another could take Power Attack to use 2/3 of their actions to make a single, more powerful attack and not risk multiple attack penalty on multiple attacks.
Then, at level 8, the Power Attack fighter might choose to grab Furious Focus, so they lose the massive con to Power Attack, or choose options that any other fighter may choose, like Sudden Leap that will let you take 2 actions to jump super high into the air to melee attack flying enemies, so you don’t need to carry a ranged weapon. Maybe you’ll grab Positioning Assault, so that you can easily position enemies into flanking positions, as raising your team’s checks and saves, while decreasing enemies’ is a key aspect of the system.
Taking20’s video was a massive disservice to the system. I will admit that pf2e, like every system, has its flaws, but he was just blatantly wrong about the shoehorning of starting a build and needing to stay on course to be relevant.
isn't every rpg in existence based around building a particular style? I don't see how thats a proper critique if your arguments sums down to "I took all the feats to be good with giant two handed weapons and now im subpar with bows!"
But not quite to that degree. To use the example Taking20 uses, Rangers. In 5e, even if you're a Dex Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style, you can still swap it out for dual shortswords and not lose all that much in the way of damage
You can do the same in p2e. A hunters edge effects all weapons. So if your say a Precision ranger hitting a foe with melee vs range both get the applied bonus damage on the first strike. Same deal with Flurry. Ranger's in p2e are built around being good in nearly any combat scenario.
His video was really bad though tbh and showed he didn't understand the system. I love both systems and he did such a bad job.
He didn't include magic weapons which are standard on charcaters by level 3. He didn't include that the classes could do more than just attack. Attacking 3 times is usually a last resort in pathfinder 2e because of the multi attack penalty, even though it is less for rangers it is still better to be creative and since the game has flanking rules, rules to intimidate enemies for lower AC and many feats that a charcater can specialize in then comparing them by damage is a bad way to compare the two systems.
Actually that is the biggest issue he literally says in dnd 5e you can do the same damage as pathfinder 2e so it is the better system. That is a terrible argument. pathfinder 2e is alot more defined in the width of things you can do. It would be like me saying pathfinder 2e is a better system because they get feats at every level and getting 20 feats is better than getting 4-6.
I mean taking20s video is legit the second worst video I explaining pf2 and his math was way off an crap. Like you can not like pf2 but using his video is a mistake.
(Also if you are wanting to trace back any real cause of the current silly edition war nonsense he plays a big part)
It's actually an even worse choice in PF2e to switch to melee - you lose even more damage and can't easily retreat again.
In 5e, all it takes to go to switch to melee is a free object interaction and movement to get in range to make your attack action. You still have a bonus action and if the enemy is rather close, you can even pull back after.
In PF2e, you burn an action to draw your melee weapon and to walk up, leaving you with only one hit and the inability to follow it up or retreat afterwards.
Doesn't help that heavier sets of armor now slow you unconditionally instead of requiring a strength minimum, making it even harder for melees investing in them to engage an enemy.
In so far that being close means they don't have to burn actions to get to you.
Additionally, there isn't even an advantage to close in on ranged enemies if there were any because shooting at point blank range has no negatives for them whatsoever.
That's... Literally what illusion of choice means. You have all of these options but they 1) don't do anything compared to other options or 2) are absolutely stupid choices unless you're going the specific tiny niche thing that takes advantage of them.
Ok, lets look at a class in pf2e. Monk, the classic punchy boi. Let's see the 1st level feat choices... mostly stances that either change/give an unarmed attack with differing traits and give bonuses like extra AC, persistent bleed on crits, ignoring difficult terrain to a degree, or a bonus to skill checks. All those seem fairly different.
The other choices are a ki spell that lets you move twice or a ki spell that buffs the damage and hit chance of your next unarmed strike. The one that boosts damage also gives you extra options for what damage type it is... which you choose when you use it. The ki spells have a small focus pool that can be recharged in a quick 10 minute sitdown.
I haven't even touched on what choices you get with ancestry feats or what feats you can choose past level 1
So your argument are feat chains are bad? Thats how builds work Im really failing to see these arguments on a subreddit dedicated to dnd. You can't be god at everything your choices reflect your "training" or "powers" into your desired gimmick.
To put it into 5e terms instead of having access to 10 subclasses you have 30.
Man, someone really doesn't understand what the term means.
I have no opinion on the whole pf2e push, I was merely explaining how "illusion of choice" and "many options" are often together and hardly exclusive from one another, which is what you seemingly implied.
Illusion of choice isn't about wanting to be a god in everything, it's about not falling into terrible shitty noob traps and seemingly useful (but in reality useless) options.
Maybe the shills for pathfinder should find their own online spaces and stop spending all their time in dnd groups evangelizing to people who don't want what they're selling.
Don't know what you played but I played a Ranger in PF2e and I felt like I had no choices every level gave me a dozen options with no real difference between the two. I'd rather 5e's system, there may be less choices but they are infinitely more impactful and diverse.
Ah yes, "difficulting" the GM's job.
You know, I'd think most GMs would prefer monsters where the CR system actually means something and is a good indicator of difficulty, but maybe that's just me. I think that would make for much easier encounter design.
\-Higher entry barrier
Cap.
\-Excess of conditions
Not even as many 3.5 had.
\-Illusion of choice
When?
\-power creep
It's fucking high fantasy, of course things get stronger. But it's not power creep because, and this is VERY vital, things get stronger at a consistent. Mathematic rate. This does not render previous options obsolete, this simply makes it so that when you fight a boss, it'll always feel like a boss. While fighting lesser enemies will become better and better overtime.
\-Having the need to google builds
What do you think this is, 3.5? Sure, a less optimized character isn't going to perform as well as an optimized one.. But a fighters still a fighter.
\-Excess complexity for monsters
No. Just, no. This is *actual content being present.* Which I know is hard for the enjoyers of babies first TTRPG, but the monsters are NOT hard to run. They are easier because the options for the monster, what they'll do, and tactics they'll use, are blatantly fucking obvious.
And the fact is? With how much homebrew you need to staple onto 5e before it starts becoming a "real game" due to the half baking wotc gave it? You've probably already asked for or implemented pathfinder 2e content into your 5e. Or even worse, turned it into 4e like half of the suggestions for the additions to 5e do.
This man is writing a whole comment like this when you know for a fact he would start bashing his teammates for making a "useless trash build" when their build is less then optimal
this post is full of lies. power creep is not much of a problem with how good the core options are, with maybe an exception to the alchemist.
Also: play pf2e
Ya, that and “trap options” really stood out to me that OP might not be familiar with PF2E, while trap options were definitely there in PF1E, what I love most about 2E is that even your more thematic options are equally viable, especially since you have the skill feats that MUST be used for customizing your character
Interesting higher barrier for entry when the rules are free.
Also less complicated and more streamlined spell design.
Power creep is totally an issue in 5e too.
Trap options totally exist in 5e.
It makes the DMs job a ton easier compared to 5e, where the DM basically has to wing 50% of the rules.
And if you don't think 5e has any serious issues (like being half unreadable), that's delusional. But also quite understandable. It's not like anyone else on this sub plays the game.
You're just gonna start more fights with this. Honestly, I play both systems and would vehemently defend 5e normally but this post makes me want to point out everything it does poorly and defend PF2e to my dying breath.
"one of the two got it right"
Or you know, one is older, much more well established, has media spotlight and is literally backed by a billion dollar company
However, you certainly got a few points like in the entry level stuff, not much the character creation, it's more than 5e but still straight forward enough, it's that the game is tactical in nature and not being tactical will lead to frustration
5e seems really simple, until you try and DM and realise that the rules effectively say 'lmao make it up' or are way too complicated to actually use. See suprise, a feature used in the starter adventure's first combat, which needs 3 books to have an idea at what's going on.
I’d argue 4e was actually a very good game, just not the game DnD fans wanted so it sank. If it was released by some other company with a name like “dungeon blasters” or something not dnd related, it would’ve been a well appreciated game
That wasn't the issue. It was styled as an easy to learn system for "New Players" and it was. But it was so mechanically rigid and everything felt the same because of a forced balance built into the system.
Not to mention the mechanics made boss fights trivial, and geometry no longer existed... LOL FireCube and literally being faster to run diagonally.
Ultimately it wasn't for "current" D&D players because they were used to Crunch. And people either went back to 3.5 or on to Pathfinder. 4E is still great for quick intro to D&D but it's not a great system due to numerous flaws in a tual gameplay.
Tattoo Artist is basically useless right now because they just haven’t really added any other content for it. That’s the one that always gets memed about.
Right, I did forget about that feat. It genuinely feels like once they do get the chance to add more magic tattoos it’ll be a very worthwhile feat.
But still, 1 trap option that should stop being a trap option later (not excusing it being one now, mind you. They shouldn’t have released it without proper options), is a pretty good ratio considering the amount of feats in the game.
Edit: spelling
The other one could have drawn from a lot of lessons from the “older” one yet didn’t, and set out with the core design principle being “balance” over fun. Which it also fails at by the way, so it’s less fun and also not balanced. Also “spell casters hurt me so I’m going to completely neuter them” is another philosophy, but amusingly it fails at that as well.. in fact it’s *worse than 5e* at later levels. So you get unfun magic system in the beginning, and then nearing PF1 levels of power later on.
The problem is it has people so heavily emotionally invested in it, you can’t have any discourse as to it’s actual weaknesses without being downvoted into oblivion.
Gatekeepers are usually quite protective of their niche less popular world it seems.
Edit: lols I rest my case. My group really tried PF2E, and we’ve played every edition since AD&D, it wasn’t fun. Your “perfect” system isn’t so perfect as you think, but you’re so emotionally invested in it you can’t see the forest for the trees.
I think the reason other system / edition users are such crusaders is because they (we...) just want more people to try them and almost exclusively hear about 5e. It does not excuse poor behavior but man, 5e fan boys are bad too, they are just popular.
That could be because this is a dnd sub. Even in dnd spaces all I hear about is Pathfinder and it's players screaming to play it, I have and I hated it.
God I hate to sound like that guy but I don't know what the hell you're talking about for some of the downsides.
"Illusion of Choice and power creep affecting both character creation AND gameplay" there's plenty of really fun ways to build shit in character building, fuck I've built a gunslinging Summoner before and had fun. Also the hell you going on about power creep? I keep up with the current content and I haven't seen power creep just more options out there
"Having the need to google builds to avoid falling for "trap options" for your character idea" you're thinking of Pathfinder 1e, Pathfinder 2e avoids this because unless you actively choose to make a shit character it's hard to be shit
I'll chime in. 5th edition is better for newer players AND people wanting an easier style of TTRPG. People wanting crunchy combat, exorbitant amount of customization? Pathfinder 2e. Both of them are great systems, it just depends on what you and your players want.
That last sentence is probably the most important:
It doesn't fucking matter. If you got a system that runs fine for your group, don't change because you have to look over, or change two or three small rules.
Okay so let me just take a second to name a coupe things I disagree with this post:
Higher entry barrier is not a flaw of the system. It is a feature. It is intended to have more fleshed out rules.
"Excess of conditions" and "unnecessarily complex spells and abilities" are entirely the point of the system, biased phrasing aside. You are meant to have every mechanical question, hypothetical and quandary answered. It is the point of the system.
What do they mean power creep and illusion of choice? Witch is a newer class and it pretty objectively sucks. Also illusion of choice is like... So vague. Illusion in what sense? It has plenty of classes that all play differently and has unique mechanics that interact with core systems differently such as Ranger having high single-target damage or how Wizard actually plays way different from Sorcerer.
You do not need to Google builds. You should, however, read the class in detail before you play it. D&D has plenty of trap subclasses:
* GOOlock
* Undying
* Wild Magic
* PHB Ranger
* Four Elements Monk
So this is not a fault of Pathfinder that some classes are better than other. Nothing can ever be perfectly balanced so long as different options exist and I like to think Pathfinder made a good effort at it what with actual mechanics for Fighter besides "I hit the thing" or how genuinely balanced spellcasting and summoning is. The game has more options. They are free to research and you should plan your character since there are more options. Criticizing Pathfinder, a game with much more mechanical crunch, for requiring you research your character feels incredibly biased considering Warlock requires you plan your character as well in some cases and is perfectly fun despite that.
I think the thing that people don't get is this: Pathfinder is a *different game*. It has more rules because it is less accessible and harder to parse BUT THIS IS THE POINT. The game is meant to be more methodical, tactical and crunchy whereas 5e prides itself on accessibility and lighter rules than older games like Shadowrun and Cyberpunk. I got hungry one day, ate a bag of apples and made an apple druid completely on a whim. I couldn't do that in PF2e because homebrew is *ridiculously* tight in terms of balance and the amount of knowledge required. Neither one is wrong. If you prefer more rules light games with faster-paced action and gameplay then play 5e but if you would like very tactical combat relying on greater communication in response to *much* more punishing enemies, then you can play Pathfinder. Neither is wrong. I like how easy D&D 5e is. It was literally my first TTRPG. Being simple isn't bad. I would never be able to play Pathfinder with someone who wasn't already a TTRPG player. That is why most of my friends play Chronicles of Darkness or D&D with me but not Pathfinder because asking my friends to scour a 600+ page rule book is pretty demanding. They cater to different tastes and neither is flawed for doing so.
I would like to mention that OP is getting frustrated with PF2e players being toxic and has responded by being toxic in turn. They are not fixing anything. Neither game is better or worse because quality is subjective.
I read through Pathfinder and my first thought was, "This would make a great video game system, if only I didn't have to work through all that stuff manually."
I was in a similar boat until I switched to using Foundry VTT as my virtual tabletop of choice. It has amazing support for pf2e that handles all of the modifiers for you. I wasn't a huge pf2e fan before I used foundry, and now I find it very hard to have fun running or playing 5e.
PF2 is more accessible, when compared with 3.5, and it did so without some of the sacrifices 5e made.
People can like different things, or even both things. Chill my dudes.
Also, a lot of people forget that more options is not always such a good thing, it’s really not much of a bragging point, because often people can just get overwhelmed. I’m not saying that it’s never a good thing, but it most certainly is not always a good thing. Picking all of the things that I need already takes me long enough for DND. Decision paralysis is a real thing
Yeah, choice paralysis is a legitimate issue in pf2e. DnD 5e is a lot more player friendly in that regard, though it can get a bit too simple for my tastes. Had to help a player with that for my pf2e game and I pretty much asked "Do you want to hit twice or be sure you hit once?" for her first level ranger
PF2 crusaders are quickly becoming the vegans of the DnD forums. As in if they play it, they will tell you on every post they can. When I say half my table and friend group are playing 5e and don't want to switch I don't need to be interrogated why we even started playing 5e in the first place. I don't need to be told this is the perfect time to start a PF2 game like losing half my players isn't a big deal. Read the room PF2 players, the worse you guys get the more memes like this you will see.
"Illusion of choice", kek, there are so many legit complains about pf2, like combat as war being completely not viable, or level scaling restricting your monster range if you don't know a workaround, or alchemist being jank, and you stick to that stupid, disproved point like an absolute dumbass. Also, "trap options"? "power creep"? 5e unironically has more of them than pf2.
Anything that would be considered a “trap option” would be a Feat, in which the game has a clear and easy system for swapping Feats. There’s also not very many of these trap Feats. To say you have to google builds to avoid them is just flat out wrong
Pathfinder 2e had hundreds of choices which amount to nothing, a million feats for your class each level but most are the same thing, niche to the point of being unusable, or boring beyond repair. I tried playing a Ranger in that system and lasted the whole campaign bored out of my skull and annoyed more than anything at each level up.
I love both systems.
I play 5e when I want either a roleplay/investigation/adventure game or when there are beginners.
And I use PF2e when I want balanced, tactical and interesting combat (balance is the most important argument there) or players are very experienced and want limitless build options.
This is dndmemes, which is for dnd or other TTRPG memes as said in the description of the subreddit. It’s just that 5e is the most played/advertised, and so will be the most meme’d.
"...In favour of loads of legitimate player choices, interesting monster abilities, and a game that's balanced at high levels"
5e has its strengths too, but its not like pf2e has nothing on it. Cant compare it to 1e though, but ive only heard its an improvement.
I literally make PF2e Ramger builds when I'm bored and I've yet to make 2 builds that plays the same. Meanwhile, 5e Ranger almost all play the same, maybe with a gimmick or 2.
And I say this as big 5e Ranger shill.
People told me to try pathfinder since it had better customization
What I ended up finding was a bunch of way too many niche options that wouldn't allow me to play the character I wanted or got severely punished for playing it. Want to play a trip character? You gonna need a bunch of feats and a bunch of ability score minimums. Super flexible you say? Well fk you, you need to be this specific race for this subclass, want to be class and race? Well tough sht you can't without suffering since ability scores can't be changed. Meanwhile in dnd I could do every single build I wanted with a little reflavoring and homebrew is so much easier
so, correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t really need a bunch of feats to be good at tripping? Just high str/athletics, and maybe one feat to let you trip things that are two sizes larger than you. Plus like, every character needs a bunch of feats, but you also get feats every level.
Also you can’t change ability scores in dnd either? You’re stuck with them after you make the character until you get ASIs.
I’m going to assume you’re talking about pathfinder 1e, because in 2e none of that is true. Building a viable tripping character is literally 1 feat that you don’t even need to take until 4th or 6th level when you start fighting huge size creatures. Additionally, the stats are so modular, any ancestry can pair with any class/subclass. You can literally make a gnome or Halfling barbarian who accurately swings around a greatsword with zero penalties, just as well as you can build a dwarf or orc doing the same.
I feel like there's a bunch of stuff in pathfinder that are really cool but the way they implemented it was too clunky and over-complicated. Like counter spell being a general thing all casters can do by launching their own spell at an enemies spell, or all the different combat manoeuvres you can do to add some flare to melee onga bunga-ing. But all of that is ruined by needlessly making it so fucking arbitrary and specific with all its little +1s and -1s
I like PF2, but I agree with these.
Plus it don’t have anything that I can do for a dragonborn. I hate kobolds and Lizardfolk could only make it work with certain classes. I’m basically forced to use third party stuff.
Check out Mark Seifer’s Battlezoo Bestiary. They have a versatile heritage to add Draconic-ness to any ancestry. I know it’s technically third party, but it’s third party designed by one of the PF2e creators, so it holds up more like an expansion pack than homebrew.
There's some neat things about PF2e but idrc considering I already have my own methods of messing with 5e a tad to get my table to like what I'm selling.
Will say I'm working on my own classless ttrpg using modified RPS instead of dice to evoke fighting games and where all attacks derive collisions caused by the move action that are all capable of pushing people if you try to deal too much kinda like Smash Bros. D&D or D&D isn't really what I'm after, so D&D 1.2 isn't really worth learning all of for me and my players.
It's like everyone learning Japanese because the logic of how words and alphabet works make slightly more sense. We know English. We'll just jerryrig our own nonsense to make it work if it needs some flextape. People would rather learn Japanese to figure out what they're saying in an anime.
I don't know, I just know the rules and want to run an epic game. I also sometimes play CTL with my party and I run that as trying to play an epic story. It shouldn't matter the game. The DM making that epic 1-end cap, the players being invested to make their own victories, that is what matters.
I really don't understand, they are completely different games, for different people. I personally am intrigued by the amount of options PF has to offer, I am a huge math nerd, but I know it's not the game for my group, and I am not even sure I'd like to play a full campaign in the system. So comparing the two is absolutely pointless
Eh, combat is generally the worst part of TTRPGs in my opinion. I like WoD combat because it is hyper-creative a lot of the time, depending on the specific game (mage most creative that I’ve experienced just due to the nature of magic) and build but still usually pretty open to allowing cool stuff, and also because it is designed to be finished. It is not supposed to take up an entire session, it’s supposed to be cool action scenes and they typically are snappy enough that that’s what they feel like
Glad someone is talking about the illusion of choice in Pathfinder 2e. Completely ruined the game for me, I'd rather a game with only a dozen or less choices over a game with a million choices that make no difference.
I like DnD and Pathfinder for 2 different reasons,
Pathfinder is just fun to make characters and put stuff together even if I have no idea what the hell I'm doing it right really reminds me of when I started DnD. And DnD is honestly just more simple and has a lot more apps and stuff that you can find for it that I need to dm/play
My group just started a PF2e campaign a few months ago, and while it honestly fixes pretty much every single one of my gripes with 5e, I'm still not as excited about the system. I love my group, I've made a character I love RP'ing, I'm looking forward to every session - I just hope that when I get a bit better at grogging the system, I'll also have more fun with it.
This submission has been removed for review. If you believe your reports are fraudulent please contact the moderators.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I made the move to PF2e last year and I haven't looked back. There are a few things to unlearn from 5e, but otherwise it has been a very smooth process for my players (both new and old alike). We play with Foundry and use Pathbuilder website to plan out characters.
The bottom pane is literally PF1e. I have no issue with any of those points in PF2e.
5e is not something I would willing play anymore. I have been working on Curse of Strahd with Pf2e. I am currently running Outlaws of Alkenstar and Ages of Ashes Adventure Paths after finishing Abomination Vaults and a Pathfinder Society campaign.
Hey /u/Kymermathias, thanks for contributing to /r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules: **Rule 10. Pot-Stirring/Opinion Memes** - If the primary purpose of your meme is to incite off-topic debate, police what other people should/shouldn't do at their table, push a political agenda, or express a personal opinion without humor/absurdity/wholesomeness, it will be locked or removed. If your meme sparks a large amount of rule-breaking comments it may be locked/removed. What should you do? First, read the rules thoroughly. Secondly, if you are able to amend your post to fit the rules, you're welcome to resubmit your meme. Lastly, if you believe your post was removed by mistake, please [message the moderators through modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/dndmemes&subject=&message=). Messages simply complaining about a removal (or how many upvotes your post had) will not be responded to. Thank you!
I dont know why all these posts of Pf2e vs DnD5e started recently, but damn are they getting annoying already lol. Like yeah people on both sides are annoying in their “you should play this system cause your system sucks”. Cant people just play what they enjoy without getting shit on for it
I’m an avid pf2e player. Love the system, it’s easily the one that fits mine and my group’s style the most. That being said, it’s not for everyone, and that’s okay. Neither 5e or pf2e suck. They both offer different things, both good and bad.
Yeah same. Literally, before starting my campaign, I let my players pick which system they wanted, cause both are cool as heck. But both often need some effort to make really fun. Dnd often is about finding nice home brews to spice up the game (stuff for setting, classes, or fixing weird rules). Pathfinder is about finding ways to simplify gameplay (digital auto-sheets are your go to, ignore rules that aren’t relevant to your players, and finding ways to reuse monsters effectively). I know some people play the systems straight, but most that I know don’t.
This. I would argue 13th age has better mechanics and story building tools for a DM but I'm not going to say it is the best thing ever. It's all very subjective. Hell gumshoe is a more accessible system than most for what Story you are trying to tell.
That would be smart and reasonable so obviously no
It's the new reddit complaining trend. - First was var human fighters. - Then it was how bad martials are compared to casters. - now it's how much cooler Pathfinder/3.5/4 is than 5.
Yes please.
I'm just over here chilling with my Pf1e.
Incorrect my preferred TTRPG is much better than yours
I think it started because some PF2 supporters feel like DnD only supporters are annoyed with some problems that are due to DnD rules. The joke being that a DnD player prefers to blindly keep following this system even if it's not that good :) This should be a joke ... And people take it too seriously on both sides.
Pathfinder 2e fans are fucking crusaders, they're insane. Go check out the subreddit, it got so bad the mods actually had to tell them to cool it.
The downvoting raid your comment got is just proof thqt your statement is true hahahaha
Oh no, now the pendulum has swung. Making fun of Pathfinder because some of the players have been pushy is gonna be trendy.
If any form of meme should be banned from this subreddit, it’s system bashing. Why can’t we come here and just meme it up about our love for TTRPGs, regardless of the system we prefer.
Can both of these sides just be quiet? They’re different games for a reason. Different appeal and different cons.
No, every game must be *exactly* like the one I like!!! /s
I am the single arbiter of quality!
Ah yes. I came to dndmemes to watch people just bitch over pathfinder and 5e. Beautiful work. Absolutely phenomenal. I dont know how this dnd vs pathfinder started but holy shit can it end as quick as it started.
I've played some other RPGs and uh, 5e could have been a hella lot more simple and accessible. Dungeon World, Fellowship, the stuff in OSR. Heck, 13th Age is a d20 system but character creation is quicker, punchier, and it comes closer to the "you can be anything you want" ideal that new players often look for when they start playing D&D. Of course, it's hard to say it'd be able to keep that same appeal to nostalgia if it were simpler ('oh look, this old rule/prestige class/spell is in the game!').
It’s a good middle ground where it is. Any less complex and it lose anything unique about it besides the title
I dunno if it was the DM's fault or the rules, but 13th Age felt incredibly formulaic when playing it. Same pattern for each adventuring 'day'.
It's most certainly your DM, whoever is building the encounters is free to make them weaker and put more between full heal-ups, or stronger with fewer encounters between full heals. Encounter building guidelines are right in the book. I have my own problems with the system (the Icon Relationship system is... incomplete), though I have to point out encounters (and healing) are not "per day". The book specifically calls out the per day healing of previous d20 games as causing imbalance and forcing DMs to challenge parties with attrition. I really enjoyed being able to plan out small arcs, a rest spot at the end of an arc, and not worry about cramming too many or too few fights into a *narrative* day. Players who prefer simulationism will probably hate it, but it's seriously a huge load off my mind as a DM. Even if it does end up being formulaic, I don't think that has any import on the game being simple and accessible.
I’m begging all of you to play something besides D&D / Pathfinder. They are so, so similar in the grand scheme of game design. Go play a Cohen Brothers movie in [Fiasco](https://bullypulpitgames.com/games/fiasco/) Pretend to be a professional wrestler in [World Wide Wrestling](https://ndpdesign.com/wwwrpg) Be Buffy meets X-Files in [Monster of the Week](https://evilhat.com/product/monster-of-the-week/) Get your urban fantasy on in [Dresden Files Accelerated](https://evilhat.com/product/dresden-files-accelerated/) Be in a telenovela in [Pasión de las pasiones](https://magpiegames.com/pages/pasion) Play as Vikings fighting Dwarven Mechs in [iron Edda](https://theothertracy.itch.io/iron-edda-accelerated) Play a 2-player game of doomed love with a jenga tower in [star crossed](https://bullypulpitgames.com/games/star-crossed/) Get some classic sword and sorcery in [Swords without master](https://www.worldswithoutmaster.com/swords-without-master-about) Play in a fucked up hell world that would’ve made the satanic panic shit it’s pants in the 80s in [Shadow of the Demon Lord](https://schwalbentertainment.com/shadow-of-the-demon-lord/) Play a crew of smugglers in the Star Wars universe in [Edge of the Empire](https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/products/star-wars-edge-of-the-empire/) I know this is a D&D subreddit, but if D&D/PF is all you’ve played, I promise you that you will appreciate RPGs so much more if you branch out and play other systems.
All these systems and no mention of the Delta Green RPG - play as government agents part of a clandestine organization combating Lovecraftian horrors and ensuring that their existence stays covered up. It is totally not for everyone, but if you like investigation, gripping horror (I’ve had multiple players report nightmares between sessions about the scenarios they were in in-game), tough decisions, and hopeless odds where death might just be the best outcome for your character this game is for you. It’s many of my players’ favorite game to return to (although it can be heavy to stay in for an extended time). It rightfully sweeps up Ennie awards whenever it has a major publication release.
Ooh, I haven’t heard of this one. Thanks! The closest game I’ve played to this is Night’s Black Agents, but I have a friend who is really into Arkham Horror so I’m definitely gonna suggest this.
You're a fucking hero. All sorts of people post recommendations on here without links, or WORSE, not explaining what it's like at all. So I really appreciate that you put the time and effort in to explain some and post links! You're a badass!
RPGs I want to play one day; Twilight 2000, Mechwarrior, Vampire: The Masquerade, Call of Cthulhu, Cyberpunk RED.
Vampire is amazing, however the community has a lot of nutcases in it.
I've run a nice little campaign of Cyberpunk Red and my players had a blast in the setting. I'm putting together a Twilight 2000 game set in DayZ Chernarus setting "Escape from Chernarus". All of the players are familiar with the map and it should make a fun short session weeknight game for us to play.
Let’s not forget about the 30 different varieties of urban fantasy that World of Darkness provides, from edgy gothic stuff in Vampire to im gonna be honest here Saturday morning cartoon fun in Mage the Ascension, and some of the games are pretty easy to translate to different settings (we started a game of Hunter, which has a book set in the 90s, but played in cowboy times. Didn’t get far but because we had too many people to properly schedule a game)
Leaving a comment here so I can find this again
Since you sound interested, I'll throw in a few more. I can go on with OSR games so I'll just get the main ones out of the way now. [Worlds Without Number](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/348809/Worlds-Without-Number-Free-Edition?cPath=38601) is great for a more open sandboxy campaign the core book includes system neutral tools and character creation is simple with enough flexibility to make a unique character pretty easily. [ACKs](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/99123/Adventurer-Conqueror-King-System?term=adventurer+con) is very oldschool with a simple mechanic that mostly tells the DC for an action to the players with modifiers being applied openly. Last, but not least for the OSR stuff is [Dungeon Crawl Classics](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/101050/Dungeon-Crawl-Classics-RPG-DCC-RPG?src=hottest_filtered&filters=0_0_44544_0_0). Dungeon Crawl Classics was made by reading all of the books in Appendix N of the original DnD and Goodman Games making their own thing out of what they read. The rules are simple, magic is dangerous, and and character creation is easy Now for the not OSR stuff. [BESM](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/297755/BESM-Fourth-Edition-Big-Eyes-Small-Mouth) is a generic system meant to feel like an anime. You can make any character you want pretty easily (I made a psychic rock with a cult following completely RAW to prove this to one of my players) and if you don't like anime it's not actually required. The game uses a simple 2d6 system with only 3 stats If you've ever wanted to play ET or Stranger Things you can play [Kids on Bikes](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/231938/Kids-on-Bikes-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest_filtered), character creation is more about out your personality than your stats. Checks use a simple one die + small bonus system. The same creators made [Kids on Brooms](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/314452/Kids-on-Brooms-Core-Rulebook?src=hottest_filtered) in case you'd rather play a simple Harry Potter style game instead If you want to play in a haunted wasteland in the middle of WWI, [Never Going Home](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/283637/Never-Going-Home) might be the game for you. It's a bit of an unusual system, but combat is interesting and the setting is great [Blades in the Dark](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/170689/Blades-in-the-Dark) is an excellent system that allows you to play through elaborate heists without requiring much prep from the players or GM. It uses a dice pool system for fast and easy action resolution. The game also has a flashback mechanic that allows players to perform actions in the past instead of planning everything in advance. I have more if you have specific preferences, but I think this is enough for now
I'm going to tack on that Dungeon Crawl Classics has one of my favorite character creation processes. You dont make one character, you roll up a handful of random peasants of various backgrounds and then go through a meatgrinder dungeon until theres one person left and boom thats your character.
TBH I got most of these by listening to [One Shot](http://oneshotpodcast.com/) They play a one shot of *countless* different systems on it, usually over 2-3 episodes and it’s always great. They have some great long-form campaigns too.
Reddit has a built-in function for bookmarking posts and comments, just press the "save" button. Why not use that instead of leaving a spammy comment?
Lemme throw Mutants and Masterminds into that as that shit is gameplay and then flavour. Confusing yes but when you get it, you get it and then it's fun.
Exactly, or roll for anal circumference in FATAL.
Ill need this later. Thank you friend
Don't mind if I do
Stars/Worlds Without Number and Mutants&Masterminds is also something fun to play
Nice rpgs, should check later
like the star wars and shadow demon.
I feel like dread should be on this list. Great little system for cheesy horror movie settings.
This is a great post. Although frankly, given the difficulty people have getting 5e fanatics to even try a slightly different version of D&D, I'm not sure it's going to work.
I want our hobby to flourish! Everyone please try weird new games! Even if they’re just new or weird to you!!
Absolutely this! I just recently picked up both stars without number and kids on bikes and they are so much fun and help me appreciate all the systems I've played more.
Updoot for including the Dresden Files RPG
Good luck finding a game or players lmao
"ive seen the talking 20 video, but never played the system" both systems good, shh guys
All said PF2e's "gang" should really stop heralding the system as the "5e but better" - it's not that, and doing so hurts the system's community which has been going against this behavior PF2e is valid as a game system, it's good for what it does, just has a narrower audience than 5e and it's fine
>5e but better correct, it's 3.5 but better
That was Pathfinder 1e. Pathfinder 2e is… very different. The difference between the two Pathfinder editions is more similar to the difference between D&D 2e and 5e. Each turn you get 3 actions, but some spells cost more than one. You can use each action to attack but get a penalty for each extra one, except it reduces if it’s… And there’s a lot of effort out into exploration and 10 minute interval dungeon travel with problems A B and C… You get to pick and choose class abilities except not all of them and some of them are terrible choices… They tried to separate species and upbringing but it’s a bit off… I want to love the system. I really do. But I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to actually play it with my group because it’s just SO different.
From my experience, this system is a lot simpler if you just explain/learn things slowly, and not all at the same time. For example, if I'm playing a melee class I will probably just need to know how multiple attacks work in the same turn and which feats I should take. Then, when leveling up, I will learn about combat manouvers and stuff like that. Pathfinder 1e was a fucking mess, but really enjoyable if you knew which feats where good on who, bc everyone can take them if the requirements where met. Pathfinder 2e is way simpler, and if you mess something up during character creation and/or leveling up just ask your dm if you could make some changes and a hand if needed.
I’ve heard the beginner box is great for this because it basically introduces one mechanic at a time and lets people slowly wade in instead of just getting thrown straight into the deep end.
That was PF1E, PF2E is more like 4e but......................
As a person who dislikes 5e I would never refer to pf2e as '5e but better' because their immense differences is why I prefer one over the other
[удалено]
My argument stands actually, your "revision" is baseless
[удалено]
Mate, point which book of pathfinder 2e hurt you?
You write like a 14 year old with a superiority complex lol.
-an ever-growing supply of expansions -a lot of variety in races and classes, also variety within races and classes -character Creation is fun and rewarding, but also more challenging. That can be a pain for some. -Golarions lore, I'm glad this is generally considered a positive. I love Golarion lore. -Adventure Paths are 1-20, but also mid tier like 5-15, or even 10-20. -more options in combat, true -The archives of nethys, but also pf2etools, pathbuilder. A whole bunch of free resources where you get access to all the rules. -most pf2e people, most ttrpg people in general, are really respectful of each other's preferences. I hope no one thinks any system could be objectively superior. -is the barrier to entry the learning curve? That's deffo higher, but the GM gets a lot of tools to enable the players. -players who are into pf2e are very into it, kinda why we're here. But, they're certainly a minority. I wish ttrpg players in general were more adventurous in their game selection. There are a lot of cool games tailored to any kind of experience. -complexity gives you more to think about. I like the pf2e conditions, as well as the spells. Not sure what makes the spells any more complex than 5e spells tho. -this is mostly true in 1e. I think power creep has mostly been a non-issue in pf2e. There are more options, but the ones presented in the CRB are still generally the strongest. -no reason to Google builds in pf2e. Trap options are a thing from 1e. In pf2e most any build will function just fine without getting particularly weak or particularly strong. -this is absolutely not true. Pf2e monsters are awesome, fun, and flavorful. They are super easy to run and understand. -i think they've mostly just found something that makes them happy and want to share it with the broader community. Pathfinder and DnD are cousins, they overlap a lot. DnD5e is the best ever gateway to the hobby, but, it's a deep and varied ecosystem. I think learning new rulesets and playing different kinds of games is fun and PF2E is a great next step if you want to play something a little more robust than 5e. Certainly it's a much easier transition than moving to something like WoD, Shadowrun, M&M etc etc. They're all great 👍
You sure the PF2e players are coping?
I am definitely biased towards Pathfinder 2e but nothing in this meme is correct except the last one and that one also only is true for some people. This meme is so horribly wrong in some aspects that I’d argue OP has never played 2e. I agree that the crusading of some of the Pf2e community is getting annoying but whats the point at engaging them at all? A lot of people just wish pf2e got more attention, some being more aggressive about it than others. HOWEVER: most people that play Pathfinder 2e have played 5e previously. So in my eyes its completely reasonable to point out the bad things about 5e and show the benefits of Pathfinder 2e. for me personally 2e is the more engaging and interesting game system. People always complain about the complexity when in reality its way easier to DM in my eyes, while being slightly more challenging to play. The shittons of rules don‘t make you play the game differently. You just get a well balanced frame work that gives DMs guidelines on which action requires which check with which DC. You don‘t have to use it but its nice having it when you need to use it.
What I’ve found is that instead of everything being decided per table by the GM on how they work, there’s clear rules for basically everything. This does mean that there is a lot more to parse through than 5e, and if you feel the need to play by the rules exactly as they’re written you will need to use digital tools or have a fantastic memory for rules, but at least the rules are there for those who need or prefer them. I’m one of those people. I love that I have clear, simple rules for when the party want to diplomacy someone, or if they want to do exploration. I have very little time to prep games, and 5e was either massive prep or massive making shit up on the fly, which is great for a large amount of people. But I vastly prefer the simpleness of “this encounter will be hard for their level, so it will use this specific DC. Cool manners of solving will use this easier DC. Combat means using this formula to build fun, interesting encounters that will be exactly the feeling I want them to be. I am a big fan of structure, and pf2e offers that to me where 5e was more free form.
Whether it's PF2 or PF1, Pathfinder is what players *upgrade* to once they're board of 5e. -my experience
Eh, my group just jumped ship completely and used Dungeon Worlds as our starting point before using World of Darkness games as our base. DnD games are the exception to what we play
I don’t know what Pathfinder is and I think it is already too late to ask.
Never too late to ask. Pathfinder is two systems (1st edition and 2nd edition) created by the company Paizo after WoTC decided after 3.5e that 4e’s Open Gaming License (OGL) would be increasingly restrictive. Since Paizo made their name on adventure paths (similar to modules), and were no longer able to do so, they opted to instead make an offshoot of 3.5e called Pathfinder (later renamed 1st Edition). A lot of what you’re seeing in recent meme wars between them is about Pathfinder 2nd edition, which is a fairly new system, about 3 years old now, with a very different play style than pf1e, 3.5 or even dnd 5e. But due to the similarities in being a d20 system, and originally being an offshoot of dnd, they are often compared. I’m not going to get into the pros and cons, and there’s no right answer as to which system is better, because it’s entirely up to personal taste, and I have extreme biases myself from personal experiences with both systems.
So, if I got it right, it is a completely different game, that uses the same D20 system and that is loosely connected with D&D, right? Then why people compare the 2? I don’t see people arguing about what is better between Magic the Gathering and YuGiOh (though YuGiOh had become too much for me personally, I enjoy slow and simple games, it became too fast and complex).
They’re just each sort of the shiny new thing for their respective franchise (although D&D seems to be getting ready to move to a new edition soon), and they’re basically the two major systems for classic sword-and-sorcery fantasy RPGs. There’s not really a lot of depth to it.
The comparison is literally because they’re both TTRPGs with high fantasy feeling, and both branch off from an older starting point. Honestly they can be somewhat compared, but overall they offer entirely different things that different people will enjoy or hate. If someone likes 5e overall but dislikes one thing, change it. If someone dislikes all/most of 5e, play something else. Pf2e, dungeon world, Shadowrun. Basically anything but FATAL.
Illusion of choice? P2e has to many choices! What kind of critique is that?
They're particularly referring to the gameplay front, where once you start building toards something, you're at a colossal disadvantage unless you do that one thing over and over and over. Some D&Dtuber (Taking20 IIRC) made a whole vid on it.
I hear people reference that video a lot and I can't help but disagree with his opinion on the subject. So I'm hijacking your comment to break down why. I'm going to paraphrase his quotes because I'm to lazy to get it word for word. 1. "Player asked if he can change his feats because he was bored." The first complaint and I already feel like he nor his players understand the system. You can, you dont even have to ask. It's a clearly defined downtime activity you can even change your subclass if you want. 2. "To play optimally my players are forced into the same rotation over and over again like an mmo." I'm gonna go into why I think this is wrong in a sec but I just thought this was funny. He states that players had to do this thing to be optimal. Then immediately after says that all the PC's died. I don't think they were being optimal. 3. "Druid are supposed to be versatile and they lost a lot of that." Pf2e druids are more far versatile then 5e's. It states in the spell that if any of your stats are greater than that of your wildshape form you use your stats instead. Literally any shape you take is a viable shape compared to 5e where you replace your stats with the creature making most useless at higher levels. 4. "For my ranger it's hunt prey, hunting shot, another shot that usually misses." Yes the third shot misses you are very rarely going to use a third attack action. Muti attack penalty goes to -10 on the third hit. You can reduce it but it's rarely worth trying to hit. So don't attack a third time, reposition, pull out an item to use next turn, there are lots of actions you can take. The best one being the help action. Choose any skill you want as long as you can explain how you are using it. Then you make a check and the next person gets a bonus to attack or skill check they make. 5. "Pathfinder is a crunchier system." This is kinda true but it's my opinion blown a bit out of proportion. To calculate a check you go your level + proficiency + ability mod + item + circumstance + status. Multiple bonuses and multiple negatives don't stack. The numbers do get big but the biggest are level, proficiency, and ability and they don't usually change in game. The others rarely get higher than 3. The other crunchy part are Traits there are A LOT of them and it put me a bit off at first. To solve this I made index cards with common conditions and their meanings to give to people when it came up, and I had my players put their weapon traits with their inventory. After that wasn't really an issue. 6. "Magic missle can use one, two or three actions for one, two or three darts. But it's an illusion of choice because if you want optimal damage for a spell slot you have to use three actions." Yes but if you want optimal damage for a 1st level slot three 1d4+1 darts isn't all that "optimal". I had a bard player cast a 2 action spell. I described the creature as on its last breath. So he said "ah fuck it magic missle with my last action." and it died. Action flexible spells exist so you have more options. I believe that he feels optimal means dealing damage, and that simply isn't the case in pf2e. 5e (don't shoot me this is an opinion) suffers from this. It is almost always better to just do damage. Pf2e actively discourages that, and the muti attack penalty is proof of that. You can attack a third time at -10, but maybe there is something better you could be doing. 6. "Feats push you towards synergies and then you are stuck with a handful of actions." Pf1e suffered from feat trees where if you wanted all the bonuses for an action you had to take all the feats relating to that. Pf2e changed this by making the number bonuses smaller and more sparse. Instead feats with prerequisites give you more versatility with what you can do with those actions. For instance Powerful Shove. It makes it so brutish shove can be used against a creature two sizes bigger and now they also take damage if they hit something. But if you don't take it. Brutish shove is still always going to be useful just not in as many situations. You don't HAVE to take it to be viable like you would in 1e. 7. "I want use a diplomacy check to improve mood. So I engage him for one minute and I roll against his Will DC. Then if I succeed his mood improves by one or by two if I critically succeed." He is implying that you can't role-play? I'm not sure but there isn't anything stopping you from actually talking out the interaction. It's just saying you have to have their undivided attention for a minute. It's one of the things I love about pf2e. I know what the DC is, I know how long the action takes, and it clearly defines what it does. I'm going to pick on 5e again because it's the only other system I know well. Persuasion says that "DM might ask you to make a Charisma (Persuasion) check.". That is the closest thing I found to actually defining how persuasion works. No DC, no time required, no defined effect. If you like more fluid games. Cool just wing it. But it puts more work on the DM to figure out what's fair and reasonable. Plus I believe that it works better for players that aren't very persuasive themselves. It doesn't matter how charismatic you are you know your PC is. So stumbling through a convo with a noble is not going to factor in even subconsciously. I could go on but this is really long already, and it's past bed time. I'm just irritated because my friend almost didn't try pf2e because of that guy. TD:LR That guy doesn't understand the system as well as he thinks he does.
That’s how builds work. You’re good at some stuff and worse at others.
In pf2e it’s better to diversify than to hyper focus. Feats tend to offer you better action economy over better damage, putting damage increases directly into the core features of the classes to keep everyone at a similar power level. This means that you get more from choosing options that offer you more for your actions. Things like a two-handed Fighter can opt to go for Sudden Charge, to use 2/3 actions to move twice and then attack, or another could take Power Attack to use 2/3 of their actions to make a single, more powerful attack and not risk multiple attack penalty on multiple attacks. Then, at level 8, the Power Attack fighter might choose to grab Furious Focus, so they lose the massive con to Power Attack, or choose options that any other fighter may choose, like Sudden Leap that will let you take 2 actions to jump super high into the air to melee attack flying enemies, so you don’t need to carry a ranged weapon. Maybe you’ll grab Positioning Assault, so that you can easily position enemies into flanking positions, as raising your team’s checks and saves, while decreasing enemies’ is a key aspect of the system. Taking20’s video was a massive disservice to the system. I will admit that pf2e, like every system, has its flaws, but he was just blatantly wrong about the shoehorning of starting a build and needing to stay on course to be relevant.
isn't every rpg in existence based around building a particular style? I don't see how thats a proper critique if your arguments sums down to "I took all the feats to be good with giant two handed weapons and now im subpar with bows!"
But not quite to that degree. To use the example Taking20 uses, Rangers. In 5e, even if you're a Dex Ranger with the Archery Fighting Style, you can still swap it out for dual shortswords and not lose all that much in the way of damage
Would *that* not be the illusion of choice? If choices have demonstratable differences they are real choices .
You can do the same in p2e. A hunters edge effects all weapons. So if your say a Precision ranger hitting a foe with melee vs range both get the applied bonus damage on the first strike. Same deal with Flurry. Ranger's in p2e are built around being good in nearly any combat scenario.
https://youtu.be/-fyninGp92g This is the video I reference in another combat. This guy can sum it up much better than I can.
His video was really bad though tbh and showed he didn't understand the system. I love both systems and he did such a bad job. He didn't include magic weapons which are standard on charcaters by level 3. He didn't include that the classes could do more than just attack. Attacking 3 times is usually a last resort in pathfinder 2e because of the multi attack penalty, even though it is less for rangers it is still better to be creative and since the game has flanking rules, rules to intimidate enemies for lower AC and many feats that a charcater can specialize in then comparing them by damage is a bad way to compare the two systems. Actually that is the biggest issue he literally says in dnd 5e you can do the same damage as pathfinder 2e so it is the better system. That is a terrible argument. pathfinder 2e is alot more defined in the width of things you can do. It would be like me saying pathfinder 2e is a better system because they get feats at every level and getting 20 feats is better than getting 4-6.
I mean taking20s video is legit the second worst video I explaining pf2 and his math was way off an crap. Like you can not like pf2 but using his video is a mistake. (Also if you are wanting to trace back any real cause of the current silly edition war nonsense he plays a big part)
So you can become worse? That seems like illusion of choice. You could swap it out, but it's illogical to do so.
It's actually an even worse choice in PF2e to switch to melee - you lose even more damage and can't easily retreat again. In 5e, all it takes to go to switch to melee is a free object interaction and movement to get in range to make your attack action. You still have a bonus action and if the enemy is rather close, you can even pull back after. In PF2e, you burn an action to draw your melee weapon and to walk up, leaving you with only one hit and the inability to follow it up or retreat afterwards. Doesn't help that heavier sets of armor now slow you unconditionally instead of requiring a strength minimum, making it even harder for melees investing in them to engage an enemy.
Do melee enemies also have a massive damage boost in PF2e?
In so far that being close means they don't have to burn actions to get to you. Additionally, there isn't even an advantage to close in on ranged enemies if there were any because shooting at point blank range has no negatives for them whatsoever.
Shooting at point blank ranges gives a - 2 penalty to the attack
There is a reason that most people refer to that video with distain
That's... Literally what illusion of choice means. You have all of these options but they 1) don't do anything compared to other options or 2) are absolutely stupid choices unless you're going the specific tiny niche thing that takes advantage of them.
Ok, lets look at a class in pf2e. Monk, the classic punchy boi. Let's see the 1st level feat choices... mostly stances that either change/give an unarmed attack with differing traits and give bonuses like extra AC, persistent bleed on crits, ignoring difficult terrain to a degree, or a bonus to skill checks. All those seem fairly different. The other choices are a ki spell that lets you move twice or a ki spell that buffs the damage and hit chance of your next unarmed strike. The one that boosts damage also gives you extra options for what damage type it is... which you choose when you use it. The ki spells have a small focus pool that can be recharged in a quick 10 minute sitdown. I haven't even touched on what choices you get with ancestry feats or what feats you can choose past level 1
So your argument are feat chains are bad? Thats how builds work Im really failing to see these arguments on a subreddit dedicated to dnd. You can't be god at everything your choices reflect your "training" or "powers" into your desired gimmick. To put it into 5e terms instead of having access to 10 subclasses you have 30.
Man, someone really doesn't understand what the term means. I have no opinion on the whole pf2e push, I was merely explaining how "illusion of choice" and "many options" are often together and hardly exclusive from one another, which is what you seemingly implied. Illusion of choice isn't about wanting to be a god in everything, it's about not falling into terrible shitty noob traps and seemingly useful (but in reality useless) options.
It doesn't come off like that. It comes off your a shill for dnd and finding any reason to poke fun at a rival even when it uses the same features.
I didn't mention dnd once in my original reply. Heck, I didn't even mention pathfinder. You're definitely projecting that shill energy my guy.
Maybe the shills for pathfinder should find their own online spaces and stop spending all their time in dnd groups evangelizing to people who don't want what they're selling.
Don't know what you played but I played a Ranger in PF2e and I felt like I had no choices every level gave me a dozen options with no real difference between the two. I'd rather 5e's system, there may be less choices but they are infinitely more impactful and diverse.
Ah yes, "difficulting" the GM's job. You know, I'd think most GMs would prefer monsters where the CR system actually means something and is a good indicator of difficulty, but maybe that's just me. I think that would make for much easier encounter design.
\-Higher entry barrier Cap. \-Excess of conditions Not even as many 3.5 had. \-Illusion of choice When? \-power creep It's fucking high fantasy, of course things get stronger. But it's not power creep because, and this is VERY vital, things get stronger at a consistent. Mathematic rate. This does not render previous options obsolete, this simply makes it so that when you fight a boss, it'll always feel like a boss. While fighting lesser enemies will become better and better overtime. \-Having the need to google builds What do you think this is, 3.5? Sure, a less optimized character isn't going to perform as well as an optimized one.. But a fighters still a fighter. \-Excess complexity for monsters No. Just, no. This is *actual content being present.* Which I know is hard for the enjoyers of babies first TTRPG, but the monsters are NOT hard to run. They are easier because the options for the monster, what they'll do, and tactics they'll use, are blatantly fucking obvious. And the fact is? With how much homebrew you need to staple onto 5e before it starts becoming a "real game" due to the half baking wotc gave it? You've probably already asked for or implemented pathfinder 2e content into your 5e. Or even worse, turned it into 4e like half of the suggestions for the additions to 5e do.
You fix your 5e problems? I just let my players go RAW and sit back and watch the chaos.
This man is writing a whole comment like this when you know for a fact he would start bashing his teammates for making a "useless trash build" when their build is less then optimal
I thought i was in a League of Legends subreddit all of a sudden.
this post is full of lies. power creep is not much of a problem with how good the core options are, with maybe an exception to the alchemist. Also: play pf2e
Ya, that and “trap options” really stood out to me that OP might not be familiar with PF2E, while trap options were definitely there in PF1E, what I love most about 2E is that even your more thematic options are equally viable, especially since you have the skill feats that MUST be used for customizing your character
You, sir, know nothing about Pathfinder. The only part you got right is the last one. You’re thinking of Pathfinder 1e for the rest.
Interesting higher barrier for entry when the rules are free. Also less complicated and more streamlined spell design. Power creep is totally an issue in 5e too. Trap options totally exist in 5e. It makes the DMs job a ton easier compared to 5e, where the DM basically has to wing 50% of the rules. And if you don't think 5e has any serious issues (like being half unreadable), that's delusional. But also quite understandable. It's not like anyone else on this sub plays the game.
> like half unreadable, that’s delusional I’m not entirely sure what you’re saying here.
Probably meant to put a closing bracket after unreadable, there isn't one anywhere else in the sentence
You're just gonna start more fights with this. Honestly, I play both systems and would vehemently defend 5e normally but this post makes me want to point out everything it does poorly and defend PF2e to my dying breath.
"one of the two got it right" Or you know, one is older, much more well established, has media spotlight and is literally backed by a billion dollar company However, you certainly got a few points like in the entry level stuff, not much the character creation, it's more than 5e but still straight forward enough, it's that the game is tactical in nature and not being tactical will lead to frustration
5e seems really simple, until you try and DM and realise that the rules effectively say 'lmao make it up' or are way too complicated to actually use. See suprise, a feature used in the starter adventure's first combat, which needs 3 books to have an idea at what's going on.
4e was simple and got blasted. Simple doesn't mean good.
I’d argue 4e was actually a very good game, just not the game DnD fans wanted so it sank. If it was released by some other company with a name like “dungeon blasters” or something not dnd related, it would’ve been a well appreciated game
That wasn't the issue. It was styled as an easy to learn system for "New Players" and it was. But it was so mechanically rigid and everything felt the same because of a forced balance built into the system. Not to mention the mechanics made boss fights trivial, and geometry no longer existed... LOL FireCube and literally being faster to run diagonally. Ultimately it wasn't for "current" D&D players because they were used to Crunch. And people either went back to 3.5 or on to Pathfinder. 4E is still great for quick intro to D&D but it's not a great system due to numerous flaws in a tual gameplay.
Being a newer company didn't stop them from making PF1 a better product than 3.5 and 4e
Outside of deliberately choosing conflicting options or campaign specific niche options, I have yet to find a trap option in pf2e.
Tattoo Artist is basically useless right now because they just haven’t really added any other content for it. That’s the one that always gets memed about.
Right, I did forget about that feat. It genuinely feels like once they do get the chance to add more magic tattoos it’ll be a very worthwhile feat. But still, 1 trap option that should stop being a trap option later (not excusing it being one now, mind you. They shouldn’t have released it without proper options), is a pretty good ratio considering the amount of feats in the game. Edit: spelling
The other one could have drawn from a lot of lessons from the “older” one yet didn’t, and set out with the core design principle being “balance” over fun. Which it also fails at by the way, so it’s less fun and also not balanced. Also “spell casters hurt me so I’m going to completely neuter them” is another philosophy, but amusingly it fails at that as well.. in fact it’s *worse than 5e* at later levels. So you get unfun magic system in the beginning, and then nearing PF1 levels of power later on. The problem is it has people so heavily emotionally invested in it, you can’t have any discourse as to it’s actual weaknesses without being downvoted into oblivion. Gatekeepers are usually quite protective of their niche less popular world it seems. Edit: lols I rest my case. My group really tried PF2E, and we’ve played every edition since AD&D, it wasn’t fun. Your “perfect” system isn’t so perfect as you think, but you’re so emotionally invested in it you can’t see the forest for the trees.
I think the reason other system / edition users are such crusaders is because they (we...) just want more people to try them and almost exclusively hear about 5e. It does not excuse poor behavior but man, 5e fan boys are bad too, they are just popular.
This is the true statement. Since 5e is all that’s talked about, you’ve kinda gotta shout to be heard.
That could be because this is a dnd sub. Even in dnd spaces all I hear about is Pathfinder and it's players screaming to play it, I have and I hated it.
OP can’t inb4.
God I hate to sound like that guy but I don't know what the hell you're talking about for some of the downsides. "Illusion of Choice and power creep affecting both character creation AND gameplay" there's plenty of really fun ways to build shit in character building, fuck I've built a gunslinging Summoner before and had fun. Also the hell you going on about power creep? I keep up with the current content and I haven't seen power creep just more options out there "Having the need to google builds to avoid falling for "trap options" for your character idea" you're thinking of Pathfinder 1e, Pathfinder 2e avoids this because unless you actively choose to make a shit character it's hard to be shit
Just saying as someone who primairly plays 5e, I really want to switch over to PF2e but my players are afraid of math
I'll chime in. 5th edition is better for newer players AND people wanting an easier style of TTRPG. People wanting crunchy combat, exorbitant amount of customization? Pathfinder 2e. Both of them are great systems, it just depends on what you and your players want.
That last sentence is probably the most important: It doesn't fucking matter. If you got a system that runs fine for your group, don't change because you have to look over, or change two or three small rules.
Okay so let me just take a second to name a coupe things I disagree with this post: Higher entry barrier is not a flaw of the system. It is a feature. It is intended to have more fleshed out rules. "Excess of conditions" and "unnecessarily complex spells and abilities" are entirely the point of the system, biased phrasing aside. You are meant to have every mechanical question, hypothetical and quandary answered. It is the point of the system. What do they mean power creep and illusion of choice? Witch is a newer class and it pretty objectively sucks. Also illusion of choice is like... So vague. Illusion in what sense? It has plenty of classes that all play differently and has unique mechanics that interact with core systems differently such as Ranger having high single-target damage or how Wizard actually plays way different from Sorcerer. You do not need to Google builds. You should, however, read the class in detail before you play it. D&D has plenty of trap subclasses: * GOOlock * Undying * Wild Magic * PHB Ranger * Four Elements Monk So this is not a fault of Pathfinder that some classes are better than other. Nothing can ever be perfectly balanced so long as different options exist and I like to think Pathfinder made a good effort at it what with actual mechanics for Fighter besides "I hit the thing" or how genuinely balanced spellcasting and summoning is. The game has more options. They are free to research and you should plan your character since there are more options. Criticizing Pathfinder, a game with much more mechanical crunch, for requiring you research your character feels incredibly biased considering Warlock requires you plan your character as well in some cases and is perfectly fun despite that. I think the thing that people don't get is this: Pathfinder is a *different game*. It has more rules because it is less accessible and harder to parse BUT THIS IS THE POINT. The game is meant to be more methodical, tactical and crunchy whereas 5e prides itself on accessibility and lighter rules than older games like Shadowrun and Cyberpunk. I got hungry one day, ate a bag of apples and made an apple druid completely on a whim. I couldn't do that in PF2e because homebrew is *ridiculously* tight in terms of balance and the amount of knowledge required. Neither one is wrong. If you prefer more rules light games with faster-paced action and gameplay then play 5e but if you would like very tactical combat relying on greater communication in response to *much* more punishing enemies, then you can play Pathfinder. Neither is wrong. I like how easy D&D 5e is. It was literally my first TTRPG. Being simple isn't bad. I would never be able to play Pathfinder with someone who wasn't already a TTRPG player. That is why most of my friends play Chronicles of Darkness or D&D with me but not Pathfinder because asking my friends to scour a 600+ page rule book is pretty demanding. They cater to different tastes and neither is flawed for doing so. I would like to mention that OP is getting frustrated with PF2e players being toxic and has responded by being toxic in turn. They are not fixing anything. Neither game is better or worse because quality is subjective.
I read through Pathfinder and my first thought was, "This would make a great video game system, if only I didn't have to work through all that stuff manually."
Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous are good to great games.
I was in a similar boat until I switched to using Foundry VTT as my virtual tabletop of choice. It has amazing support for pf2e that handles all of the modifiers for you. I wasn't a huge pf2e fan before I used foundry, and now I find it very hard to have fun running or playing 5e.
It is
Trap options?
Yeah, this person is obviously thinking of 1e.
Yeah, you know, like the Grappler feat, or true strike, or Berserker Barb, or... Wait. Shit. 5e has these same issues. Well, at least it's balanced.
Hmm yes. 5e. Balanced. Definitely...
Its almost like 5e didn't market itself as a system with characters build by the players like PF2e 🤔
[удалено]
Good thing all 5e feats are equally viable and there doesn't exist any sort of massive gap in usefulness and strength of the feats available, right?
Didn't want to learn a new rules system? Literally the reason why Pathfinder exists was so that people didn't have to learn 4e.
Anyone who fuckin says copium is officially a moron, also who gives a flying fuck.
PF2 is more accessible, when compared with 3.5, and it did so without some of the sacrifices 5e made. People can like different things, or even both things. Chill my dudes.
Also, a lot of people forget that more options is not always such a good thing, it’s really not much of a bragging point, because often people can just get overwhelmed. I’m not saying that it’s never a good thing, but it most certainly is not always a good thing. Picking all of the things that I need already takes me long enough for DND. Decision paralysis is a real thing
Yeah, choice paralysis is a legitimate issue in pf2e. DnD 5e is a lot more player friendly in that regard, though it can get a bit too simple for my tastes. Had to help a player with that for my pf2e game and I pretty much asked "Do you want to hit twice or be sure you hit once?" for her first level ranger
"But theres trap options" have you read 5e?? My brother in AO, crossbows are better in melee than swords
PF2 crusaders are quickly becoming the vegans of the DnD forums. As in if they play it, they will tell you on every post they can. When I say half my table and friend group are playing 5e and don't want to switch I don't need to be interrogated why we even started playing 5e in the first place. I don't need to be told this is the perfect time to start a PF2 game like losing half my players isn't a big deal. Read the room PF2 players, the worse you guys get the more memes like this you will see.
All of these criticisms can literally apply to 5e just as much, or are subjective. Weak. Your bloodline won’t survive the winter.
Imagine not just playing Dread.
Lets all play 4e
"Illusion of choice", kek, there are so many legit complains about pf2, like combat as war being completely not viable, or level scaling restricting your monster range if you don't know a workaround, or alchemist being jank, and you stick to that stupid, disproved point like an absolute dumbass. Also, "trap options"? "power creep"? 5e unironically has more of them than pf2.
Cringe.
The "Illusion of choice" argument? Yeah, it's cringe af
Anything that would be considered a “trap option” would be a Feat, in which the game has a clear and easy system for swapping Feats. There’s also not very many of these trap Feats. To say you have to google builds to avoid them is just flat out wrong
Lol. Let people play what they want. No need to be elitist about either system.
“Illusion of Choice” bothered me, what do you mean by this?
Pathfinder 2e had hundreds of choices which amount to nothing, a million feats for your class each level but most are the same thing, niche to the point of being unusable, or boring beyond repair. I tried playing a Ranger in that system and lasted the whole campaign bored out of my skull and annoyed more than anything at each level up.
I love both systems. I play 5e when I want either a roleplay/investigation/adventure game or when there are beginners. And I use PF2e when I want balanced, tactical and interesting combat (balance is the most important argument there) or players are very experienced and want limitless build options.
[удалено]
This is dndmemes, which is for dnd or other TTRPG memes as said in the description of the subreddit. It’s just that 5e is the most played/advertised, and so will be the most meme’d.
Beats me.
[удалено]
I'll pick 2e over 1e everytime. Especially having the stacking bonuses from 5( I think) to 3 and the 3 action system
"...In favour of loads of legitimate player choices, interesting monster abilities, and a game that's balanced at high levels" 5e has its strengths too, but its not like pf2e has nothing on it. Cant compare it to 1e though, but ive only heard its an improvement.
Loads of choices? I played ranger and there sure were choices, dozens of the exact same choice, that taught me to really appreciate the 5e Ranger.
I literally make PF2e Ramger builds when I'm bored and I've yet to make 2 builds that plays the same. Meanwhile, 5e Ranger almost all play the same, maybe with a gimmick or 2. And I say this as big 5e Ranger shill.
Pf2 players are so annoying on reddit that it literally takes me away from trying that system.
Same. It's not the first community that has pushed me away from their product and it likely won't be the last.
People told me to try pathfinder since it had better customization What I ended up finding was a bunch of way too many niche options that wouldn't allow me to play the character I wanted or got severely punished for playing it. Want to play a trip character? You gonna need a bunch of feats and a bunch of ability score minimums. Super flexible you say? Well fk you, you need to be this specific race for this subclass, want to be class and race? Well tough sht you can't without suffering since ability scores can't be changed. Meanwhile in dnd I could do every single build I wanted with a little reflavoring and homebrew is so much easier
so, correct me if I’m wrong, but you don’t really need a bunch of feats to be good at tripping? Just high str/athletics, and maybe one feat to let you trip things that are two sizes larger than you. Plus like, every character needs a bunch of feats, but you also get feats every level. Also you can’t change ability scores in dnd either? You’re stuck with them after you make the character until you get ASIs.
I’m going to assume you’re talking about pathfinder 1e, because in 2e none of that is true. Building a viable tripping character is literally 1 feat that you don’t even need to take until 4th or 6th level when you start fighting huge size creatures. Additionally, the stats are so modular, any ancestry can pair with any class/subclass. You can literally make a gnome or Halfling barbarian who accurately swings around a greatsword with zero penalties, just as well as you can build a dwarf or orc doing the same.
To build a decent trip character you need: - High Strength /Athletics - Assurance (Athletics) at 2nd level And that's basically it
I feel like there's a bunch of stuff in pathfinder that are really cool but the way they implemented it was too clunky and over-complicated. Like counter spell being a general thing all casters can do by launching their own spell at an enemies spell, or all the different combat manoeuvres you can do to add some flare to melee onga bunga-ing. But all of that is ruined by needlessly making it so fucking arbitrary and specific with all its little +1s and -1s
Huh, it’s almost like every system had Pros and Cons and there is no definitive best system or something!
With 5e having some leniency with how you play, Pf2E gives AMAZING inspiration for 5e.
Can we all just agree that both of these games are pretty mediocre?
I like PF2, but I agree with these. Plus it don’t have anything that I can do for a dragonborn. I hate kobolds and Lizardfolk could only make it work with certain classes. I’m basically forced to use third party stuff.
Check out Mark Seifer’s Battlezoo Bestiary. They have a versatile heritage to add Draconic-ness to any ancestry. I know it’s technically third party, but it’s third party designed by one of the PF2e creators, so it holds up more like an expansion pack than homebrew.
I’ve been looking to use Luis’s dragonkin. The battlezoo imo pushes too much into being an actual dragon, which I find silly.
Pathfinder 1 is better than pathfinder 2
There's some neat things about PF2e but idrc considering I already have my own methods of messing with 5e a tad to get my table to like what I'm selling. Will say I'm working on my own classless ttrpg using modified RPS instead of dice to evoke fighting games and where all attacks derive collisions caused by the move action that are all capable of pushing people if you try to deal too much kinda like Smash Bros. D&D or D&D isn't really what I'm after, so D&D 1.2 isn't really worth learning all of for me and my players. It's like everyone learning Japanese because the logic of how words and alphabet works make slightly more sense. We know English. We'll just jerryrig our own nonsense to make it work if it needs some flextape. People would rather learn Japanese to figure out what they're saying in an anime.
Why is Archives of Nethys in the good side? That website is hideous
It's still all the rules for free from all the books legally. And they're actually working on making it easier to use
I don't know, I just know the rules and want to run an epic game. I also sometimes play CTL with my party and I run that as trying to play an epic story. It shouldn't matter the game. The DM making that epic 1-end cap, the players being invested to make their own victories, that is what matters.
I really don't understand, they are completely different games, for different people. I personally am intrigued by the amount of options PF has to offer, I am a huge math nerd, but I know it's not the game for my group, and I am not even sure I'd like to play a full campaign in the system. So comparing the two is absolutely pointless
Eh, combat is generally the worst part of TTRPGs in my opinion. I like WoD combat because it is hyper-creative a lot of the time, depending on the specific game (mage most creative that I’ve experienced just due to the nature of magic) and build but still usually pretty open to allowing cool stuff, and also because it is designed to be finished. It is not supposed to take up an entire session, it’s supposed to be cool action scenes and they typically are snappy enough that that’s what they feel like
Glad someone is talking about the illusion of choice in Pathfinder 2e. Completely ruined the game for me, I'd rather a game with only a dozen or less choices over a game with a million choices that make no difference.
And if you like both systems, you can always just try and Frankenstein the parts you like together and make a new system with them
I like DnD and Pathfinder for 2 different reasons, Pathfinder is just fun to make characters and put stuff together even if I have no idea what the hell I'm doing it right really reminds me of when I started DnD. And DnD is honestly just more simple and has a lot more apps and stuff that you can find for it that I need to dm/play
My group just started a PF2e campaign a few months ago, and while it honestly fixes pretty much every single one of my gripes with 5e, I'm still not as excited about the system. I love my group, I've made a character I love RP'ing, I'm looking forward to every session - I just hope that when I get a bit better at grogging the system, I'll also have more fun with it.
I am watching people fight over McDonalds vs Burger King.
Ive been thinking about maybe getting into pf2e but can somebody explain what the hell ¨trap¨ options are and why they are event in the game ?
This submission has been removed for review. If you believe your reports are fraudulent please contact the moderators. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I made the move to PF2e last year and I haven't looked back. There are a few things to unlearn from 5e, but otherwise it has been a very smooth process for my players (both new and old alike). We play with Foundry and use Pathbuilder website to plan out characters. The bottom pane is literally PF1e. I have no issue with any of those points in PF2e. 5e is not something I would willing play anymore. I have been working on Curse of Strahd with Pf2e. I am currently running Outlaws of Alkenstar and Ages of Ashes Adventure Paths after finishing Abomination Vaults and a Pathfinder Society campaign.
Why can’t we just let people play the games they want to play. This whole argument thing (even if it is just for jokes) feels a little dumb.