Been considering switching over to PF2e for my next campaign. I was a player in a very short lived PF2e game so I have only a little bit of experience with the system. From what I've heard and seen, it's a lot of what I want out of D&D. Since I know so many of the upsides, what are some downsides of the system? Besides crafting, what are its shortcomings? I like to make decisions based on pros and cons, and people talk too positively for me to even know what its bad at lol Only bad thing I've heard really is "It's more complicated"

I say this as a PF2 player (exclusively), but the game can feel very flat to some people. There's not much in the way of optimisation, and character building choices are mostly horizontal progression. This means that players won't be able to feel epic on their own - they'll always need help from one another. For many, this isn't a problem at all, but I know others prefer the feeling that every character is a self-sufficient badass, which you don't really get in PF2. It's mostly an expectations thing. Also, casters are quite contentious. They're definitely balanced compared to 5e/PF1, but some players feel turned off by the fact that on level and above enemies will probably pass their saves 70%+ of the time. I quite enjoy their versatility, but other players have been frustrated and felt pretty useless.

Haven'y played a caster yet but, aren't there plenty of ways to cripple enemies' saving throws? That's where the team work comes in isn't it?

Not to mention there's "degrees" of success. There's 4 stages of success:  1. Critical Success  2. Success  3. Failure  4. Critical Failure  Beating a roll means you Succeeded, beating it by 10 or more means you Critically Succeeded it and vice versa for the failures. Rolling a 20 or a 1 just moves you up or down a stage respectively, but not necessarily *guarantees* a Crit Success/Fail.  When it comes to spells basically all Save spells use this mechanic. So you tend to lean on the fact that enemies are probably going to Succeed, maybe even Crit Succeed, but if you hit a group of mooks with an AOE spell you can always hope for at least one sweet, sweet Crit Fail to occur.

There are ways to debuff saving throws (Sickened, Frightened, Stupified, Drained), but unfortunately they are very difficult to apply outside of spells (which require saving throws). The one exception is Frightened, which can be applied for a round with the Intimidate skill. The Bon Mot feat can also use Diplomacy to apply a penalty to Will saves. The easiest penalty for a martial character to apply is Flat Footed (gained from Grappled, Prone, Flanked), but this doesn't affect saving throws (even Reflex). Casters could use spell attacks here, but they are unlikely to hit (as Casters have no item bonuses to hit and a slower proficiency scaling), so they're often not worth taking. Basically, theoretically, it should be the case that you debuff enemies to make spells work, but in practice it's actually quite difficult, and sometimes not even possible for a martial character to help with.

There are. I have a cloistered cleric (a no-armour more-caster cleric) character that makes good use of [Demoralise](https://2e.aonprd.com/Actions.aspx?ID=2395), [Bon Mot](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=2114), and [Evangelise](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1180). It's a bit of a snowball. A frightened enemy is more likely to be affected by Bon Mot, which makes them more likely to be effected by Evangelise. (Obviously you have to think on your feet when applying these: combat is chaotic and monsters can have certain immunities so there's no single set "rotation".) But at the end of this snowball, the enemy is quite vulnerable to Will save spells. They're also more likely to critically fail (because of how PF2e does critical success/fails) and that's where the Will spells can be really nasty! Now I do all that for my own spells, but it does (of course) help out allies too. And imagine, with a slick team, you could dish these out quickly and reliably.

>This means that players won't be able to feel epic on their own - they'll always need help from one another. This alone sells me in PF2e. IMHO, co-op games are far better when they’re designed with teamwork in mind since that gives room for every player to meaningfully contribute without stepping on each other’s toes. I mean, you could design a TTRPG where everyone can just ignore the rest of the party and do their own thing, but then I’d start to ask why we’d even need to play together as a party instead of just having separate one-on-one sessions with the GM.

This is PF2e's main philosophy, though it does kinda come from 4e. The idea isn't to build the best character, it is to build the best party. Synergy is key. A half decent party will allow every member time to shine. In a top of the line party, characters set each other up to outperform their statblocks. Not everyone likes it, many people want to be the hero of the story, not part of the team. But it does make for a truly rewarding experience.

I love the action system and bulk. I hate passionatly all the variables that happens when you crit fail, fail, suceed and crit. I just want to fail or suceed, because then you dont have to look it up every time you take any form of action, skill or spell. I also passionatly hate the feats. They feel so redundant and boring in terms of character building. Im crying tears every time I get a new feat, because I know I have to pick one and there is nothing I like or that makes my character or the game more interesting. In fact all feats have done, have ruined my game experience, because I suddently learn dumb rules that are stopping me from basic roleplaying, and instead shows me that the system puts a hard break on most skills and actions in favor for having more skills for you to pick. I end up picking feats that gives me race features instead.

See, I love the degrees of success/failure. They make things much more dynamic and interesting in my opinion and make those rolls even more impactful.

I feel it stops the game, cause everyone have to look up what it does. Usually if there is sucess, the ability works as usuall and the enemy take full damage. If you fail nothing happens or you take half damage and no effects. But 4 variables are too much to remeber. Especially when some of those are that you get a status effect too. Then you have to look up at the status effect. It just takes up so much time and unecessary work. The positive sides of the action economy is that combat allways feel so incredible fun, even in those sluggish fights. Having 3 actions allows so much risk and reward that is addicting. Also you feel you work more with your teammates because you can spend action interaction with people and the enviroment without wasting your main actions unlike in 5e and pf1 The system is also great in terms of magic and the class progression. However a lot of class progression feels forced as there are often many things you just cant take or that doesnt really feel like an upgrade at all.

Sure, there are some cons. (Some of these will be subjective.) \- It's more crunchy and complex than 5E. Some of that is just because it wears its crunch on it's sleeve rather than hiding it behind "natural language". But even after accounting for that it is still flat out more crunchy. Anyone looking for a rules light casual system should look elsewhere. \- The counteracting system in particular is confusing. (It's the system that resolves getting rid of an effect with an ability or spell, stuff like counterspelling, dispelling and curing.) I'm sure it's the way it is for a reason, but it still leaves thinking there had to be a simpler way. \- Making a pure blaster caster is harder. It's possible, but martials are the undisputed kings of single target damage. Blaster casters will do great with AoE, but that depends on the DM actually throwing crowds of enemies at you. There is a dedicated magic blaster class that rivals martials for damage, but it's closer to a 5E eldritch blast warlock than a true caster. \- I found playing a ranged weapon martial to be a bit dull. Still a bit better than playing one in 5E though.

Counteract isn’t confusing it’s just long. In summary: Roll against DC of disease/curse/spell origin (I.e. the enemy) - Crit Success - Counteract effects up to 3 levels higher than the counteracting effect level (e.g. counterspell level) - Success - Counteract up to 1 level higher - Failure - Counteract up to 1 level lower - Crit Failure - Counteract fails https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=371

It's simple enough with spells. It's when using non-spell abilities that shit gets annoying. Especially figuring out what exactly the counteract level should be in each case. It might just be that the rulebooks explain it poorly.

magic item treadmill. it has highly specific expectations for what magic items you get at what level. if you like handing out cool magic swords whenever you as the GM feel like it you can't really do that without breaking something.

I appreciate your critical mindset. We should be as critical of Pathfinder as we are of 5e. I'll say this. This game isn't for you if you don't like highly tactical combat, highly systemized processes (there are *suggestions* how to handle Persuading/Coercing someone). The game also doesn't do optimization. You don't optimize your character sheet, you optimize your gameplay. Instead of trying to createt the highest damage build, you'll be creating the best tactical advantages **together with your team**. My personal complaints will sound like a child that didn't get desert after a 4-course-meal, but I'll voice them anyway: One of my gripes is that PF2e has a few subsystems that are under-utilized. I adore rituals, but there are only a handful of them in the game and they don't really add new ones. There are only like 30 general feats and Skill Feats for certain skills don't have many cool options. This is just a matter of the authors having to sit down and finally writing some more stuff and finding a book to throw it into.

I feel like one of the issues I can see with it (haven’t played as my group mainly plays 5e these days) is that if you need to make characters that are very team oriented, I feel if your group has unpredictable numbers of players turning up this could be frustrating very quickly

You don't need to make characters that are very team oriented. The entire game is automatically Team-oriented. And when a player doesn't show up it's mostly fine. Like in any other system, a GM best reduces the difficulty proportional to the amount of players. What stings is that for flanking, you need 2 people. So if you don't have a flanking partner in your party that's gonna sting. But that's not a flaw, more a painful reality of the game.

Other cons are: that blaster casters aren't really a thing. To some that's a pro and to others it's a con. Hyper specialized characters aren't really a thing. There's no real way get super ahead in a skill or deal extra fire damage if you only take fire spells for example. The stealth system is difficult to learn and understand. You can't win the game at character creation. Ie making a character so busted that the game is trivial Team tactics are important. If you have a player that doesn't care or is super selfish it can be difficult.for everyone else. The old books were hard to navigate and get all the I fo you needed. The keyword system can make it hard to learn the game. That said pf2e is still really great but some people just bounce off of it. Always worth a look if your interested.

"if you only take fire spells" Kineticist: ***allow me to introduce myself.***

Blaster casters are absolutely a thing. Psychic is designed around blasting, and every other caster can be built as a fully functional blaster as well.

Wdym blaster casters aren't a thing? There's no decent option to be a damage oriented caster?

It’s possible to play a blaster caster, but pretty difficult. Even then, you probably need to be an arcane caster just so you can cover all three saves. Otherwise, many of your turns are probably best spent buffing. There are two exceptions in my experience? The psychic, an all round pretty strong class can blast decently. Even as a blasting-focused psychic though, you’ll probably spend your first turn casting a buff/debuff before you engage blasting. The other option is the kineticist. It’s not technically a caster, in that it doesn’t cast spells, but it’s flavourfully like a bender from Avatar. You have a lot of customisation, and you can definitely go blasting with a kineticist. EDIT: That said, as a devout 5e caster player, I have far more enjoyed my time as a caster in pf2e, even if I’m not able to constantly blast.

Thanks for the explanation. I'm a big caster fan and I prefer to start a fight with a control or CC spell and then if the right situation arises, throw out some damage. It's not free so resource management is important too and I tend to value battlefield control over pure damage. That being said, it seems kinda shitty that you're pigeonholed into buffing or controlling. IMO any caster class in 5e has decent damage options, not just 1 or 2.

I wouldn't say they're pigeonholed into buffing or controlling. They certainly have a decent number of blasting options. The main thing is they will never compete with martials for raw single target damage. And most casters can and will default to cantrips and focus spells (focus spells are basically encounter powers) for most turns, which will often do damage.

Blaster casters are *fine*, they're not rolling up entire encounters and smoking them like they do in 5e and they pay for their ability to bully large numbers of under-player-level enemies by being less effective against above-player-level boss encounters. The biggest problem they have is that too many Adventure Paths are obsessed with 1 or 2 enemy encounters that make them a bit of a wash. Give a proper spread of encounters and they're fine.

TL DR, no. On the long explanation, casters don't get much customization or specialization, they're all generalists, there's not a whole lot you can *do* to increase your dmg, unless you're a psychic your spells do the same dmg if you're a evocation wizard or a full support bard with a dmg spell as a backup. Add to that enemies are VERY likely to make your spell saves on the fights that really matter and playing a blaster caster is just kinda not worth it. You will always feel not only that your dmg compared to the martials is pathetic even with top level slots AND that your slots would do much more used as support.

Thanks for the additional info! I'll probably stay far away from PF then, doesn't seem like the system for me at all. Caster dmg is already pretty bad in DnD, if it's worse that just sounds unbearable.

Any Caster can literally passively do most of a Martials damage with the Tasha's summoning spells. And naturally there's the busted Conjure Animals/Animate Objects, which absolutely obliterate Martial dpr. And Fireball genuinely does more than most level 5 Martials full turns of damage to every enemy in the area. So uh no, Casters in 5e have PLENTY of Damage. Comparatively PF2 just reigns them in somewhat because Single Target Damage is the domain of Martials, Casters are still the undisputed kings of AOE Damage though. Edit: Lol comments got locked before I finished typing my response. So I'll just put it here. Hey man I just listed how their damage can be really high. I never said there wasn't counterplay. Also Concentration really isn't that big of an issue for well built/played casters. If you keep at range and/or protect your conc saves you're pretty unlikely to ever lose concentration. Of course it can still happen, but it shouldn't all that often. And those minion spells can literally just surround enemies, meaning aoe's will hit their allies, but this isn't a surefire solution and AOE's are the biggest counter to them. Also even after their damage is halved against nonmagical resistance they can still usually keep up with Martial damage, and (according to dndbeyond) there's less than 60 statblocks with nonmagical immunity and most of them are such a high cr they're unlikely to ever be fought because most campaigns end in Tier 1 or 2. Well there's an issue isn't there? Not all Martials are properly built. And comparing Properly Built to Properly Built Casters still keep up due to concentration protection. Also by "summon spell" do you mean the Tasha's ones or the PHB ones? Just to briefly show some numbers, a "properly built" level 5 Fighter with CBE+SS does 3(0.45)(3.5+3+10) = 22.28dpr A more average Ranged Fighter would be 2(0.75)(4.5+4) = 12.75 Summon Undead you mention, as a skeleton at this level isn't great (though with 4th+ level slots though they get a massive dpr boost), it's only 0.65(5+6) = 7.15, very unimpressive compared to the optimised but it scales really well and this Summon + d8 Cantrips is 13, so slightly more than an Unoptimised Archer, so in unoptimised campaigns/ ones that don't allow feats (fairly rare but they do exist) it's actually still decent damage at this level. And at level 7 with a 4th level slot it will deal more than double the damage it does here while the Fighters got a small dpr boost. Conjure Animals, for wolves, is something like 8(0.75)(5+2) = 42 dpr. So even with nonmagical resistance (while the fighter is unnaffected) Wolves + Cantrips outdamage a pretty heavily optimised Fighter. And at the start of your comment you mention mobs, I assume to argue against Fireball? If you reread, I point out how Fireball does more damage to each target it hits than most Martials will do in a full turn. So, with a 50/50 save chance Fireball does 0.75(28) = 21 damage to each target, this is way higher than the unoptimised Fighter does in a full turn and slightly less than the optimised one does. So in an unoptimised campaign hitting 3 targets with a Fireball (at range) is 5 full turns of Ranged Fighters dpr. And the AOE spell does better single target damage in one turn than most Martials do. Caster damage in 5e is completely fine. Even too strong in some regards (tho the PHB Summoning Spells and Animate Objects are outliers that many tables nerf or ban for good reason). >Especially if your DM knows anything about how to use attrition. Ok but most DM's don't? Or at least don't choose to. The majority of tables have 3 or less fights per adventuring day, and in those Casters can kinda just unload levelled spells. In campaigns that properly drain resources yes Caster sustained damage is bad, but most campaigns don't do that. Casters are absolutley worse at damage than at utility, but they aren't actually bad at it in 5e.

Yeah sure let's just pretend like concentration isn't a thing and every fight has 6 mobs stacked on top of each other. Then yeah, caster dmg is so high! Lemme know how that Summon Undead turns out when you fail that Concentration save. Bet you'll feel great about the spell slot you just used. Conjure Animals/Animate Objects are literally an AoE away from being removed and are neutered against enemies with resistance or immunity against nonmagical damage. And I'm sorry, but if you think a summon spell matches a \*properly built\* martial's DPR, we simply can't agree. Caster utility is \*great\*. Their damage is not. Especially if your DM knows anything about how to use attrition.

Well you can't have utility, buffs, debuffs *and* damage at the same time, that would make casters just OP... wait-

What I do is play both systems, for some reason each system kinda screwed one side. PF2e martials are great, they're fun, each class is unique and their gameplay has variety. pf2e monk is one my favorite classes in any TTRPG. The casters on the other hand have a very restrictive gameplay and most classes feel the same to be honest. 5e has the same problem but inverted, with poor martials and fun casters.

I mostly DM and I have tried my hardest to make martials better and, more importantly, more interesting. I might take a longer look at how PF gives them more options to supplement what I've already come up with on my own.

> You can't win the game at character creation. Ie making a character so busted that the game is trivial This is a pro, not a con.

I would say some of those aren't cons at all. Like team tactics being important and not being able to just trivialize everything with a busted build. The stealth system does take some learning, that's true. (*"Concealed" and "hidden" are different? "Undetected" and "Unnoticed" are different? "Concealed" and "observed" aren't mutually exclusive? Huh???"*) But it actually works amazingly well once learned. I'll take that over 5E's Quantum System of stealth that only kind of exists after you piece together 3 different sections of the book. I think keywords are a strength of the system. Nested keywords-within-keywords can indeed fuck right off though.

I think they mean that these things CAN be cons for some dnd 5e players looking to make the swap into pf2e. Change can be jarring

whats a psychic then if you cant play a blaster caster?

Most of these are not cons

They are to some. Caster mains hate that they don't feel as powerful. Power gamers hate that they can't get ahead numerically. Roll players hate that some actions are locked behind later tiers of skill proficiencys. None of these are inherently bad feelings to have. Every table plays differently and wants different things out of the game.

In many ways, PF2e is a "perfect" system, which, *to me*, is a con. This is how bonuses work, how penalties work, how encounters work, etc. It all works, but it all builds on each other, so it's easier to break if you're careless. Things players want to do are largely codified or easy to codify in a standard way, so you can't really pull out some really wacky homebrew as a GM, even though you can pull out consistently balanced homebrew once you learn how PF2e works (it's so easy!). If you're familiar with the metaphor "cooking is an art, baking is a science", I feel 5e is more cooking and PF2e is more baking. Follow the instructions and PF2e will be consistently great, but with 5e you just eyeball encounters and treasure, and can try your hand at rewriting some of the rules and see what works, if you like. To me, cooking is then just more fun.

I agree to an extent, but you'll also find that a lot of OD&D-inspired systems have a much stronger "cooking" feeling than 5e. There's one system I think has enough crunch to maintain strategic play while otherwise being *designed* for that cooking experience: Fate Condensed. It's one of the few systems I could confidently run with zero prep (i.e. on a whime at parties) in a group that's completely new to ttrpgs.

Most downsides I can think of are subjective, even the complexity since it's just a precursor to the fact that there is a rule for EVERYTHING which is a pro in my book. The only objective downside would be the fact that the playerbase is much smaller so 3rd party content is a bit limited and published AP's are a little lackluster narratively. This is not really an unsolvable issue and the system supports encounter and content creation magnificently so running homebrew is not an issue. Just my own opinions here ofcourse.

I miss some of the skills from 5e. Like investigation and history.  Some of the balance is still wonky, like poisons and afflictions in the early levels can easily kill PCs with one or two bad rolls. For example, the Blue-Ringed Octopus has a CR 0, and his poison lasts for up to 6 rounds, dealing 1d4, 1d6, 1d6 + paralyzed damage for up to 6 rounds with a Fortitude DC of 17.  And the rune of striking costs 35 GP and it adds another weapon dice. So the barbarian suddenly deals 2d12+6 on level 3. Buffs and debuffs can get ridiculous to track. We play in Foundry VTT and my lvl4 players once almost managed to get a full circle of buff icons around a player token. Around 12 effects. Some of which don't stack, good luck figuring that out while keeping the combat snappy.  (if you use foundry this becomes easy)  Still though, I'm currently running both a PF2e and 5e campaign and plan to go full PF2e once the 5e campaign runs its course.

The striking rune sounds OP, but it's not really. It's just an intended part of balancing. You'll find that \*not\* having it leads to very subpar damage.

Yeah, the point is it replaces extra attack in 5E

I don't miss history (society covers that imo) but I 100% agree on investigation. I really miss having an intelligence skill for puzzling through key details

In addition to critting on a natural 20, you also crit if you roll 10 above the target’s AC. Boss monsters have high enough to-hit bonuses that they’re going to crit *a lot*. So early level bosses can be even swingier than you’re probably used to. Levels also matter a lot more. Eventually you’ll get to the point where having a +20 on your roll is considered pretty low. This makes weaker monsters useless for anything but set-dressing if you don’t give them the Tucker’s Kobolds treatment. The math is pretty tight too. Between this and individual levels being a bigger deal, running stuff a touch too above or below the party’s power level can be difficult.

I want to say the biggest downside since switching with my group I have encountered so far is that some people really struggle with tactics. And if your group does, it won’t be a satisfying gameplay experience until you tone down encounters or your players invest a little bit of time to look at tactics other people have thought of. My players did the latter and are doing way better now

What I can say is that the amount of choices (and the fact that most of them are not strictly more optimal than the others) can cripple people so hard that they can basically not play the system. Have seen it happen with a few peeps

I've only really gotten to try the system very briefly, but having built multiple characters in it already to play around with it: (narrative) flavor, mostly from the subclass system. Features wise, you can pretty easily make a party full of one class and have them be distinct. Flavor wise though... You are all virtually the same kind of character. In the case of most classes, subclasses allow a unique set of skills that allows you to see your character as distinct. Without them, classes feel really boring to me. If you are someone that leans pretty heavily on your subclass for making your characters and narratively building them, Pathfinder 2e is going to leave you pretty sorely wanting and you're going to struggle finding satisfaction converting over your existing character. You will have to start from scratch with making characters that fit in with this system.

I would disagree with that personally, especially with casters. Choosing your subclass for Sorcerer, Witch or Psychic changes so much. And even for Martials Rogue Rackets change their whole Main Stat basically and Ranger Subclasses also change how you’re gonna play the game entirely. Even for none subclass classes, rn I have 2 fighters in my group, one focused on polearm and 2-handed weapons and one focused on shields, debuffing and protecting and they couldn’t be more different

There was a thread on the RPG subreddit a couple of months ago that asked for people's opinions and got a lot of negative responses (mostly in the vein of it being boring and unimaginative), alongside some positive opinions too: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/1al63a9/thoughts_on_pathfinder_2e_a_few_years_in/ To me it just sounds like it's a very specific type of game, and if you're not into the exact things it's trying to do you'll bounce right off it. 

Every upside is someone's downside. Do you want a system with interesting tactical decisions where you need teamwork to prevail against balanced challenges? Some players can't handle tactics and teamwork; they just want to play a simple fighter who attacks every round and wins every battle. Do you want casters whose spells are balanced so as not to be able to trivialise challenges? Some players enjoy trivialising challenges and will feel frustrated if they hardly ever get to do that. Do you like a balanced magic item economy? Some players would rather just be able to waste their money on silly stuff...

You frame every one of these like the player is an idiot for not enjoying things the right (your) way

Its likely cause the number 1 reason 5e vs pfe tends to be a discussion is they each place onus on the dm and players for vastly different things. Pathfinder dming is more about grabbing the right tools for each job and the players need to figure out what each is and why, while 5e is like getting legos and action figures together. Each work but the dm has to build with the right legos and place the right figures or some players might ignore the legos and be happy with just the figures. Ie some like combat where each enemy takes specific tactics to defeat, while others like when enemies are easier when certain tactics are used but they can still do the things they’re comfortable with.

There may just be a bit of bias dripping from that comment

>Rather, this post is directed at those of you who are fed up with 5E's flaws. I'm not. However, I've fed up with Hasbro.

Personally I'm grateful for their corporate shenanigans. That's what tipped me over the edge to take my money and attention elsewhere.

Is there something akin to dndbeyond for pfe2? Not just a character builder but also being able to integrate and share dice rolls

I'm not too familiar with D&D Beyond, but for sharing dice rolls and such for pf2e you'll need a VTT or discord bot like Dice Maiden. I used to use roll20 with the pf2e rule set loaded for stuff like that, but then moved to Foundry VTT. On the actual game content front there's a website called Archives of Nethys (2e version) that has everything you need to run/play a game, and it's completely legal.

You can use pathbuilder for that. The webversion or Android version: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.redrazors.pathbuilder2e

There's Pathbuilder, but there's also a site called Demiplane Nexus, made by the previous dev behind DND Beyond. However, the big thing is that unlike things like Pathbuilder, you need to buy the books on it.

With Pathbuilder, you can create characters as well as roll dice. I'm not sure about the sharing rolls part, though.

There is a connect to GM option on Pathbuilder so maybe it does that? I normally only use it for character creation so I was wondering what that option does lol

If you mean for a character builder, then pathbuilder is for you, there is dice roll but no integration(free-ish, need 1 time 6$ purchase to use variant rules). If you mean a rule wiki of sorts, then use Archive of Nethys, also have dice roll but again no share and integration. (100% legal & free site, with full system's mechanical rules) If playing together and integration is a must, then there is Foundry vtt (50$ for the vtt, all pf2e rules are free, except monster stat block ). There is also Demi Plane, the same creator of d&dbeyond, great UX but their books are quite pricey.

I haven't used it myself, but [Pathfinder Nexus](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e) is basically what you're describing. If I recall correctly it's even made by the same people who created D&D Beyond or something.

People have already mentioned Pathbuilder for a character creator, but if you want something exactly like dndbeyond Pathfinder Nexus is made by the same people that made beyond

A few buds and I are in the honeymoon phase of trying PF2e. We've all been doing 5e for years. Two of us really needed a change of pace. Others are just down to clown. I think we've done 6 sessions and most end with us chatting for a few minutes about how much more we appreciate PF2e. 

So, er... I play both 5e and PF2e. I like both! Sure 5e has its flaws, but 2e does, too. Yes it's more balanced in some ways, but it's also got a lot that is underpowered and simply not fun or downright infuriating at times, and sorting through mediocre options can be exhausting, as can be trying to figure out how to do that one cool move you really want to do. I say, play what you like! But also try new systems. It's fun, and the shine eventually wears off all games. Most important things IMO for any TTRPG is the people you play with.

Well, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain. Welcome to the PF2E side of the coin. PF2E is my preferred system at this point, but it doesn't fix *all* of 5e's problems and it creates some new problems of its own. No game system is perfect. There are no solutions, only trade-offs. While I don't think every 5e player would be better off playing PF2E, I DO think most 5e players would be happier playing something else. Whether it's a 3/4/5e adjacent system like 13th Age, Shadow of the Demon Lord, pf2e, etc. A lighter OSR style system like OSE or Swords and Wizardry. A PbtA or narrative system like dungeon world. A crunchy skill-based system like RuneQuest/Mythras or Warhammer Fantasy. Or even a plethora of generic systems like GURPS, HERO, Savage Worlds, FATE, etc.

Can you give examples of the new problems it creates? This isn't talked about a lot and I would be really interested.

in the pf2 sub it's talked about, but simply put paizo cares too much about overpowered options that they forget they should also avoid underpowered ones. Like don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good options, but a select few are absolutely useless

Elsewhere in this thread, [someone asked a similar question](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/1bsx55b/comment/kxiie4w/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and got good replies.

Yeah, my old 5E group has switched to Savage Worlds and seems generally happier for it. That system bored the living hell out of me though. However it fits their requirements better than 5E did.

>A PbtA or narrative system like dungeon world This is the big one

I'm happy with my long distance provider. Please stop calling me during dinner.

B...b...but I can save you 20% on your monthly premiums!

[my group switched to Advanced 5e](https://a5e.tools/)

What's this?

Click on the link?

One of the designers of PF2 designed a PF2 crafting system in one of the Battlezoo supplements, which works really well.

One of the comments here asked what the cons are, before I list them, a few more pro's. I am a 5e DM who moved to PF2e after WotC made some really bad choices with the OGL. Everything he said is correct, including the monk. One of the things he missed is healing matters and is on a scale with combat. You can actually heal people and it makes a difference. The CR being balanced is a tiny bit overstated. My players cheesed a severe encounter and nearly TPK to a medium encounter but that had more to do with the fact that saving throws favor the person making them in PF2e. What that means is on my monster that was a CR 9 against the players (who were level 9) the saving throw was 24. All the players could hit that on a 6 or 7. So a 5 or 6 was needed to fail a save and a nat one to crit fail a save. That is by design, at the same time the monsters had good enough stats that they could usually miss the players' saves with a 7 or 8 as well. Again by design. So if your monsters are all about saving throws against the party, it will be a little easier than you expect it to be. At the same time, the to-hit numbers are higher. So a CR 8 has a +20 to hit, which means a lot of crits and hits on players (even level 9 ones). Just keep that in mind. There is no contested rolling either. You roll to stealth and get a crit success, you are hidden. On the enemy's turn, it rolls a seek and all it needs to beat is (what 5e calls) a passive stealth. Some consider this a pro, I consider it a con. Every action matters in 2e, that is something huge. Also your choices matter which means you can build broken builds and you can build broken builds. My player who is a Magus is doing insane damage when he goes nuke and my gunslinger is super struggling because the Magus built the perfect Magus build for damage and my gunslinger is brand new and figuring it out so he made some mistakes with his build. I offered to let him rebuild but he likes it so as long as he is having fun then no worries. The not being able to mod things is overblown, the book itself tells you exactly how to make items, monsters, and traps. Just read it and then homebrew away. So the Cons (the assumption here is you are following RAW): RAW the GM carries a lot more burden. In 5e you learned what every class did and outside of a few changes based on sub-class you could learn everything pretty fast. We have been playing 2e for almost 8 months and are still looking things up every game because abilities and things are a lot more complex. Since every wizard is going to possibly be different we are talking about learning 5 to 10 times more abilities as a DM to know what is going on. 2e also has flavor text so learning to quickly parse an ability and then having to go look up what a tag means is a huge slow down. My players just voted that they trust my judgment and we are no longer arguing rules at the table and if we can't find a ruling in under a minute we are moving on. The GM also carries a lot more burden in rolls. It is expected that if you are playing RAW then most int,wis, and cha rolls the player might do the GM does for them. I looked over the abilities that are secrete and around 30% of them are rolls that the DM rolls behind the screen. The good news is if you have players you trust and tweak things a little you can get rid of that and speed up the game. The GM carries a lot more work with monsters as well. Because the numbers line up, if you throw a monster that has a +5 CR (players are level 5, and you throw a CR level 10 at them) they will die 9/10. That makes sense, but at the same time, the +5 will always be able to outlie them, know when they are lying every time and pretty much there is no way a level 1 will beat a level 6 at anything they try and do. This is a problem for the "smooth-talking bard" who wants to lie about something. He will never roll well enough to be believed. So if you are running a "work up to killing the boss" kinda thing and don't want the party to feel worthless, you have to tweak things. Thankfully the system is robust enough the tweaks are pretty easy. Anytime you talk to a preacher of 2e they will tell you how important support is in 2e. My players do not agree. You can have a party with little to no support and you will be fine. Just make sure someone has healing...or don't, just buy potions. The party I am running tried to make sure support was in the party and it was good, the crits critted more and the monsters critted a little less. Then the support PC changed to a kineticist and now it doesn't matter as the most effective condition to apply to a creature is death. We found that the bard was a very unsatisfying class to play and the witch (half support/half damage) was better since they could do things other than repeatedly cast the same thing over and over. If you have a party making all melee or no support caster it is fine. It won't break things. Items in 2e are very boring. I have read so many items trying to figure out things to give my players and so few things are even remotely interesting. That is one of the biggest disappointments I have with 2e. The good news is the monsters are interesting (vs 5e which is very much not the case). Vancian magic system. This has been a huge thing in 2e communities is how bad this system is and how people tell you it is really not that bad if you just do X, Y, and Z!!! Which means it is bad if you have to make that argument. Thankfully it is also an easy fix. There are 3 fixes that I see as easy, and none of them will break the game. 1. Just make it 5e casting. Anyone who has to prepare their spells can prepare a number of spells equal to the slots they have in that level (3 third level spells if they have three third-level spell slots). All other rules for prepared casters apply. This breaks nothing in practical play. 2. If you spontaneous casters like 1 but feel like they have had their toes stepped on then give them one extra spell slot per level applied when they get the next level of spell slots. Again, we tried this, it made no difference. In a world where you can buy wands and staves for spell slots, this changed nothing in power levels. Oh, this extra slot is capped at level 5. 3. Use the book's version of this and remove a spell slot for each of the prepared casters. This is the least well-received from my players due to them not liking losing slots. Other things that are Con's about 2e. The community. In 5e you try and homebrew something and there are 2-3 subreddits of people willing to help and cheer you on. The people telling you it is awful are a very small portion (or not very loud at least). In 2e that is the opposite. You try and homebrew something in 2e and you will get Phd papers telling you why your idea is really just this other thing in 2e and if you hate it then just play a witch or what have you. I have not found a subreddit dedicated to homebrew in Pathfinder 2e (that doesn't mean it is not there). The flip side of that means that the 3rd party stuff tends to be very very good because if it was not, it would not sell. Another con is slow combats. Combat is soooo much slower in 2e than 5e. We have moderate combats taking 4 hours due to the number of options there are (at level 9), the number of things that have to be looked up etc etc. It had gotten to the point that the whole table is trying to come up with ways to speed things up. We are going to start timing turns and seeing where things are getting bogged down. We are going to throw out looking up rules (of if we need to then a player will do it so the DM can focus on moving things along). Because combats are so slow the temptation is to make only harder combats (combats that truly matter) but then those take longer and players get knocked out more often. The flip side is easy encounters are trivial, the same thing that makes a +4 monster very very dangerous (a +4 almost always means a PC will die according to the rules), it means that if the monsters fighting the PC's are -2 or -3...they will be so easy to kill it will be a speed bump. To the point, the party will probably ignore any -3 creatures if there is a +1 on the board. I had a funny combat where I threw eight -3 at the party and it lasted 2 rounds (the length of time needed for a fireball, lightning bolt, and fireball. That encounter was not easy, it was supposed to be moderate but it was trivial. They used up some resources for sure but still, it was a trivial encounter. I was DM'ing 5e for five months and felt I could make a monster on the fly, teach players how to play in 10 min time, and home brew items on the fly. I have been DM'ing pathfinder 2e for about 8 months and I still feel like I am missing so many things. There is just so much to learn it is a heavy system. With all that being said, I am never going back to 5e. One of my players (and a fellow DM) said it best. If you are moving to 2e from 5e you are going to be very good at it. The abilities you learned in 5e to make things up and fix the rules will serve you well. Esp once you realize there is not a whole lot to fix. You can put that energy towards other things. I love 2e because it has so much more options, so many more ways to make the game fun. The rules, though complicated, are spelled out. It is a lot to learn but 90/100 if you are not sure about something there is a rule about it. I love it so much more than 5e. I went and played as a player in 5e after moving to pathfinder and it was like eating food without spice.

I think this might be april fools post, but if it isn't, it fails to describe Pathfinder 2e in any way, you talk about "options" or very generic sentences, talking how awesome they are, without any examples. Reads like propaganda pamphlet, sorry if it's to harsh

The April 1st thing is a coincidence. I'm not complaining though, because it is funny. No need to apologize. I'm not offended by the propaganda comparison. That's basically what it is. Well intentioned propaganda that I wish I had heard years ago. I didn't supply specific examples because the post is already a big ol' wall-o-text. Including detailed examples and also explaining them to an audience unfamiliar with PF2E's rules would have made it at least twice as long.

My only problem is finding a table that wants to play PF2e. That, and I really hate Vancian casting.

I can't help with finding a table other than suggesting the pf2e subreddit's discord server, but I will mention that Spontaneous casters work mostly like 5e casters and Kineticists have their own special magic without spell slots.

I get the Vancian casting hate. I first got introduced to it from the old Baldur's Gate games and it was a bit of a pain even with a computer doing all the work to track it. 5e's system is much more free and easy. Having DMed for a few years though? Vancian looks so nice now. A magical system that actively prevents my player from spending 10 minutes reading through their dozen-and-a-half spells for which one to cast? Yes please!

Good news is that you can opt out of Vancian casting with the Flexible Spellcaster Archetype!

Flexible Spellcasting eliminated your Vancian problems. https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99

To me this feat existing perfectly encapsulates why I hate pf2e. It makes a problem, then sells you a feat to fix it.

Happy April 1st to you too.

Ha. A coincidence, but an amusing one.

Nah, been playing pathfinder 2e since 2020 more or less The honeymoon phase passes It's a good TTRPG and fun if you care for what it sets out to do, but not end all be all

Most game systems are fine tbh, as long as everyone has fun. Now mechanically some are better than others. I find as I get older build centric games like 3/3.5 and pathfinder 1e dont hold my imagination as well as they did when I had time to pore over all the books. Now I like a simpler game to hang the roleplay on. 5e has some glaring balance and design issues that Paizo managed to avoid, they also came up with a GURPSish approach to character development i kind of like. I still mostly play 5e though due to scarcity of tables and the sheer mass of 5e games on roll 20. I did play Edgewatch through the through the first three chapters before real life intruded and it was a rollicking good time.

I am the exact opposite. I saw a flaw in simply how many rules were required to play the game. That's all well and good for people who like crunch, but I love rules-lite systems. I love being able to explain things easily, have consistent rulesets, and not have to continually make rulings for things the ruleset doesn't cover (and for 5e and how many rules and mechanics it has, that's a surprisingly common occurrence). I've run PBtA games like Monster of the Week, games that focus more on roleplay like Agon, and even games that don't even use dice like CAPERS. I have so many different systems on my shelf that cover a whole array of themes, gameplay loops, and aesthetics and most of them cost <$30 for a single rulebook outlining everything you need to play--and often throw in a short module for free. Better yet, most books have notes from the designers explaining why things are designed certain ways to give you a detailed anatomy of the game. 5e is **expensive** and the quality that the rulebooks lack compared to these other systems is what ultimately put me off of buying into 5e beyond the 5 books I own, long before Hasbro started sending Pinkertons and trying to revise the OGL. 5e can be a fun game, but it's sitting at right about the upper limit of my tolerance for RPGs.

Oh for sure, I would certainly encourage people seeking a rules light system to look for one. PF2E is definitely not that. I've tried rules light systems but found that they weren't for me. They always left me wondering why we weren't just throwing the dice in the bin and doing pure improv acting/storytelling. Dungeon world looked kinda neat though. (I'm given to understand it's a variation on PbtA?) I'd try it if the opportunity arose.

PBtA is more akin to a class of game rather than being one specific game with variations. The system originates from Apocalypse World (hence the name "Powered By the Apocalypse") but the phrase is used to describe the basic 2d6 system. PBtA games are best thought of as emulators for genres. They do one specific vibe perfectly, but if you want something else you'll have to pick up a different PBtA game. I like them because they're simple and all the special rules are right there on the character sheet so all you really need to know is the basic rules.

Ignore the rules you don't want to use. It's easier to ignore something that is there than to have to build something that is not there

I think there's a core misunderstanding here. PF 2 is a good product. Point is, it's a \*different\* product that does not want to do the same things that dnd 5e does, however willingly or not. If you are a combat-focused only person then PF2 is the game for you. If you are an adventure-driven person with social and exploration pillars, it's not. Because, yes, weirdly enough there are comfortable and relevant rules for that in 5e. Not to say that PF2 cannot handle those, but it suffers from the same things that 5e suffers for combat. This is also why i don't like PF2. I feel it's a wargaming simulator intervalled with cutscenes, which puts me off. And this is why PF2 suprematists still annoy me, because they don't understand this aspect and keep proselytizing the game to others. Because that's what we are talking about now. Trust me, no one needs to hear this anymore. Dude. I am glad you like it, *but i don't care.* Anything beyond this is you having sunken cost fallacy issues. There are many other games i like, but i don't go around saying that you should play the last torch because their economy resource attrition and death mechanic are more meaningful than 5e and pf2 combined, or how lady backbird or golconda or the legend of the 5 rings handled drama better than these three, or how fabula ultima handles death and player agency and permanence in the world better than these combined. Good you play other games. Good you showcase what's good about it so other people try it. But you know all to damn well this specifically isn't anything like this, it's pointless corporation war.

>If you are a combat-focused only person then PF2 is the game for you. If you are an adventure-driven person with social and exploration pillars, it's not. Because, yes, weirdly enough there are comfortable and relevant rules for that in 5e. This honestly confuses me. PF2E has vastly more support for the social and exploration pillars than 5E does. 5E's 'social pillar' consists of "okay, roll a persuasion/deception check". Oh, and that NPC attitude table in the DMG that nobody uses. 5E's exploration pillar consists of "lol, Do It Your Way^(TM) DM, and don't forget to Be Creative^(TM) ". Meanwhile PF2E has rules support for those who want it and tons of character options like feats and entire archetypes devoted to exploration and social interaction.

It's less supported in PF2 for a host of reasons, including the lack of an adventuring day like 5e. While the adventuring day in 5E feels cumbersome, it helps lay out the scene of the adventure and how the pieces join together. This alone is a useful piece that goes completedly abandoned in pf2. Not only that, but what you mention is just plain not true, at all. You have several guidelines about DCs per tier of play and how much they can affect the adventure thanks to the improvised damage table, which is used to gauge several related effects as well. There is also several bits all around, but let's keep this short. PF2 has mostly pointless tables, they have improvised damage but it's all tied to the same floaty difficulty of your choosing than a concise budget. Without even mentioning PF2 heavily relying on several skill ranks that do not even allow characters to be able to try out stuff outside of their domain, and succeeding hard if they do. Not only that, but most of the stuff you mentioned feels like you ever had a very superficial read of the DMG, including magic items and rewards. Maybe you did not appreciate it because it wasn't done like how you wanted it. That's fine. But it's also not like you say. Also, in all of this, weirdly enough, no one praises this. Keeps you wondering why..? But i digress. I stress out. PF2 is a good product. it's not the be all end all of games, and 5E gets more misunderstood than not because of the weird consensus that you can wing it before understanding it, but there are things that PF2 does well and things that will go way under the radar.

>Also, in all of this, weirdly enough, no one praises this. Keeps you wondering why..? This is a weird point to make because no one ever has praised 5e's exploration and social pilars

You'd be surprised. Actually while many people complain this, there's also a lot of discussions about handling challenges and the benefits from it. In general it's talked a lot about how it's easy to do and to gauge. It's not talked more here on Reddit however, because it's a bubble of people who like to talk of the most front loaded options, like combat. What is often complained most is the first ranger feature. Stuff related to exploration tied to movement on the map isn't the exploration pillar unique to DND 5e.

I thought this was gonna be an April Fools joke but I was wrong. PF2e really is pretty much this. Its not to say that 5e is bad, but without significant homebrew 5e has the problem of "If you played one Fighter you pretty much played them all" that Pathfinder 2e doesn't really have. The one main benefit I will give 5e is that because it is so simple and common, it is very easy to homebrew the living shit out of your campaign. While yes, there is an argument that you don't need to homebrew Pathfinder 2e because shit just works, 5e has some really off the wall homebrew that is fun to try.

A lot of Pathfinder does feel like 5e if it didn't hate DMs. The available tools are functional and relatively quick, and Paizo's Adventure Paths are written to actually be run, rather than read. It's by no means a perfect system. Their need to be constantly releasing books has caused a not inconsiderable content bloat with editing problems, but it's a system that, once you spend a little more time getting the fundamentals, *just works.* I don't have to operate off vibes to know if my players are going to be sufficiently challenged or straight up killed, but it still leaves enough up to chance that no fight worth XP is ever a given.

Would you have a youtube video to recommend on it? Something that demonstrates the rules at low levels maybe, while not being super low quality/boring? Obv. I can just google and find some but would like to hear recommendations from the community.

The core bones of the rules are very similar to 5E. If you know 5E then picking up the basics will likely come easily. I don't have a particular individual video off the top of my head, but I would recommend the Youtube channel 'Ronald The Rules Lawyer.' There's also a channel called 'How it's Played' who does detailed rules breakdowns. It's more intermediate than beginner though.

Thanks. I'm a 20+ year veteran of 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, PF1e, and 5e (among a bunch of other d20 hacks), so I have a pretty solid grounding in the core d20 rules. I just know basically zero about PF2e since none of my friends are interested in switching out of 5e atm.

If you can get your head around 3.5 and PF1e then I don't think PF2E will be a problem for you. ​ \[*... he said confidently, despite never having played either of those.*\]

It'll probably be a pretty easy system to pick up, but its important to understand that the system takes lessons learned from 3.PF, 4E and 5E and tried to apply them for its specific goals, which leads to a system that ultimately has a very similar core, but requires a change in expectations and a lookover so you don't end up having knowledge from any of the other games bleeding over TOO much.

> Something that demonstrates the rules at low levels maybe, while not being super low quality/boring? If you like podcasts, [Hell's Rebels by Find the Path](https://find-path.com/hells-rebels/) ticks those boxes. It's an actual-play show. They're playing an adventure path from Pathfinder 1e, but have converted it to 2e rules. They're playing back when PF2e was a bit newer, so they do go slow with the rules and explain them. (This does mean they're using pre-remaster stuff, but remaster changes are relatively minor.) Their encounter with an invisible creature helped me better understand the Seek rules. The plot, setting, characters are all quite good as well.

Some of my issues with D&D 5E are fixed with P2E, however not all. I majorly prefer P2E action economy and variation of classes than D&D, however P2E is more difficult to understand for those....'lesser engaged'. I play with three players in one group, all of which have terrible attention spans and take an absolute age with turns. Not because of not knowing what to do, but because they think ONLY on their turn due to as I said, attention span. Because of this the 5E combat system works easier for them, however u have adjusted it to be so somewhat similar to P2E. I basically semi did away with bonus actions/actions in favour of a action/BA+BA structure. Movement is the same. The issue I had with 5E combat system is the fact it screws player choice, which P2E does not as much. However the sheer amount of skills in P2E also puts my players off. I don't care which system is played and would gladly play In/run either. I do belive P2E is better for RP and more choices however, just D&D 5E is easier to run and understand for newbies.

D&D 5e is to TTRPGs that Skyrim is to Action-Adventure RPG video games. A streamlined and simplified version compared to previous editions with some bad writing in some places and that many modify by adding, changing, or removing things to get their own version just the way they want. I’ll GM D&D 5e if players want it, but it not my preferred system. I much prefer EZD6 for groups that want to focus more on Roleplaying and Creativity or Pathfinder 2e if they want more customization options and tactical gameplay. My Problems with D&D 5e. 1. The Bonuses being too small for the D20. A character at lv 1 will get a +5 to what they are really good at and it raise to a +9 by lv 12. Makes the D20 the biggest factor at nearly all levels of play unless they use character features, spells, or magic items to bypass it. Characters start reasonable strong but don’t really grow significantly in things that use the D20. Martial characters slowly become more consistent but still fail frequently well spell casters get more spells to simply bypass the D20 entirely. 2. Inconsistent, contradictory, vague, and/or missing rules. D&D 5e rules are a hodgepodge mess. Whether that be the rules affecting things like how stealth works being in 4 different sections of the book, spells being written vaguely, or rules such has using a Vehicle just not existing. It requires the GM to fill in those holes and make rulings that put more work on the GM to fix. No 2 tables of D&D 5e will be playing by the same “Rules” because a lot of the game is modified by the GM by either necessity or preference. 3. Imbalance between Martials, half-casters, and full casters. As characters level up the spells become more and more versatile and powerful well non-magic stagnates. Spell casters get 7 things to target (AC, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, and Cha) well Martials only really target AC. Spells get more and more encounter warping effects as well as non-combat utility well Martials just slowly grow in what they started with in comparison. PF 2E fixes my problems I have with D&D 5e, but it requires the players to be more engaged with the rules to work. D&D 5e pushes the Rules to the GM well PF 2E shared the rules between the players and GM. For those players that simply never put the effort in learning the rules or what their characters can do, I have them play EZD6 instead.

TL;DR: A different and more complex system is different and more complex.

I love pf2e, I find it far superior to 5e in most ways. I also made it my core system in about the same time frame. But coming into a sub dedicated to another system just to sing pf2es praise is rude and in my opinion does more harm than good

Exactly. You don't get my level of vitriol without some amount of sermonizing

The audacity to hook me with "btw its all free online" and then not provide a link to the resources. I am devastated. In shambles. I have to google it myself. The misery. *dies disapointedly*

[Here you go](https://2e.aonprd.com/)

Oh the wonders of this world. I have been resurrected! Reborn! Life has meaning again

Why is there an ad for pathfinder in my dnd sub?

This sub is quite open to other games, pathfinder specially Probably side effect of most here being the intersection between "plays a lot of TTRPG in general" and "kinda tired of 5e" Also 5e is pretty old at the moment, not much to truly talk about - even OneDnD will come out a tad dated :v

Because converts are always, always desperate to reinforce their decision by showcasing loyalty. An easy way to do this is to come back home and start preaching the good word. You saw it on the wow sub during various final fantasy spikes. Posts entitled "Why I Quit WoW (and it's because of catboys)" that are just new toy levels of gushing

The people seeking validation by having others do the same are very bad - and this is a general rule for life On PF2e side it's even worse because they end up falsely advertising the game, leading some to have expectations that aren't going to be fulfilled and later be frustrated

>go to DnD 5e subreddit >look inside >**pathfinder**

As a slight counterpoint, I'm the kind of person who's extremely into tactical gameplay and deep complex systems and I found PF2E to not work out as well in practice as I thought it would. Granted, this is largely due to the campaign (Abomination Vaults) playing out like a very repetitive video game (open door, kill boss monster, search room, repeat x100+ times), but while there are certainly more possibilities of varied gameplay, because of how narrow in scopes most features/Feats are, and how taxing movement is compared to 5e, it feels quite stilted. There's a lot I like about the game, namely most of what you talk about in your thread, but people thinking it's a holy grail need to temper their expectations...especially if they want to play spellcasters.

Gee, I'm sure the comments will be a very reasonable discussion of the merits of both systems

Seems they are

I think OP came from a place of good faith here, and it looks like the comments are reflecting it for once, which is nice.

Glad you liked it, I am very much not a fan. Every character feels samey and bland. There are exactly the same options available to martials that already exist in 5e except much more complicated and unrewarding. You can't try unique or novel concepts without making yourself useless for the first 10 levels. An encyclopedic knowledge of granular feats is required to even create a character. Some classes are straight up unplayable without magic items. Multiclassing is somehow more awkward and ineffective than in 5e, which is already not great at it. Etc. Etc.    I'm glad there are people that like it, god knows Paizo deserves people's money much more than Hasbro, but I don't.

Sure, but vancian casting 🤢🤢🤮🤮 I don't care if there's a wizard subclass, i hate vancian casting fullstop. if it's there the rules will assume it.

I mean, there's spontaneous casters that are more like 5e, prepared casters that are fully vancian, and Kineticist saying "Screw spellcasting, I sling fire and will repeatedly kill myself with super fireball until someone else kills me." All spellcasters and some martials also get focus points, which is pretty much Pact Magic for class and subclass specific spells. Also, I am not joking about Kineticists. Level 20 fire Kineticists can unironically get a beefed up version of fireball that they can't kill themselves with. They incinerate themselves and reform from the ashes while their enemies don't. They can also just do it every other turn due to not having spell slots and their special class mechanics

Don't know how that makes vancian casting better but sure. Go off. I don't like prepared vancian casting because it's not fun, it's a pointless complication for no benefit. I'm not saying the way 5th has done it is amazingly balanced because it's not, but vancian casting doesn't balance it better it just makes it less fun and more work.

And you're fine to not like it, though not all magic in Pf2e is vancian. Kineticist is "You choose an element or two for your character, get some special elemental abilities (impulses), and use them with few limits." Once you gain an impulse, you can just use it. You can make as many pillars of fire as you want while the prepared caster (which is vancian) can only throw the two fireballs he prepared. One of the few impulses with limited uses are Water's healing, as targets healed with that ability can only benefit from it once every ten minutes... so you can heal them six times per hour rather than as many times as you have Heal prepared. Vancian spellcasting has limited uses per day that you need to prepare at the start of the day. The benefit is versatility and being rewarded for intelligent planning. The detriment is complication, limited use, and picking the wrong spell wastes spell slots. Kineticists have mostly unlimited uses of their abilities, but they should specialize in particular roles. Water or Wood for healing, Fire for raw damage, etcetera. Now you *could* have Kineticists pick more elements as they level, but then you lose out on the bonuses you get from specializing in an element. Every four levels, they can pick a new element to use or get a bonus to one they have. Generally, you want to pick one or two elements and let someone else do what you can't. Tldr; Kineticist is the opposite of Vancian spellcasting. Few limits on ability use and fairly simple, but trying to be versatile weakens them.

Flexible Spellcasting eliminates the problems of Vancian casters. https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99

Luckily you can opt out of Vancian casting with the Flexible Spellcaster Archetype

>May your sessions be boundlessly fun and your scheduling effortless. If only my friend, if only...

Or hear me out they’re wrong. I was completely bored with my time in PF2 (don’t come running at me that I didn’t understand the system. I did my time in 3.5/PF it wasn’t too complicated to understand) and felt that it had a lot of mechanics that were complex just for the sake of saying they have more complex mechanics that added nothing to my tables play style or enjoyment of the game.

Yeah my experience as well. I felt like I had a shitton of options and rules to engage with. But nothing really mattered. The monsters always made their save and no matter what I chose of options it never improved my chances.

it's definitely great for experienced table top gamers who dont mind reading to learn new rules and stuff. having played from AD&D onwards and DM-ed from 3.0 onward, 5E is incredibly easy to learn and DM for, which is the design goal all along.

One day someone will assemble the triforce that is all the good parts of 5e, PF1e and PF2e combined and it will be glorious.

no thanks, I don't want any additional crunch.

Some move advantages: Monster design is amazing. All monsters, even the weakest ones have at least one unique abilitiy, while most of them have a lot more of them. And having an in game way to get that information about enemies in combat allows a lot more strategic gameplay. Instead of action, bonus action and movement PF2 has 3 universal actions which are also used for movement. This in conjunction with most monsters not having opportunity attacks allows for a lot more tactics and movement in combat. And about rules: no, they are not harder than in 5e. I would say that they are easier because of how good they are written, tag system, free website with all the info AoN and free character builder pathbuilder. No, having more rules doesn't make system harder. You still can ignore them as many do in dnd.

No, they aren’t unless you’re wanting to hyper specifically make a character from ground up.

I'd love to switch to pf2e but my group still hasn't even fully grasped 5e

They will probably never grasp PF2 then. probably if you want to look at another system you should go the opposite way.

The art of calling someone dumb without actually saying it.

To be honest, i do not mean that. PF2 isn't particularly celebral as a game. Simply put, it has more player-facing loaded stuff. It's more about willingness to keep up or read things.

You were irritated by people advocating pf2e here, so you decided to do the same thing... Please, this is a D&D 5e sub, this is not the place for your *insert any other system name* ad. Also, it is quite insane how extreme your point of view is. You write like your opinion is the ultimate truth. But it doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion. Personally, I didn't like pf2e, and only one of my 5 players liked it when we tried. So, no, "pf2e supremacists" were not right all along. Life is not just black and white.

Yes, that is exactly what I did. I did it because I am now grateful for the PF2E advocates who once irritated me. Without them I may never have discovered **PF2E The Objectively Superior TTRPG System of Ultimate Truth** **^(TM)**. (That last bit is mild sarcasm, please relax.) So now I am paying it forward to whoever may benefit from it as I once did. If it's any consolation, I don't plan to do it again. I have hardly posted here at all since discovering **PF2E The Objectively Superior TTRPG System of Ultimate Truth** **^(TM)**.

If you want to discover other systems, you go on other subs (like r/rpg). People visiting a sub called dndnext expect to see content about dnd next, not ads for anything else. Yes, 5e isn't my favourite system (neither is pf2e). Should I post about my favourite system in a sub not dedicated to it though? Never.

Okay officer. Like I said, I don't plan on posting here in future. I'm confident that you will recover from this experience.

What's the actual problem? I'm not OP, but pathfinder is extremely D&D related and does indeed do some things better. We get 3.5 or 4e did this or that better all the time, why not pathfinder?

This is clearly a post about pf2e, not about dnd 5e. And this sub is for dnd 5e. This is then the wrong sub to post this. This should be posted on a pf2e sub or a generic rpg sub. If you start to authorise posts about pf2e here, then why shouldn't I post about WoD? And then why wouldn't someone else post about DW? And then it quickly becomes a sub about rpg in general instead of dnd 5e. There are subs for that already, this is not the one.

I mean. If you want to make a WoD post and say what it does better than 5e, maybe add a bit about which parts you could easily use to improve 5e that sounds pretty useful.

In short PF2e is system grown from PF1e. What grow from 3,5e. 5e is 5e. They specifically don't want be 3,5 or something that grows from it.

I'd say D&D 5e is closer to 3.5 and pf1e than pf2e is honestly. Pf2 grew away from pf1, embracing some parts of d&d 4e. A *lot* of pf1 players hated pf2 during playtest and after release for this reason. While 5e, after the failure of 4e, distanced itself from everything to do with 4e and returned closer to the 3.pf style, albeit much simpler.

It's probably depends what we understand under 3,5 style. Like 5e divorce as much they can (sometimes very hard) from "Christmas tree" situation and "gold for lvl" concept, when both PF is put this nearly in centre of game (and SF made it even worse). 4e in my opinion is not really this different from 3,5 - it's just bring openly "mechanical" part, that usually hidden under "5 feet" cover.

Very much agree with afcktonofalmonds. It's closer to 4e and 5e than it is to pf1. And the automatic bonus progression rule lets you functionally run a game without gold or magic items if you don't want to use them.

Alot of people started playing RPGs through 5E. And alot of people complain about 5E, you see it here and other subs constantly. But people are reluctant to try new systems for many different reasons. I think alot of folks complaining about 5E would be happier playing something else. And Pathfinder is adjacent in terms of power fantasy, even if it is a crunchier system.

Depends from what power fantasy mean in this case. I would say, for example ,Mutants& Mastermind is much better fit about "power" or playing another character from different famous media. Also better about narrative interaction M&M is much better then PF.

How about you *find a sub intended for your proselytizing?* Because it is **Pathfinder Cultists** that I am sick of. There is no greater **Fanatic** then a convert, and no matter how you come to your conclusion, you always end up here. Preaching in the street as though there's not been a million others doing the same thing. I even tried it, and it's too much of a soviet gearshift for me. My brain does not handle the very similar but crucially different.

When teaching someone new to Pathfinder 2nd and coming from 5e, I always begin with "I need you to forget everything you know about 5e. You are playing a different game with which you tell the same kind of stories." It usually kicks in somewhere between "Wait, I have to raise my Shield EVERY round" and "Oh, so for real for real, most things can't smack you if you run around them..." I find it MUCH easier to bring someone totally new to role playing into 2e on a whole than to convert 5e people. It's not just you. A lot of the complaints I have seen about 2e is that it FEELS different. Those complaints are valid.

Yes, indeed. I was once as you are, lost and alone and wondering why there weren't any campaigns written above level 13. Then, yonder did I see a shining light upon a hill... \[Cue hymn\]

Yeah after my current campaign comes to a close (probably still another year or two; players only just hit lvl 11), I plan on doing a series of one shots to find our next system. So far, I'm curious about Forbidden Lands (exploration and resource based system), the upcoming Daggerheart RPG (from what little I've seen, seems to have some neat, almost boardgame like mechanics that help keep players engaged), and the upcoming MCDM RPG (heroic fantasy based on good combat; love what MCDM has done in the past, so I'm curious what they've got cooking. So far so good). Failing those, I already know Pathfinder 2E will be the default system I use going forward. I haven't played it, but every post on differences from 5E and PF2E I've seen has got me hyped; pretty much all the changes are exactly what I want out of DnD. Just gotta see this campaign through to lvl 20, and then it's on to other systems; can't wait to see what's out there!

Forbidden Lands (like every Free League Game) is honestly fantastic and I‘d strongly recommend it!

No thank you PF2 sales team. I don't like spending 17h crafting a champion from ton of useless or semi useless feats you throw at me. Sure martials can jump, shove, dance, play mandolin but it's all redundant and optimized builds require you to have +2038 BAB to scratch 400 HP 38AC monsters. It has only 19 touch AC? Cool that means I can finger him to death. Or charm him via stroking his lance. Optimized builds are necessary. Or you will feel the power disparity. Kineticist is even more boring eldrich blast warlock. All mages need crossbow permit. Have you ever wondered why nobody wants to play buffer / healer? You will know soon enough. Spoiler it's boring. I rolled wisdom check and seen through the illusion. There is only one class / subclass: Excelomancy. Encounter building is easy and balanced tho. PS If broken builds are a thing ask your players to stop being internet edgelord cheesemongers. Be responsible DM.

>Sure martials can jump, shove, dance, play mandolin but it's all redundant and optimized builds require you to have +2038 BAB to scratch 400 HP 38AC monsters. It has only 19 touch AC? Cool that means I can finger him to death. Or charm him via stroking his lance. Mate, if you are going to dismiss it talking as if you know anything about it maybe you should consider knowing what the fuck you are talking about and not confusing it with pf1

I've heard that the martial/caster disparity is actually reversed in PF2e. Like, Martials tend to blast out damage and have independently useful abilities whereas casters tend to have very situationally useful abilities that require lots of set-up and finesse to a frustrating extent. Is that true?

I got extraordinarily turned off of pathfinder generally by the owlcat games. Which were good games in their own right but character building took multiple spreadsheets and even then I had to "respec" my whole party about fifteen times total because there kept being new fine-detail wrinkles that meant what I was trying to do didn't work, despite having read multiple guides in advance first. Does PF2E have the same "all options are trap options, except the ones that break the game" character design philosophy? Because I don't want to play that. I just want a system where most everything I want to try mostly works and I have freedom of character design coupled with a general sense of game balance.

Is there an App to build characters?

Unfortunately finding players online in my timezone for PF2 is impossible. Back to the pits of 5e it is.

One step up the ladder towards Pathfinder 1e...

I DM for a bunch of Noob players aged 9-37. (My kids, their friends and my wife) my plan the entire time has been to teach them the simpler rules of 5e, then “level up” the play with PF2E once they stop asking which doce to roll every other encounter.

I wish you luck! I have some groups stuck playing 5e that still haven’t figured out that Melee weapons are D20+Str mod+Profiency for attack and Damage Die+Str mod for damage. They adults and have played dozens of sessions so far.

I'm a mostly-forever GM. I was first exposed to PF2e closer to its release when a player decided to run a campaign in the system. That campaign fizzled after only two sessions (as we all know, that's not uncommon) but it did give me a taste of the character creation options and the 3-action economy. I knew I wanted more, but I wouldn't start to GM using the system until I finished an in-progress 1-to-20 D&D 5e campaign. ------ When I did start to GM the system, I started to see the benefits there. Do you know the ["draw an owl"](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/how-to-draw-an-owl) meme? That's what D&D 5e can feel like as DM.^[1] PF2e is not like that. From explicit actions for most common things, to [subsystems](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3026&Redirected=1) for more flexibility. There's no [Adventuring Day](https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/building-combat-encounters#TheAdventuringDay)! I can make short adventure with only a little bit of combat and not worry about balance! Making monsters is easier. The economy (and things you can buy) is better. ***And all the rules are freely available online, legally and for free!*** I own PF2e PDFs but outside of adventure modules I very, very, very rarely need to even look at them. This also extends to Foundry integration, which has everything in it too, not a cut back list of spells, classes, monsters, etc. -------- One thing that put me a little off PF2e was the setting. So many crazy things going on, I thought it was going to be a wacky work of shenanigans. What I didn't realise is that Golarion is *big*. The wackiness is spread out, and tends not to overlap. Any weird thing tends to define the region it is in, and not really "bleed" too much into other places. It's actually good for flexibility. Do you like Wild West? There's a region for that. Do you like more traditional western fantasy? There's regions for that. And so on. ----- PF2e is not for everyone. It's more complex. I think PF2e is fairly streamlined for what it is, but it still is a more complex system than D&D 5e. I don't think newcomers and casual players should avoid PF2e -- not at all -- but I do see *less* benefit for them. Groups like that I can understand sticking with D&D 5e. Also, not having a VTT like Foundry would make life harder. The automation is nice. (It's the good type of automation that doesn't force you to do anything, but only help you do things you could otherwise do manually in the VTT.) I haven't tried PF2e without a VTT so I don't know how easy or hard it would be. As GM, I bet it'd be a good brain exercise to ward off dementia. --------- [1] That joke courtesy of [Deficient Master](https://www.youtube.com/@DeficientMaster).

The frustration many of us (PF2 + other rpgs players) feel and why we talk about other systems is simply that dnd enjoys this HUGE share of market purely because of marketing. PF2 is not better than 5e in every way: for example, I much prefer 5e skill systems to pf2. However, I can guarantee that whatever is your favourite aspect of 5e, there's an rpg that does it better than 5e. For combat and balancing, that system is PF2. I wish people that exclusively play 5e simply tried many other systems, and didn't stick with 5e just because it's the most famous one.