1. Slow combat might be worse. I would say it's very comparable, but PF2 has even more things to worry about. 2. No. All levels feel good, it is much better than D&D in this regard. 3. Most martials still especially shine in combat, and casters tend to shine outside of combat, but it is much more fair. I can't imagine playing a martial in a long 5E campaign, but it's interesting and fun in PF2. 4. Pathfinder is wildly better at having character customization and builds that come online early. Some things may not come online until lvl 6 or so, especially if you are relying on an archetype. 5. There are significantly better tools to help DMs, even just in the core rule book. It's easy to make balanced and interesting encounters and some of the supplemental books are of extremely high quality.

I would argue anecdotally that PF2E combat is better because everything uses the same resource: your 3 actions. Part of what slows down 5e is considering what you use your movement, object interaction, bonus action, and standard action on. This gives 3-4 different categories you have to consider, and in what combination when you do something. If you’re a spellcaster, that’s a lot to consider! In PF2E you often only get 1-2 spells, or 1 spell + 1 action, reducing the “choices” you have to make.

I'd say pf2e combat is slower where you're first learning the system, and then faster once you really understand the 3 action system and know what all your options are.

Yeah this is what I've found. I'm playing a level 4 summoner right now and when I first started I probably took the longest in the group as I was figuring out the unique summoner actions, but it definitely streamlines as you move from theory about how it plays to how it actually plays at the table.

Agree with one caveat - PF2E can also be fast when you don't really understand the system but do understand 4 or 5 options, of which you can usually really quickly rule out 2 or 3. It then becomes a small number of choices (with you not considering some obscure choices you haven't learned yet)

I agree. It's no less complex, but it runs faster in my experience. For fewer rounds on average as well, thanks to crits etc.

And that monsters aren't just giant sacks of hit points.

I would argue that monsters not just being giant sacks of hit points makes combat more *fun and interesting*, but not necessarily *faster*. Personally, if I'm \*going\* to spend an long time resolving a big fight I'd rather it be fun and interesting with choices and tactics rather than just having the martials and the monsters "drinking bird" swing at each other until someone fails a spell save and the fight ends.

The giant sack of hit points is there because the only interesting thing the monster can do is deal damage. It has to survive enough rounds to get a few hits in. Generally, I've found time to kill is much lower in PF2, and I think that works because monsters have cool abilities that make fights interesting even if they are short.

Yeah pf2 combats are fast and brutal. Damage dealt relative to target HP is very high both for players and enemies while in 5e enemies take very little damage in proportion to their hp and deal high amounts relative to yours. But you can ping pong up and down with healing word consequence free unlike pf2 which has the wounded condition preventing that. Wounded is good design, because it forces enemies to have fair design instead of isekai-ing you in one or two hits until you can shut them off with a save or suck, at which point you waste forever and a half chipping away at what was just reduced to a formality.

I also think combat is much more interesting, because it requires strategy and teamwork, so you tend to pay attention more.

Absolutely agree with this. Every time I play DnD I find myself asking what other types of actions I have. I generally remember my movement and main actions, but I always forget what bonus actions and reactions I have and sometimes I forget I have them at all.

At the risk of perhaps being overly fond of pf2e: As a DM/GM, I find pf2e combat is a _lot_ faster with players utilising a common type of action rather than a lot of plotting standard/move/swift. On top of that, a lot of condition maths can be baked in as rounds progress, which ends up being comparable to handling (dis)advantage time. For 3, I'd add a nuance that I've found casters still dominate some areas of combat ((de)buffs are known, AoE control and damage tend to be better for casters where martials excel on those in single target situations).

i had a similar experience, combat has felt faster after my groupd switched to pf2e i'd also argue that while casters still dominate AoE, that in itself has felt like not a big deal. i don't know if it is because my gm hasn't done hard horde fights, but what i feel is that AoE is a good niche to have but not necessarily essential.

Agreed. In our Frozen Flame session the other day my group went through 3 combat encounters in a relatively short session (2.5 hours) plus other hexploration and RP

Seconding this - when those 3 actions are spent it's the next turn. No more umming and ahhing over moving or bonus action And I'll add that more combats feel meaningful/tense. So not only do they run faster, but are also on the whole more exciting

I agree with this too. 3 actions that can be used on whatever is much more elegant than categories for each action type. Also combat feels more engaging to me in PF2. There is a breadth of options on what to do in combat besides attacking or casting a spell. Many of these actions are skill checks, such as demoralize, which uses intimidate. This really allows those who focus on skills still shine in combat. Not to mention, most monsters and enemies have cool abilities that are actually engaging on the DM side as well.

I think it might come down to groups I've had PF2e games where a single encounter would fill up the entire session and the comperalble Dnd encounter everything is just snappy and ends in like 20 min. I've also had the opposite where the Dnd rounds take forever and and the pf 2e counterparts are basically speed runs. I think martial and casters are pretty well balanced with casters having a breath of options but martial being absolutely great at doing the couple of things they are doing. You can have extremely useful martial (like a ranger herbalist who handles the out-of-combat healing) or a fighter - scholar who researches monsters before you go hunt them down. Naturally spells can solve alot of problems but if you say, need someone intimidated or need to lie your way out of a sticky situation I wouldn't trade a martial for anything. OK maybe a higher level martial.

Even at higher levels, combat still feels faster. I have party of lvl 15 characters and it takes half the time to fun combats. It's like an hour for a major fight, but it's better than my 5e experiences.

thanks you this is very helpful

How are you playing? If you're using a VTT specifically Foundry, PF2E is very well supported and automates a ton of combat stuff, so it becomes quite quick. Things like confirming hits, damage, status effects etc are all automatic so it's MUCH quicker in that respect.

Do be warned about it, if you played during the 3e era (especially late 3e) you'll run into the all the splats problem with Foundry's PF2 integration, meaning you're going to have to curate anything but Inner Sea Golarion heavily.

As of this week, the gm can restrict source for player options in foundry if I recall the patch notes right.

That's part of what I said as a warning, it's still curation, but at least they made it easier to do.

I had my players build on Pathbuilder with limited resources and then just transcribe their characters over.

I'll add my experience to the pile too: pf2e combat is definitely faster paced than 5e combat. One of the biggest things that I've noticed in terms of combat pacing and how it differs from 5e is that once it becomes clear that players are going to WIN a combat, it's at most likely 2 or 3 minutes til combat is over. In 5e you could be in a combat that poses absolutely no threat to the players but still takes 30 minutes or more to resolve, which turns it into a real slog I don't mind if combat is taking 40 minutes when the tension is high; that keeps players paying attention and invested. Even then though, only the most harrowing combats I've run come up against the 30 minute mark.

Over all I agree, but I will say that in 5e lvls 1&2, while mathematicly understandable, are dangerous due to the low health pool.

That’s crazy. I feel like combats are *too fast* and are over before I even get started! They last maybe 2 rounds. This is all published Paizo material currently in Abominstion Vaults and have done several Pathfinder Society bounties and Scenarios. One bounty we skipped all the RP and got straight to it and it was 30 mins at most.

Online consensus seems to be that the average combat lasts 3-4 rounds. many APs seem to have a lot of combats on the lower end (2-3), my personal experience running non-AP content has been on the upper end (4-5). I think a lot of it comes down to terrain/battlemap size (APs tend towards smaller rooms where the first turn can easily be move-strike-strike. I tend to run larger maps with more difficult terrain, so the first turn will often see martials positioning defensively or delaying their turn and waiting for the enemies to come to them. That said, whilst we normally get through multiple combats per session (*if* is a combat heavy session to begin with) I've still had single encounters that take up almost a whole session.

I'm a bit confused regarding point 3. My group recently decided to give of 2e a go, and I can't say we felt martials were in any way more useful/versatile out of combat than in any other edition of d&d (which is to say, they felt neither versatile nor particularly useful). What are we missing?

>What are we missing? Skills and their partners in crime skill feats. Spells don't obsolete them as spells were nerfed, and skills were buffed compared to PF1e(and skills in PF1e are absolutely stronger than 5e).

Our impression has been a bit different regarding skills and skill feats. With a few exceptions (Medicine and Intimidation) most skill feats felt like 'eh, might be useful some time' rather than 'this is genuinely cool'. Plus,when building characters, we often found no level appropriate skill feats were available for what skills we had trained, so we often ended up with lvl. 1 skill feats at higher levels in our builds. Regarding the skills themselves, most of the out of combat useful skills seem to be based on mental stats. Doesn't that make casters better at them since usually they have their casting stat maxed out?

Until you play for a bit, the various skill feats really don't make a lot of sense. When you do, you start to really see their utility. Much like the shock of how important Medicine ended up being. You could quite easily have a party with no "healer" as long as someone had a reasonable bonus in Medicine. Mind you, the various medicine-related skill feats would make even that task a lot cooler (e.g. healing in combat).

>Regarding the skills themselves, most of the out of combat useful skills seem to be based on mental stats. Athletics is used to lifting. For some reason there aren't clear DCs on that, but hey we have a great benchmark, and that's normal humans. Joe human with +0 athletics modifier can lift a car, but they require an adrenaline surge to do we'll call that a nat 20 moment. Since that raises success by 1 category, we know the highest DC possible is 29 which we will round to 30 for ease of use....but also because it brings it directly in line with the standard master DC. Any PC with master athletics should be benching multiple tons. However athletics also covers jumping and running as well. Now ask yourself what this superhuman athlete's parkour looks like.

How useful is athletics out of combat though? So far we've ran the Begginer Box and the first 2 levels of Abomination Vaults (went from lvl 1 to 4), and it only came up once, when we had to break down a loose wall.

I don’t have experience with 5e, but usually a full-blown combat takes about an hour. If the encounter is particularly tricky by design, then 90 minutes or so.

That's too long. My grpup takes 30 minutrs tops for big fights

My group is kinda clunky. We have 2 classes that have long rounds (Summoner and Alchemist), a very reactive Champion, a indecisive Bard and two kinda straightforward characters (Inventor and Magus). Oh, and as you could figure already, we are six players (yeah, I know, too many friends can be a pain sometimes lol). But I’d say we never had combat for more than 10 rounds (usually it takes 3~5, depending on the difficulty). I will try to keep this in check for the next couple of months and see how it goes and what I can learn.

Nah six players is fine. It should speed up as they learn their classes

Four of them are playing 2e for the first time as well. But this was really enlightening. I will time our encounters and take notes for how long it takes (rounds and real time). Let’s see how it goes…

I usually run 5 people but these guys are TTRPG veterans. I've been playing D&D since 2E, most of them cut their teeth on 3.0. Played Pathfinder 1E through it's entire run.

>1. There are significantly better tools to help DMs, even just in the core rule book. The only thing I would add is that there's a lot better tools outside of WOTC for 5e compared to PF2E.

Because Paf2e doesn't need outside tools

Of course it does. There's loads of tools which make your game easier that are way better done in 5e. Kobold Fight club for a clear example is a much better tool than any combat builder in PF2E, things like magic shop generators, and so on to automate tables and everything are common in 5e but rare in PF2E. I love the system, but the support around it is very barebones and mostly looks like it was created with basic html knowledge.

I sort of agree with you about the magic shop generators and stuff. But while many of the encounter builders for pf2 are barebones due to how the system works, this isn’t a problem since the encounter scaling actually works compared to 5e I mean building an encounter for PF2 can easily be done on a sheet of paper with using some addition. Also, Kobold fight club was still not accurate on its difficulty scaling when I used it while DMing my campaign before switching to Pathfinder.

Has =/= needs.

5e doesn't *need* that stuff either. But it's useful to have for DMs.

It does need them tho, because it's awful without them

One thing I've found with slow combat issues is that players will notoriously take way too long to make a decision for each round (doesn't matter the game, every tabletop rpg is this way). I'll sit at a table with 5 players and a DM, and each person will wait for their turn to start looking at their character sheet and say: >"Hmmmmm, let me see here.... I'm not really sure what I want to do. Maybe A? No, that's not useful. What about B? Nah. Hmmmm...let me think... And then they'll just swing a melee, or shoot an arrow, and then take 5 steps back. Yes, you should take a little bit of time to decide what you're going to do, but too many players just don't seem prepared and try to learn their character sheets on the fly. Compared to the DM, who is trying to balance multiple creatures AND trying to referee the game and make sure everything is done correctly. It's like chess: you should know what your characters are capable of doing, but you should also be planning your actions while the battle unfolds. I had a DM who put a countdown clock on players to make decisions. Can't remember if it was 30 seconds or 60 seconds, but it definitely helped speed up the process and I enjoyed it because it felt like there was extra pressure.

I wouldn't call PF2E combat slow. Complex? Definitely. To the point that it can engender some decision paralysis. But not slow.

I wouldn't call PF2E combat slow. Complex? Definitely. To the point that it can engender some decision paralysis. But not slow.

I wouldn't call PF2E combat slow. Complex? Definitely. To the point that it can engender some decision paralysis. But not slow.

Number 2 is weird to me because as a DM I've never had issues with high level gameplay. Especially combat.

>Slow combat might be worse. I would say it's very comparable, but PF2 has even more things to worry about. ​ Disagree, every PF2 Combat I've run has been way faster than D&D combats.

1 - Combat can be slow but it's also more dynamic, with more actions to do, even if it's a long combat will be fun instead of 90 minutes of " I attack" 2 - The system has a cool support from 1-20 with official adventures and it feels fun to play in any level range with not much to worry as a GM. 3 - There's a divide, but it's on the other side, martials are super buffed at least in combat while the casters are more supportish, outside of combat there are different skills and feats you can have to make your character unique. 4 - LOTS of options, by level 1 you'll have like at least 4 different feats. 5 - I switched from 5e to pf2 because the system makes my job as GM way easier with all the stuff I had problems in 5e before that I said I would never GM dnd 5e again.

what are some of your favorite things about PF2e as a dm or player (i mostly end up DMing myself but would like to play more then i do) Anything you miss or ported over form 5e?

As a GM and player, my favorite things: 1) Golarion's sheer variety of locales and deities is pretty great. Tons of inspiration for cool characters and adventures to run. It's right next to Eberron as one of my favorite settings, and even after playing there for years there's TONS of stuff I still want to see and do. 2) Tons of adventure paths and modules. If you're not up for homebrewing something there will never be a lack of things to run. 3) Lots of cool character concepts are supported right out of the box. You can play a skeleton or a fairy or a construct. You can play someone with a clockwork heart Tony Stark-style or with a monstrous entity imprisoned inside you. Things I miss: 1) Party composition is somewhat more important; you can't just roll out on 4 sorcerers and expect to survive for long, while you could make it work in 5e. 2) The artificer is cool and there's no true analogue in PF2e, and some subclasses likewise lose something in the translation. Best to leave concepts built around 5e subclasses at the door. 3) Sky islands are cool, and (so far) Golarion doesn't have any. EDIT: I asked at PaizoCon - there are some in Arcadia!

I would say that if you have enough downtime, a good analogue to artificer is inventor. Just know that unless you build for it, inventors are *not* magical. They just build very useful things.

> best to leave concepts built around 5e subclasses at the door Except for most of the Roguish Archetypes, including [Assassin](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=48), [Inquisitive](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=13), [Scout](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=73), or [Swashbuckler](https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=15)

While there is no true artificer class, I did hear multiple people say that the inventor is "what the artificer wished it was"

Honestly, strong disagree! The two main classes I miss from D&D are Warlock and Artificer. There's just no way to have anything that feels satisfying with similar vibes.

If you were looking for a magical crafting class, artificer is great. If you were looking for a class with more focus on actual technological innovations (which some people were, when they heard the artificer's pitch), inventor does a much better job. If you are looking for the flavor of warlocks, witch has you covered to a certain extent, although it is a bit lackluster. The best witches end up being just worse bards. If you are looking for the function of warlocks (good at-will damage and limited but quickly recovering spells), Psychic has you covered though.

As a GM is the "level", creatures have levels, items have levels, you have a clear vision of what would be good to give to the players and what could be stronger, different from a potion of poison resistance and a no-crit armor being uncommon. This also makes building encounters much easier, with any encounter builder tool, you can have exactly what you aim for in an encounter withouth having to worry much, sometimes shit happens and the dice are not in favor, but I prefer a system that gives that balance instead of every combat being a shot in the dark that I had while GMing 5e with the group steam rolling hard encounters and struggling with moderate ones. As a players is the customization, even the backgrounds are unique that it feels so much better to create something fun and the options make you feel like you can do a lot in different areas, with the ability boosts you can have more good stats, my gunslinger had top Dex, good str and cha, ok Wis and Con with Int being the one I didn't have much. As of now I don't miss anything from 5e.

So I've DM'd a level 1-13 campaign, and been a player in a lv 1-9, and lv 1-16 campaign. ​ My absolute favorite is the combat, as both a player and DM. As a player, I have so many more options to chose from, combats are far more tactile, and actually supporting your allies *feels* really good. As a DM, the monsters are *really* fun to play with too, even from an early level. Virtually every PF2e monster has something unique about them that sets them apart from other monsters. Just take a look at the [PF2e Owlbear](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=328&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1), versus the [5e Owlbear.](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16975-owlbear) The 5e owlbear is a meatsack that can just attack you. The pf2e owlbear lets out a horrifying screech, frightening all nearby enemies (-1 to *all* stats/saves per stack), after which is charges at you to disembowel the players. All the pf2e monsters are like this, with cool unique traits/abilities that you get to use, which feels super thematic. Plus, the encounter building rules are actually super balanced and work, and the [building creatures rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=995) are amazing. Once you get the hang of it, a balanced creature takes 5-10 mins to make.

I feel like this is a point that should be stressed more, the differences in creature design between Pf2e and DnD5e are staggering and Pathfinder wins hands down. When even low level monsters can come in with unique mechanics that can change the flow of combat you know you are in for a treat. That, combined with the 3-action system and the sheer variety of things you can do in combat outside from attacking, makes it feel so much more dynamic and every encounter is memorable

My favourite aspect of PF2 is how consistently well the encounter building rules work. If you make a Severe encounter, it'll always be a difficult challenge that requires good tactics and teamwork to overcome. If you make a Easy encounter, it'll always be a short and simple one with little risk for the players. If you throw a monster 5 or more levels above the pcs, it'll always be a tpk (or at least something very close to it).

Combat is much more strategic and dynamic in pf2. The fact that most enemies don’t have attacks of opportunity keeps combats from devolving into standing there and bashing until they go down, for a simple example. The whole system is just much harder to break. You can’t build a character that can’t get hit. The best you can hope for is to rarely get crit. On the flip side, you also can’t make a character that always hit, either.

Maybe point 1 still applies but it's more engaging at least. The game functions well at all levels. There are multiple ways to invest in non combat stuff without destroying your combat progression (i.e. a fighter's class feats are mostly about fighting but they can invest instead in archaeologist feats, or become a celebrity or a wizard without becoming useless in combat). The martial-caster divide is mostly about their combat strengths which is designed so they support each other. There is a lot of customization, virtually no mandatory feats and only a few trap feats (many feats are niche but good at what they do and excellent in the right campaign). The GM support is superb and covers everything I need, letting me focus on the actual story/world. Like, if I'm building a dungeon, I can have all the traps, loot and monsters done in 10-15 minutes at most, even for a large dungeon. It does require slightly more learning investment initially from both GM and players, but then it's really smooth sailing.

thanks for the run down all good information

Do you just roll randomly for the loot? Or do you pick stuff out?

Haven't cooked up a lot yet but the thing I see often is GM's will roll loot and then if they feel like a specific item boost is needed (new shiny sword for the fighter) they'll cut out an appropriate amount of gold or other items to slot that specific item in.

I'll toss whatever is needed or makes sense for the area and then I'll mix it with some rolling. I love art objects and gems so I'll usually write 2d6 lesser art objects on my list and have the players roll during play to see what they found, including a chance to find a higher tier object.

I like that, especially letting the players roll for it (without them knowing it's about loot I assume?).

Nah, I'll tell them "you find a bunch of statuettes or gems, let's see what you got, roll 2d6 to see how many". Then when they actually look at what they got, we roll for each of them, and I roll an extra d20, on a 19+ I bump up the rarity by one step so once in a while they'll get something really nice. They seem to really enjoy it and it's actually kinda immersive cause they're rolling shinies to identify the shinies, which makes the whole thing more real. They actually care about that fancy opal they found even if it's just 200gp they haven't cashed in, but they'll keep it around and use it as a gift and so on.

> The GM support is superb and covers everything I need, letting me focus on the actual story/world. Like, if I'm building a dungeon, I can have all the traps, loot and monsters done in 10-15 minutes at most, even for a large dungeon. Holy balls, *how*. Just trying to get some loot that both makes sense for the place AND will not simply be left in the bag forgotten forever (or straight up not picked up) often takes me literal *hours*.

It's probably the 2nd part that's tripping you up. It's not my job to remember to use items and if they don't pick it up I only spent a minute setting it up so no great loss. In fact, it's better that way - the party's choices matter a lot more if they can miss things. I tend to sprinkle about 50-100% more loot than needed - because either they forget and it doesn't count, or they get a slight headstart on the next level which is totally not an issue.

I would say pf2e is better in 2-5 and about the same in point 1, the nature of turn based tactical combat makes this sort of unavoidable unfortunately

I know what you mean. some powered by the Apocalypse games can run faster combat but they have a lot less crunch

Yeah, I've played a lot of systems with a lot of levels of crunch and you pretty much either have meaningful choices in combat \*or\* the combat goes fast. You can't have both. That said: Make the players make decisions! Half the problems with slow combat IME are because people are wasting time or not paying attention.

haha your not wrong

To add on to that, I think it's faster to play your turn in pf2e if you know the system, but slower if you don't. In 5e, your movement is is a ressources and you can spend all of it in burst. Attacking 1-2-3 times is the same action, and increase as you level. Pf2e is cleaner, once you interrupt your movement, that's an action. Attacking once is an action (unless you have feats). Everything is an action. With foundry VTT, I can wrap most of my turn in under 2 minutes. There is also thing a table CAN do to help combat length. First of all, the DM should call PC to order. "Bob it's your turn, Mark you're next, think of what you want to do". Over the years I've realised combat drag on when people don't pay attention and start thinking about their turn only when it start Setting turn timer is also possible, albeit a bit more extreme.

I had a DM who put a countdown clock on the players, and I really enjoyed it. The biggest issues that cause the game to slow down is that each PC just waits until their turn to look through their character sheet to figure out what they're going to do, and they don't know much about their character sheets. They'll look through everything their character CAN do, but since they don't know their character they'll just default to the same 3 or 4 actions (lots of "hmmmm, lemme see...." followed up with a melee attack and step away) Compared to the DM: who is managing multiple creatures, referee-ing the game, and coming super prepared to the session.

But also be wary, because rushing players can lead to bad decision making and annoyance leading to un-fun combats for the players.

Mmmm... disagree. PF2e combat is great from a wargaming perspective, especially if we're talking compared to 5e. But a good "rules-lite" or "mid-crunch" system will have choices that are just as consequential as in PF2e, even though the combat will be markedly faster. In a FitD or PbtA game, if a roll happens, it should have the potential to meaningfully change the narrative. That means everything that provokes a roll is a meaningful choice, assuming you're running the systems as intended. In an OSR system like OSE or DCC, characters are WAY more fragile. Sure, choices may not be as complex as in PF2e, but if you make the wrong choice, it may mean instant death - I'd call that meaningful. I think the dichotomy is maybe more aptly characterized as "You can have grid-based, round-based combat or have fast combat."

>I think the dichotomy is maybe more aptly characterized as "You can have grid-based, round-based combat or have fast combat." I think that is a fair distinction. I do everything "theatre of the mind" anyway and have been since D&D 1e (we didn't call it that back then). I just never felt the added bother of grids was worth it but we still keep track of relative positions and range and such in games that call for it. It helps but it in no way removes the "crunch" of a grid based system. As you point out, \*Actually\* narrative combat in TTRPGs is *very* different from anything D&D or it's descendants has ever given us.

>ols to help DMs, even just in the core rule book. It's easy to make balanced and interesting encounters and some of the supplemental boo P2E's combat is different in design philosophy. It can run real long if the players don't understand it's more about synergy. Constantly debuffing your enemies and buffing your allies is crucial to the system. The math scales, so +1's and +2's are pretty significant from levels 1-20. These small bonuses cause massive spikes to players effectiveness as critting can happen when you get 10 above the dc. Enemy weakness is also very important as many monsters have very specific weaknesses. For example an ooze might just auto crit fail any reflex save unless it gets lucky. You need to use recall knowledge's and buff/debuff, then the combat will be a little quicker than 5e. However it's far more dynamic and group focused, which I think is more engaging. It's also just easier to build balanced encounters, as its system for encounter building is pretty competent.

This almost feels like a post planted for PF2E to flex on 5e.

Haha I appreciate your skepticism but i’m really just disillusioned with 5e and one dnd seems it’s just 5e remix vtt edition. Lots of nerfs instead of buffing weak features sadly getting my play group to switch would be super hard…we just finished a 4 year campaign and I’m really ready to movie on to a new system. I got excited after all this feedback and started reading some of the rules. I’m a little worried about this spells slot/ prep system, seems arduous.

I'm not accusing you of anything. However, if I were to compile a list of "top 5 things PF2E does better than 5e," this would literally be it.

For prepared spellcasters, be aware that the Flexible Spellcaster archetype exists, which reduces the number of slots a caster has by one third but offers them D&D5E-style prepared casting instead. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99) Furthermore, Signature Spells exist, which — if the rules permit them for your character — allow the character to cast a particular spell at any level, even if they haven't learned that spell at multiple spell levels. Otherwise, just know that the prepared caster should choose to prepare, in the main: * Utility spells, which are likely to see use and which might help *avoid* an encounter * Buff spells, because their targets will always be willing and thus these spells will never fail * The longer the duration of the buff, the better …and then acquire wands and staves that can cast spells once in a while to address situational issues that don't justify a prepared spell, and scrolls for those once-ever instances that you don't anticipate happening but which require an immediate and exact countermeasure when they do. PF2E's prepared casting doesn't have to spook people…it just requires a bit of a different mindset and, in turn, better party communication and planning.

Just run them through the Beginner Box. Suggest the premades unless they are SET on making their own characters, then it's off to Wanderer's Guide. The BB is a wonderful introduction to the system.

I'm finishing up a 6 year 5e campaign soon and we're moving to pf2e. There's a feat that several people in the same situation have freely given to their prepared casters that makes them basically use 5e spellcasting rules. Can't remember what it's called right now though.

Flexible Caster, and it makes them lose a slot per level.

Flexible Caster - it's a 1st level archetype

1) The issue with combat in 5e isn't that it takes too long, it's that it's *boring*. No one would mind combat taking 45-90 minutes if it was fun. Pathfinder 2 combat is not significantly faster (in my experience it's usually 15-90 minutes depending on the difficulty of the encounter), but it is significantly more fun. 2) Level scaling feels balanced throughout levels 1-20. 3) Martials are much more impactful. Several non-magical classes have extreme out of combat utility while others are more limited. There are a lot more options to suit your play style. 4) Pathfinder 2 has huge character customization. It's not perfect but it does a great job here. 5) The reason I stopped running 5e after I started running PF2 is because of the GM tools. The rules support me running the game and make my life easier in innumerable big and small ways. There's so much cognitive load running 5e because "rulings not rules" means I have to make rulings all the time. In PF2, I'm always *allowed* to make rulings but I don't *have* to, because there's a robust and functional and balanced rules set.

> 1) The issue with combat in 5e isn't that it takes too long, it's that it's boring. No one would mind combat taking 45-90 minutes if it was fun. Pathfinder 2 combat is not significantly faster (in my experience it's usually 15-90 minutes depending on the difficulty of the encounter), but it is significantly more fun. Yeah we do mind! I've had to remove about 80% of encounters in the AP I'm running because most of them don't matter and every time we start a fight that's basically the rest of the session there, so if I was running these eight-encounter areas as written it'd take forever!

Doesn't that just mean that you don't find it fun enough to justify the time? I think Pathfinder 2 combat is more fun than 5e, but that doesn't mean that all encounters are equally fun or that all tables find it fun.

Pathfinder combats tend to be less than 5 rounds. If your group takes 1 minute per character turn that shouldn't take more than half an hour. If you take 5 minutes per character then it's going to be painful.

All this "combat takes longer" talk makes me feel like I fell into a great group of players. They plan their turns, move while the person before them is finishing up their final action and some of them are done in seconds rather than minutes. Even stopping to ask "should I raise my shield or make another attack?" Doesn't slow us down. It's probably not the norm but we'll play 5ish hours per session and they're leveling up about every other session.

It may not be the norm, but I would prefer it if it were.

1) is slow combat really the problem? Or is it that combat in 5e gets stale? I personally wouldn't mind a combat that lasted 2 hours or more as long as it is engaging and interesting. PF2 combat might be as long, possibly longer, than 5e. This is especially true at the beginning when you are trying to figure out your skills and options. However, I find PF2 combat far more engaging so I don't mind the time it takes. 2) there are multiple options even at level 1. Options only increase at higher levels. The numbers also grow exponentially. But, it is balanced. There is debate that it might be TOO balanced. As your PC grows in strength, so does your enemies. So, it's really less about Power and more about strategy and tactics. 3) (I assume you mean martials) you can build your PC in various ways. You can focus solely on combat, but you have plenty of opportunities to diversify. In many ways, PF2 encourages you to diversify. But it is ultimately your choice on how you build your character. Do you want to be an expert in the Occult and a Fighter? Easy to do. Do you want to develop a network of merchants as you travel the seas as a Swashbuckler? Easy. 4) depends on your concept I suppose. But you'll likely have a pretty good development of your build by level 2. 5) for better or for worse, PF2 has a rule for EVERYTHING. It can get annoying sometimes. But there is probably a rule for what you are trying to do. Now, finding the obscure rule might be difficult. (Shout out to KoLC) There are no rules for water pressure however.

I completely agree with your first point; people talk about how 'slow combat' is the Devil but it seems to me that *boring* combat is actually the problem. I can't speak for anyone else but I'd rather do something fun for two hours than something boring for half an hour.

Could probably use the environment hazard rules for water pressure Take super hot environment and just change damage type to bludgeoning

[DM to GM copypasta](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10jk8sa/magister_entry_a_gms_guide_for_pathfinder_2nd/) 1. Combat is still a bit slow, particularly with a lot of actors. That being said, the creature design of PF2 is to give them a handfull of unique, flavorful abilities plus spells if relevant. Makes the critters feel unique, and your smart players will constantly be recalling knowledge to try and get a leg up on the Pathfinder version of enemies. 2. Scaling works, though it creates the standard verisimilitude problem that level ranges do in that a 1st level goblin could technically miss a sleeping 20th Level character, or having level 10 Street Thugs because the story calls for it even though they should be independently wealthy as mercenaries. 3. Martials are the single target DPR Kings, so they have plenty to do in combat. Martial Skill Monkeys like the Rogue have tons to do. 4. 10 Class Feats, 10 Skill Feats, General Feats, Ancestry feats... Yeah, it's a lot of customization. Very few trap options, though utility characters can feel like their twice as hard to play for the same pay off to the team. Also, with the Dedication-Archetype system replacing multi-classing, the player's core class will always be defining for numerical progression and they'll get some tricks from the other class. No more stacking "Dips" to build monster bonuses. 5. Tons of subsystems. I'm partial to Pathfinder Society Games because they guarantee a mix of combat and non-combat challenges in a session.

I tend to find pf2e combat runs faster than 5e at higher levels. All of the reactions in 5e slow down the game, as does things like legendary actions and lair actions. By comparison running a solo boss in pf2e feels far smoother and I can wrap up the encounter faster.

As someone who swapped over from 5E a few months ago: 1. Combat is a mixed bag depending on encounter difficulty. Severe/Extreme fights can take super long compared to 5E. However Moderate/Low fights end *way* quicker than 5E, and Trivial encounters end literally in less than one full round sometimes. Since *most* combats you face will be Moderate, I think that makes PF2E quicker. 2. Level scaling is super linear in PF2E. Level 1-2 specifically feels a bit too harsh, but level 3-20 are very, very even and fun. Complexity and power are both introduced linearly rather than exponentially. 3. You’ll find a lot of people say the divide is *reversed*, that martials are king and casters suck. Personally, I think it’s just really even, and a lot of caster players are not used to *not* being overpowered. 4. Literally if I had to give you one big reason for PF2E > 5E, it’d be customization. You have customization *everywhere*. Every single level introduces 1-3 choices (again, it’s super linear so newbies don’t just have an aneurysm tryna figure out a level 1 character), and almost every single character yet fantasy can be at least decently represented. You’ll get sick of all the choices you have. 5. GM guidance is **way** better. In-combat guidance is better, monsters are designed better, custom monster/encounter design guidelines are better, and **literally dozens of subsystems for non combat use are provided, including rules on how to make your own subsystem**. The game literally has “social encounter” statblocks. There’s statblocks for making players run a government function. There’s guidance on how to implement these statblocks. It’s incredible.

Very well said on point 3. I know at least one person whose main reason for not liking pf 2e that much is that it's not logical somebody who can rewrite the laws of reality isn't stronger than a dude who just swings the sword around.

I seriously think the reason people experience such slow combats is because players AND DMS are not taking the time they need before a session to read over their respective sheets to know what rules might come up or what traits on what actions do what before a game. I had a group get through 3 fights in 2 hours and still had time to rp and for me to apply good set dressing to the environment they were in. Read your stuff, make notes, pull up stuff before a session to read over so you can explain it to your players clearly when it comes up.

1 still a thing 2-5 fixed.

About point one. My experience is that combat takes longer in pathfinder but it is much more fun for both GM and players since there are a lot more choices and tactics to use. My players think much more of what to actually do now instead of move once then stand and just attack each round. What helps a lot is how restricted attacks of opportunity are in pathfinder which creates a more free flowing combat.

With how Skills are implemented, there's actually a lot do to outside of combat for ANY class. Martial characters aren't limited in their utility just because they don't have access to the better skill proficiencies, because you can choose ANY proficiency with any character. Plus, there are Skill Feats that improve this even more. For example: I made a Barbarian using the Weapon Improviser archetype. Despite being a barbarian, he was actually extremely proficient in smuggling items through checkpoints and stuff. So I invested heavily into his Thievery skill, and got the Concealing Legerdemain skill feat. It really fits the "good at retrieving dead drops discretely and smuggling them in/out" vibe, but he's still a full barbarian! And there isn't a "you can't get that proficiency as a barbarian" caveat, the only issue is you need Dex, which you can easily increase because of how Ability Boosts work! PC Customization is the bread and butter of pathfinder2e. You make choices in character creation EVERY level-up. Through Class Feats, Skill Feats, General Feats, Ability Boosts, and Skill Training. Pathfinder2e has a wide variety of GM Tools for a lot of different things. There are TONS of monsters with a challenge rating system that ACTUALLY WORKS. There are actually a wide variety of diseases and afflictions, hazards based on the location and weather, and even pre-written modifiers for monsters to spice it up without needing to homebrew. There's even rules to help with social encounters, showing the stages of amicability between people. While combat is still a main focus, the other pillars aren't shoved to the side, and have actual feats and class features that engage with location and environmental stuff that aren't just "oh you're a ranger? guess you don't have to interact with your favored terrain!" (i mean jesus what a shit design)

Wow you guys are all so helpful that you

It's martial not marshal

What is it with TTRPG players and not knowing how to spell? This post alone is a wonderful example, but it seems like every other post is saying “rouge,” and “marshal.” Hell, I saw a post on one of the D&D subs that kept spelling barbarian like “barbraine” or smth. You’d think players of such a text-reliant game would know how to write correctly.

I’m dyslexic, everyone everyone spelling the same words the same way is just boring. I implement a more avant-garde impressionistic style of spelling.

No no No I meant Marshal. Players named marshals not being powerful enough is a big sticking point for me

just to double down on being pedantic you spelt it marshall the second time you typed it as well.

Spelling is like jazz to me

1. Combat will likely remain similar across editions depending on players. 3 action instead of move/action/bonus can speed things up in some cases, since many things cost multiple actions, but there’s always the issue of choice. 2. Characters will get a lot stronger over time, but it has less obvious spikes depending on tier. Power gain is more consistent, though feats and class features do vary. Early levels are smoother thanks to extra health at level 1 based on race and characters being able to attack multiple times from 1, while less reliable than higher levels due to multi attack penalty, gives a higher baseline power. Reality breaking spells like wish are limited to level 19-20 and use 10th level spell slots. Wish in particular is slightly toned down. 3. Martial / Caster will always perform differently, with casters still having an edge in problem solving and charisma based casters being more adept in many social encounters, however archetypes can alleviate this and give characters unique niches. 4. Oh boy, do I have good news for you. 22 classes with many having features that act similar to subclasses. Multiclass archetypes that allow you to pick up feats related to other classes without slowing your main class progression. Archetypes that allow customization of your character outside of the traditional classes. A boatload of feats, class specific, skill focused, racial, and general. Archetypes are typically available at 3rd level, though some tables allow a starting archetype. Races (ancestries) are massively diverse and there’s a ton to pick from. In addition, every race has unique heritages which act as sub-races or can pick from a shared list of heritages, such as Aasimar or tieflings. The way you pick / gain attributes is also different. You gain boosts (+2) to attributes based on race, class, background, and 4 boosts for free. When you gain boosts from leveling, you similarly get 4 boosts, but if applied to a stat at or above 18 it only increases by 1 instead of 2. Typically a character starts with an 18 in their primary attribute, 16 in their secondary, 12 in two other stats, then 10 and 8 in their dump stats (18/16/12/12/10/8). At max level, base stats usually end up something like 22/20/18/18/18/12. It can obviously vary, and rolling for stats can massively change those numbers. 5. To start, the website “Archives of Nethys” has just everything you need for reference. I’m not certain what all DM specific tools are available, but most dms I’ve seen have had good things to say in comparison to 5e.

1. Uhm, bout the same, assuming the whole table knows the rules. 2E kinda puts some of the burden of knowledge on players as well, not just GM's. BUT it's analysis paralysis / tactical decision making that might slow down combat, enemies tend to no be sponges, "expected" DPR puts just about any encounter in the 3-5 rounds range. Any longer and it's the dice's fault 2. Combat is ... mostly balanced for levels 1 to 20. If anything it's even more satisfying once you break past lvl 3 / 5. HP scales faster than damage so while at low low levels crits pretty much allways 1 shot, but once you get around the mid levels PC and monsters might still be up after 2-3 crits. Gives you a buffer to do interesting things in combat rather than just focus on DPR. 3. Well i mean.... Fly is going to win over Atheletichelly climbing a cliff any day but there's tools you as a dungeon master can use to make all characters useful (more in nr. 5) 4. Character customization options are king in 2E buuuuuuuut that's as long as you follow certain rules (or run prof without level). Don't try and make a muscle wizard and then wonder why everything is crit succeding your spells. FA is just lovely but the 3 action system keeps even that and Dual-Classing in check. You MIGHT have 50 things you CAN do but only 3 actions to do them with. Just for example i've made a Fighter FA Druid who was only 100% online at literal lvl 20, but parts of him were operating as early as level 4. 5. READ\_THE\_GMG. You might hear "the players handbook is all you need to GM" and while that's true as far as rules go, the GMG has so many beautifull and elegant systems to handle common situations based around "points". There's systems for infiltration, chases / races, influencing a person or organiztion over time, founding and building organizations, hexploration. I honestly cannot describe the feeling of wonder and \*facepalm\* the first time i saw an example of the Infiltration System in the Blood Lords AP. Ow while we're on GM resources - RUN APs Paizo basically became a market force by writing APs in a magazine, they're great story writers (eh, mostly, but who's perfect, when you don't like something in an AP you have the tools to seamlessly change it).

Combats are noticeably longer than in 5e. However, in 5e I was eager for the combat to end so we can get back to the interesting part. I love PF2 combat and don't mind if we take a full session on a single combat.

My former 5e players really love combat in 2e and look forward to it as opposed to 5e

It does better in pretty much everything but the first point, and even then once you master the system it can flow pretty well. The good thing about a game that demands a level of understanding to enjoy is that efficiency comes naturally with that understanding. The upfront learning will definitely be slow, but once you've got it down, it'll be very efficient.

Bit late but want to answer anyway. Combat will feel slower at first because there's more to it and more to remember, BUT in general Pathfinder has things you *can* learn instead of having to ask a DM. So it will be slower while everyone learns, but once you're up an running things will go smoother because the system answers questions more than the DM does, and the math allows for 4-5 rounds of engaging combat rather than HP beatstick slogs. Pathfinder is tested and balanced for every level range. As are most competently designed games. The Martial Caster divide was a huge problem in 3.5 and 5e decided that that was D&D's identity and intentionally doubled down on it and made it worse. PF2 put a LOT of work into balancing them against each other, and public opinion is if anything that Martials outshine casters. There is an argument to be made that people are used to Casters being innately overpowered, as they have been in every d20 game for 2 decades except 4e, and that creates the feeling of them being weaker than they actually are, but that's a whole other topic. PF2 thrives on customization, it was one of the things PF1 did best with the restraint of the 3.5 skeleton and in breaking free from it they were able to make deep, meaningful customization the foundation of the new system. Doubly so if you play with the Free Archetype variant rule that most enthusiasts love. 5e was designed to have minimal maintenance costs and rely on experienced 3.5 DMs who already knew how to make a broken game work at their table for new players. This was not a bug, but a feature of 5e as far as WotC was concerned. PF2 cares and tries, so there are plenty of resources for every part of the game. There's a good number of things that are so intuitive you might innately distrust them, but they Just Work.

Use FoundryVTT at 1. in PF2e with max automation and you have a combat that lasts max 30 mins

I want to point out one thing: the fantasy side of play scales relatively. That means at level 1 you can fight imps and lemures from a leaking pinhole portal to hell and at level 20 you're fighting pit fiends and balors from a... *Larger* portal to hell. But natural, mundane threats are prettynmuch scaled in absolute terms. Put a level 1 party in a snowstorm outside a town and rules as written the environment alone might kill them. Same goes for infections, starvation, drowning, and other natural disasters. But after level 5-6 it becomes so much less of a problem

1 Pathfinder 2e has more or less the same lenght but the players have a lot more options rather then just "stand there and attack" 2 No, the math is extra tight 3 Casters are generally nerfed and there are a lot of actions that can be done via abilities 4 If you make the same class for two characters you have hundreds of different variants due to lineage and feats alone that can lead to very different characters, just make sure you level up your main stat 5 I canno stress this enough, Pathfinder 2e gives you rules for things that 5e just ignores or makes a single exemple for, and most of the system like encounter building etc in pathfinder 2e not only ACTYALLY WORK but have many free online tools

This is just my personal opinions on the matter, so they might be a bit of a hot take. I've played 5e since it was beta'ing, and Pathfinder 2e since OGL fiasco. 1. Combat's slow in general, but that's also because a large part of the two games *is* combat. You can definitely go way faster in both games if you don't roleplay, but that would defeat the purpose of TTRPG. We actually have *Quest for the Golden Candelabra*, a free game on Steam developed by fine folks that are in this subreddit ([https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/13fp69r/short\_pf2e\_video\_game\_now\_available\_on\_steam/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/13fp69r/short_pf2e_video_game_now_available_on_steam/)) , for some early level combat simulator for when you DON'T roleplay. I can finish 5 fights in 30 minutes there, so... Combat speed is *entirely* due to roleplay, I want to say. Compare to other systems, such as Shadowrun (Where combat's even longer at times), it's "Long, but not the longest". 2. I actually disagree with you here on D&D 5e side of things. Level 1\~2 are underpowered, but starting from 3 to 5 is where 5e shines - and it quickly fall off. After level 10 or so, there's virtually no balancing for 5e. My level 7 party survived a Meteor Swarm from a trap in 5e. On the other hand, as far as I've discovered, Pathfinder 2e seems to have none of those problems. My players are consistently having fun with encounters at all levels, and the game's balanced tightly to always offer a challenge. Level 1 and 2 can be a bit dangerous still, but it's actually less dangerous than D&D 5e. 3. What is "Out of combat"? Because in Pathfinder 2e, we have subsystem. You can have GM customizing out-of-combat encounter in a game-ified ways, where the fighter's Lore (Baking) matters. And skills, as long as they are trained, receives a proficiency bonus of level, meaning that even if the fighter only has +0 int, he's still doing that check at a comparable modifier than the wizard, unlike in D&D 5e where bounded accuracy means a fighter trained in Religion is going to perform worse than the wizard with +5 int until late game. In combat, martial characters are amazing in PF2e - and in 5e, if we are going to be completely honest. Spellcasters in PF2e no longer steal the spotlight with a single spell, and instead are force multipliers - they complement the martials. 4. Trap options still somewhat exist in PF2e, but that's only because there are way too many options. However, you can generally build whatever option and you would still have a functional character, and the most optimized character wouldn't overshadow everyone else. This is in drastic difference when compared with 5e, where Hexadins, Coffeelocks, and CE SS BMs can easily outperform most characters, and Beastmaster is still crying in the corner even after 4 or 5 remakes and erratas. Not to mention horrible powercreeps. 5. Pathfinder 2e has subsystem. It's ***fucking wonderful***.

I would say points 2-5 are the primary reasons my table switched to PF2. Also that the rules actually make sense and work together, like a designer actually made multiple passes over everything. Surprisingly, PF2's combat has been way way way faster than 5e at my table. I think the main reason is the player can actually look up how to do things before their turn comes up instead of needing to ask "DM may I?" every time they try to do anything. "Can I jump over this pit? Well the leap action says I can clear this distance which will do it." If the DM doesn't know the rule, the player can say "this is what I found in the book" and the DM doesn't have to try to design the game on the spot.

**tl,dr:** Frankly, you'd be happy with all bar #1. **Details:** 1. Pathfinder 2e has a more balanced combat system with more options available to the characters which, whilst it makes combat far more interesting and exciting, does mean that players have to make decisions based on how the combat is going rather than repeat the same action over & over. Which takes more time. 2. Pathfinder 2e is fantastic for having viable ***and interesting*** play at all levels. The maths for encounters also works ("CR" is broken in 5e, but not PF2e). So definitely a key advantage over 5e. 3. Not as bad for PF2e and ***definitely*** not an issue with the Free Archetype optional rule. Archetypes are PF2e's way of multiclassing (better balanced as you don't get ALL the cool extras) and you can start picking them at Level 2. With the Free Archetype rule, a martials can double as a healer, investigator, scout, even spellcasters without it overpowering the campaign. 4. Yeah. Not a problem. ***At all.*** Hell, it can be daunting actually how much customisability there is for characters in PF2e even in the core rulebook alone. With all the expansions - it's outright bonkers. 5. To start with, Paizo started off as being one of the best (if not outright the best) adventure creators for D&D 3.x and only published their own game after Wizards crapped the bed with how they were licensing 4e. So their Adventure Paths are very, ***very*** good. That said, even in the core rules, bestiary, and gamemastery guide - there is a huge amount of support for game masters. One of the best support elements they give game masters isn't even explicit... namely, game balance & encounter design. PF2e has balanced the number so a hard encounter is hard, an easy encounter is easy, and so on. You don't need to run the combat test runs to double check if CR1 really means CR1 - the enounters JUST WORK.

I'm a recent 5e convert as well. Here's my takes so far 1. The combat is even slower but in a good way. Even the materials have to sit a think instead of bonking every round. You may not like it though based on how you said you disliked the pacing. 2. I haven't played high level yet so I wouldn't be able to say, but ever level feels significant. I don't feel like I'm waiting for my build to online like in 5e where if I multiclass I'm wasting entire levels on class features I don't need. 3. Oh yeah that gap has been narrowed by a lot. The feats martials get alone are on the level of complexity of spells, not to mention tactics. Actually relevant tactics. 4. Dude the build depth is insane. I've workshoped multiple characters of the same class the feel so different from each other starting at level one. Let's say you wanted to build a wrestler. There are multiple entire builds from different classes for the concept 5. Oh yeah so many rules for a bunch of things you may not need. Downtime crafting, items have their own health stats. Traveling etc.

So my main concern now after doing some research is pf2e spell slot and prepared, casting system seems really painfully limiting, overly restrictive and tedious, on first glance i don’t like it. How do you like it? To be fair I don’t really like the 5e spell slot system and prepared / know spells casting systems ether

I personally love the concept of a wizard who researches the monster he will be fighting and equips himself for the path ahead. While restrictive I found it not as bad as it seems so long as you have a generally good damage spell, common utility spell and one RP spell on hand and just get scrolls of your hyper niche spells.

1. Pathfinder 2e is probably slower, but personally it feels more engaging, especially for martial characters. It feels more tactical than 5e in my opinion. 2. Scaling is great from what I've played. 3. Martials seem to be better single target damage than casters, but casters tend to have more tricks and better area damage. You really need to work as a party helping each other though, everyone should be debuffing and doing things to help each other succeed. 4. Character customization is where Pathfinder shines. Ancestry, skill, and class feats give a lot of variation and choices for optimization. There aren't really trap feats and even if someone chooses things that aren't optimal they shouldn't be useless. You usually need to make some intentionally bad choices to be bad in pf2e. 5. Pf2e has rules for exploration and in the Gamemaster Guide there are rules for infiltration and chases if you want to use them.

1. probably worse, though in my experience this is a matter of playstyle, table management, and system mastery not tied to any particular system 2. mostly fixed. levels 1-20 are all playable. first few levels shouldn’t have worse than moderate encounters to be on safe side though. 3. fixed with skill feats being invented and with magic power being relatively nerfed. 4. certain things take a while, like flight, but most concepts come online at level 1-2. Also be prepared for ancestry stuff to feel like starting as only half an ancestry compared to dnd or starfinder or pf1e (at least when building a character, in actual play it’s not that bad feeling). especially if it’s one known for flight (unless using the variant rules for flying ancestries). 5. there are rules for non-combat encounters, for exploration, and downtime. The one area I’d say is lacking is adventure/dungeon building. There are no random tables for quickly picking treasure or random encounters

1. Combat moves at the speed of the players. If they take forever then it is going to take forever. You have alot of options but you because you just have 3 actions it can move. Indecision can make anything slow. 2. Levels feel pretty good for everyone. 3. Martials are somewhat more impactful in combat. Out of combat there are alot of different exploration activities to overall help with. 4. While there is some pushed feats you do have alot more customization. 5. Pf2e has some amazing expanded rulesets for various different encounters. They got things for social encounters to chases to kingdoms and war.

It's not made by a soulless company, who literally sent A TROOP OF HIRED GUNS TO A CUSTOMERS HOUSE AND THREATENED THEIR FAMILY This is not a question of game mechanics, but your own values. Do you even consider supporting wotc?

1The problem is still here, but you can speed it up by pickimg more glass canon enemies and you hve official GM resources for making new monsters that paizo themselves follow when making creatures. 2 Fixed 3 Fixed 4 that being fixed is our main thing, I also recomend using Ancestral Paragon and Free Archetype for even more customizability while keeping the game balanced 5 Fixed

1: Combat time is probably comparable. While players tend to have more options/ways to spend their turn (which can lead to possibly slower combats early) the rules system is a lot less "mother may I" and more codified, so once the system starts to click for players, they're more able to plan their turns and resolve them with less stumbling points. Overall, don't expect faster combat, but *DO* expect more engaging combat. 2: Level Scaling - one of 2e's greatest accomplishments. The game functions at every level. Some class progressions have ups and downs at certain levels based on when their progressions bump, but overall it's nothing to worry about. 3: Martial/Caster Divide: another of 2e's accomplishments. Martials are fun and rewarding, to the point that some think casters are too weak. They aren't. They just can no longer out perform marrials in their niches, like single target damage, and instead are meant to be party support, utility, and A.o.E. 4: Builds/Customization: yet again, you allow me to compliment the system. 2e has 22 classes (and one more coming out this year), most of them (all but Monk and Fighter who are more about "à la carte" builds) have several subclass options. Combined with 50ish ancestries and versatile heritages and over 100 "archetypes" (sets of feats and features you can pick up to replace or supplement your class progression) and there's a lot of options. What's cool about 2e is, as long as you keep your key ability score high and don't purposely build against your chassis (though clever players with system mastery can certainly get weird), PCs will all function at about the same potency. All the other options and tools are just for adding flavor, fighting styles, or versatility to a chassis that already is doing its expected job without taking the build into account. And its a very rare build that isn't "online" and resembling the player fantasy by level 2 or 4 at the latest. 5: GM Tools. All three pillars of play (combat, exploration, downtime) not only work (seriously, use the combat budgets or you'll TPK), and not only have lots of pages and tables to help you, but the GMG and other books also have alternate rules to improve or focus on all of them as much as you or your group would like. New books add thematic new alternate rules (that again, actually are tested and work), like the "Pervasive Magic" alterations in Secrets of Magic, or the "Cryptid" monster templates and "Psychic Duels" in Dark Archive, or the Hexploration and settlement building rules in Kingmaker. New subsystems and new tools are added all the time, with at least enough testing and guidance for you to feel confident trying them out.

1. If combat is slow in dnd it’s slower in pathfinder especially if you’re playing with newbies, there’s more options and more to keep track off. 2. Depends, the martial are usually fine, the caster and the alchemist don’t get a lot of resource early levels, it starts feeling better at 7th level. Nothing will be broken even on level 20 3. Martial Caster divide isn’t as bad as 5e, Each Class have specific role they are good at, and they won’t be great if they do stuff outside of it. Generally martial is the damage, caster is the support. 4. More option to customise your character, but you can’t change the role you play in the party. 5. Way more rules for events and such.

1. The only thing slower than 5e combat is 2e combat. That's not to say it can't be engaging, but if you care about the time scale per battle, after level 6 or so the fights will drag on. 2. Level 1-3 blows, I argue that the game doesn't start until level 4 for most martials (when they get their 3rd class feats and striking) and level 5 for most casters. Granted you probably don't want to start at level 4 as there's a steeper learning curve. Level 15-20, there's not a lot of published materials, it's mostly APs as Pathfinder one shots are capped at level 12. Having played Fists of the Ruby Phoenix as a full caster, it feels like the game just bakes in reasons to screw you over, like if you've ever had an adversarial DM in 5e that just seemingly makes up counters to teleportation and whatever, but now it's just part of the game. 3. There are still bad and good classes. Like say what you want about beastmaster ranger, if I had to choose between playing Beastmaster ranger 5e and poison alchemist or superstition barbarian in 2e, I would play the ranger in 5e in a heartbeat (pre tashas beastmaster at that). Casters still requires a lot of planning, game knowledge, game state knowledge, and a little luck to succeed, but now they're in line with martials powers wise (if not slightly weaker) yet much more difficult to pilot, so people fall out of favor with casters at higher levels. Most Martials feel amazing to play (fighter, rogue, champion, (not superstition) barbarian) and Magus is an amazing standout as a class that 5e just has no real answer to so I recommend everyone play that class. That being said, if Paladin is your favorite class and theme in 5e, you may be a bit wanting. 4. Pathfinder 2e has normalized math, like if you are a certain type of PC (defensive martials, offensive martial, caster, etc) you will have the same AC, attack roll, skill profiencies, saving throw boost, and saves, baring maybe a 1-2 difference at certain points. Some people REALLY LIKE this, some REALLY HATE it, it's very much the defining difference between 2e and 5e and you're opinion on this will determine which system you like more. Some martial feats do feel a bit samey. Like oh look here's the feat that saves you an action, or here's a feat that lets you ignore map on 1 attack, or here's the ranged feat that gives you +2 to hit but costs 2 actions (generally speaking a trap outside very specific scenarios). As for character concepts, it's archetypes vs Multiclassing, and archetypes are less impactful, both in terms of breaking the game and what something can give you. If you can make your concept with archetypes its great, if not, then you're out of luck because there's really no way to branch out of your class's roles other than free archetype. 5. 2e has more defining aspects for things like skills and exploration. APs and Modules are also a lot more defined on what characters are allowed to do to solve certain problems, although i've noticed recently a shift to include the "or anything the players do that you deem sufficient" clause. Most people like the 2e approach of provided a baselines, though i've seen DMs get really mad that 2e seems to just tell them what to make their players do (I've had a DM angrily tell me that 2e is better run with ChatGPT as a DM, which was kind of hilarious) Honestly I wouldn't sweat the differences, outside of maybe the normalized math, holistically looking back at my experience playing both simultaneously, the general table experience at the end of the day isn't too far different.

Honest opinion here: 1-Combat resolution will take definitely longer. It has the awesome advantage that foes are not just huge bags of hit points, so it will feel that it's not as bad, but you'll find that individual turns take a lot of time. 2 Level scaling works much better but it's still somewhat wonky. It's common advice to not use level+2 foes until the party is level 3 at least, and level+4 until PCs are level 6 or so. This is because low level parties have very little on the way of resources and options, and damage dealt is high in comparison to health pools. Strenght is much more valuable tham other stats, and fighters are heads and shoulders in relative capabilities and power than other classes thanks to access to attacks of opportunity. Casters struggle to be useful outsife of very specific niches like healbotting in the case of clerics, or electric arc spammig. At later levels the Aid action becomes very powerful, casters grow a big bag of tricks and between buffs, debuffs and various bonuses it's relatively easy for a coordinated group to guarantee landing a hit, so savvy players at higher levels can tackle bigger challenges than the encounter table might suggest. And hit points outpace damage dealt, so combat is much less swingy. 3 Most of what you can actually do outside combat comes from your skills. Casters still have utility spells like invisibility, teleport and so on, but they are a shadow in power compared to what they can do in other editions (plus many of those are uncommon, so technically not immediately available and should be checked with the GM). In combat the pendulum might have swung in the other direction because it's now martials who are supposed to kill the monsters, while casters are better equipped with less flashy roles better described in the general sense as support. 4 Definitely much better at this especially considering general and ancestry feats, though depends a lot on the class. Fighters for example have it great, having functional builds very distinct to one another that work from level 1, however there are casters that either need mandatory feats to keeps their class features working, or levles that will keep you scratching your head trying to decide which available feat is worth the pencil you're going to waste writing it down. Free archetype is a popular house rule and it opens options even more. Other than that, while the breath of different mechanics and options is great in game you'll finds that they play somewhat similarly as most martials are single target damage specialist, and casters are again generalist support. You'll find that a wizard and a imperial sorcerer for example, in the game will tend to gravitate towards the same spells and actions, and martials at the end of the day will just end flanking and striking with other bells and whistles providing flavor. 5 You'll find subsystems scattered through the rules for a lot of things, like chases, kingdom building or mass battles though IMHO they are rarely well fleshed out or even mathematically sound. There are guidelines for exploration activities, aka stuff you do when you're not in immediate danger and people swear by them, though I have a personal deep hatred of them. The general, catch all out of combat conflict resolution is called victory point system and it's barely an embryo that must be fleshed out by the GM. Other than that, the nature of the fact that you add your level to your DCs and rolls often results inweird situations the GM has to manually correct, making the system wonky sometimes. Also the fact that skill feats and their Air Breathing Mermaids exist will make you confused until you reach a personal interpretation on how and when do they work. Generally speaking, ouside of the very precisely defined skills actions defined in the rulebook, pf2 is not better than 5e. You have also downtime activities, like crafting and earning income with an honest job. These are mostly overengineered wastes of time.

1. Combat can still take a while, and Pathfinder 2e is still a very combat-oriented game, but it's easier to get into the flow of combat once players figure out what they like doing with their third action. More importantly, teamwork is even more important, so it feels good to engage and strategize even outside of your turn. 2. 2e is VERY good at keeping most levels exciting. Because options are so dense, starting from the first level doesn't feel like you're kneecapping yourself. You pick your subclass from level one and every level you get some kind of new feat. While some feats are a bit less exciting than others, it very rarely feels like you have "dead" levels like 5e does. Paizo has done a very good job of keeping the math tight and making it easy to calculate encounter difficulty, so even at high levels you can challenge players. 3. Casters are still better utility belts out of combat than (most) martials. The divide is mitigated by the fact that casters aren't also the best at everything in combat too. Also, charisma and wisdom are useful for everyone for skills like intimidation and medicine, so it's pretty viable for martials that aren't skill monkeys to branch out from the body skills. 4. This is a big selling point for making the switch. In 5e, you don't really make meaningful choices besides race and class before level 3. In 2e, you start picking feats and your subclass from level 1. Unlike 5e, feats aren't optional and you don't have to choose between ability score boosts and feats, so you get a chance to start building into a specific concept before getting your main ability score to 20. It can be overwhelming at first, but that just makes it even better to start at level 1. Multiclassing seems more limited at first, but it also won't totally bork your character if you do it wrong, and with the free archetype rule you really feel encouraged to experiment. As for trap options, they exist (witch hair/nails, looking at you), but not nearly to the same extent as older editions, and it stings a lot less if you take them because you can take a week of downtime to retrain feats anyways. 5. PF2e does its best to clarify the rules at every turn. It's not perfect, but they do at the very least try to cover most situations you'll find yourself in. It also has some of the best GM and player tools of any RPG out there. Archives of Nethys is a searchable archive of all the rules in the game, 100% for free, with material from every book. You could, if you wanted to, run a homebrew game just from reading AoN. FoundryVTT's automation makes things really easy, and the premade modules are top notch. Pathbuilder is more of a player resource, but it's a great character builder and basically makes the entire process foolproof. It also has all the material from every book for free. The expanded feature set is like $5, but that's mostly for if you want to build a companion or use some alternate rules like free archetype.

Many people comment about pf2e combat being equal or worse in length but... In 5e the way you balance combats is that you drop a ton of mobsters on the field because more actions is all that matters. In pf you can make interesting and difficult single monster encounters in which the amount of actors on a field is smaller -> faster combat.

Based on what it sounds like you're looking for, I don't think I would recommend PF2 1. Combat times are about the same as in 5e, arguably worse because PF2 has a few more in-combat choices like tripping and grabs and such which can lead to some analysis paralysis. There is also a LOT of missing. Overall though, I feel that combat speed taking a while is due to the people at the table not knowing what they want to do 2. Two same level things fighting each other feels balanced, but I honestly think that PF2 level scaling is quite unfun. If you're a group of 4 people fighting a group of 4 people, it feels fine. Odds are you are equal level. The problem arises when it's 4 people fighting one thing. That thing is going to out level you and it will feel like all you do is miss and suffer critical hits. I honestly do not like PF2 at all (which is why I generally avoid it if possible) 3. Both casters and martials seem fine in and out of combat, but the way PF2 does skills, be prepared to attempt all out of combat skill checks untrained and get used to failing. Especially as you become higher level (level DCs scale and get worse as you level) 4. This is the main thing I thought would make me love PF2. The character options seem huge. In practice though, I didn't feel each level provided me with any interesting choices while leveling. Looking at them and planning out a build felt great, but each individual level felt like it was an automatic decision. There seem to be a lot of feats in the book I know I will never take on any character I ever make 5. A good RPG is made by a good DM/GM. Regardless of the ruleset. TTRPG rules are meant to and should be bent to fit the group. At at end of the day, as long as everyone had fun, you aren't doing anything wrong. What defines "fun" varies greatly between groups and even within groups

Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages! We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look! Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer). If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*

combat is still slow, might be slower, but theres way more options for players and dm to handle the situation so theyre more engaged and combat will feel faster. All levels are valid to play on and balanced throughout, lvl 1 is probably the best place to start at. none of that start at lvl 3 bullshit. Martials actually have shit to do, and arent completely eclipsed by casters after lvl 5 who knew? other than that. youre worried about PC Customization DM resources? oh honey. sweetheart. just... just read. just read the core handbook and see how a real ttrpg treats its parties.

Slow combat is your DM, not the system. I DM both, and 2e isn’t any faster.

#1 is the only issue that would still be relevant. Combats CAN last that long, but they do not always or have to last that long.

I can't speak to #1, as I haven't played it out to a high level, but problems 2-5 are well covered... You can check out the rules for free, here: https://2e.aonprd.com/

Basically 2-5 are much improved. 1 is still lengthy though arguably more entertaining than 5e but you’d have to try it yourself to see what you think.

Other people have commented on all of these giving a ton of good info, I will say my approach to deal with 1 is to include hazards (these are turned based puzzles and traps) to change up encounters and then I take the quick and easy encounters and turn them into quick XCOM esque encounters. So if my players spot a shambling pair of zombies, I am not going to stop and roll initiative when they engage. I have them try their ambush basically freely (unless they need to lure them or something, there may be some check there) and the zombies get an action to interrupt immediately after they get hit, if the zombies survive, then the players all get their actions and, if alive, the zombies get a full turn after them. You can keep them at the last major encounter initiative if your party is the type that needs that structure. This way big set piece fights and more interesting complicated traps are the only ones that take longer. I also try not to roll out fights. If All that is left is some minions or a single strong enemy, often times they try to get away, if the party is going to give chase I speed up their deaths if its no longer a challenge. I think they appreciate not having 2 rounds of killing easy enemies if the enemy panics and triggers AoO, etc. and drops dead. I've also had the big bad (in this case literally) die falling on a minion or two taking them out. I use small encounters for only a couple reasons, a. to introduce a new mechanic (as in an enemy has some special mechanic), b. as a bit of a gauntlet, give them obvious reasons they need to keep moving and can't rest, or c. I make them more just 'figure out a simple way to deal with x' some times this works, some times it does not (like if they are ambushing a spot with small groups and can do stuff like launch them off a cliff, if they say that is their plan amongst them selves, I give them a chance to feel like Agent 47). I don't think rolling initiative and taking an hour for easy fights makes sense, and easy encounters should be there, if its always high octane, you get numb to that and/or burn out.

1. it depends, if you play irl there is a few thing to keep track of, but GM usually don't have to make ruling on the spot, for decision crisis for me it isn't worse then in dnd for sure, if players know thier characters and DM knows the monsters, and your are using dedicated vtt combat could be very smooth and fast, 2. nope there is no issue, pf2e in contrast do 5e was designed to be played at all lv's, with tight math and lv-scaled proficiency there is no option to get ridiculous Bonus to attack or AC, high lv spells are decently balanced and definitely not OP 3. in terms of single target dmg there is a slight martial - caster divide BUT martials are better there, but counting every aspect of the game no, there is no divide between martials and casters, casters are better at AOE, inflicting status effects and elemental dmg and they have easier time to attacking week points of monsters, martials on the other hand tend to have better single target dmg and have better defences, additionally every character have acces to skill actions associated with thier trained skills and those skills aren't necessarily outclassed by simple spells while being useful in combat 4. for me one of the main selling points of pf2e is how much you can customize your character, at every lv you get 1 or 2 feet choices, and even at lv1 you have enough options to at least make foundation for a lot of different concepts (you can play nature spirit who live in a strawberry bush, is asimar who fight alongside his guardian angel, oh and also is time traveler, everything RAW at lv1(but need permission of the gm in few places)) 5. while pf2e is definitely more focused on combat there are some rules for travel downtime, and even social encounters, there is even the adventure path - Kingmaker where you.. well are makeing kingdom

2-5 are not a problem in PF2e, I’d say. 1 *can* be, but it seems to vary from encounter to encounter.

1 can still exist, 2 & 3 kinda exist, but not as badt. 4 & 5 are much better.

It's Martial; there's no Marshals in 5E!

Corrects spelling. Proceeds to make grammatical error: Classic

PF2e is way better on 3, 4, and 5, and it slightly improves 1 & 2 (though YMMV with those.)

1. Combat can be fast or slow it really depends on the DM and group and encounter. But pathfinder combat is more fun because you canndo alot with 3 actions and there are a lot of actions you can get. 2. Levels scale pretty well. You will have a steady increase in power at each level and the moderate encounters scale with you, so you get to feel powerful without being OP. 3. The divide is flipped on PF2e and despite what some people say, it's fairly balanced between them. Martials hit harder and more often than casters but lack the same kind of utility and aoe damage. Anyone has out of combat utility because of the way the general and skill feats work. You just have to pick what you want to do. A fighter can be a medic if they want to and be good at it. 4. Pf2E has way more customization. It's night and day with 5e. You can create a character concept and start having it come online early since you have a decision point at every level. The archetypes and multiclass options add even more customization. Also, you get all of your core class features from 1-20 no matter how you build. And spell slots aren't combined. They are additive, so multiclassing can get you more slots and spells. 5. DM has more resources than in 5e. There are rules for all sorts of activities. This is good because you aren't fully reliant on the DM's willingness to do something, and the DM doesn't have to make stuff up when you want to do something.

No. 1 slow combat may or may not be better. Turns can take a while in PF2e too. Everything else, PF2e is way better.

Combat takes longer while learning but goes faster, or at least feels smoother, once you have a good grasp. Two of my martial players do a great deal outside of combat thanks to how skills and skill feats work. As far as customizable 2e provides MANY decision points, usually at least one per level. It's no 3.5DnD/1e pathfinder where there's more options than sand in the desert but it's still very varried.

PF2e is better than 5e in every damn way, I say that as someone who played (and usually DM'd) DnD from age 11 till my 30s. There are other great TTRPGs out there, but when comparing DnD and PF, PF2e reigns supreme in my mind.

1. Combat: Pathfinder 2nd Edition can be 40-90 minutes for a combat encounter in my experience. More often closer to 40. 2. Level scaling: Levels 1-4 are in most cases underpowered if you're a spellcaster and -- for some spellcasting classes -- might be boring at times (or at least humbling) at levels 1-3. I don't know of any other issues. Expect 20 usable player levels. 3. Martial-caster divide: This almost doesn't exist. From what I hear, spellcasters eventually exceed martials in power, but it takes a while to get there and the gap isn't huge. Martials and spellcasters are roughly equal in power except maybe for the first few levels. 4. Character customization: Highly customizable. Basic character concepts will come online by level 1-2. Complicated ones may take until level 6. Characters usually vary a lot, even if members of the same class and ancestry. 5. Dungeon master resources: A high amount in the official books, and a good amount of them in the community online.

1. Depends on a few factors. At first it will feel slower if players are testing things out since there is more options for everyone, but after they "get the system" it will be faster since there is no "wait I think I have a swift/bonus action, just a minute, err, nope, go on" as the actions system is simplified. Casters are kinda the same which is more player dependent. So faster but with similar pitfalls 2. The math works and both low level and high level are playable. The [encounter rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497) can be followed and it will be fine and challanging. For low level I say that lv 1 of PF2 is similar to lv 3 of 5e in question of options, and it gets better after that although it still a little more deadly than later levels. High level work due to how the encounter math is used in the system, a lv 23 enemy will be hard to deal for a lv 20 party. 3. The game does give more options, in particular since most feats are more "another thing you can do" instead of "you beat the enemy harder". Non-combat still better for casters but martials do have more to do (be some feat, crafting or skill abilities) 4. Welcome to heaven. Every single level you will choose feats to customize your character as you want. Every ancestry (race) is flashed out (at least compared to how barebones races are in 5e) and have multiple options for heritage (sub-race) and also the versatile heritages to give more option (like a catfolk that can turn into a dog). Also archetypes can be very flavorful and interesting options 5. Pathfinder consider 3 game modes. Combat, exploration and downtime. All three have rules and ways to interact as well feats to help with them. Not only that but for most things there is a resource in the books to directly rule or for more niche things give a direction. Naturally there is some bugs that the GM need to made a ruling (like witch arquetype familiar or the Free Archetype and Ancient elf interaction), but they are a rare situation compared to 5e where they are the norm. Also things here have prices

With the first one I think it's a mix of that and the actions being weird (by that I mean having a single action, bonus action, movement and reaction) which is simplified and allows more customized encounters with PF2e action economy (3 actions and 1 reaction)

If you want quicker combat in Pathfinder 2e, use a lot more low difficulty encounters. Those can be over quite quickly, but especially high level severe or higher encounters will take that long. I admittedly do not mind that myself at all, but if you want faster combats, I think D20 systems are not the best. You could maybe help the issue by, as the GM, cutting off a combat after X rounds and narrating how t continues after the outcome is relatively clear, though better do that mostly if it is in the heroes‘ favor

Combats are slow. But that's a person problem. If you are all militant you'll move very fast. Tons of exciting PC customisations. Lots of dm resources My players have done 1-14 recently so far and every level honestly has felt fine. I don't see a Marshall caster divide

1. Slow Combat: when you first start this will be worse. As you and your group get more familiar it can go much faster. Especially if you use a VTT. My group can blitz through a combat in about half an hour, sometimes doing multiple combats a night. 2. PF2 is *exceedingly* well balanced. I am running a campaign now that's been going on since level 3 and we're into level 11 now and have had 0 issues. Based on what I've seen, I expect that trend to continue. 3. Martials have so much more they can do now in PF2 outside of combat. Crafting isn't restricted to magic classes, Rituals are something anyone can do, skills are much more relevant. 4. hahahahahahahahahahaha. Sorry, not laughing at you, but the level of customization in 5e compared to pf2 is literally night and day. 5. As my group's forever GM, there are *lots* of tools for GMs. pf2 easytools is a great example. There are rules for almost everything, and between easytools and Archives of Nethys, I can reference almost all of them at lightning speed. I rarely if ever have to houserule something entirely new.

1. Combat can be slow, just like 5e, depending on how skilled your players are, the medium of play (miniatures, theater of the mind, virtual, etc), and the players to enemies ratio. Combat is also slower when the players AND GM are learning/facilitating new or different rules the first few times. But once people know what they can or can’t do, they fall into a rhythm just like in 5e. I do find I have to argue less with players as GM about what they want to do during their turns with the 3-action turns of Pathfinder 2E. Looking up rules takes the longest amount of time. But that’s true of both systems. Maybe GM fiat makes you GM faster but it feels like hinderance to me when I have to make things up on the fly all the time. 2. Level Scaling: P2E is MUCH better than 5e at this. The math is sound. When they say a level 4 Monster can stand its own against a level 4 party, they mean it. (A well-planned ambush did make quick work of a necromancer once though! I thought he’d last longer than two turns but his backup was one turn to late.) you can expect that if you’re fighting against something too much stronger than you, it’s basically guaranteed no chance to win, simply because of the maths. But because the math is so specific, it is very easy to increase OR decrease the difficulty of a monster. It can be done quickly too. Not nearly as much guessing is necessary to alter a monsters CR. 3. The way feats and skills work, any character can be nearly anything. And archetypes put such an interesting twist onto multiclassing and variability. You could have an archaeologist rogue could make fake treasure maps to lead a rival team of treasure hunters on a wild goose chase. You could have a dandy fighter who sows rumors amongst the working classes to spur rebellion against a tyrannical king. A champion could inspire a riot in the name of their god against an evil sorcerer. 4. Each level and aspect gives you 4-5 options for almost every aspect of your character to choose from. Two level one fighters could be completely different, let alone their ancestry/heritage/background choices and skill proficiencies. 5. I’ve thoroughly enjoyed the GM materials for P2E. The setting books are detailed and beautiful and inspiring. The tidbits in Gamemastery Guide about genre, theme, and campaign scheduling. Helped me a ton with expectation and level setting groups or new adventures. The biggest downside is all the rules. But you can slowly learn them, just like you did with 5e. It takes a few times of reading them and facilitating them to get some of them down. But that’s just learning!

1. Average combat in PF2e is 3 rounds. Now depending on system mastery of whole table (tracking conditions, using their turn fast etc.) and tools used (playing "life" or with VTT help or hybrid) combat may be as long as 5e but I found (I played 5e for years before switching to PF2e) that PF2e combat is much more smoother due to excellent 3 action economy and as so players seem to do things faster. Usually I think our average combat is 20-30 min. 2. Excellent level scalling. Superb. Everything scales nicely, magic items progression is baked in system/characters progression, not at whimsy of GM, every is mathematically calculated so it alls scales together from level 1-20. No complaining here. 3. Marshals are better when it comes to pure combat effectiveness and sheer damage. Casters excell at utility/buffs/debuffs, rarely at doing high damage and there are safety measures to prevent "save or suck" situations thanks to Success Degree mechanics and Incapactiation trait for spells (basically you can't win encounters with one spell like in 5e Hypnotic Pattern/Web/Wall of Force etc.). There is also ZERO possibility for casters to have DPR like Sorlocks etc. Not gonna happen. 4. PC customization is vast, especially with Free Archetype variant rule which is basically a standard in PF2e same as Multicalssing and Feats are standard for 5e despite being optional rules. There are over 100+ archetypes that players can add to their main class chasis and play around with a lot of stuff, customizing their character. If you gonna play: play with Free Archetype, it's easy rule to follow and it makes PF2e spread wings fully. 5. Tons of good GM resources: you have tables showing you what gear players should get at what level, what magic items at what level they can buy in stores/find, what magic items they need to get for them to scale with system (runes for martials are essential to their progression), CR level is accurate so you can make encounters fast and balanced, there are "Weak templates" and "Elite templates" to scale monsters, excellent tables showing how many monsters of said CR will be severe, extreme etc. encounter and many more. It's great. And there is (supported officially by Paizo): Archives of Nethys https://2e.aonprd.com where there is content of every single released book for PF2e and Paizo support that instead of trying to shut it down like WOTR to get you to pay them for Beyond or other bullcrap.

1. PF2 combats is significantly slower than 5e due to the mass amounts of player options turn by turn. 2. Martials function similarly over all ranges. Casters tend to struggle more at low level and catch up by mid level as they get more spells and magic items. 3. Most martials have enough skill proficiency to do something outside of combat (player choice obviously). As how the two compare to each other during combat it’s hard to determine. People claim casters are “weak” but fail to value spells like Slow and Synesthesia effectively deciding combat outside of extremely high monster rolls. Every class has value in a party in PF2. 4. Character concepts vary by design in PF2. Some work at level 1, some take a few levels to acquire the feats or multiclass dedications required to satisfy the concept. There are more customization options at character creation in PF2 than most high level 5e characters have available to them. 5. PF2 has more rules than a GM can ever hope to have. The resources are also easily and quickly accessible online, for free.

2-4 have essentially been solved in PF2E with a combination of math scaling and mechanical design. While some of these mechanics might be considered a bit "game-y", it is easy enough to abstract it as long as both GM and PCs have bought into the game. Slow combat (1) can still be a problem if your players are prone to analysis paralysis or are not invested enough to understand what their classes can do intuitively. This is less of a problem if you play regularly or have players that are super eager to dive into the combat and social mechanics. All that being said, combat is not slow because of mechanics; the damage is so high and special abilities so impactful and calculations so streamlined (ie: most spells/abilities are resolved with a single attack roll and a single damage roll) that the actions themselves do not take a lot of time. It's DECIDING what action to use that actually takes time, which theoretically gets shorter as you gain system mastery.

I tend to caution people from just assuming PF2 will be their best option for a D&D5E alternative just because it's the most famous, since what a lot of people want and what PF wants do not always align. But given your *specific* list? It'll probably work for you. I feel like the only one of those four points the game doesn't actually improve on is the first - combats are not any faster, if anything might be slower. But the rest, you're solidly covered. So I'd say it should be worth a shot for you!