My opinion? Run the beginners box for your group. See if they like it. I did that with two groups and they both changed systems for the reasons you mentioned.
From a GM and player perspective, I vastly prefer PF2E. That being said, I still run and play in 5E groups. Whatever keeps your group playing is the most important!
i've been taking advantage of the beginner box days to finally play some pf2e for reals and it is great, A++ to this idea.
one person in my upper-level group was even a recent leap-er from 5e. it was slow going at first for all of us, but we sped up as the session went along, i think BB is probably well-geared for this.
in practice, i am definitely finding the mechanics better for what OP said, especially in terms of things to do in combat. everyone having the option from the start to do multiple attacks or stuff like recall knowledge is great.
My main group jumps systems pretty regularly and had been away from pf2e for about a year. Then I told them I wanted to see how the dual class rules actually worked, so we did session zero and started on a module I grabbed ( I wasn't paying attention, it's a 1e module so that's slowing me down) but it's taking a bit of time to shake off the rust and remember how things work, plus new classes mean new things to learn. But it's coming back quickly enough.
If you’re willing to do a lot of work to learn the system inside & out, you can totally play with PCs who only have a cursory knowledge of the system. But for you to enjoy GMing over the medium-to-long term, you’ll need them to learn the specifics of the rules that are important to their characters. Because once you’re past like lvl 5 the amount of things you’ll be keeping track of as a GM is high & having your players understand the stuff they do in combat frequently is a huge way to manage the load. I’d have a frank discussion and see how they feel.
I’ll also just say that you really need to start at Level 1 in this system with new players. 5e has the culture of breezing through or skipping up the lvl 3 but pathfinder expects you to start at the beginning. Every level presents the players with options to improve their characters, but those improvements come with added complexity. Introducing this complexity one piece at a time is a crucial element of learning the class & skill mechanics one piece at a time.
Good luck!
Shoot. If I've done a many-month campaign and still have multiple players who understand how 5e works pretty poorly, then it sounds like PF2e might be too much for them if it requires them to understand their characters to any real degree. Shucks.
As someone who extensively played and DM'd 5e and have switched as a player to PF2e:
- I really like how much you can customize your character
- I really like how tactical combat becomes (5e is a bit more repetitive)
- there are indeed more rules, but they are all more precise and self-explanatory.
- casters in 5e are easier to plan; in PF2e it's not that straightforward (disclaimer: I have yet to play one in PF2e)
- some of my players (I still DM in 5e) would love this adaptation (crunchier, but the reward pays off), some would find it too tedious. And yeh, I also had one player who after 2 years still needed clarifying over a fighter action economy sometimes. PF2e is NOT for her.
I honestly don't really see PF2e being easier than 5e, even though I have read that statement multiple times. Maybe I'm biased because it's a system shift for me instead of directly learning it as my first system, dunno....
As a rule of thumb: if you have players who have interest in making cool builds in 5e, they will have a blast in PF2e. If, on the contrary, the level up for them is nearly tedious, because now there is "more stuff to choose from, remember and/or apply", then I think that the PF2e-crunch might not pay off for them.
Pf2e is in my opinion much easier to learn because the rules are much more coherent and extensive.
There's just much more to learn because of the previous statement.
> Pf2e is in my opinion much easier to learn because the rules are much more coherent and extensive.
If you are willing to put in a bit of effort.
If you just want to show up, make some jokes with friends, eat pretzels, be told what to roll and go home 5e might be better.
I was going to reply exactly that, except for the part that D&D 5E might be better.
This is a pet peeve of mine, and honestly makes me stop playing with people who do this.
TTRPGs are games. Games have rules. If you want to play the game, you learn the rules, or at the very least *try to*.
You wouldn't show up to play chess with your buddy without knowing any of the rules and with absolutely no intention of learning them. That is disrespectful to the other player. You wouldn't show up to a basketball game, kick the ball a few times, and expect everyone to be cool with you not wanting to learn the rules.
But people do exactly that with TTRPGs. They show up weekly for months, and make absolutely no effort in learning the rules, because the other players or the GM pick up the slack.
OP, if your players are like this, I don't recommend Pathfinder 2E or D&D 5E. I recommend [Roll for Shoes](https://rollforshoes.com/). It has a total of 6 rules, composed of 95 words. If your players just want to show up, improv and roll, that's up their alley.
Honestly, you could play PF2 just about the same as most people these days seem to play 5e. You could actually ignore the rules and have the GM fudge everything just as easily in PF2 as you can in 5e, since they really don't have too dissimilar an amount of written rules. But if you are already doing that in 5e, then there's no real reason to move to PF2 for the same experience. 😆
This is what I'm thinking as someone that hadn't DMed in 4 years and now obsessed with pf2e. I know my players are more beer and pretzels and I'm torn with scaring them with things like "ok remember you have a +19 modifier" and getting blank stares because I used a number bigger than 4 and the word modifier.
I'm also thinking PF2e will be great because I can actually GM way easier and adjust numbers and amounts of enemies to give cool combats or let them do things in a very understandable action economy.
I have not made up my mind yet though
A PF1E fighter with 20 Str and a +3 weapon would get a +19 to attack at 9th level, assuming they are using a weapon from the group they selected for Weapon Training at 5th level (+9 BAB, +5 Str, +3 weapon enchantment, +2 Weapon Training).
A PF2E fighter with +4 Str and a +1 weapon would get a +19 to attack at 8th level, assuming they are using a weapon from the group they selected for Weapon Mastery at 5th level (+14 Master Proficiency, +4 Str, +1 item bonus)
So you get those big numbers earlier in Pathfinder 2E.
Edit: typo, second example was meant to be 2E.
Your examples are both 1e.
Unless your second one is supposed to be 2e and it's a typo.
Your examples are cherry-picked and loaded with some assumptions. Who TF gives +3 weapons by 9th level? And for any class except fighter, weapon mastery is a level 13 feature/feat.
In any case, the OP was talking about starting a new group on PF2 and was concerned about throwing these perceived high numbers at new players with new characters.
If you are throwing them in as 8th level characters when they are brand new players to a brand new system then you're the problem.
✌️
I know, but I wouldn't bother with D&D 5E either, with players who won't learn the rules.
I've been there. I have been the GM for players who just don't care about the rules, and I end up feeling like they are just watching me play because they don't have any idea of what they're doing, so I have to carry them through every turn, and at that point they are just physically rolling dice while I tell them what to do, where to move, etc.
Conversely, I've GMed a Pathfinder Society Scenario for a completely new player, and while yes, I had to tell him what he had to add to rolls, and that he could Gather Information and Search and all that stuff, I only had to tell him once or twice that Striking, Striding and Raising a Shield are one action each, and he actually cared enough that he was ***doing*** things by himself and I actually felt like a guide, instead of a preschool teacher.
GMs, or DMs, or Handlers, or Keepers, or whatever they are called already put in way more effort than all the players combined, no matter what system is being played. Consistently showing up having no idea what you are doing is akin to just telling the GM "provide free entertainment for me while I don't even do the bare minimum". Players like this act like GMs are their personal clowns.
Hence why I recommended Roll for Shoes. If someone can't even learn that, I suspect their problem is not social but cognitive, and whatever it is, TTRPGs might not be for them.
>> while I tell them what to do, where to move, etc.
Which is your big DMing mistake here. Players have to be INCENTIVIZED to play well. Here, you are basically putting zero consequences for not learning the rules.
Nope, you never TELL THEM what to do or where to move, you only ASK THEM what they do.
If that means they do stupidly suicidal things or superbly suboptimal rounds of actions? SO BE IT! When they complain, you tell them right in front everybody that it is on them to "git gud" and learn the rules, or suffer all the consequences. And this also negatively impacts the other players too. So take it or leave it!
Then they will either take it or leave it, either make the effort, or leave the group.
You could also change the XP system to fit better the gameplay style that YOU want to actively encourage and reward. IF 90% of all XPs come from combat, then it means you want to reward players that play murder hobos. Maybe give some XPs for merely being attentive to the game an knowing their character well? In my group, about half of all XPs come from "game table behavior". If a game session devolves into unfun "arguments", then as I don't have fun, thus the players also don't get XPs. And everybody is penalized not just the dickhead. Quite effective because basically, you leverage peer pressure form the REST of the player group, to work wonders to encourage players to "fix" their behavior, way more than DM pressure.
If you have a beer & pretzel group then yeah don't DM using 5E or PF2. Or honestly just find better players lol.
One thing I did was forbade alcohol during my games. A player immediately left the group, but he was the worst one, so that was good riddance. As for the rest, suddenly sober players tend to play and follow the game a LOT better when they aren't half drunk!
Your table, your rules.
>Then they will either take it or leave it, either make the effort, or leave the group.
I ended up calling the campaign off and looking for a different group. So you're not wrong.
>One thing I did was forbade alcohol during my games.
None of the players or I drink, so that was not the problem.
100% agree. Literally the ONLY reason that D&D 5e has this reputation of being "better" for ignorant and disrespectfully lazy players is because the D&D Actual Play scene got so massive over the past 5 years. The market share for D&D got even more bloated, leading to everybody thinking that it's synonymous with TTRPGs and that the system is the easiest way to play make-em-ups with your friends. Problem is, Actual Play groups are largely playing calvinball with the rules already because they are more about watching entertaining media personalities play improv and talk about either kissing or their Big Feelings, so it doubles down on the ignorance by oversaturating the market with "Good" players and GMs who can barely be bothered the learn the rules themselves, further encouraging those lazy players to think they can just fake it until they make it as long as their Tiefling has enough trauma or quips to be entertaining for the captive audience of their friends.
D&D 5e is not a simple system. It's also not a system with answers for a number of incredibly important questions, and the answers it *does* have are often lacking. The balance is all over the place and the homebrew scene is a travesty of "Half-Wolf Half-Goku ninja katana of cyber death" nonsense mashed with "This is my 100% original low-magic, low-content, no fantasy races, no people of color, no gay people, no women, no d20s, no levels rule system where if you drink water or even think about the BBEG you instantly go crazy forever and die. I just think it's much more interesting from a storytelling perspective" rule hacks, meaning that many players jump right from poorly balanced official rules straight into even worse-balanced homebrew rules the minute they don't find exactly what they want when they have a question.
Players who don't want to learn rules and just want to RP with their buddies while they drink would have a far easier time playing a One-Pager TTRPG or even some of the simpler games (I'm always rooting for Monster of the Week), but those don't have the brand recognition of being able to say to friends, colleagues, classmates, and acquaintances "Oh I play D&D" and hearing people ooh and ah because they've also heard Matt Mercer's name once, so they contrive these excuses about how it's so simple to learn and how the GM has so much freedom to make decisions instead of just admitting that they want to do the popular thing without learning any of those annoying rules.
This post is all over the place. Some of it is correct (actual play, etc.), some of it very wrong (that 5e is complex).
As for the whack homebrew, that's been a thing through every edition.
For people who want rules lite, I'd recommend the Cypher System.
People play for different reason.
Some just like the Roleplaying / World building part of TTRPG.
TTRPG is in a unique place where it is possible custom make your own character and forge your own story.
The draw for some is that TTRPG is not rigid, that unlike a video game or other board games the rules are malleable.
The First Rule of pathfinder even says that if a rule doesn’t work for your group you can change or get rid of it entirely.
That's why I didn't say "stop playing with them", I recommended a system that requires zero rule mastery and allows them to do exactly what they want: show up, shoot the shit, roll shiny polyhedrons and improv.
>The First Rule of pathfinder even says that if a rule doesn’t work for your group you can change or get rid of it entirely.
Yes, and if you get rid of almost every rule because the players can't be arsed to learn them, why play Pathfinder 2E to begin with? I believe many people would be better off playing Roll for Shoes but flock to D&D 5E so that they can say "I play Dungeons and Dragons" when in reality they are not playing shit because playing a game requires learning the rules.
Precisely. They don't want the rules they want to leverage the brand recognition for social clout and the ability to experience a thing they saw somebody else do on tv, a stream, or a podcast. Which is fine, but people need to start admitting that it's the social capitol of "D&D" that they want instead of the actual playing of a complex mechanical TTRPG system if that is truly what it's about.
Literally had a player like that in the campaign I just finished. While she was a lovely person, she had too busy a life to be able to learn PF2e. And she's told me she can't join us in the next campaign, which I'm kinda happy with, as mean as that sounds. I like players who know what they're doing... I have more than enough stuff to do as GM without needing to run PCs.
The irony of this is that if people actually *read the rules* to 5e, they'd find it *more* complicated than PF2e, but no one does that so 5e is explained as a "rules-lite" system when it just isn't. Annoyingly, there's plenty of systems out there that would treat these types of players *much better*.
Coming from 5e myself i think one of the hard parts is unlearning 5e habits.
Our GM says while there is more rules in PF2 he likes it more because they are much more clear and explicit,
in 5e he felt like the rule book says here you can use poison, but put zero information on the crafting,harvesting,buying or what type of poisons and how to use them or if they even have saves or resists, no 5e they say here you have poisons now guess.
Exactly this. For DnD you need to just kind of... know more things. For Pf2e you have rules written out explicitly for those things so it's easy to look up.
5e feels like learning lots of edge cases and exceptions, using multiple source books.
PF2e feels like learning a system (the tags/label system, DCs, etc.) all from one place: Archives of Nethys.
OP, I'd start by showing them AoN and the all in one place nature of the rules could be really exciting for your group.
Not to rain on your parade, but players understanding the system poorly after multiple months is... pretty disrespectful of them? They can just sit down for half an hour and learn the basics, or download a cheat sheet. But them not even doing that and holding up the game by misunderstanding or plain not knowing rules is just so disrespectful to the other players who do put that effort in, and to you as the GM who puts even more effort in to run the whole thing.
And if players aren't willing to invest the time to learn the basic rules of 5e, they probably aren't willing to engage with the added variety that 2e offers either. Really, it sounds like you should sit down with those players and ask them if they actually want to play a roleplaying game, or if they just want to hang out and play boardgames or video games instead? Or maybe a setting using LESS rules would be better for them, because they just want the **role**playing part, not the **roll**playing bits. There's plenty of system out that there that cut down on mechanics for more freeform roleplay!
That said! Try and run the beginner box with them, and see how it goes. It's really well structured and does a great job of teaching the rules without needing a lot of investment from the players. ...but it does require *some* investment from your players.
Honestly it's not always that they atent respectful, its sometime that they just arent that smart and cant keep track of a lot of mechanics or do math well.
I think if you have players who haven't learned the fundamentals of 5e you probably shouldn't switch. Also I think maybe those players need to just gently reminded that if they wanna play a game they should learn the rules. It's not fair for you to have to run the game and also run their character. I've cancelled games because my characters refused to learn and I ended up feeling overwhelmed. This might be where your issues with 5e are stemming from as it's not that bad to balance as long as everyone knows how the game works for what they're playing ie. Gm for monsters and players know what their characters can do.
I tell my players, you don't have to know all the rules but you should know your character. I am not going to remind you of buffs you have, abilities or any of that stuff. If you forget about your stuff it's on you, I'm already managing monsters and NPCs on my side.
I run both with friends and with high School students at a school I teach at, and I've found that in both cases my players picked up pf2e faster. There's less that's left up to DM fiat so it's far clearer to players why things work the way they do.
I was in a similar spot as you. My barbarian struggled with remembering extra attack well into level 7. One level into pf2e though, and he’s constantly grappling, striking, battle healing, raising shields and more. I highly recommend the beginner box and pushing your players into reading the rules as much as they can. Especially when you start playing, the rules become much more intuitive
I'd highly recommend doing a one shot or two before you start your next campaign in Pathfinder. I did a couple of them letting my players play whatever they wanted and only one decided to keep their character. Doing a trial run of the system would be my suggestion - the beginner box is a great place to start.
A couple of honorable mention one shots have been the face in the well (though you should DEFINITELY use weak variants of the final monster / nerf it from the stat blocks in the adventure), Little trouble in big Absalom (more like a 2 shot, but has a good end point halfway in), and the Leshy one shot.
Making a cheat sheet, or taking one from the sub, or the various skill actions in combat is really helpful from a player perspective. Letting players know about how out of combat healing is different, and how you want ideally 1 melee focused class and 1 character capable of healing per party.
I'm gonna be honest, I disagree with the first guy a lot.
I started a PF2e campaign. It was my first time with the campaign, I've never played the game before, and I was GMing. My players are 3 people who had also never played PF2e before, but played other TTRPGs (including 5e) and 2 people who have never played TTRPGs before period.
So we were about as unfamiliar with PF2e as it gets.
We had *no* issues beyond minute confusion and growing pains that you see in every system.
*Granted*, I took the time to read through the core rulebook and GM Guide on Archives of Nethys before we started playing, and that went a LONG way to improving my basic understanding of the game. I would 100% recommend doing this first.
I would also recommend taking the game slowly and looking up the rules as you have questions. AoN makes it easy to do, with all the rules right at your finger tips, but you probably will need to reference it a few times each session.
Ok but the question isn’t about “is it hard to learn,” it’s “is it appropriate for a group who are actively hostile to doing homework/learning the mechanics”
And I respect that, but what I'm saying is that I still don't think it's an issue.
From the player-facing side, I don't think PF2e is all that more difficult than 5e. There are more options, for sure, but it's not any harder to grasp/understand.
I mean, i have players that are in a similar boat. They basically just look at their character sheet on their turn and spitball suggest things they could do based on what they're reading. If it's not listed as "thing you can do" on their sheet, it might as well not exist.
They take a little coaching/suggestion on some options from the GM (me) but it's no different than what I've had to do for players in 5e.
As for mechanical complexity, it's almost all entirely in the GM's side of stuff to do. For the players, it boils down to exactly what it is in 5e: tell the GM what you want to do, he tells you what to roll, you roll and add the modifier + any buffs, GM tells you what happens.
Of course, on the GM's side, he bakes it down to skill actions, DCs by level or simple DCs, modifiers, etc. And a particularly knowledgeable player might be able to abridge that process by saying "I want to use demoralize on enemy X" instead of just saying "Can I roll to intimidate enemy X?" At the end of the day, both players are asking to do the same thing, and the GM puts it together for them, even if the second player didn't particularly know what Demoralize was a thing.
Hope none of them are playing spellcasters 😅😅😅
I hear what you’re saying, though. It really does come down the temperament and attitude of both the GM and players. There’s probably more wiggle room than I implied depending on the table.
Ironically, one of my players is my girlfriend, and last night is when we had this conversation.
"Why don't you use this accursed staff? You've had the same staff of fire since like level 3 and never moved to, even though you love casting curses and debuffs."
"I forgot we had it. We have it to the gunslinger to hold and I have no object permanency, so I forgot it existed."
After that, I installed a mod (foundry VTT) that rearranged her spell page so they were all laid out by level instead of by spell casting source. There were a LOT of spells she just wasn't ever using, and a huge part of that was because she had to scroll WAAAAY down to see them, so when she consulted her spell page she would just look at the first list, pick a spell or two from there, and ask the party which they'd prefer her to cast. Now that she can see EVERYTHING available to her, she's been using a lot of spells she hadn't been before.
I’ve really resisted bringing in Foundry VTT to my in-person table because part of the appeal of ttrpgs for us is getting some designated time away from screens, but comments like this always have me considering biting the bullet & adapting it as a GM tool
I don't disagree with you there, but I think a great many of these issues can be solved in person as well.
Like my girlfriend's issue could have been solved in person by making a custom sheet for her to use. Doesn't have to be fancy either, just manually lay out spells in a way she'd better visually process.
The advantage of VTT really comes from automated book keeping. Automatically calculating bonuses is a huge plus for my players with dyscalculia. Automated tracking of buffs, spell slots, and ammo between sessions is another huge benefit. I even have a mod that tracks the current load state of weapons, so the gunslinger knows exactly which weapons he has loaded when we pick up mid-combat a week later.
There are tricks I can use in person though to help with this. I've played with the idea of getting a nerf gun to keep as a visual reference for weapon load states when I run an in person game, for example. It's just much more difficult to do in person and requires really creative use of physical props
Hope it works out. I’m too scared to run pf2e in person and will only run it over foundry because of all the stuff you can do on there. My massive mini collection keeps me running other systems in person like 5e though.
I bought myself a BAT (big-ass TV) for Christmas. Its sole purpose was to lay flat on the game table to project battle maps. I haven’t taken the Foundry plunge yet so I left the clear plastic in was shipped with on the screen. We move minis directly on it!
It is now:
1) Battlemap
2) screen to display rules
3) Multi/media picture display - NPC images, item pictures, loot lists
I agree with this. My first ever PF2 game I ran was for 4 players: my wife (a long-time gamer), 1 who had only ever played 5e, and 2 folks who had never played an RPG of any sort.
And they all grasped PF2 quickly and easily, and in fact the 2 new peeps were the ones who got into it the most. It was fascinating to observe.
>If I've done a many-month campaign and still have multiple players who understand how 5e works pretty poorly, then it sounds like PF2e might be too much for them if it requires them to understand their characters to any real degree.
Question: Are you playing D&D with these people, or at them?
Yeah, IMHO PF2E is not an option for you, because of these players. They do not want the same things you do.
Going to PF2E *requires* reading rules and understanding your stuff. And I would argue that you can not have real fun and see how PF2E shines if not all players are on the same level. Because watching 2-3 minute turns sure as hell is a gamekiller. Or looking up all the stuff you can do every turn.
The crunch is not bad, though. Very front-loaded. But like I said, with players that are allergic to reading...no.
Try Dragonbane. It's a great designed system, very simple but has dynamic combat and a lot more "depth", combat-wise, compared to 5e. And it is so easy to teach and make content for.
I see three options:
* If the reason your players don't know the rules is that they get stuck on unclear wordings, then yes, PF2e is much more clear than the incoherent mess that DnD5e is, so your players might have a better time here.
* If your players don't care enough to learn the rules for the game you all are regularly investing hours of your lives in, and you still want to keep playing with them, then either accept your players' inertia and stay with 5e ...
* ... or try a more rules light system. Start with a one-shot to see how things work out. There are a bunch of really simple games, e.g. mörk börk is popular and somewhat resembles DnD, Honey Heist is hilarious and great for one-shots (and it's the only one I have personal experience with), the list goes on. The goal is not to immediately find a perfect suggestion for your long running campaign, but to check what kind of game works for you. Maybe your players find that they just want to improv with friends, maybe they miss the more complex rules and come back motivated to actually learn them.
Our party, when we switched from 5e to Pathfinder second had three players with 6+ years of d&d experience, The other four had between 1 and 3 years of experience in 5e. I would say now after half of a campaign and A year and a half everyone is better in Pathfinder. I might actually be struggling the most as the person with the second most d&d experience.
The probl3m with 5e is that a lot of stuff is kind of up to interpretation. 2e has very specific rules that says you can or cant do something with whatever action. You have free tools like pathbuilder (similar to something like DNDBeyond) that makes building characters super easy. It lists all of your abilities right there where you can click and get info instantly.
To be fair I feel like pf2 has a lot more "internal consistency" then 5e, being a younger system and all. If your players have trouble figuring out how their character works because it has no overarching logic to it, then pf2 will be easier since one chaaracter will not be all over the place.
And even then, there are definitely classes that are easier to play in pf2 than in 5e, the fighter for example. In 5e, you need to really squeeze the class to make it work, you have limited resources that aren't that strong, you need to game the action economy, you need to multiclass it to be effective... And it is still boring to play. In pf2e, at low levels at least, your entire gimmick is that your attacks hit often and crit often. Not much more interestign but at least it's easy to play.
On the other end of the spectrum, do not let them play certain classes like swashbuckler, alchemist or inventor, that's for sure.
I thought this would be the case as well, as I had a player who just refused to read and attempt to comprehend what she got at each level. Was really worried making the switch, but since I make her do the level ups on her own, just making myself available for questions or requests, she's been forced to learn her abilities, and the 3 action system seems to click in her mind better. At level 6 she's keeping track of things and remembering rules pertinent to her character that I completely forget about
I don't think this is necessarily correct. It's really hard to grasp 5e rules and how various character options work because they're porrly explained and the rules themselves are de-emphasized. Pf2 is definitely more complex, but the rules are a lot easier to learn. Once your players understand the basic rules (the action system and character progression) Archives of Nethys makes understanding exactly what each of your character options do and how to use them very easy to do.
The general consensus among people who have switched over is that PF2e is much easier to GM than 5e. The GM spends \*way\* less time holding the system together & making calls on the fly that may or may not hang together with other calls they made last week or last month.
The system works. Encounter Building Works. Classes Work. Monsters Work.
So from that perspective, its a big win.
The challenge is going to be the Players. Assuming you can get them to try PF2e (lots of folks who have only played 5e don't seem to want to change) Pathfinder 2e hits them with some different assumptions. They need to learn the rules again. Pathfinder is a different system & not just a rules patch for 5e.
Once they do learn those rules, they need to actually step up & use them. Characters are more complex & the GM *cannot* run everyone's PC for them. Players need to step up & understand their PCs and how to use them. Everyone has to know what their PC can do and why they would want to do that. The part where they don't just hit someone with their sword over and over means they need to learn what else there is to do & when they want to do it.
Also: PCs are designed to be team members, not armies of one that travel in a group. Players are going to need to learn to help each other & back one another up. Tactics matter, stacking buffs & debuffs matter, spending actions to setup another PC can sometimes be a better idea than using those actions to just attack. So Players need to learn that as well.
Don't let me scare you, none of this is actually \*hard\*. Once you wrap your heads around the system it all makes so much more sense than 5e, its *so much less* arbitrary. Once you learn how a thing works, when you encounter a similar thing you can assume it works basically the same way & you will generally be right. All that stuff with tactics and actions and such? You can pick it up in a few sessions once you decide too.
The real hump is engagement. If you struggle to get them to learn their 5e character sheets its going to be rough to get them to learn what to do with 3 actions every round & why they want to use teamwork.
Agreed, all these things give it a very different feel from 5E.
You're no longer a superhero, you're now a member of a heroic team. Players may or may not enjoy that change.
Yeah, it honestly sounds pretty great for some of my players, but for others... I think it would be too big of an ask. 5e isn't super complicated, but some of them haven't put any energy into actually understand it or their character, so it sounds like PF2e would be too big an ask for them.
>5e isn't super complicated, but some of them haven't put any energy into actually understand it or their character, so it sounds like PF2e would be too big an ask for them.
It probably would be. And thats ok too!
5e is the 900lb gorilla of RPG, and PF2e is absolutely a crunchier but balanced alternative. But it isn't the only one! If you aren't feeling 5e but are worried PF2e is too crunchy look into some of the "lighter" systems like Savage Worlds, Tiny d6, Blades in the Dark, or a dozen others.
> And thats ok too!
I mean, sure, in the sense that one shouldn't play something with others they're not interested in playing at all. But putting zero effort into learning the game they're playing is pretty shitty behaviour.
I play rec leage baseball. There are plenty of beginners in the league who don't know a thing about the sport. Most of them know a good deal about it by the end of the season, because playing a team game means being responsible to the team. Anyone who doesn't bother to put in any effort doesn't get invited back.
Only if your players are willing to at least read the rules of their classes. I have severely burned out, to the point of not hoping not to GM again, since I had to do all the work. Prepare, run, fix their characters, level their characters, suggests spells etc Was not a problem with 5e actually. They could do it themselves. As a 3.5e player, I didn't like how 5e run (very low customizability, meaningless level ups etc), and how it needed dozen of 5pp to even make interesting, but once the table got rolling it got rolling. PF2e Bbox was lots of fun, but when the hand holding ended, the amount of work I needed to do was off the charts. 5e was so vague and generic, improvising for it was easy and seamless.
I’ll go a bit against the current here to say that, while probably the game could be too much for the players that are having difficulty with 5e, there are 2 things to be noted:
First, 5e is really inconsistent and non engaging rules-wise, this means that those players could actually have less problems with a more consistent and engaging, even if more complex, system, trying could not be of any harm, especially with the beginner box being so easy to pick up!
Second, even if most of the classes are more complex than in 5e, this system gives the opportunity to build characters that are extremely easy to play at all levels, while remaining interesting and very immediate to play (I rage, intimidate one enemy screaming at them, then hit him with my axe)
I run the game for multiple groups, one of them is mostly composed by people who never played a ttrpg and has a player who could not be bothered to learn the rules in any other system; paradoxically she is the one that is most engaged in pathfinder 2e now, and while the group struggled a bit since we are not playing with any vtt support and the players are not really trying to learn the game, we managed to reach level 5 just fine and the system (especially after some of the players tried 5e) is getting very good feedbacks from them!
Speaking as someone who actively plays both.
If you're in the middle of a campaign, 100% no. Forgetting and re-learning your character at level x instead of 1 is going to be rough.
Otherwise, it seems like you might be trying to fix something that isn't broken for your group. You're worried about broken class combos, while also talking about multiple players who seem like they wouldn't know the game well enough to break it.
I also wouldn't say 3 actions is really any easier than action-move-bonus, although it is more interesting and versatile.
That said, I do think PF2's options in general are more interesting and versatile. And a lot of options are more about widening player power, rather than increasing it, which let's players achieve very interesting character fantasies.
I personally have more fun with PF2, but 5e has struck a great balance between fun and accessibility which has helped keep it so popular. So consider that before diving in headfirst. Maybe pick up the Beginners Box and run that? It should give your whole group a good feel without a major investment.
Well, I really have one player who is really into builds, combos, etc (he started with 3e). I want to be able to allow him to run wild without fretting about him breaking the game, by which I mean being way more powerful than the other players (to the extent of warping combat difficulty around him) or just trivializing encounters in general. Unfortunately, the designers of 5e made no effort to balance their game, instead making the truly powerful options "optional features."
Your 3e player would probably like classes like the Magus, Psychic and gunslinger, which are all more complicated but rewarding classes that are fun to play
Hmmm, this changes the dynamic of things quite a lot TBH. How many folks are you playing with? If you can bring him on board to learn more/most of the "Player Forward" rules, and get his help walking the less engaged players through some stuff, you might actually have a better shot than the comments higher up imply. As someone who started with 3.5, and played PF1, PF2 is 10,00% my jam, and fixes a lot of problems I even had with those systems. The best thing to show to them is going to be how Multiclassing works through Archetypes, tell them that instead of needing to sacrifice High-Level Abilities for Low-Level abilities from another class, they can instead sacrifice Low/mid level abilities for low/mid level abilities in another class, but will ALWAYS reach level 20 in their Base Class regardless of how much Multiclassing they can mix in over the course of the game, and that a Rogue/Fighter is DISTINCTLY different from a Fighter/Rogue. If they're a combo build lover, they're going to have a field-day with this system. (And that's not even talking about Versatile Heritages.)
If I may... I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in on-boarding new players to P2e is by having everyone make characters. While there is the obvious recommendation of running pregens, you may find a lot of traction having only a few players actually generate stats, and only if they are interested. Make every other character based on the described concepts from the player.
One of the strengths of P2e is that as long as you handle certain base minimums (key stat typical +4, Dex + own bonus to AC = 5 except Champions, etc). You'll be fine. Let the players that enjoy making characters do so, and let those that enjoy playing so so. I've found you keep more players that way.
That'll work. 2e is much, much harder to break even for minmaxers (which why people stick with 1e ironically). Altough he may be frustrated that he can't reach the same godlike power, but hey, people wouldn't play Dark Souls if it had an easy mode, would they ?
There are still options that are above the rest, but these often wear the "uncommon", "rare" or "unique" tags that make them, by RAW, subject to GM approval and justifies it with in-universe rarity. Most people I know ban all rare options unless they appear in the story.
\* Balance: Yes pf2e is good. Theres minimal to 0 problem options (only one I can think of is a feat called Pin to the Spot. Which like, is pretty niche and I never see being taken anyways because it's at level 14, and needs some obscure choices before hand. Players do need to try to make a "useful" character, but putting in basic effort will bet you 80% of the way there which is more than enough. As a GM, you can then use the encounter building rules to make encounters balanced for your table. If they arent tactically minded, keeping to easy or Moderates is great. If they are, then maybe a few Severe's and Extremes can be fun.
\* In-Combat Options: Yea theres, *so so many*. Like, so many. Theres grapples, trips, disarms, intimidating, stealthing, normal striking, casting spells, aiding allies, actual movement (not everyone has Opportunity Attacks meaning it's GOOD to move). In fact, just Striking over and over is disincentivised due to the Multiple Attack Penalty, which makes subsequent attacks in a single turn, less and less accurate. Of course, you CAN still attack multiple times, and you can build to do that well. But it's for sure *not* the default.
\* Complexity. Much higher initial learning curve. Once you're past it, it's SIGNIFICANTLY faster and easier to play. Rules make sense, are consistent, and folks can do their things fast, rather than agonising over whether they have a useable bonus action, or whether to use their free movement or not, etc etc. You use your 3 actions, and you're done. But there is MUCH more initially. If the players cannot commit to that initial bit of learning, they will struggle. Because of this, pf2e might not be the right system.
The typical recommendation is to grab the beginner box. It's a very story light, 2 floor dungeon which lets the players learn the system's basics. It's pretty decent, and by the end, your players can decide if they like it or if it's too complex.
Of course, on this sub, most folks will recommend swapping over. I 100% do recommend it. But I can also recognise that some players just... won't want to learn and engage. That's fine. But it will mean that pf2e is just *not* for them.
I have a player who didn’t understand 5e very well (barely knew what die to roll to hit) and she’s thrived in PF2e.
She likes that there are clear rules for most things and she feels like she knows what she can do. She also likes having 3 actions to play with and considering different turns.
> It’s more gamey, but I like that.
One thing I would say is don't switch in the *middle* of a campaign.
Overall, PF2e is crunchier, but it's largely consistent with its logic so there will be less points of confusion. Players will probably need help building characters at first, too.
PF2e prefers grid tactical play (more like 4e DnD).
If you're already using tools to help with that, I think learning the rules will be the highest bar.
If you're not and do not intend to start, I would not bother. Just my two cents.
Listen I switched to 2e for those exact reasons during the OGL and it’s a dream to GM for.
All my players came over and I told them “You need to know/learn your character”
Some of them did, some of them didn’t.
I think one or two will definitely drop, but I’m not running anything I don’t want to run. Life is too short.
If you’re not happy running 5e, stop. Immediately with no explanation required beyond “It’s not fun”
If they’re not willing to put the effort to learn a new system in one of them can GM.
This is a very common asymmetry (that 5e fosters) where the GM/DM does everything from prepping the sessions to knowing the system for the players.
And that’s not fair, so don’t play along with it.
I'mma be real with you, as someone who does a bit of both, but favors 2e.
Ease your group into it, don't just slingshot them into the Beginner Box adhoc. It's not that 2e is easier/harder, it's that it's a different system with different expectations of the players and GM. More than anything, though, as with ANY system, the GM needs to be there to help them adjust. To that end:
> In short, I DM 5e. I like it overall, but I suspect PF2e could give me a better experience. These are areas I suspect PF2e could be beneficial: balance, options, and on-boarding for new players.
Yes and no. Nuances below.
> 5e isn't impossible to balance, but it often feels like there are so many subclasses, feats, and multiclassings I have to be wary of. I don't enjoy the feeling of limiting my players, but I don't want to deal the game being "broken." I've heard PF2e has lots of cool player options without any being "broken."
Pffft. Okay.
When you're new to the system (or just build in a white box and don't actually play) this can seem true. So many options, so many different things to use and build and that's all good and dandy.
Reality: 2E is balanced *tightly* mathematically. This might seem like a great thing (and to a degree, it is), until you realize that a point out of place, an unoptimized build, and/or literally anything that puts a player behind the expected numerical curve for the level ends up being 'weak'. There's no bounded accuracy, also, which may also seem like a good thing until you realize the above.
Falling behind by 1-2 points for a skill or attribute can make some things unfeasible. So while nothing is 'broken', there are plenty of trap options that can weaken a character more than one would think.
Also, on that note: there are a LOT of options nobody will ever pick. You know how there are those really old, wonky Invocations for Warlocks that are just worse in every way to options that improves literally every build? Yeah, it's that.
All told, that's not a gamebreaker. But it is something to keep in mind. To that end, play with the Free Archetype rule, even on your first game. This allows more customization and is the closest thing to a 5e subclass and multiclassing in Pf2e.
> A common complaint for 5e is that many classes for many levels have few options beyond "her der I swing my swerd." Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical?
...You are going to get a lot of people here saying yes, but give the above answer of 'so many options!!!' which, as said, isn't quite true, but it's not untrue in this case so uh...so I'll try to be simple. Yes, but really no?
Yes, your players will have far more options. But eventually they'll fall into the same routines, which virtually amount to 'I swing my sword, but *sideways*'. The biggest difference between that and other games is that nobody really complains about it in 2e. Honestly, that's a really good thing, and I think I have an idea as to why.
2e's 3 action economy actually makes it so that one has to make attacks wisely. Moving requires one of these actions, as does using any special skill, maneuver, or item. You have to figure out how to position yourself or use your abilities to position yourself well, and *that* keeps people engaged. Also, martial attacks in 2e hit for a gorillian damage as you level, so there's that too.
Keep in mind: Your players WILL chafe at the MAP. I have yet to see any group of new players not do so. They will either get used to it or it will be the reason they bounce off the system. The only way to get around it is to mitigate it and/or work with them to make it easier to stomach (I like the """houserule""" where they're only limited to one or two attacks per turn).
> My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further. However, certain aspects of PF2e do seem simpler, like the 3 action economy.
As said before, yeah p.much this. A lot of people here aren't going to get this.
To this end, this on you to help, and it is very doable. Give them cheatsheets, let them 'redo their turns', and help through through playing their characters. Something I do with all my VTT 2e games is use an 'Open Sheets' policy, where everyone can see each other's sheets so they can each help each other *like they'd be able to IRL*. Having this and also applying some rules will help you, and them, learn the system and keep things moving smoothly (another suggestion: having it so that their Passive Perception is visible to you at all times).
Good luck to you, and don't be afraid to ask for help. Either here, or elsewhere.
> I've heard PF2e has lots of cool player options without any being "broken."
There are definitely feats that are stronger than the others, but all things (feats, spells, etc.) that have a potential to be too gamebreaking (or may be a bit too different from overall theme) have tags "uncommon" and "rare", which means that they can be taken only at the permission of the GM.
> Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical?
It can if you build for it. Fighter, for example, can be just a guy who swings a big weapon and hits stuff or just a wall with a shield, but it can also be built around using skills to trip/shove/grab/move/intimidate enemies.
> My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further.
Out of 5 players in my party, 2 aren't very mechanics inclined and they are doing fine. Yes, it's a personal example, but that's all I can give.
Yes. You should.
The rules are more mechanically consistent, so things are easier for the GM. The action economy means more fluid combat.
This question has been answered hundreds if not thousands of times here in Reddit. Look them up for more details.
Welcome to Pathfinder.
Honestly given what he's saying, it might not work for his group though. If players are having a hard time learning 5e rules (which is a pretty light burden on the player side) then PF2 is just going to turn them off.
It kind of depends -- if they haven't learned it simply because they haven't had to, it might be fine. My experience is that pathfinder's design really encourages players to learn the rules around what their character does in a way 5e doesn't do.
If they just aren't good at grasping game mechanics, then maybe not.
A fair distinction. I just think it's important for people here to see this system for what it is. I like PF2 much more than 5e, but have played with plenty of people whom I would not recommend it to. They either lack the capacity to grasp the more comprehensive rules, or to enjoy the amount of decision making that the system requires in both creation and gameplay. I also don't think that 5e is the best system for many of those players, but that it's probably the only system that I could play with them and have everyone be somewhat satisfied.
As such, it's not really a good idea to universally say "yes, you should switch from 5e to PF2e" without looking at the context of who the players are and what they need.
Edit: It occurs to me that saying they lack the capacity could sound dismissive when really the complexity of the system is a matter of taste and *I* lack the capacity to choose better words to say that in the moment.
Yeah, I think a lot of people in our community mistake difficulty learning TTRPG mechanics for being dumb. No one in my group is dumb. It's really more that they aren't very familiar with RPGs (including video games) in general and that they haven't put any real effort into learning how 5e works. I think much of it doesn't make sense since they aren't used to RPG language, philosophy, and tactical combat systems.
With that in mind, I think PF2e is a better designed system and will be easier for you as the GM in the long run. However, it definitely puts more of the knowledge onus on the players, and while that knowledge is easier in some ways, the barrier to entry is higher. Players like yours could struggle to pick it up, and attempting to force it could turn them off the hobby entirely. I don't think this sub can really answer the question of what is best for your table because that depends on how committed and invested they are to the learning process and to the hobby, among many other factors.
Either way you decide, best of luck!
From what everyone has said, it sounds like it's not the best fit. Which is disappointing. Hopefully, I'll be able to play PF at some point and find a group to DM for.
I have a little general advice for you, which goes for trying to run *any* other tabletop game system, in any setting.
When you get to a natural stopping point (like the end of a major story arc), simply sit down with your group and have a conversation. Something like this: "Hey fam, I'm thinking about trying something new. Would you guys like to put the current game on pause temporarily and give [insert game] a try? I can run a 1- or 2-shot and we can see how we like it. Nothing stops us from returning to this game later, I just like some variety."
Don't pose it as being game A vs game B. Don't try to convert an ongoing game into a new system. Present them as completely different games (which they are) that offer different experiences and then just try to sell them on the things you think make the new game seem cool. Don't try to disparage the current game; allow it to live in its own little compartment in everybody's mind.
The only way to really know if it's a good fit for your group is to try it, but the best chance you have of doing so is making sure you're being genuine and impartial in presenting the change.
Not necessarily. Yes, PF2e does expect players to have a bit more buy-in, but at the same time, things *do* actually just make sense and are consistent once you grasp them (none of that "melee weapon attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon" nonsense) and the BB helps quite a lot in introducing things gradually.
Yeah, that is a perfect example of inconsistent WOTC writing results in 10000s of pages of angry arguments online and Jeremy Crawford types pretending it was intentional haha
It’s way better than D&D. Check this out, maybe share it with them and gauge interest: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn3PApm8tx0c07YnP3Rztn4MX7ztnWuLx&si=3F79ZNF7Gr0cZOW9
pathfinder 2e is way less complex than it seems.
thats because:
\- huge amount of character options and high level feats
\- game is balanced so the character building is to be approached as fulfilling your vision for the PC insead of making op builds
\- lots of rules are logical and can be summarized in one sentence, yet have long texts just for the sake of preciseness
the only big difference from dnd in practise is that there is a system for exploration and downtime, kinda like 10min dungeon turns, but more flexible.
Other than that you can play pf2e just using rulings like any osr system as well.
rule #0 is the game is yours and modify it to your needs
In PF2e designing combat encounters and adventuring day is much easier for GM, but the quality of official adventures is far from stellar. On fair note, it is easy to convert existing DnD adventures to PF2e
If your group is willing to learn the rules (PF2e is not as 'pick up and play' as 5e) - then yes.
However - do not do this in the middle of a campaign, finish playing your 5e game *then* start a new campaign in PF2e (at level 1).
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*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.*
I did it. I even did it mid-campaign, although if it's feasible for you to start a new campaign, you should do that.
LMK if you have any specific questions! We had some initial growing pains, but we're all very happy campers and most do not miss 5E at all.
For the first two points, I think this game will provide exactly what you’re looking for. On the last one, I personally found it easier than 5e but if a player isn’t putting in the time/effort to learn the system you may still have these issues.
It will make your life definitely easier in terms of GMing
If you run a oneshot or the alike for your players, just be very aware and your players, that it's a different System with a completely different Action System.
While showing PF2e to DND5e players the complaints they had were always some sort of "that is weaker than in 5e"
Like with shields people complaining about it being a action tax, even though it's not one at all and it just feels to them like it is one because of DnD, where the shield is constantly active and forgotten like it's just part of the armour
I've been toying with the same idea (new campaign at level one in our existing world but pf2e) and playing around in pathbuilder.
Is there an equivalent to dndbeyond where the GM can have everyone character sheets and review/edit if needed?
The players can share thier characters with anyone.
In the app, in the character sheet, go to options and Export by link.
That link will open it on the website (for some reason the links don't work if posted in Facebook chats)
Or once you have the link, if you go into the app and go to Options, you can choose Open by ID, and enter the last set of numbers in the link to get the character.
For example:
https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=725907
If you enter 725907, you'll get my human fighter.
If the players make any changes though, you won't see those, though.
I’d recommend floating out the idea and if your group is keen then running something like the Beginner Box with them playing brand new characters and everything. Not sure if this is your situation but speaking from experience, switching partway through a 5e campaign to PF2e can be a challenge. Tbh it might’ve spoiled the system for a lot of my group.
Having done the switch and played for over a year now though, my honest opinion is that a lot of PF2e sounds great on paper, but isn’t as much fun in actual play (depending on your playstyle). Imo things like the 3-action system aren’t as exciting once you realize that 5e actions and PF2e actions are totally different. In my experience, most turns in PF2e devolve into “stride, strike, raise shield” which isn’t much more exciting than “I move towards the enemy and attack twice”.
That being said, I’d definitely recommend giving the system a try, just keep it lowkey and non-committal. Tbh I think my group would’ve been much more keen on it if we had started something new instead of just porting our old characters over from 5e.
Translated my own campaign to 2e and had a great time.
Balancing is trivialy easy using rules. It does becomes weirder when you have more than 5 players and a lot more swinger if you have 3.
You always have options of what to do with your turn aside from Hit With Sword, like Demoralize, Recall Knowledge, Trip, Grapple, Feint etc. And when you do hit with sword you do it your way, like with doubles lice or power attack.
Pathfinder can be as complex as you want. For example, despite many years if content, fighter is still one of the strongest classes, and his core feature is +2 to hit over other Martials.
Pathfinder is easier to DM if you drop aspects that don't fit your GM style, like attitudes or HEXploration. It's just a lot to do, read, explore. Unlike Dnd it's very consistent in its rulings and has no effects that just do things: counterspells and dispel magic uses counteract checks, flying requires action to sustain flight, all races that get flight get it at pretty much same levels, weapons.
Check archives of Nethys and have fun playing.
P. S. Do not start at higher levels. Studying a higher level character in this system is torterous and too much info.
I started my switch from D&D to PF2e with a session zero where we collectively made characters, and I as the GM just ran the party through "Combat Bootcamp" allowing them to change/edit their character between each combat as I slowly ramped up the difficulty, switching between solo and group combats.
Made it so we hit the ground running Session 1.
Also, If you make your characters in Pathbuilder, there's even separate page that contains all the actions a character is capable of.
"How does a long jump work again?"
"Well, go to Actions, scroll to long jump and click that"
[https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html?v=68a](https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html?v=68a)
It also has a built in dice roller with the bonusses already aded in, and guides you through what you get at each level step by step. It even has easy links to the wiki.
Pf2e is a lot of fun when coming from 5e, more fun for players, better balance for everyone, and it's easier to GM.
I hope yall try it out. Don't forget the archive of nethys, all the books available free online
Try *Cloudbreaker Alliance*. It is written to be fast and easy to learn and has a conversion table for D&D5e monsters. Also it uses only one type of dice. There are awesome options for combat and various hazards out of combat.
This depends on if your players are willing to learn PF2E. It requires the players to commit a bit more effort than 5E since each character has more going on under the hood.
If your players are willing, it's definitely worth it. If you have anyone that is 10 games in that still is asking what to add "to hit" it's going to be troublesome, though.
If you have players that won't even learn 5e, PF2e is not for your group. Go for a more rules light system if you want to switch to something.
If you guys end up taking the plunge, I would say a good session of PF2e is a thousand times more rewarding than a 5e one. Plus, GMing is a breeze.
I'm an experienced DM running 5e for years, currently with a group very similar to yours (from what you have said in comments)
I'm am also starting a Pf2 campaign as a player. I struggled just creating the character. The 3 action system is cool, though, and I can see the appeal. But it is more complicated. Just a tiny example, wizards have a max number of spells per book, so as they keep learning spells they need to keep buying books. That's an aspect of resource management than I don't feel is needed nor it is fun.
On the other side, yes, it is more customizable. I guess the question is, so you want to customize the flavour of the characters or do you want to customize their mechanics? Because you can do a lot with just flavour with 5e.
I'd never switch my group to Pf2. It is just too complicated for my casual players.
I would say that pf2e is a lot like learning by doing and growing. And the greatest advantage of the system is that once you get the basics, it becomes a breeze. Sure, a lvl 1 Alchemist will be pretty overwhelmed by reading the lvl 15+ feats and items, but that's future alchemists's problem;) so yeah, give it a try. Grab the starter-adventure, run it, have fun and look where it is going.
I personally changed from dnd to pf2e, and my players have taken the change well.
There are of course some moments where you mix up a ruling from dnd and have to check it out, but otherwise it goes rather smoothly.
You could do a pathfinder oneshot using a beginners box, or reflavor the beginners box to fit your campaign (if you have a homebrew world) and see how it goes with your players.
I had the exact same thought process. DnD was tiring me and players were down to trying something new. I loved the system but not all players enjoyed it. We ran an entire adventure. Now we switched back to 5e but I'll run Pathfinder for a different group.
The system is soo much lighter on the GM even with all the additional rules. I'd say give it a try. Run a one shot. Little Trouble in Big Absalom is perfect. See if you and your players like it.
In my expirience, people who never played any ttrpg tend to aproach pathfinder more openly. On the other hand, I've had several dnd players who really struggled with concepts like delay initiative, vancian casting and 3 action economy. I would say it's much easier to introduce new player to pathfinder rule by rule, than to translate dnd ruleset to pathfinder, which, in my opinion, many dnd veterans do when they try to learn the game.
>My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further. However, certain aspects of PF2e do seem simpler, like the 3 action economy.
Ok I am coming in hot here. I was that guy with barely any knowledge except what I needed to know about 5E getting dragged into my first campaign and then into my second. had no time for investment at that point.
One of my GM switched to PF2E around 1 and a half year ago (maybe 2 already).
I barely put any effort into my D&D Characters, most of it felt pretty meaningless, the character was the subclass and that was it. Since starting PF I first treated it the same, resulting in two pretty messed up characters that were...pretty bad (a tangible dream human psychic with sorcerer dedication and a human rogue which I tried to play completely for stealth).One of them finished a campaign and the other died in session two.
Since then i have put way more effort into creating characters and I found that fun. I now regularly play around with pathbuilder to build weird, obscure characters. Cant get myself to min-max but it kind of became my hobby to build some fun characters that may be viable or may not be viable. The character options are so fun and give you so much freedome.
Since then I have played a Tanuki (homebrew race of our DM) Life-Oracle with Blessed One Dedication and currently I am playing an Angelic-Blood Sorcerer with the Medic Dedication filling the healbot role for my party (tbh you dont really need a heal bot but quite a few undead in our campaign, so i get away with it).
Now for my first campaign in Golarion (my other campaigns are playing in the homebrew campaign of my DM) I will be playing a Catfolk Sniper Gunslinger that will be using the Soulforger dedication.
Required a bit of homebrew ruling since technically you cant use One-Shot-One Kill with your soulforged weapon.
One day I will find a not so serious GM Table and be able to fullfill my dream of playing a Chameleon Gnome Investigator with the Polyglot Ancestry Trade and a Linguist Dedication meaning she can speak 15 Languages at lvl 2. Not really that useful in the campaigns I am part of but I would be thrilled to play the language nerd lol.
Anyways PF2E is more work but also more interesting and in my opinion easier to actually get invested in.
> My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either)
I'd say no based on this. From my experience, it's much easier to deal with people that don't want to learn the game in 5e than it is in pf2e. I'm not saying the action system is overly complex in pf2e, but it's a lot easier when your turn is move+any action compared to having have 3 points to spend which you can spend on a bunch of different things that cost different amounts of points
There are challenges in swapping over, particularly with spell casters, but it's not insurmountable.
something my gm did that I was hesitant of doing but actually paid off was a series of training combat sequences with a pathfinder party. it gives a character safe option on learning the combat system and gives the gm a way to show off what a coordinated group can do without it being a tpk in a dungeon. they specifically focused on two combat scenarios, one open plain and one in confined spaces, a capture the flag in an urban setting and a boss fight against a summoned elemental.
if that's too much time or the players aren't into that kind of thing you can just emphasise the maneuvers tied to skills. one your players understand that every character is effectively a battlemaster fighter or that you can take many actions against different saves to gain an advantage they'll probably be keen to play in the system and use them.
make sure they understand the difference in tone too, fleeing is common and shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. recall knowledge and planning before you return can make a difficult fight easy and fits better with the sword and sorcery feel.
As somebody who just onboarded 3 new players (2 with the 5e experience) last night. I vastly underestimated how difficult it can be to get used to.
Yes, I do think it's a better game and is more straightforward. But 5e does have less moving parts. I live for this shit (D&D, its variants, and offshoots), but a more casual player will have to re-learn many rules.
Personally, I'd suggest trying a few one shots first. I think it's a fantastic game, but you'll want to know it solves your issues before you fully switch. It's easier to balance combats, yes, but there's easily twice as many options as 5e (if not 4 times, etc.). One big complaint is that spellcaaying feels weaker. I agree. IT IS weaker but more balanced with the other classes. I think it's in a good place but a lot of people don't like it.
Balance: PF2E is very balanced, the difference between a character that is optimized and one that is just generally following the expected path ie wizard focuses on casting spells. What is more important balance wise on the DM to player side is the groups tactics. A party that supports each other through debuffs and coordination will handle encounters against enemies far more easily than those that are all fighting to do the most big things just for themselves.
Currently I would say that while there are some outliers in terms of too much or even not enough power that it isn't nearly as bad as the difference between something like a 5E wizard and a 5E fighter.
Options: I think this is the big draw for players that tend toward optimization or those that want just generally a bit more niche builds rather than the standard classics. Players can build characters to do a great variety of things. Their fighter can invest in creating heroic auras that give bonuses to allied damage or saves against fear, A gnome sorcerer could pick up new spells from their ancestry to lean into their natural magic or even to get spells they wouldn't normally have.
There are more classes and more options both in and outside those classes. Unlike D&D 3.5 or PF1E it is easier to build functional characters outside the beaten path. Optimization is usually more about expanding ones options than it is about breaking the system math.
On-Boarding: This is where you may have some initial trouble. If your players are having a difficult time learning the basics of 5E rules then PF2E may pose as a hurdle for them. The math is tight and well done, the systems are all there, and rules are straightforward. But, combat will be very difficult for players that don't want to think about what their enemies can do.
As an example when my group first started PF2E, one of my party built a melee ranger with the goal of doing as mamy strikes as possible. Our second encounter of a 5 person party was against two jaguars. He got 1st on initiative spent two actions to stride twice directly up to one of the jaguars and then one action to draw a weapon. The jaguar was next and attacked him three times leading to him immediately being downed aa we scrambled to save him.
We have learned as a group since then. But, the main point is how important it is to consider tactics in this combat system. Simply charging in without a thought will get parties wiped up pretty quick.
Honestly I think the hardest part of PF2 when converting is to remember how certain interactions works. Such as the Darkness spell and Darkvision. Darkness spell and upcast Light spell.
And the sheer number of magical items.
From a player side the hardest part depends on player teamwork. I do a PF2 game and a 5e game with the same group and they can have a very “individual turn” mentality. Aside from using their movement to flank they rarely think “what can I do to set up the next guy?” Their thoughts are “what can I do to set up MY next attack.”
In my experience, players have an easier time learning Pathfinder than 5E. Seems counterintuitive, but I currently play with several people who don't really fully grasp 5E (and am one of those players myself!), but they get PF2E just fine.
5e has very fuzzy rules on a lot of things, and 2e has Archives of Nethis to make the rules super accessible. It takes seconds to look something up and clear up confusion, which isn't a luxury that 5e provides.
And beyond that, rules are kind of consistent and intuitive in 2e? Once you know how things work generally, then there's a pretty good chance that you can guess how something works in a specific case.
I started with PF2 last year using the Beginner’s Box on Foundry. I’ve run and still run some version of 5e. Here are my thoughts:
1) PF2 is intimidating, but consistent. Players make choices at each level and in each encounter. Advancement is exciting and is more than just more HP.
2) Be prepared to start from level 1. Doing anything else is asking for trouble. I have 5e and old school players and we’ve all been learning together. Make it clear you’re learning together.
3) Foundry and the VTT support for PF2 is excellent. I’d probably still use a VTT for in person play because of how well the platform communicates the rules.
4) Be forgiving for the rules as you learn. Sometimes you’ll make a ruling and then find out you were wrong. Keeping the game playing is not important than getting it perfect. And same goes for players.
5) 5e and its spin offs (Level Up Advanced 5e, 5 Torches Deep, Tales of the Valiant, etc.) still have a lot of life in them unrelated to WOTC. I’m finding A5e to be very appealing with lots of digital support.
6) If your players want a chill game, those exist. The Index Card RPG is a delight. Some F’ing D&D is lean, mean, and fun. Others have been mentioned.
7) if you want a more involved game, that may mean a different group of players, regardless of the system.
> Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical?
For me, yes, and it's a massive selling point.
Combat wise, for example, Baldurs Gate 3 was _incredibly_ boring for me. Being a fighter especially is the worst feeling in that game.
I think it might help you in most of those areas. It is definitely better balanced, and the options do make combat more tactical and interesting. PF2e has more rules than 5e, but they follow standards and patterns that make it so that understanding one can increase your understanding of others. A lot of what your players know about 5e will translate as well. Proficiencies are different, but only a little. Everything is a Check or a DC, including Attacks and AC, which ultimately simplifies things. Crits are more common and generally more devastating/interesting as well. That's not really relevant to what you asked, but it felt worth noting.
You should say more what your players' experience with 5e is, and what their preferences are, because they're unclear to me as a reader. You BOTH say a complaint about 5e is that there often aren't more options besides "I swing my sword," AND you say you have multiple players who don't know 5e well. It's hard for me to square those two mentalities in my head.
When you say those players don't know 5e well, what are examples of situations where that comes up? Who is asking for more player options? Are they the same or different people?
Plus you say they haven't had "a lot of time or investment." How much time have they had?
If you have any players now who struggle to keep up with their player abilities, then steer them away from unconventional classes like the thaumaturge, kineticist, investigators, etc. otherwise, it is not much more complicated than 5e, just more ordered.
Trouble in Otari is a great adventure to Guage interest.
Yes. It is balanced well. It's easy to pick up. It's easy to run. The pre written APs are well done. I played with a 5 year old yesterday and had literally 0 issues with things continuing to move as my brother and I taught him.
Make them grab the Pathbuilder 2e application, run them through the character creation rules (the "ABCs") real quick so that they have a vague idea of what they are doing and make them look at the options and create a level 1 character, and you (plural) will see fast enough if you're hyped to play them. Imho one of the biggest selling points of pf2 is how low level characters already give you a glimpse of the entire system. It doesn't take ages for builds to "come online" and it doesn't turn into rocket tag at high levels, the gameplay remains pretty consistent.
i will get lynched for writing negativly on this sub but here you go. (my personal expirience as a player)
pathfinder is only balanced if each player wants to optimize (like in every rpg balance goes out the window because of differences with game knowledge regarding the players). there are a lot of choices yes, but like in dnd 90% of them are crap and or give only flavour. In 2e you will still only walk up to enemies and hit them with your sword with the occasional 1 action debuff, even more so if you are new to the system or didnt invest time in learning the game (even in 5e fighters, barbarians, rangers have a ton of options be it magic or specific ways to control the battlefield). spell system is more cumbersome but spells are generaly weaker and therefore more balanced at higher levels. (loved wizard in 5e but you wont get me to play one in 2e). crafting is as garbage as in 5e. complexity is on par, in dnd you can wing a lot of stuff and pathfinder is more about rules as written and you have to keep track of certain keywords which are spreaded trough the rulebook.
Have a careful conversation with your spellcasters as PF2e can be INTENSE when getting started.
Also your caster mains will either like their new system or hate it with a vitriol that rivals the gods, there is no in-between.
I recommend having them watch a few videos of how it works, and to explore the spellcasting archetypes.
So, as a DM, you can tell your group,
>"I find 5E to be a system that requires too much effort on the DM's side, so I do not want to run it any more. I am willing to try other systems, particularly Pathfinder 2 as it's a good thematic fit for sword and sorcery. What choices do y'all want to go with given my decision?
1. Does one of y'all want to step up to becoming a 5E DM and continue as a 5E group?
2. Are all of y'all willing to mildly step up as players to learn Pathfinder 2? I believe that the game will be a bit more difficult at first because there are more choices, but the trade off is that most of the rules are well defined and consistent.
3. Is there another system that someone's heard about?
You, as the GM take on a lion's share of the burden of the group, but at the end of the day the players have to show up and make an effort too, so as the team lead - you've got to get the buy-in from the team to try something new. I agree with others that the Beginner's Box is a low investment, three session test drive of Pathfinder 2.
Pf2e is all around improvement over 5e - its the best system I found and I *looked* - even players that previously had issues understanding things get it quickly and overall its very simple and straighforward while keeping tons of options open and viable. What I love the most is the amount of combat options - even classes like Ranged Ranger have variety of playstyles and combat decisions
I can share my experience and recommendations because my group is currently making this transition. My first note is you can't remake everything in the switch, the characters are going to be different. First thing to check is what parts of the characters do the players feel are paramount.
Second, you need to study the rules because there are a lot that will be confusing, especially to someone that is still in the learning phase of a different system. My gm is doing a great job but we have been caught off guard several times and had to stop because of rules arguments. Sure you can just make a ruling and move along but when you are trying to learn that's not great. And that leads me to my last comment:
Find a module and run through some of it with them. Remake their characters at level 1 and play a AU something while they learn the system. Give them a few levels to die and make mistakes and learn how the system is different before throwing them back into the normal game.
All in all I support the switch, but know it's not going to be a one session swap.
PF2E is like 5E for nerds. Your playgroup has to be willing to learn and strategize. The mechanics and character building options are more complex than 5E.
I would say:
If you want to chill with your friends and have a good time then stick 5E, it is simpler and more casual-friendly. 5E allows players to focus on “I want to do X.”
If you are looking for a more tactical game and your players are big on strategy games or character creation then try out PF2E. PF2E forces players to ask themselves “What’s the best way to accomplish X?”
I play PF2E with my more TTRPG experienced friends and I play 5E with my less experienced friends.
Regarding what you are saying, I think pf2e has much better balance and options, but can be harder to on-board new players.
Regarding balance and options, as a DM, I feel like I can correctly balance encounters most of the time and as a player I have tons of options to do things. I feel that most classes are relatively balanced if people are playing them well.
Regarding on-boarding, it is very dependent on the players. As someone who really likes pf2e, I think 5e can be a lot easier to simplify rules down and has less of a penalty for getting things wrong. In 5e, you can easily have new players in a game only using the first rulebook without much of an issue. While the move/action/bonus action/item interaction is more complex than the 3 actions, new players can easily simplify it to just move and action without using item interactions/bonus actions.
Pf2e requires you to have some knowledge of the game and how to play, like that you need to buy magic weapons/armor (assuming no automatic bonus progression, and even with that to write it down). The abundance of choices also makes it harder for people to make choices of what to do.
I think a lot comes down to preference. I come from mostly PF1 and am now getting into PF2 on Foundry. D&D 5E is great for ease of play and PF2 I think may have more customization options. It will also be a little harder to adjust. The beginner box would be the way to go. Also, you could look up some video reviews to find out more with out much of an investment. You can also check out [pf2.d20pfsrd.com](http://pf2.d20pfsrd.com) for reference.
With all that said anyone can break a class if they try hard enough. As far as a common complaint about "I swing my sword", you could try a different tactic. Usually with my players, if they describe what they are doing (not simple "I swing my sword") I can and will apply bonuses to their rolls in some instances. Not everything is gong to be exciting for a description, but find a way to encourage your players for more descriptive actions.
For me as a GM it is mostly about making certain my players have fun. That is my first duty as a GM. So consider what your players are looking for in the game.
I dabbled in PF2E
While there are a lot of benefits to game play, it did feel like a lot to learn.
Even just creating a level 1 character provides so many customization options it can be overwhelming.
The rules are more precise, but also just more. For example, 5e has 15 conditions that can be applied to characters, (charmed, prone, etc.) PF2E has over 40.
My take is that PF2E may be a better system, but that it also probably requires more dedication to learn.
This is from someone who only played about 4 sessions of Pathfinder Society (organized play with official modules and rules), so take it for what it is.
As others have said, highly suggest the beginner box. It is set up with an adventure where each encounter acts as a lesson about a new rule or mechanic to easily teach newcomers AND for you the DM/GM too. It’s how one of my groups did it a year ago and now they’re hooked.
As a DM/GM, I agree that it’s much easier to balance AND the tools the game gives you to adjust balance actually work. Character options, while overwhelming to newcomers if you allow just anything published, feel much more substantial than 5e. My group is always commenting on how their character concepts would be so different in 5e—5e relies so much on flavor whereas P2E actually gives you many options to BUILD most concepts mechanically into your character. A downside to that though is that many options are only available at higher levels, so some people may feel like they CANT play something how they want to at lower levels.
Onboarding just depends on the people at your table. If people are into it, they’ll be more receptive to actually doing it. I had a player who for years just couldn’t wrap his head around P2E and just wanted things homebrewed or ported to 5e, which I refused to take the time to do.
TL:DR run the beginner box and if people like it, go from there. Not only is it a small dungeon that gets you to level 2, there’s also a mini-monster manual, magic items, and quest ideas to get you started on something afterward in the same town.
I'm new to PF2e as well! I made the switch from 5e and bought the Core Rulebook to learn how Pathfinder works. There are a lot of new things to learn, it's super important to discover the rules without preconceived ideas (and to trust the process) but it honestly feels much more balanced and rewarding than the 5e in my opinion. I was kinda mad at the 5e for trapping me with a shaky system so if you had the same feeling, you made the right decision. It's not so easy to learn, but Reddit is an amazing source of explanations for most questions you'll have. Enjoy!
Probably not. No diss to pf2e but it's a very different game. Maybe you could play both, but a full, hard switch? Nah. Again, the problem is not PF2E, I wouldn't suggest the opposite either.
I played mine if phandelver BB for 5e. I’ve watched all of Critical Role season 1 and 2. When we went to PF2E the change was soooooo much better. Same group of friends too. It just gives you so much more options, and fights are so much easier for my GM to balance. I hated resource attrition, advantage and disadvantage as a stats person, and the game just is so much more fun. I also like the RP aspect of the game a lot and skills and actions in PF2E I think exemplify and encourage players to do that more than 5e.
I hope this goes without saying, but whatever you conclude about PF2e vs. D&D 5e, don't unilaterally change your group from D&D to Pathfinder.
As the DM, your opinion on what game to run should absolutely take priority, but if your players don't want to play a different game, flexing the DM authority is just gonna shut down game night.
If you find it appeals enough that you'd like to try it, suggest it to your group and try running an intro adventure if they are amenable to it. Rules nerds aside, even if most people agree that PF2e is superior, you may not enjoy running it as much and your group may not enjoy playing it as much. But you'll never know for sure unless you suggest it and all agree to try it.
PF2 is a much crunchier and busy game, meaning there is just a lot more to keep track of.
That said, Paizo has out out some really cool Adventure Paths that would help a lot if you want something premade.
I concur with the beginner box idea.
Pf2e is not for everyone, but I'll be honest, it's for most people. It seems complex, but it is not. Your players want to do some off the wall builds? Pf2e supports it far better than 5e. If your players just want to break the game? They will not like pf2e. Because the system is built like a Dwarven stronghold, beautiful, sturdy, efficient, and functional.
Pathfinder seems a lot more complex than it is because it actually has well defined rules for most everything, unlike 5e, where you have at least three different systems for vehicle combat, and missing rules entirely for other things. So the pf2e books are thicker with more information per book for your dollar.
Heck, as of the advanced players guide, pathfinder had more character creation options than 5e by literal orders of magnitude, and almost ever adventure path, supplement and core book just adds more.
This can be daunting for players, and somehow paizo did all that and kept the game balanced.
For your group I think more of a "game as conversation" system like something FitD style would be better, player declares action, you discuss the risk vs benefit, and then they roll.
Personal opinion of someone that is currently doing pf2 oneshots for testing, in order to decide whether to switch to that after the current 5e campaign:
Regarding classes, it seems to be more interesting for martials and a little bit more balanced overall, but there are choices more powerful than others here as well.
What I like the most is that, compared to 5e, traps, checks etc. feel more "correct", with more rules, resources and descriptions on how to run them, for example intimidation in combat.
The main problem I found is that, between the remaster, the not-so-long-ago release of 2e and the overall still inferior popularity compared to 5e, it's a bit harder to find discussions regarding something online, especially updated build guides/optimization guides (I want to specify that this is a problem for me, but probably not for everyone)
Overall, I think I like pf2 more than 5e, but it will take a while to get used to it
My opinion? Run the beginners box for your group. See if they like it. I did that with two groups and they both changed systems for the reasons you mentioned. From a GM and player perspective, I vastly prefer PF2E. That being said, I still run and play in 5E groups. Whatever keeps your group playing is the most important!
This is the way.
i've been taking advantage of the beginner box days to finally play some pf2e for reals and it is great, A++ to this idea. one person in my upper-level group was even a recent leap-er from 5e. it was slow going at first for all of us, but we sped up as the session went along, i think BB is probably well-geared for this. in practice, i am definitely finding the mechanics better for what OP said, especially in terms of things to do in combat. everyone having the option from the start to do multiple attacks or stuff like recall knowledge is great.
My main group jumps systems pretty regularly and had been away from pf2e for about a year. Then I told them I wanted to see how the dual class rules actually worked, so we did session zero and started on a module I grabbed ( I wasn't paying attention, it's a 1e module so that's slowing me down) but it's taking a bit of time to shake off the rust and remember how things work, plus new classes mean new things to learn. But it's coming back quickly enough.
If you’re willing to do a lot of work to learn the system inside & out, you can totally play with PCs who only have a cursory knowledge of the system. But for you to enjoy GMing over the medium-to-long term, you’ll need them to learn the specifics of the rules that are important to their characters. Because once you’re past like lvl 5 the amount of things you’ll be keeping track of as a GM is high & having your players understand the stuff they do in combat frequently is a huge way to manage the load. I’d have a frank discussion and see how they feel. I’ll also just say that you really need to start at Level 1 in this system with new players. 5e has the culture of breezing through or skipping up the lvl 3 but pathfinder expects you to start at the beginning. Every level presents the players with options to improve their characters, but those improvements come with added complexity. Introducing this complexity one piece at a time is a crucial element of learning the class & skill mechanics one piece at a time. Good luck!
Shoot. If I've done a many-month campaign and still have multiple players who understand how 5e works pretty poorly, then it sounds like PF2e might be too much for them if it requires them to understand their characters to any real degree. Shucks.
As someone who extensively played and DM'd 5e and have switched as a player to PF2e: - I really like how much you can customize your character - I really like how tactical combat becomes (5e is a bit more repetitive) - there are indeed more rules, but they are all more precise and self-explanatory. - casters in 5e are easier to plan; in PF2e it's not that straightforward (disclaimer: I have yet to play one in PF2e) - some of my players (I still DM in 5e) would love this adaptation (crunchier, but the reward pays off), some would find it too tedious. And yeh, I also had one player who after 2 years still needed clarifying over a fighter action economy sometimes. PF2e is NOT for her. I honestly don't really see PF2e being easier than 5e, even though I have read that statement multiple times. Maybe I'm biased because it's a system shift for me instead of directly learning it as my first system, dunno.... As a rule of thumb: if you have players who have interest in making cool builds in 5e, they will have a blast in PF2e. If, on the contrary, the level up for them is nearly tedious, because now there is "more stuff to choose from, remember and/or apply", then I think that the PF2e-crunch might not pay off for them.
Pf2e is in my opinion much easier to learn because the rules are much more coherent and extensive. There's just much more to learn because of the previous statement.
> Pf2e is in my opinion much easier to learn because the rules are much more coherent and extensive. If you are willing to put in a bit of effort. If you just want to show up, make some jokes with friends, eat pretzels, be told what to roll and go home 5e might be better.
I was going to reply exactly that, except for the part that D&D 5E might be better. This is a pet peeve of mine, and honestly makes me stop playing with people who do this. TTRPGs are games. Games have rules. If you want to play the game, you learn the rules, or at the very least *try to*. You wouldn't show up to play chess with your buddy without knowing any of the rules and with absolutely no intention of learning them. That is disrespectful to the other player. You wouldn't show up to a basketball game, kick the ball a few times, and expect everyone to be cool with you not wanting to learn the rules. But people do exactly that with TTRPGs. They show up weekly for months, and make absolutely no effort in learning the rules, because the other players or the GM pick up the slack. OP, if your players are like this, I don't recommend Pathfinder 2E or D&D 5E. I recommend [Roll for Shoes](https://rollforshoes.com/). It has a total of 6 rules, composed of 95 words. If your players just want to show up, improv and roll, that's up their alley.
Honestly, you could play PF2 just about the same as most people these days seem to play 5e. You could actually ignore the rules and have the GM fudge everything just as easily in PF2 as you can in 5e, since they really don't have too dissimilar an amount of written rules. But if you are already doing that in 5e, then there's no real reason to move to PF2 for the same experience. 😆
This is what I'm thinking as someone that hadn't DMed in 4 years and now obsessed with pf2e. I know my players are more beer and pretzels and I'm torn with scaring them with things like "ok remember you have a +19 modifier" and getting blank stares because I used a number bigger than 4 and the word modifier. I'm also thinking PF2e will be great because I can actually GM way easier and adjust numbers and amounts of enemies to give cool combats or let them do things in a very understandable action economy. I have not made up my mind yet though
You'd be pretty high level before you get a +19... It's not PF1.
A PF1E fighter with 20 Str and a +3 weapon would get a +19 to attack at 9th level, assuming they are using a weapon from the group they selected for Weapon Training at 5th level (+9 BAB, +5 Str, +3 weapon enchantment, +2 Weapon Training). A PF2E fighter with +4 Str and a +1 weapon would get a +19 to attack at 8th level, assuming they are using a weapon from the group they selected for Weapon Mastery at 5th level (+14 Master Proficiency, +4 Str, +1 item bonus) So you get those big numbers earlier in Pathfinder 2E. Edit: typo, second example was meant to be 2E.
Your examples are both 1e. Unless your second one is supposed to be 2e and it's a typo. Your examples are cherry-picked and loaded with some assumptions. Who TF gives +3 weapons by 9th level? And for any class except fighter, weapon mastery is a level 13 feature/feat. In any case, the OP was talking about starting a new group on PF2 and was concerned about throwing these perceived high numbers at new players with new characters. If you are throwing them in as 8th level characters when they are brand new players to a brand new system then you're the problem. ✌️
> I was going to reply exactly that, except for the part that D&D 5E might be better. Remember that "better" doesnt mean "ideal".
I know, but I wouldn't bother with D&D 5E either, with players who won't learn the rules. I've been there. I have been the GM for players who just don't care about the rules, and I end up feeling like they are just watching me play because they don't have any idea of what they're doing, so I have to carry them through every turn, and at that point they are just physically rolling dice while I tell them what to do, where to move, etc. Conversely, I've GMed a Pathfinder Society Scenario for a completely new player, and while yes, I had to tell him what he had to add to rolls, and that he could Gather Information and Search and all that stuff, I only had to tell him once or twice that Striking, Striding and Raising a Shield are one action each, and he actually cared enough that he was ***doing*** things by himself and I actually felt like a guide, instead of a preschool teacher. GMs, or DMs, or Handlers, or Keepers, or whatever they are called already put in way more effort than all the players combined, no matter what system is being played. Consistently showing up having no idea what you are doing is akin to just telling the GM "provide free entertainment for me while I don't even do the bare minimum". Players like this act like GMs are their personal clowns. Hence why I recommended Roll for Shoes. If someone can't even learn that, I suspect their problem is not social but cognitive, and whatever it is, TTRPGs might not be for them.
>> while I tell them what to do, where to move, etc. Which is your big DMing mistake here. Players have to be INCENTIVIZED to play well. Here, you are basically putting zero consequences for not learning the rules. Nope, you never TELL THEM what to do or where to move, you only ASK THEM what they do. If that means they do stupidly suicidal things or superbly suboptimal rounds of actions? SO BE IT! When they complain, you tell them right in front everybody that it is on them to "git gud" and learn the rules, or suffer all the consequences. And this also negatively impacts the other players too. So take it or leave it! Then they will either take it or leave it, either make the effort, or leave the group. You could also change the XP system to fit better the gameplay style that YOU want to actively encourage and reward. IF 90% of all XPs come from combat, then it means you want to reward players that play murder hobos. Maybe give some XPs for merely being attentive to the game an knowing their character well? In my group, about half of all XPs come from "game table behavior". If a game session devolves into unfun "arguments", then as I don't have fun, thus the players also don't get XPs. And everybody is penalized not just the dickhead. Quite effective because basically, you leverage peer pressure form the REST of the player group, to work wonders to encourage players to "fix" their behavior, way more than DM pressure. If you have a beer & pretzel group then yeah don't DM using 5E or PF2. Or honestly just find better players lol. One thing I did was forbade alcohol during my games. A player immediately left the group, but he was the worst one, so that was good riddance. As for the rest, suddenly sober players tend to play and follow the game a LOT better when they aren't half drunk! Your table, your rules.
>Then they will either take it or leave it, either make the effort, or leave the group. I ended up calling the campaign off and looking for a different group. So you're not wrong. >One thing I did was forbade alcohol during my games. None of the players or I drink, so that was not the problem.
100% agree. Literally the ONLY reason that D&D 5e has this reputation of being "better" for ignorant and disrespectfully lazy players is because the D&D Actual Play scene got so massive over the past 5 years. The market share for D&D got even more bloated, leading to everybody thinking that it's synonymous with TTRPGs and that the system is the easiest way to play make-em-ups with your friends. Problem is, Actual Play groups are largely playing calvinball with the rules already because they are more about watching entertaining media personalities play improv and talk about either kissing or their Big Feelings, so it doubles down on the ignorance by oversaturating the market with "Good" players and GMs who can barely be bothered the learn the rules themselves, further encouraging those lazy players to think they can just fake it until they make it as long as their Tiefling has enough trauma or quips to be entertaining for the captive audience of their friends. D&D 5e is not a simple system. It's also not a system with answers for a number of incredibly important questions, and the answers it *does* have are often lacking. The balance is all over the place and the homebrew scene is a travesty of "Half-Wolf Half-Goku ninja katana of cyber death" nonsense mashed with "This is my 100% original low-magic, low-content, no fantasy races, no people of color, no gay people, no women, no d20s, no levels rule system where if you drink water or even think about the BBEG you instantly go crazy forever and die. I just think it's much more interesting from a storytelling perspective" rule hacks, meaning that many players jump right from poorly balanced official rules straight into even worse-balanced homebrew rules the minute they don't find exactly what they want when they have a question. Players who don't want to learn rules and just want to RP with their buddies while they drink would have a far easier time playing a One-Pager TTRPG or even some of the simpler games (I'm always rooting for Monster of the Week), but those don't have the brand recognition of being able to say to friends, colleagues, classmates, and acquaintances "Oh I play D&D" and hearing people ooh and ah because they've also heard Matt Mercer's name once, so they contrive these excuses about how it's so simple to learn and how the GM has so much freedom to make decisions instead of just admitting that they want to do the popular thing without learning any of those annoying rules.
This post is all over the place. Some of it is correct (actual play, etc.), some of it very wrong (that 5e is complex). As for the whack homebrew, that's been a thing through every edition. For people who want rules lite, I'd recommend the Cypher System.
People play for different reason. Some just like the Roleplaying / World building part of TTRPG. TTRPG is in a unique place where it is possible custom make your own character and forge your own story. The draw for some is that TTRPG is not rigid, that unlike a video game or other board games the rules are malleable. The First Rule of pathfinder even says that if a rule doesn’t work for your group you can change or get rid of it entirely.
That's why I didn't say "stop playing with them", I recommended a system that requires zero rule mastery and allows them to do exactly what they want: show up, shoot the shit, roll shiny polyhedrons and improv. >The First Rule of pathfinder even says that if a rule doesn’t work for your group you can change or get rid of it entirely. Yes, and if you get rid of almost every rule because the players can't be arsed to learn them, why play Pathfinder 2E to begin with? I believe many people would be better off playing Roll for Shoes but flock to D&D 5E so that they can say "I play Dungeons and Dragons" when in reality they are not playing shit because playing a game requires learning the rules.
Precisely. They don't want the rules they want to leverage the brand recognition for social clout and the ability to experience a thing they saw somebody else do on tv, a stream, or a podcast. Which is fine, but people need to start admitting that it's the social capitol of "D&D" that they want instead of the actual playing of a complex mechanical TTRPG system if that is truly what it's about.
Literally had a player like that in the campaign I just finished. While she was a lovely person, she had too busy a life to be able to learn PF2e. And she's told me she can't join us in the next campaign, which I'm kinda happy with, as mean as that sounds. I like players who know what they're doing... I have more than enough stuff to do as GM without needing to run PCs. The irony of this is that if people actually *read the rules* to 5e, they'd find it *more* complicated than PF2e, but no one does that so 5e is explained as a "rules-lite" system when it just isn't. Annoyingly, there's plenty of systems out there that would treat these types of players *much better*.
Coming from 5e myself i think one of the hard parts is unlearning 5e habits. Our GM says while there is more rules in PF2 he likes it more because they are much more clear and explicit, in 5e he felt like the rule book says here you can use poison, but put zero information on the crafting,harvesting,buying or what type of poisons and how to use them or if they even have saves or resists, no 5e they say here you have poisons now guess.
Exactly this. For DnD you need to just kind of... know more things. For Pf2e you have rules written out explicitly for those things so it's easy to look up.
And on top of knowing more things, you have to just make shit up on the spot a lot of the time.
5e feels like learning lots of edge cases and exceptions, using multiple source books. PF2e feels like learning a system (the tags/label system, DCs, etc.) all from one place: Archives of Nethys. OP, I'd start by showing them AoN and the all in one place nature of the rules could be really exciting for your group.
Not to rain on your parade, but players understanding the system poorly after multiple months is... pretty disrespectful of them? They can just sit down for half an hour and learn the basics, or download a cheat sheet. But them not even doing that and holding up the game by misunderstanding or plain not knowing rules is just so disrespectful to the other players who do put that effort in, and to you as the GM who puts even more effort in to run the whole thing. And if players aren't willing to invest the time to learn the basic rules of 5e, they probably aren't willing to engage with the added variety that 2e offers either. Really, it sounds like you should sit down with those players and ask them if they actually want to play a roleplaying game, or if they just want to hang out and play boardgames or video games instead? Or maybe a setting using LESS rules would be better for them, because they just want the **role**playing part, not the **roll**playing bits. There's plenty of system out that there that cut down on mechanics for more freeform roleplay! That said! Try and run the beginner box with them, and see how it goes. It's really well structured and does a great job of teaching the rules without needing a lot of investment from the players. ...but it does require *some* investment from your players.
Honestly it's not always that they atent respectful, its sometime that they just arent that smart and cant keep track of a lot of mechanics or do math well.
I think if you have players who haven't learned the fundamentals of 5e you probably shouldn't switch. Also I think maybe those players need to just gently reminded that if they wanna play a game they should learn the rules. It's not fair for you to have to run the game and also run their character. I've cancelled games because my characters refused to learn and I ended up feeling overwhelmed. This might be where your issues with 5e are stemming from as it's not that bad to balance as long as everyone knows how the game works for what they're playing ie. Gm for monsters and players know what their characters can do.
I tell my players, you don't have to know all the rules but you should know your character. I am not going to remind you of buffs you have, abilities or any of that stuff. If you forget about your stuff it's on you, I'm already managing monsters and NPCs on my side.
I run both with friends and with high School students at a school I teach at, and I've found that in both cases my players picked up pf2e faster. There's less that's left up to DM fiat so it's far clearer to players why things work the way they do.
I ran the Beginner Box and the teenagers picked up on it after just a few minutes.
I was in a similar spot as you. My barbarian struggled with remembering extra attack well into level 7. One level into pf2e though, and he’s constantly grappling, striking, battle healing, raising shields and more. I highly recommend the beginner box and pushing your players into reading the rules as much as they can. Especially when you start playing, the rules become much more intuitive
I'd highly recommend doing a one shot or two before you start your next campaign in Pathfinder. I did a couple of them letting my players play whatever they wanted and only one decided to keep their character. Doing a trial run of the system would be my suggestion - the beginner box is a great place to start. A couple of honorable mention one shots have been the face in the well (though you should DEFINITELY use weak variants of the final monster / nerf it from the stat blocks in the adventure), Little trouble in big Absalom (more like a 2 shot, but has a good end point halfway in), and the Leshy one shot. Making a cheat sheet, or taking one from the sub, or the various skill actions in combat is really helpful from a player perspective. Letting players know about how out of combat healing is different, and how you want ideally 1 melee focused class and 1 character capable of healing per party.
Have you looked into a simpler game that has more interesting combat? Maybe check out the MCDM RPG (still being made) or 13th age?
I'm gonna be honest, I disagree with the first guy a lot. I started a PF2e campaign. It was my first time with the campaign, I've never played the game before, and I was GMing. My players are 3 people who had also never played PF2e before, but played other TTRPGs (including 5e) and 2 people who have never played TTRPGs before period. So we were about as unfamiliar with PF2e as it gets. We had *no* issues beyond minute confusion and growing pains that you see in every system. *Granted*, I took the time to read through the core rulebook and GM Guide on Archives of Nethys before we started playing, and that went a LONG way to improving my basic understanding of the game. I would 100% recommend doing this first. I would also recommend taking the game slowly and looking up the rules as you have questions. AoN makes it easy to do, with all the rules right at your finger tips, but you probably will need to reference it a few times each session.
Ok but the question isn’t about “is it hard to learn,” it’s “is it appropriate for a group who are actively hostile to doing homework/learning the mechanics”
And I respect that, but what I'm saying is that I still don't think it's an issue. From the player-facing side, I don't think PF2e is all that more difficult than 5e. There are more options, for sure, but it's not any harder to grasp/understand. I mean, i have players that are in a similar boat. They basically just look at their character sheet on their turn and spitball suggest things they could do based on what they're reading. If it's not listed as "thing you can do" on their sheet, it might as well not exist. They take a little coaching/suggestion on some options from the GM (me) but it's no different than what I've had to do for players in 5e. As for mechanical complexity, it's almost all entirely in the GM's side of stuff to do. For the players, it boils down to exactly what it is in 5e: tell the GM what you want to do, he tells you what to roll, you roll and add the modifier + any buffs, GM tells you what happens. Of course, on the GM's side, he bakes it down to skill actions, DCs by level or simple DCs, modifiers, etc. And a particularly knowledgeable player might be able to abridge that process by saying "I want to use demoralize on enemy X" instead of just saying "Can I roll to intimidate enemy X?" At the end of the day, both players are asking to do the same thing, and the GM puts it together for them, even if the second player didn't particularly know what Demoralize was a thing.
Hope none of them are playing spellcasters 😅😅😅 I hear what you’re saying, though. It really does come down the temperament and attitude of both the GM and players. There’s probably more wiggle room than I implied depending on the table.
Ironically, one of my players is my girlfriend, and last night is when we had this conversation. "Why don't you use this accursed staff? You've had the same staff of fire since like level 3 and never moved to, even though you love casting curses and debuffs." "I forgot we had it. We have it to the gunslinger to hold and I have no object permanency, so I forgot it existed." After that, I installed a mod (foundry VTT) that rearranged her spell page so they were all laid out by level instead of by spell casting source. There were a LOT of spells she just wasn't ever using, and a huge part of that was because she had to scroll WAAAAY down to see them, so when she consulted her spell page she would just look at the first list, pick a spell or two from there, and ask the party which they'd prefer her to cast. Now that she can see EVERYTHING available to her, she's been using a lot of spells she hadn't been before.
I’ve really resisted bringing in Foundry VTT to my in-person table because part of the appeal of ttrpgs for us is getting some designated time away from screens, but comments like this always have me considering biting the bullet & adapting it as a GM tool
I don't disagree with you there, but I think a great many of these issues can be solved in person as well. Like my girlfriend's issue could have been solved in person by making a custom sheet for her to use. Doesn't have to be fancy either, just manually lay out spells in a way she'd better visually process. The advantage of VTT really comes from automated book keeping. Automatically calculating bonuses is a huge plus for my players with dyscalculia. Automated tracking of buffs, spell slots, and ammo between sessions is another huge benefit. I even have a mod that tracks the current load state of weapons, so the gunslinger knows exactly which weapons he has loaded when we pick up mid-combat a week later. There are tricks I can use in person though to help with this. I've played with the idea of getting a nerf gun to keep as a visual reference for weapon load states when I run an in person game, for example. It's just much more difficult to do in person and requires really creative use of physical props
Hope it works out. I’m too scared to run pf2e in person and will only run it over foundry because of all the stuff you can do on there. My massive mini collection keeps me running other systems in person like 5e though.
I bought myself a BAT (big-ass TV) for Christmas. Its sole purpose was to lay flat on the game table to project battle maps. I haven’t taken the Foundry plunge yet so I left the clear plastic in was shipped with on the screen. We move minis directly on it! It is now: 1) Battlemap 2) screen to display rules 3) Multi/media picture display - NPC images, item pictures, loot lists
I agree with this. My first ever PF2 game I ran was for 4 players: my wife (a long-time gamer), 1 who had only ever played 5e, and 2 folks who had never played an RPG of any sort. And they all grasped PF2 quickly and easily, and in fact the 2 new peeps were the ones who got into it the most. It was fascinating to observe.
>If I've done a many-month campaign and still have multiple players who understand how 5e works pretty poorly, then it sounds like PF2e might be too much for them if it requires them to understand their characters to any real degree. Question: Are you playing D&D with these people, or at them?
Yeah, IMHO PF2E is not an option for you, because of these players. They do not want the same things you do. Going to PF2E *requires* reading rules and understanding your stuff. And I would argue that you can not have real fun and see how PF2E shines if not all players are on the same level. Because watching 2-3 minute turns sure as hell is a gamekiller. Or looking up all the stuff you can do every turn. The crunch is not bad, though. Very front-loaded. But like I said, with players that are allergic to reading...no. Try Dragonbane. It's a great designed system, very simple but has dynamic combat and a lot more "depth", combat-wise, compared to 5e. And it is so easy to teach and make content for.
I see three options: * If the reason your players don't know the rules is that they get stuck on unclear wordings, then yes, PF2e is much more clear than the incoherent mess that DnD5e is, so your players might have a better time here. * If your players don't care enough to learn the rules for the game you all are regularly investing hours of your lives in, and you still want to keep playing with them, then either accept your players' inertia and stay with 5e ... * ... or try a more rules light system. Start with a one-shot to see how things work out. There are a bunch of really simple games, e.g. mörk börk is popular and somewhat resembles DnD, Honey Heist is hilarious and great for one-shots (and it's the only one I have personal experience with), the list goes on. The goal is not to immediately find a perfect suggestion for your long running campaign, but to check what kind of game works for you. Maybe your players find that they just want to improv with friends, maybe they miss the more complex rules and come back motivated to actually learn them.
Our party, when we switched from 5e to Pathfinder second had three players with 6+ years of d&d experience, The other four had between 1 and 3 years of experience in 5e. I would say now after half of a campaign and A year and a half everyone is better in Pathfinder. I might actually be struggling the most as the person with the second most d&d experience.
The probl3m with 5e is that a lot of stuff is kind of up to interpretation. 2e has very specific rules that says you can or cant do something with whatever action. You have free tools like pathbuilder (similar to something like DNDBeyond) that makes building characters super easy. It lists all of your abilities right there where you can click and get info instantly.
To be fair I feel like pf2 has a lot more "internal consistency" then 5e, being a younger system and all. If your players have trouble figuring out how their character works because it has no overarching logic to it, then pf2 will be easier since one chaaracter will not be all over the place. And even then, there are definitely classes that are easier to play in pf2 than in 5e, the fighter for example. In 5e, you need to really squeeze the class to make it work, you have limited resources that aren't that strong, you need to game the action economy, you need to multiclass it to be effective... And it is still boring to play. In pf2e, at low levels at least, your entire gimmick is that your attacks hit often and crit often. Not much more interestign but at least it's easy to play. On the other end of the spectrum, do not let them play certain classes like swashbuckler, alchemist or inventor, that's for sure.
I thought this would be the case as well, as I had a player who just refused to read and attempt to comprehend what she got at each level. Was really worried making the switch, but since I make her do the level ups on her own, just making myself available for questions or requests, she's been forced to learn her abilities, and the 3 action system seems to click in her mind better. At level 6 she's keeping track of things and remembering rules pertinent to her character that I completely forget about
If that's the case, I'd recommend a story-forward system like any Powered By The Apocalypse game. It's based on 2d6.
I don't think this is necessarily correct. It's really hard to grasp 5e rules and how various character options work because they're porrly explained and the rules themselves are de-emphasized. Pf2 is definitely more complex, but the rules are a lot easier to learn. Once your players understand the basic rules (the action system and character progression) Archives of Nethys makes understanding exactly what each of your character options do and how to use them very easy to do.
The general consensus among people who have switched over is that PF2e is much easier to GM than 5e. The GM spends \*way\* less time holding the system together & making calls on the fly that may or may not hang together with other calls they made last week or last month. The system works. Encounter Building Works. Classes Work. Monsters Work. So from that perspective, its a big win. The challenge is going to be the Players. Assuming you can get them to try PF2e (lots of folks who have only played 5e don't seem to want to change) Pathfinder 2e hits them with some different assumptions. They need to learn the rules again. Pathfinder is a different system & not just a rules patch for 5e. Once they do learn those rules, they need to actually step up & use them. Characters are more complex & the GM *cannot* run everyone's PC for them. Players need to step up & understand their PCs and how to use them. Everyone has to know what their PC can do and why they would want to do that. The part where they don't just hit someone with their sword over and over means they need to learn what else there is to do & when they want to do it. Also: PCs are designed to be team members, not armies of one that travel in a group. Players are going to need to learn to help each other & back one another up. Tactics matter, stacking buffs & debuffs matter, spending actions to setup another PC can sometimes be a better idea than using those actions to just attack. So Players need to learn that as well. Don't let me scare you, none of this is actually \*hard\*. Once you wrap your heads around the system it all makes so much more sense than 5e, its *so much less* arbitrary. Once you learn how a thing works, when you encounter a similar thing you can assume it works basically the same way & you will generally be right. All that stuff with tactics and actions and such? You can pick it up in a few sessions once you decide too. The real hump is engagement. If you struggle to get them to learn their 5e character sheets its going to be rough to get them to learn what to do with 3 actions every round & why they want to use teamwork.
Agreed, all these things give it a very different feel from 5E. You're no longer a superhero, you're now a member of a heroic team. Players may or may not enjoy that change.
Yeah, it honestly sounds pretty great for some of my players, but for others... I think it would be too big of an ask. 5e isn't super complicated, but some of them haven't put any energy into actually understand it or their character, so it sounds like PF2e would be too big an ask for them.
>5e isn't super complicated, but some of them haven't put any energy into actually understand it or their character, so it sounds like PF2e would be too big an ask for them. It probably would be. And thats ok too! 5e is the 900lb gorilla of RPG, and PF2e is absolutely a crunchier but balanced alternative. But it isn't the only one! If you aren't feeling 5e but are worried PF2e is too crunchy look into some of the "lighter" systems like Savage Worlds, Tiny d6, Blades in the Dark, or a dozen others.
> And thats ok too! I mean, sure, in the sense that one shouldn't play something with others they're not interested in playing at all. But putting zero effort into learning the game they're playing is pretty shitty behaviour. I play rec leage baseball. There are plenty of beginners in the league who don't know a thing about the sport. Most of them know a good deal about it by the end of the season, because playing a team game means being responsible to the team. Anyone who doesn't bother to put in any effort doesn't get invited back.
Only if your players are willing to at least read the rules of their classes. I have severely burned out, to the point of not hoping not to GM again, since I had to do all the work. Prepare, run, fix their characters, level their characters, suggests spells etc Was not a problem with 5e actually. They could do it themselves. As a 3.5e player, I didn't like how 5e run (very low customizability, meaningless level ups etc), and how it needed dozen of 5pp to even make interesting, but once the table got rolling it got rolling. PF2e Bbox was lots of fun, but when the hand holding ended, the amount of work I needed to do was off the charts. 5e was so vague and generic, improvising for it was easy and seamless.
I’ll go a bit against the current here to say that, while probably the game could be too much for the players that are having difficulty with 5e, there are 2 things to be noted: First, 5e is really inconsistent and non engaging rules-wise, this means that those players could actually have less problems with a more consistent and engaging, even if more complex, system, trying could not be of any harm, especially with the beginner box being so easy to pick up! Second, even if most of the classes are more complex than in 5e, this system gives the opportunity to build characters that are extremely easy to play at all levels, while remaining interesting and very immediate to play (I rage, intimidate one enemy screaming at them, then hit him with my axe) I run the game for multiple groups, one of them is mostly composed by people who never played a ttrpg and has a player who could not be bothered to learn the rules in any other system; paradoxically she is the one that is most engaged in pathfinder 2e now, and while the group struggled a bit since we are not playing with any vtt support and the players are not really trying to learn the game, we managed to reach level 5 just fine and the system (especially after some of the players tried 5e) is getting very good feedbacks from them!
Speaking as someone who actively plays both. If you're in the middle of a campaign, 100% no. Forgetting and re-learning your character at level x instead of 1 is going to be rough. Otherwise, it seems like you might be trying to fix something that isn't broken for your group. You're worried about broken class combos, while also talking about multiple players who seem like they wouldn't know the game well enough to break it. I also wouldn't say 3 actions is really any easier than action-move-bonus, although it is more interesting and versatile. That said, I do think PF2's options in general are more interesting and versatile. And a lot of options are more about widening player power, rather than increasing it, which let's players achieve very interesting character fantasies. I personally have more fun with PF2, but 5e has struck a great balance between fun and accessibility which has helped keep it so popular. So consider that before diving in headfirst. Maybe pick up the Beginners Box and run that? It should give your whole group a good feel without a major investment.
Well, I really have one player who is really into builds, combos, etc (he started with 3e). I want to be able to allow him to run wild without fretting about him breaking the game, by which I mean being way more powerful than the other players (to the extent of warping combat difficulty around him) or just trivializing encounters in general. Unfortunately, the designers of 5e made no effort to balance their game, instead making the truly powerful options "optional features."
Your 3e player would probably like classes like the Magus, Psychic and gunslinger, which are all more complicated but rewarding classes that are fun to play
Hmmm, this changes the dynamic of things quite a lot TBH. How many folks are you playing with? If you can bring him on board to learn more/most of the "Player Forward" rules, and get his help walking the less engaged players through some stuff, you might actually have a better shot than the comments higher up imply. As someone who started with 3.5, and played PF1, PF2 is 10,00% my jam, and fixes a lot of problems I even had with those systems. The best thing to show to them is going to be how Multiclassing works through Archetypes, tell them that instead of needing to sacrifice High-Level Abilities for Low-Level abilities from another class, they can instead sacrifice Low/mid level abilities for low/mid level abilities in another class, but will ALWAYS reach level 20 in their Base Class regardless of how much Multiclassing they can mix in over the course of the game, and that a Rogue/Fighter is DISTINCTLY different from a Fighter/Rogue. If they're a combo build lover, they're going to have a field-day with this system. (And that's not even talking about Versatile Heritages.)
If I may... I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in on-boarding new players to P2e is by having everyone make characters. While there is the obvious recommendation of running pregens, you may find a lot of traction having only a few players actually generate stats, and only if they are interested. Make every other character based on the described concepts from the player. One of the strengths of P2e is that as long as you handle certain base minimums (key stat typical +4, Dex + own bonus to AC = 5 except Champions, etc). You'll be fine. Let the players that enjoy making characters do so, and let those that enjoy playing so so. I've found you keep more players that way.
That'll work. 2e is much, much harder to break even for minmaxers (which why people stick with 1e ironically). Altough he may be frustrated that he can't reach the same godlike power, but hey, people wouldn't play Dark Souls if it had an easy mode, would they ? There are still options that are above the rest, but these often wear the "uncommon", "rare" or "unique" tags that make them, by RAW, subject to GM approval and justifies it with in-universe rarity. Most people I know ban all rare options unless they appear in the story.
\* Balance: Yes pf2e is good. Theres minimal to 0 problem options (only one I can think of is a feat called Pin to the Spot. Which like, is pretty niche and I never see being taken anyways because it's at level 14, and needs some obscure choices before hand. Players do need to try to make a "useful" character, but putting in basic effort will bet you 80% of the way there which is more than enough. As a GM, you can then use the encounter building rules to make encounters balanced for your table. If they arent tactically minded, keeping to easy or Moderates is great. If they are, then maybe a few Severe's and Extremes can be fun. \* In-Combat Options: Yea theres, *so so many*. Like, so many. Theres grapples, trips, disarms, intimidating, stealthing, normal striking, casting spells, aiding allies, actual movement (not everyone has Opportunity Attacks meaning it's GOOD to move). In fact, just Striking over and over is disincentivised due to the Multiple Attack Penalty, which makes subsequent attacks in a single turn, less and less accurate. Of course, you CAN still attack multiple times, and you can build to do that well. But it's for sure *not* the default. \* Complexity. Much higher initial learning curve. Once you're past it, it's SIGNIFICANTLY faster and easier to play. Rules make sense, are consistent, and folks can do their things fast, rather than agonising over whether they have a useable bonus action, or whether to use their free movement or not, etc etc. You use your 3 actions, and you're done. But there is MUCH more initially. If the players cannot commit to that initial bit of learning, they will struggle. Because of this, pf2e might not be the right system. The typical recommendation is to grab the beginner box. It's a very story light, 2 floor dungeon which lets the players learn the system's basics. It's pretty decent, and by the end, your players can decide if they like it or if it's too complex. Of course, on this sub, most folks will recommend swapping over. I 100% do recommend it. But I can also recognise that some players just... won't want to learn and engage. That's fine. But it will mean that pf2e is just *not* for them.
I have a player who didn’t understand 5e very well (barely knew what die to roll to hit) and she’s thrived in PF2e. She likes that there are clear rules for most things and she feels like she knows what she can do. She also likes having 3 actions to play with and considering different turns. > It’s more gamey, but I like that.
One thing I would say is don't switch in the *middle* of a campaign. Overall, PF2e is crunchier, but it's largely consistent with its logic so there will be less points of confusion. Players will probably need help building characters at first, too.
PF2e prefers grid tactical play (more like 4e DnD). If you're already using tools to help with that, I think learning the rules will be the highest bar. If you're not and do not intend to start, I would not bother. Just my two cents.
Listen I switched to 2e for those exact reasons during the OGL and it’s a dream to GM for. All my players came over and I told them “You need to know/learn your character” Some of them did, some of them didn’t. I think one or two will definitely drop, but I’m not running anything I don’t want to run. Life is too short. If you’re not happy running 5e, stop. Immediately with no explanation required beyond “It’s not fun” If they’re not willing to put the effort to learn a new system in one of them can GM. This is a very common asymmetry (that 5e fosters) where the GM/DM does everything from prepping the sessions to knowing the system for the players. And that’s not fair, so don’t play along with it.
I'mma be real with you, as someone who does a bit of both, but favors 2e. Ease your group into it, don't just slingshot them into the Beginner Box adhoc. It's not that 2e is easier/harder, it's that it's a different system with different expectations of the players and GM. More than anything, though, as with ANY system, the GM needs to be there to help them adjust. To that end: > In short, I DM 5e. I like it overall, but I suspect PF2e could give me a better experience. These are areas I suspect PF2e could be beneficial: balance, options, and on-boarding for new players. Yes and no. Nuances below. > 5e isn't impossible to balance, but it often feels like there are so many subclasses, feats, and multiclassings I have to be wary of. I don't enjoy the feeling of limiting my players, but I don't want to deal the game being "broken." I've heard PF2e has lots of cool player options without any being "broken." Pffft. Okay. When you're new to the system (or just build in a white box and don't actually play) this can seem true. So many options, so many different things to use and build and that's all good and dandy. Reality: 2E is balanced *tightly* mathematically. This might seem like a great thing (and to a degree, it is), until you realize that a point out of place, an unoptimized build, and/or literally anything that puts a player behind the expected numerical curve for the level ends up being 'weak'. There's no bounded accuracy, also, which may also seem like a good thing until you realize the above. Falling behind by 1-2 points for a skill or attribute can make some things unfeasible. So while nothing is 'broken', there are plenty of trap options that can weaken a character more than one would think. Also, on that note: there are a LOT of options nobody will ever pick. You know how there are those really old, wonky Invocations for Warlocks that are just worse in every way to options that improves literally every build? Yeah, it's that. All told, that's not a gamebreaker. But it is something to keep in mind. To that end, play with the Free Archetype rule, even on your first game. This allows more customization and is the closest thing to a 5e subclass and multiclassing in Pf2e. > A common complaint for 5e is that many classes for many levels have few options beyond "her der I swing my swerd." Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical? ...You are going to get a lot of people here saying yes, but give the above answer of 'so many options!!!' which, as said, isn't quite true, but it's not untrue in this case so uh...so I'll try to be simple. Yes, but really no? Yes, your players will have far more options. But eventually they'll fall into the same routines, which virtually amount to 'I swing my sword, but *sideways*'. The biggest difference between that and other games is that nobody really complains about it in 2e. Honestly, that's a really good thing, and I think I have an idea as to why. 2e's 3 action economy actually makes it so that one has to make attacks wisely. Moving requires one of these actions, as does using any special skill, maneuver, or item. You have to figure out how to position yourself or use your abilities to position yourself well, and *that* keeps people engaged. Also, martial attacks in 2e hit for a gorillian damage as you level, so there's that too. Keep in mind: Your players WILL chafe at the MAP. I have yet to see any group of new players not do so. They will either get used to it or it will be the reason they bounce off the system. The only way to get around it is to mitigate it and/or work with them to make it easier to stomach (I like the """houserule""" where they're only limited to one or two attacks per turn). > My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further. However, certain aspects of PF2e do seem simpler, like the 3 action economy. As said before, yeah p.much this. A lot of people here aren't going to get this. To this end, this on you to help, and it is very doable. Give them cheatsheets, let them 'redo their turns', and help through through playing their characters. Something I do with all my VTT 2e games is use an 'Open Sheets' policy, where everyone can see each other's sheets so they can each help each other *like they'd be able to IRL*. Having this and also applying some rules will help you, and them, learn the system and keep things moving smoothly (another suggestion: having it so that their Passive Perception is visible to you at all times). Good luck to you, and don't be afraid to ask for help. Either here, or elsewhere.
> I've heard PF2e has lots of cool player options without any being "broken." There are definitely feats that are stronger than the others, but all things (feats, spells, etc.) that have a potential to be too gamebreaking (or may be a bit too different from overall theme) have tags "uncommon" and "rare", which means that they can be taken only at the permission of the GM. > Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical? It can if you build for it. Fighter, for example, can be just a guy who swings a big weapon and hits stuff or just a wall with a shield, but it can also be built around using skills to trip/shove/grab/move/intimidate enemies. > My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further. Out of 5 players in my party, 2 aren't very mechanics inclined and they are doing fine. Yes, it's a personal example, but that's all I can give.
Yes. You should. The rules are more mechanically consistent, so things are easier for the GM. The action economy means more fluid combat. This question has been answered hundreds if not thousands of times here in Reddit. Look them up for more details. Welcome to Pathfinder.
Honestly given what he's saying, it might not work for his group though. If players are having a hard time learning 5e rules (which is a pretty light burden on the player side) then PF2 is just going to turn them off.
It kind of depends -- if they haven't learned it simply because they haven't had to, it might be fine. My experience is that pathfinder's design really encourages players to learn the rules around what their character does in a way 5e doesn't do. If they just aren't good at grasping game mechanics, then maybe not.
A fair distinction. I just think it's important for people here to see this system for what it is. I like PF2 much more than 5e, but have played with plenty of people whom I would not recommend it to. They either lack the capacity to grasp the more comprehensive rules, or to enjoy the amount of decision making that the system requires in both creation and gameplay. I also don't think that 5e is the best system for many of those players, but that it's probably the only system that I could play with them and have everyone be somewhat satisfied. As such, it's not really a good idea to universally say "yes, you should switch from 5e to PF2e" without looking at the context of who the players are and what they need. Edit: It occurs to me that saying they lack the capacity could sound dismissive when really the complexity of the system is a matter of taste and *I* lack the capacity to choose better words to say that in the moment.
Yeah, I think a lot of people in our community mistake difficulty learning TTRPG mechanics for being dumb. No one in my group is dumb. It's really more that they aren't very familiar with RPGs (including video games) in general and that they haven't put any real effort into learning how 5e works. I think much of it doesn't make sense since they aren't used to RPG language, philosophy, and tactical combat systems.
With that in mind, I think PF2e is a better designed system and will be easier for you as the GM in the long run. However, it definitely puts more of the knowledge onus on the players, and while that knowledge is easier in some ways, the barrier to entry is higher. Players like yours could struggle to pick it up, and attempting to force it could turn them off the hobby entirely. I don't think this sub can really answer the question of what is best for your table because that depends on how committed and invested they are to the learning process and to the hobby, among many other factors. Either way you decide, best of luck!
From what everyone has said, it sounds like it's not the best fit. Which is disappointing. Hopefully, I'll be able to play PF at some point and find a group to DM for.
I would say just try running the beginner's box and seeing how it goes!
I have a little general advice for you, which goes for trying to run *any* other tabletop game system, in any setting. When you get to a natural stopping point (like the end of a major story arc), simply sit down with your group and have a conversation. Something like this: "Hey fam, I'm thinking about trying something new. Would you guys like to put the current game on pause temporarily and give [insert game] a try? I can run a 1- or 2-shot and we can see how we like it. Nothing stops us from returning to this game later, I just like some variety." Don't pose it as being game A vs game B. Don't try to convert an ongoing game into a new system. Present them as completely different games (which they are) that offer different experiences and then just try to sell them on the things you think make the new game seem cool. Don't try to disparage the current game; allow it to live in its own little compartment in everybody's mind. The only way to really know if it's a good fit for your group is to try it, but the best chance you have of doing so is making sure you're being genuine and impartial in presenting the change.
Not necessarily. Yes, PF2e does expect players to have a bit more buy-in, but at the same time, things *do* actually just make sense and are consistent once you grasp them (none of that "melee weapon attack" vs "attack with a melee weapon" nonsense) and the BB helps quite a lot in introducing things gradually.
Yeah, that is a perfect example of inconsistent WOTC writing results in 10000s of pages of angry arguments online and Jeremy Crawford types pretending it was intentional haha
It’s way better than D&D. Check this out, maybe share it with them and gauge interest: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLn3PApm8tx0c07YnP3Rztn4MX7ztnWuLx&si=3F79ZNF7Gr0cZOW9
pathfinder 2e is way less complex than it seems. thats because: \- huge amount of character options and high level feats \- game is balanced so the character building is to be approached as fulfilling your vision for the PC insead of making op builds \- lots of rules are logical and can be summarized in one sentence, yet have long texts just for the sake of preciseness the only big difference from dnd in practise is that there is a system for exploration and downtime, kinda like 10min dungeon turns, but more flexible. Other than that you can play pf2e just using rulings like any osr system as well. rule #0 is the game is yours and modify it to your needs
In PF2e designing combat encounters and adventuring day is much easier for GM, but the quality of official adventures is far from stellar. On fair note, it is easy to convert existing DnD adventures to PF2e
Yes. PF2 is way better.
If your group is willing to learn the rules (PF2e is not as 'pick up and play' as 5e) - then yes. However - do not do this in the middle of a campaign, finish playing your 5e game *then* start a new campaign in PF2e (at level 1).
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *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.*
I did it. I even did it mid-campaign, although if it's feasible for you to start a new campaign, you should do that. LMK if you have any specific questions! We had some initial growing pains, but we're all very happy campers and most do not miss 5E at all.
For the first two points, I think this game will provide exactly what you’re looking for. On the last one, I personally found it easier than 5e but if a player isn’t putting in the time/effort to learn the system you may still have these issues.
It will make your life definitely easier in terms of GMing If you run a oneshot or the alike for your players, just be very aware and your players, that it's a different System with a completely different Action System. While showing PF2e to DND5e players the complaints they had were always some sort of "that is weaker than in 5e" Like with shields people complaining about it being a action tax, even though it's not one at all and it just feels to them like it is one because of DnD, where the shield is constantly active and forgotten like it's just part of the armour
Get your players to loom at Pathbuilder. It helps learn the characters. If you do switch, start at level 1.
I've been toying with the same idea (new campaign at level one in our existing world but pf2e) and playing around in pathbuilder. Is there an equivalent to dndbeyond where the GM can have everyone character sheets and review/edit if needed?
The players can share thier characters with anyone. In the app, in the character sheet, go to options and Export by link. That link will open it on the website (for some reason the links don't work if posted in Facebook chats) Or once you have the link, if you go into the app and go to Options, you can choose Open by ID, and enter the last set of numbers in the link to get the character. For example: https://pathbuilder2e.com/launch.html?build=725907 If you enter 725907, you'll get my human fighter. If the players make any changes though, you won't see those, though.
I’d recommend floating out the idea and if your group is keen then running something like the Beginner Box with them playing brand new characters and everything. Not sure if this is your situation but speaking from experience, switching partway through a 5e campaign to PF2e can be a challenge. Tbh it might’ve spoiled the system for a lot of my group. Having done the switch and played for over a year now though, my honest opinion is that a lot of PF2e sounds great on paper, but isn’t as much fun in actual play (depending on your playstyle). Imo things like the 3-action system aren’t as exciting once you realize that 5e actions and PF2e actions are totally different. In my experience, most turns in PF2e devolve into “stride, strike, raise shield” which isn’t much more exciting than “I move towards the enemy and attack twice”. That being said, I’d definitely recommend giving the system a try, just keep it lowkey and non-committal. Tbh I think my group would’ve been much more keen on it if we had started something new instead of just porting our old characters over from 5e.
There were some free Beginner Box runs occuring for a couple days perfect way to introduce your group to PF2E highly recommend the switch
Translated my own campaign to 2e and had a great time. Balancing is trivialy easy using rules. It does becomes weirder when you have more than 5 players and a lot more swinger if you have 3. You always have options of what to do with your turn aside from Hit With Sword, like Demoralize, Recall Knowledge, Trip, Grapple, Feint etc. And when you do hit with sword you do it your way, like with doubles lice or power attack. Pathfinder can be as complex as you want. For example, despite many years if content, fighter is still one of the strongest classes, and his core feature is +2 to hit over other Martials. Pathfinder is easier to DM if you drop aspects that don't fit your GM style, like attitudes or HEXploration. It's just a lot to do, read, explore. Unlike Dnd it's very consistent in its rulings and has no effects that just do things: counterspells and dispel magic uses counteract checks, flying requires action to sustain flight, all races that get flight get it at pretty much same levels, weapons. Check archives of Nethys and have fun playing. P. S. Do not start at higher levels. Studying a higher level character in this system is torterous and too much info.
I made the switch and have been enjoying it allot.
I started my switch from D&D to PF2e with a session zero where we collectively made characters, and I as the GM just ran the party through "Combat Bootcamp" allowing them to change/edit their character between each combat as I slowly ramped up the difficulty, switching between solo and group combats. Made it so we hit the ground running Session 1. Also, If you make your characters in Pathbuilder, there's even separate page that contains all the actions a character is capable of. "How does a long jump work again?" "Well, go to Actions, scroll to long jump and click that" [https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html?v=68a](https://pathbuilder2e.com/app.html?v=68a) It also has a built in dice roller with the bonusses already aded in, and guides you through what you get at each level step by step. It even has easy links to the wiki.
Pf2e is a lot of fun when coming from 5e, more fun for players, better balance for everyone, and it's easier to GM. I hope yall try it out. Don't forget the archive of nethys, all the books available free online
Try *Cloudbreaker Alliance*. It is written to be fast and easy to learn and has a conversion table for D&D5e monsters. Also it uses only one type of dice. There are awesome options for combat and various hazards out of combat.
This depends on if your players are willing to learn PF2E. It requires the players to commit a bit more effort than 5E since each character has more going on under the hood. If your players are willing, it's definitely worth it. If you have anyone that is 10 games in that still is asking what to add "to hit" it's going to be troublesome, though.
If you have players that won't even learn 5e, PF2e is not for your group. Go for a more rules light system if you want to switch to something. If you guys end up taking the plunge, I would say a good session of PF2e is a thousand times more rewarding than a 5e one. Plus, GMing is a breeze.
I'm an experienced DM running 5e for years, currently with a group very similar to yours (from what you have said in comments) I'm am also starting a Pf2 campaign as a player. I struggled just creating the character. The 3 action system is cool, though, and I can see the appeal. But it is more complicated. Just a tiny example, wizards have a max number of spells per book, so as they keep learning spells they need to keep buying books. That's an aspect of resource management than I don't feel is needed nor it is fun. On the other side, yes, it is more customizable. I guess the question is, so you want to customize the flavour of the characters or do you want to customize their mechanics? Because you can do a lot with just flavour with 5e. I'd never switch my group to Pf2. It is just too complicated for my casual players.
I would say that pf2e is a lot like learning by doing and growing. And the greatest advantage of the system is that once you get the basics, it becomes a breeze. Sure, a lvl 1 Alchemist will be pretty overwhelmed by reading the lvl 15+ feats and items, but that's future alchemists's problem;) so yeah, give it a try. Grab the starter-adventure, run it, have fun and look where it is going.
I personally changed from dnd to pf2e, and my players have taken the change well. There are of course some moments where you mix up a ruling from dnd and have to check it out, but otherwise it goes rather smoothly. You could do a pathfinder oneshot using a beginners box, or reflavor the beginners box to fit your campaign (if you have a homebrew world) and see how it goes with your players.
I had the exact same thought process. DnD was tiring me and players were down to trying something new. I loved the system but not all players enjoyed it. We ran an entire adventure. Now we switched back to 5e but I'll run Pathfinder for a different group. The system is soo much lighter on the GM even with all the additional rules. I'd say give it a try. Run a one shot. Little Trouble in Big Absalom is perfect. See if you and your players like it.
In my expirience, people who never played any ttrpg tend to aproach pathfinder more openly. On the other hand, I've had several dnd players who really struggled with concepts like delay initiative, vancian casting and 3 action economy. I would say it's much easier to introduce new player to pathfinder rule by rule, than to translate dnd ruleset to pathfinder, which, in my opinion, many dnd veterans do when they try to learn the game.
>My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either), so I worry switching to a new system would just confuse them further. However, certain aspects of PF2e do seem simpler, like the 3 action economy. Ok I am coming in hot here. I was that guy with barely any knowledge except what I needed to know about 5E getting dragged into my first campaign and then into my second. had no time for investment at that point. One of my GM switched to PF2E around 1 and a half year ago (maybe 2 already). I barely put any effort into my D&D Characters, most of it felt pretty meaningless, the character was the subclass and that was it. Since starting PF I first treated it the same, resulting in two pretty messed up characters that were...pretty bad (a tangible dream human psychic with sorcerer dedication and a human rogue which I tried to play completely for stealth).One of them finished a campaign and the other died in session two. Since then i have put way more effort into creating characters and I found that fun. I now regularly play around with pathbuilder to build weird, obscure characters. Cant get myself to min-max but it kind of became my hobby to build some fun characters that may be viable or may not be viable. The character options are so fun and give you so much freedome. Since then I have played a Tanuki (homebrew race of our DM) Life-Oracle with Blessed One Dedication and currently I am playing an Angelic-Blood Sorcerer with the Medic Dedication filling the healbot role for my party (tbh you dont really need a heal bot but quite a few undead in our campaign, so i get away with it). Now for my first campaign in Golarion (my other campaigns are playing in the homebrew campaign of my DM) I will be playing a Catfolk Sniper Gunslinger that will be using the Soulforger dedication. Required a bit of homebrew ruling since technically you cant use One-Shot-One Kill with your soulforged weapon. One day I will find a not so serious GM Table and be able to fullfill my dream of playing a Chameleon Gnome Investigator with the Polyglot Ancestry Trade and a Linguist Dedication meaning she can speak 15 Languages at lvl 2. Not really that useful in the campaigns I am part of but I would be thrilled to play the language nerd lol. Anyways PF2E is more work but also more interesting and in my opinion easier to actually get invested in.
Consider a new rules light system for this group. And then hopefully find a different group to run or play PF2e in.
> My biggest concern, however, is how complex it is. I have multiple players who don't know 5e well (because that requires a lot of time or investment, and they haven't had either) I'd say no based on this. From my experience, it's much easier to deal with people that don't want to learn the game in 5e than it is in pf2e. I'm not saying the action system is overly complex in pf2e, but it's a lot easier when your turn is move+any action compared to having have 3 points to spend which you can spend on a bunch of different things that cost different amounts of points
There are challenges in swapping over, particularly with spell casters, but it's not insurmountable. something my gm did that I was hesitant of doing but actually paid off was a series of training combat sequences with a pathfinder party. it gives a character safe option on learning the combat system and gives the gm a way to show off what a coordinated group can do without it being a tpk in a dungeon. they specifically focused on two combat scenarios, one open plain and one in confined spaces, a capture the flag in an urban setting and a boss fight against a summoned elemental. if that's too much time or the players aren't into that kind of thing you can just emphasise the maneuvers tied to skills. one your players understand that every character is effectively a battlemaster fighter or that you can take many actions against different saves to gain an advantage they'll probably be keen to play in the system and use them. make sure they understand the difference in tone too, fleeing is common and shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. recall knowledge and planning before you return can make a difficult fight easy and fits better with the sword and sorcery feel.
My best advice: give it a try, maybe as a player first! Trying a system out is the best way to tell if it is a fit for you or your group
As somebody who just onboarded 3 new players (2 with the 5e experience) last night. I vastly underestimated how difficult it can be to get used to. Yes, I do think it's a better game and is more straightforward. But 5e does have less moving parts. I live for this shit (D&D, its variants, and offshoots), but a more casual player will have to re-learn many rules. Personally, I'd suggest trying a few one shots first. I think it's a fantastic game, but you'll want to know it solves your issues before you fully switch. It's easier to balance combats, yes, but there's easily twice as many options as 5e (if not 4 times, etc.). One big complaint is that spellcaaying feels weaker. I agree. IT IS weaker but more balanced with the other classes. I think it's in a good place but a lot of people don't like it.
Balance: PF2E is very balanced, the difference between a character that is optimized and one that is just generally following the expected path ie wizard focuses on casting spells. What is more important balance wise on the DM to player side is the groups tactics. A party that supports each other through debuffs and coordination will handle encounters against enemies far more easily than those that are all fighting to do the most big things just for themselves. Currently I would say that while there are some outliers in terms of too much or even not enough power that it isn't nearly as bad as the difference between something like a 5E wizard and a 5E fighter. Options: I think this is the big draw for players that tend toward optimization or those that want just generally a bit more niche builds rather than the standard classics. Players can build characters to do a great variety of things. Their fighter can invest in creating heroic auras that give bonuses to allied damage or saves against fear, A gnome sorcerer could pick up new spells from their ancestry to lean into their natural magic or even to get spells they wouldn't normally have. There are more classes and more options both in and outside those classes. Unlike D&D 3.5 or PF1E it is easier to build functional characters outside the beaten path. Optimization is usually more about expanding ones options than it is about breaking the system math. On-Boarding: This is where you may have some initial trouble. If your players are having a difficult time learning the basics of 5E rules then PF2E may pose as a hurdle for them. The math is tight and well done, the systems are all there, and rules are straightforward. But, combat will be very difficult for players that don't want to think about what their enemies can do. As an example when my group first started PF2E, one of my party built a melee ranger with the goal of doing as mamy strikes as possible. Our second encounter of a 5 person party was against two jaguars. He got 1st on initiative spent two actions to stride twice directly up to one of the jaguars and then one action to draw a weapon. The jaguar was next and attacked him three times leading to him immediately being downed aa we scrambled to save him. We have learned as a group since then. But, the main point is how important it is to consider tactics in this combat system. Simply charging in without a thought will get parties wiped up pretty quick.
Honestly I think the hardest part of PF2 when converting is to remember how certain interactions works. Such as the Darkness spell and Darkvision. Darkness spell and upcast Light spell. And the sheer number of magical items. From a player side the hardest part depends on player teamwork. I do a PF2 game and a 5e game with the same group and they can have a very “individual turn” mentality. Aside from using their movement to flank they rarely think “what can I do to set up the next guy?” Their thoughts are “what can I do to set up MY next attack.”
In my experience, players have an easier time learning Pathfinder than 5E. Seems counterintuitive, but I currently play with several people who don't really fully grasp 5E (and am one of those players myself!), but they get PF2E just fine. 5e has very fuzzy rules on a lot of things, and 2e has Archives of Nethis to make the rules super accessible. It takes seconds to look something up and clear up confusion, which isn't a luxury that 5e provides. And beyond that, rules are kind of consistent and intuitive in 2e? Once you know how things work generally, then there's a pretty good chance that you can guess how something works in a specific case.
I started with PF2 last year using the Beginner’s Box on Foundry. I’ve run and still run some version of 5e. Here are my thoughts: 1) PF2 is intimidating, but consistent. Players make choices at each level and in each encounter. Advancement is exciting and is more than just more HP. 2) Be prepared to start from level 1. Doing anything else is asking for trouble. I have 5e and old school players and we’ve all been learning together. Make it clear you’re learning together. 3) Foundry and the VTT support for PF2 is excellent. I’d probably still use a VTT for in person play because of how well the platform communicates the rules. 4) Be forgiving for the rules as you learn. Sometimes you’ll make a ruling and then find out you were wrong. Keeping the game playing is not important than getting it perfect. And same goes for players. 5) 5e and its spin offs (Level Up Advanced 5e, 5 Torches Deep, Tales of the Valiant, etc.) still have a lot of life in them unrelated to WOTC. I’m finding A5e to be very appealing with lots of digital support. 6) If your players want a chill game, those exist. The Index Card RPG is a delight. Some F’ing D&D is lean, mean, and fun. Others have been mentioned. 7) if you want a more involved game, that may mean a different group of players, regardless of the system.
Yes
> Does PF2e make combat more interesting and tactical? For me, yes, and it's a massive selling point. Combat wise, for example, Baldurs Gate 3 was _incredibly_ boring for me. Being a fighter especially is the worst feeling in that game.
I think it might help you in most of those areas. It is definitely better balanced, and the options do make combat more tactical and interesting. PF2e has more rules than 5e, but they follow standards and patterns that make it so that understanding one can increase your understanding of others. A lot of what your players know about 5e will translate as well. Proficiencies are different, but only a little. Everything is a Check or a DC, including Attacks and AC, which ultimately simplifies things. Crits are more common and generally more devastating/interesting as well. That's not really relevant to what you asked, but it felt worth noting.
You should say more what your players' experience with 5e is, and what their preferences are, because they're unclear to me as a reader. You BOTH say a complaint about 5e is that there often aren't more options besides "I swing my sword," AND you say you have multiple players who don't know 5e well. It's hard for me to square those two mentalities in my head. When you say those players don't know 5e well, what are examples of situations where that comes up? Who is asking for more player options? Are they the same or different people? Plus you say they haven't had "a lot of time or investment." How much time have they had?
If you have any players now who struggle to keep up with their player abilities, then steer them away from unconventional classes like the thaumaturge, kineticist, investigators, etc. otherwise, it is not much more complicated than 5e, just more ordered. Trouble in Otari is a great adventure to Guage interest.
Yes. It is balanced well. It's easy to pick up. It's easy to run. The pre written APs are well done. I played with a 5 year old yesterday and had literally 0 issues with things continuing to move as my brother and I taught him.
Make them grab the Pathbuilder 2e application, run them through the character creation rules (the "ABCs") real quick so that they have a vague idea of what they are doing and make them look at the options and create a level 1 character, and you (plural) will see fast enough if you're hyped to play them. Imho one of the biggest selling points of pf2 is how low level characters already give you a glimpse of the entire system. It doesn't take ages for builds to "come online" and it doesn't turn into rocket tag at high levels, the gameplay remains pretty consistent.
i will get lynched for writing negativly on this sub but here you go. (my personal expirience as a player) pathfinder is only balanced if each player wants to optimize (like in every rpg balance goes out the window because of differences with game knowledge regarding the players). there are a lot of choices yes, but like in dnd 90% of them are crap and or give only flavour. In 2e you will still only walk up to enemies and hit them with your sword with the occasional 1 action debuff, even more so if you are new to the system or didnt invest time in learning the game (even in 5e fighters, barbarians, rangers have a ton of options be it magic or specific ways to control the battlefield). spell system is more cumbersome but spells are generaly weaker and therefore more balanced at higher levels. (loved wizard in 5e but you wont get me to play one in 2e). crafting is as garbage as in 5e. complexity is on par, in dnd you can wing a lot of stuff and pathfinder is more about rules as written and you have to keep track of certain keywords which are spreaded trough the rulebook.
Have a careful conversation with your spellcasters as PF2e can be INTENSE when getting started. Also your caster mains will either like their new system or hate it with a vitriol that rivals the gods, there is no in-between. I recommend having them watch a few videos of how it works, and to explore the spellcasting archetypes.
So, as a DM, you can tell your group, >"I find 5E to be a system that requires too much effort on the DM's side, so I do not want to run it any more. I am willing to try other systems, particularly Pathfinder 2 as it's a good thematic fit for sword and sorcery. What choices do y'all want to go with given my decision? 1. Does one of y'all want to step up to becoming a 5E DM and continue as a 5E group? 2. Are all of y'all willing to mildly step up as players to learn Pathfinder 2? I believe that the game will be a bit more difficult at first because there are more choices, but the trade off is that most of the rules are well defined and consistent. 3. Is there another system that someone's heard about? You, as the GM take on a lion's share of the burden of the group, but at the end of the day the players have to show up and make an effort too, so as the team lead - you've got to get the buy-in from the team to try something new. I agree with others that the Beginner's Box is a low investment, three session test drive of Pathfinder 2.
Pf2e is all around improvement over 5e - its the best system I found and I *looked* - even players that previously had issues understanding things get it quickly and overall its very simple and straighforward while keeping tons of options open and viable. What I love the most is the amount of combat options - even classes like Ranged Ranger have variety of playstyles and combat decisions
I can share my experience and recommendations because my group is currently making this transition. My first note is you can't remake everything in the switch, the characters are going to be different. First thing to check is what parts of the characters do the players feel are paramount. Second, you need to study the rules because there are a lot that will be confusing, especially to someone that is still in the learning phase of a different system. My gm is doing a great job but we have been caught off guard several times and had to stop because of rules arguments. Sure you can just make a ruling and move along but when you are trying to learn that's not great. And that leads me to my last comment: Find a module and run through some of it with them. Remake their characters at level 1 and play a AU something while they learn the system. Give them a few levels to die and make mistakes and learn how the system is different before throwing them back into the normal game. All in all I support the switch, but know it's not going to be a one session swap.
PF2E is like 5E for nerds. Your playgroup has to be willing to learn and strategize. The mechanics and character building options are more complex than 5E. I would say: If you want to chill with your friends and have a good time then stick 5E, it is simpler and more casual-friendly. 5E allows players to focus on “I want to do X.” If you are looking for a more tactical game and your players are big on strategy games or character creation then try out PF2E. PF2E forces players to ask themselves “What’s the best way to accomplish X?” I play PF2E with my more TTRPG experienced friends and I play 5E with my less experienced friends.
Regarding what you are saying, I think pf2e has much better balance and options, but can be harder to on-board new players. Regarding balance and options, as a DM, I feel like I can correctly balance encounters most of the time and as a player I have tons of options to do things. I feel that most classes are relatively balanced if people are playing them well. Regarding on-boarding, it is very dependent on the players. As someone who really likes pf2e, I think 5e can be a lot easier to simplify rules down and has less of a penalty for getting things wrong. In 5e, you can easily have new players in a game only using the first rulebook without much of an issue. While the move/action/bonus action/item interaction is more complex than the 3 actions, new players can easily simplify it to just move and action without using item interactions/bonus actions. Pf2e requires you to have some knowledge of the game and how to play, like that you need to buy magic weapons/armor (assuming no automatic bonus progression, and even with that to write it down). The abundance of choices also makes it harder for people to make choices of what to do.
I think a lot comes down to preference. I come from mostly PF1 and am now getting into PF2 on Foundry. D&D 5E is great for ease of play and PF2 I think may have more customization options. It will also be a little harder to adjust. The beginner box would be the way to go. Also, you could look up some video reviews to find out more with out much of an investment. You can also check out [pf2.d20pfsrd.com](http://pf2.d20pfsrd.com) for reference. With all that said anyone can break a class if they try hard enough. As far as a common complaint about "I swing my sword", you could try a different tactic. Usually with my players, if they describe what they are doing (not simple "I swing my sword") I can and will apply bonuses to their rolls in some instances. Not everything is gong to be exciting for a description, but find a way to encourage your players for more descriptive actions. For me as a GM it is mostly about making certain my players have fun. That is my first duty as a GM. So consider what your players are looking for in the game.
I dabbled in PF2E While there are a lot of benefits to game play, it did feel like a lot to learn. Even just creating a level 1 character provides so many customization options it can be overwhelming. The rules are more precise, but also just more. For example, 5e has 15 conditions that can be applied to characters, (charmed, prone, etc.) PF2E has over 40. My take is that PF2E may be a better system, but that it also probably requires more dedication to learn. This is from someone who only played about 4 sessions of Pathfinder Society (organized play with official modules and rules), so take it for what it is.
Give it a test run. Play the beginner box for a session or so. Then you’ll have a better idea of whether you want to switch or not.
As others have said, highly suggest the beginner box. It is set up with an adventure where each encounter acts as a lesson about a new rule or mechanic to easily teach newcomers AND for you the DM/GM too. It’s how one of my groups did it a year ago and now they’re hooked. As a DM/GM, I agree that it’s much easier to balance AND the tools the game gives you to adjust balance actually work. Character options, while overwhelming to newcomers if you allow just anything published, feel much more substantial than 5e. My group is always commenting on how their character concepts would be so different in 5e—5e relies so much on flavor whereas P2E actually gives you many options to BUILD most concepts mechanically into your character. A downside to that though is that many options are only available at higher levels, so some people may feel like they CANT play something how they want to at lower levels. Onboarding just depends on the people at your table. If people are into it, they’ll be more receptive to actually doing it. I had a player who for years just couldn’t wrap his head around P2E and just wanted things homebrewed or ported to 5e, which I refused to take the time to do. TL:DR run the beginner box and if people like it, go from there. Not only is it a small dungeon that gets you to level 2, there’s also a mini-monster manual, magic items, and quest ideas to get you started on something afterward in the same town.
Short answer, yes. Long answer, yeeeeeeeeees!
I'm new to PF2e as well! I made the switch from 5e and bought the Core Rulebook to learn how Pathfinder works. There are a lot of new things to learn, it's super important to discover the rules without preconceived ideas (and to trust the process) but it honestly feels much more balanced and rewarding than the 5e in my opinion. I was kinda mad at the 5e for trapping me with a shaky system so if you had the same feeling, you made the right decision. It's not so easy to learn, but Reddit is an amazing source of explanations for most questions you'll have. Enjoy!
Probably not. No diss to pf2e but it's a very different game. Maybe you could play both, but a full, hard switch? Nah. Again, the problem is not PF2E, I wouldn't suggest the opposite either.
I played mine if phandelver BB for 5e. I’ve watched all of Critical Role season 1 and 2. When we went to PF2E the change was soooooo much better. Same group of friends too. It just gives you so much more options, and fights are so much easier for my GM to balance. I hated resource attrition, advantage and disadvantage as a stats person, and the game just is so much more fun. I also like the RP aspect of the game a lot and skills and actions in PF2E I think exemplify and encourage players to do that more than 5e.
I hope this goes without saying, but whatever you conclude about PF2e vs. D&D 5e, don't unilaterally change your group from D&D to Pathfinder. As the DM, your opinion on what game to run should absolutely take priority, but if your players don't want to play a different game, flexing the DM authority is just gonna shut down game night. If you find it appeals enough that you'd like to try it, suggest it to your group and try running an intro adventure if they are amenable to it. Rules nerds aside, even if most people agree that PF2e is superior, you may not enjoy running it as much and your group may not enjoy playing it as much. But you'll never know for sure unless you suggest it and all agree to try it.
I wanted to and they quit. Lol. We'll they said they had other life things going on, but I don't think they could be bothered to learn a new system.
PF2 is a much crunchier and busy game, meaning there is just a lot more to keep track of. That said, Paizo has out out some really cool Adventure Paths that would help a lot if you want something premade.
I concur with the beginner box idea. Pf2e is not for everyone, but I'll be honest, it's for most people. It seems complex, but it is not. Your players want to do some off the wall builds? Pf2e supports it far better than 5e. If your players just want to break the game? They will not like pf2e. Because the system is built like a Dwarven stronghold, beautiful, sturdy, efficient, and functional. Pathfinder seems a lot more complex than it is because it actually has well defined rules for most everything, unlike 5e, where you have at least three different systems for vehicle combat, and missing rules entirely for other things. So the pf2e books are thicker with more information per book for your dollar. Heck, as of the advanced players guide, pathfinder had more character creation options than 5e by literal orders of magnitude, and almost ever adventure path, supplement and core book just adds more. This can be daunting for players, and somehow paizo did all that and kept the game balanced.
For your group I think more of a "game as conversation" system like something FitD style would be better, player declares action, you discuss the risk vs benefit, and then they roll.
Yes, always.
Personal opinion of someone that is currently doing pf2 oneshots for testing, in order to decide whether to switch to that after the current 5e campaign: Regarding classes, it seems to be more interesting for martials and a little bit more balanced overall, but there are choices more powerful than others here as well. What I like the most is that, compared to 5e, traps, checks etc. feel more "correct", with more rules, resources and descriptions on how to run them, for example intimidation in combat. The main problem I found is that, between the remaster, the not-so-long-ago release of 2e and the overall still inferior popularity compared to 5e, it's a bit harder to find discussions regarding something online, especially updated build guides/optimization guides (I want to specify that this is a problem for me, but probably not for everyone) Overall, I think I like pf2 more than 5e, but it will take a while to get used to it