What parts of 5E do you like, and how would you like them to show up in PF2e?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 116 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Things I like from 5e and would be happy to see in PF 2e:

Splitting up Race and Background: I think this should be taken further so that race is just biological and background is how you were raised. I am excited about the ancestry and background system of PF2e

Scaling Cantrips: Personally I have been using Spheres of Power for Pathfinder and i prefer that system to Vacian magic anyways but if there is Vancian than I think cantrips being better than useless helps a lot and also helps reduce the 5 min work day of adventuring parties.

Movement: I like how everyone gets spring attack in 5e. I think that the new action economy should help with that though I would prefer if when you spend an action to move you can use your whole movement without spending another action e.g.

First action: Stride, gain 30ft of movement to spend this round
move 10 ft
Second Action: Attack
move 10 ft
Third Action: Attack
move 10 ft

As opposed to
First Action: Move 10 ft
Second Action: Attack
Third Action: Move 10 ft

It flows more naturally and less chess-like. Though of course it would need to be balanced differently.

No Iterative Attack Penalties: I find this speeds up play a lot.

Advantage: This is a ease of use mechanic that avoids the need for a lot of small bonuses, helps speed up combat I think this is a good way to streamline small bonuses and penalties.

Things I don't like about 5e: Bounded Accuracy, Binary skill proficiency, not enough feats to customize a character meaningfully.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
With Return of Runelords beign a future AP, and Golarion infusing NPF, I doubt specialization goes away anytime soon.

According to the ND interview, that's an AP for PF1, not PF2.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
With Return of Runelords beign a future AP, and Golarion infusing NPF, I doubt specialization goes away anytime soon.

Bookrat has already make a good point about Return of the Runelords.

In 5e Wizards still specialize, they just don't pick prohibited schools, for me this was a great improvement along the lines of PF1 improving wizards from 3.5 by allowing them to prepare spells from prohibited schools at double cost. And if you really want to prohibit schools I imagine there will be the option of taking the Thasilonian archetype.


My favorite things about 5e:
Scaling cantrips
Extra attacks instead of full attacks
Warlocks
Full casting bards

The way the system kneecaps character building though is a huge buzzkill and I hope PF2 stays as far away from any flavor of that as possible.


Zardnaar wrote:
doomman47 wrote:
one thing that was in 5e that I hope stays in 5e is the stupid ability score caps

THats one of the best parts of 5E.

AD&D capped at 25, B/X at 18, uncapped is one of the big problems of 3E and 4E.

uncapped stats are one of the funest things about pathfinder and is one of the biggest reasons I dropped 5e like a bad habit once our 5e campaign ended


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Full casting bards

Full casting Bards was so unexpected that it took me by surprise how much I liked it.


bookrat wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

Wait, WotC came up with this spell system in 2012 and 2013. That's 5-6 years ago.

Paizo said that they started this stuff around 2014 at the earliest. (Normally they say it was around 2 years ago though, which would put it in 2016).

So...maybe technically...maybe???

And it just HAPPENS to run just like 5e's spell system???

Is it really like 5e's spell system? Or is that just what we are drawing to because if it is...that's actually pretty suspicious to tell the truth.

Could be that happened, but it sounds AWFULLY coincidental...

That's saying, of course, that it really does work like 5e spell system. (I do admit though, from what I'm hearing, it DOES sound an awful lot like it).

You've got both your timeline wrong and your statement that "it runs jYou've got both your timeline wrong and your statement that "it runs just like the 5e spell system" wrong.

5e came out in late 2014. That's all the bench mark Paizo needs to claim they developed this "before 5e came out." It doesn't matter when WotC was working on it. Paizo couldn't see WotC's draft work on their own product. The two companies are competing, they don't share their work with each other. Additionally, the developers have flat out stated that they've either never played 5e or only played it minimally. They prefer their own system. And if you don't think a company can be working on a project for 5-6+ years, then you've got a lot to learn about how companies operate. Successful companies are those who can look forward and have continuous development and improvement.

As for how similar they are, the only thing they have that's similar is scaling spells with higher spell slots, but even that does work the same in the two editions.

In 5e, you have a pool of spells you prepare, and then during the day you choose which spell slots to use when you cast. So you prepare fireball, and then can choose to cast it as a 3rd level spell or maybe a 5th level spell when the time comes.

In PF2, you have to prepare your spell slots with assigned spells per slot, just like in PF1. So if you want a 3rd level fireball, you prepare it in a 3rd level slot. If you want a 5th level fireball, you prepare it in a 5th level slot.

Those are not the same system.

That's disingenius at best.

WotC ran a playtest for two years prior to it's release. WE ALL KNEW what WotC was doing. That dates back to 2012/2013...NOT 2014.

Thanks.

Yes, it was released later, and so if one claims they were working on PF2e in 2014 (though statements also stated they only started two years ago which would have been the 2016 timeframe, conflicting statements), it technically may be prior to an official release, but AFTER we all knew what was going to be in that official release for the most part.

And EVERYONE had access to it.

However, please DO keep pointing out the differences between PF2e and 5e as I personally want it to be different and the more differences people can point out between PF2e and 5e makes me happier.

Why?

Because I'm not a fan of 5e, so everytime I hear a rumor or someone points out similarities, it is rather discouraging for me. So, pointing out how they are different is a good thing for me...at least.


doomman47 wrote:
uncapped stats are one of the funest things about pathfinder and is one of the biggest reasons I dropped 5e like a bad habit once our 5e campaign ended

I'm with you on that. I prefer uncapped stats and uncapped numbers.


bookrat wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
With Return of Runelords beign a future AP, and Golarion infusing NPF, I doubt specialization goes away anytime soon.
According to the ND interview, that's an AP for PF1, not PF2.

True. But it will "shake up things in Varisia", and the effect of that AP will be canon and permanent. I think it will set the tone for the "new Golarion". One with (I hope) active Runelords and a New Thassilonia :D

Regardless of my wish, Runelords are clearly part of Golarion history, and a big chunk of their lore is about forbidden schools of magic.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
bookrat wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
With Return of Runelords beign a future AP, and Golarion infusing NPF, I doubt specialization goes away anytime soon.
According to the ND interview, that's an AP for PF1, not PF2.

True. But it will "shake up things in Varisia", and the effect of that AP will be canon and permanent. I think it will set the tone for the "new Golarion". One with (I hope) active Runelords and a New Thassilonia :D

Regardless of my wish, Runelords are clearly part of Golarion history, and a big chunk of their lore is about forbidden schools of magic.

Off topic, but when I played Rise of the Runelords with a group a few years ago, we went epic after the AP. With the city and the wealth we established ourselves as the new RuneLords at that point (which I suppose was just a little bit evil).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
However, please DO keep pointing out the differences between PF2e and 5e as I personally want it to be different and the more differences people can point out between PF2e and 5e makes me happier.

Excellent! Let's focus on this rather than arguing. We'll both be better for it in the end. :)

One thing I do like about 5e that I'd like to see in PF2, though, is how spell memorization is handled.

In 5e, you don't have to put your spells into spell slots. You just memorize your spells, and then later can pick your spell slots.

Let's pretend upcasting isn't a thing (as in, spells still scaled automatically with level and you didn't need to use a higher level slot to increase the power). How would this system be useful? Imediate metacasting. You'd be able to, on the spot, decide to add in metamagic and use up a higher level slot if you so wanted.


Stuff I liked from 5e and would like to see (ranked from highest priority to lowest priority):
- Scaling/relevant cantrips. Holy cow, being able to contribute to minor fights without eating into my daily resources was amazing for low-level play. I could do something after exhausting my resources in a boss fight.
- Prestidigitation equivalent for every major spell list. Druids and Clerics got their own flavorful general-purpose cantrip. Went a long way to making them feel fun.
- Talking familiars, accessible with a feat to boot. I don't need my familiar to do much mechanically, but having them be interesting and able to communicate with the party directly was the biggest contributor to good roleplaying experiences.
- Secret casting. It was too late and hard to get, but enchanter wizards got to be subtle about their casting eventually.
- Wizard could hit stuff- no separate AC needed. Those cantrips actually connected sometimes, using Int to hit.
- Appropriate, fixed durations. This one felt like an appropriate trade-off. Mage Armor lasted a useful length of time from level one, while Charm Person staying fixed at an hour felt pretty fair. A first level spell giving you a new friend for a full adventuring day is a little silly.
- Prepared spontaneous casting and getting spell slots back. I know they're not doing this one, but it was nice having prepared casting work like this rather than making it a special class. Full caster archetype?


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Regardless of my wish, Runelords are clearly part of Golarion history, and a big chunk of their lore is about forbidden schools of magic.

Thassilon Wizards are not the vanilla wizards from the core rulebook, is an archetype,.


QuidEst wrote:


- Secret casting. It was too late and hard to get, but enchanter wizards got to be subtle about their casting eventually.

that should be something all casters could do at low level so long as they invested a feat or 2 into doing so


2 people marked this as a favorite.
mach1.9pants wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.

In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.

In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!

When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).

In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...

So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.

The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.

I agree. I see a lot of hate for 5e and some pretty skewed understanding on how powerful a character is. For example, a single 5th level fighter with great weapon mastery can kill 4-5 goblins in the opening turn. Likewise a wizard or sorcerer can fireball them. Even if the goblins somehow got a surprise round on the party and all of them attacked the weakest target and landed a few crits, they might be able to drop (not kill) one 5th level character before being annihilated. Its true that bounded accuracy doesn't seem like much of an improvement, and I can see why people would see it that way. In 5e you improve by getting more attacks and dealing more damage per attack, instead of getting more BAB. The numbers are smaller, easier to work with, but there is still viable progression. Skills in 5e are terrible though. Bounded accuracy should not be used for skills. Totally agree with that.


Skullkeeper wrote:
mach1.9pants wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:

The way 5e did it though, it makes it so that you never feel like you really are high level when you are high level.

In Pathfinder...when you are level 9 and go up against Goblins...you'll be killing them left and right.

In 5e...if you face 5 of them you could be dead!

When you are level 20 you should FEEL like one of the most powerful characters in the world. In Pathfinder, you normally do. Some Moreso then others...which some have a problem with (casters being super powerful compared to the martials).

In 5e...nope...you can still be taken down by a group of low level 1HD goblins. No real heroes here...

So you really think that in 5e a group of five goblins could take down a single ninth level PC? Because that's not true. A group of twenty five may be a challenge, depending on circumstances - at ninth level a party is looking at a hundred goblins as a theoretically dangerous encounter. But, tbh, most parties would still cream that many. Bounded accuracy extends the range enemies are relevant, but not forever.

The skill check thing is very relevant tho, outside of bards and rogues the d20 is most of the result. Max ability is twenty, so +11 without expertise doubling proficiency bonus. The plus side to this is that DCs don't go so high that you can't give it a try, if proficient. I play 5e but have used 2d10 for skill checks to make the die less important.

I agree. I see a lot of hate for 5e and some pretty skewed understanding on how powerful a character is. For example, a single 5th level fighter with great weapon mastery can kill 4-5 goblins in the opening turn. Likewise a wizard or sorcerer can fireball them. Even if the goblins somehow got a surprise round on the party and all of them attacked the weakest target and landed a few crits, they might be able to drop (not kill) one 5th level character before being annihilated. Its true that bounded accuracy doesn't seem like much of an improvement, and I can see why people...

I used 40 kobolds on level 8 5E PCs, they all died but got some damage in on the way out.

5E skills have in combat uses so having them scale the same is nice in that regard makes grappling and shove attacks a lot easier to integrate.

101 to 116 of 116 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / What parts of 5E do you like, and how would you like them to show up in PF2e? All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion