Pathfinder 2e - How does it compare to other systems?

[Dallahan]

My groups current campaign is wrapping up and we're looking at starting a new one. I've been considering running our next campaign using Pathfinder 2e, but am unfamiliar with the system and would like to get an idea of how it compares to other systems. Our group started with D&D 3.5 but that was years ago and when we ran a one shot with it recently we found the system far clunkier than we remembered.

The last campaign I ran for the group was D&D 4e, which we all really enjoyed it and I greatly appreciated the encounter building rules. However, a couple of my players enjoy min-maxing and by the end of it I was struggling to create challenging encounters and was overusing enemies with paralysis and hypnosis abilities to keep up with the parties power level.

Since then we've played quite a bit of 5th edition but reached the point where we've gotten a bit bored of the system and its lack of depth. Our current campaign is Shadow of the Demon Lord, which has been quite fun but I would prefer a slightly meatier system for our next game. The campaign plan to run next will be more classic fantasy, with some weirder elements on the periphery, with a good balance of investigation, exploration and combat. I'm wondering how Pathfinder 2e compares to the aforementioned systems in that regard, and how much strain it puts on the GM when it comes to encounter building, especially with min-maxed PC's.

[stoutstien]

You'll probably be better off with PF 1e rather than 2e.

PF 2e math is extraordinary right so it's difficult to feel like you are above any sort of curve based on meta or in game choices.

[Kurald Galain]

a good balance of investigation, exploration and combat.

Out of the systems you mention, the only one that has solid rules for investigation and exploration is PF1 / 3.5. The other systems all default to "yeah, just roll your favorite skill and make something up".

PF1 is less clunky than 3.5, although moreso than 5E. PF2 is more clunky than 3.5; it has a lot of little fiddly parts and tiny modifiers that you need to track even though they make no difference in practice.

HTH.

[falconflicker]

Many of the noncombat subsystems from PF1 were updated in the Gamemastery Guide, and then incorporated into the Remaster's GM Core.

They have a reasonably in-depth Hexploration subsystem, a Research subsystem which can be used for investigation, an Influence subsystem to track more in-depth social encounters, subsystems for Chases, Heists, Duels, and for Creating your own organizations.

The links are all to the Archives of Nethys, a free, officially supported site that contains all of the rules. Take a look at them and see if they fit your play style.

[NRSASD]

Speaking as someone who grew up playing 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, switched to 5E, then switched to PF2E, I strongly second Kurald's comments. There are tons of fiddly details that have to be tracked and don't make much of a difference. We're running a long campaign in it and it has been very fun learning another approach for solving the same problems, but I don't think we'll play more of it after this campaign.

One of the unwritten assumptions of the system is that you have to focus on debuffing enemies vigorously to stand a chance of actually hurting them. That's fine, but it was a major shift for my players. Also, you can easily feel like you're treading water rather than progressing if you aren't careful.

For my table, in my experience, it is easier to homebrew a bespoke d20 system that does what I want rather than force 5E or PF2E into a contorted shape.

[Just to Browse]

Similar things to 4e:

• Out of combat stuff mostly boils down to progress clocks the way 4e skill challenges do. You can easily ignore all out of combat systems in favor of SCs, or whatever else you were already doing.
• Monsters and classes still have roles (sort of, see downsides)
• Still lots of room for optimizers to do their thing.

Upsides over 4e that I think you'll enjoy:

• Player options are significantly more constrained. It's harder for a player to shoot themselves in the foot (though still possible), and harder to over-optimize. This makes balancing combats for high levels much easier.
• The numbers from PF2 rouuuuuughly match PF1/3e, so you quickly reference tables from those books without needing to use them.

Potential downsides to be aware of over 4e:

• While monster & PC roles exist, they're hidden. You're expected to just sorta figure it out. Parties will need some kind of out-of-combat healer for example, but the game doesn't emphasize that as hard as it should.
• Magic is closer to the vancian 3e casters, and spellcasters tend to be weak in combat compared to their martial counterparts at low levels, which some players can bounce off of.
• The way the game is presented, horizontal power seems like it could be a pretty useful thing (like using archetypes to dabble in casting). This is generally a trap, and will put any PC who takes it behind their companions. I mention this because (IMO) it's not uncommon for a 4e character to dabble in a little striking or leading when the best power at their level just happens to be striker-y/leader-y. For all its flexibility, PF2 can feel inflexible. Depending on your playgroup, this inflexibility could be a little frustrating.

On the whole, based on your description, I think the system would be a good fit for you.

[JusticeZero]

I'll just ask, have you considered leaving the D&D-like ecosystem entirely? Maybe going backward to an old edition (though you'll lose depth), or something else like Cairn, or an Odd-like such as Mausritter, or a D6 game, Runequest, or something else? Pathfinder has always been similar to D&D in various ways, and I've been hearing a lot of frustration with things that are distinctive aspects of the D&D-ish arm of gaming.

[Serafina]

If you liked D&D 4E you'll likely enjoy PF 2E.
All the rules content is available for free on the Archives of Nethys (it lags behind a few months with the newest releases, but is well maintained).

It obviously has solid combat - notably the 3-action economy putting a premium on certain actions and movement. You have to consider whether you want to make an additional attack or instead intimidate an enemy, or instead reposition yourself, and that's before you get into spells or feats that take up multiple actions.
It's system for critical success and failures is also pretty neat - it doesn't depend solely on lucky rolls (nat 20s/1s) but instead of beating/missing a target number by 10. So it's more of a reward for being good at a task, and the game reflects that - a critical success on a saving throw typically evades damage entirely, for example.
Bonuses come in three types - circumstance, status (=magical) and item. You apply the strongest of each type, that's it, it nicely reduces bookkeeping IME.

It does have an exploration system. A lot of actions are tagged exploration, denoting that they're actions you take while exploring and that modify how you go about it.
Whether that is what you are looking for, I can't tell you, but you should be able to decide on that for yourself.

Investigation is something that lives in several rule sections. Some of it happens during encounters (especially social encounters), some of it happens during exploration, and some of it happens during Downtime (e.g. using Underworld Lore to find out where a stolen item ended up, one of the given examples).

Personally, I quite like building characters in Patfhinder 2E.
You get plenty of options, particularly once you take Archetypes (which is also where multiclassing lives, it's similar to 4E) into account. Options are however much more balanced against each other than in other editions - particularly in terms of numbers.
You may be familiar with the addage that if one option is way stronger than the other, there really are no options. I run into this issue way less often with PF2E than with other D&D-adjacent games.
I quite enjoy min-maxing, and it's still something I can do in PF2E - it's just the version where I make a character good at specific things, rather than making them overwhelmingly strong.


So yeah, that's a recommend from me.

[Kurald Galain]

If you liked D&D 4E you'll likely enjoy PF 2E.

I disagree. 4E has far more diversity in both build options and tactics, to the point where 4E has a dedicated character role for crowd control, and PF2 basically bans crowd control from existing.

[Serafina]

Build Diversity is easy to judge by just reading the material (or some guides), and I'd say that PF2E competes with D&D 4E quite handily there if you ignore the diversity that gets added by Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.
If you want something like Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies, then you can just use the Free Archetype rules - having a second progression track of class-like features should feel pretty familiar!
With Free Archetype in play PF2E has IMO very high build diversity.


It's certainly true that PF2E does not have the same type of Crowd Control that D&D 4E has.
Neither did D&D 3.5, nor does D&D 5E, nor does PF1E. 4E was pretty unique in that regard.
You can play a Defender. Whether that is simply by picking up a Champion and using their defensive/retributive Reactions, or by using the Shield Warden feat to protect nearby allies, or by playing any martial character and making use of Trip, Shove, and Reposition together with Reactive Strike.
There is also another Defender-oriented class, the currently-in-playtest Guardian. It'll hopefully get a few improvements in it's actual release, but it's certainly more oriented towards being a Defender than any class in anything D&D-adjacent outside of 4E.

[stoutstien]

I disagree. 4E has far more diversity in both build options and tactics, to the point where 4E has a dedicated character role for crowd control, and PF2 basically bans crowd control from existing.

It has CC it just doesn't feel like it because it has a high mandatory maneuver threshold built-in. Debuffs are CC because of the way the action system works. A bombing alchemist can debuff groups into lockdown regularly but they are expected to. Then you have runes that stack on everything else.

It basically boils down to action economy manipulation which can feel off if you prefer the aesthetic of actually locking somebody down.

[Kurald Galain]

Debuffs are CC

No, there is a very fundamental difference between "debuffs" and "CC". You might as well claim that PF2 has CC because it redefines CC to mean "non-weapon damage". I mean that's technically correct but also pretty meaningless.

Anyway, my point is that pretty much none of the 4E fans I know (including myself) actually enjoy PF2. And you might have noticed that our 4E forum on this very site has not, in fact, had an upsurge of 4E fans who enjoy PF2, either.

[stoutstien]

No, there is a very fundamental difference between "debuffs" and "CC". You might as well claim that PF2 has CC because it redefines CC to mean "non-weapon damage". I mean that's technically correct but also pretty meaningless.

Anyway, my point is that pretty much none of the 4E fans I know (including myself) actually enjoy PF2. And you might have noticed that our 4E forum on this very site has not, in fact, had an upsurge of 4E fans who enjoy PF2, either.

I mean what is the difference between making an action impossible and making the action cost more therefore impossible other than feel?

I'm not defending PF2 at all. I think it's a bunch of fiddly math that doesn't lead to anything worthwhile. It's false depth. Complexity for the sake of it that doesn't really increase the number of viable options. it just hides the few good ways to do stuff in a pile of useless options that are flat out traps. Overdesigned is a good word for it.

I find it attracts people who are more excited about planning to play than actually playing but it also doesn't have a high amount of potential discovery in that process either.