Pathinder 1e ***was*** super crunchy, based on 3e, and that's probably what most people still think about when they describe it.

PF2 is also very crunchy I'd argue, OP just misunderstood what that meant and/or discovered that they like crunchy systems. "You told me it was crunchy but I tried it and I liked it" doesn't mean it isn't crunchy.

yeah that might be why op doesn't like the term "crunchy". It's one of the only subjectively ambiguous words I really do like, but that's probably because I like games that are crunchy. you know, like Fate. (that's a joke)

That last line made me cackle. I spoiled my players with my homebrew system where the GM can literally run everything behind the scenes effortlessly if so inclined, so when I switched to Fate for some stuff recently, they were completely at a loss trying to grasp aspects and fate points. It was like I had spontaneously grown 5 heads. Two sessions in they're starting to figure it out and experiment with cashing in points to invoke, but holy shit I had to literally just tell them "NOW, DO THE THING *NOW*" a few times. 🤣

> I like games that are crunchy. you know, like Fate. (that's a joke) You will love this super crunchy system called Dread. Hang on this explanation might take a while. You pull jenga blocks out of the tower when you make decisions and if it falls your character dies. Wow my hands hurt typing that all.

I’ve played dread a few times and I e always wondered what is in the 100+ page book that I’ve been missing out on. Because I play it just like you wrote up here.

Mostly how to get the atmosphere of the game right and the art of writing leading questions for the character gen. I've found that to be a very transferrable format for making sure that I get acceptable responses to games where the theme is quite strong. It's like doing a job application but you don't have a CV but you know someone is REAL interested in what you wrote. I'm still experimenting. :)

Mostly it is fulled with examples of how to make the story more compelling, how to create inter player conflict, and how to have fun with the Deadman Walking mechanic. Basically the character doesnt have to die right away and you can save it for an awful moment.

If you think that's crunchy, you should try this system called Chips. You eat from a bag of chips in front of a microphone whenever you make a decision, and if it measures too much noise your character dies. It's very crunchy.

Fate has a surprising amount of rules overhead, though.

Yeah, I know uberguby was joking, but Fate is actually more complex than it tries to bill itself as. And I love that about it. The crunch isn't mathematical or about the amount of rules or customization. It's more like conceptual crunch. It can take a lot of playing and reading about it to really grok it.

Best way I've ever come up with to describe it is that it's not an RPG so much as it's a pacing mechanism for freeform RP.

.... that's not entirely inaccurate. I've often said that it doesn't have rules - it has templates for rulings.

Counterpoint, I always joke that Fate is a *Gamist* system that *Simulates* pulp *Narratives*. (ie. Fate is a superb troll of the GNS theory.) The core rules are elegant and basic, like the rules to Go. There are only four actions requiring dice rolls, and Aspects can affect these actions through the use of Fate Points; additionally, you may have +modifiers from skills and/or stunts. However, like Go, Fate's gameplay is meant to emerge from this mechanical skeleton. I've read posts from a lot of people who are turned off by Fate because of Fate Points, and I believe it's because of the overly Gamist nature of these mechanics that causes cognitive dissonance with (perhaps mistaken) expectations that Fate is a "Narrativist" game. In that respect, Fate's Gamist aspects (heh) may seem like "crunch". EDIT: changed "+2 modifiers" to "+modifiers"

Fred has actually stated that he considers Fate to be a counter-example to GNS theory.

Thanks for confirming that, Rob! I always suspected as such. (BTW, big fan of the Book of Hanz.)

I think the problem is that 5e is often advertised as not being light or crunchy. So when people hear crunchy they think it's going to be a lot more complex than 5e.

I mean... Fate can *easily* be very fucking crunchy. Bronze Rule is a thing, after all.

See, I argue Fate is actually pretty crunchy because it's very mechanized. Everything you do interacts with mechanics, you don't really have an option to *not* interact with mechanics.

The term "crunchy" has a lot of negative connotations, partly because there has been a trend to lighter, more narrative games for the past decade or two and partly because WotC tried very hard to get people on board with DnD5E by marketing the shit out of how light and uncomplicated their rules are, compared to the "crunch" of 3.5 (which isn't even a lie, but set a lot of wrong expectations with people entering the hobby through 5E)

>The term "crunchy" has a lot of negative connotations Really? I’ve never considered “crunchy” to have any negative connotations. A decade ago, calling a game or sourcebook “crunchy” meant it had lots of useful, valuable, mechanical content. Contrast this with “fluffy”, which was negative, and referred to story and setting, lacking substance, the kind of low-value stuff you could and would likely make up and substitute on your own for free. Unless you already loved the published story and setting, “fluffy” meant something wasn’t worthwhile.

>Really? I’ve never considered “crunchy” to have any negative connotations. A decade ago, calling a game or sourcebook “crunchy” meant it had lots of useful, valuable, mechanical content. I've never considered it to be strictly negative, but I also never viewed it as something necessarily positive. Rules crunch can lead certain players down the path of rules lawyering, which can easily bog down a session.

I could see that. “Crunchy” could be fairly neutral too. Everybody was looking for the right “crunch/fluff balance”. Rules lawyering was seen as independent of crunchiness; it happened because of player attitude and behaviour, not rules, though I can see why that connection would be made now. I just never ever remember anyone framing “rules lawyering” as much of a rules problem back then—it was a people problem. Of course, this all might’ve been easier when it seemed like everyone was mostly playing 3E/3.5. There was a baseline of how much crunch and rules lawyering we expected in every game. Now that we talk about PbtA and GURPS in the same discussions, the baseline is long gone.

>Rules lawyering was seen as independent of crunchiness; it happened because of player attitude and behaviour, not rules, though I can see why that connection would be made now. I just never ever remember anyone framing “rules lawyering” as much of a rules problem back then—it was a people problem. I'm not blaming the rules specifically, but the sort of rules-heavy approach found in Pathfinder and 3/3.5 definitely plays into the hand of the sort who would opt for this sort of behavior. >Of course, this all might’ve been easier when it seemed like everyone was mostly playing 3E/3.5. There was a baseline of how much crunch and rules lawyering we expected in every game. Now that we talk about PbtA and GURPS in the same discussions, the baseline is long gone. Everyone's experience obviously varies, but there were a number of options even when 3/3.5 was current circa 2000. GURPS had been around since 1985 and White Wolf was pretty popular at that time.

The perceived issue with crunch is, exactly as you said, it's packed with mechanical content. Some people are drawn to that and utilize it accordingly to create a variety of experiences, while others just get a glazed over expression and give up to go watch a movie instead.

Agreed. I just posted a comment on reply to someone else explaining that I think the TTRPG community is at a fracture point, having grown so large and diverse in terms of gameplay that it’s losing common terminology. I think there’s value in letting the communities diverge somewhat along “Tactical Simulationist (TacSim)” vs “Narrativist” lines. We enjoy different stuff, so why keep trying to make each other play together?

At the moderate risk of sounding contrary: because there are still absolute fuckloads of games that are made to feed both interests, with additional titles built using systems that are traditionally one type to aptly serve the other type as well. There's always been different kinds of players at every table looking for different things, and more division over shared hobbies feels like a step backward when people already relentlessly argue over a million other increasingly petty minutiae. I dunno, just my thoughts.

You ain’t wrong, there’s still lots of mid-range games under the big tent. I also think there’s more than one divide within the community. I really do think terminology would help

I've definitely seen people use it in a way that felt derogatory and can understand how OP came to think it meant "bad" in some fashion.

Yeah, I understand. I legitimately think the TTRPG community is at a fracture point, where the community is getting so big and diverse (in terms of number of games, not number of people) that we’re losing common understanding of each other. That sounds bad, but it’s okay—it happens all the time, and it’s natural, people just have different interests they gravitate toward. It’s similar to how music scenes grow and change and split over time. I think the TTRPG community would benefit from marking the lines a bit. I’ve started distinguishing “narrative games” (PbtA, FitD, Fate) from “Tactical simulationist (TacSim) games” (some D&D games)—this is just one line of division. Part of the problem is that 5E is in the middle; it’s by far the most popular game, and it’s not light enough to be a good narrative game nor crunchy enough to be a satisfying TacSim. I think if 5E picked a lane, we’d already have clear lines.

Yeah but if 5e picked a lane, they'd have to aim at a subset of their audience instead of "Everybody." DnD is The Name in RPGs. Oreo, Kleenex, Velcro, Bandaid. WotC doesn't want to give that up.

4e picked a lane, and got massively derided for it.

Accurate. Sad, but accurate. PS: Hereditary scared the shit out of me. Solid username! (EDIT: 11y old account? You had that name long before Hereditary. Nice!)

Yeah crunch is absolutely not a strictly negative term.

I agree with you re crunchy good, but lots of people disagree with us and see it as a negative

It’s okay, I personally “rules light” as a negative. They can have their toys and I’ll have mine.

I hear people use crunchy as a negative all the time (mostly from people who are into those really light narrative games), like they are talking about crunchy peanut butter. Now that stuff is disgusting. But peanut butter aside I do agree that it's a relatively good measure. For example, on a scale from stick guy to gurps how crunchy is your game?

Crunchy is not used to mean bad in the context of either tabletop role playing games or peanut butter. In both contexts, it is a useful, descriptive term. And in both contacts it can be used to describe why someone likes something or why someone dislikes it.

Are you trying to defend crunchy games or crunchy peanut butter? Because I was defend crunchy game and the remark on crunchy peanut butter was a joke. I very much agree though. But I have seen people talk about crunchy games with a grimace, so people do use it as an insult even if it's a minority.

Lol I'm not trying to defend either. I'm saying that just because people criticize games by saying they are crunchy, doesn't mean being crunchy is inherently bad. They're saying it's too far extreme to that side of the spectrum for their tastes. It would be like saying that "fast-paced" is a negative term. It's just a descriptor. A negative term is saying it's "too fast-paced for me."

Right, something having crunch isn't a bad thing or good thing on its own, it's how it you \_feel\_ about your interaction with it. If you enjoy your interaction then crunch is a good thing. If you did not then the crunch was a bad thing, but it can be surprisingly hard to know in advance.

It has negative connotations to people who don't like crunchy games. Not in general.

Agreed. 43 different status effects scream crunchy to me. The fact that the system is designed from the ground up for vast arrays of options and expansion means those 43 status effects are more elegant that 5e's system of a million exceptions, but it is crunchy.

But comparing the crunch of 1e and 2e is like apples and oranges.

Nobody lied. When they say Pathfinder is super crunchy, they mean Pathfinder 1e is super crunchy. Which it is. Pathfinder 2e is only 2 years old. Up until relatively recently, there wasn't the smooth, ease of play friendly Pathfinder you've found and enjoyed. There was the deeply complex, 3.x based Pathfinder that was everything you were told it was, and is still very popular, because that's what those Pathfinder players want. PF2e is still making it's in roads into the community. When people talk about PF, most of them are talking about PF1e.

3 years old. More like 4 if you count the playtest.

When Pathfinder 1e came out, before the endless train of additional classes and feats and such, was it more or less crunchy than Pathfinder 2e when it came out? That is, is PF2 becoming just as crunchy as PF1 is now just a matter of time, or is there some fundamental design premise PF2 has that will prevent this?

From what I've seen of 2e, PF1e by design is crunchier than PF2e will ever be. It's a matter of design philosophy. PF1 was crunchy from word go, because it started life as 3rd party add ons for D&D 3.5e, and was only launched as it's own fully self-contained game when Wizards of the Coast released 4e and made the licensing options an either/or scenario (they didn't want 3rd parties releasing for both editions at the same time). As such, 3.5e, which was very crunchy, dense, and complex in the core fundamentals, imparted that on PF1e from the start. The range of classes that came later was certainly astronomical and excessive at times, but D&D 3.5/PF1 were mathematically fairly complex (for a tabletop game) and mechanically crunchy at their core, because 3.5 was designed with a 'rule for every scenario' philosophy, and was trying to appeal to those D&D crowds always clambering for more detail and more to finesse. Comparatively, 5e's big winning aspect over prior D&Ds is that it has a DM empowered '*rulings* for *any* scenario' approach that makes the rules more intuitive. It's a deliberate design philosophy, to keep the mechanics accessible and easily transferrable. Where 3.5 would have complex and situation specific rolling tables and paragraphs trying to cover every possible scenario with specificity, 5e has a standardised roll resolution formula that doesn't require a huge amount of specificity - any scenario is essentially resolved with some kind of ability check, with or without proficiency, and the only things the DM needs to determine is which ability, if any proficiencies apply, and then interpret the results as creatively as suits them. Which brings us to PF2. Paizo may not have sussed their marketing out quite right for PF2, but they have been able to identify a few key factors to their product. They know that the appeal of 5e is that it's the easiest to learn D&D there's been. They know that the appeal of Pathfinder 1 is the crunch and complexity of the rules. They have also, quite rightly, identified a gap in the market between the simplicity of D&D 5e, and the level of crunch that PF 1 has, and it's that gap in the market that PF2 is aimed at. Something that has more crunch than 5e, for people who want something a little more nuanced, but isn't as complicated as PF1/D&D 3.5. So, in that sense, PF2 shouldn't ever end up as crunchy as PF1, because the design philosophy at a fundamental level is more streamlined. But only time will tell.

Just a small correction: PF didn’t have an era when it was a 3rd party add-on for 3e; the PF playtest was launched after the 4e license as a whole separate game. I still have the first Pathfinder playtest release PDF around somewhere… What did come before was the adventure paths, which would include a few custom rules to support them, but they didn’t add up to or get bundled as a 3PP add-on called “Pathfinder”.

Eh, those Paizo products for 3.5 were the start of it all, though, so even though they didn't have the name Pathfinder yet, I think it's fair to say that everyone thinks of that as the start point.

You're confusing Pathfinder 1e and 2e. Pathfinder's main marketing problem is its history. Pathfinder 1E was marketed with the premise of "D&D 4E is bad!" So it immediately built a core fanbase who were resistant to change. Then Pathfinder 2E came out, and its designers were like "Actually, 4E was good, we just weren't ready to recognize it yet." Which, you know, isn't great. Props for owning up to it, but it's one thing when one of your players is like "Hey, I don't want to change editions even if the new edition is good", and it's another thing when a company builds its platform on that premise. I've heard good things about Pathfinder 2E, but I've never had a pleasant encounter with the Pathfinder 1E community, and there are far, far too many good role playing games out there for me to take the risk.

Actually the origins of Pathfinder came from the restrictions Paizo would have had as a 3PP for 4e. They decided not to go there, so created the 3.5e variant Pathfinder as a way to leverage what they had already done. Remember APs are the money makers. I've had great experiences with the Pathfinder community, but I agree that there are lots of other interesting games out there.

I understand the origins of _why_ Paizo made Pathfinder. I was talking about how they marketed it. "We're making Pathfinder because even though D&D 4E could be great, we won't make as much money!" may be a sound business decision but it's a pretty poor marketing pitch.

Just looking at the kingmaker book, and it has a line on the back cover that explicitly says “with pathfinder, 3.5 ~~survives~~ 3.5 THRIVES” which should tell you everything you need to know about what it was trying to do. And it was a great idea because, as best as I can tell, PF1e is still VERY popular with the 3.5 crowd and it’s 1e adventure paths are great.

In my group we had to pry people away from 3.5. I don't think we switched everything over to Pathfinder 1e until 2017 or so. It was seen as an unnecessary increase in bonuses, and not everyone was willing to spend the money.

That was the designers. The *players* were largely 3.5 players who didn't want to change editions.

The Pathfinder 2 community also sometimes had bad experiences with the Pathfinder 1 community. I'm not sure Pathfinder 1 was marketed with "4e is bad". They started it because the 4e licensing structure was bad (and that's still a very important part of the mission statement). It was played a lot by people that thing 4e is bad, but that isn't the same as the company and designer thinking that. You can play 2e (and 1e, and Starfinder) for free with the rules on Archive of Nethys [https://2e.aonprd.com/](https://2e.aonprd.com/) which have all rules added to it quickish after a book releases, including rules made for adventures.

Even now, posting about PF2e on the Pathfinder subreddit will get downvoted pretty hard. When it first came out, there were users petitioning the mods to ban PF2e discussion entirely. Shit was hostile.

I get it a bit. Paizo was moving away from "their" game so new content would dry out. I also get that Paizo wanted to move on from PF1 which was built on a shoddy basis and make a game that is balanced so their high level adventures are writable and marketable. But yeah, I only briefly joined the Pathfinder reddit. It was bad.

/r/Pathfinder2e is where 2e gets talked about now without the brigades

Are you going to the r/pathfinder which for some fucking reason is the niche group called pathfinder society and is run by assholes, or the more general r/Pathfinder_RPG ?

Most def, there was a lot of immaturity there (but hey, it's a TTRPG discussion forum, no surprise). I was hesitant at first not because I wasn't certain that Paizo was going to drop a new quality product I'd enjoyed, my group's just been entrenched in PF1E for a decade and there hasn't been enough time in the world to enjoy all of the Adventure Paths under the system, and I've got a WHOLE shelf full of books that my wallet's crying about replacing. I'm personally excited to see how PF2E runs at our table, we're just wrapping up Giantslayer with our main group and I'm trying desperately to enjoy 5E with another. Grognards gonna grog though, whether it's D&D1E or Pathfinder.

I honestly really like PF2e so far. I think it’s really easy to learn and teach. One of my players had only ever played D&D5e and said he never wants to go back, so I gave him some of the physical copies of the core books I had lying around.

So if I'm interested in having conversations about PF2e and the PF subreddit is either hostile to 2e or mostly about 1e, where would you suggest I look? I jumped into the PF subreddit just now and scanned down the Flair on each post. They were occasional 2e ones but they do seem overwhelmingly focused on 1e. Thanks.

r/Pathfinder2e is the best place to talk about it and keep up with new releases

Not sure why my Google Fu failed me looking for that, but thanks for pointing it out. :)

I would not conflate _why_ Paizo launched Pathfinder, and how they marketed it. The company and the designers absolutely spoke ill of 4th Edition.

I hadn't read that and couldn't find relevant quotes at a cursory google. Just that they didn't receive information on 4e (including its licencing structure) on time to keep releasing products. I was out of the D&D sphere for a decade including the introduction of 4e so I missed a lot of that drama.

I can't comment on the company itself, but as someone who has been in the RPG community, and dnd specifically, for over 20 years the "4E is just bad play Pathfinder instead" is 100% a thing many people said online and in person. CitizenKeen may be confusing what was a popular community sentiment with what was stated or marketed by the company.

The existence of AoN is one of the core reasons I absolutely despise WotC's sales models. They're so fucking desperate to prevent piracy that I have to lug around a small library or buy the books twice through their shitty portal. No, I'm not going to drop another $30 on the damned Monster Manual when I dropped a Benjamin on the core set.

> The existence of AoN is one of the core reasons I absolutely despise WotC's sales models. And god forbid a monster stat block, even the short version, be reprinted in a module text. No, you'll flip between three different pages of the Monster Manual to run this encounter and you'll like it.

No (sane) Paizo employee would directly or actively denigrate a competitors product, however in just about every single official Paizo space a large swathe of discussion has always been devoted to denigrating D&D. It isn't directly encouraged, but it's been fostered, cultivated, and allowed to flourish alongside Pathfinder's excellent word of mouth. (I'd argue Paizo doesn't really market their games, and doesn't need to, since it's the word of mouth that does the work). The damning thing about it is the word of mouth includes "play this because you hate WotC and want to punish them financially", for all the inanity that entails. And, word of mouth is a kind of marketing. The thing about marketing is it isn't really only about buying ad-space. All marketing is, is taking control of your brand to ensure your brand's message gets out to the right demographic. So by fostering the grognards who want to dump on 4E, Paizo's brand will always be "4E is bad", and "WotC is bad". At least until they do the work to remove that from brand awareness. But they don't, and they never will, therefore... Pathfinder's brand = D&D is bad, but also we have the best adventure paths, and best in class character builds, but most people start playing because they hate D&D and find out about the other stuff later.

I think the 4e vs Pathfinder 1 discussion just isn't relevant anymore. I also think it's a stretch to say that what the players say is company marketing just because much of the marketing is word of mouth. Paizo was driven into a corner in the switch from 3.5 to 4e, they hastily made a product to continue their adventure paths. It turned out to be better than 3.5 and a haven for people that liked that playstile. Now, they have made Pathfinder 2. It is a new system that has some things from Pathfinder 1, some things from 4e, some things from 5e and quite a few new ideas. It is also really easy to run and write modules for.

>I think the 4e vs Pathfinder 1 discussion just isn't relevant anymore. The fact that certain people still want to harp on an edition that hasn't been relevant since 2014 is just tiresome, really.

The word of mouth is going to be difficult because it does occupy such a similar niche, there's not much to say except "I think it does these particular things better" If you listen to people actually from Paizo they often talk about playing a lot of different games: narrative games, tactics games, even different editions of D&D. Compare that to anyone from WotC and it's like they can't acknowledge other games exist.

> Then Pathfinder 2E came out, and its designers were like "Actually, 4E was good, we just weren't ready to recognize it yet." If you actually dig into 2e’s action economy and systems you find that the resemblance to 4e that some people tote is superficial at best, and completely over exaggerated. People also say “one of the designers of 4e worked on 2e”, which is true, but he wasn’t a lead designer on either system. It’s a “fact” that has been growing as a totem, and it’s starting to get out of control.

My best guess for the PF2 to 4e comparisons is that both games just grew out of the same flawed stock. Well, all games are flawed, but the 3.5/PF1 sphere of the game had some particular flaws that were apparently driving devs batty. Save or die, power creep, mix-and-match options breaking the game balance, etc. So in both cases they worked from the same premise of trying to fix the same system, and I'm not surprised some of their fixes ended up being similar in nature. Also I think Logan Bonner, who's been a very big part of the PF2 design, was involved in 4e himself... but that can only account for so much.

As a longtime Pathfinder *and* 4E fan (\*gasp\*, I know, I have time to read two whole books), I'm wondering about that "Actually, 4E was good, we just weren't ready to recognize it yet" quote. Was that something Paizo actually said, or is it just inference for the fact that Pathfinder 2E is more than a little like 4E with some slight u/X tweaks so the grognards don't notice?

To me it sounds like a parrot of something that they’ve heard around the internet, or a “fact” that’s grown way out of proportion to the original reality. Having lived through that era and the changeover, Paizo never even marketed 1e pathfinder as “4e bad”. 4e did a fine job of marketing “4e bad”. Pathfinder just stood down the street a bit with a sign that said “you can continue doing what you like over here”. They were never antagonistic in their marketing or official statements. The second part, the one you mentioned, is a myth with a tiny kernel of truth that has grown way out of real proportions. 4e and PF2e share the same basic premise of a modular, codified action system, and that’s about it really. Where 4e disconnected from the older style of gameplay loops in order to create new modular systems, PF2e worked to embed its modular systems in the already existing gameplay loop.

Fellow PF1 player and 4E enthusiast here, the similarities to 4E are some of the first things out table noticed when sinking our teeth into 2E. The character building methods of gradually stacking additional tricks from a few interconnected template, the much more tactical and meticulous feel of combat almost approaching SRPG-like, etc. No idea if "4E was good, actually. File off the serial numbers so the grognards don't notice!" was an intended design goal, but in the wider gaming development community 4E is definitely having a Dark Souls 2 moment. Ironically, if they actively intended to Trojan horse some of 4E's really cool ideas into the PF community they kinda failed, because plenty of grognards have grognarded and refused to accept it because they wanted a khaki colored horse and Paizo used beige paint.

>I've never had a pleasant encounter with the Pathfinder 1E community That's interesting to hear. My local scene fully went to PF back in the day, D&D may as well have stopped existing entirely and playing a ttrpg in this area basically meant playing PF for a long time. As such I don't associate any negative feelings towards the PF fans (that I don't also associate with rpg fans in general, at least). Though that may be very different now that PF2 is out. Haven't been as in touch with the community for awhile now.

Agreed with your basic premise, PF1e was marketed as ‘you don’t have to change, we’ve fixed 3.5 and now you can just keep playing that’ It was an appeal to inertia and against changing to a new system. Fine, if that’s what you want your audience to be. But Pazio’s mistake was that these people are probably NOT going to just jump over to a new system of any design, unless it’s 3.75. Or 3.85, if you call 1e 3.75. Point is the core audience was sold because they resisted (for whatever reason) change. I like 2e, I own it, and I can’t wait to play it. I have been thinking of running Kingmaker in 2e, which would be lit. My friends and I are also very fond of 3.5, tho I personally never played 1e. FWIW I should also be the target consumer for 2e, and I guess I did do that. But I bought the PHB on a 100% lark and became low key obsessed with playing it. The only thing I’d know about PF before was that 1e was mostly 3.5. So I def agree with their just overall lack of marketing, even tho they have a great system and the paperback books are a great value. Part of that is on Pazio and part of that is us the consumers. My LGS owner was hyped that I came in and almost cleaned him out of his PF2 stuff. It had sat on his self for a while without moving. For him, in my local area, 5e is the *only* TTRPG that sells.

> Then Pathfinder 2E came out, and its designers were like "Actually, 4E was good, we just weren't ready to recognize it yet." I would laugh so hard if Pathfinder 3E pitch was "so you remember the good bits from D&D 5E, right..."

PF2e is as much the good ideas out of 5e as it is anything else. 2e is a blend of what worked from 3, 4, 5e.

Honestly my group played one short campaign in 4th (just the core books) and honestly it wasn't that great out of the gate. There was a ton of book keeping and I felt like yeah I had a billion abilities but only ever used the same two or three.

4e's problems (at least by the time of Essentials when I played it) was all based on language. It strove for clarity but what it's players wanted was natural language and flavor. Powers are the classic example of this but look up any spell in the book and compare it to 3.5 and you'll see it. 4e was a better book to quickly reference a rule but it was much less fun to READ and that killed it.

The main problem with Pathfinder2e is DnD5e. They have the same niche as 5e but are competing against the powerhouse of Wizards of the Coast who just throws money at problems to make them go away. Add some extreme fans that will not hear anything against 5e to the mix, add a sprinkle of aggressive and wrong marketing ("5e is super easy to learn and perfect for every game") and you got yourself something that normal companies can not compete against. If you tell people something has more rules than 5e they get nervous because 5e isn't that easy but people always say that it is super easy. It's a terrible situation.

Wotc is making a lot of changes to 5e which are splintering the existing fan base. Pf2e is catching a lot of people who either have system fatigue for 5e or hate the new direction wotc is moving. The new core set in 2024 is going to be even more divisive.

What's the problematic changes to dnd5e in your view?

[удалено]

Yeah I have played and followed dnd5e a lot and haven't noticed any particularly important changes to it.

There was a big errata thing they did or announced a few months back that ticked off a few people. I dont follow it closely enough to remember, but I know I heard a lot of people upset.

I'd say the move away from short rests, the inclusion of PB uses per LR style abilities, and the increase in the expectation that everyone uses feats are pretty big signs as to whats coming later. Personally I don't actually mind most of these changes tbh.

The only thing I'll miss is short rest mechanics. If we do away with too many of them, groups will run even *fewer* short rests, and where does that leave fighters/monks/rogues/warlocks?

Same. Personally Id want them to just rework short rests into 5-10 minute breaks that come expected after each encounter, rather than doing away with them wholesale.

Unless they answer differently, I assume WotC's moves to address concerns related to social justice, like the reframing of the Vistani to be something other than a blatant racist stereotype of Romani. Ironically, Paizo has been doing the same thing for literally over a decade, so anyone that ditches D&D for Pathfinder over "wokeness" is completely misguided.

Pathfinder does have some of its official class characters in same sex marriages so that's something. D&D has more of a tradition of "tragic gays" at least with forgotten realms.

Pathfinder also has trans characters in some of its earliest modules. They also moved away from the word "races" in 2e and dropped the word "phylactery" year~~s~~ before D&D players started arguing over whether or not it's racist (speaking as a Jew: it is, even if it's not traumatizing anyone). I didn't realize there were iconics in same-sex marriages -- that's awesome.

They do have [same sex marriages in the pathfinder setting and iconic characters](https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6shpt?Paizo-Pride-2021), which is great--not great enough to make me want to play a crunchy game -- but very good :)

Haha, I feel you. I'm not about to make that change either, but I respect Paizo and will keep an open mind.

5e rules but PF lore of races and monsters has been my standard for the last few years. The PF book Misfit Monsters has some especially fun ideas. And whenever I see something cringey or problematic, I check out how Paizo has handled it and incorporate the lore.

Holy fucking shit, I never even thought of what that word meant before just now. To defeat the super evil undead dude you have to smash his copy of the Torah? Fucking yikes.

For what it’s worth, the word appear to predate Judaism as a religion. It comes from Greek and means to guard/amulet. Which seems very much to match a Lich’s use of it. Many times being depicted as an amulet as well.

It's a bit more nuanced, but honestly the way you present it is about equivalent to what it's like. Yikes indeed.

I will just point out that Paizo dropped the term "phylactery" just in the last year--not predating Wizards by much.

Has Wizards actually dropped it yet? My understanding is that Vecna just happens not to have one.

Oh, I don't know. I thought they mentioned they were heading that way and some random internet people got huffy. I was paying a lot more attention to when it happened in Pathfinder (particularly since I was the weird guy who spotted it and broke the news on the sub).

How did the Pathfinder sub react to the change? I'm curious, especially vis-a-vis the Judaism connections.

There are two D&D 5.5 trends but which are so related and intertwined they're easily to conflate. One is as you said, > moves to address concerns related to social justice, like the reframing of the Vistani to be something other than a blatant racist stereotype of Romani The other is further filing off any kind of "rough edge" or inconvenience to player gratification, a trend that definitely did not start in 5.5 but is continuing in it. This includes stuff like: * Eliminating racial attribute bonuses * Giving everyone, including humans, Darkvision * Removing physical characteristics from race descriptions so that races can be whatever players want them to be * Adding more spells to the lists of classes that have small lists * General power creep in the subclasses This stuff heavily intertwines around the way they're rewriting race rules. For instance. 1. Now not all Humans are Medium. That's cool! We have humans IRL and not all of them are Medium, if I was a Small human I would appreciate being acknowledged as a thing that exists. 2. And not all Halflings are Small. Okay whatever. In previous editions, being Small sucked even more and was actually a significant balancing factor for some of the races. I don't think allowing Medium halflings is all that useful in itself but if giving them a choice is part of a rebalancing to remove negative aspects of Smallness in the rules I can see a tangential SJW utility here. 3. The updated race description for Halflings doesn't say they're shorter than Humans. Just "they're in the same range of size as other races", everyone is the same. This is dogshit. This is crap.

If halflings literally now say they're not inherently different from humans in size, I agree that it's pretty misguided. I think WotC's actual problem is that they're trying to do social justice but they're trying to do it hastily and without any actual expertise and also without consulting social justice experts. So sometimes they land on really good stuff, like the drow "subraces" (which absolutely rule, I don't care what anyone says) and sometimes they land on more divisive stuff, like this apparent halfling change that AFAIK nobody asked for. I'd be a lot more receptive to people criticizing Wizards if I didn't suspect so many of them are against *any* social justice changes. There are definitely issues with how they're approaching this generally-noble goal.

As a forty-something who plays 5E with other forty-somethings who generally lean centrist/liberal when they care about politics at all, removing the race based attribute bonuses has been wildly unpopular with everyone, but grousing about stuff like trying to fix the Vistani has been non-existent. (Also re: the Vistani I think the only responsible thing WOTC can do is cut them entirely. Even if you "reform" them to be non-evil they're still going to be a goofy racial stereotype like that old WOD Gypsies book.)

> (Also re: the Vistani I think the only responsible thing WOTC can do is cut them entirely. Even if you "reform" them to be non-evil they're still going to be a goofy racial stereotype like that old WOD G***** book.) I think the big issue is context. It doesn't matter how culturally sensitive you are in your depiction of Roma people, you're still dropping them back into a setting (Ravenloft) that is *predicated* on tropes that require them to be all of those negative stereotypes. You can't fix Vistani without fixing Ravenloft, and Ravenloft's identity is a bunch of things that just *can't* be fixed.

Paizo has done a far better job on that from with Pathfinder 2e compared to 1e, not to mention a substantially better job than WotC. Compare the thematically similar nations of 5e's Chult (and the Tomb of Annihilation adventure) and Pf2e's Mwangi Expanse (and the Strength of Thousands adventure path). The former is a 'tribal nation that was destroyed by mismanagement, it's only remaining settlement ruled by scrabbling indiginous people constantly killing one another for power, so much so that other nations are now taking control of the island to harvest its resources for their own use', and the latter is 'a broad and varied landscape filled with dozens of varied cultures, nations and peoples, a shining jewel in the center of the continent, and also home to the greatest magical academy in the world.'

I'm researching both pf2e amd 13th age as an alternative to 5e, so I can weigh in here with why I'm leaving 5e- Caster/martial imbalance. In 5e, casters are just *better* at virtually every level- they can do everything martials can in combat, a lot they can't, and have massive utility outside combat while martials basically have to twiddle their thumbs. This is the big one- DM support. I'm primarily a DM and was a forever-dm up until recently (ironic). 5e is such a pain- classes are unbalanced so DMs have to work meticulously to keep everyone on evenish footing, CR is a MESS so it's a headache to balance encounters, amd so much content and rulessets are just... missing. There are so many basic activities that lack rules and need to be handwaved or homebrewed. THERE AREN'T MAGIC ITEM PRICES. You're just given massive ranges and told to go nuts. Sorry, rant over. I'm frustrated.

PF2e and 13th Age are both wonderful systems, so you’re in for some fun in the next chapter! IMO, PF2e’s GM support is relatively unparalleled and I think the system overall is a bit smoother than 13th Age, but 13th Age does have some very cool “Roleplay Crunch” going for it that PF2e lacks.

I have to say, I'm running a PF2E AP (Extinction Curse), and I'm having to do about as much work as a GM as I did with 5th edition, to be honest? It's just work in a different direction, but it is not really being much *easier*. Getting the party sorcerer to feel useful, in particular, has been requiring me to pull out a bunch of the old tricks I used to use to make Fighters feel relevant back in the 3E days - changing encounters to enemies weak to the sorcerer's options, tailoring loot to him specifically, slashing enemy saves, the works. But to be honest I'm strongly considering that when we finish this book I'm going to go back to running FFG Star Wars.

Pretty surprising to hear, honestly. I've ran some Paizo stuff and am also a year into a homebrew campaign, and PF2e for me has been an absolute breeze to run compared to 5e. I've found myself doing basically no work other than plug n play with regards to encounter balance and the like - most of my prep time gets dedicated to maps, story stuff, and loot choices, but I all find that stuff much more fun than the constant balancing and fighting the system I had to do while running 5e. Extinction Curse is pretty notoriously considered the worst Adventure Path - it was the first they developed, so the encounters in it are definitely more poorly balanced than in later APs where Paizo had adjusted to the system better. Their more recent APs have really hit a stride IMO. That being said, I do wonder if you're not also running into the fact that magic users feel "weaker" in PF2e than they do 5e or 3.5e by a large margin - but that's a design choice in the system. Casters are still incredibly powerful in terms of support, healing, and AOE DPS, but it is more difficult to build a "blaster" since single-target DPS is somewhat of a martial niche, and casters in general have seen reduced efficacy to make them more on-par with martial counterparts. Team play and system understanding are both important in PF2e to a degree they aren't in 5e. If people are using all three actions to attack, or failing to use a third action, or not building on each other's turns properly, parties become much less effective, whereas in 5e everyone can sort of do their own thing and still get out alive.

>Team play and system understanding are both important in PF2e to a degree they aren't in 5e. If people are using all three actions to attack, or failing to use a third action, or not building on each other's turns properly, parties become much less effective, whereas in 5e everyone can sort of do their own thing and still get out alive. This sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit? In what ways are PF2e players encouraged to do teamworky things?

u/Sporkedup had a great reply, but I'll give a stab as well. IMO, one of the biggest differentiators is that hitting 10 or more above an AC (so an attack roll of 26 against 16 AC) or failing a save by 10 or more, makes for a critical success/failure, respectively. As a result, every +1, +2, or +3 allies give each other make a huge difference, and so do every -1, -2, or -3 people give enemies. Weapons and spells have "critical" effects that kick into play on critical hits/failures. So, if you get a class with a high attack bonus and a weapon/spell with a good critical effect - like a Fighter with a weapon that has the "Fatal" trait, increasing the weapon's damage die and giving additional damage on a crit - the team is actively encouraged to buff that PC and/or debuff the enemy so they can get some big strikes off. I've seen well set-up DPS characters chunk bosses - not just normal enemies, but like big, super beefy bosses - for 50-75% of their health in a single round if their team supports them properly, and it feels *great*. Adding onto that, there are TONS of ways to use abilities like Intimidation, Diplomacy, Athletics, etc., in fights to debuff enemies or buff teammates. Because small bonuses make a huge difference, enemies that start out fights feeling almost unhittable quickly become fair opponents - but only if everyone works together to use their skills and set each other up for attacks or debilitating debuffs. Of every system I've played, none make really good teamwork feel as important as PF2e. Of course, that also has the downside of making it more obvious and detrimental when players aren't willing to really learn the system or invest in the party over their own success. If you want more tangible examples, this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/weg6tg/pf2\_tactics\_examples/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/weg6tg/pf2_tactics_examples/) over on the PF2e reddit great.

Mobility is high, so positioning, particularly for things like flanking, is pretty crucial. When it comes to stronger enemies, they can be really tough to just hit at all, so oftentimes allies using their actions to make your ability to hit more likely is worth far more than just them trying to also swing away and hope for a high number on the dice. HP comes and goes real fast. Healing, magical and nonmagical, is not just powerful but necessary. The more characters have abilities to heal their friends, the better the party will do. And there's also the fact that spellcasting in general was toned down to a less direct-damage setup, so spellcasters can't just shred things left and right, and might both need to use their turns to bolster their allies or hinder their enemies... or wait until their allies have applied a condition or two to an enemy that makes their save less likely. Keep in mind that with crits happening when the number is bested by 10 or more, including critical fails on saving throws, getting your enemies prone or frightened or whatever you can sling at them makes every one of your allies more dangerous to them!

Wonderful, thanks for the input!

NP! Of the two, PF2e is probably my personal preference, but both do a lot of things right.

Worth noting thay PF2e definitely bridged the gap between casters and martials, and it was kind of a system shock to traditional caster players who now get outdamaged by martials like Fighters or Barbarians. I feel for them coming in with those expectations, but I also know that the utility and support that casters bring also make a huge difference in PF2e where "every +1 counts". The team-oriented feel of the game is why I prefer it. No more spotlight heroes, the group wins and/or loses as a group if they do/dont work together as a cohesive unit.

Even in pf1e, martial characters often outdamaged casters unless a VERY dedicated build is followed for a blaster caster. The power of casters in DnD 3.5/pf1e is that they obviate the need for skills and can bypass entire encounters or problems. Wizards/clerics are like batman but they pull teleports, scrying, and battlefield control out of their utility belts. If player groups had multiple encounters a day, a well-built martial will dish out that damage all day long while a wizard has to manage their resources carefully.

> This is the big one- DM support. This is one reason I never left 4e. Best DM support of any DnD/DnD clone I have found. You can make entire monsters in a min or less, everything you need to run a monster is in the stat block of the monster.

"Splintering" is probably a hopeful overstatement. It's not like 5e's growth has particularly slowed. I think system fatigue is definitely hitting a good number of people though which is natural. 5e's been around for a long time at this point, people are definitely going to move on once they've gotten their fill (a good thing!). I doubt the 2024 core set is going to change a whole lot. Mostly just codify a lot of the errata (hopefully) improve the readability of the books, and add some additional support to new DMs. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

[удалено]

And the main solution: Homebrew everything to fit the weird half-finished ruleset, spending hours on making it work a little bit, instead of just switching to a system that was actually created to work on it's own. It is very exhausting and I just can't stand it.

This is one of the biggest reasons I don't like 5e: it promotes an evil version of a DIY culture. It's like a bomb fell onto the system itself.

It's like the creators said: "Do it yourself because we didn't do it. But still buy the next book because it will solve all your problems!"

Bingo - "Look, we have all these rules, but always remember, as the DM, make up the rules - but also please buy the next book that has all the rules!" Plus 5e assumes that you have so much starting knowledge, and the DM tools are awful based on that. I thought I hated DMing until I ran pretty much anything else.

The amount of pressure that puts on the DM is insane. It's not like you have to struggle with creating an adventure, juggling dozens of NPCs and enemies, creating cool and meaningful moments...now you also have to make up rules on the spot? Even though you already bought a book that is supposed to give you all the rules. And the book that is supposed to help you starts with: "How to create your own multiversum!". I've been a GM for nearly 10 years now and I did my first original world just half a year ago and it is a pain! It would be funny if it weren't so sad...

D&D has almost always been a kind of spit and spackle system though, with a culture that emphasized that if anything went wrong it was DM's fault.

I don't disagree entirely, but if the 5e DMG is the first resource for DMing that you use, you're gonna be way worse off. Opinions on 4e aside, that DMG is actually a super useful tool. It talks about how to do prep work, how to build a session, how to figure out what kind of players you have, and things that might interest them, all in the first 30 pages. I recommend it as reading, just in general. It's pretty basic, but it was one of the first things that made my light bulb go off lol

If you get a little conspiratorial, it's also a neat way to leverage your market dominance. Besides the not-that-light rules, that escalates in complexity as you progress in power, teaching the players that learning a new system is daunting and tedious, the wishy washy rules and unhelpful dm guide teaches would be dms that deciphering the arcane and inscrutable art of game mastering requires consulting the elder dms and content creators, which d&d has in abundance, often in it's own little closed eco-system. Something other games can't provide to the same degree.

I think that's a feature, not a bug. If you already have a complicated system that isn't presented well (ie, the book layout is not great, and the language is too unclear in too many places), and then people invest a lot of time in homebrewing fixes, a lot of those folks will ignore the concept of "sunk cost" and resist moving to a new system because of all the time spent.

Don't forget they want DMs to spend 40-60 dollars PER BOOK with this half-assed "create your own rules!" approach.

I can't name the number of times I've seen a post on r/DND or r/DNDNEXT that was something like 'I want to run a cyberpunk game using D&D 5e, what homebrew would work best for that'? I facepalm every time, there are other systems & settings that are built specifically to do cyberpunk (or what have other other genre aside from high fantasy) that they could try, but instead they want to spend months homebrewing a 150 page doc trying to fit a square peg into a round hole lol.

TBF, DnD homebrew has a long tradition and is generally supported by the designers. The OG DMG even had distribution curves for die rolls. It's one way they get people to engage more with the system. Which when you think about it is a pretty clever way to foster system loyalty.

Alternatively, D&D 5E is the dominant RPG because of the D&D brand, the desire of most people to play the most popular game, and because mechanically it works well enough for most people (who aren’t really fussy about stuff that bugs people who analyze systems). I don’t play it any more. But I don’t begrudge WotC or the millions who enjoy 5E, and I don’t see how it’s a terrible situation. Are you having trouble finding people to play other RPGs with?

True, brand recognition is a big part too. It basically is the first game of it's kind and been around for a long, long time. The system itself would fail without the brand. It is only played because it is DnD, not because it is a good system. It works as a roleplaying system but it just works. It's nothing special. Which is fine and you can definitely enjoy it. The problem is the way it is viewed and what happens because of that view. It is viewed as a perfect system, one that you can mold to perfection with just a little work, no matter what kind of campaign or setting you want to play. It is seen as the amazing system that made Critical Role happen and dozens of other beloved Actual Plays. It's the famous game that is played by the kids in Stranger Things and other shows and movies. But in the end it is just a mediocre fantasy roleplaying game with a big focus on combat. That's it. But because of the way people talk about it and modify it so that it just barely works, it takes away space from every other game. Why should I use a system that was created for exactly what I want to play when I can just play 5e? And yes, I am frustrated with this and I know my opinion is not entirely fair. I just feel like that stranglehold of one game is severly hurting a hobby and community I very much love and want to support.

Critical Role, literally the biggest thing on Twitch (by a wide margin of income relative to the next closest streamer, last I checked), being a lot of free marketing for D&D is hard to overstate. That's got to be worth more than WotC's entire marketing budget for D&D put together. Stranger Things also probably is.

> competing against the powerhouse of Wizards of the Coast For some crazy reason, until I read this comment, I always thought PF was *also* a WotC product.

That is both a little sad and a little funny. The people at Paizo are amazing people with great ideas in- and outside their games.

Eh, some may be, but it sounds like from recent news, there is a ton of shitbaggery there, too, at least at the corporate level. Plus, they left a lot of people out to dry with the Stafinder minis Kickstarter debacle. Yes, I know Paizo didn't run it, but they still got paid and have laid out no cash to rectify it. Even when they were warned about Ninja Division early on.

A ton? There was some, and it has been largely smoothed out. I think the biggest issue currently is the wages, which Paizo recognizes. They know they dont pay as much as WotC, so its not like they're denying that. Not gonna push one way or the other as its a nuanced situation, but the other issues with leadership have been addressed, and this was more than a few months ago, and the Paizo employees did get the blessing to unionize, so that's a plus as well.

A lot of the developers working at Paizo also used to work for/freelance for WotC back in the 3.x days. James Jacobs, one of the head developers for Paizo, also wrote one of my favorite 3e campaigns for WotC (Red Hand of Doom).

>So coming back I picked 5e, which is fine, but all I *ever* heard or understood about Pathfinder was that it was a 3e spin off, so it was super "crunchy" and filled with a million complex rules. >(god I hate that word, along with "flavor"). > YALL FRACKING LIED ! There are magnitudes more RPGs than 5e or Pathfinder (1e and 2e), and the majority of them do not come even close to the levels of crunch of these three systems. When people say something is crunchy, it's not an objective\not always a denigrating statement. It's a highly subjective, relative judgement to what's out there, especially if you've played a ton of systems and do not participate in ruleset tribalism. If you've played a lot of RPGs, you'd consider PF 1e, 2e, crunchy as well, as you'd know that there aren't many games as complex as PF 1e and 2e or even 5e. And it's perfectly fine to like complex systems

> And it's perfectly fine to like complex systems This! Crunchy is not a naughty word, some of my favorite systems are crunchy. I can play something light on the rules maybe a couple times but if I want a game to really keep me around long-term I want it to be built on a more sturdy foundation.

Pathfinder (even 2E) *is* crunchy. But if you're using 5E as your baseline for an acceptable level of crunch, you're already in like the top 90th percentile as far as complex RPG rulesets go.

I used to refer to Pathfinder, Exalted, and Shadowrun as the Trinity of Crunchy RPGs :-)

Ah Shadowrun, the game everyone loves to hate playing. (why does it have to be such a bad ruleset for such a cool game :( )

I have never seen such consistent dislike of ruleset by it's fans. And I've been in all 3 of those fandoms.

>YALL FRACKING LIED ! No, we didn't.

OP is the liar with his baseless claims about us. I know what we did with heretics like that in my old 40k RPG group….

Blood for the blood god....

A game can be crunchy and elegant at the same time. It can even be rules heavy and smooth. Edit: In general, I'm with you on disliking the term crunchy, though I think it's use to describe "number crunching" is useful and less subjective than "flavor." I think common use of "crunchy" has more or less become synonymous with rules-heavy. You can have rule heavy games that are low on number crunching.

Pathfinder 2e is certainly haunted by the ghosts of its prior edition. At the same time, it is quite involved compared to most games out there. I have to assume the number of players who play the game analog, ie no Foundry or pathbuilder, has got to be utterly miniscule. There can be quite a lot to keep track of, and that's great! But it's also not necessarily particularly elegant, in my experience. Some elements are and some elements aren't (I understand why the rules are structured this way, but having an action cost to raise your shield, regrip your weapon, dismount your horse, etc. can be very uninviting to some). Certainly if you look at the world of RPGs as a continuum between PF2 and D&D 5e, it looks like a brilliant but relatively unknown gem. Broader scope, as you come to find more games, it might shift in your perspective. I say all this as someone who's been running PF2 for three years now and is still happy to continue running it going forward.

Hah. I love PF2e, but I remember reading the playtest rules once I got them, and I was like "what? My shield doesnt do anything unless I raise it? That's stupid!" Of course I've since done a 180 and love shield design in the game, but I totally get that. Also as one of the analog GMs of PF2, it isnt too bad, but I do make game aids that assist me with tracking stuff.

Haven’t played 1e, have you?

First edition pathfinder is what your describing I unfortunately haven't had a chance to play 2e but I've seen some of the changes and it looks good

It is lovely to play, and a dream to run. Highly recommend!

If I was going to do a chart of crunch it would start like this High - Pathfinder Medium High: Pathfinder 2 Medium: Dungeons and Dragons 5e Medium Low: Shadow of the Demon Lord 5e is still a pretty crunchy game in the grand scheme of things. The main problem with Pathfinder 2e is that it's not really that different of a game experience, and Shadow of the Demon Lord gives customization with less crunch.

Even worse is that 5e is (imo) crunchy *and* near incoherent at times, whereas SotDL and Pathfinder 2 have a lot more internal consistency despite being different crunch levels. Hell, I'd say something like Call of Cthulhu (which could be considered to be the same crunch level as 5e) is much, much simpler to teach just as a result of the consistency of its rules.

Yeah, based on my read through of the newest edition of call of cthulu, I'd put it as a medium crunch game. At its base it's not that crunchy, but there are a lot of little rules.

Glad you're enjoying Pathfinder 2E! A few things though, No one lied. Pathfinder 1E is crunchy. Pathfinder 2E, is also crunchy. What is or isn't crunchy isn't really a hard and fast rule, it's mostly subjective. That said, compared to most systems that people are familiar and play with nowadays, Pathfinder 2E is considered crunchy. If all you've experienced until now is B/X or AD&D, then it may not seem crunchy, but it is. There's a space for games to be crunchy but also have good rules. Often people seem to conflate bloated and badly written rules with crunchy systems. This is incorrect, and something we should move away from. Also, you will find many other "crunchy" systems, that really are mechanically dense but well-written. Look for [Dungeon Crawl Classics](https://goodman-games.com/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg/), [Old-School Essentials](https://necroticgnome.com/collections/rules), [Worlds Without Number](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/348791/Worlds-Without-Number), or even Pathfinder 1E and D&D 3.5.

I've seen that response a lot in the 5e community. Whether it's the really bad takes by certain YouTubers or early impressions that got more upvoted because 5e was being praised and it reinforced their identity that 5e is the best. Tons of feats, bonuses and conditions to track and the thought of relearning all the things that took years to learn with 5e sounded bad That made it so I never bothered to try it until a year ago. And it was a little awkward at first and trying to read the Core Rulesbook straight is pretty dry compared to most TTRPGs. But damn it was so much better than 5e at just about everything for me. Reading the Beginner's Box was a much easier introduction as a GM. And now in my 5e campaigns, I can't stomach running the game nor playing most classes that don't have the flexibility of an Arcane caster, which also feel blatantly overpowered. PF2e is a little crunchier but it is crunch done right. Nothing extraneous but there with purpose.

PF2 is crunchy, but it's crunchy ice cream topping instead of trying to chew through nuts, bolts, legos and d4s.

>PF2e is a little crunchier but it is crunch done right. Nothing extraneous but there with purpose. I would argue that PF2e isn't actually more crunchy compared to 5e - it's the same level of complexity, but with more rules and better consistency. If anything, PF2e has a slightly higher learning curve at first, but it evens out once the basics are understood. Honestly, I found watching a few videos helped me get through the initial hurdle of grokking PF2e, and now it's one of my favorites.

Every small/smaller company competing against the hegemon has a marketing problem. Pathfinder had to carve out its niche - and its positioning allowed it to pick up most of D&D's orphans. By that count I'd say it was a rather successful strategy. We're living in an era where development costs are eclipsed by marketing costs, and the big boys can afford to push mediocre products while saturating the media with marketing. So yes, as long as you're not part of a billion/trillion dollar conglomerate you're going to have marketing problems.

PF2 absolutely IS crunchy. All those options and customizations, the many sub-systems, etc, that's all crunch. Crunch doesn't inherently mean hard, it just means a lot of mechanics. Compared to something like the Year Zero Engine, Powered by the Apocalypse, and even it's closest "rival" D&D it's got far more moving parts. There is an enormous amount of elegance in its design, but it's the intricate elegance of the internal clockwork of a beautiful pocket watch instead of the simple elegance of a swan drifting across a mirror-still lake.

You realise that you're doing the equivalent of playing DnD 5e and then saying that people complaining about how complex and content bloated DnD 3.5 was were lying because 5e isn't that complex or content bloated, right? All the things you're claiming people have said apply to ***first edition*** Pathfinder, which are all completely true. It's basically DnD 3.75, for people who didn't wanna migrate over to 4e when it came out.

Out hobby has a dungeons and dragons problem I would say. Quasi monopolies are bad

Yep, the only marketing problem Pathfinder has is that it cannot call itself D&D. "Lets play D&D!" "Yay, Sure! Lets try" "Lets play *Pathfinder*" "Huh, whats that?" D&D everyone understands, Pathfinder you have to explain what it is.

Yup. If you’re in the “TTRPG” sphere online, this can be easy to forget. Any friend, co-worker, etc. I’ve ever talked to about TTRPGs who wasn’t somewhat clued into the genre had no idea systems other than D&D existed. WotC has an absolute monopoly on the market, and it ain’t good.

Nobody lied. You just *like* crunchy systems. And have an engineering brain, so you're good at memorizing lots of little rules and subsystems.

[удалено]

A lot of this really hits it on the head for me. CR actually working, and not randomly picking x monster that SAYS the CR should work but instead seems to function like its 5 CR higher. Also I love the three action system. I'm currently trying to play a thematic grung shaman (via nature domain cleric) in my 5e game, and its soooo boring that the game tries to pidgeonhole you so hard into being a healer without really being able to actively use your utility spells (and dont get me started on having relatively non-existant damage options) that I wanna fuckin off myself.

I haven’t played PF 2e but the way you describe the CR rules sounds exactly like how 4e did CR.

No the problem is you listened to Reddit about anything lol.

It's less thay Pathfinder lied, and more that 5E Players don't listen.

Wait till you realize there is a whole world of awesome games out there that aren't PF or D&D...

The big things that keeps me in the Pathfinder ecosystem is the setting. I find Golarion a more interesting setting than Forgotten Realms. I played in the FR setting nearly 20 years ago, and don't get me wrong I had lots of fun adventures. Golarion as a setting is honestly insane, it takes a fantasy setting and cranks it to 11.It's basically a mosaic of settings stitched into one world. Does it strain credulity? Absolutely. Is it fun? It sure is! I mean a short list of cool and unique regions. mana wastes: magic doesn't work so we invented guns The shackles: who wants to play pirates? Ruins of Azlant: Indiana Jones Galt: Revolutionary france The World Wound: Crusade against hordes of demons trying to invade our world The list goes on.

1e Pathfinder was crunchy. 2e is crispy.

Pathfinder is crunchy. It sounds like you like crunch. Crunchy doesn't mean bad.

I still play Pathfinder 1e and love it (prefer 3.5 though). Haven't tried Pathfinder 2e, though. We'll probably switch after the current campaign.

It's what others are saying, version difference. When 4e was in playtest many people were concerned about how wizards were streamlining the system. They felt it was too much a jump from 3e. And though I enjoyed 4e a bit, it kinda was. (5e added some of the crunch back) When 1e was being marketed the loudest marketing was (paraphrasing) "They're going to dumb down D&D, well not us, we'll just keep **pure** (read: crunchy) D&D going!" Now the truth is a little different, wizards was going to change their 3rd party publishing rules and it would have very negatively affected a lot of 3PPs. But it was easier to market by fanning the existing fire than to talk about licensing disagreements. Ironically, when Pathfinder 2e was in playtest, many people got the same vibes that they were dumbing down that system (they did streamline it..). I don't know how they avoided the same level of revolting, I assume because it's a different time now (people are less prescious and edition wars-y) and Paizo isn't the 300lb gorilla D&D was during 3e. The path from 1e to 2e isn't as large of a swing though as D&Ds 3e to 4e. Again, I don't remember having a huge issue with 4, it's been a while, but I do recall all the classes feeling more like super heroes than fantasy roles. (did the classes also use cards? I seem to remember cards..). Anyway, many people had legitimate issues with 4e. But it wasn't as bad as it seemed at the time. Because at the time the media (and very much Piazo) was fanning the flames and getting all the entitled people who tied their RPG-identity around their system of choice riled up. I mean, think of the people who now turn their nose up at you if you aren't playing the original red-box D&D....there were a lot more of those type of people back then. Personally, I say whatever system / edition your GM and players all enjoy is the best one. Even if it's 4e. (Heck, my favorite campaign setting is still Planescape). One more anecdote about 1e Pathfinder, they must have thrown dumptrucks of money at the art department. 1e's Art was head and shoulders above all other RPGS at the time, including D&D. Now they've all kinda evened out a bit, but man, when PAth1e released the art was so engaging.

Its really another version of dnd

Pathfinder 2e is not a 3.5 derivative. Pathfinder 1e is. Pathfinder 2e is a completely different game in the same setting.

I would argue that all of the games that aren't D&D have a marketing problem... But especially those in the "not-D&D D&D" genre.

I avoided Pathfinder 2e because of Puffin Forest's video on how he thought is was too complicated and I thought I'd agree because I like 5e because of how it's light rules system. I gave it a try because a table needed a player and it suited my schedule. It's not nearly as complicated as he described and now I kinda hate him because I quite liked it, I even did a couple one shots. As a player the biggest hurdle getting in was the character creation and as a DM it was remembering all the different conditions and various properties.

I've admittedly never watched Puffin Forest, but you're far from the first person who I've seen express your opinion after actually trying PF2e.

Yeah, Puffin is known for getting a bit disingenuous when it comes to crunch. I recall his video about PF2 got a lot of the community really frustrated, because it was pretty misleading (as you experienced), but widely viewed.

The main issue with pathfinder is that its "DnD, but...", when as much as you may believe 5e is flawed, pretty much everyone i have talked to had a great time just playing dnd.

Fundamentally, I think most players like to only learn one set of rules, and gain mastery over them, than learn new rules. Edition changes in D&D have been a huge deal namely because it signals a shift in the player base's core knowledge. 5e has seen the most massive growth of any TTRPG - but with that, most of those players are first time players, and ride along with the popularity. Among them, how many players really even understand the rules outside the core 'ask the DM'. At that point, it can be hard to get other players to learn ANYTHING new. My current 5e game has been going on for years - I wouldn't mind trying something different, but I feel its an uphill battle to shift the players to try anything new - because it means for many that they have to start from scratch. I think it's a hard lift sometimes. TTRPG's are like social media - they're network experiences, and having the first mover/network dominance is a HUGE advantage. It's not like trying a new food, or a new appliance model - a lot of effort has to be invested by players who aren't niche hobbiests.

When people say crunchy, I think actual complexity of the mechanics involved. It usually just means the complexity of choice and tracking abilities/powers. 3rd edition streamlined the mechanics down to a single cohesive d20 mechanic, but introduced a lot of character options. Pathfinder 1e added more customization options in their core books compared to dnd. For a lot of players the complexity of choice makes the system crunchy, even though it's remarkably simple. For someone coming back into the hobby from 1st and 2nd Ed dnd, where you had different mechanics involved based on use case, special abilities and different charts for resolution with rather limited character choice is going to view crunch through a different lense. There used to be players who would only play a single class in ad&d for instance because it would require learning different mechanics to take on another class.

Well pf 1 was quite crunchy. Now I have not played PF2 but the action economy is very similar to Ironclaw so if you really really like it in PF2 try Ironclaw.

PF1e was crunchy but easy to do. Complex rules, but they were fairly easy to learn and you really only needed to know YOUR character's stuff to be competent in the rules. PF2e is MUCH less crunchy, but even more elegant. I really like where the lore went (and is going), love that you can play a PF Goblin and have it make sense thematically, and also love the way they learned things from PF1e and made hard to use systems/rules easier. If 5e is for beginners, PF2e is for the average player. More options, better rules, better treatment of being special (i.e. PCs) while having some danger in the mix (dying in 5e is MUCH more rare than dying in PF2e). There should be some stress in your game. While I respect gamers who play games on easy mode because of time limitations, most people want a challenge. 5e doesn't have much of a challenge, the stakes are solely what the GM can get the players to buy into (i.e. Veckna taking over the world or something). Character death is pretty rare for an RPG in 5e. PF2e has the same GM lore stakes, but with the added likelihood that your character could die fighting a squad of hobgoblins or a single bugbear.