All D&D groups should at least consider PF2. It’s better in almost every way. Any confusing D&D rule/exception is pretty much fixed in PF2. It also isn’t owned by WotC/Hasbro, which is a nice bonus.
PF2 is only better if you want tactical combat and lots of options to create builds. Sorry to inform you that’s it’s not what all tables want, so no, “All D&D groups” does not have to consider PF2.
It’s the case in mine (and we play a lot of differents ttrpgs). PF2 is just too much, and is in the same boat as Shadowrun : ain’t nobody got time for that.
(also, as 5e is CC-BY now, it is not “own” by anyone (only the D&D brand is), wich is not the case with the ORC licence and Paizo)
No, it’s also better if you want an internally consistent system built on top of sensible principles. Or a system with reliable baseline for power scaling. Or if you want to invite an optimizer or a newbie to your table.
It’s not a “tactical combat RPG”. That’s a wild misconception propagated by both tactical combat fans and people who have looked over the hedge and been scared away by somethings being different. It is, instead, a well crafted systemic RPG, designed with reliability at its centre.
Reliability enables tactical combat, which is why TC fans flocked to the system, but it enables a hell of a lot more, too.
It’s also better if you want a steady stream of new content without paying Hasbro or relying on randos.
PF2 is very similar to 5E. Sure, PF1 is too much, but 2 is basically 5e without the need to memorize a shit ton of exceptions because the rules weren’t thought out when they were first written.
(also, as 5e is CC-BY now, it is not “own” by anyone (only the D&D brand is), wich is not the case with the ORC licence and Paizo)
If you buy an official book or pay a subscription, that money is going to WotC. That’s what I mean by own, and that’s what everyone means. Sure, you can create content for it legally still. That doesn’t not mean they don’t own the system.
Follow the Leader in PF2 solves this gracefully as well
All D&D groups should at least consider PF2. It’s better in almost every way. Any confusing D&D rule/exception is pretty much fixed in PF2. It also isn’t owned by WotC/Hasbro, which is a nice bonus.
PF2 is only better if you want tactical combat and lots of options to create builds. Sorry to inform you that’s it’s not what all tables want, so no, “All D&D groups” does not have to consider PF2.
It’s the case in mine (and we play a lot of differents ttrpgs). PF2 is just too much, and is in the same boat as Shadowrun : ain’t nobody got time for that.
(also, as 5e is CC-BY now, it is not “own” by anyone (only the D&D brand is), wich is not the case with the ORC licence and Paizo)
No, it’s also better if you want an internally consistent system built on top of sensible principles. Or a system with reliable baseline for power scaling. Or if you want to invite an optimizer or a newbie to your table.
It’s not a “tactical combat RPG”. That’s a wild misconception propagated by both tactical combat fans and people who have looked over the hedge and been scared away by somethings being different. It is, instead, a well crafted systemic RPG, designed with reliability at its centre.
Reliability enables tactical combat, which is why TC fans flocked to the system, but it enables a hell of a lot more, too.
It’s also better if you want a steady stream of new content without paying Hasbro or relying on randos.
PF2 is very similar to 5E. Sure, PF1 is too much, but 2 is basically 5e without the need to memorize a shit ton of exceptions because the rules weren’t thought out when they were first written.
If you buy an official book or pay a subscription, that money is going to WotC. That’s what I mean by own, and that’s what everyone means. Sure, you can create content for it legally still. That doesn’t not mean they don’t own the system.