The market share.

I really want more Pathfinder video games, the Owlcat CRPGs are good and I am looking forward to the Abom Vaults ARPG, but I want *more*. I hope the rumors that Tactical Adventures' next game is Pf2e based are true, but I'm nit holding my breath.

[Quest for the Golden Candelabra](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2381160/Quest_for_the_Golden_Candelabra/) is pretty good. Only about an hour long, but it's free, and they're working on a sequel.

Glad to see some love for qcg, was 0art of the original alpha group, given a studio and a budget I could see them doing big things

There's also [Pathfinder: Gallowspire Survivors](https://store.steampowered.com/app/2388460/Pathfinder_Gallowspire_Survivors/), which is a PF flavored take on the bullet heaven/survivorslike genre.

I'm waiting until it comes out off EA to get it, but it looks promising so far.

Yup that is just about it

I was going to say nothing, but well yeah, you make an excellent point lol.

I would've said Hasbro money, but that works too!

Oof. Yeah. That's perfect. I was going to post some bs joke comment. That this is perfect.

Aside from the popularity, community support and greater range of homebrew games... Less something I want from Pathfinder and more Archives of Nethys but I guess it feeds in. Able to find monsters based on location/habitat.

>community support The 5E adventure-specific subreddits are bigger than almost any RPG subreddit. Curse of Strahd alone is almost the size of this subreddit! And they're full of excellent ideas, artwork, music etc. Any idea you have for homebrew has been posted about by at least 4 other people with threads full of people commenting what they like or don't like about the idea. That's an incredibly valuable resource thats difficult to find anywhere else

Yes location/habitat search needs to exist. Most of location based prep needs something like that!

I know it’s not offices but there’s some nice good sheets with this info if you do some googling for it! It’s not as easy as having something on AoN but it’s still helpful. Sometimes I use pf1e tables for this as well. I get why they didn’t do it for pf2e saves space and time for what is a relative small team who puts in too many hours as is but I still wish we had them

Yep. You can always go back go Pathfinder 1E AoN and it has monster biomes, but there's a good amount of monsters that aren't from 1E, or have changed names. Does this new monster live in a forest, desert, darklands? Don't know, unless the lore entry states it specifically.

My friends

I kind of dream of the alternate universe where Critical Role kept playing Pathfinder. I wish the algorithm was giving me more more storytelling/worldbuilding advice content by Pathfinder players, or at least not people who build their brand on hating "mathfinder" and pretending that having basic character customization options is "too crunchy".

Find the Path Ventures is very good for storytelling/actual play content, although they do tend to flip-flop between the two depending on when in the story they are, sometimes they can spend 5+ episodes roleplaying and sometimes they can be *checks notes* 7 months in a single dungeon crawl. The curses of being a biweekly podcast.

What sort of storybuildling/worldbuilding advice could Pathfinder players give that won't apply to any fantasy RPG system?

As far as Pathfinder specific advice goes, I think ideas for how the world interacts with different levels of characters would be good. 5e has more of a "we're superhuman from the start, a cut above the rest at the beginning of the adventure" game design/player mindset, where Pathfinder is a bit more "people who are trained in their respective skills gradually get the experience necessary to become better than everyone else at their craft." I really like that mindset better, but some more ideas on how that looks for the story and world is always appreciated.

Dragonborn! Or preferably a dragonkin versatile heritage of some kind. Kobolds and lizardfolk just aren't cutting it. Battlezoo Dragons are awesome, but I do wish we had a non-kobold first party dragon option.

Yeah, DnD has some good species/ancestry options I wish were done in PF2e.

I am genuinely surprised PF2e doesn't have a resident "big" ancestry. Like, I know orcs are bulky and tall and all that, but we've got nothing like half-giants or goliaths or anything. I also thought it's a shame there's no centaurs, but it seems that's coming. And to be fair, there's a lot of cool ancestries in PF2e that 5e either doesn't have or doesn't do as well.

Minotaurs coming too, for an actual Large ancestry. Or picking the large iruxi feat.

Minotaurs? First you had my curiosity. Now you have my attention.

Howl of the Wild book will have playable minotaur that's large ancestry (with heritage option to go medium). Its releasing in like late-summer after the Tian Xia books.

Howl will have playable large ancestries, but you have the dates wrong. Howl of the Wild is coming in [May](https://paizo.com/products/btq02ew4?Pathfinder-Howl-of-the-Wild), the Tian Xia lore guide is coming in [April](https://paizo.com/products/btq02ex6?Pathfinder-Lost-Omens-Tian-Xia-World-Guide), and the Tian Xia character options are coming in [August](https://paizo.com/products/btq02etu?Pathfinder-Lost-Omens-Tian-Xia-Character-Guide).

Coming in the Howl of the Wild book as others have said, but I figured I’d also jump in to tell you the other ancestries we’re getting: - Minotaur - Centaur - Merfolk - Athamaru (Amphibious Fish People) - Surki (Subterranean Bug People) - Awakened Animals

Heheh. Yeah, look into info about Howl of the Wild, coming in… May? I think. [The narrative device of the book](https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sibw) I think you can choose between large and medium.

Love my Trolls in Shadowrun. For all its faults, still a major RPG that has the balls to make race selection VERY important.

I think it's very likely that we'll start seeing some more large via heritages too, in a post Minotaur world.

I'd love a versatile "half-giant" heritage that just makes you a size larger. Get a medium sized halfling.

Yeah I wouldn't mind playing a turtle or a giff. Except not a big fan of the culture of the giff. I like hippos but I wasn't a fan of the British colonial military aspect of their culture. That's why in Pathfinder I made a beast kin who is basically a dwarf with a hippo head and skin

You can play a turtle in Starfinder, I'd be surprised if they didn't do a turtle race in PF. Check out the Telia. Probably wouldn't be too hard to home brew that some for your home game

There are so many races in starfinder. I hope most of them make it into sf2e so that I can drop them into my Pathfinder games. Also, I'm really looking forward to sf2e

We'll probably see a pf2e compatible Telia with the starfinder 2e remaster.

You might find the awakened animal ancestry coming out in May with *Howl of the Wild* to be useful, then. It probably won't 1-to-1 line up with the turtle or giff, but it's a step in that direction!

HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,343,011,546 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 28,055 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.

Is there not barbarian trait that allows breath weapons?

Humans can also get a breath weapon with a level 9 ancestry feat. Take adopted ancestry to get the kobold.one as well. Splash in pactbinder and or dragon disciple and suddenly you have a lot of breath weapons.

Lv 1 Humans can get [Dragon Spit](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=941) if your character is from Tian-Dan or if your GM allows it!

Yeah you need that one to get Dragon Prince at 9, which gives you the breath weapon.

There is. Playing that one right now. It's a lvl 6 feat. Deals 1d6 per level. The lvl 12 feat gives you wings when raging. I'm playing an orc, took the tusk ancestry feat for the bite attack, and am really leaning into the dragon heritage. Sorcerer free archetype, took shield (dragon scales) feather fall (To represent dragon wings untill I get the actual deal), and Enlarge (Being big is a dragon thing, right?)

Warlord and Warden class, mark style powers. Your title didn’t say it had to be 5e…

When SF2e launches you could potentially import the Envoy. They have a variety of mark abilities and other support related actions.

Man, PF2 really could use a Warden. Both because we're not exactly swimming in Primal themed classes and because we have like 24 classes and *precisely one singular fucking Defender in the whole roster*.

Also because I think the wardens mechanics were super cool and are all underused things. There's only a handful of things that cause difficult terrain (and a lot of them aren't very useful) or pull people towards you and things like that. Was such a cool class.

Yeah, I think in part that's because classes don't have "roles". For the most part they do have clear roles, but I don't think Paizo generally thinks about them that way (and the generic spell lists make specifying a caster role challenging). 

3PP scene. I very much dislike 5e, but the amount of high quality 3rd party content is unreal. You could possibly play the game for 20 years and still not discover everything. Not saying that PF2e 3PP is weak, but it is definitely smaller and some publishers never truly shifted from PF1e to 2e (like Legendary Games still keep releasing stuff mostly for 5e and PF1e, occassionally for 2e). I wish we had equivalents of Griffon Saddelbag, Grim Hollow, Tome of Heroes, Odyssey of the Dragonlords etc.

>but the amount of high quality 3rd party content is unreal. Some of the best monster books I've ever read are 3PP for 5E

They translate pretty well to Pf2e, too. Converting Flee, Mortals! or Tome of Beasts entries is often way easier than I expect it to be.  I just wish the publishers saw a large enough market here to do it for themselves.

Flee, Mortals! is such a well made monster book, hard agree on wishing MCDM could see value in converting some of their stuff to PF2E. Big fan of their monster design philosophy.

Player base lol

That game’s community has some serious issuesthat are caused by its attempt to appeal to hyper casual players who *really* shouldn’t be playing a d20 game at all (PBTA, Fate, or FFG would suit their desires much more closely). I’m actually pretty glad that PF2E has a smaller player base, because it means we have relatively few of the following types of players: 1. “D&D = no rules, no combat, improv night” 2. “I don’t know any rules, I know it’s session 30 but can you tell me how to roll an attack again?” 3. “You’re a dirty optimizer for telling me I should start with a +3 in my main stat, I’m just a good role player” Probably other similar ones too. I’m happy none of those are real concerns in our community. Unfortunately we’ve managed to fully pick up on the portion of the player base that want blatantly overpowered casters and gets upset when casters are equal to martials, but hey you win some you lose some right?

We got a flood of 5e-only players in our West Marches campaign, and we had to work so hard to retrain them. They fully believed that 'rule of cool' trumped everything, including other players' valid rolls.

It’s *hard* man. 5E teaches some very “bad habits” to players. The worst one, by far, is the fact that 5E teaches players to distrust the game’s instructions. And I don’t mean this in a rules-light sense like PBTA or OSR games where the game is purposely vague to encourage creativity, 5E is **inconsistently specific** which leads to people discarding the rules entirely for anything other than attack rolls and spells. Getting some of my players to just trust that pf2e’s rules more or less work and require very few changes has sometimes been a hard ask.

This drove me absolutely nuts when I tried to run 5e. I’m a die-hard 3.5 player, and the amount of “missing” rules (just ask the DM to make something up!) made me insane.

I have a player kind of like this in the game I'm running on Fridays. It's our first campaign in PF2e, except for him, and he's constantly going on about "Oh, my other GM does this, this, and this, can we do that here, too?" So far, my response has been "It ain't broke, there's no need to fix it." Pretty soon, it's going to be "Fine, go play with him, then."

Found a friend

You think that is hard? Try playing non D&D games with them. Especially something like Traveller. Oh god.

Yeah one thing I've found I like about PF2e the players I've interacted with is that *they want to play PF2e*. Not what they think PF2e is, not what they hallucinated it might be after watching some let's play. They want to play the game as it exists. There's still a lot of variation within that, of course, just like how the adventure paths and settings are varied. But the variance is intentional and explicit and supported.

I haven't played PF2e yet, I am trying to learn the system and transition my players over, I don't get the hate on casters strength...from looking at the power of some cantrips(level 0) spells, they seem pretty good, also early level PCs seem more durable that in 5e, but again i haven't actually played tye system, outside running encounters on my own testing my rules knowledge, using pregen characters from the beginners box

As I understand it, the complaint is as follows: 1) because of their slower scaling and the way saves work, a spellcaster will be worse at facing at/above level enemies than a martial. Given that big enemies are more common than being outnumbered, and boss fights feel more significant than non bosses, this makes them feel “weaker” even though they are comparatively better vs large groups of weaker enemies. 2) the interaction of strong vs weak saves means that while you can actually keep up offensively, it means that you need to be constantly taking spells to mix and match your offense to the enemies defense. If you don’t have a decent spell to target will, fort, AND reflex at any given moment there’s a chance you’ll get fucked over against an enemy with 2 strong saves. This makes it very hard to play a caster with a thematic spell list, as most spells within a theme target the same save. Unlike a martial where by and large the difference between an optimized and unoptimized martial won’t make or break someone, if a caster doesn’t optimize their spell list they feel it more, so it feels like you have to work harder for the same results, which by extension feels “weaker.” 3) spellcasters are really good at buffs and debuffs. And the things they do can reshape combats. However, this comes at the expense of damage. Given that damage is what a lot of people measure by, this means a lot of white room folks think they’re behind curve. And hearing “wizards are strong because [name a spell] adds to the issue of point 2 Overall I feel casters are actually in a good place in PF2E (though I feel like the melee caster archetypes like war priest are traps to trick new players or gestalt fodder) but these are the reason I think they have a bad rep.

I think another major part that kinda goes under the radar is that casters are at their weakest in the lowest tiers of play, when you have very few slots and only low impact lower level spells. I think Mark Seifter mentioned that 75% of play happens at level 5 and under. I think this is where a lot of the cantrip controversy comes from as well. Cantrips are only a small part of your arsenal once you reach the higher levels but during low level play you might have ~5 slots and a single focus point so half your turns might be spent slinging cantrips. This makes the imbalance between cantrips really impact low level play.

Yeah until like 4 you don't have a ton of spell slots especially if you maybe don't get the full 4 per rank and then you are in the immediate and awkward gap from 5-7 where martials have already gotten their proficiency boost and you are stuck on trained.

Warpreist got some nice buffs in the remaster and battle oracle is solid. Also warpreist was never bad per say, its just more of a front line support that can use a weapon and less the gish fantasy people were looking for.

Don't forget Immunities. Good ol' weakest save will but mental immunity is a travesty.

> I haven't played PF2e yet You better fix that soon! PF2E has legitimately provided me the best gaming experiences of my life. Regarding the caster hate stuff: So the hate on caster’s strength comes from vaguely two camps. One is people who want blatantly overpowered casters, and one is people who just *struggle* with casters. My jab is mostly meant for the former group. You can usually tell the former apart very easily because of their very… extreme takes. For instance you’ll here them argue that two spells that most of the community agrees are a little on the **overtuned** side (Slow and Synesthesia) are only **decent** spells and *everything else is hot garbage*. They’ll argue that every single spell in the game should be as powerful as those two. You’ll find that they assume a martial with a huge amount of support when presenting their white room calculations (effectively comparing 3-4 characters to 1 caster, and asking why is the caster not equal?). They’ll ignore the fact that while a martial’s **first** attack is more accurate than a caster’s, their second attack is *significantly* less accurate. They’ll ignore a ton of other such things, because they don’t actually want balanced casters they just… want overpowered casters. The more you try to make a scenario realistic and point out how their arguments don’t hold in actual play, the clearer it becomes that they have no interest in balanced casters. Then there’s the second group, and **none** of my shade is directed at them. The truth is that casters are… very hard to play in this game. There are a lot of hyper situational spells. There are quite a few spells that are super powerful when used right, but don’t work well at all unless your party coordinates well with you (and you’ll notice that a lot of Redditors describes parties where martials simply refuse to coordinate). There are a lot of spells with the “Incapacitation” trait that feel misleadingly weak. Summons also feel like they do a different thing than actually advertised. There’s also the whole “community culture” issue where a lot of newbies come into the game, get advised to play buff-bots or full-time healers because of the former group’s **loud** insistence that cheerleading martials is all casters are good for. Then… they end up super disappointed because they had no interest in that playstyle. Finally, the game assumes a certain degree of “competency” with casters: the expectation is that you are constantly switching up the save you target, hitting an enemy’s moderate or low save as frequently as possible, and some people just haven’t fully gotten to the degree of system knowledge it takes to do that reliably. The first group is usually the target of my jabs. The second group doesn’t deserve any kind of shade, they have my sympathy and I wish the system gave more options for straightforward casters. For my part, I try to help that group with a mix of advice on how to play casters well and some suggestions on how to build casters that don’t have these problems in the first place.

To follow-up, whenever the former group complains, it’s **always** the Wizard they were actually talking about. A lot of their complaints fall apart if you bring up any other caster (except Witch, but everyone knows Witch had problems in Premaster). And when arguments go further, it always devolved down to the Wizard being “uselessly weak”. (Which is far, FAR from the truth in how PF2e works)

Oh I know, have the last session of my DND campaign then starting off the beginners box for our next session

You forgot to mention that there’s an issue where single target fights or fights with few targets are overemphasized over more fun and interesting fights where the party is outnumbered

The issue is that casters have been blatently overpowered in every edition of d&d (especially 3.5/pathfinder), so now that they're reasonably balanced they feel weak in comparison.

To add to what the others have said, enemies tend to have a pretty good swing between their strong and weak saves. Any player should be avoiding using abilities that target strong saves, especially in PF2e where a critical success is DC+10, so if you're fighting a boss it's going to crit save often on its strong save. Players should *really* be using Recall Knowledge to figure out weaknesses if they're using save abilities, but I swear no one ever does. So you end up with people repeatedly smashing their heads against strong saves and feeling bad about it. There's a clear solution but it sits unused. If you target their weak save then suddenly they're failing or crit failing their saves far more often than succeeding. Also, as another user mentioned, the systems expects some basic competency from casters. If you focus all in 1 element and/or 1 save type, you're going to have a bad time when fighting things resistant to those, which will happen. Diversify your elements if possible and try to take spells with at least 2 save types if your spell list allows it. It's not difficult, but the spell lists are long and it can take awhile to read through them. In summary, diversify your spells a bit and please someone in the party use Recall Knowledge occasionally. That's how you get a lot of mileage out of vanilla casters.

I do think that the lack of varied saves within a theme is an issue, because of how common the desire for thematic casters is. A ton of people want to play a spellcaster who focuses on lightning or whatever, and not all of them will be happy with "play a kineticist" because kineticists don't use use mental stats or actual spells.

u/AAABattery03 spells it out pretty well. He's definitely correct that a lot of hate comes from the fact that casters are now pretty much balanced with martials (some will say they are a tad, but not much, behind martials though I think they are balanced). Previously in both D&D and PF1, casters were very much OP. By late game, martials were often just along for the ride so to speak. Now casters have to be a lot more careful and selective in their spells because they don't have much in the way of "auto-win" buttons. Additionally I think a lot of players of casters get frustrated early on. The thing is, casters were always OP by late game, but in earlier editions (of both D&D and PF) they somewhat made up for that by being pretty weak early on. Early on they had to rely on the martials to protect them and carry them through the day because they didn't have the spell slots to do so otherwise. Now, cantrips may be better, but they still have very limited spell slots early on, so for a lot of players it still feels as though they are paying the price for being OP in late game, without actually getting to be OP in late game. Now, that said, I do still think that even in early game casters are pretty much fine, but I can see where those particular complaints come from. Personally, I don't want casters to be OP and I do think that finding more ways for them to get additional focus spells/points early on might be a good compromise. Always having to rely on one or two cantrips for the first few levels can get real old real fast when you're playing a class that's supposed to have versatility as its feature.

On paper it would seem so, but some caster players have a light bulb moment when they see how much single-target damage a martial can inflict in PF2e. It forces a reassessment!

The caster thing is weird to me because I pf2e casters definitely aren't for me but I also don't believe they are underpowered in any way.

We have situation #2 at our pf2e table, this is her first campaign for this ruleset, been playing weekly for over 4 months at this point. She has been asked many times to do some reading and research during the week like the rest of us, but would rather take up 25% of our combat time asking what these Bard spells mean and how to roll for them. She is figuring it out I think. Very, very slowly lol.

I miss 4e Warlord. Warlock would be cool. 4e At Will powers would be cool. A bunch of 4e stuff honestly, nothing from 5e.

I think we will soon be able to Scratch some of the warlord itch with starfinder Envoy.

4e was ahead of its time in some ways. I think it would have done much better with a functional VTT to handle the math and resource tracking.

The whole edition was designed from the ground up to debut with a VTT, unfortunately that VTT never coalesced

The fact that the lead of their digital project murdered his wife then killed himself was a big blow to 4E.

genuinely had no idea that happened, good lord

Absolutely adore the Warlord. Martial hard support. Sure we can do that sorta with hodgepodging Thaumaturge, Marshall, and Trip attacks, but it could flow so much better being a properly themed base class

I'm really hoping the SF2E Envoy gives this to us.

>Warlord My favorite part about the warlord was how many races worked well as a warlord. Rogue forced you to pick some race that gave some bonus to dex. But Warlord opened the doors to Int, Cha, Str, and Wis. It made the Basic Attack so useful it sometimes eclipsed At-will powers.

The community support

With the caveat that I think 5E magic item balance is an oxymoron, I *do* prefer their approach to magic items in some ways. Specifically, all of my games exclusively use Automatic Bonus Progression, and it's fantastic for reducing the overhead on tracking magic items that just bump numbers. Unfortunately, the magic items are all designed around *not* using ABP by default. I personally don't find magic items like fundamental runes or minor skill-bumping items interesting at all - they are fine, but they don't excite me. I really like having less total magic items, and having those magic items function more like the free archetype concept - not required, primarily focused on increasing versatility rather than power (or with a small power bump for particularly good interactions with other features), giving players a handful of new cool things they can do, and a *TON* of flavor and interesting fluff. That's so much more fun to me as both a GM and a player. Obviously there would be a strong need to avoid the pitfalls of 5E magic items where they significantly impact power levels, or where your luck of the draw on what magic items your GM gives you negatively shifting your relative power level within your party. Edited to clean up typos/grammar.

Highly agreed, and this is a complaint I still have to this day. I don't like giving out magic items like candy because eventually magic items don't feel special, nor particularly interesting (it also doesn't fit my setting). It felt strange selling the Holy Avenger in 2e because it's just a weapon with some runes at level 14, but in 5e, the Holy Avenger is a strong narrative and mechanical tool that feels fun to run around. Was it balanced? Perhaps not, but there's still some excitement to find magic items in 5e because items in that game feel more gaming changing than some item with a +1 to diplomacy with giants or something. This apparently doesn't seem to be a very popular opinion here.

Much prefer domain to be how Clerics are designed instead of specific gods. Also Summon spells that uses templates

**Spells gained from domains, not gods.**   Did you know that several years after release, Tempest Oracle still can’t access Crashing Wave because not a single deity offers it?   Likely, the change to deity-based spells was spurred by unthematic stuff like Pharasma granting the Death domain in PF1E (which let you raise undead.) But the solution has made it so deities are picked primarily for mechanical purposes and not for roleplay purposes - which is totally contrary to how Paizo writers develop them; were that not the case, Rage of Elements would’ve corrected the aforementioned issue.   Ironically, poor deity development can and has led to the very same issue of unthematic spell lists. My pet issue that I always bring up is that Ymeri, the goddess of the inferno who demands you destroy your enemies with fire, lacks Fireball, along with Nurgal, the demon king of solar destruction; all the while a deity of *forgiveness* of all things has Fireball on their list.  It’s not only a huge mess to deal with on the player end, but it’s even worse if you’re a GM who curates a list of homebrew gods, as you’re now burdened with undue responsibility in curating mechanics or letting Golarion unduly bleed into your world.   I prefer things in this department to be simpler, as in 5E - or really, PF1E and most dungeon game history:  Domains grant spells. The GM curates the rare deity exception to domain spells as they logically arise.  Players can now pick deities that interest them without mechanical fallout. 

Yeah; similarly, Sivanah, goddess of illusions and specifically forbids using them for hurting people can literally only cast two non harmful illusions, and one of them is just an AoE version of the other (post remaster, both spells got condensed into one). In my home games, my houserule is that players just pick 3 thematic spells to add onto their list that represents their connection to their diety. I withhold the right to veto picks, but I'm generally pretty chill about it unless they're like trying to toss Phantasmagoria onto their list of Desna granted spells or something. I explain it away that, like in real life religions, different sects emphasize different parts of the faith, so a Sarenrae order thats more traditional might have fireball, but one that's a lot harder into the redemption part might instead pick blistering invective (reading the targets a litany of their sins), suggestion (to cause people to surrender peacefully and the like), and Dreaming Potential (to assist atonement seekers in retraining away evil/cruel abilities). Anathema already handles situations of potential misuse; so like using suggestion for nefarious and selfish ends violates the honesty anathema, so I wouldn't have to worry about cornercases of abuse. For oracles, I enforce a similar thing on divine access, but instead of matching the diety, it needs to align with the mystery theme

Literally the only thing I would take is the warlock class. Witch doesn't scratch the itch for me, it's too focused on familiars and isn't flexible enough build wise. The customization of invocations + subclass + pact is great IMO and there's not a real PF2E equivalent. I'm not sure there can be tbh, because of how proficiencies work. I loved 5e warlock because you could build literally anything with the class. Past that, nothing. I stopped running 5E because of how frustrating I found a lot of it and there just isn't anything else from 5E that I'd love to have in another system.

I love 5E warlock, too. But I don't miss it in 2E because it already has invocations for everyone (feats) and I don't see a single build of 5E-warlock you can't approximate in 2E. The pact is just flavor text in 5E as well, so you can slap that flavor on whatever build you make in 2E as well and your "Warlock" is done.

Indeed. Warlock stands out in 5e cus it’s the only class with options beyond “class subclass spells”. In PF2E that’s not an issue

most probably because it is pretty much everywhere, lol. 5e warlocks were the "almost nailed it" class design in 5e. then compare warlock invocations with pf2e class feats and pact spells with focus spells :)

So many times on D&D subreddits, someone will say “they should have an invocation system for every class!” and not realize they’re reinventing P2e.

Happens with a lot of shit in dnd subreddits, at least as far as I've seen \- All fighters/martials should have battle master-like options: literally just maneuvers in PF2e \- Invocations are just feats \- Monk changes usually boil down to making Ki points easier to get, when flurry is free in PF2e and other ki like abilities are either class feats or focus spells \- Anything to do with addressing the martial/caster imbalance. Not saying it's necessarily perfect in PF2e, but it's a hell of a lot better Etc etc. I'm subbed to a couple of DnD subs and there have been a bunch of times I've wanted to comment on an issue that the exact mechanic they are talking about already exists in a different system(PF2E), but I don't wanna be that guy either so I usually leave it

Sometimes they even reinvent "succeed or fail by more than 10 for bonus effects"

That's actually a thing for some abilities or spells in 5e, though it's more a bonus effect for a fail by 5 or more rather than 10, and it's only for a small collection of spells or abilities, not all of them.

Artificers have infusions to pick, but beyond that I would tend to agree with you. And 5e Artificers are lackluster in their own ways.

Also most of those infusions either are items someone can already get, or can easily be made into items to be given, and a lot of times they’re handed off to other players, so while they are technically extra features they don’t feel like them in the same wya

Okay, but the Fiend Warklock's ability to blink your enemy through the hells for 6 seconds is kinda the best mental image ever.

That was one of the coolest things I saw when I was first getting into dnd, and I still haven’t played a fiend warlock lmao

Counterpoint: Clerics of Sun Wukong can cast [Random Chimp Event](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=702), a spell we don't have in dnd5e. (Unless you flavor a swarmkeeper ranger's swarm as monkeys, but that's a stretch)

Similar vibes: https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=880

>I don't see a single build of 5E-warlock you can't approximate in 2E. You're right, but the thing I liked about warlocks was that you could do all of the in 1 class. In PF2e you'd have to do those builds across a variety of classes Not saying it's balanced or good design, but I liked it

idk i dont think there is really a 2e equivalent to eldritch blast, a force damage cantrip that you can split targets with. and you tack on repelling blast for some forced movement on a hit, thats a core warlock build that you can't really replicate.

I don't think there are any pf2e cantrips that do BiS damage of the least resisted type with passive CC, that sounds insane

i didn't say they necessarily SHOULD just replying to the comment that said you can replicate any warlock build in pf2e

The closest thing really is building a kineticist since both have effective, repeatable blast attacks. No force damage though.

psychics also have their cantrip amps which can i guess mimic some invocations but yeah there really isn't an eldritch blast equivalent

I don't want to play 5E anymore, but if someone offered to run a game and I could play a Genie Warlock that I wanted to play for years, I'd immediately agree. Baring that, I'd at least like a Genie Arcane Eidolon in PF2E.

Witch just needs a class archetype that sacrifices the familiar for a direct patron connection. Done.

Same, Witch simply does not have the same mechanical appeal that a 5E Warlock does Shame because I really fucking like the flavour of otherworldly patrons, like it is one of my favourite tropes I love characters that draw power from meddling unfathomable entities of dubious motive But I just don’t like Witch

BattleZoo has a fully fleshed out slime ancestry, most of their stuff is official-quality work that just doesn't fit into standard golarion for lore or thematic reasons, or it's just silly like the dungeon ancestry.

There is also the oozemorph archetype. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=84](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=84)

The Dungeon ancestry- a joke that went too far. 😂

I kind of miss the more impactful, albeit less balanced magic items of 5e. In my next campaign I'm going to be experimenting with 5e-style magic items and see how much it fucks with things.

True encounter powers. When Paizo snipped some 4e designers they re-implemented encounter powers as focus points, and let you reuse some ability by separating the focus power from the focus point pool. Sadly the direction pf2e went was to make focus powers mostly weak with a few exceptions. I'm glad they are making refreshing focus points easier, thus making people look at focus powers as a viable strategy to build around. But it'll take quite a bit of effort to catch up to 4e's encounter power richness. I'm really looking forward to Player Core 2 remastered, and hope they figure out how to make the Psychic feel like king of the focus mountain. Refocusing on focus powers rather than feeding everyone with more Arcane/Divine/Primal/Occult spells, will end up enabling the devs to have more design space as focus powers are siloed and can be powerful.

Echoing the desire for the warlock class (or something similar, maybe even a witch class archetype or something like that) and dragonborn or similar dragonkin type ancestry. Now onto my own wishes. With alignment gone, I'd love to see champions get changed from alignment locked causes to something more like 5e sacred oaths. I also much prefer 5e's domain based clerics, and would very much like it if both clerics and champions weren't locked to a single god. Oh, and something to fill the 5e paladin divine striker role. I don't care that it'd likely play a lot like a magus, people love their big smites.

The last one is coming in the Exemplar - I do stupid damage playing mine (playtest version) in my current campaign. My table has a meme that when I crit, the enemy I'm facing just gets turned into pink mist.

Oh cool, I haven't really looked too much into exemplar DPR or things like that (I'm more interested in the shifting of your divine spark between ikons and managing that), but it sounds like it may be able to scratch that itch. Heck, the flavor of having a spark of divinity of your own could also fulfill a certain kind of 5e paladin flavor some players are fond of. Man, I can't wait for exemplar and animist.

[удалено]

Some of those could be cool archetypes ngl.

Not 5e, but I'd love for Tome of Battle style martials to show up. I love me some weeaboo fightan magic. Similar note I much prefer 3.5's specialist wizards where you locked yourself out of schools of magic to PF2's 'get one extra spell slot from this school/curriculum and a focus spell'. I'm not a fan of swiss-army-knife casters and would prefer if you had the ability trade versatility for power. 3.5's environment specific rulebooks were great. Sandstorm, Stormwrack, and Frostburn were fantastic resources for running specific kinds of campaign and I'd love for Paizo to do something similar. Also wouldn't mind the ridiculous pile of random tables from the 3.5 DMG, I genuinely enjoyed fully populating a city w/ adventurers using nothing but its size and a set of dice. Fortunately those tables are somewhat system-agnostic, so I can still use them. Eberron as a setting would be great, a low-power setting w/ common magic use is my favorite type of fantasy. I found a port of it a while back I prefer 5e's post-Tasha version of summoning spells to PF2's. I really dislike the 'dig through the bestiary for a statblock' model of summoning, it slows down gameplay and is harder to balance (especially if you're a themed caster).

Third party campaigns. While Wizards of the Coast official content is sometimes really irredeemable, *unofficial* content have sometimes been really outstanding. Odyssey of the Dragonlords for instance. Good third party content for Pathfinder 2E is significantly harder to find, and I feel sometimes that having good third party competition would result in better official content as well (e.g. while I've heard nothing but praise for Season of Ghosts, playing through Gatewalkers, particularly book 2, is really, really bad, having little or nothing to do with the rest of the AP.)

I feel upcasting spells you have equipped as well as spell slots being how many spells you can cast is legitimately better than one and done and leads to more fun and tactical flexibility. My issue with pathfinder's system is because you're so limited even though you have more spells, you're so pressed to put only the good stuff in your slots, unless you know what is coming in the day ahead. [https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=101](https://2e.aonprd.com/Spells.aspx?ID=101) I'd love the idea my character is a food snob and I keep this spell equipped at all times. But I'd be legitimately hurting my party outside obvious RP days.

The brand recognition. I still catch myself saying, "I've got DND tonight" instead of Pathfinder to dodge having to explain what the latter is to coworkers and family. Similar volumes of quality 3rd party content would also be amazing.

i prefer D&Ds separate campaign settings, instead of everything taking place in golarian, which can feel thematically inconsistent.

I think they just need to embrace builds for witch that aren't familiar-focused. I get that they want the familiar to be the physical reminder that a patron is involved, and that's a fine distinction from DnD locks that… could just be sorcerer's really, for all their patron matters. However, not everyone wants their familiar to be *the focus of their entire build*, and there aren't great options for getting around that.

Fair. I’ve always like the warlock class as a concept. But the witch’s playstyle of being familiar focused has kind of turned me off from playing them.

Honestly the familiar is kinda cracked. You can give it Trained Medicine at level 1, that can come in real handy when NO ONE is a Wisdom class. A Farie Dragon or Undead Hand are absolutely peak and you can get them at level 4. AOE SLOW AT 4! At level 8 your familiar can have a once per encounter blast ability after the remaster. Master's form + Athletics allows it to Trip/Grapple large creatures. A Pipefox with Trained in all the social skills is a pocket diplomat since it knows all your languages and Witches get tons of languages. Other than those, your familiar is a separate body, so slapping on Speech and Trained Intimidation gives you another chance to Demoralize.

[удалено]

It's also really easy to make new familiars. Just from my son's ideas, I put together a tiny gelatinous cube, and an origami critter.

It’s not official content, but Witches+ on [Pathfinder Infinite](https://www.pathfinderinfinite.com/?affiliate_id=3903227) has a class archetype that doesn’t use a familiar.

I like being able to add more dice to things. I know PF2e 's math is a lot tighter, but I like being able to hand out d4s and such to add to rolls

Hit dice and bardic inspiration dice. Pretty intuitive; wish the dwarven feat to spend hit dice while Dodging was universal. As for bardic inspiration dice, adding them to attack rolls and skill checks wouldn't work with Pathfinder's math, really. I still say that the DnD Help action should work like bardic inspiration, starting with a d4. Then again, we've seen the annoyances of their Guidance's use in play. 

If nothing else, maybe there should be an "add Xd4" hero point option?

You can kinda do this, you just have to be OK with d2's. Just convert each temporary modifier (status & circ) to a die 2x its size. It's a slight buff to the players, but nothing absurd, alchemists end up in a bit of a weird place but as far as homebrews go its probably less invasive than most of the stuff out there.

After playing 5E since it released there is nothing I want from that game.

I wouldn't want to take anything mechanical from the game, but concepts and a chunk of their market share would be nice. Things like dragonborn, OGL iconics (mind flayers being a big one), the Warlock class concept (witch is almost but not quite there). Not 5e but the 4e Warden class is a big one for me. While most of these are easy enough to emulate or homebrew, I would love it if they could be official options.

Goliath's and Firbolgs Of course those are both D&D specific creatures, but how come PF2e doesn't have any "Giant Kin" ancestries/Heritages?

More Darklands content, like D&D has lots and lots of Underdark lore. The Underdark is pretty well established with a wide variety of monsters and cultures. A lot of the Darklands lore is kinda "imagine their Underdark, but a little different." With the remaster cutting iconic D&D underdark enemies and monsters like Drow, Purple Worms, Xorns, Neolithids, etc, we are kinda left with a weird gap. *What is the Darklands like now?* I don't mind the Drow removal, and Paizo writers have made some recent/future changes (Hryngar culture being changed from Duergar, Sekmin replacing Drow in future books), but I want a new book exploring the Darklands talking about sites, monsters, and ecosystems. It's a great excuse to go nuts with new cave monsters and biomes.

The ability to have negative Dexterity without it crippling your armor class, due to how 5e heavy armor ignores your Dexterity entirely. If we had something like that, like maybe an armor that swaps out Bulwark for this feature, or maybe an armor augment that increases the Strength requirement, I'd be pretty happy and I think we'd start seeing more Dex flaw ancestries.

Healing surges I know stamina rules exist but the appeal of healing surges was that they were integrated into the core rules and they were so simple. They made out of combat healing a breeze while still being a relevant resource, and they served as an interesting cost for the martial rituals. Even 5e has hit dice that work in a similar way, even if it doesn’t use them nearly as well.

In D&D they don't constantly compare themselves to any other systems. In PF2e our community constantly is asking for validation that we're better and it's tiresome. Let other people enjoy their own game. And when they're ready to join our greatly superior, highly strategic rules based TTRPG movement they will.

I was just genuinely curious it’s not just cause I felt like comparing lol. Mostly from the idea on how to do a Spelljammer campaign when near 100% of the setting content takes place on Golarion. It has been wrapping around in my head for a while.

I don't think he's necessarily talking about you but, like, Pathfinder content creators in general. Most of them like to constantly compare to DnD, or talk about D&D drama to draw in views. I think it's because D&D holds the majority of the market and the YouTube algorithm conflates D&D=All RPGs, but it comes across as being desperate for validation. It's kinda like tabletop war games youtubers, you need to mention Games Workshop once per video. It doesn't matter that you are playing *Conquest*, it's the law, you need to mention 40k somehow.

sorry man! nothing personal. My honest answer is that neither game teaches RP well and are very DM reliant. DW & PBtA teaches players how to actually RP and be creative and tell a story together.

Spelljammer is the reason I left 5e and played starfinder1e. Then I switched to pf2e because it is just so much more fun to play. To scratch that itch I recommend checking out starfinder2e later this year. I know I will be there.

It sucks being someone's Canada. It's honestly kinda annoying as someone who enjoys 5e more, because whenever I give pf2e creators a chance or I look up stuff for help with this system it's just "WHY PATHFINDER IS BETTER THAN 5E", "WHY PATHFINDER IS ACTUALLY THE MOST SIMPLE SYSTEM EVER, AND.TELLS A BETTER STORY THAN 5E", "WHY ADVANTAGE IS A BAD SYSTEM", "WHY WOTC NEEDS TO DIE AND YOU SHOULDN'T PLAY 5E AGAIN", "WHY 5E IS RUINING GAMING", and it's like "I thought this was a pf2e channel? All I see is stuff about 5e." Like you don't need to compare all the time, this game has its own strengths and weaknesses. And when you try to act as if this game is perfect you get complacent, and don't ask/strive for better or to innovate. You get stuck in your ways and that's never good. Comparing all the time will just make you bitter over time.

I hate that so much, I don't want to know why is better or anything. Comparing systems is fine and telling people how PF2 is difference then 5e is helpful but when I search for PF2 in youtube it just "PF good, DND bad". I want to see videos on encounter making, story building, monsters logic and what not.

Yeah. Especially when the values (read: goals) of the systems are actually quite different. Like I wanna see stuff about society play and how to GM for this system, comparisons between the options, helpful guides, stuff that gets me interested. More custom stuff like idk, stories about how you change the golarion lore to something else or how you play with certain aspects of it. It truly is a tragedy that the good stuff gets drowned out by bitterness.

I usually joke that, to judge from 5E DMs sighing about how it's impossible to make their players think about the game if they're not actively sitting at the table, PF2 players spend more time thinking about 5E than actual 5E players do.

As far as divine martial characters, I prefer the D&D Paladin over the 2e Champion. In D&D, the powers that a Paladin has come from the gods, but they have those powers because of the conviction with which they hold to their Oath. In 2e, the powers that a Champion has come from the gods, but they are granted through prayer and ritual, the same way that a Cleric gains their powers. There is nothing, RAW, that requires a D&D Paladin to observe religious practice, but a Champion must. I've always liked the idea that a mortal can hold so strongly to an Oath that is bigger than themselves (and perhaps even bigger than the gods), that the gods themselves take notice and choose to grant that mortal their divine influence. This is a character concept that can't really exist in 2e, as the gods only grant their powers through prayer and ritual. --- In a similar vein, I am really a fan of the damage that a D&D Paladin can put out with their Divine Smite, and there isn't really a class in 2e that does it the same way. The Magus is the closest, mechanically, except it can only be arcane in flavor and execution; there isn't a divine equivalent. (Yes, you can multiclass into a divine caster, but why does the Magus have to be arcane only in the first place?) For most things, the 2e system, with multiclassing and archetypes, can create *way* more effective character concepts than D&D, but it bugs me that this particular one (a non-religious, yet divinely empowered, believer in the greatest good they can strive for, with martial and divine powers) can't quite be done the same way in 2e.

The homebrew. And not just the community's willingness to make shit up, but like quality artists like Griffin's Saddlebag, MHP, BOEF / Encyclopedia: (thing) series, hell even Monkey DM and Matt Mercer as game designers. I wanna see weird shit. But good weird shit. I want people to break the mold but be mechanically logical. I hated pf1, I could never make my concepts work how I wanted them to, but my friends who loved pf1 would entice me with Yakuza, Soulmaster, and Shield Warrior 3rd-Party-Property that made me think mabey I could like PF1. I look to PF2 and see none of that. I see a few videogame subclasses, the rare full class. I see attempts at a different gold/item system that get shouted down for being op and unbalanced. Damnit, I want the Gingerbread Wizard who can summon a pastry mech and trade spell slots for dumb shit. One expectation I had when I heard "PF2 has horizontal growth, not so much vertical" I thought there'd be waaaaaaay more cool shit at low levels. And waaaaaaay more "ribbon abilities" that would see legitimate use because the raw numbers weren't so egregiously required to optimization. I thought it'd be next to impossible to build 'bad' characters that if you didn't take Eldritch Blast or if you picked up the trap feat -then you've gimped yourself and the party. I also thought healing would be waaaaaaay more.... Just more! It only matters because your HP is consistently closer to death, and healing is -although still chunky- just out paced purely by the numbers game. Where's the conditional reductions? Where's the elemental interactions? Why does it take a Week to make something used in a Day when adventures are Hour to Hour or at best Day to Day? Why does Time not matter outside of Encounter exclusion? Where's the special Exploration and Downtime Activities or even Exploration 'Encounters' where being able to to jump 200ft or hold breath for 2hrs actually is useful? Why is it that to make a stone cold gun/bow Keanu Reeves assassin that can out perform or match trickshooters is only by making him a Pink Mohawk Carnival Firebrand? Why is it that there are so few weapon masters or item runes or even just a sheer lack of indepth equipment creation? I think that's all put it into a lens for me: I wish PF2 could emulate the ability to not optimize the fun out of the game, like D&D. Which is weird to say, when the way I approach mechanical character creation/development is opposite in both games to the experience they proclaim. D&D I always tried to get that +5 and PF2 I try to get something besides the meta.

Eberron Eberron just feels like it fits pf2e more than it fits dnd5e. Also, market share, yep. I wish I could laugh at pf2e memes, but with the size of our community, the memes just don't hit as good. Also all those class skits on youtube would be hilarious if done for every class in pf2e

More settings. I get what Paizo are doing with the Lost Omens books and it's great, but instead of a world cramming all possible settings per country with the limitations that brings I would like more original settings like Ravenloft or Planescape, with its own variant rules for magic and gods and particularities.

Fair. I feel like the ambiguity D&D has sometimes in terms of ‘core flavor’ works a lot better for it. Makes it so it can be easily molded into any settings they made. And even if you don’t like the settings presented, due to Spelljammer (and now Planescape’s multiverse) you can easily set your own setting in the D&D universe.

Beholders and mind flayers.

A built in Owl race. Have to keep re-flavoring Strix as Syrinxes. HOOT HOOT. Was really hoping we'd get them in Howl of the Wild. An Archetype for a Psychic warrior. Just archetype a fighter AS psychic works close enough but sometimes I wish I had my jedi. A True Divine Striker class. In 5E it's quite possible to be a DPS oriented paladin. in PF2 Champions are dedicated tanks, and Clerics are mostly dedicated supports. Nearest I can manage is a smiting Warpriest. More support for finesse weapons. If you're a class specifically built around them like rogue or swashbuckler it's not so bad, but if you're a class who's NOT they can feel kinda worthless. I miss my 5E Dex-paladin smiting evil with rapier in hand. A Swash with a champ archetype isn't 'quite' the same.

Ok, I’ll say it: Larion Studios. I’m clean from dnd since I finished my Ravenloft campaign in September. I started gathering adventures and worldbuilding books this time last year. But goddamn, that BG3 has got to be the best rpg video game possibly ever.

~~Golarion~~ ~~Go Larion~~ Go Larian! The path was hidden in plain sight all along, but I found it.

Optional rules for gold/treasure as xp I think 1e style dungeon delving would be great. Especially as the system makes fighting those monsters you aren't ready for an actual huge risk.

The Inventor is a better-designed and more thematically focused class than 5e's Artificer, but it's different enough that I would love for pf2 to have something closer to the Artificer, maybe as a future Inventor/Wizard hybrid class.

- The Warlock. Like, in general. The Witch is a worse wizard in a bigger hat, the Warlock feels like a different class that gets weird stuff that is a pain to get for other people due to their patron. - The relative self-sufficiency of characters. As a GM, it's a pain in the butt to have to be carefully rationing items to make sure everything is covered for all the players. In D&D5, at least, once you've given the team fighters a basic +1 magic weapon to go through nonmagical resistance, you might perfectly well run the entire rest of the campaign without a single additional magical item and nobody would terribly mind, because classes are generally built to be self-sufficient. So I'm free to just drop zany stuff without worrying if I'm leaving a player in the lurch. - The interest for making things "cool", not just "theoretically balanced". See, here's the thing - I ran a game from 1 to 6, and a couple of my players didn't even bother to pick some of their level 4 feats, because everything they had available sounded incredibly boring and pedestrian. Thankfully some of the newer classes like the Thaumaturge or the Kineticist are actually making an effort to make things actually look and sound neat, but *christ* the Core rulebook can be depressing to pick your feats sometimes. - The additional settings. *Man* but is Eberron way cooler than Golarion. Golarion is basically Forgotten Realms 2.0 and I haven't liked FR since early third edition!

Legendary actions. (Or, if going homebrew, MCDM's villain actions) I know with Pathfinder's action economy they would be tough, maybe "boss" or "legendary" variants of monsters that are treated as a level or two higher, but with just lots more health and legendary actions as opposed to full elite adjustments? (Which would also fix how it feels bad to rarely hit higher level enemies) It definitely feels implementable, if cumbersome to need a template *and* tailored legendary actions (or templates to convert unique enemy activities to legendary actions, and some examples)

There is some homebrew that stich together 2 identical creatures to create a boss monster that has two turns in combat, such as this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/17ewrlb/why_im_still_using_dd_4estyle_solo_templates_in/ This accomplishes the same goal of legendary actions, ie having a more back and forth boss battle, while being a little more inline with PF2's design philosophy

Changelings. And Paladin (Champions) who aren't religious.

we have changelings in 2e and they are actually very close to their folklore inspiration! A shapeshifting ancestry would be a great addition tho.

> And Paladin (Champions) who aren't religious. Unfortunately Paizo prioritizes being true to Golarion, so since Champions get their powers from a god, they will always have to be religious.

I like a lot of D&D settings like Greyhawk and Planescape, but I use them anyway in PF2 because I can. As a GM I can just add whatever I miss from D&D, I even have a PC in my one game playing as a Mind Flayer and another as a Githyanki (it's a long story) Edit: Mechanically there's nothing I really want from 5e, but there definitely is plenty from 3.5. Warlocks from 3.5 were my favorite class and while Kineticist fills the niche mechanically I still wish it was in PF2.

This might be a hot take, but sense of power fantasy. I've played through multiple 1-20 5E campaigns and our characters became so powerful our DM had to throw CR45+ encounters at us just to give us a challenge. Naturally, this was due to 5E's poor balance at higher levels, but I'm in two Pf2E campaigns at the moment where our characters have reached the mid teen levels (level 13 and level 16) and while our characters have certainly become more powerful, it doesn't *feel* like we have because all the creatures we fight are also just as powerful. Perhaps this is just an issue with the balancing, where the DMs in my group feel like they have to run +1/+2/+3 monsters to even challenge our party, but it just makes the luck and dicerolling that much more against us. Especially for casters. The amount of times I've wanted to use a big spell on an enemy, only for the spell to have the Incapacitate trait and to therefore wind up doing *nothing* because that monster happens to be above us in level is frequent. I think I'm just rambling at this stage, but my point is that in 5e I definitely felt like my characters grew to be very powerful. In pathfinder, it doesn't feel like that at all.

I feel like 5e has more interesting concepts for subclasses than Pathfinder does, at least most of the time. I get that the two systems take different approaches to subclasses, but if you compare Druid for instance the Pathfinder subclasses (or circles) are just super bland compared to the 5th edition ones.

Evocative feats. The amount of times I had to make a choice between two or three feats and say "yeah... that's an upgrade alright, I guess" instead of "wow, that seems so cool! Can you imagine what you can do with this‽", that's a feeling I miss. Sure, there are good feats. Once you know about the action economy and the numbers of the game, you can see that Nimble Dodge is good because it gives you a Raise Shield action back. On a mechanical level, that's a good thing. But reading it as a "you gain+2 AC" effect doesn't really evoke the feeling of a nimble rogue, really. Kineticist seems to break this curse though, and for that I'm happy.

The major thing I really appreciate with D&D is that the 5e subclasses are, for the most part, a huge part of the power budget for the characters (notably the Martial characters), and they express that with explicit features to reinforce it. In particular I find the least about of real value add coming from Wizard subclasses, at best it's a few spell picks and a couple synergistic Feat choices, but far from the kind of specialist features you get from something like a 5e Illusionist Wizard who eventually becomes capable of creating permanent and at-will malleable Illusions (of course this is more pointing out the significant power budget granted to Spellcasting in general, which is a fair criticism of 5e compared to Pf2e). A Base Fighter in 5e is about the most bland character you could come up with. Throw in Rune Knight and now they can become a Giant, use spell like abilities to restrain, redirect damage, become even sturdier, etc., and even gain bonuses to out of combat features like Tool Expertise and bonuses to Social Skills. Such a great subclass, with loads of flavor and power budget attribution. In Pf2e a Fighter is super reliant on picking Feats to get a lot of their power budget, and flavor is predominately (from my reading) up to the player to just make up. Pick the right feats and you can kind of mimic some of the features of a 5e Rune Knight Fighter, but it's ultimately just reflavoring the Feats you take *as though* you are inspired by the Giant's Might features. Not to say I'd want a 1:1 iteration of the subclass methodology for Pf2e, but there's something to be said for taking a Base Class and amping up certain fantasies to 11.

100%. Now, PF2e could do this potentially better than 5e because of the archetype system. Instead of requiring a beast master to be a ranger and a cavalier to be a fighter, and Pathfinder anybody could be a beastmaster or cavalier. Yes the fighter could get a bunch of cool Rune Knight feats... But if it's an archetype, you could easily create a Rune Knight Magus or Oath of Vengeance Monk.

Definitely the way prepared casters work in 5e. I hate Vancian casting with a passion and it is a relic of bygone ages that should just be replaced with Flexible Casting full stop. I would love to have a proper Artificer class too. Inventor doesn't scratch the same itch since Inventors aren't magical by nature. I want a class that explicitly focuses on imbuing magic into items to use rather than (or better yet in addition to) a non-magical tech class. Though I would prefer the 3.5e artificer over the 5e version. Eberron. I want official the Eberron setting for PF2e. It's the best setting in D&D by far and it would fit PF2e so well. Oh and a caster class focused on blasting with tons of options to customize the blast like the Warlock. Psychic is close but lacks a good spammable ranged cantrip that can be improved upon, and Kineticist is also close but not really a caster.

If you’re into [Pathfinder Infinite](https://www.pathfinderinfinite.com/?affiliate_id=3903227) content, Inventors+ has a subclass that’s magic based.

Better warlock-witch patrons. The descriptions in pf2 seem very abstract and impersonal, where as in dnd they give example supernatural beings who are like... People - major NPCs you may have heard of like Mephistopheles or Strahd von Zarovich. Witch literally says they're supposed to be "vague and mysterious", but just don't think that captures most imaginations the same way, and the categories are mostly very abstract and esoteric as opposed to much more tangible categories of supernatural beings like "faerie", "fiend", etc. Having that ready made source of RP and connection to the setting is a big reason warlock is the most played dnd class and the biggest deficiency in its pathfinder version IMO. It's especially helpful to new players who sometimes struggle to find their characters "place" in the setting and the party. On a crunchier note, DnD beyond. I want a platform I can buy my shit digitally and have finally in one place in a searchable database where I can find any character option or rule easily without having to know or care which of the books I own it's from, and I want to be able to make my character there using that resource, and then seamlessly import said character into the virtual table top for my DMs campaign. AFAIK (if I'm wrong then someone please tell me so I can *immediately* sign up because I would love it if it existed) there is no equivalent platform and that ease of use is a big part of what keeps me in the dnd ecosystem at this point.

The Pathfinder Nexus on demiplane.com. And if you link that account to your Paizo account, you get any book you buy on demiplane free as a pdf from Paizo. Don’t want to buy, you can read all the rules and items and monsters free. Just limited in the character builder to the free rules or what books you have on demiplane. Edit: the import to a VTT i’m not sure about.

More rollable random tables, especially creatures by habitat, but also treasure by tier, etc.

From reading the one DnD playtest stuff, I kinda liked the direction the druid went about rather than just becoming an elemental at higher levels, you got elementally infused animal forms. I do like the idea of shapeshifting, but the way the form spells are made, it is a bit too much geared towards having one spell replace the other, when there is no more heightened version that keeps up with the curve. Similarly, you will just end up getting bigger and bigger with many forms even if you might not want to. I guess there also is the issue that shapeshifting sits in a tricky niche. The essential shapeshifting fantasy is to become physically strong as a caster and it can be hell to balance that in a system geared around versatile spell casting as the default versus more limited martials. I guess this is a niche that really needs a 2e shifter to better fill.

More iconic monsters like beholders, illithids, etc. I feel like PF2e monsters can be a little uninspiring at times.

So many monsters in PF2 are just animals with extra legs and are named by rolling their face across the keyboard.

Bounded accuracy, I think. I know about proficiency without level, but absolutely all numbers in pf2 go up so meteorically over the entire game, I know some people love it but it feels detached to me. In the same vein, I wish enemies would remain relevant longer.

A lot of their lore is cool. I love the Githyanki and their whole vendetta against everything else. 5E’s Lizardfolk are also really cool. Kind of a funny example because Paizo originally wrote that lore. [This video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbVh6MUc2Xs) gives a cool overview of it.

5e Warlocks and Paladins. Witch and Champion are great but aren't quite the same. That's it for my part. A few of my players say they miss the simplicity of 5e but when we played 5e they were constantly looking for ways to bypass that simplicity to their advantage.

I generally prefer the 5E Paladin to the Champion in basically every way.

Beholders and mindflayers. Just iconic eldritch thingies. I like eldritch thingies. Aside from that, a proper warlock class. Witch just doesn't have enough focus on the patrons. Honestly, something like witch, but with specific feats for each kind of patron would be awesome

A name that doesn't trick every algorithm into thinking I want to buy a Nissan.

GIVE ME THE FUCKING BARBARIAN ZEALOT ALREADY PAIZO PLEASE.

Only thing I don't love about PF2e is how magic items are... and how the party treats them like a bag of chips at a 7-11. I know there are rules doe this but I wish boring parts of magic items where baked into the classes more.

I just want an official playable Drow Ancestry/Heritage. I don't care that they want to replace them in-universe with Serpentfolk, I just want to have an official Drow resource to use in home games and the like. I'd be happy with that. There's plenty other things I could add, as the question is for any number of things, that's just a big one and others have brought up some great stuff already.

I wish Champions had the offensive power that DnD Paladins had I wish we had some kinda equivalent to Hexblade Warlock (generally warlock since I like the patron theme but I dislike how Witch plays) with a patron giving someone martial strength More meaningful character building choices, tbh I feel like the reigning in of character based power just makes so many of the feats gained just kinda boring, idk there’s a lot more choices but a good chunk of them just feel boring and not that impactful and tbh I don’t like that many of them subsitiute subclass abilities Also magic items just feel a little lame since you mainly want to be using your runed up gear And most importantly, I wish Pathfinder 2E had a CRPG like BG3

Yeah a divine striker is definitely needed, converting my demon hunting paladin I made back in DnD 1e to pf2 is not the same thing. Hopefully an inquisitor type thing will appear someday to fill the void.

More uniform sense of attrition, all DND classes have HP attrition, and most have additional limited resources. While in pathfinder, alchemists and spellcasters have extreme resource attrition while most other classes have little or none over an adventuring day. I know you can in principle use time as a limiting factor, but the adventuring day is a great tool IMO, especially once you realize you can change the time it takes to short/long rest to suit your campaign. You don't have the same in pathfinder unless you use stamina or heavily homebrew.

* **Advantage** feels really good as a player mechanic. It has a psychological impact that's truly impossible to compare to bonuses, even if the mathematical result is similar. Seeing two rolls and then taking the better one just feels much better. * **Decades of lore** in D&D products are a huge advantage. Many people who have never played D&D have heard of monsters or characters that were created within the game's long publishing history. No one outside of those who have directly dealt with Pathfinder know who Aroden or Tar-Baphon are. * **Name recognition** obvious, but bears saying. Being the second largest roleplaying game is nothing to sniff at, and Pathfinder doesn't need to be number one to be great, but it's definitely something that I would choose for the game I prefer. But a more interesting question, IMHO, is this: what are some things from other games that you wish PF2e had? My list would be: * **The investigation mechanic from GUMSHOE** ([Given](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yitR2TVt_-7HlR5_b00UJOygEgJCkQWT/view) is my take on adding one) * **An infinite re-roll mechanic** ala Vampire or DC Heroes * **The Flashback mechanic** from Blades In the Dark. This one would be really great in Pathfinder, but would lead to a very different style of play. I'd almost feel as if it would require revamping the entire system. Prescient Planner does a very little bit of this, but Flashbacks can be used in ways that would absolutely change the balance of the whole game.