Yeah, it sounds like just an opportunity to include a lot of creatures from all different settings to be used in your own campaigns. Exactly what I want from D&D (though been a while since we actually played D&D).

Sliding the conversation about Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E over here. I don't know anything about Pathfinder 2E (the thing they swore they would never do when promoting the release of the first Pathfinder rules), as I've never played it, never read it, never even glanced at it. I have played and run Pathfinder 1E, as we had a gaming group that had members who were adamant about never even trying D&D 4E, so we played Pathfinder instead. That group eventually disbursed. When we started a new group with some of he same people a couple of years later (minus the stubborn one), we alternated between 5E and Pathfinder 1E, I ran 5E, one of the guys ran Pathfinder, the group as a whole eventually wanted to go 5E exclusively.

If you've never played 5E, the biggest mechanical difference is the handling of the variables in combat and other situation that require a dice roll check.

In combat in Pathfinder you have the following modifiers that apply in every situation Base Attack Bonus, which varies by class and level and ability modifier (which can range from -5 to +infinity as there is no cap as to how high an ability score can go, but usually tops off at around +5). Then you have all the situational bonuses and penalties that can change each round or each attack within a round if your character is capable of multiple attacks including but not limited to weapon quality, magical weapons, feats, spells in effect, terrain, visibility, type of creature being attacked, and other various sundry factors and those modifiers can usually range form -5 to +10 depending. You also have to adjudicate whether the effects stacks (i.e. both apply and are added together) or not (i.e. only one can be used so you have the determine which one applies and which one doesn't) and that has to be done for each modifier in play because of the various factors.

If its not combat, the following modifiers apply in some but not all situations-skill ranks (which can vary and caps on how many ranks you can have vary based on whether you are proficient in the skill or not) and ability modifiers. Then you have situational modifiers again varying based on feats, magic items in play, spells in effect, and a host of other factors based on what type of check it is-is it sight based perception? Then light and terrain impose factors? Is it a social interaction check then you need to determine initial attitude, reputations, etc.

Each and every roll in the game requires you to determine the various factors in play before you can determine the modifiers that affect that role and those factors can change for every roll. Character sheets and DM screens need to be equivalent of spread sheets to track all the possibilities for each roll.

In D&D 5E the following factors apply for every roll (attacks, saving throws and ability checks-skill checks are ability checks with a specific focus or application), combat or non-combat-the character's proficiency bonus (which is the same for all classes and goes up based on the tier of play (it starts at +2, goes to +3 a t tier II i.e. level 5, +3 at tier III i.e. level 10, and +4 at tier IV i.e. level 15) and their ability score modifiers (which range from -4 to +5 as ability scores are topped at 20 unless some major (almost artifact level) mojo is in play. So all you need to determine is if the roll is something your character is proficient in (weapon, skill, tool) or not. If it is add proficiency modifier and ability modifier. If not, add just ability modifier. The only floating modifiers in play are magic weapons (which if you have one applies to every attack roll so just add it to your standard mods you use for that weapon and apply every role) or certain spells (Bless for example allows players to roll an additional 1d4 and add it to the rolls) or class abilities like Bardic Inspiration (again you get to roll a die and add it to the roll).

What replaces all those other floating mods that vary by situation is the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. If there are factors that would benefit the character (flanking, high ground, being helped by someone else when climbing, etc. etc.) the player has advantage on the roll, and as such they roll the d20 twice instead of once, and use the better roll.

If factors would hinder the character (terrain, poor visibility, or whatever), the player would roll with disadvantage, i.e. roll the d20 twice and use the lower of the two rolls.

If there are factors that would both benefit and hinder, advantage and disadvantage cancel each other out, and it would just be straight roll with the standard modifiers. This mechanic applies to all rolls-attacks, ability checks and saving throws.

For me, it allows me as DM to factor in all those variable that affect the situation and have them have a mechanical impact without bogging the actual play down trying to calculate modifiers for each and every factor. Things are in your favor-roll with advantage. Things aren't in your favor, roll with disadvantage. No factors either way or factors going both ways, make a straight roll. If it's a non-combat role, I can also alter the target number (i.e. the DC needed to succeed) based on factors-trying to climb that wall without a rope it's DC 15, climbing it with a rope, DC 10, with a rope and someone above it helping lift you up, DC 10 with advantage on the check. It's raining, the masonry is old and crumbling, and no rope, DC 20. It's raining, masonry is old, no rope and goblins are tying to pull you down as you climb, DC 20 with disadvantage.

I find its still flexible, still allows factors to impact mechanics providing verisimilitude, but eliminates the need to spend time calculating everything each roll that I find bogs down play and often sends DMs or players running tot he rule books to check things up which then grinds the game to a screeching halt every time it happens (and it can happen several times in the same round).

You can add to the mechanics of 5E as well-feats are optional-but they often provide specific modifiers to existing things which always apply (i.e. they give proficiency to weapons, skills or tools that then allow you to apply your proficiency bonus when doing those things, or they bump up an ability score-to a max of 20-so you would get a better ability mod that would apply to all checks with that ability score) or they provide advantage in certain situations. They are optional however, so if you don't want that layer of complexity, you don't have to have it. We choose to use them.

5E also treats PCs and monsters (including NPCs) differently. You don't have to have class levels in everything as a monster to be able to do things. You don't have to stat out irrelevant skills. Monsters also have a Proficiency bonus and ability score base but without things like feats and skill ranks, it's much easier to design and use monsters, and there is a cognizance that the lifespan of a monster is measured in rounds not levels as player characters are, so their special abilities are designed with that in mind (something the revisions in the new Monsters of the Multiverse has taken to a higher level with tie monster revisions).

But the 5Edesing is modular. It has that core mechanic, but you can add levels of complexity with optional rules as you choose, but it doesn't fall apart if you don't use them (as Pathfinder does if you try to strip levels of complexity from it).

But as with all things, play what you like.

-M

I think I dislike high level play in most D&D systems. I think the power creep and mechanics eventually strip away the core elements of what makes D&D feel like D&D. Oddly, I think high level play in 4E felt the least different from play at lower and mid-levels of all the D&D editions I have played.

And at our table rules lawyering is not allowed. If there is a rule question that cannot be answered quickly (i.e. in less than 3 minutes) we make a spot decision and keep the game flowing. The decision may not always be right, but it tries to be fair based on the core mechanics of the game. After the session we will look things up and make any adjustments we need to moving forward, but nothing is retroactively changed. We're not at the table to argue rules, we are there to play D&D and create the collaborative story the characters are experiencing each session. If there's an issue, Rule 0 trumps everything. And that's a discussion we have and agree to before the game starts as part of our Zero session/character creation session so everyone knows ahead of time and is on board with it. It's hard enough to get a group of adults with other commitments together at the table on a regular basis, so wasting the time we do have together arguing rules minutiae is not something I am not willing to do. The rules are guidelines, not commandments set in stone, and they will be used and/or adapted as the particular game at that table needs them to be. No two tables play the game the same way, and the idea that the rules are sacrosanct and immutable and can be lawyered is to me a complete and utter waste of time and effort for a fallacy. (the fact that 3.x and Pathfinder design essentially promotes the idea that there is a rule for everything is another aspect of its design I dislike; no one, and I mean absolutely no one with anything short of an eidetic memory, could possibly know every rule in the 3.x/Pathfinder design core rules nevermind all the supplements and expansions, let alone be able to apply them consistently with all the vagaries of gameplay that happen at the table, and that only leads to breakdown of play and things like rules lawyering (and power gaming and min/maxing, and shaming players who don't build according to best practices for optimization and..)).

3.5/Pathfinder is also the only game I actually had a player ask if he could not level up when the party had enough XP because it took too long to do for him and he didn't want to spend time parsing out skills ranks and changing all the numbers on his character sheet. It just wasn't fun and not worth his time/effort for him. This was someone who had been playing rpgs since the mid-70s (Call of Cthulhu was his rpg of choice, but he had been playing D&D since before AD&D was released. Sure it's all on the character sheet, but how long does it take to set up the character sheet and how many pages is that character sheet? And where do you track all the effects of terrain, spells, feats, etc. that change every combat or every round at times? And can you play it without a grid and miniatures if you need or want to? But again, those are my hang ups others might not share.

Stats show that all Pathfinder 2E has done is divide the player base like 4th ed/Pathfinder divide did. Sales are down for Pathfinder and usage stats on virtual tabletops don't even have Pathfinder 2E in the top 5 games played (even Pathfinder 1E rated higher in those stats on most virtual tabletop environments during the pandemic years), and if you go by virtual tabletop usage by groups (i.e. number of groups using a given system of the platform) something like 70% of the market belongs to D&D 5E and it more than triples any other system being used in those apps. Paizo has also announced it is beginning to adapt its adventure paths to 5E and will begin producing 5E products, Pathfinder dominated the RPG market during the 4E era, it was the #1 selling ttrpg for those years, but it has been losing market share since. That drastic loss is what triggered 2E but all that did was trigger more lost sales for Paizo as a large chunk of its remaining customer base did not adopt the new edition and are no longer buying new product from Paizo. There's still a good chunk of people playing Pathfinder 1E, but I think over time, as less and less material is out there to support it and it becomes harder to find people to fill out tables, it will fall into a niche like older editions of D&D, with a small but loyal group still playing it but no longer a real force in the landscape of the current market for games.

I've played every edition of D&D from white box through the current 5E. I'd happily go back and play or run any of them with the right group except 3E/3.5 (and its Pathfinder offshoot). There are only 4 #e era products I have hung on to and still use-Heroes of Battle, Heroes of Horror, Red Hand of Doom, and the Book of Vile Darkness. If I had the Book of Challenges I might still use it too, but it's not one I ever owned. There are a lot of things in those books that are still useful in my games-none of them have anything to do with the mechanics of 3.x D&D though.

I had to run 3.x rules as written when I was playtesting stuff I was writing for publishers. I had to dot every I and cross every T when it came to designing NPCs and monsters, whether that was the shopkeeper in the town or a goblin shaman who had to have levels in a spellcasting class to get access to spells. The prep time to play ratio for me as a DM for those sessions was horrendous. An NPC who was going to have 3 minutes of actual play time and never enter combat would take 60-90 minutes to actually design and write up by the rules as written. I get not every group is going to jump through those hoops, but the hoops are a part of the game and they are there because of what I consider some truly misguided design assumptions that were at the foundation of the system (i.e. to be fair and fun everything in the game- PCs, NPCs, monsters, traps, etc. have to be designed and built the same way with the same core mechanic and the same level of detail whether their lifespan in play is 3 rounds or 3 years. I love the d20 + mod vs target number core mechanic. That was simple and brilliant. It was everything else they stuck on to that that bogged things down and hampered the ability to customize style of play at the table. But again, everyone's style and preferences are different, and not everyone had to deal with the extra burden of designing according to the specs of the game for publication.

I'm not into edition wars. I think folks should play what they like. I just have some definitive reasons on why I dislike the 3.X/Pathfinder iteration of the World's Greatest Role-Playing Game. If you're having fun playing a system, go for it. For me, 3.X/Pathfinder just saps a lot of what I find fun in the game from it and accentuates the aspects of the game I don't find fun. My preferences are mine, and I am lucky I have found a large regular group that mostly shares them.

-M

4E is an incredibly well-designed game. I have stolen elements of it (minions, skill challenges) to graft onto my 5E game. However, it did miss the mark in capturing the D&D feel. If it had been branded as something other than D&D I think there would be a lot more acceptance and less hatred of it. It's a great ttrpg, just not a good D&D iteration.

-M

If anyone is interested the Die RPG, developed by Kieron Gillen based on the game in the comic he wrote published by Image and which playtest versions were available for free, is now complete and up on Kickstarter. It's a good game, just not one I will ever run so I am not backing it, but if folks are interested, you should check it out.


-M

I found out today our local library system is going to be running TTRPG programs for adults (no one under 18 or still in high school) on Saturdays from 11-3. It is a registration only program (but registration is free). It is being run by a research assistant from one of the local universities. My curiosity has the best of me, so I registered for the first event, this coming Saturday, to see what it's like or will be about. Be interesting to see if its all familiar faces I've known from the gaming community that has existed since before I moved here that were introduced to me by my wife, or if there is some new blood. I am not holding out much hope for finding candidates to invite to our regular game, but I am curious to see what it will be like.

-M