Pathfinder was created as an updated version of D&D 3.5, which was very complex. PF food streamline parts of it, but ended up just as complex at some point, mostly due to the massive variety of options available through splat books.
Meanwhile, D&D 5e was released to be much less complex by getting rid of stacking bonuses and the vast majority of math.
Parhfinder 2 (which I have not actually played yet) did not do that. They opted for streamlining the existing system by combining several similar subsystems into one (i.e. everything is a feat now). But the math is still there.
mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
I disagree. I’ve played 5E and GM PF2E (so I’m biased, but informed). In PF2E there’s no stacking bonuses of the same type, and there’s only 3 bonus types now.
Also, while there’s a ton of feats, Paizo didn’t just toss everything into feats.
PF2E is built off of a few frameworks for subsystems, one of which being character creation. There’s also the monster creation framework which allows homebrewing creatures and encounters that follow challenge rating suggestions. The frameworks are easy to learn and allow you to even build your own subsystems that are fairly similar to what Paizo would design
Meanwhile, the streamlining of 5E that you’re hinting at is WotC stripping out almost all character options. I always got tired of D&D campaigns by level 5 because your biggest meaningful choices are at 1st and 3rd level unless you start making multiclass abominations. And there’s also little support for GM’s, requiring each one to come up with their own rules for things like how ships work or designing magic items.
I’d rather have a system like PF2E that provides options, because you can always choose to ignore them and build your own thing. If you’re playing 5E, you don’t have that choice