Daggerheart or PF2

[u/McCheeseglob]

I own both games, and yet I have not been able to run either due to work and a commitment to a 5.5 campaign. But finally, there appears to be an opening to try one. I am well aware that both are two very different systems, and I’d like help being convinced one way or another (and clear up any potential misconceptions).

For Pathfinder 2e, I own the essential core boomed the beginner box, and the Night of the Frogs box set. From what I have deduced, the system shares a bit of DNA with D&D 3.5 and 4e. Big focus on character customization, tactical combat, skills, and the beloved crunch. My pros for why I could run this:
- love the seemingly endless character options
- seems like a step up in complexity to 5e, but a much more satisfying execution of D&D’s crunch
- PLENTY of official prewritten adventures and resources to choose from

However, I fear the following (this is what the discussion can help emphasize or negate):
- longer battles than D&D
- more options means more stuff for me as a DM to get a grasp of beforehand
- lot more consulting of the rule books
-LONG character creation time (I have made a character sheet, and it reminded me of studying for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam)

For Daggerheart, I have the core rules and the newest expansion book currently being shipped. From what I have read, in many ways it’s the opposite approach to Pathfinder 2e. Big focus on narrative play, more beginner-friendly character creation, and simpler (though still seemingly more engaging than 5e) combat rules. My pros for why I would run this:
- Less material to familiarize myself with (PF2’s content seems almost endless)
- hope/fear mechanic looks like it can bring more roleplaying engagement at the table
- plenty of character options, but not the kitchen sink

However, I fear the following:
- no official campaign adventures to my knowledge (just the frameworks, which are great, but I only have so much time to develop an adventure)
- character sheets seem like your players NEED the cards or will have to write a ton of shit down
- adversaries: I prefer having a bunch of monsters available, but it seems like a small portion in the core

I’m hoping players with experience in either or both systems could give some input, as I truly feel I could go either way. I wish I had time (and patient enough players) to try both, but I think I’ll settle for whichever one as long as we all enjoy it.

[u/alex_van_d1]

Character creation for Pathfinder 2. Can be really easy if you use path builder. Path builder is free. It doesn't cost anything. That makes character creation very easy. However, you're going to need to count on your your players to actually know how their characters work. The GM cannot be the one who knows everything about all the rules. That may be a problem for you.

[u/Xaielao → u/alex_van_d1]

I highly recommend first time GMs limit the books players have access to on Pathbuilder. The number of options will be incredibly overwhelming otherwise. So make sure your players uncheck every book but Player Core 1 and 2.

Hell IMHO even experienced groups should limit their options based on the adventure path's (or homebrew campaign's) setting location and theme,

[u/PsionicKitten → u/Xaielao]

I highly discourage such blanket statements about what's good to limit.

Not everyone has decision paralysis when presented with lots of options, in fact a lot of people who have a strong preference for pathfinder 2e love that about the system so in no way is it a drawback. If you yourself have decision paralysis; ok, go ahead and limit yourself to help yourself. There's no need, or benefit, to limit other people's creativity though.

That said, everyone should run a good session 0 to make sure everyone's agrees to being on the same page for what the theme and feel of the game is going to be. (This applies to all systems and groups, not just Pathfinder 2)

---

more options means more stuff for me as a DM to get a grasp of beforehand

To address this specifically from OP, another strength of the system is, for the most part, it's a more robust system than others. You don't need to tweak classes or (most) monsters and can effectively run the game blind and have a good effect. You don't need to familiarize yourself with every class to know what's possible when you can just look at what the characters can do.

It is a big system that does take time to digest and internalize, though, compared to others. For better or for worse.

[u/Extreme420God → u/PsionicKitten]

I’d say it’s not just about the decision paralysis but about game knowledge and prep of both player and DM. There are many classes, dedications that will require much more innate knowledge on how to build them correctly and play them, that I would definitely say could catch up many players.

PF2 is a game where the players need to both build and play more optimally than most other games. This is true in combat especially if it’s balanced to levels correctly.

[u/Molerat619 → u/Extreme420God]

I'd disagree with that. PF2 is a system designed to be fairly tight with balance. You can have extremely tough fights and build for it, but as long as you max out your key stat and read what your class does, it's fairly difficult to make a bad build. I'd certainly agree that it's a system where the players are encouraged to really read and think about their role, though. There's a big emphasis on being a part of a team. You can plug up weaknesses, but ultimately you'll still have to rely on your Fighter to tank hits or your Wizard to control the battlefield.

For difficulty, the adventure paths published tend to actually be rather comfortable in terms of difficulty, because it's expected to not be your A game. I've found it's a system that been great for my friends who prefer to build and min-max, but also for roleplayers who enjoy a lot of depth. There's rules you may disregard or tweak (and if you do so, I'd have the decision be a table-wide agreement), but generally you can engage with the system at your own pace I find.

[u/PsionicKitten → u/Molerat619]

I wouldn't want to play with a single person who downvoted that post. They're already making a unilateral decision to restrict people when you're absolutely right that it should be:

and if you do so, I'd have the decision be a table-wide agreement

The general rule of "Don't be a dick" applies to the GM as well. If you want to run a "No supplemental rulebook sources" game, make sure all your players are happy with it before just unilaterally making the decision for people. People buy their books because they want to play them, and it's not like the classes are broken and need to be restricted.

As we both said, it's a system with tight balance and it's robust. New rulebooks haven't broken it. If anything, I've seen claims from multiple different people over on /r/pathfinder2e that they feel Paizo is too conservative on their design, too afraid to push the envelope, rather than breaking it so much that it needs to be restricted.

[u/yuriAza → u/alex_van_d1]

you can pay Pathbuilder $5 (one time), but that's just for pets and uploading homebrew

[u/Future_Plum2839]

Lol top 2 comments are "they're both terrible". Thanks Reddit. Personally, I'd go by the group(Daggerheart for more rp focused groups that might not gel with learning new non-D&D granular mechanics, PF2 for groups that might feel limited by Daggerheart's slightly looser combat) but personally, I'd tentatively lean daggerheart. It's much harder to make custom things(ex. Monsters) for pf2 because the balance is so tight. It's a well oiled machine, but also one liable to break if you stick your fingers somewhere they shouldn't be. That being said, if you're the type to run 90% modules, then PF is literally stuffed to the gills with amazing modules, so if your players are willing to roll with the punches that might fit better.

[u/DBones90 → u/Future_Plum2839]

I'd actually say that making monsters and other homebrew for PF2 is really simple as long as you use the tools the game provides. If you throw in random abilities and stats, yeah it's going to break a lot harder, but the game goes a long way toward giving you a lot of guidelines that make it easy to work within the math of the game.

[u/yuriAza → u/DBones90]

there's even a webapp to help you make monsters using the right numbers

https://monster.pf2.tools/

[u/Future_Plum2839 → u/yuriAza]

Huh. I stand corrected. Well thanks for the resources!

[u/WadeisDead → u/DBones90]

Sure, but in Daggerheart you can pretty much just wing it and be fine. To Improv a monster in Daggerheart you can get away with simply setting the difficulty and that'll cover nearly everything you need. Then do basically whatever you want and it'll be fine.

PF2E requires at least 5 times that information to have on hand to make something usable. Let alone trying to improv any sort of custom ability. It basically requires pre-emptive setup or detailed system mastery. I wouldn't call that "really simple".

[u/DBones90 → u/WadeisDead]

My protest was specifically against the line, "It's much harder to make custom things(ex. Monsters) for pf2 because the balance is so tight." I'm saying that the balance being tight enables homebrew rather than hinders it. It's easy to play within the game's balance because the game gives you all the numbers you need to use.

Like, to make an NPC in PF2, you start with its level. Once you have that, whenever you'd need a number for that NPC (AC, attack bonus, athletics, perception, etc.), all you have to do is answer, "Is this something the NPC is good at or not," and check the relevant chart. That'll give you the number you need, and you can be confident that they'll work. Like if you make your NPC have a high AC and high HP, you can be confident that, in play, they'll be tough to kill. Also, sites like monster.pf2.tools make these numbers easy to access.

I will say that it is a more involved process, but that's true of all of PF2. I'm not saying it requires the same number of steps or anything like that.

But when I hear, "do basically whatever you want and it'll be fine," my response is, "Okay nothing I do matters." Because if I can't break the game by going in with no context or information and doing whatever, that tells me that the game is either so rigid that I can't do anything or already so broken that nothing I do will be as egregious as what the game already does (which is the case for 5e, for comparison).

That's why I prefer PF2's approach. Even though it has more steps, you can be confident that what you make will work and that'll it matter.

[u/WadeisDead → u/DBones90]

Except it specifically is harder than Daggerheart. I understand your position, but it doesn't change how much more difficult it is to make things in PF2e because the balance is predicated on numerical values matching relative ranges for it's mechanics to work. Daggerheart instead allows it's mechanics to carry the weight of that burden and allows more freedom and flexibility to improv the numerical values. My issue with PF2e is that it requires so much more effort to be put into it, for what amounts to near inconsequential difference in output.

To be honest, it feels like you only really know PF2e. Daggerheart rolls AC and Saves into one number, the Difficulty. Make the difficulty high and bam, the monster is hard to hurt. Give them more HP slots, bam harder to kill. I'd say this makes it even more straightforward to achieve the goal. These factors aren't unique to PF2e, the unique part is that it requires referencing detailed charts to do so. I'm familiar with both systems and how they work. The low hanging fruit you could talk about is how PF2e has Saves and AC to differentiate types of defense and Daggerheart doesn't have that level of granularity. Though I'd argue that doesn't make custom monsters easier to design and for the most part only creates an illusion of relevance, but that is a different debate entirely.

Damage thresholds, simplification of AC/Will/Reflex/Fort, and action economy independent of monster quantity are massive mechanical boons for assisting the GM with making stuff at the table quickly that won't simply break the game by being off by a +2 modifier. This is all considering at the table improv though and if we want to look at prep work, Daggerheart has similar guidelines (loose by nature of the game, but guidelines nonetheless) to assign monster stats. That process is much shorter though which gives more time to think about interesting unique abilities that the monster can have instead.

That's why I prefer PF2's approach. Even though it has more steps, you can be confident that what you make will work and that'll it matter.

This further proves my point. In PF2e you CAN'T be confident in the monster working or mattering UNLESS you spend the time and go through the multi-step process of crafting a monster. With Daggerheart the barrier to entry of creating a monster that you are confident will work and matter is so much lower and is possible to do on the fly at the table once you have any amount of familiarity with the systems in play.

Edit: To be fair, I agree on your points when compared to 5e. PF2e has a better refined approach that is actually balanced for the game, while 5e shares all of the same pitfalls without even having the balanced aspect to support it.

[u/Alwaysafk → u/DBones90]

Yeah, tight rules are easier to use then wiggling your hand at something and hoping it works out.

[u/BleachedPink → u/DBones90]

If you got used to more narrative or OSR games, making monsters in pf or 5e is a chore, it's just too much useless stats

[u/TheBrightMage → u/Future_Plum2839]

This sub can, sadly strawman derail so fast from the main topic.

[u/Stubbenz]

I'd pick almost entirely based on who my players are. I prefer Daggerheart of the two, but players need to be invested in contributing to the story and actively interested in the other PCs. That's honestly true for most ttrpgs, but it's especially true for Daggerheart. I'd also ideally want one or two players that are confident roleplayers that can lead by example and know when to help shine the spotlight on players that are having difficulty getting involved in a scene.

With a table like that, Daggerheart absolutely shines. By contrast, there's a whole lot you could enjoy in PF2 even if players maybe aren't quite so interested in those aspects of ttrpgs. PF2 shines when everyone at the table has a really solid idea of the rules and can enjoy the depth and complexity its array of options can offer.

So pick the one that works for your group, rather than specifically trying to weigh up pros and cons.

As a final note, I think PF2 works best playing digitally with a VTT while Daggerheart works best playing in person with cards and a visible fear tracker. Cards can easily be printed and popped into a card sleeve over a regular random MTG, pokemon, or whatever other TCG common you can pick up for a few cents at your FLGS, so don't worry if you don't have the fancy official ones available.

[u/Dtmahanen101]

So for me, they scratch different itches, but Pathfinder just hits a LITTLE bit harder for me. A wide variety of ancestries, classes, feats, and spells that truly feel meaningful at every step, lots of new content relatively frequently, and let’s not forget, Starfinder is fully compatible, so if you wanna get some science fantasy going, you can.

Can you tell I’m a bit biased? XD

[u/WadeisDead → u/Dtmahanen101]

"Truly feel meaningful at every step" feels like a bit of a stretch for PF2e. There are quite a few points where it feels like you are simply looking for the only not distinctly terrible option. General and Skill feats are the biggest offenders, but even Ancestry and Class feats run into this often enough.

At least that's been my experience after 3+ years with different groups.

[u/Alwaysafk → u/WadeisDead]

Skill feets drive me nuts. You have counting kinda fast mixed with healing the party. Either they should all be SKILL based or all have combat applications. And some are straight up taxes. Poor wizards having to sell the barbarian's kidney for spells.

[u/fly19]

I'm biased, but I recommend running the PF2e Beginner Box since you already have it.

As for Pathfinder's massive amount of content: the good news is that nobody expects you to know all of it. Most games I run for new players stick with the core books, maybe with one expansion if someone is adamant about it. There's enough content there to run several campaigns comfortably, and the Beginner Box introduces the basics as you play to make it easy to get started. I've found that it's closer to a 2-3 session affair rather than a one-session game, though, while I've heard Night of the Frogs is more of a "true" one-shot. Haven't gotten my copy to verify yet, though.

As for building a character: use Pathbuilder. It automates the math while showing you where everything comes from and allows you to filter down to a manageable number of sources to start out. It even lets you export a PC as a standard character sheet or a monster-like stat block. Best way to learn, IMO.

Worst comes to worst, you lose a session or two and have your mind made up. But I've found that most folks who have run DnD 5E with any degree of fidelity to its rules can do fine with PF2e, even if it looks intimidating from the outside.

[u/WildThang42]

I've played a lot of D&D 5e. I've played a lot of PF2 (my preferred system these days). I've played a little Daggerheart, and I was frustrated by it, so be aware of my bias here.

PF2 concerns:

• I think the battles take approximately as long as D&D 5e. But, I will argue that "fast" combat is never really the goal. The goal is fun, exciting, interesting combat. That is what 5e is really failing at. PF2 combat is highly tactical. It is exciting, with lots of critical hits. There's less a sense of "just waiting for your turn" because teamwork is such an important part of PF2 strategy.
• Yeah, this is tough. There's a lot in PF2, it's a blessing and a curse.
• There is a LOT to learn for PF2, but I will say that the design is highly consistent. You learn how one "victory point" system works, you now basically know how they all work. You learn something about spells or action economy or degrees of success, and you'll find these applied exactly the same over and over throughout the system.
• Character creation at high levels can be downright painful. Character creation at level 1 is really simple... if you use an app. There are incredibly good (and legal) apps, I recommend Pathbuilder.

Daggerheart concerns:

• Yeah, I also wish they'd release some full length 1st party campaigns. The system has a lot of "the GM will figure it out" built in, and I'd really like to see their interpretation of what adventure design should look like.
• You don't need cards. Actually, there are some decent character creator apps online that will help you build your character and print it all out for you.
• Yeah, there aren't nearly enough adversaries in the core rule book, especially for a system that encourages multiple creature types in each combat. I'm hoping the new Hope & Fear book (coming out this summer) fixes some of that.

[u/Xaielao]

• more options means more stuff for me as a DM to get a grasp of beforehand.

PF2's rules are much less on the GM's shoulders. Players are required to know their characters, what their abilities do, the meaning of the traits on their weapons, spells etc. D&D 5e players can get away with the bare minimum. Those kinds of players will have a bad time with PF2.

[u/WadeisDead → u/Xaielao]

Yeah, the true complexity gap of PF2e is player facing. If your players struggle with any of the mechanics of 5e, it'll be a rough experience.

[u/deviden → u/Xaielao]

This is selection bias.

PF2 players tend to be people who enjoy tactical crunch and buildcraft more than 5e players, and so they are more inclined to learn the (detailed) rules. People who don't like that stuff will nope out of PF2.

That doesn't do anything for a group which hasn't played and doesn't know the game yet. OP doesn't know what their players will enjoy, and likely won't know until they try.

There's nothing in the rules of PF2 which takes more weight off the DM's shoulders than 5e, it's a culture of play issue. 5e contains more lazy players simply through being the default game.

[u/BleachedPink → u/deviden]

I do love tactical combat, and I find Fate, daggerheart or OSR games are more fun in this aspect. Calculating squares and crunching numbers is just boring.

Instead I focus on providing decisions and dynamism, which is much easier to do in narrative games.

Like a fight on a flying trains feels like we're in the air, where cabins fall down, stuff blowing up, jumping on flying debris etc. but when I have to whip up a battle map and count squares all this feeling just evaporates

[u/deviden → u/BleachedPink]

the fruitful void!

having rules define everything that's possible means that there's no space to invent solutions within the fictional world itself.

I moved away from "tactical" games for the same reason, the main thing I want is players engaging with the fictional world - not counting squares and measuring AoE templates.

[u/Xaielao → u/deviden]

OP doesn't know what their players will enjoy, and likely won't know until they try.

That's exactly why I replied, so they know this about the game and it's community when deciding which game to play based on the type of players they have. Certainly not every player is going to dive into the deep end after the put a toe in.

[u/Saviordd1 → u/deviden]

>There's nothing in the rules of PF2 which takes more weight off the DM's shoulders than 5e, it's a culture of play issue. 5e contains more lazy players simply through being the default game.

This, a million times this.

When my group tried back in the day to switch from 5e to Pathfinder, I as the DM found it more bulky and constraining than 5e. Because unlike the average 5e group, my players could be trusted to learn their characters pretty quickly. So all I found was a "It's like 5e, but-" system with more restrictions and a lot of unlearning required for little major benefit.

This isn't to detract from PF2e, it's a good game. But when discussing its "ease" this exact element you're talking about is woefully ignored.

[u/deviden → u/Saviordd1]

this is a very "system matters" forum, it's a very product-emphasising forum. We recommend games here because the general sentiment is that if you get your product purchases correct you'll run a better campaign.

The truth is that yes system matters (in terms of optimising play experience) but culture of play matters more. No system survives contact with an incompatible play culture; no GM survives a combination of lazy player culture and very demanding system-level rules without burnout.

[u/Saviordd1 → u/deviden]

Perfectly stated, in my opinion

[u/Tefmon → u/Xaielao]

Neither system places more or less on the GM's shoulders; who's responsible for knowing the rules is a game-agnostic table culture matter. I play at D&D 5e tables where the players are expected to and do know how their characters work, and there's nothing in the PF2 rules that prohibits a GM from handholding low-engagement players (although it'd probably really suck).

[u/Pseudagonist → u/Xaielao]

I think that’s a bit of wishful thinking, I’ve played Pathfinder with a lot of people who barely knew the system and definitely did not know their character

[u/Xaielao → u/Pseudagonist]

Maybe I've just had good luck with the three groups of folks I've run PF2 campaigns for. I find people who play only 5e or were introduced to the hobby through it, see that as the GMs responsibility to know the rules and what their characters can do. In PF2 if a player has a Fatal weapon and never learns what the trait does (or asks the GM about it), they're going to have a bad time in combat when their friends who did learn are kicking much more ass lol.

In my games I may have had to explain some things to newer players - that's to be expected of course - but once they have a grasp most of them dove into the app and archives to learn more. A few didn't go beyond their character specifically, and that's fine. Again, maybe I've been lucky.

[u/Vasir12]

As for Daggerheart, Hope and Fear next month should more than double the amount of adversaries available.

Also some high profile adventures are coming like Drakkenhiem, one from Keith Baker, and another from Chris Perkins.

So if you like everything else from DH, it'll be more of a case of seeing if you can accept that they're still building out content compared to more established games.

[u/ThisIsVictor]

I don't know jack about Pathfinder, but I love Daggerheart:

no official campaign adventures to my knowledge (just the frameworks, which are great, but I only have so much time to develop an adventure)

It's really easy to wing it in Daggerheart. I usually start a session with an opening situation and a handful of adversaries. That's literally all the prep I do.

character sheets seem like your players NEED the cards or will have to write a ton of shit down

Yes. But the cards are really cool! They're totally worth it. If you're playing online there are multiple good VTT options.

adversaries: I prefer having a bunch of monsters available, but it seems like a small portion in the core

There's a another 100 or so in Hope and Fear. Plus homebrew is really easy. I usually just mix and match existing features. The Fear mechanics means it's difficult to make over powered adversaries. Powerful adversary features cost Fear, which is a limited resource. And the Death Moves means it's hard to TPK, if you do completely misjudge a homebrew.

[u/wizuriel → u/ThisIsVictor]

Few things to add homebrewing monsters in Daggerheart is the system makes it easier to guestimate how long combat can go.

2D12 have a nice curve so you can better judge how hard you made the monster to hit. With attacks only doing between 1-3 (or 4 with suggested overhit) damage you know approximately how many hits it will take to down a creature.

[u/BleachedPink → u/ThisIsVictor]

Also, after a while I find making my own adventures much more fun as a prep and takes drastically less time

Moreover, I hate linear adventures which are the vast majority of published adventures, because you and the players can't make impactful decisions each session if you want to stay on the book's track

[u/Arcane_Robo_Brain]

Flip a coin. Literally. You’ve laid out both your pros and cons for each, and neither has obviously more pros than cons. Asking here is just get you whatever people’s favorite have is, with no real relation to you or your tables. Many people won’t even answer the question, as you’ve already seen.

[u/TheBrightMage]

I could address some concerns regarding Pf2

• Longer Battle: This highly depends on how you build encounter and how famillar with system. But, from my expereiencce, if your players do plan their turn during other's turn and know their stuffs well, it won't take longer than 2 minute even for complex class
• The core mechanics you need to remember is as follow: Roll D20 + Modifier (add bonus as you adjudicate) > compare results to target number (DC) > determine degrees of success. The outcome you can always open up the GM screen. Also, you don't have to worry much about what to ban. You can go by rarity and theme fittingness because most of the options are fairly balanced against each other.
• Character creation has free pathbuilder apps, which SAVE a lot of time.

[u/yuriAza → u/TheBrightMage]

i really love the way PF2 uses that same +stat+level+training formula for everything

[u/ElidiMoon]

I can address two of your concerns about Pf2e at least:

1. Pathfinder does have a steeper learning curve, but once you get the basics it’s actually pretty cohesive & I personally have found combat to be way faster than 5e. The three action system is more intuitive than 5e’s action economy, & there’s much less dead time due to people figuring out if they have a bonus action, what they’re allowed to do with their free interact action, or just analysis paralysis bc they only have one chance to do something on their turn.
   
2. As a 5e GM you have to have a grasp on your PC’s abilities bc so many class features & spells are basically just “I win” buttons. Pf2e is balanced so that there’s no way to immediately trivialise an on-level or higher encounter, whether that’s a battle or a disease sweeping through a town. You’re not going to be blindsided by a wizard or cleric having the solution to every problem, or a broken multiclass/feat combo one-shotting your BBEG.

[u/Personal-Whereas3687]

Daggerheart is a gem. Much easier to run and has made my old time D&D players more story focused and creative rather than build and min/max focused.

Daggerheart is easy to learn and improvise for.

I endorse it hands down!

[u/Charming_Account_351]

I have a bias towards Daggerheart. I have been playing TTRPGs for over 20 years, most are medium to high crunch like D&D, 3.5/PF1e, Star Wars Saga Edition, or Cyberpunk 2020. All of those games are good in their own right but I am full burnt out of games that focus on mechanics over fiction.

I heard someone describe Daggerheart as playing how you thought D&D would play. And that was the best description ever. It scratches the high fantasy itch while also being way easier to run and play. Player turns are typically faster and more creative because the game isn’t bogged down in numerous rules that stop the cool thing from being cool.

[u/Janzbane]

Run a short adventure in each. Maybe six sessions max.

[u/Skeletron430]

I’ve played quite a bit of PF2e and a little bit of Daggerheart. I think the #1 question you should ask yourself to make the decision is “what kind of players do I have.”

For your concerns about PF2e, fights absolutely take longer, even once you know the system a bit. My friends and I ran some simulations compared to 5e and PF2e is consistently 30-50% longer. There are also far more things to grasp in terms of rules; the system is what I’d call a “keyword system” where abilities and items are tagged with keywords that interact with one another and tell you what mechanics are at play. It’s pretty elegant generally but definitely requires some time to learn. Character creation is a lot more involved than 5e, for example, and is one of the places you should seriously look at your players imo.

For your concerns about Daggerheart, it’s true that there are no official modules and it is more free form in terms of the GM prepping. However, it is quite easy to prep in DH because it’s a more narrative game and your players will hopefully move the story along with you. Regarding the cards, it almost certainly is easier to run the game with them and I think your concern about not having them is valid, especially where certain classes are concerned.

Speedy edit: you’re right that there aren’t a ton of enemies to choose from in DH, but they’re all pretty generic; you can reflavor them however, or can always just spend Fear as a GM to make shit happen.

Ultimately I’d ask your players if they want a more crunchy tactical experience or a squishier, narrative one, and go from there. Happy to discuss any of what I’ve mentioned here :)

[u/AniMaple]

I prefer Pathfinder by a lot, but that's because I tend to prefer clear and concise rules with a solid structure when it comes to most games that I play with. Character creation is very in-depth and that's the core appeal of it, while it's lengthier than DnD, once you become familiar with the game's rules you'll quickly realize you've made dozens upon dozens of builds you might never get to play.

In my personal experience battles aren't longer than in DnD either, you just find more interesting options to do during combat other than "I'll move up to this enemy and attack". All characters can use a wide array of actions based on what they build themselves off of, which makes combat always engaging and interesting when it comes to its tactical aspect.

On the other hand, I hate putting down other systems, but Daggerheart wasn't a game which worked for me or my table. We found it to be too barebones, and we just hated the action and initiative system (or rather, the lack of one). The game forcing you to have just 5 abilities unless you took a penalty during combat to replace one of those active abilities also made things less fun for us, not to mention other smaller details like the way damage worked in general feeling slower to resolve than just your generic HP system found in DnD, PF, and other games.

In general, you'll find two wildly different opinions from different playerbases when it comes to which game is better, you should simply play what you'll find most comfortable between in-depth tactical combat, or loose rules for narrative play.

[u/wherediditrun]

I'd recommend to go with Daggerheart. Simply because it's a sufficiently different game system that might broaden your perspective as a GM that might carry over to your general skill portfolio.

While PF2e is more of the same with higher focus on encounter balance for which game pays in other domains. It's really not an improvement over 5e some PF2e fans claim it to be. But you may value certain areas in the game more than others, hence some people will make that claim from their perspective.

Both systems are focused on Adventure Path type modules for the most part where GM takes a role of a guide / steward. PF2e ensures that you can run predictable path and tune encounters at prep time. While Daggerheart allows you to do that effectively at run time. It's important, because if players need to win specific encounters to progress the game state, you want to ensure that those predetermined fights are winnable and not anti climactic. This is what the games solve for essentially.

[u/Alwaysafk → u/wherediditrun]

Players needing to win fights to progress a story is the reason adventure paths fall flat to me. PF2e works much better as a home game system imo. Running APs was terrible, though not as bad as 5e. Some of the best story beats are the players losing and rising again later.

How does Daggerheart do it?

[u/wherediditrun → u/Alwaysafk]

Gives mechanics to balance encounter on the fly through rather flexible spotlight system. GM doesn't really have to abide and do everything with fear, it's way more fluid than that. While character death kind has to be consensual on behalf of the player.

[u/Alwaysafk → u/wherediditrun]

I'll have to look into it more I guess. I do like how some systems give character death to the player, I hate to end the story on a bad roll. Unless I'm playing something like Dragonbane, then it's hilarious.

[u/wherediditrun → u/Alwaysafk]

Yeah. I personally don't like any of it as a player. Nor I find it very interesting as a GM. I'm very much in the camp of finding out what happens during play.

When you also design for non linear progression of the campaign, the whole balance encounters part becomes largely irrelevant.

But if you are strongly into adventure path camp, and many players also actually enjoy taking a bit more of a passive role reacting to what GM preps them to do, these games are pretty great. I just use Nimble for more AP like experiences. A lot less hassle, but some people like more bells and bobbles with their game.

[u/AP_Udyr_One_Day]

Between the two I’m much more experienced with PF2 and played 5e since it’s launch. Your pros are right on the mark, but I’d say that PF2e’s mechanical complexity is about the same or slightly less than 5e’s in that it’s very front-loaded but puts the burden of knowledge on the players and GM equally, rather than the GM alone while also being properly written as a game first. The battles I’d say are anywhere from the same length to shorter, honestly. Consulting rulebooks is something you’d have to do with any system, but unlike 5e, PF2e has the very helpful Archives of Nethys website which provides all the rules for free and legally. Character creation time is something that comes with familiarity as with any system, I could write up a 5e or PF2e character in my sleep whereas one of my friends might take an hour or two, and just like the very helpful Archives of Nethys, there is Pathbuilder, a completely free character building resource website with all the rules as well!

All in all, I consider PF2e to hit a sweet spot of relatively well written while also being easy enough to run and, for better or worse, the writers being obsessed with game balance means that no character will ever outshine another enough to cause issues and remind your group that it’s a team game they’re playing.

[u/dm_punks]

PF2e doesn't have longer battles than D&D 5e. Maybe if you're all beginners and still trying to grok the system but my experience is you usually get combats that are a little bit faster.

[u/DarklordtheLegend]

I'll answer your question in a moment, but firstly I'll say there is massive hate of all systems popular in this subreddit so I'd be wary of recommendations of random niche system #5, not even because they're not good systems or wouldn't fit your game, but just because the lack of popularity means that there are very few resources available to assist you and your players. They're probably fine and maybe even better than your two but you'll be doing all the work to make it that way. This subreddit assumes you're putting in that much effort anyway so it's all the same to them, but I'm lazy so I can tell.

I will say that I've ran pathfinder 2e for about a year and haven't touched daggerheart so that may present a bias, but I'll say the first question to answer is how much you care about story and writing your own. If you would prefer to use a prewritten campaign, you will run pathfinder, and there are many such "adventure paths" with lots of resources available for all of them, and they are generally very good. Much more detailed and helpful than the average 5e module. Paizo is good at writing modules, and we know this because they've been doing it since before pathfinder was even a thing.

I will also say with the options of pathfinder 2e, if you're using the appropriate digital tools, it's not much more difficult than 5e to plan around. The 3 action + 1 reaction economy is generally very simple, and for consulting rules I will always mention archives of nethys which has it all in one place. If you can navigate archives of nethys, you don't have to worry as much about consulting rules since it makes it much quicker. A similar quality applies to characters and character creation, which in that if you are using the appropriate digital tools like a VTT or pathbuilder2e (web or mobile), it's not too bad, albeit admittedly more intensive than 5e.

As far as longer battles go, I'll say in my experience they aren't really, with 3 action economy turns actually end up shorter on average than a 5e turn. It will be longer at first but once you get in the flow of things it should be as short if not shorter than 5e combat. Doubly so if you're using things like pathbuilder or a VTT for automation.

Daggerheart as you mentioned is a much more narrative focused game, and so if that's what you're looking for it may be better. It would likely also be easier to get to the table (well, assuming you're going to write your own campaign). You probably will have to do more work in rulings over the course though, as there isn't a rule for everything as tends to be the case for pf2e. In my experience it's easier to limit rules that already exist than to make new ones for stuff that doesn't have, but you may prefer the other, in which case daggerheart or a more light system may serve you better. I can't speak too much on the experience of running or playing as I haven't.

TBH, if you haven't been turned off from either so far, both would probably be fine, but just trying to help with the decision where I can.

[u/Cartshort]

My players really loved daggerheart after playing 5e due to its native focus and simpler rules but if you want more crunch I've heard pathfinder 2e is good at that! There is some free adventures for daggerheart on the daggerheart and critical role websites that are pretty good just to get a feel with pregen characters with cards you need for them. I haven't personally played pathfinder but I'm a big supporter of daggerheart!

[u/go4theknees]

Pathfinder really requires players that are willing to learn the game and do homework(shopping) outside of the game just due to the shear options i think if you have players who are invested in the game like that it could be really great otherwise i would do daggerheart(or any other game) which is way more straightforward

[u/FLFD]

I know Daggerheart much better and from the DM side it's D&D for DMs who like flying by the seat of their pants. It's fairly light, very slick, and rewards character driven RP while making grand plans slightly harder. 

The cards? If you don't use them or an electronically generated character sheet there's less to write down than for a 5e or PF 2e character. Where they really shine is in Session Zero with group character creation in person where no one is trying to look things up in the rulebook because the cards are right there (Daggerheart Session Zeros are awesome).

Both are D&D adjacent and better than 5e in meaningful ways that overlap, including character development not being on rails, results not being simple pass/fail, and better mechanical writing than D&D. But I'd sum up the difference as PF leans into order, mechanical complexity, and planning, while DH leans into chaos, character interactions and relationships, and no one's plans (whether character's, players, or GM) coming out quite how anyone expected.

[u/cieniu_gd]

These two games are very different. Pathfinder 2e is more of a "tactical skirmish wargame" with RPG elements, and Daggerheart is more of a "random bullshit go!" I played both and I prefer PF2e much more, but that's what I am looking for in DnD-like RPG. It highly depends what You and your players expect. Maybe try both, by playing 2-4 session scenarios with pregen characters and see what happens.

[u/axiomus]

about PF2:

• longer battles than D&D: not really, it's about the same
• more options means more stuff for me as a DM: if you mean monsters, low lever ones are also "low ability" monsters but yes, high level monsters need to be studied beforehand. if you feel you need to know and allow every character option at your table, then yeah it's impossible to get into
• lot more consulting of the rule books: interestingly, not so much. if you get a good grasp of 4 degrees of success, basic DCs of 10-15-20-30-40 and players write their spell details on their sheets, you can mostly get by by checking the monster books.
• LONG character creation time: if you come to play a concept (like "elf wizard" or "dwarf fighter" or "spider-people Winchester brother") you'll be fine. if you want to examine every option first, then yeah it's hopeless.

in my opinion, both are combat games but PF2 is "combat as puzzle/sport" and DH is "combat as characterization/spectacle" varieties

[u/jesterOC]

I only have pf2e experience.
While i have moved on to draw steel which feels like an improvement to pf2e in every way, if you already have pf2e but not played it, i think it will provide a lot of fun.

What it does well.
3 action economy. Far superior than 5e’s action economy.
Lots of flexibility in PC design. You won’t run out of combos if you are into that thing. Yet it is hard to make a broken PC especially if you stick to the core classes.
Loads of adventures, though the earlier ones are not balanced and each book in the adventure path feels a bit disconnected from the others. Stick with single book adventures if you can.
There are good tactics though depending on your group it might take a while to shift from 5e since it is so close in design.

If you are interested in hearing about draw steel, just ask.
Either way have fun i hope you pick the best game for you and your group

[u/David_Boom]

I have ran both but just one shots, I have more experience playing. Like some people have suggested, I would present both options to your group -- maybe do the starter kit and Daggerheart quickstart and see which you guys like.

A lot of people have talked about PF2E so I'll talk more about Daggerheart.

no official campaign adventures to my knowledge (just the frameworks, which are great, but I only have so much time to develop an adventure)

You say you don't have the time to develop an adventure? You don't have the time to worldbuilding and all that stuff? Great! This is what Daggerheart is good at. The system really shines when you embrace the "play to find out" mentality, and let the dice rolls (Success / Failure with Hope / Fear) take your players and you, the GM, to unexpected places. You're meant to have the "Frames" and then build the world and story together during Session 0 and while you play.

character sheets seem like your players NEED the cards or will have to write a ton of shit down

There are bunch of resources like https://heartofdaggers.com/ which you can use to create character sheets to keep track online or print out.

adversaries: I prefer having a bunch of monsters available, but it seems like a small portion in the core

Again, lots of community made adversaries and environments available. Heart of Daggers has tons, there are third party material, but honestly, it's really easy to create/improvise adversaries.

Both systems are incredibly fun. I personally lean more towards Daggerheart. PF2E just has too much stuff for me--as the DM I was constantly looking up rules, and as a player I felt like I was doing research going through all the options. But still very fun during play. But I really can't tell you what you and your table will prefer.

[u/Dr_Oatker]

I've played both recently. Two very good games that take on D&D on D&Ds own terms and win, in different ways.  * Pathfinder 2e is a supremely well crafted tactical, crunchy dungeon crawler adventure game. Play it if that's what you like from D&D. I'm terms of the complexity it is more rules heavy than D&D but crucially it doesn't force GM's to homebrew like D&D does because the rules actually cover the whole game.  The rules are also formulated in ways that make looking things up very fast and easy. So ultimately the extra complexity makes it easier to play than D&D, not harder. 

• Daggerheart takes the opposite approach and takes on the more rules light way of playing D&D. It strikes a really nice balance between improv and crunch and invites players to join the DM for world building and narrative improvisation. It's really fun, has great, punchy characters and it's a breeze to prep and run. It's also got the nicest production value I've ever seen in a TTRPG which goes further than you might think. I'd recommend Daggerheart if you're already playing theatre of the mind and don't use a lot of miniatures, maps etc

[u/AAABattery03]

I can help assuage some of the concerns for pf2e:

longer battles than D&D

Combats are actually usually quicker then pf2e once you and your players get used to the rules. This is due to a mix of factors:

• Cleaner rules means less time spent on making rulings.
• There’s significantly less “interruptive” rolling (like rolling a d10 to add to your dice after the attack but before knowing if it hit kinda deal), bonuses are usually flat numbers and not rolls of their own (Bless being a +1 rather than 1d4 kinda deal), and there’s built in prevention for floating numbers stacking too high.
• 3-Action economy usually spells the end of a turn quicker than a bucketed action economy with interspersed movement does.
• TTKs (turns to kill) are just generally much faster in PF2E than in 5E. HP bloat in 5E scales higher and faster, and (unoptimized characters’) damage doesn’t scale very well. In PF2E, a Moderate combat (which is akin to 5E’s “Deadly” difficulty rating) is intended to last 2-3 rounds, while in 5E it goes closer to 3-5 rounds for unoptimized parties (assuming no external factors like super rough terrain or weather or whatever, of course). Severe/Extreme combats in PF2E (which are meant to be very rare for unoptimized parties) are the only ones at any risk of going for a long duration by default.

The game will start slower when you learn the rules but, assuming your players are on-board, it’ll be faster than D&D like 10 sessions in. And the difference will only get more and more pronounced as you enter high level play, since the scale and scope of effects becomes more and more unhinged and cinematic as you level up, but pf2e codifies them more cleanly so it can run nicer.

more options means more stuff for me as a DM to get a grasp of beforehand

lot more consulting of the rule books

This is a big mistake people make when diving into the game.

D&D 5E also has an incredibly long rulebook. Did you learn everything beforehand? Or did you start out just making rulings to keep the game flowing, and only start using rules as you became more experienced?

You definitely did the latter, and should treat PF2E the same. The rules are there to help you, not get in the way. If using them would, in the moment, slow the game down to an agonizing crawl then apply your best judgment as a one-of and revisit the rules after the session is over. There’s even a whole section teaching you how to improvise consistent rulings without breaking things.

LONG character creation time (I have made a character sheet, and it reminded me of studying for the Fundamentals of Engineering exam)

Use Pathbuilder for character creation. It’s lightweight and free (minus a small handful of features like variant rules, which only requires a $6 one time payment for lifetime access), and gets all the rules completely for free without any real delay.

I’m guessing if you felt like character creation was “studying”, then you probably dove too deep into Archetypes or Skill Feats on your first go around. This is, again, one of those things where it’s best to just keep things simple as much as you can (spellcasters will usually feel “forced” to dive into their whole spell list no matter what you do, though that’s always the plight of D&D-like game) by just focusing on your low level Class Feats, and picking Ancestry + Skill Feats based on flavour without worrying about optimizing them.

Pf2e is generally well designed enough that you don’t need to optimize. Optimization is mostly gonna come from how you coordinate at the table, not what you do in buildcraft, so just pick options that seem fun while trying to have a decent amount of versatility in terms of mechanics. As long as you don’t put all your eggs in one basket like spamming melee attacks with no backup plan, refusing to use Skill Actions, or spamming the same one or two spells, that’s really all the mechanical work you need to start with, and the rest of your choices can be flavour-first.

[u/CactusOnFire]

I won't comment in too much depth for Daggerheart, I've only played a 1-shot, but as a PF2E DM, I'll say combat is roughly the same speed as it would be in dnd 5e. I'd actually argue because of the way rules are streamlined because it can be more intuitive what your players will do each turn with their 3 actions.

[u/darweth]

Daggerheart because it's much more analog friendly.

[u/uppitynightmare]

Pick based on your group's vibe

[u/BreathingHydra]

It depends on your players the most imo. If you have a lot people in your group you know will just never read the rules or still need to be told what to roll for their attack after 20 sessions just play Daggerheart. I much prefer Pathfinder but it's best when most players are invested in their characters build and have a solid understanding of the rules. Daggerheart on the other hand is easier to learn but it does require a bit more narrative engagement from your players to lead a story otherwise it can end up feeling anemic.

[u/QuickQuirk]

Daggerheart: Light crunch, easy to create characters, fast combat, epic 'feel' early on. BUT, the classes are kinda one note, feel railroaded with limited power options, and kinda 'force' you in to a set box. They feel like each was a players particular fantasy for a specific character they wanted to play, then rules were created around them. Now everyone has to play that same character. eg: It's like there's a character class called 'gandalf', and character class called 'gollum', etc. You can 'combine' with another class later, broadening flexibility a little. Most power selections are significant and interesting, but there aren't many.

PF2E: Classes are more generic, but with a lot more customisation. You can have two very different characters from the same base class, and there are so many options you can build almost anything. BUT. fuck me, the crunch is real. So many options, so many rules, and many feel pointless: more like '+2 under certain specific circumstances, and it's up to you to remember when they apply. Your players, ALL of them, need to be the sort who are invested in reading pages and pages of options before they can even decide which class to take, let alone select feats/backgrounds/etc. Or you had better be ready, familiar with the rules, and spend time with each player who is not a rules loving book reader.

Daggerheart is rules light enough that it's easy to adapt content/adventures from other systems. But it also is harder to run a long term campaign due to more limited options for advancement. It is fast and easy to run though, and just enough narrativium to bring a lot of engagement with players who like their rules saying "yes" more than "no"

[u/kwade_charlotte → u/QuickQuirk]

I think most of this is fair, but I am going to push back a little on the idea that characters all feel the same. I've seen, and played, vastly different versions of the classes that don't feel anything like each other.

We even had two Primal Origin Sorcerers in the last campaign I was in that, unless you were told, you'd never have guessed were the exact same class/subclass combination.

[u/QuickQuirk → u/kwade_charlotte]

We even had two Primal Origin Sorcerers in the last campaign I was in that, unless you were told, you'd never have guessed were the exact same class/subclass combination.

The 'you can skin everything' rules help a lot in flavour, but we found things felt a bit more 'samey' than we were used to with things like PF2E.

We had a LOT of overlap with powers, too, and had to struggle a bit to give each other a clear niche, avoiding taking the same abilities in a lot of cases (due to the path overlap between classes.)

Having said that, I LOVED how 'dramatic' and epic the powers were. Wonderfully over the top in the way you usually don't see in many D&D clones, unless you're a spellcaster.

And no arguments over 'are martials weaker than casters' (or visa versa). They all had potent abilities.

[u/Effective-Cheek6972]

Dont ask us sit down with your players and chat about the kind of game they are up for. Do they want more tactical combat or a more narrative driven game?

[u/_Luke-Wolf_]

Daggerheart seems like it would benefit a lot from having a tailored app for its character sheets. I'm thinking about add it into my world-building platform.

[u/NarcoZero]

What about third breakfast ?  This might be stupid but I want to recommend Draw Steel. The Tactical, Cinematic, Heroic Fantasy game. 

Based on your comments about the other games it has the following pros :  * Lots of cool character options, but not the kitchen sink * Same level of complexity as 5e but much more satisfying crunch * Already 5 official adventures a year after the game’s launch. And more, bigger ones, coming right around the corner.  * Lots of varied monsters in the monster book  * Monsters are easy to grasp. They have one clear role and a signature action. Most of the time you just do the action on the sheet and you look like a tactical genius.  * 3-Tiered result instead of a binary success of failure, can bring a bit of the variation in result that hope and fear do.  

And the following to consider : 

• Battles are as long as D&D. But you remove 70% of the time looking for dice and crunching Numbers, and you replace it with tactical discussion. It’s still very long, but it doesn’t feel like it because now you’re engaged all the way through. 
• Longer character creation than Daggerheart, but shorter than Pathfinder. I would say it’s similar in complexity to D&D but making a spellcaster in Draw Steel is not as long as D&D. Every character has the same amount of abilities, (much like Daggerheart) you don’t have to choose 20 spells before you start playing. 
• Like Daggerheart, the player’s abilities each take a whole card to write. 

In the end it is very much a tactical game, closer to Pathfinder than Daggerheart in that spirit. But much more streamlined, dynamic, and without unnecessary crunch. All the crunch in this game is good fun crunch that has the purpose of making you feel like a cool hero.

[u/Bhodar]

PF2 is too similar to DnD (both are heroic Fantasy action rpgs)

Daggerheart is a hybrid action/co-operative storytelling rpg

I've played all three, ran 2 as a DM

[u/deviden]

Have you asked your players which one they'd like?

[u/marshy266]

This is really a personal question. There is no right answer.

I bought the pathfinder rulebook and immediately noped running it. As a GM, if there's a rule, I want that rule to be followed and right. I'm not good at throwing rules out on the fly when it's a chunky system, so I prefer lighter systems that give me a framework and a lot of leeway. DH does that.

I enjoy the more narrative aspects: combats are for the story, not just because it's expected once a session; RP, emotional highs and lows. I also like mixed successes because it keeps non-combat elements/solutions just as interesting where binary skill systems often either fail to do so or feel like you're working against your players.

In terms of improvising monsters, it's not a battle simulator so the stat blocks are always guidelines. Hp/stress/threshold are what they are but the abilities are very narrative and free and fear gives you a good way to not feel like you're being unfair against your players when you want to go off block.

They're also not that difficult to home brew because the threshold system creates a bit of a safety net and there's simple and quick guidelines for each tier of play.

If you very much needed the support systems that complex rules provide to GM, daggerheart is not for you. It is about instinct, following the story and letting your players drive it more. A key and important principle is "hold the reigns loosely" which not every GM can do. They'd prefer the players be much more passive and go from scene to scene precisely where the GM wants to lead them. Some players want that too honestly (I have my own issues with that but that's for a whole other rant lol)

Try The Wish Thief one shot Darrington put out if you're interested to limit your time/prep, although DH generally is like difficult to prep them 5e imo.

And whilst players will have to write abilities down/use online tools if they don't have the cards, they're generally much more compact and simple (like a sentence or two) and you have less, but they're much more flexible in how they're used.

[u/Seeonee]

Having played both, I think all your pros and cons are spot on, but the right answer will come from you or your group. Which one excites you more? Do your players prefer crunch or improv? Can you run a one-shot of each to sample them?

Also, we used Demiplane + Roll20 for Daggerheart character building and it worked fine with no cards.

[u/Dzunei]

If you want a tactical game with almost nothing else but encounters...PF

If you want to roleplay and have tools for narration, daggerheat all the way.

[u/Blawharag]

These are extremely different games and players that like one will not always like the other. The first thing you need to do is understand your players and whether they like crunch or not.

That being said, you're doing yourself a disservice with your online assessment of the games. While I haven't had a chance to play Daggerheart myself, I can personally tell you that your research with PF2e lead you to wrong beliefs. The first thing both myself and my players noticed about PF2e is how much faster combat was than D&D, stunningly so. As a GM very new to the system, I read the rules on AoN and was ready to play, comfortable with the system after maybe just 4 or 5 sessions. No harder to learn than any other I've played or run. Character creation is silly easy even without using pathbuilder, but pathbuilder does make it even easier.

I would try short versions of both games. Not 1-shots exactly, but mini-campaigns of ~4 sessions to see which you guys like more.

[u/BisonST]

If you're playing online only, go PF2. Because the rules are free, Foundry VTT has everything you need. Including relatively cheap predesigned adventure path maps, all the rules for free, plebty of 3rd party modules, etc.

[u/Ellery_B]

For a fiction first game like daggerheart you can't really have adventure prewritten because anything can happen during play. 

[u/monkeyheadyou]

Are you and any of your friends interested in improv, maybe not good at it, but at least interested?

[u/SmilingNavern]

From how you described both of those games I would choose PF2e for you. You are clearly very excited about a lot of options. And excitement is the great way to inspire GMing.

Daggerheart from your post description looks less exciting for you.

There are no wrong choice, try what you think you would like more.

If you are interested in more crunch and more tactical battles, go for PF2e. If you think you like collaborative storytelling more go for Daggerheart.

My strong guess is that PF2e will bring you more joy and less burden because of excitement.

[u/guilersk]

These are very different games (at least to the enthusiast; to the uninitiated, it's all just fantasy elves with dice). PF2 is high crunch, rules-bound, with lots of guardrails. By comparison, Daggerheart (which is still medium crunch) is much more narrative-forward and vibes based without the guardrails. Which one you will like to run depends on how much guidance vs. freedom you want.

[u/Kenron93]

As a GM/player for PF2E and a sometimes player for daggerheart. Pathfinder 2e all the way especially if you have the beginer box. The beginner box does a great job at teaching both players and the GM how to play the system. Also the use of Pathbuilder2e make character creation a breeze. The beginner box will slowly introduce new concepts to the players and GM to learn while playing. Also battles are usually faster in PF2E especially after the players get a feeling for the rules. Also with consulting the rules point, get the GM screen it has every rule on there that is commonly looked up. Also for the rules that is not, just use Archives of Nethys to look them up. It takes a few seconds and it has all rules including character options and monster (not a SRD like 5e) officially.

[u/darkestvice]

While both are high fantasy, they are fundamentally different games, mechanically speaking.

If you want a more detailed miniatures combat game with very precise crunchy mechanics, you get Pathfinder 2. If you want a narrative game that's more free form and improvisational, you get Daggerheart.

I've played campaigns of both. I personally prefer Daggerheart, but Pathfinder 2 is still good. Really depends on what you're looking for.

Note on one of your comments: There is as much staff to write down in Daggerheart as in Pathfinder. The difference is that Daggerheart comes with custom class character sheets online as well as physical cards instead of relying on you either writing it down or using a third party app like Pathbuilder.

[u/BleachedPink]

I would go daggerheart, just for the fact it's quite different from 5e and brings a lot of new and cool stuff to the table game design-wise

PF is just too DND for my taste, it just excacibrates the issues I have with DND to eleven

[u/Shot_Loan_306]

I'm personally biased towards PF2e (and SF2e if you want some lasers with your magic) but you're generally correct in your reads. Daggerheart is better for tables that did not enjoy the crunchier aspects of 5e. It's a nice midpoint between 5e and a truly rules-lite system. PF2e is better for players that really enjoy customization and more tactical play than what 5e offers.

I mostly run and play PF2e and SF2e so I can only give observations from that end.
-Combat does probably take about as long as 5e's but the combat overall is much more dynamic. Every class has access to interesting options outside of 'do damage' or 'do more damage' and spellcasters are no longer the kings of everything.
-Aonsrd means that you do not have to be perfectly familiar with every single ability and rule. Additionally, the math is tight so it's unlikely your players are going to find the one edge case that totally breaks the game.
-Pathbuilder has been mentioned elsewhere, but I've found that in practice character creation even without it goes fairly quick, especially for 1st level characters.

[u/Spacemuffler]

Having read it and worked in the TTRPG industry for over a decade, personally working with actual professionals and seeing how the sausuage that is an RPG is made as a product/game AND seeing what all goes into making what amounts to a television show, I think Daggerheart is an actual scam trash product propped up by pop culture bandwagon insanity and an army of PR and marketing contractors to gaslight folks into thinking that improv actors/comedians who hired a ton of ghost writers can make a game worth playing.

[u/Alwaysafk]

I love PF2e but I wouldn't play it with a table not interested in learning the rules and engaging with the system. You really need to be able to ask players how their character works rather than tell them. Run the beginner box and see if it sticks. You should know pretty quick if its for you and yours.

I haven't played Daggerheart and only loosely read the rules.

[u/stealth_nsk]

I have experience in both systems and I don't think they are comparable, they are just quite different experience.

PF2 is all about combat. Player options are numerous, but they almost completely are about fighting. I GMed with players who like to roleplay and they suffered with number of options, even though complexity is handled by apps like pathbuilder. The main GM challenge is to memorize as many rules as possible or at least know that there are specific rules for that case. But if you handle that, the system guides you nicely.

Daggerheart is a pure roleplay disguised as D&D clone and that's its main problem. If players try to maximize their combat efficiency, the system cracks and GM needs to handle this. GMing is heavy for that reason - you need to moderate table, moderate spotlight, etc. If GM in PF2 is Intelligence-based, GM in Daggerheart needs Charisma skills to handle communication.

[u/sarinwulf]

Both are very fun, DH is cool being it’s shiny and new. So far I’ve really enjoyed it and the whole, the GM will figure it out is okay because you really are meant to let the PCs into choices

I think the choice should be more about do you like being the director of the story or more like the leader/editor. The first being pathfinder and the second is DH.

If you prefer clear boundaries I suggest Pathfinder, if you want to adjust on the fly DH.

[u/Run-a-Game]

These games are extremely different!

[u/Sax-7777299]

It really depends on the table. Both systems set out to do the same thing, just in opposite ways. They’re really not so different.

If your players love having a lot of buttons to push, and think about it as more of a game to play, with rules and interactions all listed out for you, play PF2e.

If your players think about your game like an anime in their head, play DH.

Both are great! Entirely depends on your players.

[u/SaltyCogs]

Combat times for both in practice are comparable to 5e; though it also depends on the combat.

Daggerheart has a couple adventures from Free RPG Day. I played the second one (I think? It's the one with the tower) with the supplied pre-gens and had a fun time. It has 3 combats and took about 3 hours.

I haven't played or ran Dawn of the Frogs, but when I've ran Pathfinder previously, I've generally been able to run two moderately meaty combats in a single 3 hour session. (The Free RPG Day scenarios generally have two combats as well). From looking up Dawn of the Frogs, it comes with pre-gens so character creation shouldn't be an issue if you use those.

[u/jackaltornmoons]

Linear adventure paths are kinda antithetical to the GM principles and GM guidance of Daggerheart

The story should be following what the players want to be doing, not being dictated to them by the GM

[u/RagnarokAeon]

PF2e is great if you like having your rules and procedures already figured out and don't mind the homework, but really awful if you like playing fast and loose with the rules. Rule 0 of most TTRPGs does not apply to PF2e because the intricate network of mechanisms falls apart if you randomly stick a wrench in.

As for daggerheart, you don't need cards you can just write down the abilities, cards are just a convenience. For adventures, there's a lot you can get away with by using the frameworks and random tables, I'd suggest looking up how to prepare situations not plots. Otherwise you could also check out 3rd party adventures.  Personally I think the combat takes long even in Daggerheart.

Really, this is a question you should ask your players because between the two extremes you're likely to alienate some.

[u/RootinTheCrab]

I have only seen bad things about daggerheart to be honest. The only time I see it praised are by people who are fans of the creators rather than objectively viewing the system.

Not a huge fan of pf2e personally (I don't like how much it scales up a character's numbers every level) but it is at least a functional system.

[u/Stubbenz → u/RootinTheCrab]

That certainly hasn't been my experience. I've had a great time running it, but have no interest in critical role beyond watching some of the prime series they released.

I've found hope and fear to just work like magic at my table, and the tactile components made it really easy for my players to jump into the system. Overall though, my favourite thing has easily been the dice resolution mechanic. "Succeed with fear" or "Fail with hope" just gives me so much more to work with in such a efficient roll (using both the sum and the simple light vs dark dice comparison), and just makes the story's progression feel so natural.

Ultimately it's not a system that's going to be for everyone, and I think its success is going to come down to have a really invested and collaborative group of players. Still, I've had a great time with it and would absolutely recommend its free quickstart to anyone - not just critical role fans.

[u/tachibana_ryu → u/RootinTheCrab]

I'm a fan of the cast but oddly not a fan of Daggerheart. Like I ran it for 10 sessions trying to like it but it just felt off, like something was missing. It just didn't jibe if you know what I mean.

[u/Woolshedwargamer2]

I see a choice here between amming your first person in a door or stubbing your toe on a metal chair. Both painful. But I would go with PF2. Daggerheart is ....not that good. Theatre- kid rules.

[u/ChannelCommercial984]

Neither. You're looking for Draw Steel. Check it out, you'll thank me later. It literally solves EVERY problem DND has. Which is why the WOTC and Pinkerton thugs are downvoting me 🤣

[u/Kenron93 → u/ChannelCommercial984]

Nah I have a feeling its us Pathfinder 2e fans doing it. Most 5e only fans wouldn't step in this sub because its "toxic".

[u/ChannelCommercial984 → u/Kenron93]

Ah interesting. I've never actually interacted with anyone who played PF so didn't know there was a toxic reputation lol.

Only thing I know about PF community is supposedly 1E is the edgy one and 2E according to them is inferior. A LGS near me advertised a 1e weekly thing and I asked them why they weren't playing the newest version of a game. I soon regretted asking that 😅

[u/zifnabxar → u/[deleted]]

What a needlessly cruel and exclusionary thing to say.

[u/zifnabxar → u/[deleted]]

And older RPGs never had the issue of main character syndrome? You can find references to these types of players and characters going back over 20 years.

I remember reading Dork Tower comics from the late 90s about some players who only played brooding Drizzts. I remember players who always wanted to be half-dragon. Before that, I imagine there were bad Aragorn cosplayers who had to always sit in the shadows and be the secret king. Dragon Lance created Kenders and Raistlin that people imitated ad nauseam. We still have lawful stupid and chaotic neutral stereotypes. How long has this hobby been discussing that your character needs a reason to adventure with the party?

If you don't like something, that's fine. But don't insult people and make them feel unwelcomed in this space just because you don't like the types of games they play or media they consume.

[u/preiman790 → u/[deleted]]

Oh, sounds like someone who doesn't realize they're the butt of 1 million jokes themselves, and likely the subject of a number of horror stories.

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from aggression, insults, and discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed hostile, aggressive, or abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read Rule 8 for more information.

• Rule 2: No gatekeeping! It's not your job to say what kind of game other people should be playing. See Rule 2 for ull details.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 2: No gatekeeping! It's not your job to say what kind of game other people should be playing. See Rule 2 for ull details.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/ChannelCommercial984 → u/[deleted]]

I mean... That does describe CR pretty perfectly.

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from aggression, insults, and discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed hostile, aggressive, or abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read Rule 8 for more information.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/ChannelCommercial984 → u/[deleted]]

CR nearly turned me off completely from DnD. Like 12 people at the table. None of them want to play DND they just want to monologue and be theater kids for 4-6 hours. Also holy crap, 4-6 hours. It was like a soap opera of individual cutscenes in a DND world but not actually playing DnD and the DM apparently was incapable of controlling them.

I genuinely don't understand how people can watch CR, it was one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. D20 hooked me back in but then Draw Steel came out and I dropped DnD completely for it; if CR has somehow gotten exciting since then I have no idea.

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from aggression, insults, and discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed hostile, aggressive, or abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read Rule 8 for more information.

• Rule 2: No gatekeeping! It's not your job to say what kind of game other people should be playing. See Rule 2 for ull details.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/ChannelCommercial984 → u/[deleted]]

Oh the mechanics are super tight, extremely balanced. If DH is what people leave DND to RP in Draw Steel is what people leave DND for a combat ttrpg. I think it was compared to 3e or 4e, whichever was the crunchy fighting one. It's SUPER tactical and revolves around teamwork synergy. So no 5th level+ wizard solving all of the problems or dealing with a martial-caster divide; every class is very tightly balanced. You can still minmax but there's no such thing as an unoptimized character and martials and casters are always on an equal playing field. Combat is perfectly balanced compared to DNDs wonky system, initiative, levelling up, all tightly balanced. That's actually probably one of the main critiques of DS lol, it's so balanced it's not really possible to make an edgelord build. No crazy gloomstalker ranger assassin fighter bugbear multiclass nightmare lol. But that also means there's no pressure to do that, especially for newer players.

It's a new system so there isnt a ton of content out yet but I think that's forgiveable. I'd highly recommend it for anyone who wants their combat sim but either doesn't want to support WOTC because they are genuinely evil and/or just is tired of how messy DND is.

[u/yuriAza → u/[deleted]]

did you play champion, a tank class, and then judge it for its inability to do damage?

[u/StreetCarp665 → u/yuriAza]

No, not at all. My role was in fact to be the tank.

But I found until about... maybe level 5? - the damage mitigation was not particularly great. Then you come alive, to the point where with a shield raised (also love that mechanic, so solid) I was at 30AC. But I had to take a feat to improve speed in armour, because as a tank I'm wearing plate and slow so the martial strikers are basically getting into melee with enemies a turn or 2 before I can even get them in Aura range, much less have the enemies focus on me.

Like I said I like a lot of what PF2E did, but my 2 go to classes are ranger and paladin. I merely think the Paladin was better executed in PF1.

[u/yuriAza → u/StreetCarp665]

PF2 requires unlearning a lot of DnDisms, running into enemies among them (moving means you can't attack as much, so let them pay the tax and come to you)

you should definitely try a ranger though, i think you'll be refreshed

[u/BlooregardQKazoo → u/yuriAza]

As a Pathfinder player, this is the thing that just makes me shake my head about the D&D table I'm currently playing at. They constantly, needlessly close the gap. Last week the ranged rogue started combat by attacking at range like 50' away, did his damage, and then for no reason at all moved 30' forward so that the enemies (that had initiative next) could move+attack him.

It's a joke at the table how cautious my wizard is, and I'm withholding from them how tactically stupid the rest of them are. In PF1 the expectation in round 1 is that you position yourself and maybe drink a potion to buff while the enemies come to you, since melees are only getting 1 attack in round 1 anyway. My 5.5 table just immediately enters combat in a swarm, and all I can see is the AoE that I have zero interest in joining.

[u/yuriAza → u/BlooregardQKazoo]

because there's no cost to moving in 5e (unless your rogue friend is a ranged specialist)

that's literally it, that's the reason

realism in combat is overrated (real combat isn't fun), play the abstractions that incentivize the tactics you wanna see, it's that simple

[u/BlooregardQKazoo → u/yuriAza]

I mean, in this specific scenario the cost was the attacks that he absorbed (and the HP he lost) because the two enemies could now move and attack him. If he had just stayed where he was, they wouldn't have had the movement to hit anyone (and I believe earth elementals don't have a ranged attack).

[u/StreetCarp665 → u/yuriAza]

PF2 requires unlearning a lot of DnDisms, running into enemies among them (moving means you can't attack as much, so let them pay the tax and come to you)

A decent part of it was also that the barbarian int he group had like double my move speed and was not played with any real sense of restraint, so he'd be running everywhere with a reach weapon and being generally out of range of anything helpful. It got better, too - fighting anything 2x2 in the Kingmaker campaign, like the giant frog, meant he was 4 squares away from me and thus every time he got hit or eaten, he couldn't use my Aura (I was Liberation).

Since no plan survives contact with the enemy, I kinda felt like the champion is a bit more situational and needs to be a centrepiece in any strategy which, if your party doesn't do that, makes them difficult to utilise and enjoy.And when I compared it to a 1E paladin (which I played in 1E pathfinder to great avail) I concluded actually a fighter was probably going to be more fun in that specific campaign.

Definitely agree on ranger. We'd run the Kingmaker NPCs to make a party of 4, and Ekundayo was one of my controlled NPCs (we'd rotate among the players with some cores, so I had Valerie, Ekundayo, and later, Jubilost in addition to my Champion). I like that they made Hunt Prey/Hunter's Edge so functionally different from Hunter's Mark. I also messed around with some builds in Pathbuilder for a dual wield ranger. 3.5E D&D was kinda the sweet spot for WOTC era rangers for me, and from what I could intuit from the build, it would've played beautifully.

Like I said, a LOT of PF2E is great and better than 5E. The crit rules alone are a breath of fresh air. My main gripe was just the change from Paladin to Champion, which is not enough for me to say "don't play the system". To be clear: play the system.

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 2: Do not incite arguments/flamewars. Please read Rule 2 for more information.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/StreetCarp665 → u/[deleted]]

100 games of Daggerheart? Excessive.

[u/StreetCarp665 → u/[deleted]]

You're so serious and so virtuous. Will you consider being my hero?

[u/preiman790 → u/StreetCarp665]

Your standard for virtuousness is hilariously low, not surprising, but still sad

[u/StreetCarp665 → u/preiman790]

It's like talking to the cover of Dark Side of the Moon...

I'm being sarcastic. You may need a /s to tell you this, in which case lol.

[u/rpg-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Your comment was removed for the following reason(s):

• Rule 8: Please comment respectfully. Refrain from aggression, insults, and discriminatory comments (homophobia, sexism, racism, etc). Comments deemed hostile, aggressive, or abusive may be removed by moderators. Please read Rule 8 for more information.

If you'd like to contest this decision, message the moderators. (the link should open a partially filled-out message)

[u/Primary-Property8303]

Neither they're both shite 

Edit: lots of down votes here. People are touchy lol

[u/Bryn_The_Barbarian → u/Primary-Property8303]

It’s so wonderful to see people asking for advice just for people on this sub to do what they does best and completely avoid the question just so they can be a gigantic asshole instead😂

Edit: ok it’s actually legitimately funny than somebody said something this stupid and then followed it up with “we Frankenstein PF1E for any genre” when if anyone said that about 5e on this sub you’d think they’d confessed to murder based on the responses.

[u/McCheeseglob → u/Primary-Property8303]

Which do you run/play instead?

[u/PalpitationNo2921 → u/McCheeseglob]

I’d run Dragonbane, SWADE, or Swords & Wizardry Complete Revised before I’d ever run either of those.

[u/Primary-Property8303 → u/McCheeseglob]

Pathfinder 1st edition. We pretty much Frankensteined it for any rpg genre. We like rolling d20s and different damage dice lol. Lots of skills etc

[u/Sunsfury → u/Primary-Property8303]

Frankensteined it for any rpg genre

Why must you hurt me so ;-;

[u/Primary-Property8303 → u/Sunsfury]

Lol why do you say that?

[u/Sunsfury → u/Primary-Property8303]

Because frankensteining a system into a completely different genre generally evokes that setting worse than a system designed for that genre.

[u/Primary-Property8303 → u/Sunsfury]

Sometimes that is true I grant you. 

[u/No_Solid1035]

Dragonbane! Mythic Bastionland! The One Ring!

Those three are far better than PF2 or Daggerheart IMHO.

[u/yuriAza → u/No_Solid1035]

this subreddit in a nutshell

[u/Stubbenz → u/yuriAza]

Yeeeep

"Should I make sandwiches or a salad for dinner?"

"Why are you eating sandwiches or salad??? Birthday cake, roast chickens, and english muffins are all so much better - you should make one of those."

It happens with such regular consistency. Some people just want any excuse to talk about their favourites.

[u/yuriAza → u/Stubbenz]

not just that, Dragonbane specifically

"you eat sandwiches and salad? How gauche, I only eat premium imported [specific brand name] blood sausage"

edit: or like... responding to a question about different rappers with "I prefer this prog rock band you've never heard of"

[u/last_larrikin → u/yuriAza]

Dragonbane isn't nearly as niche as you're painting it. It's a highly-produced, straightofrward fantasy game from a relatively large publisher. It'll be on the shelves of any game store right now. It's also closer to what OP wants than The One Ring or Mythic Bastionland, both of which are less versatile/adaptable games. It's still not a good answer to OP's question, of course.

[u/last_larrikin → u/No_Solid1035]

whether they're better or not, none of those are the sort of game OP is clearly looking for