Cont from >>714858249
One last point in favour of 4e:
>Progression up towards Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies are so much better than PF2e's high levels and mythic systems its unreal. Pf2e mythic is barely even functional.
Then a few points in favour of 2e:
>Actively supported, and newer classes do look pretty interesting, particularly the Commander(reskinned Warlord) and Necromancer
>If you want to play a game completely without magic items, 2e does have a variant rule for it that mostly fixes a lot of its issues while remaining mostly cohesive. 4e on the other hand has magic item progression built so heavily into the core of the game that you can't really take it out and play a game without magic items.
>Balance isn't really a massive issue as long as you curate the spell list and trim down the available classes down to a small handful. While it's questionable whether you can call this a point in favour I will admit the game can be pretty fun when you limit it down to Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Bard, (Holy)Champion, and Barbarian - Plus maybe Animist, Thaumaturge, Resentment Witch, and Kineticist for more experienced players.
>4e's monster design was a bit screwed up during the early days of the system, meaning that you need to do a bit of work forward-porting monsters that were designed prior to Monster Manual 3. It's not much work, but PF2e's monster design has remained largely consistent and functional so it gets a point here
Overall PF2e feels to me like a slightly cleaned up, but largely dumbed down and spitefully designed version of 4e. There are some niche cases where depending on the kind of thing I want to run it might be preferable to play PF2e but overall I'd rather just use 4e.