It's not about identity as much as it's a very poor way to try to convince someone.
Don't base your line of argument on a statement you know the other person will likely disagree with.
For example "You should play Pathfinder because DnD sucks", holds no weight to people who don't think that DnD sucks. In fact if they happen to like DnD, it undermines your argument, because if you disagree about DnD, aren't you also likely to disagree about Pathfinder?
If they play a system, they probably like that system and find its shortcomings acceptable. You can't convince someone that a system isn't enjoyable when they have first-hand evidence to the contrary.
Asking people to stop being comfortable doing something they like, so that they can be uncomfortable doing something you like, isn't a good value proposition.
If you lead with "Thing you like is actually bad", their immediate response will be to disagree with you and start defending the thing they like. And if you want someone to listen to your arguments, rather than just try to poke holes in them, you must avoid putting them on the defensive.
To get through to people, find common ground and build off that. "If you like FEATURE in GAME, you'll probably love SIMILAR FEATURE in OTHER GAME because..." is something that's actually going to get someone interested, rather than start a pointless argument :)
Well there are no crits on checks in 5e, so a nat 20 +0 is no different from a nat 6 +14. And someone with a +14 can't fail a check with a DC of 15 or lower.
Having Degrees of Success built into the system in PF2 is really neat though. And seems like something DnD could easily incorporate if Wizards had any vision.
"shouldn't be too hard"?!
A regular lich is CR 21.
For comparison, an adult red dragon is CR 17 and the most powerful demon, the balor, is CR 19.
There are almost no creatures more powerful than liches. Even ones that are not Vecna.
I actually do not miss the powerful save-or-suck mechanics as "roll the dice to see if you get to keep playing" is more randomly punishing than fun IMO.
But getting rid of damage type resistance doesn't make any sense, as that's one of the few ways weapon choice actually matters!
Giving monsters better initiative seems like a good idea, because otherwise they risk dying without getting to actually do much.
Making creatures like Gith and Gnoll, Aberrations and Fiends etc. makes sense, and gives a bit more meat to the creature types. But having them not be humanoids also seems really weird. Either they should be both, or "humanoid" should be renamed.
So it really seems like a mixed bag to me. Good well implemented ideas, good poorly implemented ideas, as well as oversimplifications.
I think the simple answer is that DnD is a game focused on combat, so it'll have a lot of cool hostile creatures, while Lord of the Rings is focused on exploration and drama, so it'll have a lot of cool places and friendly creatures.
But when I compile a mental list of all the fights in LotR + The Hobbit, they do feature quite a varied assortment of monsters. Trolls, orcs, spiders, a dragon, a balrog, wargs, nazghuls, ringwraits, wights, the watcher, olifants. Then there are the non-hostile monsters like ents, eagles, ghosts, and shape-shifters.
So I'm not sure the enemy variety in DnD is that much greater in relation to the amount of time spent fighting.
I've mostly read the new PHB, but I feel like the clarity of the updated rules make it obvious how needlessly confusing much of original 5e was.
Sure, charging full price for what is mostly rephrasing and polish does feel a bit rich.
But refusing to give the new edition it's own damn name makes my blood boil. Trying to explain to my players that while most parts of fifth edition is compatible with fifth edition, some parts of fifth edition is actually not compatible with fifth edition, has significantly shortened my life span.
I honestly feel that the motivations for someone from a happy home are often better. They are people who want to adventure for some very compelling reason (that you are forced to come up with). They are invested in the world, with things to loose, things they want to accomplish, loved ones to threaten, history and interests they want to share etc.
A reminder to everyone to make sure your cat's chip ID is registered to you in relevant databases, as this is not necessarily done automatically. And to make sure your contact information there is kept up to date.
Hope you find the owner, and great that you took in the little guy :)
Well DnD consistently doesn't have criticals outside of attack rolls and death saves.
Like the person you replied to asked, what would you even expect to happen on an ability crit? If the DM only lets you roll on things that would be possible for you, then you would succeed on a 20 anyway. If the DM lets you roll on impossible things, then you have a 5% of doing the impossible. Neither option is good.
I absolutely let a 20 or 1 have extra effect whenever it makes sense and feels right. But having it be a core rule would be a PITA.
Not to mention that it would make skill checks even more driven by randomness, which is already a problem.