ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -24:26 I oversimplify here. A spontaneous caster CAN use a 3rd-rank spell slot to cast 1st-rank fear. However, they cannot heighten (cast the 3rd-rank version of) it without making it a Signature Spell. -It IS possible to get 5e-like spellcasting if you are a PREPARED spellcaster, which is to take the Flexible Spellcaster class archetype. However, you get 1 less spell slot per rank and need to commit a 2nd level class feat to it. -Pure coincidence, but @How It's Played just released a video teaching Pathfinder 2e for D&D migrants over at his channel. Check it out! th-cam.com/video/lpoAfr7an_U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Q6ZpxXcZ2j0uh1Ur
i mean considering this is based on original D&D (pathfinder uses vancian magic, which dnd has used for pretty much all editions other than 5e, and maybe 4e, not sure about that), and Gary Gygax thought of spellcasters as artillery, thats a very VALID analogy.
Pretty much, Prepared Casting is preparing yourself with many kinds of ammo that all do different things, but still the same gun. Spontaneous Casting is having many guns that all do different things, but all use the same generic ammo.
DM coming from 5e here. Anectodal experiences of Pathfinder 2e here on the game master's side. The system might look intimidating and it does have a bigger learning curve than 5e, but it's leagues easier to run it later. I DMed 5e for 7 years and transitioned to PF2e 2 years ago and once you got the hang of the system, it's easier to run it in a lot of ways. Thanks to the refined rules, it's easier abjudicate without unforeseen consequences, it's easier to homebrew your own stuff for it, because Paizo provides realiable guidelines for how to build monsters, magic items etc. There also aren't many player option combos, feats, spells or abilities that can complitely break encounters (there is some bulldung here and there, but it's negligable). Everything the players or I didn't like about the game, Paizo already provides variant rules for the problem or it's much easier to solve the issues because the system is a lot more predictable. Most issues that I personally had with 5e is more or less solved in PF2. The system is not perfect of course. Yes, there is a learning curve and the system is not going to be for everyone, but if you are into heroic fantasy tabletop stuff as a DM/GM, I think there is no better time to give PF2 a shot if you are interested in it and willing to put a little time into it (not to mention all the rules are free, as Ronald mentioned it).
@@LanzFriszt-pd3qk I don't know if 2e combats are shorter necessarily, but they definitely for me FEEL shorter because you very rarely get into a slog where you're just standing there exchanging blows. Teamwork matters, adapting to new circumstances matters. In 2e damage actually scales with hit points (no "bag of hit points" problem) and the +10/-10 crit system keeps things interesting. I vividly remember running 3 giant four-armed gargoyles in D&D (147 hp each) who each had 5 attacks doing only about 10 damage each. It was pretty yawn-worthy.
Player Core p297 “As a spontaneous caster, you can also choose to cast a lower-rank spell using a higher-rank spell slot without heightening it or knowing it at a higher rank.”
The Learning Plan is a great section! I've talked to a few people over the years who want to get into PF2e and "Where do I start?" is always the first and most important question.
Nice video. Some thoughts from me: 1:05 I call PF1 "3.5 with a community patch". 2:28 They copied from the best. They even copied that stat boosts come from Background. 6:19 I argue that was _the_ most important change they made with 2E. Every other change and rebalancing is basesd on it, directly or indirectly. Compared to that, everything else is "minor math details". 7:38 MAP reminds me of decaying Base Attack Bonus. It serves a similar purpose, without running into increasing attack numbers. 16:45 The poster child of this going wrong is the Hexblade Warlocks CHA swap. Which becomes basically _mandatory_ for any Martial with CHA or CHA that wants to go Martial.
Is it worth buying a physical pathfinder rules book? My table all started with Dnd beyond so they aren't really used to pen and paper. I know the Pathfinder rules are online, but is the book easier to learn from?
I'd say it depends on your learning style. Best thing for every table and any tabletop game is for there to be one person who "gets it" and can teach and answer questions. For "what should my players get?" it depends on learning styles which the last section of this video covers. Here I give a guide on learning from the Player Core book. The Beginner Box ticks off a lot of boxes and is an experiential way to learn as well, and the physical pregens and reference cards are good, and the physical books are a solid visually appealing presentation. The Steam games are also a good way to learn. Archives of Nethys has a link at top for newcomers and you should check it out and judge whether it makes sense to share that.
If you already prefer to play without pen and paper, I would recommend the pathbuilder app or a vtt like foundry. Pf2e is a crunchy system and it does run smoother if you have some tools to help track some of the conditions, modifiers, etc. especially at higher levels.
Thanks for letting me know. Just looked into it thanks to you. Yeah that's pretty messed up. It was peanuts for Hasbro to support diversity in their community.
actually Pathfinder 2e is the best game you can learn so far if youre bored from playing D&D But actually theres a German Roleplaying Game wich is really fun to play its called "Arcane Codex"
One thing that annoys me a bit, and that might be fixed in a future Pathfinder Remastered Remastered, there are two kinds of traits but they are treated the same with the same dark red background. There are a few more, like rarity trait having a well-deserved orange background, but for two I'm really a bit annoyed. - On the one hand you've got traits like Stance or Flourish, traits with built-in rules. Flourish actions can only be done once per turn. You cannot be in two Stances at once. - On the other hand, you've got traits like Mental or Primal or Concentrate, traits that don't do anything on their own, until something else refers to it. Barbarians with the Rage action cannot use actions with the Concentrate trait except for Rage itself. But if you have no Barbarian or somebody else that cares for it, the trait might as well not exist. Mr. Paizo, I ask of you, please recolor one of the two types of traits to have a different color than the other.
As a new 2e player (playing o.g. 2e, not the remaster) and playing a swashbuckler, could I get some help for a quick question? My acrobatics is +7 and my deception is +6. Ignoring the slight difference in numbers, am I better off feinting to gain panache (targeting perception dc of monsters) or tumble through (targeting reflex DC of monsters)? Which DC is typically lower? Do all monsters have perception proficiency? I know some will have high reflex and some low, but in general is reflex lower than perception?
(Assuming you have the Tumble Behind feat if you're asking this question) All creatures are at least trained in Perception and Reflex. I don't think one is usually higher than the other. You'll have to guess based on what you think their Wisdom and Dexterity are, I guess. If you want to know before trying there's Recall Knowledge
Ronald, I'm gonna be so for real. I DMed a game of Pathfinder for my DND play group yesterday and it was kinda underwhelming. I can't really figure out what I was doing wrong or how to make it better, but it was kind of a mess. One of my players is a Minotaur champion (large creature) and he wanted to grapple and then throw a medium creature. I kept telling everyone that Pathfinder rules are really comprehensive but... nope. There are NO rules for throwing a creature. And that same PC wanted to knock a creature prone with his shield. And I said "no, you need a free hand to Shove, you can't shove with a shield." And that also felt really dumb that that wasn't in RAW. And at one point, a PC needed to hold a door shut so I (reasonably, I thought) just improv-ed the roll, but OF COURSE there's a hold-a-door-shut action. Idk man, I just expect players to enjoy the game, but it really felt like RAW was getting in the way of players' expectations.
Yeah I kinda cover this in my "improvising" video recently, and touch on it briefly in my next video. Because something exists doesn't preclude you from trying something: check out Arcane Mark's video on improvising in PF2. I'd allow throwing someone who is grappled by allowing a Shove action with some of kind of a bonus. I think tripping with a shield should be better presented. It's actually allowable by RAW through a shield augmentation: 2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1430 Otherwise, one can release a shield by RAW as a free action to free up a hand, and it's still strapped to you so you can Interact with it to wield it again I've never heard of a "hold a door shut" action. But even if it existed you should still be able to attempt it if it makes sense in the world.
So, I've been playing PF2E for about two years now. And while I enjoy it, I haven't found combat to be "tactical and interesting" and it absolutely feels repetitive to me. It seems to incentivize a "tactic" of everyone swarming a single enemy until it's dead, then wash, rinse, and repeat until everything else is dead. Doing otherwise splits damage, which keeps dangerous enemies on the board longer and drags out combat. AOEs are nice, when you can get them off, but it really doesn't change the overall approach. This approach might be good board game tactics, but it reflects neither fantasy combat nor "real world" combat. Maybe it's the group I play with, but these are mostly people that have been playing TTRPGs for decades now. The encounters in the various adventure paths don't seem to have much variety other than "these guys are even more powerful than the last guys", but the tactics remain the same. So, is there something I'm missing? Overall, my Pathfinder has been a positive one, but combat has not exactly been interesting.
Could you describe a combat or two in some level of detail? I’m curious to see what your party’s doing. I *suspect* this is a case of the players in your group electing to engage the game in a very linear way (which is, of course, still an option) and either the GM is rewarding that approach or your players just think the game is “meant” to be swingy and difficult. The big yellow flag to me is the “AoEs, when we can get them off” statement. The game makes it *very* easy for the party to position itself in a way where AoEs can be used effectively, why is this a conditional? The only reason for it to be a conditional is if the party simply isn’t coordinating with itself, imo.
@Mathfinder-aaa sure ting. First off, I think you're right about the table philosophy leaning into a linear approach as well as making encounters near the top of the difficulty range. Our group is involved in multiple games with multiple GMs, but they all kind of revolve around a very experienced GM, and his philosophy seems to revolve around making encounters tough and quick. Most involve a "boss" and usually 3 to 4 "minions" of varrying types. When it comes to AOEs, I could have been clearer. There are plenty of opportunities to use them, but that's usually at the beginning of combat before everyone is clustered around one enemy. At higher levels, say, when we have a rogue who can auto-crit reflex saves, we might risk AoEs without too much concern for friendly fire. But especially at higher levels, it seems like it's best to stick to our combat patterns (example, my bard does a lot of composition cantrip, harmonize, second composition) rather than try something outside the box. And, like I said, the adventure paths seem to encourage this (though not explicitly). Sometimes, there might be a "stop this thing from happening to end combat" as opposed to "beat on everything till it's dead" but they seem to be few and far between. None of this is "bad", and I don't hate the approach, I just feel like whatever variety there is is limited. In other words, I don't find it as exciting as advertised. I'm curious as to how other groups approach making exciting encounters outside of just making creatures more powerful.
@@jeremyshober7000 If everyone is clustered around one enemy every time, the GM is playing the enemies too static and tactically dumb. Combat in PF2e should be fluid, with enemies striking, or using combat maneuvers and moving back out of reach to force the party to waste actions or come up with better tactics and players countering with similar actions. It may be that the GM is totally fine with the swarm the single enemy tactic, and then just has the enemy stand there and attack three times, but there are SO MANY things they could do to make combat more interesting. How many people are playing? It could be that you all need more bodies in encounters than just basically matching the party 1:1. And it certainly seems like you need more enemy variety, put some flyers or incorporeals in there too! Pathfinder 2e allows for a whole lot more movement than what seems to be described here, and even animals have self-preservation. Only Mindless enemies should really just walk up to PCs and stand there exchanging blows until they are dead.
Oh boy I already know what should be listed as the number one mistake for D&D players when coming over to pf2e. And that is trying to recreate the same D&D character as a pf2e character. I have taught a lot of people who only had experience with d&d and I always tell them to embrace game differences and that includes character creation.
i've always hated hoe simplified D&D 5e is. I've always played 3.5, gave 5e the o' college try and found all the things i "liked" about it I could find in any table top game- role playing. my friends have been trying to get me into pathfinder 2e but their attempts have all boiled down to throwing me at the pathfinder wiki with a character creator and only explaining things as they come up, which is not how I learn a new game/system, but its how they do. learning PF2 became frustrating and disheartening. i really hope this video helps because i would love to play table top games with my friends where i am not the DM.
If a character builder with more clear and focused direction to it would help you, I'd recommend Pathbuilder. Either the mobile app or the web version for computers, both work really well
@@Sina-dv1eg money for books not really and i'm too lazy to turn my virus protection that thinks anything labeled "pathfinder" is a threat off. local library doesn't have them either. books was my first thought.
SO our group finds the "Customization" of PF2e FAR more complex that 1E. All of the traits... Here you go, but you cannot use 99% of them because an ability is not high enough, you don't have X skill at X level, you don't have X trait, you don't have this ability. We are even using Hero Lab online. And while theire is a ton of options, you cannot take many of them and if you didn't use HLO, you will mess up and break things. PF1E actually does not make it hard to optimize. I have a Sorcerer in PF2E and I think she is already broke as I cannot do what I did in PF2e even if I wanted. The same is true for a Ranger I played. Now Combat, yes, far more balanced and harder and I do love 3 actions, and 10 over is a crit, 10 under is a fumble. No more AO in PF2e, So move up, strike, step back (Unless the foe has a feat to hit you, most do not)
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "for players combat is not repetitive", but I felt like within a few turns you quickly figure out what the most efficient use of your actions are, and every turn is just using the optimal rotation pretty much forever. I completely understand how nice PF2 is on the DM's side, of course. All of that is certainly true but as a pretty new player who only knows 5e, character creation felt like... I'm not exactly sure how to put this into words... a TON of illusion of choice options that are so extremely specific or situational that I felt like I had to ask my DM which options would even happen to my character first. I remember just staring at this massive list of feats and thinking they all seem so small and barely helpful at all. Unexciting, I suppose, is what I felt anyway. And I do apologize if this sounds antagonistic, because I do not intend it that way, but the balance between classes certainly is strong, but it felt like most classes are very homogenized. And you know, maybe that's not even a bad thing, but as a player it felt.... less exciting, I suppose? And just to be clear, I don't disagree with a single one of your 5e criticisms you've made in your videos. I'm sure if I was a DM, I'd probably want to run PF2e over 5e as well, its certainly better on the DM side.
Have you seen my "Illusion of Choice" rebuttal? It shows the importance of in-combat choices using 2 contrasting combats. Combat is not won at character creation, but leveraging your abilities in the right contexts
@SwordsmanOrion I disagree with the very notion that there even IS an optimal combat rotation in Pathfinder. In my experience, every single round presents unique combinations of options that are “optimal” for that given round. In the latest difficult combat I had (on my level 3 Flurry Ranger) I had 6 straight turns where every *single* round involved a meaningfully different set of decisions for me, and the decisions were so complex that with 2 of them I’m convinced I actually made the wrong decision (and the right decision was meaningfully different than all the other decisions I made too). That’s not to say there aren’t *some* characters whose decisions get repetitive fast: the same Ranger’s party has a Wood Kineticist who’s exhausted with using Timber Sentinel all the time, but by and large characters will usually have way more variety than you’re giving them credit for. Most characters don’t even have the option for a repetitive rotation, let alone it being optimal.
I fully understand the claim about "lack of exciting choices". I agree with it as well, though I also think that's why it's *not* an illusion of choice. For example, when you cast Wall of Force in 5e, it's exciting, it's combat defining - and it's also the most important thing you'll likely do in that combat, and you may have already done it in round 1. After that, it's just waiting for others to clean up while you use cantrips or maybe some other non-concentration spells. This is the downside of having 1 exciting choice. Similarly in character building, once you've picked your species and class at level 1 and subclass at 3, that's it. Those are big choices, but you're sorta "done" after that. On the other hand, if you cast Wall of Force in PF2e, it's still going to be combat defining, but it's not as strong as it is in 5e. So, you get to continue making equally big decisions as combat goes on. Do you want to frighten the enemy with Demoralize on the same turn? Do you want to cast a second simultaneous Wall of Force in round 2? Or cast fly while maintaining the Wall of Force? This is the upside of having many less-exciting choices: no one option is obviously the best, and you can continue customizing your tactical options or character build all the time. I totally get the preference for having fewer but more exciting choices, but I personally - as a player - like the variety that PF2e gives me. When no one option is obviously the best or the most exciting, then there's a real choice to make.
@jadenthomas5261 1: Having to prepare each "charge" of the spells you wanna cast is annoying and outdated; 2: Spontaneous casters having to waste one of the very few spells they learn, relearning a spell on a higher level in order to upcast it is absolutely INSANE; 3: Disabling spells being basically useless against higher level enemies is technically good for balance, but it makes those spells feel very underwhelming, as you can "disable" weaker enemies by simply damaging them; 4: Being able to cast spells with 1, 2, or 3 actions for bigger effects is very cool. Until you remember that it still uses the same spell slot so casting it at 1 action isn't worth it. Spellcasting feels clunky and annoying. Pathfinder often balances the fun out of many of their systems. Of course, that's all just my opinion. I know for a fact that there's plenty of people who will tell me everything I just said are positives. But I can never play a caster in pathfinder because of that.
@moonlight2870 It's a matter of perspective. I enjoy spellcasting and how it's balanced, though nothing is perfect. I'd much rather have spellcasters that need to carefully weigh their options than be able to cast every spell they've ever heard of and just flatten any encounter instantly.
@@moonlight2870 1. As compared d&d where "prepared" spellcasters are strictly superior to spontaneous casters? Going back to (light) vancian casting makes prepared spellcasters and spontaneous casters roughly even. Plus this is just personal preference. I like preparing spells. 2. This is why all spontaneous casters get signature spells, they will almost never learn duplicate spells at higher levels 3. Incap isn't perfect and I know some people have issues with it (although I actually quite like it). But I absolutely prefer it to the save or suck nonsense in d&d that they bandaid with legendary resistances 4. Ymmv, I probably wouldn't cast force barrage with 1 action but off the top of my head spells like Heal, Harm, Kinetic Ram, Gravitational Pull, and Infuse Vitality have use cases across all action costs I totally respect that some players prefer 5e's casting but there's no serious argument that it's objectively better. If you value a balanced, tactical game, you're probably going to prefer 2e's casting. If you want the power fantasy of auto-winning encounters because you picked an OP spell (which is a completely valid thing to enjoy - I certainly thought it was fun at first) you will probably prefer 5e
Have not watched this yet, I am going to keep track of how long it takes him to get mad at dnd and alienate potential pf2 players like he usually does, with the assunption that this will not be different. Edit: it didn't even take 3 minutes
You must be talking about the moment I say ""I'll inevitably inject my enthusiasm for PF2 which is my preferred crunchy TTRPG"? Sorry I offended D&D players by saying I like another system! /s
ADDITIONS/ERRATA:
-24:26 I oversimplify here. A spontaneous caster CAN use a 3rd-rank spell slot to cast 1st-rank fear. However, they cannot heighten (cast the 3rd-rank version of) it without making it a Signature Spell.
-It IS possible to get 5e-like spellcasting if you are a PREPARED spellcaster, which is to take the Flexible Spellcaster class archetype. However, you get 1 less spell slot per rank and need to commit a 2nd level class feat to it.
-Pure coincidence, but @How It's Played just released a video teaching Pathfinder 2e for D&D migrants over at his channel. Check it out! th-cam.com/video/lpoAfr7an_U/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Q6ZpxXcZ2j0uh1Ur
Thanks for sharing my video!
You missed the most important errata of all! For some reason your camera angle changed in the opening seconds and we could no longer see your cat.
I like KingOogaTonTon's analogy for prepared spell slots: they're like bullets for a spell "gun", and once you "fire" one, it's gone
i mean considering this is based on original D&D (pathfinder uses vancian magic, which dnd has used for pretty much all editions other than 5e, and maybe 4e, not sure about that), and Gary Gygax thought of spellcasters as artillery, thats a very VALID analogy.
Pretty much, Prepared Casting is preparing yourself with many kinds of ammo that all do different things, but still the same gun. Spontaneous Casting is having many guns that all do different things, but all use the same generic ammo.
DM coming from 5e here. Anectodal experiences of Pathfinder 2e here on the game master's side.
The system might look intimidating and it does have a bigger learning curve than 5e, but it's leagues easier to run it later. I DMed 5e for 7 years and transitioned to PF2e 2 years ago and once you got the hang of the system, it's easier to run it in a lot of ways. Thanks to the refined rules, it's easier abjudicate without unforeseen consequences, it's easier to homebrew your own stuff for it, because Paizo provides realiable guidelines for how to build monsters, magic items etc. There also aren't many player option combos, feats, spells or abilities that can complitely break encounters (there is some bulldung here and there, but it's negligable). Everything the players or I didn't like about the game, Paizo already provides variant rules for the problem or it's much easier to solve the issues because the system is a lot more predictable. Most issues that I personally had with 5e is more or less solved in PF2. The system is not perfect of course.
Yes, there is a learning curve and the system is not going to be for everyone, but if you are into heroic fantasy tabletop stuff as a DM/GM, I think there is no better time to give PF2 a shot if you are interested in it and willing to put a little time into it (not to mention all the rules are free, as Ronald mentioned it).
@@LanzFriszt-pd3qk I don't know if 2e combats are shorter necessarily, but they definitely for me FEEL shorter because you very rarely get into a slog where you're just standing there exchanging blows. Teamwork matters, adapting to new circumstances matters. In 2e damage actually scales with hit points (no "bag of hit points" problem) and the +10/-10 crit system keeps things interesting. I vividly remember running 3 giant four-armed gargoyles in D&D (147 hp each) who each had 5 attacks doing only about 10 damage each. It was pretty yawn-worthy.
Oh you have created a great thing today for the whole community
I'll admit it, I clicked 'like' immediately because Meagan was in the intro. But I'll stay for the rest :)
Player Core p297 “As a spontaneous caster, you can also choose to cast a lower-rank spell using a higher-rank spell slot without heightening it or knowing it at a higher rank.”
Thanks, I'll make this clarification in the pinned comment
That's an important nuance that was lost on me; thanks!
This is perfect timing for my D&D friends wanting to try more Pathfinder!
The Learning Plan is a great section! I've talked to a few people over the years who want to get into PF2e and "Where do I start?" is always the first and most important question.
poor badger getting called a skunk.
I was thinking it might be a badger rewatching just now. Uh oh...
But giant badger don't care
Right?...
This was exactly what I was looking for! Thanks for the content!
This is fantastic. I'm going to be taking a group of players pretty new to RPGs from D&D to Pathfinder and I'm making this required viewing.
MVP in the first 3 seconds! Rest of the video is good too, just less cats.
10/10 video, there was a cat.
0:59 it has the same DnDNA
thank you
Well, time for me to supplement the tutorial test to my players. Ronald, great work as usual.
Nice video. Some thoughts from me:
1:05 I call PF1 "3.5 with a community patch".
2:28 They copied from the best. They even copied that stat boosts come from Background.
6:19 I argue that was _the_ most important change they made with 2E. Every other change and rebalancing is basesd on it, directly or indirectly.
Compared to that, everything else is "minor math details".
7:38 MAP reminds me of decaying Base Attack Bonus. It serves a similar purpose, without running into increasing attack numbers.
16:45 The poster child of this going wrong is the Hexblade Warlocks CHA swap. Which becomes basically _mandatory_ for any Martial with CHA or CHA that wants to go Martial.
Great intro and you boiled it down nicely within half an hour. Or 2 attention spans😂
Keep this type of content coming.
Would love to see a "guide to survive level 1 as a party"
Great video for beginners
Is it worth buying a physical pathfinder rules book? My table all started with Dnd beyond so they aren't really used to pen and paper. I know the Pathfinder rules are online, but is the book easier to learn from?
Would say the beginner box or doing part of it is the easier way to learn than either. Book or online will depend on the person.
I'd say it depends on your learning style. Best thing for every table and any tabletop game is for there to be one person who "gets it" and can teach and answer questions. For "what should my players get?" it depends on learning styles which the last section of this video covers. Here I give a guide on learning from the Player Core book. The Beginner Box ticks off a lot of boxes and is an experiential way to learn as well, and the physical pregens and reference cards are good, and the physical books are a solid visually appealing presentation. The Steam games are also a good way to learn. Archives of Nethys has a link at top for newcomers and you should check it out and judge whether it makes sense to share that.
If you already prefer to play without pen and paper, I would recommend the pathbuilder app or a vtt like foundry. Pf2e is a crunchy system and it does run smoother if you have some tools to help track some of the conditions, modifiers, etc. especially at higher levels.
Thank you for this! My group is trying out PF2e.
have you heard Wizard's crap being pulled with VML? I'm so glad Im hopping ship to PF, this is just the right resource for my players.
VML?
Thanks for letting me know. Just looked into it thanks to you. Yeah that's pretty messed up. It was peanuts for Hasbro to support diversity in their community.
actually Pathfinder 2e is the best game you can learn so far if youre bored from playing D&D
But actually theres a German Roleplaying Game wich is really fun to play its called "Arcane Codex"
Thanks for the video 🎉
This might be heresy on this channel but I would love to see more of your DnD 4e content.
BTW this channel is fantastic and you do an amazing service to the community!
Awesome video!!
Lettsss gooooo
YEAH! Teach me, Rules Daddy. 😏
I mean, what? 😳
(Your fault for that shot at the start, really 🤭)
One thing that annoys me a bit, and that might be fixed in a future Pathfinder Remastered Remastered, there are two kinds of traits but they are treated the same with the same dark red background. There are a few more, like rarity trait having a well-deserved orange background, but for two I'm really a bit annoyed.
- On the one hand you've got traits like Stance or Flourish, traits with built-in rules. Flourish actions can only be done once per turn. You cannot be in two Stances at once.
- On the other hand, you've got traits like Mental or Primal or Concentrate, traits that don't do anything on their own, until something else refers to it. Barbarians with the Rage action cannot use actions with the Concentrate trait except for Rage itself. But if you have no Barbarian or somebody else that cares for it, the trait might as well not exist.
Mr. Paizo, I ask of you, please recolor one of the two types of traits to have a different color than the other.
As a new 2e player (playing o.g. 2e, not the remaster) and playing a swashbuckler, could I get some help for a quick question? My acrobatics is +7 and my deception is +6. Ignoring the slight difference in numbers, am I better off feinting to gain panache (targeting perception dc of monsters) or tumble through (targeting reflex DC of monsters)? Which DC is typically lower? Do all monsters have perception proficiency? I know some will have high reflex and some low, but in general is reflex lower than perception?
(Assuming you have the Tumble Behind feat if you're asking this question)
All creatures are at least trained in Perception and Reflex. I don't think one is usually higher than the other. You'll have to guess based on what you think their Wisdom and Dexterity are, I guess. If you want to know before trying there's Recall Knowledge
Ronald, I'm gonna be so for real. I DMed a game of Pathfinder for my DND play group yesterday and it was kinda underwhelming. I can't really figure out what I was doing wrong or how to make it better, but it was kind of a mess. One of my players is a Minotaur champion (large creature) and he wanted to grapple and then throw a medium creature. I kept telling everyone that Pathfinder rules are really comprehensive but... nope. There are NO rules for throwing a creature. And that same PC wanted to knock a creature prone with his shield. And I said "no, you need a free hand to Shove, you can't shove with a shield." And that also felt really dumb that that wasn't in RAW. And at one point, a PC needed to hold a door shut so I (reasonably, I thought) just improv-ed the roll, but OF COURSE there's a hold-a-door-shut action. Idk man, I just expect players to enjoy the game, but it really felt like RAW was getting in the way of players' expectations.
Yeah I kinda cover this in my "improvising" video recently, and touch on it briefly in my next video. Because something exists doesn't preclude you from trying something: check out Arcane Mark's video on improvising in PF2. I'd allow throwing someone who is grappled by allowing a Shove action with some of kind of a bonus. I think tripping with a shield should be better presented. It's actually allowable by RAW through a shield augmentation: 2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=1430 Otherwise, one can release a shield by RAW as a free action to free up a hand, and it's still strapped to you so you can Interact with it to wield it again
I've never heard of a "hold a door shut" action. But even if it existed you should still be able to attempt it if it makes sense in the world.
Doing me a hecking learn.
It is not a 3 action economy.
It is a 3 action point system.
So, I've been playing PF2E for about two years now. And while I enjoy it, I haven't found combat to be "tactical and interesting" and it absolutely feels repetitive to me. It seems to incentivize a "tactic" of everyone swarming a single enemy until it's dead, then wash, rinse, and repeat until everything else is dead. Doing otherwise splits damage, which keeps dangerous enemies on the board longer and drags out combat. AOEs are nice, when you can get them off, but it really doesn't change the overall approach. This approach might be good board game tactics, but it reflects neither fantasy combat nor "real world" combat. Maybe it's the group I play with, but these are mostly people that have been playing TTRPGs for decades now. The encounters in the various adventure paths don't seem to have much variety other than "these guys are even more powerful than the last guys", but the tactics remain the same. So, is there something I'm missing? Overall, my Pathfinder has been a positive one, but combat has not exactly been interesting.
Could you describe a combat or two in some level of detail? I’m curious to see what your party’s doing.
I *suspect* this is a case of the players in your group electing to engage the game in a very linear way (which is, of course, still an option) and either the GM is rewarding that approach or your players just think the game is “meant” to be swingy and difficult.
The big yellow flag to me is the “AoEs, when we can get them off” statement. The game makes it *very* easy for the party to position itself in a way where AoEs can be used effectively, why is this a conditional? The only reason for it to be a conditional is if the party simply isn’t coordinating with itself, imo.
@Mathfinder-aaa sure ting. First off, I think you're right about the table philosophy leaning into a linear approach as well as making encounters near the top of the difficulty range. Our group is involved in multiple games with multiple GMs, but they all kind of revolve around a very experienced GM, and his philosophy seems to revolve around making encounters tough and quick. Most involve a "boss" and usually 3 to 4 "minions" of varrying types. When it comes to AOEs, I could have been clearer. There are plenty of opportunities to use them, but that's usually at the beginning of combat before everyone is clustered around one enemy. At higher levels, say, when we have a rogue who can auto-crit reflex saves, we might risk AoEs without too much concern for friendly fire. But especially at higher levels, it seems like it's best to stick to our combat patterns (example, my bard does a lot of composition cantrip, harmonize, second composition) rather than try something outside the box. And, like I said, the adventure paths seem to encourage this (though not explicitly). Sometimes, there might be a "stop this thing from happening to end combat" as opposed to "beat on everything till it's dead" but they seem to be few and far between. None of this is "bad", and I don't hate the approach, I just feel like whatever variety there is is limited. In other words, I don't find it as exciting as advertised. I'm curious as to how other groups approach making exciting encounters outside of just making creatures more powerful.
@@jeremyshober7000 If everyone is clustered around one enemy every time, the GM is playing the enemies too static and tactically dumb. Combat in PF2e should be fluid, with enemies striking, or using combat maneuvers and moving back out of reach to force the party to waste actions or come up with better tactics and players countering with similar actions. It may be that the GM is totally fine with the swarm the single enemy tactic, and then just has the enemy stand there and attack three times, but there are SO MANY things they could do to make combat more interesting. How many people are playing? It could be that you all need more bodies in encounters than just basically matching the party 1:1. And it certainly seems like you need more enemy variety, put some flyers or incorporeals in there too!
Pathfinder 2e allows for a whole lot more movement than what seems to be described here, and even animals have self-preservation. Only Mindless enemies should really just walk up to PCs and stand there exchanging blows until they are dead.
Hi Megan
CAT!
Oh boy I already know what should be listed as the number one mistake for D&D players when coming over to pf2e. And that is trying to recreate the same D&D character as a pf2e character. I have taught a lot of people who only had experience with d&d and I always tell them to embrace game differences and that includes character creation.
why did you rename this post?
Grr he didn't explain Arcane Bond, get 'im!
i've always hated hoe simplified D&D 5e is. I've always played 3.5, gave 5e the o' college try and found all the things i "liked" about it I could find in any table top game- role playing. my friends have been trying to get me into pathfinder 2e but their attempts have all boiled down to throwing me at the pathfinder wiki with a character creator and only explaining things as they come up, which is not how I learn a new game/system, but its how they do. learning PF2 became frustrating and disheartening. i really hope this video helps because i would love to play table top games with my friends where i am not the DM.
If a character builder with more clear and focused direction to it would help you, I'd recommend Pathbuilder. Either the mobile app or the web version for computers, both work really well
I mean, books exist
@@Sina-dv1eg money for books not really and i'm too lazy to turn my virus protection that thinks anything labeled "pathfinder" is a threat off. local library doesn't have them either. books was my first thought.
SO our group finds the "Customization" of PF2e FAR more complex that 1E. All of the traits... Here you go, but you cannot use 99% of them because an ability is not high enough, you don't have X skill at X level, you don't have X trait, you don't have this ability. We are even using Hero Lab online. And while theire is a ton of options, you cannot take many of them and if you didn't use HLO, you will mess up and break things. PF1E actually does not make it hard to optimize. I have a Sorcerer in PF2E and I think she is already broke as I cannot do what I did in PF2e even if I wanted. The same is true for a Ranger I played. Now Combat, yes, far more balanced and harder and I do love 3 actions, and 10 over is a crit, 10 under is a fumble. No more AO in PF2e, So move up, strike, step back (Unless the foe has a feat to hit you, most do not)
I feel like the traits system streamlines a lot of the complex stuff, and prerequisites are definitely more of a mess in pf1e imo
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean when you say "for players combat is not repetitive", but I felt like within a few turns you quickly figure out what the most efficient use of your actions are, and every turn is just using the optimal rotation pretty much forever. I completely understand how nice PF2 is on the DM's side, of course. All of that is certainly true but as a pretty new player who only knows 5e, character creation felt like... I'm not exactly sure how to put this into words... a TON of illusion of choice options that are so extremely specific or situational that I felt like I had to ask my DM which options would even happen to my character first. I remember just staring at this massive list of feats and thinking they all seem so small and barely helpful at all. Unexciting, I suppose, is what I felt anyway. And I do apologize if this sounds antagonistic, because I do not intend it that way, but the balance between classes certainly is strong, but it felt like most classes are very homogenized. And you know, maybe that's not even a bad thing, but as a player it felt.... less exciting, I suppose? And just to be clear, I don't disagree with a single one of your 5e criticisms you've made in your videos. I'm sure if I was a DM, I'd probably want to run PF2e over 5e as well, its certainly better on the DM side.
Have you seen my "Illusion of Choice" rebuttal? It shows the importance of in-combat choices using 2 contrasting combats. Combat is not won at character creation, but leveraging your abilities in the right contexts
@SwordsmanOrion I disagree with the very notion that there even IS an optimal combat rotation in Pathfinder. In my experience, every single round presents unique combinations of options that are “optimal” for that given round.
In the latest difficult combat I had (on my level 3 Flurry Ranger) I had 6 straight turns where every *single* round involved a meaningfully different set of decisions for me, and the decisions were so complex that with 2 of them I’m convinced I actually made the wrong decision (and the right decision was meaningfully different than all the other decisions I made too).
That’s not to say there aren’t *some* characters whose decisions get repetitive fast: the same Ranger’s party has a Wood Kineticist who’s exhausted with using Timber Sentinel all the time, but by and large characters will usually have way more variety than you’re giving them credit for. Most characters don’t even have the option for a repetitive rotation, let alone it being optimal.
I fully understand the claim about "lack of exciting choices". I agree with it as well, though I also think that's why it's *not* an illusion of choice.
For example, when you cast Wall of Force in 5e, it's exciting, it's combat defining - and it's also the most important thing you'll likely do in that combat, and you may have already done it in round 1. After that, it's just waiting for others to clean up while you use cantrips or maybe some other non-concentration spells. This is the downside of having 1 exciting choice. Similarly in character building, once you've picked your species and class at level 1 and subclass at 3, that's it. Those are big choices, but you're sorta "done" after that.
On the other hand, if you cast Wall of Force in PF2e, it's still going to be combat defining, but it's not as strong as it is in 5e. So, you get to continue making equally big decisions as combat goes on. Do you want to frighten the enemy with Demoralize on the same turn? Do you want to cast a second simultaneous Wall of Force in round 2? Or cast fly while maintaining the Wall of Force? This is the upside of having many less-exciting choices: no one option is obviously the best, and you can continue customizing your tactical options or character build all the time.
I totally get the preference for having fewer but more exciting choices, but I personally - as a player - like the variety that PF2e gives me. When no one option is obviously the best or the most exciting, then there's a real choice to make.
WRONG!!!
spontaneous caster can use a higher level slot to cast a low level non sig spell if its cast without any effect from heightening it
I find the spellcasting system in pathfinder restrictive not permissive
in that regard I still prefer dnd
There's an archetype called "Flexible Spellcasting" you can take to make it function very similarly to 5e's spellcasting
@@Zilinos you're not selling it to me
Pathfinder does a lot of things better than 5e. Spellcasting isnot one of them.
Why do you feel that way?
@jadenthomas5261
1: Having to prepare each "charge" of the spells you wanna cast is annoying and outdated;
2: Spontaneous casters having to waste one of the very few spells they learn, relearning a spell on a higher level in order to upcast it is absolutely INSANE;
3: Disabling spells being basically useless against higher level enemies is technically good for balance, but it makes those spells feel very underwhelming, as you can "disable" weaker enemies by simply damaging them;
4: Being able to cast spells with 1, 2, or 3 actions for bigger effects is very cool. Until you remember that it still uses the same spell slot so casting it at 1 action isn't worth it.
Spellcasting feels clunky and annoying. Pathfinder often balances the fun out of many of their systems. Of course, that's all just my opinion. I know for a fact that there's plenty of people who will tell me everything I just said are positives. But I can never play a caster in pathfinder because of that.
@moonlight2870 It's a matter of perspective. I enjoy spellcasting and how it's balanced, though nothing is perfect. I'd much rather have spellcasters that need to carefully weigh their options than be able to cast every spell they've ever heard of and just flatten any encounter instantly.
I agree
wich is really sad because spellcasters in pathfinder have a lot of flavor to them 🤤
@@moonlight2870
1. As compared d&d where "prepared" spellcasters are strictly superior to spontaneous casters? Going back to (light) vancian casting makes prepared spellcasters and spontaneous casters roughly even. Plus this is just personal preference. I like preparing spells.
2. This is why all spontaneous casters get signature spells, they will almost never learn duplicate spells at higher levels
3. Incap isn't perfect and I know some people have issues with it (although I actually quite like it). But I absolutely prefer it to the save or suck nonsense in d&d that they bandaid with legendary resistances
4. Ymmv, I probably wouldn't cast force barrage with 1 action but off the top of my head spells like Heal, Harm, Kinetic Ram, Gravitational Pull, and Infuse Vitality have use cases across all action costs
I totally respect that some players prefer 5e's casting but there's no serious argument that it's objectively better. If you value a balanced, tactical game, you're probably going to prefer 2e's casting. If you want the power fantasy of auto-winning encounters because you picked an OP spell (which is a completely valid thing to enjoy - I certainly thought it was fun at first) you will probably prefer 5e
I like how he keeps mistakenly referring to Mathfinder as Pathfinder. 🙂👍 It's adorable!
But neither is true, it's Mathfinder 2e! (for you pedantic math nerd out there: 2 * Euler's constant factorial = ~8.5, apparently)
oddly passive aggressive but ok dude
Have not watched this yet, I am going to keep track of how long it takes him to get mad at dnd and alienate potential pf2 players like he usually does, with the assunption that this will not be different.
Edit: it didn't even take 3 minutes
You must be talking about the moment I say ""I'll inevitably inject my enthusiasm for PF2 which is my preferred crunchy TTRPG"?
Sorry I offended D&D players by saying I like another system! /s
Why is it wrong to dislike D&D? Only D&D players are allowed to have preferences, I guess?