At fight I thought pf2e would be more confusing and complicated to track than dnd 5e, but after getting into it I found pf2e to be much easier to understand. It has less confusing interactions, the systems work logically, and seamlessly across the whole system. I miss the ability to hard multiclass but tbh pf2e has far more meaningful customization for characters and nearly all of them are competitive options.
I mean, more choice = more complicated; no getting around that. I prefer classless systems myself, but each to their own. I do think that the number system could have been cleaned up a lot by not inflating the math; ie a goblin 4 levels below you just has a -4 to act instead of making characters add +7 and the goblin adding +3, but they have their sacred cows like everyone else, I suppose. The three action economy gets me too; opening a door or drawing a weapon is an action... uh... I do like limiting attacks of opertunity, but if only they would just rid themselves of this relic of war gaming and be done with it... make a held action to attack, push, grapple, or trip if they move x and be done with it. It gives you more interesting choices as a player.
Most of the bonuses don't actually stack. Every bonus in PF 2e has a type: Circumstance, Item and Status bonus. You can not stack bonuses of the same type. So, for example, Bless is a +1 Status bonus to Attacks. So is Inspired Courage and so is Guidance. So getting hit with all three of those doesn't do anything besides give you a single +1 Status bonus to attacks. By reducing it to only three types of bonuses that don't stack, most times you can ignore other bonuses, thus simplifying the math by quite a bit.
@@pcontop if players know their abilities and basic knowledge, the issues often don't come up in the first place: "oh you have Bless up? That rules out piling on all spell buffs to attacks." The types in pf2e correspond to their source leading to predictable interactions. There is rules clarity to settle arguments and maintain balance throughout the system. No having to look up Sage Advice, no murky situations like "how does Silvery Barbs interact with Legendary Resistances?" for example.
I don't see how adding a +1 or +2 to a number is all that complicated for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. That's kindergarten math. It certainly isn't any harder than checking all the different things that can give you advantage or disadvantage to your roll. It's not like you escape the math with DnD 5e either. For example, Bless in DnD 5e adds a d4 to your roll. Also I find what constitutes a full action vs bonus action vs move action vs just an action way more confusing than dealing with math that would mostly be calculated at level increase and then written down. Pathfinder's 3 action economy is way simpler.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG yes because the players are the only ones at the table /s It's like everyone misses the point entirely that the person this shit creates issues for is the DM far more than the players.
Multiclassing in 2e feels amazing and it doesn't even really feel like multiclassing to me. Hell, with the addition of the Advanced Player's Guide, the archetypes and new multiclass feats they added (which are basically the same thing in this aside for one or two things that specifically state multiclassing feats over archetype feats) makes the base classes feel less like an actual class and more like a starting kit. Want to make a war marshal that summons a monster to do some of the fighting for them while buffing said summon and their teammates? You can do that. Want to play a Wizard archer who combines spells with their arrows? You can do that. Want to make a rogue who has an animal companion that they can flank with and pull off a bunch of devastating combos? You can do that. The multiclassing and archetypes in 2e just add so much flexibility to an already super flexible and customizable game and it's wonderful.
It is pretty nice but you also sometimes have to figure what angle you are coming from and what you want to be important to the build, especially for the multiclassing archetypes.
Agreed, the one thing I really loved about 2nd Edition was how multiclassing worked. Fighter with some ability to cast arcane spells was all of a sudden a real thing again.
Year late, but this. Its him missing a vital rule, not the system having the flaw. 2e is hard to learn, so i can forgive that, but its unfair to the review itself if he doesnt get those basics down.
@@zombietotseater3894 pf2e has some room for powergaming, but a character that takes any amount of effort to make a build (Max out primary stat, if is a spellcaster take some good spells) is still good, and the most powergamey character is not that much stronger. 5e however is very easy to make a hyperpowered character in.
I'm Forever-DM. I have spent entire days helping my players plan out their builds. Going through every option with them, explaining what they do, which situations they're good for, as well as some opinions on power level. I then tell them "If you want to do X this is what you want. If you want to do Y then this is a good option". It's a new system and my players are table top veterans but new to 2e. Making a party of four level 5 characters was a process that took me about 20 hours. But now they're all familiar with their characters, their abilities, what their role is and their build is mapped out all the way to level 20. Levelling up just before a session? Yeah no. That just won't happen at my game.
It doesn't bother me when my players forget to level up - they just play at their last level. They don't usually forget twice. (And yes, this is the communicated expectation during session zero.)
The combat example ignores that there are only 3 types of bonuses and penalties (except there are some untyped penalties such as multi-attack) so there is never more than 3 (and rarely more than 1-2) bonuses and rarely more than 1-2 penalties to a roll (but there theoretically can be a bunch of penalties). It tends to go very quickly once you get used to it (I've played a lot of PF2 up to 8th level (so far)).
Multiclass feats are a solid workaround for lots of the problems of multiclassing: you don't lose progression in your primary class anymore, but you also block the abusive stacking of 'core' class abilities you got in 3.5. What they do now is add a limited selection of additional options to your main class, especially when adding spellcasting (basically, you get a spell of a level 1-2 levels behind a traditional caster for each slot, with the ability to get more slots with a feat pick). The new Advanced players guide also shows they're turning old prestige classes into multiclass/archetype feats, which makes balancing them so much less of a headache and makes for some fun new character concepts.
@@nnickplays9713 If I were to go a little old school and esoteric, I'd copy how they tried to integrate Epic Destinies into third edition: you trade your ASI/feats for them. You give up any ability to jump to another class and have to give up your lvl 4, and 12 ASI's, while only getting +1 to one score at 8 and 16 ASI's. Then, you'd get small selection of the 'core abilities' of the other class at the class level -3 or at 1/2 class level for things like sneak attack, and for spellcasters, spell progression at your level -3 with halved spell slots, with the most 'core' abilities being given at 4, 8, 12, and 16 and definitely nothing from any of the archetypes. So picking Multiclass fighter would get you Fighting Style at 4th level, Action Surge 1/day and +1 to a stat at 8, Extra attack at 12, and Indomitable 1/day and +1 to a Stat at 16th, possibly.
@@nnickplays9713 The latest UA introduces feats that offer small bits of other classes, like the sorcerer's metamagic and some eldritch invocations from a warlock. Maybe look at that for inspiration?
I do like how Multiclassing is handled in 5e a lot though too. They finally made it so that a lot of things scale on your character level. So for example if you play a Wizard that multiclasses into cleric, you still get spell slots based on character level even if you're not necessarily learning higher level spells. But because there's also a more robust system for upcasting spells it really doesn't necessarily throw you that far behind. You also maintain your proficiency bonus regardless of what classes you're leveling so that your various DCs and to hit modifiers don't lag behind, and cantrips always scale on character level even if you only ever take 1 level in a spellcasting class. There is something to be said for how P2e lets you basically add some bits of a class to your class without sacrificing your main progression but I think 5e's method of doing things is also pretty good still too. Plus there's also the latest UA which basically adds a ton of feats based around letting almost anyone get access to most core classes key features more easily without necessarily investing levels. So like for example now in 5e, assuming this UA goes through, any character from any class could theoretically gain access to Eldritch Blast and even have 2 invocations to modify it for the investment of 2 feats. Or any spellcaster can have access to the Sorcerer's Metamagic for a couple spells a day.
I like PF 2e because it empowers the player to make their own decisions without needing to ask permission from the GM. Whereas in D&D 5e, more of the weight of responsibility is put onto the DM through sheer intuition, not necessarily knowledge of the game rules.
I would like to say, that not all of the golorian adventures have ended with "adventurers win, bad guys lost". For example, the nation of Lastwell is gone. The quest to stop the Resurrection of Tar Baphon failed. So he's back, the entire nation of paladins is now the gravelands, and the undead have a massive capital of undead. Just saying that its not like Paizo went through, removed all problems, and gave no plot hooks. It's even given new possibilities like the orcs becoming more neutral instead of evil and one of the people fighting the undead on the frontlines.
Another example of this is that the Infernal nation of Cheliax crushed a major rebellion led by upstart crusaders. Plenty of material there just waiting to be written
And there's still plenty of plot hooks that weren't addressed in PF1. IIRC Sarenrae still has her Cult of the Dawnflower issue going on. And don't get me *started* on the place that is basically the french revolution that went on too long.
Clearing some things up for my fellow 5E Players: I liked that review but the example of the math was like if I was to explain that shooting a bow in 5e is rolling 1d20, then adding your dexterity modifier, then adding your proficiency bonus, then adding your +1 weapon bonus, then adding your penalty for enemy cover, then adding the bonus for your bracers of archery, then adding your bardic inspiration, then rolling a second time for disadvantage and adding all that stuff again and taking the lower because you're shooting into dim-light, and then etc, etc. Like sure you can do that for each attack, or you could instead figure it out when leveling the character up and then have the final number on your sheet. I mean sure there are floating modifiers like cover or guidance but that doesn't make 5e a game thats too complex and full of math, basically the same for pathfinder 2e. There is absolutely a learning experience, back when we played pathfinder 1e before hopping over to dndbeyond/5e, players of our game for some reason would always do all the math on each of their attacks and it baffled me that they didn't just figure out the total and have it on their sheet forever. fortunately when we started using dndbeyond it became a lot simpler because dndbeyond just gives you the number. My advice for PF2e is using the Pathbuilder 2 app, it not only does all your math for you, it makes character creation an absolute breeze because it reds out any options in character creation that aren't available because you don't meet pre-requisites and what not freeing up some choice paralysis I've seen 5e players mention, I could make a character or do a level up is pathbuilder 2 in maybe about double the time it takes me to zip through the same stuff in dndbeyond. If any other 5e players reading this are interested in Pathfinder 2e at all, I highly recomend pathbuilder 2e, its free and there is no sign up needed because all of the pathfinder rules a free SRD material. There is a bit of a pay wall if you want to have animal companions stuff in the app (about $7) and if you want to use some specific variant rules I think, but if you use dndbeyond you know you can go without those sorts of things anyway because they still don't have the variant rules stuff and only recently added animal companion/ familiar stuff. Oh and Pathbuilder 2 will be getting the advanced players guide stuff soon like the 4 new classes; swashbuckler, investigator, oracle and witch. Why do I sound like an advertisement for this free app? because I really love PF2e and as someone still playing in both pathfinder 1e and D&D5e games and finding myself frustrated at both, I'd love to see more 5e folks playing PF2e, I reckon that you'll have a fun time, sometimes its about the right mindset and a good toolset. Not as bogged down and bloated as pathfinder, and also has a lot more freedom of expression for players than 5e. And if you're wondering what to run if you're thinking of taking on the GM mantle for the game, may I advise any of the 3 adventure paths out for pathfinder 2e, Paizo started out making modules for 3.5 and managed to make the second most successful d20 rpg purely off of the good will garnered by people who loved their adventures. Paizo releases all of its rules for free online, you can buy books for them to show your support, but the real money for them comes in off of their payed adventure sales, because they are so confident in their adventure writing that they are okay with taking a loss on their rule books. May I suggest age of ashes, I haven't run in yet but I have heard good things.
I wholeheartedly 100% agree. Also, I am currently GMing Age of Ashes for my Italian group, just started book 3, and we are having a blast! PF2 is my new favourite fantasy RPG by a mile.
So as in 1E you pretty much end up with a spreadsheet as 2 of my group did. I was mocked for this until another realised he needed such a sheet and asked me to create it got him.
@@vampdan same place you put it for 5e? You don't write down a shot with a bow that takes into account cover, but all the things that are consistent round by round you write down as a single whole number, and then you just remember the other stuff. There is an expected grace period of being unsure, see new people to 5e that always do their attacks by adding modifier and proficiency separate.
People are going to hate me for this, but... Buy note cards and stat out your favorite action combos. Make sure to use pencil for the bonuses as they will change as you level up. Short term effects can be added in on the fly. But other than that, it'll be like playing in D&D 4E with power cards. You'll have all the info of your attacks in one place and easy to reference.
In the monologue about the ranger's turn, you make it seem like you'd be calculating all of this on the fly. Realistically your character sheet would already have the prof+stat+finess+rune calculated for both of your weapons. The only thing left for you to keep track of would be the multiple attack penalties for the hunter's edge (and conditions effects). You might not have half a day to calculate attacks and damage, but you usually have more than that when creating your character, which is when you would actually have to do all the bonuses (unless you use the easily accessible auto calculating character sheet, in which case it's easy) You would actually be calculating: attack bonus - multiple attack penalty + situations modifiers.
To be fair, I've played a lot of D&D 3.5, 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder 1E over the past 15 years...and this is EXACTLY how most of my players approached the attack rolls for those games. Even when pointing out it's really not hard to just add the bonuses ahead of time the ironic response was just "Nah, too complicated." And I learned over time most of my players just want to sit down and play and doing anything out of the game for their character is "work," with the exception of the players who actually want to play that specific system. Then they do the short legwork to make the game flow better while playing because they actually like reading the rules and figuring out exactly what their characters can do with that system. But that was maybe 3 out of over a dozen players I've had over the years. And they were the only ones who ever wanted to play Pathfinder. Everyone else just wanted to play 5e. So his description of the attack rolls feels painfully accurate to me anyway.
A lot of this complicated stuff other than the 48 statuses can "just" be written down. The bigger problem is definitely the learning curve because all of your modifier attack values should just be recorded, you only calculate once and reference based on 1st-3rd attack modifiers and others in a chart if you must.
You know, most of that math can be calculated long before your round. It can even be calculate before the session. 'normal hit i will roll this, if crit ill roll this instead,' "know your charakter" is the least you can expect from your players. Then you only have to calculate the circumstance stuff while in game.
He did mention writing out an attack matrix, but like, he had basically the most complicated build I can imagine for a martial class. Two different weapons, 1 agile 1 not, 1 deadly the other sweeping, a dual attack feat, +1 bonuses, Striking, a MaP reduction feature, and multiple enemies in melee range and then went on a massive tangent about trying to decide on whats the most damage then proceeded to say he mostly dicks around with his characters towards the end.
@@MidnightSt4r He went out of his way to make his example as complicated as possible to reinforce his opinions of 5e being superior. It's the most disgustingly weighted "review" I've ever heard. It's like Fox News.
@@clanpsi I don't think he was trying to do that specifically. I think that his character just ended up overly complicated due to his ranger build. Like he says towards the end, the level of detail just is not for him or some of his friends. I absolutely love the level of detail and I help other people, including DMs, keep track of things whenever I play when things start to chug. But others feel bogged down by these things sometimes.
Remember back in 3.5 when you could make a bad build? Thats what WotC tried to "fix" and look what we got. A crappy easy uncomplicated nonchallanging game 5e. Perfect example Diablo 2 v Diablo 3.
Puffin's explanations here reminds me of that guy who plays a spellcaster and has to dig through the book every time he casts a spell to reference its effects.
I've been preparing a PF2 one shot for my party, and I'm loving the system so far. Slightly simplified gameplay with that crunchy character creation I know and love. So I'm looking forward to running it for my group.
@@briancurtis6022 There wasn't charts that were diffrent for each player in AD&D , they were only one for each class used in combat . Rolemaster on the other hand had charts for every single thing a player tried to do with tons of modifiers . Every single weapon had a chart and on that chart where all the armor types in the game , so you had 20 lines across the top of the armor types then you had the numbers rolled that were modified by any number of things just to see how much damage you did and spells even had the same type of tables with regards to armor types modified by the spell type and the material of the armor . We called it CHARTMASTER because you could almost fill a 10ft wall up from top to bottom with all the charts needed to do just about anything . Every skill had its own chart and list of modifiers and there were so many skills and when you added the addition rules from the diffrent supplements it added even more charts . It's use of charts was so bad that some groups had 1 or 2 players taking turns from playing to looking things up on the charts so that a simple combat or anything else didn't take an hour just to get through a few rounds of combat or to do anything else
Perspective from a PF1 player who still plays that system and hasn't migrated to PF2: The best mechanic in Pathfinder is that *your group's Golarion* is as much a character as any of your (extremely customizable) PCs. The groups I've played it with have always taken the 'canon' resolutions of various quests as examples/suggestions of ramifications of party actions, but each DM having their established histories and developments based directly on previous campaigns in their version of the world. It's not "random adventurers" who scoured this area, it was your notorious grandfather, the wizard Joey played in the first adventure when he sold the dragon's head to the taven as an over-bar decoration. This adventure starts here; the taxidermied whelp still holds its ferocious snarl, but the scales have lost some sheen. So I can hardly imagine what a pain in the ass it would be to try and start in at 2nd edition using canon-as-written! Don't blame you for saying 'fuck it' eventually
Yeah it takes a while, we did play Faerun from AD&D to 3.0 and 3.5, which was a pain because Exp tables were vastly different, so PC's who became NPC's had to be redone from scratch. We refused to have anything to do with 4e, but we translated it to Pathfinder, which was painless. While I don't play 5e with the same group, I still use the same Faerun I used to play in 20 years ago, thankfully modules so far have been a lot less intrusive. In Golarion I've only played/ran a couple of AP, and while Varisia is mostly Canon, Cheliax in our timeline is a lot more powerful because the Hell's Rebels campaign went really bad, and Hell's Revengeance went brutally well. My characters also decided to make the Kingdom in Kingmaker a Thrune ruled state, so geopolitically things were gearing towards a massive conflict in Avistan. I still think it's easily adaptable, but are at a point where creating our own APs is probably better.
@@NieroshaiTheSable Not necessarily - obviously any group can run a consistent setting. The "mechanic" of that aspect is the divergent development of specific given cultural aesthetics and historic story beats. For instance, the way the above commenter can say "House Thrune established a colony" and I understand what they're about, and can say "Oh cool, in our Golarion that colony was established by Halfling refugees from Galt, and house Thrune was eventually overthrown by house Leroung." You could theoretically do something similar with personal multiverses based on any given media property, but I am personally fond of what you're given to work with in Pathfinder.
@@nikolasgilliam4666 I guess. Not much different from other game books that feature "where to go from here" sections. Like Hoard of the Dragon Queen having a TPK result in the dragons taking over. I'm still hesitant to call preemptive narrative suggestions a mechanic though.
@@piece1309 The one thing overlooked does come to playstyle. One thing the mechnics really focus on, and the official modules as well is roleplay. A pathfinder society module is often very supportive of clever roleplay and skill usage. I have GMed one that it can actually be of detriment to players i they try doing get alll the treasure, fight all the things.
@@puffinforest , I put it down to: Complex rules melt even the best of minds, but how to best to show this? These scripting and reading errors let me know your brain was well melted!
@@russelljacob7955 "A pathfinder society module is often very supportive of clever roleplay and skill usage." Have you actually ever played a society game?
I personally find high option character creation to make the game more fun. I really like my character mechanically feeling how the character feels to play. For example, I love skill ranks because I get to choose the exact details of how my character’s mechanical skills fit for my character’s in character skills. I hate in 5e when I just have a proficiency that doesn’t fit because of my background or not able to be proficient in a skill just because it’s not a class skill. I like how skill ranks give me the ability to hone the skills, and even be good in something not from the class, even if not as good as if it was a class skill (which yeah, my Rogue won’t be as good at healing as a Cleric, but at least I can get bonuses). Having options also makes every level up feel significant to me. I know that this isn’t for everyone, but for me, the character creation process is vital to the enjoyment of the game.
There are a lot of ways to pick skills (for one thing, I basically never use a pre-made background and just pick my own stuff) but it is admittedly lame that so few classes get anything especially powerful like expertise. I'm not over the moon about pathfinder's combat but that aspect looks cool
Pathfinder 2E player and GM here. I figured Ben's reaction would end up being close to what it was, and my reaction to this system was basically the polar opposite of his. That said, this has been an utterly fascinating review to listen to. I adore this system. I left 5th Edition behind and have never looked back. BUT: it's clear I am a very different player than the person who prefers 5E. The crunch comes more easily to me, and my table is mostly people who can also easily handle quick number crunching to keep combat moving. I like a crunchier G to mix with my RP, whereas others might not. I may love this system, but I have all the respect in the world for someone who can say, "This is someone's game, but it's not for me," because that's exactly how I feel about D&D 5th. PF2 and 5E are high fantasy through VERY different mechanical lenses- and that's ok. Have fun playing the games of your choice, everyone, in whatever form they might take. Take care of each other, at and away from the table.
@@orionar2461 It's nowhere near that complicated- just addition/subtraction, but in more places than D&D5E. PF1e was closer to what you're describing. There's some crunch to PF2e, but no algebra wizardry is needed.
I played 2e with 3 entirely new players to RPG world. None of them thought it's complicated or anything. The Math is done on the character sheet and bonuses from the same categories don't "stack". If anything we thought the combat is too simplistic, especially for melee characters, lol
Eh, I know people who started with PF1E or D&D 3.5, which were imo crunchier. It is certainly doable. 5E is easier to get into, and it has WotC's marketing machine behind it, but it's not like you have to be a genius to get into Pathfinder.
In my first Starfinder (based on pathfinder 1e but similar enough) campaign, our big bulky Vesk soldier had what he called his "standard whack" which was almost all he ever had to use in combat. One attack roll, one damage roll, modifiers all added up and ready ahead of any encounter. It really is that simple.
I think pf2e was partly designed with various helper apps in mind to help automate some aspects of it... because... as a player I can say that pf2e typically plays really fast especially now that the system has a lot more official adventures to serve as a baseline... And my dm is a lot happier in pf2e than in dnd 5e because the latter put all the work on the gm... no real guides on running the game, few charts to help with anything and the setting and character descriptions and statblocks were so thin and shallow that they typically amounted to nothing more than a sticky note. (I can also attest to this after having read the 5e Ravenloft book... the ADD and 2nd ed dnd ravenloft books spent several pages detailing each realm, ruler, and the history/culture therein... while the 5e version... each realm is lucky to get anything more than 2 paragraphs, one of which is usually focused on ura ruler) Also... yes there is some initial jank as you learn but that's true of any system. Even Fiasco has a learning curve.
As someone that's GMd both DnD 5e and PF2e I feel where your GM is coming from. I feel like 5e gaslighted everyone into thinking that anything clunky with that system can just "be fixed/filled in by the GM".
@@perplexingpantheon Relatively few things cannot be, but a system should not have a GM scrambling to fix their shortcomings overmuch unless they are abusing the system somehow.
i personally feel that all the math segments are misleading. A lot of the math you were calculating is stuff that should already be calculated on your character sheet. I agree there is an initial slowness but once you get the numbers down it really becomes second nature adding the penalties and bonuses. Also I feel like Pathfinder 2e requires a lot more preparation required for the gm. It's defiantly not something where you can throw it together on the stop or within a few hours without a lot of experience with the system first. While it's harder to prepare and learn but I feel like it's a lot more rewarding when you do get all the numbers down as combat becomes more dynamic and more unique.
@@fake-inafakerson8087 he shouldn't need an attack matrix. I had a dual-wield ranger in my party. You know what he did? Wrote down the attack bonus he gets for each weapon on his sheet. Memorized the one sequence of attacks he'd use. (Mainhand weapon for the first attack, agile weapon for all subsequent attacks). That's it. It's that easy. +15 to hit with both weapons, but if I attack with my agile as 2nd and 3rd attacks then it's 15/13/11. And that's the sequence he uses every time. Done and done. Like... There's no need to make it as complicated as he did. Every build usually has one or two strategies that are your bread and butter. Trip Fighter? You move and use Knockdown. Dual-wield anything? You attack with your hardest hitting weapon first and agile weapon for all subsequent attacks. Super complicated convoluted Hobgoblin Champion build I made? You open with Demoralize, which deals mental damage due to an ancestry feat, and then strike your foe who has - 1AC and raise your shield. That's it.
Choosing between which pre-recorded math: the starknife or the Spear? the act of weighing the two (or more)choices against each other, since they all come at opportunity costs to each other...choosing takes non-zero time.
@@The_CGA which is why you choose ahead of time, when you're creating the character. Hence the whole 'bread and butter' thing. If a certain sequence of attacks is what you'll be using all the time, there's no need to care about many of your other 'options'.
Honestly by the time I got to 25:00 I thought “the same people who think Pathfinder is too complicated play MTG in tournaments” and totally accepted that if you dedicate your attention to the game and your character design you will really enjoy yourself. The rules are there to allow crunch if you want it, you don’t need to apply the crunch at every table. Paizo did the hard work of homebrewing everything for us in a logical way so we players and GMs don’t feel like we’re buying books just to redesign the game WOTC publishes. Hats off to PF for a great product and opportunity for fun.
I feel like my gaming group has had the opposite experience from what you've described. Pathfinder 2e has had the best combat experience of any roleplaying game that I've run. Things have always run very smoothly - and the most dramatic Player/DM disagreement I can remember lasted less than 45 seconds. I wonder if your group dived in "too quickly." I was finishing up a Pathfinder 1e campaign when 2e released, so I wasn't able to run it immediately. I ended up having about 2 months to really absorb the system before I had to run any really intense games. So, I was very grounded in the system by the time I was running anything "complex." It sounds like your group dived in very quickly, got overwhelmed, & maybe suffered some system whiplash. I've seen brand new players (with zero RPG experience whatsoever) pick up Pathfinder 2e almost immediately! But, I was a well-grounded DM, so I was able to focus on the moving parts that mattered to them (& knew well what was unnecessary & could be ignored). I think 2e has so many moving parts it can swamp you if you're not careful, but if you pace yourself well, you'll find that the parts all move in rational & practical ways. Just my two cents. Thanks for the video!
I have hated almost every session. I hate character creation. I hate leveling. I hate the character sheet. It is inadequate for the combat's complexity. I hate my idea is gated behind feats and skill training levels. And even then the mechanics still do not support what I wanted to do, oh and I only wanted to do it the once because it was a very niche case that is never going to occur again. I hate adding level to everything. I hate the myriad of conditions. It is a badly designed game if you have to "ease" into it. That you can't pick it up quickly is a bad sign. Complexity is not depth, and they have designed a game that is complex in its attempts to attain depth. And I say this as someone who loves Shadowrun.
@@vampdan To be fair, most of those arguments are the same for pathfinder. And the same for 3.5e. 5e is extremely different in that it's focus is being easy to pick up, which is great in a lot of ways. But pathfinder (both 1e and 2e) is more for people who really like to dig in and really progress their character or strategize in combat. Both systems are valid, you just have to understand which is better for you and which might be better for others.
@@vampdan I will have to disagree with you on "easing" into a game being an automatic indication of bad design. Chess has a steeper learning curve than Checkers, but it's still a perfectly valid game. There is a point where the learning curve can be too steep - and as an example, I've had a ton of trouble every time I've tried to teach Shadowrun to people. I love the system & setting, but the learning curve there can be borderline unplayable at times. Pathfinder 2e has a lot going on, but I've generally seen that most starting characters really only need to grasp 4 - 6 mechanics in order to play effectively, and I don't think that's too overwhelming. But, a lot of people look at the 40-something conditions & even more special traits & even more options and and and... and they see so much they don't realize that most of it will never apply to them. Honestly, it was overwhelming when I first looked at it. But, when I realized that I could take it in manageable chunks, the system was suddenly much easier to handle. I think the game compartmentalizes well, but Paizo does not do a good job pointing that out. However, I will definitely agree with you on the character sheet - it is woefully constructed! Paizo's character sheet is bad. Jefferson Jay Thacker from Know Direction made a slightly better version, but even that one is lacking in the Spells & Actions/Activities section. I really wish I had the creative & technical skill to design my own character sheet, because you're right: what we have now is not helping!
"Ben its your turn" "I'm calculating the cost analysis of my starknife and scimitar and-" "Oh you're using the delay action?" "No I-" "Ben delays, next player."
You might have to pre generate something to help for the more complicated classes attacks, I imagine there will be some cleaned up abilities as time goes on as well. I think a new people should probably avoid some classes and stick with just 1 weapon based on what is thematically appropriate for the character.
@@timthorson52 All melee and ranged strikes are calculated well in advance, the only variables that come up are bonuses from buffs such as guidance, true strike etc. Normal attacks and spell casts are as simple as tossing a dice and adding a precalculated number to the roll, so the same as 5e pretty much.
@@DarkDoomguy So it sounds like we just have someone that doesn't like to fill in character sheets? I usually include all my attacks in the places to fill in attacks, not just the standard +7, I include one for each of my weapons and basic attacks. If you have to plan for multiple attacks, just put the classic +7/+2/-3 style?
I really like this review of the game, it definently shows the strength and weaknesses of the game. I've been GMing this game since its release. I will say, Ben kinda overcomplicated the process of an encounter. I've never had to overthink so much on an encounter. From listening to it, he wants to apply every aspect single bonus and action physically available to the game. I should mention, the paizo states in the book that all of these are optional. The DM can decide how much he/she can apply to an encounter. All these weapon bonuses and critical specializations apply to players, more than some random goblin. That's why you need to plan ahead on how a creature would behave in a fight, so a GM can plan out how to play. Similar to encounter builds. Pathinder 1 or 2 strictly has two types of fights, a lot of weakling, or one big bad boss. If you mix a bunch of mediums together, the game drags on for hours. Minions should he minions like a RPG, and the minions should be led by a big bad boss. I really enjoyed listening to the review, and definently agree with 90%.
@Nospam Spamisham depends on how, as a GM you manage that. I ran fall of plaguestone as our first game, we had our slower moments figuring out rules, but during combat what I said was what we were going to do, in order to not to slow down the 8 player game. We would write down our questions and discuss them after the session. Was that thing viable. Like I accidentally killed a character because I misread, there were some frustrations. Overall the group had fun. I did end up homebrewing the end into a custom campaign but that's a different story
I think the issue is right here: "The DM can decide how much he/she can apply to an encounter." The DM MAY decide how much of this they want to use, but the very presence of it adds weight to any rules lawyer that is willing to derail the game in favor of their optimal attack, or optimal defense, and they'll pull out every stop to do it. In 5e the options to do that are extremely limited, they either have advantage or disadvantage or neither, but in a game that revolves around the stacking of nearly a hundred different bonuses and penalties, where the results of said rolls can result into damage or buffs to to multiple hit point pools, that just makes for an awfully crunchy, and not very rewarding system.
@@goadfang No, it's not like that. PF2 is extreamly well balanced system. Maximum of what you can get with optimisation is deacent AC for your wizard at level 1. Hell, you can optimase much more easely in 5e, then you can in PF2.
In the example you give at 17:01 I feel like you REALLY padded the complexity and confusion with a lot of the things that happen on most fantasy ttrpgs. People forget and remember bonuses all the time, and I'm afraid that people might get the impression that this sort of confusion is the rule rather than the exception. Also... You are aware that after adventurers solved all the problems from 1st edition, *new* quests came up, right? That you're not forced to homebrew if you don't want to? Even if you do, many of the books are really great about new adventure hooks
I'm playing PF2e, it is terrific. I love the 3 actions. I love the customisation of PC. There are meaningful choices every level, yet few traps, it's really elegant design.
And for the GM is really good too. One of my greatest gripes with 5e was how repetitive their monsters were. Like, everything is just a melee attackers with little else of uniqueness. No mechanical flavor. Pathfinder 2 tough? Literally everything, even the goblins, those flanking little monsters, have some level of unique, interesting abilities on their belt.
it looks liek a snowflake system, it has almsot none of the races of 1e, and the pug race is retarded, and I hate the spell lists, clerics can't ressurect anymore, jst basic raise dead.
@@ceilyurie856 Snowflake system? Pug race? What are you talking about? And i actually rather like that reviving is a LOT harder now. Death is largely final and meaningful. Fights have more tangible risk when there is no revivify.
@@ceilyurie856 Looks like you have been raving about pf2e in a lot of the threads here. Feeling so angry about a dice-rolling rpg system is not healthy. I recommend that you just close youtube for a minute and do something that actually brings you happiness.
@@tonhaogamergranudo fights are bullshit. and the shoomy or whatever their retarded race is, they are literally pug pacifists that just look cute or pathetic. Also now ALL magic users get up to 10th level spells apparently, so what's the fucking point in really differentiating that much? And all it invites now is being more of a dick to players from dms.Suddenly all classes are equal and gotta have a pacifist race. Woo.Oh and gotta make it "harder" by removing a HIGH LEVEL resuscitation spell
Man, i've dmed a few games of PF2, starting as soon as on the edition launch only taking a week to learn the rules. It's clear to say we got a lot of rules wrong and some of what we got right was later erata'd so it's been a journey. I never felt that battles were overly complicated in between my digital games, where its been little to no problem, and my live game i was always able to have a pretty good grasp on all of the multi attack penalties, circumstance bonuses/penalties and so on. Listening to Ben speak though, it sounds a lot more complicated than it feels to me. I can't say for certain, but it feels over-complicated in the way its described though i can see where someone could experience it as such. I don't know, but regardless this review is very good and fair. And reading the comments too is quite interesting.
For me, the whole magic item thing can be resolved beforehand. Item bonus is as permanent as an ability mod or proficiency so it can just be written down beforehand. Same with striking runes, add the die to the sheet. Don't get me wrong, it still gets more complicated than D&D 5e but a good chunk of complexity is the stuff resolved before the combat even starts.
Yes, it is less complicated in play than he makes it sound: (1) bonuses (should!) be calculated on your character sheet beforehand. You almost always have a series of 3 bonuses for a weapon ("+10/+5/+0") and that's all you use. (2) he includes multiple hypotheticals that don't all exist at once ("IF he'd had a striking rune... IF he'd weapons") He over-extended his point and... compromised it in the process.
Yeah it's really annoying that he lists all the invidivual bonuses you get to your attack roll that are permanently part of your attack stat. Just write +17 on your character sheet and shut up. You don't need to manually tally up the dex bonus + proficiency + level + magic item bonus every single time. It's SUPER easy.
Yeah he really soured the entire review for me with how he described combat. It's not nearly as complicated in play as he makes it sound and half of what he talks about adding on the fly should already be written down on the sheet before you play.
@@KingJulius4 yeah. And that super complicated combat matrix? Dude. Just memorize what attack pattern you want to go with and do that every time. Big weapon first, agile offhand for every subsequent attack. So for 3 attacks your Flurry Ranger always does that same thing: 15/13/11. You don't need a freaking matrix written out when that's what you roll every time
Also your description of the buffs during an attack roll sounds exactly like the normal combat in the 3.5 game i am in. You get use to it and start having the modifiers memorized or have a sheet handy.
Yeah all the customization is what I liked about playing 3.5/Pathfinder games in some ways it's nice that 5e is simplified and the rules are good to get new players into it, but I miss a lot of the magic items that didn't make it into 5e not to mention the crafting system is skeletal at best and I miss the exotic crafting materials granted Xanathar's Guide added mithril & adamantine back in, but it still feels bare bones compared to the huge exotic array of stuff from 3.5/Pathfinder 1.
He makes pathfinder 2 seem even more complicated than 3.5 ended up. At least those could end up with a lot of set numbers eith 1-3 modifiers for a given scenario.
@@KamikazKid This si why I picked 3.5. I hate simplified rpgs, I dont care if dnd 3.5 will make my head spinn or make me confused. I want all the mechanics.
It's simpler than 3.5 and and simpler than he makes it sound. Once you have your bonuses written down on your sheet, you almost always only have to deal with only two types of bonuses/penalties: Status and Circumstance. That's it. (3.5 had no limit)
I know I''m rewally late to the party but as someone who ran 5e and PF2e exclusively on Foundry VTT, GMing PF2e on Foundry was so much easier and more fun. Most of the number crunching is done for you. All compendia and rulebooks are included in a module made by the community for free (no problem with Paizo). Paizo even publishes full adventure modules for foundry making GMing them a breeze. One thing that is very significant to the design philosophy of PF2e was missed in this review i feel like. Monster and encounter balancing is very tight and precise AND every monster feels unique because they get signature abilities. For anyone digitally GMing I would Whole-heartedly recommend PF2E over 5E because most of the number crunching and "looking up rules" is eliminated by Foundry.
When he gave the (EDIT: first) example of what he has to track for one attack, it sounded like the video was jumping back and replaying parts of his explanation at times. Just me?
Ben's rant at ~19:00 about calculating the result of one attack: The bonuses from Bless and Guidance don't stack, as they're both Status bonuses. The attacker had no reason to cash in their Guidance on this attack. But seriously, the math feels natural after a little bit
I personally prefer Pathfinder 2 bonuses compared to DND. Since you normally get bonuses from 3 sources its easy to follow. Unless something drastic happens only the circumstances bonuses fluctuates a lot in combat. Item and status less so.
@@joystick2212 not really. If anything it's "D&D with more options both for charactet creation and in gameplay". It has a completly different feel though and both systems are for every different people.
Just gonna say it, Puffin's math example is an example of people who don't take the time to sort their mechanics out. That example has never happened in any game I've run in P2 so far.
Pathfinder is for people that know what they are doing, including the players. DnD players are lazy as f and barely know what their few abilities do and have no idea what they are going to do just right before their turn ... so its much more prone to casuals slowing it down. If you put that casual players into Pathfinder, they are completely lost. If you really know what you are doing, DnD 5e becomes incredible boring very fast, as basically nothing is any challenge for a min/maxed character and group.
After playing a few Starfinder campaigns, this is true. You just gotta know what your combat loop looks like beforehand. 2-3 sessions were enough to get used to all the bonuses, then every new level, ability, weapon, etc. just adds a bit to what's already there.
@@ThisNameIsBanned Funnily enough, my first actual "dnd" game was pathfinder 1e. I simply started playing and it was fine, not great, as I didn't know any of the rules yet, but fine. I'm not some math genius or super memory guy. I just did the 2+2=4 level math, (I am over the age of 6 after all so I can do this) and remembered some mechanics after asking about them, like actions and statuses. Later when I got higher level, and played more complicated characters (started as a fighter in my first ever game because it's nice and simple) I just wrote down my attacks and my attacks when using abilities, durations of buffs/debuffs etc, in notepad. This was especially useful with my trip monk (which is a pretty broken build, especially with the double 18's and 16 that I rolled for stats). Just write that shit down so it's easily referenced. So yeah, I would agree that people who would find that complicated, are simply lazy. It's maybe 1 minute of work (per level up) to pre-calculate it all.
@@Majima_Nowhere this is big player energy. You have to multiply all of those changes by probably 10 or so for DMs because you need to learn those things for each of your 4-7 players and every enemy.
There's so much wrong with his example at 17:03 that I've decided to explain how stupid it is step by step: First, he starts talking about the attack bonuses, which is clear; the player rolls a 16, they add +15 to it thanks to their attack modifier, and a +1 from Bless, meaning the roll is 32. But for some reason, he decides to add extra confusion by making calculation mistakes, like thinking the total is 31 or 33. This doesn't make any sense, since it doesn't give any indication that the system is complicated, it just means that the people counting it made a sum error, which is completely on the fault of the players, not the system. Then, for some reason, he brings up that one of the players thinks the total is 33 because of the Bless bonus, which was already calculated, and once again, this is the fault of the players, not the system. This is just the players being stupid and not knowing how to do math. After that, again, for some reason, he keeps adding these player mistakes in this example, making the system more complicated than it is. Like, now the player says that they actually rolled a 14, which, again, is just the fault of the players'. And after that, he makes a rules mistake, since he stacks Bless bonus and Guidance bonus together, which can't happen, because they're status bonuses. Again, this isn't due to a complicated system, it's very clearly stated in each spell what type of bonus the spell is. All of this was a way more complicated version of just a player rolling a 14, then adding +15 from their attack bonus, and +1 from Bless/Guidance, which is extremely simple math. He's just making the system seem more complicated and confusing that it actually is by adding these random confusions in there. And mind you, all of this calculation should be done by the players, the GM shouldn't have to calculate this, the player doing the attack should. Next up he talks about the Hobgoblin's defenses, which the GM calculates. He talks about the HG having 18 AC, but it's raised by +2, and then by another +2 thanks to them raising their shield. Now, I'm not so sure where the hell he gets the extra +2 AC from, the second +2 comes from the raised shield, yes, but where is the first +2 coming from? He didn't really explain that. And then he brings up the HG's natural ability that gives +1 circumstance bonus if they're next to to allies, which actually doesn't apply here since the HG already gets a +2 circumstance bonus from the shield, as mentioned before, the same type bonuses do not stack. Then he talks about how a player thinks the HG is flat-flooted, which he is, but not to the player. This makes sense if the player who's making the attack is attacking from range, and the HG has the flat-flooted condition from being flanked, but in most cases if you have the flat-flooted condition, you are flat-flooted to everyone. So, what he says is true. Then comes the most stupid part of this example. For some god knows why reason, he know starts talking about how the creature is flat-flooted because they're grabbed, because the player's attack wasn't actually their first attack on their turn, it was their second attack after grappling the HG. This makes no sense whatsover, like, out of nowhere, he suddenly adds this stupid addition to the example, that wasn't mentioned anywhere else before, and he treats it as if this would ever happen in reality??? Like, no, no one is going to grab someone, then attack without calculating their multiple attack penalty, or take into consideration the flat-flooted condition that comes after being grabbed. I can see this mistake being made by someone who is super new to Pathfinder 2e, but this scenario requires for every single person on the table to make this same simple mistake, which I do not see happening ever. And even if this stupid mistake would happen to everyone at the table, then it still doesn't indicate that the system is complicated, since these rules are clearly defined and explained. Like, if you perform a grapple, the rules under the action clearly state that the person becomes flat-flooted. I cannot believe that someone would use grapple without reading the rules behind it. After that attrocity, the damage is being calculated, and the HG uses the shield block reaction, and he says that he needs to "look up the shield stats", which doesn't make sense either. Why? Because the shield stats are automatically portrayed in the statblocks for the enemies. Like if you go and look up Hobgoblin Soldier in the rules, you can clearly see that it lists "wooden shield (Hardness 3, HP 12, BT 6)", so you don't have to look up anything, everything is already there. And if for some reason it isn't there, you should as a GM write them down before the combat even begins when you're preparing the adventure. The rest of the stuff he talks about the shield is true, except that the damage is not split between the shield and the person, the damage is dealt equally to both. Another small thing, he talks about keeping track of shield HP, and implies that it's somehow hard or complicated to keep track of it, which it is not, it's extremely simple, and is not very different to keeping track of your own health. He also implies that keeping track of reactions is also complicated, which it isn't, most enemies don't have more than one reaction, and the players keep track of their own reactions, the GM doesn't need to do that. Next up he talks about the shield being broken, which he also makes a mistake on, since you can't shield block with a broken shield, but that's a minor mistake. However, what isn't a minor mistake, is thinking that you can increase your damage with any weapon by just holding them with two hands, which is completely untrue. You can hold a single handed melee weapon in two hands, but this doesn't change anything, except if the weapon has the Two-Hand trait. That wraps up his example, but then he has the nerve to say if you didn't follow that, the game might not be for you, which is so stupid. Like, this person overcomplicated the system, and then says that if you didn't keep up with his overcomplicated example, the game might not be for you. That's such a dishonest thing to do. There is another example he gives at 21:11, but I'm not going to get that much into it, I'm just going to say this; he overcomplicates things again. In reality, when you are calculating attacks, your players already have these bonuses written down, or at least should have. You don't need to start calculating all kinds of bonuses on the fly, you can, but it's so much simpler to just write them down before hand, which is an option he doesn't even acknowledge, he just plays it off as if you need to do these calculations every time, or at least that you would need to, if it wasn't for him inventing this magical chart, which does the same thing as just writing the multiple attack penalties on your character sheet. There's also added overcomplication here from the fact that he attacks with two different weapons, which you don't need to do, you could just use the starknife that hits more consistently and has the deadly trait, and the fact that he targets an enemy that isn't his hunted prey, which is strange, since if you're a ranger, you usually want to focus on one enemy at a time, since you only get bonuses against your hunted prey. In the end, this video just isn't good, at least when it comes to his thoughts on how "complicated" the system is. It's just full of rules mistakes, and whether it was on purpose or by accident, he did make the system way more complicated than it is in reality.
Will you though? Or, will you ultimately end up with PF1 or whatever improving to PF1 comes along instead? Because PF1's basically 3.75 and pretty solid on customization when you add in a few 3rd party supplements; namely Path of War, Ultimate Psionics, and Spheres of Might/Power.
@@InfernosReaper What is it you hate about 2e so much? It gives the complexity of 3.5/1e without requiring you to min max so much as you get different areas to spend feats in...
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy PF2 adds a lot of complexity in areas where it's not needed, which makes certain parts of gameplay and character building kind of a chore. > It feels like a worst of both worlds between D&D5 & PF1, while playing a lot like D&D4... Not my cup of tea really.
@@InfernosReaper Initial complexity perhaps... but it falls away quite quickly when you realize how it streamlines the countless different rulings from things like 3.5 and 4. Instead of having effects that do X but word it differently, they just apply X effect. Which areas have been made more complex than 1e?
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy Conditions and situational modifiers seem to be that way. . Then there's the 3 action economy, which can either result in a very tedious turn(especially with all those conditions and situations)... of course, that's only on the turns where it doesn't basically end up playing out like the standard 3.x d20 action economy of PF1.
Around the 20 mark when you get into the math of things, about 75% of it is actually already written on the sheet. Yes, theres a lot there that goes into building things, but really its dice roll+bonus from sheet +action bonus+conditions vs ac + or - conditions and shield on or off.
@@richardwhaler8717 Well let's see. Normally you have everything written already on your sheet. In the moment, the only things to add and subtract are 1) do I have any conditions hurting me? 2) do I have my Multiple Attack Penalty factored in 3) do my weapon traits help me? 4) is there a buff from a party member? 5) is there cover or something that'll cause a problem That's really it, and number 4 and 5 also apply to 5e (like bless, or 3/4.cover) In practice it's nowhere near as harrowing as described here.
@@richardwhaler8717 attack bonus, adv/disadv, bane, bless, bardic inspiration and cover actually and Pathfinder is even less complicated than 5E here, because bane and bless would simply cancel eachother out, and bardic inspiration and bless do not stack since they're both status bonuses, whereas in 5E you have to roll all 3 dice
You're massively overcomplicating things. You absolutely can run games of PF2 very quickly. One of PF2's biggest advantages is that there's very few numbers that change on the fly. Most of the numbers you're complaining about should just be added into your character sheet and forgotten. The rest are things that only come up once in a while. You talk about status effects that count down each turn, and how confusing that is, but you're ignoring the fact that in practice, those status effects only last one or *maybe* two turns in nearly every circumstance, and aren't even all that common. I have no idea how you spent an hour and a half fiddling with the math and stats in a Pathfinder 2e game. If you grab any monster in the book, all the numbers you need to know are already calculated for you.
While you are right I also think it really is a point of perspective. He comes from 5e there is like basically only advantage. Coming from Pathfinder 1e the second Edition is a major upgrade simplifiying things a lot and pertaining the comkplexity. However he has a point with the weapon traits. There are a lot of small boni in there that you can't just put into the sheet and forget like Sweep or Backswing. Yes they don't happen that often but to me it already did happen that I did forget them completely.
I disagree. Many of the +1 bonuses have conditions as to when they apply, so I need to calculate my check differently if these two apply but not that one. With versatile performance, "You can use Performance instead of Diplomacy to Make an Impression and instead of Intimidation to Demoralize. You can also use an acting Performance instead of Deception to Impersonate" which means that I can't write down my performance bonus for Diplomacy or Deception, even if I almost always use it. Weapons and attacks have a bunch of properties which change between the first attack, second attack, third attack AND change whether the target is the same or different from your previous target and change when any status applies to you or the target. You have to recalculate a bunch of numbers on the fly, or ignore a bunch of the fiddly conditions.
@@MrTree421 I come from 5e, and in 5e you don't attack like that: add dex, add prof, add bless (if), add bardic performance (if) add combat style, minus cover, minus range, minus sharpshooter (if) EVERY time lol. Edit: and ofc you don't do like that even in PF2. Guy trolled and went full dumb, I hope intentionally.
I disagree with your take on conditions. I think they're not much more spread out than they were. There are plenty of instances where an ability would effectively say "This has the same effect as X spell, cast at 5th level", which forces you to do the same thing as the new conditions system: go look up that information somewhere else. And when they don't do that, and they instead write out the full length of the effect, it can create confusion: "Is this effect part of the concealed status, or a bonus effect on top of the concealed status?" and things like that. The advantage is that by making all these conditions relatively bite sized, they become much easier to memorize. It has the same advantage as keywords in mtg: it makes learning new things easier because the conditions are usually brief, and also lets you shortcut learning when a spell or ability references a condition you already know. I think the disadvantages of "You have to look up and memorize tons of conditions, scattered throughout the book" is a bit overstated, especially since it can be largely solved just by having one, big condition masterlist printed out and somewhere handy. And the advantages of doing it this way are huge.
So, I'm going to slap my keyboard with my thoughts. Just for context: I've been GMing Pathfinder 1st since 2012 and switched over to Pathfinder 2nd when it was released. I also use virtual tabletop. These two details will be important, I promise. I totally agree that Conditions are both good and a bad thing. The good side is I don't need to remember "okay, so -2 to strength", it's now it's "oh, enfeebled 2!". However, I totally agree that weapon traits still mentally elude me. Not agile, not finesse, but stuff like forceful just seems to escape my mind. I don't think they need a fix exactly, but weirdly just I need to remind myself more. I think in terms of MAP and the sort, good notes (and especially a virtual place that picks up the weight of rules) can be the difference between "uh, is bless on?" and snapping out numbers and confirming. I did start to lose my mind when you used Varisia as an example of all the adventures being wrapped up. I was thinking about New Thassilonia and how Runelord Belimarius is likely going to make a move at some point, either north or against the other Runelord who controls Thassilonia (who people aren't sure if she's gone legit or is scheming like a champ). There is also the lich Tar-Baphon who is making his moves onto the land. Putting aside whatever the Hobgoblin nation is up to in the long run is beyond people, Galt is still France during the Reign of Terror and Arazni is going to take some major revenge on Geb and Tar-Baphon. I kind of didn't see what you were talking about, except that while there's less plot threads than Pahtfinder 1st it's not really obscure what threads could be pulled. However, a lore is a hard sell when you're not really enjoying the mechanics and that's fair. Since I'm coming from Pathfinder 1st, Pathfinder 2nd is just this amazing playground of possibility, fun and depth. Made even more that I do tend towards pre-gen campaigns, and Paizo does make excellent ones (Agents of Edgewatch is definitely looking to be pretty amazing) so I don't have to wrestle with combat set up much. However, jumping from D&D 5th of many years into Pathfinder 2nd is going to be rough to handle the crunch and it's going to turn people off. In reverse, I don't really enjoy D&D 5th's simplicity that tends to sacrifice depth. I was kind of looking forward to you covering Pathfinder 2nd more after this video before I watched it, because it's kind of rare seeing TH-camrs giving the system a punt, but it seems more D&D 5th is in the pipeline. Not a bad thing, just maybe a little disappointing. Thanks for you thoughts though.
I think that could be paliated by using printed cards with the effects. It's what I plan to do before we decide to switch so it requires less page flipping, give the condition cards to the player and they can do your work for you. 😝. I agree that this may be kind of a problem, I've lost my old D&D group after I moved to the UK (we all started in the 90's with AD&D), and the group I play today with are all 5e noobies, I did manage to sell them on PF 1e after 5e started to bore them, but it was pretty tough for most. I'm currently slowly grooming my nephews into RPG's with Descent and more stuff before we try 5e and my intention is having them play PF in the end before opening them to Chaosium or other more complex systems, but I think that jumping from 5e straight to PF 2e is going to be really tough. He seems to be enjoying the new Call of Cthulhu, and Ben is pretty good at shedding light into other systems. We'll see.
the question is, where should the depth come from? the system or your imagination/roleplay/background story? 5e leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to skill versatility. what do i roll for a politics or law knowledge check? but the lack of skill versatility is pretty much the only thing that bothers our group some times. we aren't the group that likes to spend hours into combat. we just want to have role play fun and light rules enforce that pretty much. the depth of a character should come from their background and morals rather than game mechanics, in my opinion. and you have a ton of options to take some class rules and refluff them to your desire. that is actually one of the best things of 5e. the disconnect of fluff and crunch. it makes so many things possible, if you have the imagination. i also played vampire V20 and V5 and also DSA5 (the black eye 5th edition for non-german fellows) and some minor other systems nobody knows about. and in comparison, 5e is stupidly simple. but it takes a lot of crunch away and results in more role play, where i think, that the other systems lock you a lot more into place with your character.
@@TheBayzent I do actually have two small go-to sections for conditions and exploration activities on my VTT in case people want reminders. I also use symbols you can put on icons to remind myself of "oh, they've got X condition going". Which is a whole different beast.
@@mahe4 The awkwardness about your burning question is to some (like me), you could say "what about both?". I don't think you're wrong to suggest that you could have wonderful imagination/roleplay/background/story depth in D&D 5th, but that it's a binary is a bit odd. However, it is a great burning question that Pathfinder 2nd will always pose: How much complexity is too much complexity? It is deeper I believe, and I think it marries RP/story with system mechanics wonderfully, but I'd be absolutely out of my mind if I didn't think it was more complex and for some (or a lot) that added complexity is too much. Which is totally and absolutely fine. I did mention that I was coming from Pathfinder 1st, and I think I am just used to this degree of complexity, which for others is just way too much. Similarly, to others spending hours in combat is madness and for me I wouldn't want to do it regularly because then I'd feel like I'd never get anywhere, but some fights like an epic final boss fight you can maybe get away with it taking hours (like I kind of did today, yikes) if there's a lot of spinning wheels to keep the combat dynamic and not just a straight sluggerfest of swapping numbers. Also, it is important to suit the system to the group. If your group is good for D&D 5th, then all the more power to you and you have a lot of 3rd party stuff to play with (I actually have Humblewood next to me). For me, Pathfinder 2nd is just my go to due to what I'd like out of a RPG system.
Honestly I don't see conditions being a huge deal. Other editions had conditions like that, they just rolled them into spells as exceptions, and it became difficult to see how such things interacted with each other. By putting them all in one set of "these are the things that can happen" it makes it a bit easier to understand conceptually.
The numbers issue at the mid point of the video just kept coming back to math that you should already have done, with the exceptions of a few circumstances a lot of those modifiers were things the player knew would be involved and could have been written down as the static amount which then got modified halving the work at least, it's what you're meant to do in 1st ed too. But that stuff with the shield and damaging equipment is just going to get ignored from the sounds of it, just like it does in other games.
@@bulletsunderpressure but it really isn't. It's ability modifier + proficiency + level and maybe a +1 or +2 from a buff but the first three are already calculated on your sheet so the hardest math is "attack modifier +2"
For me it's all that 5e is just not fun for me. It's just too simple. Pathfinder 2ed isn't too complicated for our group and even if it is occasionally clunky/crunchy, that can be trimmed on the fly without much hassle. Pathfinder first edition was much less forgiving, so I would say that Pathfinder 2ed is much closer to 4and5th edition DnD. Sorry to hear that Puffin isn't within the demographic but I am happy that my groups are. They were outside the Pathfinder1 demographic due to it's complexity, so the better designed 2ed really hooked my players and our other GM in.
I wish you could have a game with the Pathfinder/3.5 complexity for players, but with 5e streamlining for GM's. The reason I sadly said goodbye to 3.5 in favor of 5e and now Cypher System is that it just took me too long to prepare sessions and craft monsters. Now I get to spend time actually creating the adventure, but when I play and only have 1 character to manage, I find myself wishing I could tinker with a few more things.
PF2E is actually closer to 4e than it is to 5e. Ironic for a game that was made in protest to 4e's existence. In time, more people will come to love the great things about 4e.
@@thetimebinder the problem with 4e is the presentation of the power section. If there were less powers and more class features with more fluff like in 3.5, the system would have more initial adopters
But couldnt you also do it the other way around? If you homebrew to trim down complicated/clunky stuff, couldnt you just add more complicated stuff to the more simple system? If you feel you lack options in combat, discuss with the group what you want to add and come up with some rules for it. Odds are you can find a good solution. Obviously, it depends on the group, but I just dont see why trimming is a non-issue, while adding a few things is.
Pathfinder 2e is complicated... If you do it in the most convoluted way as portrayed in the video... Here's a little tip: come to the game table with your bonuses ALREADY added up. If you are the guy that comes in with an incomplete character sheet, YOU are the one slowing the game down. Don't be that guy. Thankfully, in their infinite wisdom, Paizo provided a spot on the character sheet where you can write down the bonus for each weapon. You know, like every other popular tabletop RPG? "But there are multiple attack penalties! -5 for the second attack and -10 for the third!" - Yeah... That's not new dude. Look, It's easy: let's take your Ranger example with, say, a +15 to their attack with a scimitar. Are you ready for it? Write down "+15/+10/+5" and you have all three bonuses you will need for that weapon. Right there in front of you. WOW! And in sequential order too! "What about my Ranger's Hunted Prey?" - Ah, see, there is a reason Ben picked the Flurry Ranger's Hunted Prey ability for his example, it is one of the few examples where the class alters its multiple attack penalty, which makes things sound more complicated than they actually are. I understand that the approach of the video is to increase drama for comedic effect but, come on, if my mother-in-law who's never played a tabletop RPG before figured it out in the first session without ever reading the rulebook, I'm sure a seasoned gamer/GM can handle it. But back to Hunted Prey: so the Flurry Ranger reduces each multiple attack penalty against their designated Prey from -5 to -3. Just write down "(Prey = +15/+12/+9)" right under your regular attack bonus. Not attacking your prey? Use the first attack bonus line for your roll then. Not. Hard. SCIMITAR: +15/+10/+5 *(Prey = +15/+12/+9) "What about a Finesse or Ranged weapon? That uses your Dex instead of Strength!" - Right, and you'll factor that in when you write down the attack bonus because, again, there is a section to write down the bonus for EACH WEAPON. 5e has Finesse too Ben. In fact, Finesse also alters way the weapon's damage is determined in 5e whereas it doesn't in P2e. Meaning Finesse altars less here than it does in 5e. "Okay sure, but I have this knife with the Agile trait in my other hand! That reduces the-" - Factor it in when you write down the bonuses for THAT weapon. "Yeah, but Hunted Prey with an Agile weapon alters-" - FACTOR IT IN WHEN YOU RIGHT DOWN THE BONUSES! "What about the Sweep trait for the scimitar, huh?" - There is a 'traits' section for each weapon too, write it down there. "But that's one more thing I have to add on!" - It's a +1 circumstance bonus; is 15+1 THAT hard to add up in your head for the rare circumstance that Sweep actually comes up? If you can't handle that, why the hell didn't you just take the bastard sword which doesn't have Sweep? It does more damage than the scimitar anyways. There are options for a reason, pick the simple option if that works better for you. "It was too complicated for me to figure out which weapon combination did the most damage." - Really? Wow, it's almost as if the game designers had different weapon combinations in mind and factored that in to keep the game balanced. "But what if I have Guidance cast on me?" - That doesn't come up a lot but, okay, it's a +1 status bonus, you can't add 15+1 up in your head? "Not on the off chance that I ALSO have a +1 circumstance bonus from Sweep!" - I assumed that you consciously made the effort to get your character into a strategic position specifically to take advantage of that bonus... You didn't add your total bonus of +17 in your head before your turn started? "No, it happened all by accident and it caught me off guard for the entire 2 minute interim between my turns." - Wait. Wait. Wait... So.... combat rounds move too dynamically for you to calculate 15+2 and have that bonus ready for when it gets around to your turn to roll your own attack... And yet combat is simultaneously too long for combat to be interesting to you? "Um... I can't calculate 15+1+1" - It's 17. "Okay, so I was busy second guessing every roll my teammates made. But look, see, I ALSO have a +1 status bonus from Bless, so now it's 17+1+1+1!" - Ignore that, you already said you had a +1 status bonus from Guidance. "Huh?" - You know.... because bonuses of the same type don't stack... Oh that's right, you fucked up that part in the video, lol! "Okay, but I ALSO have a status bonus from-" - THEY DON'T STACK! WHY WOULD YOU THINK TWO BLESS SPELLS WOULD STACK WITH EACH OTHER!? "There are too many temporary bonus types to learn..." - There are two types Ben.... two "It's the game's fault." - You know you can just click a button on Roll20 and it calculates it for you, right?
@@mikem2808 i can do basic math. it's part of my job to do so on a daily basis, since i'm an accountant. It's just not for me when i want to have fun. that actually takes me out of the experience.
@@Desgaroth I get that, I find rolling two dice for a single action and taking the better of the 2 lessens the luck aspect of the game, to each their own
I've been running pathfinder 2e since the playtest, and also played 5e for several years and I honestly felt like the math level was basically the same for both. 2e has more options for character creation which I love (and is what killed 5e for me, kept playing cause the group was great), but most of those are dealt with on the character sheet. I didn't ever have a player feel the need to go as far down the rabbit hole as Ben does here which I mean could be an issue with my players I guess. But it does feel like he makes the game sound like the most complicated thing ever and I had two guys who'd never played an rpg before and they could handle and make choices about their characters by the end of the first session...
Yeah, he seems like he's trying to justify preferring 5e. Most of the maths he's complaining about is just stuff that should be written on your sheet already. The only things that you have to calculate on the fly are buffs, conditions and circumstance modifiers
I think He over exagereated the calculating problem... From his description it didn't even seem that hard to keep Track of Like everything Made Sense etc.
Given 5e has bounded accuracy and thus smaller numbers, the math is simpler, even assuming all other things being equal (which they aren't). -A math teacher
@@anthonynorman7545 I mean that seems true, but I would hardly call either math complex. Especially since most of it is done ahead of time for both, either adding in proficiency+mod or skill+mod. I suppose PF2E has more + and - but it never felt to bad. The level of math for saying 28+8=36 (2e max level, max skills) and 6+5 = 11 (5e max level) doesn't seem that different at least to me.
As a note of correction: When you use the “Shield Block” Reaction, any damage greater than the shields hardness is not split between you and the shield, rather both you and the shield take the total remaining damage. Also it’s important to remember the type of armor a creature is wearing. Medium and Heavy armor have traits like “Plate, Composite, etc...” as these traits provide a second layer of resistance to damage of specific types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning). So you really need to be aware what type of damage a weapon deals.
I sort of like that because it gives different types of attack a different effect, but I'm not sure I would be able to spice up encounters that much anymore...
No, the armor type of an enemy does not matter. Those traits you're referring to, only apply to high-level Fighters and Champions, and those players can deal with those details themselves.
I mean... the math in 2E is so easy. There's a grand total of 3 floating modifiers to keep track of. Everything else is already written on the character sheet. A level 1 Fighter is gonna swing for +9 on the attack roll, +4 for the second attack, and -1 for the third. If they've got a circumstance or status bonus, it might be a few numbers higher. That's pretty fucking easy. At tables where a few players have an irrational phobia of numbers, just let someone else do the math. Pathfinder 2E overall has much easier rules to understand. Case in point: There's absolutely no rule in DnD5E that prohibits casting multiple non-cantrip spells in a turn. No, seriously. But because of how confusing standard actions, bonus actions, and movement, (which isn't an action but also is), can be, many players believe that rule exists.
It was. The odds are you aren't going to be a Ranger with reduced multi attack penalty, wielding a finesse and non-finesse weapon together, where one has sweeping.
@@TheCuddleCactus and even if you are, you have your set attack pattern that never changes. You don't need to memorize BOTH the regular -5 penalty AND your -2 penalty. The latter replaces the former. And that's your new reality for as long as your ranger lives.
Depends on where you are on the game and what your character is. But usually people have already streamlined a lot of their combat actions and that was if you were going to attack 3x in a row which isn’t advised.
Came here to say this. PF2e is far from perfect, but he made it seem like we have to learn calculus every time we go to attack, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Your base attack boost is literally written on your character sheet, then all you’re adding is small boosts that should be pretty consistent.
Sorry 2e didn't click for you, but thank you for checking it out. Though I think you may have made the rules sound more complicated than they really are, and you're definitely overthinking the world setting. I've loved 2e since it's come out, and I find 5e to be a bit generic, but to each their own. There's plenty of room at the table for everyone!
An case in point, 2E players are the types who go "Duurrr...5E too generic, me prefer Pathfinder because makes muh seem superior with muh constant number crunching and all mechanics!", combined with the snobby elitism and then they wonder why newer players avoided Pathfinder like a plague..well, besides that the system is catered to nerds who cannot move from 3.5.
@@Lawlaliet 5e IS shallow. It's biggest quality is that it's easy to get into but it's just unsatisfying for people who want more depth. That's not elitism, that's preference. This system mechanically reinforces the idea that you need to cooperate with your teammates and complement eachother. The math is a LOT easier to do than what he's explained. Honestly a little mad because 90% of his rambling was just listing off permanent bonuses to attack that always apply to your character. My god just write the total on your sheet like you're supposed to and be done with it.
@@philllllllll Pffft...Preference? Yeah right, all PF players are blatant elitist pricks who are so smug and up their own arseholes I imagine they know what they had for lunch yesterday. Frankly, you can blow me on the "oh the math is much easier" when it's not. It's only easy for sad losers who don't have a life and will gladly sit on their asses and crunch numbers because to them that's the definition of "fun and exciting".
As a pf2 gm, i know how this feels. I usually tell my players that we're gonna apply the rules we remember on the spot. No backsies. I know it's lazy, maybe, but it turns a 1 hour fight into a 15 minutes fight, sometimes
In addition to the idea of high DCs preventing the untrained characters from succeeding, some actions are also just straight up locked behind training, so like a character that is untrained in thievery just simply can’t pick the lock. It just ain’t gonna happen. They need to find a different way. I LOVE this choice.
It also gets rid of the problem 5e has of a wizard failing an arcana check but a int 8 barbarian succeeded because of luck, in pathfinder 2e unless you are at least trained on something it is not possible to succeed higher DCs, and players get enough skill increases to be either trained on lots of things or an master of few skills.
@@kamencraftbrasil4367 I don't see why you can't say you need Proficiency in it to succeed. Like how thieves tools can only be used that way. Same thing
Honestly, PF2e's calculations are super simple when you're coming from 1e. There's very few bonuses either way. When you're having to factor in BAB+STR or DEX+Circumstance+Competence+Enhancement+Insight+Luck+Morale+Size vs 10+DEX+Armor+Shield+Deflection+Natural Armor+Dodge (which unlike other bonuses can stack)+Enhancement+Insight+Luck+Size...it can get crazy. Though there are ways to fight defensively for some AC boosts, and Power Attack could be used to lower to hit in order to boost damage. Keep in mind, you could also be facing ability damage to Strength or Dexterity, making you recalculate that, or possibly a boosted stat. Oh lord if you're put in an anti-magic field and you're rocking multiple magic-based improvements to your stats, AC, Attack, etc. Nevermind if you're being flanked, flat footed, charged, etc. They also might be targeting your Touch AC, which is awful for many varieties of characters, but not Monks. Speaking of Monks, they get to add their Wisdom and an extra bonus to their AC, even when Flat Footed or Touch AC. Unless they're Scaled Fist Monks, an Archetype that lets them add Charisma to AC instead. It's a fun game, but changes to the math through assorted things can complicate things.
I'm coming from a Roll20 1e game. It doesn't really seem all that difficult to me. Usually, all that math is done ahead of time, and I don't see why it couldn't be done that way for actual TT. I know my martial based character has a +13 to dex based attacks and a +9 to strength, right now. +2 to strength when raging. THAT'S IT. There are some other modifiers, like mounted or enlarged, but nothing insane.
@@Truex007 It really depends upon what challenges you face and how active your party is at buffing. Normally, yeah, not a lot changes once set. But ability score damage, buff spells, size changes, Dispels, etc can change things up. It really helps whether on PC or on paper to clearly indicate where your bonuses come from, so it's easy to change if something happens, good or bad. Really, my point was 2E is comparatively simple. Stuff like Ability Score damage is gone, there's fewer different types of modifiers, so even when there's changes, you have to worry about less of them.
"...Crafting, but that'll hold up the game..." only in the same way that scouting ahead to see where the enemies are, or schmoozing with a noble to get an invite to a particular event, would. One player's character will generally be "the one that does that thing" and the rest will get to watch a scene involving their teammate. For keeping track of your massive amount of different types of attack, with their various buffs both from yourself, and other players, i recommend having a blank piece of paper next to you, which you can quickly write any buffs another character does to you during THEIR turn (just the name of the buff, and the numerical impact). I like your grid system, where you had the different weapons/styles of attack, and the number of attacks this turn. Once you've set that grid up, you just choose which attack you're doing, and use the number written in the relevant box, no need to manually add up weapon rune, ability modifier, etc every single time. At the start of your turn, you then just total the bonus given to you by other players, and choose which attack you want to use. It'll take about 30-40 seconds to take your turn, including the to-hit and damage maths.
If only the game came with a pre-designed sheet of some kind on which you could write the various stats and numbers for your character. A sort of, "character sheet" you might say ;-) And yeah, Puffin really needed to pull his head out of his ass before writing the script for this video.
I mean... yes, but it would still take a while. It would work and even make a lot of sense. But for the DM it would be just to much (from what I can tell). It's like Taking20 said in their video, its a great game to play, not to DM
@@giggabiite4417 Except that stuff is written down in the monster stats? Giant Crab's claw shows up at +10 (+5/+0), for instance. You might need to figure out a bonus or two if another monster has buffs but that might already be written down for some in the bestiary.
Lets say you prepare it before game, then the players ignore that plotline and do something else, which has stuff you haddent prepared. Unless you prepare charts for all monsters in the game (or at least a large amount) it would be mostly uneffective.
Once upon a time my friends and I played 2nd edition religiously. Unfortunately after graduation, everyone went their separate ways and I no longer had a group to D&D with. Although I tried to keep up when 3rd edition was released just a year later, I eventually lost touch with all things D&D. Fast forward 18 years later when I found myself working at an IT Support call center and surrounded by D&D playing nerds and the feels for the game all came rushing back. Trying to jump back in to the game at 5e was not as easy as I was expecting. So much had changed, there were so many new things to know about the game play that I almost felt as though I had never played before. Fortunately I found a group of new players that were in a group led by a veteran player who was teaching them how to play Pathfinder. I was lucky enough to be invited to join their group and have loved playing Pathfinder ever since. We have yet to try Second Edition for Pathfinder, but I am excited to give it a go.
are the palyers snowflake pussies? Because 2e looks liek for snowflake pussies. I took a looke at 2e and hated it immediately, i ain't paying a DIME on 2e, I'm pirating it if anything
I'm glad I've moved on from 5e to PF2e, because 5e characters start to feel the same after a while. If you've played one College of Swords bard, you've played them all, whereas I've played 2 Animal Order druids in 2e, and because of the freedom in character creation, they felt very different.
Yeah I have that issue with 5E. It's all very samey and everyone takes the same feats, the same spells, etc. I haven't got a chance to actually play PF2 yet, but I want to give it a shot as a 5E replacement. Does PF2 have a more diverse spell list or is it just a bunch of fireball spam like 5E?
@@taragnor The spell list for Pathfinder is much longer than 5e. Now, this means you get some very niche spells like Negate Aroma, but it also means you can find a spell for almost any situation
@@Illusive_Guy : That's cool. One thing I'm sick of in 5E is the fact that every wizard pretty much takes the exact same spells. It's all shield, invisibility, shatter, fireball. For clerics, healing word, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians. Gets really old when every single character ever takes it.
@@Illusive_Guy Negate Aroma sounds like something that should be a necessity to anyone better off than a peasant in any medieval fantasy setting. Though, there'd really need to be an area of effect higher level spell to make locations smell less dirty, too.
I am playing a draconic-bloodline sorcerer in 2e. It seems to me that the "linear martial/quadratic caster" issue has been mitigated. I like that change. Mostly, I like the new rule. In any case, almost any game is fun with a good group of people. And I like the way cantrips scale with character level. On the down side, I feel like the ancestries (races) have been homogenized and lost distinctiveness.
Every time I watch a video of a group moving from 5e to PF2e, they seem to take the most complicated senecio they could possibly come up with in their first game. I bet you were this confused with your first D&D experience, don’t forget how many house rules are used in D&D to fix the system. Try playing it again without any house rules or adjustments or try PF2e with whatever house rules (simplifying things more to start). I believe on one of the first few pages of the Core Rulebook it says ‘The game is yours’, in other words remove the conditions and effects until you have the brain capacity for them like the beginner box does.
I've never seen someone so over complicate adding bonuses before. If you actually do that in combat all the time no wonder combat is so slow, write the numbers down and your going to only have a few little numbers at most to have to deal with each turn. How you say it you make a turn that could take maybe 30 seconds tops (in a case where you got a bunch of crazy things going on) to take several minutes. Really being organized will make not only pathfinder games faster but also drastically cut down on your DnD time.. or really most dice games.
By that comparison though games like 5e run much quicker because there's much less to worry about and reference. So relative to 5e, P2e still ends up a slog.
@@TheAnimeAtheist So given 5e you need to look things up still too, lets say it takes you for some reason 1 extra minute to look it up since let's say you were very disorganized so that information isn't at hand. So that 1 extra minute writing that detail down that you can just then use what you . Then when in play, you take the exact same time you do in 5e and P2e to look at what number without having to worry about referencing it. Combat time is exactly the same. I don't really see where this 'slog' comes into play.
@@Asin24 You don't need to look things up nearly as much though, that was my point. You have references to references to references in a lot more places in P2E than you do in 5e. Plus there's a lot more to reference and write down on a character sheet. A lot of people say well an experienced P2E group is still fast, yeah I know, and an experienced 5e group is much faster. There's just a lot less stuff to remember and reference in game to slow things down. I don't understand why it's such a hard thing to just admit the point. P2E runs slower, it has a lot more shit going on so obviously it will. Why is it such a big deal that P2E has to beat 5e in everything, it doesn't. P2E wins with customization and 5e wins with faster and easier combat. If you want my honest opinion I'm not a fan of either system really. This isn't me trying to simp for 5e by running against P2E, this is just me giving an honest and obvious assessment of the systems comparatively. I swear P2E fanboys have issues with reality, that's why a lot of people are turned off by their advocates, they actively misrepresent the advantages/disadvantages the system has. It's rather sickening and it turns people away from it.
Mostly loved your video, though my main three points of criticism here are the following. 1) You mention Multiclassing but don't really dive into it at all. The way 2e handles multiclasses and archetypes (especially with the new Advanced Players Guide) is a HUGE win in favor of the system and the customization of the character you're playing. I think you should look into that stuff because you may be missing out.
@@rakurasmerlith It's amazing, if 5th e is "Feats are compacted together and don't really matter!" PF2 is "EVERYTHING IS FEATS! Racial abilities? FEATS! Class abilities? FEATS!! Unique skill actions? FEATS!!!" Multiclassing is essentially taking a feat that gives you some generic abilities from that class then let's you take Class abilities from that Class instead of your base Class when you level up. And THE BEST PART of the system is that you can switch out feats during downtime. So if you dislike a feat or ability you can re-train it without having to bargain with your DM.
I haven't gotten the advanced player guide yet :'( I signed up for the Paizo subscription program and am waiting for it to arrive in the mail though :).
@@t.estable3856 Archives of Nethys has the rules up, and I think they're generally doing it day of release. I'll admit it's not the best, and I prefer the books, when I can, but as a reference source, or for finding something I otherwise might have missed, it's pretty useful.
@@GroundThing Oh yeah, I'm running an R20 campaign and Archives has been a godssend. Nothing beats the tangibility of a hardcover at the end of the day, but the efficiency of digital is just too useful.
Gloomfall, I agree with you, though keep in mind Ben is coming from the perspective of an experienced DM for 5E. As much as PF2 has improved a lot of things over PF1, 5E is still easier to play and run.
I really like the level scaling because single monsters are actually threatening, unlike in DnD where a level 4 party can easily knock down a young green dragon. The only issue I see is that a level 2 party can never face like a level 6 monster. They have to run at sight or die
A level 2 party fighting a level 6 monster would be an extreme encounter... that's not run on sight or die, but it is perilous, but if there party is at full strength and can get an advantage of some sort, they can win. But at least one character is going to drop in the attempt, and it *could* be a TPK. Level+5 is usually the unwinnable line.
@@michaelburchett5733 A cave troll got a +16 and 2d10+8 damage and 135 HP (You can even ignore the HP regen). I dont see how a party could win (Withou having to be a special comp), but I never threw a deadly encounter at my players. I mean he will crit all casters away and with a slightly above average he will also crit martial characters. Did you have any Experience?
@@coolboy9979 Level+4 encounters tend to be more cinematic with the PCs preparing in advance for them (So typically, they would be the fight against the bbeg at endpoint of a campaign). For your cavern troll example, its sunlight vulnerability is a built-in way to make the fight more manageable. If I built a campaign around culminating in a fight between a level 2 party and a cavern troll, I'd expect the fight to be a fight where the party needs to survive the troll's onslaught while the sunlight deals with the actual monster. I'd want the party to focus on staying alive while keeping the troll angry enough that it doesn't retreat away from the sun. Some players might go down (with its +16 to hit, the troll probably hits on a 3 and crits on a 13), but it's an extreme encounter, they're meant to be extremely dangerous
My group is switching from 1e to the Pf 2e remaster that just came out. We have been playing 1e for quite some time ...but yeah...this is much more streamlined and really feels like a sort of an update to it. We have never really been into hard multiclassing so that isn't really going to be a problem....Now that Remaster is out I might do beginner and deep dive videos, or a guide on how to port from 1e to 2.5e (as some call the remaster)
I find it funny I'm the opposite despite starting in 5e I hate the characters they are all so generic you pick 3 to 5 skills and a option of like three builds any given class while pathfinder has so many options and so many unique character options
Sure, if you want to simplify an entire system into such a basic sentence. I really don't see what you gain by simplifying it like that, it's such a reductionist statement, even if it is a joke.
@@centurionsfist417 Because I think there's a point to be made about the joke. Some people really are gonna think like that, and I don't think that mindset is very useful. What do YOU gain by bitching about my point?
@@gorade1901 You're mindset is of a over-nihilistic pussy who only points out the negatives in life. There is nothing to gain in almost everything. This is about little twelve year olds still in school like you, being a bitch about real peoples shit. Shut the fuck up and go record your band teacher some more.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф ... pf2e is better game, and thats coming from someone who ran d&d for 15 years now. this isnt spite, its understand what made d&d 5e a bad game and seeing how other systems have fixed it. i hate to tell you, but 5e isnt even a good tabletop roleplaying game. infact i dont hate to tell you at all, i feel its important to inform you, try another system, literally any system, its only 5e that breaks down completely past 8th level.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф dang that told me, I'll take my 15 years GMing and ill see myself out. For shame, me 🤣 Maybe I should start on the systems you've written? I'll check them out, they sound like they're going to be the most superior systems I've ever played, I'm looking forward to never needing another system in my life, what are they called? 🙂
@@YaBoiSebas absolutely. I feel like my groups have become much more creatively freed, I'm starting to see characters that arent just generic carbon copies of other character we've seen 20 times
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф no, it's supposed to be a qualifying statement. "I've run 15 years of DnD - and I've never been as impressed by anything put out over in DnD as I have been by pf2e since swapping over my main system" it was also an important qualifier as you jumped at me and stated that I play pf2e because I'm just hating on DnD, when if that was the case why did I run it for so long? I then brought it up again when it clearly became a competition to you and said I'll take my opinion elsewhere... Are you impressed then? Because that's sad if you are. While I use my years to teach new GMs all kinds of systems that would suit what they're looking for, including DnD, PF, Cypher, FATE, Shiver, GURPS, M&M, Red, all kinds of systems. You seem to use your years as a competition of some kind? 🤨 Which I can genuinly say I have never witnessed in the ttrpg community before this whole thing and is pretty disturbing Also in still waiting to be sent the names of your two systems, I can't wait to see 2 examples of perfect TTRPGs, you claim to understand what makes a system work and what doesn't much better than anyone else possibly could, so I'm very much looking forward to trying out your stuff.
Ben, haven’t finished vid but one, running all those numbers just reminded me how much of a math nerd I am an why I want teach it as a career, and two shield block reduces the damage by hardness then both the shield and owner take the rest, the hardness already absorb what it can the rest is felt by both
@@Trigger99X that's great. And honestly I was feeling a little snarky but I don't want to turn you off the career. I'm just an English teacher who has seen too many teachers who wanted to share their love of books or whatever and didn't last long. But if your focus is on the kids like you said you should be fine. Good luck.
jquickri I’ve done a some student teacher learning and it’s weird every teacher I studied under, who wasn’t a teacher I had personally, always mentions the fact that I won’t make a lot of money. Which I responded with “If I was in it for the money then I’m in it for the wrong reasons.” 😹
I hope (havent played pf2e but I HOPE) that the three types of bonuses, circumstance, blah and blah, solve some of these problems. Like, it's supposed to be set up that you're only ever adding three bonuses to a roll, one of each
He just doesnt fet the super vital detaol that its only the three types of bonuses. Which is why this review is frankly badly made. He didnt make sure he knew the rules properly and complained about something for the vast majority of the video on an issue of his own making.
I mean, he WAY over complicated his math and made it seem way worse than it is. He made it seem like you need to go through every single bonus every single turn but like...if you're doing that then you either have some short term memory issues or you didn't do anything at all to prepare for a session outside of show up with a sheet of paper and a pencil. Normally I love Puffin, but here he's complaining about a problem he created for himself and it's not how the system has worked at all for my players, all of which have never played PF2e before. As for Shadowrun, it's not that bad either. It's a bit more math, but otherwise most of your numbers stay the same and the GM tells you if you can add or subtract dice or whatever.
I remember shadowrun, I played two games and still have no idea how to make a character, made a decker both times and it turned out I needed to look through like 6 different books to see all of the programs and actions I could take.
I'm glad you talked about the kind of player you are at the end because it made it pretty clear what types of players are going to prefer Pathfinder more than you did.
Re: "These big bonuses help protect player specializations" in PF2E vs D&D5E In 5E they are protected at least in the modules where they call out that a skill check is only for those proficient in the skill. 5E has made it so that some checks are gated by having proficiency (and therefore training) in the first place. This means that the Barbarian, if they were trained in ancient runes (History? Religion? Arcana? Guess it depends on the context) could do a lucky roll compared to the bard, however the bard would probably have a better chance due to class bonuses and probably investing skill points. If the Barbarian didn't have proficiency, then they wouldn't be able to roll at all. It's up the GM in 5E whether to gate skill checks behind proficiency or not. Also just wanted to say PF2E having a lot of choices isn't that surprising, considering PF1E was a splat book munchkin's dream (The Toys 'r' Us catalog comparison was a top notch summarization) in the first place, though I am glad that Paizo is pursuing a different route than 5E in, while simplifying some things, they're also embracing a lot of choices and options to give contrast against 5E so that it gives a different play experience.
I've always felt that GMs should gate checks like that. You can't do brain surgery with no medical training for example (I'm thinking in a modern setting of course). Alternately make it a really difficult check and success just gets you a tiny victory ("ok your lvl1 wizard actually succeeds in hitting the dragon with a staff. He takes 1 damage.") Players have to be semi-realistic about what their character can try. I say semi because...rule of cool should affect it a little bit.
In 3.5 you were also gated by skill proficiency. If you didn't have at least one rank in a skill like open lock or a particular knowledge then you couldn't make checks in those things. I don't know how 5e handled things, but 3.5 made it somewhat harder to get skills, being that if it wasn't your class skill then it would cost extra points to get ranks. So anyone who wasn't a wizard/bard/rogue wouldn't have the points to throw into random skills. The problem were from dms being either fast and lose with the rules or they just don't know the rules.
@@WildBluntHickok Yeah I mostly agree, though I feel there's a balance too. I think on one hand there's the logical aspect like you describe... brain surgery is specialized, and so it's about specialization which should be gated; that's what proficiency is gating. If we were to use the medicine skill about the brain on gating vs setting DCs, then an ungated (no prof needed) medicine check would be perhaps the parts of the brain and roughly where they are; the DC would control how much detail you know about the location of the parts and a kinda-sort of what they do. The gated thing that requires proficiency is the techniques to possibly treat it, with the DC going up depending on how extensive or how obscure, or how delicate the area needing to be treated is (though DC is going to be high anyway in Forgotten Realms for a medicine check, since medicine is general). That's how I'd roughly adjudicate, though gating and DC setting can be highly dependent on the setting, so it is context specific in that regard. Separate from that it's about player participation vs certain players shining, an d I think using the previous logic helps establish where anyone -might- contribute but the one with proficiency is the one who will probably have an idea of what the actual solution is.
Though a much longer video, paizo guys are doing a gameplay of 2e granted they're all involved with paizo and know the game well... But it does show how 2e is expected to be played/enjoyed. Honestly prefer it over 5e.
I'll probably get to PF2e after I finish all of the PF1e APs. We're currently 3 APs in. Question - if you want to play in the official 2nd edition situations, why not purchase a 2nd edition Adventure Path? There are two out now with the 3rd just starting.
We started with Curse of the Crimson Throne, and did Hell's Rebels and Hell's Revenge shortly after, then Kingmaker last year which was awesome. During Lockdown we finished Rise of the Runelords, and are currently finishing Mummy's Mask. They are great but I think we will jump to 2e after we finish Mummy's Mask, I got the PDF's and an AP thanks to Humble Bundle. Only AP I would like to run from 1e is Iron Gods but I'm the only one interested in it. Unfortunately I'm my group's DM, only one I did play instead of run were Curse of the Crimson Throne, which my ex did (with some of my assitance, she was a new GM back then) and Kingmaker which another player did.
Yeah, I kept listening to him talk about how stale the world felt, but there are 3 very distinct APs you could go through if you don't want to go through the trouble of a homebrew adventure, and if you do want a homebrew adventure, why have it in a published world?
@@ronaldsanfran Actually, I'm having fun so far with all of them so far. I think the only one I didn't care for overall (mainly due to lost potential) was the 4th chapter of the 3rd AP, Second Darkness. The PCs go in to do spy-stuff, but yet all of the information is handed to them almost all at once in a "I'll give you this if you do me a favor" quest. They really weren't finding anything of worth through their own snooping. Most of the time was really just doing a guard/maid-service mini-game. The set-piece in that one was almost needed to make the chapter feel like it actually had anything to it. :/ As for some being in 3.5, I found online conversions for two of them (Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire), and the first two (Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne) were already converted to PF1Ee and sold as single books through Paizo. (Both were fantastic.)
You do know you add everything into your weapon attack ON the sheet right? You only have to ask for the things that have changed in the encounter so you can process the system properly. If you aren't doing that of course combat is going to take an hour or more. But if you condense the numbers that are for sure there ( weapon bonus, magic items, feats, etc. ) you will significantly cut down the amount of time. Cause you just adjust down or up depending on the fight itself. Ain't hard.
Been away from table top for roughly 15 years but one thing I do remember is there is always one player in any group who is not paying any attention until their turn comes up - so while you can pre-calculate all the math you want, that one person will always take 20-30 minutes each time the table comes to them, until you boot them out, at which point you discover they were dating another key player, were the brother and/or sister of a third player, and gave a 4th player a ride - so your entire group just walked out the door. Even though they were the ones asking you to boot that player. ;) That noted... if you somehow overcome that crisis, I think the idea of using "a pile of generic monsters" with all their math pre-done is actually a good idea for most of your fights, then put in a "boss fight" every other session or so. Like we see in video games. It's OK to have your players go through a half a dozen "trash pulls" facing off against "Elf #3" before they get to the head elf and your Orc heroes can finally match up against the 6-fingered elf ranger that led the slaughter of their homeland... not every single fight needs to be of major consequence. At this point you can turn all those crazy "this game has too many options" issues to your advantage, and make the fight against the '6-fingered elf' feel like it has more consequence than "Bob, it's your turn; roll d20 to hit"...
7:30 I much prefer using the status effects like that because once I learn those status effects once and I see them mentioned on another ability, I know instantly what it does, whereas, in D&D 5e, everything is so overly verbose and a pain to read in the moment. I'm a slow reader when under time pressure, so anything to modularize the rules and cut down on duplicate words in giant text blocks is a plus for me.
But that's the genius of p2. You can make your characters more or less complicated. You didnt have to dual weild two very different weapons you choose too.
Still it feel unnecessary. I know that some people like match games, but in long run all that additional calculations don't impact actual quality of the story, or at least not in positive way.
@@TheRezro I've built multiple rangers in p2 and I've gotta say p2 rangers are hands down the best iteration of rangers. If dual wielding is too much math for you play a barbarian.
@@drabheart9426 I didn't say no. But I never understand why people like over-complicated systems as in this case? I understand preference of realism, but not with cost of convoluted gameplay. There are far better systems then that.
I love you PF, but it really feels you went out of your way to explain this as far more complicated than it ever needs to be. Once you learn the game (all games have a learning curve, ofc), playing it is never as you described. In fact, I find that the three action economy and balance make combat much more fluid. This is the only edition I've ever run 7 full length combat encounters in one 3 hour session (in addition to exploration and roleplay) - that's incredibly efficient combat. The learning curve is higher than 5e, true, but not nearly as high as PF1 and the payoff in dramatic conflict, character options and unique gameplay is well worth it imho.
The only thing i think 5e has on Pathfinder 2e is that you can easily wing it on almost any situation. I am still never going back but goddamn it can get annoying when i'm not prepared enough, especially when it comes to monsters and npcs.
Technically, with how all monsters use similar stat blocks at every CR, you could just quickly throw together something and throw an appropriate ability on for flavor.
5e also has better 3rd party products(especially once the Spheres of Might/Power stuff gets an official port), which make it a highly customizable system without bogging down the gameplay. I really wanted to like the system, but PF2 is just a worst of both worlds between 5e & PF1, sadly.
@@InfernosReaper 5e practically ONLY has 3rd party content, and that has come out over half a decade... 2e has been out for a year now and has more content than 5e. How is it the worst of both 1e and 5e?
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy PF1 has more/better content both 1rst & 3rd party, including solid solutions for the system's major inherent problems. . D&D5's a more streamlined. Thanks to that, it's easier for 3rd parties to add good material to customize characters, as well as add just the right amount of complexity to the game for each group's individual tastes. . 3.x d20 may be my preferred system group overall, but also I'm down to do some 5e d20 easily thanks to the support it's gotten and ease of play.
Me hearing Puffin talk about his playstyle and then remembering that literally this weekend: - I bought the Legendary Kineticist 2nd edition from legendary games. - ported my homebrew kineticist in my 2e game over to it. - played it - then after the session wondered whether the iterative blast class feat OR the focused blast infusion is stronger - then proceeded to spend 20-30 minutes calculation average damage with to-hit percentages, doing it again because I disregarded crit doubling and finally - coming to the conclusion that 'assuming 0 resistances/weaknesses' iteratives are better if you can hit them on a 12 and focused blast is better if you can't. And that entire process being really fun for me.
@@paulrudd85 It is, I am a bit sad that it leans more towards combat than utility but it is really good in combat. (Also sad that aether is no longer as viable ... but it is still good)
I’m running PF2 for new players. The math he’s describing isn’t something you generally have to do at the table after each roll. People typically have the big crunch already calculated on their character sheets and have to adjust for status effects. Which, to be fair, there is a lot to track. But printing a sheet of the core actions and combat status effects. Or using player aids like spell and feat cards to succinctly spell out what each spell and specialty feat does takes the mental load off of the players. At the table my players turns are: I do X, Y (rolls dice, I declare success or failure, they roll damage or apply effect), and then Z. As far as the DM goes. Status effects are a lot to keep track of, to be fair. But if you make yourself a handy DM screen (the stock one from Paizo IS pretty flush with easy to access information.) The biggest error that I’ve seen PF2 DMs run into are how to Calculate the various Circumstance Bonuses (which are a vast swath of the bonuses) is that... you DO NOT CALCULATE THEM. You just apply the highest bonus. As far as NPC equipment stats. Either don’t track them at all and just have them grant their AC bonus when used (skip the whole damage reduction part). Or just be general: Players hit (reduce the damage by hardness and apply broken. OR destroy the shield on a crit or high damage hit.) If the players hit again, the shield is destroyed. Done. I do enjoy most of your videos, but the who section about how complicated the combat is feels a bit disingenuous.
Players really need to be expected to have most of their math for attacks and damage figured out ahead of time in games as complex as Pathfinder. I like the idea of an attack matrix.
@@Anthonyspartan514 interestingly enough we did switch to foundry and it did run so much smoother. Like it was actually a playable game. We had some tech compatibility issues and some bugs, but it was 100% better. More importantly we didn’t have to change our entire sheet whenever we leveled up.
45:00 I don't know where you're coming from when you say that the character creation comes at the expense of the gameplay. Like, you dismissively say that shields just have three stats instead of one, but those three stats let you create dramatic turnarounds, jumping in to block attacks for yourself and your party members.
Scaling, Scaling, Scaling. Any game that isn't 5E, pathfinder 2 included, can manage a much broader range of *competency* when it comes to getting anything done. THAT's what's important about the bigger numbers, THAT's why specialization matters, THAT's why not everyone gets to do everything. So that people can feel specialized, so that players are rewarded for being experts at certain things, so that epic gameplay feels epic because what's being achieved *is* epic, not just *gets to swing sword 3 more times at level 18* or whatever.
@@waking00one A slightly different number on its own does not an epic encounter make, but combined with several hilarious abilities such as the ability to *cut space itself to warp yourself to a foe and hit them* or to *pick up a fool, spin him into his other fools, then throw them*, it sure does. Not only do you get the constant vertical progression that makes you feel that mechanically your character is advancing past what they were a few years ago, you also get nice horizontal progression, where your available options to tackle any given situation grows.
@@waking00one It makes a pretty big difference if the rogue whom wants to be the master of stealth finds out the wizard sneaks along almost as good as the rogue does because their numbers are almost identical.
It sounds like you wrote off pathfinder 2e in your head pretty early considering you show up to sessions not leveled up when you were meant to be leveled up. Best way to not have fun in any system is to not care or be invested. Also all of your combat examples are disingenuous and (as most 5e tables do) just simply playing the rules incorrectly and somehow making it more complicated in doing so.
I loathed when players for any game don't show leveled up. They had all week and then I have to put everything on pause for everyone else because they couldn't be bothered. If someone does this routinely then give them a warning, but after that drop them from the game.
I'm having a hard time understanding how you loved 4th edition despite number disasters, but you're incredibly frustrated by PF2E. Half of the numbers you purposefully spent an inordinate time on are calculated by the time your character merely equipped it. It's cool to admit you're overwhelmed by the numbers, but I'm sensing a dissonance between your feelings on these two systems. Love your stuff Puffin, regardless.
@@NieroshaiTheSable Boil it down however you like, my main point still stands. The mess of variables puffin is talking about are mostly calculated *before* battle. When you've picked up a new feat, enchanted a weapon, etc. It's a bit disingenuous to act like people don't or can't write what the math looks like in the field for damage next to the weapon, and worry about outside factors like statuses and attack penalties after the fact. 4E is constantly throwing numbers at players with buffs, debuffs, statuses, etc. To a higher degree than even PF2E.
@@Z3R0M0N5T3R OK sure. I've been in games that've actually required multipage spreadsheets, so I get pregame prep. The average player is going to notice, though, that they didn't write out every combination of their modifiers they might end up using in the game. I don't know if you've looked at your average character sheet, but they don't have room for the options you're given, especially if you're prewriting all your available feat- and weapon-based combos.
@@Z3R0M0N5T3R : The problem isn't so much numbers, it's the conditionals. A flat +1 to all attacks is easy to account for. A +1 on your next attack or +1 when attacking a foe that attacked you last round is difficult because it requires constant brain power to see if the conditional applies. It's what made 4E by far the hardest game to DM.
@@taragnor I found GMing 4ed to be the most satisfying. Perhaps as a player you could claim it's a lot to manage with "for this round" or "just the next attack" or "when you spend an action point" conditionals. The GM almost never had to deal with that on their side.
Enjoyable video and glad that I got the Humble Bundle so I can really dig into this system. My only complaint was the section about the Ranger attack matrix. Yeah, it’s a lot of numbers but you’re also a dual wielding character with weapons of two different types of course it’s going to be complicated. 5e is simple but if I did the same setup there (Str weapon + Finesse weapon + modifying spell like Hunter’s Mark) it would be just as bad. It’s a fair example but just wanted to say to viewers not to judge a system based on choices made by the player.
One thing I've noticed of him, is that he tends to purposefully get the most complicated and self defeating things ever and use then as examples of how things work normally. I value his opinions but I don't think people should take them as gospel. 5e may be simple, but since enemies are massively spongey I wonder if combat lasts the same anyway. You just roll more dices instead of adding bonuses.
@@TheBayzent From my experience, combat in 2e can be actually quicker than in 5e. You usually worry only about 2 bonuses/penalties while attacking/being attacked. Many monsters are not spongy but have unique abilities and traits. Any fight can feel like a mini boss encounter.
I gotta say, if you're adding your flat, unchanging, level-dependent bonuses one by one before each attack, you might consider doing it once and putting it on your character sheet. Then you'll just have to do some simple math for situational stuff. As others already pointed out, when playing 5e, you don't add roll + prof + STR + magic weapon and then (because you have advantage) roll + prof + STR + magic weapon, right? That would be weird. You just note you have +99 to attack roll with your Great Greataxe of Greatest Carnage, roll two times and take the better roll. Then add your Bardbarian +99. So why would you do that in pathfinder? Just take the pencil, write this "+13" next to your weapon, and the only thing to really calculate after that will be your Multiple Attack Penalty (and even this can be easily written down in a simple array LIKE FULL ATTACK KNOWN TO EVERY PC RPG GAMER: +13/+8/+4 or +13/+9/+5 for an agile weapon) and situational stuff or stuff unique to the character/class. Anyone who doesn't have this stuff precalculated in either game (PF2 or DnD5) should ask their group for forgiveness. This is what slows down the fight. So let me rewrite the whole "calculations much" part: You need to take your precalculated, unchanging total bonus to attack with your weapon, and then add situational modifiers. Kinda like in most RPGs. There you go, video shortened by about 1/3rd. Don't get me wrong, I like both 5e and Pathfinder 2e, but now I have this theory that you might be forgetting to add some modifiers in 5e because damn, the difference is nearly non-existent in this regard. Let me say, I love your channel, it's just that I'm stunned this was the huge issue for you. Everyone I played PF2 with found the combat system very refreshing, and those were both people coming from PF1 and DnD5. For some this was their first RPG ever, and they understood combat almost instantly. Now, you wanna see some issues with D20 style system? Try Starfinder, mate. Roll an Envoy and mutliclass into Solarian to be a charismatic, raging, intimidating, violent hurricane of mayhem that does kinda OK dmg but in addition makes enemies simply fall to their kness and beg for mercy. Then tell me how those f-ed up silly low DCs (like, 16-18) for all your class stuff are working out with enemies who have +10 to almost each save at this point. Because they are all attached to your class level, not character level. Had to add it to show I am NOT simply a Paizo fanboy, I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from considering all this math like it has to be done with each single attack. It's not about tribal culture ('muh chosen gaem better than urs") but purely logical comparison. I am now awaiting this one guy from the comments to call me an elitist, halfwit, and maybe say something about my mother because they didn't like their one Pathfinder game. Which makes me think of some awful one-offs with various RPG systems I had. Maybe I should try again, with some other GM, and check if it wasn't just a poor representation of the system. Maybe someone just didn't tell me that some of the stuff can just be added once and written down. Though, to be honest, if this was the case, I should've simply noticed it, right?
Your mother.... is probably a reasonably nice lady. On the topic of starfinder, i fully agree... but SF also felt like a PF2 soft launch for mechanics-so throw stuff at a wall and see what stuck, which probably didn't help
The point was that you couldn't just do that because their are various abilities and effects which have to be considered in any given situation. Like the spells on you and conditions on enemies, plus abilities from players and enemies (such as the hunted to not hunted, or the goblin shield block) he also said it isn't to much for the players, but it is a lot for the dm.
I have DM'd pathfinder 2e for a year now and...its amazing. I made Chicxelub, a monk seeking only to punch the world to death. Freaking love this game.
@@alderaancrumbs6260 also late to this, but it's really not as hard as you think it might be. I'm running a game for a table of new players (3 of us are new just to PF2, one of my players has never played a TTRPG) and the math isn't that bad. The most I've had to account for is if the enemy is getting a bonus to AC from shields or cover, and if they get a bonus to attack from an ally. All my players, including the completely new one, know what flat-footed does so I dont have to keep track of that, they all know how to apply bonuses (and it's all written on their sheets), and if theres something that would subtract or add to their rolls that isn't written in stone I tell them what the bonus/penalty is when they make the roll
At fight I thought pf2e would be more confusing and complicated to track than dnd 5e, but after getting into it I found pf2e to be much easier to understand. It has less confusing interactions, the systems work logically, and seamlessly across the whole system. I miss the ability to hard multiclass but tbh pf2e has far more meaningful customization for characters and nearly all of them are competitive options.
you can hard dual class if your GM allows it, I'm playing a monk/fighter in solo and it's a blast :)
I mean, more choice = more complicated; no getting around that. I prefer classless systems myself, but each to their own.
I do think that the number system could have been cleaned up a lot by not inflating the math; ie a goblin 4 levels below you just has a -4 to act instead of making characters add +7 and the goblin adding +3, but they have their sacred cows like everyone else, I suppose.
The three action economy gets me too; opening a door or drawing a weapon is an action... uh...
I do like limiting attacks of opertunity, but if only they would just rid themselves of this relic of war gaming and be done with it... make a held action to attack, push, grapple, or trip if they move x and be done with it. It gives you more interesting choices as a player.
Most of the bonuses don't actually stack. Every bonus in PF 2e has a type: Circumstance, Item and Status bonus. You can not stack bonuses of the same type. So, for example, Bless is a +1 Status bonus to Attacks. So is Inspired Courage and so is Guidance. So getting hit with all three of those doesn't do anything besides give you a single +1 Status bonus to attacks. By reducing it to only three types of bonuses that don't stack, most times you can ignore other bonuses, thus simplifying the math by quite a bit.
Right - if these bonuses worked like they do in 5e... then yes gameplay gets more complicated.
So now we have to check also the type of the bonuses and see if they can stack. That should make smaller numbers, but it's not simpler.
@@pcontop if players know their abilities and basic knowledge, the issues often don't come up in the first place: "oh you have Bless up? That rules out piling on all spell buffs to attacks." The types in pf2e correspond to their source leading to predictable interactions. There is rules clarity to settle arguments and maintain balance throughout the system. No having to look up Sage Advice, no murky situations like "how does Silvery Barbs interact with Legendary Resistances?" for example.
I don't see how adding a +1 or +2 to a number is all that complicated for anyone with a modicum of intelligence. That's kindergarten math. It certainly isn't any harder than checking all the different things that can give you advantage or disadvantage to your roll. It's not like you escape the math with DnD 5e either. For example, Bless in DnD 5e adds a d4 to your roll.
Also I find what constitutes a full action vs bonus action vs move action vs just an action way more confusing than dealing with math that would mostly be calculated at level increase and then written down. Pathfinder's 3 action economy is way simpler.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG yes because the players are the only ones at the table /s
It's like everyone misses the point entirely that the person this shit creates issues for is the DM far more than the players.
"I've been sitting on my notes for the longest time"
Jesus Ben, get a chair. They are like four bucks at IKEA
You're a Dad :)
Fantastic
@@pieter-jandeboeck2595 I am actually. I can't help myself anymore.
Take your like. I didn't expect any of these comments to get a laugh out of me.
I laughed lol
Multiclassing in 2e feels amazing and it doesn't even really feel like multiclassing to me. Hell, with the addition of the Advanced Player's Guide, the archetypes and new multiclass feats they added (which are basically the same thing in this aside for one or two things that specifically state multiclassing feats over archetype feats) makes the base classes feel less like an actual class and more like a starting kit. Want to make a war marshal that summons a monster to do some of the fighting for them while buffing said summon and their teammates? You can do that. Want to play a Wizard archer who combines spells with their arrows? You can do that. Want to make a rogue who has an animal companion that they can flank with and pull off a bunch of devastating combos? You can do that. The multiclassing and archetypes in 2e just add so much flexibility to an already super flexible and customizable game and it's wonderful.
It is pretty nice but you also sometimes have to figure what angle you are coming from and what you want to be important to the build, especially for the multiclassing archetypes.
Agreed, the one thing I really loved about 2nd Edition was how multiclassing worked. Fighter with some ability to cast arcane spells was all of a sudden a real thing again.
19:54 you only apply the biggest bonus, you can't turbo stack circumstance bonus
Year late, but this. Its him missing a vital rule, not the system having the flaw. 2e is hard to learn, so i can forgive that, but its unfair to the review itself if he doesnt get those basics down.
Basics!?! wtf!?! I thought this was supposed to be more streamlined. 10 minutes in and this sounds like a power gamers were dream. Not my bag.
@@zombietotseater3894 pf2e has some room for powergaming, but a character that takes any amount of effort to make a build (Max out primary stat, if is a spellcaster take some good spells) is still good, and the most powergamey character is not that much stronger. 5e however is very easy to make a hyperpowered character in.
It took me a while to get that he was referencing the all dwarf ranger game he pitched to his players as an alternative to mouseguard.
He wasn't.
Ben, I love ya, but hearing that you're the kind of person who shows up to a session after forgetting to level up hurt my soul.
especially considering his DMs
That's utterly infuriating
I'm Forever-DM. I have spent entire days helping my players plan out their builds. Going through every option with them, explaining what they do, which situations they're good for, as well as some opinions on power level.
I then tell them "If you want to do X this is what you want. If you want to do Y then this is a good option".
It's a new system and my players are table top veterans but new to 2e.
Making a party of four level 5 characters was a process that took me about 20 hours.
But now they're all familiar with their characters, their abilities, what their role is and their build is mapped out all the way to level 20.
Levelling up just before a session? Yeah no. That just won't happen at my game.
It doesn't bother me when my players forget to level up - they just play at their last level. They don't usually forget twice. (And yes, this is the communicated expectation during session zero.)
@@Ubrfnd I like that.
The combat example ignores that there are only 3 types of bonuses and penalties (except there are some untyped penalties such as multi-attack) so there is never more than 3 (and rarely more than 1-2) bonuses and rarely more than 1-2 penalties to a roll (but there theoretically can be a bunch of penalties). It tends to go very quickly once you get used to it (I've played a lot of PF2 up to 8th level (so far)).
Multiclass feats are a solid workaround for lots of the problems of multiclassing: you don't lose progression in your primary class anymore, but you also block the abusive stacking of 'core' class abilities you got in 3.5. What they do now is add a limited selection of additional options to your main class, especially when adding spellcasting (basically, you get a spell of a level 1-2 levels behind a traditional caster for each slot, with the ability to get more slots with a feat pick). The new Advanced players guide also shows they're turning old prestige classes into multiclass/archetype feats, which makes balancing them so much less of a headache and makes for some fun new character concepts.
Such a good hold over from d&d 4e
So, how might one integrate that into 5e?
@@nnickplays9713 If I were to go a little old school and esoteric, I'd copy how they tried to integrate Epic Destinies into third edition: you trade your ASI/feats for them. You give up any ability to jump to another class and have to give up your lvl 4, and 12 ASI's, while only getting +1 to one score at 8 and 16 ASI's. Then, you'd get small selection of the 'core abilities' of the other class at the class level -3 or at 1/2 class level for things like sneak attack, and for spellcasters, spell progression at your level -3 with halved spell slots, with the most 'core' abilities being given at 4, 8, 12, and 16 and definitely nothing from any of the archetypes. So picking Multiclass fighter would get you Fighting Style at 4th level, Action Surge 1/day and +1 to a stat at 8, Extra attack at 12, and Indomitable 1/day and +1 to a Stat at 16th, possibly.
@@nnickplays9713 The latest UA introduces feats that offer small bits of other classes, like the sorcerer's metamagic and some eldritch invocations from a warlock. Maybe look at that for inspiration?
I do like how Multiclassing is handled in 5e a lot though too. They finally made it so that a lot of things scale on your character level. So for example if you play a Wizard that multiclasses into cleric, you still get spell slots based on character level even if you're not necessarily learning higher level spells. But because there's also a more robust system for upcasting spells it really doesn't necessarily throw you that far behind. You also maintain your proficiency bonus regardless of what classes you're leveling so that your various DCs and to hit modifiers don't lag behind, and cantrips always scale on character level even if you only ever take 1 level in a spellcasting class.
There is something to be said for how P2e lets you basically add some bits of a class to your class without sacrificing your main progression but I think 5e's method of doing things is also pretty good still too. Plus there's also the latest UA which basically adds a ton of feats based around letting almost anyone get access to most core classes key features more easily without necessarily investing levels. So like for example now in 5e, assuming this UA goes through, any character from any class could theoretically gain access to Eldritch Blast and even have 2 invocations to modify it for the investment of 2 feats. Or any spellcaster can have access to the Sorcerer's Metamagic for a couple spells a day.
I like PF 2e because it empowers the player to make their own decisions without needing to ask permission from the GM. Whereas in D&D 5e, more of the weight of responsibility is put onto the DM through sheer intuition, not necessarily knowledge of the game rules.
I would like to say, that not all of the golorian adventures have ended with "adventurers win, bad guys lost". For example, the nation of Lastwell is gone. The quest to stop the Resurrection of Tar Baphon failed. So he's back, the entire nation of paladins is now the gravelands, and the undead have a massive capital of undead. Just saying that its not like Paizo went through, removed all problems, and gave no plot hooks. It's even given new possibilities like the orcs becoming more neutral instead of evil and one of the people fighting the undead on the frontlines.
Another example of this is that the Infernal nation of Cheliax crushed a major rebellion led by upstart crusaders. Plenty of material there just waiting to be written
@@gregfolta5017 Curses! Does that mean my party failed?
And there's still plenty of plot hooks that weren't addressed in PF1. IIRC Sarenrae still has her Cult of the Dawnflower issue going on. And don't get me *started* on the place that is basically the french revolution that went on too long.
@@Team_Orchid Revolution is ETERNAL. Long Live GALT!!!
All you have to do is walk up and say either Whispering Tyrant or Geb
Clearing some things up for my fellow 5E Players:
I liked that review but the example of the math was like if I was to explain that shooting a bow in 5e is rolling 1d20, then adding your dexterity modifier, then adding your proficiency bonus, then adding your +1 weapon bonus, then adding your penalty for enemy cover, then adding the bonus for your bracers of archery, then adding your bardic inspiration, then rolling a second time for disadvantage and adding all that stuff again and taking the lower because you're shooting into dim-light, and then etc, etc. Like sure you can do that for each attack, or you could instead figure it out when leveling the character up and then have the final number on your sheet. I mean sure there are floating modifiers like cover or guidance but that doesn't make 5e a game thats too complex and full of math, basically the same for pathfinder 2e.
There is absolutely a learning experience, back when we played pathfinder 1e before hopping over to dndbeyond/5e, players of our game for some reason would always do all the math on each of their attacks and it baffled me that they didn't just figure out the total and have it on their sheet forever. fortunately when we started using dndbeyond it became a lot simpler because dndbeyond just gives you the number.
My advice for PF2e is using the Pathbuilder 2 app, it not only does all your math for you, it makes character creation an absolute breeze because it reds out any options in character creation that aren't available because you don't meet pre-requisites and what not freeing up some choice paralysis I've seen 5e players mention, I could make a character or do a level up is pathbuilder 2 in maybe about double the time it takes me to zip through the same stuff in dndbeyond. If any other 5e players reading this are interested in Pathfinder 2e at all, I highly recomend pathbuilder 2e, its free and there is no sign up needed because all of the pathfinder rules a free SRD material. There is a bit of a pay wall if you want to have animal companions stuff in the app (about $7) and if you want to use some specific variant rules I think, but if you use dndbeyond you know you can go without those sorts of things anyway because they still don't have the variant rules stuff and only recently added animal companion/ familiar stuff.
Oh and Pathbuilder 2 will be getting the advanced players guide stuff soon like the 4 new classes; swashbuckler, investigator, oracle and witch.
Why do I sound like an advertisement for this free app? because I really love PF2e and as someone still playing in both pathfinder 1e and D&D5e games and finding myself frustrated at both, I'd love to see more 5e folks playing PF2e, I reckon that you'll have a fun time, sometimes its about the right mindset and a good toolset. Not as bogged down and bloated as pathfinder, and also has a lot more freedom of expression for players than 5e. And if you're wondering what to run if you're thinking of taking on the GM mantle for the game, may I advise any of the 3 adventure paths out for pathfinder 2e, Paizo started out making modules for 3.5 and managed to make the second most successful d20 rpg purely off of the good will garnered by people who loved their adventures. Paizo releases all of its rules for free online, you can buy books for them to show your support, but the real money for them comes in off of their payed adventure sales, because they are so confident in their adventure writing that they are okay with taking a loss on their rule books. May I suggest age of ashes, I haven't run in yet but I have heard good things.
It didn't really help the complexity of the math much that he repeated himself several times in there, some editing issue I'm sure.
APG data is now in the Pathbuilder 2e beta branch! Woohoo
@@metaloki4370 ohh thats awesome!
Pathbuilder 2E is effing awesome. Eliminates the flipping back and forth entirely during character creation/update.
I wholeheartedly 100% agree. Also, I am currently GMing Age of Ashes for my Italian group, just started book 3, and we are having a blast! PF2 is my new favourite fantasy RPG by a mile.
I've played a lizard folk druid that augmented his unarmed attacks with magic. Was fun!
I'm doing it right now with a lizard folk Monk/Nature Cleric, super fun to be the wise savage warrior.
Moral of your combat story: don't add bonuses on the fly. Write your attack options down beforehand and your turn is quick and easy.
So as in 1E you pretty much end up with a spreadsheet as 2 of my group did. I was mocked for this until another realised he needed such a sheet and asked me to create it got him.
And where, pray tell, are you to have such on the released character sheet?
@@vampdan nowhere. But tabletop games ALWAYS say in the core rulebook "you need scratch paper and a pencil". That's where you wrote this stuff down
@@vampdan same place you put it for 5e? You don't write down a shot with a bow that takes into account cover, but all the things that are consistent round by round you write down as a single whole number, and then you just remember the other stuff. There is an expected grace period of being unsure, see new people to 5e that always do their attacks by adding modifier and proficiency separate.
People are going to hate me for this, but... Buy note cards and stat out your favorite action combos. Make sure to use pencil for the bonuses as they will change as you level up. Short term effects can be added in on the fly. But other than that, it'll be like playing in D&D 4E with power cards. You'll have all the info of your attacks in one place and easy to reference.
In the monologue about the ranger's turn, you make it seem like you'd be calculating all of this on the fly.
Realistically your character sheet would already have the prof+stat+finess+rune calculated for both of your weapons.
The only thing left for you to keep track of would be the multiple attack penalties for the hunter's edge (and conditions effects).
You might not have half a day to calculate attacks and damage, but you usually have more than that when creating your character, which is when you would actually have to do all the bonuses (unless you use the easily accessible auto calculating character sheet, in which case it's easy)
You would actually be calculating: attack bonus - multiple attack penalty + situations modifiers.
This. He made it way harder than it is giving a false impression about the complexity.
Exactly
Plus, you can only add one bonus of each type... You wouldn't stack Blessed and Guidance!
@@Aimadtakh correct, makes things so much easier
To be fair, I've played a lot of D&D 3.5, 4e, 5e, and Pathfinder 1E over the past 15 years...and this is EXACTLY how most of my players approached the attack rolls for those games. Even when pointing out it's really not hard to just add the bonuses ahead of time the ironic response was just "Nah, too complicated." And I learned over time most of my players just want to sit down and play and doing anything out of the game for their character is "work," with the exception of the players who actually want to play that specific system. Then they do the short legwork to make the game flow better while playing because they actually like reading the rules and figuring out exactly what their characters can do with that system. But that was maybe 3 out of over a dozen players I've had over the years. And they were the only ones who ever wanted to play Pathfinder. Everyone else just wanted to play 5e. So his description of the attack rolls feels painfully accurate to me anyway.
A lot of this complicated stuff other than the 48 statuses can "just" be written down. The bigger problem is definitely the learning curve because all of your modifier attack values should just be recorded, you only calculate once and reference based on 1st-3rd attack modifiers and others in a chart if you must.
You know, most of that math can be calculated long before your round.
It can even be calculate before the session. 'normal hit i will roll this, if crit ill roll this instead,' "know your charakter" is the least you can expect from your players.
Then you only have to calculate the circumstance stuff while in game.
You know you can just write down all your bonuses with current equipment and thus you already have 90% of the math solved, right?
He did mention writing out an attack matrix, but like, he had basically the most complicated build I can imagine for a martial class. Two different weapons, 1 agile 1 not, 1 deadly the other sweeping, a dual attack feat, +1 bonuses, Striking, a MaP reduction feature, and multiple enemies in melee range and then went on a massive tangent about trying to decide on whats the most damage then proceeded to say he mostly dicks around with his characters towards the end.
@@MidnightSt4r he is a derp
@@MidnightSt4r He went out of his way to make his example as complicated as possible to reinforce his opinions of 5e being superior. It's the most disgustingly weighted "review" I've ever heard. It's like Fox News.
@@clanpsi I don't think he was trying to do that specifically. I think that his character just ended up overly complicated due to his ranger build. Like he says towards the end, the level of detail just is not for him or some of his friends. I absolutely love the level of detail and I help other people, including DMs, keep track of things whenever I play when things start to chug. But others feel bogged down by these things sometimes.
Remember back in 3.5 when you could make a bad build? Thats what WotC tried to "fix" and look what we got. A crappy easy uncomplicated nonchallanging game 5e. Perfect example Diablo 2 v Diablo 3.
Grandma: "Don't forget to take your bonus!"
Me: Thanks Grandma! Have you seen my magic ring anywhere? It is the one that conjures the force rams to hit guys over 60ft away once per minute.
Grandma: oh yes, I packed it next to your earth staff that gives +2 to all conjuration spells casted with it to hit.
Check for traps pookie!
Puffin's explanations here reminds me of that guy who plays a spellcaster and has to dig through the book every time he casts a spell to reference its effects.
I've been preparing a PF2 one shot for my party, and I'm loving the system so far. Slightly simplified gameplay with that crunchy character creation I know and love. So I'm looking forward to running it for my group.
Says he made a grid....DOES NOT SHOW THIS GRID THAT HE SPEAKS OF
It changes for each character
@@dseray9494 i.e., welcome back to 1st edition AD&D!
@@briancurtis6022 There wasn't charts that were diffrent for each player in AD&D , they were only one for each class used in combat .
Rolemaster on the other hand had charts for every single thing a player tried to do with tons of modifiers .
Every single weapon had a chart and on that chart where all the armor types in the game , so you had 20 lines across the top of the armor types then you had the numbers rolled that were modified by any number of things just to see how much damage you did and spells even had the same type of tables with regards to armor types modified by the spell type and the material of the armor .
We called it CHARTMASTER because you could almost fill a 10ft wall up from top to bottom with all the charts needed to do just about anything . Every skill had its own chart and list of modifiers and there were so many skills and when you added the addition rules from the diffrent supplements it added even more charts .
It's use of charts was so bad that some groups had 1 or 2 players taking turns from playing to looking things up on the charts so that a simple combat or anything else didn't take an hour just to get through a few rounds of combat or to do anything else
Perspective from a PF1 player who still plays that system and hasn't migrated to PF2:
The best mechanic in Pathfinder is that *your group's Golarion* is as much a character as any of your (extremely customizable) PCs.
The groups I've played it with have always taken the 'canon' resolutions of various quests as examples/suggestions of ramifications of party actions, but each DM having their established histories and developments based directly on previous campaigns in their version of the world.
It's not "random adventurers" who scoured this area, it was your notorious grandfather, the wizard Joey played in the first adventure when he sold the dragon's head to the taven as an over-bar decoration. This adventure starts here; the taxidermied whelp still holds its ferocious snarl, but the scales have lost some sheen.
So I can hardly imagine what a pain in the ass it would be to try and start in at 2nd edition using canon-as-written! Don't blame you for saying 'fuck it' eventually
Yeah it takes a while, we did play Faerun from AD&D to 3.0 and 3.5, which was a pain because Exp tables were vastly different, so PC's who became NPC's had to be redone from scratch. We refused to have anything to do with 4e, but we translated it to Pathfinder, which was painless. While I don't play 5e with the same group, I still use the same Faerun I used to play in 20 years ago, thankfully modules so far have been a lot less intrusive.
In Golarion I've only played/ran a couple of AP, and while Varisia is mostly Canon, Cheliax in our timeline is a lot more powerful because the Hell's Rebels campaign went really bad, and Hell's Revengeance went brutally well. My characters also decided to make the Kingdom in Kingmaker a Thrune ruled state, so geopolitically things were gearing towards a massive conflict in Avistan. I still think it's easily adaptable, but are at a point where creating our own APs is probably better.
I mean, I never considered a GM caring about setting consistency to be a system mechanic.
@@NieroshaiTheSable Not necessarily - obviously any group can run a consistent setting. The "mechanic" of that aspect is the divergent development of specific given cultural aesthetics and historic story beats.
For instance, the way the above commenter can say "House Thrune established a colony" and I understand what they're about, and can say "Oh cool, in our Golarion that colony was established by Halfling refugees from Galt, and house Thrune was eventually overthrown by house Leroung."
You could theoretically do something similar with personal multiverses based on any given media property, but I am personally fond of what you're given to work with in Pathfinder.
@@nikolasgilliam4666 I guess. Not much different from other game books that feature "where to go from here" sections. Like Hoard of the Dragon Queen having a TPK result in the dragons taking over. I'm still hesitant to call preemptive narrative suggestions a mechanic though.
Same name bonuses dont stack. So most of the random +1 are the same "Status" bonus. so you only ever get +1, maybee +2
I feel the scripting issues Ben.
Thanks! Yeah, it was a long video to make. Also, I loved your 5e vs Pathfinder 2e video!
Puffin Forest so do you agree with him? Rather run 5e and play PF2 with a good GM?
@@piece1309 The one thing overlooked does come to playstyle. One thing the mechnics really focus on, and the official modules as well is roleplay. A pathfinder society module is often very supportive of clever roleplay and skill usage.
I have GMed one that it can actually be of detriment to players i they try doing get alll the treasure, fight all the things.
@@puffinforest ,
I put it down to:
Complex rules melt even the best of minds, but how to best to show this?
These scripting and reading errors let me know your brain was well melted!
@@russelljacob7955 "A pathfinder society module is often very supportive of clever roleplay and skill usage." Have you actually ever played a society game?
I personally find high option character creation to make the game more fun. I really like my character mechanically feeling how the character feels to play. For example, I love skill ranks because I get to choose the exact details of how my character’s mechanical skills fit for my character’s in character skills. I hate in 5e when I just have a proficiency that doesn’t fit because of my background or not able to be proficient in a skill just because it’s not a class skill. I like how skill ranks give me the ability to hone the skills, and even be good in something not from the class, even if not as good as if it was a class skill (which yeah, my Rogue won’t be as good at healing as a Cleric, but at least I can get bonuses). Having options also makes every level up feel significant to me. I know that this isn’t for everyone, but for me, the character creation process is vital to the enjoyment of the game.
There are a lot of ways to pick skills (for one thing, I basically never use a pre-made background and just pick my own stuff) but it is admittedly lame that so few classes get anything especially powerful like expertise. I'm not over the moon about pathfinder's combat but that aspect looks cool
Pathfinder 2E player and GM here. I figured Ben's reaction would end up being close to what it was, and my reaction to this system was basically the polar opposite of his. That said, this has been an utterly fascinating review to listen to.
I adore this system. I left 5th Edition behind and have never looked back. BUT: it's clear I am a very different player than the person who prefers 5E. The crunch comes more easily to me, and my table is mostly people who can also easily handle quick number crunching to keep combat moving. I like a crunchier G to mix with my RP, whereas others might not. I may love this system, but I have all the respect in the world for someone who can say, "This is someone's game, but it's not for me," because that's exactly how I feel about D&D 5th. PF2 and 5E are high fantasy through VERY different mechanical lenses- and that's ok.
Have fun playing the games of your choice, everyone, in whatever form they might take. Take care of each other, at and away from the table.
Yeah I have friends who got a C in algebra in high school. Pathfinder would kill them
@@orionar2461 It's nowhere near that complicated- just addition/subtraction, but in more places than D&D5E. PF1e was closer to what you're describing. There's some crunch to PF2e, but no algebra wizardry is needed.
@@BloodiedShingle the point is they fucking suck at math and having to do quick math will grind the game to a halt.
@@orionar2461 Fair enough, that tracks.
@@orionar2461 just have smarter friends. Or if you’re dumb too, use a google sheet character sheet that does the math for you.
I played 2e with 3 entirely new players to RPG world. None of them thought it's complicated or anything. The Math is done on the character sheet and bonuses from the same categories don't "stack". If anything we thought the combat is too simplistic, especially for melee characters, lol
Eh, I know people who started with PF1E or D&D 3.5, which were imo crunchier. It is certainly doable. 5E is easier to get into, and it has WotC's marketing machine behind it, but it's not like you have to be a genius to get into Pathfinder.
Yeah we jumped from 5e to pf2e and it took us two, maybe three sessions to adjust. It's been smooth since. It's really not complicated at all.
As someone who's not the greatest at math and plays a melee character, I'm quite happy its rather simple in that way.
For realz. I teach and play Pathfinder 2e with middle schoolers as part of my job. Just gotta do some prep work and they're fine.
In my first Starfinder (based on pathfinder 1e but similar enough) campaign, our big bulky Vesk soldier had what he called his "standard whack" which was almost all he ever had to use in combat. One attack roll, one damage roll, modifiers all added up and ready ahead of any encounter. It really is that simple.
I think pf2e was partly designed with various helper apps in mind to help automate some aspects of it... because... as a player I can say that pf2e typically plays really fast especially now that the system has a lot more official adventures to serve as a baseline...
And my dm is a lot happier in pf2e than in dnd 5e because the latter put all the work on the gm... no real guides on running the game, few charts to help with anything and the setting and character descriptions and statblocks were so thin and shallow that they typically amounted to nothing more than a sticky note. (I can also attest to this after having read the 5e Ravenloft book... the ADD and 2nd ed dnd ravenloft books spent several pages detailing each realm, ruler, and the history/culture therein... while the 5e version... each realm is lucky to get anything more than 2 paragraphs, one of which is usually focused on ura ruler)
Also... yes there is some initial jank as you learn but that's true of any system. Even Fiasco has a learning curve.
As someone that's GMd both DnD 5e and PF2e I feel where your GM is coming from. I feel like 5e gaslighted everyone into thinking that anything clunky with that system can just "be fixed/filled in by the GM".
@@perplexingpantheon Relatively few things cannot be, but a system should not have a GM scrambling to fix their shortcomings overmuch unless they are abusing the system somehow.
I am playing a PF 2e campaign now and playing an Ancient Blooded Dwarf barbarian with dragon rage instinct, the customization is fantastic.
i personally feel that all the math segments are misleading. A lot of the math you were calculating is stuff that should already be calculated on your character sheet. I agree there is an initial slowness but once you get the numbers down it really becomes second nature adding the penalties and bonuses.
Also I feel like Pathfinder 2e requires a lot more preparation required for the gm. It's defiantly not something where you can throw it together on the stop or within a few hours without a lot of experience with the system first. While it's harder to prepare and learn but I feel like it's a lot more rewarding when you do get all the numbers down as combat becomes more dynamic and more unique.
He's not very good at math.
He did calculate it though, he had a whole attack matrix
@@fake-inafakerson8087 he shouldn't need an attack matrix. I had a dual-wield ranger in my party. You know what he did? Wrote down the attack bonus he gets for each weapon on his sheet. Memorized the one sequence of attacks he'd use. (Mainhand weapon for the first attack, agile weapon for all subsequent attacks). That's it. It's that easy. +15 to hit with both weapons, but if I attack with my agile as 2nd and 3rd attacks then it's 15/13/11. And that's the sequence he uses every time. Done and done.
Like... There's no need to make it as complicated as he did.
Every build usually has one or two strategies that are your bread and butter. Trip Fighter? You move and use Knockdown. Dual-wield anything? You attack with your hardest hitting weapon first and agile weapon for all subsequent attacks. Super complicated convoluted Hobgoblin Champion build I made? You open with Demoralize, which deals mental damage due to an ancestry feat, and then strike your foe who has - 1AC and raise your shield.
That's it.
Choosing between which pre-recorded math: the starknife or the Spear? the act of weighing the two (or more)choices against each other, since they all come at opportunity costs to each other...choosing takes non-zero time.
@@The_CGA which is why you choose ahead of time, when you're creating the character. Hence the whole 'bread and butter' thing. If a certain sequence of attacks is what you'll be using all the time, there's no need to care about many of your other 'options'.
Honestly by the time I got to 25:00 I thought “the same people who think Pathfinder is too complicated play MTG in tournaments” and totally accepted that if you dedicate your attention to the game and your character design you will really enjoy yourself. The rules are there to allow crunch if you want it, you don’t need to apply the crunch at every table. Paizo did the hard work of homebrewing everything for us in a logical way so we players and GMs don’t feel like we’re buying books just to redesign the game WOTC publishes. Hats off to PF for a great product and opportunity for fun.
I feel like my gaming group has had the opposite experience from what you've described. Pathfinder 2e has had the best combat experience of any roleplaying game that I've run. Things have always run very smoothly - and the most dramatic Player/DM disagreement I can remember lasted less than 45 seconds.
I wonder if your group dived in "too quickly." I was finishing up a Pathfinder 1e campaign when 2e released, so I wasn't able to run it immediately. I ended up having about 2 months to really absorb the system before I had to run any really intense games. So, I was very grounded in the system by the time I was running anything "complex." It sounds like your group dived in very quickly, got overwhelmed, & maybe suffered some system whiplash.
I've seen brand new players (with zero RPG experience whatsoever) pick up Pathfinder 2e almost immediately! But, I was a well-grounded DM, so I was able to focus on the moving parts that mattered to them (& knew well what was unnecessary & could be ignored). I think 2e has so many moving parts it can swamp you if you're not careful, but if you pace yourself well, you'll find that the parts all move in rational & practical ways.
Just my two cents. Thanks for the video!
It doesn't help that they started at level 8 by the sounds of it
I have hated almost every session.
I hate character creation.
I hate leveling.
I hate the character sheet. It is inadequate for the combat's complexity.
I hate my idea is gated behind feats and skill training levels. And even then the mechanics still do not support what I wanted to do, oh and I only wanted to do it the once because it was a very niche case that is never going to occur again.
I hate adding level to everything.
I hate the myriad of conditions.
It is a badly designed game if you have to "ease" into it. That you can't pick it up quickly is a bad sign. Complexity is not depth, and they have designed a game that is complex in its attempts to attain depth. And I say this as someone who loves Shadowrun.
@@vampdan To be fair, most of those arguments are the same for pathfinder. And the same for 3.5e. 5e is extremely different in that it's focus is being easy to pick up, which is great in a lot of ways. But pathfinder (both 1e and 2e) is more for people who really like to dig in and really progress their character or strategize in combat. Both systems are valid, you just have to understand which is better for you and which might be better for others.
vampdan it's all preference and what you're looking for in a system.
@@vampdan I will have to disagree with you on "easing" into a game being an automatic indication of bad design. Chess has a steeper learning curve than Checkers, but it's still a perfectly valid game. There is a point where the learning curve can be too steep - and as an example, I've had a ton of trouble every time I've tried to teach Shadowrun to people. I love the system & setting, but the learning curve there can be borderline unplayable at times.
Pathfinder 2e has a lot going on, but I've generally seen that most starting characters really only need to grasp 4 - 6 mechanics in order to play effectively, and I don't think that's too overwhelming. But, a lot of people look at the 40-something conditions & even more special traits & even more options and and and... and they see so much they don't realize that most of it will never apply to them. Honestly, it was overwhelming when I first looked at it.
But, when I realized that I could take it in manageable chunks, the system was suddenly much easier to handle.
I think the game compartmentalizes well, but Paizo does not do a good job pointing that out.
However, I will definitely agree with you on the character sheet - it is woefully constructed! Paizo's character sheet is bad. Jefferson Jay Thacker from Know Direction made a slightly better version, but even that one is lacking in the Spells & Actions/Activities section. I really wish I had the creative & technical skill to design my own character sheet, because you're right: what we have now is not helping!
"Ben its your turn"
"I'm calculating the cost analysis of my starknife and scimitar and-"
"Oh you're using the delay action?"
"No I-"
"Ben delays, next player."
Exactly
You might have to pre generate something to help for the more complicated classes attacks, I imagine there will be some cleaned up abilities as time goes on as well.
I think a new people should probably avoid some classes and stick with just 1 weapon based on what is thematically appropriate for the character.
@@timthorson52 All melee and ranged strikes are calculated well in advance, the only variables that come up are bonuses from buffs such as guidance, true strike etc.
Normal attacks and spell casts are as simple as tossing a dice and adding a precalculated number to the roll, so the same as 5e pretty much.
@@DarkDoomguy So it sounds like we just have someone that doesn't like to fill in character sheets? I usually include all my attacks in the places to fill in attacks, not just the standard +7, I include one for each of my weapons and basic attacks. If you have to plan for multiple attacks, just put the classic +7/+2/-3 style?
@@timthorson52 writing stuff on a paper to make things easier does not sound like the system is flawed
I really like this review of the game, it definently shows the strength and weaknesses of the game. I've been GMing this game since its release.
I will say, Ben kinda overcomplicated the process of an encounter. I've never had to overthink so much on an encounter. From listening to it, he wants to apply every aspect single bonus and action physically available to the game. I should mention, the paizo states in the book that all of these are optional. The DM can decide how much he/she can apply to an encounter. All these weapon bonuses and critical specializations apply to players, more than some random goblin. That's why you need to plan ahead on how a creature would behave in a fight, so a GM can plan out how to play.
Similar to encounter builds. Pathinder 1 or 2 strictly has two types of fights, a lot of weakling, or one big bad boss. If you mix a bunch of mediums together, the game drags on for hours. Minions should he minions like a RPG, and the minions should be led by a big bad boss.
I really enjoyed listening to the review, and definently agree with 90%.
Agreed. I guess it comes with the bagage. Like he said, if you're accustomed with 5e all the math will feel overcomplicated.
@Nospam Spamisham depends on how, as a GM you manage that. I ran fall of plaguestone as our first game, we had our slower moments figuring out rules, but during combat what I said was what we were going to do, in order to not to slow down the 8 player game. We would write down our questions and discuss them after the session. Was that thing viable. Like I accidentally killed a character because I misread, there were some frustrations. Overall the group had fun. I did end up homebrewing the end into a custom campaign but that's a different story
I think the issue is right here: "The DM can decide how much he/she can apply to an encounter." The DM MAY decide how much of this they want to use, but the very presence of it adds weight to any rules lawyer that is willing to derail the game in favor of their optimal attack, or optimal defense, and they'll pull out every stop to do it. In 5e the options to do that are extremely limited, they either have advantage or disadvantage or neither, but in a game that revolves around the stacking of nearly a hundred different bonuses and penalties, where the results of said rolls can result into damage or buffs to to multiple hit point pools, that just makes for an awfully crunchy, and not very rewarding system.
Matt Johnston That’s more PF1e, in 2e there are only three types of bonuses that stack
@@goadfang No, it's not like that. PF2 is extreamly well balanced system. Maximum of what you can get with optimisation is deacent AC for your wizard at level 1. Hell, you can optimase much more easely in 5e, then you can in PF2.
In the example you give at 17:01 I feel like you REALLY padded the complexity and confusion with a lot of the things that happen on most fantasy ttrpgs. People forget and remember bonuses all the time, and I'm afraid that people might get the impression that this sort of confusion is the rule rather than the exception.
Also...
You are aware that after adventurers solved all the problems from 1st edition, *new* quests came up, right? That you're not forced to homebrew if you don't want to?
Even if you do, many of the books are really great about new adventure hooks
I'm playing PF2e, it is terrific. I love the 3 actions. I love the customisation of PC. There are meaningful choices every level, yet few traps, it's really elegant design.
And for the GM is really good too. One of my greatest gripes with 5e was how repetitive their monsters were. Like, everything is just a melee attackers with little else of uniqueness. No mechanical flavor. Pathfinder 2 tough? Literally everything, even the goblins, those flanking little monsters, have some level of unique, interesting abilities on their belt.
it looks liek a snowflake system, it has almsot none of the races of 1e, and the pug race is retarded, and I hate the spell lists, clerics can't ressurect anymore, jst basic raise dead.
@@ceilyurie856 Snowflake system? Pug race? What are you talking about? And i actually rather like that reviving is a LOT harder now. Death is largely final and meaningful. Fights have more tangible risk when there is no revivify.
@@ceilyurie856 Looks like you have been raving about pf2e in a lot of the threads here. Feeling so angry about a dice-rolling rpg system is not healthy. I recommend that you just close youtube for a minute and do something that actually brings you happiness.
@@tonhaogamergranudo fights are bullshit. and the shoomy or whatever their retarded race is, they are literally pug pacifists that just look cute or pathetic. Also now ALL magic users get up to 10th level spells apparently, so what's the fucking point in really differentiating that much? And all it invites now is being more of a dick to players from dms.Suddenly all classes are equal and gotta have a pacifist race. Woo.Oh and gotta make it "harder" by removing a HIGH LEVEL resuscitation spell
Man, i've dmed a few games of PF2, starting as soon as on the edition launch only taking a week to learn the rules. It's clear to say we got a lot of rules wrong and some of what we got right was later erata'd so it's been a journey. I never felt that battles were overly complicated in between my digital games, where its been little to no problem, and my live game i was always able to have a pretty good grasp on all of the multi attack penalties, circumstance bonuses/penalties and so on. Listening to Ben speak though, it sounds a lot more complicated than it feels to me. I can't say for certain, but it feels over-complicated in the way its described though i can see where someone could experience it as such. I don't know, but regardless this review is very good and fair.
And reading the comments too is quite interesting.
For me, the whole magic item thing can be resolved beforehand. Item bonus is as permanent as an ability mod or proficiency so it can just be written down beforehand. Same with striking runes, add the die to the sheet.
Don't get me wrong, it still gets more complicated than D&D 5e but a good chunk of complexity is the stuff resolved before the combat even starts.
Yes, it is less complicated in play than he makes it sound:
(1) bonuses (should!) be calculated on your character sheet beforehand. You almost always have a series of 3 bonuses for a weapon ("+10/+5/+0") and that's all you use.
(2) he includes multiple hypotheticals that don't all exist at once ("IF he'd had a striking rune... IF he'd weapons")
He over-extended his point and... compromised it in the process.
Yeah it's really annoying that he lists all the invidivual bonuses you get to your attack roll that are permanently part of your attack stat. Just write +17 on your character sheet and shut up. You don't need to manually tally up the dex bonus + proficiency + level + magic item bonus every single time. It's SUPER easy.
Yeah he really soured the entire review for me with how he described combat. It's not nearly as complicated in play as he makes it sound and half of what he talks about adding on the fly should already be written down on the sheet before you play.
@@KingJulius4 yeah. And that super complicated combat matrix? Dude. Just memorize what attack pattern you want to go with and do that every time. Big weapon first, agile offhand for every subsequent attack. So for 3 attacks your Flurry Ranger always does that same thing: 15/13/11. You don't need a freaking matrix written out when that's what you roll every time
Also your description of the buffs during an attack roll sounds exactly like the normal combat in the 3.5 game i am in. You get use to it and start having the modifiers memorized or have a sheet handy.
Yeah all the customization is what I liked about playing 3.5/Pathfinder games in some ways it's nice that 5e is simplified and the rules are good to get new players into it, but I miss a lot of the magic items that didn't make it into 5e not to mention the crafting system is skeletal at best and I miss the exotic crafting materials granted Xanathar's Guide added mithril & adamantine back in, but it still feels bare bones compared to the huge exotic array of stuff from 3.5/Pathfinder 1.
Agreed. Pathfinder 2e seems LESS complicated than even other editions of d&d
He makes pathfinder 2 seem even more complicated than 3.5 ended up. At least those could end up with a lot of set numbers eith 1-3 modifiers for a given scenario.
@@KamikazKid This si why I picked 3.5. I hate simplified rpgs, I dont care if dnd 3.5 will make my head spinn or make me confused. I want all the mechanics.
It's simpler than 3.5 and and simpler than he makes it sound. Once you have your bonuses written down on your sheet, you almost always only have to deal with only two types of bonuses/penalties: Status and Circumstance.
That's it. (3.5 had no limit)
I know I''m rewally late to the party but as someone who ran 5e and PF2e exclusively on Foundry VTT, GMing PF2e on Foundry was so much easier and more fun. Most of the number crunching is done for you. All compendia and rulebooks are included in a module made by the community for free (no problem with Paizo). Paizo even publishes full adventure modules for foundry making GMing them a breeze. One thing that is very significant to the design philosophy of PF2e was missed in this review i feel like. Monster and encounter balancing is very tight and precise AND every monster feels unique because they get signature abilities. For anyone digitally GMing I would Whole-heartedly recommend PF2E over 5E because most of the number crunching and "looking up rules" is eliminated by Foundry.
When he gave the (EDIT: first) example of what he has to track for one attack, it sounded like the video was jumping back and replaying parts of his explanation at times.
Just me?
oh yeah, it was happening here too...
Yep. Came to the comments to see if it was just me.
It was, yeah.
Yeah, bad editing is bad.
My brain does that shit all the time, I shrugged it off and then realized it actually happened upon reading this comment.
Ben's rant at ~19:00 about calculating the result of one attack: The bonuses from Bless and Guidance don't stack, as they're both Status bonuses. The attacker had no reason to cash in their Guidance on this attack.
But seriously, the math feels natural after a little bit
pathfinder is basically dnd with extra steps :P but yeah you get used to your bonuses pretty quickly after you do a few combats
That section gave me a migraine.
I personally prefer Pathfinder 2 bonuses compared to DND. Since you normally get bonuses from 3 sources its easy to follow. Unless something drastic happens only the circumstances bonuses fluctuates a lot in combat. Item and status less so.
Yeah, it sounds very frontloaded on the learning curve, but I'm sure it pays off once you learn all of the subtleties.
@@joystick2212 not really. If anything it's "D&D with more options both for charactet creation and in gameplay". It has a completly different feel though and both systems are for every different people.
Just gonna say it, Puffin's math example is an example of people who don't take the time to sort their mechanics out. That example has never happened in any game I've run in P2 so far.
Pathfinder is for people that know what they are doing, including the players.
DnD players are lazy as f and barely know what their few abilities do and have no idea what they are going to do just right before their turn ... so its much more prone to casuals slowing it down.
If you put that casual players into Pathfinder, they are completely lost.
If you really know what you are doing, DnD 5e becomes incredible boring very fast, as basically nothing is any challenge for a min/maxed character and group.
After playing a few Starfinder campaigns, this is true. You just gotta know what your combat loop looks like beforehand. 2-3 sessions were enough to get used to all the bonuses, then every new level, ability, weapon, etc. just adds a bit to what's already there.
@@ThisNameIsBanned Funnily enough, my first actual "dnd" game was pathfinder 1e.
I simply started playing and it was fine, not great, as I didn't know any of the rules yet, but fine. I'm not some math genius or super memory guy. I just did the 2+2=4 level math, (I am over the age of 6 after all so I can do this) and remembered some mechanics after asking about them, like actions and statuses.
Later when I got higher level, and played more complicated characters (started as a fighter in my first ever game because it's nice and simple) I just wrote down my attacks and my attacks when using abilities, durations of buffs/debuffs etc, in notepad.
This was especially useful with my trip monk (which is a pretty broken build, especially with the double 18's and 16 that I rolled for stats).
Just write that shit down so it's easily referenced.
So yeah, I would agree that people who would find that complicated, are simply lazy.
It's maybe 1 minute of work (per level up) to pre-calculate it all.
@@Majima_Nowhere this is big player energy. You have to multiply all of those changes by probably 10 or so for DMs because you need to learn those things for each of your 4-7 players and every enemy.
There's so much wrong with his example at 17:03 that I've decided to explain how stupid it is step by step:
First, he starts talking about the attack bonuses, which is clear; the player rolls a 16, they add +15 to it thanks to their attack modifier, and a +1 from Bless, meaning the roll is 32. But for some reason, he decides to add extra confusion by making calculation mistakes, like thinking the total is 31 or 33. This doesn't make any sense, since it doesn't give any indication that the system is complicated, it just means that the people counting it made a sum error, which is completely on the fault of the players, not the system. Then, for some reason, he brings up that one of the players thinks the total is 33 because of the Bless bonus, which was already calculated, and once again, this is the fault of the players, not the system. This is just the players being stupid and not knowing how to do math.
After that, again, for some reason, he keeps adding these player mistakes in this example, making the system more complicated than it is. Like, now the player says that they actually rolled a 14, which, again, is just the fault of the players'. And after that, he makes a rules mistake, since he stacks Bless bonus and Guidance bonus together, which can't happen, because they're status bonuses. Again, this isn't due to a complicated system, it's very clearly stated in each spell what type of bonus the spell is.
All of this was a way more complicated version of just a player rolling a 14, then adding +15 from their attack bonus, and +1 from Bless/Guidance, which is extremely simple math. He's just making the system seem more complicated and confusing that it actually is by adding these random confusions in there. And mind you, all of this calculation should be done by the players, the GM shouldn't have to calculate this, the player doing the attack should.
Next up he talks about the Hobgoblin's defenses, which the GM calculates. He talks about the HG having 18 AC, but it's raised by +2, and then by another +2 thanks to them raising their shield. Now, I'm not so sure where the hell he gets the extra +2 AC from, the second +2 comes from the raised shield, yes, but where is the first +2 coming from? He didn't really explain that. And then he brings up the HG's natural ability that gives +1 circumstance bonus if they're next to to allies, which actually doesn't apply here since the HG already gets a +2 circumstance bonus from the shield, as mentioned before, the same type bonuses do not stack.
Then he talks about how a player thinks the HG is flat-flooted, which he is, but not to the player. This makes sense if the player who's making the attack is attacking from range, and the HG has the flat-flooted condition from being flanked, but in most cases if you have the flat-flooted condition, you are flat-flooted to everyone. So, what he says is true.
Then comes the most stupid part of this example. For some god knows why reason, he know starts talking about how the creature is flat-flooted because they're grabbed, because the player's attack wasn't actually their first attack on their turn, it was their second attack after grappling the HG. This makes no sense whatsover, like, out of nowhere, he suddenly adds this stupid addition to the example, that wasn't mentioned anywhere else before, and he treats it as if this would ever happen in reality??? Like, no, no one is going to grab someone, then attack without calculating their multiple attack penalty, or take into consideration the flat-flooted condition that comes after being grabbed. I can see this mistake being made by someone who is super new to Pathfinder 2e, but this scenario requires for every single person on the table to make this same simple mistake, which I do not see happening ever.
And even if this stupid mistake would happen to everyone at the table, then it still doesn't indicate that the system is complicated, since these rules are clearly defined and explained. Like, if you perform a grapple, the rules under the action clearly state that the person becomes flat-flooted. I cannot believe that someone would use grapple without reading the rules behind it.
After that attrocity, the damage is being calculated, and the HG uses the shield block reaction, and he says that he needs to "look up the shield stats", which doesn't make sense either. Why? Because the shield stats are automatically portrayed in the statblocks for the enemies. Like if you go and look up Hobgoblin Soldier in the rules, you can clearly see that it lists "wooden shield (Hardness 3, HP 12, BT 6)", so you don't have to look up anything, everything is already there. And if for some reason it isn't there, you should as a GM write them down before the combat even begins when you're preparing the adventure. The rest of the stuff he talks about the shield is true, except that the damage is not split between the shield and the person, the damage is dealt equally to both.
Another small thing, he talks about keeping track of shield HP, and implies that it's somehow hard or complicated to keep track of it, which it is not, it's extremely simple, and is not very different to keeping track of your own health. He also implies that keeping track of reactions is also complicated, which it isn't, most enemies don't have more than one reaction, and the players keep track of their own reactions, the GM doesn't need to do that.
Next up he talks about the shield being broken, which he also makes a mistake on, since you can't shield block with a broken shield, but that's a minor mistake. However, what isn't a minor mistake, is thinking that you can increase your damage with any weapon by just holding them with two hands, which is completely untrue. You can hold a single handed melee weapon in two hands, but this doesn't change anything, except if the weapon has the Two-Hand trait.
That wraps up his example, but then he has the nerve to say if you didn't follow that, the game might not be for you, which is so stupid. Like, this person overcomplicated the system, and then says that if you didn't keep up with his overcomplicated example, the game might not be for you. That's such a dishonest thing to do.
There is another example he gives at 21:11, but I'm not going to get that much into it, I'm just going to say this; he overcomplicates things again. In reality, when you are calculating attacks, your players already have these bonuses written down, or at least should have. You don't need to start calculating all kinds of bonuses on the fly, you can, but it's so much simpler to just write them down before hand, which is an option he doesn't even acknowledge, he just plays it off as if you need to do these calculations every time, or at least that you would need to, if it wasn't for him inventing this magical chart, which does the same thing as just writing the multiple attack penalties on your character sheet. There's also added overcomplication here from the fact that he attacks with two different weapons, which you don't need to do, you could just use the starknife that hits more consistently and has the deadly trait, and the fact that he targets an enemy that isn't his hunted prey, which is strange, since if you're a ranger, you usually want to focus on one enemy at a time, since you only get bonuses against your hunted prey.
In the end, this video just isn't good, at least when it comes to his thoughts on how "complicated" the system is. It's just full of rules mistakes, and whether it was on purpose or by accident, he did make the system way more complicated than it is in reality.
That’s a lot of words…
*To bad I’m not reading ‘em*
This customization is why I preferred 3.5 to 5. I'm gonna have to give Pathfinder 2e a go at some point
Will you though? Or, will you ultimately end up with PF1 or whatever improving to PF1 comes along instead?
Because PF1's basically 3.75 and pretty solid on customization when you add in a few 3rd party supplements; namely Path of War, Ultimate Psionics, and Spheres of Might/Power.
@@InfernosReaper What is it you hate about 2e so much? It gives the complexity of 3.5/1e without requiring you to min max so much as you get different areas to spend feats in...
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy PF2 adds a lot of complexity in areas where it's not needed, which makes certain parts of gameplay and character building kind of a chore.
>
It feels like a worst of both worlds between D&D5 & PF1, while playing a lot like D&D4... Not my cup of tea really.
@@InfernosReaper Initial complexity perhaps... but it falls away quite quickly when you realize how it streamlines the countless different rulings from things like 3.5 and 4. Instead of having effects that do X but word it differently, they just apply X effect.
Which areas have been made more complex than 1e?
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy Conditions and situational modifiers seem to be that way.
.
Then there's the 3 action economy, which can either result in a very tedious turn(especially with all those conditions and situations)... of course, that's only on the turns where it doesn't basically end up playing out like the standard 3.x d20 action economy of PF1.
Around the 20 mark when you get into the math of things, about 75% of it is actually already written on the sheet. Yes, theres a lot there that goes into building things, but really its dice roll+bonus from sheet +action bonus+conditions vs ac + or - conditions and shield on or off.
So it's only adding up and keeping track of 5 things on the fly for each creature in the combat. Instead of 2 (attack bonus and Adv/DisAdv) for 5e.
@@richardwhaler8717 Well let's see. Normally you have everything written already on your sheet. In the moment, the only things to add and subtract are
1) do I have any conditions hurting me?
2) do I have my Multiple Attack Penalty factored in
3) do my weapon traits help me?
4) is there a buff from a party member?
5) is there cover or something that'll cause a problem
That's really it, and number 4 and 5 also apply to 5e (like bless, or 3/4.cover)
In practice it's nowhere near as harrowing as described here.
@@richardwhaler8717 attack bonus, adv/disadv, bane, bless, bardic inspiration and cover actually
and Pathfinder is even less complicated than 5E here, because bane and bless would simply cancel eachother out, and bardic inspiration and bless do not stack since they're both status bonuses, whereas in 5E you have to roll all 3 dice
You're massively overcomplicating things. You absolutely can run games of PF2 very quickly. One of PF2's biggest advantages is that there's very few numbers that change on the fly. Most of the numbers you're complaining about should just be added into your character sheet and forgotten. The rest are things that only come up once in a while. You talk about status effects that count down each turn, and how confusing that is, but you're ignoring the fact that in practice, those status effects only last one or *maybe* two turns in nearly every circumstance, and aren't even all that common.
I have no idea how you spent an hour and a half fiddling with the math and stats in a Pathfinder 2e game. If you grab any monster in the book, all the numbers you need to know are already calculated for you.
While you are right I also think it really is a point of perspective. He comes from 5e there is like basically only advantage. Coming from Pathfinder 1e the second Edition is a major upgrade simplifiying things a lot and pertaining the comkplexity. However he has a point with the weapon traits. There are a lot of small boni in there that you can't just put into the sheet and forget like Sweep or Backswing. Yes they don't happen that often but to me it already did happen that I did forget them completely.
I disagree. Many of the +1 bonuses have conditions as to when they apply, so I need to calculate my check differently if these two apply but not that one. With versatile performance, "You can use Performance instead of Diplomacy to Make an Impression and instead of Intimidation to Demoralize. You can also use an acting Performance instead of Deception to Impersonate" which means that I can't write down my performance bonus for Diplomacy or Deception, even if I almost always use it.
Weapons and attacks have a bunch of properties which change between the first attack, second attack, third attack AND change whether the target is the same or different from your previous target and change when any status applies to you or the target. You have to recalculate a bunch of numbers on the fly, or ignore a bunch of the fiddly conditions.
@@MrTree421 I come from 5e, and in 5e you don't attack like that: add dex, add prof, add bless (if), add bardic performance (if) add combat style, minus cover, minus range, minus sharpshooter (if) EVERY time lol.
Edit: and ofc you don't do like that even in PF2.
Guy trolled and went full dumb, I hope intentionally.
I agree
@CommandoDude Thank you for saying that omfg I did not understand why they changed it at fucking all
I disagree with your take on conditions.
I think they're not much more spread out than they were. There are plenty of instances where an ability would effectively say "This has the same effect as X spell, cast at 5th level", which forces you to do the same thing as the new conditions system: go look up that information somewhere else.
And when they don't do that, and they instead write out the full length of the effect, it can create confusion: "Is this effect part of the concealed status, or a bonus effect on top of the concealed status?" and things like that.
The advantage is that by making all these conditions relatively bite sized, they become much easier to memorize. It has the same advantage as keywords in mtg: it makes learning new things easier because the conditions are usually brief, and also lets you shortcut learning when a spell or ability references a condition you already know.
I think the disadvantages of "You have to look up and memorize tons of conditions, scattered throughout the book" is a bit overstated, especially since it can be largely solved just by having one, big condition masterlist printed out and somewhere handy. And the advantages of doing it this way are huge.
So, I'm going to slap my keyboard with my thoughts. Just for context: I've been GMing Pathfinder 1st since 2012 and switched over to Pathfinder 2nd when it was released. I also use virtual tabletop. These two details will be important, I promise.
I totally agree that Conditions are both good and a bad thing. The good side is I don't need to remember "okay, so -2 to strength", it's now it's "oh, enfeebled 2!". However, I totally agree that weapon traits still mentally elude me. Not agile, not finesse, but stuff like forceful just seems to escape my mind. I don't think they need a fix exactly, but weirdly just I need to remind myself more. I think in terms of MAP and the sort, good notes (and especially a virtual place that picks up the weight of rules) can be the difference between "uh, is bless on?" and snapping out numbers and confirming.
I did start to lose my mind when you used Varisia as an example of all the adventures being wrapped up. I was thinking about New Thassilonia and how Runelord Belimarius is likely going to make a move at some point, either north or against the other Runelord who controls Thassilonia (who people aren't sure if she's gone legit or is scheming like a champ). There is also the lich Tar-Baphon who is making his moves onto the land. Putting aside whatever the Hobgoblin nation is up to in the long run is beyond people, Galt is still France during the Reign of Terror and Arazni is going to take some major revenge on Geb and Tar-Baphon. I kind of didn't see what you were talking about, except that while there's less plot threads than Pahtfinder 1st it's not really obscure what threads could be pulled.
However, a lore is a hard sell when you're not really enjoying the mechanics and that's fair. Since I'm coming from Pathfinder 1st, Pathfinder 2nd is just this amazing playground of possibility, fun and depth. Made even more that I do tend towards pre-gen campaigns, and Paizo does make excellent ones (Agents of Edgewatch is definitely looking to be pretty amazing) so I don't have to wrestle with combat set up much. However, jumping from D&D 5th of many years into Pathfinder 2nd is going to be rough to handle the crunch and it's going to turn people off. In reverse, I don't really enjoy D&D 5th's simplicity that tends to sacrifice depth.
I was kind of looking forward to you covering Pathfinder 2nd more after this video before I watched it, because it's kind of rare seeing TH-camrs giving the system a punt, but it seems more D&D 5th is in the pipeline. Not a bad thing, just maybe a little disappointing. Thanks for you thoughts though.
I think that could be paliated by using printed cards with the effects. It's what I plan to do before we decide to switch so it requires less page flipping, give the condition cards to the player and they can do your work for you. 😝.
I agree that this may be kind of a problem, I've lost my old D&D group after I moved to the UK (we all started in the 90's with AD&D), and the group I play today with are all 5e noobies, I did manage to sell them on PF 1e after 5e started to bore them, but it was pretty tough for most. I'm currently slowly grooming my nephews into RPG's with Descent and more stuff before we try 5e and my intention is having them play PF in the end before opening them to Chaosium or other more complex systems, but I think that jumping from 5e straight to PF 2e is going to be really tough.
He seems to be enjoying the new Call of Cthulhu, and Ben is pretty good at shedding light into other systems. We'll see.
the question is, where should the depth come from? the system or your imagination/roleplay/background story?
5e leaves a lot to be desired, when it comes to skill versatility. what do i roll for a politics or law knowledge check?
but the lack of skill versatility is pretty much the only thing that bothers our group some times.
we aren't the group that likes to spend hours into combat. we just want to have role play fun and light rules enforce that pretty much.
the depth of a character should come from their background and morals rather than game mechanics, in my opinion. and you have a ton of options to take some class rules and refluff them to your desire. that is actually one of the best things of 5e. the disconnect of fluff and crunch. it makes so many things possible, if you have the imagination.
i also played vampire V20 and V5 and also DSA5 (the black eye 5th edition for non-german fellows) and some minor other systems nobody knows about. and in comparison, 5e is stupidly simple. but it takes a lot of crunch away and results in more role play, where i think, that the other systems lock you a lot more into place with your character.
@@TheBayzent I do actually have two small go-to sections for conditions and exploration activities on my VTT in case people want reminders. I also use symbols you can put on icons to remind myself of "oh, they've got X condition going". Which is a whole different beast.
@@mahe4 The awkwardness about your burning question is to some (like me), you could say "what about both?". I don't think you're wrong to suggest that you could have wonderful imagination/roleplay/background/story depth in D&D 5th, but that it's a binary is a bit odd. However, it is a great burning question that Pathfinder 2nd will always pose: How much complexity is too much complexity? It is deeper I believe, and I think it marries RP/story with system mechanics wonderfully, but I'd be absolutely out of my mind if I didn't think it was more complex and for some (or a lot) that added complexity is too much. Which is totally and absolutely fine. I did mention that I was coming from Pathfinder 1st, and I think I am just used to this degree of complexity, which for others is just way too much.
Similarly, to others spending hours in combat is madness and for me I wouldn't want to do it regularly because then I'd feel like I'd never get anywhere, but some fights like an epic final boss fight you can maybe get away with it taking hours (like I kind of did today, yikes) if there's a lot of spinning wheels to keep the combat dynamic and not just a straight sluggerfest of swapping numbers.
Also, it is important to suit the system to the group. If your group is good for D&D 5th, then all the more power to you and you have a lot of 3rd party stuff to play with (I actually have Humblewood next to me). For me, Pathfinder 2nd is just my go to due to what I'd like out of a RPG system.
Honestly I don't see conditions being a huge deal. Other editions had conditions like that, they just rolled them into spells as exceptions, and it became difficult to see how such things interacted with each other. By putting them all in one set of "these are the things that can happen" it makes it a bit easier to understand conceptually.
The numbers issue at the mid point of the video just kept coming back to math that you should already have done, with the exceptions of a few circumstances a lot of those modifiers were things the player knew would be involved and could have been written down as the static amount which then got modified halving the work at least, it's what you're meant to do in 1st ed too. But that stuff with the shield and damaging equipment is just going to get ignored from the sounds of it, just like it does in other games.
Shield Block is a special ability some characters get. You probably shouldn't be looking up the shield stats mid-combat. It is.. not complicated.
@@Enaronia Especially when there's a place to write down said stats on your CS
The shield stats aren't that complicated. You right down the stats on your sheet and that's it
this too much math. that is point he is making.
@@bulletsunderpressure but it really isn't. It's ability modifier + proficiency + level and maybe a +1 or +2 from a buff but the first three are already calculated on your sheet so the hardest math is "attack modifier +2"
For me it's all that 5e is just not fun for me. It's just too simple. Pathfinder 2ed isn't too complicated for our group and even if it is occasionally clunky/crunchy, that can be trimmed on the fly without much hassle.
Pathfinder first edition was much less forgiving, so I would say that Pathfinder 2ed is much closer to 4and5th edition DnD. Sorry to hear that Puffin isn't within the demographic but I am happy that my groups are. They were outside the Pathfinder1 demographic due to it's complexity, so the better designed 2ed really hooked my players and our other GM in.
I wish you could have a game with the Pathfinder/3.5 complexity for players, but with 5e streamlining for GM's. The reason I sadly said goodbye to 3.5 in favor of 5e and now Cypher System is that it just took me too long to prepare sessions and craft monsters. Now I get to spend time actually creating the adventure, but when I play and only have 1 character to manage, I find myself wishing I could tinker with a few more things.
PF2E is actually closer to 4e than it is to 5e. Ironic for a game that was made in protest to 4e's existence. In time, more people will come to love the great things about 4e.
@@thetimebinder the problem with 4e is the presentation of the power section. If there were less powers and more class features with more fluff like in 3.5, the system would have more initial adopters
But couldnt you also do it the other way around? If you homebrew to trim down complicated/clunky stuff, couldnt you just add more complicated stuff to the more simple system?
If you feel you lack options in combat, discuss with the group what you want to add and come up with some rules for it. Odds are you can find a good solution. Obviously, it depends on the group, but I just dont see why trimming is a non-issue, while adding a few things is.
Pathfinder 2e is complicated... If you do it in the most convoluted way as portrayed in the video... Here's a little tip: come to the game table with your bonuses ALREADY added up. If you are the guy that comes in with an incomplete character sheet, YOU are the one slowing the game down. Don't be that guy.
Thankfully, in their infinite wisdom, Paizo provided a spot on the character sheet where you can write down the bonus for each weapon. You know, like every other popular tabletop RPG?
"But there are multiple attack penalties! -5 for the second attack and -10 for the third!" - Yeah... That's not new dude. Look, It's easy: let's take your Ranger example with, say, a +15 to their attack with a scimitar. Are you ready for it? Write down "+15/+10/+5" and you have all three bonuses you will need for that weapon. Right there in front of you. WOW! And in sequential order too!
"What about my Ranger's Hunted Prey?" - Ah, see, there is a reason Ben picked the Flurry Ranger's Hunted Prey ability for his example, it is one of the few examples where the class alters its multiple attack penalty, which makes things sound more complicated than they actually are. I understand that the approach of the video is to increase drama for comedic effect but, come on, if my mother-in-law who's never played a tabletop RPG before figured it out in the first session without ever reading the rulebook, I'm sure a seasoned gamer/GM can handle it. But back to Hunted Prey: so the Flurry Ranger reduces each multiple attack penalty against their designated Prey from -5 to -3. Just write down "(Prey = +15/+12/+9)" right under your regular attack bonus. Not attacking your prey? Use the first attack bonus line for your roll then. Not. Hard.
SCIMITAR: +15/+10/+5
*(Prey = +15/+12/+9)
"What about a Finesse or Ranged weapon? That uses your Dex instead of Strength!" - Right, and you'll factor that in when you write down the attack bonus because, again, there is a section to write down the bonus for EACH WEAPON. 5e has Finesse too Ben. In fact, Finesse also alters way the weapon's damage is determined in 5e whereas it doesn't in P2e. Meaning Finesse altars less here than it does in 5e.
"Okay sure, but I have this knife with the Agile trait in my other hand! That reduces the-" - Factor it in when you write down the bonuses for THAT weapon.
"Yeah, but Hunted Prey with an Agile weapon alters-" - FACTOR IT IN WHEN YOU RIGHT DOWN THE BONUSES!
"What about the Sweep trait for the scimitar, huh?" - There is a 'traits' section for each weapon too, write it down there.
"But that's one more thing I have to add on!" - It's a +1 circumstance bonus; is 15+1 THAT hard to add up in your head for the rare circumstance that Sweep actually comes up? If you can't handle that, why the hell didn't you just take the bastard sword which doesn't have Sweep? It does more damage than the scimitar anyways. There are options for a reason, pick the simple option if that works better for you.
"It was too complicated for me to figure out which weapon combination did the most damage." - Really? Wow, it's almost as if the game designers had different weapon combinations in mind and factored that in to keep the game balanced.
"But what if I have Guidance cast on me?" - That doesn't come up a lot but, okay, it's a +1 status bonus, you can't add 15+1 up in your head?
"Not on the off chance that I ALSO have a +1 circumstance bonus from Sweep!" - I assumed that you consciously made the effort to get your character into a strategic position specifically to take advantage of that bonus... You didn't add your total bonus of +17 in your head before your turn started?
"No, it happened all by accident and it caught me off guard for the entire 2 minute interim between my turns." - Wait. Wait. Wait... So.... combat rounds move too dynamically for you to calculate 15+2 and have that bonus ready for when it gets around to your turn to roll your own attack... And yet combat is simultaneously too long for combat to be interesting to you?
"Um... I can't calculate 15+1+1" - It's 17.
"Okay, so I was busy second guessing every roll my teammates made. But look, see, I ALSO have a +1 status bonus from Bless, so now it's 17+1+1+1!" - Ignore that, you already said you had a +1 status bonus from Guidance.
"Huh?" - You know.... because bonuses of the same type don't stack... Oh that's right, you fucked up that part in the video, lol!
"Okay, but I ALSO have a status bonus from-" - THEY DON'T STACK! WHY WOULD YOU THINK TWO BLESS SPELLS WOULD STACK WITH EACH OTHER!?
"There are too many temporary bonus types to learn..." - There are two types Ben.... two
"It's the game's fault." - You know you can just click a button on Roll20 and it calculates it for you, right?
This is the problem with rpgs going to the masses. People who cant do basic math have the hardest time, and sadly many people can't
@@mikem2808 i can do basic math. it's part of my job to do so on a daily basis, since i'm an accountant. It's just not for me when i want to have fun. that actually takes me out of the experience.
@@Desgaroth 5e also involves math...
@@Desgaroth I get that, I find rolling two dice for a single action and taking the better of the 2 lessens the luck aspect of the game, to each their own
I've been running pathfinder 2e since the playtest, and also played 5e for several years and I honestly felt like the math level was basically the same for both. 2e has more options for character creation which I love (and is what killed 5e for me, kept playing cause the group was great), but most of those are dealt with on the character sheet. I didn't ever have a player feel the need to go as far down the rabbit hole as Ben does here which I mean could be an issue with my players I guess. But it does feel like he makes the game sound like the most complicated thing ever and I had two guys who'd never played an rpg before and they could handle and make choices about their characters by the end of the first session...
Yeah, he seems like he's trying to justify preferring 5e. Most of the maths he's complaining about is just stuff that should be written on your sheet already. The only things that you have to calculate on the fly are buffs, conditions and circumstance modifiers
I think He over exagereated the calculating problem... From his description it didn't even seem that hard to keep Track of Like everything Made Sense etc.
Given 5e has bounded accuracy and thus smaller numbers, the math is simpler, even assuming all other things being equal (which they aren't).
-A math teacher
@@anthonynorman7545 I mean that seems true, but I would hardly call either math complex. Especially since most of it is done ahead of time for both, either adding in proficiency+mod or skill+mod. I suppose PF2E has more + and - but it never felt to bad. The level of math for saying 28+8=36 (2e max level, max skills) and 6+5 = 11 (5e max level) doesn't seem that different at least to me.
@@stepfanhuntsman5470 having a larger range of potential outcomes makes the math harder.
I'm a gm and player for pf2e and it's amazing as a DM.
This, even level 1 creatures has other stuff than just "ehm, it bites you once and its turn is over"
As a note of correction:
When you use the “Shield Block” Reaction, any damage greater than the shields hardness is not split between you and the shield, rather both you and the shield take the total remaining damage.
Also it’s important to remember the type of armor a creature is wearing. Medium and Heavy armor have traits like “Plate, Composite, etc...” as these traits provide a second layer of resistance to damage of specific types (slashing, piercing, bludgeoning). So you really need to be aware what type of damage a weapon deals.
I sort of like that because it gives different types of attack a different effect, but I'm not sure I would be able to spice up encounters that much anymore...
Hooooooooly shiiiiiiiiiit!!! Its sooooooooooooooo muchhhhhh more complicated!
As far as I can remember, only Champions can use the special armour abilities. It isn't available to everyone, only specific classes.
And don't forget what the main components of the armor are. I got flash fried by shocking grasp in my scale mail.
No, the armor type of an enemy does not matter. Those traits you're referring to, only apply to high-level Fighters and Champions, and those players can deal with those details themselves.
I mean... the math in 2E is so easy. There's a grand total of 3 floating modifiers to keep track of. Everything else is already written on the character sheet. A level 1 Fighter is gonna swing for +9 on the attack roll, +4 for the second attack, and -1 for the third. If they've got a circumstance or status bonus, it might be a few numbers higher. That's pretty fucking easy.
At tables where a few players have an irrational phobia of numbers, just let someone else do the math.
Pathfinder 2E overall has much easier rules to understand. Case in point: There's absolutely no rule in DnD5E that prohibits casting multiple non-cantrip spells in a turn. No, seriously. But because of how confusing standard actions, bonus actions, and movement, (which isn't an action but also is), can be, many players believe that rule exists.
I feel like the attack walkthrough was intentionally explained in a over-complicated manner, especially the bit at the beginning.
It was. The odds are you aren't going to be a Ranger with reduced multi attack penalty, wielding a finesse and non-finesse weapon together, where one has sweeping.
@@TheCuddleCactus and even if you are, you have your set attack pattern that never changes. You don't need to memorize BOTH the regular -5 penalty AND your -2 penalty. The latter replaces the former. And that's your new reality for as long as your ranger lives.
It was. The most complicated PC on my group is a Ranger and we never had to think about half of what he was saying in the video.
Depends on where you are on the game and what your character is. But usually people have already streamlined a lot of their combat actions and that was if you were going to attack 3x in a row which isn’t advised.
Came here to say this. PF2e is far from perfect, but he made it seem like we have to learn calculus every time we go to attack, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Your base attack boost is literally written on your character sheet, then all you’re adding is small boosts that should be pretty consistent.
Sorry 2e didn't click for you, but thank you for checking it out. Though I think you may have made the rules sound more complicated than they really are, and you're definitely overthinking the world setting. I've loved 2e since it's come out, and I find 5e to be a bit generic, but to each their own. There's plenty of room at the table for everyone!
An case in point, 2E players are the types who go "Duurrr...5E too generic, me prefer Pathfinder because makes muh seem superior with muh constant number crunching and all mechanics!", combined with the snobby elitism and then they wonder why newer players avoided Pathfinder like a plague..well, besides that the system is catered to nerds who cannot move from 3.5.
@@Lawlaliet 5e IS shallow. It's biggest quality is that it's easy to get into but it's just unsatisfying for people who want more depth. That's not elitism, that's preference.
This system mechanically reinforces the idea that you need to cooperate with your teammates and complement eachother. The math is a LOT easier to do than what he's explained. Honestly a little mad because 90% of his rambling was just listing off permanent bonuses to attack that always apply to your character. My god just write the total on your sheet like you're supposed to and be done with it.
@@philllllllll Pffft...Preference? Yeah right, all PF players are blatant elitist pricks who are so smug and up their own arseholes I imagine they know what they had for lunch yesterday. Frankly, you can blow me on the "oh the math is much easier" when it's not. It's only easy for sad losers who don't have a life and will gladly sit on their asses and crunch numbers because to them that's the definition of "fun and exciting".
@@Lawlaliet Gotta say, bro, you arent making a good case for 5e players being better than PF players.
@@Lawlaliet I'm sorry you feel that way. Take care, and goodbye.
As a pf2 gm, i know how this feels. I usually tell my players that we're gonna apply the rules we remember on the spot. No backsies. I know it's lazy, maybe, but it turns a 1 hour fight into a 15 minutes fight, sometimes
As a 5e DM, I do the same thing since my group always forgets stuff like concentration or I forget about abilities like pack tactics.
In addition to the idea of high DCs preventing the untrained characters from succeeding, some actions are also just straight up locked behind training, so like a character that is untrained in thievery just simply can’t pick the lock. It just ain’t gonna happen. They need to find a different way. I LOVE this choice.
It also gets rid of the problem 5e has of a wizard failing an arcana check but a int 8 barbarian succeeded because of luck, in pathfinder 2e unless you are at least trained on something it is not possible to succeed higher DCs, and players get enough skill increases to be either trained on lots of things or an master of few skills.
@@kamencraftbrasil4367 yup
Spécialisation matters a lot
Wizard tend to succeed at crafting or using knowledge based checks
Rogue be rogues ect
So.. identical to D&D 3.5 then.
That's convenient.
@@kamencraftbrasil4367 I don't see why you can't say you need Proficiency in it to succeed. Like how thieves tools can only be used that way. Same thing
Honestly, PF2e's calculations are super simple when you're coming from 1e. There's very few bonuses either way.
When you're having to factor in BAB+STR or DEX+Circumstance+Competence+Enhancement+Insight+Luck+Morale+Size vs 10+DEX+Armor+Shield+Deflection+Natural Armor+Dodge (which unlike other bonuses can stack)+Enhancement+Insight+Luck+Size...it can get crazy.
Though there are ways to fight defensively for some AC boosts, and Power Attack could be used to lower to hit in order to boost damage.
Keep in mind, you could also be facing ability damage to Strength or Dexterity, making you recalculate that, or possibly a boosted stat. Oh lord if you're put in an anti-magic field and you're rocking multiple magic-based improvements to your stats, AC, Attack, etc.
Nevermind if you're being flanked, flat footed, charged, etc. They also might be targeting your Touch AC, which is awful for many varieties of characters, but not Monks.
Speaking of Monks, they get to add their Wisdom and an extra bonus to their AC, even when Flat Footed or Touch AC. Unless they're Scaled Fist Monks, an Archetype that lets them add Charisma to AC instead.
It's a fun game, but changes to the math through assorted things can complicate things.
yeah, it's for stupid snowflakes, and theyu got rid of all the good and cool races for pussy pugs
I can't believe you missed out on Profane and Sacred bonuses like a total noob! /s
I'm coming from a Roll20 1e game. It doesn't really seem all that difficult to me. Usually, all that math is done ahead of time, and I don't see why it couldn't be done that way for actual TT. I know my martial based character has a +13 to dex based attacks and a +9 to strength, right now. +2 to strength when raging. THAT'S IT. There are some other modifiers, like mounted or enlarged, but nothing insane.
Easy solution. Make an excel spreadsheet and keep bonuses labeled. Change what needs to changed and keep the formula going.
@@Truex007 It really depends upon what challenges you face and how active your party is at buffing. Normally, yeah, not a lot changes once set. But ability score damage, buff spells, size changes, Dispels, etc can change things up. It really helps whether on PC or on paper to clearly indicate where your bonuses come from, so it's easy to change if something happens, good or bad.
Really, my point was 2E is comparatively simple. Stuff like Ability Score damage is gone, there's fewer different types of modifiers, so even when there's changes, you have to worry about less of them.
"...Crafting, but that'll hold up the game..." only in the same way that scouting ahead to see where the enemies are, or schmoozing with a noble to get an invite to a particular event, would. One player's character will generally be "the one that does that thing" and the rest will get to watch a scene involving their teammate.
For keeping track of your massive amount of different types of attack, with their various buffs both from yourself, and other players, i recommend having a blank piece of paper next to you, which you can quickly write any buffs another character does to you during THEIR turn (just the name of the buff, and the numerical impact). I like your grid system, where you had the different weapons/styles of attack, and the number of attacks this turn. Once you've set that grid up, you just choose which attack you're doing, and use the number written in the relevant box, no need to manually add up weapon rune, ability modifier, etc every single time.
At the start of your turn, you then just total the bonus given to you by other players, and choose which attack you want to use. It'll take about 30-40 seconds to take your turn, including the to-hit and damage maths.
Yeah, note taking solves a lot of the problems he has with the system's complexity
Using a pen and paper? In a pen and paper RPG? HOW DARE YOU?
Nah but really, the combat should be relatively quick after a few sessions of learning.
I have a feeling all of the combat math could be simplified drastically with some planning and a pen and paper...
If only the game came with a pre-designed sheet of some kind on which you could write the various stats and numbers for your character. A sort of, "character sheet" you might say ;-)
And yeah, Puffin really needed to pull his head out of his ass before writing the script for this video.
I mean... yes, but it would still take a while. It would work and even make a lot of sense. But for the DM it would be just to much (from what I can tell). It's like Taking20 said in their video, its a great game to play, not to DM
@@giggabiite4417 Except that stuff is written down in the monster stats? Giant Crab's claw shows up at +10 (+5/+0), for instance. You might need to figure out a bonus or two if another monster has buffs but that might already be written down for some in the bestiary.
Lets say you prepare it before game, then the players ignore that plotline and do something else, which has stuff you haddent prepared. Unless you prepare charts for all monsters in the game (or at least a large amount) it would be mostly uneffective.
Fantasy grounds unity makes PF2 a pleasure to play. FG removes a lot of the math grind and makes combat a breeze.
Once upon a time my friends and I played 2nd edition religiously. Unfortunately after graduation, everyone went their separate ways and I no longer had a group to D&D with. Although I tried to keep up when 3rd edition was released just a year later, I eventually lost touch with all things D&D.
Fast forward 18 years later when I found myself working at an IT Support call center and surrounded by D&D playing nerds and the feels for the game all came rushing back. Trying to jump back in to the game at 5e was not as easy as I was expecting. So much had changed, there were so many new things to know about the game play that I almost felt as though I had never played before.
Fortunately I found a group of new players that were in a group led by a veteran player who was teaching them how to play Pathfinder. I was lucky enough to be invited to join their group and have loved playing Pathfinder ever since. We have yet to try Second Edition for Pathfinder, but I am excited to give it a go.
Pathfinder 1 is nearly identical to D&D 3rd ed.
Either is infinitely better than 5E.
I've been running a PF2 game for about a year now. Love it.
Puffin forest 2.0
Is the game that confused or pf is jokeing?
Sames
are the palyers snowflake pussies? Because 2e looks liek for snowflake pussies. I took a looke at 2e and hated it immediately, i ain't paying a DIME on 2e, I'm pirating it if anything
Only "snowflakes" whine about "snowflake pussies bro" you are the weak and fragile one bro. :)
I'm glad I've moved on from 5e to PF2e, because 5e characters start to feel the same after a while. If you've played one College of Swords bard, you've played them all, whereas I've played 2 Animal Order druids in 2e, and because of the freedom in character creation, they felt very different.
Yeah I have that issue with 5E. It's all very samey and everyone takes the same feats, the same spells, etc. I haven't got a chance to actually play PF2 yet, but I want to give it a shot as a 5E replacement. Does PF2 have a more diverse spell list or is it just a bunch of fireball spam like 5E?
@@taragnor people being samey sounds like problem with people.
@@taragnor The spell list for Pathfinder is much longer than 5e. Now, this means you get some very niche spells like Negate Aroma, but it also means you can find a spell for almost any situation
@@Illusive_Guy : That's cool. One thing I'm sick of in 5E is the fact that every wizard pretty much takes the exact same spells. It's all shield, invisibility, shatter, fireball. For clerics, healing word, spiritual weapon, spirit guardians. Gets really old when every single character ever takes it.
@@Illusive_Guy Negate Aroma sounds like something that should be a necessity to anyone better off than a peasant in any medieval fantasy setting. Though, there'd really need to be an area of effect higher level spell to make locations smell less dirty, too.
I am playing a draconic-bloodline sorcerer in 2e. It seems to me that the "linear martial/quadratic caster" issue has been mitigated. I like that change. Mostly, I like the new rule. In any case, almost any game is fun with a good group of people. And I like the way cantrips scale with character level. On the down side, I feel like the ancestries (races) have been homogenized and lost distinctiveness.
the have distinct traits at least you can get more race abilities and no feel like they have no impact like Cough 5e cough.
Every time I watch a video of a group moving from 5e to PF2e, they seem to take the most complicated senecio they could possibly come up with in their first game. I bet you were this confused with your first D&D experience, don’t forget how many house rules are used in D&D to fix the system. Try playing it again without any house rules or adjustments or try PF2e with whatever house rules (simplifying things more to start). I believe on one of the first few pages of the Core Rulebook it says ‘The game is yours’, in other words remove the conditions and effects until you have the brain capacity for them like the beginner box does.
I've never seen someone so over complicate adding bonuses before. If you actually do that in combat all the time no wonder combat is so slow, write the numbers down and your going to only have a few little numbers at most to have to deal with each turn. How you say it you make a turn that could take maybe 30 seconds tops (in a case where you got a bunch of crazy things going on) to take several minutes. Really being organized will make not only pathfinder games faster but also drastically cut down on your DnD time.. or really most dice games.
True just have the information handy. It doesnt have to be a chore every time
Those games are called pen & paper games for a reason.
By that comparison though games like 5e run much quicker because there's much less to worry about and reference. So relative to 5e, P2e still ends up a slog.
@@TheAnimeAtheist So given 5e you need to look things up still too, lets say it takes you for some reason 1 extra minute to look it up since let's say you were very disorganized so that information isn't at hand. So that 1 extra minute writing that detail down that you can just then use what you .
Then when in play, you take the exact same time you do in 5e and P2e to look at what number without having to worry about referencing it. Combat time is exactly the same. I don't really see where this 'slog' comes into play.
@@Asin24 You don't need to look things up nearly as much though, that was my point. You have references to references to references in a lot more places in P2E than you do in 5e. Plus there's a lot more to reference and write down on a character sheet. A lot of people say well an experienced P2E group is still fast, yeah I know, and an experienced 5e group is much faster. There's just a lot less stuff to remember and reference in game to slow things down.
I don't understand why it's such a hard thing to just admit the point. P2E runs slower, it has a lot more shit going on so obviously it will. Why is it such a big deal that P2E has to beat 5e in everything, it doesn't. P2E wins with customization and 5e wins with faster and easier combat.
If you want my honest opinion I'm not a fan of either system really. This isn't me trying to simp for 5e by running against P2E, this is just me giving an honest and obvious assessment of the systems comparatively.
I swear P2E fanboys have issues with reality, that's why a lot of people are turned off by their advocates, they actively misrepresent the advantages/disadvantages the system has. It's rather sickening and it turns people away from it.
Mostly loved your video, though my main three points of criticism here are the following.
1) You mention Multiclassing but don't really dive into it at all. The way 2e handles multiclasses and archetypes (especially with the new Advanced Players Guide) is a HUGE win in favor of the system and the customization of the character you're playing. I think you should look into that stuff because you may be missing out.
@@rakurasmerlith It's amazing, if 5th e is "Feats are compacted together and don't really matter!" PF2 is "EVERYTHING IS FEATS! Racial abilities? FEATS! Class abilities? FEATS!! Unique skill actions? FEATS!!!" Multiclassing is essentially taking a feat that gives you some generic abilities from that class then let's you take Class abilities from that Class instead of your base Class when you level up. And THE BEST PART of the system is that you can switch out feats during downtime. So if you dislike a feat or ability you can re-train it without having to bargain with your DM.
I haven't gotten the advanced player guide yet :'( I signed up for the Paizo subscription program and am waiting for it to arrive in the mail though :).
@@t.estable3856 Archives of Nethys has the rules up, and I think they're generally doing it day of release. I'll admit it's not the best, and I prefer the books, when I can, but as a reference source, or for finding something I otherwise might have missed, it's pretty useful.
@@GroundThing Oh yeah, I'm running an R20 campaign and Archives has been a godssend. Nothing beats the tangibility of a hardcover at the end of the day, but the efficiency of digital is just too useful.
Gloomfall, I agree with you, though keep in mind Ben is coming from the perspective of an experienced DM for 5E. As much as PF2 has improved a lot of things over PF1, 5E is still easier to play and run.
I really like the level scaling because single monsters are actually threatening, unlike in DnD where a level 4 party can easily knock down a young green dragon.
The only issue I see is that a level 2 party can never face like a level 6 monster. They have to run at sight or die
A level 2 party fighting a level 6 monster would be an extreme encounter... that's not run on sight or die, but it is perilous, but if there party is at full strength and can get an advantage of some sort, they can win. But at least one character is going to drop in the attempt, and it *could* be a TPK. Level+5 is usually the unwinnable line.
@@michaelburchett5733 dnd5 concept of what is a "Deadly" encounter ranges from "TPK" to "one round fight". Its really not great.
@@MasterVolton True, and Challenge Rating with players that know their stuff is a joke.
@@michaelburchett5733 A cave troll got a +16 and 2d10+8 damage and 135 HP (You can even ignore the HP regen). I dont see how a party could win (Withou having to be a special comp), but I never threw a deadly encounter at my players. I mean he will crit all casters away and with a slightly above average he will also crit martial characters. Did you have any Experience?
@@coolboy9979 Level+4 encounters tend to be more cinematic with the PCs preparing in advance for them (So typically, they would be the fight against the bbeg at endpoint of a campaign). For your cavern troll example, its sunlight vulnerability is a built-in way to make the fight more manageable.
If I built a campaign around culminating in a fight between a level 2 party and a cavern troll, I'd expect the fight to be a fight where the party needs to survive the troll's onslaught while the sunlight deals with the actual monster. I'd want the party to focus on staying alive while keeping the troll angry enough that it doesn't retreat away from the sun. Some players might go down (with its +16 to hit, the troll probably hits on a 3 and crits on a 13), but it's an extreme encounter, they're meant to be extremely dangerous
My group is switching from 1e to the Pf 2e remaster that just came out. We have been playing 1e for quite some time ...but yeah...this is much more streamlined and really feels like a sort of an update to it. We have never really been into hard multiclassing so that isn't really going to be a problem....Now that Remaster is out I might do beginner and deep dive videos, or a guide on how to port from 1e to 2.5e (as some call the remaster)
I've been playing PF2e (from 5e) and loving it! I've been having a blast playing as a scoundrel rogue!
I find it funny I'm the opposite despite starting in 5e I hate the characters they are all so generic you pick 3 to 5 skills and a option of like three builds any given class while pathfinder has so many options and so many unique character options
So ... What you're saying is I want to play 5e with more feats and 3e magic items.
Sure, if you want to simplify an entire system into such a basic sentence.
I really don't see what you gain by simplifying it like that, it's such a reductionist statement, even if it is a joke.
@@gorade1901 What the fuck was the point of this statement? What do you gain for being a bitch about a joke?
@@centurionsfist417 Because I think there's a point to be made about the joke. Some people really are gonna think like that, and I don't think that mindset is very useful. What do YOU gain by bitching about my point?
@@gorade1901 You're mindset is of a over-nihilistic pussy who only points out the negatives in life. There is nothing to gain in almost everything. This is about little twelve year olds still in school like you, being a bitch about real peoples shit. Shut the fuck up and go record your band teacher some more.
Centurions Fist complains about negativity while being as toxic as Chernobyl
after coming to pf2e after the ogl debacle, i feel like me and puffin played different games
It seems like you did. I enjoy playing 5e as well but I feel like it has really pacified players with its simplicity.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф ... pf2e is better game, and thats coming from someone who ran d&d for 15 years now. this isnt spite, its understand what made d&d 5e a bad game and seeing how other systems have fixed it. i hate to tell you, but 5e isnt even a good tabletop roleplaying game. infact i dont hate to tell you at all, i feel its important to inform you, try another system, literally any system, its only 5e that breaks down completely past 8th level.
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф dang that told me, I'll take my 15 years GMing and ill see myself out. For shame, me 🤣
Maybe I should start on the systems you've written? I'll check them out, they sound like they're going to be the most superior systems I've ever played, I'm looking forward to never needing another system in my life, what are they called? 🙂
@@YaBoiSebas absolutely. I feel like my groups have become much more creatively freed, I'm starting to see characters that arent just generic carbon copies of other character we've seen 20 times
@@МаратГабдуллин-б5ф no, it's supposed to be a qualifying statement.
"I've run 15 years of DnD - and I've never been as impressed by anything put out over in DnD as I have been by pf2e since swapping over my main system" it was also an important qualifier as you jumped at me and stated that I play pf2e because I'm just hating on DnD, when if that was the case why did I run it for so long? I then brought it up again when it clearly became a competition to you and said I'll take my opinion elsewhere... Are you impressed then? Because that's sad if you are. While I use my years to teach new GMs all kinds of systems that would suit what they're looking for, including DnD, PF, Cypher, FATE, Shiver, GURPS, M&M, Red, all kinds of systems. You seem to use your years as a competition of some kind? 🤨 Which I can genuinly say I have never witnessed in the ttrpg community before this whole thing and is pretty disturbing
Also in still waiting to be sent the names of your two systems, I can't wait to see 2 examples of perfect TTRPGs, you claim to understand what makes a system work and what doesn't much better than anyone else possibly could, so I'm very much looking forward to trying out your stuff.
Ben, haven’t finished vid but one, running all those numbers just reminded me how much of a math nerd I am an why I want teach it as a career, and two shield block reduces the damage by hardness then both the shield and owner take the rest, the hardness already absorb what it can the rest is felt by both
Wanting to teach math because you like math is like becoming a hot dog vendor because you like pigs.
I say this as a teacher.
jquickri i love this
jquickri 😹 well I to be a MATH teacher cuz I like math, I want to be a teacher cuz I love helping others learn grow and children
@@Trigger99X that's great. And honestly I was feeling a little snarky but I don't want to turn you off the career. I'm just an English teacher who has seen too many teachers who wanted to share their love of books or whatever and didn't last long. But if your focus is on the kids like you said you should be fine. Good luck.
jquickri I’ve done a some student teacher learning and it’s weird every teacher I studied under, who wasn’t a teacher I had personally, always mentions the fact that I won’t make a lot of money. Which I responded with “If I was in it for the money then I’m in it for the wrong reasons.” 😹
I hope (havent played pf2e but I HOPE) that the three types of bonuses, circumstance, blah and blah, solve some of these problems. Like, it's supposed to be set up that you're only ever adding three bonuses to a roll, one of each
It's way simpler than he explains.
He just doesnt fet the super vital detaol that its only the three types of bonuses. Which is why this review is frankly badly made. He didnt make sure he knew the rules properly and complained about something for the vast majority of the video on an issue of his own making.
Listens to him running through all the numbers.
*Laughs in Shadowrun*
I mean, he WAY over complicated his math and made it seem way worse than it is. He made it seem like you need to go through every single bonus every single turn but like...if you're doing that then you either have some short term memory issues or you didn't do anything at all to prepare for a session outside of show up with a sheet of paper and a pencil. Normally I love Puffin, but here he's complaining about a problem he created for himself and it's not how the system has worked at all for my players, all of which have never played PF2e before.
As for Shadowrun, it's not that bad either. It's a bit more math, but otherwise most of your numbers stay the same and the GM tells you if you can add or subtract dice or whatever.
Omg! I felt this comment so much.
L A U G H S I N G U R P S ! ! ! !
That's what I was thinking too, this sweet summer child.
I remember shadowrun, I played two games and still have no idea how to make a character, made a decker both times and it turned out I needed to look through like 6 different books to see all of the programs and actions I could take.
I'm glad you talked about the kind of player you are at the end because it made it pretty clear what types of players are going to prefer Pathfinder more than you did.
Re: "These big bonuses help protect player specializations" in PF2E vs D&D5E
In 5E they are protected at least in the modules where they call out that a skill check is only for those proficient in the skill. 5E has made it so that some checks are gated by having proficiency (and therefore training) in the first place. This means that the Barbarian, if they were trained in ancient runes (History? Religion? Arcana? Guess it depends on the context) could do a lucky roll compared to the bard, however the bard would probably have a better chance due to class bonuses and probably investing skill points. If the Barbarian didn't have proficiency, then they wouldn't be able to roll at all. It's up the GM in 5E whether to gate skill checks behind proficiency or not.
Also just wanted to say PF2E having a lot of choices isn't that surprising, considering PF1E was a splat book munchkin's dream (The Toys 'r' Us catalog comparison was a top notch summarization) in the first place, though I am glad that Paizo is pursuing a different route than 5E in, while simplifying some things, they're also embracing a lot of choices and options to give contrast against 5E so that it gives a different play experience.
I've always felt that GMs should gate checks like that. You can't do brain surgery with no medical training for example (I'm thinking in a modern setting of course). Alternately make it a really difficult check and success just gets you a tiny victory ("ok your lvl1 wizard actually succeeds in hitting the dragon with a staff. He takes 1 damage.") Players have to be semi-realistic about what their character can try. I say semi because...rule of cool should affect it a little bit.
In 3.5 you were also gated by skill proficiency. If you didn't have at least one rank in a skill like open lock or a particular knowledge then you couldn't make checks in those things. I don't know how 5e handled things, but 3.5 made it somewhat harder to get skills, being that if it wasn't your class skill then it would cost extra points to get ranks. So anyone who wasn't a wizard/bard/rogue wouldn't have the points to throw into random skills.
The problem were from dms being either fast and lose with the rules or they just don't know the rules.
@@WildBluntHickok Yeah I mostly agree, though I feel there's a balance too. I think on one hand there's the logical aspect like you describe... brain surgery is specialized, and so it's about specialization which should be gated; that's what proficiency is gating. If we were to use the medicine skill about the brain on gating vs setting DCs, then an ungated (no prof needed) medicine check would be perhaps the parts of the brain and roughly where they are; the DC would control how much detail you know about the location of the parts and a kinda-sort of what they do. The gated thing that requires proficiency is the techniques to possibly treat it, with the DC going up depending on how extensive or how obscure, or how delicate the area needing to be treated is (though DC is going to be high anyway in Forgotten Realms for a medicine check, since medicine is general).
That's how I'd roughly adjudicate, though gating and DC setting can be highly dependent on the setting, so it is context specific in that regard.
Separate from that it's about player participation vs certain players shining, an d I think using the previous logic helps establish where anyone -might- contribute but the one with proficiency is the one who will probably have an idea of what the actual solution is.
Though a much longer video, paizo guys are doing a gameplay of 2e granted they're all involved with paizo and know the game well... But it does show how 2e is expected to be played/enjoyed.
Honestly prefer it over 5e.
Seconding the recommendation for Band of Bravos. It's very enjoyable!
@@mmerrill6181 The Knights of Everflame is another good choice. Jason Bulmahn also GMs this campaign.
I'll probably get to PF2e after I finish all of the PF1e APs.
We're currently 3 APs in.
Question - if you want to play in the official 2nd edition situations, why not purchase a 2nd edition Adventure Path? There are two out now with the 3rd just starting.
Seriously, I've really been enjoying Age of Ashes.
We started with Curse of the Crimson Throne, and did Hell's Rebels and Hell's Revenge shortly after, then Kingmaker last year which was awesome. During Lockdown we finished Rise of the Runelords, and are currently finishing Mummy's Mask. They are great but I think we will jump to 2e after we finish Mummy's Mask, I got the PDF's and an AP thanks to Humble Bundle. Only AP I would like to run from 1e is Iron Gods but I'm the only one interested in it.
Unfortunately I'm my group's DM, only one I did play instead of run were Curse of the Crimson Throne, which my ex did (with some of my assitance, she was a new GM back then) and Kingmaker which another player did.
You may want to skip a bunch of 1e APs... There are 24 of them! (if you include the four 3.5 paths)
Yeah, I kept listening to him talk about how stale the world felt, but there are 3 very distinct APs you could go through if you don't want to go through the trouble of a homebrew adventure, and if you do want a homebrew adventure, why have it in a published world?
@@ronaldsanfran Actually, I'm having fun so far with all of them so far. I think the only one I didn't care for overall (mainly due to lost potential) was the 4th chapter of the 3rd AP, Second Darkness. The PCs go in to do spy-stuff, but yet all of the information is handed to them almost all at once in a "I'll give you this if you do me a favor" quest. They really weren't finding anything of worth through their own snooping. Most of the time was really just doing a guard/maid-service mini-game. The set-piece in that one was almost needed to make the chapter feel like it actually had anything to it. :/
As for some being in 3.5, I found online conversions for two of them (Second Darkness and Legacy of Fire), and the first two (Rise of the Runelords and Curse of the Crimson Throne) were already converted to PF1Ee and sold as single books through Paizo. (Both were fantastic.)
You do know you add everything into your weapon attack ON the sheet right? You only have to ask for the things that have changed in the encounter so you can process the system properly. If you aren't doing that of course combat is going to take an hour or more. But if you condense the numbers that are for sure there ( weapon bonus, magic items, feats, etc. ) you will significantly cut down the amount of time. Cause you just adjust down or up depending on the fight itself. Ain't hard.
Been away from table top for roughly 15 years but one thing I do remember is there is always one player in any group who is not paying any attention until their turn comes up - so while you can pre-calculate all the math you want, that one person will always take 20-30 minutes each time the table comes to them, until you boot them out, at which point you discover they were dating another key player, were the brother and/or sister of a third player, and gave a 4th player a ride - so your entire group just walked out the door. Even though they were the ones asking you to boot that player. ;)
That noted... if you somehow overcome that crisis, I think the idea of using "a pile of generic monsters" with all their math pre-done is actually a good idea for most of your fights, then put in a "boss fight" every other session or so. Like we see in video games. It's OK to have your players go through a half a dozen "trash pulls" facing off against "Elf #3" before they get to the head elf and your Orc heroes can finally match up against the 6-fingered elf ranger that led the slaughter of their homeland... not every single fight needs to be of major consequence.
At this point you can turn all those crazy "this game has too many options" issues to your advantage, and make the fight against the '6-fingered elf' feel like it has more consequence than "Bob, it's your turn; roll d20 to hit"...
7:30 I much prefer using the status effects like that because once I learn those status effects once and I see them mentioned on another ability, I know instantly what it does, whereas, in D&D 5e, everything is so overly verbose and a pain to read in the moment. I'm a slow reader when under time pressure, so anything to modularize the rules and cut down on duplicate words in giant text blocks is a plus for me.
But that's the genius of p2. You can make your characters more or less complicated. You didnt have to dual weild two very different weapons you choose too.
Exactly
Still it feel unnecessary. I know that some people like match games, but in long run all that additional calculations don't impact actual quality of the story, or at least not in positive way.
@@TheRezro I've built multiple rangers in p2 and I've gotta say p2 rangers are hands down the best iteration of rangers. If dual wielding is too much math for you play a barbarian.
Or avoid flurry rangers because that is one of the most math insensitive build posible.
@@drabheart9426 I didn't say no. But I never understand why people like over-complicated systems as in this case? I understand preference of realism, but not with cost of convoluted gameplay. There are far better systems then that.
I love you PF, but it really feels you went out of your way to explain this as far more complicated than it ever needs to be. Once you learn the game (all games have a learning curve, ofc), playing it is never as you described. In fact, I find that the three action economy and balance make combat much more fluid. This is the only edition I've ever run 7 full length combat encounters in one 3 hour session (in addition to exploration and roleplay) - that's incredibly efficient combat. The learning curve is higher than 5e, true, but not nearly as high as PF1 and the payoff in dramatic conflict, character options and unique gameplay is well worth it imho.
The only thing i think 5e has on Pathfinder 2e is that you can easily wing it on almost any situation. I am still never going back but goddamn it can get annoying when i'm not prepared enough, especially when it comes to monsters and npcs.
Technically, with how all monsters use similar stat blocks at every CR, you could just quickly throw together something and throw an appropriate ability on for flavor.
5e also has better 3rd party products(especially once the Spheres of Might/Power stuff gets an official port), which make it a highly customizable system without bogging down the gameplay.
I really wanted to like the system, but PF2 is just a worst of both worlds between 5e & PF1, sadly.
@@InfernosReaper 5e practically ONLY has 3rd party content, and that has come out over half a decade... 2e has been out for a year now and has more content than 5e. How is it the worst of both 1e and 5e?
@@ChivalrousyWalrusy PF1 has more/better content both 1rst & 3rd party, including solid solutions for the system's major inherent problems.
.
D&D5's a more streamlined. Thanks to that, it's easier for 3rd parties to add good material to customize characters, as well as add just the right amount of complexity to the game for each group's individual tastes.
.
3.x d20 may be my preferred system group overall, but also I'm down to do some 5e d20 easily thanks to the support it's gotten and ease of play.
I find the guides in the GMG make creating an npc or monster on the fly fairly painless.
Me hearing Puffin talk about his playstyle and then remembering that literally this weekend:
- I bought the Legendary Kineticist 2nd edition from legendary games.
- ported my homebrew kineticist in my 2e game over to it.
- played it
- then after the session wondered whether the iterative blast class feat OR the focused blast infusion is stronger
- then proceeded to spend 20-30 minutes calculation average damage with to-hit percentages, doing it again because I disregarded crit doubling and finally
- coming to the conclusion that 'assuming 0 resistances/weaknesses' iteratives are better if you can hit them on a 12 and focused blast is better if you can't.
And that entire process being really fun for me.
I also bought the legendary Kineticist, its so sick
@@paulrudd85 It is, I am a bit sad that it leans more towards combat than utility but it is really good in combat. (Also sad that aether is no longer as viable ... but it is still good)
your profile picture says all we need to know :P
@@off-meta9962 Not entirely sure what connotation you are referring to, but I'll take it as being a clockwork zombie.
I’m running PF2 for new players.
The math he’s describing isn’t something you generally have to do at the table after each roll. People typically have the big crunch already calculated on their character sheets and have to adjust for status effects.
Which, to be fair, there is a lot to track. But printing a sheet of the core actions and combat status effects. Or using player aids like spell and feat cards to succinctly spell out what each spell and specialty feat does takes the mental load off of the players. At the table my players turns are: I do X, Y (rolls dice, I declare success or failure, they roll damage or apply effect), and then Z.
As far as the DM goes. Status effects are a lot to keep track of, to be fair. But if you make yourself a handy DM screen (the stock one from Paizo IS pretty flush with easy to access information.)
The biggest error that I’ve seen PF2 DMs run into are how to Calculate the various Circumstance Bonuses (which are a vast swath of the bonuses) is that... you DO NOT CALCULATE THEM. You just apply the highest bonus.
As far as NPC equipment stats. Either don’t track them at all and just have them grant their AC bonus when used (skip the whole damage reduction part). Or just be general: Players hit (reduce the damage by hardness and apply broken. OR destroy the shield on a crit or high damage hit.) If the players hit again, the shield is destroyed. Done.
I do enjoy most of your videos, but the who section about how complicated the combat is feels a bit disingenuous.
Ok, You made this sound WAY more complicated then it is when you actually play.
It is quite complicated for players outside the min-maxer niche.
Players really need to be expected to have most of their math for attacks and damage figured out ahead of time in games as complex as Pathfinder. I like the idea of an attack matrix.
Ah, to live in a perfect world where players plan their actions before their turn.
@@mandocomando9444 VVT table top like forge or roll20 fix this.
@@Anthonyspartan514 interestingly enough we did switch to foundry and it did run so much smoother. Like it was actually a playable game. We had some tech compatibility issues and some bugs, but it was 100% better. More importantly we didn’t have to change our entire sheet whenever we leveled up.
@@mandocomando9444 that’s great to hear glad you found one of the best ways to play pathfinder 2e
45:00 I don't know where you're coming from when you say that the character creation comes at the expense of the gameplay. Like, you dismissively say that shields just have three stats instead of one, but those three stats let you create dramatic turnarounds, jumping in to block attacks for yourself and your party members.
Not to mention that Shield Block is an option for the character, it's never mandatory to use it and track shield HP/BT.
Scaling, Scaling, Scaling.
Any game that isn't 5E, pathfinder 2 included, can manage a much broader range of *competency* when it comes to getting anything done. THAT's what's important about the bigger numbers, THAT's why specialization matters, THAT's why not everyone gets to do everything. So that people can feel specialized, so that players are rewarded for being experts at certain things, so that epic gameplay feels epic because what's being achieved *is* epic, not just *gets to swing sword 3 more times at level 18* or whatever.
A slightly different number does not a RPG encounter epic make. Lmfao.
@@waking00one A slightly different number on its own does not an epic encounter make, but combined with several hilarious abilities such as the ability to *cut space itself to warp yourself to a foe and hit them* or to *pick up a fool, spin him into his other fools, then throw them*, it sure does. Not only do you get the constant vertical progression that makes you feel that mechanically your character is advancing past what they were a few years ago, you also get nice horizontal progression, where your available options to tackle any given situation grows.
@@waking00one It makes a pretty big difference if the rogue whom wants to be the master of stealth finds out the wizard sneaks along almost as good as the rogue does because their numbers are almost identical.
It sounds like you wrote off pathfinder 2e in your head pretty early considering you show up to sessions not leveled up when you were meant to be leveled up.
Best way to not have fun in any system is to not care or be invested. Also all of your combat examples are disingenuous and (as most 5e tables do) just simply playing the rules incorrectly and somehow making it more complicated in doing so.
I loathed when players for any game don't show leveled up. They had all week and then I have to put everything on pause for everyone else because they couldn't be bothered. If someone does this routinely then give them a warning, but after that drop them from the game.
I'm having a hard time understanding how you loved 4th edition despite number disasters, but you're incredibly frustrated by PF2E. Half of the numbers you purposefully spent an inordinate time on are calculated by the time your character merely equipped it. It's cool to admit you're overwhelmed by the numbers, but I'm sensing a dissonance between your feelings on these two systems.
Love your stuff Puffin, regardless.
4e was if 5e was also a deck building game. It's not a mess of feats and build planning, if i remember anything correctly.
@@NieroshaiTheSable Boil it down however you like, my main point still stands. The mess of variables puffin is talking about are mostly calculated *before* battle. When you've picked up a new feat, enchanted a weapon, etc. It's a bit disingenuous to act like people don't or can't write what the math looks like in the field for damage next to the weapon, and worry about outside factors like statuses and attack penalties after the fact.
4E is constantly throwing numbers at players with buffs, debuffs, statuses, etc. To a higher degree than even PF2E.
@@Z3R0M0N5T3R OK sure. I've been in games that've actually required multipage spreadsheets, so I get pregame prep. The average player is going to notice, though, that they didn't write out every combination of their modifiers they might end up using in the game. I don't know if you've looked at your average character sheet, but they don't have room for the options you're given, especially if you're prewriting all your available feat- and weapon-based combos.
@@Z3R0M0N5T3R : The problem isn't so much numbers, it's the conditionals. A flat +1 to all attacks is easy to account for. A +1 on your next attack or +1 when attacking a foe that attacked you last round is difficult because it requires constant brain power to see if the conditional applies. It's what made 4E by far the hardest game to DM.
@@taragnor I found GMing 4ed to be the most satisfying. Perhaps as a player you could claim it's a lot to manage with "for this round" or "just the next attack" or "when you spend an action point" conditionals. The GM almost never had to deal with that on their side.
Enjoyable video and glad that I got the Humble Bundle so I can really dig into this system.
My only complaint was the section about the Ranger attack matrix. Yeah, it’s a lot of numbers but you’re also a dual wielding character with weapons of two different types of course it’s going to be complicated. 5e is simple but if I did the same setup there (Str weapon + Finesse weapon + modifying spell like Hunter’s Mark) it would be just as bad. It’s a fair example but just wanted to say to viewers not to judge a system based on choices made by the player.
One thing I've noticed of him, is that he tends to purposefully get the most complicated and self defeating things ever and use then as examples of how things work normally. I value his opinions but I don't think people should take them as gospel.
5e may be simple, but since enemies are massively spongey I wonder if combat lasts the same anyway. You just roll more dices instead of adding bonuses.
I like to think of Puffin as a good-natured troll.
@@TheBayzent From my experience, combat in 2e can be actually quicker than in 5e. You usually worry only about 2 bonuses/penalties while attacking/being attacked.
Many monsters are not spongy but have unique abilities and traits. Any fight can feel like a mini boss encounter.
I gotta say, if you're adding your flat, unchanging, level-dependent bonuses one by one before each attack, you might consider doing it once and putting it on your character sheet. Then you'll just have to do some simple math for situational stuff.
As others already pointed out, when playing 5e, you don't add roll + prof + STR + magic weapon and then (because you have advantage) roll + prof + STR + magic weapon, right? That would be weird. You just note you have +99 to attack roll with your Great Greataxe of Greatest Carnage, roll two times and take the better roll. Then add your Bardbarian +99.
So why would you do that in pathfinder? Just take the pencil, write this "+13" next to your weapon, and the only thing to really calculate after that will be your Multiple Attack Penalty (and even this can be easily written down in a simple array LIKE FULL ATTACK KNOWN TO EVERY PC RPG GAMER: +13/+8/+4 or +13/+9/+5 for an agile weapon) and situational stuff or stuff unique to the character/class.
Anyone who doesn't have this stuff precalculated in either game (PF2 or DnD5) should ask their group for forgiveness. This is what slows down the fight.
So let me rewrite the whole "calculations much" part:
You need to take your precalculated, unchanging total bonus to attack with your weapon, and then add situational modifiers. Kinda like in most RPGs.
There you go, video shortened by about 1/3rd.
Don't get me wrong, I like both 5e and Pathfinder 2e, but now I have this theory that you might be forgetting to add some modifiers in 5e because damn, the difference is nearly non-existent in this regard.
Let me say, I love your channel, it's just that I'm stunned this was the huge issue for you. Everyone I played PF2 with found the combat system very refreshing, and those were both people coming from PF1 and DnD5. For some this was their first RPG ever, and they understood combat almost instantly.
Now, you wanna see some issues with D20 style system? Try Starfinder, mate. Roll an Envoy and mutliclass into Solarian to be a charismatic, raging, intimidating, violent hurricane of mayhem that does kinda OK dmg but in addition makes enemies simply fall to their kness and beg for mercy.
Then tell me how those f-ed up silly low DCs (like, 16-18) for all your class stuff are working out with enemies who have +10 to almost each save at this point. Because they are all attached to your class level, not character level.
Had to add it to show I am NOT simply a Paizo fanboy, I genuinely don't understand where you're coming from considering all this math like it has to be done with each single attack. It's not about tribal culture ('muh chosen gaem better than urs") but purely logical comparison.
I am now awaiting this one guy from the comments to call me an elitist, halfwit, and maybe say something about my mother because they didn't like their one Pathfinder game.
Which makes me think of some awful one-offs with various RPG systems I had. Maybe I should try again, with some other GM, and check if it wasn't just a poor representation of the system. Maybe someone just didn't tell me that some of the stuff can just be added once and written down.
Though, to be honest, if this was the case, I should've simply noticed it, right?
Your mother.... is probably a reasonably nice lady.
On the topic of starfinder, i fully agree... but SF also felt like a PF2 soft launch for mechanics-so throw stuff at a wall and see what stuck, which probably didn't help
Fully underrated comment.
Also, tell your mother to have a nice day :)
The point was that you couldn't just do that because their are various abilities and effects which have to be considered in any given situation. Like the spells on you and conditions on enemies, plus abilities from players and enemies (such as the hunted to not hunted, or the goblin shield block) he also said it isn't to much for the players, but it is a lot for the dm.
So.... take the flat bonus that you calculated earlier and then do the +/- 1 to 3 and roll it
I have DM'd pathfinder 2e for a year now and...its amazing. I made Chicxelub, a monk seeking only to punch the world to death. Freaking love this game.
Rolling tons of dice is FANTASTIC
Late to this, but how easy is it to GM? I love improv and hate tracking gobs of math.
It's been a year, but please tell me you've punched a dinosaur
@@alderaancrumbs6260 also late to this, but it's really not as hard as you think it might be. I'm running a game for a table of new players (3 of us are new just to PF2, one of my players has never played a TTRPG) and the math isn't that bad. The most I've had to account for is if the enemy is getting a bonus to AC from shields or cover, and if they get a bonus to attack from an ally. All my players, including the completely new one, know what flat-footed does so I dont have to keep track of that, they all know how to apply bonuses (and it's all written on their sheets), and if theres something that would subtract or add to their rolls that isn't written in stone I tell them what the bonus/penalty is when they make the roll