CORRECTIONS/ERRATA: -At 10:10, there are some free actions that don't have a trigger like Release (releasing an object). A number of others don't have triggers per se, but they need to be done immediately before doing something else (like a wizard draining their Arcane Bond to fuel their upcoming spell). -At 12:05, there actually is ONE more type that comes up SOMETIMES in battle, the item bonus from an alchemical item or some other effects -If you dislike tracking conditions and their effects, digital tools like Pathbuilder, Wanderer's Guide, and VTTs let you apply them automatically. -At 20:52, Guidance and Bless don't stack because they aid DIFFERENT kinds of checks: Guidance boosts ability checks, whereas Bless aids only attack rolls and saving throws. -At 39:50, one of the Big Six was a statboosting item to increase your main ability score. (Belt of Giant Strength, Headband of Alluring Charisma, etc.) Shields, while a SEVENTH big item for some characters, was optional. -At 1:04:12, I had planned to but forgotten to give credit to 4e for defining simple, streamlined uses for skills in combat.
21:00 ish, Guidance and Bless add a d4 to different things so they don't stack (Guidance is just skill checks, Bless is attack rolls and saving throws). Bless and Emboldening Bond do stack though!
He's 5-handedly converting me. Bob World Builder and DM Lair both have vids on pf2, and Icarus Games and Nonst1s are dedicated to it. Reddit brought me to Rules Lawyer, who is the most extensive of all of them, hence the apt channel name 😅
As a 5e GM, the more I learn about Pathfinder 2e and engage with these comparisons, the more validated I feel in my struggles. I'm running an epic campaign and the players are currently level 16. Balancing encounters is a complete crapshoot. I can throw things at them that according to the system is probably Deadly x4, and they breeze through it. It's become really stressful and work-intensive. I'm really looking forward to finishing the campaign and switching to PF2.
A very important point that comes with the fixing of the "between 6 and 8 encounters per day" problem : you can finally build dungeons without a monster in every room. And it will be perfectly fine ! Because you don't have to exhaust the ressources of your players and because hazards and skill checks give huge amounts of xp (or because you use millestones, that I recommand), you perfectly can have a cave full of bandits with only 2 or 3 combats : the guards at the entrance, some random walkabout if the party is not sneaking successfully, and the boss + his minions. You can fill all the other "rooms" or places with traps, challenges, creativity, social skills, whatever you want. No need to beat the 8 rooms with the 8 variations of a small group of bandits. Very powerful storytelling tool.
Yep! It's often said that Bounded Accuracy leads to more "naturalism" and freedom for DMs to put whatever they want in a dungeon. But at the same time the 6-8 encounters assumption is a straitjacket. And as I say in the vid it also makes hexploration less exciting when the party can go nova constantly when they rarely have more than 1 encounter in a day.
The fact that 3-action is so simple, I'm surprised that it isn't something that wasn't fully embraced in 4e or implemented 35+ years ago if not when D&D was spun off Chainmail
I hate the 3 action system, funnily enough. Breaking up movement however you like is much more flexible. Tbh, in our games, 3-action is in practice every character pretty much always doing the same thing every time anyway. Especially with the movement. You are stupid if you move because you lose an attack, so the game is super static.
@@HorizonOfHope found my 5e game never move once in melee, even more so when the Sentinel Feat is taken. There is zero insensitive to step away from a combatant when you open yourself up to when A) a hit (everyone has AoO) is possible and B) it costs nothing for someone to move back into melee. If I know I can move more than my opponent's movement... I know I'm going to risk a hit from MAYBE 2 targets (extra emphasis on maybe) you know I'm doing it. Why leave my self open to a 3rd action that will likely not hit when I can guarantee that 3rd action will be used to move, and I definitely won't be flanked for at least 2 attacks?
It could be something that varies table to table, but even when watching people stream, I never see movement in PF2. In 5e movement makes a fair bit of difference. The only HP that matters losing are the ones that knock you out, so players don't really lose much by moving. Taking an attack of opportunity isn't that bad unless you're concentrating - which is another great mechanic in 5e that's not in PF2: you can lose concentration after being hit. Pretty much nothing in PF2 can do AoO, anyway, so it's another point in 5e's favour that everyone can do it. But in 5e, it's a tactical choice to move away from enemies, and it doesn't compete with other actions. Some features and spells even allow disengaging as a bonus actions, which encourage you to keep moving. And with spellcasters you don't really get three actions, either, you get one spell with two actions and one with one action. It's basically the same thing as action and bonus action, but with another name. Same with two attacks and then moving: it's just action and bonus action but worse.
@@HorizonOfHope Same for me. 3-action is cool at lower level as it make you think you can do a lot, but pass 10th level, you are still doing the same thing and CAN'T do more as you did in PF1/DnD3.x. PF2 if ok at best and it just a rehashed 4th Edition imo. The more I play it, the more I want to go back to PF1.
I personally think the rules are a + to a narrative game. The thing is I know how to roleplay a character and I know how to tell a story. I want the game system to be able to handle the rest of the stuff. Pf2es strong rules are good at handling that stuff and also lets me cutomize without having to worry about being optimal or whatever.
I realize it's been a year, but... Your content is always good, but this is probably one of the best you've done. Packed full of information, while still maintaining your "fair assessment" approach to talking about comparing PF2e to any D&D edition. TL:DR - good video!
I have to be honest that I saw PF2 initially being what this person on reddit thought: I thought PF2 was just taking what made 5E good and what made 3.x stuff good and put it together! After actually going out and learning about it I found it to be VERY, VERY different than either however! Edit: In the best of ways, at least in my opinion! It has become my go-to fantasy system over the last couple of years, the time in which I have really gotten to learn about the system.
Man I just saw Jason Bulmahn's new video (about his Pathfinder Hack, Hopefinder) and his 4 Pillars of Pathfinder 2e Core Game Engine, and their fine tuning of math to make it story driven and customizable is downright inspiring. He and his team were so incredibly passionate about creating an game engine that is iconic and future-proof that they absolutely hit it out of the park. Props to him and paizo team.
This is probably, in my opinion, the best PF2e comparison video made. Excellent dive into the reasoning behind, and execution of, the things that make the system work well. This video definitely will help me articulate why I prefer PF2e more succinctly and accurately. Awesome work! You've been on a roll lately, I find that I will drop what I'm doing to catch your latest videos, and they don't disappoint. Thanks for the great videos, I'm glad to have an advocate for this game like you!
Ronald, what an awesome video! Thank you, once again, for your amazing work. And, should I say, the "graphics" and images used in the presentation: GORGEOUS! Glad to be here and support you as much as I can. Looking forward to return to your Patreon. Hope you are fine! Thx again
Thanks! I just discovered PowerPoint with this video! (Well, I knew of it before, but this forced me to start playing with it! I recorded this before Law School #1 btw)
"...on this satisfying razor's edge, where the party's tactical decisions matter in determining whether they win." That's something I've really found myself striving for (often unsuccessfully) in my past D&D 5e games and something that comes through in all your group play videos and your amazing 20th level Ancient Red Dragon boss encounter video. Thanks for making such amazing content for us Pathfinder newbs! m(_ _)m
Excellent video, Ronald! The only point I would add is that because of the way the "bounded escalator" allows the encounter system to work, it alleviates the issue of action disparity between the two sides of combat. If a party of 4 PCs is fighting a single creature that's +4 levels higher than them, that's 12 actions per round versus 3 actions per round. But because of how the numbers are designed, those 3 actions from the boss monster will be MUCH more impactful (likely critically succeeding) than the 12 actions from the party. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!
This made me realize that silvery barbs is a more powerful version of hero points, no wonder that spell feels busted! Great breakdown of the design philosophies and differences!
Thanks. This video was amazing. I haven't played D&D in a few years, but my oldest son was asking to play so I had pulled out my 5E books and started preparing for that. I was defaulting to 5E as I already had physical books, and knew the system and my prep time is pretty limited, but various things especially on the DM side were really starting to grate on me in preparation. When the whole OGL mess went down I bought the Humble Bundle for PF2 as a statement (and hey, can never have enough game materials), but I had not really looked into it in detail. I was worried that it would hew too close to 3.5/PF1, and the various issues it had. I had not played a lot of PF1, but I was largely underwhelmed by how little it had fixed from 3.5 at the times I looked. This video was very helpful in seeing how PF2 actually has addressed a number of the things I was concerned about from 3.5/PF1 and 5E. Enough so that I am going to commit to at least digging in and giving the core rules a thorough reading to see if it would be a better choice for us. This video has made me a lot more confident that if I do spend the time to learn PF2, I can at least trust that it will do something to address those ten issues that were all weighing on me to some degree while planning to play 5E again.
I will do an overstep here and suggest to you to look up the Video Playlist of PF2e in a channel called "HowItsPlayed". He has made arguably short videos explaining almost "each and every rule" in the system (at least the most big ones) in a very simple and waterdown way, with pages for reference. i suggest 1.5x speed playback
Thank you so much for this video. I love that you are teaching some of the structure/theory behind the rules, which is really helping me jump start the intuition needed to run a ttrpg!
5:00 - don't forget that 5e is split into DMG and PHB whereas PF1/2 both use a combined CRB. That makes the CRB seem kinda hefty, until you realize it's two books in one.
Even after they split them for the Remaster, the Player Core and GM Core both seem to be twice as large as the 2014 5e PHB and DMG. I don't have the 2024 5e books, but they seem to be closer to the Remaster books in thickness.
Only criticism I have is that the Big 6 includes stat-boosting gear, such as a Belt of Giant Strength, not a shield. In fact, oftentimes getting your stat-boosting gear is your top gearing priority. Great video!
This was EXTREMELY helpful in crafting my pitch to my players to try Pathfinder. I also stopped playing D&D just as 3.0 was coming out and didn't get back in until 5e and was super interesting overview that helped me understand the landscape of design evolution.
This was a very useful overview for someone who has played multiple editions of D&D, and now is looking at the PF2 starter box and scratching their head. Keep it up!
I still love 1st edition pathfinder, but I just ran the beginner box for 2e for some friends and I did find it really, really nice to not feel like I have to keep an entire reality simulation running in my head. Next step is to jump from tricycling to a biathlon by converting the Strange Aeons AP for 2nd edition 😅
Awesome! I don't know if you've connected with Series of Dice Based Events, but they have a server where people have created guides for converting 1E adventures to 2E, and actual conversions
I love this video, I have played through all editions of both D&D and Pathfinder and I could not agree more with you. Great explanation, clear and fair. Thanks! Keep recording good videos.
The most complicated parts for me are: the statuses/conditions their effects and which stack and which don't; the hidden/concealed/etc and the ins & outs of that
I was also not impressed with the playtest and didn't want to switch from 1e, but your videos convinced me to try it and I have not looked back. Well done.
Your explanations were really helpful in processing both systems, particularly advantage/disadvantage and i feel less compulsion to forcefully replicate the dynamic now that i understand the background. Thank you!
I like PF2E, and it has a lot to offer to certain types of players, but let's be a little more honest about it: 1. 10:51 5e's Concentration wasn't an arbitrary decision. It prevented the existence of too many ongoing spell effects which prevented overly-complicated fights and gave combatants an opportunity to shut down particularly powerful spells like Hypnotic Pattern. PF not only doesn't have such a limitation, it encourages the vastly weaker PF2E casters to try to sustain as many spells as possible, creating a tangle of effects that have to be navigated every turn, unless that caster doesn't mind being relegated to a buff/nerf bot during combat, which is what they're usually doing with those sustained spells, anyway. 2. 12:02 The classification of Circumstance and Status bonuses is nice in some ways, and was clearly intended to tamp down the math, but most of the same complexity arises when dozens of actions and effects in the game cause various bonuses and penalties, each with their own tags, that follow their own rules, like 'emotional', 'auditory', 'negative', 'enchantment', or 'sonic' (yes, that's different from 'auditory'), and PF2E encourages players to use every single one they can. This can be fun to players who really love optimization and high-resolution tactical combat, but it's still a significant hurdle for newbies and A LOT that the GM has to remember to account for as just base rules of the game. Item bonuses being written in advance doesn't change the fact that they're part of the math and contribute to the complexity, even if they're subjectively more manageable. 3. 14:58 I'd be interested to hear what these confusing 5e grapple mechanics are, and where they're found, because 5e's grappling system is quite simple as written and can be summarized thusly: If you have a free hand, you can make a contested check to grapple, if grapple succeeds, enemy speed becomes 0 until they escape, and they can try to escape with a check on their turn. Size differences create intuitive advantage/disadvantage. That's it. Everything else to consider about grappling is not part of a bespoke set of grappling rules, but rather internally logical connections with other simple game mechanics. There's no math, no different levels of being grappled, no condition that is constantly changing who can actually take advantage of it (looking at you, Flat-Footed), nor mechanics that 'merge into each other', whatever that means. 4. 15:30 Flat-Footed never stacking, no matter how many wildly different ways it's applied, is okay because it's 'intended', and yet advantage/disadvantage cancelling each other out, no matter how many ways they're applied, is a point of criticism? Here, PF2E is saying that if two people are swinging swords at you from both sides, it's no harder for them to land blows than if they also had a third guy holding the collar of your breastplate from behind or locking one of your limbs behind you. Advantage/Disadvantage isn't perfect, but it's a non-static bonus/penalty that can get away with not committing to a single image of circumstance, and incentivizes players to use their abilities to apply advantage/disadvantage elsewhere or elsewhen on the battlefield, if it wouldn't help in one place or time. 5. 16:22 - 16:47 This just furthers the point that PF2E is NOT beginner-friendly for players or GMs. With time, anyone can learn any system, but it's stuff like this that creates a learning curve steeper than most people have the patience to overcome and steeper than is being argued for here. 6. 16:50 PF2E stat blocks are good and bad. It's nice that they're smaller, but it also REQUIRES memorization to use. GMs have enough to memorize, especially in PF2E, and this isn't helping. This move only helps make the books cheaper to print, it was not a decision made for those that actually want to play the game as there's SO MUCH page flipping until you've actually memorized every single tag and feature. This same level of effort can be applied to each monster in games like 5e, that just list what each monster does, but you aren't required to memorize anything since it's right on the stat block. 7. 24:00 - 36:18 One thing I've learned from PF2E is that combat is significantly less forgiving than in the systems it's being compared to. Because of this, having a character's build be optimized and knowledge of the game is quite a bit more important than in these other systems. This point isn't limited to combat, either. Crafting, travel, and social interactions are generally more complex and require more forethought in how one builds a character. These are all great and fun things for players that already deeply understand this system or those that have the patience to learn it, but it's for this reason that PF2E is by no stretch of the imagination an exception to the fact that players CAN easily build a character that performs poorly or one that outshines their comrades. In fact, given the myriad options available to absolutely everyone, it's arguably easier for this to happen, especially when building for concept over potency. Just because innate bonuses begin low and increase almost linearly every level, doesn't mean the game doesn't keep up and expect the player to make smart and informed choices. However, it's HARDER for newer players to make these wise choices because the bonuses provided are almost never a simple, numerical bonus that is easy to understand before putting it to use. The complexities and traps compound when taking into account the fact that every party is different and some feats just aren't going to have the same impact with one party as it will with another. Highly optimized auto-picks in feats don't always feel good to have around, but they're great for introducing players to systems like this, so there's less competing for their attention and they can feel much more comfortable with early choices. Credit where it's due, PF2E does keep up with level nicely and stays at a decent level of balance, in my experience. 8. 43:08 - 43:30 This is completely false. In fact, one of the most popular 'optimization' tools for martials (or any class, really) can be found here: [desmos(dot)com/calculator/pbi6jatci2] and shows the probability of success, which is the factor every dice-rolling system uses for calculating optimization, including PF2E. No optimization guide for 5e just assumes that the player is going to hit an enemy. 9. 47:31 - 47:39 Also completely false. Casters that engage in melee, for which there are many builds and classes built around doing so, have many effective options available to them other than 'I attack'. Every martial class in 5e also has something they can do other than attacking, of which the best examples are rogues, battlemaster fighters, psi warrior fighters, paladins, and rangers. PF2E has done a much better job of giving martials something to do other than attacking but the gameplay loop can become just as tired and robotic as any system, especially when most of your character's offensive feats are just a different way to perform a basic strike or defensive action. 10. 57:16 - 58:58 This is a truly extreme example of stacking bonuses that is not only unlikely to happen, but also inadvisable to attempt in the vast majority of situations due to its superfluous tax on action economy and general sense of overkill since 5e only counts critical success on attack rolls with a natural 20. Said example also includes Jack of All Trades which is a feature I can only assume was here to artificially pad out the point in bad faith(?) since it has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. "Bounded accuracy" refers to the intent that static, PASSIVE bonuses to things such as attacks, skill checks, and saving throws, should only ever go so high without the aid of effects such as those gained from consumables or spells, which are generally one-off effects and limited rather fairly. PF2E's bonuses are just as powerful, if not more so, due to the critical success/failure system, which not only adds more math to every single roll, but also lends a great amount of weight to even a single +1, as was mentioned earlier in this video about how such bonuses can double, triple, or quadruple chances for critical success in common circumstances. When accounting for untyped bonuses which CAN stack, unlike Circumstance, Status, and Item bonuses, the math of PF2E can be just as fragile as 5e's with the same group that likes to over-stack bonuses. 11. 1:02:48 - 1:03:06 Not sure what's trying to be said here. Is combat more predictable or less predictable? Sorry, but this part just sounds like floundering to make a case not suited for PF2E. PF2E is less forgiving and thus less predictable because there is still a major element of chance in this game born from rolling dice to determine outcomes. That means PF2E is ALWAYS going to have more circumstances in which players are going to feel cheated by the dice or let down by decisions made within the party. Good tactics only alleviate so much of this chaos when 'appropriately leveled' enemies are literally built to be able to down even the thickest frontline characters with little difficulty. This kind of risk is fun for those that enjoy gambling and crunching numbers, but not much for those that just want to play a game. Arguably pretty hostile to beginners. I like PF2E's design goals and how well some of them were executed, but in my opinion, most of the points laid out in this video are in no way 'fixes' to the flaws in the approach D&D 5e took. It's a different system, for a different crowd, and a different kind of game. PF2E's attempt at game design also comes with its own set of problems, such as the overly-complicated and barely useable crafting system they had to attempt to fix recently. All that said, I encourage players to try PF2E. It's both familiar to D&D 5e players, yet refreshingly different, if not demanding of a bit more patience.
I have barely started the video and hit a like just because these are always so well done. Though I'm leaning toward going back to 1e after some clunky details and meh caster feel (dimension door 1/day? not in my world! lol ). we'll see how this video impacts that feel.
half way through the video and I'm now seeing some things I forgot and you made a 2e believer out of me. Just have to make some actions easier to recall for fewer players or handling multiple characters.
I played 3.5 as a kid and pathfinder 1e since 2009. I’m about to finally take the plunge and DM a 2e game. I’ve been pushing back so hard on 2e because I love pathfinder 1e so much, but it feels like I’ve exhausted all pathfinder 1e has to offer me. Fantastic video my guy.
Great video, was an excellent listen. Wanted to add for others, that if you like the 3 actions idea, but still want to play 5e, you can add three actions to 5e, to a fashion, with little problems. Action, move action, bonus action. Each one can be used to do the action on the right. So an action can do anything, but a move action can only do a move or bonus action. Etc. Am playing it in a game right now, and its had almost no issues.
Wanted to leave a comment to thank you for this tour de force review of Pathfinder and how it compares to current and previous D&D editions. Started playing with 1st Edition D&D but my most active period was with 3rd Edition / 3.5, mostly skipped 4th and got heavily into 5th. I did try Pathfinder 1st Edition but it was very much 3.75 and at the time I'd played that enough to be very familiar both as a DM and player with many of the problems you highlighted. 5th did fix a lot of those, but you made an excellent and thorough case for PF2's advantages over 5th. We picked up the PF2 Beginner's Box and Core Rulebook after the recent OGL debacle and are giving it a real try. Found your channel originally via Treantmonk and very glad that I did!
It comes down to if you feel empowered or stifled by systems. As you say, once you've looked up a dozen rules, you'll see that it is brutally straight forward and perfectly fits with everything else. With all of the rules on the table for everyone to see, you can spend time in combat and/or RP instead of needing the DM to finagle rulings all the time.
Great video! For any players interested the Beginner box is the way to go. Our table picked it up last year and it was such a good introduction and we’re still continuing the campaign well after it.
21:27 One barbarian with 2 casters strapped to the front and the back. I don't know if Fly's weight requirements but assumed it similar to regular encumbrance and the two casters were within the encumbrance of the barbarian.
That was a great breakdown. I must say, I had a much different experience with D&D. I ate my teeth on 3rd edition (later PF 1st) and we have tried a lot of crazy builds, but never really managed to break the game that much. Perhaps because we generally limited our games to lvl 10. There was also never really a problem with buffing before the fight, or the five minute adventuring day. I believe this was thanks to how we started with boardgames and had the idea/preconception that we should get as much done within a session as possible. Playing official scenarios also helped in this regard. All of this combined into making us much more focused on executing cool ideas than min-maxing our characters. All that being said, I love how Pathfinder threw out all of the clunky rules regarding what you can do in a round for a simple, streamlined system.
Thanks for this thorough step by step analysis, I think it will be useful to those embarking on their own system designs and for many relatively new to PF2e DMing, like myself, identifying the design goals deepens understanding and therefore running the system to its potential.
I comand my first session of pf2e yesterday, it was very nice. Your videos are very helpfull to demonstrate to my old hags attached to DnD for 10 old years more, to try something different. Tx man. (Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Brazil.)
Can confirm about buff stacking in 3e/pf1. Played through Shattered Star abusing stacking buffs. Had the party motto "buffs are running" meaning shoot first and move through quickly since it almost always was the most effective. Actually was a slog to play since modifier conditionality made each round an accounting chore but the variance was still low (things died quickly).
Note that at least in 3.0 wandering monsters were part and parcel of the rules (see the DMG). The game simply wasn't designed without them. Also the DM was instructed to use a variety of challenges, not just '4 per day' (apparently very few people bothered to read the damn book!) I never had '15 minutes adventuring days'.
Wandering monsters can pressure a party only so much. An 11th party where every caster has 20+ spell slots. In my 9 years of GMing 3.x/PF1 the idea that the spellcasters might not having enough spell slots disappeared after the first several levels. And the problem is more the opposite: finding a way to pressure the party so that they don't leave the "dungeon" and rest, and doing so consistently through a 1-20 campaign.
I can't stress enough how wrong people who say that Class Feats, Ancestry Feats and General/Skill feats are confusing. They're not! They make bad character builds HARDER to make. As someone who started playing AD&D2e and had very few oportunities to play D&D 3rd and Pathfinder 1 during these past 20 years I allways find the feat system quite confusing and picking the wrong feat for my character usually doomed him, whether be on tabletop or in games like Neverwinter Nights or Pathfinder Kingmaker. It's actually much simpler.
PF1e had some massive problems but I don't think 2e did a good job fixing them (with exceptions) while maintaining the spirit of 1e (not being D&D5e). Some changes have nothing to do with the issues of 1e but don't add anything new or interesting either. It really feels like they are chasing new customers at the expense of making learning the game less rewarding even if it was overdone in 1e
I actually like the complexity of PF1e with all the options and roots you can take in character creation, and the amount of different action types in combat, it feels cool. What I don’t like are wholes in the rules and inconsistencies, like 4 different types of weapon finesse, or a fencing grace feat that allows you to grace only a rapier, but not any other piercing weapon.
I ran the Pathfinder beginner box a few weeks ago and it was okay but the only times I was having fun was when I had to change everything about it to the point it wasn't anything like Pathfinder. There was too much combat and the social encounters said what the possibilities were so when the players did something else I would just say "you can't do that since it says nothing about it" which made it boring so on the second floor I just made everything up. The players opened a kobold nursery and collected all the kobolds and then at the end made a kobold army and they killed the dragon in one hit. I've never played dnd 5e and Pathfinder 2e was my first ttrpg so I'm not sure if it's exclusive to Pathfinder. I thought it would be something where you can be creative, doesn't have much rules, you can avoid combat at all times and even when there is rules, they are very light and say at the start that they can and should be altered so I know it's okay to do that and also everyone isn't extremely overpowered. I think I might try something from the OSR next since I've not fully dedicated to Pathfinder.
yeah, just sounds like you and your group aren't as interested in the crunchy/combat aspect. OSR and rules light games are 2 directions you should check out
I have my gripes with Pathfinder 1e... The action economy, certain super specific rules (e.g. you can only draw a weapon as part of a move action if your BAB is +1 or greater... This is cool and interesting and seperates martials in a very specific way... But only at 1st level, so why bother?), grappling is complicated, and as in all systems I am aware of invisibility is super vague. But honestly, I still hold that 2e is simply too divergent of a game. I think you might find that is where a lot of hostility exists between sysytems can come from. You have 2e fans insisting the game is the same just better... And you have folks like me saying, no, that is another system, it is hardly the same. Which, in the end, it is fine that it is different... But there are more poeple who insist one is objectively better. But, I also have gripes that extend beyond the mechanics that maybe some might find petty: The art, and I am not talking about Kobold. Adamantine Golem, Alchemical Golem, Balor, at least half of the iconics, and the Leukodaemon, just to name a few... There's just something about the art that completely misses the mark for me. In 1e, the art felt like it had more character, more dynamic poses, and more style to them. Sure, there *are* pieces I like in 2e and 1e art can be super hit or miss... But there are just more art pieces in 1e where I look at it and think "That is a cool piece of art." and back to mechanics: A loss of parity between players and monsters. In 1e, monsters are build shockingly similar to PCs... And, you know, then there is the explicit encouragement to add class levels... Or monsters who are just specialized races. It made the world to me feel more grounded... I guess that effect is only prevalent for the GM who is looking and editing these stats but that feels lost in 2e. Further, I love monster templates. And you know what the Bestiaries in 2e lacks? (for the most part, I mean) Templates. I did the math (napkin math with huge assumptions), in 1e, with just two books you can create 8750+ monsters... This is with classes, templates, and the 350+ monsters in the 1st Bestiary. This is not really counting the variants (Sea Scrags, Giant Queen Ants, not even burning or bloody skeletons), stacking classes on top of templates, stacking templates, monsters of different levels, etc. You could play every day for over 23 years and fight a different combination of monsters, classes, and stats (assuming only 2 combat a day)... I didn't even include genric templates like giant creatures, advanced creatures, young creatures, etc. (Now given, not all monster templates such as Zombies, Ghosts, etc. can be applied to all creatures and not all creatures can really take class levels... Which is something I didn't account for... Mostly because I am lazy... But then there are the other things didn't account for which would illustrate my point positively which I also didn't include like the generic templates, the npc classes, stacking templates and class levels, etc... So I think it balances out) Gawd, my overuse of the ellipsis is downright criminal. Pardon that. But I think you see my point. I just like 1e, lol. Now, after all that... I do think that 2e still has good ideas. The Feat Pools for example, although I have my problems with it. The 3-action system is very convenient, although I have my problems with it. And quite a few of the reworks of the classes... Investigator I really liked. Witch, eh, not so much. So basically, what I am saying is it is a fine system just not for me. 5e, however. I just despise 5e. I can play it but if feels so... Empty... Restrictive... Just not as fun. I am an avid 5e hater as much as I am an avid 1e fan.
Some further things... You are still chasing runes. Just because you aren't selling the already magic sword for a better sword doesn't mean they aren't still trying to build up those runes. If anything, doesn't that make their minmaxxing even worse? Now instead of collecting "the big 6" you are just trying to stack all the runes you can onto the same item. Not entirely that different, to me at least. This part of the 2e system, I must admit, is more of an armchair perspective. But, you know, so what if the player is just dumping their grandfather's sword? That can be a story moment. If that is just a meaningless loss, maybe you just aren't playing the game right... Or maybe you are playing right and min-maxxing is just more fun than roleplaying to you. That part is really a non-issue, I think. And while, yes... It can be annoying that some combats devolve into gridlock. I am such an opponent of what I call ring-around-the-rosie-combat (due to 5es AOO rules), that I simply do not care about the gridlock. I do not like when people can just... Run circles around an enemy on their turn. With 2e, it is no longer just being able to run circles it is past and around and, well, I just don't like that. You want to run past an enemy without penalty? Put ranks in acrobatics, levels in barbarian, feats into spring attack... There are ways to make yourself more mobile. I mean, I suppose that is less optimal than full-attack with Power attack... But, I mean, I guess I am just not that much an optimizer. And on the 5-minute adventuring day... Don't some abilities and most spellcasting have a limit of once per day? So this means, yes, the party can go nova... But they won't get their spells back for a whole day. Which I suppose is not much of a hinderance without a time limit or wandering monsters... But that is an entire 24 hour cycle (well, probably less if they 1st travel) before they get their most powerful utilities... 24 hours where they are vulnerable. But you know what I think? We should bring back those old 3e mechanics that nobody liked like non-infinite cantrips! It solves a lot of problems which I hate oh so much. Light, Create Food, Create Water, Detect Magic... No longer are they just instant "I win" spells for scenarios like managing resources in a dungeon, surviving in the wilderness, a mysterious pillar in the middle of the room. For real, I hate they removed that and everyone just accepted it! In Pathfinder 1e there are very rarely even damage cantrips so it isn;t as if you are relying on your cantrips for anything other than just cheesing these very specific scenarios I want my players to work through! Maybe RP or trying to cheese a cantrip into doing something it can't.
I can't wait for the rest of these "Pathfinder Law School Courses." Love them, and the syllabus at the beginning leaves me craving for future lessons on the list XD Edit. "How to caster good" at #12, I am extremely interested in what you have to say... Putting it last seems intentional, Nice touch
I just wanted to say I feel this is the best video on these matters I’ve seen from start to finish. Other videos do a good job of breaking specific things down, but this video covers most of what matters. I personally believe the low-key hero in all this is your choice to start with 3.5/PF1e, include 4e, and finally 5e when making comparisons/showing the progressions of the systems. While it’s completely understandable that so many videos draw a one-to-one comparison between 5e and PF2e, this video shows the general evolution, and reasons for changes made. It achieves two things that is rare in most videos: 1. It provides an easy-to-follow guide for players whom never made the jump to 5e from previous editions. Similarly, even those whom made the jump but have ample experience with 3.5/PF1e get an “extra layer” of understanding. It’s also probably the first time some 5e players will be introduced to some of the differences between 5e and previous editions of D&D. 2. Just as importantly, all this is achieved without bashing 5e. You show the differences, talk about why you think it’s better in many instances, but are also fair in your acknowledgment that some players or groups might not like every single change. Overall, just a really outstanding video, and one I can share with all my friends on the fence or not about trying out Pathfinder 2e. Thanks so much!
I haven't yet played PF2e, but one thing that appeals to me a lot is the lack of different rule systems that you have to learn for each class, and all the different trackers that come with that (superiority dice, channel divinity, etc etc). In that regard, spell slots almost looks like a leftover vestige (and indeed, 4e went even further and got rid of those too, but at the cost of introducing the clunky at-will/encounter/daily distinction).
Honestly I think spell slots are fine. They are one very iconic system encompassing basically all of magic casting. And one of the core issues, 4e probably had, was that casters and martials did not feel different enough, although they arguably should. If the uniqueness of magic is not represented in the design of the rules, it ceases to be magic on an aesthetic level. Maybe there are better systems than spell slots for magic, but I would argue the rule systems of magic casters should feel different to other classes to reflect the difference between magic and non-magic in a fantasy setting, which heavily depends on it in its worldbuilding. After all a TTRPG cannot and maybe should not rely on flavor or visual cues for magic aesthetics like many videogames with "mana" for both martials and casters can.
@@delenius1 I do not really disagree. However I don't quite see how it's the spell slot system facilitating that. But maybe I just like the aesthetics or rather worldbuilding behind spell slots a bit too much. It just is so much more interesting than uniform ressource systems to me.
Just came from having mastered BG3 and holy shit have you made me fall in love. Pf2e solves EVERYTHING that has annoyed me about larians version of 5e. When I play BG3 I constantly think 'the game is amazing, but it would be so much better if this rule was X instead' and all of those thoughts are so far addressed by Pf2e. Fucking magic item overload man, nothing feels special once you hit the underdark.
I think that with this video many of the complaints to 2e will be over, or at least they should be. A wide and complex analysis of the two systems with their collective five editions was necessary for an extensive comparison. Well done Ronald 👍🏼
It's not over... largest complaint is from the people who fear large numbers... "I can't play PF2e, all those large number at high level!" *Rollseyes* I can't play 5e... if the setting is in Middle Earth and the one-shot is surviving Balrog's (Balor) takeover of Moria... the Dwarves would destroy the Balor... yes, many Dwarves would die horribly... but... the Balor would lose. It has 19 AC... compared to a typical level 1 character's attack bonus of +4... multiple that by hundreds of Dwarves...
I personally think first edition is one of the best ttrpgs ever made, but as its a dead game ive finally decided to move on and learn about second edition. Your videos are an amazing resource. Thank you!
58:40: I don't know if it's fair to bring up Silvery Barbs, that one's from Strixhaven. My understanding is that Strixhaven stuff is meant solely to be used in a Strixhaven campaign.
After a previous video of yours I came across I'm definitely more intrigued by pf2e, that said I still hold 3.5 very dear so maybe it's bias when I say that I think you're in places being unfair to it. Well, I guess I can't argue about the complexity (though personally I see that as one of the big plusses) or the imbalance (but again that can be fun). But I do have a very different perspective on magic items than you, in my experience of 3.5 the magic items you wore were much more often for some effect than for just stats. A lot of the most memorable items to me were things like belt of battle or anklet of translocation, even something like ring of entropic deflection is a cool trade-off adding dynamic bonus thing rather than just straight numbers). Even with weapons, you had to give your weapon a straight +1 before you could give it other effects, but generally the effects were worth more than the equivalent amount of plusses. The exception being if you wanted a major weapon crystal it needed a standard +3 at least, but the weapon crystals also were adding interesting and conditional flavorful effects. Also it was an official rule in the dmg that you could upgrade any weapon or armor by paying the difference in cost, so you absolutely could keep your family heirloom sword the whole game as long as it started out as at least masterwork or better. But yeah as far as my view of playing 3.5 I can't argue that the actual combat wasn't all that tactical. It's definitely the game's weakest point and my best argument for putting effort into the character building is that it then lets you get through the not very interesting combat that much more efficiently. The idea of a ttrpg with actually fun tactical combat is intriguing though. But still I feel like nothing will touch the high water mark of 3.5 character creation in terms of the interesting stuff you could do. I almost wonder if there's some amount of trade-off in terms of if you want combat to be more interesting the character building has to be less interesting and vice versa (though 5e for some reason went the route of making neither all that interesting). I'm also not sure I understand the point about skills rarely being used in 3.5. A lot of your examples of baseline things also existed in 3.5. Tumble was a skill, feinting was an action that used the bluff skill, granted bull rush was just a strength check rather than being tied to a skill, but escaping a grapple could use escape artist skill. Demoralize was also an action tied to intimidate in 3.5. And for the fancier stuff there were also skill tricks. Maybe some people didn't know about skill tricks? I don't know, but they're there and there are some cool options there. I do hate the 5 minute adventuring day stuff but I also think that's a group/DM issue more than it is a system issue. And I don't really see how short rests help at all with that since the casters get nothing back on short rest so they'll still push for the long rest after every fight or two if they're playing without thinking about resource management, and that just makes the classes balanced around short rest resources that much weaker relatively. I guess giving casters stuff that refreshes on short rest makes them less likely to want to push for long rests but I don't know that sort of feels like the wrong way to address the issue to me. The point of casters is that long term resource management question so if someone plays a caster and then just refuses to do that it seems weird to me that rather than punishing that you reward it by giving them short rest refresh stuff. I mean, I guess the point is that long term resource management is supposed to be a part of the gameplay of 3.5, not a mistake that they didn't realize they'd added that we need to find a way to either ignore or "fix."
Great video. Thank you for making this! One thing that I found was a big distraction was your camera going in and out of focus all the time. Otherwise loving the series.
So one of my favorite examples of how brilliant the archetype/dedication feats are in the system is my current Wild Order Druid I'm playing, His shapeshifting gets naturally stronger as he levels up, instead the class feats he has available add more versatility options when shapeshifting, but that doesn't matter to Marco the Dwarven Druid, because he only shapeshifts into a gorilla as he frontlines for the group, and is taking Wrestler archetype feats so he can manhandle anything in his way with athletic checks. I was blown away at how smoothly the combo works. I almost feel like I'm using free archetype rule even though we aren't in this group.
I love this analysis, it highlights the issues and the different solutions, and confirms why I loved some bits of 4e .. I am just starting to play PF2e and most of it I like - oddly the only thing I miss from 5e is being able to split movement, which did make fights more mobile (but your point about why it tended not to be I agree with) The 5e Terrasque is a bad example ... as it is used to devastate the city the players are defending, it can be surprisingly quick and is very destructive, and trivial to kill over a large number of rounds, but by which time the city lies in ruins ... the other high level monsters are a bit more than sacks of hit points ... but still not as interesting as they can be - I suspect this is to make life easier for the DM?
Loved this vido, highly informative and well done, I was wondering what your mod list for foundry is because it looked pretty good and had some interesting features.
I have a Foundry mods video on my channel. Also, here's a link to my server channel where my list is a pinned comment: discord.com/channels/870925179570753616/943926525688954930
Okay, I had my thoughts about Pf2e as a new-ish D&D 5e DM... Now I have none, I just am thinking on the best way to fill my homebrew world with Pf2e ancestries (because everything else already fits, and furthermore, it fixes some of my concerns, one of them being the fact that some regions have to have more advanced magic.). Thank you so much for this video!
The 5e DMG suggests you can get a +4 weapon… it just isnt on the loot tables. In my 5e high level game, ranged weapons are capped to +3 and melee goes to +6 (But ranged is still better cuz +3 ammo and accuracy Fighting style is+8/+6 but the high level gap is smaller. Until you get a legendary Belt.)
Question: if PF2 expects you to completely heal up between fights (and at least one member of the party is "taxed" to have a scaling medicine skill) why not just say that you completely heal between fights? Is the medicine healing system necessary, and does it add to the game? Would you loose anything if you said something like "you all heal back to full with a short rest", or "it takes 1min per HP resting to get back to full" or something? No snark intended. Actually would like to know. Also thanks for putting these together. They are great and I am learning a lot 😄
A GM could do that if no one wants to take up that role and spend feats on it. I haven't found that complaint in my games so far - I suppose because many new players feel they're already awash in feats? I'm also old-school in that I like the idea of time pressure in a hostile environment, and there being a time cost for healing. Also I think people don't want to abandon the gritty/fantasy idea represented by having to use Medicine, DESPITE the fact that the fantasy gets kind of wonky when you consider Battle Medicine. (At which point no one complains, because they desperately need that healing!) Btw One of my groups actually seems to like the idea of rolling for Medicine, and now have a story to laugh over how their "healer" critically failed and did slashing damage to the party 4 times in one day lol.
They really named an entire character class after a Chrono Trigger character. I know a “Magus” is a thing outside of Chrono Trigger but the character design and skill set are also similar to the Chrono Trigger character.
...but my torture scenes! 🤣 Didn't even mention one of the most brilliant things to happen to Skills: Assurance! Give players the capability of choosing between a stable number that they know will help in a great number of situations or roll for that sweet critical success... even allows you to fight against circumstancial and status penalties! Want to build a party that's actually competent in sneaking in most places? Assurance! Follow the Expert! Want to mitigate your multiple attack penalty on Athletic checks in combat? Assurance! Swimming and Climbing? Assurance! Medicine? Deception? Intimidation? Assurance! It gives you that feeling of what Expertise TRIES to do in 5e, by just giving you a reliable number you can always trust.
Is assurance actually good now? I remember in the playtest, it felt worse than useless as skill checks were scaled much more aggressively than in 1e. It's a serious question. One of the things that put our group off 2e was the excess of critical failures thrown into basic skill checks and the aggressive level-based scaling of most non-combat challenges.
@@LunaSaint For the most part assurance isn't worth it, but always being able to heal with medicine is nice. But if its a check you know is low and you can only fail on a 5 or lower assurance turns a 25 % chance to fail is always pass which isn't bad. I do fell assurance should be your minimum, but you still roll to see if you can get higher taking the higher value of the 2.
5e made feats optional, however I haven't heard of or played many campaigns that went with turning the option off. They exist certainly, but nearly everyone I've interacted with or seen play has had feats enabled. Which makes sense considering they help martials stand out from casters.
If you shove away a creature that is grabbing you with a Brutish shove. Would you move with the targeted creature that is grabbing you or does it break the grab and if the grabbing creature had reach of over 5ft would it impact this situation? This one caused me weeks of challenges in a game.
The philosophy of making character creation approachable, controlling the math, making monsters easier to run, and making it easier for GMs to improvise (the rules give rules support for improvisation). A lot of the useful mechanics PF2 took from 5e are rooted in 4e (short rest recharging), 5e achieved the goals by removing things in 3e/4e, while PF2 pursued them by reworking the foundations.
The best advice I got for my 5e games in regards to magic items was to not give out more than 1 item of each tier during that tier of play. Meaning 1 rare magic item between levels 5-10. Thankfully this helped balance the math and worked with my vision of a low magic setting, but at the same time I was in an Eberon game where our PCs were walking around with a bunch of strong magic items. Which fit the Eberon setting and also meant basically every combat encounter we came across, we rolled through and made it MUCH harder for that DM to balance than it was for me. The DMG does not provide guidance for any of this and the fact that a rare magic item can cost as cheap as 501 gp or as many as 5000 gp doesn't help either
What I do not like of Pathfinder 2e is that it is not a second edition of Pathfinder at all. It keeps almost nothing of its predecessor, except for some monsters and classes's basic concepts. It is a more complex evolution of D&D 4e/5e instead, which frankly is not what I wanted. Many of the changes that have been done could have been done even with Pathfinder 1e as a base, for example nerfing spells, turning the most troublesome into rituals, limiting the sources of key bonuses, using the three action economy (which was already in the game), or adding variety in combat (maneuvers, for example, were too useless and difficult to pull out in 1e, but that could have been easily fixed, for example by causing an AoO only if the attempted maneuver failed). One thing that I particularly hate as a DM is that PCs, NPCs and monsters are created in three different, incompatible ways. It's frustrating that a thing that was supposedly dead with 2nd Edition D&D has become the norm again.
Issues with this system I didn't see addressed: AC 18 on a level 1 mob is not fun. I don't like how monster ACs and DCs are balanced so that a character who is specialized in them still fails half the time and someone who is not has 25% chance or less. (at least that's how those numbers seem to me). An action tax for spell concentration seems insane. 2 actions and a spell slot to give a +1 seems lame as is 1 action for a +1 one time. Sure, when the attack hits by 1 because of your spell, cool, but the vast majority of the time you just wasted your resources with zero effect.
The goal of the " every +1 matters, with 3 actions" system is to propagate team play, and tactics : Demoralize, plus a spell like Bless, plus flanking, plus x, all stacking, and the attacker gets an additional +4, or more, to his attack; also ( different to 5E) strongly enhancing Crit chances. - Compared to 5E, where team work plays only a rather minor role, and the players hack on their enemies until those are dead.
After seeing this I think I found a personal "final" verdict in the 5e vs pathfinder 2e discussion. A beginner is perhaps happy to have less valid choices especially in combat, just getting locked in combat and attacking each turn is much less complicated than having choices. At least most times I have seen more elaborate stuff during combat being tried in 5e the DM simply decided on the fly how this might function, so more "work" for the DM but very easy for the player. For more advanced players on the other hand more valid things to do sound simply great. So I guess 5e stays the easier entry point for players with a more experienced DM while pathfinder may be the more enjoyable system long term also and especially for the DM and perhaps the easier entrypoint for new dms with experienced players. The question that I am asking myself now is if the 5e entry is that much easier to make it worth being less interesting in the long run.
I say that not all systems need to go for the long run + 5e as time go ones is less focus and tactical combat..we can also se it in 5.5 they try to make every one more flexible and combat faster because 5.5 is trying to focus more on rp side of things. I really don't get it way people compared..path 2e is a tactical combat first and for most. A game whan everything is focus on the encounter..while 5e in time got more focus on rp and out of combat play .(one of the problem in 5e it is started as combat focused but player shifted toward rp more and more and the system kinda wasnt build for that) .it's seems 5.5 will finally will go the step to support it.
First off, I agree in general about the action system being easier to jump into for 5e. But I do think the PF2 beginner box is actually easier for a new player than any of the 5e beginner boxes. Basic Liches has a Thoughts on PF2 video where they see PF2 as the easier game to learn (probably assuming the BB).
@Ronald; You really make me want to play PF2e BAD. Id love to play at your table (this from a 1979 Grognard OSR adherent - a lot of what I see in PF2e is very much what I see as ideal).
If i that are not affecting each other like ac, it doesn't matter. But having circonstances penalty other then flat-footed is rare. The only i know are from disarm and a feat from a specialised rogue when he feints.
Those stack and are treated as different things. So a prone character (Flat-footed: -2 circumstance penalty) who is also behind a desk (Cover: +2 circumstance bonus) has a net +0 to their AC. If that same person uses the Take Cover action to get greater cover (+4 circumstance bonus) it becomes a net +2 bonus to AC.
Prepared casters (wizards, clerics, druids, etc.) have Vancian spellcasting. Spontaneous casters (sorcerers, bards, etc.) have 5E-like casting EXCEPT they cannot freely change the spell level of a spell when they cast it. They can make 1 spell per spell level a Signature Spell to make it "flexible." Summoner has 5E like casting. Flexible Spellcasting is a class archetype to make Vancian classes like 5E classes.
CORRECTIONS/ERRATA:
-At 10:10, there are some free actions that don't have a trigger like Release (releasing an object). A number of others don't have triggers per se, but they need to be done immediately before doing something else (like a wizard draining their Arcane Bond to fuel their upcoming spell).
-At 12:05, there actually is ONE more type that comes up SOMETIMES in battle, the item bonus from an alchemical item or some other effects
-If you dislike tracking conditions and their effects, digital tools like Pathbuilder, Wanderer's Guide, and VTTs let you apply them automatically.
-At 20:52, Guidance and Bless don't stack because they aid DIFFERENT kinds of checks: Guidance boosts ability checks, whereas Bless aids only attack rolls and saving throws.
-At 39:50, one of the Big Six was a statboosting item to increase your main ability score. (Belt of Giant Strength, Headband of Alluring Charisma, etc.) Shields, while a SEVENTH big item for some characters, was optional.
-At 1:04:12, I had planned to but forgotten to give credit to 4e for defining simple, streamlined uses for skills in combat.
21:00 ish, Guidance and Bless add a d4 to different things so they don't stack (Guidance is just skill checks, Bless is attack rolls and saving throws).
Bless and Emboldening Bond do stack though!
58:28 silvery barbs is only good at forcing enemies to reroll, not rerolling your own things higher.
@@SquatBenchDeadlift455 Part 1 of SIlvery Barbs forces an enemy to reroll a success, Part 2 gives Advantage to an ally's next check.
@@recka5000 Thanks! Adding
Ahh I see what you mean
I swear dude you are single handedly converting me to Pathfinder 2e
He's 5-handedly converting me. Bob World Builder and DM Lair both have vids on pf2, and Icarus Games and Nonst1s are dedicated to it. Reddit brought me to Rules Lawyer, who is the most extensive of all of them, hence the apt channel name 😅
As a 5e GM, the more I learn about Pathfinder 2e and engage with these comparisons, the more validated I feel in my struggles. I'm running an epic campaign and the players are currently level 16. Balancing encounters is a complete crapshoot. I can throw things at them that according to the system is probably Deadly x4, and they breeze through it. It's become really stressful and work-intensive. I'm really looking forward to finishing the campaign and switching to PF2.
one thing to note, if you find things you don't like in pf2e they have a lot of optional rules you can use to fix them as well.
Wow almost like 5e was made Just to cash up from new players and Is not balanced at all at High One wow
It's not that hard, just throw similar shit at them as they throw at you. Look up DPR and stop being trash.
and that's why BG3 did stop at level 12.
A very important point that comes with the fixing of the "between 6 and 8 encounters per day" problem : you can finally build dungeons without a monster in every room. And it will be perfectly fine ! Because you don't have to exhaust the ressources of your players and because hazards and skill checks give huge amounts of xp (or because you use millestones, that I recommand), you perfectly can have a cave full of bandits with only 2 or 3 combats : the guards at the entrance, some random walkabout if the party is not sneaking successfully, and the boss + his minions. You can fill all the other "rooms" or places with traps, challenges, creativity, social skills, whatever you want. No need to beat the 8 rooms with the 8 variations of a small group of bandits.
Very powerful storytelling tool.
Yep! It's often said that Bounded Accuracy leads to more "naturalism" and freedom for DMs to put whatever they want in a dungeon. But at the same time the 6-8 encounters assumption is a straitjacket. And as I say in the vid it also makes hexploration less exciting when the party can go nova constantly when they rarely have more than 1 encounter in a day.
I haven't played Pathfinder yet but that sounds nice
I haven't even played my first real game of P2 yet, and I can already see that the 3 Action system is absolutely the way D&D should go.
The fact that 3-action is so simple, I'm surprised that it isn't something that wasn't fully embraced in 4e or implemented 35+ years ago if not when D&D was spun off Chainmail
I hate the 3 action system, funnily enough.
Breaking up movement however you like is much more flexible.
Tbh, in our games, 3-action is in practice every character pretty much always doing the same thing every time anyway.
Especially with the movement. You are stupid if you move because you lose an attack, so the game is super static.
@@HorizonOfHope found my 5e game never move once in melee, even more so when the Sentinel Feat is taken. There is zero insensitive to step away from a combatant when you open yourself up to when A) a hit (everyone has AoO) is possible and B) it costs nothing for someone to move back into melee.
If I know I can move more than my opponent's movement... I know I'm going to risk a hit from MAYBE 2 targets (extra emphasis on maybe) you know I'm doing it. Why leave my self open to a 3rd action that will likely not hit when I can guarantee that 3rd action will be used to move, and I definitely won't be flanked for at least 2 attacks?
It could be something that varies table to table, but even when watching people stream, I never see movement in PF2.
In 5e movement makes a fair bit of difference. The only HP that matters losing are the ones that knock you out, so players don't really lose much by moving. Taking an attack of opportunity isn't that bad unless you're concentrating - which is another great mechanic in 5e that's not in PF2: you can lose concentration after being hit.
Pretty much nothing in PF2 can do AoO, anyway, so it's another point in 5e's favour that everyone can do it.
But in 5e, it's a tactical choice to move away from enemies, and it doesn't compete with other actions. Some features and spells even allow disengaging as a bonus actions, which encourage you to keep moving.
And with spellcasters you don't really get three actions, either, you get one spell with two actions and one with one action. It's basically the same thing as action and bonus action, but with another name.
Same with two attacks and then moving: it's just action and bonus action but worse.
@@HorizonOfHope Same for me. 3-action is cool at lower level as it make you think you can do a lot, but pass 10th level, you are still doing the same thing and CAN'T do more as you did in PF1/DnD3.x. PF2 if ok at best and it just a rehashed 4th Edition imo. The more I play it, the more I want to go back to PF1.
I personally think the rules are a + to a narrative game. The thing is I know how to roleplay a character and I know how to tell a story. I want the game system to be able to handle the rest of the stuff. Pf2es strong rules are good at handling that stuff and also lets me cutomize without having to worry about being optimal or whatever.
I realize it's been a year, but...
Your content is always good, but this is probably one of the best you've done. Packed full of information, while still maintaining your "fair assessment" approach to talking about comparing PF2e to any D&D edition.
TL:DR - good video!
I have to be honest that I saw PF2 initially being what this person on reddit thought: I thought PF2 was just taking what made 5E good and what made 3.x stuff good and put it together! After actually going out and learning about it I found it to be VERY, VERY different than either however!
Edit: In the best of ways, at least in my opinion! It has become my go-to fantasy system over the last couple of years, the time in which I have really gotten to learn about the system.
The biggest inspiration for PF2 is 4th edition.
Man I just saw Jason Bulmahn's new video (about his Pathfinder Hack, Hopefinder) and his 4 Pillars of Pathfinder 2e Core Game Engine, and their fine tuning of math to make it story driven and customizable is downright inspiring. He and his team were so incredibly passionate about creating an game engine that is iconic and future-proof that they absolutely hit it out of the park.
Props to him and paizo team.
Here's that video you mentioned: th-cam.com/video/Pz8zHp5Fw_I/w-d-xo.html
This is probably, in my opinion, the best PF2e comparison video made. Excellent dive into the reasoning behind, and execution of, the things that make the system work well. This video definitely will help me articulate why I prefer PF2e more succinctly and accurately. Awesome work! You've been on a roll lately, I find that I will drop what I'm doing to catch your latest videos, and they don't disappoint. Thanks for the great videos, I'm glad to have an advocate for this game like you!
Thank you!
Ronald, what an awesome video!
Thank you, once again, for your amazing work.
And, should I say, the "graphics" and images used in the presentation: GORGEOUS!
Glad to be here and support you as much as I can. Looking forward to return to your Patreon.
Hope you are fine! Thx again
Thanks! I just discovered PowerPoint with this video! (Well, I knew of it before, but this forced me to start playing with it! I recorded this before Law School #1 btw)
"...on this satisfying razor's edge, where the party's tactical decisions matter in determining whether they win." That's something I've really found myself striving for (often unsuccessfully) in my past D&D 5e games and something that comes through in all your group play videos and your amazing 20th level Ancient Red Dragon boss encounter video. Thanks for making such amazing content for us Pathfinder newbs! m(_ _)m
Awesome! Thx
Excellent video, Ronald! The only point I would add is that because of the way the "bounded escalator" allows the encounter system to work, it alleviates the issue of action disparity between the two sides of combat. If a party of 4 PCs is fighting a single creature that's +4 levels higher than them, that's 12 actions per round versus 3 actions per round. But because of how the numbers are designed, those 3 actions from the boss monster will be MUCH more impactful (likely critically succeeding) than the 12 actions from the party.
I'm looking forward to the rest of the series!
I was trying to say that here, but you said it more clearly!
This made me realize that silvery barbs is a more powerful version of hero points, no wonder that spell feels busted!
Great breakdown of the design philosophies and differences!
It's not going to be for everyone, but I really love this level of depth. Thanks for all of the work putting this together.
Thanks. This video was amazing. I haven't played D&D in a few years, but my oldest son was asking to play so I had pulled out my 5E books and started preparing for that. I was defaulting to 5E as I already had physical books, and knew the system and my prep time is pretty limited, but various things especially on the DM side were really starting to grate on me in preparation.
When the whole OGL mess went down I bought the Humble Bundle for PF2 as a statement (and hey, can never have enough game materials), but I had not really looked into it in detail. I was worried that it would hew too close to 3.5/PF1, and the various issues it had. I had not played a lot of PF1, but I was largely underwhelmed by how little it had fixed from 3.5 at the times I looked.
This video was very helpful in seeing how PF2 actually has addressed a number of the things I was concerned about from 3.5/PF1 and 5E. Enough so that I am going to commit to at least digging in and giving the core rules a thorough reading to see if it would be a better choice for us. This video has made me a lot more confident that if I do spend the time to learn PF2, I can at least trust that it will do something to address those ten issues that were all weighing on me to some degree while planning to play 5E again.
I will do an overstep here and suggest to you to look up the Video Playlist of PF2e in a channel called "HowItsPlayed". He has made arguably short videos explaining almost "each and every rule" in the system (at least the most big ones) in a very simple and waterdown way, with pages for reference. i suggest 1.5x speed playback
Thank you so much for this video. I love that you are teaching some of the structure/theory behind the rules, which is really helping me jump start the intuition needed to run a ttrpg!
5:00 - don't forget that 5e is split into DMG and PHB whereas PF1/2 both use a combined CRB. That makes the CRB seem kinda hefty, until you realize it's two books in one.
Seems like they'll split them into 2 books in the Remaster!
Even after they split them for the Remaster, the Player Core and GM Core both seem to be twice as large as the 2014 5e PHB and DMG. I don't have the 2024 5e books, but they seem to be closer to the Remaster books in thickness.
I love this channel more than most of my family.
Thank you for your dedication and love of the game!
Please make the rogue cleric fighter teamwork scenario a short, I need to share it with all my PF2e players!
Only criticism I have is that the Big 6 includes stat-boosting gear, such as a Belt of Giant Strength, not a shield. In fact, oftentimes getting your stat-boosting gear is your top gearing priority.
Great video!
Ack, you're right! Oh well, Big Seven!
Boots of flying were pretty mandatory for at least fighters in campaigns iv played
This was EXTREMELY helpful in crafting my pitch to my players to try Pathfinder.
I also stopped playing D&D just as 3.0 was coming out and didn't get back in until 5e and was super interesting overview that helped me understand the landscape of design evolution.
I have been trying to get my group to try pf2 for a while and this will help me immensely. Great vid!
This was a very useful overview for someone who has played multiple editions of D&D, and now is looking at the PF2 starter box and scratching their head. Keep it up!
I still love 1st edition pathfinder, but I just ran the beginner box for 2e for some friends and I did find it really, really nice to not feel like I have to keep an entire reality simulation running in my head.
Next step is to jump from tricycling to a biathlon by converting the Strange Aeons AP for 2nd edition 😅
Awesome! I don't know if you've connected with Series of Dice Based Events, but they have a server where people have created guides for converting 1E adventures to 2E, and actual conversions
I'm eagerly awaiting the rest of this series!
Nice video Ronald! I think the more visual format of this video helped me better understand what you meant. I'm all for using more power point!
I love this video, I have played through all editions of both D&D and Pathfinder and I could not agree more with you. Great explanation, clear and fair. Thanks! Keep recording good videos.
Thank you for making these. Very information rich and much appreciated!
The most complicated parts for me are: the statuses/conditions their effects and which stack and which don't; the hidden/concealed/etc and the ins & outs of that
1:04:00 o like the ways you can use your skills in combat, they are not only for roleplay moments, they have tactical uses too, almost all skills
I was also not impressed with the playtest and didn't want to switch from 1e, but your videos convinced me to try it and I have not looked back. Well done.
Awesome!
Your explanations were really helpful in processing both systems, particularly advantage/disadvantage and i feel less compulsion to forcefully replicate the dynamic now that i understand the background. Thank you!
All the problems I had with PF 1e, which you mentioned as well, are addressed and fixed in PF 2e.
Thanks for the explanation.
I like PF2E, and it has a lot to offer to certain types of players, but let's be a little more honest about it:
1. 10:51 5e's Concentration wasn't an arbitrary decision. It prevented the existence of too many ongoing spell effects which prevented overly-complicated fights and gave combatants an opportunity to shut down particularly powerful spells like Hypnotic Pattern. PF not only doesn't have such a limitation, it encourages the vastly weaker PF2E casters to try to sustain as many spells as possible, creating a tangle of effects that have to be navigated every turn, unless that caster doesn't mind being relegated to a buff/nerf bot during combat, which is what they're usually doing with those sustained spells, anyway.
2. 12:02 The classification of Circumstance and Status bonuses is nice in some ways, and was clearly intended to tamp down the math, but most of the same complexity arises when dozens of actions and effects in the game cause various bonuses and penalties, each with their own tags, that follow their own rules, like 'emotional', 'auditory', 'negative', 'enchantment', or 'sonic' (yes, that's different from 'auditory'), and PF2E encourages players to use every single one they can. This can be fun to players who really love optimization and high-resolution tactical combat, but it's still a significant hurdle for newbies and A LOT that the GM has to remember to account for as just base rules of the game. Item bonuses being written in advance doesn't change the fact that they're part of the math and contribute to the complexity, even if they're subjectively more manageable.
3. 14:58 I'd be interested to hear what these confusing 5e grapple mechanics are, and where they're found, because 5e's grappling system is quite simple as written and can be summarized thusly: If you have a free hand, you can make a contested check to grapple, if grapple succeeds, enemy speed becomes 0 until they escape, and they can try to escape with a check on their turn. Size differences create intuitive advantage/disadvantage. That's it. Everything else to consider about grappling is not part of a bespoke set of grappling rules, but rather internally logical connections with other simple game mechanics. There's no math, no different levels of being grappled, no condition that is constantly changing who can actually take advantage of it (looking at you, Flat-Footed), nor mechanics that 'merge into each other', whatever that means.
4. 15:30 Flat-Footed never stacking, no matter how many wildly different ways it's applied, is okay because it's 'intended', and yet advantage/disadvantage cancelling each other out, no matter how many ways they're applied, is a point of criticism? Here, PF2E is saying that if two people are swinging swords at you from both sides, it's no harder for them to land blows than if they also had a third guy holding the collar of your breastplate from behind or locking one of your limbs behind you. Advantage/Disadvantage isn't perfect, but it's a non-static bonus/penalty that can get away with not committing to a single image of circumstance, and incentivizes players to use their abilities to apply advantage/disadvantage elsewhere or elsewhen on the battlefield, if it wouldn't help in one place or time.
5. 16:22 - 16:47 This just furthers the point that PF2E is NOT beginner-friendly for players or GMs. With time, anyone can learn any system, but it's stuff like this that creates a learning curve steeper than most people have the patience to overcome and steeper than is being argued for here.
6. 16:50 PF2E stat blocks are good and bad. It's nice that they're smaller, but it also REQUIRES memorization to use. GMs have enough to memorize, especially in PF2E, and this isn't helping. This move only helps make the books cheaper to print, it was not a decision made for those that actually want to play the game as there's SO MUCH page flipping until you've actually memorized every single tag and feature. This same level of effort can be applied to each monster in games like 5e, that just list what each monster does, but you aren't required to memorize anything since it's right on the stat block.
7. 24:00 - 36:18 One thing I've learned from PF2E is that combat is significantly less forgiving than in the systems it's being compared to. Because of this, having a character's build be optimized and knowledge of the game is quite a bit more important than in these other systems. This point isn't limited to combat, either. Crafting, travel, and social interactions are generally more complex and require more forethought in how one builds a character. These are all great and fun things for players that already deeply understand this system or those that have the patience to learn it, but it's for this reason that PF2E is by no stretch of the imagination an exception to the fact that players CAN easily build a character that performs poorly or one that outshines their comrades. In fact, given the myriad options available to absolutely everyone, it's arguably easier for this to happen, especially when building for concept over potency. Just because innate bonuses begin low and increase almost linearly every level, doesn't mean the game doesn't keep up and expect the player to make smart and informed choices. However, it's HARDER for newer players to make these wise choices because the bonuses provided are almost never a simple, numerical bonus that is easy to understand before putting it to use. The complexities and traps compound when taking into account the fact that every party is different and some feats just aren't going to have the same impact with one party as it will with another. Highly optimized auto-picks in feats don't always feel good to have around, but they're great for introducing players to systems like this, so there's less competing for their attention and they can feel much more comfortable with early choices. Credit where it's due, PF2E does keep up with level nicely and stays at a decent level of balance, in my experience.
8. 43:08 - 43:30 This is completely false. In fact, one of the most popular 'optimization' tools for martials (or any class, really) can be found here: [desmos(dot)com/calculator/pbi6jatci2] and shows the probability of success, which is the factor every dice-rolling system uses for calculating optimization, including PF2E. No optimization guide for 5e just assumes that the player is going to hit an enemy.
9. 47:31 - 47:39 Also completely false. Casters that engage in melee, for which there are many builds and classes built around doing so, have many effective options available to them other than 'I attack'. Every martial class in 5e also has something they can do other than attacking, of which the best examples are rogues, battlemaster fighters, psi warrior fighters, paladins, and rangers. PF2E has done a much better job of giving martials something to do other than attacking but the gameplay loop can become just as tired and robotic as any system, especially when most of your character's offensive feats are just a different way to perform a basic strike or defensive action.
10. 57:16 - 58:58 This is a truly extreme example of stacking bonuses that is not only unlikely to happen, but also inadvisable to attempt in the vast majority of situations due to its superfluous tax on action economy and general sense of overkill since 5e only counts critical success on attack rolls with a natural 20. Said example also includes Jack of All Trades which is a feature I can only assume was here to artificially pad out the point in bad faith(?) since it has nothing to do with bounded accuracy. "Bounded accuracy" refers to the intent that static, PASSIVE bonuses to things such as attacks, skill checks, and saving throws, should only ever go so high without the aid of effects such as those gained from consumables or spells, which are generally one-off effects and limited rather fairly. PF2E's bonuses are just as powerful, if not more so, due to the critical success/failure system, which not only adds more math to every single roll, but also lends a great amount of weight to even a single +1, as was mentioned earlier in this video about how such bonuses can double, triple, or quadruple chances for critical success in common circumstances. When accounting for untyped bonuses which CAN stack, unlike Circumstance, Status, and Item bonuses, the math of PF2E can be just as fragile as 5e's with the same group that likes to over-stack bonuses.
11. 1:02:48 - 1:03:06 Not sure what's trying to be said here. Is combat more predictable or less predictable? Sorry, but this part just sounds like floundering to make a case not suited for PF2E. PF2E is less forgiving and thus less predictable because there is still a major element of chance in this game born from rolling dice to determine outcomes. That means PF2E is ALWAYS going to have more circumstances in which players are going to feel cheated by the dice or let down by decisions made within the party. Good tactics only alleviate so much of this chaos when 'appropriately leveled' enemies are literally built to be able to down even the thickest frontline characters with little difficulty. This kind of risk is fun for those that enjoy gambling and crunching numbers, but not much for those that just want to play a game. Arguably pretty hostile to beginners.
I like PF2E's design goals and how well some of them were executed, but in my opinion, most of the points laid out in this video are in no way 'fixes' to the flaws in the approach D&D 5e took. It's a different system, for a different crowd, and a different kind of game. PF2E's attempt at game design also comes with its own set of problems, such as the overly-complicated and barely useable crafting system they had to attempt to fix recently.
All that said, I encourage players to try PF2E. It's both familiar to D&D 5e players, yet refreshingly different, if not demanding of a bit more patience.
amazing video covering many really interesting topics in PF2e and TTRPG in general
Another great video Ronald. Thanks for putting in the time and effort to make these videos. As a newb to pf2 I really appreciate it.
I have barely started the video and hit a like just because these are always so well done. Though I'm leaning toward going back to 1e after some clunky details and meh caster feel (dimension door 1/day? not in my world! lol ). we'll see how this video impacts that feel.
half way through the video and I'm now seeing some things I forgot and you made a 2e believer out of me. Just have to make some actions easier to recall for fewer players or handling multiple characters.
I played 3.5 as a kid and pathfinder 1e since 2009. I’m about to finally take the plunge and DM a 2e game. I’ve been pushing back so hard on 2e because I love pathfinder 1e so much, but it feels like I’ve exhausted all pathfinder 1e has to offer me. Fantastic video my guy.
Great video, was an excellent listen.
Wanted to add for others, that if you like the 3 actions idea, but still want to play 5e, you can add three actions to 5e, to a fashion, with little problems.
Action, move action, bonus action. Each one can be used to do the action on the right. So an action can do anything, but a move action can only do a move or bonus action. Etc.
Am playing it in a game right now, and its had almost no issues.
It's the 4e system! Which is one thing my "3 action video" recommends! Yay us! Great minds.
Wanted to leave a comment to thank you for this tour de force review of Pathfinder and how it compares to current and previous D&D editions. Started playing with 1st Edition D&D but my most active period was with 3rd Edition / 3.5, mostly skipped 4th and got heavily into 5th. I did try Pathfinder 1st Edition but it was very much 3.75 and at the time I'd played that enough to be very familiar both as a DM and player with many of the problems you highlighted. 5th did fix a lot of those, but you made an excellent and thorough case for PF2's advantages over 5th. We picked up the PF2 Beginner's Box and Core Rulebook after the recent OGL debacle and are giving it a real try. Found your channel originally via Treantmonk and very glad that I did!
It comes down to if you feel empowered or stifled by systems. As you say, once you've looked up a dozen rules, you'll see that it is brutally straight forward and perfectly fits with everything else.
With all of the rules on the table for everyone to see, you can spend time in combat and/or RP instead of needing the DM to finagle rulings all the time.
Thank you for the time and attention you've put (and continue to put) into this. It's appreciated for sure! :D
Great video! For any players interested the Beginner box is the way to go. Our table picked it up last year and it was such a good introduction and we’re still continuing the campaign well after it.
21:27 One barbarian with 2 casters strapped to the front and the back. I don't know if Fly's weight requirements but assumed it similar to regular encumbrance and the two casters were within the encumbrance of the barbarian.
That was a great breakdown. I must say, I had a much different experience with D&D. I ate my teeth on 3rd edition (later PF 1st) and we have tried a lot of crazy builds, but never really managed to break the game that much. Perhaps because we generally limited our games to lvl 10. There was also never really a problem with buffing before the fight, or the five minute adventuring day. I believe this was thanks to how we started with boardgames and had the idea/preconception that we should get as much done within a session as possible. Playing official scenarios also helped in this regard. All of this combined into making us much more focused on executing cool ideas than min-maxing our characters.
All that being said, I love how Pathfinder threw out all of the clunky rules regarding what you can do in a round for a simple, streamlined system.
Thanks for this thorough step by step analysis, I think it will be useful to those embarking on their own system designs and for many relatively new to PF2e DMing, like myself, identifying the design goals deepens understanding and therefore running the system to its potential.
I comand my first session of pf2e yesterday, it was very nice. Your videos are very helpfull to demonstrate to my old hags attached to DnD for 10 old years more, to try something different. Tx man. (Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Brazil.)
Can confirm about buff stacking in 3e/pf1. Played through Shattered Star abusing stacking buffs. Had the party motto "buffs are running" meaning shoot first and move through quickly since it almost always was the most effective.
Actually was a slog to play since modifier conditionality made each round an accounting chore but the variance was still low (things died quickly).
Note that at least in 3.0 wandering monsters were part and parcel of the rules (see the DMG). The game simply wasn't designed without them. Also the DM was instructed to use a variety of challenges, not just '4 per day' (apparently very few people bothered to read the damn book!) I never had '15 minutes adventuring days'.
Wandering monsters can pressure a party only so much. An 11th party where every caster has 20+ spell slots. In my 9 years of GMing 3.x/PF1 the idea that the spellcasters might not having enough spell slots disappeared after the first several levels. And the problem is more the opposite: finding a way to pressure the party so that they don't leave the "dungeon" and rest, and doing so consistently through a 1-20 campaign.
I can't stress enough how wrong people who say that Class Feats, Ancestry Feats and General/Skill feats are confusing. They're not! They make bad character builds HARDER to make. As someone who started playing AD&D2e and had very few oportunities to play D&D 3rd and Pathfinder 1 during these past 20 years I allways find the feat system quite confusing and picking the wrong feat for my character usually doomed him, whether be on tabletop or in games like Neverwinter Nights or Pathfinder Kingmaker. It's actually much simpler.
The more I listen to videos about the game mechanics makes me more eager to start playing Pathfinder.
PF1e had some massive problems but I don't think 2e did a good job fixing them (with exceptions) while maintaining the spirit of 1e (not being D&D5e).
Some changes have nothing to do with the issues of 1e but don't add anything new or interesting either. It really feels like they are chasing new customers at the expense of making learning the game less rewarding even if it was overdone in 1e
Never understood the limit on magic items 5E imposed. If I wanted to play low-magic setting I would do so myself.
I actually like the complexity of PF1e with all the options and roots you can take in character creation, and the amount of different action types in combat, it feels cool. What I don’t like are wholes in the rules and inconsistencies, like 4 different types of weapon finesse, or a fencing grace feat that allows you to grace only a rapier, but not any other piercing weapon.
12:10 Item bonuses can also change in combat from elixirs, such as a Drakeheart mutagen.
Ah yes, adding to my errata
I ran the Pathfinder beginner box a few weeks ago and it was okay but the only times I was having fun was when I had to change everything about it to the point it wasn't anything like Pathfinder. There was too much combat and the social encounters said what the possibilities were so when the players did something else I would just say "you can't do that since it says nothing about it" which made it boring so on the second floor I just made everything up. The players opened a kobold nursery and collected all the kobolds and then at the end made a kobold army and they killed the dragon in one hit. I've never played dnd 5e and Pathfinder 2e was my first ttrpg so I'm not sure if it's exclusive to Pathfinder. I thought it would be something where you can be creative, doesn't have much rules, you can avoid combat at all times and even when there is rules, they are very light and say at the start that they can and should be altered so I know it's okay to do that and also everyone isn't extremely overpowered. I think I might try something from the OSR next since I've not fully dedicated to Pathfinder.
yeah, just sounds like you and your group aren't as interested in the crunchy/combat aspect. OSR and rules light games are 2 directions you should check out
Thanks to you I switched to Pathfinder 2E and also started DMing now as well
I have my gripes with Pathfinder 1e... The action economy, certain super specific rules (e.g. you can only draw a weapon as part of a move action if your BAB is +1 or greater... This is cool and interesting and seperates martials in a very specific way... But only at 1st level, so why bother?), grappling is complicated, and as in all systems I am aware of invisibility is super vague.
But honestly, I still hold that 2e is simply too divergent of a game. I think you might find that is where a lot of hostility exists between sysytems can come from. You have 2e fans insisting the game is the same just better... And you have folks like me saying, no, that is another system, it is hardly the same. Which, in the end, it is fine that it is different... But there are more poeple who insist one is objectively better.
But, I also have gripes that extend beyond the mechanics that maybe some might find petty: The art, and I am not talking about Kobold. Adamantine Golem, Alchemical Golem, Balor, at least half of the iconics, and the Leukodaemon, just to name a few... There's just something about the art that completely misses the mark for me. In 1e, the art felt like it had more character, more dynamic poses, and more style to them. Sure, there *are* pieces I like in 2e and 1e art can be super hit or miss... But there are just more art pieces in 1e where I look at it and think "That is a cool piece of art."
and back to mechanics:
A loss of parity between players and monsters. In 1e, monsters are build shockingly similar to PCs... And, you know, then there is the explicit encouragement to add class levels... Or monsters who are just specialized races. It made the world to me feel more grounded... I guess that effect is only prevalent for the GM who is looking and editing these stats but that feels lost in 2e.
Further, I love monster templates. And you know what the Bestiaries in 2e lacks? (for the most part, I mean) Templates. I did the math (napkin math with huge assumptions), in 1e, with just two books you can create 8750+ monsters... This is with classes, templates, and the 350+ monsters in the 1st Bestiary. This is not really counting the variants (Sea Scrags, Giant Queen Ants, not even burning or bloody skeletons), stacking classes on top of templates, stacking templates, monsters of different levels, etc.
You could play every day for over 23 years and fight a different combination of monsters, classes, and stats (assuming only 2 combat a day)... I didn't even include genric templates like giant creatures, advanced creatures, young creatures, etc. (Now given, not all monster templates such as Zombies, Ghosts, etc. can be applied to all creatures and not all creatures can really take class levels... Which is something I didn't account for... Mostly because I am lazy... But then there are the other things didn't account for which would illustrate my point positively which I also didn't include like the generic templates, the npc classes, stacking templates and class levels, etc... So I think it balances out)
Gawd, my overuse of the ellipsis is downright criminal. Pardon that. But I think you see my point. I just like 1e, lol.
Now, after all that... I do think that 2e still has good ideas. The Feat Pools for example, although I have my problems with it. The 3-action system is very convenient, although I have my problems with it. And quite a few of the reworks of the classes... Investigator I really liked. Witch, eh, not so much.
So basically, what I am saying is it is a fine system just not for me. 5e, however. I just despise 5e. I can play it but if feels so... Empty... Restrictive... Just not as fun. I am an avid 5e hater as much as I am an avid 1e fan.
Some further things... You are still chasing runes. Just because you aren't selling the already magic sword for a better sword doesn't mean they aren't still trying to build up those runes. If anything, doesn't that make their minmaxxing even worse? Now instead of collecting "the big 6" you are just trying to stack all the runes you can onto the same item. Not entirely that different, to me at least. This part of the 2e system, I must admit, is more of an armchair perspective.
But, you know, so what if the player is just dumping their grandfather's sword? That can be a story moment. If that is just a meaningless loss, maybe you just aren't playing the game right... Or maybe you are playing right and min-maxxing is just more fun than roleplaying to you. That part is really a non-issue, I think.
And while, yes... It can be annoying that some combats devolve into gridlock. I am such an opponent of what I call ring-around-the-rosie-combat (due to 5es AOO rules), that I simply do not care about the gridlock. I do not like when people can just... Run circles around an enemy on their turn. With 2e, it is no longer just being able to run circles it is past and around and, well, I just don't like that. You want to run past an enemy without penalty? Put ranks in acrobatics, levels in barbarian, feats into spring attack... There are ways to make yourself more mobile. I mean, I suppose that is less optimal than full-attack with Power attack... But, I mean, I guess I am just not that much an optimizer.
And on the 5-minute adventuring day... Don't some abilities and most spellcasting have a limit of once per day? So this means, yes, the party can go nova... But they won't get their spells back for a whole day. Which I suppose is not much of a hinderance without a time limit or wandering monsters... But that is an entire 24 hour cycle (well, probably less if they 1st travel) before they get their most powerful utilities... 24 hours where they are vulnerable.
But you know what I think? We should bring back those old 3e mechanics that nobody liked like non-infinite cantrips! It solves a lot of problems which I hate oh so much. Light, Create Food, Create Water, Detect Magic... No longer are they just instant "I win" spells for scenarios like managing resources in a dungeon, surviving in the wilderness, a mysterious pillar in the middle of the room.
For real, I hate they removed that and everyone just accepted it! In Pathfinder 1e there are very rarely even damage cantrips so it isn;t as if you are relying on your cantrips for anything other than just cheesing these very specific scenarios I want my players to work through! Maybe RP or trying to cheese a cantrip into doing something it can't.
I can't wait for the rest of these "Pathfinder Law School Courses." Love them, and the syllabus at the beginning leaves me craving for future lessons on the list XD
Edit. "How to caster good" at #12, I am extremely interested in what you have to say... Putting it last seems intentional, Nice touch
It was! =D
This is a great video! I don't remember a time when I was so much enjoying watching system building/developing/comparing video.
What is the module are you using that highlights the movement increments? That looks really useful
deffo would like to know as well
Drag Ruler, combined with PF2E Drag Ruler Integration
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Thanks again!
I just wanted to say I feel this is the best video on these matters I’ve seen from start to finish. Other videos do a good job of breaking specific things down, but this video covers most of what matters. I personally believe the low-key hero in all this is your choice to start with 3.5/PF1e, include 4e, and finally 5e when making comparisons/showing the progressions of the systems. While it’s completely understandable that so many videos draw a one-to-one comparison between 5e and PF2e, this video shows the general evolution, and reasons for changes made. It achieves two things that is rare in most videos:
1. It provides an easy-to-follow guide for players whom never made the jump to 5e from previous editions. Similarly, even those whom made the jump but have ample experience with 3.5/PF1e get an “extra layer” of understanding. It’s also probably the first time some 5e players will be introduced to some of the differences between 5e and previous editions of D&D.
2. Just as importantly, all this is achieved without bashing 5e. You show the differences, talk about why you think it’s better in many instances, but are also fair in your acknowledgment that some players or groups might not like every single change.
Overall, just a really outstanding video, and one I can share with all my friends on the fence or not about trying out Pathfinder 2e. Thanks so much!
Thanks! Yes you lay out some things I try to do here. Much appreciated!
I'm hooked. Seems like such a sweet spot inbetween Pathfinder 1e and D&D 5e.
I haven't yet played PF2e, but one thing that appeals to me a lot is the lack of different rule systems that you have to learn for each class, and all the different trackers that come with that (superiority dice, channel divinity, etc etc). In that regard, spell slots almost looks like a leftover vestige (and indeed, 4e went even further and got rid of those too, but at the cost of introducing the clunky at-will/encounter/daily distinction).
Honestly I think spell slots are fine. They are one very iconic system encompassing basically all of magic casting. And one of the core issues, 4e probably had, was that casters and martials did not feel different enough, although they arguably should. If the uniqueness of magic is not represented in the design of the rules, it ceases to be magic on an aesthetic level. Maybe there are better systems than spell slots for magic, but I would argue the rule systems of magic casters should feel different to other classes to reflect the difference between magic and non-magic in a fantasy setting, which heavily depends on it in its worldbuilding. After all a TTRPG cannot and maybe should not rely on flavor or visual cues for magic aesthetics like many videogames with "mana" for both martials and casters can.
@@JoniWan77 I'm not disagreeing, but one potential issue is that spell casters get more "screen time" just because their actions are more complicated.
@@delenius1 I do not really disagree. However I don't quite see how it's the spell slot system facilitating that. But maybe I just like the aesthetics or rather worldbuilding behind spell slots a bit too much. It just is so much more interesting than uniform ressource systems to me.
Just came from having mastered BG3 and holy shit have you made me fall in love. Pf2e solves EVERYTHING that has annoyed me about larians version of 5e. When I play BG3 I constantly think 'the game is amazing, but it would be so much better if this rule was X instead' and all of those thoughts are so far addressed by Pf2e.
Fucking magic item overload man, nothing feels special once you hit the underdark.
I think that with this video many of the complaints to 2e will be over, or at least they should be.
A wide and complex analysis of the two systems with their collective five editions was necessary for an extensive comparison.
Well done Ronald 👍🏼
It's not over... largest complaint is from the people who fear large numbers... "I can't play PF2e, all those large number at high level!" *Rollseyes*
I can't play 5e... if the setting is in Middle Earth and the one-shot is surviving Balrog's (Balor) takeover of Moria... the Dwarves would destroy the Balor... yes, many Dwarves would die horribly... but... the Balor would lose. It has 19 AC... compared to a typical level 1 character's attack bonus of +4... multiple that by hundreds of Dwarves...
@@aralornwolf3140 I see. A reason more to embrace Foundry VTT and let it make the calculations for us..
I personally think first edition is one of the best ttrpgs ever made, but as its a dead game ive finally decided to move on and learn about second edition. Your videos are an amazing resource. Thank you!
I am glad my group has given PF2e a chance as we are all LOVING the game and setting.
I am happy I got the humble bundle for Pathfinder 2e. I will hopefully be able to talk my players into trying 2e next campaign.
The spell casting action economy makes me want to play it just for that.
58:40: I don't know if it's fair to bring up Silvery Barbs, that one's from Strixhaven. My understanding is that Strixhaven stuff is meant solely to be used in a Strixhaven campaign.
No one does that
The D&D server I belong to just started a PF2 game. They seem to be having a good time so far!
Very concise comparison. Interesting to a new 2e convert like myself
After a previous video of yours I came across I'm definitely more intrigued by pf2e, that said I still hold 3.5 very dear so maybe it's bias when I say that I think you're in places being unfair to it. Well, I guess I can't argue about the complexity (though personally I see that as one of the big plusses) or the imbalance (but again that can be fun). But I do have a very different perspective on magic items than you, in my experience of 3.5 the magic items you wore were much more often for some effect than for just stats. A lot of the most memorable items to me were things like belt of battle or anklet of translocation, even something like ring of entropic deflection is a cool trade-off adding dynamic bonus thing rather than just straight numbers). Even with weapons, you had to give your weapon a straight +1 before you could give it other effects, but generally the effects were worth more than the equivalent amount of plusses. The exception being if you wanted a major weapon crystal it needed a standard +3 at least, but the weapon crystals also were adding interesting and conditional flavorful effects. Also it was an official rule in the dmg that you could upgrade any weapon or armor by paying the difference in cost, so you absolutely could keep your family heirloom sword the whole game as long as it started out as at least masterwork or better.
But yeah as far as my view of playing 3.5 I can't argue that the actual combat wasn't all that tactical. It's definitely the game's weakest point and my best argument for putting effort into the character building is that it then lets you get through the not very interesting combat that much more efficiently. The idea of a ttrpg with actually fun tactical combat is intriguing though. But still I feel like nothing will touch the high water mark of 3.5 character creation in terms of the interesting stuff you could do. I almost wonder if there's some amount of trade-off in terms of if you want combat to be more interesting the character building has to be less interesting and vice versa (though 5e for some reason went the route of making neither all that interesting).
I'm also not sure I understand the point about skills rarely being used in 3.5. A lot of your examples of baseline things also existed in 3.5. Tumble was a skill, feinting was an action that used the bluff skill, granted bull rush was just a strength check rather than being tied to a skill, but escaping a grapple could use escape artist skill. Demoralize was also an action tied to intimidate in 3.5. And for the fancier stuff there were also skill tricks. Maybe some people didn't know about skill tricks? I don't know, but they're there and there are some cool options there.
I do hate the 5 minute adventuring day stuff but I also think that's a group/DM issue more than it is a system issue. And I don't really see how short rests help at all with that since the casters get nothing back on short rest so they'll still push for the long rest after every fight or two if they're playing without thinking about resource management, and that just makes the classes balanced around short rest resources that much weaker relatively. I guess giving casters stuff that refreshes on short rest makes them less likely to want to push for long rests but I don't know that sort of feels like the wrong way to address the issue to me. The point of casters is that long term resource management question so if someone plays a caster and then just refuses to do that it seems weird to me that rather than punishing that you reward it by giving them short rest refresh stuff. I mean, I guess the point is that long term resource management is supposed to be a part of the gameplay of 3.5, not a mistake that they didn't realize they'd added that we need to find a way to either ignore or "fix."
Great video. Thank you for making this! One thing that I found was a big distraction was your camera going in and out of focus all the time. Otherwise loving the series.
I noticed it! Yeah, I'll try to remember to turn off my auto-focus. I also have a more stable mount for the camera now.
So one of my favorite examples of how brilliant the archetype/dedication feats are in the system is my current Wild Order Druid I'm playing,
His shapeshifting gets naturally stronger as he levels up, instead the class feats he has available add more versatility options when shapeshifting, but that doesn't matter to Marco the Dwarven Druid, because he only shapeshifts into a gorilla as he frontlines for the group, and is taking Wrestler archetype feats so he can manhandle anything in his way with athletic checks.
I was blown away at how smoothly the combo works. I almost feel like I'm using free archetype rule even though we aren't in this group.
I am *eagerly* awaiting course #12 - How to Caster Good. I love casters, but I'm still learning Pf2e so I'm struggling to find a fun build I like.
i probably won't ever get to play pf2e but i still want to try making a caster in it
I love this analysis, it highlights the issues and the different solutions, and confirms why I loved some bits of 4e .. I am just starting to play PF2e and most of it I like - oddly the only thing I miss from 5e is being able to split movement, which did make fights more mobile (but your point about why it tended not to be I agree with)
The 5e Terrasque is a bad example ... as it is used to devastate the city the players are defending, it can be surprisingly quick and is very destructive, and trivial to kill over a large number of rounds, but by which time the city lies in ruins ... the other high level monsters are a bit more than sacks of hit points ... but still not as interesting as they can be - I suspect this is to make life easier for the DM?
Loved this vido, highly informative and well done, I was wondering what your mod list for foundry is because it looked pretty good and had some interesting features.
I have a Foundry mods video on my channel. Also, here's a link to my server channel where my list is a pinned comment: discord.com/channels/870925179570753616/943926525688954930
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG thank you
Okay, I had my thoughts about Pf2e as a new-ish D&D 5e DM...
Now I have none, I just am thinking on the best way to fill my homebrew world with Pf2e ancestries (because everything else already fits, and furthermore, it fixes some of my concerns, one of them being the fact that some regions have to have more advanced magic.).
Thank you so much for this video!
The 5e DMG suggests you can get a +4 weapon… it just isnt on the loot tables.
In my 5e high level game, ranged weapons are capped to +3 and melee goes to +6
(But ranged is still better cuz +3 ammo and accuracy Fighting style is+8/+6 but the high level gap is smaller. Until you get a legendary Belt.)
Question: if PF2 expects you to completely heal up between fights (and at least one member of the party is "taxed" to have a scaling medicine skill) why not just say that you completely heal between fights? Is the medicine healing system necessary, and does it add to the game? Would you loose anything if you said something like "you all heal back to full with a short rest", or "it takes 1min per HP resting to get back to full" or something? No snark intended. Actually would like to know.
Also thanks for putting these together. They are great and I am learning a lot 😄
A GM could do that if no one wants to take up that role and spend feats on it. I haven't found that complaint in my games so far - I suppose because many new players feel they're already awash in feats? I'm also old-school in that I like the idea of time pressure in a hostile environment, and there being a time cost for healing. Also I think people don't want to abandon the gritty/fantasy idea represented by having to use Medicine, DESPITE the fact that the fantasy gets kind of wonky when you consider Battle Medicine. (At which point no one complains, because they desperately need that healing!)
Btw One of my groups actually seems to like the idea of rolling for Medicine, and now have a story to laugh over how their "healer" critically failed and did slashing damage to the party 4 times in one day lol.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG hahaha yeah battle medicine is a bit much. Thanks for your response! That makes sense
They really named an entire character class after a Chrono Trigger character.
I know a “Magus” is a thing outside of Chrono Trigger but the character design and skill set are also similar to the Chrono Trigger character.
...but my torture scenes! 🤣
Didn't even mention one of the most brilliant things to happen to Skills: Assurance! Give players the capability of choosing between a stable number that they know will help in a great number of situations or roll for that sweet critical success... even allows you to fight against circumstancial and status penalties!
Want to build a party that's actually competent in sneaking in most places? Assurance! Follow the Expert!
Want to mitigate your multiple attack penalty on Athletic checks in combat? Assurance!
Swimming and Climbing? Assurance!
Medicine? Deception? Intimidation? Assurance!
It gives you that feeling of what Expertise TRIES to do in 5e, by just giving you a reliable number you can always trust.
Is assurance actually good now? I remember in the playtest, it felt worse than useless as skill checks were scaled much more aggressively than in 1e.
It's a serious question. One of the things that put our group off 2e was the excess of critical failures thrown into basic skill checks and the aggressive level-based scaling of most non-combat challenges.
@@LunaSaint For the most part assurance isn't worth it, but always being able to heal with medicine is nice. But if its a check you know is low and you can only fail on a 5 or lower assurance turns a 25 % chance to fail is always pass which isn't bad. I do fell assurance should be your minimum, but you still roll to see if you can get higher taking the higher value of the 2.
If it takes the best things from other editons, that's good.
5e made feats optional, however I haven't heard of or played many campaigns that went with turning the option off. They exist certainly, but nearly everyone I've interacted with or seen play has had feats enabled. Which makes sense considering they help martials stand out from casters.
If you shove away a creature that is grabbing you with a Brutish shove. Would you move with the targeted creature that is grabbing you or does it break the grab and if the grabbing creature had reach of over 5ft would it impact this situation? This one caused me weeks of challenges in a game.
You're the only person who gives me the "how do you do fellow kids" vibe, but is endearing and relatable instead of cinge/creepy
I think the scientific term for this feeling is "adorkable".
Probably because he has actually worked with kids.
@@subrosian2323 I know that is the case
This is such a great video! I very much look forward to more in this series! (But please don’t overwork yourself)
So Ronald - what are the top things that PF2 borrowed from 5E?
The philosophy of making character creation approachable, controlling the math, making monsters easier to run, and making it easier for GMs to improvise (the rules give rules support for improvisation). A lot of the useful mechanics PF2 took from 5e are rooted in 4e (short rest recharging), 5e achieved the goals by removing things in 3e/4e, while PF2 pursued them by reworking the foundations.
Love this series so far!
The best advice I got for my 5e games in regards to magic items was to not give out more than 1 item of each tier during that tier of play. Meaning 1 rare magic item between levels 5-10. Thankfully this helped balance the math and worked with my vision of a low magic setting, but at the same time I was in an Eberon game where our PCs were walking around with a bunch of strong magic items. Which fit the Eberon setting and also meant basically every combat encounter we came across, we rolled through and made it MUCH harder for that DM to balance than it was for me.
The DMG does not provide guidance for any of this and the fact that a rare magic item can cost as cheap as 501 gp or as many as 5000 gp doesn't help either
What I do not like of Pathfinder 2e is that it is not a second edition of Pathfinder at all. It keeps almost nothing of its predecessor, except for some monsters and classes's basic concepts. It is a more complex evolution of D&D 4e/5e instead, which frankly is not what I wanted.
Many of the changes that have been done could have been done even with Pathfinder 1e as a base, for example nerfing spells, turning the most troublesome into rituals, limiting the sources of key bonuses, using the three action economy (which was already in the game), or adding variety in combat (maneuvers, for example, were too useless and difficult to pull out in 1e, but that could have been easily fixed, for example by causing an AoO only if the attempted maneuver failed).
One thing that I particularly hate as a DM is that PCs, NPCs and monsters are created in three different, incompatible ways. It's frustrating that a thing that was supposedly dead with 2nd Edition D&D has become the norm again.
Issues with this system I didn't see addressed:
AC 18 on a level 1 mob is not fun. I don't like how monster ACs and DCs are balanced so that a character who is specialized in them still fails half the time and someone who is not has 25% chance or less. (at least that's how those numbers seem to me).
An action tax for spell concentration seems insane.
2 actions and a spell slot to give a +1 seems lame as is 1 action for a +1 one time.
Sure, when the attack hits by 1 because of your spell, cool, but the vast majority of the time you just wasted your resources with zero effect.
The goal of the " every +1 matters, with 3 actions" system is to propagate team play, and tactics : Demoralize, plus a spell like Bless, plus flanking, plus x, all stacking, and the attacker gets an additional +4, or more, to his attack; also ( different to 5E) strongly enhancing Crit chances. - Compared to 5E, where team work plays only a rather minor role, and the players hack on their enemies until those are dead.
After seeing this I think I found a personal "final" verdict in the 5e vs pathfinder 2e discussion. A beginner is perhaps happy to have less valid choices especially in combat, just getting locked in combat and attacking each turn is much less complicated than having choices. At least most times I have seen more elaborate stuff during combat being tried in 5e the DM simply decided on the fly how this might function, so more "work" for the DM but very easy for the player. For more advanced players on the other hand more valid things to do sound simply great. So I guess 5e stays the easier entry point for players with a more experienced DM while pathfinder may be the more enjoyable system long term also and especially for the DM and perhaps the easier entrypoint for new dms with experienced players. The question that I am asking myself now is if the 5e entry is that much easier to make it worth being less interesting in the long run.
I say that not all systems need to go for the long run + 5e as time go ones is less focus and tactical combat..we can also se it in 5.5 they try to make every one more flexible and combat faster because 5.5 is trying to focus more on rp side of things. I really don't get it way people compared..path 2e is a tactical combat first and for most. A game whan everything is focus on the encounter..while 5e in time got more focus on rp and out of combat play .(one of the problem in 5e it is started as combat focused but player shifted toward rp more and more and the system kinda wasnt build for that) .it's seems 5.5 will finally will go the step to support it.
First off, I agree in general about the action system being easier to jump into for 5e. But I do think the PF2 beginner box is actually easier for a new player than any of the 5e beginner boxes. Basic Liches has a Thoughts on PF2 video where they see PF2 as the easier game to learn (probably assuming the BB).
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG ha, no. 3 actions per turn, feats, not being able move freely, the stacking of buffs and etc. It is definitely harder than 5e
@Ronald; You really make me want to play PF2e BAD. Id love to play at your table (this from a 1979 Grognard OSR adherent - a lot of what I see in PF2e is very much what I see as ideal).
Curious. What happens if you have a both a circumstance penalty and a circumstance bonus?
If i that are not affecting each other like ac, it doesn't matter.
But having circonstances penalty other then flat-footed is rare. The only i know are from disarm and a feat from a specialised rogue when he feints.
Those stack and are treated as different things. So a prone character (Flat-footed: -2 circumstance penalty) who is also behind a desk (Cover: +2 circumstance bonus) has a net +0 to their AC. If that same person uses the Take Cover action to get greater cover (+4 circumstance bonus) it becomes a net +2 bonus to AC.
Yes, having both apply is rare in my experience, except maybe spell buff together with a negative status condition.
Best advertising for pf2.
I paly pf2 not for long, but i love it by second sight
So how does spell memorization work in Pathfinder 2e? Is it vancian like D&D 3e, or is it fine like D&D 5e's preparation?
Prepared casters (wizards, clerics, druids, etc.) have Vancian spellcasting. Spontaneous casters (sorcerers, bards, etc.) have 5E-like casting EXCEPT they cannot freely change the spell level of a spell when they cast it. They can make 1 spell per spell level a Signature Spell to make it "flexible." Summoner has 5E like casting. Flexible Spellcasting is a class archetype to make Vancian classes like 5E classes.