Alchemist is probably so high on Fort. saves since alchemist have to thematically deal with things that can be poisonous like ingredients or poisons. Kind of like rangers ( which is equal to them) have to deal with poisonous plants and animals.
@@breadknightrg3077 druids would be wise to not consume poisonous plants and not antagonize venomous creatures hence not having to deal with the effects of dangerous species while alchemists have to facetank all the undesirable effects of their studies and learn through mistakes. They are also intentionally work with explosives, toxins and body-altering substances, so their chances to encounter incidents are much higher than those of druids who are supposed to just live in harmony with the nature.
What I often say is the strength of casters is that they can effectively get huge bonuses with some forethought. That is that unlike martials casters are free to target whatever save they wish. They can pretty freely target AC, reflex, fortitude, or will and very possibly to multiple targets at once. And that really shouldn't be underestimated.
I think the point that 1dm made is still valid. Casters get a lot of offensive flexibility in which defense they are going after but they are themselves very poorly defensive. They will have to use some of their spell slots to buff up their own saves to survive throughout the game as opposed to casters in other systems who become Gods by level 12/15.
@@neurolancer81 Absolutely and that should be seen a feature. Have to work as a team. Properly encourages tank/dps/control/support teamwork. If the enemy has to get through a champion and fighter to get to the caster then the caster's defenses don't matter. But they also want to be close to the champion for the defense benefits.
Great video! Your stuff is filling an analysis niche I didn't know was missing. You talk about the core mechanics of the game on a deeper level. Not just interpreting RAW, but how the numbers work. Super interesting, keep up the good work!
Thanks so much! That is a lot of what I am for in my videos so far. I want to genuinely contribute something that isn't already here, rather than just providing some more content. I'm not sure how long I can keep up the deep numerical analysis before I run out of things, but I intend to work at it!
Love this. And I love seeing Pathfinder 2 content! This video in particular is fascinating. However I think having magic pretty well negates not having good proficiencies. A well stocked caster can negate any need for a saves and the smart caster will either focus on making their low AC irrelevant by staying away from the fray, or heal themselves with their magic/magical items. They're just all pretty numerically physically weaker than the martial bois (which I think works).
This also has a tradition in the game. In AD&D, fighters progressed their attacks and saves every 2 levels, clerics every 3 levels, thieves every 4 levels, and magic-users every 5 levels. And with the way saves worked, while casters achieved godlike powers, their spells didn't "land" as often, especially against fighters. Perhaps it's a way to preserve the idea of tanky martials just being plain better at resisting effects?
Thank you for breaking this all down. I personally homebrew that alchemist and warpriest pick up master prof. with their weapons at 15th level because they really lag in late game numbers
As someone who does not have a mind for numbers, and previously hadn't much considered the different levels classes gain proficiencies, I applaud the way you've presented the information here. Very easy to understand and I feel I have a better grasp of the way the system functions. To pull an analogy from my language study - watching your videos makes me feel like I'm learning the grammar of the system. How things are systemically put together and why.
Would love to see a martial vs Mage video with comparisons done at level 5, 11, and 17. That would be difficult though with all the exponential options at play, but I can dream! In the meantime, what about Dexterity vs Strength martial damage at those levels instead?
Considering Casters can get not just the options but raw power through magic, many of which can also be defensive, it feels fair to me. The only thing I would want tweaked is that I think there should be more general feats like uncanny acumen that allow casters to invest in lagging behind less, just in case you want to play a gishy type
Great Video! One small correction, though. It's extremely easy to miss since it doesn't really make sense, but Rangers actually become Expert in Armor at level 11, not 13. They still don't become master before level 19, so their progression is a weird mix of fighter and other non-tank martials.
Poor Alchemists, they never got a orange square in anything :’( BUT they actually can have Greater Weapon Specialization at level 17 using a Major Bestial Mutagen. A little bit specific, but it’s an option. Also, having a good Fortitude save on Alchemists is really nice. If your campaign is okay with the use of Drugs, they often have only benefits at Stage 1 but you really don’t want to get to Stage 2. Just remember little Alchemists out there: don’t make the drug DC equal to your class DC unless it’s Alcohol for Cayden Cailean’s followers!
@@1dm564 I think the idea is that bombs still get to target a weakness to damage with a regular failure. Alchemists naturally having high INT also suggests they're more likely to identify weaknesses and targeting them. And their "main" bomb damage is never that impressive to begin with.
Hey man, I dont normally comment but as you're a smaller channel I though't I would. Great job on the videos. I love how you go into the more nitty gritty things I normally dont think about. Keep up the good work
Great vid. In the games i'm running/playing those days, we're using the Automatic bonus progression rule, and chose to apply it to spell attacks too, to even things out. But it's still true that in number-crunch dungeons, casters will suffer compared to martials. It all depends on the importance of flavor, out-of-combat activities and crativity allowed by the GM.
This is another great presentation that I should share with my players. Your presentation format reminds me a lot of 3Blue1Brown. If you're not familiar with that channel I recommend taking a look at it. I feel they have a good format and exciting animations that keep me coming back for more information on math. If you ever run out of ideas on math to crunch for Pathfinder 2e would you also start adding videos for other game systems? A pie in the sky idea would be similar videos for D&D 5e, Call of Cthulhu, and Pathfinder 1e. I'm looking forward to more videos on Pathfinder 2e.
Small note, since you seem to be adding subtitles yourself: Consider having less text at the bottom in the video itself, i like having subtitles on, and its annoying to have to disable and reenable them to read notes in the video. Otherwise, stellar work.
Great analysis and great presentation, great video overall. Would love to see a breakdown of the spellcasting traditions. i.e how they compare in terms of damage, buffing/debuffing, control, utility, etc. Probably a bit harder to do than proficiencies because there are many more categories for comparisons, so it would also have many more caveats, but I still think it could be useful and interesting
Amazing video! I just wanted to say that it's better to think of high proficiencies as an indicator of "how consistent" is a class at executing it's game plan properly, which is not the same as how powerful it is. You're never going to have difficulty hitting with a fighter, preventing hits as a champion or finding clues as an investigator. Rather, the build options of those classes center on elements around that basic game plan. (i.e what weapon are you hitting with, who are you preventing from being hit, or what are you using those clues for.) Instead, all spellcasting class features want you to find the most impactful spell possible for any given situation, the question is whether the spell is the right tool for the job. These means that how well you perform as a caster is highly dependant on how well you know your spell list and enemies. I think this leads to lower lows and higher highs than martial classes. You can totally trivialize some encounters if you have the right spell, or be near useless if you're using the wrong one. I have a really powerful wizard npc that my players think to be a total badass just because I will make sure that he always has the right spell when he was involved in an encounter.
You're not entirely wrong about proficiency as an indicator of consistency. I would definitely disagree in respect to weapon proficiencies, though - you can think about consistency all you want, but at the end of the day, having +2 to attacks compared to every other class will increase the Fighter's average damage output by around 30%. That's a huge amount of power. Also, isn't is kind of...cheating to have an NPC always stocked with the right spell? Like, cheating is a strong word, I could see myself doing the same thing in a game, it's plenty fun and there's nothing wrong with it. It's just not indicative of the class being powerful if they're only extremely useful when they have the knowledge of the GM. You're absolutely right that knowing exactly what spell to bring to an encounter can make a caster the MVP of the fight, but in my experience, the player very rarely has the ability to know which spell that will be. They just sort of guess instead, and feel bad if the spells they picked aren't useful that day. No disrespect meant to any of your ideas, and thanks so much for the thoughts.
@@1dm564 Wow, thanks for the response! My NPC example was meant as an example of how much more MVP potential spellcasters have. First off, my comments come from my personal play experience and opinion (and I haven´t seen a fighter in actual play). You might be 100% right about the fighter, I guess it depends on whether that (30% + any% from AoO) difference is mitigated by class features like flurry of blows or panache from other offensive martials. The fact that it feels OP is a design flaw by itself though. On the spell guessing part, I think it's definitively harder than in previous editions (especially for 5e players). Targeting the 4 monster defences and extensive use of the recall knowledge action are essential now, and it takes time to learn so many spells. It's definitely more frustrating in earlier levels. On the GM side, I find that I'm used to throwing whatever monster I find to casters, because of how powerful they were in 1st ed. Now I need to give them times to shine like I do with other classes. I have an investigator PC so my players rarely go totally blind into encounters, but I think info gathering is also important for any party. All in all, I don't think they're weaker than martials, just less obviously powerful, and definitely weaker than their 5e or 1st edition counterparts. Maybe it is because I always thought a full-caster was meant to require more day to day planning and strategizing than a full-martial class, which is not necessarily true.
Once again great video. This analysis clearly shows why Rogues are overpowered in PF2. Not only are they by far the best class for Skill proficiencies, but they are in the top 30% for attack, Perception, Saving throws and still top 50% AC proficiencies. They do simply too much for too little drawback compared to every other class.
honestly I find beauty in that game design, and seeing it all laid out makes it clear. Little things like Barbarian being the only class to reach legendary in fort save. Bard and Oracle reaching Legendary in will save. All of these make thematic sense and I love it !
Love your videos. Any chance you could consider doing a video comparing Pathfinder's unbounded accuracy system to D&D 5e's bounded accuracy? It's a super fascinating topic and there's a lot there in terms of game design philosophy and the math behind it. Keep up the great vids!
I think I'd love talking about that, but I don't know exactly what there is to say. D&D characters can basically hit enemies of any level, with HP being the challenge. Pathfinder 2e characters will only have a chance against enemies within a certain range of their level. Not that I don't think it's a very fascinating topic. I do think I could go into the design philosophy, and a lot of math related to damage per round and challenge. Do you have any other thoughts on what else there is to say about it?
@@1dm564 I think you're correct, regarding the game philosophy. I would caution against doing a game system vs. game system video as it could be divisive; however, doing a video on the math of encounter building for each system would be interesting. I don't make videos so I don't know how much content is needed on paper to make a 10 minute video, but the factors for analysis could include: quantity or characters (PC & NPC), HP, to hit, AC, melee, spells, and number of rounds of combat. A separate video could discuss surprise and cover/environment with respect to how it would influences the first and subsequent rounds of combat.
Their Will saves choice are so weird to me 0_0. It's like it was meant to be for casters, but they thought it would make them too strong and so they dialed it down and ended up unsure who would be great at them. It would have been cool to see theses vary based on other factors though, like the monk choosing. Maybe some subclasses of barbarians get reflex, maybe some get will for going through different paths etc... I am puzzled, but I guess it's all fine in the end.
I kinda agree tbh. Bombing starts to look pretty underwhelming at upper levels. But I don't know too much, I haven't looked at the Alchemist in depth yet
Crazy how many times i got back to this video and chcecked somethinkit. Would you be so awsome and remake at least the graphs or the whole video with all the new clases? If not would you be so kind and share the Data in excel or somethink so i dont have to start from scratch when i would do the graphs my self. Pretty please?
Alchemist is probably so high on Fort. saves since alchemist have to thematically deal with things that can be poisonous like ingredients or poisons. Kind of like rangers ( which is equal to them) have to deal with poisonous plants and animals.
you would think that druids would also get that but they don't
@@breadknightrg3077 druids would be wise to not consume poisonous plants and not antagonize venomous creatures hence not having to deal with the effects of dangerous species while alchemists have to facetank all the undesirable effects of their studies and learn through mistakes. They are also intentionally work with explosives, toxins and body-altering substances, so their chances to encounter incidents are much higher than those of druids who are supposed to just live in harmony with the nature.
Even being fairly new, it's one of the best pathfinder 2e TH-camr's
I concur
What I often say is the strength of casters is that they can effectively get huge bonuses with some forethought. That is that unlike martials casters are free to target whatever save they wish. They can pretty freely target AC, reflex, fortitude, or will and very possibly to multiple targets at once. And that really shouldn't be underestimated.
I think the point that 1dm made is still valid. Casters get a lot of offensive flexibility in which defense they are going after but they are themselves very poorly defensive. They will have to use some of their spell slots to buff up their own saves to survive throughout the game as opposed to casters in other systems who become Gods by level 12/15.
@@neurolancer81 Absolutely and that should be seen a feature. Have to work as a team. Properly encourages tank/dps/control/support teamwork. If the enemy has to get through a champion and fighter to get to the caster then the caster's defenses don't matter. But they also want to be close to the champion for the defense benefits.
Great video! Your stuff is filling an analysis niche I didn't know was missing. You talk about the core mechanics of the game on a deeper level. Not just interpreting RAW, but how the numbers work. Super interesting, keep up the good work!
Thanks so much! That is a lot of what I am for in my videos so far. I want to genuinely contribute something that isn't already here, rather than just providing some more content. I'm not sure how long I can keep up the deep numerical analysis before I run out of things, but I intend to work at it!
I don’t play pathfinder, but DAMN I love a channel that digs hard into the math. We’ll done.
Please keep making more of these videos! I love seeing breakdowns like this and the '+1' video. Great work, good sir.
Love this. And I love seeing Pathfinder 2 content!
This video in particular is fascinating. However I think having magic pretty well negates not having good proficiencies. A well stocked caster can negate any need for a saves and the smart caster will either focus on making their low AC irrelevant by staying away from the fray, or heal themselves with their magic/magical items. They're just all pretty numerically physically weaker than the martial bois (which I think works).
This also has a tradition in the game. In AD&D, fighters progressed their attacks and saves every 2 levels, clerics every 3 levels, thieves every 4 levels, and magic-users every 5 levels. And with the way saves worked, while casters achieved godlike powers, their spells didn't "land" as often, especially against fighters. Perhaps it's a way to preserve the idea of tanky martials just being plain better at resisting effects?
Love the channel! Love to see content for 2nd edition especially
Thank you for breaking this all down. I personally homebrew that alchemist and warpriest pick up master prof. with their weapons at 15th level because they really lag in late game numbers
As someone who does not have a mind for numbers, and previously hadn't much considered the different levels classes gain proficiencies, I applaud the way you've presented the information here.
Very easy to understand and I feel I have a better grasp of the way the system functions.
To pull an analogy from my language study - watching your videos makes me feel like I'm learning the grammar of the system. How things are systemically put together and why.
Would love to see a martial vs Mage video with comparisons done at level 5, 11, and 17.
That would be difficult though with all the exponential options at play, but I can dream!
In the meantime, what about Dexterity vs Strength martial damage at those levels instead?
Awesome stuff. Glad to see this kind of analysis on PF2e. Keep it up!
Considering Casters can get not just the options but raw power through magic, many of which can also be defensive, it feels fair to me. The only thing I would want tweaked is that I think there should be more general feats like uncanny acumen that allow casters to invest in lagging behind less, just in case you want to play a gishy type
I just wanted to say that I'm glad I found your channel, I'm learning so much about Pathfinder2e and I hope you keep creating content.
Great Video! One small correction, though. It's extremely easy to miss since it doesn't really make sense, but Rangers actually become Expert in Armor at level 11, not 13. They still don't become master before level 19, so their progression is a weird mix of fighter and other non-tank martials.
you and crunch mcdabbles became my favorite 2e channels, keep it up
:-)
Awww thanks :D
I've only been reading up on PF in terms of game design and for inspiration. These videos are a blessing! Keep up the good work!
This was a great in depth video. For someone really diving deep into character builds this video provides so much info! Thank buddy.
Poor Alchemists, they never got a orange square in anything :’(
BUT they actually can have Greater Weapon Specialization at level 17 using a Major Bestial Mutagen. A little bit specific, but it’s an option.
Also, having a good Fortitude save on Alchemists is really nice. If your campaign is okay with the use of Drugs, they often have only benefits at Stage 1 but you really don’t want to get to Stage 2. Just remember little Alchemists out there: don’t make the drug DC equal to your class DC unless it’s Alcohol for Cayden Cailean’s followers!
True true, alchemist druggies are OP lmao
@@1dm564 I think the idea is that bombs still get to target a weakness to damage with a regular failure. Alchemists naturally having high INT also suggests they're more likely to identify weaknesses and targeting them. And their "main" bomb damage is never that impressive to begin with.
Hey man, I dont normally comment but as you're a smaller channel I though't I would. Great job on the videos. I love how you go into the more nitty gritty things I normally dont think about. Keep up the good work
Great vid. In the games i'm running/playing those days, we're using the Automatic bonus progression rule, and chose to apply it to spell attacks too, to even things out.
But it's still true that in number-crunch dungeons, casters will suffer compared to martials. It all depends on the importance of flavor, out-of-combat activities and crativity allowed by the GM.
I would pay to see the same videos about the classes newly release like Inventor and the Summoner :)
This is another great presentation that I should share with my players. Your presentation format reminds me a lot of 3Blue1Brown. If you're not familiar with that channel I recommend taking a look at it. I feel they have a good format and exciting animations that keep me coming back for more information on math. If you ever run out of ideas on math to crunch for Pathfinder 2e would you also start adding videos for other game systems? A pie in the sky idea would be similar videos for D&D 5e, Call of Cthulhu, and Pathfinder 1e. I'm looking forward to more videos on Pathfinder 2e.
Small note, since you seem to be adding subtitles yourself: Consider having less text at the bottom in the video itself, i like having subtitles on, and its annoying to have to disable and reenable them to read notes in the video. Otherwise, stellar work.
I loooove your charts :D
Great analysis and great presentation, great video overall. Would love to see a breakdown of the spellcasting traditions. i.e how they compare in terms of damage, buffing/debuffing, control, utility, etc. Probably a bit harder to do than proficiencies because there are many more categories for comparisons, so it would also have many more caveats, but I still think it could be useful and interesting
11:20 Pretty sure alchemists have high fortitude proficiencies because they're supposed to be chugging all sorts of concoctions :)
Nice deep dive. :)
Amazing video! I just wanted to say that it's better to think of high proficiencies as an indicator of "how consistent" is a class at executing it's game plan properly, which is not the same as how powerful it is.
You're never going to have difficulty hitting with a fighter, preventing hits as a champion or finding clues as an investigator. Rather, the build options of those classes center on elements around that basic game plan. (i.e what weapon are you hitting with, who are you preventing from being hit, or what are you using those clues for.)
Instead, all spellcasting class features want you to find the most impactful spell possible for any given situation, the question is whether the spell is the right tool for the job. These means that how well you perform as a caster is highly dependant on how well you know your spell list and enemies. I think this leads to lower lows and higher highs than martial classes. You can totally trivialize some encounters if you have the right spell, or be near useless if you're using the wrong one.
I have a really powerful wizard npc that my players think to be a total badass just because I will make sure that he always has the right spell when he was involved in an encounter.
You're not entirely wrong about proficiency as an indicator of consistency. I would definitely disagree in respect to weapon proficiencies, though - you can think about consistency all you want, but at the end of the day, having +2 to attacks compared to every other class will increase the Fighter's average damage output by around 30%. That's a huge amount of power.
Also, isn't is kind of...cheating to have an NPC always stocked with the right spell? Like, cheating is a strong word, I could see myself doing the same thing in a game, it's plenty fun and there's nothing wrong with it. It's just not indicative of the class being powerful if they're only extremely useful when they have the knowledge of the GM. You're absolutely right that knowing exactly what spell to bring to an encounter can make a caster the MVP of the fight, but in my experience, the player very rarely has the ability to know which spell that will be. They just sort of guess instead, and feel bad if the spells they picked aren't useful that day.
No disrespect meant to any of your ideas, and thanks so much for the thoughts.
@@1dm564 Wow, thanks for the response! My NPC example was meant as an example of how much more MVP potential spellcasters have.
First off, my comments come from my personal play experience and opinion (and I haven´t seen a fighter in actual play). You might be 100% right about the fighter, I guess it depends on whether that (30% + any% from AoO) difference is mitigated by class features like flurry of blows or panache from other offensive martials. The fact that it feels OP is a design flaw by itself though.
On the spell guessing part, I think it's definitively harder than in previous editions (especially for 5e players). Targeting the 4 monster defences and extensive use of the recall knowledge action are essential now, and it takes time to learn so many spells. It's definitely more frustrating in earlier levels.
On the GM side, I find that I'm used to throwing whatever monster I find to casters, because of how powerful they were in 1st ed. Now I need to give them times to shine like I do with other classes. I have an investigator PC so my players rarely go totally blind into encounters, but I think info gathering is also important for any party.
All in all, I don't think they're weaker than martials, just less obviously powerful, and definitely weaker than their 5e or 1st edition counterparts. Maybe it is because I always thought a full-caster was meant to require more day to day planning and strategizing than a full-martial class, which is not necessarily true.
Once again great video. This analysis clearly shows why Rogues are overpowered in PF2. Not only are they by far the best class for Skill proficiencies, but they are in the top 30% for attack, Perception, Saving throws and still top 50% AC proficiencies. They do simply too much for too little drawback compared to every other class.
perfect video
honestly I find beauty in that game design, and seeing it all laid out makes it clear. Little things like Barbarian being the only class to reach legendary in fort save. Bard and Oracle reaching Legendary in will save. All of these make thematic sense and I love it !
Love your videos. Any chance you could consider doing a video comparing Pathfinder's unbounded accuracy system to D&D 5e's bounded accuracy? It's a super fascinating topic and there's a lot there in terms of game design philosophy and the math behind it. Keep up the great vids!
I think I'd love talking about that, but I don't know exactly what there is to say. D&D characters can basically hit enemies of any level, with HP being the challenge. Pathfinder 2e characters will only have a chance against enemies within a certain range of their level.
Not that I don't think it's a very fascinating topic. I do think I could go into the design philosophy, and a lot of math related to damage per round and challenge. Do you have any other thoughts on what else there is to say about it?
@@1dm564 I think you're correct, regarding the game philosophy. I would caution against doing a game system vs. game system video as it could be divisive; however, doing a video on the math of encounter building for each system would be interesting. I don't make videos so I don't know how much content is needed on paper to make a 10 minute video, but the factors for analysis could include: quantity or characters (PC & NPC), HP, to hit, AC, melee, spells, and number of rounds of combat. A separate video could discuss surprise and cover/environment with respect to how it would influences the first and subsequent rounds of combat.
Love the analysis, keep it up
I'd like to see the same analysis on the latest classes released and if there's anything new or interesting with them that you pick up on
Fantasitc Video!
Their Will saves choice are so weird to me 0_0.
It's like it was meant to be for casters, but they thought it would make them too strong and so they dialed it down and ended up unsure who would be great at them.
It would have been cool to see theses vary based on other factors though, like the monk choosing.
Maybe some subclasses of barbarians get reflex, maybe some get will for going through different paths etc...
I am puzzled, but I guess it's all fine in the end.
obligatory comment for engagement!
Aww thanks! It actually means a lot :)
I'm still mad alchemist never gets master weapons. Hell, even if it was only bombs at like level 15 it would be so much better.
I kinda agree tbh. Bombing starts to look pretty underwhelming at upper levels. But I don't know too much, I haven't looked at the Alchemist in depth yet
Sad that munks don't get legendary in unarmed
Crazy how many times i got back to this video and chcecked somethinkit. Would you be so awsome and remake at least the graphs or the whole video with all the new clases? If not would you be so kind and share the Data in excel or somethink so i dont have to start from scratch when i would do the graphs my self. Pretty please?