Bruh after playing trough the 3 shadowrun games my first thoughts were "oh shit i gotta get more of this world", not too quickly my mind changed to "im too old for this shit, im out". And i hate this more than anything because I love that world
Aha! You told us not to devolve into simple name-calling, so we shall involve ourselves in COMPLEX name-calling! How about that for a loophole you scalp exposed gentleman!
I took the same away... pathfinder xould have been a great game, but they cheapes out on edditing so 5E took the market victory as it is populated mostly by people who won't put up with that and will side with the easier to learn and teach game
This and monster statblocks are deal breakers for me as a Game Master, tbh. Even if Pathfinder was superior in every other aspect, the issues cody brought with these two points would be enough to make sure I never GM Pathfinder.
i said that in multiple comments, i had a very bad experience with such attempts, I do not really recommend doing that, it would be like putting ketchup in lasagnas instead of the bolognese
It is likely easier, and maybe more compatible to draw houserules and spiffy mechanics from 4ed. It works well, particularly for monsters, or borrowing interesting abilities for Lair actions.
@@2401blue I personally haven't tried it but the thought had struck me. The obvious strengths from pathfinder are the feats and the 3 action system, but these are so different from 5e that it would be impossible to implement without changing the core balancing of the game. 5e's classes are build around its own action economy, they just don't fit a 3 action system. The feats is also pretty much impossible as you would have to make this entire system yourself from the ground up, since 5e just don't have the feats to support this. So I don't think that the problem was the GM doing a poor job but the idea being fundamentally flawed and downright impossible to pull off. The way to truly do this is to make an entirely new game with the best of both worlds. Let's hope WotC will do that with 6e some day.
"These game mechanics can be complicated" Me: Laughs in shadowrun 5E "I have never seen a book so poorly edited" Me: Laughs in shadowrun 6e "It will outright stop your games sometimes" Me: Laughs in chunky salsa and demolitions
imagine playing shadowrun 5e, I took at least 2 weeks to make a rigger and try to understand EACH RULE for EACH FUCKING ROBOT holy shit I hate this system
Ya I was thinking the exact same thing. He mentioned poor editing and I was like "You've clearly not tried to play Shadowrun." BUT, they do struggle with the exact same issue. A keyword system. Which makes everything feel atrocious as you have to look five different places to figure out how one thing works.
@@ANONM60D Yea but there’s too much filler 90% of the time, plus what if you wanna come back for a specific section but just wanna look for that as an argument or something
Apparently Cody never read the Pathfinder 2E playtest either. That was ROUGH. The official rules read like a breeze now and are actually fun to read. Playtest was a grind.
I would add character sheets, what turns players away from the game is the character sheet. One day I tried to play PF2E and then one of my players was like "what is this a W2?" The character sheet is cluttered and a mess. 5e has pictures space and less intimidates the player.
I agree with that whole heartedly. We gave up on paper character sheets for pf2e because none of us could write small enough to fit everything in it at mid level.
Yeah the character sheets really bad I have spent some time looking around on the internet and found a few alternate character sheets that I have enjoyed using. But the sheer amount of stats in the game means that it's going to always end up looking quite a bit like a spreadsheet
I started designing my own character sheets in Excel. I formated cells so that EVERYTHING would update across the board when stats changed, modifiers were ticked, boxes for abilities checked (Strength went up? If to the next even number, the modifier increased correctly, skills increased accordingly. It made things a bit more easy for players and the dm. I cleaned up the sheets by removing certain grid lines, filling in blank boxes white, and putting borders around key cells.
I completely agree. Everyone in my pf2e group uses the pathbuilder app as their character sheet because the normal one is a complete mess. It doesn't help that you need to change practically every number on it each time you level up. I had to reprint my physical character sheet multiple times because I was literally tearing holes in the skills column from all of the writing and erasing.
This was surprisingly balanced and definitely came from a place of love for both. I run pathfinder 2e and every single complaint you had for it is one I have felt IN MY BONES. Astute.
I still mostly use the pre-made characters and add my own flavor, the few times I've put up with it I've loved the result. But it's such a hassle trying to figure out the books sometimes. Just making a character required an online guide, and I still got a little frustrated.
I'm toying with the idea of dming pathfinder and while this video has not deterred me it definitely changes my expectations. I still think it'll be worth it for the extended customization
@@peripheralvission It's fine, you just need to really know what the skills can do and some extra prep on encounters (I make a lot of my own stat blocks).
Remember that pf2 may be heavy with rules but the rulebook says that some rules may be skipped. Like "add your level to prophiciency bonus" or "long/short distance jump"
I have a friend who's done the reverse during a PF one-shot we did a while back. He brought adv/disadv into the mix to help reduce the modifier jungle; instead of giving us arbitrary bonuses to hit, he just gave us advantage or disadvantage...though my heavy armour dwarf fighter's stealth penalty was still -17, and thus hilarious.
Best of luck! As someone who played and dm’d and enjoyed both; if I had the patience to homerule things properly, I’d merge these and make a true masterpiece. I want pathfinders action economy with 5e monster simplicity and a spell system that fuses the best of both but I AM TOO LAZY TO MAKE THAT! So I hope you get something that works well for you.
Yeah, and Cody greatly exaggerated the rules for jumping in PF2. They are 5 sentences of text, and the action poses no risk to your PC. You can just do it, unless you want to push yourself to the limits and then there is risk of failure, more description which gets you to a few paragraphs, and it only carries risk in failure if traversing hazards like a pit. You want to jump up and grab something, no big deal. You want to jump over a corpse or table? Sure, no issues, no check. You want to jump over the long side of a banquet table? Now there are a few paragraphs to handle that added complexity.
In general I've found that: Pathfinder 2e is a complex system that when you understand it can be insanely fun. However the hardest part is learning all the rules you need to get there. 5e is a simple system that can be learned quickly. However it doesn't have the depth of pathfinder and so can occasionally be repetitive. Pathfinder 2e is for players who want to test the limits of their character making abilities to be the strongest they can be while 5e is more for players who want to just make a character and get going into the story. Both are amazing at what they do.
This has also been the selling point of 1st edition Pathfinder. You have total customization that gives you the ability to test your limits. You can go fully into depth with Pathfinder games. I also agree it can be a grind to understand. When ever someone asks me what RPG they should learn I usually point them towards 5th edition cause of its ease of play, and lower learning curve. That said I've taught my kids, and other friends how to play Pathfinder/D&D3.5. They generally prefer it over 5th edition. Matter of opinion of course.
100% agree, I personally prefered pathfinder 1 before 2 released, but that was only because I mainly played with veterans and the character creation was so malleable. However, whenever I ran a game of new players, I hands down picked 5e. It is so simple and easy for new players. The 2e released, creating the perfect mix of both customization and simplicity. 2e is my all time favorite.
I think your final assessment is a little off. PF2 is for players who like a more tactical game where mechanics and features inform the game. Crunchy game lovers is who PF was designed for. 5E is for players who enjoy the game in their head more than the game at the table. Players who don’t want all the crunchy rules and references. Ones who want to play a character not a group of numbers. In the end, I don’t think one is “more simple” - I think that misses the point. It’s geared toward what a player has fun doing.
I want a hybrid so bad. The ease of play of dnd and the diverse character and play style customization of pathfinder. Great video! I hope both companies take note
PF2e is actually really easy to learn, so many of the systems are interconnecting that when you learn one you have the building blocks to learning a good chunk of the others. I have taught brand new people the system and found that people tended to learn/remember mechanics far faster than in 5e. GMing takes more knowledge, but not a huge amount more. The biggest issue imo is it doesn't have ANY killer adventure for new GMs. Phandelver is quite flawed, but PF2e has nothing remotely as accessible. Heck I wouldn't recommend any of the Pathfinder adventures for new GMs, they are too dense with bespoke rules and needless text bloat imo. Coming from a well written 5e adventure like CoS, Dragon Heist or ToA and moving over to PF2e and its Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse or Plaguestone makes me weep for the PF2e first timers. I am not saying they are worse adventures btw, and Extinction Curse has shown them learning a lot. But ease of running is another matter. It needs a Lost Mines of Phandelver imo, hopefully the starter box released later this year is good (imo it should have launched with a starter box first and copied the 5e approach. Pregens, link to a "basic srd" with less options and a 1-5 adventure).
How in the Nine Hells has Cody not been picked up for a game-design or game-testing team for WotC or Paizo? He is one of the most respected, reasoned, and clearest communicators on pen-and-paper RPG game mechanics on RUclips.
Cody is unironically my favorite RUclipsr. He rarely goes into anything with a bias and when he does have a bias he lets us know up front. He also addresses every single detail and never assumes anything when he's examining a rule or a system. The honesty and the analysis really sell me on his content. Even if I disagree with him on little things I can always go "well he's factually correct but flavorwise I prefer this other mechanic" I want to see Cody branch out into other games more because his analysis on something like a wargame or even a wildly different genre of RPG would be incredible. The dude has so much attention to detail that I literally have my books open while he is talking so I can make a note of the specific rule he is talking about. Cody if you read this, you're a great dude I really wish you the best in all your future endeavors. I will consistently be watching all of them (likely out of order because my interests in various ttrpgs wax and wane)
He is too good for WotC. DnD needs more competition to make it less monopolized. Plus WotC would only stifle his brilliant mind, rather than use it to its fullest. Capitalism brainrot is why DnD turned into a shitty MMO video game before profits plummeted, causing a partial reversal.
Oh my goodness, when you started talking about how D&D 5e exhaustively lists all the monster abilities, I was so scared you were going to list it as a negative! I really love being able to look at my stat blocks and having everything I need right in front of me. It might take up more real estate for each monster, but it's such boon to only need to look at one thing and have everything I need to know.
Though it would be nice to have a digital version (an app, probably) where I can pull up the monster and see the abridged monster abilities--but then click on them to expand them to the full text
Oof, yeah. Been running a Pathfinder 1e game and that one has the same problem. Every problem listed here is just carried over from the first game and it's SO SO SO frustrating having to look everything up constantly. I know it would kinda look ugly seeing these massive walls of text connected to the various monsters of Golarion, but it makes actually PLAYING the game so much better to have that information close at hand. Please, Paizo, think of the GMs!
agreed. I decided to skip buying the Bestiary for PF2e and got some beautiful monster cards that I can use to easily show my players (when face to face) and keep the monster stats close at hand, instead of flipping pages back and forth. Low and behold, there are monster abilities that say "attack, deal damage and grab" Yet don't explain how grab works. You have to look that up in general monster abilities which the cards don't include anywhere. It doesn't even bother to tell you that the grab is a second action that require the first attack to hit. It makes it seem like they automatically grab the opponent after hitting in melee. There are more monster issues than just grab, but that one is more glaring of an issue than the effect Cody was talking about. It's all word count saving. It's fine if you are using a pdf, even better if using an SRD like Archives of nethys where almost everything is hyperlinked, but forget it if you are using a book, or worse yet an official accessory product.
You forgot one of my favourite parts of PF2: Exploration Activities leading into combat. The ability to use the skill that you are currently using as your initiative is super interesting.
I have used athletics as the initiative skill a few times. The last one was for an ambush of sorts. The sneaky types had stealthed in and i let others use athletics to run in, while the npc's used perception.
It's hard to argue that book layout is terribly distinct from "mechanics" when the book is the main source on how to actually play the game, and will constantly be referenced.
@@barshilo3620 not all players of a hobby are going to want to get that complicated, even if they become seasoned ttrpgers. I tried playing 3.5 as a kid, dropped it, and completely abandoned the hobby for years before 5e came out. The simplicity isn't always a baby step. It can be an active choice. I promise you that I'd hate playing Pathfinder because of the extra brain power needed to enjoy the game. Maybe they would love it. But let's keep different people with different needs in mind :)
They were your target customers, so that makes sense. Once you gain momentum and experience try moving up to a more meaty system like Pathfinder 2E, I think you will enjoy it.
To add more on to #7, the constant "See *insert thing here*" as descriptions... Not an actual example, but should explain the point: "How do we deal with crits?" "idk check the book." *checks index* Critical Strikes: See Combat. Combat: See Actions. Actions: See Playing the game. Playing the Game: Pg. 24-27, 67-70, 72, 253-300 Oh the actual explanation of the rule? It's actually on page 74.
Also, 5e does this too. Perception (skill): see under Wisdom Wisdom: 12, 178 (...long list of subpoints...) Perception: 178 Why not just tell me in the Perception entry? It would take up less space than "see Wisdom" and be more useful.
Cody: "Now don't go hating on each other over petty arguments that pale in comparison to the things you have in common!" Half the GMs watching this: (Just run 5E and mine Pathfinder for house rules.)
As a pf 2e gm I think the fact that healing doesn't necessarily require a cleric and the medicine check actually means something and allows any character with a solid wisdom to be a decent healer.
Medicine kits exist in 5e. I ran a campaign that for months didn't have a cleric. All the characters were able to stay alive because the rogue kept tons of medicine kits on them and needed to continuously make decent medicine checks to heal characters.
I had a party only composed of fighters, rangers and barb, that was the "regular dudes" campaign ton of fun, and their team was actually very effective despite having 0 spellcasters in pf2, martials are very VERY strong compared to what they used to be in 1e
You don't need a cleric though. There's Healer's Kit, you can stabilize people with medicine, you can have a druid or a bard (stop limiting healing to clerics alone). Hell, in one of my campaigns we had one of our players pick the Healer feat to make Healer's Kit an amazing tool. Besides, in 5e if you have solid wisdom score, you're most likely a wis-based class, which leaves only monk which isn't able to heal with magic (yes, Ranger in fact can use healing spells, who knew?)
@@2d20kobolds3 When I had a rules lawyer in my first foray into PF2e as a GM I was pulling out my beard because he made me check everything. It made the 6 hour session 5% game and the rest was me having to look shit up because he made me do it, or the book was so un-informative in points where it mattered. The simplest example was the monsters, like he explained in the video.
@@jaredgriffin2155 I do hope you will take this the right way, but that is on you as the GM. You can always silence the rule lawyer with the 2 sentences to make the game move on. "I may or may-not have gotten this wrong. But, we do it this way right now, and can check between sessions if we feel like we need to change anything."
@@Wyrmshield Sir, there is a whole thing in 5e too, and the rules are just about identical, with the exception that 5e has it part of your movement and pathfinder 2e has it as actions. You cannot say one is worse than the other, they are damn near identical
Yeah I sort of do the same, I use the pathfinder rules but import the dnd rules for spellcasting, like casting at a higher level. Also dumb down the skill rules a bit
"This person has far more in common with you than most other people in your life." Try telling that to the Catholics and the Protestants. They've been at it for centuries.
I’m pretty sure that White Supremacists would love to be friends with Beholders and Liches; it just seems that minor differences makes people extremely angry for some reason (like a human couple divorcing over the argument about how to wash dishes).
Jaxon Sellers I’ve played and DMed in both and for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think DMing 5e is easier to learn or pick up, but PF2E provides such a rich set of tools for DMs to use. While there are def people who won’t like PF’s skill system, to me it is fantastic how much guidance the game gives you, it helps to keep consistent rulings in world, and I don’t think of it as being quite as hard coded as this video suggests. Ultimately, they both have their strengths as systems for DM’s; it just depends on what kind of game you want to run!
@@lucypatton42 exactly my thoughts on the skill system. when used as a more fleshed out set of guidelines it doesn't hurt anything. That said pf2e is still just that little bit more labor intensive for the GM with things prepping a monster for combat. Best practice while you are new is to copy over everything you will need onto an index card or set the monster up on your Virtual table top of choice. Eventually you will have enough conditions memorized to fill in the gaps on the fly, or even improvise entire encounters, but I feel it took longer to get there in pf2 than it did in 5e.
its not as someone who has played 5e, pathfinder and PF2, pf2 is basicaly just a kind of bad half way between pf and 5e, it tries to be as costomisable and pf and as easy as 5e and fails at both AND has a kind of bad leveling system on top
@@lucypatton42 I agree. In the playtest the PF2 creators wanted everything done on a slide chart, and you can still do it that way. You can use the "skills by level" , all you need to know is if the task is easy, hard , or incredibly hard (there are 6 levels). I think cody should have taken that jump example and just simplified and made a ruling.
For spontaneous spellcasting in 2e, while I will admit I was confused at first when I was just theory-crafting characters, as soon as you reach 3rd level (when you can heighten spells) they clearly define how it works and what you're allowed to do. For those who don't know, spontaneous casters can't freely heighten (upcast) or lessen(downcast) spells. They do get access to Signature Spells, one spell per spell-level can be freely cast in any viable slot, and heightened or lessened to your heart's content. I agree, it's more complicated than 5e but it does a good job of explaining it
Thank you Cody. I thought that was a very fair and well-thought-out analysis. But then I'm a little biased as one of the designers for Pathfinder Second Edition, but some good friends wrote 5e, and I like that game too. I also play both.
I've tried to play Pathfinder as well as StarFinder and just always felt so overwhelmed just trying to make a character. Vs 5e where it was one of the first things in the book, and explained how to do it in nice steps. all of which were pretty much on consecutive sections. Though I've always found that the Character customization is better in PF, and the Feat system is easily one of the coolest things. I Sincerely hope you guys look at the criticisms, and not just blow them off and complaints. Especially in terms of book layout, because I would be super hyped to play Pathfinder as more than just the starter sheets that come in the starter set. No one in my playgroup has really been able to make one without getting at least super frustrated to the point of almost giving up altogether, even while looking up guides it was never really clear. As for running it as a GM.... I tried it once, and as it stands I will never consider doing it again until a newer edition comes ou, I was so overwhelmed, and making calls was hard. (It didn't help that I had a rules lawyer in the group who would argue everything, stopping the game altogether.) My friend often GMs for us in Starfinder/Pathfinder and we have a lot of fun. The system is solid, and playing it feels really great. You guys did great work making everything feel balanced and fun. Huge paragraphs for what should be simpler mechanics, and books with a layout that are beyond confusing really hamper the fun sometimes. But you guys did a great job, please don't take this as me ripping on you, and the other people who developed the game. Because I have had a lot of fun with my Ratfolk Ranger in 2e (unlike DND 5e despite revising the ranger twice...) Or my Vesk Fighter with an awesome Holographic banner! SO a huge thank you for all the fun I've had playing Pathfinder!
Don't listen to Jared. We like Pathfinder because it has depth and avoided the bounded accuracy nonsense. Just edit the damn book better and include how abilities work in the stat blocks. People that want simple can go to 5E. People that want to really play the setting lean on Pathfinder. Pethfinder, and only Pathfinder, pulled me away from AD&D. Keep it up
Personally, I love that you can easily get new skills, it's the big thing I can't handle in 5e. I was playing a warlock and managed to get a unique pet, needed to forgoe a stat bump to pick up three skills so i could get animal handling. As for the layout complexity, that's where I outsource it to the other playes while the initiative moves on; GM's don't have to do all the work.
Can I just say that Pathfinder has the advantage of coming out after 5e. Therefore being able to see the issues of 5e and address them within their game.
Yes, and it can it also explain partly why 5e is more popular. If they had come out closer together, maybe it would be closer because people were generally not happy with D&D 4e. Great point, Patrick!
@@hawk3123 You can learn from anything, but that is like saying that DOOM learned from Battlefield. The two are the same genre, but a different audience and want to reach other audiences. DnD 5e was made to be casual, while PF2e was made for the nerds and then made more casual
@@coolboy9979 I wouldn't say it's more for "nerds." That comes across as gatekeeping. I'd say rather Pathfinder is more for people who want to focus more on character customization rules based combat where D&D is built more for narrative adaptation and story based interactions.
On point #14 about AoO's... I feel the discussion was not enough on this point for Pathfinder 2E. There needed to be discussion about the fact that most monsters don't even have AoO's (although some do) and a lot of them use unique reactions that are meant to surprise you in how they work. It keeps it a lot more interesting than just a simple AoO.
Same. The rules feel more coherent to me too. Like once I understood the underlying mechanics then mechanics I haven't encountered yet could be easily intuited on the fly where that's not always true of 5e beyond adv/dis. And even then because it's used too liberally.
The other thing I think bears mentioning on this is that with the OGL PF2 is more open to 3rd party tools. Yes, there's a mess of vocabulary... I'll bet there's already an app for tracking all the terms or reference playing cards to buy or download to print yourself. The GMs failure to already have a reference website open to search in case of quick questions is the problem. Yeah, maybe Paizo got a little lazy on the layout and put too much content into the first book knowing that the websites would take cover that over... we're also talking about two games that will both have thousands of pages of content before they're retired for whatever comes after. No book will be enough.
@@mith59 I keep archives of nethys open for quick searches. For skills I basically have the person describe what they want to do and I will tell them what to roll and make a DC up in my head based on the difficulty I think it should have. I don't worry about modifiers. I apply those on my side except for things like flanking. The players roll and I decide if they rolled well enough...
Something that my friends and I love about D&D 5e is it’s flexibility. When we started, it was all about the rules, but now it has become all about how we can add and alter the rules to fit our own play style. We found that Critical successes and failures were not impactful enough, so we added varieties of effects for different damage types on a critical hit and more severe injuries - bleeding effects, loss of a finger... We’ve made our own edits to subclasses, monster stats, and more just to try out new ideas and have fun. For me and my friends 5e is like playing with LEGOs. We started off with the instruction booklet, and that was great, but now we combine our own ideas to the sets to create something just for us. Maybe Pathfinder 2 is like that too, but I haven’t had a chance to play it yet.
You can do the same thing in PF as well.. But it requires way more effort because it has more numbers and rules.. In 5e you can do alterations easily because it is simpler, so if you want to cover any "hole" in the 5e rules for your own campaign you can do it easily.. In PF 2 though? It is a damn nightmare...... Yes I prefer 5e as well....
Oh yea, just as easy if not easier. In regards to the critical successes and failures pathfinder released a critical success deck and critical failure deck ($10 on Amazon if you can spare the money) that add a wealth of variety. flavor and randomness to critical rolls depending on the damage taken or given; from status effects, dismemberment and straight up death. All with the flip of a card.. The decks are especially fun since critical rolls are more common in pathfinder. Also similar decks are on the way such as the Chase cards. In regards to the creature adjustments......well they are nearly identical so yea have fun. The main diffrence being "keywords" (like MTG keywords if you played it) but keywords are applied to nearly everything from characters to creatures and items. So removing or adding keywords can drastically alter any character creature or item if you'd like to have fun with that. Like an ork with the "ooze" keyword,....... you just made a gelatinous marauder. I'll admit that the Upfront investment and knowledge needed for pathfinder 2e is much higher, but once you learn it (which should be easy for you cause your a badass mofo) its smooth sailing, besides the occasional rules lookup. But with that being said the golden rule of any trpg is that rules aren't set in stone. Pathfinder clearly states that if you come across any rules issue, that the DM should just make a call and look up rules later. Don't let rules slow down your game. Good day and enjoy which ever game you play
That's literally any system... That's not the flexability of 5e, that's you homebrewing over it. You can do that with any system. You actually probably would have better success with 2e because the rules are so exhaustively laid out that you can consistently see where you're differing from them.
@@TheRhysStreams Yes you can home brew any system but, some systems lend themselves to home brew more than others. When they designed 5th edition one of the primary design goals was the ability for DMs to throw out and or change rules cleanly without worrying about overlap. This is flexibility which is generally missing from other systems. This is why they included examples in the DMG which houses examples of optional systems changing progression, skill use, combat....ect. Yes they included optional rules in past editions but 5e really wanted to push the idea that the DM should change things around to give his players the best experience.
I love how simple 5e was trying to be but I feel like they went out of their way to try and restrict how one can build a character mechanically. The biggest things for me when I first read through Pf2e were things like barbarians that use oversized weapons, different critical effects for weapon types, and different action economy for spells. I feel like Paizo actually took the time to see what players wanted for their characters and gave it to us. One of the main things I could say against Pf2e's character design is that I'm not sure a dual wielder archetype makes much of a difference compared to 5e.
(pf2) well, you have either fighters, rangers or monks who can dual wield, so it kinda opens a lot, they do not play the same way between each other. rangers tend to go full apeshit by hitting like madmen constantly and using their hunt prey mecanic to chase their targets, fighters have defensive and more flexible options with twin parries and ripostes or presses while monks can use monastic weapons with flurry of blows and have a better action economy and mobility overall they really do not play similarly
Love the video! However for your point about high jump and long jump both those rules do exist in dnd 5e and are outlined in the PHB. A player with a 20 str mod would not need to make an athletics check to jump a 15ft gap as long as they had a 10ft running start.
Eh I get it, but... that doesn't change anything from the video. The lack of GM flexibility from PF2e is exhausting IMO, and I think the MAJORITY of DMs who have ran both systems would agree soundly.
@@lord-of-the-unfinished-project I feel like that's on the DM to make rules and such out for the players in the session zero. Rules lawyering is pretty easy to root out when you set expectations and such properly from the start. "I do all skill checks based on the stat its associated with, jumping, climbing, and lifting are athletics because they require strength to do. Flipping, wall running, swinging from a trapeze, are acrobatics because they require more dexterity than stength," would probably have led the player to question "Well my old DM used performance for jumps, so can I do that," to which the DM could simply say "Performance is based on Charisma which has nothing to do with jumping so unfortunately no." Problem solved in a short conversation.
I run a Rolemaster game, which many derisively (and sometimes accurately) call either Roll-Master or Chart-Master. And like most game systems, it has very detailed rules for how to do pretty much any action you can think of. And the purpose of such rigorous treatments is to give new players and DMs the handrails and training wheels to keep the game in its lane as you are learning. But as your familiarity grows with the rules and how the game is set to run, you can do stuff like, "Yeah, it's about 12-15 feet across and the far side is lower. just give me a roll and I will narrate the result." The big point in any system is to know how the rules are supposed to work, and to use that knowledge to make running the game more and more fluid for the DM and the players, so the play involves less and less flipping of pages.
This makes me happy. I started in Pathfinder, I knew 6 Bestiaries back to front, I even got editing privileges on d20pfsrd to format things because I kept sending in notes of formatting errors and inconsistencies. When 5e rolled in all my friends wanted to switch. and it took time, but I had to admit that there were a lot of things 5e was just better at. I could stand losing my darling skill crunch for the simplicity of the advantage roll. For the fun of getting my husband to join because he just hated the Math but loved the RP. It has been great. I even started up a little homebrew blog last week to start uploading creations. I was excited about Pf2e. It sounded like the thing I loved, the action system sounded like the best thing since the d20 system, I got the playtest...and became nervous. that was a lot of chunk and weirdly explained mechanics. I appreciated trying to put everything in one book but didn't like the layout. I knew it'd be a hard sell for half my party. and when it launched...well, it's on my shelf, haven't gone through the whole beast even now. I took one look and realized there was no way in hell I was getting most of my players through that monster. a lot of the issues I had with the playtest were still there. but knowing that this seems to be a 'hell to learn but amazing once you've got it' system like pathfinder 1e makes me a lot more comfortable.
Chapter 9 and 10 are where the majority of the rules are, chapter 10 being exclusively for the GM. If you can get your players through the 40 pages of chapter 9 and give them a bit of guidence as they pick an ancestry, background, and class, then they can start playing pf2e. You can learn the indivual skill actions and such as they come up. Make a cheat sheet for stealth right before a session about infiltration, learn the rules for crafting and earning income while you handle some downtime between sessions, etc... Of course it's a bit more work as GM but that is a price I'm willing to pay considering my players are branching out and being more creative than ever. (Slight tangent feel free to ignore) I had 1 player who always played spellcasters in 5e. He felt like everything else was too simple and boring and difficult to make mechanically different. He is actually playing a melee character in pf2e. I had another player in 5e who only played melee fighters, sometimes barbarians, Because he felt like anything more complicated would be too hard to keep track of in combat. Now he is playing a war priest in pf2e. All of my players are trying more things in combat since multiple attack penalty can make that 3rd swing from a fighter pretty likely to miss, but he can move around a bit to make it easier for an ally to flank, or throw a quick quip at the enemy to demorolize them, etc...
This was actually very helpful. Based on this our team started PF2e and I have not regretted it. It's a great system, and I can agree on the points he makes here. I have not played 5e though. But I can say, PF2e character building rocks, combat system is excellent and yes, the skills system is really weird. Also the editing of Core rules is messy. It's a little bit like the designers have not thought what the players need first. For example, we had a headache finding out how trap searching works. And its one of the most common activities outside combat.
I'm switching from 5E to PF2 for a game I'm running currently, and one of my players linked me to this video. I think I may have to hash together parts of both systems for my game, and I suspect I wont be the only gm doing this. Taking the action economy, character creation, rest mechanics, death mechanics and a few other of the killer -features PF2 provides, and ditching the overly complex exploration and social interaction features might be the way to go. I will, of course, be testing the system as is first to confirm if I want to do this.
I have to say, ditching the exploration mechanics may weaken the game a bit. The system relies on how you are acting when you enter a combat situation to determine how you enter combat, so the exploration aspect is very important. There is no static Initiative in Pathfinder 2E. That is determined by the situation and what the GM will allow the player to justifiably use as initiative.
I do not recommend mixing both systems at all having advantage in pathfinder 2 can be very game breaking since we all run with high bonuses and crit degrees in another comment i talked about a bad experience I had with a GM trying to mix both systems, it didnt really ended well especially with the part where checks against creature's DC were replaced with the creature rolling against you spellcaster having lower bonuses which is the reason we often use spell DCs instead of rolls have seen their spells losing a lot in efficiency, martials or rogues attempting acrobatics and atheltics saw their attemps becoming much less consistent with the creatures simply rolling higher despite having a small bonus. I do not recommend doing that, either use one of the two sauce but do not mix them together especially if you dont tell your players if you still want to go down this route, to this with your players, dont mix things without knowing why they are designed this specific way do not ditch exploration, those are just rules that can be used because they can provide a lot in terms or true exploration (avoid notice to prepare for surprise attack, scouting to give initiative bonuses ect)
DIRECT cross over is a BAD IDEA when mixing to different SCALING math systems obviously. its better to take ONE as the FOUNDATION to use, and build upon, then take the other and CONVERT it to the foundation. Also making Redundant rolling on a situation makes it either more RNG decided instead of the simple meet this goal (DC) then see what happens, ONE roll done is better clearly and less work for the DM/overall. (adv /disadv is still ONE role done) Splentforcer is right about knowing your games core functions first, then take other games IDEAS and Convert them to your core game functions.
I moved back from PF2 to DND5E about a year ago. Took 5-foot step and removed short-rests from my games, both are fairly logical (especially 5f step) and I liked both ideas. Additionally, after seeing the variety of things to do - we added a home rule, that you can swap your class bonus you get for your level and pick lower level ability from any class in it's place. Gives very interesting flavor and removes multi-classing. 5th edition is just way more friendly and convenient to run, pathfinder just feels too much like a video game. But yeah, you do end up merging the two as both have fun and interesting concepts you will lack in another.
I think if D&D ever gets to 6e, character creation is going to be the biggest mechanic as well as how features like Feats interact with level advancement.
Glad you brought up Shadowrun. He said he handn't seen a game so poorly laid out as PF 2e. He obviously never played Shadowrun 5e. That is the poster child for bad rule book layout.
@@dogwish115 You're right, I haven't. I love the concept of SR, but I refuse to play it until they figure out a more streamlined rule system. It was a running joke in our group how many different pages you had to flip to find an answer to any question. Sometimes you were referred to a page that didn't have the info it said was there.
As a Pathfinder player, I can't say you're wrong. I use a wiki website (d20pfsrd) and android character builder (Pathbuilder) to figure out everything, and it works a lot better than my actual rulebooks.
If you like fighting and character costumization then you will like Pathfinder more. If not then dont bother to learn it imo If you like modules then I would go for Pathfinder 2e as well, since they got a system called "adventure path" which is basically a story divided into 5 books, which take you from 1 to 20. 5 normal adventures that are connected with each other.
@@TA-by9wv I would need to rewatch the video to make sure, but I remember him giving the character development point to 2e, and it was not just about min/maxing. I remember him giving kudos to 5e for their backgrounds, but saying 2e does it better. I love RP and I love min/maxing, and most of all, I love where they intersect. If I want to play a character similar to Legolas from LOTR (I've developed a cool backstory and I've mapped out his personality), well I'm probably not going to go that route and then dump DEX. If I take a feat, it will probably be ones that help him be a better archer or otherwise do similar Legolas type things. The point went to 2e because it simply makes it easier to make the character you want to make (maybe there is more work, but you have more options/flexibility) You may have played both and have a different opinion. Please, let me know though, cause this is my impression from the video and I'm looking for DMs that run 2e now. :)
@@coolboy9979 Not a criticism, just a minor edit. The Adventure Paths , commonly called APs, are 6 books traditionally, and rarely go above level 17. They are similar to many of the campaign books of 5e, like Rise of Tiamat, or Curse of Strahd. The main differences with the APs is they always start at level 1, each chapter has a different author and is released one a month, and they usually include a unique mechanic (at least in 1st edition) for that adventure as well as fleshing out a religion, organization, nation or other such group in great detail that might be featured in the story. They have a reputation of being well done, but most adventure paths have at least one book that is wildly different or disliked compared to the rest of the chapters. They often start strong, then have a rough patch in the middle, then have a mix of stellar conclusions and WTF just happened moments by the end.
Personally I like Pathfinder 2e more. A few friends and myself have been playing a campaign since last September and it’s been so much fun! Yeah sometimes it gets a little dicey with trying to find the rules, but it’s still super fun. It’s also funny because when my dm first suggested it I just thought “nope, no way, not doin it.” Just because I really started looking through the PHB to figure out a lot of the rules I missed before, but we made the switch and it’s been so much fun
It's funny. I've had players who were initially really resistant to Pathfinder because "the math gets in the way of roleplaying" and then they realised that all of the different options and modifyers actually means that there's a mechanical difference between what would otherwise just be flavour/RP choices... which makes it even easier to roleplay. especially for players who usually find it hard to roleplay
Dungeons and dragons is definitely easier to teach which makes perfect sense when you consider that it was designed to rebuild the system and attract a new player base. Pathfinder on the other hand was created to continue one from 3.5. It's made for more of the people already familiar with tabletop. I also personally think it's designed with more of the players enjoyment in mind give how it was play tested before released.
I mean if you look at it, barbarian and bards had a major nerf along with fighter with the spellcasters getting a lot stronger. Sure some of the noteworthy spells were slightly nerfed but a lot of them aren't really touched.
I think 5E is great to introduce people to RPGs, and it's introduced several people I know. As people get more experienced, I think PF2 is the better choice.
@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow Honestly, I'd rather take experienced groups back to 3.5 or PF1. 5E after a while feels really limiting for character customization, and the characters feel underwhelming as far as the epic fantasy that we're used to with D&D. I feel like the designers tried to oversimplify. There simply aren't enough decision points in building a character. Now, you could argue that 3.5 or PF1 had too many decision points, but it's a lot easier for a DM to cut down mechanics for inexperienced players than to invent new mechanics out of whole cloth to satisfy players who can't find a mechanical way to make their vision into a reasonably sound character.
@@Kurgosh1 I agree, it depends on what you're looking for in a game. I've played and GMed all three and ... I love the fact that I can take a PF2 fillable PDF, change the dropdown from level 1 to 2, and in 5 minutes level up (or help someone level up). It's awesome. But yeah, for character building, nothing beats 3.5 or PF1. But that's just not my focus now, I'd just rather be playing good games than leveling up.
@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow Yeah, people definitely look for different things. I love character building, when the system allows for customization. I've built more Deadlands, West End d6 Starwars, 3.5 D&D, Shadowrun and D&D 4e characters than I could play in a lifetime. (Also played a ton of those systems, of course.) Just figuring out the different ways I could make an idea into something that would function in-game is fun to me.
I am sharing this with my friends: it gives a pretty good review of all the aspects of both games. Unlike the Warhammer 40K editions, DnD and Pathfinder are making fresh games with each edition that allows for different experiences. People take a big boom-boom over 4E, but it was honestly the most fun I had as a DM in creating encounters: but I will also acknowledge it lost a lot of the RP and in-between aspects that 3.5 had before it and 5E brought back. That is to say: each edition is special and allows for new experiences with actual new mechanics and game play. Thanks for the great video! Cheers
I understand your point about 5E rest mechanic, but I believe it reflects the idea that most "damage" takes the form of expended luck and fatigue. It seems okay for someone to take an hour to get their wind back. On the other hand, automatically regaining ALL lost health by resting for 8 hours is the one that kind of niggles at me. At least with the short rest you have to expend a resource in exchange for the healing...
"takes the form of expended luck and fatigue", I think that was a AD&D ruling.. a long time ago. Like I've said to other people, don't try and justify things in real life, it is a pointless endevour.
Not to mention that hit points are not a direct literal analogue for your actual health. It's a curious melange of health, stamina, luck, grit, and willpower, all rolled into one game numeric that takes 'damage' as you go through the course of an encounter.
I think there is a part about 5e Rest that gets missed out by many DMs and Players. This comes from my 2e Dungeon Dive heritage but, IMO, Rests(Short but in particular Long) should be seen less as 'chances to recover' but rather as choices for the DM to either/or Apply an Opportunity Cost to time spent Resting (enemies rest as well, opportunities for enemies to track Players, time lost on time-sensitive objectives, etc) as well as randomized encounters. Just cuz the party rests doesnt mean the rest of the world does. Simple things like rats trying to get into the party's supplies offer lots of mileage. Does the Party deal with the rats, losing recovery? Or do they rest and lose some supplies?
@@Deamonic well falling under 50% heath your character is "bloodied" and is starting to take deadly hits, otherwise above that threshcold it is more like clumsy dodges, barely successful parries, fatigue...
I think the best summation of this comparison is that 5e is a simplier, more casual game thats easier on players and DM's. PF2 is more complex game, that requires more work to play (and even more work to run), but can be more deep and nuanced as a result.
kinda like warhammer fantasy I would say pf2 kinda requires some extra preparations or has a more difficult learning curve, but when you start from scratch i would advice future GMs playing with new players to only use the basic of the basic rules, then go a bit further once the party hit level 5, I prepare an easy infiltration mission serving as a tutorial on how stealth works and how to infiltrate stuffs, either go full disguise or go full stealth however, once you got the ropes, it runs super smooth
prismaticcrow I don’t think 5e is more simple or more casual at all. It’s a LOOSER game, with more space to home brew or insert your own preferences. PF is more structured and crunchy. Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the looseness of 5e. All the crunch and referencing every tiny rule and feat of 3.5 wore me out. Great, I could “customize” my character, but I needed 15 books to do it and 7 pages of notes. Some people love that. Some of us don’t.
Well, that depends on what "more deep and nuanced" mean to you. From a narrative and storytelling standpoint the system doesn't really matter, that up to the GM and the players. For a more nuanced combat system I would agree, but I don't think "deep" is the right word for that. But I also don't think everything should have rules, most ability checks should be just be set by the dungeon master, it is easy, it is simple and it is fun.
I think Proficency bonus in 2e is one of the best changes. I like ALOT to decide specifically in what my character is good or bad. Great characterization option in my opinion!
it is so, _so_ much better to be able to define your character as good at some things, great at others, and a master of some specific craft. 5e's system of "whatever you got it" is just so unfun.
I really enjoy this passionate presentation of good arguments, with examples, without shitting on anything/one or trying to force feed people your opinion. Just entertaining infomration.
A downside I see about D&D 5E skills is that they are too vague and general. There have been so many times when a GM or player says "use Athletics or Acrobatics, your choice", or "use Perception or Investigation, your choice", or "use Persuasion or Intimidation, your choice." The vagueness of the skills lets them overlap into each other so much it kind of makes them feel like they don't really represent anything about your character. The other part of skill challenges is that if a Character fails, everyone else wants to dog pile on to try it. Statistically someone is bound to roll high. Because of the bound accuracy mathematics of the game, an amateur who rolls high will beat a master who rolls low. There is also no clear indication of how "helping" someone gives advantages in almost any circumstance, or when you should force them to roll interdependently.
Wouldn't it be a good thing. That it is vague, so a DM can use the rule/skill as he see fit. Explain or specialise it too much it becomes a constant talking point. For example the perception Vs investigation, both achieve a similar goal to the player to find something, but have a different way of doing it. If the two cases were more specific it would have made one ability objectively better. Plus it doesn't punish someone from taking a different skill since perception is pretty useful and tied to a great ability. If I am not playing a wizard or artificer, I would rather have wisdom. It has better saves, better uses, and imo better skills. Same with athletics and acrobatics. Dexterity is just better. Saves, AC, and an important skill(stealth) is dependant on it. So giving me a choice in ATL/acro or perc/Inv helps me play strong or intelligent, without giving me much of its downside. And If you have a good DM that can differentiate in describing when you use the skill then you wouldn't even know the difference. Gb
Something I love about these systems is that a lot of these things could be pretty easily homebrewed into the other system if you like that specific mechanic but prefer the other system overall.
"I have never seen a game more poorly edited than.." He's going to say Shadowrun, right. Right? SR 6th edition (and 5th. And 4th.) are so badly edited that there are dozens of pages of errata simply for typos. 6th edition includes a copy-paste from 5th edition of a mechanic that doesn't exist in 6th edition. Shadowrun famously includes such high literature as "Then there are spirits that adopt metahuman appearances and demeanor, because argle bargle foofaraw hi diddy hoe diddy no one knows." This is from the actual published material. Somehow I highly doubt PF2e is worse.
I haven't seen pathfinder 2e and the second I got to that part of the video I zoomed right to the comments to post this lol. This was the first post I seen hahaha
@@beardedbill7047 100% to the both of you. Shadowrun books are notorious for bad editing, but 6th nearly made me cry. In the middle of a fight with a Barghest our GM realized that the copy/paste from 5th edition was incomplete! He had to go back to the older book to figure out how to handle the monster's special ability.
I hold Shadowrun books up as a contender for bad editing awards, on part with Game Workshop if not a tiny bit worse! Editing so poor that they didn't even realize when they left *whole tables* of information out of the book!
Ya, Palladium Books are up there too: poorly edited and very convoluted. But dang, mega damage and glitterboy armor? If only someone with proficient writing and editing skills got a hold of them...
He's right about the layout of Pathfinder here: finding rules feels like someone went out of their way to obfuscate them. It's so bad I had to make a 20 something page consolidated rules document with page numbers for ease of looking up rules. I'd say the typos don't come close to SR though.
Hehe - you said "and this is a big but." Every time I see breakdowns of PF2 it makes me think that PF2 and 5e would marry really well - Using PF2s tools to clearly define rules, but 5e's increased accessibility/approachability.
I would NOT recommend doing that. I had a terrible experience with that I had a GM who tried doing this but forgot to tell us what he changed and how he modifed things like, usually when you roll something you try to beat a creature's DC, the creature does not roll just like you would just try swinging your maul and go through a creature's AC. Casting fireballs asks you to roll damage and creature to roll reflex vs your spellcasting DC. Grappling asks you to roll athletics vs creature's fortitude DC. the reason there is this use of DC is in my opinion as follow: - make degrees of success relevant - make actions more consistent by reducing the amount of randomness and award choices, commitment and teamwork (via debuffs, flanking, buffs ect) - running faster rather than roll stacking and having to add numbers, here one just rolls once and you compare the result so that GM I had made rolls for creatures like you would try to grapple one, so he compares your atheltic check to the creature's fortitude roll the problem is that it made everything so inconsistent because of the high numbers (due to how proficiencies work) the added rolls and randomness. And it made feats like assurance (which is only usefull in combat actually) completely worhtless We, the players had no idea why our actions did not suceeded until we realised the GM was making rolls for almost anything that is supposed to simply use a DC, it slowed the pace by a lot and it made attacks and striking the only reliable things you could do in combat despite the multiple attack penalties since ennemies DO NOT roll for AC I mean, it is simplier to just use DCs instead of making rolls for everything and since it is designed that way for a reason: why changing it like this ? so I prefer saying it like this: if you would like to do so and mix two systems: TELL YOUR PLAYERS AND ASK FOR THEIR OPINIONS AND FEELINGS ABOUT IT communication is extremly important in any kind of social oriented activity, DO NOT KEEP YOUR PLAYERS IN THE DARK TELL THEM ABOUT THINGS YOU WANT TO MODIFY otherwise: either use one system or the other, but avoid mixing them altogether, pf2 is designed in a specific way that is hardly compatible with 5e due to how each machine is oiled
@@splentforcer1475 Sounds more like a poorly Communicating DM, and not a undestanding of the basic reason for Mechanics of the game or why they are there. This does not mean its a bad idea to merge things in the system, PICK one game to be the foundation and convert the other to its that ones basic core functions, this way you create a stable base for the new house rule to function. This also makes things stay at a more simple to use level. May be alot of work and testing needed up front but in the end you will save time and effort later.
@@Kommissar75 As a person who's played a Witch before; she has no identity or flavor of a warlock other than being a shaman with a spooky patron. Even it's patrons are weirdly flavored concepts like woodland, time, water, and death; no demons or fae
da fuck you talking about? Warlock is in Pathfinder 1E, 2E Just came out and its going to have more then 1 Core Handbook, So... Biased much? Edit : I Will also explain something to you not only dos 5E have the LEAST amount of classes and customization of ANY D&D Based game, But people like you are prob going to ignore that completely if your making this type of an arguement. Example in Pathfinder 2E, Champion can also be called Paladins based on the Alignment type you take, Certain classes (Same with races) Basicly have a Parent Class in Pathfinder 2E, in Pathfinder 1E you did things kinda in Reverse, Example Pathfinder 1E A Paladin would have certain subclasses you could choose, Like Hospitler and what knock. So ... This Video and the ppl hear are pretty biased over-all / Completely ignoring shit over-all. 5E Kinda blows when compared to all other D&D, Its popular with Celebs mostly becouse its easy as shit to get into the rules are SO Simplified that it hurts the game for the most part. Even people who like 5E Complain about it all the time and the number 1 thing I hear about 5E Players? Fuck the Rules make your own House rules for like 80% of the shit. Which makes me go, So 5E is useless Play Pathfinder or any other D&D Version out there coz 80%+ of the game is ppl making up there own rules? Seems fucken Legit.
Here’s my issue with skill checks: A PC comes across a gap and asks: Can I jump over it? DM: Hmm.. Probably. PC: How far across is it? DM: 10-12 feet. PC: Hmm… Okay. I’m going to try to jump it. (Rolls a 14.) DM: Your armor weighs you down more than you expected and you miss the far side by a few feet, falling a considerable distance and landing with a hard crash below. You take X damage. Player: Oh, I needed more than a 14? Wow, that is not at all what I was picturing in my mind. I would not have made that jump if I had known that. It's all fine and wonderful if you make the jump, but can be incredibly frustrating if you fail without having had any real indication of the risk you were undertaking. The DC could be 12, it could be 16. It could be higher or lower. We don’t know because the DM is just picking a number in their head. Let’s say the PC is getting a +4 on their roll. If the DC is 12, then an 8 or higher on the dice would succeed. If the DC is 16, then a 12 or higher is needed. One is slightly more likely to succeed, one is more likely to fail. This information would definitely sway my decision and I think it would be realistic for a PC to have some idea of the risk they are undertaking, based on their skill sets and lifetime experience of jumping various things. Furthermore, there is no in-world consistency. The PC could come across an almost identical gap in the future, but still the DC is unknown. The DM may not remember what DC they set the last time (several months ago), or perhaps the PC is now a few levels higher and has a larger bonus to the roll, so the DM, who still wants a challenge for the PC, picks a higher DC this time. I like that Pathfinder has laid out: a 10 foot gap is this hard to jump across. The DM knows, the player knows, the PC knows. And it doesn’t change whether you’re 1st level or 10th level. Of course, I completely understand that this is ten times more complicated to run the game, because no one can be expected to memorize all these fiddly details and so you have to stop and look it up, which I agree is a pain in the butt. Also, a DM in 5e could simply announce at the table that the DC to jump across is 16, giving the player a mechanical representation of what their PC's eyes are seeing anyway. It may not help with maintaining consistency in the game world if the DC constantly changes, but it can at least alleviates some of the potential frustrations in the moment.
A running jump will let a medium humanoid cover a distance in feet equal to its strength score. Its that simple. You only need a roll if its just at the limit of your jump distance or there's some extenuating factor like jumping over spikes. If its beyond or less than that, don't roll. And id use indiana jones rules so a strength score 10 pc tries to jump a 10 ft gap, they roll low and they can't quite land their toe on the edge. On their next turn they have to scramble up but if they roll badly again they will sink all the way back and be hanging by just their fingertips. Then they have one last chance to avoid falling, but they need to roll higher than before as they need to do a dead pull up. Or they can look around for any foot/handholds below the edge and try climbing down for a lower check.
Hey, thanks for the responses everyone! I admit, jumping over a gap may have been a poor example. I was just following the one from the video, but my point was more to do with the generally faster and looser DC’s in 5e vs Pathfinder’s more hard-set DC’s. You can replace the example above with some other check if it helps. Also good point, Felipe, the DC guidelines in 5e do help with a sense of consistency. And a DM could also say that a task looks “easy” or “hard” or “you’d have to be a God to pull that off” to give a sense of what the DC might be.
Why do people treat jumping as a skill check instead of following those rules? Because its 5e. I've never once looked up those rules as a player or a DM because we trust each other at the table, and an Athletics check is SO MUCH EASIER to commit to memory. Some players want to know the exact numbers, and mechanically crunch it. Some want the very real immersive roleplay experience of thinking you can make the jump, and NOT knowing the numbers behind it.
Another factor you should considered is that not all jumps are the same, despite being the same distance apart. A ten foot from a stone dungeon floor onto another stone floor is one thing, but a ten foot jump from a sandy barge onto a wet grassy hilltop is quite different and would probably need a higher DC roll
5e's less cluttered system makes it easier to homebrew into a great system IMO. Why did they make feats optional but not attunement? The magic items are so easy to port over and those crit rules I like. I don't think 5e's class features and feats would play well with pathfinder 2e's. That action economy reminds me of dark heresy which is honestly a good thing. I think I'd stick with the exhaustion mechanic for death saves I'd love that to be an official optional rule. 5e has some classes that get things back on a short rest so some tricky rebalancing would have to be done to move away from that. Hit dice are a seriously underused mechanic in 5e. Mix in some more uses for them as well as the "burn spell slot to get feature back" that they've been toying around with in UA and 5e becomes a completely different and dare I say Superior Game. And crafting 5e's crafting rules are garbage. We need more mundane items and different materials to work with. Am I missing any gripes?
I actually like the crafting. It makes sense that in the rather less magical abundance of the 5e setting, enchanting and shit takes a really long time. It's why its low magic in the first place.
"I have never seen a game as poorly edited than Pathfinder Second Edition." I will be up front about the fact that I have not read the PF2 core book from cover to cover and mostly read the basics and the class stuff I need, but my impression is the editing for the Shadowrun 5e core rulebook even after multiple edits in my opinion is way worse.
It should not.. There is a reason you will very often read the phrase "DM's discretion" (or a variation of it) in the 5e rules.... Trust your DM.. You, as a player, shouldn't think about rules.. They should..
@@NickStrife that doesnt really make sense. If a player is offloading all the work onto the GM to know all the rules they are expecting too much from the GM. A player should know the rules at least as much as it pertains to their characters abilities and actions they want to take frequently. This goes for any tabletop game ever. It's fine if a new player needs help with the rules but if they arent putting in the effort to learn how anything works they are dragging the game down.
Depends on your perspective. More details can mean more narrowly defined & thus, a need for a larger skill list or limitations on what a player can do. I think I remember Shane Hensley explaining that when discussing Savage Worlds when it came out. It seemed like he was opposed to the idea of telling a player he couldn't do or even try something because they didn't have the right skill, so he tried to keep the skill list short & broadly applicable.
@@jamesloucka1952 I am not saying you shouldn't know how your abilities work or other character-centric things.. I am saying the DM has to decide what happens when there is not a 100% clear explanation in the rules.. Just let your DM handle it, if he is a good DM (and I don't know why you would play in his campaign if he isn't) he will choose the option which is more fun or the one that adds narrative depth...
@@jamesyonemura9296 to a degree yes. But if you skimp too much on the details it can leave players and GMs lost and having to waste playtime discussing how something should be ruled since there is nothing explicit. Personally I find the additional detailing of PF2 over 5e helpful as it gives me a solid foundation to build on.
Thank you for taking the time to do this review. I will most likely look into 2e and change some things about my 5e campaigns now and going forward. I would look into playing in a 2e campaign after watching this video.... but when it comes to running a campaign with Pathfinder, I think I'll hold out for 2.5e! haha I'm a new DM so running a 5e campaign is complicated enough for me. :)
I love the customisation of PF2 and it's action economy. Unfortunately most of players I deal with just prefer 5e as it's easier to manage on both player and gm side.
Pf2e is much easier to manage on the player side. Sure leveling up takes a couple extra minutes but that's because your character actually improves as opposed to being pretty much static between big spikes like 5e. Pf2e is far harder to keep track of as the GM tho, for sure.
I enjoy both PF 2e and D&D 5e... and a slew of other games. There is no reason (I can think of) not to play a lot of different games. Life is too short to put all your hope for fun into one game. Great video idea!
Honestly, as someone who wanted to be a game designer when younger and still loves game design, I love reading different TTRPG books and playing a bunch of different games and seeing the differences!
Regarding PF2e putting more strain on the GM due to it being hevier on rules: I think that would really depend on the type of players that are on the table. If players are lazy and leave it up to the GM to know how the system works, yeah, you are right. On the other hand, if everyone does their part and learn the system beforhand and players take actions with a clear idea how that would work within the system, then no. In that last case, D&D5e would be the one putting more strain on the DM, due to the frequent lack of clear mechanics, it'd necessarily be up to the DM to, on the spot, figure out how these outlier cases should work. In my experience, this latter scenario can often bog down the game even more than finding a specific rule in a book you know well (even more so when you're reading in a tablet and can use a search function or the very useful bookmarks in the pdf version). I recall a rather combat-heavy D&D5e oneshot, were a barbarian playuer would often, instead of attacking, try to perform unusual actions, the DM would then need to pause the game and figure out how to rule that action. More often than not, the player would come out disapointed by how the effects of said action were less epic than what was expected. All in all, I think D&D5e is much better for beginners, full analog play, or groups that want to focus much more on RP and storytelling (nothing wrong with any of those). PF2e, on the other hand, works better for structured play, with groups that know the system well and flows a lot better with the help of tools such as Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.
Degrees of failure is nice it just takes a few sessions to get down. One of my players, having maxed out their toughness,was still one shot by an incredibly lucky villain during the final battle. It heightened the stakes but holy shit they were mad at their dice.
It's almost a verbatim rip from GURPS handling crit's... "make the check by X or greater and it's a crit'." AND "miss the check by X or greater and crit' failure." (as witten, if I recall, GURPS called it at 5... but we felt that a bit liberal, so always went with 10... and occasionally 15 was suggested. Criit's should rare and precious but allowed to grow with the PC's. It's why I never capped the values in skills. ;o)
It really does come down to how you like to play. I started playing D&D 5e a few years ago and its simplicity made it easy for me to catch on to. I was then introduced to pathfinder and fell in love with how creative you can be with the types of characters you can make. Starting out pathfinder was a bit difficult with how crunchy it is but I've grown to love how it has rules for everything and it's not just the GM asking for something they think would be similar. And now with pathfinder 2e, I'm still in love with the system and dont know if I could go back to D&D.
Not even a quarter of the way through and I already feel the need to simply say 'thank you' for being so forth-coming about game-mechanics and things someone who might consider learning one or the other system or even switching between them might actually expect to deal with.
You wonder why there's contention between d&d and Pathfinder fans? Look at sports fans. Look at the console wars. People just like to posture themselves as better than others.
well, I think the comment section here is pretty chill overall. I personally am a 5e player, but do have interest to learn pathfinder. Unfortunately, not much time to learn the shenanigans and my friends all play 5e as well, so getting them into it would be hard as well. But we homebrew a lot of stuff in 5e so something from pathfinder might be useful
Loved the comparison. Sustain: Keep doing this format for others things. Comparing different systems, races for an archetype, classes for roles in a party. Improve: A running score graphic as you go would be entertaining. Again, I thought this was great.
I actually have a big problem with 5e's layout: It doesn't tell me who can use a spell. If I see a cool spell, I have to check each class's spell list to see if it's on there. PF lists the traditions right in the stat block.
Yeah, 5e's layout is also not great. See also the class descriptions that can't put all the character creation info on the same 2-page spread, requiring flipping back and forth.
That would be an awesome mix as long as the system you base it on can handle it. 5e can handle more things added on it in my opinion but your experience may varie
I haven't had that issue with pf2, but that is mainly because I was a 3.5/pf1 player for so many years where there were 10000 different things that stacked. Luckily in pf2 you only have three types of bonuses so it became easier to keep track of them.
I don't really get how people find this hard for PF2E. Most of the math happens at level up and is clearly explained on the character sheet. Not only that, similar bonuses don't stack, meaning you'll never deal with more than 2 floating bonuses at a time (unlike 1st edition). These get even easier to track if you put your character sheet in a clear cover and track bonuses and HP with a dry erase marker
This brings back memories of my high level 3rd ed barbarian/cleric who I made a combat cheat sheet for that took up an ENTIRE sheet of paper on it's own.
Comparing "Feats" just because they have the same name feels weird. 5E Feats and PF2 Feats are wildly different things. And I'll criticize PF2 for having four distinct mechanics all named "Feats."
They aren't distinct mechanics though. They all serve the same mechanical purpose, but you get them from four different sources. They also aren't all called feats, they are specified as general feats, skill feats, class feats, and ancestry feats.
@@Enaronia In the same way Racial Features and Class Features are not both called 'Features', the prefix is particularly relevant... no? they arent called feats?
All of my player experience so far is in 5e, but I've recently started DMing my first game, and chose PF2e. The layout of the book and creature stat blocks definitely does create some game flow issues. Nothing that can't be fixed with some extra note taking and prep work, but it's not the easiest thing to deal with. However, as both a DM and eventually a player, I vastly prefer PF2e for it's powerful customizability and attention to mechanical detail. In 5e, it's hard, if not impossible, to make a truly unique build with a unique playstyle, so all of what makes your character unique HAS to come from roleplay, and that just is not fun for every type of player, and is something you can do no matter the system. It's also not very well balanced and certain popular play styles are inferior to the point of being unfun, or aren't actually allowed by the rules. PF2e, on the other hand, provides you with the tools to create any character you might want, and, IMO, a better structure to homebrew in things it doesn't account for.
I feel like the answer here is the ever awkward, "D&D is better to run, Pathfinder is better to play". Many of the 'downsides' of D&D make life easier for a DM. That extra customization as a player is amazing... as a DM it makes it FAR harder to design scenes tailored to your party. This is SO true it makes me wonder if this was the design philosophy at play. It just feels like Pathfinder was designed with the player-experience first, while D&D was designed with DMs and actually running the game in mind. Additionally, D&D is just 100% better for players brand new to RPGs. Those 'easy mode' rules are prefect for teaching. A great example: D&D character creation is rigid in early levels because it makes it easier teaching the game to total ttRPG newbies. It's pretty much agreed that Lv1 characters are characters with training-wheels on - characters have few abilities in order to help newer players learn the core rules without the exceptions kicking in too often. Then lv2 layers on some special class rules and introduces bonus actions. Then, only at level 3, do you really choose the class you want. This is frustrating as an experienced player - I don't need the handholding. But as a DM it makes it amazing for onboarding newbies. That stuff aside, because of D&D Beyond, I can't imagine running anything else. I can't overstate how awesome it is to have every source-book, module and test-rule hyperlinked in a massive database. It makes running everything breathtakingly simple. The ability to have copies of the players sheets, having ever rule linked (hover over a monster name in a module to see a statblock, hover over a spell on a monster statblock to the the whole thing, hover over a status to see the discription, etc), sharing content with players... it's really the heart of it for me.
Thoughts on combat fir both at low levels PF2e characters can take a great axe swing from an orc can your 5e wizard or sorcerer do that? Additionally action economy is so goofy in 5e. It's not simple at least not as much as PF2 3 action. I find new players often are like what can i do with a bonus action. Unless they are a caster or rogue the answer is not much. Which has a feels bad element. Finally, because of the way opportunity attacks work in 5e games are very immobile unless you are a rogue. You just trade swings because neither side wants to burn an action to disengage, move 30 feet to have the opponent move 30 feet and punch them in the face. Because attack of opportunity are so limited in PF2 it becomes much easier to move. However, players who play 5e are so set in the mindset of stand and wail on each other they dont take advantage of the power of movement
Maybe this is just me but I've found PF2 to be easier to run than 5e. Once I intuitively grasped the underlying mechanics that all the systems flow out of it was easy to run smoothly. It's a lot easier to change things on the fly for me. Where 5e feels more cobbled together. Like there was a core mechanic but things got simplified later to the point that things got separated.
@@brahmdorst5154 I think in the first pages introducing "backgrounds" there is the option for you to customize them, I don't have my book but If I had to guess I'd say some page around... 125? Tho in the book I'm pretty sure there is no mention of feat customization.
I sort of want to combine them. I've only played 5e and I enjoy it, though Pathfinder is interesting, especially with 2e out. The three action system in particular sounds very intriguing
Corey, I watch a lot of D&D based videos. You are hands down my favorite. Editing/Layout is VERY important. Hurt some feelings. As far as Adv/Dav goes, I still prefer the +/- system. I much prefer giving a a +2 modifier over something that equates to +5. You gave me an interest in 2e Pathfinder. I will probably purchase it. I think a conglomeration of the two would be good.
@@NickStrife It just... wouldn't really work with the advantage disadvantage system you'd really really have to have more mods. You could maybe do +/- 5 but then you'd run into FREQUENT crits. 5e has removed most of the wiggle room and by doing so they've reduced the design space for something like this.
By far the best part of 2e. If I am hitting you easily because my attack is so superior to your defense, I should crit a lot. Not because I have a weird weapon or a special feat, because I'm a superior swordsman. It's perfect.
One great plus of Pathfinder 2e and its "everything is feats!" system is that because it is very modular, it is very easy for Paizo to roll out additional content not only in dedicated expansion books, but in lore books and adventure paths. It gives them a lot of room to expand and keep their revenue up with new content without the confusing semi-allowed mess that is 5e's Unearthed Arcana.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
Happy May the 4th Star Wars fans! What's your favorite film?
Taking20 Deeeeefinitely The Empire Strikes Back.
Revenge of the sith
Return of the Jedi
@@masonkrimm4966 it truly is the best star wars film
A New Hope
I just love how he expected this huge flame war in the comments but most of the comments are "Have you read Shadowrun?"
Bruh after playing trough the 3 shadowrun games my first thoughts were "oh shit i gotta get more of this world", not too quickly my mind changed to "im too old for this shit, im out". And i hate this more than anything because I love that world
@@OutlawMaxV I gotchu bro www.reddit.com/r/Shadowrun/comments/fiddqk/big_list_of_shadowrun_alternatives/
I heard him describe the editing and immediately went to check the comments for Shadowrun XD
shadowrun's rules layout... its like trying to design a character while someone hits you in the balls like its a speedbag
HA! that's the first thing I thought of when it came to game design, layout and editing. Second edition Shadowrun
Aha! You told us not to devolve into simple name-calling, so we shall involve ourselves in COMPLEX name-calling! How about that for a loophole you scalp exposed gentleman!
Mock not the follicly impaired lest you find yourself so impaired in the future
@@jamesloucka1952
I regret to inform you that your warnings reach deaf ears since my lush hair prevents passage for your words
Now I want to see a tabletop version of "Oh...Sir!!"
you sqrt(-1)mbicile!
You scalp exposed gentleman xD
I think the real take away of this video is:
Editing and Book layout is really important.
That and not making your rules 6 paragraphs sometimes for what is simple answers that only needed a few sentences.
It really doesn't mean shit when you can use a site like AON as your reference.
I took the same away... pathfinder xould have been a great game, but they cheapes out on edditing so 5E took the market victory as it is populated mostly by people who won't put up with that and will side with the easier to learn and teach game
I really wish they would cut up the rulebook into different books (bundled together of course) so that rules could be referenced.
This and monster statblocks are deal breakers for me as a Game Master, tbh. Even if Pathfinder was superior in every other aspect, the issues cody brought with these two points would be enough to make sure I never GM Pathfinder.
Dungeons and Finder 7e
I prefer Dungeons and Finder 7.2E :P
Path of the Dragon Finders
Dungeonfinder: Path of the Dragon
7EE
The most ambitious anime crossover of all time.
I'd love to see a video about turning some of pathfinder's strengths into 5e house rules, and vice versa as a followup to this video.
i said that in multiple comments,
i had a very bad experience with such attempts, I do not really recommend doing that, it would be like putting ketchup in lasagnas instead of the bolognese
@@splentforcer1475 Your bad experience seems to have been because your GM did a really poor job of it, not because the idea's a bad one.
@@2401blue agree with your assessment of his GM
It is likely easier, and maybe more compatible to draw houserules and spiffy mechanics from 4ed. It works well, particularly for monsters, or borrowing interesting abilities for Lair actions.
@@2401blue I personally haven't tried it but the thought had struck me. The obvious strengths from pathfinder are the feats and the 3 action system, but these are so different from 5e that it would be impossible to implement without changing the core balancing of the game. 5e's classes are build around its own action economy, they just don't fit a 3 action system. The feats is also pretty much impossible as you would have to make this entire system yourself from the ground up, since 5e just don't have the feats to support this. So I don't think that the problem was the GM doing a poor job but the idea being fundamentally flawed and downright impossible to pull off.
The way to truly do this is to make an entirely new game with the best of both worlds. Let's hope WotC will do that with 6e some day.
"These game mechanics can be complicated"
Me: Laughs in shadowrun 5E
"I have never seen a book so poorly edited"
Me: Laughs in shadowrun 6e
"It will outright stop your games sometimes"
Me: Laughs in chunky salsa and demolitions
imagine playing shadowrun 5e, I took at least 2 weeks to make a rigger and try to understand EACH RULE for EACH FUCKING ROBOT holy shit I hate this system
Ya I was thinking the exact same thing. He mentioned poor editing and I was like "You've clearly not tried to play Shadowrun."
BUT, they do struggle with the exact same issue. A keyword system. Which makes everything feel atrocious as you have to look five different places to figure out how one thing works.
*Me:* _laughs as I take Shadowrun 4e (ie the best Shadowrun edition) and homebrew away complicated bullshit to make it feel better_
@@Epicmonk117 the plight of those who played 4e
Lol love me some shadowrun!
"A fantastic example that had me pulling my hair out . . ."
So *that's* when he went bald.
big oof
2:08 1: Death and Dying
3:09 2: Action Economy
4:51 3: Higher Level Spells
5:50 4: Proficiency Bonus
6:40 5: Multiclassing
7:41 6: Skill Checks
10:04 7: Editing/Layout
11:52 8: GM Stat Blocks
14:10 9: Resting
14:52 10: Character Design
16:17 11: Magic/Mundane Items
17:06 12: Adv/Dis vs +/- Mods
18:05 13: Feats
21:01 14: OA vs AoO
22:20 15: The Critical
You're a true hero. Thank you.
More like the villain, out to dig into creators pockets.
Who won?
@@ANONM60D Yea but there’s too much filler 90% of the time, plus what if you wanna come back for a specific section but just wanna look for that as an argument or something
So when are you going to schlock the best parts of each system together, and create the ultimate homebrew system, Dragon Finder?
Dungeons & Paths - 3rd Edition
Dungeon finder
Paths through Dungeons
Patheons & Findons
Alright
"I have never seen a game as poorly edited" The Shadowrun Subreddit would like a moment of your time. Just ask them about the 6th edition rulebook.
Thank you mith59!
He obviously forgot about SR (or never played). The editing is horrendous. They would do well to hire a quality editor.
5th edition Shadowrun isn't much better and I love Shadowrun.
Apparently Cody never read the Pathfinder 2E playtest either. That was ROUGH. The official rules read like a breeze now and are actually fun to read. Playtest was a grind.
Certain indie games also come to mind, but the worst of those I would hardly even call a game.
RIFTS too! Yeesh . . .
I would add character sheets, what turns players away from the game is the character sheet. One day I tried to play PF2E and then one of my players was like "what is this a W2?" The character sheet is cluttered and a mess. 5e has pictures space and less intimidates the player.
I agree with that whole heartedly. We gave up on paper character sheets for pf2e because none of us could write small enough to fit everything in it at mid level.
Yeah the character sheets really bad I have spent some time looking around on the internet and found a few alternate character sheets that I have enjoyed using. But the sheer amount of stats in the game means that it's going to always end up looking quite a bit like a spreadsheet
I started designing my own character sheets in Excel. I formated cells so that EVERYTHING would update across the board when stats changed, modifiers were ticked, boxes for abilities checked (Strength went up? If to the next even number, the modifier increased correctly, skills increased accordingly. It made things a bit more easy for players and the dm. I cleaned up the sheets by removing certain grid lines, filling in blank boxes white, and putting borders around key cells.
I completely agree. Everyone in my pf2e group uses the pathbuilder app as their character sheet because the normal one is a complete mess. It doesn't help that you need to change practically every number on it each time you level up. I had to reprint my physical character sheet multiple times because I was literally tearing holes in the skills column from all of the writing and erasing.
@@je5304 sounds fantastic. can I have it? :)
This was surprisingly balanced and definitely came from a place of love for both. I run pathfinder 2e and every single complaint you had for it is one I have felt IN MY BONES. Astute.
I still mostly use the pre-made characters and add my own flavor, the few times I've put up with it I've loved the result. But it's such a hassle trying to figure out the books sometimes. Just making a character required an online guide, and I still got a little frustrated.
I'm toying with the idea of dming pathfinder and while this video has not deterred me it definitely changes my expectations. I still think it'll be worth it for the extended customization
@@peripheralvission It's fine, you just need to really know what the skills can do and some extra prep on encounters (I make a lot of my own stat blocks).
I’m a 5e DM but I am considering home brewing in a couple of pathfinder rule to make my games better.
I've already added a few 2e rules to my 5e game. They are so easy to switch in and make a huge difference.
Remember that pf2 may be heavy with rules but the rulebook says that some rules may be skipped. Like "add your level to prophiciency bonus" or "long/short distance jump"
If you find a good balance for yourself, do it! I implement a lot of Pathfinder into my primarily 5e game!
I have a friend who's done the reverse during a PF one-shot we did a while back. He brought adv/disadv into the mix to help reduce the modifier jungle; instead of giving us arbitrary bonuses to hit, he just gave us advantage or disadvantage...though my heavy armour dwarf fighter's stealth penalty was still -17, and thus hilarious.
Best of luck! As someone who played and dm’d and enjoyed both; if I had the patience to homerule things properly, I’d merge these and make a true masterpiece. I want pathfinders action economy with 5e monster simplicity and a spell system that fuses the best of both but I AM TOO LAZY TO MAKE THAT! So I hope you get something that works well for you.
About the jump scenario, 5e has specific rules too. It's just that *nobody cares.*
Yeah if someone didn't mention it I was going to. Also the jump mechanic needs some more recognition it gives the Strength stat an actual static use.
To be fair, it isn’t that complicated of a rule.
Yeah the rules for that are about 2-3 sentences at most.
yea, in my group we have a dude who went from 5e and first time playing 2e and he really says too many unrelated details when doing anything
Yeah, and Cody greatly exaggerated the rules for jumping in PF2. They are 5 sentences of text, and the action poses no risk to your PC. You can just do it, unless you want to push yourself to the limits and then there is risk of failure, more description which gets you to a few paragraphs, and it only carries risk in failure if traversing hazards like a pit.
You want to jump up and grab something, no big deal. You want to jump over a corpse or table? Sure, no issues, no check. You want to jump over the long side of a banquet table? Now there are a few paragraphs to handle that added complexity.
This says it all and is a great summary: "I would much rather play Pathfinder 2e...but...I would much rather run a game of D&D 5e..."
Well, this summary didn't age well with the whole "illusion of choice" video in Dec 2020.
@@SilverKeyMan No it did not. Not at all.
In general I've found that:
Pathfinder 2e is a complex system that when you understand it can be insanely fun. However the hardest part is learning all the rules you need to get there.
5e is a simple system that can be learned quickly. However it doesn't have the depth of pathfinder and so can occasionally be repetitive.
Pathfinder 2e is for players who want to test the limits of their character making abilities to be the strongest they can be while 5e is more for players who want to just make a character and get going into the story. Both are amazing at what they do.
This has also been the selling point of 1st edition Pathfinder. You have total customization that gives you the ability to test your limits. You can go fully into depth with Pathfinder games. I also agree it can be a grind to understand. When ever someone asks me what RPG they should learn I usually point them towards 5th edition cause of its ease of play, and lower learning curve.
That said I've taught my kids, and other friends how to play Pathfinder/D&D3.5. They generally prefer it over 5th edition. Matter of opinion of course.
100%, you need to be rewarded for this.
Complicated? Laughs in AD&D ;)
100% agree, I personally prefered pathfinder 1 before 2 released, but that was only because I mainly played with veterans and the character creation was so malleable. However, whenever I ran a game of new players, I hands down picked 5e. It is so simple and easy for new players. The 2e released, creating the perfect mix of both customization and simplicity. 2e is my all time favorite.
I think your final assessment is a little off.
PF2 is for players who like a more tactical game where mechanics and features inform the game. Crunchy game lovers is who PF was designed for.
5E is for players who enjoy the game in their head more than the game at the table. Players who don’t want all the crunchy rules and references. Ones who want to play a character not a group of numbers.
In the end, I don’t think one is “more simple” - I think that misses the point. It’s geared toward what a player has fun doing.
I want a hybrid so bad. The ease of play of dnd and the diverse character and play style customization of pathfinder. Great video! I hope both companies take note
Homebrew it.
PF2e is actually really easy to learn, so many of the systems are interconnecting that when you learn one you have the building blocks to learning a good chunk of the others.
I have taught brand new people the system and found that people tended to learn/remember mechanics far faster than in 5e.
GMing takes more knowledge, but not a huge amount more. The biggest issue imo is it doesn't have ANY killer adventure for new GMs. Phandelver is quite flawed, but PF2e has nothing remotely as accessible.
Heck I wouldn't recommend any of the Pathfinder adventures for new GMs, they are too dense with bespoke rules and needless text bloat imo. Coming from a well written 5e adventure like CoS, Dragon Heist or ToA and moving over to PF2e and its Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse or Plaguestone makes me weep for the PF2e first timers.
I am not saying they are worse adventures btw, and Extinction Curse has shown them learning a lot. But ease of running is another matter.
It needs a Lost Mines of Phandelver imo, hopefully the starter box released later this year is good (imo it should have launched with a starter box first and copied the 5e approach. Pregens, link to a "basic srd" with less options and a 1-5 adventure).
I mean, if you learn PF2e, it will be easy to understand and you'll have all you want ;3
Last Arc: Tactics Analogue is for you!
agreed
How in the Nine Hells has Cody not been picked up for a game-design or game-testing team for WotC or Paizo? He is one of the most respected, reasoned, and clearest communicators on pen-and-paper RPG game mechanics on RUclips.
This is one of the nicest comments I've ever gotten on the channel. Truly.
You're too kind.
Cody is unironically my favorite RUclipsr. He rarely goes into anything with a bias and when he does have a bias he lets us know up front.
He also addresses every single detail and never assumes anything when he's examining a rule or a system.
The honesty and the analysis really sell me on his content. Even if I disagree with him on little things I can always go "well he's factually correct but flavorwise I prefer this other mechanic"
I want to see Cody branch out into other games more because his analysis on something like a wargame or even a wildly different genre of RPG would be incredible. The dude has so much attention to detail that I literally have my books open while he is talking so I can make a note of the specific rule he is talking about.
Cody if you read this, you're a great dude I really wish you the best in all your future endeavors. I will consistently be watching all of them (likely out of order because my interests in various ttrpgs wax and wane)
He is too good for WotC. DnD needs more competition to make it less monopolized. Plus WotC would only stifle his brilliant mind, rather than use it to its fullest. Capitalism brainrot is why DnD turned into a shitty MMO video game before profits plummeted, causing a partial reversal.
Oh my goodness, when you started talking about how D&D 5e exhaustively lists all the monster abilities, I was so scared you were going to list it as a negative! I really love being able to look at my stat blocks and having everything I need right in front of me. It might take up more real estate for each monster, but it's such boon to only need to look at one thing and have everything I need to know.
Especially since many folks use digital tools where real estate is a very minor consideration
Though it would be nice to have a digital version (an app, probably) where I can pull up the monster and see the abridged monster abilities--but then click on them to expand them to the full text
Yeah but remember, "It's free real estate"
Oof, yeah. Been running a Pathfinder 1e game and that one has the same problem. Every problem listed here is just carried over from the first game and it's SO SO SO frustrating having to look everything up constantly. I know it would kinda look ugly seeing these massive walls of text connected to the various monsters of Golarion, but it makes actually PLAYING the game so much better to have that information close at hand. Please, Paizo, think of the GMs!
agreed. I decided to skip buying the Bestiary for PF2e and got some beautiful monster cards that I can use to easily show my players (when face to face) and keep the monster stats close at hand, instead of flipping pages back and forth.
Low and behold, there are monster abilities that say "attack, deal damage and grab" Yet don't explain how grab works. You have to look that up in general monster abilities which the cards don't include anywhere. It doesn't even bother to tell you that the grab is a second action that require the first attack to hit. It makes it seem like they automatically grab the opponent after hitting in melee.
There are more monster issues than just grab, but that one is more glaring of an issue than the effect Cody was talking about. It's all word count saving. It's fine if you are using a pdf, even better if using an SRD like Archives of nethys where almost everything is hyperlinked, but forget it if you are using a book, or worse yet an official accessory product.
You forgot one of my favourite parts of PF2: Exploration Activities leading into combat. The ability to use the skill that you are currently using as your initiative is super interesting.
I think that is the one truly innovative rule I've seen out of PF2. I haven't seen it anywhere else. It was a good addition.
I have used athletics as the initiative skill a few times. The last one was for an ambush of sorts. The sneaky types had stealthed in and i let others use athletics to run in, while the npc's used perception.
It's hard to argue that book layout is terribly distinct from "mechanics" when the book is the main source on how to actually play the game, and will constantly be referenced.
As a brand new DM with brand new players, I will always appreciate the simplicity of 5e
for new dm and players ya.
but i think you should try pathfinder 2e because you will love it and your players 2
@@barshilo3620 not all players of a hobby are going to want to get that complicated, even if they become seasoned ttrpgers. I tried playing 3.5 as a kid, dropped it, and completely abandoned the hobby for years before 5e came out. The simplicity isn't always a baby step. It can be an active choice. I promise you that I'd hate playing Pathfinder because of the extra brain power needed to enjoy the game.
Maybe they would love it. But let's keep different people with different needs in mind :)
And you can't discount the value of a low brain power "Drunkens and dragons" style type of game night
They were your target customers, so that makes sense. Once you gain momentum and experience try moving up to a more meaty system like Pathfinder 2E, I think you will enjoy it.
@@andrewcumbow8287 pathfinder 2e isnt complicated it's like crayons in comparison to the art of pathfinder 1e
To add more on to #7, the constant "See *insert thing here*" as descriptions... Not an actual example, but should explain the point:
"How do we deal with crits?" "idk check the book."
*checks index*
Critical Strikes: See Combat.
Combat: See Actions.
Actions: See Playing the game.
Playing the Game: Pg. 24-27, 67-70, 72, 253-300
Oh the actual explanation of the rule? It's actually on page 74.
That was the play test, the 2E rules don't read that way at all.
Also, 5e does this too.
Perception (skill): see under Wisdom
Wisdom: 12, 178
(...long list of subpoints...)
Perception: 178
Why not just tell me in the Perception entry? It would take up less space than "see Wisdom" and be more useful.
@@Kalobi Not sure what you mean. Perception details are under Perception ability checks, where you would expect them to be in the PHB.
@@GildedTongues I mean the index. Why direct me to another entry in the index instead of just telling me the page number directly?
@@Kalobi that's my biggest pet peeve with 5e layout. Every time i use the index I want to throw the damn book out the window.
How many people (like me) are going to be watching this early 2023 with the OGL nightmare going on.
Cody: "Now don't go hating on each other over petty arguments that pale in comparison to the things you have in common!"
Half the GMs watching this: (Just run 5E and mine Pathfinder for house rules.)
That is literally why I am watching this
You're goddam right!
Yep.
exactly
Haha! Exactly.
As a pf 2e gm I think the fact that healing doesn't necessarily require a cleric and the medicine check actually means something and allows any character with a solid wisdom to be a decent healer.
Seems so. In 5E, if you don't have a cleric OR DRUID, it's game over, don't even bother
Medicine kits exist in 5e.
I ran a campaign that for months didn't have a cleric. All the characters were able to stay alive because the rogue kept tons of medicine kits on them and needed to continuously make decent medicine checks to heal characters.
I had a party only composed of fighters, rangers and barb, that was the "regular dudes" campaign
ton of fun, and their team was actually very effective despite having 0 spellcasters
in pf2, martials are very VERY strong compared to what they used to be in 1e
You don't need a cleric though. There's Healer's Kit, you can stabilize people with medicine, you can have a druid or a bard (stop limiting healing to clerics alone). Hell, in one of my campaigns we had one of our players pick the Healer feat to make Healer's Kit an amazing tool. Besides, in 5e if you have solid wisdom score, you're most likely a wis-based class, which leaves only monk which isn't able to heal with magic (yes, Ranger in fact can use healing spells, who knew?)
@@bobbyellis5006 Healer's Kit only stabilize dying pc's, not heal them.
About Skills - In D&D 5, we have Rules for Long Jump and High Jump.
Correct, however pathfinder takes those rules and makes it A Whole Thing instead of just saying how far you can jump
@@Wyrmshield I mean the crunch is there if you need it, or you can just hand wave it like people do with alot of rules for both games.
@@2d20kobolds3 When I had a rules lawyer in my first foray into PF2e as a GM I was pulling out my beard because he made me check everything. It made the 6 hour session 5% game and the rest was me having to look shit up because he made me do it, or the book was so un-informative in points where it mattered. The simplest example was the monsters, like he explained in the video.
@@jaredgriffin2155 I do hope you will take this the right way, but that is on you as the GM. You can always silence the rule lawyer with the 2 sentences to make the game move on.
"I may or may-not have gotten this wrong. But, we do it this way right now, and can check between sessions if we feel like we need to change anything."
@@Wyrmshield Sir, there is a whole thing in 5e too, and the rules are just about identical, with the exception that 5e has it part of your movement and pathfinder 2e has it as actions. You cannot say one is worse than the other, they are damn near identical
This is why I play a strange frankenstein mixture of 5e and pathfinder
Are you using the 3 action system? Does it break action economy in a 5e game?
Yeah I sort of do the same, I use the pathfinder rules but import the dnd rules for spellcasting, like casting at a higher level. Also dumb down the skill rules a bit
I think mixing the best parts of D&D 5e with the best parts of PF 2e would make for a wonderful gaming experience if your DM/GM is up for it.
Don't know much about pathfinder but after seeing this video I'm very interested in some mechanics. Do you have a list of rules you use?
Can you plz share a receipe of that mix?
Gronk see you have the wisdom to see things for their truth and the honor to speak the truth without fear. A wise brave bard you truly are.
Wizards of the Coast working on 6E: "Write that down... And that... Aaaand that."
I wish
I truly wish they do that for 5.5e or 6e
But sometimes I feel they don't care much about it
@@hashemx1ify They're too busy drowning in MTG money.
"This person has far more in common with you than most other people in your life." Try telling that to the Catholics and the Protestants. They've been at it for centuries.
or worse, cinnamon applesauce lovers vs natural applesauce lovers.
Obviously the latter are heathens and should be purged, but you get my point.
@@HeroOfTheWeb Another fine example good sir :P
It's usually close groups that differ a bit that go at each other the hardest for some reason. a
@@davidbeckbeef Very true. Suddenly all the details become hugely important. Humans are weird.
I’m pretty sure that White Supremacists would love to be friends with Beholders and Liches; it just seems that minor differences makes people extremely angry for some reason (like a human couple divorcing over the argument about how to wash dishes).
What I've gathered from this video as someone who has only played 5e is that pathfinder 2e is better for players but DnD5e is better for DMs
Jaxon Sellers I’ve played and DMed in both and for what it’s worth, I don’t think it’s quite that simple. I think DMing 5e is easier to learn or pick up, but PF2E provides such a rich set of tools for DMs to use. While there are def people who won’t like PF’s skill system, to me it is fantastic how much guidance the game gives you, it helps to keep consistent rulings in world, and I don’t think of it as being quite as hard coded as this video suggests. Ultimately, they both have their strengths as systems for DM’s; it just depends on what kind of game you want to run!
@@lucypatton42 exactly my thoughts on the skill system. when used as a more fleshed out set of guidelines it doesn't hurt anything. That said pf2e is still just that little bit more labor intensive for the GM with things prepping a monster for combat. Best practice while you are new is to copy over everything you will need onto an index card or set the monster up on your Virtual table top of choice. Eventually you will have enough conditions memorized to fill in the gaps on the fly, or even improvise entire encounters, but I feel it took longer to get there in pf2 than it did in 5e.
That's pretty much the case in my personal experience.
its not
as someone who has played 5e, pathfinder and PF2, pf2 is basicaly just a kind of bad half way between pf and 5e, it tries to be as costomisable and pf and as easy as 5e and fails at both AND has a kind of bad leveling system on top
@@lucypatton42 I agree. In the playtest the PF2 creators wanted everything done on a slide chart, and you can still do it that way. You can use the "skills by level" , all you need to know is if the task is easy, hard , or incredibly hard (there are 6 levels). I think cody should have taken that jump example and just simplified and made a ruling.
For spontaneous spellcasting in 2e, while I will admit I was confused at first when I was just theory-crafting characters, as soon as you reach 3rd level (when you can heighten spells) they clearly define how it works and what you're allowed to do.
For those who don't know, spontaneous casters can't freely heighten (upcast) or lessen(downcast) spells. They do get access to Signature Spells, one spell per spell-level can be freely cast in any viable slot, and heightened or lessened to your heart's content. I agree, it's more complicated than 5e but it does a good job of explaining it
Thank you Cody. I thought that was a very fair and well-thought-out analysis. But then I'm a little biased as one of the designers for Pathfinder Second Edition, but some good friends wrote 5e, and I like that game too. I also play both.
So you're one of the reasons I feel like I'm writing twice as much in exchange for 1/3 as much.
I've tried to play Pathfinder as well as StarFinder and just always felt so overwhelmed just trying to make a character. Vs 5e where it was one of the first things in the book, and explained how to do it in nice steps. all of which were pretty much on consecutive sections. Though I've always found that the Character customization is better in PF, and the Feat system is easily one of the coolest things.
I Sincerely hope you guys look at the criticisms, and not just blow them off and complaints. Especially in terms of book layout, because I would be super hyped to play Pathfinder as more than just the starter sheets that come in the starter set. No one in my playgroup has really been able to make one without getting at least super frustrated to the point of almost giving up altogether, even while looking up guides it was never really clear.
As for running it as a GM.... I tried it once, and as it stands I will never consider doing it again until a newer edition comes ou, I was so overwhelmed, and making calls was hard. (It didn't help that I had a rules lawyer in the group who would argue everything, stopping the game altogether.) My friend often GMs for us in Starfinder/Pathfinder and we have a lot of fun. The system is solid, and playing it feels really great. You guys did great work making everything feel balanced and fun.
Huge paragraphs for what should be simpler mechanics, and books with a layout that are beyond confusing really hamper the fun sometimes.
But you guys did a great job, please don't take this as me ripping on you, and the other people who developed the game. Because I have had a lot of fun with my Ratfolk Ranger in 2e (unlike DND 5e despite revising the ranger twice...) Or my Vesk Fighter with an awesome Holographic banner!
SO a huge thank you for all the fun I've had playing Pathfinder!
Don't listen to Jared. We like Pathfinder because it has depth and avoided the bounded accuracy nonsense. Just edit the damn book better and include how abilities work in the stat blocks.
People that want simple can go to 5E. People that want to really play the setting lean on Pathfinder. Pethfinder, and only Pathfinder, pulled me away from AD&D. Keep it up
The man shaved his head and lost his mind.
Or he shaved his mind and lost his head
@@Entias Or he mind his head and shaved his lost
It's like Robin Williams said: Escaped mental patient.
@@Entias Hah! Well said. Gave me a chuckle.
It's brittany bit**
Personally, I love that you can easily get new skills, it's the big thing I can't handle in 5e. I was playing a warlock and managed to get a unique pet, needed to forgoe a stat bump to pick up three skills so i could get animal handling.
As for the layout complexity, that's where I outsource it to the other playes while the initiative moves on; GM's don't have to do all the work.
Can I just say that Pathfinder has the advantage of coming out after 5e. Therefore being able to see the issues of 5e and address them within their game.
Except that Pathfinder is not build around 5e, but 3.5
@@coolboy9979 doesn't mean they didn't learn from it
Yes, and it can it also explain partly why 5e is more popular. If they had come out closer together, maybe it would be closer because people were generally not happy with D&D 4e. Great point, Patrick!
@@hawk3123 You can learn from anything, but that is like saying that DOOM learned from Battlefield. The two are the same genre, but a different audience and want to reach other audiences.
DnD 5e was made to be casual, while PF2e was made for the nerds and then made more casual
@@coolboy9979 I wouldn't say it's more for "nerds." That comes across as gatekeeping.
I'd say rather Pathfinder is more for people who want to focus more on character customization rules based combat where D&D is built more for narrative adaptation and story based interactions.
Never seen a more badly edited game?
Wrath and Glory 1st Edition: "Hold my beer."
Shadowrun 5th Edition: "Hold my keg."
Shadowrun 6th Edition: Hold my brewery
Adam Johnson wrath and glory was SOOOOOO badly edited I still haven’t gotten over it
@@JohnSmith-nh2te RIFTS, Palladium Fantasy, anything made by Kevin Siembieda: "Take care of my temple to the Gods of Alcohol".
Luckily the german editions of Shadowrun are edited to a much better standard version
Wrath and Glory was fun af tho not even gonna lie
On point #14 about AoO's... I feel the discussion was not enough on this point for Pathfinder 2E. There needed to be discussion about the fact that most monsters don't even have AoO's (although some do) and a lot of them use unique reactions that are meant to surprise you in how they work. It keeps it a lot more interesting than just a simple AoO.
The PF2 books layout really does hurt it but now that I have started to memorize everything I've started to prefer running pf2 to 5e.
Same. The rules feel more coherent to me too. Like once I understood the underlying mechanics then mechanics I haven't encountered yet could be easily intuited on the fly where that's not always true of 5e beyond adv/dis. And even then because it's used too liberally.
The other thing I think bears mentioning on this is that with the OGL PF2 is more open to 3rd party tools. Yes, there's a mess of vocabulary... I'll bet there's already an app for tracking all the terms or reference playing cards to buy or download to print yourself. The GMs failure to already have a reference website open to search in case of quick questions is the problem. Yeah, maybe Paizo got a little lazy on the layout and put too much content into the first book knowing that the websites would take cover that over... we're also talking about two games that will both have thousands of pages of content before they're retired for whatever comes after. No book will be enough.
That is why I bought the pdfs it is so much better
100% agree. I feel it is the better system, but it does have a steeper initial learning curve. I believe the payoff is much higher, though.
@@mith59 I keep archives of nethys open for quick searches. For skills I basically have the person describe what they want to do and I will tell them what to roll and make a DC up in my head based on the difficulty I think it should have. I don't worry about modifiers. I apply those on my side except for things like flanking. The players roll and I decide if they rolled well enough...
Something that my friends and I love about D&D 5e is it’s flexibility. When we started, it was all about the rules, but now it has become all about how we can add and alter the rules to fit our own play style. We found that Critical successes and failures were not impactful enough, so we added varieties of effects for different damage types on a critical hit and more severe injuries - bleeding effects, loss of a finger... We’ve made our own edits to subclasses, monster stats, and more just to try out new ideas and have fun. For me and my friends 5e is like playing with LEGOs. We started off with the instruction booklet, and that was great, but now we combine our own ideas to the sets to create something just for us. Maybe Pathfinder 2 is like that too, but I haven’t had a chance to play it yet.
You can do the same thing in PF as well.. But it requires way more effort because it has more numbers and rules..
In 5e you can do alterations easily because it is simpler, so if you want to cover any "hole" in the 5e rules for your own campaign you can do it easily.. In PF 2 though? It is a damn nightmare......
Yes I prefer 5e as well....
Oh yea, just as easy if not easier.
In regards to the critical successes and failures pathfinder released a critical success deck and critical failure deck ($10 on Amazon if you can spare the money) that add a wealth of variety. flavor and randomness to critical rolls depending on the damage taken or given; from status effects, dismemberment and straight up death. All with the flip of a card.. The decks are especially fun since critical rolls are more common in pathfinder. Also similar decks are on the way such as the Chase cards.
In regards to the creature adjustments......well they are nearly identical so yea have fun. The main diffrence being "keywords" (like MTG keywords if you played it) but keywords are applied to nearly everything from characters to creatures and items. So removing or adding keywords can drastically alter any character creature or item if you'd like to have fun with that. Like an ork with the "ooze" keyword,....... you just made a gelatinous marauder.
I'll admit that the Upfront investment and knowledge needed for pathfinder 2e is much higher, but once you learn it (which should be easy for you cause your a badass mofo) its smooth sailing, besides the occasional rules lookup. But with that being said the golden rule of any trpg is that rules aren't set in stone. Pathfinder clearly states that if you come across any rules issue, that the DM should just make a call and look up rules later. Don't let rules slow down your game.
Good day and enjoy which ever game you play
Its homebrew, you can do it with any game system
That's literally any system... That's not the flexability of 5e, that's you homebrewing over it. You can do that with any system. You actually probably would have better success with 2e because the rules are so exhaustively laid out that you can consistently see where you're differing from them.
@@TheRhysStreams Yes you can home brew any system but, some systems lend themselves to home brew more than others. When they designed 5th edition one of the primary design goals was the ability for DMs to throw out and or change rules cleanly without worrying about overlap. This is flexibility which is generally missing from other systems. This is why they included examples in the DMG which houses examples of optional systems changing progression, skill use, combat....ect. Yes they included optional rules in past editions but 5e really wanted to push the idea that the DM should change things around to give his players the best experience.
I love how simple 5e was trying to be but I feel like they went out of their way to try and restrict how one can build a character mechanically. The biggest things for me when I first read through Pf2e were things like barbarians that use oversized weapons, different critical effects for weapon types, and different action economy for spells. I feel like Paizo actually took the time to see what players wanted for their characters and gave it to us. One of the main things I could say against Pf2e's character design is that I'm not sure a dual wielder archetype makes much of a difference compared to 5e.
(pf2) well, you have either fighters, rangers or monks who can dual wield, so it kinda opens a lot, they do not play the same way between each other. rangers tend to go full apeshit by hitting like madmen constantly and using their hunt prey mecanic to chase their targets, fighters have defensive and more flexible options with twin parries and ripostes or presses while monks can use monastic weapons with flurry of blows and have a better action economy and mobility overall
they really do not play similarly
Love the video! However for your point about high jump and long jump both those rules do exist in dnd 5e and are outlined in the PHB. A player with a 20 str mod would not need to make an athletics check to jump a 15ft gap as long as they had a 10ft running start.
Eh I get it, but... that doesn't change anything from the video. The lack of GM flexibility from PF2e is exhausting IMO, and I think the MAJORITY of DMs who have ran both systems would agree soundly.
Liam Swann Yeah. See how you were able to convey that in one sentence..... that’s the point.
@@lord-of-the-unfinished-project I feel like that's on the DM to make rules and such out for the players in the session zero. Rules lawyering is pretty easy to root out when you set expectations and such properly from the start. "I do all skill checks based on the stat its associated with, jumping, climbing, and lifting are athletics because they require strength to do. Flipping, wall running, swinging from a trapeze, are acrobatics because they require more dexterity than stength," would probably have led the player to question "Well my old DM used performance for jumps, so can I do that," to which the DM could simply say "Performance is based on Charisma which has nothing to do with jumping so unfortunately no." Problem solved in a short conversation.
@@Taking20 The first rule in the book gives you all the DM flexibility you need. js. great video
I run a Rolemaster game, which many derisively (and sometimes accurately) call either Roll-Master or Chart-Master. And like most game systems, it has very detailed rules for how to do pretty much any action you can think of. And the purpose of such rigorous treatments is to give new players and DMs the handrails and training wheels to keep the game in its lane as you are learning. But as your familiarity grows with the rules and how the game is set to run, you can do stuff like, "Yeah, it's about 12-15 feet across and the far side is lower. just give me a roll and I will narrate the result."
The big point in any system is to know how the rules are supposed to work, and to use that knowledge to make running the game more and more fluid for the DM and the players, so the play involves less and less flipping of pages.
This makes me happy. I started in Pathfinder, I knew 6 Bestiaries back to front, I even got editing privileges on d20pfsrd to format things because I kept sending in notes of formatting errors and inconsistencies. When 5e rolled in all my friends wanted to switch. and it took time, but I had to admit that there were a lot of things 5e was just better at. I could stand losing my darling skill crunch for the simplicity of the advantage roll. For the fun of getting my husband to join because he just hated the Math but loved the RP. It has been great. I even started up a little homebrew blog last week to start uploading creations.
I was excited about Pf2e. It sounded like the thing I loved, the action system sounded like the best thing since the d20 system, I got the playtest...and became nervous. that was a lot of chunk and weirdly explained mechanics. I appreciated trying to put everything in one book but didn't like the layout. I knew it'd be a hard sell for half my party. and when it launched...well, it's on my shelf, haven't gone through the whole beast even now. I took one look and realized there was no way in hell I was getting most of my players through that monster. a lot of the issues I had with the playtest were still there. but knowing that this seems to be a 'hell to learn but amazing once you've got it' system like pathfinder 1e makes me a lot more comfortable.
Chapter 9 and 10 are where the majority of the rules are, chapter 10 being exclusively for the GM. If you can get your players through the 40 pages of chapter 9 and give them a bit of guidence as they pick an ancestry, background, and class, then they can start playing pf2e. You can learn the indivual skill actions and such as they come up. Make a cheat sheet for stealth right before a session about infiltration, learn the rules for crafting and earning income while you handle some downtime between sessions, etc... Of course it's a bit more work as GM but that is a price I'm willing to pay considering my players are branching out and being more creative than ever.
(Slight tangent feel free to ignore)
I had 1 player who always played spellcasters in 5e. He felt like everything else was too simple and boring and difficult to make mechanically different. He is actually playing a melee character in pf2e.
I had another player in 5e who only played melee fighters, sometimes barbarians, Because he felt like anything more complicated would be too hard to keep track of in combat. Now he is playing a war priest in pf2e.
All of my players are trying more things in combat since multiple attack penalty can make that 3rd swing from a fighter pretty likely to miss, but he can move around a bit to make it easier for an ally to flank, or throw a quick quip at the enemy to demorolize them, etc...
watching this back to back with the "why I quit" is a very interesting watch
came just for that
That’s all good for pathfinder but can you take 20 in pathfinder
Underrated comment.
You can't Take 20 in 5e either.
You can't in either.
You can in 1st edition.
You can in pathfinder 2e with the assurance skill feat. In fact that skill feat lets you do a take 10, even in the middle of combat.
I want to be a player in pathfinder - but DMing? 5e all the way.
Great video! Really enjoyed this one.
This was actually very helpful. Based on this our team started PF2e and I have not regretted it. It's a great system, and I can agree on the points he makes here. I have not played 5e though. But I can say, PF2e character building rocks, combat system is excellent and yes, the skills system is really weird. Also the editing of Core rules is messy. It's a little bit like the designers have not thought what the players need first. For example, we had a headache finding out how trap searching works. And its one of the most common activities outside combat.
My core book can beat up your core book!!!!
As a weapon yeah i'd use pf2. Heft
redsands1001 You forgot to consider swing speed. Quiccness > thiccness
In the odd one here, I’m a fan of FFG Star Wars, 300 some pages. Good mix of thicc and quicc.
PF2 probably wins there, although it does have the unwieldy property.
"Probably could have been presented a little cleaner"
Not coincidentally this was my entire 2e rulebook review.
I'm switching from 5E to PF2 for a game I'm running currently, and one of my players linked me to this video. I think I may have to hash together parts of both systems for my game, and I suspect I wont be the only gm doing this. Taking the action economy, character creation, rest mechanics, death mechanics and a few other of the killer -features PF2 provides, and ditching the overly complex exploration and social interaction features might be the way to go. I will, of course, be testing the system as is first to confirm if I want to do this.
I have to say, ditching the exploration mechanics may weaken the game a bit. The system relies on how you are acting when you enter a combat situation to determine how you enter combat, so the exploration aspect is very important. There is no static Initiative in Pathfinder 2E. That is determined by the situation and what the GM will allow the player to justifiably use as initiative.
I do not recommend mixing both systems at all
having advantage in pathfinder 2 can be very game breaking since we all run with high bonuses and crit degrees
in another comment i talked about a bad experience I had with a GM trying to mix both systems, it didnt really ended well especially with the part where checks against creature's DC were replaced with the creature rolling against you
spellcaster having lower bonuses which is the reason we often use spell DCs instead of rolls have seen their spells losing a lot in efficiency, martials or rogues attempting acrobatics and atheltics saw their attemps becoming much less consistent with the creatures simply rolling higher despite having a small bonus.
I do not recommend doing that, either use one of the two sauce but do not mix them together especially if you dont tell your players
if you still want to go down this route, to this with your players, dont mix things without knowing why they are designed this specific way
do not ditch exploration, those are just rules that can be used because they can provide a lot in terms or true exploration (avoid notice to prepare for surprise attack, scouting to give initiative bonuses ect)
DIRECT cross over is a BAD IDEA when mixing to different SCALING math systems obviously.
its better to take ONE as the FOUNDATION to use, and build upon, then take the other and CONVERT it to the foundation.
Also making Redundant rolling on a situation makes it either more RNG decided instead of the simple meet this goal (DC) then see what happens, ONE roll done is better clearly and less work for the DM/overall. (adv /disadv is still ONE role done)
Splentforcer is right about knowing your games core functions first, then take other games IDEAS and Convert them to your core game functions.
I moved back from PF2 to DND5E about a year ago. Took 5-foot step and removed short-rests from my games, both are fairly logical (especially 5f step) and I liked both ideas. Additionally, after seeing the variety of things to do - we added a home rule, that you can swap your class bonus you get for your level and pick lower level ability from any class in it's place. Gives very interesting flavor and removes multi-classing.
5th edition is just way more friendly and convenient to run, pathfinder just feels too much like a video game. But yeah, you do end up merging the two as both have fun and interesting concepts you will lack in another.
I think if D&D ever gets to 6e, character creation is going to be the biggest mechanic as well as how features like Feats interact with level advancement.
I think it’s pretty hilarious that most of P2E points are for mechanics that were lifted wholesale from 4e.
Yeah except for character depth, because 4e has none.
I’m not sure how “Collect a pile of incremental feats” beats out “Collect a pile of incremental abilities,” but *shrug*
Quarantine really out here makin people crazy. Homeboy shaved his head in the first 10 seconds of the video 😂
A friend of mine wrote a Shadow Run: Makes Fucking Sense Edition. We need something like that for pathfinder.
I'd love to see this MFS Edition if your friend is willing to share it!
Glad you brought up Shadowrun. He said he handn't seen a game so poorly laid out as PF 2e. He obviously never played Shadowrun 5e. That is the poster child for bad rule book layout.
@@twogruden9943 I take it you haven't seen SR 6E yet... it's somehow actually worse.
@@dogwish115 You're right, I haven't. I love the concept of SR, but I refuse to play it until they figure out a more streamlined rule system. It was a running joke in our group how many different pages you had to flip to find an answer to any question. Sometimes you were referred to a page that didn't have the info it said was there.
As a Pathfinder player, I can't say you're wrong. I use a wiki website (d20pfsrd) and android character builder (Pathbuilder) to figure out everything, and it works a lot better than my actual rulebooks.
This was persuasive enough to have me take another look at pathfinder 2e
If you like fighting and character costumization then you will like Pathfinder more. If not then dont bother to learn it imo
If you like modules then I would go for Pathfinder 2e as well, since they got a system called "adventure path" which is basically a story divided into 5 books, which take you from 1 to 20. 5 normal adventures that are connected with each other.
Yeah, I agree!
Pathfinder is one of the most fun systems I've ever played
@@TA-by9wv I would need to rewatch the video to make sure, but I remember him giving the character development point to 2e, and it was not just about min/maxing. I remember him giving kudos to 5e for their backgrounds, but saying 2e does it better.
I love RP and I love min/maxing, and most of all, I love where they intersect. If I want to play a character similar to Legolas from LOTR (I've developed a cool backstory and I've mapped out his personality), well I'm probably not going to go that route and then dump DEX. If I take a feat, it will probably be ones that help him be a better archer or otherwise do similar Legolas type things.
The point went to 2e because it simply makes it easier to make the character you want to make (maybe there is more work, but you have more options/flexibility) You may have played both and have a different opinion. Please, let me know though, cause this is my impression from the video and I'm looking for DMs that run 2e now. :)
@@coolboy9979 Not a criticism, just a minor edit. The Adventure Paths , commonly called APs, are 6 books traditionally, and rarely go above level 17. They are similar to many of the campaign books of 5e, like Rise of Tiamat, or Curse of Strahd. The main differences with the APs is they always start at level 1, each chapter has a different author and is released one a month, and they usually include a unique mechanic (at least in 1st edition) for that adventure as well as fleshing out a religion, organization, nation or other such group in great detail that might be featured in the story.
They have a reputation of being well done, but most adventure paths have at least one book that is wildly different or disliked compared to the rest of the chapters. They often start strong, then have a rough patch in the middle, then have a mix of stellar conclusions and WTF just happened moments by the end.
Personally I like Pathfinder 2e more. A few friends and myself have been playing a campaign since last September and it’s been so much fun! Yeah sometimes it gets a little dicey with trying to find the rules, but it’s still super fun. It’s also funny because when my dm first suggested it I just thought “nope, no way, not doin it.” Just because I really started looking through the PHB to figure out a lot of the rules I missed before, but we made the switch and it’s been so much fun
Huge fan of pf2e myself, always glad to see someone who actually tried it and loved it.
It's funny.
I've had players who were initially really resistant to Pathfinder because "the math gets in the way of roleplaying" and then they realised that all of the different options and modifyers actually means that there's a mechanical difference between what would otherwise just be flavour/RP choices... which makes it even easier to roleplay. especially for players who usually find it hard to roleplay
Dungeons and dragons is definitely easier to teach which makes perfect sense when you consider that it was designed to rebuild the system and attract a new player base.
Pathfinder on the other hand was created to continue one from 3.5. It's made for more of the people already familiar with tabletop. I also personally think it's designed with more of the players enjoyment in mind give how it was play tested before released.
I mean if you look at it, barbarian and bards had a major nerf along with fighter with the spellcasters getting a lot stronger. Sure some of the noteworthy spells were slightly nerfed but a lot of them aren't really touched.
I think 5E is great to introduce people to RPGs, and it's introduced several people I know. As people get more experienced, I think PF2 is the better choice.
@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow Honestly, I'd rather take experienced groups back to 3.5 or PF1. 5E after a while feels really limiting for character customization, and the characters feel underwhelming as far as the epic fantasy that we're used to with D&D. I feel like the designers tried to oversimplify. There simply aren't enough decision points in building a character. Now, you could argue that 3.5 or PF1 had too many decision points, but it's a lot easier for a DM to cut down mechanics for inexperienced players than to invent new mechanics out of whole cloth to satisfy players who can't find a mechanical way to make their vision into a reasonably sound character.
@@Kurgosh1 I agree, it depends on what you're looking for in a game. I've played and GMed all three and ... I love the fact that I can take a PF2 fillable PDF, change the dropdown from level 1 to 2, and in 5 minutes level up (or help someone level up). It's awesome.
But yeah, for character building, nothing beats 3.5 or PF1. But that's just not my focus now, I'd just rather be playing good games than leveling up.
@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow Yeah, people definitely look for different things. I love character building, when the system allows for customization. I've built more Deadlands, West End d6 Starwars, 3.5 D&D, Shadowrun and D&D 4e characters than I could play in a lifetime. (Also played a ton of those systems, of course.) Just figuring out the different ways I could make an idea into something that would function in-game is fun to me.
I am sharing this with my friends: it gives a pretty good review of all the aspects of both games.
Unlike the Warhammer 40K editions, DnD and Pathfinder are making fresh games with each edition that allows for different experiences. People take a big boom-boom over 4E, but it was honestly the most fun I had as a DM in creating encounters: but I will also acknowledge it lost a lot of the RP and in-between aspects that 3.5 had before it and 5E brought back. That is to say: each edition is special and allows for new experiences with actual new mechanics and game play.
Thanks for the great video!
Cheers
I understand your point about 5E rest mechanic, but I believe it reflects the idea that most "damage" takes the form of expended luck and fatigue. It seems okay for someone to take an hour to get their wind back.
On the other hand, automatically regaining ALL lost health by resting for 8 hours is the one that kind of niggles at me. At least with the short rest you have to expend a resource in exchange for the healing...
"takes the form of expended luck and fatigue", I think that was a AD&D ruling.. a long time ago. Like I've said to other people, don't try and justify things in real life, it is a pointless endevour.
@@TheMarrethiel Read the DMG concerning hit points for 5e, it backs Shaun Sides up.
Not to mention that hit points are not a direct literal analogue for your actual health. It's a curious melange of health, stamina, luck, grit, and willpower, all rolled into one game numeric that takes 'damage' as you go through the course of an encounter.
I think there is a part about 5e Rest that gets missed out by many DMs and Players. This comes from my 2e Dungeon Dive heritage but, IMO, Rests(Short but in particular Long) should be seen less as 'chances to recover' but rather as choices for the DM to either/or Apply an Opportunity Cost to time spent Resting (enemies rest as well, opportunities for enemies to track Players, time lost on time-sensitive objectives, etc) as well as randomized encounters. Just cuz the party rests doesnt mean the rest of the world does. Simple things like rats trying to get into the party's supplies offer lots of mileage. Does the Party deal with the rats, losing recovery? Or do they rest and lose some supplies?
@@Deamonic well falling under 50% heath your character is "bloodied" and is starting to take deadly hits, otherwise above that threshcold it is more like clumsy dodges, barely successful parries, fatigue...
I think the best summation of this comparison is that 5e is a simplier, more casual game thats easier on players and DM's. PF2 is more complex game, that requires more work to play (and even more work to run), but can be more deep and nuanced as a result.
kinda like warhammer fantasy I would say
pf2 kinda requires some extra preparations or has a more difficult learning curve, but when you start from scratch i would advice future GMs playing with new players to only use the basic of the basic rules, then go a bit further
once the party hit level 5, I prepare an easy infiltration mission serving as a tutorial on how stealth works and how to infiltrate stuffs, either go full disguise or go full stealth
however, once you got the ropes, it runs super smooth
prismaticcrow
I don’t think 5e is more simple or more casual at all. It’s a LOOSER game, with more space to home brew or insert your own preferences. PF is more structured and crunchy.
Different strokes for different folks. I prefer the looseness of 5e. All the crunch and referencing every tiny rule and feat of 3.5 wore me out. Great, I could “customize” my character, but I needed 15 books to do it and 7 pages of notes. Some people love that. Some of us don’t.
Well, that depends on what "more deep and nuanced" mean to you. From a narrative and storytelling standpoint the system doesn't really matter, that up to the GM and the players. For a more nuanced combat system I would agree, but I don't think "deep" is the right word for that. But I also don't think everything should have rules, most ability checks should be just be set by the dungeon master, it is easy, it is simple and it is fun.
I think Proficency bonus in 2e is one of the best changes. I like ALOT to decide specifically in what my character is good or bad. Great characterization option in my opinion!
it is so, _so_ much better to be able to define your character as good at some things, great at others, and a master of some specific craft. 5e's system of "whatever you got it" is just so unfun.
I really enjoy this passionate presentation of good arguments, with examples, without shitting on anything/one or trying to force feed people your opinion. Just entertaining infomration.
A downside I see about D&D 5E skills is that they are too vague and general. There have been so many times when a GM or player says "use Athletics or Acrobatics, your choice", or "use Perception or Investigation, your choice", or "use Persuasion or Intimidation, your choice."
The vagueness of the skills lets them overlap into each other so much it kind of makes them feel like they don't really represent anything about your character.
The other part of skill challenges is that if a Character fails, everyone else wants to dog pile on to try it. Statistically someone is bound to roll high. Because of the bound accuracy mathematics of the game, an amateur who rolls high will beat a master who rolls low. There is also no clear indication of how "helping" someone gives advantages in almost any circumstance, or when you should force them to roll interdependently.
Wouldn't it be a good thing. That it is vague, so a DM can use the rule/skill as he see fit. Explain or specialise it too much it becomes a constant talking point. For example the perception Vs investigation, both achieve a similar goal to the player to find something, but have a different way of doing it. If the two cases were more specific it would have made one ability objectively better. Plus it doesn't punish someone from taking a different skill since perception is pretty useful and tied to a great ability. If I am not playing a wizard or artificer, I would rather have wisdom. It has better saves, better uses, and imo better skills. Same with athletics and acrobatics. Dexterity is just better. Saves, AC, and an important skill(stealth) is dependant on it. So giving me a choice in ATL/acro or perc/Inv helps me play strong or intelligent, without giving me much of its downside. And If you have a good DM that can differentiate in describing when you use the skill then you wouldn't even know the difference. Gb
Something I love about these systems is that a lot of these things could be pretty easily homebrewed into the other system if you like that specific mechanic but prefer the other system overall.
"I have never seen a game more poorly edited than.."
He's going to say Shadowrun, right. Right? SR 6th edition (and 5th. And 4th.) are so badly edited that there are dozens of pages of errata simply for typos. 6th edition includes a copy-paste from 5th edition of a mechanic that doesn't exist in 6th edition.
Shadowrun famously includes such high literature as "Then there are spirits that adopt metahuman appearances and demeanor, because argle bargle foofaraw hi diddy hoe diddy no one knows." This is from the actual published material.
Somehow I highly doubt PF2e is worse.
I haven't seen pathfinder 2e and the second I got to that part of the video I zoomed right to the comments to post this lol. This was the first post I seen hahaha
@@beardedbill7047 100% to the both of you. Shadowrun books are notorious for bad editing, but 6th nearly made me cry. In the middle of a fight with a Barghest our GM realized that the copy/paste from 5th edition was incomplete! He had to go back to the older book to figure out how to handle the monster's special ability.
I hold Shadowrun books up as a contender for bad editing awards, on part with Game Workshop if not a tiny bit worse!
Editing so poor that they didn't even realize when they left *whole tables* of information out of the book!
Ya, Palladium Books are up there too: poorly edited and very convoluted. But dang, mega damage and glitterboy armor? If only someone with proficient writing and editing skills got a hold of them...
He's right about the layout of Pathfinder here: finding rules feels like someone went out of their way to obfuscate them. It's so bad I had to make a 20 something page consolidated rules document with page numbers for ease of looking up rules.
I'd say the typos don't come close to SR though.
Hehe - you said "and this is a big but."
Every time I see breakdowns of PF2 it makes me think that PF2 and 5e would marry really well - Using PF2s tools to clearly define rules, but 5e's increased accessibility/approachability.
The best of both worlds eh
Maybe we'll get that in 6E, whenever _that_ happens
Basically need simple core rules with complex customization.
This is the most underrated comment here. I was going to say this if somebody else didn't.
I would NOT recommend doing that. I had a terrible experience with that
I had a GM who tried doing this but forgot to tell us what he changed and how he modifed things
like, usually when you roll something you try to beat a creature's DC, the creature does not roll just like you would just try swinging your maul and go through a creature's AC. Casting fireballs asks you to roll damage and creature to roll reflex vs your spellcasting DC. Grappling asks you to roll athletics vs creature's fortitude DC.
the reason there is this use of DC is in my opinion as follow:
- make degrees of success relevant
- make actions more consistent by reducing the amount of randomness and award choices, commitment and teamwork (via debuffs, flanking, buffs ect)
- running faster rather than roll stacking and having to add numbers, here one just rolls once and you compare the result
so that GM I had made rolls for creatures
like you would try to grapple one, so he compares your atheltic check to the creature's fortitude roll
the problem is that it made everything so inconsistent because of the high numbers (due to how proficiencies work) the added rolls and randomness. And it made feats like assurance (which is only usefull in combat actually) completely worhtless
We, the players had no idea why our actions did not suceeded until we realised the GM was making rolls for almost anything that is supposed to simply use a DC, it slowed the pace by a lot
and it made attacks and striking the only reliable things you could do in combat despite the multiple attack penalties since ennemies DO NOT roll for AC
I mean, it is simplier to just use DCs instead of making rolls for everything and since it is designed that way for a reason: why changing it like this ?
so I prefer saying it like this: if you would like to do so and mix two systems: TELL YOUR PLAYERS AND ASK FOR THEIR OPINIONS AND FEELINGS ABOUT IT
communication is extremly important in any kind of social oriented activity, DO NOT KEEP YOUR PLAYERS IN THE DARK TELL THEM ABOUT THINGS YOU WANT TO MODIFY
otherwise: either use one system or the other, but avoid mixing them altogether,
pf2 is designed in a specific way that is hardly compatible with 5e due to how each machine is oiled
@@splentforcer1475 Sounds more like a poorly Communicating DM, and not a undestanding of the basic reason for Mechanics of the game or why they are there.
This does not mean its a bad idea to merge things in the system, PICK one game to be the foundation and convert the other to its that ones basic core functions, this way you create a stable base for the new house rule to function. This also makes things stay at a more simple to use level.
May be alot of work and testing needed up front but in the end you will save time and effort later.
Pathfinder: You can play any character you can imagine!
Me: Warlock?
Pathfinder: You can play any Other character you can imagine!
Really overlooked the Witch here
@@Kommissar75 As a person who's played a Witch before; she has no identity or flavor of a warlock other than being a shaman with a spooky patron. Even it's patrons are weirdly flavored concepts like woodland, time, water, and death; no demons or fae
Sorcerer with occult magic is pretty much a warlock
da fuck you talking about? Warlock is in Pathfinder 1E, 2E Just came out and its going to have more then 1 Core Handbook, So... Biased much?
Edit : I Will also explain something to you not only dos 5E have the LEAST amount of classes and customization of ANY D&D Based game, But people like you are prob going to ignore that completely if your making this type of an arguement.
Example in Pathfinder 2E, Champion can also be called Paladins based on the Alignment type you take, Certain classes (Same with races) Basicly have a Parent Class in Pathfinder 2E, in Pathfinder 1E you did things kinda in Reverse, Example Pathfinder 1E A Paladin would have certain subclasses you could choose, Like Hospitler and what knock.
So ...
This Video and the ppl hear are pretty biased over-all / Completely ignoring shit over-all.
5E Kinda blows when compared to all other D&D, Its popular with Celebs mostly becouse its easy as shit to get into the rules are SO Simplified that it hurts the game for the most part.
Even people who like 5E Complain about it all the time and the number 1 thing I hear about 5E Players? Fuck the Rules make your own House rules for like 80% of the shit.
Which makes me go, So 5E is useless Play Pathfinder or any other D&D Version out there coz 80%+ of the game is ppl making up there own rules? Seems fucken Legit.
@@THAC0MANIC chill
Here’s my issue with skill checks:
A PC comes across a gap and asks: Can I jump over it?
DM: Hmm.. Probably.
PC: How far across is it?
DM: 10-12 feet.
PC: Hmm… Okay. I’m going to try to jump it. (Rolls a 14.)
DM: Your armor weighs you down more than you expected and you miss the far side by a few feet, falling a considerable distance and landing with a hard crash below. You take X damage.
Player: Oh, I needed more than a 14? Wow, that is not at all what I was picturing in my mind. I would not have made that jump if I had known that.
It's all fine and wonderful if you make the jump, but can be incredibly frustrating if you fail without having had any real indication of the risk you were undertaking.
The DC could be 12, it could be 16. It could be higher or lower. We don’t know because the DM is just picking a number in their head. Let’s say the PC is getting a +4 on their roll. If the DC is 12, then an 8 or higher on the dice would succeed. If the DC is 16, then a 12 or higher is needed. One is slightly more likely to succeed, one is more likely to fail. This information would definitely sway my decision and I think it would be realistic for a PC to have some idea of the risk they are undertaking, based on their skill sets and lifetime experience of jumping various things.
Furthermore, there is no in-world consistency. The PC could come across an almost identical gap in the future, but still the DC is unknown. The DM may not remember what DC they set the last time (several months ago), or perhaps the PC is now a few levels higher and has a larger bonus to the roll, so the DM, who still wants a challenge for the PC, picks a higher DC this time.
I like that Pathfinder has laid out: a 10 foot gap is this hard to jump across. The DM knows, the player knows, the PC knows. And it doesn’t change whether you’re 1st level or 10th level.
Of course, I completely understand that this is ten times more complicated to run the game, because no one can be expected to memorize all these fiddly details and so you have to stop and look it up, which I agree is a pain in the butt.
Also, a DM in 5e could simply announce at the table that the DC to jump across is 16, giving the player a mechanical representation of what their PC's eyes are seeing anyway. It may not help with maintaining consistency in the game world if the DC constantly changes, but it can at least alleviates some of the potential frustrations in the moment.
A running jump will let a medium humanoid cover a distance in feet equal to its strength score. Its that simple. You only need a roll if its just at the limit of your jump distance or there's some extenuating factor like jumping over spikes. If its beyond or less than that, don't roll.
And id use indiana jones rules so a strength score 10 pc tries to jump a 10 ft gap, they roll low and they can't quite land their toe on the edge. On their next turn they have to scramble up but if they roll badly again they will sink all the way back and be hanging by just their fingertips. Then they have one last chance to avoid falling, but they need to roll higher than before as they need to do a dead pull up. Or they can look around for any foot/handholds below the edge and try climbing down for a lower check.
Hey, thanks for the responses everyone! I admit, jumping over a gap may have been a poor example. I was just following the one from the video, but my point was more to do with the generally faster and looser DC’s in 5e vs Pathfinder’s more hard-set DC’s. You can replace the example above with some other check if it helps. Also good point, Felipe, the DC guidelines in 5e do help with a sense of consistency. And a DM could also say that a task looks “easy” or “hard” or “you’d have to be a God to pull that off” to give a sense of what the DC might be.
Why do people treat jumping as a skill check instead of following those rules? Because its 5e. I've never once looked up those rules as a player or a DM because we trust each other at the table, and an Athletics check is SO MUCH EASIER to commit to memory. Some players want to know the exact numbers, and mechanically crunch it. Some want the very real immersive roleplay experience of thinking you can make the jump, and NOT knowing the numbers behind it.
Another factor you should considered is that not all jumps are the same, despite being the same distance apart. A ten foot from a stone dungeon floor onto another stone floor is one thing, but a ten foot jump from a sandy barge onto a wet grassy hilltop is quite different and would probably need a higher DC roll
5e's less cluttered system makes it easier to homebrew into a great system IMO.
Why did they make feats optional but not attunement?
The magic items are so easy to port over and those crit rules I like. I don't think 5e's class features and feats would play well with pathfinder 2e's.
That action economy reminds me of dark heresy which is honestly a good thing. I think I'd stick with the exhaustion mechanic for death saves I'd love that to be an official optional rule.
5e has some classes that get things back on a short rest so some tricky rebalancing would have to be done to move away from that.
Hit dice are a seriously underused mechanic in 5e. Mix in some more uses for them as well as the "burn spell slot to get feature back" that they've been toying around with in UA and 5e becomes a completely different and dare I say Superior Game.
And crafting 5e's crafting rules are garbage.
We need more mundane items and different materials to work with.
Am I missing any gripes?
I actually like the crafting. It makes sense that in the rather less magical abundance of the 5e setting, enchanting and shit takes a really long time. It's why its low magic in the first place.
I'd probably go the other way.
Take all the customization, encounters and combat of pf2.
Then take the 5e approach to social interactions.
+1000 for the layout/editing comments. Making my first PF2 character took way too long because I couldn't easily find anything.
"I have never seen a game as poorly edited than Pathfinder Second Edition."
I will be up front about the fact that I have not read the PF2 core book from cover to cover and mostly read the basics and the class stuff I need, but my impression is the editing for the Shadowrun 5e core rulebook even after multiple edits in my opinion is way worse.
I actually like that pathfinder gives more details on skill use. It seems kinda sloppy in 5e and opens up discussions between the dm and the players.
It should not.. There is a reason you will very often read the phrase "DM's discretion" (or a variation of it) in the 5e rules....
Trust your DM.. You, as a player, shouldn't think about rules.. They should..
@@NickStrife that doesnt really make sense. If a player is offloading all the work onto the GM to know all the rules they are expecting too much from the GM. A player should know the rules at least as much as it pertains to their characters abilities and actions they want to take frequently. This goes for any tabletop game ever.
It's fine if a new player needs help with the rules but if they arent putting in the effort to learn how anything works they are dragging the game down.
Depends on your perspective. More details can mean more narrowly defined & thus, a need for a larger skill list or limitations on what a player can do. I think I remember Shane Hensley explaining that when discussing Savage Worlds when it came out. It seemed like he was opposed to the idea of telling a player he couldn't do or even try something because they didn't have the right skill, so he tried to keep the skill list short & broadly applicable.
@@jamesloucka1952 I am not saying you shouldn't know how your abilities work or other character-centric things..
I am saying the DM has to decide what happens when there is not a 100% clear explanation in the rules.. Just let your DM handle it, if he is a good DM (and I don't know why you would play in his campaign if he isn't) he will choose the option which is more fun or the one that adds narrative depth...
@@jamesyonemura9296 to a degree yes. But if you skimp too much on the details it can leave players and GMs lost and having to waste playtime discussing how something should be ruled since there is nothing explicit.
Personally I find the additional detailing of PF2 over 5e helpful as it gives me a solid foundation to build on.
Thank you for taking the time to do this review. I will most likely look into 2e and change some things about my 5e campaigns now and going forward.
I would look into playing in a 2e campaign after watching this video.... but when it comes to running a campaign with Pathfinder, I think I'll hold out for 2.5e! haha
I'm a new DM so running a 5e campaign is complicated enough for me. :)
I love the customisation of PF2 and it's action economy. Unfortunately most of players I deal with just prefer 5e as it's easier to manage on both player and gm side.
Pf2e is much easier to manage on the player side. Sure leveling up takes a couple extra minutes but that's because your character actually improves as opposed to being pretty much static between big spikes like 5e. Pf2e is far harder to keep track of as the GM tho, for sure.
I enjoy both PF 2e and D&D 5e... and a slew of other games. There is no reason (I can think of) not to play a lot of different games. Life is too short to put all your hope for fun into one game. Great video idea!
Honestly, as someone who wanted to be a game designer when younger and still loves game design, I love reading different TTRPG books and playing a bunch of different games and seeing the differences!
So you're into polygameous relationships? :) Sorry, I will see myself out.
Regarding PF2e putting more strain on the GM due to it being hevier on rules: I think that would really depend on the type of players that are on the table. If players are lazy and leave it up to the GM to know how the system works, yeah, you are right.
On the other hand, if everyone does their part and learn the system beforhand and players take actions with a clear idea how that would work within the system, then no. In that last case, D&D5e would be the one putting more strain on the DM, due to the frequent lack of clear mechanics, it'd necessarily be up to the DM to, on the spot, figure out how these outlier cases should work.
In my experience, this latter scenario can often bog down the game even more than finding a specific rule in a book you know well (even more so when you're reading in a tablet and can use a search function or the very useful bookmarks in the pdf version).
I recall a rather combat-heavy D&D5e oneshot, were a barbarian playuer would often, instead of attacking, try to perform unusual actions, the DM would then need to pause the game and figure out how to rule that action. More often than not, the player would come out disapointed by how the effects of said action were less epic than what was expected.
All in all, I think D&D5e is much better for beginners, full analog play, or groups that want to focus much more on RP and storytelling (nothing wrong with any of those). PF2e, on the other hand, works better for structured play, with groups that know the system well and flows a lot better with the help of tools such as Roll20 and Fantasy Grounds.
The final ruling reminds me of Mutants and Masterminds degrees of failure system. Give it a look!
Degrees of failure is nice it just takes a few sessions to get down. One of my players, having maxed out their toughness,was still one shot by an incredibly lucky villain during the final battle. It heightened the stakes but holy shit they were mad at their dice.
M&M is the only d20 system I actually like.
It's almost a verbatim rip from GURPS handling crit's... "make the check by X or greater and it's a crit'." AND "miss the check by X or greater and crit' failure." (as witten, if I recall, GURPS called it at 5... but we felt that a bit liberal, so always went with 10... and occasionally 15 was suggested. Criit's should rare and precious but allowed to grow with the PC's. It's why I never capped the values in skills. ;o)
It really does come down to how you like to play. I started playing D&D 5e a few years ago and its simplicity made it easy for me to catch on to. I was then introduced to pathfinder and fell in love with how creative you can be with the types of characters you can make. Starting out pathfinder was a bit difficult with how crunchy it is but I've grown to love how it has rules for everything and it's not just the GM asking for something they think would be similar. And now with pathfinder 2e, I'm still in love with the system and dont know if I could go back to D&D.
Not even a quarter of the way through and I already feel the need to simply say 'thank you' for being so forth-coming about game-mechanics and things someone who might consider learning one or the other system or even switching between them might actually expect to deal with.
Please start every video with that intro, so it's like you shave your head every time.
I second that motion.
You wonder why there's contention between d&d and Pathfinder fans? Look at sports fans. Look at the console wars. People just like to posture themselves as better than others.
Eh... you're probably right. As sad as that is, you're probably right.
well, I think the comment section here is pretty chill overall. I personally am a 5e player, but do have interest to learn pathfinder. Unfortunately, not much time to learn the shenanigans and my friends all play 5e as well, so getting them into it would be hard as well. But we homebrew a lot of stuff in 5e so something from pathfinder might be useful
"I will never understand people from nearly identical fandoms belittling one another"
*Meanwhile, in the Fire Emblem fandom*
Loved the comparison. Sustain: Keep doing this format for others things. Comparing different systems, races for an archetype, classes for roles in a party. Improve: A running score graphic as you go would be entertaining. Again, I thought this was great.
If youre watching this now, he's changed his tune on PF 2E dramatically in the last year
I actually have a big problem with 5e's layout: It doesn't tell me who can use a spell. If I see a cool spell, I have to check each class's spell list to see if it's on there. PF lists the traditions right in the stat block.
Yeah, 5e's layout is also not great. See also the class descriptions that can't put all the character creation info on the same 2-page spread, requiring flipping back and forth.
Now I feel inspired to make a combination between the two games
That would be an awesome mix as long as the system you base it on can handle it. 5e can handle more things added on it in my opinion but your experience may varie
15:50 my duel wielding dex based high int mute kobold barbarian has something to say about that
well given your description of your barbarian I am fairly certain they have exactly nothing to *say* about that
@@jamesh1866 Wildly underrated comment
Bonus round: HP - who wins?
Answer: Starfinder
There is actually the option in the PF2 rulebook to use SFs Stamina and resolve system. Ultimately our group decided they didn't want to use it tho
If they're ballooning hit points, then they're all bad.
Playing low level atm so cant say about ballooning but it definitely feels like we've never got enough hp, we die, alot
I've thought about an abacus to track modifiers for pf2
Make your characters with PCGen and let it do it for you.
I haven't had that issue with pf2, but that is mainly because I was a 3.5/pf1 player for so many years where there were 10000 different things that stacked. Luckily in pf2 you only have three types of bonuses so it became easier to keep track of them.
I don't really get how people find this hard for PF2E. Most of the math happens at level up and is clearly explained on the character sheet. Not only that, similar bonuses don't stack, meaning you'll never deal with more than 2 floating bonuses at a time (unlike 1st edition). These get even easier to track if you put your character sheet in a clear cover and track bonuses and HP with a dry erase marker
This brings back memories of my high level 3rd ed barbarian/cleric who I made a combat cheat sheet for that took up an ENTIRE sheet of paper on it's own.
Comparing "Feats" just because they have the same name feels weird. 5E Feats and PF2 Feats are wildly different things.
And I'll criticize PF2 for having four distinct mechanics all named "Feats."
They aren't distinct mechanics though. They all serve the same mechanical purpose, but you get them from four different sources. They also aren't all called feats, they are specified as general feats, skill feats, class feats, and ancestry feats.
@@artaratoryx4077 ...which are all called Feats.
@@Enaronia In the same way Racial Features and Class Features are not both called 'Features', the prefix is particularly relevant...
no? they arent called feats?
All of my player experience so far is in 5e, but I've recently started DMing my first game, and chose PF2e. The layout of the book and creature stat blocks definitely does create some game flow issues. Nothing that can't be fixed with some extra note taking and prep work, but it's not the easiest thing to deal with.
However, as both a DM and eventually a player, I vastly prefer PF2e for it's powerful customizability and attention to mechanical detail. In 5e, it's hard, if not impossible, to make a truly unique build with a unique playstyle, so all of what makes your character unique HAS to come from roleplay, and that just is not fun for every type of player, and is something you can do no matter the system. It's also not very well balanced and certain popular play styles are inferior to the point of being unfun, or aren't actually allowed by the rules.
PF2e, on the other hand, provides you with the tools to create any character you might want, and, IMO, a better structure to homebrew in things it doesn't account for.
I feel like the answer here is the ever awkward, "D&D is better to run, Pathfinder is better to play". Many of the 'downsides' of D&D make life easier for a DM. That extra customization as a player is amazing... as a DM it makes it FAR harder to design scenes tailored to your party.
This is SO true it makes me wonder if this was the design philosophy at play. It just feels like Pathfinder was designed with the player-experience first, while D&D was designed with DMs and actually running the game in mind.
Additionally, D&D is just 100% better for players brand new to RPGs. Those 'easy mode' rules are prefect for teaching. A great example: D&D character creation is rigid in early levels because it makes it easier teaching the game to total ttRPG newbies. It's pretty much agreed that Lv1 characters are characters with training-wheels on - characters have few abilities in order to help newer players learn the core rules without the exceptions kicking in too often. Then lv2 layers on some special class rules and introduces bonus actions. Then, only at level 3, do you really choose the class you want.
This is frustrating as an experienced player - I don't need the handholding. But as a DM it makes it amazing for onboarding newbies.
That stuff aside, because of D&D Beyond, I can't imagine running anything else. I can't overstate how awesome it is to have every source-book, module and test-rule hyperlinked in a massive database. It makes running everything breathtakingly simple. The ability to have copies of the players sheets, having ever rule linked (hover over a monster name in a module to see a statblock, hover over a spell on a monster statblock to the the whole thing, hover over a status to see the discription, etc), sharing content with players... it's really the heart of it for me.
So start experienced groups at lvl 3 and groups with new players at 1st. Nothing says you have to start at 1st. Loved your comment.
Thoughts on combat fir both at low levels
PF2e characters can take a great axe swing from an orc can your 5e wizard or sorcerer do that?
Additionally action economy is so goofy in 5e. It's not simple at least not as much as PF2 3 action. I find new players often are like what can i do with a bonus action. Unless they are a caster or rogue the answer is not much. Which has a feels bad element.
Finally, because of the way opportunity attacks work in 5e games are very immobile unless you are a rogue. You just trade swings because neither side wants to burn an action to disengage, move 30 feet to have the opponent move 30 feet and punch them in the face.
Because attack of opportunity are so limited in PF2 it becomes much easier to move. However, players who play 5e are so set in the mindset of stand and wail on each other they dont take advantage of the power of movement
Maybe this is just me but I've found PF2 to be easier to run than 5e. Once I intuitively grasped the underlying mechanics that all the systems flow out of it was easy to run smoothly. It's a lot easier to change things on the fly for me. Where 5e feels more cobbled together. Like there was a core mechanic but things got simplified later to the point that things got separated.
@@Wereskeleton What page of PHB tells you to homebrew backgrounds and feats?
@@brahmdorst5154 I think in the first pages introducing "backgrounds" there is the option for you to customize them, I don't have my book but If I had to guess I'd say some page around... 125? Tho in the book I'm pretty sure there is no mention of feat customization.
I sort of want to combine them. I've only played 5e and I enjoy it, though Pathfinder is interesting, especially with 2e out. The three action system in particular sounds very intriguing
Feels like that would be Pathfinder with some dnd rules
Pathfinder with dnd: Proficiency; skill checks; advantage instead;
Then there's me playing with Castles & crusades in my corner. Join me I have cookies
Tell me of this Castles and Crusaders please.
Awesomely done, I can't imagine this subject having been covered better.
Corey, I watch a lot of D&D based videos. You are hands down my favorite. Editing/Layout is VERY important. Hurt some feelings. As far as Adv/Dav goes, I still prefer the +/- system. I much prefer giving a a +2 modifier over something that equates to +5. You gave me an interest in 2e Pathfinder. I will probably purchase it. I think a conglomeration of the two would be good.
I really do like the 2e crit system. Makes the players feel more powerful or feel the danger when crits can fly
Yes! This!!!!
Now i wonder how it would impact 5e if I were to add this rule......
@@NickStrife It just... wouldn't really work with the advantage disadvantage system you'd really really have to have more mods. You could maybe do +/- 5 but then you'd run into FREQUENT crits. 5e has removed most of the wiggle room and by doing so they've reduced the design space for something like this.
By far the best part of 2e. If I am hitting you easily because my attack is so superior to your defense, I should crit a lot. Not because I have a weird weapon or a special feat, because I'm a superior swordsman. It's perfect.
One great plus of Pathfinder 2e and its "everything is feats!" system is that because it is very modular, it is very easy for Paizo to roll out additional content not only in dedicated expansion books, but in lore books and adventure paths. It gives them a lot of room to expand and keep their revenue up with new content without the confusing semi-allowed mess that is 5e's Unearthed Arcana.
This is the same reason that, contrary to popular belief, it is much easier to make fun homebrew for pf2e.