LAIR MAGAZINE www.patreon.com/thedmlair 5e and PF2 FOUNDRY VTT MODULES thedmlair.com/collections/foundry-vtt-modules LAIRS & LEGENDS and LOOT & LORE | thedmlair.com/collections/lairs-legends
My favorite thing about PF2 is not having to worry about the Pnkerton Group breaking down my door and steeling my home-brew. Also, I hear they hate cats.
Yep! Been running PF2e since January of 2020, started playing it when the core rulebook dropped and that's one thing that's kept me around. With Archives of Nethys, you don't have to spend a penny on the game. My buddy who also runs PF2e, he hasn't ever bought anything to run the game. I do buy books and PDFs because I wanna support them, but it's not necessary
I mean… I’m all for the Paizo love (they’re passionate genuine dudes from what I’ve seen) but they very much want your money too. They just don’t have a massive corporate structure behind them pushing for ALL the money imo
@@DOOMsword7I mean yeah they definitely aren’t a charity. But… they really do operate very differently to WotC. Having all of the rules & stats from rulebooks available for free is just something that WotC would never ever do. It’s *better* to play with the material, but it’s absolutely not necessary because of this!
@@mduckernz I mean WotC has the SRD and the Basic Rules. You absolutely have everything you need to run the game without the PHB too. But I think I get your meaning. Even with Paizo kicking the pants off of WotC during the 4e days, they have never seemed to have gotten too big for their britches. They seem to hold themselves as impassioned hobbyists. Which, in the big scheme of things (compared to Warhammer and Magic maybe) they very much still are.
I’d assume the reason WotC didn’t provide their “secret sauce” is because they don’t have any. Everyone there is just taking turns throwing in spices until something vaguely palatable comes out. Otherwise, we’d be able to rely on their difficulty system.
This is truth that has overtaken much of the entertainment industry (gaming, video-gaming, shows, movies). You aren't getting a masterpiece from a few experts who poured love, blood, sweat, and tears into the work. You are getting an unsavory soup that a bunch of mid-skilled (or amateur) enthusiasts "collaborated" on. 'Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel' was one such atrocity. With 'Vecna: Eve of Ruin', this trend appears to have taken root at WOTC.
One thing I will point out is that the CR system in 3.5e explicitly mentions that it isn't a perfectly accurate gauge, though at least 3.5e gave some solid advice and broke down how different monsters are created to give the DM a better gauge of how to apply the math of the game.
Just turn your Kobolds into a swarm! Now you have a lot of low level monsters attacking as one higher level monster :D Bonus points if you give your Kobolds trenchcoats so they can attack in swarms of 3.
The Brazilian RPG I’m playing is releasing their monster manual and in it the rules to play as a kobold, but you’re not one kobold instead you are a group of them, include rules how the group can wear an armor (or a trench-coat)
Something nuance I want to add is just how good Paizo adventures are written compared to recent WotC adventures. Most 5E adventure feel only half finished to me with the intention of, "Just make up the rest as you go." A lot of the encounters are weak and filler. The treasure is lackluster. They just feel like a ton of work! For Paizo's PF2 adventures I need minimum prep time because I can trust that I can nearly run it cold with how good the flow and pacing. I don't need to modify everything to fit the party, they are just great adventures as written for everybody.
PF1e adventures are written even better because they give EXP for stuff that's not combat. But also PF1e is a horrifying system in a lot of other ways because you can straight up break encounter scripting with a lot of stuff.
@@FlameUser64 pf2 also give non-combat xp. In the Adventure Path I'm running, the players went from level 5 to 6 purely though rp, skill challenges, and activities with a group they were gaining influence with, so that definitely something that carried over from 1e.
@@sjwarhammer4039 Oh fair. I just know that older PF2e APs have a reputation for being overly preoccupied with "real" xp and being overly combat-dense as a result of trying to stuff all that combat into 6 books.
@@FlameUser64 the AP I was referencing was Age of Ashes lol. But you're right and I can't deny the campaign has had a good bit of combat. I just like that they do break that up with other types of challenges and that when they do that, you don't stop progressing your character.
The fact that i actually care about companion can remember there name and our quest/job is a major plus for me because whenever im in a dnd campaign i can't remember any of that because i don't care at all there is barely a reason why we should intervene and maybe this is a gm thing but i just don't like 5e's campaigns at all.
Re: #3 for D&D - Pathfinder has retraining baked into the rules as written. If you miss a feat you wanted because you forgot to take a prereq, you can fix that during 'downtime'. And because of that, it's not that uncommon for GMs to just... let you do it between sessions.
@@caseylane9162Why would it be unimmersive to train a new skill in combat but then forget another, but over time instead of never? In 5e Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins Rangers etc. also can retrain some spells, however only at level ups which limits that. In PF2, that kind of thing is baked into the rules as taking a few weeks effort to retrain and widened to different skills.
Indeed, it does sounds unimmersive. In D&D, a PC can take a quest or be rewarded for working for someone. The reward it is the said feat. So instead if replacing in D&D, you can stack up things. Sometimes you are playing a character that doesn't require much. Monks, Barbarians, or a character that has no materialist needs. How do you reward that player when everyone Is getting gold and magic items? Giving them Feats, some want power instead of wealth and fame. This rule is great fort hat purpose and without the need to sacrifice something you already have. @@caseylane9162
@@caseylane9162 Interesting. I find the inability to retrain unimmersive because any regular joe in real life can learn new skills at any time in life. The only thing I find unimmersive about retraining is that you lose your old skills, but there is no problem learning new things.
You said what I've been saying about both systems since my group stopped playing 5th ed due to the OGL debacle. 5th ed is more difficult to GM, and Pathfinder 2e is more difficult for the player. My group initially gave a lot of pushback when I switched to Pathfinder 2e. It's been about 8 months now and they stuck with it and are having much more fun as they become more familiar with the rules.
In my experience the only people that have any difficulty learning PF2 have been 5e players. People completely new to the hobby learn it pretty quick. Ive had people just buy a book for an adventure, barely know the rules; and by the end of the adventure are good with the basics and their class and come back ready to go without needing any more help.
PF2e offers solutions to some of the problems you mentioned: Bounded accuracy: There is a rule called "Proficiency wihtout level" in pf2e that subtracts level to all stats in the game. With this rule AC, for example, scales from ~14 to ~28 instead of from 14 to 54, giving you a greater breadth of encounters . Building characters: Pf2e has a mechanic called "Retraining" where you spend some downtime switching one of you class/skill/general feats for another they even allow you to switch learned spells and class features (although they mention it should take longer and maybe have some narritive implications). Adventuring day: While adventuring day is a thing in 5e and pathfinder 1e and not in pathfinder 2e I'd argue that adventuring day is most of the times a flawed metric. 5 medium encounters followed by an hard encounter is much different than 1 hard encounter followed by 5 medium. And all of this depends on the type of party of you have 5 martials can probably do more encounters than 5 wizards. As such pf2e opted for describring relative difficulty by saying for example that if you throw a sever encounter at your party " lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters" and moderate encounters are described as being used to deplete resources so you should be mindfull of throwing sever encounters after multiple moderate encounters or your party will probably tpk. I think most of the times gms want a number to make them feel confortable even if the number is meaningless. Everything else I felt was well put, Great video 👍.
Also worth noting for character building in PF2e - it's to mess it up. Sure, maybe you won't be 100% optimal if you skip a particular feat, but to truly screw it up, you kind of have to be incredibly intentional about it. This is because the baseline features of each class are the most important, and you cannot miss them, and those features scale up. As long as you don't tank your class's primary stat, you're good.
A variant that keeps the encounter balance critical math intact is simply subtract player level from both sides. This essentially exposes the level difference is what makes the encounter balance work by making it a difference buff or penalty small number easy for gm to do on fly. This presents as leveless to the player but performs as leveled . This fixes the big modifiers complaint while keeping balance.
How well the game works with it? I'm a bit unsure about using an optional rule that completely changes essentially all numbers in the game. Many times people recommend that to me but the people that do don't actually use the rule, so it's hard to tell if it works well.
@@ChaoticTabrispurely speculation.but I’d guess going for extremes in those situations would cause issues but otherwise it would be fine. (Fights with large number of creatures, one really big boss,etc.). You can also easily change monsters between levels so I just do that.
@@ChaoticTabris I've used it, I wouldn't recommend prof without level in an adventure path, since it will make the hard fights trivial, but for homebrew run games it's very freeing, and imo is better done than 5e's (mostly because the rest of the math is solid).
@@caseylane9162 Is that so? pathfinder2e gives you with each book release new monsters, lore, items, spells, new sort of variant rule, archetypes AND classes. Not even counting the dedicated Lost omen books which are purely for lore, but still give items, archetypes, spells. I only played 5e till 2020 and Tesha added a lot more (finally a new class), but any PF2e supplement book I felt like added more, unless I am wrong. My point was that PF2e just has way more content
@@coolboy9979 your original comment was about steady flow of content, not the amount of it? And even if it was abt the ammount- yes it is so. Each 5e module adds new monsters, backgrounds, feats, spells, items, and most likely races. And thats just modules- sourcebooks, which have been dropping very steadily since the start of 5e, are in a league of their own with the amount of shit in them.
@@caseylane9162 idk how you can compare the two at all. paizo releases monthly adventures in addition to core /setting/player options books. wotc releases what like 2 adventures and 2 setting books a quarter or something?
@@k.g.7591 if i had to guess, it's that they left a lot up to DM fiat, which is more permissive of players who want to argue against his ruling, since it's not written in stone [or official paper] anywhere.
Exactly what I was feeling playing and running 5e! As a player things out of combat felt way too easy to do and combat felt like filling out a solved by my second year playing. Meanwhile GMing felt like an absolute nightmare because the DMG felt like it cared more about the lore of the planes and home-brew advice rather than actually guiding me on my way to run a session. Meanwhile ive done combat twice in P2e and it felt incredibly engaging both times with out of combat play feeling great as well thanks to skill abilities. While I have yet to try and run P2, I have skimmed the DM's section and the fact that the games economy seems to be well thought out with plenty of charts to help you give out rewards fills me with a want to try and run some old campaign concepts from my 5e days in it.
A missed positive is that there's clear, official pricing on magic items and clear guidance on loot progression. And okayish rules for homebrewing items. Including neato relic items. Loot and loot progression is a vital part of this kind of game and 5e kinda expects you to figure it out on your own and only gives you broad pricing suggestions that aren't fine tuned. The 5e revision is allegedly going to change this though.
@@xczechr From what get, that essentially transfers the bonus to the players instead of having it be in the weapons? But keeps the armor bonuses. So it is like a low magic setting, except for armor. From cursory reading, I guess it does help with the low magic fantasy setting by nerfing casters when they were balanced against martials before.
Personally I don't find that a official loot progression table something I need or want. If the players miss some of the loot in the adventure they shouldn't be entitled to have it.
PF2e character levelling is generally _easier_ than 5e. Because you can, per the rules, take the new features out for a test drive. 5e does not allow retraining (I think there may be some "ask your GM" bit in there, but effectively, no). Pathfinder has a robust retraining system. If you, at level 7, realize you need something you passed over at level 4, you can spend a bit of downtime to swap that level 4 feature, and then take the level 7 feature you actually want. The only time this fails is if you are on an adventure chain without any downtime.
@@tiagodagostini No problem with asking the GM, but leaving it to the GM means you can't rely on it when going table to table. Some GMs might say sure, retrain anything as long as the character could have been made level by level. Some GMs might make it cost gold or XP, some might say no. And any of that is just fine. It's _also_ fine for a pathfinder GM to say "no retraining in my game", but most won't bother. So as a player, you can do downtime retraining without requiring the GM to consider what's fair. The biggest difference is if you are in organized play, the GM might not be able to let you retrain in 5e, but almost certainly will in pf2e.
Uh 5e do have explicitly stated it's fine to retrain and change something. Granted, it's NOT in the core books but rather in Xanthar's Guide to Everything, a supplement book. But then... lots of the essential features in PF2E aren't found in the core books either and you'll have to get them in so many different supplement books. Pros & Cons.
I'm heading into the end-phase of my 5e campaign that has run for about 18 months now. I have taken a couple breaks due to IRL issues, but I am just burned out from the lack of DM tools that 5e provides. Creating encounters, trying to manage giving them meaningful loot when gold is useless and you don't want to go crazy with magic items. I am ready for a long break after. I have been looking into PF2 a lot lately, and everything about running the game as a DM sounds like a dream come true!! I am definitely going to give this system a shot when my turn in the DM rotation comes up again.
Speaking of leveling up, 5e has dead levels, where you make no choices about your character's progression. This is not true in P2, where every level you have a choice to make. This means characters of the same class and level in 5e are very much alike, and this is far less true in P2.
About your point regarding the Kobolds, while you can't throw them at high level players as is, they do give you the tools to make your own beefy versions relatively easily,like homebrew elite kobolds,kobold subraces or something similar as you mentioned about using the GMG to homebrew,thus scaling them up
also an awesome idea to do for a kobold lair is for the main threat to be a beefy complex trap and the kobolds to just be there as a kind of incentive for the players to not just outwait the trap/traps
@@anonimcz5381I mean you can have the kobolds only there to interact with traps high enough lvl to threaten PCs. The encounter then turns from : kobolds are easy to kill and can't touch us To: we must find a way to either disable the traps, or to get to the kobolds and prevent trap activations
I do like the fact that easy monsters become trivial. Still bring them on as a master, just to make players feel good from time to time. When my high level players were assaulted by level 1 bandits on the road, everybody had a great time.
One other note with enemy variety, there's a template iirc for scaling up or down levels (beyond weak/elite) Also there's encounter builders that you just plug in the party's and enemy lvls until its the difficulty you want. Definitely agree on the d&d playerbase size being an advantage
For me 5e has just enough rules to hang you without giving the dm proper support. If I want an easier game to intoduce people to the hobby I'm busing out a powered by the apoclypse game or Savage worlds. I've always found the lack of options in 5e to be a huge turnoff, even if it is technically easier. In Pathfinder, whether 1e or 2e, there is always a meaningful choice that you will be making for your character and that makes leveling exciting.
I started a homebrew campaign of pathfinder recently. I love playing as an investigator. Intelligence is actually useful in this game and I can play a character who search information about ennemies and play smart. Also I'm a skill monkey with 6 languages. I also played a fighter in a oneshot before that. The fighter in pathfinder is so strong and fun to play.
It always feels weird to me when people put forward Bounded Accuracy and its implications as a positive. Maybe it's that my formative D&D style fiction was all very high fantasy, early Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance and such, but high level adventurers SHOULD find an encounter with kobolds to be trivial. Low level adventurers faced with a CR 18 demon SHOULD feel helpless and get obliterated if they try to fight. The fact that your level 2 fighter's attacks just bounce off a Great Wyrm Red Dragon's scales and nothing you can do will change that is a feature, not a bug.
_but high level adventurers SHOULD find an encounter with kobolds to be trivial_ Back in the Chainmail/OD&D days high level characters used to cause _fear_ in 1HD creatures just as terrifying creatures like dragons and efreet did. That unit of Goblins simply would not charge Ginsu Gaaawblinrender the 10th level fighter, because they could look at the guy with the glowing sword and armour, and simply knew what would happen to their "I have a 20mm square base and no hero rock to stand on" selves.
the more I'm GMIng and playing PF2 the more I love how the fights are balanced. As example I could pull a lvl 1 T-Rex boss and it felt so, some PCs were Koed but none died, same later with a lvl3 green drake. So satisfying! :)
@realdragon I find pathfinder more dynamic than 5e because every character has options in combat. In 5e the rogue just really attack move or stay, hide repeat. In pf2e every one has three actions so the rogue could move attack and then trip a foe cause status penalty of being prone or possible he could intimidate the causing them to have fear 1 which reduces their attack/ac by 1 which help the group face an enemy. All of these have rules to them and they have at least 20 other conditions which you don't need to know unless they come up In game. This isn't include the skill feat system. Tldr I believe that 5e has dull and boring mechanics wise compared to pathfinder where the system has a lot more mechanics to the system granting the player to have different combat options in battle scenarios.
This video was so thoughtful from top to bottom. You did such an excellent job of laying out both of the systems strengths while airing out some of their issues. I love 5E for getting me into the hobby, but as a chronically ill person who loves to GM PF2E is my system of choice. As you mentioned in near the end of the video, it's a system that is much easier to run, while being a bit more difficult for players. PF2E encounter building and magic loot with levels and costs let's me spend my energy on telling a compelling narrative rather than desperately trying to balance the game. :) As for PF2E vs 5E for new players. I play with a good number of 50-70 year old players and I've found those older players have a much easier time grasping 3 actions than action/bonus/move. That's just my experience though, every group is different. ♡
Alle the campaigns i run in 5e finished. And i did the switch to PF2 for my in person group. The online group will switch after one of the players has run his few shot in 5e, but we did some combat test/learning rounds. Starting PF2 was a bumpy road, even after reading the rules multiple times i had to look up a lot. But it's starting to get better quickly and the player feedback ist great, they like what PF2 offers so far. For the in person round: I started with the beginner box, and switch to abomination vaults afterwards. My 5 players where level 2 at this point, the module starts at level 1 and is balanced for 4 players. Tanks to the XP encounter building it was so easy to alter the encounters for 5 level 2 players. Make monsters elite, add a monster,... I struggle the most with the monsters, while in dnd most of the just do one thing every round like melee or ranged attacks, except for casters. In PF2 they have a lot more options, attacks with cool features or combo attacks. If i have one enemy type no problem, but if i have 3 different types of enemy's it's a lot to handle and i have to read there stat block again and again. btw. I'm still a player in 2 5e groups. One level 10 one level 12...i'm not afraid of any encounter knowing how hard it is to challenge players in this system. That kills all excitement i have for combat.
Another thing that is really understated in my opinion is loot. Every players loves getting loot. The best part of defeating something like a dragon is going into the dragon horde and giving it the Scrooge McDuck treatment. But what items do you put into that horde? The 5e DM guide has random tables, but I have not found them to be not that great. (Just my opinion mind you) In addition, there are several wondrous items in 5e that are, quite frankly, game breaking. What you would want a level 5 party to have and what you would want a level 15 party to have are very different. As an example, The ring of animal influence is the same rarity as wand of firewalls. But in Pathfinder 2e, every item, from healing potions to poisons to magic scrools to magic items all have an item level. There is a singular cost per item, not a 500-2500 GP per item range or whatever that rarity calls for. And those items are very level appropriate, so you don't have a +2 sword that only grants a +2 to attack and damage being the same potential cost as a wand of power. Plus with the archive of nethys you can sort by item level. So you want your level 5 party to get some magical loot. Just sort by item leel 4-6, and boom. Items hands to players, happy players, while also being ease of work on the GM. Win-Win.
I think that there are two missed benefits for each system here. A benefit that you missed for PF2 is how baked in treasure and magic items are. You have pricing for magic items that make sense, and tables that show yuo how much exactly of each should PC's have in every step of their journey from levels 1 -20, without having to make up prices on the fly or relentlesly worry about giving too much\too little. A benefit for 5e that's important to add is how easy it is to mod. The rules are often very vague and lacking, but since the core of the system (Advantage\Disadvantage, bounded accuracy, simple combat mechanics, etc..) its very easy to come up with your own verison of mechanics or tweek existing ones to suit your tatstes as a GM if you have the time. Meanwhile, PF2 has very fleshed out systems for most cases, but if you DO find something that's lacking and try to alter it, the amount of additional variables and chance of causing unforseen consequences is far higher. This extends to the creaiton of PC facing homebrew content or the inclusion of 3rd party content. In 5e, the number of options you need to take into account when trying to asses the balance of such content is limited, and so are the number of combinations. This is unlike PF2 where the massive customizbility can lead to otherwise innocuous additions creating unintended busted combos.
Actually due to how balanced it is breaking pf2e is much harder as long as you dont mess with the base maths. 5e is not balanced and just a insane jumble so this isnt a consideration in the first place but if you dont care about it, it can apply to pf2e the same way.
It's easy to avoid busted combos when homebrewing PF2: avoid untyped bonuses and favor actives over passives. Actives can't stack, and typed bonuses can't stack, so you're mostly good with those simple guidelines. Of course, you can always make OP stuff (a +10 status bonus to any check is going to be busted, it doesn't matter that it's typed), but for the most part you can balance the homebrew in a vacuum and be fine.
@@robinbernardinis Possibly. Admittedly my experience with PF2 is far less than with 5e (and far less positive at that), but to me the sheer amount of possible combos that exist and might interact with any new thing added seems extremly daunting.
It's definitely easy to come up with stuff for 5e, multiclassing makes it easy to break though. Monty from Dungeon Dudes considering just adding "cannot multiclass when using this" to homebrew he wanted to write.
@@F2t0ny Realistically i feel that it's mostly warlock dips that break things (those are at least the most notorious) as most other MC combos aren't that egregious, and are often even sub optimal.
As a PF2e content creator, it's always refreshing to see how some people who have clearly loved ttrpgs/5e perceive the system. I want to hear that feedback/opinion on the things I love so I can see what needs improving.
I play Savage World's Pathfinder. My group and I love it. Our only complaint is the lack of a comprehensive index and a few rules left a little vague but the actual play is amazing with a true cinematic feel leaving lots of room for role play without rules getting in the way.
I tend to run simpler systems like Castles and Crusades, but if I were to go high crunch I’d go with PF2E. Paizo is such a good company and their adventure paths are very well written. Unfortunately, none of the 2E APs have gotten me excited to play them like the 1E APs did. I hope they do some more conversions in the future. Rise of the Runelords or Crimson Throne 2E would be amazing.
19:10 the thing is pathfinder 2 doesn’t need a adventuring day chart (Minus spell-caster spell slots of which there are many and can get more with items). Healing is functionally trivial out of combat as long as at least one player it trained properly in medicine and they are not constantly being attacked. I guess you COULD have some kind of chart saying hey have this many encounters planned for a day but the thing is because encounters are balanced so well to have different difficulty levels there could be 12 trivial difficulty encounters that don’t require the wizard to use a single spell slot or 2 extreme encounters which drain most of them. It’s more just a game master thing to get a feel for how many resources their players are using and balancing for the future to make sure you don’t go overboard. At the same time, PLEASE don’t throw more than 2 extreme encounters at your players in a day unless your players are VERY well versed in the game and are trying to maximize their parties capabilities.
I like the idea of PF2 use of abilities/skills key words which seems like it can help players/gms know if they interact or not at a quick glance. I havent played PF2 yet thats why I say I like the idea and that it "seems like it can help".
Unpopular Opinion: Your #1 "good" thing about D&D 5e "Bounded Accuracy" is one of the things I don't like about D&D 5th edition- In Pathfinder, I love throwing the occasional "kobold" at my higher level characters so they can see how far they've come (players: "haha, remember how much trouble these things gave us at level 1?"). And those things that are near impossible to hit or defeat I like because it gives the player's some humility on their own power/capabilities and realize the game world has a lot out there they aren't necessarily ready for. But like you mentioned, in Pathfinder there's more rewarding ways to participate in combat than just swing a sword in front of the baddie, able to use Disarm, Trip, Grapple, items and buffs and tactics to level the playing field. Am I saying Pathfinder is Perfect? Not at all - but I appreciate the "crunchiness" of it - and sure, more rules and people claim "Mathfinder" makes combat slower - but in the groups I've been in, my players all know the rules well, and so it's actually much quicker than 5e when combat halts due to those discussions on rule calls and vague information in D&D so-called "rule books" that lack clear rules. I do love D&D still, in a nostalgic way, AD&D and D&D 3/3.5 was what I played and ran for over a decade, and will always be my gateway game into TTRPGs... but many players I've met and ran games for over the years that got introduced to TTRPGs by way of D&D 5e - they grew unsatisfied by the cap of creation, the feeling there was a better way to do this, and inevitably "level up" and move away from D&D.
take this as someone who has played over 100 sessions of 5e and who is nearly 30 sessions in a pf2e campaign ... pros of 5e over pf2e: 1) bounded accuracy not much more to be said I would only add that bounded accuracy allows players to better flex their character builds to stay ahead of the curve where as in pf2e, you are pretty constrained in terms of power creeping with every level gained sure you get "stronger", but so does everything else but if I can get a +8 to rolls at character levels 3-5 and up to +10 at levels 7-10, then my roll performance will stay well within a comfortable margin to get success in the 5e system I really only have to worry about getting a under 6 roll to fail in a trivial matter and yet maybe still succeed with a roll of 8 in say a standard encounter and for combat purposes, being at +7 or +8 to hit up to level 10 will give a player a high rate of success for CR mobs of that 1-10 range this is not so in a pf2e game where many types of rolls have to hit 18+ DC values as low as level 2 and this isn't even accounting for the MAP, which reduces turn performance even further 2) advantage / disadvantage this is less about making the "math" simpler, and more about giving players more direct influence in actions / reactions being taken because in the pf2e system, nearly every roll made is a single uncontested roll and THAT changes the entire dynamic of turn based encounters sometimes you can't even force an opposing roll at all as you are rolling to hit a target DC of 10 +mob level +proficiency level +save value however with advantage, the player can better influence the odds of them succeeding on a specific action because you aren't relying on a single roll with marginal factors and/or trying to force an opponent to fail theirs via disadvantage with enemy mobs instead sitting pretty with their higher than average target DC because rolling more d20s is gonna give you more favorable results long term than the 1s 2s that pf2e is designed around so what paizo did to "balance" combat in pf2e was say "F it" and removed swing ratios from said equation and players were thrown a bone with a bunch of +1s and +2s that will take levels to build up on and only 1 reliable way to pull off a negative factor against an opponent which can be applied vice versa against the player side and at better statistical odds ... because "balance" that is one of the biggest miffs I have with pf2e is that it severely limits us on roll interaction not to mention the f-ing blind rolls, but won't get into that here 3) character creation being easy I have the exact opposite viewpoint in this comparison of 5e characters to pf2e 5e may seem basic but you get more effective versatility in character builds than in their pf2e counterparts and I think this is one of the core differences in the two systems I would describe 5e as a unpolished gem whereas pf2e is more of a finished cut in a set arrangement I would also contend in saying the homebrewing is actually easier in 5e than in pf2e because 5e is more of a "sandbox" and pf2e has a more restrictive ruleset in what you can and cannot do and in this more open environment, 5e players are able to break from the proverbial mold alot more efficiently granted, a pf2e character ends up with more "feats" and there is way more skills and actions to choose from however the 5e character will still have more "optimal" feats, skills, and actions in a side-by-side comparison what happens as an end result is that you as a 5e player "feel" stronger you're confident when you are rolling that d20 if pf2e - on every single roll made - it feels like it is a veritable coin flip because you know the target DC is gonna need atleast a 10 on the die, if not a 13-15 minimum AND that feeling remains throughout the course of a campaign however the aggravating thing is the mobs in pf2e that are of your encounter level have way higher mods and sometimes skills that ignore MAP thus you get into games where an entire party can roll and "miss" every action they make in a single round, yet the enemy mob "crits" on their 3 actions taken 4) massive player base I wouldn't necessarily call this a plus but I find that pf2e is a very friendly game to newcomers as someone who only ever played 5e prior, I had no problem at all learning this system the only thing I found taxing was being limited to the 3-action economy and having to keep MAP in mind turn-to-turn 5) adventuring day mechanic and again, I have the exact opposite opinion on this I find pf2e has a way easier adventure day compared to 5e it is mostly because spellcasting is nerfed in the general with some of it re-tooled into the focus system that it makes recovering post-fight a much quicker process in 5e, one would need atleast an uninterrupted hour to even get a short rest but in pf2e, it's just 10 mins and keeping a tab on medicine check timers also pf2e has a way better "adventuring" system delegated to tasks characters can take on when entering a map aka the exploration mode where a list of activities can be selected and attempted to be done in 5e, players are pretty much just winging it and sticking to what their best skill roles are
I am really trying to learn the rules for PF2E. The one thing what I enjoy is if you roll 10 below or above it is a crit or success. But, one thing I didn't think about is unbound AC level scaling. That is a good tip
In online discussions I've had there are DMs who love the fact 5E lack rules on things. They want to make rulings as they see fit. They don't want the game to tell them what to do. If as a player you (me) complain this means lack of consistency on how the game works based on who is DM that day, they say too bad for you, get over it and play something else if it bothers you so much.
To be entirely clear yes, there are people who prize the ad hoc nature of 5th edition, and there's nothing wrong with that. We have rules-lights for a reason. What you described is a shame and *could* be a certified RPG Horror Story depending on how the DM handled it, but I'd chalk it as having different priorities. Personally as a GM I don't like to make any more judgement calls than strictly necessary and I want my players to be inherently mechanically incentivised to do interesting things which leads me to prefer PF2. Some GMs might have different priorities, like Brennan Lee Mulligan who (for actual plays at least) mostly just wants a good enough combat simulator to supplement *his* game. And to be clear I'm not what you'd call a 5e defender. I hate that system, even if I think it has redeeming qualities unlike most. It definitely allows for a more improvisational and loose style of play that some players (or DMs) covet. The problem is that it's by no means designed around it, and I do firmly believe that its cheese cloth of a rules foundation is a horrible flaw of the system with the unintended side effect that a certain demographic find its "rules medium" nature appealing. PF2 fixes it, but I think a system that doubles down could work just as well (though since that's not what I want I wouldn't know if there's good examples). Still, the moral of the story is that "go play something (or with someone) else" is an entirely valid response if you're not going with the table's flow. I know I'd tell someone who tells me they want more "rule of cool" to go find a different table that can provide it.
If anyone would rather go in the other direction in terms of complexity, I'd reccomend giving Fate Core or Dungeon World a try. They can do a lot with just a little, is how I'll put it.
Ive played both D&D and pathfinder quite a bit. I DM'd 3.5, 5e, pf1e, and pf2e. D&D 5e (TO ME!!!) feels like a non-game. its too rules light and my bigger issue is that combat feels stale mainly because of the attack of opportunity. Pf2e has become my favorite game system. Character creation is satisfying, combat is deep and enjoyable, and rules are in depth and takes the pressure off the DM to make the game.
4th edition...it has it all! Math, encounter creation, treasure, character customization/options, near-infinite resource support....try it, love it, share it!
D&D 5e is my system of choice. I haven't tries Pathfinder 2, but there are some good ideas in it, like the way you "multiclass" (or not) and the the better Game balance I high levels, but I don't feel any need for crunchier rules or more tactical combat. If I wasn't playing in game and someone asked me to me in their Pathfinder 2 game I would probably accept, but it would be something that I would seek out or start myself.
13:05 there are rules for the dm to use that can “level up” creatures to make them more appropriate for different PC levels keeping them relevant if they are too low or too high
I do want to add one more advantage to PF2e over 5e. Support. Paizo creators are active on all of their blogs, Discord and elsewhere online. You can chat with creators almost anywhere. WOTC is silent. Add to this a far superior Organized Play community and far greater Convention presence and you gain more access to players and creators both at Paizo and worldwide. WOTC doesn't attend Conventions outside Washington and their Adventure league is horribly supported. For ne and experienced players, support is a major bonus. A secondary bonus for Pathfinder: Fluff. With hundreds of books and adventures, all with interconnected fluff and history, this brings the core setting to life. On the other hand, most fluff from 5e seems horribly rushed. (I'm a long time fan of Spelljammer, starting back with the original, the 5e books are weak and hastily written. On the other hand, every part of Golarian (and soon The full Starfinder setting) are well thought out. In 2025, I plan to rebuild my old Spelljammer campaign, but it will be a Pathfinder/Starfinder based game Just a few thoughts.
Appreciate this not just being pure praise for one and dunking on the other. Being fair to both systems gives everyone an opportunity to weigh what each individual prefers. Like I've been wanting to run a Pathfinder campaign, but can't find any local players.
There are things about both 5e and PF2e I really like, and there are things I find less enjoyable. I found my drug however with Enworld's Level Up Advanced 5e being a good mix of the two systems. However the three action economy of PF2e is sooooooooo good, I just love it
13:38 I don't consider this a plus and it's part of what turned me off. Reading people's munchkin characters that could kill a Tarrasque at 12th level just made me think "oh the game is terribly balanced" which is true, but not in the way I thought. I will admit that monsters phasing out of usefulness somewhat quickly is a problem in 2e, but just making everything reasonably killable in a very broad level range ain't it imo.
I agree with this 100%. This issue, along with VERY limited build diversity (and even less "top-tier" builds) makes my choices as a player virtually meaningless from day one. My build? Doesn't really matter. My tactics? Don't really matter. My party composition? DEFINITELY doesn't matter.
i've only recently been playing PF2e, quite literally one campaign over a few months. i have maybe a year or two with 5e, much longer watching actual play and reading stuff before actually getting in there. gotta say... PF2e is just a blast. it feels so complete and nuanced, and while it does indeed have more homework to do compared to D&D 5e, it is that much more fun to play. i'm almost tempted to leave behind 5e as a system i'll be playing for a while... but i still have my lovely homegroup to play with. but i'll certainly be playing far more pf2e stuff on the side :)
Great video! I've seen a few other comments about some of your thoughts on PF2e and thought I'd throw my thoughts in the ring as well to see if they help with a different perspective. Bounded accuracy - While 5e does assume low level enemies can still "technically" be a threat at higher levels, in practice I've not found this to actually be the case. Once the players get sufficiently high enough HP, Magic Items, and especially more powerful Spells then even large hordes of Goblins become trivial. For example. A level 11 Subclassless Fighter, with a likely 20+ AC and around 90 HP can by themselves likely take on more than 20 Goblins and only reach about 1/3 of their HP. To your point, Pf2e does include a method low level enemies to be relevant at higher levels AND reinforce the power fantasy - Troops. With Troops the PCs aren't facing a group of individual Goblins, rather the entire Tribe. Highly reinforcing the power fantasy and keeping "Goblins" relevant for the kind of stories you would want to tell at high levels. Advantage/Disadvantage. On the surface it is absolutely an easy system, however it breaks down when you consider both how trivially easy it can be to get Advantage, that any amount of Adv/DisAdv cancel any amount of the other out, how it trivializes the impacts of debuffs and things like poisons, and how mathematically it often just means success or failure on the roll and removes most of the tension. In addition, 5e still has various floating modifers to potentially track, from Cover, Bless, Bane, Bardic Inspiration, Fighting Styles, Rage, Sneak Attack, etc. Simplified character creation/missing out on prerequisites. No denying this for the most part. But it's worth noting that the simplicity comes with downsides of having less access to specific kinds of fantasies, notably for Martials, being locked behind Subclasses and Feats, which do DO need to plan for or else miss. Multiclassing also creates a conundrum where you need to plan out specific levels to multiclass for when you sacrifice other features. As for missing things, retraining is a core rule in the system that is much more accessible than in 5e, and kind of expected to be a tool for this reason. Easier for new TTRPG players. I can't speak to your experience, but having introduced players to Pf2e, the 3 action economy and clearly delineated Encounter/Exploration/Downtime mechanics took only a session for my new Pf2e players to wrap their hands around. The rest is no different than me running 5e, they ask me if they can do something, I say if and how they can, and at least in Pf2e the rules clearly define those things for me. Adventuring day. I would say that my experience with 5e's adventuring day NECESSARILY boiling down to a resource attrition game is very unsatisfying. It forces me to build a specific pace for the adventure so the encounters feel like they should, means that the game bounces between rocket tag and hide behind the shielded Fighter, and removes a lot of agency myself and my players have for going off the rails and doing something different. In Pf2e I don’t have to worry about imbalanced encounters, how many resources the party has (as much), just creating cool and engaging encounters for them. As a bonus point, the experience system in Pf2e makes building the cadence for a level and leveling up TRIVIALLY easy. I know EXACTLY how many encounters I can throw at them between levels, and can explicitly build out methods for the players to gain experience that they can pursue on their own terms, without worrying about the pace of the adventure.
PF has always struck me as a game made for D&D players who have come to want more out their game system than the current edition offers. It's like the AMG version of your Mercedes, the Abarth to your Fiat. Just that little bit of extra flair and power and finesse, but still fully featured. Except PF's all free. An upgrade for free, and you don't even have to buy the original to get it. Amazing!
While I think the Advantage/Disadvantage system in D&D is fun, I don't think it is actually simpler than the bonuses in PF2E in practice. I'm practice, the players just try to work the mechanics in unintuitive ways to manipulate the roles.
Yeah, Luke, I'm one of those people who don't dip Warlock, but play them as single classed. Why? Because they're the most customizable class in the game, and have great subclasses like Fiend, Celestial, Fathomless and Genie. I'm aware of the charop discussion, but if the class wasn't so customizable in the first place, it wouldn't be so attractive as a 2 level dip at all.
i started with Pathfinder 2nd edition and i have to say it was a horror to get into. We just recently switched to DnD 5e since we are only 2 left of the group who are familiar with pathfinder and 3 completely new players to the hobby. So we decided as a group to switch to DnD 5e just so it easier to get into for the new ones and i myself am a first time GM and makes this way easier. (our old DM for pathfinder moved away so we didnt have him to introduce the new players). I really have to say DnD 5e is jsut way easier to play with inexperienced players.
The comparisons between both games are easy to make, but for me, I've accepted that both games have their strengths and weaknesses. My choice of system will depend on the style & length of game I want to play (I love doing one-shots and short self contained adventures).
That's what I figured. At the end of the day I belive the best system, or systems since i know some folks mix and match stuff between systems, is the one you have most fun with.
As somebody who has recently finished my first pf2e campaign I am firmly in the belief that the golden age of D&D and pf is 3.5e and 1e. They're better for homebrew, character variability, combat, exploration, SKILL ranks etc. yes they're more complex but they're picked up easier.
Can you elaborate on the challenge rating bit? Because in the same video, you say challenge rating is easier in PF 2E... But that picking the right number of creatures and the right kind of creature is easier in 5e, and that PF 2E not having guidelines for how long an adventuring day should be, is a bit hazardous. So I'm kind of curious how to reconcile those two things
The 5e "Adventuring" day is artificial... whereas 2e's adventuring day is "do we have the resources to continue to adventure?" Keep in mind, if the players don't rest they get fatigued... and if they don't rest while they are fatigued... they become exhausted... and if they don't rest while exhausted... well... they pass out.
It's only sounds contradictory. Pf2's CR system is mathematically accurate unlike 5e. For the most part you get the challenge thats on the label. However this requires you to read the label and follow the guidelines completely to function, making it more work to use properly if you arent used to it. 5e's CR is notoriously arbitrary, but due to bounded accuracy and power scaling being skewed in the Pc's favor you can kind of just throw stuff out there at random and not have to worry about it as much. As to the adventuring day, this is something that just doesn't exist as a structured concept in PF2. Pcs are expected to be at or near full strength for every encounter, as opposed to the attrition based system of 5e.
Experienced Pathfinder 2e GM Advice: One "On Level" Monster = Two PCs (when building a "Moderate" encounter). That mental math has saved me so much planning time!
Interesting that a lot of the 5e problems were already solved in 4e (easy To GM, Tactics, encounter balance, ease of monster creation, mult-classing/dual-classing, clear and concise rules, etc.) But people didn't want that in 2008.
Not a coincidence two of the designers also designed 4e. The kept the good improving it tossed the bad unlike wotc that threw the baby out with the bathwater
Strange that 5e had the very same design flaw that 3e had, it doesn't scale well after 10th level. That was the reason why 3.5 was made. Been playing this game since the 80's and I was thrilled with 3e being scalable and customizable which appears to be the reason for the divergence of systems. The opportunity to play has eluded me for some time. My impression of 5e was that it went back to being more of a TTRPG rather than a Tactical simulation but the simplicity remined me of the Basic and Expert box sets. Great for new players though I get a Heroes Quest vibe but Ill admit it could just be a bias. I prefer my rules to be granular (aka crunchy) as it presents more options for game play.
I don't understand most of the things you said, but you sound so happy about it, that maybe I will give it a shot. My kid is the one that love 5e and run it for his friends. I ran it like 2 times long time ago and was fine, not my thing. I still love the original Pathfinder and tho I always run my own campaign worlds, Pathfinder's Campaign World was very interesting.
the bounded accuracy thing for pf2e is very much a feature, not a bug. pf2e is HIGH FANTASY, in all caps, which means high level characters are essentially demigods- on the scale of Heracles and Beowulf and Gilgamesh, not having to worry about kobolds is part of the fantasy of that, of being so powerful that hits from the lowest levels of creatures don't even register. DnD, on the other hand, keeps high level characters a lot closer to earth. sure, high level wizards have incredible power, but they also have an armour class of 17 and maybe a hundred hit points. on a scale of low to high fantasy where 1 is like, Mythras and 10 is pf2e, dnd 5e is a solid 7. This doesn't mean either is intrinsically better than the other, but it isn't a failing of pf2e that the fantasy it's fulfilling isn't the same as dnd
"Pathfinder is easier to master" "If i calculate wrongly the creature's level, it will lead to an unfun encounter" Yeah, your arguments are kinda contradictory. I can't say i agree with this video, but glad you are enjoying Pathfinder 2!
Nah, D&D reached that apex in 4e, but was rejected by the players. 4e was ahead of its time. In the modern age of online gaming with VTTs, I think 4e would have had a better reception. That said, imo, pf2e is an evolution of and overall better version of what 4e was trying to do.
As a DM who once played in a 5e game from 3-12th level, I can confirm it breaks down HARD. My artificer spent 4th level through 8th level developing and working on the party's extradimensional cart (Basically a carriage that was like 20 times bigger on the inside than out.) And at 12th level my multi level masterpiece of magic was overshadowed by the druid with a wanderer background just snapping his fingers and casting a spell that let him and the rest of the party instantly teleport to any plant he ever saw (Which basically covered the whole play area) so we basically left the cart and just started teleporting to quest areas and teleporting back in the morning. All that character development sundered by one spell. Not only that but math was nutty and combat was lopsided in our favor. DM broke down and ended the campaign early because it was too much to deal with. I'm about to start a pf2e game ad the DM and I couldn't be happier with the rules. Infinite flight is no longer an uncommon item or race, but all perma flight stuff is usually around level 15. All powerful versions of options are around the same level. Feats allow so much customization and are so balanced you don't have to worry about being under optimized as you did in 5e. It's a breath of fresh air for sure!
I kinda hate Bounded Accuracy. It doesn't provided the feel of "this character is actually much more powerful" when a group of 100 gobbos can take down a lv 20 character by themselves.
I love the mechanics of multiclassing in P2e, but I dislike how feats are no longer as useful as they were in P1e. So next campaign, we're back to P1e.
I have become an avid PH2e convert. I really love that as GM I can actually design encounters to act as expected. There is even some help adding in hazards with monsters - fun fun!
I was trying to see if I should switch over, but most of the points made in the video are only really good for DMs.... I don't mind prepping, I don't mind different semantical tabletime amounts because I do play-by-post I don't mind how hard or easy character creation or math is because again, play-by-post, most of it is automated anyway... And I don't have an issue with encounters being easy at level 20 because anyone at that level should already be basically a god imo.
At 2:08 we clearly see in the "scary math visual" the numbers -(1^3)/3, and the square root of 2/2. Which are pretty silly things to write down. I approve.
I was playing 3.5 and later PF 1ed, and I loved them. Then I took a longer break and I dive into 5e and the simplicity of it bought me. Character creation was easier, I was actually able to enjoy classes other than fighter/barbarian/rogue (I finally fell for wizard and sorcerer), and for me trying to het to PF2 was like strpping back to 3.5 and I did not like it. I stayed with 5e (without most of add ons), and I really always enjoyed lvls 1-6 the most, and those are really nice in 5e (yeah especialy after 3 when you get spec).
Pathfinder is for Rule Lawyers that prioritize the rules (that were meant to be a guideline) instead of the whole point of the game which is to have fun and immerse yourself in a make-believe world.
Your comment about PF being easier than 5e... I found the same thing with Savage Worlds. I ran 5e for almost 3 years, and never felt like I had a complete grasp of the system. I've run Deadlands (Savage Worlds) for a few months, and I already feel like I have full grasp of it. Running it, making encounters, prepping, everything is so much easier in SWADE than in 5e... I think some of the ease your seeing is PF, and some of it is just how disorganized and badly written/designed 5e actually is.
For me Golarian is built from the ground up as a setting for TTRPGs with ancillary stuff to boot, much like greyhawk except for ttrpgs only instead of it and wargames. Whereas Forgotten Realms is the result of a fantasy author's worldbuilding that is also used as a setting for ttrpgs much like dragonlance.
I (DM) just began playinh 5e with friends and we all think it's hard to really look into the world of forgotten realms. In pathfinder you look up i.e. Cheliax etc. and already know a lot more important stuff for your character's background. There is about nothing to find in the players handbook or DM Guide, most is "there you go, build your own world", but what about Toril?
I believe that no ttrpg system is complete for a person or group, until relevant homebrew and houserules have been created by the person/ group. To make decent homebrew and houserules however takes strong understanding of the system, which takes time to build. It is why I will forever remain a 5E main, because I've added to, removed from, and changed the system to suit how I like to play, by "fixing" the parts I dislike. To direct my comment more to PF2. I like playing spellcasters/ casting capable characters a lot, and while I like all the avenues of what we expect from casters in fantasy, I have found the only viable way to play the wizard I use in the game I am a player in is to use buffing spells on my party. Buffing is fine and a clearly a good tactical use of my spells, but it does mean most of my turns simply amount to 1. Buff ally. 2. End turn. It can be pretty boring when that's all you do, and sometimes just feels like you skipped your turn. I was able to summon a ladder once to bypass a problem, and it was the highlight of the session for me as I was able to feel useful. In PF2 I've only got one midway game as a player as my system experience though, so my complaints could easily be game/gm/luck based. I'd love to try out some other classes, but as a backline character I'm also the only player of my 5 person party that has had their first character survive all game (lv1 - lv9).
Having played 3.5 until Pathfinder 1 came out, I switched to PF1 and never looked back until recently. A friend of mine suggested 5e, so I bought the books and have played it and the differences are mind-blowing. The comments that 5e character creation is "easier" is the ultimate understatement compared to PF (1 OR 2). Prices of items (magic items in particular) are RIDICULOUSLY different between the two systems - a +1 weapon in 5e costs 1,000gp. A +1 weapon in PF 1 STARTS at 2,300 and goes up from there - so the treasure systems are vastly different as a result. 1,000gp in 5e seems like a haul unless you've played PF1 or 2 and are asking, "is that all?" The knowledge that 5e really "only works between 3rd and 12th level" for calculations is incredibly damning, but (as a GM), I used to run into massive challenges trying to balance fights beyond 10th level, so I get that as well. If your party doesn't have the right equipment or spells for a flying battle, for example, they're BONED before the fight starts, so you have to take a lot more into consideration when it comes to PF encounter designs - but as you mentioned, said encounter designs DO work from 1st through 20th. Yes, Advantage/Disadvantage is easier BUT, I remember a fight against a creature in PF1 that FORCED you to have Disadvantage (in a system that doesn't have it) and fighting with Disadvantage makes the game a (literal) crapshoot - you have to hope BOTH dice hit, or you just wasted your turn... Overall, this is a brilliant evaluation. I haven't played PF2 because I didn't want to waste all the money I'd invested into PF1, but your commentary makes me wonder - now that I've looked at 5e (and find it terribly lacking), I'm hoping PF2 will meet that need for the "crunchy bits" and pre-set RULES that you can point to (that make life SO much easier as a DM) and yet find an easier (somewhat less mental gymnastics) system than PF1.
Oh, and you simply cannot do some of the things my players and I have done in Pathfinder. One of the best characters I ever had the pleasure to run was a Paladin/Arcanist - and you simply don't see something like that in 5e. PF is amazing for bizarre class combinations and, with the right players, such odd setups can become the basis for an amazing playthrough.
My group played a whole campaign in PF2e for the last few months, but now we have switched back to 5e. There isn't anything wrong with PF2e, I don't think any of us disliked it. It was just a lot of little things that kind of made us prefer 5e. It's hard for me to put some of these into words, and a some of this might even just be ignorance on our part since it was new to all of us, including the DM. One thing that is always talked about is the sheer number of feats and the level of character customization for PF2e. Sure, the class feats are always super interesting and I enjoyed getting to choose those. But all the rest of them were always so situational so minor, seemingly useless, or something I felt like would just ever come up. I had several levels where I couldn't find a single skill feat that seemed useful or fun. Another thing I personally didn't like the feel of, and this could just be a me problem, was leveling up in PF2e always felt like leveling up in a video game that always scales the enemies up with you. So your stats going up should usually make you feel more powerful, but all the enemies scale up with you so it seemed almost pointless. I stopped getting excited about more AC real quick when I saw how much the enemies to hit bonus shot up. I never felt like my spells would ever land from how high enemy saving throws kept getting. And lastly, this is just a personal thing, I love the fantasy of the swords bard in 5e. And you just can't play that character in PF2e. The warrior muse for Bard is terrible and I couldn't find an architype that was good enough to let PF Bard feel as good in combat as Swords bard is in 5e. I'm a big big fan of gish characters and PF2e keeps them all feeling pretty weak, probably for balance I'm sure.
id reccomend you to the swashbuckler in pf2e if you wanted to play the swords bard, more specifically the wit with one for all feat where you buff your allies and yourself at the same time, also yea i mean compared to subclasses the skill feats etc you get are pretty minor but i mean what is the equivalent in dnd?
"Leveling up in PF2e makes it seem like you're in a video game..." The idea of levels is pretty simple... the higher level _you are_ the more powerful monsters you are able to defeat. A hero who is able to slay adult/ancient dragons... shouldn't be concerned about a bunch of smelly goblins. That's the original fantasy of D&D. "Bounded Accuracy" has removed that fantasy. A level 10 Party is able to defeat a CR 15 Boss, while also being threatened by a few CR 5 Trolls. The only thing differentiating low level monsters from high level monsters is ... Health and Damage. To make a pf2e character feel powerful, all it takes is for a level 5 party go off and deal with a bunch of level -1, 0, and 1 monsters... you'll be landing critical hits frequently and they will be getting critical failures on saving throws consistently... but the party would get 10 to 20 exp from such a fight and the loot wouldn't be more than pocket change... As for skill feats... there are a lot... but most aren't powerful due to the way Paizo has balanced feats... feats that are most useful for combat are class feats. After that would be feats which interact with skills which have actions that are used in combat (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidation, Stealth)... So, think skill feats more for their flavour instead of what's empowering your character in combat... or look at what they can do for Exploration/Down Time activities your character should be good at. The problem with saving throws is... spells are designed with the idea that you'll get an enemy fail less than 50% of the time, especially with enemies higher level than yourself (which at low levels is nearly all the time). At least Pathfinder 2e doesn't have Save or Suck mechanics of 5e, right? As for importing your Sword's Bard... some characters just can't be brought over. The mechanics aren't there. The closest you can probably get to a martially competent Bard would be Warrior Muse with Fighter Archetype (for the fighter feats). Or Eldritch Rogue (Bard)... that might be the better way to go, but at the cost of less spells. Again... Paizo's math is much tighter than 5e's (Casters can't be as good at combat as combat oriented characters)... as the Bard is a Caster character... you're stuck never being as good at combat as you want.
The only game systems I'm familiar with are Numenara and Pathfinder 1e. Based on this video, I'd probably say I'd rather play or run a P2e campaign than DnD 5e. (Also, for parents of younger kids, I have done a lot of research, and I hate to say it, but the MLP: Tails of Equestria system is like a very basic Pathfinder stripped down for young kids. Just take away the ponies and you have a viable gateway to TTRPGs for your kids.)
14:57 advantage/disadvantage is a binary choice. Again reducing design space for the DM and designer. Though I don’t like 3e solution either. The simple +1/-1 and four degrees of success seems to be the sweet spot.
I strongly dislike pathfinder 2 but I don’t like 5e either. I respect your insight though and you present it in a informative way but if I could offer some very very harsh criticism… Put the cats on screen more 😂😂
It is possible to throw low level creatures against high level parties and vice versa in P2e. On the Archives of Nethys when looking at a creature there should be an option that says proficiency without level, this will give you a level 0 version of the monster and you only need to add the level you want it to be to all the numbers in red. You can always use down time in PF2e to retrain certain bits of your character, skills, I think feats are included in this as well. Also learning spells during downtime is very helpful.
Dude I am so happy for pathfinder as a person who has been playing Dingeons and dragons since 3.0. and just switching over for the first time it is so much better for my personal taste. Playing the game, creating and balancing out encounters is so much better. I seen that I can actually concentrate on the story instead of the rules, and how things are. My opinion I’m not coming back to D&D. To me pathfinder is for those enjoying the actual world and story. It is fun and a lot better to know each class comes and has its things which make it better. No one will be a better skill monkey than a rogue. Each class has what they are good at. The game action mechanics are more rounded. Overall I’m happy with my switch and thank you for your videos have a lovely day
Usually I'm huge AD hater and immediately skip integrations But here you had an exceptionally good one, this how all ads should be - right about the topic and useful. Not like watching drag racing video and being fed with gold club ads. And good vid enjoyed watching, was considering what system to try out.
I love Pathfinder 2e as a relatively new DM. The free resources are the biggest winner for me. We mainly use archives of neythis for rules because it's all there and is so much easier to navigate than a book or PDF. And wanderers guide is an amazing character builder that also has some gm tools, like a campaign menu where you have real time access to your players sheets, and an encounter builder that calculates XP and difficulty for you.
Playing Pf2e in person is way harder (got a Initiative tracker to handle Pathfinder). Do online Pf2e is easier than 5e due to system not require module to function unlike 5e. So happy for my In-person group for playing Pf2e while we waited for Shattered Obelisk and seem some is excited for The Season of Ghost AP :) BTW Luke how is the Battle Zoo too your right?
to be fair, most of the pathfinder players out there don't seem to think that building to 20 before you start is a good idea with the amount of retraining you can do, and with most of the choices being relegated more to playstyle than power, i've always found it much easier to choose abilities as i level up, and i find that i would deviate a lot from a 1-20 build i pre-made in advance it does still mean you have to choose thing at level up, but i mean. to me, it's better phrased as "you get to choose things when you level up" i guess it's a matter of taste
I think a big reason multiclassing feels so strong in 5e is not only because classes/subclasses are frontloaded, but also because the majority of their adventures take place in the levels where multiclassing is at its best. If there were more high-level modules where subclass capstones start coming into play you'd see less multiclassing. But with the way that most subclass progression is good feature -> ribbon feature -> good feature -> capstone there's almost no incentive to stick with it even to get the second good feature because you can get more sooner just from dipping into another class, because by the time you get to the good features again the module is almost over and you won't have much time to play with it. I'm in this situation right now in Rime of Frostmaiden which we've been told ends around level 12, max 13 if we hit every milestone. We're level 9 and I've got 5 Hexblade/4 Gloomstalker and I'm at a point where I basically have everything I need. I could keep going in Warlock and eventually max my primary stat, but that wouldn't be until near end-game and there isn't much I get inbetween. Whereas I could dip in Cleric and immediately get their 1st level features as well as unlock a bunch more spell slots and utility cantrips, then maybe dip in Fighter or Rogue. If I knew the campaign was going all the way to 20 I would make very different decisions. Basically (understandably) the closer you get to end-game, the more short-term your decisions become. If there were more modules that played in the late game, such as starting at 13 ending at 20, I think we'd see a lot more single-class builds or at least builds that are mostly one class since not every class capstone is a banger.
Interesing point, but I actually think that Bounded accuracy is what make DnD worse then PF2, as it blur away difference between levels. The big source of PF2 balance that is how level increase your accuracy and damage and PF2 crit system nail it even more. What it does is that at DnD main problem with balance is action economy as 100 rats will crush level 5 party same way as party crush single boss. But with AC/attack scaling number of fighters become less decided point compare to quality of combatant. BTW "adventage disadventage" is not so simple because you could have also: • Elfish accuracy feat • Bless or Bane +- 1d4 • Feat bonus -5/+10 • Magic weapon cast etc And remember, there is no disadvantage for shooting long distance if you do this from cloud of darkness! Yes, if you not see enemy there easier to hit them. DnD simplification is big big pain.
Very informative as someone who bought a bunch of PF stuff out of curiosity and because it was for a Humble Bundle charity thing. My two biggest issues are that there's no true online way to run PF that I'm aware of, and most of my games are online. The other issue is, having to learn an entire system (and any online tools i may be wrong about), then teach it to my players who already like 5E. And no, the TTRPG version of "git gud" is not an answer here. I'm an adult with a job and a life. Learning this from scratch enough to teach it is hard. And the only online tools i know of for it are VTTs that cost money to use the features of for it. Anyway, thanks for laying out the things people usually like about it, so I at least understand a little. Just hearing "5E that you enjoy sucks and you shouldn't like it" gets old fast.
I enjoyed D&D 5E until I started playing PF2. It's easier to GM and Easier to play once you wrap your head around the differences. Also, it feels good at every level of play. They had the benefit of coming out after 5E and avoided the pitfalls that 5E fell into.
Three action economy is huge for me. I truthfully haven't played tabletop Pathfinder yet, but I was playing Baldur's Gate 3 recently after having played Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous and despite it being a great game, coming back to that clunky Action, Bonus Action, Movement, Cantrip, Spell slot, etc. style of action management just felt super counterintuitive.
To me, PF2 fixes a lot of 5e's issues... by adding more rules. Usually this comes in the form of gutting a poorly realized section of 5e and replacing it with something built on the foundations of older RPGs. But the clarity comes with overhead. I play and teach a lot of new players/children. That doesn't mean I use 5e. 5e is super narrowing, and the stuff it uniquely does well isn't enough to gloss over this weird "approachable rules but we have a lot of rules for corner cases to bog you down." It has so many rules that seem contradictory to the classes they apply to, balance is all over the place, and for how much easier it is supposed to be, there's always a "But what about X rule?" I use Open Legend, simplified for the younger crowds. It is very much DM fiat, but there's no class restrictions, no skill lists to pore over, no coin counting. It cuts out so much of the game time that's not actually role-playing. And exploding dice are fun. Bounded accuracy be damned, that level 2 character just rolled a 57 to shoot chain lightning at those overgrown bugs.
I also play and teach children and the idea of Pathfinder is a nightmare to me. I just can't get into it and 5e is hard enough to introduce. What is this Open Legend?
I haven’t played pathfinder 2. It sounds like fun but I don’t think I could get my group to play it. My current plan is to run my 5e campaign then afterwards do two to three one shots of a few different ttrpgs then back to 5e
The paizo adventure paths have always been 10 steps ahead of any other system ive played. Quest for the Frozen Flame is quickly becoming my favourite adventure to date.
LAIR MAGAZINE www.patreon.com/thedmlair
5e and PF2 FOUNDRY VTT MODULES thedmlair.com/collections/foundry-vtt-modules
LAIRS & LEGENDS and LOOT & LORE | thedmlair.com/collections/lairs-legends
My favorite thing about PF2 is not having to worry about the Pnkerton Group breaking down my door and steeling my home-brew. Also, I hear they hate cats.
Even I that I'm allergic to cat don't hate them, shame on WotC!
Came here to say this.
It can't be said too much. @@oxylepy2
You mean I wont have a chance of a hired mafia group coming to kill me for playing with cardboard with my friends? Dude im in.
Huh I don't worry about that with either game
For me, the difference is this: Wotc wants you to give them money. Paizo wants you to play the game.
Yep! Been running PF2e since January of 2020, started playing it when the core rulebook dropped and that's one thing that's kept me around. With Archives of Nethys, you don't have to spend a penny on the game. My buddy who also runs PF2e, he hasn't ever bought anything to run the game. I do buy books and PDFs because I wanna support them, but it's not necessary
I mean… I’m all for the Paizo love (they’re passionate genuine dudes from what I’ve seen) but they very much want your money too. They just don’t have a massive corporate structure behind them pushing for ALL the money imo
@@DOOMsword7I mean yeah they definitely aren’t a charity.
But… they really do operate very differently to WotC. Having all of the rules & stats from rulebooks available for free is just something that WotC would never ever do. It’s *better* to play with the material, but it’s absolutely not necessary because of this!
@@mduckernz I mean WotC has the SRD and the Basic Rules. You absolutely have everything you need to run the game without the PHB too.
But I think I get your meaning. Even with Paizo kicking the pants off of WotC during the 4e days, they have never seemed to have gotten too big for their britches. They seem to hold themselves as impassioned hobbyists. Which, in the big scheme of things (compared to Warhammer and Magic maybe) they very much still are.
Not to defend WotC, but a lot of their greediness is due to being owned by Hasbro now, and we all know how large corporations love money.
I’d assume the reason WotC didn’t provide their “secret sauce” is because they don’t have any. Everyone there is just taking turns throwing in spices until something vaguely palatable comes out. Otherwise, we’d be able to rely on their difficulty system.
This is truth that has overtaken much of the entertainment industry (gaming, video-gaming, shows, movies).
You aren't getting a masterpiece from a few experts who poured love, blood, sweat, and tears into the work.
You are getting an unsavory soup that a bunch of mid-skilled (or amateur) enthusiasts "collaborated" on.
'Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel' was one such atrocity.
With 'Vecna: Eve of Ruin', this trend appears to have taken root at WOTC.
One thing I will point out is that the CR system in 3.5e explicitly mentions that it isn't a perfectly accurate gauge, though at least 3.5e gave some solid advice and broke down how different monsters are created to give the DM a better gauge of how to apply the math of the game.
Just turn your Kobolds into a swarm! Now you have a lot of low level monsters attacking as one higher level monster :D
Bonus points if you give your Kobolds trenchcoats so they can attack in swarms of 3.
Literally just make them troop
The Brazilian RPG I’m playing is releasing their monster manual and in it the rules to play as a kobold, but you’re not one kobold instead you are a group of them, include rules how the group can wear an armor (or a trench-coat)
@@pedrosmurf Pode me dizer do que você tá falando?
@@Alkis05 No “Ameaças de Arton” para Tormenta20
@@Mirekluk Yeah! Troop rules are interesting and I've only learned of them myself recently.
Something nuance I want to add is just how good Paizo adventures are written compared to recent WotC adventures. Most 5E adventure feel only half finished to me with the intention of, "Just make up the rest as you go." A lot of the encounters are weak and filler. The treasure is lackluster. They just feel like a ton of work! For Paizo's PF2 adventures I need minimum prep time because I can trust that I can nearly run it cold with how good the flow and pacing. I don't need to modify everything to fit the party, they are just great adventures as written for everybody.
PF1e adventures are written even better because they give EXP for stuff that's not combat. But also PF1e is a horrifying system in a lot of other ways because you can straight up break encounter scripting with a lot of stuff.
@@FlameUser64 pf2 also give non-combat xp. In the Adventure Path I'm running, the players went from level 5 to 6 purely though rp, skill challenges, and activities with a group they were gaining influence with, so that definitely something that carried over from 1e.
@@sjwarhammer4039 Oh fair. I just know that older PF2e APs have a reputation for being overly preoccupied with "real" xp and being overly combat-dense as a result of trying to stuff all that combat into 6 books.
@@FlameUser64 the AP I was referencing was Age of Ashes lol. But you're right and I can't deny the campaign has had a good bit of combat. I just like that they do break that up with other types of challenges and that when they do that, you don't stop progressing your character.
The fact that i actually care about companion can remember there name and our quest/job is a major plus for me because whenever im in a dnd campaign i can't remember any of that because i don't care at all there is barely a reason why we should intervene and maybe this is a gm thing but i just don't like 5e's campaigns at all.
Re: #3 for D&D - Pathfinder has retraining baked into the rules as written. If you miss a feat you wanted because you forgot to take a prereq, you can fix that during 'downtime'.
And because of that, it's not that uncommon for GMs to just... let you do it between sessions.
.... That last part sounds unimmersive af but to each their own
@@caseylane9162Why would it be unimmersive to train a new skill in combat but then forget another, but over time instead of never?
In 5e Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins Rangers etc. also can retrain some spells, however only at level ups which limits that. In PF2, that kind of thing is baked into the rules as taking a few weeks effort to retrain and widened to different skills.
Indeed, it does sounds unimmersive. In D&D, a PC can take a quest or be rewarded for working for someone. The reward it is the said feat. So instead if replacing in D&D, you can stack up things. Sometimes you are playing a character that doesn't require much. Monks, Barbarians, or a character that has no materialist needs. How do you reward that player when everyone Is getting gold and magic items? Giving them Feats, some want power instead of wealth and fame. This rule is great fort hat purpose and without the need to sacrifice something you already have. @@caseylane9162
@@Max_G4 warlocks also swap spells entirely. This guy is just being salty
@@caseylane9162 Interesting. I find the inability to retrain unimmersive because any regular joe in real life can learn new skills at any time in life. The only thing I find unimmersive about retraining is that you lose your old skills, but there is no problem learning new things.
You said what I've been saying about both systems since my group stopped playing 5th ed due to the OGL debacle. 5th ed is more difficult to GM, and Pathfinder 2e is more difficult for the player. My group initially gave a lot of pushback when I switched to Pathfinder 2e. It's been about 8 months now and they stuck with it and are having much more fun as they become more familiar with the rules.
In my experience the only people that have any difficulty learning PF2 have been 5e players. People completely new to the hobby learn it pretty quick. Ive had people just buy a book for an adventure, barely know the rules; and by the end of the adventure are good with the basics and their class and come back ready to go without needing any more help.
PF2e offers solutions to some of the problems you mentioned:
Bounded accuracy: There is a rule called "Proficiency wihtout level" in pf2e that subtracts level to all stats in the game. With this rule AC, for example, scales from ~14 to ~28 instead of from 14 to 54, giving you a greater breadth of encounters .
Building characters: Pf2e has a mechanic called "Retraining" where you spend some downtime switching one of you class/skill/general feats for another they even allow you to switch learned spells and class features (although they mention it should take longer and maybe have some narritive implications).
Adventuring day: While adventuring day is a thing in 5e and pathfinder 1e and not in pathfinder 2e I'd argue that adventuring day is most of the times a flawed metric. 5 medium encounters followed by an hard encounter is much different than 1 hard encounter followed by 5 medium. And all of this depends on the type of party of you have 5 martials can probably do more encounters than 5 wizards.
As such pf2e opted for describring relative difficulty by saying for example that if you throw a sever encounter at your party " lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters" and moderate encounters are described as being used to deplete resources so you should be mindfull of throwing sever encounters after multiple moderate encounters or your party will probably tpk. I think most of the times gms want a number to make them feel confortable even if the number is meaningless.
Everything else I felt was well put, Great video 👍.
Also worth noting for character building in PF2e - it's to mess it up. Sure, maybe you won't be 100% optimal if you skip a particular feat, but to truly screw it up, you kind of have to be incredibly intentional about it. This is because the baseline features of each class are the most important, and you cannot miss them, and those features scale up. As long as you don't tank your class's primary stat, you're good.
@@yamazaki752ironically “I wanna play a wizard who dumps int” is a weirdly common trope for D&D 5e and I hate it so much lol
@@wanderdragon1075,
Is Int actually _good_ in 5e?
@@aralornwolf3140 nope, it's a common dump stat most of the time
pretty much useless to any class that doesnt rely on it directly (wizard, artificer)@@aralornwolf3140
You might want to check out the Proficiency Without Level variant rule if you miss bounded accuracy, it keeps DCs contained between 15 and 30
I like how Archives of Nethys has a Proficiency Without Level link on every creature stat block
A variant that keeps the encounter balance critical math intact is simply subtract player level from both sides. This essentially exposes the level difference is what makes the encounter balance work by making it a difference buff or penalty small number easy for gm to do on fly. This presents as leveless to the player but performs as leveled . This fixes the big modifiers complaint while keeping balance.
How well the game works with it? I'm a bit unsure about using an optional rule that completely changes essentially all numbers in the game. Many times people recommend that to me but the people that do don't actually use the rule, so it's hard to tell if it works well.
@@ChaoticTabrispurely speculation.but I’d guess going for extremes in those situations would cause issues but otherwise it would be fine. (Fights with large number of creatures, one really big boss,etc.). You can also easily change monsters between levels so I just do that.
@@ChaoticTabris I've used it, I wouldn't recommend prof without level in an adventure path, since it will make the hard fights trivial, but for homebrew run games it's very freeing, and imo is better done than 5e's (mostly because the rest of the math is solid).
Another big plus is that there is a steady flow of new content for PF2e.
Especially if you're into modules (Adventure Paths) and/or Society play
Same with 5e?
@@caseylane9162 Is that so?
pathfinder2e gives you with each book release new monsters, lore, items, spells, new sort of variant rule, archetypes AND classes. Not even counting the dedicated Lost omen books which are purely for lore, but still give items, archetypes, spells.
I only played 5e till 2020 and Tesha added a lot more (finally a new class), but any PF2e supplement book I felt like added more, unless I am wrong.
My point was that PF2e just has way more content
@@coolboy9979 your original comment was about steady flow of content, not the amount of it? And even if it was abt the ammount- yes it is so. Each 5e module adds new monsters, backgrounds, feats, spells, items, and most likely races.
And thats just modules- sourcebooks, which have been dropping very steadily since the start of 5e, are in a league of their own with the amount of shit in them.
@@caseylane9162 idk how you can compare the two at all. paizo releases monthly adventures in addition to core /setting/player options books. wotc releases what like 2 adventures and 2 setting books a quarter or something?
18:18 Honestly D&D5 is *so* easy to play, that i'm geting *bored* of it; and *so* hard to GM that I nearly *rage-quit* several times.
What are you having trouble with in GMing?
@@k.g.7591 if i had to guess, it's that they left a lot up to DM fiat, which is more permissive of players who want to argue against his ruling, since it's not written in stone [or official paper] anywhere.
Exactly what I was feeling playing and running 5e! As a player things out of combat felt way too easy to do and combat felt like filling out a solved by my second year playing. Meanwhile GMing felt like an absolute nightmare because the DMG felt like it cared more about the lore of the planes and home-brew advice rather than actually guiding me on my way to run a session.
Meanwhile ive done combat twice in P2e and it felt incredibly engaging both times with out of combat play feeling great as well thanks to skill abilities. While I have yet to try and run P2, I have skimmed the DM's section and the fact that the games economy seems to be well thought out with plenty of charts to help you give out rewards fills me with a want to try and run some old campaign concepts from my 5e days in it.
That's sad.
Here, take a hug
Pathfinder 1.0 or 2.0, is WAY better.
A missed positive is that there's clear, official pricing on magic items and clear guidance on loot progression. And okayish rules for homebrewing items. Including neato relic items.
Loot and loot progression is a vital part of this kind of game and 5e kinda expects you to figure it out on your own and only gives you broad pricing suggestions that aren't fine tuned. The 5e revision is allegedly going to change this though.
I guess the question is, how do you handle low magic campaigns?
@@ODDnanref Use the Automatic Bonus Progression variant rule found in the Gamemastery Guide.
@@xczechr
From what get, that essentially transfers the bonus to the players instead of having it be in the weapons? But keeps the armor bonuses. So it is like a low magic setting, except for armor.
From cursory reading, I guess it does help with the low magic fantasy setting by nerfing casters when they were balanced against martials before.
@@ODDnanref armor bonuses are included in the automatic progression.
Personally I don't find that a official loot progression table something I need or want. If the players miss some of the loot in the adventure they shouldn't be entitled to have it.
PF2e character levelling is generally _easier_ than 5e. Because you can, per the rules, take the new features out for a test drive. 5e does not allow retraining (I think there may be some "ask your GM" bit in there, but effectively, no). Pathfinder has a robust retraining system. If you, at level 7, realize you need something you passed over at level 4, you can spend a bit of downtime to swap that level 4 feature, and then take the level 7 feature you actually want. The only time this fails is if you are on an adventure chain without any downtime.
I do not know what is the problem with asking the GM. Any group that treat rules are sacred and unbreakable did not understood the concept of an RPG.
@@tiagodagostini No problem with asking the GM, but leaving it to the GM means you can't rely on it when going table to table. Some GMs might say sure, retrain anything as long as the character could have been made level by level. Some GMs might make it cost gold or XP, some might say no. And any of that is just fine. It's _also_ fine for a pathfinder GM to say "no retraining in my game", but most won't bother. So as a player, you can do downtime retraining without requiring the GM to consider what's fair.
The biggest difference is if you are in organized play, the GM might not be able to let you retrain in 5e, but almost certainly will in pf2e.
Uh 5e do have explicitly stated it's fine to retrain and change something.
Granted, it's NOT in the core books but rather in Xanthar's Guide to Everything, a supplement book.
But then... lots of the essential features in PF2E aren't found in the core books either and you'll have to get them in so many different supplement books. Pros & Cons.
I'm heading into the end-phase of my 5e campaign that has run for about 18 months now. I have taken a couple breaks due to IRL issues, but I am just burned out from the lack of DM tools that 5e provides. Creating encounters, trying to manage giving them meaningful loot when gold is useless and you don't want to go crazy with magic items. I am ready for a long break after.
I have been looking into PF2 a lot lately, and everything about running the game as a DM sounds like a dream come true!! I am definitely going to give this system a shot when my turn in the DM rotation comes up again.
Speaking of leveling up, 5e has dead levels, where you make no choices about your character's progression. This is not true in P2, where every level you have a choice to make. This means characters of the same class and level in 5e are very much alike, and this is far less true in P2.
About your point regarding the Kobolds, while you can't throw them at high level players as is, they do give you the tools to make your own beefy versions relatively easily,like homebrew elite kobolds,kobold subraces or something similar as you mentioned about using the GMG to homebrew,thus scaling them up
also an awesome idea to do for a kobold lair is for the main threat to be a beefy complex trap and the kobolds to just be there as a kind of incentive for the players to not just outwait the trap/traps
Troops for the big Kobold battles turns 16 into 1 unit.
Also, Tucker's Kobolds.
@@anonimcz5381I mean you can have the kobolds only there to interact with traps high enough lvl to threaten PCs. The encounter then turns from : kobolds are easy to kill and can't touch us
To: we must find a way to either disable the traps, or to get to the kobolds and prevent trap activations
I do like the fact that easy monsters become trivial. Still bring them on as a master, just to make players feel good from time to time. When my high level players were assaulted by level 1 bandits on the road, everybody had a great time.
PF2 has pricing for magic items!!!
One other note with enemy variety, there's a template iirc for scaling up or down levels (beyond weak/elite)
Also there's encounter builders that you just plug in the party's and enemy lvls until its the difficulty you want.
Definitely agree on the d&d playerbase size being an advantage
For me 5e has just enough rules to hang you without giving the dm proper support. If I want an easier game to intoduce people to the hobby I'm busing out a powered by the apoclypse game or Savage worlds. I've always found the lack of options in 5e to be a huge turnoff, even if it is technically easier. In Pathfinder, whether 1e or 2e, there is always a meaningful choice that you will be making for your character and that makes leveling exciting.
meaningful ? I would dispute that.
I started a homebrew campaign of pathfinder recently. I love playing as an investigator. Intelligence is actually useful in this game and I can play a character who search information about ennemies and play smart. Also I'm a skill monkey with 6 languages.
I also played a fighter in a oneshot before that. The fighter in pathfinder is so strong and fun to play.
It always feels weird to me when people put forward Bounded Accuracy and its implications as a positive. Maybe it's that my formative D&D style fiction was all very high fantasy, early Forgotten Realms and Dragonlance and such, but high level adventurers SHOULD find an encounter with kobolds to be trivial. Low level adventurers faced with a CR 18 demon SHOULD feel helpless and get obliterated if they try to fight. The fact that your level 2 fighter's attacks just bounce off a Great Wyrm Red Dragon's scales and nothing you can do will change that is a feature, not a bug.
100% this!!
Although imo bounded accuracy also accomplishes this? My experience is just very different I guess.
_but high level adventurers SHOULD find an encounter with kobolds to be trivial_
Back in the Chainmail/OD&D days high level characters used to cause _fear_ in 1HD creatures just as terrifying creatures like dragons and efreet did. That unit of Goblins simply would not charge Ginsu Gaaawblinrender the 10th level fighter, because they could look at the guy with the glowing sword and armour, and simply knew what would happen to their "I have a 20mm square base and no hero rock to stand on" selves.
the more I'm GMIng and playing PF2 the more I love how the fights are balanced. As example I could pull a lvl 1 T-Rex boss and it felt so, some PCs were Koed but none died, same later with a lvl3 green drake. So satisfying! :)
How does fighting looks like? I assume it's turn based which I find stale and not dynamic
@realdragon I find pathfinder more dynamic than 5e because every character has options in combat. In 5e the rogue just really attack move or stay, hide repeat. In pf2e every one has three actions so the rogue could move attack and then trip a foe cause status penalty of being prone or possible he could intimidate the causing them to have fear 1 which reduces their attack/ac by 1 which help the group face an enemy. All of these have rules to them and they have at least 20 other conditions which you don't need to know unless they come up In game. This isn't include the skill feat system.
Tldr I believe that 5e has dull and boring mechanics wise compared to pathfinder where the system has a lot more mechanics to the system granting the player to have different combat options in battle scenarios.
@@strwrbttlfrnt Yea I think PF2 combat is stale like one in DnD
@@realdragon to each their own?
This video was so thoughtful from top to bottom. You did such an excellent job of laying out both of the systems strengths while airing out some of their issues. I love 5E for getting me into the hobby, but as a chronically ill person who loves to GM PF2E is my system of choice. As you mentioned in near the end of the video, it's a system that is much easier to run, while being a bit more difficult for players. PF2E encounter building and magic loot with levels and costs let's me spend my energy on telling a compelling narrative rather than desperately trying to balance the game. :)
As for PF2E vs 5E for new players. I play with a good number of 50-70 year old players and I've found those older players have a much easier time grasping 3 actions than action/bonus/move. That's just my experience though, every group is different. ♡
Alle the campaigns i run in 5e finished. And i did the switch to PF2 for my in person group. The online group will switch after one of the players has run his few shot in 5e, but we did some combat test/learning rounds.
Starting PF2 was a bumpy road, even after reading the rules multiple times i had to look up a lot. But it's starting to get better quickly and the player feedback ist great, they like what PF2 offers so far.
For the in person round: I started with the beginner box, and switch to abomination vaults afterwards. My 5 players where level 2 at this point, the module starts at level 1 and is balanced for 4 players. Tanks to the XP encounter building it was so easy to alter the encounters for 5 level 2 players. Make monsters elite, add a monster,...
I struggle the most with the monsters, while in dnd most of the just do one thing every round like melee or ranged attacks, except for casters. In PF2 they have a lot more options, attacks with cool features or combo attacks. If i have one enemy type no problem, but if i have 3 different types of enemy's it's a lot to handle and i have to read there stat block again and again.
btw. I'm still a player in 2 5e groups. One level 10 one level 12...i'm not afraid of any encounter knowing how hard it is to challenge players in this system. That kills all excitement i have for combat.
Another thing that is really understated in my opinion is loot. Every players loves getting loot. The best part of defeating something like a dragon is going into the dragon horde and giving it the Scrooge McDuck treatment.
But what items do you put into that horde? The 5e DM guide has random tables, but I have not found them to be not that great. (Just my opinion mind you) In addition, there are several wondrous items in 5e that are, quite frankly, game breaking. What you would want a level 5 party to have and what you would want a level 15 party to have are very different. As an example, The ring of animal influence is the same rarity as wand of firewalls.
But in Pathfinder 2e, every item, from healing potions to poisons to magic scrools to magic items all have an item level. There is a singular cost per item, not a 500-2500 GP per item range or whatever that rarity calls for. And those items are very level appropriate, so you don't have a +2 sword that only grants a +2 to attack and damage being the same potential cost as a wand of power.
Plus with the archive of nethys you can sort by item level. So you want your level 5 party to get some magical loot. Just sort by item leel 4-6, and boom. Items hands to players, happy players, while also being ease of work on the GM. Win-Win.
I think that there are two missed benefits for each system here.
A benefit that you missed for PF2 is how baked in treasure and magic items are. You have pricing for magic items that make sense, and tables that show yuo how much exactly of each should PC's have in every step of their journey from levels 1 -20, without having to make up prices on the fly or relentlesly worry about giving too much\too little.
A benefit for 5e that's important to add is how easy it is to mod. The rules are often very vague and lacking, but since the core of the system (Advantage\Disadvantage, bounded accuracy, simple combat mechanics, etc..) its very easy to come up with your own verison of mechanics or tweek existing ones to suit your tatstes as a GM if you have the time. Meanwhile, PF2 has very fleshed out systems for most cases, but if you DO find something that's lacking and try to alter it, the amount of additional variables and chance of causing unforseen consequences is far higher. This extends to the creaiton of PC facing homebrew content or the inclusion of 3rd party content. In 5e, the number of options you need to take into account when trying to asses the balance of such content is limited, and so are the number of combinations. This is unlike PF2 where the massive customizbility can lead to otherwise innocuous additions creating unintended busted combos.
Actually due to how balanced it is breaking pf2e is much harder as long as you dont mess with the base maths. 5e is not balanced and just a insane jumble so this isnt a consideration in the first place but if you dont care about it, it can apply to pf2e the same way.
It's easy to avoid busted combos when homebrewing PF2: avoid untyped bonuses and favor actives over passives. Actives can't stack, and typed bonuses can't stack, so you're mostly good with those simple guidelines. Of course, you can always make OP stuff (a +10 status bonus to any check is going to be busted, it doesn't matter that it's typed), but for the most part you can balance the homebrew in a vacuum and be fine.
@@robinbernardinis Possibly. Admittedly my experience with PF2 is far less than with 5e (and far less positive at that), but to me the sheer amount of possible combos that exist and might interact with any new thing added seems extremly daunting.
It's definitely easy to come up with stuff for 5e, multiclassing makes it easy to break though. Monty from Dungeon Dudes considering just adding "cannot multiclass when using this" to homebrew he wanted to write.
@@F2t0ny Realistically i feel that it's mostly warlock dips that break things (those are at least the most notorious) as most other MC combos aren't that egregious, and are often even sub optimal.
As a PF2e content creator, it's always refreshing to see how some people who have clearly loved ttrpgs/5e perceive the system. I want to hear that feedback/opinion on the things I love so I can see what needs improving.
I play Savage World's Pathfinder. My group and I love it. Our only complaint is the lack of a comprehensive index and a few rules left a little vague but the actual play is amazing with a true cinematic feel leaving lots of room for role play without rules getting in the way.
I tend to run simpler systems like Castles and Crusades, but if I were to go high crunch I’d go with PF2E. Paizo is such a good company and their adventure paths are very well written. Unfortunately, none of the 2E APs have gotten me excited to play them like the 1E APs did. I hope they do some more conversions in the future. Rise of the Runelords or Crimson Throne 2E would be amazing.
They've converted Kingmaker to 2e. I'm saving up for that one.
19:10 the thing is pathfinder 2 doesn’t need a adventuring day chart (Minus spell-caster spell slots of which there are many and can get more with items). Healing is functionally trivial out of combat as long as at least one player it trained properly in medicine and they are not constantly being attacked.
I guess you COULD have some kind of chart saying hey have this many encounters planned for a day but the thing is because encounters are balanced so well to have different difficulty levels there could be 12 trivial difficulty encounters that don’t require the wizard to use a single spell slot or 2 extreme encounters which drain most of them. It’s more just a game master thing to get a feel for how many resources their players are using and balancing for the future to make sure you don’t go overboard.
At the same time, PLEASE don’t throw more than 2 extreme encounters at your players in a day unless your players are VERY well versed in the game and are trying to maximize their parties capabilities.
I like the idea of PF2 use of abilities/skills key words which seems like it can help players/gms know if they interact or not at a quick glance. I havent played PF2 yet thats why I say I like the idea and that it "seems like it can help".
Unpopular Opinion: Your #1 "good" thing about D&D 5e "Bounded Accuracy" is one of the things I don't like about D&D 5th edition-
In Pathfinder, I love throwing the occasional "kobold" at my higher level characters so they can see how far they've come (players: "haha, remember how much trouble these things gave us at level 1?"). And those things that are near impossible to hit or defeat I like because it gives the player's some humility on their own power/capabilities and realize the game world has a lot out there they aren't necessarily ready for. But like you mentioned, in Pathfinder there's more rewarding ways to participate in combat than just swing a sword in front of the baddie, able to use Disarm, Trip, Grapple, items and buffs and tactics to level the playing field.
Am I saying Pathfinder is Perfect? Not at all - but I appreciate the "crunchiness" of it - and sure, more rules and people claim "Mathfinder" makes combat slower - but in the groups I've been in, my players all know the rules well, and so it's actually much quicker than 5e when combat halts due to those discussions on rule calls and vague information in D&D so-called "rule books" that lack clear rules.
I do love D&D still, in a nostalgic way, AD&D and D&D 3/3.5 was what I played and ran for over a decade, and will always be my gateway game into TTRPGs... but many players I've met and ran games for over the years that got introduced to TTRPGs by way of D&D 5e - they grew unsatisfied by the cap of creation, the feeling there was a better way to do this, and inevitably "level up" and move away from D&D.
take this as someone who has played over 100 sessions of 5e
and who is nearly 30 sessions in a pf2e campaign ...
pros of 5e over pf2e:
1) bounded accuracy
not much more to be said
I would only add that bounded accuracy allows players to better flex their character builds to stay ahead of the curve
where as in pf2e, you are pretty constrained in terms of power creeping with every level gained
sure you get "stronger", but so does everything else
but if I can get a +8 to rolls at character levels 3-5 and up to +10 at levels 7-10, then my roll performance will stay well within a comfortable margin to get success in the 5e system
I really only have to worry about getting a under 6 roll to fail in a trivial matter and yet maybe still succeed with a roll of 8 in say a standard encounter
and for combat purposes, being at +7 or +8 to hit up to level 10 will give a player a high rate of success for CR mobs of that 1-10 range
this is not so in a pf2e game where many types of rolls have to hit 18+ DC values as low as level 2
and this isn't even accounting for the MAP, which reduces turn performance even further
2) advantage / disadvantage
this is less about making the "math" simpler, and more about giving players more direct influence in actions / reactions being taken
because in the pf2e system, nearly every roll made is a single uncontested roll
and THAT changes the entire dynamic of turn based encounters
sometimes you can't even force an opposing roll at all as you are rolling to hit a target DC of 10 +mob level +proficiency level +save value
however with advantage, the player can better influence the odds of them succeeding on a specific action because you aren't relying on a single roll with marginal factors
and/or trying to force an opponent to fail theirs via disadvantage with enemy mobs instead sitting pretty with their higher than average target DC
because rolling more d20s is gonna give you more favorable results long term than the 1s 2s that pf2e is designed around
so what paizo did to "balance" combat in pf2e was say "F it" and removed swing ratios from said equation
and players were thrown a bone with a bunch of +1s and +2s that will take levels to build up on and only 1 reliable way to pull off a negative factor against an opponent
which can be applied vice versa against the player side and at better statistical odds ... because "balance"
that is one of the biggest miffs I have with pf2e is that it severely limits us on roll interaction
not to mention the f-ing blind rolls, but won't get into that here
3) character creation being easy
I have the exact opposite viewpoint in this comparison of 5e characters to pf2e
5e may seem basic but you get more effective versatility in character builds than in their pf2e counterparts
and I think this is one of the core differences in the two systems
I would describe 5e as a unpolished gem whereas pf2e is more of a finished cut in a set arrangement
I would also contend in saying the homebrewing is actually easier in 5e than in pf2e
because 5e is more of a "sandbox" and pf2e has a more restrictive ruleset in what you can and cannot do
and in this more open environment, 5e players are able to break from the proverbial mold alot more efficiently
granted, a pf2e character ends up with more "feats" and there is way more skills and actions to choose from
however the 5e character will still have more "optimal" feats, skills, and actions in a side-by-side comparison
what happens as an end result is that you as a 5e player "feel" stronger
you're confident when you are rolling that d20
if pf2e - on every single roll made - it feels like it is a veritable coin flip because you know the target DC is gonna need atleast a 10 on the die, if not a 13-15 minimum
AND that feeling remains throughout the course of a campaign
however the aggravating thing is the mobs in pf2e that are of your encounter level have way higher mods and sometimes skills that ignore MAP
thus you get into games where an entire party can roll and "miss" every action they make in a single round, yet the enemy mob "crits" on their 3 actions taken
4) massive player base
I wouldn't necessarily call this a plus but I find that pf2e is a very friendly game to newcomers
as someone who only ever played 5e prior, I had no problem at all learning this system
the only thing I found taxing was being limited to the 3-action economy and having to keep MAP in mind turn-to-turn
5) adventuring day mechanic
and again, I have the exact opposite opinion on this
I find pf2e has a way easier adventure day compared to 5e
it is mostly because spellcasting is nerfed in the general with some of it re-tooled into the focus system that it makes recovering post-fight a much quicker process
in 5e, one would need atleast an uninterrupted hour to even get a short rest
but in pf2e, it's just 10 mins and keeping a tab on medicine check timers
also pf2e has a way better "adventuring" system delegated to tasks characters can take on when entering a map
aka the exploration mode where a list of activities can be selected and attempted to be done
in 5e, players are pretty much just winging it and sticking to what their best skill roles are
I am really trying to learn the rules for PF2E. The one thing what I enjoy is if you roll 10 below or above it is a crit or success. But, one thing I didn't think about is unbound AC level scaling. That is a good tip
In online discussions I've had there are DMs who love the fact 5E lack rules on things. They want to make rulings as they see fit. They don't want the game to tell them what to do. If as a player you (me) complain this means lack of consistency on how the game works based on who is DM that day, they say too bad for you, get over it and play something else if it bothers you so much.
To be entirely clear yes, there are people who prize the ad hoc nature of 5th edition, and there's nothing wrong with that. We have rules-lights for a reason. What you described is a shame and *could* be a certified RPG Horror Story depending on how the DM handled it, but I'd chalk it as having different priorities. Personally as a GM I don't like to make any more judgement calls than strictly necessary and I want my players to be inherently mechanically incentivised to do interesting things which leads me to prefer PF2. Some GMs might have different priorities, like Brennan Lee Mulligan who (for actual plays at least) mostly just wants a good enough combat simulator to supplement *his* game.
And to be clear I'm not what you'd call a 5e defender. I hate that system, even if I think it has redeeming qualities unlike most. It definitely allows for a more improvisational and loose style of play that some players (or DMs) covet. The problem is that it's by no means designed around it, and I do firmly believe that its cheese cloth of a rules foundation is a horrible flaw of the system with the unintended side effect that a certain demographic find its "rules medium" nature appealing. PF2 fixes it, but I think a system that doubles down could work just as well (though since that's not what I want I wouldn't know if there's good examples).
Still, the moral of the story is that "go play something (or with someone) else" is an entirely valid response if you're not going with the table's flow. I know I'd tell someone who tells me they want more "rule of cool" to go find a different table that can provide it.
The reasoning of certain monsters being too powerful in Pathfinder is mended by being able to make that monster at lower levels.
If anyone would rather go in the other direction in terms of complexity, I'd reccomend giving Fate Core or Dungeon World a try. They can do a lot with just a little, is how I'll put it.
How do you customize characters in Dungeon World? You narrate how they become the way you wanted to be.
No need for a rule stating that you can do so.
Ive played both D&D and pathfinder quite a bit. I DM'd 3.5, 5e, pf1e, and pf2e. D&D 5e (TO ME!!!) feels like a non-game. its too rules light and my bigger issue is that combat feels stale mainly because of the attack of opportunity. Pf2e has become my favorite game system. Character creation is satisfying, combat is deep and enjoyable, and rules are in depth and takes the pressure off the DM to make the game.
4th edition...it has it all! Math, encounter creation, treasure, character customization/options, near-infinite resource support....try it, love it, share it!
Hot take
Here he is officer, thats the guy.
D&D 5e is my system of choice. I haven't tries Pathfinder 2, but there are some good ideas in it, like the way you "multiclass" (or not) and the the better Game balance I high levels, but I don't feel any need for crunchier rules or more tactical combat. If I wasn't playing in game and someone asked me to me in their Pathfinder 2 game I would probably accept, but it would be something that I would seek out or start myself.
13:05 there are rules for the dm to use that can “level up” creatures to make them more appropriate for different PC levels keeping them relevant if they are too low or too high
I do want to add one more advantage to PF2e over 5e. Support. Paizo creators are active on all of their blogs, Discord and elsewhere online. You can chat with creators almost anywhere. WOTC is silent. Add to this a far superior Organized Play community and far greater Convention presence and you gain more access to players and creators both at Paizo and worldwide. WOTC doesn't attend Conventions outside Washington and their Adventure league is horribly supported. For ne and experienced players, support is a major bonus.
A secondary bonus for Pathfinder: Fluff. With hundreds of books and adventures, all with interconnected fluff and history, this brings the core setting to life. On the other hand, most fluff from 5e seems horribly rushed. (I'm a long time fan of Spelljammer, starting back with the original, the 5e books are weak and hastily written. On the other hand, every part of Golarian (and soon The full Starfinder setting) are well thought out. In 2025, I plan to rebuild my old Spelljammer campaign, but it will be a Pathfinder/Starfinder based game
Just a few thoughts.
Appreciate this not just being pure praise for one and dunking on the other. Being fair to both systems gives everyone an opportunity to weigh what each individual prefers.
Like I've been wanting to run a Pathfinder campaign, but can't find any local players.
There are things about both 5e and PF2e I really like, and there are things I find less enjoyable. I found my drug however with Enworld's Level Up Advanced 5e being a good mix of the two systems. However the three action economy of PF2e is sooooooooo good, I just love it
13:38 I don't consider this a plus and it's part of what turned me off. Reading people's munchkin characters that could kill a Tarrasque at 12th level just made me think "oh the game is terribly balanced" which is true, but not in the way I thought. I will admit that monsters phasing out of usefulness somewhat quickly is a problem in 2e, but just making everything reasonably killable in a very broad level range ain't it imo.
I agree with this 100%. This issue, along with VERY limited build diversity (and even less "top-tier" builds) makes my choices as a player virtually meaningless from day one. My build? Doesn't really matter. My tactics? Don't really matter. My party composition? DEFINITELY doesn't matter.
cats in a video are a +2 circumstance bonus on persuasion checks
And treating any result as one higher
i've only recently been playing PF2e, quite literally one campaign over a few months. i have maybe a year or two with 5e, much longer watching actual play and reading stuff before actually getting in there. gotta say... PF2e is just a blast. it feels so complete and nuanced, and while it does indeed have more homework to do compared to D&D 5e, it is that much more fun to play. i'm almost tempted to leave behind 5e as a system i'll be playing for a while... but i still have my lovely homegroup to play with. but i'll certainly be playing far more pf2e stuff on the side :)
Great video! I've seen a few other comments about some of your thoughts on PF2e and thought I'd throw my thoughts in the ring as well to see if they help with a different perspective.
Bounded accuracy - While 5e does assume low level enemies can still "technically" be a threat at higher levels, in practice I've not found this to actually be the case. Once the players get sufficiently high enough HP, Magic Items, and especially more powerful Spells then even large hordes of Goblins become trivial. For example. A level 11 Subclassless Fighter, with a likely 20+ AC and around 90 HP can by themselves likely take on more than 20 Goblins and only reach about 1/3 of their HP.
To your point, Pf2e does include a method low level enemies to be relevant at higher levels AND reinforce the power fantasy - Troops. With Troops the PCs aren't facing a group of individual Goblins, rather the entire Tribe. Highly reinforcing the power fantasy and keeping "Goblins" relevant for the kind of stories you would want to tell at high levels.
Advantage/Disadvantage. On the surface it is absolutely an easy system, however it breaks down when you consider both how trivially easy it can be to get Advantage, that any amount of Adv/DisAdv cancel any amount of the other out, how it trivializes the impacts of debuffs and things like poisons, and how mathematically it often just means success or failure on the roll and removes most of the tension. In addition, 5e still has various floating modifers to potentially track, from Cover, Bless, Bane, Bardic Inspiration, Fighting Styles, Rage, Sneak Attack, etc.
Simplified character creation/missing out on prerequisites. No denying this for the most part. But it's worth noting that the simplicity comes with downsides of having less access to specific kinds of fantasies, notably for Martials, being locked behind Subclasses and Feats, which do DO need to plan for or else miss. Multiclassing also creates a conundrum where you need to plan out specific levels to multiclass for when you sacrifice other features.
As for missing things, retraining is a core rule in the system that is much more accessible than in 5e, and kind of expected to be a tool for this reason.
Easier for new TTRPG players. I can't speak to your experience, but having introduced players to Pf2e, the 3 action economy and clearly delineated Encounter/Exploration/Downtime mechanics took only a session for my new Pf2e players to wrap their hands around. The rest is no different than me running 5e, they ask me if they can do something, I say if and how they can, and at least in Pf2e the rules clearly define those things for me.
Adventuring day. I would say that my experience with 5e's adventuring day NECESSARILY boiling down to a resource attrition game is very unsatisfying. It forces me to build a specific pace for the adventure so the encounters feel like they should, means that the game bounces between rocket tag and hide behind the shielded Fighter, and removes a lot of agency myself and my players have for going off the rails and doing something different. In Pf2e I don’t have to worry about imbalanced encounters, how many resources the party has (as much), just creating cool and engaging encounters for them.
As a bonus point, the experience system in Pf2e makes building the cadence for a level and leveling up TRIVIALLY easy. I know EXACTLY how many encounters I can throw at them between levels, and can explicitly build out methods for the players to gain experience that they can pursue on their own terms, without worrying about the pace of the adventure.
PF has always struck me as a game made for D&D players who have come to want more out their game system than the current edition offers. It's like the AMG version of your Mercedes, the Abarth to your Fiat. Just that little bit of extra flair and power and finesse, but still fully featured. Except PF's all free. An upgrade for free, and you don't even have to buy the original to get it. Amazing!
While I think the Advantage/Disadvantage system in D&D is fun, I don't think it is actually simpler than the bonuses in PF2E in practice. I'm practice, the players just try to work the mechanics in unintuitive ways to manipulate the roles.
Yeah, Luke, I'm one of those people who don't dip Warlock, but play them as single classed. Why? Because they're the most customizable class in the game, and have great subclasses like Fiend, Celestial, Fathomless and Genie. I'm aware of the charop discussion, but if the class wasn't so customizable in the first place, it wouldn't be so attractive as a 2 level dip at all.
Yeah, my warlock of the Archfey is 11th level, almost 12th, and she's warlock all the way. I have no intention of multi-tasking with her.
i started with Pathfinder 2nd edition and i have to say it was a horror to get into. We just recently switched to DnD 5e since we are only 2 left of the group who are familiar with pathfinder and 3 completely new players to the hobby. So we decided as a group to switch to DnD 5e just so it easier to get into for the new ones and i myself am a first time GM and makes this way easier. (our old DM for pathfinder moved away so we didnt have him to introduce the new players). I really have to say DnD 5e is jsut way easier to play with inexperienced players.
The comparisons between both games are easy to make, but for me, I've accepted that both games have their strengths and weaknesses.
My choice of system will depend on the style & length of game I want to play (I love doing one-shots and short self contained adventures).
That's what I figured. At the end of the day I belive the best system, or systems since i know some folks mix and match stuff between systems, is the one you have most fun with.
As somebody who has recently finished my first pf2e campaign I am firmly in the belief that the golden age of D&D and pf is 3.5e and 1e. They're better for homebrew, character variability, combat, exploration, SKILL ranks etc. yes they're more complex but they're picked up easier.
Can you elaborate on the challenge rating bit? Because in the same video, you say challenge rating is easier in PF 2E... But that picking the right number of creatures and the right kind of creature is easier in 5e, and that PF 2E not having guidelines for how long an adventuring day should be, is a bit hazardous. So I'm kind of curious how to reconcile those two things
Yep both points #1 seem contradictory
The 5e "Adventuring" day is artificial... whereas 2e's adventuring day is "do we have the resources to continue to adventure?"
Keep in mind, if the players don't rest they get fatigued... and if they don't rest while they are fatigued... they become exhausted... and if they don't rest while exhausted... well... they pass out.
It's only sounds contradictory. Pf2's CR system is mathematically accurate unlike 5e. For the most part you get the challenge thats on the label. However this requires you to read the label and follow the guidelines completely to function, making it more work to use properly if you arent used to it. 5e's CR is notoriously arbitrary, but due to bounded accuracy and power scaling being skewed in the Pc's favor you can kind of just throw stuff out there at random and not have to worry about it as much. As to the adventuring day, this is something that just doesn't exist as a structured concept in PF2. Pcs are expected to be at or near full strength for every encounter, as opposed to the attrition based system of 5e.
Great video. Recent convert to PF2e from D&D. Love the game. Agree with what was said. Subscribed! 🎉
Experienced Pathfinder 2e GM Advice:
One "On Level" Monster = Two PCs (when building a "Moderate" encounter).
That mental math has saved me so much planning time!
Twitch is a big boi! Adorable! Also, yes, I switched to PF2E and won’t be going back to run 5E anymore.
Interesting that a lot of the 5e problems were already solved in 4e (easy To GM, Tactics, encounter balance, ease of monster creation, mult-classing/dual-classing, clear and concise rules, etc.) But people didn't want that in 2008.
Not a coincidence two of the designers also designed 4e. The kept the good improving it tossed the bad unlike wotc that threw the baby out with the bathwater
4e combat was slow. I think that’s the biggest problem with it.
Strange that 5e had the very same design flaw that 3e had, it doesn't scale well after 10th level. That was the reason why 3.5 was made.
Been playing this game since the 80's and I was thrilled with 3e being scalable and customizable which appears to be the reason for the divergence of systems. The opportunity to play has eluded me for some time. My impression of 5e was that it went back to being more of a TTRPG rather than a Tactical simulation but the simplicity remined me of the Basic and Expert box sets. Great for new players though I get a Heroes Quest vibe but Ill admit it could just be a bias.
I prefer my rules to be granular (aka crunchy) as it presents more options for game play.
I don't understand most of the things you said, but you sound so happy about it, that maybe I will give it a shot. My kid is the one that love 5e and run it for his friends. I ran it like 2 times long time ago and was fine, not my thing. I still love the original Pathfinder and tho I always run my own campaign worlds, Pathfinder's Campaign World was very interesting.
the bounded accuracy thing for pf2e is very much a feature, not a bug. pf2e is HIGH FANTASY, in all caps, which means high level characters are essentially demigods- on the scale of Heracles and Beowulf and Gilgamesh, not having to worry about kobolds is part of the fantasy of that, of being so powerful that hits from the lowest levels of creatures don't even register.
DnD, on the other hand, keeps high level characters a lot closer to earth. sure, high level wizards have incredible power, but they also have an armour class of 17 and maybe a hundred hit points. on a scale of low to high fantasy where 1 is like, Mythras and 10 is pf2e, dnd 5e is a solid 7. This doesn't mean either is intrinsically better than the other, but it isn't a failing of pf2e that the fantasy it's fulfilling isn't the same as dnd
My biggest gripe with DnD5e which made me essentially quit the system... you can counterspell a counterspell, in the middle of casting a spell.....
"Pathfinder is easier to master" "If i calculate wrongly the creature's level, it will lead to an unfun encounter"
Yeah, your arguments are kinda contradictory. I can't say i agree with this video, but glad you are enjoying Pathfinder 2!
The Pathfinder 2e encounter builder is incredibly easy and very effective
From D&D, the impression I get is that it reached its apex with 3.5E, and then it's all been downhill from there. PF2 seems worth checking out.
Nah, D&D reached that apex in 4e, but was rejected by the players. 4e was ahead of its time. In the modern age of online gaming with VTTs, I think 4e would have had a better reception.
That said, imo, pf2e is an evolution of and overall better version of what 4e was trying to do.
As a DM who once played in a 5e game from 3-12th level, I can confirm it breaks down HARD. My artificer spent 4th level through 8th level developing and working on the party's extradimensional cart (Basically a carriage that was like 20 times bigger on the inside than out.) And at 12th level my multi level masterpiece of magic was overshadowed by the druid with a wanderer background just snapping his fingers and casting a spell that let him and the rest of the party instantly teleport to any plant he ever saw (Which basically covered the whole play area) so we basically left the cart and just started teleporting to quest areas and teleporting back in the morning. All that character development sundered by one spell. Not only that but math was nutty and combat was lopsided in our favor. DM broke down and ended the campaign early because it was too much to deal with. I'm about to start a pf2e game ad the DM and I couldn't be happier with the rules. Infinite flight is no longer an uncommon item or race, but all perma flight stuff is usually around level 15. All powerful versions of options are around the same level. Feats allow so much customization and are so balanced you don't have to worry about being under optimized as you did in 5e. It's a breath of fresh air for sure!
I kinda hate Bounded Accuracy. It doesn't provided the feel of "this character is actually much more powerful" when a group of 100 gobbos can take down a lv 20 character by themselves.
I love the mechanics of multiclassing in P2e, but I dislike how feats are no longer as useful as they were in P1e. So next campaign, we're back to P1e.
I have become an avid PH2e convert. I really love that as GM I can actually design encounters to act as expected. There is even some help adding in hazards with monsters - fun fun!
I was trying to see if I should switch over, but most of the points made in the video are only really good for DMs....
I don't mind prepping, I don't mind different semantical tabletime amounts because I do play-by-post
I don't mind how hard or easy character creation or math is because again, play-by-post, most of it is automated anyway...
And I don't have an issue with encounters being easy at level 20 because anyone at that level should already be basically a god imo.
At 2:08 we clearly see in the "scary math visual" the numbers -(1^3)/3, and the square root of 2/2. Which are pretty silly things to write down. I approve.
The hardcover book version you held up in your hands looks so good, Luke! 👍
Thank you, this video made me more interested in Pathfinder and the resources you provide!
I was playing 3.5 and later PF 1ed, and I loved them. Then I took a longer break and I dive into 5e and the simplicity of it bought me. Character creation was easier, I was actually able to enjoy classes other than fighter/barbarian/rogue (I finally fell for wizard and sorcerer), and for me trying to het to PF2 was like strpping back to 3.5 and I did not like it. I stayed with 5e (without most of add ons), and I really always enjoyed lvls 1-6 the most, and those are really nice in 5e (yeah especialy after 3 when you get spec).
Pathfinder is for Rule Lawyers that prioritize the rules (that were meant to be a guideline) instead of the whole point of the game which is to have fun and immerse yourself in a make-believe world.
@@nelsikegaming This is a huge misconception
Your comment about PF being easier than 5e... I found the same thing with Savage Worlds. I ran 5e for almost 3 years, and never felt like I had a complete grasp of the system. I've run Deadlands (Savage Worlds) for a few months, and I already feel like I have full grasp of it. Running it, making encounters, prepping, everything is so much easier in SWADE than in 5e... I think some of the ease your seeing is PF, and some of it is just how disorganized and badly written/designed 5e actually is.
What do you think about preset settings? For example Golarion vs Forgotten Realms
that would be a really cool video but i doubt that luke has used golarion much
Man i love galorian. Have never been a fan of the actual dnd setting
For me Golarian is built from the ground up as a setting for TTRPGs with ancillary stuff to boot, much like greyhawk except for ttrpgs only instead of it and wargames. Whereas Forgotten Realms is the result of a fantasy author's worldbuilding that is also used as a setting for ttrpgs much like dragonlance.
I (DM) just began playinh 5e with friends and we all think it's hard to really look into the world of forgotten realms. In pathfinder you look up i.e. Cheliax etc. and already know a lot more important stuff for your character's background. There is about nothing to find in the players handbook or DM Guide, most is "there you go, build your own world", but what about Toril?
Everyone needs to like and comment to help the algorithm recognize and promote pathfinder content
I believe that no ttrpg system is complete for a person or group, until relevant homebrew and houserules have been created by the person/ group. To make decent homebrew and houserules however takes strong understanding of the system, which takes time to build. It is why I will forever remain a 5E main, because I've added to, removed from, and changed the system to suit how I like to play, by "fixing" the parts I dislike.
To direct my comment more to PF2. I like playing spellcasters/ casting capable characters a lot, and while I like all the avenues of what we expect from casters in fantasy, I have found the only viable way to play the wizard I use in the game I am a player in is to use buffing spells on my party. Buffing is fine and a clearly a good tactical use of my spells, but it does mean most of my turns simply amount to
1. Buff ally.
2. End turn.
It can be pretty boring when that's all you do, and sometimes just feels like you skipped your turn. I was able to summon a ladder once to bypass a problem, and it was the highlight of the session for me as I was able to feel useful. In PF2 I've only got one midway game as a player as my system experience though, so my complaints could easily be game/gm/luck based. I'd love to try out some other classes, but as a backline character I'm also the only player of my 5 person party that has had their first character survive all game (lv1 - lv9).
Having played 3.5 until Pathfinder 1 came out, I switched to PF1 and never looked back until recently. A friend of mine suggested 5e, so I bought the books and have played it and the differences are mind-blowing. The comments that 5e character creation is "easier" is the ultimate understatement compared to PF (1 OR 2). Prices of items (magic items in particular) are RIDICULOUSLY different between the two systems - a +1 weapon in 5e costs 1,000gp. A +1 weapon in PF 1 STARTS at 2,300 and goes up from there - so the treasure systems are vastly different as a result. 1,000gp in 5e seems like a haul unless you've played PF1 or 2 and are asking, "is that all?"
The knowledge that 5e really "only works between 3rd and 12th level" for calculations is incredibly damning, but (as a GM), I used to run into massive challenges trying to balance fights beyond 10th level, so I get that as well. If your party doesn't have the right equipment or spells for a flying battle, for example, they're BONED before the fight starts, so you have to take a lot more into consideration when it comes to PF encounter designs - but as you mentioned, said encounter designs DO work from 1st through 20th.
Yes, Advantage/Disadvantage is easier BUT, I remember a fight against a creature in PF1 that FORCED you to have Disadvantage (in a system that doesn't have it) and fighting with Disadvantage makes the game a (literal) crapshoot - you have to hope BOTH dice hit, or you just wasted your turn...
Overall, this is a brilliant evaluation. I haven't played PF2 because I didn't want to waste all the money I'd invested into PF1, but your commentary makes me wonder - now that I've looked at 5e (and find it terribly lacking), I'm hoping PF2 will meet that need for the "crunchy bits" and pre-set RULES that you can point to (that make life SO much easier as a DM) and yet find an easier (somewhat less mental gymnastics) system than PF1.
Oh, and you simply cannot do some of the things my players and I have done in Pathfinder. One of the best characters I ever had the pleasure to run was a Paladin/Arcanist - and you simply don't see something like that in 5e. PF is amazing for bizarre class combinations and, with the right players, such odd setups can become the basis for an amazing playthrough.
My group played a whole campaign in PF2e for the last few months, but now we have switched back to 5e. There isn't anything wrong with PF2e, I don't think any of us disliked it. It was just a lot of little things that kind of made us prefer 5e. It's hard for me to put some of these into words, and a some of this might even just be ignorance on our part since it was new to all of us, including the DM. One thing that is always talked about is the sheer number of feats and the level of character customization for PF2e. Sure, the class feats are always super interesting and I enjoyed getting to choose those. But all the rest of them were always so situational so minor, seemingly useless, or something I felt like would just ever come up. I had several levels where I couldn't find a single skill feat that seemed useful or fun. Another thing I personally didn't like the feel of, and this could just be a me problem, was leveling up in PF2e always felt like leveling up in a video game that always scales the enemies up with you. So your stats going up should usually make you feel more powerful, but all the enemies scale up with you so it seemed almost pointless. I stopped getting excited about more AC real quick when I saw how much the enemies to hit bonus shot up. I never felt like my spells would ever land from how high enemy saving throws kept getting.
And lastly, this is just a personal thing, I love the fantasy of the swords bard in 5e. And you just can't play that character in PF2e. The warrior muse for Bard is terrible and I couldn't find an architype that was good enough to let PF Bard feel as good in combat as Swords bard is in 5e. I'm a big big fan of gish characters and PF2e keeps them all feeling pretty weak, probably for balance I'm sure.
id reccomend you to the swashbuckler in pf2e if you wanted to play the swords bard, more specifically the wit with one for all feat where you buff your allies and yourself at the same time, also yea i mean compared to subclasses the skill feats etc you get are pretty minor but i mean what is the equivalent in dnd?
"Leveling up in PF2e makes it seem like you're in a video game..."
The idea of levels is pretty simple... the higher level _you are_ the more powerful monsters you are able to defeat. A hero who is able to slay adult/ancient dragons... shouldn't be concerned about a bunch of smelly goblins. That's the original fantasy of D&D. "Bounded Accuracy" has removed that fantasy. A level 10 Party is able to defeat a CR 15 Boss, while also being threatened by a few CR 5 Trolls. The only thing differentiating low level monsters from high level monsters is ... Health and Damage.
To make a pf2e character feel powerful, all it takes is for a level 5 party go off and deal with a bunch of level -1, 0, and 1 monsters... you'll be landing critical hits frequently and they will be getting critical failures on saving throws consistently... but the party would get 10 to 20 exp from such a fight and the loot wouldn't be more than pocket change...
As for skill feats... there are a lot... but most aren't powerful due to the way Paizo has balanced feats... feats that are most useful for combat are class feats. After that would be feats which interact with skills which have actions that are used in combat (Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Intimidation, Stealth)... So, think skill feats more for their flavour instead of what's empowering your character in combat... or look at what they can do for Exploration/Down Time activities your character should be good at.
The problem with saving throws is... spells are designed with the idea that you'll get an enemy fail less than 50% of the time, especially with enemies higher level than yourself (which at low levels is nearly all the time). At least Pathfinder 2e doesn't have Save or Suck mechanics of 5e, right?
As for importing your Sword's Bard... some characters just can't be brought over. The mechanics aren't there. The closest you can probably get to a martially competent Bard would be Warrior Muse with Fighter Archetype (for the fighter feats). Or Eldritch Rogue (Bard)... that might be the better way to go, but at the cost of less spells. Again... Paizo's math is much tighter than 5e's (Casters can't be as good at combat as combat oriented characters)... as the Bard is a Caster character... you're stuck never being as good at combat as you want.
The only game systems I'm familiar with are Numenara and Pathfinder 1e. Based on this video, I'd probably say I'd rather play or run a P2e campaign than DnD 5e.
(Also, for parents of younger kids, I have done a lot of research, and I hate to say it, but the MLP: Tails of Equestria system is like a very basic Pathfinder stripped down for young kids. Just take away the ponies and you have a viable gateway to TTRPGs for your kids.)
14:57 advantage/disadvantage is a binary choice. Again reducing design space for the DM and designer. Though I don’t like 3e solution either. The simple +1/-1 and four degrees of success seems to be the sweet spot.
I strongly dislike pathfinder 2 but I don’t like 5e either. I respect your insight though and you present it in a informative way but if I could offer some very very harsh criticism…
Put the cats on screen more 😂😂
It is possible to throw low level creatures against high level parties and vice versa in P2e.
On the Archives of Nethys when looking at a creature there should be an option that says proficiency without level, this will give you a level 0 version of the monster and you only need to add the level you want it to be to all the numbers in red.
You can always use down time in PF2e to retrain certain bits of your character, skills, I think feats are included in this as well.
Also learning spells during downtime is very helpful.
Dude I am so happy for pathfinder as a person who has been playing Dingeons and dragons since 3.0. and just switching over for the first time it is so much better for my personal taste. Playing the game, creating and balancing out encounters is so much better. I seen that I can actually concentrate on the story instead of the rules, and how things are. My opinion I’m not coming back to D&D.
To me pathfinder is for those enjoying the actual world and story. It is fun and a lot better to know each class comes and has its things which make it better. No one will be a better skill monkey than a rogue. Each class has what they are good at. The game action mechanics are more rounded. Overall I’m happy with my switch and thank you for your videos have a lovely day
Usually I'm huge AD hater and immediately skip integrations
But here you had an exceptionally good one, this how all ads should be - right about the topic and useful. Not like watching drag racing video and being fed with gold club ads.
And good vid enjoyed watching, was considering what system to try out.
I love Pathfinder 2e as a relatively new DM. The free resources are the biggest winner for me. We mainly use archives of neythis for rules because it's all there and is so much easier to navigate than a book or PDF. And wanderers guide is an amazing character builder that also has some gm tools, like a campaign menu where you have real time access to your players sheets, and an encounter builder that calculates XP and difficulty for you.
Have you looked at Proficiency without Level for 2e? Is basically bounded accuracy for 2e
Playing Pf2e in person is way harder (got a Initiative tracker to handle Pathfinder).
Do online Pf2e is easier than 5e due to system not require module to function unlike 5e.
So happy for my In-person group for playing Pf2e while we waited for Shattered Obelisk and seem some is excited for The Season of Ghost AP :)
BTW Luke how is the Battle Zoo too your right?
to be fair, most of the pathfinder players out there don't seem to think that building to 20 before you start is a good idea
with the amount of retraining you can do, and with most of the choices being relegated more to playstyle than power, i've always found it much easier to choose abilities as i level up, and i find that i would deviate a lot from a 1-20 build i pre-made in advance
it does still mean you have to choose thing at level up, but i mean. to me, it's better phrased as "you get to choose things when you level up"
i guess it's a matter of taste
I think a big reason multiclassing feels so strong in 5e is not only because classes/subclasses are frontloaded, but also because the majority of their adventures take place in the levels where multiclassing is at its best. If there were more high-level modules where subclass capstones start coming into play you'd see less multiclassing. But with the way that most subclass progression is good feature -> ribbon feature -> good feature -> capstone there's almost no incentive to stick with it even to get the second good feature because you can get more sooner just from dipping into another class, because by the time you get to the good features again the module is almost over and you won't have much time to play with it.
I'm in this situation right now in Rime of Frostmaiden which we've been told ends around level 12, max 13 if we hit every milestone. We're level 9 and I've got 5 Hexblade/4 Gloomstalker and I'm at a point where I basically have everything I need. I could keep going in Warlock and eventually max my primary stat, but that wouldn't be until near end-game and there isn't much I get inbetween. Whereas I could dip in Cleric and immediately get their 1st level features as well as unlock a bunch more spell slots and utility cantrips, then maybe dip in Fighter or Rogue. If I knew the campaign was going all the way to 20 I would make very different decisions.
Basically (understandably) the closer you get to end-game, the more short-term your decisions become. If there were more modules that played in the late game, such as starting at 13 ending at 20, I think we'd see a lot more single-class builds or at least builds that are mostly one class since not every class capstone is a banger.
Interesing point, but I actually think that Bounded accuracy is what make DnD worse then PF2, as it blur away difference between levels. The big source of PF2 balance that is how level increase your accuracy and damage and PF2 crit system nail it even more.
What it does is that at DnD main problem with balance is action economy as 100 rats will crush level 5 party same way as party crush single boss. But with AC/attack scaling number of fighters become less decided point compare to quality of combatant.
BTW "adventage disadventage" is not so simple because you could have also:
• Elfish accuracy feat
• Bless or Bane +- 1d4
• Feat bonus -5/+10
• Magic weapon cast
etc
And remember, there is no disadvantage for shooting long distance if you do this from cloud of darkness! Yes, if you not see enemy there easier to hit them. DnD simplification is big big pain.
Very informative as someone who bought a bunch of PF stuff out of curiosity and because it was for a Humble Bundle charity thing.
My two biggest issues are that there's no true online way to run PF that I'm aware of, and most of my games are online.
The other issue is, having to learn an entire system (and any online tools i may be wrong about), then teach it to my players who already like 5E. And no, the TTRPG version of "git gud" is not an answer here.
I'm an adult with a job and a life. Learning this from scratch enough to teach it is hard. And the only online tools i know of for it are VTTs that cost money to use the features of for it.
Anyway, thanks for laying out the things people usually like about it, so I at least understand a little. Just hearing "5E that you enjoy sucks and you shouldn't like it" gets old fast.
PF2e on Foundry is one of the reasons why I consider ditching DND5e.
I enjoyed D&D 5E until I started playing PF2. It's easier to GM and Easier to play once you wrap your head around the differences.
Also, it feels good at every level of play. They had the benefit of coming out after 5E and avoided the pitfalls that 5E fell into.
Three action economy is huge for me. I truthfully haven't played tabletop Pathfinder yet, but I was playing Baldur's Gate 3 recently after having played Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous and despite it being a great game, coming back to that clunky Action, Bonus Action, Movement, Cantrip, Spell slot, etc. style of action management just felt super counterintuitive.
Thing is, wrath of the righteous is based on pf1e not 2e so bear that in mind.
To me, PF2 fixes a lot of 5e's issues... by adding more rules. Usually this comes in the form of gutting a poorly realized section of 5e and replacing it with something built on the foundations of older RPGs. But the clarity comes with overhead.
I play and teach a lot of new players/children. That doesn't mean I use 5e. 5e is super narrowing, and the stuff it uniquely does well isn't enough to gloss over this weird "approachable rules but we have a lot of rules for corner cases to bog you down."
It has so many rules that seem contradictory to the classes they apply to, balance is all over the place, and for how much easier it is supposed to be, there's always a "But what about X rule?"
I use Open Legend, simplified for the younger crowds.
It is very much DM fiat, but there's no class restrictions, no skill lists to pore over, no coin counting. It cuts out so much of the game time that's not actually role-playing. And exploding dice are fun. Bounded accuracy be damned, that level 2 character just rolled a 57 to shoot chain lightning at those overgrown bugs.
I also play and teach children and the idea of Pathfinder is a nightmare to me. I just can't get into it and 5e is hard enough to introduce. What is this Open Legend?
I haven’t played pathfinder 2. It sounds like fun but I don’t think I could get my group to play it. My current plan is to run my 5e campaign then afterwards do two to three one shots of a few different ttrpgs then back to 5e
The paizo adventure paths have always been 10 steps ahead of any other system ive played.
Quest for the Frozen Flame is quickly becoming my favourite adventure to date.