Aw man, thanks for the shout out Chris! ❤. Also: I really enjoyed the history lesson. As someone who went straight from AD&D to 5e (20 years later) it was awesome to get some perspective. I also suspect me skipping 3.5 and PF1 might be part of why I seem to be enjoying PF2 a little more than you :). Finally, it must be said that your character in our PF2 game is hands down the best. Missed ya last session.
Yeah, when you experience things like "Flat-footed", "Will/Ref/Fort saves", stacking bonuses, spell preparation, etc as brand new things, I'm remembering 3.5
I've gotten a bit more curious about Pathfinder 2 due to this whole OGL thing, but you two being part of it was really why I decided to watch and I have to say I really loved it despite Chris's nerves. I was really keen to see 5E optimizers learning the system... mistakes and all as well. After all, I know nothing about Pathfinder so it's all new to me. I think I can understand being a little reluctant. I really like some things about the game, but not so much others, and I'm not even sure The Rules Lawyer is really the style of DM I would prefer, (though he seems like a decent guy). I will say that it was a joy to watch. Zappy and Filzo should go on tour! heh But the whole group has been pretty fun to watch too. Selfishly I hope to see much more, but I'll take what I can get. And don't worry about your reputation. I think this community can handle the fact that you gotta learn new stuff like the rest of us. Thanks for sharing the experience with us.
Every time I link D4 in my D&D Discord, my buddy asks me if I watch at increased speeds… and I always respond, “But that would ruin his sensual voice!” … and it always gets a smile. Thank you both for the content, love you both
With regards to your saying, "employees do not unionize if they are treated well," not only do I think that isn't true (having power in your workplace is important regardless of your current conditions because those conditions are subject to change), but I also think that Paizo workers having secured power at Paizo is all the more reason to support Pathfinder 2e. It means that more of the dollars you spend go to Paizo workers and that unpopular business decisions (see WotC) are less likely to occur as the workers who love the game have more of a say.
Glad you included the history of pathfinder 2e in this story, casue it's important that players recognize and appreciate the workers that make their games. I'd love to see you talk to some of these designers.
42:40 Employees absolutely SHOULD unionise even if treated well! In some ways that's the best time to do it, so you've built up workplace solidarity and power before the organisation does something and you really need it. And let's be honest, no workplace is perfect. Unions simply allow workers to safely raise and address their concerns, without worrying (rightly or wrongly) about losing their jobs. Regarding Paizo specifically, it does sound like yes there were lots of issues that needed addressing. But I think the fact that Paizo did not try to impede the union forming (it sounds like lots of US companies do) is also a big tick for their executive leadership. The new workplace union is negotiating with the execs over a range of matters now, and notably not raising public hell - that suggests that their concerns are being heard and addressed in good faith. That sounds a world away from what we're hearing about a certain company of mages by the seashore.
I'm not sure you should be giving Paizo credit for "not trying to impede" forming a Union given how that's illegal. Yes, I know some big companies like Amazon and Starbucks openly fight the formation of unions, but those are the outliers and generally because they have so much money they can afford too. A smaller company doesn't really have that option.
I came to mention these points, too. And not only did Paizo not impede the formation of the union (which is illegal as Andrew said), but they voluntarily recognized the union pretty quickly. That doesn't happen very often, at least not that we hear about. So it's good to keep in mind that corporations are not necessarily great "citizens," but they are also not equal in terms of their transgressions. Having said that, before the employee leaks during the OGL situation, I had only heard good things about working at WotC, so I'm curious if we'll hear any more reports or stories from staff (current or former), or if those leaks were just a load of hoo-ha.
@@rpgamerous I'm a big sports guy, but because I moved around so much as a kid and adult, I never really developed the hardcore fandom for a specific team like some of my friends have, and one thing that is _super_ common is that fans tend stop being rational about the teams they love and hate. Dillion Brooks, an NBA player for Memphis, literally punched an opposing player in the groin on Thursday and fans of the Grizzlies claimed he never hit the guy when it's clear as day that he did it, or many said "sure, he _maybe_ hit him, but it was an accident" when clearly it wasn't. At the same time, Cavs fans are losing their mind saying the guy needs to be suspended for a week, when cooler heads prevailed he ended up getting a 1 game suspension. The reason two sets of people see the exact same situation as different is because they have an unconscious bias towards their favorite team, and subsequently against their opponent. I'm not comparing Paizo or WotC to Dillion Brooks punching a dude in the balls, but you can see the unconscious bias here, especially around Paizo. Many people only want to give them credit for "allowing" the unionization of their shop, but ignore the reason it happened isn the first place which is (and Paizo admits this) that they treated their staff horribly. Many people are praising Paizo for reducing their prices to help 5e players, but the realty is by their own tweets, they sold 8 months worth of product in 2 weeks, they aren't doing this for altruistic reason, they're doing it to make money! FWIW, kudos to them, it's a smart move. They are getting _way_ too much credit for ORC when plenty of lawyers have asked if they didn't want control over in and it basically copies CC, why not just use CC? The reason they don't want to use CC, a bullet proof license, is because they want their the Paizo name to be associated with ORC for life. Again, I'm not even mad about it, good for them, but let's stop pretending that they are being altruistic with ORC, because the aren't. Paizo is a company, just like WotC, and the both do things that they think they can get away with to make money. Paizo will have a banner year in 2023 revenue wise all because WotC's dumb, self inflicted stupidity, not because they are an altruistic, good company. The biggest irony of all is people on YT, a platform owned by Google, arguing how bad WotC is. Hasbro/WotC has lightyears to go before they even approach the garbage Google/Alphabet has done, but again because of unconscious bias, people feel that WotC is somehow worse. Anyone remember when pre-Lootbox EA was voted "worst company in the world" right after the world wide housing collapse? It's kind of the same thing.
@@andrewshandle Sorry, that part of my comment wasn't actually aimed at you, I was mainly acknowledging your comment about the illegality of union-busting. It was just something that I noticed in the video, where Treantmonk mentioned the union and how unions usually happen because of bad things, but just left it at that with no context. Obviously, the video was about his PF experience, not about Paizo unionizing, but the way he said it made it sound like an insinuation that Paizo is sinister or something. They're not, they're a corporation and they fucked up. While I love PF2 & Starfinder, I'm not a Paizo fanboy. I understand that the ORC is a huge marketing tool for them. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad for the industry as a whole. I've heard some creators online voice concern about the CC licenses, probably due to a lack of understanding. I mean, despite the internet's conclusion to the contrary during the OGL mess, we're not all lawyers.... but my impression is that some creators want a license that isn't *quite* as open as the CC-BY that WotC used for SRD 5.1, and maybe the CC licensing structure doesn't seem as simple as some folks say. Also agreed about WotC vs YT/Google, although I suspect that it's more a matter of just not thinking about it. A few YT creators have pointed out that the OGL controversy wasn't nearly as bad as things Google has done; I think maybe I saw this in videos from Treantmonk and Dungeon Craft? Maybe since most people don't have their fun wrapped up in RUclips quite the way they do in D&D, it's just easy to not care/not speak out.
Heya Chris, I hope your anxiety is better when it comes to this. I'd like to think that, yeah, you've cultivated a crowd of optimisers. But, also, I'd like to think you've also cultivated a crowd of chill people. Everyone has to learn before they can begin to optimise. And the journey can be just as fun as the destination. I think everyone has had the experience of going into a game and exploring it for the first time and how magical it can be. But, if it didn't work out for you, then, no worries. Zappy is awesome and he'll make an awesome NPC when he retires xD And, look at it in another way - you optimised the shit out the roleplay! xD
I'd also like to second this! I don't think anyone expects you to go into a system you're unfamiliar with and instantly be a master at all of it's finer details. I'm going to be watching your videos regardless of the system or level of optimization. Remember, D&D/TTRPGS are for *everyone*, not just the most optimized 😉.
That may be something to look at. Optimization of roleplay. Very fun, and if done right powerful in it's own way! May be difficult to teach however. Challenged?!?
@@TreantmonksTemple yeah, that's understandable. But, I think if you see it often enough, it might sink in subconsciously as well xD Anyway, your content is always enjoyable. Whatever you decide, we're here.
Hey, as one of the folks who was interested in having you trying out PF2: if it didn't hit right, then no sweat. The fact that you gave it a shot is enough for me. And I'm excited for a sprinkling of your take on other systems too.
An honest answer, so surely the best one! Sorry the being on-camera bit wasn't an ideal first exposure. Do know, and I'm sure your viewers have told this to you: I think people appreciate your open-mindedness and care before arriving at conclusions. Someone would need to be delusional (and an a**hole!) to expect perfection. I hope after this stint, you'll have more chances to explore the system! I would need to know aspects of 3.5 you don't like seeing, to know how to address that vague feeling more directly. As for Paizo unionizing, I think it's good that Paizo did not contest the unionizing and became the first TTRPG company to have a union. Supporting Paizo products currently means supporting that decision, and higher profits for them also puts the union in a better bargaining position to demand a livable wage and benefits. Paizo unionizing also doesn't preclude there being bad practices in other companies, as the fact that WOTC employees feel they must be anonymous to share info right now does show. Anyway, I look forward to our last 2 sessions. Cheers!
Hey Ronald, feelings are pretty squishy, it's easy to say to someone that they remind me of someone, but much harder to say, you remind me of someone because of A, B, C etc.
@@TreantmonksTemple I think I have said this in our server and said it elsewhere, but for me the 2 "arguments" for why you MIGHT like PF2 are: -It allows optimizers to optimize without worrying about outshining the rest of the party -In that same vein, I think it implements the idea of your "God wizard," where the caster's role is less about "win button" moments, but about tilting the battlefield in the party's favor. Yes, more of a "support" role... but there are still stand-out moments when you use the right spell at the right time. Slow against a group of low-Will save enemies, for example. So it's also about having 'the right tool for the job' (more versatility in damage types, for example, in a system where having the right to damage type is strongly rewarded). And even after the key spell, teamwork and luck STILL play a role, keeping up the tension. I think they also tempered the power of spells, not only due to the "martial/caster divide", but also to make it less necessary to balance around daily attrition and the Adventuring Day. Anyway, your mileage will vary, and I understand that you'll need some more time to let it all sink in. Meanwhile I'm loving Zappy and I've been having a lot of fun with the group!
As a PF 2e DM/Player for the past couple of years, I have new players that come to my table and cite Taking 20's video as part of their hesitancy for starting. It is amazing how much people rely upon other RUclips Content Creators to be 'told' how they should feel about something rather than actually giving that system or rule set a try for themselves. Thank you Chris for telling your story and your experiences with other TTRPG systems. If PF 2e isn't for you that's just fine. At the end of the day, TTRPG's are about kicking back, having fun with a group of friends, to tell stories and roll some funny dice. I too had similar flashbacks of 3.5e and PF 1e when I started out with PF 2e. That being said, those flashbacks for me weren't completely negative; in fact they were quite the opposite. Having run and played in multiple 5e games over the years, I have learned that my dissatisfaction with the 5e is the rule set in general. As a working father, I don't always have the time to fiddle with the numbers for each encounter to balance it before a session and PF 2e has streamlined so many things as a DM/GM for me that it is very difficult for me to look at 5e in a good light anymore. As others have pointed out, your channel is about optimizing your experience as a player. PF 2e doesn't really fall into that design philosophy. While there are objectively better choices within the system, no singular choice will be so detrimental to your character as a whole that you will be ineffectual. I have always held the opinion that roleplaying and game mechanics should coexist and support one another. For me PF 2e provides that. Also, as someone who devours complex rule systems, I can appreciate spending hours pouring over content to design the 'perfect' character. My own experience has revealed that I am often in the minority here to enjoy those types of systems and often the majority of the players I am able to recruit don't have the headspace to remember every singular rule for every system. Indeed, when I see that a system has fostered an optimization community for me is often an indication now that I probably won't enjoy running the system. ...Although, deep down, I still will theorycraft those numbers in my headspace! Keep up the good content!
Just have to chime in to say I agree with your point about the Taking20 video. It’s perfectly fine to not like PF2e, but I feel like his critique was pretty off the mark. Almost every fantasy RPG will have you doing similar actions each round. And PF2 actually gives you more variety of choice than most.
@@Creslin321 I third this comment. Taking 20’s video was so out of touch it came across as disingenuous. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that was how it appeared to me. Edited so as not to offend people.
@@bryanyoung9966 This is such an odd comment. Just because someone has a different opinion than you that doesn't mean it's designed as clickbait. I remember his video at the time and he laid out his case quite clearly, you may disagree with his points, but it's not like he is alone in his feeling. I know a few others people who felt the same way and that was prior to that video coming out. And honestly, Chris was pretty clear that the reason he didn't do any PF2 videos for his own channel is because he didn't' think the market was there, so why would a guy with a big D&D following bother makiing a video trashing PF2 just clicks if PF2 isn't popular at all? Besides, at the time he was getting way more views doing "Top 10" videos for referencing Critical Role. Sometimes people have valid criticisms for things you like, and that's okay.
@@andrewshandle There are valid criticisms...yes. HOWEVER when the criticism is that me and my players didn't choose to take advantage of all the extra options we could have to avoid the problem we are complaining about...that isn't exactly valid. The system was designed for you to be wide...not deep. If you don't want that style of play, that is FINE...but that isn't a problem with the system, that is a system is not for you problem. He made the video out to be a system problem when it wasn't. If he wants a game where you build characters to get that extra stuff for the one thing that your character does, than PF2E is NOT for you. Plain and simple. The game...especially the AP is designed around TEAMWORK and making use of all the options that you are given. Not make one trick ponies that do the same thing over and over again. That is why they TPKed...because they decided to play PF2E like a 5E game and try to make broken builds and just power through. Every game is different and if you play a game like a different game and get bad results, the fault lies with you...not the game.
@@andrewshandle I agree. There are tons of valid criticisms of anything, pathfinder included. Heck I could name a ton of criticisms of pathfinder myself. Wasn’t trying to bother anyone with that comment. But the video, to me, seemed disingenuous. Seemed trashing on something for the sake of doing so. Also, if you look at videos likes and views it is sadly common for a video trashing something to get way more views than other videos. Videos trashing the opposite of what you like often get a lot of views because sadly our society loves to trash things that aren’t what they care for. I’ve seen a lot of videos where people say they don’t like pathfinder and I often agree with their points. The video in question, to me, seemed not to be giving the system a fair shake and made many aspersions based on false assumptions without actually understanding the system well. It came across like trying to play pathfinder but playing it the same as you would 5e, and then Judging it for those false standards. I didn’t think the video was clickbait at first. But after watching the video I did. Mind you…. Almost every video on RUclips is click bait by design and have to be because of the nature of RUclips algorithms. So being clickbait just makes it par for the course, so perhaps that phrase was unnecessary. It was just how I felt. Hope I didn’t offend. Does that make more sense? Completely fine if you disagree with me. Never bothers me when people don’t share my opinions. I may not care for 5e but can completely understand the appeal and have many friends who enjoy it. Everyone has different tastes. I just don’t like it when people judge a system in a manner that doesn’t seem genuine and would happily defend 5e if I thought someone was trashing it for no reason or bad reasons. Apologies if that was ramble or incoherent. Running on a few hours of sleep. Have a great day!
Your work has helped me hugely in understanding 5e's bizarre systems and interactions, which has made me a more effective 5e player, but it also has helped highlight to me how much 5e's design priorities don't align with my personal gaming preferences in as much as it is a game that is dominated by a few dominant strategies and build-approaches that make much of the game into trap options, which for me feels very constraining and defeating. I think it's great the work you've done to highlight these issues, though it's also unfortunate that wotc has shown little interest in fixing these problems in 6e besides just removing power attack entirely. Inevitably, many people will continue to run into these problems in the years to come, and your content will hopefully help them decide how they feel about what kind of game they want to be playing. Some people will love the optimization, and you're their guy. Having said that. As an experienced 5e player and pf2 DM who still plays 5e but prefers pf2 and who does not remotely expect you to make much pf2 content, I'm fascinated by your conclusion that pf2 feels like pf1 because pf2 is fundamentally antithetical to optimization as a core design principle. Although it looks a lot like pf1, it is not an update to pf1. It's a reaction to and major departure from it both in terms of being much simpler but also in the way the pieces fit together. Classes, feats, spells, multiclassing are all designed so that players can't easily gimp their character with bad choices and also can't break the system with great choices. Bonus stacking is largely gone. But you still have huge customization options to tweak a PC to suit your playstyle and theme. As compared to 3.5/pf1 where system mastery is hugely rewarded, especially in terms of builds, something we still see in 5e where some classes and spells are wildly better than others. I would never recommend 3.5/pf1 to new players. But pf2 is very new gamer friendly in my experience. It's hard to screw up, and you can easily fix anything you do. But that also means that it isn't really a great game for a channel like this, focused on optimization, because optimization just isn't a big part of pf2. I don't see optimization videos for Call of Cthulhu either. But 3.5 and 5e, being fundamentally unbalanced, "broken" games where knowing what you are doing can yield massively more powerful characters and strategies, can be very interesting for people who like to optimize systems and find the best routes to success, thus supporting channels like this. Given the self-selection of optimizers to this channel, I suspect pf2 is just not going to be the game for your audience if that's what they expect.
I feel like my issue with PF2 is the inability to build a truly effective character. The numbers are so strict that you're looking at a 55 to 60% success rate no matter what you do. Maybe PF2 is more fun if the GM delivers encounters as if the party is 1-2 levels lower than it is/places the party 1-2 levels higher than a module expects. *_EDIT:_* thinking about that idea, that's going to bloat the hit points. Maybe handing players +3 to all rolls would meet my goals
I think making the optimized version of a build theme could still work. Or even just making whacky builds at their most effective state like Colby does for 5e.
@@priestesslucy3299 I am not here to police anyone's idea of fun. I don't think pf2 is the game for everyone, or even most people necessarily. What I wanted to express, however, is the importance of taking every game on its own terms to find out if the game's design ethos and priorities suit the style of game you/I want to play. pf2 and 5e/3.5 are not the same kind of game. they are not made for the same kind of people. pf2 is a reaction to both 3.5 and 5e, which among other things means a conscious decision to make "effective" character and play mean something different. 3.5 and 5e are definitely games that promote optimization by rewarding system mastery in the PC-creation/build/spellchoice phase with characters that feel incredibly powerful, so powerful that they can be difficult for DMs to handle in some cases, especially when some members of the party run optimized characters and other characters are more baseline. This problem magnifies at higher levels, which is part of why those levels rarely see play in 5e. pf2 takes a different view towards multiclassing/feat selection by giving you a lot more choices but making them mostly about style. a fighter that specializes in a particular style of fighting (like heavy weapons or two-handed weapons or grappling or archery, whatever) will be better at using them than one who doesn't, but not that much better, but they will also have specific action choices that feel thematic and help reinforce the fantasy mechanically. Similarly, multiclassing isn't about power so much as it is about having extra options. As a result characters end up very T shaped, with their core class abilities defining their power and superpowerful synergies (like hexblade sorcerer/paladin) basically not existing. also, although characters grow in power with levels compared to lower level enemies, they don't grow with respect to same-level enemies, meaning a 15th level encounter is easy to design and run for the DM. When looking at pf2 to see if it fits your fun, I would suggest to any new player coming from 5e that the gamespace looks very different from 5e/3.5, but is not necessarily more or less complex overall. To pick just one example, a big part of effective play in pf2 is teamwork between party members to buff party members and debuff enemies, which has to be coordinated for it to be effective. In contrast, 5e has a few abilities that benefit from coordination, like the grave cleric channel, but for the most part 5e rewards "hero ball" where a PC does something awesome and doesn't really need their allies to help them. Every core pf2 class has different abilities that help contribute to the team but aren't spectacular on their own. So you say "I'll have a 55 to 60 percent success rate no matter what you do", which might be true for just your own abilities, but it isn't true when accounting for the various ways that your party members can help you out. A wizard might have a 60 percent success rate with a big spell they want to land, but depending on what save that spell targets, a party member might be able to give that enemy a penalty to that save, which significantly increases the odds of success, which really matters when you're talking about blowing a big spell slot and needing to succeed. Or maybe you need to pass a difficult check for a powerful ritual spell, but your alchemist is able to brew up a mutagen that gives you a significant bonus to that check. In 5e, the notable class to do this is the bard, especially the eloquence bard, who is widely considered incredibly powerful. in pf2 this type of ability is more common but not quite as powerful as the eloquence bard. Do you like the idea of playing an eloquence bard where you pay a lot of attention to what allies and enemies are doing and give them buffs and debuffs? then pf2 goes headfirst into that playstyle. In some ways, that does harken back to pf1/3.5, but the elimination of stacked bonuses means that it's much less complex and gamey and feels more like the 5e bard. I think it's up to every DM to make encounters that are fun for their party. The "moderate encounter" in pf2 generally means fighting enemies that are lower level than the PCs, which means party success rates should be higher and enemies will hit less often and for less damage than the "straight math" would suggest. I'm not sure if that's a system issue you're concerned with, or just DMing or what, so I hesitate to comment much more on that.
Wow, I'm just watching the part about your anxiety of playing. I remember playing in Curse of Strahd run by you once and making SO MANY mistakes playing a wizard around the person who taught me how to play wizard. So I can relate.
I think the bit about Paizo with "skeletons in their closet" is either disingenuous or ignorant. Those were issues that were pretty openly discussed, and many have been resolved and forgiven. Not to mention that they were accepting of the worker's unionization. Beyond that, the take that unionization doesn't happen if workers are treated well is a very "old man" take. Corporations never treat workers as well as they should, and unionization should be done to protect the workers regardless of how they are being treated. Its fine to be knowledgeable of the issues a company has had in the past, but to make a very general statement that just references that there were issues, without actually detailing them, or detailing if those issues persist to this day is either disingenuous or ignorant. What an awful way to end an otherwise fine video.
FWIW, my first edition of D&D was 4E. I didn't like it at all. Then a buddy showed me 3.5, and I was hooked. Then Pathfinder found us, and that was my favorite for about 10 years. One of our GMs was a forever DM for AD&D, and had played lots of diff systems, and told me all manner of lore and history surrounding D&D and such. I get the anxiety, BTW. I really appreciate being able to see you *LEARN* P2E, because I'm trying to learn it, too. It's especially nice to watch someone who led me to my own system mastery of 1st Ed Pathfinder, whose opinion I respect, offer reactions and be an example of how to get comfortable with the new system. I especially like that you offer an honest opinion, and also leave yourself open to retrying. Your sincerity, honest, and integrity, are only that much more endearing. Thank you.
I'm playing in my first Pathfinder oneshot tomorrow! I'm not leaving D&D, but my vibe is that Pathfinder is really fun and just different enough that I have an interest in playing both, for different styles.
@@lord-of-the-unfinished-project Great! We all had a relatively easy time with the mechanics, just adjusting to differences like how to use our actions. I played a cleric, and the casting is definitely a big change in how you prepare spells, but I also found that healing was significantly more fun and effective since you have options to use the medicine skill to heal for no resources. Plus, healing hurts undead, so I had a fun moment casting a Heal spell that healed our injured fighter while dusting a bunch of skeletons. I liked it!
I watched Rules Lawyers videos purely because seeing your smug mug on camera brings me joy, but it also taught me more about a system that's been sitting in the back of my head, so I'm very glad you chose to appear in that campaign.
I really love this video, i started with 3.5, and have had a similar arc to you with my relationship with the game. I feel like atleast in some of my gaming groups, the narrative at first when the OGL drama started was "lets play some Call of Cthulu or Knives in the Dark or something different" and that quickly morphed into "were moving everything to PF 2e" and suddenly i felt like i was under a lot of pressure to like PF2, like i was gonna be left behind by my groups if i didnt want to play it. I can imagine you felt that same pressure with your channel. I think PF2 is great, but i cant lie, i dont really want to go back to the way spells work in the past, i love the advantage system, i love how easy i can get new players rolling in 5e, there are just so many things that bum me out flipping through my PF2 rulebook. The pressure to outwardly smile while not really enjoying myself was massive.
I’m really sad to hear this. I started playing 5e because I moved across country and lost all my pathfinder games. The only games (online or IRL) I could find were 5e. I have had some great 5e games and a lot of very horrible ones. Because 5e is so simplistic, it requires the DM to constantly improv rules. Drink a potion, try to get away from an enemy, or do anything to help your team requires your whole action. DM thinks that is a bit harsh, so you can drink potions as a bonus. Now the party is immortal. Unrealistic grid distances mean circles should be squares, but this DM made them circles. So, now my spells all cover significantly less squares. Where can we get magic items, and what do they cost? The wizard just claimed that Jeremy Crawford said you can get all the benefits of greater invisibility by casting the minor image cantrip and this new DM was just bullied by the “rule of cool.” The lack of rules is supposed to be a benefit for new players, but it makes this game almost impossible to DM without a lot of 5e player experience and experience as a DM outside of DnD. The encounter build system in 5e is a joke, If you don’t intimately understand every spell in the party your encounters will keep getting undone, and it doesn’t matter how creative you made the environment- every one will end up closing to melee, standing in place, and taking the same action every round. I’m sorry for the little mini rant here, but P2e has shown me a better way and I don’t want to go back. I have been a fan of yours since the old days, but I don’t see myself ever playing in another 5e campaign after the one I’m in now concludes. I will stay subscribed and will be happy to check out your non-5e content, but 5e optimizations are no longer interesting to me.
I've been playing D&D since I was 14 and wil turn 50 in a few months, PF2 is by far my favorite. In my opinion, it's better than 5e. I will not be going forward with D&D One as well.
Nitpicks: 1. You could actually get most of the D&D 3.5 stuff that is relevant to Pathfinder free from WotC's own website under OGL1.0a 2. Publishing alternate games using the SRD material was absolutely contemplated by the OGL1.0a authors. Possibly not Pathfinder specifically, but there was a strong push to get a bunch of standalone games to flip over to using that shared system. Some of those were licensed and produced by WotC, many were 3rd party
My biggest problem with DnD 5e is the lack of options for character builder. I would like to have the options of Pathfinder 2e character building with DnD 5e's simple rules.
Played tons of dnd as a kid in the 80's, some epic all night game sessions with friends that left great memories. Stopped playing for decades but decided to try get back into it with some friends about ten years ago. Picked up a few DND 4.0 books and tried it out. We were like what is this garbage, doesn't feel like the game we remembered,. Then talked to an old buddy that still played RPG's and he told us to try Pathfinder 1.0. Got the books and all that magic was there once again, felt like the game we knew and we delved hard back into the hobby. When dnd 5.0 came along, we were not interested in it because of our love for Pathfinder and the bad experience with dnd 4.0. When pathfinder 2.0 came out, because of the large investment into 1.0 we didnt care to change so never bought the rules. As you all know, gaming groups change for real life reasons and people come and go, some of our new players like dnd 5.0 so slowly started to try dnd 5.0. Didn't mind it was better then 4.0 and we started converting our game group to dnd 5.0. My feeling was that 5.0 felt like characters were pigeon holed into doing one thing well and it became a rinse and repeat pattern. However, tried getting around this by RPing differant things and still was having fun and willing to continue using the 5.0 rules., until this recent OGL fiasco. I will not give WOTC/Hasbro another cent. I instantly went out a bought many of the Pathfinder 2.0 books and like what I have seen and once again realize what fabulous products Paizo makes and will be a fan for life.
Thanks for giving your opinion on PF2. Personally, I feel like it’s closer to 5e than 3.5. I just see a lot of similarities between the two: 1. The three action system bears similarities to move, action, bonus action. Far more than 3.5’s idea of “full round action,” standard action, etc 2. It has “proficiency bonus” very similar to 5e, except there are just separate levels of proficiency. It isn’t like 3.5 where you just added points to skills. 3. It has bounded accuracy like 5e. The only difference is the PF2’s bounded accuracy is tightly scaled to character level / CR, whereas 5e’s is very loosely scaled. 4. PF2 has you pick class features as you level up. This is a hybrid of 3.5 and 5 really, because you are choosing “feats,” but they are class specific feats that guide your development in the class, and don’t have all the weird pre requisites like 3.5 feats did. So I think this is more analogous to 5e subclasses, just with more customization. 5. PF2E’s dying system is very similar to 5e with death saves. But it fixes the 5e “boomerang” issue with constant healing words getting a player up over and over with little consequence. So I dunno, PF2 has always felt closer to 5e when I have played it. Just my two cents.
I also played pf1e (as a videogame), and yeah, pf2e is really not like 3.5. Its only 3.5 in the same way 5e is like 3.5: they started from a similar base, then branched off in separate directions. In fact, I'd go further and disagree with your first point, 5e's action system is closer to 3.5's than pathfinder's is, except swift action is renamed as bonus action and full round actions are gone. PF2e is the one that very much deviated on that. PF2e did keep the names for their conditions (shaken is gone, but not flat-footed), and they did keep the idea of typed bonuses, though they did heavily shrink the number (there's no insight, divine, or morale bonuses). They also kept the same 3 saving throws. But they also added their own version of advantage (fortune) and heavily changed how class progression worked (feat based archtypes / no multitasking) and how ability score progression works (whereas 5e only tweaked it a bit).
@@mesosupe8837 To be fair a lot of those things you listed were already in PF1 in one way or another. * The 3 action system came from an alternate PF1 ruleset. * Fortune/Misfortune (reroll for better/worse) were already a thing with witch hexes and monk. * Feat based archetype were originally experiment via PF1 Variant Multiclassing (trade feats for fixed abilities). * Similarly, many class features were already treated as feats or feat adjacent. All the various "talent" and "power" abilities are effectively feats. That is probably in my opinion why Treant felt dejabu. PF2 hits a lot of the same tones as PF1 and DnD3.5e, but is much closer to DnD5e and even some aspects of DnD4e.
@@Temperans Ah I see, I only played pf1e via wrath of the righteous (and I know a little past that via research) so I wasn't aware these were polished variant rules. I hear PF2e takes a *lot* from D&D4e, but since I never looked into 4e (and never plan to because oofa doofa that license) I wouldn't know to what degree. Focus spells maybe.
@@mesosupe8837 From what I heard/remember a lot of what they took from 4e is in regard to the design philosophy. Things like overall balance, the niche protection, per combat powers vs per day or per round, how the rules read overall being more like a video game, adding level to stats, etc. Also, the lead designer for PF2e is Logan Bonner one of the designers/lead designers for DnD 4e.
@Temperans @MeSoSupe 4e has its positives and negatives(though more of the latter than former). People just say "too video-gamey" and don't expand. Then, use that as the only argument without expanding upon it. The issue with 4e is that it is both too much and not enough. It feels like a tabletop game trying to be a computer game and a computer game trying to be a video game. Think of the original Warcraft. It got transformed into an MMO. Now take that and turn it into a table game, then take that and turn it into a different video game. By the time you reach that point, you can't really recognize what it is anymore. The main positive of 4e is that it's better balanced than your dining table. But, every class has effects that trigger upon the meeting of certain conditions, which they themselves can trigger other conditions, and so forth. It's a conditional cascade, which is where WotC's sloppy VTT assistant came in. It was almost impossible to keep track of all of those conditions yourself, as the DM *or* the player. This also means that if you were in a situation in which your internet was down, you couldn't properly play. 4e also boasted a *lot* of base classes. This was incorrect. There were four, to fit the four roles of the party: Striker, Tank, Leader, and Controller(or something like that, it's been years and I, like the man in the story, got rid of my copy of the book). It's just that these four classes each had many different dresses they could wear to appear like a unique class. Bards had a method of healing on the condition they did a certain action, this was a Leader class, which means *ALL* the leaders had this same ability with a different name. It functioned the same, was triggered the same way, and everything but the name was the same. And this could trigger someone else's ability, and so on. There's the joke about a four-hour session of 3e or 5e having half of that being two combat encounters, three if they're simple. 4e could easily take nearly the whole session for one.
I think it's also important to note that Paizo handled the union situation pretty well compared to a lot of other companies. They didn't try to gaslight or try to hide what happened and fairly quickly addressed it and unionized. This is a lot better than a lot of other companies and again shouldn't treat every evil as the same amount. Plus companies also don't unionize because those companies make it really hard to unionize like Amazon. But yes every company probably has skeletons in their closet, and I've already switched 2e long before the OGL fiasco happened. It sucks I really wanted onednd to do well as I prefer new editions always coming out after a while as it keeps the game from stagnating.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you pop-up on the rules lawyer's show, I saw your display name and thought "is that *the* treantmonk?" because I had read some of your guides 10+ years ago when I first got into PF1. I was glad to see you were out here making stuff still! I was also burned out on PF1 near the end of its life cycle. It suffered so much from the baggage of its 3.5isms that i was losing my enjoyment of the game. We gradually stopped playing and tried to pick up 5th edition about a year and a half into its release. ... And I hated running 5th edition, and playing to a lesser extent. So much relied upon the GM to move the game along (and the encounter system was.. Frustrating) that I thought I had just entirely fallen out of love with playing TTRPGs. Since others enjoyed 5e so much I thought "well maybe I am the problem here". Vampire and cyberpunk didn't really hit for me either. When the PF2 playtest came out, I got pretty involved and actually loved playing/running. They managed to axe the things I hated most and revitalized the things I enjoyed best to the point that I was REALLY feeling RPGs again for the first time in several years. I'm sorry that the beginning of your experience has been so beset by other factors, I imagine playing for the first time in front of an audience is very daunting, but I'm glad to hear that you're maybe going to give it another shot in the future. I hope that venture fairs better, and wish you luck in attempting to decipher whatever arcane plans Wizards has for OD&D. The start definitely kicked off.. Rockily 😶
I too have been trying to find the path, there are two paths I've found quite appealing, the Magus and the Stronk (Str based monk) Also True Strike is... Good??? The art also is so cool.
Really sorry to hear all the anxiety that built up and got in the way of you just exploring the game for yourself and your own enjoyment, but I DEFINITELY understand where you're coming from haha! When you develop a reputation for yourself you suddenly become a lot more aware of being viewed and judged based on your reputation and whether or not you live up to it. It actually caused me to quit a game before just due to severe burnout and emotional draining from having to deal with the exact feelings you're describing here. For what it's worth, I've been watching your Pathfinder experience on the Rules Lawyer's channel, and really enjoying seeing you in it!
That's what I like about your videos. You are always so humble and very poilte to say that you didn't like something. And I also can relate to many of similar experiences I had in the past. I started playing 2nd edition, then move on to 3rd edition, then try a campaign on 4th but didnt like that. And I also visited that big store in Calgary around 3 or 4 years ago before I move into Canada. Now trying to convince my players to try out some other systems.
I'm glad you had a chance to try pf2e! It's my current fav. I do get frustrated when new people bring up the unionization however, as it really distracts from the good that the company does on a whole. The fact that paizo didn't fight the union, and make them bring it to a vote speaks volumes in my mind.
I think one thing that's worth mentioning is that whe WotC set up the OGL one of the key reasons was so that D&D would never be out of print. When TSR folded it did look like D&D might completely stop being available and the new owners at WotC wanted to make sure that couldn't ever happen, thus the OGL. So when Piazo started PF1e they were using the OGL in the way it was intended but WotC hadn't realised it could happen like that.
During lockdown in 2020, I got to play in an online Blades in the Dark campaign, I loved it. I think it ran for 6-7 months until the group decided to start another 5e campaign. I've played in 5e campaigns that have gone for years, I'm not sure Blades would hold up as well over a long haul like that, but would highly recommend it for anyone that wants to try something very different from 5e that doesn't require a huge time commitment to learn and requires a lot less (according to my GM/DM) effort to prep and run.
Thanks for sharing your personal stories Chris. Can’t say I’ll ever relate to the specific anxieties you have to deal with: fame has its drawbacks! ;) But the fact that you clearly explained this is what we all love about you. Honest and practical. BTW just finished a session last night where I’ve been playing a character based on your “Do it All God wizard” build. Surrounded by hook horrors and pulled out a polymorph spell and cast it on our warlock who’s usually blasting from the back. His eyes lit up as he read through the T-Rex stat block then waded in and wiped out 2/3s of the hook horrors. That felt good!!
I switched over to Pathfinder 2e two years ago and have been having so much more fun ever since! It solved every single one of my gripes with 5e. The martial caster power gap is gone, the devs are actually willing to patch content with buffs and nerfs, all of the rules are free online, and there aren't any broken must-pick spells like polymorph and counterspell.
I think that Slow is kinda a must-pick spell, but the gap between polymorph and other 4th level spells and hypnotic pattern and other 3rd level spells is definitely much bigger
This "history of" format is great; as a newer nerd to the TTRPG community, it's super interesting to hear what happened to bring about these games we love (or love to hate/hate to love ;P). I also shamelessly enjoy hearing about old drama, especially from a sensible person like yourself. Awesome video!
Thank you Treantmonk! You are a leader and a teacher for our community. You have a terrific sense of fairness and we all appreciate you so much. Looking forward to your perspective for everything that comes next
Your videos have always been about making the game more accessible to people. Having your wizard guide in hand before walking into my first 5e game a lot more enjoyable. In the same way, I think you putting yourself out there and showing yourself struggling through Pathfinder helps others trying out a new system see that it is ok to not walk in knowing everything. I think people are smart enough to understand that you can be an expert in one system and a beginner at another. But I think you inviting us on this journey with you is right on brand. I think a great next Pathfinder video for you would be a lookback at this particular character and what you learned from playing him.
Chris, really appreciate hearing your story here. I'd be very curious to hear your critique of Pathfinder 2 vis a vis 5e from a mechanics standpoint. Colby gave a great overview of the differences, but only a little discussion of preferences.
I first found you through your Pathfinder optimization guides, I always found them well thought out, and focused on why something is good, instead of just 'this is good, take it' which allowed for me to decide for myself if it would be good for me. And I found it amazing how almost all the other guides back referenced to 'This is presented in the Treantmonk style'. Heck, even the Pathfinder 2 optimization guides I have used are written in the old Treantmonk style, with your color coding, and your evaluation format. Though they are rarely as well balanced, usually far more personalized to that writer's playstyle instead of thinking about the class or team the character will interact with in general.
Hey Chris, Honestly what I really liked watching the session 0/1/2 of your PF2 stuff (or as some acronym it "3.P2") was that you were GENUINE about how you weren't an expert on it. You were learning stuff and making your best efforts to roleplay a fun quirky character. This was a fantastic difference to just seeing your optimization and rule analysis content. Don't be anxious. In fact, i think it was a refreshing thing to see as we all learn PF2 stuff together watching it. At least, this is the viewpoint of someone with a depth of knowledge in 3.5 and 5e but not in PF2. i think you're doing a great job. Keep it up.
So when looking for an alternative I really wanted a few things: 1. An online portal where we character creation would be simple, similar to dndbeyond which we had been using. We are all fairly new and worried about making mistakes as to which bonuses would stack or wouldn't etc. 2. Something familiar enough in setting 3. Something familiar enough in mechanics That is why we landed on PF2, I however found that it was clunky and required more crunchy numbers and some things about the 3 action system felt really limiting, as simple as it made it (i.e. charging through a group of enemies and striking this guy then this other guy wasn't an option because I had to use a move action then an attack option and then would require another move. So in the end I am still leary of WotC but am glad they opened 5.1 to CC. I know I am holding other ttrpgs to a harsh standard, but I wanted something that we could pick up and my players could learn most of the differences on the fly, knowing that many wouldn't invest in learning in any other way. I didn't feel that PF2 fit in that mold. I also don't know of any other system that would.
I can't speak for anyone else, but i am not here because you're an expert in D&D. I certainly enjoy the level of knowledge you bring but it's the passion & effort that really makes the videos work. I will watch the videos you put out as long as that same excitement is there. If you decide to make content for other games and enjoy it I'm right there along with you. If in the end D&D is what you stay passionate about and the only thing you make content for, I'll be watching and enjoying too.
As someone who continued to play D&D during the 4e era (along with Pathfinder 1e) I see some of 4e's DNA in Pathfinder 2e too. Since there were some things I liked about 4e that I don't think quite carried over to 5e that has me excited to try out P2e to see whether they have indeed perfected some of the 4e mechanics without succumbing to the notable problems in that system.
I just wanna say, I've been loving your content since the old WOTC optimization forums (guess I'm a fellow dinosaur). And I enjoyed seeing you learning PF2. Nobody starts as an expert in a system, it takes work and experience. 😁
I agree with your advice at the end that PF 2e might not be for everyone who wants to switch games. I would also like to add that when people want to switch, it is better to do so to a game they were curious and excited to try out in the first place, rather than out of spite towards the game / company they are leaving behind.
@@TreantmonksTemple Oh! Considering that my friend plans to start a short Cyberpunk Red campaign this spring, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
@@TreantmonksTemple Very excited for you to make a video about it. We have played cyberpunk for many years (mostly 2020) and although it is a very imperfect system, we have used it to "translate" other systems that gave us even more problems (our best Star Wars and Vampire campaigns were actually with cyberpunk's D10 system). We also liked Red (and it had all the added incentive of the 2077 video game adiction), but even so there were parts that didn't quite click for us, especially the netrunning I think (which I loved in 2020 although I admit it was a problem for non-netrunner players). Very vary much looking forward to your impressions about.
It's kind of a relief to hear this take being talked about, and so thoughtfully too. I played PF2e for a while last year and it wasn't for me either, and right now there seems to be a LOT of pressure for D&D players to move to that system in particular. It's great that you're giving the game a try and I hope you can have fun with it, but there should be no pressure for you (or anyone) to switch completely if it's ultimately not your top pick.
I just want to say I really appreciate that you present a calm balanced opinion about the current issues in the gaming community, and also that you give shout outs to your fellow content creators. There's been a lot of content recently that seems very "reactionary" and "clickbaity" from some channels, but I always feel you're very clear about the separation between the facts and your feelings.
i cannot imagine thinking less of you for not immediately understanding an entire system with optimizations. it takes time and experience to learn, and it's wonderful to see you learn. at least from me, i think no less of you for learning like a human.
I’m part of that category who’s been following you since your Pathfinder builds. I’ll always remember sharing your guides in High School to the kids I would introduce Pathfinder too. Through your videos I’ve learned what a cool kind person you are and you will always be one of my TTRPG idols who I’ll continue to follow regardless of what main game I’ll be playing.
I actually started the hobby a few months before the whole thing with 4th Edition broke out. Pathfinder was free, basically a patch to our books, and so for my group it wasn't a contest between that and Wizard's offering. Needless to say, I'm one of those folks who subscribed because they remembered you from your Pathfinder days. Also one of those folks who quickly got tired of the bloat, which came fast and hard after that brief period of edition reset. I really appreciated the end of the video - you being open about your anxiety on camera, your feelings that there's just enough 3.5 DNA in PF2e to be uncomfortable, and especially urging folks to try out other TTRPGs. My main group finished up Mad Mage in Fall 2021 and then had a whacky scheduling fracas that wound up with our extended group splitting up for our next campaigns. My GM was dissatisfied with 5e at that point. I was on the verge of bowing out since I was a bit burnt out even as a player, but he started up a PF2e game and despite my reservations, it was a scheduled reason to hang out with my favorite people so I took it. The system certainly has virtues - it's a great update to 3.5! But, uh, I quit playing that for a reason, and had gone with 5e specifically because it got rid of some of the other, 'worser' bits. I kinda dread every level up, because it feels like I have five or six decision points that might occasionally turn the tide but will more likely languish unused on my character sheet. We're over a year in, my GM is an absolute machine running like 4 or 5 games (some paid!), and we still wind up slipping over rules bits (even with Foundry's automation! You know, when that works) I feel like combat still takes too long to get to an obvious conclusion. And I loathe how the level scaling confuses what's a 'good' result. A modified 20 in D&D isn't worse than 'pretty good' until you're well into the teens. With Pathfinder, I'm 10th level and have no idea if my die-dwarfing +18 mod is a sure thing or a 50/50. I'm sure there's math I could do, but I prefer it to be intuitive. (Also, we had pre-planned the campaign to follow Mad Mage - I did bow out of that one since I would have been in four! tabletop games, but I was relieved I did when they all decided to switch it to Pathfinder). Personally, I've had my fill of D&D and its descendants - I'll be GMing in pastures that to me, at least, are greener. But I'll always appreciate your thoughts on the hobby, and even if I'm not in Hasbro's playground anymore, I really appreciate your take on what's going on.
I appreciate the little history lesson, as most people aren't even aware of what happened during 4E era. In regards to enjoying PF2E or not, I don't think it would be fair for anyone to criticize you (or anyone else for that matter.) We're allowed to enjoy what we enjoy, and personally speaking, I'm just glad you were willing to give it a chance.
I just wanted to thank you, not only for this history lesson behind the formation and evolution of PF, but also for the class guides you put out over the years fr PF1e. I always knew your analysis of the game mechanics were going to be solid and trustworthy, and no lie, I think your Ranger guide might still be bookmarked on my PC at home.
Thank you very much for being this insightful that you realized what could affect your judgement and also talking about this openly. This made the video a very uplifting watch. You've always seemed like a great human being, Chris. I do hope you'll give us another take on PF2 once you've had some more time with it at your own pace ^^
paizo didn't want the optimization community to be able to break the game. In PF2E if an average character is 100% powerful, a bad one is maybe 80%, and an optimized is maybe 120%. (My personal guesses). This is pretty healthy for a game imo. In DND 5e a poorly made character can feel like 20% and an optimized 1000%. This is not healthy for a game.
pathfinder 1e can get incredibly goofy from optimization, kinda breaks the game even if you're not min-maxing. it's totally understandable from my perspective, because not everyone wants to do that, but they still want to play a powerful character.
I started playing with AD&D, although I didn’t get to play much. It wasn’t until college that I had the means to play ttrpgs, and by that time, 3.5 was the edition to play. By the end of it’s life, I was definitely feeling system fatigue. When 4e came out, my group started a campaign using the rules. To this day, that 4e campaign was the longest running we’ve had. We went from level 1 all the way to 26 before we finally wrapped it up. And I have to admit, I love 4th edition. It did something important that 3.5 and Pathfinder didn’t: it made all the player’s pay attention to the combat even when it wasn’t their turn. There were so many abilities available that could be used out of turn, such a tanks damaging enemies that ignore them or healers restoring hit points reactively. There was so much synergy in our group’s abilities, it made us feel like a super hero team. One person’s turn would set up an ultimate ability of another teammate. One of the strengths of 4e has ended up being a weakness. There used to be a super handy set of programs for making characters and tracking encounters. Essentially what D&D Beyond does nowadays. It was something you had to have a Dragon subscription in order to use. Once the system died, so to did the program. Our group relied on making the characters with the builder, and our DM liked the program’s ability to customize monsters. You used to be able to pull abilities from one monster and drag it onto another. Want that goblin to have a fire breath weapon? Drag it from a red dragon, and it would automatically update the numbers and difficulty to match the goblin you added it to. It was super handy. As I’ve looked into PF2, it reminds me more and more of D&D’s 4th edition. Rather than wanting to learn more of PF2, I just want to go back and play 4th edition. I wish 4e was better received. It was a good system, but the GSL really hurt it’s lifespan. Having played it a lot, I can see a lot of the bones of 4e hidden in 5e, and I wonder how many haters of 4e love the changes when disguised in 5e. I will admit, though, that 4e definitely hits different than other editions of D&D, which is likely what caused friction with the community.
Chris, your self-awareness was what I liked most about this vid. Hearing you acknowledge and share how the game FEELS in the context of your personal experience impressed me and resonated with me. Great work mate 👍
I first found you on those forums back in 2011-12, I was in high school reading your posts during lunch and writing out characters in my notes app. Good times!
I am going to try PF2. My trust for WOTC has diminished to the point that it's time to look for some variety. I am tired of running or playing adventures that I know will never go past a certain point simply because the designers can't be bothered to change or fix the problems they've introduced. It's very frustrating for myself and my players knowing that once we reach level 10-11 the game is going to end because the design of the game system fell off for high level play. (and this was intentional).
Pathfinder in whole is so connected to 3.5 DND that I used your old Wizard and Malcomvoker guides in an original Pathfinder game and they still worked perfectly.
PF2e is SOOOOO good, especially it’s vtt support making it the easiest of these types of combat heavy games to run. The game balance is tight, character builds can be super varied without being absolutely broken, and monsters all have really cool and unique effects. The edition has a dense amount of rules but most are common sense, and the ones that are more complex I’d rather they be there then not at all (the 5e issue of “leave it to the dm”)
yeah. for me, the defining feature of dnd 5e is the advantage system. If you like it, then you won't like PF2. If you don't like it, then you will LOVE PF2.
As someone who was burnt out on 3.x years before PF1e was even a thing, being told "no, seriously, PF2e is a different game that just looks similar if you squint at it" was a big factor in getting me to try it at all. And I was glad I did!
Knowing of you from the days you were still making guides for PF this was just so fun to hear about the journey and reminisce about the evolution of the culture of Pathfinder and DnD Next and optimization. I think you were a really important contributing voice to a culture of optimization that was really healthy and respectful and I've always loved your voice.
As one of the players, its amazing to see how Chris approaches the game. Editions aside, I've really enjoyed the good vibes he brings to the table and the dynamics he creates between characters. (Even if he will never understand what rizz is)
Mathfinder describes PF1 to a T. Even with it’s complex and confusing mechanics, my group had a lot of fun with it. We don’t get to play as much as we used to, so we still have a ton of 5e to explore. So I don’t think we will be changing our game anytime soon. I will still be paying attention to the new community focus on 3rd party materials, and other games. I’m here for all of it.
Thanks for your honest thoughts. I honestly felt the same, outside of specific anxieties, I just didn't vibe as well with Pathfinder 2e, neither did my players. I love 5e and will continue playing, but I'm eager to check other systems, Black Flag and whatever else I have in my shelf that I haven't played yet
Good video, enjoyed the history bits. I do wish I had maybe a bit more info on what 5e does that appeals to you so much, but you've probably gone over that in other videos. For me, I'm just pretty tired of 5e. It's such an unbalanced mess of a game. Partly it's my own fault for getting into optimization, I think I've largely optimized the fun out of the game. My gaming group is having a situation similar to what you described about PF1 and 5e, except reversed. We're finishing out a 5e game, and about 10 sessions in a pf2 campaign, and it always feels like a bit of a letdown on the weeks we play 5e.
I know for my own experience, the optimization is the fun of my game of choice, that being 3.P(P being PF1) Not exactly familiar with 5e though so I can't comment on the impact of optimization there
This exactly. I got so tired of every fight being determined by the number of characters able to turn into King Kong. The adamant refusal to patch blatantly broken spells like counterspell and polymorph, and by extension the martial/caster disparity, drove me away. I haven't looked back since. 2e was such an improvement on both fronts.
I think this can happen with any game really. Ive been playing Pathfinder 1e with the same folks since 2010 (current campaign is 5 years in), and sometimes I just do not look forward to it. The rest of my crew is locked in though. I convinced then a few years ago to break up the monotony by playing a different game every other week, and have rotating GMs. I know this isn't possible at every table, but it helps immensely. The sheer amount of inspiration I get from other systems and being able to both play and run is invaluable! It helps keep a stale thing fresh. Hopefully we will be moving to PF2e full time soon, as it is a billion times easier to GM as 1e is.
I found your channel through your pathfinder 1e guides as I played that as my first game as a dm. Your guides helped my players and myself a ton understand much. Now you show ne cool dnd 5e sruff to as I play both thanks Chris
I've said this before, I think 4th edition could have been very successful if it wasn't D&D. If wizards of the coast literally took 4th edition and slapped "Magic the Gathering: TTRPG" on it, I think it would have been successful, or at the very least, less panned.
The D&D scene loves the mysticism and arcane vibes of the other editions. They want the game hidden in the fluff. I just finally opened PF 1e to give it an actual chance and it’s like I just jumped into a wizard’s tower and he just gives me his “optimization theories in arcanium book”. The natural language and heavy optimization gives it a very different vibe that the gamest language of 4e. And mind you 4e can be optimized to hell and back just like any other edition, but it’s definitely doesn’t feel like you’re unlocking the mysteries of the universe as you are doing so.
I actually really get this. Nicely done! I, too, was really done with 3.5 by the time 4e came out. I enjoyed 4e, thought it was great. To me, it was a change of pace at the right moment. My entire gaming group hated it after 1 test session. I was crushed. We played other (non-fantasy) games for awhile, then fell apart. I found 5e well into its cycle, and picked it up quickly. I love the simplification and the pace and sense of ease it creates, but have always felt it over simplified in favor of making too many things the work of the DM that used to have system answers, especially encounter building. Perhaps I just don’t have as much time in DMing it as other systems, or perhaps I have rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Both are real possibilities. Regardless, PF2 hits me the same way it does you. I see many things I remember and liked from 3.5, but I just don’t want to go back to playing 3.5, even for 3.75.2. I look forward to seeing what Kobold Press can do. They have some excellent designers!
Hey just curious, what about pf2 gave you similar bad feelings to 3.5? I personally feel like the high game-balance and team play of pf2 reminds me of the best parts of 4e more than anything else. Not trying to change how anyone feels, I'm just a little anxious because I'm hoping to run a pf2 game and it feels like everybody I play with has history and burnout with a system at this point, I'd like to cater an experience to them that doesn't give anyone rpg PTSD, lol. I think Treantmonk's take and your post both caught me off guard because from my experience, the bad feelings I have around 5e (mostly the high potential of optimizing and the caster-martial gap at high levels) put 5e on the same boat as 3.p for me. All love and no hate, my bias is I've played a lot of bad games of 5e which is subjective to me and my friends and not necessarily indicative of the system.
@@seankellar6817 Thank you! Happy to try and articulate this for you, let’s see how well I can actually do that! 🤣 The stacking of various types of feats as the primary form of character growth is a big one. It leads to the feeling (which may be misleading) that you’re going to be hunting through “3 pages of small print” for those elusive +1 modifiers that justify the +34/+29/+24 that you listed on the front page next to your Longsword, only to find that an (questionably) “unattentive” player (everyone at the table ends up with the feeling it was 50/50% cheating, which undermines the group) has stacked 7 unstackable “circumstance bonuses” to become a god. The sheer walls of text associated with a class are daunting to new-to-the-system players, and perhaps more importantly, make it daunting to understand which of the plethora of base classes is, in the long run, going to actually let you play out the image of a character you’ve build in your mind. Example: A new player says he wants to play “a wizard”. Now, does he actually want the wizard class, the witch class, or the sorcerer class? In D&D 5e, he needs to read about 7 pages of each class to really understand which. In PF2, that’s closer to 17 pages each, and is full of references to another 5 pages worth of conditions and types of modifiers. Finally, at a certain point, the offering of so many options for race/class/subclass (under the various multitude of names that systems use) in order to let a player be exactly what they want to be stops being “greatly available” and starts being “burdensome bloat”. An example of this? A “beast person”. Which race in PF2 am I referring to? Experienced PF2 players with all the Lost Omens books can tell you that just from that description, I could be referring to any of about 7 races. Now, 5e has some of that going on, too (aricokra/owlin for instance), but for a newer game it’s already more exaggerated in PF2. The simplicity of a system like 5e lets you use flavor to that kind of thing instead of writing a new race for each, but the granularity of the 3.5 base behind PF2 lends itself to the bloat approach. I freely admit that I see all these thing as flaws, and to a lot of other people they may in fact be the very perk they are seeking. I may be the minority in my view of them, in fact, and that’s totally fine. Also, to be clear, I think PF2 is a fine system. Looks shiny as hell. It’s just that the bones underneath it mix with my particular lives experience of gaming in such a way as to make it personally reminiscent of 3.5 to too great an extent, and that makes it unappealing to me.
Now, on the plus side, I think they learned a ton of lessons about caster/martial balance from 4e that 5e missed, and I applaud them for that! Bravo! I’m sure if I spent more time digging I’d find a lot more things they got right, too. To me, it’s just not a feel of system that inspires me to want to spend that time. Hope this helps, and that I answered your question in a way that aids you!
Ah, a few more things grabbed from Chris in his Comments reply to Colby elsewhere here: “flat-footed”, Fort/Reflex/Will trio of saves, and the entire “prepared caster” system of classic Vancoan magic are all direct 3.5 and older remnants. (My first D&D was red box, for reference.)
@@chetori__ I don't think you caught the full context here. I understand the system, I played in one form or another for over 15 years. I'm just tired of it and have moved on. Purely a personal choice.
I just wanted to say Chris, that I don’t think that anyone on your channel would feel as though you should’ve known the rules for pathfinder 2 right away, and I for one don’t think you lost a smidge of credibility for it. I love that you tried it, and I personally just wanted to let you know that there is no need for anxiety from me😁
I loved 4E I ran my Campaign using that set for 8 years, my players loved it and we had so much RP fun. But this could indeed be because me and my players came back to D&D after many years hiatus for adulting. I do want to thank you for your honesty in revealing your feelings around playing PF2 publicly.
Hey Chris, I wanted to say thank you for all your videos. I watch every one soon after it comes out. Just 10 minutes ago I learned that I wasn't subscribed but still got recommended your videos as soon as they launched. That said I finally have subscribed!
On the OGL stuff: I think its clear that they are throwing in the towel on 5E license stuff so they can focus and try again for One D&D in 2024-25. And you can be sure they're going to have a much stronger gameplan to try and push -that- OGL.
Personally I really enjoyed the analysis you did on the Alchemist, I would love to hear your recommendations about other 3rd party content. Something like the Treantmonk seal of approval.
This is an amazing story to hear. Thanks, Chris ❤️💜❤️ I love Pathfinder 2e (like you getting into it before the drama, in November!) - but I've become bored of D&D, so have been looking for other systems. Loving the idea that you will be jumping into different things. There's so much good stuff out there! Also loving some other side of the complexity spectrum OSR games. Sorry to hear about the anxiety. With everything you've shared, it makes perfect sense. I really hope you have a blast playing whatever you choose with your friends privately! Be Blessed, James
As someone who enjoys pf2e, probably more then 5e, I can say I was super stoked when I saw you play with The Rules Lawyer. And at the same time, I am stoked to listen to your views and feelings on the game. I can also see why your situation makes the game less enjoyable then 5e. All I have wanted from you, and other 5e players, was an honest try and see if it's a good fit for you or not. That's all I had ever hoped for!
Awesome video, great history lesson. I can definitely relate to anxiety and getting stuck in a thought pattern you KNOW logically makes no sense. It's awful. I hope you're feeling better now. I appreciate your honest take on your feelings about Pathfinder 2e. I do feel compelled to respond to the comment about "employees not unionizing if they are being treated well." That bothers me. Workers are essentially never treated well unless there are laws or some other power structure in place to protect them. Workers don't unionize for the most part because they either don't know how to or are scared to. It is risky to even say "union" at a workplace in the USA. If there were more protections and resources for workers to form unions, I would wager that most workplaces or professions would have one. Regarding Paizo: Paizo DID have skeletons in their closet. Part of what took place around the unionizing effort was a purging of those responsible and setting up structures to protect workers going forward.
Thank you for the candor Treantmonk, my group switched from D&D 5e to PF 2e due to the OGL crap basket and even if I wanted to my players would never go back now that they have discovered the customization in PF 2e compared to D&D 5e. Also as the GM I find the that PF 2e just way more fun to run.
Hi, Chris I really like these video that touch on history and design. Maybe there's only so many you can do before the well is dry, but I wanted to know I like the format and content. I think (I hope) that expanding the types of videos you can do is a net positive.
One thing I felt was a big contributed to allowing Pathfinder to become a thing that you kinda barely touched one was the fact they already made the setting in Dragon Magazine, and more importantly, the Adventure Paths. The adventure Paths proved to be a very successful idea, so they knew they already had an audience for the setting.
Scary how many people are willing to so easily forgive and forget about all this. (Not directed at you, just venting in general). The new one is "irrevocable", sure, but so was the old one and they tried it anyway. A massive company who sees their consumers as "obstacles to their money" isn't doing this for us. They're backpedaling after backlash to try and let the dust settle before they ultimately try something like this again when they think everyone's forgotten and relaxed.
For someone who gets bad anxiety I can feel ya. Completely understand it. Also I like how you explained your background with PF and told us your feelings about 2e without bashing on it. You seem like a man of good character. I’m a pf2e player who found you during the OGL drama. Glad I did. You seem like a good voice of reason. It’s funny how we are all so different. I got into 5th edition and remember it feeling… bland. For some reason it didn’t click with me. I had gotten tired of pf1’s math degree requirements as well but felt 5e was an over correction. But I can understand the love for the game and I am super happy what it’s surging popularity did for the genre. It was nice to see ttrpg’s become something more than a game “those nerds” play. (My youth summed up in a sentence.) Really appreciate and respect your opinions and your honesty. Hope you give it another try but even if not you got a new fan and subscriber.
Wow, Chris! I feel like we just sat down in comfy chairs are favorite coffee bar and had this discussion in a small group. The history of the different games I've played lots of different games myself, definitely has bearing on the topic and our experience of each game. We love our games! But we don't have to love everything each game company has done. TSR, Wizards, Paizo. I'm still trapped that Guardians of Order went out of biz after publishing that beautiful Game of Thrones RPG. Thanks for your heartfelt honesty about this.
Thank you for this video, I really appreciate your honesty. Please always stick to your opinions and keep being honest. The reason I watch your content and subscribe to your channel is because I appreciate your opinions and views. If they differ from mine, I respect that and enjoy the difference in opinion. You're always doing the right thing as long as it is true to you. I look forward to more of your content, D&D or Pathfinder.
Shout out for Colby's video is so well deserved. It really was a fantastic video, and pretty much made up my mind to not move to pf2e. Edit: You made the comparison to 3.5e and I think that's actually where my hesitancy for pf2e comes from, I know how I felt about that system compared with 5e.
I would recommend that you maybe look into PF2e a bit further if Colby's video was your deciding factor because it is actually pretty infamous for how bad of a take it is on PF2 as a whole. Not liking PF2 is fine and I understand the system is not for everyone but man was his take really bad. EDIT: I misread Colby as Cody so this response is invalid.
@@shadows96100 I'm basing it on my experiences of 3.5 and using Colby's (and before that Cody at taking 20s) videos describing the facts of the game mechanics. Now I could be wrong as I haven't played it, but I'm pretty confident that as a game it's not well designed for ease of access or intuitive play, at least not compared to 5e. The endless conditions, different modifier types, not glossing over free actions, not being able to combine movement with action freely. It feels like a very crunchy game, and I spent enough time with 3.5e to know that's not the game I want to play. 🙂
I remember reading some of your old 3.5 guides back in the day. The one that sticks out the most in my memory is "The Switch Hitter" Ranger. A decade or more later when I got into 5e more, I came across your channel and thought - that HAS to be the same guy & was an insta sub after watching like 2 minutes of one video.
My guess is that One D&D is going to be published under it's own licence, but I could be wrong. I would never have guessed that WofC was going to make the core 5e rules public domain.
@@TreantmonksTemple I would be willing to be bet a large chunk of money that they won't do CC. Hasbro would be leaving so much money on the table and they're trying to do their best to start monetizing.
I really liked the format of this video! Learning about the history of Pathfinder and your experience with it was fascinating! If you decide to try out more TTRPGS and make a video like this for them could I recommend Apotheosis? It's relatively new and a little rules-light, but there's plenty of room for optimization. And the creator is a really down to earth guy. I think he'd be more than happy to tell you about how Apotheosis came about if you contacted him, and he's pretty active in the community.
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Aw man, thanks for the shout out Chris! ❤. Also: I really enjoyed the history lesson. As someone who went straight from AD&D to 5e (20 years later) it was awesome to get some perspective. I also suspect me skipping 3.5 and PF1 might be part of why I seem to be enjoying PF2 a little more than you :). Finally, it must be said that your character in our PF2 game is hands down the best. Missed ya last session.
Yeah, when you experience things like "Flat-footed", "Will/Ref/Fort saves", stacking bonuses, spell preparation, etc as brand new things, I'm remembering 3.5
I've gotten a bit more curious about Pathfinder 2 due to this whole OGL thing, but you two being part of it was really why I decided to watch and I have to say I really loved it despite Chris's nerves. I was really keen to see 5E optimizers learning the system... mistakes and all as well. After all, I know nothing about Pathfinder so it's all new to me. I think I can understand being a little reluctant. I really like some things about the game, but not so much others, and I'm not even sure The Rules Lawyer is really the style of DM I would prefer, (though he seems like a decent guy). I will say that it was a joy to watch. Zappy and Filzo should go on tour! heh But the whole group has been pretty fun to watch too. Selfishly I hope to see much more, but I'll take what I can get. And don't worry about your reputation. I think this community can handle the fact that you gotta learn new stuff like the rest of us. Thanks for sharing the experience with us.
Colby, don't take his talking speed jab too hard. I listen to you at 1.75, but Chris at 1.5.
Every time I link D4 in my D&D Discord, my buddy asks me if I watch at increased speeds… and I always respond, “But that would ruin his sensual voice!” … and it always gets a smile. Thank you both for the content, love you both
@@markdewey6788 Some of my viewers listen to me at 1.5 also!
I don't get the "RUclips voice" thing tbh, I personally don't prefer hearing it
With regards to your saying, "employees do not unionize if they are treated well," not only do I think that isn't true (having power in your workplace is important regardless of your current conditions because those conditions are subject to change), but I also think that Paizo workers having secured power at Paizo is all the more reason to support Pathfinder 2e. It means that more of the dollars you spend go to Paizo workers and that unpopular business decisions (see WotC) are less likely to occur as the workers who love the game have more of a say.
Glad you included the history of pathfinder 2e in this story, casue it's important that players recognize and appreciate the workers that make their games. I'd love to see you talk to some of these designers.
42:40 Employees absolutely SHOULD unionise even if treated well! In some ways that's the best time to do it, so you've built up workplace solidarity and power before the organisation does something and you really need it. And let's be honest, no workplace is perfect. Unions simply allow workers to safely raise and address their concerns, without worrying (rightly or wrongly) about losing their jobs. Regarding Paizo specifically, it does sound like yes there were lots of issues that needed addressing. But I think the fact that Paizo did not try to impede the union forming (it sounds like lots of US companies do) is also a big tick for their executive leadership. The new workplace union is negotiating with the execs over a range of matters now, and notably not raising public hell - that suggests that their concerns are being heard and addressed in good faith. That sounds a world away from what we're hearing about a certain company of mages by the seashore.
I'm not sure you should be giving Paizo credit for "not trying to impede" forming a Union given how that's illegal. Yes, I know some big companies like Amazon and Starbucks openly fight the formation of unions, but those are the outliers and generally because they have so much money they can afford too. A smaller company doesn't really have that option.
I came to mention these points, too. And not only did Paizo not impede the formation of the union (which is illegal as Andrew said), but they voluntarily recognized the union pretty quickly. That doesn't happen very often, at least not that we hear about. So it's good to keep in mind that corporations are not necessarily great "citizens," but they are also not equal in terms of their transgressions.
Having said that, before the employee leaks during the OGL situation, I had only heard good things about working at WotC, so I'm curious if we'll hear any more reports or stories from staff (current or former), or if those leaks were just a load of hoo-ha.
Correct
@@rpgamerous I'm a big sports guy, but because I moved around so much as a kid and adult, I never really developed the hardcore fandom for a specific team like some of my friends have, and one thing that is _super_ common is that fans tend stop being rational about the teams they love and hate. Dillion Brooks, an NBA player for Memphis, literally punched an opposing player in the groin on Thursday and fans of the Grizzlies claimed he never hit the guy when it's clear as day that he did it, or many said "sure, he _maybe_ hit him, but it was an accident" when clearly it wasn't. At the same time, Cavs fans are losing their mind saying the guy needs to be suspended for a week, when cooler heads prevailed he ended up getting a 1 game suspension.
The reason two sets of people see the exact same situation as different is because they have an unconscious bias towards their favorite team, and subsequently against their opponent.
I'm not comparing Paizo or WotC to Dillion Brooks punching a dude in the balls, but you can see the unconscious bias here, especially around Paizo. Many people only want to give them credit for "allowing" the unionization of their shop, but ignore the reason it happened isn the first place which is (and Paizo admits this) that they treated their staff horribly. Many people are praising Paizo for reducing their prices to help 5e players, but the realty is by their own tweets, they sold 8 months worth of product in 2 weeks, they aren't doing this for altruistic reason, they're doing it to make money! FWIW, kudos to them, it's a smart move. They are getting _way_ too much credit for ORC when plenty of lawyers have asked if they didn't want control over in and it basically copies CC, why not just use CC? The reason they don't want to use CC, a bullet proof license, is because they want their the Paizo name to be associated with ORC for life. Again, I'm not even mad about it, good for them, but let's stop pretending that they are being altruistic with ORC, because the aren't.
Paizo is a company, just like WotC, and the both do things that they think they can get away with to make money. Paizo will have a banner year in 2023 revenue wise all because WotC's dumb, self inflicted stupidity, not because they are an altruistic, good company.
The biggest irony of all is people on YT, a platform owned by Google, arguing how bad WotC is. Hasbro/WotC has lightyears to go before they even approach the garbage Google/Alphabet has done, but again because of unconscious bias, people feel that WotC is somehow worse. Anyone remember when pre-Lootbox EA was voted "worst company in the world" right after the world wide housing collapse? It's kind of the same thing.
@@andrewshandle Sorry, that part of my comment wasn't actually aimed at you, I was mainly acknowledging your comment about the illegality of union-busting. It was just something that I noticed in the video, where Treantmonk mentioned the union and how unions usually happen because of bad things, but just left it at that with no context. Obviously, the video was about his PF experience, not about Paizo unionizing, but the way he said it made it sound like an insinuation that Paizo is sinister or something. They're not, they're a corporation and they fucked up.
While I love PF2 & Starfinder, I'm not a Paizo fanboy. I understand that the ORC is a huge marketing tool for them. But that doesn't mean it's necessarily bad for the industry as a whole. I've heard some creators online voice concern about the CC licenses, probably due to a lack of understanding. I mean, despite the internet's conclusion to the contrary during the OGL mess, we're not all lawyers.... but my impression is that some creators want a license that isn't *quite* as open as the CC-BY that WotC used for SRD 5.1, and maybe the CC licensing structure doesn't seem as simple as some folks say.
Also agreed about WotC vs YT/Google, although I suspect that it's more a matter of just not thinking about it. A few YT creators have pointed out that the OGL controversy wasn't nearly as bad as things Google has done; I think maybe I saw this in videos from Treantmonk and Dungeon Craft? Maybe since most people don't have their fun wrapped up in RUclips quite the way they do in D&D, it's just easy to not care/not speak out.
Heya Chris, I hope your anxiety is better when it comes to this. I'd like to think that, yeah, you've cultivated a crowd of optimisers. But, also, I'd like to think you've also cultivated a crowd of chill people. Everyone has to learn before they can begin to optimise. And the journey can be just as fun as the destination. I think everyone has had the experience of going into a game and exploring it for the first time and how magical it can be. But, if it didn't work out for you, then, no worries. Zappy is awesome and he'll make an awesome NPC when he retires xD And, look at it in another way - you optimised the shit out the roleplay! xD
I'd also like to second this! I don't think anyone expects you to go into a system you're unfamiliar with and instantly be a master at all of it's finer details. I'm going to be watching your videos regardless of the system or level of optimization. Remember, D&D/TTRPGS are for *everyone*, not just the most optimized 😉.
I simultaneously love and hate Zappy and I feel like that was the intent.
I know my viewers are chill, and the logical part of my brain knows the anxiety makes no sense. It's tough to turn it off though.
That may be something to look at. Optimization of roleplay. Very fun, and if done right powerful in it's own way! May be difficult to teach however. Challenged?!?
@@TreantmonksTemple yeah, that's understandable. But, I think if you see it often enough, it might sink in subconsciously as well xD Anyway, your content is always enjoyable. Whatever you decide, we're here.
Hey, as one of the folks who was interested in having you trying out PF2: if it didn't hit right, then no sweat. The fact that you gave it a shot is enough for me. And I'm excited for a sprinkling of your take on other systems too.
An honest answer, so surely the best one!
Sorry the being on-camera bit wasn't an ideal first exposure. Do know, and I'm sure your viewers have told this to you: I think people appreciate your open-mindedness and care before arriving at conclusions. Someone would need to be delusional (and an a**hole!) to expect perfection. I hope after this stint, you'll have more chances to explore the system!
I would need to know aspects of 3.5 you don't like seeing, to know how to address that vague feeling more directly.
As for Paizo unionizing, I think it's good that Paizo did not contest the unionizing and became the first TTRPG company to have a union. Supporting Paizo products currently means supporting that decision, and higher profits for them also puts the union in a better bargaining position to demand a livable wage and benefits. Paizo unionizing also doesn't preclude there being bad practices in other companies, as the fact that WOTC employees feel they must be anonymous to share info right now does show.
Anyway, I look forward to our last 2 sessions. Cheers!
Hey Ronald, feelings are pretty squishy, it's easy to say to someone that they remind me of someone, but much harder to say, you remind me of someone because of A, B, C etc.
@@TreantmonksTemple I think I have said this in our server and said it elsewhere, but for me the 2 "arguments" for why you MIGHT like PF2 are:
-It allows optimizers to optimize without worrying about outshining the rest of the party
-In that same vein, I think it implements the idea of your "God wizard," where the caster's role is less about "win button" moments, but about tilting the battlefield in the party's favor. Yes, more of a "support" role... but there are still stand-out moments when you use the right spell at the right time. Slow against a group of low-Will save enemies, for example. So it's also about having 'the right tool for the job' (more versatility in damage types, for example, in a system where having the right to damage type is strongly rewarded). And even after the key spell, teamwork and luck STILL play a role, keeping up the tension.
I think they also tempered the power of spells, not only due to the "martial/caster divide", but also to make it less necessary to balance around daily attrition and the Adventuring Day.
Anyway, your mileage will vary, and I understand that you'll need some more time to let it all sink in. Meanwhile I'm loving Zappy and I've been having a lot of fun with the group!
As a PF 2e DM/Player for the past couple of years, I have new players that come to my table and cite Taking 20's video as part of their hesitancy for starting. It is amazing how much people rely upon other RUclips Content Creators to be 'told' how they should feel about something rather than actually giving that system or rule set a try for themselves. Thank you Chris for telling your story and your experiences with other TTRPG systems. If PF 2e isn't for you that's just fine. At the end of the day, TTRPG's are about kicking back, having fun with a group of friends, to tell stories and roll some funny dice.
I too had similar flashbacks of 3.5e and PF 1e when I started out with PF 2e. That being said, those flashbacks for me weren't completely negative; in fact they were quite the opposite. Having run and played in multiple 5e games over the years, I have learned that my dissatisfaction with the 5e is the rule set in general. As a working father, I don't always have the time to fiddle with the numbers for each encounter to balance it before a session and PF 2e has streamlined so many things as a DM/GM for me that it is very difficult for me to look at 5e in a good light anymore.
As others have pointed out, your channel is about optimizing your experience as a player. PF 2e doesn't really fall into that design philosophy. While there are objectively better choices within the system, no singular choice will be so detrimental to your character as a whole that you will be ineffectual. I have always held the opinion that roleplaying and game mechanics should coexist and support one another. For me PF 2e provides that. Also, as someone who devours complex rule systems, I can appreciate spending hours pouring over content to design the 'perfect' character. My own experience has revealed that I am often in the minority here to enjoy those types of systems and often the majority of the players I am able to recruit don't have the headspace to remember every singular rule for every system. Indeed, when I see that a system has fostered an optimization community for me is often an indication now that I probably won't enjoy running the system.
...Although, deep down, I still will theorycraft those numbers in my headspace!
Keep up the good content!
Just have to chime in to say I agree with your point about the Taking20 video. It’s perfectly fine to not like PF2e, but I feel like his critique was pretty off the mark. Almost every fantasy RPG will have you doing similar actions each round. And PF2 actually gives you more variety of choice than most.
@@Creslin321 I third this comment. Taking 20’s video was so out of touch it came across as disingenuous. Perhaps I’m wrong, but that was how it appeared to me.
Edited so as not to offend people.
@@bryanyoung9966 This is such an odd comment. Just because someone has a different opinion than you that doesn't mean it's designed as clickbait. I remember his video at the time and he laid out his case quite clearly, you may disagree with his points, but it's not like he is alone in his feeling. I know a few others people who felt the same way and that was prior to that video coming out. And honestly, Chris was pretty clear that the reason he didn't do any PF2 videos for his own channel is because he didn't' think the market was there, so why would a guy with a big D&D following bother makiing a video trashing PF2 just clicks if PF2 isn't popular at all? Besides, at the time he was getting way more views doing "Top 10" videos for referencing Critical Role.
Sometimes people have valid criticisms for things you like, and that's okay.
@@andrewshandle There are valid criticisms...yes. HOWEVER when the criticism is that me and my players didn't choose to take advantage of all the extra options we could have to avoid the problem we are complaining about...that isn't exactly valid. The system was designed for you to be wide...not deep. If you don't want that style of play, that is FINE...but that isn't a problem with the system, that is a system is not for you problem. He made the video out to be a system problem when it wasn't. If he wants a game where you build characters to get that extra stuff for the one thing that your character does, than PF2E is NOT for you. Plain and simple. The game...especially the AP is designed around TEAMWORK and making use of all the options that you are given. Not make one trick ponies that do the same thing over and over again. That is why they TPKed...because they decided to play PF2E like a 5E game and try to make broken builds and just power through. Every game is different and if you play a game like a different game and get bad results, the fault lies with you...not the game.
@@andrewshandle I agree. There are tons of valid criticisms of anything, pathfinder included. Heck I could name a ton of criticisms of pathfinder myself.
Wasn’t trying to bother anyone with that comment. But the video, to me, seemed disingenuous. Seemed trashing on something for the sake of doing so. Also, if you look at videos likes and views it is sadly common for a video trashing something to get way more views than other videos. Videos trashing the opposite of what you like often get a lot of views because sadly our society loves to trash things that aren’t what they care for. I’ve seen a lot of videos where people say they don’t like pathfinder and I often agree with their points. The video in question, to me, seemed not to be giving the system a fair shake and made many aspersions based on false assumptions without actually understanding the system well. It came across like trying to play pathfinder but playing it the same as you would 5e, and then Judging it for those false standards.
I didn’t think the video was clickbait at first. But after watching the video I did. Mind you…. Almost every video on RUclips is click bait by design and have to be because of the nature of RUclips algorithms. So being clickbait just makes it par for the course, so perhaps that phrase was unnecessary. It was just how I felt. Hope I didn’t offend.
Does that make more sense? Completely fine if you disagree with me. Never bothers me when people don’t share my opinions. I may not care for 5e but can completely understand the appeal and have many friends who enjoy it. Everyone has different tastes. I just don’t like it when people judge a system in a manner that doesn’t seem genuine and would happily defend 5e if I thought someone was trashing it for no reason or bad reasons.
Apologies if that was ramble or incoherent. Running on a few hours of sleep.
Have a great day!
Your work has helped me hugely in understanding 5e's bizarre systems and interactions, which has made me a more effective 5e player, but it also has helped highlight to me how much 5e's design priorities don't align with my personal gaming preferences in as much as it is a game that is dominated by a few dominant strategies and build-approaches that make much of the game into trap options, which for me feels very constraining and defeating. I think it's great the work you've done to highlight these issues, though it's also unfortunate that wotc has shown little interest in fixing these problems in 6e besides just removing power attack entirely. Inevitably, many people will continue to run into these problems in the years to come, and your content will hopefully help them decide how they feel about what kind of game they want to be playing. Some people will love the optimization, and you're their guy.
Having said that. As an experienced 5e player and pf2 DM who still plays 5e but prefers pf2 and who does not remotely expect you to make much pf2 content, I'm fascinated by your conclusion that pf2 feels like pf1 because pf2 is fundamentally antithetical to optimization as a core design principle. Although it looks a lot like pf1, it is not an update to pf1. It's a reaction to and major departure from it both in terms of being much simpler but also in the way the pieces fit together. Classes, feats, spells, multiclassing are all designed so that players can't easily gimp their character with bad choices and also can't break the system with great choices. Bonus stacking is largely gone. But you still have huge customization options to tweak a PC to suit your playstyle and theme. As compared to 3.5/pf1 where system mastery is hugely rewarded, especially in terms of builds, something we still see in 5e where some classes and spells are wildly better than others. I would never recommend 3.5/pf1 to new players. But pf2 is very new gamer friendly in my experience. It's hard to screw up, and you can easily fix anything you do.
But that also means that it isn't really a great game for a channel like this, focused on optimization, because optimization just isn't a big part of pf2. I don't see optimization videos for Call of Cthulhu either. But 3.5 and 5e, being fundamentally unbalanced, "broken" games where knowing what you are doing can yield massively more powerful characters and strategies, can be very interesting for people who like to optimize systems and find the best routes to success, thus supporting channels like this. Given the self-selection of optimizers to this channel, I suspect pf2 is just not going to be the game for your audience if that's what they expect.
This was very well written and accurate. Pf2e is not at all 1e in any sense beyond name
I feel like my issue with PF2 is the inability to build a truly effective character. The numbers are so strict that you're looking at a 55 to 60% success rate no matter what you do.
Maybe PF2 is more fun if the GM delivers encounters as if the party is 1-2 levels lower than it is/places the party 1-2 levels higher than a module expects.
*_EDIT:_* thinking about that idea, that's going to bloat the hit points.
Maybe handing players +3 to all rolls would meet my goals
I think making the optimized version of a build theme could still work. Or even just making whacky builds at their most effective state like Colby does for 5e.
I am still quite new to PF2, haven't really been thinking about it in terms of optimization at this point.
@@priestesslucy3299 I am not here to police anyone's idea of fun. I don't think pf2 is the game for everyone, or even most people necessarily. What I wanted to express, however, is the importance of taking every game on its own terms to find out if the game's design ethos and priorities suit the style of game you/I want to play. pf2 and 5e/3.5 are not the same kind of game. they are not made for the same kind of people. pf2 is a reaction to both 3.5 and 5e, which among other things means a conscious decision to make "effective" character and play mean something different.
3.5 and 5e are definitely games that promote optimization by rewarding system mastery in the PC-creation/build/spellchoice phase with characters that feel incredibly powerful, so powerful that they can be difficult for DMs to handle in some cases, especially when some members of the party run optimized characters and other characters are more baseline. This problem magnifies at higher levels, which is part of why those levels rarely see play in 5e. pf2 takes a different view towards multiclassing/feat selection by giving you a lot more choices but making them mostly about style. a fighter that specializes in a particular style of fighting (like heavy weapons or two-handed weapons or grappling or archery, whatever) will be better at using them than one who doesn't, but not that much better, but they will also have specific action choices that feel thematic and help reinforce the fantasy mechanically. Similarly, multiclassing isn't about power so much as it is about having extra options. As a result characters end up very T shaped, with their core class abilities defining their power and superpowerful synergies (like hexblade sorcerer/paladin) basically not existing. also, although characters grow in power with levels compared to lower level enemies, they don't grow with respect to same-level enemies, meaning a 15th level encounter is easy to design and run for the DM.
When looking at pf2 to see if it fits your fun, I would suggest to any new player coming from 5e that the gamespace looks very different from 5e/3.5, but is not necessarily more or less complex overall. To pick just one example, a big part of effective play in pf2 is teamwork between party members to buff party members and debuff enemies, which has to be coordinated for it to be effective. In contrast, 5e has a few abilities that benefit from coordination, like the grave cleric channel, but for the most part 5e rewards "hero ball" where a PC does something awesome and doesn't really need their allies to help them. Every core pf2 class has different abilities that help contribute to the team but aren't spectacular on their own. So you say "I'll have a 55 to 60 percent success rate no matter what you do", which might be true for just your own abilities, but it isn't true when accounting for the various ways that your party members can help you out. A wizard might have a 60 percent success rate with a big spell they want to land, but depending on what save that spell targets, a party member might be able to give that enemy a penalty to that save, which significantly increases the odds of success, which really matters when you're talking about blowing a big spell slot and needing to succeed. Or maybe you need to pass a difficult check for a powerful ritual spell, but your alchemist is able to brew up a mutagen that gives you a significant bonus to that check. In 5e, the notable class to do this is the bard, especially the eloquence bard, who is widely considered incredibly powerful. in pf2 this type of ability is more common but not quite as powerful as the eloquence bard. Do you like the idea of playing an eloquence bard where you pay a lot of attention to what allies and enemies are doing and give them buffs and debuffs? then pf2 goes headfirst into that playstyle. In some ways, that does harken back to pf1/3.5, but the elimination of stacked bonuses means that it's much less complex and gamey and feels more like the 5e bard.
I think it's up to every DM to make encounters that are fun for their party. The "moderate encounter" in pf2 generally means fighting enemies that are lower level than the PCs, which means party success rates should be higher and enemies will hit less often and for less damage than the "straight math" would suggest. I'm not sure if that's a system issue you're concerned with, or just DMing or what, so I hesitate to comment much more on that.
Wow, I'm just watching the part about your anxiety of playing. I remember playing in Curse of Strahd run by you once and making SO MANY mistakes playing a wizard around the person who taught me how to play wizard.
So I can relate.
I think the bit about Paizo with "skeletons in their closet" is either disingenuous or ignorant. Those were issues that were pretty openly discussed, and many have been resolved and forgiven. Not to mention that they were accepting of the worker's unionization. Beyond that, the take that unionization doesn't happen if workers are treated well is a very "old man" take. Corporations never treat workers as well as they should, and unionization should be done to protect the workers regardless of how they are being treated.
Its fine to be knowledgeable of the issues a company has had in the past, but to make a very general statement that just references that there were issues, without actually detailing them, or detailing if those issues persist to this day is either disingenuous or ignorant. What an awful way to end an otherwise fine video.
FWIW, my first edition of D&D was 4E. I didn't like it at all. Then a buddy showed me 3.5, and I was hooked. Then Pathfinder found us, and that was my favorite for about 10 years. One of our GMs was a forever DM for AD&D, and had played lots of diff systems, and told me all manner of lore and history surrounding D&D and such.
I get the anxiety, BTW. I really appreciate being able to see you *LEARN* P2E, because I'm trying to learn it, too. It's especially nice to watch someone who led me to my own system mastery of 1st Ed Pathfinder, whose opinion I respect, offer reactions and be an example of how to get comfortable with the new system. I especially like that you offer an honest opinion, and also leave yourself open to retrying. Your sincerity, honest, and integrity, are only that much more endearing. Thank you.
Thanks so much!
From what I've seen, the PF2e community will be there with arms open when you decide to try again ❤️
I'm playing in my first Pathfinder oneshot tomorrow! I'm not leaving D&D, but my vibe is that Pathfinder is really fun and just different enough that I have an interest in playing both, for different styles.
How did it go?
@@lord-of-the-unfinished-project Great! We all had a relatively easy time with the mechanics, just adjusting to differences like how to use our actions. I played a cleric, and the casting is definitely a big change in how you prepare spells, but I also found that healing was significantly more fun and effective since you have options to use the medicine skill to heal for no resources. Plus, healing hurts undead, so I had a fun moment casting a Heal spell that healed our injured fighter while dusting a bunch of skeletons. I liked it!
I watched Rules Lawyers videos purely because seeing your smug mug on camera brings me joy, but it also taught me more about a system that's been sitting in the back of my head, so I'm very glad you chose to appear in that campaign.
I really love this video, i started with 3.5, and have had a similar arc to you with my relationship with the game. I feel like atleast in some of my gaming groups, the narrative at first when the OGL drama started was "lets play some Call of Cthulu or Knives in the Dark or something different" and that quickly morphed into "were moving everything to PF 2e" and suddenly i felt like i was under a lot of pressure to like PF2, like i was gonna be left behind by my groups if i didnt want to play it. I can imagine you felt that same pressure with your channel. I think PF2 is great, but i cant lie, i dont really want to go back to the way spells work in the past, i love the advantage system, i love how easy i can get new players rolling in 5e, there are just so many things that bum me out flipping through my PF2 rulebook. The pressure to outwardly smile while not really enjoying myself was massive.
You do a fantastic job narrating these stories, Chris. Please do more like these if you can!
I’m really sad to hear this. I started playing 5e because I moved across country and lost all my pathfinder games. The only games (online or IRL) I could find were 5e. I have had some great 5e games and a lot of very horrible ones. Because 5e is so simplistic, it requires the DM to constantly improv rules. Drink a potion, try to get away from an enemy, or do anything to help your team requires your whole action. DM thinks that is a bit harsh, so you can drink potions as a bonus. Now the party is immortal. Unrealistic grid distances mean circles should be squares, but this DM made them circles. So, now my spells all cover significantly less squares. Where can we get magic items, and what do they cost? The wizard just claimed that Jeremy Crawford said you can get all the benefits of greater invisibility by casting the minor image cantrip and this new DM was just bullied by the “rule of cool.” The lack of rules is supposed to be a benefit for new players, but it makes this game almost impossible to DM without a lot of 5e player experience and experience as a DM outside of DnD. The encounter build system in 5e is a joke, If you don’t intimately understand every spell in the party your encounters will keep getting undone, and it doesn’t matter how creative you made the environment- every one will end up closing to melee, standing in place, and taking the same action every round. I’m sorry for the little mini rant here, but P2e has shown me a better way and I don’t want to go back. I have been a fan of yours since the old days, but I don’t see myself ever playing in another 5e campaign after the one I’m in now concludes. I will stay subscribed and will be happy to check out your non-5e content, but 5e optimizations are no longer interesting to me.
Fair enough.
@@TreantmonksTemplethis comment is so Chad I'm rolling
Solid take.
Personally, I love PF2 and cant see myself ever going back to 5E or 6E.
I've been playing D&D since I was 14 and wil turn 50 in a few months, PF2 is by far my favorite. In my opinion, it's better than 5e. I will not be going forward with D&D One as well.
I'm always here for storytime with Chris! :D
Nitpicks:
1. You could actually get most of the D&D 3.5 stuff that is relevant to Pathfinder free from WotC's own website under OGL1.0a
2. Publishing alternate games using the SRD material was absolutely contemplated by the OGL1.0a authors. Possibly not Pathfinder specifically, but there was a strong push to get a bunch of standalone games to flip over to using that shared system. Some of those were licensed and produced by WotC, many were 3rd party
My biggest problem with DnD 5e is the lack of options for character builder. I would like to have the options of Pathfinder 2e character building with DnD 5e's simple rules.
Then Level Up Advanced 5e is the game you want. It's 5e but with more rules depth - no need to learn a completely different system.
Played tons of dnd as a kid in the 80's, some epic all night game sessions with friends that left great memories. Stopped playing for decades but decided to try get back into it with some friends about ten years ago. Picked up a few DND 4.0 books and tried it out. We were like what is this garbage, doesn't feel like the game we remembered,. Then talked to an old buddy that still played RPG's and he told us to try Pathfinder 1.0. Got the books and all that magic was there once again, felt like the game we knew and we delved hard back into the hobby. When dnd 5.0 came along, we were not interested in it because of our love for Pathfinder and the bad experience with dnd 4.0. When pathfinder 2.0 came out, because of the large investment into 1.0 we didnt care to change so never bought the rules. As you all know, gaming groups change for real life reasons and people come and go, some of our new players like dnd 5.0 so slowly started to try dnd 5.0. Didn't mind it was better then 4.0 and we started converting our game group to dnd 5.0. My feeling was that 5.0 felt like characters were pigeon holed into doing one thing well and it became a rinse and repeat pattern. However, tried getting around this by RPing differant things and still was having fun and willing to continue using the 5.0 rules., until this recent OGL fiasco. I will not give WOTC/Hasbro another cent. I instantly went out a bought many of the Pathfinder 2.0 books and like what I have seen and once again realize what fabulous products Paizo makes and will be a fan for life.
Loved this video Chris, thanks for making it. The historical context is important as heck.
Thanks for giving your opinion on PF2. Personally, I feel like it’s closer to 5e than 3.5. I just see a lot of similarities between the two:
1. The three action system bears similarities to move, action, bonus action. Far more than 3.5’s idea of “full round action,” standard action, etc
2. It has “proficiency bonus” very similar to 5e, except there are just separate levels of proficiency. It isn’t like 3.5 where you just added points to skills.
3. It has bounded accuracy like 5e. The only difference is the PF2’s bounded accuracy is tightly scaled to character level / CR, whereas 5e’s is very loosely scaled.
4. PF2 has you pick class features as you level up. This is a hybrid of 3.5 and 5 really, because you are choosing “feats,” but they are class specific feats that guide your development in the class, and don’t have all the weird pre requisites like 3.5 feats did. So I think this is more analogous to 5e subclasses, just with more customization.
5. PF2E’s dying system is very similar to 5e with death saves. But it fixes the 5e “boomerang” issue with constant healing words getting a player up over and over with little consequence.
So I dunno, PF2 has always felt closer to 5e when I have played it. Just my two cents.
I also played pf1e (as a videogame), and yeah, pf2e is really not like 3.5. Its only 3.5 in the same way 5e is like 3.5: they started from a similar base, then branched off in separate directions.
In fact, I'd go further and disagree with your first point, 5e's action system is closer to 3.5's than pathfinder's is, except swift action is renamed as bonus action and full round actions are gone. PF2e is the one that very much deviated on that.
PF2e did keep the names for their conditions (shaken is gone, but not flat-footed), and they did keep the idea of typed bonuses, though they did heavily shrink the number (there's no insight, divine, or morale bonuses). They also kept the same 3 saving throws. But they also added their own version of advantage (fortune) and heavily changed how class progression worked (feat based archtypes / no multitasking) and how ability score progression works (whereas 5e only tweaked it a bit).
@@mesosupe8837 To be fair a lot of those things you listed were already in PF1 in one way or another.
* The 3 action system came from an alternate PF1 ruleset.
* Fortune/Misfortune (reroll for better/worse) were already a thing with witch hexes and monk.
* Feat based archetype were originally experiment via PF1 Variant Multiclassing (trade feats for fixed abilities).
* Similarly, many class features were already treated as feats or feat adjacent. All the various "talent" and "power" abilities are effectively feats.
That is probably in my opinion why Treant felt dejabu. PF2 hits a lot of the same tones as PF1 and DnD3.5e, but is much closer to DnD5e and even some aspects of DnD4e.
@@Temperans Ah I see, I only played pf1e via wrath of the righteous (and I know a little past that via research) so I wasn't aware these were polished variant rules.
I hear PF2e takes a *lot* from D&D4e, but since I never looked into 4e (and never plan to because oofa doofa that license) I wouldn't know to what degree. Focus spells maybe.
@@mesosupe8837 From what I heard/remember a lot of what they took from 4e is in regard to the design philosophy. Things like overall balance, the niche protection, per combat powers vs per day or per round, how the rules read overall being more like a video game, adding level to stats, etc.
Also, the lead designer for PF2e is Logan Bonner one of the designers/lead designers for DnD 4e.
@Temperans @MeSoSupe 4e has its positives and negatives(though more of the latter than former). People just say "too video-gamey" and don't expand. Then, use that as the only argument without expanding upon it. The issue with 4e is that it is both too much and not enough. It feels like a tabletop game trying to be a computer game and a computer game trying to be a video game. Think of the original Warcraft. It got transformed into an MMO. Now take that and turn it into a table game, then take that and turn it into a different video game. By the time you reach that point, you can't really recognize what it is anymore.
The main positive of 4e is that it's better balanced than your dining table. But, every class has effects that trigger upon the meeting of certain conditions, which they themselves can trigger other conditions, and so forth. It's a conditional cascade, which is where WotC's sloppy VTT assistant came in. It was almost impossible to keep track of all of those conditions yourself, as the DM *or* the player. This also means that if you were in a situation in which your internet was down, you couldn't properly play.
4e also boasted a *lot* of base classes. This was incorrect. There were four, to fit the four roles of the party: Striker, Tank, Leader, and Controller(or something like that, it's been years and I, like the man in the story, got rid of my copy of the book). It's just that these four classes each had many different dresses they could wear to appear like a unique class. Bards had a method of healing on the condition they did a certain action, this was a Leader class, which means *ALL* the leaders had this same ability with a different name. It functioned the same, was triggered the same way, and everything but the name was the same. And this could trigger someone else's ability, and so on. There's the joke about a four-hour session of 3e or 5e having half of that being two combat encounters, three if they're simple. 4e could easily take nearly the whole session for one.
I think it's also important to note that Paizo handled the union situation pretty well compared to a lot of other companies. They didn't try to gaslight or try to hide what happened and fairly quickly addressed it and unionized.
This is a lot better than a lot of other companies and again shouldn't treat every evil as the same amount. Plus companies also don't unionize because those companies make it really hard to unionize like Amazon.
But yes every company probably has skeletons in their closet, and I've already switched 2e long before the OGL fiasco happened. It sucks I really wanted onednd to do well as I prefer new editions always coming out after a while as it keeps the game from stagnating.
I was pleasantly surprised to see you pop-up on the rules lawyer's show, I saw your display name and thought "is that *the* treantmonk?" because I had read some of your guides 10+ years ago when I first got into PF1. I was glad to see you were out here making stuff still!
I was also burned out on PF1 near the end of its life cycle. It suffered so much from the baggage of its 3.5isms that i was losing my enjoyment of the game. We gradually stopped playing and tried to pick up 5th edition about a year and a half into its release.
... And I hated running 5th edition, and playing to a lesser extent. So much relied upon the GM to move the game along (and the encounter system was.. Frustrating) that I thought I had just entirely fallen out of love with playing TTRPGs. Since others enjoyed 5e so much I thought "well maybe I am the problem here". Vampire and cyberpunk didn't really hit for me either.
When the PF2 playtest came out, I got pretty involved and actually loved playing/running. They managed to axe the things I hated most and revitalized the things I enjoyed best to the point that I was REALLY feeling RPGs again for the first time in several years.
I'm sorry that the beginning of your experience has been so beset by other factors, I imagine playing for the first time in front of an audience is very daunting, but I'm glad to hear that you're maybe going to give it another shot in the future. I hope that venture fairs better, and wish you luck in attempting to decipher whatever arcane plans Wizards has for OD&D. The start definitely kicked off.. Rockily 😶
I too have been trying to find the path, there are two paths I've found quite appealing, the Magus and the Stronk (Str based monk)
Also True Strike is... Good??? The art also is so cool.
Really sorry to hear all the anxiety that built up and got in the way of you just exploring the game for yourself and your own enjoyment, but I DEFINITELY understand where you're coming from haha! When you develop a reputation for yourself you suddenly become a lot more aware of being viewed and judged based on your reputation and whether or not you live up to it. It actually caused me to quit a game before just due to severe burnout and emotional draining from having to deal with the exact feelings you're describing here.
For what it's worth, I've been watching your Pathfinder experience on the Rules Lawyer's channel, and really enjoying seeing you in it!
That's what I like about your videos. You are always so humble and very poilte to say that you didn't like something. And I also can relate to many of similar experiences I had in the past. I started playing 2nd edition, then move on to 3rd edition, then try a campaign on 4th but didnt like that. And I also visited that big store in Calgary around 3 or 4 years ago before I move into Canada. Now trying to convince my players to try out some other systems.
I'm glad you had a chance to try pf2e! It's my current fav. I do get frustrated when new people bring up the unionization however, as it really distracts from the good that the company does on a whole. The fact that paizo didn't fight the union, and make them bring it to a vote speaks volumes in my mind.
I think how companies respond to unionization is far more telling about a company. No Evil Foods and Starbucks are good examples of poor responses.
@@ericsemrow231 As a unionized Starbucks worker, this does feel like a strong argument for picking up Pathfinder
@@wololopurgisnacht You folks are heroes
Agreed. Love the fact that they took a little bit and were like… ok this makes sense. We get it. Cool.
They couldn't have fought the unionization, that would be illegal.
I think one thing that's worth mentioning is that whe WotC set up the OGL one of the key reasons was so that D&D would never be out of print. When TSR folded it did look like D&D might completely stop being available and the new owners at WotC wanted to make sure that couldn't ever happen, thus the OGL.
So when Piazo started PF1e they were using the OGL in the way it was intended but WotC hadn't realised it could happen like that.
During lockdown in 2020, I got to play in an online Blades in the Dark campaign, I loved it. I think it ran for 6-7 months until the group decided to start another 5e campaign.
I've played in 5e campaigns that have gone for years, I'm not sure Blades would hold up as well over a long haul like that, but would highly recommend it for anyone that wants to try something very different from 5e that doesn't require a huge time commitment to learn and requires a lot less (according to my GM/DM) effort to prep and run.
Thanks for sharing your personal stories Chris. Can’t say I’ll ever relate to the specific anxieties you have to deal with: fame has its drawbacks! ;) But the fact that you clearly explained this is what we all love about you. Honest and practical.
BTW just finished a session last night where I’ve been playing a character based on your “Do it All God wizard” build. Surrounded by hook horrors and pulled out a polymorph spell and cast it on our warlock who’s usually blasting from the back. His eyes lit up as he read through the T-Rex stat block then waded in and wiped out 2/3s of the hook horrors.
That felt good!!
I switched over to Pathfinder 2e two years ago and have been having so much more fun ever since! It solved every single one of my gripes with 5e. The martial caster power gap is gone, the devs are actually willing to patch content with buffs and nerfs, all of the rules are free online, and there aren't any broken must-pick spells like polymorph and counterspell.
I think that Slow is kinda a must-pick spell, but the gap between polymorph and other 4th level spells and hypnotic pattern and other 3rd level spells is definitely much bigger
This "history of" format is great; as a newer nerd to the TTRPG community, it's super interesting to hear what happened to bring about these games we love (or love to hate/hate to love ;P). I also shamelessly enjoy hearing about old drama, especially from a sensible person like yourself. Awesome video!
Thank you Treantmonk! You are a leader and a teacher for our community. You have a terrific sense of fairness and we all appreciate you so much. Looking forward to your perspective for everything that comes next
Your videos have always been about making the game more accessible to people. Having your wizard guide in hand before walking into my first 5e game a lot more enjoyable. In the same way, I think you putting yourself out there and showing yourself struggling through Pathfinder helps others trying out a new system see that it is ok to not walk in knowing everything. I think people are smart enough to understand that you can be an expert in one system and a beginner at another. But I think you inviting us on this journey with you is right on brand. I think a great next Pathfinder video for you would be a lookback at this particular character and what you learned from playing him.
Chris, really appreciate hearing your story here. I'd be very curious to hear your critique of Pathfinder 2 vis a vis 5e from a mechanics standpoint. Colby gave a great overview of the differences, but only a little discussion of preferences.
I first found you through your Pathfinder optimization guides, I always found them well thought out, and focused on why something is good, instead of just 'this is good, take it' which allowed for me to decide for myself if it would be good for me. And I found it amazing how almost all the other guides back referenced to 'This is presented in the Treantmonk style'. Heck, even the Pathfinder 2 optimization guides I have used are written in the old Treantmonk style, with your color coding, and your evaluation format. Though they are rarely as well balanced, usually far more personalized to that writer's playstyle instead of thinking about the class or team the character will interact with in general.
Hey Chris, Honestly what I really liked watching the session 0/1/2 of your PF2 stuff (or as some acronym it "3.P2") was that you were GENUINE about how you weren't an expert on it. You were learning stuff and making your best efforts to roleplay a fun quirky character. This was a fantastic difference to just seeing your optimization and rule analysis content.
Don't be anxious. In fact, i think it was a refreshing thing to see as we all learn PF2 stuff together watching it. At least, this is the viewpoint of someone with a depth of knowledge in 3.5 and 5e but not in PF2.
i think you're doing a great job. Keep it up.
"Companies don't unionize when everyone is happy."
Somehow I feel like this is going to be an underappreciated part of this video.
So when looking for an alternative I really wanted a few things:
1. An online portal where we character creation would be simple, similar to dndbeyond which we had been using. We are all fairly new and worried about making mistakes as to which bonuses would stack or wouldn't etc.
2. Something familiar enough in setting
3. Something familiar enough in mechanics
That is why we landed on PF2, I however found that it was clunky and required more crunchy numbers and some things about the 3 action system felt really limiting, as simple as it made it (i.e. charging through a group of enemies and striking this guy then this other guy wasn't an option because I had to use a move action then an attack option and then would require another move.
So in the end I am still leary of WotC but am glad they opened 5.1 to CC. I know I am holding other ttrpgs to a harsh standard, but I wanted something that we could pick up and my players could learn most of the differences on the fly, knowing that many wouldn't invest in learning in any other way. I didn't feel that PF2 fit in that mold. I also don't know of any other system that would.
I can't speak for anyone else, but i am not here because you're an expert in D&D. I certainly enjoy the level of knowledge you bring but it's the passion & effort that really makes the videos work. I will watch the videos you put out as long as that same excitement is there. If you decide to make content for other games and enjoy it I'm right there along with you. If in the end D&D is what you stay passionate about and the only thing you make content for, I'll be watching and enjoying too.
As someone who continued to play D&D during the 4e era (along with Pathfinder 1e) I see some of 4e's DNA in Pathfinder 2e too. Since there were some things I liked about 4e that I don't think quite carried over to 5e that has me excited to try out P2e to see whether they have indeed perfected some of the 4e mechanics without succumbing to the notable problems in that system.
I just wanna say, I've been loving your content since the old WOTC optimization forums (guess I'm a fellow dinosaur).
And I enjoyed seeing you learning PF2.
Nobody starts as an expert in a system, it takes work and experience. 😁
I agree with your advice at the end that PF 2e might not be for everyone who wants to switch games. I would also like to add that when people want to switch, it is better to do so to a game they were curious and excited to try out in the first place, rather than out of spite towards the game / company they are leaving behind.
I'm trying out Cyberpunk Red this month, looking forward to it! (I've played the old Cyberpunk 2002 and 2020 editions)
@@TreantmonksTemple Oh! Considering that my friend plans to start a short Cyberpunk Red campaign this spring, I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
@@TreantmonksTemple Very excited for you to make a video about it. We have played cyberpunk for many years (mostly 2020) and although it is a very imperfect system, we have used it to "translate" other systems that gave us even more problems (our best Star Wars and Vampire campaigns were actually with cyberpunk's D10 system).
We also liked Red (and it had all the added incentive of the 2077 video game adiction), but even so there were parts that didn't quite click for us, especially the netrunning I think (which I loved in 2020 although I admit it was a problem for non-netrunner players).
Very vary much looking forward to your impressions about.
It's kind of a relief to hear this take being talked about, and so thoughtfully too. I played PF2e for a while last year and it wasn't for me either, and right now there seems to be a LOT of pressure for D&D players to move to that system in particular. It's great that you're giving the game a try and I hope you can have fun with it, but there should be no pressure for you (or anyone) to switch completely if it's ultimately not your top pick.
I just want to say I really appreciate that you present a calm balanced opinion about the current issues in the gaming community, and also that you give shout outs to your fellow content creators. There's been a lot of content recently that seems very "reactionary" and "clickbaity" from some channels, but I always feel you're very clear about the separation between the facts and your feelings.
i cannot imagine thinking less of you for not immediately understanding an entire system with optimizations. it takes time and experience to learn, and it's wonderful to see you learn. at least from me, i think no less of you for learning like a human.
I’m part of that category who’s been following you since your Pathfinder builds. I’ll always remember sharing your guides in High School to the kids I would introduce Pathfinder too. Through your videos I’ve learned what a cool kind person you are and you will always be one of my TTRPG idols who I’ll continue to follow regardless of what main game I’ll be playing.
I actually started the hobby a few months before the whole thing with 4th Edition broke out. Pathfinder was free, basically a patch to our books, and so for my group it wasn't a contest between that and Wizard's offering. Needless to say, I'm one of those folks who subscribed because they remembered you from your Pathfinder days. Also one of those folks who quickly got tired of the bloat, which came fast and hard after that brief period of edition reset.
I really appreciated the end of the video - you being open about your anxiety on camera, your feelings that there's just enough 3.5 DNA in PF2e to be uncomfortable, and especially urging folks to try out other TTRPGs. My main group finished up Mad Mage in Fall 2021 and then had a whacky scheduling fracas that wound up with our extended group splitting up for our next campaigns. My GM was dissatisfied with 5e at that point. I was on the verge of bowing out since I was a bit burnt out even as a player, but he started up a PF2e game and despite my reservations, it was a scheduled reason to hang out with my favorite people so I took it.
The system certainly has virtues - it's a great update to 3.5! But, uh, I quit playing that for a reason, and had gone with 5e specifically because it got rid of some of the other, 'worser' bits. I kinda dread every level up, because it feels like I have five or six decision points that might occasionally turn the tide but will more likely languish unused on my character sheet. We're over a year in, my GM is an absolute machine running like 4 or 5 games (some paid!), and we still wind up slipping over rules bits (even with Foundry's automation! You know, when that works) I feel like combat still takes too long to get to an obvious conclusion. And I loathe how the level scaling confuses what's a 'good' result. A modified 20 in D&D isn't worse than 'pretty good' until you're well into the teens. With Pathfinder, I'm 10th level and have no idea if my die-dwarfing +18 mod is a sure thing or a 50/50. I'm sure there's math I could do, but I prefer it to be intuitive.
(Also, we had pre-planned the campaign to follow Mad Mage - I did bow out of that one since I would have been in four! tabletop games, but I was relieved I did when they all decided to switch it to Pathfinder).
Personally, I've had my fill of D&D and its descendants - I'll be GMing in pastures that to me, at least, are greener. But I'll always appreciate your thoughts on the hobby, and even if I'm not in Hasbro's playground anymore, I really appreciate your take on what's going on.
I appreciate the little history lesson, as most people aren't even aware of what happened during 4E era. In regards to enjoying PF2E or not, I don't think it would be fair for anyone to criticize you (or anyone else for that matter.) We're allowed to enjoy what we enjoy, and personally speaking, I'm just glad you were willing to give it a chance.
I just wanted to thank you, not only for this history lesson behind the formation and evolution of PF, but also for the class guides you put out over the years fr PF1e. I always knew your analysis of the game mechanics were going to be solid and trustworthy, and no lie, I think your Ranger guide might still be bookmarked on my PC at home.
Thank you very much for being this insightful that you realized what could affect your judgement and also talking about this openly. This made the video a very uplifting watch. You've always seemed like a great human being, Chris. I do hope you'll give us another take on PF2 once you've had some more time with it at your own pace ^^
The Idea that Paizo didn't want an optimization community is laughable
Why?
paizo didn't want the optimization community to be able to break the game. In PF2E if an average character is 100% powerful, a bad one is maybe 80%, and an optimized is maybe 120%. (My personal guesses). This is pretty healthy for a game imo. In DND 5e a poorly made character can feel like 20% and an optimized 1000%. This is not healthy for a game.
@@SaucyJack88 because so many of the old paizo APs were absolute death trap meat grinders if you didn't had a completely optimized character.
pathfinder 1e can get incredibly goofy from optimization, kinda breaks the game even if you're not min-maxing. it's totally understandable from my perspective, because not everyone wants to do that, but they still want to play a powerful character.
@@worry_wart I play in 3.P games that go all in on the optimization, but I don't get a feeling of goofiness.
Can you elaborate?
I started playing with AD&D, although I didn’t get to play much. It wasn’t until college that I had the means to play ttrpgs, and by that time, 3.5 was the edition to play. By the end of it’s life, I was definitely feeling system fatigue. When 4e came out, my group started a campaign using the rules. To this day, that 4e campaign was the longest running we’ve had. We went from level 1 all the way to 26 before we finally wrapped it up. And I have to admit, I love 4th edition. It did something important that 3.5 and Pathfinder didn’t: it made all the player’s pay attention to the combat even when it wasn’t their turn. There were so many abilities available that could be used out of turn, such a tanks damaging enemies that ignore them or healers restoring hit points reactively. There was so much synergy in our group’s abilities, it made us feel like a super hero team. One person’s turn would set up an ultimate ability of another teammate.
One of the strengths of 4e has ended up being a weakness. There used to be a super handy set of programs for making characters and tracking encounters. Essentially what D&D Beyond does nowadays. It was something you had to have a Dragon subscription in order to use. Once the system died, so to did the program. Our group relied on making the characters with the builder, and our DM liked the program’s ability to customize monsters. You used to be able to pull abilities from one monster and drag it onto another. Want that goblin to have a fire breath weapon? Drag it from a red dragon, and it would automatically update the numbers and difficulty to match the goblin you added it to. It was super handy.
As I’ve looked into PF2, it reminds me more and more of D&D’s 4th edition. Rather than wanting to learn more of PF2, I just want to go back and play 4th edition. I wish 4e was better received. It was a good system, but the GSL really hurt it’s lifespan. Having played it a lot, I can see a lot of the bones of 4e hidden in 5e, and I wonder how many haters of 4e love the changes when disguised in 5e. I will admit, though, that 4e definitely hits different than other editions of D&D, which is likely what caused friction with the community.
Chris, your self-awareness was what I liked most about this vid. Hearing you acknowledge and share how the game FEELS in the context of your personal experience impressed me and resonated with me. Great work mate 👍
I first found you on those forums back in 2011-12, I was in high school reading your posts during lunch and writing out characters in my notes app. Good times!
I am going to try PF2. My trust for WOTC has diminished to the point that it's time to look for some variety. I am tired of running or playing adventures that I know will never go past a certain point simply because the designers can't be bothered to change or fix the problems they've introduced. It's very frustrating for myself and my players knowing that once we reach level 10-11 the game is going to end because the design of the game system fell off for high level play. (and this was intentional).
Pathfinder in whole is so connected to 3.5 DND that I used your old Wizard and Malcomvoker guides in an original Pathfinder game and they still worked perfectly.
PF2e is SOOOOO good, especially it’s vtt support making it the easiest of these types of combat heavy games to run. The game balance is tight, character builds can be super varied without being absolutely broken, and monsters all have really cool and unique effects. The edition has a dense amount of rules but most are common sense, and the ones that are more complex I’d rather they be there then not at all (the 5e issue of “leave it to the dm”)
yeah. for me, the defining feature of dnd 5e is the advantage system. If you like it, then you won't like PF2. If you don't like it, then you will LOVE PF2.
As someone who was burnt out on 3.x years before PF1e was even a thing, being told "no, seriously, PF2e is a different game that just looks similar if you squint at it" was a big factor in getting me to try it at all. And I was glad I did!
It is always good to choose again, even if you choose the same thing, being conscious about the decision and options is a great way forward.
Knowing of you from the days you were still making guides for PF this was just so fun to hear about the journey and reminisce about the evolution of the culture of Pathfinder and DnD Next and optimization. I think you were a really important contributing voice to a culture of optimization that was really healthy and respectful and I've always loved your voice.
Now this is a solid video. Informative, sincere, thoughtful, the works. Now I get to go watch d4 and see the mechanics side of things!
As one of the players, its amazing to see how Chris approaches the game. Editions aside, I've really enjoyed the good vibes he brings to the table and the dynamics he creates between characters. (Even if he will never understand what rizz is)
Mathfinder describes PF1 to a T. Even with it’s complex and confusing mechanics, my group had a lot of fun with it.
We don’t get to play as much as we used to, so we still have a ton of 5e to explore. So I don’t think we will be changing our game anytime soon.
I will still be paying attention to the new community focus on 3rd party materials, and other games.
I’m here for all of it.
Thanks for your honest thoughts. I honestly felt the same, outside of specific anxieties, I just didn't vibe as well with Pathfinder 2e, neither did my players. I love 5e and will continue playing, but I'm eager to check other systems, Black Flag and whatever else I have in my shelf that I haven't played yet
Good video, enjoyed the history bits. I do wish I had maybe a bit more info on what 5e does that appeals to you so much, but you've probably gone over that in other videos.
For me, I'm just pretty tired of 5e. It's such an unbalanced mess of a game. Partly it's my own fault for getting into optimization, I think I've largely optimized the fun out of the game. My gaming group is having a situation similar to what you described about PF1 and 5e, except reversed. We're finishing out a 5e game, and about 10 sessions in a pf2 campaign, and it always feels like a bit of a letdown on the weeks we play 5e.
I know for my own experience, the optimization is the fun of my game of choice, that being 3.P(P being PF1)
Not exactly familiar with 5e though so I can't comment on the impact of optimization there
This exactly. I got so tired of every fight being determined by the number of characters able to turn into King Kong. The adamant refusal to patch blatantly broken spells like counterspell and polymorph, and by extension the martial/caster disparity, drove me away. I haven't looked back since. 2e was such an improvement on both fronts.
I think this can happen with any game really. Ive been playing Pathfinder 1e with the same folks since 2010 (current campaign is 5 years in), and sometimes I just do not look forward to it. The rest of my crew is locked in though. I convinced then a few years ago to break up the monotony by playing a different game every other week, and have rotating GMs. I know this isn't possible at every table, but it helps immensely. The sheer amount of inspiration I get from other systems and being able to both play and run is invaluable! It helps keep a stale thing fresh. Hopefully we will be moving to PF2e full time soon, as it is a billion times easier to GM as 1e is.
I found your channel through your pathfinder 1e guides as I played that as my first game as a dm. Your guides helped my players and myself a ton understand much. Now you show ne cool dnd 5e sruff to as I play both thanks Chris
Watched your playthrough with the rules lawyer. Love the run through. I am moving my game to it.
Your honesty is on brand. Please keep it up for as long as you make content.
I've said this before, I think 4th edition could have been very successful if it wasn't D&D. If wizards of the coast literally took 4th edition and slapped "Magic the Gathering: TTRPG" on it, I think it would have been successful, or at the very least, less panned.
The D&D scene loves the mysticism and arcane vibes of the other editions. They want the game hidden in the fluff.
I just finally opened PF 1e to give it an actual chance and it’s like I just jumped into a wizard’s tower and he just gives me his “optimization theories in arcanium book”. The natural language and heavy optimization gives it a very different vibe that the gamest language of 4e. And mind you 4e can be optimized to hell and back just like any other edition, but it’s definitely doesn’t feel like you’re unlocking the mysteries of the universe as you are doing so.
@@Nastara welcome to PF1. If you include 3rd edition content this game is enormous, with more content than most people could ever read.
I actually really get this. Nicely done!
I, too, was really done with 3.5 by the time 4e came out. I enjoyed 4e, thought it was great. To me, it was a change of pace at the right moment.
My entire gaming group hated it after 1 test session. I was crushed. We played other (non-fantasy) games for awhile, then fell apart.
I found 5e well into its cycle, and picked it up quickly. I love the simplification and the pace and sense of ease it creates, but have always felt it over simplified in favor of making too many things the work of the DM that used to have system answers, especially encounter building. Perhaps I just don’t have as much time in DMing it as other systems, or perhaps I have rose-tinted nostalgia glasses. Both are real possibilities.
Regardless, PF2 hits me the same way it does you. I see many things I remember and liked from 3.5, but I just don’t want to go back to playing 3.5, even for 3.75.2.
I look forward to seeing what Kobold Press can do. They have some excellent designers!
Hey just curious, what about pf2 gave you similar bad feelings to 3.5? I personally feel like the high game-balance and team play of pf2 reminds me of the best parts of 4e more than anything else. Not trying to change how anyone feels, I'm just a little anxious because I'm hoping to run a pf2 game and it feels like everybody I play with has history and burnout with a system at this point, I'd like to cater an experience to them that doesn't give anyone rpg PTSD, lol. I think Treantmonk's take and your post both caught me off guard because from my experience, the bad feelings I have around 5e (mostly the high potential of optimizing and the caster-martial gap at high levels) put 5e on the same boat as 3.p for me. All love and no hate, my bias is I've played a lot of bad games of 5e which is subjective to me and my friends and not necessarily indicative of the system.
@@seankellar6817 Thank you! Happy to try and articulate this for you, let’s see how well I can actually do that! 🤣
The stacking of various types of feats as the primary form of character growth is a big one. It leads to the feeling (which may be misleading) that you’re going to be hunting through “3 pages of small print” for those elusive +1 modifiers that justify the +34/+29/+24 that you listed on the front page next to your Longsword, only to find that an (questionably) “unattentive” player (everyone at the table ends up with the feeling it was 50/50% cheating, which undermines the group) has stacked 7 unstackable “circumstance bonuses” to become a god.
The sheer walls of text associated with a class are daunting to new-to-the-system players, and perhaps more importantly, make it daunting to understand which of the plethora of base classes is, in the long run, going to actually let you play out the image of a character you’ve build in your mind.
Example: A new player says he wants to play “a wizard”. Now, does he actually want the wizard class, the witch class, or the sorcerer class? In D&D 5e, he needs to read about 7 pages of each class to really understand which. In PF2, that’s closer to 17 pages each, and is full of references to another 5 pages worth of conditions and types of modifiers.
Finally, at a certain point, the offering of so many options for race/class/subclass (under the various multitude of names that systems use) in order to let a player be exactly what they want to be stops being “greatly available” and starts being “burdensome bloat”. An example of this? A “beast person”. Which race in PF2 am I referring to? Experienced PF2 players with all the Lost Omens books can tell you that just from that description, I could be referring to any of about 7 races. Now, 5e has some of that going on, too (aricokra/owlin for instance), but for a newer game it’s already more exaggerated in PF2. The simplicity of a system like 5e lets you use flavor to that kind of thing instead of writing a new race for each, but the granularity of the 3.5 base behind PF2 lends itself to the bloat approach.
I freely admit that I see all these thing as flaws, and to a lot of other people they may in fact be the very perk they are seeking. I may be the minority in my view of them, in fact, and that’s totally fine.
Also, to be clear, I think PF2 is a fine system. Looks shiny as hell. It’s just that the bones underneath it mix with my particular lives experience of gaming in such a way as to make it personally reminiscent of 3.5 to too great an extent, and that makes it unappealing to me.
Now, on the plus side, I think they learned a ton of lessons about caster/martial balance from 4e that 5e missed, and I applaud them for that! Bravo!
I’m sure if I spent more time digging I’d find a lot more things they got right, too. To me, it’s just not a feel of system that inspires me to want to spend that time.
Hope this helps, and that I answered your question in a way that aids you!
Ah, a few more things grabbed from Chris in his Comments reply to Colby elsewhere here: “flat-footed”, Fort/Reflex/Will trio of saves, and the entire “prepared caster” system of classic Vancoan magic are all direct 3.5 and older remnants. (My first D&D was red box, for reference.)
@@chetori__ I don't think you caught the full context here. I understand the system, I played in one form or another for over 15 years. I'm just tired of it and have moved on. Purely a personal choice.
I just wanted to say Chris, that I don’t think that anyone on your channel would feel as though you should’ve known the rules for pathfinder 2 right away, and I for one don’t think you lost a smidge of credibility for it. I love that you tried it, and I personally just wanted to let you know that there is no need for anxiety from me😁
I loved 4E I ran my Campaign using that set for 8 years, my players loved it and we had so much RP fun. But this could indeed be because me and my players came back to D&D after many years hiatus for adulting. I do want to thank you for your honesty in revealing your feelings around playing PF2 publicly.
Hey Chris,
I wanted to say thank you for all your videos. I watch every one soon after it comes out. Just 10 minutes ago I learned that I wasn't subscribed but still got recommended your videos as soon as they launched.
That said I finally have subscribed!
I'm glad you corrected that awful mistake ;)
Your pathfinder guides are still legendary.
On the OGL stuff: I think its clear that they are throwing in the towel on 5E license stuff so they can focus and try again for One D&D in 2024-25. And you can be sure they're going to have a much stronger gameplan to try and push -that- OGL.
Fantastastic video, both in the history part and in the assessment of P2. Thank you.
Thanks for trying PF2 on n camera! I’m brand new too, and it was nice to see people I knew and trusted starting from the same place.
Personally I really enjoyed the analysis you did on the Alchemist, I would love to hear your recommendations about other 3rd party content. Something like the Treantmonk seal of approval.
This is an amazing story to hear. Thanks, Chris ❤️💜❤️
I love Pathfinder 2e (like you getting into it before the drama, in November!) - but I've become bored of D&D, so have been looking for other systems.
Loving the idea that you will be jumping into different things. There's so much good stuff out there! Also loving some other side of the complexity spectrum OSR games.
Sorry to hear about the anxiety. With everything you've shared, it makes perfect sense. I really hope you have a blast playing whatever you choose with your friends privately!
Be Blessed,
James
As someone who enjoys pf2e, probably more then 5e, I can say I was super stoked when I saw you play with The Rules Lawyer. And at the same time, I am stoked to listen to your views and feelings on the game. I can also see why your situation makes the game less enjoyable then 5e. All I have wanted from you, and other 5e players, was an honest try and see if it's a good fit for you or not. That's all I had ever hoped for!
Awesome video, great history lesson.
I can definitely relate to anxiety and getting stuck in a thought pattern you KNOW logically makes no sense. It's awful. I hope you're feeling better now. I appreciate your honest take on your feelings about Pathfinder 2e.
I do feel compelled to respond to the comment about "employees not unionizing if they are being treated well." That bothers me.
Workers are essentially never treated well unless there are laws or some other power structure in place to protect them. Workers don't unionize for the most part because they either don't know how to or are scared to. It is risky to even say "union" at a workplace in the USA. If there were more protections and resources for workers to form unions, I would wager that most workplaces or professions would have one.
Regarding Paizo: Paizo DID have skeletons in their closet. Part of what took place around the unionizing effort was a purging of those responsible and setting up structures to protect workers going forward.
Thank you for the candor Treantmonk, my group switched from D&D 5e to PF 2e due to the OGL crap basket and even if I wanted to my players would never go back now that they have discovered the customization in PF 2e compared to D&D 5e. Also as the GM I find the that PF 2e just way more fun to run.
Hi, Chris I really like these video that touch on history and design. Maybe there's only so many you can do before the well is dry, but I wanted to know I like the format and content. I think (I hope) that expanding the types of videos you can do is a net positive.
One thing I felt was a big contributed to allowing Pathfinder to become a thing that you kinda barely touched one was the fact they already made the setting in Dragon Magazine, and more importantly, the Adventure Paths. The adventure Paths proved to be a very successful idea, so they knew they already had an audience for the setting.
Scary how many people are willing to so easily forgive and forget about all this. (Not directed at you, just venting in general). The new one is "irrevocable", sure, but so was the old one and they tried it anyway. A massive company who sees their consumers as "obstacles to their money" isn't doing this for us. They're backpedaling after backlash to try and let the dust settle before they ultimately try something like this again when they think everyone's forgotten and relaxed.
Surprising move by Wotc, but I still prefer PF2
For someone who gets bad anxiety I can feel ya. Completely understand it.
Also I like how you explained your background with PF and told us your feelings about 2e without bashing on it. You seem like a man of good character.
I’m a pf2e player who found you during the OGL drama. Glad I did. You seem like a good voice of reason. It’s funny how we are all so different. I got into 5th edition and remember it feeling… bland. For some reason it didn’t click with me. I had gotten tired of pf1’s math degree requirements as well but felt 5e was an over correction. But I can understand the love for the game and I am super happy what it’s surging popularity did for the genre. It was nice to see ttrpg’s become something more than a game “those nerds” play. (My youth summed up in a sentence.)
Really appreciate and respect your opinions and your honesty. Hope you give it another try but even if not you got a new fan and subscriber.
I think the D&D community is taking a victory lap too early. WoTC may have relented in 5e, but I'm betting 6e still has a nefarious license.
Wow, Chris! I feel like we just sat down in comfy chairs are favorite coffee bar and had this discussion in a small group. The history of the different games I've played lots of different games myself, definitely has bearing on the topic and our experience of each game. We love our games! But we don't have to love everything each game company has done. TSR, Wizards, Paizo. I'm still trapped that Guardians of Order went out of biz after publishing that beautiful Game of Thrones RPG. Thanks for your heartfelt honesty about this.
Thank you for this video, I really appreciate your honesty. Please always stick to your opinions and keep being honest. The reason I watch your content and subscribe to your channel is because I appreciate your opinions and views. If they differ from mine, I respect that and enjoy the difference in opinion. You're always doing the right thing as long as it is true to you. I look forward to more of your content, D&D or Pathfinder.
Shout out for Colby's video is so well deserved. It really was a fantastic video, and pretty much made up my mind to not move to pf2e.
Edit: You made the comparison to 3.5e and I think that's actually where my hesitancy for pf2e comes from, I know how I felt about that system compared with 5e.
I would recommend that you maybe look into PF2e a bit further if Colby's video was your deciding factor because it is actually pretty infamous for how bad of a take it is on PF2 as a whole.
Not liking PF2 is fine and I understand the system is not for everyone but man was his take really bad.
EDIT: I misread Colby as Cody so this response is invalid.
@@shadows96100 I'm basing it on my experiences of 3.5 and using Colby's (and before that Cody at taking 20s) videos describing the facts of the game mechanics. Now I could be wrong as I haven't played it, but I'm pretty confident that as a game it's not well designed for ease of access or intuitive play, at least not compared to 5e. The endless conditions, different modifier types, not glossing over free actions, not being able to combine movement with action freely. It feels like a very crunchy game, and I spent enough time with 3.5e to know that's not the game I want to play. 🙂
@@dungeondr My apologizes when I read Colby I read it as Cody from Taking20.
Colby's video was very good but Cody's was a really bad take on the game.
I remember reading some of your old 3.5 guides back in the day. The one that sticks out the most in my memory is "The Switch Hitter" Ranger. A decade or more later when I got into 5e more, I came across your channel and thought - that HAS to be the same guy & was an insta sub after watching like 2 minutes of one video.
My guess is that One D&D is going to be published under it's own licence, but I could be wrong. I would never have guessed that WofC was going to make the core 5e rules public domain.
I can't imagine them using OGL 1.0a. It will probably be a new license, though there's a possibility they might use CC again. I hope so.
@@TreantmonksTemple I would be willing to be bet a large chunk of money that they won't do CC. Hasbro would be leaving so much money on the table and they're trying to do their best to start monetizing.
@@killerkonnat Watch the video again, I literally say I wouldn't bet on it.
Once OneD&D comes out, they will keep it entirely in house, in a gamble that the 5e player base will simply accept it.
PF2 may have some dna form pf1 and 3.5, but much of its design is far more modern than 5e.
I really liked the format of this video! Learning about the history of Pathfinder and your experience with it was fascinating! If you decide to try out more TTRPGS and make a video like this for them could I recommend Apotheosis? It's relatively new and a little rules-light, but there's plenty of room for optimization. And the creator is a really down to earth guy. I think he'd be more than happy to tell you about how Apotheosis came about if you contacted him, and he's pretty active in the community.