I joined my first ever TTRPG, an in-progress game of Pathfinder, and somehow wound up with a +19 to perception. The greatest line this created was the DM saying “I guess you see her scent?!” while tracking a missing ally
My first Pathfinder game was an in-progress campaign. I made a multiclass Investigator/(Phantom Thief) Rogue, with a 1 level dip in Scaled Fist Monk for Charisma to AC. I had insane stealth, especially when combined with the potions from the Investigator. At level 10, I was able to sneak into a temple, and steal an item from them. And that's after I sent them a calling card and told them I was going to rob them.
I was the DM for a VERY high power Gestalt Campaign last year and at one point I stopped asking for a Monk/Shifter PC for Perception rolls lmao, it was insane
Cause in 5e, 6 Kobolds is an adventuring party and you are the dragon. In Pathfinder with proper set up, you can fight 6 dragons verse your party of 6 and just go for the even battle. In 5e 6 dragons is basically insta-death since the action economy doesn't allow proper set up to deal with 6 breath weapons firing off at your party.
Meanwhile a party of 9 level 10 players can take down an Ancient Blue Dragon in 3 rounds without a single casualty - and most of us were middle schoolers IRL, I'm sure a normal party of 4-5 adult D&D players that use some actual strategy could pull it off too.
I stick with D&D because it lets me play a Wizard without crying. I love martials in PF2e, but goddamn do the casters feel bad. Prepared casters don't even feel like magic users to me
@@StarryxNight5 I often hear that, and I wonder how much of 'casters feel bad' in PF2e is because of people subconciously still assuming wizards should invalidate all martial classes with a single spell.
@@exewon That's really not the case for me atleast. I don't really care about power as long as I feel atleast somewhat useful while having a somewhat fun time playing. Just the fantasy alone of being a magic person is enough for me. But Pathfinder's prepared casters are just so unfun to me. Most of the time on any actually important enemy, the best I can hope for is a Success on saves. And before you say "Just target the weakest save!" It really does not work for me. I have tried it. Vancian casting ruins the idea. It honestly feels like playing a side character. Not to mention how much of a chore Vancian casting itself is, for a *multitude* of reasons
@@StarryxNight5 I'll admit vancian casting *should've* gone the way of the dodo in 2e tbh. And I hope it does in a future 3e. Especially with the bigger mechanical leaning on assuming people are more or less at full power at the start of every encounter. (cuz fuck the adventuring day concept) They might've overcorrected slightly with pf2e casters. But casters absolutely had to be kneecapped compared to DnD. Since in 5e (and a lot of other editions) martials are basically utterly pointless. Wizards are better fighters then the actual fighters.
@@exewon Nobody would argue about the martial-caster divide in 5e. It's egregious, it's true. But that doesn't really make it much better, in the end. I judge Pathfinder 2e as its own game. How fun it is to play. How it feels to spend *hours* on each campaign and character. And prepared casters just feel _bad_
Opening the Pathfinder rule book, and seeing the dozens upon dozens of things I needed to homebrew in D&D baked into the system already was an amazing moment for me.
One thing not brought up by this video, is the fact that this fighters "mothers greatsword" can stick with the player their ENTIRE journey, as the player will find runes to buff the weapon they WANT to use, rather than just tossing your sentimental sword for a shiny and new +2 one
This is exactly why I added a magical blacksmith in my dnd campaign, I love the idea that my players get to keep their sentimental weapons and their weapons can grow along with them
@@jjjjrrrrmmmm123 I mean, fair, but it's at least an *extremely simple* duct tape fix since "Make your own magic items if XYZ thing doesn't fit already" is already part of the paradigm. Like: Magic Item Rules are purposely vague enough to allow "upgrades" to be totally valid.
I'm not sure who started that joke, but I remember about 10 years ago, an old creator named Spoony made the same sort of comment when discussing Call of Cthulhu giving stats for Cthulhu.
In one of my Pathfinder games, one of the party members was a Hobgoblin Ranger named Raeleus with +19 to stealth. One of my favorite running gags in the campaign was rolling a Stealth Check, checking the rest of the party's passive perception checks, and declaring that another game of "Where's Raeleus" had begun. To this day, years later, "Where's Raeleus" is still a recurring joke in my group. Big numbers make the fantasy more fun.
stealth expertise does the same thing in dnd though? we've had several similar running gags. Usually a +12 modifier is enough for silliness to commence, since the other character's perception isn't going to be +19 either.
@lordkosta926 Sure, but expertise is a class-specific feature. Having your Rogue or Ranger be the only members of the party that can roll crazy numbers in the things that they're proficient in doesn't give other players the ability to create this type of experience. I've had rangers, clerics, rogues, and druids with +18 in a skill they've specifically chosen to focus their efforts on at Level 8, sometimes earlier if they're building with a hyperfocus on one particular idea. Does that make the numbers a bit crazy throughout the game? Absolutely. Does it somehow take away from the majesty of the experience? Absolutely not.
@lordkosta926 And yet feats are such a ridiculously valuable resource in 5e that you need to be EXTREMELY careful with your choices. Your feats can determine so much about your build that giving one up for comically large numbers in a single skill is a wild ask unless your build is centered around that skill. Compare this to PF2E, where you have the big numbers baked into the game. Everyone gets to be amazing at the things they've chosen to flavor their character with, but without sacrificing feat slots - which, now, are much more common (because there are several types of feat, with most classes getting at least one of the three feat varieties every level up), thus allowing for more build flexibility - AND without sacrificing Ability Score Increases, which are no longer tied to feats (which seemed ludicrous to me to begin with).
@lordkosta926 Basically, I'm saying that yes - technically, you can get comically large numbers on your rolls in 5e. However, the game is not optimized to facilitate that and work around it. You need to either play a specific class or go out of your way to build your character to experience that. In PF2E, or even just PF1E, the game is built to allow for and work in the parameters of that. It makes the highs of your character journey feel amazing. When your level 15 character is semi-regularly dishing out 30s on their attack rolls, you feel like a different caliber of adventurer than the level 3 who was lucky if they rolled above a 20. The Demon Lord with 43 AC seems impossible to even touch at early levels, but like a feasible challenge at level 16. And this isn't even going into the skill checks, which - due to the new Crit System - feel AMAZING to pull ludicrous numbers off on.
Another thing that Pathfinder 2e supports very well in this story, The Mother's Sword. In Pathfinder you can apply Runes to weapons to give them extra Damage Dice, +1-3 to hit, extra effects on hit, etc. You can upgrade the weapon you started the game with. Whereas in 5e, youll basically be throwing out your mother's sword the moment you find a +1 weapon. Oh, and runes can be transfered so even if you do find a +1 weapon in PF2e, you can just transfer the runes onto your Mother's sword.
A player and GM can even make the sword into an artifact that gains special traits during the campaign based on the players actions. That's in the GM Core book.
True! I think in my attempts to contrast the mechanics I accidentally implied Pathfinder 2e is the origin of this design decision. Something I'll have to keep in mind going forward!
which notably kinda fails at doing that too after the early levels because AC doesn't scale and the attack does, so its more rocket tag than anything for a system that is actually bounded, play lancer rpg! on that one you from a +1 to a +6 at max level and THAT IS IT, you dont add your stats to hit. so the d20 is the most important dice at all levels
I also prefer the way PF2 changes the narrative regarding weaker enemies. In four levels you can go from fighting something as a boss, to an even battle, to cutting down several of them easily. In 5e you *might* have improved by +2 to attack and damage, and if you're a spellcaster you have 2 tiers of spells to help. But there's a good chance as a martial that only one of your levels mattered and the rest only gave you hp. I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends, but the numbers don't bug me so much as the inconsistency of progression between classes. Choosing between base numbers and feats that are required to do more than standard attacks as a martial is a pain.
Too an extent yeah. Lower CR monsters aren't generally going to last long against higher level PCs in D&D either but it's definitely more pronounced in PF2E.
"I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends" whenever i hear this, i wonder if they mean "I enjoyed playing this ttrpg, despite what 5e does to it" or if they mean "I like what 5e brings to ttrpgs over other systems" often 5e is people's only exposure and they conflate the two stances. Because yes, I immensely enjoyed my time with 5e. It was my introduction to the hobby, and the hobby is great. But there were also issues, and i'm having much more fun now that i explore other systems
@@realdragon If a random person has a 1 in 20 chance of hurting a dragon that implies a fundamentally different setting than what people expect from D&D
@@chrisroberts7159 Oh please tell me what the biggest TTRPG community with thousands of players worldwide expect of DnD? What every single person that plays DnD expects?
I love D&D, but it actually gets worse for the zero to hero when it comes to rolling for stats. In "I'm the weakest, but I train the hardest" fantasy, I roll a 6 and put it in my primary stat to really lean in to my vision. By level 20, my Primary stat will be, at most, a 16. Meanwhile, my friend, who rolled an 18, will have 2+ maxed stats, and several cool feats. In D&D, if you start a loser, you end a loser (barring DM Ex Machina)
It's worth noting as well that, while 5e has bounded accuracy, Pathfinder 2e does as well: there's a very explicit range that you can roll to hit, and outside that just simply isn't possible, no matter how many buffs you stack. The big difference is that it scales with your level, like a 'sliding bounded accuracy'. As a GM, the downside is that you have a narrower range of usable monsters for an encounter compared to 5e, but it also means the encounter balancing is WAY easier and the difficulty calculators actually work.
Supported by a dice with no bell curve, I think 5e is designed so that you can always succeed (i.e crits), however sometimes you can't deal damage (such as when a creature has immunity to non-magical damage). I think it's ok to make players actions useless - it can add huge narrative effect. But you NEED to make sure a player has decent alternatives, otherwise they have no agency and no effect. Which is very bad. I had an encounter recently where we were facing were-rats, and the rogue couldn't do any damage due to having no magic or magical weapon. Setting up a challenge so that player's actions are futile can be a good narrative tool (such as when faced with a creature you can only run from), but you should always do it wisely.
Even then, I think immunity to non-magical attacks is very surface level. Immunity to non-magical attacks can’t stop a level 6 monk from forcibly dislocating a werewolf’s shoulder by pulling it with all their might. Or the rogue from quickly leaping on to the wererat’s shoulders to crank its head until it snaps the neck. I think the way that non-magic immunity is run lacks definition and seriously needs to be redefined. Non-magic immunity doesn’t mean it escapes from basic physical forces, just that its own hide can’t be pierced by conventional weaponry. Think of the nemean lion. Technically a non-magical attack killed it.
In terms of combat, yes. In 5e there is no “auto-success” outside of combat, though people seem to house rule it a lot (which I never understood since character growth both in personality and ability is important).
In my mind, these are the situations where clever thinking has to take over instead of just, as Deficient Master put it in one of his videos, pressing paper buttons on a character sheet to do a thing as a lot of modern RPGs and video gaming have trained players to do.
I was playing a Goblin barbarian / rogue multiclass and our party was facing a group of werewolves. I didn't have a silver of magic weapon but luckily, I was wearing boots of climbing. So with my expertise in athletics, I just startes grabbing werewolfs, running up the side of the next building (I had like 50 or 60 feet of movement before dash) and simply dropped them. Fun times.
@@cakedo9810 But that doesn't make sense - nonmagical weapons work through those exact same basic physical forces. If you can snap its neck, your mace should be able to shatter its bones. Most weapons are functionally some kind of lever.
As someone who used to hate Pf1e's ridiculous amounts of math and stuck with the unfinished mess of 5e forever because of how simple it was, the WotC drama last year was so fortunate because it made me realize how absolutely beautiful 2e is as a system. Our table alternates between a few different campaigns and the ones that started with 5e aren't going to switch midway through, but everything new that's starting is absolutely going to make the switch. It's a bit more complicated but infinitely more rewarding.
The one thing that stops me from PF2e is the sinusoid of hp during combat. The fact that you start every encounter with close to max HP feels like the game is structured around a boss rush mode rather than a steady progression with dwindling resources.
@@krinkrin5982 Do you? Unlike in 5e you actually _don't_ fully heal after a long rest, only healing a percentage of your health. The only fast way to heal outside of magic is by spending hours treating someone's wounds.
@@krinkrin5982This is exactly what people expect 5e to be until they learn that they need to put some arbitrary resource sinks before a boss to make it interesting. This is just a matter of personal preference.
@@krinkrin5982 You still have to manage spell slots as a resource, but yeah, PF2e really isn't meant for dungeon crawling. Or at least not one that actually feels dangerous. You can sort of do it with the Stamina rule, but it's not perfect either.
I don't know why but i think that the phrase "Cthulu has a health bar" can sound very badass in the right context. In which context, i dont know though
been playing PF (mostly 1e) for about 12 years now. Did a dnd Playthrough of waterdeep: dragon heist that we chained into the dungeon of the mad mage. I felt so horribly restricted and bound by the inherit randomness of the system, lack of options, and that every character's abilities basically came down to doing some damage in combat. never touched it since, as the rules and mechanics of PF are so much more fleshed out giving every player, NPC and monster mechanical depth, rather than a depth only held up by a handwaving gm. Having played shadowrun and Cyberpunk, i still think it has some problems, but 2e has solved most of them. It really only has failed in AP design, but honestly there is so many region guides and campaign hooks out there, i dont mind much
I know it's nitpicky, but an increase from 30% to 50% is an increase of approximately 66%. It's a growth of 20 percentage points, yes, but that's not same as the relative percentage increase
It also completely ignored other bonuses that fighter may have gained, from increased strength, magic items etc. Proficiency doesn't tell the whole story.
@@Swooper86 so you end up with double or triple chance to hit and ability to do it 12 times in 2 rounds instead of 2, plus you don't die instantly when dragon decides to exhale in your direction. Also most legendary beasts are immune or at least resistant to non magical weapons.
Plus the fact a level 17 fighter does litteraly 3 TIMES MORE ATTACK than a level 1. Reasoning on average hit, that's 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 = 0.30 x 5, FIVE TIMES MORE HITS (not even including all the other buffs).
Amazing video visually and informatively. Something you didn't touch on but want to bring up: that PF2e fighter, being a fighter, is +2 over his peers to hit at that level. Sure it's only 50% but his heroic journey to level 17 has put him on a pedestal above the common swordsman of his time. Fighters in PF2e are thematically and mechanically cool.
I went from "holy moly, i'm gonna watch all his videos, that sounds awesome" to "Oh, thats his only video, how sad" in 10 seconds, and i'll never forgive you for that. I really want to see your take on these games' bonuses systems, and how characters nudge the odds on their favor.
A funny caveat that went unmentioned is that while pf2e supports the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being unable to touch the dragon, conversely it also HURTS the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being able to survive the dragon's response and go on to become the lvl 17 hero, when it's likely to crit for 100+ damage on anything but a natural 1, and even then it'd still hit. In 5e, the same math that allows the lvl 1 hero to hurt the dragon also allows the dragon to nat 1 and miraculously miss long enough so he can get away. Although in either case it's breath weapon would be game over, most likely. But in 5e, it could fail to recharge it's breath with bad luck, while in pf2e it's guaranteed after 1-4 rounds and might even just get it back by slapping the nearest town guard with a critical! Of course, the Dragon could decide to ignore the hero entirely because it doesn't see him as a threat(and so the story can happen), which is probably more likely and believable if the hero is incapable of damaging it at all! So pf2e has that going for it too. Don't get me wrong, I think pf2e is awesome in a lot of ways, and it's so refreshing after only playing/DMing 5e for years. Just thought this was funny.
Pathfinder does account for this, though! After all, that's the point of the 'Heroic Recovery' use of Hero Points. After all, it doesn't matter how much damage that critical hit does to you, it always takes you to Dying 2 - which means that not only can you naturally survive with some lucky recovery rolls, and the dragon is unlikely to specifically attack every downed target in the village, but you, as a heroic figure, or someone destined to be one, can still survive unlucky rolls through sheer will. (...if you ignore the Massive Damage rules that state that if you take more than double your max HP in one swing, you die instantly; though I think it's entirely reasonable to say that just puts you at 'Dying 50' or something, and thus Heroic Recovery still works.)
Nonlethal attacks are still a thing in PF2. Maybe the dragon just couldn't be arsed to put his full weight behind an attack on such an obvious non-threat.
@@Llortnerof well... At this point, it becomes a "fixing" of a system, which was the main point of the video. I think, it just calls for a different narrative. For example - a nobody wouldn't survive a dragon, unless they got extremely lucky (for example, dragon wouldn't even notice such an attack). Which makes sense. So something more special has to happen, or something special has to be about the character that attempts such an encounter.
@@volchonokilliR I'd say the dragon deciding you're not worth his attention is getting extremely lucky. You're not really suggesting anything different from what i did.
In PF and DnD, you have a drop state. You can of course insta-die if your hit points go under your Con break point/half your hit point total. But knocking your players out and reviving them is an implemented mechanic and can be used by DMs to build tension or tell a story.
Bounded Accuracy is basically just Level Scaling for better or worse, and as a GM it means more work creating new monster sheets or modifying old ones to still be threats, while as a Player all new encounters will fall within the same threat range because you can't threaten anything more than four levels above you which in turn limits one's stories and accomplishments. Not saying 5e is better overall, but in this regard PF2 falls a bit flat with it's over focus on consistency.
Sorry for this mess of text in advance: I think this isn’t a sound argument. Banded accurately is a good idea (I don’t think it’s done that well though). While this is an “issue” I think it’s more one of preference. Like you can hit a dragon at level 1 but when are you going to actually fight a dragon at level one and how would you win. I can punch a bull without my fist glancing but I can’t win the fight. Having a bigger range of numbers can be better for making a world and translating it into rules though. A good example is in 5e stat numbers are entirely arbitrary and can’t be compared. If you do you’d find out that a bear is superhuman and on its way to being one of the strongest things in the universe ie str 30. Pathfinder is better at expressing its world mathematically and while that’s not always better what 5e does is not. It’s neither simple nor does it have depth… but it’s still kinda fun.
Another thing is monsters being weaker due to banded accuracy and lack of combat mechanics means that they would be worse even if the numbers are better. A dragon especially isn’t super impressive.
To be fair, 5e has all other things you’ve mentioned: ability score growth, party members, qualitative advancement in the form of character abilities… The big thing is PF’s separate proficiency and level bonuses broaden the math range so the growth might feel bigger, & things can be mathematically more one-sided, while 5e’s smaller ranges lend it a stronger “if it bleeds, we can kill it” angle. Use what tells the tale you wish to tell.
It also has a lot less compared to PF2e that wasn’t mentioned: Lack of martial/caster disparity, encounter builders that actually work (in part due to adding levels), tons of character choices, a restriction system for certain choices without GM permission, everything being clearly defined, items having levels, you actually have something to do between levels 1 and 2, and so much more. All these factors combined make the system overall much more balanced adding to the enjoyment. PF2e is without a doubt a much better and intentionally designed system compared to the relatively shallow D&D 5e that’s held together through community support (or “duct-tape” as the narrator puts it).
My feeling is that there's a different overall feel both games go for. In 5e the way the math works, a group of Goblins can get lucky and shank a high level character. This grounds the characters a bit in that sense, there's the idea that a dagger to the throat will still kill. In PF2e the PCs are imagined to be stronger. Think of Wu Xia, Final Fantasy, or Goku. The PCs are intended to advance to insane heights with enemies scaling just as much. No matter how lucky a Goblin gets, that dagger will bounce off of Goku's skin. Heck it would bounce off of anypart of his body lol. I believe that's the kind of scale PF2e is going for.
PF2E has official variant rules for proficiency without level if that fits your narrative better. Also there are some loose mechanics for composite enemies called troops.
Part of the issue with 5e is that an adult red dragon (CR 17) attacking a village large enough to have even a small chest of gold is actually in serious mortal danger if they have 40 level 1 guards. Each has +3 to hit and deals 1d8+1, meaning even if the initial breath weapon kills 6-7 with 19 AC that dragon is taking about 60 damage of it's 256 hp. After that, even with 3 attacks per turn all 1 shooting guards (not guaranteed) the average damage output still kills it before it gets a second breath attack, and with most of the guards still alive. Fundamentally, the scaling of the universe falls apart if an angry mob is capable of taking down some of the strongest entities in their world. You only need about 150 basic guardsmen to easily kill a Tarrasque in direct combat, an entity that supposedly kills worlds. If we use the stat block of actual soldiers, such as the knight or veteran blocks, it takes two attack for it to kill each of them and so it goes down to even fewer.
@MonochromaticPrism Another great point I haven't fully considered. People hand wave it with game play and lore being different, but why have that in the game when you could have a system like PF2e that unifies the two? Unless you have a world where even dragons are killable by a mob lol. If you have a low magic setting like Game of Thrones, I can see 40 guardsmen with crossbows standing up to a Dragon. However if your setting has magical ancient dragons with diamond scales and unfathomable reality bending powers, it would be silly for them to be killable by mundane numbers.
I've played with friends who love this style of gameplay (where the difference between different levels/CR is very big), but I've also played with friends who very much prefer the opposite, where a dagger wound to the eye at any level has a risk of killing a CR20 dragon just like it can kill a Goblin. The first, (PF2e) is more narrative, while the second (5e, but mainly Call of Cthulhu and Zweihander) is more realistic. I've had fun in both versions of gameplay, and that's why I like modifying 5e to bend in either way.
Wow! I’ve been running a bit of Pathfinder, but this really caused be to look at it in another way, i think I definitely prefer the way Pathfinder handles advancement.
It's a feature, not a bug! It's basically two different theprietical realities being represented by two different rulesets: in one (D&D 5e), even the lowest level mook can pose SOME threat to a high-level character (especially in great numbers). The other (Pathfinder, as well as D&D 3e and 4e) much more strongly emphasizes a stratified power scale, where the threats a character is expected to be able to face "level up" a long with them. The latter could be described as more "video-gamey", but that's not necessarily a bad thing! Plenty of people prefer that style (as this video exemplifies), but I don't think it's fair to say it's "better", since it's so much a factor of the sort of story you're trying to tell. Personally, I love the idea that a scrappy little hero, with enough courage and the luck of the gods, could take on a dragon! Feels more "mythic", in a way
One thing that 5e and PF2 can't really bring to the table (pun intended) is the epic levels of insanity that 3.5 and PF1 had to bring. The dragon isn't afraid of a party because they have better stats, or because of dreaded action economy (though that is a huge factor); they're terrified because of the array of things the party can now do. I mean, as a dragon, what are you more afraid of? The fact the fighter has 20% higher to-hit, or high-level Pathfinder shenanigans? The irony of this is that the dragon's most terrifying ability in the latter games is its full-attack, which always outclasses its other abilities unless it gets a fly-by breath to surprise a party.
I wouldn't say it tells a better story. It tells a different story. If you want your character to feel that he grows from 0 to demigod, pf2e is great . But maybe you prefer a story where even the greatest warrior can be fell by ten guys attacking him at his wedding when he is unarmored (a la Game of Thrones), and in that case both pf2e and D&D 5e will not work. There are no perfect systems, you need to find which system helps you tell the story you want to tell.
I was thinking exactly this. Like, lets take for example Dungeon Meshi. You cannot tell me with the level of power PF2 operates that Laios is anything above like Lvl 4 (Literally at lvl 5 even Fighters can start to do shit beyond human capacity), yet with good planning he killed a Dragon, something much more akin to DND 5E if we're talking about the chances of it happening. I hate DnD 5e tho, I think it sucks ass, I would rather mod other games for that kind of stories, like Powered by the Apocalypse (known for Masks and the TTRPG of Avatar the Last Airbender), or even just a personalized template of any World of Darkness game, or a more fantasy-homebrewd 7Th Sea.
@@TheZakurumy if you like that powerlevel would highly recomend you check on savage worlds for a pulp action, or burning wheel for more drama and character develpment. Or if you have the time, check GURPS.
@@TheZakurumy Another example would be Geralt of Rivia. He has supernatural abilities, quick reflexes and a small amount of magic. But he was still killed by a mob of peasants during a riot.
The lore of D&D isn't inherently bad. The rules aren't inherently bad. But they don't mesh together. You could use the tarrasque statblock and make a story about protecting an endangered species from aarakocra poachers. Or you could go with the lore they give and give it stats that reflect that. But with Pathfinder, you can use their lore and their mechanics and you don't have to do either yourself.
Gorgeous presentation - art style, music, and light animation were all so much on point that I'm amazed this is your first video - smiled at the flag on the DM screen, and a very neat lens to look at RPG mechanics from which while I do sometimes think about, how bounded accuracy hurts the ability to tell zero to hero stories isn't something I'd considered before. Looking forward to seeing more videos from you. Since you asked for examples, one of my favourite ways mechanisms help tell stories is probably the way Dread bakes the mounting tension and release of the horror genre into its resolution mechanism simply by using a jenga tower rather than dice (plus if you ever cause the tower to fall your character dies)
I like both. (The business behind one less). The consistent growth in Pathfinder does support traditional narratives well and makes the growth of characters feel meaningful. However, D&D's smaller difference growth does allow more moments of uncertainty and wild swings. There are many stories out of groups confronting their BBEGs early and mopping the floor with them due to unexpected dice rolls. Pathfinder is a lot more predictable. Both of these can be brilliant or terrible depending on what you want or need. Personally, what I value more is horizontal progression. Getting more options or tools in the toolbox as your character grows. That's a more interesting story than fighter does the hitting better. With its involvement of feats, archetypes, and the ability to retrain, that is where I like the story development of Pathfinder.
In terms of customizability, Pathfinder is legos and 5e is roblox. Being able to approach things from different angles is the heart of DnD to me. 5e can do it, but it feels more contrived than what you can achieve in P2e.
I'm sorry, but I prefer 5e's approach. I don't care if you're a 20th level adventurer, you're still susceptible to lucky hits, so don't lower your guard just because your opponent is a goblin. That''s why I generally gravitate more towards OSR games, since they go even further and lower everyone's Hit Points to really drive home the point that "Once initiative is rolled, no one is safe." _The boy charges at the dragon in a desperate act of defiance. The ancient creature, in hubris, doesn’t acknowledge him. Why would a lion care for the actions of ants? But suddenly, the unexpected happens: the dragon feels pain. Somehow, fate had the boy manage to drive his sword under the dragon's scales. The dragon flaps his wings and the boy is thrown back. The dragon looks at him in anger. “You dare?” Then, the beast grins. “How amusing. Nurse your hatred and come entertain me again… I’ll be waiting.” The dragons spares the boy, who swears to one day to get his vengeance._
As someone who DMed a few 3.5 campaigns, some of them reaching about the 25th level, I still have nightmares with those absurdly high bonuses the PCs had back then, along with the profane amount of hit points. 5th edition has many, many flaws but, for me, bounded accuracy is one of its greatest merits. Encounter building, for example, is SO much easy.
CR in 5e just seems to be a guess at times. Just as example, throw two CR2 wererats at a standard lvl 4 party. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. 900 exp, so slightly below medium encounter. It’s the first thing in the day they fight, so should be a short fight in which they stomp the rats. Except it’s not. The wererats are immune to all non-magical damage. So it’s not a 2v4, it’s a 2v2 with the Rogue and Fighter just standing on the sidelines. Because, remember, the default assumption in 5e is that the party has NO magic items. Magic items are an optional bonus thing the GM can or can not hand out. And worse yet, since the game assumes the party doesn’t have +x weapons, giving the party +x weapons means all enemies are easier to defeat than the game assumes. There are dozens and dozens of landmines like these in 5e. Not in 2e. If you get a CR2 monster in 2e, it’s gonna be a CR 2 critter. It might have nasty surprises, but nothing that just breaks the entire encounter design over its knee.
@@digitalpacman He didn't say a word about CR. He said encounter building was easier for him. I don't use CR at all when I build encounters, and bounded accuracy makes it easy to build them.
@Not_Here_To_Make_Friends Yeah but he mentioned that building encounters is easy. The other guy responded why it's not easy if you don't know what to look out for, while pathfinder CR gives an easy and simple way to know how challenging an encounters gonna be using CR.
I appreciate your opinion, even though I think the extreme escalation of pathfinder is one of its biggest weaknesses from a DM/World Building perspective. I find with Pathfinder that every encounter has to be retuned due to to tight escalation and punishing system math, causing a vary artificial feel where the entire world that the party encounters has to grow around them to ensure that they can survive to face those higher level challenges. While you are right that D&D’s escalation could be a bit greater, the slower escalation allows for a more organic world where heroes can encounter a variety of enemies without facing instant death by crit if there is a slight level imbalance - and where returning to face weaker threats makes you feel powerful, but not so powerful that the encounter is just a complete waste of table time.
Very true! It's partially why I wanted to make my channel. Different rules lend themselves better to different stories and play styles. For example I have a group playing in a custom low power system I made and If I tried to steal pf2es math it would ruin the whole thing cause the point of the game is them wandering the whole continent looking for treasure!
I very much agree, which is why I have a hard time recommending PF2 to anyone. While the scaling makes you feel growth, you never feel powerful. You're always only just strong enough to fight the next big thing and only if you leveled enough, bought the right items, and have the right party composition. There's never the feeling of being heroically powerful or a scrappy underdog, either you're of the right power level or you're not. Honestly, PF2 feels like an MMO on reflection.
It's not much different in 5e, the only difference is that PF2 scales more rapidly and gives the GM the tools to actually predict how difficult a fight is while it's a gamble in 5e. There are many enemies that will insta-gib low level 5e characters or will pose no meaningful threat in arbitrarily high numbers. The range is just bigger and muddier.
@@JawaBob I think there's *lots* of things that make you feel powerful. Making enemies flee in panic from a mere glance, dropping big spells that turn the encounter around rapidly, throwing enemies across the room, squeezing in a crit from stacked teamwork that makes a boss' health plummet... the real difference is that PF2 remains challenging, where 5e does not. If you stick to official guidelines, 5e becomes easier and easier at high levels with some magic items and semi-optimized characters. PF2 doesn't. Unless the GM wants to. There's nothing stopping you from throwing easy encounters at high level parties to just let them show off. Or at low levels. It's really in your hands.
@@rednidedni3875 only if the encounter design begins and ends with: you encounter x monster. roll for initiative. enemy combos, placements and tactics can make a huge difference. a well organized and planned team of PCs can punch way above their weight class, like 12CR difference high. similarly, a poorly thought out approach to a "low threat" foe can end up being much more fatal than expected if the DM incorporates clever tactics. this isn´t even considering optional rules or homebrew, just the basics.
My issue with this argument is that it assumes more power between level 1 and level 20 is immediately a better story, and it really isn't. Most stories are not zero to hero shonen anime fantasies. A flat power curve or a system that gives more horizontal power improvement would probably work better for a setting that is supposed to be consistently dangerous. As a player in a Curse of Strahd campaign, I like that I still feel threatened by basic zombies and will probably still feel threatened by them for a couple levels. I also just think that difference between fighting a dragon with no chance of meaningfully damaging him vs fighting a dragon with no chance of damaging him at all isn't really meaningful. The experience and result is effectively and emotionally the same. That's not to say 5e is better than PF2e, just that I'm skeptical of this argument and its evidence.
How does this D&D 5e level 1 fighter have a +7 to hit? He's got +2 from proficiency, but are you telling me that he's got 20 strength at level 1? A more realistic strength score for a level 1 fighter in 5e would be 16, which would be a +5 to hit, which would be a 20% chance to hit an AC 22. So then at level 20, or level 17 or whatever, he's got a +11 to hit, giving him that 50% chance you mentioned. But honestly, by level 17 he would most definitely have a magic weapon for a +1, +2, or maybe even +3 to hit, so his hit chance is looking more like 60%, and that's just from his weapon. Like you said about being buffed by pathfinder allies, the 5e fighter is definitely going to be buffed by his allies too. His allies will cast Bless on him, giving him +1d4 to hit. So now his chance to meet AC 22 is 72.5%. If he has a bard in the party, the bard will use Bardic Inspiration to give him +1d12 to hit (on 5 different attack rolls), bringing his chance of hitting to 94.5%. And his allies could use things like Guiding Bolt or Faerie Fire to give advantage on the attack, which now bring his chances essentially up to 100%. I do agree that 5e's proficiency bonuses do make leveling up feel rather lackluster, especially when about half of the levels don't grant you any new features, but I also think you've made 5e out to be even more constrained than it actually is compared to how you presented pathfinder.
In my opinion this is not the best way to frame it, since bounded accuracy affects both PCs and creatures. I think it's more accurate to say "In PF2e there's a much wider gap between strong and weak beings/creatures" or the equivalent "In 5e the gap between weak and strong creatures is smaller". In 5e, a 10th level party would have a much harder time dealing with 20 CR 1 Bugbears than a 10th level party in PF2e would have to deal with an equivalent level 1 creature.
This video makes a lot of sense. However, when my group tried Pathfinder 2nd Edition we were struck by how many things you had to keep track of. We like to play in person, but it almost felt like a necessity to use some kind of computer program to keep track of how many stacks of every condition were affecting every creature in combat. It bogged us down, turns took forever and we still made tons of mistakes. We were new to the system, so pace could have picked up over time, but to me it felt daunting to administer without lots of careless mistakes, expecially since I like to play without apps and computers. This is not meant as a pro D&D 5E argument. It's just my groups initial reaction to P2E and why we didn't stick with it. Feel free to write it of as "You just sucked" but that was our experience.
@@micaheiber1419 Heh, I guess first edition really isn’t for my group then. I just don’t feel like keeping track of the hit points of my shield etc. My character’s health is enough. All power to those who enjoys that experience of course. Just my personal preference.
Well...around 20 years ago I used to play with my school friends the DnD 3.5e and well...there were even more things to keep track of and we only had thd books for that at the time. It was hard at the first sessions. Then it became way easier. You guys are just way too accustomed to the way too simple 5e mechanics. Pathfinder 2e can be just as simple within two to three sessions of getting used to the possibilities you have. Because thats basically what PF2e is all about. Possibilities. Its so much more than just spamming attack options all the time. Its exploration mode is done MUCH better. Its downtime mode is done MUCH better. Its combat mode is done INSANELY better. It all comes down to learning what you can and getting used to it. And this can be done in just a few sessions. But theres always people who will prefer the simpler, uninteresting, bland and not enjoyable dnd5e. And its ok.
will be honest, pf2e, pf1e, is a system that you need to support your narrative through the system, where dnd 5e is a system that you support the system through your narrative. In pf1e/2e, if you want to do something flashy, fancy, you probably can, in dnd 5e, you don't have much tools to do a spinning attack, a flashy movement dash cutting through the enemies and dealing damage to all of them and so on. in pf1e, with some 3pp content, such as spheres of power and akashic mysteries, i can make a character that dances around the battlefield while cutting every mob, and increase its strength as the battle goes. In dnd 5e, i attac
@sebastianbolo2480 There was no attack though. Just stating a fact. A point proven. And if that actually hurt some people, then its just even more of a proof its the truth.
Not to be a 5e apologist but i feel like there are some gross oversimplification that makes the story worse than it should be. @1:53 You never have a 100% chance to hit in 5e. A natural 1 is always a miss, which means you always have a 5% chance of missing. Your 30% (natural 15) to hit AC22 is assuming +2 prof and a +5 from other bonuses (at first level i would assume you either got a +5 strength or got an early magic weapon). Its more likely to see a +5 to hit (prof bonus + ability mod) at level one which brings you down to a 20% to hit AC22 assuming a DM just doesn't hand out +1 sword at level 1. That 50% (natural 11) to hit AC22 at level 17 is assuming a +6 prof and another +5 from something else. Most competent players would try to max out their primary stat or at least be at a +4 at this level. That generously leaves a +1 or +2 weapon to carry you to that +11. This is before any class feature that conveys any additonal to hit bonuses like archery or gaining advantage. In 5e, AC 22 is a relatively low armor class for level 17. The 500+ health pool, legendary actions, and legendary resistance is more of the issue to contend with rather than "not being able to hit". I find the example used for the level 1 vs level 17 5e experience to be slightly cherry picked to show the worst of potential play. Edit: Added some additional wording for clarification and fixed some math
The problem with a proficiency system that adds in your level as a modifer is that suddenly anything you're not proficient in is always going to fail. This is why in pathfinder 2e they have to make every class proficient in every type of saving throw. An easy fix is to add your level to even the abilities you're not proficient in, but then the LV1 master body builder is always going to lose an armwrestling match to the LV 20 Wizard....
Rather than needing duct tape, 5e is more like having a lego set and some of the pieces might be missing. Fortunately you have other legos and it is incredibly easy to make any of those other pieces fit. For pf2 you instead have a technic lego set, and hopefully you have all the pieces, but if you misplace the battery or the wrong cog it's going to be a lot harder to make it work without it. And in the end you'll still push that lego car you built around with your hands regardless. (Also, anyone unable to make the narrative scenario presented here work in either system has a severe skill issue)
You've made a great point briefly yet effectively, with great art and gravitas. The sound design was top-tier. It shows you've put in a great deal of effort and passion into this and I hope there's plenty more to come. You might yet convince me to let go of my duct tape.
The best part is that PF2E's math is so tight that even if want go challenge high level characters with low level creatures, you can just wing it with DC/level and put them in a troop. Once you nail the troop enough, their morale can break and you can pick off the scragglers. Meanwhile CR is 5E barely means anything.
I've noticed that CR in 5e is like a suggestion from a proficient person who is a terribly drunk. It can be right, but some of their CR classifications really raises the eyebrows.
@@BRBasher It's hard to show just how different they can be with 5 min but he touched on the gist of it here. If you know you know, I bet people who own Roblox think Lego is always advertising to them too.
I’ve been super interested in pathfinder lately and tempted to look into it. This video pushed me over the edge. Can’t wait for more content on this subject!
I’m a big fan of picking your system after deciding on the story, because different systems have different strengths, and of course I want to pick the system whose strengths align with the story I want to tell. My one criticism with this video would be the “Cthulhu has a health bar” line. If I’m the DM, I only give Cthulhu a health bar if I want victory to be an option. Sure the level 1 fighter could “hit” the dragon, but like - that only matters when I decide it does. You can call that “fighting the system” but I call it “an extremely simple solution to a problem that barely exists”. I feel like the stronger criticism is the one you touch on that goes in the opposite direction - the idea that a near-peak fighter is only 20% more accurate than Joe McGuy.
So there’s a couple of things in there that I don’t really agree with but the big one is that being able to damage the dragon at level 1 is a bad thing. If anything if that Fighter damaged it that’s a fantastic way to influence the story. They’re now in that Dragons mind as someone who actually can hurt them, the fighter has proof that they can get strong enough to win but not yet, others who see what happened could tell tales of them actually damaging the dragon. Like if that fighter got a critical hit, and at the very end when they encountered the dragon again he still had a visible mark where the fighter hit him; that to me sounds amazing.
The point of the video is that any peasant can get that crit and do that damage to a dragon in dnd. If you put 1 million peasants against a dragon in dnd the dragon will eventually lose. If you put 1 million peasants against a dragon in pf2e it is mathematically impossible for them to hurt the dragon. Both approaches change the feel of your game drastically and the inworld logic. I personally prefer the pf2e logic, I don't want my level 20 barbarian player to be threated by 10 goblins. I want him to be able to kill the goblins with his pinky and while chugging a beer and barely breaking a sweat. If you prefer more gritty games were a lvl 20 character can be threatened by goblins dnd works. I don't want my ancient dragon with eons of wisdom to be threatened (no matter how little) by some random villager.
Yeah I find it absolutely stupid that "low level can't hurt high level". Take a look at medieval knights, would you say it's literally impossible for peasant to kill a knight when he's distracted by chaos around?
Also, being able to critically fail/succeed by missing/exceeding AC by 10 and not being tied purely to natural dice rolls is such an amazing addition. Making it so you otherwise have to roll a natural 20 on the die is great balance and icing on the cake. It's simpler and more elegant but leaves way more room for fun. No notes. Cant wait for my second session next month :D
Personally I like it, from a storytelling perspective, that a low lever character could hit (not damage) a much higher level enemy. It shouldn't be too much trouble to make contact with a dragon's skin with a spear, but will it go through the scales? It's like in Elden Ring. Sure, eventually you'll be able to be dismissive of Demihumans, but if you're nor careful they can and will still hit you.
My next big video is kinda on this! How AC kinda only represents "missing" in most people's heads. I think it's important to remember that since plate mail armour raises AC a dragons AC is probably more about scales then dodging :^)
@@kalebherington 3.5 actually adressed this with Touch Armor class and Natural Armor. Your touch armor class was your ability to dodge, for instance a spell that only needs to hit you at any point on your body doesn't care that you wear plate male and it only matters how well you dodge it. Meanwhile the natural armor of the creature doesn't change even if it can't dodge so it's there even if they are caught off guard. In the game you could deny a creatures Dex bonus to AC by catching it off guard. One of the MANY interesting game design choices gobbled up by the advantage system and 5th's need to oversimplify everything.
WHAT AN AMAAZING VIDEO THE NARRATION THE ART THE COMPOSITION OF THE WRITING THE NARRATIVE WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY GOSH DARN DELICIOUS VIDEO YOU RIGHTFULLY EARNED MY ETERNAL LOYALTY (and subscription)
I'd argue that PF2e level scaling introduces other narrative issues; it supports the fantasy as far as heroes and villains are concerned, but fails to simulate the rest of the world. I think it's essential for fantasy worldbuilding to have meaningful mechanical relationships between the archetypal inhabitants of the world - the commoner, the guard, the adventurer, the royal guard, the king, the vizier, the great hero, etc. Yet, PF2e's scaling is _so steep_ that those relationships disintegrate completely if the gap is more than 3-4 levels. One level -1 commoner, of _fifty million commoners_ for that matter, might as well not exist for the level 7 royal guard. That's good news for the level 5 king he's guarding (although the king could easily take a few million angry peasants on as well), yet that same genocidal royal guard, or fifty million of them for that matter, is completely powerless against a level 14 rampaging beast. But that beast, and its fifty million siblings, are all fleeing from a single level 21 world-devourer.
That is kind of how the fantasy of Pathfinder is set up though. It's like the Avengers. You don't send a hundred low tier heroes to fight The Incredible Hulk, you send maybe a few heroes roughly on his power level and the hundred low tier heroes fight a hundred low tier villains.
@@wiegraf9009 Doesn't quite work from a worldbuilding perspective still. A level 5 goblin boss can hardly be equated to a supervillian, but is still able to raze anything occupied by level 1 characters. If a king and his guard is of a high level, the common folk cannot rebel in any kind of way without an equally strong hero, and even then, they might aswell let the hero do that alone. In 5e, any player character can be taken down by an angry mob of peasants, no matter their level, so long as the mob is big enough. Pathfinder just feels like a video game in that regard, where pretty much everything boils down to level. A level 1 and a level 20 goblin might be the exact same creature, but one is literally impossible to hit with a bow and arrow, even if you have 200 archers firing at once, as long as the archers are of low level.
I'm pretty sure that's the point. By the rough scaling of D&D, the level 7 royal guard are borderline legends. For level 1s, the level 7 royal guardsmen are a legitimate possibility for a final boss. They are the aces. The elite of elites. They're only a stone's throw away from being legends of their own right, and a king who has gathered up even four or five of them *should* be nigh-on invincible against a horde of farmers with sticks. The royal guard would be known by name across the country. A normal person would be lucky to get to level 3. You have to remember that this is the real scale of the world of Pathfinder. That was the scale of D&D since 3rd edition at least. It was always exponential. Something 4 levels below you isn't a blip on your radar.
@@Shack11 How times have changed. I'm very positive that 4 Champions (CR 9 Enemy (Yes i know CR sucks for calculating encounter difficulty, but it gives a rough estimate of the creature's strength) would be completely overwhelmed by 40 Thugs (CR 1/2). Maybe they could win, but even in that case they'd have lost at least 2 champions. One might argue that the thug is far stronger than a peasant, which would be correct, but I'd argue that thugs are not a rarity, and such a mob with a few hundred people might very well include several thugs.
I'd like to point out in both games there's a high chance the fighter would just be absolute crippled by the dragon's fear aura, making the question of striking the beast absolutely pointless.
If I was the DM and the player was dead set on attacking the dragon at the beginning I'd probably just conveniently forget about the aura so they could have a memorable backstory moment. Depends on the player of course
It really might not automatically be the case with a Pf2e fighter, except if you “dumped” wisdom. In this sytem your saving throws values also add you level. So maybe the dragon has a 35 DC to his fear aura (The DC of an Ancient black dragon) to beat but maybe the fighter has something such as a +23 Will (Proficiency + modifier. Let's take a 17th level fighter with 14 Wisdom = 4+17+2 = 23. And fighters have Bravery (they are less likely to be frightened for long)). So 35 - 23 = 12. With a very basic wisdom stat you will need a 12 to not be frightened. It's really not that out of reach. Not acquired too but it's doable with a bit of luck.
Absolutely false. All DCs scale with level. So their Will Save would (wisdom save for 5e) would still be Wis mod + level + proficiency. Probably about a 50% chance to succeed the Will save. In addition, Fighters in 2e have a feature called Bravery that makes them more resilient to being frightened.
it is entirely free to do so btw! go to "Archive of Nethys" on google, its a wiki with all published content (minus adventures) officially available for free!
Pf2e also allows for easier solo play due to the math working in both ways. Also, sir, you got yourself a new subscriber. Looking forward to more videos.
cant wait to see more from you, loved this video. i personally am struggling currently in the balance department with 5e. players are lvl 5 and clear deadly encounters with such ease. so for that reason too im going to have my next game be pathfinder 2e.
This is your first video?? Its absolutely fantastic. Clear, concise, and great pacing. Both your drawings and editing is quite pleasant. I hope there are more videos to come 👍
This is a very good point. I started playing pf2e after being tired from constantly homebrewing fixes to 5e pain points for me and my group. And at one point when looking at pf2e I realized that it already have the fixes i've made baked into the base rules. And 3AP rules are much more intuitive in my opinion.
You were not around in the 3e times. Bounded accuracy was a blessing in 2014. Ofc you may want something fresh, but trust me, it's there for a good reason.
@@Manweor I highly disagree. I played 3.5 quite extensively and I prefer it over 5e. 5e killed the uniqueness of each character build. They all feel like cookie cutter builds and optimal builds are only powerful enough to carry themselves so a suboptimal build really drags the party. There is virtually no subclass that focuses on roleplaying. The rules for mass combat, sanity, exploration, kingdom building, overland travel, reputation and kingdom building are horrifying in 5e not to mention the inability to stack buffs because most if not all of them are concentration. I can go on, but I don't think I need further points to defend pf1e/3.5
@@Manweor pfff, played PF for like 6 to 7 years now then played 5e like after six months of PF1e and have played both at the same time since and I swear, it feels so much better to have your shit unbound from the bell curve 5e forces everything to be in. Always pissed me off that 5 kobolds in a trenchcoat with rusty daggers are still a massive threat for a Level 20 Fighter with zero spells because "haha, you still in our to hit bracket even though we are literally supposed to be fodder for you by now and you're supposed to be one of the best at your field in the entire world at Level 20" Such a stupid system, jesus christ, you don't even get to feel like a legendary hero, untouchable by the common mook by the end of your story, you still are vulnerable to getting shanked by said kobolds in an alleyway and dying that way. I legit only play 5e when I wanna play a tabletop but also turn my brain off since my character creation choices literally do not matter. I can just say "I hit that fucker" over and over and I know I'll just eventually win due to bounded accuracy without really stratting out anything or picking what thing I got that'll solve me being surrounded cuz I literally got no options and my shit is pure luck anyways while in PF, I could just cleave the guys and I know that shit'll hit because my character is legit just that much experienced in the art of combat than their opponent.
@@rivy-lurk-869Fair enough. I’m in a few campaigns that uses Beyond and Roll20 (because, being honest, most of us are new at DnD) so really I just wanna know, is Pathfinder at least easy to build up or something? Like making a sheet, and just having the character stuff set up like with 5e?
@@rivy-lurk-869then I have to ask what version of 5e have you been playing? If you are a Fighter and your turns are purely based on luck then I suspect you are either being hyperbolic or you are not actually that good of player as you might think. That or you have had DM's that don't challenge you.
I thought I didn’t like ttrpgs… until I played pathfinder 2e. That system and the many amazing creators who power our small but mighty community are now a huge part of my life, and I urge D&D5e players to come to the light. So many of my friends that I’ve met through pathfinder are migrants from 5e, and they all wholeheartedly agree that pf2e is far superior not just in terms of gameplay mechanics but also character versatility. Did you get killed by a vampire mid-campaign and now you’re being raised again? There’s a whole tree of mechanics for that. PLUS, pf2e has many more classes, races and attributes that D&D could only dream of. We just got 2 new classes a few days ago!! Trust me, the grass is greener here.
Yeah, I've talked about this issue before in my groups that I've played in, especially cuz Im more familiar with older editions than they are. When it comes to equivalents of proficiency bonuses in the context of attack actions, 2e has THAC0 and 3e has base attack bonus. In 2e, your fighter's THAC0 at level 1 is 20, and at level 20, is 1 (lower is better in this context). In 3e, your fighter's base attack bonus is +1 at level 1, and at level 20 is +20 (with descending +15, +10 and +5 for your subsequent attacks on the same turn). But if 5e, at level 1 its +2, and at level 20 its +6. The difference in older editions was 5 times greater than it is now. Also note that older editions also did have additional bonuses you could get from your ability scores, magical weapons, potions, spell buffs, feats, etc, just like 5e has. I think my current game Im running will be the last time I use 5e. Its really super disappointing in general.
This was one of the biggest reasons I loved 3e before I even tried PF. It was always my biggest complaint with 5e, but now that I've tried PF I'm not entirely sure I can completely go back to 5e without going in with the mindset of messing around with jank, especially because (as mentioned here) it's way easier to tell a progressive story in PF.
Not a big fan of 2e but love how you presented the info and you opinion. Great job for your first video, love the drawings by the way! Plus based on you other comments you plan on covering other systems and ideas too, so I’m subscribing! Hope to see you do well!
Good Video man! I am currently running a Starfinder campaign with my group that played nothing but 5e for a while and this helped me grasp why the numbers are so different when it comes to the two games.
I think a better title for the video would be How pathfinder's math tells a different story. My only real takeaway from the video is that there is a bigger difference between a low and a high level character in one system compared to the other. Which depending on how you want your game world to be might or might not be desirable.
Agree, fun video but I don't understand it's main argument, I really don't see how the 5e math told a worse story on this case that the PF rules, actually my takeaway is that in 5e the fighter could've landed a lucky hit on the dragon which could've also contributed to the story, while PF your only choice is to not hit the dragon at all
In my experience, my players prefered the 5e, Less numbers = Less math for them. But i really love the way that Pathfinder does make me feel powerful with my Sheet, where my strongest numbers really are strong, in 5e i barelly see the difference between me and my ally without proficiency bonus sometimes, and thats make me do more damage type Charachter, When in Pathfinder i have "The vision", a Wisdom based Charachter that sees ecerything around.
This is so well made, I cannot believe this is your first video (on this channel anyway). While I personally prefer 1e to 2e, the core concept is exactly the same - a sort of exponential growth in power, compared to 5e's limited linear growth.
Frankly I kind of appreciate the fact that low-level creatures can like... actually do damage to high-level ones in dnd 5e Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Pf2e's system more for multiple reasons, but this is the one thing I really hate about its design I *like* when a colony of 30 kobolds can use teamwork and clever traps to pose a threat to a level 15 character, and I don't like when an entire army of 1,000 men who've dedicated their lives to war is literally incapable of damaging a level 15 character who's been at this for two months Also I _really_ do not like that cheeky jab you included at the end, it genuinely angers me. You got my hopes up that you would provide some sort of insightful game balance suggestions that I could use in my campaigns where half the players probably can't be convinced to switch to another system after just getting through learning this one. I am unironically going to be angry about this months from now, if past experience tells me anything. Anyways, subscribing, keep up the good work
fun part is that's more valid for 5e than older editions too lol. They tried making it simpler and created the contraddictions of levels counting nothing. You could survive dragon but hardly fight an horde of rats.
I absolutely love the art style you're using here. And this video alone put a tiny little flame in me saying that I wanna play PF2e again... (haven't touched it in over a year)
Funny thing I think this is the worst part of PF2e. Because of it I ignored that edition for years until I discovered there is an optional Proficiency without Level rule that makes PF2e massively better game.
I like both, but ive noticed that 5e gives you more leeway to experiment and go crazy with your character, PF is more strict in that you are going to suck really hard on every encounter and get behind if you try to deviate from a more standar or mathematically efficient build.
I found the opposite to be true. 5e rewards you much more for being hyper-optimized, to the point where a single character can outperform the rest of the party, while in 2e you are always gonna be within a certain range of power unless you go out of your way to make a character with bad stat distribution.
I don't think it's a given that the dragon should be *so* strong as to completely ignore *any* number of level 0 or 1 humanoids. In some genres raising an army should be enough to at least force the dragon to consider strategy and tactics, and that requires that it be able to take hp damage from members of said army. Whether a single would-be hero can deal a negligible amount of damage or not doesn't really make a difference, but the different rulesets imply different things about the efficacy of many humanoids acting cooperatively. So Pathfinder 2e represents a world where only great heroes can challenge great monsters, but D&D 5e represents a world where enough people working together can achieve victory without superhuman might. That doesn't make one of them better or worse.
The Thing that most D&D Players and, specially Ben Riggs get totally WRONG is that people that play other systems only play that one othet system, when in fact all of us play many diferent system for diferent kinds of games. "But Pathfinder number scaling is not realistic, characters look like JPRG protagonist" well... That's the whole point. When I want to run a game about Heroes of legend fighting evil with power of friendship and ultimate violence, I run Pathfinder. When I want a Gritty realistic Game of Throneseque story with characters that can die at any moment I play Warhammer Fantasy or Symbarou. When I want a game about exploration and survival I play Forbidden Lands. And so on. Once you learn your second system, learning the third, the fourth and the ninth becomes a walk in the park.
Exactly! Once you break free from having one system so many opportunities for new stories open up to you! I run 2 games a week atm one a heroic fantasy about adventurers making there mark and saving the world, pf2e nails this! The other a gritty exploration game where adventurers are essentially sent to fantasy Australia as punishment and have to delve into old abandoned dungeons for loot, always barely scraping by to get just one more piece of treasure. Pf2e wouldn't really work that well for it, so despite loving pf2e I didn't use it!
Massively underrated comment, absolutely correct. People defend their game of choice like it's personal when they should be using the right tool for the job. There's differences in how we evaluate and all that, but the gist of it is any given game could be the right fit. Hell, frankenstien your own if you need to. Nepotism does very little for the game itself and no one should dismiss a system out of hand. More of a Pathfinder guy myself, but Dimension 20 is a cool example of what I think 5e is capable of. They make many different scenarios and it feels like it works. The lower level of seriousness while also having as much capacity for it as the players want is probably more a testimony to Brennen Lee Mulligan, but I think 5e is intentionally simple so that you can use the same system by just changing out a few parts. It's neat, and a good introduction to what is decidedly a complex game with a lot of moving parts. I think it hits a roof though. The more classic examples of a DnD story don't fit as well as other systems that feel more designed to run them.
This is actually a built-in feature of 5e. Level 1 5e characters are meant to be already capable fighters and often some sort of folk hero. You're not meant to go from zero to hero, the game is designed to go from hero to god.
Uh, no? I mean, you never attain anything close to godly prowess in 5e, unless you are a spellcaster, obviously. 5e takes you from local hero to continental hero, PF2 takes you from standard warrior to demigod.
I wouldn't say it does that particularly well with how swingy the rolls are. You'd think a "folk hero" should be able to handle a bugbear, but most characters will just get 1 or 2 shot by one of those at lvl 1
@@lexandar11o6*Laugs in Paladin, Battle Master, Rouge and Monk* Main damage burst - Paladin Main juice critters - Rouges Main control - Monks Main utility - Battle Masters High up the levels lots of enemies has high saves bonuses, lots of different resistances, can easily knock down a pair of casters in one turn. Spellcasters are not half as mighty as you think they are
Having played AD&D, 3 and 3.5, PF1e, and PF2e, as well as a brief stint into D&D 5e, I appreciate this video very much. This is exactly the type of fantasy I want. I don't think it's impossible to tell in D&D; far from it. But what I can say is that the numbers improving on my sheet makes me FEEL like a hero. I don't min-max; I don't look for every bonus I can apply to my character. I roleplay. When people say the math in PF2e is tight, they're correct...and this gives me reasons to do things OTHER than just "bonk." I have to look for advantages. I have to play smart. It's more engaging. One of the things I've seen brought up in the comments is that lower-level monsters should still pose a threat? That's certainly a valid take, but...why not the other way? How awesome is it to have someone who has worked so hard and practiced so much that creatures that would destroy them now can barely touch them? Every level in PF2e is impactful. And, coming from 1e, it is so much more streamlined than it used to be. And the three-action system? *chef's kiss* PF2e is not my favorite system. That is Ars Magica, by Atlas Games. But for "traditional", sword-and-sorcery, fantasy roleplaying, it is my go-to, and my problems with it are very minor.
IMO throwing low level monsters at the group is just wasting everybody's time. The fight isn't going to be engaging, the spoils aren't worth bothering with. Having them potentially be able to threaten or even kill somebody through sheer luck just makes things more annoying in a fight you shouldn't be having in the first place.
Fair point, I like the armies of darkness actually being valid threats rather than weird moments of the dm saying “oh the orcs are level 2 and you are level 15 so you can kill an infinite number of orcs,” but that is a very valid take. There is an appeal in being so wildly far above the average goober. Gotta be honest though I kinda despise how 2e made there be zero interesting options on cleric and wizard as opposed to all the neat flavor stuff in 1e. Summoners are super cool though, the 3 action system and how the eidolon/summoner duo makes you split up actions is super rad! Gonna stick with 5e and 1e pathfinder though.
Never had an enjoyable experience while actually using Pathfinders system. But that's probably because all of my fellow players were power gamers, and the DM's setup to deal with them. So I was always forced into the Support Role or be one shot every single encounter.
![[Pathfinder 2e] How to pick a class - A Quick Look at All Classes in PF2](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mMRxkf14cBw/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Pathfinder 2e] How to pick a class - A Quick Look at All Classes in PF2](/img/tr.png)
i think u suk!
Man imagine someone taking the time to create a whole new gmail and RUclips account just to make that comment… what a weirdo
@@calebmoss8914 Pretty sure that was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment....
That user name checks out
You know you are doing a good job when you get troll comments like this. Lol
@@beancounter2185yeah I know, my comment was also tongue in cheek because it was me that made that account to make that comment lol
I'm glad we as a community have decided to not let WotC live down the fact they actually hired the Pinkertons over a freaking card game.
Have we? This is the first time I've heard someone bring it up in months.
@@firewolfandrewb Eh, One Shot Questers brought it up in one of their skits last month.
@@webbowser8834Who?
Never forget.
He makes TTRPG Skits @@Snowie7826
I joined my first ever TTRPG, an in-progress game of Pathfinder, and somehow wound up with a +19 to perception. The greatest line this created was the DM saying “I guess you see her scent?!” while tracking a missing ally
Arcane synesthesia, hell yeah
Bro got Witcher Senses
My first Pathfinder game was an in-progress campaign. I made a multiclass Investigator/(Phantom Thief) Rogue, with a 1 level dip in Scaled Fist Monk for Charisma to AC.
I had insane stealth, especially when combined with the potions from the Investigator. At level 10, I was able to sneak into a temple, and steal an item from them. And that's after I sent them a calling card and told them I was going to rob them.
I was the DM for a VERY high power Gestalt Campaign last year and at one point I stopped asking for a Monk/Shifter PC for Perception rolls lmao, it was insane
@@TheMonyarm bro thinks he is the joker
What i learned with d&d 5e was that six kobolds can be more dangerous than a dragon.
Cause in 5e, 6 Kobolds is an adventuring party and you are the dragon. In Pathfinder with proper set up, you can fight 6 dragons verse your party of 6 and just go for the even battle. In 5e 6 dragons is basically insta-death since the action economy doesn't allow proper set up to deal with 6 breath weapons firing off at your party.
Meanwhile a party of 9 level 10 players can take down an Ancient Blue Dragon in 3 rounds without a single casualty - and most of us were middle schoolers IRL, I'm sure a normal party of 4-5 adult D&D players that use some actual strategy could pull it off too.
That... that tells there's something wrong with the system.
I thought death kobolds were for AD&D?
6 kobolds CAN be more dangerous than a dragon.
That's why it's more fun.
"Why settle for a system that you have to fight with duct tape and nail gun?"
Brilliant line
I stick with D&D because it lets me play a Wizard without crying. I love martials in PF2e, but goddamn do the casters feel bad. Prepared casters don't even feel like magic users to me
@@StarryxNight5 I often hear that, and I wonder how much of 'casters feel bad' in PF2e is because of people subconciously still assuming wizards should invalidate all martial classes with a single spell.
@@exewon That's really not the case for me atleast. I don't really care about power as long as I feel atleast somewhat useful while having a somewhat fun time playing. Just the fantasy alone of being a magic person is enough for me. But Pathfinder's prepared casters are just so unfun to me. Most of the time on any actually important enemy, the best I can hope for is a Success on saves. And before you say "Just target the weakest save!" It really does not work for me. I have tried it. Vancian casting ruins the idea. It honestly feels like playing a side character. Not to mention how much of a chore Vancian casting itself is, for a *multitude* of reasons
@@StarryxNight5 I'll admit vancian casting *should've* gone the way of the dodo in 2e tbh. And I hope it does in a future 3e. Especially with the bigger mechanical leaning on assuming people are more or less at full power at the start of every encounter. (cuz fuck the adventuring day concept)
They might've overcorrected slightly with pf2e casters. But casters absolutely had to be kneecapped compared to DnD. Since in 5e (and a lot of other editions) martials are basically utterly pointless. Wizards are better fighters then the actual fighters.
@@exewon Nobody would argue about the martial-caster divide in 5e. It's egregious, it's true. But that doesn't really make it much better, in the end. I judge Pathfinder 2e as its own game. How fun it is to play. How it feels to spend *hours* on each campaign and character. And prepared casters just feel _bad_
Opening the Pathfinder rule book, and seeing the dozens upon dozens of things I needed to homebrew in D&D baked into the system already was an amazing moment for me.
FATAL No need to homebrew it. I found the rulebook you needed. Hate me later.
@@FTWMFXD NO STOP! I HAD FINALLY FORGOTTEN THAT SYSTEM! I DON'T WANNA ROLL FOR ANAL CIRCUMFERENCE!
@@FTWMFXD hahaha, FATAL, that's a good one.
One thing not brought up by this video, is the fact that this fighters "mothers greatsword" can stick with the player their ENTIRE journey, as the player will find runes to buff the weapon they WANT to use, rather than just tossing your sentimental sword for a shiny and new +2 one
This is exactly why I added a magical blacksmith in my dnd campaign, I love the idea that my players get to keep their sentimental weapons and their weapons can grow along with them
Though 5e characters just need to talk to their DM and say "pls let me upgrade my family sword". PF2 just has actual mechanics for it
@@aquamarinerose5405 duct tape
@@jjjjrrrrmmmm123 I mean, fair, but it's at least an *extremely simple* duct tape fix since "Make your own magic items if XYZ thing doesn't fit already" is already part of the paradigm.
Like: Magic Item Rules are purposely vague enough to allow "upgrades" to be totally valid.
Well, you see, you can do exactly that in 4e, and we all know 4e = bad, so we don't need that stupid rule in our glorious 5e!
/s
"Cthulhu has a health bar" goes hard af
I'm not sure who started that joke, but I remember about 10 years ago, an old creator named Spoony made the same sort of comment when discussing Call of Cthulhu giving stats for Cthulhu.
In one of my Pathfinder games, one of the party members was a Hobgoblin Ranger named Raeleus with +19 to stealth. One of my favorite running gags in the campaign was rolling a Stealth Check, checking the rest of the party's passive perception checks, and declaring that another game of "Where's Raeleus" had begun.
To this day, years later, "Where's Raeleus" is still a recurring joke in my group. Big numbers make the fantasy more fun.
stealth expertise does the same thing in dnd though? we've had several similar running gags. Usually a +12 modifier is enough for silliness to commence, since the other character's perception isn't going to be +19 either.
@lordkosta926 Sure, but expertise is a class-specific feature. Having your Rogue or Ranger be the only members of the party that can roll crazy numbers in the things that they're proficient in doesn't give other players the ability to create this type of experience.
I've had rangers, clerics, rogues, and druids with +18 in a skill they've specifically chosen to focus their efforts on at Level 8, sometimes earlier if they're building with a hyperfocus on one particular idea. Does that make the numbers a bit crazy throughout the game? Absolutely. Does it somehow take away from the majesty of the experience? Absolutely not.
@@SoralaxPlays you might not be aware of the skill expert feat. It allows any character to choose a skill to have expertise on.
@lordkosta926 And yet feats are such a ridiculously valuable resource in 5e that you need to be EXTREMELY careful with your choices. Your feats can determine so much about your build that giving one up for comically large numbers in a single skill is a wild ask unless your build is centered around that skill.
Compare this to PF2E, where you have the big numbers baked into the game. Everyone gets to be amazing at the things they've chosen to flavor their character with, but without sacrificing feat slots - which, now, are much more common (because there are several types of feat, with most classes getting at least one of the three feat varieties every level up), thus allowing for more build flexibility - AND without sacrificing Ability Score Increases, which are no longer tied to feats (which seemed ludicrous to me to begin with).
@lordkosta926 Basically, I'm saying that yes - technically, you can get comically large numbers on your rolls in 5e. However, the game is not optimized to facilitate that and work around it. You need to either play a specific class or go out of your way to build your character to experience that.
In PF2E, or even just PF1E, the game is built to allow for and work in the parameters of that. It makes the highs of your character journey feel amazing. When your level 15 character is semi-regularly dishing out 30s on their attack rolls, you feel like a different caliber of adventurer than the level 3 who was lucky if they rolled above a 20. The Demon Lord with 43 AC seems impossible to even touch at early levels, but like a feasible challenge at level 16.
And this isn't even going into the skill checks, which - due to the new Crit System - feel AMAZING to pull ludicrous numbers off on.
"subscribe so you can fight me in the next video" is solid advertisement. Shades of the argument clinic from Monty Python.
No it’s not
@@mikek128 yes it is!
Another thing that Pathfinder 2e supports very well in this story, The Mother's Sword. In Pathfinder you can apply Runes to weapons to give them extra Damage Dice, +1-3 to hit, extra effects on hit, etc. You can upgrade the weapon you started the game with.
Whereas in 5e, youll basically be throwing out your mother's sword the moment you find a +1 weapon. Oh, and runes can be transfered so even if you do find a +1 weapon in PF2e, you can just transfer the runes onto your Mother's sword.
A player and GM can even make the sword into an artifact that gains special traits during the campaign based on the players actions. That's in the GM Core book.
And even better you can skill in crafting to do it yourself during downtime.
D&D used to be like this. It was 5E that introduced "bounded accuracy".
True! I think in my attempts to contrast the mechanics I accidentally implied Pathfinder 2e is the origin of this design decision. Something I'll have to keep in mind going forward!
It was SORT of like that! You DID get better bonuses the higher you got, depending on your class, but it was also quite different.
which notably kinda fails at doing that too after the early levels because AC doesn't scale and the attack does, so its more rocket tag than anything
for a system that is actually bounded, play lancer rpg! on that one you from a +1 to a +6 at max level and THAT IS IT, you dont add your stats to hit. so the d20 is the most important dice at all levels
Indeed. Pathfinder 1e was literally a D&D 3.5 clone. It even relied on the 3.5 SRD!
No, it didn't. You had to find magic items and take the correct feats to be viable. You didn't just get it. Smh
I also prefer the way PF2 changes the narrative regarding weaker enemies. In four levels you can go from fighting something as a boss, to an even battle, to cutting down several of them easily.
In 5e you *might* have improved by +2 to attack and damage, and if you're a spellcaster you have 2 tiers of spells to help. But there's a good chance as a martial that only one of your levels mattered and the rest only gave you hp. I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends, but the numbers don't bug me so much as the inconsistency of progression between classes. Choosing between base numbers and feats that are required to do more than standard attacks as a martial is a pain.
Yes! The original script was closer to this example. Having what was once a boss fight now be the minions of the big bad!
Too an extent yeah. Lower CR monsters aren't generally going to last long against higher level PCs in D&D either but it's definitely more pronounced in PF2E.
I've been doing a full rework of 5e and that is really the hardest part to rebalance
"I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends"
whenever i hear this, i wonder if they mean "I enjoyed playing this ttrpg, despite what 5e does to it" or if they mean "I like what 5e brings to ttrpgs over other systems"
often 5e is people's only exposure and they conflate the two stances.
Because yes, I immensely enjoyed my time with 5e. It was my introduction to the hobby, and the hobby is great.
But there were also issues, and i'm having much more fun now that i explore other systems
5e martials may not scale as well as casters, but extra attacks and feats are still non-negligible damage increase.
It's really nice to see someone point out that math actually matters for narrative
I don't see what's wrong with having chance of hurting dragon at lvl 1
@@realdragon If a random person has a 1 in 20 chance of hurting a dragon that implies a fundamentally different setting than what people expect from D&D
@@chrisroberts7159 Oh please tell me what the biggest TTRPG community with thousands of players worldwide expect of DnD? What every single person that plays DnD expects?
@@realdragon no need to be rude? This is a youtube comment thread... it doesn't matter
@@chrisroberts7159 You didn't answer what "people expect from DnD"
I love D&D, but it actually gets worse for the zero to hero when it comes to rolling for stats. In "I'm the weakest, but I train the hardest" fantasy, I roll a 6 and put it in my primary stat to really lean in to my vision. By level 20, my Primary stat will be, at most, a 16. Meanwhile, my friend, who rolled an 18, will have 2+ maxed stats, and several cool feats. In D&D, if you start a loser, you end a loser (barring DM Ex Machina)
It's worth noting as well that, while 5e has bounded accuracy, Pathfinder 2e does as well: there's a very explicit range that you can roll to hit, and outside that just simply isn't possible, no matter how many buffs you stack. The big difference is that it scales with your level, like a 'sliding bounded accuracy'.
As a GM, the downside is that you have a narrower range of usable monsters for an encounter compared to 5e, but it also means the encounter balancing is WAY easier and the difficulty calculators actually work.
I know this takes extra work but I like to level up low level monster sense this system work by level so well
Supported by a dice with no bell curve, I think 5e is designed so that you can always succeed (i.e crits), however sometimes you can't deal damage (such as when a creature has immunity to non-magical damage). I think it's ok to make players actions useless - it can add huge narrative effect. But you NEED to make sure a player has decent alternatives, otherwise they have no agency and no effect. Which is very bad. I had an encounter recently where we were facing were-rats, and the rogue couldn't do any damage due to having no magic or magical weapon. Setting up a challenge so that player's actions are futile can be a good narrative tool (such as when faced with a creature you can only run from), but you should always do it wisely.
Even then, I think immunity to non-magical attacks is very surface level. Immunity to non-magical attacks can’t stop a level 6 monk from forcibly dislocating a werewolf’s shoulder by pulling it with all their might. Or the rogue from quickly leaping on to the wererat’s shoulders to crank its head until it snaps the neck. I think the way that non-magic immunity is run lacks definition and seriously needs to be redefined. Non-magic immunity doesn’t mean it escapes from basic physical forces, just that its own hide can’t be pierced by conventional weaponry. Think of the nemean lion. Technically a non-magical attack killed it.
In terms of combat, yes. In 5e there is no “auto-success” outside of combat, though people seem to house rule it a lot (which I never understood since character growth both in personality and ability is important).
In my mind, these are the situations where clever thinking has to take over instead of just, as Deficient Master put it in one of his videos, pressing paper buttons on a character sheet to do a thing as a lot of modern RPGs and video gaming have trained players to do.
I was playing a Goblin barbarian / rogue multiclass and our party was facing a group of werewolves. I didn't have a silver of magic weapon but luckily, I was wearing boots of climbing. So with my expertise in athletics, I just startes grabbing werewolfs, running up the side of the next building (I had like 50 or 60 feet of movement before dash) and simply dropped them. Fun times.
@@cakedo9810 But that doesn't make sense - nonmagical weapons work through those exact same basic physical forces. If you can snap its neck, your mace should be able to shatter its bones. Most weapons are functionally some kind of lever.
As someone who used to hate Pf1e's ridiculous amounts of math and stuck with the unfinished mess of 5e forever because of how simple it was, the WotC drama last year was so fortunate because it made me realize how absolutely beautiful 2e is as a system.
Our table alternates between a few different campaigns and the ones that started with 5e aren't going to switch midway through, but everything new that's starting is absolutely going to make the switch. It's a bit more complicated but infinitely more rewarding.
The one thing that stops me from PF2e is the sinusoid of hp during combat. The fact that you start every encounter with close to max HP feels like the game is structured around a boss rush mode rather than a steady progression with dwindling resources.
both systems are garbage
@@krinkrin5982 Do you? Unlike in 5e you actually _don't_ fully heal after a long rest, only healing a percentage of your health. The only fast way to heal outside of magic is by spending hours treating someone's wounds.
@@krinkrin5982This is exactly what people expect 5e to be until they learn that they need to put some arbitrary resource sinks before a boss to make it interesting. This is just a matter of personal preference.
@@krinkrin5982 You still have to manage spell slots as a resource, but yeah, PF2e really isn't meant for dungeon crawling. Or at least not one that actually feels dangerous.
You can sort of do it with the Stamina rule, but it's not perfect either.
I don't know why but i think that the phrase "Cthulu has a health bar" can sound very badass in the right context. In which context, i dont know though
"If it has HP, we can kill it" kind of energy
been playing PF (mostly 1e) for about 12 years now. Did a dnd Playthrough of waterdeep: dragon heist that we chained into the dungeon of the mad mage. I felt so horribly restricted and bound by the inherit randomness of the system, lack of options, and that every character's abilities basically came down to doing some damage in combat.
never touched it since, as the rules and mechanics of PF are so much more fleshed out giving every player, NPC and monster mechanical depth, rather than a depth only held up by a handwaving gm.
Having played shadowrun and Cyberpunk, i still think it has some problems, but 2e has solved most of them. It really only has failed in AP design, but honestly there is so many region guides and campaign hooks out there, i dont mind much
I know it's nitpicky, but an increase from 30% to 50% is an increase of approximately 66%. It's a growth of 20 percentage points, yes, but that's not same as the relative percentage increase
It also completely ignored other bonuses that fighter may have gained, from increased strength, magic items etc. Proficiency doesn't tell the whole story.
@@Swooper86 so you end up with double or triple chance to hit and ability to do it 12 times in 2 rounds instead of 2, plus you don't die instantly when dragon decides to exhale in your direction. Also most legendary beasts are immune or at least resistant to non magical weapons.
A 66% increase isn't nearly enough to represent going from level 1 to level 17.
This is true, but that also makes pathfinders growth infinite.
Plus the fact a level 17 fighter does litteraly 3 TIMES MORE ATTACK than a level 1. Reasoning on average hit, that's 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 = 0.30 x 5, FIVE TIMES MORE HITS (not even including all the other buffs).
Amazing video visually and informatively. Something you didn't touch on but want to bring up: that PF2e fighter, being a fighter, is +2 over his peers to hit at that level. Sure it's only 50% but his heroic journey to level 17 has put him on a pedestal above the common swordsman of his time. Fighters in PF2e are thematically and mechanically cool.
I went from "holy moly, i'm gonna watch all his videos, that sounds awesome" to "Oh, thats his only video, how sad" in 10 seconds, and i'll never forgive you for that.
I really want to see your take on these games' bonuses systems, and how characters nudge the odds on their favor.
A funny caveat that went unmentioned is that while pf2e supports the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being unable to touch the dragon, conversely it also HURTS the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being able to survive the dragon's response and go on to become the lvl 17 hero, when it's likely to crit for 100+ damage on anything but a natural 1, and even then it'd still hit.
In 5e, the same math that allows the lvl 1 hero to hurt the dragon also allows the dragon to nat 1 and miraculously miss long enough so he can get away.
Although in either case it's breath weapon would be game over, most likely. But in 5e, it could fail to recharge it's breath with bad luck, while in pf2e it's guaranteed after 1-4 rounds and might even just get it back by slapping the nearest town guard with a critical!
Of course, the Dragon could decide to ignore the hero entirely because it doesn't see him as a threat(and so the story can happen), which is probably more likely and believable if the hero is incapable of damaging it at all! So pf2e has that going for it too.
Don't get me wrong, I think pf2e is awesome in a lot of ways, and it's so refreshing after only playing/DMing 5e for years. Just thought this was funny.
Pathfinder does account for this, though! After all, that's the point of the 'Heroic Recovery' use of Hero Points. After all, it doesn't matter how much damage that critical hit does to you, it always takes you to Dying 2 - which means that not only can you naturally survive with some lucky recovery rolls, and the dragon is unlikely to specifically attack every downed target in the village, but you, as a heroic figure, or someone destined to be one, can still survive unlucky rolls through sheer will.
(...if you ignore the Massive Damage rules that state that if you take more than double your max HP in one swing, you die instantly; though I think it's entirely reasonable to say that just puts you at 'Dying 50' or something, and thus Heroic Recovery still works.)
Nonlethal attacks are still a thing in PF2. Maybe the dragon just couldn't be arsed to put his full weight behind an attack on such an obvious non-threat.
@@Llortnerof well... At this point, it becomes a "fixing" of a system, which was the main point of the video.
I think, it just calls for a different narrative.
For example - a nobody wouldn't survive a dragon, unless they got extremely lucky (for example, dragon wouldn't even notice such an attack). Which makes sense. So something more special has to happen, or something special has to be about the character that attempts such an encounter.
@@volchonokilliR I'd say the dragon deciding you're not worth his attention is getting extremely lucky. You're not really suggesting anything different from what i did.
In PF and DnD, you have a drop state. You can of course insta-die if your hit points go under your Con break point/half your hit point total. But knocking your players out and reviving them is an implemented mechanic and can be used by DMs to build tension or tell a story.
Bounded Accuracy is basically just Level Scaling for better or worse, and as a GM it means more work creating new monster sheets or modifying old ones to still be threats, while as a Player all new encounters will fall within the same threat range because you can't threaten anything more than four levels above you which in turn limits one's stories and accomplishments. Not saying 5e is better overall, but in this regard PF2 falls a bit flat with it's over focus on consistency.
Sorry for this mess of text in advance: I think this isn’t a sound argument. Banded accurately is a good idea (I don’t think it’s done that well though). While this is an “issue” I think it’s more one of preference. Like you can hit a dragon at level 1 but when are you going to actually fight a dragon at level one and how would you win. I can punch a bull without my fist glancing but I can’t win the fight. Having a bigger range of numbers can be better for making a world and translating it into rules though. A good example is in 5e stat numbers are entirely arbitrary and can’t be compared. If you do you’d find out that a bear is superhuman and on its way to being one of the strongest things in the universe ie str 30. Pathfinder is better at expressing its world mathematically and while that’s not always better what 5e does is not. It’s neither simple nor does it have depth… but it’s still kinda fun.
Another thing is monsters being weaker due to banded accuracy and lack of combat mechanics means that they would be worse even if the numbers are better. A dragon especially isn’t super impressive.
Wow, this is your first video? I'm impressed, I can't wait to see more videos you bring to the table. Subscribed
To be fair, 5e has all other things you’ve mentioned: ability score growth, party members, qualitative advancement in the form of character abilities…
The big thing is PF’s separate proficiency and level bonuses broaden the math range so the growth might feel bigger, & things can be mathematically more one-sided, while 5e’s smaller ranges lend it a stronger “if it bleeds, we can kill it” angle. Use what tells the tale you wish to tell.
It also has a lot less compared to PF2e that wasn’t mentioned: Lack of martial/caster disparity, encounter builders that actually work (in part due to adding levels), tons of character choices, a restriction system for certain choices without GM permission, everything being clearly defined, items having levels, you actually have something to do between levels 1 and 2, and so much more.
All these factors combined make the system overall much more balanced adding to the enjoyment. PF2e is without a doubt a much better and intentionally designed system compared to the relatively shallow D&D 5e that’s held together through community support (or “duct-tape” as the narrator puts it).
My feeling is that there's a different overall feel both games go for. In 5e the way the math works, a group of Goblins can get lucky and shank a high level character. This grounds the characters a bit in that sense, there's the idea that a dagger to the throat will still kill.
In PF2e the PCs are imagined to be stronger. Think of Wu Xia, Final Fantasy, or Goku. The PCs are intended to advance to insane heights with enemies scaling just as much. No matter how lucky a Goblin gets, that dagger will bounce off of Goku's skin. Heck it would bounce off of anypart of his body lol. I believe that's the kind of scale PF2e is going for.
PF2E has official variant rules for proficiency without level if that fits your narrative better. Also there are some loose mechanics for composite enemies called troops.
Part of the issue with 5e is that an adult red dragon (CR 17) attacking a village large enough to have even a small chest of gold is actually in serious mortal danger if they have 40 level 1 guards. Each has +3 to hit and deals 1d8+1, meaning even if the initial breath weapon kills 6-7 with 19 AC that dragon is taking about 60 damage of it's 256 hp. After that, even with 3 attacks per turn all 1 shooting guards (not guaranteed) the average damage output still kills it before it gets a second breath attack, and with most of the guards still alive.
Fundamentally, the scaling of the universe falls apart if an angry mob is capable of taking down some of the strongest entities in their world. You only need about 150 basic guardsmen to easily kill a Tarrasque in direct combat, an entity that supposedly kills worlds. If we use the stat block of actual soldiers, such as the knight or veteran blocks, it takes two attack for it to kill each of them and so it goes down to even fewer.
@MonochromaticPrism Another great point I haven't fully considered. People hand wave it with game play and lore being different, but why have that in the game when you could have a system like PF2e that unifies the two? Unless you have a world where even dragons are killable by a mob lol. If you have a low magic setting like Game of Thrones, I can see 40 guardsmen with crossbows standing up to a Dragon. However if your setting has magical ancient dragons with diamond scales and unfathomable reality bending powers, it would be silly for them to be killable by mundane numbers.
That was some really good pacing, art and vocal work, hope I can catch another one of your vids in the future
As a GM what you are describing is a feature and not a bug, but to each there own.
I've played with friends who love this style of gameplay (where the difference between different levels/CR is very big),
but I've also played with friends who very much prefer the opposite, where a dagger wound to the eye at any level has a risk of killing a CR20 dragon just like it can kill a Goblin.
The first, (PF2e) is more narrative, while the second (5e, but mainly Call of Cthulhu and Zweihander) is more realistic.
I've had fun in both versions of gameplay, and that's why I like modifying 5e to bend in either way.
I loved the video!! It brings up a lot of things I have found in my own game, and I love the art style! Can't wait to see more content from here
Wow! I’ve been running a bit of Pathfinder, but this really caused be to look at it in another way, i think I definitely prefer the way Pathfinder handles advancement.
I am a simple man. I see a new pathfinder vid, I subscribe for more
Same
It's a feature, not a bug! It's basically two different theprietical realities being represented by two different rulesets: in one (D&D 5e), even the lowest level mook can pose SOME threat to a high-level character (especially in great numbers). The other (Pathfinder, as well as D&D 3e and 4e) much more strongly emphasizes a stratified power scale, where the threats a character is expected to be able to face "level up" a long with them. The latter could be described as more "video-gamey", but that's not necessarily a bad thing! Plenty of people prefer that style (as this video exemplifies), but I don't think it's fair to say it's "better", since it's so much a factor of the sort of story you're trying to tell. Personally, I love the idea that a scrappy little hero, with enough courage and the luck of the gods, could take on a dragon! Feels more "mythic", in a way
One thing that 5e and PF2 can't really bring to the table (pun intended) is the epic levels of insanity that 3.5 and PF1 had to bring. The dragon isn't afraid of a party because they have better stats, or because of dreaded action economy (though that is a huge factor); they're terrified because of the array of things the party can now do.
I mean, as a dragon, what are you more afraid of? The fact the fighter has 20% higher to-hit, or high-level Pathfinder shenanigans?
The irony of this is that the dragon's most terrifying ability in the latter games is its full-attack, which always outclasses its other abilities unless it gets a fly-by breath to surprise a party.
I wouldn't say it tells a better story. It tells a different story. If you want your character to feel that he grows from 0 to demigod, pf2e is great . But maybe you prefer a story where even the greatest warrior can be fell by ten guys attacking him at his wedding when he is unarmored (a la Game of Thrones), and in that case both pf2e and D&D 5e will not work. There are no perfect systems, you need to find which system helps you tell the story you want to tell.
I was thinking exactly this. Like, lets take for example Dungeon Meshi. You cannot tell me with the level of power PF2 operates that Laios is anything above like Lvl 4 (Literally at lvl 5 even Fighters can start to do shit beyond human capacity), yet with good planning he killed a Dragon, something much more akin to DND 5E if we're talking about the chances of it happening. I hate DnD 5e tho, I think it sucks ass, I would rather mod other games for that kind of stories, like Powered by the Apocalypse (known for Masks and the TTRPG of Avatar the Last Airbender), or even just a personalized template of any World of Darkness game, or a more fantasy-homebrewd 7Th Sea.
@@TheZakurumy if you like that powerlevel would highly recomend you check on savage worlds for a pulp action, or burning wheel for more drama and character develpment. Or if you have the time, check GURPS.
@@TheZakurumy Another example would be Geralt of Rivia. He has supernatural abilities, quick reflexes and a small amount of magic. But he was still killed by a mob of peasants during a riot.
The lore of D&D isn't inherently bad. The rules aren't inherently bad. But they don't mesh together. You could use the tarrasque statblock and make a story about protecting an endangered species from aarakocra poachers. Or you could go with the lore they give and give it stats that reflect that. But with Pathfinder, you can use their lore and their mechanics and you don't have to do either yourself.
Gorgeous presentation - art style, music, and light animation were all so much on point that I'm amazed this is your first video - smiled at the flag on the DM screen, and a very neat lens to look at RPG mechanics from which while I do sometimes think about, how bounded accuracy hurts the ability to tell zero to hero stories isn't something I'd considered before. Looking forward to seeing more videos from you.
Since you asked for examples, one of my favourite ways mechanisms help tell stories is probably the way Dread bakes the mounting tension and release of the horror genre into its resolution mechanism simply by using a jenga tower rather than dice (plus if you ever cause the tower to fall your character dies)
Dread is an AMAZING example of a resolution mechanic that emulates genre so beautifully!
I like both. (The business behind one less). The consistent growth in Pathfinder does support traditional narratives well and makes the growth of characters feel meaningful. However, D&D's smaller difference growth does allow more moments of uncertainty and wild swings. There are many stories out of groups confronting their BBEGs early and mopping the floor with them due to unexpected dice rolls. Pathfinder is a lot more predictable. Both of these can be brilliant or terrible depending on what you want or need.
Personally, what I value more is horizontal progression. Getting more options or tools in the toolbox as your character grows. That's a more interesting story than fighter does the hitting better. With its involvement of feats, archetypes, and the ability to retrain, that is where I like the story development of Pathfinder.
Exactly! I love Pathfinder 2e's method of having your math solid and consistent and leaving the character creation to choosing fun feasts
In terms of customizability, Pathfinder is legos and 5e is roblox. Being able to approach things from different angles is the heart of DnD to me. 5e can do it, but it feels more contrived than what you can achieve in P2e.
I'm sorry, but I prefer 5e's approach. I don't care if you're a 20th level adventurer, you're still susceptible to lucky hits, so don't lower your guard just because your opponent is a goblin. That''s why I generally gravitate more towards OSR games, since they go even further and lower everyone's Hit Points to really drive home the point that "Once initiative is rolled, no one is safe."
_The boy charges at the dragon in a desperate act of defiance. The ancient creature, in hubris, doesn’t acknowledge him. Why would a lion care for the actions of ants? But suddenly, the unexpected happens: the dragon feels pain. Somehow, fate had the boy manage to drive his sword under the dragon's scales. The dragon flaps his wings and the boy is thrown back. The dragon looks at him in anger. “You dare?” Then, the beast grins. “How amusing. Nurse your hatred and come entertain me again… I’ll be waiting.” The dragons spares the boy, who swears to one day to get his vengeance._
As someone who DMed a few 3.5 campaigns, some of them reaching about the 25th level, I still have nightmares with those absurdly high bonuses the PCs had back then, along with the profane amount of hit points. 5th edition has many, many flaws but, for me, bounded accuracy is one of its greatest merits. Encounter building, for example, is SO much easy.
Except it isn't because there are no real rules to apply to encounter building. What you smokin'.
@@digitalpacman I don't understand what exactly do you mean. Could you explain?
CR in 5e just seems to be a guess at times. Just as example, throw two CR2 wererats at a standard lvl 4 party. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. 900 exp, so slightly below medium encounter. It’s the first thing in the day they fight, so should be a short fight in which they stomp the rats.
Except it’s not. The wererats are immune to all non-magical damage. So it’s not a 2v4, it’s a 2v2 with the Rogue and Fighter just standing on the sidelines. Because, remember, the default assumption in 5e is that the party has NO magic items. Magic items are an optional bonus thing the GM can or can not hand out. And worse yet, since the game assumes the party doesn’t have +x weapons, giving the party +x weapons means all enemies are easier to defeat than the game assumes.
There are dozens and dozens of landmines like these in 5e. Not in 2e. If you get a CR2 monster in 2e, it’s gonna be a CR 2 critter. It might have nasty surprises, but nothing that just breaks the entire encounter design over its knee.
@@digitalpacman He didn't say a word about CR. He said encounter building was easier for him. I don't use CR at all when I build encounters, and bounded accuracy makes it easy to build them.
@Not_Here_To_Make_Friends Yeah but he mentioned that building encounters is easy. The other guy responded why it's not easy if you don't know what to look out for, while pathfinder CR gives an easy and simple way to know how challenging an encounters gonna be using CR.
I appreciate your opinion, even though I think the extreme escalation of pathfinder is one of its biggest weaknesses from a DM/World Building perspective. I find with Pathfinder that every encounter has to be retuned due to to tight escalation and punishing system math, causing a vary artificial feel where the entire world that the party encounters has to grow around them to ensure that they can survive to face those higher level challenges.
While you are right that D&D’s escalation could be a bit greater, the slower escalation allows for a more organic world where heroes can encounter a variety of enemies without facing instant death by crit if there is a slight level imbalance - and where returning to face weaker threats makes you feel powerful, but not so powerful that the encounter is just a complete waste of table time.
Very true! It's partially why I wanted to make my channel. Different rules lend themselves better to different stories and play styles. For example I have a group playing in a custom low power system I made and If I tried to steal pf2es math it would ruin the whole thing cause the point of the game is them wandering the whole continent looking for treasure!
I very much agree, which is why I have a hard time recommending PF2 to anyone. While the scaling makes you feel growth, you never feel powerful. You're always only just strong enough to fight the next big thing and only if you leveled enough, bought the right items, and have the right party composition. There's never the feeling of being heroically powerful or a scrappy underdog, either you're of the right power level or you're not. Honestly, PF2 feels like an MMO on reflection.
It's not much different in 5e, the only difference is that PF2 scales more rapidly and gives the GM the tools to actually predict how difficult a fight is while it's a gamble in 5e. There are many enemies that will insta-gib low level 5e characters or will pose no meaningful threat in arbitrarily high numbers. The range is just bigger and muddier.
@@JawaBob I think there's *lots* of things that make you feel powerful. Making enemies flee in panic from a mere glance, dropping big spells that turn the encounter around rapidly, throwing enemies across the room, squeezing in a crit from stacked teamwork that makes a boss' health plummet... the real difference is that PF2 remains challenging, where 5e does not. If you stick to official guidelines, 5e becomes easier and easier at high levels with some magic items and semi-optimized characters. PF2 doesn't.
Unless the GM wants to. There's nothing stopping you from throwing easy encounters at high level parties to just let them show off. Or at low levels. It's really in your hands.
@@rednidedni3875 only if the encounter design begins and ends with: you encounter x monster. roll for initiative. enemy combos, placements and tactics can make a huge difference. a well organized and planned team of PCs can punch way above their weight class, like 12CR difference high. similarly, a poorly thought out approach to a "low threat" foe can end up being much more fatal than expected if the DM incorporates clever tactics. this isn´t even considering optional rules or homebrew, just the basics.
My issue with this argument is that it assumes more power between level 1 and level 20 is immediately a better story, and it really isn't. Most stories are not zero to hero shonen anime fantasies. A flat power curve or a system that gives more horizontal power improvement would probably work better for a setting that is supposed to be consistently dangerous. As a player in a Curse of Strahd campaign, I like that I still feel threatened by basic zombies and will probably still feel threatened by them for a couple levels.
I also just think that difference between fighting a dragon with no chance of meaningfully damaging him vs fighting a dragon with no chance of damaging him at all isn't really meaningful. The experience and result is effectively and emotionally the same.
That's not to say 5e is better than PF2e, just that I'm skeptical of this argument and its evidence.
I love how much the Design of a System can impact the flavor and narrative
Loved the script and the narration. Good work, i'll be back for more! :D
How does this D&D 5e level 1 fighter have a +7 to hit? He's got +2 from proficiency, but are you telling me that he's got 20 strength at level 1? A more realistic strength score for a level 1 fighter in 5e would be 16, which would be a +5 to hit, which would be a 20% chance to hit an AC 22. So then at level 20, or level 17 or whatever, he's got a +11 to hit, giving him that 50% chance you mentioned. But honestly, by level 17 he would most definitely have a magic weapon for a +1, +2, or maybe even +3 to hit, so his hit chance is looking more like 60%, and that's just from his weapon. Like you said about being buffed by pathfinder allies, the 5e fighter is definitely going to be buffed by his allies too. His allies will cast Bless on him, giving him +1d4 to hit. So now his chance to meet AC 22 is 72.5%. If he has a bard in the party, the bard will use Bardic Inspiration to give him +1d12 to hit (on 5 different attack rolls), bringing his chance of hitting to 94.5%. And his allies could use things like Guiding Bolt or Faerie Fire to give advantage on the attack, which now bring his chances essentially up to 100%.
I do agree that 5e's proficiency bonuses do make leveling up feel rather lackluster, especially when about half of the levels don't grant you any new features, but I also think you've made 5e out to be even more constrained than it actually is compared to how you presented pathfinder.
Mountain Dwarves exist unfortunately
This videos basic take away was yes you progress more in Pathfinder, but you are more powerful at early level and can potentially hit a dragon in DnD.
In my opinion this is not the best way to frame it, since bounded accuracy affects both PCs and creatures.
I think it's more accurate to say "In PF2e there's a much wider gap between strong and weak beings/creatures" or the equivalent "In 5e the gap between weak and strong creatures is smaller".
In 5e, a 10th level party would have a much harder time dealing with 20 CR 1 Bugbears than a 10th level party in PF2e would have to deal with an equivalent level 1 creature.
This video makes a lot of sense.
However, when my group tried Pathfinder 2nd Edition we were struck by how many things you had to keep track of. We like to play in person, but it almost felt like a necessity to use some kind of computer program to keep track of how many stacks of every condition were affecting every creature in combat. It bogged us down, turns took forever and we still made tons of mistakes.
We were new to the system, so pace could have picked up over time, but to me it felt daunting to administer without lots of careless mistakes, expecially since I like to play without apps and computers.
This is not meant as a pro D&D 5E argument. It's just my groups initial reaction to P2E and why we didn't stick with it. Feel free to write it of as "You just sucked" but that was our experience.
@@micaheiber1419 Heh, I guess first edition really isn’t for my group then. I just don’t feel like keeping track of the hit points of my shield etc. My character’s health is enough.
All power to those who enjoys that experience of course. Just my personal preference.
Well...around 20 years ago I used to play with my school friends the DnD 3.5e and well...there were even more things to keep track of and we only had thd books for that at the time.
It was hard at the first sessions. Then it became way easier. You guys are just way too accustomed to the way too simple 5e mechanics.
Pathfinder 2e can be just as simple within two to three sessions of getting used to the possibilities you have. Because thats basically what PF2e is all about. Possibilities. Its so much more than just spamming attack options all the time. Its exploration mode is done MUCH better. Its downtime mode is done MUCH better. Its combat mode is done INSANELY better.
It all comes down to learning what you can and getting used to it. And this can be done in just a few sessions.
But theres always people who will prefer the simpler, uninteresting, bland and not enjoyable dnd5e. And its ok.
@@lobobanguela6349 lost me on that last paragraph, you sound like the vegan version of roleplaying. No need to attack one to favor the other.
will be honest, pf2e, pf1e, is a system that you need to support your narrative through the system, where dnd 5e is a system that you support the system through your narrative. In pf1e/2e, if you want to do something flashy, fancy, you probably can, in dnd 5e, you don't have much tools to do a spinning attack, a flashy movement dash cutting through the enemies and dealing damage to all of them and so on.
in pf1e, with some 3pp content, such as spheres of power and akashic mysteries, i can make a character that dances around the battlefield while cutting every mob, and increase its strength as the battle goes. In dnd 5e, i attac
@sebastianbolo2480 There was no attack though. Just stating a fact. A point proven. And if that actually hurt some people, then its just even more of a proof its the truth.
Not to be a 5e apologist but i feel like there are some gross oversimplification that makes the story worse than it should be.
@1:53 You never have a 100% chance to hit in 5e. A natural 1 is always a miss, which means you always have a 5% chance of missing.
Your 30% (natural 15) to hit AC22 is assuming +2 prof and a +5 from other bonuses (at first level i would assume you either got a +5 strength or got an early magic weapon). Its more likely to see a +5 to hit (prof bonus + ability mod) at level one which brings you down to a 20% to hit AC22 assuming a DM just doesn't hand out +1 sword at level 1.
That 50% (natural 11) to hit AC22 at level 17 is assuming a +6 prof and another +5 from something else. Most competent players would try to max out their primary stat or at least be at a +4 at this level. That generously leaves a +1 or +2 weapon to carry you to that +11. This is before any class feature that conveys any additonal to hit bonuses like archery or gaining advantage.
In 5e, AC 22 is a relatively low armor class for level 17. The 500+ health pool, legendary actions, and legendary resistance is more of the issue to contend with rather than "not being able to hit".
I find the example used for the level 1 vs level 17 5e experience to be slightly cherry picked to show the worst of potential play.
Edit: Added some additional wording for clarification and fixed some math
Not to mention that a level 17 fighter makes three attacks, plus has two uses of action surge
The problem with a proficiency system that adds in your level as a modifer is that suddenly anything you're not proficient in is always going to fail.
This is why in pathfinder 2e they have to make every class proficient in every type of saving throw.
An easy fix is to add your level to even the abilities you're not proficient in, but then the LV1 master body builder is always going to lose an armwrestling match to the LV 20 Wizard....
Rather than needing duct tape, 5e is more like having a lego set and some of the pieces might be missing. Fortunately you have other legos and it is incredibly easy to make any of those other pieces fit. For pf2 you instead have a technic lego set, and hopefully you have all the pieces, but if you misplace the battery or the wrong cog it's going to be a lot harder to make it work without it. And in the end you'll still push that lego car you built around with your hands regardless.
(Also, anyone unable to make the narrative scenario presented here work in either system has a severe skill issue)
You've made a great point briefly yet effectively, with great art and gravitas. The sound design was top-tier. It shows you've put in a great deal of effort and passion into this and I hope there's plenty more to come. You might yet convince me to let go of my duct tape.
The best part is that PF2E's math is so tight that even if want go challenge high level characters with low level creatures, you can just wing it with DC/level and put them in a troop. Once you nail the troop enough, their morale can break and you can pick off the scragglers.
Meanwhile CR is 5E barely means anything.
I've noticed that CR in 5e is like a suggestion from a proficient person who is a terribly drunk. It can be right, but some of their CR classifications really raises the eyebrows.
best advertisement for pathfinder i have seen
@@BRBasher It's hard to show just how different they can be with 5 min but he touched on the gist of it here. If you know you know, I bet people who own Roblox think Lego is always advertising to them too.
I've yet to see good PF advertisement
I’ve been super interested in pathfinder lately and tempted to look into it. This video pushed me over the edge. Can’t wait for more content on this subject!
I’m a big fan of picking your system after deciding on the story, because different systems have different strengths, and of course I want to pick the system whose strengths align with the story I want to tell.
My one criticism with this video would be the “Cthulhu has a health bar” line. If I’m the DM, I only give Cthulhu a health bar if I want victory to be an option. Sure the level 1 fighter could “hit” the dragon, but like - that only matters when I decide it does. You can call that “fighting the system” but I call it “an extremely simple solution to a problem that barely exists”.
I feel like the stronger criticism is the one you touch on that goes in the opposite direction - the idea that a near-peak fighter is only 20% more accurate than Joe McGuy.
So there’s a couple of things in there that I don’t really agree with but the big one is that being able to damage the dragon at level 1 is a bad thing. If anything if that Fighter damaged it that’s a fantastic way to influence the story. They’re now in that Dragons mind as someone who actually can hurt them, the fighter has proof that they can get strong enough to win but not yet, others who see what happened could tell tales of them actually damaging the dragon. Like if that fighter got a critical hit, and at the very end when they encountered the dragon again he still had a visible mark where the fighter hit him; that to me sounds amazing.
It's almost as if every system has pros and cons, and you can tell great stories with any system.
The point of the video is that any peasant can get that crit and do that damage to a dragon in dnd. If you put 1 million peasants against a dragon in dnd the dragon will eventually lose. If you put 1 million peasants against a dragon in pf2e it is mathematically impossible for them to hurt the dragon. Both approaches change the feel of your game drastically and the inworld logic. I personally prefer the pf2e logic, I don't want my level 20 barbarian player to be threated by 10 goblins. I want him to be able to kill the goblins with his pinky and while chugging a beer and barely breaking a sweat. If you prefer more gritty games were a lvl 20 character can be threatened by goblins dnd works. I don't want my ancient dragon with eons of wisdom to be threatened (no matter how little) by some random villager.
Yeah I find it absolutely stupid that "low level can't hurt high level". Take a look at medieval knights, would you say it's literally impossible for peasant to kill a knight when he's distracted by chaos around?
@@BerserkaDerka If peasants manage to kill a dragon then dragon deserves it because DM don't know how to fight as dragon
Anyone in 5e could hit a dragon that ain't special
Also, being able to critically fail/succeed by missing/exceeding AC by 10 and not being tied purely to natural dice rolls is such an amazing addition. Making it so you otherwise have to roll a natural 20 on the die is great balance and icing on the cake. It's simpler and more elegant but leaves way more room for fun. No notes. Cant wait for my second session next month :D
Personally I like it, from a storytelling perspective, that a low lever character could hit (not damage) a much higher level enemy. It shouldn't be too much trouble to make contact with a dragon's skin with a spear, but will it go through the scales?
It's like in Elden Ring. Sure, eventually you'll be able to be dismissive of Demihumans, but if you're nor careful they can and will still hit you.
My next big video is kinda on this! How AC kinda only represents "missing" in most people's heads. I think it's important to remember that since plate mail armour raises AC a dragons AC is probably more about scales then dodging :^)
@@kalebherington 3.5 actually adressed this with Touch Armor class and Natural Armor. Your touch armor class was your ability to dodge, for instance a spell that only needs to hit you at any point on your body doesn't care that you wear plate male and it only matters how well you dodge it. Meanwhile the natural armor of the creature doesn't change even if it can't dodge so it's there even if they are caught off guard. In the game you could deny a creatures Dex bonus to AC by catching it off guard. One of the MANY interesting game design choices gobbled up by the advantage system and 5th's need to oversimplify everything.
"But will it go through the scales?"
Maybe
WHAT AN AMAAZING VIDEO
THE NARRATION
THE ART
THE COMPOSITION OF THE WRITING
THE NARRATIVE
WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY GOSH DARN DELICIOUS VIDEO YOU RIGHTFULLY EARNED MY ETERNAL LOYALTY (and subscription)
Loved the art style and background music, keep it up!
I'd argue that PF2e level scaling introduces other narrative issues; it supports the fantasy as far as heroes and villains are concerned, but fails to simulate the rest of the world. I think it's essential for fantasy worldbuilding to have meaningful mechanical relationships between the archetypal inhabitants of the world - the commoner, the guard, the adventurer, the royal guard, the king, the vizier, the great hero, etc. Yet, PF2e's scaling is _so steep_ that those relationships disintegrate completely if the gap is more than 3-4 levels.
One level -1 commoner, of _fifty million commoners_ for that matter, might as well not exist for the level 7 royal guard. That's good news for the level 5 king he's guarding (although the king could easily take a few million angry peasants on as well), yet that same genocidal royal guard, or fifty million of them for that matter, is completely powerless against a level 14 rampaging beast. But that beast, and its fifty million siblings, are all fleeing from a single level 21 world-devourer.
That is kind of how the fantasy of Pathfinder is set up though. It's like the Avengers. You don't send a hundred low tier heroes to fight The Incredible Hulk, you send maybe a few heroes roughly on his power level and the hundred low tier heroes fight a hundred low tier villains.
There's always the variant rule Proficiency Without Level, if you want a more grounded scenario.
@@wiegraf9009 Doesn't quite work from a worldbuilding perspective still. A level 5 goblin boss can hardly be equated to a supervillian, but is still able to raze anything occupied by level 1 characters. If a king and his guard is of a high level, the common folk cannot rebel in any kind of way without an equally strong hero, and even then, they might aswell let the hero do that alone. In 5e, any player character can be taken down by an angry mob of peasants, no matter their level, so long as the mob is big enough.
Pathfinder just feels like a video game in that regard, where pretty much everything boils down to level. A level 1 and a level 20 goblin might be the exact same creature, but one is literally impossible to hit with a bow and arrow, even if you have 200 archers firing at once, as long as the archers are of low level.
I'm pretty sure that's the point. By the rough scaling of D&D, the level 7 royal guard are borderline legends. For level 1s, the level 7 royal guardsmen are a legitimate possibility for a final boss. They are the aces. The elite of elites. They're only a stone's throw away from being legends of their own right, and a king who has gathered up even four or five of them *should* be nigh-on invincible against a horde of farmers with sticks. The royal guard would be known by name across the country.
A normal person would be lucky to get to level 3. You have to remember that this is the real scale of the world of Pathfinder. That was the scale of D&D since 3rd edition at least. It was always exponential. Something 4 levels below you isn't a blip on your radar.
@@Shack11 How times have changed. I'm very positive that 4 Champions (CR 9 Enemy (Yes i know CR sucks for calculating encounter difficulty, but it gives a rough estimate of the creature's strength) would be completely overwhelmed by 40 Thugs (CR 1/2). Maybe they could win, but even in that case they'd have lost at least 2 champions.
One might argue that the thug is far stronger than a peasant, which would be correct, but I'd argue that thugs are not a rarity, and such a mob with a few hundred people might very well include several thugs.
I'd like to point out in both games there's a high chance the fighter would just be absolute crippled by the dragon's fear aura, making the question of striking the beast absolutely pointless.
If I was the DM and the player was dead set on attacking the dragon at the beginning I'd probably just conveniently forget about the aura so they could have a memorable backstory moment. Depends on the player of course
It really might not automatically be the case with a Pf2e fighter, except if you “dumped” wisdom. In this sytem your saving throws values also add you level. So maybe the dragon has a 35 DC to his fear aura (The DC of an Ancient black dragon) to beat but maybe the fighter has something such as a +23 Will (Proficiency + modifier. Let's take a 17th level fighter with 14 Wisdom = 4+17+2 = 23. And fighters have Bravery (they are less likely to be frightened for long)). So 35 - 23 = 12. With a very basic wisdom stat you will need a 12 to not be frightened. It's really not that out of reach. Not acquired too but it's doable with a bit of luck.
Absolutely false. All DCs scale with level. So their Will Save would (wisdom save for 5e) would still be Wis mod + level + proficiency. Probably about a 50% chance to succeed the Will save. In addition, Fighters in 2e have a feature called Bravery that makes them more resilient to being frightened.
Uhh... No?
A level 17 Fighter has indomitable, and probably a feat or two to deal with fear. The dragon gets 1 chance to use it on the fighter.
i want to play pathfinder now! >:D
awesome video!
Mission accomplished! This whole video was actually just to convince you
it is entirely free to do so btw!
go to "Archive of Nethys" on google, its a wiki with all published content (minus adventures) officially available for free!
The rules are free online!
Pf2e also allows for easier solo play due to the math working in both ways.
Also, sir, you got yourself a new subscriber. Looking forward to more videos.
cant wait to see more from you, loved this video.
i personally am struggling currently in the balance department with 5e. players are lvl 5 and clear deadly encounters with such ease. so for that reason too im going to have my next game be pathfinder 2e.
I’ve played a few systems other than D&D 5e and it’s pretty fun exploring how different systems handle their rules differently from others.
This is your first video?? Its absolutely fantastic. Clear, concise, and great pacing. Both your drawings and editing is quite pleasant. I hope there are more videos to come 👍
This is a very good point. I started playing pf2e after being tired from constantly homebrewing fixes to 5e pain points for me and my group. And at one point when looking at pf2e I realized that it already have the fixes i've made baked into the base rules. And 3AP rules are much more intuitive in my opinion.
My favourite thing about pf2e is that you can spend time homebrewing the fun stuff instead of trying to keep the boat a float!
@@kalebherington "Homebrew when you want, not when you need to"
Heck yeah dude, awesome video!
Thank you! Love your stuff so that means a lot
The snark at the end-
Great stuff.
I legit laughed at then end because that's literally what I tell anyone complaining about 5e as a DM of 7 years
You were not around in the 3e times. Bounded accuracy was a blessing in 2014. Ofc you may want something fresh, but trust me, it's there for a good reason.
@@Manweor I highly disagree. I played 3.5 quite extensively and I prefer it over 5e. 5e killed the uniqueness of each character build. They all feel like cookie cutter builds and optimal builds are only powerful enough to carry themselves so a suboptimal build really drags the party. There is virtually no subclass that focuses on roleplaying. The rules for mass combat, sanity, exploration, kingdom building, overland travel, reputation and kingdom building are horrifying in 5e not to mention the inability to stack buffs because most if not all of them are concentration. I can go on, but I don't think I need further points to defend pf1e/3.5
@@Manweor pfff, played PF for like 6 to 7 years now then played 5e like after six months of PF1e and have played both at the same time since and I swear, it feels so much better to have your shit unbound from the bell curve 5e forces everything to be in. Always pissed me off that 5 kobolds in a trenchcoat with rusty daggers are still a massive threat for a Level 20 Fighter with zero spells because "haha, you still in our to hit bracket even though we are literally supposed to be fodder for you by now and you're supposed to be one of the best at your field in the entire world at Level 20"
Such a stupid system, jesus christ, you don't even get to feel like a legendary hero, untouchable by the common mook by the end of your story, you still are vulnerable to getting shanked by said kobolds in an alleyway and dying that way.
I legit only play 5e when I wanna play a tabletop but also turn my brain off since my character creation choices literally do not matter. I can just say "I hit that fucker" over and over and I know I'll just eventually win due to bounded accuracy without really stratting out anything or picking what thing I got that'll solve me being surrounded cuz I literally got no options and my shit is pure luck anyways
while in PF, I could just cleave the guys and I know that shit'll hit because my character is legit just that much experienced in the art of combat than their opponent.
@@rivy-lurk-869Fair enough. I’m in a few campaigns that uses Beyond and Roll20 (because, being honest, most of us are new at DnD) so really I just wanna know, is Pathfinder at least easy to build up or something? Like making a sheet, and just having the character stuff set up like with 5e?
@@rivy-lurk-869then I have to ask what version of 5e have you been playing? If you are a Fighter and your turns are purely based on luck then I suspect you are either being hyperbolic or you are not actually that good of player as you might think. That or you have had DM's that don't challenge you.
I thought I didn’t like ttrpgs… until I played pathfinder 2e. That system and the many amazing creators who power our small but mighty community are now a huge part of my life, and I urge D&D5e players to come to the light. So many of my friends that I’ve met through pathfinder are migrants from 5e, and they all wholeheartedly agree that pf2e is far superior not just in terms of gameplay mechanics but also character versatility. Did you get killed by a vampire mid-campaign and now you’re being raised again? There’s a whole tree of mechanics for that. PLUS, pf2e has many more classes, races and attributes that D&D could only dream of. We just got 2 new classes a few days ago!! Trust me, the grass is greener here.
Yeah, I've talked about this issue before in my groups that I've played in, especially cuz Im more familiar with older editions than they are. When it comes to equivalents of proficiency bonuses in the context of attack actions, 2e has THAC0 and 3e has base attack bonus. In 2e, your fighter's THAC0 at level 1 is 20, and at level 20, is 1 (lower is better in this context). In 3e, your fighter's base attack bonus is +1 at level 1, and at level 20 is +20 (with descending +15, +10 and +5 for your subsequent attacks on the same turn). But if 5e, at level 1 its +2, and at level 20 its +6. The difference in older editions was 5 times greater than it is now. Also note that older editions also did have additional bonuses you could get from your ability scores, magical weapons, potions, spell buffs, feats, etc, just like 5e has. I think my current game Im running will be the last time I use 5e. Its really super disappointing in general.
Thanks for including that flag! Some may consider it a small gesture, but it feels good to be seen.
Great first video, I'll definitely subscribe.
This was one of the biggest reasons I loved 3e before I even tried PF. It was always my biggest complaint with 5e, but now that I've tried PF I'm not entirely sure I can completely go back to 5e without going in with the mindset of messing around with jank, especially because (as mentioned here) it's way easier to tell a progressive story in PF.
Not a big fan of 2e but love how you presented the info and you opinion. Great job for your first video, love the drawings by the way!
Plus based on you other comments you plan on covering other systems and ideas too, so I’m subscribing! Hope to see you do well!
The structure and art of the video are great.
This channel will get big, i know it.
Another fresh youtubers journey i get to watch? Yes please
Good Video man! I am currently running a Starfinder campaign with my group that played nothing but 5e for a while and this helped me grasp why the numbers are so different when it comes to the two games.
ROFLMFAO!!!!! I LOVED it!!! I will keep an eye on this channel and am hoping things continue to be as hilarious as this was!
ROFLCOPTER!!!
I think a better title for the video would be How pathfinder's math tells a different story.
My only real takeaway from the video is that there is a bigger difference between a low and a high level character in one system compared to the other.
Which depending on how you want your game world to be might or might not be desirable.
Agree, fun video but I don't understand it's main argument, I really don't see how the 5e math told a worse story on this case that the PF rules, actually my takeaway is that in 5e the fighter could've landed a lucky hit on the dragon which could've also contributed to the story, while PF your only choice is to not hit the dragon at all
D&D explicitly sells itself as "heroic fantasy" and in terms of doing "Marvel but fantasy-focused" PF2e does a better job than 5e does. That's all.
In my experience, my players prefered the 5e, Less numbers = Less math for them. But i really love the way that Pathfinder does make me feel powerful with my Sheet, where my strongest numbers really are strong, in 5e i barelly see the difference between me and my ally without proficiency bonus sometimes, and thats make me do more damage type Charachter, When in Pathfinder i have "The vision", a Wisdom based Charachter that sees ecerything around.
“He… ACTUALLY hurt the beast.” I cracked up a little.
Concise and concrete way to explain why good math behind a system really makes it work better, great job!
This is so well made, I cannot believe this is your first video (on this channel anyway). While I personally prefer 1e to 2e, the core concept is exactly the same - a sort of exponential growth in power, compared to 5e's limited linear growth.
Well done!!! This video deserves more views!
It seriously does!
Oh my god it's the S-Dizzle!
@@kalebherington Now this guy is a real fan
Frankly I kind of appreciate the fact that low-level creatures can like... actually do damage to high-level ones in dnd 5e
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Pf2e's system more for multiple reasons, but this is the one thing I really hate about its design
I *like* when a colony of 30 kobolds can use teamwork and clever traps to pose a threat to a level 15 character, and I don't like when an entire army of 1,000 men who've dedicated their lives to war is literally incapable of damaging a level 15 character who's been at this for two months
Also I _really_ do not like that cheeky jab you included at the end, it genuinely angers me. You got my hopes up that you would provide some sort of insightful game balance suggestions that I could use in my campaigns where half the players probably can't be convinced to switch to another system after just getting through learning this one. I am unironically going to be angry about this months from now, if past experience tells me anything.
Anyways, subscribing, keep up the good work
fun part is that's more valid for 5e than older editions too lol.
They tried making it simpler and created the contraddictions of levels counting nothing.
You could survive dragon but hardly fight an horde of rats.
I absolutely love the art style you're using here. And this video alone put a tiny little flame in me saying that I wanna play PF2e again... (haven't touched it in over a year)
Funny thing I think this is the worst part of PF2e. Because of it I ignored that edition for years until I discovered there is an optional Proficiency without Level rule that makes PF2e massively better game.
Totally fair! I've run the variant rule when I wanted a world/game where even at level 5 a group of goblins can still threaten the party
I like both, but ive noticed that 5e gives you more leeway to experiment and go crazy with your character, PF is more strict in that you are going to suck really hard on every encounter and get behind if you try to deviate from a more standar or mathematically efficient build.
I found the opposite to be true. 5e rewards you much more for being hyper-optimized, to the point where a single character can outperform the rest of the party, while in 2e you are always gonna be within a certain range of power unless you go out of your way to make a character with bad stat distribution.
This was a *_spectacular_* first video. I will be following your career with great interest.
This is the best video I've ever seen about D&D 5e.
I don't think it's a given that the dragon should be *so* strong as to completely ignore *any* number of level 0 or 1 humanoids. In some genres raising an army should be enough to at least force the dragon to consider strategy and tactics, and that requires that it be able to take hp damage from members of said army. Whether a single would-be hero can deal a negligible amount of damage or not doesn't really make a difference, but the different rulesets imply different things about the efficacy of many humanoids acting cooperatively.
So Pathfinder 2e represents a world where only great heroes can challenge great monsters, but D&D 5e represents a world where enough people working together can achieve victory without superhuman might. That doesn't make one of them better or worse.
The Thing that most D&D Players and, specially Ben Riggs get totally WRONG is that people that play other systems only play that one othet system, when in fact all of us play many diferent system for diferent kinds of games.
"But Pathfinder number scaling is not realistic, characters look like JPRG protagonist" well... That's the whole point. When I want to run a game about Heroes of legend fighting evil with power of friendship and ultimate violence, I run Pathfinder. When I want a Gritty realistic Game of Throneseque story with characters that can die at any moment I play Warhammer Fantasy or Symbarou. When I want a game about exploration and survival I play Forbidden Lands. And so on.
Once you learn your second system, learning the third, the fourth and the ninth becomes a walk in the park.
Exactly! Once you break free from having one system so many opportunities for new stories open up to you! I run 2 games a week atm one a heroic fantasy about adventurers making there mark and saving the world, pf2e nails this! The other a gritty exploration game where adventurers are essentially sent to fantasy Australia as punishment and have to delve into old abandoned dungeons for loot, always barely scraping by to get just one more piece of treasure. Pf2e wouldn't really work that well for it, so despite loving pf2e I didn't use it!
Massively underrated comment, absolutely correct. People defend their game of choice like it's personal when they should be using the right tool for the job. There's differences in how we evaluate and all that, but the gist of it is any given game could be the right fit. Hell, frankenstien your own if you need to. Nepotism does very little for the game itself and no one should dismiss a system out of hand.
More of a Pathfinder guy myself, but Dimension 20 is a cool example of what I think 5e is capable of. They make many different scenarios and it feels like it works. The lower level of seriousness while also having as much capacity for it as the players want is probably more a testimony to Brennen Lee Mulligan, but I think 5e is intentionally simple so that you can use the same system by just changing out a few parts. It's neat, and a good introduction to what is decidedly a complex game with a lot of moving parts. I think it hits a roof though. The more classic examples of a DnD story don't fit as well as other systems that feel more designed to run them.
This is actually a built-in feature of 5e. Level 1 5e characters are meant to be already capable fighters and often some sort of folk hero. You're not meant to go from zero to hero, the game is designed to go from hero to god.
Uh, no? I mean, you never attain anything close to godly prowess in 5e, unless you are a spellcaster, obviously. 5e takes you from local hero to continental hero, PF2 takes you from standard warrior to demigod.
I wouldn't say it does that particularly well with how swingy the rolls are. You'd think a "folk hero" should be able to handle a bugbear, but most characters will just get 1 or 2 shot by one of those at lvl 1
Uh what? Look at some martial class features of 15+ level
I mean many of them have abilities that prevent you from dying@@ingenparks
martial characters in dnd 5e are laughably weak compared to the spellcasters. both in and out of combat@@taserrr
@@lexandar11o6*Laugs in Paladin, Battle Master, Rouge and Monk*
Main damage burst - Paladin
Main juice critters - Rouges
Main control - Monks
Main utility - Battle Masters
High up the levels lots of enemies has high saves bonuses, lots of different resistances, can easily knock down a pair of casters in one turn.
Spellcasters are not half as mighty as you think they are
Having played AD&D, 3 and 3.5, PF1e, and PF2e, as well as a brief stint into D&D 5e, I appreciate this video very much. This is exactly the type of fantasy I want. I don't think it's impossible to tell in D&D; far from it. But what I can say is that the numbers improving on my sheet makes me FEEL like a hero. I don't min-max; I don't look for every bonus I can apply to my character. I roleplay. When people say the math in PF2e is tight, they're correct...and this gives me reasons to do things OTHER than just "bonk." I have to look for advantages. I have to play smart. It's more engaging.
One of the things I've seen brought up in the comments is that lower-level monsters should still pose a threat? That's certainly a valid take, but...why not the other way? How awesome is it to have someone who has worked so hard and practiced so much that creatures that would destroy them now can barely touch them? Every level in PF2e is impactful. And, coming from 1e, it is so much more streamlined than it used to be. And the three-action system? *chef's kiss*
PF2e is not my favorite system. That is Ars Magica, by Atlas Games. But for "traditional", sword-and-sorcery, fantasy roleplaying, it is my go-to, and my problems with it are very minor.
You might already know this but it looks like Ars Magica is getting another edition and perhaps an open license!
@@kolardgreene3096 and I’m super excited about it! I think it’s more a “remaster” of 5th rather than a 6th edition, but I’m definitely getting it!
IMO throwing low level monsters at the group is just wasting everybody's time. The fight isn't going to be engaging, the spoils aren't worth bothering with. Having them potentially be able to threaten or even kill somebody through sheer luck just makes things more annoying in a fight you shouldn't be having in the first place.
@@Llortnerof depends on the story
Fair point, I like the armies of darkness actually being valid threats rather than weird moments of the dm saying “oh the orcs are level 2 and you are level 15 so you can kill an infinite number of orcs,” but that is a very valid take. There is an appeal in being so wildly far above the average goober.
Gotta be honest though I kinda despise how 2e made there be zero interesting options on cleric and wizard as opposed to all the neat flavor stuff in 1e. Summoners are super cool though, the 3 action system and how the eidolon/summoner duo makes you split up actions is super rad!
Gonna stick with 5e and 1e pathfinder though.
Never had an enjoyable experience while actually using Pathfinders system. But that's probably because all of my fellow players were power gamers, and the DM's setup to deal with them. So I was always forced into the Support Role or be one shot every single encounter.