20 ways that Pathfinder 2e is simpler than D&D (The Rules Lawyer)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 июл 2024
- Many recommend D&D 5e over Pathfinder 2e to new TTRPG players, saying it is "simpler." But I think PF2 has a more approachable/better beginner product in the Beginner Box. And, while PF2 is more complex, there are 20 ways it's simpler than D&D. Here's my list!
0:00 Intro
1:29 Critical hits
2:12 Fall damage
2:59 Number of attacks
5:20 Additional dice
6:33 Stacking effects
8:46 Opposed rolls
10:09 Being vigilant
12:08 Economy
14:14 Encumbrance
15:27 Exhaustion
16:50 Resource tracking
18:31 Encounter building
21:16 Multiclassing
23:56 Surprise
26:59 Invisibility
32:11 Traits
34:53 Advantage/disadvantage
42:37 Action economy
48:28 Spellcasting
51:10 Concentration
52:50 One more thing!
53:51 Closing statement
Here's a post where the top comment shows that it's possible to get above +100 on an attack in D&D 5e. (Extreme, yes, but lists a bunch of effects that stack): rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...
How "Bonus Dice" work in Call of Cthulhu: call-of-cthulhu-nachtstadt-be...
"Looking to switch from 5e? Shadow of the Demon Lord does everything better. Here are the differences:" (from Reddit): / looking_to_switch_from...
"“Bonus Actions never playtested!?” Is it time for One D&D to consider Pathfinder's 3 action economy?" (Rules Lawyer)
• “Bonus Actions never p...
Tabletop Bro's channel (covers PbtA and rules-light games): @tabletopbro
=============================
LIKE & SUBSCRIBE! I'm a lawyer who teaches and runs tabletop RPGs (Pathfinder, D&D, Starfinder) for kids, teens, and adults, and making videos related to TTRPGs and board games.
JOIN MY DISCORD to chat with our community and/or try the Pathfinder Beginner Box or our drop-in PF2e play system! / discord
SUPPORT MY PATREON for early access to many of my videos and access to exclusive content, and to support me! I do unpaid public-interest legal work and rely on the Patreon and private GMing.
/ theruleslawyer
For PF2E actual plays, SUBSCRIBE to my other channel, "RULES LAWYER DISCORD COMMUNITY CHANNEL":
/ @theruleslawyerliveplay
Follow me on TWITTER at: / theruleslawyer1
Pick up your Pathfinder 2e book on Amazon using my affiliate links below. As an Amazon Affiliate, I earn from qualifying purchases which helps me continue doing what I love!
Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook: amzn.to/3BiFCSj
Pathfinder 2e Beginner Box: amzn.to/3eVsUBB 
Игры
(I will include additions + errata here as they think of them... very busy day meanwhile!)
In case people haven't guessed, I like to speak on things that go against the grain. =D It's good to educate and to challenge assumptions that favor the market leader which is the default TTRPG that players new to the hobby naturally flock to. Anyone who wants the hobby space not to be dominated by one company should invite a healthy, open discussion about how these games can improve. Saying that such discussions shouldn't happen, both strengthens the dominance of the industry leader and allows it stagnate to the detriment of players of D&D as well.
This seems like an extremely bad strategy for actually getting people to play Pathfinder. People don't tend to respond well to others saying that something they enjoy worse than some other things. You also seem to be justifying being willfully misleading because d&d is the 'market leader' but since you're a lawyer I think you should be familiar with the phrase 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,' false in one thing false in all things. If a perspective player see you being purposefully misleading about mechanic one of these games, they're going to rightly assume you're not willing to be honest about these comparisons and aren't going trust anything you're saying is representative.
I understand that the whole Pathfinder community was deeply and permanently traumatized by that one idiot making that one video about it,the perceived falsehoods of another Creator does not justify Pathfinder stans such as yourself lying to make Pathfinder more appealing. I think it's deeply counterproductive to be approaching this conversation like everyone who plays d&d instead of Pathfinder was tricked into doing so by the false impression of the game being more complicated. Pathfinder 2e by any honest metric is more complicated in basically every single part than dnd 5e and the more you imply that we've all been tricked by our lying eyes, the more you alienate people that would have listened to you.
@@wrathisme4693 What a totally good faith argument, just like the other comment you left about Pathfinder players huffing farts.
@@wrathisme4693 I'm curious as to why you're posting this here. You come by stating that PF2 is inherently more complex than DnD5e, but present no arguments or evidence to support your case. The video here is 20 points where, while I may not agree saying they are all less complex than 5e, they are at a minimum equally complex to 5e.
Produce evidence, or keep your mouth shut.
Also, your 'falsus et uno, falsus et omnibus' is only applicable when you are building a case on a false assumption. In this case, once you find your falsehood, you follow it back to the core assumption that was made due to a core falsehood.
To prove my point: You say "It's . . . counterproductive to be approaching this conversation like everyone who plays D&D instead of Pathfinder was tricked into doing so by [a] false Impression".
1st and foremost: the OP isn't approaching this discussion as if "everyone was tricked". He is focusing on correcting misconceptions that PF2 is significantly more complex than 5e, rather than only being modestly so. The video presents evidence that such a perception is actually not always true. No where does he state or even imply that the only reason PF2 isn't more popular than 5e is because the masses have been bamboozled. He even states in the VIDEO DESCRIPTION ITSELF that PF2 is actually more complex in general than 5e, only that in certain respects PF2 is actually simpler.
The paragraph above proves in 1 point that you are proceeding from a false assumption, and that any extrapolation from there will be equally flawed.
2nd: It is simple economics that when a market leader gets a sufficient advantage over all other competition that the availability of alternatives diminishes because the Leader is not incentivized to allow such alternatives to exist. WotC and the DnD brand do this and have done this for a long time, passively at a minimum when they haven't done so actively. Even when PF was actually bigger for a brief time than DnD4e, newer players would tend to gravitate toward the DnD brand as it is older and more recognized. There is a valid and reasonable argument to be made that community members with media platforms in the TTRPG space have something of a responsibility to promote things that aren't directly WotC and DnD related, assuming their platform isn't directed to DnD content only.
@@TheRosgath Your comment is a good reason why I stay the hell away from PF2. Good example of rude, toxic fandom.
Telling some one to 'shut their mouth' is going to encourage people to try PF2 - NOT!
@@simonfernandes6809 it's hardly even worth engaging with them, even I know I'm just posting at a brick wall out of frustration. It's so weird too because I love paizo so much, it's such a great company that's had only to my knowledge done good things and had an objectively positive influence of the industry. (Edit: They were also great to work with when I used to make ttrpg content) 4e was how I got into TTRPGs but I fell in love with them thanks to Pathfinder. Yet despite all this somehow the Pathfinder 2e fans have become this deranged toxic mass kinda similar to something like star citizen, infighting is so extremely common and criticism of the system from inside and out is met with hyperbolic dismissal such as what's seen on this channel.
Casters feel weak? Good they should! Numbers too complicated? No D&D is actually MORE complicated also you're doing it all wrong and it can't be any different because the numbers are so tight! All the criticisms people from the outside levy at the system is entirely dismissed and mocked and criticism from the inside don't seem to be met very positively either and have to be couched with excessive praise jusding by their reddit (again, very similar to star citizen).
It's all so sad because Pathfinder 2e definitely isn't for me, I find it plays very boringly and it don't like how it feels, and I don't think it can be rectified because the stans are right about the tightness of the math. But any possibility of those things being addressed by another addition or total conversion is completely hamstrung by this terrible community that's been cultivated by no fault of paizo. The nature of the product being a permanent distant second to dnd in combination with the nature of the game being very meticulously and carefully balanced leads the fans to seemingly lose their mind that everyone doesn't see the genius of the system and if only they could appreciate it just a little more everyone would change their mind and agree with them
D&D 5e is "simpler" for players because all the work is put on the DM more or less.
It also makes onboarding players onto 5e VERY easy.
@@JD-wu5pfwell that's because 5e is a game everyone agrees is unbalanced and needs homebrew. The system leaves huge gaps of rules out because it just depends on the GM to fill in the balance with homebrew.
Nobody wants homebrew in 2e because it is a tightly balanced game, and the need to homebrew everything doesn't carry over from 5e
@@JD-wu5pfit's not a dirty word, people just feel like it's largely unnecessary
@@JD-wu5pf it's not that people can't think of anything they would fux, it's that fixing those things has a ripple effect that means you'd need to change several other rules in most instances
@@shotosynthesis312 This points to PF2's complexity. People don't want to homebrew PF2 because it's a royal pain in the arse.
"You don't have to look up Jeremy Crawford tweets to run your game." Love this quote.
I just decide how it should work, Jerry doesn't know what he's talking about because the whole system is garbage and they didn't playtest properly
@@shotosynthesis312the lucky feat is the prime example for this. It lets you add another d20 to your roll and take the highest. RAW this also works for disadvantage, turning disadvantage (roll 2 take the lowest) into turbo advantage (roll 3 take the highest). This just cannot be the intention of the feat, but Crawford confirmed that it in fact is intended to work this way. Which makes me think that a lot of times he just confirms stupid rulings as intended because he doesn’t want to admit that the rule is bullshit
@@RockHeiland Just like how a duergar rune knight fighter/ wild magic sorcerer can grow to be huge size at level 4
Jeremy's tweets are ignorable, in fact they have said so ...
Out of context, it's an amazing statement. In context, he's shilling PF2E. There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of 5e, but this is not one of them. I don't, and have never, needed JC's tweets to run a single 5e game.
Pathfinder does absolutely body D&D in terms of free resources, it’s not even close. I will forever love Pathfinder for being so accessible.
Poors
4E critical hits were the best for simplicity. Roll no dice, do max damage. It works out roughly the same on average and you avoid the feels-bad moments of "I got a crit! ...and rolled 1's for damage." (edit: and honestly, an easy rule to homebrew in either 5e or PF2e with no massive change)
With PF2 you double the bonuses to the damage on a crit, so it would be a bit weaker on average. (Especially at low level) but it is definitely something you could do. I do think it is less exciting though. I know people that use the optional 'double-rolls' thing in pathfinder because they just like the spectacle of many dice lol
IIRC, you also add some extra die to the crit damage based on your weapon/catalyst enhantments. There were also one or two enchantments that didn't give you any extra die of damage. This second one I know because I chose one particular enchantment much to the confusion of my group and I had to point out that I didn't care about the extra damage, I just wanted to see what was the furthest I can shoot someone with my hand crossbow.
I do crits as one set of rolled dice and one set maxxed. I don't know how the option is known to others, but I call it "crunchy crits".
@@KeovarI'll test it out! :D
@@FhtagnCthulhu in 4e you would have bonuses of generally up to 6die by end game on a crit (there are other magic item crit effects and ones where the die are as large as 12 siders or get more dice and add damage types and similar). Ie dice lovers are not completely abandoned but you NEVER get less than you might by dice alone.
15:35 Amongst the few actual improvements in One D&D, it was going to have a new version of Exhaustion where it was a simple -1 to any d20 tests (ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws) for every level of Exhaustion, and you would instantly die if you have more than 10 levels of Exhaustion (instead of 6 like in 5e). However, like some of other rare good ideas in One D&D, it was unfortunately abandoned after the first few playtests
There are so many ideas that started off good in OneDnd playtests they abandoned. Makes me angry. I've treated 5e like Skyrim at this point - a framework to mod and homebrew into my own preferred system.
@@aetherkid Yep, and it really feels as though WotC is taking on similar philosophies to Bethesda. Namely their "Why fix this when you can let the fans do it for you?" mentality
@TheNobleStar9075 Yeah. I've added subclasses, races, whole classes, new magic systems, alternate reworks and rebalanced classes like Barbarian and Monk, a feat system called Talents, additional rules to buff Str and Int, nerfed Dex, stacking Advantage / Disadvantage, changed spells, Strongholds and Followers systems, Piety and Honor system. It's basically one of those (500 mods Skyblivion 2020) videos at this point haha
It puzzles me because I thought that was universally praised
@TheRulesLawyerRPG there was a whole bunch of stuff that was praised in the first 5 playtests. By playtest 6 they got rid of almost anything new and improved, nerded Martials, buffed casters, then reverted back to default 5e design. They don't want to make a new edition of dnd, they don't even want to seriously revise it - they want to change the name and sell the same product twice. WotC is trying to live-action Disney us
27:47 Jeremy Crawford is wrong about his own game. This is why the language is being changed in One Dnd. If you can see an invisible creature, they aren't invisible to you. His interpretation is not supported by the rules or by any reasonable interpretation of invisibility.
Also the reason you still need to hide while invisible is that someone still knows where you are when you're invisible because you still make sound. You need to hide with your stealth skill to avoid detection.
JC being wrong about his own game? No way...
Almost all of 5e has never been play tested together. None of the conditions and definitions of terms are clear enough for the designers to understand, much less players. That's just the basic game design, nevermind all the dozens of subclass spam added over the years.
Yeah, I do find that one silly - it doesn’t say “you’re translucent” or “semi-transparent” it says “as if you are visible”.
That said, my group still had to make a separate reference chart for the PF2e vision rules, and we have to stop and re-read them EVERY SINGLE TIME, breaking game flow, for “undetected”, “hidden” and “observed” and whether we see an invisible thing, or whether they’re concealed or not.
On the 2nd point, that is also why they have a rulings not rules based system. Sure you know where people are if they are not hiding. But you don't know where Bob is if he is on the other side of the planet, so clearly there are limits. The DM will make a call when hiding is necessary. Like if you are in a bustling noisy marketplace, the sounds, smells around you might mask your presence enough while invisible so no hide check would be needed. Where that line is, is based on your table. That being said I think their base hide mechanics are freaking terrible in 5e and require far more rulings that they should when some decent rules would have covered you.
@@queenannsrevenge100 - Seems like you need reference cards.
Crawford's explanation for the Invisible/SeeInvisible thing was totally pulled out of his rear on the spot. If you can see invisible creatures as if they are visible, then they simply aren't invisible to you. I think it was just an attempt to save a little face when an awkward rule misalignment was revealed and to pretend the unintuitive interaction was intentional.
I'd love to see him try to do the same with how Revivify is technically completely non-functional, since a dead character is no longer a "creature."
Important note about Focus Points: You have *one* pool of Focus Points, even if you have spells coming from multiple sources (class or archetypes). That also means you can dip into an archetype, get a focus spell, and cast it multiple times using the Focus Points you got from your class.
Cool. You can explain every dnd class in 5 sentences or less.
Try that with any pathfinder class.
First, each class has nuance and depth, that's what makes them interesting. But let's do this anyway.
Alchemist: You're an int based martial. You get an allotment of daily resources to spend on crafting alchemical potions and elixirs for free. Your subclass lets you specialize in a certain type (bombs, mutagens, etc).
Barbarian: You have Rage, which increases damage at the cost of a, with some hp to compensate. Your subclass determines what you draw your rage from, giving you thematically relevant upsides while raging and anathema.
Bard: You're a full caster and a bit of a skill monkey, and your focus spells are oriented around supporting your allies, such as Courageous Anthem. Your subclass determines what muse inspires you, giving a thematically related bonus feat and spell.
Champion: The premiere tank class: they have proficiency in all armors, increase it as they level faster than other classes, while still having standard weapon proficiencies for a martial. Their subclasses, causes, also determine their unique Champion's Reaction which protects allies if they're Good and protects themselves if they're Evil. They also get Lay on Hands/Touch of Corruption, also determined by Cause.
I could keep going, and I will.
Just remember that what feels like simplicity to you, "person who's familiar with 5e", is actually just familiarity.
@TheL0rd0fSpace there is literally 4 tiers of success/ failure for pf2 vs succeed or fail for 5e, and in 5e if you roll a 20 you crit, but if pf2 of you crit you have to roll AGAIN to make sure you REALLY crit.
Pf2 is just 5e with twice the rules.
@@xelgodis80085
Why would you roll twice to see if you really crit if a Critical Success (crit) is just whether what you rolled is 10 higher than the target or not? It's literally told by the same roll
Number 8 was so huge for me, probably the biggest single factor in me dropping 5e in favor of pf2e. Treasure is such a fun part of the RPG experience and gold, items, and loot are just done so much better in pathfinder.
The best part about 5e's invisibility is that no part of it says you can't be seen, judt that you can hide easier meaning that you need to spend your action to Hide or you are still visible
Invisible
An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a special sense. For the purpose of hiding, the creature is heavily obscured. The creature’s location can be detected by any noise it makes or any tracks it leaves.
@@SarzaelX Sorry, I confused two things. There is no penalty but you can't be seen. This matters very little because it's easy to detect where someone is anyway. Invisibility is terrible
30:47 Crawford either doesn't read the spells in his own game, or was actively moving the goal post. Funny that.
You forgot my 2 favorite things about summons in 2e: you can get mass summoning spells that are pure damage without breaking the action economy or overshadowing other players from 1st level (necromancers get a ton of these spells at higher levels), and your pool of hard summonable creatures (that have actions and stats) are able to keep pace with party level, and give you quality support instead of cannon-fodder that either break the game or are hard-countered by AoE casters.
Having opposed checks just be something one side rolls and compared to a flat DC of the other is something I never realized I needed until PF2e.
I remember actually getting rather annoyed with the idea of both sides rolling because of instances where I rolled a 2 on the dice and it didn't matter because the opponent rolled a 1, or inversely I'd roll really high and feel good about it but that didn't matter because they rolled a nat 20 or something similar. Rather than having a flat DC check the way most other skills are tested, I was instead getting a fully random difficulty level from the whims of the D20.
I need to correct you on the stealth check from dnd. The stealth check isn't made then you have to remember it for all future checks; this is a common way people do it. The way it supose to work rules as written is when an act of stealth can be opposed you roll. Your rogue says he is going stealth thru a feild they do not roll. It's when they get to a guard they have to slip past they roll. They get past the guard and in the next area have to make it past some people talking they make a new stealth check and so forth.
There are literally hundreds of RPGs out there. DnD might be leading the pack, but Pathfinder had that position during the 4th Ed DnD days. But, beside that, in all honesty, the reason everyone defaults to DnD these days is because it became Mainstream, for a variety of reasons. RPGs themselves didnt become mainstream, however.
One of the reasons I really liked 3rd edition was I saw through the math. I could see exactly how things were calculated, and I could also see a strong resemblance to how RoleMaster's general mechanical structure played into it. Monte Cook having at one point worked with I.C.E. on their RoleMaster system. Now, Im not claiming RoleMaster was tops, but I think most people in my age range remember a GM or being that GM themselves, pulling out the old ArmsLaw/ClawLaw book and cackling maniacally as they read out a Crit Result.
D&D leads the pack because of social media, nothing else. The system itself is actually one of the worst in comparison to prior. IMO 4E did a better job doing what it was meant to do than 5E has done.
And that's just thanks to Critical Role, which WoTC is trying to screw over. I highly doubt OneDND will enjoy the same success DnD5e did with all their shitty market practices turning players off and without Critical Role's boost now that they will be playing Daggerheart (If CR is smart, the will strip off as much as they can of the things that may lead viewers to associate it with DnD5e).
@@joshuahebert7972 The fighting in Rolemaster was super simple IMHO. Roll d100 (exploding), add your to hit bonus, look the number up on the attack table and there you had the number of hp you subtract from the Hit Points of the enemy. If you scored a crit (which you can see on the table) you roll d100 (exploding) on the crit table and that's it. It was really not that hard. It became nasty when you include mounted combat.... But the crits were legendary, you could really get this "Death of Boromir" scene, heavily wounded, bleeding out, one lung collapsed and finally the end. Not that I enjoyed my characters dying but there were so many epic moments that D&D or Pathfinder will never be able to have.
@@doomhippie6673 They just re-released it all too in a new edition.
Between the two I prefer PF2e, but sadly its more difficult to find a Pathfinder game over a 5e game. For some reason I dont match the demographic to get into groups that play closer to my style. Guess I should dust off the old GM skills if I want to have any type of group.
Whenever someone insists 5e is a Rules Light system, I tell them to explain how See Invisibility works, cause it's such an utterly ridiculous facet of the game and it annoys me so much. The fact that Jeremy Crawford treats it like a feature and not a bug, and the fact that he typically doesn't use his own ridiculous clarifications for his own games he runs just feels so fundamentally wrong and grating. No sane DM would use Crawford's ruling.
Stealth as a whole in 5e is a lot of cross referencing and vagueness that makes it frustrating to learn, and is often not ran properly (either massively buffing or nerfing it at a table for those who don't know the actual rules). PF2's stealth and invisibility rules overall are more by word count, but there's far less inconsistency and ambiguity, and they're located in more logical locations in the book.
Point 1 - The variance of PF2e crits are higher than D&D crits, since the more dice you roll the more likely you are to roll average damage. Double damage makes you more likely to roll minimum crit damage as well as maximum crit damage. Is that more fun? Maybe. And it's definitely more likely to do max crit damage... But it's also more likely to do min crit damage. Not disputing that 'roll the dice and double the result' is faster in play, though.
Point 15 - I forget what the ruling is meant to be in 5e for covering an invisible creature with flour, but I think that's the usual example I've seen for how _weird_ 5e's Invisible condition is?
Definitely agree that 5e often leads to a 'worst of both worlds' situation - The way I've seen those holes within it's crunch expressed in a way that most resonates with me is that 5e isn't rules light, it's rules deficient. For the system complexity of 5e, a lot of the places you'd expect it to give rules it instead gives "Ask your GM." Which if it's a light system, that's fine - Light systems thrive on rulings over rules and the GM making a ruling that feels reasonable at the time isn't going to break things later, while for heavier systems, such as D&D, it can.
Since you brought up PbtA towards the end, the PbtA I'd recommend to folk wanting to try PbtA, either as a player or a GM, is Escape From Dino Island. Even by PbtA standards, it's simple, designed for one shots, and has all the pieces you might need in a 'there are dinosaurs on an island where you are on, you need to get off of it, but you need to do something first' adventure with a modern day setting. Jurassic Park, starting with the moment the dinosaurs break out, basically.
Minimum crit damage is less of a big deal for a lot of 2e characters though because any bonuses to the damage are also doubled. So doing 1d10 + 4 on a crit in 5e is 15 average damage, whereas in 2e it's 19 average. The lowest roll possible for 5e would be 6 damage and in 2e it's 10 damage. I think crits feel good in both systems, but I personally prefer 2e by a wide margin.
Edit: Even by looking at Critical Role, which people often use home rules to imitate their game, they borrow this mechanic to a certain degree.
Personally, it's always bugged me in D&D that modifiers to damage aren't accounted for in critical hits, whereas doubling the damage in Pathfinder does account for modifiers, resulting in higher crit minimums/maximums. Also personally it'd make crits feel better too.
I've yet to play Pathfinder though so maybe it's different in practice, but Pathfinder's crit system seems more appealing to me.
I would add movement as its own category here. Splitting your movement between actions/attacks, transitioning movement types, navigating difficult terrain and pseudo-difficult terrain like plant growth, and vague jumping rules are all complicating factors, and when you start combining them together it can be easy to lose track of exactly what you can do with your movement on your turn. I'm new to Pathfinder and was initially thrown off by the differences from 5e, but I'm coming to really appreciate how simple it is to adjudicate movement, even if it is sometimes a bit more limiting.
One aspect from 4e regarding damage modifiers: It mattered if you got "adds to damage" and "add to damage rolls". There are some powers that have no damage dice, and thus don't qualify as a damage roll. Brutal Barrage deals CON mod damage w/o any dice being rolled. One way to cheese the system is to find something that gives +1d6 to damage, thus turning it into a "damage roll" and get more bonuses. Thankfully they got rid of that in 5e.
41:28 I do think there's a reason for DnD to give you a benefit for going prone against ranged attacks. You're presenting a smaller target.
That is unnable to doge... XD
@@elhoteldeloserrantes5056 yeah someone lying on the ground can't possibly roll out of the way
Pathfinder is also able to give an advantage against ranged attacks: prone targets can always Take Cover to gain greater cover (+4 to AC) against ranged attacks. Note that it's an active choice unavailable to someone that's unconcious.
@@thewordywarlock7159 I actually really like that. Because there is a difference between going prone and being knocked prone.
By that logic, an unconscious creature should also give disadvantage to ranged attacks, as they automatically go prone when they're unconscious.
Also mechanically, it disincentivizes knocking a creature prone if you have ranged characters on the team, especially those who can do a lot of damage and you all are focusing on one target. Which is unintuitive since a melee PC should be able to knock an enemy prone and provide an advantage not only to themselves but to their allies further back as well.
The fact that I willingly watched this video is proof that I agree with Ronald
My reasoning for 5e still being easier on brand new players is that the new player experience can be as simple as rolling dice to attack and that's basically it. There are far fewer terms and things to remember for a level one character with tons of handholding. The hidden complexities of the system only come out when the DM isn't wallpapering over them (in my very personal experience)
PF2E does ask for more upfront investment from players. It expects you to read all your class feats at level 1, read up on what your ancestry does, etc. This increased player engagement is a hard sell. I've lost two brand new players who later on played 5e and loved it because they needed to learn and invest so much less
Because I'm the type of person who values the analysis of videos like this, i automatically agree. Because I gave the patience to read all my feats, too
Those players I mentioned don't have the attention spans fir a 15 minute video
Which does mean your middle schoolers are better than them 😂
It's an offtopic but I lowkey think that argument of school kids being less capable of understanding stuff I think is opposite to the truth. Socially kids have much more free time and often are more enthusiastic and passionate, which helps with their motivation to overcome the difficulty of learning. Adults cannot be bothered to even try to learn new stuff and biologically will probably have more trouble to memorize and keep it in mind when they already juggle many things. There are exceptions of course but those people are probably specifically practice learning stuff or had some kind of habits or work specialties that help with that. So I'm not sure if adults actually supposed to learn new stuff better than school kids.
Do DnD level 1 characters not have class features? Do different DnD races not come with abilities?
On the subject of rarity, there's an item called Harkon's Bite. It's an uncommon item. It gives you +1 to Ability checks and Saving Throws. It also increases your Strength to 15 if you don't already have higher (and who does, strength is worthless in 5e) and grants immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage.
5e is a perfectly balanced game.
Meanwhile, it's not a rule in PF2, but there is nothing that requires an ~~ability~~ attribute check. It's always a skill check that you get to invest proficiency upgrades into.
Cool way to paint it in the worst light possible. Harkon’s bite is a cursed magic item that turns you into a werewolf, even if you don’t attune to it to gain its benefits. And if strength is so worthless then you probably aren’t getting much benefit from raising it to 15. It’s not like it’s a normal uncommon magic item.
If it's a cursed magic item what are the drawbacks? 15 strength is important because it's required to wear heavy armour.
@@Unormalism The drawback is you get driven mad by lycanthropy and can't take it off. And just having 15 strength is only going to let you meet the prerquisite for heavy armor, so you'd still need to have proficeincy. most classes that have proficiency already would probably have better strength than 15 already. I guess it could benifit a dex fighter or something.
@@isthisajojoreference "Driven mad by lycanthropy" is not defined by the mechanics of the game, nor stated anywhere on the item or lycanthropy.
The only negative impact is an alignment change IF you embrace the curse, at which point the DM may take control of your character at their discretion.
If you reject the curse, your only penalty is a narrative one, and in exchange you get +1 to ability checks and saves, +1 AC, strength raised to 15 and immunity to bludeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non silvered weapons.
A 1 level dip into cleric or fighter can get you proficiency with heavy armour, as can a feat for anyone with medium armour, and full plate ends up 1 AC higher than the other armours (assuming stats don't go over 20).
Like maybe someone wants to roleplay their character suffering the curse of lycanthropy since its an interesting twist and they don't want to be casually cured by a second level spell. Guess they're just overpowered until the narrative catches up!
If the intention is the player should seek a cure, that's trivial, a third level wizard, cleric or warlock can do that twice a day. If the intention is to let the player roleplay it, then why make it so powerful. It seems like the intention is either to tempt a PC with the ridiculous power or so players don't feel bad about being "cursed".
Crawford rambles about Invisibility for three minutes and gets the rules completely wrong? (Suprised Pikachu Face)
I think you unfairly made PF2e's "Surprise" look simpler, because it's not REALLY about Surprise, but initiative in general. Surprise often comes up because you're trying to attack a creature while you're hidden, like "leaping from the shadows" or "Raining arrows from above". Very rarely are you able to surprise a creature who can clearly see you, but it could happen in the case of something like a subtle spell metamagic.
*In 5e:*
You roll initiative as normal, but use an unhelpful clusterfuck of rules spread across many sections to "determine if any creatures are surprised". And if a creature goes first anyway, they're no longer surprised, which disrupts features relying on surprise.
*In PF2e:*
You roll stealth for your initiative while the foes typically roll perception, and also you compare your stealth initiative against their Perception DC. Since initiative is supposed to only be rolled when a creature could be made aware of your presence even by some vague means, that means if you succeed against their Perception, you are merely Undetected (a confusing name because they know you are there, but they don't know WHERE you are, so you have in fact been detected) instead of Unobserved (completely unaware of you), but if they still go first in combat, they could still look for you.
5e and PF2e are also similar in when you roll initiative; it's basically when you declare that you are going to do an aggressive action such as attacking or drawing a weapon. In 5e, that can work since sometimes creatures are surprised even if they go first. But in PF2e, it can mean very little was really accomplished aside from a single creature spending an action or two; and requires you as the GM to step in and say that they're not yet aware you've done anything and so "skip" turns, effectively giving you something like surprise or letting a player effectively go first in combat which can also be too strong.
It gets more complicated when you have to take cover into account, since MOST of the time when you're hiding, it can only be done when you have cover (which is to say, the majority of stealth rolls have a hidden +2 in there, probably +4 in the case of just being completely behind a wall or something).
The x2 part of PF2e critical system is simpler. However, because of the over 10 rule, overall PF2e's crit system is still more complex.
As for bonuses, the reason we don't like the small numbers is because when on their own they are quite meaningless. Dice bonuses and adv works better here, though it is more complicated, it gets what it pays for at least.
Very well said in your closing statement.
No fixed damage for falling.
There's a famous incident of a guy who survived, almost uninjured, a fall from a damaged airliner at 20k-30k feet. His forward motion helped, since he swept through the flexible upper boughs of pine trees, then tumbled down among the pine branches, and plopped into soft snow.
I met a guy who fell 40 feet from a tree, head first, into the ground. Literally head first: his head was in the ground, up to his shoulders. No broken bones.
My boss (we were in the tree-felling business) didn't see him fall, but did see the divot in the ground and where the guy was in the tree cutting.
This one guy got sling shot by a Tornado while asleep. Like 40 to 60 mph and no broken bones.
Weird stuff.
I like how falling dmg in pf is so easy both in feet and m.
Half in feets, yes
But feet is m/3.
Which means if you want to calculate damage counting by metres => just add half of metres!
Example:
50 feet is 25 dmg
It's 16.6 m, hence +8 => 24.+ = 25.
It's easy cause 3 feet is roughly 1 m. Half of 3 is 1.5, so it's super easy.
Solid case. This definitely highlights the fact that my 5e game contains a lot of house rules. I think traditionally that has often been the case for D&D editions of old. 5e could really just strip away a lot of the excess "crunch", and be a better game for it. I'm in the process of moving over to PF2e from 5e (my first and longtime ttrpg experience was PF1e), but my experience with Paizo systems has been that fiddling with the system without understanding the math behind it can be very game breaking. 5e and OSR systems are my preference for casual tinkering. But I do want to understand PF2e on a level that I can accomplish some of the same things. This video has been very encouraging.
ont thing you missed: earn money
not a big point but downtime activities are so much easier
Just want to add some comments on surprise since I didn’t really think you said enough there about PF2E. Crucially, perception is default initiative whilst Avoiding Notice allows you to roll stealth for initiative. This means sneaky characters like rogues can act sooner.
Furthermore, “surprised” creatures may not have weapons drawn, so they may have to spend actions before they can engage the party.
Never played pathfinder but I'm keen to run it for my group. I really like the concentration mechanic of it simply taking an action to maintain a spell, but it seems like an oversight that (from my albeit limited understanding) there isn't a way to externally force a break in concentration. There is a lot of great drama in our 5e games when trying to break an enemy's concentration, and it would be a shame to take that away. I guess you could just implement concentration saves back in, but is there a more elegant solution to reconcile that?
There are three main ways to stop the "Sustaining a Spell" action (which has the Concentrate trait) and these are the conditions of Fatigued and Fascinated or disrupting the action. In the Requirements for "Sustaining a Spell" it says the user cannot be Fatigued, Fascinated says one cannot use Concentrate actions except ones targeting the subject of the fascination. Disruption is rare, players need to take certain Feats for them like the Fighter needs Disruptive Stance which allows them to have Attack of Opportunity on Concentrate actions too and disrupt them if they hit. It's rare for Monsters to have Attack of Opportunity and even rarer to have Disrupting reactions (and if they do it usually disrupts on a critical hit), and when they do have it the monsters are usually very high level. There's also the peculiar Disruptive Stare which is a feat specific to a snake-like race and acts as a form of Counterspell for Concentrate spells.
This is what I could find about the official ways you can go about breaking a Sustained Spell, you can homebrew a bit more disruptive actions or reactions based on that.
However, keep in mind that Concentration in 5e is free but in PF2E it costs and Action so the cost benefit is different, also most of the spells are "nerfed" compared to 5e, so it's not as dramatic when disrupted or even be worth disrupting. If you want to make Disrupting common you might consider making the Sustain a Spell a free action but limited to once per turn. In addition
Having to spend an action usually means you can't cast another spell and move without losing your concentration. Basically it limits all of your other options.
I believe the piggy-backing on a roll because it was low thing is actually against D&D's RAW. I'll have to double-check because it may have been a module rather than a core rulebook, but I believe there's some place that states you can't chain skill checks like that unless the situation has changed enough that it would be deemed reasonable, with examples of gaining a level or having found something that gives new information about the subject. The only way to "piggy back" on rolls is to use the Help action or buff abilities prior to the first roll.
From what I've read with the PHB/DMG, the DM calls for rolls or allows them if the player requests it. So the game leaves it up to the DM if they want to allow piggy-backing on a roll. Unless you can find the rule you're talking about.
Technically, the rules say that same creature can't do it, but other creatures still could
@@Sunny_Haven I wasn't able to so I think it was either an older edition of D&D or in a 5e module. I'll keep digging and post again if I find the reference I'm thinking of though.
I’ll add to point 15 on invisibility for 5e. Rules as written, when combat starts you know what square they are in. I don’t remember the source for this other than DnDShorts. But that means see invisibility is only good for out of combat and is worthless in combat. Most DMs will house rule the spell working logically.
Basically, in 5e, during combat you know where every creature is, even if you can't see them, unless they've successfully taken the hide action. So if an invisible creature hasn't spent an action hiding, everyone knows where they are. Under that ruling See Invisibility has a minor use in combat, it can make it harder for an invisible creature to hide from you. I still think that's a really dumb ruling, though, and would never rule that the disadvantage still applies.
I'm curious as to what rule this is 'cause I know DnDShorts has gotten rules wrong before. Do you think you can find the video you heard this from? Because I don't think it exists.
I've only been able to read the PHB and DMG though, and neither are explicitly designed for playing with a grid - the books see that as optional and also account for people playing with theater of the mind. So I imagine if there is a rule like that, it's probably in Xanathar's or somewhere else.
Thanks for this video, I really hoped it will give me pointers how to prove that system is easier to learn than others but apparently simpler not always equals easier! :D I kind of agree with the statement now that PF2 is easier to GM while DnD 5e is easier to play as a player first. I started to play roleplaying games in high school and my first system was DnD 3.5 then during university we transitioned to PF1. We have recently also tried some new systems like Dungeonworld and a homebrew one which unfortunately never really took-off. Now I occasionally play a DnD 5e beginner campaign with my colleagues but oh boy how I wish to play with PF2 system. I miss the crunch and the over customization options for character building :D I am eventually planning to introduce them to the system if I see they become comfortable with role playing games. Wish me luck! ^.^'
35:52 - Jeremy Crawford is the biggest liability to 5e...that is, outside of the CEO suite.
I find it strange that in your exhaustion section you mention Drained (and its friends) as the de facto analog for D&D's exhaustion when Fatigued is a more clean match. Unless I'm mistaken, Fatigued is primarily a thing that happens to you when you don't get quality rest, and Drained primarily happens in response to spells or other monster effects that explicitly sap away your vitality. I mix it up quite often because the names of both describe a similar, well, condition, but they're very distinct in mechanics and flavor.
Archetypes are goated. Not only is it a very sleek way to introduce prestige classes (5e homebrews do exist, but I always felt like it was a waste of a fully-realized mono-class), but it also solves an issue 5e's multi-classing has: unintended synergies.
In d&d, "martial" cleric domains and the hexblade gain certain armor proficiencies as a 1st-level class feature. As a result, it's possible for casters to get medium or even heavy armour proficiency out of a 1-level dip in another class. This is incredibly stupid, and helps further undercut the relevance of martials.
Meanwhile, in PF2, any ability a class innately has that their archetype doesn't offer is locked-off automatically, making it impossible to exploit multiclassing for ludicrous game-breaking.
For example: The Flurry Hunter's Edge allows you to reduce your multi-attack penalty against your Prey by 2, meaning agile weapon penalties can go as low as -2 (-4 on third strike). This is pretty powerful for archers and especially dexterous melee fighters, but would be a ludicrous buff on most other martials...but it's a feature fully exclusive to the Ranger.
In conventional multi-classing, any martial could take a 1-level dip into ranger for this feature and see their dps sky-rocket, but you can't do that.
Similarly, you can't just dip into rogue and get sneak attack, because it's not included in the Dedication feat. You have to be at least level 4 to get this feature, requiring a more thorough dedication to the multiclass.
With archetypes, powerful abilities can be isolated from the issues multiclassing might bring, and it helps maintain each class' unique strengths, because they can't be acquired by outsiders.
Finally, the detail that you can't take a new dedication feat with each class feat is a godsend. In 5e, nothing stops you from multiclassing 3 or four classes to get weird and powerful synergies (looking at you, Hex-sorcadins), but in PF, you have to actually level up 6 levels before you can take a second multi-classing feat.
The best part of being a GM is you can play the system you want.
Yes, but you can't find the players for the system.
@@simonfernandes6809 When you already have the players it's not a problem.
@@dyne313 unfortunately not the case for the majority, im forced to play 5e cause everyone here where i live refuse to play anything that does not have D&D in the name, its already hard to find players for this this system let alone others, must be nice having a playgroup of friends
@@sharkpyro93 Thankfully I have a friend group that will play whatever I want.
I think on the topic of stacking effects, not being able to stack some of them does prevent some of the intentional stacking of them, but there are times when a character might just so happen to have multiple of the same type of bonus, so the complexity of differentiating what bonuses and penalties to add and what type they are I think makes adjudicating it just as complex if not more.
Also, I understand the unintuitiveness of what gives advantage/disadvantage, but still, it's a lot more common than dice bonuses. Doesn't the fact that they don't stack somewhat simplify the system in the same way P2E's bonuses do?
To be fair, "if you have multiple status bonuses you only use the highest one", is pretty simple. So even in the situation where you have 2 of each status and circumstance bonus and penalty, the numerical values being static makes determining which applies very simple.
That said, I've not seen scenarios where more than 3 of any combination of effects are really happening at once, so situations beyond that are surely the exception to the fact that so many different types exist. Then you have the predictability and reliability of how those effects interact and who will typically use them.
If you have a Cleric or a Bard you should expect frequent Status bonuses, if you have multiple melee characters you should expect Flat-footed frequently, etc. So because some of those things become so frequent they reduce need to really think about it.
I mostly agree, but I do think there is a balancing act going on. PF2 rolls are definitely simpler in the ways you state, and most players do want a less bloated combat experience. On the other hand, most players also like rolling more dice. Rolling more dice is more complicated since now we're not just rolling one variable (d20) and adding some constants, but instead are rolling several variables (d20+d6+d4, etc.) and adding constants. But, it also lets players roll more dice, which they generally like.
So I agree that it's simpler in a way that people considering PF2 should definitely be aware of (this is a good video!), but I think it's also important to point out that there is a preference at play here, since in many of these examples simplicity is contrasted with rolling more dice, and most players want both.
Interesting video and you have lots of valid points.
My only criticism would be for crits. The compelxity of crits in DnD is a minescule thing. The problem with more dice is two things:
1. You either buy more dice to make things quicker so you can just roll 5 d6s at once
2. When you have 5 different sources asking you to roll different die
In a crit situation rolling 3 more of the same die is more 'complex' however its such a tiny increase in complexity I'd consider it a nitpick.
People at my table have mentioned theres too much dice rolling at times in DnD and its hard to keep up, however I tell people they can roll double die or double the damage on crit, their choice, of course they pick before rolling damage so they cant game the system. Every time, despite their complaints about dice, they roll double. Why? Because more dice rolling is actually more fun, to a limit.
Tldr youre right its more complex but its by such a minescule degree id consider it a wash and id point towards it just being a different way to play. I plan on running PF2E and ill probably keep my ruling of double die or double the roll.
I think people find it more fun in the same way that gambling is more fun. Doubling the dice increases the potential maximum by a lot more if you're rolling more than one die. But also very risky because you could just as easily roll all 1's as you could roll all max damage. Though doubling the entire damage including the modifier is much more consistent for big hits.
Also I wouldn't suggest doing double dice crits in Pathfinder because it throws off weapons with the Deadly or Fatal trait.
@@IngenieurStudios That can definitely be true too, though I don't think that necessarily makes it a bad thing. The high of maybe getting lucky can be really fun.
I'm very new to PF2E, so you're probably right about weapon traits. If it really messes with weapon types, I'll just change all the weapons to fit int- I kid. I'll keep that in mind, thank you for the advice.
I don't think it's that the complexity is high from a minuscule amount. I think it's just more complex in a way that ends up feeling like an abundance at the table.
It *is* fun to role a massive fistful of dice! It *feels* good! The sound of a half-dozen or more bits of plastic bouncing around just hits right.
But then you have to count and add everything up. And everyone else around you has to watch you add everything up. And then someone questions your arithmetic, or whether you rolled the right number, or right types of dice, or...
Honestly, I think this one's really just there to point out how, at a certain point, there's more math in 5E than there is in 'Mathfinder'.
@@ChanJENI I think your first paragraph is very true and reasonable. Valid view.
I suppose I just don't view what you've listed to actually BE complex. It's pretty straight forward and although there are more moving parts I think it's very simple. Most of the time it really isn't that much of an issue at the table and often people are excited to see the results, so it doesn't feel like a slog. Plus because a crit is 5% it doesn't come up that often. However, I could easily be in the minority here.
Resource Tracking is, NGL, a *big* one for me. I just bounce off of -so- many DnD 5e Classes/Subclasses because of how many different damn things have their own individual finnicky selections of many many times you can use them, how long they last, and then how/when you can recharge them.
Some of my favorite combats I've run as a DM running a 5e campaign is when I CHANGED THE UNDERLYING RULES. I had a memorable fire elemental boss that would take a turn right after each players turn, hence giving it the same action economy as the players. It made this powerful creature actually seem powerful and not limited by an action once every 6 seconds. This creature also summoned portals around the battlefield that when one was entered, it would randomly appear in another. This was to stop a stagnant, no movement battle where people wouldn't move to give a free opportunity attack
Another was when I did some spell twisting to have a boss be true poly-morphed into another creature when it was killed to add a "phase 2" which was outside the rules as written. It made for THE COOLEST counter spell roll ever but wouldn't have worked in the base game.
Pathfinder 2e is now my go to system going forwards.
You can actually do the “second” phase as part of the original encounter budget provided that both creatures don’t break the difficulty threshold of the encounter you want.
I'm a Game master, and #8 and #12 were HUGE dealbreakers for me, when I was choosing a system to transfer to.
I've always been confused why you can't cast multiple leveled spells with action and bonus if it's spell balance is supposed to be by spell slots
I think I'd like it if more of your content focused on actually diving into PF2e as a stand-alone than constantly comparing it to 5e. The majority of your last 12 videos have been a comparison between the two games that just rehashes the same stuff. I've been trying, and struggling, to learn this game for almost a year now, because what I need just isn't really being met. There's barely any PF2e content that explores feat interactions with classes and interesting builds. I tried looking up Inventor stuff, but it was impossible to find a video that wasn't just someone reading the class to me (and/or misinterpreting aspects of said class, and/or using a voice that overstimulates me). I'd love to see less superficial analyses. I'd also like to see videos on how to play when you don't have access to a VTT or if you're playing ToTM as I often do. I think most of all, I'd love to see videos that talk more about how to make decisions in the game. PF2e is a game about opportunity costs, so having some guidance on how to actually make those decisions would be really helpful.
For example, I've often been told that because of how the game is balanced, you can focus on a character concept, and it'll work, except... there seem to be assumptions baked in that I don't intuitively follow. For example, if I want to play an inventor that uses magic instead of shooting a crossbow, how would I go about that *and* be effective? How do I effectively build and play a class with a companion and a familiar? These are just questions that I get caught up in when I'm trying to design a character that I can bond with.
I'd have to say crits get more complex when you gain critical specializations. Especially with Lethal or Deadly which uses different dice you otherwise wouldn't even have ready.
I see your point, yet I find those mechanics rewarding in play; a moment of spotlight if you will. Crits are highlight, so I think it is ok to have them take more time to resolve. Have a great day!
Nice video!
Question on Action Economy, if Ronald or anyone for that matter can answer.
Wouldn't the Fighter on PF2e need to Stow the polearm, Equip the bow, and Load the arrow? Ending the turn without the chance to strike too?
With the PF2e Remaster, I think you can now Swap for 1 action, so stowing the polearm and drawing the bow is one action. But it was still a bad example because the D&D 5e player would have just dropped their first weapon on the ground for free and drawn the second one for free since you get one item interact for free on your turn. They probably wouldn't have bothered stowing the weapon so it's not a good demonstration of the action economy differences. And before the remaster, a PF2e player would likely have dropped the polearm for free instead of wasting an action stowing it away. The only reason to stow it would be if you had nothing better to do with your 3rd action
@@survivordaveYes dropping is better, the reason the stow is shown is because of how action economy works. Doesn't matter the system, most people drop their weapon.
What wasn't pointed out BOTH system you don't "load" a bow. You draw and fire an arrow in the same action and thus no loading. Loading is specific to crossbows in both systems, or firearms if used.
How many encounters should a P2E party face between long rests? How many Extreme, Severe, Moderate and Low are ok to throw against the party?
Take this with a grain of salt because my memory is a bit fuzzy, but I remember something like "3 Moderate Encounte and 1 Severe" per day typically, with Low and Trivial having no limit and Extreme being reserved for special occasions
Against a low level party, Probably 4-5.
But the true answer is that they can keep going as long as the party has the resources and capability to recover between combats.
A party of spellcasters might be out of resources after a severe encounter. A party of mostly martials can keep going until they get fatigued.
PF2 can handle as few or as many as you want as a GM. If you only want 1 hard encounter it will be pretty balanced unlike a 5e single encounter day.
In PF you don't need to whittle the parties resources down
I'd say about 300 xp worth of encounters at lower levels. But also, it depends on the players. How far do they want to push things? Given they can medicine up between fights, it's really a constraint on caster dailies, but they should have a bag of wands and a staff to keep going a bit longer.
@@stuh42l That sounds much better, I find it hard to justify multiple encounters to whittle party resources during my sessions (it can also just bog down gameplay, especially if the party's aware they are random encounters). Finely crafting one or two challenging encounters for the day sounds much better.
Why didn't you mention Fatigued in the Exhaustion bit? PF2e has a condition for when you've travelled for more than 8 hours, and it's very simple.
My brother you need a pop filter. It's near constant. Check out 30:50 on.
Great video! Though I wish you compared the hiding systems for D&D and Pathfinder. D&D's hiding system is a bit of a mess and the rules for it are scattered all over the PHB and DMG (Treantmonk made a great video on it: ruclips.net/video/8JMtF8ToEr8/видео.html), whereas Pathfinder's hiding system has a lot of defined rules for awareness and such, which seems to make it much easier to run.
Hiding in D&D is also very dependent on the DM. Personally, when I've DM'd, I never used surprise, both because I felt it was too mean to the players and also I just kept forgetting about it. I also have rarely seen it as a player.
He already did a video comparing those two and not sure, but I think that he did even mention treantmonk's video on his one
I personally love Pathfinder and I agree that it vastly simplifies many concepts in implementation. However, transitioning someone from a beginner box type of product to a proper game is far more complicated in Pathfinder in my opinion.
There are just simply more rules even if those rules are simpler. Having taught people both from scratch ive found pathfinder only works if the people youre playing with Like mechanically deep games which is NOT the majority of D&D players whom often dont think about the game at all between sessions
This. Several of my 5e players bounced off PF2 HARD.
Yeah, around my table 2 of my players latched onto PF2e super quickly, another 2 were mostly happy with it but had some growing pains learning the new system, and I think they're starting to like it better now (might just be bias though cause I want them to like it), while the last player of the group is still happy to play PF2e but they under no uncertain terms prefers 5e. How much they liked PF2e correlates perfectly with how much they enjoy the depth of the system.
Awesome!
Great shout out to Shadow of the Demon Lord 😈 It is a great system. Boons and Banes is a fantastic mechanic.
35:56 this is just a tiny mistake in the scope of the video, but being Poisoned in 5e does not make you any easier to hit.
To point out a ridiculous amount of silliness from D&D 5E (I'm slowly converting my people over to PF2 - remaster is what some are waiting for, why learn and learn again?). My BladeSinger Wizard at level 6 does the following. Turn 1 BA BladeSong, Thunderwave a group of foes knocking a lot of them prone. Turn 2, BA cast Spirit Shroud (Add Radient damage to all attacks against foes within 10'). Move forward and start picking off those I didn't kill wiith the Thunderwave. I stab one foe for 1d8 with a Rapier + 1d8 Radiant. I then cast Green Flame Blade using the spellsinger special ability to have one of my Attacks be a cantrip. I strike the foe next to the first with the Rapier from the Green Flame Blade and hit and deal 1d8 piercing + 1d8 fire + 1d8 Radiant to that foe and then it leaps the fire to the second and he takes 1d8+Int fire damage. I do this multiple attacks on multiple foes with damage jumping around sort of thing all the time with that character and it always ends up like the scene in Clue where they try to figure out how many bullets are left in the gun, "1+2+2+1 or 1+2+1+1?"
Admittedly, I think the zombie (and this applies to most "mindless" undead) is not a great example since the lore attached to them explicitly describes them as experiencing hunger, which would require a mind, even a very simple one, to be true. They are also described as having a disdain for the living, which would also require a mind, so while the rules are explicit, the lore is incongruous, which I would normally ignore, but it has clearly affected the mechanical design as well.
So while I liked the video.
I don't think it shows what you intended it to show.
Some points feel more like "Things Pathfinder does better than DND" than "Thing that are easier in Pathfinder than DND".
So while falling damage and bonuses are more difficult in dnd, the invisibility state I think is not made easier in Pathfinder. The fact that there are multiple states of being hidden makes my players ask about it a lot. It's similar to cover in starfinder. My players asked a lot "Is this half cover?".
While the ruling in DND seems more... Erratic, I don't think Pathfinder is essentially easier. And this is an example, there are couple of points that I think Pathfinder didn't really make it easier.
Still the video was enjoyable :)
5e has "secret checks" too. In 5e, the players dont roll until the DM calls for one, they cant just decide on their own to roll Insight mid-conversation or roll Perception because somebody elses roll was metagamed poorly. The DM chooses in every instance whether they are rolling, the player is rolling, or neither.
Christ that guy's explanation on invisibility was a whole nothing burger that didn't make things any less confusing and obtuse. The description for See Invisibility seemed pretty clear cut to me
There's a reason why AL ruled that DMs were free to ignore Crawford's rulings. I never met a single AL DM that paid any attention to Crawford's rulings.
29:30 I have a PhD in theoretical physics and I did not follow this answer.
I will say some of these metagaming things I dont allow. If someone fails their search check I dont allow other party members to chime in. All actions taken are kind of 'declared' before any dice rolls. Its not even realistic that every person rummages through a chest I also have them kinda decide where in the room they wanna look because once again realistically not everyone is gonna totally tear the room apart. If someone fails their part of the room and the secret was there, then its missed.
At #4: I am a dice goblin, I like rolling dice
I was just in the comments in a D&D video, and someone was discussing using Counterspell to counter a Counterspell and it hit me: things like that and the awkward mini game of Legendary Resistance are what D&D has instead of the Incapacitation trait. One simple rule so that you can't just overwhelm a boss with control spells. Does it sometimes suck that spells don't do much? Sure, but it's easy to know that going on and plan accordingly.
And if you need to make the encounter harder, level is a really easy dial to turn and it matters, unless the inaccurate Challenge Rating.
I actually prefer D&D’s additional dice. Yes it’s more complicated and takes time but it’s far more fun to actually roll the dice. It does get a bit nutty when they all stack though.
I think he mainly brings it up as one counterpoint to people calling 2e mathfinder and more complicated
It's not balanced though
@@Kaazikin Who cares if it's not balanced? Being balanced doesn't mean a mechanic is fun and the point of the game is to have fun.
44:25
AND, if that PF2 Fighter has the first-level Sudden Charge Fighter Feat, he can move twice his stride AND attack for just TWO actions. EVEN BETTER~!
44:25 free action to drop bow -> draw a Great Sword using interact action as part of Attack action.
I noticed weird thing about rules in Pathfinder 2e 🤔 If party wants to use stealth while exploring a dungeon, would they not need to all use Avoid Notice action to avoid notice? Then they can't search traps, sense magic, scout or any other things?
in D&D the ruling goes that you roll stealth and then also do other things bu PF2e seems to work differently?
Let me ask:
Rogue wants to sneak a head while searching possible traps to avoid so the party knows what's up a head.
Rogue would need lvl 1 Trap Finder class trait and would take Avoid Notice action to walk in front in order to scout but not the scout action which is more like keep watch or look out giving +1 to initiative if combat starts?
Like could the Rogue find the enemies before they notice the party and could that be used in order to setup ambush or perhaps ready actions "when combat starts"?
Things like 'Avoid Notice' in exploration mode are abstractions to deal with dead time in a session. "You make your way through this quasi-linear tunnel. What are you doing as you go?" You can choose to Avoid Notice, and roll stealth for initiative should something come up, but you can also Scout, which gives your party an intiative bonus, or Search, wherein you generically look for traps, or Repeat a Spell, so that you start an encounter with a Cantrip active, or... You're free -- and encouraged -- to be more specific about what you're doing at any given point in time.
But no, you can't do two at once. But if you're scouting ahead, the generally reasonable thing for the GM to do is say that you noticed a threat, and give you the ability to report to the party and everyone can do what they will at that point. But if you're all actively trying to sneak past an enemy, that you're aware of you're not going to be focused on looking for traps, or scouting for other enemies, or what have you. If you roleplay the scenario out in full, you'll likely find that, in that moment, you're actually just very concerned about not alerting those particular creatures over there that you exist.
@@ChanJENI Thanks, that clarifies few things for sure! So usually people are able to do one thing while exploring unless they have some means doing more like Trap Finder 😁
I have done whole day googling around how PF2e works for several different topics but I'm bit confused so am I correct to assume the following is correct:
- Neo who has Trap Finder wants to walk in front to scout enemies using Avoid Notice rolling secret stealth check against enemies' perception DC. If Neo succeeds she can relay the information about upcoming enemies and hazards to the party so they can prepare for what is ahead of them.
- Jack wants to use Scout (keeping watch) so if there is ambush like any enemy who succeeded stealth roll against Neo's perception DC everyone gets +1 for initiative.
- Tony wants to use Search in case there are hidden paths or enemies who succeeded Avoid Notice activity rolling Perception against traps, hidden doors and enemies's stealth DC?
- Rimuru wants to keep cast Detect Magic in case there is something magical.
Is that correct assumption how the game would run? Or what am I forgetting?
Ofc that was just random example where one person walks in front scouting for enemies while rest of the party walks little bit behind trying to be silent but not hiding or anything. I find the idea interesting that because the person a head is using Avoid Notice they don't get to roll perception to see enemies, instead if enemies are trying to hide they roll against player's perception DC! So if you want to find enemies who might be hiding you would need to use Search exploration activity where you get to roll Perception against their stealth DC while they roll Stealth against everyone's perception DC? Meaning it makes sense someone in the party to use Search when rogue with trap finder avoid notice in front because they might miss some of the enemies ❤ but am I wrong?
I tried my best with Dyslexia to summarize and make it readable :< hope it is not that bad.
@@xezzee,
Sort of. Exploration activities are a group of actions that players typically do when exploring.
The way you described Neo's actions "scout for enemies" means they are taking on the Scout Exploration Activity. The Scout Exploration Activity is used when a person wants to go ahead of the party to find potential threats. It grants this player the _mechanical_ benefit of increasing everyone's initiative rolls as it's presumed they have spotted the "threat" prior to the initiation of combat. _Narratively_ speaking, they are often being told to make Perception checks to hear/see said threats.
So, it does make sense, for Jack to "Scout" for the party... as the other members are distracted looking for concealed/hidden traps/secrets and/or magical hazards, like haunts.
Avoid Notice is mostly used by characters who rely on stealth for combat bonuses, like Rogues. It's there as a catch all for "I quietly walk down the hallway" when individuals (or an entire party) wants to
Neo should be saying "I quietly walk with the party, trying to keep my presence hidden from anything we encounter." Avoid Notice Exploration Activity allows Neo to benefit from his Surprise Attack class feature (I presume Neo is a Rogue) while also getting the passive benefits from the Trap Finder feat (the detection of Traps).
Tony will be looking for mundane things (secret doors, concealed secrets) Neo and Jack miss.
Rimuru will be looking for the magical things that the others can't find.
So, you got it, mostly, correct.
Friendly critisim: There are an absurd amount of ads on this video. Which I'm fine with, but every time an ad starts the difference in volume between you speaking and the ad is absurd. Youre very soft spoken and so I have you at above 50% volume, but the ads are screaming at me.
I'm unsure if others have a similar problem but it would be beneficial for me if your volume was increased. RUclips sucks at voluming ads reasonably, so I unserstand this isnt a totally you problem lol.
I've heard lots of RUclipsrs have been getting tons of ads on their videos through no fault of their own (with RUclips often putting much more ads than the RUclipsrs intended). It seems that RUclips's been shoving ads down people's throats due to the amount of people using adblockers, so it's like they're trying to make the most of those who don't have adblockers/RUclips Premium.
I do agree that Ronald should increase the volume of his vids though.
@@Sunny_Haven Yeah of course, that's why I'm very understanding regarding ads right now. In fact even if he put all the ads there himself I don't really mind. My ears just hurt lol.
@@william4996 Just get an adblocker at this point lol
5e critical hits are generally much simpler but also more boring. PF2e's critical hit effects for weapon traits and runes and class features makes it much more exciting and impactful yes, but critical hits at higher levels can trigger so many effects or modify so many on-hit effects. Not doubling the flat damage on 5e critical hits feels weird sometimes. The 5% chance for any Joe Schmo to hit and critical an ancient red dragon fuels that weird 'bounded accuracy you can totally use any monster against any party but not really because it actually doesn't work in practice" shenanigans. But you're also not dealing with Fatal or Deadly dice, you don't have take critical specialization into weapon choice, you don't have easily accessible runes that arc lightning or corrode armour or light them on fire. Without a VTT a critical hit can take so long to resolve as you slowly go through all your effects.
Simpler is not exchangeable with better. Everyone plays homebrew, to some extent, and anybody can homebrew the game simpler. However the table prefers to play.
No bonus stacking and fewer bonus categories isn't necessarily better than 3e spam stacking, although it is obviously simpler.
5E is designed for new RPG players. Less math overall and harder to die. You have access to magic items earlier which ppl want to feel important. Less things to think about when creating characters.
I see clearly you've never DM'ed anything serious.
- If you are looking for easy system for new players, just play any one sheet system. D&D neither good for tactical combat nor roleplay for new players.
- In 5e 1st level Wizard have like 5% to instantly die from crit. I would not say it's harder to die.
- In Pf2e your character don't need borrowing power from items to feel important. The source of power is a character and feats, not items.
- Less thinks when creating characters means your DM has a lot more to think later to somehow balance the game and players. D&D is unbalanced, exploitable and requires homebrew duct tape to somehow work. Trust me, throwing more on backs of DM is not a good thing.
@@Adramachjust do a EA and shove the DM into the pit of swords.
Honestly, I find PF2e to be slightly easier than 5e, as it's better designed and more consistently written. Even though it has more rules to work with, they mostly follow a specific guideline, making them much easier to pick up as you go along as opposed to 5e's mess of natural langauge.
Additionally, 5e has many aspects that make it far more complex than a lot of its fanbase is resistant to recognizing, either out of stubbornness or ignorance. The biggest aspect is exception based rules - there's a lot feats and class features that give a character the ability to interact with specific rules differently than the norm, two-weapon fighting being a prime example.
Thankfully, there are legit easier systems than both 5e and PF2e on the market. Dungeon World, Worlds Without Number, Index Card RPG, and Savage Worlds are some of the examples I like to give.
I don't like that boni don't stack. Being inspired and blessed should stack in my opinion. Boni from different sources should stack.
But I like that it's a flat bonus and not an extra die. It's less random, more predictable, easier to balance.
It's also adds complexity. You have to either look up or remember where each bonus is coming from so you don't stack them on accident.
@@MichaelG485It can also break encounters wide open too.
I agree with at least 95% of this and the general conclusion and point that, while 5e may be a bit simpler, it sure ain't *simple.* And PF2 is, in many ways, more intuitive, user-friendly, and easy to play. A lot of the added complexity is in character creation or is GM-facing, so is solved with an experienced, patient GM, and with pre-gen builds.
I have a buncha nitpicks but the main two are:
1) Exhaustion is an unfair comparison. The fair comparison is conditions in both systems, as a whole. Exhaustion is a discrete system, sure, but it's a relatively versatile one, and many character sheets or cheat sheets just... have it there. I mean, it's bad, it's too harsh to use as broadly as they wanted to use it, but that's besides the point, we're just talking simplicity, not quality. 5e has fewer conditions, and most of them are easier to remember the specifics on than PF2s, which get quickly confusing and overwhelming. I think PF2's conditions are *worth* that complexity, just like wand charges are worth the complexity in 5e, but it *is* added complexity.
2) The advantage/disadvantage example... i think highlights the opposite of your point. The PF2 version with discrete conditions is *more* complex. It's *better,* sure (arguably; but i'd be arguing that side), but it's not *simpler.* You're off-topic here. All you have to do with the 5e version is figure out if there's advantage and/or disadvantage and be done and ignore how many times each applies. Where in PF2 you have to figure out a bunch of conditions. It's kinda the inverse of the "bunch of +1dxs stacking" vs "a single +1 that doesn't stack" example from earlier. Wherein one might argue that sure PF2's solution is simpler, but 5e's might be more fun. I miss my +1dxs, as a support player! It's so much more fun! But that's irrelevant to the simplicity topic. So, so should that PF2's solution on the darkness wolf scent fight is more interesting. We're just talking simplicity. And i don't think that the rules in the PF2 example are more intuitive or easier to work with, at all. They're more logically consistent; a more accurate simulation. But that's different from being intuitive. When there's largely one tool in the toolbox -- advantage/disadvantage -- it's *very* intuitive to know which tool to use. And just having to know if there's a single instance of either and being done is quite simple. Overly so, sure, maybe, but then we're getting off-topic.
So many people go on about conditions when that doesn't matter. Bonuses/penalties of the same type don't stack. If you have a -3 status (conditions) and a -2 status you have...a -3. 5e is the only D&D system that I know of that has UNCONDITIONAL stacking of dice and numbers. No D&D prior or offshoot does this. Older editions had a ton of types of bonuses, but even then they still didn't stack of the same type. Also, though you have many conditions they each affect different things and thus when you perform an strength based action really only enfeebled matters, but not clumsy or stupify.
A lot of the problems you call out with advantage/disadvantage are a result of badly-written specifics in 5e, rather than with the advantage system itself. Conditions in Pathfinder are much more carefully written than in 5e.
But the pain of remembering lots of bonuses is real (and was even worse back in 3.5). It leads to metagaming, because if a number is close to a threshold (and smart players will often work out the AC or DC they need), people go casting about for any bonus that could push them over the line. Of course they don't put the same effort into finding penalties.
The benefit of the advantage system is separating inherent bonuses (your proficiency etc) from circumstantial ones (blinded, invisible, prone etc). So once you rolled with advantage, no amount of scrambling around can give you more advantage.
And it really does cut down on the maths people need to do at the table, which I'm gradually realising is an accessibility issue. Some people - and not stupid people - just aren't good at mental arithmetic. I've seen players struggle with d10+2, never mind d20+13+4+1+2+1+3.
Yeah, I can't imagine how hard getting into a lot of TTRPGs would be for a person with dyscalculia. D&D... I _think_ would be better for them? Since most of the numbers they need to track are just on their character sheets. If they're playing a Martial, anyway. Spellcasters with their fifty d6s probably wouldn't be fun for them in any game
"When you roll a 20" - shows a d12
I see a lot of people in the comments, predictably, making a lot of bad faith arguments about how this video just demonstrates why PF2 is too complex because you have a lot of rules to learn. In my opinion though this is like saying that Yu-Gi-Oh is a simpler game than Magic: The Gathering because it doesn't use a bunch keywords you have to learn.
Then you play your first game of modern Yugioh and cry
@jacksonhorrocks4281 See? Just like 5th edition!
@@jacksonhorrocks4281and you die from weaponized cat girl cringe. 😂
Also having to read the card like 4 times to see what it does.
Lord.. let's not talk about D&D fall damage. A system that makes absolutely no sense. I can fall 3 miles. and SURVIVE!!! Yea... who wrote these rules? I've played D&D 5e for years and I don't know WHY anyone would think it's less complex than PF2. I started learning PF2 a few months ago, on and off, with a hope to either play or DM some games, and while it has a learning curve, it's actually far less complex to me than 5e and actually makes a lot more sense.
I use the Improvising Damage guidelines for very long falls. A deadly high-level fall would thus cap out at 24d10 instead of 20d6.
Fall damage has a real life maximum because of terminal velocity. So falling 3 miles is not anymore dangerous than falling 1000 feet or something
It's an artifact from older editions. Half the classes used lower Hit Dice (Rogue d6, Wizards d4), Con bonuses were lower, and most classes stopped gaining hit dice above 9th level (and instead only gained a fixed 1 to 3 hit points per level).
To be fair, you take no fall damage with the Cat Fall feat xD with legendary acrobatics. Wanna fall from space? No damage!
Ok, 5es fall damage and its survivability is actually the one thing that I think kinda makes sense
Like, you have this guy that can shake off an ancient dragons fire breath and a disintegration beam spell but when he survives falling down a cliff that is where you drawn the line?
Overall all great video as always
although some of you points weren't ways PF2e is easier, but rather only better game design
for example, stacking effects. you can't tell me that rolling a bunch of dice and adding them all up is more complex than how PF2e handles stacking bonuses
its good game design for sure, but not simpler.
I should also have to say, i really can't how carrying capacity is easier in any of the systems. In both you add up numbers until you get to a certain max value determined by your strength.
Rolling dice for bonuses means you have to add up all those numbers every time. In PF2 you almost always add exactly one d20 to a set number that's made of a few static modifiers. That's much simpler from roll to roll.
@@kryptonianguest1903 you're right.
i was too focused on the possibility of having multiple sources of the same type, that's the only case i can think of when it is actually more complicated
Honestly stacking effects is cooler. Maybe its a bit more unbalanced but lets be fr, it's a fantasy game and it feels good when ur numbers get stupid. I wanna roll a 37 on my d20, that's hilarious
For me, the traits (PF2e’s greatest hallmark other than the three action system) are the most annoying. Have to look up half of them every time, because we invariably forget one of the multiple things a trait means. If there were only like 20 traits or so, that would be one thing, but there are scores of traits.
Well, if you have digital devices, oftentimes the sites link to what the traits mean. But it is more annoying to use when you only have books.
Encounter Building under 5e basically made me throw up my hands and walk away from the system.They went from a very elegant, balanced, and fun system in 4E, and barfed up that. I just can't handle it. Even if I have small quibbles about PF2E encounters (and frankly, I need more higher level experience before passing judgement), at least it works and does it without all the complications.
Big agree. it's so hard to design encounters because even the CR system doesn't make sense. A party of level 3s can just be one shot by the blue wyrmling's (CR3) breath attack.
The difference in complexity between PF2 and DnD5 is best described as such: Pathfinder has meaningful complexity, while in DnD it is often pointless or seemingly malicious. The example with invisibility in DnD, where designer defends this as intended, or the whole 1 non-cantrip spell per turn, shows that those rules are not part of some coherent framework. Pathfinder's conditions and traits are a framework. It is mOrE rUlEs, but the rules are here to help you, not tell you how stupidly and unintuitively the magical world works, because someone prefers to die on a hill rather than rethink their design choices. Also, often the comparison is not more vs less complex rules, but rules vs lack of rules. The lack of rules, options or guides is not the same as simpler rules. The result of not having a shovel to dig a hole is not simpler digging.
I will preface this by saying, I know the video was supposed to be about rules as written, but some homebrew rules are so common, that it might as well be an optional rule at this point.
Also, the DM in 5e is more empowered/burdened by (admittedly) lax rules, that makes homebrew so common. That is both a negative and a positive, depending on each person.
Suffice to say, I would argue 5e is simpler to learn/play by a player (as opposed to the DM) than pf2.
TL/DR: In my opinion, most of those points are not how simpler pf2 is, but how, if the players remember all the rules and terms, pf2 is faster to play that D&D.
Also some are straight up wrong.
(Sorry for the long post)
#1 Critical hits. This Is trivial (some people even prefer it, rolling dice feels good, also it's better to avoid huge variance)
#2 Fall damage. I guess? Also trivial imo, also, the calculations are not the only issue. 3 sentence rules vs 6 sentences, that insert some niche rule that makes it way more complicated.
#3 Number of attacks. ...and the nitpicking begins. So it's not simple to attack 2-3 time per round with the same modifiers each time, but its easier to calculate attack bonuses for each attack, attack bonuses for 2nd attack etc?
This point starts a theme of saying "less time = simpler" which is not the case. Simpler = less rules.
At the example given, the marilith demon, in 5e it takes more time to roll the attacks, sure.
But in pf2 you don't just attack or teleport, you attack aoe, or you attack defensively, or you attack single target.
Which one is simpler is subjective at best.
The above applies to minions. More time too attack? yes. Less rules to follow to do the attacks? I think so.
#4 More Dice! "D&D loves its dice" Yeah, and most players do too, that was on purpose.
Again one of those "less time = simpler".
Notice how the 5e smite just adds X amount of dice to the damage (after attacking I might add, no need to decide before).
"But pf2 smite evil is just an easy +4!" After you select a foe you can see. Dmg is 4 unless its 6. The duration is until your next round unless it isnt.
#5 Stacking effects. Did he just say stacking all benefits = more complex? Because "It shows the lack of limitations" that *could* happen in EXTREME occasions?
I admit I dont really feel this point is wrong, but just stacking everything in 5e vs knowing what things dont stack in pf2 is also subjective.
Also, I am *sure* that he wont do a 180º turn on this when talking about advantage/disadvantage, right? Stacking every bonus is more complex, we should have limitations amirite?
6# Opposed rolls. And again one of those "less time = simpler".
1st, like others said in the comments, you dont need to roll stealth before there is a chance someone spots you. You also dont do opposed rolls until someone *tries* to find you, you roll against... a DC=to the passive perception of the one you are hiding from.
LITTERALLY the "seek" from pf2 is like adding extra steps. You roll vs DC of enemy, then the enemy rolls vs your DC. Ooooor just roll at the same time? Like an opposed roll?
#7 Being vigiland (i.e. exploring?). "this can interrupt the flow of the game" But its simpler, isnt it?
-I want to do a roll.
-Yes do it/no dont do it.
Also, metagaming is surely not ideal, but if you see your buddy trying to find a hidden door and they go about it badly (low roll) you might as well try yourself, they might be on to something?
#8 Economy. Subjective, but also one of those aspects that are empowering/burdening DMs.
What if you want to have a low magic campaign? Surely magic items are more rare so more expensive, yes?
#9 Encumbrance. Simpler rules means the DM might use it. Better off without it, thanks but no thanks.
To clarify, I dont advocate being able to carry 15 weapons, camp supplies, etc. Just dont be unreasonable, as per what the DM says.
#10 Exhaustion. 1 table with all the effects (that are super simple), vs a whole bunch of status effects that have paragraphs upon paragraphs of explanations. No.
#11 Recourse tracking? How many classes you think a player has? From the examples given, a fighter needs to track second wind, action surge, superiority dice, but all of those refresh on short rest. Unless you are a 3rd lvl fighter/2nd lvl cleric/2nd lvl druid you dont track that much.
Also, tell me again about prepared spells? Not a worse case of resource tracking?
#12 Encounter building. Granted, but it makes no difference to a player.
#13 Multiclassing. Ok, WTF? Is he really saying multiclassing is more complex than *not* multiclassing?
Yeah, thanks Sherlock.
Also, it's pretty funny he is talking about the stat prerequisites for multiclassing and giving an example of a feat that has a stat prerequisite.
#14 Surprise round. Granted, even though the confusion is more with the specific rogue abilities, not the surprise round itself.
#15 Invisibility. As others said, Crawford is just wrong here. Even rules as written, the see invisibility makes an invisible enemy to be treated as visible for you. If it not invisible to you, the enemy doesnt get the benefits of invisibility against you.
Pf2 adds "a specter of awareness" which translates to an additional state just for fun, which is not more simple (undetected, hidden, concealed vs invisible, obscured)
#16 Traits. I would argue, having the players read up on the statblock of monsters, is less simple that the DM just saying "Your character knows that mental attacks dont work on zombies"
Crosschecking multiple abilities you have to see which one works on which monster? Not an example of simplicity.
He even admits:
"there is a learning curve, to... knowing these traits, but as you can see there's not a lot to learn in case of these traits, there are other traits that are more complicated."
Funny Crawford jab though.
#17 Advantage/disadvantage. 35:30 HE JUST WENT AND SAID IT IS SIMPLER WTF?
What was point #5 again??? Is it "intuitive" for buffs to not stack? 180º turn, that was the *worst* point.
#18 Action economy. Now, I will admit I am not well-versed in pf2 actions, but from a cursory search, you do have just 3 "Actions" but there is a list of 30, I repeat, 30, quite distinct and sometimes niche I might add, actions you can do (source: archives of Nethys)
So you must decide on which of those 30 actions you want to do for your 1st action.
You must decide on which of those 30 actions you want to do for your 2nd action.
You must decide on which of those 30 actions you want to do for your 3rd action.
(I am aware I am being dramatic here)
In contrast, 5e has half that number for your action.
Bonus action is overwhelmingly a class feature.
Move action is straightforward, just different terrain makes it a little different, sometimes.
This point is subjective, time to learn the rules and playing the game faster vs having simpler rules once more.
#19 Spellcasting. Another subjective point, but I would say, the versatility of upcasting spells whenever you like, and the fact that you dont lose the spell when you cast it, is way more simple than managing spells prepared in pf2 (in case of non-spontaneous casters).
Also, the spontaneous casters in pf2 cant upcast at all, they need to relearn a spell at a higher level. (exception being signature spells from your class).
#20 Concentration. Granted, even though that is a balance decision, because many of those spells have powerful effects, especially if you could have them overlap with others (think haste+flying for example).
In version 3.5 spellcasters were godlike at high-ish level because of stuff like this.
#21 Online recourses. Agreed 100%.
In conclusion, not even half of the points raised in this video are going to sound valid to a 5e player.
Most sound like cherry-picking or assume players that already know all the rules and are ready to play.
Also in the description of the video he even admits pf2 is more complex for a new player.
All the above are obviously according to my opinion.
(Sorry for the long post again)
*According to my opinion* well that's your opinion, init? You're being pretty subjective. Your basic premise of 'simpler = less rules' is not true, because simpler = easier to understand and play, not 'less rules'. If I had a game with only five rules but all those rules were a page long, that game is not simple. PF2e is easier to understand, once you put in a little playtime to get a feel for how things work. 5e has many unintuitive systems that people either have to ignore or work around because it is not an easy system to understand. I still forget what is and is not a bonus action all the time, because it is not simple to have to remember two different action categories in your head, and generally rules lawyer that you can do a bonus action on an action for simplicity. Working out what is and is not advantage in play is not easy to understand either without having to go through a list of everything and working out whether it's worth casting darkness right now. I prefer just having a list of effects that I can be added and removed.
What you also don't seem to understand is that PF2e gives GMs far, far more tools to make the game easy on their players. You say that players have to read up on monster statblocks in PF2e, but they don't, because the GM can just tell them from a glance at the monster sheet whether the player can do a thing or not in an intuitive way. 'Does phantasmal killer affect a blind creature?' 'Yes, he sees it in his head, it's a mental effect' 'oh cool' versus 5e phantasmal killer 'Does phantasmal killer affect a blind creature' then the GM has to make a decision on how the spell description plays out, because it just says 'an illusory manifestation of its deepest fears, visible only to that creature', but doesn't tell you *how* it is visible so at two different tables the answer to that is 'yes' and 'no'. This is why PF2e is just better in many regards.
You're also just being an overdramatic grognard about the number of available actions spelled out in the rules. I thought we all knew players like it better when they can do more things, and when there's a rule that tells them how they can do the thing so they know exactly how to do it again. Rather than the GM making something up on the spot, and then being inconsistent about it later.
I really commend your efforts here, it's a mind numbing task going through and unpacking all the little misleading statements he goes on about in all his comparison videos and I really respect the mental fortitude that takes. I'm sorry to say that all this will fall on deaf ears, it's unclear which points he realizes he's making a ridiculous or contradictory statement about and which he genuinely believes and the fact that it's unclear means it cannon be meaningfully engaged with because it's not an actual effort for comparison it's primarily an exercise in propaganda in effort to counter the perceived effects of a negative video made by some jerk. So in the end this guy will just lie and it doesn't matter because he's not available to be persuaded because he's not saying what he genuinely believes and doesn't care about the validity of what he's saying. I'm commenting because despite all this I appreciate your efforts and feel your pain
@@therat1117
Like I said in my original comment, I would argue 5e is simpler to learn/play by a player (as opposed to the DM) than pf2.
What you called "once you put in a little playtime" is much more true for 5e, because of the amount of rules that exist for pf2 that you need to learn.
I might even agree that some rules are unintuitive in 5e, or that pf2 has more "rules that tells them how they can do the thing so they know exactly how to do it again". But that is the point, pf2 is more rule heavy, and learning everything during play is harder AND way more disruptive to the flow of the game than in 5e.
*Let's compare a jump check of 16ft in 5e vs pf2. In both systems its an athletics check.
In 5e you add proficiency (if you have it) + str modifier and you roll a d20 vs a DC the DM gives you. I'd say thats simple.
In pf2, you need to see what is your acrobatics rank. You need to take the stride action towards the direction of your jump. You need to take the long leap action. Then you need to roll a d20, with a -2 if you are wearing armour, vs a DC= number of feet you want to jump.*
Now, I known that I wrote the above example in a way that is convoluted, and in actual play its not slower than in 5e, if you already know the rules.
But if you dont know the rules, that is the way you need to learn it so that you "know exactly how to do it again".
Is it easier to learn/remember rules like that, or to learn/remember that your class has 2-3 things you can do that are "bonus actions"? I'd say the latter.
For you other point about statblocks, how is it easier for players to just ask the DM, when in 5e you also ask the DM?
Even though it is clearer in pf2 for the DM, the fact is you almost always need to ask the DM for this information, because you character might not know it, depending on the context.
So, being inconsistent between tables, is easily solved the first time it comes up.
I had to look up "grognard". That's a good word!
3rd point, yes, players like it better when they can do more things.
Unless they dont know what they can do, in which case learning it is harder, i.e. less simple.
Also, lastly, like in the video point #17 is mentioned, when you have advantage, you just have advantage, you dont add more to it. Same with disadvantage. If you have both, they cancel each other out.
If you have disadvantage already, darkness doesnt give you disadvantage. But gives the enemies disadvantage. Easy choice.
In pf2 there is "a list of effects that I can be added and removed."
For any attack roll/spell, that is:
blinded, broken (for armour), clumsy, drained, grabbed etc., a total of 20+ potential effects you need to track, that dont always stack, but you nonetheless need to know which apply, and that is bad enough.
@@wrathisme4693
The sad part is that, apart from the spell system and how I hate prepared spells, not being able to freely upcast (which is why I wouldnt play a caster in pf2), I like the pf2 system slightly better. Free online recourses are awesome, and clear rules make it a joy to play with veteran players.
But the amount of rules you need to learn makes it hard to recommend to new players, and most other people dont want to change from 5e.
@@Sir1Nicholas 5e was not simple to learn *if I wanted to play effectively* as a new player who previously had DnD 3.5e experience because the game was so painfully limited. I had absolutely no idea what to do with the system to build my first druid in my preferred manner, for example, because there were painfully few options to choose from and few abilities given to me. Trackless Step and Woodland Stride were removed so I can't even be party scout anymore, which feels like a major downgrade in a basic manner from 3.5e. 5e feels like it gives you *an* way to play each class, and you have to fight the system to do what you want. Fighter? Sword and Board is pointless, get a two-hander and Great Weapon Mastery, and why would you pick any subclass other than Battle Master. Rangers don't even get animal companions automatically, which is completely headscratching as that is a very basic part of their class fantasy. 5e feels as if it's really, really afraid to give you any form of real actionable power in the game.
That aside, you're wrong about jumping rules completely. In PF2e you can automagically jump 10-15 ft horizontally and 3 ft vertically, no checks (which is why you specified 16 ft). In 5e you have to have a running start of 10 ft for a long jump and jump your strength score, or half without the start, and can jump vertically 3 + your STR modifier, and anything else is GM fiat. PF2e can *additionally* allow you to long jump further than 10-15 ft if you do a run up and take an Athletics check DC = the number of ft, and high jump 5 ft (8 ft on a critical) vertically if you pass a DC 30 Athletics check. I like the PF2e system better because I'm not relying on GM fiat for me to jump a certain distance, I know what number I have to beat if I want to jump more than 10-15 ft, and that lets me make better decisions. Funny how things look more sensical for why I would like the PF2e system if you know the actual rules. Now you can take feats to be better at jumping in PF2e, but that's a different question.
If you wanted to jump 16 ft horizontally in PF2e, it's a very easy DC 16 Athletics check (if you don't have your Athletics bonus written down before session, what are you doing), and if you want to jump 16 ft in 5e it depends on your STR score and whether your GM allows you to jump further and if they do they have to pull the DC for the Athletics check out of thin air. That is not a better system in 5e.
But I don't have 2-3 things I can do as a bonus action. Say I play a battle master figher. I can use my bonus action to second wind but only if I haven't done so already today but if I short rested I can and I could also use rally (if I picked it) but I can't if I don't have a superiority dice and I might want to use those to hit harder and otherwise I can shove. Yay. Shove. That's not a lot of things and I have to remember a bunch of nonsense about whether I can even use my abilities right now because I'm not allowed RAW to use my own abilities half the time.
Meanwhile a level 3 fighter in PF2e can decide whether they want to use their reaction to AoO or actively use their shield to block damage (because oh yay a shield isn't just an AC stick), and can attack, run away (as most enemies don't have AoO), and dive for cover or fall prone in the same round because a wizard is about to fireball. In 5e with the same I could hit, I have to debate whether I want to run away or tank a fireball to not get hit by AoO, and then my bonus action depends on five different 'ifs' as to whether I can or even want to use one of my potential bonus action abilities. Honestly, the stupid thing is that 90% of the time in 5e it's better to tank the fireball. And that feels really really dumb.
Like yes, you need to ask the GM, but in PF2e the GM tells you a thing has a particular trait, so you can ask after that trait later, and it just speeds everything up rather than ad-hoc'ing it. You also skimmed straight over that inconsistency between tables is a big feels bad man when you're used to playing with a particular ruling that is actually GM fiat and not in the rules. I am not content to let a GM dictate to me what fun I am allowed to have. Screw the GM, I have rules, and that's great actually.
My issue with advantage is that it's really asinine to work out whether you have advantage or not. High ground (Anakin)? Not advantage. Prone? Advantage, maybe, depends. Spell gives me advantage? Okay but the drow just cast faerie fire and now I have to work out whether they have advantage against me, I have advantage against them, or both. And what does advantage apply to? Damage rolls, attack rolls, saving throws, what? So I can have disadvantage on attack rolls but advantage on saving throws whereas my opponent also has advantage on attack rolls against me but only when I'm inside the darkness cloud but if I step outside they don't. This is annoying as a system, and really game-y. Just put a little status effect token by my character ffs. The most status effects I've seen at any one time in pathfinder is 3 and generally I keep a scratch pad with me anyway just to update what effects are on my character at any given time.
Your problem seems to be that you think players are simple-minded folk who want to go 'Grog hit man with axe' and not think about how Grog might want to hit man with axe in tactically sound manners, or whether it would be adviseable to axe at the moment and instead throw a javelin. Personally, I enjoy having more clear information about what is going on, and more ability to choose what I want to do, and I think most players do too, considering how often they ask 'can I do this?' Sure it might take a minute to onboard players, but honestly they don't need to know the entire game to have fun playing it, and I think it's better to let them feel they have the ability to do a lot of things and that those things are in the rules if they want to check them for themselves, rather than relying on GM fiat and house rules to make the game work properly.
So far transitioning to PF2E has been much simpler than all the belly-achers made it seem. The one thing I still have my trouble wrapping my head around is transitioning from exploration stealth to encounter stealth.
Since the rulebook seems slightly vague on this compared to everything else, I’ve been rolling the characters stealth vs the perception dcs of whatever they’re trying to sneak past or sneak up on. If they fail they jig is up and I go into initiative. If they pass, they can sneak past the enemies or get in position. Once they’re ready to strike, I just have them roll stealth for initiative and perception as normal for the enemies and try to flavor it as how sneakily they do things like draw their bow that alerts the enemies to start searching if they’re higher on the initiative order.
Hackmaster 5th edition roleplaying game is still, head and shoulders, over Pathfinder and D&D.
Hackmaster 5th edition roleplaying game, from kenzer and company
The more i learn about pathfinder the more I respect the absolute consistency of rules. It tickles my nerdy game designer brain to see such tight design. It's still a bit too complex for my taste to run it, but I would love to play.
The game designer in me cringes at Jeremy Crawford's invisibility explanation, especially when he says "the target gains no advantage from the invisibility condition," which is extremely misleading in a game where "advantage" is a game term.
Regarding movement, action & bonus actions Vs 3 actions; I'd love to see both games take it further and make reactions a basic action too. Imagine a monk with patient defence choosing to use no actions on their turn and instead using multiple reactions to counter attack the enemies surrounding them, or a knight with sentinel planting themselves when to hold the line reacting to each enemy that tries to pass
Anima: Beyond Fantasy does what you said with monk
during your turn you can either attack multiple times(depending on how many attacks you have) or you can attack less but counter attack when you successfully dodge your oponents attack
All of 5Es rules are available on a wiki that is easy to find. I actually have a bit of issues with Nethys.
Caveat here, I don't like 5e. I'm writing my own system because of how awful 5e is to me, but I don't think PF is the answer either. To me they are both extremes, one simple to the detriment of the game and its players (5e), and one way too crunchy with way too many options (pf).
1. Critical hits, simpler yes, but more boring yes. See additional dice.
2. Fall damage, 100% agree, fall damage is not nearly dangerous enough in 5e.
3. Number of attacks, fair, pets can be annoying, but PF fix for that kinda makes pet builds no fun from what you've shown me.
4. Additional dice, simpler yes, but people like to roll more dice. From a GM standpoint, yes it slows it down, but that's what people like, they like to see many dice lol. Let em have it.
5. Stacking effects, couldn't disagree more. PF system is simpler yes, but also by limiting what you can stack, that takes away from party play and reliability, and both systems lack this to be honest.
6. Opposed rolls, does not seem simpler sorry. Seems more convoluted, and passive scores are silly anyway. Almost nobody uses them in 5e because of how stupid they are.
7. Being vigilant, I see what you're talking about with the following the herd mentality of rolling, but that just puts it on the GM in PF lol, not really simpler.
8. Economy, completely agree. The economy in 5e is atrocious. Having things listed out is a way better option.
9. Encumbrance, "bulk" is simpler, because it's just a slot system named differently haha, but from my experience, it's more immersive calculating weight, and players have preferred to have weight over slots even though its more work.
10. Exhaustion, 5e exhaustion is not simple, and is easily fixed with simple -1 per stack systems, but PF system is NOT simpler lol, I mean just read that drained status and tell me that's easier?
11. Resource tracking, interesting. 5e each class having a unique resource to keep track of is easy, which ones reset on which kind of rest.. not so much. PF does seem simpler.
12. Encounter building - absolutely 100% 5e encounter system and CR system is a joke lol. Even using it as described doesn't work properly. It at best gives you a rough estimate. I haven't GM'd pathfinder to know if that system works better or not.
13. Multiclassing - Can of worms here. Multiclassing shouldn't be a thing IMO, that to me means the classes are not good enough on their own, so you feel the need to customize by multiclassing. Basically saying your class is boring without multiclassing. If you've ever tried to make a multi-class system, you would understand just how difficult it is to balance. PF multiclassing, looks easier on paper until you see just how many feats there are in the game lol, hope you have a lot of time to read.
14. Surprise - PF wins that easy. To be fair though, I've never run into the situation you showed in Critical Role, so it can't be that common?
15. Invisible, 5e they wrote that in there because just because you are invisible doesn't mean you make no sound. Still, that explanation from JC was atrocious. I'm sure any GM could adjudicate that simply. IF you can see invisibility, then that person doesn't get the bonus of being invisible. Not sure that PF version is simpler? Having to keep track of 3 different conditions?
16. Traits - I do like the well thought out trait system of PF.
17. Advantage/Disadvantage - Don't really care for this system tbh and agree with you on this one.
18. Action Economy - Action points will always be simpler hands down.
19. Spellcasting - I did not know of that rule in 5e about bonus action spell casting, so I've never enforced that one haha.. I do like the spell casting action economy use in PF that seems pretty cool.
20. Concentration - Easy to remember, silly you can only concentrate on one thing and that it's a CON save, not INT? I'll fix that. PF, so what if a player forgets to sustain the spell, cause there are so many damn options, then decides, oh hey I forgot to do that, can I undo the last thing I did and maintain that spell? Seems like it would happen frequently. So simpler.. no, but more options yes which is nice.
Great video and good points, though I disagree with a few.
I can never understand why people insist that too many options is bad. Players like options. I like options. I like options that fit with my character building, rather than having to improvise at the table. More options for players and GMs means you can keep things fresh and not have to improvise constantly. I do not see why so many 5e players are so afraid of having options, other than that they are so used to a system that doesn't give them any. If you're going to have a game as mechanics-heavy as DnD or PF, I'd prefer that it have options out the wazoo that feel good to use, than so few as to make me bored after my first few campaigns.
@@therat1117 They're not saying they're bad. They're saying fewer options is simpler. That's a benefit to some, and a drawback to others.
I think PF2 is a well designed game. There is a lot to like about it. That said, i prefer 5e and don't agree with many of your points. 5e did put more on the DM than the players, but I've been DMing long enough that i prefer that over the innumerable feats and conditions in PF2. Too fiddly for me, although i have enjoyed playing it as a bresk from 5e on occasion.
If 5e wasn't published by Wizards of the Coast, it'd be a footnote. Alas, brand recognition and marketing.
Pf2e vs 5e, to me, is like the difference between C and Python. 5e is simpler and more popular, but PF2e is more robust and can handle a lot more strain, especially in optimization and gameplay balance.
Ok I’m going to be honest you made some good points but you lost me at #1 being crits. I have played both systems for years now and there is no shot any new player would pick the PF2E crit as simpler