8:10 Cantrips in PF2e do not use spell slots. They *do* automatically heighten to half your level (rounded up), meaning when you're 5th level your cantrips are considered 3rd-level spells, but they still don't use spell slots.
what do they change tho? From what i could read that means nothing for most cantrips, since even highted, basicaly nothing change (the dice, reach, target, etc). Or am lost in something?
@@gabrieldossantossanta5656 you get additional dice for more damage when heightened it goes from 1d4 to 2d4 and keeps going up at the appropriate levels you can get reach if you take the reach spell feat that most spellcasters get
Most cantrips get something for being higher level. Extra damage dice, larger effect, etc. If a spell says "Heightened (+1)" that means it gets the listed increase (like "+1d4 damage") per increase in spell level.
It could be very harsh, perhaps it would be better to approach the matter carefully and avoid feeding the "better system debate". But yes, it would be very interesting
Issue is, WHICH 5e ranger?? There have been stages to the ranger’s design in 5e. At release it was a poor fit for the way people play the game, was largely underpowered, and only had one functional subclass. XgtE gave it a phenomenal subclasses in gloomstalker that helped balance out the weakness of the core class. TcoE basically reworked the entire class to make it actually a good chassis, reworked beast master so it actually functions quite well, and gave other good subclasses that aren’t as bonkers as gloomstalker, BUT it framed all these reworks as “optional rules” so you have to beg your DM to be allowed to play the actually well designed ranger (a great rework locked behind a needlessly awkward implementation IMO). I feel an honest comparison would need to include both the PHB ranger and the Tasha’s rework, but the rework is technically only available with DM permission.
@@Lockfin I would need to read up on the Tasha's ranger again, but I'd lean towards PHB as that IS the core class. Like you said, a lot of other changes have been UA or "optional" so wouldn't be available at every table.
Yeah, that's true, in Path 2e it doesn't exist, you must spend a spell slot; actually is something that I like, because you must prepare well your spells, depend how much hard you want to let the way. The rituals in Path 2e are like: I spend one day to call a demon and ask for immortality.
This one thing that for me is meh, as a druid or wizard in 5e the one spell i use a lot as ritual is detect magic. But that's a cantrip in pathfinder 2e. I think what ritual spells bring to 5e is what focus spells brings to P2e. But that's just me.
@@reyvagabond3344 Well that's right, the spells that you'd use in DnD like a ritual in Path2 are just the most common cantrip, so it doesn't matter to much. But the focus spells are totally not the same, because they are used like mini powers, for ranger, champions, and other martial clases
Pathfinder 2e does have rituals, its where a lot of really cool downtime spells have been moved! Its not just casting a normal spell though, rituals are always weirder and take longer.
@@InnsannaStories Additionally, ANYONE can learn a ritual in PF2, not just spellcasters. This means that a fighter can learn the Inveigle ritual and perform it to get the effect, as well as being a secondary caster to a greater ritual lead by someone else, as long as they have the appropriate skill.
I like that PF2E retained the Vancian system for Wizards. That was a major differentiator between Wizards and Sorcerers, contrasting the Wiz's wider spell selection for the Sorc's on-the-spot flexibility. It also makes more sense for the Int caster to be more rigid due to the magic coming from study, while the Cha caster is more free-form.
@@Tystodisagreed. Charisma is used for emotional influence and if the magic isnt fron study or wisdom, but inherient magic, Charisma makes sense as an "innate ability" modifier.
In 5th edition, cantrips are known and you get a limited number. In Pathfinder 2E, You get more cantrips up front and have to choose daily which ones you're going to have available. Invite the dish and, you couldn't even retrain your cantrips until very recently when Tasha's caldron of everything came out.
Great video, small note, identify is not a spell in pf2e. Comprehend language is my go to for spell substitution. Another use of spell substitution is the ability to ''spell dump'' in the evening. Like let's say it's been a light day and you have a lot of spell slots left. End of the day, take an hour to reshuffle spell slots and then cast alarm everywhere, glyph of warding everywhere, make a house sprout out of nowhere, protect it from the elements, etc. etc.
Another good video as always. As a person who started in 1E i thought that the 5e wizard was more like a sorcerer that the traditional Wizard that ive been used to so i prefer the PF2e Wizard. As to you next Video my three choices for a class comparison would be Bard, Barbarian, or Ranger.
5e Wizard is more powerful not due to the class itself but by 5e's magic system overtuned in favor of it as opposed to pf2e wizard and the schools are strictly better, but the options for pf2e wizard make it more interesting.
Important to note that in One D&D, spell casting is changing. While its not going to be the same as PF2E, it is more restrictive than the current edition.
Instaclicked and went straight to the comment section without watching to say this is an easy win for pathfinder. If only for the degrees of success mechanic this would already be skewed heavily in the favor of PF but with how concentration works VS sustaining spells, this just widens the gap. And I haven't even gotten started with how few spells actually need sustaining. Wish I hadn't wasted so many years playing 5e, damn glad I finally dumped my old playgroup.
I agree. While I have mixed opinions on the straight-up Vancian spellcasting of PF2e prepared casters, I like how it makes prepared and spontaneous casters feel much more distinct, so picking between a wizard or a sorcerer feels like the choice matters more IMO. I also like that the distinction also lets metamagic be available to multiple casters, so unlike D&D5e, basically any caster who wants to be able to modify spells (without requiring homebrew/GM benevolence) can do so.
With the One D&D playtesting, they're experimenting with like half-vancian. You prepare a number of spells of each level equal to the number of slots at that level. And they're all prepared. You still have flexible spellcasting, but now you can't just load up on your 2 or 3 highest level slots in valuable spells. I have mixed feelings on it, and mainly, I was expecting it to be the replacement for spells-known, but it seems they're doing this for all spellcasters.
Yeah I'm a bit disappointed that they're completely removing the distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters. I think it's important to distinguish casters and having trade-offs makes the games more interesting.
I'd be interested in a mana pool type system... so all your combined level slots is your mana pool and the level of a spell is the minimum requirement of mana needed
I *feel* like there might be variant rules for something like this in both systems? I've definitely seen something like this in one of the books on my shelf!
@@IcarusGames dnd's variant is kinda op imo and make warlocks too weal cause warlock are clas capable of most blasting normally (sadly, said blasting is overshadowed by eldriych blast)
PF2's prepared casting isn't a big departure from 5e. 5e is a big departure from every other edition. On the one hand, 5e wizards are nearly just spontaneous casters, and maybe they should just be if the mechanics for spell slots are going to stay the same. On the other hand, I despise having to lock in spells for prepared casting because of how bad it makes narrow use-case spells feel, so maybe that's a good thing...
Yeah 5e is the outlier in that regard among D&D editions. The way I see it, prepared or no, chances are in an "average" adventuring day a wizard is going to have a solid core of spells that they always take, and only a few slots that they would actually benefit from the flexibility in. It just encourages the wizard in PF2 to think about the upcoming adventure a little more and consider their spells more carefully.
When I first saw how pathfinder 2e prepares spells I almost just went straight back to D&D cause wizards and magic casters are always my main roles I love to use. But after giving it some thought, creating a level 1 wizard Universalist/Staff Nexus I can honestly say the long term power and drain abilities are a somewhat worthy trade off for increased character customization flexibility and better action economy in combat with PF2E than D&D. This video only solidified that for me more seeing the side by side comparison. The only problem most people seem to ignore anyways, as will my group, that makes the choice harder is magic items and resonance which I feel honestly hurts all classes a lot. Great video!
as a note many spells in pf2e do 1/2 damage on a save and only no damage on a crit success (double damage on a crit failure). With the +10/-10 crit rules i tend to find my caster doing some damage every round and on a good role a butt ton of damage.
NGL, the spells need to be assigned to slots thing makes me actively avoid playing spellcasters in games where it appears. Spellcasting takes enough fiddling with choices as it is, I don't want to have to juggle any more considerations from long rest to long rest.
A lot of folks feel like that! I know the wizard player in my current game felt that way when the first heard the concept, but once they started building out their wizard they found it to not be nearly as much of problem as they first thought. There are also alternative rules that make prepared spellcasting more like 5e's too
If it's because of how prepared casting works in PF2 that's fair. It does sound like a nightmare coming from 5e. In the moment to moment gameplay it's not actually as significant as it first seems though.
This makes the PF2 wizard sound like a major pain in the ass to play. I can get behind strategy and planning but having to plan each one of your spell slots sounds an absolute chore and very limiting. And only getting 2 new spells is a bit weak but it's easier for noobs to deal with.
Likely a controversial take, but I actually think 2e casters are stronger than 5e casters. You get so many more spells, not just from your class but you can get scrolls and a magical staff. Plus your acquisition of slots never slows down. Plus buffs and debuffs matter more without advantage being so powerful and easy to get. Additionally the Degrees of Success make them have more pop. You have tons more magic, plenty higher level spells, well selected spells can be incredibly powerful. And a couple of the spells are just straight stronger in 2e.
I don't believe I agree, for the simple reason that pf2e spells don't break the game. Degrees of success are cool and crit fails are devastating, but for basically any control spell, a pf2e crit failure is as powerful as a 5e failure. Pf2e slow hinders one target significantly, 5e slow cripples six targets completely. Having far more slots doesn't help much when one turn is worth so much more. Also, 5e spellcasters have far more powerful utility, since all the utility spells are usually stronger, 1-2 levels lower for the same effect and/or have ritual casting attached EDIT: I agree they're probably stronger at the highest levels, due to a suruplus of massively high-level slots. Top level PF2e is ridiculously high-powered.
@@rednidedni3875 , You can't really compare spells on a 1:1 ratio due to the mechanics of the game is entirely different. You need to compare the spells and the associated game mechanics simultaneously. Let's look at the spell Slow, as you mentioned it. "Slow Casting Time: 1 action Range: 120 feet Target: Up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range Components: V S M (A drop of molasses) Duration: Concentration, Up to 1 minute Classes: Sorcerer, Wizard You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration. An affected target’s speed is halved, it takes a −2 penalty to AC and Dexterity saving throws, and it can’t use reactions. On its turn, it can use either an action or a bonus action, not both. Regardless of the creature’s abilities or magic items, it can’t make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn. If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn’t take effect until the creature’s next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can’t, the spell is wasted. A creature affected by this spell makes another Wisdom saving throw at the end of its turn. On a successful save, the effect ends for it." "Slow Source Core Rulebook pg. 370 3.0 Traditions arcane, occult, primal Bloodline demonic Deities Korada, Lorthact, Matravash Cast somatic, verbal Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature Saving Throw Fortitude; Duration 1 minute You dilate the flow of time around the target, slowing its actions. Critical Success The target is unaffected. Success The target is slowed 1 for 1 round. Failure The target is slowed 1 for 1 minute. Critical Failure The target is slowed 2 for 1 minute. Heightened (6th) You can target up to 10 creatures." These spells interact with the following mechanics: Saving Throws, Die Modifiers, Action Economy, and Concentration. *Saving throws* For the 5e version, this is a save or suck spell. If a creature makes the save, it has no effect on that creature. Furthermore, creatures can prematurely end the spell by making a new save, which happens at the end of its turn. For the 2e version, this spell gets better the worse the creature's saving throw result is, and if it is successful, the spell lasts the entire duration. Further, a natural 1 and a natural 20 decrease or increase the results of the die one step resulting in a greater likelihood of critical failure, or critical success. *Action Economy* For the 5e version, this spell reduces movement by 50%, and the target(s) lose their reaction, and their choice (per turn) between their bonus action and their action. If they make an attack action, they are limited to only 1 attack for that action. An enemy not in the position to use a reaction, isn't penalized. An enemy that doesn't have an ability which uses a bonus action, can sacrifice the bonus action, leaving it with a move action and an action. If the enemy doesn't make multiple attacks in a round, then the limitations on how many attacks it makes doesn't matter. For the 2e version, the target loses at least one action, and sometimes 2 actions. As actions are used for everything, and some abilities and most spells require 2 actions to be used, this greatly limits what the target is able to do on their turn. As the duration is 1 minute (on a failed save), this limitation compounds throughout the entire fight. *Die Modifiers* In 5e, very few things give modifiers on die rolls, as most effects give advantage or disadvantage instead. So, the -2 penalties are huge, as they are applied to advantage and disadvantage on rolls. In 2e, as there is no disadvantage or advantage, modifiers are capped, and there are several types (circumstance, item, and status), modifiers of the same type only use the higher number. This limitation is important due to how critical successes and critical failures affect actions. *Concentration* In 5e, concentration is a common effect which limits the spellcaster's actions, mostly in the form of being prevented from casting another spell with the concentration requirement. In 2e, concentration (known as Sustain) is a rare spell requirement, which limits the actions the spellcaster can do, as sustaining a spell is an action which is counted against the spellcaster's action economy. This requirement is tied directly to the most powerful spells or to summon monsters. *Balancing...* Both Pathfinder 2e and D&D 5e used this spell as the foundation: "Slow Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart Duration: 1 round/level Saving Throw: Will negates Spell Resistance: Yes An affected creature moves and attacks at a drastically slowed rate. A slowed creature can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions). Additionally, it takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves. A slowed creature moves at half its normal speed (round down to the next 5-foot increment), which affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for decreased speed. Multiple slow effects don’t stack. Slow counters and dispels haste. Material Component A drop of molasses." As shown, spells way back then, were balanced around the level of a spell caster, a higher level spell caster is able to increase the effectiveness spells, so, a 5th level wizard casting Slow can slow 5 creatures for 5 rounds... a 10th level wizard is able to slow 10 creatures for 10 rounds despite both wizards are casting a 3rd level spell. This was part of the "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Casters" design philosophy. In 5e Slow can be used to slow down enemies which are 100 to 120 feet away, so that the martials can use bows/crossbows to whittle the enemy down at the same time spellcasters can cast spells which target their reduced Dexterity saving throws to kill them wholesale. As stated in Action Economy, if an enemy isn't harmed by the reduction of its actions, then the reduction of armour class and dexterity save does make the spell useful. WotC recognized how powerful the Slow spell was, so they added the concentration, and repeated saving throw attempts to limit its duration from the standard 1 minute. However, when you compare Haste to Slow, they don't provide the opposite effects, as many things are different (range, single vs multiple targets, repeated saving throws vs losing all actions, reactions, for an entire turn, etc.). In fact, 5e Haste is nearly the same as its 3.5e counterpart (except for the lose all actions once the spell ends, and the concentration cost). As 2e Slow is designed for close range, keeping it in line with the older, honestly, original version. It is best used on an important boss, making combat easier, or to reduce the likelihood of an enemy from fleeing battle (2 move actions vs 3 move actions). They also decided to expand conditions so, Haste provides the Quickened condition while Slow provides the Slowed condition making the spells easier to understand and preventing effects from being unintentionally cumulative. Conditions provide ways for similar effects to interact while providing clear rules on how their interactions are handled. So, when you said "Slow in 5e is more powerful" you are correct for 3rd level spells. The 5e Slow is much more powerful than its counterpart, Haste. In Pathfinder 1e, Haste and Slow were single target spells, Mass Hast and Mas Slow were the level 5 versions of the spells. Pathfinder 2e just kept them, but made them level 7 (Haste) and level 6 (Slow). For some reason 5e ditched the Mass Haste spell, but decided to keep the Mass Slow... *Shrugs* If the 2e GM kept to the encounter balance guide, the 6th level Slow spell would cause multiple foes to lose an action, sometimes 2 actions, for the entire duration of the spell. Making this much more powerful than the 5e version, as the penalties to ac and saving throws can be provided by other abilities/spells.
@@aralornwolf3140 Thank you for the very lengthy post, though I was comparing them to the best of my ability. 5e's slow needs concentration and gets repeat saving throws, but "half movement + can't multiattack + can't use actions in turns where they use bonus actions + no reactions + 50% chance to straight up lose a turn when casting + penalty to AC and Dex saves that stacks with advantage" in an AoE with huge range is, both inside the context of the game and outside of it, much more powerful than a single target low range "lose 1 of 3 actions per turn". Sure, some enemies won't be affected nearly as much due to the action penalty weirdly affecting some creatures very differently, but the vast majority of meaningful threats in that game have multiattack or spellcasting since those are the game's fundamental scaling mechanics, especially in higher levels. Even if not, you can probably move far away enough from any slowed melee foe with basic movement that they'll need to waste their turn dashing to catch up, since AoOs are disabled without reactions. The pf2e level 6 slow might arguably be stronger, but only arguably since the 5e version is incredibly debilitating and can easily waste to entire wasted turns. I wasn't really comparing that though - my point was that spell effects in 5e are more powerful. Also, Haste and Slow in PF1e/D&D3.5e were both their mass versions at level 3. They target 1 creature per caster level.
@@rednidedni3875 , Yes I get your point. The reason the 5e spells are more powerful is simply this: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards balance philosophy. In 2e... casters, specifically spells, are much more balanced in regard to the capabilities of non-magical effects. This was an intentional balancing job by Paizo. Of course, wands, staffs, and scrolls are abundant, so casters in 2e actually have _more_ spells available than what's usually permitted in 5e.
I agree with your characterization. I think where ppl note a weakness in 2e casters is probably only on single target damage effectiveness. That's by design, they are more effective at area of effects damage, control etc. leaving the single target damage to the martials for balance reasons
there are two types of spellcasters in Pathfinder, prepared (like druid, cleric and wizard) and spontaneous (like bard, oracle or sorcerer), it would be pretty hard to homebrew it and still make it balanced, while keeping this diversity. Both spontaneus and prepared spellcasters have different strenghts and weaknesses, across all levels. BUT! There are other ways of using non-prepared spells as a prepared spellcaster. You can have specific items that allow it (2e is balanced around giving players a lot of magical loot), one-time consumables that activate spells, feats and innate spells, or even sometimes focus abilities :)
Yeah don't home brew that away, its restrictive and its meant to be where the advantage is a wizard can potentially learn every spell in the game. Being able to cast from the hip is the sorcerers thing, 5e stepped all over the sorcerers toes by allowing them to do that. Pathfinder 2e is still less restrictive than the older editions.
@@StonedDragons Wizards and Clerics still have to setup their spells for the day in 5E! It's not like either can literally just say "Hmm, I need Fireball(or some divine spell) here, I'm going to cast Fireball(or some divine spell) at... 5th level, yeah, 5th level!" They would actually need to have prepared it for the day, and even clerics who have access to any spells on their lists but they still have to prepare a list of spells for a SINGLE day!
@@JacksonOwex But they still have a degree of flexibility with actually casting them that traditionally only belonged to the sorcerer so long as they prepare it for that level that day and combine that with the ability to learn any spell in the game and it stomps over the traditional advantages the sorcerer had to balance out their much more restrictive list of spells they can actually learn.
I've really loved playing a wizard in PF2e, moreso than I ever did in 5e. The prepared casting doesn't really bother me since I do enjoy tinkering around with stuff - in fact, I love the lore behind it. I never knew what it means to "prepare" a spell in 5e - do you just forget all about the spells you spent your life studying at the end of the day??? Whereas in PF2e, I know that these limited slots are basically one-time-use things created in the morning. You cast 99% of the spell in the morning, and the actual casting is just the finishing touch of pulling the trigger. I love having to work for my victories with the nerfed spell effects, and getting a much larger amount of spell slots to burn - and no concentration, so I can actually combo them all! I'm level 5 right now and already have four lv3 spells per day. And the cantrips feel like a reliable backup, not an "I guess it's technically better than nothing" And of course all the benefits of 3-action economy and the feat system. And that I get to have two subclasses at once. That's so cool to me.
Yeah you have a point but when you cast all of your prepared spells in PF2e you are done casting that spell. With D&D5e you can cast your prepared spells any number of times that you have spell slots open. So say you want to cast your Magic Missile 3 times in PF2e you will have to prepare it 3 times and might miss out on a spell that will come in handy later. With D&D5e you have that flexibility that you just prepare the spells that you think you might need and if you need to cast Magic Missile 3 times you can do that and but if you wanted to cast another spell instead you can do that too. So you are more flexible in D&D5e in my mind. Also you don't really put all of your spells to memory in D&D5e they are copied to your spell book so you can prepare them to cast. Sorcerers are the ones that have them in "memory", but technically they just know how to cast spells with out a spell book. And no I am not saying that PF2e is bad or D&D5e is better, because I have never played PF2e.
@@billymiles6870 Flexibility, 5e wizard wins out. Amount of spells you actually have, pf2 wizard wins out. I enjoy the variety this sort of enforces. If I want to be able to toss out three magic missile spells, I can always play sorcerer, which gets much closer to 5e-style casting at the cost of being unable to prepare spells. Instead I get to use a variety of different spells in magic missiles place, searching for good ways to make use of each of them. Note that there's also the Flexible Spellcasting archetype you can choose, which gives your wizard full on 5e spellcasting in exchange for -1 slot per spell level.
Also, I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the source of 5th edition with the Sorcerer of Pathfinder 2nd edition. Excuse any typos, I am using tap to talk and it doesn't always pick up on my accent. The word "source" was supposed to be" Sorcerer" .
Minor point for Wizards: Remember, saves do not increase MAP, so you can take a shot with a weapon after a 2-action cast, and if no spell attack was made, it's at full bonus. Additionally, YOU CAN USE SHIELDS. For goodness' sake, take a shield!
In the Remaster, the concept of Components were dropped, but conversely, all spellcasting now requires making gestures and uttering incantations, but more importantly, they create obvious sensory manifestations, like bright lights, crackling sounds or sharp smells. And nearly all spells have a spell signature, like your classic glowing rune circles around your hands. Only spells that have the 'subtle' descriptor, like 'Charm', can be cast discretely.
Absolutely! I have been thinking about what monsters to showcase because I think PF2 does some of the "typical" monsters way better than 5e in terms of how interesting they are.
Currently dabbling with the Pathfinder Beginner box. Will you be making a video on what is your process of converting 5e pre-written adventures to PF2? The idea of dynamic PF2 combat in DnD sounds very interesting.
To be honest, try and match 5e statblocks with their pathfinder 2e counterparts. It's not gonna work 100% of the time since there will be some disparities in combat design etc. but look at what encounters you have in your 5e game and their intended difficulties and you can probably work towards making encounters quite well in pf2e. With regards to checks and stuff, use level based DCs for PF2e, you can use your own judgement call on how hard a check is supposed to be by looking at DCs in 5e - everything else like exploration and downtime can fit nicely
Like RASH said, you basically just...do it. Like use the pathfinder monsters instead of dnd, use Diplomacy instead of Persuasion, adjust DCs to be level-appropriate, etc. Fortunately PF2e makes it easy to check if combats are gonna be too easy or deadly, and provides pretty good guidelines for DCs by level, so it'll take some work, but not that much more than just prepping the adventure in the first place.
Or... you could use the Archives of Nethys for monsters/traps/hazards as D&D and Pathfinder share around 99.5% of the monsters... and the Archive has all the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries uploaded onto the website along with most, if not all, of the published traps/hazards.
adding on to the guide people have given here, I recommend using automatic bonus progression so you don't have to care too much about converting magic items
As others have said, the simplest way to do it is to rebuild the encounters with similar PF2 monsters (paying attention to the balance in terms of encounter budget for PF2). I've not played any of the PF2 adventures myself, but a lot of people I know speak VERY highly of paizo's adventures, so if you want to run pre-written stuff, definitely give them a look!
I will admit that the idea of going back to Vancian casting after D&D5e feels....icky. I hated Vancian casting back in the 80s with AD&D and was SO glad to see it gone when I came back to D&D after a 26 year hiatus. Everyone who is pro-PF2E seems to make a lot of points about how you can supplement with Staffs, Scrolls, Wands, etc. But that makes PF2e an inherently different game than 5e. In 5e, magic items aren't really necessary for the most part, so having a world that doesn't have a trade in magic items, scrolls, etc. works fine. . But it feels like the mechanics of PF2E rely upon a rather common proliferation of magical stuff that can be bought. If a DM wants to run a world setting where "buying magic at the local magic shop" isn't a thing, does that hamper how PF2E prepared casters can function?
Magic items are very much ingrained into the core system and character advancement and monster balance is based on an assumption of so many magic items. There are alternate rules in the CRB and GMG for you to get around this though. The automatic bonus progression rules take all the bonuses assumed in magic items and grant them as level up features meaning you don't need to have the items. Then there's the flexible spellcasting rules from secrets of magic which does away with vancian casting.
In PF2, all magic produces visible runic emanations unless you take feats specifically to cast subtly, so there's an in-world barrier to prevent that situation.
Yes, wizards were nerfed but what's often forgotten is the absolute cheap cost of low level scrolls. When a 1st level Fear spell costs 4gp a pop, and your personal wealth is 1000s of gold, you can start most fights with a couple of free spell slots in your hands when you're level 10+ Also, I'd love to see the Ranger's get compared next!! Though it might not be a fair comparison...
Yeah, and Fear heightened to 3rd level for 5 targets is a very powerful spell for its level and useful forever. Punches above its paygrade for a 3rd level spell and it's level means the scroll is only 30gp. By mid-levels you can keep a pack of those babies on hand pretty easy to blammo a whole fight.
@@IcarusGames Scrolls are great loot too! On a more general note, how are you finding Pathfinder 2e? I've been playing pretty much since release and found it scratched a different itch from D&D 5e.
Completely agree with this. Also wands that cast spells whose duration is "until the next time you make your daily preparations" are a fantastic way to save spell slots you might want to use for something else.
@@amberjones4067 I've got my first game next weekend, so I'm very excited for that. I'm enjoying reading up on it a lot though. I ran a PF1 campaign from levels 1-20, and now having done 1-16 for 5e, I can definitely say that I preferred the crunchier Pathfinder rules and having more support as a game master from the rules.
Because people who know what this is know what this is, people who don't will just be confused to no end and screaming in the comments "WTF is 'Vancian spell casting?!"
Pathfinder branched off from 3.5, 2e was just an extension of Pathfinder so 2e naturally uses a very similar system to 2e so anyone who knew 2e is fine with this, want to cast spontaneously like 5e pathfinder has you covered, just play a spontaneous caster like a sorcerer.
I struggle to feel unique as a wizard in 5e. Choosing a school does almost nothing since all wizards have access to each others' spells. I imagine wanting to be an evil lich raising skeletons to fight for me as a Necromancer wizard...but you're basically just a wizard who can occasionally raise a couple skeletons, but you're usually probably just going to cast Fireball. It always just felt like you never really get that flavor of choosing a different school that I always wanted. I feel like Pathfinder 2e does a better job making your wizard feel unique. I haven't dived into the PF2e Remaster stuff deeply, but the changes to Wizard seem to make them feel even more unique.
Yeah, school choice on 5e matters way less than it did in previous editions, but if you lean into theme and choose thematic spells and other options it's totally possible to make most of the kinds of wizard you'd want in 5e, but it's not as immediately obviously customizable.
Sort of! Back in AD&D spells just were whatever level they were, you didn't cast them with higher slots, i.e. Magic Missile ALWAYS just took a level one "slot" because it's a level one spell. The difference in 3.X and prior(not sure about 4E as I didn't play much of that, I think most of the major spells were abilities rather than spells in the traditional sense) is that as you gain levels in your spell casting class your spells just naturally get better. The spells themselves have a paragraph in the descriptions about how they get more powerful. to use the Magic Missile example again, I believe it said you got an additional missile every other level(3, 5, 7, and 9) to maximum of five missiles, sorry 5E folk, no nine missile Magic Missiles for you before 5E(maybe 4E, again I don't recall much from that edition as I didn't play it)!
Ive played 3.5, both pathfinder editions and 5e and ive refused to play prepared casters until 5e. Imo, its bad and counterintuitive game design to force a player to pick which slots get which spells, which gets compounded if you think you need to cast a spell more than once. Absolutely destroys utility. I love all the choices and paths you can pick and choose from with pf2e, but when i want to play a wizard or cleric im going to 5e because that feels better and more fun to play. I get the wizard leveling feeling too incremental in 5e, but dont forget that scrolls work both ways in 5e. Work with your dm about cool spells you'd like to come across in scroll form you have to spend the time putting in your book. First time i did this as a scribes wizard i ended the campaign with almost 100 spells in my book, and prepared what i could because a component pouch isnt a bag of holding lol.
weird as my pathfinder 2e game the 10th level character has 73 spell points and if i want to cast any known spells at level 1 then i can cast 36 level 1 spells in 1 day or level 2 spells cast 4 points allowing me to cast up to 17 level 2 spells and when i cast level 3 spells they are 7 points and so on and this is official pathfinder rules out of a pathfinder book so not sure about all of this video
@@IcarusGames lol come to find out the GM bridged this rule over from D&D book lol hmmmm gosh i dont think i could go back to original spell slots... i was spoiled hahaha
Levelling in 5e is better than you make out. You get 2 new spells in your book each level not 1 and you either get a new level of spells or a feature(an asi/feat or an arcane tradition). I get upping your intelligence by 2 and getting 2 spells might be less exciting but the flexible casting makes you feel like you have more utility. Like all the Martials I have built but the cleric and wizard are underwhelming and squishy. Still need to check out the sorcerer but it feels like everyone fighting to be the martials and no-one wanting to be healbot cleric or wizard.
You can REALLY tell WHEN people came into TTRPGs based on how much they whine about how weak Wizards are outside of 5E D&D!!! AD&D players will just salivate at the idea of having spells that I NEVER lose so I don't need to have a crossbow for when I've used up my SINGLE 1st level spell the first few levels of play!
am i the only one that notices that wizards feel more useful while leveling in pathfinder than D&D? In D&D, i feel like im being carried through most campaigns at level 1-8. With an occasional highlight moment. usually with the dm (or i, myself) kinda go lax on the rules to allow it to happen. whereas in pathfinder, i feel like im just as useful at level 1-8 as the fighter and thief classes. with many awesome moments
I get what you mean. Taken as a whole 1-20 experience I get why some might prefer the 5e wizard, but when most games never make it to level 10, those lower levels are disproportionally important.
It's the difference between the 5e sorcerer and the Pathfinder sorcerer (in the first edition) that converted me from being a die-hard 5e fan to a die-hard PF1e fan.
Wizards are better in 5E for the similar reasons the Sorcerer in PF2E is better than the wizard in PF2E, prepared casting in PF2E is not good/fun and all other choices aside, that's the core premise and function of the class. The 5E wizard edges out a little farther because it gets the spontaneous casting available in PF2E with the versatility of knowing as many spells as they can get into their spell book. The prepared casting in PF2E is pretty righteously horrid, and its better for spontaneous casters across the board and in 5E the most prepared type of casting is essentially spontaneous casting in PF2E. This is one spot I think 5E did it better than PF2E personally, as the tediousness of strict Vancian casting (prepping every slot instead of a repertoire) is not something many missed and isn't fun for many and is quite tedious and doesn't play as well at the table as more spontaneous prep options, especially as you gain more and more slots and spells. As it stands within PF2E I would never recommend a wizard over a sorcerer because of this, let alone a comparison with the wizard in 5E. I'd go so far as to say, a player would have more fun with a wizard in 5E 99 of 100 times more often than one in PF2E. Max level spell comparisons mean little since almost no games play there and those that do often not for long before campaign end, so classes that finally pay off/peak in that tier isn't ime/imo a good point in their favor. I say all this as someone who switched away from 5E to PF2E, because in general it does more right/better IMO and is way easier to GM.
From what I've heard high level play is far more balanced and fun in pf2e which combined with what I know is true that the level progression is constant instead of slowing down and that you always have more to look forward to each level and much more stuff outside of spellcasting In pf2e I have to somewhat doubt the extent of what you're saying even tough I understand that spontaneous obviously has significant weaknesses.
I totally get that POV! I will say, it's way less egregious as it seems on paper in practice. Most wizard players I know in 5e might take several spells in a particular level, but have no intention of actually casting them, and just plan on popping multiple fireballs no matter what. There are ways to hot-swap a small number of spells throughout the day, or use scrolls or wands to supplement your arsenal. But there are optional rules that makes the spellcasting system more like 5e's: 2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99
@@IcarusGames Thanks for the link, I’ll have a read through that I’m not one of those Fireball memes I’ve played 6 or 7 wizards now and only one of them even had fireball as a spell I always had lists that I would choose for social days, shopping sprees, travel, etc all with different prepared spells I never understood why people play the most versatile character in the game and the only resort to throwing fireballs A well prepared wizard makes any encounter easier and supplements missing players…
Man Pathfinder's magic system is my biggest complaint from D&D 3e. I hate having to set specific spells ahead of time, it means you're for the most part just going to default to the most useful spells. Why would I pick something like Alarm when I can have an extra casting of Magic Missile or Shield and better hope only one person falls l because I only prepared one Feather Falling, but hey nobody did in the last five days, so maybe I'll just drop it down to no castings of Feather Fall. It sucks. In theory, it's asking you to plan ahead and think what might happen in a day, but in reality it's just asking you to choose what are the most useful spells in every situation.
Is that a problem though? Sure, you can choose the "best" spells each day by default, but if you don't account for some unexpected things and always default to your go-to spells, you'll run into a situation where you don't have a spell that could have been useful, which can lead to dramatic consequences. Like, maybe you don't think feather fall is worth it, so you don't take it one day, and that day one of your companions falls to their death, and from that point forward you always keep a charge of it handy. That's a great character moment.
But then say you almost get killed because you didn't have an extra Shield prepared because you're holding that slot to cast a Feather Fall that was never needed or hell, maybe that roc that ambushed you tossed your allies off the cliff on two separate turns, but you still only prepared that one Feather Fall. That just gives you the same issue. It especially seems bad for clerics because there's no way you're not going to have a Cure Wound tax on at least on slot for the bulk of your spell levels. It just feels needlessly restrictive and just there to limit the power of casters and sucks even more if you prepared incorrectly or have something really unexpected happen, or just have some really bad luck. And I realize you can have that stuff happen with 5e's way of doing things, but it's less likely to happen because you have more flexibility in the moment.
@@Theolis Shield is a cantrip, just cast it as much as you want! XD Also, clerics get bonus heal or harm uses of they're higher spell slots equal to 1+their charisma. If you wanted a more flexible class why not just choose a sorcerer or go for a wizard with spell substitution thesis. That really looks like that's the wizard you want to play! Idk, if you need help with your builds in PF2 I'm available :)
I dislike Pathfinder's spell prep for the simple reason that I am not omniscient. I don't want to have to gamble at the start of each day on whether I will be useful that day or sit at the back lines with my thumb up my rear. I hear way too many people downplaying how often they get the shitty feeling of knowing the perfect spell but not having prepared it or having prepared it at much too low a level. 5E ritual system does the same thing as the 10 min prepared spell swap but better because you don't even need to swap the spell or spend the spell slot of the ritual cast. All that plus the ability to up-cast your spells as needed throughout the day gives the 5E wizard greater access to their spells and makes them feel more powerful without the waste. Pathfinder just seems so unnecessarily limiting in this aspect.
It's a valid preference, for sure! The way PF2 handles prepared spells is how it's been in some of the older editions of D&D, but coming from 5e it definitely feels limiting by comparison. The flip side is as a wizard you prepare spells that have broad, dependable use, and use recon and planning to figure out what you'll need ahead of time.
It's a reasonable balance limitation. I get the problem, but in practise, I've found myself not changing my spell lists drastically on a daily basis. There is the Flexible Spellcasting archetype to fix this exact issue, too! Basically you lose one slot per spell level as a prepared caster, but in exchange get the full power of the 5e prepared system, plus the increased power of upcasting spells in pf2e.
@@IcarusGames the issue with recon and planning is that it's game dependant. I do understand the argument and in games you can properly plan out it's really good but in my experience that ability to plan isn't available
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 You can't know what exactly lies ahead, but you can often make some OK guesses. If the big bad is a necromancer, having something that works on undead is easy, even if you don't walk up and fight them. Slow works on basically everything, same with Hideous Laughter to stop bosses. Fireball works pretty well against the vast majority of enemy types, as long as they're plentiful and bunched up
Pathfinder 1e is almost exactly like D&D 3.5e. As Pathfinder 2e uses Pathfinder 1e as a base for many mechanics... yes, you are correct. Although, Pathfinder 2e also has a "pay-per-spell" system for class specific spells. Similar to D&D 4e once per encounter powers.
I'm only just getting into Pathfinder, but so far it doesn't feel like they brought the wizard in closer to martials. It feels like they are vastly inferior to most other classes at lower levels. Spend two actions and a spell slot to do less damage than a single melee attack 🤔
Wizards are always behind the power curve at lover levels. Ans the p2e fighter is a very strong class vs 1 or 2 opponents. The wizards is a much larger tool chest than just damage spells. P2e puts a lot weight into buffing and debuffing. A +1 or -1 modifier is a big deal in p2e the math is that tight.
At lower levels, it might be more impactful to use 2 actions and a spell slot to do something like cast Magic Weapon on the rogue’s rapier, or cast Fear on an enemy the fighter is engaged with to make them more likely to get a critical hit.
Some cantrips can be kind of not great, yeah (looking at you, Daze). Though it is important to remember that seeing by default ranged weapons don't add your ability modifier to damage, it's not as bad as you might think. 1 action for a d10 damage (5.5 average) or 2 actions for 3.5+4 damage (7.5 average). Given the fact a 2nd attack would be at -5 (Or -4 if the weapon is agile) & that penalty applies to both your hit *and* your crit rate, the damage isn't as bad as you might think. Plus, spellcasters main "ability" is in buffing (As others have said something like magic weapon can just completely and utterly end a combat by itself by its potency at low levels), if its at-will single-target damaging capabilities also equaled martials (When fighting groups it still obviously has a massive edge, honestly an even larger one given how the crit success / crtis fail rules work) whilst still having all the versatility of a caster... Not great This isn't to say you don't have a point, people will probably never stop arguing whether or not PF2 made casters underpowered, plus wizards are usually viewed as "still solid, but feels like its missing something" to many people (Something which's further exemplified by the fact the only other class he's looked at, the fighter, being often viewed as the most powerful class in the game)
everyone else has explained it well, but I'd like to add on the fact that pf2e wizards get way more cantrips than 5e wizards. at level 1 with options to get even more. So it's entirely possible to cover all the saving throws + attack + 1 utility spell by default, making them really good at targeting weakness if you really want a blaster caster
As in almost all editions, wizards feel weaker than average at lower levels because they have less durability and don't have access to their full suite of more interesting spells. The big difference between higher level wizards in the two systems is an intentional one in as much as PF2 wizards seem more intended to be team players, whereas a properly prepared wizard with the right spell choice in 5e is an absolute monster.
Personal opinion here: A wizard or for that matter a spell caster should always out perform a fighter of any class at higher levels. I honestly don't see how a melee fight should be able to fight, or match up to, much less outclass a caster who can bend the very fabric of reality to their whims. This for me is my biggest issue with pathfinder at the moment. P.S i suck at martial characters.
8:10 Cantrips in PF2e do not use spell slots. They *do* automatically heighten to half your level (rounded up), meaning when you're 5th level your cantrips are considered 3rd-level spells, but they still don't use spell slots.
I love PF2e cantrips they’re so badass!
what do they change tho? From what i could read that means nothing for most cantrips, since even highted, basicaly nothing change (the dice, reach, target, etc). Or am lost in something?
@@gabrieldossantossanta5656 you get additional dice for more damage when heightened it goes from 1d4 to 2d4 and keeps going up at the appropriate levels you can get reach if you take the reach spell feat that most spellcasters get
Most cantrips get something for being higher level. Extra damage dice, larger effect, etc. If a spell says "Heightened (+1)" that means it gets the listed increase (like "+1d4 damage") per increase in spell level.
I would be interested in a comparison of the two rangers.
Rangers could well be next. Seems like an easy target with how notoriously unloved the 5e ranger is, makes sense to compare them!
It could be very harsh, perhaps it would be better to approach the matter carefully and avoid feeding the "better system debate". But yes, it would be very interesting
Issue is, WHICH 5e ranger?? There have been stages to the ranger’s design in 5e.
At release it was a poor fit for the way people play the game, was largely underpowered, and only had one functional subclass.
XgtE gave it a phenomenal subclasses in gloomstalker that helped balance out the weakness of the core class.
TcoE basically reworked the entire class to make it actually a good chassis, reworked beast master so it actually functions quite well, and gave other good subclasses that aren’t as bonkers as gloomstalker, BUT it framed all these reworks as “optional rules” so you have to beg your DM to be allowed to play the actually well designed ranger (a great rework locked behind a needlessly awkward implementation IMO).
I feel an honest comparison would need to include both the PHB ranger and the Tasha’s rework, but the rework is technically only available with DM permission.
@@Lockfin I would need to read up on the Tasha's ranger again, but I'd lean towards PHB as that IS the core class. Like you said, a lot of other changes have been UA or "optional" so wouldn't be available at every table.
Love they idea, but fair warning, its night and day. The Pathfinder 2e ranger i feel is way better then 5th D&D.
The concept of RITUAL SPELLS really bring a lot of versatility for 5e wizards as well.
Yeah, that's true, in Path 2e it doesn't exist, you must spend a spell slot; actually is something that I like, because you must prepare well your spells, depend how much hard you want to let the way. The rituals in Path 2e are like: I spend one day to call a demon and ask for immortality.
This one thing that for me is meh, as a druid or wizard in 5e the one spell i use a lot as ritual is detect magic. But that's a cantrip in pathfinder 2e.
I think what ritual spells bring to 5e is what focus spells brings to P2e.
But that's just me.
@@reyvagabond3344 Well that's right, the spells that you'd use in DnD like a ritual in Path2 are just the most common cantrip, so it doesn't matter to much. But the focus spells are totally not the same, because they are used like mini powers, for ranger, champions, and other martial clases
Pathfinder 2e does have rituals, its where a lot of really cool downtime spells have been moved! Its not just casting a normal spell though, rituals are always weirder and take longer.
@@InnsannaStories Additionally, ANYONE can learn a ritual in PF2, not just spellcasters. This means that a fighter can learn the Inveigle ritual and perform it to get the effect, as well as being a secondary caster to a greater ritual lead by someone else, as long as they have the appropriate skill.
I like that PF2E retained the Vancian system for Wizards. That was a major differentiator between Wizards and Sorcerers, contrasting the Wiz's wider spell selection for the Sorc's on-the-spot flexibility. It also makes more sense for the Int caster to be more rigid due to the magic coming from study, while the Cha caster is more free-form.
“Makes sense” & “charisma caster” should never appear in the same sentence.
@@Tysto why tho
@@Tystodisagreed. Charisma is used for emotional influence and if the magic isnt fron study or wisdom, but inherient magic, Charisma makes sense as an "innate ability" modifier.
In 5th edition, cantrips are known and you get a limited number. In Pathfinder 2E, You get more cantrips up front and have to choose daily which ones you're going to have available. Invite the dish and, you couldn't even retrain your cantrips until very recently when Tasha's caldron of everything came out.
Great video, small note, identify is not a spell in pf2e. Comprehend language is my go to for spell substitution.
Another use of spell substitution is the ability to ''spell dump'' in the evening. Like let's say it's been a light day and you have a lot of spell slots left. End of the day, take an hour to reshuffle spell slots and then cast alarm everywhere, glyph of warding everywhere, make a house sprout out of nowhere, protect it from the elements, etc. etc.
Another good video as always. As a person who started in 1E i thought that the 5e wizard was more like a sorcerer that the traditional Wizard that ive been used to so i prefer the PF2e Wizard. As to you next Video my three choices for a class comparison would be Bard, Barbarian, or Ranger.
5e Wizard is more powerful not due to the class itself but by 5e's magic system overtuned in favor of it as opposed to pf2e wizard and the schools are strictly better, but the options for pf2e wizard make it more interesting.
Important to note that in One D&D, spell casting is changing. While its not going to be the same as PF2E, it is more restrictive than the current edition.
@@TheRewyn Im not counting One D&D until an official release of the system, not a playtest.
We also don't know exactly how much spellcasting will change, as we've just seen the new Bard so far.
Instaclicked and went straight to the comment section without watching to say this is an easy win for pathfinder. If only for the degrees of success mechanic this would already be skewed heavily in the favor of PF but with how concentration works VS sustaining spells, this just widens the gap. And I haven't even gotten started with how few spells actually need sustaining. Wish I hadn't wasted so many years playing 5e, damn glad I finally dumped my old playgroup.
I love how PF2 has both prepared and spontaneous casters. Restrictions are just as important as benefits in a game with Classes.
I agree. While I have mixed opinions on the straight-up Vancian spellcasting of PF2e prepared casters, I like how it makes prepared and spontaneous casters feel much more distinct, so picking between a wizard or a sorcerer feels like the choice matters more IMO. I also like that the distinction also lets metamagic be available to multiple casters, so unlike D&D5e, basically any caster who wants to be able to modify spells (without requiring homebrew/GM benevolence) can do so.
With the One D&D playtesting, they're experimenting with like half-vancian. You prepare a number of spells of each level equal to the number of slots at that level. And they're all prepared. You still have flexible spellcasting, but now you can't just load up on your 2 or 3 highest level slots in valuable spells.
I have mixed feelings on it, and mainly, I was expecting it to be the replacement for spells-known, but it seems they're doing this for all spellcasters.
Yeah I'm a bit disappointed that they're completely removing the distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters. I think it's important to distinguish casters and having trade-offs makes the games more interesting.
I would like to see cleric as the cloister and war priest split makes a big difference in how they are played in the systems.
I'd be interested in a mana pool type system... so all your combined level slots is your mana pool and the level of a spell is the minimum requirement of mana needed
I *feel* like there might be variant rules for something like this in both systems? I've definitely seen something like this in one of the books on my shelf!
@@IcarusGames dnd's variant is kinda op imo and make warlocks too weal cause warlock are clas capable of most blasting normally (sadly, said blasting is overshadowed by eldriych blast)
PF2's prepared casting isn't a big departure from 5e. 5e is a big departure from every other edition.
On the one hand, 5e wizards are nearly just spontaneous casters, and maybe they should just be if the mechanics for spell slots are going to stay the same. On the other hand, I despise having to lock in spells for prepared casting because of how bad it makes narrow use-case spells feel, so maybe that's a good thing...
Yeah 5e is the outlier in that regard among D&D editions.
The way I see it, prepared or no, chances are in an "average" adventuring day a wizard is going to have a solid core of spells that they always take, and only a few slots that they would actually benefit from the flexibility in.
It just encourages the wizard in PF2 to think about the upcoming adventure a little more and consider their spells more carefully.
When I first saw how pathfinder 2e prepares spells I almost just went straight back to D&D cause wizards and magic casters are always my main roles I love to use. But after giving it some thought, creating a level 1 wizard Universalist/Staff Nexus I can honestly say the long term power and drain abilities are a somewhat worthy trade off for increased character customization flexibility and better action economy in combat with PF2E than D&D. This video only solidified that for me more seeing the side by side comparison. The only problem most people seem to ignore anyways, as will my group, that makes the choice harder is magic items and resonance which I feel honestly hurts all classes a lot. Great video!
as a note many spells in pf2e do 1/2 damage on a save and only no damage on a crit success (double damage on a crit failure). With the +10/-10 crit rules i tend to find my caster doing some damage every round and on a good role a butt ton of damage.
NGL, the spells need to be assigned to slots thing makes me actively avoid playing spellcasters in games where it appears. Spellcasting takes enough fiddling with choices as it is, I don't want to have to juggle any more considerations from long rest to long rest.
A lot of folks feel like that! I know the wizard player in my current game felt that way when the first heard the concept, but once they started building out their wizard they found it to not be nearly as much of problem as they first thought.
There are also alternative rules that make prepared spellcasting more like 5e's too
than play spontaneous spellcasters :D there's big array of them in 2e. Bards, Sorcerers, Oracles, Summoners and Psychics :)
So far learning about pathfinder 2e, this is the first time I've thought 5e did something better
If it's because of how prepared casting works in PF2 that's fair. It does sound like a nightmare coming from 5e. In the moment to moment gameplay it's not actually as significant as it first seems though.
This makes the PF2 wizard sound like a major pain in the ass to play. I can get behind strategy and planning but having to plan each one of your spell slots sounds an absolute chore and very limiting.
And only getting 2 new spells is a bit weak but it's easier for noobs to deal with.
Likely a controversial take, but I actually think 2e casters are stronger than 5e casters. You get so many more spells, not just from your class but you can get scrolls and a magical staff. Plus your acquisition of slots never slows down.
Plus buffs and debuffs matter more without advantage being so powerful and easy to get. Additionally the Degrees of Success make them have more pop.
You have tons more magic, plenty higher level spells, well selected spells can be incredibly powerful. And a couple of the spells are just straight stronger in 2e.
I don't believe I agree, for the simple reason that pf2e spells don't break the game. Degrees of success are cool and crit fails are devastating, but for basically any control spell, a pf2e crit failure is as powerful as a 5e failure. Pf2e slow hinders one target significantly, 5e slow cripples six targets completely. Having far more slots doesn't help much when one turn is worth so much more.
Also, 5e spellcasters have far more powerful utility, since all the utility spells are usually stronger, 1-2 levels lower for the same effect and/or have ritual casting attached
EDIT: I agree they're probably stronger at the highest levels, due to a suruplus of massively high-level slots. Top level PF2e is ridiculously high-powered.
@@rednidedni3875 ,
You can't really compare spells on a 1:1 ratio due to the mechanics of the game is entirely different. You need to compare the spells and the associated game mechanics simultaneously.
Let's look at the spell Slow, as you mentioned it.
"Slow
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 120 feet
Target: Up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range
Components: V S M (A drop of molasses)
Duration: Concentration, Up to 1 minute
Classes: Sorcerer, Wizard
You alter time around up to six creatures of your choice in a 40-foot cube within range. Each target must succeed on a Wisdom saving throw or be affected by this spell for the duration.
An affected target’s speed is halved, it takes a −2 penalty to AC and Dexterity saving throws, and it can’t use reactions. On its turn, it can use either an action or a bonus action, not both. Regardless of the creature’s abilities or magic items, it can’t make more than one melee or ranged attack during its turn.
If the creature attempts to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 action, roll a d20. On an 11 or higher, the spell doesn’t take effect until the creature’s next turn, and the creature must use its action on that turn to complete the spell. If it can’t, the spell is wasted.
A creature affected by this spell makes another Wisdom saving throw at the end of its turn. On a successful save, the effect ends for it."
"Slow
Source Core Rulebook pg. 370 3.0
Traditions arcane, occult, primal
Bloodline demonic
Deities Korada, Lorthact, Matravash
Cast somatic, verbal
Range 30 feet; Targets 1 creature
Saving Throw Fortitude;
Duration 1 minute
You dilate the flow of time around the target, slowing its actions.
Critical Success The target is unaffected.
Success The target is slowed 1 for 1 round.
Failure The target is slowed 1 for 1 minute.
Critical Failure The target is slowed 2 for 1 minute.
Heightened (6th) You can target up to 10 creatures."
These spells interact with the following mechanics:
Saving Throws, Die Modifiers, Action Economy, and Concentration.
*Saving throws*
For the 5e version, this is a save or suck spell. If a creature makes the save, it has no effect on that creature. Furthermore, creatures can prematurely end the spell by making a new save, which happens at the end of its turn.
For the 2e version, this spell gets better the worse the creature's saving throw result is, and if it is successful, the spell lasts the entire duration. Further, a natural 1 and a natural 20 decrease or increase the results of the die one step resulting in a greater likelihood of critical failure, or critical success.
*Action Economy*
For the 5e version, this spell reduces movement by 50%, and the target(s) lose their reaction, and their choice (per turn) between their bonus action and their action. If they make an attack action, they are limited to only 1 attack for that action.
An enemy not in the position to use a reaction, isn't penalized. An enemy that doesn't have an ability which uses a bonus action, can sacrifice the bonus action, leaving it with a move action and an action. If the enemy doesn't make multiple attacks in a round, then the limitations on how many attacks it makes doesn't matter.
For the 2e version, the target loses at least one action, and sometimes 2 actions. As actions are used for everything, and some abilities and most spells require 2 actions to be used, this greatly limits what the target is able to do on their turn. As the duration is 1 minute (on a failed save), this limitation compounds throughout the entire fight.
*Die Modifiers*
In 5e, very few things give modifiers on die rolls, as most effects give advantage or disadvantage instead. So, the -2 penalties are huge, as they are applied to advantage and disadvantage on rolls.
In 2e, as there is no disadvantage or advantage, modifiers are capped, and there are several types (circumstance, item, and status), modifiers of the same type only use the higher number. This limitation is important due to how critical successes and critical failures affect actions.
*Concentration*
In 5e, concentration is a common effect which limits the spellcaster's actions, mostly in the form of being prevented from casting another spell with the concentration requirement.
In 2e, concentration (known as Sustain) is a rare spell requirement, which limits the actions the spellcaster can do, as sustaining a spell is an action which is counted against the spellcaster's action economy. This requirement is tied directly to the most powerful spells or to summon monsters.
*Balancing...*
Both Pathfinder 2e and D&D 5e used this spell as the foundation:
"Slow
Level: Brd 3, Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Targets: One creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration: 1 round/level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes
An affected creature moves and attacks at a drastically slowed rate. A slowed creature can take only a single move action or standard action each turn, but not both (nor may it take full-round actions). Additionally, it takes a -1 penalty on attack rolls, AC, and Reflex saves. A slowed creature moves at half its normal speed (round down to the next 5-foot increment), which affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for decreased speed.
Multiple slow effects don’t stack. Slow counters and dispels haste.
Material Component
A drop of molasses."
As shown, spells way back then, were balanced around the level of a spell caster, a higher level spell caster is able to increase the effectiveness spells, so, a 5th level wizard casting Slow can slow 5 creatures for 5 rounds... a 10th level wizard is able to slow 10 creatures for 10 rounds despite both wizards are casting a 3rd level spell. This was part of the "Linear Fighters, Quadratic Casters" design philosophy.
In 5e Slow can be used to slow down enemies which are 100 to 120 feet away, so that the martials can use bows/crossbows to whittle the enemy down at the same time spellcasters can cast spells which target their reduced Dexterity saving throws to kill them wholesale. As stated in Action Economy, if an enemy isn't harmed by the reduction of its actions, then the reduction of armour class and dexterity save does make the spell useful.
WotC recognized how powerful the Slow spell was, so they added the concentration, and repeated saving throw attempts to limit its duration from the standard 1 minute.
However, when you compare Haste to Slow, they don't provide the opposite effects, as many things are different (range, single vs multiple targets, repeated saving throws vs losing all actions, reactions, for an entire turn, etc.). In fact, 5e Haste is nearly the same as its 3.5e counterpart (except for the lose all actions once the spell ends, and the concentration cost).
As 2e Slow is designed for close range, keeping it in line with the older, honestly, original version. It is best used on an important boss, making combat easier, or to reduce the likelihood of an enemy from fleeing battle (2 move actions vs 3 move actions). They also decided to expand conditions so, Haste provides the Quickened condition while Slow provides the Slowed condition making the spells easier to understand and preventing effects from being unintentionally cumulative. Conditions provide ways for similar effects to interact while providing clear rules on how their interactions are handled.
So, when you said "Slow in 5e is more powerful" you are correct for 3rd level spells. The 5e Slow is much more powerful than its counterpart, Haste. In Pathfinder 1e, Haste and Slow were single target spells, Mass Hast and Mas Slow were the level 5 versions of the spells. Pathfinder 2e just kept them, but made them level 7 (Haste) and level 6 (Slow). For some reason 5e ditched the Mass Haste spell, but decided to keep the Mass Slow... *Shrugs*
If the 2e GM kept to the encounter balance guide, the 6th level Slow spell would cause multiple foes to lose an action, sometimes 2 actions, for the entire duration of the spell. Making this much more powerful than the 5e version, as the penalties to ac and saving throws can be provided by other abilities/spells.
@@aralornwolf3140 Thank you for the very lengthy post, though I was comparing them to the best of my ability. 5e's slow needs concentration and gets repeat saving throws, but "half movement + can't multiattack + can't use actions in turns where they use bonus actions + no reactions + 50% chance to straight up lose a turn when casting + penalty to AC and Dex saves that stacks with advantage" in an AoE with huge range is, both inside the context of the game and outside of it, much more powerful than a single target low range "lose 1 of 3 actions per turn". Sure, some enemies won't be affected nearly as much due to the action penalty weirdly affecting some creatures very differently, but the vast majority of meaningful threats in that game have multiattack or spellcasting since those are the game's fundamental scaling mechanics, especially in higher levels. Even if not, you can probably move far away enough from any slowed melee foe with basic movement that they'll need to waste their turn dashing to catch up, since AoOs are disabled without reactions.
The pf2e level 6 slow might arguably be stronger, but only arguably since the 5e version is incredibly debilitating and can easily waste to entire wasted turns. I wasn't really comparing that though - my point was that spell effects in 5e are more powerful.
Also, Haste and Slow in PF1e/D&D3.5e were both their mass versions at level 3. They target 1 creature per caster level.
@@rednidedni3875 ,
Yes I get your point. The reason the 5e spells are more powerful is simply this: Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards balance philosophy.
In 2e... casters, specifically spells, are much more balanced in regard to the capabilities of non-magical effects. This was an intentional balancing job by Paizo. Of course, wands, staffs, and scrolls are abundant, so casters in 2e actually have _more_ spells available than what's usually permitted in 5e.
I agree with your characterization. I think where ppl note a weakness in 2e casters is probably only on single target damage effectiveness. That's by design, they are more effective at area of effects damage, control etc. leaving the single target damage to the martials for balance reasons
At first I say;
"That spell slot stuff sounds pretty restrictive."
Then my brother's like;
"Well you can always just homebrew it."
true
there are two types of spellcasters in Pathfinder, prepared (like druid, cleric and wizard) and spontaneous (like bard, oracle or sorcerer), it would be pretty hard to homebrew it and still make it balanced, while keeping this diversity. Both spontaneus and prepared spellcasters have different strenghts and weaknesses, across all levels. BUT! There are other ways of using non-prepared spells as a prepared spellcaster. You can have specific items that allow it (2e is balanced around giving players a lot of magical loot), one-time consumables that activate spells, feats and innate spells, or even sometimes focus abilities :)
Yeah don't home brew that away, its restrictive and its meant to be where the advantage is a wizard can potentially learn every spell in the game. Being able to cast from the hip is the sorcerers thing, 5e stepped all over the sorcerers toes by allowing them to do that. Pathfinder 2e is still less restrictive than the older editions.
@@StonedDragons Wizards and Clerics still have to setup their spells for the day in 5E! It's not like either can literally just say "Hmm, I need Fireball(or some divine spell) here, I'm going to cast Fireball(or some divine spell) at... 5th level, yeah, 5th level!" They would actually need to have prepared it for the day, and even clerics who have access to any spells on their lists but they still have to prepare a list of spells for a SINGLE day!
@@JacksonOwex But they still have a degree of flexibility with actually casting them that traditionally only belonged to the sorcerer so long as they prepare it for that level that day and combine that with the ability to learn any spell in the game and it stomps over the traditional advantages the sorcerer had to balance out their much more restrictive list of spells they can actually learn.
Idk how Pathfinder managed to make the spell slot system even worse
I've really loved playing a wizard in PF2e, moreso than I ever did in 5e. The prepared casting doesn't really bother me since I do enjoy tinkering around with stuff - in fact, I love the lore behind it. I never knew what it means to "prepare" a spell in 5e - do you just forget all about the spells you spent your life studying at the end of the day??? Whereas in PF2e, I know that these limited slots are basically one-time-use things created in the morning. You cast 99% of the spell in the morning, and the actual casting is just the finishing touch of pulling the trigger.
I love having to work for my victories with the nerfed spell effects, and getting a much larger amount of spell slots to burn - and no concentration, so I can actually combo them all! I'm level 5 right now and already have four lv3 spells per day. And the cantrips feel like a reliable backup, not an "I guess it's technically better than nothing"
And of course all the benefits of 3-action economy and the feat system. And that I get to have two subclasses at once. That's so cool to me.
Yeah you have a point but when you cast all of your prepared spells in PF2e you are done casting that spell. With D&D5e you can cast your prepared spells any number of times that you have spell slots open. So say you want to cast your Magic Missile 3 times in PF2e you will have to prepare it 3 times and might miss out on a spell that will come in handy later. With D&D5e you have that flexibility that you just prepare the spells that you think you might need and if you need to cast Magic Missile 3 times you can do that and but if you wanted to cast another spell instead you can do that too. So you are more flexible in D&D5e in my mind. Also you don't really put all of your spells to memory in D&D5e they are copied to your spell book so you can prepare them to cast. Sorcerers are the ones that have them in "memory", but technically they just know how to cast spells with out a spell book. And no I am not saying that PF2e is bad or D&D5e is better, because I have never played PF2e.
@@billymiles6870 Flexibility, 5e wizard wins out. Amount of spells you actually have, pf2 wizard wins out. I enjoy the variety this sort of enforces. If I want to be able to toss out three magic missile spells, I can always play sorcerer, which gets much closer to 5e-style casting at the cost of being unable to prepare spells. Instead I get to use a variety of different spells in magic missiles place, searching for good ways to make use of each of them.
Note that there's also the Flexible Spellcasting archetype you can choose, which gives your wizard full on 5e spellcasting in exchange for -1 slot per spell level.
@@rednidedni3875 It also gives stronger identity to both Wizards and Sorcerers.
So... will you compare a Dwarf Cleric of Moradin with a Dwarf Warpriest of Torag in your next video?
If enough people want a cleric video I can definitely take a look at the clerics!
I second a cleric video
Also, I would be interested in seeing a comparison between the source of 5th edition with the Sorcerer of Pathfinder 2nd edition. Excuse any typos, I am using tap to talk and it doesn't always pick up on my accent. The word "source" was supposed to be" Sorcerer" .
Minor point for Wizards: Remember, saves do not increase MAP, so you can take a shot with a weapon after a 2-action cast, and if no spell attack was made, it's at full bonus. Additionally, YOU CAN USE SHIELDS. For goodness' sake, take a shield!
Or use the Shield Cantrip.
Shield cantrip is better. It means you can hold a staff and cast spells.
@@Amanofan7777 Real use of Shield is to break it on Shield Block, then use your physical shield for two points of AC.
@Carlos Caro the issue with that is needing free hands. I'd rather hold staves/wands
@@Amanofan7777 Thankfully a staff can be wielded in one hand. So unless you're dual-wielding that isn't an issue.
In the Remaster, the concept of Components were dropped, but conversely, all spellcasting now requires making gestures and uttering incantations, but more importantly, they create obvious sensory manifestations, like bright lights, crackling sounds or sharp smells. And nearly all spells have a spell signature, like your classic glowing rune circles around your hands. Only spells that have the 'subtle' descriptor, like 'Charm', can be cast discretely.
Can you do a video comparing monsters?
Absolutely! I have been thinking about what monsters to showcase because I think PF2 does some of the "typical" monsters way better than 5e in terms of how interesting they are.
@@IcarusGames I would love to see goblins compared!
@@IcarusGames Owlbear and Purple Worm are my pick for classics.
Currently dabbling with the Pathfinder Beginner box. Will you be making a video on what is your process of converting 5e pre-written adventures to PF2? The idea of dynamic PF2 combat in DnD sounds very interesting.
To be honest, try and match 5e statblocks with their pathfinder 2e counterparts. It's not gonna work 100% of the time since there will be some disparities in combat design etc. but look at what encounters you have in your 5e game and their intended difficulties and you can probably work towards making encounters quite well in pf2e.
With regards to checks and stuff, use level based DCs for PF2e, you can use your own judgement call on how hard a check is supposed to be by looking at DCs in 5e - everything else like exploration and downtime can fit nicely
Like RASH said, you basically just...do it. Like use the pathfinder monsters instead of dnd, use Diplomacy instead of Persuasion, adjust DCs to be level-appropriate, etc. Fortunately PF2e makes it easy to check if combats are gonna be too easy or deadly, and provides pretty good guidelines for DCs by level, so it'll take some work, but not that much more than just prepping the adventure in the first place.
Or... you could use the Archives of Nethys for monsters/traps/hazards as D&D and Pathfinder share around 99.5% of the monsters... and the Archive has all the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries uploaded onto the website along with most, if not all, of the published traps/hazards.
adding on to the guide people have given here, I recommend using automatic bonus progression so you don't have to care too much about converting magic items
As others have said, the simplest way to do it is to rebuild the encounters with similar PF2 monsters (paying attention to the balance in terms of encounter budget for PF2).
I've not played any of the PF2 adventures myself, but a lot of people I know speak VERY highly of paizo's adventures, so if you want to run pre-written stuff, definitely give them a look!
I'd really appreciate a comparison of the Bard!
I like playing Bards! ^^
Wizard is one of my favorites, thanks for covering it! I'd like to see you cover the Cleric next!
Cleric is next on my list!
I will admit that the idea of going back to Vancian casting after D&D5e feels....icky. I hated Vancian casting back in the 80s with AD&D and was SO glad to see it gone when I came back to D&D after a 26 year hiatus. Everyone who is pro-PF2E seems to make a lot of points about how you can supplement with Staffs, Scrolls, Wands, etc. But that makes PF2e an inherently different game than 5e. In 5e, magic items aren't really necessary for the most part, so having a world that doesn't have a trade in magic items, scrolls, etc. works fine. . But it feels like the mechanics of PF2E rely upon a rather common proliferation of magical stuff that can be bought. If a DM wants to run a world setting where "buying magic at the local magic shop" isn't a thing, does that hamper how PF2E prepared casters can function?
Magic items are very much ingrained into the core system and character advancement and monster balance is based on an assumption of so many magic items.
There are alternate rules in the CRB and GMG for you to get around this though.
The automatic bonus progression rules take all the bonuses assumed in magic items and grant them as level up features meaning you don't need to have the items.
Then there's the flexible spellcasting rules from secrets of magic which does away with vancian casting.
5e players, "I whisper the spell incantations"
5e sorcerers, "My class is a joke."
I've never seen a DM actually allow that. It's usually that people realize a spell is being cast, so they attack.
In PF2, all magic produces visible runic emanations unless you take feats specifically to cast subtly, so there's an in-world barrier to prevent that situation.
also ine point in dnd 5e wizards learn 2 spells of any lv that they have appropriate spell slot
and number of prepered spell is wizard lv + int mod
PF1 had scribe scroll as a class feature. It was how a wizard could stand next to a sorcerer. Does PF2 have something similar?
Wizards can either find scrolls and copy them into their spellbook or they can craft scrolls.
Another difference with Cantrips is that you can prepare new cantrips each day in PF2E. In D&D the ones you choose are permanent.
Yes, wizards were nerfed but what's often forgotten is the absolute cheap cost of low level scrolls. When a 1st level Fear spell costs 4gp a pop, and your personal wealth is 1000s of gold, you can start most fights with a couple of free spell slots in your hands when you're level 10+
Also, I'd love to see the Ranger's get compared next!! Though it might not be a fair comparison...
Yeah, and Fear heightened to 3rd level for 5 targets is a very powerful spell for its level and useful forever. Punches above its paygrade for a 3rd level spell and it's level means the scroll is only 30gp. By mid-levels you can keep a pack of those babies on hand pretty easy to blammo a whole fight.
Keeping a stock of scrolls is a great point!
@@IcarusGames Scrolls are great loot too!
On a more general note, how are you finding Pathfinder 2e? I've been playing pretty much since release and found it scratched a different itch from D&D 5e.
Completely agree with this. Also wands that cast spells whose duration is "until the next time you make your daily preparations" are a fantastic way to save spell slots you might want to use for something else.
@@amberjones4067 I've got my first game next weekend, so I'm very excited for that. I'm enjoying reading up on it a lot though. I ran a PF1 campaign from levels 1-20, and now having done 1-16 for 5e, I can definitely say that I preferred the crunchier Pathfinder rules and having more support as a game master from the rules.
You don't mention Vancian casting... why is that?
Because people who know what this is know what this is, people who don't will just be confused to no end and screaming in the comments "WTF is 'Vancian spell casting?!"
Pathfinder branched off from 3.5, 2e was just an extension of Pathfinder so 2e naturally uses a very similar system to 2e so anyone who knew 2e is fine with this, want to cast spontaneously like 5e pathfinder has you covered, just play a spontaneous caster like a sorcerer.
Fazit: if you want to play a blaster, play a sorcerer
I struggle to feel unique as a wizard in 5e. Choosing a school does almost nothing since all wizards have access to each others' spells. I imagine wanting to be an evil lich raising skeletons to fight for me as a Necromancer wizard...but you're basically just a wizard who can occasionally raise a couple skeletons, but you're usually probably just going to cast Fireball. It always just felt like you never really get that flavor of choosing a different school that I always wanted.
I feel like Pathfinder 2e does a better job making your wizard feel unique. I haven't dived into the PF2e Remaster stuff deeply, but the changes to Wizard seem to make them feel even more unique.
Yeah, school choice on 5e matters way less than it did in previous editions, but if you lean into theme and choose thematic spells and other options it's totally possible to make most of the kinds of wizard you'd want in 5e, but it's not as immediately obviously customizable.
Pathfinder2e rogue vs 5e or worse yet One dnd UA version of rogue would be of interest.
Didn't D&D used be be like this as well? Maybe back in 2E?
Yeah, I believe 5e is the exception when it comes to how D&D has handled casters.
Sort of! Back in AD&D spells just were whatever level they were, you didn't cast them with higher slots, i.e. Magic Missile ALWAYS just took a level one "slot" because it's a level one spell.
The difference in 3.X and prior(not sure about 4E as I didn't play much of that, I think most of the major spells were abilities rather than spells in the traditional sense) is that as you gain levels in your spell casting class your spells just naturally get better.
The spells themselves have a paragraph in the descriptions about how they get more powerful. to use the Magic Missile example again, I believe it said you got an additional missile every other level(3, 5, 7, and 9) to maximum of five missiles, sorry 5E folk, no nine missile Magic Missiles for you before 5E(maybe 4E, again I don't recall much from that edition as I didn't play it)!
Ive played 3.5, both pathfinder editions and 5e and ive refused to play prepared casters until 5e. Imo, its bad and counterintuitive game design to force a player to pick which slots get which spells, which gets compounded if you think you need to cast a spell more than once. Absolutely destroys utility. I love all the choices and paths you can pick and choose from with pf2e, but when i want to play a wizard or cleric im going to 5e because that feels better and more fun to play.
I get the wizard leveling feeling too incremental in 5e, but dont forget that scrolls work both ways in 5e. Work with your dm about cool spells you'd like to come across in scroll form you have to spend the time putting in your book. First time i did this as a scribes wizard i ended the campaign with almost 100 spells in my book, and prepared what i could because a component pouch isnt a bag of holding lol.
weird as my pathfinder 2e game the 10th level character has 73 spell points and if i want to cast any known spells at level 1 then i can cast 36 level 1 spells in 1 day or level 2 spells cast 4 points allowing me to cast up to 17 level 2 spells and when i cast level 3 spells they are 7 points and so on and this is official pathfinder rules out of a pathfinder book so not sure about all of this video
Which PF2 book is this from as it's not a rule I'm immediately familiar with and would love to take a look at it.
@@IcarusGames lol come to find out the GM bridged this rule over from D&D book lol
hmmmm gosh i dont think i could go back to original spell slots... i was spoiled hahaha
@@paratrooperz1 I thought that might be the case 🤣 I knew it was a 5e variant rule but hadn't seen anything of the like for PF2.
Levelling in 5e is better than you make out. You get 2 new spells in your book each level not 1 and you either get a new level of spells or a feature(an asi/feat or an arcane tradition). I get upping your intelligence by 2 and getting 2 spells might be less exciting but the flexible casting makes you feel like you have more utility. Like all the Martials I have built but the cleric and wizard are underwhelming and squishy. Still need to check out the sorcerer but it feels like everyone fighting to be the martials and no-one wanting to be healbot cleric or wizard.
You can REALLY tell WHEN people came into TTRPGs based on how much they whine about how weak Wizards are outside of 5E D&D!!! AD&D players will just salivate at the idea of having spells that I NEVER lose so I don't need to have a crossbow for when I've used up my SINGLE 1st level spell the first few levels of play!
@@JacksonOwex i started with ad&d…
am i the only one that notices that wizards feel more useful while leveling in pathfinder than D&D?
In D&D, i feel like im being carried through most campaigns at level 1-8. With an occasional highlight moment.
usually with the dm (or i, myself) kinda go lax on the rules to allow it to happen.
whereas in pathfinder, i feel like im just as useful at level 1-8 as the fighter and thief classes. with many awesome moments
I get what you mean. Taken as a whole 1-20 experience I get why some might prefer the 5e wizard, but when most games never make it to level 10, those lower levels are disproportionally important.
It's the difference between the 5e sorcerer and the Pathfinder sorcerer (in the first edition) that converted me from being a die-hard 5e fan to a die-hard PF1e fan.
Wizards are better in 5E for the similar reasons the Sorcerer in PF2E is better than the wizard in PF2E, prepared casting in PF2E is not good/fun and all other choices aside, that's the core premise and function of the class. The 5E wizard edges out a little farther because it gets the spontaneous casting available in PF2E with the versatility of knowing as many spells as they can get into their spell book. The prepared casting in PF2E is pretty righteously horrid, and its better for spontaneous casters across the board and in 5E the most prepared type of casting is essentially spontaneous casting in PF2E. This is one spot I think 5E did it better than PF2E personally, as the tediousness of strict Vancian casting (prepping every slot instead of a repertoire) is not something many missed and isn't fun for many and is quite tedious and doesn't play as well at the table as more spontaneous prep options, especially as you gain more and more slots and spells. As it stands within PF2E I would never recommend a wizard over a sorcerer because of this, let alone a comparison with the wizard in 5E. I'd go so far as to say, a player would have more fun with a wizard in 5E 99 of 100 times more often than one in PF2E. Max level spell comparisons mean little since almost no games play there and those that do often not for long before campaign end, so classes that finally pay off/peak in that tier isn't ime/imo a good point in their favor. I say all this as someone who switched away from 5E to PF2E, because in general it does more right/better IMO and is way easier to GM.
From what I've heard high level play is far more balanced and fun in pf2e which combined with what I know is true that the level progression is constant instead of slowing down and that you always have more to look forward to each level and much more stuff outside of spellcasting In pf2e I have to somewhat doubt the extent of what you're saying even tough I understand that spontaneous obviously has significant weaknesses.
…honestly
Pathfinder spell preparation breaks the entire game for me
For a game that prides itself on its flexibility, this is ridiculous
I totally get that POV!
I will say, it's way less egregious as it seems on paper in practice. Most wizard players I know in 5e might take several spells in a particular level, but have no intention of actually casting them, and just plan on popping multiple fireballs no matter what.
There are ways to hot-swap a small number of spells throughout the day, or use scrolls or wands to supplement your arsenal.
But there are optional rules that makes the spellcasting system more like 5e's: 2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99
@@IcarusGames
Thanks for the link, I’ll have a read through that
I’m not one of those Fireball memes
I’ve played 6 or 7 wizards now and only one of them even had fireball as a spell
I always had lists that I would choose for social days, shopping sprees, travel, etc all with different prepared spells
I never understood why people play the most versatile character in the game and the only resort to throwing fireballs
A well prepared wizard makes any encounter easier and supplements missing players…
Before making a comparison between two systems, maybe look at a real page in dnd player's handbook)
Great idea! Maybe I should actually open one of the 17 5e books behind me in the video?!
Man Pathfinder's magic system is my biggest complaint from D&D 3e. I hate having to set specific spells ahead of time, it means you're for the most part just going to default to the most useful spells. Why would I pick something like Alarm when I can have an extra casting of Magic Missile or Shield and better hope only one person falls l because I only prepared one Feather Falling, but hey nobody did in the last five days, so maybe I'll just drop it down to no castings of Feather Fall. It sucks. In theory, it's asking you to plan ahead and think what might happen in a day, but in reality it's just asking you to choose what are the most useful spells in every situation.
Is that a problem though? Sure, you can choose the "best" spells each day by default, but if you don't account for some unexpected things and always default to your go-to spells, you'll run into a situation where you don't have a spell that could have been useful, which can lead to dramatic consequences.
Like, maybe you don't think feather fall is worth it, so you don't take it one day, and that day one of your companions falls to their death, and from that point forward you always keep a charge of it handy. That's a great character moment.
But then say you almost get killed because you didn't have an extra Shield prepared because you're holding that slot to cast a Feather Fall that was never needed or hell, maybe that roc that ambushed you tossed your allies off the cliff on two separate turns, but you still only prepared that one Feather Fall. That just gives you the same issue. It especially seems bad for clerics because there's no way you're not going to have a Cure Wound tax on at least on slot for the bulk of your spell levels.
It just feels needlessly restrictive and just there to limit the power of casters and sucks even more if you prepared incorrectly or have something really unexpected happen, or just have some really bad luck. And I realize you can have that stuff happen with 5e's way of doing things, but it's less likely to happen because you have more flexibility in the moment.
@@Theolis Shield is a cantrip, just cast it as much as you want! XD Also, clerics get bonus heal or harm uses of they're higher spell slots equal to 1+their charisma. If you wanted a more flexible class why not just choose a sorcerer or go for a wizard with spell substitution thesis. That really looks like that's the wizard you want to play! Idk, if you need help with your builds in PF2 I'm available :)
But I like burning the earth with my raw power. 😢
I dislike Pathfinder's spell prep for the simple reason that I am not omniscient. I don't want to have to gamble at the start of each day on whether I will be useful that day or sit at the back lines with my thumb up my rear. I hear way too many people downplaying how often they get the shitty feeling of knowing the perfect spell but not having prepared it or having prepared it at much too low a level. 5E ritual system does the same thing as the 10 min prepared spell swap but better because you don't even need to swap the spell or spend the spell slot of the ritual cast. All that plus the ability to up-cast your spells as needed throughout the day gives the 5E wizard greater access to their spells and makes them feel more powerful without the waste. Pathfinder just seems so unnecessarily limiting in this aspect.
It's a valid preference, for sure!
The way PF2 handles prepared spells is how it's been in some of the older editions of D&D, but coming from 5e it definitely feels limiting by comparison.
The flip side is as a wizard you prepare spells that have broad, dependable use, and use recon and planning to figure out what you'll need ahead of time.
It's a reasonable balance limitation. I get the problem, but in practise, I've found myself not changing my spell lists drastically on a daily basis.
There is the Flexible Spellcasting archetype to fix this exact issue, too! Basically you lose one slot per spell level as a prepared caster, but in exchange get the full power of the 5e prepared system, plus the increased power of upcasting spells in pf2e.
@@rednidedni3875 that archetype would be a requirement for me
@@IcarusGames the issue with recon and planning is that it's game dependant. I do understand the argument and in games you can properly plan out it's really good but in my experience that ability to plan isn't available
@@tomraineofmagigor3499 You can't know what exactly lies ahead, but you can often make some OK guesses. If the big bad is a necromancer, having something that works on undead is easy, even if you don't walk up and fight them. Slow works on basically everything, same with Hideous Laughter to stop bosses. Fireball works pretty well against the vast majority of enemy types, as long as they're plentiful and bunched up
I am ATOMIC!.
So basically PAthfinder is much more like D&D back in the 70s and 80s and 5e has tried to implement some kind of pay-per-spell system.
Pathfinder 1e is almost exactly like D&D 3.5e. As Pathfinder 2e uses Pathfinder 1e as a base for many mechanics... yes, you are correct.
Although, Pathfinder 2e also has a "pay-per-spell" system for class specific spells. Similar to D&D 4e once per encounter powers.
The way prepared spells work is much more like older editions of D&D, yeah!
You don't even have to back that far, but yes!
I'm only just getting into Pathfinder, but so far it doesn't feel like they brought the wizard in closer to martials. It feels like they are vastly inferior to most other classes at lower levels. Spend two actions and a spell slot to do less damage than a single melee attack 🤔
Wizards are always behind the power curve at lover levels. Ans the p2e fighter is a very strong class vs 1 or 2 opponents. The wizards is a much larger tool chest than just damage spells. P2e puts a lot weight into buffing and debuffing. A +1 or -1 modifier is a big deal in p2e the math is that tight.
At lower levels, it might be more impactful to use 2 actions and a spell slot to do something like cast Magic Weapon on the rogue’s rapier, or cast Fear on an enemy the fighter is engaged with to make them more likely to get a critical hit.
Some cantrips can be kind of not great, yeah (looking at you, Daze). Though it is important to remember that seeing by default ranged weapons don't add your ability modifier to damage, it's not as bad as you might think. 1 action for a d10 damage (5.5 average) or 2 actions for 3.5+4 damage (7.5 average). Given the fact a 2nd attack would be at -5 (Or -4 if the weapon is agile) & that penalty applies to both your hit *and* your crit rate, the damage isn't as bad as you might think.
Plus, spellcasters main "ability" is in buffing (As others have said something like magic weapon can just completely and utterly end a combat by itself by its potency at low levels), if its at-will single-target damaging capabilities also equaled martials (When fighting groups it still obviously has a massive edge, honestly an even larger one given how the crit success / crtis fail rules work) whilst still having all the versatility of a caster... Not great
This isn't to say you don't have a point, people will probably never stop arguing whether or not PF2 made casters underpowered, plus wizards are usually viewed as "still solid, but feels like its missing something" to many people (Something which's further exemplified by the fact the only other class he's looked at, the fighter, being often viewed as the most powerful class in the game)
everyone else has explained it well, but I'd like to add on the fact that pf2e wizards get way more cantrips than 5e wizards. at level 1 with options to get even more. So it's entirely possible to cover all the saving throws + attack + 1 utility spell by default, making them really good at targeting weakness if you really want a blaster caster
As in almost all editions, wizards feel weaker than average at lower levels because they have less durability and don't have access to their full suite of more interesting spells.
The big difference between higher level wizards in the two systems is an intentional one in as much as PF2 wizards seem more intended to be team players, whereas a properly prepared wizard with the right spell choice in 5e is an absolute monster.
They don't have Universalist in 5ed and for me it makes that edition unplayable.
Yeah they do, sort of!
@@JacksonOwex "sort of" mean they don't, meanwhile in Pathfinder2e they have universalist and it's pretty much the strongest school
Scribes are universalist
Personal opinion here: A wizard or for that matter a spell caster should always out perform a fighter of any class at higher levels.
I honestly don't see how a melee fight should be able to fight, or match up to, much less outclass a caster who can bend the very fabric of reality to their whims.
This for me is my biggest issue with pathfinder at the moment.
P.S i suck at martial characters.
Lol you're in the absolute minority my friend. Most people see the weakness of martial characters in 5e as a huge meme.
@@adamastor9869 I totally agree