People put 300 hours in a game then call it bad lmao

The really dubious part of the critical failure rules is that since it's a secret check, you have no clue even when you roll high if the information is to be trusted or not. If the false information is to be kept, there should really need to be a differentiation between "thinking x fact applies" and "knowing for certain x fact applies". Like maybe either successes or critical successes let you know for certain, whereas a standard failure lets you "think" something about it that's right or at least half true, whereas a critical failure lets you "think" something that's wrong. It might seem like a failure giving you something you can hypothesize about being true or not is pretty strong for a failure state, but acting upon the wrong information can be a life threatening risk to take as it might make the rest of the actions counter-productive, even if 90% of the time the hypothesis is right.

Yeah man people just forget that TTRPGs are MUTUAL interactive story telling, meaning its a story told by BOTH PLAYERS AND THE DM. Thats something the newer community coming into these games dont seem to get, they get this idea that the DM and the players are facing off against each other, or also the idea that its ALL the DMs job to put on a show, a song and dance. Something that the wording for the stuff in the One DnD books so far really imply should be the case (Yes im a Pathfinder shill and i wont apologize)

I had this exact problem with pathfinder king maker. The literal start of the game is completely unbalanced and it doesn't get better after at that. I bounced after 10 hours and played pillars of eternity again for another 100 hours

Modern players are not just entitled, they're soft as baby poo.

To be honest, I kinda find them pointlessly expanded and the dungeons/encounter areas often turn into complete slogs. You can just translate the adventure, every single encounter area doesn't need to be a 50x50 map with 5x the amount of enemies that the pnp adventure had. Also, just the problems with 1e seem even worse to me when run through a computer system compared to 2e. Also, spell resistance was bullshit, I am so glad it is dead and gone, so frustrating in WotR.

Although I never played Chainmail or even GreyHawk, I can deduce from AD&D 1st Edition, that a Sleep spell has no saving throw, but takes out a specific number of monsters, dependent on their HD (level). Its interesting to speculate from your research that this was a super powerful hangover from the days of mass combat in CM. I remember from playing Ist Ed that, because you picked 4 first level spells semi-randomly, with 1 chosen from offensive, defensive and informational plus Read Magic, every Magic User prayed to roll Sleep for offense, which was way ahead in power of any other 1st level spell. Especially because of no saving throw. Magic Missile also had no save, but you only got one plus one every two levels. Whereas magically sleeping monsters or people could be slain at the rate of one slayer per round. It wasn't a campaign breaker though, since low level MUs could only memorise a few spells (just 1 at first level!) and higher level monsters and humans were totally immune (above 4HD I think). Also many monsters had resistance or immunity to sleep and charm, notably elves and undead of any sort. Still it would be quite a thrill to take out a whole room of orcs with one first level spell ... only casting fireball for the first time was probably more memorable!

That's it exactly, tedious min maxing and meta gaming. Also, I think that if a game is designed to be sandbox with impossible encounters all over the place, it should be acompained with good run way mechanics. I also prefer to make builds on a theme and I think that builds that relly too much on items are very uninspired.

I also greatly disliked how insanely high the Owlcat games pushed the monster stats in King Maker! I finished what I think was the first 3 books worth of material and decided I had enough of that nonsense. As much as I like Pathfinder 1st Ed, I decided not the buy the Wrath of the Righteous game(at least not yet), partially because of how bad the stat inflation was and partially because I was not interested in the Devine(or something similar) ranks that Adventure Path requires. I also hated how it was not a real grid map.

I hate what they've done with the look of monsters. They're supposed to be monstrous not cute. . .

2:40 "Let the -modders- GMs fix it." - apparently the WotC motto 6:00 "It isn't a problem if you design entirely around it being a problem." That has the same energy as saying: "I am not shortsighted, I wear glasses!" 10:52 I second that it is the GM's job to _try_ making fair encounters, but that the system fights them. One of the best selling points of PF2 for GMs: Creature and Encounter math _just works_ 15:41 The guy was chasing the White Whale called a "build". But it was a red herring all along. 21:04 Someone really failed their "Real Life Lore" check. 25:59 Edible Turnips are actually from East Asia. Also not European. Also off the table.

&es, to an extent the dm is supposed to create challenging, but not guaranteed death. The dm has infinite power and can always win, so if the players feel like they never had a chance, it’s not going to be a good experience. You can play to win, but picking a 21 cr enemy for a level 13 party of only 3 people. Some players can handle that, but it’s a good chance you make an encounter that feels unwinnable.

I dont really like that you cant disrupt a sutained spell if you hit the enemy

I love OwlCat Pathfinder Games they are like the Dark Souls of CRPGS 😂😅 Hard as hell, but always have a great story underneath ❤️

Can we all just agree to move to pathfinder already?

Fair play ironmanning X-Com 2. I always ended up playing while tired, and would make too many stupid mistakes to ever find Ironman mode fun haha!

Oracle is the only class i will be using the legacy version, maybe with a few changes from the remaster

I'm running Kingmaker right now for PF2E and it's our first introduction to PF2E. Party wiped in the prologue during the very final encounter. This game is tough!! (most players do not min-max or even, uh, use their basic abilities half of the time). The axe-lady (volo-whatever) respects the party for getting as far as they did. So the swordlord lady is dead and the PCs are getting recruited by the Black Tears! No idea how this is going to progress with the kingdom building/settling/etc, or the overall story, but this is why I love TTRPGs more than video games - the game can and does run off the rails sometimes. Having a blast.

you are a champion

This comment is WAY LATE and isn't meant to discount anything you said. And I want to state for the record I like PF2e and am currently running Abomination Vaults for my group ATM. That said. What You've described here mirrors my experience playing a spellcaster in PF2e. It feels like they are balanced around the most heavily optimized players. I played a spellcaster in my groups first game, we were all fairly new to the game other than the DM. I picked options that felt flavorful or cool and I ended up feeling completely useless, worse than useless like I was dragging down the group with how often I was getting downed but never contributing anything of value, I felt like I had lost at character creation. There were certainly a lot of builds online I could follow, but I felt like I had to either choose between flavour/utility and actually being worthwhile in battle, while the martials in the group got both. I think I stuck it out 2 levels but begged my DM to let me switch Characters and played a Kineticist which felt like it got all the utility and flavour of being a caster while also being able to contribute on the same level as the rest of they party.

I actually can echo a lot of these points. I've completed WotR twice. At one point I just said fuck it and dropped the difficulty down to minumum. The game became much more enjoyable. It is partially an issue with pf1e partially with the way encounters are built. Another thing. Knowing nothing I've started a game as Sourcerer with Air heritage. Guess what. Demons are immune to lightning damage.

removing alignment is the stupification of "smart people"

hammer flail nerf is something I never want to hear but a save is fair!

Okay so I'm not going to get into the discussion of editions because it can go either way, but you are right in your insight on the subject matter it's just not the way that it's being used in the table top industry right now so it is kind of hard to pin down. When I'm going to talk about is it going to be more about what they can do in these new what will call additions or variations. So from what I can tell, they are reintroducing the Gray hawk setting which is a lower magic setting than the forgotten realms I think I'm not exactly sure but I think it's more Marshall and lighter on certain magics. If this is the case then they can use the 5e superstructure to create a completely new experience by changing how magic works or how it's presented. This does present a good branching that can have slightly different sets of rules which might be able to be used interchangeably with the main faerun setting but not quite. And if that works in this setting, they can introduce a variation of dark sun, or reintroduceeberron, or another setting that's from the classics, there's many of them. And in each one present the 5e superstructure, but they can still do something that is different that sets it apart whether it's how the PCS are built, not the standard species class background but something a little bit more like pathfinder, or in some sort of different ways to do an initiative or to present something different. This would make all the settings still compatible because they are on the same frameworks of the 5e superstructure, but each would have their own unique flavor and taste on how they do things.

You are spot on 100% accurate. It’s not the DMs job to handhold the players through the game. Stupid decisions have consequences just like real life. I think you’d be a blast to play with.

Who could possibly say DnD is rules light? Have they seen the books? It is the game I play and it's the most rules heavy I've played.

There is a DM shortage because there are to many rules, and it scares people away. Also DM's are the only ones that care about Wotc/Hasbros business model. So it is both to scary for new DM's to start, and older experienced DM's are leaving droves for other RPG systems that provide the experience they want better. Wotc is targetting DM's on both ends of the spectrum.

I'm glad to see the Dominion of the Black and the way they reworked intellect devourer and brain collectors

Simp rule? Is this for those that think character danger in the game is unfair? Will they cry if you introduce them to a situation they know they cant win?

I’ve spent a collective 100 hours on wrath of the righteous and always quit in act 3. I cannot stand having to apply buffs before every fight, even with a mod that does it automatically. Reminds me why dnd 5e’s concentration system was so crucial to fixing prebuffing in dnd 3e/pf1e.

good video

Well I'm playing P:KM atm and I'm loving It. I never played PF 1st ed. and coming from BG3 I really like the depth of the system and the difficulty of the combat. Having said that I agree with your points. Encounter design is bad compared to the competition and the buffing Is tedious indeed. Guess a lot has tò do with the game being designed with RT in mind (I'm playing turno basse). Having said that the game has a lot of soul and it's worth to delve in to, despite your points.

Wotr is the best. Core is easy, get gud The objetive is power fantasy not cruising like bg3

I too approached the game as PF1 via a pc, Kingmaker and WotR both focus on one principle kind of enemy (fey and demons respectively with some undead) so specialisation against that enemy was the sensible (but obvious) thing to do. I don't consider that powergaming once you've fought a few of the critters. The thing that annoyed me was the Kingdom and the Crusade systems. When I played these a.p.'s over the table someone else did all that so I was annoyed at the limitations placed on me if I used the automatic systems for these things, e.g. an inabilty to explore certain areas. Likewise as you say, some of the builds are variable (Valerie for example is not the greatest and if you change her then you probably are incongruent with her character arc). Now I prefer PF1 but the reason is for the system to mirror the narrative arc of the pc, and this is how the CRPG pcs should have been done (with the exception of the iconics). I like powerful characters but hated the mythic powers in WotR (CRPG and over the table) as that felt too 'power game' and I like my character to be people, exception people but still, people. So I didn't finish WotR and have done 3 playthroughs of Kingmaker, not the greatest level of gameplay for what I thought would be a way to play a game I love.

I love the owlcat games, but you basically gotta spend a lot of time pre-buffing before potential encounters or entering some dungeons in order to make it through some of them. And it does happen more often than in other crpgs I've played, in the old Baldur's gate games I usually only had to consider pre-buffing before boss fights.

I am proud that I beat both games in normal or harder difficulty (without checking online guides besides how resolve plot related obstacles than fight/build guides cause bugs), but I agree that constant pre-buffing can get tedious. So thus why example in Wrath I favor using extend metamagic and mythic powers to make even basic buff spells last hour or even 24 hours and cast them once when entering large map. Also before introducing turn based combat kingmaker combat was intense cause I played casters a lot so needed line spells and place them rapidly in the fight. So ending up favoring using magic missile a lot cause it can't miss and hits for solid dmg and open combat with chain AoE's and easy targeting spells during main combat.

After some of the big bugs got worked out Kingmaker was so much fun , as we could finally play Pf I, and a great AP, yep it was far from perfect, but had fun . Sadly they broke away from their parent company so could no longer change things for King. How far did you get in King? But I get that you like a more casual game. Wrath was even better and that was friggin cool and with all the DLC's, how far did you get with that. Again it fixed a fun but broken Mythic Pen & Paper AP. Again not perfect but the replay was quite the thing!! Can't wait til The Dragons Demand updated to PF II and the extra's they throw in, I GMed the super module some time ago and quite fun!! Did you even play PF I's The Dragons Demand? Each gamer has their likes and dislikes, regardless it is A GOOD thing we have choices now, more and more for Paizo game play, Now if we could only get a Starfinder Video game I'd die a happy man :)

The one somewhat redeeming feature of PF1 for multi classing as a primary caster is the magical knack trait, which lets you add two levels of a non caster class to your spellcasting class. I was able to take 3 levels of ranger as a nature oracle once, so I could get a favored terrain and qualify for a prestige class. If I ended up losing 3 caster levels I never would've done it but that trait let me pursue a build that was based on the character concept, which was nice. Traits are also in a splat book and the only traits our party took was me and the sorcerer taking magical knack so we could multi class lol

My problem with 3E-based games is that I feel a need to optimize and to an extent I enjoy it, but it is extremely frustrating how much you have to do, how much that limits your choices, and how much work you need to put in to figure that out.

I've just been reading up on Pathfinder 2E since I started looking at TTRPGs again due to the Pathfinder computer games. These actually seem like really solid changes overall. I didn't like Pathfinder 1E that much because I felt it did a poor job of helping Martials and a bad job of controlling casters -- biggest problem in 3.5E D&D. I really liked Tomb of Battle in 3.5E and wish that there was something like that in 5E D&D or Pathfinder 2E (afaik, there is not). I know a lot of people found the martial abilities there "too fantastic" though. I find the Kineticist depending on Con a little weird though. Is that because they were worried about making it use a mental stat and having more synergy with casters or did they feel it was weak and needed it paired with combat-powerful stat? Anyhow, your analysis seems pretty good

I'd actually finish WotR if it didn't have the conquest mode.

I am still not convinced that casters are good enough. They need an item bonus for attack rolls.

I still don’t understand how the alchemist actually works

Also i am playing a pf2 game where we will have a session of downtime followed by an explore then more downtime and everyone is loving it. Combat is a failure of options (or a hunt). My players are cooks and i created cooking times based off of the chase rules

I disagree with most of what you said though I respect your stance. I am in no way a power gamer and I don't believe you need to "git gud" or "power game" or even "use optimal builds" to resolve encounters in Owlcat games. The games throws you enough "potions and lotions" and scrolls so that you can buff yourself for large fights. This makes sense to me, cause in games like the Witcher, pre-buffing with potions was what I always did. Even if you are not a spellcaster, the game gives you more than enough resources to buff yourself for difficult encounters, and although some encounters are hard to gauge if they are going to be trivial or hard (I am looking at you random 50+ ac Smilodon from encounter) usually you know when you should pre-buff to fight or not. I would argue it's much less swingy than BG3. Try doing BG3 Tactician without consumables and you will find it difficult too. In Baldur's Gate 3 you MUST take certain spells and abilities and genuinely optimize your build as a spellcaster, while martials are genuinely easy to build and you can't really go wrong. Unlike BG3, in PF you won't have many 50% chance to hit suck or save abilities. And of course, these are challenges that, in either game, power builders will have no challenge resolving, especially with the houserules that Larian implemented which further unbalance the game. Builds don't make that much of a difference in PF. Most of the npc companions they give you have terrible builds that would actually be worst than what most people would do at their tables... But they do get the job done. Characters like Greybor or Regill and even godawful Trever are very serviceable despite their builds. About changing statistics though. Even if you play with core rules, the monster stats are still inflated (and some are even nerfed). In WotR, Spell resistance, AC and attack values of monsters are way overtuned even in core rules. So even when you are playing with "core rules" you are indeed playing against house ruled monsters (hence why there is no shame in lowering difficulty). If you want a tabletop version of 1e made into a crpg, pathfinder ain't it, just like BG3 isn't really tabletop 5e. I mean genuinely try asking your DM to let you do some of the houserules from BG3 and gauge their reaction. I do agree Owlcats Pathfinder does have glaring issues. A houserule that breaks martials completely is that instead of allowing you to use weapon combat maneuvers (which are similar to 5.5e mastery properties) they instead require you to take feats and instead of replacing one of your attacks with the maneuver attempt, they replace your full attacks with the attempt. while these changes allow you to be more customizable, they do take a valuable feat from you (though it gives you a +2 to the maneuver, so its not that bad). It's the making a maneuver take a full round action that is extremely bad, but I understand why they did it from a balance perspective, however it creates a further divide from martials and casters, who were barely nerfed (unless you count the absurd levels of spell resistance that force you to take feats for spell penetration, though that might have just been done as an incentive for you to take those feats in the first place). Glaring issues. Regardless thank you for the video. More people should share their genuine opinions like this.

Puffins view on combat in Pathfinder is so disingenuous

This is just a mainstream/counter culture thing like any other. The mainstream "fight is sport" crowd walks in with that expectation and the countercultural "fight is war" crowd thinks they have the superior & more logical position. Both are annoying in their own way but both have their place in the grand scheme of things.