How Pathfinder’s Math Tells a Better Story - D&D vs PF2e

In this video I explore how Proficiency is handled in Dungeons & Dragons 5e vs Pathfinder 2e and how these differences effect the stories at our tables.
This is the first video in what will be a series exploring Table Top RPG mechanics and looking at how numbers are so important to the narrative. If you have any examples of fun or interesting game mechanics please fill me in or reach out to me on twitter!
Keep up with me on Twitter:
/ kalebherington
Get in touch with the community on Discord:
/ discord
Time Stamps
Intro: 0:00
D&D: 1:07
PF2e: 2:40
Outro: 4:15

[@wotcluvr]

i think u suk!

[@calebmoss8914]

Man imagine someone taking the time to create a whole new gmail and KZbin account just to make that comment… what a weirdo

[@beancounter2185]

@@calebmoss8914 Pretty sure that was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment....

[@OranjMoose]

That user name checks out

[@craigjones7343]

You know you are doing a good job when you get troll comments like this. Lol

[@wotcluvr]

@@beancounter2185yeah I know, my comment was also tongue in cheek because it was me that made that account to make that comment lol

[@jonathanrobinson319]

What i learned with d&d 5e was that six kobolds can be more dangerous than a dragon.

[@CornBreadtm1]

Cause in 5e, 6 Kobolds is an adventuring party and you are the dragon. In Pathfinder with proper set up, you can fight 6 dragons verse your party of 6 and just go for the even battle. In 5e 6 dragons is basically insta-death since the action economy doesn't allow proper set up to deal with 6 breath weapons firing off at your party.

[@chickensky1121]

Meanwhile a party of 9 level 10 players can take down an Ancient Blue Dragon in 3 rounds without a single casualty - and most of us were middle schoolers IRL, I'm sure a normal party of 4-5 adult D&D players that use some actual strategy could pull it off too.

[@yoman8027]

That... that tells there's something wrong with the system.

[@SnesNESS-ic6gn]

I thought death kobolds were for AD&D?

[@Gatzlocke]

6 kobolds CAN be more dangerous than a dragon. That's why it's more fun.

[@webbowser8834]

I'm glad we as a community have decided to not let WotC live down the fact they actually hired the Pinkertons over a freaking card game.

[@firewolfandrewb]

Have we? This is the first time I've heard someone bring it up in months.

[@webbowser8834]

@@firewolfandrewb Eh, One Shot Questers brought it up in one of their skits last month.

[@Snowie7826]

​@@webbowser8834Who?

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Never forget.

[@TheRoseReaper]

He makes TTRPG Skits @@Snowie7826

[@calebsorrell6235]

I joined my first ever TTRPG, an in-progress game of Pathfinder, and somehow wound up with a +19 to perception. The greatest line this created was the DM saying “I guess you see her scent?!” while tracking a missing ally

[@ImDaRealBoi]

Arcane synesthesia, hell yeah

[@ch33les99]

Bro got Witcher Senses

[@TheMonyarm]

My first Pathfinder game was an in-progress campaign. I made a multiclass Investigator/(Phantom Thief) Rogue, with a 1 level dip in Scaled Fist Monk for Charisma to AC. I had insane stealth, especially when combined with the potions from the Investigator. At level 10, I was able to sneak into a temple, and steal an item from them. And that's after I sent them a calling card and told them I was going to rob them.

[@Nakisey]

I was the DM for a VERY high power Gestalt Campaign last year and at one point I stopped asking for a Monk/Shifter PC for Perception rolls lmao, it was insane

[@secrom36]

@@TheMonyarm bro thinks he is the joker

[@moonblade7564]

"Why settle for a system that you have to fight with duct tape and nail gun?" Brilliant line

[@StarryxNight5]

I stick with D&D because it lets me play a Wizard without crying. I love martials in PF2e, but goddamn do the casters feel bad. Prepared casters don't even feel like magic users to me

[@exewon]

@@StarryxNight5 I often hear that, and I wonder how much of 'casters feel bad' in PF2e is because of people subconciously still assuming wizards should invalidate all martial classes with a single spell.

[@StarryxNight5]

@@exewon That's really not the case for me atleast. I don't really care about power as long as I feel atleast somewhat useful while having a somewhat fun time playing. Just the fantasy alone of being a magic person is enough for me. But Pathfinder's prepared casters are just so unfun to me. Most of the time on any actually important enemy, the best I can hope for is a Success on saves. And before you say "Just target the weakest save!" It really does not work for me. I have tried it. Vancian casting ruins the idea. It honestly feels like playing a side character. Not to mention how much of a chore Vancian casting itself is, for a *multitude* of reasons

[@exewon]

@@StarryxNight5 I'll admit vancian casting *should've* gone the way of the dodo in 2e tbh. And I hope it does in a future 3e. Especially with the bigger mechanical leaning on assuming people are more or less at full power at the start of every encounter. (cuz fuck the adventuring day concept) They might've overcorrected slightly with pf2e casters. But casters absolutely had to be kneecapped compared to DnD. Since in 5e (and a lot of other editions) martials are basically utterly pointless. Wizards are better fighters then the actual fighters.

[@StarryxNight5]

@@exewon Nobody would argue about the martial-caster divide in 5e. It's egregious, it's true. But that doesn't really make it much better, in the end. I judge Pathfinder 2e as its own game. How fun it is to play. How it feels to spend *hours* on each campaign and character. And prepared casters just feel _bad_

[@aidenauty9716]

One thing not brought up by this video, is the fact that this fighters "mothers greatsword" can stick with the player their ENTIRE journey, as the player will find runes to buff the weapon they WANT to use, rather than just tossing your sentimental sword for a shiny and new +2 one

[@Akalim]

This is exactly why I added a magical blacksmith in my dnd campaign, I love the idea that my players get to keep their sentimental weapons and their weapons can grow along with them

[@aquamarinerose5405]

Though 5e characters just need to talk to their DM and say "pls let me upgrade my family sword". PF2 just has actual mechanics for it

[@jjjjrrrrmmmm123]

@@aquamarinerose5405 duct tape

[@aquamarinerose5405]

@@jjjjrrrrmmmm123 I mean, fair, but it's at least an *extremely simple* duct tape fix since "Make your own magic items if XYZ thing doesn't fit already" is already part of the paradigm. Like: Magic Item Rules are purposely vague enough to allow "upgrades" to be totally valid.

[@notsochosenone5669]

Well, you see, you can do exactly that in 4e, and we all know 4e = bad, so we don't need that stupid rule in our glorious 5e! /s

[@magicmike540]

D&D used to be like this. It was 5E that introduced "bounded accuracy".

[@kalebherington]

True! I think in my attempts to contrast the mechanics I accidentally implied Pathfinder 2e is the origin of this design decision. Something I'll have to keep in mind going forward!

[@JacksonOwex]

It was SORT of like that! You DID get better bonuses the higher you got, depending on your class, but it was also quite different.

[@galmenz6118]

which notably kinda fails at doing that too after the early levels because AC doesn't scale and the attack does, so its more rocket tag than anything for a system that is actually bounded, play lancer rpg! on that one you from a +1 to a +6 at max level and THAT IS IT, you dont add your stats to hit. so the d20 is the most important dice at all levels

[@MatthewDragonHammer]

Indeed. Pathfinder 1e was literally a D&D 3.5 clone. It even relied on the 3.5 SRD!

[@scmh1288]

No, it didn't. You had to find magic items and take the correct feats to be viable. You didn't just get it. Smh

[@Murmarine]

Opening the Pathfinder rule book, and seeing the dozens upon dozens of things I needed to homebrew in D&D baked into the system already was an amazing moment for me.

[@FTWMFXD]

FATAL No need to homebrew it. I found the rulebook you needed. Hate me later.

[@faffywhosmilesatdeath5953]

​@@FTWMFXD NO STOP! I HAD FINALLY FORGOTTEN THAT SYSTEM! I DON'T WANNA ROLL FOR ANAL CIRCUMFERENCE!

[@thegamingerickchannel]

​@@FTWMFXD hahaha, FATAL, that's a good one.

[@ikaemos]

I'd argue that PF2e level scaling introduces other narrative issues; it supports the fantasy as far as heroes and villains are concerned, but fails to simulate the rest of the world. I think it's essential for fantasy worldbuilding to have meaningful mechanical relationships between the archetypal inhabitants of the world - the commoner, the guard, the adventurer, the royal guard, the king, the vizier, the great hero, etc. Yet, PF2e's scaling is _so steep_ that those relationships disintegrate completely if the gap is more than 3-4 levels. One level -1 commoner, of _fifty million commoners_ for that matter, might as well not exist for the level 7 royal guard. That's good news for the level 5 king he's guarding (although the king could easily take a few million angry peasants on as well), yet that same genocidal royal guard, or fifty million of them for that matter, is completely powerless against a level 14 rampaging beast. But that beast, and its fifty million siblings, are all fleeing from a single level 21 world-devourer.

[@wiegraf9009]

That is kind of how the fantasy of Pathfinder is set up though. It's like the Avengers. You don't send a hundred low tier heroes to fight The Incredible Hulk, you send maybe a few heroes roughly on his power level and the hundred low tier heroes fight a hundred low tier villains.

[@chrisroberts7159]

It's really nice to see someone point out that math actually matters for narrative

[@Halosty45]

I also prefer the way PF2 changes the narrative regarding weaker enemies. In four levels you can go from fighting something as a boss, to an even battle, to cutting down several of them easily. In 5e you *might* have improved by +2 to attack and damage, and if you're a spellcaster you have 2 tiers of spells to help. But there's a good chance as a martial that only one of your levels mattered and the rest only gave you hp. I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends, but the numbers don't bug me so much as the inconsistency of progression between classes. Choosing between base numbers and feats that are required to do more than standard attacks as a martial is a pain.

[@kalebherington]

Yes! The original script was closer to this example. Having what was once a boss fight now be the minions of the big bad!

[@MalzraAirwynn]

Too an extent yeah. Lower CR monsters aren't generally going to last long against higher level PCs in D&D either but it's definitely more pronounced in PF2E.

[@calvinkaplan7406]

I've been doing a full rework of 5e and that is really the hardest part to rebalance

[@symmetry8049]

"I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends" whenever i hear this, i wonder if they mean "I enjoyed playing this ttrpg, despite what 5e does to it" or if they mean "I like what 5e brings to ttrpgs over other systems" often 5e is people's only exposure and they conflate the two stances. Because yes, I immensely enjoyed my time with 5e. It was my introduction to the hobby, and the hobby is great. But there were also issues, and i'm having much more fun now that i explore other systems

[@Nat-ri3ip]

5e martials may not scale as well as casters, but extra attacks and feats are still non-negligible damage increase.

[@willferrous8677]

"subscribe so you can fight me in the next video" is solid advertisement. Shades of the argument clinic from Monty Python.

[@SoralaxPlays]

In one of my Pathfinder games, one of the party members was a Hobgoblin Ranger named Raeleus with +19 to stealth. One of my favorite running gags in the campaign was rolling a Stealth Check, checking the rest of the party's passive perception checks, and declaring that another game of "Where's Raeleus" had begun. To this day, years later, "Where's Raeleus" is still a recurring joke in my group. Big numbers make the fantasy more fun.

[@lordkosta926]

stealth expertise does the same thing in dnd though? we've had several similar running gags. Usually a +12 modifier is enough for silliness to commence, since the other character's perception isn't going to be +19 either.

[@SoralaxPlays]

@lordkosta926 Sure, but expertise is a class-specific feature. Having your Rogue or Ranger be the only members of the party that can roll crazy numbers in the things that they're proficient in doesn't give other players the ability to create this type of experience. I've had rangers, clerics, rogues, and druids with +18 in a skill they've specifically chosen to focus their efforts on at Level 8, sometimes earlier if they're building with a hyperfocus on one particular idea. Does that make the numbers a bit crazy throughout the game? Absolutely. Does it somehow take away from the majesty of the experience? Absolutely not.

[@lordkosta926]

@@SoralaxPlays you might not be aware of the skill expert feat. It allows any character to choose a skill to have expertise on.

[@SoralaxPlays]

@lordkosta926 And yet feats are such a ridiculously valuable resource in 5e that you need to be EXTREMELY careful with your choices. Your feats can determine so much about your build that giving one up for comically large numbers in a single skill is a wild ask unless your build is centered around that skill. Compare this to PF2E, where you have the big numbers baked into the game. Everyone gets to be amazing at the things they've chosen to flavor their character with, but without sacrificing feat slots - which, now, are much more common (because there are several types of feat, with most classes getting at least one of the three feat varieties every level up), thus allowing for more build flexibility - AND without sacrificing Ability Score Increases, which are no longer tied to feats (which seemed ludicrous to me to begin with).

[@SoralaxPlays]

@lordkosta926 Basically, I'm saying that yes - technically, you can get comically large numbers on your rolls in 5e. However, the game is not optimized to facilitate that and work around it. You need to either play a specific class or go out of your way to build your character to experience that. In PF2E, or even just PF1E, the game is built to allow for and work in the parameters of that. It makes the highs of your character journey feel amazing. When your level 15 character is semi-regularly dishing out 30s on their attack rolls, you feel like a different caliber of adventurer than the level 3 who was lucky if they rolled above a 20. The Demon Lord with 43 AC seems impossible to even touch at early levels, but like a feasible challenge at level 16. And this isn't even going into the skill checks, which - due to the new Crit System - feel AMAZING to pull ludicrous numbers off on.

[@quinnwalker5461]

Supported by a dice with no bell curve, I think 5e is designed so that you can always succeed (i.e crits), however sometimes you can't deal damage (such as when a creature has immunity to non-magical damage). I think it's ok to make players actions useless - it can add huge narrative effect. But you NEED to make sure a player has decent alternatives, otherwise they have no agency and no effect. Which is very bad. I had an encounter recently where we were facing were-rats, and the rogue couldn't do any damage due to having no magic or magical weapon. Setting up a challenge so that player's actions are futile can be a good narrative tool (such as when faced with a creature you can only run from), but you should always do it wisely.

[@cakedo9810]

Even then, I think immunity to non-magical attacks is very surface level. Immunity to non-magical attacks can’t stop a level 6 monk from forcibly dislocating a werewolf’s shoulder by pulling it with all their might. Or the rogue from quickly leaping on to the wererat’s shoulders to crank its head until it snaps the neck. I think the way that non-magic immunity is run lacks definition and seriously needs to be redefined. Non-magic immunity doesn’t mean it escapes from basic physical forces, just that its own hide can’t be pierced by conventional weaponry. Think of the nemean lion. Technically a non-magical attack killed it.

[@dapperpotatoes8473]

In terms of combat, yes. In 5e there is no “auto-success” outside of combat, though people seem to house rule it a lot (which I never understood since character growth both in personality and ability is important).

[@kolardgreene3096]

In my mind, these are the situations where clever thinking has to take over instead of just, as Deficient Master put it in one of his videos, pressing paper buttons on a character sheet to do a thing as a lot of modern RPGs and video gaming have trained players to do.

[@iododendron3416]

I was playing a Goblin barbarian / rogue multiclass and our party was facing a group of werewolves. I didn't have a silver of magic weapon but luckily, I was wearing boots of climbing. So with my expertise in athletics, I just startes grabbing werewolfs, running up the side of the next building (I had like 50 or 60 feet of movement before dash) and simply dropped them. Fun times.

[@Llortnerof]

@@cakedo9810 But that doesn't make sense - nonmagical weapons work through those exact same basic physical forces. If you can snap its neck, your mace should be able to shatter its bones. Most weapons are functionally some kind of lever.

[@vargsvansify]

This video makes a lot of sense. However, when my group tried Pathfinder 2nd Edition we were struck by how many things you had to keep track of. We like to play in person, but it almost felt like a necessity to use some kind of computer program to keep track of how many stacks of every condition were affecting every creature in combat. It bogged us down, turns took forever and we still made tons of mistakes. We were new to the system, so pace could have picked up over time, but to me it felt daunting to administer without lots of careless mistakes, expecially since I like to play without apps and computers. This is not meant as a pro D&D 5E argument. It's just my groups initial reaction to P2E and why we didn't stick with it. Feel free to write it of as "You just sucked" but that was our experience.

[@vargsvansify]

@@micaheiber1419 Heh, I guess first edition really isn’t for my group then. I just don’t feel like keeping track of the hit points of my shield etc. My character’s health is enough. All power to those who enjoys that experience of course. Just my personal preference.

[@lobobanguela6349]

Well...around 20 years ago I used to play with my school friends the DnD 3.5e and well...there were even more things to keep track of and we only had thd books for that at the time. It was hard at the first sessions. Then it became way easier. You guys are just way too accustomed to the way too simple 5e mechanics. Pathfinder 2e can be just as simple within two to three sessions of getting used to the possibilities you have. Because thats basically what PF2e is all about. Possibilities. Its so much more than just spamming attack options all the time. Its exploration mode is done MUCH better. Its downtime mode is done MUCH better. Its combat mode is done INSANELY better. It all comes down to learning what you can and getting used to it. And this can be done in just a few sessions. But theres always people who will prefer the simpler, uninteresting, bland and not enjoyable dnd5e. And its ok.

[@sebastianbolo2480]

@@lobobanguela6349 lost me on that last paragraph, you sound like the vegan version of roleplaying. No need to attack one to favor the other.

[@renbowo]

will be honest, pf2e, pf1e, is a system that you need to support your narrative through the system, where dnd 5e is a system that you support the system through your narrative. In pf1e/2e, if you want to do something flashy, fancy, you probably can, in dnd 5e, you don't have much tools to do a spinning attack, a flashy movement dash cutting through the enemies and dealing damage to all of them and so on. in pf1e, with some 3pp content, such as spheres of power and akashic mysteries, i can make a character that dances around the battlefield while cutting every mob, and increase its strength as the battle goes. In dnd 5e, i attac

[@lobobanguela6349]

@sebastianbolo2480 There was no attack though. Just stating a fact. A point proven. And if that actually hurt some people, then its just even more of a proof its the truth.

[@Acorn_of_Mars]

I know it's nitpicky, but an increase from 30% to 50% is an increase of approximately 66%. It's a growth of 20 percentage points, yes, but that's not same as the relative percentage increase

[@Swooper86]

It also completely ignored other bonuses that fighter may have gained, from increased strength, magic items etc. Proficiency doesn't tell the whole story.

[@dawidszczechla3388]

@@Swooper86 so you end up with double or triple chance to hit and ability to do it 12 times in 2 rounds instead of 2, plus you don't die instantly when dragon decides to exhale in your direction. Also most legendary beasts are immune or at least resistant to non magical weapons.

[@elbruces]

A 66% increase isn't nearly enough to represent going from level 1 to level 17.

[@annagarman8016]

This is true, but that also makes pathfinders growth infinite.

[@benjaminthibieroz4155]

Plus the fact a level 17 fighter does litteraly 3 TIMES MORE ATTACK than a level 1. Reasoning on average hit, that's 3 * 0.50 = 1.50 = 0.30 x 5, FIVE TIMES MORE HITS (not even including all the other buffs).

[@Nate3417]

As someone who used to hate Pf1e's ridiculous amounts of math and stuck with the unfinished mess of 5e forever because of how simple it was, the WotC drama last year was so fortunate because it made me realize how absolutely beautiful 2e is as a system. Our table alternates between a few different campaigns and the ones that started with 5e aren't going to switch midway through, but everything new that's starting is absolutely going to make the switch. It's a bit more complicated but infinitely more rewarding.

[@krinkrin5982]

The one thing that stops me from PF2e is the sinusoid of hp during combat. The fact that you start every encounter with close to max HP feels like the game is structured around a boss rush mode rather than a steady progression with dwindling resources.

[@mrosskne]

both systems are garbage

[@Nate3417]

@@krinkrin5982 Do you? Unlike in 5e you actually _don't_ fully heal after a long rest, only healing a percentage of your health. The only fast way to heal outside of magic is by spending hours treating someone's wounds.

[@PipPanoma]

​@@krinkrin5982This is exactly what people expect 5e to be until they learn that they need to put some arbitrary resource sinks before a boss to make it interesting. This is just a matter of personal preference.

[@Phyllion-]

@@krinkrin5982 You still have to manage spell slots as a resource, but yeah, PF2e really isn't meant for dungeon crawling. Or at least not one that actually feels dangerous. You can sort of do it with the Stamina rule, but it's not perfect either.

[@HeribertoEstolano]

The Thing that most D&D Players and, specially Ben Riggs get totally WRONG is that people that play other systems only play that one othet system, when in fact all of us play many diferent system for diferent kinds of games. "But Pathfinder number scaling is not realistic, characters look like JPRG protagonist" well... That's the whole point. When I want to run a game about Heroes of legend fighting evil with power of friendship and ultimate violence, I run Pathfinder. When I want a Gritty realistic Game of Throneseque story with characters that can die at any moment I play Warhammer Fantasy or Symbarou. When I want a game about exploration and survival I play Forbidden Lands. And so on. Once you learn your second system, learning the third, the fourth and the ninth becomes a walk in the park.

[@kalebherington]

Exactly! Once you break free from having one system so many opportunities for new stories open up to you! I run 2 games a week atm one a heroic fantasy about adventurers making there mark and saving the world, pf2e nails this! The other a gritty exploration game where adventurers are essentially sent to fantasy Australia as punishment and have to delve into old abandoned dungeons for loot, always barely scraping by to get just one more piece of treasure. Pf2e wouldn't really work that well for it, so despite loving pf2e I didn't use it!

[@u-mos8820]

Massively underrated comment, absolutely correct. People defend their game of choice like it's personal when they should be using the right tool for the job. There's differences in how we evaluate and all that, but the gist of it is any given game could be the right fit. Hell, frankenstien your own if you need to. Nepotism does very little for the game itself and no one should dismiss a system out of hand. More of a Pathfinder guy myself, but Dimension 20 is a cool example of what I think 5e is capable of. They make many different scenarios and it feels like it works. The lower level of seriousness while also having as much capacity for it as the players want is probably more a testimony to Brennen Lee Mulligan, but I think 5e is intentionally simple so that you can use the same system by just changing out a few parts. It's neat, and a good introduction to what is decidedly a complex game with a lot of moving parts. I think it hits a roof though. The more classic examples of a DnD story don't fit as well as other systems that feel more designed to run them.

[@0ceanking]

A funny caveat that went unmentioned is that while pf2e supports the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being unable to touch the dragon, conversely it also HURTS the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being able to survive the dragon's response and go on to become the lvl 17 hero, when it's likely to crit for 100+ damage on anything but a natural 1, and even then it'd still hit. In 5e, the same math that allows the lvl 1 hero to hurt the dragon also allows the dragon to nat 1 and miraculously miss long enough so he can get away. Although in either case it's breath weapon would be game over, most likely. But in 5e, it could fail to recharge it's breath with bad luck, while in pf2e it's guaranteed after 1-4 rounds and might even just get it back by slapping the nearest town guard with a critical! Of course, the Dragon could decide to ignore the hero entirely because it doesn't see him as a threat(and so the story can happen), which is probably more likely and believable if the hero is incapable of damaging it at all! So pf2e has that going for it too. Don't get me wrong, I think pf2e is awesome in a lot of ways, and it's so refreshing after only playing/DMing 5e for years. Just thought this was funny.

[@brunoalbuquerque4983]

Pathfinder does account for this, though! After all, that's the point of the 'Heroic Recovery' use of Hero Points. After all, it doesn't matter how much damage that critical hit does to you, it always takes you to Dying 2 - which means that not only can you naturally survive with some lucky recovery rolls, and the dragon is unlikely to specifically attack every downed target in the village, but you, as a heroic figure, or someone destined to be one, can still survive unlucky rolls through sheer will. (...if you ignore the Massive Damage rules that state that if you take more than double your max HP in one swing, you die instantly; though I think it's entirely reasonable to say that just puts you at 'Dying 50' or something, and thus Heroic Recovery still works.)

[@Llortnerof]

Nonlethal attacks are still a thing in PF2. Maybe the dragon just couldn't be arsed to put his full weight behind an attack on such an obvious non-threat.

[@volchonokilliR]

@@Llortnerof well... At this point, it becomes a "fixing" of a system, which was the main point of the video. I think, it just calls for a different narrative. For example - a nobody wouldn't survive a dragon, unless they got extremely lucky (for example, dragon wouldn't even notice such an attack). Which makes sense. So something more special has to happen, or something special has to be about the character that attempts such an encounter.

[@Llortnerof]

@@volchonokilliR I'd say the dragon deciding you're not worth his attention is getting extremely lucky. You're not really suggesting anything different from what i did.

[@CornBreadtm1]

In PF and DnD, you have a drop state. You can of course insta-die if your hit points go under your Con break point/half your hit point total. But knocking your players out and reviving them is an implemented mechanic and can be used by DMs to build tension or tell a story.

[@autumnson]

"Cthulhu has a health bar" goes hard af

[@Shamefulroleplay]

This videos basic take away was yes you progress more in Pathfinder, but you are more powerful at early level and can potentially hit a dragon in DnD.

[@Zedrinbot]

It's worth noting as well that, while 5e has bounded accuracy, Pathfinder 2e does as well: there's a very explicit range that you can roll to hit, and outside that just simply isn't possible, no matter how many buffs you stack. The big difference is that it scales with your level, like a 'sliding bounded accuracy'. As a GM, the downside is that you have a narrower range of usable monsters for an encounter compared to 5e, but it also means the encounter balancing is WAY easier and the difficulty calculators actually work.

[@RJMazz47]

Personally I like it, from a storytelling perspective, that a low lever character could hit (not damage) a much higher level enemy. It shouldn't be too much trouble to make contact with a dragon's skin with a spear, but will it go through the scales? It's like in Elden Ring. Sure, eventually you'll be able to be dismissive of Demihumans, but if you're nor careful they can and will still hit you.

[@kalebherington]

My next big video is kinda on this! How AC kinda only represents "missing" in most people's heads. I think it's important to remember that since plate mail armour raises AC a dragons AC is probably more about scales then dodging :^)

[@travisbewley7084]

@@kalebherington 3.5 actually adressed this with Touch Armor class and Natural Armor. Your touch armor class was your ability to dodge, for instance a spell that only needs to hit you at any point on your body doesn't care that you wear plate male and it only matters how well you dodge it. Meanwhile the natural armor of the creature doesn't change even if it can't dodge so it's there even if they are caught off guard. In the game you could deny a creatures Dex bonus to AC by catching it off guard. One of the MANY interesting game design choices gobbled up by the advantage system and 5th's need to oversimplify everything.

[@aidankircher8865]

Another thing that Pathfinder 2e supports very well in this story, The Mother's Sword. In Pathfinder you can apply Runes to weapons to give them extra Damage Dice, +1-3 to hit, extra effects on hit, etc. You can upgrade the weapon you started the game with. Whereas in 5e, youll basically be throwing out your mother's sword the moment you find a +1 weapon. Oh, and runes can be transfered so even if you do find a +1 weapon in PF2e, you can just transfer the runes onto your Mother's sword.

[@fatbeen]

A player and GM can even make the sword into an artifact that gains special traits during the campaign based on the players actions. That's in the GM Core book.

[@billmdt]

I wouldn't say it tells a better story. It tells a different story. If you want your character to feel that he grows from 0 to demigod, pf2e is great . But maybe you prefer a story where even the greatest warrior can be fell by ten guys attacking him at his wedding when he is unarmored (a la Game of Thrones), and in that case both pf2e and D&D 5e will not work. There are no perfect systems, you need to find which system helps you tell the story you want to tell.

[@TheZakurumy]

I was thinking exactly this. Like, lets take for example Dungeon Meshi. You cannot tell me with the level of power PF2 operates that Laios is anything above like Lvl 4 (Literally at lvl 5 even Fighters can start to do shit beyond human capacity), yet with good planning he killed a Dragon, something much more akin to DND 5E if we're talking about the chances of it happening. I hate DnD 5e tho, I think it sucks ass, I would rather mod other games for that kind of stories, like Powered by the Apocalypse (known for Masks and the TTRPG of Avatar the Last Airbender), or even just a personalized template of any World of Darkness game, or a more fantasy-homebrewd 7Th Sea.

[@billmdt]

​@@TheZakurumy if you like that powerlevel would highly recomend you check on savage worlds for a pulp action, or burning wheel for more drama and character develpment. Or if you have the time, check GURPS.

[@almondsai7214]

@@TheZakurumy Another example would be Geralt of Rivia. He has supernatural abilities, quick reflexes and a small amount of magic. But he was still killed by a mob of peasants during a riot.

[@pinoquiu]

As someone who DMed a few 3.5 campaigns, some of them reaching about the 25th level, I still have nightmares with those absurdly high bonuses the PCs had back then, along with the profane amount of hit points. 5th edition has many, many flaws but, for me, bounded accuracy is one of its greatest merits. Encounter building, for example, is SO much easy.

[@digitalpacman]

Except it isn't because there are no real rules to apply to encounter building. What you smokin'.

[@pinoquiu]

​@@digitalpacman I don't understand what exactly do you mean. Could you explain?

[@zerg0s]

CR in 5e just seems to be a guess at times. Just as example, throw two CR2 wererats at a standard lvl 4 party. Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. 900 exp, so slightly below medium encounter. It’s the first thing in the day they fight, so should be a short fight in which they stomp the rats. Except it’s not. The wererats are immune to all non-magical damage. So it’s not a 2v4, it’s a 2v2 with the Rogue and Fighter just standing on the sidelines. Because, remember, the default assumption in 5e is that the party has NO magic items. Magic items are an optional bonus thing the GM can or can not hand out. And worse yet, since the game assumes the party doesn’t have +x weapons, giving the party +x weapons means all enemies are easier to defeat than the game assumes. There are dozens and dozens of landmines like these in 5e. Not in 2e. If you get a CR2 monster in 2e, it’s gonna be a CR 2 critter. It might have nasty surprises, but nothing that just breaks the entire encounter design over its knee.

[@Not_Here_To_Make_Friends]

​@@digitalpacman He didn't say a word about CR. He said encounter building was easier for him. I don't use CR at all when I build encounters, and bounded accuracy makes it easy to build them.

[@darklink9922]

​@Not_Here_To_Make_Friends Yeah but he mentioned that building encounters is easy. The other guy responded why it's not easy if you don't know what to look out for, while pathfinder CR gives an easy and simple way to know how challenging an encounters gonna be using CR.

[@Jellyra]

best advertisement for pathfinder i have seen

[@brbasher]

that's all it is, a glorified ad, if it wasn't just advertising, it would offer a fix for dnd players like it said it would at the start

[@u-mos8820]

@@brbasher It's hard to show just how different they can be with 5 min but he touched on the gist of it here. If you know you know, I bet people who own Roblox think Lego is always advertising to them too.

[@MrBakersdozen2020]

I am a simple man. I see a new pathfinder vid, I subscribe for more

[@ZombieNikuchan]

Same

[@andersschmich8600]

Wow! I’ve been running a bit of Pathfinder, but this really caused be to look at it in another way, i think I definitely prefer the way Pathfinder handles advancement.

[@SquidasaurusRex]

Amazing video visually and informatively. Something you didn't touch on but want to bring up: that PF2e fighter, being a fighter, is +2 over his peers to hit at that level. Sure it's only 50% but his heroic journey to level 17 has put him on a pedestal above the common swordsman of his time. Fighters in PF2e are thematically and mechanically cool.

[@TheOtherWhiteNerd]

It’s a difference of fun. My table and I like the fact that those low-level monsters can be a threat at any level in 5e.

[@zerg0s]

But really, they can’t. Because HP and damage still scale. Those low level monsters have no chance of meaningfully harming high level characters in any actual play scenario. They get their chip damage in, sure, but that’s not the same as “low level enemies are still dangerous”, because your wizard is just gonna delete them all in a single turn.

[@Crystan]

@@zerg0s That's proven not to be the case on many an occasion. That 'chip damage' adds up over time and can be devastating when there are large hordes of enemies. It both lends to an epic battle against insane odds while also granting the idea that even a novice gets lucky once in a while. A gap in the dragon's scales, a weak point from a previous battle etc. Never much liked the idea of untouchable opponents, because thematically it just doesn't make sense.

[@zerg0s]

@@Crystan The chip damage only adds up against martials, who get heavily punished by this type of encounter, while spellcasters are fine and can blast away the hordes with dismissive ease. That's not good balancing.

[@aminulhussain2277]

​@@zerg0s Spellcasters eventually run out of spells.

[@zerg0s]

@@aminulhussain2277 at higher levels!? Sure, I guess, eventually, but by then your martials need to visit the ER anyhow because when casters run out of spells, martials run out of healing and buffs.

[@Isaac-hm6ih]

One of the more obvious issues with having a world run on this kind of power curve is that it makes armies meaningless. For example: Our hero returns home and is hailed as a hero, made King's Champion. A few years later the orcs come, the endless hordes rampaging through the countryside burning everything they don't loot. The royal army valiantly holds back the horde at the capital's walls for weeks - then our hero returns and kills the majority of the beseiging army by himself in one afternoon, because they had no-one over level ten who could realistically oppose him. The next year another army invades, this time from the Empire Of Darkness. The empress saw what happened to the orcs, and sends her own champion, a level eighteen fighter with an entourage of a dozen level 12 mages to provide buffs. That is her whole invasion force, bar a few servants, because there's no point sending regular troops. Everyone knows that whoever wins the duel will be virtually unstoppable by anyone left in either nation, with the possible exception of the Dark Empress's plus fifty modifier to Persuasion. I think DND5 has too little spread of numbers, but PF2 has too much. Adding half your level seems to me like a decent place to start looking for the right amount of level based scaling in a twenty level system. Or use a system like Shadowrun which uses large pools of dice to create probability curves instead of a single d20.

[@athenawheatley1032]

I’ve played a few systems other than D&D 5e and it’s pretty fun exploring how different systems handle their rules differently from others.

[@andreevans4497]

As a GM what you are describing is a feature and not a bug, but to each there own.

[@jtreidno1]

I'd like to point out in both games there's a high chance the fighter would just be absolute crippled by the dragon's fear aura, making the question of striking the beast absolutely pointless.

[@bubblegumkk8158]

If I was the DM and the player was dead set on attacking the dragon at the beginning I'd probably just conveniently forget about the aura so they could have a memorable backstory moment. Depends on the player of course

[@lysnablue7574]

It really might not automatically be the case with a Pf2e fighter, except if you “dumped” wisdom. In this sytem your saving throws values also add you level. So maybe the dragon has a 35 DC to his fear aura (The DC of an Ancient black dragon) to beat but maybe the fighter has something such as a +23 Will (Proficiency + modifier. Let's take a 17th level fighter with 14 Wisdom = 4+17+2 = 23. And fighters have Bravery (they are less likely to be frightened for long)). So 35 - 23 = 12. With a very basic wisdom stat you will need a 12 to not be frightened. It's really not that out of reach. Not acquired too but it's doable with a bit of luck.

[@aaronbold8715]

Absolutely false. All DCs scale with level. So their Will Save would (wisdom save for 5e) would still be Wis mod + level + proficiency. Probably about a 50% chance to succeed the Will save. In addition, Fighters in 2e have a feature called Bravery that makes them more resilient to being frightened.

[@stoneharvey1017]

Uhh... No? A level 17 Fighter has indomitable, and probably a feat or two to deal with fear. The dragon gets 1 chance to use it on the fighter.

[@pdthepowerdragon5412]

So there’s a couple of things in there that I don’t really agree with but the big one is that being able to damage the dragon at level 1 is a bad thing. If anything if that Fighter damaged it that’s a fantastic way to influence the story. They’re now in that Dragons mind as someone who actually can hurt them, the fighter has proof that they can get strong enough to win but not yet, others who see what happened could tell tales of them actually damaging the dragon. Like if that fighter got a critical hit, and at the very end when they encountered the dragon again he still had a visible mark where the fighter hit him; that to me sounds amazing.

[@SusSpooder]

Also, being able to critically fail/succeed by missing/exceeding AC by 10 and not being tied purely to natural dice rolls is such an amazing addition. Making it so you otherwise have to roll a natural 20 on the die is great balance and icing on the cake. It's simpler and more elegant but leaves way more room for fun. No notes. Cant wait for my second session next month :D

[@kelpiekit4002]

I like both. (The business behind one less). The consistent growth in Pathfinder does support traditional narratives well and makes the growth of characters feel meaningful. However, D&D's smaller difference growth does allow more moments of uncertainty and wild swings. There are many stories out of groups confronting their BBEGs early and mopping the floor with them due to unexpected dice rolls. Pathfinder is a lot more predictable. Both of these can be brilliant or terrible depending on what you want or need. Personally, what I value more is horizontal progression. Getting more options or tools in the toolbox as your character grows. That's a more interesting story than fighter does the hitting better. With its involvement of feats, archetypes, and the ability to retrain, that is where I like the story development of Pathfinder.

[@kalebherington]

Exactly! I love Pathfinder 2e's method of having your math solid and consistent and leaving the character creation to choosing fun feasts

[@u-mos8820]

In terms of customizability, Pathfinder is legos and 5e is roblox. Being able to approach things from different angles is the heart of DnD to me. 5e can do it, but it feels more contrived than what you can achieve in P2e.

[@serenabailey1553]

Wow, this is your first video? I'm impressed, I can't wait to see more videos you bring to the table. Subscribed

[@fishcati5620]

Another thing pathfinder has going for it in this regard is that every time you level up, you actually gain features. It's not just a stat increase like it is in 5e. Like in dnd5e, a level 1 fighter can hit once, and a level 20 fighter can... hit five times. But in 2e there are attacks, maneuvers and skills that you get every single level that not only makes combat way quicker and more fun, but also help you feel like your character is actually growing.

[@eightandahalftails]

I appreciate your opinion, even though I think the extreme escalation of pathfinder is one of its biggest weaknesses from a DM/World Building perspective. I find with Pathfinder that every encounter has to be retuned due to to tight escalation and punishing system math, causing a vary artificial feel where the entire world that the party encounters has to grow around them to ensure that they can survive to face those higher level challenges. While you are right that D&D’s escalation could be a bit greater, the slower escalation allows for a more organic world where heroes can encounter a variety of enemies without facing instant death by crit if there is a slight level imbalance - and where returning to face weaker threats makes you feel powerful, but not so powerful that the encounter is just a complete waste of table time.

[@kalebherington]

Very true! It's partially why I wanted to make my channel. Different rules lend themselves better to different stories and play styles. For example I have a group playing in a custom low power system I made and If I tried to steal pf2es math it would ruin the whole thing cause the point of the game is them wandering the whole continent looking for treasure!

[@JawaBob]

I very much agree, which is why I have a hard time recommending PF2 to anyone. While the scaling makes you feel growth, you never feel powerful. You're always only just strong enough to fight the next big thing and only if you leveled enough, bought the right items, and have the right party composition. There's never the feeling of being heroically powerful or a scrappy underdog, either you're of the right power level or you're not. Honestly, PF2 feels like an MMO on reflection.

[@rednidedni3875]

It's not much different in 5e, the only difference is that PF2 scales more rapidly and gives the GM the tools to actually predict how difficult a fight is while it's a gamble in 5e. There are many enemies that will insta-gib low level 5e characters or will pose no meaningful threat in arbitrarily high numbers. The range is just bigger and muddier.

[@rednidedni3875]

@@JawaBob I think there's *lots* of things that make you feel powerful. Making enemies flee in panic from a mere glance, dropping big spells that turn the encounter around rapidly, throwing enemies across the room, squeezing in a crit from stacked teamwork that makes a boss' health plummet... the real difference is that PF2 remains challenging, where 5e does not. If you stick to official guidelines, 5e becomes easier and easier at high levels with some magic items and semi-optimized characters. PF2 doesn't. Unless the GM wants to. There's nothing stopping you from throwing easy encounters at high level parties to just let them show off. Or at low levels. It's really in your hands.

[@cillianthestupendous6093]

@@rednidedni3875 only if the encounter design begins and ends with: you encounter x monster. roll for initiative. enemy combos, placements and tactics can make a huge difference. a well organized and planned team of PCs can punch way above their weight class, like 12CR difference high. similarly, a poorly thought out approach to a "low threat" foe can end up being much more fatal than expected if the DM incorporates clever tactics. this isn´t even considering optional rules or homebrew, just the basics.

[@AlexKlindt]

The best part is that PF2E's math is so tight that even if want go challenge high level characters with low level creatures, you can just wing it with DC/level and put them in a troop. Once you nail the troop enough, their morale can break and you can pick off the scragglers. Meanwhile CR is 5E barely means anything.

[@u-mos8820]

I've noticed that CR in 5e is like a suggestion from a proficient person who is a terribly drunk. It can be right, but some of their CR classifications really raises the eyebrows.

[@rookiescott9914]

That was some really good pacing, art and vocal work, hope I can catch another one of your vids in the future

[@myersa80]

When you do your various system, do you think you could manage to include PF1e in the discussion as well?

[@priestesslucy3299]

PF1 is so much fun, especially when you allow and incorporate 3rd edition material

[@gnarlycricket2175]

I don't know why but i think that the phrase "Cthulu has a health bar" can sound very badass in the right context. In which context, i dont know though

[@chimerakidd]

i want to play pathfinder now! >:D awesome video!

[@kalebherington]

Mission accomplished! This whole video was actually just to convince you

[@galmenz6118]

it is entirely free to do so btw! go to "Archive of Nethys" on google, its a wiki with all published content (minus adventures) officially available for free!

[@rednidedni3875]

The rules are free online!

[@anderhighhill5335]

I loved the video!! It brings up a lot of things I have found in my own game, and I love the art style! Can't wait to see more content from here

[@connorjohnson8590]

It all depends on the kind of story you want to tell. Personally, I like the idea of a level 1 fighter throwing themselves at a dragon, and managing a glancing wound before falling unconscious. Their foe has a recognizable scar now, setting them apart, and making their foe acknowledge and HATE the fighter in turn. How could they forget that day a lowly peasant dislodged a scale on their chest?? They know what they were capable of and they shall be prepared too. The dragon gets tricksier, older, employs magic and traps, and believes themselves invincible in their preparations. And how can the fighter overcome their newly prepared foe? Their allies are there to see their vengeance is complete (action economy, buffs, utility variety, etc)!

[@Deathwhisper2]

This is a very good point. I started playing pf2e after being tired from constantly homebrewing fixes to 5e pain points for me and my group. And at one point when looking at pf2e I realized that it already have the fixes i've made baked into the base rules. And 3AP rules are much more intuitive in my opinion.

[@kalebherington]

My favourite thing about pf2e is that you can spend time homebrewing the fun stuff instead of trying to keep the boat a float!

[@rednidedni3875]

@@kalebherington "Homebrew when you want, not when you need to"

[@Kingdomkey123678]

I honestly prefer the smaller numbers of 5e, it keeps more of the monster manual relevant for longer periods of play. And I like that a lot I don’t like the idea that a player can’t be threatened by a horde of monsters simply because their numbers are bigger. Similarly I like the fact that a dragon can be challenged by an army of soldiers, because in most fantasy fiction that’s usually what it takes to kill a dragon when there aren’t legendary heroes around.

[@LifetimeThiccness]

I can understand your point of view, but IMO just the fact that the rules, the character customization, the math, and the emphasis on teamwork to survive are so tight and well made, I'd rather stick to videogames then revert back to DnD5e. Pathfinder just completely spoiled me.

[@rednidedni3875]

In practise, you still have exactly this in 5e. There is no way for a level 1 party to overcome such a dragon, or any high CR threat really. Conversely, no amount of orcs can challenge a high level party. The only difference lies in how long they stay relevant, but even there, PF2 monsters (without homebrewing their stats) with elite/weak templates slapped on still fit the encounter guidelines for a total of 11 levels of play.

[@josepablobonillajimenez6297]

Agree, maybe I just don't get it, but this video is definitely not selling PF to me, I like the smaller numbers because it feels more immersive, I just don't understand the argument the video is trying to make, how is the lv1 fighter dealing 1d8 damage with his sword to an over 200HP creature hurting the 0 to hero narrative? Also how is it a good thing that the fighter has 0 chance of hitting the dragon at lv1? Isn't a bit more realistic and immersive that an inexperienced person can have a lucky hit even if it's a low chance? like the video said is not like he's gonna kill the dragon? actually Id consider a lucky hit a way on which 5e would tell a better story because even at lv1 there's a small chance of the fighter dealing damage and that lucky hit could be the inspiration the fighter needs to go on on his journey to beat the dragon, I don't know, never played PF so maybe I'm wrong, all I'm saying is this video is definitely not selling it to me

[@rednidedni3875]

@@josepablobonillajimenez6297 I do agree the vid's point is sorta odd, it's very much subjective on wether "impossible threat you can eventually overcome" is better than "implausible threat you can eventually overcome"

[@KKirmaci]

I legit laughed at then end because that's literally what I tell anyone complaining about 5e as a DM of 7 years

[@Manweor]

You were not around in the 3e times. Bounded accuracy was a blessing in 2014. Ofc you may want something fresh, but trust me, it's there for a good reason.

[@KKirmaci]

@@Manweor I highly disagree. I played 3.5 quite extensively and I prefer it over 5e. 5e killed the uniqueness of each character build. They all feel like cookie cutter builds and optimal builds are only powerful enough to carry themselves so a suboptimal build really drags the party. There is virtually no subclass that focuses on roleplaying. The rules for mass combat, sanity, exploration, kingdom building, overland travel, reputation and kingdom building are horrifying in 5e not to mention the inability to stack buffs because most if not all of them are concentration. I can go on, but I don't think I need further points to defend pf1e/3.5

[@rivy-lurk-869]

​@@Manweor pfff, played PF for like 6 to 7 years now then played 5e like after six months of PF1e and have played both at the same time since and I swear, it feels so much better to have your shit unbound from the bell curve 5e forces everything to be in. Always pissed me off that 5 kobolds in a trenchcoat with rusty daggers are still a massive threat for a Level 20 Fighter with zero spells because "haha, you still in our to hit bracket even though we are literally supposed to be fodder for you by now and you're supposed to be one of the best at your field in the entire world at Level 20" Such a stupid system, jesus christ, you don't even get to feel like a legendary hero, untouchable by the common mook by the end of your story, you still are vulnerable to getting shanked by said kobolds in an alleyway and dying that way. I legit only play 5e when I wanna play a tabletop but also turn my brain off since my character creation choices literally do not matter. I can just say "I hit that fucker" over and over and I know I'll just eventually win due to bounded accuracy without really stratting out anything or picking what thing I got that'll solve me being surrounded cuz I literally got no options and my shit is pure luck anyways while in PF, I could just cleave the guys and I know that shit'll hit because my character is legit just that much experienced in the art of combat than their opponent.

[@TechnicSky]

@@rivy-lurk-869Fair enough. I’m in a few campaigns that uses Beyond and Roll20 (because, being honest, most of us are new at DnD) so really I just wanna know, is Pathfinder at least easy to build up or something? Like making a sheet, and just having the character stuff set up like with 5e?

[@nojusticenetwork9309]

​@@rivy-lurk-869then I have to ask what version of 5e have you been playing? If you are a Fighter and your turns are purely based on luck then I suspect you are either being hyperbolic or you are not actually that good of player as you might think. That or you have had DM's that don't challenge you.

[@Lucifernu5]

I like both, but ive noticed that 5e gives you more leeway to experiment and go crazy with your character, PF is more strict in that you are going to suck really hard on every encounter and get behind if you try to deviate from a more standar or mathematically efficient build.

[@zerg0s]

I found the opposite to be true. 5e rewards you much more for being hyper-optimized, to the point where a single character can outperform the rest of the party, while in 2e you are always gonna be within a certain range of power unless you go out of your way to make a character with bad stat distribution.

[@Dharengo]

The funniest thing is, 4E also made level a factor in hit rate, and also had a large focus on the zero to hero gameplay.

[@lucasfreer2785]

I've played with friends who love this style of gameplay (where the difference between different levels/CR is very big), but I've also played with friends who very much prefer the opposite, where a dagger wound to the eye at any level has a risk of killing a CR20 dragon just like it can kill a Goblin. The first, (PF2e) is more narrative, while the second (5e, but mainly Call of Cthulhu and Zweihander) is more realistic. I've had fun in both versions of gameplay, and that's why I like modifying 5e to bend in either way.

[@mggamer5230]

Could anyone explain me how is the chance of hitting AC 22 on lvl 1 is 30%? Even with +3 in strength it's just a +5, which allows to hit on 17, 18, 19 and obviously 20. That's 20%, isn't it?

[@mggamer5230]

Sure, with +5 strength it turns to 30, but you'll have to be lucky with your stat rols

[@tarquis_trueshot]

@@mggamer5230 I appreciate you correcting your statement, and you are right, that is an extremely lucky stat roll.

[@BCSully83]

Translate: fan of crunchy games explains why the crunchier ruleset is better. Newsflash: there are still only 20 numbers on the die you're rolling. No matter your level (after the first couple) in either system, you can be pretty sure a 15 or above gives you a decent shot at success. Maybe that moves to 17 at higher levels, but whether you're adding +4 in 5e or +25 in PF, those bonuses are nothing but window dressing because the DC you need to hit scales up too. You're still just rolling a die with only 20 possible results, and you'll need to roll on that die at level 10 the exact same target you did at level 3. It's the illusion of scale. With a d100 system like Call of Cthulhu, there are no DCs. The target is your own skill. It's waaaay quicker, way more intuitive, and, if enhancing the story is the real goal as the lead in to this video claims, now everything is on the table, no duct-tape required. The fact is, the story is never to be found in the numbers and the best games for storytelling get the numbers out of the way. Tldr: crunchy games suck

[@FireBowProductions]

I'd also like to point out that the Rune system in PF2E allows you to keep the same weapon you've had since 1st level. Simply just the ability to take the flaming property from that random weapon you found in some dungeon in the middle of nowhere and add it your weapon instead from a narrative standpoint is just *chefs kiss*.

[@Stephen-Fox]

Gorgeous presentation - art style, music, and light animation were all so much on point that I'm amazed this is your first video - smiled at the flag on the DM screen, and a very neat lens to look at RPG mechanics from which while I do sometimes think about, how bounded accuracy hurts the ability to tell zero to hero stories isn't something I'd considered before. Looking forward to seeing more videos from you. Since you asked for examples, one of my favourite ways mechanisms help tell stories is probably the way Dread bakes the mounting tension and release of the horror genre into its resolution mechanism simply by using a jenga tower rather than dice (plus if you ever cause the tower to fall your character dies)

[@kalebherington]

Dread is an AMAZING example of a resolution mechanic that emulates genre so beautifully!

[@vamphunterx]

Do you mean the ultra advanced math of "add level to everything?"

[@andrewdarby8843]

It's worth noting that this is a purposeful design decision for D&D. They used to have scaling like this (4th ed scaled with (lvl/2) on most proficient things and 3.5 and 3 had skill ranks where you could increase your skills by 1 every level). What this resulted in was adventurers who by level 18 could be rolling + 35 or more on some skill checks if they took a few feats or magic items or racial features to help that skill. This has positives and negatives. What it results in is a world where it feels like the powerful are truly one person armies. Sometimes, that's not the story you want to tell and you want a system in which the gods can fall to a lucky enough underdog. The other thing that happens is that it means that players who spend hours going through spell lists and feat descriptions to make 'overpowered combos' can be slinging around numbers that are like 10 or even 20 higher than what another player is slinging around (source: I'm currently playing a pathfinder 1E character who has a +56 in bluff when he's fully buffed up and the next highest skill any other character in the party has is around +28). This can make it difficult to make your character feel significant at all to the group if you don't minmax AND it can make a real challenge for the DM. Do you artificially inflate the difficulty of every bluff check the +55 character is rolling just to give them a chance at failure or do you allow them to succeed on every lie they tell or do you make the campaign harder for the rest of the players by inflating the difficulty of everybody's rolls? D&D doesn't have this problem, but it does mean that your incredibly high level heroes don't feel that much stronger than a level 1 (at least not on pathfinder scales). The moral here is to pick the system that helps you tell the story you want to tell.

[@tommasomichetti9499]

This is the best video I've ever seen about D&D 5e.

[@SmileyTrilobite]

To be fair, 5e has all other things you’ve mentioned: ability score growth, party members, qualitative advancement in the form of character abilities… The big thing is PF’s separate proficiency and level bonuses broaden the math range so the growth might feel bigger, & things can be mathematically more one-sided, while 5e’s smaller ranges lend it a stronger “if it bleeds, we can kill it” angle. Use what tells the tale you wish to tell.

[@Girlyfootlover]

It also has a lot less compared to PF2e that wasn’t mentioned: Lack of martial/caster disparity, encounter builders that actually work (in part due to adding levels), tons of character choices, a restriction system for certain choices without GM permission, everything being clearly defined, items having levels, you actually have something to do between levels 1 and 2, and so much more. All these factors combined make the system overall much more balanced adding to the enjoyment. PF2e is without a doubt a much better and intentionally designed system compared to the relatively shallow D&D 5e that’s held together through community support (or “duct-tape” as the narrator puts it).

[@Kryto_Gaming]

My feeling is that there's a different overall feel both games go for. In 5e the way the math works, a group of Goblins can get lucky and shank a high level character. This grounds the characters a bit in that sense, there's the idea that a dagger to the throat will still kill. In PF2e the PCs are imagined to be stronger. Think of Wu Xia, Final Fantasy, or Goku. The PCs are intended to advance to insane heights with enemies scaling just as much. No matter how lucky a Goblin gets, that dagger will bounce off of Goku's skin. Heck it would bounce off of anypart of his body lol. I believe that's the kind of scale PF2e is going for.

[@Technomonkey887]

PF2E has official variant rules for proficiency without level if that fits your narrative better. Also there are some loose mechanics for composite enemies called troops.

[@MonochromaticPrism]

Part of the issue with 5e is that an adult red dragon (CR 17) attacking a village large enough to have even a small chest of gold is actually in serious mortal danger if they have 40 level 1 guards. Each has +3 to hit and deals 1d8+1, meaning even if the initial breath weapon kills 6-7 with 19 AC that dragon is taking about 60 damage of it's 256 hp. After that, even with 3 attacks per turn all 1 shooting guards (not guaranteed) the average damage output still kills it before it gets a second breath attack, and with most of the guards still alive. Fundamentally, the scaling of the universe falls apart if an angry mob is capable of taking down some of the strongest entities in their world. You only need about 150 basic guardsmen to easily kill a Tarrasque in direct combat, an entity that supposedly kills worlds. If we use the stat block of actual soldiers, such as the knight or veteran blocks, it takes two attack for it to kill each of them and so it goes down to even fewer.

[@Kryto_Gaming]

@MonochromaticPrism Another great point I haven't fully considered. People hand wave it with game play and lore being different, but why have that in the game when you could have a system like PF2e that unifies the two? Unless you have a world where even dragons are killable by a mob lol. If you have a low magic setting like Game of Thrones, I can see 40 guardsmen with crossbows standing up to a Dragon. However if your setting has magical ancient dragons with diamond scales and unfathomable reality bending powers, it would be silly for them to be killable by mundane numbers.

[@Undercoverfire]

Please add Savage Worlds Adventure Edition to your list of games to compare and contrast if it's not already on there. I love how low-prep it is!

[@nitsanraviddaos4797]

WHAT AN AMAAZING VIDEO THE NARRATION THE ART THE COMPOSITION OF THE WRITING THE NARRATIVE WHAT AN ABSOLUTELY GOSH DARN DELICIOUS VIDEO YOU RIGHTFULLY EARNED MY ETERNAL LOYALTY (and subscription)

[@popydo]

imo an even more bright example would be if our hero fought a lvl 10 enemy - first at lvl 1, then at, say, lvl 15. In 5E, the increase in the effectiveness of his melee attacks at lvl 15 compared to e.g. lvl 10 would not be that big, not really. The main difference would be that the hero would have more resources (e.g. HP) to use - because the concept of this system is resource attrition. Which is not bad in itself and works much better, e.g. in LOTR 5E - where the whole premise is a team going on a long journey with limited resources, there are no magical classes, there are not many fights, etc. - but it is completely contrary to what D&D theoretically tries to be and it's really, really confusing. As a result, a lvl 17 character fighting a lvl 10 monster would still seem quite clumsy offensively, but he could keep trying for longer. At the same time, however, the magic class would have much more powerful spells at its disposal - and the idea for balancing this in 5E is "the party should fight so many fights that the characters are balanced before reaching the boss fight" (which means, as I recall, 6-8 encounters + two short rests for each long rest). Which again means that they will enter the fight wounded and tired, with limited slots, etc. - which, once again, is fine for a more down-to-earth, survival system (again, LOTR 5E does this phenomenally using the same basic rules), but it doesn't work here. In PF2, a lvl 17 character fighting a lvl 10 monster would be bullying 😞

[@justsomeguywithatophat6248]

I went from "holy moly, i'm gonna watch all his videos, that sounds awesome" to "Oh, thats his only video, how sad" in 10 seconds, and i'll never forgive you for that. I really want to see your take on these games' bonuses systems, and how characters nudge the odds on their favor.

[@Kevrik]

Well ya 20% before caring about the strenght increases that you would tend to get which given your % ranges they could gain 25% or more in that ( though commonly its 10%) and magic items that at that range its common to have another +10% or more and now the growth is about 40% increased likelyhood ( given your ac a total of 70%) if you wanted to tell the story of the dragon a levle 1 couldn't hit at all it just needs 5 more AC which sure is homebrew but I dont even need to take out my elmers glue to make that work let alone the handymans secret weapon. But in a less technical sense honestly both have their strengths and thats the point, I enjoy both systems for what they do, pathfinder has a better number progression where you see constant improvement in all regards, but conversly when you improve D&D feels more impactful and the progression of creatures even go that way. And both ways are fine neither is superior they each have their positives and negatives. Finally I would say you actually show a side that frankly I see turn a lot of people off of taking up PF2e and no its not the complexity or the math of it all, it is because there is such a hang up on the narrative being so intrinsically tied to the math and the stats and here is what is mathmatically better therefore superior and because numbers better do job its better that a bunch just say Im ok with the 20% chance to hit at level 1 because even if I nick the dragon I will die to the flapping of its wings.

[@kalebherington]

I originally had a part of the video where I discussed magic items but it got cut for time. Essentially this is a quick look at just one chunk of the game design. As such I ignored magic items as they are technically an optional rule in 5e. Perhaps I'm just to lucky but in my 5e experience I usually start play with my main stat maxed out. Probably should have done the math with the standard array, as you say changing the overall growth but 10%. And I actually think pf2e does a good job of making the number progression ingrained in the class leaving you to choose fun things! Thank you for the well thought out comment!

[@PenanceisNigh]

Not enough people mentioning how Ancalagon is THE Tolkien dragon so big and badass we haven't truly figured out what it can actually do. All we know is that it's as big as a mountain and hundreds of times deadlier than a swarm of 100 smaugs. Also, his epithet "The Black" leads you to believe he's so evil and powerful that his presence alone is like standing before the Abyss itself. Also, this is one of the big reasons I love Pathfinder 2e. It feels like you actually grow as a character, and your power improves, as opposed to going from a 12 to hit to a 14 to hit and dealing 3 extra damage.

[@soviet_dolly]

In my experience, my players prefered the 5e, Less numbers = Less math for them. But i really love the way that Pathfinder does make me feel powerful with my Sheet, where my strongest numbers really are strong, in 5e i barelly see the difference between me and my ally without proficiency bonus sometimes, and thats make me do more damage type Charachter, When in Pathfinder i have "The vision", a Wisdom based Charachter that sees ecerything around.

[@ZoneofA]

Funny thing I think this is the worst part of PF2e. Because of it I ignored that edition for years until I discovered there is an optional Proficiency without Level rule that makes PF2e massively better game.

[@kalebherington]

Totally fair! I've run the variant rule when I wanted a world/game where even at level 5 a group of goblins can still threaten the party

[@votch2798]

This is actually a built-in feature of 5e. Level 1 5e characters are meant to be already capable fighters and often some sort of folk hero. You're not meant to go from zero to hero, the game is designed to go from hero to god.

[@ingenparks]

Uh, no? I mean, you never attain anything close to godly prowess in 5e, unless you are a spellcaster, obviously. 5e takes you from local hero to continental hero, PF2 takes you from standard warrior to demigod.

[@rafaelcastor2089]

I wouldn't say it does that particularly well with how swingy the rolls are. You'd think a "folk hero" should be able to handle a bugbear, but most characters will just get 1 or 2 shot by one of those at lvl 1

[@taserrr]

Uh what? Look at some martial class features of 15+ level I mean many of them have abilities that prevent you from dying@@ingenparks

[@lexandar2750]

martial characters in dnd 5e are laughably weak compared to the spellcasters. both in and out of combat@@taserrr

[@FalscherZeuge]

​​@@lexandar2750*Laugs in Paladin, Battle Master, Rouge and Monk* Main damage burst - Paladin Main juice critters - Rouges Main control - Monks Main utility - Battle Masters High up the levels lots of enemies has high saves bonuses, lots of different resistances, can easily knock down a pair of casters in one turn. Spellcasters are not half as mighty as you think they are

[@owenf5222]

See, I’ve heard this type of argument before, but I really don’t understand how an inability to meaningfully interact with higher level opponents is a positive selling point. Some of my best stories from rpgs are about characters tackling foes that are dramatically beyond them, but with good planning, clever tactics and terrifying risk, managing to succeed despite the odds. Rendering it mathematically impossible for you to interact with higher level enemies (or for lower level enemies to interact with you) just seems to limit the game to one very specific kind of power fantasy.

[@hectorvivis3651]

I'll add something for GM that fears it will be complicated: First, start with the beginners box, it's pretty awesome to start, and it has simplified rules, and it's meant to drive both players and GM. Then, and let's be clear the learning curve can be a little tricky at the start... Paizo loves you and support you as a GM! Once you get the gist of it (I'd say if you're familiar with 5e, 1 to 3 sessions should do IMHO), there's very little traps you can fall into while GMing, since the "math is tight", and even better, the different content books are not just player pron. Next to every subsystem or the likes are explained and you have pretty accurate description on what adding X in your game can mean for the economy or the balance, and how you can tweak to keep it sane. They playtest their stuff, and they DO understand the logic of their game! (Shocking, right ?) Also, you have the rules and logics to most of the content given to you, like how to build monsters. And that's the actual guideline used in the actual bestiary! There's even a very cool web tool to build or edit monsters using those guidelines, and I use it all the time to great effect (monster dot pf2 dot tools), and I just do this because I'm picky, but the bestiary is seriously awesome and varied. Seriously, I love GMing since I play PF2E.

[@alegbh8713]

You've made a great point briefly yet effectively, with great art and gravitas. The sound design was top-tier. It shows you've put in a great deal of effort and passion into this and I hope there's plenty more to come. You might yet convince me to let go of my duct tape.

[@orcishdad8075]

This has been the single most persuasive video I have seen for why I should switch to Pathfinder. The issue is that the game is too crunchy for my players. However, I've played at some tables that I think this would better suit. Great video!

[@kalebherington]

Alot of the math in pf2e is done before sitting down to play, with digital tools especially it can be a surprisingly easy game pick up! I do recommend running it easier then it might suggest just to help them adjust. Let them make some mistakes without punishing them!

[@rednidedni3875]

In practise, it's not really more difficult than 5e. It's a bit harder to get into for players, but significantly easier to get into for GMs, and once you become a veteran of the system it's actually simpler to play than 5e as the consistency in the rules helps a bunch. Though if your group also struggles with 5e as is... probably not the right direction for you

[@spartanhawk7637]

My pathfinder group has a player who’s incredibly used to 5e as that was the system he learned in. After about two years of the campaign, he’s turned his somewhat goofy barbarian half orc into basically the Conan of the setting. Towns recognize his coming and going and both he and his wife have a cult of personality in-universe which emphasizes that even the less magically inclined can still be heroes. He actually got a bit disappointed going back to 5e for a game.

[@hdawglion718]

For those interested, the music is from the Pathfinder Kingmaker game. (Order of balance and capital under siege being the tracks)

[@allan526alec428]

one thing missing from this analysis is both action economy and reliance on magic items and subclasses, sure a level one fighter with, lets assume an 18 in strength has a +6 to hit and will hit a 22 ac on a roll of 16 or higher, but that's it, that's the whole turn, one attack 30% of the time, meaning on average they hit .3 attacks per turn. also the sword probably deals 1d6+4 damage, or an average of 7 damage per hit, or an average of 2 damage every turn, or about .3% of the total health of the dragon, barely a scratch. By level 17 we probably have a 20 in strength giving us a base +11 to hit, which is a coin flip, but we probably have a magic weapon that is usually by this point +3 but I'll use +2 for now, giving us a +13 to hit, as a fighter we attack 3 times, and can action surge multiple times a battle to attack even more times, but even with three attacks, on which we are likely doing at least 1d8+7 damage, probably more, but even with this we are hitting 60% of the time, and making three attacks a turn with an average of 12 damage per attack, or an average of 22 damage per turn, and that's without using any subclass abilities, or feats, or party buffs, or optional class features like action surge. Just by leveling up and getting the most basic of weapons we are dealing almost 5% of the boss's health per turn, and in reality we are dealing more than that. and this doesn't even mention that we are undoubtedly way harder to hit now, we have HUNDREDS more points of health, we have an AC that is probably in the 20s, we have more tools at our disposal to keep us in the fight longer. It's not just about what the odds that you hit are, it's also how hard you hit, how often you hit, and how many hits you can take. I like what this video is trying to say, and maybe pathfinder still does these things better (i only played pathfinder 1e not 2e), but even in dnd low level characters feel so underpowered that it makes the game less enjoyable, and i think being weaker earlier on even if it's "more realistic" or "makes you feel stronger later" wouldn't improve the overall feel of the game. I think dnd 5e has lots of problems, but I just don't see this as one of them.

[@zerg0s]

The thing about 2e is that characters don’t feel weak at level 1. 5e has that problem where everyone just wants to skip to level 3 to get their full class and have all their “basic” abilities. In 2e, you get those at level 1. And monsters are designed in a way that makes low level combat much less binary. Plus, of course, 2e CR is actually, yunno, correct. In 5e it kinda seems like CRs were assigned with a dart board, and the rules laid out in the DM section on how to create monsters can’t mathematically create the monsters in the basic bestiary.

[@Nictator42]

Yeah, I've talked about this issue before in my groups that I've played in, especially cuz Im more familiar with older editions than they are. When it comes to equivalents of proficiency bonuses in the context of attack actions, 2e has THAC0 and 3e has base attack bonus. In 2e, your fighter's THAC0 at level 1 is 20, and at level 20, is 1 (lower is better in this context). In 3e, your fighter's base attack bonus is +1 at level 1, and at level 20 is +20 (with descending +15, +10 and +5 for your subsequent attacks on the same turn). But if 5e, at level 1 its +2, and at level 20 its +6. The difference in older editions was 5 times greater than it is now. Also note that older editions also did have additional bonuses you could get from your ability scores, magical weapons, potions, spell buffs, feats, etc, just like 5e has. I think my current game Im running will be the last time I use 5e. Its really super disappointing in general.

[@ninjaoforthanc8177]

This is why I always start my Exalted campaigns with my players as Heroic Mortals for the first few sessions

[@lobsterwithhisshouldersbac8368]

I’ve been super interested in pathfinder lately and tempted to look into it. This video pushed me over the edge. Can’t wait for more content on this subject!

[@marianmunch2372]

The announcements sound like you are planning to include several TTRPGs. It would be nice to see a list of what is maybe planned to be included for the first batch of videos. I personally would be interested in seeing how Rolemaster, HARP and/or vsDarkmaster do in this mathematical approach.

[@tarky-]

This is your first video?? Its absolutely fantastic. Clear, concise, and great pacing. Both your drawings and editing is quite pleasant. I hope there are more videos to come 👍

[@bonewizard]

2:51 Love this. Love the art by the way.

[@KageRyuu6]

Bounded Accuracy is basically just Level Scaling for better or worse, and as a GM it means more work creating new monster sheets or modifying old ones to still be threats, while as a Player all new encounters will fall within the same threat range because you can't threaten anything more than four levels above you which in turn limits one's stories and accomplishments. Not saying 5e is better overall, but in this regard PF2 falls a bit flat with it's over focus on consistency.

[@Ciel8000]

The structure and art of the video are great. This channel will get big, i know it.

[@EnraiChannel]

I always found it weird when people said they would rather homebrew than switch system. Basically they always seem to end with more convoluted and unbalanced systems after unnecessarily a lot of work. Sure homebrewing is fun, but if it's only out of your weird loyalty to D&D I don't know what to say. I still like playing D&D, but tbh I have way more fun with systems like OSE.

[@jackalbane]

Extremely well done video and looking forward to your next.

[@Nyug3r]

I think not mentioning the relevant melee stat and possible magic weapons feels like it hurts the argument. However in a sense I get your point, HOWEVER I do feel that there is some impact in the fantasy of a lvl 0 peasant getting a lucky scratch on the dragon, catching the dragons attention and interest. The dragon lets the peasant live so he can challenge the dragon when he is more powerful. This is essentially the plot of dragons dogma.

[@WadeAllen001]

How does this D&D 5e level 1 fighter have a +7 to hit? He's got +2 from proficiency, but are you telling me that he's got 20 strength at level 1? A more realistic strength score for a level 1 fighter in 5e would be 16, which would be a +5 to hit, which would be a 20% chance to hit an AC 22. So then at level 20, or level 17 or whatever, he's got a +11 to hit, giving him that 50% chance you mentioned. But honestly, by level 17 he would most definitely have a magic weapon for a +1, +2, or maybe even +3 to hit, so his hit chance is looking more like 60%, and that's just from his weapon. Like you said about being buffed by pathfinder allies, the 5e fighter is definitely going to be buffed by his allies too. His allies will cast Bless on him, giving him +1d4 to hit. So now his chance to meet AC 22 is 72.5%. If he has a bard in the party, the bard will use Bardic Inspiration to give him +1d12 to hit (on 5 different attack rolls), bringing his chance of hitting to 94.5%. And his allies could use things like Guiding Bolt or Faerie Fire to give advantage on the attack, which now bring his chances essentially up to 100%. I do agree that 5e's proficiency bonuses do make leveling up feel rather lackluster, especially when about half of the levels don't grant you any new features, but I also think you've made 5e out to be even more constrained than it actually is compared to how you presented pathfinder.

[@leonenjoyer]

Mountain Dwarves exist unfortunately

[@naturligthinder]

I think a better title for the video would be How pathfinder's math tells a different story. My only real takeaway from the video is that there is a bigger difference between a low and a high level character in one system compared to the other. Which depending on how you want your game world to be might or might not be desirable.

[@josepablobonillajimenez6297]

Agree, fun video but I don't understand it's main argument, I really don't see how the 5e math told a worse story on this case that the PF rules, actually my takeaway is that in 5e the fighter could've landed a lucky hit on the dragon which could've also contributed to the story, while PF your only choice is to not hit the dragon at all

[@wiegraf9009]

D&D explicitly sells itself as "heroic fantasy" and in terms of doing "Marvel but fantasy-focused" PF2e does a better job than 5e does. That's all.

[@KingOogaTonTon]

Heck yeah dude, awesome video!

[@kalebherington]

Thank you! Love your stuff so that means a lot

[@ethanhunstiger4868]

Funnily enough, I play 2e pathfinder using proficiency without level. Keeps the numbers more manageable, opens up a wider range of possible enemies at any given level, and (this part is personal preference) feels a bit more grounded. Getting dog piled by goblins is a great way to be shived to death no matter your level.

[@ignorethetalkinglocker2142]

Me when the magic item that boosts accuracy of a hero worthy of it. A weapon the hero got through trials and perhaps even tribulations.

[@JohnSmith-xg1yv]

I disagree with this video but your points are put articulately enough that I'm liking and subscribing anyway. I think that the fighter hitting, and dealing a paltry amount of damage, is more narratively pleasing than literally being unable to hit his target. Damage and health scaling in 5e is enough, in my opinion, to sell the idea of enemies of far greater and lower power than the players

[@Xyronyte]

I love D&D, but it actually gets worse for the zero to hero when it comes to rolling for stats. In "I'm the weakest, but I train the hardest" fantasy, I roll a 6 and put it in my primary stat to really lean in to my vision. By level 20, my Primary stat will be, at most, a 16. Meanwhile, my friend, who rolled an 18, will have 2+ maxed stats, and several cool feats. In D&D, if you start a loser, you end a loser (barring DM Ex Machina)

[@phoenix_waffles2122]

I will say something about rpg math: I think mage’s arete system represents how they can cast Magick narratively as well as in game. With lower arete, the mage can only cast weak spells, barely even hitting hard, but their Magick isn’t that quite affected by paradox. On the flip side, the stronger the mage, the more destructive the difficulty and paradox

[@Giozize]

Really well done! And coming in strong right away huh? Easy sub

[@jasoncrawford5417]

Having played AD&D, 3 and 3.5, PF1e, and PF2e, as well as a brief stint into D&D 5e, I appreciate this video very much. This is exactly the type of fantasy I want. I don't think it's impossible to tell in D&D; far from it. But what I can say is that the numbers improving on my sheet makes me FEEL like a hero. I don't min-max; I don't look for every bonus I can apply to my character. I roleplay. When people say the math in PF2e is tight, they're correct...and this gives me reasons to do things OTHER than just "bonk." I have to look for advantages. I have to play smart. It's more engaging. One of the things I've seen brought up in the comments is that lower-level monsters should still pose a threat? That's certainly a valid take, but...why not the other way? How awesome is it to have someone who has worked so hard and practiced so much that creatures that would destroy them now can barely touch them? Every level in PF2e is impactful. And, coming from 1e, it is so much more streamlined than it used to be. And the three-action system? *chef's kiss* PF2e is not my favorite system. That is Ars Magica, by Atlas Games. But for "traditional", sword-and-sorcery, fantasy roleplaying, it is my go-to, and my problems with it are very minor.

[@kolardgreene3096]

You might already know this but it looks like Ars Magica is getting another edition and perhaps an open license!

[@jasoncrawford5417]

@@kolardgreene3096 and I’m super excited about it! I think it’s more a “remaster” of 5th rather than a 6th edition, but I’m definitely getting it!

[@Llortnerof]

IMO throwing low level monsters at the group is just wasting everybody's time. The fight isn't going to be engaging, the spoils aren't worth bothering with. Having them potentially be able to threaten or even kill somebody through sheer luck just makes things more annoying in a fight you shouldn't be having in the first place.

[@CL-jq1xs]

​@@Llortnerof depends on the story

[@mateokirstine9782]

Fair point, I like the armies of darkness actually being valid threats rather than weird moments of the dm saying “oh the orcs are level 2 and you are level 15 so you can kill an infinite number of orcs,” but that is a very valid take. There is an appeal in being so wildly far above the average goober. Gotta be honest though I kinda despise how 2e made there be zero interesting options on cleric and wizard as opposed to all the neat flavor stuff in 1e. Summoners are super cool though, the 3 action system and how the eidolon/summoner duo makes you split up actions is super rad! Gonna stick with 5e and 1e pathfinder though.

[@toasteethetoaster5978]

i used to be diehard "5e D&D is THE ttrpg and you're wrong if you don't like it!", and then i played Dungeon Crawl Classics. Warriors in DCC have a mechanic called Deed Die, which means that you have a bonus to hit as well as being able to describe basically ANYTHING and do it as a cool and practical flourish. i once cut off a guy's arm and whacked him with it. once you do that, it's hard to go back to 5e.