I'm Quitting Pathfinder 2e Because of This Issue

[@robertsilvermyst7325]

When you love something, you critique it honestly because you want to see it succeed.

[@eraser9812]

This is the trueth, hopefully the writers are watching and don't take it poorly.

[@robinthrush9672]

Too many people don't see this for the truth it is and see a "fan" as someone blindly loyal to a brand.

[@Lorkynn]

I do this all the time. I hate this side of myself too because it just sounds like I am bitching. *Stares at GW and 40k*

[@Imfil]

@Ragesage dont need to optimize to go though an AP.

[@soulcatcher521]

@Ragesage I've run or played in: Rise of the Runelords, Kingmaker, Serpent's Skull, Carrion Crown, Jade Regent, Skull & Shackles & Extinction Curse, and so far only in Extinction Curse do I feel that the AP required optimization.

[@PaizoInc]

Hi Cody! Aaron in Marketing and Media here. Rather than send you an email, I think transparency might be valuable. Thanks for your feedback, as always. Just so everyone knows, this constructive criticism does not mean you are "off the list." Pathfinder Second Editon was designed with a core that could be expanded and developed for years. With the Bestiary 3 releasing early next year, it will complete what the designers consider to be the "core rulebooks" of Pathfinder. Future hardcovers will be expanding and developing that core. So that is when it will get even more interesting. Will the Secrets of Magic and other unannounced books open up new options that you and your players will find engaging? Or will the mechanical core frustrate you? Do our designers have counterpoints to your points? I propose that those are questions worth exploring when the time comes. Peace, joy, love, and hope to you and yours in these challenging times. Thanks, Shanks

[@vulkeg]

Just so you know the entire community doesn't hold these same views. Please don't diminish the great things 2E does by making it more like DND 5th edition.

[@leofrost4125]

Personally I feel that Pathfinder second edition is more focused around creating and designing a character that you have already theorized. If you’re looking at the book and you don’t have an idea for who you want to play, what their background is, or a idea of where to go with them in the future, then you’re going to start falling into patterns. I feel the system works amazingly well with the amount of freedom and choice that it presents, as long as you have an idea for where you want to go in the future, that way when you hit the next level or you get the next ability you don’t just say what looks good, it forces you to take a step back and look at what fits for my character.

[@itar10n]

@@vulkeg As someone who's played a lot of 5e in the past few years, making PF2 more like 5e would not serve to fix the problems described in this video. I've had some of the exact same thoughts with 5e. The problem as I see it is that many feats and class features are upgrades to this or that action rather than various actions that are situationally optimal. I think the solution is to offer more action options that offer situational trade offs.

[@sovietterran]

Hey Aaron, if you are still trolling through the comments here I am a Paizo fan who has been playing since 1e launched and I have similar feelings to Cody about 2e *and* to a certain extent Starfinder. I'm planning on running 1e and system shopping for my space fantasy games for the foreseeable future, but I'd love to get into 2e and Starfinder given some modular options to break up a little of the weakened choice, especially with Starfinder weapon progression. Just wanted to throw my voice out. I know I'm just one player but I figured why not mention something, especially since I feel I owe some form of communication with the decade of off games and amazing memories you guys have helped me and my group create. Thanks!

[@Zephz43]

Hey Aaron, don't you guys at Paizo think that some of what was shared on the video is also due to how sometimes character building WITHOUT Free Archetype feels a somewhat restrictive? I'm really having a blast with the system, and I think the Free Archetype variant really shows the best of what 2E has to offer. Which makes me wonder if there's any chance we'll ever see a bigger push for this ruleset, like accepting FA as a standard rule for Organized Play, for example.

[@johncrawford3321]

“Illusion of choice-“ *double ad from KZbin* Glad to see the algorithm is evolving a sense of humor!

[@matthewparker9276]

I didn't believe Until I too witnessed this event.

[@scottbell1414]

The Algorithm is all-knowing... All hail The Algorithm!

[@abandonedarts4812]

What do ads have to do with the illusion of choice?

[@MrFleem]

KZbin is putting double ads at the front of just about everything I've watched lately, plus several more breaking up the video. And I really hate KZbin now.

[@DrakeCaliburn]

Yeah, I got an Avengers ad at that time. Calm down with the self-aware humor KZbin

[@stordarth]

"Combat is stale because you do the same thing every round." 3.5 edition fighter: "First time?"

[@1986Hikaru]

5e Fighter: No?

[@ogrejehosephatt37]

Yeah, I was definitely wondering how he felt that it contrasted to 5e, but he ends up saying that it has a similar issue, but is less complicated.

[@merdaneth]

If you want to do the same thing every round, you should be able to do so, but it shouldn't be an optimal strategy for most builds, that way you will lose the players that want to do different things in every situation. And most players that like to optimize are strategically minded. The game should never tell them that there are just a few best strategies while dazzling them with an illusion of options.

[@icspps]

@@1986Hikaru Battle Master: I've no idea what you're talking about. Champion: *With tears in eyes* I do.

[@siredgen4917]

Every class from "Path of War" from PF1: laughs in martial maneuver

[@sleepinxonxbed]

I really wish I didn't watch this video 2 years ago, it was a huge mistake. I admit I didn't give pathfinder2e a chance because this turned me away. I was about to walk away from DnD because I was already burnt out from 5e before the OGL debacle. Now here I am a month into playing pf2e, using what I have from the humble bundle, and I genuinely am enthusiastic about ttrpg's again

[@Kajnake]

Fire. My friend introduced me to dnd but ever since pathfinder inevitably appeared on my radar I've been excited to learn it.

[@SquatBenchDeadlift455]

I'm in the same boat. Currently converting 3 groups away from D&D 5e. I wish I had looked into PF2e more years ago instead of stopping because of this video.

[@jmcalcy69]

Yeah, I'm ngl, it's awful that SEO brings this video up if people search PF2. It's a wonderful system, and almost everyone I've talked to or played with feels the exact opposite of this video. More people should give it q chance, if only for this video

[@TwilightxKnight13]

Everyone's experience is different of course, but I find that if 5E is boring, it is because the GM is not doing a very good job of manifesting the freedom of choice that the system allows by not having a laundry list of codified rules. After playing PF for well more than a decade, I found it to actually be more restrictive because it codifies everything it wants you to do in the rules and the player's (and most GM's) perspective becomes if you can do it, they would have said so. Of course that is true, but I find that is the perception. D&D 5E OTOH, is intentionally left vague which encourages creative solutions and almost demands that you make stuff up as you go. ymmv

[@TheUnnbreakable]

It's a fun system

[@juangerritsen]

Civilisation game-designer, Soren Johnson, once wrote on his blog, “Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.”

[@OldGamerPapi]

For a lot, optimization is the fun.

[@MrKyel17]

Fun is subjective. There is absolutely no way to objectively measure whether a thing is more or less fun than another thing.

[@Brannen666]

Everyone wants to be one punch man because they think the depression and boredom he feels isn't a mandatory part of the package.

[@Dkoooz]

@@OldGamerPapi that is why optimization is not a problem! Game systems that become boring when played optimally are. That is the point of thus phrase,. Gamedesigners should expect people to optimize and make effort to make optimal play still fun

[@josevillalba2292]

Exactly, both optimization and roleplay should get along. The people who just say “don’t play optimal and focus on roleplay” are just trying to justify a poor game design

[@colbyhoman7602]

the actual best example of variable spell actions is heal/harm, not magic missile. i think that's actually the worst example of spell variability for the reasons you described.

[@natanoj16]

I really want more Variable spell

[@djosh2001]

I think he was pointing out though that if you use magic missile, you always use the 3 action one unless you are unable as you are wasting damage otherwise. Heal/Harm isn't as bad but is still not great, using a 1 action heal/harm feels like a waste of a spell when the 2 and 3 action are so much better value wise. Though at least with heal/harm the 3 action version can have potential drawbacks, the value is what he means. I do wish there was a way to have it so maybe the 1 action versions of the spells could get a utility use maybe, like maybe you can use a reaction of the 1 action version for certain things without spending a spell slot? Or variable spells having a different way of keeping track like instead of spell slots you have a "mana pool" and 1 action spells use 1 mana, 2 action spells 2 mana, and 3 action spells use 3 mana (not saying this is a good idea unless done well, don't want a ton more complexity on top of an already somewhat complex system). I love that Variable spells exist as once again it is more options but the variable spells need to be more in line with heal/harm than magic missile as magic missile proves that the value wins over the utility most of the time.

[@oddman80]

My bard took Magic Missile specifically for those times when the enemy is on its last leg, and you are pretty sure you can take it out if you hit, but dont want to risk the dice roll.... and I am pretty sure when I have chosen to use it, I typically only devote 2 actions, because I want to Inspire Courage with my 3rd action in case i misjudged- to help set the rest of the team up. I have only been in two 5e games, once as a rogue and once as a warlock/sorcerer multiclass.... the rogue did the same thing every round - move, hide shoot from cover for sneak attack. The warlock/sorcerer is a little better with options but most likely its EB, EB, EB. Why is the druid always wild shaping into dinosaurs? They cant use any of their spells in wildshape... I like wildshape personally - but I would totally be trying out as many different creature types as possible - this combat go with one with a grab and grapple your foes, next time - something with a tail swipe that works well with tripping... But if I get bored... figure put a great spell list to prepare and use your spells!

[@djosh2001]

@@oddman80 My friend is a wildshape Druid in the campaign as well, and he just got to the point where he can wildshape but he likes that he has different forms for different scenarios. The problem is later on there are less and less useful options and it will eventually come down to only a few he will be using. The weird thing is he likes to cast spells also, so his character is basically at odds with itself with how he wants to play it, but he already decided he wants to take all the wild shape feets in the long run. Also a bard definitely plays different than a wizard using magic missile as you actually have other stuff you can do. His druid he casts a spell and raises his shield, so he might do something similar if he took magic missile. He tries to do 2 action heals so he can raise his shield, but he does 3 is he has to. Honestly my monk so far is the most "I do the same thing every turn" character so far. Go into stance, move, flurry, then either flurry, attack, attack, or move, flurry, attack. I am taking some interesting choices later on so that will change, but my early game build is very samey.

[@Zakiel97]

@@djosh2001 also playing a monk at the moment and the most diverse thing they can do at our current level is spending one ki-point per battle for some extra damage lol (and for my character it's even a bit less to do bc I made them a monastic weaponry build so I got a sword and don't use stances) as a result I kinda rely on magic items and the battle medic feat to have a bit more options during combat, especially in combat situations that have flying enemies of some sort the monk feels a touch outclassed, reminiscent of like old school fighters tbh but even fighters in 2e got raise shield, a variety of weapons and opportunity attacks to spice up their participation in battle.

[@qualiy]

I DMed a full run of age of ashes and had the opposite experience you did. My players never got bored, instead they got more and more excited as they got to higher levels, especially when they got their legendary skill increases at level 15. We might have difference in opinion on the game systems at the very baseline because to me and my group the number of feats in 2e is a HUGE improvement, everywhere you look your fingerprint is on your character. it's very unlike 5e where you basically get no feats, and after I playedas a ranger I felt like I never needed to play another ranger because the difference between a hunter and a monster hunter and a riftwarden is pretty minor. My guess is your characters were doing what they THOUGHT was optimal, and because of this didn't end up engaging with the system nearly as much as they could have and in fact ended up playing... not very optimally. Think about what you say in your video: "my players were too focused on playing optimally"... followed by "this is the only time I've ever had a tpk!" Aren't those opposing statements? I didn't have any tpks, and my group was far from powergamey/I have the entire book memorized(5 player group, btw)

[@PyroMancer2k]

I don't see how this doesn't apply to DnD 5e. The lack of customization in 5e has me seeing the same build over and over. Then in combat it's often unload full attack action over and over. Spell casters often have the most variety in options but at the core in most DnD encounters it seems like most fights were melee rushes in and hits it with stick and range fires arrows/spells just sitting back. Thanks to the OA range/caster units can't flee easily and things feel more bogged down in 5e as once combat starts units are locked down with little freedom of movement. So 5e combat becomes a generic slug fest.

[@zourin8804]

It very much applies to 5e. DnD has always been a shallow bucket that WoTC has only dealt with by adding more buckets via archetypes. However, within each archetype, fundamental optimization and 'routine attack patterns' still emerge. Players get trained into them due to the lack of versatility at low levels, then only seek to enhance those patterns rather than explore new ones at higher levels. Every problem is a nail when all you have is a two handed hammer, great weapon mastery, and 1-3 attacks per round. You never see fighters take the Healer or Skilled feats. I gave the EK Fighter an item that lets him cast Bless once per day. Never uses it unless we bring it up. Hell, no matter how many times I throw demons at the party, he's never thought to cast his own Protection from Evil. It's always "I hit the thing".

[@PyroMancer2k]

@@zourin8804 Yeah I agree that the fault can often be with the players just as much as the system. When people have other options they stick with what they know rather than try new things like with you mention the the Protection from Evil. I see this happen a lot in my games, being very mechanically minded and good at tactics as well as strategy games I often see the whole field which I treat as a game of chess. Because of this view even when players don't show me their character sheets I learn their abilities from them using it and general talk about what they can do. So I view it as a commander and mostly only chime in to remind people of abilities they have which might be useful in the current case if they seem unsure about what to do or simply rush in for an attack when using that ability would have been better. To not be too imposing though I usually phrase my suggestion as a question like, "Doesn't you character have some resistance against demons?" or "I thought you were able to cast ** in such case." and do on. So it appears that I don't know their character better than them and inquiring about their abilities.

[@PyroMancer2k]

Continuing on as first post was getting long and changing it up to DM side. I think some fault can also be had on the DM for not making appropriate challenges. Like there is a video on how you should attack a character's strengths. This is because it lets them shine at what they are good at without being too obvious. Like if a party is weak against range, constantly throwing range encounters at them feels cheap and characters don't get to use the abilities they put all their effort into. One of the examples in the video is a melee heavy group you put up against some monsters that can take a beating and heavy reflect damage so running up and hitting it is risky but the creature itself also does melee, this helps force the players to think of alternate ways to engage the battle. Ultimately though some things are going to be repetitive as it is a dice rolling game of characters exchanging hits. But encounters should be more than that, have environmental hazards in the room the players need to go around or wade through. Each room and encounter should tell a story and help build upon the location and not just room 6 which contacts X monsters. Ultimately if the players are getting bored I don't think it's the combat's fault. If players are invested in the campaign and story but don't like combat they may want to rush through it to get to the next bit so they do what's simple but they still invested in coming each week. If they lost interest in the campaign setting and their characters it's likely they didn't find things engaging enough. If DM needs ideas there are great vids on KZbin about each of the races in DnD. In them they talk about the sort of tactics they employ such as goblins being more ambush fighters that run easily. Where as Kobolds use lots of traps which activate on press plates they can easily walk over being so light but a medium size creature will trigger thus making it so they can freely move around while players will spring traps in the room. But basically each group of monsters should feel unique when fighting them not just different flavored stat blocks. The result is it should also force players to change up their tactics a bit to overcome these challenges. Given how the encounters were described in his video they all seemed like Bland here is a room, here are where the enemies are standing, and GO type fights which are understandably boring because flavor text is often not enough, you need some hooks from time to time.

[@DemigodoftheSea]

So this definitely applies to 5th addition, with one caveat in my mind. There's a lot more material for 5th edition. Honestly, I think this is in part of why I've fallen in love with the Storyteller system and games like Exalted and the like. There is a way to optimize in these systems, but the roleplay is so rewarding it actually becomes beneficial to not optimize, or to optimize in something that's not absolutely top tier and it never felt like you were falling behind so long as you were working with the ST,

[@flannaz3769]

@@DemigodoftheSea really? there's more material for a game launched in 2014 as opposed to 2019.....shocking....who knew? Even then I would argue you are wrong, pf2e has a lot more variety than 5e

[@markadkins1842]

Cody: " 2e combat is too repetitive." 5e Warlock: "Hold my... ELDRITCH BLAST!!" Okay, so now for my serious thoughts: I think this is a major reason that Retraining rules are a core part of Pathfinder 2e. Optimized combat gets repetitive in any system, but having accessible rebuild rules can allow variance without punishing players mechanically. Age of Ashes even says that it assumes lots of downtime, meaning that Retraining opportunities are built into the adventure path. However, that being said, Paizo has admitted that the game is too hard in places, which can overemphasize narrow, highly optimized game play. I've figured out a few small workarounds that seem to help that issue, thankfully.

[@vulkeg]

For real though. To extol the virtues of the game system that gave us the literal one trick pony that is a warlock and then lambast another system that is no where near as bad a culprit is strange as hell.

[@professorpantherhardraad3921]

The thing is, Warlocks don't NEED Eldritch Blast to be effective characters. And even if you do grab it, you have a bunch of Invocations to tweek it enough that it feels different for each Warlock.

[@BW022]

And yet...I've played two warlocks in 5e and neither were repetitive. One was a strength-based polearm wielder and served as the party tank. Eldritch blast was a backup and he only had a 14 charisma. The other was nature cleric/blade using heavy armor, shield and shillelagh. She has so many spells, healing, and combat options that I never felt like eldritch blast was needed. As good as EB might be... tactically, there were so many cases when misty-stepping into the rear lines and beating on things with a staff, or polymorphing, or keeping improved invisibility up on the rogue, or just healing... were equally fine options. And that on a class which is the most single minded. I've played dexterity based paladins, dwarven tank wizards, archery clerics, etc. There are few cases when I ever feel I've been forced to play a certain way or select something. I routinely find play style changes based on the situation. In 5e you don't need to be optimal. Far from it. In many cases, you end up with a 'better' character if you are more flexible.

[@Crouza]

@@professorpantherhardraad3921 I guess you're right with warlocks...you can always be a Hexblade. Warlocks are a binary choice class, you eldritch blast or you hexblade, or you sit in the useless corner with the Strength bard and the Melee Sorcerer.

[@Mystero9]

I think you mean HEX, ELDRITCH BLAST!

[@HipposaurusRex]

Not gonna lie, just hearing they sent you books makes me want to try Pathfinder, and I've only ever played D&D. I don't know much about them, but they sound like a much better company than WotC, as far as the community is concerned. Maybe not 2E, but you get my drift

[@pawle4255]

I could not reccomend Pathfinder 1e enough. It can be tricky to get into at first but once you actually make a few characters you'll be so inspired by just the sheer amount of awesome choice and customisability you get that you will never, in an infinite amount of time, get to play all the characters you would like to try.

[@HipposaurusRex]

@@pawle4255 I feel like I've limited myself enough in my life to this point. I've been playing D&D for 15ish years, and haven't really branched out to other games. I think it's just because I felt like since I spent all that money on the D&D books, I may as well stick with it. But I'm at the point where I totally want to try out new games and it sounds like Pathfinder would be great

[@rubenvandermarel9924]

Well everything about pathfinder 1st can be found free online so that's a huge plus

[@pawle4255]

@@HipposaurusRex Branching out is great way to breathe some fresh air into your TTRPG experiance. The neat thing about Pathfinder 1E is that you need not pay any money to start. All the rules are available online on either aonprd(dot)com or d20pfsrd(dot)com. Personally I prefer the latter as the formatting is clearer. If you do like the system though you can always buy the Pathfinder books to support paizo. Also, it may be a leap sometimes but I would definetely reccomend looking at other systems which aren't necesarily in the style of D&D, such as: Blades in the Dark, Shadowrun5e (personally may be my favorite system of all time), ect. There's a whole world out there - no need to fall into the sunk cost fallacy.

[@HipposaurusRex]

@@pawle4255 Definitely. I like D&D, but you're right, there's a whole world of TTRPGs, and I haven't even brushed the tip of the iceberg. I'm going to look into Pathfinder tonight, maybe see if I can find a group to join to get my feet wet

[@fridelgard2825]

As someone who has DM'ed both I understand you perfectly. I never felt like my experience or interaction with my players was ever different from one system to the other. However I know many of my players felt more satisfied in PF2 since they felt their character was their own and not "just another lore bard". One major thing I think may have harmed your experience though was running age of ashes since that adventure is tough. Players need to play optimally to survive in it (as a player in it I was on my 3rd character before reaching the infamous dragon totems, and would be on my 5th by the time we passed them). By comparison my homebrew campaign enabled less optimal builds and decisions which made SOME of my players much happier though many still prefer 5e.

[@a7i20ci7y]

"Players need to play optimally to survive in it" This drives me bonkers.

[@philliphepfinger415]

@@a7i20ci7y that seems like Paizo's published adventures though. I remember watching a play through of reign of winter where there were three TPKs before the first of chapter was done.

[@Snow-Willow]

This came to my mind exactly as well. I had a friend who streams his Age of Ashes game too and it is a hard AP. He has had a couple of tpk's, and from what I've seen you really do have to optimize to survive it. Whereas my gaming group is playing rise of the runelords converted to to ease mechanics, and we are doing just fine with our hodgepodge of probably sub-optimal character builds. (with the exception of my highly specialized healer Cleric. I've become the linchpin of the party's survival in combat 😂).

[@bakezori]

I haven't run P2E or these modules. Are they difficult to tune to your player's party? Tune ability is an issue i've seen in major and independently published adventures, but some are more easily tuned than others.

[@fridelgard2825]

@@bakezori not necessarily. Just decreasing damage a bit and stuff and lowering some DCs won't be hard. It would keep the same experience of the module as well. But by the books it's pretty vicious.

[@cameronallan9930]

I still feel like the DM has a role to play here, I struggle to believe that the DM can't vary the combat enough to force players to think more carefully about their actions.

[@thrifty0413]

That's exactly what I started thinking at some point, but I could also see how perhaps it'd be very difficult if not near impossible to vary it up in a meaningful enough way to fix the issue. Essentially what you have to do is counteract your players' build which frustrates them because they don't get to play the game, basically.

[@marclebest]

yeah I agree. I was really annoyed by his example of druids always transforming in a dino haha. are all his encounters outside? why no claustrophobic tunnels? why no snipping enemies?

[@joedatius]

@@marclebest but then you're just forcing restrictions that only exist to now lower the amount of choices available. and players really notice when you do these things.

[@marclebest]

@@joedatius I think you over value having endless amount of choices. restricting choices is what makes situations more tense and what makes yous PC think about how they want to approach a situation. IE : I think its fine if my PCs want to spit on the King and try to intimidate him. I think its also ok that in reaction his elite guard would attack them. I think its ok to transform in a giant dinosaur in a catacomb. I think its also ok that they then have a big movement restriction and AC restriction. Its not about saying "NO", its about saying "Yes, and".

[@apollyon23456]

@@marclebest 100% this. Also dming monsters and enemies to act in actual intelligent ways. Taking cover, avoiding obvious beneficial areas for the pcs, and using little things to shake up the encounters is key. Also, it is completely not lazy to say power gaming has an effect in situations like he's describing. They're not making "good" characters, they're making high damage ones. Which isn't necessarily the same thing. And for me as a dm, if that's your schtick, it's just an exuse for me to throw harder fights at you.

[@kirkwagner461]

My comment: I feel this "illusion of choice" is more a symptom of certain types of players and DMs than of the game systems they play. If players feel (or prefer) to build optimized, rather than fun, characters, and/or DMs design encounters that require optimized characters, then no one really has a choice. Perhaps some systems are more prone to this, but in the end it is on the players (and DMs) to choose sub-optimal characters in order to gain optimal story telling opportunities. It's like a book. A main character who is perfect is also boring. Flawed characters are far more interesting, and produce far more interesting scenarios.

[@clanpsi]

It's pretty difficult to build a sub-optimal character in PF2e, though. Most options are functionally good.

[@chungusumungus4004]

@@buttsmcgee50 Honestly I wouldn't even call 5e the best for new players. That'd have to go to 13th Age, if sticking with a d20 based game.

[@WolforNuva]

@@TheBuddyCassius Ahh one of my people.

[@matthewjamesmjw4172]

I'd like to see these "optimized builds." In pf2e, the math is so tight that it heavily depends on circumstances...there's really no such thing as optimal. In 5e, the math is different - there is such a thing as optimal. Where an optimal build is so much better than a non-optimal build that there is no meaningful choice.

[@MathewDHennen]

To answer your question, Yes, everything you said is applicable to 5e. The difference is that 5e doesn't give you the choice that Pathfinder 2e does. You will inevitably run into an optimal routine in any rpg, be it tabletop or video game. This can be most alleviated in rpgs designed around RP, which neither 5e nor P2e are.

[@aegisofficial3819]

I'd personally say that 5e leans more into RP encounters than P2e does. But at the same time, these are both "combat" centric systems, so if you want the RP encounters to be challenging or interesting, it's up to the DM to make them so. It's not like Call of Cthulhu, where the challenge comes from learning about arcane horrors and solving mysteries, where the game is literally roleplaying.

[@03dashk64]

@@aegisofficial3819 5e leans more into RP encounters? Wut?

[@skandalond]

Which TTRPGS are more focused on RP instead of combat?

[@MathewDHennen]

@@skandalond I don't have a lot of experience on RP systems myself, because I prefer the "wargame" aspect of D&D/Pathfinder. I've heard good things about Fate from an RP perspective. Pretty much any D100 based game such as Call of Cthuhlu lends itself better to RP. And a system like Open Legend is probably the best "Wargame" system I've played that encourages "re-skining" of skills and abilities.

[@skandalond]

@@MathewDHennen have you tested Warhammer onlywar, dark heresy Second Editon, or iron kingdoms? I saw a guy recommending those on other comment

[@shoulung6203]

5e also rewards optimization and repetitive actions; especially for non spellcasters.

[@mikmak3mk748]

What will fighter do? Actions surge. Hit three attacks. "Okay, I'm done."

[@AnnaTheFallMaiden]

Even with spellcasters you have that problem. There are spells that are just objectively better picks for most situations and you'll see that a ton of spellcasters will go for those options most of the time, because honestly, why would they not do that?

[@SmolAnarchy]

At least there are items that you can use at any level making martial be able to tackle on things, strategy matters. The problem with PF2e is that boost in saves is insane. PF2e also has this issue. I feel the sweet spot should be 20. Not 40-50 or 114.

[@maxgehtdnixan4913]

Bro, I came to PF2e from 40k and Shadowrun. I can't go back there fast enough. This game is a piece of garbage overloaded with trap options.

[@maxgehtdnixan4913]

@@stuh42l I'll take more build options over what is essentially a dnd first edition class selection hidden behind a bunch of trap options. Pathfinder 2e's class selection feels like it was made in the 80s and not in a good way. As for the combat, I've already stated my issues with it. It's unimmersive. Mostly uninterruptable movement is its main flaw and the main issue with the system. Something that would have been simple to fix by giving everyone attack of opportunity, instead of making it something you have to acquire for most classes (and in some cases, cannot). To illustrate: In PF2e, I can use all my movement options to run in circles around the enemy shaman, if I want to. That is 75 feet of movement distance for a standard humanoid, used to travel in multiple loops around a caster and all that time, said caster is forced to watch you do it and cannot do anything about it until it's his turn. If you think that's good design, that's a you problem.

[@BasementMinions]

A shame this video put me off of Pathfinder 2E for so long. It's now my favorite TTRPG. It's interesting rewatching this and seeing how not understanding how PF2E encourages dynamic team play can lead to really sub optimal solo style play. I'm just so glad PF2E is now getting the love that it is. :)

[@yobgodababua1862]

Creating a system with Meaningful Choice is one of the more difficult elements of game design.

[@ChivalrousyWalrusy]

And 2e did it for the vast majority of things. his version of the game is based on table experience that seems very... meta focused. There are truly rare builds that will do 'one optimal thing' each turn.

[@AndrewLenox]

If the game is perfectly balanced, it doesn’t matter what you pick. If the game isn’t balanced, there are optimal builds. The only solution is less game system overall. Base the game in the narrative, and not in mathematics.

[@ChivalrousyWalrusy]

@@AndrewLenox it is a very well balanced game. Seemingly poorly dmed.

[@AndrewLenox]

@@ChivalrousyWalrusy You don’t seem to have understood what I was saying.

[@JeremyMacDonald1973]

@@ChivalrousyWalrusy Using store bought campaign... which for a lot of groups is really the only option.

[@ArvelDreth]

I feel the same way about Pathfinder 2e, but ironically I also have this opinion of 5e but even more strongly. The only difference as to why it doesn't feel like there is as strong of an illusion of choice in 5e is that they don't have as many named "moves". The reality, however, is that it doesn't really matter if you choose the most optimal choice each time if your DM is actually doing their job right. If your DM is doing their job, they will adjust to how you customize and what abilities you choose to use and they'll only punish you for blatantly stupid roleplay decisions, not sub-optimal build decisions.

[@theslayer5978]

Its hard to balance scenes when you have giga-optimised characters and someone who is building for fun. Espacially in systems which demand balance.

[@douglasbaiense]

About characters that do the same thing over and over again, for me that happens on all D&D editions since 3rd. I stepped away from 5th exactly because it got boring soooo quickly. So far PF2 is looking good for me. Lets see one year from now.

[@charleshartley9597]

I still run or play in 5e games, but feel so bored with combat, skill checks, just variability or flexibility overall. I don't have that problem in PF2e.

[@douglasbaiense]

@@charleshartley9597 exactly. I like 5E overall, but the options are just meh after a while

[@charleshartley9597]

@@douglasbaiense Although I will say, if you want a better 5e experience, jump into Kobold Press Midgard Campaign Setting. Amazing world and some really good subclasses. Plus special abilities anyone proficient with a weapon can do with different weapon types. That provides those options to combat that base 5e is missing.

[@clanpsi]

@@charleshartley9597 The best advice for making 5e more interesting is to play a caster. The martial classes are all absolute garbage compared to any full caster, especially past level 5. This is also one of 5e's biggest flaws.

[@douglasbaiense]

@@skyler9643 been there, done that :D

[@almisami]

The thing is, none of your complaints are exclusive in Pathfinder 2 and, honestly, are often worse in 5e depending on the class.

[@theslayer5978]

But dnd 5e is simpler and at least makes effort to be an actual roleplaying system instead of cringy mmorpg pf 2e is.

[@szegediadam8793]

@@theslayer5978 what makes it mmorpg-esque? The reason for there isn't that many class building guides, for pf2, because the math is tight enough, so the difference between a min-maxed and a casual character will be minimal. Because of this, you have the chance to build your acrobat, your herbalist, your dandy, your anything. However if I start to write "how to build a... In 5e" I will always have some best builds, becuse no choices are equal in 5e.... And it always make sense rp wise to build a barbarian - rogue - paladin multiclass for extra movement smites.. of course with great weapon master polearm master sentinel variant human, for we are not animals... XD Or the cooperation aspect makes it mmorpg-esque for you? Yeah, no solo super heroes in pf2, you have to work as a team and help eachother, but the premise of this game is you represent a group of adventurers, who form a party to conquer world ending problems... And you do this. Or the living and defined built up world makes it mmorpg-esque for you? I see your point there. Having different areas on the map, where it's different in style and flavor instead of having the same Tolkieny medieval fantasy with as little detail as possible is sounds bad for roleplaying possibilities... Just like having a tons of feats designed for exploration mode, so you can be a better pickpocket, or get better at talking to crowds, or learning to survive on different terrain types. Also the thing, that in pathfinder in many prewritten adventure, at many encounters you get the same amount of xp, sometimes even more, for encounters you get around with stealth or diplomacy, or other unviolent methods, rather than to murder hobo everything, that is also the proof of not being a roleplayer game. :D

[@madhippy3]

5e gives you far less to work with in system for Roleplaying. There are a large range of PF2 feats for all the social (and society) skills that are about improving your way with interacting with the people in the world. 5e barely has anything similar. Actor, Observant, and Linguist are just about it for character options related to augmenting roleplaying in 5e. Roleplaying is and always has been largely a personal thing. Even PF2 is just offering a limited range of options compared to what a player will likely think up on their own. So far their is no feat in either game for improving grossing an npc out by belching the alphabet, but thats fine.

[@theslayer5978]

@@madhippy3 vampire the masquerade has lots of really good roleplaying mechanics, while not having tons of feats. Warhammer fantasy roleplay has extremly good RP system. All those pf 2e feats feel like shit tbf. In most situations they either do nothing, improve whatever you were doing already, or fix weaknesses created by this shit system. In 5e you dont have tons of feats, but the system doesn't need them as well as it doesn't create stupid weaknesses.

[@madhippy3]

@@theslayer5978 5e has the weakness but no fix. You might not agree that Coercing a group of people is locked behind a feat, but at least there is a system for coercion which 5e couldn't even be bothered with.

[@gloomygloomstalker3878]

I wanna see that healing word collab

[@logancuster8035]

For real, that sounds marvelous

[@fightfordawn]

What's the argument?

[@Isaac-ym8kq]

@@fightfordawn whether it’s too strong

[@sweepingfalco]

@@Isaac-ym8kq powerful maybe, but my group is very low on in combat healing and having a simple spell to save characters from death is great.

[@user-yg6wj3hd3s]

I need it

[@amadeub.negrao7586]

In fact, I believe that 5e has this problem far more prominent than PF 2e. And not just in characters, their classes and subclasses as well, they simply are not making enought content.

[@clanpsi]

It isn't content that's the problem, it's the system's character building at a fundamental level. Your character building ends at level 3 in 5e, adding new level 1 and 3 options isn't going to change anything.

[@Somber_Knight]

Me: Quietly plays mutants and masterminds in the corner by myself...

[@kamencraftbrasil4367]

Preach man, I started to learn the rules recently and am really liking what I saw, my brother likes supers, so I think I will try a one player campaign with him for a first try of the system.

[@Merc1987]

Ahhh a man of culture i see!

[@redwolf344]

*aggressively looks up mutants and mastermind on Google*

[@Aramyle-12]

That’s me and Dungeon Crawl Classics

[@BoToChris]

M&M is so good. As far as dungeonpunk goes, I like GURPS: Dungeon Fantasy.

[@matthewjamesmjw4172]

Better to have a rotation of optimal actions than literally just attack every turn like in 5e lol.

[@123darkdeal]

I feel like this also applies to 5e and is probably more of a DM problem. Come up with encounters that force players to do something different. OR, if you want a game that rewards things other than combat, maybe try a WhiteWolf game. Vampire: the Masquerade, Vampire: Dark Ages, Exalted, etc.

[@ravinous]

Reward creativity and allow the use of skill checks in combat for advantages and bonuses for clearing DC is how I roll. Allow the scenery to be part of the encounter, allow role play to work in encounters. Don't railroad and work that ad-lib mental muscle.

[@certifiedfunnyguy]

@@ravinous skill checks in combat is kinda the key strength of PF2e that 5e just doesn't have

[@ravinous]

@@certifiedfunnyguy What are you even talking about? There are skill checks in 5E during combat.

[@enochofmi]

As a very new GM, I appreciate that you're the authority here. However, I had a couple thoughts. Feel free to correct me, everyone: 1: It sounds like what you're critical of is less the illusion of choice than it is the choice is made before combat. That makes a difference because you're aware of their choices before you create encounters. With 2 Bestiaries and instructions on how to build your own enemies, can't you make their "Optimal Cycle" not optimal, forcing them to think about combat? 2: I think npc disposition rules are supposed to be back end rules, not player facing rules. It's not "I take 1 minute to make an impression," you roleplay the introduction, determine whether it's been a minute, ask for a diplomacy role, and make a mental note of how the npc is affected for the rest of the conversation.

[@cassandramuller7337]

he's playing a premade module though

[@enochofmi]

@@cassandramuller7337 True. And that puts it entirely out of my experience. I don't even understand how a GM has fun with a premade module.

[@cassandramuller7337]

@@enochofmi I usually prefer homebrew myself but I can see how someone would have fun with a prewritten module. Or at least find really good inspiration or just specific encounters (or a set of encoutners) to use for your homegame. I like reading through them and seeing if I either feel like running one of them or if I want to use something for my own campaign. As a Uni student, saving on prep time is a huge thing. But I'm always up for changing stuff up so...

[@wyattrowe9965]

But he isn't playing Pathfinder Society. Even pre-made adventures can necessitate some homebrew, even as simple as adding some elevation or other obstacle to a map is not difficult or outside of the realm of acceptability. In my experience I've found that in 2e just making good use of a monster's unique abilities can be enough to throw a party off their rhythm, but every table differs.

[@enochofmi]

@@cassandramuller7337 That makes sense, but most of the fun I have gotten from GMing so far has come from worldbuilding and sharing my world with my players.

[@jackhelm9852]

I respect your opinion and have nowhere near the experience with PF2e that you do. That being said, I also have been DMing for about 40 years with many many game systems. And the complaint you are talking about here is something that is present in about every game system I have ever played/run no matter how simple or complex. If a character lives to a decent level, they eventually find a groove that works for them, regardless of if they min/maxed or not. And often combats can begin to feel repetitive. What I have found, at least with the players I have played with, is that at that point it is vital that the GM and players have taken the time to weave the story in a compelling way that the battles can take different shapes, different styles, and different reasons for fighting in the first place. And before you feel like I am attacking you, I am not. I am not saying "This is all your problem as DM if you can't make the game interesting". Not at all. It has to be a collaboration between the GM and the players to make the story fun. But if folks forget about this part, then yeah, it just comes down to mechanics of combat to get loot to spend on more things to make the combat less challenging and more one track. And all that being said, there comes a time in every campaign regardless of the system, when it is time for a break or perhaps to retire the characters and move on. (Often the taking a break from that game takes the form of retiring the characters). Look, as I said, I respect your opinion but feel like this video could have been done in a better way perhaps just presenting the issue you are seeing and ask others if they might have other answers. To name the video and present it so dramatically is to invite the thought of "oooo if HE does not like it then that is it, there is no redeeming value to it." (Despite your late efforts to argue otherwise) I doubt this is what you intended but it is how it comes off, regardless. I started watching your channel because of the up-beat way you presented things and the information you put out about the games you spoke of. It has begun to feel like too much of your time is spent going the opposite direction lately. Like any good game, I think it is time I take a break from watching. Not the time to inject so much drama into my hobby with all the other drama in life I use my hobby to escape from. Good luck in your gaming and your channel. And I hope you find the easy utopia of a game system you appear to be looking for.

[@Mr.Humble623]

I was going to say the same thing brother. All games are repetitive💁‍♂️

[@CraftlordDark]

+1

[@Bryanissmiling]

Exactly! I feel the same way about PF1, DnD, and practically all ttrpgs. Martial classes across the board in other ttrpgs are just "I attack. I attack." So, I'm not sure what the issue is?

[@Hopp3rTx]

You sound like the dramatic one tbh

[@tohellwithyourcrap8045]

@@Hopp3rTx honestly agree.

[@blueyoshi4211]

I wish you had gone into how this is issue is different in other rpgs you’ve played such as 5e, 5e RAW combat is really really boring and it’s only fun when you creativity use the environment or your spells, and flavor your attacks. I don’t understand why this wasn’t possible in 2e you know?

[@thesprucemoose7905]

100% this. Dude says that combat is stale and repetitive in Pathfinder 2E and then goes back to 5th edition? You objectively have more options in Pathfinder 2E during combat than in 5th.

[@lucyvalentine394]

He didn't say it was different in 5e, in fact at the end of the video he implied 5e has the same problem, but that if the games have the same problem then the easier game is better because it's easier to play. Which... yeah. PF2E is definitely more work than 5e, so if that extra work isn't getting him and his players anything, then that's fair enough. Personally my own take is that IDK enough about this to do a fair comparison, but I believe that 5e enables a lot of options with relatively little building into it as a martial (basically, play str-based, train athletics, maybe grab expertise, and you're good to go with almost anything that's not hit for damage). Whereas PF2 actually has more options, but you have to put more effort into building into them, and it does a bad job of signposting them for players. Like: I can imagine playing a PF2 build where the choice to Demoralise, Bon Mot, Athletics-something, or whatever attack options I had from class could be interesting. But it'd be a stretch to get all those things as options and I'd have to play a str/cha build which is not my favourite, and more importantly nothing about building a character pointed those options out to me and said they were there.

[@johnathanera5863]

@@thesprucemoose7905 no. you really dont.

[@thesprucemoose7905]

@@johnathanera5863 Yeah, you really do.

[@aegisofficial3819]

I've been playing Pathfinder 2e for about a year and a half now, weekly session, characters in our group are level 16, about 2 weeks before we end this campaign, and while our DM and Monk player so far seem to really love 2e, it isn't doing it for me or 2 of the other players in our group. The variance in choices sounds great on paper, but in execution it feels... flat. And as Cody said, we found our group getting into a constant phase of "Do the most optimal thing, every turn" As early as Level 3. Our monk does the same thing every turn The barbarian does the same thing every turn The cleric does the same thing every turn I as the alchemist, do the same thing every turn. The rogue and hunter do the same thing every turn Part of this is due to our DM not making the combat encounters interesting in creative ways, so we're not using the rest of our toolkit as there isn't a need to But a large part of it is due to Pathfinder 2e. It doesn't help that it's a 600 page book with subpar formatting. Why would I not just go back to 5e D&D? Simpler game system even though it has similar issues, I actively have more fun playing it than I do Pathfinder. And considering that I also have an absolute insane amount of supplements, both official and unofficial, I can objectively say I have more variance than what 2e Pathfinder gives me. And considering that, at least when I was playing 5e, my group actively did things that we just dont do in P2e I.E. Jump on a table, utilize environment, kick a chair to knock someone prone, etc. It's easier to house rule something in 5e than p2e, as well, imo

[@kevinz8554]

Hmm..... But I find the same problem exists in DnD 5e right? There's usually an optional set of things to do. And it's almost always the exact same thing. Hell many fighters/monks/rangers literally have ONE thing they do. They do the same thing over and over in combat.

[@Taking20]

I make a comment about this at the end of the video

[@Kevin-hq5ne]

I don’t know man, the vast majority of my players do different combos from combat encounter to combat encounter. That’s been true for at least the past five years. Maybe that is because of the way I design combat to include at least one other pillar of play, but still our combats are like 9out of10 not repetitive and my players generally have the opportunity to use all of their features over the course of about every five or six encounters.

[@CobaltContrast]

5e is more cookie cutter than Pf2e. I just can't wrap my mind around your opinion.

[@cartergreen2309]

100% agree. Thats the case in all trpgs I've played if you are trying to maximize your damage/combat.

[@Gerod253]

Pretty much every RPG that emphasizes combat and magic suffers from this to a certain extent. It seems like there are always ‘better’ options that you should use in nearly every situation. That’s what drove me away from d20 games, for the most part. I still enjoy a lot of OSR material because it plays a lot faster and is easier to teach new players and get them playing with their own characters in less than an hour. Cypher System by Monte Cook Games is interesting. While some character builds are slightly better than others at specific tasks I’ve yet to build an accidentally bad character. The game also plays faster since there are fewer little bits to track each round. Just some thoughts. Hope everyone has a great day.

[@GGSigmar]

I played and DMed 5e for years now. I still do play in one 5e campaign. Last year we switched to PF2 and it was the best rpg decision ever. I personally strongly disagree with your opinion. In our case fights are a lot more varied and even simple encounters became interesting. Players have more choices and use them. Monsters are actually interesting instead of being hp bags with multiattack. So while I respect your opinion I just cannot agree with you.

[@doombane9337]

It's the best choice I ever made too. I've had people that tried 5e with my group a long time ago and fell away almost immediately come back and create multiple characters with high levels of excitement. I don't get how people could say that PF2e has issues compared to the shit show that is 5e

[@GGSigmar]

@@doombane9337 Our first long campaign in 5e was Out of the Abyss and... My players had more fun fighting PF2's Giant Anaconda 2 weeks ago than fighting a Demon Lord in 5e, just saying :X Monster design is just so many levels above 5e it's embarassing

[@doombane9337]

Oh yeah dude. Maybe my group just plays in a way that aligns itself to pathfinder 2e more than other groups. We have custom world where our adventurers found an abandoned fort out in the wilderness. They have spent over a year making repairs, adventuring, and meeting civilization as they go. It's all based on tables that I've wrote up and we create the map as we explore. The downtime activities make the game FAR more enjoyable than 5e to my group. After I started this game, they actually asked me to stop my 5e strahd campaign half way through because they were bored with it. They wanted more Pathfinder. These were players that got a solid year of 5e in before this. I've dmed 5e for nearly 4 years now and let me tell you, Pathfinder 2e is a creative dm's dream come true.

[@GGSigmar]

@@doombane9337 I wholeheartedly agree. I am in the process of integrating Matt Colville's Strongholds and Followers to PF2. Also play in a homebrewed world, never had more fun.

[@johnsnyder619]

One has to wonder with that diplomacy example if the players are just relying on rules and not playing it out? Could be the players? 5e can produce those exact same results re: skill checks. Also, I have a 15th level druid in a 5e game, and it's still fairly the same stuff as previous levels. Plus 5e has a lot of 'dead' levels where nothing really happens for your PC's advancement.

[@DarthSoto78]

Cody: 2e combat too repetitive 5e fighter: okay let's talk after I do my 4 attacks.

[@firstpersonwinner7404]

No magic arrows or fireballs for your fighter, eh?

[@konstantinkh]

I don't have enough experience with PF2e to properly weigh this, but in 5e, while the OPTIMAL build is just as bad as Cody describes, the penalty for going a little suboptimal is not that great. I enjoy playing imperfect builds in 5e and I don't feel like I'm dragging the party down. And once you permit yourself this flaw in the build, you start seeing how it lands very differently in different encounters, forcing you to adapt. Just looking at 2e rules, and based on what Cody and some others are saying, it seems like you either have to all collectively agree to play sub-optimal builds, with GM dialing back the challenge to compensate, or you'll be a dead weight. There are definitely areas where 5e flops just as hard. Multiclassing is one of my biggest complaints about illusion of choice. And with certain builds, the combat is definitely a grinder. But you can play an interesting character in a party with absolute min-maxers and still have everyone enjoy their time.

[@notaweeb7555]

​@@konstantinkh As someone who played in two Pathfinder Campaigns this year, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. In both campaigns I wanted to play characters that had builds based around who they were as characters rather than specific builds. However my wizard ended up not even using half of his spells in his spellbook because they were useless for most situations, and my rogue kept getting KO'd because I chose the Cleric spell list for his arcane trickster subclass and took proficiency in skills that weren't normally rogue skills like religion and nature. Likewise our barbarian in one of those games kept almost dying/ couldn't deal enough damage because A. he chose to have 16 Str in stead of 18 with half-elf, and B. because his character only raged under specific circumstances because he wanted to rollplay. Every fight was basically hell.

[@juanmarcos7152]

@@notaweeb7555 Sure, but: 1) Your spells or skills not being useful speaks more about your campaign or your DM not taking into account your choices rather than a system's fault. 2) Not wanting to use X or Y feature because of roleplay has nothing to do with the system. In a 5e CoS game I'm playing as an EK/WL I almost never use my devil sight + darkness combo because I roleplay as a sort of last resort thing, even though it would be more effective to do so as much as I could, and that's my problem. 3) The only way to really be suboptimal, IMO, is to not pick a 16+ score on your key stat ability, which is pretty hard to do since the stat boosts are hella generous.

[@Mortlupo]

@@firstpersonwinner7404 Yes, I do those too....Eldritch Knight baby!

[@Emloch]

It's NOT an illusion of choice. Your players are simply making the same choices for sake of optimization. For choices within the confines of any framework (rules), there will always be an optimal "build" or "setup". This is not exclusive to Pathfinder, this phenomena lies within ANY game. What you're speaking of, I've seen in D&D, Cyberpunk, a plethora of board games, video games, etc. It's natural for us to gravitate towards options choices that will benefit us the most through play. We can combat this however. Create a character you wouldn't normally choose. Pick feats and skills that don't necessarily compliment the class you're building. Although I've mostly been a DM for the 35 years I've played D&D, I have been a player off an on. The most memorable character I've ever played was fighter with a Strength of 8. It was a challenge and a lot of fun. How about a wizard with an Int of 9? Encourage your players to try that.

[@shainedge6651]

The complaint i hear, is that pf2 has the same problem every other rpg has, there are "efficient" actions, and less efficient actions.

[@S1leNtRIP]

I think the issue is that you are hugely penalized if you don't build in such a way (using feats) that your "efficient" actions are the most efficient they can be. Losing out on a +1 to your main attack stat in 5e isn't that bad if you get some badass new way to deal with encounters (most feats are pretty powerful/game changing in 5e). Forgoing a +2 in PF2 for an option that isn't actually that powerful or interesting...that's the part that sucks for me at least.

[@clanpsi]

@@S1leNtRIP I'm fairly certain there aren't any feats that give +to hit in PF2e.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@S1leNtRIP That just means your GM has to tone it down on the monsters doing the most optimal things in their turns. If your players want to do sub-optimal things don't punish them (even unintentionally) by making your enemies do the most optimal thing every time.

[@shainedge6651]

@@ShiningDarknes Feats that reduce penalties, might be considered a + to hit? Such as the Fighter Feat that allows you to ignore the second -5 penalty to attack if you missed your first -5 attack.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@shainedge6651 I don't recall saying there are no + to hit feats?

[@larscasteen]

I’ve found that the Free Archetype variant does a lot to alleviate the feeling of single-mindedness that you’re describing. It continues to boost the complexity of the game, but it adds additional flavor to character choices at my table.

[@NicholasKratzer]

I'm starting my first P2e game soon, and I'm really looking forward to using Free Archetype and how it will expand their characters. I'm glad to hear it works well in practice

[@vamphunterx]

This is a criticism of the base version of the game, not some option your GM may not even care about.

[@larscasteen]

@@vamphunterx I’m sharing my opinion about an aspect of the game that might be helpful for players or GM’s who share the OP’s feeling about the game. I’m not arguing any point said in this video. I’m sharing additional information that I believed may be useful for people. Not sure why that’s prompting aggression, but I guess that’s KZbin for you.

[@zoulsgaming9455]

I would honestly disagree, im one of the people who isnt a fan of free archetype since that is PRECISELY the way to always take the same combat feats, monk forexample would always get the monk feats + some more, where if you dont use free archetype you might not get stunning strike, but instead get a cantrip, which might change the playstyle from just always using flurry of blows since you have a high guarantee for stunning, i have made monks that uses sorcerer abberation bloodline to get noodle arms for crazy stumbling stance 10 feet reach punching, but they dont have crit specialization nor stunning strike, nor ki strike, where if you had the free archetype it would be "just another base monk with some stuff"

[@larscasteen]

@@zoulsgaming9455 I think that’s a compelling argument. I understood the complaint, though, to be that his players always do the same thing on their turns in combat, not that his players always take the same optimal build. I think at a certain point, we are running into a central problem with combat-focused RPG’s: that players are encouraged to express themselves, but incentivized by the game’s challenge to make optimal choices. My thinking on the Free Archetype point is that they get the chance to both make the optimal Monk build, but then also add something else for more expressive play. But if the system creates challenges that are so demanding that players need to constantly take optimal builds AND optimal in-combat actions, I think there is no way to resolve this central issue. Personally, I think a huge part of this complaint about PF2E is just that combat encounters are too punishing, and that a gentle decrease in difficulty would re-open substantial parts of the game’s design space to players who want more free-form, expressive play.

[@DTDdeathmas]

In my opinion, a lot of the issues you have with 2e seems to me to be a problem with d20 systems. Most lack meaningful choice for combat.

[@codyraugh6599]

Yup, which ironically is why I've always hated DnD before because them:"is your gear magic?" Me:"No" them:"so you have 1 quarter of the bonuses and half the combat options and suck as a player" Me: "but we have tons of books and how many sets of gear, races and lores, just how can magic items be the only choice" Them: "because they are the only ones with bonuses and additional effects" Me: "so why should anyone even try to be a blacksmith or doctor when magic renders their jobs pointless?"

[@Yous0147]

Absolutely, or at least the d20 system that both DnD and Pathfinder are rocking. I think that the same problem is the case with DnD, it's just less codified so it's harder to point out, but you'll definitely feel it once you reach a certain level. I've been feeling this with those 2 games especially for a long while now, but I'm glad Cody brought it to the forefront.

[@ShadowDiver64]

100% agree, most systems have this problem but I think 2e does better than a fair few.

[@codyraugh6599]

Typically it's been 3rd party and homwbrew that's allowed us to escape the shackles of magic. Such as having master crafted weapons default getting bonuses to stats while being generally cheaper to buy than a magic enchantment...but of course requiring a player or NPC skill roll to determine the craftsmanship...etc. it then also allows magic to focus less on +# bonus because that's all that matters and actually giving you a sword that glows blue when orks are near or something rather than those features being superfluous details given to you by a GM because otherwise why the f would a player bother unless they are super fluffy.

[@secretnameyoudontneed18230]

Do you know of another tabletop system that allows for diverse builds, while still feeling like meaningful choice is implemented? Not being sarcastic, looking for genuine advice, been trying to research other systems and cannibalize parts I like for my own.

[@Nemhyz]

Just give us the real reason. Making easy buzzfeed style 5e content is way more profitable.

[@SeftonRedshaw]

Everything said here applies to pretty much any game - not even just TTRPGs - that have a variety of character choices and options. I don't feel it is really fair to state this is solely a PF2e problem. In truth, I am seeing more variety in character play and types in my games since switching from 5e to PF2 - though I appreciate this may just be me And mine!

[@NannyCanes]

"Pathfinder 2e plays like an MMO with rotations" I hear you say while playing FFXIV, an MMO with rotations

[@cassandramuller7337]

GW2 player who can't remember her rotations... yeah, I feel ya. I try to memorize them but I always forget

[@DanTalksGames]

I don't get his complaint at all. If 2e is an MMO with rotations, then playing a martial in 5e is like playing a character who's only auto attacking, and maybe if you're lucky you'll occasionally press one button that mildly increases damage. If you want an interesting character in 5e you play a spellcaster or a battle master. In 2e, every martial class is a battle master. Monks are actually good and feel properly martial artist inspired with their stances and unarmed attack variety. Rangers are actually good; hunt prey is what the Tasha's favoured for should have been, and you can build with so many options between weapons, animal companions, and warden spells. Fighters are even better than battle masters in 5e. Champions are the only class that's drastically different and won't fit too well for people who like 5e paladins, but they are also an *actual tank class* for people who've always wanted one in a d20 system (like me), so that's a HUGE win. And the important part is, while everyone will generally only have one rotation, it's a rotation of YOUR choice. Most things are viable. You will never be just striking or having combat turn into a static slug fest between two enemies. It baffles me how Cody came to the conclusions he has, because most combat I've run in 2e has been innately more interactive and interesting than all but the most exceptional 5e fights.

[@steelytemplar]

@@DanTalksGames You're totally right that any "rotation" in PF2e is being created by the player. Even then, at least as a caster, rotations aren't really possible a lot of the time anyway. My bard isn't likely to want to cast Grim Tendrils through half his party to get at an enemy on the other side or to use Color Spray on enemies who have scent or sound as a precise sense.

[@mikewillis9537]

@@DanTalksGames the fact that combat maneuvers are as simple to pull off as they are make it a crime that anyone would "just attack" like nah man, this monster is hard to hit, so I use a trip weapon to get that +2 to my athletics roll to trip it. Now its prone so my second attack is only at a net -2 and if hes still on the ground everyone has a +2 to hit it until it gets up, possibly provoking from other players, this systems combat is by no means boring if you even remotely bother to look at the options presented

[@Chatrbuug]

@@steelytemplar He is definitely describing players that also feel like they have to do the optimal thing each and every turn, and that's a player issue imo.

[@scottnolan2833]

I don’t get it. I’ve played every version of D&D since 70’s and both versions of Pathfinder. I don’t see how 2e gets in the way of role playing. Or rather, it doesn’t at my table.

[@rosswheeldon9292]

I agree my games are set up for roleplay and stories. I have a swashbuckler in my party and the player has not once done the same in any combat to gain panache. I run three groups and only one player prefers 1st Ed but one thing he agrees with is the freedom it gives me as a Storyteller and the ease of dealing with players that forever want to do things that are not listed in the combat actions list by asking two questions: 1. Is it possible? 2. How many actions would it take? The issues the video’s presenter seems to have is with him and his player’s playing style. However I refuse to play the prebuilt adventure paths and only run my own worlds so there may well be an issue with the structure of prebuilt campaigns.

[@GM-vt3tu]

I agree Scott Nolan. This sounds to me like "illusion of choice" = 'I'm a powergamer who is unwilling to admit that I refuse to make any selection less than mathematically optimal' It's no different than when the DM selects opponents from the Bestiary that are less than the most mathematically powerful choice, because they make for a more compelling or interesting story. PCs are built and played with the same kinds of choices.

[@scottnolan2833]

Cody is a thoughtful and intelligent critic. And his experiences are as valid as anyone else’s. I just don’t have the same experience. For me, PF2e has been an excellent upgrade to an already good game. I absolutely understand where Cody is coming from because it’s true that the system has strong choices and weak ones. But I don’t think it’s true that the mechanically strongest choices are always the best or most interesting. It’s not as though the choices are “best” or “suck”. It’s a lot more like “super efficient”, lots of “pretty great” and some “kinda niche”. Mostly I disagree with Cody’s assertion that Pathfinder is a game for people who value mechanics above role playing. I value both. In my view PF2e’s mechanics and breadth of choice are superior to D&D5e’s and both contain equal opportunities for real role playing since that elements brought to the table by my players and me, not by the rules. Cody is certainly correct that if the game isn’t working for him he should do whatever DOES work for him,. Certainly if PF2e hadn’t lived up to my expectations, I too would have jumped ship. Lord knows I jumped ship after getting tired of D&D2e and again when I got tired of 3e. Good luck to you, Cody and I hope that whatever you end up playing, you have fun.

[@jonathanrussell8998]

@@scottnolan2833 To expand on this, from what I have seen of PF2 the fact that there are stronger choices than others matters so much less because the gap between floor and ceiling is nothing even CLOSE to what PF1 had (can't really speak for how it compares to 5e). Barring a rather bad stat array it takes little to achieve what I would call base competency, the level of stats and ability necessary to be a meaningful contribution. You can go beyond that with good choices, but not nearly as far beyond as you could in PF1. The summary I like to give is, in PF1 it felt like your success was decided by the decisions you made before you sat down to play. In PF2 it feels like your success is decided by the decisions you make at the table.

[@Ashtor1337]

@@GM-vt3tu , yup sounds like a power gamer being a power gamer. It's a pnprpg. To say that it is built around combat is doing a disservice to the industry, Combat should always be optional. If I want to just fight I'll be looking at a different product as it's a whole industry unto it self.

[@Cricket101382]

This is literally how every ttrpg ever works. You just happened to figure it out while playing PF2E.

[@xezzee]

​@morph611 The problems that The Combat is easily repetitive and gets boring in TTRPGs is even more distinct in TTRPGs that are more focused Narrative because they focus more on the Narrative and the Combat is usually even simpler. No combat No problem 😏 Even Cypher System which is more Narrative Driven while offering more opportunities to improvise solutions has even more boring combat where you do same actions every time. Even single combat I turn on my Falming halo and run to bonk my enemies. Every single turn I take cover and keep shooting at my enemies. The problem is not that we need MORE Narrative but that WHEN there is combat it easily becomes repetitive and we end up doing the same actions every single time. Move & Attack usually. I actually would love to know which TTRPG you would say is omre Narrative Driven that magically solves the Combat being Repetitive beside one that does not have combat like Cypher System which can be run in a way that there is no actual combat 🤔 like Murder Mystery 😉 and yes you can build characters around that and you can run whole game without ever having to result in to combat WHICH the players probably ruin by attacking the suspect when it runs away 😂 Dyslexia and ADHD hyper focus on Pathfinder 2e as I have never played it 👍 sorry that I wasn't able to summarize it any shorter. I tried writing this for 2h 😅

[@abra2133]

@morph611 but this is to DM to decide, not the system. Also pathfinder 2e has A LOT of out of combat mechanics/skills/feats. while pathfinder isn't perfect (because it is abyssmal in terms of making non world saving heroes at higher levels), it's mechanics are probably the one of the best in the ttrpg scene. also the video and the comment are focused on COMBAT so i don't see why the combat problems wouldn't apply to other "more narrative driven" systems, i would say that they are even more pronounced since the combat is not as fleshed out as in PF2e

[@timthorson52]

It comes down to a few factors in how games are built, not simply to how built for combat or non combat. Some abilities are drastically more optimal in combat. Sometimes this can be rectified by throwing different types of enemies at the party, especially if they are particularly strong against specific types of damage or have great saves against cerain abilities. You may also have systems where characters are restricted from using the same action in subsequent rounds, by making it recharge. Perhaps by only letting each a prepared spellcaster prepare each spell in a single slot. So each slot needs a distinct spell, and 0 repeats. So a wizard can only magic missile once per day, unless they get a magic item or some special ability. Systems may be built where they favor abilities that are less effective in generic situations, but shine in a specific circumstance. Make abilities less flexible so they can only be used with one damage type and enemies resist that type, and dont just have a nearly identical one in the other damage type, change the ability in thay damage type to work differently.

[@susaigithefallenone8323]

I'm still running Pathfinder 1E. I've invested so much into the system and I still love it. Paizo is great and I love what they've done as a company. I just wasn't sold on 2E.

[@MakeYouFeelBetterNow]

I love 1E too! But I also love being able to make a new PF2 character in 10 minutes and levelling it up in 5 minutes.

[@ShiningDarknes]

@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow But I like theory-crafting for hours with my friends on our next characters, using our collective knowledge to create DUMB shit. Like the BOX WIZARD with 4 tower shields who is incapable of casting spells with somatic components due to an over 200% spell fail (which we joked is at that point is basically like so much as thinking about casting the spell...and its gone) from being a Kasatha wielding 3 tower shields and a heavy shield and wearing heavy armor riding a floating disc. Why? Because it is hilarious being invulnerable from three sides and concealed from all other sides (seeing as displacement and blur are some of the only spells this fucker can cast). Because the look on the GMs face when we showed him this abomination and asked if he would allow it he said, and I quote, "Since everything you used to make this....thing has no rules contradictions and there is obviously no FAQ about this and I can't find any instance of someone playing anything like this on forums... yes, you can play it...but I will not like it." And now we have this running joke of "don't make me take out the box wizard" any time we make a character less heinous than it that he has to think about allowing. We make dumb builds. Not because they are good, but because they are fun. We have a guy that can use his move, standard, and swift all on aid another to give over +20 to AC or to an attack...or skill check. That is all his character can really do but man is it funny to make literally any out-of-combat knowledge check when he combines forces with my wizard (no not the box wizard). THAT character is multiclassed like 5 times, yeah, it is NOT efficient but it is fun. And none of that shit is possible in 2e is what I am getting at.

[@janehrahan5116]

@@MakeYouFeelBetterNow *I can do that in 1e*

[@MakeYouFeelBetterNow]

@@ShiningDarknes I get it, you can make any character in 1E. Literally. I still like 1E.

[@MakeYouFeelBetterNow]

@@janehrahan5116 Maybe at level 1 if you're a fighter. But once you get into classes like summoners and any class at higher level, it takes a lot longer. In PF2, I literally raise the level by 1 and my automated PDF does everything. In PFS it took me hours to advance my characters.

[@smnb6652]

While I can understand the sentiment, I don't see how this is an issue specific to Pathfinder and tbh I just can't agree with you on this. Despite the fact I can agree a bit on the "Illusion of choice"-argument (which is applicable for practically all RPG's), PF2e at least has additional options, meaningful options, that other RPG's like D&D5e or WFRPG4e don't even offer. I've played my fair share of RPG systems over the years, and after playing Pathfinder 2e since release, I'm still madly in love with it. I'm currently playing a campaign in D&D5e, another one in PF2e, and another one in Lo5R5e, on top of that I recently finished one in WFRPG4e (each campaign with a different group, though there is some overlap between certain groups) and have played practically all older versions of D&D aswell as dabbled in Starfinder and Pathfinder 1e. And I gotta say, I still look forward to each Pathfinder 2e session the most. it might be because I'm splitting my time between multiple systems and I'm a hardcore "Concept>Viability"-kinda guy and don't try to videogame my tabletop RPG's, but I feel like PF2e is the only one that succeeds in disguising its illusion of choice as well as offer an actual choice that feels like more than just "I stride forward and attack until I'm out of actions". Playing a Pathfinder2e session the day after my D&D campaign always brings me immense joy, as I feel like I have way more options available to me (I play a Wizard in D&D and an Investigator in PF, so it really isn't, yet it does feel so). PS: I have no experience with Age of Ashes, but I know it isn't as well liked as the two follow up adventure paths. Maybe give Agents of edgewatch a shot or a homebrew campaign and see if it isn't the module that's boring the players?

[@dustinflowers1914]

Yeah, the problem seems to be that you find an optimal set of actions and min-max it which is literally a problem in every system. No system can be good for every table, so you'll always wind up house ruling some things. And it absolutely astounds me how many people think that's a problem unique to Pathfinder while they actively state things like "Pathfinder 2e has primarily served my group well as a source of homebrew rules to incorporate into D&D 5e." or "hacking 5e extensively gets the job done"

[@zoulsgaming9455]

@@dustinflowers1914 As someone elegantly put it on reddit, most people from 5e saying that the system is great because of all the homebrew is like saying their car is a great airplane because they basically changed everything except the skeleton yet claim its the same car. I found the logic of "5e has such vague rules that im forced to make something up therefore i have more freedom and its a better system for RP since i can make up whatever i want"

[@18ps3anos]

@@zoulsgaming9455 I think what DnD 5e succeeds at is in reaching abstraction and avoiding overwhelming the players, specially if they are new. It has simple ways to do with most things, because it's a system that can easily get straight into the background, whereas something like PF 1e has so many mechanics and modifiers that people feel so overwhelmed and bothered if they deviate too much from the way it's intended to be played. I think that's the key. 5e expects you to deviate sometimes, being blunt about DM's total control of the game. So it's not really a problem with PF 1e as much as it is with the inability of the players to tweak the rules to fit their thing.

[@zoulsgaming9455]

@@18ps3anos Except its nots PF1, its PF2, which is an entirely different system, if anything 2E is significantly more consistent in its use of TEML, Everything with profeciency uses TEML which is level +2, +4, +6, +8, if you are trained in an armor you get a bonus + teml, if you are trained in weapon you get str + teml to hit, where in 5e the profeciency system is entirely arbitrary and there is basically nothing in the game mechanically other than advantage and disadvantage. Its remember to compare to the correct game, and i really disagree with 5e being less overwhelming to new players since the game is fundamentally "Hey no real rules so we play with my homebrew and you can do anything you want" compared to 2e where it says "Hey i can see on my sheet i can raise shield for AC, attack, or use this class feat that i picked up" and for roleplaying its entirely wrong to say its system dependent, you can always say "i do X" and then see if it works or not.

[@18ps3anos]

@@zoulsgaming9455 Yes I was talking generally, and specifically about 1e because it's a lot more complex system than 5e. And the way I see it, the argument still applies to 2e. People are more comfortable making stuff up when the system is more abstract. But that is a condition of the player, something he should try to look beyond and equally apply it to more demanding systems. Ofc, that demands some level of experience from the Game master, that is why DnD is usually preferable, besides the fact that it is a cultural phenomenon. Being that said, I prefer pathfinder 2e and I wish my group would just switch out from 5e. Regarding your last part, I am not so sure if you are trully trying to see it from a newbie perspective. A newbie doesn't need to know how to play 5e to have fun. He doesn't feel overwhelmed with info dump nor constricted since he doesn't know how much freedom he should expect. He can just ask if his character could do something, and the DM will consider it, adding advantage or disadvantage to the action. It is simple and intuitive. But then again, sometimes simple is its problem

[@br0wneyedsusan]

For me and my group (going into the 3rd part of Extinction Agenda) there is at least some of the failing you cite. Our bard definitely over uses telekinetic projectile to the point where the player jokes that their job is to throw rocks and inspire. However, our fighter lassos flying enemies and climbs to ride them down from the sky. She titan wrestles dinosaurs and astounds us every few games. Likewise our sorceress taunts (intimidate), trains animals, attempts leg sweeps and has to be reminded to use searing light on the fiends and undead because they are having too much fun trying crazy sh*t. The cleric alternates between sudden bolt and battle medic medicine checks / heals. I’m thinking it really depends on the group, the player, and the campaign (which you get at toward the end there).

[@slcea7]

I’m so confused by the observations in this video. I’ve been playing a druid in 2e for 8 months and my issue is too many choices to be optimal. Sometimes my druid is a tank swinging his scimitar on the front line side by side with the champion, sometimes he’s back a layer lobbing spells, sometimes his a healer/buffer for other party members, and sometimes he’s shape shifting. I don’t know if it’s because of my play style or my GM’s ability to craft conflicts with a variety of solutions, but there’s so many different ways to be “optimal” with my druid that I just can’t see this argument of “illusion of choice” as valid. If anything, there is too much choice and a vast array of ways to be effective. Just could not disagree more. But, maybe that’s because I’ve only been playing 2e for 8 months?

[@corberus3119]

sounds more like a good GM providing varying challenges that require different aproaches from the players

[@malachaibowlinggod]

@@corberus3119 And they're playing a class that has historically been versatile in most TTRPGs.

[@12halo3]

@@corberus3119 requiring a gms mastery to make you use diffrant ability's is a bit much for most dm's.

[@sebdoesntreply]

Would love to see that Dungeon Dudes collaboration!

[@ruenvedder5921]

Yes!

[@MastertheGamerpg]

I agree!

[@justagosling]

Yikes

[@Hesauce]

@@justagosling yikes?

[@FuriousSpoon]

This really sounds more like a player issue than a system issue.

[@1simo93521]

Big yes, also as GM you set the expectations of the players. If you just run a game mechanically then that's how the players play.

[@MrMud99]

@@1simo93521 true, but how hard or easy it is to set that expectation is heavily dependent on the game system you're using.

[@ThatPinkOtter]

This sounds like a player/DM issue. Playing any TRPG 'optimally' is in my opinion DREADFULLY boring. More often than not it lends to one or more players feeling inadequate and can frustrate others. I've played 'high power campaigns' where you're meant to optimize and I just won't do it again. There's plenty of player choice and agency, what that player wants from PF2E however is up to them. If they want to play 'efficiently and optimally' then the criticism of 'They're power-gamers' is entirely valid. If they play to produce big numbers or have stupid high skill rolls, making their character as effective as possible in situations that they deem as important to them-- the players then I'd say that's not a fault with the system, it's the style in which they choose to play. On a side note since it was mentioned and I play BOTH of these, you want lack of player choice and agency? Pick up 5E. Every Warlock plays the same, every ranger plays the same, casters and rogues are the only classes that TRULY feel like they can be given a class identity unique to you. No matter what way you look at it, It's a cooperative role-playing game. You're meant to create a character that has strengths, weaknesses and quirks. You're supposed to bounce off of other players, not clash with them and compete. It's fine for a character to do this, but it never ends well when a player does in my experience. You can choose to include other characters in your various dialogues and your character's personal goals. tp rely on them to help you where your character falls short. I mean for god's sake my favorite character in any TRPG was my unarmed face rogue in PF1E and in combat it was absolutely terrible compared to our Fighter and Arcanist, but still capable enough to be a threat in combat. The Fighter player complained about social/downtime because they had no social skills or 'jobs' and ultimately during one of the breaks ended up getting a huge overhaul to their character that left them significantly less effective in combat, but more fun to roleplay. PF2E has issues, but to say that this is one of them.. I have to fundamentally disagree. PF2E offers significantly more choice and versatility to those who aren't looking to optimize every little aspect of combat. If you're DEMANDING your players be as efficient in combat and strong-arming them into building optimally that's a fault of the DM. If a player is choosing to do this and complains about it, that's a fault of the player.

[@DracoChurch07]

"I'm not on that list" Do you hate monk? That might be why...

[@Xenibalt]

:3

[@siptharn]

I've been gaming for over 40 years, 44 to be exact. Played them all. We play 3.5, Pathfinder 1ed, and Starfinder. We home brew everything. All my players love it, and they or myself will never change it. We are currently roleplaying WH40k using Starfinder rules. I know to all WH40k people that is Heresy, but I make it work, We have fun and that is all that matters. Case closed!

[@heartsickruben]

That's really cool!

[@olknoxlo]

Sorry to Necropost a year later but curious how running 40k with Starfinder went? I know Starfinder but was thinking of learning dark heresy just to run a campaign in that setting.

[@tomkadin]

The inquisition will investigate this matter of heresy thoroughly

[@claytonfosberg328]

Having played PF2e since it's release I am going to have to disagree with you, but not with your experience. It sounds like you have had a lot of generic encounters, and I think this comes down to the GM being disinterested or lack the time to really create challenging and varied encounters. Yes, it is going to get really boring when you face 3-4 level appropriate creatures and see who can hit more in encounter after encounter, but if your GM suddenly makes it so that you can't just stand there and attack 3X with no consequence then he has to figure out a new strategy. My group faced a creature last session that was dragging our melee characters into the river to drown them, while staying out of attack range with a 15ft reach. it was a simple encounter but it was interesting to deal with the change from the norm. Place some complex traps to fight (there is a bunch of examples in the core book). PF2e is all about facilitating creativity inside and outside of combat. That being said, if your GM doesn't craft those situations combat does get repetitive and of course your optimized pattern of attack is going to be your best option, and yes I would agree that you should go with the simpler combat system at that point.

[@anthonynorman7545]

He was running an official module

[@johndoe2790]

yeah most of his issues seem to be about a poor adventure module or generic gm-ing, not the system itself

[@thedorklylionchannel415]

@@anthonynorman7545 Correction, he was running the first module of the system. Which is the equivalent to running tyranny of dragons - so effectively a useless review

[@anthonynorman7545]

@@thedorklylionchannel415 is he not running an official module? Isn't the the first module of 5e the lost minds of phandelver?

[@kamencraftbrasil4367]

@@anthonynorman7545 age of ashes IS an official campaign, but from what I understand it was made BEFORE pathfinder 2e left playtest, so it doesn't follow the encounter building guidelines (which are a infinitly better than d&d 5e's)

[@vexmilklatte3904]

I’m only going to say that 5e has the same illusion of choice, the same “combat rotation” that PF2E has. The Fighter will always do the same thing, so will the Barbarian, so will the combat-oriented Cleric. That doesn’t change from one system to another. I would honestly say that it’s even rougher in 5e because you’ve got one set of actions each turn to set up, whereas as PF2E has 3 actions per turn on which you can set yourself up. Ultimately it comes down to this: if you don’t like micro-managing action economy, PF2E isn’t for you. 5E and PF2E each have their strengths and weaknesses. Both are good systems for different reasons. I love both. I will continue to play both. And it is okay to leave one behind.

[@rafaelbordoni516]

I don't think martials in 5E counts as illusion of choice, they only do attack actions because it's the only thing they have, they don't have a set of actions of which attacking is the best one. To have illusion of choice, you need to have a choice in the first place.

[@CufflinksAndChuckles]

I wholeheartedly agree. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything made everything even worse because now I don't think I'd ever play a PHB subclass (except maybe a Moon Druid or a Totem Barbarian) with all this power creep. We have dozens upon dozens of subclasses, but there are only one or two optimal choices for each class.

[@DakonBlackblade2]

I've never played 1 RPG that does not have these same patterns. Players optimize things, that is just how it goes.

[@CufflinksAndChuckles]

@@DakonBlackblade2 OSR and other indie studios have amazing balance. But this comes at a tradeoff because they don't have nearly the same amount of "subclasses." And in some cases, some don't have subclasses at all. OSR is a pretty wide grouping of rpg systems, and I would argue that there are some that surpass the more popular RPG's in several different aspects. Knave, Maze Rats, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, B/X Essentials, etc. Those are some pretty top-knotch systems. The Cypher system is a unicorn in that it can be made into whatever you want. But if you go down the route of Numenera, you have a large amount of BALANCED options from just the 3 main "classes." You can "optimize" in these games like you said, but optimization in these games generally net you only a little more than playing however you like. Likewise, I also understand that a good GM in any game can counteract most problems in any system given the right kind of hombrewery, but that's not the subject at hand.

[@DakonBlackblade2]

@@CufflinksAndChuckles The thing is, no matter how well balance and how many options there is something is always better than the other thing. Most players will try to find an "optimal" build, be it an actual optimal one or one that he feels is optimal and then he falls into patterns while playing said build. I have absolutely no problem with this kind of stuff thought, these are games and as such have mechanics, its only natural that players will make use of said mechanics in their favor.

[@Xinderkan]

I had a fantastic time as a wild druid, the fact you can't cast in animal form really adds weight to when you choose to transform, when you transition from that back line caster to that front line brawler and really work in with what your team needs from you in any given encounter

[@Ravensblood95]

I was recently made aware that a few of the players talked about in this video responded to it, or reached out to other youtubers to have the record set straight. Having looked into these responses it is clear that this video is a lie, or at least severally misrepresents what actually happened. The reason players were doing the same thing over and over had nothing to do with the system, and everything to do with the DM. These players have come out saying that rules were completely ignored, and that systems were not used because Cody didn't want to take the time to learn how they worked or look them up when needed, leading the players to constantly repeat the things they already knew their DM understood. Even the TPK was Cody's fault, as he disregarded the players attempts to stealth, separate and ambush monsters in the jungle camp. One of his players that was putting in the effort to learn the feats and traits they had frequently "drew his ire" for doing so. Cody, by extension Taking20, has lost any and all credibility he had in my mind. The issues you are so adamantly claim stem from Pathfinder 2e being a "crunch heavy system" are issues that only arose because you couldn't be asked to learn how to play the game.

[@MalloonTarka]

Would it be possible for you share where these things were shared? Please? :) I'm going to be running a campaign soon and trying to decide on the system, and Pathfinder 2e is in the running. I'd like to see the responses to this video so I can weigh my options better.

[@fmorneweck5513]

I wish that 5e had more complexity when it comes to things like positioning and flanking.

[@tinaprice4948]

look stuff up maybe you can find some homebrew rules someone did that is amazing :D or think of what you want them to do and try making your own rules. He also did a video on flanking and the On your heels condition so you might want to check that one out

[@Audiotrocious]

There is an optional flanking mechanic

[@alexandriamason2355]

I found 5e to be a disaster, I went back to playing 3.5 and am much much happier

[@damianmorningstar3150]

@@tinaprice4948 that is the issue Homebrew you have to find a group that allows it

[@OakenTome]

@JoeRingo118 “just homebrew it” is getting really old to hear when people criticize 5E’s lack of rules.

[@halifirien]

I’d love to see that Dungeon Dudes collab.

[@deathless12345678]

Hell yeah!

[@johnhall8046]

You Are Not Alone!

[@Hatchet80]

Late to the party acknowledgment: I think you should find a bunch of players new to the game because your group has been too focused on optimization. I'm DMing a group that has only 1 veteran player and the rest are brand new to TTRPGs. The games have become fun again. It's fantastic to watch them learn how to spread their wings. Everything is new to them.

[@noldo3837]

Exactly... players tought by their surrounding to go competitive. I think it is a result of a generation grown up on MMO. His players are not being able to do a suboptimal choice to the level getting bored, and tell it is the company's fault.

[@jezzuh9120]

14:30 I think it's really disingenuous to imply that you can't roleplay in P2e because there's rules that help define what succeeding in a social interaction does mechanically. You know you don't have to read the rules aloud and reference the page number every time you do something in tabletop games. You know this. Defining somewhat better how roleplayed social encounters mesh with the mechanics of the game is, in my opinion, good. You can still talk in first person. You don't have to sit there with a timer until 60 seconds pass and then announce that "the barkeep has thusly moved one step friendlier on the chart shown here on pg. 257!" It's unbelievably disingenuous and you could do that with any rule in any system. "Oh, so I can't roleplay taking a break? I have to calculate regaining spell slots and consult a chart for hit dice?" Like yeah, there's mechanics. You can still roleplay sharpening your swords and poring over your spell books. This one really bothered me. The other thing I'd say is that it seems like most of your criticisms line up with issues that are still very much present in D&D 5e.

[@CrazedHamster99]

The whole argument seems to be that pathfinder 2e has options but players do the same thing so its unplayable. 5e doesn't have any options so players do the same thing but they "can roleplay" so its more fun.

[@CrashJaycintha]

Yeah, this was one of my issues with the video as well. I've been playing Pathfinder 2E since the playtest material came out with a fairly roleplay heavy party and this just...isn't a thing that actually happens in game. Usually one of my players just says "hey, I'd like to talk to the barkeep to see if they've seen anything" and after a bit I ask for a Make an Impression role to see how much info they get. It's basically what we did in 5e but more specific.

[@joeribaars5481]

@@CrazedHamster99 in 5e there are options but it’s barebones and it leaves a lot to the DM. We are planning to move to pathfinder 2e and I will be one of the DMs I am probably going too homebrew and alter things in pathfinder to make things more fun.

[@christopherpelech5509]

It's interesting what you said about repetition because that is one of my issues with 5e. Ran that edition for a year and I am playing in a 5e game currently. And combat is feels so samey. 2e however is the most dynamic combat I have ever seen in a dnd like game. It's the most fun I've had with combat. I am not super strict with the rules, if a player want try to something that is creative and fun but doesn't have explicit rules for it I will allow it. But I allowed the same thing in 5e. I found that with the 3 actions players are willing to risk an action for something creative/risky because they have other actions. I largely play RPGs for the story element but I like the game element and I love being able to make mechanic choices that synergize with the actual character. It feels almost impossible to do that in 5e. While pf1 makes it easy pf1 has a gigantic learning curve. 2e had been the sweet spot for me. I have also have some players in who are not huge gamers who prefer 2e over 5e. These are people who don't like crunch at all. My partener thinks 5e is more confusing. For them the big reason is 2e gives a better framework for them to play the character they want. It was also easier for them to learn the 3 action system as compared to standard/move/bonus. GMing 2e has been a blast. I find it so much easier to build fun encounters that I are also relatively balanced. I found 5e encounter balance to be much more uncertain and 1e needed a decent amount of work to balance. So far 2e encounters have been so easy to balance. I can actually just rely on the encounter calculator. It has been so fun to use 2e monsters as well. I haven't gotten a chance to play 2e as a player yet. This is all from GMing. I have built a character for a game that may start after the holidays. And I am so excited for her. Her build really synergizes with her story. Posting this just in case someone who was thinking about 2e got dissuaded by this video. 2e didn't work for his group but it might work for yours. Hope you give it a fair shot

[@alexandrumanciu8005]

Nah. Was curious about pf2 because I heard it's got a lot of options and stuff but no. It's just illusions and of course crunch. I can't understand people that like it. I don't want combat to last 30-40 minutes just because I have to crunch numbers and add bonuses and so on and so on. 4e was like this and it was horrible. Will keep with 5e, seems like it's a lot more streamlined which is something every RPG should be.

[@mon0lithic629]

@@alexandrumanciu8005 I really don't get the "illusion of choice" thing. TTPRG's are about creativity, which PF2e helps to fascilitate as there are so many interesting and unique actions one can pick and use that would make the combat drastically different for different characters. Like, sure, you can just hit every turn as your average goblin Fighter - but wouldn't it be more fun to use Cling action in combination with your natural weapon teeth to bite into your enemy and have them try to push you away as the other party members close in? Now, *techincally*, you can do a similiar action in 5e - but due to how completely non-malleable 5e's Action economy is it would be both awkward to do and would require a lot of on-the-spot rulemaking from the DM to determine how this would play out.

[@mikewillis9537]

Hmm, it sounds to me like the group is still trying to play it the way they know how, like 5e, I work long hours and transportation is hard for me, so I dont get to play RPGs as much as I'd like, but I've played 100s of systems in my day and I can say that pf2e combat is some of the most fun I've had in a fantasy setting since 3.0 dnd, how simple it is to tell the dm that you want to do some combat maneuver or another to me makes this system one of the most diverse in terms of actions since I last played the old world of darkness ( at least as far as pure brawling goes, adding in lethal weapons like blades and guns kinda bugs the system out) example, first combat encounter with human bandits I ran in the system, the halfling champion liberator action 1: sprints 20 ft, action 2, disarm attempt with his flail, succeeds action 3, strike, fails. Bandits turn action one,grab attempt on halfling, success action 2: tosses halfling - crit success, throws him about 15 feet into a wall, halfling takes the bandits strength modifier in damage, action 3, picks up his weapon provoking an attack of opportunity from the fighter, the bandit got disrupted on his action to pick his weapon up so went after the fighter bare handed, it was something i hadn't seen happen in one of my games in years and it was beyond smooth to resolve ,

[@MrMud99]

So, low level things where he mentioned you won't really see the problems he is talking about.

[@timercolen1586]

@@MrMud99 i mean you still can do all those things at high level. I would even argue you could do more with some of the high level martial feats and especially with some of the spell list, the occult and primal spell list has so many good spells for many different situations. Not mention the skill feats, scare to death is insane and so much fun to use at high levels especially if you have a good dm that uses minions instead of just the same type of monsters. 2e will get repetitive but thats the nature of TTRPGs, like there are only so many spells and options you can have before it becomes bloat or even worse you accidentally make something broken and now you've invalidated a whole bunch of options. Ala hexblade warlock in 5e.

[@bobon123]

@@nickromanthefencer Of course any game of any TRPG allows for all possible options for your turn, you can do anything at any moment. What is then the role of the game mechanics? How are systems different? The purpose of the system is to rule the actual result of those infinite options. How likely it is that the halfling will be able to do that crazy manoeuvrer? How problematic is it for the bandit to recover the sword? Will the fighter have an advantage attacking the unarmed bandit? Different systems create the incentives to do one action or another. If the system allow you to disarm the bandit, but in their turn the bandit can grab the weapon without a penality and attack normally (like in 5E, if DM and players do not understand well the rules and the options) the player will feel robbed of his turn. The system creates incentives. If the players always play the same rotation, the system is giving the wrong incentives. The most important rule of game design is that being effective in the game should not be in opposition of having fun. Quite the contrary.

[@mikewillis9537]

@@bobon123 well the biggest factor is that the bandit will have to spend an action picking his weapon up and possibly provoking a reaction from another PC , the advantage of disarming is that they do less damage or waste an action

[@patrickmulder2450]

It all breaks down at higher levels. I've noticed that with 3e edition D&D, I noticed it with Pathfinder, I noticed it with Pathfinder 2nd edition and I noticed it with OWoD. I love OWoD, huge fan of it an still play it a lot, but the whole thing just collapses when the dicepools get to big. We're playing Mage the Awakening 2nd now. First attempt with the nWoD really (Or CoD?) Curious to see if that'll melt down as well after some experience has been spend.

[@sicantreis]

I remember playing for the first time in the early 90's and thinking "I can do anything" in this game and being blown away by that. As video games progressed - they were always sad comparisons to table top, but I feel the player mentality of finding the 'optimum' game mechanic from video games has moved into table top. Its sort of sad, instead of being free to creating anything, most people spend their time optimizing with in the given rules set.

[@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039]

This has been a thing far before VIdeogames. Human 'tend' to choose the easiest and strongest options to keep yourself alive against enemies. Even 'in-lore' of the game, why wouldn't a fighter choose a fighting path if they know it will kill more of the enemy? Yes, some choices are obscenely broken (and may be willfully ignored), yet I've DM'd players in 5e who chose ignorantly weak character builds (such as a -2 STR kobold wielding a weapon far too big for him). The trouble was when he got very upset when his character died in a melee brawl.

[@mbartelsm]

This isn't a videogame problem. These games are designed around combat and combat efficiency, as such, people will find a way to do the best they possibly can, and that usually means optimizing the fun out of the games. If you still want games that allow you to be free, without pushing players to be the best they can be at combat, then go for softer systems such as Dungeon World.

[@generik7414]

That's why I like numenera so much, because there's so little of a character that can be optimised, meaning players can really cut loose with how they make their characters, and they're highly incentivised to try solutions other than attacking monsters even if they're hostile, and GM's are incentivised to make encounters in a way that requires a non brute force solution.

[@krim7]

People optimizing characters has been a thing since the day the D&D was released. Power gamers and metagamers have been a hall mark of the genre since at least the 80s

[@Z7Games]

Optimizing anything is just part of human nature, we like to succeed at the things we do, video games have nothing to do with this. And the "you can do anything" falls apart very fast, because seeking these optimizations is something that will naturally happen sooner or later, knowledge about it will be shared and players will aim towards that direction, it's just human nature. This is why TTRPG designers should take their job as designers seriously, rather than blaming players for literally acting like humans. Because at the end of the day the "how dare players learn the game and play it to succeed?" it's not only an extremely lazy excuse, but something that has anchored TTRPGs mechanics to the middle ages. It's time to stop blaming players for playing the game, and ask for more quality in our games instead.

[@Ravensblood95]

If your players can get through every encounter by doing the exact same thing every single time you enter combat that's the DMs fault, not the games fault. If your druid only ever turns into dinosaurs, then put them in a fight where that won't work. There is no Illusion of Choice. All of the abilities equally are viable, with some actions being better suited for certain situations, as it should be. If every encounter you make as the DM has the exact same solution, then you need to make new, and better encounters.

[@Hjernespreng]

That's only HALF true. A game system can absolutely be poorly designed in a manner that makes only a select few courses of action properly "viable."

[@Ravensblood95]

@Extravaganza That is true, but having run 5 campaigns using PF2, I find his assessment inaccurate. I'd also like to point out, mostly because it slipped my mind in the initial comment, that just because 3.5 and PF1 have broken Feat systems doesn’t mean all Feat systems are broken. The way he talks about it makes it seem like he thinks any game with Feats in it is, by its very nature, an unbalanced game. And that is blatantly incorrect.

[@SmolAnarchy]

@@Ravensblood95 It is true, 5e I have options and can take on a higher CR monster and still win even with barely taking damage, that's the possible in PF2e. In 5e, I'm using non-magical items, wondrous items, and I built my character to be inefficient in combat through their spells, they are for utility outside combat. Yet, because I'm playing like 007 or Batman, I'm the one that contributes the most in the party. Having to optimize my character and have a rotation drives players not to be creative. Specially the issue with not being able to ever hit a creature with higher levels, or they just can easily make the saves.

[@StevenTheWonderPony]

@@SmolAnarchy Tell me you have never touched PF2e without telling me you have never touched PF2e.

[@SmolAnarchy]

@@StevenTheWonderPony So you are telling me you forgot saving throws, AC, attacks aren't affected by level? You can fall asleep, and a goblin will never be able to attack you because your AC is around 40. Goblins base attack is a +1. A max of a 21 to hit, and Nat don't hit unless they met the target's AC or is higher. You can do use items ONLY if you use a certain class, but what I do is not being limited to a certain class. Yes, I was told to play certain classes, but they lack the class features to make things.

[@rollperception]

Very confused... as someone who played DnD 5E several times, it literally sounds like the same issues. In fact possibly worse... I mean barbarian with bear totem is a literal no brainer, why even have the other subclasses? Same with other classes. And over all they still do the same synergy every fight, the barbarian rages, ranger marks, really only magic items or spells used in unique ways can change your basic combat order. Even video games have this "issue". If Im playing Skyrim and I build an optimal conjure mage, guess what Im gunna conjure a minion and then do back line damage while the summon tanks, every fight, all the time. Its how the character is built. EDIT: As some of the replies seem to be thinking I am dissing the system, the point of the comment is to say I do not understand why a person would quit a system due to something that seems to prevalent across MANY games. If combat is boring, spice it up by tossing in a flying creature or adding some immunities or environmental effects. I would also add that its up to the players to experiment with the move something and ask if they are punished for trying something new. For example, if a player wants to try shove a creature to the ground or try to kick over a table, how often does the DM reward outside the norm combat tactics. I make this comment because 5E has a trash action economy, so I cant move, kick over a table, and shove/grapple a creature all in one turn, this is where PF seems much better. However like I said, if the players opt to never try anything other than roll hit dice and the DM never creates a scenario where they need out of the box turns, then the improved action economy is wasted.

[@benjaminolson7206]

As he explains at the end the argument is not that 5e D&D is any better, it's that it ends up playing the same except that it takes a bit less complexity to get there.

[@DaDunge]

There are other barbarian subclasses which aren't bad, the Zealot for an example. It's not as good as Bearbarian though.

[@ehkesoyo]

It's a problem with the engine. All d20 games do the same thing. You want to avoid these issues? Try Fate, pbta or any other smaller game. You have literal thousands to choose from.

[@DaDunge]

I think movement and positioning is the key to not getting this effect. If the positioning of the enemies and allies matter a lot then you are forced to deal with things differently because the set of positioning are always different, because the terrain is always diffrent.

[@blue_caduceus592]

Y'see, I completely disagree with you there. There are plenty of great reasons to run other Barbarians besides Bear Totem. Take the Berserker: you can easily and consistently get 4 attacks per round, and you are also immune to both Fear and Charm while in Rage. If you've ever dealt with the frustrations of those conditions, you no longer have to. You can't take as many hits, as Bear Totem, but you can certainly deal more DPR. Ancestral Guardian also gives some great Tankiness as well: not by resisting damage, but by punishing and discouraging attacks in the fist place: not just to yourself, but to your party.

[@yellowbelt]

I'm new to channel, bit absolutely a gasped about you hating feats. That's the reason I don't like 5th cause I feel so limited in my choices of customization with that game.

[@squidheadss7105]

Problem with pf2 feats is that many of them are false choice Like sure you pick 11 class feats, but (for ex) a two weapon fighter already has most of his feats written on the name, you grab all of the two weapon fighting feats at each level and never really get to make a real choice.

[@coolboy9979]

When I play 5e I always play variant human for that reason

[@kamencraftbrasil4367]

@@squidheadss7105 but you have fighter feats, skill feats, ancestry feats and general feats, and when you get an ability boost you always increase four different stats at once, are you saying that you don't use ANY of that to give your character flavor or different options?

[@squidheadss7105]

@@kamencraftbrasil4367 For most of those, there is a "right" answer to make for your character's effectiveness. Plus, feats very rarely give you new (worthwhile) options in combat, but instead just give you +whatever to what you were already doing.

[@kamencraftbrasil4367]

@@squidheadss7105 and what would those "right choices" be? What is your criteria?

[@harkthrokgedunth]

As someone who DM's a great deal, primarily for 5E, I sort of cringed at this video. I'm not a WotC fan boy, but I do love 5E. That being said I run a large system neutral RPG group and our flagship game is a large organized play (no, not adventurers league...that is poorly ran) of 5E. I too have heard this critique of 5E. On almost every occasion I hear it it comes from munchkins or power gamers. We have enough DM's for our organized play that I have been blessed to be able to drop into a session or two with pregens. In every case where I have done so, you quickly see players at that table quickly wishing they are playing whatever class I'm playing. Why? To be truthful I'm usually running pregens and they are as generic as it gets, thus that can't be the reason. Their spell/ability rotation is, pretty bland. What makes them so desirable? It's the way I roleplay my characters. I make each character different and distinct. I give them life. I add backstory on the fly. I am that character for that session and our players love it. I don't think a change of system will fix your issues. I personally think Pathfinder 2E is too complex, however, that doesn't mean you can't have meaningful and unique characters in it. It does mean that games can, realistically, only bring so much to the table. These, however, are role-playing games. Up front they demand, beg, cajole, and plea with their players and DM's to bring the one thing to the table that they can't. They beg for role-playing, description, and immersive story telling. There isn't a game system out there that can bring this to the table. Only you and your players can spark the fires of your imagination and make your game live.

[@SelvenXXUP]

From a pathfinder lover, thank you kind sir. That is kind of also the same problem I had with the video. I don't see any difference in what he is saying from 5e to Pathfinder, first or second edition. I mean, in the group that I play 5e with I also see we do the exact same things. Move here, play whack-a-mole, the casters use the same 2-3 spells every combat (sorcerer and warlock. And me, I guess, artificer, but I end up acting as a fighter most of the time). No matter what you do there are always going to be a most efficient way to use your abilities and if there's nothign to spice combat but bad guys players are gonna gravitate towards them. That's normal, it would happen in real life as well. What do you expect will happen if you set two military units with cover on their starting position and separate them with an empty field and then you gave them the order to defeat each other?. If the campaing is combat heavy then it's the job of the dungeon master to shake things up by making combat more dinamic. You know a good way to make it so people don't use 3 actions to empower one spell and get the most out of every single spellslot? Give them a reason to move or make another action. Maybe there are levers that they can pull to change the battlefield? Maybe there is a delayed effect about to go off where they stand. It does sound to me that he is trying the same thing over and over again, just throwing different bad guys at the team, and expect them to act any different. They won't, just like we don't try anything new in my group in 5e, we just swim through the waves of minions rolling dice and using our most powerfull repeating abilities in the same way turn after turn. The DM must bring life to the scenario, describe something so that they player don't just look at their character sheets. Are there hostages and am I playing a goody two shoes? Is there loot that maybe we can use to use against the enemies and I'm playing a greedy bastard that might preffer to fill his pockets and then call for a strategic retreat? If the goal of combat is just to beat the others with a baseball bat then it's obvious everyone is going to bring their heaviest stronger bat to the park. You need to change the rules of the game. Challenge your players priorities, don't just set the map there, give it personality so that it becomes a unique location. And quite frankly, putting that on the system doesn't sound like it would fix anything.

[@Reese_Calloway]

The irony of saying PF2e combat is repetitive, then doing a 180 and trying to say 5e isn't. When you play PF2eI and all you want to do is strike 3 times in a round - ignoring everything else that is available - that's on you. You can't tell me, that playing 5e, you can stand in place, use your only action to strike, miss the strike, waste your turn, and then wait 20mins is a superior experience. Min/Maxing your character and choosing ONLY the most optimal ancestry, class, and general feats every level is going to suck the fun out of the system. It will do that for every system, no matter what tabletop it is. You can't call it an illusion of choice if every choice is viable, but you have deemed this one the most optimal to do the most damage in a given round. Again, that's your fault for approaching a table top that way. PF2e is much easier to understand (and doesn't break at high levels) when buying monsters for encounters. Things will balance out fairly well no matter what, so if the problem was that encounters were not fun or they were not engaging - suffice it to say, sounds like a skill issue. I mind that this video was made two years ago, and I only started playing PF2e since about a year ago and things may have shifted a lot in the time between the vid and my time coming into the game. However, I still see people talking as if PF2e has more core-problems than 5e. It is your right to not like the game, but you are just incorrect if you think PF2e suffers worse then 5e does on any front from a game design perspective.

[@shihsntz5301]

Me: Pulls out my Shadowrun books. "Just gonna sit here and be super crazy at the megacorps."

[@Suzaku455]

Well Megavorps are coming to you now!

[@HazZzur]

Shadowrun had the same flavor to me though. Maybe because I haven't played it a ton, but from what I could gather, it has the same problem. Tons of customization and equipment options but if you talk to an experienced player, he will tell you exactly what stuff you need for each role to be optimal.

[@shihsntz5301]

@@HazZzur That can definitely be an issue, but I'd argue that in the shqdowrun system that problem is more a failing of the gm than the system. There are a lot of ways to be mechanically effective and the lack of classes compared to say pf2e means that roles aren't nearly as strongly defined. I've played in groups where the entire team were faces of one sort or another and were really effective but incompletwly different ways.

[@shihsntz5301]

@@lamichka its had its ups and downs rulewise. I'm still partial to the second edition personally and I do think they've been pushing out too many new editions lately though that seems to be a fairly common thing these days to my mind.

[@ashwynfaust]

Cody - it really feels like you just figured out the key to every game where player's develop their character over time. It doesn't matter which system you use, that is the core of every game. As players increase in level (or get whatever the system equivalence is), they will tend to specialize, getting better and better at whatever the player has decided is the "fun" part of the character. And then they will tend to repeat the same thing from there on. I am currently playing in a 3.5 game and have been for the last year. Every combat is the same, as far as what each of us does, regardless of the individual combat configuration. Outside of combat, in non-combat scenes, the same thing is true as the same players who excelled at out of combat actions last time will continue to be. The same has been true for every game of Vampire the Masquerade, Shadowrun, GURPs, D&D, etc. Ultimately, the game system that the group chooses to play has little to do with how they focus, but which system enables them to tell the stories they want to tell.

[@Jhakaro]

There are ways to write a system so that pure optimisation like this isn't necessarily possible. Separating skill advancement from character health is one way to achieve this. Doesn't matter how strong your character is with a specific skill if being caught off guard or put up against numbers means that one unblocked attack can equal death or grievous injury. The issue with most systems is that HP is just a god awful mechanic honestly that ends up with a master swordsmen somehow becoming a demi-god that can take a hundred hits while normal or lower level people can only take one or two. It makes no sense. The other option is to have pros and cons to every move, something that D&D just does not have. In real life if you attack, you open yourself up to a counter attack. You are actually your most vulnerable when you strike but in D&D and most systems, you don't lose AC for attacking and you don't actually try and block attacks or have to choose between attack or defense. Nearly everything in D&D and similar games is passive. You get a +2 from now on on attacks due to some feat or class ability but you don't have to actually choose between two or three options that each come with their own pros and cons. There's no "Gain plus 2 to attack but lose 2 to AC until the start of your next turn" where the bonus to the attack equals the minus to defense you will suffer so you can choose between no + to attack and no - to AC or a +1 to attack, -1 to AC or a plus 2 to attack, -2 to AC. Likewise, there's no "Gain +1 to AC but suffer minus 1 to attack until the start of your next turn" for a defensive stance or any sort of options like that at all. If there were more options with actual pros and cons to them, it would give players more agency in HOW they choose to fight not just who they fight or with what and it would lead to more situations were a specific play might be best due to the circumstances whilst another one they normally use would be considered reckless or unsuitable for the specific threat at hand.

[@AlexPBenton]

@@Jhakaro You cannot design a game that is impossible to optimize. Any system which has options will have an objectively best choice, it’s simply a matter of making that best choice situational. You can add randomness to make min-maxed builds more risky, but it’s still a numbers game. Winning 50% of the time is better than winning 40% of the time. Also, a lot of your suggestions (active buffs, risky attacks, etc) are already implemented into 2e, they’re just usually opt-in via a feat or an action. Most combat maneuvers have penalties when you crit fail, some actions like raising a shield grant AC for a round, while some reactions can let you add AC or resist attacks as well (champion is an obvious go to, but there’s other examples like Charmed Life)

[@carbonbeaker409]

Honestly, my main issue with 5e (not that i've played any pathfinder, and I was introduced to d&d at 2e-that's all i've played apart from 5e) is that same illusion of choice. The non-damage spells in 5e feel lackluster and inflexible compared to 2e AD&D. The damage spells are often simply better to use in almost any given combat situation *coughs in FIREBALL xd*. It feels like you are forced into a damage casting role until you reach level 15 or so and have a dozen spellslots to spend on a single target.

[@professionalsleeper6281]

Damage spells are literally the weakest spells in 5e what are you on about? Aoe control is KING in dnd 5e

[@im2randomghgh]

@@professionalsleeper6281 Exactly, 5e's control spells are game-breakingly overpowered compared to it's damage spells. Wall of Force, Polymorph, Bigby's Hand and Enlarge/Reduce are the only things you ever need to cast. Wall of Force alone is campaign-changingly good because of it's lack of limitations.

[@fabioviti7384]

@@professionalsleeper6281 master, I cast forcecage Dm: "as you cast forcecage fucking ao comes down from the skies, slaps you, disintegrates the Force cage and shouts "STOP CHEESING WITH THIS SHIT!" Then he turns back time and you repeat your turn, fuck you

[@ninten90z70]

If your players are doing the same things on repeat in every encounter to the point it bores them, then maybe you should consider making encounters differently.

[@luisroncayolo6547]

Yes, that's exactly what I thought. Different monster combinations, they way they are used, and the level design for combat are tools every DM should use to make each combat unique. I haven't played Pathfinder before, but I can tell you, in my many years as DM for D&D, I haven't experienced this repetitiveness. Sure, there are some player patterns, some actions and powers they prefer over the others. But if the context is interesting enough, they usually improvise with new strategies.

[@TheyDarthElmo]

So I know this was not the point of the video but I would really like to politely but vehemently disagree with you at the point you made around 12:20 where you said pathfinder 1e is a less complex system than 4e. I have been the first GM for a lot of people and taught several people both with 4e and PF1 and I can say across the board people have had an easier time learning 4e and fully understanding the system. A really good example of this is my wife you played in our bi-weekly Pathfinder campaign for about a year and never felt like she understood the system that well and just found it frustrating whereas when we started our west marches style 4e game she picked it after one session and had a ton of fun with the combat.

[@digitaljanus]

Yeah, I think Pathfinder 1e might have been an easier jump for longstanding D&D 3.5 players, because PF1 is literally 3.5 with a bunch of fixes and tweaks, while 4e was a drastic overhaul of the whole system that threw a lot of veteran D&D players off their game at the start. But 4e definitely wasn't more complex than PF1 or 3.5, and I know it eased a lot of people into the hobby because of that.

[@philopharynx7910]

I think a lot of this is in mindset. Some people immediately snap into the mindset of 4e and everything just makes sense to them. Other people just don't click into it and they are fighting uphill on everything. they keep trying to fit it into other games' paradigms. I know one guy who doesn't get that the wizard isn't the big damage dealer. He tries to play a controller like a striker and he's unhappy because it doesn't work that way. From my experience technical people often like 4e. One of my groups was pretty technical. I work in water quality instrumentation, our GM was a mechanical engineer, her husband was a physic teacher. And the last guy not only fixed nuclear missiles, he caught an error in the documentation and got a medal for it.

[@JBASH2011]

Agreed. Teaching 4E to newcomers to RPGs (TT otherwise) was much easier than nearly all other editions including PF1. More common sense design (e.g., 3rd level casters, cast 3rd level spells), and because all the classes operate on a similar structure, players who have a good grasp can help others at the table easily.. The person in 3.5 learning how to play a Druid has a completely different set of rules to learn than the Barbarian or Fighter.

[@joaquinsanchez8199]

I must respectfully disagree with this....

[@Ashtor1337]

@@joaquinsanchez8199 , I will say I respectfully disagree with you 😜, seriously though I have ran a lot of 4e for alot of friends and family. Our longest campaign was 2 and a half years. I took 6 of them from lvl 1-30 and still run a one shot as a bday gift for one of the players every year. The 3 that have had pnp or table top exp felt it was either too restrictive or to complex. Those that have never played anything felt right at home. Now the design of it was vary much like WOW at the time and the new comers liked that. They felt comfortable knowing what to do what hard options their cards could do. When we tried out 5e the tables flipped. This behavior is pretty consistent across all the groups and people I gave played with. Additionally most of my players that liked 4e are hard core mmo fans while the the rest of the crews get board and move on to other titles.

[@rubenc873]

P2e system and combat can be very complex and non repetitive if your players know their characters.

[@HantaleMedia]

Admittedly, a really longwinded way of saying "The game feels free, but the nature of builds leads to the same choice problem we see in 5e, pathfinder 1, and every other game. And between the two, I'd prefer the system that's simpler and more flexible." It may be worth noting that, at least mechanically, you'll still end up with a more unique character in PF2E than you will in 5e (something they literally had to address in Tashas), so crunch aside, Pathfinder is a bit nicer for folks who want to make characters that feel unique instead of "swashbuckler rogue no 375" It matches the trend that we've seen in RPG's in general, the trend towards minimalism and simplicity to promote interesting roleplay over mechanics. But that's really a discussion for another day. It's a bit of a shame, because I feel like there's value *in* crunch, but not a lot of appeal. As I always say: If GM's are perfect, then rules aren't needed. Players would just describe their characters and what they do, and the DM would figure out how it works out.

[@exemida]

Sounds like people havent found Hero System. Where characters are incredibly customizable including powers and skills. The campaign is just as adjustable for the gm and character are built on points rather than dice rolls. It is also a d6 dice system so you only use d6s. Maths interesting in it too. Like Real = Base cost +adder x (1+ Advantages + advantage, ect) True = Real ÷ (1 + Disadvantage + Disadvantge, ect) To determine the cost of a single power and what it can and cannot do. Youve also got a choice between doing a stun mult or a hit location to determine how much Stun(Knockout threshold) and Body(Your hit points) You take if they hit and then your armor and abilities reduce that damage based on where your hit. Con determining if you get stunned from the pain or shrug it off (Basically your toughness). You can do medeval, Modern, or Scifi. All based on what the DM allows for the setting.

[@firstnamelastname7003]

Disagree that a perfect GM is one that works everything out for the players. Tactical players want to be able to build with interesting mechanics and have a large degree of control and predictability over their character's actions. Chess wouldn't be much good if you told a referee where you wanted your knight to go and then they made up the moves a knight can do to get there

[@tintillor]

I feel like PF2 is way tougher on the GM. It requires a lot more preparation than 5E.

[@rayoman67]

I think the issues that you are having with PF2 are very prevalent in 5E. I love the multiclassing in PF2 better than in 5E because it reminds me of D&D 4E multiclassing, which I thought was fantastic. I have my issues with every RPG editions after playing them for 3-4 years. D&D 5E has become boring and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic is stale. Have you tried having an encounter that couldn't be solved the optimal way a character was built? I'm not saying take away a player's focused ability away, but mixing in an encounter that can't be optimized in the way a player optimized their character can get them think a little more on how to solve the problem. Any way to each his own.

[@lloydfromfar]

Other than that, speaking about the "illusion of choice" and the same action again and again... that made me think of Diablo 3! :O ^_^

[@steveno3141]

Worst diablo yet

[@TheBayzent]

It's closer to D2 on max difficulty. You have several gazillion options but only 1 or 2 will let you not suck horribly and die over and over. D3 is 5e, where character builds don't exist so there is no point on having two characters with the same class because every wizard, fighter and rogue play the exact same.

[@-khargoth2442]

I hated that game so much....and the game was not that bad...but it felt like throwing soulless dolls with no charater at more soulless enemies that in one case utterly destroy you or are not even worth of mentioning...I loved Diablo 2 because I love building characters ^^ Yeah some of them were totally not playable but having fun as a paladin that only casts fist of the heavens was so funny sometimes :D And I am not happy with 5e DnD because of this too...because you really don't have choices...not in fight but building characters...if you play barbarian as Storm Caller you are that...nothing to tweak there...

[@ANDELE3025]

@@TheBayzent Except then you get to high rift D3 or 5e past level 9~ where a 2-3 item, spell (or in D3 case choice of core passive and legendary or set) choice can entirely flip how the player runs their character.

[@OwenStephens]

You've always treated me well, glad you feel like we treated you well. :)

[@scotscovenanter]

I picked up PFS 2e this year and enjoying, but I've sensed some of the issues you've raised as I build characters, but only played one + pregens. I would wholeheartedly like to see a follow-up video with any/all your solutions to fixing 2e without having to go whole-hog scrapping it. Will it need an "Unchained" or PF2.5 core book to fix things in later levels? Your video awhile back on your dealings with the Roll20 team are why I greatly dislike and try all I can to avoid using it when possible.

[@igorporfiirio4915]

15:45 good point, but I don't think the combat being complex forces you to roleplay less, and also, my problem with dnd is that after I never few excited about my character sheets, I think I could just write my bakcground and decide every combat with roleplay and roling a d20+ whatever the gm thinks suits the moment instead of losing tiemm with boring abilities.

[@GlenHallstrom]

"Pathfinder was the least complicated version of D&D on the market." Really? *cough*Castles and Crusades*cough*

[@YardenRaveh]

*The least complicated out of all the major ones Although i wouldn't agree with that either. DnD 4E was way less complicated than PF or 3.5 imo

[@juliemichellerobinson1841]

@@YardenRaveh Different system entirely, but where is all the love for Tunnels and Trolls?

[@ChibiKami]

@@juliemichellerobinson1841 in Japan, where they use d6s for most of their games

[@drewcrabtree7593]

You have made me want to try pathfinder! So I guess I know what I am getting for Christmas

[@Taking20]

Perfect! I mean it. I want the game to do well... it's just not for ME. 100% there are people that love love love this game.

[@dr1588]

honestly I feel the same and I initially fully dismissed 2e

[@Unikatze]

The beginner box just released. Highly recommend if you want to try it out.

[@danitenotes]

I love Pathfinder 2e! I can't recommend it enough.

[@brandcolt]

@@Taking20 Really think about mechanical choice for combat and then think about this again. I bet a "I messed up" video will be coming. As a DM for both systems I can automate play with my 5e players because I know exactly they will do turn after turn (and reaction after reaction). With PF2e the choices change (not drastically mind you) but they do way more than 5e. Also as a DM you should have talked about the monster side of the house. As a 5e DM you know the monsters are going to use their multiattack feature or their recharge feature (if they have one). With PF2e monsters it drastically changes depending on distance, MaP usage and so forth. And that's only if you want to play them optimally! I really think you have issues with d20 in general and are being overly harsh on PF2e for some reason (ad revenue?). Age of ashes where you are in book 2 has repetition with the totems but that's more of an AP issue than system. Run Age of ashes in 5e (I'm in the middle of trying that too) and you will see there are more indeed choices in combat in pf2e.

[@matthewfarmer8246]

Having both played and dmed PF2 i have to disagree with you on this one, everyone has a right to their feelings on a subject so no hate but i have not come across the problems you have brought up.

[@robertterrell7057]

@@DAEDRICDUKE1 dang u just don't respect opinions

[@ChivalrousyWalrusy]

@@robertterrell7057 Except it's not entirely wrong... if you do not create interesting fights for the player when there are countless interesting and varied monsters and traps - in that very game he's running - then that's not on the system so much as it is on you.

[@robertterrell7057]

@@ChivalrousyWalrusy True but saying : "U played the game wrong" when u know nothing about his gameplay style is dismissive. Clearly e stated it was unfun and he played alot. Just seem like a cheaper way to dismiss an opinion.

[@robertterrell7057]

@@DAEDRICDUKE1 Clearly

[@robertterrell7057]

@@DAEDRICDUKE1 just sad to see so many in the Table top community cant comprehend other people just not liking a game

[@TheCuddleCactus]

8:00 I have used Magic Missile with 1 and 2 actions before because it fit better in the situation. I don't feel as burdened by spell slots because I have cantrips and focus spells that you throw in with everything as well. Cantrips scaling is such a nice step up from PF1e, and Focus Spells are actually a pretty amazing thing. 9:30 There is a difference between what you are best at and what is best in a situation though? Sure, you will do what you are best at most of the time, but when is that different than PF1e or 5e? 9:50 Is that then the players choosing to do that? I've had a highly varied difference from what you are describing. 15:00 Why do you summarize the Make an Impression action? With the previous statement about combat being the same thing over and over, you make it sound like this action is an issue with the game? 15:45 So you aren't roleplaying with PF2e then? That might be part of the problem. 17:30 Given this is my first impression of you, let me tell ya, not subscribe worthy in the least.

[@DiviNazuphus]

I agree with a lot of your counter points. Like if your players are bored of their characters, that is their failure as a player to stay engaged with their own character, it isn't the systems fault. And maybe that class/archtype playstyle isn't for you and you want something a big different. But at the end of the day, the main limiting factor in how your character acts, is on the players, to turn around and blame the system is frankly just stupid imho.

[@inigmianstudios2771]

I'd love it if you made more Pathfinder 1E videos, there aren't alot of Pathfinder 1E video's online, and it would help get people into the game. DnD 5E is all thats on youtube, and you could realy get alot of people into Pathfinder 1E. Whatever you do, keep up the good work bro, have a good week!

[@supersaiyanjesus-sg]

TBH, I feel like all these things also apply to 5th Edition D&D

[@jackalope2302]

If not more so.

[@Eclipsle]

I honestly forgot partway through this was about pathfinder not 5e

[@tobaccomarshall4659]

this applies less to casters but still heavily to them and the entire game

[@Eegal-Ayed]

To an extent. I'm certainly bored of the monk I'm playing right now, and I can imagine a warlock might get bored with their like 5 spells total, but I don't think it's universal.

[@Wolfsspinne]

I haven't played to many RPGs this doesn't apply to... In fact only FUDGE based ones like FATE come to my mind that don't have this problem.

[@TheScifiMusic]

Well, I didn't reached same conclusion, but I respect your thoughts on the matter.

[@monsieurlefortune5092]

TLDW: My players and I lack imagination and creativity but Im gonna blame it on the system instead! I have Been DMing a game of 2e for over a year and My players never cease to amaze me with creative and interesting solutions in and out of combat.

[@dariusgunter5344]

Honestly this illusion of choice is pretty bad in DND too, if not worse I haven't played enough pathfinder yet. Why am I saying this? Because DND has much less options and there are whole classes that have dead features (looking at you ranger). To fix it for my games I needed to find bullshit reasons that players couldn't do op shit. The same is true with pathfinder, I think however that while combat in both games is pretty similar in this problem, pathfinder has firstly more options and secondly is more complex and much much much better outside of combat, the fact any character can be legendary in any skill is a huge bonus.

[@Dinfector]

I remember that few weeks ago WotC did a survey about what person you follow on YT for DnD and i was surprise that you weren't there. I had to manually add you on dongeon dude that i follow. I really think they need to up they game and keep helping great content creator like you. Keep on the good work!

[@Nickelback8469]

I did the same, they had a bunch of options of people that I either hadn’t heard of or only vaguely heard references to. Which is really surprising since the people that I follow have hundreds of thousands of subs

[@benry007]

That is crazy. As D&D youtubers go taking 20 and dungeon dudes are two of the biggest.

[@jaredreid2661]

This is not surprising at all if you follow Magic the gathering. They've gotten a little agenda happy. Not in a "bad" way but it tends to leave some creators left in the cold for no better reason then it feels like the have a full quota.

[@ajgunter8932]

as a former game shop owner i can give a little insight. Hasbro, which owns WOTC, has been pushing its subordinate companies to be more "woke" in their hiring. WOTC went bonkers and hired a bunch of SJWs, drove out their good creators and now care more about making everything look fairer on gender, race issues while creating a product for profits and not for enjoyment. *Edit, they also HATE anyone that dares to say anything negative about their product. Even if its constructive criticism.

[@benry007]

@@ajgunter8932 its a pretty stupid thing to do business wise and those middle aged white dudes are their main player base. Encourage everyone to get involved but don't turn people away because they are not diverse enough.

[@NoahCaringella]

Dnd 5e is way worse at this especially with “must have” feats like sharpshooter, great weapon master, war caster, and the like. And combat is just “I attack” every turn until someone goes down with very little variation. I don’t see the point of your argument man…

[@natos4unlife]

If a player refuses to make any decision that isn't completely optimized, then I can't take feel sympathy if they feel bored due to "lack of options". These are games about optimisation AND imagination. You can't just do 1 and expect good results

[@benjaminroberts2057]

The most fun I’ve had in 5E combat has been when the DM has home brewed certain elements to the combat in ways that either change the way movement works or how the map works or even how certain spells interact with each other/the environment. As far as 5E action economy, it’s simplicity adds to role play more often than it takes away from it. However short is sweet when it comes to combat 99% of the time. If you go past round 8 and the fight is still going on, it tends to feel very repetitive and boring in my opinion. My thoughts anyways. Good vid. I appreciate your honesty.

[@amishverma8415]

Round 8? In base 5e, I find martial classes get bored by round 4 or 5 unless you have a very creative map/set piece or do a lot of grappling and movement. Both of these things won't work for every encounter, so it can get really boring to pick an enemy and hit them with your sword.

[@Galf506]

Fully agree. The fun in 5E combat is the simplicity that lets the DM make it more varied.

[@Keith-es2xf]

That's one of the fun things about being allowed to homebrew with d&d cause u can make rhings how u want like u can points where it's the meta way then u can have one's where it's realistic like your in. A fight with a gnoll and the ranger shoots the gnoll with a arrow that is coated with paralyzing poison and the warlock walks right up to the paralyzed gnoll and shoots a eldrist blast right through the gnolls head now u can have them roll to see how much damage is done or you can just say from it being paralyzed by the poison and it cldn't move and the warlock just did a point blank blast to the head im srey but im gnna say that gnoll is dead

[@CrossxFir3]

5e combat is boring as fuck. Nothing you can do to sproose it up couldn't be done to pathfinder

[@Muddled_Mindflayer]

Everything you're saying seems to betray some level of misunderstanding of the system or the very words you're using. If the players are performing "optimal rotations" why is the ranger always spending his third action to perform an attack that you said, "would usually miss" and why did they have a TPK? Not that you can't TPK while playing well, but that those two ideas don't usually go hand in hand. Additionally, how in the world did your Druid feel his only purpose was to wild shape. The druid is a full caster with access to its entire spell list, has some of the best focus spells in the game, and has access to wildshaping either through feats or through spell slots. They had more options, they just chose not to explore them. Also even when wildshaped they have choice! Given their new size and bonus to athletics they can grapple and trip bigger creatures and they're able to perform the normal attacks they have or any special attacks they may have picked up through archetypes. I love a good flurry of blows on a wildshaped druid for example. Additionally, PF2e doesn't shrug on its encounter design. It knows when it says Extreme difficulty it means EXTREME difficulty. Players may die, parties may die, it shows you this in the encounter descriptions that these fights are meant to be among the hardest one could possibly survive and that last bit is important because it's not uncommong to lose a party member in an extreme encounter especially if people are just "using rotations" and not thinking dynamically to overcome their foe. I've learned that building characters in 2e is less about finding the way to do the most damage with a rotation (which you can do), but more so finding ways to diversify your options in order to deal with different scenarios in combat. I initially underrated weapons with the two-handed trait for example, but have come to realize against certain foes being able to take a hand off and grab hold of them can be important. I've also learned that finding ways to leverage your third action without performing a "likely to miss attack" like your ranger did can be equally important. A ranger with a bow or example is a prime candidate for using Battle Medicine in combat and as say a Barbarian I really lean into the use of Renewed Vigor to keep myself benefitting from temporary hit points. These ideas need to be even more common with classes such as the ranger or monk which have action compression actions in the form of hunted shot and flurry of blows. Since you're imporving upon a single action you're less likely to want to throw out another attack and benefit much more from actions like the Ranger's Warden Spells or a Monk's Focus Spells to use when striding away from a foe in order to get distance isn't an option. TLDR; Rotations Bad. Options Good. Create your character with choices and you will use them. Lock yourself down to a rotation and you'll find little interest in most turns.

[@KriscoBubber]

I like this take, but I've been playing a 2e campaign for awhile and I think whats necessary is giving magic items or animals or something different to your party to throw a wrench into the monotony

[@steppahouse]

Wondering how this video has aged post-OGL. Are you giving it another thought?

[@PhoenixofEclipse]

Personally, still a huge fan of pf2e, and I feel like the illusion of choice is actually WORSE in other systems, but to each their own! It’s not about which game you play, it’s how you play it and if you’re having fun

[@KalaamNozalys]

Yeah, I'm not sure what the illusion of choice is here. It feels way worse in 5E or Pf1 from my experience. Especially how hard you can get pushed toward optimized builds in some pf1 campaigns.

[@connorh7120]

@@KalaamNozalys kinda what I’m confused about, I would argue this criticism works 10x better when looking at 5e. Just personal experience, but that’s years of playing 5e and seeing the same archetypes and spells every time with multiple groups/ DMs

[@Birdmanesp92]

Doesn't every edition have their own optimal build anyways? I'm literally playing a Lizardfolk Druid with Wild order and Storm order for mixing it up. It's not the most efficient but it's still fun and so much clearer to use than other editions.

[@KalaamNozalys]

@@connorh7120 I understand that some feats feel mandatory in 2E though. But the system is pretty new, more will be added (and then homebrew buffs to some feats can help too). It's something that was a big issue with the playtest Magus. It was the exact issue that he brings up (and people were pissed about it) because its rotation was extremely strict yet clunky and suboptimal. So much so that you either had no choice but to get a shifting divinitation staff to spam true strikes and get Haste as soon as possible, or just not use your core class mechanics and strike normally. Hopefully it'll change, but yeah that's an example of where you didn't really have a choice, only one option was really viable. That one option is better than others is fine (though ideally they all are equally as good) as long as all options are at least viable without requiring your whole team supporting you doing your thing.

[@KalaamNozalys]

@@Birdmanesp92 They do yeah.

[@dragonbane999]

From my personal experience DMing 2E, my players have not had the issues with repetition you have seen. Even the fighter, which is intentionally designed to be repetitive and have no magic, can make many decisions each turn. Sudden charge? Maybe I do a brutal finisher afterwards, or maybe I'm hasted, and do an exacting strike followed by the finisher. Maybe I didn't charge, and did a swipe, so instead I wanna do a certain strike after that then a finisher, or just the finisher if im not hasted. Maybe I'm fighting a humanoid, and can try disarming them. When it's not my turn do I use both shield blocks on myself? Do I move next turn to get next to an ally so I can shield block for them? If I move but don't charge and there's only one enemy, I shouldn't swipe, so maybe I do a standard strike, followed by a dragging strike to get the enemy away from my ally? That's just the basic fighter. Any spellcaster at all has a stupid number of options available to them on any given turn. especially a druid, who gets access to the entire primal list to prepare spells from AND can enter melee combat. Find the stuff you prepared boring today? prepare something different tomorrow! I think the main issue with Pathfinder 2E is not that it is itself repetitive, it's that the balancing of the published encounters is balanced around lots of easy fights with low level mooks, and these fights, especially when you are martial heavy in the party, tend to devolve into three attack action slugfests because it's the optimal strategy against low threat enemies. Similarly, one enemy boss fights only have one target for your ire, so positioning just tends to happen once. I think this is an issue with encounter design from the published adventure paths, not an inherent design flaw of the system. The best encounters I've run have several mid level enemies, or a boss with some low level minions in the fight to keep the tactical field interesting. Any spellcaster should have a fistful of options to try using any given turn, and martial classes all have options available to respond to how the fight has been developing turn by turn.

[@theomcinturff1213]

I like your take on slugfests being a big detractor to combat choice. Enemies with unique properties, and environments with obstacles or hazards, will always shake up the monotony. That said, even in your first example, complexity *does not mean* choice. Having many options does not preclude a "best choice", which is how many games (not just TTRPGs) fall into the *illusion* of choice trap.

[@igormendonca8049]

Who else think it's time for this video to have a follow-up now? Not deleting it, because hiding is a bad think (right, Hasbro?). But making a video about Pathfinder 2ed and its new ORC. How about conjecturing what a 3rd party creator could solve these problems? ❤ 0:01

[@maxgehtdnixan4913]

Open source doesn't change that the core mechanics are garbage.

[@igormendonca8049]

@@maxgehtdnixan4913 WOW! I haven't think it in that way... now I have completely changed my mind. Thank you for your useful argument.

[@sebastianwinters9864]

Pff. My. Roommate just said "this week, Cody figures out that he's spen 22 years describing a million different ways to hit something with a sword"

[@tophatsntales]

Honestly? This. Melee combat is some of the most reputative uninteresting gameplay that we have to devise stuff to make it as cool/fun as magic. but if you can figure out how to make the task of hitting something with a sharp metal stick fun...repeatedly...for years. Why cant a gameplay loop of skills be the same fun? Sounds like a mistake on his part honestly.

[@sebastianwinters9864]

@@tophatsntales Repetitive gameplay loops are only as good as their engagement. A steller story-teller can paint a great description from nothing more than "You hit dealing 1 damage with sword/ a spell" Most description of spellcasting is boring too. But thats the crux, it takes an immersing and unique interface with rulesets to make tabletop play fun. I like minis, maps, and dice, but I will never enjoy them without some story OR tactical elements to make the meaning of them interesting and invest me into the made up scene.

[@tophatsntales]

@@sebastianwinters9864 That kind of goes for all game design as a whole. If one isn't invested in anything except "doing cool stuff" they're going to get boring real fast no matter what you do. I believe we basically said the same thing, but i do feel like magic has more of a crutch because its not something one can truly experience and has to be full imagination, and thus more connection and immersion. It's "easier" essentially is what im saying. Least thats what we've found.

[@johnnygreenface]

@@tophatsntales the issue with hitting things with a piece of metal, is to describe it well you need to know a lot. To describe magic you can be a lot more creative with it without much issue

[@tophatsntales]

@@johnnygreenface Thats... Our point.

[@honestbenny]

I feel like this video should be "PF2e is not for me" as (since I am optimizer/powergamer) I can't imagine saying with straight face that PF2e character start to do at some point the same thing over and over again while having DnD 5e next to it where that issue is WAY WAY more prevelant. Also in EVERY SINGLE RPG at some point players find the best course of action economy of their characters and yes, they will start to do more same things even though in theory they have more options as they level up. That's just how it works, people figure out best combo and will do it if pressed. It's GM job to make sure they do not feel like they have to do it to win. The biggest offender for me here are martials. I mean in DnD 5e the only thing martials do is attack. Battlemaster manouvers are cool but are limited/resourced taxed and many of them are tied to bad saves (like STR or CON which are high among 90% of monsters) and only few are good, one of which is only there to make sure the attack hit.. so it's attack, attack, attack, cause you want to take PAM/XBE and combine it with GWM/SS. In PF2e the same Fighter can every turn try to knock enemies down, which combos with his AoO, use demoralize/intimidating strike to impose penatly on top, Shove enemy to flat-foot it, do Battle Medicine action to heal someone/himself, simply just attack or Power Attack, or use various archetypes dedication feats to add more manouvers for him. Your Fighter can be dashing duelist, roguish assassin, hammer wielding brute, battle medic, spell-sword, a knight with aura of courage, a beastmaster with his animal companions, a protector with shield shielding his allies.... I mean come on. Not to mention WEAPON CHOICE MATTERS in PF2e. In 5e? It's Glaive 99% of time and Handcrossbow. Dual Wielding is awesome in Pf2e! Shield and Sword is awesome in PF2e. In 5e both are trash/garbage compare to PAM GWM. You compare PF2e "combos" to Eldricht Blast spam in DnD 5e? Attack x3 for martials? Lack of meaningful combat healing, lack of teamwork that 5e? Fireball spam for several levels? Hypnotic Pattern spam? Shield/Absorb elements meta? Every full caster has armor prof and higher AC than martials? PF 2e druid was complaining he turns into DRAGONS and only BITE (I guess he forgot he can breath?). What about 5e Moon Druid? It's Brown Bear, Rocktopus, Giant Scorpion, Elemental... Mammoth? And they can what? Attack, attack? While PF2e Druid can turn into Kaiju/Dragons/Monstrosities etc. I am perfectly fine with someone saying they like 5e more than PF2e, but saying that PF2e has problem with "players do same thing over and over" while saying 5e in same sentence is just... Wtf. Like you say your swashbuckler had to do X->y->x->z "rotation"/combo over and over in PF2e. First of all: did you HAD to? And Second: what the hell your swashbuckler would do in 5e then? Oh, wait, yes, ATTACK ACTION. That's it. I smell here way more GM problem than system problem and some wierd expectations. Did you make sure they level up fast enough so they characters feel fresh getting new toys? Also I love sentence "players did the same thing over and over again casue that's how they built their characters". I mean... I mean seriously? Didn't you advice them to use Dedication Feat to multiclass so they can do more? Be a medic, investigator, a Champion/Witch or Druid/Rogue or Fighter scholar or Barbarian/Bard or Rogue/Cleric? Did you offer them Free Archetype as ultimate multiclass fun where you can really make characters super duper unique? Did you offer your bored Druid a Dual Class option?

[@rustybrooks8916]

At the end of the day, the game system doesn't matter unless RAW is a big concern. When my players make characters that are "sub optional" , I engineer situations where their unusual areas of interest can make a difference in an encounter in some way, or I create custom things they can do with their themes that aren't within the RAW. I find that giving players unique abilities based on their themes is almost always appreciated and helps them really lean into their role play themes that much more.

[@Kconv1]

That puts a ton of pressure on the DM, and probably is one of the contributers to the DM shortage. Instead of just giving the encounter and letting the players work it out, this forces the GM to engineer the encounter to suit every player.

[@rustybrooks8916]

@@Kconv1 I'm ok with a shortage of non-creative DMs. Once I started changing and adding to the rules as they they fit me and the players, the better the games got.

[@Kconv1]

@@rustybrooks8916 The DM shortage is on the verge of crippling the hobby. Back in the old day, a DM was given more time to learn and grow, now players expect perfect from the get go, and the experienced GM's are charging. Its not a great situation.

[@rustybrooks8916]

@@Kconv1 Crippling of the hobby? That sounds a bit dramatic. I've been playing since it was not only not cool to play, but actually considered "evil" by many people. The game might become less mainstream than it is now, but I don't think it will ever be crippled again unless there is a huge cultural shift.

[@Kconv1]

@@rustybrooks8916 Maybe crippling is a little strong, but its certainly not helping things at all. And the rest of my point still stands, modern players expect DM's to be exceptionally competent from the get go, without giving them time to learn and grow. I certainly wouldnt be a new Dm in the current market.

[@MrReaperHand]

Honestly i would rather have choice, and it isn't an illusion because you have choice players just make the same choices everytime, compared to forced builds 5e has.

[@wylantern]

Then it's not a choice, its a menu.

[@MrReaperHand]

@@wylantern but, and i work in restaurants, you still choose from the menu. Choice is still choice, it is only NOT a choice if you never have a say what is given to you. Bad example using a menu.

[@masuta2.06]

@Paul Gauthier Now let's put this in context of the subject. You look at the menu, there are plenty of different options in it, but you came here looking for pizza. You find that there is only one pizza option, so you take it. Would you say that this is illusion of choice? There was just one choice of pizza, but there were plenty of other choice, you just picked the one that fitted your very specific tastes. If you come into the game with a character idea that amounts to "I want to be a ranger archer", you will necessarily end up picking the archery feats, it's a no brainer. But if you're willing to push your concept any further than "guy with a bow", you will find that there are plenty of meaningful choices to be had.