Why I Stopped Running Pathfinder 2e

[@IcarusGames]

[EDIT] I've heard you complaints on the sensational nature of the thumbnail, and they are totally valid. I've finally got access to the YT thumbnail test and compare feature so have put two other options (one more neutral, and a meme) in the mix and we'll see which one wins out overall. [Original Comment]: I'm curious to hear from folks who tried PF2 but then switched to another system (or back to 5e if that's where you came from) what it was that prompted the move? I've got a few things to add (I touch on a lot of this in the video, but I wanted to add some more context): 1. While I've stopped running PF2 for my regular, weekly game, I haven't thrown it out never to be played again, I don't hate the system, I don't think it's a bad system, or anything of the sort. I'll still more than happily be a player in PF2 games, for a different group with different circumstances I would consider running again in the future, and I still really enjoy reading PF2 books. I've also had nothing but excellent interactions with Paizo as a company. Nothing in this video should be viewed as PF2 bashing! 2. I have read/played a bunch of the alternatives to 5e that exist and all of them either don't grip me in the way that D&D does, don't have the level of support I would want from my main system, or my players weren't interested in playing them. I do, and will continue to play other games (and feature them on the channel), but for this specific group where we're playing a heroic fantasy game, 5e is the best fit for us.

[@tommiskey]

I'm a longtime gamer since 1981, with a background playing many systems. Our group had been playing D&D 3.5 until WOTC switched to 4e, which almost nobody was interested in playing. When Paizo released Pathfinder 1e, we immediately took it up (at first allowing some 3.5 rules/classes/races/magic items that were missing as well). We played PF 1e for over 10 years, even after 5e D&D was released (though I played 5e at my FLGS). When PF2e was announced, my main group was cautiously optimistic at first, but the playtests and eventually the core book showed that it was a TOTALLY different game than 1e. We each bought the core book (I ended up buying the first 10 books released for 2e), but nobody was willing to play it. Fast forward to the OGL debacle last year. I tried switching back to PF2e, but was as unhappy with it as I was the 1st time. I had created a bunch of house rules for PF2e, but no one wanted to play with both learning the PF2e rules AND a bunch of house rules that I had written (23 pages worth, I found so many problems!). 1 other person agreed to run PF2e, and said he wanted to try running it RAW, but during the very first session, he became so angry at the shield rules that he immediately houseruled them (meaning, the rules that RAW you must declare shield blocks after you've been hit, and then apply the damage to both the shield and the wielder). We continued to find problems with the rules as written, and in 4 game sessions, he quit as GM. One of the other players decided to take over as GM, and lasted for about 8 or 9 sessions before also quitting, at which point the entire game ended and the group split apart. That was all before the release of the Remastered edition. Maybe some of the issues we were having were addressed in that version, I don't know. I didn't buy the Remaster. I felt the original Pathfinder 2e release was rushed to print too quickly, with FAR too many problems (in my eyes). Now, I'm not willing to give Pathfinder 2e Remaster another chance because I spent hundreds of dollars on books that are now "obsolete". We used to complain when a new edition of a game was released "too soon", though I understand why it was done here (because of the OGL issue, which wasn't Paizo's fault.) But still, I just bought the PF2e core book, Bestiary, APG, GMG, etc, and I hardly got to play them before the Remaster came out because of the very poor reception the game got from my regular gaming group. IMHO, we were an "ideal" group of gamers for PF2e (a group of older gamers, 40's - 50's in age, that had played PF1e for the past decade+), and if they couldn't convince us, then we felt there was an issue with either the game or a complete mismatch with our group for some reason. But, talking to other gaming groups, I've found more and more that have also had issues with PF2e, such as you and yours. I agree with you that the game is very complex and detailed, and that can cause quite a few issues in multiple ways and places.

[@IcarusGames]

@@tommiskey Something that is endless fascinating to me is how much 4e DNA there is in PF2 when Pathfinder first started as a branch to move away from that game system. It's funny that twice the evolution of a 3.5 based system ends up being something that looks a lot like 4e with a lot of similar core ideas, but it also means it's really no surprise that so many PF1 players bounce off PF2 - hell, we did at first. We were deep in a PF1 campaign when the playtest dropped and it was just TOO different. When it came time for our next campaign we ended up giving 5e a try instead, and it was only after PF2 had been out for a couple years and settled into itself that I started getting intrigued by it, my initial reaction during the playtest was to bounce off it.

[@tommiskey]

@@IcarusGames I initially tried buying it and reading it. Then, as a long-time rules tinkerer, play-testing it and trying to fix it. As I said, I ended up creating 23 pages of fixes for the core book. From fixing the imbalanced Alchemist class to the way shields worked to much of the spellcasting system, and a multitude of other things that bothered me. The whole mass of changes made sense to me, as I could explain why I made each change I did, but as a whole it was an intimidating mess of "house rules" for a new system that already had hundreds of pages of new rules to learn (over 600 pages in the core book alone!) And then the additional books began coming out... the APG, the magic book, etc, and I again had things I wanted to fix in each of therm too, until finally I gave up on the system (until the OGL mess briefly brought me back, only remind me of what happened before and thus drop it again). I see a lot of 4e in it too, as well as a tiny bit of Rolemaster (an older complex fantasy system that tried to expand into other genres and settings with Spacemaster and MERP - Middle Earth Roleplaying). It still has its fans, but to most players, it is just WAY too many rules to learn and use at the table.

[@davidk8699]

@@tommiskeyThe remaster rules really are to get away from the OGL, for example getting rid of the D&D magic schools - abjuration, evocation etc. All the rules are available for free on archives of Nethys, so you can read them there. I’m not sure what you didn’t like about the shield rules. You get the AC bonus from raising a shield during your turn. The shield block is optional after being hit to reduce damage (and lower your shield). Shields don’t take long to break at early levels and only some classes can shield block. What was frustrating about them?

[@introneurotic]

If you don't hate the system, why have your opening title screen of the Pathfinder logo in a trash can?

[@ArvelDreth]

Honestly I feel like 5e has me looking up rules and needing to homebrew things, more than any other system. Because so many things have no answer, by default it's entirely up to me as a DM to decide how things work on the fly and in many cases my initial decision about something turns out to not be that great and I have to keep changing things until we finally work out the best way to rule how the vague mess of text in the rules should work. With PF1e I homebrew tons of stuff just because I feel like it and it's fun and I'm not really that concerned with the codified rules, with 5e I homebrew stuff because the game is miserable without homebrew and it feels like I'm obligated to do it to force the game to actually be fun.

[@kgeo2686]

Rulings>Rules. Rule are just a framework. Slight variations in rulings are far more realistic than 100% consistent codified rules. Its always far faster and promotes creativity. This is how it used to work from the start of TTRPGs

[@ArvelDreth]

@kgeo2686 rulings over rules can only go so far. It's not a cure-all to a sloppily crafted system. You don't need to lecture me, I've been playing TTRPGs for 23 years and I've been GMing consistently for 15.

[@kgeo2686]

@ And so we disagree. I’m sure you’re a great GM 👍

[@magusi9029]

Absolutely get your point of view on the two systems. Going from 3.5 to PF1 was an easy transition. I enjoyed PF1 (probably my fav) though it had stat/math bloat. The system for the most part was solid and easy to homebrew here and there. I found 5e character creation lacking, but magic was handled better overall. 5e just needs a lot of house calls to clearly get peeps on the same page. I enjoyed it more in BG3 than on the table. Was hoping to hear PF2e would be a promising transition. I’ll just have to test it myself and see where I lay.

[@ArvelDreth]

@@magusi9029 tbh I'm mixed on how magic is handled. The concentration rules are not fun for me though I do think they reign in casters appropriately. But then they also massively limited spells per day by removing bonus spells and I feel like they simultaneously nerfed martials a great deal making it so the martial/caster divide is still just as massive. I found myself unironically going back to the 2e way of giving different classes different XP thresholds for leveling up, which has actually surprisingly turned out great so far.

[@MrWystan17]

We tried Pathfinder 2e. We played the Beginner Box and two smaller campaigns, and we can't imagine going back to 5e. Beyond character development, the combat in 5e was such a boring slog for us... Moreover, it's great to know that the GM is finally supported and has tools to help them. That said, it's not a system for everyone and I fully understand that. So, good luck Icarus Gaming and goodbye! Now we're trying to finish our main 5e campaign as quickly as possible and switch completely to 2e.

[@StellaDallas88]

Just swap your 5e game over to pf2e. It's totally doable. Have your gm reach out

[@MrWystan17]

@@StellaDallas88 we are close friends, and the campaign last for about 4 years now. We know that this is doable, but we decided to not swap system on higher levels of play, and just end it and start new one in Pf2e

[@davidwilliams4837]

I switched to PF2e years ago after trying the Beginner Box. It changed everything. I finally felt I could run a game and not make it a mess. PF2e is NOT DND, but it is such a fun, balanced system. I feel like I can throw more at the players yet keep it simple. Even just small things like the 3 Action Economy and how things scale naturally just provide more opportunities to mix it up. I also love the more team-oriented, strategic side, which many miss. Don't waste actions! Combat in PF2e is so deep, yet simple at the same time. PF2e is definitely not a game for "everyone"; it is made for a deeper dive at times, but the right GM can guide newer players. My children became scarily effective in around 4 or 5 sessions. They learned flanking [off-balance] and positioning [and I love using minis]. My middle daughter saved Gust of Wind as a reaction to the final boss [if it used Acid Breath... I think] in the Beginner Box [which saved the party]. I think in a way PF2e gets us to think more "in-story". The rules consistency & design made it feel more "free". I WOULD play DND again with the right people, but I would never try to DM.

[@cmckee42]

​@StellaDallas88 that is easier said than done, depending on the party builds and the setting.

[@dcernach]

My group and I have been playing GURPS since the '90s, and we feel much more comfortable with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. After playing D&D 3.5 for a while, we switched to Pathfinder 1st Edition, and now we're playing Pathfinder 2nd Edition with no regrets. The remaster edition corrected many things that we were uncomfortable with. That's it! We're giving Fantasy World a try now to reduce our cognitive load for a while. Let's see how it goes...

[@IcarusGames]

The remaster dropped JUST as we were starting to get a reasonable grip on the system and threw us for a bit of a loop, which I'm sure didn't help things.

[@davidwilliams4837]

Trusting the Pf2e math & balance is hard for most from DND where we "know" it doesn't make sense & must correct.

[@SleepySlann]

As much as I adore GURPS, most systems seem simple compared to it. XD It all comes down to how used to/comfortable you are with learning new systems. But GURPS really does train you to homebrew.

[@ErayTarrell]

If you're planning on using a VTT, Foundry has stellar support for the system and rules. I run a hybrid version for my reallife table.

[@cheesy_87]

​@@IcarusGames PF2e really didn't change much. The Remaster is just a handful of core rules that were updated, and then mostly different concepts to move away from DnD. The classes were improved a lot. Bit it's not like they overhauled the game.

[@rileymcleran2895]

I am an avid pf2 player. Pf2 fixed 100% of the problems I had with 5e. I think this is a really well reasoned take on why someone would leave pf2. Your system has to match your group and the system has to match the story/setting you want to play. Pf2 isn’t for everyone or everyone’s stories. I think the pf2 community can really struggle to understand that sometimes.

[@brandcolt]

I disagree heavily. Pf2 is way easier to GM because you don't have to look up Twitter tweets to find rules

[@kiosrel]

I also like it for that but the thing is that we both want rules to be respected as often as possible but other people don't care that much and just want to be able to make up rules in the spot without feeling like breaking the game

[@luciusrex]

@@kiosrel ha! this just causes so much arguments bc dm couldnt be consistent. lol for yt though i completely agree, you cant make money off pf2e on yt. yt is stacked heavily towards dnd and not pf2e

[@UkeToru-o5f]

You did not understand the video, PF trades off creativity in the name of balance.

[@luciusrex]

@@UkeToru-o5f your comment doesnt make sense, have you even played pathfinder? or ttrpgs in general? "trades off creativity"?? unless youre playing an rpg on your computer where everything is hard coded, you dont "trade off creativity" lmao

[@UkeToru-o5f]

@luciusrex perhaps you want to watch the video again. And to clarify, i didn't mean 'trade off' as 'completely remove' just reduced.

[@pynk_tsuchinoko8806]

I can definitely emphasize with that feeling of a game just not "meshing" with a particular group or style. I got really hyped up on PF2E around the time dark archives came out and ran a beginners box game for my game group (im not a reguler gm, my gm was a player) I admittedly did a pretty bad job selling them on the system but there were things that just were not really working. they didnt really want to interact with the 3 action economy and one player even felt it was too restrictive since movement was free in 5e, while everyone said they had fun i could tell it wasnt a great play session. It felt pretty bad, I had a lot of buyers remorse since I had already bought the core books aswell as an adventure, felt like maybe it was silly to try something else when you can just run 5e and homebrew everything. I'm currently running a pf2e game for a different group I met online and they are having a good time, they interact with the mechanics, RP, get excited when they level up, it helped with a bit of those doubts I initially felt, I still somtimes tangle with the "is it worth it" thoughts but for the time being I'm having fun. You were one of the creators who got me onboard with trying the game out, it sucks it didnt work out but its good to hear you are back to a comfort zone you are use to, on the whole I think trying new things is great, even if it doesnt work out you learn something about yourself or your group you might not have known without trying it and the beauty of the RPG hobby is how many free resources, SRDs, homebrew and what not you can just pick up and play no strings attached.

[@ASalad]

"It became not fun for me to tinker and homebrew things" - that'll kill any experience. I LOVE tinkering with PF2. I redo things all the time. I love having lots of rules that I can use or not use or modify or run raw at my own choosing. Using the whole PF2 system as it is as written is overwhelming. But the PF2 community does have a weird aversion to modifying, probably because of the bad D&D experiences.

[@IcarusGames]

Yeah! Perhaps if I'd been less precious about the balance early on and gotten weird with it from the start things would have been different, but like you say, you get this perception on the balance of the system drilled into you by the community long before you even play the game, and that's hard to shift.

[@tommiskey]

I definitely agree about the community being VERY adverse to modding and modders. When I tried offering my house rules for free on the Paizo forums, I got constant insults and disparagement, with almost no acknowledgement that the game EVER had any problems or issues.

[@ASalad]

@@IcarusGames The rules for homebrew creature creation help a lot when it comes to rebalancing. And the consistency of the strength relative to party level and expected level of difficulty to it provides really good guidelines for it. I use PF2 for a modern 21st century equivalent fantasy world with tons of homebrew and every change I’ve made to all of my creatures has performed as reliably as the official bestiary stuff. And once you learn how to do it for one level, you pretty much know how to do it for every level. The more familiar you get with the basic engine components of the system, the more comfortable it becomes to tweak and create with. And I like the fact that it performs the way I expect it to each time. But I also do things to help take some of the feelsbad or minutia off the players too. I’ll give casters early gear with flat damage boosts. I give a flat 2xlvl hp in healing to the party after every combat encounter so they don’t have to worry about healing for minor things that slow down gameplay. I have them find rest areas with magical leylines where they can restore some spell slots between daily preps, or where they find alchemist materials to make some daily consumables like the alchemist class uses that encourages them to use it rather than hoard it since it’ll be gone next daily prep anyway. I play loose with aid checks so they are encouraged to think of creative things for third actions to help allies or impair enemies with environmental things. I let them use hero points to attempt over the top flex stuff. And if it starts to feel too easy? I can add an extra 20% xp budget for encounters or throw in an extra elite template or two. So many ways to make things easier or harder and you have a lot of granular control that operates consistently. I also use keywords when it’s convenient but make rulings on the fly a lot too and just treat them as exceptions. I did hit a period as I got deeper in the system where I noticed there was a lot of looking stuff up and decided that sucked, so I started using tags as guidelines rather than having to look up technical rulings every time. And I usually erred on the side of favoring the players with rulings since I had plenty of other reliable ways to make things difficult if I needed to. Not saying you have to go back by any means. Just sharing some examples of things I like doing at my tables!

[@craigjones7343]

You are correct. DnD has for decades conditioned its dm to believe that homebrew is the best part of the game. What the dm are not aware of is homebrew is MANDATORY because you must fix the broken and missing rules of any dnd edition.

[@richarddarma1452]

​​@@craigjones7343There are Homebrew to fix the system and there are Homebrew to enhance gameplay / player experience. The DnD community usually do both, PF2e community avoid all.

[@mikewickham1767]

I switched to PF2 during the start of the OGL thing. I’ve GMed for over 40 years the switch to PF2 was the best thing my group and myself ever done. I’ve ran the Beginner Box the Abomination Vaults, during this time I wrote my on PF2 campaign. I still play DnD 5, but it’s sooooo boring. I’m hoping you switch back to PF2 in the future, but good luck either way.

[@tinaprice4948]

We switched as well , did the starter box, loved it, then started another campaign and we all started complaining. We went back to D&D and have been happier as a group.

[@samski2185]

@@tinaprice4948what did you dislike?

[@davidwilliams4837]

Abomination Vaults is amazing.

[@tinaprice4948]

@@samski2185 The general flow of the game, the action economy didnt feel any better, the crunchiness of the characters? also the AC of everything, we got hit all the time and it seemed like the AC of every monster was so crazy high we rarely hit. Maybe it was the campaign we were playing? cause like i said the starter box was fun, but 3 out of us 5 players wanted to go back to D&D after a few months of playing in the second campaign.

[@Kagrath]

​@@tinaprice4948agreed, after swapping to PF2e 5e feels boring.

[@ChrisJ2001]

And remember you can hand wave/ ignore / change any rule you want in any system you want. I remember going half insane trying to grasp PF2Es sneaking/hidden mechanics with 4 stages of awareness. I stripped it and have the players do a contested roll of their stealth against enemy perception. Pass or fail and they’re hidden if they pass. What’s the rule for that? Hell if I know but you’re gonna get +1 on your relevant sneaky checks while you’re hidden. This idea that you either have to compete to following the entirety of a system or leave to play something else is a fool’s errand. It’s narration; nothing is going to break. Players can run away. Anybody that has played/ran DCC quickly realizes swingy math is more fun😂

[@norcalbowhunter3264]

My problem with this advice, is that you meet a lot of resistance doing this. Or that has been my experience. I play online and I’ve recruited new players and most them are pf2e vets who expect the game to work a certain way, and if it doesn’t they protest. Even if you discuss this stuff up front with them during session 0 it’s usually met with “Well they did it that way because it works better.” Again this has been my experience and of course mileage will vary. I’ve just found the pf2e community less accepting to this mentality.

[@ChrisJ2001]

@@norcalbowhunter3264 yeah I could see that happening. The big thing is just being confident. I’d honestly answer any pushback politely with the reasoning why I’m ruling this or that. After that, you’re gonna get “because I’m the GM and I said so” is a perfectly acceptable answer. “*A* word to the wise is sufficient.” If it’s a persistent thing and the player just wants to gamify everything and always have advantage, I’m not going to let them take the others out of the narrative to try and go to rules lawyer court. At the end of the day for every GM there’s probably about 20 players out there looking for someone to run a game so we have that balance in our favor.

[@antieverything1]

Your problem is playing with Pathfinder vets. Notice in the comments how utterly deranged and inflexible they are. Pathfinder attracts a certain type of person who also happens to be impossible to get along with​@@norcalbowhunter3264

[@liamcage7208]

I homebrew the crap out of P2e individually for each campaign I have run since P2e came out. It is so modular that you can literally unplug entire subsystems and plug in your own. One of the expansion books has an entire plug in Magic System that you could plug in to replace the default rules if you wanted. I've been playing D&D and a few clones since 1980. I've played every version of D&D except 4th edition. Half my players date back to the 1980's and they love P2e. Play what you like, its a game so play what gives you enjoyment. The cardinal rule though is no game pauses while you look up rules. Improvise. If it is that important then call for a bathroom break. In the last 2 years we've only stopped to consult the rules twice.

[@TarEcthelion]

For those who do like PF2 but don't love the Vancian Casting they made an official archetype called Flexable Spellcaster to turn it back into a Spontaneous (read: 5e like) caster. While it's balanced as is; You can talk to your GM about getting it as a free archetype if using class feats ruffles you the wrong way. :-P I don't care which system we play as long as we're having fun doing it... PF2e is still my current favorite (I GM it every other Friday). But I'll play whatever you're running. :-)

[@JCServant07]

That dedication has some drawbacks that I feel is a bit too restricting. I created Minevian spell casting dedication which allows players to burn a spell they have memorized for one they already cast of the same level or lower. It works great.

[@Kagrath]

@@JCServant07 what drawbacks? Reduced spell slots?

[@JCServant07]

@@Kagrath Yup. Three spell slots for most casters are reduced to two, and it hurts. Three is already pretty tight in a system that charges an arm and a leg for wands and scrolls (I reduced those in my games as well).

[@Urobot]

To me, Pathfinder 2e is the perfect combination of balanced rules, flavor, exciting gameplay, etc. The thing is, I have the most fun when I get to actually play/run a game, and I find it much easier to get people to pick up and play something more rules lite, than I do PF2e. Five Torches Deep, Masks, Dungeon World, etc. all end up seeing more play for me because it's easy to get people into.

[@RickDevil12]

I was a 5e DM for a long time and it really disapointed me, we made it to a level 20 campaign, beat Dungeons of the Mad Mage and the system is so fiddly that I ended up traumatized hahaha I double check each time I add a boss to a fight to know if it will be balanced or not. None of that has happened with PF2e, there are some things that I indeed find to be "crunchy" but not really, I think people have so embedded in their mind that a system has to be ambiguous to be playable, there are some nice things in all systems, there are also ambiguous things. Not even mentioning how the CR system doesn't work and that is no news. I see PF2E as a well-done 5e, It's rules I have found even clearer and easier than 5e, it has an answer for everything, you can just omit a little rule and it wont break it, it is hard to break honestly and not everything needs to be super mega hyper balanced, that is not the idea, the Idea I think was to make a solid and easy system.

[@direden]

You see PF2 as a well-done 5e. I see it as an over cooked 5e. And that's why it's good to have competition and options in the rpg marketplace. As someone who grew up on AD&D... I really enjoy the upgrade to 5e. However, the OSR movement proves many people wanted a lighter version of AD&D. So, to each their own.

[@RickDevil12]

@@direden For me, nothing beats the 3 action economy and such a high quality on adventures and setting books that I wouldn't come back to the half paragraph final bosses and the 3 pages rules for Spelljamers. I really don't see the "complexity" of the system, I find it even easier and simpler than 5e and I don't have to look up for twitter questions to play by the rules

[@Fearthecow792]

You and I see eye-to-eye on what makes PF2 so great, I can't imagine going back to the extremely ambiguous 5e. I love being a DM, and a big part of it I think is how player-centric 5e is, whereas PF2 was clearly designed _also_ with DM's in mind, to make our lives easier and give us more flexibility and creativity in making new stuff up.

[@jeffersonian000]

Ironically, PF2E is more like D&D 4E than any other version of D&D.

[@davidbowles7281]

@@RickDevil12 The answer is to not play by the bespoke rules in 5E. PF2E is very complex because there is a bespoke rule for everything. Lots of people don't like this and just want the GM to invent something on the fly.

[@FilCieplak]

So I've played many different systems, but never played PF2 until recently. Our group was considering playing 5e, but we wanted to try something different but familiar. At first I was enjoying it, and found the AP system to be very liberating... sort of. We've started to realize that the action economy is actually quite fiddly, with a lot of what felt like "wasted" actions just drawing weapons, raising a shield, moving 1 square, etc. Additionally, I've felt that a lot of my progression as a character has been very incremental, where each feat or feature I pick up seems very trivial. I realize in the end it all adds up, but the tiny bonuses to attack or AP efficiency doesn't feel very enticing. Regardless, we've still trucking along, but we too have realized that maybe our lack of enjoyment is not our inexperience, but that the system just isn't for us. Cheers!

[@IcarusGames]

While it sucks that other folks are having less than stellar experiences, I'm glad I'm not so alone in finding myself going off the system. On paper it fixed all my problems with 5e. But the reality was those problems weren't as bad as they seemed at the time, and PF2 fixed them by introducing different problems for me.

[@taejaskudva2543]

I haven't played it, but PF2 sounds like it makes a good videogame system...

[@Zertryx]

@@taejaskudva2543 its because its so tight with its rules, you dont have as much freedom as a dM or player to deviate from the rules else it breaks things. and has a lot of Core stuff that 4E D&D did which was also a more tactical style D&D game. Essentially PF2E is more for groups who like order and structure, and laid out and clear written rules with little deviation. and 5E is more for groups who are okay with Guidance but more free and DMs who like to homebrew tons of stuff. Yes 5E isnt "Balanced" but its balanced enough to make crazy stuff and still have fun.

[@bokajon]

How is raising a shield or moving one square a wasted action??

[@dividendjohnson4327]

I'm glad to hear you and your group figured out the thing that works for you, and that trying a different system was a valuable experience for you guys, even if not in the way you might have expected. Sometimes trying new systems shows us why we liked the ones we already used. I also wonder if there is some kind of measurable window of crunchiness variance that people can easily accommodate, because I've had that same experience in the opposite direction. I bounced off of 5E in part, I think, because I had come to it from Pathfinder 1st Ed; the relative lack of crunchiness and bookkeeping made me feel anxious, like there was something I was constantly missing. It was close enough to Pathfinder in genre that the differences really stood out to me. Admittedly, the main reason I bounced off 5E is because I'm unsighted, use a screen reader, and WotC was allergic to making PDFs for the longest time in some misguided attempt to combat piracy, but that cognitive dissonance definitely didn't help once I was able to play, either.

[@Wasserbienchen]

I switched to PF2e about... four years ago? It was amazing at first, and solved all the gripes I had with 5e. Now I'm actively yearning for a new system. Not because PF2e is BAD per se... but, well, it really does pigeonhole you into a certain kind of high fantasy game, and the spells are STILL wildly unbalanced in the world, while being simultaneously the most boring milktoast for combat. xP I won't ever regret the... uh, three, four campaigns I ran, and I'll finish the two I'm playing in, and the one I'm still running (and will likely be running for a while because it's a newly started 1-20), but it probably won't be my main system going forward. Not sure what to replace it with, but I'm looking in the direction of both OSR and newer 'competitor' systems.

[@somik-i3x]

I am curious what make the spell so boring for you ? I am a guy who isn't intereted in PF2, but I saw knock spell and found it so bad and had comment tell me that the spell is actually good.

[@Wasserbienchen]

@@somik-i3x A +4 chance is good numerically. Status bonuses are hard to come by, so with a circumstance bonus for aid at, say, +2, and then an item bonus at +1, which is not unreasonable even for lowish levels, that's a neat +7 bonus. That is a higher bonus than advantage. But it FEELS bad. Even if you have that, you can still roll a nat 1 and ruin it. Casting a spell and having it do nothing feels really, really bad. Most PF2e spells have that issue. Paizo is deathly afraid of making something so powerful it can circumvent skills, so many effects have a success effect that is kinda meh, and only a critical success will do the cool thing that you want it to do. Not even just a spell thing. Disarm only disarms on a critical success. The effect is technically balanced, as it's still useful on a success. BUT it feels bad because you don't want "slightly hinder the enemy's grip", you want "disarm". TL;DR the effects are numerically good and balanced, but pf2e tries very hard to never let you do anything that's truly gamechanging, and thus it can be quite boring. Casting a spell to make something 10% easier, or to minorly inconvenience someone is... just... sometimes not very fun. There's some strong spells, don't get me wrong. It's just, there's a very limited number of spells that ACTUALLY feel really impactful. There's a reason almost everyone picks heal, fear, slow. Those are the most impactful spells by FAR.

[@stillmattwest]

OSR games get back to the core of RPG play, when it was all about imagination and interacting with the game world. I recommend Castles and Crusades for an AD&D-like experience with better rules. That said, they are a lot simpler than modern-style system. Some players might get bored.

[@BasementMinions]

I'm glad you realized what would be best for your group and made the switch! 5E drives me crazy and was exhausting as a GM but that's just me. I'm super excited to try out Draw Steel and Roll 20 when they are out fully and will happily run 5E for short little sessions. At the end of the day different systems work for different groups, follow your bliss. :)

[@meatybtz]

I still like PF2E-R. But there are some serious "issues" with it. Won't stop me from running it but the concept of Trap Spells and Trap Feats is extremely real. And, being an active member on the subreddit I understand that people are very defensive and most are operating on the MMO concept of you should know the dungeon before doing the dungeon.. aka, know the feats before doing the feats selection. But Piazo's obsession with a feat for everything (even trivial things, or extreme edge cases) and their desire to have a "balanced" game results in decisions which create genuine traps or things that simply are of no use because they've been nerfed so they don't work most of the time. Combat is VERY good.. but also very bad. Because of the over-tuned nature of the system you will chase debuffs. This results in only certain things even being viable, certain feats, certain spells.. and you will RIDE those spells, feats, and abilities like it's going out of style. You will trip, you will grapple. You will flank. You will chase FEAR (except you will face a lot of mindless monsters so hahahahha on you). You will do those things because the game is tuned to you doing just that. Even though the subreddit hates home brew, because they worship the Law. The Law is.. everyone should follow the LAW! As written! But I literally just voided all of the trap feats by making anyone able to do certain things on various skill or ability checks, as with DnD.. the Can you do this? Sure, PF2E-R gives me a nice table to use to set the DCs even! Great. Make an X-check. So the rule of "cool" and "cinematic" combat returns. Heroes do Heroic Things, bold things.. stupid things. Made my table a lot happier. I also don't like their "glyph" magic system as it was so utterly computer-gamey that it just was boring. Again, because the game is TUNED to you doing X.. every time.. you thus must do X.. every time or suffer for it. This included magic item progression (really afix and glyph progression). So if you don't have X and Y for your armor and weapon.. you are going to get crit.. a lot.. and die. Because the monsters are tuned for that. I can't de-tune every encounter or monster and you really don't have to. Also having a Glyph vendor in every town or whatever is just silly. It's too much.. too common magic. At least for me. MUST HAVEs and tuning EVERY monster and encounter at level for having those magical items is.. a bit much. So now.. everyone is special.. and no-body is. That guard.. he's got one too.. or at least he must because he has a stat line that looks like it. That podunk soldier.. he's got one.. look at that stat line. I've GM'd and DMed for a VERY VERY VERY VERY LONG TIME. I've done nearly ever edition of DnD and many systems from GURPS to Palladium's Games. For me, cinematic and being able to make decisions on the fly as the GM/DM are MORE important than an overtuned game. I don't need balance. I need a system that excites my players. That makes them feel like heroes. That has enough room for cinematic role-play. I am still GM'ing PF2E and sticking with it rules wise for the most part because.. it's actually a good system. There is no perfect system. Everything needs either tuning or de-tuning to make it flow for the specific table and gameplay goals. I've never had a problem with broken characters in any game.. until PF2E where I worked with a new player to completely rebuild their character after six or so sessions because they were just not having fun. So I allowed the character to rework w/o any jank. Just move your feats around, change stats, even change archetype. I want my players to have fun and the traps set by Piazo because they fear blaster-casters so much and simultaneously after calling casters support classes nerf their "support" into being extremely unreliable. Also, range is pretty nerfy in PF2E-R. Compared to melee it's a lot weaker and you need to tune your character with just the right mix of archetypes and class (sniper for instance) in order to have that power fantasy. To FEEL you are a contributing member of the party. As a caster, that require extremely specific TUNING. SPECIFIC AND ONLY THOSE SPELLS and FEATS, if you want to feel like you are contributing besides granting +1 to the fighter and -2 for one round.. if you are lucky, to the monster. But as for being able to lay down the smack or reliably tie up the monster? Nope. The fighter, however.. he can do that. He can demoralize, cause fear, and do stupid damage on strikes. With reasonable reliability.. He does everything, reliably. Caster, does little, and unreliably.. except for spamming about 10 total spells (out of all of them) which are good and only if you took the exact right feats and archetypes. That bugs me. It will always bug me. However, PF does a lot really well. Especially exploration and stealth/hidden type mechanics. Exploration though, is great. Social interactions are pretty good if you want to constrain them with hard rules and numbers, which can be ideal sometimes. Also, Piazo makes these wonderful tactical combat simulation system.. and then sells APs that are just white-box rooms. Throw some difficult terrain, some obstructions, height differences, and the games combat system is freaking awesome and shines. Leave the white-box, small room, APs and build some real encounter areas and the tactical combat sim system really does well. That and the archetype system is great and allows for some very cool conceptual customization for players.. but they have to avoid the traps. The crazy thing is that an all martial team in PF2E-R works extremely well in nearly every combat situation and even in regards to healing, on top of having a rather large array of variety of effective builds so the party will be quite "diverse). An all caster team will NOT function and it might eek it out barely, but only if they all follow a very narrow build variety. A wizard cannot solo an on-level Monster, or only if they get lucky. My barbarian can solo an on level monster reliably and even sometime ONE HIT KILL an on level monster. That tells me there is a design problem. As a wizard player once said. I don't mind being support. I like it. I like doing cool stuff to help my team win, but if the people in the front-line do pretty much as well w/o me as with me.. then why exactly I am part of the team? What is my purpose? When the barb gets off a fear more reliably.. what exactly is my role and value in that role as a wizard.. he does it better, more easily, more often, with fewer limitations. Even after the remaster, Wizard still is in the "butter passing robot" position. A team would often be better off with another martial in his place, a ranged martial if the player wanted to do ranged damage primarily. And that's just one example. Gunslinger has it's own issues for not fitting the fantasy of it's own supposed design... for fear it would be what? Too powerful? So players crunched numbers till they made a "sniper" that does ridiculous things with various feats that stack up in a way to make the class ACTUALLY feel like a "sniper" should while being both cinematic and thematic, as well as effective in actual gameplay. When you have to do major out of archetype feats and or multiple special and (rare) archetypes to make a class play and "feel" like it's flavor text indicates.. then there is a core design problem. I could also bring up the "lock" problem in PF2E, this has to do with level scaling DCs where again, the game system does not jive with a living breathing world and instead feel like an "game". For some tables and players, that is IDEAL. For anything really story based.. it's not and breaks immersion.

[@RdotDoyle]

An insightful and well-considered video that mirrors the experience at my table as well. I’m sure the comments will be equally reasonable and as drama free as the album behind you, nice choice

[@Metal-Spark]

I fully understand where you're coming from on the homebrew aspect - clearly that's a big part of the enjoyment for both you and your players. As someone who also switched to 2e around the same time as you did, I completely agree that the watertight balance makes homebrewing or tweaking anything a very anxiety-inducing task, lest you accidentally spring a leak. That said, I absolutely love the system and while something like the vast amounts of 3rd party resources available online could be a boon to some people, the fact that I don't need them for 2e is even better in my eyes. I haven't needed to look up homebrew systems, rulings, items or additional content at all in this system because practically everything I've ever wanted to do has had existing rules. For me, that massively tips the balance to 2e and I'm not sure I could go back to DMing 5e again.

[@taycrens8601]

Ive always felt similar! You really nailed it here, thanks for putting the voice of this side of the argument out there.

[@darksavior1187]

I switched to PF2E from D&D 5E going on 2 years now, and I can say 2 things for sure. First, my issues with 5E were the following; lack of challenge, CR/encounter building not working from about level 5 onward, magic items not existing in the game's economy, no prices for magic items, weak - non-existent guidance for magic item levels and balance relative to monsters or CR. All of these problems, PF2E answers. That said, PF2E has its own issues; casters and magic in general are designed from a place of seemingly fear and vengeance. Fear that spells and casters are the biggest threat to precious balance, and revenge that casters deserve some punishment/comeuppance for the perceived martial v caster divide that supposedly existed in earlier versions of both D&D and Pathfinder. So instead of making a more comparable experience for the martials and casters, with the distinction being how they do things, the casters are paying for their sins in PF2E from prior editions. This creates so many problems, the biggest of which is a terrible experience around the table for any player foolish enough to roll up a caster character in PF2E, its gonna be a bad time. That as it seems you have determined in your video, is a far worse problem, than the few mechanical gaps that exist in 5E which PF2E fixes. It strikes at the heart of why we play a TTRPG at all (have fun) and specifically why folks want a high-fantasy setting (cool magic). I also think it is easier and more likely 5E will fix those issues, before PF2E fixes its problems, because WOTC can probably agree with the issues pointed out in D&D and seek to fix them, whereas Paizo, and its community, largely don't see/acknowledge PF2E's issues, and are therefore not likely to fix them ever. I largely play in Foundry, and run games professionally, so I am watching to see if D&D going forward is better supported in Foundry with the 2024 release. If the 2024 revamp is good, perhaps answers some of the issues I had with 5E, and gets better Foundry support and less need to subscribe to D&D Beyond, I will likely make the switch as well.

[@SamuelDancingGallew]

Something a lot of Pathfinder Players forget when talking to D&D Players, is that having rules that cover everything including niche things like wall running or blowing up a random tree, is that you get shoved into houdini's box, with no helpful guides or instructions on how to safely get outside of it, and a mechanism that requires an engineering degree to fully understand. D&D still has problems with this, but there are also some obvious holes that are easy to fill, which help prepare you to fill the next hole, and the next until you patch it into your own creation. PF2e is great if you want something that's pre-baked, but D&D is easier to shape and mold into the exact game you want it to be, and I think that's what makes it great. As for DC20, I haven't read up on the rules, but I suspect that it may be a bit more challenging to work with in some areas than 5e due to the interactions and some of the rules like hit chance directly affecting damage, but with fewer moving parts, it will be easier to add your own parts.

[@thisjust10]

recently switched to PF2E and although I haven't written 5e off but I have lost pretty much any motivation to play 5e. I am definately not interested in new (to me) 5e content though so good luck! and good for you. Also I do both styles of games depending on what I'm running but the mechanics don't completely restrict me once I've gotten familiar with it.

[@nachschub4836]

When the ogl happend I bought the pathfinder core rules monstrosity and red it all and when I was done I knew I would not run this game. Just thinking about running it made me sad with all it rules the only thing I really loved is the Gold economy system it just makes so much more sense then d&d

[@antieverything1]

When I realized how much hidden rules text was in monster statblocks in the form of tags...and that the meanings of those tags would need to be referenced constantly, I knew the game wasn't for me...or for almost anyone, really. Imagine running this monstrosity without vtt integration. Meanwhile, with 5e, I haven't opened a book at the table in years and have never even bothered with VTT integration.

[@DoctorWu23]

I mean no disrespect, but I keep seeing this sentiment that because PF2E is balanced, you cannot homebrew, whereas 5e encourages homebrew, because it isn't balanced. If you didn't care about balance in 5e, why do you in PF2e? If its a matter of taste I fully understand, the homebrew aspect is just something I keep seeing and I do not understand it. Edit: I guess its more that you didn't want to TPK your party, but this sentiment is coming from 5e where past level 5 it is very difficult to TPK your party without a deliberately insane encounter. The GM book is very clear on the math bounds, and you could additionally just add an ability that made has limited usage but becomes a massive *non-lethal* nuisance to your party, increasing encounter difficulty without ensuring imminent death. When it comes to magic items, the general sentiment I have applies. If you want to make magic items with potentially game breaking abilities, like you would maybe give out in 5e, why not just do it? Pathfinder 2e is in general deadlier anyways, so maybe giving your players some overpowered items is a way you can give them the feel you get from 5e without the insane scale tipping from casters just shutting down your big monster and the martials wailing on it. It feels like Pathfinder's actual attempt and making the math work is giving people this strange paralysis that they can't mess with it. Its your table, the rule of cool and fun still apply.

[@sylvaincousineau5073]

Been playing Level Up Advanced 5e for 2 years now , and all my 3 groups have a blast playing it , also a great middle ground between 5e and PF2 .

[@IcarusGames]

I've not looked at the rules themselves for A5e, but I do really like how they present monsters with the legends and lore and the encounters. As soon as I saw that I knew I had to adopt it into my own monster design.

[@quantum_ogre]

I'm DMing both systems now, and having a great time, but originally I bounced off PF2e really hard. Quite honestly I put it down to the understated difference in the games despite their roots, and presentation. These days, I love PF2e for at table play, especially for groups who want to play a 'team game'. PF2e isn't just about 'tons of options'- its how the system really allows so many builds to be a true teamplayer. I love 5E for tables who are fine with the rules being looser, and able to treat things like they are fluids because things aren't as interwoven.

[@Takerfan4ever303]

I have not tried PF2 but tastes change and it’s okay!

[@magetower]

Exactly, play what you and your group loves, have fun, and forget about the rest.

[@volairn70]

We are moving on from PF2 and going to Shadowdark. I will *never* go back to 5e. The thing I hated about PF2 was that there was a rule for literally EVERYTHING. It got exhausting. Just using a shield has so many rules associated with it, when it is just a quick roll or judgement call in Shadowdark. Our story was very much like yours, but I am absolutely done with 5e too.

[@IcarusGames]

Absolutely fair! Shadowdark has been on my list for ages. It's a no-go for my regular group (one of the players is WAY too afraid of character death for any game with a funnel/gauntlet lol) but I am going to make a video taking a look at it over the summer hopefully!

[@dylanhyatt5705]

@@IcarusGames Shadowdark is fun.

[@IcarusGames]

@@dylanhyatt5705 I've been really looking forward to playing it since it was on KS. With the brain space freed up by not running PF2 anymore I plan on getting a lot more games of other systems in soon (just since making the switch back to 5e I've read 6 new systems)

[@tommiskey]

@@IcarusGames I play Shadowdark without the funnel. Just start at 1st level (or even higher levels if you want) and you can say all characters start with max HP on the 1st level HP die.

[@davidk8699]

Pathfinder2 is very crunchy. I certainly agree with that! It can be hard to get into. Shadowdark is a great option.

[@lotrotk375]

As someone who still GMs pf2 after d&d5e, I absolutely appreciate your honesty on why the system doesn't vibe with your group! Wish you all happy adventuring going forward!

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks 😊

[@clausboehm8603]

I was so excited for the beta and thought I would LOVE it, but in end I ended up being completely turned off by how bland it feels due to their fear of lack of "balance" with everyone having mostly same AC, HP and spells feel kinda Meh ...

[@Hugh839]

I loved PF2, but I did struggle with all the rules and my players are casual players and didn't want to have to learn a heap of rules (we play through Foundry VTT so that does all the heavy work). So we ended up switching to Cypher System as it's perfect for story-focused games. And we also now try more random indie games.

[@IcarusGames]

I've got a couple more casual players too and the extra mechanics in PF2 was definitely a struggle for them sometimes!

[@verylittleknowledge]

I appreciate you taking the time and effort to explain the pros & cons. You’re right in that there isn’t much discourse on leaving pf2 so this provided good feedback

[@rodionsokolov5546]

I feel this problem! And to be honest, I had similar this problem until recently. I remember when I looked into magic items in PF2 my thought was: "Wow! It doesn't feel like I can make something new without breaking it...". And then something happened. My new player who wanted to try PF2 asked me a question: "Can I stride and make an attack simultaneously, so I won't spend a third action on one more stride?". My initial respounce was: "No, because it would break multi-action actions, blablabla...", and after I finished my monologue I just added: "But who cares? I would allow it anyway, just would give you a circumstance -1/-2 penalty on attack at worse". Maybe there is a feat somewhere which gives you a similar effect, but why won't I give my player a possiblity to make action which actually makes sense to both me and the player? So in my opinion, +1/+2/+3 bonuses are much more comfortable to give then advantage or disadvantage. They shake the game enough to be interesting so players can get creative without having this huge difference in numbers. And I just recently gave a permanent additional dice for a kobold breath to my player when he drunk the dragon blood. Is there such bonus in the game? No, I don't think so. Did it break anything? Not really. Was it fun for everyone involved? Yes it was! But, of course, you do you and have with the system you and your group most comfortable with. Cheers.

[@crushl2451]

I don't have most of these problems. I'm running my game in foundry. So if I want to know what a tag does, I hover over it. Also, I studied the rules for a few months before I startet playing the system and I told my players that I will explain everything when it comes up, so they never had to spend time outside of sessions. Also, homebrewing stuff feels quite good to me. I created items my players are excited about because the items support their playstyle specifically. I recently added the spell duel system of DC20 (adapted to pf2e) and the Players love it. So i guess pf2e is the right system for me but I wish you the best finding yours 😊

[@alexorhuxley]

Am I the only one who reads "I studied the rules for a few months" as an enormous red flag? My goodness, I want to get into GMing quickly. I want to spend a quarter of my year playing the game, not preparing to play it.

[@crushl2451]

@@alexorhuxley No, I do understand that it is a lot. But you can do it a lot quicker than me by just reading the rules. I was a new DM, so my learnings did not only include rules, but also DMing. I was reading books, watching videos of other groups playing etc. If you don't need that, you can be a lot quicker 🙂

[@ISpyDeli]

@@alexorhuxley No, I started GMing the game only having read the rules from the beginner box the day before and learned as I went. Afterwards I got deeper into it, but off the bat I was able to do it just fine. Running prewritten games my prep is literally just rereading what they'll be getting to that day to refresh my memory and then run it.

[@bohatter]

Hi! I'm that GM who loves to play PF2e but hate to run it as a GM, due to exactly the reasons you said in your video, so thanks for affirming what I was feeling. I don't know if you've given Shadowdark a shot, but it sounds like it'd be right up your alley. I also like to homebrew esoteric stuff on the fly and the system's simple but flexible rules really encourage it.

[@IcarusGames]

@@bohatter I got to play Shadowdark for the first time recently and LOVED it! I'll probably make a video talking about the experience soon.

[@masterolimario]

I'm a fan of p2e and to me it's wholly superior to 5e in every way that matters. I started homebrewing monsters since the 1st session ran and the game's ballence is tough to break if you scale them using the level scaling systems. That said, the rules are cumbersome in practice and so dungeon crawl classics or dungeon world are my more perferred game systems.

[@shortreststudios]

Anto, great video. Thanks for sharing your experience. I’ve never run PF2 but I do play. I’m enjoying playing, but I could already tell (because I’m one of those loosy goosy DMs) that it probably wouldn’t be for me. It is great for some. And that’s cool.

[@Arcon1ous]

The best thing about trying new systems, even if they don't fit your group, or you don't like them is taking the bits you like and using them to improve your other games, I hope that your games in the future are good, and you found a thing or two to take with you

[@michaelturner2806]

Pf2 GM here, with players that also prefer it. And, everything you say is valid. The reasons why we switched from other systems are different from what you're looking for. It really really doesn't help that a lot of the "Pathfinder for New Players" content out there touts it as an objectively better system in every way, that leads to experiences similar to yours, where people just don't feel it and somehow think the problem is them. Not saying it's a primary factor, but a contributing one. Oddly enough, I'm not sure if I would ever want to actually play in a pf2 game. As a GM I feel I have the easy part, with a prewritten module, where so far most of the monster stat blocks have been easy to read at a glance. The complexity seems to all be in the PCs, and I can just ask them to read out their ability's exact text, with keywords, and arbitrate from there. If I was a player with one of those four page character sheets I might feel overwhelmed.

[@IcarusGames]

I think the community attitude is definitely a minor contributor. So interesting to hear that perspective about not wanting to be a player though, that's not one I've come across before!

[@daved.8483]

I've run : 5E, PF2 and A5E (Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition). A5E, is by far the best of the three. More depth and options then 5e, just not as granular as PF2. Give it a try.

[@FrankDrebbin-de3te]

You video sounds exactly like my DM and our group's experience with PF. Our DM wanted to change to 5e and we agreed. A few of the similarities: our DM liked to create his own monsters and tweak monsters, easier character leveling, fewer "bad" options, easier to customize and create magic items, 5e magic items are not merely an aggregate of numbers, DM didn't like how encounters worked et al. We switched at a higher level and converted our characters rather than a soft reboot you described. We played deep into 20th level and it was fun, challenging, and memorable. The DM made use of low level monsters and it worked thanks to Bounded Accuracy. We're all glad we switched to 5e. And now that we're wrapping up, we're looking at 5.5e.

[@thebigfriendlygoliath]

11:06 “Making Bonkers Esoteric Crap On The Fly Is Where I Do Some Of My Best Work As A GM” 👏AGAIN 👏FOR 👏THE 👏PEOPLE 👏IN 👏THE👏BACK

[@ZachHall]

Love this! Agree that its super important to talk about why PF2e might not be for *you* and your table, especially since (especially on KZbin) its pushed as this perfect 5e alternative. I ran PF2e for brand new players who wanted to play "D&D" (used generically) and I thought that it would be perfect - without any of the baggage of undoing any 5e learnings, we can just play a "better" version. It turned out to not be that for us. My group was way more interested in goofing off than they were actually interacting with a game system with a steep learning curve. Not that 5e was better, but PF2e just certainly wasn't for that group of players. I'm glad PF2e is successful enough for SF2e (which I'll definitely try), but the community needs to cool it as a good "catch all" medieval fantasy game - its incredible for some folks and not a good fit for others; just like every game system.

[@Ueuecoyotl]

Pathfinder 1e does not make my head spin with the combat rules. You almost need a computer to keep track of the rolls and have a banner pop up explaining the effect. I love the idea of the balance, but MY GOD THE NUMBERS!!! THE NUMBERS AND THE FOUR POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AND EFFECTS MULTIPLIED BY SO MANY POSSIBLE ACTIONS!!! I understand your comment about loving to tinker and homebrew for my players. This while fun for some is a monstrosity of math. I'll play it but not DM it. So much for translating my PF1 game into PF2. I will loose my homebrew feel and after almost a decade of PF1, I'd hate to "water it down" with something I can rebalance my self with my custom monsters. Your assessment is spot on.

[@ce5122]

PF1e ain’t getting fixed with homebrew that’s the whole reason we have PF2e 😭

[@The-0ni]

I gave PF2E a try because I had a coworker swear by it and I got tired of seeing the same Polearm Master+Sentinel combos for the umpteenth time in 5E. I learned the game and started creating characters that were a breath of fresh air for my coworker and his group. A Fighter that actually used a Sword and Shield, a Cleric that actually wore heavy armor and used a tower shield instead of being a holy wizard of sorts. Things ended when my coworker just got sick of DMing for PF2E. He hated the adventure paths from Paizo and the small player group he had developed from the OGL debacle either went back to 5E or constantly argued with him on black and white rulings written in the PF2E books (i.e. skeletons taking half damage from a Moonbeam spell because they resist fire) Someone else stepped up to try DM for me and my coworker and they just straight up couldn’t DM if their life depended on it. They had no idea how to combat characters like my Fighter that would trip from range with a pole arm from the remastered core book and then get opportunity attacks from enemies trying to stand back up. They would ignore the rangers background as a miner, specialty in cavern lore, and dwarf lores because “it would ruin the surprises and ambushes he had for his adventure in a dwarven mine”. Eventually me and my coworker decided Pathfinder 2E had too many issues and not enough interest with most people returning back to 5E. We picked up Shadowdark in the end and have never looked back. Shadowdarks stats and level up abilities/bonuses are randomized. It was exciting because we didn’t have predetermined feats or abilities. We stopped worrying about spell slots and nobody has darkvision except the true monsters (owlbears, Gricks, not humannoids like goblins and orcs).

[@lawrl777]

yeah a lot of Paizo's adventures are from when the system was new and they barely even follow the game's own encounter design guidelines, but it sounds like y'all really liked the system but just had GMs who'd rather be playing? Changing system doesn't actually solve either problem

[@The-0ni]

@@lawrl777 I didn’t necessarily dislike the system and my coworker still gets the books/Paizo subscription because sunk cost fallacy. A lot of the issues mentioned in this video though were things that definitely came up for our group when we played. There were indeed moments where you would seemingly have 30 or so feats to choose from, but only 4 or so that felt like they actually would do something (5E has this problem too if you play with feats). It was refreshing when I showed up trying to use shields because most people had written off shields and said they sucked. After using shields on a few characters, I completely understand why people think that. Using shields means either committing to feats and intelligence to fix them up in a jiffy or getting into the habit of literally tossing them aside every other fight or so to get a new shield. The action economy for PF2E didn’t bother me because I understand 5E characters with an Action, Move, Bonus and reaction every round are really strong/busted most of the time. So I made it a point to make characters that would use up all 3 actions. Most of the time my 3rd action was to raise shield or position myself in a doorway or a funnel. This will probably make people mad but, I truly do not understand how PF2E got the reputation of having super balanced encounters. Some adventure paths from Paizo as you mentioned are written sometimes before the actual rules were created for PF2E (Just like 5E’s Hoard of the Dragon Queen). The DM that took over ran his own homebrew adventure in a dwarven mine and followed the encounter design process; only to nearly TPK us all the time despite the encounter math being correct. A Violet Fungus is a perfect example of PF2E cranking monster difficulty to 11. In 5E and Shadowdark it’s a low level fungus that moves roughly 5 ft a round (1 grid square), has 5 AC and can slap you a few times. PF2E’s Violet Fungus is a low level monster (CR3) that moves at double the speed of its counterparts, has reach, 17 AC, and drains your STR and CON via enfeebled and drained. With PF2E’s action economy, this low level monster can actually move 20 ft (4 grid squares usually) and slap you from 10 ft away down to 0 CON aka instant death. I will freely admit while I may be an optimizer, my coworker definitely is not. He wanted to play characters like Indiana Jones. The people who were still playing PF2E when I joined, still didn’t really understand the system well after months of playing. It really showed with the new DM but also in the players. So having players not be super optimized or knowledgable could have affected the encounter balance. After months of playing a weekly game, to have people still not fully grasp the system, shows just how complicated PF2E can really be at times. TLDR: All the factors I mentioned previously has led me to the same conclusion as this video. I would give PF2E another chance, but it is definitely not my game of choice. I went with Shadowdark because it’s one of the first RPGs I’ve played where I can’t purposefully optimize the fun out of the game. When I level up I literally roll dice to see if I get a stronger sneak attack on my rogue or advantage on my initiative. I am actively hunting for magic items to just do all the broken stuff my 5E and PF2E characters get just for leveling up.

[@arttabletalk32]

@@The-0ni You're 100% correct about the PF2 encounter system. Creatures Ratings are based on how difficult they are for a highly optimized party playing to maximize their actions, equipment and feats/spells. I can handle that pretty well as a player but as GM (which I am in the current game we're running) I've found myself nerfing some encounters because I know the players don't fight optimally. If you have a bunch of people who won't minmax their build and grind out all three actions on a turn while squeezing every copper's worth of value from their items monsters can get quite deadly. Also, I had one player waltz into a bar full of hostiles and pick a fight but I suppose that has more to do with player sanity than game balance.

[@somerandommorron7069]

​@The-0ni where in its stats does violet fungi reduce con I cant find it

[@The-0ni]

@@somerandommorron7069 Sorry previous stay block I mentioned was PF1E. PF2E you get a DC20 Fort or become enfeebled and then enfeebled and drained. The drained condition does lower your max HP and your Fort checks.

[@MarkAnthonyHenderson]

I currently play Pathfinder 2E remaster Society play, and I believe that you have captured my rule burnout. I play with a bunch of rules lawyers. The games become just droll rules-based encounters and fights. I did enjoy the one Pathfinder campaign I played, but I am exhausted with the system.

[@donalddouds6033]

Society play attracts the “Rules Lawyers” types like moths to a flame. The whole PFS system is based around the accrual of “points” and progression which makes for a slog IMO.

[@MarkAnthonyHenderson]

@@donalddouds6033 Exactly!

[@FringeFinder]

Thanks Anto, I appreciate your honest insights. I think a lot of people will be feeling like they are at a crossroads, stick with 5e, get the 2024 rulebooks, or try another system such as pf2. For a while I was convinced that PF2 would be the system for me, but I haven't tried it yet. What I enjoy most about running games is creating my own content for players to discover and interact with. Whether that be places to explore, npcs to interact with or monsters to fight. The rules are an after thought for me, I want them to work sure, but not take front and centre stage. Anyways I'll definitely check out your video on magic item pricing magic items.

[@IcarusGames]

Another aspect of returning to 5e that I didn't touch on in the video is that with a less involved system as my week-to-week, I'm finding I have more time and energy to read other systems, and I'm actively looking to run one shots for a lot more other systems that I just wouldn't have done while I was running PF2.

[@Aliktren]

Sweet spot for me, running 5e using coverted pathfinder adventure paths 😅, i play in a pf2e game and recognise what you are saying, our dm loves it though. I like 5e, yes yes combats are a pita, everything else super easy for everyone to comprehend so as dm will stick with 5e for now

[@Merellin]

Not every system is right for every group. If D&D 5e is the best for you and your group, Thats great! You found what works for you and know you will enjoy it! Nobody else can say what you should play, Play what works for you. My group mostly plays Pathfinder 1e as thats a system we all enjoy and works for us, But we also play some other systems every so often. It is important to know what works for you and play that. Keep playing what you enjoy and keep having an awesome time!

[@IcarusGames]

I know a few of my players would LOVE to go back to PF1. That system really let you do some crazy stuff that created super memorable moments.

[@tomyoung9834]

I loved PF 1, as did my group, and I was sure that PF 2 would also be a hit! We did some playtesting, it seemed ok, and I tried it out as a player in a full adventure, and all of us began getting irritated by just how crunchy the rules were, and how many choices the designers made absolutely baffled us! We played a full campaign up to level 10, and though we learned the system better, all of us just felt frustrated by the whole thing! We had a discussion, and tried 5e for the first time. We all liked it, we appreciated the straightforward rules approach, and we haven’t looked back. If people enjoy PF 2, good on them, but it’s not for my group at all.

[@etherd]

My group just had to jump over to pf2e because of the OGL stuff even though it didn't effect the way we played the game in anyway. 2 players who where the most vocal about going to the system before ogl even happened loved it and the rest of us either didn't like it or could take it or leave it. The game spouts so many different builds but it really does not have it. So many useless feats to slog through that have almost no actual game play mechanics other than fluff of flavor that my character should be able to do without needing a feat to allow me to do it. Low level play is somehow even worse than 5e. The monster balance felt so bad, if it was a "higher level" you pretty much need a crit on anything to even effect it. So many cool rules that no one even bothered using and honestly it was the whole appeal for me to even try the system. It ended up just feeling like a more tedious game of D@D. We played the intro box and abomination vaults and I really don't know why the most boring setting is what they picked for their intro box. I was looking for something way different to 5e and ended up getting a modded version of it instead lol that I already run or play in with homebrew. I honestly think either system could be fun with the right DM but I really find it funny when people complain about 5e combat being boring when all pf2e combat equates to is debuff stacking and crossing your fingers. Paizo is head and shoulders a better company though I will give them that.

[@blockyuniverseproductions]

Yeah, personally I think Paizo really has... everything stacked onto Golarion, to a detrimental degree. Like, there's a steampunk continent and a continent where aliens landed, and you are telling me the main area with traditional medieval fantasy isn't affected? Oh and to add to this, the entirety of Starfinder is happening... above Golarion in space.

[@1stleveldmgames798]

Shadow Dark, Free League Publishing Year Zero Mechanics, EzD6, Mork Borg dr 12 mechanics and the list goes on

[@IcarusGames]

Shadowdark is on my list to check out over the summer. Free league have got a ton of games I'm interested in (arguable TOO many lol)

[@huumalu7563]

Thanks for making this video. You spoke to a lot of things I’ve been thinking about. I absolutely love Pathfinder as a system but it was a struggle every session with my group. I thought they’d love the player choice but it ended up being stressful every time they leveled up because it added more choice and complexity to the characters they struggled to understand since level one. We had to look rules up frequently or I’d have to constantly remind people how their characters work or some of the nuances they’d forget about every session. Pathfinder in my opinion is great when the whole group is invested in the system itself and understand how the system works. For casual players that just want to show up and have some fun, like my group, it’s was a real struggle.

[@simontemplar3359]

It's curious that this video comes out now. Pathfinder is the game I keep coming back to. Like i want to like it so badly, but then I play it and I'm like "Nope.". Savage Pathfinder is way more fun, but my game is dragonbane or Knave, so I'm not into terribly complex games.

[@ravenstudioproductions3139]

I recently played an Abomination Vaults game as a way of easing into PF2. Every night after coming home, I kept thinking to myself "This would be magnitudes better in Savage Pathfinder..."

[@tommiskey]

I've houseruled Savage PF with no problems! I much prefer it to PF2e.

[@simontemplar3359]

@@ravenstudioproductions3139 I'm pretty sure they've got a Savage Pathfinder version of Abomination Vaults. Or maybe it's Rise of the Rune Lords. Could be both.

[@simontemplar3359]

@@tommiskey I think it's just objectively better. At least for my play style anyway.

[@claudiolentini5067]

​@@ravenstudioproductions3139Old comment, I know, but may I ask you why ? I've read Savage Pathfinder and it doesn't strike me as a system that works excidingly well for dungeon crawls . Like I feel it would be better for a slightly less combat heavy ap

[@emirefli]

I really don’t like this dichotomy of 5e vs Pathfinder when there are hundreds of rpgs out there. This isn’t like Playstation vs Xbox or a PC vs Mac type of decision There is OSR (old school revival) stuff like old school essentials and Shadowdark, there is nuSR (like osr, don’t care about being compatible to pre-2000 d&d) like Into the Odd family of games (Into the Odd, Electric & Mythic Bastionland, Cairn, Mausritter), Mork Borg and other Borgs, Dragonbane, Mythras, Shadow of Demon Lord & Weird Wizard, 13th Age, Savage Worlds, Swords of the Serpentine, Worlds Without Number, GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, etc etc etc You can play all of this. You can also slap ideas you get from these games back into 5e if you like. World is your oyster and everything

[@IcarusGames]

It's not a PF vs 5e thing. I just happen to be going back to 5e for this specific campaign from PF2. I'm not saying either is objectively better or the one true game™. Like you said, there are tons of options out there depending on what sort of tone, playstyle, and level of fantasy you want. I personally find a lot of the OSR stuff to suit a lower level of fantasy than what I'm running at the moment, so those games would be perfect if I was running a campaign set further into the past of my world with less prevalent magic. Just like if I was running a game in any other genre besides fantasy, I wouldn't be using D&D or any of its cousins.

[@emirefli]

@@IcarusGames I wrote "you" in a general sense, as in "to whom reading this comment" type of way. I didn't mean to accuse, but yeah it reads that way. Whops

[@mchisolm0]

Thanks for sharing ❤ I’m still liking pf2e, but I can definitely see the pain. Thanks for giving a voice to people who may not know this is their struggle or need to hear it so they know it’s okay to move on.

[@TheUglyGoblin]

I really appreciate the hoensty of this! PF2 has been recommended a lot to me and so I checked it out. But everything you said here is kind of exactly the impression I got of the game :P It feels quite nice to have this confirmed by someone else 😅

[@IcarusGames]

That's a big part of the reason I made the video, I figured there must be other people feeling this way, but it's been left entirely out of the conversation because most other "leaving PF" videos have been filled with sweeping declarations of how terrible the game is, which isn't helpful to the discussion at all.

[@TheUglyGoblin]

@@IcarusGames Mmm that's so true! Obviously there has been a lot of work put into the game. But for me there is almost too much haha I love the freedom 5e has though it's simplicity. I love a good modular game :3

[@IcarusGames]

@@TheUglyGoblin Yeah. 5e is far from perfect, no game is, but it's the best fit for the heroic fantasy style I'm currently running.

[@Tomcollective]

I find that most of the complaints about 5E are people complaining that the system is working as designed. I remember getting sick of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 rules, and Pathfinder just goes "hold my beer. We heard you like rules, so we made rules for your rules, WHILE YOU RUN YOUR RULES". It's just too much. It gets in the way.

[@malachaibowlinggod]

What a phenomenal, well constructed video. You articulate the why the system didn't work for your group without falling into the X is good, Y is bad and maybe have given other people that perspective that PF2e is just not for them. Bravo.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks, I appreciate it 🥰

[@xkillrocknroll1]

Same. Played 5e for years and decided to jump into PF2 and StarFinder. Wow, my GM had about 7+ books for books for SF and (it felt like anyway) thousands of items to purchase. Completely overwhelmed. I hate the 2 armor system. Combat Maneuvers are absolute trash. I felt like we spent more time checking rulings over actually playing the game. It's funny, crunch system VS non crunch. I found out very quickly that with a rule heavy crunch system that my character could actually do less. Whereas a loosey goosey system like 5e allows me to do WAY more. To each their own(and 5e aint perfect) but I'll stick with 5e.

[@ThePromesian]

Were you playing pf2e on Foundry, because the automation on a lot of the traits and terms and abilities are easier to parse and play on Foundry. I run like 3 games a week min on Foundry as the dm. Also what level range did you and your players playat and what adventure did you play or did you Homebrew an adventure?

[@IcarusGames]

Foundry (and a little in person) levels 1-8 and homebrew.

[@j.a.1785]

After trying pe2, 5e seems so much less developed and thought out. My group would kill me if we went back to 5e.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

I really wish PF2E kinda chilled and focused on making features cool and simple. It’s so “finely balanced”, but by having half of the game’s options having a boring limit or being different but not actually good most of the time. Look at the equipment in the game. You could remove maybe 80% of the weapons and keep it deep, maybe even deeper, with just ways to slap on a trait using archetype or class features. Look at how many features say “you get a +1 under this specific case if you spend resource”. So many fiddly unnecessary obstacles and clunk to dig through. Look at how much fans talk about balance and features and then homebrew gets dunked on and then we get so many granular nothing-feeling features. Because this game absolutely rules, and it is my favorite heroic fantasy ttrpg and I will never want to do more 5E, but I think if they ever make a 3rd edition in about five years, god, less is more. Gotta just let go a bit. Ease up. Get loose. Let GMs and players improvise things more unhinged with currencies. Kill the vestigial obstacles. Fabula Ultima is probably the one I enjoy teaching and GMing the most now, since it really just lets me go hog wild

[@claudiolentini5067]

I love the idea of archetypes that give traits to weapons And I also agree that there are maybe too many weapons, especially considering that players gravitate towards only a few traits (deadly , agile, fatal, reach)

[@SkylarKeystone]

I totally agree with this video it sums up hove I've been feeling about PF2E. Im planning on switching back to 5e when my current campaign ends. Though I still wont be buying anymore WOTC products.

[@KrugusRuneblade]

The Set-Up: My group has been playing in our campaign world for decades. For us, the setting takes precedence over the game system, so anytime I change the rules we are using, I have to modify them to fit the setting. In other words, the game rules are the operating system, and the setting is the computer. Years ago, when our PF1 campaign was about to wrap up, I was about to switch over to a different system (AD&D 1st ed) but saw that PF2 was about to come out. After checking out the downloadable playtest material, I sold my group on switching over to it (it also helps when you buy everyone a player's handbook). After modifying it to fit the setting, it played quite well. Despite what the PF2 fanboys say about homebrew, PF2 can be homebrewed easily, hell in the PF2 GM book they list several ways to change PF2. After a few years, my players wanted something different. After 40 years of running TTRPGs, I decided to homebrew a system that is a mix of B/X, 1st ed AD&D, and a few other systems. We've been running that for over a year now. It’s a game that truly fits my setting.

[@kyleranderson57]

This is a well-considered and honest reflection. Glad you had the openness to blowback that comes with critique of a passionately loved system. I left PF2 as a GM and player about year ago, after really enjoying it from launch. The world of Golarion, the movement of rules together like gears in a grand watch - both were very appealing to me. For me, it's the counting of squares. I am not a wargamer, and they don't interest me. I'll also say that both 5e and PF2 are sorely lacking in storytelling tools for games that claim to be about creating rich, grand adventures and all the dramatic moments therein. In the meantime, I have discovered many other games. Currently, I play Fallout 2d20 (zones for movement, emphasis on inventory management and survival in a dangerous postapocalyptic world) and GM Fabula Ultima (elegant rules for collaborative world-building in and between sessions and conflicts, not just the typical GM rat maze). I am also excited to play Dragonbane, Ryuutama, ROOT, and Die RPG in the future.

[@Zertryx]

Finally, someone who shares the same issue i also have with PF2E, personally me i really dislike the Tag system and the Over Codified rules. People dont realize somtimes how much more free 5E actually feels when doing skill checks and not having to look up weather or not that "action" is a "Rule". instead the DM is more free to just be like "yeah okay, give me a Dex roll and apply this prof if it applies!" Sure PF2E is still a decent system i still play it with one of my groups, but I do prefer less constraint systems rather than "Balanced" systems that are very restrictive. and I agree 5E is much easier to Homebrew stuff for.

[@Phyllion-]

What bothers me the most with PF2E is the amount of mundane things you're not allowed to do if you don't have a very specific skill whose only purpose is to do that one niche thing that you could have just your GM if you could do it with the appropriate check for the sake of creativity. I've found both GMs and players a more likely to play a lot less creatively when playing PF2E than 5E, or another system, because of how rigid the rules are.

[@seileen1234]

D&D feels more flexible because you actually need to homebrew like 50% of the rules to make it enjoyable. No one on earth play base 5E for a reason. Comparisons between games are misleading because you compare "my personal homebrew 5E versions wich of course work for me" with PF2E. Compare base 5E and PF2E and instantly 5E feels lacking on every front with even more limitations

[@somik-i3x]

​@@seileen1234We found the PFanatic.

[@ArakkoaChronicles]

What really kills Pathfinder 2E for me is how they try to gamify everything. Gods and demons and wizards do not kill my immersion, these big scale world changes I can wrap my head around, because on the ground they make very little difference. But when a game tells me it takes a full action to recall knowledge, I'm starting to have trouble. Imagine other guys fighting, swinging swords, shooting spells and this one guy is standing there going "hmmm... hmmm..." That's not how recalling knowledge works. You either remember it or you don't, you don't stand there in the middle of a fight, pondering.

[@polyhedron3386]

My go to for big fantasy stories is 13th Age or Dungeon World. 13th Age really strikes the balance I’m looking for between rules and narrative.

[@DMHightower]

I very excitedly got into PF2. After weekly games for 6 months, going up in levels etc. I grew to dread the sessions. The crunch is way too intense. The magic item system made me hate the game. The 3 action system felt like a bait and switch. It didn't, in fact, add more options or choices. I enjoy playing 5th Ed, and OSR clones, D&D Basic and Shadowdark SOOOOO much!

[@taejaskudva2543]

I am honestly curious now. I don't understand why the conversation is always "switched to" or "switched back" because it implies playing just one thing. Is this a specifically Internet lens or an issue with younger gamers or maybe not actually a thing beyond word choice? I've always collected and played lots of different games, and even when we went for long stretches playing a particular system, we never felt like it was "our game," but just that particular campaign lasted a long time. The only replacement i can really think is the shift from 2e to 3e and not looking back, and then deciding to play Pathfinder instead of 4e when we decided we didn't like it - and then switching from PF to Fantasy Craft, and those were all variations on 3e anyway. And really that was just for D&D style fantasy, and we played other stuff for other genres. Time is more of a premium now, but we switch up systems campaign to campaign, depending on who is running this time around - maybe that's just the privilege of playing with the same people for a long time where everybody is a GM. I'm curious, how many people okay multiple systems, and how many just play one? Maybe this whole "instead of D&D" is a little overblown?

[@TempoLOOKING]

Most people only play one game. 40 hrs a week man. Now it's 60 hrs. Japan is worse as most only have one game per month.

[@taejaskudva2543]

@@TempoLOOKING Oh, no doubt. That's why I said time is a premium now. We only meet every other week, and sometimes life gets in the way. But previously, we finished a 5e game and played Blades in the Dark if not everybody could make it, then moved into an OSR adjacent game. That campaign just wrapped, so I'm running Savage Worlds (for their version of Rifts, but I'm stealing subplots from the old 3E Witchfire trilogy and from 13th Age, because I love the Stone Thief), and then one of the other guys is going to run us through one of the Alien adventures (probably end of the year), and then I think someone wants to run the nearest version of Vampire. Though maybe not, because that's so far in the future. Now, I think we do short campaigns because we want to play a lot of different things. But that was my point. We WANT to play lots of different things despite the lack of time. I'm surprised when people only want to play one game and wondered if that's more the tone of discussion online, but like you said, maybe that's most people and my group is an outlier. But I wondered if that desire, to play one or switch around, was a function of age, because having a small amount of time doesn't prevent you from playing different systems.

[@TempoLOOKING]

@@taejaskudva2543 I only know from locals and what I seen abroad. My sister's group was once a month. You can't just switch as you will need to relearn for each system and most don't want to

[@IcarusGames]

I've got a whole bunch of games, but only have time to play 1 game on a regular basis. I prefer to play long term campaigns which means for 2-3 years at a time the lion's share of my gaming time is in one system, hence the switching language. I am trying to play more one shots of other games that aren't heroic fantasy this year, though, as and when I get the time.

[@SleepySlann]

As you hinted at, it is all down to how used you are to the system or switching between systems. Pathfinders GM guide, monster manual, and GM screen all come with some excellent tools that make homebrewing easy. From there, it is all about habit.

[@blockyuniverseproductions]

1:56 You know what would fix the tag issue? The same thing that card games use when dealing with tags: reminder text on lower-level enemies.

[@guydunn8259]

Absolutely agree to that

[@direden]

I empathize and identify with this. That desire for "more codified rules" was why I "loved" 3rd Edition at first. But didn't play it much. Throughout the 90s, we were frustrated by the messiness of AD&D. So, we wanted something consolidated and codified. Therefore, we got really excited about 3rd edition when it released. But after playing 3.0 and 3.5 for a few years, I felt the same way you did about PF2. Long story short, that's why I love 5e. It's not perfect, but it's similar to the AD&D I grew up on. Yet it finds a sweet spot... it's a unified system but still allows for creative freedom.

[@TheMinskyTerrorist]

People frequently forget that Pathfinder is literally 3rd edition. It's been tweaked and rebalanced to something new, but the fundamental philosophy and rules concepts are the same.

[@aaronjung5502]

I solved the daisy chained rules problem with a flow chart personally. 5e has problems that always bothered me more and that always seemed harder to solve by myself without rewriting (or, as was more often the problem, writing) the rules on my own. I'd rather spend my time making terrain pieces and dungeon tiles.

[@hideshiseyes2804]

Thanks for this, it’s nice to hear the counterbalance to all the gushing over PF2. I think it’s really impressive how tightly designed it is and how much attention to detail, but for me that doesn’t translate to actually being a good RPG system. I have only played it, not GMd, but everything you say rings true, particularly about the tightness of the balance. It feels incredibly *fussy* to me. Also way too many feats. And then the insistence on having a rule for everything makes it a grind. I made a fighter (now rebuilt as a magus) and one of my things is athletics, especially climbing - and every time anything to do with climbing or jumping comes up I end up looking up the rules again because they’re so fiddly. It doesn’t come up often enough for us to just learn how it works through repetition, so when it does I’m like “oh god here we go again”. The GM could just handwave it and make a ruling - but then my feats wouldn’t do anything because they work through their interactions with the fiddly basic rules. I know that many people find 5E to be too vague and that it leaves too much decision making to the DM. For me, playing PF2 has solidified my preference for vagueness and, yes, GM fiat. The ability to keep the game moving and be flexible and creative is much, much more important to me than having rigorous and consistent rules.

[@ce5122]

Literally just learn rules man don’t be making your gm do all the work it’s not that hard. Climbing makes you Off-Guard and requires an athletics check to move 5 feet. That’s it.

[@OysteinS]

Thank you for the video. You mentioned your players had issues with casters and martials. I'd like to know what issues those were to help understand the situation even more completely.

[@bobturpin7611]

i noticed the 'ad' mark in the top right. I remember that occurring on TV just before the add breaks..... brilliant

[@IcarusGames]

I've been adding it to ad breaks for a little while for that touch of 90s British TV nostalgia 🤣

[@deathmetalbard]

If you're looking for something different, 13th Age would prolly be up your alley.

[@revillogmgames8250]

I run and occasionally play a bunch of systems but PF2e has become my main 'big fantasy adventure' system I guess you could call it. I've ran it mostly on Foundry and after a couple of months of playing had most of the interactions figured out, players did too and a lot of them are new to ttrpgs entirely, definitely get that there are lots of rules but we've barely ever had to stop and look things up mid-combat, but hey, every group is different! I've played in person a bit too and it went much smoother than I expected honestly, so looking forward to doing more of that in future. I haven't done much homebrewing with the system yet aside a couple of monsters so feel you there, but from what little I have looked up on it doesn't seem too difficult so not quite sure why I haven't done it honestly. I still play in 5E games occasionally and still have a couple I need to finish running but beyond that nope, never going back, beyond just the WOTC reasons the combat feels so slow and dull now in comparison to PF and character advancement feels so much less interesting than what you can do with the Feats in PF (though I totally get how the feats are a problem for some people with there being so many and lots of them being very niche). Martial characters especially feel like they get the short end of the stick a lot of the time and even systems like DCC do a better job with what they allow the fighter class to do. DCC is great for dungeon crawls though and just generally having a fun time (have Shadowdark on the shelf but am yet to play it) and then OSE if you really want to go to essentially better written and presented Old School stuff and Black Hack is kind of in between those two. And there's plenty of other fantasy stuff out there too that other people have mentioned as well but you don't even need to stop there if you don't want to! Call of Cthulhu is amazing if you want some spooks or even just mystery and there are plenty of eras you are able to run that in. The Ubiquity system is also a favourite of mine that's very simplistic compared to some others and great for narrative/film-like roleplaying. Again, those aren't heroic fantasy so if your group is set on that they aren't going to cut it haha, but figured worth a mention as I find lots of people often forget TTRPGs don't have to be some flavour of fantasy all the time if that makes sense. But yeah, ultimately if heroic fantasy is what your players want and 5e is the system they're happy with that's fair, sadly it's going to be hard to find a system with as much support (PF would have been one of the closest I imagine). Glad you're not completely done with the system though! Great video!

[@willn9568]

I really appreciate this video, Anton, and I really appreciated your thoughtful discussion of why you wanted to switch to PF2 before. Keep being thoughtful and I’ll keep watching and learning.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks, I appreciate it 😊

[@CrankyOldNerd]

Switched to PF2 when WOTC and Hasbro saw me as nothing more than a cash pinata that deserves to be beaten for all the money they might have and more. Not seeing what you're seeing in our group, we play in a world I make up as we go, no one has any complaints . They loved being able to craft unique characters with all those ancestry and stuff to pick from. I also don't roll my own monsters though, my day job isn't your day job :) 5e is too tainted for me to ever be willing to playing again. I was intrigued by that DC20 but without an online play module even planned not going to invest. Until Hasbro/WOTC sells DND (or goes bankrupt) and the people in charge aren't in charge anymore, I'm not looking at it again. I will admit to being frustrated some with how it seems everyone just shrugs the business practices of the company that owns 5E off and keeps trudging along.

[@IcarusGames]

RE: WotC stuff specifically. During the OGL the big push was to get them to walk back the changes to the license. They did that and put the rules in Creative Commons, which is EVEN BETTER for third party publishers than what we had before. They've promised and reaffirmed their commitment to do the same for SRD 5.2 as well as older editions of the game. So from the 3pp perspective, they've done what they said they would do and they CAN'T walk back the CC license. Yeah, there's plenty of other corporate crap they've done in the last few years, and I don't begrudge anyone from being done with them and making that individual choice, but I will say that the whole community came together to defend third party publishers during the whole OGL fiasco, but since then it's not just WotC that people have turned on, heaps of the third party companies now get regular abuse from the same people that supposedly banded together to protect them, which absolutely sucks.

[@JinglesRasco]

Good news on the DC20 front. In the latest Kickstarter Q&A, the Dungeon Coach said that he is in talks with DrivethruRPG and Roll20/Demiplane for online support. He couldn't say much, but that was one of the things holding me back too, so hearing that there are plans ahead, at least, got me very intrigued.

[@snuffy357]

@@JinglesRasco also Coach has said many times that VTT support will happen.

[@CrankyOldNerd]

@@JinglesRasco even better news today with Baileywiki announcing they are working with them to bring it forward. Still a little ? In the text of the kickstarter about it, but seems that things are looking up there.

[@CrankyOldNerd]

@@IcarusGames (to be clear, I am not mad at what you are doing just to be clear, i really like your work) for me, this is the typical corporate walk back. I’m fully prepared for them to shove it back out in pieces and hope no one notices. It happens all the time when the populace uprises about something, but within a few years they just cook a frog in a pot by slowly raising the heat.

[@shamuswilliams]

I can say with certainty that player frustration with PF2 is real. I and my group always seem to feel one action short of having a cool turn.

[@9652769]

I have notice that this is part of the system balance. At higher level, you have more and more way to have more action (Haste, additionnal reaction, one action that are in fact 2 action, quicken spell, free substain, mature animal companion).

[@bokajon]

in 5e you have fewer actions though

[@blockyuniverseproductions]

@@bokajon Well, not really, it's just those actions are split into different categories (such as movement and bonus actions), and when you get to higher levels, some classes can actually do more actions on their turn (such as action surges).

[@CakeDayZ]

I'm never going back to 5e, but I have become a lot more experimental and give a lot more games a shot. I'm currently still gming my pf2 Abomination Vaults and a homebrew daggerheart heist campaign. I'm preparing to run some dc20 and Delta Green in the future. I'm subscribed to the MCDM patreon and will eventually try that out.

[@f1sk8mm]

Thanks for taking the time to make this video. Great outlook on the pros and cons. As a guitar player, it makes me think of fender vs. gibson, and here we have folks saying go pick up an ibanez or PRS or whatever. The comments have been enlightening and prove that some cons are actually features to someone else. HAving only dabbled in both, and only GMd DCC, I'm m struggling to pick my next system. I've been tasked with running the game for some younger family members, pre-teens. The D&D adventure books look cool, but the PF beginner box and cardboard minis seem like a win. Since I'll be running premade adventures, do you think one system has prefferable adventures/campaigns from your point of view?

[@IcarusGames]

People generally consider the premade adventures in PF2 to be better than 5e, but you still find plenty of folks complaining about the balance or other elements of a lot of them. I think my biggest advice for running premade adventures, no matter the system, is always to look to the suggestions of folks who have already run the modules.

[@zztong]

I'm playing PF2 as it is what my friend runs and you play what it is run, but honestly PF2 was the end of my inspiration and desire to run RPGs. Some of your issues resonate with me. Mostly my feelings are best summarized this way: "To create a character, come up with a character concept. Now throw away that concept and make one of the 4-5 character conceptions supported by the game's feat chains for your chosen class." I don't really get into the "superhero" vision of medieval fantasy and PF2 doesn't really leave room for a more historical feel. The target numbers for skill success are too high and character's feel incompetent. I don't care for feel of Hero Points, which seem like hack to cover for problems with target numbers. I was initially excited for a skill system with the mechanism for trained, expert, etc. but again I think PF2 missed the boat by having those increase skill modifiers rather than just be prerequisites for certain functions. I too am not a fan of the three action system -- and I admit I used to advocate for it, but over time it has soured. Like your group, I think PF2 missed the boat with Feats as they are too situational. I can spend hours in analysis paralysis trying to weigh relative value only to ultimately conclude none of them are useful. Magic items are underwhelming with the exception of striking runes which are too powerful. Overall, I loathe leveling up in PF2 as it feels like a meaningless treadmill punctuated by dubious choices. At this point, I'd fall back to D&D 3.5 or even AD&D. Things were simpler and more fun back then, even if it needed the DM to adjudicate balance.

[@IcarusGames]

If you're looking for an old school D&D feel with more modern design, check out Shadowdark. It comes very highly recommended and has won a ton of awards. I'm playing my first game soon and I'm very excited to check it out!

[@neversparky]

Out of curiosity, what gripes did the martial characters have? Am still working on learning PF2e myself, so I'm curious what things might have annoyed them

[@IcarusGames]

@@neversparky The lack of opportunity attacks as a default for non-fighters came up regularly. Fighter already feels like the strongest martial so it was a pretty regular reminder that they are just better than you 😅 A lot of the more flavourful non-damaging actions having the attack trait meant they just never got used because of multiple attack penalty. Those are a couple examples off the top of my head.

[@neversparky]

@@IcarusGames Ahhh, the attack trait thing is something I hadn't run into since I was leaning into moreso the demoralize-focused martial builds, but I can definitely see how that would feel punishing Also, in regards to the opportunity attacks, do you think a DND/Pathfinder-esque system would feel bad if opportunity attacks just weren't a feature at all? Or is it more-so how their characters compared to fighter in particular that created the negative experience?

[@IcarusGames]

@@neversparky Attack of Opportunity is a weird design space, because it was widely removed in PF2 to encourage more movement in combat, which it can do, it can feel strange from some characters to dip in and out of combat all the time. But at our table, the fighter just felt like the obviously superior marital in pretty much every situation, and them getting AoO was always just the cherry on top

[@ckaldariaq5904]

110% on the issue of Tags. There are so many tags.

[@ar3klis]

These thing are quite subjective. Coming from pathfinder 1, after trying 5e last year, I, too, find 5e to be a hard to steer engine that is impossible (for me) to steer and homebrew in a way that make sense to what mekes sense from a 3.5e perspective, is underwhelmingly unsupported, both in 3pp and e-tools, and feels like it has too stiff and restrictive options both for players and DMs. I am still open to playing it as a player, it is afterall what almost everyone in this hobby plays, but My first choice to GM for my style of games will always be pathfinder 1/D&D3.5. Also, to mention, I am currently experimenting with GM-ing pathffinder 2, and trying to rile others to try some not-so-widespread systems such as Sword World 2.5.

[@IcarusGames]

It took me quite a while to adjust to 5e after 3.5/PF1. I cut my teeth on 3/3.5 and ran a full 1-20 PF1 campaign before ever playing 5e so it took a while to get used to the differences for sure!

[@JinglesRasco]

This really feels like a well thought out video, and your FEELINGS about a game is really the most important, I feel. I have been trying to find a game to support over WOTC and Hasbro, as the company has really burned the bridge with me personally, and, while I really love Paizo as a company, PF2 does have design issues with me, and it's hard to recommend to my newer players. My preferred system for many years has been 1e Pathfinder, but with every new update I hear about DC20, it is very quickly sounding like it's answering every issue I have with both 5e and PF2. The Dungeon Coach has also recently announced in a Q&A Livestream that there are plans for online support in the works, so, at least for me, it just might become my preferred system in the near future; because the cinematic combat, less restrictive out-of-combat rules, and lower numbers' creep. Hope you and your group finds the system you guys love the most, even if it does end up being 5e. In the end, YOUR fun is the most important.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks! I wanted to present as neutral and balanced a look into the situation as I could. I'm not interested in bashing any systems. DC20 does feel like its the love child of 5e and PF2, so it could be an ideal option for you. I talked about it on the channel recently and there's a lot in the early rules I like. Not everything, and when I pitched it to my regular group they weren't interested, but it's one to keep an eye on. Like I said in the video, for me and this group, there's a lot of benefits to playing the most supported system in 5e. It's also easy enough for me to run that it frees up my brain space to read and consider running all kinds of other systems I'm interested in as one shots, which I couldn't do when I was running PF2 because there was just no room in my brain for any other rules 🤣

[@bretgregersen9826]

Thank you for this video, I love reasonable, well considered discussion. I switched from dnd 5e to pf2e over a year ago. I love it myself and I am someone who homebrewed a lot of things in 5e. I made at least 2 new subclasses for each class. I made monsters, spells, items and all pretty easily. My issue with 5e is that I basically NEEDED to do that because the base game with it's offerings was so lackluster, so bare bones. Moving into pf2e I still homebrew (I also always build and run my own worlds/campaigns in both systems) because I think its fine to mess with things. The difference is I don't need to homebrew as many things for my tables to have fun. There are a lot of rules and I completely agree you need to love that to enjoy pf2e. I personally have no problem running something incorrectly the session it comes up, going off of my best guess to save time, and then letting the part know next session how it really works. That would be my biggest recommendation for those GMs running pf2e, you don't need to be right the first time! Anyway, thank you, this is the kind of reasonable discussion that actually helps people. Also, I absolutely love the thaumaturge!!

[@mylostisaac6452]

Perhaps you should give a look at the Proficiency without level rule for pathfinder, it simplifies a lot of the monsters stats and makes so you can use a lot more different monsters against the players. I feel like the pathfinder community is so annoying with balance, to the detriment of the game. The pathfinder book says the exact opposite... This game is yours, you can do what you want with it, there rules are there to help, but if they are getting in the way, just use a flat check or a rulling

[@IcarusGames]

If I ran again with a different group I probably would use Proficiency without level TBF.

[@robinbernardinis]

I don't think that is very good advice. It wouldn't really fix the issues he had. It won't help him develop an intuition for traits, nor will it help his players make characters with useful third actions, nor will he start homebrewing stuff just because he implemented a variant. I mean, I like Proficiency without Level a lot, I'm even writing a hack called Flatfinder based on it, but a lot of people think that it's the silver bullet to convert 5e players and that's just not the case. The point about the community being a stick in the mud is very true though. One of the main upsides of Pathfinder's great balance is that it separates "vertical power" and "horizontal power". You can give an ability to a creature, and it will add to its "horizontal power", but as long as you don't touch its DCs and modifiers (ie "vertical power"), it's very hard to completely break the balance. The main thing to be careful with are action economy buffs. Obviously, that goes for creatures, but also for characters, and thus for homebrew items.

[@mylostisaac6452]

@@robinbernardinis true, it's just that to me it was that silver bullet, it allowed me to have fun making a homebrew campaign

[@robinbernardinis]

@@mylostisaac6452 I get it. At any rate, I posted Flatfinder on r/Pathfinder2e, if you are at all interested. I'd love some feedback from someone else with actual experience running PwL.

[@jltheking3]

I think PF2 is a really excellent game. It’s a well oiled, finely crafted machine that chugs along smoothly… just as long as you don’t touch it. If you do want to touch it, you better have invested dozens of hours learning about it and possess a game design degree before you even think about hacking it. That’s precisely why I fell off PF2 as well. Game design is a large party of what I derive fun from GMing. I like hacking rules and inventing new subsystems and modding the games I play. PF2 ain’t built to make that easy. And certainly its community is absolutely atrocious in that respect and absolutely hates anyone that even thinks that the system is anything less than perfect and wants to change anything about it. The system ain’t perfect. No system is. Of course, PF2 has less imperfections in it than 5e. But at least with 5e I can fix those problems. Or at least, look for a third party solution where someone else has already fixed that problem. Trying to tinker with PF2 is plain impossible. It’s too tightly bound. Its math is too tight. It holds many assumptions and you have to play very rigidly within those assumptions or the whole thing falls apart. So yeah I quit PF2 too. I think it’s an excellent product for the end consumer. For someone that wants a complete, functioning product out of the box. But it ain’t for tinkerers like me and you. I jumped to D&D 4e instead. Which is pf2, but better 😁

[@IcarusGames]

If I was playing in person regularly enough I would have advocated that my group switch to 4e, or at least give it a try anyway.

[@ce5122]

PF2e is literally built to make that easy. The GM core has rules and guidelines for making monsters and subsystems. Also with the way feats work they are modular so you can make your own feats. What’s happening here is not the inability to homebrew but you’re intimidated by Pathfinder’s reputation.

[@jltheking3]

@@ce5122 oh sod off. I have played PF2 for years and I know it very well, probably better than you do. It is exactly people like you that I mentioned in my comment, fanboys that can’t help themselves but defend the game as if it was perfect and blind to its imperfections. You just can’t help yourself from butting in on a 3 month old comment can you? I’m not talking about creating custom things within established guidelines. I’m talking about creating new guidelines altogether or modifying the existing rules. The difference between hacking the rules vs creating homebrew. I’m talking about stuff on the scale of getting rid of skill feats or skills entirely. Or getting rid of vancian spellcasting and replacing it with something else. Or even something as small and simple as revamping how you do initiative. Have you ever tried to do any sort of rule changes like that? The game breaks in a hundred different ways if you touch anything at all. Changing one thing propagates side effects to tons of other things. This doesn’t happen in most other TTRPGs because other games are usually designed modularly. Subsystems are often isolated, and don’t integrate each other too deeply. The GM can add or remove subsystems, replace entire chunks of the ruleset with their own game design, and many other games will chug along more than fine. But you can’t do that in PF2 because everything in PF2 is too tightly interconnected. You cannot remove anything from it. Remove any gear and the entire engine crashes to a halt. This is why even 5 years after its release, PF2 still has nothing much to speak of with its stagnant third party market. All people make are monsters and feats and character options. Where are the variant rules? There are none, because PF2 isn’t built to support variants. Hell, even the official variants such as proficiency-without-level are controversial within the community. Creators like Anto and many others can create tons of stuff for 5e because it’s a wide open sandbox open to customization. Not so for pf2. The only thing you can create for PF2 are those in which the developers have given guidelines for. Here are the walls; stay within them. For a creative person like myself, PF2 is suffocating.

[@ce5122]

@@jltheking3 Didn’t need the attitude, sorry I assumed you were talking about homebrew in general and not full on changing how the system works like if it was GURPS.

[@juho1069]

It's a shame you didn't feel comfortable creating your own stuff for pf2. Actually, it's pretty safe to experiment with homebrew, because the system is not only well balanced but also extremely robust. The secret to the balance is that practically everything scales exponentially with levels. That means that if you accidentally create a monster that's 50% too powerful, but you are still only using moderate encounters, you are very unlikely to cause a TPK. Similarly, if you end up creating a weapon that's way powerful for it's level, that's not going to be an issue for long, because higher level weapons will overtake it soon enough. If your player gets to have fun with a powerful item for a few levels, I don't think that's a big problem. As long as you don't change the core rules, you can actually very safely experiment with homebrew monsters, traps, and items. I have been doing it basically from day one of GMing PF2 and never have I caused an accidental TPK or any other significant problems in over 150 game sessions, and I roll my dice out in the open. If you ever decide to give another go to PF2, definitely try homebrewing stuff.

[@blockyuniverseproductions]

The issue at hand is that it seems the Pathfinder community is quite the bit more hostile towards homebrew compared to DnD's. Not to mention a system like pathfinder being far more "balanced" means that people are going to be afraid to topple that balance.

[@IcarusGames]

There is a fair bit less third party stuff for Pathfinder, even accounting for their size compared to WotC. I think a lot of it comes down to Paizo being so on the ball with releasing loads of stuff each year so for most tables there's just no need for third party or homebrew stuff.

[@juho1069]

@@IcarusGames There is also much less incentive to publish your homebrew, because it takes effort and there is usually some costs involved as well. Hostility to 3rd party content aside, the playerbase is just so much smaller that even the most popular 3rd party gets used/bought by way fewer people than in the 5e space.

[@flaviolepri5539]

@@blockyuniverseproductions Naah, not really. I've been homebrewing 20+ different troops for an entire chapter in my campaign so quickly I used the extra time to make an entire diplomacy subplot to avoid/subvert major battles, PCs acting as generals in this. As long as you stick to the table, you can homebrew you're heart's desires. The secret is not every step of the way has to be done by the rules, but rather use the rules in the measure they help you describe your story. This last bit it's baked in the introduction of every basic book in PF2. You can make it about the rules as much as you like. Basic rules are same as D&D5, hands down, I can teach both in the same amount of time. That said, PF2 doesn't give you that "Gotcha" moment that makes 5e fun to play but in the same way 5e doesn't give you that "we could've all died in there" that makes PF2 fun. I don't see them as different in rules weight but rather player agency vs rules. I found that in D&D5 the rules and effects drive player agency while the GM acts to harness the resulting chaos while in PF2 the rules and effects limit the scope of action of the PCs allowing the players and GM the agency to move away from them to tell a better story (which takes less effort and makes the GM a happy player as well).

[@GMRaphi]

I had the same thing, but with Shadowrun. From SR4 to Shdaowrun 6, we tried so hard to make it work, but now, on Shadowrun 5, it's just a better fit. And we have a lot of house rules!

[@JayKing-i7w]

One thing I was going to suggest is perhaps trying Kobold Press Tales of the Valiant It's like a slightly upgraded version of 5e and is very compatible with a lot of 5e tools. I considered going to PF2 and once i did a lot of research on it I found it was not going to fit well with my group and my GM'ing style either. Good luck to you and your groups adventures.

[@IcarusGames]

I've not read everything for ToV, but what I have read I found to be pretty boring, it didn't spark my interest enough to read more at least.

[@ThePF2EWizard]

As someone who is practically married to the PF2E system, I totally understand and respect your opinion. It's important that we each find the system that fits us just right. There's so many out there to try, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. I used to play 5e, and don't regret my switch to pf2e; but, I do still have some good memories from 5e, and I do consider it a much stronger improvisation system compared to PF2E's more rule bound environment. While 5e isn't for me, I understand it is a nice fit for a lot of folks out there, and I'm absolutely overjoyed for 5e being a gateway drug for our hobby.