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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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. :-)

[@jcservantw6496]

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]

@@jcservantw6496 what drawbacks? Reduced spell slots?

[@jcservantw6496]

@@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.

[@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??

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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)

[@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.

[@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!

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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 😊

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@RexCogitans]

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.

[@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 🥰

[@taycrens8601]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@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

[@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

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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.

[@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 🤣

[@GlenFinney]

I don’t think it has enough support for you yet but I would suggest looking at DC20 for things you can use in a hybrid 5e/DC20 homebrew, particularly the DC20 four action economy and stackable advantage/disadvantage.

[@IcarusGames]

I made a video on it pretty recently. There's a bunch in there I liked, some stuff I didn't, but for sure it doesn't have enough support there for me to make the switch. I wouldn't even consider it until the core 3 books are out.

[@herosam93]

I recently had a (as one of my players put it) nervous breakdown in my PF2 game, which led to an extended break. This pretty much encapsulates my feelings, but I'm on the fence about proposing a 5e game, or a PbtA game. Either way I know I can't go back to PF2, love the system but it just doesn't mesh with my group

[@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.

[@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)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@ckaldariaq5904]

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

[@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.

[@Zr0din]

1. I think Paizo supports their game better than WotC 2. I love the Pawns - even the ones I can no longer buy but had to print myself. The GM Screens are better organized than WotC Screens - but not as good as my Midgard Screen with the map on the outside (excellent feature) or the ToV Screen. The MAPS are MUCH better. The Beginner Box is Excellent compared to the the Stormwreck Isle box and better than the Phandelver box! 3. I will be looking for those Kingmaker and Abomination Vaults in the 5e versions. I have not read a Adventure Path all the way through yet but I suspect there are less bad complaints on them than there are on the Eve of Ruin, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, or Dragon Queen/Tiamat.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@redviego6714]

I do feel there is a question of if you are running premade stories or your own story? In my experience, I did find it more fun to run as a custom adventure rather than a pf2e adventure. I know for pf2e, there has been a mentality that you should not homebrew, but I feel like homebrew is always important to make games work for each party.

[@IcarusGames]

I was running a homebrew campaign, which is what I always do. If I wanted to run a pre written campaign I would consider PF2 again because the extra blanket of tight balance would be useful for that, but there aren't a heap of stories in the premade PF2 stuff that entice me.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Ethlas]

I do not do a lot of prep, but to me this sounds like there was no prep from the DM at all for his sessions. Tags just hover over it and it works fine (unless you are full pen and paper and then sure you might need to do stuff like that, but even a tablet to run your monsters makes this a none issue). Rule interruption is also a none issue if your players search the rules themselves.

[@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

[@ZombieApocalypse09]

For me, knowing 2e is balanced takes things off my plate as a GM. So then I know what the parameters are and I can tweak things while having an expectation of how they will impact the game. If a player wants to do X I can refer to feat or spell Y I know about that does something similar and so I can have a ballpark for what it should take for them without the aid of that feat/spell to do the thing. I love to let my players do whatever they want to try to do and having a system already thought out that lets me make the challenges appropriate for it without having to crunch the numbers myself (as I did in 5e) is awesome. Similarly, knowing an encounter being "Moderate" means Moderate lets me know I can add a little bit to one of the monsters to make them more interesting without causing a TPK. In 5e, DEADLY encounters were more often trivial than not and so it wasn't clear how far I could push before it becomes a TPK. And on the point about spellcasters, I get that's subjective. But Objectively, 5e spellcasters are OP and break the game leaving Martials as kind of pointless to pick. IMO the balance is better in 2e. And on the point about third actions: There are a lot of videos and longwinded posts explaining how to figure out your third action on a round. It's not for Icarus's particular group. But for anyone reading this, there is always a valid third action. There are tons of skill actions, one action utility spells, and the like. And in the worst case just taking cover or moving to a place where you can take cover next round is a good choice since movement is an action in 2e.

[@JulianaLove90]

Great video! This is exactly how I feel about Pathfinder as well. I didn't enjoy the 3 action economy or the useless options and it felt more gamey (is that a word? lol) than 5e. I was so happy to switch back to 5e after a year of Pathfinder 2e.

[@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!

[@jasonmileham]

I think DC20 is going to be the best compromise? Looks to Address the issue from both systems, what do others think?

[@IcarusGames]

It does seem like 5e and PF2 did the fusion dance to make DC20. I'll be waiting until the core system is fully released before giving it another proper good look though; I don't much fancy playing a WIP system for a whole campaign.

[@PAGames-Jacob]

Coherent. Wish you luck in finding the RPG for you. Try Cypher System, particularly Numenera if your party likes wacky weird wild homebrew! I'm a Pro-GM so I run games PF2 RAW over Foundry with all the bells and whistles. And have this upvote.

[@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!!

[@quban234]

Honestly I think pathfinder is balanced mainly around the two core system: the 3 action economy and multi attack penalty. Adding options for creatures shouldn't change the ballance too much, because everyone can still spend only 3 actions per turn. It's interesting how this reputation that pathfinder has (as a balanced system with a lot of rules) doesn't necessarily translate into positives, but can create assumptions that "it's a delicate system and any chances GM does, or improvised actions player wants can break the whole game apart". Anyway, it's great to see this type of videos, because it helps developers and community to change the system and it's reputation for the better.

[@jeffreykershner440]

Part of my issue with PF2 is that it really wants a device to play it. I didn't think i would be as bothered by this, but between daisy chain rules and a lot of feats, it's either five sheets of paper, or more if you have spells, or a electronic character sheet.

[@ce5122]

I don’t know what you mean when all I need as a player is a single double sided character sheet that fits everything I have

[@jeramiecooper1913]

I moved from D&D 5e to PF2e when it came out. We used that system for about 4 years and played two adventures Malevolent and book 1 of Iron Gods meeting for about 8 hours a month. I enjoyed that system more than D&D 5e, but it didn't work well for my players. We moved back to D&D 5e about 2 years ago. I anticipate we'll be using D&D '24 by the end of this year. I still use portions of PF2e as home brew. As an example I use the 4 levels of success and I convert magic items for use in 5e. In my every other week game we're using Level Up Advanced 5th edition. That game has been going for about 1 month (3 games) and I'm okay with it for low level characters. The players are still getting use to the number of options available, and different rules related to combat maneuvers. When looking at a higher level character, I feel like there are too many options for the player, and they will forget about half of their character options. I'm anticipating stopping this game at level 5 or 6, then switching to Tales of the Valiant or a D&D '24 + ToV hybrid.

[@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.

[@violetgray6384]

I feel like as the GM it is my responsibility to shoulder most of the rules burden and one advantage I've heard for PF2e over running 5e is that 5e leaves too much grey area for interpretation. I do feel like the tag system can be intimidating at first but it's actually pretty intuitive. For example any action that involves an attempt to touch an enemy will have the attack trait so I automatically know that grapple, trip and acid arrow will have the attack trait. All will save spells contain both the mental and emotional traits, etc. But if you have a system that you already are very familiar with and you don't want to concentrate on the tactical aspect I can certainly understand the change.

[@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!

[@TheInfamousBertman]

I'm very happy with Pathfinder 2nd Edition, but with the caveat that I only do virtual campaigns run on Foundry VTT. Since all the rules are integrated so well within Foundry, it takes a lot of the work out of running the game and often we're catching things we wouldn't have noticed otherwise because of the integration in the software. It's extremely convenient and the best TTRPG experience I've had. I don't expect I'll be running a different system any time soon, but I wonder how it would go if we didn't have Foundry keeping track of so many things for us.

[@norcalbowhunter3264]

Honesty I’m starting to think s out going back to 5e. I really like pf2e as a system, but I feel like I had more fun running 5e. I’m waiting to stick out pf2e for abomination vaults to see if it gets easier to run, but if it doesn’t I may go back. Also my issue with switch back to 5e is the new system the have coming out. Even though they say it’s backwards compatible I am just unsure if I want to head back right now and I want to see how the sigil VTT works out.

[@IcarusGames]

@@norcalbowhunter3264 if you did decide to go back, no reason you couldn't just use the 2014 rules; they've not gone anywhere. FWIW, the 2024 rules are very much backwards compatible in most of the ways that matter. We're sticking with 2014 through the end of this campaign, but when I want clarification on a rule now, I look at the 2024 version and 9 times out of 10 it's a little bit clearer and I just use that.

[@connormunro8282]

I will agree that the tag system adds an extra layer of information, however from my end my player's had more problems with this and remembering weapon group crit specializations etc. And I found taking it with a pinch of salt when it comes to that in good faith, what I have had fun with it experimenting with the tag system itself for homebrew for instance giving monster resistance to things with the fire tag but not unless it's magical fire or I created a custom tag for weapons and abilities on what I call the phase tag that monsters will only use at certain HP. I however have thought about how I can make sure my players have an easier time with the rules and getting rid of the tedious stuff, I think Pathbuilder has been a big help and has given my player's that extra layer of information to tell me so I can make a judgment call if a rule dispute does happen.

[@destinpatterson1644]

If you do decide to eventually give another system a try, it sounds like you might really like Dungeon World. It's a Powered By The Apocalypse system, so it uses 2d6 and modifiers won't ever get more than +4 or +5. It's very narrative focused, for instance wizards have a 1st level feature of knowing where some magical artifact is in the world, allowing you to work with them as a DM as to where it is, what it is, what it does, and how they found out about it. And the system is full of these kinds of narrative features. Combat very narrative as well, 10+ is a complete success, 7-9 is success at a cost, potentially forcing the player to choose between the best of two bad outcomes, and 6 or less is a failure. I had saw you mention in another comment that you have a player who's scared of character death, it also has one of the most interesting rules for that as well, when a character dies, they met Death. On a 6 or lower they are simply ushered on to their afterlife, however on a 10+ they manage to cheat them in someway, returning to life with a story and a new badass scar, but most interestingly of all, if you roll a 7-9, Death finds interest in them and strikes a deal. It could be as simple as them wanting to keep a part of the player, bring them back in exchange of their eye, or Death could as them for a favor of some kind and I'm sure a lot of fun can be had with making a player indebted to the metaphysical embodiment of the inevitability of life. Finally, you mentioned one of the most important things to you being homebrew, the system does this great as well. It's one of the most GM friendly rulebooks, and very in depth guide to building your own monsters. And the best part, unlike Pathfinder 2e, it's very rules light for GM and players, and is built on the idea that the GM has full control of the world and what happens within it.

[@PRGidaro]

I play PF1. I tried PF2 but it didn’t sit well with me. My group generally plays pf1 and we do well even with still working on few questions and trying to home brew some rules to make it work better. I am creating my own world and using pf1 as a base but adding some rule ideas stolen from DC20 and other games to get to the system I want. No game system is perfect just find one that works on the ground level and home brew the things you want to improve.

[@IcarusGames]

We did a full 1-20 campaign in PF1 and had way less trouble with the system as a whole. Don't get me wrong, by the time I was running 20th level PF1 I thought I was going to go insane because of how bananas it can get, but it was still always batshit fun.

[@Detson404]

I’m coming around on pathfinder. It’s got a learning curve but the tactical combat is fun.

[@blaydsong]

I'm a PF2 GM primarily, but I can understand the struggle with the learning curve. If I could make a suggestion to maybe stretch your knowledge on homebrewing creatures for PF2 (at least to a degree): KZbinr 'Ready To Die' makes custom creatures every Monday on his channel (sometimes just based on other IP, but all are pretty cool). Maybe what he does might spark something for you. 🙂

[@bl00dywelld0ne]

Hey, you like what you like. I switched over to PF2e during the OGL crisis, and as a GM running 3 campaigns with the system (one AP, one sandbox, and one homebrew campaign) I can say that there's plenty of room for homebrew in the system. The wall you're talking about is the learning curve, and PF2e has a fairly steep one. But, though the math is "tight", the game is still swingy by virtue of being a d20 system at it's core, and offers a lot of wiggle room for fiddling and adjustment without anything breaking. I personally love it, and haven't looked be since. That being said, there's nothing wrong with going back to the system that you and your table enjoy and are comfortable with. Best of luck with 5e; may the dice be ever in your favor.

[@terryhansen3748]

I love the rules of pf2e. I like the critical success ranges, and the customization of magic item runes. It's just very cool. But, it helped me realize how much I prefer a system that leaves the ability to me to make rules on the fly and wing it. I feel like I "have" to follow every rule and stat with pf2e. Also I am finding I like the slow book release schedule of D&D. Paizo just releases so much content. Yes I know I don't need to use all of it, but at the same ti.e I just get over whelmed. I think pf2e is a system that I would enjoy much more as a player than a GM. I also agree there is some stability and ease in playing the biggest most popular game. All in all great video. It helped me.not feel as bad for not being super jazzed about pf2e

[@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

[@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

[@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 😭

[@KorbinDallas]

That's why we play Castle and Crusaders or World without Numbers ether works very well for us. Hope you and your group find what works best for you.

[@Decado1628]

I switched from 5e to Castles & Crusades almost two years ago and could not be happier.

[@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.

[@Whitecat-xx7rr]

Some examples of stuff I really dislike in Pf2, so I don't like to run and it: 1. A lot of modifiers. +1 for this, -2 for that, changing math on the fly. Bards, who are always "remember +1!". Intimidate to lower ac by 1. And ofc MAP. Quite every strike needs new calculations. 2 types of bonuses chage or pc, 2 types of penalties change for enemies. There are some modifiers in other systems too, but here is too many. 2. Feats to do anything. Like you cannot intimidate two enemies without special feat. Thete are lots of feats like "it is for super rare situations, that will happen once in a campaign" 3. Some unnatural rule interactions, that are very useful by mechanics. Like step away in your turn, it will cost 1/3 of the boss turn to reach you before striking you down. Uneven ground is the worst "I made some here, so you'll need Stride until this tile, and then Balance..."

[@emptyptr9401]

Thats fair, I feel like most of those issues can be solved within the system (Its totally also fine to just make jusgement call during the session and look up a rule later for example), but I am also a fanboy of that system and don't sit on yout table. I think Pf2e can allow for the things you mentioned but definitely requires a little more system mastery to do do. Although I do think that many pf2e player overstate how volatile the system really is to homebrew.

[@olie.vini__]

I just need a framework and thats why i love 5e! In my campaign i use some homebrew and flexible rules, i even use the MCDM RPG initiative and it Works!

[@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.

[@dakgnol9004]

I'm personally transitioning from 5e to PF2e myself. I see the balance as less of a "everyone is doing equal work in an encounter" thing and moreso not worrying about my players putting together some stupidly overpowered build (or play the mess that is artificer). I like how player power is much better wrangled. I still questioning the power scaling being dependent on magic items and how certain magic items are expected at specific levels, but when I can finally run a game proper, I'll be able to feel it out and determine if I want to run the variant rule where that scaling is baked into character progression. It'll also open up more "treasure slots" in dungeons and stuff for fun items that aren't just stat boosters. It's all speculation really; I've only played PF2e (I love my kholo witch!) and the two groups I'm DMing for are still working through their respective 5e adventures, but I'm super excited to run it!