Is Pathfinder 2nd Edition Too Hard? Part 1: A Thesis

[@CraigS-]

Nice video by the way. I agree with another comment that the best thing out of the Cody video is finding newer channels like yours.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Thank you! This has been a fun experiment to keep myself entertained while laid off due to the pandemic!

[@MrCan4dian]

I concur. But with nonat1

[@ajcarrison6286]

You’re videos inspired me to play a Pathfinder 2E one shot today and it was a blast. The info you give and well-spoken commentary is great and I’m glad I found you on KZbin. Keep up the great work man, you’re a beast.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate hearing that! Happy gaming!

[@willswanson1840]

Speaking of showing up several months late to an internet argument, here's a spicy take: It is better for a game to be difficult in unexpected ways than it is for a game to be difficult because enemies' AC is high. Player creativity cannot thrive in an environment which lacks unexpected events.

[@miketaylor3189]

The boundaries that you talk about are 1-20. I feel that the goal of Paizo was to keep the combat (and other challenges) within the range of a d20. In Pf1 players could stack enough bonuses in character creation that they only miss on a 1 and could only be hit on a 20. This forces the Gm to adjust encounters. I refer to this as winning the game at home rather than at the table. Paizo wanted a roll of the dice to remain relevant. That keeps the interest at the table. They kept the number of bonuses and penalties to 3 (or 4 for penalties). It would be easy to tune out of a game if you know that you can't miss and can't be hit. Class proficiency bonuses create the differences between the classes. Paladins are hard to hit and fighters hit and crit more. By adding level to all abilities for both players and monsters, you keep the boundaries within the roll of a d20. They also wanted strategy to be relevant at the table. I find that our players are paying attention at the table more. The math is tight and it is easy for a bad set of rolls or a slightly over powered monster to cause catastrophe for the players but the dying rules are pretty forgiving.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Good point on the dying rules. I've had several KO's in my games, but I've never had a true death (yet) & only one near death (poor halfling - bullettes just think you're tasty!). Hadn't thought to in depth on that aspect.

[@PepsiTwistMagic]

Nice video dude, I like the balanced viewpoint! I’ve also found P2 very easy for new players, a few work friends came over, I gave them trimmed down character sheets and they got to it despite not even knowing what an RPG is. D&D 5e looks simpler on paper but I feel like P2 fits together more logically so it’s easier to understand, even if the rules are actually more complex. We definitely had an easier time with new people playing P2 than we have with 5e in the past.

[@IshanDeston]

15:25 For what it is worth. Based on my experience as GM and player, what is "difficult", at least in the "low" levels, are some of the attack values of the creatures in the Adventures. I've played through AoA with a GM that barely did any adjustments (and thats an issue by itself) because it was a new system for all of us at that point, and based on the NPC building rules from the Gamemastery Guide, some of those creatures are using attack values that are beyond the "extreme" category for strike values for their level. We have had several situations where our cleric was like "If that thing hits me with its frenzy attack, unless it rolls a 2 or less, it will hit me and more than likely kill me in a single turn" and that despite having level appropriate gear. As i am GMing, i also have made sure that NPCs never have a strike modifier that comes with such values, higher than our Fighter's Attack values, and much rather 10 to 20% more HP onto the enemies. Where as with the AoA campaign the group has run into several very frustrating encounters, my campaign, thus far (knock on wood) seems to be challenging but at least not frustrating, and thus also more fun. So, i attribute a lot of the claims of PF2 being to hard to this NPC design.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

My players are almost done with AoA (slow progress due to the pandemic), but once they're done, I'm hoping to do a "GM Review" video on it! There are definitely some issues there - especially in chapter 2, where you explore the upper levels of the Citadel.

[@IshanDeston]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide Some of the fights in a certain jungle have also caused a lot of frustration to the group. We are not through AoA yet, mostly playing in tandem (due to being online only right now and the amount of extra prep that needs to go into online rounds), but in the first "Book" we had a technically a TPK (One of the Chars surrendered to the enemy and they let us life), but that was caused by a very bad tactical decision by the group. Then the fight against a certain collector also resulted in having to retreat.... and later in the Jungle we have also struggled through some very frustrating encounters, which largely was just a case of insane Hit chances of the NPCs and enough damage to basically kill one of the chars in a single turn. This has lead to a lot of frustration in the group, because when the Rogue suddenly doesn't want to get close to people anymore, because he knows if the enemy turns around on them he is a goner... the Cleric also doesn't want to be involved anymore, because anything hits them on a 2+.... There was a lot of frustrations. Like a lot. And of course, as GM i do look at it as "the GM should probably have scaled it back", but when i imagine that a lot of people run these Adventures RAW... then i can see where the complaints are coming from. Anyway, looking forward to your GM review.

[@tinear4]

Your tone in this video makes me really appreciate you as a decent human being. Two thumbs up.

[@smnb6652]

tl:dr? They aren't weak, they are weaker than before. Which isn't bad, just different and balanced. Long version: This is an argument that generally comes forth from players that are used to the D&D3.5/D&D5 and Pathfinder 1e spellcasters, who are capable of ending entire combats with a single spell and are capable of doing everything, better than everyone. A few examples below: 1. Encounter ending spells, like Banish, which in fifth edition takes an enemy (or multiple when upcast) out of the fight, for the low cost of a single spell slot. To top it off, upon concentrating for a minute the enemy would be gone for good if it wasn't native to the plane it was in. An encounter with 2 strong enemies, that lack legendary resistance, could be totally ended by a Wizard upcasting Banish with just a 5th level spell slot. Boom, gone encounter, pack it up and move on! Spellcasters can do this is soon as level 1 with the sleep spell! 2. Single target damage spells, like Animate Objects, gives you a BONUS ACTION that can deal up to 10d4 +40 (roughly 60 damage on average) EACH TURN for up to 10 turns! Compared towards the Fighter who (with a 2h Sword) deals about 4d6+10 a turn (roughly 24 damage on average), or double that when using Action Surge. The Fighter's whole shtick got totally outdone by a single spell that only takes up a bonus action! 3. Save or Suck spell, like Hold Person. Imagine facing a little troop of 5 humans and paralyzing them all with a single 6th level slot. Each of them that fails the Wisdom save is immobilized and each melee attack automatically turns into a crit against them, sure they get a new save at the end of each turn, but what do martial classes have to compete? The monk's stunning strike is notoriously bad in comparison as it also requires a comparable resource, requires a melee hit first to even attempt it, followed by a CON save and at the end only lasts a single turn! The spellcasters have a dime a dosen of these kind of spells too! 4. Area-of-Effect, like fireball, deal large damage in a wide area. What do martials even have to compete? In other words, spellcasters totally invalidated martials, which frankly, is not good game design. In Pathfinder 2e martials not only got a much needed power and feature boost, but spellcasters got reined in a bit. Most former encounter ending spells now carry the Incapacitation trait, most single target damage doesn't simply outright kill an enemy anymore, the damage is overal quite a bit lower. A spellcaster can no longer keep up with a martial when it comes down to single target damage and will have to live with not ending the boss with a single spell, but they are still the kings of AoE damage and versatility. They are undeniably weaker than before, but they are not weak. I've played a Witch, Oracle and a Bard so far, and not once did I think I was weak when I adjusted my mindset, play to your strengths and just don't try to outdamage the Raging barbarian in single target damage. Give the martials something to shine in too please.

[@schwann145]

You've wildly overplayed what a 5e caster is actually capable of here, and wildly downplayed how effective a martial character is.

[@Bacongolem]

Late to the video here for me but this was extremely well reasoned and well presented. Thank you!

[@aamiranauthor]

Probably calling pf2e a sliding bounded accuracy game is better as 5e uses the term to mean limited bonuses from level 1 to 20. The nice thing about pf2e is it allows the GM to craft experiences where the player is challenged, over matched, or overpowered. GMs should make the game easier than the guide says at the start though and then ramp up based on how the players are doing.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I like that qualifier: "Sliding" Bounded Accuracy! Well said! I haven't started filming the GM video yet, but one of the things I'm planning on talking about in that video is "Encounters are harder than you think - don't be afraid to start small, so you can get used to the system."

[@rasleyforde2363]

My feeling is that the way that the Pathfinder CAN be hard is the problem. Is really difficult to make hard encounters in "Climb The Mountain" systems, so GM often just overdo the CR to compensated. But in pathfinder you have to stick to the suggestions and sometimes make easyer encounters to give the same feel of other systems

[@AlbertoRodriguez-zb3iu]

IMO the question isn't if pathfinder 2e is too hard, the real question is D&D 5e too easy. People who ditch pf2e are mostly d&d 5e players that are accustomed to these light rules systems. (Few of these players will even touch DCC which I consider "harder" than pf2e) Once people play D&D 5e (especially new players) they're very reluctant to keep playing a more complicated system (especially if their characters keep dropping dead). I do believe that the pf2e adventure paths aren't at the level of pf1e though. Cody's gripe is that he TPKed a group...(which could be GM/player fail...not system, and that his players are getting bored doing the same attacks because they're optimized? Which is also a GM/player fail.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I try not to get too negative when I talk about D&D5e - with the notable exception of the Monk class (which is terrible & they should have known better, but I digress). Overall, I enjoy D&D 5e when I get to play it, but it never offered enough for me to truly want to invest in it. For me, I don't think it's that D&D 5e is "too easy." Instead, the problem for me is that the mechanics are too bland. Basically, I think they over-relied on the Advantage/Disadvantage system & used it for WAY TOO MUCH inside the game. It's not that Advantage/Disadvantage is bad, but rather - I wish they had some other mechanics mixed in there too. In Pathfinder 2e, there is a similar concept called Fortune/Misfortune, but that concepts actually has a few mechanical variants (rolling two dice & taking the best/worst, auto-rolling a certain number on certain checks [auto "10"], etc...). I like Fortune Misfortune better because there is more mechanical variety AND it's not nearly as common, meaning there are other mechanical concepts in other places. So, I like D&D 5e, and I even can appreciate what they're trying to do in terms of game simplicity, but Advantage/Disadvantage just gets old for me too quickly.

[@AlbertoRodriguez-zb3iu]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide Yet cody a fairly large youtuber can talk about the negative aspects of pf2e easily (because he knows he'll create buzz with the video?) 5e is "good" at what it does but it's not for all gaming groups as pf2e isn't for all either, players transitioning from one system to the other either needs (like you did) more, or doesn't want to be bogged down by a more robust system, are they wrong? No. They're just different players, cody did the RPG community a great disservice making that video IMO.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

@@AlbertoRodriguez-zb3iu I definitely have a lot of problems with Cody's video - especially his 2nd video, and I do think he's going to turn a lot of people off Pathfinder 2e who might really enjoy the game otherwise. And I definitely hate that! I may prefer Pathfinder 2e to D&D 5e, but I would hate to push people away from 5e that wanted to try it. Cody's approach, sadly, is going to push people away from Pathfinder 2e - which is detrimental to the hobby overall. Still, I try to always give people the benefit of the doubt. It does seem like Cody's group had a bad experience & I do know other groups have reported a bad experience as well. My hope is that, by identifying the source of the frustration, we can address the frustration & help groups move past it so they can experience the benefits of Pathfinder 2e. I mean, I know I'm biased, but I really love this game & I want others to have a great experience too!

[@AlbertoRodriguez-zb3iu]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide I agree a 100% with you. I believe Cody's video is geared towards the goal of luring players away from pf2e towards the easier D&D 5e for reasons I can only speculate, because ditching on a RPG system and making a whole video about it instead of pointing at its shortcomings and letting the viewers decide are two entirely different things. IMO games are too few and far between lifes chores to ditch on any system which is why I play all systems while trying to get around their flaws, like someone mentioned in the comments the only good thing about Cody's video is that it has exposed me to channels like yours. I congratulate you on this very informative video.👍

[@Sysyphony]

Great video, man! I’m learning so much and having a lot of fun w your content

[@nugsnotdrugs7717]

It's worth noting that while Cody said no magic items, by level 5 the 2e ranger should have had a +1 Striking weapon, as the game balances itself around these higher hitting weapons once you reach these levels. This is supported by the automatic progression rule in the GMG for when you want to play in a low/no magic setting, or just want the players to get better, and not just their weapons

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

That was another flaw in the Taking20 video. He stripped the P2e Ranger of anticipated gear, while giving the 5e Ranger gear to specifically overcome one of the ghouls defenses. Which means he was unbalancing the encounters to make his point. I don't know if Cody realizes how much he tainted his own data. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. If it weren't for a really deep, way too nerdy, chase the rabbit style conversation with a friend about P2e, I might have overlooked the importance of gear the same way Cody did. There were some major problems with Cody's video. Hopefully, my videos can help people see those errors clearly.

[@thetechnomancer1077]

I think using the term "bounded accuracy" in the way you are could cause some confusion, as the designers of 5e have used it to describe their philosophy of keeping AC and to-hit bonuses within set limits at all levels of the game. I don't know if the Paizo devs have specific terminology for the idea you are describing though, so I understand why it made sense here. I really enjoyed this video though, one positive thing from this whole situation is that I've gotten recommended to lot of smaller Pathfinder channels I wouldn't have otherwise found!

[@ronaldsanfran]

I've called it the 'bounded escalator' in PF2 myself. As for the Skyrim comparison, in 5e and PF1, the intent is to have enemies "scale up" with the party at higher levels, too. (And in PF1 the numbers are assumed to rise at pace with the PCs as well.) The difference is that they fail at doing so: the math is so loose, and save-or-suck effects are so strong, that the PCs can with their growing toolbox trivialize encounters that are written according to the system's encounter-building guidelines. In PF2 the math is so tight is that it is arguably like a treadmill -- you are running (leveling up), but you are moving in place, as monsters are just as difficult to overcome as they were before. What I like about PF2 is that not only does the math go up, but there are more dramatic abilities at higher levels. When fighting an at-level balor demon or a dragon, you are dealing with much more dramatic things than with an at-level ogre. There's a bit of a 'Streisand Effect' that Taking20's video has had on smaller KZbin channels and on PF2 as a system. Very glad to see it spark this interesting discussion and videos like this one!

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Yeah, I wish I had a more accurate term for it here. After I finished recording, I found an article using "bounded accuracy" to describe D&D 5e, & I was like... "Oh great, now I'm even less sure of my own terminology." LOL!

[@retrodmray]

I've heard many say, and after playing for a year I agree with their assessment, that Pathfinder 2e is built not only on Bounded Accuracy, but also FOO's (videogame term: First Order Operational Strategies.... some of what Cody is explainingin his videos actually, without him saying this). That would explain a lot and absolutely and totally changes the entry into the game from other systems and certainly affects playstyle. Thoughts? Thnx for your videos again! 👍

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Prior to your comment, I had never heard of FOO strategies - so now I'm probably going down an internet research rabbit hole! LOL! Thanks for some new & interesting to read about! Though, due to lack of experience, I'm afraid I can't really comment intelligently on this point.

[@retrodmray]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide Lol...no problem. 😋👍

[@retrodmray]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide So, Tour Guide, what did your research turn up? 🤓

[@etre28]

Wow amazing review! Love the deep dive and the time you take to explain. I was searching channel yours since the Cody event in 2020. Thanks to No nat it's done. Keep the good work man!

[@Stygard]

Really enjoyed your video! I baught 2e books when it came out but never really gave them much thought. Taking20's video got me to take a deeper dive into 2e and I am finding I like the system alot! Your video really gave voice to the jumbled mess of thoughts I my head about what I want in an ttrpg.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Thanks man! I appreciate that!

[@gm9460]

As a GM I found lots of pathfinder 1E APs suffered due to Climb the Mountain. The DCs were very badly controlled and when I ran Hells Rebels my group had a ridiculously easy time with the content as written. I couldn’t hit them and they couldn’t miss. They never failed a saving throw apart from on a 1 and I couldn’t pass them if a weak save was targeted ( Hellknight reflex for example) It became boring for 2 players (although 2 seemed to actually enjoy rofl-stomping things which was a separate problem) It was also a lot of work to GM to try and fix encounters to make them challenging. And very easy to mess up and go too far This especially his past level 10 Pathfinder 2E seems to largely remove all of this

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Not a fan of Cody’s video, but there with a look back now, I think that there’s a lot of obstruction and distraction that goes against the game being easier. Ability Scores, Alignment and alignment damage, they probably could’ve trimmed off Sonic and Acid as damage types, Aid could’ve been cleaned up, spellcasting could’ve been simplified, and wow diagrams would have been really nice. There are so many elements that could’ve been streamlined or modernized for more cohesive systems. A lot of play elements just don’t sound fun or exciting, but are actually secretly really good. A lot of elements and feats make you just reread it and go, “wait, really? Why? That kinda sucks”. But it’s so subtle at its brilliance, and it’s so well balanced and fantastic and imaginative for many aspects. But also it is full of unsatisfactory and frustrating elements at a time when they should’ve tried to make it deep but still easy to learn, especially when trying to compete against D&D.

[@anErnazure]

Really appreciate this. I haven't play PF2, and as I'm working towards introducing my group to this system this is great info to have.

[@ollywright]

IIRC the reference to a paizo developer saying 'the numbers are too tight' were Jason Bulmahn saying this in reference to the playtest, and why proficiency bonuses were doubled for the actual release. My memory could be wrong of course. Personally I find the whole difficulty debate puzzling, since the GM can tune the difficulty of the game during play however is needed. Pathfinder is as easy or hard as the GM makes it. So to me the main consideration is 'how easy is it for the GM to tune difficulty to where they want it for their specific game?'. In this specific regard I have found 5e and PF 2e are very similar: each are easy to tune. Pathfinder 1e was sometimes easy but sometimes a real headache to fine tune, especially at higher levels. I do think that coming to 2e GMs have to be careful - in DnD and 1e you could crank up the CR to +3 or +4 above party level without too much risk. In PF 2e things get nasty much faster, mostly due to the new crit math.

[@RekijanGaming]

Not sure if you mention this in further episodes but one major thing I would like to note is that in PF2e not everything in supposed to level with you. Climbing a simple knotted rope for example has the same DC at level 1 as 20.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Don't mention simple DCs in this series (probably should have), but I think i discuss them a bit in my Core Rulebook review.

[@CraigS-]

I honestly think Cody just felt he came up with a buzz term and knew the video would blow up. Illusion of choice doesn't make any sense with his argument, and makes less sense when he explains it further. People need to forget about that video. I don't feel like there is much sincerity in his argument. It was purely about getting views.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I don't know Cody personally, and I have a LOT of problems with his arguments, but it's my personal philosophy to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. For me, it's telling that he keeps adding. "Illusion of Choice." Then, "in Combat." Then, "for Martial Characters." I feel like he's still digging & trying to figure out how to express his problem. He may be coming from a more cynical place, but I just make it a habit to try & think the best of people. If he's being driven by more cynical motives, maybe his better side will catch back up with him if we give him the chance!

[@gideonpepys]

Nice vid. How does removing proficiency with levels affect the balance you describe?

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I haven't tried that variant yet, so honestly - I'm not sure. I feel like the balance would be more forgiving, but that's conjecture on my part. No actual play experience to back that up. When in-person gaming is a little more reliable, i definitely hope to try a few one-shots with that variant & see what it does.

[@orrinellis856]

i had a two member party beat book 1 of age of ashes (champion & fighter)

[@StevenBryceWroten]

My only problem with the “add your level” system of scaling difficulty is that at higher levels the DC for something like convincing someone feels artificially inflated by a lot. Like “I feel like level 5 me could have done just as good a job of convincing this person, why is this DC so high?”

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

The short-lived Star Wars Saga Edition had a similar mechanic & a similar issue. Paizo did add "Simple DCs" to the final version of 2e, so that not *everything* scales. It's not a perfect solution, but it helps.

[@ronaldsanfran]

I think that PF 2e is too hard...for some groups. And learning about the various skill actions and ways PCs can work together can make it PF 2e "just right" for those same groups. That said, one thing I like about PF2e is that it is easy to correct a feeling that the game is too hard. In Age of Ashes, we had a couple of TPKs, and the fights were all becoming uniformly life-and-death struggles. I lowered the encounters by one level and it has made the game more enjoyable. I am considering returning to the default difficulty, because I think part of the problem, too, was that they were still getting used to their replacement characters. The Adding-Level-To-Proficiency aspect of PF2 makes Level a "knob" that you can turn in the game, and makes overall balance much easier to manipulate.

[@ironwolf56]

Yeah the one thing I did kinda disagree on with this video is Age of Ashes. PF the system isn't too complex compared to say D&D5, but I do think AoA is kind of a punishing adventure path. It's kind of a problem that that one was the launch path for 2nd edition because I think a LOT of groups bounced off that hard and maybe it wasn't the best experience. Good path, but I wish they'd started with something a little more even-keeled and maybe pushed AoA back a bit.

[@natanoj16]

@@ironwolf56 what is it in AoA that is so hard? I have run the first 2 books with new players and we Havent really experienced this hardness at all. My players have had some challenging encounters, and a few close calls for a character or 2 but no deaths or even closr to TPKs.

[@ironwolf56]

@@natanoj16 Everyone's experiences are going to be different, of course, but there are a few encounters that (in my opinion) especially for less-experienced groups could go south really quickly. I know one near the end of book 1 is several levels above what the characters at the time are likely to be for level, and can get pretty nasty.

[@TheDocAstaroth]

I would say, that the problem in Pathfinder 2e was less that it is too hard, but more that it is based too much around fights and these can take too long. The Adventure Paths do offer situations, where you can talk it out, but a lot of encounters assumed and balanced around fighting. However, part of the balancing in Pathfinder includes the hit points vs damage. Now, for an exciting game, I don't want the fight to take more time than, let's say, 30 minutes real time. However, in PF 2e, it often takes one hour or more for a moderate encounter around level 5 up to level 15. The PCs just don't deal enough damage against the monsters, if they don't use "optimized" tactics and the game starts dragging while the outcome is clear. My solution was to lower the hitpoints of the monsters, so that the fight can be ended just in time.

[@chrisheapsenhouse7086]

I'm DMing Age of Ashes (we just finished book 5!) and I've seen the same thing. I almost always use 85% of the printed hit points and the fights still sometimes drag.

[@Wolfphototech]

*Ah yes .* *Cody of "how to kill your party with _______" videos .* */\ one of the major problems is that the gm/dm sets the difficulty .* *So if the gm/dm has the habit of increasing difficulty in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition and then do the same .* *The difficulty would be sky high .* *Something in pathfinder 2e that would be hard .* *Would be easy in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition .*

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

That is true across several systems. I had to unlearn some of my habits from Pathfinder 1e when I came to 2e. The math is different here & an unprepared GM can run into some severe problems.

[@gm9460]

Did the people who say 2E is too hard not play 1E? Very easy to make a shockingly ineffective character in that system On Age of Ashes - I think it all stems from one particular monster in the second book where there were clearly errors and it is far too strong for its level. I think it has the numbers of a monster either 1 or 2 levels higher

[@TheLibGamer]

I think I have heard Piazo designers using the term bounded accuracy

[@skullsquad900]

Cody's problems were no different than the problems in practically any other RPG. Classes are going to use the most effective abilitys consistently. Making them easily predictable! It's not a problem if the DM knows how to use it against them.

[@Tysto]

Cody just said P2e combat is slow, which is undeniable. If you want to claim P2e isn't hard, i direct you to its 40+ conditions, some of which give you other conditions, & which are constantly referenced thruout the rules. I also direct you to the fact that there are four possible outcomes for many actions, which means you constantly need to look up what happens for a given success level.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Politely, I will disagree. I have run a variety of games over the years, & Pathfinder 2e has the smoothest combat of any game I've played - D&D 5e included. That's my real, actual, at the table experience. Yeah, there's a lot of nuance to Pathfinder 2e, but most of it is pretty easy to grasp. For example, you mention the plethora of conditions. Most of those conditions are simple numerical penalties that apply quickly & easily to appropriate stats (e.g.: Enfeebled 1 = -1 to Strength based stuff). Or maybe you lose some of your actions (e.g.: Slowed 1 = Lose 1 Action). And sure - there are conditions that "Give other Conditions" (which is also a thing in D&D 5e), but usually those "other conditions" are quick & easy to apply (e.g.: Flat Footed when Restrained). None of these things are nightmarish to apply. As for the "Four Degrees of Success," that also exists in D&D (& most other RPGs). Pathfinder has just codified it more plainly. In fact, a lot of Pathfinder 2e's rules will use the shorthand "Basic" in front of rules text to simplify the understanding of those four degrees of success (e.g.: "Basic" Reflex Save). I will say this - especially w/ the Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook, I think there is a definite "Presentation" Problem that I do genuinely think creates confusion for players (& I think I even discuss it in this series at some point). I actually have a newer video in the works about how I think Paizo doesn't do a good job teaching their game (which is its own unique consideration). So, I understand how people can feel frustrated with 2e as a system. But, I have played & taught a ton of RPGs over the years, & working with players of every skill level, Pathfinder 2e is the smoothest game I've ever run mechanically. When this system clicks, it works & it works very well. Unfortunately for Cody, I feel like he misinterpreted stuff inside the game (which is feasible - as I noted, Paizo doesn't teach their game the way I think they should), & that impacted his perception of how the game runs. Being honest, I had a similar experience w/ 2e's Stealth rules. I badly misunderstood them & as a result, I hated that part of the game for months (until someone finally explained them to me the right way). I've run low-level Pathfinder 2e. I've run high-level Pathfinder 2e. I've run most of the levels in between . This game functions very well - even inside of combat.

[@andrewgause6971]

Speaking as a guy who has spent six months playing a wizard and who, in level appropriate encounters from levels 2 to 5, with a casting stat of 18-20, and who has famously managed to have exactly *two* spells actually do what they were supposed to do, I do hope you will forgive me if I find your data devoid, contextless claim that a caster with a 14 in its primary was effective to be a tad suspect. Considering my significantly more optimized character is literally more effective with a longbow than he is actually doing his bloody job... Even then, the problem isn't that its too hard. Or that I'm getting screwed by dice rolls. Its that even when my spell *succeeds* it rarely does anything significant. Oh. My fear spell went off and the creature actually failed the saving throw (one of the spells that actually worked). So. The creature has a 10% lower chance to hit us... Do you know what I call that? "90% of the time I just wasted my turn." Incidentally, the critter botched its next attack roll and so yes, the one time one of my spells actually succeeded, it still didn't do anything. And this is the game working as intended...

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

The 14 Primary Stat character was a Cleric with 14 Wisdom & 14 Charisma, who actually did really well as the party healer. Also, I can't tell for sure from your post, but it sounds like your GM may have been running an excessive number of Severe Encounters in Pathfinder 2e. I made a similar mistake when I first ran the game. I assumed a level scale that was similar to 1e, and that doesn't work in 2e. Later in this series, I joke about being shocked to discover that "Severe actually means severe" in this system. In those circumstances, yeah, players (especially spell casters) can feel pretty weak. It's a subtle error on the GM side of the screen, but it can really swing the experience of the game. I was lucky enough that I had the right GM fail at the right time early enough to prevent me from being spoiled on the game. Also, I suspect there may be some system Mastery issues here. A 20 Primary Stat is not possible before 10th Level. Please know I'm not taking shots. I badly misinterpreted the 2e Stealth rules early on, and as a result, I thought they were worthless. After someone pointed out my misunderstanding, I suddenly found a rule set that I enjoyed. It's easy to speed through the rules & just sorta get the gist - and those mild misunderstandings can add up to a skewed game experience. If I had to guess, you had an enthusiastic, but too eager GM, who started running with an incomplete grasp on the rules. Again, I'm responding to incomplete data, but some of what you're describing sounds like dumb stuff I did early on.

[@andrewgause6971]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide Cleric would explain it. The cleric in the group hasn't had as many issues as my wizard has. And we did deviate from the system in the sense that we rolled for stats. So you are not wrong on the system rules. And I know you're not taking shots. It's another source of frustration. My character is more powerful than he would be normally and still has had more impact flicking arrows at people than actually trying to be a spell caster. (Heck, on paper, I am fairly certain stat wise that I may be one of the stronger characters in the party and I still haven't done much of anything in combat that didn't involve having to shoehorn my guy in as a "fighter without martial feats") And the DM tried to run lower CR creatures in higher numbers against us to give me a chance to shine, since casters are "supposed" to be able to shine. Only to discover that it just let the martials blender their way through the encounter without a need for me beyond "magic weapon, please." :( Or situations where I cast heat metal on guys wearing plate armor and they somehow critically succeed on the reflex save and shrug off an entire suit of bloody plate armor in six seconds... or ocre jellies somehow matrix dodging out of the way of an arrowhead I heated up inside of them... to the point where I have since regulated that spell to "Right. My wizard has this spell and uses it exclusively for blacksmith crafting. Because that is clearly all its good for..." DM assures me things get better later on. Problem is, I am not sure if I want to spend another 12+ months on something I don't like on the promise it *might* get better.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

@@andrewgause6971 Crit Reflex save from an Ochre Jelly? Ouch! Okay, new solution: steal that dice from the DM! It is clearly a magical relic, not a normal d20! LOL!

[@andrewgause6971]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide I have been tempted. However, given he rolls it in a golden skull dice tower, I fear some curse might follow...

[@coolio3267]

There is no way, that teaching a new player pathfinder 2e is as teaching a new player dnd 5e, my 5e veteran players still have a hard time with pathfinder, btw love pf2e, just disagree with the fact that learning it is easy

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I think it depends a bit on the character that they want to play. If a player wanted to play a Spellcaster, hands down, 5e would be easier to teach! But, for non-spellcasters, the 3-action economy in 2e is incredibly quick to learn. The scenario I referenced was a brand new player playing a Rogue in 2e - and I'm not lying, it was the fastest I've ever seen a brand new player "get it," and it stood out just how quickly they did. But, heaven help the poor soul trying to learn spellcasting with no TTRPG experience under their belt! LOL!

[@MrCan4dian]

You are also having to break 'veteran'' 5e players who have the habits(advantage, rng, not having any crunch and, modifiers) formed by 5e. Not fresh new players.

[@MrCan4dian]

Advice for players in the next vid: get gud scrub

[@LegendaryCMD]

How did the de Facto summation of Pathfinder get to be that it is too hard? It's not. It's a really beautiful, well thought out set of rules. Sadly, dungeons and dragons will probably take note of all this and their next edition will be dumbed down even further. Mark my words, dice rolls with be optional in 6th edition...you can just tell the DM what happens.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

Honestly, if WotC gets anything from Paizo, I hope it's Paizo's customer service/appreciation & a willingness to treat its audience with respect! To be fair, WotC is a lot better now than it was during the D&D 4e days, but one of the main things that has caused me to stick with Paizo is how well they treat their customers. I feel like Paizo goes out of their way to treat their audience seriously! All that being said, WotC has been experimenting with more complex rules & options in 5e recently. So, I'm holding out hope that they'll let their rules grow up a little in the next edition! Simplicity is not bad - but it does have implications for game design that I don't think people realize. I've been debating doing a video on why I both love the "Advantage/Disadvantage" system in D&D 5e, but I also will never actually invest in D&D 5e due to the Advantage/Disadvantage system. (Yes, those are true at the same time.) Just gotta decide that I'm comfortable with that much internet drama...

[@LegendaryCMD]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide I'd definitely be interested to hear what you thought about inspiration. If anyone could handle internet drama you could. You turned MY salty comment into something positive. You have been spot on in these first two videos and looking forward to part 3.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

@@LegendaryCMD I've actually already posted Part 3 (& an extra Part 4) in this series. They should be visible on my channel, but if they're not showing up for some reason, let me know!

[@LegendaryCMD]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide oh, no, they are on here. Just starting part 3 now.

[@neurolancer81]

Dude this is the most polite way someone has said “get good scrub”. Don’t you think this is a problem? Don’t you think someone new to TTRPGs would be turned off by this?

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

I'm genuinely sorry that I came across that way, as it was not my intention. I feel like Cody's error (& many other players by extension) is that they come into the game with a set of design expectations, and they don't realize that they're approaching the game incorrectly, which is causing them to have a bad experience. It's hard to address those kinds of errors, because it requires a person to take a second look & reconsider their perspective. But my aim isn't to belittle. As I said in this video - I made some of the same errors Cody did & I had to take a second look before aspects of the game made sense. In some of my early videos, I talk about not liking the Swashbuckler design. Well, a few of my commenters pointed out that I had misunderstood the class, and when I took a second look, they were right. We all have those moments where we misinterpret, overlook, or misunderstand, and when people help clarify those confusions, we can get a better picture. I'm genuinely sorry if this video came across as belittling. Please know that was not my intent. I've misread things before, so I just want to help people experiencing the same mistakes I've made.

[@neurolancer81]

@@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide I am really sorry, I was being facetious. I do not think you were belittling anyone at all. I love your videos and your style of thought out and thoughtful presentation. I agree with you about the game and the system. I just think that need for system mastery is a good point but it does make it harder for new people to feel like they are being effective. Not everyone has hours to pour over what is a hobby and the time it takes people to overcome the hurdle is too much for some people.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

@@neurolancer81 I'm glad to hear I wasn't coming across that way. 😅

[@IGDNews]

Casters were nerfed in 2e. The designers even said so in a roll for combat interview. The arcane caster has about 20 percent of there spells missing as compared to 1e. Magic items have gotten a big nerf in how thy work. Again the designers of 2e hate casters. Players have rejected 2e and either opted to stay with 1e or left Pathfinder completely for DnD 5e. Looking at Amazon's booklist Pathfinder 2e is 89th as compared DnD which is 1st place. Now with that said 2e does have alot of good stuff in it, but the designer's just let everyone down in there approach to 2e. Im suprised that spell caster didn't cause an uproar when playtesting 2e concerning how magic and magical items were totally nerfed. Or maybe they just left for 5e. Now as for adventure paths design they are designed with way to many encounters back to back, which brings up the issues with non magical and magical healing. Both are bad. I had to use the stamina variant rule so the paths would not total tpk my group. IMHO thats the reason that variant rule was was released because Paizo knew they messed up pretty bad with all the nerfs. Now I think that Paizo was chasing the OSR crowd with the redesign. For me in both reading and playing 2e it feels like a really complicated OSR game.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

There actually were a lot of complaints about magic in the 2e Playtest & the developers specifically acknowledged the complaint & increased spell damage in the final version. There are certainly people who still feel that it wasn't increased enough (& I can see their argument), but Paizo didn't completely ignore that issue. In Pathfinder 1e, my two favorite classes were Wizard & Arcanist, so I can see there is a drop in power from 1e to 2e - but casters were pretty overpowered in 1e. It is true that casters are not "as powerful" in Pathfinder 2e, but that doesn't mean they are ineffective, bad, or otherwise unplayable in 2e. Two nights ago, my party sorcerer (who has been tearing their way through Age of Ashes) landed 50% of the kills in our session & kind of made the rest of the party look lackluster. (There were several Crit Fails on Spell Saves.) Our Sorcerer is a relatively new TTRPG player (less than 2 years experience), and they are doing great! When I see one of my least experienced players consistently tearing through APs that are "too hard" with a class that is "too weak," I have to say - its not as bad as people have made it out to be. Now, all that being said - the Cleric class was phoned in compared to all of the other classes & I really hope Paizo gets around to offering them serious options in the future! If there is a spellcasting class that has room for some serious complaints in 2e, it is definitely Cleric! Thanks for your reply!

[@louisst-amand9207]

I wouldn't say they hate casters. They nerfed casters and buffed martials so they would be on the same level. Indeed, casters aren't the masters of the universe anymore. But that makes your martials worth playing. Also, I don't know why so many people have so much problems with healing. My players usually treat wounds the whole party, and since they only have 1 kit of healer's tools, it takes around 40 minutes while others keep watch. And since I use milestone leveling up, I can cut some of the encounters that don't add anything to the story. So, we usually have 1 fight per in-game hour.

[@ElvenMercinary]

Generally when you hit level 5-10 none of these are really issues but 1-4 can be a little rough. Casters May have “less spells” but 2E is hasn’t had 10+ years of additional resources to expand the available options and a lot of spells do something “if you fail”. Cantrip scaling also helps quite a bit. The medicine skill like in particular almost brings too much healing later especially if someone takes the medic of herbalist archetype and that’s not on a non-caster.

[@ollywright]

Interesting how different subjective experiences can be. I much prefer 2e casters. And see many players joining 2e from 5e. Paizo have said that the game is performing well financially. Pathfinder 2e is the 2nd best selling ttrpg in the world currently.