Pathfinder 2nd Edition Review | GameGorgon

Thats right we have been going through the book page by page and we are finally here... THE REVIEW!! of Pathfinder 2e!
There are no show notes. We just talked for a bit.
queuetimes.com
Want to support us?:
/ queuetimes
teespring.com/stores/queuetimes
Check out QueueTimes on social!
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / _queuetimes
Indigo: / indigoqt
Croog: / croogqt
Facebook: / queuetimesgaming
Intro and Outro Audio by Classic J:
/ classicjcasio
Music provided by Argofox:
Wontolla - Up To No Good
• Wontolla - Up To No Go...
#TTRPG #Paizo #Pathfinder2e

[@The_Mad_Chef78]

So in case anyone is wondering, an 83 out of 90.5 is the same as 9.2 out of 10.

[@Althaven_]

Next question, did Indigo know this when he said it? ;)

[@The_Mad_Chef78]

@@Althaven_ My heart says yes, but my head says probably not...

[@Althaven_]

You know what they always say. Always listen to your.... ...self

[@Ditidos]

Actually, no it is not. It is the equivalent to a 9.1712707182320441988950276243094‬... Yes, I needed to make the joke.

[@willot4237]

Another Scale Joke: Cleric says to fighter "how many hits have you got left man?" DM to Cleric, "no, this is roleplaying Dont ask about hard numbers ask her ABOUT her wounds.." Cleric says "oookkkk... So Fighter how wounded are you? Do you need the healing of my god?" Fighter says (looking at DM), "well on a scale of 1 to 48 Id say Im at about 12." :) DM says to whole table, "I hate you"

[@PaizoInc]

Thanks guys. Funny and blunt is what everyone wants... ok, almost everyone.

[@MisterDragon]

A like for the full disclosure alone already. Integrity is best.

[@Althaven_]

Hahaha thanks! Got to be honest with you all

[@mattsullivan2458]

Me: "I wonder if they're gonna comment on the character sheet, it's kinda messy." Croog: "Character sheet!"

[@JasonBulmahn]

Thank you gentlemen for a fair and honest review... but I mean I thought we would have gotten at least an 84 or 85.

[@Althaven_]

Aright alright you can have an 84.5....

[@tylerwhite7833]

There's a couple things I would like to add as far pros. Mostly talking from a guy who has used 5e for many years. 1.) When I first looked at the system, I felt overwhelmed. Coming from DnD 5e, all the crunchiness and systematic building blocks left me very confused and nervous to really try it out. The book actually lays everything out very easily to understand. From the step by step on character creation to some of the more complex rulesets which (like you mentioned) can just be set to side: it's actually much easier to get into than initially anticipated. 2.) It truly feels like your own character. You went into a little bit but I feel like it cannot be stressed enough. From the ancestry, backgrounds, and even to the skills and feats of the class: its your character. While it does have certain "subclasses" similar to 5e, it doesn't feel like you are locked into said subclass for the rest of your adventurer's career. Most levels have a choice made you and not a skill that the book tells you. You get certain things at certain levels sure but those are only the base class skills/feats. 3.) I actually truly love the way proficiency works in this game. I'm not sure if it worked similar to PF 1e, but coming from 5e, the proficiency system here feels so much impactful. A high level character with the same attribute now actually feels stronger than a character with similar attribute but lower level/proficiency. As an example: in 5e, a level 20 Fighter with normal Plate and no shield has the same AC as level 1 Fighter with Plate(An extreme example I know but its the concept that matters). 4.) Spells can crit....this needs no explanation. 5.) The way critical success/failure works is much more dynamic than 5e's "Nat 20". Instead of having to roll a 20 to crit or roll a 1 to critically fail, its based on the roll and check.(Example: The check to hit is 15. You roll a 15 and after all modifiers it totals to 25.You crit. Its similar for Crit fails. check is 15 but you total 5. You critically fail.) I love that they did this as it allows those who are very good at certain actions to actually get those crits more frequently, thus making it feel like your character is doing something and makes the players feel like a badass. While it certainly affects the frequency of critical failures as well, it makes the players think more about what their characters do and promotes more strategizing and cooperation from your teammates to help negate those failures(...or assist you in your falls for those with more evil intentions hehe...)

[@Ulfhrim]

I also 100% agree about the general feats feel lack luster. My homebrew solution atm is you can also pick a class equal to half your character level

[@jackingjackrabit47]

Devan Babendererde I like this, they should definitely give a general feat that does this

[@JWLuiza]

That’s cool without feeling OP.

[@Ulfhrim]

It really adds a lot of depth with minimal tweaking. I feel you dont get enough chances to pick class feats, and the general feats are lackluster...so this picks up the slack and fills the holes

[@Mrkromtv]

"That would be - checks nonexistant clock - how much?" As a DM about to start the cult of cinders campaign i'm super excited to test the game, so far the character creation seemed super easy to my players (thanks to the pathbuilder app mostly) and the mechanics doesn't seem suuuuper difficult to understand or remember (i'm only a bit worried for the animal companion ranger, but we'll see how that goes). Keep up the good work guys! and congrats for the 4k!

[@divinkitty9452]

The animal companion ranger is actually super good so far. The abilities they get are insanely helpful and add a wide variety of various effects that can help the party just by the companion being adjacent to the enemy when you hit them. The only feat I'm kinda 'eh' about is the one ranger feat that has you use a second action to give the animal companion three actions, but I can see situations or builds where that would be really helpful. A lot better than 5e's take on the concept and honestly a lot more manageable than 3.5's or Pathfinder 1e's take as well.

[@Momoryuto]

Me at the beginning of the video: “9.3? Are you kidding me? I give it 10 whole points!!! ...the other 990 points however...” But for real, I love the complexity of 2e that still feels streamlined compared to DND 5e. It feels like there’s a lot my character can do! Can’t wait for future expansions to all Ancestry, backgrounds, and classes (as well as feats)!!

[@Althaven_]

Lol, this could have been the script for the whole video. XD

[@block2001]

Good in depth review...for real though Croog your hair grows back soo fast

[@ancientsway55]

Having played it for a few sessions this video is how I feel about 2e.

[@InUtahNotOfUtah]

Excellent and accurate review. Subscribed. Would love to see more reviews of PF2 products.

[@Althaven_]

Thanks the plan as soon as we get more!

[@cz1822]

One thing I love is the versatility of pathfinder 2e. The feats make everything so flexible, and the action economy is great. I also enjoy the variety of conditions. When Croog was drinking during episode 1 of court of corvids, when he failed the fortitude save, I would have made him clumsy 2 or something. If he kept going, I would have made him sickened to some degree. I love that feeling of being able to easily apply game mechanics in a way that makes sense, and isn't overly complicated.

[@Althaven_]

100% yes, and as more content gets released, I'm very impressed how simple Paizo is able to keep the designs of individual features while keeping everything...fresh. It's only getting better! :)

[@fingerknives4130]

Great review. I’m glad that my interest in Pathfinder 2e led me to your channel. Now I just need to convince my crew to give it a try so I can play a barbarian who turns into a were-lion when he rages!

[@Althaven_]

Welcome to our adventuring party

[@ianemory5800]

Overall I agree with pretty much everything you guys said. Im gming two games myself and will add a couple thoughts. 1. Low lever encounters feel harder to balance than in past games as with a three action economy the chances to hit or more specifically crit go way up. 2. While im not sure if I love the adding your level to everything with a group of inexperienced players when they ask calculating their + is super easy to do for evrything. 3. My favourite part of thie game is flavor the way players are crafting exactly what they want utilizing the background system had made it so fun to GM. Rogues who come from war torn lands than can legitimately heal in times of crisis and primal sorceress who come off exactly as the herbalist she wants to is great.

[@xiex]

Well boys, I've been waiting for this!

[@Jasonwfd]

"We still don't put people's names in a video." *video ends, still no names in a video* lol I am one of the new people that arrived here because of PF2 videos. Great stuff so far folks! Keep it up!

[@spawnofheck]

yes- i agree with this review. Shields are great, balance of roles are great, i'm loving the character building so much and hate the original sheet so much I'm writing a google sheets character builder. one thing i'm looking forward to the most is more ancestry feats (specifically dwarves) because if i want to take an all dwarf party, their ancestry feats might look very similar. looks like they are putting out tons of stuff so that shouldn't be a problem!

[@Griffnix]

I was looking for podcasts uploading Pathfinder game sessions and found you on Spotify. Decided to see if the game was on here and found the channel. Liking the other content you upload on the game so keep up. 👍 👍

[@Althaven_]

Yay! Welcome! Thanks for joining us!

[@lycandeadfall8542]

I also love how Pathfinder gas categorized its spells. Instead of studying a spell list for every single spell list for each class is no longer neccesary. Instead, spell lists are determined by the time of magic you use. Like Primal or Divine. And that's not even to mention the Focus Spells that make class abilities better organized. Or the amazing thing of 10th level spells.

[@dallastuggle8901]

I'm glad that I think I finally found a replacement for D&D 3.5e. This keeps tons of customization, and it going to keep being updated.

[@Kingneo0053]

Agreed. The foundation is great (action system, crafting system, swapping out feats and spells known from downtime, multi-classing, etc.), but the number of options available right now feels lackluster. Mind you won't take long to get those options since the Advanced Player's Guide is coming out in, I think, a year, but still.

[@Althaven_]

yeah plus there are new backgrounds and archetypes out in lost omens. Also just saying the book way already 600 some odd pages already! thats a big freakin book!

[@DogsNotGods]

I love it. I'm 100% buying into the system. I'm not a fan of the "ability boost" WORDING but that's my only complaint so far. Trying to GM 2E from 1E is night and day

[@divinkitty9452]

6:20 gotta put my two cents in rq, a ranger (albeit a very late game ranger) can make that retreating Wizard their prey (not as a reaction, BUT, in this hypothetical let's just say that the ranger marked the Wizard as his prey (likely to be the case if the wizard is a returning character)) and you have the To the Ends of the Earth feat, it doesn't matter wheeeere that wizard goes, the Ranger will just know. Something that my friend and I noticed (as we did the math excessively on this, but have yet to actually test this out in late game play) casters are actually a bit behind martial classes in terms of their chance to hit, so we made a set of runes that works like the martial runes, except it's applied to a focus (instead of a weapon) and can only (at least for now) take on Fundamental Runes and cannot take on Property Runes, and the two Fundamental Runes they have access to gives a +1-+3 to attack rolls, and +1-+3 to save DCs. My only actual complaint to the system so far is the table of contents. As a DM planning for an adventure, or even as a player prepping their character, it's hell to have to be like "ok I know the vague... 50-200 pages that the thing I want is in, so now I need to bounce around to find it." It's why I'd personally recommend the PDF version over the physical copy because ctrl+f is a god send with this book. (Plus, for those on a budget, the pdf version is a lot cheaper)

[@terryhansen3748]

I just stumbled across your channel. I am a subscriber now. I really like both of your candor and knowledge. I look forward to watching more of your videos. Thanks for the great review. I agree with your points. My one dislike is how fiddley the interact actions can get. Moving hands on weapons that's an action. In the same regard it makes you have to think how you use your character in encounter.

[@Althaven_]

First of all, welcome! I think I speak for both of us when I say "We're flattered". :) Secondly, yeah, Pathfinder has always been a little more "fiddly" than other systems. I think the two of us lean towards that helping rather than hurting the game. That having been said, we ignore our fair share of rules...that's the great part about TTRPG! It's not like the devs will come down and yell at you for not doing Downtime correctly. :)

[@Royicethepkmnmaster]

I have been playing the intro campaign and I love it. I also really enjoyed he openness that is professionalism.

[@Ileleana]

i will say i love the feat system for PF2. In starfinder as a mystic most of the feats available are useless to me. but PF2 gives so much more versatility and use for feats.

[@brandcolt]

Really good review and I agree with almost everything. I do not like the COLORS on the character sheet but overall I really do like the sheet and when my players bring their custom ones in I get so lost cause I have spent a lot of time now with the official sheet.

[@Althaven_]

Ugh... The character sheet... I'm not even going to talk about my feelings about it

[@RagingWyvern]

On the gm stand point I like the new system it feels alit easyer to make and handle encounters and set up for areas. One the worrying about pcs messing up a boss with spec powers that's always been a thing, made some encounters drag cause they couldnt fight it well to ok we one shot it now what...?. Havent run 8nto that problem yet for pf2 besides the dragging part. But I have a 6 party and 4 of them are spell casters. Really like the pf2 yall are covering. Really ready for the gm guide to come out also

[@TacDyne]

That goat fez is killin' me! Love it! Instant thumbs up lol.

[@Althaven_]

Indigo Thanks you!

[@JWLuiza]

I love you guys. So I came for pathfinder. What rabbit hole should I go down now for Gamegorgon? Definitely going to hit some of the other live play after court of corvids

[@Althaven_]

We have many rabbit holes. We're pretty meticulous about curating our playlists if that helps you! :)

[@benasaro1043]

Great review but you didn't cover my favorite thing about 2e - conditions of success/failure and critical success/failure!

[@Althaven_]

True! This isn't an exhaustive list by any means! :)

[@nocteexmortis979]

I’m really hoping for better and more General feats in the APG, and possibly a look at some of the oddness of early levels, specifically stuff like the inability for anyone but Rogues to actually take a second level Feat at second level..

[@Althaven_]

GIVE ME MORE I WANT MORE!!!!

[@timothyb1836]

I'm here because of pathfinder thanks.

[@brantchurchill7415]

Nice

[@driftinHank29]

Love that Baphomet fez!

[@Althaven_]

Thank you!

[@necrophage12]

Got the book, and thanks for the review. As a side opinion, biggest dislike of the game is the power scaling is far too steep. The one imporvement of 5e I liked the most is the bonuses and numbers being reigned in much more. Powers scaling is so arbitrary generally and makes the GM just do more work to scale a monster they want to face the players. It'd be better to have less of a steep improvement between levels, for instance a bonus should never really have to be above +12 possibly even +10. And the rest goes without saying for HP.

[@EasilyBoredGamer]

One thing that kinda gets under my skin is that this system at first glance it requires waaaay more effort to homebrew things for, oh you wanna add this homebrew race to your world as a player option, time to make a bunch of ancestry feats oh a new class, on top of class features now you have to add all these class feats not sure if this is good or bad exactly, I just know it makes homebrewing those types of things feel a lot more time consuming.

[@mathunit1]

Good.

[@EasilyBoredGamer]

What do you mean by that exactly, you didn't explain or qualify at all what is good about it.

[@juliotrindade3398]

Pathfinder 2e is the climax of TTRPG. Thanks Paizo. A perfect game.

[@zonegamma8197]

will you play PF2E as your go to fantasy game replacing 5E ?

[@Althaven_]

I'd say 2E is our "main" game right now, but we're not "replacing" anything per-sé. We're strong believers of "If we enjoy a game, there's room for it at our table" :)

[@shanemcgee9641]

I recommend the Pathbuilder 2E Android App. PERFECT companion app. Streamlines char creation, levelling, and has every stat well organized. Still has a bug or two, but devs are always updating, including keeping up with the errata and further source material (such as when new books come out)

[@Althaven_]

#notSponsored? ;)

[@shanemcgee9641]

@@Althaven_ Not at all. I wish I was getting paid to promote it. It's legit a great app. Autocalculates everything for you. And you can take an afternoon and build an entire character and if you level up, it takes a tap or two and it makes all the adjustments. Add conditions, custom buffs, a whole pet tab. It does have a "premium" buy of 5$ to unlock some of it, but it is WELL worth it. I never need a character sheet again. No dice roller, but there are plenty of those. You could walk into a session with 15 ready-to-play characters or more, a dice app, and need nothing else on the table except minis and snacks.

[@garyco766]

I've only started to dabble with it, so far from an expert here but... so far it actually feels LESS versatile than 5e. There are a TON of feats, but most of them are really specific, not amazingly uselful combat tricks. Making an archer, for instance, I was really disappointed by options in the fighter feats. Ranger was better, but I ended up making the EXACT build that the example used, which I don't think has ever happened to me before - but the reason was instantly obvious: it's because for an archer the choices were narrow enough that that is the build you would probably end up with (even though I was actually designing a knife thrower). in 5e, you have all the subclasses, each of which brings different options and flavor, and a MUCH better variety of general feats (the general feats so far in 2e are VERY lacking). Related to that, I found it really disappointing that so many feats were class specific, like quick draw. Fighters can't take quick draw without the ranger archetype? Really? Those are the only 2 classes I've really explored so I can't speak to the others.

[@Althaven_]

Is there a reason that requiring an archetype is so bad though? From where I'm sitting, if you're looking for your build to have features only available to the fighter, take a dip in fighter. The system is there for a reason. :)

[@jackeldridge4225]

I have been playing 2e for a while now. I love it. Yes every game will have flaws, but yes all classes seem balanced. And the action economy in combat is super smooth. And yes I love the shield and block option. As for feats...

[@brothermutant7370]

98 Likes and ZERO hates, lub u.

[@Althaven_]

For now there's always 1.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

I personally give it 8 / 10. I liked it! (In comparison to me D&D 5E gets 7.5 / 10, my favorites are Changeling the Lost and Dresden Files as 9 / 10). Some parts are still a little clunky to me, ancestries is concept are rad but could use more to start, some parts of reading feel like they should reference on themselves better, proficiency is pretty clunky and tedious at times, non-class Feats are pretty bland, they were really close to cutting out a lot of sacred cows but I wish they commit more, etc. But I LOVE a lot here. Like, A LOT of things are great and if a D&D 5.5 happens, I think there's stuff to learn from here that I adore.

[@prosocial_lad]

I used to build insane cmb based characters in pf1 and give them all sorts of flanking and gauntlets and all that good stuff so when they got tripped all my homies would ask in unison if they stood up so we could nab that sweet AOO, and we’d just roll through dungeons tripping people. Now my team and I don’t get AOO for free and it makes me v sad. Also for the purposes of being a sorcerer with a hefty spear just in case, cuz nobody gets close without paying for it.

[@Pantaro2007]

i randomly ended up here because im trying to learn more about P&P and it was totally worth it just for that ign comment ha!

[@bluelionsage99]

My group are old gamers (like started in the late 70s). We used to play very crunchy games, wrote our own FRPG rules for the specific magic and combat crunchy we wanted....and now years later D&D 5.0 is our game because we grew tired of the crunch. The problem with rules full of crunch that can be ignored is the GM and a few of the players can have different ideas of which crunch to leave out and that give you group tension and groups that fall apart. Nothing makes a player hate a campaign more than seeing all kinds of neato things they could do by the rules as written but the GM doesn't want to "activate" that part of the rules.

[@Althaven_]

That's why it is important to talk to your GM and your GM listen. This is everyones game. So if a player really wants to use something then gm should listen and try and use that to make it more fun for the player

[@thecozyfambam]

Wish I could agree that the action system is the best out there... but the New(ish) Alternity game from Sasquatch Games has a much better round management system. My gaming group just had the conversation about how PF2e's would have been the best had we not found that gem of a game... too bad that Sasquatch decided that marketing was for chumps and doesn't even let people know that have bought all their products that they are dropping another splat book.

[@britishshock]

Here because of starfinder. Buy love pathfinder the same.

[@totalpartykill999]

i just recently read the rules. i will say apart from using archetypes, which is fine, each class offers so much variety by itself that you can have a party of 4 fighters and have them not be identical. i have never seen that accomplished in an RPG until now.

[@nicklarocco4178]

The thing I really like about pathfinder 2 is, and I know a lot of people are gonna blow their tops, Paizo learned a lot from D&D 4e. Okay so I didn't really like pathfinder 1, it was like 3.5 minus jank, and the jank made 3.5 fun to me. D&D 5e threw the baby out with the bathwater and learned NOTHING from 4e. Say what you want about it, but 4e had some amazing design ideas, and their monster design was (and still is in my opinion) the best out of any fantasy adventure games like it. Paizo learned from that! Their monster design is, while not the same, reminiscent of 4e's. Monsters don't just have a bag of HP and a claw and bite like in 5e, they actually have things do to. There is more than a single example of every monster, you have various "builds" of monsters of the same race, especially humanoid ones, to help facilitate the DM in running exciting adventures featuring a primary enemy (goblinoids for example). Players have interesting things to do on all their turns, and get more variety as they progress (instead of gaining more corner case abilities or numbers advantages in favor of simply making more attacks or casting bigger fireballs like in 3.5). The proficiency system feels like an excellent build on 4e's system, where they took the things people didn't like about it (lack of dynamism, too few skills, lack of granularity) and improved that basic idea, I really like the proficiency system in pathfinder 2. Movement matters in combat. Unlike in basically every other version of D&D, and even pathfinder 1, you're encouraged to be dynamic in combat. The lack of AoOs on most monsters and characters at first was weird to me, but I like that it means that you can be more mobile and not feel locked into combat where it devolves into I swing you swing until someone dies. Also now that AoOs aren't for everyone they've been made useful. Pathfinder followed the tenet of "sticky defenders" from 4e, giving the "tank" classes the ability to punish enemies for not attacking them, or trying to get past them. Combat is also much better on the whole now because pathfinder 2 more closely resembles the 4e encounter balance philosophy which is generally 1 monster of an equal level for each PC makes an interesting encounter. 5e DROPPED THE BALL HARD on this, going back to the 3.5 CR balance system, with even dumber math than that, which encourages combats with 1 or 2 monsters vs a party of PCs, and those monsters get absolutely slaughtered because the PCs can just focus them down with their superior action economy. I just wish they would have adopted the monster role system from 4e which was great for telling GMs at a glance what the monsters primary goal in combat is. So as one of the 5 people who really loved 4th edition D&D Pathfinder 2 is incredible to me. It again proves that where WotC flounders Paizo is willing to take the time to learn what worked, what didn't, and improve their system, instead of just knee-jerking and trying to relive the "glory days" like WotC seems to be. Honestly if you like Pathfinder 2e and didn't like D&D 4e, take another look at it now, you might notice some similarities.

[@JoshTheValiant]

While I agree in some respects about Archetypes being a great solution for multiclassing and dipping into another suite of abilities to fulfill a concept better, I will say the one area it falls flat for me is when you have a character who wants to set aside their previous life and all-in pursue a new path. The Wizard who swears they won't cast another spell again after witnessing what their school has wrought, and picks up the cause of a martial god and becomes a Champion. The Barbarian who learns the folly of their mindless rage and pursues a life of contemplation and personal mastery, becoming a Monk. With the Archetype system, the game does not care that your ex-Wizard is taking only Fighter feats from now on... you're still getting the Wizard saves and increasing your spell levels, despite in the fiction having completely abandoned further arcane study. The ex-Barbarian is still deepening their fury and rage traits despite doing everything in their power to tamp it down and not give in to it. It feels off to me, like a hole in the game's accounting for fiction in view of simplifying mechanics, which I'm otherwise very much in favor of. (There's a potential hack of this game that runs classless and does everything on the feat engine and that's an exciting mine to trawl that I just Do Not Have Time For, but that would solve my gripes here) Otherwise I generally agree with the review.

[@Althaven_]

Thats a really interesting thought. I think there is 2 parts to that. 1. I think while the game doesn't fit that style perfectly, that is also very niche. 2nd i think the if you wanted to go that route the best way would be to "retrain" the class. yes you will loose 100% of what you gained at that class and still doesn't fit, i really feel the reason they went this way is because how HEAVY the loaded the front end of every class. by doing that you become way stronger by just dipping in to each class vs going down a path. it also makes the math WAY WAY WAY harder to do on a game developer standpoint.

[@JoshTheValiant]

@@Althaven_ An initial draft of my comment acknowledged the front loading of the classes as the root of this issue, but the alternative is boring/fussy, so I didn't bother. *Deletes a paragraph* And I still feel that way, so there it will lie. I agree that it's niche, but the argument could be made that multiclassing being complicated or compromised is the root cause of that situation. Unfortunately, the system as it stands now has no real solution, so there it is. Sad.

[@Althaven_]

@@JoshTheValiant Ok here is an idea Paizo can have of course with some balancing: BACKGROUND: Former (insert Class): Gain no Skill proficiency and only gain 2 ability boosts based off of the (insert Class) but intern gain 1 class feature

[@cheezeofages]

One of my major nitpicks about the system is that some of the social skill feats are complete hogwash. Annoyingly, major offenders are in Backgrounds; so if you want to play certain backgrounds you have to get feats that no sensible DM would rule you need or a DM nice enough to let you swap it out for something similar thematically. Examples include Charming Liar (because apparently you need a feat to lie to make people like you better) and any Group social thing (because apparently you need a feat and high levels of talking skill to make it at all physically possible to stand in front of a crowd and affect them socially). IMO these are even worse than the character sheet, because at least that doesn't imply rules exist that destroy common sense (and in Charming Liar's case one of the main uses of the skill).

[@TheOnlySheet]

TheOnlySheet.com -> For a Character Sheet, have you considered TOS 2nd CORE edition? It has the same engine as the popular TOS+/TOS FIVE character managers, which means it handles the stacking rules and the math. It is not about cute graphics, but rather to simplify your Character creation/management so you can focus on the GAME and not on the Mechanics...! THANKS for the good review of PF2!

[@Robochuck]

Not a single word on how critical hits are insanely skewed towards the GM’s advantage? Am I alone to think that encounters that would have been challenging in legacy pathfinder (a boss 3cr over the party level) is nigh-impossible in 2e because the GM crits every other roll of the dice? Or that the DC of saves are so high that a TPK can happen on the first turn because a spider coughed in the general direction of the party? My opinion is that had the crit system not been touched at all, pf2 would have been a 9/10 but because of the mess it makes out of combat, it barely passes with a 6.5/10

[@linus4d1]

I'm liking pathfinder 2e, but I don't know that I like it more than 1e. Both are fantastic games. I do have a player that prefers 1e. She really did not like the shield mechanic and sold her shield as soon as she could.

[@jeremymerkt3526]

Michael Kuehne She didn't like a +2 to AC with the option to have it absorb damage from a devastating hit?

[@linus4d1]

@@jeremymerkt3526 she didn't like that it took an action each turn to do it.

[@CraigSteinhoff]

Yea the character sheet is rough...the one Jason B tweeted was better. I picked up the class specific ones...not much better. I thought your review was fair and unbiased...but the "Indigo Scale" makes much more sense :)

[@CraigSteinhoff]

Yes it is now the "Indigo Scale" of rating games

[@Althaven_]

I like the name! It has a good ring

[@PaizoInc]

Wait, so is Croog's scale mauve, chartreuse, maroon or puse?

[@reaperofsouls2354]

Really good game, just don't like the spell sheet. Doesn't add the distinction of spells levels. Say like D&D 5e where the spell sheet is divided into it's respective spell levels. A minor gripe, but it should have been better designed.

[@thezeevy]

I have the same minor complaint about both Starfinder and 2E... There isnt a cool mechanic for duel wielding. As someone who loves duel wielding it feels bad to need to be a fighter or ranger to get any of that flavor.

[@zealous944]

yeesh i dont know if i find the game balanced imho. The cleric feels like 2ed dnd kinds of broken to me.

[@ferrous412]

So far i am not that impressed with PF2e. I hope it gets better as time goes by.

[@oversalt4713]

Taking shots at IGN in the first 3 minutes, consider yourselves having +1 subscribers more than 3 minutes ago.

[@grimmreaver9355]

Crafting is another issue with this game.

[@Althaven_]

why do you say that? or should I say which parts of it are you having issues with it?

[@louistetrault6729]

My biggest complain is the level as proficiency. It limited (at least it made it more complex) the use of monsters in DnD 4th and I was super happy they removed it in 5e (well they kept a +2 to +6 mod, but it's way less of a pain). I don't see why they went for this. Levels are already granting boosts by themselves without the need to tediously recalculate every modified bonus you'd get AND without the "level as proficiency", I can easily, as a DM, use any and all the monsters available. A kobold will be easier to kill at level 15 than level 1, but it shouldn't be unbearably boring to use (ex. If I want to go "AD&D Dragon mountain" style with kobolds). Anyway, other than that,it feels awesome as a system and i hope the next supplement will state the rules to remove level as proficiency, not because it's hard to do, but because I use Fantasy Grounds to play and they'll hopefully implement it!

[@Althaven_]

I actually know the answer to this. Adding your level give the devs more flexibility in the game curve. So adding your level yes seems redundant it's actually giving them more space to play with later on.

[@robinbernardinis]

I've heard that the rules for that will be in the GM Guide.

[@aamirhussain26]

Yeah the game Mastery guide will have rules for removing that. Really I like adding level as it allows players to become demigods facing off against other demigods by level 20 rather than just being very impressive. The way I heard a paizo Dev explain it was do you want 8 bandits to be a problem for a single high level fighter. There's no wrong answer to that. It's a preference.

[@arturick673]

What a useless pile of weasel words. A "felt" or "seems" drinking game would be lethal. My favorite part, though, is where you say "I love how they do shields, but some people might find it too crunchy" but don't actually discuss how shields are handled.

[@Althaven_]

You saw this was a review and not a deep dive Right?

[@buttstinkman5983]

The character sheet is absolute garbage

[@leviangel97]

I've not really played or had to use the sheet much, why do you think so?

[@buttstinkman5983]

@@leviangel97 It tries to hard to be aesthetically pleasing instead of functional. A lot of people have a problem with it. I have a friend who downloaded character sheets via reddit or 4chan (not sure which) because the new sheets are so bad

[@kbakspace]

Pls drop your caveats and stop thinking about the comments for a second. Ugh

[@Althaven_]

Why do they bother you? We think they're important for new viewers. :)

[@kbakspace]

​@@Althaven_ I think your caveats bother me because I want to get to the meat of your message, fast. As a new viewer, I want to decide if your channel is worth my time, and every second I don't try to answer that question while watching your video, I grow closer to skipping your video and never coming back. Sorry. If you want to catch new viewers, work on your hook. Pose a big question, tell me what excites you about Pathfinder, give me a quick story from the game that encapsulates what you want to tell me - give me a headline. Instead, you start me off with an awkward joke - it's unfortunate, because the joke that you use different scales for scoring is actually pretty funny, but it has nothing to do with why I clicked your video: To understand more about Pathfinder 2nd edition. Tell me something relevant for my quest for information, or I will seek it elsewhere. The caveats themselves aren't that bad, I was exhausted after waiting for something substantial about Pathfinder for more than a minute. But the caveats doesn't do anything substantial, so you could cut them. If you want to get me to watch more of your videos, cut your content down to < 10 minutes, preferably even < 4, and don't cut the substance.

[@jurgen4466]

Do you guys really have to be such clowns? You really are not fun.

[@Althaven_]

Something we learned a long time ago... We aren't for everyone