RPG Story: I've been running Pathfinder 2E for over a year now

[@researcherchameleon4602]

I love how pathfinder puffin is a flumpf instead of the standard human character for D&D

[@TheShadowChesireCat]

Clearly Puffin Found the Path to have Character Evolution. And evolved into a Flump. Though, flumps are not native to Golarion 🤔

[@researcherchameleon4602]

@@TheShadowChesireCat after flump, will he evolve to crab, or skip human entirely and go straight back to monkey

[@vutruong41]

Huh, I barely noticed. Maybe because his height and width are still proportionally the same.

[@js-pg2hc]

Flump… intresting, how did that happen?

[@Tasarran]

*flumpF

[@ProtagInist]

My favorite part of Pathfinder 2e is how each class can be built in very personalized ways. The fact that a party can roll up 5 Rogue characters and have a tank, ranged dps, close range dps, magic caster, and a support. Not for everyone but it's absolutely worth a try.

[@MonkeyChessify]

For sure, but the effectiveness of each build (not that particular example) may vary. While PF2E has LOTS of options, a good chunk are simply not good and result in your character being underpowered. In a system where every +1 to your attack/damage is a huge impact, that's kind of crappy to navigate as a newbie to the system

[@TriptuneRadio]

I once made a rogue who could crit for 30+ damage with her fists by conplete accident. One of the most fun builds I have ever played

[@Pogopuschel2345]

@@MonkeyChessify i dunno i think all you really need to tell them is keep your classes key stat as high as possible and if they follow that they should be fine also retraining feats is a core game mechanic

[@JKSSubstandard]

As someone who has looked at pathfinder, ill also say that this is its greatest weakness. My group has thought of going to pathfinder2, so we did some tinkering around in the character builder and the amount of customization is frankly dizzying. Not nowing what all those abilities are really doing as a new player feels like climbing everest to make a character since you are basically throwing darts at a wall and hoping to come out with what you want. Thats why 5e is as big as it is. You pick a race, the race does x. You pick a class, the class does y, then you pick a subclass and the subclass does z. Its so unbelieveably easy to start and you can reflavor xyz any number of ways just by explaining it different.

[@Regfife]

@@TriptuneRadio So, you made Sanosuke?

[@davidfeldman4571]

I think it's interesting that you point out fights taking longer in P2 than in 5e because my group definitely had the opposite, what used to be long sloggy grind fests turned into snappy quick turns where everyone was clear on what they could do with 3 actions and how they wanted to use them. Things sped up so much for my group compared to what we saw in 5e.

[@MrRJPE]

For my table, 5e had faster, less enjoyable combat turns. A lot of turns were "I attack. Oh, it missed? Okay, that's my turn." It went quicker but wasn't fun.

[@art7259]

The 3 action economy is truly great

[@Wizard_Level_1]

That's been my experience for many fights as well. It seems that PF2 kind of swings one way or the other. Quick snappy fights, or longer more drawn out ones. Rarely boring though.

[@dramotarker1352]

​@@MrRJPE Yeah, pf2e being slower is the GOOD part. The less time someone needs to think over their actions, the less strategizing they're doing.

[@gordonbailey9897]

Same. Fights for my pf2 group are almost half as long as when we played 5e

[@arbiterally101]

Here's the thing: Pathfinder is a system that is all about incremental power and fighting smart. You can't abuse individual incredible power effects like 5e. One ability or spell isn't going to solve every situation. In a way, it's settled the Martial v Caster divide of 5e, and simultaneously created a new instance of that same situation. Simply put, not all classes are created equal. Yet at the same time, if you know how a creature works, or spend the resources to acquire power: you will absolutely have the power to wreck problems. Similarly, the way Resistance and Weakness work is just a hell of a lot more valuable in PF than in 5e. If you get a weakness off, even on a boss creature, that's a massive damage boost. Compared to 5e, where I've generally found most monsters don't have weaknesses, or if they do, they're not particularly applicable. Types are everything in PF, and certain creatures need to be feared purely on type alone. Golems are actually one of the best examples. They're incredibly dangerous because of their golem immunities. It means you really need to go into a fight scrounging for every scrap of knowledge about them to learn what weaknesses they have and how to exploit them. Does Fire damage slow them? Do they have massive resistance on non-adamantine damage? Do they force a Save-or-Die effect on critical hits? (Yes, this golem exists!) Incorporeal creatures are exactly the same, and they're the reasons you really want to keep on top of your equipment and follow the item levels pretty closely. If you ever run an AP, they wholly expect you to do that. It is lower fantasy, lower power, but at the same time the investment means you really do earn the crazy abilities that change the game. Such as hitting high level and unlocking things like Final Form on a Tiefling. It's a huge power and one that has so much story opportunity and works regardless of role. That's a lot more interesting as I've seen than the upper levels of 5e where it's sorta modest gains as a non-caster or world-shaping ridiculous power as a mage.

[@admiraltonydawning3847]

"AP" is Adventure Path?

[@legojedimasterplokoon2173]

@@admiraltonydawning3847 Yes

[@nikidelvalle]

I don't agree that class's aren't created equal in 2E actually. All classes in 2E are actually equal, but different. They have unique strengths both based on their general playstyle (martial, caster, gish), but they all excel in different areas and have completely different capabilities and roles during combat. Martials are the kings of single-target damage and reusuable control, while casters rule in terms of flexibility, utility, and group combat. And between class's with similar playstyles, you still have unique strengths. Fighters are excellent at accuracy, but they can't do as much raw damage as Barbarians, nor do they have the flexibility of a Rogue. The capabilities of all of the characters are different, but all of them are essential for the party to function.

[@Nidrog]

@@nikidelvalle I mean a good example of classes not being created equal in 2E that is being addressed in the upcoming remaster. Witches. Oh, you're supposed to be familiar focused? Well, a Wizard got all of that on lockdown with the Familiar thesis and it is a better caster. Focus cantrips? The bard does that sort of thing way better with better options for support. In the grand scheme of things yes there is so much balance in 2E compared to some other systems like 5e for classes. But man, we do have some places where some classes are very much not created equally.

[@RvEijndhoven]

You might want to add a '2E' there... Because PF1e is *definitely* extremely permissive of building a single ability or spell out to be some ridiculous kill-everything combo. It inherited that from D&D 3.5 which had that same problem.

[@PurpleCyanideTube]

4:44 “I would describe it as a lower power fantasy” my man… you can jump into the sky, kill someone non magically with a stare, survive any fall, and be such a good contortionist you are able to functionally phase through walls. I think it’s just more likely you haven’t gotten to the “power” yet and I can’t wait until you do.

[@darthfodder]

Yes, but enemies keep pace with you, unlike in 5e where eventually any enemy up to 5 CRs above you will be obliterated by a party that's even *trying* to be strong.

[@9652769]

And that level 15th!

[@PurpleCyanideTube]

@@darthfodder I mean I don’t know if it is THAT easy to win in 5e. Could have players who are actively making wrong decisions and building their character wrong on a fundamental level, but I see your point. That being said, CR in 5e is a joke especially compared to pf2e. And if you are looking for a power fantasy in pf2e just have your players fight a bunch of enemies 3 levels lower than them. Difference being, you KNOW it will be a stomp simply based on how the system balances challenges.

[@richarddarma1452]

The enemies also scale as you level up, like even if you have ‘scare to death’ it’s not likely to work because you need a crit and the incap effect.

[@Audentior_Ito]

He means lower than 5e, which was explicitly designed to give the "superhero" feeling to players. Hence plowing through hordes vs fighting a few bigger enemies & short explosive fights vs longer slugfests.

[@clintonbehrends4659]

one thing I like about pathfinder is that the monsters actually feel unique from each other and actually incorporate weaknesses and streangths from the monsters source material combine that with the sometimes weird as heck enviromental hazards encounters can be extremelly out there

[@liamcage7208]

I really like Pathfinder 2e. I have a war gaming background and strategic battle is something I enjoy. It seems to me that D&D 5e has PCs standing still and rolling d20 until someone drops. I feel that P2e encourages more strategy and resource management. I also appreciate that not everyone likes that. P2e's strength is also its weakness. I have one player who just wants a cookie cutter character and doesn't enjoy allocating his skill points and deciding on feats. He just likes being told "You're level 5 now, your Ranger gets this...". Everyone has their style of game.

[@lordbuss]

GURPS is arguably better at it than Pathfinder 2E.

[@liamcage7208]

@@lordbuss I've tried GURPS many years ago, although I liked it I found it lacking in some areas. There was a new release just yesterday so I should give it another chance.

[@queenvagabond8787]

I prefer Savage Pathfinder, Savage Worlds manages a much better mix of fiction first with tactical RPG elements. It allows you to focus on whats important, while still giving room for people who like tacticality. Savage Worlds also rewards careful team-work, but you don't get caught up in micro-managing powers and class builds.

[@Lycaon1765]

Eh, both are a very "stand still and d20 until something dies" kind of game. Cuz I mean, once you're next to an enemy there's not much of a reason to move away from them and waste an action to move. This obviously if you WANT to be next to them, duh. At least in lower level fights, the enemies drop really quickly so it feels like you are moving around everywhere because you have to move to the next enemy.

[@nikidelvalle]

There are character options in 2E that would be a great fit for your friend though, Flurry Ranger was basically made for him.

[@enochofmi]

I like the pf2 3 action system. My character has a lot of stuff to do in a fight, and strategizing when i can fit them in is fun for me. That being said, i can get how having to view the battle through the lense of the 3 action system might pull someone out of the narrative.

[@gadzooks2763]

This is such a strange takeaway to me, because I've been DMing 5th edition for 5 years. And for the first time ever, combat finally feels quick and punchy. In 5e it was always a slog and balancing encounters was tricky and fights felt mechanical. I've cut combat time down by 20% thanks to PF2E, and now my fights all feel more cinematic

[@KajtekBeary]

I think… it depends on playstyle a lot. In my second campaign with pf2e it was far better and faster, because I had better grasp on both rules and possibilities. And my players decided to be far more tactical.

[@gadzooks2763]

@@KajtekBeary I can see that. Since I posted this comment, we've had a new player join our campaign and she is greeeeeeeen to the system. I'm gradually learning how to hurry her turns along, cuz so far every round of combat lasts 15-20 minutes now, with New Player spending much of the time going over options, having us look up her spells, etc. And if the whole crew is doing that, or feels like they have to just rinse and repeat their turns to avoid that, then I can see it being a torturous experience

[@KajtekBeary]

@@gadzooks2763 ngl, casters, specifically prepared ones, for first-time players doesn’t really seem like a good idea with pathfinder, looking at HOW MANY THINGS THEY CAN DO. Aside of spells there are like 20 basic actions. When it comes to them I found it easier to teach new players via giving those abilities to humanoid/intelligent/semi-intelligent creatures. Like, two kobolds aiding each other or goblin reading unarm action. This way new players can see them in practice. Yes, it’s not exactly RAW, but it makes both learning process and fights more enjoyable. And usually it doesn’t throw balance out of the water at all. I treat those creatures as trained in respective skills.

[@WarbossFraka]

Has a mainly PF1E player PF2E combat feels like a massive slog, like basic combats last 5-10 rounds and its mostly just relying on the D20 to do most of the lifting for a character.The only upset is since its such a simple and straight forward system its really quick 5-10 rounds.

[@jimjimmy8900]

​@@WarbossFrakayour DM is fucking something up, combat should last 3-4 rounds at most

[@chaosspork]

I actually started my tabletop career playing Pathfinder 1e. It's still my favorite system. I just love the number of options it gives you in character building and how each choice feels meaningful. The combat can be really intense too. It's absolutely worth a play, for anyone who hasn't tried it.

[@Maladjester]

Pathfinder Downside: You WILL want a spreadsheet. I had one for my alchemist where I could turn any of his buffs on or off and all the stats would adjust. Saved so much math and prevented what I'm sure would have been a ridiculous number of "forgot to apply bonus from X." Pathfinder Upside: Any vision you have for what your guy should be able to do, there's a way to make it happen.

[@yuin3320]

​@@MaladjesterI would say it's only needed if someone in the party has a bunch of different bonuses they can give out. Last group I ran for (the first I ran for in ages) only had a few that they could easily keep track of.

[@Das_Mexikaner]

I had to build a custom sheet to help newbies get used to all the moving parts. To make it all even more confusing and customizable, I homebrew Gestalt options that require tracking averaged fractional bonuses, so it was a worthwhile investment of my time. I even opened up the choice of using the 3PP content Spheres of Power. A lot to learn, but once it clicks in the players' heads, they get really invested.

[@dontyodelsohard2456]

Pathfinder 1st edition is my go to system as well... And I even got my nephew who is 11 years old into it. Which I kind of feel bad for because he really likes the game now... But he is only 11. Most kids his age don't like tons of rules in their games or are just oblivious to the concept of a TTRPG. And then my brothers all hate the game with a passion enough that they won't even stomach it for their nephew (although that does make it more fun to lord over them that he finally likes one of my interests).

[@ShadowAraun]

@@Maladjester if you play online, the pathfinder community sheet on roll 20 has loads of premade buffs you can set up, you can make custom ones as well and you can set your limited resources (bombs, arcane pool, rounds of rage). the sheet does take some learning, but makes playing the game a breeze when you are good at it.

[@taxman3749]

I'm always jealous of my mans Puffin for how much d&d and stuff he gets to do.

[@Japhox45]

Agreed 😂

[@mr.cuddlesworth3144]

Never did DND, always wanted to at least try 1 session. Though, I doubt I can be evil in DnD.

[@Japhox45]

@@mr.cuddlesworth3144 i find its really easy to play your poler oppusite. Its a lot of fun. Defintly should try it! Maybe you start as an evil rogue, meet a god and become a paladin! Its about the story! Lots of people online play, and if your in a city i bet youll find a locals group near you!

[@cheepcheep4499]

​@@mr.cuddlesworth3144 I definitely think you can find someone running a campaign for evil characters, or characters who might just have to work with each other because their goals align

[@heartysquid]

​@@mr.cuddlesworth3144Evi characters can work with neutral parties...as long as they have dark goals and see the party as adventuring tools of a sort...or as useful allies. Let's say you want to be a dark lord of magick...having morally dubious but completely reliable party members to back you up is VERY fun.

[@EnderQuils]

As someone who doesn't like PF2e very much, i think this video really describes the experience well. Pf2e clearly satisfies different needs in the TTRPG experience compared to Dnd 5e. As a player, i enjoy the faster, more explosive combat encounters of 5e, compared to the tactical, meticulous and precise combat of pf2e. Pf2e has some great stuff that id like to steal and add as homebrew rules for my 5e game, but its clear that it's not a system made for players and DMs like myself, and thats okay.

[@AndrewGreene0]

+1 for Pathbuilder. I feel like I’ve tried a few other digital tools and none of them comes close from a character sheet standpoint. Hopefully the space continues to improve on the tools.

[@yaronsinger7271]

Hope it's a pf2e +1 and not a dnd5e +1, one is significantly more valuable than the other.

[@keithwinget3450]

Foundry is roughly on par (arguably better in some ways) and is an entire VTT, plus there are plugins for importing Pathbuilder characters into it.

[@zolgathor]

@@keithwinget3450 i thought they got rid of the pathbuilder to foundry import capability?

[@rynowatcher]

Yeah, the tools made the difference in the play experiance he had between his first review and now. It is a definite improvement. Is that a good thing that you need an app to run a game, though? I kind of feel there is a lot of bloat in there that kind of was put in there pointlessly. Ie if your ac goes up at the same rate to hit modifiers go up, we are just giving +1 to all rolls so the +1 does not matter outside of saying "I rolled a 43!" Do not get me wrong; I like the brand, but Savage Worlds Pathfinder is the most accessible form of pathfinder because they did away with the pointless number inflation. You can have a much cleaner system.

[@keithwinget3450]

@@zolgathor Did they, bc I swear people in my group were actually using it last night. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. They certainly mentioned using it at some point, I'm sure of that.

[@trevorp8124]

1e's my jam. There're some issues that a bit of homebrew can work out, but in all honesty, it's got a nice effect where the first few levels (As long as you don't play a Druid or Summoner) are pretty simplistic and manageable, and it scales up from there in complexity. Mythic is for bosses only, though. They say it's for players, but it absolutely is not.

[@Maladjester]

Yeah, mythic powers get stupid quick. And I'm saying that about a game where characters blow up fortresses, slay demigods, return from the dead mid-combat, turn into dragons, and all the other stuff. Without trying to min-max in the slightest, I was able to have my barbarian do a double Champion Strike that was potentially 400-some-odd points of damage per round as long as she had myth pool to spend. And don't get me started on Display of Strength. She once lifted a stone giant over her head and threw, literally THREW A GIANT off a cliff. And I don't mean she out-wrestled it or something, because a high-level barb can potentially already do that. I mean threw a giant the way you skip a pebble on a lake. Didn't even have to, but the giants were talking trash and she decided to flex on them. Another time she smashed a hole in a castle wall. That was made to withstand siege artillery. WITH HER FISTS. Fun stories, but I'd have to say it's just too much power.

[@SockisS]

@@Maladjester I'm hosting a playthrough of the Wrath of the Righteous AP with three players and they wreck any and all encounter if I don't increase the difficulty, it's kinda hilarious in some ways.

[@Arcon1ous]

@@Maladjester you should look into a mythic vital strike cavalier. "I take all of my damage and quadruple it because mythic vital strike also boosts my bonuses not just the weapon die, and then I multiply the result by 3 because I'm charging with a lance, that'll be 1000 damage"

[@williampearce5757]

Hard disagree on that last idea. Mythic is fun *as hell* as a player. I've been Playing/GMing PF1e ever since the system first came out, and ever since I discovered Mythic existed, I refuse to play without it. And it's lead to so many incredible stories! Like how in one of my campaigns, the BBEG forcefully teleported the party's archer to the Moon, and rather than teleport back, the archer decided to instead *fire back on that BBEG from the moon.* They won that fight, and it never could've happened without him having Mythic Far Shot and Limitless Range. Literally not possible. Mythic is incredible, and I completely disagree that it should be for bosses only.

[@webbowser8834]

Playing through a campaign as wild shape druid and my word you weren't kidding. The character is fun as #%$@ out of combat (and the party desperately needed someone that can do things out of combat), but trying to sort through all the different mechanics in combat is incredibly challenging.

[@BongRipBing]

I really liked the "Fists of the Ruby Phoenix" module. It's RP lite and accessible, and it gets you a lvl 12-20 experience.

[@louisst-amand9207]

11-20*

[@trise2033]

Yeah, because it's super fun to have marginally cool once per day abilities in a campaign that takes place over the course of three days so you'll only get to use it maybe once.

[@rynowatcher]

The pathfinder modules are all top notch. I do not think anyone would dispute that, and they got a lot of them.

[@louisst-amand9207]

@@trise2033 I'm pretty sure it takes course over more than three days. Edit: In fact, only the first two chapters take place over the course of three days. So you were severely mistaken it looks like.

[@deepdickpizza777]

@@trise2033 That's only the first book. The rest of the module predominately consists of 1 encounter per day.

[@DaveTpletsch]

I mostly play Pathfinder 2e now, and I 100% agree with this sentiment. It's a great game if you enjoy resource management and super nuanced game play. It's functional if you don't. I LOVE it, but it's not a perfect game just like every other game out there, and it's DEFINITELY not a game for everyone, though I've found using Foundry or some other online game board that can keep track of all those active effects and conditions helps it go much faster and play more like a harder, grittier 5e.

[@yuvalgabay1023]

Hoo my god a path 2e that doesnt suck the system toes

[@typhfab]

i'm def glad that you're enjoying it this second go around! it's been my favorite system for a while now since it just feels so much more freeing as a player and more guided/easier to run/more fun to run as a dm, at least in our experience

[@chadburnside6333]

I've made the switch to PF2e and Foundry VTT has been a huge help. It take so much of the math out of the game and really lets you play.

[@whiterabbit75]

I am honestly confused when people say they are confused by the mechanics of Pathfinder. I mean, my group has played 5e; we played it for several months to give it a fair shake, before deciding it's not for us, but Pathfinder doesn't seem that much more complicated. Like, seriously, where is this confusion coming from? And needing a character builder for it? Why? That just sounds like they've become overly dependant on their devices if they can't keep up with a character sheet.

[@Skippydogo]

Its wild how different of an experience that we can have with these same cool mechanics. I like pf2e cause I feel like you end up with a wider variety of plays styles compared to 5e.

[@Usernamesdontmatter1]

I am a kindred spirit with the player who plays the game because he loves his friends. Thats me every NEW dnd campaign my group does. I swear to god if i get bumped down to level 1-3 again because we are starting a new campaign after getting to level 5-6 again because theres a new player im going to just not play anymore. I literally have no more low level character concepts for dnd. I have no interesting backstories anymore because i know they wont matter in a couple months. Its really frustrating.

[@MonkeyChessify]

Your adventures only go to 5-6? I feel like 10ish is the sweetspot in 5e, 6 is pretty damn low

[@juliannim6843]

Do you start new campaigns because new players join the group? Why not just let them join the campaign?

[@Usernamesdontmatter1]

​@@MonkeyChessifyit's been this way for 8 years

[@Usernamesdontmatter1]

​@@juliannim6843because they never know how to play and it also coincides with half the group dropping out because of work shedules

[@juliannim6843]

@@Usernamesdontmatter1 damn, that sucks. Don't think I'd stick around for 8 years in a group like that. Atleast not for the game, but if they company's good, that's alright.

[@MrUnimportant]

Glad you're having fun! Pathfinder 1e is my favourite system and I'm hoping to have a chance to play 2e sometime soon. The lore in Pathfinder and Starfinder is absolutely bonkers, and I highly recommend reading it for inspiration if nothing else. Things like a guy getting drunk, completing an impossible challenge to become a god, and forgetting how he did it once he woke up.

[@Arcon1ous]

and doing it in the middle of the night so there are no witnesses, all because of a stupid bar bet, just guy wakes up in the morning and finds out the guy he was an asshole to the night before is a new god.

[@kiearawagner7901]

That is really funny to think... but it's also possible that never actually happened now with updates to the lore. Apparently, in the Godstrain Prophecies, which he had an entry for, it is suggested that instead of him doing all that, ascending after being black-out drunk... he just kinda told everyone he did and they believed him. So with enough faith he just ascended, and the Starstone, having enough of his lies, just smited him out of existence. Now, if this is true (minus the smiting) that is an interesting revelation to make about one of the more popular carefree deities of this universe. Especially since it's hinted at that he doesn't really know if he did or not. All he remembered was getting drunk, going into the Cathedral on a dare, and then woke up back outside which many took as proof that he succeeded since going in there is supposed to be akin to a trap save for a few.

[@zachgibbs9823]

As a player, the customization is insane. Playing as a goblin bard archetype arrow song minstrel , or an orc barbarian/alchemist who takes mutagen steroids so he can hit 30+ str bonus when he uses his orcish hornbow, or a wizard who invests into sin magic, adding additional spells from select schools, while preventing casting others- it's absolutely a treat that 5e cannot compete with. As a GM, it's comforting knowing that there is a specific set of rules regardless what your players want to do. Open a dog grooming service after a tiresome adventure? There's rules for it. The fact many 1e books still work in 2e is also such a good vibe as well.

[@timon6427]

Patfinder 2e is like a competeive sport. It's fair play all around. It has clear guidelines for the GM that are not very mysterious. It needs team play. And as you become stronger, the enemies will scale with you - like leagues in sport. But it's all packaged in a adventuring fantasy game shell. And if you want that, it works really well.

[@sauce1101]

Foundry runs so much of the combat for me, I've forgotten to consider what it's like in person. I really don't think I'll play it in person without at least one computer

[@BlueSapphyre]

Big agree. If I’m playing in person, I’ll gravitate to DnD and use theatre of the mind, because the combat, frankly, sucks. But with combat so crunchy in pf2e, I much rather play on a vtt.

[@willot4237]

Yeah Foundry VTT makes your life so much easier in PF2e

[@ob_werm-YT]

I'm a new PF2e GM, been running one game in Foundry and one in person, and I gotta say, playing in person is not that scary. Overall, Foundry is definitely a super awesome tool, but I haven't had too much trouble tracking the little number adjustments myself. Might change once they get to higher level, though.

[@LevattWolfheart]

Foundry is so awesome for Pathfinder. And customizable, my friend made a dancing lights I can just place on the field that automatically lights with cool effects. Only downside is that Foundry uses the host's internet to run the game rather than a server. Not usually a problem but my group has 3 DM's, myself, and 2 of my friends, one of whom lives on a farm in the country with the shittiest internet and can barely host games. But as long as your own internet is good it's the best system.

[@BlueSapphyre]

@@LevattWolfheart big agree. Running foundry on your pc is a memory hog. Highly recommend using a server like Forge.

[@djm.o.d.1]

man so much love goes out to your friend that sticks around and plays whatever because he loves being with ya

[@raymondmacdonald2464]

Glad to see you're back, missed your videos.

[@Dragonewt-dv6dj]

If you don't like the diagonal movement, use a hexagon map, makes many things much easier

[@wyattjackson5185]

The, 5 first 10 second for diagonal movement, is the same rules for D&D. It's in all editions!

[@Dragonewt-dv6dj]

@@wyattjackson5185 with a map separated into hexagon fields it's just 5ft in very direction

[@wyattjackson5185]

@@Dragonewt-dv6dj I agree with the hexes. Yours was the first comment to address the movement "issue" he had in the video with a tag. I just wanted to clarify that the movement rules are the same in pathfinder and d&d.

[@coryjorgensen4648]

I do prefer hex maps for that very reason. However, when I'm using a pre-prepared map with squares, and don't have the option to use hexes, I think the 5/10 movement rule is a simple but effective way to mitigate the absurd distances you can travel diagonally.

[@Lycaon1765]

​@@wyattjackson5185 no in 5e you don't do that dumb pathfinder way. It's 5ft for every square no matter what.

[@derpbeholder1905]

When I first started DMing I was using 3.5 and then I moved to Pathfinder. Pathfinder is by far my favorite. First edition Pathfinder. I have DMed 5th edition as well and I'm not going to hate on it. I think that is absolutely great for people who are being introduced into d&d. But a lot of the mechanics if they removed from the game just made it seem less fun to me. Now yes when running Pathfinder if you use a 3.5 monster manual the game kind of now liens in the benefit of your players. The bestiary is terrifying. My first time using it I ran a standard orc encounter. Two archers two fighters and a chieftain. I almost caused a tpk. But to me Pathfinder will always reign supreme

[@LithmusEarth]

You are describing Pathfinder 2, as my ideal 5e, what i strive to make 5e feel like, coming from 4e prior to. It's wild to listen to this. How I want combats to generally feel, How I want magic to be handled, delicious. Perhaps If I wasn't so married to fifth edition, I'd be playing second edition happily.

[@Irsheito]

Glad to see another puffin forrest video! Would love to hear about the game!

[@lzrdkng]

i started GMing it about 3 months ago and this story is basically what happened to me. I wanted something light, and the players didnt, and 2e has started to really grow on me as I start to internalize how things interact with eachother, the Circumstance, Status and Item bonuses for example, or how to add runes to a weapon... as these lego bricks start to snap into place in my mind the intricate nature of the system is STARTING to prove interesting... possibly, if im lucky, even -entertaining- one day...

[@craigjones7343]

Definitely a much more balanced and thoughtful review this time compared to your previous review. If people like crunchy balanced system I highly recommend PF2. If they don’t like crunchy they should stay away from PF2

[@ejirokirishima4604]

What I love most ablut pf2e is the variety it gives ypu in builds, thanks to the feat system rarely feel 2 characters alike even if you play the same class

[@R3d-F3ar-86]

Thanks for your videos! I always look forward for them!!!

[@xXIxidor92Xx]

I wouldn't say Pathfinder is necessarily a lower power system. What I would say is it's not as explosive as d&d. In 5e, your character progression is marked by big milestones with one or two major abilities that can define your playstyle. This means a dm almost always has to customize encounters and such around said abilities (as you said). Pathfinder 2e is far more about incremental power increases. There isn't going to be that one level with a major ability that changes how you play the chatlracter entirely, but with every level you add 2-3 additional abilities or buffs. So by the time you've hit say 8th level, your character probably plays similarly to how they did at level 1, but they are far better at it and have more options. For munchkins like myself who love coming up with character builds, it's a joy

[@octavianpedigree5866]

I think the main difference between them is that pf2e is designed around the players learning the system, which is more in-depth and "crunchy," and having classes that build off of the system. As opposed to 5e where the players focys more in learning their character, as classes introduce whole new systems on top of relatively simple core one. Once you learn the core system of 2e, which takes some time, it (mostly) universally applies to all classes. Whereas in 5e you have stuff like wild shape. A good example of this would be to compare the pf2e fighter feat Knockdown and the 5e Battlemaster Fighter's Trip Manuever. Both allow you to Trip an enemy while also attacking with your weapon. The difference is that in 5e all the rules are self contained to the Battlemaster, whereas pf2e is referencing existing rules and giving them modifications. Understanding what makes Knockdown work, and why it's good, first requires understanding the core system. I think this is, as you said, the systems greatest strength and weakness. In essence, pathfinder 2e has a higher skill floor for the game.

[@TriptuneRadio]

One of my big memories in playing 2e was mapping out how my rogue was gonna get stronger and stronger in hand to hand combat. I was both and excited and disappointed bc my ideal goal had me getting little bits and pieces until I had everything I wanted in like 4 levels. Progression is very slow but still fun

[@LightningRaven42]

That's because there's no level range that "works best". PF2e is designed to work from 1 to 20, so your character will always be progressing. However, as a good rule of thumb, you don't want to specialize everything into a single gimmick (most of the times you can't), so picking new choices and character avenues every level is a good option, because you won't need to wait until your build "comes online" and after several levels, you can even retrain earlier choices and make your final build (For example, Canny Acumen is the perfect feat for Retraining, since it improves your weakest saving throw and once your normal upgrade kicks in, you can retrain into something else like Fleet, Toughness or even a skill feat).

[@Ubernerd3000]

I appreciate how even-handed Ben Is about Pathfinder; he’s acknowledges that he likes it, and that even so, it’s not for everybody, because very, very crunchy…my experience with other KZbinrs have been similar to, ‘no, it’s easy, you just have to ___…”; THANKS, BEN…! 👍🏽👍🏽👍🏽

[@helarki4309]

Thank you very much for the awesome videos you've made for some time. I've been watching your content since my freshman year in college, when I was first introduced to D&D. Your videos popped up and they are incredible - the first one we ever watched was the Darkness video! Thank you so much again!

[@BewareOfTom]

Just hearing the small snippets from your group's problems with 1e it did sound like you didn't know what to allow or not, and the PC's over reliance on tools (and not a huge amount of common sense when not using them/when using not well made ones) like allowing the race builder is a big no-no, but heck a huge amount of pf1e should be avoided. I'm not saying this as in "blargh, you're playing wrong", more "I wish I could have been there to help" but it's nice you guys found fun in pf2e

[@sovietterran]

Idk. Pathfinder 1e is a little up there in crunch, and tools are nice, but not being willing to understand starting wealth or basic rules enough to know that you can just add legendary artifacts because the tools didn't say no is.... Well it's frankly just bad player etiquette. I can add legendary items in D&D beyond first level. If you want a system with rule, classes, and abilities with a firm outline and you can't be bothered to learn the basics, any system will suck and sometimes that's on you.

[@grayven123]

I started using Pathbuilder in prep for my group's upcoming Kingmaker campaign. It made making my Abberrant Sorceror (My first caster) really easy. Before that in our current campaing we had to use a Google doc. It was not fun but it was doable. Also, Pathfinder 2E was my frist ttrpg so I don't really have anything else to compare it to. I'm just glad my gm was willing to take a chance and let some acquaintance of a friend of their's join in.

[@miguelperez9906]

More puffin more puffin yes yes yes

[@Sensorium19]

It's a great feeling to come back to your channel and realize you have 10 new videos up since I last checked. Going to settle in for a while and enjoy.

[@nicholasvandonkersgoed3758]

PF1e/3.5 is my absolute favorite, but it really really needs a GM who knows the system well, in order to make the characters and encounters balanced and fun. Fortunately, I am that GM.

[@qwopiretyu]

You manage to make it both balanced AND fun? Yikes on bikes, share your wisdom. I either lean into the fun factor or we argue about rules and balance all night.

[@nemtudom5074]

Weird flex but ok lol

[@thejudge4421]

my man is T posing on us plebs

[@feritperliare2890]

​@qwopiretyu have a computer on hand believe me a good internat connection would fix most rules arguments because there's raw or rai to solve the questions almost always

[@vyran7044]

@@qwopiretyu a few tips/notes: 1) Most of the rule questions tend to go away after a session or so (getting used to it) 2) do not try grappeling. 3) Do yourself a favor and start out with SOME limits. (no custom race, no prestigue classes, no thrid party stuff, etc) 4) DO NOT GRAPPEL! 5) make sure your players sit down and know the basics of how their chars work BEFORE the first session AND make sure the DM has a basic grasp of what each char is supposed to do. (ESPECIALLY if the char is build around some odd mechanic like targetet weapon breaking... yes i had someone like that in one of my games ^^) 5) If someone INSISTS on grappeling find the flowchart. it makes it bearable. ^^ (again speaking from experiance) As for balance... its mostly an experiance thing i guess? getting used to how strong/tactial your party is and what different monsters can do. But thats kinda the same for every system. ^^

[@spartanhawk7637]

My group started Kingmaker for PF2E a few months back (no spoilers here, just a couple observations) The rules for character creation are just *cool.* Say you want to play a half race (half elves, dhampirs, that sort of thing.) What you have instead of that is you create a human *variant.* Sounds basic on the surface, but what's neat about it is it allows you to customize based not only on race (ancestry in this system), but on what culture your character grew up in. So you can be more or less a full blooded human like three generations down from a half orc and still grow up raised as an orc. It allows for a lot of really in depth customization really early on, so my dwarf for example is a surfacer...but he was raised on old Dwarven culture. There's also been some videogames released between 1e and 2e where it's clear Paizo liked some of the ideas and lifted them, polished em up, and made them work, which is fantastic if you're like me where that was your first intro to Golarion. Game's also been streamlined in such a way that even with my party running with seven people (yeah I have no idea how the hell we all manage to make it weekly) the game runs REALLY smoothly without a lot of pauses between turns. Really helps keep combat flowing like a river instead of a stop and start process. Also as a final note, the game lets you play a halfling dual wielding frying pans which add fatal damage on a critical hit and it's caused an entire joke character to rise out of it named "Samwise the Grave" at my table. This really isn't anything for or against the idea, I just died laughing when my friend put him on the board.

[@Bloodfencer1990]

Little nitpick: it doesn't have to be a HUMAN variant, versatile heritages can be applied to any ancestry. I know technically half-elf and half-orc are human-specific, but the core rules had an optional rule for making it available to other ancestries. And the proper versatile heritage rules came out later, so I think of those two as "beta" versatiles which should be updated to the full rules that got implemented later.

[@spartanhawk7637]

@@Bloodfencer1990 Oooh! Wasn't aware of that. Cool!

[@Bloodfencer1990]

@@spartanhawk7637 It's a really cool system. One of my players is a catfolk tiefling and while it doesn't come up a lot, the image of him being a literal devil cat as he tries to pick people's pockets is very amusing.

[@spartanhawk7637]

@@Bloodfencer1990 Just wait till he knocks a glass off a table while staring another party member dead in the eye.

[@haywirewindgod]

I really like 2nd ed. Its a lot of fun because of the deeply customizable experience.

[@Darke_Exelbirth]

I'm glad Puffin is enjoying the system more after giving it some time. I'm curious what he'll make of the remaster, if/when he tries that out.

[@Rikmach]

Pathfinder 1e *is* a bit overwhelming to try and deal with if you don't have someone knowledgeable about the system. The upside is there is *so many* options you can build nearly any character concept you want, and still have it be useful and effective.

[@lordinquisitor6233]

I started as a pathfinder dm and hated it because of that reason

[@gazelle_diamond9768]

No, not really. If you don't choose the meta-feats in PF1, your character is basically irrelevant in fights.

[@Rikmach]

@@JuddX Enh, I'm going to have to say that's a skill issue. I've managed to put together some *really* wacky builds and have them function very effectively. But you're *partly* right, if you don't have a *lot* of system knowledge and aren't willing to research, it's easy to build nonfunctional characters. That is sort of 2e's grace: even though you don't have as many options, it's harder to build a nonfunctional character.

[@Rikmach]

@@gazelle_diamond9768 Eh, depends on what you're building. Sometimes, yes, you have to purchase meta-defining feats for a build to work- usually for martial, because they don't function without them (That's why the 'Elephant in the Room' optional rules were invented, after all), but sometimes there's alternatives (the Dirty Fighting feat covers a lot of sins, for example), but once you get past the required feats, there's usually a large amount of flexibility to customize your characters. The downside is sometimes characters take annoyingly long to "come online", but that's sort of the cost of having a flexible system. *that said*, third party options, like Spheres of Might can often get your character functioning at startlingly low levels.

[@jtruler]

@@gazelle_diamond9768 Depends on the party and depends on what you're building. RPGbot has a list of potential nerfs and buffs to every class if it's THAT big of an issue that you have to work it out with your GM. Regardless, if your build just doesn't work then it doesn't work, you run into the same problem in plenty of systems.

[@DaKirbinator]

It's great that I've been running Pathfinder1 and enjoying Pathfinder2 and watching youtubers get into either one and feel the harsh differences between 5e and each other. I'm happy you're enjoying it, too

[@felipercalvo]

"i moved from 5e to PF2 and i hated how diagonal movement works" Proceeds to describe a rule that is exactly equal in both games

[@quasimofo6811]

Probably he just never saw that variant rule in 5e.

[@Nathan-ti9pm]

Yeah that was def a lil hand moment if you know what I mean

[@Lycaon1765]

My apologies for thread necromancy, but he said he changed PF2e's diagonals to be 5e's diagonals. You can see on the screen what the PF2 rule is. In 5e all squares are 5 ft no matter what, in PF2 the first diagonal is 5ft and the 2nd is 10 ft and it alternates back and forth.

[@quasimofo6811]

@@Lycaon1765 The 5e variant rule I referred to works in that exact same way, presumably OP is used to playing with that.

[@overlordmaddness4781]

you need to do a live stream game of any of these systems. I always love watching your animations of these stories. Your live game would be super successful with how amazing these stories always come out to be

[@telemarkaeology]

3 years deep into my 2e campaign. Freaking love this system.

[@ArchArrow1]

Love your videos. I've been subscribed since early on and still get so happy to see a new release. I know they're a lot of work but know they ,and you, are appreciated.

[@l0stndamned]

Good to see your stuff again. Interesting to hear how its grown on you. As someone who's never really used character tools I hadn't thought about how that could affect things. Still has too many things that drive me away (such as adding level to rolls) for my group to get into it. Whenever my group gets to a good break in a game we swap to a different system for a bit. I find that prevents boredom or burnout. I call these pallet-cleanser games. Just finished an interlude of Only War before returning to d&d.

[@zel-mb4dw]

For what it's worth, if having level added to your rolls & having +1/2/3 (Greater/Major) Striking weapons be core to the balance turns you off of the system, there are official variant rules for Proficiency Without Level and Automatic Bonus Progression that remove these quirks. I've barely run any PWL or ABP myself, but apparently the only major downside is it's a bit harder to make bosses feel like bosses since everything's on a more or less even playing field with PWL. ABP-wise, I haven't heard much on it, but I've been wanting to run it just for the reason that it's a bit annoying having to think "hm, so the party is X level, so I'm going to need to hand out at least a couple striking runes this dungeon" and have them inflate the dungeon's loot pool.

[@BotheredMe]

I have had the benefit of running Pathfinder 2e campaigns through FoundryVTT and the Pathfinder 2e module, which is arguably the most intuitive platform I have run a TTRPG on. Attacks automatically keep track of the traits of weapons equipped, effects of your class or status effects placed on your character, basically everything I wanted from platforms like Roll20 excluding all the quality of life modules you can install. If I had to play PF2e on paper, I could easily see how all these nuances could be overwhelming but I am grateful for the opportunity I have to play it online with relative ease.

[@darkowl9]

I switched from 5e to PF2e and I've been having a blast. As a GM, things are just so much better balanced in general. Where 5e and its modules often throw up their arms and go "well *you* go figure it out, GM", PF2e usually has a solution or system. I love the Wounded condition meaning that 5e's tubthumping (I get knocked down, I get up again) combat isn't a thing. I love that multiclassing isn't completely and utterly broken. I love that you have to move and think strategically (flat-footed flanking! actual useful stealth!). I love that attacks of opportunity are rarer, meaning approaching, attacking and retreating and *moving around the battlefield* are encouraged whereas in 5e it's just "stand next to baddie, hit until dead because AoO and muh action economee". Also, Wizards and Hasbro with the OGL bs can get in the biggest bin they can find.

[@Ins4n1ty_]

I absolutely LOVE pathfinder 2e but I agree with the "too many active effects" going on at the same turn. Which is why I cannot recommend enough using the Foundry VTT for ANY campaign, even in person. Foundry VTT has official support for PF2e, maintained by paizo. The system just works. It just does. There are a couple modules that make the experience much better, but running it clean with no modules already simply WORKS. It keeps track of all active effects, reminds you of stuff you can do as reactions, it keeps track of sheathed/drawn weapons, auto-consumes rations, it just does so much to make DMing it much more palatable.

[@zavexcapricious2519]

I still will always prefer Pathfinder 1e, as its not nearly as complicated as people make it out to be. But i can always appreciate how 2e made every class feel more unique compared to how some other systems do it. For 1e tho it functions way easier online on things like Foundry or Fantasy Grounds

[@ASquared544]

I’m just gonna put it out there: if you want a Rules Light game and your players want powers and abilities… like I’m sure there are plenty of games out there that do that. Like just putting out some games I’m aware of (with different settings granted), there’s Forged in the Dark and Powered by the Apocalypse games. They have abilities, they’re rules light, they seem fun (I’ll be honest I haven’t played any RPG other than DND). If you wanted a Fantasy equivalent of that, you could probably search for Fantasy RPGs using those systems. And if you want something that’s not 5E but still has the same sort of focus (Combat Heavy rules with a light focus on everything else but still relatively simple), there’s Lancer, which does so many things I wish 5E did, like adding examples and guidelines for downtime activities.

[@davidspring4003]

As a PLAYER in PF2e, I can absolutely recommend it. Sure, you don't get as much cool stuff per level as in 5e, but it feels SO GOOD when you get cool stuff done, and also easier to do the cool stuff usually

[@dommurphy3667]

I wish I could join in one of your D&D sessions your one of the main people who got me back into it

[@theforkedman3030]

I started on pathfinder and I like the customization of it. The tools for you to make pretty much whatever you want are there. I haven't played any other system but the most I hear is that 5E is simpler but has less options and Pathfinder is harder but you can make anything.

[@kaylaa2204]

My group is getting into AD&D 1e actually, and I had the same problem with character sheets... so what I did right... was I made my own in Google Sheets. And the great part about that is I could have everyone's files in a shared google drive folder, which allows my players to share things with eachother and for me to share resources with my players. It's actually a really versatile tool for online play. Also it makes the sheet fully customizable. We can make whatever changes we want as needed. Like I recently decided I want my players to know their THAC0 which isn't technnically btb, but it speeds up play, so I just made a spot on their sheets for it. It's great. Probably helps that character sheets this early were very minimalist, there was not much on your sheet.Basically their sheet is 3 tabs. Ability Scores and Saves, Combat statistics, and Inventory. Thats it. I also gave them a part for spells and notes, and one for niche abilities that a few characters don't even use.

[@boomerkobold3943]

I did the same for the Frankenstein’d OSRIC game my players and I are doing. Being able to just make up and modify character sheets as needed is great.

[@ninjaman0003]

I haven’t gotten to try a long term role playing game yet but I did play a pathfinder game for about 5 weeks before the group just couldn’t get together anymore. It was hilarious because we had a buckler with a dolphin on it. That buckler ended up being our namesake as we called ourselves the shield of shamu!

[@antongunther3977]

I think the main problem with most newer players is actually how they were introduced to the TTRPG space. This over-reliance on tools and up front player power has created expectations for players to just "plug in and play" (which isn't a bad thing, it just pigeonholes players into sticking to only 5E). Basically the TTRPG space has (due to 5e mostly) become more focused on player convenience and power fantasy rather than giving DMs tools to tell a story. There is a well known trend in 5E campaigns that most of them dont survive past lvl 10-12 and certainly not past 14. The powers are too much and the DM is given very few tools to deal with them aside from pulling something out of their butt. That's the main strength of PF2e. It's design philosophy is to give DMs the power and systemic support that 5e can't provide and wont provide. Its still a laughably simple system compared to 3.5e/PF1e. In many ways its a fusion of this new school of player convenience and player power, but with actual DM support.

[@hauk119]

As a big fan of pf2, I appreciate you giving it another shot, and am glad you liked it better the second time around!

[@LTMStarlight]

laaaaame. Monster of the week checks all 3 of those boxes while still being rules light. Great system highly recommend.

[@CommodoreBluth]

I've been playing and running PF2 since around the beginning of the year. I do feel like it's better designed than 5E but we play in FoundryVTT that automates a lot of bonuses and status effects. If I was playing in person I would probably prefer to play 5e.

[@MalzraAirwynn]

If you want a system that is rules light compared to D&D5E but that still has defined powers/spells etc, I'd recommend Fabula Ultima. It's a JRPG inspired system. It has four attributes, represented by dice size. A character can start with d8s in all four, or trade one or two stats down to a d6 in order to buff another to a d10. You're always rolling two dice, sometimes from the same stat like if you're using a big weapon that uses MIght + Might for the role. Or a bow might use Dexterity + Insight etc. Might is like strength and constitution combined. Higher might increases your HP and is used for a lot of melee weapons, especially heavier ones. Dexterity is dexterity, and increases your physical defense (basically AC) unless you're in martial armor which gives a flat bonus. Used for a good deal of lighter melee weapons and ranged weapons. . Insight is intelligence and wisdom combined, and determines your Magic Defense. (AC against spells etc.) It's sometimes used for weapons with more finesses or ranged weapons, but is also one of the main spell casting stats. Willpower is charisma, and also determines your MP. The main spell casting stat every caster uses and used on some magic weapons. You start at level 5, split between two or three classes. Leveling is pretty simple. Each class has a list of abilities for that class, and each time you invest a level into that class, you pick one skill. Some are one offs, others get more powerful or give you more options when you invest more points into that skill. Once you put 10 levels into a class, you Master it and can pick a Heroic Skill as a sort of milestone and then cannot invest into that class any more. You can have up to three unmastered classes at a time. At level 20 and 40, you pick one of your four stats and increase the die size by one, up to d12 max, which is sort of like your 'ability score increase' level. The system doesn't really use battle maps. You don't have things like ranges on weapons or spells. The only thing that really matters is if a creature is flying in that regard, as a creature on the ground cannot hit a flying creature with a melee attack. There are a good amount of spells, but their effects are simple. Conditions are very simple and involve lowering a die size by one, to a minimum of d6. Slow reduces Dexterity. Weak reduces MIght. Shaken reduces Willpower. Dazed reduces Insight. Poison reduces MIght and Willpower. Berserk reduces Dexterity and Insight. The system isn't for everyone, but it might strike a balance between you wanting a rules light system and your players still wanting more defined powers etc. .

[@knightcaelum968]

How lovely, started my own Pathfinder 2e not too long ago too.

[@demonlordwrath1718]

You were the first dnd youtuber I ever watched glad to see your still around

[@ofnir123]

Having DMed for both 5e and Pf2e, and played 5e extensively, I can say I absolutely love both systems, but for very different reasons

[@gmchris4113]

Same here. My main campaign is a Pf2 campaign. The balance of the game helps run super long epic stuff that doesn't fall apart. For one-shot, short adventures, or newbies, I prefer DnD; I find it's easier to digest for none "gamer" oriented minds.

[@sebastiancoar1991]

Happy New Year and looking forward to the next tabletop rpg animation!

[@Brenilla]

I’m glad that you stated some of the potentially negative (or positive to some) aspect to the system, cause I always hear it’s “just better than dnd”.

[@Coconut-219]

Well it's a pill that will probably need swallowing sooner or later given the current rapidly-terminating trajectory of D&D. (or the community will become like something akin to a speakeasy during prohibition, distributing and playing the game still behind WotC's back and keeping the community alive.)

[@LightningRaven42]

It's not so much "Better", than it actually already "solves" a lot of issues veteran D&D5e players end up having to homebrew overtime. More player choices that are mechanically meaningful, more interesting combat, subsystems that help the DM, reliable challenge rating system, interesting monsters, more balance between martial and caster characters, etc. Also, above all, GMs have a much, much easier time preparing the game and having more time to enjoy along with the players. Basically, all the issues and gripes that veteran players end up having with DnD5e aren't even an issue in PF2e. It may be a system harder to learn (as if DnD5e didn't need a while to sink in as well), but it's far easier to run. In less than 10 sessions and the GM will have the important aspects of the system as second nature (even faster and easier if they're using FoundryVTT, which has extensive, and free, support for PF2e).

[@Brenilla]

@@LightningRaven42 Thanks for the run down, didn’t expect to actually get an explanation response XD. I was well aware their is actually plenty of benefits (due to the sheer ammount of pathfinder players/fans their is of corse truth to the “it’s better” idea) I just way to common see no explanation further or elaborating on it, Just the short statement.

[@Brenilla]

@@Coconut-219 I’ve always pirated almost everything with dnd, for a long time I thought that was everyone’s usual but I’m not Shure on actual numbers XD. I’m just glad that more systems are cropping up and given actual well rounded short explanations/what their about instead of, just pathfinder being the alternative towards the typical fantasy genera.

[@natekite7532]

There's definitely a reason that people say it is "better" than D&D - Pathfinder is a much more intentionally designed game. They knew what they wanted, put it together, and it works quite well. 5e is much sloppier - no sense of balance, glaring power creep, major flaws in the class system, lack of GM tools, inconsistent design philosophy, bad bestiary, ridiculous rules jank, and lots of historical baggage. A lot of the stuff that frustrates experienced DMs the most is just due to not thinking stuff through, or an unwillingness to address the fundamental flaws of the system. In this respect, pf2e is a clear winner, and I'd definitely argue that it's better designed than 5e. However, pf2e does make decisions that some people will be unhappy with, so even if it's a "better game" that is more intentionally designed, you still might end up preferring 5e despite its overwhelming list of flaws. For me personally, I prefer 5e's paladin and warlock (vs champion and witch), its selection of races, its setting-agnostic philosophy, and its more traditional fantasy aesthetic. But I've also seen people be frustrated by vancian spellcasting, large numbers, crunch, alignment-based mechanics (although they're going away soon), and its general complexity. However, if these things _aren't_ dealbreakers for you, I really see little reason not to switch to pf2e. And since that list is ultimately pretty minor (and because most of it can be resolved with a bit of clever homebrew), I feel like for many players, pf2e really is just a better system. So like, it's not _exactly_ a better system because everyone wants different things. But it is better designed, and unless you really hate some specific aspect of pf2e, it's probably a better game for you as well. So people just kinda shortcut to "it's a better game."

[@marsphoenix1359]

Ya know, it was explained to me once what the real difference between Pathfinder and DnD was; DnD5e is the game the players want to play, Pathfinder2e is the game the DM wants to play. It's just where the focus of balance is - DnD focuses on super-powered characters and quick punchy fights, Pathfinder focuses on balanced fights and the narrative of play. They're both entirely valid game styles that appeal to different kinds of players. Neither is truly superior. The systems are simply too different to compare any more.

[@SuperBossGiovanni]

I have been running Pf2e for my group for a few months, and had a few sessions as a player with another group, and I got to say, I enjoy the system. I feel it gives me and the players a little bit more creativity to run with things and make more unique characters than 5e

[@kathyevans3251]

Our group is going to try the 2nd edition soon .This was helpful.

[@xenosmoke8915]

“Bring the Obelisk down!” Always good to see another PF vid 😂

[@antaresmaelstrom5365]

I always find it weird when I play with people in lets say roll20 and they realize that I don't have my stuff automated with macros, or don't really want to use a character creator program. I have the info, I have a sheet. Info goes on sheet. Anything extra is done in head. Mostly because one group uses program A, another program B, another ports everything into foundry or whatever. And I'm here just going "That is so much work" why can't I have a sheet and do calculations in my head then roll dice?

[@dmeep]

DnD beyond has honestly the same effect as pathbuilder on our 5e games. since everyone uses dnd beyond there has never been a question about 3rd party classes races or spells. I have been looking at the Taldorei setting book classes and also held the kobold press book of heroes in my hand a few times but so far i havent gotten to the point where i try to make non supported things happen in our games. Ive made exactly one char in pathbuilder so far and it made things a lot simpler then i imagine i would have found doing one with pen and paper

[@sealeddragon6251]

A neat thing with pathbuilder is that it can allow for custom packs that some 3rd parties do create stuff for, so you can get battlezoo or classes+ stuff on pathbuilder.

[@zel-mb4dw]

@@sealeddragon6251 Thanks for this comment, I didn't realize pathbuilder finally implemented custom classes! I checked just a couple months ago, so it's cool to see they're making so much progress on the app

[@benjaminmatheny6683]

My group played 3.5E. I remember the level-ups being very Hit and Miss on whether you got anything good for your build. Casters had it best, where every other level got you into a new level of spells, but melee focused characters could go quite a while before something impactful was available. 3.5 was the "golden age" for expansion content and the more books your group had access to, the more options players had for building characters. It led to some very wild builds. One of my favorite low-level builds was the belly flop. A character that was massively heavy who had several ways to get above and then fall on his enemies, dealing damage with the generic blunt impact damage chart in one of those expansion books.

[@rafaelcalmon2858]

Frankly, I have 2 reasons why I want to play it over playing another DnD5e campaign for our next one, neither of which were mentioned kk 😅 > First, you get to customize your character a lot more than 5e. There are feats for your class, race and even skills. If you want to be really good at Acrobatics, for example, you can not only increase you skill mods, but you can also take feats that require you to have a certain amount of Acrobatics that further enhance what you can mechanically do with it. > Second, 3 actions. *GOD, give me 3 actions in DnD!* Instead of having an action and a bonus action, you have 3 actions and most abilities have an action cost from 1 to 3. That makes you so much more versatile when it comes to the actions you take. You could take the equivalent of 2 bonus actions in a turn, which would be 2 actions in PF2e. You can forgo movement to instead use the action to do more stuff. There's a lot less actions going unused because of that compared to 5e.

[@TaismoFanBoy]

5e was built around 1 extremely powerful Action, where bonus actions are moreso "this isn't strong enough to merit taking up the turn", hence why they're kinda not necessary and some 5e classes don't really use them. PF2e is definitely more diverse and customizable due to its far higher complexity. 5e still has a lot of customization in multiclassing and subclasses, as well as feats, but it's slower and kept to a minimum due to being a simpler system. I'm happy 5e doesn't have 3 actions because the system isn't built around that (imagine how quickly the whole game would fall apart if you could take two full actions in exchange for not moving and not taking a bonus action, OR how much less fun 5e would be if you could only "2 action"/bonus action OR "2 action"/movement.). And I'm happy that PF2e does, because that's what the system was built around. It was designed for movement to be far more important, designed for less power and more strategy. I like both systems a whole lot, for different reasons. I want to play a whole lot more of both, honestly ^_^

[@cryptocorner2253]

My 10-year-old son has finally gotten to D&D and I've been watching your videos for years. We are having such a great time watching them together. We also like to talk about the epic adventurer Chadwick Strongpants.

[@theGhoulman]

@5:50 ... so, Pathfinder isn't the giant headache to the GM that 5e and it's endless sub-classes and Feats rules? It's crunchy? don't care, sold.

[@emeraldstag]

great video! I hope your friend can find fun even if he doesn't like the system. what a great friend we need more people like them in the world

[@thygamerguy]

Aha! Yes Puffin Forest is running pathfinder 2e now! 3:) I'm slowly grabbing some friends that have been wanting more out of DnD and did the beginners box for PF2 and they loved it. I can't wait to run Abomination vaults for them (just like everyone else is right now xP) also puffin! Are you running a module or doing a Homebrew for your games?

[@Raghetiel]

Greatest nightmare in Pathfinder 2e: Corridor with multiple doors. (for those who don't know, PF2 doesn't have movement, or bonus action, just 3 actions. And EVERYTHING takes an action, including opening a door. And you can't even break up movement, so it would take a full turn to walk up to a door, open it, and move up to a next one)

[@GuitarRocker2008]

Pathfinder 1e was my FIRST roleplaying system so whilst I recognise it’s rules heavy I guess having that as my only outlet for a period motivated me enough to push through and make it work. Also my group had a switching GM system so the same characters would be on multiple campaigns at any one time by linking each adventure to a set place for every quest to start (An adventure guild) and each of us having three characters each to help with chronological issues. So getting GM experience helped with learning the system too. On top of all that we were pretty lenient on rules and used GM discretion a lot at the start until we slowly learned the actual rules for what we wanted to do and it was a great way to learn flexibility and story focus as a GM over rules strict GMing which can be boring. Final guy did mostly drow stuff.

[@ShadyDoorags]

5e is a more casual experience, which is probably why it became so popular. Pathfinder (my preference) is all about specialization and customization. There are so many details to keep track of, but no character ever comes even close to feeling like a copy of another. I don't know about 2e specifically, but there's no way I'd describe Pathfinder in general as "lower power fantasy", it's just that the scaling is very different. In 5e, the leveling hits harder and the feats do way more but you don't get a whole lot of them, whereas in Pathfinder, leveling is a lot more gradual and a feat does one specific thing, but you get a ton of them. When you know a good chunk of the rules and how sheets work, you can easily find yourself doing way more than the CR wants you to.

[@anthonylooyen4855]

For me, Pathfinder as a system comes down to the fact that I can play any class and run any game and I'll feel like my contribution was impactful. I didn't get this feeling in D&D5e because - and I've spoken of this countless times before - there's just so much of a gap between the martials, the skill monkeys, and the mages. In 5e, if I'm playing a Paladin, I know going in that the Bard is going to take all the RP and socialization time. I just know going in. There is no overcoming expertise. At best I can take a feat (which is a tax) to give myself Persuasion expertise, but that Bard still has expertise in three other skills at minimum and likely has a really broken subclass (looking at you, Lore and Eloquence) that makes it pointless for me to contribute at all in anything outside of combat. Even in combat, I'm not going to contribute as much as the casters unless I play as a caster, abusing the Paladin's Aura of Protection and Resilient Con (another feat tax) to have unstoppable concentration on Bless or some other buff. I know that sounds cool, but try playing it and not coming to resent the Rogue or the Bard for contributing just as much as you in fights but far, far more in everything else. That's not even getting into the Wizards and the Clerics, or playing as a different martial like a Ranger or a Fighter. At least Paladins have amazing buff options and Aura of Protection. Being a Fighter in 5e is the most demeaning thing around. You can't even tank well because the system makes tank builds either impossible or pointless given how easily the Fighter is ignored. PF2e made martials fun. Really. I played a Ranger, and you know what? I know going into the fight I'll actually have the DPS to make a major difference. Not only that, I have so much to do outside the fights because the skill enhancement system means I'll be the best in three things. I will always have a niche. And that's just for the basic flurry build, where you take the Hunter's Edge that allows you to eliminate MAP on further attacks. There are builds for archery, builds for great weapons, builds for shields, builds for buffing, builds for animal companions... and that's before General and Ancestry feats come into play. Then, once combat is over, I know the Bard will call on me to use Survival to forge forward, instead of me stewing while the Bard does everything. Rogues and Investigators and Thaumaturges are still skill monkey classes, but the fact I can have more than one skill I'm exceptional at really goes a long way towards making me feel useful as a player in every class. The way attributes raise also makes a difference, since I can legitimately build a 'Muscle Wizard' and have better Athletics than the Fighter if they don't prioritize strength much or don't advance Athletics... which, given the variety of builds and choices in the system, happens far more than you'd think. I legitimately played a Sorceress whose gimmick revolved around setting up a shield and knocking foes away when they approached her with her amazing strength and athletics, and the heck of it was that was perfectly viable and contributed to combat in a major way. Outside of combat, she was the party muscle! It was amazing! As a DM, I have to agree with Puffin here. Encounters are so much more fun to build and I don't feel like I need to cheat players out of their most broken abilities to keep combat interesting - and even late game, when various abilities do become a touch broken, it's not just the mages delighting in it. Everyone gets to enjoy the power fantasy they earned at that point, and the game is still balanced where it's easy enough to make or find a fight that's a match for them. My only point of contention is that it's a hard sell - I don't see that at all. Maybe I was just bitter by how imbalanced 5e was after playing it so long, but I went skipping and jumping right into PF2e. Never looked back.

[@TaismoFanBoy]

I disagree with a lot of your points. I feel like I can play any class and contribute to the party in 5e just as easily. "The RP isn't balanced." RP isn't just about the Persuasion/Deception. A bard is never going to be good at all 6 attributes, and in fact, isn't often even good at more than Charisma/Dexterity/Constitution. Sure, the Bard does a lot of the charisma rolling, but you can still talk and help the Bard, or be a part of the conversations without being the one rolling. Besides, who's going to roll Athletics to break down a door, or carry the weak af Bard up a tough to climb mountain? Who's going to have the perception and insight to figure out what's going on? Everyone in the party can have a niche in 5e, too, unless your DM allows everyone to have 18s in every stat (which just isn't fun!). This only really becomes a problem at high levels (13+), which 5e is DEFINITELY not balanced for. "The Martials suck/Tanks aren't viable." Martials have a gimmick to make them strong, but it does get pretty dull pretty quickly. The -5 to-hit and +10 damage feats make Martials' dps on single targets just as high, if not higher than many spellcasters, and while being an AC tank is either broken (early game 22+ AC) or pointless in the late-game, being an HP tank is both reliable AND necessary! Unless your DM lets everyone have a high Con, or lets everyone take max HP instead of average or rolling, you're going to be the only one capable of taking hits. Positioning is what makes the situation, though admittedly a lot of combats are poorly built in modules, you CAN create choke points that force the enemy to attack the tanks first. Either that, or have the DM play more realistically and have enemies not know who the squish target is immediately. It comes down to who your DM is, though I think on average tanks ARE hard to make work without sentinel or good encounter building. In addition, a lot of the "Muscle Wizard" or similar builds can be done in 5e too, and effectively, with multiclasses and/or specific subclasses. It's harder to do unless you know the system really well, but it's completely manageable. While I think 5e is definitely imbalanced, I don't think it's imbalanced in a way that makes it less fun. If anything, its imbalance makes it way MORE fun, as long as you have a DM that doesn't just want to punish their players. To compare 5e and PF2E, I think PF2E is WAY better in the late-game, but I've yet to have a group who have the patience to get from level 1 to higher levels (it's VERY slow, and we can't group that often). That said, I think 5e is WAY more fun in the early/mid stages (basically from levels 3 to 11-ish), and it's easy to level up quickly in most modules, letting you experience most of what the game/builds have to offer quickly. PF2E is a hard sell because most people don't like waiting multiple sessions to get slightly more powerful, and 5e is an easy sell because you can become pretty darn overpowered pretty darn quickly- as every class/multiclass! It's hard to get my friends to sit down for PF2E when 5e is typically quicker to the point. All of that said, I like both systems. 5e is more fun for quicker campaigns and feeling strong, where combats go by faster with every turn full of excitement. PF2E is more fun for longer more involved campaigns where the growth is slow but rewarding, where combats are slower but more strategic, with every turn full of planning and thought.

[@anthonylooyen4855]

​@@TaismoFanBoy I must respectfully disagree. I spent six years playing 5e, and let me tell you, being a martial in a group of mages suck. '"The RP isn't balanced." RP isn't just about the Persuasion/Deception. A bard is never going to be good at all 6 attributes, and in fact, isn't often even good at more than Charisma/Dexterity/Constitution. Sure, the Bard does a lot of the charisma rolling, but you can still talk and help the Bard, or be a part of the conversations without being the one rolling. Besides, who's going to roll Athletics to break down a door, or carry the weak af Bard up a tough to climb mountain? Who's going to have the perception and insight to figure out what's going on? Everyone in the party can have a niche in 5e, too, unless your DM allows everyone to have 18s in every stat (which just isn't fun!). This only really becomes a problem at high levels (13+), which 5e is DEFINITELY not balanced for.' The inherent issue here is that socialization is a major pillar. Exploration, from what I've played and seen, is almost always the pillar left to rot the most. You bring up using athletics in a variety of circumstances, but in the fourteen games I've played, I can count on both hands the number of times Athletics has mattered outside of a dedicated grapple build. I was in all of one game where having athletics contributed to the gameplay meaningfully. Granted, this is still a problem in Pathfinder, but that's why having 'expertise' for three skills per class is so amazing. I can have my grapple build, still be a stealth legend, and be a god among medics. You just have more room to fill all niches. The Bard can't fill every niche, it's true, but they make up the majority of the socialization niche. You can contribute as a player on the side, yes, but that runs into another problem - I've been in a group where the Bardlock really wants to run Persuasion and Deception but always forgets to lie. The Monk does most of the lying in the party for us because he knows how to do it, but he is always, always, ALWAYS stymied by the fact he doesn't have expertise in any face skills. If this were PF2e, he could devote an 'expertise' advancement - without needing to multiclass, mind you, which is its own set of problems if THAT is the solution to the problem, since it just means becoming a Bard or a Rogue to get around the problems they bring - to Deception and still have two more to put wherever he wants, which for him happens to be Stealth and, were this PF2e, Thievery. It's always awkward having to see the Bardlock or the Monk flounder because one seriously has trouble with the role she wants to play and the other can't have the stats to excel in it, which also comes down the fact Monks and Paladins are MAD in 5e. This isn't an issue in PF, where just having the skill means you're backing it with your level, and the skill itself comes with activities with rules you can devote yourself to. If the Bardlock was in PF2e, she'd be GREAT at what she wants to do because there are rules to back her about her Diplomacy. As for climbing mountains? Wizards solve that with Fly at 5th level. PF2e does a much better job limiting flight options and making mages less able to obviate dungeon design, which I've found DMing for both in three games. These aren't minor issues or one-offs, either. When socialization skills, stealth, and perception are the most used skills in the game - and they are - then... yeah, the Bards and Rogues are going to dominate. PF2e does a much better job making other skills matter, like Medicine or Crafting, by giving them value with gimmicks they can fulfill in AND out of combat, as opposed to in OR out of combat. Several classes also get mileage out of using the various other skills as part of their normal routine, like Thaumaturges and Esoteric Lore. '"The Martials suck/Tanks aren't viable." Martials have a gimmick to make them strong, but it does get pretty dull pretty quickly. The -5 to-hit and +10 damage feats make Martials' dps on single targets just as high, if not higher than many spellcasters, and while being an AC tank is either broken (early game 22+ AC) or pointless in the late-game, being an HP tank is both reliable AND necessary! Unless your DM lets everyone have a high Con, or lets everyone take max HP instead of average or rolling, you're going to be the only one capable of taking hits. Positioning is what makes the situation, though admittedly a lot of combats are poorly built in modules, you CAN create choke points that force the enemy to attack the tanks first. Either that, or have the DM play more realistically and have enemies not know who the squish target is immediately. It comes down to who your DM is, though I think on average tanks ARE hard to make work without sentinel or good encounter building.'

[@anthonylooyen4855]

GWM and Sharpshooter are what we call 'feat taxes.' They are necessary for the build to work. Realistically, a mage only needs Res Con, and Sorcerers and Artificers don't even need that. This Fighter, to tank properly, needs Tough (In every game I've played in 5e, only one person wanted to ever be a martial, and unless they took tough they were dropping fast due to how multiattack in 5e works in comparison to the action system and MAP in PF2e), needs Sentinel (because lockdown isn't innate in 5e like it is in PF2e for several runes, feats, and reactions), needs GWM / Sharpshooter / Polearm Master to get the most out of their DPS, and so on. Martials suffer far more from a feat tax than mages, and this is just to get the CHANCE to lock people down. I've been in maybe a dozen combats where the confines are small enough to where a Fighter can create a proper chokepoint. Most encounters happen in areas with a lot of room, or at least enough room for the enemies to just get around the Fighter. In PF2e, even with this issue, Fighters get several feats for rushdown to stop that trick in its tracks, can react to more stimuli to lock an opponent down, and in three campaigns so far I've played with people who just naturally get lockdown builds playing as Fighters where they can loop a caster (oh, right, Fighters need Mage Slayer in 5e if they want to try to hurt mages who are casting, and they don't even get to stop the spell) prone and just beat them into paste, something that would never work in 5e. And that's just the Fighter. Rangers and their Hunt Prey, Barbarians and their own rushdown tactics, Thaumaturges, Inventors, etc... they all have so many options, no feat taxes beyond the feat they take at first level to start their preferred build, and can do so many things wonderfully. In PF2e, I don't need to coddle the Fighter when I create an encounter so it works to their advantage. I know going in they'll brutalize the scariest enemy and keep the squishies safe. Also, you and I both know that in 5e, the only people with amazing AC are the Arcane Casters, and that comes down to Shield. Past 5th level, the Ranger, Monk, and Rogue exist to get dunked on because they have a much more difficult time buffing their defenses than the mage who casts Mage Armor and Shield all day. A Monk needs Wisdom 5 and Dex 5 to achieve what a Wizard can get with Dex 2, Mage Armor, and Shield. 'In addition, a lot of the "Muscle Wizard" or similar builds can be done in 5e too, and effectively, with multiclasses and/or specific subclasses. It's harder to do unless you know the system really well, but it's completely manageable. While I think 5e is definitely imbalanced, I don't think it's imbalanced in a way that makes it less fun. If anything, its imbalance makes it way MORE fun, as long as you have a DM that doesn't just want to punish their players.' I feel any argument that requires multiclassing is invalid. I'm not saying that to be rude; I'm saying that because a fault of the system of 5e is that I can only think of a few classes with a capstone worth getting to 20th for, making the class feel weak. Multiclassing is additionally contingent on the DM allowing it, and I've already mentioned that having to become a Rogue or a Bard to compete with the actual Rogue or Bard just feels wrong. Even if it doesn't feel cheesy to you, it's still a 'tax' to anyone who didn't start as Rogue or Bard for expertise because you're trading at least one level (Rogue, Bard needs three) to compete with a class that does all its work naturally. Classes in PF2e are all getting expertise by level 3 and advancing it. If the Fighter wants her fourth attack, well, she's getting expertise in one skill via Skill Expert (feat tax) and that's that. Even if this is a fine trade for her, consider the fact that Fighters get their mileage out of attacking multiple times. To a degree, all martials do except Rogues, (no, GF Blade and B Blade don't count, because that just means mages can easily get involved in melee too, and they already can with the numerous burst cantrips and Shocking Grasp. We all know about Hexblade Warlock and the two Inventor subclasses where they substitute to-hit with Int) The Fighter is getting their DPS delayed to come close to what a Bard or Rogue is doing on the daily. 'To compare 5e and PF2E, I think PF2E is WAY better in the late-game, but I've yet to have a group who have the patience to get from level 1 to higher levels (it's VERY slow, and we can't group that often). That said, I think 5e is WAY more fun in the early/mid stages (basically from levels 3 to 11-ish), and it's easy to level up quickly in most modules, letting you experience most of what the game/builds have to offer quickly. PF2E is a hard sell because most people don't like waiting multiple sessions to get slightly more powerful, and 5e is an easy sell because you can become pretty darn overpowered pretty darn quickly- as every class/multiclass! It's hard to get my friends to sit down for PF2E when 5e is typically quicker to the point.' I must once again disagree. From 1 to 4 the martials feel incredibly weak because they have far less chances to do the one thing they're designed for. This is not an issue in PF2e, given the MAP system. In fact, many Rangers run on that. From 5-11, runes and other neat gizmos and gadgets give substantial power boosts, and unlike 5e, this is such a core part of the system that there are alternate rules for lazy DMs or DMs that don't want to work with loot they're expected to take otherwise to simulate getting magic items and runes. Even if we pretend this doesn't count because it's items and items inherently are dependent on campaign, martials all naturally get weapon specialization feats, and the math for meeting AC in PF2e is far kinder on most enemies so that martials feel like they contribute more. I will agree, however, that your arguments show why 5e is an easy sell. I have to fight tooth and nail with various personal experiences playing the game of 5e for six years to poke all the massive holes I see in that system open. It took my group and I (we played both systems and switched to PF2e quickly when we started playing due to preferring it for the reasons given) several years to get our thoughts in order about why things FELT wrong when we played. PF2e felt so much more fun to us because it was 5e but balanced and more accepting of all the classes. For a person just walking into TTRPGs, I will agree 5e initially FEELS more overpowered in how it works. I'd still say that comes down to mages and things like Rogue Expertise and Shield (it feels like you 'complete' a build faster in 5e because things are static enough to where you only need one or two things for a Rogue or Bard to have what they need for the rest of the game), but I see the argument now.

[@anthonylooyen4855]

@@TaismoFanBoy (My post was so long I had to do it in two comments, so if the first seems like it breaks off awkwardly, that's why. I continue my argument in the next comment.)

[@TaismoFanBoy]

@@anthonylooyen4855 As mentioned before with 'exploration not being common', a lot of the issues you're mentioning comes down to the DM not implementing it into campaigns. That said, almost all of the base modules are AWFUL at doing so, but that's a module problem, not a 5e problem as a whole. I've had plenty of campaigns I've run that implement them, specifically because I know it's needed to make other skills matter! I also try to differentiate Investigation and Perception since people often merge it into Perception, etc. etc. And when it comes to charisma characters not knowing how to lie, that's... just a system problem anyways. PF2e would have that issue too, but PF2e allows you to fix it "faster" (slower due to how slow you level up, but faster in terms of how many levels of investment it takes). Unless you know ahead of time, PF2e would also fall into the "nobody can lie except you, and you suck at it" pitfall, which happens just... in RP heavy TTRPGs in general. And tbh, I forgot a bit that wizards can often steal RP moments by spellcasting, so SOME scenarios can be denied by that, but it won't be ALL scenarios just due to how you can't know every spell (again, unless the DM lets you by giving you plenty of money and ways to add new spells to your spellbook). Feat taxes are a bit of an issue, sure. Fighters kinda mitigate it by getting like, twice as many feats as other classes, but with the other martials it's definitely a lot more painful. Whether the space is open or not is dependent on campaign setting (Out of the Abyss style means a TON of choke points, whereas city combat is likely to be nearly impossible, etc.). That said, group positioning can help (fighter being farther ahead than the rest of the party), but this cuts on RP and is difficult to accomplish in practice, and beyond that, you'll still be doing plenty of DPS after your feat taxes, alongside having health. I mentioned that AC could either be broken or pointless, and my example was very low level for a reason. AC for martials matters at like, levels 1-4ish, but once Wizards have enough spell slots to stop caring, yeah it's hard to compete without multiclassing yourself (A paladin/wizard can easily reach like, 27 AC), which is WAY too MAD to work properly anyways in many cases. AC is really unbalanced in 5e, and PF2e DEFINITELY does AC better imo. Multiclassing was just an example to show that certain "builds" (as in, theme of the character and ways to deal damage/RP) can exist, it wasn't to get around the skills issue specifically. Expertise isn't really a requirement to make your skills good, or even better than the rest of the party, unless the Rogue or Bard are also trying to be muscle, ya know? +9 athletics on a wizard will get the job done, even if it isn't a +13 that expertise could give you. That all said, I LOVE multiclassing as a mechanic. It's a tradeoff in many ways, oftentimes delaying your 5th level in ANY class (spellcasters' 3rd level spells are usually the strongest ones relative to level) is always painful, but you can make creative builds that don't rely upon it, or come online at a level or two later, because you level up so much faster, you aren't delayed for too long in terms of number of sessions (some go as fast as a level up every session). That's a big beauty for 5e for me, you can experiment faster and more recklessly. In PF2e, experimentation with long-term ideas is extremely discouraged, in that you have to stick with what you've chosen for a long time before having a new level up to replace it, and making new characters for new builds requires a massive amount of time investment that many people can't afford. That's one of my biggest issues with PF2e, actually, is how difficult it is to experiment with new things. On your "martials 1-4" point... uh, levels 1 and 2 actually kinda suck for everyone in 5e lmao, especially with HP being so scarce and OHKOs existing all around you. Martials aren't bulky enough yet, casters barely know any spells and can barely cast anything other than cantrips, etc. I like the 1st and 2nd level of PF2e better, which is why most campaigns my friends and I run in 5e either level you past 1-2 quickly, or start you at 3+ outright. At 3rd though, you have your subclass, which can make you feel like you're doing things even without extra attack online, and even without your level 4 feat (which is often your first feat), as long as you aren't playing one of the awful subclasses like Champion Fighter. In terms of items, it's not just campaign dependent, but DM dependent as well. I actually do really prefer PF2e's system though, and hadn't mentioned that one of my favorite parts of PF2e is the extended crafting system. You CAN get good item distribution in 5e with a good enough dm/setting, but yeah PF2e just handles it way better. 5e's item management is awful by default, and many items are too powerful/too weak for their rarity anyways. I don't agree on Rogue's DPS feeling overwhelming compared to martials though, considering one miss is all it takes to lose ALL of your DPS, while extra attacks makes it a bit more consistent. I had a friend playing Rogue who ran with a rapier, and felt entirely pathetic due to how often he missed (bad RNG). Bard may have expertise, but the majority of their default utility comes from "they pass and nothing happens" spells that can make their turn feel just as wasted, or even their entire BUILD can feel useless if the enemy has legendary resistances (though this is a problem with 5e's system more than the class in particular, and is just more proof that 5e is poorly balanced lol). Meanwhile, Monks can spam the HELL out of stunning strike at mid to high levels(one of the most overpowered abilities in the game IMO, even if it's on one of the worst classes otherwise), and get similar or more powerful effects than what the Bard can do. I think each class has pros and cons in terms of DPS, utility, support, and consistency, and whether or not the DM involves multiple combat per long rest or short rest (lots of combats and only short rests can make casters feel drained while martial/rogue units thrive a bit more, especially monks who get all ki points back), etc. etc. Overall, your experience with 5e is ENTIRELY dependent on the DM, and how the campaign is set up. A shitty dm and/or a shitty campaign setting could make a certain class COMPLETELY useless, sometimes including spellcasters if there's anti-magic shenanigans (which is a mechanic I kinda hate, in general). PF2e I think is a lot more of a consistent experience, and it's definitely a more balanced system (and is still getting updated to be more balanced, which is a real plus compared to 5e), but that doesn't necessarily make it more fun either (I.E. experimenting/more levels). Again, I actually love both systems, for different reasons. But I also acknowledge that I probably only love 5e so much because my friends and I all DM for it in ways that make it more fun.

[@Thyfob]

Always happy to see a new video from you. I never played pathfinder but I am curious. On the topic of complicated games, people always could try "the dark eye"

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I'm a PF2 creator and just watched your new video on PF2. Glad you're having fun with it despite some issues that have come up! I thought it might be fun and a good idea to have a talk/stream where I can answer questions you have about the system, provide tips, etc. I'm one of the larger PF2 creators and actually had a couple of critiques of your 1st PF2 vid. I think this might be a great opportunity and would generate great interest - my passion is teaching btw and I taught 5e and PF2 to students pre-COVID. Let me know if you'd be interested!

[@RydraMMO]

I feel like its been so long since i got to watch a Puff vid...made my day!

[@nickmanzo8459]

Recently started playing Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, and it’s a great game. Crunchy as hell in the right places, but I like the way it handles combat better than PF 2E and the way your characters feel compared to 5E

[@jambo1815]

Yeah but fuck games workshop :)

[@nicklucas-g2h]

Ahh! Welcome back! I was wondering where you went! And hooray for pf2!

[@ACoolestNinja]

Watching this, I have two feelings. 1) I kind of miss running pathfinder and all it's awful little quirks. There's just a lot of things that had more impact than 5e...and also wow I sure did homebrew more than I remembered 😅

[@TheBlacknight122]

Always a delight to see a new release from you. Thank you!

[@AdamWhistle1]

For 5e players considering Pathfinder 2e: the game is not a "fixed 5e", but a spinoff that focuses not only on more clear rules (which is why it has more rules, the GM doesn't need to homebrew everything) and better balance (the challenge rating system actually works) but is also a more tactical/strategic game that is more involved to play. The fighter doesn't just need to hit things, they can feint to gain a temporary +1, they can scare their opponents who will have a -1 to everything, they can grapple (which is much simpler than in 5e), outside of their turn they have only one reaction point when they can choose from many other reactions, positioning matters tremendously etc. Unlike in 5e where you can stack things sky-high, that +1 MATTERS and can mean the difference between turning the tide of the battle or a character's death. The players have to look up how these interact and work together, as well as check each other (all the rules being available online helps with this). Non-casters can have skills that can be relevant outside of combat, fighters can heal (even during mid-combat) if they invest into the skill. Spellcasters can no longer trivialize encounters by abusing spell effects. 5e players might also have a hard time because they have to unlearn certain habits and ideas from that system, for example drinking a potion mid-combat is costly, grappling works and can turn the tide of combat, unarmed attacks can be very useful, etc. The game really demands team work and working together with some semblance of tactics. Otherwise, if you play as in 5e, that's how you get the infamous TTKOs. I say this not to discourage people from PF2e but to make it clear what possible immigrants to the system are in for. PF2e proponents often forget to explain this and can throw them off. If you are a 5e player considering alternative system, keep this in mind and whether your group wants to engage with that. Going to PF2e from 5e has been compared to the difference between Final Fantasy and Final Fantasy Tactics. Players don't just have to make their charaters awesome, they have to play as a squad member in what is fantasy XCOM. If your players just wants to roll dice and do whatever, expecting to easily win most of the time or get by with paying attention to things with only half a mind, they might find PF2 unforgiving.

[@gmchris4113]

I feel like a good chunk of the transition is also just seriously talking about it. Before my group went from 5e to this, I conversed with them about how it would be different, that alone was enough to get them in the mindset. They realized, "Yes, this is more challenging, but it's also fun." That's not to say that ALL of them loved it. Some did not transition because it wasn't as laid back as 5e. Combat and adventuring required thinking and preparation. There was a certain level of involvement that they were not comfortable reaching. Puffin's comparison of Pf2e to a dark roast coffee, I think, is incredibly adequate; it's not better than a medium roast, it's just different, but it's certainly an acquired taste.

[@lvl3-wizard81]

Glad to hear you gave it another try. I really love pathfinder. I almost wanted to recommend cypher system as well since during your opening you mentioned you wanting something light while your players wanted a bit more crunch than that. I feel like cypher system does very well at compromising those ideas, but then you said your players "need" a digitized character manager and as far as I know there really isn't one for that game.