Reasons Why Players & GMs Don't Like PF2e

[@CzarVentus]

Funny enough, coming from 5e a lot of the cons of pf2e are actually pros to me! More conditions, more good written rules, tags, etc. is all great to me :) Though the char sheet is truly not the best. Luckily it gets a brush up in the remaster

[@nattertot]

Many people feel the same way! (Myself included.) And like I said, these small cons drastically outweigh the pros for the system imo. 😊

[@Kiaulen]

Cons of the character sheet: you have to recalculate every bonus every level, so erase gently. Pros of the character sheet: there's actually enough room to calculate your attacks. Looking forward to seeing how they handle attributes (prev ability scores) in the new one.

[@admartinez9854]

@@Kiaulen Pathbuilder (free app) is amazing as character sheet as it makes for you all the math. You can even print it in pdf (then paper if you prefer) or exporting to VTT Foundry (Pathmuncher module). The con is that you need a PC or android device. The PC version can open several character sheets, though

[@Mada003akamagikarp]

Also for the shield point if you have a single person with a repair kit it's uh free to repair. You shouldn't have to rebuy them

[@mos5678]

This. If you don't get 10 minutes to repair your shield then I have to ask what that party is doing. Yes a destroyed shield cannot be repaired but at the same time... you are going to have to block some mighty high crits in order to destroy a steel shield at low level. Edit: oh yeah.... completely forgot that you KNOW what hits are going to break or destroy your shield aswell. You take the reaction after damage is rolled.

[@HeribertoEstolano]

You can have someone with crafting skills on your party or a caster with mending spell prepared. That's the first thing my group made back in march 2020 when they created their first characters.

[@Mada003akamagikarp]

Also in the case where no one has crafting. Paying a npc to repair a shield is usually pretty dam cheap. Maybe this KZbinr just likes punishing shield users?

[@LogistiQbunnik]

@@Mada003akamagikarp Sure, but WHEN are you going to get to that if you are somewhere in the wilderness or in the middle of a dungeon? I mean, I know that knights brought multiple shields to a tournament, so it is somewhat realistic. But unless you have a spares with you or a caster to do this, you might not be able to use the shield even for a complete fight, nor be able to use it for several fights in a row. Which will surely become a bummer for a new person - new players also probably would not think about taking mending for this purpose, instead focussing on damage spells

[@Mada003akamagikarp]

@@LogistiQbunnik I have just the solution you can buy a hireling to come along who can repair your gear! Therefore you can still get it repaired in the dungeon. The game gives you many options to get what you need

[@nickjackson2660]

I've taught people to play both dnd5e and Pathfinder 2e. If you start with zero game knowledge then Pathfinder is easier to learn and once you do learn it you can apply similar rules across multiple different areas such as the 4 degrees of success. I think so many people think that pf2 is complicated because they bring over so much baggage from 5e. Similar abilities don't work the same and it throws 5e veterans off.

[@quantus5875]

Also, I always start new people on playing Pathfinder 2e with the Beginner Box -- so much easier because the Beginner Box has so many less options. I have taught an 9 year old to play PF 2e this way (and they had zero problems learning to play). The author of this video should have mentioned the Beginner Box.

[@CL-jq1xs]

don't think so. New players still take more time to decide what to do in combat, building character and looking up rules in pf2e.

[@mos5678]

Honestly I dont get why people are so against secret checks. You really want to just spam search a room until you make the roll? Or rolling to avoid notice and seeing that dreaded nat one and just... "yeaaaa.. maybe I will just scout instead"

[@Vezrabuto]

main thing i hate about the thing is just the cycle that happens if someone fails a perception check.

[@mirtos39]

DMs have been doing secret checks since the days of the very first edition back in the 70s.

[@josephbeckett2330]

I dislike the metagaming it is supposedly intended to reduce. I also just don't like the concept. If I am building a character to emphasize this aspect or that, I want to roll it, not have it be a save or something. There is a difference between a DM occasionally rolling things secretly and doing it the majority of the time.

[@quantus5875]

And you can easily house rule out secret checks if you want. So easy to fix if you don't like secret checks.

[@lkaszu6599]

The character sheet was the reason I didn't get into pf2 earlier lmao Good thing there's a bunch of alternatives online. Also the remastered sheet is way better

[@i.j.dragonfly3123]

I love the way Pathfinder 2e handles conditions. Sure, they can get confusing, but they're a lot more interesting than "gives you disadvantage." Doomed is a cool one; the dying rules in general are great if you like dropping to 0 to feel weighty and scary.

[@quantus5875]

Also, if you start teaching people to play using the Beginner Box -- the Beginner Box only has 11 conditions, with ten of those conditions on these laminated cards that you can give to players. Easiest way to teach people to play PF 2e is with the Beginner Box because most of the complexity of PF 2e is the number of options -- with the Beginner Box you're essentially limiting the options making PF 2e a very easy game system to learn.

[@d3c0yBoY]

I'm partial towards Secret Checks. Knowing your rolls tend to make players to start metagaming.

[@matthewlane]

"Knowing your rolls tend to make players to start metagaming." Yep, i added secret death checks to my 3.5 game & sweet jesus did that ever add some much needed tension to the game. Suddenly the player is freaking out because there character might already be dead & they just don't know & neither do the rest of the party. Suddenly the clerics all "quick i have to disengage & get to my friend, i'll just take the AOO & make a mad dash for it, no time to waste." That shit is way better then "roll another death saving throw, you didn't stabalise, you are now at -3. Cleric do you want to do something? Oh you are going to hit your target again, because you know your friend is only at -3..... Okay then."

[@punkdigerati]

You kinda mention it near the end about not having tools while playing, but those tools don't have to be VTT's. Wanderer's guide helps tremendously both with character sheet creation and keeping track of conditions and spells and the like during the session, not to mention the gm tools like encounter builder and store generator.

[@MattSH06]

DMed D&D for 47 years. Went to PF2 and never going back to D&D. Love it. Easier to take out or streamline rules, then to have to wing so much in 5e.

[@arcady0]

As an "old school" player (started in 1980) - the math and the character sheet both actually look simple to me compared to what I used to before I'd stopped gaming during the 3.5 days. Try some old era Champions, GURPS, Rolemaster, or even 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder starts to look quick and easy. When I see that 5E sheet on the screen my impression was 'where do I put my character? it looks like a blank piece of paper?' But I can see how someone who started in the modern era of 5E would find PF2E a bit much - especially as so many of these 'newer players' only have experience with one RPG before trying Pathfinder 2E.

[@doomhippie6673]

Having played a lot of Rolemaster I must say that I find it a breeze compared to PF2. Keeping track of all these conditions is extremely boring and emersion braking for me. The closest games I can compare it to are the strategy games of the 1970s and 80s I used to play. And there is a reason why I don't play Advanced Squad Leader anymore. And PF2 is really the clostest any RPG has come to that.

[@KenronTheGamer]

The pathbuilder app is great for character creation and to use as a characters sheet.

[@PyroMancer2k]

Shields are actually really good at early levels and worst at later levels which is why they had to fix them in remaster. Steel shield is super easy to get as it is a Level 1 item that cost 2gp. It has 5 Hardness 20HP and 10BT which means everytime you block you reduce the damage by 5. Thus any attacks that do 5 or less damage do ZERO damage to you and the shield. And since you are low level most attacks are likely to be low 1d6-1d8 with a small modifier. So odds are after the reduction you're likely taking 1-4 damage on hits that would have been 6-10 damage without your shield. Thus you could take like 10 hits at 6 damage before you shield breaks thus reducing 50 damage down to 10. Then come level 4 get a sturdy shield which is 8 Hardness and 64HP 32BT for even more damage reduction and longevity. The reason shields suck late game though is only the sturdy shield keeps up in hardness and HP. The Hardness and HP of even the sturdy shield doesn't keep as much pace with the monster damage output. The other shields are way to low on both that they do tend to break with just a couple hits. This is why they added Reinforcing runes in PF2e Remaster which says they increase the shields stats up to a Max of and then list the stats for the Sturdy shield of that level. Repairing a shield is easy enough as well. You can either have your character get the kit and feats or like healing rely on another party member to do it. In my last Campaign the Alchemist who is already focused on crafting went into crafting and repair feats so he repaired the Paladins shield for him between fights while the ranger did medicine checks to heal the party HP. There are even feats that let you repair your shield in 1-3 actions so you can repair in combat if truly needed. Not that you would need it a lot as it was very rare that our Paladin's shield broke mid combat though Paladins have a class feature that increases Hardness and HP of his shield. Another thing to keep in mind is you can decide to block after you know the damage amount so if it's going to break your shields but you wanna keep that AC Bonus you just don't use the block reaction. The reaction says when you would take damage and not when hit. Thus you don't know if you are going to take any damage until the damage is calculated since you could have resistances from armor, items, spells, feats, class abilities, or etc. But even without that odds are you'd still wanna be blocking hits to reduce your damage and reduce the healing pressure put on the party healer.

[@szegediadam8793]

I never understand the math problem. I'm a martial. I roll a dice the first time to hit a slightly lower level enemy: let's say I rolled a 7 on the d20 add my bonuses, and the gm tells me it's a hit. I do damage and go for a second hit, and I roll for example 13. I don't need to add it together. It's a hit, because it's only one better than the last one, and critting on a roll of 8 is surely not option, because that would mean I would only miss on a nat1... I only add numbers when there's a mathematical chance to get different result than the first roll I made. Also I sometimes write down the lowest no-map dice number I rolled which was still a hit. ( So if I roll a 7 and it's a hit, and then I roll in the same turn an 11 and it still a hit I would write down 6) Also shields: I'm gladly paying 2-3 gp to have one extra level worth of HP on me XD

[@AdorkableDaughterofNyx]

my Suggestion. Switch to an OSR System like Worlds Without Number, Adventurer Conquerer King, Dungeon Crawl Classics, Lamentations of the Flame Princess, or Old School Essentials if you want fast combat, fast character creation, less minmaxing, and less character spreadsheeting.

[@kogorun]

Also, fast character expiration. Make 12, maybe 1 will survive.

[@AdorkableDaughterofNyx]

@@kogorun actually not that fast character expiration if you pay attention and remember to ask for more context when needed.

[@ReclaimerMkII]

As a new PF2e player (have played 3 sessions ever), the game is intimidating. Session 1, a monster with 4 hp got ultra lucky and got back to back crits and downed 2 players in one turn. Also, the general mood of the table is “If you miss the first strike don’t bother trying again.” Our initial impressions are very mixed.

[@julzbehr6696]

At low levels that is very true, but it softens up around level 3, then you can usually hit twice

[@claudiolentini5067]

While i agree with it (and for this i say that you should level up faster at level 1, even after 1-2 sessions), the same thing can happen in 5e . There are some CR 1/4 and even 1/8 mons that are very dangerous for level 1 pcs Goblins (see the infamous Lost Mine of Phandelver initial encounter), Wolves and Kobolds immediately come to mind

[@claudiolentini5067]

Another thing that GMs can do to ease the experience a bit is to give the level 1 pcs their level 2 hp, while keeping the level 1 proficiency bonus and avoid giving the extra feats In this way, you're a bit tougher and harder to kill, but you still have some things to look forward to for level 2

[@julzbehr6696]

@@claudiolentini5067 absolutely, most groups I play with start at level 2 to help with this issue

[@robfrydryck127]

1st level D&D is just as or even more deadly. Once you learn how to work together as a team in Pathfinder not only will you win more battles but bond better than DnD, where you don't "have" to work together

[@Halosty45]

The shield thing can be mitigated by 1. having anyone at all in your party with crafting to repair it with a couple 10 minute checks and 2. Blocking smaller hits instead of big ones because as long as you block around your shield's hardness or more that's the maximum amount you can absorb and blocking a large hit just makes your shield take unnecessary damage (Though I can understand wanting to shield block a crit, unless you literally had no other opportunity to block and are going to drop it's not going to be worth it)

[@waifusmith4043]

You brought up very interesting points, there is a lot to pf2e when it comes to the volume of text, though the pro to that is that (in my experience) rulings are less ambiguous than in 5e. I can't tell you how many times we've had to look up rulings in 5e to hope that Jeremy Crawford has either talked on the subject or has stayed consistent on the subject (see magic missile). It does seem intimidating, but I think that it's somewhat necessary to have it in the feature instead of elsewhere so we don't have to look it up. I got into TTRPGs from playing Yugioh, where the latter had come up with a writing system so they can cut out as much ambiguity as they can, and while there are standard ways of writing dnd 5e features, sometimes features are unclear on how they work or all situations they cover. I understand the idea of comparing heal to another spell but I wouldn't say that Heal is comparable to healing word. Heal is basically Cure Wounds and Healing word mashed into two spells. I will agree it's a lot of text but that's because some spells let you spend a certain number of actions where 1 action is cure wounds (or close to) and 2 actions is healing word, while 3 actions is a massive AOE heal. Heal is likely one of the most common spells people will run into so it's not a bad example, just I would have added that this was a case of a "blended " spell. Personally speaking I've always kind of found it annoying in 5e that there are two healing spells that have their own tradeoffs, but if I wanted to prep or learn other spells as a healer (even though healing word is the more useful option) that there are two spells to pick up for healing. If you have one healing spell that you can make function differently, that does open up more spells for people to prep/learn. But player builds isn't really the discussion lol. Overall I liked the video, I just kind of felt like there was some context needed for the Heal spell specifically, because if someone didn't get the time to read the spell entirely then it may seem like they made Healing Word complicated for some reason, when in reality Heal is like putting three spells together.

[@claudiolentini5067]

Agree on Heal, the fact that with a level 1 spell you can either cure a decent chunk of HP (above the average of what a 5e level 1 cure wounds does) at range, or have AoE healing/blasting, makes it pretty worthwhile in my book. Also, there is a non-trivial number of undead who are very susceptible to positive damage (the damage dealt by Heal), including all the incorporeal ones (who are very annoying to deal with for martial characters, due to their resistances), against which even a low-level Heal can be really useful

[@cyanic3148]

I like PF2 a lot, but the one thing I may dislike the most is the rune necessity, the +1-3 runes and Striking runes are calculated in PF2e's monster numbers, and not having them means you're really behind the curve. (I like the Automatic Bonus Progression rule, though mostly only for the +1 to hit and extra die, I'm personally ok with buying skill items) This really throws off GMs that come from any other system, not just 5e, because they may assume when people say that the PF2e math is very balanced and tight, that it means magic items aren't necessary. Sure GMs should definitely read more of the material they're running, but this is a wholeass game, for fun. Cannot expect all GMs to have the same prep style of cover-to-cover and making annotations, or have fun spending an afternoon to read RPG mechanics. It also makes multi-weapon builds a lot less efficient because now all your money is going to rune-ing multiple weapons which means you lose out on property runes or consumables or other items you might want

[@Xflintlock0]

Shield block was invaluable in the beginner box. I was usually able to block 2-3 attacks per encounter which is an extra 10-15 hp. When you are level 1 or 2 15 ho is a massive buff. And, with a repair kit, its free to repair. Now, at level 3-5 it only was able to block one attack before hitting rhe broken threshold but assuming you can get a resilient ahield around 4 or 5 tou should bw fine. Those have 3 times the hp and almost double the hardness (damage reduction)

[@ASalad]

Big disagree on shields. They are extremely useful from level 1 onward, and can be insanely good for characters that build around them. They are a major source of damage mitigation and improved survivability. Extra AC is one thing that it shares with 5e, but being able to actually drop a 10 damage hit to a 5 damage hit at level 1 feels pretty amazing. I also have rarely ever had to spend any additional gold on shield maintenance. The trigger for shield block is when you would take damage, and unless you are secret checking damage values (which isn't RAW), the players knows how much damage they are taking. They choose whether it's worth it to block or not, meaning they should know when the block would result in a break or destroyed shield. The only time you "lose" gold is if it's destroyed, and if a player chooses to let their shield be destroyed to mitigate some massive damage, it's because they decided it was worth it to do so (may have been the difference between going down and staying up.) Yes shield maintenance does require someone proficient in crafting and a repair kit, though this is pretty similar to a party member having treat wounds and a healer's kit. Shields + shield block are a pretty substantial boost to a party member's survivability options, and there are plenty of other great reasons to have crafting even for general adventuring purposes and recall knowledge checks if nothing else.

[@rowanash5378]

I've been playing P2E for a couple years now, and while I generally agree with most of your points, I think you're rather far off the mark with point #5 about shields. Broken shields are not destroyed, just damaged to below half their max HP and unable to be used to get the AC bonus. You only need one PC in the party to be carrying a Repair Kit worth 2gp (an easy pickup for level 1 PCs), and at least one PC in the party to be trained in the Crafting Skill. Then it's a simple 10-30 minute exercise of DC 14 Craft checks after each battle that breaks your shield to bring it back to max HP again. Using the Craft skill to Repair does not cost any money. And PCs will always know if blocking an attack will cause their shield to break or be destroyed because they can do the math of (remaining shield HP - (Damage they're amount to take - shield hardness)) on their phone or in their head before they say "Yeah I'll shield block that."

[@animateddream1035]

You need to know how this sounds, my friend. After reading this, I am even more confident that I may never actually try playing Pathfinder 2e

[@rowanash5378]

@@animateddream1035 May I ask as to why? If I phrased my original comment in an accusatory or ill manner, that wasn't my intention.

[@animateddream1035]

@@rowanash5378 "Broken shields are not destroyed, just damaged to below half their max HP and unable to be used to get the AC bonus. You only need one PC in the party to be carrying a Repair Kit worth 2gp (an easy pickup for level 1 PCs), and at least one PC in the party to be trained in the Crafting Skill. Then it's a simple 10-30 minute exercise of DC 14 Craft checks after each battle that breaks your shield to bring it back to max HP again." This sounds like the antithesis of fun. I'd rather just have a shield that doesn't need upkeep. "You have a shield. +2 to AC". And have it only break if it makes the current plot interesting. I've kind of taken a peak into the PF2e world. It seems a lot more focused on balance and mechanics (albeit with a lot of options for character creation) over *fun* and the community also seems to lean that way. With 5e's flaws, I enjoy tailoring the game to how I want to run it anyway. Plus the impression I get for the way social interactions are ruled, the creators and players have completely forgotten that TTRPGs are, themselves, social interactions lol.

[@leonelegender]

​@@animateddream1035putting "plot" above verisimilitude is not "fun"

[@PatriceBoivin]

I imagine the revision brings a GM Core and Player Core volumes to split up that large Core Rulebook

[@waylonoconner9121]

Having GM’ed 3rd Edition D&D through 5e, Old school White Wolf games, and Shadowrun 3rd Edition through 5th Edition I feel I can say that Pathfinder isn’t complicated. Complex? Sure but worth it. Also, I haven’t ran a game RaW, probably ever. If my players are having a good time, then the rules mean nothing. As long as it makes sense and it’s consistent then it’s all good.

[@mirtos39]

I've GM'd/DM'd pretty much every edition since 1980. (with dozens of other non D&D style games as well). Pathfinder 2e is complex, not complicated. As you said. 5e appears uncomplicated, but its actually more so.

[@norcalbowhunter3264]

"So much math... There so many modifiers... you have to add your, feats, ability bonuses, proficiency bonus, item bonus, attributes, etc..." No you don't. Why do people keep trying to make this sound so complicated? The only things you're adding to stuff is circumstance and status effects. You should already have your feats, abilities, modifiers, items, and all that pre calculated on your character sheet before hand. That's why all those fields are there. If you're adding these individually every time you're making life harder on yourself. Not only is this exactly how d&d 5e works (I dmed in that system for 10 years it's exactly the same) but the fact you add one source per circumstance, item, and status it adds up to less math than 5e. Again as someone whose ran 5e for a decade and has ran high level combat in that game it can slow down and become more crunchy than PF2e because I'm 5e you add everything to a roll not just the highest or worse source. It baffles me why people try to make an attack roll look so complicated by breaking down every modifier, when just like in 5e 90% of those things you're listing off were precalculated beforehand.

[@norcalbowhunter3264]

Example PF2e fighter swings 1d20 + precalculate modifier (items, feats, etc...) + bonus from 1 circumstance and one status (items are added to the precalculated bonus) + penalties from again one source of circumstance and status effects, and MAYBE from an item or untyped penalty. 5e figure out advantage and disadvantage, roll d20, add precalculated bonus (items, feats, etc..), add every single spell that effects you which at higher level can easily be 3-5, add every circumstance bonus (this is usually advantage but can be a modified) which again can come from several services, then add every penalty which again can be a handful of spells or circumstance bonuses for each. So not only do we see the rolls are exactly the same, but you can also see how 5e can get more unwieldy because there's no limit to a source. If 5 spells are affecting your spell attack you add ALL of them. I've seen games slow down to a crawl in high end 5e that I've not seen on PF2e high end game play.

[@blockyuniverseproductions6587]

@@norcalbowhunter3264 Ok, as a 5e player and gm, you also overcomplicated 5e combat rolls. 1. Roll a d20 (or two if rolling with an advantage or disadvantage) and add the relevant modifier to see if you hit (i.e. at or over the AC of the target). 2. If you hit, roll the weapon or spell damage (usually a number of dice and adding the relevant modifier). This is all you need to do for DnD 5e combat. The only time you end up with additional modifiers is if someone is helping or something is affecting (which to be honest, comes up very little--and in my experience it's mostly with skill checks.) Also, for Advantage and Disadvantage, all it is is rolling two d20s and picking the higher or lower die (respectivly) as the result.

[@CL-jq1xs]

5e for the most part is roll d20, add modifier, check advantage/disadvantage and one additional modifier specific to your class in most cases. That's it. Pf2e have flanking, flat footed, fear etc which are number modifiers which stacks. 5e mixed most of it all up into advantage/disadvantage and you can't stack them.

[@kriscolwell9935]

I think something additional is that a lot of the "3 action economy" is not factored in with the classes where the spells all have 2 actions to cast and then it diminishes the ability to perform anything past movement. After playing 5E with the action, bonus action, and movement all in a round, it feels like I basically have my thumbs together and just waiting for my turn to just pass it around again. None of the the more interesting classes have anything that allows for easy play and the boring classes are fine, but I do not want to play a boring class. I don't want to be a generic warrior or barbarian. The skills are heavy in info like you said and the majority of the turn is spent trying to figure out what I can do only to realize I can't really do anything. In a game I was playing I tried like 3 class changes and did not like any of it. None of it feels flexible and it feels like being in a box without any creativity.

[@howcas8744]

It's kinda hard to agree with the theatre of the mind point, it's just as simple(or complicated) as any other ttrpg. You still got enemies, allies, cones, lines, emanations and rooms, the most hastle to deal with is different speeds for different characters, but that is common in other games too. Most extreme case scenario i can think of is "Will my 30feet line spell hit both enemies?" And i might respond "Not quite, but you can take an action to align them to your spell" Sorry in advance for any errors in the writing, english is not my first language.

[@rdmrdm2659]

.. But wouldn’t that be true in other games as well?

[@CL-jq1xs]

because you have to decide to ignore the rules or not when there's too many and potentially restrictive. Theater of mind works best with just simple and basic rules. If what you do makes sense within the rules then it works for theater of mind.

[@norcalbowhunter3264]

I really don't think the character sheet is more complicated. I think it just looks that way. I think the difference is PF2e has you write out things on the sheet while 5e has you do it off the sheet and just add the final resulting number. I will say I am thinking wotc is better at formatting the stuff to be more easily read and this is something Paizo struggles with.

[@Raugornauth]

Great video. Very concise for the number of items you covered, which is appreciated. I'm a P2e fan, but most of these I could definitely understand as being off putting. Especially for players new to ttrpgs as a whole. The Conditions thing feels a bit misleading. P2e does have a lot more Conditions, but that's because they unified a bunch of thematic effects into easy labels and effects which they reference as Conditions, which they put up front. Meanwhile, 5th has a ridiculous number of effects that are thematically the same but are mechanically separated into a bunch of "lasting effects that are not conditions, we promise". A prime example of this is that Advantage and Disadvantage are not Conditions you can have with your character, even though it fits their own definition of a condition. This means that where P2e has a single condition that encompasses many different ways to apply the same effect, 5th has a ton of effects that are basically just reprints of thematic effects with significant mechanical effect differences that you have to know or look up for every individual case. In P2e, when I weaken a creature's strength, they are Enfeebled with a basic penalty to all of their strength-based values. In 5th, it depends on what I used to weaken their strength. Ray of Enfeeblement, Hex, Bestow Curse, poisons, and other effects like Bane are just some of the ways I can think of to get this effect of "weakening strength". None of them work the same and few apply a 5th edition Condition, but they all "weaken strength in this specific way for a specified duration". Functionally, 5th doesn't have fewer Conditions. They have way more conditions intentionally spread out and mislabeled so as to not scare away new players.

[@antongunther3977]

when you get down to it 5e was designed to be a very simple system that appeals to as broad a demo as possible. Any deviation or addition of complexity or "math" to it will have players and gms that mostly play 5e feel overwhelmed. There is a reason why a ton of 5e players mod 5e to play certain types of games when a dedicated system for their exact idea already exists and does a far better job. I dont say this to gatekeep. 5e is a good system and I am glad that its brought the TTRPG hobby to so many people. I just wish people would actually play things that aren't 5e as well.

[@Joshuazx]

The logic of conditions in Index Card RPG (ICRPG) is that there are no conditions, it's all loose-y goose-y and it's up to the GM. The GM can tell a player "You're poisoned. Here's how you're affected."

[@JezzaJtheMan]

Even levelling up means you need to change every modifier with a proficiency bonus. My first game used physical sheets and I filled it all out for level 1 before finding out that we were starting at level 2, and had to change the entire sheet

[@josephoutram3019]

Mostly to the first point, sure there are a lot of options to choose from, but a lot of the PF2e games I've participated in, players have typically whittled down their options to the ones most relevant to their class/build/play style. And sure, combat slows things down, but it does that in D&D 5e as well, so there isn't much of a change. When bringing magic into the mix, a lot of players bring over their old habits from 1st ed and have a list of spells for in town, in the wild, when they know there'll be combat, social situations, etc. which helps simplify things or going through their expansive spell lists to choose for the day.

[@TheRewyn]

I've ran 5e since it came out. Previous 4e, and 3.5 and 3e. I been running PF2E for a year. For my group, a mixture of RP Focused players who are not rules oriented, PF2E has actually resulted in substantially faster combats once the players got used to the system. Three actions meant there was no confusion around bonus actions and how much movement they had left over. Monster turns also went far faster. Having boss fights not being cluttered with legendary actions and all the reaction abilities that are overwhelming in 5e just made everything far more stream lined. Secret checks I also found were a huge boon to players and the GM, as it could build suspend without giving away plot. No more asking for perception checks and players realizing there is something to be noticed. Secret checks could be lores, society checks, all sorts of things. And since with a VTT the players can still be the ones to roll the secret check, they still feel like fate was in their hands even if they dont know the outcome.

[@RockLucena]

My friends and I started playing pathfinder recently and we were afraid the system and combat would be too complex. But we play on foundry, and like you said, foundry does all the busy work for us and we are loving it. It may be the answer for those who are reluctant to give PF2e a chance.

[@lahnhedberg3403]

I have played 5e, 3.5e, pathfinder 1e. Other ttrpg like vampire the requiem, lancer and more. Compared to everything I have played it did not feel like I was allowed to RP my actions in combat or build my character for RP in combat in 2e. It felt like I had to play a certain way or risk dying. If I am a spellcaster and I love fire... I will have to spend spells on debuffs and buffs for my party because my dmg will be as good as a anyones bow or sword while also costing me a resource. Even vampire the requiem which nerfed it spells and abilities felt alot better to use than ANY spell I used in 2e. My character walking around in public with multiple guns strapped to him and nobody can notice felt alot better than doing 1d4 dmg costing a lvl 1 spell slot.

[@leonelegender]

Most spellcasters are not blasters in pathfinder, they are support. Kineticist is what you looking for to do good damage with a element, but you give up the utility of having spells to be a kineticist

[@TiaanKruger]

I get the character sheet thing, but there are so many free tools (the best one in my opinion being Pathbuilder) to manage all this and make it absolutely trivial. and if you really want a paper copy, you can export a copy. Assuming you don't want to use a vtt (makes all this even easier)

[@AKA_Kira]

I would check out the new character sheet that was announced yesterday

[@Kalosj]

Same complaints as we had with d&d4e - but as you say, VTTs alleviate alot of these issues (and probably would have prolonged 4e's life for the same reasons)

[@Mirekluk]

Matt Colville even said that it was designed with VTT in mind, but it never came to be.

[@mattrocde]

hammer meet head of nail - that was exactly the case with 4e, was meant to be digitally supported and they flubbed it on release.

[@neonGliiitch]

So the character sheet actually isn't more complicated than 5e. The difference is pf2e has all your modifiers laying out on your character sheet at all times. 5e has you do the math off the character sheet and just add the result. You also have to adjust your character sheet in 5e when you change ability scores and what not. So there's really zero difference outside of how it's presented.

[@quanion2464]

Before I say anything else: Cool video! I like it! And I have basically seen all these problems in some way or another ^^ But... Especially the supposed "shield and math" problems irk me ^^; You are supposed to do most of the math on your character sheet before you sit down and actually play. And you always know the damage your shield would get so it is supposed to be easy to use it effectively. Of course I understand the underlying problems. New players look at the sheet full of numbers and go "Whaaaaaa, what is all that?!" and panic. And they like to use their shield for everything cause they think that is what the shield is for. But the groups I was in learned fast how to use a shield incredible effectively. (Plus basically always, someone learned to repair it.) And when they actually filled out the character sheet themselves, they got a very good understanding of how their character works and what potentially to improve when they level up cause they now understood what things do. I understand where the mentioned problems are coming from. (All of them. Not just the two I had here.) But some come down to "That is how THIS game works." And some others should be followed with "Please don't be afraid of this. It works and is easier to understand than you think." (The Rules Lawyer made actually a video about how D&D isn't as rules light as people like to portray it and that Pathfinder can be much easier than people give it credit for.) Now, that doesn't mean that there isn't valid critisim here. If the rulebook is intimidating and if numbers confuse people and all the other stuff, this is something we can point out. Is the Character sheet confusing at first glance? Heck yeah! Most people I know use a simplified version of it. And there can be a lot more to complain about. And it might be better to change some of this. (They are splitting the core rulebook into smaller parts with the Remaster and try to make it easier to understand for example too. I mean one big point of the Remaster is to correct stuff that isn't working as good or not at all.) But it doesn't necessarily mean that all of that needs to be or should be changed. There is nothing wrong with having a more complex rule system. If one wants something simpler, maybe 5e or something else is more to ones taste. And taste is an important thing here. Pathfinder has a very strong identity of what it wants to be. And that simply might not be for everyone. It sometimes feels like pitching Pathfinder is like trying to sell someone Vanilla ice cream who loves Chocolate ice cream. And then they go "This is good but why doesn't it taste more chocolaty..."

[@quantus5875]

Also, this video should have mentioned the Beginner Box. Best way of introducing new players into the system. To say a 500+ page rule book is off putting and not mentioning there is a 72-page Beginner Box player guide is slightly misleading.

[@josephbeckett2330]

Personally, I'm perfectly ok with "theater of the mind" not being a huge thing. I've never even met a person that perfers it over a battlegrid if that option is available.

[@einkar4219]

about shields somone is neglecting use of repair activity that lest you repair broken/damaged shield, and it costs nothing, just 10 minutes with repair kit you permanently lose your shield only when it is outright destroyed which happens very rarely wode. shield for blocking is worthless, steel shield for lv 1 works fine

[@sbmasonator]

I love PF2e, but I'll be honest: if we're not using foundry, then we're not playing PF2e...

[@RahvunTheWhite]

PF2e is so much better than 5e. On almost every count but especially customization. Don't give money to WoTC/Hasbro.

[@ThePrimateKing]

My players love the secret checks, and also the "Dubious Knowledge" feat!

[@jediprotector216]

Yes, the old character sheet was terrible. The Remaster fixed this issue with the simplified version. Also, never really used a shield, but shields can mitigate massive damage while saving your allies.

[@TakManSan]

Crunch for the sake of crunch is a mistake. It quickly becomes a broken-stair preventing new players sticking with the hobby.

[@DrakeTheCaster]

While I can see how it's a turn off to certain pleyers I don't see secret-checks as a Pathfinder-unique thing one way or another. DnD definitely utilizes the same thing and even leverages players' passive perception, so the GM doesn't even need to roll necessarily, or at least doesn't necessarily rob the players of making the checks themselves.

[@LordZeebee]

"i have to spend 30min before the session filling out my sheet" My guy, Dragonbane takes about 20min to fill out a fully new character and that game is rules-light even by 5e standards, no fucking way the monstrosity of a sheet that pf2e's has can be completed in 30min even unless it's by a pro who's been playing since day one... Maybe on a VTT. Maybe...

[@josephbeckett2330]

I'm confussed. You argue that PF is too complicated, (a bad thing?), and 5E is not underwelming?

[@Laufbursche4u]

With the remastered (coming out tomorrow): The Sheet is changing. The player book is getting smaller. And (even now) not all conditions are really "conditions" in a fight. Or conditions, that other systems have, but doesn't tell you. Like the condition "broken" on damaged objects or "unfriendly" on NPCs wich doesn't like the PCs.

[@nightwind67]

The cure for this is called Old School Essentials.

[@YannaTarassi]

*Laughs in Dark Mysteries Mythus' 14 page character sheet*

[@ericcooke2661]

It's interesting that he put going down regularly as a down side. Both in DND and pe2, the general recommendation is that in an equal level encounter, there should always be a high risk of one member going, otherwise it is an easy encounter.

[@Mada003akamagikarp]

At gencon they showed the new character sheet they will be moving to wirh remaster. Do you think it's better?

[@nattertot]

Too soon to say imo. 🤔💭 I haven't gotten to use it yet and I don't know anyone who has either, but it looks a bit cleaner I guess. 😁

[@JohahnDiechter]

There are 3 modifiers. Status, Circumstance, and Item. It is pretty easy once you realize this.

[@Halosty45]

I didn't think about the conditions much because I've alwasy played with a VTT but yeah I see how that could be a problem. But IMO 5e has too few conditions because most of them are really bad... unless you're a caster in which case half of them do nothing.

[@troyschofield5574]

what is the foundry module at the 2 min mark that shows the encounter xp when you select all the tokens?

[@sebbonxxsebbon6824]

The GM (or DM) have to be secret. Walking over a trap? Are you REALLY going to announce it? All of this is stupid, THE PLAYER SHOULDN'T KNOW IF THEY MAKE A PERCEPTION CHECK! Want to end the silliness? Tell players at level 12 in D&D we have to start over because the characters are to powerful to play anymore, Pathfinder works to 20.

[@Joshuazx]

That a kobold can break my shield with one attack is immersion breaking. Was that a real example?

[@nattertot]

It can happen if the right circumstances are met. In my experience, it happens very rarely, but with new players that don't quite have a grasp on the mechanics yet, it is more likely to happen. But again, it can only happen if the right circumstances are met. I.e. the player decides to raise their shield and take the shield block reaction after a heavy hit by a monster when their shield is already on the brink of being destroyed/broken.

[@TehLeviter]

I think that most of these cons are pros, at least for me. Sure, more rules, but you will probably need those rules anyway, and PF2E has them. DnD requires me to bullshit something on the spot, and might bring inconsistencies to rulings.

[@nattertot]

I completely agree. The more rules the better, and you don't always have to use them if you don't want to. Trying to come up with and keep consistent with those made up rules is a lot trickier.

[@HectorCornejo-r1g]

I ran the beginners kit for three players that only played 2nd edition D&D and one player that played 2nd and 5th D&D. The kit itself makes it really easy to navigate the character sheets, and my wife had fun with it too when she played in it (Shes only played 5th D&D) in a different game because she felt that the sheet instructions and color coordination of the dice helped her understand the system faster, which in turn she took back to our 5th edition game to handle her own dice better.

[@quantus5875]

Yes, this video should have mentioned the Beginner Box. Best way to get new players started. Super easy to get started with the Beginner Box.

[@beancounter2185]

Now that we're 3 months into the remaster, have opinions changed?

[@arcady0]

Secret checks are how almost every tRPG does things. I've never encountered an RPG system that didn't do what PF2E does there. Is not having secret checks a 5E and or 4E thing - the 2 editions of D&D I missed. It feels like every time in this video where you say "other systems" you should have said "D&D 5E". :)

[@jaimerivera2382]

Actually, most games in general don't necessarily state it as a rule that some checks are to be made in secret. Hell, there are some games where the DM makes no rolls whatsoever. But I would definitely say that most games don't explicitly make it a rule and leave it up to the DM.

[@bobhill-ol7wp]

PBTA games don't use secret checks

[@joshyneurotic8589]

what fvtt mod did he have that automatically shows the encounter sevarity when tokens are selected ??

[@neilhewitson1617]

You must rememeber the the basic rules of playing PFe2 take up a relatively small part of the book (40 pages). Sure there are more rules dealing with other parts of the game (like GMing). But compared to the lack of rules 5e, I'll take Pf2e anyday.

[@quantus5875]

And Beginner Box is available. You can learn Pathfinder with the Beginner Box.

[@Damion.Turner]

Re core rulebook.. which is being split in two.. you only need to read around 20 pages for a player.

[@quantus5875]

And Beginner Box is available. The Beginner Box player guide is only 72 pages and you don't need to read the whole thing.

[@akamikeym]

Shield rules in PF2E are soo busted. When i first encountered them I found a bunch of people online arguing that you should be able to block after you see the damage roll, because they want to be able to take the big hits on their character to spare their shields!

[@Joshuazx]

Secret checks are fine and dandy.

[@cidlunius1076]

Sorry if I seem too direct,but that's just the nature of text. 2:53 Okay that's a big opening salvo... Yes, you have more choices and things to do with your three actions, but if you were to compare it to everything that gets considered minor or free actions in 5e, you'd be able to account for many of them in here. Most of the time, you're finessing the same 7-8 actions (Stride, Strike, Cast a Spell, Interact, Seek, Hide, Sneak, Take Cover) and the rest are situational. Only of the creatures are same level as the party would this be a difficult encounter, just a single level lower and it's already moderate. Also, yes, life is indeed much cheaper in PF2E, working together is definitely something the system wants you to do as opposed to 5e where I hardly an ever made to cooperate and by RAW some classes can nova encounters very quickly. 4:26 You explained the purpose of secret checks very well. 7:24 😂 I was about to say something if you didn't mention Pathbuilder, which allows you to export to pdf character sheets that are completely filled out for you. The only downside to it is paying 5 dollars for permanent access to optional rules and features, but what's 5 dollars compared to DnDBeyond? 10:09 Even if you bought a wooden shield, it would take a max damage critical hit from a kobold to break it in one hit, so your example is disparaging shields a bit too much. You also don't mention that shields are basically serving as secondary health bars for martials that want a way to save themselves from high damaging critical blows and that part of the damage is reduced before actually being dealt to the shield and the person using them. So you could technically shield block and take 0 damage from lesser hits and preserve your hp. At later levels repairing is very heavily mitigated, heck Mending is a second level spell that can be used to repair shields. Further proving that with cooperation, such issues can be mitigated. 12:56 Another bad example, most of the math you already did it on your sheet already. You have your modifiers and proficiencies all handled and ready to go and only have to calculate: circumstantial and status buffs and penalties, which only stack with each other. So, unless someone is in a very bad spot or critically failed a save -3 to +3 is what you'll calculate at most. The only thing you don't have on your sheet is Multiple Attack penalties, which if you know about them... You can just calculate then ahead of time. 14:18 I'll agree it's definitely easier on a map, but not more difficult to rule 5e in theater of the mind. 16:31 While somewhat true, most of the time you're handling flat-footed plus frightened at worst, yet 43 conditions is you also adding in dying which only affects death saves or friendly which is near exclusively used in social encounters. 19:26 This is the kind of opinion that gets you hit with said tome of knowledge. 😂 Yes, it's a fair bit intimidating to jump into Pathfinder 2, but it's a system that doesn't just support what the player wants to do, a lot of these rules are there to alleviate the work GMs have to do. Because many thinner books opt to just say "Let the GM decide, discuss it as a group" and DOES NOT GIVE YOU A GUIDELINE. Pathfinder 2 nearly always does and even has reminders on how to run checks within the actions so you don't have to dig into the book to find them. Though I will admit, the book is disorganized in certain areas, which I'm hoping the new player core book in November alleviates. 21:04 This is almost a blatant lie. The system supports exploration, investigation, social encounters with the same depth as combat. Complex hazards can have their own stat sheets, noteworthy NPCs you have to talk to can have them too and they're not geared towards punching and blasting the problem but utilizing other skills and resources and perhaps manage to shake up how players deal with situations. Thank you for the video, I hope you don't take my criticisms to heart, but I do believe some of your opinions do need a revision. I will admit that the final statement it's absolutely true, the system is more intimidating, but I found the online resources and communities to be a lot of help in understanding the system.

[@PatriceBoivin]

Your camera decided you're mauve... I am not a KZbinr but Stephen from @rollforcombat mentioned that an auto setting did that to one of his guests... Not sure if that's what happening here as well. I like your videos, please keep making them. 🙂

[@nattertot]

Yeah, my camera is honestly a hunk of junk. 😆 There is an auto setting on the camera, but I actually turned it off as soon as I got it because of how terrible it was, and trust me...the auto setting is much much worse than whatever it decides to do when I'm recording. 🥲 Sorry if the weird coloring took away from the video. 🙏 I'm on the lookout for a replacement. 📹

[@lotrotk375]

Thanks for bringing that all up! Still, none of these items are good reasons to plainly quit the game (I've had several of those with dnd5e). It's good to acknowledge the minor points of pf2e though

[@aristospagang2446]

as a GM pathfinder has been significantly easier to run with better GM support from things like Archives of Nethys, the players are saying it's better as well so idk

[@doomhippie6673]

I've been playing rpgs since the early 80s and I loved Rolemaster.... but sorry, PF2 is such a drag when it comes to combat. It feels like playing a game of chess with the addition of nuclear physics thrown in between. I remember playing PF1 and having prepared an attack sheet for my character: he was a rogue/fighter type using a wide variety of weapons both one handed and in combination with a weapon in the off hand. Some weapons having magical bonuses and some not, some having special features that change crit range, bonus or malus for using in what hand.... a nightmare. And with PF2 it feels to me like while they have streamlined some aspects they have now dumped a whole load of new features into combat that makes it even more terrible to keep track of. I like games that basically say: roll to hit, you cause x damage, next player. I want to play scenes where the fighter says "I'm gonna keep that side of the room covered, you guys do what you do best." And not having to think about it too much.

[@leonelegender]

You are dumb, we got it

[@15kalas15]

kind of funny, secret checks are one of the only things I think the system does right

[@Sombre_gd]

8:50 FTW This guy is talking about. Fixing shield is free and it takes 10 minutes. 12:00 I'm GMing and playing as PC in real life, and a good way to ease the burden is to use physical status cards.

[@donovanmarks1865]

If I'm only speaking for myself, the biggest problems I experience with PF2E are the spells, the feats, the resource economy, the mandatory party roles, a handful of rules that are just bad, and the online community. And the Alchemist Class. To quote another, on expectations: "If one does not approach PF2 as anything related to 3.5, PF1, or even 5e, or a heroic fantasy game in general, but rather as a game about middle-of-the-pack fantasy mercenaries who just so happen to be operating in a world slightly too big and dangerous for them at all times, then it probably works...okay-ish? As long as you don't expect to be actually heroic and to matter as something beyond being a part of the team."

[@Unikatze]

While you're right that anything except for a Sturdy shield is almost useless when using Shield Block, I have NEVER seen someone pay money to repair a shield, and you sure talked a lot about how blocking with a shield was basically throwing money away. You also mentioned putting runes on a shield to upgrade it, which is not even a thing unless you're using it as a weapon (at least not until the remaster comes out). Also, the only reason your shield would be getting destroyed beyond a point where you can repair it is at the choice of the wielder, since you know how much damage it would take before deciding of you'll be using it to block.

[@leonelegender]

There is runes for shields, make them sturdier, more Hp, more hardness, etc

[@Unikatze]

@@leonelegender That's a new mechanic in remaster that was not a thing when I wrote that comment :)

[@leonelegender]

@@Unikatze oh i didnt know shield runes were a remaster thing, very neat

[@Unikatze]

@@leonelegender Yeah. It was a common complaint pre-remaster.

[@somik-i3x]

My reason to not play PF2. 1- I am already satisfied with 5e. 2-I prefer skill based system 3-I ain't a fantasy fan to start. 4- The game had complexity for nothing in my mind. Like I know Mutant and Mastermind is complex, but that complexity give you the tool to make the PC you want. 5-I hate the adding your level to all check, since it also added to DC which make it null itself. So it's just to roll +40. 6-I hate Pathfinders fans. I had so many bad interaction with them that I won't try out of spite. With other games I have less interest, the fans weren't just insulting the game I like (mostly 5e, because I will have been more agressive if they insulted Cyberpunk Red or Call of Cthulhu), so it made me feel more welcome to try their game.

[@Mirekluk]

the main reason why you add the levels is to make the progression always noticable. if for example you don't get much or really anything but a single spell slot for a level, you are almost no better suited to fight the same creature again. Here you are, because everything has level. The system does it so it's always relative to the players, and ensures that creature that critted you all the time 4 levels ago is glad it can consistenly hit you. And vice versa, while you were unable to crit it and maybe had a chance of nat 20 crit, now you crit on 19 or 18. As for 5e badmouthing, that mostly comes from frustration with the system that Pathfinder addressed. So the natural human logic dictates "Oh, I was frustrated with this, but managed to find something that actually does the thing I was frustrated with better. I should tell other people [making assumption they are also frustrated with it] that this system is their solution" I personally was frustrated with quite a few things as DM, mostly the steep curve of learning encounter design, which I found took me years before satisfactory. And even then I had HUGE problem with bosses. Because boss on his own is dead boss 90% of time in my experience. So every boss fight was boss and lieutenants and some mooks. And I was so LUCKY my players got Strahd in area with interesting terrain, so that the final battle wasn't anticlimactic (and that was second attempt) If you have fun with the system, I will not shame you or anything. It's just that I think many people brought into TTRPG in last decade were looking for something between PF1(3.5) and 5e. Cue in PF2e and they went in euphoric frenzy :D

[@somik-i3x]

@@Mirekluk My problem with the adding your level is you are never really better. Your chance never reallu goes up. Like in skill based system like CoC, when I upgrade my skill, my chance to succed or even get better actually goes up. Plus, I understand linking a game, but my problem is the Pfanatic always sell their game by bitching about 5e (or other if other ttrpg become more popular). Like I was talking about the playtest in a server and a guy keep saying hoe Pf2 is better and interrupting the conversation. So no, it'snt just a " I like the game and want to share it." It's " I like the game and my opinion is better than all yours."

[@Mirekluk]

@@somik-i3x @holes are gonna be @holes what can I say. I don't pardon them, I just try to rationalize why so many have hostility to 5e. And your chances can get better, again, it's all relative. If the DM only ever uses narrow range of tasks and challenges, it's gonna feel that way. Let's say you're level 6 thief with expert in thievery and +4 in dex, that's +14. Now let's say you're party want's to surprise someone in an Inn with front door lock of lvl 2 and target has custom made lock lvl 5. To open the first one you'd need 16, the second you'd need 20. You can see that you have 5% chance of failing the first one and 25% to fail the second. Now 2nd level thief with same build in mind would have only (2+2+4) +8 That's 35% chance to fail the first one and 55% to fail the second one. And the fun part is, you can deploy it at both levels, it's just an obstacle that the party is overqualified to deal with at lvl 6. The danger of failure is minimal, but still there though. If your DM never does it (and I understand this for combat encounters, where having anything bellow PL-4 is really non threating as far as I understand) then yes, the math is gonna be tight, and it's gonna look like you never move, because every obstacle scales with you. But that's on DM, not the system.

[@CaptainFoofoo64]

I tried PF 2E, I found it 'MEH'.

[@jasoncarlson6354]

Three is too many actiobs ? They should of had like at least that many turns for their fellow players to think of what to do!

[@SmolAnarchy]

The biggest issue with PF2e for me is that strategy isn't as efficient as DnD 5e. With that being said I have to explain, in 5e you can strategize to take down a much higher level creature and you can kill it, you can go beyond the CR and still manage to kill a creature that your party wasn't supposed to and it is rewarding because of strategy. In PF2e, it doesn't work like that, the further the CR from what the party can handle, the harder it gets to kill to the point the can be just gods and you can't land single hit, it deals zero damage and no effects. PF2e treats it more like a video game than 5e and I don't want to play a video game. The thing about those secret checks is, you can do public checks. Oh, I rolled a 1 insight. I trust this person with my life. There we go, with secret checks the DM tells the a piece of information. I have no idea if my character believes them or not, I could be suspicious without that number and can lead to meta-gaming. So both systems CAN lead to metagaming in different ways. Depending on how the DM presents their information. Here is something important about insight checks: They don't detect lies, it is meant to measure how much a person believes their statements.

[@cidlunius1076]

From my experience any encounter in PF2E that is built to be a creature that is two or three levels higher than the party will feel like you've beaten something with an outlandish CR in 5e. It's just you can recreate that feeling consistently since level... 2 or 3 up to twenty. With no homebrewing required. You'll need to fight well and leverage the system on your side or you WILL die. This doesn't mean just getting the right spells, it means getting information on said creature to know it's strengths, weaknesses and habits. Making sure you're at maximum health with all of your resources, making sure your frontline has some way to mitigate the damage and secure their hits, traps, poisons, environment, even manipulating it's action economy can all be valuable strategies. Again with no homebrewing required, just from understanding how the system runs.

[@SmolAnarchy]

@@cidlunius1076 I've defeated come something like CR 10 at level 4. My players have managed to beat up to CR 15 at level 4. This is something you cannot do in Pathfinder. And yes, no homebrew as well, it was just tactics, and using the environment to their advantage Here is the thing why you can't beat way higher level creatures in PF2e: Each level grant AC b, and Saving Throws and to hit bonuses. So I I had done this in PF2e, that creature would had on top of their normal AC, a +10, +15, as well saving throws and attack bonuses. A party at level 4 in PF2e has no means to dodge those attacks, they will always hit, and there is no way a party can attack this creature. A creature that you proposed would only had 2-3 bonuses to everything, that's not really something I'd call outlandish since you beat a creature that is 2-3 levels when these guys are beating things 10 levels higher than them.

[@sqoo5]

@@SmolAnarchy that is not so much tactics and environment, it's massively due to overpowered spells and some abilities.

[@SmolAnarchy]

@@sqoo5 It wasn't overpowered spells, it took longer to kill them since they would and I would run out of spell slots and parties would use normal attacks at range and cantrips and it took a while to kill the, but they got the upper hand with good positioning. In PF2e there is no way to kill a monster with such higher level since they are immune to attacks and saving throws at certain level. It is important to know that PF2e is more of a conservative game were everything is locked before a threshold. It was just pure environment and tactics.

[@donovanmarks1865]

@@cidlunius1076 There is no amount of epic struggle, and it was an epic struggle, that can hide the fact that we found it an epic struggle to beat a fiery rodent. Higher level, constant smoke cloud giving concealment, causing sickened, and causes persistent fire damage on hits.

[@scetchmonkey007]

Yeah not a fan of secret checks even in 5E I hate rolling enemy stealth against player passive perception. It is more satisfying to have players roll perception against a GM set DC of enemy stealth so when they get surprised it is on the players for failing the roll. Secret checks have no agency because the rolls are taken away from the payers. It means if the DM wants you to be surprised he can just say you are surprised since those rolls are completely in his power.

[@Mirekluk]

So if the DM never fudged secret rolls, wouldn't their agency be literally the same (aside from moving their hand or clicking a button)? Because yes, if DM fudges these rolls, he takes away the agency of players, I can agree there. But he doesn't have to.

[@scetchmonkey007]

@@Mirekluk It would be the same for the DM because he knows what is going on. The perception of the players would be much different. Imagine the players seeing the rolls and for some reason they roll of string of failures to avoid ambushes, there frustration would mount but because the die rolls were in their power, they accept it. Now imagine it from the DM's secret rolls. The DM rolls a string of failures and the players keep getting ambushed. The DM may be honest but a string of bad luck may look like the DM being a jerk, and that can cause friction in the game. This is why when I have the players try to ambush the enemy they roll a group stealth check. And if they are about to be ambushed its a group perception check. It's mechanically the same and it builds trust at the table.

[@Mirekluk]

@@scetchmonkey007 That sounds like trust issue, not agency nor system. But I get it can lead to frustration, my rogue player was frustrated that all but like one of his stealth checks failed. So what he did with next character? he took assurance in stealth, making it so that his low dex rogue (ruffian) had reliable stealth option that would work in most cases. He'd roll only if he thought that his average wasn't enough. But I play with one group of people for like 7 years (and this specific one for half of that time). And as much as you have argument in frustration, I have one in simple RP : I like to simulate the fact you don't know every result. Is your memory perfect? No, so simulating that is fine with me. Do you know how well you hidden? Here for example, I he even came with good question : "Can the rest of party see me?" which yes sounds good enough for me, they can tell him that he's not as stealthy as he might think. I get that trust is something not every table can take for granted, especially Organized play. But ultimately it's indeed just trust issue, not agency as you proclaimed before.

[@scetchmonkey007]

@@Mirekluk I see it not as a trust issue but the DM appearing to be a neutral arbiter, and I guess that makes more sense for my group than yours. Sure i have the players that I have had since 5E came out, but I also have new players co-workers I bring into my game who come and go, and that's where the neutral arbiter thing comes in alot. New players in an established group are kinda on the fence in the group dynamic, they dont know how I'm running things or If I'll be playing favorites with my more well known players. And thats a hard thing to sell, because I know how to work well with my established players I know how to engage them into a story and how they are likely to respond to my plot hooks. Its easier to work in their backstories because of that. With New players I need to get a feel for it and give out hooks and see what they pick up on. I have one player she has been playing with us for over a year and she is still hard to engage, just kinda likes to be shy and hide in the background while the more RP players take the spotlike. Next session I'm actually planning on the party to get separated in a maze and I'll trap her along with the two helpful NPC's in the group to kinda get her into interacting with those characters. But if you've had the same group for 7 years I can see how the trust for GM secret rolls can be built. As for the not quite sure thing of rolls, they way I handle stealth kinda fixes that too. This is one rule I picked up from OneDnD playtest. to hide you need cover or heavy obscurement and it is a flat DC 15 Stealth check. You succeed or fail. if you fail you are spotted right away you are not sitting there going "Am I hidden?" But I switch things up, if the enemy knows to be looking for the party of if they are an alert guard they will get a perception check on their turn to find the player based on their passive stealth DC. And that is also a public roll, guard is looking for you and PC's can see the guards perception check. So in this way I build that tension that they could be found out at any moment and I do it all with public rolls. Its not a situation of oh you rolled a 28 on stealth i guess no one can find you ever. Secret roll or not that is kinda boring. But always having a chance a guard can nat 20 a perception check to spot you no matter how good your stealth is keeps that tension up for both DM and player

[@Mirekluk]

@@scetchmonkey007 And also, I don't consider DM as solely neutral arbiter. I consider DM designer and storyteller too. Most of the time I do not fudge dice, but if the situation is too dramatically satisfying or I fuck up encounter design (mostly 5e problem, but here still can be applied when you don't notice how strong ability can be) It's difference in playstyle. I personally play it with the idea that I am running the game, so that the players can have as much fun as possible (me included). If that means, that here and there I have to cheat, so be it. Again, don't do it often, but sometimes the frustration of failing to do something can lead to greater satisfaction when you correct that mistake (because it's dramatic) Like villain escaping, doing something (not too bad, if I let him escape, can't punish the players for it, but something that will rile them up), and when they meet, he boasts how they failed to stop him from doing this and that. Stakes are higher, PC have a grudge and Villain is more memorable. I'd probably not "help" him more then once, or if the players overcome whatever bullshit I pulled to get him to safety (if he teleported, probably too bad. If he just ran, they may decide to chase, but leaving the encounter he fled from unresolved, leading to decisions and again : Drama. But to be transparent : I rarely do this, because I rarely have confidence of pulling something like this off. At best what I did in 5e was limit my own luck because rolling 5/7 times above 16 isn't fun for the party. Or just nat20's, I had such days. Or when encounter seemed too anticlimactic, I raised some HP to make monster last one more round, again mostly for drama effect. Long story short : I am not an impartial arbirter. I am GameMaster who's prime directive is players fun. And part of it comes from storytelling, which requires adequate amount of drama.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Are shields surviving in your game when they break? Because they don't actually get destroyed until they go down to 0 HP EDIT: I was under the impression that you enjoy and teach PF2e, and I thought you were going to give the counterpoints to the criticisms, but all you did was list them...

[@nattertot]

They do survive...most of the time at least. 😆 I was moreso referring to when newer players repair a shield (or in some cases they don't have a repair kit or choose not to repair it for one reason or another) so it gets back a little hp, then they use the shield block reaction during a boss fight or something and then it is destroyed because of the massive amount of damage bosses can do. And for this video I just listed the points and shared some perspectives that some of my players and other GMs I've ran for have talked about because, like I said in the video, I consider these points minor issues. Plus I've already made another video where I talk about all the things people love about PF2e so I didn't want to make the video unnecessarily long by just repeating stuff I've already talked about. Thanks for watching! 👋😁

[@Damion.Turner]

Oh "more rules" is not a negative.. more rules means less fixing broken gaming systems.

[@Tom_Book]

Honestly, all the cons you listed have been pros to me and the DMs/Players I often play with. D&D 5e has been an oversimplification of the rules which quickly got us bored (it was good however to initiate players to their very first ttrpg), whereas Pathfinder 1 makes for very complicated games as levels rise past 10 (for GMs to prepare balanced encounters considering the variance in power between players, and for players who use builds featuring dozens of buffs with various duration and stackable bonuses). PF2 feels just right, enough complexity to satisfy those who enjoy the gamey aspect of TTRPG, but simple enough that your character won't be crippled if you want to plug and play without build optimization. I don't think PF2 is made for all groups or for the uninitiated to tabletop rpg, but I think it covers very well the niche of players it is targeting.

[@Rastayeti666]

have fun dm'ing D&D past level 12 with creative players or min/maxers.

[@skynoise9985]

👍🏽 I agree. Pathfinder is not new player friendly. It's more for veteran RPGs.

[@uchuuseijin]

Honestly, I hate the idea that deep/complex character creation is a bad thing. I get it's intimidating for new players but you're not going to be a new player forever and one day you're going to find playing the same 2-3 versions of the same character, 5e style, boring and restrictive

[@SeanLaMontagne]

Theres too many essays in this comment section 😂

[@quantus5875]

Yeah, my rule is it's over 3 paragraphs -- that's all I'll read -- if that.

[@ederys_delxyde]

Honestly, 90% of these reasons are more like excuses than anything. I completely get that people don't want to change the system they use often - hell, I'm what I consider a really hard person to convince to try new TTRPGs in general. But PF2e... too complex? Really? Nah, I refuse to accept this explanation. Here go my personnal rant about what I estimate to some of the worst players of TTRPGs in general; 5e players. 5e is as complex than PF2e (and on some aspects, even more). The only difference is; the rules of 5e are so broken and unbalanced that you don't care about it and can choose to liberately ignore them. Hell, the GM is expected to do ALL the work to create houserules and fix the myriad of little problems that exist on every aspects of it's ruleset. I was a 5e DM for almost ten years, and now that I switched to PF2e two years ago, I'm RELIEVED as a GM! Because it's SO HARD to be a good DM when you play 5e; you need insane amounts of time prep AND a good understanding of how to game design (a thing that SHOULD NOT be required to DM for ANY finished and playtested game). With PF2e, yes there is more content. But all MAKES SENSE. There is rule that explain how to create a balanced encounters, how to create NPCs and creatures balanced with the levels of the PCs, rules for crafting (you know, the thing in D&D that is UTTERLY BROKEN and that everyone will never use)... So yeah, there is choices to make for a character. But since when diversity is a problem? Admitting that you are overwhelmed is one thing. But just saying "Nope, I'm not gonna try because it's too complex" is just... so disengineous. I would give someone the rulebook of Shadowrun 5e and tell them "THIS is a complicated game". People like 5e as players because you don't have to do a lot of personnal preparations and remember a lot of stuff (and even then... god it's so difficult to make some players learn the BASICS). DMs ARE SO RARE for 5e (in comparaison of how the game is notorious) because it's just a nightmare to deal with. And the more you do it, the more you understand that something is WRONG with the game. PF2e opened my eyes on so many things... I could not believed I waited that long to check somewhere else and bid my farewell to WotC complete garbage of an edition. Because, in the end, that's what 5e is. A glorified bad designed game, surfing on the trend of "D&D" for the neophytes and the people not knowing what TTRPGs are.

[@AstralImpy]

🎉

[@farflownfalcon1076]

Some great points - but there's an awful lot of repeating the same information in this video. You could have delivered the same message in five minutes. Just an observation, happy gaming.

[@TheBardSM]

Ngl pathfinder is fucking unplayable. Even with a vtt. Character creation alone makes it not worth playing. i've been in two different campaigns and never again. Dispite it's many laudable inovations overall it's the only system I'd rate lower than dnd5e.

[@leonelegender]

Skill issue

[@Charlie.G506]

Pf 2e is basically a successor to dnd 4.0, if you liked 4.0's you're going to love 2e, if you're coming from 5e you'll find it tiring.

[@JohahnDiechter]

Pathfnder 2E is pretty easy to teach, unless those learning come from 5E.

[@davidbowles7281]

This is not that accurate.

[@robfrydryck127]

Yes! let's play simple Hasbro DnD where you stand next to a monster, don't move, and roll a D20 to atrack for 15 minutes. DnD 5e is so vage DM's need to be making things up constantly, which bogs down the game. I have played D&D since the white box, and Pathfinder battles tend to go faster and are much more fun. As an experienced DM, I like Pathfinder 2e Remaster much better. From your comments, I am not sure you ever played Pathfinder 2e

[@jspsj0]

I tried this game and did not liked at all. Don't recommend it for anyone.

[@tocadohawke]

Reason n#1: They're lazy XD

[@centurosproductions8827]

-"Wahh, this is too complicated, I have too many abilities" is funny to me, because I remember a lot of talk in other RPGs about "Wahh, Fighters are boring, they can't do anything but use attack." -As a player, I love secret checks conceptually, and am perfectly fine with asking the GM what I know, like I would with anything else my character might or might not know. Plus, it's much easier for me not to metagame if I don't actually know if that guy is lying or not. -The current official character sheet is a little overdesigned, and doesn't need all those fields. They are mostly just to lead you through the math, and I primarily use a fanmade sheet that just has one box for every skill, just like the 5e sheet. It also includes three fields for to-hit mods for attacks, which allows for pre-calculating all your MAP bonuses. Here's hoping the Remaster character sheet works better. -Shields are nice because you don't *need* to block with them for them to be good. 5 hardness is still pretty good at early levels, and the +2 AC is actually really good on its own. -Coming from Pathfinder 1e, I laugh at anyone complaining about all the modifiers in this game. Though as a player, I'm always worried about the *GM* not remembering the monster I spent an action to Frighten has that -1 to everything. But such is the issue in any game with even a single way to apply a small penalty that the other person then has to apply. -"Theater of the mind is bad in PF2." Okay, but that's not what PF2 is for? Like, you wouldn't play Edge of the Empire if you wanted grid combat (because it explicitly cannot be done), or Amber Diceless if you wanted to, uh... roll dice. I play this one *because* I find grid combat satisfying.

[@Vezrabuto]

yes to all, except theater of the mind, my group has spent several sessions in theatre of the mind, just roleplaying, and if theres a simple scuffle you can always do it theatre of mind. now a big boss or a larger battle is just stupid to do in TOTM but that goes for 5e too.