Top 10 Reasons Pathfinder 2e is EASIER to run than D&D 5e!

[@nemonada1323]

Brand-new 11th reason. The WotC OGL is now extremely predatory towards people who share their homebrew, Pathfinder 2e is not affected by this.

[@stuh42l]

Paizo hasn't hired Pinkertons either...

[@happy-kh4uk]

Paizo hasn’t used AI art…

[@BartoszBielecki]

This would be reason #0 I argue :)

[@KajtekBeary]

@@happy-kh4ukand actually banned it!

[@blockyuniverseproductions]

Well... they recently almost made a similar fuckup themselves, but luckily backtracked after backlash.

[@Ashtonyss]

Another reason: Paizo is less likely to send a goon squad to break your kneecaps than WOTC

[@kirkj101]

One point that’s rapidly escalated in my favor for PF2e, and it sounds kind of niche so bear with me, is clear and concise Troop rules. Once you get them down, they are an absolute blast for running huge combats against massive numbers of weaker enemies while lets players flex their power.

[@Ocean_Man]

Shit that does sound good

[@Griffonbait]

Yeah, that sounds really well balanced!

[@flaviolepri5539]

Hi, Troops are AMAZING. I homebrewed some troops for my players to command as minions and for the enemies and we are currently running a full scale war against a devil-run reign. Damn this is finally possible.

[@rod4309]

save/suck becoming degrees of success and failure definitely deserved to be on the list probably near #3 but maybe this one rule change was too focused for this video. Loving your videos btw.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

That's a really good point. I suppose it could be filed under "#3 broken things." But still it's so ubiquitous and impactful that it deserves its own point. I should've at least mentioned it. I'll remember it for an upcoming video idea I have on how PF2 manages to stay balanced.

[@zppzxoox]

I kinda agree. But it definitely a step up from ad&d "save or die"

[@somejerk5662]

@@zppzxoox It's the balance between old D&D and 5e. Old D&D made save-ors too strong; failing to beat a single DC can take someone out of the fight or kill them outright. 5e totally defanged them; even if you fail, with few exceptions you're only inconvenienced for a turn or two until you make the save. Pf2e makes the spells survivable like 5e most of the time, but lets them retain their chance to absolutely wreck someone on a crit fail.

[@ДюсековИльяс]

Okay you make spells degrees of success in 5e, now casters are even more broken, cause save or suck is now save or suffer. Cause you only succeed if you somehow make a save with +10 on the degree

[@gorgit]

@@ДюсековИльяс doesnt have to be that way. It can also be so, that most of the time the target suffers zhrough the spell, but only on a critical fail the "bad thing" happens. It (obviously) depends on where you set the scale. If you set it so that that its suffer or die, then thats on you.

[@TheLocalDisasterTourGuide]

My only complaint as a 2e GM is that I was not expecting such tight math after experiencing other systems. LOL Wait, "Severe" actually means "Severe?" Weird.

[@ChivalrousyWalrusy]

Yeah, when DMing it you actually really need to follow their math guide for encounters. That can is what it says on the label!

[@Zakumei]

yeaaaaa that was a curveball i experienced too. shits wild. numbers and words meaning what they mean seems like it should be normal or default and yet... 5e...

[@mitarsu3927]

In the case of "Higher Level play works" 100% agreed I've had to hold back on certain encounters so that I wouldn't completely mess up the encounter for my GM, not because the encounters were bad but because I just had stupid good ability

[@antoniomromo]

Funny enough I switched from pathfinder one to D&D 5e specifically because of the massive rules crunch. That and the fact that prewritten adventures had the habit of having necessary information in parts of the adventure that came after the actual encounter or event in the book. This despite the fact that the beginning of each portion actually had a section for important information like a summary. I will have to give Pathfinder 2e a look.

[@christianlangdon3766]

5e does that as well especially with segmented chapters where the story or tables for everything will be there but not the statblocks or rewards. Sometimes the maps for 5e are also terrible at giving info to the very very brief discriptions given to the areas. They also overly reli on certain skills hence perception being the single strongest skill in 5e.

[@garylane6227]

I have the same issue with Pathfinder Adventures. For the most part I really like the adventures, but locations begin with a player read aloud, then a GM description of the room,and at the end of everything tells you there are the creatures in the room. Really stupid format.

[@dyne313]

2e is amazing from a character creation standpoint.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

It is!! Though I think even people who've heard very little about PF2 would guess that, or maybe not? Wanted to explore less-known territory with this one.

[@naproupi]

I feel like low level PF2 characters tend to be a bit boring compared to PF1 where you got a lot of cool options right away (but still better than D&D 5E ) However once you reach level 5-6 your character starts to get it's cool options and it actually gets fun And then once you get above 10 it is one of the ost fun system to run and play RAW compared to PF1 that breaks too easily and D&D 5e where character don't feel like they progress that much past lvl6

[@davfree9732]

Pathfinder is more like 3.5 to me. 5e simplified things a lot, which is good because some things in 3.5 were split into so many skills for the same general area that they were skill sinks. And the shock troop barbarian, while fun, broke the game.

[@mrosskne]

i guess if you've never experienced a good system

[@dyne313]

@@mrosskne If you know of some good systems, please share.

[@volairn70]

I have seven players. The hoops I had to jump through to make 5e encounters challenging became ridiculous the higher the levels became. All of that faded away in Pathfinder 2e.

[@SomeGuyHowGoesIt]

Lucky!

[@zaelitude]

You basically echoed most of the reasons that I've been giving to my players as to why we are moving away from 5e and into PF2e. I wish I'd found this system a long time ago.

[@natanoj16]

I mean. It is a very young system. Only 2 years old ^^

[@kryptonianguest1903]

@@natanoj16 👶

[@Zaccheus4]

Yeah plus it’s heavily demonized in the community. So many people assume it’s incredibly rules heavy and chunky and difficult to learn almost entirely by people who’ve never played it.

[@priestesslucy]

@@Zaccheus4 in terms of learnability, how does PF2 compare to PF1?

[@elfberry]

@@Zaccheus4 It's also praised out of the wazoo and has been since launch. Just depends on where you go

[@Nathan-ti9pm]

Finished a Curse of Strahd campaign not to long ago and while it was extremely fun for the most part the final battle against Strahd was anti-climactic the fighter pretty much one shot Strahd in 1 turn just shows how some lvl 10 characters can easily outshine others and how quickly broken 5e can be

[@somejerk5662]

Sounds like your DM didn't Strahd hard enough. Probably missed the combination of legendary movement, regen, and his lair action to move through walls that makes him such a guerrilla warfare monster.

[@ErikkuBlade]

I’m a D&D 5e Player and GM. As someone who has been doing a lot of reading into Pathfinder 2e, I am very impressed with how many problems I have had with 5e is for the most part resolved by other mechanics of 2e. This video does a great job at summing up the core problems and resolutions. I’m going to be running a Pathfinder 2e oneshot to make sure I have most of the rulings down, but in addition to the reading I’ve been doing I also use FoundryVTT which I think will be an amazing tool for my players to also learn the game. My players are very excited with Pathfinder 2e because of the customization options they have had - and the Pathfinder sheets on Foundry have proven to be very effective at making learning the system less daunting. I will probably still run 5e games, but depending on how this oneshot goes, I may move over to Pathfinder 2e for the majority of the games that I run! The more I read into it - the more I fall in love with the system. It is definitely a breath of fresh air.

[@rj595]

ever get around to running that one shot? input as i am considering the switch

[@ErikkuBlade]

@@rj595 I did! It went fantastic. A couple of things: Players coming in aren’t going to know about what is arguably one of the most important things: skill actions. This game has the 3 action economy and the ability to make as many attacks as you have actions. So a Monk that is Quickened (or Hasted for 5e Lingo) could possibly make five attacks by using Flurry of Blows and their other three actions. HOWEVER - the Multiple Attack Penalty makes a 3rd+ attack not as attractive of an option. Once your two attacks are made - those are the ones likely to hit. So - what are some useful 3rd Actions? Skills are where it comes in. Demoralise is probably one of the better ones - but make sure you have intimidating glare or share a language with the creature. Tumble Through can be great to try and get through the enemy. Grapple, Trip, Shove are all good options but be warned - they have the attack trait. Skill feats like Bon Mot are also great. If you have Battle Medicine - perfect use there (it’s a feat) Finding a 3rd Action to use is very important for any character. Of course - moving is also completely valid since there aren’t a lot of creatures who make opportunity attacks. Other than that - follow Ronald’s Encounter Calculator on his discord for combat encounters - read up on the Archives of Nethys - and hope you have fun!

[@DaveTpletsch]

@@rj595 I've been a long time Paizo supporter and have run PF2e games since it's release. My best advice is to use Archives of Nethys' GM screen, it has dropdown menus with all the information you might need to reference during a game: skills, dice roll DC's, and all the effects you'll have to deal with such as grabbed/grappled, flat footed, sickened, poisoned, feared, etc. The more you use resources like Archives of Nethys to allow you to quickly reference all the data tags that PF2e uses, the more smoothly you're going to feel like your game runs. There's a lot to Pathfinder, don't try to memorize it all at first, you will NEED to use reference material and that's fine.

[@SwordsmanOrion]

Pathfinder 2E sounds pretty amazing honestly. I'd love to be able to try it. But my D&D group is already super super casual and it's already a challenge just to get them to put in a little effort as is. Not to mention all we have are people that would rather be players and no one that wants to commit to being the DM forever.

[@isaacthimbleby8926]

You could try a lighter system. Some like Ironsworn even work without a GM.

[@AzaelAkai]

Damn, my group of 6 (including myself) has 3 DM's and we have Tuesdays & Thursday Sessions. While the 3rd DM preps for his campaign during the other 2 campaigns.

[@RicksPoker]

There are tonnes of rules light systems. D&D is wildly complicated for a introductory RPG game. Warm regards, Rick.

[@yuin3320]

If you haven't heard of them, definitely check out Cairn and Shadowdark. They're the kind of system anyone can learn quick and both seem really easy to run (haven't run them myself just yet but got plans in the works)

[@jltheking3]

This is a really enjoyable video! Thanks for putting it out, it’s made me genuinely interested in considering switching over to Pathfinder! As a DM of 5e for 3 years, what I’ve discovered is that 5e’s simplicity is an illusion. It’s a rules-heavy game in practice, with massive holes in the rules that gives it a facade of being rules-light. What eventually happens is you end up creating the rules that the game doesn’t provide anyway. Sure, at first it’s an on-the-spot ruling. Then it happens again, and again, and then for the sake of consistency it becomes a houserule. To make sure that new players (or GMs) also know it, it gets added to a document. That gets bigger, and bigger, and ultimately you have a massive 60-page houserule document (speaking from experience) where you might have been just better off playing a game system with a complete set of rules to begin with (like PF2). This happens because 5e isn’t designed like a rules-light game like OSR products. It has strict rules for action resolution, character building, combat, and all of that invites players and GMs to use these rules to resolve these situations rather than something more free-form and creative. Problems then start to arise when the GM realizes that these rules are filled with balance issues and unclear mechanics. You can’t depend on these rules and yet the game asks you to anyway, which is what makes 5e incredibly difficult to run as a GM. At least for PF2, it seems to be the case that when you do look up the rules, it’s clear and precise and there is a well-defined answer to any problems that crop up. That’s what makes the game so much easier to GM than 5e.

[@jltheking3]

To add on to this, I think the ease of running a game boils down to player expectations. With PF2, there is an expectation that the GM follows the rules to arbitrate rulings. There is an expectation that things are ruled “correctly”. With 5e, instead, the players expect the GM to make good rulings and that the GM hosts a conversation with the players to achieve a decision that everyone is happy with. And I think, this is what creates the belief that PF2 is harder to run. It’s easier to meet the expectations of the 5e GM (where all you need to do is have a conversation, which is what you should already be doing the entire game). It’s much more effort to meet the expectations of the PF2 GM. But that doesn’t mean PF2 is harder to run. Quite the opposite, in fact, as this video has shown.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@jltheking3 Now that I've played Dungeon World and seen an actual "fiction-first" system in action, the promise of a "conversation" I've now seen since this video is much better served in a rules-light/retro/or OSR system. Thanks for your thoughts!

[@Llortnerof]

The more i read about the system and comparisons to others, the more i get the feeling they never properly tested it and pretty much just rushed it out to make a quick buck. "Lategame" balance is completely whack, many systems are not fully fleshed out, etc..

[@bradleyhurley6755]

I'm not sure. So far I've felt like in the D&D game I run and the two I play in, we haven't had to houserule anything. I can't even imagine at what level you would have to be at to end up with a 60 page document. Though, maybe this is just style of play.

[@kaijuultimax9407]

This is the same line of thought I have been following. 5e seems rules light but what rules it does have are so ironclad that you eventually start to see 5e for what it really is: A video game CRPG system with all the automation torn out of it.

[@nicholasromero238]

One thing I think goes in pf 2e's favor as well is that while the game is complex, a lot of the mechanics are "self running"; you dont have to sweat really hard about balance because if you use level appropriate numbers (provided by the handy dandy screen), it's immensely easy to do things on the fly with good results without concerns if it'll be too easy/hard/game breaking

[@naproupi]

As long as you play on foundry yes When you play on table, the "yeah but he was prone so his ac was minus 2 but he still had his shield raised so +2 but synesthesia was up so minus 3, and as for your atatck you are half disarmed so -2 but you're also clumsy 1 so minus 1 but you're in the area of the cleric's bless so plus1" It's not unplayable but it gets tedious x)

[@Grangolus]

@@naproupi There are very few kinds of +s and - and they defer to the highest value of their respective categories. You are potentially forgetting that certain things don't stack; lots of effects confer circumstance bonuses and don't work with each other. I mean, you're right, it can be difficult to keep track of, but maybe being more conscious of the type of bonus/penalty would make it easier, if you and your group aren't already well versed in that.

[@Viemexis]

Completely agree, and I'd also add that on the player's end, while character creation is more complex, figuring out what you can do with your turn in combat is much easier. 5e's action economy seems less gamey on the surface but when you dig in you realize it's ridiculously overcomplicated compared to having 3 actions.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I personally hate the "no 2 spells during your turn, except when one is a cantrip that MUST be an action spell instead of a bonus action" rule. It tries to achieve a balance that is broken with the Warlock's eldritch blast anyway. PF2e's character creation is more complicated, but you only have to engage with it character creation, and level-ups are much shorter than that. So it's not as much of a barrier compared to the confusion during play imo

[@JH_1981]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG lol my Eldritch Warlock mostly lays on ground waiting for party to revive me during battles. Because the combat design for 5e is so tailored and scaled to physical damage characters with decent armor and health that any caster I play ends up taking dirt naps because DM has to toss 30 monsters at our groups for physical damage classes to have any challenge. The balancing is main thing I hate about 5e. For there to be any challenge for the fighter with a 21 armor and 80 health you've got to stick several enemies with Guiding Bolts at rank 4 or 5.... which are going to almost one shot kill my 17 armor 30 health warlock or druid. With there really not being a threat generating mechanic in 5e its just up to the Dm whether they want to murder the casters in group. I wouldn't mind having the lower AC and lower health if casters had better ways of getting away from enemies or causing attacks to miss. Only way I've found to keep my casters alive in 5e is giving up ability score increases to get Lucky feat so enemy at least has to roll that rank 4 Guiding Bolt several times before it rips me apart. There needs to be some things similar to Lucky feat that caster classes could pick up without losing the ability score bump... when attacked let me caster roll to shift into another plane/dimension to cause attack to miss twice before rests... or give my warlock an ability, that doesn't use my only 2 spell slots, to use magic to parry an attack. Just something to balance the survivability when running with a heavy physical damage group.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@JH_1981 Ah, I see that Warlock doesn't have the SHield spell on its list, which is of course super useful for defense for casters who have it. Maybe on DND optimization boards you can find some advice for your Warlock. But yeah my next thought would be to go gonzo offense and try to win initiative, but then that gets to rocket tag, which has plagued D&D since the beginning as well as Pathfinder 1e.

[@lovelyyolk9066]

@@JH_1981 lmao if you are having problems with casters being too weak in 5e that's a problem in you end buddy. 5e is incredibly skewed towards casters.

[@leaffinite2001]

@The Rules Lawyer at most tables ive been at ppl dont bother with the rules and it kinda just bcomes "did you do a thing? Ok thats your turn" lmao

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

ADDITION: Because Paizo is generous with the use of its materials, if you use Foundry VTT and get a PDF of a published PF2e adventure, you can import all of its maps (with all walls drawn) and artwork with a single click! See this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJ23m618nbZ0i5Y

[@jayparks2361]

Very good summary! I'm just now looking into Pathfinder (because of the 5e OGL fiasco), and this was both encouraging and educational. I took my shiny new Pathfinder 2 book and skipped through a lot of sections as you made your points. It looks very intriguing.

[@ReserCatloons]

I've been GMing 5e since 2015, and I definitely feel anchored by the sunk cost fallacy. Your videos have largely swayed me towards considering getting into PF 2E (especially with my dissatisfaction towards the One D&D packet they put out). I think the hardest part is that many 5e players (which many of my friends are) tend to be hard to convince to switch systems.

[@kid14346]

"I think the hardest part is that many 5e players (which many of my friends are) tend to be hard to convince to switch systems." IF THAT AIN'T THE TRUTH! I have been a DM since 2015 as well and I am the forever DM. Anything that requires players to LEARN something other than D&D 5e (and sometimes even learning things within 5e) is like pulling teeth. Like I have gotten both games crunchier than 5e and easier than 5e, but like they just ask if I can implement the mechanics I like into 5e. No I cannot just implement the Stars Without Numbers HP system, the customization of Mutants and Masterminds, and the fortune system from Pugmire into 5e... I would be making a whole new game at that point and then you would refuse to play it anyways!

[@generatoralignmentdevalue]

Yeah, to a lot of players, learning the very basic ideas of one game is already a massive sunk cost, and switching systems is less exciting and more a threat of months of sessions of feeling stupid, as they have to constantly ask what they can even do on their turn. Also I know multiple people who poured hundreds into books on Beyond so they could be that guy, and give their whole table access to every unnecessary, obscure race by listing themselves as the DM. If a new system requires that, they probably can't afford to do it twice. If a new system doesn't require that, switching means realizing what a waste of a month's rent that was.

[@kid14346]

​@@azeplayt4546 Because Pathfinder 2e is built around a completely different action economy and power scaling than dnd. You would have to do so much retooling of the systems that you would in the end be playing neither D&D nor Pathfinder, but an entirely new game.

[@garylane6227]

True, and I will say that if your players do not make an effort to learn the Pathfinder action system running the game will become a nightmare. Added to that the encounters are much more difficult and you get some unhappy players.

[@Dezbood]

I was the last person at our table that felt ready to switch to PF2E. Fast forward almost two years later, and I’m glad we did. This system is awesome and it’s less work for our DM.

[@variousdrugs7639]

Yup having DMed both systems I have far more confidence when I build a PF2e session that it will play out in a certain way, when I build a 5e session it can go off the rails pretty unpredictably.

[@rossreynolds7871]

Is going of the rails is what makes RPGs fun

[@variousdrugs7639]

@@rossreynolds7871 Off the rails because of player choice is A-OK, nothing in Pathfinder gets in the way of that. My choice of wording here wasn't great, what I really meant was that no combat/trap/environmental encounter is going to be drastically harder or easier than I expected - I never have to re-tune my sessions mid way through because the maths didn't work out how I expected.

[@griffincrump5077]

I was surprised at the video title as everything I’ve heard about 2e was the antithesis to easy and more surprised at how everything within the video made sense and turned that assumption on its head, I think I’m more confident in trying to start up a 2e game because of it which I thank you for as I’ve wanted to for awhile

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Yeah I think this is a common misperception and I'm really glad this video seems to be addressing it!!

[@griffincrump5077]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG yea I mostly picked it up from other KZbinrs when I was first looking at it and some of the few videos I could find were just about how it’s an over complicated mess and why they are leaving the system which kind of put a mark on the whole thing, hopefully I’ll be able to pull a game together for it as some point and give it the fair shot it deserves

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@griffincrump5077 Ah yes! There are videos from 2 KZbinrs that are well-known in the PF2 community for casting a shadow on the system. Makes me think I should put out a review of the PF2 Core Rulebook...

[@griffincrump5077]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I would love to watch it, I think the more I understand 2e the more I’ll want to play it and the better I’ll be able to pick it up

[@Daexusnol]

So, this is what I’m getting out of the conversation in the comments(and some of you could stand to be a little more polite lol) How you see 5e and p2e is all matter of perspective based on the needs of you and your table. People who prefer 5e see it as very flexible, easy to learn system that you can really make your own game through homebrew. This is because I think they see the “holes” in the system for the DM more as “fill in the blanks” or “make it your own”. They may see p2e as too rigid, too clunky due to an excess of rules(gotta disagree there lol), or maybe not supportive of the fun randomness that comes with RPGs, as the game seems harder to improvise with, generally speaking. People who prefer p2e probably enjoy the breath of fresh air of not having to worry about balancing classes, treasure, or encounters, as the game does a great job of doing that for the GM. They may view the(admittedly bulky) rules as more of a general guide rather than to adhere to each and every tiny ruling religiously. They may see 5e as an unbalanced mess that tries to be tactical without having enough rules to that effectively. They may view 5e’s lack of rule clarity(particularly with things like Stealth) as a burden rather than a creative opportunity or not a big deal(some DMs and tables are fine with quick, winged rulings and moving on, even if it’s not consistent). It all depends on what you and your table needs. If y’all want something more laid back and improvised, I’d go with 5e or a rules light system like Quest or Dungeon World. If y’all are wanting to dig into the Game part of RPGs, I couldn’t recommend P2e more highly. Yes, it’s more to learn, but, the pay off is great.

[@deikurpg5606]

This convinced me, me and my party were kinda burnt out of DnD as we finished a year long homebrew campaign which I spent way to much time on. Now I'm more sparse on time so I decided to run Waterdeep/ Madmage but Im not feeling it too much tbh. Hope Pathfinder makes my life easier so I can make it more fun for my players.

[@matteocapanna2535]

I ran Waterdeep Dragon Heist, and it was a fun romp through some of the most interesting Forgotten Realms lore. I enjoyed it as a DM and so did my players. It wasn't magnificent, but it was a pretty good experience over all. I was excited to run Waterdeep Dungeon of the Mad Mage, after a couple session all of us were losing interest in playing D&D at all. I read further into the book and became more and more disillusion with the idea of have any hope of have fun with this. I would take a massive amount of my time to fix this campaign/adventure. I was invited to play in an online roll20 based Pathfiner2e Age of Ashes game, I played a very colorful goblin rogue, and as turned out had an absolute blast. I decided to bring up PF2e to my long time friends and family members, the interest started to build and we are now running the Strength of Thousands Adventure path, almost done with book one. It's been one hell of a learning curve, but everyone is deeply invested into their characters and the story. I'm having so much fun running it with my friends, I just started up a roll20 SoT AP game with my co-worker and some online friends. The current D&D, a game I helped play test and enjoyed playing has become a mediocre venue for my TTRPG exploits; while PF2e although a little harder to startup has be inspiring, funny, fun, none disappointing, un burdensome, and a shear delight to run and play. This past year, I played an a disappointing 5th one shot, a marvelous 5e one shot, ran a great 1-5 adventure, and gave up running a 5-20 adventure, at 6th level, am playing in a 5e module I'm not so sure about, and joining 5e homebrew that that is level 10 and is going to wrap up in a couple months (from the sounds of it, the system is a real limiting factor of the game). I had played the first 10 levels of PF2e Age of Ashes, I've DM a few PF2e homebrews, am now running two versions of Strength of Thousands. I hope to join another game as a player after the new year, and I can tell you I will be looking at the PF2e offering before I look at the D&D 5e ones.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I started a "famous dungeons" campaign that started with stuff from Tales from the Yawning Portal, with the plan of moving it to Dungeon of the Mad Mage. I liked the old-school aesthetic, but realized I probably wouldn't have much fun with it as the players became more and more dominant starting with the big jump at 5th level. I know this response is late, but if you were interested in Mad Mage for the megadungeon aspect, PF2's Abomination Vaults has been well-regarded and is a megadungeon that runs from Level 1-10. You can also do the Beginner Box to start things off and even "mix" in the Troubles in Otari module, because they all take place in the same town.

[@Arcane_Revenant]

I started playing pathfinder a handful of sessions, and have now played DND 5e for a couple years now. I have to say, Pathfinder makes more sense and covers it's bases better. And I think the character building is more robust and fun in PF2e.

[@larsenex33]

Ive been playing P2E since it was being beta tested. My group plays using Fantasy Grounds Unity (we switched from classic) and we love the system. My group has been RPGers' since 1rst edition D&D. I have a player who plays 5E regularly and he prefers P2e but his group is resisting change. Great video and I really agree! Oh and its VERY easy to homebrew and create good, balanced encounters > on the fly!

[@LightningRaven42]

Pathfinder 2e is definitely hard to learn, but once you get the hang of things it's way easier to run. So it's basically a matter of having more effort made in bulk in the beginning over having effort constantly at every session. Once my player tried to jump on top of a dragon, there are no straight rules for that, but it was easy to improvise a ruling by using the "Grab an Edge" reaction and setting the DC as the Fortitude DC for the dragon (basically improvising a grapple). Quick and easy. The player failed and landed prone, though.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I regret not saying more about how intuitive/logical the rules are. A lot of the rules elements are "plug and play"able to adjudicate things that come up. And you can name any attack/skill/save to oppose virtually any DC of the target.

[@LightningRaven42]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yeah. I've noticed that the discourse surrounding DnD5e has turned against the idea of solid rules for some reason and think that when they're well laid out that they impair and restrain roleplay, when in fact they don't. They just help the GM to better adjudicate things on the fly and it is less taxing overall since they need to homebrew fewer rules. It also helps to make characters mechanically diverse since they have more established things to interact with. PF2e's consistency is much easier to work with as a player and GM, than it is to keep making stuff up on the fly every time they come up.

[@natanoj16]

My experience by now is that PF2e is really easy to learn for new players, as long as you have an experienced GM ^^

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@natanoj16 I agree - a GM who has a good grasp of the rules is the most important thing. On the other hand I think that, even with an inexperienced GM, the PF2 Beginner Box is easier to jump into than anything else either company puts out. The included adventure is "open up and play" It's that good :)

[@phillbrown292]

@@LightningRaven42 yeah, the biggest hurdle i have in trying to get people interested in PF2 is that there is a certain mindset in players of D&D5, that treats any amount of rules knowledge or depth in build growth as "homework", and groan according to their opinions. Getting your metaphorical foot in the door is the hard part, though, because once played, they can see it for what it is: options and tools in your kit. Not obligations for rote memorization.

[@Tangatan2137]

Just now found your channel - and I have to say, as a DM that recently moved away from 5e and into pf2e, I completely agree with pretty much everything, apart from the Adventure Paths point. Though I do think they're easier to run, some of them are prohibitively difficult when you run them as written, especially when it comes to new parties and a DM that doesn't yet have a firm grasp on the rules. We tried out Agents of Edgewatch with my party of experienced 5e players - just new to the Pathfinder system, and quickly found out that... they don't mess around. Fighting +13 to hit monsters at level one almost burnt us out. Luckily, we decided to give it another go and left APs behind us - decided to run a homebrew campaign, and it is so much better than 5e when it comes to my preptime - I can spend most of my time worrying about the fun stuff. Like "Why is this ruin even here?" or "What are the motivations of the bad guys?". In 5e I had to spend so much time creating rules and rulings on downtime, exploration, balancing out fights, trying to figure out how many items to give my players. I can pretty much just "wing" that part now and assume that the book has my back. This is very freeing as a DM with limited personal time.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Glad you liked the video! I grant you that, some of the APs are too difficult as written. (Luckily adjusting things downward is easy compared to other systems, but one should be able trust the designers.) I am running AoE also and the "first day on the job" is positively sadistic. First-level parties should NOT be expected to take on an entire LEVEL's worth of challenges in one day! (They did this in Extinction Curse, also... ugh) But Paizo seems to have listened to the feedback and has made adventures less punishing. Mood, with everything else you say. I'm not a homebrewer but I trust what you say is true. As for my 5e campaign, fortunately my party is 10th level (so they can handle most anything) and they're in a notorious killer dungeon (Tomb of Annihilation) right now, so it's more about the puzzles than the combats. So I don't need to prep as much, but the overland exploration part of the module was sooo poorly supported.

[@leroybyrd7545]

There is another thing to consider about the ease of learning PF2e over D&D5e. Organized play. Pathfinder has the excellent and vastly popular Pathfinder Society, which allows new players to find groups at many game shops and Conventions, whereas D&D had the Adventurers League, which is pretty hard to find in both locales. (the majority of 5e games are private games, using house rules and may or may not be open to new players. Paizo attends most conventions and sets up elaborate events, while WOTC has cut back to only attending conventions that are within walking distance of their headquarters (OK, I exaggerate, nut not by much). OP programs allow new players to try the game without jumping into an existing home game and without needing to spend a dime to play. I also haven't noticed you mention anything about Pathfinder Society either, so I'm figured you might not know much about it either. If this is the case, I cannot recommend trying it enough. It might not be your cup of tea (as I know several who still prefer the freedom of a home game, in fact I do both to get the best of both worlds.) If you have seen or experienced PFS, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on it.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Thanks for mentioning! Yeah I have less personal experience with Pathfinder Society, as I have a full plate GMing, so I'm not able to say as much on that at least from personal experience. I will keep this in mind for future content however!

[@bromo7669]

That's different from where I am, where I have seen more shops with adventure leauge than the pathfinder society.

[@leroybyrd7545]

@@bromo7669 5e is definitely currently more popular, but I only see a few active Adventurers League. In the area. The Spokane area, where I live is a bit glutted with 16 different game shops (and another 4 in North Idaho, not far away) I can count on one hand the number of AL games going on. (PFS has 4, so we're not far behind) On the other hand, nearly every shop has home games going on of 5e. (Pathfinder is lacking a bit in this area, since many shops current support 5e more than Pathfinder, but nearly every shopowner is currently rethinking things due to recent events). So yes, shops do have more 5e going on, but little OP. PFS is noticeably growing with many converts fleeing WOTC and D&D to try Pathfinder.

[@juliushoward9606]

Just now getting back into TTRPG as a whole playing 5e and dming cyberpunk. PFS went twice as a teenager, this would have been a decade ago. I really loved the concept. Being able to play anywhere and having your character tracked gaining experience. Ultimately its pretty rare to be able to drop in to a one shot so easily.

[@twistedshrimp8239]

Honestly coming from 3.5 D&D being my first experience to RPG's, then transitioning to 5e in my adult life, left kind of a sour taste in my mouth. "It's what everyone was playing" I was told, and it was all over the internet. I always saw Pathfinder as a D&D ripoff when I went to the game store. "Why play a ripoff when the original is right here and is actually simpler to play?" Oh how totally wrong I was, I purchased my first Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook earlier this week only to realize that, while it may take a little more time and focus to pick up the Pathfinder system, it leads to a MUCH BETTER EXPERIENCE. D&D 5e is the boxed Mac and Cheese to Pathfinder 2e's Homemade Grandma's Recipe, and I will never ever go back to playing a bland game ever again. I can't wait to run my first game in Pathfinder after playing 10+ years with D&D.

[@FlynnFromTaiga]

Homebrewing custom characters is great in PF2. The system itself provides great flexible framework for it. Give character custom background, slap some custom ancestry feat , mix some custom archetype just for this character, season it with custom special status effect. or just add one special feat for one of subclasses or skills. every unique flavour player has imagined can be put into character one way or another. and will look like it was part of the game from the begining.

[@Charlie.G506]

I'll be probably roasted for this, but 2e feels like a refined version of dnd 4.0, and i love it

[@Viviolau]

Well, you’d be right, since one of the designers comes from 4e

[@theDMLair]

Great breakdown and analysis.

[@MechbossBoogie]

Paizo's systems have always been easier. When I was switching from 3.5 to PF a lot of the changes made the game a lot easier to run.

[@WolfgangF88]

D&D walked so Pathfinder could run. Great video! I have noticed PF2 has been easier to remain versatile as an adventuring character, and the monsters seem to be more worth their challenge.

[@KendraCarson]

This has been incredibly helpful! I have been playing and DMing 5e but this video helped convince me to make the shift for my next large campaign.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I'm glad it was!!

[@sessione2]

I like your channel. You made content I was looking for when I first tried learning 2e (battle simulations to understand the rules in practice) but there were none. I'm quite happy the 2e youtube community is steadily growing these days (: Tangent aside, I couldn't agree more with you and if I'll ever need to convince someone on the reasons why 2e is easier and more engaging to run than 5e after the starting learning curve, I'll reference this exact video.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Yay! Yes I'll continue to do more instructional combat videos. (I'm assuming you meant to write *more) I'm glad you like this video enough to share!

[@sessione2]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Ahahah Yes, I meant that. I wrote late at night and was half asleep xD I noticed now that there are a lot of mistakes in the comment, sorry!

[@TK-zd7ym]

This video is probably getting a lot of views since the big OGL debacle. I will say that I spent HOURS upon HOURS trying to make actual published 5E content run. I had to read the entire book, make my own notes from that book, organize it, and re-write it to make sense. Almost every single module they ever released, outside of Lots Mines of Phandelver, was more of a great "idea" that they left up to the DM to basically organize to run well. It was aggravating how much work I had to do to run a game with 5th.

[@Firalasun]

I feel you so hard. I very much enjoy running Storm King's Thunder for my group, but I am putting a lot of work into it, from fleshing out areas and settings, to changing things because they don't make sense, and even fixing bloody plotholes the authors left all over the thing. Coming from a different system before 5E with very fleshed out adventures, it's aggravting.

[@darkowl9]

Holy crap, this absolutely. I ran nine of the adventures from Candlekeep into a loosely arranged campaign, one a week, and it was just so much work. Yet I have a collection (that I was bequeathed) of 4e books and whilst I'll never run 4e, just from skimming them they're actually more like PF2e - they help the DM, they give you context and ideas and motivations and strategies. 5e is very much "eh, just do whatever I guess, you'll figure something out?" and it makes for so, so much more effort on the DM's part. The PF2e books I've read so far, are so much more friendly to the DM in giving context and things to use.

[@DepWilkerson]

This came out a year ago. Now I’m looking for a new game system as a dm to keep playing and d&d being what it is today. I’m sold now on this system. Gonna try it out and I hope my friends enjoy it

[@wanderersguide2e]

Made some really solid points. Love your videos, keep up the good work!

[@MrTotalAhole]

I havent migrated to PF2e but I was a PF1e player for a very long time. Im very glad its getting some love and more recognition from the TT community. Having played many of Paizos Adventure Paths there is nothing like taking a persona (all of your own) from level 1 to level 20. It is an amazing journey. I always feel bad retiring that character after (sometimes) 8 months of play, (we were RP heavy in my groups). I'll also say this. The writing in those Adventure Paths are amazing. Every class and skill will have its chance to shine and Paizo is good about putting morality choices in there, "Just how lawful neutral is my character?", "Am I going to make that choice based on my real life morals, or my characters?". Good stuff.

[@theophrastusbombastus1359]

Those morality questions are the very things I love to sprinkle in amongst my own adventures. Their adventure paths aren't very easy to aquire here in the UK, thus I've always ignored them, but I'll be sure to hunt them down now. Thanks 👍 😊

[@Grangolus]

Level 20 after only 8 months? That's a blistering pace.

[@MrTotalAhole]

@@Grangolus That was usually 5 or so hours a week, but we also had 6 fulltime players with another 2 that would drop in regularly (2-3 times per month). So it was almost double what most Adventure Paths recommended.

[@queenannsrevenge100]

While I agree with several of your points, I personally still find D&D 5e easier to run for one main reason: the Conditions. I ran the PF2 play test for six months, and I’ve been running the PF 2 new rules for about four months now, and whereas I could run a 5e game without any rule books, I could not fathom running PF2 without either the conditions pages open at all times, or having everything written out in a monster stat block ahead of time. Similarly, the spells because they are so condition-heavy, I could not tell you what ANY spell does without having a cliff’s notes open for it. I imagine I will get a little better as time goes on, but the conditions are just too rule-dense for me, whereas the majority of conditions in 5e either: 1) impose advantage or disadvantage 2) impose a -2/-5 penalty, or 3) just deny something entirely, such as movement or attacks.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I personally have an opposite reaction, but mainly because I think PF2 conditions are closer to what I'm used to in 3.x/PF1. For me I find the categorizing of conditions more intuitive since there isn't only one tool (advantage/disadvantage) that make a number of 5e conditions merge together for me. Purely personal take of course.

[@TheGroovyJones]

So how many of this video's views have come since, oh let's randomly say... late December 2022? It just now popped up on my feed.

[@dinomarinovic5241]

Oh yeah Traits, for example Anti-Magic, Dispelling etc... sometimes i get lost in 5e would dispel work against something that looks like it should be magical but is not or something that is non magical but has magical properties, but in path 2e if it has Magical Trait or any of 4 spell list in trait i know that it should be able for it to be dispelled, 3.5 had Su and Sp for that but 5e has... nothing....

[@kvidobenak]

#11 - ONE BOOK! I hate in 5e having to try to remember or guess which book a rule is in. Wait - was that in Tasha's or Xanithars? Then there are the rules spread out through 50 or so adventures. If you want a ship to ship sea battle - better have Saltmarsh. If you want a ship to ship battle on the Astral plane - too bad. They forgot to put that into Planescape.

[@arielshligman2146]

yeah thas why the internet is a thing at least yo dont need a chart for attacking

[@BlueSapphyre]

Slightly disagree here. I always forget which lost omens has the stuff i need. Was that archetype/background in the character guide or the world guide? Or maybe it was in the grand bazaar or impossible lands.

[@JRTIntervencion]

Yeah I disagree too. if it weren't for Nethyss I wouldn't know which book to pick up for each rule lol Risky Surgery is from the Advanced Player Book, didyaknow? XD And a lot of traits are spread around too

[@flaviolepri5539]

I think the main arguement is still valid. The main topic is about rules not character building / equipment options that are obviously expanded with new publications. Between Core and DM you have all the rules and optional (very fun) rules to choose and pick. If you're using things with extra rules not included in Core, there is really good chances they are uncommon, which is a reason to go look what book that gunslinger is coming from (a very appropriate Guns and Gears) and logically how firearms work. This said, I finally agree that using Archive of Nethys you can save all your brainpower for the fun bits in roleplaying.

[@LazloArcadia]

Your video is pretty solid and I liked the way you present it.

[@kev_whatev]

Can’t believe you missed the most obvious answer. It’s only 2E. D&D is 5E. That’s 3 less E to worry about.

[@darksavior1187]

I have issues beginning to manifest for me in 5E with the gaps in rules for things like any magic item creation or place in the economy, the fact that encounter building and CR are completely broken, and some others. I am finding that having rules for these things is easier than no rule being given, which is counterintuitive for many people since less rules is easier, right? No, not when big chunks of the system have no mechanics or structure leaving you to make it up yourself. So having a rule is better than no rule at all, or rules so vague, they amount to no rule.

[@Wiseblood2012]

I gave a like to the video. In spite of the fact that I disagree on every point in both reasoning and motivation. One of my good friends loves Pathfinder 2. ( he is also a lawyer)

[@charles_pensamentocritico]

Never played Pathfinder 2e. Some things you mentioned as a plus are things that are a minus for me. However, I liked the way you presented information and you explained why certain things matter to you. This helps me see why certain game elements (that I don't value as much) are important for people.

[@Julien-Limosino-87]

PF 2 dual class is a blast. You don't need anymore to sacrifice levels to multiclass. You can be 20 fighter/20 sorcerer as example. No more 10 fighter/10 sorcerer. This is awesome for people liking to play magus like character.

[@deevee5327]

As a 5e player currently reading through the Pathfinder 2e rules book, I saw this video and was like "no way man P2e is so much more complicated", but I have to say you're right. Especially with the downtime, crafting, traps, making a living, all of those things where dnd 5e goes "come up with it yourself you idiot", it's so refreshing actually having a guide, and not having to reach for 3rd party content.

[@Pillarofcreation1]

Pathfinder 2 is actually the first version of dungeons & dragons I've ever played without a rulebook. You can get by just fine with online resources the textbook is not even required.

[@MarkOfTheDragon]

Another Big point is that magic almost always 'DOES' something, even if it fails, making for more satisfying gameplay. • In 5e, if you cast Hold Person and the target makes their save it does nothing... you feel like you wasted your turn. • In PF2e, if you cast Paralyze, the target is effected to some degree if they fail, critically fail(by 10 or more), or succeed their save. It's only 'wasted' if they critically succeed(by 10 or more which is fairly rare) There's a lot of "canceling" in 5e. Counterspell, legendary resistances, etc. that just shut down a characters actions. It doesn't feel good.

[@futuretimetraveller8677]

pathfinder 1 and 2 are a tad more rewarding for me

[@pyronicdesign]

[0:13] well first off, more than half that book is information that SHOULD have been in the 5e players manual but instead was split betwqeen the Players handbook and the DMG.

[@LanceDyas]

Saw a video from someone else... their complaints convinced me pf2e might be closer to what I want than I thought.

[@davidwilliams4837]

I agree. PF2e is far easier to run as a GM.

[@davidwilliams4837]

@atombrain111 The system design is scaleable & more balanced. Easier to homebrew because the math rewards trust. I love DND but have a hard time balancing or fixing certain issues.

[@TheKarishi]

Your discussion of how certain spells ruined skills in 5E reminded me of Zee Bashew's video about Goodberry: The spell that ruins wilderness survival as an adventure type. He recommended you require the players to successfully scrounge the berries to be eaten - that they not be conjured whole cloth as part of the spell - if you want to have anything approaching a survival challenge, but that's a bandaid on a broken spell (And that's saying nothing of its bonkers healing potential).

[@WhiteSpyder170]

Another great video, man! The horns on the top reason completely caught me off-guard and I legit snort-laughed. Great job. Big thumbs up.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Snort laughs are the best! Thanks for commenting =D

[@satyestru]

Thanks, RL! You've got me really excited to run the Beginner Box!

[@tabletopgamingwithwolfphototec]

Awesome video . Into the new player playlist it goes .

[@DanTalksGames]

Oh my God, point 4 is a big one for me. I literally got into a debate with people on the 5e subreddit the other week, where we were talking about unsupported mechanics in that system and how I couldn't stand the lack of magic item economy. People were telling me there SHOULDN'T be an item economy because DMs should just give out items for story reasons, or that if you can't think of a price off the top of your head, you're just being lazy and can't function without the game holding your hand. Statements like that are why I have no sympathy for people who defend 5e for being increasingly unsupportive towards DMs, and why DM burnout is real. People who say that are either players who don't realise how much the game relies on the DM carrying mechanics, or are DMs who've never actually cared about the mechanics in the first place.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I could see their logic, IF the game didn't assume PCs would have magic items. There are so many monsters that become much harder if you don't have magic weapons. And there are so many items that give numerical bonuses that break the "bounded accuracy" (in quotes because the magic items actually break the bounds), that it's unfair for a GM to have to make up things to manage an aspect that has a HUGE impact on the game. It seems like it's a reaction to 3e and 4e and hankering back to the "old days"... which never existed because those 1e adventure modules are stuffed with magic items...

[@DanTalksGames]

@@TheRulesLawyerRPG I mean base 5e balance assumes no magic items at all, which explains a lot. 5e has a lot of issues that have slowly burnt away at my interest in it over time, but one of the biggest mistakes is making so many of its formerly baseline systems 'optional' and using that as an excuse to not balance any of them. Magic items, multiclassing, feats...so much of the game buckles under how those systems have implemented.

[@aevum6667]

@@DanTalksGames No the base game does asusme magic items because you start having enemies in the monster manual immune or resistant to nonmagical piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning.

[@DanTalksGames]

@@aevum6667 it actually doesn't, WotC confirmed the CR system is balanced around the assumption of no magic items as a baseline, which is one of the reasons game balance breaks so heavily when you actually implement them. Monsters with physical resistance aren't meant to encourage magic items, they're meant to give spellcasters a damage niche and encourage buff spells like magic weapon for martials to help them beat them. That's one of the reasons spells like that are designed so weak in comparison; again, it assumes no magic items, so the value of those spells shoots up significantly if they're the only thing that let's martials damage physically resistant enemies.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@DanTalksGames Yeah, this is a case where "simplicity" in the results results in binary dichotomies, which combined with "depends on your table" makes it impossible to find reasonable balanced states. It's unwieldy, unstable, and responsibility for balance falls entirely on the GM and away from the designers.

[@joshuanotjoshua7522]

This is an argument between how light or heavy do you want the system to be. Personally, I like the lighter system. Now I have both dnd 5e, and pathfinder 2e, as well as starfinder, vampire the masquerade, and even call of Cthulhu, but my go to will always be 5e just for the simple fact that it’s light enough to let me jump straight into a game with little prep, and crunchy enough to let me feel like my choices matter. Not being balanced is ok, life isn’t a set of balanced challenges that scale with you as you grow up, it’s messy, and so is dnd. All in all, I love rpgs and I’ll play anything that gets put on the table, but as a gm, I prefer dnd.

[@adamjeayes6525]

A very clear and disgestable comparison, thankyou! One small thing, I would advise making it clearer which edition you are talking about at each stage, as sometimes it could be possible to miss the 'switch' (and then realise a bit later) - probably sounds silly, but making things super clear to viewers with a visual cue on top of words can be very useful. A great contribution to understanding the differences though, and one I shall share, nice work!

[@rynowatcher]

Not the biggest fan of 5e, but this is not considering that 5e has different design goals as pf 2e. It is a bit like saying Paranoia is a better game than pf 2e because Paranoia has funnier deaths; you got to compare it to the design goals of the system to have a fair comparison. A lot of these arguments revolve around 5e being a balanced combat system... I would say that is categorically not a design feature of 5e. There are several adventure modules from WotC that have players in over their heads; Horde of the dragon Queen puts an adult Blue Dragon in their way at level 1, Curse of Straud puts the final boss in the first combat encounter and has d4 trolls in the random monster table in the area the pc's start out at, and Tomb of Annialation has a possible t-Rex encounter at level 1 if they start off in the wrong hex. There is meant to be high points and low ones in the 5e campaigns; this is not a flaw but a feature of the system. Kind of an apple and oranges comparison; pf 2e tries to balance itself (better comparison is 4e d&d and pf 2e) but 5e does not really; if you run modules as written you get a horror survival feel at low level and heroic fantasy at higher level; getting to 5th level with spell caster who can hit above their level with a fireball is very purposful as a design choice as it gives player a moment to feel bad a$$. I will also say "rulings nor rules" is also a design feature. There all rules to most of the "holes" the rules layer brought up, but most 5e dm's do not use them as designing your own world is 3/5 of the dmg for 5e. It is a feature, not really an oversight. Traps, magic items, and a lot of the other systems the rules lawyer brings up are in the dmg in 5e. There is also advice to make them level appropriate and the encounter building tools there are a bit better than the monster manual, if that is what you want. Again, balance is not really a design goal in 5e, but they leave it in there as an optional rule for those that want it, like laser guns. Finally, will say the swingyness of bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage is a core design feature of 5e. It is made to make a single roll of the die be incredibly impactful. Anything players can do, monsters can generally do better in 5e...

[@solomani-42]

#42 the designers of pf2 have a sense of humor and sneak in pop culture references without breaking the fantasy of the game (summon kaiju as an example). This gives the game a lot more flavour. 5e is very sterile and it has consistently moved towards being “gray goo”.

[@danepatterson8107]

I enjoyed this one a lot and am enjoying review of your work. I played a lot of 1st edition and I'm jumping in full on 2nd edition now. I'm GMing my first PFS game in December, and I bought Ruins of Gauntlight to play solitaire and learn more about the system. Your videos have a lot to offer someone like me.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I'm glad!! Yes, I GM'ed 1e for 9 years before jumping into 2e when the final version dropped. If you have more questions I'm happy to answer them!

[@liberkhaos5978]

Long time 3.5 DM here. I just started running a PF 2e quest and I love the system. I find throwing enemies at my player really easy and so far the levels promised are well balanced and represent a fair challenge.

[@MrJerks93]

I don't agree with all the assessments, but the action economy and the build of monsters is absolutely spot on. Our game uses 5e, but I do port over monster builds from Pathfinder so that brutes aren't just big sacks of hit points.

[@rockandroll1850]

I felt the same way. I’ve never played pathfinder, a lot of the points feel like they could be easily fixed in 5e with some simple homebrew or porting things over from other rpgs or previous editions (like, your suggestion was 100% what I immediately thought of also while watching the video.

[@FuzzyLiger]

Personally there are things I love to both systems but 2e has the bigger advantages and least number of drawbacks for me. Plus I like at every level it feels like I get to make choices. 5e for me is just to simplified, the dm(mostly me) feels like I have to bend and break little rules all the time so a player can make a character that is not a card board cut out. For 2e the combo of heritages, backgrounds and ancestries make an amazing combo! I have some issues with wording in the 2e book, difficulties and proficiencies. After 5th level or so as a sorcerer making a melee attack feels doomed to fail and if your DM is using level based DCs the wrong way unless you focus in on a single skill, when not a skill bunny or a class with a high perception, then never bother rolling! Also. It a fan of how 2e nurfed the heck out of familiars and animal companions but still better in most ways then 5e there.

[@SamBrockmann]

I think you pretty well hit on all the reasons why I swapped to Pathfinder 2nd Edition, as a GM.

[@GodlessCranium]

The Pathfinder Society one shots are so good. As a DM, I love running them. Theyre neatly laid out and not overly wordy.

[@nrais76]

Thank you for this video. I've been playing and DMing since the 80s. I have been having some issues with 5th, and my group is small and young, so older editions that I'm comfortable with are highly likely to result in TPKs, plus I'm looking for something current so I have support and modules to intersperse with my homebrew since I don't always have time to write enough detail to run from scratch (although one can improvise quite a bit). I have a huge chunk of old TSR stuff on PDF, but ironically I hate having my laptop at the hake table, so mostly I just read it for inspiration from time to time. You really sold me when you pointed out how the owlbear gets a disembowel attack.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

I'm glad! Encounter building is pretty easy, and there is a comparatively huge amount of variety and uniqueness to the bestiaries, so converting old modules should be fun! FYI I've been thinking about running old TSR modules and having characters at Level 0 (there is an official Level 0 variant for PF2) to fit the power level of low-level old school D&D, and having XP come from treasure. But before doing so I'd highly recommend running as written for your 1st experience to see the intended effect.

[@philopharynx7910]

You touched on the rarity system, but it applies to everything. It makes it simple to decide what is readily available and what the GM can control.

[@aloseman]

For the algorithm! Great video. My only real feedback is to avoid sudden loud noises. Nothing like having an airhorn go off early in the morning when you're getting ready for work and everyone else in the house is sleeping.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Let me know if you have ideas for other videos you'd like me to do!

[@catwizard6482]

Make a video on rangers

[@farmazonlost]

I don't have anything particular in mind, just like how you made "example fights".

[@stevena139]

I would love to see how to create homebrew or actual examples of designing an encounter. I'm a new GM.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@catwizard6482 Is this Calvin? :P I think I'll do the Guns & Gears classes soon. I do NOT know if I'll do the playtest classes because those will be a draft. Maybe if I'm inspired to

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

@@farmazonlost Thanks. I have a few of those in the queue

[@MykeDiemart]

I'll give you PF2 does have better encounter math, and that works out as you progressively level everything up. 5e seems to break down around when the PC's can out action the big bad, that's speaks more to bad encounter design. PF2 seems great for players who need structure for everything. I also am of the opinion Piazo makes better adventures and products. I play 5e primarily as it is easier to find players.

[@barnabyssjones]

to be fair how easy it to find players that don’t need structure for high level play? It’s a weird phenomenon, but the higher level players get, the MORE structure they need because the abilities become so overpowered and unintuitive that peoples imaginations aren’t able to play fast and loose without also breaking everything. There’s a reason almost nobody does it, and it’s because the structure simply breaks down too much.

[@uriahronin4788]

Excellent video my man! You have earned yourself another subscriber.

[@DarkBunnyLord]

As a GM whose now been running 2e for a bit over a year I have yet to run across a situation where a player asks “can I do X” and not been able to quickly find a mechanic (archives of Nethys is a god send) and that feeling is so good where as in 5e I often had to house rule things or stuff was just so vague it felt dissastifying. Aside from that the sheer fact players never level up and get no choices keeps levels actually exciting and really let’s them be unique.

[@arcady0]

Taking a note from the art world on why Pathfinder might be easier to homebrew. It's much like with drawing wherein, the more the artist knows anatomy or proportions of the subject matter, the better they can deviate with quality. Good clear structure defines a norm from which you can better deviate with a consistent result.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

This is a great analogy. I am more of this type of homebrewer. On the other hand, another GM might be more into "the world is dangerous and not balanced" mindset and dimension of RPGs more, and so they might enjoy the open endedness and more "free for all" nature of 5e homebrewing. YMMV.

[@8Rincewind]

24:20 does Pathfinder solve this issue of needing multiple encounters in a day? If so how? I'm willing to accept that the encounter builder is better in PF2e, the encounter builders in 5e are infamously bad, so any improvement would be significant. But I personally think the need for balancing multiple encounters throughout the day is the bigger issue.

[@captaincrash9002]

it's assumed that everyone starts each fight at full health, so less encounters are more reccomended.

[@Chaosmech]

with regards to your first point, I have been preaching this for several years now. 5E really only works as an experienced DM (someone like the famous Matt Mercer) bringing inexperienced players into the world of TTRPGs, because it puts ALL THE COGNITIVE LOAD (i.e. learning the rules, building the adventure, tweaking things to suit your table) onto the DM, leaving the players to do very little. In that particular situation, 5e works pretty well, the players don't have to learn a ton of new rules so they don't get scared away, while the experienced DM (who has a basis in other more filled-out systems like 3.5, typically) can handle the increased load or make it up on the fly and nobody is any the wiser. By contrast, PF2e (and its predecessor, both sharing some design philosophies) decides to give the DM the tools (in the form of explicit rules for out-of-combat actions, shared rules for monsters/characters, and methods to tweak/alter existing content to your liking) to build their adventure the way they want to, without having to make it all up. This pulls the cognitive load off of the DM and shares it among all the players at the table. Now EVERYONE has homework to do in terms of reading the rules. As opposed to 5e, where a player asks "Hey, DM, I'd like to X, what should I roll?" and the DM makes it up on the spot, in PF2e the player doesn't have to ask: they know "We're using the core rules, which lay out that I can do X by rolling Y and achieving Z result". So yes, the player has to read the rules and understand them. Which means the DM doesn't have to. It's a far more equitable system. When I first started playing with my friends, we were all complete noobs, and we started on 3.5 which is also a rules-heavy system like PF1 and PF2. But we were all learning together, so it felt fairer than simply expecting a brand-new DM to learn it all himself. Now that the rose-colored glasses have come off regarding D&D 5e, I'm hoping that those who were introduced to the genre by 5e and its ease of access (for players) will now upgrade to a better system by a better company, namely, PF2e by Paizo (or PF1e if you're a masochist, I'll always plug PF1e).

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Honestly 100% this. It's sooo much easier to learn and digest. Given someone new to D&D5E, show them PF2E and wow it's so much faster and easier despite being deeper. Many, many games are much, much easier than both of these since they share so much DNA, of course, but PF2E has so much to be easier in my experience and player experience. Though PF2E still has many little ways it can be even smoother or faster, or have sacred cows removed. Also omg at higher levels D&D turns take FOREVER. The three action economy is so approachable and enjoyable. I think my only gripe is that a lot of options don’t always FEEL awesome. Something giving a situational +1 or certain tags like Fascinated or the way resistances can get so tiny. Things are for the most point balanced, but a lot of options don’t *feel* awesome. There’s some finely tuned clunk and brakes.

[@anthonyjoseph7997]

I agree the action economy is a huge boon to Pathfinder 2E, I play and GM and notice the 3 Action economy gives spellcaster characters more options on their turn outside just , Move and Cast a Spell.

[@jeffersonian000]

I hate to be uncharitable, but all I heard was “I prefer crunch, PF 2e is crunchier than 5e, therefore PF 2e is ‘easier’ for me.” I say this because for every interaction you came up with as a problem, I already knew the solution in 5e because it’s a simpler ruleset to remember as most of it is intuitive while the rest is crunch enough to be rememberable. But for PF 2e, I would have to search through pages to find out how something similar could be handled, and that’s annoying. You could say from my point of view, “I prefer fluff, 5e is fluffier, therefore 5e is ‘easier’ for me” and be accurate. What I would have preferred to have heard was the same situation being resolved in each system, and a breakdown on what worked and what didn’t on both sides.

[@terryhansen3748]

Great video and information. Thank you. I'm looking forward to watching your other videos.

[@Demonskunk]

I'm going through my first campaign of PF2 as a player. We're doing Agents of Edgewatch and I hate it. I love the ideas of the adventure path, but whenever we start having to deal with the actual game rules, we immediately stop having fun. We keep running into places where rules are written strangely or unclearly (Does Beast Barbarian actually gain anything when it transforms other than movement speed?), rules that seem to exist solely to kill fun and bog down combat (Opening a door is an entire Action, so if you have to move through two doors, you consume your entire turn opening one, moving up to the next one, then opening that), and class features being awkward or useless (Raging Athlete gives you a bonus to athletics, but only while Raging, and the moment the last enemy leaves your perception you suddenly stop raging, even if you think they're still hiding nearby). Because of the way the level system works, you can end up with extremely spongy enemies that are also hard to hit if the AP designer decided to make the boss 2 levels higher to make the encounter more challenging. We just ran into a Roper that can grapple up to 5 people, and he's 2 levels higher than our party, meaning that if we were a party of 4 he could easily have TPK'd us (though the adventure has him threatening you to make you bring him treasure, instead of just throwing everyone into the abyss), but his tethers are COMPLETELY IMMUNE TO NON-SLASHING DAMAGE, which means that a party could be completely unable to break the tethers if they don't have bladed weapons for whatever reason. We're regularly running into problems where the game is actively stopping us from doing anything cool, because that requires a feat, or several feats, or a class feature that you don't have. "I want to knock the sword from the knight's hand so he can't kill the hostage" Did you spec into Disarming? Well then you need to succeed twice to get the weapon out of his grip, because your bonus to disarming attacks isn't high enough to reasonably succeed. Both Pathfinder 2 and 5e are extremely swingy and have bounded accuracy. The difference is that 5e's numbers don't move very often, and Pathfinder 2e is a treadmill that you're expected to keep up with. I'm playing a wizard with low dexterity, meaning that my AC is 3-4 points lower than where the game expects me to be, this means that I get crit almost any time I get hit, and because of the way Pathfinder's numbers constantly climb, it also means that most on-level enemies can kill me in 2-3 hits. PF2 still has the problem of having to plan out your adventuring day as multiple encounters unless you're running a low combat game, but I will concede that everything you said about 5e is frustratingly true, and despite my hatred of PF2 I also hate 5e for basically every reason you stated. If Foundry VTT wasn't a thing, I don't think PF2 would be as popular as it is. I tried running it during the playtest on an actual tabletop and it was hellish. Trying to juggle conditions on everyone, remembering what they do and don't do, remembering what things you could and couldn't do in combat, it was constant headaches and I quit running the adventure just one or two sessions in because I couldn't handle it. It's too much crap to juggle by half. I'm glad you enjoy PF2, but honestly I'm struggling to even understand *how.*

[@captaincrash9002]

>Does Beast Barbarian actually gain anything when it transforms other than movement speed? it get's amazing natural weapons. and feats that add: ac when raging unarmored, the many effects of animal form, and a single action stride+strike >Raging Athlete gives you a bonus to athletics, but only while Raging, and the moment the last enemy leaves your perception you suddenly stop raging, even if you think they're still hiding nearby that is the wrong interpretation of "perceive", if they're hidden they're not unnoticed. The hidden condition actually specifies "just barely perceptible". even when they're undetected, you are still aware of their presence. Raging doesn't mean you loose object permanence. also: that adventure path is notorious for being an overtuned meat-grinder. it (and the prior 2 adventure paths) actually ignore some of the encounter building rules.

[@tannerdaugherty407]

Loved the video and I agree with pretty much everything. I don't dislike 5e, but it is my least favorite edition thus far, especially to DM. It's still fun to play but I find my self getting bored of it quicker than I would like, due to the simplicity. Awesome video keep it up man!

[@emmagetya]

I'm just getting into pathfinder 2e and subscribed to you. You are very informative and helpful.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

Thanks! I hope you enjoy the channel

[@ryanstevenson5222]

This video is really helpful, thank you. Pardon the long comment, but you got me thinking ... I'm a long-time 5e DM, but I've dabbled in PF2e a few times, and I think if I could find a group of players who were invested in the system, I could easily make it my primary rules set. If I may, I offer a few points here just to hopefully add to the conversation. Firstly, I would suggest that the ease of teaching 5e is an asset in its favour. Adv / Disadv, while it isn't mathematically valuable sometimes, is easier to understand for new players. Secondly, I think you nailed it on the head when you were talking about some players / characters feeling more powerful. I've personally seen characters who deal around 100 damage per round at level 1, compared to a character who can deal maybe 10 or 20. While damage certainly isn't the metric by which a character's value should be solely measured, the 5e rules clearly lean towards the combat encounter, with most of the "in between" being hand waved by the DM. Pathfinder gives more value to the exploration and social components, which is a huge win in my opinion. Thirdly, I have to say that the 3 action system vs the Move / Action / Bonus Action system is SO MUCH BETTER. I'd say it's my #1 reason were I to make this video. :) And fourthly, I would offer that because Pathfinder has everything written out, there's an implicit risk to trying to "home rule" or "rule on the fly". If a GM were to say "I don't know the rule for x, let's just do y", then it's entirely possible - and much more likely in PF2e - that it would inadvertently invalidate a feat or ability in the game. It's almost as if, by being a bit vague, 5e protects a DM by offering them their own internal consistency for the rules. I don't know if that's better or not, but in my experience, running PF2e had me more afraid that a ruling I made would "break the game" down the road. Fantastic video! Thank you!

[@alsenddrake7764]

Can confirm the druid thing. 5e. We have a druid who's Moon druid, built to tank. Because of his AC being quite solid due to a give and take sure he leaned into and those extra HP pools, he has to use enemies who do more damage or such to threaten the druid... Which means I as a more traditional Martial (ironic to say, seeing I'm using UA Reddit's Demi Dragon) get dropped fast. The other day even when behind 3/4 cover I STILL lost half my HP in one turn to a bunch of ranged enemies attacks, and they missed a majority of their attacks.

[@bronsonkim6652]

The idea that bounded accuracy and advantage/disadvantage are the reason why 5e is so difficult to balance is really interesting to me. I hadn't considered that before and it's really fascinating how a system's big claim to fame can be such a draw back

[@Krystalchan2009]

I never played 2e, but I played 1st edition of pathfinder. One thing I did like however is that everything seems to be written down which means it can be easily searched. And this makes for some interesting build variety that functions properly. See I built a Pathfinder 1st edition Ninja (An alternate of Rouge) but I wanted to really lean in on the assassination playstyle. This means she focused on her Wakizashi (A sword with the Deadly trait, good for a ninja wanting to crit) and Combat Maneuver Bonus instead of raw damage as her goal was to incap targets for Coup De Grace. So in the course of fighting instead of directly attacking this would be things like dirty tricks, faints, and other trickery to push a target into the Helpless state

[@solomani-42]

12:16 my opinion, ever since 4e came out, is that 4e is apex monster design for d&d. I use to go back to 4e to mine ideas to make 5e monsters more interesting. So it’s good to see that monster design in pf2.

[@EbonyRubberWolf]

Maybe it's the years of D&D talking (veteran since 2E AD&D), but I don't really have a fear of making an 'unviable' character in 5e that can't at least function until 20. In PF2E, I'm prepping a new character for a game I'll be playing in and I'm literally looking at the concept breaking apart at level 1. Automatons make terrible Armor Inventors if they decide to take their feat 'armor' Reinforced Chassis because that means no Power Suit support, but if I decide to take the Power Suit and get something like Eye Beam that loses a ton of the flavor of why I wanted to go with the concept in the first place. Also, while I love the flavor of the class, the Inventor feels completely at-odds with itself post-5. Constant crit-fails on Unstable Checks and even the occasional Overdrive are NOT fun.

[@shaunhall960]

And now that Wizards of the Coast is changing the way they are marketing their game it makes even more sense to go with Pathfinder. I'm glad I picked up the Pathfinder rules years ago. Honestly I think most gamers like depth in their games and the rules that cater to that make the game even better. This is why so many GMs have their own home rules. As you mentioned also Pathfinder is supported by the gamers themselves with third party material which keeps the game alive and relevant, not to mention affordable.

[@Blizz3112]

the only thing, that they left out of 5th edition, that I absolutely adored in 4th Edition D&D was the Item cost according to level system... and luckily, Pathfinder 2e used that for most of its items as well...

[@weirdfishdf]

Great video, some really helpful info here when deciding between D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2e

[@Rey99m]

I think what you say is true only if pathfinders is your only system amd you have the time to truly study it, otherwise it could become bothersome to remember all the rules and keywords. Also I think that you need a group of players motivated to read and learn rules. Otherwise you are correct, my biggest difficoulty with 5e is always been balancing encountere, a superior system should be all about opening the monsters book take something of the appropriate level and drop that on the charachters

[@waylanddavick9459]

Here I am after trying to run a DnD 5e game for some friends. We did about six sessions before health reasons and absences tanked the group. It actually - system-wise - seems simpler for a player to grasp the action economy in 2e than 5e. Maybe I'm missing something, but having 3 actions and spending them on the things you want to achieve sounds inherently more streamlined from a logic perspective. In D&D I found players who could do nothing with their bonus action feeling like it was a 'wasted' action. They always wanted to attack again. It is easier to learn what you can do with multiple instances of the same currency, than it is to learn what you can do with singular instances of different currencies. I'm going to have to watch more of your videos. You earned a sub from me.

[@mattreagan4347]

Great video, thank you! Though I was confused by the point about PF2e having "rules for Exploration & Downtime". From what I've seen, these are just guidelines around basic things like travel speed, hunger/thirst, exploration activities, downtime activities etc. 5e has almost the exact same rules and options. I'm actually comparing both books right now side-by-side and they seem to be virtually duplicates of each other. I'm not super-familiar with PF2e but I do have the core rulebook and I can't actually see anything significant that 2e offers over 5e in this regard.