Why I Stopped Running Pathfinder 2e

I've made a lot of videos talking about my switch to Pathfinder 2e from D&D 5e, but I recently decided to stop running PF2 and switch back to 5e and I thought it was worth talking about why.
Check out today's sponsor, Songs of the Spellbound Sea for everything you need in a nautical supplement: www.kickstarter.com/projects/...
🔻CLICK FOR MORE🔻
SIDEQUEST - The Monthly RPG Magazine
🔹Get the FREE Sample Issue: bit.ly/34FHwjT
🔹Back issues on DrivethruRPG: bit.ly/IcarusDTRPG
FIND ME ACROSS THE INTERNET: linktr.ee/icarus_games
For business inquires and sponsorship options please email [e-mail]
Welcome to the info paragraph, this is a place to feed the great algorithm, and if you've made it here you have probably scrolled too far! Icarus Games is dedicated to helping TTRPG players and game masters improve their experience in roleplaying games. For RPG players, there are videos on learning games rules, as well as on character building, roleplaying, and optimization. For Game Masters, there are videos on making maps, improving your worldbuilding for your RPGs, and for creating homebrew TTRPG content.

[@IcarusGames]

[EDIT] I've heard you complaints on the sensational nature of the thumbnail, and they are totally valid. I've finally got access to the YT thumbnail test and compare feature so have put two other options (one more neutral, and a meme) in the mix and we'll see which one wins out overall. [Original Comment]: I'm curious to hear from folks who tried PF2 but then switched to another system (or back to 5e if that's where you came from) what it was that prompted the move? I've got a few things to add (I touch on a lot of this in the video, but I wanted to add some more context): 1. While I've stopped running PF2 for my regular, weekly game, I haven't thrown it out never to be played again, I don't hate the system, I don't think it's a bad system, or anything of the sort. I'll still more than happily be a player in PF2 games, for a different group with different circumstances I would consider running again in the future, and I still really enjoy reading PF2 books. I've also had nothing but excellent interactions with Paizo as a company. Nothing in this video should be viewed as PF2 bashing! 2. I have read/played a bunch of the alternatives to 5e that exist and all of them either don't grip me in the way that D&D does, don't have the level of support I would want from my main system, or my players weren't interested in playing them. I do, and will continue to play other games (and feature them on the channel), but for this specific group where we're playing a heroic fantasy game, 5e is the best fit for us.

[@tommiskey]

I'm a longtime gamer since 1981, with a background playing many systems. Our group had been playing D&D 3.5 until WOTC switched to 4e, which almost nobody was interested in playing. When Paizo released Pathfinder 1e, we immediately took it up (at first allowing some 3.5 rules/classes/races/magic items that were missing as well). We played PF 1e for over 10 years, even after 5e D&D was released (though I played 5e at my FLGS). When PF2e was announced, my main group was cautiously optimistic at first, but the playtests and eventually the core book showed that it was a TOTALLY different game than 1e. We each bought the core book (I ended up buying the first 10 books released for 2e), but nobody was willing to play it. Fast forward to the OGL debacle last year. I tried switching back to PF2e, but was as unhappy with it as I was the 1st time. I had created a bunch of house rules for PF2e, but no one wanted to play with both learning the PF2e rules AND a bunch of house rules that I had written (23 pages worth, I found so many problems!). 1 other person agreed to run PF2e, and said he wanted to try running it RAW, but during the very first session, he became so angry at the shield rules that he immediately houseruled them (meaning, the rules that RAW you must declare shield blocks after you've been hit, and then apply the damage to both the shield and the wielder). We continued to find problems with the rules as written, and in 4 game sessions, he quit as GM. One of the other players decided to take over as GM, and lasted for about 8 or 9 sessions before also quitting, at which point the entire game ended and the group split apart. That was all before the release of the Remastered edition. Maybe some of the issues we were having were addressed in that version, I don't know. I didn't buy the Remaster. I felt the original Pathfinder 2e release was rushed to print too quickly, with FAR too many problems (in my eyes). Now, I'm not willing to give Pathfinder 2e Remaster another chance because I spent hundreds of dollars on books that are now "obsolete". We used to complain when a new edition of a game was released "too soon", though I understand why it was done here (because of the OGL issue, which wasn't Paizo's fault.) But still, I just bought the PF2e core book, Bestiary, APG, GMG, etc, and I hardly got to play them before the Remaster came out because of the very poor reception the game got from my regular gaming group. IMHO, we were an "ideal" group of gamers for PF2e (a group of older gamers, 40's - 50's in age, that had played PF1e for the past decade+), and if they couldn't convince us, then we felt there was an issue with either the game or a complete mismatch with our group for some reason. But, talking to other gaming groups, I've found more and more that have also had issues with PF2e, such as you and yours. I agree with you that the game is very complex and detailed, and that can cause quite a few issues in multiple ways and places.

[@IcarusGames]

@@tommiskey Something that is endless fascinating to me is how much 4e DNA there is in PF2 when Pathfinder first started as a branch to move away from that game system. It's funny that twice the evolution of a 3.5 based system ends up being something that looks a lot like 4e with a lot of similar core ideas, but it also means it's really no surprise that so many PF1 players bounce off PF2 - hell, we did at first. We were deep in a PF1 campaign when the playtest dropped and it was just TOO different. When it came time for our next campaign we ended up giving 5e a try instead, and it was only after PF2 had been out for a couple years and settled into itself that I started getting intrigued by it, my initial reaction during the playtest was to bounce off it.

[@tommiskey]

@@IcarusGames I initially tried buying it and reading it. Then, as a long-time rules tinkerer, play-testing it and trying to fix it. As I said, I ended up creating 23 pages of fixes for the core book. From fixing the imbalanced Alchemist class to the way shields worked to much of the spellcasting system, and a multitude of other things that bothered me. The whole mass of changes made sense to me, as I could explain why I made each change I did, but as a whole it was an intimidating mess of "house rules" for a new system that already had hundreds of pages of new rules to learn (over 600 pages in the core book alone!) And then the additional books began coming out... the APG, the magic book, etc, and I again had things I wanted to fix in each of therm too, until finally I gave up on the system (until the OGL mess briefly brought me back, only remind me of what happened before and thus drop it again). I see a lot of 4e in it too, as well as a tiny bit of Rolemaster (an older complex fantasy system that tried to expand into other genres and settings with Spacemaster and MERP - Middle Earth Roleplaying). It still has its fans, but to most players, it is just WAY too many rules to learn and use at the table.

[@davidk8699]

@@tommiskeyThe remaster rules really are to get away from the OGL, for example getting rid of the D&D magic schools - abjuration, evocation etc. All the rules are available for free on archives of Nethys, so you can read them there. I’m not sure what you didn’t like about the shield rules. You get the AC bonus from raising a shield during your turn. The shield block is optional after being hit to reduce damage (and lower your shield). Shields don’t take long to break at early levels and only some classes can shield block. What was frustrating about them?

[@introneurotic]

If you don't hate the system, why have your opening title screen of the Pathfinder logo in a trash can?

[@shamuswilliams]

I can say with certainty that player frustration with PF2 is real. I and my group always seem to feel one action short of having a cool turn.

[@9652769]

I have notice that this is part of the system balance. At higher level, you have more and more way to have more action (Haste, additionnal reaction, one action that are in fact 2 action, quicken spell, free substain, mature animal companion).

[@dcernach]

My group and I have been playing GURPS since the '90s, and we feel much more comfortable with Pathfinder 2nd Edition. After playing D&D 3.5 for a while, we switched to Pathfinder 1st Edition, and now we're playing Pathfinder 2nd Edition with no regrets. The remaster edition corrected many things that we were uncomfortable with. That's it! We're giving Fantasy World a try now to reduce our cognitive load for a while. Let's see how it goes...

[@IcarusGames]

The remaster dropped JUST as we were starting to get a reasonable grip on the system and threw us for a bit of a loop, which I'm sure didn't help things.

[@davidwilliams4837]

Trusting the Pf2e math & balance is hard for most from DND where we "know" it doesn't make sense & must correct.

[@SleepySlann]

As much as I adore GURPS, most systems seem simple compared to it. XD It all comes down to how used to/comfortable you are with learning new systems. But GURPS really does train you to homebrew.

[@ErayTarrell]

If you're planning on using a VTT, Foundry has stellar support for the system and rules. I run a hybrid version for my reallife table.

[@cheesy_87]

​@@IcarusGames PF2e really didn't change much. The Remaster is just a handful of core rules that were updated, and then mostly different concepts to move away from DnD. The classes were improved a lot. Bit it's not like they overhauled the game.

[@mikewickham1767]

I switched to PF2 during the start of the OGL thing. I’ve GMed for over 40 years the switch to PF2 was the best thing my group and myself ever done. I’ve ran the Beginner Box the Abomination Vaults, during this time I wrote my on PF2 campaign. I still play DnD 5, but it’s sooooo boring. I’m hoping you switch back to PF2 in the future, but good luck either way.

[@tinaprice4948]

We switched as well , did the starter box, loved it, then started another campaign and we all started complaining. We went back to D&D and have been happier as a group.

[@MrWystan17]

We tried Pathfinder 2e. We played the Beginner Box and two smaller campaigns, and we can't imagine going back to 5e. Beyond character development, the combat in 5e was such a boring slog for us... Moreover, it's great to know that the GM is finally supported and has tools to help them. That said, it's not a system for everyone and I fully understand that. So, good luck Icarus Gaming and goodbye! Now we're trying to finish our main 5e campaign as quickly as possible and switch completely to 2e.

[@StellaDallas88]

Just swap your 5e game over to pf2e. It's totally doable. Have your gm reach out

[@MrWystan17]

@@StellaDallas88 we are close friends, and the campaign last for about 4 years now. We know that this is doable, but we decided to not swap system on higher levels of play, and just end it and start new one in Pf2e

[@ASalad]

"It became not fun for me to tinker and homebrew things" - that'll kill any experience. I LOVE tinkering with PF2. I redo things all the time. I love having lots of rules that I can use or not use or modify or run raw at my own choosing. Using the whole PF2 system as it is as written is overwhelming. But the PF2 community does have a weird aversion to modifying, probably because of the bad D&D experiences.

[@IcarusGames]

Yeah! Perhaps if I'd been less precious about the balance early on and gotten weird with it from the start things would have been different, but like you say, you get this perception on the balance of the system drilled into you by the community long before you even play the game, and that's hard to shift.

[@diggeroldmate8122]

Same. I have no problem running home brew in pf2.

[@tommiskey]

I definitely agree about the community being VERY adverse to modding and modders. When I tried offering my house rules for free on the Paizo forums, I got constant insults and disparagement, with almost no acknowledgement that the game EVER had any problems or issues.

[@ASalad]

@@IcarusGames The rules for homebrew creature creation help a lot when it comes to rebalancing. And the consistency of the strength relative to party level and expected level of difficulty to it provides really good guidelines for it. I use PF2 for a modern 21st century equivalent fantasy world with tons of homebrew and every change I’ve made to all of my creatures has performed as reliably as the official bestiary stuff. And once you learn how to do it for one level, you pretty much know how to do it for every level. The more familiar you get with the basic engine components of the system, the more comfortable it becomes to tweak and create with. And I like the fact that it performs the way I expect it to each time. But I also do things to help take some of the feelsbad or minutia off the players too. I’ll give casters early gear with flat damage boosts. I give a flat 2xlvl hp in healing to the party after every combat encounter so they don’t have to worry about healing for minor things that slow down gameplay. I have them find rest areas with magical leylines where they can restore some spell slots between daily preps, or where they find alchemist materials to make some daily consumables like the alchemist class uses that encourages them to use it rather than hoard it since it’ll be gone next daily prep anyway. I play loose with aid checks so they are encouraged to think of creative things for third actions to help allies or impair enemies with environmental things. I let them use hero points to attempt over the top flex stuff. And if it starts to feel too easy? I can add an extra 20% xp budget for encounters or throw in an extra elite template or two. So many ways to make things easier or harder and you have a lot of granular control that operates consistently. I also use keywords when it’s convenient but make rulings on the fly a lot too and just treat them as exceptions. I did hit a period as I got deeper in the system where I noticed there was a lot of looking stuff up and decided that sucked, so I started using tags as guidelines rather than having to look up technical rulings every time. And I usually erred on the side of favoring the players with rulings since I had plenty of other reliable ways to make things difficult if I needed to. Not saying you have to go back by any means. Just sharing some examples of things I like doing at my tables!

[@craigjones7343]

You are correct. DnD has for decades conditioned its dm to believe that homebrew is the best part of the game. What the dm are not aware of is homebrew is MANDATORY because you must fix the broken and missing rules of any dnd edition.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

I really wish PF2E kinda chilled and focused on making features cool and simple. It’s so “finely balanced”, but by having half of the game’s options having a boring limit or being different but not actually good most of the time. Look at the equipment in the game. You could remove maybe 80% of the weapons and keep it deep, maybe even deeper, with just ways to slap on a trait using archetype or class features. Look at how many features say “you get a +1 under this specific case if you spend resource”. So many fiddly unnecessary obstacles and clunk to dig through. Look at how much fans talk about balance and features and then homebrew gets dunked on and then we get so many granular nothing-feeling features. Because this game absolutely rules, and it is my favorite heroic fantasy ttrpg and I will never want to do more 5E, but I think if they ever make a 3rd edition in about five years, god, less is more. Gotta just let go a bit. Ease up. Get loose. Let GMs and players improvise things more unhinged with currencies. Kill the vestigial obstacles. Fabula Ultima is probably the one I enjoy teaching and GMing the most now, since it really just lets me go hog wild

[@crushl2451]

I don't have most of these problems. I'm running my game in foundry. So if I want to know what a tag does, I hover over it. Also, I studied the rules for a few months before I startet playing the system and I told my players that I will explain everything when it comes up, so they never had to spend time outside of sessions. Also, homebrewing stuff feels quite good to me. I created items my players are excited about because the items support their playstyle specifically. I recently added the spell duel system of DC20 (adapted to pf2e) and the Players love it. So i guess pf2e is the right system for me but I wish you the best finding yours 😊

[@Urobot]

To me, Pathfinder 2e is the perfect combination of balanced rules, flavor, exciting gameplay, etc. The thing is, I have the most fun when I get to actually play/run a game, and I find it much easier to get people to pick up and play something more rules lite, than I do PF2e. Five Torches Deep, Masks, Dungeon World, etc. all end up seeing more play for me because it's easy to get people into.

[@pynk_tsuchinoko8806]

I can definitely emphasize with that feeling of a game just not "meshing" with a particular group or style. I got really hyped up on PF2E around the time dark archives came out and ran a beginners box game for my game group (im not a reguler gm, my gm was a player) I admittedly did a pretty bad job selling them on the system but there were things that just were not really working. they didnt really want to interact with the 3 action economy and one player even felt it was too restrictive since movement was free in 5e, while everyone said they had fun i could tell it wasnt a great play session. It felt pretty bad, I had a lot of buyers remorse since I had already bought the core books aswell as an adventure, felt like maybe it was silly to try something else when you can just run 5e and homebrew everything. I'm currently running a pf2e game for a different group I met online and they are having a good time, they interact with the mechanics, RP, get excited when they level up, it helped with a bit of those doubts I initially felt, I still somtimes tangle with the "is it worth it" thoughts but for the time being I'm having fun. You were one of the creators who got me onboard with trying the game out, it sucks it didnt work out but its good to hear you are back to a comfort zone you are use to, on the whole I think trying new things is great, even if it doesnt work out you learn something about yourself or your group you might not have known without trying it and the beauty of the RPG hobby is how many free resources, SRDs, homebrew and what not you can just pick up and play no strings attached.

[@rodionsokolov5546]

I feel this problem! And to be honest, I had similar this problem until recently. I remember when I looked into magic items in PF2 my thought was: "Wow! It doesn't feel like I can make something new without breaking it...". And then something happened. My new player who wanted to try PF2 asked me a question: "Can I stride and make an attack simultaneously, so I won't spend a third action on one more stride?". My initial respounce was: "No, because it would break multi-action actions, blablabla...", and after I finished my monologue I just added: "But who cares? I would allow it anyway, just would give you a circumstance -1/-2 penalty on attack at worse". Maybe there is a feat somewhere which gives you a similar effect, but why won't I give my player a possiblity to make action which actually makes sense to both me and the player? So in my opinion, +1/+2/+3 bonuses are much more comfortable to give then advantage or disadvantage. They shake the game enough to be interesting so players can get creative without having this huge difference in numbers. And I just recently gave a permanent additional dice for a kobold breath to my player when he drunk the dragon blood. Is there such bonus in the game? No, I don't think so. Did it break anything? Not really. Was it fun for everyone involved? Yes it was! But, of course, you do you and have with the system you and your group most comfortable with. Cheers.

[@Zertryx]

Finally, someone who shares the same issue i also have with PF2E, personally me i really dislike the Tag system and the Over Codified rules. People dont realize somtimes how much more free 5E actually feels when doing skill checks and not having to look up weather or not that "action" is a "Rule". instead the DM is more free to just be like "yeah okay, give me a Dex roll and apply this prof if it applies!" Sure PF2E is still a decent system i still play it with one of my groups, but I do prefer less constraint systems rather than "Balanced" systems that are very restrictive. and I agree 5E is much easier to Homebrew stuff for.

[@sylvaincousineau5073]

Been playing Level Up Advanced 5e for 2 years now , and all my 3 groups have a blast playing it , also a great middle ground between 5e and PF2 .

[@IcarusGames]

I've not looked at the rules themselves for A5e, but I do really like how they present monsters with the legends and lore and the encounters. As soon as I saw that I knew I had to adopt it into my own monster design.

[@TarEcthelion]

For those who do like PF2 but don't love the Vancian Casting they made an official archetype called Flexable Spellcaster to turn it back into a Spontaneous (read: 5e like) caster. While it's balanced as is; You can talk to your GM about getting it as a free archetype if using class feats ruffles you the wrong way. :-P I don't care which system we play as long as we're having fun doing it... PF2e is still my current favorite (I GM it every other Friday). But I'll play whatever you're running. :-)

[@jcservantw6496]

That dedication has some drawbacks that I feel is a bit too restricting. I created Minevian spell casting dedication which allows players to burn a spell they have memorized for one they already cast of the same level or lower. It works great.

[@1stleveldmgames798]

Shadow Dark, Free League Publishing Year Zero Mechanics, EzD6, Mork Borg dr 12 mechanics and the list goes on

[@IcarusGames]

Shadowdark is on my list to check out over the summer. Free league have got a ton of games I'm interested in (arguable TOO many lol)

[@RickDevil12]

I was a 5e DM for a long time and it really disapointed me, we made it to a level 20 campaign, beat Dungeons of the Mad Mage and the system is so fiddly that I ended up traumatized hahaha I double check each time I add a boss to a fight to know if it will be balanced or not. None of that has happened with PF2e, there are some things that I indeed find to be "crunchy" but not really, I think people have so embedded in their mind that a system has to be ambiguous to be playable, there are some nice things in all systems, there are also ambiguous things. Not even mentioning how the CR system doesn't work and that is no news. I see PF2E as a well-done 5e, It's rules I have found even clearer and easier than 5e, it has an answer for everything, you can just omit a little rule and it wont break it, it is hard to break honestly and not everything needs to be super mega hyper balanced, that is not the idea, the Idea I think was to make a solid and easy system.

[@direden]

You see PF2 as a well-done 5e. I see it as an over cooked 5e. And that's why it's good to have competition and options in the rpg marketplace. As someone who grew up on AD&D... I really enjoy the upgrade to 5e. However, the OSR movement proves many people wanted a lighter version of AD&D. So, to each their own.

[@RickDevil12]

@@direden For me, nothing beats the 3 action economy and such a high quality on adventures and setting books that I wouldn't come back to the half paragraph final bosses and the 3 pages rules for Spelljamers. I really don't see the "complexity" of the system, I find it even easier and simpler than 5e and I don't have to look up for twitter questions to play by the rules

[@Fearthecow792]

You and I see eye-to-eye on what makes PF2 so great, I can't imagine going back to the extremely ambiguous 5e. I love being a DM, and a big part of it I think is how player-centric 5e is, whereas PF2 was clearly designed _also_ with DM's in mind, to make our lives easier and give us more flexibility and creativity in making new stuff up.

[@jeffersonian000]

Ironically, PF2E is more like D&D 4E than any other version of D&D.

[@davidbowles7281]

@@RickDevil12 The answer is to not play by the bespoke rules in 5E. PF2E is very complex because there is a bespoke rule for everything. Lots of people don't like this and just want the GM to invent something on the fly.

[@Takerfan4ever303]

I have not tried PF2 but tastes change and it’s okay!

[@Tomcollective]

I find that most of the complaints about 5E are people complaining that the system is working as designed. I remember getting sick of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 rules, and Pathfinder just goes "hold my beer. We heard you like rules, so we made rules for your rules, WHILE YOU RUN YOUR RULES". It's just too much. It gets in the way.

[@direden]

I empathize and identify with this. That desire for "more codified rules" was why I "loved" 3rd Edition at first. But didn't play it much. Throughout the 90s, we were frustrated by the messiness of AD&D. So, we wanted something consolidated and codified. Therefore, we got really excited about 3rd edition when it released. But after playing 3.0 and 3.5 for a few years, I felt the same way you did about PF2. Long story short, that's why I love 5e. It's not perfect, but it's similar to the AD&D I grew up on. Yet it finds a sweet spot... it's a unified system but still allows for creative freedom.

[@simontemplar3359]

It's curious that this video comes out now. Pathfinder is the game I keep coming back to. Like i want to like it so badly, but then I play it and I'm like "Nope.". Savage Pathfinder is way more fun, but my game is dragonbane or Knave, so I'm not into terribly complex games.

[@ravenstudioproductions3139]

I recently played an Abomination Vaults game as a way of easing into PF2. Every night after coming home, I kept thinking to myself "This would be magnitudes better in Savage Pathfinder..."

[@tommiskey]

I've houseruled Savage PF with no problems! I much prefer it to PF2e.

[@simontemplar3359]

@@ravenstudioproductions3139 I'm pretty sure they've got a Savage Pathfinder version of Abomination Vaults. Or maybe it's Rise of the Rune Lords. Could be both.

[@michaelsmith7561]

This is almost exactly what our group experienced. It is SO granular, with SO many more rules and interactions, that none of us could keep track of anything, and it slowed everything down with rules look ups. It was exhausting and after 2 months of playing every week, we went back to 5e. I think it comes down to the level of complexity and granularity we want. 5e was a good balance between granularity and rules-light narrative which made it really enjoyable. But we intend to leave as soon as we can. As soon as DC20's beta has a few more levels, we are switching to that as our main system. We will no longer support Hasbro and Wotc.

[@mylostisaac6452]

Perhaps you should give a look at the Proficiency without level rule for pathfinder, it simplifies a lot of the monsters stats and makes so you can use a lot more different monsters against the players. I feel like the pathfinder community is so annoying with balance, to the detriment of the game. The pathfinder book says the exact opposite... This game is yours, you can do what you want with it, there rules are there to help, but if they are getting in the way, just use a flat check or a rulling

[@IcarusGames]

If I ran again with a different group I probably would use Proficiency without level TBF.

[@robinbernardinis]

I don't think that is very good advice. It wouldn't really fix the issues he had. It won't help him develop an intuition for traits, nor will it help his players make characters with useful third actions, nor will he start homebrewing stuff just because he implemented a variant. I mean, I like Proficiency without Level a lot, I'm even writing a hack called Flatfinder based on it, but a lot of people think that it's the silver bullet to convert 5e players and that's just not the case. The point about the community being a stick in the mud is very true though. One of the main upsides of Pathfinder's great balance is that it separates "vertical power" and "horizontal power". You can give an ability to a creature, and it will add to its "horizontal power", but as long as you don't touch its DCs and modifiers (ie "vertical power"), it's very hard to completely break the balance. The main thing to be careful with are action economy buffs. Obviously, that goes for creatures, but also for characters, and thus for homebrew items.

[@mylostisaac6452]

@@robinbernardinis true, it's just that to me it was that silver bullet, it allowed me to have fun making a homebrew campaign

[@robinbernardinis]

@@mylostisaac6452 I get it. At any rate, I posted Flatfinder on r/Pathfinder2e, if you are at all interested. I'd love some feedback from someone else with actual experience running PwL.

[@DanTesch]

The best version of Pathfinder today is Pathfinder for Savage Worlds. I've been playing TTRPG's for over 35 years; started with AD&D back in 1990. 2e, 3, 3.5, White Wolf's World of Darkness, PF1, 5e, then moved to PF2e for about a year. PF2e just didn't take. I felt like every session we were spending more time on Archives of Nethys looking shit up than we were actually playing the game, and that got tiresome quickly. Savage Worlds, though.... oh man that system is fantastic. Highly recommend checking it out for some pulpy homebrew fun.

[@Metal-Spark]

I fully understand where you're coming from on the homebrew aspect - clearly that's a big part of the enjoyment for both you and your players. As someone who also switched to 2e around the same time as you did, I completely agree that the watertight balance makes homebrewing or tweaking anything a very anxiety-inducing task, lest you accidentally spring a leak. That said, I absolutely love the system and while something like the vast amounts of 3rd party resources available online could be a boon to some people, the fact that I don't need them for 2e is even better in my eyes. I haven't needed to look up homebrew systems, rulings, items or additional content at all in this system because practically everything I've ever wanted to do has had existing rules. For me, that massively tips the balance to 2e and I'm not sure I could go back to DMing 5e again.

[@Hugh839]

I loved PF2, but I did struggle with all the rules and my players are casual players and didn't want to have to learn a heap of rules (we play through Foundry VTT so that does all the heavy work). So we ended up switching to Cypher System as it's perfect for story-focused games. And we also now try more random indie games.

[@IcarusGames]

I've got a couple more casual players too and the extra mechanics in PF2 was definitely a struggle for them sometimes!

[@ChrisJ2001]

And remember you can hand wave/ ignore / change any rule you want in any system you want. I remember going half insane trying to grasp PF2Es sneaking/hidden mechanics with 4 stages of awareness. I stripped it and have the players do a contested roll of their stealth against enemy perception. Pass or fail and they’re hidden if they pass. What’s the rule for that? Hell if I know but you’re gonna get +1 on your relevant sneaky checks while you’re hidden. This idea that you either have to compete to following the entirety of a system or leave to play something else is a fool’s errand. It’s narration; nothing is going to break. Players can run away. Anybody that has played/ran DCC quickly realizes swingy math is more fun😂

[@destinpatterson1644]

If you do decide to eventually give another system a try, it sounds like you might really like Dungeon World. It's a Powered By The Apocalypse system, so it uses 2d6 and modifiers won't ever get more than +4 or +5. It's very narrative focused, for instance wizards have a 1st level feature of knowing where some magical artifact is in the world, allowing you to work with them as a DM as to where it is, what it is, what it does, and how they found out about it. And the system is full of these kinds of narrative features. Combat very narrative as well, 10+ is a complete success, 7-9 is success at a cost, potentially forcing the player to choose between the best of two bad outcomes, and 6 or less is a failure. I had saw you mention in another comment that you have a player who's scared of character death, it also has one of the most interesting rules for that as well, when a character dies, they met Death. On a 6 or lower they are simply ushered on to their afterlife, however on a 10+ they manage to cheat them in someway, returning to life with a story and a new badass scar, but most interestingly of all, if you roll a 7-9, Death finds interest in them and strikes a deal. It could be as simple as them wanting to keep a part of the player, bring them back in exchange of their eye, or Death could as them for a favor of some kind and I'm sure a lot of fun can be had with making a player indebted to the metaphysical embodiment of the inevitability of life. Finally, you mentioned one of the most important things to you being homebrew, the system does this great as well. It's one of the most GM friendly rulebooks, and very in depth guide to building your own monsters. And the best part, unlike Pathfinder 2e, it's very rules light for GM and players, and is built on the idea that the GM has full control of the world and what happens within it.

[@FilCieplak]

So I've played many different systems, but never played PF2 until recently. Our group was considering playing 5e, but we wanted to try something different but familiar. At first I was enjoying it, and found the AP system to be very liberating... sort of. We've started to realize that the action economy is actually quite fiddly, with a lot of what felt like "wasted" actions just drawing weapons, raising a shield, moving 1 square, etc. Additionally, I've felt that a lot of my progression as a character has been very incremental, where each feat or feature I pick up seems very trivial. I realize in the end it all adds up, but the tiny bonuses to attack or AP efficiency doesn't feel very enticing. Regardless, we've still trucking along, but we too have realized that maybe our lack of enjoyment is not our inexperience, but that the system just isn't for us. Cheers!

[@IcarusGames]

While it sucks that other folks are having less than stellar experiences, I'm glad I'm not so alone in finding myself going off the system. On paper it fixed all my problems with 5e. But the reality was those problems weren't as bad as they seemed at the time, and PF2 fixed them by introducing different problems for me.

[@taejaskudva2543]

I haven't played it, but PF2 sounds like it makes a good videogame system...

[@Zertryx]

@@taejaskudva2543 its because its so tight with its rules, you dont have as much freedom as a dM or player to deviate from the rules else it breaks things. and has a lot of Core stuff that 4E D&D did which was also a more tactical style D&D game. Essentially PF2E is more for groups who like order and structure, and laid out and clear written rules with little deviation. and 5E is more for groups who are okay with Guidance but more free and DMs who like to homebrew tons of stuff. Yes 5E isnt "Balanced" but its balanced enough to make crazy stuff and still have fun.

[@bokajon]

How is raising a shield or moving one square a wasted action??

[@quantum_ogre]

I'm DMing both systems now, and having a great time, but originally I bounced off PF2e really hard. Quite honestly I put it down to the understated difference in the games despite their roots, and presentation. These days, I love PF2e for at table play, especially for groups who want to play a 'team game'. PF2e isn't just about 'tons of options'- its how the system really allows so many builds to be a true teamplayer. I love 5E for tables who are fine with the rules being looser, and able to treat things like they are fluids because things aren't as interwoven.

[@redviego6714]

I do feel there is a question of if you are running premade stories or your own story? In my experience, I did find it more fun to run as a custom adventure rather than a pf2e adventure. I know for pf2e, there has been a mentality that you should not homebrew, but I feel like homebrew is always important to make games work for each party.

[@IcarusGames]

I was running a homebrew campaign, which is what I always do. If I wanted to run a pre written campaign I would consider PF2 again because the extra blanket of tight balance would be useful for that, but there aren't a heap of stories in the premade PF2 stuff that entice me.

[@Merellin]

Not every system is right for every group. If D&D 5e is the best for you and your group, Thats great! You found what works for you and know you will enjoy it! Nobody else can say what you should play, Play what works for you. My group mostly plays Pathfinder 1e as thats a system we all enjoy and works for us, But we also play some other systems every so often. It is important to know what works for you and play that. Keep playing what you enjoy and keep having an awesome time!

[@IcarusGames]

I know a few of my players would LOVE to go back to PF1. That system really let you do some crazy stuff that created super memorable moments.

[@ArvelDreth]

Honestly I feel like 5e has me looking up rules and needing to homebrew things, more than any other system. Because so many things have no answer, by default it's entirely up to me as a DM to decide how things work on the fly and in many cases my initial decision about something turns out to not be that great and I have to keep changing things until we finally work out the best way to rule how the vague mess of text in the rules should work. With PF1e I homebrew tons of stuff just because I feel like it and it's fun and I'm not really that concerned with the codified rules, with 5e I homebrew stuff because the game is miserable without homebrew and it feels like I'm obligated to do it to force the game to actually be fun.

[@quban234]

Honestly I think pathfinder is balanced mainly around the two core system: the 3 action economy and multi attack penalty. Adding options for creatures shouldn't change the ballance too much, because everyone can still spend only 3 actions per turn. It's interesting how this reputation that pathfinder has (as a balanced system with a lot of rules) doesn't necessarily translate into positives, but can create assumptions that "it's a delicate system and any chances GM does, or improvised actions player wants can break the whole game apart". Anyway, it's great to see this type of videos, because it helps developers and community to change the system and it's reputation for the better.

[@nathanaelthomas9243]

I read the PF2e rules twice and I came to very much the same conclusions you did from the perspective of both a player and GM. To me, it just felt too codified, too many fiddly options that had no thematics like “this set of things now only takes you two actions instead of three”, and it just felt more like a game and less like a rules framework for telling an imaginary story. It’s so balanced it suffers from even more of a problem that you will struggle to attempt anything you have no training in and low level monsters present zero threat. For folks who want their D&D to feel more like they’re playing a board game, I think this rules system is great and isn’t poorly designed, but it’s just not what I’m looking for in my game so I totally get it. Initially, I was super excited to try PF2e, especially due to the action point system so they’ve got a lot of cool ideas/concepts/mechanics, but you gotta take the whole package, lol. I’d be curious to know what your thoughts are on DC 20 being someone who has played both systems, prefers to GM D&D 5e, has a GM style that enjoys customization and creative homebrew, and likes PF2e as a player. For me, the system seems to capture all of the things I was excited about in PF, without losing the things I love about 5e, and without incorporating any of the things that turned me off to PF. It seems like the perfect middle ground and highly customizable and flexible and I’m super excited to give it a go.

[@IcarusGames]

I made a video on my first impressions on DC20 recently. There's a bunch of stuff in there I like, some stuff I don't, but ultimately it's too young for me to even consider switching my longterm game to. I'd want to wait until the core books are out and I've got a clearer picture of the life of the game before considering jumping to it for anything more than one shots or short arcs.

[@jayteepodcast]

When your character sheet looks like a tax form big red flag

[@IcarusGames]

🤣 hard to argue with that!

[@kingcole5977]

Yeah, the base 2e character sheet is very poor visually. I haven't played a lot of 2e, but there's a few fan-made templates online that make it a lot more legible. My favorite is the one by PixelPatch (though I haven't run with it).

[@aaronjung5502]

I solved the daisy chained rules problem with a flow chart personally. 5e has problems that always bothered me more and that always seemed harder to solve by myself without rewriting (or, as was more often the problem, writing) the rules on my own. I'd rather spend my time making terrain pieces and dungeon tiles.

[@blaydsong]

I'm a PF2 GM primarily, but I can understand the struggle with the learning curve. If I could make a suggestion to maybe stretch your knowledge on homebrewing creatures for PF2 (at least to a degree): KZbinr 'Ready To Die' makes custom creatures every Monday on his channel (sometimes just based on other IP, but all are pretty cool). Maybe what he does might spark something for you. 🙂

[@doomhippie6673]

You speak of what I have felt and been afraid of all this time. I've been very critical of PF 2 but of course who am I to tell people what to like? However I've always felt like committing a sin by describing my problems with that system. I've been receiving the vibes of being an uninitiated idiot for not seeing the revelation PF2 was. Maybe I am. I have enjoyed PF 1 for many years but DnD 5e resonated a lot more with me. Less rules less subsystems, less of all the things I find so tedious to learn. Is it a perfect system? Far from it. very far. But it does what I want it to do and allows me to wing certain situations. I know I am overstating things if I say: in PF2 you can't even go to the bathroom without having the "sitting on the loo" trait. And in order to get that you need the "drop you pants" trait which requires either a minimum dex of 5 or minimum wisdom of 4. I'm not trying to offend PF2 players, sorry if I did, but that is basically my first thoughts everytime I sat down (on a chair that is) to create a character.

[@volairn70]

We are moving on from PF2 and going to Shadowdark. I will *never* go back to 5e. The thing I hated about PF2 was that there was a rule for literally EVERYTHING. It got exhausting. Just using a shield has so many rules associated with it, when it is just a quick roll or judgement call in Shadowdark. Our story was very much like yours, but I am absolutely done with 5e too.

[@IcarusGames]

Absolutely fair! Shadowdark has been on my list for ages. It's a no-go for my regular group (one of the players is WAY too afraid of character death for any game with a funnel/gauntlet lol) but I am going to make a video taking a look at it over the summer hopefully!

[@dylanhyatt5705]

@@IcarusGames Shadowdark is fun.

[@IcarusGames]

@@dylanhyatt5705 I've been really looking forward to playing it since it was on KS. With the brain space freed up by not running PF2 anymore I plan on getting a lot more games of other systems in soon (just since making the switch back to 5e I've read 6 new systems)

[@tommiskey]

@@IcarusGames I play Shadowdark without the funnel. Just start at 1st level (or even higher levels if you want) and you can say all characters start with max HP on the 1st level HP die.

[@davidk8699]

Pathfinder2 is very crunchy. I certainly agree with that! It can be hard to get into. Shadowdark is a great option.

[@lotrotk375]

As someone who still GMs pf2 after d&d5e, I absolutely appreciate your honesty on why the system doesn't vibe with your group! Wish you all happy adventuring going forward!

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks 😊

[@michaelturner2806]

Pf2 GM here, with players that also prefer it. And, everything you say is valid. The reasons why we switched from other systems are different from what you're looking for. It really really doesn't help that a lot of the "Pathfinder for New Players" content out there touts it as an objectively better system in every way, that leads to experiences similar to yours, where people just don't feel it and somehow think the problem is them. Not saying it's a primary factor, but a contributing one. Oddly enough, I'm not sure if I would ever want to actually play in a pf2 game. As a GM I feel I have the easy part, with a prewritten module, where so far most of the monster stat blocks have been easy to read at a glance. The complexity seems to all be in the PCs, and I can just ask them to read out their ability's exact text, with keywords, and arbitrate from there. If I was a player with one of those four page character sheets I might feel overwhelmed.

[@IcarusGames]

I think the community attitude is definitely a minor contributor. So interesting to hear that perspective about not wanting to be a player though, that's not one I've come across before!

[@FrankDrebbin-de3te]

You video sounds exactly like my DM and our group's experience with PF. Our DM wanted to change to 5e and we agreed. A few of the similarities: our DM liked to create his own monsters and tweak monsters, easier character leveling, fewer "bad" options, easier to customize and create magic items, 5e magic items are not merely an aggregate of numbers, DM didn't like how encounters worked et al. We switched at a higher level and converted our characters rather than a soft reboot you described. We played deep into 20th level and it was fun, challenging, and memorable. The DM made use of low level monsters and it worked thanks to Bounded Accuracy. We're all glad we switched to 5e. And now that we're wrapping up, we're looking at 5.5e.

[@malachaibowlinggod]

What a phenomenal, well constructed video. You articulate the why the system didn't work for your group without falling into the X is good, Y is bad and maybe have given other people that perspective that PF2e is just not for them. Bravo.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks, I appreciate it 🥰

[@daved.8483]

I've run : 5E, PF2 and A5E (Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition). A5E, is by far the best of the three. More depth and options then 5e, just not as granular as PF2. Give it a try.

[@bobturpin7611]

i noticed the 'ad' mark in the top right. I remember that occurring on TV just before the add breaks..... brilliant

[@IcarusGames]

I've been adding it to ad breaks for a little while for that touch of 90s British TV nostalgia 🤣

[@ZachHall]

Love this! Agree that its super important to talk about why PF2e might not be for *you* and your table, especially since (especially on KZbin) its pushed as this perfect 5e alternative. I ran PF2e for brand new players who wanted to play "D&D" (used generically) and I thought that it would be perfect - without any of the baggage of undoing any 5e learnings, we can just play a "better" version. It turned out to not be that for us. My group was way more interested in goofing off than they were actually interacting with a game system with a steep learning curve. Not that 5e was better, but PF2e just certainly wasn't for that group of players. I'm glad PF2e is successful enough for SF2e (which I'll definitely try), but the community needs to cool it as a good "catch all" medieval fantasy game - its incredible for some folks and not a good fit for others; just like every game system.

[@KrugusRuneblade]

The Set-Up: My group has been playing in our campaign world for decades. For us, the setting takes precedence over the game system, so anytime I change the rules we are using, I have to modify them to fit the setting. In other words, the game rules are the operating system, and the setting is the computer. Years ago, when our PF1 campaign was about to wrap up, I was about to switch over to a different system (AD&D 1st ed) but saw that PF2 was about to come out. After checking out the downloadable playtest material, I sold my group on switching over to it (it also helps when you buy everyone a player's handbook). After modifying it to fit the setting, it played quite well. Despite what the PF2 fanboys say about homebrew, PF2 can be homebrewed easily, hell in the PF2 GM book they list several ways to change PF2. After a few years, my players wanted something different. After 40 years of running TTRPGs, I decided to homebrew a system that is a mix of B/X, 1st ed AD&D, and a few other systems. We've been running that for over a year now. It’s a game that truly fits my setting.

[@polyhedron3386]

My go to for big fantasy stories is 13th Age or Dungeon World. 13th Age really strikes the balance I’m looking for between rules and narrative.

[@Zr0din]

1. I think Paizo supports their game better than WotC 2. I love the Pawns - even the ones I can no longer buy but had to print myself. The GM Screens are better organized than WotC Screens - but not as good as my Midgard Screen with the map on the outside (excellent feature) or the ToV Screen. The MAPS are MUCH better. The Beginner Box is Excellent compared to the the Stormwreck Isle box and better than the Phandelver box! 3. I will be looking for those Kingmaker and Abomination Vaults in the 5e versions. I have not read a Adventure Path all the way through yet but I suspect there are less bad complaints on them than there are on the Eve of Ruin, Dragonlance, Spelljammer, or Dragon Queen/Tiamat.

[@ar3klis]

These thing are quite subjective. Coming from pathfinder 1, after trying 5e last year, I, too, find 5e to be a hard to steer engine that is impossible (for me) to steer and homebrew in a way that make sense to what mekes sense from a 3.5e perspective, is underwhelmingly unsupported, both in 3pp and e-tools, and feels like it has too stiff and restrictive options both for players and DMs. I am still open to playing it as a player, it is afterall what almost everyone in this hobby plays, but My first choice to GM for my style of games will always be pathfinder 1/D&D3.5. Also, to mention, I am currently experimenting with GM-ing pathffinder 2, and trying to rile others to try some not-so-widespread systems such as Sword World 2.5.

[@IcarusGames]

It took me quite a while to adjust to 5e after 3.5/PF1. I cut my teeth on 3/3.5 and ran a full 1-20 PF1 campaign before ever playing 5e so it took a while to get used to the differences for sure!

[@deathmetalbard]

If you're looking for something different, 13th Age would prolly be up your alley.

[@CakeDayZ]

I'm never going back to 5e, but I have become a lot more experimental and give a lot more games a shot. I'm currently still gming my pf2 Abomination Vaults and a homebrew daggerheart heist campaign. I'm preparing to run some dc20 and Delta Green in the future. I'm subscribed to the MCDM patreon and will eventually try that out.

[@juho1069]

It's a shame you didn't feel comfortable creating your own stuff for pf2. Actually, it's pretty safe to experiment with homebrew, because the system is not only well balanced but also extremely robust. The secret to the balance is that practically everything scales exponentially with levels. That means that if you accidentally create a monster that's 50% too powerful, but you are still only using moderate encounters, you are very unlikely to cause a TPK. Similarly, if you end up creating a weapon that's way powerful for it's level, that's not going to be an issue for long, because higher level weapons will overtake it soon enough. If your player gets to have fun with a powerful item for a few levels, I don't think that's a big problem. As long as you don't change the core rules, you can actually very safely experiment with homebrew monsters, traps, and items. I have been doing it basically from day one of GMing PF2 and never have I caused an accidental TPK or any other significant problems in over 150 game sessions, and I roll my dice out in the open. If you ever decide to give another go to PF2, definitely try homebrewing stuff.

[@blockyuniverseproductions6587]

The issue at hand is that it seems the Pathfinder community is quite the bit more hostile towards homebrew compared to DnD's. Not to mention a system like pathfinder being far more "balanced" means that people are going to be afraid to topple that balance.

[@IcarusGames]

There is a fair bit less third party stuff for Pathfinder, even accounting for their size compared to WotC. I think a lot of it comes down to Paizo being so on the ball with releasing loads of stuff each year so for most tables there's just no need for third party or homebrew stuff.

[@juho1069]

@@IcarusGames There is also much less incentive to publish your homebrew, because it takes effort and there is usually some costs involved as well. Hostility to 3rd party content aside, the playerbase is just so much smaller that even the most popular 3rd party gets used/bought by way fewer people than in the 5e space.

[@flaviolepri5539]

@@blockyuniverseproductions6587 Naah, not really. I've been homebrewing 20+ different troops for an entire chapter in my campaign so quickly I used the extra time to make an entire diplomacy subplot to avoid/subvert major battles, PCs acting as generals in this. As long as you stick to the table, you can homebrew you're heart's desires. The secret is not every step of the way has to be done by the rules, but rather use the rules in the measure they help you describe your story. This last bit it's baked in the introduction of every basic book in PF2. You can make it about the rules as much as you like. Basic rules are same as D&D5, hands down, I can teach both in the same amount of time. That said, PF2 doesn't give you that "Gotcha" moment that makes 5e fun to play but in the same way 5e doesn't give you that "we could've all died in there" that makes PF2 fun. I don't see them as different in rules weight but rather player agency vs rules. I found that in D&D5 the rules and effects drive player agency while the GM acts to harness the resulting chaos while in PF2 the rules and effects limit the scope of action of the PCs allowing the players and GM the agency to move away from them to tell a better story (which takes less effort and makes the GM a happy player as well).

[@RexCogitans]

Thank you for the video. You mentioned your players had issues with casters and martials. I'd like to know what issues those were to help understand the situation even more completely.

[@Cyolx]

I"m in a very awkward position where we just ended a five-year long campaign in 5e with plenty of homebrew, and one of the players has been pushing hard for us to switch to P2E because she likes the customization as a player. And that's it. We asked her to run the beginner module to try and sell us on the system, but she's not a great GM and isn't really teaching us the rules as we go along (or bothering to research a rule when we do something classic RPG-esque like light a spider web on fire). I think I'd enjoy P2E in a different group, but this video is really contributing to my confirmation bias for not switching with my current group. 😅

[@n4tune8]

If you love the Thaumaturge so much, is there a way to bring it to 5E?

[@IcarusGames]

It's definitely something that I'm thinking about, but those plans are on hold until after the 2024 update drops.

[@tomyoung9834]

I loved PF 1, as did my group, and I was sure that PF 2 would also be a hit! We did some playtesting, it seemed ok, and I tried it out as a player in a full adventure, and all of us began getting irritated by just how crunchy the rules were, and how many choices the designers made absolutely baffled us! We played a full campaign up to level 10, and though we learned the system better, all of us just felt frustrated by the whole thing! We had a discussion, and tried 5e for the first time. We all liked it, we appreciated the straightforward rules approach, and we haven’t looked back. If people enjoy PF 2, good on them, but it’s not for my group at all.

[@rileymcleran2895]

I am an avid pf2 player. Pf2 fixed 100% of the problems I had with 5e. I think this is a really well reasoned take on why someone would leave pf2. Your system has to match your group and the system has to match the story/setting you want to play. Pf2 isn’t for everyone or everyone’s stories. I think the pf2 community can really struggle to understand that sometimes.

[@GMRaphi]

I had the same thing, but with Shadowrun. From SR4 to Shdaowrun 6, we tried so hard to make it work, but now, on Shadowrun 5, it's just a better fit. And we have a lot of house rules!

[@polbecerra7918]

For what I understand of what you are saying is that you were scared of doing things wrong, from rules to encounters to hombrewing. Even with my group we've been playing since the first playtest, we still struggle with some rules interactions, but what we do is to find a fast way to patch it at the moment and we check it later when we got time. As you said the system is very, very, very balanced, so a little improvisatsion won't break anything, and if it does, who cares?, just try to improvise favouring the PC so you don't tkp them. About the hombrewing, I run an adventure from 11 to 20th level, giving a custom item to each character that was just OP but, even with that, the balance of the game was still there. As an example, I gave an item to the barbarian that made him quickened (1 extra action per turn). However, as the only way to have an extra action is this condition, even if a haste was casted on him that doesn't stack, thats why I think that PF2e is balanced, because its very difficult to break it as it is made, but that comes with the price of having a lot of rules. However, I hope you enjoyed at least a part of the system and you keep having fun with your friends whatever you are playing

[@davidwilliams4837]

PF2e is more balanced & scalable. Far easier to homebrew once understood. Strange to me how one would leave PF2e for 5e, which is far more random overall.

[@bretgregersen9826]

Thank you for this video, I love reasonable, well considered discussion. I switched from dnd 5e to pf2e over a year ago. I love it myself and I am someone who homebrewed a lot of things in 5e. I made at least 2 new subclasses for each class. I made monsters, spells, items and all pretty easily. My issue with 5e is that I basically NEEDED to do that because the base game with it's offerings was so lackluster, so bare bones. Moving into pf2e I still homebrew (I also always build and run my own worlds/campaigns in both systems) because I think its fine to mess with things. The difference is I don't need to homebrew as many things for my tables to have fun. There are a lot of rules and I completely agree you need to love that to enjoy pf2e. I personally have no problem running something incorrectly the session it comes up, going off of my best guess to save time, and then letting the part know next session how it really works. That would be my biggest recommendation for those GMs running pf2e, you don't need to be right the first time! Anyway, thank you, this is the kind of reasonable discussion that actually helps people. Also, I absolutely love the thaumaturge!!

[@The-0ni]

I gave PF2E a try because I had a coworker swear by it and I got tired of seeing the same Polearm Master+Sentinel combos for the umpteenth time in 5E. I learned the game and started creating characters that were a breath of fresh air for my coworker and his group. A Fighter that actually used a Sword and Shield, a Cleric that actually wore heavy armor and used a tower shield instead of being a holy wizard of sorts. Things ended when my coworker just got sick of DMing for PF2E. He hated the adventure paths from Paizo and the small player group he had developed from the OGL debacle either went back to 5E or constantly argued with him on black and white rulings written in the PF2E books (i.e. skeletons taking half damage from a Moonbeam spell because they resist fire) Someone else stepped up to try DM for me and my coworker and they just straight up couldn’t DM if their life depended on it. They had no idea how to combat characters like my Fighter that would trip from range with a pole arm from the remastered core book and then get opportunity attacks from enemies trying to stand back up. They would ignore the rangers background as a miner, specialty in cavern lore, and dwarf lores because “it would ruin the surprises and ambushes he had for his adventure in a dwarven mine”. Eventually me and my coworker decided Pathfinder 2E had too many issues and not enough interest with most people returning back to 5E. We picked up Shadowdark in the end and have never looked back. Shadowdarks stats and level up abilities/bonuses are randomized. It was exciting because we didn’t have predetermined feats or abilities. We stopped worrying about spell slots and nobody has darkvision except the true monsters (owlbears, Gricks, not humannoids like goblins and orcs).

[@lawrl777]

yeah a lot of Paizo's adventures are from when the system was new and they barely even follow the game's own encounter design guidelines, but it sounds like y'all really liked the system but just had GMs who'd rather be playing? Changing system doesn't actually solve either problem

[@The-0ni]

@@lawrl777 I didn’t necessarily dislike the system and my coworker still gets the books/Paizo subscription because sunk cost fallacy. A lot of the issues mentioned in this video though were things that definitely came up for our group when we played. There were indeed moments where you would seemingly have 30 or so feats to choose from, but only 4 or so that felt like they actually would do something (5E has this problem too if you play with feats). It was refreshing when I showed up trying to use shields because most people had written off shields and said they sucked. After using shields on a few characters, I completely understand why people think that. Using shields means either committing to feats and intelligence to fix them up in a jiffy or getting into the habit of literally tossing them aside every other fight or so to get a new shield. The action economy for PF2E didn’t bother me because I understand 5E characters with an Action, Move, Bonus and reaction every round are really strong/busted most of the time. So I made it a point to make characters that would use up all 3 actions. Most of the time my 3rd action was to raise shield or position myself in a doorway or a funnel. This will probably make people mad but, I truly do not understand how PF2E got the reputation of having super balanced encounters. Some adventure paths from Paizo as you mentioned are written sometimes before the actual rules were created for PF2E (Just like 5E’s Hoard of the Dragon Queen). The DM that took over ran his own homebrew adventure in a dwarven mine and followed the encounter design process; only to nearly TPK us all the time despite the encounter math being correct. A Violet Fungus is a perfect example of PF2E cranking monster difficulty to 11. In 5E and Shadowdark it’s a low level fungus that moves roughly 5 ft a round (1 grid square), has 5 AC and can slap you a few times. PF2E’s Violet Fungus is a low level monster (CR3) that moves at double the speed of its counterparts, has reach, 17 AC, and drains your STR and CON via enfeebled and drained. With PF2E’s action economy, this low level monster can actually move 20 ft (4 grid squares usually) and slap you from 10 ft away down to 0 CON aka instant death. I will freely admit while I may be an optimizer, my coworker definitely is not. He wanted to play characters like Indiana Jones. The people who were still playing PF2E when I joined, still didn’t really understand the system well after months of playing. It really showed with the new DM but also in the players. So having players not be super optimized or knowledgable could have affected the encounter balance. After months of playing a weekly game, to have people still not fully grasp the system, shows just how complicated PF2E can really be at times. TLDR: All the factors I mentioned previously has led me to the same conclusion as this video. I would give PF2E another chance, but it is definitely not my game of choice. I went with Shadowdark because it’s one of the first RPGs I’ve played where I can’t purposefully optimize the fun out of the game. When I level up I literally roll dice to see if I get a stronger sneak attack on my rogue or advantage on my initiative. I am actively hunting for magic items to just do all the broken stuff my 5E and PF2E characters get just for leveling up.

[@arttabletalk32]

@@The-0ni You're 100% correct about the PF2 encounter system. Creatures Ratings are based on how difficult they are for a highly optimized party playing to maximize their actions, equipment and feats/spells. I can handle that pretty well as a player but as GM (which I am in the current game we're running) I've found myself nerfing some encounters because I know the players don't fight optimally. If you have a bunch of people who won't minmax their build and grind out all three actions on a turn while squeezing every copper's worth of value from their items monsters can get quite deadly. Also, I had one player waltz into a bar full of hostiles and pick a fight but I suppose that has more to do with player sanity than game balance.

[@somerandommorron7069]

​@The-0ni where in its stats does violet fungi reduce con I cant find it

[@The-0ni]

@@somerandommorron7069 Sorry previous stay block I mentioned was PF1E. PF2E you get a DC20 Fort or become enfeebled and then enfeebled and drained. The drained condition does lower your max HP and your Fort checks.

[@jeramiecooper1913]

I moved from D&D 5e to PF2e when it came out. We used that system for about 4 years and played two adventures Malevolent and book 1 of Iron Gods meeting for about 8 hours a month. I enjoyed that system more than D&D 5e, but it didn't work well for my players. We moved back to D&D 5e about 2 years ago. I anticipate we'll be using D&D '24 by the end of this year. I still use portions of PF2e as home brew. As an example I use the 4 levels of success and I convert magic items for use in 5e. In my every other week game we're using Level Up Advanced 5th edition. That game has been going for about 1 month (3 games) and I'm okay with it for low level characters. The players are still getting use to the number of options available, and different rules related to combat maneuvers. When looking at a higher level character, I feel like there are too many options for the player, and they will forget about half of their character options. I'm anticipating stopping this game at level 5 or 6, then switching to Tales of the Valiant or a D&D '24 + ToV hybrid.

[@MarkAnthonyHenderson]

I currently play Pathfinder 2E remaster Society play, and I believe that you have captured my rule burnout. I play with a bunch of rules lawyers. The games become just droll rules-based encounters and fights. I did enjoy the one Pathfinder campaign I played, but I am exhausted with the system.

[@SirMoribund]

My group is nearly opposite of yours, which is cool. They don't want weird potentially unbalanced things. They do not want to figure out an optimized build. They want the consistency that Pathfinder 2e provides. I just think it is cool that there are so many games systems and we players get to pick the bits and pieces of them that we want. Happy gaming!

[@dakgnol9004]

I'm personally transitioning from 5e to PF2e myself. I see the balance as less of a "everyone is doing equal work in an encounter" thing and moreso not worrying about my players putting together some stupidly overpowered build (or play the mess that is artificer). I like how player power is much better wrangled. I still questioning the power scaling being dependent on magic items and how certain magic items are expected at specific levels, but when I can finally run a game proper, I'll be able to feel it out and determine if I want to run the variant rule where that scaling is baked into character progression. It'll also open up more "treasure slots" in dungeons and stuff for fun items that aren't just stat boosters. It's all speculation really; I've only played PF2e (I love my kholo witch!) and the two groups I'm DMing for are still working through their respective 5e adventures, but I'm super excited to run it!

[@thebigfriendlygoliath]

11:06 “Making Bonkers Esoteric Crap On The Fly Is Where I Do Some Of My Best Work As A GM” 👏AGAIN 👏FOR 👏THE 👏PEOPLE 👏IN 👏THE👏BACK

[@Arcon1ous]

The best thing about trying new systems, even if they don't fit your group, or you don't like them is taking the bits you like and using them to improve your other games, I hope that your games in the future are good, and you found a thing or two to take with you

[@janfeinberg3825]

I've been running shadowdark and it really has the old d&d feel that I love. Running 5e for the young grandkids because its so heroic.

[@CrankyOldNerd]

Switched to PF2 when WOTC and Hasbro saw me as nothing more than a cash pinata that deserves to be beaten for all the money they might have and more. Not seeing what you're seeing in our group, we play in a world I make up as we go, no one has any complaints . They loved being able to craft unique characters with all those ancestry and stuff to pick from. I also don't roll my own monsters though, my day job isn't your day job :) 5e is too tainted for me to ever be willing to playing again. I was intrigued by that DC20 but without an online play module even planned not going to invest. Until Hasbro/WOTC sells DND (or goes bankrupt) and the people in charge aren't in charge anymore, I'm not looking at it again. I will admit to being frustrated some with how it seems everyone just shrugs the business practices of the company that owns 5E off and keeps trudging along.

[@IcarusGames]

RE: WotC stuff specifically. During the OGL the big push was to get them to walk back the changes to the license. They did that and put the rules in Creative Commons, which is EVEN BETTER for third party publishers than what we had before. They've promised and reaffirmed their commitment to do the same for SRD 5.2 as well as older editions of the game. So from the 3pp perspective, they've done what they said they would do and they CAN'T walk back the CC license. Yeah, there's plenty of other corporate crap they've done in the last few years, and I don't begrudge anyone from being done with them and making that individual choice, but I will say that the whole community came together to defend third party publishers during the whole OGL fiasco, but since then it's not just WotC that people have turned on, heaps of the third party companies now get regular abuse from the same people that supposedly banded together to protect them, which absolutely sucks.

[@JinglesRasco]

Good news on the DC20 front. In the latest Kickstarter Q&A, the Dungeon Coach said that he is in talks with DrivethruRPG and Roll20/Demiplane for online support. He couldn't say much, but that was one of the things holding me back too, so hearing that there are plans ahead, at least, got me very intrigued.

[@snuffy357]

@@JinglesRasco also Coach has said many times that VTT support will happen.

[@CrankyOldNerd]

@@JinglesRasco even better news today with Baileywiki announcing they are working with them to bring it forward. Still a little ? In the text of the kickstarter about it, but seems that things are looking up there.

[@CrankyOldNerd]

@@IcarusGames (to be clear, I am not mad at what you are doing just to be clear, i really like your work) for me, this is the typical corporate walk back. I’m fully prepared for them to shove it back out in pieces and hope no one notices. It happens all the time when the populace uprises about something, but within a few years they just cook a frog in a pot by slowly raising the heat.

[@JulianaLove90]

Great video! This is exactly how I feel about Pathfinder as well. I didn't enjoy the 3 action economy or the useless options and it felt more gamey (is that a word? lol) than 5e. I was so happy to switch back to 5e after a year of Pathfinder 2e.

[@RdotDoyle]

An insightful and well-considered video that mirrors the experience at my table as well. I’m sure the comments will be equally reasonable and as drama free as the album behind you, nice choice

[@phoebuslore]

I think Pathfinder 2e is really good at providing a curated experience with crunchy rules and nuanced teamwork-oriented combat. It's like a beautiful cathedral. However, if you're used to the stack of LEGO bricks that is 5e, it can feel very restrictive. I prefer the LEGO bricks where I can make my own thing without worry.

[@JinglesRasco]

This really feels like a well thought out video, and your FEELINGS about a game is really the most important, I feel. I have been trying to find a game to support over WOTC and Hasbro, as the company has really burned the bridge with me personally, and, while I really love Paizo as a company, PF2 does have design issues with me, and it's hard to recommend to my newer players. My preferred system for many years has been 1e Pathfinder, but with every new update I hear about DC20, it is very quickly sounding like it's answering every issue I have with both 5e and PF2. The Dungeon Coach has also recently announced in a Q&A Livestream that there are plans for online support in the works, so, at least for me, it just might become my preferred system in the near future; because the cinematic combat, less restrictive out-of-combat rules, and lower numbers' creep. Hope you and your group finds the system you guys love the most, even if it does end up being 5e. In the end, YOUR fun is the most important.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks! I wanted to present as neutral and balanced a look into the situation as I could. I'm not interested in bashing any systems. DC20 does feel like its the love child of 5e and PF2, so it could be an ideal option for you. I talked about it on the channel recently and there's a lot in the early rules I like. Not everything, and when I pitched it to my regular group they weren't interested, but it's one to keep an eye on. Like I said in the video, for me and this group, there's a lot of benefits to playing the most supported system in 5e. It's also easy enough for me to run that it frees up my brain space to read and consider running all kinds of other systems I'm interested in as one shots, which I couldn't do when I was running PF2 because there was just no room in my brain for any other rules 🤣

[@GlenFinney]

I don’t think it has enough support for you yet but I would suggest looking at DC20 for things you can use in a hybrid 5e/DC20 homebrew, particularly the DC20 four action economy and stackable advantage/disadvantage.

[@IcarusGames]

I made a video on it pretty recently. There's a bunch in there I liked, some stuff I didn't, but for sure it doesn't have enough support there for me to make the switch. I wouldn't even consider it until the core 3 books are out.

[@KorbinDallas]

That's why we play Castle and Crusaders or World without Numbers ether works very well for us. Hope you and your group find what works best for you.

[@Decado1628]

I switched from 5e to Castles & Crusades almost two years ago and could not be happier.

[@Nolinquisitor]

I will never fault anyone on their games of choice. Good on you! Thanks for the insightful explainations on your experience with PF2. Our table is different, we are Pathfinder veterans, and we just finished Crown of the Kobold King for PF2. Without even making an effort we PLOWED through this module. Not even funny. Yep, the math is tight, but veteran players makes PF2 just very easy. I'm betting we will return to PF1 at some point.

[@waifusmith4043]

As big of a Pathfinder fanboy as I am, I understand if some people don't really vibe with PF2. The curve is higher than 5e I will admit, and I often say "there's a tabletop out there for everyone", but pf2e may not be the that for someone, which is fine. I switched to Pf2e because I wasn't enjoying 5e years ago (before the OGL fiasco). It often felt like anything resembling balance was disregarded due to the presence of certain subclasses or feats, and I was tired of having to mod the system. My experience (playing abomination vaults for about a year now) is that while we have ran with some house rules, this is a system that works out of the box and doesn't really require any tinkering. The tactical side of gameplay is a lot more supported because it feels like the features are often supporting actually functioning as a team. When something comes up we have a question on, there's generally rules on nethys and we haven't had these instances derail the session too much as of writing this post. I will say, archives of nethys' organization can be kinda...bad at times that can make it difficult but usually hasn't taken more than a minute or two. The biggest sell for me for Pf2e was the ability for player expression. The chassis for creating characters in 5e got too stale for me, and sometimes I just sit on pathbuilder figuring out how I can better realize some of my characters compared to 5th edition. Your points are valid though, you tried Pathfinder 2e and you found out it wasn't a good fit for you. I think with DnD 2024 that those with 5e will find most of the changes across the board address some of the major pain points I think 5th edition had from the class standpoint (some changes I don't agree with but overall I think the net result is a benefit). One of my biggest issues with base 5e is that it felt like bonus actions were being underutilized, and it seems like they're folding more of what used to be actions into a bonus action so you don't feel like you waste your turn doing something like drinking a potion or using lay on hands. Pathfinder's 3 action system (which I actually use in a friday 5e game I run) has generally made it less stressful for me to take a turn because each action is weighed equally, rather than having your main action have a lot of options and your bonus action having like 1...maybe 2 options. From what I've seen not many people will actually go through the trouble of trying a new system so I applaud you for doing so. Even if Pathfinder as a system wasn't something you found to be a fit for you, I hope there are some elements in the system that you did like that you want to bring back to your 5e game. I think as DMs and players in general, we should explore other systems so we can use what we learn in them to enrich our home system. 5e has frustrated me too much to want it as my home system, but using systems inspired by other systems has made it much more bearable and even enjoyable to run for others Apologies for such a long post, thanks for taking the time to read it. -A big weeb.

[@SleepySlann]

As you hinted at, it is all down to how used you are to the system or switching between systems. Pathfinders GM guide, monster manual, and GM screen all come with some excellent tools that make homebrewing easy. From there, it is all about habit.

[@matthewparker9276]

I do enjoy playing pf2, but the system does have one major sticking point that stops me frim making it the main system I play, and thats the game balance. Pf2 is balanced in all the wrong places.

[@willn9568]

I really appreciate this video, Anton, and I really appreciated your thoughtful discussion of why you wanted to switch to PF2 before. Keep being thoughtful and I’ll keep watching and learning.

[@IcarusGames]

Thanks, I appreciate it 😊

[@BobMcDowell]

The reasons you left 5e are all still there. Fortunately for you, there are more than TTRPGs to try.

[@stormtrooper421]

Interesting video. You mentioned it several times, can you or anyone clarify on why casters are weak in PF2e? In our game, I am one of the two martials in our 6 player party- the other is a rogue- so i am often left with little to do in many scenarios while our casters seem to have a spell for everything, and do much more damage than I do, while having similar survivability.

[@TheLyricalCleric]

There’s a reason why they used to call it Mathfinder! I played PF1e to start with and we almost always spent half the session rules lawyering and arguing about edge case moments in throwing items, using bombs, counting 5-10-5-10 when using squares (because you can go farther in a turn if you don’t respect geometry). Switching to 5e felt like a breeze, but it also made my players absolute gremlins at the table. We were so used to trying to break the hard and fast rules at the table that 5e gave everybody enough wiggle room in the rules to really be annoying. I haven’t played PF2 yet, but I also am considering moving even further up the rules-light path towards Cypher system, and I don’t play with my fellow gremlin players anymore. That was definitely part of the problem.

[@TheLyricalCleric]

Sorry, I forgot to mention the 5-10-5-10 rule was for going DIAGONALLY on squares, if you’re following a^2 + b^2 = c^2, which of course we did. EVERY TURN. Boy, it was a weird hobby when I started in it.

[@mirtos39]

@@TheLyricalCleric MAthfinder was PF1, which was basically just 3.5 (often called 3.75, and 3.5 had the same issues. more actually). PF2 is really not mathfinder at all.

[@davidbowles7281]

​@@mirtos39It is absolutely math finder in a different form.

[@bl00dywelld0ne]

Hey, you like what you like. I switched over to PF2e during the OGL crisis, and as a GM running 3 campaigns with the system (one AP, one sandbox, and one homebrew campaign) I can say that there's plenty of room for homebrew in the system. The wall you're talking about is the learning curve, and PF2e has a fairly steep one. But, though the math is "tight", the game is still swingy by virtue of being a d20 system at it's core, and offers a lot of wiggle room for fiddling and adjustment without anything breaking. I personally love it, and haven't looked be since. That being said, there's nothing wrong with going back to the system that you and your table enjoy and are comfortable with. Best of luck with 5e; may the dice be ever in your favor.

[@revillogmgames8250]

I run and occasionally play a bunch of systems but PF2e has become my main 'big fantasy adventure' system I guess you could call it. I've ran it mostly on Foundry and after a couple of months of playing had most of the interactions figured out, players did too and a lot of them are new to ttrpgs entirely, definitely get that there are lots of rules but we've barely ever had to stop and look things up mid-combat, but hey, every group is different! I've played in person a bit too and it went much smoother than I expected honestly, so looking forward to doing more of that in future. I haven't done much homebrewing with the system yet aside a couple of monsters so feel you there, but from what little I have looked up on it doesn't seem too difficult so not quite sure why I haven't done it honestly. I still play in 5E games occasionally and still have a couple I need to finish running but beyond that nope, never going back, beyond just the WOTC reasons the combat feels so slow and dull now in comparison to PF and character advancement feels so much less interesting than what you can do with the Feats in PF (though I totally get how the feats are a problem for some people with there being so many and lots of them being very niche). Martial characters especially feel like they get the short end of the stick a lot of the time and even systems like DCC do a better job with what they allow the fighter class to do. DCC is great for dungeon crawls though and just generally having a fun time (have Shadowdark on the shelf but am yet to play it) and then OSE if you really want to go to essentially better written and presented Old School stuff and Black Hack is kind of in between those two. And there's plenty of other fantasy stuff out there too that other people have mentioned as well but you don't even need to stop there if you don't want to! Call of Cthulhu is amazing if you want some spooks or even just mystery and there are plenty of eras you are able to run that in. The Ubiquity system is also a favourite of mine that's very simplistic compared to some others and great for narrative/film-like roleplaying. Again, those aren't heroic fantasy so if your group is set on that they aren't going to cut it haha, but figured worth a mention as I find lots of people often forget TTRPGs don't have to be some flavour of fantasy all the time if that makes sense. But yeah, ultimately if heroic fantasy is what your players want and 5e is the system they're happy with that's fair, sadly it's going to be hard to find a system with as much support (PF would have been one of the closest I imagine). Glad you're not completely done with the system though! Great video!

[@TheUglyGoblin]

I really appreciate the hoensty of this! PF2 has been recommended a lot to me and so I checked it out. But everything you said here is kind of exactly the impression I got of the game :P It feels quite nice to have this confirmed by someone else 😅

[@IcarusGames]

That's a big part of the reason I made the video, I figured there must be other people feeling this way, but it's been left entirely out of the conversation because most other "leaving PF" videos have been filled with sweeping declarations of how terrible the game is, which isn't helpful to the discussion at all.

[@TheUglyGoblin]

@@IcarusGames Mmm that's so true! Obviously there has been a lot of work put into the game. But for me there is almost too much haha I love the freedom 5e has though it's simplicity. I love a good modular game :3

[@IcarusGames]

@@TheUglyGoblin Yeah. 5e is far from perfect, no game is, but it's the best fit for the heroic fantasy style I'm currently running.

[@shortreststudios]

Anto, great video. Thanks for sharing your experience. I’ve never run PF2 but I do play. I’m enjoying playing, but I could already tell (because I’m one of those loosy goosy DMs) that it probably wouldn’t be for me. It is great for some. And that’s cool.

[@davewilson13]

I’m pretty surprised to hear the news, but thanks for not trashing the system. You were one of the people who convinced me to try it.

[@dwainedwards615]

Honestly, ove learned if im insanely focused on rules the game just gets less fun, for me having the rules and better balance in pf2e has allowed me to relax and focus on things i enjpy more like world building. Sometimes though the rukes can drag a bit, and honestly idk if me and my group wpuld still be playing pf2e of it wasnt fpr things like pf2 easy or foundry, makes a lot of this stuff a lot simpler. I also dont have an insane ampunt of time, which tends to be my issue with just homebrew and some aspects pf this hobby in general, a lot pf it can be very time consuming. All of this to say i completely understand where you are coming from, but i want to congratulate you and your players for giving it a chance! If its not for your group its okay! There are also plenty of other amazing systems out there to try, not to mention 5e which you also seem to enjoy sp no point focusing on something not fitting yalls vibe when something else was. :D

[@IcarusGames]

Exactly! I've got a list as long as my arm of games I'm interested in trying out, but for our regular weekly game moving back to 5e made the most sense, and we'll try out other games as and when we get the chance.

[@user-vm8eg4te4u]

Ive run D&D 1,2,3,3.5 and 5th, but I also have run a lot of other systems before coming back to D&D after leaving 3.5. I honestly only ran 5th because my players asked for it. Both 3.5 and Pathfinder feel like they were built well before its time; both excel with a VTT so well - So much so because of the fact that the VTT generally remembers rules in general and accountability for a lot of stats that gives you more room to keep an eye on real creative situations. Honestly if I had a choice, Id rather run Ars Majika (its just a superior system regarding magic) or the Witcher - but my players want D&D, so I serve them D&D. Out of curiosity, whats stopping you from trying to migrate that Thaumaturge (SP sorry) to 5th?

[@talscorner3696]

Yeah. My biggest gripe with PF2 is that, being a "grock it" style GM, I had to spend too much effort to beat the game in a shape that complied to how my brain works that it just wasn't worth it. In fact, I ended up making my own engine xD

[@liamcage7208]

I homebrew the crap out of P2e individually for each campaign I have run since P2e came out. It is so modular that you can literally unplug entire subsystems and plug in your own. One of the expansion books has an entire plug in Magic System that you could plug in to replace the default rules if you wanted. I've been playing D&D and a few clones since 1980. I've played every version of D&D except 4th edition. Half my players date back to the 1980's and they love P2e. Play what you like, its a game so play what gives you enjoyment. The cardinal rule though is no game pauses while you look up rules. Improvise. If it is that important then call for a bathroom break. In the last 2 years we've only stopped to consult the rules twice.

[@SofaKingDead]

I think this is fine video. I play both D&D and Pathfinder as a legacy ttrpg player the thought of being exclusive to any system is nonsense, even different editions of the same game feel worlds apart. AD&D doesn't feel like 3.5, which is different from 4th, which seems alien to 5th. even 1st and 2nd editions of pathfinder are only loosely connected. Because of that every system will be better at telling one type of story and worse at telling others. Variety is the spice of life. Also every edition is meant for homebrew because every edition was some gamemaster's homebrew at one point. Th only thing I dislike about the video is it propagates the notion that 5th ed is easier to homebrew for. Fifth edition is harder to home brew for; but since 5th ed requires homebrew because the system literally doesn't work out of the box people have excused that part of the system in learning how to DM for it. The fact you linked a video for creating a pricing system for magic items is something that seems normal in the post 5th edition ttrpg landscape but would have been bonkers in any edition beforehand.

[@IcarusGames]

Totally get what you mean. 5e is "easier" to homebrew for in as much as the entire system is looser so you don't need to be as precise with the numbers. Since leaving 5e for PF2 and then coming back, both for a group of brand new TTRPG players as well as my vets, I think 5e works a lot better than people (myself included) give it credit for a lot of the time, and it's easy to get swept up in the common discourse about some elements of the system that are wrong. But magic items. . . magic items should have always had prices - I will die on that hill. But I am convinced the reason they don't is because of how quickly 5e was written in response to 4e's reception.

[@jasonmileham]

I think DC20 is going to be the best compromise? Looks to Address the issue from both systems, what do others think?

[@IcarusGames]

It does seem like 5e and PF2 did the fusion dance to make DC20. I'll be waiting until the core system is fully released before giving it another proper good look though; I don't much fancy playing a WIP system for a whole campaign.

[@ravenwulfgar]

I would recommend giving Castles & Crusades a try. The PHB is a free PDF download and you can see how dead simple and modifiable it is.

[@SamuelDancingGallew]

Something a lot of Pathfinder Players forget when talking to D&D Players, is that having rules that cover everything including niche things like wall running or blowing up a random tree, is that you get shoved into houdini's box, with no helpful guides or instructions on how to safely get outside of it, and a mechanism that requires an engineering degree to fully understand. D&D still has problems with this, but there are also some obvious holes that are easy to fill, which help prepare you to fill the next hole, and the next until you patch it into your own creation. PF2e is great if you want something that's pre-baked, but D&D is easier to shape and mold into the exact game you want it to be, and I think that's what makes it great. As for DC20, I haven't read up on the rules, but I suspect that it may be a bit more challenging to work with in some areas than 5e due to the interactions and some of the rules like hit chance directly affecting damage, but with fewer moving parts, it will be easier to add your own parts.

[@connormunro8282]

I will agree that the tag system adds an extra layer of information, however from my end my player's had more problems with this and remembering weapon group crit specializations etc. And I found taking it with a pinch of salt when it comes to that in good faith, what I have had fun with it experimenting with the tag system itself for homebrew for instance giving monster resistance to things with the fire tag but not unless it's magical fire or I created a custom tag for weapons and abilities on what I call the phase tag that monsters will only use at certain HP. I however have thought about how I can make sure my players have an easier time with the rules and getting rid of the tedious stuff, I think Pathbuilder has been a big help and has given my player's that extra layer of information to tell me so I can make a judgment call if a rule dispute does happen.

[@kwagmeijer26]

Have you tried any of the 5e based systems? 5e is my least favorite system I've played, but I'm very impressed at the improvements I have seen with stuff like a post apocalypse version of 5e. I still hate the advantage/disadvantage system, but the character creation options always seem way more interesting and varied.

[@IcarusGames]

I've tried a couple, and read a LOT more, but each of them is either doing nothing new that excites me (Tales of the Valiant), has some core mechanic change that I just don't like, or just isn't well supported enough to suit my needs.