So, on the subject of Pathfinder's prepared spellcasters, you don't forget the spell when you cast it, you use the slot it was prepared in. Think of the caster as a revolver. Each spell slot is a chamber in the cylinder and each spell is a bullet. This style of magic is known as Vancian Magic because it's how magic was presented in the novels of author Jack Vance. Basically, spells require several steps to cast. By preparing a spell, you're preforming most of the steps to cast it, but leaving out the last one. When you cast the spell in combat, you're just finishing the ritual. Spell slots represent how many unfinished spells you can hold on to in a day.
I am actually reading through the Dying Earth series now. You are partially correct in that it is saying the words, waving your hands, and burning components that is the final step, but it then sears the knowledge from the brain until you have a chance to spend the time to rememorize it again. The most amusing thing to me was that the D&D novels (well, at least the ones from the 80s and 90s) did not treat magic in anywhere near the same way. But, I guess if you want to think of them in gun terms, you could. The difference is you would forget how to make the bullet everytime. This is why the wizard must travel with his spellbook.
i fucking hate this system, like why the hell can't i hold more unfinished rituals, and why the hell are spells not a Swift/Bonus Action. there are so many things wrong with Vancien Magic but what i presented is the most immidiate
@theprinceofawesomeness I prefer a mana based system much more, myself. Just makes more sense that you are pulling from energies within you that will rejuvenate from the energies surrounding you. Definitely makes magic-users less wimpy at lower levels.
On a side note, I think one of the main reasons to remaster is not only to differenciate from DnD but also becuase they created a whole new Open Game Licence that is not property of WotC and that is irrevocable and safer for people to publish their own work and games, so they published their new stuff under that licence instead of the other old one. Pathfinder gives you security of rules, but you are also incentivized in creating your own things, you actually have rules to create such things, like traps, monsters and new feats with a complete knowledge of how difficult the encounter is going to be. Sorry guys, I am now the Pathfinder fanboy after DnD and WotC disapointed me so much x_x
As a DM, I prefer pathfinder because of the balance! It is far more difficult in pathfinder to create game breaking overpowered characters! The encounter design also works remarkably well. It is quite easy to design encounters, even at high level. The difficulty level of the encounters are quite accurate. If I want an encounter to be easy, it is easy. If I want my players to suffer, they suffer ;-)
8:10 wait wait wait. You're messing up the abc's of character creation in pf2e. outside of the pathbuilder app, you start with Ancestry, then Background, then Class, and you don't forget your free attribute boosts. The spread is... not off but i feel is not right. Most of the time you won't have a negative one to any attribute. It's also fairly comming to have two attributes at +2 instead of your second highest being a +3. My point being it's a lot more customizable. About the ancestries vs species thing. I found the fact you see them as equivalent. What i heard of d&d's species, it had become mostly cosmetic. Meanwhile pf2e ancestries have mechanical significance. Think you could go more indepth why you find the two equal? 20:31 so about this. You are not wrong here... at the same time you are. Proficency bonus is indeed your proficency rank bonus + your level. But there are very few exceptions where you wouldn't add your attribute bonus. So a level 20 rogue would have a 32 in stealth not a 28. 25:39 loke you said it was a balancing between dex and str. 27:00 is there a reason you didn't mention the +10 -10 system in pf2e? It the main reason why so many people love the crit system. Feels odd to be left out. 32:26 hearing you call heal cure wounds hurts me lol. 41:27 it's an advantage. Means your teammates have longer to heal you. 43:22 that's not true. You only add your wounded score once when you go down. That was a mistake they erraterd during the remake release.
I will disagree _slightly_ on the races thing, at least in the first tier of play (level 1-4), races in dnd 5e will be far more impactful than pf2e. After that how impactful the race feels will depend on what feats you pick and how it interacts with the build Similarly, the pf versions of low-concept races like elf or dwarf might feel more impactful than their 5e counterpart, while the wackier 5e races arguably have the wackier pf2e races beat (once starfinder 2e releases and the Barthu release i'll have to walk this statement back, plus 2024 has not reprinted most of what i'd call the 'wacky' 5e races, although they have made the innate caster races more impactful by default due to bla bla)
@@defensivekobra3873 still I do want to know how are spices impactful. Serious question. I just heard they remove attributes. Do they still get unique abilities and spells?
@@flameloude race feats (you select one at 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 level) can give bonuses, limited spells and unique action, some races have a unique feature from the start, but that features are not very powerful
@@flameloude yes they still grt unique attributes and spells. And in particular the innate spellcasting ones as per 2024 get to both choose the spellcasting stat for their innate spells (as long as it's inteligence, wisdom or charisma) and cast their innate racial spells using any spell slots they have (similar to that one feat pf2e sorcerers used to have, except available by default to every spellcaster). On top of that, the ability to cast spells without using a spell slot in 2024 is a bigger deal due to a rules change, you can now only cast a single spell *using a spell slot* (so an high elf wizard can cast both misty step and fireball in a single turn). They also technically allow you to pick bs like fairy (which grants you both a flying speed at level 1 and some innate spellcasting to boot) or githzerai (which let you cast your innate spells without components), or any of the races with magic resistance, or tortles (which is a completely free psudo-heavy armor proficiency), or maybe changeling (infinite free perfect humanoid disguises) I still think question of where racial choice is most impactful is up to debate at later levels, but at early levels dnd species have a lot more sauce at their strongest than pathfinder ancestries
@@defensivekobra3873 that's good. I was really disappointed when I heard they were removing stuff from spices and moving it to the backgrounds. If they are keeping they more notable features I can see why he said it's a wash on both ancestries and spiceas.
Also, I'm not buying the poster's assertion that D&D 5.5 is "better" for narrative storytelling then Pathfinder 2E Remaster. How is having large sections of "the rules" left undefined helpful for storytelling?
@@carlflaherty5860 I'm not even sure how people say either system is for 'narrative storytelling' you don't need a system for that anyhow, you can very much do a light rules system, if you'd like. D&D, and the games that are inherited from it, are all based on war gaming anyhow.
Pazio has clarified that the wounded value only adds when you 1st go unconcious, not on failed recovery rolls. (ie, back to how it was before the remaster)
that's why it's important to play the game instead of just researching it. the video is globally good, but the reasoning about pf2e is imo completely off ( and sometime straight up wrong on facts ) PF2e is as much focus on story telling than D&D5e. the difference is PF2e focus story telling on a solid mechanical framework ( which doesn't mean you can create new feat/spell and so on, just that the rule to create balanced one are clearly given, letting you create under/overpowered one on purpose) while letting you add as much flavor as any ttrpg let you, even helping some player's creativity by being restrictive ( restrictions fuel creativity ). Dnd on the other hand present itself as this : build your own thing high fantasy game... issue : the foundation are quite broken, letting the GM here to fix it, and at this point the question is : why do I buy a DnD book instead of just building on the SRD ? if I have to fix the game anyway ? ( btw quite unfair to say : hey maybe they split player core in 2 book to make money ? while the entire system ( not an srd, not a starter kit, the entire of all rules published ever ) are available for free officially on Archive of Nethys :/ )
I play pathfinder because i didn't feel like having the pinkertons sent to harass me at my house And since wotc is going all in on ai, i wanted to leave that ticking time bomb as fast as possible. So now im here with no magic cards left to my name (sold them all) but left with 3 actions to attack the O.G.L and defend the O.R.C Also being able to play completely free with Archives of Nethys and path builder is great.
Fairly certain that when D&D was made, Race was based on the scientific definition and not the common language model we use today. (You have to remember at one time in the past certain groups wanted to separate the cultural differences by referring to those groups as separate races for multiple reasons. We know better today based on DNA, and cultural changes. Since we are so clingy to the common language model today there is too much baggage to keep using the scientific term.)
The word 'race' has a pretty specific definition listed, which is just a group of individuals that share some characteristics, whether cultural or ethnic. It very much can still apply. But if you think it is a touchy subject, then you can certainly use a different word. What gets more touchy is the 'half' races. Unless there is some compatibility between genetics, then these wouldn't exist. For Tolkien, elves and mankind were compatible, as Elrond was a Half-elf. A Half-orc to him would have likely been considered abhorrent, since orcs were a corruption of all that was good. Hence, why the Urukai are really the big bad nasties they were. I recently was reading the half-orc description in the 1e PHB and it pretty much snays that any PC half-orc would be of the variety that could still pass off as human. This makes a lot of sense to me, as I had said in the past to a player that while he could play a minotaur, they are known for eating people, and you wouldn't make it very far into town without a mob lynching you... But, back on point, race is not an offensive word, we are just choosing to make it so.
After several years of 5E and one year of PF2e as GM, I can safely say that PF2e is way better for GM - reliable math and structure really helps with preparation and I can focus more on storytelling instead of ruling random s*it. After 5E session I was exhausted and I felt like my encounters didn't work, traps were lame and NPCs couldn't provide any meaningful reward. PF2e leaves me happy and motivated for next session. For players it's more complicated - if they just want to be there for the story and are not interested in making lot of choices (which is completely valid way to play with friends), 5E is their game; for players who want more control over their character and are ready to make difficult choices (with narrative consequences) all the time - which could be exhausting for casual players - PF2e is perfect. In the end, I'm happy I left 5E behind.
There are barely any meaningful consequences of player's choices in combat in 5E. Action is just an attack. Anything else is suboptimal choice. Bonus action? Most classes have one that make sense and that's all. Movement? Combat is mostly static because everyone have AoO. There are no choices. And when they emerge, consequences are mostly non-existent (because healer can just wait until someone get's to 0 - which itself is consequences-free).
About the floating modifiers of Pf2e an important distinction is that they can only be a Circumstance, Status or Item bonus, meaning that they are more controlled and you can't just get a +1 from 5 different sources to get a +5 total
5.5E DMG has two pages for making monsters telling you to just modify existing ones explicitly, while PF2E has 30+ pages telling you how to do everything. WotC does not want you to homebrew but to follow pre-made adventures.
Before 5th, Pathfinder 1st was winning, not just challenging. The 5th edition was a result of 4th's failure. Pathfinder 2nd was a result of the age of the system, ten years, and 5th edition pulling ahead of Pathfinder 1st. Paizo felt it had to risk relatively big changes. Me? I stay with Pathfinder 1st, or 3.5 at the outside. Yes, I'm a dinosaur. Time to go eat some ferns with the other brachiosaurus'.
@@DadtheDungeonMasterI chooses Pathfinder 1st over D&D 3.5. I bought the 5th player's handbook because two separate people I knew threatened to run campaigns, but I felt feats were nearly worthless (just to start).
@@TheOtherSteel feats are not so bad, they also give +1 to a stat now. the problem with pf1 is thats its so complicated compared to new systems. i played pf1 for a long time, i really like it and im starting a gamenext friday, but this game requires so much work and its so time consuming that its not for everyone. new 5e makes everything more fluid and cinematesque instead of being all about min maxing and knowing 100+ books to play properly. one of the things i really liked in pathfinder was the additon of touch AC and flat foot AC
Is it me, or is the artwork / and general feel of PF1e vs PF2e kind of like the comparing Lord of the Rings to The Hobbit? (Like the tone of LotR is very adult and gritty, and the Hobbit was righten as a bed time story for kids). As Frodo put it, "my adventure is very different from Bilbo's" (at least I think he says that at some point).
One of the fun things with a cumulation of bonuses and penalties is that combat gets very tactical. You can basically try to stack buffs and debuffs in combat, most of which through teamwork and good tactics, so you get a better chance to win. For instance, you can try to frighten a foe, and grapple them, and poison them. Unlike advantage and disadvantage, it stacks. Combat is decided more by the decisions made each round, and less when creating the character sheet. Oddly, 5e has more stacking number and dice bonuses than PF2, particularly with spells like guidance and bless, and stuff like inspiration. In PF2, magic bonuses doesn't stack as well, so fights are less about pre-buffing and more about using the good action at the right time in combat (like grappling a foe, which is a skill action anyone can perform). These universal skills action are a big part of the fun in PF2. Anyone can trip a minion, anyone can spook a foe, anyone can try to disarm the bad guy. The rules are there, ready to use, no hand-waving by the GM needed, and they are balanced so you can lean on these options more if you like them to gain better action economy and benefits.
That sounds pretty cool! I love hearing from you guys that have played more PF2 than I have. I want to play it more and really see what I can do with it as a player.
I just want easy to use tools to tell a story-exactly. I like 5e and learned on dnd beyond. The integration of digital tools is the next step and wizards is smart for doing it IMO. I don’t care about meticulously tracking stats or making builds. I feel like with more options and complexity we stray closer to chaotic games and it makes it harder for new DMs to step up.
0:06 Wait...seriously? "Dungeons & Dragons, and their main rival, WotC's first edition of Dungeons & Dragons" is the more appropriate way to phrase that...
For various reasons I've left D&D behind in favor of Pathfinder. One of the things I miss about 5e though was (at least in 2014 version) you could choose to make a simple character. Basic human champion fighter. Swing sword, swing sword good. Choose ASI over feats. No complex decisions. Pathfinder doesn't have a simple option. There's several choices to make for every ancestry, every background, every class, every level up. Granted, that's the most complexity involved in the game, front loading it into character creation. But I miss the "I don't want to customize my performance car, just give me a chair rental and let me go" feeling.
49:38 The buckler being strapped to your arm leaving your hand free is just game designers reaching a level of unparalleled ignorance. Pathfinder has such a level of complexity that serves no other purpose than being complex for complexity's sake. It is not historically accurate, does not help serve verisimilitude, bogs down game play; and with a few options that are far superior to others being the obvious optimal choice, offers nothing but the illusion of choice. It's cràp de la cràp.
@@DadtheDungeonMaster, dc20 has some interesting ideas, but the foundation is flawed in my opinion. So, more like the opposite of dc20. Still piecing it together.
Definitely let me know as soon as you have something. Or hit me up if you need someone to bounce ideas off of. I've been thinking about working on a game myself. It's nothing like dnd, more like an Apocalypse survival ttrpg, but I love talking about rules and game mechanics
I am playing a PF2 and a 5e game right now. while I do agree PF2 is more intimidating for somone new, once you understand the system all the crunch most people are afraid of becomes just as automatic and in my opinion is more logical for on the fly decisions.I'd even argue it helps with role play. Making an impassioned speach and the GM giving a +4 circumstance bonus to a diplomacy check. While in 5e, it comes down to just advantage v disadvantage in most cases. PF2 doesn't make it so you can't make stuff up, just that you usually don't have to. My biggest issue with 5e's advantage system is how it is to easy to get either. My biggest issue with 5e though, and maybe this was fixed in the 2024 books, is the abilities that are sort of just auto win. Flying was a big one in one of my past 5e games. As for why range weapons don't add dex to damage in PF2 is risk vs reward. You are safer at range and can spend actions on more things since you wont have to move as much. There are some weapons that let you add part of your str to ranged damage and thrown weapons add your full str bonus to damage but the range tends to be smaller so you are at a higher risk
Pathfinder doesn’t get Dex added to damage but you can get Deadly added to dice which amps your damage if you critically hit. That can quickly ramp up your damage. Ayer another reason why the 4 levels of success are so awesome in Pathfinder. I don’t think D&D is a good system for telling stories. It’s actually no system for telling stories. For almost all events outside of combat, it’s basically the DM winging it. The best you can do rules-based is have the players make a skill check otherwise it’s whatever the DM wants it to be. If you play through any of the APs you’ll see how PF2e handles social encounters. These are group activities where characters can find success no matter what their class is. I’m so many D&D games, the barbarian goes to talk to the king and the DM calls for a Persuasion check. In Pathfinder, you can use athletics to tell a grand tale of your deeds performing the actions, letting your body tell the story and creating influence, etc.
@@DadtheDungeonMaster Conceptually, Pathfinder makes your character level important while D&D doesn't. This allows for having their 4 levels of success. Without level being introduced, adding 4 levels of success to a game like D&D would be mechanically challenging. In 5e, a group of 5 6th level PCs can fairly easily defeat a CR 9 creature and often easily defeat a CR 11 creature because other than HPs they are fairly close to a level 5 PC. A dragon gets one burst of breath otherwise its fairly easy (PCs can fly at 6th level). However, in PF2e, a CR 9 creature is really difficult and a CR 11 is almost impossible to defeat by a level 6 party. Because a CR 11 creature's attacks, saves, AC and damage are +5 greater than all the PCs. Remember, you need a +10 over target to crit, so that means the dragon, with its +5, is critting the PCs often while the PCs will almost never crit. And the dragon's +5 to all saves makes it likely it will save. Furthermore, very powerful spells have limitations on working on a target that is higher level than you (they succeed one level higher so a failure is still a success and a success is a crit success for saves). In addition, many skill checks require a minimum skill to even attempt it, such as requiring mastery in thievery or legendary in arcana to even attempt the check. So a PC can come up to a door and discover you need to be a master in arcana to attempt to open this door. In a sandbox that's awesome because the GM can signal "beyond this door is danger until you're of a certain power level" without actually metagaming. IMO, Pathfinder is much better at narrative story telling because its not just the DM deciding how things are going to go. Its the PCs running up against mechanical limitations that everyone at the table knows about. This includes the 3-action economy, which limits super-nova rounds or using character powers to circumvent encounters just by designing their characters better than the GM had planned for.
@alanthomasgramont I can definitely see the appeal of a lot of that. But does it ever seem more like a game than a narrative story? Like your door example, finding a door that you can't even attempt to open feels more like a video game than say a novel. Does that not ever pull you out of the immersion? Almost like running to the invisible wall at the edge of a video game?
@@DadtheDungeonMaster I mean it is a game. So is D&D. Having a constant mechanic is just simpler to keep the game moving. In D&D there's no mechanic for "your skills are lacking, perhaps you need to find someone who can open this door or seek enlightenment before you can cross this threshold." In PF2e there's a real feeling of advancement at each level. You get a class or skill feat (or architype), you get class abilities, you get improvement of stats sometimes, you get skill increases sometimes and your level goes up (essentially improving everything you're skilled in by +1). Its also very easy to GM as long as you don't give your players too much power. Creating encounters to match easy/medium/difficult and deadly is spot on. Things I dislike about Pathfinder (which can be house ruled away) are the inability to combine movements (though there are optional rules around this), you have to be more careful when creating anything custom (though there are detailed rules on creating monsters/traps/etc), and the expectation of runes to keep your character equal to the level. I also dislike purchasing magic items (though now D&D introduced this) and crafting mostly because sometimes players would rather shop/craft than play. No system is perfect. D&D is better for beginners and onboarding. D&D is more popular so you can always find players (but not as many DMs). In D&D you can "win" at character creation so its more fun plotting out advancement to get that unexpected combo that does 200 dmg a round. But D&D is definitely a game. Players watch endless YT videos to find devastating combos. They always choose fireball if they can. They always choose silvery bards if they can, or elven accuracy, etc. And a good DM doesn't save a character for the sake of story. In fact I would say the best stories come from letting the dice decide fate and reacting to their outcome.
@alanthomasgramont I totally agree that the chaos that dice introduce facilitates the best storyline moments. They are both games for sure, and for sure, no system is perfect. In my experience, most of the people I play D&D with don't want it to feel like a game. They don't want to see the strings and duct tape. They want to feel like they are fantasy characters immersed in a living world. The guys I've played Pathfinder with and talked about it with are okay with feeling like they're playing a game. As far as restricting character's movements from certain areas because they aren't ready, I feel like it should be more like Skyrim. In that, wherever you go and whatever you do, the world levels itself to be appropriate for you to handle. Some challenges will definitely be harder and some easier, but I don't think there should be anywhere that the characters simply can't go because what the dm planned was too difficult or dangerous. I think it's the DM's responsibility to both let the characters do whatever they want to do, because that's one of the core attributes that makes ttrpgs different from a video game, and make sure that wherever they go and whatever they do, they find a world that facilitates fun and adventure.
I have experience with the two systems as a player and as a GM/DM. To be honest Pathfinder makes it more easy for the GM's to lead. It gives us the exact rules and rarely the GM has to homebrew something. Also for me specifically makes my prep a bit easier and I feel that it is more rewarding for the players. Note to be made is also that Pathfinder can actually be played up to level 20 without any issues. Related to the feats In Pathfinder you can also change feats between levels/downtime (some of them are permanent though). Related to D&D - I think at least for 5e from 2014 is more beginner friendly for players. It is way easy to understand the basics, but there are some places where the explanations are a bit vague. If you are a DM it is a bit harder and requires for you to be able to create a rule on the spot. To touch on the combat aspect from the two systems: D&D is a bit faster than Pathfinder, that said if a PC decides to do something different from attacking and tries to improvise, I as a DM should think of a rule/check or something so I can allow that action to pass. In Pathfinder I have a big list of actions that can be performed and in almost all cases my players with their extravagant descriptions of what they want to do are falling in one of the actions in that list so for me it is easy to ask them to perform a check or to ask them if they fulfill the requirement for that action to happen. IMO: Play whatever you want, lead whatever you want, it does not matter if you have fun. That said keep few things in mind: Pathfinder - Low levels combat is a bit of nightmare for the players but the system is designed for the them to burn trough resources to be victorious. Encourage your players to use their spells. - Pathfinder requires more tactical combat and the use of different interactions between foes and friends. Make sure that your players do not rely only on damage. - If you are a GM keep the enemy around the party level, maybe add one or two on a level above, but know that getting hit from a level above is devastating some times. - The death mechanic is way complicated and on top of everything new my players had to learn I decided to go with the one from D&D. D&D - It is way easy to get into D&D game because requires way less from the players to know before starting. Also it is less intimidating. - Requires more improvisation from the DM related to mechanics or rules. The DM knows that there is huge amount of improvisation but lets keep it to the story not to the ruling. - Most of the times one adventure does not get over level 12-13 so you rarely will feel the full power of your character. This happens because some PC can one shot bosses if a DM does not prepare some sort of mechanic that has to be done to bring the boss down. Or the PC start to get their hands on very OP Spells, Items and the game starts to get meaningless.
I have to disagree strongly on you saying DnD better incentivizes homebrew and narrative. Pathfinder outright tells you in the rulebooks that you are fully encouraged to homebrew and do your own thing to have fun, and it is supported by the rules actually giving tables and explanations so you are very clear on how to make the most of the system, like the math for encounter difficulty actually working so you know what to expect when creating an encounter. Homebrew feels like a necessity for 5e because of how poorly mechanics are defined and unable to cover for what the system needs, with it really not helping like having to choose between an ability score increase of a feat for flavor as an example.
You lost me at your preference for rolled ability scores. I'd walk from any table that allowed that - something I did back in 1983 when I left D&D up until it had point buy in 3E in 2000. It's just the source of too many issues with group balance.
So basically what you're saying is that the 2024 edition of Dungeons & Dragons is the same as first edition why not just play first edition the books are cheaper
@Thkaal You mean first edition pathfinder? Or first edition DnD? No, 2024 DnD is easy closer to 5th edition than to either one of those, but it has definitely made some changes to add a LITTLE more of that old complexity.
So, on the subject of Pathfinder's prepared spellcasters, you don't forget the spell when you cast it, you use the slot it was prepared in. Think of the caster as a revolver. Each spell slot is a chamber in the cylinder and each spell is a bullet. This style of magic is known as Vancian Magic because it's how magic was presented in the novels of author Jack Vance.
Basically, spells require several steps to cast. By preparing a spell, you're preforming most of the steps to cast it, but leaving out the last one. When you cast the spell in combat, you're just finishing the ritual. Spell slots represent how many unfinished spells you can hold on to in a day.
That was probably poor wording on my part. I didn't mean you forget it forever. You just forget it for the day.
I am actually reading through the Dying Earth series now. You are partially correct in that it is saying the words, waving your hands, and burning components that is the final step, but it then sears the knowledge from the brain until you have a chance to spend the time to rememorize it again.
The most amusing thing to me was that the D&D novels (well, at least the ones from the 80s and 90s) did not treat magic in anywhere near the same way.
But, I guess if you want to think of them in gun terms, you could. The difference is you would forget how to make the bullet everytime. This is why the wizard must travel with his spellbook.
i fucking hate this system, like why the hell can't i hold more unfinished rituals, and why the hell are spells not a Swift/Bonus Action. there are so many things wrong with Vancien Magic but what i presented is the most immidiate
@@theprinceofawesomeness exist a Archetype to use prepare caster as dnd prepare caster
Is flexible caster, and you can play spontaneous caster
@theprinceofawesomeness I prefer a mana based system much more, myself. Just makes more sense that you are pulling from energies within you that will rejuvenate from the energies surrounding you. Definitely makes magic-users less wimpy at lower levels.
On a side note, I think one of the main reasons to remaster is not only to differenciate from DnD but also becuase they created a whole new Open Game Licence that is not property of WotC and that is irrevocable and safer for people to publish their own work and games, so they published their new stuff under that licence instead of the other old one.
Pathfinder gives you security of rules, but you are also incentivized in creating your own things, you actually have rules to create such things, like traps, monsters and new feats with a complete knowledge of how difficult the encounter is going to be.
Sorry guys, I am now the Pathfinder fanboy after DnD and WotC disapointed me so much x_x
@@RickDevil12 Great points!
As a DM, I prefer pathfinder because of the balance! It is far more difficult in pathfinder to create game breaking overpowered characters! The encounter design also works remarkably well. It is quite easy to design encounters, even at high level. The difficulty level of the encounters are quite accurate. If I want an encounter to be easy, it is easy. If I want my players to suffer, they suffer ;-)
8:10 wait wait wait. You're messing up the abc's of character creation in pf2e. outside of the pathbuilder app, you start with Ancestry, then Background, then Class, and you don't forget your free attribute boosts.
The spread is... not off but i feel is not right. Most of the time you won't have a negative one to any attribute. It's also fairly comming to have two attributes at +2 instead of your second highest being a +3. My point being it's a lot more customizable.
About the ancestries vs species thing. I found the fact you see them as equivalent. What i heard of d&d's species, it had become mostly cosmetic. Meanwhile pf2e ancestries have mechanical significance. Think you could go more indepth why you find the two equal?
20:31 so about this. You are not wrong here... at the same time you are. Proficency bonus is indeed your proficency rank bonus + your level. But there are very few exceptions where you wouldn't add your attribute bonus.
So a level 20 rogue would have a 32 in stealth not a 28.
25:39 loke you said it was a balancing between dex and str.
27:00 is there a reason you didn't mention the +10 -10 system in pf2e? It the main reason why so many people love the crit system. Feels odd to be left out.
32:26 hearing you call heal cure wounds hurts me lol.
41:27 it's an advantage. Means your teammates have longer to heal you.
43:22 that's not true. You only add your wounded score once when you go down. That was a mistake they erraterd during the remake release.
I will disagree _slightly_ on the races thing, at least in the first tier of play (level 1-4), races in dnd 5e will be far more impactful than pf2e. After that how impactful the race feels will depend on what feats you pick and how it interacts with the build
Similarly, the pf versions of low-concept races like elf or dwarf might feel more impactful than their 5e counterpart, while the wackier 5e races arguably have the wackier pf2e races beat (once starfinder 2e releases and the Barthu release i'll have to walk this statement back, plus 2024 has not reprinted most of what i'd call the 'wacky' 5e races, although they have made the innate caster races more impactful by default due to bla bla)
@@defensivekobra3873 still I do want to know how are spices impactful. Serious question. I just heard they remove attributes. Do they still get unique abilities and spells?
@@flameloude race feats (you select one at 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 level) can give bonuses, limited spells and unique action, some races have a unique feature from the start, but that features are not very powerful
@@flameloude yes they still grt unique attributes and spells. And in particular the innate spellcasting ones as per 2024 get to both choose the spellcasting stat for their innate spells (as long as it's inteligence, wisdom or charisma) and cast their innate racial spells using any spell slots they have (similar to that one feat pf2e sorcerers used to have, except available by default to every spellcaster). On top of that, the ability to cast spells without using a spell slot in 2024 is a bigger deal due to a rules change, you can now only cast a single spell *using a spell slot* (so an high elf wizard can cast both misty step and fireball in a single turn). They also technically allow you to pick bs like fairy (which grants you both a flying speed at level 1 and some innate spellcasting to boot) or githzerai (which let you cast your innate spells without components), or any of the races with magic resistance, or tortles (which is a completely free psudo-heavy armor proficiency), or maybe changeling (infinite free perfect humanoid disguises)
I still think question of where racial choice is most impactful is up to debate at later levels, but at early levels dnd species have a lot more sauce at their strongest than pathfinder ancestries
@@defensivekobra3873 that's good. I was really disappointed when I heard they were removing stuff from spices and moving it to the backgrounds. If they are keeping they more notable features I can see why he said it's a wash on both ancestries and spiceas.
Neither of these systems is narrative, they are both heavy combat simulators. They just approach that simulation differently.
Also, I'm not buying the poster's assertion that D&D 5.5 is "better" for narrative storytelling then Pathfinder 2E Remaster. How is having large sections of "the rules" left undefined helpful for storytelling?
@@carlflaherty5860 I'm not even sure how people say either system is for 'narrative storytelling' you don't need a system for that anyhow, you can very much do a light rules system, if you'd like. D&D, and the games that are inherited from it, are all based on war gaming anyhow.
Pazio has clarified that the wounded value only adds when you 1st go unconcious, not on failed recovery rolls. (ie, back to how it was before the remaster)
@@xeterog4496 thank goodness! That was crazy!
that's why it's important to play the game instead of just researching it.
the video is globally good, but the reasoning about pf2e is imo completely off ( and sometime straight up wrong on facts )
PF2e is as much focus on story telling than D&D5e.
the difference is PF2e focus story telling on a solid mechanical framework ( which doesn't mean you can create new feat/spell and so on, just that the rule to create balanced one are clearly given, letting you create under/overpowered one on purpose) while letting you add as much flavor as any ttrpg let you, even helping some player's creativity by being restrictive ( restrictions fuel creativity ).
Dnd on the other hand present itself as this : build your own thing high fantasy game... issue : the foundation are quite broken, letting the GM here to fix it, and at this point the question is : why do I buy a DnD book instead of just building on the SRD ? if I have to fix the game anyway ?
( btw quite unfair to say : hey maybe they split player core in 2 book to make money ? while the entire system ( not an srd, not a starter kit, the entire of all rules published ever ) are available for free officially on Archive of Nethys :/ )
I play pathfinder because i didn't feel like having the pinkertons sent to harass me at my house
And since wotc is going all in on ai, i wanted to leave that ticking time bomb as fast as possible.
So now im here with no magic cards left to my name (sold them all) but left with 3 actions to attack the O.G.L and defend the O.R.C
Also being able to play completely free with Archives of Nethys and path builder is great.
Fairly certain that when D&D was made, Race was based on the scientific definition and not the common language model we use today. (You have to remember at one time in the past certain groups wanted to separate the cultural differences by referring to those groups as separate races for multiple reasons. We know better today based on DNA, and cultural changes. Since we are so clingy to the common language model today there is too much baggage to keep using the scientific term.)
@@BLynn That makes a ton of sense
Using the word "race" for Elves, Dwarves, Men, and Hobbits comes directly from Tolkien, refer to appendix F of Lord of the Rings.
@@brendonwyber4694 Nice
The word 'race' has a pretty specific definition listed, which is just a group of individuals that share some characteristics, whether cultural or ethnic. It very much can still apply. But if you think it is a touchy subject, then you can certainly use a different word.
What gets more touchy is the 'half' races. Unless there is some compatibility between genetics, then these wouldn't exist. For Tolkien, elves and mankind were compatible, as Elrond was a Half-elf. A Half-orc to him would have likely been considered abhorrent, since orcs were a corruption of all that was good. Hence, why the Urukai are really the big bad nasties they were.
I recently was reading the half-orc description in the 1e PHB and it pretty much snays that any PC half-orc would be of the variety that could still pass off as human. This makes a lot of sense to me, as I had said in the past to a player that while he could play a minotaur, they are known for eating people, and you wouldn't make it very far into town without a mob lynching you...
But, back on point, race is not an offensive word, we are just choosing to make it so.
so Race was used instead of Species back then?
After several years of 5E and one year of PF2e as GM, I can safely say that PF2e is way better for GM - reliable math and structure really helps with preparation and I can focus more on storytelling instead of ruling random s*it.
After 5E session I was exhausted and I felt like my encounters didn't work, traps were lame and NPCs couldn't provide any meaningful reward. PF2e leaves me happy and motivated for next session.
For players it's more complicated - if they just want to be there for the story and are not interested in making lot of choices (which is completely valid way to play with friends), 5E is their game; for players who want more control over their character and are ready to make difficult choices (with narrative consequences) all the time - which could be exhausting for casual players - PF2e is perfect.
In the end, I'm happy I left 5E behind.
@@Fionor01 love hearing from your experience!
narrative consequences are part of any version, i dont get your point about that.
There are barely any meaningful consequences of player's choices in combat in 5E.
Action is just an attack. Anything else is suboptimal choice.
Bonus action? Most classes have one that make sense and that's all.
Movement? Combat is mostly static because everyone have AoO.
There are no choices. And when they emerge, consequences are mostly non-existent (because healer can just wait until someone get's to 0 - which itself is consequences-free).
About the floating modifiers of Pf2e an important distinction is that they can only be a Circumstance, Status or Item bonus, meaning that they are more controlled and you can't just get a +1 from 5 different sources to get a +5 total
5.5E DMG has two pages for making monsters telling you to just modify existing ones explicitly, while PF2E has 30+ pages telling you how to do everything. WotC does not want you to homebrew but to follow pre-made adventures.
Before 5th, Pathfinder 1st was winning, not just challenging.
The 5th edition was a result of 4th's failure.
Pathfinder 2nd was a result of the age of the system, ten years, and 5th edition pulling ahead of Pathfinder 1st. Paizo felt it had to risk relatively big changes.
Me? I stay with Pathfinder 1st, or 3.5 at the outside. Yes, I'm a dinosaur. Time to go eat some ferns with the other brachiosaurus'.
@@TheOtherSteel which do think is better now?
@@DadtheDungeonMasterI chooses Pathfinder 1st over D&D 3.5.
I bought the 5th player's handbook because two separate people I knew threatened to run campaigns, but I felt feats were nearly worthless (just to start).
@@TheOtherSteel they really are
@@TheOtherSteel feats are not so bad, they also give +1 to a stat now. the problem with pf1 is thats its so complicated compared to new systems. i played pf1 for a long time, i really like it and im starting a gamenext friday, but this game requires so much work and its so time consuming that its not for everyone.
new 5e makes everything more fluid and cinematesque instead of being all about min maxing and knowing 100+ books to play properly.
one of the things i really liked in pathfinder was the additon of touch AC and flat foot AC
Is it me, or is the artwork / and general feel of PF1e vs PF2e kind of like the comparing Lord of the Rings to The Hobbit? (Like the tone of LotR is very adult and gritty, and the Hobbit was righten as a bed time story for kids). As Frodo put it, "my adventure is very different from Bilbo's" (at least I think he says that at some point).
One of the fun things with a cumulation of bonuses and penalties is that combat gets very tactical. You can basically try to stack buffs and debuffs in combat, most of which through teamwork and good tactics, so you get a better chance to win. For instance, you can try to frighten a foe, and grapple them, and poison them. Unlike advantage and disadvantage, it stacks. Combat is decided more by the decisions made each round, and less when creating the character sheet.
Oddly, 5e has more stacking number and dice bonuses than PF2, particularly with spells like guidance and bless, and stuff like inspiration. In PF2, magic bonuses doesn't stack as well, so fights are less about pre-buffing and more about using the good action at the right time in combat (like grappling a foe, which is a skill action anyone can perform).
These universal skills action are a big part of the fun in PF2. Anyone can trip a minion, anyone can spook a foe, anyone can try to disarm the bad guy. The rules are there, ready to use, no hand-waving by the GM needed, and they are balanced so you can lean on these options more if you like them to gain better action economy and benefits.
That sounds pretty cool! I love hearing from you guys that have played more PF2 than I have. I want to play it more and really see what I can do with it as a player.
I just want easy to use tools to tell a story-exactly. I like 5e and learned on dnd beyond. The integration of digital tools is the next step and wizards is smart for doing it IMO. I don’t care about meticulously tracking stats or making builds.
I feel like with more options and complexity we stray closer to chaotic games and it makes it harder for new DMs to step up.
0:06 Wait...seriously?
"Dungeons & Dragons, and their main rival, WotC's first edition of Dungeons & Dragons" is the more appropriate way to phrase that...
WofC have released the 5e core rules under a Creative Commons license - it's not possible for them to go back on that.
@@sortehuse Thank goodness!!!
For various reasons I've left D&D behind in favor of Pathfinder. One of the things I miss about 5e though was (at least in 2014 version) you could choose to make a simple character. Basic human champion fighter. Swing sword, swing sword good. Choose ASI over feats. No complex decisions.
Pathfinder doesn't have a simple option. There's several choices to make for every ancestry, every background, every class, every level up. Granted, that's the most complexity involved in the game, front loading it into character creation.
But I miss the "I don't want to customize my performance car, just give me a chair rental and let me go" feeling.
@@michaelturner2806 that makes perfect sense
49:38 The buckler being strapped to your arm leaving your hand free is just game designers reaching a level of unparalleled ignorance.
Pathfinder has such a level of complexity that serves no other purpose than being complex for complexity's sake. It is not historically accurate, does not help serve verisimilitude, bogs down game play; and with a few options that are far superior to others being the obvious optimal choice, offers nothing but the illusion of choice.
It's cràp de la cràp.
What about a secret third amalgamation of the two?
@@richardrdotson oh? Like dc20?
@@DadtheDungeonMaster, dc20 has some interesting ideas, but the foundation is flawed in my opinion. So, more like the opposite of dc20. Still piecing it together.
@@richardrdotson you're working on something yourself!? That's super exciting!!!
Definitely let me know as soon as you have something. Or hit me up if you need someone to bounce ideas off of. I've been thinking about working on a game myself. It's nothing like dnd, more like an Apocalypse survival ttrpg, but I love talking about rules and game mechanics
I am playing a PF2 and a 5e game right now. while I do agree PF2 is more intimidating for somone new, once you understand the system all the crunch most people are afraid of becomes just as automatic and in my opinion is more logical for on the fly decisions.I'd even argue it helps with role play. Making an impassioned speach and the GM giving a +4 circumstance bonus to a diplomacy check. While in 5e, it comes down to just advantage v disadvantage in most cases. PF2 doesn't make it so you can't make stuff up, just that you usually don't have to. My biggest issue with 5e's advantage system is how it is to easy to get either.
My biggest issue with 5e though, and maybe this was fixed in the 2024 books, is the abilities that are sort of just auto win. Flying was a big one in one of my past 5e games.
As for why range weapons don't add dex to damage in PF2 is risk vs reward. You are safer at range and can spend actions on more things since you wont have to move as much. There are some weapons that let you add part of your str to ranged damage and thrown weapons add your full str bonus to damage but the range tends to be smaller so you are at a higher risk
Pathfinder doesn’t get Dex added to damage but you can get Deadly added to dice which amps your damage if you critically hit. That can quickly ramp up your damage. Ayer another reason why the 4 levels of success are so awesome in Pathfinder.
I don’t think D&D is a good system for telling stories. It’s actually no system for telling stories. For almost all events outside of combat, it’s basically the DM winging it. The best you can do rules-based is have the players make a skill check otherwise it’s whatever the DM wants it to be. If you play through any of the APs you’ll see how PF2e handles social encounters. These are group activities where characters can find success no matter what their class is. I’m so many D&D games, the barbarian goes to talk to the king and the DM calls for a Persuasion check. In Pathfinder, you can use athletics to tell a grand tale of your deeds performing the actions, letting your body tell the story and creating influence, etc.
@alanthomasgramont I definitely want to spend more time with Pathfinder 2e! It seems like there are so many fun little quirks that they accounted for.
@@DadtheDungeonMaster Conceptually, Pathfinder makes your character level important while D&D doesn't. This allows for having their 4 levels of success. Without level being introduced, adding 4 levels of success to a game like D&D would be mechanically challenging. In 5e, a group of 5 6th level PCs can fairly easily defeat a CR 9 creature and often easily defeat a CR 11 creature because other than HPs they are fairly close to a level 5 PC. A dragon gets one burst of breath otherwise its fairly easy (PCs can fly at 6th level). However, in PF2e, a CR 9 creature is really difficult and a CR 11 is almost impossible to defeat by a level 6 party. Because a CR 11 creature's attacks, saves, AC and damage are +5 greater than all the PCs. Remember, you need a +10 over target to crit, so that means the dragon, with its +5, is critting the PCs often while the PCs will almost never crit. And the dragon's +5 to all saves makes it likely it will save. Furthermore, very powerful spells have limitations on working on a target that is higher level than you (they succeed one level higher so a failure is still a success and a success is a crit success for saves).
In addition, many skill checks require a minimum skill to even attempt it, such as requiring mastery in thievery or legendary in arcana to even attempt the check. So a PC can come up to a door and discover you need to be a master in arcana to attempt to open this door. In a sandbox that's awesome because the GM can signal "beyond this door is danger until you're of a certain power level" without actually metagaming.
IMO, Pathfinder is much better at narrative story telling because its not just the DM deciding how things are going to go. Its the PCs running up against mechanical limitations that everyone at the table knows about. This includes the 3-action economy, which limits super-nova rounds or using character powers to circumvent encounters just by designing their characters better than the GM had planned for.
@alanthomasgramont I can definitely see the appeal of a lot of that. But does it ever seem more like a game than a narrative story? Like your door example, finding a door that you can't even attempt to open feels more like a video game than say a novel. Does that not ever pull you out of the immersion? Almost like running to the invisible wall at the edge of a video game?
@@DadtheDungeonMaster I mean it is a game. So is D&D. Having a constant mechanic is just simpler to keep the game moving. In D&D there's no mechanic for "your skills are lacking, perhaps you need to find someone who can open this door or seek enlightenment before you can cross this threshold." In PF2e there's a real feeling of advancement at each level. You get a class or skill feat (or architype), you get class abilities, you get improvement of stats sometimes, you get skill increases sometimes and your level goes up (essentially improving everything you're skilled in by +1). Its also very easy to GM as long as you don't give your players too much power. Creating encounters to match easy/medium/difficult and deadly is spot on. Things I dislike about Pathfinder (which can be house ruled away) are the inability to combine movements (though there are optional rules around this), you have to be more careful when creating anything custom (though there are detailed rules on creating monsters/traps/etc), and the expectation of runes to keep your character equal to the level. I also dislike purchasing magic items (though now D&D introduced this) and crafting mostly because sometimes players would rather shop/craft than play. No system is perfect. D&D is better for beginners and onboarding. D&D is more popular so you can always find players (but not as many DMs). In D&D you can "win" at character creation so its more fun plotting out advancement to get that unexpected combo that does 200 dmg a round. But D&D is definitely a game. Players watch endless YT videos to find devastating combos. They always choose fireball if they can. They always choose silvery bards if they can, or elven accuracy, etc. And a good DM doesn't save a character for the sake of story. In fact I would say the best stories come from letting the dice decide fate and reacting to their outcome.
@alanthomasgramont I totally agree that the chaos that dice introduce facilitates the best storyline moments. They are both games for sure, and for sure, no system is perfect. In my experience, most of the people I play D&D with don't want it to feel like a game. They don't want to see the strings and duct tape. They want to feel like they are fantasy characters immersed in a living world. The guys I've played Pathfinder with and talked about it with are okay with feeling like they're playing a game. As far as restricting character's movements from certain areas because they aren't ready, I feel like it should be more like Skyrim. In that, wherever you go and whatever you do, the world levels itself to be appropriate for you to handle. Some challenges will definitely be harder and some easier, but I don't think there should be anywhere that the characters simply can't go because what the dm planned was too difficult or dangerous. I think it's the DM's responsibility to both let the characters do whatever they want to do, because that's one of the core attributes that makes ttrpgs different from a video game, and make sure that wherever they go and whatever they do, they find a world that facilitates fun and adventure.
I have experience with the two systems as a player and as a GM/DM. To be honest Pathfinder makes it more easy for the GM's to lead. It gives us the exact rules and rarely the GM has to homebrew something. Also for me specifically makes my prep a bit easier and I feel that it is more rewarding for the players. Note to be made is also that Pathfinder can actually be played up to level 20 without any issues. Related to the feats In Pathfinder you can also change feats between levels/downtime (some of them are permanent though).
Related to D&D - I think at least for 5e from 2014 is more beginner friendly for players. It is way easy to understand the basics, but there are some places where the explanations are a bit vague.
If you are a DM it is a bit harder and requires for you to be able to create a rule on the spot.
To touch on the combat aspect from the two systems: D&D is a bit faster than Pathfinder, that said if a PC decides to do something different from attacking and tries to improvise, I as a DM should think of a rule/check or something so I can allow that action to pass. In Pathfinder I have a big list of actions that can be performed and in almost all cases my players with their extravagant descriptions of what they want to do are falling in one of the actions in that list so for me it is easy to ask them to perform a check or to ask them if they fulfill the requirement for that action to happen.
IMO: Play whatever you want, lead whatever you want, it does not matter if you have fun. That said keep few things in mind:
Pathfinder
- Low levels combat is a bit of nightmare for the players but the system is designed for the them to burn trough resources to be victorious. Encourage your players to use their spells.
- Pathfinder requires more tactical combat and the use of different interactions between foes and friends. Make sure that your players do not rely only on damage.
- If you are a GM keep the enemy around the party level, maybe add one or two on a level above, but know that getting hit from a level above is devastating some times.
- The death mechanic is way complicated and on top of everything new my players had to learn I decided to go with the one from D&D.
D&D
- It is way easy to get into D&D game because requires way less from the players to know before starting. Also it is less intimidating.
- Requires more improvisation from the DM related to mechanics or rules. The DM knows that there is huge amount of improvisation but lets keep it to the story not to the ruling.
- Most of the times one adventure does not get over level 12-13 so you rarely will feel the full power of your character. This happens because some PC can one shot bosses if a DM does not prepare some sort of mechanic that has to be done to bring the boss down. Or the PC start to get their hands on very OP Spells, Items and the game starts to get meaningless.
@@BobiGoranov Love hearing your insights!
I have to disagree strongly on you saying DnD better incentivizes homebrew and narrative. Pathfinder outright tells you in the rulebooks that you are fully encouraged to homebrew and do your own thing to have fun, and it is supported by the rules actually giving tables and explanations so you are very clear on how to make the most of the system, like the math for encounter difficulty actually working so you know what to expect when creating an encounter. Homebrew feels like a necessity for 5e because of how poorly mechanics are defined and unable to cover for what the system needs, with it really not helping like having to choose between an ability score increase of a feat for flavor as an example.
You lost me at your preference for rolled ability scores. I'd walk from any table that allowed that - something I did back in 1983 when I left D&D up until it had point buy in 3E in 2000. It's just the source of too many issues with group balance.
as someone newer who played with both. i agree, point buy is just objectively better
So basically what you're saying is that the 2024 edition of Dungeons & Dragons is the same as first edition why not just play first edition the books are cheaper
@Thkaal You mean first edition pathfinder? Or first edition DnD? No, 2024 DnD is easy closer to 5th edition than to either one of those, but it has definitely made some changes to add a LITTLE more of that old complexity.
Who cares both are woke, and because of that they both suck
War between DND and Pathfinder is like USA vs Cambodia.