What do you think of the action economy in PF2 compared to 5e? Would you like to use a 3-action system in 5e, and what sort of options would that open up for you?
I’m more familiar with 5e than 2e (I’m a DM for 5e but have played SOME 2e). My gut feeling is that while 5e action economy is less flexible in general, the 2e action economy encourages an ‘optimal’ series of actions each round. Like, yes a Fighter hardly ever uses a bonus action but when they need to second wind it DOESN’T take up one of their attacks. It’s my understanding that the best thing a fighter can do in 2e is attack 3 times right?
Because of the multiple attack penalty, attacking three times is rarely the best choice. Better to use that third action to debuff enemies of aid allies.
@@IcarusGames oh! Right! Neat. But don’t most classes have an ‘optimal’ attack routine? 5e have the same problem some times (you mentioned Barbarian feeling samey in 5e and that is true)
@@IcarusGames I feel like this feeling of frustration at martial characters ‘not having much to do’ is system agnostic. In fights where burning through enemy HP is most important (which is most fights) you’re just always going to have that problem. I think this is better fixed through encounter design than system design. My mind goes to the last fight in Exandria Unlimited Calamity and the martial characters spent a lot of time just grappling the baddies and jamming the doorway because the purpose of the encounter was for one PC to finish a ritual. And that fight would have been amazing had it been 2e instead of 5e because of the stakes and encounter design
I think the not-everyone-gets-attack-of-opportunitiy deserves as much or even more credit than the three action economy. There is so much more movement in my PF2e battles because of it. In 5e I move and camp out until one of us dies. If it's not me, then I move to another camping spot, wash, rinse, repeat.
I also really like the potential threat of an attack of opportunity. My party was in a bad shape and fighting a nasty monster. They needed to retreat, but an AoO might put them down. So they did this difficult roundabout way of regrouping while my monster didn't even have a reaction. That was cool to see.
I didnt realise I didnt like attacks of opportunity until I read this comment, but your completely right! I wish there was an easy way to convert all of my recently purchased kobold press monster books to pathfinder I think id switch my party to it tomorrow if so lol
This 3-action economy sounds so much more versatile than what 5e does. This is one of the key points selling me on swapping systems. PF2e seems less restrictive, much more nuanced, and importantly doesn't seem drastically more complicated than 5e, plus the sheer scope of character customization is appealing.
It is not. As soon as you go pass level 7, it starts to feel quite restrictive if you come from a 3.x/PF1 background. Trust me, having move action, free action, switf action, attack action, bonus action is much more interesting and natural than being stuck with 3 actions for everything all the time.
One of my favourite features of the three-action system is that sustaining a spell costs an action, so spellcasters - especially those whose main gig is buffing allies - get to make interesting choices around maintaining multiple spells and dealing with the reduced actions it leaves them to do other things.
That 3-action-1-reaction economy is exactly what made me convert from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. It gives SO much freedom to how you move and fight. Basically anything simple is *an action*, of which you have *3*! It's so versatile, and I love it.
I prefer the 3-action economy and the fact that movement is not free action but instead a resource. I think it enables more interesting fighting options
Played and GMed both D&D5E and PF2E, I prefere PF2E. Your Options in PF2E are much richer as are your options in customizing the char. However, I have experienced some bewildermend with semi engaged players who are not into custumizations and reading through options. Players who just want a bit of casual play and ease of rules will feel more at home in D&D5th edition. If you like to work on your character and have lots of options to individualize him and make him more unique and want different options for different kinds of enconuters, PF2 is your system.
I think we need to bring back more pregen characters. It's totally valid to just want to play your character and not worry about making lots of choices, and starting with a pregen and then following the example builds in the CRB should be totally normalized.
You've incidentally hit upon the filter I use to determine if someone should join me in PF2e or if I should send them off to play 5e. I ask them about if they want to play a game where the Barbarian has to think as much as the Wizard. I ask them whether they want to play a game where they feel like a cunning warrior who beats enemies with both brawns and clever battlefield tactics, or if they want to play a game where they can chill and settle into the rhythm of Move, Thump, Pass Turn.
One thing with Pathfinder's action economy that changes the combat dynamics is that movement isn't ubiquitous or wasted. You only get movement when you want it and can spare the action. Tripping and shoving enemies in D&D 5e doesn't often impact much in most cases because they will almost always have movement available to them as part of their turn. They will just get back up or walk back to you and more often than not it won't mess with their game plan at all. They will still probably just walk up to you and multiattack. Shoving enemies in PF 2e will absolutely cost them an action if they want to walk up to you and hit you unless they have reach or some other special non-standard ability. There's also the chance to crit on the shove and knock them prone which will cost them more actions. Tripping is great because it absolutely crushes their movement down to 5 foot crawl actions or taking one of their action to stand up. Being prone also imposes a penalty on attacks, so staying prone ruins your offense as much as your defense. If they're tripped in front of a fighter that means they're probably gonna eat a free hit since attack of opportunity can trigger on any move action within range. Disengaging from enemies in D&D 5e also tends to be pretty lackluster unless you're faster than your enemy. It also casts your standard action for most characters and that's by far the most important part of your turn, the same action that governs your ability to either attack or cast spells which are how you get pretty much everything done. Meanwhile as soon as it hits that enemy's turn they get to use their movement to catch up to you with no cost to their ability to rip you apart while you spent your most important action to essentially just change the venue of your ass-beating. Moving away from enemies in PF 2e does cost you actions, sometimes multiple if you need to first do a 5 foot Step out of an attack of opportunity range if they have it, but at the very least you are causing them to need to spend an action to catch up to you. If you're faster than them it will likely cost two of their actions. While it sometimes might cost you more, it still will cause the enemy to need to spend part of their turn to catch up to you instead of getting more hits or abilities in. The game changes so much by making it so movement isn't just always there for free.
The example of tripping is one that I've used to explain how tactically different combat is between the systems. The way I see it, these games are-and should be- about choices. If I give someone three actions, to apply however they want, I'm giving them more choices, and more ways to play the character their way. If I say you have "movement" and that can only be used "x" way. Then you have "Standard" actions, and they can only be used this way. Oh, yeah, you have "Bonus" actions, but they can only be used if X and Y conditions are met, and only for these few actions. I feel that it limits creativity.
I’ve dm’d both and I love the action economy in pf2e. Not just because 3 actions makes combat much more dynamic but the sheer number of options you have really allows players to be mechanically creative with what they want to do. A big part of this is how useful skills are in combat, something far less true in 5e.
Another point about natural 20s and 1s in PF2e - they just upgrade/downgrade the success instead of 'auto crits'. So if your nat 20+modifier is still under the DC, you just succeed instead of crit succeeding. And, God forbid, your 20+mod would crit fail, you just fail. The way the +/- 10 threshold and nat 1/20 system interplay with the AC scaling (you add your level to basically everything you do as well as your DCs and AC, so you get some truly bonkers numbers at high levels) is one of my favourite parts of the system, because it means a party fighting a group of enemies slightly lower leveled than them can truly feel like badasses, and an enemy a couple of levels higher is a true challenge. It also sends pretty clear signals - if your fighter is only hitting, not critting, on a nat 20, you need to RUN.
Fun fact: in 5e it only takes a couple thousand peasants with daggers to kill a balor. They hit (and crit!) on a 20, after all. Even if we assume that they all only do 1 damage (really 1d4, after crit and resistance) and only live to get off one throw (Balor can only kill 10/round with optimal use of fire aura) that's still "only" 5,000ish peasants. In pf2e, they can't just fish for that crit, so the Balor properly mows them down.
I like it because high leveled characters feel properly strong against weak enemies + it becomes more about the characters, instead of 5E's emphasis on dice rolls and feeling more like gambling throughout. That D20 matters way too much IMO
One of the things that I feel is often over looked in the Pathfinder 2e action economy is support actions and working as a group. Spending your third action to give a status effect like flatfooted or aid (or in the case of support characters more of your actions) can have a huge benefit for your allies without your turn feeling wasted.
@@theannualantagonist5930 From my experience with MMOs and even my last TTRPG too many people do not know how to play as a team. It’s not that they do not want to do those team-assist actions, they just never think of them. I’ve not played Pathfinder, but I have played and DM’d D&D from 1e to 5e and I hate 5e’s action economy because they give me this bonus action, but make it very limited, with no real reason other than “Because I say so.”. I mean why couldn’t someone duel-wield Cantrips if they want to!? As long as they follow the duel-wield rules. Of course in Pathfinder you cant do this either, because they have made most spells 2 actions, which for me makes no sense for Cantrips.
@@jdeuraud1096 Cantrips still take the same amount of time to cast. They still require verbal/somatic/material components, just like spell slot spells. It would be weirder if they were quicker imo
@@mphoenix3764 “They still require verbal/somatic/material components,” Did a quick walk-through of D&D Beyond Cantrips. 13% had all 3 components. 26% had only 1 component. 61% had 2 components. 28% had a Material component. Back before even 3e we had a Cantrip we called Fire-finger. You snapped your finger (S), and said Fire-finger (V), and you had a flame at the end of your finger to light your pipe with. If you do this action you can do it in about the same time it takes to say “One-one-thousand”. Now think about doing this action multiple times per day, every day, since you were an Apprentice, or learned magic. There should become a point were you just focus on this action and it happens, because VSM are just tools that allow you to focus on the action you desire. In 5e, a 5th level VSM spell that you just learned has the same casting time as a VS Cantrip that you have known since you learned to do magic. This is just wrong!
It's been many years since I have played 5e, and I have been playing P2 since launch. You nailed it here. Combat and play in general is much more dynamic. I will concede that creates some "analysis paralysis" when players are just getting into P2.
great vid Icarus, I'm a huge fan of the 3 action system in pf2e compared to 5e. The ability to do good actions every turn and have a couple to do on any nonsense you want is great. I'm always burning actions to recall knowledge. I think another vid that you could do pretty easily is resource management. how 5e short rest system and long rest system doesn't work that well most of the time against pf2e not putting many limits on base features and how it works. Big thing I felt was missed in the skill actions is that the athletics ones like trip, shove, and grapple have the attack trait so multi attack penalty does apply. So something like trip will make your next attack worse off, but give all allies a buff against them due to prone
Shove (either away or prone) can replace an attack in Multi Attack. But you’re right on grapple. Which is why the tavern brawler feat is so popular. So you can shove then get advantage on grapple
@@DOOMsword7 not really sure what you're getting at Doom, my references to athletics were pf2e skill actions. Personally, I don't like the athletics attacks in 5e because they're contested against the strongest of two of their skills which gives the enemy a very good chance of beating you. I prefer the pf2e way since you can target their weakness and there's counterplay and choices there
As someone that played 5e for a few campaigns, the thing that annoyed me the most is when the enemy isn't within 30ft of you. Happened a lot in my last one (literally last one) because the battlefields tended to be big in that one. Often fights would start and half the party couldn't do anything but move. and sometimes there'd just be blank turns for some characters doing nothing but movement. 2e? I just Stride twice and then have an action left. Or the fighter Sudden Charges, striding twice and attacking and then having an action left. Or the monk strides twice and uses Flurry to attack twice. If the enemy is REALLY far away? Though you probably shouldn't since you are letting them get closer for free, you have a third action to Stride further. Distances that in 5e would require two blank turns in 5e can be crossed in like 4-5 actions. Less if you are fast. Not to mention even if you can't reach them some characters could still throw an Intimidate at them with the third action instead of moving more. 2e isn't just more mobile because of how our AoO isn't universal, it's just faster. Even with the average move speed on things being 25ft baseline (which is different by ancestry and there's feats and abilities to boost).
Or just use ranged weapons? That’s what javelins are for! Or if playing a fighter action surge! Or playing a rogue cunning action dash! Or if playing a wizard, misty step (away! Because you’re a wizard lol) Covering that distance is supposed to shake things up. If every combat starts with the baddies being 10 feet away what use is a Barbarian or Monk’s extra movement??
@@DOOMsword7 I'll agree that flexibility of your character is important, but there's a few problems with your suggestion. You're suggesting burning resources to solve a problem that could simply not exist. Ranged weapons I can understand, but for a fighter wearing heavy armor, putting away their shield and weapon doesn't feel good. The fighter using action surge to hustle sounds cool, but not as cool as getting to attack 2-3 more times later in the combat. And the rogue using their bonus action to run in to make an attack feels bad because they're now in range to be hit back or worse: grappled. Lastly, misty step being a bonus action spell that means when you moved the 60-ish feet, you now are rewarded with only being able to use a cantrip! Unless you're a warlock (who used one of their possible 4 spell slots to do this) it doesn't feel as good. Let alone, there are several spells that have ranges of 60-120 range that would be able to hit, so needing to use misty step+30 feet of movement feels even worse because now you're down a spell slot. Personally if an encounter is bigger than 200 ft OR it would knowingly take more than 4 turns for a melee character to go from front line to front line, IN TURN ORDER, that map is way too big and the encounter should be done in a different manner. I know Matt Colville (or rather MCDM) has rules for doing units for big battles between multiple troops. Or you could have it be a chase/narrative experience as everyone gets closer/marches. Pathfinder 2e has chase rules, something I've seen commonly requested for 5e back when I only ran that. PS, I'm not trying to argue, just pointing out what I noticed on your comment. I didn't realize how important map size is until I started running Pokemon Tabletop United. They suggest 25x25 encounters because the movement/kiting can be very abusable, but obviously that's not necessary for 5e/Pathfinder. I still feel it's a worthwhile example, as well as a system people should look into :)
@@GiggleVibes huh. Haven’t heard of Pokémon tabletop! Thanks for bringing that to my attention! As for some of the things you mentioned: rogues are notoriously difficult to grapple (hello Acrobatics!) and as long as they have support are wonderful front line combatants! And as for cantrips, they’re often better dpr than 1st level spells. Don’t discount them! Lastly, javelins and handaxes are easy for a fighter to reach without needing to switch weapons. The real problem is if the enemy is further than 60ft then they may need a crossbow or something which can be frustrating. And I mentioned these things because the problem of ‘these bad guys are out of range of melee’ is a common one and is meant to be a mild problem for the player to overcome. Of which, depending on the class, is easily solvable!
@@priestesslucy not sure how it worked in 3e but 5e has the charger feat (attack as a bonus action if you move 10ft) thus letting martial classes basically dash at the expense of multi attack. All that said, most fights happen within 60ft
I play and enjoy both systems for what they offer. Another commenter mentioned this, but it bears repeating that in 5e movement is not an action per se but something everyone can do on their turn, limited by their speed. This allows for splitting up movement, which I find makes combat more mobile than in PF2. In PF2 most PC speeds are only 20-25 feet (compared with mostly 30’ in 5e), and movement cannot be split up; if you want to move/attack/move, that is three actions in PF2, regardless of how far each move is, whereas in 5e a fifth level fighter could attack twice in the midst of moving. Because most spells in PF2 are 2 actions, a caster typically gets to move once and cast, whereas in 5e one can move a bit to get into range, cast, and then move away. I’ll add that the limited number of options for bonus actions and reactions is definitely true for the 5e core, but Xanathar’s and Tasha’s have greatly increased options for these, such that it is uncommon IME for a character to have nothing to do for a bonus action for consecutive rounds. That said, I do enjoy PF2, which I’ve played far less than 5e, and I particularly like figuring out how to best play in this game space. I actually think the +10/-10 crit system might be my favorite part, because it makes room for more variety in effects of actions and especially spells.
I run both games presently. My players from 5e have a hard time using the third action in PF2. I gave them a list to consider, but now I think I need to demonstrate with a GM PC. In my experience, ease of use of three actions will be a function of the player.
One can also just demonstrate it with enemies. Just explain it a little while using the actions and make it clear what action has what effect. I think players will catch on more likely if they see a pesky Goblin outsmarting them with their 3rd Action and will want to try to replicate it. I think a DM PC would feel very handholdy.
I'd love to see comparisons of published adventures (even though they come in very different format, so there's a bit of context to be explained when presenting them)
Thanks, Anton. We are coming to the end of an 8-year 5e campaign and looking to switch to Pathfinder. -Something I knew nothing about, so I really appreciate your Pathfinder videos to give me the lay of the land should my group decide to make this change. After watching several of your videos I am pretty keen to make the switch. Thanks again!
Pathfinder from the sound of it has a much more fleshed out system with interesting choices. I really like the critical hit / miss combat mechanic, it's exactly as how I imagined it should have been in D&D. If I ever go tabletop, I'm going to try and go with a pathfinder for sure now.
I love this comparison! I've never played PF2 but I know a bit about the system and this video really helped me make an idea of how it feels at the table :)
To the title question, I think so. There are arguments that it favors martials more, and casters don't have as much opportunity to engage with it, because so many spells are 2 actions, but its way easier for players to get than trying to keep track of what is a bonus action, an action, movement, etc. I had players who had been playing 5E for years, still struggle with that. But 3 actions, no problem, grocked it straight away. Not everything having an AOO is a big one, it took 5E players a fair bit of time to shake off the idea they cannot move once engaged or they'll be hit. They also took a minute to get used to the idea that attacking twice and doing something else was better than making 3 attacks. They were also pleasantly surprised that using that 3rd action for things like demoralize, bon mot, a maneuver attempt or battle medicine really made a super impact on the outcomes of combat, since such actions in 5E usually weren't A) needed because 5E lacks challenge that demands tactics in the first place, and B) aren't as effective. That said, I don't want to see 5E/D&D One just lift PF2E mechanics and lazily call it a day, I want WoTC to actually work and come up with something unique, otherwise 5E just becomes a module for PF2E.
There's some strengths to both systems action economies. For example 5e lets you move and attack and then move and maybe have a bonus action if you built for that and movement is just baseline a little more freeform without factoring in the GM sidebar about breaking up movement in 2e. Meanwhile 2e baseline has move attack move take all your actions. However you can bend that with feats. For example Sudden Charge would let you spend two actions to stride twice and then attack. 3 action worth of stuff for 2. Skirmish Strike lets you Step before or after an Attack and it's one action for 2 thing. Some feat let you attack multiple times on one action letting you do more other things like strike twice and cast a two action spell. plus your actions can help your allies out with bonuses.
Another thing about helping your allies. In 2e it's possible for basically anyone in the party to buff the team and debuff enemies. This means that crits are something you make happen and not something that just randomly happens. It's much more satisfying when you realize all of your strategy and teamwork is actually paying off.
I've been a 5e DM for several years. And i use lots of Minis and Terrain. I homebrewed so that every Attack Of Opportunity is always made with disadvantage. This was to encourage more movement on the battlefield = more movement of the minis = more tactical gameplay = more fun = less "camping". Sure this did loosened up the combat somewhat. But 5e core mechanics does not generally play well with any movement during combat. It's just like you said: "Two sides, run at tech other, then stand and fight until one drop or flee or give up." I've felt for a long time now how stale 5e Combat is, especially when i'm planning encounters now days. It's not fun anymore. Even Critical Role often struggles with boring combat and i often find myself skipping ahead to not watch any of it. Thanks to this greedy OGL debacle i'm finally looking into other systems that mainly focuses on dynamic combat that uses minis and terrain, and PF2E seems kinda nice so far. And these PF2E-videos of yours aged well, like wine, and not like 5e that aged like milk. These videos will be i high demand soon I think, cause many people are leaving 5e now. Including me and my groups. So it would be awesome if you could make a series of several episodes on how a FP2E-DM builds an encounter, how it is actually balanced compared to the shit show that is 5e CR-system, and then use some minis and terrain to play out a combat scenario with yourself, using different races and classes, just to show us beginners how it's done. Something like this would be fantastic. And highly needed these days.
The next video is going to be a "getting started" video that gives a brief overview of the key parts of the core gameplay loop, and then directs you to other resources depending on whether you are a player or GM. But a video covering how to build encounters would be easy enough to put together and probably very useful. I will add it to the list!
@@IcarusGames Really looking forward to see your upcoming videos then. If it would be easier; it would be cool if you could "replay" one of your cooler encounters that you DMed: How you planned it, did you use some kind of online tool like DnDBeyond?, why you picked certain enemies/monsters, how those boosted eachother, how you calculated the CR etc. And then how the combat went down: What the players and your monsters did, step by step. And of course, if you have minis (or just colored M&Ms will do fine) and a grid on hand it would be awesome to see you play it out with an angled Top-Down Bird's-Eye-View like Baldurs Gate 1&2. It makes it much easier for a viewer to "connect" and understand when there are physical items representing each part of the encounter. You, sir, earned yourself a subscriber.
@@IcarusGames Oh gods i just realized you are the VTT-guy i came across last week, lol, sorry. Of course it would be much easier for you to just show the step-by-step combat in VTT. Ignore what i said earlier about minis and M&Ms. You do you. Here, have all my apologies.
Great video! This made me realise how annoying opertunity attacks are, for example in my last game I had to use my entire turn to disengage to get to the place I wanted to because there was two low level grunts in my way. And it would be fine if it was a fun feature for the player but tbh even when I get to opportunity attack an enemy it isn't even that rewarding for me, its more like 'cool I guess I'll hit them then'. It makes the combat feel so... sticky if that makes sense? As in it almost forces you to run up to someone, hit them until they die then move on to do the exact same thing, no strategic thinking, you're almost stuck there with them, or moving round the battlefeild feels sticky as you have to avoid each enemy like the plague or risk being attacked. Its difficult for example to see your friend in danger and run over to help them or see the main boss is super low on health and go in for the finishing blow.
@@somejerk5662 5e is better than 3.5 or pf1 tho. Plus, given how many things pf2e has in common with 4E and 5e, clearly the designers were thinking of widening the audience just as much as those other two.
@@IcarusGames I'm sorry if it seemed like I was presenting some kind of objective truth. I find 3.5 incredibly unfun. Especially the early levels just bore me. There's so many unnecessary numbers and class balance is all over the place.
As a player who doesn't plays for combat I see pathfinder as an enchantment dnd version. In the dnd community I'm a paria who likes equipment management and likes realism in the weapon/armor system and expanded adventuring gear. I feel more comfortable in the pathfinder even with the problem to find games here (Brazilians as whole just play dnd and vampire in general)
Being able to do combat maneuvers like shoving, tripping, grappling and such seems like it would make combat a lot more fun. I know Fighters can do that in 5E but as any other martial character I just stand there, soak damage while swinging at the opponent.
Technically only a single Subclass of Fighters can do more complex manuvers and they're limited as well. Shoving, grappling and such might be available to any character in 5e, but often times feels like a wasted turn, because after that you cannot do aything else. It really does feel bad to shove an enemy to the ground, but before you even get to do anything with it in your next turnn, they'll have their turn and just stand back up. In PF2, you can walk up, shove to the ground and attack them on the ground, all in once turn which makes you just feel so much more accomplished at the end of your turn.
I agree with another commentor, the fact many creatures don't have an AOO is what allows much more diversity in what people do in a turn. but do also look into all the skill actions you can use as well, and anything you can do reliably that can take an action from your enemy is huge ( trip/ grapple/ shove/ disarm/ hide/ stun ).
Calling it a 1, 2, or 3 action activation system is apt, but maybe a little jargony sounding for some. In simple terms and in summary: you get 3 actions, most things take one action unless they involve doing more than one thing at a time (like a running jump is a run and and a jump) or they are a special attack such as certain feats, items, or spells. In which case you need to jot down the action cost as part of your normal ability/spell note taking. It's pretty clean and simple really. And remember folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg, the chassis of the system. As one might gather from the fighter comparison there's feats and such that can toy with the action economy. Sudden Charge being a 2 action attack that can give you two Strides and a Strike (3 actions of stuff at the cost of 2). Some classes like monk get access to 1 action attacks that involve striking twice, empowering you to do other things on your turn without impeding your ability to get the optimum 2 attack per round. Some items can toy with this too, such as Blast Boots that give you a very powerful ability to do a 1 action jump that is much higher range than normal, possibly letting you ignore difficult terrain, get up places without climbing, or move long distances in one action even if slowed by heavy armor. It's hard to make a direct comparison between the two as actions have different levels of power within their respective systems. For example it's been mentioned a few times that you can do movement things and attack partway into a move in 5e. In 2e though its not really a huge gap just because moving and jumping during it takes two actions. The total action has a higher power ceiling. In 5e with a 30ft speed you can move a distance and climb, the climb taking two spaces of move. So like you kinda... can't actually climb in one move a lot of the time? You can move like 10ft and then climb 10 at that speed or Climb up to 15ft. And that cost half to a third of your action economy. I don't know of anything that boosts this but it may exist. Baseline 2e for 2/3rds your action economy? 25ft (the average speed is lower due to the 3 actions) total movement that can be on either side of the climb then Climb 5ft (10ft on a critical success). This is faster that higher your land speed but it's hard for some race + class combos to hit that speed. Early levels you climb slow but the DC won't often scale to match your bonus so if you are trained you can almost always crit even if you aren't high STR. Easy climbs don't require a check. So baseline way more movement, but the climb is kinda capped at 10. This can be boosted somewhat with investment or items. Jumping? Pretty much the same jump distances between systems but in 2e the jump is added to your speed so you move your speed and jump the distance. Also, you can opt to make a check to jump a number of feet equal to the result. So the two action cost of a 2 action move with and jump in it is more movement distance. Though you won't always need it. But also, you won't always need to move in addition to your jump. Slap a skill feat on yourself for Quick Jump and you can just pop off a 1 action jump and cross a decent distance. And in response to "Why would a mage or something invest ranks in Athletics?" that might come in response to this: (1) Does the mage need to be great at physical parkour? (2) Athletics is probably the strongest and most versatile skill in the game and you can get a decent amount of use out of it even with no STR bonus, especially if you take a skill feat called Assurance. I once played a Wizard with no STR bonus that on the regular used Athletics actions on goons and it regularly worked. I once played an inventor with no STR and his use of Athletics was a little OP. Anyway, if you read this wall of text, thank you and have a nice day.
Side note about jumping... the Leap action is absolutely amazing and means in a lot of cases you dont even need to roll athletics to make a jump. basically it lets you make any 10 foot gap if you have 30 feet of movement but the Powerful Leap feat lets you make any 15 foot gap and i swear no one expects you to have it so you can make a ton of jumps no problem. I picked up powerful leap on my paladin because i couldn't find anything else interesting and now it is my favorite athletics skill feat as i use it all the time, even just to jump over enemies who have blocked a hallway but the ceiling is high enough for me to just hop behind them for a flank. at higher levels Quick jump+Assurance is probably better(at level 9 with master prof you can jump a 20 foot gap with only 25 feet of movement and it doesn't take a 5' penalty for having less then 30 feet of movement) but before then its a lot of fun.
It gives a very down to earth assessment of both systems. Sounds neutral to me but may be called as bias by others. Overall a great video. Will come back for your other comparison videos.
Whichever side of the fence you sit, "positive" words about the other side are going to sound biased. Ultimately I'm not here to "convert" anyone for the sake of it. I just want to talk about the cool stuff I've found in case anyone else thinks its cool :D
@@IcarusGames i'm also a big fan of 4e and love both 5e and PF2 , but I.M.H.O i find it to be a superb evolution of 4e . If i recall the action economy idea came from an option during the essential era .
@@sylvaincousineau5073 Paizo printed a test of the 3-action economy in Pathfinder Unchained for PF1e. It was also Mark Seifter's first big Pathfinder book so I'm not surprised how much got moved into 2e.
@@sylvaincousineau5073 I have not but I've learned a lot more about it recently. It does intrigue me but I've heard it's almost impossible to actually play now due to a lack of online rules. It looks like I somehow messed up my last comment. It was meant to respond to someone else.
Great video, Anto! Just what I was looking for as a 5E player who is curious about PF2. I love that crits are not just for damage in PF2. I also like incentivizing setup tactics. It gives that nice "combo breaker" feel when it succeeds. Are there times when PF2 mechanics don't feel good? Like when you're the character who doesn't get an attack of opportunity? Or like in 5E, when you crit the attack roll, but you actually deal less than average damage (boo!) See you around the LK Discord! :D
Not having AoO can feel bad sometimes, but the enemies not having it as frequently as really nice. As a GM, one of the things that isn't great for me is watching the players not work together to set each other up. The system assumes you will be utilizing certain debuffs etc, and when the players don't work together in that way, they can get their butts handed to them in combat.
Played 5e for several years, but it's gotten rather stale and limited to me. The 3 action system offers way more versatility and I'm really looking forward to playing p2e.
I was thinking about that 5ft Step action in Pathfinder, what it would look like in realtime. It looks more like a run or dash step than a walking step. A walking step is more like 3ft(1 meter), but the game square is 5ft not 6ft. So I propose two types of steps: Walk Step = 2.5ft or 1m Dash Step = 5ft or 2m With the walk step, you won't be using that in combat, you would be dashing. That leads to: Walk Pace = 2.5ft/sec (1m/s) 9k ft/hr (3km/hr) 216k ft/day (72km/day) Dash Pace = 2x stamina drain 5ft/sec (2m/s) 300ft/min (100m/min) Fatigued after 10min of dashing, for 3k ft/10min (1km/10min). Must Short Rest for 20min before doing it again. Only 6 times a day for a total of 18k ft/1.5hr (6km/1.5hr). Must Short Rest for 4hr every 3 pace intervals. Walk Pace only requires a Short Rest for 2hr after 6hr intervals. So only 12hrs travel + 4hr Short Rest + 8hr Long Rest in a Day's walk.
I think what it's really supposed to represent is you slowly stepping away from your enemy, still focused on them with your guard up, so they cannot take advantage of your otherwise opened up defense. Maybe the term "Step" does not mean a single step, but just the act of stepping slowly, rather then striding swiftly, which would refer to the normal move action.
I'm currently in three D&D 5e games and have been running one for well over a year now, and I lament not going with Pathfinder 2e. 5e was easy enough for my friends and I to pick up and play, but I've grown annoyed at really odd and absurd things about its rules, some of which you touched upon, and I really don't like the "Disengagement" being an action (so much so that I've homebrewed my own rules to something which is more similar to PF2). Like you said, in 5e, two opposing forces of frontline fighters clash and basically get stuck to each other until one side wins -- it's not very interesting, imo. Also, I have a humorous and terribly awkward 5e rule to convey regarding a boulder trap. Rules as written: when the threat of this trap appears, which in this case was a fast-moving boulder approaching from 90 feet away at the end of a long hallway, everyone rolls initiative -- the boulder getting its own initiative. The DM rolled high for the boulder, 4 of 5 of the party did not. First, the one player steps to the side to avoid the boulder, while the rest of us stand still. The boulder uses its turn to move over the party instantly downing the three that failed their saving throw (very unlucky for level 7 characters). We joked that the three of us who it smashed spent our time deliberating what to do about the boulder: "Should we negotiate with it? Which way shall we step to side to avoid it, or should we dive? Let's take a vote on the matter or get a mediator for this important discussion--" **squish** Since it was a giant sphere rolling down a rectangular hallway, all that was needed to avoid it was just diving 5 feet to the side of its path. Fortunately since we weren't too low on resources we were able to laugh it off for being such a non-heroic moment. But it would have been super frustrating if it brought us close to a TPK. Does PF2 have a similar way of handling this kind of trap? I'd be curious to know.
Your shield stays up until the start of your next turn. So basically you'll always use at least one action blocking if you want to constanly profit from the AC Bonus.
Thanks for the great video. I am considering moving to PF2E from D&D 5E. One of my biggest issues with 5E is that player power is way out of balance and the CR system is broken. I spend a lot of time creating challenging encounters and customizing monsters, which is annoying. Does PF2E better balanced in this regard? I hate having to bypass classic monsters that should be level appropriate because they are way to easy for the players.
PF2 encounters should be a lot more balanced than 5e. Obviously your individual party composition can change things, but PF2 is regarded as being more balanced.
As a chronic 5e Fighter with a highly creative mind and a vivid imagination, having PF2's 3-action economy would be huge. One of my favorite characters was a Lizardfolk Battle Master, but a lot of the things I described him doing during and outside of combat either didn't have any impact or the impact wasn't as intended. I remember wanting to grab a guy with one hand, and while holding him there, punch him in the face (hopefully hard enough to knock him down). But I couldn't, because it would take all my available actions just to approach and grab. I'd have to wait for my next turn to punch the guy, and by then he could've broken free. Being able to move, grab and attack all in one turn is far superior in my opinion to having to split that between two turns.
Given the current state of ttrpgs, our group will be switching to PF2e. We are excited for the switching! Check out our live play podcasts @dungeons&drones
So how can you protect spellcasters, particularly at low levels if there are few attacks of opportunity? What prevents monsters from just running circles around the fighters and killing off the casters in back?
A few things. - The martial characters are usually the ones who get attacks of opportunity (Reactive Strikes in pathfinder), so they can usually threaten enemies in the frontline. - Enemies also have 3 actions, so the GM has to be conscious about how many actions they are using. - Casters have the same AC values as martials, but just have less HP. Sometimes they can have more AC early thanks to spells like Mystic Armor, so attacking them can prove worthless. - Casters can get defensive reactions from spells. One in particular I used was called "Wooden Double" and essentially if I was ever critically hit I would spawn a wooden copy of myself and step 1 square away. The copy takes the attack and I only take the excess damage. - If an enemy walks past the frontline to attack the backline, they are opening themselves up to flanking bonuses when the frontline have their turns. And a few other things that only get more pronounced at higher levels.
Drop Prone in 5e is actually a free action, but that is neglegible with these highly subjective comparisons. Running up to someone and attack thrice, is not possible in Pathfinder either, just saying, as you only have 2 actions left after movement and you always get all your attacks, which very well will be multiple for martial characters in 5e. So where martial characters are slightly better of in lower levels, the balance changes as soon as level 5 when you get additional attacks in 5e which by the way do not get multi-attack penalties. Concerning the critical system something I have never seen anyone mention, it is great to have the chance for more critical successes but it punishes you to try to hit or do something else, which you are not good at as rolling 10 under gets you a fcritical failure. So you will fail more often as well. Indeed you gather a lot of small boni in pathfinder whereas bomni you get in 5e feel much more meaningful because they are not that small. The biggest thing about this that the range for success is even smaller for 5e. Where 20 is a high AC in 5e in pathfinder it goes easily up to 40. The argument about zipping around is pure speculation and style to play and not true for any 5e combats I have done. The action economy in pathfinder is different, not expanded, so I cannot answer your final question, as it is simply based on wrong asumptions. Ahh and what I forgot, most characters will and all can get something to do with their bonus action, so that is wrong as well.
The issue with martial classes in D&D is a double edged sword. Keeping the combat simple is a priority and this stifles the combat alot. But a GM should always take that into consideration. Martial classes usually have good athletics and if the GM uses surroundings, have the martial classes have huge obstacles that they can move around. Boulders they can try to push down a ravine. Explosive barrels they could pick up and toss and a mage / archer could ignite it. Barricades they can turn for their allies to take cover behind. Heavy combat machineries like ballistas I'd allow to move alone when the roll is good. If the options of combat for a class are limited, reward them with creative use of terrain and deliberately try to give them athletic feats that let them give a cool moment.
I cast Wall of Text at 4th level :P -To me, bonus actions feel less like a bonus and more like often-wasted actions because they have so many restrictions. If a D&D5e character either can't or chooses not to move and use a bonus action, they end up doing very little on their turn, while a PF2e character can spend their actions on other options instead. That really matters when it could be a few minutes before your next turn. -Everyone in D&D5e having attacks of opportunity basically means that once characters are in the fray (especially if their enemies have similar speeds to them), not only is repositioning risky, the mechanics don't let them outright retreat unless they're a rogue, monk, tabaxi, etc. with a higher speed. Otherwise, GM fiat decides whether their enemies (and the environment) will let them retreat. I had considered adding a Retreat action as a modded Disengage that granted more movement but could only be used to move away from the enemy, not to reposition, but IDK how well that would work. -I agree with another comment that PF2e crit successes are better because they come more from strategy and teamwork (combining buffs and debuffs with feats/abilities) than D&D5e's flat 5% chance of rolling a crit that rarely gets increased by anything (other than rolling with advantage). I'll admit I've mostly walked away from rules-heavy systems (my current system of choice is Cortex Prime), so I don't really see myself playing or running either of these anymore. I suppose my love of Cortex's modularity explains why I like PF2e more than D&D despite its crunch.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding about how the characters should behave during a fight. Intelligent characters should understand tactics implications and should use mobility and support actions... but sorcerer ,fighter, monk, ranger, with 8 in int, are better characterized if simply stack in fight for all the duration of the combat. If you like play "tactical" characters, you should "pay" for their tactical ability.... PF2 allows very fun tactical fight... but this is fine with the interpretation of all the characters? If you are a barbarian, you simply want to disintegrate one enemy at a time.... In my opinion Pf2 fights are too fluid, and this is fun, but could be a problem for realism and character interpretation. In DnD 5E is simpler to fit the character role... because you are simply a less powerfull character. You can argue that if you have int 14 and still you don't take mobility or misty step, is difficult to be a good tactician... I'm not saying that the move-action-bonus action is better... but the 3 action economy is a little bit too permissive with the player.... all Pf2 is a little bit too " super-hero-character " oriented.
The map was made using Inkarnate, and the software being used for the worldbuild in the clip is Legend Keeper. I have videos on both here on the channel ☺️
I think one of the most important effects of the 3-action economy is in the debuffs! 5e is full of save-or-suck effects. Oh did you get stunned? Time to go to the bathroom or get a beer. You're not doing anything for maybe 15 minutes. But in PF2e if you get stunned, you lost one action. You still have a turn! You can still do things! Or if you stun a big monster, then it doesn't get a chance to use its super scary 3-action activity, but it's also not totally helpless for an entire round. The BBEG doesn't just die without taking a single action. It makes slow and haste effects extremely simple to understand just getting more or less actions. It means that you can have different degrees of stunned, slowed, or hasted in a very simple and straightforward manner. Honestly, PF2e is just so brilliant from top to bottom.
An interesting thing is that in 5e you are often times incentivized to actually dash away, risking getting hit by the opportunity attack but avoiding the multiattack that would inevitably follow on the enemies turn (Because OAs are 1 attack roll only).
I really think the PF "3 action" system isnt really anything but a trap and bait and switch. From actions having multiple costs, and the multi attack penalty, its just not as good as the 5e system or at least not as honest. There is no practical difference between them, though yes there are features that you can do that are different and how attacks and bonus and crits work are different, strictly speaking on the actions themselves there is no real difference. I dont know why people think there is this major divide. If you wanted a REAL 3 action system, every spell, attack, action would be 1 pt, and there would be no multiple action penalty, including attacks. That would be more honest...cause when you tell someone you have 3 actions and can attack 3 times if you want, its factually true, but practically stupid to try.
I actually get where you're coming from. You CAN build characters in PF2 that beautifully taken advantage of the 3 action economy which lets them do stuff they couldn't do in a system like 5e, but for most characters most of the time it didn't feel like the characters were playing differently to 5e in a meaningful way when it came to action economy.
Great video! With Hasbro being a bunch of bastards, I think a lot of people will be giving this a look, and like me, I think many folks will see that yes, this is a better system. Not the quantity of content as DnD, but everything I have seen seems better. ,,,now to find a group...
Nice video. The only thing I'd change is the way you explained activities (not activations). You have 3 actions on your turn and a whole bunch of activities you can spend them on. Some activities are 1 action, some are 2, and some are 3 actions. They're all activities that cost actions to do. Free actions are things you're allowed to do as much as you want. Reactions are basically the same as 5e.
D&D 3.5E was pretty much the same as Pathfinder 2E. I mean, not exactly the same, but it had a WHOLE LOT of stuff in common. And I miss 3.5E. Sure, I still have all the books and stuff, but you hardly find people to play it at all. I've been wanting to delve into Pathfinder 2E for some time now. D&D 3.5 had the same action economy. Normal Action, Movement action, Swift Action and Free Action. It was amazing.
@@IcarusGames I must convince my friends to get into Pathfinder. I'm so frustrated with 5e. Everything seems dumbed down to a level where everything from magic items to magic itself feels underpowered.
My group and I switched to Pathfinder 2 about 3 months ago, and I can't even look at D&D 5e anymore. The Pathfinder system is superior in every aspect, and I feel that the material treats me with respect (I'm the DM), providing me with all the tools I need.
How good are skill actions? My Level 2 Bard can: 1) Demoralize anything not immune to fear thanks to Intimidating Glare. 2) Non-magically heal an adjacent ally for 2d8, 4d8 on a Critical Success, thanks to Battle Medicine. 3) Reduce enemy Will saves with a Bon Mot. All are single actions. All are non-magical and do not consume my resources. All are available at at level 2 to almost any character.
You know I’ve heard this statement a lot. And it’s not that I disagree but, I think a lot of PF2E players attribute the broader feel of freedom to the wrong thing. I don’t think it has anything to do with the action economy, and actually is due to the well designed feats and other types of actions that are granted to characters in PF2E. I think most people would agree this discussion mostly has to do with martials as spellcasters have a lot of different things they can do in both system. So even if the action economy system was the same, and it is actually really similar when you break it down, PF2E would still feel like you had more things to do as a martial character. D&D 5E has most martials just attacking over and over unless maybe you are a battle master fighter and even then it’s still attacking with added effects. It makes it simple but really really bland to play a straight up martial character and that’s why most D&D 5E veterans multiclass into spell casting options on almost every character.
5e's Action system is actually simpler and somehow less straightforward than that. Movement isn't considered an Action, so even if you're under a condition that prevents you from "acting" but doesn't mention reducing your speed to 0, you can still Move. Also, by RAW, you don't HAVE a bonus action. The standard turn is Movement and a single Action, but some class features and spells GRANT you a bonus action-otherwise you don't even have one to waste. Even worse, there's technically no Free Action either, but something called a Free Item Interaction. There are a few examples of what this could be (drawing a weapon, opening OR closing a door, dropping something, etc.) but where the line for what could potentially qualify for an FII is totally up to DM discretion, meaning it could be different at every individual table. It really is a mess. Pathfinder's 3-Action economy feels like a genuine step forward in game design and I hope systems like it become the standard going forward.
That's the thing. PF actually has the mechanic in place so when you have a question about rules, the rules will usually have the answer. In 5e, far too often it's left to DM fiat or having to search for sage advice articles/tweets from J.C.
@@IcarusGames eh, with stuff such as combat 5e is a lot like that. It's just stuff like army building, magic item costs, crafting, etc, big things that are usually subsystems unto themselves, that are like that where you need to look up stuff and get 3rd party stuff. It's usually only rules following DMs such as myself that bother looking up JC tweets.
In 5e, there are things with mechanical impact that you can do that don't have an action cost, which would be Free Actions. Talking is a free action (within reason), so you can convey information to your team. Releasing a grapple and dropping concentration can be done at any time for no cost. Dropping prone can be done for free on your turn, since it doesn't cost any movement. Falling happens with no movement cost, but to do it purposefully (to fall onto an enemy) it would often cost you some movement. Most DMs rule that dropping a held object is akin to releasing a grapple so it follows those rules, since there are no written rules on the matter.
@@DvirPick "Most DMs" would rule that, but not all of them. That's my point. There *are* things that would be considered a free action, but the free action isn't a codified mechanic in 5e, so what you can actually do that isn't outlined by any of the other action categories is totally up to the DM. I prefer a game with more mechanical consistency and uniformity of experience across tables, even if it means I as a player have to do more work up front.
Well, the 4e action economy was better, and P2 is an improved version of that, so yes. That is, if you want more variety in your combat. 5e is a little easier to teach though.
I don't know man, my players took a while to wrap there hands around what they're actually allowed to do and not allowed to do with their bonus action, even worse for spellcasters trying to figure out what spells they can use in which order if they wantt to use two spells in a turn. From a pure combat perspective, i think the 3-Action-Economy is a lot more straight forward and easier to understand, you just have more options at your disposal which takes time to memorize, but i for one just have a handy cheat-sheet for everyone with a list of actions and their action-cost. So they can easily just refer to that until they get it down.
idk if it's in dnd5e too, but pf2e doesn't have 1 free action you have almost infinity amount of free actions, the thing is: you can only use one free action per trigger so if you have 2 free action, who trigger on rolling inititive, you only can pick one from them, but if you have later a free action that lets you use grabble after an successful attack, you can still do it that's why free actions are quite rare too. not everyone can get one so easily and reaction should be mentioned once too: a fighter have up to 5 reaction triggers 1. AoO (who is even different as dnd5e) 2. raise a shield (if he has one) 3. Aid (if he prepared) 4. ready (if he prepared) 5. catch a fall (will happen rarely, but should be notified) rules laywer made a fighter combat, where one of the fighters use raise a shield to get better ac, but the enemy used shove to push it into the pit behind him, he got some dmg, landed prone I think and need to climb back up so he needs at least 3 actions to get back up, wasting a whole round as he couldn't use his reaction sure, fighters are extrem, as most have usual the last 3 only and will probally barely use it, but it should be noted that reaction are sometimes more versatile thanks to the option you have as only one of these things is a feat, the rest are stuff that you can do, if you have the trigger and their are some feats who are unic who can add to the list too, like leshy superstition, gives a +1 circumstance bonus against magic effects or spell
0:30 "underwhelmed by 5e". Well, you and everyone who has ever played almost any other system than 5e. It's just not very good, or satisfying, to play. For the infinite slog of multiple attacks and buckets of dice, you get very little actual depth. I would pick a lightweight, narrative system over 5e any day, and feel much more invested and immersed in my character.
Many people love the three action economy, but after playing with it I’m not a fan. Let’s break it down So, running into combat (with 1/3 of my turn), proceed to bonk (second attack sucks but not as much as number 3). Get bonked, my turn. Contemplate: the third attack will suck, but what else would I do? If you don’t sword and board you don’t have that action. Maybe I’ll do a maneuver or rage or something, but that just brings us back to the problem next turn or doesn’t solve the multi attack penalty (since the maneuvers also get multi attack debuffs). You could move “for free” since there’s no opportunity attack, but generally the monsters are faster then you so it solves nothing, next turn the monster walks up and 2 actions you back. The problem doesn’t get better for spell casters, since most spells are 2 actions to cast. True they get more benefits from turning and running with that last action but round 1 at the back of the line what impact could that third action have? Your point on skill actions is nice but the group I was in didn’t bother with them, and maybe we were the outliers and it negatively impacted our game but it speaks to the larger flaw with pathfinder 2e: illusion of choice. Honestly dnd isn’t much better, but at least you get free (totally free) movement each turn and a reaction. You might only get 1 action but generally it’s more impactful then most pf2e actions, and if you build right you can get a bonus action reliably. And again usually monster speed beats player speed so there’s no use moving anyway (but at least you didn’t waste an action on it), so opportunity attacks aren’t the only thing restricting movement, but on the players side if you want to lock down an enemy with opportunity attacks you can so your back line isn’t in danger of the monsters just ignoring the tanks. Pathfinder 1e had a very similar system to dnd 5e so it can get lumped in here too. But is there a better way? There is a better way: lancer. It has all the things people claim to love about the three action system and the best parts of the dnd system. Also it’s a mech rpg but we’re talking action economy right now. To start your turn you have protocols, actions which must happen before anything else. Note the plurality: if you load your mech with 20 protocols all or non can activate. Next have a movement action, on the house. Now to the meat of your turn: you can use 2 quick actions or 1 full action, as specified by the systems, weapons, talents, or actions you are using. These are generally impactful, and the only restriction on them is that you cannot use the same quick action twice. But what if you really wanted too? Overcharge! If you want to pretend you’re playing pf2e you can overcharge for a third quick action, which does not need to follow “no identical quick action” rule. It does cost you heat though. But now the turn is over, so it’s time to sit back and sleep until your turn, right? Wrong: lancer gives you 1 reaction per turn, not once per round. In addition every lv 0 mech comes with 2 reaction, overwatch (opportunity attack) and brace (resistance to damage). Now most reactions won’t let you use them every turn (and brace say no more reactions till next turn), but you could build your mech to do something every turn of combat (conditions apply see store for details) Also this isn’t touching on ai you can install onto your mech, allowing them to use additional actions or letting your pilot out to use their own movement 2 quick or 1 full action turn.
"Your gonna stand next to them and hit them until they die... For a lot of characters in a lot of turns that's what your gonna be doing. Because mechanically that's the best thing to do." I feel like this is the biggest issue that comes up when trying to get 5e players into the PF2e mind set. A while back there was the whole "illusion of choice" controversy when a curtain streamer announced they were quitting PF2e. But the thing was I noticed the majority of those arguments boiled down to examples that existed in a vacuum and assumed that doing the most DPS in a turn was ALWAYS the optimal choice. The flaw in that kind of thinking though is it would imply doing 3 attacks even if the last one is at -10 is better than doing an action that would give a bonus to another player's attack because you can only calculate your DPS not some hypothetical other person's DPS. The problem with the 5e mechanics is it creates a soloist mind set as most players focus on min/maxing their own DPS potential since that is how you become the most effective at your class in 5e. Also because you rarely move in 5e there is often not much concern about what other players are doing or where they are relative to you. Pathfinder 2e on the other hand is more of a Team game. The majority of Buffs/Debuffs are such that it is easier for your teammates to take advantage of them rather than you. Also with the high mobility and flanking mechanics the players need work together and get into position so they can help each other out. Flanking is a great example of the disconnect for 5e players as I joined a campaign with players all familiar with 5e but it was their first PF2e game. It was so frustrating seeing them forgetting to flank and then missing by 1-2 on an attack. For example imagine the NumPad is the board and the enemy is standing on 5, there is a player on 6, then the next player moves up to the 1 position even though they had movement left and could have gone to 4 and got the flank. Then the player on 6 instead of moving up to 9 position to be able to flank with the help of the person in 1 position just stays where he is and attacks. I understand they are new to PF2e and that but this and the synergy of other mechanics are things that I feel a lot of 5e players overlook in the system, even when they give PF2e a "test run" they are still stuck in the 5e mindset so they don't see all the options and depth the system has, like in that campaign which ran for about 3-4 months and characters had leveled twice by the end of it they still rarely flanked and mostly only because I was reminding them. I mean flanking is one of the easiest teamwork mechanics that every character has access too and yet they weren't using it to work as a team. I've played in other campaigns since that also had new PF2e players coming from 5e and the "I just run up, stand there, and hit till it dies" mindset seems heavily en-grained which is gonna take time to break that line of thinking. EDIT: Just wanna note that campaign I mention was also MY first PF2e game so it wasn't like I was some experienced PF2e ragging on new players.
So, as i understand it, 5e says “don’t do that” and 2e says “I mean I wouldn’t but you can certainly try, just don’t get your hopes up” which is a similar but fundamentally different message
I am a 50 year old man, who played Dungeons and Dragons since I was 12 from the 1rst printing of the blue boxed set of basic edition (the second printing is red)to AD&D. I DMed both 1rst edition and 2nd edition in Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and in Dark Sun campaigns. Sadly i quit playing in 98 as mmos began breaking out on the pc. Currently the mmos have become stale and are not very interesting and my interest to get back into table top rpg has been growing. So I have been looking into both of these systems 5e and 2e. I really like Dungeons and Dragons campaign worlds better than the generic feeling of Pathfinder campaign ( i still do not know a lot about it though) but the rules of Pathfinder 2e does seem very superior. I really like your video as well as it seems to break down the differences really well.
I think that, like the forgotten realms, Gorlarion is trying to be a catch all setting with a bit of everything, which can make it feel more "generic". I think a lot of the less generic settings lean so hard into their gimmick I would struggle to run them long term. But the rules for PF2 do see more mechanically complete. I don't think they are necessarily more complex, but less is just left to GM choice, and more things are actually given written rules.
I would watch out for the modules in pathfinder 2e if you plan to get back into things. They seem all inclusive but they play out like absolute garbage. Best to make your own campaigns.
Pathfinder 2e combat sound more interesting , yet can understand the reason why people say floating modficers is more complex. Do most likely getting easier as you play.
Most floating modifiers come as a result of player action. So you or your team mates doing something to give you some kind of bonus, which makes them a reward for strategic team thinking.
Having played pf2e for some time now, I honestly don't think the 3 action system is better. I am not saying it's worse, I just have a hard time justifying that it's better. I think people purposely drag the action econmy of 5e to make it look bad compared to pf2e. For example, spells. Everyone seems to use that as a comparison of how faster pf2e is. But casting spells isn't that hard in 5e. It's not. You get 1 move action that you can break up however you want, 1 action, 1 interaction, 1 bonus action, and 1 reaction. Everything tells you clearly what they do and what it takes to use it. A spell is simply this. You can cast 1 bonus action spell + 1 cantrip with a cast time of 1 action. Simple. Easy. Straight forward. I do not get why people try to make this out like it's really complex and confusing. It just comes off more like people just don't know the rules that well. And with a system without a lot of rules, what's the excuse? Meanwhile, my goodness. Do you know how long it takes my players to figure out what to do with 3 actions? And what takes an action? Is grabbing a potion an action? Is opening a door an action? I get a free action? Is it an action to say something? Do I have anything that uses a reaction? You know what never mind, I just won't do anything with my 3rd action. End of turn. Combat in pf2e takes my players so much longer than it did in 5e. I think the 3 action economy is cool because it lets players feel like they're doing more, but is striding with 1 action, and taking 2 strike actions. They feel like they did more because they spent 3 actions but did they? Is it not the same as moving in 5e and attacking after level 5? And if you only moved 15 feet, then attacked with your 2 attacks, and your total speed is 30 feet you still got 15 more feet to move. Technically a level 5 fighter in 5 can move 15 feet, use a bonus action to give them like advantage on their strikes, swing two times, and then use the rest of their 15 feet to move more. That was 5 things 1 player did in 5e. Compared to only the 3 they can do in pf2e. See what I mean? It seems like they can do more, but I don't really think they can. I think people just convince themselves it's better and come up with weird examples to justify it in their minds.
movement is almost meaningless in dnd 5e since it's free and bonus actions are really awkward, PF2e's action economy is much more interesting and has more choices. Sure you can stride and strike like a normal fighter but with each action comes many other choices you can take especially since martials actually have different moves with different actions costs unlike 5e where they all just multiattack 99 percent of the time.
@@ce5122 I don't think this statement is untrue, but it also confirms with me what I'm saying. Movement is useless because it's free, but it's also more dynamic. A fighter in 5e can move, attack twice (if they're level 5 or more) and then move more. This is impossible in PF2e. There's also a whole lot more a fighter could do in 5e instead of just attack, but you hardly ever see this. Meanwhile I've seen my players in PF2e get overwhelmed by their 3 actions and just default to attack, trip, shove. Sure, as I said, they feel like they're doing more and it makes combat seem more dynamic, but I'm also watching my players struggle to decide what to do as time drags on and then they just do nothing out of anxiety that they're taking too long. Again, I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I just see a lot of paper thin arguments about how 5e sucks and PF2e is superior, the 3 action economy being a big one. And my two+ years playing I don't really think it's that much better. Different? Yes! Better? I'm still not convinced on that. Especially since most arguments I see against 5e come from not fully understanding 5e rules.
@@Gliiitchy I'm sorry but it seems like your players are just new if they can't decide on their actions. Also movement isn't more "dynamic" in 5e just because you can move for free and split it up, in reality it makes movement very shallow. Ok so you walk up strike twice then move away and they get an AoO, what now? They simply move toward you for free and your impact was minimal. Meanwhile in PF2e if you decide to be strategic you can spend an action to move toward a boss, strike it, then stride away, now that boss has to spend one of it's precious actions to chase that person down. Movement costing actions makes movement matter and adds more depth to combat.
5e as a pure caster can be sooooo frustrating. "I cast X spell"-COUNTERSPELL- "and that ends my turn....Wait! Bonus Action Face Palm. Now my turn is over."
True, the counter point is that because of the four degrees of success in PF2 there are a lot of instances in which you are really relying on the enemy to critically fail saves to make your caster's spells make the most effective they can be, and as caster numbers don't go as high as say a fighter, a lot of casters find that element frustrating. In a recent session my PCs faced off against a powerful enemy and because of the way the casters had chosen their spells and how the enemy's saves worked out the casters could barely touch the creature with spells throughout because they were relying on critical fails to have the most effect. Being counterspelled in 5e does always take the wind out of one's sails, but both my casting players overall seem to miss the spellcasting of 5e.
Although the three action economy is great, some of the benefits you mention is due to unrelated mechanical differences. Such as attacks of opportunity beung different, that is unrelated. I also regret that you neglect to mention that movement in 5e can be done at any time during your turn, and isn't limited to once per turn. I still think the 3 action economy, but I think your evaluation of the pros and cons could be more thorough.
@@lj_aderyn This is completely different from moving two squares, attack, moving two more squares, extra attack, then moving yet two more squares. All on a movement speed of 30.
@@Dharengo that's fair enough. Though I will say there are plenty of feats in the game that can accomplish a similar sequence. For one particular example, there is Dual-Weapon Blitz from the Dual-Weapon Warrior archetype that lets you move up to your speed and attack with two separate weapons (at any point of your movement) for a two-action cost. Essentially, a more "complex" manoeuvre like you suggested would be something that you would specifically have to level up and spend a feat for - rather than something a lowly level 1 adventurer could pull off.
I prefer Ironclaw 2e's action economy a bit. You get 2 actions, and they must be different. I specifically enjoy that when you fly you have to keep using an action each turn to stay flying, I feel like people would be less pissy about flying races if we had something like that.
I may feel different reading through myself or in-play, but on first sight I don't like the 2 actions but they have to be different aspect. That feels like artificially limiting choice.
a lot of the skill actions don't seem reasonable mid combat, like doing an intimidation when realistically everyone is this fight might die and it's way easier to scare someone by actually hurting them, or figuring out things about the enemy which either could be done with a free perception check or the only reasonable way you would find that out would be by attacking. you dont find out something's AC or weaknesses by not hitting it. i also have kind of a poor opinion of the multi attack punishment because that.. doesn't make much sense logically unless as a free reaction the enemy always reflexively puts their hands up to physically block, and even then that would be either less of a debuff or a debuff to damage as damaging those parts of the body is less life-threatening. i like the three action economy in theory but in my ttrpgs i like it to try to make sense of where magic and realism meet and this seems to erase what makes logical sense because they couldn't make it balance properly otherwise
just checked RAW (read: googled it) and it looks??? like perception checks need to count as an action in 5e which negates that portion of my argument but I stick to the idea that perception checks should be free and both pathfinder 2e and DND 5e are doing this wrong
short answer: yes long answer: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
My biggest issue with Pathfinder in general is it feels so fucking dense. The amount of rules to keep track of and the amount of community rep behind how unbelievably complicated certain actions are and how DMs have to wade through books upon books to find specific rulings has kept me from even wanting to touch the system. It sounds unpleasant.
It's definitely more dense, but he majority of the extra density sits on the GM side of things. Where 5e essentially says "DM, you'll figure it out" to a lot of stuff, PF actually gives rules and guidance for those things. Once you've made your character, the actual play experience as a player isn't significantly more dense, at least not as much as the thicc rulebook would have you believe. Not counting spells and equipment, you only need to go through 70-80 pages of the 630+ pages of the core book as a player, it's comparable in terms of page reading as a player to 5e.
How long does it take to learn PF2? Take the time it took for you to feel comfortable playing 5e, and then halve that because it's all based on the same d20 chassis. It's just a few differences in the way certain things work, and largely just feels like an upgrade, like an AD&D to 5E's Basic. If you're planning to run is as a GM, then there's certainly a bit more to take in, but as Anto pointed out above, PF2 gives guidance and rules to avoid ambiguity when it comes to running the game. Speaking from personal experience, it's frustrating to play at a new 5e table and discover that the DM is operating on a completely different set of assumptions and rulings for their game because it's just not either in the DMG/PHB or they hadn't dared to consult the sage wisdom of Crawford, the Omni-Adjudicator.
Yeah, it's dense, but it actually puts that density to good use. Once you get used to all the specific rules it lets you focus on other areas. 5E, on the other hand, is a Bethesda game, and the poor unfortunate DMs are the modding community being forced to fix a broken mess for free
Even just listening to you explain bonus actions... they just feel undeveloped. Every time I make a 5e character I feel compelled to ensure I have one of the very few options to make use of bonus actions and even then they're not always useful round on round. Sure at low levels Pf2 can leave players with questionable use for their 3rd action, but you can at least do SOMETHING, even if it's just a recall knowledge. I still plan on playing both systems but 5e bonus action just feel criminally under used.
1) Move Action can also be to use to take Cover by moving behind Cover 2) Actions Grapple and Shove were dismissed which are alternative Attack Actions which make Athletics ability check aginst enemy's Athletics or Acrobatics of their scooching. 3) You can move Grappled creatures just by Moving unlike in Pathfinder 2e 4) Raging Barbarian gains Advantage on Grapple and Shove (shove prone, shove 5ft) 5) Free Action can also be used to chat with someone. If you talk too long the DM can say that is enough or I will take your Action 😏 yes, this was a problem few times. My point is simple. You say you felt as Barbarian that only thing you could do is Rage, move to enemy and start killing them? How about you Grapple them and push them off the cliff? How about you shove them down with the advantage giving your Rogue and Fighter advantage on their attacks? How about you Grapple the enemy and spin them around you moving them out next to your Wizard? Depending on the rules "You can drag or carry an enemy" I have asked many DMs how they would rule me who wants to move an enemy in front of me who is now Grappled behind me off the cliff? Answer: You can just do it Problem: Spike Growth force movement every 5ft movement you take 2d4 dmg and I can just move them back and forth so they take damage until they die 👍 you can start this stupid abuse at level 3 with Druid. Answer: You can't do it Problem: My only option is to jump off 🐑 and don't think I wont do it! I will take ½ dmg from falling dmg as Raging Barbarian 😂 Answer: You can move them for 5ft for every 10ft Question: So if I move and that moves them is that now 20ft movement from me 😏 My Answer: You can move yourself, you can move them or you can move together but any time you, they or both of you move 5ft you must spend 10ft movement. So Basically to swing enemy to other side of me I must spend 20ft movement Spike Growth I can spend 30ft movement to deal 6d4 dmg to the enemy 👍 and people say Grapple is useless. 6) Improvised weapons like picking up dirt and throwing it on someone's eyes can cause Blinding effect 🤔 I don't know if Rules Support this but as Role Playing Game we allow you to waste actions like this. The enemy is blinded until start of their turn but all attacks against that target are with advantage. critical strike and it is end of their turn 😏 I have used this few times outdoors.
You mentioned playing as the most straightforward class in 5e, the Barbarian, and walking up to an enemy and attacking them until they're dead. But the enemy was doing the same to you. If a smart enemy decides to take an opportunity attack to go after your fragile caster ally, suddenly you have more options: Do you rush after them and attack them again, hoping to down them before your caster's concentration is broken? Do you grapple them and drag them away from your caster so that the caster can escape? Do you shove them prone so that their opportunity attack against your caster is at a disadvantage and they will need to spend half their speed to get up, so they wouldn't be able to reach the caster without dashing? Do you shove the caster away so the caster can move away without the threat of opportunity attacks? When against more than one type of enemy, which do you go after first? If a ranged threat is farther away, do you dash to get to them so that their attacks are at a disadvantage no matter the target, or do you go for the closer melee threat to keep them from going after your ranged allies? What if the ranged threat is a caster? Do you dash to get to them, or throw a javelin to try to break their concentration?
Any situational complexity in options that can be presented in 5e can be presented in almost any other system, and 5e doesn't creature really any specific situational complexity to choice that can only be found within that system. Oftentimes, the "best" option for a character such as a barbarian is to get up close and hit a thing until it dies. The system encourages and rewards that behavior pattern. PF2 encourages more varied actions through it's multiple attack penalty and critical success system. If you just run up and hit something 3 times, the system will "punish" you, so it's mechanically encouraging players to do more varied things to set up the "best" situation, which is to buff/debuff to prepare for a hit with the best critical success chance.
What do you think of the action economy in PF2 compared to 5e? Would you like to use a 3-action system in 5e, and what sort of options would that open up for you?
I like the idea of the skill actions and increased criticals, and could see homebrewing it into 5E.
I’m more familiar with 5e than 2e (I’m a DM for 5e but have played SOME 2e). My gut feeling is that while 5e action economy is less flexible in general, the 2e action economy encourages an ‘optimal’ series of actions each round.
Like, yes a Fighter hardly ever uses a bonus action but when they need to second wind it DOESN’T take up one of their attacks. It’s my understanding that the best thing a fighter can do in 2e is attack 3 times right?
Because of the multiple attack penalty, attacking three times is rarely the best choice. Better to use that third action to debuff enemies of aid allies.
@@IcarusGames oh! Right! Neat. But don’t most classes have an ‘optimal’ attack routine? 5e have the same problem some times (you mentioned Barbarian feeling samey in 5e and that is true)
@@IcarusGames I feel like this feeling of frustration at martial characters ‘not having much to do’ is system agnostic. In fights where burning through enemy HP is most important (which is most fights) you’re just always going to have that problem.
I think this is better fixed through encounter design than system design. My mind goes to the last fight in Exandria Unlimited Calamity and the martial characters spent a lot of time just grappling the baddies and jamming the doorway because the purpose of the encounter was for one PC to finish a ritual. And that fight would have been amazing had it been 2e instead of 5e because of the stakes and encounter design
I think the not-everyone-gets-attack-of-opportunitiy deserves as much or even more credit than the three action economy. There is so much more movement in my PF2e battles because of it. In 5e I move and camp out until one of us dies. If it's not me, then I move to another camping spot, wash, rinse, repeat.
I also really like the potential threat of an attack of opportunity. My party was in a bad shape and fighting a nasty monster. They needed to retreat, but an AoO might put them down. So they did this difficult roundabout way of regrouping while my monster didn't even have a reaction. That was cool to see.
Great point
Yeah, not a fan of opportunity attacks. Especially with those god awful feats
It also allows ranged fighters the chance to get away from their foes without risking their death
I didnt realise I didnt like attacks of opportunity until I read this comment, but your completely right! I wish there was an easy way to convert all of my recently purchased kobold press monster books to pathfinder I think id switch my party to it tomorrow if so lol
This 3-action economy sounds so much more versatile than what 5e does. This is one of the key points selling me on swapping systems. PF2e seems less restrictive, much more nuanced, and importantly doesn't seem drastically more complicated than 5e, plus the sheer scope of character customization is appealing.
It is not. As soon as you go pass level 7, it starts to feel quite restrictive if you come from a 3.x/PF1 background. Trust me, having move action, free action, switf action, attack action, bonus action is much more interesting and natural than being stuck with 3 actions for everything all the time.
One of my favourite features of the three-action system is that sustaining a spell costs an action, so spellcasters - especially those whose main gig is buffing allies - get to make interesting choices around maintaining multiple spells and dealing with the reduced actions it leaves them to do other things.
That 3-action-1-reaction economy is exactly what made me convert from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2. It gives SO much freedom to how you move and fight. Basically anything simple is *an action*, of which you have *3*! It's so versatile, and I love it.
I prefer the 3-action economy and the fact that movement is not free action but instead a resource. I think it enables more interesting fighting options
Played and GMed both D&D5E and PF2E, I prefere PF2E. Your Options in PF2E are much richer as are your options in customizing the char. However, I have experienced some bewildermend with semi engaged players who are not into custumizations and reading through options. Players who just want a bit of casual play and ease of rules will feel more at home in D&D5th edition.
If you like to work on your character and have lots of options to individualize him and make him more unique and want different options for different kinds of enconuters, PF2 is your system.
I think we need to bring back more pregen characters. It's totally valid to just want to play your character and not worry about making lots of choices, and starting with a pregen and then following the example builds in the CRB should be totally normalized.
You've incidentally hit upon the filter I use to determine if someone should join me in PF2e or if I should send them off to play 5e. I ask them about if they want to play a game where the Barbarian has to think as much as the Wizard. I ask them whether they want to play a game where they feel like a cunning warrior who beats enemies with both brawns and clever battlefield tactics, or if they want to play a game where they can chill and settle into the rhythm of Move, Thump, Pass Turn.
One thing with Pathfinder's action economy that changes the combat dynamics is that movement isn't ubiquitous or wasted. You only get movement when you want it and can spare the action.
Tripping and shoving enemies in D&D 5e doesn't often impact much in most cases because they will almost always have movement available to them as part of their turn. They will just get back up or walk back to you and more often than not it won't mess with their game plan at all. They will still probably just walk up to you and multiattack.
Shoving enemies in PF 2e will absolutely cost them an action if they want to walk up to you and hit you unless they have reach or some other special non-standard ability. There's also the chance to crit on the shove and knock them prone which will cost them more actions.
Tripping is great because it absolutely crushes their movement down to 5 foot crawl actions or taking one of their action to stand up. Being prone also imposes a penalty on attacks, so staying prone ruins your offense as much as your defense. If they're tripped in front of a fighter that means they're probably gonna eat a free hit since attack of opportunity can trigger on any move action within range.
Disengaging from enemies in D&D 5e also tends to be pretty lackluster unless you're faster than your enemy. It also casts your standard action for most characters and that's by far the most important part of your turn, the same action that governs your ability to either attack or cast spells which are how you get pretty much everything done. Meanwhile as soon as it hits that enemy's turn they get to use their movement to catch up to you with no cost to their ability to rip you apart while you spent your most important action to essentially just change the venue of your ass-beating.
Moving away from enemies in PF 2e does cost you actions, sometimes multiple if you need to first do a 5 foot Step out of an attack of opportunity range if they have it, but at the very least you are causing them to need to spend an action to catch up to you. If you're faster than them it will likely cost two of their actions. While it sometimes might cost you more, it still will cause the enemy to need to spend part of their turn to catch up to you instead of getting more hits or abilities in.
The game changes so much by making it so movement isn't just always there for free.
The example of tripping is one that I've used to explain how tactically different combat is between the systems. The way I see it, these games are-and should be- about choices. If I give someone three actions, to apply however they want, I'm giving them more choices, and more ways to play the character their way. If I say you have "movement" and that can only be used "x" way. Then you have "Standard" actions, and they can only be used this way. Oh, yeah, you have "Bonus" actions, but they can only be used if X and Y conditions are met, and only for these few actions. I feel that it limits creativity.
5E explicitly does not call it a 'move action' because movement is a thing you can do throughout your turn.
I’ve dm’d both and I love the action economy in pf2e. Not just because 3 actions makes combat much more dynamic but the sheer number of options you have really allows players to be mechanically creative with what they want to do. A big part of this is how useful skills are in combat, something far less true in 5e.
Another point about natural 20s and 1s in PF2e - they just upgrade/downgrade the success instead of 'auto crits'. So if your nat 20+modifier is still under the DC, you just succeed instead of crit succeeding. And, God forbid, your 20+mod would crit fail, you just fail. The way the +/- 10 threshold and nat 1/20 system interplay with the AC scaling (you add your level to basically everything you do as well as your DCs and AC, so you get some truly bonkers numbers at high levels) is one of my favourite parts of the system, because it means a party fighting a group of enemies slightly lower leveled than them can truly feel like badasses, and an enemy a couple of levels higher is a true challenge. It also sends pretty clear signals - if your fighter is only hitting, not critting, on a nat 20, you need to RUN.
Fun fact: in 5e it only takes a couple thousand peasants with daggers to kill a balor. They hit (and crit!) on a 20, after all. Even if we assume that they all only do 1 damage (really 1d4, after crit and resistance) and only live to get off one throw (Balor can only kill 10/round with optimal use of fire aura) that's still "only" 5,000ish peasants.
In pf2e, they can't just fish for that crit, so the Balor properly mows them down.
I like it because high leveled characters feel properly strong against weak enemies + it becomes more about the characters, instead of 5E's emphasis on dice rolls and feeling more like gambling throughout. That D20 matters way too much IMO
Thank you for this comparison between the systems!
One of the things that I feel is often over looked in the Pathfinder 2e action economy is support actions and working as a group. Spending your third action to give a status effect like flatfooted or aid (or in the case of support characters more of your actions) can have a huge benefit for your allies without your turn feeling wasted.
Really? I thought people would help you out more but I guess that’s the playstyle that other people want, just having to fight themselves.
@@theannualantagonist5930 From my experience with MMOs and even my last TTRPG too many people do not know how to play as a team. It’s not that they do not want to do those team-assist actions, they just never think of them.
I’ve not played Pathfinder, but I have played and DM’d D&D from 1e to 5e and I hate 5e’s action economy because they give me this bonus action, but make it very limited, with no real reason other than “Because I say so.”. I mean why couldn’t someone duel-wield Cantrips if they want to!? As long as they follow the duel-wield rules. Of course in Pathfinder you cant do this either, because they have made most spells 2 actions, which for me makes no sense for Cantrips.
@@jdeuraud1096 Cantrips still take the same amount of time to cast. They still require verbal/somatic/material components, just like spell slot spells. It would be weirder if they were quicker imo
@@mphoenix3764 “They still require verbal/somatic/material components,”
Did a quick walk-through of D&D Beyond Cantrips.
13% had all 3 components.
26% had only 1 component.
61% had 2 components.
28% had a Material component.
Back before even 3e we had a Cantrip we called Fire-finger.
You snapped your finger (S), and said Fire-finger (V), and you had a flame at the end of your finger to light your pipe with.
If you do this action you can do it in about the same time it takes to say “One-one-thousand”.
Now think about doing this action multiple times per day, every day, since you were an Apprentice, or learned magic. There should become a point were you just focus on this action and it happens, because VSM are just tools that allow you to focus on the action you desire.
In 5e, a 5th level VSM spell that you just learned has the same casting time as a VS Cantrip that you have known since you learned to do magic.
This is just wrong!
It's been many years since I have played 5e, and I have been playing P2 since launch.
You nailed it here. Combat and play in general is much more dynamic.
I will concede that creates some "analysis paralysis" when players are just getting into P2.
great vid Icarus, I'm a huge fan of the 3 action system in pf2e compared to 5e. The ability to do good actions every turn and have a couple to do on any nonsense you want is great. I'm always burning actions to recall knowledge.
I think another vid that you could do pretty easily is resource management. how 5e short rest system and long rest system doesn't work that well most of the time against pf2e not putting many limits on base features and how it works.
Big thing I felt was missed in the skill actions is that the athletics ones like trip, shove, and grapple have the attack trait so multi attack penalty does apply. So something like trip will make your next attack worse off, but give all allies a buff against them due to prone
Thanks, glad you liked it!
You're right, I did miss the MAP on some of the skills actions, that's my bad.
Shove (either away or prone) can replace an attack in Multi Attack. But you’re right on grapple. Which is why the tavern brawler feat is so popular. So you can shove then get advantage on grapple
@@DOOMsword7 not really sure what you're getting at Doom, my references to athletics were pf2e skill actions.
Personally, I don't like the athletics attacks in 5e because they're contested against the strongest of two of their skills which gives the enemy a very good chance of beating you. I prefer the pf2e way since you can target their weakness and there's counterplay and choices there
@@shanebitner8991 lol I see that now! There is a different problem in 5e with skill contests usually being an action ignore that lol.
Great video. Just received my beginner box in the mail this week and I'm currently reading through it. Love the options 2e gives in regards to combat.
That's awesome! I really liked the PF2 starter set from what I've seen of it. I should probably make a LMoP/PF2 starter set comparison. . .
@@IcarusGames I would love to see this!
@@IcarusGames I would love to see it! I’ve heard good things from Paizo’s adventure writing
As someone that played 5e for a few campaigns, the thing that annoyed me the most is when the enemy isn't within 30ft of you. Happened a lot in my last one (literally last one) because the battlefields tended to be big in that one. Often fights would start and half the party couldn't do anything but move. and sometimes there'd just be blank turns for some characters doing nothing but movement.
2e? I just Stride twice and then have an action left. Or the fighter Sudden Charges, striding twice and attacking and then having an action left. Or the monk strides twice and uses Flurry to attack twice. If the enemy is REALLY far away? Though you probably shouldn't since you are letting them get closer for free, you have a third action to Stride further. Distances that in 5e would require two blank turns in 5e can be crossed in like 4-5 actions. Less if you are fast. Not to mention even if you can't reach them some characters could still throw an Intimidate at them with the third action instead of moving more.
2e isn't just more mobile because of how our AoO isn't universal, it's just faster. Even with the average move speed on things being 25ft baseline (which is different by ancestry and there's feats and abilities to boost).
Or just use ranged weapons? That’s what javelins are for! Or if playing a fighter action surge! Or playing a rogue cunning action dash! Or if playing a wizard, misty step (away! Because you’re a wizard lol)
Covering that distance is supposed to shake things up. If every combat starts with the baddies being 10 feet away what use is a Barbarian or Monk’s extra movement??
@@DOOMsword7 I'll agree that flexibility of your character is important, but there's a few problems with your suggestion. You're suggesting burning resources to solve a problem that could simply not exist. Ranged weapons I can understand, but for a fighter wearing heavy armor, putting away their shield and weapon doesn't feel good. The fighter using action surge to hustle sounds cool, but not as cool as getting to attack 2-3 more times later in the combat. And the rogue using their bonus action to run in to make an attack feels bad because they're now in range to be hit back or worse: grappled. Lastly, misty step being a bonus action spell that means when you moved the 60-ish feet, you now are rewarded with only being able to use a cantrip! Unless you're a warlock (who used one of their possible 4 spell slots to do this) it doesn't feel as good. Let alone, there are several spells that have ranges of 60-120 range that would be able to hit, so needing to use misty step+30 feet of movement feels even worse because now you're down a spell slot.
Personally if an encounter is bigger than 200 ft OR it would knowingly take more than 4 turns for a melee character to go from front line to front line, IN TURN ORDER, that map is way too big and the encounter should be done in a different manner. I know Matt Colville (or rather MCDM) has rules for doing units for big battles between multiple troops. Or you could have it be a chase/narrative experience as everyone gets closer/marches. Pathfinder 2e has chase rules, something I've seen commonly requested for 5e back when I only ran that.
PS, I'm not trying to argue, just pointing out what I noticed on your comment. I didn't realize how important map size is until I started running Pokemon Tabletop United. They suggest 25x25 encounters because the movement/kiting can be very abusable, but obviously that's not necessary for 5e/Pathfinder. I still feel it's a worthwhile example, as well as a system people should look into :)
@@GiggleVibes huh. Haven’t heard of Pokémon tabletop! Thanks for bringing that to my attention!
As for some of the things you mentioned: rogues are notoriously difficult to grapple (hello Acrobatics!) and as long as they have support are wonderful front line combatants! And as for cantrips, they’re often better dpr than 1st level spells. Don’t discount them! Lastly, javelins and handaxes are easy for a fighter to reach without needing to switch weapons. The real problem is if the enemy is further than 60ft then they may need a crossbow or something which can be frustrating.
And I mentioned these things because the problem of ‘these bad guys are out of range of melee’ is a common one and is meant to be a mild problem for the player to overcome. Of which, depending on the class, is easily solvable!
5e doesn't even have the Charge Action from 3rd?
_lame_
@@priestesslucy not sure how it worked in 3e but 5e has the charger feat (attack as a bonus action if you move 10ft) thus letting martial classes basically dash at the expense of multi attack.
All that said, most fights happen within 60ft
I play and enjoy both systems for what they offer. Another commenter mentioned this, but it bears repeating that in 5e movement is not an action per se but something everyone can do on their turn, limited by their speed. This allows for splitting up movement, which I find makes combat more mobile than in PF2. In PF2 most PC speeds are only 20-25 feet (compared with mostly 30’ in 5e), and movement cannot be split up; if you want to move/attack/move, that is three actions in PF2, regardless of how far each move is, whereas in 5e a fifth level fighter could attack twice in the midst of moving. Because most spells in PF2 are 2 actions, a caster typically gets to move once and cast, whereas in 5e one can move a bit to get into range, cast, and then move away.
I’ll add that the limited number of options for bonus actions and reactions is definitely true for the 5e core, but Xanathar’s and Tasha’s have greatly increased options for these, such that it is uncommon IME for a character to have nothing to do for a bonus action for consecutive rounds.
That said, I do enjoy PF2, which I’ve played far less than 5e, and I particularly like figuring out how to best play in this game space. I actually think the +10/-10 crit system might be my favorite part, because it makes room for more variety in effects of actions and especially spells.
I run both games presently. My players from 5e have a hard time using the third action in PF2. I gave them a list to consider, but now I think I need to demonstrate with a GM PC. In my experience, ease of use of three actions will be a function of the player.
One can also just demonstrate it with enemies. Just explain it a little while using the actions and make it clear what action has what effect. I think players will catch on more likely if they see a pesky Goblin outsmarting them with their 3rd Action and will want to try to replicate it. I think a DM PC would feel very handholdy.
What do you think of the PF2 action economy?
If you want to see more PF2 content I'd love to know what kind of videos you'd like to see!
It's great for the game, and it's simpler and more elegant than many other similar games.
I'd love to see comparisons of published adventures (even though they come in very different format, so there's a bit of context to be explained when presenting them)
@@lorenzovaletti4951 I want to 2nd seeing content about published adventures. I love reading both of them but seeing a breakdown would be great!
I love everything about it EXCEPT the fact that shields cost an action to give AC
Thanks, Anton.
We are coming to the end of an 8-year 5e campaign and looking to switch to Pathfinder. -Something I knew nothing about, so I really appreciate your Pathfinder videos to give me the lay of the land should my group decide to make this change. After watching several of your videos I am pretty keen to make the switch. Thanks again!
Pathfinder from the sound of it has a much more fleshed out system with interesting choices. I really like the critical hit / miss combat mechanic, it's exactly as how I imagined it should have been in D&D. If I ever go tabletop, I'm going to try and go with a pathfinder for sure now.
This was a really good summary.
I love this comparison! I've never played PF2 but I know a bit about the system and this video really helped me make an idea of how it feels at the table :)
Glad you found it useful ☺️
Pathfinder. No question. It is just so simple and elegant
To the title question, I think so. There are arguments that it favors martials more, and casters don't have as much opportunity to engage with it, because so many spells are 2 actions, but its way easier for players to get than trying to keep track of what is a bonus action, an action, movement, etc. I had players who had been playing 5E for years, still struggle with that. But 3 actions, no problem, grocked it straight away. Not everything having an AOO is a big one, it took 5E players a fair bit of time to shake off the idea they cannot move once engaged or they'll be hit. They also took a minute to get used to the idea that attacking twice and doing something else was better than making 3 attacks. They were also pleasantly surprised that using that 3rd action for things like demoralize, bon mot, a maneuver attempt or battle medicine really made a super impact on the outcomes of combat, since such actions in 5E usually weren't A) needed because 5E lacks challenge that demands tactics in the first place, and B) aren't as effective. That said, I don't want to see 5E/D&D One just lift PF2E mechanics and lazily call it a day, I want WoTC to actually work and come up with something unique, otherwise 5E just becomes a module for PF2E.
There's some strengths to both systems action economies. For example 5e lets you move and attack and then move and maybe have a bonus action if you built for that and movement is just baseline a little more freeform without factoring in the GM sidebar about breaking up movement in 2e.
Meanwhile 2e baseline has move attack move take all your actions. However you can bend that with feats. For example Sudden Charge would let you spend two actions to stride twice and then attack. 3 action worth of stuff for 2. Skirmish Strike lets you Step before or after an Attack and it's one action for 2 thing. Some feat let you attack multiple times on one action letting you do more other things like strike twice and cast a two action spell.
plus your actions can help your allies out with bonuses.
I was about to comment with something similar. Well stated.
Another thing about helping your allies. In 2e it's possible for basically anyone in the party to buff the team and debuff enemies. This means that crits are something you make happen and not something that just randomly happens. It's much more satisfying when you realize all of your strategy and teamwork is actually paying off.
Great information for a 5E player looking to learn more
I've been a 5e DM for several years. And i use lots of Minis and Terrain. I homebrewed so that every Attack Of Opportunity is always made with disadvantage. This was to encourage more movement on the battlefield = more movement of the minis = more tactical gameplay = more fun = less "camping". Sure this did loosened up the combat somewhat. But 5e core mechanics does not generally play well with any movement during combat. It's just like you said: "Two sides, run at tech other, then stand and fight until one drop or flee or give up." I've felt for a long time now how stale 5e Combat is, especially when i'm planning encounters now days. It's not fun anymore. Even Critical Role often struggles with boring combat and i often find myself skipping ahead to not watch any of it.
Thanks to this greedy OGL debacle i'm finally looking into other systems that mainly focuses on dynamic combat that uses minis and terrain, and PF2E seems kinda nice so far.
And these PF2E-videos of yours aged well, like wine, and not like 5e that aged like milk. These videos will be i high demand soon I think, cause many people are leaving 5e now. Including me and my groups. So it would be awesome if you could make a series of several episodes on how a FP2E-DM builds an encounter, how it is actually balanced compared to the shit show that is 5e CR-system, and then use some minis and terrain to play out a combat scenario with yourself, using different races and classes, just to show us beginners how it's done. Something like this would be fantastic. And highly needed these days.
The next video is going to be a "getting started" video that gives a brief overview of the key parts of the core gameplay loop, and then directs you to other resources depending on whether you are a player or GM.
But a video covering how to build encounters would be easy enough to put together and probably very useful. I will add it to the list!
@@IcarusGames Really looking forward to see your upcoming videos then. If it would be easier; it would be cool if you could "replay" one of your cooler encounters that you DMed: How you planned it, did you use some kind of online tool like DnDBeyond?, why you picked certain enemies/monsters, how those boosted eachother, how you calculated the CR etc.
And then how the combat went down: What the players and your monsters did, step by step. And of course, if you have minis (or just colored M&Ms will do fine) and a grid on hand it would be awesome to see you play it out with an angled Top-Down Bird's-Eye-View like Baldurs Gate 1&2. It makes it much easier for a viewer to "connect" and understand when there are physical items representing each part of the encounter.
You, sir, earned yourself a subscriber.
@@IcarusGames Oh gods i just realized you are the VTT-guy i came across last week, lol, sorry. Of course it would be much easier for you to just show the step-by-step combat in VTT. Ignore what i said earlier about minis and M&Ms. You do you. Here, have all my apologies.
Great video! This made me realise how annoying opertunity attacks are, for example in my last game I had to use my entire turn to disengage to get to the place I wanted to because there was two low level grunts in my way. And it would be fine if it was a fun feature for the player but tbh even when I get to opportunity attack an enemy it isn't even that rewarding for me, its more like 'cool I guess I'll hit them then'. It makes the combat feel so... sticky if that makes sense? As in it almost forces you to run up to someone, hit them until they die then move on to do the exact same thing, no strategic thinking, you're almost stuck there with them, or moving round the battlefeild feels sticky as you have to avoid each enemy like the plague or risk being attacked. Its difficult for example to see your friend in danger and run over to help them or see the main boss is super low on health and go in for the finishing blow.
I agree! Opportunity attacks promote static gameplay.
It’s January 2023 and I’m starting to read Pathfinder 2ed. Really feels to the evolution of DnD 3.0 & 3.5.
To me it feels more like 4E.
Pf2e was a group of people who play D&D saying "How can we make D&D better?".
5e was a group of suits saying "how can we make D&D more marketable?".
@@somejerk5662 5e is better than 3.5 or pf1 tho.
Plus, given how many things pf2e has in common with 4E and 5e, clearly the designers were thinking of widening the audience just as much as those other two.
Wildly subjective! I prefer 3.5 and PF1 to 5e in a lot of aspects.
@@IcarusGames I'm sorry if it seemed like I was presenting some kind of objective truth. I find 3.5 incredibly unfun. Especially the early levels just bore me. There's so many unnecessary numbers and class balance is all over the place.
As a player who doesn't plays for combat I see pathfinder as an enchantment dnd version. In the dnd community I'm a paria who likes equipment management and likes realism in the weapon/armor system and expanded adventuring gear. I feel more comfortable in the pathfinder even with the problem to find games here (Brazilians as whole just play dnd and vampire in general)
Great videos. I've been looking into Pathfinder and this is helpful.
Glad you found it helpful!
Aid action alone can make pf2 combat more inclusive and encourages more creativity.
The answer is yes, next!
Being able to do combat maneuvers like shoving, tripping, grappling and such seems like it would make combat a lot more fun. I know Fighters can do that in 5E but as any other martial character I just stand there, soak damage while swinging at the opponent.
Technically only a single Subclass of Fighters can do more complex manuvers and they're limited as well.
Shoving, grappling and such might be available to any character in 5e, but often times feels like a wasted turn, because after that you cannot do aything else. It really does feel bad to shove an enemy to the ground, but before you even get to do anything with it in your next turnn, they'll have their turn and just stand back up. In PF2, you can walk up, shove to the ground and attack them on the ground, all in once turn which makes you just feel so much more accomplished at the end of your turn.
I agree with another commentor, the fact many creatures don't have an AOO is what allows much more diversity in what people do in a turn.
but do also look into all the skill actions you can use as well, and anything you can do reliably that can take an action from your enemy is huge ( trip/ grapple/ shove/ disarm/ hide/ stun ).
Well explained, I love it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Calling it a 1, 2, or 3 action activation system is apt, but maybe a little jargony sounding for some. In simple terms and in summary: you get 3 actions, most things take one action unless they involve doing more than one thing at a time (like a running jump is a run and and a jump) or they are a special attack such as certain feats, items, or spells. In which case you need to jot down the action cost as part of your normal ability/spell note taking. It's pretty clean and simple really.
And remember folks, this is just the tip of the iceberg, the chassis of the system. As one might gather from the fighter comparison there's feats and such that can toy with the action economy. Sudden Charge being a 2 action attack that can give you two Strides and a Strike (3 actions of stuff at the cost of 2). Some classes like monk get access to 1 action attacks that involve striking twice, empowering you to do other things on your turn without impeding your ability to get the optimum 2 attack per round. Some items can toy with this too, such as Blast Boots that give you a very powerful ability to do a 1 action jump that is much higher range than normal, possibly letting you ignore difficult terrain, get up places without climbing, or move long distances in one action even if slowed by heavy armor.
It's hard to make a direct comparison between the two as actions have different levels of power within their respective systems. For example it's been mentioned a few times that you can do movement things and attack partway into a move in 5e. In 2e though its not really a huge gap just because moving and jumping during it takes two actions. The total action has a higher power ceiling. In 5e with a 30ft speed you can move a distance and climb, the climb taking two spaces of move. So like you kinda... can't actually climb in one move a lot of the time? You can move like 10ft and then climb 10 at that speed or Climb up to 15ft. And that cost half to a third of your action economy. I don't know of anything that boosts this but it may exist.
Baseline 2e for 2/3rds your action economy? 25ft (the average speed is lower due to the 3 actions) total movement that can be on either side of the climb then Climb 5ft (10ft on a critical success). This is faster that higher your land speed but it's hard for some race + class combos to hit that speed. Early levels you climb slow but the DC won't often scale to match your bonus so if you are trained you can almost always crit even if you aren't high STR. Easy climbs don't require a check. So baseline way more movement, but the climb is kinda capped at 10. This can be boosted somewhat with investment or items.
Jumping? Pretty much the same jump distances between systems but in 2e the jump is added to your speed so you move your speed and jump the distance. Also, you can opt to make a check to jump a number of feet equal to the result. So the two action cost of a 2 action move with and jump in it is more movement distance. Though you won't always need it. But also, you won't always need to move in addition to your jump. Slap a skill feat on yourself for Quick Jump and you can just pop off a 1 action jump and cross a decent distance.
And in response to "Why would a mage or something invest ranks in Athletics?" that might come in response to this: (1) Does the mage need to be great at physical parkour? (2) Athletics is probably the strongest and most versatile skill in the game and you can get a decent amount of use out of it even with no STR bonus, especially if you take a skill feat called Assurance. I once played a Wizard with no STR bonus that on the regular used Athletics actions on goons and it regularly worked. I once played an inventor with no STR and his use of Athletics was a little OP.
Anyway, if you read this wall of text, thank you and have a nice day.
Side note about jumping... the Leap action is absolutely amazing and means in a lot of cases you dont even need to roll athletics to make a jump. basically it lets you make any 10 foot gap if you have 30 feet of movement but the Powerful Leap feat lets you make any 15 foot gap and i swear no one expects you to have it so you can make a ton of jumps no problem. I picked up powerful leap on my paladin because i couldn't find anything else interesting and now it is my favorite athletics skill feat as i use it all the time, even just to jump over enemies who have blocked a hallway but the ceiling is high enough for me to just hop behind them for a flank. at higher levels Quick jump+Assurance is probably better(at level 9 with master prof you can jump a 20 foot gap with only 25 feet of movement and it doesn't take a 5' penalty for having less then 30 feet of movement) but before then its a lot of fun.
It gives a very down to earth assessment of both systems. Sounds neutral to me but may be called as bias by others.
Overall a great video. Will come back for your other comparison videos.
Whichever side of the fence you sit, "positive" words about the other side are going to sound biased. Ultimately I'm not here to "convert" anyone for the sake of it. I just want to talk about the cool stuff I've found in case anyone else thinks its cool :D
PF2 have way more in common with D&D 4e than 5e .
Certainly seems that way. Which I am 100% ok with because I've loved everything I have read of 4e.
@@IcarusGames i'm also a big fan of 4e and love both 5e and PF2 , but I.M.H.O i find it to be a superb evolution of 4e . If i recall the action economy idea came from an option during the essential era .
@@sylvaincousineau5073 Paizo printed a test of the 3-action economy in Pathfinder Unchained for PF1e. It was also Mark Seifter's first big Pathfinder book so I'm not surprised how much got moved into 2e.
@@austinmozer4638 have you played D&D 4e ?
@@sylvaincousineau5073 I have not but I've learned a lot more about it recently. It does intrigue me but I've heard it's almost impossible to actually play now due to a lack of online rules. It looks like I somehow messed up my last comment. It was meant to respond to someone else.
Great video, Anto! Just what I was looking for as a 5E player who is curious about PF2. I love that crits are not just for damage in PF2. I also like incentivizing setup tactics. It gives that nice "combo breaker" feel when it succeeds.
Are there times when PF2 mechanics don't feel good? Like when you're the character who doesn't get an attack of opportunity? Or like in 5E, when you crit the attack roll, but you actually deal less than average damage (boo!)
See you around the LK Discord! :D
Not having AoO can feel bad sometimes, but the enemies not having it as frequently as really nice.
As a GM, one of the things that isn't great for me is watching the players not work together to set each other up. The system assumes you will be utilizing certain debuffs etc, and when the players don't work together in that way, they can get their butts handed to them in combat.
8:37 You don't get *a* free action. You can do as many free actions as you want, as long as the requirements apply.
Please make more pf2e vids explaining the differences to the 5e players. Advocacy like this helps us grow.
I'm going to make a video unboxing/comparing the starter set for both systems in a couple of weeks :D
I thought this was be a 3 second video where you just say "Yes".
Played 5e for several years, but it's gotten rather stale and limited to me. The 3 action system offers way more versatility and I'm really looking forward to playing p2e.
I was thinking about that 5ft Step action in Pathfinder, what it would look like in realtime. It looks more like a run or dash step than a walking step. A walking step is more like 3ft(1 meter), but the game square is 5ft not 6ft. So I propose two types of steps:
Walk Step = 2.5ft or 1m
Dash Step = 5ft or 2m
With the walk step, you won't be using that in combat, you would be dashing.
That leads to:
Walk Pace =
2.5ft/sec (1m/s)
9k ft/hr (3km/hr)
216k ft/day (72km/day)
Dash Pace = 2x stamina drain
5ft/sec (2m/s)
300ft/min (100m/min)
Fatigued after 10min of dashing, for 3k ft/10min (1km/10min). Must Short Rest for 20min before doing it again. Only 6 times a day for a total of 18k ft/1.5hr (6km/1.5hr). Must Short Rest for 4hr every 3 pace intervals.
Walk Pace only requires a Short Rest for 2hr after 6hr intervals. So only 12hrs travel + 4hr Short Rest + 8hr Long Rest in a Day's walk.
I think what it's really supposed to represent is you slowly stepping away from your enemy, still focused on them with your guard up, so they cannot take advantage of your otherwise opened up defense. Maybe the term "Step" does not mean a single step, but just the act of stepping slowly, rather then striding swiftly, which would refer to the normal move action.
I'm currently in three D&D 5e games and have been running one for well over a year now, and I lament not going with Pathfinder 2e. 5e was easy enough for my friends and I to pick up and play, but I've grown annoyed at really odd and absurd things about its rules, some of which you touched upon, and I really don't like the "Disengagement" being an action (so much so that I've homebrewed my own rules to something which is more similar to PF2). Like you said, in 5e, two opposing forces of frontline fighters clash and basically get stuck to each other until one side wins -- it's not very interesting, imo.
Also, I have a humorous and terribly awkward 5e rule to convey regarding a boulder trap. Rules as written: when the threat of this trap appears, which in this case was a fast-moving boulder approaching from 90 feet away at the end of a long hallway, everyone rolls initiative -- the boulder getting its own initiative. The DM rolled high for the boulder, 4 of 5 of the party did not. First, the one player steps to the side to avoid the boulder, while the rest of us stand still. The boulder uses its turn to move over the party instantly downing the three that failed their saving throw (very unlucky for level 7 characters). We joked that the three of us who it smashed spent our time deliberating what to do about the boulder: "Should we negotiate with it? Which way shall we step to side to avoid it, or should we dive? Let's take a vote on the matter or get a mediator for this important discussion--" **squish**
Since it was a giant sphere rolling down a rectangular hallway, all that was needed to avoid it was just diving 5 feet to the side of its path. Fortunately since we weren't too low on resources we were able to laugh it off for being such a non-heroic moment. But it would have been super frustrating if it brought us close to a TPK.
Does PF2 have a similar way of handling this kind of trap? I'd be curious to know.
The answer's yes. Wholeheartedly YES.
When you raise your shield, does it stay raised? Or do you have to raise it every turn?
Your shield stays up until the start of your next turn. So basically you'll always use at least one action blocking if you want to constanly profit from the AC Bonus.
Thanks for the great video. I am considering moving to PF2E from D&D 5E. One of my biggest issues with 5E is that player power is way out of balance and the CR system is broken. I spend a lot of time creating challenging encounters and customizing monsters, which is annoying. Does PF2E better balanced in this regard? I hate having to bypass classic monsters that should be level appropriate because they are way to easy for the players.
PF2 encounters should be a lot more balanced than 5e. Obviously your individual party composition can change things, but PF2 is regarded as being more balanced.
My big frustration with 5e action economy is my warlock having to wait 5 turns to reach full damage because all their buffs take a bonus action
What was the map program you used at 7:25? Is that World Anvil?
That is Legenedkeeper. There's several videos on the channel dedicated to it ☺️
As a chronic 5e Fighter with a highly creative mind and a vivid imagination, having PF2's 3-action economy would be huge. One of my favorite characters was a Lizardfolk Battle Master, but a lot of the things I described him doing during and outside of combat either didn't have any impact or the impact wasn't as intended. I remember wanting to grab a guy with one hand, and while holding him there, punch him in the face (hopefully hard enough to knock him down). But I couldn't, because it would take all my available actions just to approach and grab. I'd have to wait for my next turn to punch the guy, and by then he could've broken free. Being able to move, grab and attack all in one turn is far superior in my opinion to having to split that between two turns.
Bon mot, intimidate, strike
Given the current state of ttrpgs, our group will be switching to PF2e. We are excited for the switching! Check out our live play podcasts @dungeons&drones
It’s worth noting that in 5E, most builds focus on getting a reliable bonus action (Telekenetic, PAM, etc).
Getting both a bonus action and a useful reaction that can be used often is an important part of build making is part of what makes build making fun.
So how can you protect spellcasters, particularly at low levels if there are few attacks of opportunity? What prevents monsters from just running circles around the fighters and killing off the casters in back?
A few things.
- The martial characters are usually the ones who get attacks of opportunity (Reactive Strikes in pathfinder), so they can usually threaten enemies in the frontline.
- Enemies also have 3 actions, so the GM has to be conscious about how many actions they are using.
- Casters have the same AC values as martials, but just have less HP. Sometimes they can have more AC early thanks to spells like Mystic Armor, so attacking them can prove worthless.
- Casters can get defensive reactions from spells. One in particular I used was called "Wooden Double" and essentially if I was ever critically hit I would spawn a wooden copy of myself and step 1 square away. The copy takes the attack and I only take the excess damage.
- If an enemy walks past the frontline to attack the backline, they are opening themselves up to flanking bonuses when the frontline have their turns.
And a few other things that only get more pronounced at higher levels.
Drop Prone in 5e is actually a free action, but that is neglegible with these highly subjective comparisons.
Running up to someone and attack thrice, is not possible in Pathfinder either, just saying, as you only have 2 actions left after movement and you always get all your attacks, which very well will be multiple for martial characters in 5e.
So where martial characters are slightly better of in lower levels, the balance changes as soon as level 5 when you get additional attacks in 5e which by the way do not get multi-attack penalties.
Concerning the critical system something I have never seen anyone mention, it is great to have the chance for more critical successes but it punishes you to try to hit or do something else, which you are not good at as rolling 10 under gets you a fcritical failure. So you will fail more often as well.
Indeed you gather a lot of small boni in pathfinder whereas bomni you get in 5e feel much more meaningful because they are not that small. The biggest thing about this that the range for success is even smaller for 5e. Where 20 is a high AC in 5e in pathfinder it goes easily up to 40.
The argument about zipping around is pure speculation and style to play and not true for any 5e combats I have done.
The action economy in pathfinder is different, not expanded, so I cannot answer your final question, as it is simply based on wrong asumptions.
Ahh and what I forgot, most characters will and all can get something to do with their bonus action, so that is wrong as well.
Nice video, thanks. Coming from 5e due to the OGL debacle, enjoyed your video!
Keep it up 👍
The issue with martial classes in D&D is a double edged sword. Keeping the combat simple is a priority and this stifles the combat alot. But a GM should always take that into consideration. Martial classes usually have good athletics and if the GM uses surroundings, have the martial classes have huge obstacles that they can move around. Boulders they can try to push down a ravine. Explosive barrels they could pick up and toss and a mage / archer could ignite it. Barricades they can turn for their allies to take cover behind. Heavy combat machineries like ballistas I'd allow to move alone when the roll is good.
If the options of combat for a class are limited, reward them with creative use of terrain and deliberately try to give them athletic feats that let them give a cool moment.
I cast Wall of Text at 4th level :P
-To me, bonus actions feel less like a bonus and more like often-wasted actions because they have so many restrictions. If a D&D5e character either can't or chooses not to move and use a bonus action, they end up doing very little on their turn, while a PF2e character can spend their actions on other options instead. That really matters when it could be a few minutes before your next turn.
-Everyone in D&D5e having attacks of opportunity basically means that once characters are in the fray (especially if their enemies have similar speeds to them), not only is repositioning risky, the mechanics don't let them outright retreat unless they're a rogue, monk, tabaxi, etc. with a higher speed. Otherwise, GM fiat decides whether their enemies (and the environment) will let them retreat. I had considered adding a Retreat action as a modded Disengage that granted more movement but could only be used to move away from the enemy, not to reposition, but IDK how well that would work.
-I agree with another comment that PF2e crit successes are better because they come more from strategy and teamwork (combining buffs and debuffs with feats/abilities) than D&D5e's flat 5% chance of rolling a crit that rarely gets increased by anything (other than rolling with advantage).
I'll admit I've mostly walked away from rules-heavy systems (my current system of choice is Cortex Prime), so I don't really see myself playing or running either of these anymore. I suppose my love of Cortex's modularity explains why I like PF2e more than D&D despite its crunch.
Maybe there is a misunderstanding about how the characters should behave during a fight. Intelligent characters should understand tactics implications and should use mobility and support actions... but sorcerer ,fighter, monk, ranger, with 8 in int, are better characterized if simply stack in fight for all the duration of the combat. If you like play "tactical" characters, you should "pay" for their tactical ability.... PF2 allows very fun tactical fight... but this is fine with the interpretation of all the characters? If you are a barbarian, you simply want to disintegrate one enemy at a time....
In my opinion Pf2 fights are too fluid, and this is fun, but could be a problem for realism and character interpretation. In DnD 5E is simpler to fit the character role... because you are simply a less powerfull character. You can argue that if you have int 14 and still you don't take mobility or misty step, is difficult to be a good tactician... I'm not saying that the move-action-bonus action is better... but the 3 action economy is a little bit too permissive with the player.... all Pf2 is a little bit too " super-hero-character " oriented.
0:10 guys, what software was used to make this map? It's so slick.
The map was made using Inkarnate, and the software being used for the worldbuild in the clip is Legend Keeper. I have videos on both here on the channel ☺️
@@IcarusGames thx!
I think one of the most important effects of the 3-action economy is in the debuffs! 5e is full of save-or-suck effects. Oh did you get stunned? Time to go to the bathroom or get a beer. You're not doing anything for maybe 15 minutes. But in PF2e if you get stunned, you lost one action. You still have a turn! You can still do things! Or if you stun a big monster, then it doesn't get a chance to use its super scary 3-action activity, but it's also not totally helpless for an entire round. The BBEG doesn't just die without taking a single action. It makes slow and haste effects extremely simple to understand just getting more or less actions. It means that you can have different degrees of stunned, slowed, or hasted in a very simple and straightforward manner. Honestly, PF2e is just so brilliant from top to bottom.
An interesting thing is that in 5e you are often times incentivized to actually dash away, risking getting hit by the opportunity attack but avoiding the multiattack that would inevitably follow on the enemies turn (Because OAs are 1 attack roll only).
I really think the PF "3 action" system isnt really anything but a trap and bait and switch. From actions having multiple costs, and the multi attack penalty, its just not as good as the 5e system or at least not as honest. There is no practical difference between them, though yes there are features that you can do that are different and how attacks and bonus and crits work are different, strictly speaking on the actions themselves there is no real difference. I dont know why people think there is this major divide.
If you wanted a REAL 3 action system, every spell, attack, action would be 1 pt, and there would be no multiple action penalty, including attacks. That would be more honest...cause when you tell someone you have 3 actions and can attack 3 times if you want, its factually true, but practically stupid to try.
I actually get where you're coming from. You CAN build characters in PF2 that beautifully taken advantage of the 3 action economy which lets them do stuff they couldn't do in a system like 5e, but for most characters most of the time it didn't feel like the characters were playing differently to 5e in a meaningful way when it came to action economy.
Great video! With Hasbro being a bunch of bastards, I think a lot of people will be giving this a look, and like me, I think many folks will see that yes, this is a better system. Not the quantity of content as DnD, but everything I have seen seems better.
,,,now to find a group...
Nice video. The only thing I'd change is the way you explained activities (not activations).
You have 3 actions on your turn and a whole bunch of activities you can spend them on. Some activities are 1 action, some are 2, and some are 3 actions. They're all activities that cost actions to do. Free actions are things you're allowed to do as much as you want. Reactions are basically the same as 5e.
D&D 3.5E was pretty much the same as Pathfinder 2E. I mean, not exactly the same, but it had a WHOLE LOT of stuff in common. And I miss 3.5E. Sure, I still have all the books and stuff, but you hardly find people to play it at all. I've been wanting to delve into Pathfinder 2E for some time now. D&D 3.5 had the same action economy. Normal Action, Movement action, Swift Action and Free Action. It was amazing.
PF1 was basically the same as 3.5, but PF2 has a lot small (and larger) differences.
@@IcarusGames I must convince my friends to get into Pathfinder. I'm so frustrated with 5e. Everything seems dumbed down to a level where everything from magic items to magic itself feels underpowered.
My group and I switched to Pathfinder 2 about 3 months ago, and I can't even look at D&D 5e anymore. The Pathfinder system is superior in every aspect, and I feel that the material treats me with respect (I'm the DM), providing me with all the tools I need.
How good are skill actions?
My Level 2 Bard can: 1) Demoralize anything not immune to fear thanks to Intimidating Glare. 2) Non-magically heal an adjacent ally for 2d8, 4d8 on a Critical Success, thanks to Battle Medicine. 3) Reduce enemy Will saves with a Bon Mot.
All are single actions. All are non-magical and do not consume my resources. All are available at at level 2 to almost any character.
Skill actions are majorly slept on by a lot of new players!
You know I’ve heard this statement a lot. And it’s not that I disagree but, I think a lot of PF2E players attribute the broader feel of freedom to the wrong thing. I don’t think it has anything to do with the action economy, and actually is due to the well designed feats and other types of actions that are granted to characters in PF2E. I think most people would agree this discussion mostly has to do with martials as spellcasters have a lot of different things they can do in both system. So even if the action economy system was the same, and it is actually really similar when you break it down, PF2E would still feel like you had more things to do as a martial character. D&D 5E has most martials just attacking over and over unless maybe you are a battle master fighter and even then it’s still attacking with added effects. It makes it simple but really really bland to play a straight up martial character and that’s why most D&D 5E veterans multiclass into spell casting options on almost every character.
5e's Action system is actually simpler and somehow less straightforward than that. Movement isn't considered an Action, so even if you're under a condition that prevents you from "acting" but doesn't mention reducing your speed to 0, you can still Move.
Also, by RAW, you don't HAVE a bonus action. The standard turn is Movement and a single Action, but some class features and spells GRANT you a bonus action-otherwise you don't even have one to waste.
Even worse, there's technically no Free Action either, but something called a Free Item Interaction. There are a few examples of what this could be (drawing a weapon, opening OR closing a door, dropping something, etc.) but where the line for what could potentially qualify for an FII is totally up to DM discretion, meaning it could be different at every individual table. It really is a mess.
Pathfinder's 3-Action economy feels like a genuine step forward in game design and I hope systems like it become the standard going forward.
That's the thing. PF actually has the mechanic in place so when you have a question about rules, the rules will usually have the answer. In 5e, far too often it's left to DM fiat or having to search for sage advice articles/tweets from J.C.
@@IcarusGames eh, with stuff such as combat 5e is a lot like that. It's just stuff like army building, magic item costs, crafting, etc, big things that are usually subsystems unto themselves, that are like that where you need to look up stuff and get 3rd party stuff.
It's usually only rules following DMs such as myself that bother looking up JC tweets.
In 5e, there are things with mechanical impact that you can do that don't have an action cost, which would be Free Actions. Talking is a free action (within reason), so you can convey information to your team. Releasing a grapple and dropping concentration can be done at any time for no cost. Dropping prone can be done for free on your turn, since it doesn't cost any movement. Falling happens with no movement cost, but to do it purposefully (to fall onto an enemy) it would often cost you some movement. Most DMs rule that dropping a held object is akin to releasing a grapple so it follows those rules, since there are no written rules on the matter.
@@DvirPick "Most DMs" would rule that, but not all of them. That's my point. There *are* things that would be considered a free action, but the free action isn't a codified mechanic in 5e, so what you can actually do that isn't outlined by any of the other action categories is totally up to the DM. I prefer a game with more mechanical consistency and uniformity of experience across tables, even if it means I as a player have to do more work up front.
Well, the 4e action economy was better, and P2 is an improved version of that, so yes. That is, if you want more variety in your combat. 5e is a little easier to teach though.
I don't know man, my players took a while to wrap there hands around what they're actually allowed to do and not allowed to do with their bonus action, even worse for spellcasters trying to figure out what spells they can use in which order if they wantt to use two spells in a turn.
From a pure combat perspective, i think the 3-Action-Economy is a lot more straight forward and easier to understand, you just have more options at your disposal which takes time to memorize, but i for one just have a handy cheat-sheet for everyone with a list of actions and their action-cost. So they can easily just refer to that until they get it down.
I think the attack penalty is the only thing I don't like of the 3 action economy, but outside of that Pathfinder is generally better.
idk if it's in dnd5e too, but pf2e doesn't have 1 free action
you have almost infinity amount of free actions, the thing is: you can only use one free action per trigger
so if you have 2 free action, who trigger on rolling inititive, you only can pick one from them, but if you have later a free action that lets you use grabble after an successful attack, you can still do it
that's why free actions are quite rare too. not everyone can get one so easily
and reaction should be mentioned once too:
a fighter have up to 5 reaction triggers
1. AoO (who is even different as dnd5e)
2. raise a shield (if he has one)
3. Aid (if he prepared)
4. ready (if he prepared)
5. catch a fall (will happen rarely, but should be notified)
rules laywer made a fighter combat, where one of the fighters use raise a shield to get better ac, but the enemy used shove to push it into the pit behind him, he got some dmg, landed prone I think and need to climb back up
so he needs at least 3 actions to get back up, wasting a whole round as he couldn't use his reaction
sure, fighters are extrem, as most have usual the last 3 only and will probally barely use it, but it should be noted that reaction are sometimes more versatile thanks to the option you have as only one of these things is a feat, the rest are stuff that you can do, if you have the trigger
and their are some feats who are unic who can add to the list too, like leshy superstition, gives a +1 circumstance bonus against magic effects or spell
0:30 "underwhelmed by 5e". Well, you and everyone who has ever played almost any other system than 5e.
It's just not very good, or satisfying, to play. For the infinite slog of multiple attacks and buckets of dice, you get very little actual depth.
I would pick a lightweight, narrative system over 5e any day, and feel much more invested and immersed in my character.
Many people love the three action economy, but after playing with it I’m not a fan. Let’s break it down
So, running into combat (with 1/3 of my turn), proceed to bonk (second attack sucks but not as much as number 3). Get bonked, my turn. Contemplate: the third attack will suck, but what else would I do? If you don’t sword and board you don’t have that action. Maybe I’ll do a maneuver or rage or something, but that just brings us back to the problem next turn or doesn’t solve the multi attack penalty (since the maneuvers also get multi attack debuffs). You could move “for free” since there’s no opportunity attack, but generally the monsters are faster then you so it solves nothing, next turn the monster walks up and 2 actions you back. The problem doesn’t get better for spell casters, since most spells are 2 actions to cast. True they get more benefits from turning and running with that last action but round 1 at the back of the line what impact could that third action have? Your point on skill actions is nice but the group I was in didn’t bother with them, and maybe we were the outliers and it negatively impacted our game but it speaks to the larger flaw with pathfinder 2e: illusion of choice.
Honestly dnd isn’t much better, but at least you get free (totally free) movement each turn and a reaction. You might only get 1 action but generally it’s more impactful then most pf2e actions, and if you build right you can get a bonus action reliably. And again usually monster speed beats player speed so there’s no use moving anyway (but at least you didn’t waste an action on it), so opportunity attacks aren’t the only thing restricting movement, but on the players side if you want to lock down an enemy with opportunity attacks you can so your back line isn’t in danger of the monsters just ignoring the tanks. Pathfinder 1e had a very similar system to dnd 5e so it can get lumped in here too. But is there a better way?
There is a better way: lancer. It has all the things people claim to love about the three action system and the best parts of the dnd system. Also it’s a mech rpg but we’re talking action economy right now.
To start your turn you have protocols, actions which must happen before anything else. Note the plurality: if you load your mech with 20 protocols all or non can activate.
Next have a movement action, on the house.
Now to the meat of your turn: you can use 2 quick actions or 1 full action, as specified by the systems, weapons, talents, or actions you are using. These are generally impactful, and the only restriction on them is that you cannot use the same quick action twice. But what if you really wanted too?
Overcharge! If you want to pretend you’re playing pf2e you can overcharge for a third quick action, which does not need to follow “no identical quick action” rule. It does cost you heat though.
But now the turn is over, so it’s time to sit back and sleep until your turn, right? Wrong: lancer gives you 1 reaction per turn, not once per round. In addition every lv 0 mech comes with 2 reaction, overwatch (opportunity attack) and brace (resistance to damage). Now most reactions won’t let you use them every turn (and brace say no more reactions till next turn), but you could build your mech to do something every turn of combat (conditions apply see store for details)
Also this isn’t touching on ai you can install onto your mech, allowing them to use additional actions or letting your pilot out to use their own movement 2 quick or 1 full action turn.
Yes.
"Your gonna stand next to them and hit them until they die... For a lot of characters in a lot of turns that's what your gonna be doing. Because mechanically that's the best thing to do."
I feel like this is the biggest issue that comes up when trying to get 5e players into the PF2e mind set. A while back there was the whole "illusion of choice" controversy when a curtain streamer announced they were quitting PF2e. But the thing was I noticed the majority of those arguments boiled down to examples that existed in a vacuum and assumed that doing the most DPS in a turn was ALWAYS the optimal choice. The flaw in that kind of thinking though is it would imply doing 3 attacks even if the last one is at -10 is better than doing an action that would give a bonus to another player's attack because you can only calculate your DPS not some hypothetical other person's DPS.
The problem with the 5e mechanics is it creates a soloist mind set as most players focus on min/maxing their own DPS potential since that is how you become the most effective at your class in 5e. Also because you rarely move in 5e there is often not much concern about what other players are doing or where they are relative to you.
Pathfinder 2e on the other hand is more of a Team game. The majority of Buffs/Debuffs are such that it is easier for your teammates to take advantage of them rather than you. Also with the high mobility and flanking mechanics the players need work together and get into position so they can help each other out. Flanking is a great example of the disconnect for 5e players as I joined a campaign with players all familiar with 5e but it was their first PF2e game. It was so frustrating seeing them forgetting to flank and then missing by 1-2 on an attack. For example imagine the NumPad is the board and the enemy is standing on 5, there is a player on 6, then the next player moves up to the 1 position even though they had movement left and could have gone to 4 and got the flank. Then the player on 6 instead of moving up to 9 position to be able to flank with the help of the person in 1 position just stays where he is and attacks.
I understand they are new to PF2e and that but this and the synergy of other mechanics are things that I feel a lot of 5e players overlook in the system, even when they give PF2e a "test run" they are still stuck in the 5e mindset so they don't see all the options and depth the system has, like in that campaign which ran for about 3-4 months and characters had leveled twice by the end of it they still rarely flanked and mostly only because I was reminding them. I mean flanking is one of the easiest teamwork mechanics that every character has access too and yet they weren't using it to work as a team. I've played in other campaigns since that also had new PF2e players coming from 5e and the "I just run up, stand there, and hit till it dies" mindset seems heavily en-grained which is gonna take time to break that line of thinking.
EDIT: Just wanna note that campaign I mention was also MY first PF2e game so it wasn't like I was some experienced PF2e ragging on new players.
So, as i understand it, 5e says “don’t do that” and 2e says “I mean I wouldn’t but you can certainly try, just don’t get your hopes up” which is a similar but fundamentally different message
I am a 50 year old man, who played Dungeons and Dragons since I was 12 from the 1rst printing of the blue boxed set of basic edition (the second printing is red)to AD&D. I DMed both 1rst edition and 2nd edition in Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and in Dark Sun campaigns. Sadly i quit playing in 98 as mmos began breaking out on the pc. Currently the mmos have become stale and are not very interesting and my interest to get back into table top rpg has been growing. So I have been looking into both of these systems 5e and 2e. I really like Dungeons and Dragons campaign worlds better than the generic feeling of Pathfinder campaign ( i still do not know a lot about it though) but the rules of Pathfinder 2e does seem very superior. I really like your video as well as it seems to break down the differences really well.
I think that, like the forgotten realms, Gorlarion is trying to be a catch all setting with a bit of everything, which can make it feel more "generic". I think a lot of the less generic settings lean so hard into their gimmick I would struggle to run them long term.
But the rules for PF2 do see more mechanically complete. I don't think they are necessarily more complex, but less is just left to GM choice, and more things are actually given written rules.
I would watch out for the modules in pathfinder 2e if you plan to get back into things. They seem all inclusive but they play out like absolute garbage. Best to make your own campaigns.
Pathfinder 2e combat sound more interesting , yet can understand the reason why people say floating modficers is more complex.
Do most likely getting easier as you play.
Most floating modifiers come as a result of player action. So you or your team mates doing something to give you some kind of bonus, which makes them a reward for strategic team thinking.
My biggest problem with dnd is that exact thing where once you're in close, any action that isn't "I hit it with ma swouwd" is suboptimal as FUCK
Having played pf2e for some time now, I honestly don't think the 3 action system is better. I am not saying it's worse, I just have a hard time justifying that it's better. I think people purposely drag the action econmy of 5e to make it look bad compared to pf2e. For example, spells. Everyone seems to use that as a comparison of how faster pf2e is. But casting spells isn't that hard in 5e. It's not. You get 1 move action that you can break up however you want, 1 action, 1 interaction, 1 bonus action, and 1 reaction. Everything tells you clearly what they do and what it takes to use it. A spell is simply this. You can cast 1 bonus action spell + 1 cantrip with a cast time of 1 action. Simple. Easy. Straight forward. I do not get why people try to make this out like it's really complex and confusing. It just comes off more like people just don't know the rules that well. And with a system without a lot of rules, what's the excuse?
Meanwhile, my goodness. Do you know how long it takes my players to figure out what to do with 3 actions? And what takes an action? Is grabbing a potion an action? Is opening a door an action? I get a free action? Is it an action to say something? Do I have anything that uses a reaction? You know what never mind, I just won't do anything with my 3rd action. End of turn. Combat in pf2e takes my players so much longer than it did in 5e.
I think the 3 action economy is cool because it lets players feel like they're doing more, but is striding with 1 action, and taking 2 strike actions. They feel like they did more because they spent 3 actions but did they? Is it not the same as moving in 5e and attacking after level 5? And if you only moved 15 feet, then attacked with your 2 attacks, and your total speed is 30 feet you still got 15 more feet to move.
Technically a level 5 fighter in 5 can move 15 feet, use a bonus action to give them like advantage on their strikes, swing two times, and then use the rest of their 15 feet to move more. That was 5 things 1 player did in 5e. Compared to only the 3 they can do in pf2e.
See what I mean? It seems like they can do more, but I don't really think they can. I think people just convince themselves it's better and come up with weird examples to justify it in their minds.
movement is almost meaningless in dnd 5e since it's free and bonus actions are really awkward, PF2e's action economy is much more interesting and has more choices. Sure you can stride and strike like a normal fighter but with each action comes many other choices you can take especially since martials actually have different moves with different actions costs unlike 5e where they all just multiattack 99 percent of the time.
@@ce5122 I don't think this statement is untrue, but it also confirms with me what I'm saying.
Movement is useless because it's free, but it's also more dynamic. A fighter in 5e can move, attack twice (if they're level 5 or more) and then move more. This is impossible in PF2e.
There's also a whole lot more a fighter could do in 5e instead of just attack, but you hardly ever see this. Meanwhile I've seen my players in PF2e get overwhelmed by their 3 actions and just default to attack, trip, shove.
Sure, as I said, they feel like they're doing more and it makes combat seem more dynamic, but I'm also watching my players struggle to decide what to do as time drags on and then they just do nothing out of anxiety that they're taking too long.
Again, I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I just see a lot of paper thin arguments about how 5e sucks and PF2e is superior, the 3 action economy being a big one. And my two+ years playing I don't really think it's that much better. Different? Yes! Better? I'm still not convinced on that. Especially since most arguments I see against 5e come from not fully understanding 5e rules.
@@Gliiitchy I'm sorry but it seems like your players are just new if they can't decide on their actions. Also movement isn't more "dynamic" in 5e just because you can move for free and split it up, in reality it makes movement very shallow. Ok so you walk up strike twice then move away and they get an AoO, what now? They simply move toward you for free and your impact was minimal. Meanwhile in PF2e if you decide to be strategic you can spend an action to move toward a boss, strike it, then stride away, now that boss has to spend one of it's precious actions to chase that person down. Movement costing actions makes movement matter and adds more depth to combat.
Neither I or any one I play table top games with could handle the 3 action system. Fights would just drag on forever.
@@gi11otine It's seriously not that complicated and doesn't slow the game down. It's easy to call something too hard if you don't know how it works.
After 2 years not a single time I regretted the switch to PF2, it's even easier for my 8y old daughters
5e as a pure caster can be sooooo frustrating. "I cast X spell"-COUNTERSPELL- "and that ends my turn....Wait! Bonus Action Face Palm. Now my turn is over."
True, the counter point is that because of the four degrees of success in PF2 there are a lot of instances in which you are really relying on the enemy to critically fail saves to make your caster's spells make the most effective they can be, and as caster numbers don't go as high as say a fighter, a lot of casters find that element frustrating.
In a recent session my PCs faced off against a powerful enemy and because of the way the casters had chosen their spells and how the enemy's saves worked out the casters could barely touch the creature with spells throughout because they were relying on critical fails to have the most effect.
Being counterspelled in 5e does always take the wind out of one's sails, but both my casting players overall seem to miss the spellcasting of 5e.
Although the three action economy is great, some of the benefits you mention is due to unrelated mechanical differences. Such as attacks of opportunity beung different, that is unrelated.
I also regret that you neglect to mention that movement in 5e can be done at any time during your turn, and isn't limited to once per turn.
I still think the 3 action economy, but I think your evaluation of the pros and cons could be more thorough.
Tbf movement can be done at any point during PF2E too.
If you wanted to you could spend 3 whole actions on movement and sprint 100 ft away.
@@lj_aderyn This is completely different from moving two squares, attack, moving two more squares, extra attack, then moving yet two more squares. All on a movement speed of 30.
@@Dharengo that's fair enough. Though I will say there are plenty of feats in the game that can accomplish a similar sequence.
For one particular example, there is Dual-Weapon Blitz from the Dual-Weapon Warrior archetype that lets you move up to your speed and attack with two separate weapons (at any point of your movement) for a two-action cost.
Essentially, a more "complex" manoeuvre like you suggested would be something that you would specifically have to level up and spend a feat for - rather than something a lowly level 1 adventurer could pull off.
@@lj_aderyn Why are you saying this? None of this has bearing on what I was trying to say.
@@Dharengo What you mean is that movement can be split up
Neat
I prefer Ironclaw 2e's action economy a bit. You get 2 actions, and they must be different. I specifically enjoy that when you fly you have to keep using an action each turn to stay flying, I feel like people would be less pissy about flying races if we had something like that.
Is that the anthropomorphic animals game? (though looking at many race options in 5e, you could make an argument that it is partially one as well)
@@NRMRKL Yis, it's the furry game :)
I may feel different reading through myself or in-play, but on first sight I don't like the 2 actions but they have to be different aspect. That feels like artificially limiting choice.
@@IcarusGames It's that games version of the MAP when you get right down to it.
a lot of the skill actions don't seem reasonable mid combat, like doing an intimidation when realistically everyone is this fight might die and it's way easier to scare someone by actually hurting them, or figuring out things about the enemy which either could be done with a free perception check or the only reasonable way you would find that out would be by attacking. you dont find out something's AC or weaknesses by not hitting it. i also have kind of a poor opinion of the multi attack punishment because that.. doesn't make much sense logically unless as a free reaction the enemy always reflexively puts their hands up to physically block, and even then that would be either less of a debuff or a debuff to damage as damaging those parts of the body is less life-threatening. i like the three action economy in theory but in my ttrpgs i like it to try to make sense of where magic and realism meet and this seems to erase what makes logical sense because they couldn't make it balance properly otherwise
just checked RAW (read: googled it) and it looks??? like perception checks need to count as an action in 5e which negates that portion of my argument but I stick to the idea that perception checks should be free and both pathfinder 2e and DND 5e are doing this wrong
Seems like it's just a personal taste
short answer: yes
long answer:
yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees
My biggest issue with Pathfinder in general is it feels so fucking dense. The amount of rules to keep track of and the amount of community rep behind how unbelievably complicated certain actions are and how DMs have to wade through books upon books to find specific rulings has kept me from even wanting to touch the system. It sounds unpleasant.
It's definitely more dense, but he majority of the extra density sits on the GM side of things. Where 5e essentially says "DM, you'll figure it out" to a lot of stuff, PF actually gives rules and guidance for those things.
Once you've made your character, the actual play experience as a player isn't significantly more dense, at least not as much as the thicc rulebook would have you believe. Not counting spells and equipment, you only need to go through 70-80 pages of the 630+ pages of the core book as a player, it's comparable in terms of page reading as a player to 5e.
How long does it take to learn PF2? Take the time it took for you to feel comfortable playing 5e, and then halve that because it's all based on the same d20 chassis. It's just a few differences in the way certain things work, and largely just feels like an upgrade, like an AD&D to 5E's Basic.
If you're planning to run is as a GM, then there's certainly a bit more to take in, but as Anto pointed out above, PF2 gives guidance and rules to avoid ambiguity when it comes to running the game.
Speaking from personal experience, it's frustrating to play at a new 5e table and discover that the DM is operating on a completely different set of assumptions and rulings for their game because it's just not either in the DMG/PHB or they hadn't dared to consult the sage wisdom of Crawford, the Omni-Adjudicator.
Yeah, it's dense, but it actually puts that density to good use. Once you get used to all the specific rules it lets you focus on other areas. 5E, on the other hand, is a Bethesda game, and the poor unfortunate DMs are the modding community being forced to fix a broken mess for free
It sounds like you're talking about PF1. Nothing in PF2 is THAT complicated and you can freely look the rules up online at Archives of Nethys.
@@TheAchilles26 That's an amazing analogy and I'm probably going to use it from now on
Why are you grabbing the sword like that in the portrait image Dx !!
That's how to swords, right? :P
5e doesn’t have a move action. You just use your speed. But get what your saying.
Even just listening to you explain bonus actions... they just feel undeveloped.
Every time I make a 5e character I feel compelled to ensure I have one of the very few options to make use of bonus actions and even then they're not always useful round on round.
Sure at low levels Pf2 can leave players with questionable use for their 3rd action, but you can at least do SOMETHING, even if it's just a recall knowledge.
I still plan on playing both systems but 5e bonus action just feel criminally under used.
1) Move Action can also be to use to take Cover by moving behind Cover
2) Actions Grapple and Shove were dismissed which are alternative Attack Actions which make Athletics ability check aginst enemy's Athletics or Acrobatics of their scooching.
3) You can move Grappled creatures just by Moving unlike in Pathfinder 2e
4) Raging Barbarian gains Advantage on Grapple and Shove (shove prone, shove 5ft)
5) Free Action can also be used to chat with someone. If you talk too long the DM can say that is enough or I will take your Action 😏 yes, this was a problem few times.
My point is simple.
You say you felt as Barbarian that only thing you could do is Rage, move to enemy and start killing them?
How about you Grapple them and push them off the cliff?
How about you shove them down with the advantage giving your Rogue and Fighter advantage on their attacks?
How about you Grapple the enemy and spin them around you moving them out next to your Wizard?
Depending on the rules "You can drag or carry an enemy" I have asked many DMs how they would rule me who wants to move an enemy in front of me who is now Grappled behind me off the cliff?
Answer: You can just do it
Problem: Spike Growth force movement every 5ft movement you take 2d4 dmg and I can just move them back and forth so they take damage until they die 👍 you can start this stupid abuse at level 3 with Druid.
Answer: You can't do it
Problem: My only option is to jump off 🐑 and don't think I wont do it! I will take ½ dmg from falling dmg as Raging Barbarian 😂
Answer: You can move them for 5ft for every 10ft
Question: So if I move and that moves them is that now 20ft movement from me 😏
My Answer: You can move yourself, you can move them or you can move together but any time you, they or both of you move 5ft you must spend 10ft movement.
So Basically to swing enemy to other side of me I must spend 20ft movement
Spike Growth I can spend 30ft movement to deal 6d4 dmg to the enemy 👍 and people say Grapple is useless.
6) Improvised weapons like picking up dirt and throwing it on someone's eyes can cause Blinding effect 🤔 I don't know if Rules Support this but as Role Playing Game we allow you to waste actions like this. The enemy is blinded until start of their turn but all attacks against that target are with advantage. critical strike and it is end of their turn 😏 I have used this few times outdoors.
You mentioned playing as the most straightforward class in 5e, the Barbarian, and walking up to an enemy and attacking them until they're dead. But the enemy was doing the same to you. If a smart enemy decides to take an opportunity attack to go after your fragile caster ally, suddenly you have more options:
Do you rush after them and attack them again, hoping to down them before your caster's concentration is broken?
Do you grapple them and drag them away from your caster so that the caster can escape?
Do you shove them prone so that their opportunity attack against your caster is at a disadvantage and they will need to spend half their speed to get up, so they wouldn't be able to reach the caster without dashing?
Do you shove the caster away so the caster can move away without the threat of opportunity attacks?
When against more than one type of enemy, which do you go after first? If a ranged threat is farther away, do you dash to get to them so that their attacks are at a disadvantage no matter the target, or do you go for the closer melee threat to keep them from going after your ranged allies? What if the ranged threat is a caster? Do you dash to get to them, or throw a javelin to try to break their concentration?
Any situational complexity in options that can be presented in 5e can be presented in almost any other system, and 5e doesn't creature really any specific situational complexity to choice that can only be found within that system.
Oftentimes, the "best" option for a character such as a barbarian is to get up close and hit a thing until it dies. The system encourages and rewards that behavior pattern.
PF2 encourages more varied actions through it's multiple attack penalty and critical success system. If you just run up and hit something 3 times, the system will "punish" you, so it's mechanically encouraging players to do more varied things to set up the "best" situation, which is to buff/debuff to prepare for a hit with the best critical success chance.