What do you think of the comparison? Which fighter would you rather build? Also, let me know what other PF2 content you'd like to see me make down below!
Depends on the day. If I'm having a bad day: champion fighter (5e) with a greatsword or power strike fighter with a greatsword (2e)... I like swords. In terms of content, I found you through your developer tweets on Twitter and what I'd really like to see is what interests you about PF2e. Like I love combat and monsters, so I'd love to see videos about fighting Fafneir or make them myself. This is a really good video and I'll be binging the rest of your channel. Happy gaming!!
If I'm honest with myself I'd rather build a 2e fighter because I don't need to use a glaive or a hand crossbow. 5e feats really limit the build variety you can have with martial characters. And after you choose hand crossbow because it's always better you choose a subclass and your done. It's less good to multiclass as a fighter if your trying to get 11th level 3rd attack. But most people just take 2 levels of fighter to get a second turn which is strong but poorly designed for balance.
I think it'd be cool to show how much variability there is by just looking at the different quick builds in the PF2 CRB. Other suggestions: Do a monk comparison because they're so different and stances are such a cool concept. Do a basic weapon comparison. In 5e weapons are so samey and a few are just better so players have to really commit to the look of a "suboptimal" weapon to go for it. In Pathfinder 2, different basic weapons really play differently and lead your martial character to be good at different kinds of fighting and tactics, which is cool. The concept of traits is another one that's huge. The fact that things key off traits and traits tell you very specifically what is affected or not affected by something is so huge. Traits are why you don't end up with interminable arguments like "does tiny hut block dragon's breath?"
There was a moment early in my PF2 campaign where the warpriest ran up on a dangerous boss and raised her shield. The boss then critically hit the warpriest, dealing enough damage to kill her outright from massive damage (twice her maximum HP), but the shield block reaction let the shield take 10 of that damage, just barely saving her life, while the shield exploded from the impact. Such a cool narrative and mechanical moment. The cleric was still knocked unconscious and taken to Dying 2 - a dire situation, but she was brought up by the Bard in time to scamper away to safety.
Something brought up early in the video is the lack of universal Opportunity Attacks. It's worth noting that 2e Attacks of Opportunity are ASTRONOMICALLY more powerful than 5e Opportunity Attacks. In 5e without Feats only leaving your attack range triggers it, meaning enemies can just come up to your fighter and walk around them to get at anyone you are trying to protect that is too close to you. I call this the "Safety Ring". Not because allies are safe in it. Enemies are from Opportunity Attacks. Reach weapons make you worse at battlefield control without feats. In 2e ANY movement in your reach will set off your Attack of Opportunity. So will trying to manipulate objects (which includes loading a ranged weapon, casting most spells, drawing a weapon , etc) or trying to make ranged attacks. Plus default AoO stops manipulate actions if you crit them (which the fighter is really good at). And Trip is a strong option to do to targets you can get next to since standing up triggers AoO too. Fighters starting with the ability is actually a BIG deal. And many other classes can either get it later or get similar reactions that can interrupt other things instead but might trigger on less and there's upgrades to AoO available too.
That's an excellent point. I played PF1 long term, so the difference doesn't feel as big of a deal as it actually is to me, but AoO in PF2 are serious business and you can shut down a lot more with them.
Additional important point. PF2 AoOs have no multi attack penalty. 5e lets you throw out a bunch of attack each turn to do your damage, while PF2e has you throw out one strong attack and maybe one weak attack (-5 to hit) as a baseline that doesn't change massively, with the attacks just doing increasingly high damage over levels. So that AoO with full accuracy will do most of your turn's damage. It's a very powerful ability, Fighters having it by default really does set them apart from the others.
11:37 Just to note here, you don't get to choose between 7 different options at level 2 (or 8 at level 4), you *add* those options to your choices. So at level 2, you can choose between the 5-6 remaining options from level 1, *plus* the 7 new options you gained access to at level 2
@@sakidickerson oh yeah. Pretty certain there are also ancestries that have either one or no feats of the level you gain an Ancestry feat. Imagine being locked into one choice lol
Between your vids and what I've looked at myself, I have to agree with your points about how, while crunchier, Pathfinder is more flexible and makes more sense. This was a good breakdown of the fighter classes too. Would similar vids for rogues and wizards (and maybe clerics) be feasible? I know the latter two would be more complex, but they could also highlight how spellcasting compares between the two systems.
@@IcarusGames ooh I think class comparisons like this are somewhat of a rarity but always immensely enjoyable when they happen and to my knowledge I don't think wizards or rogue comparison videos have been done so it'd be great to see One thing of importance though that you might want to point out/emphasize when comparing other classes is the subclasses especially if you do those ones(it didn't really matter for this video as fighter doesn't really have em in Pf2e and is more flexible but for others it'd be a good thing to point out, especially rogue) Oh and also maybe describe how they'll be in action a bit more, like how the fighter in Pf2e has the best accuracy (and thus crits more) and the skills being so universal and with skill feats means he'll do a lot more out of combat things (and that many skills have in combat uses like athletics for tripping or intimidation for demoralize which you did mention but briefly) and maybe how 5e fighter differs there (sorry I know a lot less about 5e but that's why I would love to see more about how they compare) Still it's a great video and would love to see more of this type of stuff it's always fun and has a lot of great discussion around it all
Fighter in 5e: "meh, I'm kinda broken depending on the situation, and in the right circumstances, I can be insanely powerful and annihilate a combat encounter." Fighter in Pf2e: "I'm about to end this game's whole carreer."
Please please please do more Pathfinder 2e videos. I really dig your vids style and you have a really awesome presence onscreen compared to some other 2e UA-cam personalities!
I will throw out a description of a fighter character concept that is possible in 2e using stuff outside core just to further demonstrate the wide variety. Most of this is out already but one part of this is also a teaser for content not yet released outside subscriber early access (so it will be public in a week or so): Fighter with a background as a combat medic that would save his fellow soldiers with a combination of medical skills and steampunk clockwork prosthetics. Driven a bit mad by all the death he saw and the things he did to people to save them, he was discharged and now adventures being solid with a sword and a scalpel and crafting things but not quite right in the head and he has a tenancy to pursue a little mad science. He starts out with a feat that lets him make a skill check to gain information about his attack target. His instability mounts and at level 2 (thanks to that soon to be released content I said I would tease) his experimenting with using machines to revive the dead has lead to his creation of an clockwork Frankenstein that he now can command in battle. All of these elements are mechanically represented my options picked in character creation (other than being a little crazy). Further progression of his creation will cost some class feats, but his mad science also comes with the ability to pick feats to take control of a weak undead to have another minion, raise the dead, or at the highest level turn your Frankenstein into a horde of smaller mech zombies. With the Free Archetype variant rule he could delve into this without having less fighter feats, or in turn use that extra feats space for more mad science such as an Inventor multiclass, maybe picking up the ability to use his Crafting skills to defeat locks and traps and/or the ability to make gadgets such as incredibly useful rocket boots. This isn't even touching on options he would be getting from ancestry or skill feats. So he could still pursue a mastery of ordinary Medicine and/or alchemy or maybe Performance so that he can play pipe organ so that his party even more wonders if he's a villain. PF 2e can be a wild time :D
So wait, we're getting an archetype that gets a clockwork companion like the inventor can take? Interesting. We've got animal companion s but not access to the mechanical version.
There is so much more you can do with those 3 actions as well. You're not stuck with just the Strike (Attack) action. As you mentioned, Demoralize, Trip, Shove, Grab, Take Cover, Escape, Drop Prone...and that's just a few of the Basic options. You can even Aid (Help) as a Reaction. So even if you did Stride (full movement), Strike, and you can either strike again or you could do anything else with that third action. It might seem tedious using an action to draw your weapon, but there are 3 actions to use plus feats you can choose to help negate that. If you go Variant rules and do Dual Classing in PF2e it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. You get the dual class at level 1 and it progresses together with your other class, you aren't missing out on anything, and you can still choose Archetype Dedications. This system helps people with character concepts just by their rules alone rather than having to create something yourself or have to go to a 3rd party option just make something work better.
I haven't made a 5e character without homebrew. The only time i needed to reach beyond what paizo was offering, 3party supported material had a witch expansion that gave me everything I wanted for my dark tapestry cleric. So I'm now a dual tradition occult/divine witch.
I think the next step would be to show the Fighter in a combat demo. You could perhaps do a compare/contrast or just show the PF2 fighter fighting something. However, teamwork is vital in PF2 so you almost need to make a whole team.
Nice clear comparison. thanks! It's good you showed the post-level 1 advancement, that's where the difference between the two system really starts to be most noticable.
Glad it was helpful! Yeah the post level 1 is where things get really spicy. At level 1 things aren't hugely different, which is great for a 5e player learning 5e, it's not massively different to start which makes the switch much easier.
Great video Anto. Now we've had a comparision between two Fighters, i'd personally love to see a breakdown or overview of all the kinds of character options that you just CAN'T be in D&D5 that you can be in PF2. While some of it might be a bit debateable (You can be an Inquistive Rogue for example, but Pathfinder has a full Investigator class) I think showing off the different character fantasies available in this system will help players determine if they want to give this system a try, and can exist alongside and compliment videos showing off the difference between classes that exist in both games.
Yeah like even within shared classes there's stuff like the Athletics-spamming people-biting Animal Barbarian that just isn't possible within 5e, and that opens up new ways for Martials to contribute besides doing damage
Thanks! It's really nice to have options as you level up. That's one of my big complaints as a player in 5e, you just don't get a huge amount of *choice*.
And a spectacular proof of how fighters are diverse in PF2 is I would not have picked any of those feats for my HUMAN SWORD AND BOARD FIGHTER and instead would have went for double slash with a short sword and shield boss... Bash someone with shield followed by sword and use dual wielding to output big damage! Both playstyles are valid, but I personally prefer applying dead to enemies to avoid attacks from being made compared to blocking some attacks... Different forms of damage prevention really! (I also think that incredible initiative is super underrated on melee fighty bois) My normal level 1 sword/board fighter setup involves fleet/incredible initiative, sudden charge, double slice... In practice, I always find myself with a third action to raise the shield and always want to attack at least once (since the first attack is the most valuable) so I prefer sudden charge to reactive shield... Plus after you reactive shield you throw down AoO which is your main way of stopping enemies from just running away from you into your backline... BUT THAT IS A LEGITIMATE PLAYSTYLE CHOICE and helps me to represent a more **aggressive shield fighter** which is something one can't do in 5e without sacrificing optimization.
Hear hear. D&D 5e is mainstream, and it's a good game. Pathfinder 2 is a great game, and it really needs the adoption and recognition it deserves, imo.
One thing I like is how PF2e's Archetypes affect how they design flavour. One thing I have heard mentioned for example is that the Fighter lacks flavour beyond being just a warrior, I think this is by design as thanks to archetypes they can use that to be more specialized flavour added to the character and the classes can just focus on a more core flavour. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well.
As far as content goes I vote for whatever you want to make. It's important in this biz to like what you make. If I had to pick, videos comparing classes seen as bad in 5e to their 2e counterparts seems like a solid idea. Ranger could be a little complicated though, as the 2e version has a lot of different ways to go internally even without archetypes, and its actually underappreciated a little. Interestingly, the 2e Ranger is really cool and unique because one of it's niches is the same niche the 5e Ranger was built into at release, which earned it status as being a meme for being a weak class for a while. However the 2e handling is really useful. If you decide to make a Ranger video and want some help, I could share some knowledge.
Very awesome and helpful video! :D As someone who's ran D&D 3.5E/1E for most of my life (and my own TTRPG for the past few years) that's looking to toy around with a new system, this is a super useful comparison!
Absolute collision of worlds today, I've been watching your videos for a while. Today you popped up on my Facebook because you tagged an old friend of mine in a picture. I was very confused 😂 Love the videos man, helped me out a ton in my DMing journey ❤️
Love to see more coverage of PF2E!! Fighter is awesome in pathfinder, and absurdly customizable, even before you start looking into Archetypes.subscribing in the hope for more pathfinder
Very good video I loved how you break down the differences between the two systems for a fighter. I believe that pf2e found for me the best balance between the huge amount of build potential of 3rd edition DnD while also pulling back on the huge complexity of having to "Spread sheet" out a character build.
Yeah. 2e has feat trees but they are usually much simpler. And with the use of totally free and officially supported online tools such as Pathbuilder 2e and Archives of Nethys it is even easier to build. AoN even will tell you if a feat has feats that build off of it so you can also click that and see what that does before your choose. Good stuff.
Yeah, it seems like a lot of the needless bloat and complex options from 3.5 and Pf1 are gone and replaced with a simpler, but still robust options system. Moving away from the 3.5 bones was a bold move by paizo, but I definitely think it paid off!
5th edition ranger vs pathfinder 2e ranger. Also you should bring up "free achetype" and having more customization getting free feats every even lvl and making a fighter/druid archetype for a green knight.
@@GunManGunHand I definitely think we're going to need to take a look at those two. Next video is going to be a discussion of the action economy, but maybe the one after that will be the ranger comparison.
Definitely agree that the beauty of pf2 isn't how you can make the same fighter as in 5e... But how you can make them different. Would be great to just pick a concept based on a popular pop culture character and try to make an RPG character that does the same things to see how close you can get. Mario? Spike? Batman? Sonic the to hedgehog?
You could also give this PF2e fighter a rough equivalent of Second Wind by either taking the Field Medic background or just training in Medicine and then taking Battle Medicine (using a human feat to take a general feat). It's only once a day per person healing in combat and doesn't always work (maybe 50/50 or so at level 1), but the skill can provide healing between combats too, which as you level up can help take some pressure off the party healer.
That's really cool! I've never wanted to play a fighter in 5E because it seems so repetitive, but they seem like they have a lot of options in PF2. Just having 3 actions and removing attacks of opportunity from most characters sounds like a great improvement to combat flow.
There are other methods to mutilclass, the other way works as a gestalt style, taking the best proficiencies from each class, and you do get all the feats from both classes
Great video! Good work on showing the differences between the systems with this simple comparison. Good idea and well done. Maybe I missed it, but did you mention that 2e Fighters are also better at hitting (and therefore critting) than any other class (aside from Gunslingers using firearms), including other martial classes? IIRC that gives them further differentiation from the 5e Fighter, who isn't inherently better at hitting and critting than, say, a Barbarian or Paladin or Ranger with the same stats and level.
PF2e when I want to make a compelling RPG character, DnD5e (and 4e) when I want a murder hobo character. Would love to see the unique classes that are on offer.
I wouldn’t say so. I’d say Paladin is the strongest martial. They’re a half caster with the same melee prowess as a fighter for the majority of the game. On top of being way more versatile.
@@Nastara I was mostly thinking in terms of sustainable dps in 2e barbarian can deal a lot more damage in burst and in 5e the fighter as more attacks than the paladin making is damage more reliable. And my mind is going to the sharpshooter feat fighter build which any fighter with a hand crossbow can get 4 attacks with +10 damage with minimal accuracy drop. I see almost no reason not to make every 5e fighter that way. But 2e you have many options to get reliable dps because accuracy and damage just comes with the class.
I know it is optional but I've been really considering the Free Archetype in the GM guide. It doesn't really seem to lend itself to over powered characters and yet opens up a wide variety of things one could bring in to flesh our ones character. Is this something you've looked at and/or tried? Is it something you would like as a player or do you think it might make too much book work as a gm?
I really like the idea of offering it as a group archetype, allowing the party to all be part of the same organization. I'm not totally against just offering it freely to players, but I would prefer to use it as a way for them to flesh out their characters' backgrounds.
I use free archetype in all my games. Super fun stuff. I don't think it makes players much more powerful, just more versatile. It also encourages them to take the more niche archetypes since they are not required to trade off a class feat.
Well I have been playing pf2 since the play test and have been enjoying it. I know that pf2 it very much more diverse of a system than 5e. It would be nice to see ur thoughts on the pf2 magus vs to options in 5e that can come close. Given that 5e doesn’t have a magus.
Ancestry feat and how it enables versatile heritages and the archetype system including the advanced player's guide archetypes to show the true diversity of character creation
Very interesting! I’ve been playing 5e for a long time and am frustrated by the limitations on martial characters. I will definitely check out PF2, if not to play, then to inspire in D&D. (I DM, too, and would like to give martial characters the ability to opt for something other than GWM, polearm master, and sentinel “to keep up”.)
If you and your group are for the most part enjoying 5e, then PF2 is a great system to pull inspiration and steal from. If you're all finding you have multiple frustrations with 5e, then it could be worth considering moving over to PF2 or another system. But stealing mechanics is for sure the easier immediate choice!
It's interesting to see the different concepts in PF2, but as for content .. no idea. I'm very into d20 using several alternate rpgs (Fateforge, Symbaroum, Trudvang) and wouldn't be switching over. Ideas to steal, that's another thing though and perhaps that sort of video, eg, what can one steal from PF2, could be cool.
A bit focus for my approach for PF2 content going forward is definitely "steal this cool thing" rather than necessarily "you should play PF2 instead of your current system".
I have tried a lot of systems. AD&D, D&D 3.5, 4.0, and Earthdawn. I totally get what you are saying. But I find as you increase the"Granularity" or choices, the slower things go. I havesome friends that are tactically and technically minded who would love the new Pathfinder, but the young people I am trying to get into the game would have troubles. Second thing is that when I played 3.5, Spellcasters were King, whether evokers or summoners or clerics. My 11th level fighter may have had three iterative attacks, but only the first one would usually hit, and the third never mattered. All attacks in the current system have the same chance to hit. The benefit of the newer D&D is that the spellcasters have less spells per level, and cannot stack buffs due to concentration requirements, so my fighters have felt actually important to the success of the party. I totally agree that the "ring of safety" is less than helpful. Thanks for your insights.
It will always be a matter of preference.... But I am team Pathfinder all the way. It's the more powerful and flexible system. Any 5e character ports easily over to Pathfinder. But lots of Pathfinder characters can't port to 5e, since it doesn't really support it. How does one port a Magus over? Even something as vanilla as a fighter has so many more options. As you go, classes branch out to be wildly different from each other. I like this sooooo much more than 5e in this comparison. But the thing is, wherever I drill down and compare.... I like Pathfinder more. How the books are organized. The artwork (completely subjective... I just prefer the art from Paizo more often than not... example only). I like their pricing model more. I think you get a lot more bang for the buck on products. I think the physical products are higher quality. Better printed books even. Any detail I drill down to, I like Pathfinder better.
The Pathfinder 2e oficial sheet looks horrible lol I guess it's fair to compare them using the official sheets for each system but I only ever use fan made ones for PF2e. Finding a better designed sheet can really help a crunchier game.
I actually recorded this video twice because I wasn't happy with the ratio of useful content the first time around, but I used the B&W character sheet on the first go around. Without the distraction of color, the PF sheet is a lot less overwhelming.
You probably haven't looked t the GM's Guide yet, but when it comes to Archetypes,. there's an option for Free Archetype, which allows you to take the archetype, but you don't have to choose between Class and Archetype feat -- you get both. It apparently doesn't cause any imbalance in gameplay, and it's about as close to multi-classing as PF2e will get. However, it's really great to see your enthusiasm for this system. I'd like to see your takes on the other class builds as well, along with comparing similar builds between PF2e and DD5 at intermediate and higher levels.
I was vaguely aware of free archetypes, but not enough to make meaningful comment on them in this video. I'm enjoying exploring the system a whole bunch though!
I'm only familiar with D&D 4e and 5e and recently I been wanting to redesign it, and after seeing a few of your videos I think I've been making a hybrid between 5e and PF2 cause I wanted to come up with a system where you could do more with your reaction and charge abilities, so I decided to give players a bunch of general actions, not sure how many yet, and whatever you don't use to move or attack, you can reserve to defend yourself, but this meant I had to decide if there is no more bonus action, then what are those actions
I think one of the best things you get from PF2 is consistency in the different roles. Your warpriest will feel really good at supporting allies and just be a stronghold during combat from level 1-20. Your fighter will feel like the lethal machine of war depicted on the book cover from level 1 to 20 (so if you're a 10 level fighter you don't just end up staring at the wizard to solve the encounter). You chose a wizard or pure spellcaster? Know this, PF2 pretends you're the brains of the group. Wizard needs to learn about the enemy, find the weakspot and hit it with THAT spell you got ready for the dungeon. It's harder if - coming from 5e - you chose the class just as a damage dealing freakshow. You're role in PF2 is controlling the battlefield, working through the masses of minions with AoE (which are not going to hurt the boss as much as you'd like anyways) before they flank your frontline.
I mostly play 5th Edition and I felt I needed to comment here as most of the comments are from PF2e players, here is my take after watching the video AND played Fighter on both editions: Openly, I prefer 5e more. I made a Fighter in 5e, I wanted him to be a Samurai wielding a Long Sword (Katana). All I wanted was to hit things with my weapon and that I did. I had some nice choices, but wan't swarmed from it and at level 3 - When you can pick your subclass I ended up being very good at what I wanted. That was it. I was done with the Idea I wanted and anything I got after that I just bonus. Flavor or useful in combat, I gladly accepted what I got and didn't felt a gigantic huge to optimize my character further beyond that. When I went to play Pathfinder I really liked the 3-Actions Idea and hyped, opened the book and hurried to make a Fighter for the adventure I was going to play. And then the huge list of customization options dropped upon my head and worst, It was mostly redundant and insignificantly small choices - and a lot of it. I immediately felt like each feature of this game was like a fragment of "Bigger" feature/feat from D&D and I had to follow the pieces of that puzzle to make then back together, and working like they should. I mean, why Pathfinder make me need to pick Attack of Opportunity in the first place ? That is so useful I felt it needed to be a Given . I felt like D&D simplified all the chaotic ingredients within the Pathfinder into a tasty and homogeneous paste of tasty cookies. And this metaphorical cookie motif was all over the book(s). Why have so many base classes that are similar in idea, p.e. Why don't make it a subclass/ archetype ? In D&D you may have less choices but the Subclass system makes choices Smarters, it is indeed one of the big moves D&D has done, a really great Idea against redundancy.
If you prefer 5e, that's great! I'm not here to convince anyone that any system is better than any other. These videos are me comparing the two systems from my own POV, but if you are happy with 5e, that's awesome. I will say though, you don't need to pick attack of opportunity as a fighter in PF2. All fighters in PF2 get it at level 1. Getting AoO at level 1 is one of the key features of the Fighter in PF2, which doesn't have ubiquitous AoO so that people can feel free to move around the battlefield rather than being forced to stand in lines hitting each other. As for the scope of choice - if you come into a character with a very clear idea of what you want to build, of course most options will feel redundant to you because they don't fit the character you're trying to build. Trying to build a samurai that feels like your 5e samurai is going to make you feel like your were following the puzzle pieces because you are ticking off boxes to get features and abilities that align with the 5e counterpart. That said, the greater customization in PF2 isn't everyone's preference, and that's totally OK. Neither are "better" than each other, and it all comes down to the yardstick you're using to measure "better".
@@IcarusGames Thanks for taking your time and answering me. And yeah, that's the whole point of my comment at first place: I just felt the need to balance the comment section. There's lot of good time potential in Pf2e - as there's in D&D too. What I meant (and I didn't remember about AoO in specific) is that PF2e sounded that I could take my time and pick much more customizable choices through the character creation and this is usually a lot of fun - but in the end of the day, I don't think the D&D is lacking, they just outright gives you what will be probably taking. Unfortunately I had to cut short my previous commentary as my girlfriend arrived, and maybe it felt a little rude - if that's the case, I'm sorry. I liked your video and that's why I felt the need to add upon it. In my personal opinion I really like both system, and their differences. Specially their differences. I see the 2E of Pathfinder as more refined and more of it's “Own thing” as it has ever been and that's really good for the whole community. The improvement it took from some 5e flaws are awesome. Even if you consider the 5 years gap between the two, Pf2e took a lot of risks and solved a lot of their original problems and I hope the next generation of D&D can improve as much as Pathfinder did. Thank you, may your dice forever roll
Suggestion for follow up. Make 3 more vanilla characters. All level 1. A wizard. A cleric. A rogue. Put the four level 1 characters into a simple combat scenario, and play out both in P2e and 5e. Try to be fair in comparing time to resolve combat etc. I think people are scared off of Pathfinder far too often on the myth that it is 'harder' to learn or play. I think if people see critical game play in action side by side... That myth dies.
So basically, Fifth Edition is for people who want to just run in and hit things. Second Edition is for people who want to do a bit more than just run in and hit things.
I believe there may be a guide for converting monsters, but beyond that I don't think they are compatible as they are built on a different underlying maths system.
So basically, PF is a mutated, pumped-up clone of D&D. Nothing bad about that. At their core, they are both class-based and rooted in wargames, not in a simulation as skill-based systems often are. In my eyes, the systems are still very similar which makes this comparison possible. Maybe I will try playing D&D5e and PF2somedayy.
I mean 5e allows multiclassing which greatly adds to the available options right? That said, from first glance PF2E does the crunchier side a little better than dnd5e.
One thing most people forget to mention is that Pathfinder 2 options are not that many. Yes you can have 8 feats for your level + archetype/multiclass and so on for over 30 possible choices. Problem is 25 of those make no sense for your build. Example is at 1st level you have two-weapon fighting, then at 2nd more two weapon stuff, repeats at 4th with two-weapon parry. Unless you wield two weapons those are not "options" they are false options. A choice between a feat that does a lot of what you want and another you cannot use at all isn't a choice.
To be fair, build diversity and support feels much stronger in PF2e than in other systems. Many choices are false choices in PF2e for your build, but you still have enough flexibility to take choices that support your build. Currently playing an investigator, I don't feel like there's that many specific tracks, I do feel more open to construct something that feels more personal.
It's worth noting that you don't actually have to take all of the feats for whatever path you're on. It's just as much of a choice to take everything on one path even when it isn't necessary as to choose anything else. Not every choice is ideal for a standard build, but not every build has to be standard.
As always it depends on what kind of game you like to play, and how you play it - different systems for different players Pathfinder is mechanically complex, with lots of mechanical options, so you can easily build a character that is mechanically different than any other This however means all the characters are complex and slow to play, and you spend so much time on the mechanics it is easy to lose sight of the role play 5e is deliberately mechanically simple, so it plays fast ... and allows room to role play, you can build two characters mechanically the same that are playes entirely different otherwise "So little I could do..." sums it up, you could role play, but you were too busy with the mechanics of the battle
That's definitely the case for some people. I can say for me though, having gone through level 1-20 with Pathfinder 1st edition, and 1-15 so far in 5e, than I spend as much time trying to interpret rules or find sage advice for the edge case interactions between 5e as I did just looking things up with PF. If a system has a rule, I have to find it, but if it doesn't have a rule, I have to make that ruling myself, which can take a lot longer.
@@IcarusGames I run 5e, I make up rules all the time, I rarely need to look up rules as there are relatively few and they are simple and (mostly) consistent, this is expected - it takes seconds, and occasionally I have found the rule I made up is in the book, and agrees pf2 usually has a rule, this is expected, so I look it up, so it takes longer, I can guess what it will say but not in detail, and the detail matters because of the complexity Some players love that there is a rule for everything, some just want to play
I mean, yeah it's better if it fits what you're looking for. 5e is better if instead it suits what you're looking for. It's all super subjective to the player and group :D
feels like a cop out to point at all the different builds and then say "but there only a few different ways to make each of them work". not that I really agree with that either tbh... can you give an example? best example I can think of is a ranger with an animal companion that basically has to take the animal companion feats at lvls 1, 6, 10, and 16... but that still leaves 7 class feats, all the ancestry feats, 3 different subclasses and a ton of fighting styles/weapon choices to choose from.
Even if you take the view point that choosing a playstyle for a character, such as sword and board fighter, locks you into a feat tree and means you have no "choice" but to take the relevant shield feats as they come up, you *still* have general, ancestry, and skill feats to give you choice at almost every level. Sure, there probably is a "best" option for a lot of levels, just like there is a "best" subclass for each class in 5e. It's a strawman argument IMO.
A a suggestion for a video, with blood lords being the am that comes out next. It's going to be decidedly not good aligned and with undead centric themes. Lots of groups are very anti evil of anti grey basically running a non good campaign
I'll be interested to see what paizo do within the AP to navigate the "asshat factor" of some folks wanting to play evil characters as an excuse to be awful.
My first session with 5e was a dex based elven fighter with True Strike cantrip and I cannot express how disappointed I am at how boring the class felt True strike requiring a standard action just adds on to the disappointment
Pathfinder has a lot that seems cool but there's also a lot I don't agree with or like. 5th edition is similar to me as I homebrew some but I feel like I have less homebrew to do in dnd then pathfinder to be something I really like
If 5e is working for you and your group, that's awesome! Hopefully there will be something in these PF2 videos you can steal to put in your 5e games at least :)
I'm very angry that it takes an ACTION to raise your shield. Only a moron with a shield holds the shield on a limp arm, low and at their side or behind their back. I give up on learning PF2.
After building a few characters in PF 2e, I came to the realization that all you have is the illusion of choice rather than actual choice. At each level with a pool to chose from, there will always be a best choice for your build, which is effectively no choice/the ability to chose poorly. It’s one thing if you have to chose between two or more good choices and in doing so you can’t get the ones didn’t pick, it’s another when if don’t pick it this time you can pick it next time. I feel like D&D 5e has more interesting choice to make than PF 2e, because each choice I make removes other choices rather than delays choices I was going to take anyway.
As someone who enjoys min-maxxing in this system, this isn't really the case, especially for skill feats and general feats. Class feats aren't always the most competitive with each other, especially for certain builds, but having a ton of overlap for what builds want which feats wouldn't be fun either. Did you watch Taking20's video about this? You should know he gets multiple rules wrong in his examples, and I really don't think his opinion comes from a place of good faith. I can honestly say that there are a ton of ways to approach similar builds in this system, and that the game is much more deep and tactical than 5e. I say this as someone who played in multiple 5e campaigns for years.
@@Badum- No, I read the rule book, built several characters, realized I keep selecting the same things over an over again. I’m use to decisions being meaningful rather than limited, and I felt PF 2e was limiting. I loved PF 1e, had a lot of fun building unique character concepts. PF 2e feels like hundreds of choices hiding like 10 real decisions. D&D 5e has been more fun building unique concepts via multi-classing than PF 2e has been with its feat pools and cookie cutter feat selections. My opinion. Might need to play in a game to see how others do it differently.
@@jeffersonian000 maybe if you are trying to build the same kind of character every time I guess.... But if you want to play a gripli fighter who attacks with tongue and blade, is an expert at feinting, poisoning their blade, and jumping around the battlefield...I would say that isn't an illusion. Or a bouncy goblin firebrand fighter that specializes in driving their opponents crazy by climbing between the legs, tripping opponents, and allows themselves to get knocked around the battlefield every time they get hit in order to avoid taking damage...
@@jeffersonian000 I just answered that question. Those are all feat choices that fighters have. Both of those are viable melee builds based on the pool of feats that you have available. Plus many many more.
What do you think of the comparison? Which fighter would you rather build?
Also, let me know what other PF2 content you'd like to see me make down below!
Depends on the day. If I'm having a bad day: champion fighter (5e) with a greatsword or power strike fighter with a greatsword (2e)... I like swords.
In terms of content, I found you through your developer tweets on Twitter and what I'd really like to see is what interests you about PF2e. Like I love combat and monsters, so I'd love to see videos about fighting Fafneir or make them myself.
This is a really good video and I'll be binging the rest of your channel. Happy gaming!!
How about comparing a PF2 adventure to a 5e one? I recommend Malevolence for PF2.
If I'm honest with myself I'd rather build a 2e fighter because I don't need to use a glaive or a hand crossbow. 5e feats really limit the build variety you can have with martial characters. And after you choose hand crossbow because it's always better you choose a subclass and your done. It's less good to multiclass as a fighter if your trying to get 11th level 3rd attack. But most people just take 2 levels of fighter to get a second turn which is strong but poorly designed for balance.
@@kryptonianguest1903 I'm running Malevolence now. It is so fun
I think it'd be cool to show how much variability there is by just looking at the different quick builds in the PF2 CRB.
Other suggestions:
Do a monk comparison because they're so different and stances are such a cool concept.
Do a basic weapon comparison. In 5e weapons are so samey and a few are just better so players have to really commit to the look of a "suboptimal" weapon to go for it. In Pathfinder 2, different basic weapons really play differently and lead your martial character to be good at different kinds of fighting and tactics, which is cool.
The concept of traits is another one that's huge. The fact that things key off traits and traits tell you very specifically what is affected or not affected by something is so huge. Traits are why you don't end up with interminable arguments like "does tiny hut block dragon's breath?"
There was a moment early in my PF2 campaign where the warpriest ran up on a dangerous boss and raised her shield. The boss then critically hit the warpriest, dealing enough damage to kill her outright from massive damage (twice her maximum HP), but the shield block reaction let the shield take 10 of that damage, just barely saving her life, while the shield exploded from the impact. Such a cool narrative and mechanical moment. The cleric was still knocked unconscious and taken to Dying 2 - a dire situation, but she was brought up by the Bard in time to scamper away to safety.
Those are the kind of narrative moments we want!!!
that sounds like eowyn running up to the witch king to me
Something brought up early in the video is the lack of universal Opportunity Attacks. It's worth noting that 2e Attacks of Opportunity are ASTRONOMICALLY more powerful than 5e Opportunity Attacks. In 5e without Feats only leaving your attack range triggers it, meaning enemies can just come up to your fighter and walk around them to get at anyone you are trying to protect that is too close to you. I call this the "Safety Ring". Not because allies are safe in it. Enemies are from Opportunity Attacks. Reach weapons make you worse at battlefield control without feats.
In 2e ANY movement in your reach will set off your Attack of Opportunity. So will trying to manipulate objects (which includes loading a ranged weapon, casting most spells, drawing a weapon , etc) or trying to make ranged attacks. Plus default AoO stops manipulate actions if you crit them (which the fighter is really good at). And Trip is a strong option to do to targets you can get next to since standing up triggers AoO too.
Fighters starting with the ability is actually a BIG deal. And many other classes can either get it later or get similar reactions that can interrupt other things instead but might trigger on less and there's upgrades to AoO available too.
That's an excellent point. I played PF1 long term, so the difference doesn't feel as big of a deal as it actually is to me, but AoO in PF2 are serious business and you can shut down a lot more with them.
Additional important point. PF2 AoOs have no multi attack penalty. 5e lets you throw out a bunch of attack each turn to do your damage, while PF2e has you throw out one strong attack and maybe one weak attack (-5 to hit) as a baseline that doesn't change massively, with the attacks just doing increasingly high damage over levels. So that AoO with full accuracy will do most of your turn's damage.
It's a very powerful ability, Fighters having it by default really does set them apart from the others.
Exciting
11:37
Just to note here, you don't get to choose between 7 different options at level 2 (or 8 at level 4), you *add* those options to your choices. So at level 2, you can choose between the 5-6 remaining options from level 1, *plus* the 7 new options you gained access to at level 2
Ooo i didn't know you could choose lower level feats
@@sakidickerson oh yeah. Pretty certain there are also ancestries that have either one or no feats of the level you gain an Ancestry feat.
Imagine being locked into one choice lol
Just a note at 1:45 you also get CON mod to your HP each level in Pathfinder 2e
Between your vids and what I've looked at myself, I have to agree with your points about how, while crunchier, Pathfinder is more flexible and makes more sense. This was a good breakdown of the fighter classes too. Would similar vids for rogues and wizards (and maybe clerics) be feasible? I know the latter two would be more complex, but they could also highlight how spellcasting compares between the two systems.
I chose the fighter to showcase the "simplest class". If this video performs well I would consider comparisons for other classes if folks want them.
@@IcarusGames ooh I think class comparisons like this are somewhat of a rarity but always immensely enjoyable when they happen and to my knowledge I don't think wizards or rogue comparison videos have been done so it'd be great to see
One thing of importance though that you might want to point out/emphasize when comparing other classes is the subclasses especially if you do those ones(it didn't really matter for this video as fighter doesn't really have em in Pf2e and is more flexible but for others it'd be a good thing to point out, especially rogue)
Oh and also maybe describe how they'll be in action a bit more, like how the fighter in Pf2e has the best accuracy (and thus crits more) and the skills being so universal and with skill feats means he'll do a lot more out of combat things (and that many skills have in combat uses like athletics for tripping or intimidation for demoralize which you did mention but briefly) and maybe how 5e fighter differs there (sorry I know a lot less about 5e but that's why I would love to see more about how they compare)
Still it's a great video and would love to see more of this type of stuff it's always fun and has a lot of great discussion around it all
@@IcarusGames I'd LOVE to see the other class videos Rachel suggested! :D
Fighter in 5e: "meh, I'm kinda broken depending on the situation, and in the right circumstances, I can be insanely powerful and annihilate a combat encounter."
Fighter in Pf2e: "I'm about to end this game's whole carreer."
End this game's career?
*BEGIN* this game's career.
Please please please do more Pathfinder 2e videos. I really dig your vids style and you have a really awesome presence onscreen compared to some other 2e UA-cam personalities!
I will throw out a description of a fighter character concept that is possible in 2e using stuff outside core just to further demonstrate the wide variety. Most of this is out already but one part of this is also a teaser for content not yet released outside subscriber early access (so it will be public in a week or so):
Fighter with a background as a combat medic that would save his fellow soldiers with a combination of medical skills and steampunk clockwork prosthetics. Driven a bit mad by all the death he saw and the things he did to people to save them, he was discharged and now adventures being solid with a sword and a scalpel and crafting things but not quite right in the head and he has a tenancy to pursue a little mad science. He starts out with a feat that lets him make a skill check to gain information about his attack target. His instability mounts and at level 2 (thanks to that soon to be released content I said I would tease) his experimenting with using machines to revive the dead has lead to his creation of an clockwork Frankenstein that he now can command in battle. All of these elements are mechanically represented my options picked in character creation (other than being a little crazy).
Further progression of his creation will cost some class feats, but his mad science also comes with the ability to pick feats to take control of a weak undead to have another minion, raise the dead, or at the highest level turn your Frankenstein into a horde of smaller mech zombies. With the Free Archetype variant rule he could delve into this without having less fighter feats, or in turn use that extra feats space for more mad science such as an Inventor multiclass, maybe picking up the ability to use his Crafting skills to defeat locks and traps and/or the ability to make gadgets such as incredibly useful rocket boots.
This isn't even touching on options he would be getting from ancestry or skill feats. So he could still pursue a mastery of ordinary Medicine and/or alchemy or maybe Performance so that he can play pipe organ so that his party even more wonders if he's a villain.
PF 2e can be a wild time :D
So wait, we're getting an archetype that gets a clockwork companion like the inventor can take? Interesting. We've got animal companion s but not access to the mechanical version.
There is so much more you can do with those 3 actions as well. You're not stuck with just the Strike (Attack) action. As you mentioned, Demoralize, Trip, Shove, Grab, Take Cover, Escape, Drop Prone...and that's just a few of the Basic options. You can even Aid (Help) as a Reaction. So even if you did Stride (full movement), Strike, and you can either strike again or you could do anything else with that third action. It might seem tedious using an action to draw your weapon, but there are 3 actions to use plus feats you can choose to help negate that.
If you go Variant rules and do Dual Classing in PF2e it opens up a whole new realm of possibilities. You get the dual class at level 1 and it progresses together with your other class, you aren't missing out on anything, and you can still choose Archetype Dedications. This system helps people with character concepts just by their rules alone rather than having to create something yourself or have to go to a 3rd party option just make something work better.
I haven't made a 5e character without homebrew.
The only time i needed to reach beyond what paizo was offering, 3party supported material had a witch expansion that gave me everything I wanted for my dark tapestry cleric. So I'm now a dual tradition occult/divine witch.
I think the next step would be to show the Fighter in a combat demo. You could perhaps do a compare/contrast or just show the PF2 fighter fighting something.
However, teamwork is vital in PF2 so you almost need to make a whole team.
Nice clear comparison. thanks! It's good you showed the post-level 1 advancement, that's where the difference between the two system really starts to be most noticable.
Glad it was helpful! Yeah the post level 1 is where things get really spicy. At level 1 things aren't hugely different, which is great for a 5e player learning 5e, it's not massively different to start which makes the switch much easier.
Timestamps ^^
Intro 00:00
start 0:43
HP 1:45
Armor class 2:21
class features/feats 3:24
Sponsor ^^ 7:34
Beyond level one/class progression 8:25
PF2e's archetype system 12:13
Conclusion 14:17
Outro 16:16
That's awesome, thank you! I'll get the description updated with them.
Great video Anto.
Now we've had a comparision between two Fighters, i'd personally love to see a breakdown or overview of all the kinds of character options that you just CAN'T be in D&D5 that you can be in PF2. While some of it might be a bit debateable (You can be an Inquistive Rogue for example, but Pathfinder has a full Investigator class) I think showing off the different character fantasies available in this system will help players determine if they want to give this system a try, and can exist alongside and compliment videos showing off the difference between classes that exist in both games.
Yeah like even within shared classes there's stuff like the Athletics-spamming people-biting Animal Barbarian that just isn't possible within 5e, and that opens up new ways for Martials to contribute besides doing damage
Welcome back! Great comparison video. I didn't realise that Pathfinder has a branching level system. That's pretty cool.
Thanks! It's really nice to have options as you level up. That's one of my big complaints as a player in 5e, you just don't get a huge amount of *choice*.
And a spectacular proof of how fighters are diverse in PF2 is I would not have picked any of those feats for my HUMAN SWORD AND BOARD FIGHTER and instead would have went for double slash with a short sword and shield boss... Bash someone with shield followed by sword and use dual wielding to output big damage! Both playstyles are valid, but I personally prefer applying dead to enemies to avoid attacks from being made compared to blocking some attacks... Different forms of damage prevention really!
(I also think that incredible initiative is super underrated on melee fighty bois)
My normal level 1 sword/board fighter setup involves fleet/incredible initiative, sudden charge, double slice... In practice, I always find myself with a third action to raise the shield and always want to attack at least once (since the first attack is the most valuable) so I prefer sudden charge to reactive shield... Plus after you reactive shield you throw down AoO which is your main way of stopping enemies from just running away from you into your backline... BUT THAT IS A LEGITIMATE PLAYSTYLE CHOICE and helps me to represent a more **aggressive shield fighter** which is something one can't do in 5e without sacrificing optimization.
It is really cool how different 2 fighters in PF2 can be even at level 1!
Great video! PF2 is a great system but it definitely needs more exposure. So, thanks for this.
Hear hear. D&D 5e is mainstream, and it's a good game. Pathfinder 2 is a great game, and it really needs the adoption and recognition it deserves, imo.
One thing I like is how PF2e's Archetypes affect how they design flavour. One thing I have heard mentioned for example is that the Fighter lacks flavour beyond being just a warrior, I think this is by design as thanks to archetypes they can use that to be more specialized flavour added to the character and the classes can just focus on a more core flavour. I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well.
Do Rangers!
They got some cool Archetypes like Snaretrapper and Horizon Walker!
As far as content goes I vote for whatever you want to make. It's important in this biz to like what you make. If I had to pick, videos comparing classes seen as bad in 5e to their 2e counterparts seems like a solid idea. Ranger could be a little complicated though, as the 2e version has a lot of different ways to go internally even without archetypes, and its actually underappreciated a little. Interestingly, the 2e Ranger is really cool and unique because one of it's niches is the same niche the 5e Ranger was built into at release, which earned it status as being a meme for being a weak class for a while. However the 2e handling is really useful. If you decide to make a Ranger video and want some help, I could share some knowledge.
The Pathfinder 2e Ranger is superb!
Very awesome and helpful video! :D
As someone who's ran D&D 3.5E/1E for most of my life (and my own TTRPG for the past few years) that's looking to toy around with a new system, this is a super useful comparison!
Absolute collision of worlds today, I've been watching your videos for a while. Today you popped up on my Facebook because you tagged an old friend of mine in a picture. I was very confused 😂
Love the videos man, helped me out a ton in my DMing journey ❤️
Oh man, yeah I bet that was super confusing 😂
Love to see more coverage of PF2E!! Fighter is awesome in pathfinder, and absurdly customizable, even before you start looking into Archetypes.subscribing in the hope for more pathfinder
Very good video I loved how you break down the differences between the two systems for a fighter. I believe that pf2e found for me the best balance between the huge amount of build potential of 3rd edition DnD while also pulling back on the huge complexity of having to "Spread sheet" out a character build.
Yeah. 2e has feat trees but they are usually much simpler. And with the use of totally free and officially supported online tools such as Pathbuilder 2e and Archives of Nethys it is even easier to build. AoN even will tell you if a feat has feats that build off of it so you can also click that and see what that does before your choose. Good stuff.
Yeah, it seems like a lot of the needless bloat and complex options from 3.5 and Pf1 are gone and replaced with a simpler, but still robust options system. Moving away from the 3.5 bones was a bold move by paizo, but I definitely think it paid off!
What do you think of the differences between the fighter in each system? And don't forget to let me know what kind of PF2 content you'd like to see!
5th edition ranger vs pathfinder 2e ranger.
Also you should bring up "free achetype" and having more customization getting free feats every even lvl and making a fighter/druid archetype for a green knight.
@@GunManGunHand I definitely think we're going to need to take a look at those two. Next video is going to be a discussion of the action economy, but maybe the one after that will be the ranger comparison.
@@IcarusGames thank you, im a "hardcore" ranger, been one since 3.5. 5th edition i feel did Rangers dirty.
Came here for the comparison and stayed for the funky BGM
Definitely agree that the beauty of pf2 isn't how you can make the same fighter as in 5e... But how you can make them different. Would be great to just pick a concept based on a popular pop culture character and try to make an RPG character that does the same things to see how close you can get. Mario? Spike? Batman? Sonic the to hedgehog?
You could also give this PF2e fighter a rough equivalent of Second Wind by either taking the Field Medic background or just training in Medicine and then taking Battle Medicine (using a human feat to take a general feat). It's only once a day per person healing in combat and doesn't always work (maybe 50/50 or so at level 1), but the skill can provide healing between combats too, which as you level up can help take some pressure off the party healer.
That's really cool! I've never wanted to play a fighter in 5E because it seems so repetitive, but they seem like they have a lot of options in PF2. Just having 3 actions and removing attacks of opportunity from most characters sounds like a great improvement to combat flow.
Great video Anto! Just the info I needed and easy to listen to 😁
Glad you enjoyed it! :D
good comparison! some things like shields and opportunity attack feels right from pf2
Would love to see this comparison with other systems..,.like 5e vs ICRPG.
There are other methods to mutilclass, the other way works as a gestalt style, taking the best proficiencies from each class, and you do get all the feats from both classes
Great video! Good work on showing the differences between the systems with this simple comparison. Good idea and well done.
Maybe I missed it, but did you mention that 2e Fighters are also better at hitting (and therefore critting) than any other class (aside from Gunslingers using firearms), including other martial classes? IIRC that gives them further differentiation from the 5e Fighter, who isn't inherently better at hitting and critting than, say, a Barbarian or Paladin or Ranger with the same stats and level.
PF2e when I want to make a compelling RPG character, DnD5e (and 4e) when I want a murder hobo character. Would love to see the unique classes that are on offer.
A solid way of comparing systems. 👍
~ Adam
The funny thing is both of them are the strongest martial classes in both games.
I wouldn’t say so. I’d say Paladin is the strongest martial. They’re a half caster with the same melee prowess as a fighter for the majority of the game. On top of being way more versatile.
@@Nastara I was mostly thinking in terms of sustainable dps in 2e barbarian can deal a lot more damage in burst and in 5e the fighter as more attacks than the paladin making is damage more reliable. And my mind is going to the sharpshooter feat fighter build which any fighter with a hand crossbow can get 4 attacks with +10 damage with minimal accuracy drop. I see almost no reason not to make every 5e fighter that way. But 2e you have many options to get reliable dps because accuracy and damage just comes with the class.
I know it is optional but I've been really considering the Free Archetype in the GM guide. It doesn't really seem to lend itself to over powered characters and yet opens up a wide variety of things one could bring in to flesh our ones character. Is this something you've looked at and/or tried? Is it something you would like as a player or do you think it might make too much book work as a gm?
I really like the idea of offering it as a group archetype, allowing the party to all be part of the same organization. I'm not totally against just offering it freely to players, but I would prefer to use it as a way for them to flesh out their characters' backgrounds.
I use free archetype in all my games. Super fun stuff. I don't think it makes players much more powerful, just more versatile. It also encourages them to take the more niche archetypes since they are not required to trade off a class feat.
Well I have been playing pf2 since the play test and have been enjoying it. I know that pf2 it very much more diverse of a system than 5e. It would be nice to see ur thoughts on the pf2 magus vs to options in 5e that can come close. Given that 5e doesn’t have a magus.
I've not dived into Magus yet, I'll have to take a look!
Ancestry feat and how it enables versatile heritages and the archetype system including the advanced player's guide archetypes to show the true diversity of character creation
Very interesting! I’ve been playing 5e for a long time and am frustrated by the limitations on martial characters. I will definitely check out PF2, if not to play, then to inspire in D&D. (I DM, too, and would like to give martial characters the ability to opt for something other than GWM, polearm master, and sentinel “to keep up”.)
If you and your group are for the most part enjoying 5e, then PF2 is a great system to pull inspiration and steal from. If you're all finding you have multiple frustrations with 5e, then it could be worth considering moving over to PF2 or another system. But stealing mechanics is for sure the easier immediate choice!
Thank you for this insightful video - A comparison of a single round of combat cool be cool. Go crazy use mini's and voices lol.
hear me out, make 3 other class comparison, and then use them all in a combat comparison finale xD
A combat comparison video playing through a round of combat could be really cool!
It's interesting to see the different concepts in PF2, but as for content .. no idea. I'm very into d20 using several alternate rpgs (Fateforge, Symbaroum, Trudvang) and wouldn't be switching over. Ideas to steal, that's another thing though and perhaps that sort of video, eg, what can one steal from PF2, could be cool.
A bit focus for my approach for PF2 content going forward is definitely "steal this cool thing" rather than necessarily "you should play PF2 instead of your current system".
So similar at first glance, yet so different.
I have tried a lot of systems. AD&D, D&D 3.5, 4.0, and Earthdawn. I totally get what you are saying. But I find as you increase the"Granularity" or choices, the slower things go. I havesome friends that are tactically and technically minded who would love the new Pathfinder, but the young people I am trying to get into the game would have troubles. Second thing is that when I played 3.5, Spellcasters were King, whether evokers or summoners or clerics. My 11th level fighter may have had three iterative attacks, but only the first one would usually hit, and the third never mattered. All attacks in the current system have the same chance to hit. The benefit of the newer D&D is that the spellcasters have less spells per level, and cannot stack buffs due to concentration requirements, so my fighters have felt actually important to the success of the party. I totally agree that the "ring of safety" is less than helpful. Thanks for your insights.
Would have been nice to do a dummy battle between the fighter vs a goblin in both systems.
It will always be a matter of preference.... But I am team Pathfinder all the way.
It's the more powerful and flexible system. Any 5e character ports easily over to Pathfinder. But lots of Pathfinder characters can't port to 5e, since it doesn't really support it. How does one port a Magus over? Even something as vanilla as a fighter has so many more options.
As you go, classes branch out to be wildly different from each other.
I like this sooooo much more than 5e in this comparison.
But the thing is, wherever I drill down and compare.... I like Pathfinder more. How the books are organized. The artwork (completely subjective... I just prefer the art from Paizo more often than not... example only). I like their pricing model more. I think you get a lot more bang for the buck on products. I think the physical products are higher quality. Better printed books even. Any detail I drill down to, I like Pathfinder better.
The Pathfinder 2e oficial sheet looks horrible lol
I guess it's fair to compare them using the official sheets for each system but I only ever use fan made ones for PF2e. Finding a better designed sheet can really help a crunchier game.
There is a more neutrally colored version of the PF2 sheet, though I'm not sure if the op has access to it.
I actually recorded this video twice because I wasn't happy with the ratio of useful content the first time around, but I used the B&W character sheet on the first go around.
Without the distraction of color, the PF sheet is a lot less overwhelming.
You probably haven't looked t the GM's Guide yet, but when it comes to Archetypes,. there's an option for Free Archetype, which allows you to take the archetype, but you don't have to choose between Class and Archetype feat -- you get both. It apparently doesn't cause any imbalance in gameplay, and it's about as close to multi-classing as PF2e will get. However, it's really great to see your enthusiasm for this system. I'd like to see your takes on the other class builds as well, along with comparing similar builds between PF2e and DD5 at intermediate and higher levels.
I was vaguely aware of free archetypes, but not enough to make meaningful comment on them in this video. I'm enjoying exploring the system a whole bunch though!
I'm only familiar with D&D 4e and 5e and recently I been wanting to redesign it, and after seeing a few of your videos I think I've been making a hybrid between 5e and PF2 cause I wanted to come up with a system where you could do more with your reaction and charge abilities, so I decided to give players a bunch of general actions, not sure how many yet, and whatever you don't use to move or attack, you can reserve to defend yourself, but this meant I had to decide if there is no more bonus action, then what are those actions
Saw 2e and D&D and thought i was looking at something else.
I think one of the best things you get from PF2 is consistency in the different roles. Your warpriest will feel really good at supporting allies and just be a stronghold during combat from level 1-20. Your fighter will feel like the lethal machine of war depicted on the book cover from level 1 to 20 (so if you're a 10 level fighter you don't just end up staring at the wizard to solve the encounter). You chose a wizard or pure spellcaster? Know this, PF2 pretends you're the brains of the group. Wizard needs to learn about the enemy, find the weakspot and hit it with THAT spell you got ready for the dungeon. It's harder if - coming from 5e - you chose the class just as a damage dealing freakshow. You're role in PF2 is controlling the battlefield, working through the masses of minions with AoE (which are not going to hurt the boss as much as you'd like anyways) before they flank your frontline.
Will Sidequest ever get foundry vtt support?
I mostly play 5th Edition and I felt I needed to comment here as most of the comments are from PF2e players, here is my take after watching the video AND played Fighter on both editions:
Openly, I prefer 5e more.
I made a Fighter in 5e, I wanted him to be a Samurai wielding a Long Sword (Katana). All I wanted was to hit things with my weapon and that I did. I had some nice choices, but wan't swarmed from it and at level 3 - When you can pick your subclass I ended up being very good at what I wanted. That was it. I was done with the Idea I wanted and anything I got after that I just bonus. Flavor or useful in combat, I gladly accepted what I got and didn't felt a gigantic huge to optimize my character further beyond that.
When I went to play Pathfinder I really liked the 3-Actions Idea and hyped, opened the book and hurried to make a Fighter for the adventure I was going to play. And then the huge list of customization options dropped upon my head and worst, It was mostly redundant and insignificantly small choices - and a lot of it. I immediately felt like each feature of this game was like a fragment of "Bigger" feature/feat from D&D and I had to follow the pieces of that puzzle to make then back together, and working like they should.
I mean, why Pathfinder make me need to pick Attack of Opportunity in the first place ? That is so useful I felt it needed to be a Given . I felt like D&D simplified all the chaotic ingredients within the Pathfinder into a tasty and homogeneous paste of tasty cookies.
And this metaphorical cookie motif was all over the book(s). Why have so many base classes that are similar in idea, p.e. Why don't make it a subclass/ archetype ? In D&D you may have less choices but the Subclass system makes choices Smarters, it is indeed one of the big moves D&D has done, a really great Idea against redundancy.
If you prefer 5e, that's great! I'm not here to convince anyone that any system is better than any other.
These videos are me comparing the two systems from my own POV, but if you are happy with 5e, that's awesome.
I will say though, you don't need to pick attack of opportunity as a fighter in PF2. All fighters in PF2 get it at level 1. Getting AoO at level 1 is one of the key features of the Fighter in PF2, which doesn't have ubiquitous AoO so that people can feel free to move around the battlefield rather than being forced to stand in lines hitting each other.
As for the scope of choice - if you come into a character with a very clear idea of what you want to build, of course most options will feel redundant to you because they don't fit the character you're trying to build. Trying to build a samurai that feels like your 5e samurai is going to make you feel like your were following the puzzle pieces because you are ticking off boxes to get features and abilities that align with the 5e counterpart.
That said, the greater customization in PF2 isn't everyone's preference, and that's totally OK. Neither are "better" than each other, and it all comes down to the yardstick you're using to measure "better".
@@IcarusGames Thanks for taking your time and answering me. And yeah, that's the whole point of my comment at first place: I just felt the need to balance the comment section. There's lot of good time potential in Pf2e - as there's in D&D too.
What I meant (and I didn't remember about AoO in specific) is that PF2e sounded that I could take my time and pick much more customizable choices through the character creation and this is usually a lot of fun - but in the end of the day, I don't think the D&D is lacking, they just outright gives you what will be probably taking.
Unfortunately I had to cut short my previous commentary as my girlfriend arrived, and maybe it felt a little rude - if that's the case, I'm sorry. I liked your video and that's why I felt the need to add upon it.
In my personal opinion I really like both system, and their differences. Specially their differences. I see the 2E of Pathfinder as more refined and more of it's “Own thing” as it has ever been and that's really good for the whole community. The improvement it took from some 5e flaws are awesome. Even if you consider the 5 years gap between the two, Pf2e took a lot of risks and solved a lot of their original problems and I hope the next generation of D&D can improve as much as Pathfinder did.
Thank you, may your dice forever roll
Love it thanks!
Suggestion for follow up. Make 3 more vanilla characters. All level 1. A wizard. A cleric. A rogue. Put the four level 1 characters into a simple combat scenario, and play out both in P2e and 5e. Try to be fair in comparing time to resolve combat etc.
I think people are scared off of Pathfinder far too often on the myth that it is 'harder' to learn or play. I think if people see critical game play in action side by side... That myth dies.
It would be interesting to compare these with the D&D B/X fighter which has zero abilities
PF2e is the greatest. I am glad you think so too
So basically,
Fifth Edition is for people who want to just run in and hit things.
Second Edition is for people who want to do a bit more than just run in and hit things.
For those who know, noob question: how backwards compatible is PF2e with PF1e?
I believe there may be a guide for converting monsters, but beyond that I don't think they are compatible as they are built on a different underlying maths system.
So basically, PF is a mutated, pumped-up clone of D&D. Nothing bad about that. At their core, they are both class-based and rooted in wargames, not in a simulation as skill-based systems often are. In my eyes, the systems are still very similar which makes this comparison possible. Maybe I will try playing D&D5e and PF2somedayy.
They are very similar in their core resolution mechanics. If you can play 5e, you already know the majority of skills needed to learn and play PF2!
I mean 5e allows multiclassing which greatly adds to the available options right?
That said, from first glance PF2E does the crunchier side a little better than dnd5e.
5e does allow multiclassing, as does PF2 (via archetypes)
@@IcarusGames ah yes. I see now. My bad
I cast Conjure Algorithm.
Ancestry Feat was never chosen in this video
One thing most people forget to mention is that Pathfinder 2 options are not that many. Yes you can have 8 feats for your level + archetype/multiclass and so on for over 30 possible choices. Problem is 25 of those make no sense for your build. Example is at 1st level you have two-weapon fighting, then at 2nd more two weapon stuff, repeats at 4th with two-weapon parry. Unless you wield two weapons those are not "options" they are false options. A choice between a feat that does a lot of what you want and another you cannot use at all isn't a choice.
To be fair, build diversity and support feels much stronger in PF2e than in other systems. Many choices are false choices in PF2e for your build, but you still have enough flexibility to take choices that support your build. Currently playing an investigator, I don't feel like there's that many specific tracks, I do feel more open to construct something that feels more personal.
It's worth noting that you don't actually have to take all of the feats for whatever path you're on. It's just as much of a choice to take everything on one path even when it isn't necessary as to choose anything else.
Not every choice is ideal for a standard build, but not every build has to be standard.
in these class comparisons pathfinder always seems to win....i wonder why
As always it depends on what kind of game you like to play, and how you play it - different systems for different players
Pathfinder is mechanically complex, with lots of mechanical options, so you can easily build a character that is mechanically different than any other
This however means all the characters are complex and slow to play, and you spend so much time on the mechanics it is easy to lose sight of the role play
5e is deliberately mechanically simple, so it plays fast ... and allows room to role play, you can build two characters mechanically the same that are playes entirely different otherwise
"So little I could do..." sums it up, you could role play, but you were too busy with the mechanics of the battle
That's definitely the case for some people. I can say for me though, having gone through level 1-20 with Pathfinder 1st edition, and 1-15 so far in 5e, than I spend as much time trying to interpret rules or find sage advice for the edge case interactions between 5e as I did just looking things up with PF. If a system has a rule, I have to find it, but if it doesn't have a rule, I have to make that ruling myself, which can take a lot longer.
@@IcarusGames I run 5e, I make up rules all the time, I rarely need to look up rules as there are relatively few and they are simple and (mostly) consistent, this is expected - it takes seconds, and occasionally I have found the rule I made up is in the book, and agrees
pf2 usually has a rule, this is expected, so I look it up, so it takes longer, I can guess what it will say but not in detail, and the detail matters because of the complexity
Some players love that there is a rule for everything, some just want to play
Pathfinder 2e Fighter is better because the system is better.
It's that simple.
I mean, yeah it's better if it fits what you're looking for. 5e is better if instead it suits what you're looking for. It's all super subjective to the player and group :D
feels like a cop out to point at all the different builds and then say "but there only a few different ways to make each of them work".
not that I really agree with that either tbh... can you give an example?
best example I can think of is a ranger with an animal companion that basically has to take the animal companion feats at lvls 1, 6, 10, and 16... but that still leaves 7 class feats, all the ancestry feats, 3 different subclasses and a ton of fighting styles/weapon choices to choose from.
Even if you take the view point that choosing a playstyle for a character, such as sword and board fighter, locks you into a feat tree and means you have no "choice" but to take the relevant shield feats as they come up, you *still* have general, ancestry, and skill feats to give you choice at almost every level.
Sure, there probably is a "best" option for a lot of levels, just like there is a "best" subclass for each class in 5e. It's a strawman argument IMO.
A a suggestion for a video, with blood lords being the am that comes out next. It's going to be decidedly not good aligned and with undead centric themes. Lots of groups are very anti evil of anti grey basically running a non good campaign
I'll be interested to see what paizo do within the AP to navigate the "asshat factor" of some folks wanting to play evil characters as an excuse to be awful.
My first session with 5e was a dex based elven fighter with True Strike cantrip and I cannot express how disappointed I am at how boring the class felt
True strike requiring a standard action just adds on to the disappointment
Pathfinder has a lot that seems cool but there's also a lot I don't agree with or like. 5th edition is similar to me as I homebrew some but I feel like I have less homebrew to do in dnd then pathfinder to be something I really like
If 5e is working for you and your group, that's awesome! Hopefully there will be something in these PF2 videos you can steal to put in your 5e games at least :)
@@IcarusGames im sure there is keep em up good videos regardless
What things in PF2E do you not like?
I'm very angry that it takes an ACTION to raise your shield. Only a moron with a shield holds the shield on a limp arm, low and at their side or behind their back. I give up on learning PF2.
dnd much better
After building a few characters in PF 2e, I came to the realization that all you have is the illusion of choice rather than actual choice. At each level with a pool to chose from, there will always be a best choice for your build, which is effectively no choice/the ability to chose poorly. It’s one thing if you have to chose between two or more good choices and in doing so you can’t get the ones didn’t pick, it’s another when if don’t pick it this time you can pick it next time. I feel like D&D 5e has more interesting choice to make than PF 2e, because each choice I make removes other choices rather than delays choices I was going to take anyway.
As someone who enjoys min-maxxing in this system, this isn't really the case, especially for skill feats and general feats. Class feats aren't always the most competitive with each other, especially for certain builds, but having a ton of overlap for what builds want which feats wouldn't be fun either.
Did you watch Taking20's video about this? You should know he gets multiple rules wrong in his examples, and I really don't think his opinion comes from a place of good faith.
I can honestly say that there are a ton of ways to approach similar builds in this system, and that the game is much more deep and tactical than 5e. I say this as someone who played in multiple 5e campaigns for years.
@@Badum-
No, I read the rule book, built several characters, realized I keep selecting the same things over an over again. I’m use to decisions being meaningful rather than limited, and I felt PF 2e was limiting. I loved PF 1e, had a lot of fun building unique character concepts. PF 2e feels like hundreds of choices hiding like 10 real decisions. D&D 5e has been more fun building unique concepts via multi-classing than PF 2e has been with its feat pools and cookie cutter feat selections. My opinion. Might need to play in a game to see how others do it differently.
@@jeffersonian000 maybe if you are trying to build the same kind of character every time I guess.... But if you want to play a gripli fighter who attacks with tongue and blade, is an expert at feinting, poisoning their blade, and jumping around the battlefield...I would say that isn't an illusion.
Or a bouncy goblin firebrand fighter that specializes in driving their opponents crazy by climbing between the legs, tripping opponents, and allows themselves to get knocked around the battlefield every time they get hit in order to avoid taking damage...
@@SuperMattMart
A simple question: at each feat pool, is there a better pick over the other options? If yes, that’s my point. If no, then why?
@@jeffersonian000 I just answered that question. Those are all feat choices that fighters have. Both of those are viable melee builds based on the pool of feats that you have available. Plus many many more.