I agree to a large extent. I've noticed while in some discord server that very few people actually know how to play DnD, and others just do amateur improv with a DnD skin. However, it is still pretty rules light or rules undefined. Like every other session over the course of 3 years we ran into something that, after searching for a ruling, we either had to homebrew or handwave away hoping we don't run into the same scenario again.
@BossBattleProductions yeah it's surprising how often people roll over rules to just expedite things while claiming 5e is rules light because it's how they run. I like being a rules guy and it can feel like every other turn a rule is being ignored or another made up.
@@ColdNapalm42 I exaggerated a bit, but a lot of isolated rules aren't explained properly or are broken (ex. phantasmal killer doesn't have a space for the source of fear, and the frightened condition relies on that), and others are underdeveloped (social encounters. They mostly expect you to just wing it), and then there's a lot where I thought "Did this seriously never come up during playtesting? It seems so obvious!" (hands bound, but not legs, no formal condition for this, distance that verbal spell components are audible, etc). I love the system, but I also hate it. It's like they expect us to fix their system for them
Yeah, but you kind of have to because even if you do read the rules, many rules are poorly balanced for many situations. There is a lot of trying to balance on the fly and ignoring the actual rules.
"The Adventurering Day" is one of my biggest 5E gripes. It basically translates to: filler encounters combined with railroaded combat for them and the no long rest railroad.
100% this. It just means GMs are throwing in fights because they 'need' the party to have more fights, rather than for any narrative reason. This is why combat feels like it drags; because the fight is just to cause attrition rather than as part of the story. It's also a new thing, at least to this absurd extent. In 3.x, a party was expected to be able to handle about 4 encounters of their level before resting, with a 5th encounter being likely to pose a risk of PC deaths. Before then, I don't recall any 'You need to throw x number of encounters at your party' at all. I have no idea why TF WotC thought it was a good idea.
Have you tried the long rest variant where a long rest takes up a week instead of one day? I'm switching over to that as it should be a really nice solution for DM's who want to use combat encounters only for the story beats instead of fillers for the 6-8 encounters :-)
Same. My players just rest and rest and rest and then act like pretentious ahole super heroes like from The BOYS, and always expect a level up after even non-challenging combat. Thinking about going with max HP and just taking away all natural healing. So, they know for sure how weak they are unless they use resources to heal, which would never keep pace with damage. Need to find a way to keep them from just fighting every random person or not taking things seriously.
There are some ways to mitigate this but it's extra work and house rules. House Rule of no long rests in dangerous places. Use Mat Colville's action oriented monsters. Further alter the NPC stat block by increasing health and add multi attack to increase the action economy. An additional step would be cap PC level at 6 or so. Like many things 5E it's extra work to fix the poorly designed mess that is 5E. I'm pretty fed-up with it at this point.
@@JanHoos To be fair. While this may solve the issue somewhat, it creates a different can of worms you need to be into. It certainly solves the necessity for filler encounters, but on the other hand it gives the game world a much more gritty feel to it, which not everyone might enjoy. You also don't really solve the problem of attrition. Now storybeat encounters need to be designed to deal attrition instead of being an all-out fight, because the core inflexibility of an attrition based system is not solved, you just make the attrition system work better for narratives with less encounters.
5e isn't rules light, it's GM heavy. What I mean is, it has a lot of rules, but it fails to cover some basic scenarios. It's like a very, very long legal document that fails to cover very obvious loopholes and gaps so the lawyers just put a note at the end of it that says "Wherever something here isn't covered, you go ahead and do our job for us. We'll call it the 'Rule of Cool.' On account of it being cool of you guys to not be mad we left so much undone here. Can you believe we didn't even bother putting gold values on magic items? Anyway, we thought of another cleric subclass..." Also, I found GMing 5e, that even at higher levels 5e is extremely swingy. Or I guess, snowbally is more accurate. What I mean is, because of yoyo-healing the party is always just the healer with healing word getting knocked out into spiraling into a TPK. So you have to balance aggressively as the GM to make sure the spellcasters can't just invalidate the fight immediately with a few save/suck spells or one of the extremely powerful other spells they have while at the same time considering what will happen if the healer goes down unexpectedly.
@@antieverything1 I'm not familiar with B/X. But I don't like a game that expects the GM to just do game design on the fly. That always leads to a mess, IMO. Unless it is a true rules light system where the focus is on narrative experience not tactics/mechanics/etc..
@@antieverything1 You're absolutely missing the point. Having rules for basic stuff does not prevent you from making rulings if necessary. But people do not buy a $50 rule book (5e) just for it to tell them "just make it up bro". Making rules up should be an *option*, not a *necessity*. You can act as if it's simply a GM issue, but there is no denying that 5e makes life unnecessarily hard for DMs and makes running the game less fun overall.
Well, I disagree with 5e being rules light in the overall TTRPG space, but compared to other simmilar games like previous editions, Pathfinder 1d and 2e, that's a fair point. But all of those are on the higher end of complexity in TTRPG terms, so I wouldn't call any of them rules light at all compared to say a PbtA game or something goofy like Honey Heist or Lazers and Feelings.
It's a common myth that 5e doesn't have a lot of various modifiers to d20 rolls and only has Advantage/Disadvantage affecting it. You have a ton of miscellaneous things that give bonuses in the form of static modifiers and even bonus dice. You could easily have things granting you additional dice that are unaffected by adv/disadv.
The fact that almost everything stacks with everything makes it more complex math wise than Pathfinder. My group has been playing a 5e campaign for 2 years now and thay have so many modifiers that often they forget what is what and wich bonuses come from what abilities.
@@rbkskillz They have different weapons and abilities that change those values often. Sometimes they are using a different weapon with a different spell cast on them making the values always situational. The values change a lot and it's kind hard to keep track on all these bonuses all the time. I belive that having tags and traits for bonuses make it easier to keep track of those things.
@@magnuspendragon1938 then isn't it just as simple as saying my spear is +x to hit and my sword is +y? If I'm using this ability it's +a and this spell is +b. X+a or y+a+b is really not that much to remember. Or am I misunderstanding?
Another example of a complexity comparison: 5e DM: "Okay new player, I use that variant rule for flanking. You're both on opposite sides of the guy so you have advantage. That means you roll twice and use the better result between the two. You might not get this at every table." 2e GM: "Okay, new player, you are on opposite sides of the enemy you he's flat-footed. That means he's two points easier to hit, but you don't have to worry about that math, I do that. You'll be able to benefit from flanking at every table."
It's a variant rule, not a core rule, and it's a really bad one at that. Advantage doesn't stack, and one disadvantage negates 10 million instances of advantage. Flanking is also really easy to perform in comparison to a lot of ways to get advantage, so it makes a lot of other rules and features redundant.
@@antieverything1 Neat strawman. It's not about the existence of variant rules but rather that variant rules will vary greatly between tables because there are so many and add a variety of different gameplay options that change the game drastically. Two tables of 5e can play VERY differently depending on the variety of variant rules you allow. For example: Flanking, tumble through, multiclassing, feats, etc. Variant rules in PF2e are primarily meta things regarding character creation like FA, Stamina, ABP, etc and don't change the moment to moment gameplay meaning that the actual game you play at one table will be almost the same as the game you play at another.
@cheezeofages worse than that, by using that particular variant rule, you're taking away some of the oomph of the Rogue's Sneak Attack which gets free flank-like behavior. When everyone gets to flank it means the Rogue is getting less bang out of their ability by comparison.
I have a little contention about Advantage/Disadvantage - the system isn't really that stingy with them. In fact, they're extremely readily available. You pretty much have to actively avoid them. Another thing the system isn't stingy with is outright immunity to conditions and such. There's way too much stuff that just outright says - you're immune.
There's so much immune to poison and fire. Especially poison just being outright near useless cuz of statistics. The poisoner feat does literally nothing to overcome this unlike elemental adept.
I still don't understand why people say this. How do you inflict disadvantage to creature saving throws, without making a specific build that involves 1 of like 3 subclasses or spells? Knocking prone requires an attack or specific subclass abilities, which usually have a saving throw. What are these mystical "advantage is actually just everywhere" abilities that affect combat? Are y'all playing with DMs who say that Thunder spells give everyone disadvantage to Perception?
An exception to the PF2E "balance the encounter": Above a certain difficulty you are almost guaranteed to have your spellcasters burning spell slots. Multiple encounters in a single day at that tier make each following encounter deadlier because they have fewer slots and are more likely to not have their strongest slots. So you can run them into the ground, but it is also up to players to know when to back off and find a place to hole up and recover.
As someone who started with neither D&D nor Pathfinder, and having now played both for a number of years (in addition to many other TTRPGs), it blows my mind that some people think 5e is rules light.
Lighter than previous editions is what they are comparing it to. Though I don't think they are inclduing either BECMI or OD&D in those calculations. I also find it lighter in rules than PF2E, but that does not necessarily mean easier as the rules are not really more logical.
I don't look at genuine rules light systems here (came up with the thumbnail after finishing the vid). Perhaps an idea for a future vid? Meanwhile check out my buddy TABLETOP BRO for awesome rules-light coverage. But here is one thing Powered By the Apocalypse does that I think more narrative-inclined 5e players might enjoy: THERE'S NO INITIATIVE ORDER. It's a conversation with the game master. There's a natural, "spontaneous" working out of who goes next. And hitting a foe doesn't simply have to be hit points - you and the GM can narrate together what you do to an enemy. One Tabletop Bro video on a rules-light system, "Dungeon World is what you want D&D to be": ua-cam.com/video/yP1iPUaS22Y/v-deo.html
As for a rules light system, I'd recommend Knave 2 or Shadow Dark. For a bit of background, my table plays a home brew mash up of AD&D, 2nd ed, and the Skills and Power's rules options. So I'm coming at this from an outside perspective. Both of these systems are pretty mechanically intensive in combat, where the gm is left juggling a lot balls. I don't mind complexity under the hood and in fact I like the richness it provides, but I think complexity serves the game best when it can be distilled down to as few numbers as possible that players and gms have to manage in combat. If you're playing on a grid, or you have a VTT doing all the math for you, both of these systems might be just fine. But as far as live table top play, say using miniatures or just theater of the mind, both of these systems are pretty mechanically dense, and would probably be pretty slow. From what I can tell, the density is added give rogues more relevance in combat. Not a terrible goal. In older editions, a 3rd level fighter who was weapon specialized could pretty reliably take down a 7th to 8th level thief if there was no way for the thief to get away. It's not a goal I have for my table--from my perspective, combat isn't where a thief shines. Thieves shine when it comes to finding non-magical ways into and out of places without being seen or without being noticed, and obtaining items sought by truly discerning collectors. They launch sneak attacks from behind, preferably at distance, because being caught in hand-to-hand combat almost never ends well for them. As far as variance between table to table---even if you have two GMs with a very similar gaming philosophy, you going to have differences. Simply, you're dealing with a unique mind. My advice for new GMs--don't be afraid to use your common sense, even if it results in a bad call from time to time. It doesn't set a precedent you're obligated to follow the next time. Just keep your ears open--if your players object to a certain ruling, really listen to them before, after and between games. Unless a character dies, any mistake you make can be fixed or simply not repeated. We learn to be better players and better GMs through making mistakes. I've been rolling dice since 1982, and I would never say I run a flawless game. But by talking to your players, you will come up with a solution everyone at your table can live with. If the consequences for player actions in combat or out of combat are grounded and logical and are appropriate to the world setting, most players will be fine with most any ruling. Players just want to know they are in good hands of someone who is going to be fair minded when it comes to adjudicating rules and to situations where no mechanic exists.
D&D has action types that are single use per turn, and they can't substitute for each other. You "mark them off" when you do each one. Pathfinder has several options each turn, and none of the action types are single use. You can attack three times if you really want to. In other words, D&D has "Vancian action" and Pathfinder has "action slots"! 😄
It's not Vancian if you just have some limited resource. Vancian means that you choose how many times per day you can do action X, and cannot go above (or change) that number within a day. Spontaneous casting is basically a patch on Vancian magic restriction, but was not originally there. So 'you can do Divine Smite 2 times per rest" is not Vancian. And for the love of god why couldn't PF2E abandon that annoying relic of ancient times that is Vancian magic is beyond me. It's both clunky for veterans and extremely unfriendly for new players. Spell slots and spell preparation of 5E is both elegant and intuitive.
@@Warchoon - Yeah, I don't know why Paizo didn't switch...especially since they went with scaling spells and those go perfectly with a 5e spell slot system.
Having run 5e for many years and now moving to PF2e, I love the system a lot more. All the things I tried to 'fix' in 5e are just generally there, or more obviously suggested, in PF2e. Combat feels more dynamic, more inventive and my players do a lot more strategically in PF2e than they ever did in 5e where because of the "ACTION ECONOMYYY" and everyone having AoO meant that it was always just "mob onto a monster and hit until dead" whereas in PF2e, they'll push characters around, reposition to flank etc. etc. etc. - and my players have noted how much more fun it is for them.
I've only played 1 session of PF2, while I've played DnD since the 80s. I like how 5e is a lot more elegant than past versions, though sometimes it feels a little constrained. PF1 was great for having options, but character complexity got a little out of hand. I love how PF2 is "stongly typed" and how they thought through common things players want to do and created solid rules for them. I want to play with the 3 action economy, just no room for new games at the moment.
The rewrite of "Core" PF2E got teased, there's even more "consolidation" of complex rules and overlapping categories... though it's a small taste, I like the direction they're heading for the main game mechanics... Just not sure I like the way they're simplifying spellcasters (though the spells seem mostly great ways to simplify and consolidate).
I have been saying this forever. The most common smartalic reponse I get is "Well it has less rules than older systems so therefore it is rules lite." That's like saying a car with four cylinders in it is a bike because it has less cylinders than a car with eight cylinders. That's just not how it works. 5e has tons of rules, far to many to make it rules lite, and the rules are half baked and vague which creates more issues than people think it solves. The only thing that is true of 5e is that it's LESS crunchy than some other systems out there. But it is still a crunchy system. Anyone who think's otherwise is delusional. Sorry to be mean like that, but it's true. Go play Dungeon World or Ironsworn and then tell me again you think D&D is a rules lite system. XD
Didn't you know that the 5e mod are the Custodians of Fun for the TTRPG community? They alone get to cherry pick and dictate the narrative of how 5e is perceived in our hobby, compared to competing products. Best to ignore the whole lot of them.
DnD is like monopoly or uno, the rules are there, They are complex. But nobody has read or understood them. Pathfinder 2e is like catan, The rules are clearly laid out and easy to follow while at the same time creating less friction for game masters when they look things up.
It is more math heavy, and for some people that is confusing or just not as fun. For example, instead of doing plus and minus to AC for flanking, you just have advantage and disadvantage in 5e.
I want to agree with you, But with modifier stacking, crits doubling dice but not modifiers, and the infamous vision rules that nobody bothers with because they are confusing and bothersome. yeaaa..
I agree for the most part, but sometimes I don't. While I do much prefer Pathfinder, there are times where I wish I could just ignore the huge number of rules and come up with something more simple just to keep the flow moving. Basically any time the party needs to use stealth I feel like this. Also one time when my group wanted to do research at a library, so we looked up the research rules, and I audibly groaned at what I saw and was like "just make f***ing knowledge checks."
27:40 - I call that the “Tubthumping Effect” (as per the Chumbawumba song). My house rule is that falling to zero HP and every failed death save thereafter causes 1 exhaustion. There are 10 levels of exhaustion before the 11th kills you, and each causes a -1 penalty to all d20 tests (including further death saves), as well as -5 feet to movement. Exhaustion is removed at a rate of 1 per long rest, and while you have any exhaustion, healing is halved. Overall, it creates something similar to the ‘wounded’ condition.
but I think it is fair to say that even if there are 1000's of rules light systems, if most the the gamers play just 2 or 3 which would seem to me to be pathfinder and dnd5e then those other systems don't really matter. if only 10 people in the world use the FATE gaming system does the really matter to the whole of the conversation. when I look at used manuals at a book store or see what is available other some other game store I basically only ever see pathfinder or dnd. If there are others there that I don't realize are different systems I haven't recognized it because if just didn't look like it to me or no one has ever said anything about it. Even the FATE system is one I stumbled upon cause I wanted to get more practice at the role playing aspect of dnd
Something I’d just like to add for the ambush section. Pathfinder has a surprise esque mechanic in drawing weapons and items. Ofcourse certain builds circumvent this (just like alert does in dnd 5e) but the first round where the pcs need to ready their equipment while the enemy gets the drop on them I feel fills in the same much and adds some complexity to player choice. It’s one of my favourite parts of the system so just wanted to highlight that
One thing I have found, being relatively new to PF2e, is the encounters are tight and often close to the bone (which makes them exciting) without being ridiculously deadly. The texture of the encounters is often interesting and varied - thanks to the action economy. My only gripe would be there can be a lot of chasing down rules during play - however I believe the coming Pathfinder remaster core rule bools will better laid out for referencing.
I used to like 5e. I've played every edition other than the original 1974 game. But over time 5e got worse and worse because so many differences in the rules.
It's been my experience that 5e is a great starting place for new players, but a very rocky starting place for new DMs. New books have continuously added more and more player-facing options and lifted a lot of limitations, without really ever giving anything to DMs that haven't already begun to eclipse printed material with homebrew, as even where the game's balance does seem okay in tier 1-2 is getting flattened under the weight of power creep in new subclasses and spell options. It's not great for every player, either, as all the power bloat is exacerbating issues 5e already has with poor game balance, and any kind of optimization veering a lot of combats into low-depth default kills or rocket tag. Even more unfortunately, One D&D's playtest materials don't really seem to take any of this into consideration.
One thing both systems - and indeed their predecessors (3E and PF1) if anything even moreso - fall into is the danger of multiplied multipliers. Your lethal Abomination Vaults fight was one such encounter: Cone attacks are dangerous because they have okay baseline damage (It's not worth adjudicating a breath weapon that only tends to hit for 2 damage, so a failed save is almost always at least 2 dice), but then basically always hit at least 2 targets (If they won't, a creature will usually slam or bite instead). And that's fine...usually. The trick is when you have encounters built with 2 or even 3 creatures who have these cone AoE damage zones. If there's a party of 4 walking together and they lose initiative to a pair of Corpselights and they crit fail their saves, they could collectively take a total of 4d6 * 4 players * 2 corpselights = potentially 192 damage in one round (saying nothing of the fact that they'd be Frightened 6 if they lived). That's an encounter thrown at level 1 characters. In fairness to P2E, avoiding catastrophic piles of failed saves is what hero points are for. Still. It's important to keep track of where your numbers are getting multiplied, because if you want to find the first place a game breaks you look for the word "double." And cones are multipliers. And if you're careless, encounter designs are ALSO multipliers. Usually if I have multiple creatures with a breath weapon in the same fight, they're all - collectively - on the 1d4 round breath weapon delay. This helps correct for how even if it'd be naturalistic for the clutch of red dragons to all cook you as a group and then feast, it's just not fun to react to and there's no counterplay that's actually enjoyable.
To be fair, as pointed out in the comments to that fight, I probably shouldn't have unleashed quite so many of that AoE attack because they should've started off prone and it was a 3-action activity But your advice of being careful about AoE is sound. Speaking of deadly AoE attacks, I had a TPK recently due to shocker lizards combining their AoE. Nasty ability!
More actions all that have a rule for them, seems more complicated, and technically it is, but when contrasted with having to make a determination ad hoc; once you have a grasp of the most common used actions, it actually speeds up play and makes it easier. A lack of rules and systems that leaves gaps that must be filled, perhaps inconsistently each time it comes up, isn't faster or less complicated that rules you may need some time initially to learn, but then can rely upon for a consistent answer and resolution ever after. I also find the 3 action system way easier to use and understand than the free, bonus, regular, reaction, move actions of D&D. On surprise rounds and stealth in initiative. I think Pathfinder handles this better, in that there isn't a "surprise" state, only awareness or not, and when an action would instigate combat or conflict, everyone rolls initiative, but with different awareness and initiative bonuses or penalties. It may be a little numerically more complex with initiative modifiers, but conceptually makes more sense and is easier to arbitrate IME.
One of the biggest differences I've noticed is the relative complexity of character building, in both you roughly pick your class, race, and history(ofc with different terms) and those aspects are mostly similar, but p2e is definitely more complex just by having more choices generally and beyond that having class and skill feats in much higher quantity than 5e has its general feats
A well explained video of the incomprehensible ridiculousness of modern gaming. You make good points and comparisons and I understand a bit more about Pathfinder 2e's differences from the incomprehensible ridiculousness of 5e. Although 5e is stil;l not yet as ridiculous as 3/3.5e was at the end, though it is very close. I, being horribly old, still state that AD&D/1e was made by and for creatives and dreamers while post TSR gaming and especially WotC D&D was apparently made by and for actuaries and statisticians. As I am in the first batch, even if I do have some second batch skills, I'm not very fond of latter edition rules. That said, I enjoyed being a part of the Pathfinder 1e playtest and running games in Pathfinder 1e in the first year or two before discarding the system as getting into more and more of the actuary/statistician mindset. I've friends who have said that they are enjoying Pathfinder 2e, and I have acquired the 2e book to try to learn the system. I've now given up on that as it has too much of the actuary/statistician mindset still and I don't have the free time to try to learn all its complexities. I think 5e can be considered rules light, but it all depends on the comparison. Compare the rulebooks of 5e to, say, the standard Supreme Court justice's law library and 5e is very rules light. 😛 Jokes aside, I've been able to pick up a decent knowledge of 5e player mechanics through playing blindly so that I can now, after a few years of occasional playing combined with general gaming knowledge, properly help newer players understand what is going on. But 5e is now so rules heavy (which appeals to power gamers), and that the game community all but demands that all rules be used, that I feel bad for the 5e DMs I know who are trying to stay on top of all the rules bullcrap. Case in point: I've been playing for a month or two with a friend's 5e group as six months ago or so she bravely/foolishly took on the task of DMing for the first time. She has been burning out a little bit and so wanted to go to running her game every other week. I offered, with her encouragement as she enjoyed playing in my past games, to fill in and DM a series of 5e one-off adventures on the off weeks to keep the group together and used to playing weekly. That and, since we have a couple of brand new players in the group, I said I'd run 5e so there'd be just one system to make it easier for the new players. That agreed on, the DM created a new chat group for my game, and I announced that, being as it was my first time DMing in 5e, I was going to just be using 5e PHB classes, races, backgrounds, etc to make it easier on myself. Four players immediately dropped out of the chat group showing their disinterest in playing a "limited" game. I've now cancelled running a game altogether since the majority of the group bailed without saying a word to me. Actuaries and statisticians abound. 😛 All that aside, you have stoked my interest so that if there was a PF2E game around where I normally live I'd try to join it so I could get the hands on experience learning that works best for me. I'd really like to play it so I could better grasp the natural ebb and flow of the game and could compare it to my 5e experiences.
Although I do like plenty of the expanded player options that come from later books, I actually think a heavily limited 5e game would be a GREEN flag for me at this point. It at least means there can be a more controlled focus and tone, and I'd be willing to sacrifice some freedom for that. I love the Curse of Strahd module, for example, but it's a little hard to maintain the low-magic Dracula-inspired victorian gothic aesthetic when your party is a robot, an anthropomorphic cat and a gunslinging monkey from space.
@@BenjaminBattington I agree with you. I admit being taken by the "Jedi" feats and some of the later, more powerful options such as the Twilight cleric domain (and my variant human 5th level cleric in my friend's game had both the telekinetic feat and that domain, though I had written a backstory for the character that made it reasonable), but I tend to just play humans so someone in the party is "normal". I run a game (when I'm not bouncing between two states for work as I have been for almost a year) with rules I wrote that are more like the game I grew up playing. I originally wrote it as a easy to learn game for WoW players a decade ago and they and subsequent players liked it so much that it is what I have run ever since. Easy to learn, straightforward, and not too convoluted. Seven races, a dozen classes, and old school attitudes. And I agree with you especially because I have trouble taking the 5e campaign we've been in too seriously as the Artillerist drops little robot cannons and the anthropomorphic rabbit-woman can make 45 foot hops in a movement phase. I'm not going to lie that it feels more like the make-it-up-as-we-go-along-and-change-things-every-moment freeform outdoor playing I see little kids do as they run around on the playground, and that just doesn't make it much fun for me.
D&D has 900 ish pages of "core rules" and a total of 3000 pages of total rules/optional rules/ expansions etc. How the hell can any slightly sane person call it light or simplified?
@@keegangates5073 Dungeon Craft/ Professor Dungeon Master has a "D&D on two pages" sheet somewhere and... it's right. Works for all the other games too. And a video about the "magic number" DMs need to know. People get lost in the charts but the results are almost always the same, if you know "the secret" (which is actually stated in the DMG). Hint: the secret is DC 8 (and also DC 15).
I fixed the yo-yo healing mechanic by making them track overkill damage. Ex the fighter takes 10 points of damage but only has 5 hp, so the cleric has to heal him 5 points to stabilize or 6 points to stand up. It really made things like the spare the dying cantrip or healers kit stand out since if someone took a huge hit and was at -15 they could stabilize them to 0 instead of having to blow a third level slot to do it. It also made attacking downed players extra evil since a hit on them could put them outside of the clerics healing range in addition to making them 33% deader or outright dead (ex a 20 hp wizard gets hit for 30 damage and then 10 would be outright dead). I found that it made having a dedicated healer like a Druid or cleric way more important since buffing healing had a tangible benefit instead of anyone who could cast healing word would be just as effective.
12:38 The modifiers section is kinda wrong really. Sure, it *seem* like D&D only have adv and disadv at first, but then you put in bless, bane, guidance, resistance, cover, bardic inspiration, haste, slow and then a myriad of subclass/ background features that give random d4/d6 to different things and now their is no difference between the 2 systems. In fact, I would argue the d&d modifiers is more complex because you roll a random number when ever you interact with it instead of the static numbers like PF2e. For example, whenever I demoralize an enemy with +10 to fortitude (constitution) save, I know that his save will alway be at +9 until the effect go away(or +8 if I crit). But if he was hit with bane in d&d, his save vary from +6,+7,+8 and +9, and I will have to roll for that unknown number and then subtract that every time I want him to make a save.
@@XvicvicXah, I only skim through and read his bullet points, my bad. But I also don't agree that d&d are stingy with advantages. My players often have both adv AND extra dice bonus for their rolls.
I do cover it a little later in the vid. For me a worst offender in D&D is the Twilight Domain cleric, giving 1d6+LVL temporary hit points to allies at the end of EACH of their turns. How clunky is that?!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGon't forget the Peace cleric that can give a extra 1d4 for allies 1/turn (of each ally) and this stack with Bless A level 1 fighter will have +5+2d4 for hit A level 1 fighter can hit within up to +13 bonus (without magical items a and spells a level 20 fighter will have +11 to hit)
I honestly think PF2E is easier to get people started playing. I'm teaching a group of 8-11 year olds. Everything they need to start playing fits on the beginner box postcard sized play aid. The three action economy needs 10s of explaining and then they can just play. Say what they want, I tell them how many action coins to removes and they roll. Thats it.
A narrative focus game system created by Margret Weis Productions is their Cortex System... it had a lot of math as players had die for traits... to beat a DC, the player rolls all their trait dice for the valid traits... then adds them together. This system was poorly implemented (a lot of traits were just d2's)... so it was revamped in Cortex 2. I have the Firefly RPG Core Rulebook, which uses a modified version of the Cortex 2 system. It's much cleaner... has rules for everything. In fact, the same rules apply to all situations. All rolls are opposition rolls. A player wants to climb a fence to get into a party they don't have an invitation for... GM rolls 2 dice, adds the total together, and the player just needs to roll higher. Simple. Combat... same rules. Chases... same rules. GMCs trying to convince the PCs to betray their employer... same rules. Vehicle combat... same rules. Inititiative is also easily dealt with... the GM decides who goes first... once that character finishes their turn, the character's control (GM or PC) decides which character goes next. This is repeated until all characters have acted. Yes, the system is a bit more complex than this... yet it has no classes, no special abilities, no items, no spells, no special actions which require their own set of rules... thus, the system is rules-lite. The only restriction is "is it logical for this character to be able to do this action?" There is a limited number of ways items, vehicles, and characters can modify the rules (distinction triggers)... and to do so requires the person (PC and GM) to use special resource called plot points. A much simpler system with its own complexities which provides the variation required to keep the game fresh not stale. Ultimately, there are three limitations, what the GM and Players considered to be balanced, their imaginations, and the dice rolls... always the dice rolls. Have a good day Ronald!
Great video, can't wait for the later parts of the series. It still kinda baffles me that people consider pf2 a complex system, is it because of pf1? Well that's like calling DND 5e complex because DND 3.5 was, and I don't see anyone making that claim. Is it because of the math? Am I supposed to believe what's essentially addition and subtractions with whole numbers is complex? I guess at the end of the day any system seems complex when compared to a systems that's not even complete.
I think because people considering 5e were putting it up next to 3.5e and 4e and PF1, and now PF2. People considering PF2 are putting it up next to 5e.
@@SapSapient compared to 5e it's more complex that's for sure, what I was saying is that being more complex than 5e is a pretty low bar to pass compared to the general trpg landscape
Providing observations as someone currently learning PF2e while playing. To expand on the point made at 11:43 , an aspect of the action complexity of PF2e I don’t see discussed often is how many character features add new actions, redefine the effect of actions, or change the economy of actions. Not only are there way more specifically defined actions than 5e to know about at level 1, but every level requires re-learning some of the actions you had. This explodes the complexity of the decisionmaking, because you not only have to decide among a large number of options, but also take into account your character’s specific modifications to those options. Now consider that you also have to learn specific conditions and ciscumstances and how they impact bonuses, and things get real complicated for people who don’t know the rules yet. If you “already know” all of the rules, PF2e is easy; doing “more” math is not the problem. The problem is that if you don’t know all of the rules, making decisions is hard.
One thing I think you failed to mention is the effect of "Four Degrees of Success " on Spellcasters. My wife used to hate playing Spellcasters because if the enemy saved, she wasted her turn. Now, she still get some effect from most spells, even if the enemy saves. They have to roll a Crit Success to fully avoid the spell. It doesn't apply to all spells, but it does make Spellcasters less swing-y, which some people really enjoy. An extension on this would be a discussion of the Incapacitation trait, but that may be outside the scope of this video!
This is low-key an amazing video that can stand on its own as a way to show folks familiar with 5e how Pathfinder 2e is so different in practice (and, for us, preferable)
3.5 really is the best version. There are literally terabytes worth of UA-cam videos by 5e DMs offering tips on how to "Homebrew Fix your 5e campaign", only for those suggestions to merely be features and mechanics that WotC had removed from 3.5, but were previously part of the vanilla mechanics. Might as well just stick with 3.5, then, for a rules complete system. Or with Pathfinder 1e as a slightly more streamlined 3.5 alternative.
>system is pretty stingy with giving out advantage or disadvantage No, not really. Especially the new options give a ton of ways to obtain advantage/disadvantage, which leads to it being useless a lot of the time, since you can't have multiple of these.
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yeah, also the new options are considerably stronger. Which makes sense for a game who's rules are not freely available, since that's just pay to win.
0:52 This might be true in North American mainstream, but there are lots of much more complex pen & paper RP systems out there. D&D and Pathfinder are among the simpler systems in both combat and non-combat resolution.
Very detailed on the differences, very good !!! But every time I saw these comparisons, I kept thinking that a merge of different rules would be awesome, except that my players would never agree. The DM role of the antagonist, lead the players to believe that the house rules are always bad for them, and they can only trust the books to stand "against" the DM (which shouldn't be the case). I love how "Shadow of the Demon Lord" found a way to do "advantages" that can stack (boons and banes), and how "Dungeon Crawl Classic" make the magic system unpredictable so you have to roll to cast instead of Vancian style. But making a merge of all these good things may be a dream that will never see the light of the day.
O.o I always run my houserules by my group and we discuss whether we want them and they typically really enjoy them and I always have houserules, even with pf2e. I'm a bit careful with them in pf2e, cause the thing I love as a GM about pf2e is it removes the shenanigans of 3.0/3.5/5 D&D and pf1e. I can build a balanced encounter in pf2e and it'll work independent of the munchkins or lack thereof at my table.
One issue with the healing word yo-yo is the rules on spellcasting prevent then using a spell with your action (funny enough, fighter's action surge does allow for 2 levelled spells in a turn.) This can mess with a lot of casters because they often don't have great actions that aren't spells. At optimisation tables this matters less because people just dodge to protect their concentration, but it is not fun for most people to play that way. Either way, it being a bonus action is good but not THAT good. The main strength issue healing word has imo is that it has a range and cure wounds does not. This is what makes it non committal to use because you don't have to expose yourself. Especially in a space where everyone has attack of opportunity.
Funnily enough, Baldur's Gate 3 management of actions and bonus actions essentially turned into the pathfinder "action points" system, let's say. They are a resource which you can have multiples of. Most of everything you do in combat in BG3 uses either an action or a bonus action, as long as you have enough of them, nothing stops you from doing it. But it can absolutely get ridiculous Level 3 Rogues that pick the Thief subclass in that game get a second bonus action. The Monk Subclass "Way of the Open Hand" gets 3 different attack abilities that each consume a bonus action and each are actually considered two different attack rolls with two different rolls for damage. Meaning a level 6 character that takes 3 levels of monk and 3 levels of rogue can basically do 4 attacks with 2 bonus actions and also have an action to spare. And at monk level 5 you get extra attack and get a mage to cast haste on them. they can do a total of 8 attacks. At level 4 you can get the tavern brawler feat which adds your STR modifier twice for attack and damage rolls. So that would be 8 rolls of d20 + proficiency + 2*STR mod + advantage because some of those attacks cause Stun or Prone and another 8 rolls of 1d4/6/8 (changes with monk level) + 2*STR mod Bludgeoning damage + 1d4 + WIS mod (Necrotic, Psychic or Radiant, it's another passive thing they get). That is 16 incredibly ridiculous rolls and I haven't even considered items... I'm glad it's a video game...
I don't think that D&D 5e is rules light, I would call it rules medium. They are trying to reduce the complexity in the 2024 revised version and I think it's a good thing. A rules "light" (or at least lighter) version of Pathfinder would be really interesting to me, but that's probably not going to happen. It's going to be very interesting to see what Darrington Press (Critical Role) is going to bring to the table with their new Daggerheart TTRPG system.
@@antieverything1 I've seen it described as either "rules light" or "rules lighter", mostly from people who only know 5e and are considering other systems like PF2E, GURPS, etc.
Bonus action to drink a healing potion with normal, rolled effect. Standard action to drink a healing potion with maximized, not rolled effect. Standard action to administer a healing potion to an ally for normal, rolled effect.
I actually really like this. Most potions are not strong enough to justify taking an action. But you specify "healing potion", how do you rule potions that do other things instead, or in conjuction with?
@@texteel - Most other potions don’t have a variable effect, so I leave those as regular. Healing potions are also different in a couple other ways. First, the game treats healing potions differently, because you can use the ingredients of a herbalism kit to make one, while there’s very little guidance for crafting items besides healing potions and scrolls. Second, all actions are lost when you’re incapacitated, so using a bonus action to stay up is a more valuable use of your turn rather than slightly delaying the inevitable. Most other potions make you more effective at doing something you could try doing another way without the potion, so they’re closer to buff spells which cost an action.
I love Pathfinder's "atomized" action system because it significantly simplifies opportunity cost. You're a fighter who can hit multiple times-- whether by a class feat (5e) or just a high bonus (PF2). What if you want to drink a potion? In PF, that takes the place of just 1 attack. In 5e, you can't use *any* of your multiple attacks because your action has been consumed. What if you're a fighting spellcaster? Can you multiattack and cast a spell? In PF, you can, at the cost of not moving that turn. In 5e, it's *either* cast a spell or use multiattack (the only exception being Eldritch Knight casting a cantrip or sorceror using metamagic)
From a learning standpoint I found 5e significantly easier to learn how to use. But once you learn it I think PF2e is easier to run, not necessarily play though. Once you get the core mechanics of either system down neither is really complex.
8:43 Situational awareness and the tactical situation are not the same. You can be well protected and not realize what is about to happen or you can be aware of an impending attack, but find yourself unable to prevent a situation that is disadvantageous to yourself.
one thing that unbalance more D&D combat (and caster) is that most table tent to have less than 3 encounter by day so they can easly go supernova almost every fight... in other side some spell in pathfinder 2e need a rework because it cost an spell slot and if the targe just succed the spell do nothing... is hard to use that tipe of spell (even if they are super flavorus and cool if they land) a foe with little more level or little luck let you with a bad sensation....
Most people feel that D&D is more of a 'save or suck' system than Pathfinder. In 2e there are 4 outcomes for most die rolls: Critical fail, fail, success, critical success. That paints a more nuanced picture than is often seen in D&D.
@@lagautmd yes but I had really unsatisfactory results with some spell that agravated because I am playing a magus so cast your Gravitational pull and do absolute nothing it is disconcerting (you effectively waste your acctions and half of your spell slot for that rank) and that happen twice... so I do not prepare that spell anymore... and like that there are many more example... (Gravitational Pull has all the Jedi/Sith vibes but It doesn't work at least for me)
Dnd is lighter then Pathfinder. Its more streamline and easier to follow, It also has an easier character creation because it's simplified. And this comes from years of introducing people to the game. The learning curve is very small but there is a learning curve. It's not as light as some d6 systems but It's light enough to pick up and learn pretty quickly and still feel complicated enough to feel fun Pathfinder is for people who know how to play ttrpgs and like crunch. Character creation is much more involved and lot more choices and learning right away. It's the reason why you can hand it to people who've never played tabletops and their eyes glaze over because it's a lot to learn before you can actually play.
I see DCC listed as OSR sometimes and I don't consider it rules lite. I don't consider several of the AD&D based clones to be rules lite. I sort of think of BX type games as rule lite, maybe a little more. So, 50-100 pages. That being said, some of the best gaming out there is ICRPG (with about 20 pages of base rules) and EZd6 with even less. It could dpend on the GM, if the GM just said he/she was ignoring every rule except the core rules in pages X to X.
I've heard of the "Lean out" action to avoid cover penalties (from your own cover) but I can't find a reference to it in the actual rules... Anyone able to point me to it? Page nuumer or AoN are both fine.
idk how you can call a system with a 300 page rulebook (and that's just the player's handbook) "rules light". I'm literally about to run an rpg that has a rulebook with only 30 pages
We have to stop comparing 5th to Pathfinder, full stop. The whole thing is non sense. Yes, Pathfinder has more rule, but make the system more balanced. Yes 5th rules are not detailed enough, making it hard for the GM. But the bottom line, you play what works for you. Both have their pros and cons depending on what you want from the game you play. Let's stop thinking one is better than the others for others people. Play what you like and be merry!
I personally think the traits made learning easier. Once you know a trait you know what to expect from it. It is like MTG, keywords exist and you know what to expect of those keywords. You would think (since many long term players of mtg also did D&D) people would get on board with the ease of the trait system. Not that there isn't a lot of traits (there is in fact), but the system is great and I have developed a few traits for my own homebrew as well. I am probably going to edit this a couple times because when something is brought up I wanna say what I am thinking about it at the time so I don't forget what I am thinking about. The "surprise" round in PF2E (not really a surprise round, but point is made) is the round initiative is rolled. In the scenario where one side chooses to ambush the players, once any character chooses to act (npc or pc) in a manner that is hostile for an encounter (or if the encounter is something else like a trap or conversation encounter since not all encounters are combat) initiative is rolled. Then every takes their turn, just because initiative is rolled in said scenario doesnt mean the pc's know of the goblins and thus cannot really do anything to the goblins. The goblins still surprise them because essentially the pcs would keep doing what they were doing on their turns until the goblins actually do something such as attack or reveal themselves. I am sure most tables do not do this, but that was the intention of how this form of initiative was meant to play out. I do like it in concept, but it can lead to some players metagaming if the DM randomly calls for initiative when nothing is revealed to the players happening. They are on edge and subsequently they will more than likely play the character as such. So when I do an ambush, and I forewarned the players I do this, I roll in secret so they don't know. I ask what people are doing real quick at that moment and depending on initiative that was rolled I would say something along the lines of, "Right as you start," or, "Before you start," or "After you start," something happens. There is a misconception that movement is free. The action economy from 3.5e and 5e are almost the same. The only difference is there is no full round action (that was rolled into action) and no free action (that was essentially renamed interaction action). Otherwise you have (3.5e first 5e second) the standard action to action, move action to movement, swift action to bonus action, immediate action to reaction, free action to interact action. The standard action was just that it had all the things you mostly do, however you couldn't move and do a full round action thus why I said it was rolled into one. The move action and movement is the same except you can move up to your speed during the whole round and not all at once. The only change is that, you still can only move up to your speed with it. Both 3.5 and 5e had it where you can use your standard action or action to move again up to your speed nothing special there. Movement in 5e is just that, another action it is no more free than in 3.5e. I think the misconception comes from not being able to do a full round action at the same time (enforcing stand still combat instead of mobile). Both are an "action" but in 5e it is spent in increments on your turn instead of all at once is all.
I've read the last paragraph several times, but still don't understand -what the heck- what misconception you're talking about. In 5e your decision to move up to your speed doesn't cost you the ability to do something else. It's a separate resource, therefore, it's "free". Contrary to Pathfinder 2e, where it's not.
@@a_wild_Kirillian You must have never played other systems. It is not free, it is still an action, that means something you do on your turn. It is not free as in it cost nothing and is without limits. The limit is your move speed. Think of it like this you have $15 dollars every minute and each minute you can spend up to $15 on something, say a $1 candy bar. You can spend as much or as little as you want during the entire minute at any point during that minute and each minute regardless of how much or little it is reset to $15. You still spent the money if you do, thus your still are doing something. You can do anything else with that $15 but buy those $1 candy bars, but you can do it how you feel. In prior editions you had something called a move action. This was typically for movement, but say you do a 5 step you cannot also move on your turn (vice-versa) this step was to ignore AOO or to move just as much as you need to make a full-attack (not going into it too much). The move action can still be used for other things too. Each action on your turn takes time and it can be a move action or standard action (typically). Now any action that is a move action can also be done as a standard action as well since a move action is considered faster. Anyways, the point is nothing you do is free and that is a misconception. Unless you can do it as much as you want on your turn it isn't free there is a limit. The only change is how movement can be spent during your turn up to your move speed at any point. It is not done all at once is the ONLY difference. PF2E uses an economy of action that can spent as you see fit with action taking anywhere from 1-3 action to perform. The only difference is 5e has dedicated actions on your turn, while Pathfinder 2e does not. 5e has 3 actions; standard, move, bonus (move is a separate thing and is limited). PF2E has 3 action (spent on whatever you see fit and in order and sometimes a specific action costs more than 1). What I never understood is why a bonus action, which is said in the book to be an especially quick action, cannot be done as a standard action. You literally lose a potentially more powerful action to perform something quick in a space of time of something that takes longer. 5e wants to restrict what you can do and how many times. If you played prior editions and don't see this I am afraid you have some bias you cannot admit to or something.
@@MrReaperHand, wow, for a person, capable of writing in such lengths, you sure do have some trouble with comprehension. It's rather puzzling. But I'll indulge. It's fun. First of all, you just had to make a baseless claim to help your point. FYI, I've never played Pathfinder, I dislike D&D and my main system is GURPS. My biases lie somewhere else. So, the only misconception here is you not being able to conceptualize, how human language works. Words are chosen to describe an idea. Are you the type to argue, when people say "walking is free"? Because with your take nothing in this world is free. Why do we use this word so much then? You keep saying "This is the only difference" (about two different arguments, actually, which is ironic), but there is an important one. I have described it to you, the video had described it before me. It seems to me that you're describing it, too. In 5e movement can't be exchanged for any action with different effect, while in Pathfinder movement takes one of your three actions, which could have been spent on other options. Moving in 5e doesn't automatically diminish your attacking potential. Unlike PF2e *and* GURPS. This is why people call it "free". Because context fricking matters: words change meaning depending on it. If you don't understand this, it doesn't make that a misconception. That is a valid use. Previous editions have nothing to do with this. Movement's limits have nothing to do with this. No one cares that it's a renewable resource, which can't be spent on anything else. --- Regarding the bonus action situation: this is NOT what is said there. Go read the damn book, it's page 189. You can't do two bonus features on the same turn because that is not how the game was designed. It has literally nothing to do with in-game time. No one prevents you from doing it anyway, however. I doubt it would break anything, but I'm not a 5e user.
@@a_wild_Kirillian For someone getting so defensive over a system they don't use, other systems they don't use, and prior systems THEY DON'T USE you sure a getting heated over something you don't fully understand. You don't, clearly, know the history of actions in D&D and also don't understand what free means. Also, yes NOTHING in this world is free. EVERYTHING costs something, be it the energy we create by breaking down food or money, time, etc. This is quite well known something is spent to do something. You can't do two bonus actions on a turn by design, yes, but why? It DOES state that a bonus action is an action that is especially quick, but only actions that say they are bonus actions can be done. It is for balance reason only, you don't know the history clearly as you even seemed to state so you don't understand why I am confused why this needs to be in place. Next point to were I said movement in pathfinder DIDN'T cost damage potential. Tell me where, in my entire comment, I said movement did reduce damage potential in 5e. You can't because I never said that. I said movement IS an action because you still act. It is the movement action it is what you do on your turn to move. So what you can't do other things in replacement of movement. It has a finite amount, this means limited if you fail to comprehend what free really means, thus once you spent all your movement on your turn you cannot anymore. Actual free actions, which is an action in 5e better look it up, are action you can do as much as you want but they are not overly time consuming and do not impede other action such as talking. These ARE free and can be done without limits (for the most part usually DM discretion). Since actual free actions don't have limits, really, they are free as they cost nothing. There is no resource (how much you move), it doesn't require spell slots, items, or a myriad of other thing in the system. Movement is an action, it is it's own action but still an action. They only call it movement to change from the past where you can only do it once per turn no matter how far you went. The ONLY change is that to movement, all other actions were changed to either free, bonus (used to be called swift), and standard. I know my history of D&D pretty well since I have played most of the systems. I know many of the changes since I compared them when I first played 5e. I know they only changed words for ease, but fundamentally the action economy is the same with TWO less actions.
pathfinder definately has that reputation because of 1e. I refuse to touch it, but I'm considering trying to stuff every day of my time to run pf2e its so simple and easy to run and play.
I have GMed both D&D and Pathfinder 2e. And I prefer 2e, there is a slightly larger learning curve, but that is totally worth it. And all 2e rules are free online.
In my experience level 1 isn't very fun in either game. Pathfinder characters may have 17hp at level 1, but 11ish damage isn't uncommon, so both games see you two-shot. I was actually shocked at how little damage the goblins did in pathfinder, because my party got enemies that hit for much more damage at level 1. I'd love to see similar comparisons at levels 6, 11, and 18~20ish.
It was pretty common in the earlier adventure paths for monsters to be stronger than the party in pathfinder 2e. Usually even lvl -1 monsters has some cool effects that could be deadly. So some GM discretion is great. It's easier to die in d&d imo as a single d8+3 could down the majority of the party xD
D&D is rules not as dense as its preceding versions and is relatively simple. But it's definitely not rules light, the physical size of the rulebooks compared to something like F.A.T.E is evidence on its own.
I think the only thing I miss from 5e as I'm trying out Pathfinder is some of the mechanical jank I've discovered in DnD that's sometimes overpowered, but when every party member has that kind of OP jank it evens out, you know? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the "Free Archetype at lv 1" game style I've heard about where everyone is extra powerful, I think it would help ppl like me who love the extra powerful feel of a crazy good class or multiclass in 5e. ...assuming that is actually a thing and I haven't been misled on that by friends/the internet.
Free Archetype is at Lvl2 and is not overpowered. It's more options and not just a power bump. There is a Dual Class optional rule in Game Mastery Guide that lets you get the best of 2 different classes which is a huge power bump generally recommended when you only have a couple players. I have never used that, but I love the Free Archetype rule and it's my default for play and available in Pathbuilder2 so easy to implement.
My takeaway from watching that combat and the whole debate in general is that a person that knows either system can not make an unbiased assessment. I fell like someone who knows both well should teach a group of newbies and ask them.
6:15 - While I agree that D&D isn't rules light and PbtA games all have fewer rules than it, I wouldn't call most PbtA games rules light either - they tend to be more medium weight in terms of rules - While compared to descendants of 3/.5e they're a lot easier to get into, typically there are more rules present, and those rules are weightier than in something like Wanderhome or Microscope, even before we get into stuff like one page RPGs. 11:16 - I suspect I get on as well as I do with PF2e's 3 action economy because, to put it into board game terms, it's basically an AP system. I understand AP systems far better than I understand 'do up to one of each of these various things' systems.
I have played 5e with 3 or 4 different DMs. Not a single one of them actually does the +2 to AC from cover. Heck, the PF2 GM I play with doesn't use it either. The people I've played with just don't seem to care about cover, especially cover from creatures. Additionally, I think it's extremely common to use the optional Flanking = Advantage rule in 5e. Not including it in the comparison in any way, I think, is disingenuous.
That is bizarre to me. If anything my problem with 5e is they have easy ways to avoid cover with sharpshooter/spell sniper. Reduce the penalties to cover I'd be okay with but avoid is insane. I'[m very generous in granting it. People should be rewarded for making the tactical decision of gaining cover. I wish both systems emphasized it more.
It is if you like to play a narrative game. If I read a lot of comments here they mostly deal with "How many encounters can a group handle before they need to rest?" Well, who cares? It might a be a European thing but I don't care about dungeon crawls. So encounters are there to strengthen the story - no other reason. I couldn't care less about numbers. And I have the feeling after looking at PF2 videos and the rules book it's about numbers. And I don't care for numbers. That being said that is my preference - if you enjoy the number counting and the "the fighter has to move first before the rogue can attack etc" all the more power to you. But I enjoy a game in which the characters don't have to compare numbers and effects to be successful - I want a game in which the fighter is a fighter and not a support figure in a well oiled clockwork. And that takes a system that is more open. So, yes, DnD is more rules light than PF2 but it also aims at a different kind of player and GM.
I've come around on liking PF2e more than 5e, but what I will say for 5e is while it's not "rules light," even for the generally more complex d20-based systems, it is in kind of a sweet spot for new players in terms of having enough complexity to where players will have to learn some specific mechanics/interactions while still having a lot of built-in DM discretion to where the game can be made more "fuzzy" to allow DMs to craft an experience that their players will enjoy. It's something of a good medium between crunchier systems like PF2e and truly rules light systems like the many PbtA-styled games out there or your one-page RPGs. The real issue is that a lot of folks (myself included for a while) just get kind of lodged in that system and never expand out to try other things; we end up with folks who prefer math/crunch being frustrated at 5e's lack of clearly defined mechanics in certain areas on one side, and more freeform role players chafing against the limitations the system places on their creativity on the other. 5e is a good gateway system in that it has elements of both, but only works well as a gateway if players then use their experience with it to inform their decision on what game(s) are right for them. Sometimes, 5e will be right for them and/or their group; in that case, great! Enjoy 5e! But that determination really can't be made if 5e is the only system you've ever played; you have to experience what else is out there in order to know what you like and what you don't. To repurpose an old Konstantin Tsiolkovsky quote, 5e may be the cradle that many people being their TTRPG playing lives in, but one cannot eternally remain in a cradle.
I've played some P2e and a lot of D&D 5e, and I have noticed something about the early levels of P2e vs D&D 5e. It is much harder for new players to run combat quickly in P2e compared to 5e. Having action buckets in 5e reduces the analysis paralysis of trying to figure out what to do. You have a main thing you can do, your action, which can result in analysis paralysis (especially for spell casters), you have your movement, which you can use as needed. And you have a bonus action which is deliberately restricted to a few things or nothing at low levels. In P2e, everything is an action, which sounds simple, but it often results in a lot of questions. "Can I attack this guy?" "Yes, but only once because it would take two actions to get there." "Oh, OK, so I should attack this guy?" "Well, you can attack him twice, but you'd have a -5 to hit the second guy, and you'd likely miss. Plus the first guy has taken more hits." "Ok, I'll attack the second guy with power attack." "Power attack takes two actions, so you can't use it." "Well if I can't kill him in one hit, then I should attack the second guy. How beat up does the first guy look?" "You'd have to do a perception check to find that out, and then you wouldn't be able to attack him." And so on and so forth. Now, don't misunderstand me, 5e does suffer from this analysis paralysis when it comes to spells. And P2e analysis paralysis does get better with later levels as people get more comfortable with the system. But for new players, in my experience, P2e combat is harder to learn.
Maybe you should watch Critical Role play 5e sometime, they frequently fall into analysis paralysis consisting of wasting table time to make sure they have used all their action types and if so batting their eyes at the DM to get a freebie thrown in. They will spending five minutes flipping thru their sheet discussing if they have a bonus action to use. And the DM has already houseruled that they can ignore many of the rules restrictions that was mentioned in this video, just so they lessen the analysis paralysis of did I use all the types of bonus action and interaction. Even the designer of 5e says that was their biggest thing they would have like to change is the bonus action economy, because it forces design into the box of too many things compete for bonus action yet is also responsible for healer being able to wack dying moles for free.
I think something unintended but interesting is obvious in your comment here. All of these examples are questions of tactics, and the opportunity cost of doing certain actions vs other actions. Because the action system is a lot easier to understand, none of these questions are 'can I use this type of action to mechanically perform this specific action.', but rather 'is it a better use of my actions to do this or that?'. There is certainly a lot more analysis paralysis when it comes to PF2e because the action system requires thinking about opportunity cost, which is strategy, instead of system rules.
@@StarUnreal yes, exactly. I'm not saying that P2e is bad. It is much better suited for tactical play. It offers depth without too much complexity. D&D 5e lacks the depth of P2e. It is simpler at first (with some notable exceptions such as the surprise round), which makes it easier to start learning, but harder to play at later levels. And this is just from the player perspective, from the DM perspective...well, that's maybe a topic for a different video.
I value consistent and fair rules in games. House rules have often ruined D&D games for me. If i build a social character, for example, I NEED my DM to use the rules as written or else I don't have a remotely reliable or predictable talent.
Dnd is easier to players, pf2nd easier to GMs. This is the way. However when people say dnd is more for roleplaying, and it helps roleplay more, I always think those who made this statement never actually saw any story oriented, more narrative role play system, because this statement is just plain bullshit...
@@StanNotSoSaint both games have that amount: in pf2 you can always get hero points for being awesome or in character. Also many classes or followers has cultural eddicts and anathemas, for what they can, or what they can't do. I would agree this is help to roleplay your character maybe a bit more deeply, but if you compair any of these to for example 7th sea second edition's narrative success system, where your characters literally only face consequences when you as the owner of that character wants and narrates that, and you going to tell, how you get backstabbed by your lover hard, because that would give you resources you can use later in the story narration, to do something realy epic. They are not even in the same league. And they shouldn't be. That system is story focused, dnd and pf2 is more focused on tactics. And there's realy no problem with this, and none is better than the other.
You could be accurate and say, "D&D 5e is not rule lite". Neither is Pathfinder depending on which version of D&D is on the table. I like running B/X and its derivatives. One can actually get so much more done in a session over 5e or Pathfinder. I don't mind any of these options, yet Pathfinder is not worlds better than 5e, it is a wee bit less complicated.
While I can agree with the opening statement that D&D 5E is not a "rules-lite" system by any stretch of an imagination, it is still far lighter than PF 2E, even going by your comparison one by one. Every single slide showed that PF2E had more rules for that block. Even if the rules help in some cases, there are still more of them. And the number of rules is still not the biggest issue here, the rigidity and consequence of the rules is. While having every single roll in PF2E 4 different outcomes (instead of only 2 - or 3 in combat - in 5E) makes the rolls more exciting, it also makes combats longer - if you run 4 people with different modifiers and need to consult the results of the roll every time, it puts more strain on GM and effectively lengthens the combat. Rules like 'no movement splitting' punish creative players and 3-action limit while amazing on paper is effectively just increase of options available (leading to more analysis paralysis) - instead of "Action + Bonus Action + Movement" on your turn you have "3x 1-Actions, 1-Action + 2-Action, 3-Action" options and potential complications of Simultaneous and Subordinate actions. I had players who made fast decisions in 5E freeze in thought in 2E - and while I agree with your argument that it means decisions have more weight in PF, it - again - prolongs combat. Don't get me wrong. I admire that PF2E introduced some of the amazing things I'd love 5E to have, from levels of success (even if I wouldn't adopt it to combat, in non-combat scenarios, these are great) to the way Dying is handled. But it does have more math and rules than D&D. Also, among stuff you didn't mention - monster abilities and their interaction is more rules-heavy in PF. Different auras, DR, templates etc stack on top of everything players have, and results in even more math per round. Where D&D has immunity or resistance to damage types, PF has damage reduction in addition to immunities, adding to math every time (and in practice it's much easier to always half the result than deduct points of DR). I literally ran the same adventure (from Strange Aeons from PF1E) in D&D (adapted via using monster reskins) and PF2E (also adapted), and the same boss combat took at least 1.5 times longer in PF just because of constant calculations we did - especially when players tried to check which action they should take. Granted, normal combat (with common mooks) took almost the same time in general (maybe +20% time in PF, but never measured really), but boss battles are far more intense in math department in PF, even though it doesn't even have lair actions. Oh, and there are more conditions in 2E, and abilities that trigger on those conditions. Another point I'd add is that if you just play a single class character then PF2E is ok. But as soon as you delve into multiclassing territory, you're swamped by rules and options and their interactions way more than in D&D - though in both systems multiclassing is better reserved for veterans who know what they are doing. Optimization in PF2E doesn't reach insane levels of PF1E (for now), but it still is more complicated than in D&D. And last but not least. Vancian magic is an abomination. It's far more rigid, harder to explain to new players, almost prohibitive for non-veterans with intricate knowledge of the system (which spells suck and which do not, and what to expect in an encounter) with only a single advantage of being better balanced. Even D&D 3E moved away from Vancian magic with the introduction of a Sorceror class and adopting it for all classes in 5E, why PF clings to this is just mind-boggling. When I read the rules for PF2E I was so excited about the 3-action system and levels of success that reading about going back to Vancian magic almost made me drop the book entirely.
Sorry but I have to strongly push back on your assertion at 6:35 as you don't need to be an experienced Game Master to run a rules light system, unless you are very specifically running a combat heavy game or session with a rules light system but since narrative games are not *designed* to deal with in-depth and detailed combat anyway it's a very unfair comparison: It would be like me saying 'D&D is a rules-heavy system that actively gets in t he way of a good, flowing narrative game of political intrigue' Because quite honestly why would I try to judge D&D by that standard when 80% of the rules provided revolve around combat. In fact I would even argue the opposite: since combat situations are more of an immediate and direct treat to characters and players are likely to perceive it as such, a novice GM is usually *better suited to run a narrative game for the first time* since there's not as many direct confrontations and finer points and instead everybody is encouraged to navigate the world without combat being their first response/solution to challenges.
Arguably both rules-light and well-designed rules-heavy systems work well for new DMs for different reasons. Problems arise, when DMs have to juggle rulings AND rules, because the rules don't work but are still necessary for the PCs to be satisfying. If a GM only has to juggle either working rules or can focus on consistent rulings, they are not encumbered with the complexities of game design, for which you would need experience.
I do wish there were Attack of Opportunity like options for Pathfinder 2e. Just options frontliners could take to help protect casters whether it's reactions to shove or trip an enemy trying to move past them. Having just those options could add a good bit of tactics where in larger areas a 'tankier' character can more effectively protect an ally or at least make it take more actions for them to get to the backliners of the team.
PF2e does have attack of opportunity and a ton more shield related feats for fighter and other archetypes that let you specialize on just protecting your teammates.
@@justjunk3803 It's locked down primarily to fighter though (ignoring say super rare and niche things like thaumaterge weapon allowing to AoO an enemy that has their exploitm weakness on them). The champion shield feat while its nice does little to deter an enemy or stop them from moving.
@@Asin24it’s really not at all rare, but it is pushed back to level 4 or 6. Almost every martial class have access to at least some type of attack of opportunity like effect by level 6, and anyone can take it via a Fighter archetype at level 4.
I like both systems. DND 5e is great for improvising stuff which can be fun, and Pathfinder 2e is more clearly laid out in the rules. I lean towards Pathfinder because I like to have PDFs of the books...
Lol when you used the overly complex stealth rules for the "degrees of success" example and cringed xD I hope Paizo simplify stealth to just 2 states in the remaster...
Anyone who would claim D&D is rules light is just silly and/or trying to make themselves seem cool because their game is "so complex." A game being more complex than D&D does not make D&D less complex than it actually is. As far as I have seen growing up with this hobby forever the term "rules light" itself uses D&D as the 'standard' by default. D&D can't be "rules light" compared to itself. FATE is "rules light" compared to D&D... we just don't need to say the "compared to D&D" part. Pathfinder is more crunchy... more crunchy than what? D&D.... the standard name all other games are measured by, whether we like it or not.
Compared to Pathfinder, it is undoubtedly a lighter system, objectively so; and a major reason for the high page count in D&D is fluff, images and gratuitous use of space.
In 5e you can "surprise" someone, but if you low poorly on initiative, you get almost no benefit to it. Granted you get to go before them, but I def think PF2's surprise is better.
As a player, i don't think that being unable to act for an entire round is fun. If the combat is meant to be long is even worse, and if my character is attacked enough and i fall to 0 hit points, i don't get to play (wich can take a long time sometimes). In 5e there is a lot of stuff that simply takes you out of combat, and the worst game design decision ever is making a player unable to play your game.
@@magnuspendragon1938 This makes alot of sense and I agree with you. The majority of ambushes that have happened on my tables have been the players ambushing NPCs. So in Pathfinder when the players have ambushed the enmies and it just feels like rolling initiative as normal. But in 5e it actually feels like a bit more special.
I’ll say this: I don’t miss my time playing 3.5e, and everything this video has showed me is that this is 3.5e with some streamlining and some extra unnecessary math added. So yeah, Pathfinder, regardless of edition, is not for me.
It probably is not for you. But I will say this: there are only two changing status types (status, circumstance) and bonuses of the same time do not stack. Item bonuses are the same as 5e and just like there do not change unless you drop your weapon or unequip your items. And there are no untyped bonuses. Ironically with all the extra dice an optimized party can do in 5e (bardic inspiration, guidance, bless, superiority die, great weapon master, silvery barbs) the math is way more insane. I would give it a try if someone runs it for you.
@@Nastara I usually don’t play with highly optimized tables, so while I do understand the silliness in terms of dice rolled with 5e it’s not a reality I would face in most scenarios. The series of bonuses and penalties stacks would be a common issue regardless of optimization in PF, don’t get me wrong, you are right I should and would totally give it an honest shot if I had the chance at a table, it’s just that, as currently presented it’s not looking like a game designed for me.
@@Sepiriel You’d be surprised. So far I’m running my first 2e campaign and here are the only modifiers the party constantly inflict is a -2 to AC from flatfooted. Their cleric also sometimes gives them a +1 to attack from bless. That is it. Combats have been insanely fast too. Even when I ran a one shot live it live my partner focused on healing while my friend just focused on flatfooted. So the only penalty in play was once again a -2 to AC. That being said, don’t mind me! Play the games you enjoy!
Imo it like Windows and Linux Windows and 5e is made shoddy but trustworthy, you say "My Magnet should suck the big boss sword out" you are going to roll or basically set up for a teammate. Pathfinder is like Linux in that the people that "like it" dont hold it for themselves and dont s p r e a d that knowledge out. Also ironically both wonder why no one likes them and sudos them into trashcans. 😂
5e is rules lighter than PF2e. PF2e is a crunchier game for people that want more crunch, and that's great, not everyone likes the same, but we should be honest here.
@@antieverything1 Rules Lawyer's channel is advocating for Pathfinder 2e and trying to argue against things people bring up as D&D having an advantage over Pathfinder on, that's the point. He acknowledges in this video that while D&D 5e has less rules than Pathfinder, it also ends up being murkier and leans on the DM to make calls, and the DM's rulings then become effective house rules, since they'll likely need to rule the same in that situation every time. Pathfinder has much clearer rules to cover a wide variety of situations, which makes things easier for the DM and removes ambiguity. At the end, both will end up with the same amount of rules, it's just that you need to make less of them up for Pathfinder. His secondary point is that 5e is not particularly rules light by the standards of most TTRPGs. As someone who has DMed for both systems (5e more than Pathfinder), both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. I overall prefer having clearer rules for everything in Pathfinder. But sometimes I do wish that I could make a quick adjudication and keep the action moving like in D&D 5e instead of having to look up to see if there's a rule that covers whatever situation we find ourselves in.
@@Zakon673 We understand the point he's trying to make. I just disagree with him. He's trying to fight the idea that PF2E is significantly crunchier than 5e, to try to appeal people who don't like that crunchy aspect. My point is that is a wrong approach. Even if he succesfully convince people who dislike crunchiness to try PF2E with this video, those people won't like PF2E because, guess what, PF2E *IS* signficantly crunchier than 5e. The fact that some other rules systems are even more rules light than 5e don't change the fact that 5e *IS* significantly lighter than PF2E. He's basically saying "if you currently play checkers, you should play chess instead. Checkers isn't really much easier than Chess, it's not even easy overall if you compare it to Tic-Tac-Toe". In my opinion, he should focus on the strengths of PF2E, which appeal to a certain subset of players (the ones that like crunchiness), instead of trying to downplay the fact that PF2E is more complex than 5e, in the hope that people who don't like that aspect try it anyways.
Crunch always equals slow and slow always equals boring. 5e is crunchy boring too. Make your combat faster and more exciting if you want to keep your group going. Slogs... and watching the tops of people's heads, just means your campaign with end soon.
inconsistency is the nature of dnd, "rules" are just a guide not set in stone rules...if we are too focused on everyone following the rules set in stone then there will always be disappointment. time to lighten up and just play your game however you want, which is what it was designed to do.
Then why they have hundreds of pages for rules you actually can't rely on? If you want to lighten up, play actual rules lite systems with 50 pages rulebooks, not a fucking dnd
This is the kind of tabletop content I love to see I currently use Pathfinder second edition creatures translated into 5th edition because their monsters are way more interesting as a rule than 5th editions monsters.
They are both rules light. D&D 5E is the Basic half for which we never got an Expert version and Pathfinder 2E was intentionally designed to resemble D&D 5E. Whether one is more "light" than the other is irrelevant.
They are not. At all. 5e is rules medium at best. Dungeon world, blades in the dark are rules light. The only d20 system even close to rules light is 13th age. And that is stretch
With none of the "optional" rules in play, you have one class and no feats. Your primary decision, unless playing a spellcaster, is which subclass you want, which decides the rest of your abilities. You have two bonuses to remember, the modifier for your primary stat and proficiency. How is that not rules light?
@@zsheets7483Feats are so commonly used that they’re basically part of the main game, and over half of the classes are spellcasters. Then you’ve got tons of detailed rules for the action economy, conditions, damage types, cover, concealment, etc. Compare this to a rules light system like a PbtA where all the rules fit onto two pages and it really isn’t the same.
D&D is "rules light" because nobody actually reads the books or the rules.
I agree to a large extent. I've noticed while in some discord server that very few people actually know how to play DnD, and others just do amateur improv with a DnD skin.
However, it is still pretty rules light or rules undefined. Like every other session over the course of 3 years we ran into something that, after searching for a ruling, we either had to homebrew or handwave away hoping we don't run into the same scenario again.
@BossBattleProductions it's rules light for a rules heavy system. It's still a rules heavy system.
@BossBattleProductions yeah it's surprising how often people roll over rules to just expedite things while claiming 5e is rules light because it's how they run. I like being a rules guy and it can feel like every other turn a rule is being ignored or another made up.
@@ColdNapalm42 I exaggerated a bit, but a lot of isolated rules aren't explained properly or are broken (ex. phantasmal killer doesn't have a space for the source of fear, and the frightened condition relies on that), and others are underdeveloped (social encounters. They mostly expect you to just wing it), and then there's a lot where I thought "Did this seriously never come up during playtesting? It seems so obvious!" (hands bound, but not legs, no formal condition for this, distance that verbal spell components are audible, etc).
I love the system, but I also hate it. It's like they expect us to fix their system for them
Yeah, but you kind of have to because even if you do read the rules, many rules are poorly balanced for many situations. There is a lot of trying to balance on the fly and ignoring the actual rules.
"There is no limit to the number of spells you can cast"
When this realization hit out cleric he went from back line support to a glass cabin madman.
"The Adventurering Day" is one of my biggest 5E gripes. It basically translates to: filler encounters combined with railroaded combat for them and the no long rest railroad.
100% this. It just means GMs are throwing in fights because they 'need' the party to have more fights, rather than for any narrative reason. This is why combat feels like it drags; because the fight is just to cause attrition rather than as part of the story. It's also a new thing, at least to this absurd extent. In 3.x, a party was expected to be able to handle about 4 encounters of their level before resting, with a 5th encounter being likely to pose a risk of PC deaths. Before then, I don't recall any 'You need to throw x number of encounters at your party' at all. I have no idea why TF WotC thought it was a good idea.
Have you tried the long rest variant where a long rest takes up a week instead of one day? I'm switching over to that as it should be a really nice solution for DM's who want to use combat encounters only for the story beats instead of fillers for the 6-8 encounters :-)
Same. My players just rest and rest and rest and then act like pretentious ahole super heroes like from The BOYS, and always expect a level up after even non-challenging combat.
Thinking about going with max HP and just taking away all natural healing. So, they know for sure how weak they are unless they use resources to heal, which would never keep pace with damage. Need to find a way to keep them from just fighting every random person or not taking things seriously.
There are some ways to mitigate this but it's extra work and house rules. House Rule of no long rests in dangerous places. Use Mat Colville's action oriented monsters. Further alter the NPC stat block by increasing health and add multi attack to increase the action economy. An additional step would be cap PC level at 6 or so. Like many things 5E it's extra work to fix the poorly designed mess that is 5E. I'm pretty fed-up with it at this point.
@@JanHoos To be fair. While this may solve the issue somewhat, it creates a different can of worms you need to be into. It certainly solves the necessity for filler encounters, but on the other hand it gives the game world a much more gritty feel to it, which not everyone might enjoy. You also don't really solve the problem of attrition. Now storybeat encounters need to be designed to deal attrition instead of being an all-out fight, because the core inflexibility of an attrition based system is not solved, you just make the attrition system work better for narratives with less encounters.
5e isn't rules light, it's GM heavy. What I mean is, it has a lot of rules, but it fails to cover some basic scenarios.
It's like a very, very long legal document that fails to cover very obvious loopholes and gaps so the lawyers just put a note at the end of it that says "Wherever something here isn't covered, you go ahead and do our job for us. We'll call it the 'Rule of Cool.' On account of it being cool of you guys to not be mad we left so much undone here. Can you believe we didn't even bother putting gold values on magic items? Anyway, we thought of another cleric subclass..."
Also, I found GMing 5e, that even at higher levels 5e is extremely swingy. Or I guess, snowbally is more accurate. What I mean is, because of yoyo-healing the party is always just the healer with healing word getting knocked out into spiraling into a TPK. So you have to balance aggressively as the GM to make sure the spellcasters can't just invalidate the fight immediately with a few save/suck spells or one of the extremely powerful other spells they have while at the same time considering what will happen if the healer goes down unexpectedly.
@@antieverything1 I'm not familiar with B/X. But I don't like a game that expects the GM to just do game design on the fly. That always leads to a mess, IMO. Unless it is a true rules light system where the focus is on narrative experience not tactics/mechanics/etc..
@@antieverything1 You're absolutely missing the point. Having rules for basic stuff does not prevent you from making rulings if necessary. But people do not buy a $50 rule book (5e) just for it to tell them "just make it up bro". Making rules up should be an *option*, not a *necessity*.
You can act as if it's simply a GM issue, but there is no denying that 5e makes life unnecessarily hard for DMs and makes running the game less fun overall.
@@antieverything1 Cringe, as expected from a defensive 5e fan who runs out of arguments.
@@antieverything1 what a tool
Well, I disagree with 5e being rules light in the overall TTRPG space, but compared to other simmilar games like previous editions, Pathfinder 1d and 2e, that's a fair point. But all of those are on the higher end of complexity in TTRPG terms, so I wouldn't call any of them rules light at all compared to say a PbtA game or something goofy like Honey Heist or Lazers and Feelings.
It's a common myth that 5e doesn't have a lot of various modifiers to d20 rolls and only has Advantage/Disadvantage affecting it. You have a ton of miscellaneous things that give bonuses in the form of static modifiers and even bonus dice. You could easily have things granting you additional dice that are unaffected by adv/disadv.
The fact that almost everything stacks with everything makes it more complex math wise than Pathfinder. My group has been playing a 5e campaign for 2 years now and thay have so many modifiers that often they forget what is what and wich bonuses come from what abilities.
@@magnuspendragon1938 you don't actually need to know that information though if it doesn't change.
@@rbkskillz They have different weapons and abilities that change those values often. Sometimes they are using a different weapon with a different spell cast on them making the values always situational. The values change a lot and it's kind hard to keep track on all these bonuses all the time. I belive that having tags and traits for bonuses make it easier to keep track of those things.
@@magnuspendragon1938 then isn't it just as simple as saying my spear is +x to hit and my sword is +y? If I'm using this ability it's +a and this spell is +b. X+a or y+a+b is really not that much to remember. Or am I misunderstanding?
@@rbkskillz poke
Another example of a complexity comparison:
5e DM: "Okay new player, I use that variant rule for flanking. You're both on opposite sides of the guy so you have advantage. That means you roll twice and use the better result between the two. You might not get this at every table."
2e GM: "Okay, new player, you are on opposite sides of the enemy you he's flat-footed. That means he's two points easier to hit, but you don't have to worry about that math, I do that. You'll be able to benefit from flanking at every table."
@@antieverything1 it is not absurd.
It's a variant rule, not a core rule, and it's a really bad one at that. Advantage doesn't stack, and one disadvantage negates 10 million instances of advantage. Flanking is also really easy to perform in comparison to a lot of ways to get advantage, so it makes a lot of other rules and features redundant.
@@antieverything1 Neat strawman. It's not about the existence of variant rules but rather that variant rules will vary greatly between tables because there are so many and add a variety of different gameplay options that change the game drastically. Two tables of 5e can play VERY differently depending on the variety of variant rules you allow. For example: Flanking, tumble through, multiclassing, feats, etc. Variant rules in PF2e are primarily meta things regarding character creation like FA, Stamina, ABP, etc and don't change the moment to moment gameplay meaning that the actual game you play at one table will be almost the same as the game you play at another.
@@investigatingdwarf that would be false equivalency, not strawman.
@cheezeofages worse than that, by using that particular variant rule, you're taking away some of the oomph of the Rogue's Sneak Attack which gets free flank-like behavior. When everyone gets to flank it means the Rogue is getting less bang out of their ability by comparison.
I have a little contention about Advantage/Disadvantage - the system isn't really that stingy with them. In fact, they're extremely readily available. You pretty much have to actively avoid them. Another thing the system isn't stingy with is outright immunity to conditions and such. There's way too much stuff that just outright says - you're immune.
There's so much immune to poison and fire. Especially poison just being outright near useless cuz of statistics.
The poisoner feat does literally nothing to overcome this unlike elemental adept.
You may be right - but to be fair, the nature of Adv/Disadv is that it always feels EITHER too easy or too hard to get since it's so binary lol
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGYES
You're right and that's the *actual* problem. Tactical choices don't matter because getting the only possible advantage is so simple.
I still don't understand why people say this. How do you inflict disadvantage to creature saving throws, without making a specific build that involves 1 of like 3 subclasses or spells?
Knocking prone requires an attack or specific subclass abilities, which usually have a saving throw.
What are these mystical "advantage is actually just everywhere" abilities that affect combat? Are y'all playing with DMs who say that Thunder spells give everyone disadvantage to Perception?
An exception to the PF2E "balance the encounter": Above a certain difficulty you are almost guaranteed to have your spellcasters burning spell slots. Multiple encounters in a single day at that tier make each following encounter deadlier because they have fewer slots and are more likely to not have their strongest slots. So you can run them into the ground, but it is also up to players to know when to back off and find a place to hole up and recover.
As someone who started with neither D&D nor Pathfinder, and having now played both for a number of years (in addition to many other TTRPGs), it blows my mind that some people think 5e is rules light.
5e is by far the most rule light system if it's the only system you know.
Lighter than previous editions is what they are comparing it to. Though I don't think they are inclduing either BECMI or OD&D in those calculations. I also find it lighter in rules than PF2E, but that does not necessarily mean easier as the rules are not really more logical.
I don't look at genuine rules light systems here (came up with the thumbnail after finishing the vid). Perhaps an idea for a future vid? Meanwhile check out my buddy TABLETOP BRO for awesome rules-light coverage. But here is one thing Powered By the Apocalypse does that I think more narrative-inclined 5e players might enjoy: THERE'S NO INITIATIVE ORDER. It's a conversation with the game master. There's a natural, "spontaneous" working out of who goes next. And hitting a foe doesn't simply have to be hit points - you and the GM can narrate together what you do to an enemy.
One Tabletop Bro video on a rules-light system, "Dungeon World is what you want D&D to be": ua-cam.com/video/yP1iPUaS22Y/v-deo.html
Showcasing an actual "rules light system" to potential D&D viewers that never bothered to seek out might be a great idea.
As for a rules light system, I'd recommend Knave 2 or Shadow Dark.
For a bit of background, my table plays a home brew mash up of AD&D, 2nd ed, and the Skills and Power's rules options. So I'm coming at this from an outside perspective. Both of these systems are pretty mechanically intensive in combat, where the gm is left juggling a lot balls. I don't mind complexity under the hood and in fact I like the richness it provides, but I think complexity serves the game best when it can be distilled down to as few numbers as possible that players and gms have to manage in combat. If you're playing on a grid, or you have a VTT doing all the math for you, both of these systems might be just fine.
But as far as live table top play, say using miniatures or just theater of the mind, both of these systems are pretty mechanically dense, and would probably be pretty slow. From what I can tell, the density is added give rogues more relevance in combat. Not a terrible goal. In older editions, a 3rd level fighter who was weapon specialized could pretty reliably take down a 7th to 8th level thief if there was no way for the thief to get away.
It's not a goal I have for my table--from my perspective, combat isn't where a thief shines. Thieves shine when it comes to finding non-magical ways into and out of places without being seen or without being noticed, and obtaining items sought by truly discerning collectors. They launch sneak attacks from behind, preferably at distance, because being caught in hand-to-hand combat almost never ends well for them.
As far as variance between table to table---even if you have two GMs with a very similar gaming philosophy, you going to have differences. Simply, you're dealing with a unique mind.
My advice for new GMs--don't be afraid to use your common sense, even if it results in a bad call from time to time. It doesn't set a precedent you're obligated to follow the next time. Just keep your ears open--if your players object to a certain ruling, really listen to them before, after and between games. Unless a character dies, any mistake you make can be fixed or simply not repeated. We learn to be better players and better GMs through making mistakes. I've been rolling dice since 1982, and I would never say I run a flawless game. But by talking to your players, you will come up with a solution everyone at your table can live with. If the consequences for player actions in combat or out of combat are grounded and logical and are appropriate to the world setting, most players will be fine with most any ruling. Players just want to know they are in good hands of someone who is going to be fair minded when it comes to adjudicating rules and to situations where no mechanic exists.
D&D has action types that are single use per turn, and they can't substitute for each other. You "mark them off" when you do each one.
Pathfinder has several options each turn, and none of the action types are single use. You can attack three times if you really want to.
In other words, D&D has "Vancian action" and Pathfinder has "action slots"! 😄
It's not Vancian if you just have some limited resource. Vancian means that you choose how many times per day you can do action X, and cannot go above (or change) that number within a day. Spontaneous casting is basically a patch on Vancian magic restriction, but was not originally there. So 'you can do Divine Smite 2 times per rest" is not Vancian.
And for the love of god why couldn't PF2E abandon that annoying relic of ancient times that is Vancian magic is beyond me. It's both clunky for veterans and extremely unfriendly for new players. Spell slots and spell preparation of 5E is both elegant and intuitive.
@@Warchoon - Yeah, I don't know why Paizo didn't switch...especially since they went with scaling spells and those go perfectly with a 5e spell slot system.
Having run 5e for many years and now moving to PF2e, I love the system a lot more. All the things I tried to 'fix' in 5e are just generally there, or more obviously suggested, in PF2e. Combat feels more dynamic, more inventive and my players do a lot more strategically in PF2e than they ever did in 5e where because of the "ACTION ECONOMYYY" and everyone having AoO meant that it was always just "mob onto a monster and hit until dead" whereas in PF2e, they'll push characters around, reposition to flank etc. etc. etc. - and my players have noted how much more fun it is for them.
Damn I hope I can make my group try PF2e and feel the same way too.
I've only played 1 session of PF2, while I've played DnD since the 80s. I like how 5e is a lot more elegant than past versions, though sometimes it feels a little constrained. PF1 was great for having options, but character complexity got a little out of hand. I love how PF2 is "stongly typed" and how they thought through common things players want to do and created solid rules for them. I want to play with the 3 action economy, just no room for new games at the moment.
The rewrite of "Core" PF2E got teased, there's even more "consolidation" of complex rules and overlapping categories... though it's a small taste, I like the direction they're heading for the main game mechanics...
Just not sure I like the way they're simplifying spellcasters (though the spells seem mostly great ways to simplify and consolidate).
I have been saying this forever.
The most common smartalic reponse I get is "Well it has less rules than older systems so therefore it is rules lite."
That's like saying a car with four cylinders in it is a bike because it has less cylinders than a car with eight cylinders. That's just not how it works.
5e has tons of rules, far to many to make it rules lite, and the rules are half baked and vague which creates more issues than people think it solves. The only thing that is true of 5e is that it's LESS crunchy than some other systems out there. But it is still a crunchy system. Anyone who think's otherwise is delusional. Sorry to be mean like that, but it's true. Go play Dungeon World or Ironsworn and then tell me again you think D&D is a rules lite system. XD
Didn't you know that the 5e mod are the Custodians of Fun for the TTRPG community?
They alone get to cherry pick and dictate the narrative of how 5e is perceived in our hobby, compared to competing products.
Best to ignore the whole lot of them.
DnD is like monopoly or uno, the rules are there, They are complex. But nobody has read or understood them.
Pathfinder 2e is like catan, The rules are clearly laid out and easy to follow while at the same time creating less friction for game masters when they look things up.
Love this comparison.
Ive played catan when settlements could be next to each other and we didnt get our starting resources, it was not good
It is more math heavy, and for some people that is confusing or just not as fun. For example, instead of doing plus and minus to AC for flanking, you just have advantage and disadvantage in 5e.
I want to agree with you,
But with modifier stacking, crits doubling dice but not modifiers, and the infamous vision rules that nobody bothers with because they are confusing and bothersome. yeaaa..
I agree for the most part, but sometimes I don't. While I do much prefer Pathfinder, there are times where I wish I could just ignore the huge number of rules and come up with something more simple just to keep the flow moving. Basically any time the party needs to use stealth I feel like this. Also one time when my group wanted to do research at a library, so we looked up the research rules, and I audibly groaned at what I saw and was like "just make f***ing knowledge checks."
27:40 - I call that the “Tubthumping Effect” (as per the Chumbawumba song).
My house rule is that falling to zero HP and every failed death save thereafter causes 1 exhaustion.
There are 10 levels of exhaustion before the 11th kills you, and each causes a -1 penalty to all d20 tests (including further death saves), as well as -5 feet to movement.
Exhaustion is removed at a rate of 1 per long rest, and while you have any exhaustion, healing is halved.
Overall, it creates something similar to the ‘wounded’ condition.
5e is “rule light” only if your comparing it to a heavier system and have never seen an actual rules light system.
but I think it is fair to say that even if there are 1000's of rules light systems, if most the the gamers play just 2 or 3 which would seem to me to be pathfinder and dnd5e then those other systems don't really matter. if only 10 people in the world use the FATE gaming system does the really matter to the whole of the conversation. when I look at used manuals at a book store or see what is available other some other game store I basically only ever see pathfinder or dnd. If there are others there that I don't realize are different systems I haven't recognized it because if just didn't look like it to me or no one has ever said anything about it. Even the FATE system is one I stumbled upon cause I wanted to get more practice at the role playing aspect of dnd
Something I’d just like to add for the ambush section. Pathfinder has a surprise esque mechanic in drawing weapons and items. Ofcourse certain builds circumvent this (just like alert does in dnd 5e) but the first round where the pcs need to ready their equipment while the enemy gets the drop on them I feel fills in the same much and adds some complexity to player choice. It’s one of my favourite parts of the system so just wanted to highlight that
One thing I have found, being relatively new to PF2e, is the encounters are tight and often close to the bone (which makes them exciting) without being ridiculously deadly. The texture of the encounters is often interesting and varied - thanks to the action economy. My only gripe would be there can be a lot of chasing down rules during play - however I believe the coming Pathfinder remaster core rule bools will better laid out for referencing.
I used to like 5e. I've played every edition other than the original 1974 game. But over time 5e got worse and worse because so many differences in the rules.
So much this.
I agree, you more or less have to allow only "x" books to avoid this.
It's been my experience that 5e is a great starting place for new players, but a very rocky starting place for new DMs. New books have continuously added more and more player-facing options and lifted a lot of limitations, without really ever giving anything to DMs that haven't already begun to eclipse printed material with homebrew, as even where the game's balance does seem okay in tier 1-2 is getting flattened under the weight of power creep in new subclasses and spell options.
It's not great for every player, either, as all the power bloat is exacerbating issues 5e already has with poor game balance, and any kind of optimization veering a lot of combats into low-depth default kills or rocket tag. Even more unfortunately, One D&D's playtest materials don't really seem to take any of this into consideration.
@@mabel8124 love this comment
One thing both systems - and indeed their predecessors (3E and PF1) if anything even moreso - fall into is the danger of multiplied multipliers. Your lethal Abomination Vaults fight was one such encounter: Cone attacks are dangerous because they have okay baseline damage (It's not worth adjudicating a breath weapon that only tends to hit for 2 damage, so a failed save is almost always at least 2 dice), but then basically always hit at least 2 targets (If they won't, a creature will usually slam or bite instead). And that's fine...usually. The trick is when you have encounters built with 2 or even 3 creatures who have these cone AoE damage zones.
If there's a party of 4 walking together and they lose initiative to a pair of Corpselights and they crit fail their saves, they could collectively take a total of 4d6 * 4 players * 2 corpselights = potentially 192 damage in one round (saying nothing of the fact that they'd be Frightened 6 if they lived). That's an encounter thrown at level 1 characters. In fairness to P2E, avoiding catastrophic piles of failed saves is what hero points are for.
Still. It's important to keep track of where your numbers are getting multiplied, because if you want to find the first place a game breaks you look for the word "double." And cones are multipliers. And if you're careless, encounter designs are ALSO multipliers. Usually if I have multiple creatures with a breath weapon in the same fight, they're all - collectively - on the 1d4 round breath weapon delay. This helps correct for how even if it'd be naturalistic for the clutch of red dragons to all cook you as a group and then feast, it's just not fun to react to and there's no counterplay that's actually enjoyable.
To be fair, as pointed out in the comments to that fight, I probably shouldn't have unleashed quite so many of that AoE attack because they should've started off prone and it was a 3-action activity
But your advice of being careful about AoE is sound.
Speaking of deadly AoE attacks, I had a TPK recently due to shocker lizards combining their AoE. Nasty ability!
More actions all that have a rule for them, seems more complicated, and technically it is, but when contrasted with having to make a determination ad hoc; once you have a grasp of the most common used actions, it actually speeds up play and makes it easier. A lack of rules and systems that leaves gaps that must be filled, perhaps inconsistently each time it comes up, isn't faster or less complicated that rules you may need some time initially to learn, but then can rely upon for a consistent answer and resolution ever after.
I also find the 3 action system way easier to use and understand than the free, bonus, regular, reaction, move actions of D&D.
On surprise rounds and stealth in initiative. I think Pathfinder handles this better, in that there isn't a "surprise" state, only awareness or not, and when an action would instigate combat or conflict, everyone rolls initiative, but with different awareness and initiative bonuses or penalties. It may be a little numerically more complex with initiative modifiers, but conceptually makes more sense and is easier to arbitrate IME.
this is the "rules lite" vs "rules missing" distinction
Thank you so much for making these! You are so helpful to the community. 😊
One of the biggest differences I've noticed is the relative complexity of character building, in both you roughly pick your class, race, and history(ofc with different terms) and those aspects are mostly similar, but p2e is definitely more complex just by having more choices generally and beyond that having class and skill feats in much higher quantity than 5e has its general feats
A well explained video of the incomprehensible ridiculousness of modern gaming. You make good points and comparisons and I understand a bit more about Pathfinder 2e's differences from the incomprehensible ridiculousness of 5e. Although 5e is stil;l not yet as ridiculous as 3/3.5e was at the end, though it is very close.
I, being horribly old, still state that AD&D/1e was made by and for creatives and dreamers while post TSR gaming and especially WotC D&D was apparently made by and for actuaries and statisticians. As I am in the first batch, even if I do have some second batch skills, I'm not very fond of latter edition rules.
That said, I enjoyed being a part of the Pathfinder 1e playtest and running games in Pathfinder 1e in the first year or two before discarding the system as getting into more and more of the actuary/statistician mindset. I've friends who have said that they are enjoying Pathfinder 2e, and I have acquired the 2e book to try to learn the system. I've now given up on that as it has too much of the actuary/statistician mindset still and I don't have the free time to try to learn all its complexities.
I think 5e can be considered rules light, but it all depends on the comparison. Compare the rulebooks of 5e to, say, the standard Supreme Court justice's law library and 5e is very rules light. 😛 Jokes aside, I've been able to pick up a decent knowledge of 5e player mechanics through playing blindly so that I can now, after a few years of occasional playing combined with general gaming knowledge, properly help newer players understand what is going on. But 5e is now so rules heavy (which appeals to power gamers), and that the game community all but demands that all rules be used, that I feel bad for the 5e DMs I know who are trying to stay on top of all the rules bullcrap.
Case in point: I've been playing for a month or two with a friend's 5e group as six months ago or so she bravely/foolishly took on the task of DMing for the first time. She has been burning out a little bit and so wanted to go to running her game every other week. I offered, with her encouragement as she enjoyed playing in my past games, to fill in and DM a series of 5e one-off adventures on the off weeks to keep the group together and used to playing weekly. That and, since we have a couple of brand new players in the group, I said I'd run 5e so there'd be just one system to make it easier for the new players. That agreed on, the DM created a new chat group for my game, and I announced that, being as it was my first time DMing in 5e, I was going to just be using 5e PHB classes, races, backgrounds, etc to make it easier on myself. Four players immediately dropped out of the chat group showing their disinterest in playing a "limited" game. I've now cancelled running a game altogether since the majority of the group bailed without saying a word to me. Actuaries and statisticians abound. 😛
All that aside, you have stoked my interest so that if there was a PF2E game around where I normally live I'd try to join it so I could get the hands on experience learning that works best for me. I'd really like to play it so I could better grasp the natural ebb and flow of the game and could compare it to my 5e experiences.
Although I do like plenty of the expanded player options that come from later books, I actually think a heavily limited 5e game would be a GREEN flag for me at this point. It at least means there can be a more controlled focus and tone, and I'd be willing to sacrifice some freedom for that.
I love the Curse of Strahd module, for example, but it's a little hard to maintain the low-magic Dracula-inspired victorian gothic aesthetic when your party is a robot, an anthropomorphic cat and a gunslinging monkey from space.
@@BenjaminBattington I agree with you. I admit being taken by the "Jedi" feats and some of the later, more powerful options such as the Twilight cleric domain (and my variant human 5th level cleric in my friend's game had both the telekinetic feat and that domain, though I had written a backstory for the character that made it reasonable), but I tend to just play humans so someone in the party is "normal". I run a game (when I'm not bouncing between two states for work as I have been for almost a year) with rules I wrote that are more like the game I grew up playing. I originally wrote it as a easy to learn game for WoW players a decade ago and they and subsequent players liked it so much that it is what I have run ever since. Easy to learn, straightforward, and not too convoluted. Seven races, a dozen classes, and old school attitudes. And I agree with you especially because I have trouble taking the 5e campaign we've been in too seriously as the Artillerist drops little robot cannons and the anthropomorphic rabbit-woman can make 45 foot hops in a movement phase. I'm not going to lie that it feels more like the make-it-up-as-we-go-along-and-change-things-every-moment freeform outdoor playing I see little kids do as they run around on the playground, and that just doesn't make it much fun for me.
D&D has 900 ish pages of "core rules" and a total of 3000 pages of total rules/optional rules/ expansions etc. How the hell can any slightly sane person call it light or simplified?
That’s the trick: it’s “rules lite” if you don’t read the rules and just bully the DM into doing what you want.
@@keegangates5073 Dungeon Craft/ Professor Dungeon Master has a "D&D on two pages" sheet somewhere and... it's right. Works for all the other games too. And a video about the "magic number" DMs need to know. People get lost in the charts but the results are almost always the same, if you know "the secret" (which is actually stated in the DMG). Hint: the secret is DC 8 (and also DC 15).
I fixed the yo-yo healing mechanic by making them track overkill damage. Ex the fighter takes 10 points of damage but only has 5 hp, so the cleric has to heal him 5 points to stabilize or 6 points to stand up. It really made things like the spare the dying cantrip or healers kit stand out since if someone took a huge hit and was at -15 they could stabilize them to 0 instead of having to blow a third level slot to do it. It also made attacking downed players extra evil since a hit on them could put them outside of the clerics healing range in addition to making them 33% deader or outright dead (ex a 20 hp wizard gets hit for 30 damage and then 10 would be outright dead). I found that it made having a dedicated healer like a Druid or cleric way more important since buffing healing had a tangible benefit instead of anyone who could cast healing word would be just as effective.
12:38 The modifiers section is kinda wrong really. Sure, it *seem* like D&D only have adv and disadv at first, but then you put in bless, bane, guidance, resistance, cover, bardic inspiration, haste, slow and then a myriad of subclass/ background features that give random d4/d6 to different things and now their is no difference between the 2 systems. In fact, I would argue the d&d modifiers is more complex because you roll a random number when ever you interact with it instead of the static numbers like PF2e.
For example, whenever I demoralize an enemy with +10 to fortitude (constitution) save, I know that his save will alway be at +9 until the effect go away(or +8 if I crit). But if he was hit with bane in d&d, his save vary from +6,+7,+8 and +9, and I will have to roll for that unknown number and then subtract that every time I want him to make a save.
I don't get your point, he covers this, although briefly, in 13:45.
@@XvicvicXah, I only skim through and read his bullet points, my bad. But I also don't agree that d&d are stingy with advantages. My players often have both adv AND extra dice bonus for their rolls.
Yup people don’t realize you can turn 5e into a dice stacking game were you can easily get a +17
I do cover it a little later in the vid.
For me a worst offender in D&D is the Twilight Domain cleric, giving 1d6+LVL temporary hit points to allies at the end of EACH of their turns. How clunky is that?!
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGon't forget the Peace cleric that can give a extra 1d4 for allies 1/turn (of each ally) and this stack with Bless
A level 1 fighter will have +5+2d4 for hit
A level 1 fighter can hit within up to +13 bonus (without magical items a and spells a level 20 fighter will have +11 to hit)
I honestly think PF2E is easier to get people started playing. I'm teaching a group of 8-11 year olds. Everything they need to start playing fits on the beginner box postcard sized play aid. The three action economy needs 10s of explaining and then they can just play. Say what they want, I tell them how many action coins to removes and they roll. Thats it.
A narrative focus game system created by Margret Weis Productions is their Cortex System... it had a lot of math as players had die for traits... to beat a DC, the player rolls all their trait dice for the valid traits... then adds them together. This system was poorly implemented (a lot of traits were just d2's)... so it was revamped in Cortex 2. I have the Firefly RPG Core Rulebook, which uses a modified version of the Cortex 2 system.
It's much cleaner... has rules for everything. In fact, the same rules apply to all situations. All rolls are opposition rolls. A player wants to climb a fence to get into a party they don't have an invitation for... GM rolls 2 dice, adds the total together, and the player just needs to roll higher. Simple.
Combat... same rules. Chases... same rules. GMCs trying to convince the PCs to betray their employer... same rules. Vehicle combat... same rules. Inititiative is also easily dealt with... the GM decides who goes first... once that character finishes their turn, the character's control (GM or PC) decides which character goes next. This is repeated until all characters have acted.
Yes, the system is a bit more complex than this... yet it has no classes, no special abilities, no items, no spells, no special actions which require their own set of rules... thus, the system is rules-lite. The only restriction is "is it logical for this character to be able to do this action?"
There is a limited number of ways items, vehicles, and characters can modify the rules (distinction triggers)... and to do so requires the person (PC and GM) to use special resource called plot points. A much simpler system with its own complexities which provides the variation required to keep the game fresh not stale. Ultimately, there are three limitations, what the GM and Players considered to be balanced, their imaginations, and the dice rolls... always the dice rolls.
Have a good day Ronald!
Great video, can't wait for the later parts of the series.
It still kinda baffles me that people consider pf2 a complex system, is it because of pf1? Well that's like calling DND 5e complex because DND 3.5 was, and I don't see anyone making that claim. Is it because of the math? Am I supposed to believe what's essentially addition and subtractions with whole numbers is complex?
I guess at the end of the day any system seems complex when compared to a systems that's not even complete.
I think because people considering 5e were putting it up next to 3.5e and 4e and PF1, and now PF2. People considering PF2 are putting it up next to 5e.
I would say that PF2E is complex compared to 5E, but it more than makes up for that by being elegant and consistent.
@@SapSapient compared to 5e it's more complex that's for sure, what I was saying is that being more complex than 5e is a pretty low bar to pass compared to the general trpg landscape
Providing observations as someone currently learning PF2e while playing.
To expand on the point made at 11:43 , an aspect of the action complexity of PF2e I don’t see discussed often is how many character features add new actions, redefine the effect of actions, or change the economy of actions. Not only are there way more specifically defined actions than 5e to know about at level 1, but every level requires re-learning some of the actions you had. This explodes the complexity of the decisionmaking, because you not only have to decide among a large number of options, but also take into account your character’s specific modifications to those options.
Now consider that you also have to learn specific conditions and ciscumstances and how they impact bonuses, and things get real complicated for people who don’t know the rules yet. If you “already know” all of the rules, PF2e is easy; doing “more” math is not the problem. The problem is that if you don’t know all of the rules, making decisions is hard.
One thing I think you failed to mention is the effect of "Four Degrees of Success " on Spellcasters.
My wife used to hate playing Spellcasters because if the enemy saved, she wasted her turn.
Now, she still get some effect from most spells, even if the enemy saves. They have to roll a Crit Success to fully avoid the spell.
It doesn't apply to all spells, but it does make Spellcasters less swing-y, which some people really enjoy.
An extension on this would be a discussion of the Incapacitation trait, but that may be outside the scope of this video!
This is low-key an amazing video that can stand on its own as a way to show folks familiar with 5e how Pathfinder 2e is so different in practice (and, for us, preferable)
Every time I watch one of your videos comparing Pathfinder and 5e I find myself thinking “damn, he is right! 3.5 is indeed the best D&D!”
3.5 really is the best version.
There are literally terabytes worth of UA-cam videos by 5e DMs offering tips on how to "Homebrew Fix your 5e campaign", only for those suggestions to merely be features and mechanics that WotC had removed from 3.5, but were previously part of the vanilla mechanics.
Might as well just stick with 3.5, then, for a rules complete system. Or with Pathfinder 1e as a slightly more streamlined 3.5 alternative.
>system is pretty stingy with giving out advantage or disadvantage
No, not really. Especially the new options give a ton of ways to obtain advantage/disadvantage, which leads to it being useless a lot of the time, since you can't have multiple of these.
Yeah I thought the same.
By new options, are you talking post-PHB? Wonder if my perception is skewed by that
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG Yeah, also the new options are considerably stronger. Which makes sense for a game who's rules are not freely available, since that's just pay to win.
0:52 This might be true in North American mainstream, but there are lots of much more complex pen & paper RP systems out there.
D&D and Pathfinder are among the simpler systems in both combat and non-combat resolution.
Very detailed on the differences, very good !!! But every time I saw these comparisons, I kept thinking that a merge of different rules would be awesome, except that my players would never agree. The DM role of the antagonist, lead the players to believe that the house rules are always bad for them, and they can only trust the books to stand "against" the DM (which shouldn't be the case). I love how "Shadow of the Demon Lord" found a way to do "advantages" that can stack (boons and banes), and how "Dungeon Crawl Classic" make the magic system unpredictable so you have to roll to cast instead of Vancian style. But making a merge of all these good things may be a dream that will never see the light of the day.
Just.... combine them all into one game system that you "designed" and you want your players to try it to get "feedback". ;)
O.o I always run my houserules by my group and we discuss whether we want them and they typically really enjoy them and I always have houserules, even with pf2e. I'm a bit careful with them in pf2e, cause the thing I love as a GM about pf2e is it removes the shenanigans of 3.0/3.5/5 D&D and pf1e. I can build a balanced encounter in pf2e and it'll work independent of the munchkins or lack thereof at my table.
One issue with the healing word yo-yo is the rules on spellcasting prevent then using a spell with your action (funny enough, fighter's action surge does allow for 2 levelled spells in a turn.) This can mess with a lot of casters because they often don't have great actions that aren't spells. At optimisation tables this matters less because people just dodge to protect their concentration, but it is not fun for most people to play that way. Either way, it being a bonus action is good but not THAT good.
The main strength issue healing word has imo is that it has a range and cure wounds does not. This is what makes it non committal to use because you don't have to expose yourself. Especially in a space where everyone has attack of opportunity.
Funnily enough, Baldur's Gate 3 management of actions and bonus actions essentially turned into the pathfinder "action points" system, let's say. They are a resource which you can have multiples of. Most of everything you do in combat in BG3 uses either an action or a bonus action, as long as you have enough of them, nothing stops you from doing it. But it can absolutely get ridiculous
Level 3 Rogues that pick the Thief subclass in that game get a second bonus action. The Monk Subclass "Way of the Open Hand" gets 3 different attack abilities that each consume a bonus action and each are actually considered two different attack rolls with two different rolls for damage. Meaning a level 6 character that takes 3 levels of monk and 3 levels of rogue can basically do 4 attacks with 2 bonus actions and also have an action to spare. And at monk level 5 you get extra attack and get a mage to cast haste on them. they can do a total of 8 attacks. At level 4 you can get the tavern brawler feat which adds your STR modifier twice for attack and damage rolls. So that would be 8 rolls of d20 + proficiency + 2*STR mod + advantage because some of those attacks cause Stun or Prone and another 8 rolls of 1d4/6/8 (changes with monk level) + 2*STR mod Bludgeoning damage + 1d4 + WIS mod (Necrotic, Psychic or Radiant, it's another passive thing they get). That is 16 incredibly ridiculous rolls and I haven't even considered items... I'm glad it's a video game...
I don't think that D&D 5e is rules light, I would call it rules medium. They are trying to reduce the complexity in the 2024 revised version and I think it's a good thing. A rules "light" (or at least lighter) version of Pathfinder would be really interesting to me, but that's probably not going to happen. It's going to be very interesting to see what Darrington Press (Critical Role) is going to bring to the table with their new Daggerheart TTRPG system.
@@antieverything1 like a morbillion of people over the course of the years. Incorrectly but loudly and commonly regardless
@@antieverything1 I've seen it described as either "rules light" or "rules lighter", mostly from people who only know 5e and are considering other systems like PF2E, GURPS, etc.
24:00 You also gave the Cleric a 3rd slot at one point I think. You used Healing Word twice and bless.
Bonus action to drink a healing potion with normal, rolled effect.
Standard action to drink a healing potion with maximized, not rolled effect.
Standard action to administer a healing potion to an ally for normal, rolled effect.
I actually really like this. Most potions are not strong enough to justify taking an action.
But you specify "healing potion", how do you rule potions that do other things instead, or in conjuction with?
@@texteel - Most other potions don’t have a variable effect, so I leave those as regular.
Healing potions are also different in a couple other ways.
First, the game treats healing potions differently, because you can use the ingredients of a herbalism kit to make one, while there’s very little guidance for crafting items besides healing potions and scrolls.
Second, all actions are lost when you’re incapacitated, so using a bonus action to stay up is a more valuable use of your turn rather than slightly delaying the inevitable. Most other potions make you more effective at doing something you could try doing another way without the potion, so they’re closer to buff spells which cost an action.
I love Pathfinder's "atomized" action system because it significantly simplifies opportunity cost.
You're a fighter who can hit multiple times-- whether by a class feat (5e) or just a high bonus (PF2). What if you want to drink a potion?
In PF, that takes the place of just 1 attack. In 5e, you can't use *any* of your multiple attacks because your action has been consumed.
What if you're a fighting spellcaster? Can you multiattack and cast a spell? In PF, you can, at the cost of not moving that turn. In 5e, it's *either* cast a spell or use multiattack (the only exception being Eldritch Knight casting a cantrip or sorceror using metamagic)
From a learning standpoint I found 5e significantly easier to learn how to use. But once you learn it I think PF2e is easier to run, not necessarily play though. Once you get the core mechanics of either system down neither is really complex.
8:43 Situational awareness and the tactical situation are not the same.
You can be well protected and not realize what is about to happen or you can be aware of an impending attack, but find yourself unable to prevent a situation that is disadvantageous to yourself.
I'm staring at the cat
Her name is Megan. Very sweet.
Positive comment
I like to call DnD 5e “rules-medium”
one thing that unbalance more D&D combat (and caster) is that most table tent to have less than 3 encounter by day so they can easly go supernova almost every fight... in other side some spell in pathfinder 2e need a rework because it cost an spell slot and if the targe just succed the spell do nothing... is hard to use that tipe of spell (even if they are super flavorus and cool if they land) a foe with little more level or little luck let you with a bad sensation....
Most people feel that D&D is more of a 'save or suck' system than Pathfinder. In 2e there are 4 outcomes for most die rolls: Critical fail, fail, success, critical success. That paints a more nuanced picture than is often seen in D&D.
@@lagautmd yes but I had really unsatisfactory results with some spell that agravated because I am playing a magus so cast your Gravitational pull and do absolute nothing it is disconcerting (you effectively waste your acctions and half of your spell slot for that rank) and that happen twice... so I do not prepare that spell anymore... and like that there are many more example... (Gravitational Pull has all the Jedi/Sith vibes but It doesn't work at least for me)
Dnd is lighter then Pathfinder. Its more streamline and easier to follow, It also has an easier character creation because it's simplified. And this comes from years of introducing people to the game. The learning curve is very small but there is a learning curve. It's not as light as some d6 systems but It's light enough to pick up and learn pretty quickly and still feel complicated enough to feel fun
Pathfinder is for people who know how to play ttrpgs and like crunch. Character creation is much more involved and lot more choices and learning right away. It's the reason why you can hand it to people who've never played tabletops and their eyes glaze over because it's a lot to learn before you can actually play.
So OSR systems aren't rules light then? Many depend on GM ruling.
I see DCC listed as OSR sometimes and I don't consider it rules lite. I don't consider several of the AD&D based clones to be rules lite. I sort of think of BX type games as rule lite, maybe a little more. So, 50-100 pages. That being said, some of the best gaming out there is ICRPG (with about 20 pages of base rules) and EZd6 with even less. It could dpend on the GM, if the GM just said he/she was ignoring every rule except the core rules in pages X to X.
Algo comment! Also, criminally under-subscribed channel! Ring that bell
I've heard of the "Lean out" action to avoid cover penalties (from your own cover) but I can't find a reference to it in the actual rules... Anyone able to point me to it? Page nuumer or AoN are both fine.
CRB p. 477. Here is an AoN link: 2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=461
My friend Kevin stopped playing dnd in the summer of 92. Might try and get him into pathfinder 2e
idk how you can call a system with a 300 page rulebook (and that's just the player's handbook) "rules light". I'm literally about to run an rpg that has a rulebook with only 30 pages
It's usually from 5e players who don't know other TTRPGs and say it when asked to try systems they perceive as heavy
We have to stop comparing 5th to Pathfinder, full stop. The whole thing is non sense. Yes, Pathfinder has more rule, but make the system more balanced. Yes 5th rules are not detailed enough, making it hard for the GM.
But the bottom line, you play what works for you. Both have their pros and cons depending on what you want from the game you play.
Let's stop thinking one is better than the others for others people. Play what you like and be merry!
Whoever calls D&D rules -light never played another ttrpg or actual rules-light system
Good video, very informative
I personally think the traits made learning easier. Once you know a trait you know what to expect from it. It is like MTG, keywords exist and you know what to expect of those keywords. You would think (since many long term players of mtg also did D&D) people would get on board with the ease of the trait system. Not that there isn't a lot of traits (there is in fact), but the system is great and I have developed a few traits for my own homebrew as well.
I am probably going to edit this a couple times because when something is brought up I wanna say what I am thinking about it at the time so I don't forget what I am thinking about. The "surprise" round in PF2E (not really a surprise round, but point is made) is the round initiative is rolled. In the scenario where one side chooses to ambush the players, once any character chooses to act (npc or pc) in a manner that is hostile for an encounter (or if the encounter is something else like a trap or conversation encounter since not all encounters are combat) initiative is rolled. Then every takes their turn, just because initiative is rolled in said scenario doesnt mean the pc's know of the goblins and thus cannot really do anything to the goblins. The goblins still surprise them because essentially the pcs would keep doing what they were doing on their turns until the goblins actually do something such as attack or reveal themselves. I am sure most tables do not do this, but that was the intention of how this form of initiative was meant to play out. I do like it in concept, but it can lead to some players metagaming if the DM randomly calls for initiative when nothing is revealed to the players happening. They are on edge and subsequently they will more than likely play the character as such. So when I do an ambush, and I forewarned the players I do this, I roll in secret so they don't know. I ask what people are doing real quick at that moment and depending on initiative that was rolled I would say something along the lines of, "Right as you start," or, "Before you start," or "After you start," something happens.
There is a misconception that movement is free. The action economy from 3.5e and 5e are almost the same. The only difference is there is no full round action (that was rolled into action) and no free action (that was essentially renamed interaction action). Otherwise you have (3.5e first 5e second) the standard action to action, move action to movement, swift action to bonus action, immediate action to reaction, free action to interact action. The standard action was just that it had all the things you mostly do, however you couldn't move and do a full round action thus why I said it was rolled into one. The move action and movement is the same except you can move up to your speed during the whole round and not all at once. The only change is that, you still can only move up to your speed with it. Both 3.5 and 5e had it where you can use your standard action or action to move again up to your speed nothing special there. Movement in 5e is just that, another action it is no more free than in 3.5e. I think the misconception comes from not being able to do a full round action at the same time (enforcing stand still combat instead of mobile). Both are an "action" but in 5e it is spent in increments on your turn instead of all at once is all.
I've read the last paragraph several times, but still don't understand -what the heck- what misconception you're talking about. In 5e your decision to move up to your speed doesn't cost you the ability to do something else. It's a separate resource, therefore, it's "free". Contrary to Pathfinder 2e, where it's not.
@@a_wild_Kirillian You must have never played other systems. It is not free, it is still an action, that means something you do on your turn. It is not free as in it cost nothing and is without limits. The limit is your move speed. Think of it like this you have $15 dollars every minute and each minute you can spend up to $15 on something, say a $1 candy bar. You can spend as much or as little as you want during the entire minute at any point during that minute and each minute regardless of how much or little it is reset to $15. You still spent the money if you do, thus your still are doing something. You can do anything else with that $15 but buy those $1 candy bars, but you can do it how you feel.
In prior editions you had something called a move action. This was typically for movement, but say you do a 5 step you cannot also move on your turn (vice-versa) this step was to ignore AOO or to move just as much as you need to make a full-attack (not going into it too much). The move action can still be used for other things too. Each action on your turn takes time and it can be a move action or standard action (typically). Now any action that is a move action can also be done as a standard action as well since a move action is considered faster.
Anyways, the point is nothing you do is free and that is a misconception. Unless you can do it as much as you want on your turn it isn't free there is a limit. The only change is how movement can be spent during your turn up to your move speed at any point. It is not done all at once is the ONLY difference. PF2E uses an economy of action that can spent as you see fit with action taking anywhere from 1-3 action to perform. The only difference is 5e has dedicated actions on your turn, while Pathfinder 2e does not.
5e has 3 actions; standard, move, bonus (move is a separate thing and is limited). PF2E has 3 action (spent on whatever you see fit and in order and sometimes a specific action costs more than 1). What I never understood is why a bonus action, which is said in the book to be an especially quick action, cannot be done as a standard action. You literally lose a potentially more powerful action to perform something quick in a space of time of something that takes longer. 5e wants to restrict what you can do and how many times.
If you played prior editions and don't see this I am afraid you have some bias you cannot admit to or something.
@@MrReaperHand, wow, for a person, capable of writing in such lengths, you sure do have some trouble with comprehension. It's rather puzzling. But I'll indulge. It's fun.
First of all, you just had to make a baseless claim to help your point. FYI, I've never played Pathfinder, I dislike D&D and my main system is GURPS. My biases lie somewhere else.
So, the only misconception here is you not being able to conceptualize, how human language works. Words are chosen to describe an idea. Are you the type to argue, when people say "walking is free"? Because with your take nothing in this world is free. Why do we use this word so much then?
You keep saying "This is the only difference" (about two different arguments, actually, which is ironic), but there is an important one. I have described it to you, the video had described it before me. It seems to me that you're describing it, too.
In 5e movement can't be exchanged for any action with different effect, while in Pathfinder movement takes one of your three actions, which could have been spent on other options. Moving in 5e doesn't automatically diminish your attacking potential. Unlike PF2e *and* GURPS. This is why people call it "free".
Because context fricking matters: words change meaning depending on it. If you don't understand this, it doesn't make that a misconception. That is a valid use.
Previous editions have nothing to do with this. Movement's limits have nothing to do with this. No one cares that it's a renewable resource, which can't be spent on anything else.
---
Regarding the bonus action situation: this is NOT what is said there. Go read the damn book, it's page 189.
You can't do two bonus features on the same turn because that is not how the game was designed. It has literally nothing to do with in-game time. No one prevents you from doing it anyway, however. I doubt it would break anything, but I'm not a 5e user.
@@a_wild_Kirillian For someone getting so defensive over a system they don't use, other systems they don't use, and prior systems THEY DON'T USE you sure a getting heated over something you don't fully understand.
You don't, clearly, know the history of actions in D&D and also don't understand what free means. Also, yes NOTHING in this world is free. EVERYTHING costs something, be it the energy we create by breaking down food or money, time, etc. This is quite well known something is spent to do something. You can't do two bonus actions on a turn by design, yes, but why? It DOES state that a bonus action is an action that is especially quick, but only actions that say they are bonus actions can be done. It is for balance reason only, you don't know the history clearly as you even seemed to state so you don't understand why I am confused why this needs to be in place.
Next point to were I said movement in pathfinder DIDN'T cost damage potential. Tell me where, in my entire comment, I said movement did reduce damage potential in 5e. You can't because I never said that. I said movement IS an action because you still act. It is the movement action it is what you do on your turn to move. So what you can't do other things in replacement of movement. It has a finite amount, this means limited if you fail to comprehend what free really means, thus once you spent all your movement on your turn you cannot anymore. Actual free actions, which is an action in 5e better look it up, are action you can do as much as you want but they are not overly time consuming and do not impede other action such as talking. These ARE free and can be done without limits (for the most part usually DM discretion). Since actual free actions don't have limits, really, they are free as they cost nothing. There is no resource (how much you move), it doesn't require spell slots, items, or a myriad of other thing in the system. Movement is an action, it is it's own action but still an action. They only call it movement to change from the past where you can only do it once per turn no matter how far you went. The ONLY change is that to movement, all other actions were changed to either free, bonus (used to be called swift), and standard. I know my history of D&D pretty well since I have played most of the systems. I know many of the changes since I compared them when I first played 5e. I know they only changed words for ease, but fundamentally the action economy is the same with TWO less actions.
I need to make the same encounter and compare it with Warhammer fantasy rp 4e. Partially to show how a "no daily resource" system would compare.
pathfinder definately has that reputation because of 1e. I refuse to touch it, but I'm considering trying to stuff every day of my time to run pf2e its so simple and easy to run and play.
I have GMed both D&D and Pathfinder 2e. And I prefer 2e, there is a slightly larger learning curve, but that is totally worth it. And all 2e rules are free online.
In my experience level 1 isn't very fun in either game. Pathfinder characters may have 17hp at level 1, but 11ish damage isn't uncommon, so both games see you two-shot. I was actually shocked at how little damage the goblins did in pathfinder, because my party got enemies that hit for much more damage at level 1.
I'd love to see similar comparisons at levels 6, 11, and 18~20ish.
It was pretty common in the earlier adventure paths for monsters to be stronger than the party in pathfinder 2e. Usually even lvl -1 monsters has some cool effects that could be deadly. So some GM discretion is great. It's easier to die in d&d imo as a single d8+3 could down the majority of the party xD
The beginner box is BRUTAL for people new to RPGs in general
D&D is rules not as dense as its preceding versions and is relatively simple. But it's definitely not rules light, the physical size of the rulebooks compared to something like F.A.T.E is evidence on its own.
I think the only thing I miss from 5e as I'm trying out Pathfinder is some of the mechanical jank I've discovered in DnD that's sometimes overpowered, but when every party member has that kind of OP jank it evens out, you know?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the "Free Archetype at lv 1" game style I've heard about where everyone is extra powerful, I think it would help ppl like me who love the extra powerful feel of a crazy good class or multiclass in 5e.
...assuming that is actually a thing and I haven't been misled on that by friends/the internet.
Free Archetype is at Lvl2 and is not overpowered. It's more options and not just a power bump.
There is a Dual Class optional rule in Game Mastery Guide that lets you get the best of 2 different classes which is a huge power bump generally recommended when you only have a couple players. I have never used that, but I love the Free Archetype rule and it's my default for play and available in Pathbuilder2 so easy to implement.
@@tamwehwukzdcti8198 Cool, good to know! I've been trying to remake the cracters I've done in 5e and Archetype at lv 2 could be the best way to do it.
My takeaway from watching that combat and the whole debate in general is that a person that knows either system can not make an unbiased assessment. I fell like someone who knows both well should teach a group of newbies and ask them.
If you want a D20 system similar to D&D and Pathfinder but lighter, check out Shadow of the Demon Lord.
6:15 - While I agree that D&D isn't rules light and PbtA games all have fewer rules than it, I wouldn't call most PbtA games rules light either - they tend to be more medium weight in terms of rules - While compared to descendants of 3/.5e they're a lot easier to get into, typically there are more rules present, and those rules are weightier than in something like Wanderhome or Microscope, even before we get into stuff like one page RPGs.
11:16 - I suspect I get on as well as I do with PF2e's 3 action economy because, to put it into board game terms, it's basically an AP system. I understand AP systems far better than I understand 'do up to one of each of these various things' systems.
Pathfinder 2e is easier to teach to a newbie than a 5e veteran.
This is because they don't have to unlearn before learning
TLDR: D&D is NOT "rules light", but IS "rules lighter" than Pathfinder.
I have played 5e with 3 or 4 different DMs.
Not a single one of them actually does the +2 to AC from cover. Heck, the PF2 GM I play with doesn't use it either.
The people I've played with just don't seem to care about cover, especially cover from creatures.
Additionally, I think it's extremely common to use the optional Flanking = Advantage rule in 5e. Not including it in the comparison in any way, I think, is disingenuous.
That is bizarre to me. If anything my problem with 5e is they have easy ways to avoid cover with sharpshooter/spell sniper. Reduce the penalties to cover I'd be okay with but avoid is insane. I'[m very generous in granting it. People should be rewarded for making the tactical decision of gaining cover. I wish both systems emphasized it more.
The optional Flanking rule isn't as common as you think, and heavy shifts the balance of the game.
It is if you like to play a narrative game. If I read a lot of comments here they mostly deal with "How many encounters can a group handle before they need to rest?" Well, who cares? It might a be a European thing but I don't care about dungeon crawls. So encounters are there to strengthen the story - no other reason. I couldn't care less about numbers. And I have the feeling after looking at PF2 videos and the rules book it's about numbers. And I don't care for numbers.
That being said that is my preference - if you enjoy the number counting and the "the fighter has to move first before the rogue can attack etc" all the more power to you. But I enjoy a game in which the characters don't have to compare numbers and effects to be successful - I want a game in which the fighter is a fighter and not a support figure in a well oiled clockwork. And that takes a system that is more open. So, yes, DnD is more rules light than PF2 but it also aims at a different kind of player and GM.
I found part 2, but it was not easy due to the title
I've come around on liking PF2e more than 5e, but what I will say for 5e is while it's not "rules light," even for the generally more complex d20-based systems, it is in kind of a sweet spot for new players in terms of having enough complexity to where players will have to learn some specific mechanics/interactions while still having a lot of built-in DM discretion to where the game can be made more "fuzzy" to allow DMs to craft an experience that their players will enjoy. It's something of a good medium between crunchier systems like PF2e and truly rules light systems like the many PbtA-styled games out there or your one-page RPGs.
The real issue is that a lot of folks (myself included for a while) just get kind of lodged in that system and never expand out to try other things; we end up with folks who prefer math/crunch being frustrated at 5e's lack of clearly defined mechanics in certain areas on one side, and more freeform role players chafing against the limitations the system places on their creativity on the other. 5e is a good gateway system in that it has elements of both, but only works well as a gateway if players then use their experience with it to inform their decision on what game(s) are right for them. Sometimes, 5e will be right for them and/or their group; in that case, great! Enjoy 5e! But that determination really can't be made if 5e is the only system you've ever played; you have to experience what else is out there in order to know what you like and what you don't. To repurpose an old Konstantin Tsiolkovsky quote, 5e may be the cradle that many people being their TTRPG playing lives in, but one cannot eternally remain in a cradle.
In my experience, pf2 is very vtt friendly, but all the modifiers can bog down IRL play more than dnd 5e
I've played some P2e and a lot of D&D 5e, and I have noticed something about the early levels of P2e vs D&D 5e. It is much harder for new players to run combat quickly in P2e compared to 5e.
Having action buckets in 5e reduces the analysis paralysis of trying to figure out what to do. You have a main thing you can do, your action, which can result in analysis paralysis (especially for spell casters), you have your movement, which you can use as needed. And you have a bonus action which is deliberately restricted to a few things or nothing at low levels.
In P2e, everything is an action, which sounds simple, but it often results in a lot of questions. "Can I attack this guy?" "Yes, but only once because it would take two actions to get there." "Oh, OK, so I should attack this guy?" "Well, you can attack him twice, but you'd have a -5 to hit the second guy, and you'd likely miss. Plus the first guy has taken more hits." "Ok, I'll attack the second guy with power attack." "Power attack takes two actions, so you can't use it." "Well if I can't kill him in one hit, then I should attack the second guy. How beat up does the first guy look?" "You'd have to do a perception check to find that out, and then you wouldn't be able to attack him." And so on and so forth.
Now, don't misunderstand me, 5e does suffer from this analysis paralysis when it comes to spells. And P2e analysis paralysis does get better with later levels as people get more comfortable with the system. But for new players, in my experience, P2e combat is harder to learn.
Maybe you should watch Critical Role play 5e sometime, they frequently fall into analysis paralysis consisting of wasting table time to make sure they have used all their action types and if so batting their eyes at the DM to get a freebie thrown in. They will spending five minutes flipping thru their sheet discussing if they have a bonus action to use. And the DM has already houseruled that they can ignore many of the rules restrictions that was mentioned in this video, just so they lessen the analysis paralysis of did I use all the types of bonus action and interaction. Even the designer of 5e says that was their biggest thing they would have like to change is the bonus action economy, because it forces design into the box of too many things compete for bonus action yet is also responsible for healer being able to wack dying moles for free.
I think something unintended but interesting is obvious in your comment here. All of these examples are questions of tactics, and the opportunity cost of doing certain actions vs other actions. Because the action system is a lot easier to understand, none of these questions are 'can I use this type of action to mechanically perform this specific action.', but rather 'is it a better use of my actions to do this or that?'.
There is certainly a lot more analysis paralysis when it comes to PF2e because the action system requires thinking about opportunity cost, which is strategy, instead of system rules.
@@StarUnreal yes, exactly. I'm not saying that P2e is bad. It is much better suited for tactical play. It offers depth without too much complexity.
D&D 5e lacks the depth of P2e. It is simpler at first (with some notable exceptions such as the surprise round), which makes it easier to start learning, but harder to play at later levels.
And this is just from the player perspective, from the DM perspective...well, that's maybe a topic for a different video.
Who could possibly say DnD is rules light? Have they seen the books? It is the game I play and it's the most rules heavy I've played.
I value consistent and fair rules in games. House rules have often ruined D&D games for me. If i build a social character, for example, I NEED my DM to use the rules as written or else I don't have a remotely reliable or predictable talent.
Dnd is easier to players, pf2nd easier to GMs. This is the way.
However when people say dnd is more for roleplaying, and it helps roleplay more, I always think those who made this statement never actually saw any story oriented, more narrative role play system, because this statement is just plain bullshit...
I was shocked when I learned that 5e actually has narrative mechanics in it (that PF2 does not) but nobody uses those 👌👌👌👌👌
@@StanNotSoSaint what narrative mechanic 5e has?
@@szegediadam8793 traits, ideal, bond, flaw that facilitate roleplaying which DM must award with inspiration points
@@StanNotSoSaint both games have that amount: in pf2 you can always get hero points for being awesome or in character. Also many classes or followers has cultural eddicts and anathemas, for what they can, or what they can't do.
I would agree this is help to roleplay your character maybe a bit more deeply, but if you compair any of these to for example 7th sea second edition's narrative success system, where your characters literally only face consequences when you as the owner of that character wants and narrates that, and you going to tell, how you get backstabbed by your lover hard, because that would give you resources you can use later in the story narration, to do something realy epic. They are not even in the same league. And they shouldn't be.
That system is story focused, dnd and pf2 is more focused on tactics. And there's realy no problem with this, and none is better than the other.
Would you ever do videos on indie systems created by people from r/ttrpg?
You could be accurate and say, "D&D 5e is not rule lite". Neither is Pathfinder depending on which version of D&D is on the table. I like running B/X and its derivatives. One can actually get so much more done in a session over 5e or Pathfinder. I don't mind any of these options, yet Pathfinder is not worlds better than 5e, it is a wee bit less complicated.
While I can agree with the opening statement that D&D 5E is not a "rules-lite" system by any stretch of an imagination, it is still far lighter than PF 2E, even going by your comparison one by one. Every single slide showed that PF2E had more rules for that block. Even if the rules help in some cases, there are still more of them.
And the number of rules is still not the biggest issue here, the rigidity and consequence of the rules is. While having every single roll in PF2E 4 different outcomes (instead of only 2 - or 3 in combat - in 5E) makes the rolls more exciting, it also makes combats longer - if you run 4 people with different modifiers and need to consult the results of the roll every time, it puts more strain on GM and effectively lengthens the combat. Rules like 'no movement splitting' punish creative players and 3-action limit while amazing on paper is effectively just increase of options available (leading to more analysis paralysis) - instead of "Action + Bonus Action + Movement" on your turn you have "3x 1-Actions, 1-Action + 2-Action, 3-Action" options and potential complications of Simultaneous and Subordinate actions. I had players who made fast decisions in 5E freeze in thought in 2E - and while I agree with your argument that it means decisions have more weight in PF, it - again - prolongs combat.
Don't get me wrong. I admire that PF2E introduced some of the amazing things I'd love 5E to have, from levels of success (even if I wouldn't adopt it to combat, in non-combat scenarios, these are great) to the way Dying is handled. But it does have more math and rules than D&D.
Also, among stuff you didn't mention - monster abilities and their interaction is more rules-heavy in PF. Different auras, DR, templates etc stack on top of everything players have, and results in even more math per round. Where D&D has immunity or resistance to damage types, PF has damage reduction in addition to immunities, adding to math every time (and in practice it's much easier to always half the result than deduct points of DR). I literally ran the same adventure (from Strange Aeons from PF1E) in D&D (adapted via using monster reskins) and PF2E (also adapted), and the same boss combat took at least 1.5 times longer in PF just because of constant calculations we did - especially when players tried to check which action they should take. Granted, normal combat (with common mooks) took almost the same time in general (maybe +20% time in PF, but never measured really), but boss battles are far more intense in math department in PF, even though it doesn't even have lair actions. Oh, and there are more conditions in 2E, and abilities that trigger on those conditions.
Another point I'd add is that if you just play a single class character then PF2E is ok. But as soon as you delve into multiclassing territory, you're swamped by rules and options and their interactions way more than in D&D - though in both systems multiclassing is better reserved for veterans who know what they are doing. Optimization in PF2E doesn't reach insane levels of PF1E (for now), but it still is more complicated than in D&D.
And last but not least. Vancian magic is an abomination. It's far more rigid, harder to explain to new players, almost prohibitive for non-veterans with intricate knowledge of the system (which spells suck and which do not, and what to expect in an encounter) with only a single advantage of being better balanced. Even D&D 3E moved away from Vancian magic with the introduction of a Sorceror class and adopting it for all classes in 5E, why PF clings to this is just mind-boggling. When I read the rules for PF2E I was so excited about the 3-action system and levels of success that reading about going back to Vancian magic almost made me drop the book entirely.
Black text on a black background? 7:53
I do think pathfinder 2e puts more on a lvl 1 character than 5e.
Sorry but I have to strongly push back on your assertion at 6:35 as you don't need to be an experienced Game Master to run a rules light system, unless you are very specifically running a combat heavy game or session with a rules light system but since narrative games are not *designed* to deal with in-depth and detailed combat anyway it's a very unfair comparison: It would be like me saying 'D&D is a rules-heavy system that actively gets in t he way of a good, flowing narrative game of political intrigue' Because quite honestly why would I try to judge D&D by that standard when 80% of the rules provided revolve around combat.
In fact I would even argue the opposite: since combat situations are more of an immediate and direct treat to characters and players are likely to perceive it as such, a novice GM is usually *better suited to run a narrative game for the first time* since there's not as many direct confrontations and finer points and instead everybody is encouraged to navigate the world without combat being their first response/solution to challenges.
Arguably both rules-light and well-designed rules-heavy systems work well for new DMs for different reasons. Problems arise, when DMs have to juggle rulings AND rules, because the rules don't work but are still necessary for the PCs to be satisfying. If a GM only has to juggle either working rules or can focus on consistent rulings, they are not encumbered with the complexities of game design, for which you would need experience.
Nice, very nice.
Now draw her doing higher level combat...
I do wish there were Attack of Opportunity like options for Pathfinder 2e. Just options frontliners could take to help protect casters whether it's reactions to shove or trip an enemy trying to move past them. Having just those options could add a good bit of tactics where in larger areas a 'tankier' character can more effectively protect an ally or at least make it take more actions for them to get to the backliners of the team.
PF2e does have attack of opportunity and a ton more shield related feats for fighter and other archetypes that let you specialize on just protecting your teammates.
@@justjunk3803 It's locked down primarily to fighter though (ignoring say super rare and niche things like thaumaterge weapon allowing to AoO an enemy that has their exploitm weakness on them). The champion shield feat while its nice does little to deter an enemy or stop them from moving.
@@Asin24it’s really not at all rare, but it is pushed back to level 4 or 6. Almost every martial class have access to at least some type of attack of opportunity like effect by level 6, and anyone can take it via a Fighter archetype at level 4.
I like both systems. DND 5e is great for improvising stuff which can be fun, and Pathfinder 2e is more clearly laid out in the rules. I lean towards Pathfinder because I like to have PDFs of the books...
Lol when you used the overly complex stealth rules for the "degrees of success" example and cringed xD
I hope Paizo simplify stealth to just 2 states in the remaster...
Anyone who would claim D&D is rules light is just silly and/or trying to make themselves seem cool because their game is "so complex." A game being more complex than D&D does not make D&D less complex than it actually is. As far as I have seen growing up with this hobby forever the term "rules light" itself uses D&D as the 'standard' by default. D&D can't be "rules light" compared to itself. FATE is "rules light" compared to D&D... we just don't need to say the "compared to D&D" part. Pathfinder is more crunchy... more crunchy than what? D&D.... the standard name all other games are measured by, whether we like it or not.
You can certainly compare editions within D&D.
Compared to Pathfinder, it is undoubtedly a lighter system, objectively so; and a major reason for the high page count in D&D is fluff, images and gratuitous use of space.
I like Pathfinder more. But one thing that D&D does better is the surprise condition/round imo.
In 5e you can "surprise" someone, but if you low poorly on initiative, you get almost no benefit to it. Granted you get to go before them, but I def think PF2's surprise is better.
@@mirtos39 Agreed that PF2 handles it best. 5E's method always felt messy and just plain gamey to me.
As a player, i don't think that being unable to act for an entire round is fun. If the combat is meant to be long is even worse, and if my character is attacked enough and i fall to 0 hit points, i don't get to play (wich can take a long time sometimes). In 5e there is a lot of stuff that simply takes you out of combat, and the worst game design decision ever is making a player unable to play your game.
@@magnuspendragon1938 This makes alot of sense and I agree with you. The majority of ambushes that have happened on my tables have been the players ambushing NPCs. So in Pathfinder when the players have ambushed the enmies and it just feels like rolling initiative as normal. But in 5e it actually feels like a bit more special.
In the end that is all that matters. Play what you like.
I want to listen and pay attention BUT CAT!!!
Listening to this makes me want to switch to "neither" 😝
I’ll say this: I don’t miss my time playing 3.5e, and everything this video has showed me is that this is 3.5e with some streamlining and some extra unnecessary math added.
So yeah, Pathfinder, regardless of edition, is not for me.
It probably is not for you.
But I will say this: there are only two changing status types (status, circumstance) and bonuses of the same time do not stack. Item bonuses are the same as 5e and just like there do not change unless you drop your weapon or unequip your items. And there are no untyped bonuses.
Ironically with all the extra dice an optimized party can do in 5e (bardic inspiration, guidance, bless, superiority die, great weapon master, silvery barbs) the math is way more insane.
I would give it a try if someone runs it for you.
@@Nastara I usually don’t play with highly optimized tables, so while I do understand the silliness in terms of dice rolled with 5e it’s not a reality I would face in most scenarios.
The series of bonuses and penalties stacks would be a common issue regardless of optimization in PF, don’t get me wrong, you are right I should and would totally give it an honest shot if I had the chance at a table, it’s just that, as currently presented it’s not looking like a game designed for me.
@@Sepiriel You’d be surprised. So far I’m running my first 2e campaign and here are the only modifiers the party constantly inflict is a -2 to AC from flatfooted. Their cleric also sometimes gives them a +1 to attack from bless. That is it. Combats have been insanely fast too. Even when I ran a one shot live it live my partner focused on healing while my friend just focused on flatfooted. So the only penalty in play was once again a -2 to AC.
That being said, don’t mind me! Play the games you enjoy!
Imo it like Windows and Linux
Windows and 5e is made shoddy but trustworthy, you say "My Magnet should suck the big boss sword out" you are going to roll or basically set up for a teammate.
Pathfinder is like Linux in that the people that "like it" dont hold it for themselves and dont s p r e a d that knowledge out.
Also ironically both wonder why no one likes them and sudos them into trashcans. 😂
DnD is a boob.
I liked boobs. I still like boobs.
?????
5e is rules lighter than PF2e.
PF2e is a crunchier game for people that want more crunch, and that's great, not everyone likes the same, but we should be honest here.
@@antieverything1 Rules Lawyer's channel is advocating for Pathfinder 2e and trying to argue against things people bring up as D&D having an advantage over Pathfinder on, that's the point.
He acknowledges in this video that while D&D 5e has less rules than Pathfinder, it also ends up being murkier and leans on the DM to make calls, and the DM's rulings then become effective house rules, since they'll likely need to rule the same in that situation every time. Pathfinder has much clearer rules to cover a wide variety of situations, which makes things easier for the DM and removes ambiguity. At the end, both will end up with the same amount of rules, it's just that you need to make less of them up for Pathfinder.
His secondary point is that 5e is not particularly rules light by the standards of most TTRPGs.
As someone who has DMed for both systems (5e more than Pathfinder), both systems have their advantages and disadvantages. I overall prefer having clearer rules for everything in Pathfinder. But sometimes I do wish that I could make a quick adjudication and keep the action moving like in D&D 5e instead of having to look up to see if there's a rule that covers whatever situation we find ourselves in.
@@Zakon673 We understand the point he's trying to make. I just disagree with him.
He's trying to fight the idea that PF2E is significantly crunchier than 5e, to try to appeal people who don't like that crunchy aspect. My point is that is a wrong approach. Even if he succesfully convince people who dislike crunchiness to try PF2E with this video, those people won't like PF2E because, guess what, PF2E *IS* signficantly crunchier than 5e. The fact that some other rules systems are even more rules light than 5e don't change the fact that 5e *IS* significantly lighter than PF2E.
He's basically saying "if you currently play checkers, you should play chess instead. Checkers isn't really much easier than Chess, it's not even easy overall if you compare it to Tic-Tac-Toe".
In my opinion, he should focus on the strengths of PF2E, which appeal to a certain subset of players (the ones that like crunchiness), instead of trying to downplay the fact that PF2E is more complex than 5e, in the hope that people who don't like that aspect try it anyways.
Crunch always equals slow and slow always equals boring. 5e is crunchy boring too. Make your combat faster and more exciting if you want to keep your group going. Slogs... and watching the tops of people's heads, just means your campaign with end soon.
inconsistency is the nature of dnd, "rules" are just a guide not set in stone rules...if we are too focused on everyone following the rules set in stone then there will always be disappointment. time to lighten up and just play your game however you want, which is what it was designed to do.
Then why they have hundreds of pages for rules you actually can't rely on? If you want to lighten up, play actual rules lite systems with 50 pages rulebooks, not a fucking dnd
This is the kind of tabletop content I love to see
I currently use Pathfinder second edition creatures translated into 5th edition because their monsters are way more interesting as a rule than 5th editions monsters.
They are both rules light. D&D 5E is the Basic half for which we never got an Expert version and Pathfinder 2E was intentionally designed to resemble D&D 5E. Whether one is more "light" than the other is irrelevant.
They are not. At all. 5e is rules medium at best. Dungeon world, blades in the dark are rules light. The only d20 system even close to rules light is 13th age. And that is stretch
With none of the "optional" rules in play, you have one class and no feats. Your primary decision, unless playing a spellcaster, is which subclass you want, which decides the rest of your abilities. You have two bonuses to remember, the modifier for your primary stat and proficiency. How is that not rules light?
@@zsheets7483Feats are so commonly used that they’re basically part of the main game, and over half of the classes are spellcasters. Then you’ve got tons of detailed rules for the action economy, conditions, damage types, cover, concealment, etc. Compare this to a rules light system like a PbtA where all the rules fit onto two pages and it really isn’t the same.
PF2e has far more in common with 4e DnD than 5e. If anything, it’s a successor to that not 5e.
@@zsheets7483 I have to ask what other ttrpgs have you played to make you come to the conclusion that 5e is rules light?