I'll address these in order! 1. Ah! I was under the impression that it was released as an optional rule similar to 5e's Custom Origins rule. I didn't see it when I read through the core rulebook but fair enough! 2. Thanks for that added clarification! I should have added that in there but I didn't even think to since it's fairly intuitive coming from 5e. 3. It's my understanding that some classes that can cast can get both a class DC and a spell save DC? In either case, I actually covered what you're talking about here. You might have missed it! 4. Haha Yeah I could have sworn I said "weapon traits" somewhere but, if I did say "properties" I was referring to the term in a conventional sense. 5. Someone else pointed out the nat 20 rule earlier and I can't believe I forgot to mention that. I pinned their comment but I think yours covers more information in a relatively concise manner so I'll pin yours now! Thank you!!

@@ConstructedChaos 1. this option was added in recent errata about month ago so if you had physical copy or older version of pdf this rule probably wasn't there

@@einkar4219 Ahhhh that explains the confusion! Thank you very much!

You know "option", "alternative", and "variant" are basically all synonyms right?! As are "trait" and "property"!

@@JacksonOwex The tricky thing is that while they are absolutely synonyms, they don't mean the same thing in this context. "Variant" rules are a very specific thing in Pathfinder 2e and aren't considered part of the "Core" experience, but are alternate rules and systems that are presented as potential modifications to the game at GM's descretion (like Proficiency without Level or Free Archetype). The ability score option is explicitly not a "Variant" (meaning it's not an assumed thing that needs to be specifically allowed by the GM) but instead is a core option and would need to be specifically banned to not be considered available, similar to the GM banning the Barbarian Class or the Dwarf Ancestry.

Thanks so so so much!! That's great praise coming from you and I'm stoked to make your acquaintance! I definitely enjoyed at least a few of your videos as I poured through the core rulebook!

Jeezus yall are sad, smdh 🤣

@@vamphunterx Why do you feel the need to mock people for having enough passion to want to share information about their hobby?

This was my outlook as well. I'd always heard that the new 5e rules that everyone liked were taken from PF2e and older editions but I didn't expect them to be so exactly similar.

I was extremely intimidated at first after watching other videos on the topic that misrepresented the apparent complexity of PF2e. Once I took the time to look it over myself, I felt like I had to give my own take!

@@ConstructedChaos I love that the differences from 5e isn't overwhelming, I hope my players will feel the same way

@@williamwooley2693 I think they can be overwhelming if you just dive into the core rulebook. But once you actually parse out what it says and compare it, it’s much less so! Good luck to you and your group!

As a player who started on, and played for years on, 3.5e, I found myself warming up to 5e after a few months but feeling it still lacked heavily. It's nice feeling like the classes were more balanced, but I hated that spellcasters felt held back to doing only 1 spell per round unless you're a sorcerer or take the feat that gives you points towards the "meta magic feat" abilities that class has. Also, I felt like while you're able to customize your character's playstyle more in 5e with how you get to choose your skills based on class AND background, plus get little tid bit utility stiff from backgrounds, the fact that feats were tied into your class level AND ability modifier improvements made it seem like you couldn't customize nearly as much as 3.5. And worse yet, if you had garbage rolls, you were forced to either raise the stats you use for everything in and out of combat, or pick feats that you really only used in combat and sometimes came at expense to negative rolls. Yeah, a +10 to damage on a hit is a great boost, but at a -5 roll when your base attack (proficiency) bonus is no higher than 6 can be really costly and result in you missing more than you'd likely hit. Even more so when you typically get 1 or 2 hits tops anyways per round. 5e is still a good system, and very enjoyable and you can just as easily fix these issues yourself via homebrew with little confusion, so hopefully someone new seeing this doesn't get warded off from trying to get into the hobby.

@@IStillJustLikeCats if you have to hombrew that means the core system failed that means 5e failed

Very true! I'll make sure to add a link to it in the description!

I heard about this while in the editing room with this particular video but thought not to add it since I'd already been working on this for like a month haha!! I'll definitely try to mention it if and when I do a more robust deep dive on the way "multiclassing" works in PF2e.

Haha it's pretty wild, right? I'm glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for the kind words! I'm working on a spellcasting video next and maybe something to cover all of PF2e's conditions after that so there's more to come!

Ditto. It just solves alot of 5e's issues.

It took me so long to try it out! Really, it was kinda hard to justify with how well dnd 5e was going for me but I’m glad I’ve dipped my toes! Thanks for the warm welcome!!

You raise a very valid concern here and it was the reason I'd never given pathfinder a chance in the past. But I do think you may find more luck in the future. PF2e is growing extremely fast and the community has been very open and welcoming to all the newcomers!

I simply joined a 5e game (found on corkboard at FLGS) and recruited its members into my pathfinder 2e playtest game after getting to know them. We've been playing for four years now, alternating systems.

Thanks so much! I’m glad you found it helpful!

Hell yeah!! Happy adventuring!

Thank you so much!! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks for adding this! I wanted to go more in depth on spellcasting in a subsequent video so I didn't load this one down. It's different but not so different that I felt it needed to be covered in a foundational guide like this!

That's an excellent way to put it!

Thanks so much! The grass is truly greener on the other side haha. And I appreciate the offer! I'll keep you in mind if the need arises!

Oh wow! Thank you so much for pointing this out! It, I’d course follows that this would be the case and I knew that but I can’t believe I forgot to mention it specifically! I’ll pin your comment so no one is confused on this!

@@ConstructedChaos oh, thank you! I understand why you could forget to mention it, cause nat 20 is rarely something else but crit success, let alone failure or crit failure.

Well said! At the very least, I may start slowly incorporating rules from PF2e into my 5e games in the hopes that I can get the players to transition over fully!

If you kill a player something went horribly wrong at your table. Killing a character, now that's much different.

If d&d had 3 action rule. I would never switch to PF. Except some final corpo overriding bullshait. Then Im done.

@@odinulveson9101 It's the 3 action economy and the crit rules for me. Though, it's easy enough to home-brew those crit rules into 5e :D

@@ConstructedChaos same for me. I'm debating whether it's easier to homebrew both for 5e and do the work myself. Or if I can get my players to learn a new system.

Thanks so much for the accolades here, Jason! I'm so happy you found this helpful! Definitely more guides like this are on the way!

Hell yeah! Someone else suggested the barb and I actually still have to make a barb guide for 5e as well. So, maybe I can make them at the same time and sortof cross-reference things within the videos!

Right right. Short rests don’t really exist as they do in dnd 5e. Take special note of my wording here. I didn’t want to burden this video with semantics but I’m sure I’ll be able to cover what you’re talking about as I begin to cover classes and what resources of theirs come back after a “short time” haha. As for the healing, for sure, there is healing available! But, I don’t think my points are invalid with that in mind. Again, this is a topic I’m sure I can deep dive in another video. But, the dying/wounded system of PF2e is still much more threatening than making death saves in DND 5e regardless!

I’m sure some of the learning curve will come in the form of understanding that team emphasis the more they play in the system! Maybe try mentioning that fact to them so they know to be aware of it! I know I was unaware of that necessary focus until I started really researching and deep diving for this video!

This sounds like one player is a square peg being forced into a round hole. Sweet Jebus, let that player find a game he/she enjoys. Not everyone likes PF2E - my 5e game has PF2E refugees. The player traffic moves in both directions.

@@simonfernandes6809 Not everyone loves something automatically. It can take time. Going on 13 years ago when me and my group were still playing 3.5 we heard of Pathfinder 1e. When we first looked over the Core Rule Book we didn't like many of the changes, but liked others. Maybe 6 months later we gave Pathfinder 1e a try and never looked. Change can't be disheartening.

@@sacredbeastzenon You need to listen to what you are saying: 'Not everyone loves something automatically.' Square peg. Round hole. If they don't enjoy the game, don't force them. Not everyone likes what you like.

@@simonfernandes6809 So if one out of four players has a problem with an aspect of a system you should do what exactly? Play another system just for their sake? Kick them from the group? I have a hard time understanding what you’re really saying the OP should do.

Ah! I was under the impression that it was released as an optional rule similar to 5e's Custom Origins rule. I didn't see it when I read through the core rulebook but fair enough!

​@@ConstructedChaos it wasn't in the initial release of the CRB, but instead it was errata'd in retroactively.

Both excellent points! Thanks for chiming in here!

Of course!! Thank you for watching!! I’ll probably post a poll at some point but alchemist should definitely be one of the choices on there since it sounds pretty interesting to me too!

The rules and mechanics actually add flavor instead of just limiting what you can and can’t do! I love all of these examples you’ve listed!

Thanks so much for the sub and the accolades!! I felt exactly the same about the lack of guides when I started so I’ve tried to fill that void a bit over the past few years! Happy adventuring and welcome to the chaos!

when i transferred to pf2e i realized alot of the house rules we were using in 5e were already RAW in pf2e. i also realized a couple of the more recent rules added to 5e were already in pf2e.

Hahaha sorry about that! I may have been one of the main offenders!

Thanks so much! Good to hear from a PF2e veteran that the video satisfied the needs of new players!

Hell yeah! I’m here for the crunch!

Well said! Good points here!

Good on ya! I've heard a lot of people having the most trouble with the dying mechanics but I think it's pretty easy to remember once it clicks. Happy adventuring!

Thanks so much for the accolades!! I felt the same way about this system when writing up this video--GMing should be a lot easier as it seems to imply a lot more self-policing of the rules and mechanics for players and I love that!

Thanks so much! Happy to be counted in that number!

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!!

Nice!! I'm glad y'all enjoyed it! I definitely want to get my regular play group into a game or two soon!

Thanks so much!! I hope so too! haha

"beg" lol, speak for yourself there.

Yep! Someone pointed this out to me the other day and I pinned their comment! Still, good looking out, friend!

I do miss the rolling aspect of 5e's stats and hp calculations. It pleased my inner dice goblin haha.

Seb, you are seriously too kind!! I don't have affiliate links for the PF2e books yet (as I like to encourage support of local game stores instead of amazon) but I think a lot of places are out of stock anyway right now so maybe I should consider that haha.

Fair enough! I was definitely considering this since someone else had suggested fighter might be the way to go!

Haha thanks for the warm welcome!

I'm glad you enjoyed it! And you should definitely have an easy time with the transition to PF2. That said, I'm not familiar at all with the lore and settings yet so you might know better than I would!

Thanks so much, Raul! I'm glad you enjoyed the video! I definitely intent to put out some more PF2e content very soon! Probably going to start with some class guides!

just finished making mine in prep for my 1st session this weekend. made my take of an "optimized" ranger coming from my time in 5e. of course pf2e is different but i'm curious how my "5e optimization training" translates well in pf2e.

I'm definitely planning to delve deeper into archetypes at some point in the future! It's the main part of the video I felt I couldn't go as deep as I wanted without making it too long.

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

nice! i started dnd with 3.5e myself and definitely missed certain stuff there like how they handled psions compared to 4/5E. i haven't checked out the psychic yet but i'm glad to have made the switch from 5e to pf2e recently as alot of of my grievances of 5e are handled better in pf2e. plus pf2e resources are so accessible!

I began with 5e but I'd always wanted to try 3.5e. It seemed like the most popular edition besides. And, now it makes sense to me why 5e saw such mass adoption but 3.5 is still hailed by many hardcore fans as being the best.

@@ConstructedChaos my take is that 3.5E appealed to the gamer. 5E tried to appeal more to the casual/newbie while trying to balance not to lose the hardcore gamer customer base. can't blame wotc for this approach though because at the end of the day it's about making the most amount of money for them. not necessarily putting out the best product. a balance can eventually be struck imo but not with their current leadership of money-hungry executives who don't really care for nor are passionate for the game.

@@TheRobversion1 you hit the nail on the head!

@@TheRobversion1 I think that's a great assessment. I'll hold out hope for the future but I'll be happy enough with anything that gets more people into the hobby--even if that means I move to PF2e permanently.

Thanks for that added context! Good to know!

Thanks so much and welcome to the chaos!!

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks so much! All that OGL crud couldn't keep me down for long. I said what I had to say and it seems like the internet is ready to consume regular TTRPG content again and that makes me so happy haha.

Absolutely athletics shouldn't be slept on--even if it is the only skill that falls under the strength ability!

The ranger has gotten a lot better in 5e since Tasha's came out. But, it's one of my favorite classes conceptually so I wouldn't mind starting there with PF2e!

I agree, Oracles were one of my favorite classes in PF1 and seem to have made the transition to 2e much better than some of my other faves (such as Barbarian and Alchemist); and Thaumaturges are just flat out one of the most unique and flavorful classes in all editions of DnD/PF combined, while still being one of the best narrative and aesthetic fits for most standard settings.

Hell yeah! Welcome to the chaos, friend! I'll have a look at both of those soon--though I have heard that the Oracle is pretty complex. I may save that one for a later video as I get more cozy within the mechanics of PF2e.

nice! ditto! recent exile here and definitely enjoying the new system which is more defined and structured. less DM fiat/"mother may i." playing in my 1st campaign as a ranger with a sorc archetype.

Thanks for watching! I'm glad you found it helpful and I'm happy to oblige!

Happy that you found it useful! Happy adventuring!

I think that there’s something in the works to that end but hopefully this video series can serve as a good substitute until then! Thanks for watching and I’m glad that it seemed to have helped!! Happy adventuring!

@treythomas9119 try Pathbuilder and Archives of Nethys!

the entire ruleset is available for free on Archives of Nethys (and fully legally). popular character builder are pathbuilder2e and wanderer's guide, where pathbuilder loads better whilst wanderer's has more guidance. the people who initially made dndbeyand actually made pathfinder nexus, where they are working on a character builder, though currently they just have all the books with pdfs optimized for digital screens.

You should check out Archives of Nethys for the rules, and pathbuilder for a character builder.

That's been around. If you just want stat blocks for monsters, descriptions for items, and class overviews, go to Archives Of Nethys. If you want to be able to build a character, use Pathbuilder 2e. I'm sure there's a different service out there, and I'm sure plenty of people in the PF2e community have some form of gripe with how Pathbuilder 2e works, but it still works all the same.

Fighter is definitely a great suggestion and one I'm likely to take! Thanks, friend!

Hahaha understandable--it is over 600 pages after all! I'll probably move to create some class guides next and maybe some videos that cover differences in spellcasting rules and other mechanics!

Absolutely! It feels more tactical then just trying to do damage over and over again!

That's a fair point but I do feel as though most campaigns and sessions include at least some sense of urgency that prevents such long recovery periods during a given arc.

Thank you for watching! I'm happy this helped and you can expect more pathfinder content (alongside the dnd stuff) in the future!

Hey friend! I'm so glad you enjoyed it and found it useful! I really feel PF2e does a lot right that 5e gets wrong so I can't wait to see what they do with the newly announced revised version!

@@ConstructedChaos do you plan to cover it as news come out Chaos?

@@TheRobversion1 probably so!

@@ConstructedChaos cool. BTW shared a pf2e build in your latest pf2e vid that;s reminiscent of your 5e abjurer AOA build.

@@TheRobversion1 Awesome!! I'll have a look!

Happy to be a part of the community and I’m glad to hear you’re enjoying it!!

Roger that!! I definitely need to revisit some things now that they released the revised version!

Thanks! I think it can feel intimidating to some but hopefully this video showcases how simple it really is!

I am using this format for upcoming TTG play for podcast I am working on!

@@thedadgamer2315 Oh awesome!! Please share that with me when it releases! I'd love to check it out!

I'll probably try to cover the base classes (for the most part) starting out. But the thaumaturge is definitely one that I've seen a lot of people suggesting so I'm sure it won't be long before I get there!

Yay!! Thank you! And welcome to the chaos! :)

Well you need healers tools and there is still a medicine check involved. Definitely not quite as easy as it is in DND.

Thanks so much! And, yeah, haha. I had to read over it a few times to make sure I understood but the concept itself isn't too hard to remember once you grasp it and I think it makes for some really interesting combats when you have a dying party member on the battlefield!

Nice! Glad to hear you're enjoying it. My main group is still 5e but I'm dipping my toes into PF2 as often as I can!

I love the bard in 5e so I'll have to check that out! As for the Archivist, it doesn't appear to exist in PF2e but I could be wrong!

Of course! Happy to oblige!

Thank YOU! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks so much!

Is there not? Thanks for clarifying if so!

The only limitation I know of is that you can only have one action trigger per thing that happens for each character. You can’t use two free actions when say an enemy leaves your threat range unless stated otherwise

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Happy to help! Glad you enjoyed it!

Hell yeah! Welcome to the other side!

its awesome! i'm in my 1st campaign now and playing a ranger with a druid archetype.

Oh nice!! Thanks for pointing that out! I'll have to cover that in another video when I cover feats in more detail!

Ohhh that gives me a thought! Maybe I can do two barbarian guides--one for dnd and one for pathfinder and make a few comparisons here and there! Thanks for the suggestions!

@@ConstructedChaos It would be great to show how two 1st level Human Barbarians in PF2 could be very different while two 1st level Human Barbarians in 5e would be exactly the same

Awesome!! I'm glad you enjoyed it! I'll be continuing a deep dive on PF2e but I'll probably also cover some other systems at some point too!

And it should! I actually forgot to mention that a nat 20 does still raise the level of success on a saving throw just like a nat 1 lowers it!

I'm glad you found it too! Thanks for watching! :)

My regular play group has been pretty receptive towards switching if I decide we should! However, DND is still the larger TTRPG so that's what we're playing for now.

you could check online westmarch servers like the new dawn coalition or the forged concordance.

Thank you much!! Expect more pathfinder guides soon!

Well, good news! I definitely plan to make more!! Be on the lookout for my first class guide within the next month or so!

@@ConstructedChaos I really appreciate it! I've already sent your vid to a few of my friends who play 5e because out of the various guides I've seen it was easily one of the best at translating the real differences. Very happy to subscribe and looking forward to more of your content in whatever form it takes!

@@chavesa5 Wow!! Thank you so much for sharing it around! I'm so glad it's proving useful to you and your friends!!

ditto. voraciously learning the game in preparation for our 1st session this coming weekend.

@@TheRobversion1 remember your Hero Points and that Crit successes and fails are +/- 10 to the DC of the check, respectively. DC is easy to calculate if you are in a pinch-- relevant stat + 10. And remember your skill actions like Tumble Through and Feint. Best of luck!

That's totally fair but it's important to point out that the pathfinder core rules is sortof like the PHB and DMG in one book.

Thanks so much!! I'm glad you found it helpful!

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Sounds like a flurry ranger to me. They get a huge decrease to the multiple attack penalty. Though admittedly I see a lot of new players getting put off pf2e by playing that as their first PC. It's not super compelling to spend all your actions every turn attacking, as cool as the concept is. Still, it's cool that the build exists.

I'll take your word for it!! Wow, it's so fun to feel like a world of new possibilities are at my fingertips again!

@@docopoper Appreciate the input. I only just started dabbling and it is good to hear from someone about what, in theory, not to do.

@@ConstructedChaos In light of Nin's reply, maybe a video on what NOT to do when starting PF2E would be good. It would require some knowledge though. If there is a new wave of players joining Pathfinder, the last thing anyone would want is that same wave leaving after being turned off the game.

@@thesistersofbattle It's a totally valid build to make. It's just that one of the main strengths of PF2e's combat is that the multiple attack penalty encourages you to do more thematic things on your turn. Like you might use one of your tree actions to feint or intimidate or move into flanking or you might use a special ability granted by a feat. So if you take away that penalty for a new player in my experience it often leads to them falling into a kind of boring "I attack three times every turn" play pattern.

Thanks so much for the accolades! I did touch on this point very briefly a couple of times but I didn't want to dwell on it too long since the video was already approaching the 30min mark. I'll be sure to make an "advanced combat guide" at some point in the future as well as other companion videos like "advanced spellcasting". This one was just to get the foundation laid and the ball rolling!

Hmmm healing with invisibility is definitely a weird grey area. Hostile actions in the core rulebook are defined as "A hostile action is one that can harm or damage another creature, whether directly or indirectly, but not one that a creature is unaware could cause harm." So it's a bit of a stretch but I can see where your GM is coming from. It seems like this is maybe one of the few open-ended rules in Pathfinder 2e. Personally, I'd see this and feel it could be taken advantage of. I kinda feel like 5e actually handles this better but I think I would have allowed you to do what you were doing. I would not allow conjuring something like entangle even if an enemy isn't in the AOE because your intent would likely be to cause harm to them indirectly.

@@ConstructedChaos yeah i think paizo could've done a better job with this in defining what's hostile and what's indirect harm. personally, i limited it to targets as qualifiers as this eliminates the vagueness of what's indirect/hostile as arguments can be valid for both sides and the argument would never end "satisfactorily." with a qualifier such as "targets", imo, it's clear if something is hostile or not (the act of targeting the enemy is hostile). for clarity for indirect, i'd add that perhaps you aimed a spell with splash dmg at an object. the enemy isn't the main target but get hits with the splash dmg. i'd consider that indirect harm. to further add on what's qualified and direct, i focused on the words "ACTION that can harm or dmg another CREATURE." so imo the action that you take, whether its an ability or a spell, if it doesn't cause dmg or harm to another creature on the turn you executed it is consider non-hostile. if its causes harm/dmg to another creature on the turn you executed it then i consider it hostile. for example, healing an ally. it doesnt cause dmg or harm. if that ally, just doesn't harm another creature for the rest of the fight, retaining the invisibility becomes valid then if the ally attacks it becomes invalid according to the GM. I eliminate this "future potential" from my own reading of the rules. i focus on whether the action causes harm/dmg now, not factoring it what other sets of actions can be done in the future to cause it. like if i haste someone, and they dont attack anyone anymore then the act of hasting isn't really hostile. or if i summon a creature and i don't command it to attack an enemy. or with the entangle example, if an enemy isn't in that area, they arent harmed. they are only possibly harmed if they choose to enter the entangled area or if someone shoves them there (again potential future actions). if the enemies decide not to cross the entangled area and pelt us with ranged attacks/spells, the act of casting entangle was simply a distraction/wasted spell which wasn't harmful. anyway i hope you got my point there about potential harm (this is where my GM stands and i think where you stand as well) vs. actual/already happening harm (this is where i am). do you have any other thoughts or edge-cases for this?

@@TheRobversion1 Oh I definitely get where you're coming from here and I do totally agree that Paizo should have been clearer on things. As it is, I think the interpretation is left up to the DM but, oddly enough, I prefer how 5e handles this. I worry that allowing invisible creatures to just perform any action outside of an attack without breaking the invisibility makes it a lot more powerful. I'd probably home-brew that actions outside of interacting with an object, picking a pocket, etc. would drop your invisibility.

@@ConstructedChaos on this aspect yes i prefer 5e's take on it too. actually it's not just an attack that breaks it. anything that causes harm/dmg. a trip breaks it. intimidating breaks it. any spell that targets the enemy for dmg or a condition breaks it. there's still many that break it. personally, if i was playing at your table and those are the only acceptable actions, i'd just not bother to use invisibility ever. it becomes a useless spell. why? because stealth does all of these things already without resource expenditure or needing to get a caster dedication/magic items. skill/ancestry feats like legendary sneak, very, very sneaky and ceaseless shadows exist which also take stealth up another level. i do agree though that there could be more restrictions but there has to be a balance wherein actually using a spell is better than using stealth but not as powerful as higher levelled spells like mislead or 4th level invisibility. or perhaps just make invisibility a 3rd level spell to begin with.

@@TheRobversion1 Hmmm you make a sound argument for invisibility being underpowered in the current 5e meta and, while I'm not sure I agree, I can see what you're saying and I do think that it should either become a higher level spell with more use case. Really, the actions it can perform just need to be better spelled out.

feel free to ask questions here. As a fellow 5e immigrant, i'm enjoying learning the pf2e rules and would be nice to get more pf2e discussion going on in this channel.

Haha you're not an idiot! I had to read a few rules over and over to get them into my own thick skull bc reading comprehension is hard. But, thinking back, it took me a while to fully grasp 5e rules when I first started my TTRPG adventures!

@TheRobversion1 @@ConstructedChaos I think a big source of the complexity is the rigidity of the system. In 5e, the rules were basically, "Take what your players want to do, find an applicable skill, set a DC, and ask for a roll." Simple. Too simple to be honest; simple to a fault. It seems like Pathfinder overcorrects this problem. With PF, I'm worried that when a player tells you what they want to do, it's going to require a lot of back and forth to the book to look at the list of like 3-dozen Skill Actions to see if what they're referring to is already laid out in the rules. Then, with each of those actions having like 2 or 3 "tags" associated with it and having to check to see if any of the 40-some conditions affect actions with those tags... it just seems like it'll take a lot of referencing. Admittedly, we don't start our game until next week, so perhaps in practice it'll play better than it reads. But even though it's an in-person game, I'm still running it in Foundry VTT, cuz it's an awful lot to wrap my head around.

@@nextlevel8822 I do think the system lends itself better to TTRPG veterans. A lot of the mechanics make sense enough that you can reasonably infer them 90% of the time but, for a new player with not much TTRPG experience, I can see how the practice of truly knowing how your character works could be overwhelming and not fully understood. That's to say that I mostly agree with the points you raise here! I just think it'll get easier as you play with the system!

this is done in pf2e because monsters, their spells/abilities, traps, etc account for this and have high saves/ac/dcs/spell attacks/attack mods too.

Yeah, it does make things harder to port but the native modules account for this

There's a variant rule called Proficiency Without Level. The reason proficiency has level in the default state of game is because it becomes very easy to balance encounters. Also the ogres that scared you at a lower level become mooks that you can wipe out easily when your higher level selves run into them again.

That's a great question! Honestly, even though DND 5e has some tables for when to distribute wealth/magic items, I find many DMs ignore it in favor of whatever the story presents. I'm certainly one of those DMs as my homebrew world tends to be quite biased towards the low magic side of things. I like for my players to feel really special that they can do things most others can't. That said, I'm inclined to agree with your conservative guideline for magic items here--though I think many would seek to present more than that. Again, at my table, narrative is king. I focus less on what I should be doing and more on what makes sense for the story and for the PCs living it.

@@ConstructedChaos i find the 5e tables lackluster since the power value assignment of the items are pretty bad/confusing. and the rules on distributing items for starting at higher level, as you progress, etc still have alot thats left to DM fiat. this is why i like pf2e as it's more defined. its less haggling with the DM. tbh i dislike those parts of gaming systems. i enjoy structured approaches where it's clear what i can and can't do. what i can or can't take. the DM fiat part of the systems i find frustrating as it doesn't translate across all tables nor when i play on westmarch servers online. this is why i typically stick to RAW or as close to it as possible when its up to DM fiat. on our homebrew world for 5e its high magic with technology. we have guns and explosives and vehicles. but only until renaissance level. speaking of wanting to make the players feel they are the ones that's powerful and not magic items, that's another thing i like about pf2e. the automatic bonus progression table is an option for the GM and players to do away with magic items but compensate for it's loss/lack by giving players level up bonuses. so far our 1st pf2e campaign is high magic as well but no tech but we are interested in going low magic eventually and using the automatic bonus progression table (even though its weaker than actual magic items). yeah from what i've been reading GMs in pf2e tend to be more liberal with magic items but only with the common stuff. there's alot of variance on uncommon while for rare most GMs i've read about tend to limit this. for our table, fun is king. since all of us GM for each other, it caters toward players' fun more. when we decide the focus of our next campaign, we usually vote on what's the focus of the next campaign with the vote of the previous GM getting the most weight. like if i was the previous GM, in the next campaign where i'm the player, that campaign typically has alot of puzzles and combats as that's my preference. most likely it wont be a campaign thas has alot of social challenges as i tend to dislike those. that's our way of motivating each other to GM. thankfully alot of our preferences align. like all of us enjoy combat as either the top most or 2nd pillar. we're aligned on that so the difference is like our usual bard likes social/rp stuff but dislikes exploration while let's say i don't enjoy that as much but i enjoy exploration/puzzles. but the common middle ground is always combat. then whoever GM typically caters to that which maximizes fun for all players at the table. i'd say my player preference style is very close to the mummy/indiana jones/national treasure movies. exploration, puzzles, humor, heists, combat are what i enjoy.

@@TheRobversion1 Fair enough! Trust me, I wasn't arguing for or against one system or another in this particular instance haha. I suppose, though, for the sake of my games, I have to think about the fun of the players as well as the fun of the viewers!

@@ConstructedChaos oh i wasn't implying you were. was just discussing. as for the whole thinking about your own fun as a GM vs. focusing on the player's fun i have 3 opinions on it. 1. if you're the usual/forever GM, i think being concerned for your own fun is important because you rarely/never get a chance to have fun as a player. this helps avoid GM burnout. 2. if you're a paid GM, then it's a job. you should only think of how to make it fun for the players despite your personal preferences. 3. if you have rotating GMs with short campaigns like at my table, focusing on player fun (majority) is better as you'll get your chance to GM/play with your own preferences eventually. this imo increases the value of the experience as more people are having fun. personally, when i'm about DM rather than having a prepared campaign/story in mind, i ask everyone privately what they would like from the pacing, story-type, etc. my goal is to provide an enjoyable game experience for my players (this doesn't mean saying yes to everything they ask for though). as imo, by doing this, i motivate my other co-gms to also be concerned about my fun when they GM. it's also a way of me saying thanks to our main GM who DMs most of the games. when he gets a chance to be a player in my game, i want him to have as much fun as i've had in his games. there's a bit of self-pressure there but i try to be balanced about it and not feel too pressured. haha. for you, yeah i think viewer fun is important too. that's a hard balancing act.

@@TheRobversion1 I know you weren't! I just wanted to clarify! I actually disagree with your points just a bit here because I don't feel that GM fun and Player fun is necessarily mutually exclusive and I don't really think that you should have to sacrifice your fun if you're a full-time paid GM! Still, I totally get where you're coming from!

Your wish is my command! I have a DND guide coming on Monday or Tuesday and then I'm jumping back into Pathfinder next!

@@ConstructedChaos looking forward to it!!!!

Very very cool! It's a natural progression for those that know 5e and want to turn things up a notch!

Fair enough, will do!

Eldritch knight can be made through either the magus or the thaumaturge depending on what you prefer. As for the warlock that would probably be a witch or thaumaturge depending how you play them

@@themoistcrusader3262 I'm looking at Magus archtype now. Thanks.

Thanks so much for watching and welcome to the chaos!! Seeing as how well this video did as a light comparison between 5e and PF2e, I wouldn't be opposed to continuing this series in that same light! Thanks for the suggestion!

Hmm that is an interesting interaction--and not one I've had to deal with yet. I'd say: 1. I would side with the RAW here. I have a feeling that these illusory creatures are supposed to be lesser options compared to full summons--I could be wrong of course. I'm not sure that most enemies would be observant, intelligent, and experienced enough to know that the creature is illusory based on if it attacks right away. It's a bit too meta for my personal outlook. 2. Here's where I disagree with your DM. Based on the disbelief/illusion rules, I find it necessary for the enemy to spend an action investigating on their turn to stand a chance of disbelieving the illusion. And that's just a chance. The logic makes sense to the extent that the enemy is interacting enough with the creatures that they could attempt this but it wouldn't be an instant disbelief. At least, not in my opinion.

@@ConstructedChaos hey chaos. it was definitely an interesting debate post-session though something i had less stakes in since i was playing a ranger. still, i was quite engaged as i wanted to learn the rules and made sure i understood what was typically involved with illusion type spells in pf2e as you know i'm a big fan of illusions in 5e (misty visions, minor illusion, etc). and while i'm not a big bard guy, i may play them in the future and illusory creature seems to be one of their bread and butter offensive spells as my optimizer bard friend built his whole character around it. 1. so yeah for a bread and butter bard offensive spell, the RAW is disappointing. the bard is primarily a support so you'd assume they'd like to summon more creatures so they can give more creatures bonuses but thing is they don't have access to alot of summon spells (at least in the CRB) and illusory creature is one of the few they get and the one they get the earliest (level 2). i do agree with you and my DM though that RAW it seems they don't get to act the turn they are summoned. i did ask a couple of other dms as well and the consensus is they do allow bards to have their illusory creature to use their 2 actions upon summoned but also admit that RAW they have to wait until their next turn to sustain the spell before they get 2 actions. this reminds me of conjure animals before tashas wherein most DMs give a favorable ruling for a good spell because otherwise nobody is going to pick/use the spell as it's trash (in combat only, it's great imo outside of combat just like most illusions) without the favorable ruling. main difference between this and conjure animals is illusory creature doesn't get broken with the favorable ruling. it just becomes on par with other summon spells. 2. i agree with you here as well. it severely gimps the illusionist if not done otherwise in pf2e. and the spell text does say it's believeable/real. i do understand though where my DM is coming from though as it doesn't make sense to be peppered with arrows/elemental spells and not to see yourself bleeding, singed, etc and only get a headache (mental dmg). to say the least, the discussion didn't end satisfactorily between my DM and the bard but we parked it for now in respect to the DM as we always do when arguments come up about the rules. what i'll probably advice my bard friend is: a. if our DM will play illusory creature RAW and he doesn't like it anymore being 1 turn behind, he could request for retraining time in the next session and be allowed to replace the spell. i bet it's sad for him though as he did build his concept around the spell as he wanted to be "one-man band" and summon multiple illusory bards. b. if he still wants to keep the spell for out of combat use, just use the illusory creature to summon casters who will sling spells which don't leave physical marks like illusory magic missiles or sound burst. i think that would make sense to the DM that his creature only has a headache. what do you think?

@@ConstructedChaos oh and just to share, aside from that hiccup about illusory creature, i definitely enjoyed our 1st pf2e session. it was funny that we had such a big party for our 1st pf2e session because aside from me my tablemates rarely played with pets in 5e aside from familiars. the party we ended up with was: 1. me with my archer ranger and cat animal companion 2. champion with horse (so yeah typical mounted paladin frontline in 5e) 3. bard with illusory creature (though this may change the next session as he was disappointed with the DM's ruling) 4. mystery caster class with an animal companion. for player #4, we dont know exactly yet as he couldn't make the session due to personal commitments. all the DM revealed is our friend is playing a caster class with an animal companion. so the funny part here, is that: a. everybody has some sort of combat pet and thus we would have an 8-man party at minimum in most fights. i guess everyone was scared of dying due to how pf2e is better balanced and the fights are harder than 5e. b. everyone's leaning into their 5e strength of action economy optimization even after hearing martials and casters are more balanced in pf2e (at least in the early-mid-game levels) and that most players are recommended to play martials over casters.

@@TheRobversion1 Glad we mostly agree here! Based on what the trouble is, I think those are fine suggestions. Personally, I'd be more tempted by option A since the DM seems so intent to nerf illusions in general.

@@TheRobversion1 Those are interesting observations about old habits from 5e haha. I'd imagine it'll take some time to break those habits as you all get familiar with a new system.