i think u suk!

What i learned with d&d 5e was that six kobolds can be more dangerous than a dragon.

I'm glad we as a community have decided to not let WotC live down the fact they actually hired the Pinkertons over a freaking card game.

I joined my first ever TTRPG, an in-progress game of Pathfinder, and somehow wound up with a +19 to perception. The greatest line this created was the DM saying “I guess you see her scent?!” while tracking a missing ally

"Why settle for a system that you have to fight with duct tape and nail gun?" Brilliant line

One thing not brought up by this video, is the fact that this fighters "mothers greatsword" can stick with the player their ENTIRE journey, as the player will find runes to buff the weapon they WANT to use, rather than just tossing your sentimental sword for a shiny and new +2 one

D&D used to be like this. It was 5E that introduced "bounded accuracy".

Opening the Pathfinder rule book, and seeing the dozens upon dozens of things I needed to homebrew in D&D baked into the system already was an amazing moment for me.

It's really nice to see someone point out that math actually matters for narrative

I also prefer the way PF2 changes the narrative regarding weaker enemies. In four levels you can go from fighting something as a boss, to an even battle, to cutting down several of them easily. In 5e you *might* have improved by +2 to attack and damage, and if you're a spellcaster you have 2 tiers of spells to help. But there's a good chance as a martial that only one of your levels mattered and the rest only gave you hp. I enjoyed 5e quite a bit with my friends, but the numbers don't bug me so much as the inconsistency of progression between classes. Choosing between base numbers and feats that are required to do more than standard attacks as a martial is a pain.

In one of my Pathfinder games, one of the party members was a Hobgoblin Ranger named Raeleus with +19 to stealth. One of my favorite running gags in the campaign was rolling a Stealth Check, checking the rest of the party's passive perception checks, and declaring that another game of "Where's Raeleus" had begun. To this day, years later, "Where's Raeleus" is still a recurring joke in my group. Big numbers make the fantasy more fun.

"subscribe so you can fight me in the next video" is solid advertisement. Shades of the argument clinic from Monty Python.

This video makes a lot of sense. However, when my group tried Pathfinder 2nd Edition we were struck by how many things you had to keep track of. We like to play in person, but it almost felt like a necessity to use some kind of computer program to keep track of how many stacks of every condition were affecting every creature in combat. It bogged us down, turns took forever and we still made tons of mistakes. We were new to the system, so pace could have picked up over time, but to me it felt daunting to administer without lots of careless mistakes, expecially since I like to play without apps and computers. This is not meant as a pro D&D 5E argument. It's just my groups initial reaction to P2E and why we didn't stick with it. Feel free to write it of as "You just sucked" but that was our experience.

Supported by a dice with no bell curve, I think 5e is designed so that you can always succeed (i.e crits), however sometimes you can't deal damage (such as when a creature has immunity to non-magical damage). I think it's ok to make players actions useless - it can add huge narrative effect. But you NEED to make sure a player has decent alternatives, otherwise they have no agency and no effect. Which is very bad. I had an encounter recently where we were facing were-rats, and the rogue couldn't do any damage due to having no magic or magical weapon. Setting up a challenge so that player's actions are futile can be a good narrative tool (such as when faced with a creature you can only run from), but you should always do it wisely.

This videos basic take away was yes you progress more in Pathfinder, but you are more powerful at early level and can potentially hit a dragon in DnD.

As someone who used to hate Pf1e's ridiculous amounts of math and stuck with the unfinished mess of 5e forever because of how simple it was, the WotC drama last year was so fortunate because it made me realize how absolutely beautiful 2e is as a system. Our table alternates between a few different campaigns and the ones that started with 5e aren't going to switch midway through, but everything new that's starting is absolutely going to make the switch. It's a bit more complicated but infinitely more rewarding.

Personally I like it, from a storytelling perspective, that a low lever character could hit (not damage) a much higher level enemy. It shouldn't be too much trouble to make contact with a dragon's skin with a spear, but will it go through the scales? It's like in Elden Ring. Sure, eventually you'll be able to be dismissive of Demihumans, but if you're nor careful they can and will still hit you.

I know it's nitpicky, but an increase from 30% to 50% is an increase of approximately 66%. It's a growth of 20 percentage points, yes, but that's not same as the relative percentage increase

A funny caveat that went unmentioned is that while pf2e supports the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being unable to touch the dragon, conversely it also HURTS the fantasy of the lvl 1 hero being able to survive the dragon's response and go on to become the lvl 17 hero, when it's likely to crit for 100+ damage on anything but a natural 1, and even then it'd still hit. In 5e, the same math that allows the lvl 1 hero to hurt the dragon also allows the dragon to nat 1 and miraculously miss long enough so he can get away. Although in either case it's breath weapon would be game over, most likely. But in 5e, it could fail to recharge it's breath with bad luck, while in pf2e it's guaranteed after 1-4 rounds and might even just get it back by slapping the nearest town guard with a critical! Of course, the Dragon could decide to ignore the hero entirely because it doesn't see him as a threat(and so the story can happen), which is probably more likely and believable if the hero is incapable of damaging it at all! So pf2e has that going for it too. Don't get me wrong, I think pf2e is awesome in a lot of ways, and it's so refreshing after only playing/DMing 5e for years. Just thought this was funny.

I wouldn't say it tells a better story. It tells a different story. If you want your character to feel that he grows from 0 to demigod, pf2e is great . But maybe you prefer a story where even the greatest warrior can be fell by ten guys attacking him at his wedding when he is unarmored (a la Game of Thrones), and in that case both pf2e and D&D 5e will not work. There are no perfect systems, you need to find which system helps you tell the story you want to tell.

I’ve played a few systems other than D&D 5e and it’s pretty fun exploring how different systems handle their rules differently from others.

Another thing that Pathfinder 2e supports very well in this story, The Mother's Sword. In Pathfinder you can apply Runes to weapons to give them extra Damage Dice, +1-3 to hit, extra effects on hit, etc. You can upgrade the weapon you started the game with. Whereas in 5e, youll basically be throwing out your mother's sword the moment you find a +1 weapon. Oh, and runes can be transfered so even if you do find a +1 weapon in PF2e, you can just transfer the runes onto your Mother's sword.

As someone who DMed a few 3.5 campaigns, some of them reaching about the 25th level, I still have nightmares with those absurdly high bonuses the PCs had back then, along with the profane amount of hit points. 5th edition has many, many flaws but, for me, bounded accuracy is one of its greatest merits. Encounter building, for example, is SO much easy.

I appreciate your opinion, even though I think the extreme escalation of pathfinder is one of its biggest weaknesses from a DM/World Building perspective. I find with Pathfinder that every encounter has to be retuned due to to tight escalation and punishing system math, causing a vary artificial feel where the entire world that the party encounters has to grow around them to ensure that they can survive to face those higher level challenges. While you are right that D&D’s escalation could be a bit greater, the slower escalation allows for a more organic world where heroes can encounter a variety of enemies without facing instant death by crit if there is a slight level imbalance - and where returning to face weaker threats makes you feel powerful, but not so powerful that the encounter is just a complete waste of table time.

The Thing that most D&D Players and, specially Ben Riggs get totally WRONG is that people that play other systems only play that one othet system, when in fact all of us play many diferent system for diferent kinds of games. "But Pathfinder number scaling is not realistic, characters look like JPRG protagonist" well... That's the whole point. When I want to run a game about Heroes of legend fighting evil with power of friendship and ultimate violence, I run Pathfinder. When I want a Gritty realistic Game of Throneseque story with characters that can die at any moment I play Warhammer Fantasy or Symbarou. When I want a game about exploration and survival I play Forbidden Lands. And so on. Once you learn your second system, learning the third, the fourth and the ninth becomes a walk in the park.

I am a simple man. I see a new pathfinder vid, I subscribe for more

I'd like to point out in both games there's a high chance the fighter would just be absolute crippled by the dragon's fear aura, making the question of striking the beast absolutely pointless.

Amazing video visually and informatively. Something you didn't touch on but want to bring up: that PF2e fighter, being a fighter, is +2 over his peers to hit at that level. Sure it's only 50% but his heroic journey to level 17 has put him on a pedestal above the common swordsman of his time. Fighters in PF2e are thematically and mechanically cool.

Mothers sword in 5e - Useless in tier 2 due to enemies been immune to non-magical damage. Mothers sword in PF2e - Slap some rune on it and you almost never have to use another weapon (Most likely won't if the weapon have Versatalie S, so you can choose between Pierce and Slashing damage)

To be fair, 5e has all other things you’ve mentioned: ability score growth, party members, qualitative advancement in the form of character abilities… The big thing is PF’s separate proficiency and level bonuses broaden the math range so the growth might feel bigger, & things can be mathematically more one-sided, while 5e’s smaller ranges lend it a stronger “if it bleeds, we can kill it” angle. Use what tells the tale you wish to tell.

Wow! I’ve been running a bit of Pathfinder, but this really caused be to look at it in another way, i think I definitely prefer the way Pathfinder handles advancement.

It's worth noting as well that, while 5e has bounded accuracy, Pathfinder 2e does as well: there's a very explicit range that you can roll to hit, and outside that just simply isn't possible, no matter how many buffs you stack. The big difference is that it scales with your level, like a 'sliding bounded accuracy'. As a GM, the downside is that you have a narrower range of usable monsters for an encounter compared to 5e, but it also means the encounter balancing is WAY easier and the difficulty calculators actually work.

I like both. (The business behind one less). The consistent growth in Pathfinder does support traditional narratives well and makes the growth of characters feel meaningful. However, D&D's smaller difference growth does allow more moments of uncertainty and wild swings. There are many stories out of groups confronting their BBEGs early and mopping the floor with them due to unexpected dice rolls. Pathfinder is a lot more predictable. Both of these can be brilliant or terrible depending on what you want or need. Personally, what I value more is horizontal progression. Getting more options or tools in the toolbox as your character grows. That's a more interesting story than fighter does the hitting better. With its involvement of feats, archetypes, and the ability to retrain, that is where I like the story development of Pathfinder.

best advertisement for pathfinder i have seen

The best part is that PF2E's math is so tight that even if want go challenge high level characters with low level creatures, you can just wing it with DC/level and put them in a troop. Once you nail the troop enough, their morale can break and you can pick off the scragglers. Meanwhile CR is 5E barely means anything.

I legit laughed at then end because that's literally what I tell anyone complaining about 5e as a DM of 7 years

I honestly prefer the smaller numbers of 5e, it keeps more of the monster manual relevant for longer periods of play. And I like that a lot I don’t like the idea that a player can’t be threatened by a horde of monsters simply because their numbers are bigger. Similarly I like the fact that a dragon can be challenged by an army of soldiers, because in most fantasy fiction that’s usually what it takes to kill a dragon when there aren’t legendary heroes around.

Wow, this is your first video? I'm impressed, I can't wait to see more videos you bring to the table. Subscribed

Also, being able to critically fail/succeed by missing/exceeding AC by 10 and not being tied purely to natural dice rolls is such an amazing addition. Making it so you otherwise have to roll a natural 20 on the die is great balance and icing on the cake. It's simpler and more elegant but leaves way more room for fun. No notes. Cant wait for my second session next month :D

Pathfinder definitely sounds like it has a more preferable way of handling proficiency bonuses… but to argue that based on that and that alone, 5e is not capable of telling a “hero’s journey” style narrative without duct taping and bootstrapping the system, is crazy. There are innumerable other factors at play! Feats taken, stat increases, multiple attacks, increased health, AC, magic items, buffs from your party (which happens in 5e as well as pathfinder…) etc… Good video, but the overall argument is incredibly weak. That being said, I’d love to see a longer video going more in depth into all the factors I just listed, making a stronger argument for your case! I’d watch that for sure!

It’s a difference of fun. My table and I like the fact that those low-level monsters can be a threat at any level in 5e.

Gorgeous presentation - art style, music, and light animation were all so much on point that I'm amazed this is your first video - smiled at the flag on the DM screen, and a very neat lens to look at RPG mechanics from which while I do sometimes think about, how bounded accuracy hurts the ability to tell zero to hero stories isn't something I'd considered before. Looking forward to seeing more videos from you. Since you asked for examples, one of my favourite ways mechanisms help tell stories is probably the way Dread bakes the mounting tension and release of the horror genre into its resolution mechanism simply by using a jenga tower rather than dice (plus if you ever cause the tower to fall your character dies)

Having played AD&D, 3 and 3.5, PF1e, and PF2e, as well as a brief stint into D&D 5e, I appreciate this video very much. This is exactly the type of fantasy I want. I don't think it's impossible to tell in D&D; far from it. But what I can say is that the numbers improving on my sheet makes me FEEL like a hero. I don't min-max; I don't look for every bonus I can apply to my character. I roleplay. When people say the math in PF2e is tight, they're correct...and this gives me reasons to do things OTHER than just "bonk." I have to look for advantages. I have to play smart. It's more engaging. One of the things I've seen brought up in the comments is that lower-level monsters should still pose a threat? That's certainly a valid take, but...why not the other way? How awesome is it to have someone who has worked so hard and practiced so much that creatures that would destroy them now can barely touch them? Every level in PF2e is impactful. And, coming from 1e, it is so much more streamlined than it used to be. And the three-action system? *chef's kiss* PF2e is not my favorite system. That is Ars Magica, by Atlas Games. But for "traditional", sword-and-sorcery, fantasy roleplaying, it is my go-to, and my problems with it are very minor.

This is actually a built-in feature of 5e. Level 1 5e characters are meant to be already capable fighters and often some sort of folk hero. You're not meant to go from zero to hero, the game is designed to go from hero to god.

This is a very good point. I started playing pf2e after being tired from constantly homebrewing fixes to 5e pain points for me and my group. And at one point when looking at pf2e I realized that it already have the fixes i've made baked into the base rules. And 3AP rules are much more intuitive in my opinion.

i want to play pathfinder now! >:D awesome video!

I've played with friends who love this style of gameplay (where the difference between different levels/CR is very big), but I've also played with friends who very much prefer the opposite, where a dagger wound to the eye at any level has a risk of killing a CR20 dragon just like it can kill a Goblin. The first, (PF2e) is more narrative, while the second (5e, but mainly Call of Cthulhu and Zweihander) is more realistic. I've had fun in both versions of gameplay, and that's why I like modifying 5e to bend in either way.

The funniest thing is, 4E also made level a factor in hit rate, and also had a large focus on the zero to hero gameplay.

That was some really good pacing, art and vocal work, hope I can catch another one of your vids in the future

Yeah, I've talked about this issue before in my groups that I've played in, especially cuz Im more familiar with older editions than they are. When it comes to equivalents of proficiency bonuses in the context of attack actions, 2e has THAC0 and 3e has base attack bonus. In 2e, your fighter's THAC0 at level 1 is 20, and at level 20, is 1 (lower is better in this context). In 3e, your fighter's base attack bonus is +1 at level 1, and at level 20 is +20 (with descending +15, +10 and +5 for your subsequent attacks on the same turn). But if 5e, at level 1 its +2, and at level 20 its +6. The difference in older editions was 5 times greater than it is now. Also note that older editions also did have additional bonuses you could get from your ability scores, magical weapons, potions, spell buffs, feats, etc, just like 5e has. I think my current game Im running will be the last time I use 5e. Its really super disappointing in general.

You've made a great point briefly yet effectively, with great art and gravitas. The sound design was top-tier. It shows you've put in a great deal of effort and passion into this and I hope there's plenty more to come. You might yet convince me to let go of my duct tape.

As a GM what you are describing is a feature and not a bug, but to each there own.

I totally agree with this video. The other thing to mention that I haven't seen anyone else point out is that if you like the way PF2E generally works but want to have a chance to hit at low levels, but still be in danger of being swarmed at high levels, Pathfinder has a variant rule! Proficiency without level simply removes the level bonus you get from your proficiency, overall making the numbers run much more in line with 5e, and making it so that overall, you still have a chance to hit that dragon. It's a great way to run something a little grittier while staying in the system. It does make encounter balancing a tad bit more difficult, but PF2E's encounter balancing is already a breeze, so there's plenty of wiggle room, and even with that, I find it easier than 5e's encounter building. Anyone thinking of trying PF2E, if you're intimidated by the fact that there seem to be more rules, it's okay! I've found you don't need to be 100% on top of the rules all the time. It just likes to have a well balanced option that integrates well with the system if you need a ruling on a particular thing, rather than 5e's approach of leaving much up to the DM. It can seem overwhelming, but take it piece by piece and you'll learn as you go. At least when you come across something that needs a ruling, PF2E has your back.

I went from "holy moly, i'm gonna watch all his videos, that sounds awesome" to "Oh, thats his only video, how sad" in 10 seconds, and i'll never forgive you for that. I really want to see your take on these games' bonuses systems, and how characters nudge the odds on their favor.

I loved the video!! It brings up a lot of things I have found in my own game, and I love the art style! Can't wait to see more content from here

I'd also like to point out that the Rune system in PF2E allows you to keep the same weapon you've had since 1st level. Simply just the ability to take the flaming property from that random weapon you found in some dungeon in the middle of nowhere and add it your weapon instead from a narrative standpoint is just *chefs kiss*.

the fact that an aaracockra with A LOT of arrows can defeat the tarrasque at level 1, or that a clay golem will defeat the tarrasque in any scenario is enough to understand that 5e has major issues in the writing of the very rules.

one thing missing from this analysis is both action economy and reliance on magic items and subclasses, sure a level one fighter with, lets assume an 18 in strength has a +6 to hit and will hit a 22 ac on a roll of 16 or higher, but that's it, that's the whole turn, one attack 30% of the time, meaning on average they hit .3 attacks per turn. also the sword probably deals 1d6+4 damage, or an average of 7 damage per hit, or an average of 2 damage every turn, or about .3% of the total health of the dragon, barely a scratch. By level 17 we probably have a 20 in strength giving us a base +11 to hit, which is a coin flip, but we probably have a magic weapon that is usually by this point +3 but I'll use +2 for now, giving us a +13 to hit, as a fighter we attack 3 times, and can action surge multiple times a battle to attack even more times, but even with three attacks, on which we are likely doing at least 1d8+7 damage, probably more, but even with this we are hitting 60% of the time, and making three attacks a turn with an average of 12 damage per attack, or an average of 22 damage per turn, and that's without using any subclass abilities, or feats, or party buffs, or optional class features like action surge. Just by leveling up and getting the most basic of weapons we are dealing almost 5% of the boss's health per turn, and in reality we are dealing more than that. and this doesn't even mention that we are undoubtedly way harder to hit now, we have HUNDREDS more points of health, we have an AC that is probably in the 20s, we have more tools at our disposal to keep us in the fight longer. It's not just about what the odds that you hit are, it's also how hard you hit, how often you hit, and how many hits you can take. I like what this video is trying to say, and maybe pathfinder still does these things better (i only played pathfinder 1e not 2e), but even in dnd low level characters feel so underpowered that it makes the game less enjoyable, and i think being weaker earlier on even if it's "more realistic" or "makes you feel stronger later" wouldn't improve the overall feel of the game. I think dnd 5e has lots of problems, but I just don't see this as one of them.

I'd argue that PF2e level scaling introduces other narrative issues; it supports the fantasy as far as heroes and villains are concerned, but fails to simulate the rest of the world. I think it's essential for fantasy worldbuilding to have meaningful mechanical relationships between the archetypal inhabitants of the world - the commoner, the guard, the adventurer, the royal guard, the king, the vizier, the great hero, etc. Yet, PF2e's scaling is _so steep_ that those relationships disintegrate completely if the gap is more than 3-4 levels. One level -1 commoner, of _fifty million commoners_ for that matter, might as well not exist for the level 7 royal guard. That's good news for the level 5 king he's guarding (although the king could easily take a few million angry peasants on as well), yet that same genocidal royal guard, or fifty million of them for that matter, is completely powerless against a level 14 rampaging beast. But that beast, and its fifty million siblings, are all fleeing from a single level 21 world-devourer.

One of the more obvious issues with having a world run on this kind of power curve is that it makes armies meaningless. For example: Our hero returns home and is hailed as a hero, made King's Champion. A few years later the orcs come, the endless hordes rampaging through the countryside burning everything they don't loot. The royal army valiantly holds back the horde at the capital's walls for weeks - then our hero returns and kills the majority of the beseiging army by himself in one afternoon, because they had no-one over level ten who could realistically oppose him. The next year another army invades, this time from the Empire Of Darkness. The empress saw what happened to the orcs, and sends her own champion, a level eighteen fighter with an entourage of a dozen level 12 mages to provide buffs. That is her whole invasion force, bar a few servants, because there's no point sending regular troops. Everyone knows that whoever wins the duel will be virtually unstoppable by anyone left in either nation, with the possible exception of the Dark Empress's plus fifty modifier to Persuasion. I think DND5 has too little spread of numbers, but PF2 has too much. Adding half your level seems to me like a decent place to start looking for the right amount of level based scaling in a twenty level system. Or use a system like Shadowrun which uses large pools of dice to create probability curves instead of a single d20.

I’ve been super interested in pathfinder lately and tempted to look into it. This video pushed me over the edge. Can’t wait for more content on this subject!

I think a better title for the video would be How pathfinder's math tells a different story. My only real takeaway from the video is that there is a bigger difference between a low and a high level character in one system compared to the other. Which depending on how you want your game world to be might or might not be desirable.

Please add Savage Worlds Adventure Edition to your list of games to compare and contrast if it's not already on there. I love how low-prep it is!

It all depends on the kind of story you want to tell. Personally, I like the idea of a level 1 fighter throwing themselves at a dragon, and managing a glancing wound before falling unconscious. Their foe has a recognizable scar now, setting them apart, and making their foe acknowledge and HATE the fighter in turn. How could they forget that day a lowly peasant dislodged a scale on their chest?? They know what they were capable of and they shall be prepared too. The dragon gets tricksier, older, employs magic and traps, and believes themselves invincible in their preparations. And how can the fighter overcome their newly prepared foe? Their allies are there to see their vengeance is complete (action economy, buffs, utility variety, etc)!

PF2e is definitely better for heroic power scaling. But this can be a two-edged sword. In 5e's system, quantity means more than quality. A level 20 fighter can defeat a dragon, but they can also be killed by 100 goblins. This is due to action economy and bounded accuracy. No matter what AC the fighter has, 1 out of every 20 goblins will land a critical hit no matter what, so that is 5 critical hits landing on the fighter every round. Meanwhile, the fighter can only kill 4 goblins every turn (8 goblins for 2 turns with action surge). The greatest warrior in the land can be brought low by the weakest of enemies if there is enough of them. In PF2e, quality trumps quantity. Like you mentioned, proficiency (which applies to AC in pf2e) scales with EVERY level, and because attacks have different stages of success (crit fail, fail, success, crit success), and the fact that a natural 20 only increases the degree of success by 1, there is no number a goblin can roll to guarantee a hit on a level 20 pf2e fighter. 100 goblins, 10,000 goblins, doesn't matter, that fighter's armor is completely impenetrable by the primitive weapons of those goblins. Weaker enemies have no choice but to flee at the sight of such a powerful hero, their odds are literally zero. Now imagine this, at level 1, you are a foot soldier for a kingdom fighting against a necromancer's empire. You manage to hold your own against low-level undead like zombies and skeletons, but then in the midst of the battle you are struck with terror as you witness a Graveknight Champion take the field. Your comrades fall in their dozens before it, and your own attacks bring no harm to it either. After being saved from the battle, you vow to become stronger, but those soulless eye sockets haunt your sleep for years to come. After many more battles, many triumphs by your hand, you become a legendary figure in the kingdom you fight for. As a level 15 fighter, your command on a battlefield practically guarantees victory. But one day, while commanding your troops, you see him once more: the Graveknight Champion. You take to the field personally, and cut through zombies and skeletons in single blows as they are powerless to law a finger on you. After wading through undead like shin-high water, you cross blades with the Graveknight Champion. Though his burning eye sockets still unnerve you, your sword cracks through his armor, throwing him to the ground. You are no longer the gutless worm in a sea of many, you are the rock that withstands the tide, as wave after wave of undead break upon you. THAT is a power fantasy. The double-edged part of this power fantasy is that, as a DM, if you want to use a specific threat against your players at a specific time, you HAVE to change its level to be appropriate. In 5e if you want to challenge your 6th level player with goblins, throw more goblins at them led by some bugbears. If you want to challenge your 6th level party in pf2e, forget about goblins. Even with backup, the goblins will be effectively worthless and just clog the turn order. You HAVE to level scale if you want to use them, which is tedious. If you have a larger than average D&D party, they can take down a dragon that is meant for a party a few levels higher. In PF2e? Forget it, you have to scale the dragon downwards or that party is lunchmeat.

Do you mean the ultra advanced math of "add level to everything?"

When I started playing this game I noticed really fast you were right, since is not only the fact that you can hit as a level 1, everyone else can hit the dragon at level 1 meaning if the entire town of lets say 1000 people with a chance to hit of 15% doing 1d4+strength damage with rocks (asuming there are no guards with better weapons and stats) would do 700 damage, if the avarage strength score was 2 wich I guess it would be since they need the strength to do their jobs, this means if a dragon attacked a city with 1000 people in it he would die 6 seconds after because everyone started throwing rocks at the thing...

Here's the main difference: D&D has globally bound accuracy (less dependant on level), whereas Pathfinder has locally bound accuracy (more dependant on level). So yeah, accuracy-wise leveling up will be more impactful on Pathfinder, but that doesn't mean leveling up isn't impactful in D&D (it is - or at least can be, depending on the class -, but that impact is expressed by other features that aren't easily measurable as the attack bonuses/spell save DCs are).

Loved the script and the narration. Good work, i'll be back for more! :D

This has been the single most persuasive video I have seen for why I should switch to Pathfinder. The issue is that the game is too crunchy for my players. However, I've played at some tables that I think this would better suit. Great video!

I would love to see some class fantasy comparisons. Like what fantasy playing a monk is trying to achieve, and how d&d vs pathfinder or other systems approach, appeal, and complete that fantasy

Your final tip, at the very end, is what got me to subscribe. Keep up the great work!

It's worth noting that this is a purposeful design decision for D&D. They used to have scaling like this (4th ed scaled with (lvl/2) on most proficient things and 3.5 and 3 had skill ranks where you could increase your skills by 1 every level). What this resulted in was adventurers who by level 18 could be rolling + 35 or more on some skill checks if they took a few feats or magic items or racial features to help that skill. This has positives and negatives. What it results in is a world where it feels like the powerful are truly one person armies. Sometimes, that's not the story you want to tell and you want a system in which the gods can fall to a lucky enough underdog. The other thing that happens is that it means that players who spend hours going through spell lists and feat descriptions to make 'overpowered combos' can be slinging around numbers that are like 10 or even 20 higher than what another player is slinging around (source: I'm currently playing a pathfinder 1E character who has a +56 in bluff when he's fully buffed up and the next highest skill any other character in the party has is around +28). This can make it difficult to make your character feel significant at all to the group if you don't minmax AND it can make a real challenge for the DM. Do you artificially inflate the difficulty of every bluff check the +55 character is rolling just to give them a chance at failure or do you allow them to succeed on every lie they tell or do you make the campaign harder for the rest of the players by inflating the difficulty of everybody's rolls? D&D doesn't have this problem, but it does mean that your incredibly high level heroes don't feel that much stronger than a level 1 (at least not on pathfinder scales). The moral here is to pick the system that helps you tell the story you want to tell.

This is your first video?? Its absolutely fantastic. Clear, concise, and great pacing. Both your drawings and editing is quite pleasant. I hope there are more videos to come 👍

Funny thing I think this is the worst part of PF2e. Because of it I ignored that edition for years until I discovered there is an optional Proficiency without Level rule that makes PF2e massively better game.

For those interested, the music is from the Pathfinder Kingmaker game. (Order of balance and capital under siege being the tracks)

I'll add something for GM that fears it will be complicated: First, start with the beginners box, it's pretty awesome to start, and it has simplified rules, and it's meant to drive both players and GM. Then, and let's be clear the learning curve can be a little tricky at the start... Paizo loves you and support you as a GM! Once you get the gist of it (I'd say if you're familiar with 5e, 1 to 3 sessions should do IMHO), there's very little traps you can fall into while GMing, since the "math is tight", and even better, the different content books are not just player pron. Next to every subsystem or the likes are explained and you have pretty accurate description on what adding X in your game can mean for the economy or the balance, and how you can tweak to keep it sane. They playtest their stuff, and they DO understand the logic of their game! (Shocking, right ?) Also, you have the rules and logics to most of the content given to you, like how to build monsters. And that's the actual guideline used in the actual bestiary! There's even a very cool web tool to build or edit monsters using those guidelines, and I use it all the time to great effect (monster dot pf2 dot tools), and I just do this because I'm picky, but the bestiary is seriously awesome and varied. Seriously, I love GMing since I play PF2E.

"pathfinder focuses heavily on teamwork, leading to an assumption that you will be buffed beyond what we're representing..." Yeah, so does D&D and you didn't really give them the same treatment.

The announcements sound like you are planning to include several TTRPGs. It would be nice to see a list of what is maybe planned to be included for the first batch of videos. I personally would be interested in seeing how Rolemaster, HARP and/or vsDarkmaster do in this mathematical approach.

I am still excited to get another video. This one is great!

cant wait to see more from you, loved this video. i personally am struggling currently in the balance department with 5e. players are lvl 5 and clear deadly encounters with such ease. so for that reason too im going to have my next game be pathfinder 2e.

When you do your various system, do you think you could manage to include PF1e in the discussion as well?

I always found it weird when people said they would rather homebrew than switch system. Basically they always seem to end with more convoluted and unbalanced systems after unnecessarily a lot of work. Sure homebrewing is fun, but if it's only out of your weird loyalty to D&D I don't know what to say. I still like playing D&D, but tbh I have way more fun with systems like OSE.

Extremely well done video and looking forward to your next.

This is why I always start my Exalted campaigns with my players as Heroic Mortals for the first few sessions

Well ya 20% before caring about the strenght increases that you would tend to get which given your % ranges they could gain 25% or more in that ( though commonly its 10%) and magic items that at that range its common to have another +10% or more and now the growth is about 40% increased likelyhood ( given your ac a total of 70%) if you wanted to tell the story of the dragon a levle 1 couldn't hit at all it just needs 5 more AC which sure is homebrew but I dont even need to take out my elmers glue to make that work let alone the handymans secret weapon. But in a less technical sense honestly both have their strengths and thats the point, I enjoy both systems for what they do, pathfinder has a better number progression where you see constant improvement in all regards, but conversly when you improve D&D feels more impactful and the progression of creatures even go that way. And both ways are fine neither is superior they each have their positives and negatives. Finally I would say you actually show a side that frankly I see turn a lot of people off of taking up PF2e and no its not the complexity or the math of it all, it is because there is such a hang up on the narrative being so intrinsically tied to the math and the stats and here is what is mathmatically better therefore superior and because numbers better do job its better that a bunch just say Im ok with the 20% chance to hit at level 1 because even if I nick the dragon I will die to the flapping of its wings.

A pathfinder channel? Instant sub

My pathfinder group has a player who’s incredibly used to 5e as that was the system he learned in. After about two years of the campaign, he’s turned his somewhat goofy barbarian half orc into basically the Conan of the setting. Towns recognize his coming and going and both he and his wife have a cult of personality in-universe which emphasizes that even the less magically inclined can still be heroes. He actually got a bit disappointed going back to 5e for a game.

MY MAN! It’s so hard to explain to people that while dnd is supposed to be a “make any story you want” engine, it’s mechanics are so over bearing and poor that the TYPE OF STORY BEING TOLD CHANGES. One of the biggest smoking guns for me is the section in the dungeon masters guide titled “ why dungeons”. This is basically a full chapter explaining why the mechanics and game design of dnd don’t actually lend themselves to the type of stories present in most media that people actually will come to the table wanting to emulate. Dnd can handle funneling your party into a series of rooms with a hand full of monsters in each, and it can offer cheap suspense in the form of making every character choice outcome basically random (DC checking). When you step back and realize the probability of the party wizard deciphering the ancient runes over the illiterate barbarian doing so is about 55 / 45 you start noticing how consistent characterization, character choice or agency, throughout an entire arc or campaign are just not possible if you are following the rules as written. Who can do what will just change on the whim of the die, and this just isn’t how any story works. Dragons can roll 1s goblins can roll 20s, barbarians can roll a 15 on the int check wizards can roll 4… it’s not decision making its decision testing. Works fine in baulders gate because you are all 5 players : pp but when you are that barb or that wiz you just feel like the characterization you chose to role play and wrote can just suddenly be irrelevant at any time by accident. The dice in 5 e feel like “jump scares “ to me, the suspense of “will I make it” that you only feel for the duration the die is rolling is honestly cheap and unearned suspense. It’s lazy writing in the form of game mechanics, in other words it makes everyone at the table a cheaper worse story teller!!!! In the freakin group story telling game T.T T.T T.T

Me when the magic item that boosts accuracy of a hero worthy of it. A weapon the hero got through trials and perhaps even tribulations.

The structure and art of the video are great. This channel will get big, i know it.

This is the best video I've ever seen about D&D 5e.

Really well done! And coming in strong right away huh? Easy sub

My issue with this argument is that it assumes more power between level 1 and level 20 is immediately a better story, and it really isn't. Most stories are not zero to hero shonen anime fantasies. A flat power curve or a system that gives more horizontal power improvement would probably work better for a setting that is supposed to be consistently dangerous. As a player in a Curse of Strahd campaign, I like that I still feel threatened by basic zombies and will probably still feel threatened by them for a couple levels. I also just think that difference between fighting a dragon with no chance of meaningfully damaging him vs fighting a dragon with no chance of damaging him at all isn't really meaningful. The experience and result is effectively and emotionally the same. That's not to say 5e is better than PF2e, just that I'm skeptical of this argument and its evidence.

The problem with both of these systems is that it would be pretty fucking hard to miss a dragon. As for 5e, It's far more grounded than Pathfinder. It comes from a fundementally different perspective and reward system. One half of this is philosophy is the idea that human body can only grow so much. Another part of this is that 5e has a far greater emphasis on horizontal progression than vertical progression, and it focuses on immersion far more than Pathfinder. Of course you can't just upgrade your father's rusty sword with any enchanted item you find. You will have to choose between honoring your father's legacy and abandoning that show of respect for power. Another thing that I hold issue with is that Pathfinder has very little room for duct tape. You want to piss in the woods? That's probably a very specific action with a very specific dc you will have to pass, and your dm/players WILL get pissy if you don't know that. It is anal and rules intense in the weirdest ways, and because of that, there are so many things to account for when adding your own content. If I'm playing 5e, there's not much I have to worry about. "Okay, yeah, this blacksmith knows how to make a sword +3, and he'll do it for like 5 gold because you rescued his daughter" as opposed to "Well actually, it takes a Cumshart Rune that costs exactly 300 GP, and it's a pretty high level item, so you'll probably get in like 30 sessions." Hell, it's fun and not stressful at all to try mechanics in new and weird ways, to customize the game to my liking whilst still having a very simple system. I love Pathfinder, but one has One Punch Man power scaling, and in the other, a Level 20 Wizard can die to a few archers. They are not creating the same fantasy or type of adventure, and I feel that so many Pathfinder fans are obscenely annoying about the very idea of "having to use duct tape", but no game system is going to appeal to everyone's sensibilities. The fact that 5e is so easily moddable is why we like it.

I think you are right and to me it feels like PF2 was designed around this exact fantasy. But 5E is designed more around Tolkien storytelling where a character can just walk out their front door and be thrust into adventure. Neither system is inherently better, but each should be thought of as a tool that facilitates storytelling

This is so well made, I cannot believe this is your first video (on this channel anyway). While I personally prefer 1e to 2e, the core concept is exactly the same - a sort of exponential growth in power, compared to 5e's limited linear growth.

I like both, but ive noticed that 5e gives you more leeway to experiment and go crazy with your character, PF is more strict in that you are going to suck really hard on every encounter and get behind if you try to deviate from a more standar or mathematically efficient build.

This is the first thing you made? I'm stoked

ROFLMFAO!!!!! I LOVED it!!! I will keep an eye on this channel and am hoping things continue to be as hilarious as this was!