Just to clear it up for anyone watching the video: you only have to re-learn spells at higher levels if you're playing a spontaneous caster. If you're playing prepared casters, you fill in your spell slots during daily preparations, which are chosen from either an item (a witch's familiar or wizard spellbook) or from your spell list (divine, arcane, occult,, or primal). Spontaneous casters have a spell repertoire, with a number of spells equal to your number of spell slots.

Theater Lore sounds like the character knows exactly what Shakespeare quotes to say in any situation.

Adding your level isn't just a way to inflate numbers, it's a way to keep players from succeeding at things that are leaps and bounds above their ability. The critical system really shines with this, since you critically succeed/fail if you get 10 above or below the needed DC. Natural 20s don't auto crit, but they do boost your level of success up by one step, critical fail becomes a fail, fail becomes a success, success becomes a critical success. It works the opposite with Natural 1s, moving your level of success down. A level 1 party trying to take on ancient dragons that level in the high teens isn't feasibly possible, and the system reflects that. It also makes it so characters feel like they get stronger as they level up, and lower level enemies just don't pose that much of a threat. There is a variant rule in the Gamemaster Guide called "Proficiency Without Level" which is used for more gritty or intense games, and if you like to run games that way, it does officially exist as an option.

There are actually a number of adventure paths and lore events from 1e to 2e that kinda highlight the civilization of goblins and it makes sense in the lore of 2e that they should be a playable race.

What the heck I'm a goblin player in DND. And I for one am super happy that someone can play as a goblin as one of the starter races. But to each his own

The organization problems with this book are definitely valid, but I will say - this is actually my favorite TTRPG! TEML Proficiency & the auto-scaling with level are actually some of my favorite things as a Storyteller. Its weird on the surface, but once you understand the structure to the numbers, it flows better than any game I've ever run! Wonder what your opinion of the new Occult Magical Tradition is for Bards? They aren't arcane casters any more. I really like the change, but I'm curious if you enjoyed it.

thanks for your work, it's nice to see characters rolled out. with different editions.

I disagree with the number inflation of proficiency being a bad thing. Really it's like a codified version of BAB for everything which also increased with every level. It's what allows for a really heroic power curve where insurmountable Foes at level 1 become laughable after thoughts by level 9 and so on. Really the same as first edition pf.

Not to be harsh or anything but I feel like a lot of the problems you have with the system comes from only looking at the system and not seeing how it works or thinking past the first system. Or rather maybe coming from applying experience with other systems that have similar mechanics and thinking they'll work similarly with this system. Which isn't bad in itself but it comes off as though you know more and are criticizing the system before actually really giving it a chance Like the level added to things really doesn't inflate anything. At least in my opinion I feel like it really helps the characters feel like they're improving as time goes on because even if they don't get a new level in proficiency, they do get better at things. And it makes a character who's level 1 and trained in something naturally worse than a level 20 person trained in the same thing which at least I consider a positive It's understandable if you don't like it still but it feels like you just kind of ignored how it would be in practice and that kind of shows as you go over your thoughts and overall it just comes off really negatively but without much reason for why or misleading reasons why I agree that character sheet is horrible (thankfully there's a ton of community ones) and there's some other valid criticisms and at the end of the day it's all opinion of course but when it's very biased like that I just think it might harm anyone who's potentially looking at the game That all said I'd really love to see more opinions and thoughts on everything negative or positive. Personally it's the first ttrpg I'm getting into and I'm sure I might be a bit biased towards it but something about it really clicked for me in a good way so I love looking for and hearing and discussing all things about it both good and bad Also overall that was a good video definitely done in a style I haven't really seen before. Again would love to see a whole lot more on the system but it was entertaining to see a first impression I really enjoyed it even if I did have a few problems

I have played in 2 one shots and and played in a campaign, and am running a one shot (all in 2e). I have literally never had issues with anything you’ve brought up, except for my own personal skepticism when looking at the game for the first time.

You make a lot of valid points about the issues with 2e. The book does suck. I have no idea why they organized it the way they did. In spite of that the game is really fun once you sit down and play. Especially for the GM. It has been such a breeze to run. I have been modifying the beginning of The Shackled City on the fly as we have played. The action economy has made the game a breeze to teach to new players. I have had 3 new players sit at my table with zero RPG experience and they were having a blast by the time we wrapped up the session. Also, one of the best things you can do in 2e is let the players use the Gamemastery Guide rule that allows for a free archetype/dedication at lvl 2. It allows you to build really interesting complex character but it isn't game breaking. I feel like it should have been included in the Core Rulebook. If there was ever a PF2.5 I think it would be in by default.

Good overview. I do love PF2 system, but I recognize that it's not for everyone. Also, this review is only over the Core Rulebook. There is more material out there now.

Why not "species" instead of ancestry? I always felt that species fit much better than race.

Pathfinder 2e Core plays very much like a heroic fantasy game. Hence why Proficiency adds level. But the Variant Rules from the Gamemastery Guide really add a lot of options. And most don't even increase your character's power level but simply give more options. Even Dual Class (Gestalt in PF2e) doesn't give a massive boost but more of a minor bump. Heck even combining the Free Archetype rule, which I feel should be core, with the Dual Class rule doesn't create that much of a spike. It is +1 or +2 effective level at best. And the Proficiency Without Level rule basically is a better alternative to Bounded Accuracy in my opinion. And there is even a homebrew Proficiency with Half Level that splits the difference between the two versions of Proficiency. Also the whole comment on Monster Races and Player Races at the beginning... It is a bad take if only because PF2e is its own thing and not beholden to what is "traditional". Edit: Though admittedly I am torn on the Signature Spell mechanic as prepared casters can heighten at will. I can understand it from a balancing perspective but it just feels odd. Edit2: Ever look at Das Schwarze Auge (DSA) aka The Dark Eye? It apparently is still more popular in Germany than D&D. Crunchy Character Creation but the Crunch gets out of the way during gameplay and you can even have entire sessions without rolling any dice depending on roleplay. In DSA it is hard to make a character that doesn't feel like a real person who has lived their life. Plus they knew how to focus the crunch to achieve their goals. (Much like PF2e's tight math and design choices somewhat managed.) (NOTE: DSA is more focused on Roleplay and Skills than Combat but the Combat is intended to feel somewhat realistic. And it managed it surprisingly well.) (NOTE2: DSA also has an unofficial, but recognized and even used by the company that produces the game, Character Generator called Optolith that is technically free. Optolith allows you to make a character in 15 minutes to a couple of hours depending on your grasp of the system. I watched a fairly inexperienced GM make 7 unique bandits of varying experience level in around an hour.)

you should do a mutli-class character now, and show how which main class selection makes it different over all. Like a Sorcerer/Champion or Champion/Sorcerer they're very different .

1:56 As I remember, any ancestry not choosing sub ancestry can take versatile heritage, including Half-Elf and Half-Ork.

The ancestry feats seem interesting. I think it would be interesting to see if they could work in 5e. They give the PC some extra flavor.

Aren't Dwarf, Elf, Gnome and Halfling technically also "monster races"? They're non-human creatures of generally supernatural origin, same as Goblins, Dragonborn, Tieflings and Orcs.

Having just started in PF 2e, I agree, the rules are a bit all over and character creation can be tough. I think I had to read through the process a couple times before I caught everything that was involved. Once you start playing though it's a lot easier. I love how skills are actually useful in combat and can add some variety to what you do. I also enjoy the customization available to each character. I do agree that the paper character sheet layout sucks.

Honestly, I really like 2e - they FINALLY gave skills their rightful importance (in 1e, D&D et cetera skills were little more than flavor, except of course for diplomacy, intimidate, the physical skills and stealth): have Medicine? You're a reasonable alternative to the cleric! Have Athletics? Your wizard, sorcerer, alchemist, whatever can literally judo throw that ogre into oblivion and back! Have acrobatics? Get ready to freakin' cartwheel UP A WALL! And so on and so forth. Basically, they stepped out of Conan and straight into Errol Flynn. As for the races, I love ALL of them, from the goblins to the kobolds to the leshies to the birbs - sorry, tengus - and more... which brings me to the two only sore points: 1) the art. If your character isn't a human or demihuman, there is a 50/50 chance that he'll be depicted as uglier than sin. I mean, I don't - for example - EXPECT a shortstack goblin or a cute lizardy kobold (although that would be a bonus) but DAMN! They ugly, man! 2) Golarion. FREAKIN' GOLARION. In the previous edition they put their standard setting as a potential one - now? You gotta bust chops to set up a setting that isn't their baby. And, let me tell you, this isn't good. Aside from making their love of all things Cthulhu canon (Nyarlathothep is now a standard deity to choose) they literally enmesh the setting with LOTS of the ancestry feats - and let's not even mention the fact that ALL the Divine Anathemas (conditions that can - and will - make your divine caster lose his power) are literally tailor made for the Golarian pantheon, which means more work for a GM that wants a different setting. Basically, as I said, if you want a setting of your own, or even just to rehash a setting you like for PF2E, better get ready to bust chops. But it'll be worth it - because when you get done you'll have an awesome game and a setting to put it in, Paizo's opinions be damned.

Nice video! I would like to see you cover Starfinder, Pathfinder's sister game. The story is interesting: basically the PC's are looking for the planet that Pathfinder takes place in, which apparently disappeared. Also space gods!

Yeah I might be in my own island here but really the only thing I have found I like from 2nd edition is how the skills work. I just started playing with some of the new skill affects in 1st edition. Maybe I’m old and just don’t want to leave pathfinder 1st edition lol

Why do people hate dragonborn so much? I don't get it

I playtested Pathfinder 2nd edition, and your complaints are valid. I really like much of what it does, but they made some anti-fun mechanics with spellcasting (it was worse during the play test). During the playtest, there was no cap on focus points, and every class feat that provided them gave you additional focus points. I had 7 of them on my level 11 storm druid, and there was no way to recover them other than sleeping. I did find their version of the monk to be far superior to D&D 5th edition, and my half-elf monk was my most-played character for the playtest.

Hey just found your channel (: I'm now subscribed because I loved this video, I had many of the same concerns/Skepticsm you did about this system but when I actually played it .But understandably its not be possible to play EVERY system to see how rules compare in concept Vs practice

Pathfinder 2e is my current favorite system

I got lost pretty quick

I'll stick with 1e.

So just some feed back on this I think going for a half elf right off the bat was a mistake as you just kind breeze past the whole heritage system which took a minute for me to wrap my head around. Just a thought.

Just found this and enjoyed it. I followed along with Herolab online and you didn't miss much - at level five I thought you'd missed his additional language and trained skill, but then I saw them on your character sheet. I like the way you laid that out, btw. I did stumble over your choice of Bardic Lore, which is only available to Bards with the Enigma muse -- but you *can* take the class feat Multifarious Muse to give you Enigma in addition to Maestro, so that works. I was a bit disappointed that you didn't go into upgrades to his gear as he went along. At fifth level he could have +1 Potency Runes on his Whip, his Shortbow, *and* his Armor, and still have about 30 GP for potions or other items. For example he's trained in Thievery, so he should have thieves' tools. I understand though that you had a different emphasis in mind. 🙂 The think I liked the most though is that you showed how quickly it's possible to build a PF2E character if you know what you're doing. 🙂

What makes a goblin more of a monster than an elf?

I have this book. I've tried to read it twice. And... I'm not an idiot.... but, it doesn't make a lot of sense due to how the book is laid out. I think even AD&D 1E is easier to follow than what they're talking about. This video made the book finally make sense, and also confirmed what I was thinking about the whole system.

Hmm. I guess they were worried about low level players getting killed so they moved the HP to around thirdish level for D&D characters (except a few martial classes or feats for a level 2 HP equality).

Well done.

A perspective that I was looking for. 1e to 2e instead of dnd to pf2e.

There is a home rule that i inserted into my table that might solve your problem with adding level to proficiency, it makes the game simple for begginers while keeping it's purpose and influence on the normal game rules. To the player's characters, they use the proficiency without level variant rule, basically untrained becomes -2 instead of +0 and from trained to legendary becomes +2, +4, +6 and +8. Now to the GM side, you still use or create threats with the original rules, however, bonus and DCs decrease equal to the party level, and done. The whole purpose of adding level to proficiency is made so players are more tied to threats of their level and below, since bigger threats will have a bigger bonus from their level, making it easier to hit the players and harder to be hit, and with the +10/-10 crit system, a threat with 2 levels higher than the players can be a tense boss fight. And you can see on the same page of the proficiency without level variant rule that because of that, basically all of the xp gains are nerfed. (a threat 4 levels higher than the party decreases from 160 xp to only 90 xp) With these adjustments, you can still use the normal table of experience points since the difference between the party and the threat mantain the same. Example of a level 3 fighter hitting a Troll with a marcial weapon: -Original rules- The fighter have +11 to hit(+4 strength, +7 Expert) against a AC 20 -My home rule- The fighter have +8 to hit(+4 strength, +4 Expert) against a AC 17(20 Original, -3 Fighter level) Both need to roll a 9 to hit. -Only proficiency without level- The fighter have +8 to hit(+4 strength, +4 Expert) against a AC 15(20 Original, -5 Troll level) Troll gets hit with a 7. The only flaw with this is that it complicates the GM side, but if you have a experienced GM with begginer players, i recommend

One thing you got wrong in your analysis is about the class/spell DC. The monk also uses both the spell and class DCs and they are based off different attributes (class off STR or DEX and spell off WIS).

So... if I have first edition Pathfinder, do you think it is better to stay with that version or is it better to get 2nd edition?

Don’t get me started with Class DC. I made a witch, who isn’t trained in it, but every character generator I make her in has the Class DC automatically set to trained. Are spellcasters trained in Class DC or not? Argh!

1:24 Good thing since they're not in 2e. Kobolds are but they're (usually) scaredy sniper noodles.

I agree with the things scaling with level. I know that this helps to balance characters more, but I don't like the idea of my character being strong mostly because it have big numbers, that's why I started to love Savage Worlds. But still I like 2e very much due to its versatility in making characters.

Are you going to continue into Starfinder characters?

I just add +1 every 4 levels in proficiency(0, 4, 8...), I think it's enough.

they should just names race as species.

I'll just stick with 1E. As of recently I've been getting back into older editions of D&D, AD&D 1st, 2nd Edition and Basic. Also exploring the OSR and retro clones out there like Basic Fantasy. Way too much crap going on with Paizo and Wizards that has kind of turned me off from wanting to support both of them.

It's a crap version of d and d 4e. And I still run 4e games. I won't run this.

PF2e being a touch half-baked is why I'm playing 1e still