Clearly Puffin Found the Path to have Character Evolution. And evolved into a Flump. Though, flumps are not native to Golarion 🤔

@@TheShadowChesireCat after flump, will he evolve to crab, or skip human entirely and go straight back to monkey

Huh, I barely noticed. Maybe because his height and width are still proportionally the same.

Flump… intresting, how did that happen?

*flumpF

For my table, 5e had faster, less enjoyable combat turns. A lot of turns were "I attack. Oh, it missed? Okay, that's my turn." It went quicker but wasn't fun.

My experience was somewhere in the middle of you two I think. Turns themselves ended up being snappier, so long as we kept on top of all the effects flying around. Combat usually stalls in 5e due to casters overanalyzing which of their nukes is the right size, to be frank. There is less of that in P2e. On the other hand, while I haven't tested it I think combat itself lasts more turns over all, leading to it being grindier. This is especially true if your DM tends to 'call' combat if it appears there is no way for the enemies to really even pose a threat, which happens a lot more after round 1 in 5e.

The 3 action economy is truly great

That's been my experience for many fights as well. It seems that PF2 kind of swings one way or the other. Quick snappy fights, or longer more drawn out ones. Rarely boring though.

​@@MrRJPE Yeah, pf2e being slower is the GOOD part. The less time someone needs to think over their actions, the less strategizing they're doing.

For sure, but the effectiveness of each build (not that particular example) may vary. While PF2E has LOTS of options, a good chunk are simply not good and result in your character being underpowered. In a system where every +1 to your attack/damage is a huge impact, that's kind of crappy to navigate as a newbie to the system

I once made a rogue who could crit for 30+ damage with her fists by conplete accident. One of the most fun builds I have ever played

@@MonkeyChessify i dunno i think all you really need to tell them is keep your classes key stat as high as possible and if they follow that they should be fine also retraining feats is a core game mechanic

As someone who has looked at pathfinder, ill also say that this is its greatest weakness. My group has thought of going to pathfinder2, so we did some tinkering around in the character builder and the amount of customization is frankly dizzying. Not nowing what all those abilities are really doing as a new player feels like climbing everest to make a character since you are basically throwing darts at a wall and hoping to come out with what you want. Thats why 5e is as big as it is. You pick a race, the race does x. You pick a class, the class does y, then you pick a subclass and the subclass does z. Its so unbelieveably easy to start and you can reflavor xyz any number of ways just by explaining it different.

@@TriptuneRadio So, you made Sanosuke?

Yes, but enemies keep pace with you, unlike in 5e where eventually any enemy up to 5 CRs above you will be obliterated by a party that's even *trying* to be strong.

And that level 15th!

@@darthfodder I mean I don’t know if it is THAT easy to win in 5e. Could have players who are actively making wrong decisions and building their character wrong on a fundamental level, but I see your point. That being said, CR in 5e is a joke especially compared to pf2e. And if you are looking for a power fantasy in pf2e just have your players fight a bunch of enemies 3 levels lower than them. Difference being, you KNOW it will be a stomp simply based on how the system balances challenges.

The enemies also scale as you level up, like even if you have ‘scare to death’ it’s not likely to work because you need a crit and the incap effect.

He means lower than 5e, which was explicitly designed to give the "superhero" feeling to players. Hence plowing through hordes vs fighting a few bigger enemies & short explosive fights vs longer slugfests.

"AP" is Adventure Path?

@@admiraltonydawning3847 Yes

I don't agree that class's aren't created equal in 2E actually. All classes in 2E are actually equal, but different. They have unique strengths both based on their general playstyle (martial, caster, gish), but they all excel in different areas and have completely different capabilities and roles during combat. Martials are the kings of single-target damage and reusuable control, while casters rule in terms of flexibility, utility, and group combat. And between class's with similar playstyles, you still have unique strengths. Fighters are excellent at accuracy, but they can't do as much raw damage as Barbarians, nor do they have the flexibility of a Rogue. The capabilities of all of the characters are different, but all of them are essential for the party to function.

@@nikidelvalle I mean a good example of classes not being created equal in 2E that is being addressed in the upcoming remaster. Witches. Oh, you're supposed to be familiar focused? Well, a Wizard got all of that on lockdown with the Familiar thesis and it is a better caster. Focus cantrips? The bard does that sort of thing way better with better options for support. In the grand scheme of things yes there is so much balance in 2E compared to some other systems like 5e for classes. But man, we do have some places where some classes are very much not created equally.

You might want to add a '2E' there... Because PF1e is *definitely* extremely permissive of building a single ability or spell out to be some ridiculous kill-everything combo. It inherited that from D&D 3.5 which had that same problem.

Agreed 😂

Never did DND, always wanted to at least try 1 session. Though, I doubt I can be evil in DnD.

@@mr.cuddlesworth3144 i find its really easy to play your poler oppusite. Its a lot of fun. Defintly should try it! Maybe you start as an evil rogue, meet a god and become a paladin! Its about the story! Lots of people online play, and if your in a city i bet youll find a locals group near you!

​@@mr.cuddlesworth3144 I definitely think you can find someone running a campaign for evil characters, or characters who might just have to work with each other because their goals align

​@@mr.cuddlesworth3144Evi characters can work with neutral parties...as long as they have dark goals and see the party as adventuring tools of a sort...or as useful allies. Let's say you want to be a dark lord of magick...having morally dubious but completely reliable party members to back you up is VERY fun.

Hope it's a pf2e +1 and not a dnd5e +1, one is significantly more valuable than the other.

Foundry is roughly on par (arguably better in some ways) and is an entire VTT, plus there are plugins for importing Pathbuilder characters into it.

@@keithwinget3450 i thought they got rid of the pathbuilder to foundry import capability?

Yeah, the tools made the difference in the play experiance he had between his first review and now. It is a definite improvement. Is that a good thing that you need an app to run a game, though? I kind of feel there is a lot of bloat in there that kind of was put in there pointlessly. Ie if your ac goes up at the same rate to hit modifiers go up, we are just giving +1 to all rolls so the +1 does not matter outside of saying "I rolled a 43!" Do not get me wrong; I like the brand, but Savage Worlds Pathfinder is the most accessible form of pathfinder because they did away with the pointless number inflation. You can have a much cleaner system.

@@zolgathor Did they, bc I swear people in my group were actually using it last night. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. They certainly mentioned using it at some point, I'm sure of that.

GURPS is arguably better at it than Pathfinder 2E.

@@lordbuss I've tried GURPS many years ago, although I liked it I found it lacking in some areas. There was a new release just yesterday so I should give it another chance.

I prefer Savage Pathfinder, Savage Worlds manages a much better mix of fiction first with tactical RPG elements. It allows you to focus on whats important, while still giving room for people who like tacticality. Savage Worlds also rewards careful team-work, but you don't get caught up in micro-managing powers and class builds.

Eh, both are a very "stand still and d20 until something dies" kind of game. Cuz I mean, once you're next to an enemy there's not much of a reason to move away from them and waste an action to move. This obviously if you WANT to be next to them, duh. At least in lower level fights, the enemies drop really quickly so it feels like you are moving around everywhere because you have to move to the next enemy.

There are character options in 2E that would be a great fit for your friend though, Flurry Ranger was basically made for him.

Pathfinder Downside: You WILL want a spreadsheet. I had one for my alchemist where I could turn any of his buffs on or off and all the stats would adjust. Saved so much math and prevented what I'm sure would have been a ridiculous number of "forgot to apply bonus from X." Pathfinder Upside: Any vision you have for what your guy should be able to do, there's a way to make it happen.

​@@MaladjesterI would say it's only needed if someone in the party has a bunch of different bonuses they can give out. Last group I ran for (the first I ran for in ages) only had a few that they could easily keep track of.

I had to build a custom sheet to help newbies get used to all the moving parts. To make it all even more confusing and customizable, I homebrew Gestalt options that require tracking averaged fractional bonuses, so it was a worthwhile investment of my time. I even opened up the choice of using the 3PP content Spheres of Power. A lot to learn, but once it clicks in the players' heads, they get really invested.

Pathfinder 1st edition is my go to system as well... And I even got my nephew who is 11 years old into it. Which I kind of feel bad for because he really likes the game now... But he is only 11. Most kids his age don't like tons of rules in their games or are just oblivious to the concept of a TTRPG. And then my brothers all hate the game with a passion enough that they won't even stomach it for their nephew (although that does make it more fun to lord over them that he finally likes one of my interests).

@@Maladjester if you play online, the pathfinder community sheet on roll 20 has loads of premade buffs you can set up, you can make custom ones as well and you can set your limited resources (bombs, arcane pool, rounds of rage). the sheet does take some learning, but makes playing the game a breeze when you are good at it.

I think… it depends on playstyle a lot. In my second campaign with pf2e it was far better and faster, because I had better grasp on both rules and possibilities. And my players decided to be far more tactical.

@@KajtekBeary I can see that. Since I posted this comment, we've had a new player join our campaign and she is greeeeeeeen to the system. I'm gradually learning how to hurry her turns along, cuz so far every round of combat lasts 15-20 minutes now, with New Player spending much of the time going over options, having us look up her spells, etc. And if the whole crew is doing that, or feels like they have to just rinse and repeat their turns to avoid that, then I can see it being a torturous experience

@@gadzooks2763 ngl, casters, specifically prepared ones, for first-time players doesn’t really seem like a good idea with pathfinder, looking at HOW MANY THINGS THEY CAN DO. Aside of spells there are like 20 basic actions. When it comes to them I found it easier to teach new players via giving those abilities to humanoid/intelligent/semi-intelligent creatures. Like, two kobolds aiding each other or goblin reading unarm action. This way new players can see them in practice. Yes, it’s not exactly RAW, but it makes both learning process and fights more enjoyable. And usually it doesn’t throw balance out of the water at all. I treat those creatures as trained in respective skills.

Has a mainly PF1E player PF2E combat feels like a massive slog, like basic combats last 5-10 rounds and its mostly just relying on the D20 to do most of the lifting for a character.The only upset is since its such a simple and straight forward system its really quick 5-10 rounds.

​@@WarbossFrakayour DM is fucking something up, combat should last 3-4 rounds at most

Yeah, mythic powers get stupid quick. And I'm saying that about a game where characters blow up fortresses, slay demigods, return from the dead mid-combat, turn into dragons, and all the other stuff. Without trying to min-max in the slightest, I was able to have my barbarian do a double Champion Strike that was potentially 400-some-odd points of damage per round as long as she had myth pool to spend. And don't get me started on Display of Strength. She once lifted a stone giant over her head and threw, literally THREW A GIANT off a cliff. And I don't mean she out-wrestled it or something, because a high-level barb can potentially already do that. I mean threw a giant the way you skip a pebble on a lake. Didn't even have to, but the giants were talking trash and she decided to flex on them. Another time she smashed a hole in a castle wall. That was made to withstand siege artillery. WITH HER FISTS. Fun stories, but I'd have to say it's just too much power.

@@Maladjester I'm hosting a playthrough of the Wrath of the Righteous AP with three players and they wreck any and all encounter if I don't increase the difficulty, it's kinda hilarious in some ways.

@@Maladjester you should look into a mythic vital strike cavalier. "I take all of my damage and quadruple it because mythic vital strike also boosts my bonuses not just the weapon die, and then I multiply the result by 3 because I'm charging with a lance, that'll be 1000 damage"

Hard disagree on that last idea. Mythic is fun *as hell* as a player. I've been Playing/GMing PF1e ever since the system first came out, and ever since I discovered Mythic existed, I refuse to play without it. And it's lead to so many incredible stories! Like how in one of my campaigns, the BBEG forcefully teleported the party's archer to the Moon, and rather than teleport back, the archer decided to instead *fire back on that BBEG from the moon.* They won that fight, and it never could've happened without him having Mythic Far Shot and Limitless Range. Literally not possible. Mythic is incredible, and I completely disagree that it should be for bosses only.

11-20*

Yeah, because it's super fun to have marginally cool once per day abilities in a campaign that takes place over the course of three days so you'll only get to use it maybe once.

The pathfinder modules are all top notch. I do not think anyone would dispute that, and they got a lot of them.

@@trise2033 I'm pretty sure it takes course over more than three days. Edit: In fact, only the first two chapters take place over the course of three days. So you were severely mistaken it looks like.

@@trise2033 That's only the first book. The rest of the module predominately consists of 1 encounter per day.

Big agree. If I’m playing in person, I’ll gravitate to DnD and use theatre of the mind, because the combat, frankly, sucks. But with combat so crunchy in pf2e, I much rather play on a vtt.

Yeah Foundry VTT makes your life so much easier in PF2e

I'm a new PF2e GM, been running one game in Foundry and one in person, and I gotta say, playing in person is not that scary. Overall, Foundry is definitely a super awesome tool, but I haven't had too much trouble tracking the little number adjustments myself. Might change once they get to higher level, though.

Foundry is so awesome for Pathfinder. And customizable, my friend made a dancing lights I can just place on the field that automatically lights with cool effects. Only downside is that Foundry uses the host's internet to run the game rather than a server. Not usually a problem but my group has 3 DM's, myself, and 2 of my friends, one of whom lives on a farm in the country with the shittiest internet and can barely host games. But as long as your own internet is good it's the best system.

@@LevattWolfheart big agree. Running foundry on your pc is a memory hog. Highly recommend using a server like Forge.

and doing it in the middle of the night so there are no witnesses, all because of a stupid bar bet, just guy wakes up in the morning and finds out the guy he was an asshole to the night before is a new god.

That is really funny to think... but it's also possible that never actually happened now with updates to the lore. Apparently, in the Godstrain Prophecies, which he had an entry for, it is suggested that instead of him doing all that, ascending after being black-out drunk... he just kinda told everyone he did and they believed him. So with enough faith he just ascended, and the Starstone, having enough of his lies, just smited him out of existence. Now, if this is true (minus the smiting) that is an interesting revelation to make about one of the more popular carefree deities of this universe. Especially since it's hinted at that he doesn't really know if he did or not. All he remembered was getting drunk, going into the Cathedral on a dare, and then woke up back outside which many took as proof that he succeeded since going in there is supposed to be akin to a trap save for a few.

Hoo my god a path 2e that doesnt suck the system toes

Probably he just never saw that variant rule in 5e.

Yeah that was def a lil hand moment if you know what I mean

My apologies for thread necromancy, but he said he changed PF2e's diagonals to be 5e's diagonals. You can see on the screen what the PF2 rule is. In 5e all squares are 5 ft no matter what, in PF2 the first diagonal is 5ft and the 2nd is 10 ft and it alternates back and forth.

@@Lycaon1765 The 5e variant rule I referred to works in that exact same way, presumably OP is used to playing with that.

Your adventures only go to 5-6? I feel like 10ish is the sweetspot in 5e, 6 is pretty damn low

Do you start new campaigns because new players join the group? Why not just let them join the campaign?

​@@MonkeyChessifyit's been this way for 8 years

​@@juliannim6843because they never know how to play and it also coincides with half the group dropping out because of work shedules

@@Usernamesdontmatter1 damn, that sucks. Don't think I'd stick around for 8 years in a group like that. Atleast not for the game, but if they company's good, that's alright.

Idk. Pathfinder 1e is a little up there in crunch, and tools are nice, but not being willing to understand starting wealth or basic rules enough to know that you can just add legendary artifacts because the tools didn't say no is.... Well it's frankly just bad player etiquette. I can add legendary items in D&D beyond first level. If you want a system with rule, classes, and abilities with a firm outline and you can't be bothered to learn the basics, any system will suck and sometimes that's on you.

That's because there's no level range that "works best". PF2e is designed to work from 1 to 20, so your character will always be progressing. However, as a good rule of thumb, you don't want to specialize everything into a single gimmick (most of the times you can't), so picking new choices and character avenues every level is a good option, because you won't need to wait until your build "comes online" and after several levels, you can even retrain earlier choices and make your final build (For example, Canny Acumen is the perfect feat for Retraining, since it improves your weakest saving throw and once your normal upgrade kicks in, you can retrain into something else like Fleet, Toughness or even a skill feat).

The, 5 first 10 second for diagonal movement, is the same rules for D&D. It's in all editions!

@@wyattjackson5185 with a map separated into hexagon fields it's just 5ft in very direction

@@Dragonewt-dv6dj I agree with the hexes. Yours was the first comment to address the movement "issue" he had in the video with a tag. I just wanted to clarify that the movement rules are the same in pathfinder and d&d.

I do prefer hex maps for that very reason. However, when I'm using a pre-prepared map with squares, and don't have the option to use hexes, I think the 5/10 movement rule is a simple but effective way to mitigate the absurd distances you can travel diagonally.

​@@wyattjackson5185 no in 5e you don't do that dumb pathfinder way. It's 5ft for every square no matter what.

You manage to make it both balanced AND fun? Yikes on bikes, share your wisdom. I either lean into the fun factor or we argue about rules and balance all night.

Weird flex but ok lol

my man is T posing on us plebs

​@qwopiretyu have a computer on hand believe me a good internat connection would fix most rules arguments because there's raw or rai to solve the questions almost always

@@qwopiretyu a few tips/notes: 1) Most of the rule questions tend to go away after a session or so (getting used to it) 2) do not try grappeling. 3) Do yourself a favor and start out with SOME limits. (no custom race, no prestigue classes, no thrid party stuff, etc) 4) DO NOT GRAPPEL! 5) make sure your players sit down and know the basics of how their chars work BEFORE the first session AND make sure the DM has a basic grasp of what each char is supposed to do. (ESPECIALLY if the char is build around some odd mechanic like targetet weapon breaking... yes i had someone like that in one of my games ^^) 5) If someone INSISTS on grappeling find the flowchart. it makes it bearable. ^^ (again speaking from experiance) As for balance... its mostly an experiance thing i guess? getting used to how strong/tactial your party is and what different monsters can do. But thats kinda the same for every system. ^^

I started as a pathfinder dm and hated it because of that reason

No, not really. If you don't choose the meta-feats in PF1, your character is basically irrelevant in fights.

@@JuddX Enh, I'm going to have to say that's a skill issue. I've managed to put together some *really* wacky builds and have them function very effectively. But you're *partly* right, if you don't have a *lot* of system knowledge and aren't willing to research, it's easy to build nonfunctional characters. That is sort of 2e's grace: even though you don't have as many options, it's harder to build a nonfunctional character.

@@gazelle_diamond9768 Eh, depends on what you're building. Sometimes, yes, you have to purchase meta-defining feats for a build to work- usually for martial, because they don't function without them (That's why the 'Elephant in the Room' optional rules were invented, after all), but sometimes there's alternatives (the Dirty Fighting feat covers a lot of sins, for example), but once you get past the required feats, there's usually a large amount of flexibility to customize your characters. The downside is sometimes characters take annoyingly long to "come online", but that's sort of the cost of having a flexible system. *that said*, third party options, like Spheres of Might can often get your character functioning at startlingly low levels.

@@gazelle_diamond9768 Depends on the party and depends on what you're building. RPGbot has a list of potential nerfs and buffs to every class if it's THAT big of an issue that you have to work it out with your GM. Regardless, if your build just doesn't work then it doesn't work, you run into the same problem in plenty of systems.

Little nitpick: it doesn't have to be a HUMAN variant, versatile heritages can be applied to any ancestry. I know technically half-elf and half-orc are human-specific, but the core rules had an optional rule for making it available to other ancestries. And the proper versatile heritage rules came out later, so I think of those two as "beta" versatiles which should be updated to the full rules that got implemented later.

@@Bloodfencer1990 Oooh! Wasn't aware of that. Cool!

@@spartanhawk7637 It's a really cool system. One of my players is a catfolk tiefling and while it doesn't come up a lot, the image of him being a literal devil cat as he tries to pick people's pockets is very amusing.

@@Bloodfencer1990 Just wait till he knocks a glass off a table while staring another party member dead in the eye.

Well it's a pill that will probably need swallowing sooner or later given the current rapidly-terminating trajectory of D&D. (or the community will become like something akin to a speakeasy during prohibition, distributing and playing the game still behind WotC's back and keeping the community alive.)

It's not so much "Better", than it actually already "solves" a lot of issues veteran D&D5e players end up having to homebrew overtime. More player choices that are mechanically meaningful, more interesting combat, subsystems that help the DM, reliable challenge rating system, interesting monsters, more balance between martial and caster characters, etc. Also, above all, GMs have a much, much easier time preparing the game and having more time to enjoy along with the players. Basically, all the issues and gripes that veteran players end up having with DnD5e aren't even an issue in PF2e. It may be a system harder to learn (as if DnD5e didn't need a while to sink in as well), but it's far easier to run. In less than 10 sessions and the GM will have the important aspects of the system as second nature (even faster and easier if they're using FoundryVTT, which has extensive, and free, support for PF2e).

@@LightningRaven42 Thanks for the run down, didn’t expect to actually get an explanation response XD. I was well aware their is actually plenty of benefits (due to the sheer ammount of pathfinder players/fans their is of corse truth to the “it’s better” idea) I just way to common see no explanation further or elaborating on it, Just the short statement.

@@Coconut-219 I’ve always pirated almost everything with dnd, for a long time I thought that was everyone’s usual but I’m not Shure on actual numbers XD. I’m just glad that more systems are cropping up and given actual well rounded short explanations/what their about instead of, just pathfinder being the alternative towards the typical fantasy genera.

There's definitely a reason that people say it is "better" than D&D - Pathfinder is a much more intentionally designed game. They knew what they wanted, put it together, and it works quite well. 5e is much sloppier - no sense of balance, glaring power creep, major flaws in the class system, lack of GM tools, inconsistent design philosophy, bad bestiary, ridiculous rules jank, and lots of historical baggage. A lot of the stuff that frustrates experienced DMs the most is just due to not thinking stuff through, or an unwillingness to address the fundamental flaws of the system. In this respect, pf2e is a clear winner, and I'd definitely argue that it's better designed than 5e. However, pf2e does make decisions that some people will be unhappy with, so even if it's a "better game" that is more intentionally designed, you still might end up preferring 5e despite its overwhelming list of flaws. For me personally, I prefer 5e's paladin and warlock (vs champion and witch), its selection of races, its setting-agnostic philosophy, and its more traditional fantasy aesthetic. But I've also seen people be frustrated by vancian spellcasting, large numbers, crunch, alignment-based mechanics (although they're going away soon), and its general complexity. However, if these things _aren't_ dealbreakers for you, I really see little reason not to switch to pf2e. And since that list is ultimately pretty minor (and because most of it can be resolved with a bit of clever homebrew), I feel like for many players, pf2e really is just a better system. So like, it's not _exactly_ a better system because everyone wants different things. But it is better designed, and unless you really hate some specific aspect of pf2e, it's probably a better game for you as well. So people just kinda shortcut to "it's a better game."

5e was built around 1 extremely powerful Action, where bonus actions are moreso "this isn't strong enough to merit taking up the turn", hence why they're kinda not necessary and some 5e classes don't really use them. PF2e is definitely more diverse and customizable due to its far higher complexity. 5e still has a lot of customization in multiclassing and subclasses, as well as feats, but it's slower and kept to a minimum due to being a simpler system. I'm happy 5e doesn't have 3 actions because the system isn't built around that (imagine how quickly the whole game would fall apart if you could take two full actions in exchange for not moving and not taking a bonus action, OR how much less fun 5e would be if you could only "2 action"/bonus action OR "2 action"/movement.). And I'm happy that PF2e does, because that's what the system was built around. It was designed for movement to be far more important, designed for less power and more strategy. I like both systems a whole lot, for different reasons. I want to play a whole lot more of both, honestly ^_^

For what it's worth, if having level added to your rolls & having +1/2/3 (Greater/Major) Striking weapons be core to the balance turns you off of the system, there are official variant rules for Proficiency Without Level and Automatic Bonus Progression that remove these quirks. I've barely run any PWL or ABP myself, but apparently the only major downside is it's a bit harder to make bosses feel like bosses since everything's on a more or less even playing field with PWL. ABP-wise, I haven't heard much on it, but I've been wanting to run it just for the reason that it's a bit annoying having to think "hm, so the party is X level, so I'm going to need to hand out at least a couple striking runes this dungeon" and have them inflate the dungeon's loot pool.

Though I too love dark roast coffee

Try 4e. Its a very simple step from 5e to 4e and then into other systems. 4e is also very good for teaching character building because unlike 5e, where you get a set ability at whatever level up, you get to choose from powers every couple of levels and can really mix things up. 4e also works really well for teaching people how to work together and set up combos. The only real problem with 4e, is you have people like puffin who just didn't know what they were doing and then just complain about things they did wrong thinking the rule is bad.

Same here. My main campaign is a Pf2 campaign. The balance of the game helps run super long epic stuff that doesn't fall apart. For one-shot, short adventures, or newbies, I prefer DnD; I find it's easier to digest for none "gamer" oriented minds.

A neat thing with pathbuilder is that it can allow for custom packs that some 3rd parties do create stuff for, so you can get battlezoo or classes+ stuff on pathbuilder.

@@sealeddragon6251 Thanks for this comment, I didn't realize pathbuilder finally implemented custom classes! I checked just a couple months ago, so it's cool to see they're making so much progress on the app

I feel like a good chunk of the transition is also just seriously talking about it. Before my group went from 5e to this, I conversed with them about how it would be different, that alone was enough to get them in the mindset. They realized, "Yes, this is more challenging, but it's also fun." That's not to say that ALL of them loved it. Some did not transition because it wasn't as laid back as 5e. Combat and adventuring required thinking and preparation. There was a certain level of involvement that they were not comfortable reaching. Puffin's comparison of Pf2e to a dark roast coffee, I think, is incredibly adequate; it's not better than a medium roast, it's just different, but it's certainly an acquired taste.

I disagree with a lot of your points. I feel like I can play any class and contribute to the party in 5e just as easily. "The RP isn't balanced." RP isn't just about the Persuasion/Deception. A bard is never going to be good at all 6 attributes, and in fact, isn't often even good at more than Charisma/Dexterity/Constitution. Sure, the Bard does a lot of the charisma rolling, but you can still talk and help the Bard, or be a part of the conversations without being the one rolling. Besides, who's going to roll Athletics to break down a door, or carry the weak af Bard up a tough to climb mountain? Who's going to have the perception and insight to figure out what's going on? Everyone in the party can have a niche in 5e, too, unless your DM allows everyone to have 18s in every stat (which just isn't fun!). This only really becomes a problem at high levels (13+), which 5e is DEFINITELY not balanced for. "The Martials suck/Tanks aren't viable." Martials have a gimmick to make them strong, but it does get pretty dull pretty quickly. The -5 to-hit and +10 damage feats make Martials' dps on single targets just as high, if not higher than many spellcasters, and while being an AC tank is either broken (early game 22+ AC) or pointless in the late-game, being an HP tank is both reliable AND necessary! Unless your DM lets everyone have a high Con, or lets everyone take max HP instead of average or rolling, you're going to be the only one capable of taking hits. Positioning is what makes the situation, though admittedly a lot of combats are poorly built in modules, you CAN create choke points that force the enemy to attack the tanks first. Either that, or have the DM play more realistically and have enemies not know who the squish target is immediately. It comes down to who your DM is, though I think on average tanks ARE hard to make work without sentinel or good encounter building. In addition, a lot of the "Muscle Wizard" or similar builds can be done in 5e too, and effectively, with multiclasses and/or specific subclasses. It's harder to do unless you know the system really well, but it's completely manageable. While I think 5e is definitely imbalanced, I don't think it's imbalanced in a way that makes it less fun. If anything, its imbalance makes it way MORE fun, as long as you have a DM that doesn't just want to punish their players. To compare 5e and PF2E, I think PF2E is WAY better in the late-game, but I've yet to have a group who have the patience to get from level 1 to higher levels (it's VERY slow, and we can't group that often). That said, I think 5e is WAY more fun in the early/mid stages (basically from levels 3 to 11-ish), and it's easy to level up quickly in most modules, letting you experience most of what the game/builds have to offer quickly. PF2E is a hard sell because most people don't like waiting multiple sessions to get slightly more powerful, and 5e is an easy sell because you can become pretty darn overpowered pretty darn quickly- as every class/multiclass! It's hard to get my friends to sit down for PF2E when 5e is typically quicker to the point. All of that said, I like both systems. 5e is more fun for quicker campaigns and feeling strong, where combats go by faster with every turn full of excitement. PF2E is more fun for longer more involved campaigns where the growth is slow but rewarding, where combats are slower but more strategic, with every turn full of planning and thought.

​@@TaismoFanBoy I must respectfully disagree. I spent six years playing 5e, and let me tell you, being a martial in a group of mages suck. '"The RP isn't balanced." RP isn't just about the Persuasion/Deception. A bard is never going to be good at all 6 attributes, and in fact, isn't often even good at more than Charisma/Dexterity/Constitution. Sure, the Bard does a lot of the charisma rolling, but you can still talk and help the Bard, or be a part of the conversations without being the one rolling. Besides, who's going to roll Athletics to break down a door, or carry the weak af Bard up a tough to climb mountain? Who's going to have the perception and insight to figure out what's going on? Everyone in the party can have a niche in 5e, too, unless your DM allows everyone to have 18s in every stat (which just isn't fun!). This only really becomes a problem at high levels (13+), which 5e is DEFINITELY not balanced for.' The inherent issue here is that socialization is a major pillar. Exploration, from what I've played and seen, is almost always the pillar left to rot the most. You bring up using athletics in a variety of circumstances, but in the fourteen games I've played, I can count on both hands the number of times Athletics has mattered outside of a dedicated grapple build. I was in all of one game where having athletics contributed to the gameplay meaningfully. Granted, this is still a problem in Pathfinder, but that's why having 'expertise' for three skills per class is so amazing. I can have my grapple build, still be a stealth legend, and be a god among medics. You just have more room to fill all niches. The Bard can't fill every niche, it's true, but they make up the majority of the socialization niche. You can contribute as a player on the side, yes, but that runs into another problem - I've been in a group where the Bardlock really wants to run Persuasion and Deception but always forgets to lie. The Monk does most of the lying in the party for us because he knows how to do it, but he is always, always, ALWAYS stymied by the fact he doesn't have expertise in any face skills. If this were PF2e, he could devote an 'expertise' advancement - without needing to multiclass, mind you, which is its own set of problems if THAT is the solution to the problem, since it just means becoming a Bard or a Rogue to get around the problems they bring - to Deception and still have two more to put wherever he wants, which for him happens to be Stealth and, were this PF2e, Thievery. It's always awkward having to see the Bardlock or the Monk flounder because one seriously has trouble with the role she wants to play and the other can't have the stats to excel in it, which also comes down the fact Monks and Paladins are MAD in 5e. This isn't an issue in PF, where just having the skill means you're backing it with your level, and the skill itself comes with activities with rules you can devote yourself to. If the Bardlock was in PF2e, she'd be GREAT at what she wants to do because there are rules to back her about her Diplomacy. As for climbing mountains? Wizards solve that with Fly at 5th level. PF2e does a much better job limiting flight options and making mages less able to obviate dungeon design, which I've found DMing for both in three games. These aren't minor issues or one-offs, either. When socialization skills, stealth, and perception are the most used skills in the game - and they are - then... yeah, the Bards and Rogues are going to dominate. PF2e does a much better job making other skills matter, like Medicine or Crafting, by giving them value with gimmicks they can fulfill in AND out of combat, as opposed to in OR out of combat. Several classes also get mileage out of using the various other skills as part of their normal routine, like Thaumaturges and Esoteric Lore. '"The Martials suck/Tanks aren't viable." Martials have a gimmick to make them strong, but it does get pretty dull pretty quickly. The -5 to-hit and +10 damage feats make Martials' dps on single targets just as high, if not higher than many spellcasters, and while being an AC tank is either broken (early game 22+ AC) or pointless in the late-game, being an HP tank is both reliable AND necessary! Unless your DM lets everyone have a high Con, or lets everyone take max HP instead of average or rolling, you're going to be the only one capable of taking hits. Positioning is what makes the situation, though admittedly a lot of combats are poorly built in modules, you CAN create choke points that force the enemy to attack the tanks first. Either that, or have the DM play more realistically and have enemies not know who the squish target is immediately. It comes down to who your DM is, though I think on average tanks ARE hard to make work without sentinel or good encounter building.'

GWM and Sharpshooter are what we call 'feat taxes.' They are necessary for the build to work. Realistically, a mage only needs Res Con, and Sorcerers and Artificers don't even need that. This Fighter, to tank properly, needs Tough (In every game I've played in 5e, only one person wanted to ever be a martial, and unless they took tough they were dropping fast due to how multiattack in 5e works in comparison to the action system and MAP in PF2e), needs Sentinel (because lockdown isn't innate in 5e like it is in PF2e for several runes, feats, and reactions), needs GWM / Sharpshooter / Polearm Master to get the most out of their DPS, and so on. Martials suffer far more from a feat tax than mages, and this is just to get the CHANCE to lock people down. I've been in maybe a dozen combats where the confines are small enough to where a Fighter can create a proper chokepoint. Most encounters happen in areas with a lot of room, or at least enough room for the enemies to just get around the Fighter. In PF2e, even with this issue, Fighters get several feats for rushdown to stop that trick in its tracks, can react to more stimuli to lock an opponent down, and in three campaigns so far I've played with people who just naturally get lockdown builds playing as Fighters where they can loop a caster (oh, right, Fighters need Mage Slayer in 5e if they want to try to hurt mages who are casting, and they don't even get to stop the spell) prone and just beat them into paste, something that would never work in 5e. And that's just the Fighter. Rangers and their Hunt Prey, Barbarians and their own rushdown tactics, Thaumaturges, Inventors, etc... they all have so many options, no feat taxes beyond the feat they take at first level to start their preferred build, and can do so many things wonderfully. In PF2e, I don't need to coddle the Fighter when I create an encounter so it works to their advantage. I know going in they'll brutalize the scariest enemy and keep the squishies safe. Also, you and I both know that in 5e, the only people with amazing AC are the Arcane Casters, and that comes down to Shield. Past 5th level, the Ranger, Monk, and Rogue exist to get dunked on because they have a much more difficult time buffing their defenses than the mage who casts Mage Armor and Shield all day. A Monk needs Wisdom 5 and Dex 5 to achieve what a Wizard can get with Dex 2, Mage Armor, and Shield. 'In addition, a lot of the "Muscle Wizard" or similar builds can be done in 5e too, and effectively, with multiclasses and/or specific subclasses. It's harder to do unless you know the system really well, but it's completely manageable. While I think 5e is definitely imbalanced, I don't think it's imbalanced in a way that makes it less fun. If anything, its imbalance makes it way MORE fun, as long as you have a DM that doesn't just want to punish their players.' I feel any argument that requires multiclassing is invalid. I'm not saying that to be rude; I'm saying that because a fault of the system of 5e is that I can only think of a few classes with a capstone worth getting to 20th for, making the class feel weak. Multiclassing is additionally contingent on the DM allowing it, and I've already mentioned that having to become a Rogue or a Bard to compete with the actual Rogue or Bard just feels wrong. Even if it doesn't feel cheesy to you, it's still a 'tax' to anyone who didn't start as Rogue or Bard for expertise because you're trading at least one level (Rogue, Bard needs three) to compete with a class that does all its work naturally. Classes in PF2e are all getting expertise by level 3 and advancing it. If the Fighter wants her fourth attack, well, she's getting expertise in one skill via Skill Expert (feat tax) and that's that. Even if this is a fine trade for her, consider the fact that Fighters get their mileage out of attacking multiple times. To a degree, all martials do except Rogues, (no, GF Blade and B Blade don't count, because that just means mages can easily get involved in melee too, and they already can with the numerous burst cantrips and Shocking Grasp. We all know about Hexblade Warlock and the two Inventor subclasses where they substitute to-hit with Int) The Fighter is getting their DPS delayed to come close to what a Bard or Rogue is doing on the daily. 'To compare 5e and PF2E, I think PF2E is WAY better in the late-game, but I've yet to have a group who have the patience to get from level 1 to higher levels (it's VERY slow, and we can't group that often). That said, I think 5e is WAY more fun in the early/mid stages (basically from levels 3 to 11-ish), and it's easy to level up quickly in most modules, letting you experience most of what the game/builds have to offer quickly. PF2E is a hard sell because most people don't like waiting multiple sessions to get slightly more powerful, and 5e is an easy sell because you can become pretty darn overpowered pretty darn quickly- as every class/multiclass! It's hard to get my friends to sit down for PF2E when 5e is typically quicker to the point.' I must once again disagree. From 1 to 4 the martials feel incredibly weak because they have far less chances to do the one thing they're designed for. This is not an issue in PF2e, given the MAP system. In fact, many Rangers run on that. From 5-11, runes and other neat gizmos and gadgets give substantial power boosts, and unlike 5e, this is such a core part of the system that there are alternate rules for lazy DMs or DMs that don't want to work with loot they're expected to take otherwise to simulate getting magic items and runes. Even if we pretend this doesn't count because it's items and items inherently are dependent on campaign, martials all naturally get weapon specialization feats, and the math for meeting AC in PF2e is far kinder on most enemies so that martials feel like they contribute more. I will agree, however, that your arguments show why 5e is an easy sell. I have to fight tooth and nail with various personal experiences playing the game of 5e for six years to poke all the massive holes I see in that system open. It took my group and I (we played both systems and switched to PF2e quickly when we started playing due to preferring it for the reasons given) several years to get our thoughts in order about why things FELT wrong when we played. PF2e felt so much more fun to us because it was 5e but balanced and more accepting of all the classes. For a person just walking into TTRPGs, I will agree 5e initially FEELS more overpowered in how it works. I'd still say that comes down to mages and things like Rogue Expertise and Shield (it feels like you 'complete' a build faster in 5e because things are static enough to where you only need one or two things for a Rogue or Bard to have what they need for the rest of the game), but I see the argument now.

@@TaismoFanBoy (My post was so long I had to do it in two comments, so if the first seems like it breaks off awkwardly, that's why. I continue my argument in the next comment.)

@@anthonylooyen4855 As mentioned before with 'exploration not being common', a lot of the issues you're mentioning comes down to the DM not implementing it into campaigns. That said, almost all of the base modules are AWFUL at doing so, but that's a module problem, not a 5e problem as a whole. I've had plenty of campaigns I've run that implement them, specifically because I know it's needed to make other skills matter! I also try to differentiate Investigation and Perception since people often merge it into Perception, etc. etc. And when it comes to charisma characters not knowing how to lie, that's... just a system problem anyways. PF2e would have that issue too, but PF2e allows you to fix it "faster" (slower due to how slow you level up, but faster in terms of how many levels of investment it takes). Unless you know ahead of time, PF2e would also fall into the "nobody can lie except you, and you suck at it" pitfall, which happens just... in RP heavy TTRPGs in general. And tbh, I forgot a bit that wizards can often steal RP moments by spellcasting, so SOME scenarios can be denied by that, but it won't be ALL scenarios just due to how you can't know every spell (again, unless the DM lets you by giving you plenty of money and ways to add new spells to your spellbook). Feat taxes are a bit of an issue, sure. Fighters kinda mitigate it by getting like, twice as many feats as other classes, but with the other martials it's definitely a lot more painful. Whether the space is open or not is dependent on campaign setting (Out of the Abyss style means a TON of choke points, whereas city combat is likely to be nearly impossible, etc.). That said, group positioning can help (fighter being farther ahead than the rest of the party), but this cuts on RP and is difficult to accomplish in practice, and beyond that, you'll still be doing plenty of DPS after your feat taxes, alongside having health. I mentioned that AC could either be broken or pointless, and my example was very low level for a reason. AC for martials matters at like, levels 1-4ish, but once Wizards have enough spell slots to stop caring, yeah it's hard to compete without multiclassing yourself (A paladin/wizard can easily reach like, 27 AC), which is WAY too MAD to work properly anyways in many cases. AC is really unbalanced in 5e, and PF2e DEFINITELY does AC better imo. Multiclassing was just an example to show that certain "builds" (as in, theme of the character and ways to deal damage/RP) can exist, it wasn't to get around the skills issue specifically. Expertise isn't really a requirement to make your skills good, or even better than the rest of the party, unless the Rogue or Bard are also trying to be muscle, ya know? +9 athletics on a wizard will get the job done, even if it isn't a +13 that expertise could give you. That all said, I LOVE multiclassing as a mechanic. It's a tradeoff in many ways, oftentimes delaying your 5th level in ANY class (spellcasters' 3rd level spells are usually the strongest ones relative to level) is always painful, but you can make creative builds that don't rely upon it, or come online at a level or two later, because you level up so much faster, you aren't delayed for too long in terms of number of sessions (some go as fast as a level up every session). That's a big beauty for 5e for me, you can experiment faster and more recklessly. In PF2e, experimentation with long-term ideas is extremely discouraged, in that you have to stick with what you've chosen for a long time before having a new level up to replace it, and making new characters for new builds requires a massive amount of time investment that many people can't afford. That's one of my biggest issues with PF2e, actually, is how difficult it is to experiment with new things. On your "martials 1-4" point... uh, levels 1 and 2 actually kinda suck for everyone in 5e lmao, especially with HP being so scarce and OHKOs existing all around you. Martials aren't bulky enough yet, casters barely know any spells and can barely cast anything other than cantrips, etc. I like the 1st and 2nd level of PF2e better, which is why most campaigns my friends and I run in 5e either level you past 1-2 quickly, or start you at 3+ outright. At 3rd though, you have your subclass, which can make you feel like you're doing things even without extra attack online, and even without your level 4 feat (which is often your first feat), as long as you aren't playing one of the awful subclasses like Champion Fighter. In terms of items, it's not just campaign dependent, but DM dependent as well. I actually do really prefer PF2e's system though, and hadn't mentioned that one of my favorite parts of PF2e is the extended crafting system. You CAN get good item distribution in 5e with a good enough dm/setting, but yeah PF2e just handles it way better. 5e's item management is awful by default, and many items are too powerful/too weak for their rarity anyways. I don't agree on Rogue's DPS feeling overwhelming compared to martials though, considering one miss is all it takes to lose ALL of your DPS, while extra attacks makes it a bit more consistent. I had a friend playing Rogue who ran with a rapier, and felt entirely pathetic due to how often he missed (bad RNG). Bard may have expertise, but the majority of their default utility comes from "they pass and nothing happens" spells that can make their turn feel just as wasted, or even their entire BUILD can feel useless if the enemy has legendary resistances (though this is a problem with 5e's system more than the class in particular, and is just more proof that 5e is poorly balanced lol). Meanwhile, Monks can spam the HELL out of stunning strike at mid to high levels(one of the most overpowered abilities in the game IMO, even if it's on one of the worst classes otherwise), and get similar or more powerful effects than what the Bard can do. I think each class has pros and cons in terms of DPS, utility, support, and consistency, and whether or not the DM involves multiple combat per long rest or short rest (lots of combats and only short rests can make casters feel drained while martial/rogue units thrive a bit more, especially monks who get all ki points back), etc. etc. Overall, your experience with 5e is ENTIRELY dependent on the DM, and how the campaign is set up. A shitty dm and/or a shitty campaign setting could make a certain class COMPLETELY useless, sometimes including spellcasters if there's anti-magic shenanigans (which is a mechanic I kinda hate, in general). PF2e I think is a lot more of a consistent experience, and it's definitely a more balanced system (and is still getting updated to be more balanced, which is a real plus compared to 5e), but that doesn't necessarily make it more fun either (I.E. experimenting/more levels). Again, I actually love both systems, for different reasons. But I also acknowledge that I probably only love 5e so much because my friends and I all DM for it in ways that make it more fun.

Yeah but fuck games workshop :)