TLDR: im sick of grinding for 20 hours to get a single digit increase in gear effectiveness in games the "20% better" problem is a big one ive noticed in a lot of rpgs not just TTRPGs most notably the souls series where the best armor in the game and no armor feel barely different at all morrowind really spoiled me early so my experience in other games has been marred ever since i remember playing outward and experiencing the gear effectiveness gaps... i wept. sadly the game itself was just okay.
I don't know why but i think that the phrase "Cthulu has a health bar" can sound very badass in the right context. In which context, i dont know though
The one thing I *really* don't like about Pathfinder's math is that the math is so closely tied to the rune system that it practically breaks down if you don't *magically* happen to find them exactly when the system says you need them. Sometimes a DM will be subtle and actually try to get you to buy them, but even that's more of an illusion. Which in turn, doesn't really leave much room in the budget for more flavor-based/"cool" magic items. It just feels too "gamey;" less like you're sitting around with the mates having a good time, more like you're getting ready to try to beat C'thuun for the hundredth time this year. [EDIT because I really should clarify so nobody gets the wrong idea or thinks this is me finding the tiniest nitpick I can; I have minor gripes with just about every system. There's a lot more I like about PF2e than I dislike about it as a system, including most of the other math around it].
This video was total garbage from someone that does not even understand core mechanics. The numbers in PF2e are way worse than in 5e, and most are meaningless at high levels. And the progression of a character in 5e is not only tied to the Proficiency Bonus, a Fighter with +2 and 16 STR will start with a total of +4, and this will easily become a +10 to +13 by those levels, which means he will be able to hit almost everything. The same can be said about skill checks which have additional bonuses based on how you build the character (anyone can easily get to a +12 to +15 in a skill they want with Expertise and high attributes). edit: Also, while PF2e has some great ideas about core mechanics, almost everything is so poorly designed, that is counter-productive. For example the Action Point system which in theory is amazing, but the execution sucks @ss. One good execution of an Action Point system is Divinity Original Sins (and the 2nd game) which is far superior compared to PF2e's garbage which has even the movement locked behind Action Points (this is beyond stupid). The same with the multiple attacks which is another BS execution (again, DoS did it much better).
Pathfinder 2e comes from Dnd 3.5. Dnd used to have this type of thing, but having almost impossible odds at the start of the run as described in the pathfinder part, gameplay wise, just makes it feel like the DM threw a dmpc at the party to fight against. DND is a journey of people, pathfinder is a path of heroes.
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!
Between the two systems I've only ever played 5e. I'm not opposed to playing pf, I just haven't played it. In any case I don't think the problem being discussed here actually exists. Or at least it can be fixed without any kind of homebrew. It would be unorthodox sure but nothing that involves changing any rules or fudging numbers or anything.
i genuinely believe the reason that my group and a lot of others stick with 5e is simply because yes while the system requires "duct tape and a nail gun" there's a whole lot of really good "duct tape" made by really talented fans for 5e while pathfinder is pretty limited to official content due to the complexity of making new things like subclasses making homebrewing inaccessible to new people
the way I do the zero to hero type of troupe through plot TPKs instead of actually trying to kill the PCs, when the monster's hit points hit zero: I plot TPK them :)
dnd should not be treated as fhe default ttrpg of sorts there are all sorts of ttrpg's out there for wll kinds of settings and all kinds of game, and oftentimes homebrewing skyrim to oblivion simply isnt worth it
i am now going to shill eclipse phase. its a scifi ttrpg about fighting the remnants from when skynet tried to kill us all. abandoned plots and monstrosities and physics bending war machines. in a setting that is actually so evocative and unique. the fact more people dont know about it feels sinful to me
I mean no trolling against this guy he seems pretty nice but for me LV 1-17 against 22AC is.. Drastic enough. So LV 1 16STR a +5 to hit for 22. 15 percent chance as he said. Than level 4 he gets 18 STR to increase his chances by 5 percent. Level he gets that prof bonus now for a 25 percent chance to hit. Also now the Fighter has TWO attacks and two chances to wound him and while action surging he has 4 chances to hit. LV 6 bonus ASI he increases to a 35 percent chance to hit. LV 8 he can grab elven accuracy/lucky or any other feat to gain another way to hit or fill out his build. Level 9 he now has a 40 percent chance to hit. Only needing a 13 or higher to hit with 4 attacks this isn't even accounting for things like Battle Master for feinting strike or Bless from allies (A common buff) to increase that chance even further. LV 11 he now has 3 attacks and 3 chances to hit and 6 attacks at a surge. LV 13 he now has a 45 percent chance to hit. LV 17 now a 50 percent and LV 20 he now has 4 attacks and 8 with surge. Also realistically high level DnD takes into account with magic items. So realistically he's rocking a +2 or +3 sword. 65 Percent chance to hit with 8 attacks. Going from 15 percent chance to hit.. with a single attack. (LV 1 no action surge so literally one chance to strike.) This means... nothing. And if power comes with accuracy in ones mind Samurai Fighter really really fixes this sky rocketing that chance to hit with advantage with Fighting Spirit for every attack. Now at LV 20 That's 16 dice with each dice having a 65 percent chance to hit. I mean.. You're hitting most of those attacks now. I know this is ranty and obvious and maybe even boring but I just had to say my own thoughts on it ^^
P2e has a lot of systems that speak to me more than D&D 5e. I do really like 5e, its my go to system, but in the way that like...a Honda Civic would be your go to car. It works well, its reliable, and it's easy to use, but it's not perfect, and sometimes you need another car. I LOVE how Pathfinder handles crits. Basically, you don't just crit on a 20. You can also crit if you roll ten or more above the enemy's AC. So example: there's a goblin with 13 AC. You're playing a Fighter, with a +9 to hit, and you roll a 14. 14+9 is 23, so you crit the goblin. One, it FEELS awesome. Crits are extremely nasty in P2e, so it feels amazing to get one. But also, it goves attack bonuses a purpose. You're not just increasing your chance to hit, you're incressing your chances of landing a critical hit. Add in buffs, which are basically necessary in the system, and a Fighter will consistently be doing good damage, not because of any special abilities or spells, but because they're able to consistently land crits. To me, that nails the fantasy of a Fighter, of someone so skilled on the art of weapons that they're able to compete with monsters and gods. It also gives Fighter a good niche: yeah, they can't cast spells, but more than any other class, they're able to hit consistently, and they can basically do it all day long. I really wanna play more of the system, its so damn fun with a good group
One thing I wished you did do (I presume because you'd have to draw more and lengthen the video) is get more in depth into the numbers governing the characters, the fighter and the dragon, in both games. See, I don't know Pathfinder enough to know what goes into the attack roll or what AC the dragon has. I do know some AD&D2e, not very well, but THAC0 for Fighters gets better by 1 every level, meaning every level your chances to hit the same enemy increases by 5%. Add to that the generally lower ability score modifiers (+1 to hit at 18 STR), and you're looking at a 10% chance to hit 0 AC at lvl 1, and increasing to 50% at lvl 10 (without considering other buffs or magic weapons). I need to add that an AC of 0 is, afaik, the best non-magical AC score, as in the biggest bonus from DEX + the best non-magical armour (that's usually how I see it described, it also establishes a baseline for comparisons). Negative AC is better and you reach it through magical items or buffs, and positive AC is worse, and it's a result of a DEX penalty and inferior armour. For comparison, 5e warrior at lvl 1 has +4 mod at 18 STR, +2 proficiency, the numerical equivalent of 0 AC in 5e is 20 AC, so that's a 35% chance to hit, and at level 10 it's a +4 proficiency bonus and assuming the same STR, against 20AC you get a 45% chance to hit. Obviously this comparison is not perfect, since it's a very simplified scenario, but I hope it emphasizes the shift in design philosophies between these two editions of the game. Personally, I'd rather play a game with less modifiers, to crunch as few numbers as possible, at the risk of all characters being mechanically identical (since it's a RP game, I'd rather let RP differentiate the PC's, rather than mechanics), while also preserving a high level of difficulty. This will inevitably make me look stupid, but I never actually got to play D&D at a table, most of my knowledge is from reading the PHB's and playing the Infinity Engine games (BG1 and 2, and so on) and now Baldur's Gate 3. Hence my preference for the lower levels of AD&D2e.
That was a great video and i totally agree with all that is said except for Pathfinder being objectively better than DND I for one really like the fact that even a small level 1 hero can try and make a dent in a big ass dragon, and the rigidity of Pathfinder doesn't suit my needs as a DM because even if there is no hope to a situation, I want my player to have a chance to be able to interact with the problem, not just bang their head against a wall and feel helpless That said, i totally get the argument made for Pathfinder in this vid and I don't think DND is objectively better, I just think it's weird when people try to prove one system to be better than the other when they clearly are alternatives for different playstyles. Tabletop RPGs are meant to be different, for people to have as much options as they can. Plus, WOTC suck so I m also glad they have some rivals from a commercial point of view Way to go Pathfinder players !
I find that both of these games have the same problem, the Armor Class does not protect you against damage, it protects you against being hit, be it critically or otherwise. So in both systems, you didn't damage the Dragon because you didn't hit him to begin with. And this means it doesn't matter if you wield the Great Legendary Holy Greatsword Mcguffin or a Normal Wooden Spoon, anything can pierce the scales as long as you the wielder can land a hit with it. So all behold the great dragon-slaying Normal Wooden Spoon, that has Aided Adventurers in vanquishing many a meal. And now renowned for dealing the final blow to the Great Ancient Calamity Dragon of Mount It's Just More Fire. At least my group's D&D games don't devolve into a game of Rules lawyering like our games of Pathfinder have. Like why do you need seven different actions for what is essentially the same thing? :3
One thing I haven't quite decided is good or bad is the PF2e Remaster change to Wizard where proficiency is no longer added to your spell damage. I think they did it because they thought high-level wizards were kicking too much ass. I haven't played with the Remaster change, so maybe it's still okay? I don't know.
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*.
Dropped classic 5E almost at the beggining. Tired of broken adventures and goofy system. Almost switched to Pathfinder (1E), but discovered Level Up A5E. Worked pretty good for me, as a perfect solution between both systems.
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.
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.
That's a bunch of baloney. You either don't know how dnd on works or pretend that you don't. First, hit chance in dnd is also affected by your stats that also increase with level and by magic equipment. Second, the number of your attacks per turn and your average damage per attack also improve. Third, against a high tier dragon most low level classes won't even be able to start attacking because of the terrifying presence, which may require you to roll as much as 24 on a d20. The difference in damage output between lvl 1 and lvl 17 is immense. Plus, there are a lot of monsters that can't be damaged with nonmagical weapons, which can further exacerbate the difference.
I disagree with the premise that "number gets really big for PC" makes a game good. By that logic Pun-Pun makes dnd 3e the best game ever and games like Blades in the Dark, Heart, or Lancer basically worthless. I dont even think it makes a story good automatically. With pathfinder its very possible to not know the system well enough to make a character who becomes unplayably worthless as the enemy numbers outpace yours. I hear 2e fixed some of that but i can tell you from experience with 1e having to throw out a character because I picked the "trap" options doesnt make for a fun story.
I never thought I'd be defending 5e lol but this is such a weird misrepresentation of the system... Like just completely ignoring all of the ways a character improves in 5e (where certain classes can add a D12 to their attack roll and damage per round can increase 8-10x times over depending on the class, to say nothing of the more interesting things that make a character) to highlight a single aspect of the roll. It totally falls apart under scrutiny. 5e characters turn into super heroes at high tiers of play, at least relative to the world around them. Hope to see better thought-out and more well-read content in the future!
It's a feature, not a bug! It's basically two different theprietical realities being represented by two different rulesets: in one (D&D 5e), even the lowest level mook can pose SOME threat to a high-level character (especially in great numbers). The other (Pathfinder, as well as D&D 3e and 4e) much more strongly emphasizes a stratified power scale, where the threats a character is expected to be able to face "level up" a long with them. The latter could be described as more "video-gamey", but that's not necessarily a bad thing! Plenty of people prefer that style (as this video exemplifies), but I don't think it's fair to say it's "better", since it's so much a factor of the sort of story you're trying to tell. Personally, I love the idea that a scrappy little hero, with enough courage and the luck of the gods, could take on a dragon! Feels more "mythic", in a way
This was always my favorite aspect of the ttp, where math helps tell the story. Unfortunately I get the feeling most players don't get and appreciate what you're talking about. 5e has it's particularities, I like advantage, but they just don't feel intuitive to the story aspect. For example in the dragon scenario: 100 lvl1 guards would beat an ancient black dragon and the story never takes off. The math works against it here cause it would be super hard to concoct a scenario where the environment can't deal with a dragon and you have to be a hero. Way I see it, 5e is more a power fantasy for people that get befuddled by larger amounts of math. Pathfinder is trying to be a realistic fantasy simulator.
2:17 no he's 30% more likely to hit because he now has recived 6 ability score improvements 2 of which can be invested into his attack stat. Except the dmg says rare item's should start to be found around level 5 and +2 weapons are rare so atleast +40% chance. Also a mouse could kill you irl if you stod still so him being able to hurt it makes sense. This scaling is intentional, every single thing is supposed to be able to hit echother. Its called bounded accuracy and it means that unlike pathfinder armies can actually do something making fantasies impossible in pathfinder possible in dnd. Finnally i do consider pathfinder superior but this is not fair criticism, dnd and pathfinder are team games intended for groups around 4. You don't wait to kill the dragon until you can do it alone, you do it when your team can do it together, but even then just pick an adult dragon of cr 13 and you can do it eventually with proper equipment and an epic boon(probably unnecessary).
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.
*This is the kind of thing that makes me think that Pathfinder 2 is like a cult.* Perfectly linear growth is better storytelling? What the fuck are you talking about? Personally I find big number to be entirely disengaging from a mechanical level as well as a storytelling level. In D&D the ancestral plus one sword is relevant from level 1 to level 20, in Pathfinder your mandated to be swapping out your equipment for something with bigger numbers constantly like you're playing Diablo
Doesn't it feel worse in a way when your character powers up even faster than in DnD? Like, a couple of adventures on they go from nobodies to dragonslayers? I don't know, there are some immersion problems here in my opinion ^^
I don't disagree, but I also feel like Pathfinder performed a bait-and-switch last year when deciding they'd change so many things about mechanics and world lore.
