20 ways that Pathfinder 2e is simpler than D&D (The Rules Lawyer) 

(I will include additions + errata here as they think of them... very busy day meanwhile!) In case people haven't guessed, I like to speak on things that go against the grain. =D It's good to educate and to challenge assumptions that favor the market leader which is the default TTRPG that players new to the hobby naturally flock to. Anyone who wants the hobby space not to be dominated by one company should invite a healthy, open discussion about how these games can improve. Saying that such discussions shouldn't happen, both strengthens the dominance of the industry leader and allows it stagnate to the detriment of players of D&D as well.

D&D 5e is "simpler" for players because all the work is put on the DM more or less.

"You don't have to look up Jeremy Crawford tweets to run your game." Love this quote.

Pathfinder does absolutely body D&D in terms of free resources, it’s not even close. I will forever love Pathfinder for being so accessible.

4E critical hits were the best for simplicity. Roll no dice, do max damage. It works out roughly the same on average and you avoid the feels-bad moments of "I got a crit! ...and rolled 1's for damage." (edit: and honestly, an easy rule to homebrew in either 5e or PF2e with no massive change)

27:47 Jeremy Crawford is wrong about his own game. This is why the language is being changed in One Dnd. If you can see an invisible creature, they aren't invisible to you. His interpretation is not supported by the rules or by any reasonable interpretation of invisibility. Also the reason you still need to hide while invisible is that someone still knows where you are when you're invisible because you still make sound. You need to hide with your stealth skill to avoid detection.

15:35 Amongst the few actual improvements in One D&D, it was going to have a new version of Exhaustion where it was a simple -1 to any d20 tests (ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws) for every level of Exhaustion, and you would instantly die if you have more than 10 levels of Exhaustion (instead of 6 like in 5e). However, like some of other rare good ideas in One D&D, it was unfortunately abandoned after the first few playtests

Number 8 was so huge for me, probably the biggest single factor in me dropping 5e in favor of pf2e. Treasure is such a fun part of the RPG experience and gold, items, and loot are just done so much better in pathfinder.

Crawford's explanation for the Invisible/SeeInvisible thing was totally pulled out of his rear on the spot. If you can see invisible creatures as if they are visible, then they simply aren't invisible to you. I think it was just an attempt to save a little face when an awkward rule misalignment was revealed and to pretend the unintuitive interaction was intentional.

Important note about Focus Points: You have *one* pool of Focus Points, even if you have spells coming from multiple sources (class or archetypes). That also means you can dip into an archetype, get a focus spell, and cast it multiple times using the Focus Points you got from your class.

The best part about 5e's invisibility is that no part of it says you can't be seen, judt that you can hide easier meaning that you need to spend your action to Hide or you are still visible

Whenever someone insists 5e is a Rules Light system, I tell them to explain how See Invisibility works, cause it's such an utterly ridiculous facet of the game and it annoys me so much. The fact that Jeremy Crawford treats it like a feature and not a bug, and the fact that he typically doesn't use his own ridiculous clarifications for his own games he runs just feels so fundamentally wrong and grating. No sane DM would use Crawford's ruling. Stealth as a whole in 5e is a lot of cross referencing and vagueness that makes it frustrating to learn, and is often not ran properly (either massively buffing or nerfing it at a table for those who don't know the actual rules). PF2's stealth and invisibility rules overall are more by word count, but there's far less inconsistency and ambiguity, and they're located in more logical locations in the book.

30:47 Crawford either doesn't read the spells in his own game, or was actively moving the goal post. Funny that.

Having opposed checks just be something one side rolls and compared to a flat DC of the other is something I never realized I needed until PF2e. I remember actually getting rather annoyed with the idea of both sides rolling because of instances where I rolled a 2 on the dice and it didn't matter because the opponent rolled a 1, or inversely I'd roll really high and feel good about it but that didn't matter because they rolled a nat 20 or something similar. Rather than having a flat DC check the way most other skills are tested, I was instead getting a fully random difficulty level from the whims of the D20.

There are literally hundreds of RPGs out there. DnD might be leading the pack, but Pathfinder had that position during the 4th Ed DnD days. But, beside that, in all honesty, the reason everyone defaults to DnD these days is because it became Mainstream, for a variety of reasons. RPGs themselves didnt become mainstream, however.

I need to correct you on the stealth check from dnd. The stealth check isn't made then you have to remember it for all future checks; this is a common way people do it. The way it supose to work rules as written is when an act of stealth can be opposed you roll. Your rogue says he is going stealth thru a feild they do not roll. It's when they get to a guard they have to slip past they roll. They get past the guard and in the next area have to make it past some people talking they make a new stealth check and so forth.

Between the two I prefer PF2e, but sadly its more difficult to find a Pathfinder game over a 5e game. For some reason I dont match the demographic to get into groups that play closer to my style. Guess I should dust off the old GM skills if I want to have any type of group.

Crawford rambles about Invisibility for three minutes and gets the rules completely wrong? (Suprised Pikachu Face)

I think you unfairly made PF2e's "Surprise" look simpler, because it's not REALLY about Surprise, but initiative in general. Surprise often comes up because you're trying to attack a creature while you're hidden, like "leaping from the shadows" or "Raining arrows from above". Very rarely are you able to surprise a creature who can clearly see you, but it could happen in the case of something like a subtle spell metamagic. *In 5e:* You roll initiative as normal, but use an unhelpful clusterfuck of rules spread across many sections to "determine if any creatures are surprised". And if a creature goes first anyway, they're no longer surprised, which disrupts features relying on surprise. *In PF2e:* You roll stealth for your initiative while the foes typically roll perception, and also you compare your stealth initiative against their Perception DC. Since initiative is supposed to only be rolled when a creature could be made aware of your presence even by some vague means, that means if you succeed against their Perception, you are merely Undetected (a confusing name because they know you are there, but they don't know WHERE you are, so you have in fact been detected) instead of Unobserved (completely unaware of you), but if they still go first in combat, they could still look for you. 5e and PF2e are also similar in when you roll initiative; it's basically when you declare that you are going to do an aggressive action such as attacking or drawing a weapon. In 5e, that can work since sometimes creatures are surprised even if they go first. But in PF2e, it can mean very little was really accomplished aside from a single creature spending an action or two; and requires you as the GM to step in and say that they're not yet aware you've done anything and so "skip" turns, effectively giving you something like surprise or letting a player effectively go first in combat which can also be too strong. It gets more complicated when you have to take cover into account, since MOST of the time when you're hiding, it can only be done when you have cover (which is to say, the majority of stealth rolls have a hidden +2 in there, probably +4 in the case of just being completely behind a wall or something).

The fact that I willingly watched this video is proof that I agree with Ronald My reasoning for 5e still being easier on brand new players is that the new player experience can be as simple as rolling dice to attack and that's basically it. There are far fewer terms and things to remember for a level one character with tons of handholding. The hidden complexities of the system only come out when the DM isn't wallpapering over them (in my very personal experience) PF2E does ask for more upfront investment from players. It expects you to read all your class feats at level 1, read up on what your ancestry does, etc. This increased player engagement is a hard sell. I've lost two brand new players who later on played 5e and loved it because they needed to learn and invest so much less Because I'm the type of person who values the analysis of videos like this, i automatically agree. Because I gave the patience to read all my feats, too Those players I mentioned don't have the attention spans fir a 15 minute video Which does mean your middle schoolers are better than them 😂

I would add movement as its own category here. Splitting your movement between actions/attacks, transitioning movement types, navigating difficult terrain and pseudo-difficult terrain like plant growth, and vague jumping rules are all complicating factors, and when you start combining them together it can be easy to lose track of exactly what you can do with your movement on your turn. I'm new to Pathfinder and was initially thrown off by the differences from 5e, but I'm coming to really appreciate how simple it is to adjudicate movement, even if it is sometimes a bit more limiting.

Point 1 - The variance of PF2e crits are higher than D&D crits, since the more dice you roll the more likely you are to roll average damage. Double damage makes you more likely to roll minimum crit damage as well as maximum crit damage. Is that more fun? Maybe. And it's definitely more likely to do max crit damage... But it's also more likely to do min crit damage. Not disputing that 'roll the dice and double the result' is faster in play, though. Point 15 - I forget what the ruling is meant to be in 5e for covering an invisible creature with flour, but I think that's the usual example I've seen for how _weird_ 5e's Invisible condition is? Definitely agree that 5e often leads to a 'worst of both worlds' situation - The way I've seen those holes within it's crunch expressed in a way that most resonates with me is that 5e isn't rules light, it's rules deficient. For the system complexity of 5e, a lot of the places you'd expect it to give rules it instead gives "Ask your GM." Which if it's a light system, that's fine - Light systems thrive on rulings over rules and the GM making a ruling that feels reasonable at the time isn't going to break things later, while for heavier systems, such as D&D, it can. Since you brought up PbtA towards the end, the PbtA I'd recommend to folk wanting to try PbtA, either as a player or a GM, is Escape From Dino Island. Even by PbtA standards, it's simple, designed for one shots, and has all the pieces you might need in a 'there are dinosaurs on an island where you are on, you need to get off of it, but you need to do something first' adventure with a modern day setting. Jurassic Park, starting with the moment the dinosaurs break out, basically.

One aspect from 4e regarding damage modifiers: It mattered if you got "adds to damage" and "add to damage rolls". There are some powers that have no damage dice, and thus don't qualify as a damage roll. Brutal Barrage deals CON mod damage w/o any dice being rolled. One way to cheese the system is to find something that gives +1d6 to damage, thus turning it into a "damage roll" and get more bonuses. Thankfully they got rid of that in 5e.

The x2 part of PF2e critical system is simpler. However, because of the over 10 rule, overall PF2e's crit system is still more complex. As for bonuses, the reason we don't like the small numbers is because when on their own they are quite meaningless. Dice bonuses and adv works better here, though it is more complicated, it gets what it pays for at least.

41:28 I do think there's a reason for DnD to give you a benefit for going prone against ranged attacks. You're presenting a smaller target.

On the subject of rarity, there's an item called Harkon's Bite. It's an uncommon item. It gives you +1 to Ability checks and Saving Throws. It also increases your Strength to 15 if you don't already have higher (and who does, strength is worthless in 5e) and grants immunity to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage. 5e is a perfectly balanced game.

I like how falling dmg in pf is so easy both in feet and m. Half in feets, yes But feet is m/3. Which means if you want to calculate damage counting by metres => just add half of metres! Example: 50 feet is 25 dmg It's 16.6 m, hence +8 => 24.+ = 25. It's easy cause 3 feet is roughly 1 m. Half of 3 is 1.5, so it's super easy.

No fixed damage for falling. There's a famous incident of a guy who survived, almost uninjured, a fall from a damaged airliner at 20k-30k feet. His forward motion helped, since he swept through the flexible upper boughs of pine trees, then tumbled down among the pine branches, and plopped into soft snow. I met a guy who fell 40 feet from a tree, head first, into the ground. Literally head first: his head was in the ground, up to his shoulders. No broken bones. My boss (we were in the tree-felling business) didn't see him fall, but did see the divot in the ground and where the guy was in the tree cutting.

I think I'd like it if more of your content focused on actually diving into PF2e as a stand-alone than constantly comparing it to 5e. The majority of your last 12 videos have been a comparison between the two games that just rehashes the same stuff. I've been trying, and struggling, to learn this game for almost a year now, because what I need just isn't really being met. There's barely any PF2e content that explores feat interactions with classes and interesting builds. I tried looking up Inventor stuff, but it was impossible to find a video that wasn't just someone reading the class to me (and/or misinterpreting aspects of said class, and/or using a voice that overstimulates me). I'd love to see less superficial analyses. I'd also like to see videos on how to play when you don't have access to a VTT or if you're playing ToTM as I often do. I think most of all, I'd love to see videos that talk more about how to make decisions in the game. PF2e is a game about opportunity costs, so having some guidance on how to actually make those decisions would be really helpful. For example, I've often been told that because of how the game is balanced, you can focus on a character concept, and it'll work, except... there seem to be assumptions baked in that I don't intuitively follow. For example, if I want to play an inventor that uses magic instead of shooting a crossbow, how would I go about that *and* be effective? How do I effectively build and play a class with a companion and a familiar? These are just questions that I get caught up in when I'm trying to design a character that I can bond with.

Solid case. This definitely highlights the fact that my 5e game contains a lot of house rules. I think traditionally that has often been the case for D&D editions of old. 5e could really just strip away a lot of the excess "crunch", and be a better game for it. I'm in the process of moving over to PF2e from 5e (my first and longtime ttrpg experience was PF1e), but my experience with Paizo systems has been that fiddling with the system without understanding the math behind it can be very game breaking. 5e and OSR systems are my preference for casual tinkering. But I do want to understand PF2e on a level that I can accomplish some of the same things. This video has been very encouraging.

ont thing you missed: earn money not a big point but downtime activities are so much easier

35:52 - Jeremy Crawford is the biggest liability to 5e...that is, outside of the CEO suite.

I’ll add to point 15 on invisibility for 5e. Rules as written, when combat starts you know what square they are in. I don’t remember the source for this other than DnDShorts. But that means see invisibility is only good for out of combat and is worthless in combat. Most DMs will house rule the spell working logically.

Very well said in your closing statement.

Some of my favorite combats I've run as a DM running a 5e campaign is when I CHANGED THE UNDERLYING RULES. I had a memorable fire elemental boss that would take a turn right after each players turn, hence giving it the same action economy as the players. It made this powerful creature actually seem powerful and not limited by an action once every 6 seconds. This creature also summoned portals around the battlefield that when one was entered, it would randomly appear in another. This was to stop a stagnant, no movement battle where people wouldn't move to give a free opportunity attack Another was when I did some spell twisting to have a boss be true poly-morphed into another creature when it was killed to add a "phase 2" which was outside the rules as written. It made for THE COOLEST counter spell roll ever but wouldn't have worked in the base game. Pathfinder 2e is now my go to system going forwards.

The best part of being a GM is you can play the system you want.

I'm a Game master, and #8 and #12 were HUGE dealbreakers for me, when I was choosing a system to transfer to.

Archetypes are goated. Not only is it a very sleek way to introduce prestige classes (5e homebrews do exist, but I always felt like it was a waste of a fully-realized mono-class), but it also solves an issue 5e's multi-classing has: unintended synergies. In d&d, "martial" cleric domains and the hexblade gain certain armor proficiencies as a 1st-level class feature. As a result, it's possible for casters to get medium or even heavy armour proficiency out of a 1-level dip in another class. This is incredibly stupid, and helps further undercut the relevance of martials. Meanwhile, in PF2, any ability a class innately has that their archetype doesn't offer is locked-off automatically, making it impossible to exploit multiclassing for ludicrous game-breaking. For example: The Flurry Hunter's Edge allows you to reduce your multi-attack penalty against your Prey by 2, meaning agile weapon penalties can go as low as -2 (-4 on third strike). This is pretty powerful for archers and especially dexterous melee fighters, but would be a ludicrous buff on most other martials...but it's a feature fully exclusive to the Ranger. In conventional multi-classing, any martial could take a 1-level dip into ranger for this feature and see their dps sky-rocket, but you can't do that. Similarly, you can't just dip into rogue and get sneak attack, because it's not included in the Dedication feat. You have to be at least level 4 to get this feature, requiring a more thorough dedication to the multiclass. With archetypes, powerful abilities can be isolated from the issues multiclassing might bring, and it helps maintain each class' unique strengths, because they can't be acquired by outsiders. Finally, the detail that you can't take a new dedication feat with each class feat is a godsend. In 5e, nothing stops you from multiclassing 3 or four classes to get weird and powerful synergies (looking at you, Hex-sorcadins), but in PF, you have to actually level up 6 levels before you can take a second multi-classing feat.

I believe the piggy-backing on a roll because it was low thing is actually against D&D's RAW. I'll have to double-check because it may have been a module rather than a core rulebook, but I believe there's some place that states you can't chain skill checks like that unless the situation has changed enough that it would be deemed reasonable, with examples of gaining a level or having found something that gives new information about the subject. The only way to "piggy back" on rolls is to use the Help action or buff abilities prior to the first roll.

Resource Tracking is, NGL, a *big* one for me. I just bounce off of -so- many DnD 5e Classes/Subclasses because of how many different damn things have their own individual finnicky selections of many many times you can use them, how long they last, and then how/when you can recharge them.

Never played pathfinder but I'm keen to run it for my group. I really like the concentration mechanic of it simply taking an action to maintain a spell, but it seems like an oversight that (from my albeit limited understanding) there isn't a way to externally force a break in concentration. There is a lot of great drama in our 5e games when trying to break an enemy's concentration, and it would be a shame to take that away. I guess you could just implement concentration saves back in, but is there a more elegant solution to reconcile that?

Christ that guy's explanation on invisibility was a whole nothing burger that didn't make things any less confusing and obtuse. The description for See Invisibility seemed pretty clear cut to me

Just want to add some comments on surprise since I didn’t really think you said enough there about PF2E. Crucially, perception is default initiative whilst Avoiding Notice allows you to roll stealth for initiative. This means sneaky characters like rogues can act sooner. Furthermore, “surprised” creatures may not have weapons drawn, so they may have to spend actions before they can engage the party.

My brother you need a pop filter. It's near constant. Check out 30:50 on.

Thanks for this video, I really hoped it will give me pointers how to prove that system is easier to learn than others but apparently simpler not always equals easier! :D I kind of agree with the statement now that PF2 is easier to GM while DnD 5e is easier to play as a player first. I started to play roleplaying games in high school and my first system was DnD 3.5 then during university we transitioned to PF1. We have recently also tried some new systems like Dungeonworld and a homebrew one which unfortunately never really took-off. Now I occasionally play a DnD 5e beginner campaign with my colleagues but oh boy how I wish to play with PF2 system. I miss the crunch and the over customization options for character building :D I am eventually planning to introduce them to the system if I see they become comfortable with role playing games. Wish me luck! ^.^'

Why didn't you mention Fatigued in the Exhaustion bit? PF2e has a condition for when you've travelled for more than 8 hours, and it's very simple.

I'd have to say crits get more complex when you gain critical specializations. Especially with Lethal or Deadly which uses different dice you otherwise wouldn't even have ready.

Question on Action Economy, if Ronald or anyone for that matter can answer. Wouldn't the Fighter on PF2e need to Stow the polearm, Equip the bow, and Load the arrow? Ending the turn without the chance to strike too?

To point out a ridiculous amount of silliness from D&D 5E (I'm slowly converting my people over to PF2 - remaster is what some are waiting for, why learn and learn again?). My BladeSinger Wizard at level 6 does the following. Turn 1 BA BladeSong, Thunderwave a group of foes knocking a lot of them prone. Turn 2, BA cast Spirit Shroud (Add Radient damage to all attacks against foes within 10'). Move forward and start picking off those I didn't kill wiith the Thunderwave. I stab one foe for 1d8 with a Rapier + 1d8 Radiant. I then cast Green Flame Blade using the spellsinger special ability to have one of my Attacks be a cantrip. I strike the foe next to the first with the Rapier from the Green Flame Blade and hit and deal 1d8 piercing + 1d8 fire + 1d8 Radiant to that foe and then it leaps the fire to the second and he takes 1d8+Int fire damage. I do this multiple attacks on multiple foes with damage jumping around sort of thing all the time with that character and it always ends up like the scene in Clue where they try to figure out how many bullets are left in the gun, "1+2+2+1 or 1+2+1+1?"

I think on the topic of stacking effects, not being able to stack some of them does prevent some of the intentional stacking of them, but there are times when a character might just so happen to have multiple of the same type of bonus, so the complexity of differentiating what bonuses and penalties to add and what type they are I think makes adjudicating it just as complex if not more. Also, I understand the unintuitiveness of what gives advantage/disadvantage, but still, it's a lot more common than dice bonuses. Doesn't the fact that they don't stack somewhat simplify the system in the same way P2E's bonuses do?

I find it strange that in your exhaustion section you mention Drained (and its friends) as the de facto analog for D&D's exhaustion when Fatigued is a more clean match. Unless I'm mistaken, Fatigued is primarily a thing that happens to you when you don't get quality rest, and Drained primarily happens in response to spells or other monster effects that explicitly sap away your vitality. I mix it up quite often because the names of both describe a similar, well, condition, but they're very distinct in mechanics and flavor.

I personally love Pathfinder and I agree that it vastly simplifies many concepts in implementation. However, transitioning someone from a beginner box type of product to a proper game is far more complicated in Pathfinder in my opinion. There are just simply more rules even if those rules are simpler. Having taught people both from scratch ive found pathfinder only works if the people youre playing with Like mechanically deep games which is NOT the majority of D&D players whom often dont think about the game at all between sessions

I mostly agree, but I do think there is a balancing act going on. PF2 rolls are definitely simpler in the ways you state, and most players do want a less bloated combat experience. On the other hand, most players also like rolling more dice. Rolling more dice is more complicated since now we're not just rolling one variable (d20) and adding some constants, but instead are rolling several variables (d20+d6+d4, etc.) and adding constants. But, it also lets players roll more dice, which they generally like. So I agree that it's simpler in a way that people considering PF2 should definitely be aware of (this is a good video!), but I think it's also important to point out that there is a preference at play here, since in many of these examples simplicity is contrasted with rolling more dice, and most players want both.

I've always been confused why you can't cast multiple leveled spells with action and bonus if it's spell balance is supposed to be by spell slots

There's a reason why AL ruled that DMs were free to ignore Crawford's rulings. I never met a single AL DM that paid any attention to Crawford's rulings.

How many encounters should a P2E party face between long rests? How many Extreme, Severe, Moderate and Low are ok to throw against the party?

29:30 I have a PhD in theoretical physics and I did not follow this answer.

Admittedly, I think the zombie (and this applies to most "mindless" undead) is not a great example since the lore attached to them explicitly describes them as experiencing hunger, which would require a mind, even a very simple one, to be true. They are also described as having a disdain for the living, which would also require a mind, so while the rules are explicit, the lore is incongruous, which I would normally ignore, but it has clearly affected the mechanical design as well.

Great video! Though I wish you compared the hiding systems for D&D and Pathfinder. D&D's hiding system is a bit of a mess and the rules for it are scattered all over the PHB and DMG (Treantmonk made a great video on it: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8JMtF8ToEr8.html), whereas Pathfinder's hiding system has a lot of defined rules for awareness and such, which seems to make it much easier to run. Hiding in D&D is also very dependent on the DM. Personally, when I've DM'd, I never used surprise, both because I felt it was too mean to the players and also I just kept forgetting about it. I also have rarely seen it as a player.

Nice video!

Interesting video and you have lots of valid points. My only criticism would be for crits. The compelxity of crits in DnD is a minescule thing. The problem with more dice is two things: 1. You either buy more dice to make things quicker so you can just roll 5 d6s at once 2. When you have 5 different sources asking you to roll different die In a crit situation rolling 3 more of the same die is more 'complex' however its such a tiny increase in complexity I'd consider it a nitpick. People at my table have mentioned theres too much dice rolling at times in DnD and its hard to keep up, however I tell people they can roll double die or double the damage on crit, their choice, of course they pick before rolling damage so they cant game the system. Every time, despite their complaints about dice, they roll double. Why? Because more dice rolling is actually more fun, to a limit. Tldr youre right its more complex but its by such a minescule degree id consider it a wash and id point towards it just being a different way to play. I plan on running PF2E and ill probably keep my ruling of double die or double the roll.

So while I liked the video. I don't think it shows what you intended it to show. Some points feel more like "Things Pathfinder does better than DND" than "Thing that are easier in Pathfinder than DND". So while falling damage and bonuses are more difficult in dnd, the invisibility state I think is not made easier in Pathfinder. The fact that there are multiple states of being hidden makes my players ask about it a lot. It's similar to cover in starfinder. My players asked a lot "Is this half cover?". While the ruling in DND seems more... Erratic, I don't think Pathfinder is essentially easier. And this is an example, there are couple of points that I think Pathfinder didn't really make it easier. Still the video was enjoyable :)

Great shout out to Shadow of the Demon Lord 😈 It is a great system. Boons and Banes is a fantastic mechanic.

I will say some of these metagaming things I dont allow. If someone fails their search check I dont allow other party members to chime in. All actions taken are kind of 'declared' before any dice rolls. Its not even realistic that every person rummages through a chest I also have them kinda decide where in the room they wanna look because once again realistically not everyone is gonna totally tear the room apart. If someone fails their part of the room and the secret was there, then its missed.

Friendly critisim: There are an absurd amount of ads on this video. Which I'm fine with, but every time an ad starts the difference in volume between you speaking and the ad is absurd. Youre very soft spoken and so I have you at above 50% volume, but the ads are screaming at me. I'm unsure if others have a similar problem but it would be beneficial for me if your volume was increased. RU-vid sucks at voluming ads reasonably, so I unserstand this isnt a totally you problem lol.

Awesome!

5E is designed for new RPG players. Less math overall and harder to die. You have access to magic items earlier which ppl want to feel important. Less things to think about when creating characters.

35:56 this is just a tiny mistake in the scope of the video, but being Poisoned in 5e does not make you any easier to hit.

I was just in the comments in a D&D video, and someone was discussing using Counterspell to counter a Counterspell and it hit me: things like that and the awkward mini game of Legendary Resistance are what D&D has instead of the Incapacitation trait. One simple rule so that you can't just overwhelm a boss with control spells. Does it sometimes suck that spells don't do much? Sure, but it's easy to know that going on and plan accordingly. And if you need to make the encounter harder, level is a really easy dial to turn and it matters, unless the inaccurate Challenge Rating.

"When you roll a 20" - shows a d12

Lord.. let's not talk about D&D fall damage. A system that makes absolutely no sense. I can fall 3 miles. and SURVIVE!!! Yea... who wrote these rules? I've played D&D 5e for years and I don't know WHY anyone would think it's less complex than PF2. I started learning PF2 a few months ago, on and off, with a hope to either play or DM some games, and while it has a learning curve, it's actually far less complex to me than 5e and actually makes a lot more sense.

I see a lot of people in the comments, predictably, making a lot of bad faith arguments about how this video just demonstrates why PF2 is too complex because you have a lot of rules to learn. In my opinion though this is like saying that Yu-Gi-Oh is a simpler game than Magic: The Gathering because it doesn't use a bunch keywords you have to learn.

5e has "secret checks" too. In 5e, the players dont roll until the DM calls for one, they cant just decide on their own to roll Insight mid-conversation or roll Perception because somebody elses roll was metagamed poorly. The DM chooses in every instance whether they are rolling, the player is rolling, or neither.

44:25 AND, if that PF2 Fighter has the first-level Sudden Charge Fighter Feat, he can move twice his stride AND attack for just TWO actions. EVEN BETTER~!

I don't like that boni don't stack. Being inspired and blessed should stack in my opinion. Boni from different sources should stack. But I like that it's a flat bonus and not an extra die. It's less random, more predictable, easier to balance.

A lot of the problems you call out with advantage/disadvantage are a result of badly-written specifics in 5e, rather than with the advantage system itself. Conditions in Pathfinder are much more carefully written than in 5e. But the pain of remembering lots of bonuses is real (and was even worse back in 3.5). It leads to metagaming, because if a number is close to a threshold (and smart players will often work out the AC or DC they need), people go casting about for any bonus that could push them over the line. Of course they don't put the same effort into finding penalties. The benefit of the advantage system is separating inherent bonuses (your proficiency etc) from circumstantial ones (blinded, invisible, prone etc). So once you rolled with advantage, no amount of scrambling around can give you more advantage. And it really does cut down on the maths people need to do at the table, which I'm gradually realising is an accessibility issue. Some people - and not stupid people - just aren't good at mental arithmetic. I've seen players struggle with d10+2, never mind d20+13+4+1+2+1+3.

Honestly, I find PF2e to be slightly easier than 5e, as it's better designed and more consistently written. Even though it has more rules to work with, they mostly follow a specific guideline, making them much easier to pick up as you go along as opposed to 5e's mess of natural langauge. Additionally, 5e has many aspects that make it far more complex than a lot of its fanbase is resistant to recognizing, either out of stubbornness or ignorance. The biggest aspect is exception based rules - there's a lot feats and class features that give a character the ability to interact with specific rules differently than the norm, two-weapon fighting being a prime example. Thankfully, there are legit easier systems than both 5e and PF2e on the market. Dungeon World, Worlds Without Number, Index Card RPG, and Savage Worlds are some of the examples I like to give.

At #4: I am a dice goblin, I like rolling dice

5e critical hits are generally much simpler but also more boring. PF2e's critical hit effects for weapon traits and runes and class features makes it much more exciting and impactful yes, but critical hits at higher levels can trigger so many effects or modify so many on-hit effects. Not doubling the flat damage on 5e critical hits feels weird sometimes. The 5% chance for any Joe Schmo to hit and critical an ancient red dragon fuels that weird 'bounded accuracy you can totally use any monster against any party but not really because it actually doesn't work in practice" shenanigans. But you're also not dealing with Fatal or Deadly dice, you don't have take critical specialization into weapon choice, you don't have easily accessible runes that arc lightning or corrode armour or light them on fire. Without a VTT a critical hit can take so long to resolve as you slowly go through all your effects.

I agree with at least 95% of this and the general conclusion and point that, while 5e may be a bit simpler, it sure ain't *simple.* And PF2 is, in many ways, more intuitive, user-friendly, and easy to play. A lot of the added complexity is in character creation or is GM-facing, so is solved with an experienced, patient GM, and with pre-gen builds. I have a buncha nitpicks but the main two are: 1) Exhaustion is an unfair comparison. The fair comparison is conditions in both systems, as a whole. Exhaustion is a discrete system, sure, but it's a relatively versatile one, and many character sheets or cheat sheets just... have it there. I mean, it's bad, it's too harsh to use as broadly as they wanted to use it, but that's besides the point, we're just talking simplicity, not quality. 5e has fewer conditions, and most of them are easier to remember the specifics on than PF2s, which get quickly confusing and overwhelming. I think PF2's conditions are *worth* that complexity, just like wand charges are worth the complexity in 5e, but it *is* added complexity. 2) The advantage/disadvantage example... i think highlights the opposite of your point. The PF2 version with discrete conditions is *more* complex. It's *better,* sure (arguably; but i'd be arguing that side), but it's not *simpler.* You're off-topic here. All you have to do with the 5e version is figure out if there's advantage and/or disadvantage and be done and ignore how many times each applies. Where in PF2 you have to figure out a bunch of conditions. It's kinda the inverse of the "bunch of +1dxs stacking" vs "a single +1 that doesn't stack" example from earlier. Wherein one might argue that sure PF2's solution is simpler, but 5e's might be more fun. I miss my +1dxs, as a support player! It's so much more fun! But that's irrelevant to the simplicity topic. So, so should that PF2's solution on the darkness wolf scent fight is more interesting. We're just talking simplicity. And i don't think that the rules in the PF2 example are more intuitive or easier to work with, at all. They're more logically consistent; a more accurate simulation. But that's different from being intuitive. When there's largely one tool in the toolbox -- advantage/disadvantage -- it's *very* intuitive to know which tool to use. And just having to know if there's a single instance of either and being done is quite simple. Overly so, sure, maybe, but then we're getting off-topic.

I actually prefer D&D’s additional dice. Yes it’s more complicated and takes time but it’s far more fun to actually roll the dice. It does get a bit nutty when they all stack though.

The game designer in me cringes at Jeremy Crawford's invisibility explanation, especially when he says "the target gains no advantage from the invisibility condition," which is extremely misleading in a game where "advantage" is a game term.

The difference in complexity between PF2 and DnD5 is best described as such: Pathfinder has meaningful complexity, while in DnD it is often pointless or seemingly malicious. The example with invisibility in DnD, where designer defends this as intended, or the whole 1 non-cantrip spell per turn, shows that those rules are not part of some coherent framework. Pathfinder's conditions and traits are a framework. It is mOrE rUlEs, but the rules are here to help you, not tell you how stupidly and unintuitively the magical world works, because someone prefers to die on a hill rather than rethink their design choices. Also, often the comparison is not more vs less complex rules, but rules vs lack of rules. The lack of rules, options or guides is not the same as simpler rules. The result of not having a shovel to dig a hole is not simpler digging.

Simpler is not exchangeable with better. Everyone plays homebrew, to some extent, and anybody can homebrew the game simpler. However the table prefers to play. No bonus stacking and fewer bonus categories isn't necessarily better than 3e spam stacking, although it is obviously simpler.

Honestly stacking effects is cooler. Maybe its a bit more unbalanced but lets be fr, it's a fantasy game and it feels good when ur numbers get stupid. I wanna roll a 37 on my d20, that's hilarious

Caveat here, I don't like 5e. I'm writing my own system because of how awful 5e is to me, but I don't think PF is the answer either. To me they are both extremes, one simple to the detriment of the game and its players (5e), and one way too crunchy with way too many options (pf). 1. Critical hits, simpler yes, but more boring yes. See additional dice. 2. Fall damage, 100% agree, fall damage is not nearly dangerous enough in 5e. 3. Number of attacks, fair, pets can be annoying, but PF fix for that kinda makes pet builds no fun from what you've shown me. 4. Additional dice, simpler yes, but people like to roll more dice. From a GM standpoint, yes it slows it down, but that's what people like, they like to see many dice lol. Let em have it. 5. Stacking effects, couldn't disagree more. PF system is simpler yes, but also by limiting what you can stack, that takes away from party play and reliability, and both systems lack this to be honest. 6. Opposed rolls, does not seem simpler sorry. Seems more convoluted, and passive scores are silly anyway. Almost nobody uses them in 5e because of how stupid they are. 7. Being vigilant, I see what you're talking about with the following the herd mentality of rolling, but that just puts it on the GM in PF lol, not really simpler. 8. Economy, completely agree. The economy in 5e is atrocious. Having things listed out is a way better option. 9. Encumbrance, "bulk" is simpler, because it's just a slot system named differently haha, but from my experience, it's more immersive calculating weight, and players have preferred to have weight over slots even though its more work. 10. Exhaustion, 5e exhaustion is not simple, and is easily fixed with simple -1 per stack systems, but PF system is NOT simpler lol, I mean just read that drained status and tell me that's easier? 11. Resource tracking, interesting. 5e each class having a unique resource to keep track of is easy, which ones reset on which kind of rest.. not so much. PF does seem simpler. 12. Encounter building - absolutely 100% 5e encounter system and CR system is a joke lol. Even using it as described doesn't work properly. It at best gives you a rough estimate. I haven't GM'd pathfinder to know if that system works better or not. 13. Multiclassing - Can of worms here. Multiclassing shouldn't be a thing IMO, that to me means the classes are not good enough on their own, so you feel the need to customize by multiclassing. Basically saying your class is boring without multiclassing. If you've ever tried to make a multi-class system, you would understand just how difficult it is to balance. PF multiclassing, looks easier on paper until you see just how many feats there are in the game lol, hope you have a lot of time to read. 14. Surprise - PF wins that easy. To be fair though, I've never run into the situation you showed in Critical Role, so it can't be that common? 15. Invisible, 5e they wrote that in there because just because you are invisible doesn't mean you make no sound. Still, that explanation from JC was atrocious. I'm sure any GM could adjudicate that simply. IF you can see invisibility, then that person doesn't get the bonus of being invisible. Not sure that PF version is simpler? Having to keep track of 3 different conditions? 16. Traits - I do like the well thought out trait system of PF. 17. Advantage/Disadvantage - Don't really care for this system tbh and agree with you on this one. 18. Action Economy - Action points will always be simpler hands down. 19. Spellcasting - I did not know of that rule in 5e about bonus action spell casting, so I've never enforced that one haha.. I do like the spell casting action economy use in PF that seems pretty cool. 20. Concentration - Easy to remember, silly you can only concentrate on one thing and that it's a CON save, not INT? I'll fix that. PF, so what if a player forgets to sustain the spell, cause there are so many damn options, then decides, oh hey I forgot to do that, can I undo the last thing I did and maintain that spell? Seems like it would happen frequently. So simpler.. no, but more options yes which is nice. Great video and good points, though I disagree with a few.

44:25 free action to drop bow -> draw a Great Sword using interact action as part of Attack action. I noticed weird thing about rules in Pathfinder 2e 🤔 If party wants to use stealth while exploring a dungeon, would they not need to all use Avoid Notice action to avoid notice? Then they can't search traps, sense magic, scout or any other things? in D&D the ruling goes that you roll stealth and then also do other things bu PF2e seems to work differently? Let me ask: Rogue wants to sneak a head while searching possible traps to avoid so the party knows what's up a head. Rogue would need lvl 1 Trap Finder class trait and would take Avoid Notice action to walk in front in order to scout but not the scout action which is more like keep watch or look out giving +1 to initiative if combat starts? Like could the Rogue find the enemies before they notice the party and could that be used in order to setup ambush or perhaps ready actions "when combat starts"?

The more i learn about pathfinder the more I respect the absolute consistency of rules. It tickles my nerdy game designer brain to see such tight design. It's still a bit too complex for my taste to run it, but I would love to play.

So far transitioning to PF2E has been much simpler than all the belly-achers made it seem. The one thing I still have my trouble wrapping my head around is transitioning from exploration stealth to encounter stealth. Since the rulebook seems slightly vague on this compared to everything else, I’ve been rolling the characters stealth vs the perception dcs of whatever they’re trying to sneak past or sneak up on. If they fail they jig is up and I go into initiative. If they pass, they can sneak past the enemies or get in position. Once they’re ready to strike, I just have them roll stealth for initiative and perception as normal for the enemies and try to flavor it as how sneakily they do things like draw their bow that alerts the enemies to start searching if they’re higher on the initiative order.

5e, is not actually simpler. It remains, predominantly incomplete, and features many individual components which were oversimplified, Granting an Illusion of a simple system. The reality, unfortunately, is that the D&D system was stripped down, and oversimplified, in the 5e release. It has not been 'filled out' in subsequent supplemental books. Yes, we have more spells, classes, subclasses, backgrounds, etc, from various supplements. Ie. Tasha, Xanathar, etc. However, the 5e core remains mostly as released. The 5e core, is dominated by stripped bare rules, which might seem minimal and simple at a glance, until you sit down and play any session. Which invariably finds numerous scenarios, where the 5e rules, just don't cover the scenario. Worse than the holes, are the contradictions. While an individual oversimplified rule might seem simple in 5e, at a glance and in isolation, how it interacts with other oversimplified rules becomes conplicated, even where there is any appearance of rule as written. In the end, DnD 3.5, and PF1, were both individually more complete game systems, filled with rules the DM could use as the baseline for the game session and campaign. Rules that could be modified, as necessary, but, predominantly, most scenarios were accounted for, within a structure. What PF2 has successfully done, is rebalance the game, and streaine some elements (Ie combined skillsets such as athletics or thievery or Stealth ) What 5e failed entirely at, waas effective functional 'simplification', and failed entirely at the 'vaunted 5e bounded accuracy'. Many 'balance decisions' in 5e, which cut function or variety, in favour of 'simplicity' or 'bounded', compromise the game. But the game doesn't achieve or retain its goal of simplicity, And Bounded Accuracy fails between 1st and 3rd level, With it being non existent by 11th level. Thus any compromise to the game to protect 'bounded acuuracy', is a terrible idea. And any defense of the games flaws protecting 'simplicity', Are false or superficial. PF2 uses enough rules, that function well (for the most part) In reliable, consistent function, In combination with a modifier system that actually functions well. Using an action economy that's impactful.

Overall all great video as always although some of you points weren't ways PF2e is easier, but rather only better game design for example, stacking effects. you can't tell me that rolling a bunch of dice and adding them all up is more complex than how PF2e handles stacking bonuses its good game design for sure, but not simpler. I should also have to say, i really can't how carrying capacity is easier in any of the systems. In both you add up numbers until you get to a certain max value determined by your strength.

Pathfinder: we are trying to make a complex system easier for new players and GMs D&D: we are trying to make our game appeal to pedantic trolls 😂🤣

Encounter Building under 5e basically made me throw up my hands and walk away from the system.They went from a very elegant, balanced, and fun system in 4E, and barfed up that. I just can't handle it. Even if I have small quibbles about PF2E encounters (and frankly, I need more higher level experience before passing judgement), at least it works and does it without all the complications.

Hackmaster 5th edition roleplaying game is still, head and shoulders, over Pathfinder and D&D. Hackmaster 5th edition roleplaying game, from kenzer and company

All of 5Es rules are available on a wiki that is easy to find. I actually have a bit of issues with Nethys.

For me, the traits (PF2e’s greatest hallmark other than the three action system) are the most annoying. Have to look up half of them every time, because we invariably forget one of the multiple things a trait means. If there were only like 20 traits or so, that would be one thing, but there are scores of traits.

Regarding movement, action & bonus actions Vs 3 actions; I'd love to see both games take it further and make reactions a basic action too. Imagine a monk with patient defence choosing to use no actions on their turn and instead using multiple reactions to counter attack the enemies surrounding them, or a knight with sentinel planting themselves when to hold the line reacting to each enemy that tries to pass

If 5e wasn't published by Wizards of the Coast, it'd be a footnote. Alas, brand recognition and marketing.

Everybody disagrees with Jeremy Crawford on his interpretation of invisibility - as it makes no sense and disagrees with the written rules - apparently See Invisible, which says you see invisible creatures and objects as if they were visible - Doesn't ... ?! People play by the written rules The 5e stealth rules are fine, CR getting the terminology wrong is not a good argument... they do this for a lot of things PF2e has better rules on this - Unnoticed - Undetected - Hidden - Observed is a better and clearer graduation

D&D you roll dice, a lot of dice ... some people like this No or vague costs of magic items in D&D is deliberate, you should not be able to buy them, that's the whole point of adventuring, and most places will only have the most common, gold is fairly useless once you have some - PF2e it is assumed you can buy them but most above your level will not be availalbe or will be absurdly expensive, gold is important