I started skipping your discussion of the character sheet because from how you started, I could tell you had the same complaints everyone (including me) has about it. I just had to note the comedy this created: you mentioned Ryan saying it looks "busy;" I skipped ahead a random amount and caught you saying "it's also really busy;" then I skipped again and got you saying it's "super busy." Funnily enough, I think three repetitions of "it's too busy" is exactly the right description of that sheet.
@@Roll4Initiative Good news - a web-based version of Pathbuilder 2e went into beta last week. Can’t do variant rules (like Free Archetype), cloud saving, or animal companions yet but the vast majority of a character can be done through it without much issue.
This is an excellent review. I've been playing for some time now, and still learned a few things. I agree with everything you said. Character building can indeed be a big lift. There are a couple good strategies for new (and experienced) players. One is to simply go through the steps, in order, as presented in the book. Choose things you like without worrying too much about long term plans. There is not a massive gap between optimized and non-optimized characters in 2E, and any character you are likely to make is going to be playable. The other option is to use an electronic aid, like Pathbuilder, which will only show you options you are eligible for, given previous decisions. I'd love to see a future review of what GMing is like in the system. What is harder? What is easier?
really great review, I recently ran my first few sessions of pathfinder (Extinction Curse Book 1) and my players, who all came from 5e along with me, adored it. Glad to see people giving the system a fair chance unlike some larger content creators
You should take a look at the Pathfinder 2e Beginner Box Set. I was impressed with the layout of the character sheet, which the dice are colour coded with the character sheets.
one thing I love about pathfinder 2e character creation is it doesn't feel very video gamey despite being balanced. For example one comparison could be made between the dnd 5e fighter and pathfinder 2e fighter. 5e fighters can use special physical abilities and maneuvers a few times before needing to rest since well that's the way it's balanced. Pathfinder 2e fighters instead can use em as much as you like, like what you'd expect a skilled warrior to be capable of. It feels nice to see both balance and rp taken into consideration for abilities.
Nice review. I did enjoy hearing about the Neurodiversity aid you mentioned with the character sheet. For me I've ended up using Myth-Weavers sheet since it's easy to update and share with people.
Slight correction with the spell components - them dictating how many actions the spell takes to cast was just in the playtest, they disconnected the two for the release version so a spell may have a verbal and somatic component but still only cost one action to cast.
@@hunterhuffman4520 The bit that's caused confusion is partly people passing around how they worked in the playtest but also because the overwhelming majority of spells in the game have two components *and* cost two actions to cast. So they remember half-hearing the playtest thing, see how most of the "components-to-actions" ratio is and think its still the case.
These are the 2 alternative character sheets that I"ve liked the most: Perram's: knowdirectionpodcast.com/2019/08/perrams-landscape-character-sheet-for-pathfinder-second-edition/ PIxelpatch's: www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/i90azx/simplified_iconography_sheet_v3/
If Dawn is looking to review alternate charactersheet's I think Pixelpatch's (and updated version in comments to that link!) is MANDATORY candidate to include, because it addresses real functionality, and honestly alot of other "alternate" sheets could do well by taking heed of it's design cues. It leans too far towards big & cute for my taste, but even with that it's more functional than standard sheet. (Personally I would change it's armor section, since nobody really needs to separately track different Armor proficiencies: you only wear one armor, and maybe sometimes are caught without armor but that just removes Item bonus it doesn't change proficiency, so more useful is just showing ONE proficiency array, while it could probably add "actual DEX" vs "DEX cap" section) It's really unfortunate the standard sheet does such poor job in being visually "ergonomic" and functional, which impacts how most people will appraise the system despite it not strictly being inherent to the game. It's ironic how Paizo did pay attention to visual ergonomics with their action symbology, yet just dropped the ball in how they organized the character sheet despite that being HUGE impact in how all players experince the game. As to official sheet itself, so many design decisions are just baffling poor... The Heart and Axe-Heads are superficially cute, but just do not help in long term usage, IMHO not even helping to "stand out" from the organizational clutter. Proficiency tiers is something that just doesn't change very often outside of "level up", so why does standard sheet spend so much space on it? At the same time it doesn't even include stuff that DOES actively change during gameplay like "Dying State", despite that being LITERALLY the most "life or death" mechanic! Meanwhile it doesn't even take advantage of color in constructive way, like using same background highlight for each Ability Score and any mechanic that depends on that Ability Score (so you can easily update anything affected by buff/debuff). That's actually a tip of mine for beginners to make a sheet easier to use, if they or their GM can get their hands on 6 different color "highlighter pens". My custom personal sheets have approached the proficiency issue by "collapsing" all profiency into just one circle not bigger than full text line height, which is broken up into 4 quadrants corresponding to T/E/M/L (with Untrained being empty, explained in small key) which you can easily fill in with pencil/pen as well as easily recognize at a glance. No reason to spend more space on that since you don't really need to "reference" that info during play, it's more just for"book keeping" between play sessions to assure all the numbers add up correctly.
I'm loving the game so far. If there's one thing I wish they'd clarify a bit more is how the GM should set DCs on certain skill checks. Particularly maintaining balance has been a head-scratcher that we've had to just wing when it came up.
Thanks for the video! It all felt really well thought and presented, and I've got the exact same problem with the character sheets in pathfinder Ended up DIYing a whole character journal to have a less busy space for my informations but Id take any alternative sheet recommendations if someone found a good one 👀 But also,, those earrings look so gorgeous on you!
@@VytorCalxito Paizo did publish class specific sheets, but I don't see much distinction between class and non specific sheets... (still lots of info in a small paper)
I commented on this in reply to ronaldsanfran (below), but IMHO Pixelpatch's alternate sheet has alot going for it, even while going for extra-large&cute design it's actually very much more functional (and actually based on a mockup drawn by the main Paizo rules designer, J. Bulmahn). So Paizo is clearly aware of the design problem, and hopefully will change the standard character sheet in future printings of the Core Rules. My main quibble of Pixelpatch is it still shows all armor proficiencies separately, when this is usually the same up to the point you are not proficient... But you aren't going to wear that type of armor, so who cares? Better to spend the space on actual DEX vs max DEX cap. I'd also prefer a clearer "fraction" presentation of current/max HPs, current/max movement speed and such things. But the standard sheet's lack of Dying state is inexplicable, while it spends SOOO much space on TEML boxes when that doesn't even actively change except at "level up" and not even every level either. My personal sheets have used small circle that fits in line of text, divided in quadrants where each quarter = TEML, easy to fill in with pen/pencil, easy to reference to make sure #s add up, but doesn't clutter up sheet. It looks like original Pixelpatch version was updated, so check the comments for link to that version of his sheet... ru-vid.com?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FPathfinder2e%2Fcomments%2Fi90azx%2Fsimplified_iconography_sheet_v3%2F&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbkZWaEdINFJKN25vNWlhZUN4ZkpZOFluWjRqd3xBQ3Jtc0trZWVMeHBEV2s3dG1FcHVCMGEtaDE0MkJzNDkzSFRhbW0zUHJKaTJmaXdTcVJaaUhjbWZqSkFXc2huX0NKbzd5cE1UeTVqR1paWm9MOFpOVXk3LXVObmZPUzhGMjFNalQxSG5TOWRhSDhHUHAtWVljbw%3D%3D&stzid=Ugzr8l_uVunKqTFRCsF4AaABAg&event=comments
Great review! I appreciate knowing about the little things like tabs on the pages to help navigate the book. I haven't played yet, but the size definitely seems daunting.
A lot of people get scared by it. But actually it contains both the info for players *and* for game masters. The part concerned with rules for playing the game isn’t much more than 5e. A little more, but not as much more as it appears.
PF2 is not so rules heavy as PF1. But having played up to 13th level, there is a lot to remember as a character, without a lot of space on the character sheet. As a GM, I don't even try to remember every single detail of what a character can do. I have other things to deal with. That is way I keep an online rule archive at hand (one of the blessings of modern ttrpgs). I love the Archive of Nethys for PF2. It is a great resource and is kept updated as new products are added.
Hey @Roll 4 Initiative, great review! Just as an FYI, spell components (verbal, somatic and material) are *not* actually tied to the number of actions the spell takes! Take a look at some spells that came out with the APG and you'll see 1-action spells that have 2 or more components! That was a playtest rule that was changed upon release! Otherwise, terrific job! I love the concise format! Keep it up!
Oh, great to know! We play tested it at GenCon and that rule was pointed out and reading through the core rule book I missed any mention of components not being tied to actions
As for the system: I wanted to get into Pathfinder recently and started with 2e. I love the customization! Since I've been playing other games, some also rules heavy, it was easier for me to get in the game than it might be for a beginner. Bc I think that's a downside: if you have someone not familiar with RPGs trying to get into PF2 and they don't have someone who already knows the system or RPGs and can help them- they might have a hard time. I'm going to start DMing Pathfinder 2e for my partner (one on one) and I'm curious how it will go- but we're both excited!
Customization is a huge thing for me. I’ve made 4 or 5 characters and I haven’t even had a chance to play PF2e yet. The funny thing about that is that I always have back-ups I’m looking forward to playing in case of death.
You did a great job of breaking it all down. I'm with you all the way on the character sheet, I think maybe more of a hybrid between 1st and 2nd editions might have been better?
Here is a printer-friendly black and white version of the official PF2 sheet I made. I also toned down some busy aspect of it. drive.google.com/file/d/1jHIRzBak6UInlZYlFYqDRpsQno3jh74e/view?usp=sharing Perram from the Known Direction Podcast also made this elegant landscape sheet. knowdirectionpodcast.com/2019/08/perrams-landscape-character-sheet-for-pathfinder-second-edition/
Nice review. There were concepts I liked about Pathfinder 2e, but overall I was not impressed with this new edition. Wasn't a fan of the action icons, felt they were not necessary just added to the confusion for me. But I also just didn't like how they did actions in general. 3 actions for everything including very minute stuff, just didn't mesh with me. I feel like you'd have to use an action just to say a quick thing and that to me is kinda dumb. This is nit picky but the thing regarding actions I hated the most was with shields. Using an action just to get the shields bonus, this was beyond dumb to me. Couldn't stand it at all. I do need to comment on the point of there being more types of worlds with 2e, than just fantasy. I don't think this is accurate. Pathfinder 1e I feel lended itself well to multiple types of worlds in my opinion more so than most other games. Starfinder anyone? Also the world in 1e is incredibly diverse. And the comment about the world in 1e I think is also inaccurate. There is so much to do and explore and experience in 1e, I can't even keep up with it all. It's crazy. For the point about combat and exploration, these are things that are generally up to the GM to really breath life into. 1e can be about exploration same as 2e, it just depends on how your GM runs the game. So I'd have to say this is an unfair assessment about 1e. I also watched the first video of play from one of the designers which I enjoyed the story of, but didn't care for many of the mechanics I was seeing. While I prefer race over ancestry as I feel ancestry is just a component of "race", I do like the concept of building your background and that having that have a mechanical affect towards the gameplay of the build of your character, like atributes going up with your decision. I am not particularly fond of how stats begin though. But it's also been a while since I've read over some of the basic rules of 2e. I've always preferred good ol fashion rolling for stats. From what I can remember I didn't care for the handling of stats. I also like that it's got a built in grittier play; that death can and will happen if you're careless. I like that aspect. In my 1e games I've implemented house rules that make for a far grittier game. Just one more reason I wasn't a fan of D&D 5e is that it often feels like the players are never in any real danger. D&D has often felt like this to me though. Which is why I use house rules for grittier gameplay when I do run 3.5D&D. I will also say for those that thought Pathfinder 1e was to complex, try D&D 3.5e. While I personally don't feel it's that complex in general, Pathfinder 1e did streamline the 3.5 rules a bit. And I personally feel 1e is really accessible. But maybe that's just me. All in all, I wasn't happy with 2e, and I really did feel it was unnecessary to begin with. I'm an avid believer of the phrase: "if it ain't broke don't fix it". I've also purchased many pdfs and physical books from Paizo and just don't enjoy the thought of them not being useful any more. It's far to many books for me to just give up on. Sticking with 1e. 2e wasn't for me.
Would you guys be willing to make a response video to Taking20 and his video on quitting Pathfinder 2e for it's "illusion of choice"? I really want people to not be scared away from the system and I think some more opinions from the content creators who love it could help!
Char customization is so fun, in this game I can get lost for hours looking over everything. A good thing to do is have the books or borrow them and roll char before you start campaign, just have the DM look it over. This gives you time to decide on char and group can start campaign faster.
I have been looking for a more recent PF2e review, so right of the bat, thank you for this review!! I started playing RPG with D&D 5e, so it's also great that you are comparing both systems, and giving them a fair analysis. So, this is what I got from your review. It would be great if D&D had the dying and wounded mechanics baked in. I generally find that the players are invested in their characters, but that would give more urgency to players when in combat. Or at the very least, would discourage players from making silly decisions. I agree with your assessment regarding the character sheet, but that's is just the nature of the beast. Thus, I will have to wait a little more before I can jump into PF2e. I have the feeling that I could use a little bit more experience with D&D 5e, before I am able to move into this system. Again, thank you for the very informative review.
The official character sheet really detracts from the game system's potential. Check the comment below of "ronaldsanfran", he links to 2 alternate sheets, where I think the Pixelpatch design actually works very well, although I specify my own preferences in my reply to him.
this was a cool overview i may look at switching ive been playing 3.5 dnd since 2011 and haven't found anything to replace it but this looks better than 1 and the great review won me over to have a look. ive always played with a 2 patch pc sheet
Thorough and informative review, however you never compared to D&D:5e, which you said you would at the start (promise/deliver minor). I enjoyed it and I'd recommend it. I'll look at more of your content. I've only played 2e once before the pandemic really hit and it seemed fine. I like a mechanically well-defined game. I know of no one who liked the character sheet, however. It's infamously bad.
In a nutshell for me positives for PF2 are the amount of options for feats, racial feats and class feats combined with the 3 action system. Downsides however is as with many RPGs some of those options are simply better then others, book keeping can get a little crazy between the amount of feats, key words, status effects and the math in combat can get a little cumbersome and slow things down. Some of the changes that were made to be from the previous edition as well made no sense but that's an entirely different topic.
I've yet to play PF2, but I ran a PF1 campaign through levels 3-20 and had a lot of fun with it. The action economy is the biggest draw for me, and if I wasn't making 5e content, I would probably have started PF2 when we started our current campaign. I suspect that when WotC release 6e, the character building will be much more like PF2 with the more modular approach, especially after the new character creation options that we've seen in Tasha's came out.
@@johndiffley6390 So many folks pointing out PF2 on my Tasha's review! I do think that PF2 has probably had a bigger impact on 5e than PF1 did, because they are closer in design ethos than PF1 was.
I'm in a Pathfinder 1e Rise of the Runelords game, and the GM might switch systems if we can continue in 2e. You mentioned you were making a character for RotR. Has the unofficial conversion finished?
The colors of the character sheet are terrible, but the game itself is awesome. Paizo should really consider re-designing the character sheet in future printings because it's one of the first things new players encounter and it's a turn-off.
Looking at it in detail I can sorta see what's going on. Whereas DnD5e's sheet promotes a more shorthand approach PF2e has a lot of calculation boxes. For instance, 5e's AC box is just one single box with all calculations happening during downtime, while 2e's AC section is the AC box and 3 boxes for calculating, 16 mini boxes for various armor types, a box for adding shield and for hardness and such. Which on one hand seems cluttered but if there's not really space for adding feature descriptions like in 5e then it basically fills the same function of tracking modifiers. Now comparing it to PF1E/DnD3.5 everything is actually pretty similar, but it feels less daunting because all the boxes are organized vertically and are the same size more or less. And honestly after taking a good look at it now it doesn't seem so bad. Better than DnD 4e's Tax forms
This is definitely something they should look into in future printings. I don't think they ever changed official character sheet in previous edition of Pathfinder, but the standard sheet really is crying out for major change. An overhaul would just make the game much easier for newbies (and not just!) to jump into, and IMHO it would be the sort of thing that would invite new reviews of the game including updates etc. There are players who embrace the "fully digital app" model of character management, but as company that prints real books, supporting classic mode of tabletop gaming seems critical.
I've mixed feelings about PF2e. The system is well made. But it feels too heavy on rules... I dunno why, but Pathfinder is a game that does not run smoothly. This kinda breaks the story mood sometimes.
I can totally see what you're saying. We both like PF2e, and I think that it is more streamlined that 1e. But, yeah PF has always felt more 'rules-y' in a lot of ways. I don't think it's bad, just something I keep in mind.
Good review also there is 2e.aonprd.com/ for all your needs so you don't need loads of books at your table. and I am not sure what you meant by crits making it harder for the gm it is just X2 + anything special for the cirt so maybe and other dice that's it.
One of my gripes with it as well. It seems to be part of the design philosophy, look at: Raise a Shield action, Interact to Parry actions, the Dueling Parry actions.
Personally it makes sense to me if you are more actively focused on using shield as defense... That reasonably is mutually exclusive with other things you could dedicate attention to, whether moving further away or even casting a quick spell like Invisibility (which all offer own flavor of protection). If you think moving away is more effective as defensive tactic, you can do that instead of raising shield, but you just can't do it all: that's meaningful choice. Of course I get how basic stats like AC are normally taken for granted so being asked to spend actions to maintain that feels like too much, but I think it all fits into the sytem's balance of actions and trade-offs.
I don't think you should have to do it every turn if you do nothing else. If moving lowers your shield, you're doing something wrong. I get the balance argument but it takes away from the trying to replicate real battles. Also, imagine this mechanic in a video game. It would be tedious just to get the +2. Actions that lower your shield then require you to raise it again make sense but once it's up, it's up.
@@khartog01 OK, I guess I look at it as if you are doing nothing else... you have an action to spare to raise the shield. I think the issue is broader, in that P2 cultivates the dynamic that not everything is a "blockbuster" power move, but you are mixing in lower key actions, small things which add up to more variation from round to round. Any given round of combat isn't likely to be the same as another round, because your situational priorities will change, this also being in context of combats taking more rounds to finish and all this "little stuff" being relevant for swinging the chances in your favor. A Shield warrior might tend towards tactics that let them use their shield, but sometimes they will step outside that comfort zone either because of great opportunity or to avoid great peril. So they become less defined by their static character sheet, and more alive and engaging with the situation from moment to moment.
I have problems with shield rules from other systems as well. Mostly buckler rules. I'm always working to homebrew them to get a blend of realistic and game mechanics. If I ever play PF2, I'll do the same.
I don't like that they keep dumbing down games. I mean, we are getting so lazy that doing a little work remembering actions and such things seems like a chore. I haven't played Pathfinder 2e but First edition seemed a cool extension of D&D 3.5 which was more crunchy to be sure than 5e, but had good complexity. Some people like some crunch but these companies assume we all don't want that. Meh. I do agree though that D&D 5e death is pretty much meaningless since a long rest will restart everything and the clerics are so OP that it doesn't feel as dangerous as previous editions.
Don't mock terms and people's conditions. Neurodiversity has been around for at least 20 years for people whose brains are wired differently from the norm. I have dyslexia. Some other neurodivergent conditions are ADHD, autism, OCD, bipolar disorder, and many others. If you want to make fun of people with any kind of disorder or disability you are not welcome on this channel. If you want to learn about new terms, google them and be a better person.
