Why I Stopped Running Pathfinder 2e 

I'm a longtime gamer since 1981, with a background playing many systems. Our group had been playing D&D 3.5 until WOTC switched to 4e, which almost nobody was interested in playing. When Paizo released Pathfinder 1e, we immediately took it up (at first allowing some 3.5 rules/classes/races/magic items that were missing as well). We played PF 1e for over 10 years, even after 5e D&D was released (though I played 5e at my FLGS). When PF2e was announced, my main group was cautiously optimistic at first, but the playtests and eventually the core book showed that it was a TOTALLY different game than 1e. We each bought the core book (I ended up buying the first 10 books released for 2e), but nobody was willing to play it. Fast forward to the OGL debacle last year. I tried switching back to PF2e, but was as unhappy with it as I was the 1st time. I had created a bunch of house rules for PF2e, but no one wanted to play with both learning the PF2e rules AND a bunch of house rules that I had written (23 pages worth, I found so many problems!). 1 other person agreed to run PF2e, and said he wanted to try running it RAW, but during the very first session, he became so angry at the shield rules that he immediately houseruled them (meaning, the rules that RAW you must declare shield blocks after you've been hit, and then apply the damage to both the shield and the wielder). We continued to find problems with the rules as written, and in 4 game sessions, he quit as GM. One of the other players decided to take over as GM, and lasted for about 8 or 9 sessions before also quitting, at which point the entire game ended and the group split apart. That was all before the release of the Remastered edition. Maybe some of the issues we were having were addressed in that version, I don't know. I didn't buy the Remaster. I felt the original Pathfinder 2e release was rushed to print too quickly, with FAR too many problems (in my eyes). Now, I'm not willing to give Pathfinder 2e Remaster another chance because I spent hundreds of dollars on books that are now "obsolete". We used to complain when a new edition of a game was released "too soon", though I understand why it was done here (because of the OGL issue, which wasn't Paizo's fault.) But still, I just bought the PF2e core book, Bestiary, APG, GMG, etc, and I hardly got to play them before the Remaster came out because of the very poor reception the game got from my regular gaming group. IMHO, we were an "ideal" group of gamers for PF2e (a group of older gamers, 40's - 50's in age, that had played PF1e for the past decade+), and if they couldn't convince us, then we felt there was an issue with either the game or a complete mismatch with our group for some reason. But, talking to other gaming groups, I've found more and more that have also had issues with PF2e, such as you and yours. I agree with you that the game is very complex and detailed, and that can cause quite a few issues in multiple ways and places.

@@tommiskey Something that is endless fascinating to me is how much 4e DNA there is in PF2 when Pathfinder first started as a branch to move away from that game system. It's funny that twice the evolution of a 3.5 based system ends up being something that looks a lot like 4e with a lot of similar core ideas, but it also means it's really no surprise that so many PF1 players bounce off PF2 - hell, we did at first. We were deep in a PF1 campaign when the playtest dropped and it was just TOO different. When it came time for our next campaign we ended up giving 5e a try instead, and it was only after PF2 had been out for a couple years and settled into itself that I started getting intrigued by it, my initial reaction during the playtest was to bounce off it.

@@IcarusGames I initially tried buying it and reading it. Then, as a long-time rules tinkerer, play-testing it and trying to fix it. As I said, I ended up creating 23 pages of fixes for the core book. From fixing the imbalanced Alchemist class to the way shields worked to much of the spellcasting system, and a multitude of other things that bothered me. The whole mass of changes made sense to me, as I could explain why I made each change I did, but as a whole it was an intimidating mess of "house rules" for a new system that already had hundreds of pages of new rules to learn (over 600 pages in the core book alone!) And then the additional books began coming out... the APG, the magic book, etc, and I again had things I wanted to fix in each of therm too, until finally I gave up on the system (until the OGL mess briefly brought me back, only remind me of what happened before and thus drop it again). I see a lot of 4e in it too, as well as a tiny bit of Rolemaster (an older complex fantasy system that tried to expand into other genres and settings with Spacemaster and MERP - Middle Earth Roleplaying). It still has its fans, but to most players, it is just WAY too many rules to learn and use at the table.

@@tommiskeyThe remaster rules really are to get away from the OGL, for example getting rid of the D&D magic schools - abjuration, evocation etc. All the rules are available for free on archives of Nethys, so you can read them there. I’m not sure what you didn’t like about the shield rules. You get the AC bonus from raising a shield during your turn. The shield block is optional after being hit to reduce damage (and lower your shield). Shields don’t take long to break at early levels and only some classes can shield block. What was frustrating about them?

If you don't hate the system, why have your opening title screen of the Pathfinder logo in a trash can?

I also like it for that but the thing is that we both want rules to be respected as often as possible but other people don't care that much and just want to be able to make up rules in the spot without feeling like breaking the game

Just swap your 5e game over to pf2e. It's totally doable. Have your gm reach out

@@StellaDallas88 we are close friends, and the campaign last for about 4 years now. We know that this is doable, but we decided to not swap system on higher levels of play, and just end it and start new one in Pf2e

I switched to PF2e years ago after trying the Beginner Box. It changed everything. I finally felt I could run a game and not make it a mess. PF2e is NOT DND, but it is such a fun, balanced system. I feel like I can throw more at the players yet keep it simple. Even just small things like the 3 Action Economy and how things scale naturally just provide more opportunities to mix it up. I also love the more team-oriented, strategic side, which many miss. Don't waste actions! Combat in PF2e is so deep, yet simple at the same time. PF2e is definitely not a game for "everyone"; it is made for a deeper dive at times, but the right GM can guide newer players. My children became scarily effective in around 4 or 5 sessions. They learned flanking [off-balance] and positioning [and I love using minis]. My middle daughter saved Gust of Wind as a reaction to the final boss [if it used Acid Breath... I think] in the Beginner Box [which saved the party]. I think in a way PF2e gets us to think more "in-story". The rules consistency & design made it feel more "free". I WOULD play DND again with the right people, but I would never try to DM.

​@StellaDallas88 that is easier said than done, depending on the party builds and the setting.

The remaster dropped JUST as we were starting to get a reasonable grip on the system and threw us for a bit of a loop, which I'm sure didn't help things.

Trusting the Pf2e math & balance is hard for most from DND where we "know" it doesn't make sense & must correct.

As much as I adore GURPS, most systems seem simple compared to it. XD It all comes down to how used to/comfortable you are with learning new systems. But GURPS really does train you to homebrew.

If you're planning on using a VTT, Foundry has stellar support for the system and rules. I run a hybrid version for my reallife table.

​@@IcarusGames PF2e really didn't change much. The Remaster is just a handful of core rules that were updated, and then mostly different concepts to move away from DnD. The classes were improved a lot. Bit it's not like they overhauled the game.

We switched as well , did the starter box, loved it, then started another campaign and we all started complaining. We went back to D&D and have been happier as a group.

@@tinaprice4948what did you dislike?

Abomination Vaults is amazing.

@@samski2185 The general flow of the game, the action economy didnt feel any better, the crunchiness of the characters? also the AC of everything, we got hit all the time and it seemed like the AC of every monster was so crazy high we rarely hit. Maybe it was the campaign we were playing? cause like i said the starter box was fun, but 3 out of us 5 players wanted to go back to D&D after a few months of playing in the second campaign.

​@@tinaprice4948agreed, after swapping to PF2e 5e feels boring.

Yeah! Perhaps if I'd been less precious about the balance early on and gotten weird with it from the start things would have been different, but like you say, you get this perception on the balance of the system drilled into you by the community long before you even play the game, and that's hard to shift.

I definitely agree about the community being VERY adverse to modding and modders. When I tried offering my house rules for free on the Paizo forums, I got constant insults and disparagement, with almost no acknowledgement that the game EVER had any problems or issues.

@@IcarusGames The rules for homebrew creature creation help a lot when it comes to rebalancing. And the consistency of the strength relative to party level and expected level of difficulty to it provides really good guidelines for it. I use PF2 for a modern 21st century equivalent fantasy world with tons of homebrew and every change I’ve made to all of my creatures has performed as reliably as the official bestiary stuff. And once you learn how to do it for one level, you pretty much know how to do it for every level. The more familiar you get with the basic engine components of the system, the more comfortable it becomes to tweak and create with. And I like the fact that it performs the way I expect it to each time. But I also do things to help take some of the feelsbad or minutia off the players too. I’ll give casters early gear with flat damage boosts. I give a flat 2xlvl hp in healing to the party after every combat encounter so they don’t have to worry about healing for minor things that slow down gameplay. I have them find rest areas with magical leylines where they can restore some spell slots between daily preps, or where they find alchemist materials to make some daily consumables like the alchemist class uses that encourages them to use it rather than hoard it since it’ll be gone next daily prep anyway. I play loose with aid checks so they are encouraged to think of creative things for third actions to help allies or impair enemies with environmental things. I let them use hero points to attempt over the top flex stuff. And if it starts to feel too easy? I can add an extra 20% xp budget for encounters or throw in an extra elite template or two. So many ways to make things easier or harder and you have a lot of granular control that operates consistently. I also use keywords when it’s convenient but make rulings on the fly a lot too and just treat them as exceptions. I did hit a period as I got deeper in the system where I noticed there was a lot of looking stuff up and decided that sucked, so I started using tags as guidelines rather than having to look up technical rulings every time. And I usually erred on the side of favoring the players with rulings since I had plenty of other reliable ways to make things difficult if I needed to. Not saying you have to go back by any means. Just sharing some examples of things I like doing at my tables!

You are correct. DnD has for decades conditioned its dm to believe that homebrew is the best part of the game. What the dm are not aware of is homebrew is MANDATORY because you must fix the broken and missing rules of any dnd edition.

​​@@craigjones7343There are Homebrew to fix the system and there are Homebrew to enhance gameplay / player experience. The DnD community usually do both, PF2e community avoid all.

My problem with this advice, is that you meet a lot of resistance doing this. Or that has been my experience. I play online and I’ve recruited new players and most them are pf2e vets who expect the game to work a certain way, and if it doesn’t they protest. Even if you discuss this stuff up front with them during session 0 it’s usually met with “Well they did it that way because it works better.” Again this has been my experience and of course mileage will vary. I’ve just found the pf2e community less accepting to this mentality.

@@norcalbowhunter3264 yeah I could see that happening. The big thing is just being confident. I’d honestly answer any pushback politely with the reasoning why I’m ruling this or that. After that, you’re gonna get “because I’m the GM and I said so” is a perfectly acceptable answer. “*A* word to the wise is sufficient.” If it’s a persistent thing and the player just wants to gamify everything and always have advantage, I’m not going to let them take the others out of the narrative to try and go to rules lawyer court. At the end of the day for every GM there’s probably about 20 players out there looking for someone to run a game so we have that balance in our favor.

Exactly, play what you and your group loves, have fun, and forget about the rest.

Shadowdark is on my list to check out over the summer. Free league have got a ton of games I'm interested in (arguable TOO many lol)

You see PF2 as a well-done 5e. I see it as an over cooked 5e. And that's why it's good to have competition and options in the rpg marketplace. As someone who grew up on AD&D... I really enjoy the upgrade to 5e. However, the OSR movement proves many people wanted a lighter version of AD&D. So, to each their own.

@@direden For me, nothing beats the 3 action economy and such a high quality on adventures and setting books that I wouldn't come back to the half paragraph final bosses and the 3 pages rules for Spelljamers. I really don't see the "complexity" of the system, I find it even easier and simpler than 5e and I don't have to look up for twitter questions to play by the rules

You and I see eye-to-eye on what makes PF2 so great, I can't imagine going back to the extremely ambiguous 5e. I love being a DM, and a big part of it I think is how player-centric 5e is, whereas PF2 was clearly designed _also_ with DM's in mind, to make our lives easier and give us more flexibility and creativity in making new stuff up.

Ironically, PF2E is more like D&D 4E than any other version of D&D.

@@RickDevil12 The answer is to not play by the bespoke rules in 5E. PF2E is very complex because there is a bespoke rule for everything. Lots of people don't like this and just want the GM to invent something on the fly.

If I was playing in person regularly enough I would have advocated that my group switch to 4e, or at least give it a try anyway.

That dedication has some drawbacks that I feel is a bit too restricting. I created Minevian spell casting dedication which allows players to burn a spell they have memorized for one they already cast of the same level or lower. It works great.

@@jcservantw6496 what drawbacks? Reduced spell slots?

@@Kagrath Yup. Three spell slots for most casters are reduced to two, and it hurts. Three is already pretty tight in a system that charges an arm and a leg for wands and scrolls (I reduced those in my games as well).

I've not looked at the rules themselves for A5e, but I do really like how they present monsters with the legends and lore and the encounters. As soon as I saw that I knew I had to adopt it into my own monster design.

Thanks 😊

Foundry (and a little in person) levels 1-8 and homebrew.

Absolutely fair! Shadowdark has been on my list for ages. It's a no-go for my regular group (one of the players is WAY too afraid of character death for any game with a funnel/gauntlet lol) but I am going to make a video taking a look at it over the summer hopefully!

@@IcarusGames Shadowdark is fun.

@@dylanhyatt5705 I've been really looking forward to playing it since it was on KS. With the brain space freed up by not running PF2 anymore I plan on getting a lot more games of other systems in soon (just since making the switch back to 5e I've read 6 new systems)

@@IcarusGames I play Shadowdark without the funnel. Just start at 1st level (or even higher levels if you want) and you can say all characters start with max HP on the 1st level HP die.

Pathfinder2 is very crunchy. I certainly agree with that! It can be hard to get into. Shadowdark is a great option.

Most people only play one game. 40 hrs a week man. Now it's 60 hrs. Japan is worse as most only have one game per month.

@@TempoLOOKING Oh, no doubt. That's why I said time is a premium now. We only meet every other week, and sometimes life gets in the way. But previously, we finished a 5e game and played Blades in the Dark if not everybody could make it, then moved into an OSR adjacent game. That campaign just wrapped, so I'm running Savage Worlds (for their version of Rifts, but I'm stealing subplots from the old 3E Witchfire trilogy and from 13th Age, because I love the Stone Thief), and then one of the other guys is going to run us through one of the Alien adventures (probably end of the year), and then I think someone wants to run the nearest version of Vampire. Though maybe not, because that's so far in the future. Now, I think we do short campaigns because we want to play a lot of different things. But that was my point. We WANT to play lots of different things despite the lack of time. I'm surprised when people only want to play one game and wondered if that's more the tone of discussion online, but like you said, maybe that's most people and my group is an outlier. But I wondered if that desire, to play one or switch around, was a function of age, because having a small amount of time doesn't prevent you from playing different systems.

@@taejaskudva2543 I only know from locals and what I seen abroad. My sister's group was once a month. You can't just switch as you will need to relearn for each system and most don't want to

I've got a whole bunch of games, but only have time to play 1 game on a regular basis. I prefer to play long term campaigns which means for 2-3 years at a time the lion's share of my gaming time is in one system, hence the switching language. I am trying to play more one shots of other games that aren't heroic fantasy this year, though, as and when I get the time.

RE: WotC stuff specifically. During the OGL the big push was to get them to walk back the changes to the license. They did that and put the rules in Creative Commons, which is EVEN BETTER for third party publishers than what we had before. They've promised and reaffirmed their commitment to do the same for SRD 5.2 as well as older editions of the game. So from the 3pp perspective, they've done what they said they would do and they CAN'T walk back the CC license. Yeah, there's plenty of other corporate crap they've done in the last few years, and I don't begrudge anyone from being done with them and making that individual choice, but I will say that the whole community came together to defend third party publishers during the whole OGL fiasco, but since then it's not just WotC that people have turned on, heaps of the third party companies now get regular abuse from the same people that supposedly banded together to protect them, which absolutely sucks.

Good news on the DC20 front. In the latest Kickstarter Q&A, the Dungeon Coach said that he is in talks with DrivethruRPG and Roll20/Demiplane for online support. He couldn't say much, but that was one of the things holding me back too, so hearing that there are plans ahead, at least, got me very intrigued.

@@JinglesRasco also Coach has said many times that VTT support will happen.

@@JinglesRasco even better news today with Baileywiki announcing they are working with them to bring it forward. Still a little ? In the text of the kickstarter about it, but seems that things are looking up there.

@@IcarusGames (to be clear, I am not mad at what you are doing just to be clear, i really like your work) for me, this is the typical corporate walk back. I’m fully prepared for them to shove it back out in pieces and hope no one notices. It happens all the time when the populace uprises about something, but within a few years they just cook a frog in a pot by slowly raising the heat.

I recently played an Abomination Vaults game as a way of easing into PF2. Every night after coming home, I kept thinking to myself "This would be magnitudes better in Savage Pathfinder..."

I've houseruled Savage PF with no problems! I much prefer it to PF2e.

@@ravenstudioproductions3139 I'm pretty sure they've got a Savage Pathfinder version of Abomination Vaults. Or maybe it's Rise of the Rune Lords. Could be both.

@@tommiskey I think it's just objectively better. At least for my play style anyway.

While it sucks that other folks are having less than stellar experiences, I'm glad I'm not so alone in finding myself going off the system. On paper it fixed all my problems with 5e. But the reality was those problems weren't as bad as they seemed at the time, and PF2 fixed them by introducing different problems for me.

I haven't played it, but PF2 sounds like it makes a good videogame system...

@@taejaskudva2543 its because its so tight with its rules, you dont have as much freedom as a dM or player to deviate from the rules else it breaks things. and has a lot of Core stuff that 4E D&D did which was also a more tactical style D&D game. Essentially PF2E is more for groups who like order and structure, and laid out and clear written rules with little deviation. and 5E is more for groups who are okay with Guidance but more free and DMs who like to homebrew tons of stuff. Yes 5E isnt "Balanced" but its balanced enough to make crazy stuff and still have fun.

How is raising a shield or moving one square a wasted action??

Am I the only one who reads "I studied the rules for a few months" as an enormous red flag? My goodness, I want to get into GMing quickly. I want to spend a quarter of my year playing the game, not preparing to play it.

@@alexorhuxley No, I do understand that it is a lot. But you can do it a lot quicker than me by just reading the rules. I was a new DM, so my learnings did not only include rules, but also DMing. I was reading books, watching videos of other groups playing etc. If you don't need that, you can be a lot quicker 🙂

@@alexorhuxley No, I started GMing the game only having read the rules from the beginner box the day before and learned as I went. Afterwards I got deeper into it, but off the bat I was able to do it just fine. Running prewritten games my prep is literally just rereading what they'll be getting to that day to refresh my memory and then run it.

I've got a couple more casual players too and the extra mechanics in PF2 was definitely a struggle for them sometimes!

It's not a PF vs 5e thing. I just happen to be going back to 5e for this specific campaign from PF2. I'm not saying either is objectively better or the one true game™. Like you said, there are tons of options out there depending on what sort of tone, playstyle, and level of fantasy you want. I personally find a lot of the OSR stuff to suit a lower level of fantasy than what I'm running at the moment, so those games would be perfect if I was running a campaign set further into the past of my world with less prevalent magic. Just like if I was running a game in any other genre besides fantasy, I wouldn't be using D&D or any of its cousins.

@@IcarusGames I wrote "you" in a general sense, as in "to whom reading this comment" type of way. I didn't mean to accuse, but yeah it reads that way. Whops

OMG just read your comment. I said in mine: "Pathfinder 1e does not make my head spin with the combat rules. You almost need a computer to keep track of the rolls and have a banner pop up explaining the effect."

If you're looking for an old school D&D feel with more modern design, check out Shadowdark. It comes very highly recommended and has won a ton of awards. I'm playing my first game soon and I'm very excited to check it out!

I know a few of my players would LOVE to go back to PF1. That system really let you do some crazy stuff that created super memorable moments.

Thanks, I appreciate it 🥰

What bothers me the most with PF2E is the amount of mundane things you're not allowed to do if you don't have a very specific skill whose only purpose is to do that one niche thing that you could have just your GM if you could do it with the appropriate check for the sake of creativity. I've found both GMs and players a more likely to play a lot less creatively when playing PF2E than 5E, or another system, because of how rigid the rules are.

D&D feels more flexible because you actually need to homebrew like 50% of the rules to make it enjoyable. No one on earth play base 5E for a reason. Comparisons between games are misleading because you compare "my personal homebrew 5E versions wich of course work for me" with PF2E. Compare base 5E and PF2E and instantly 5E feels lacking on every front with even more limitations

If I ran again with a different group I probably would use Proficiency without level TBF.

I don't think that is very good advice. It wouldn't really fix the issues he had. It won't help him develop an intuition for traits, nor will it help his players make characters with useful third actions, nor will he start homebrewing stuff just because he implemented a variant. I mean, I like Proficiency without Level a lot, I'm even writing a hack called Flatfinder based on it, but a lot of people think that it's the silver bullet to convert 5e players and that's just not the case. The point about the community being a stick in the mud is very true though. One of the main upsides of Pathfinder's great balance is that it separates "vertical power" and "horizontal power". You can give an ability to a creature, and it will add to its "horizontal power", but as long as you don't touch its DCs and modifiers (ie "vertical power"), it's very hard to completely break the balance. The main thing to be careful with are action economy buffs. Obviously, that goes for creatures, but also for characters, and thus for homebrew items.

@@robinbernardinis true, it's just that to me it was that silver bullet, it allowed me to have fun making a homebrew campaign

@@mylostisaac6452 I get it. At any rate, I posted Flatfinder on r/Pathfinder2e, if you are at all interested. I'd love some feedback from someone else with actual experience running PwL.

People frequently forget that Pathfinder is literally 3rd edition. It's been tweaked and rebalanced to something new, but the fundamental philosophy and rules concepts are the same.

@@Rerollto1 We played weekly for nearly a year. We definitely gave it a fair shot.

Yeah that's fair. For me I find it a bit odd personally, Not knowing what to do with your 3rd action in pf2e after a year is roughly equivalent as not knowing what to do with your bonus action in 5e over a similar period of time. And while I think its possible also seems odd to me. Not particularly sure of the reason to this, but it reflects a low level of system mastery, as to why I can't say. I'd also say similarly for not knowing how to create a custom monster in the system despite the system offering what I personally would describe as clear and simple tools and guidelines to creating them. But at the end of the day people learn differently, and gel with different systems differently so I guess that part just didn't work out. I only comment this for people who have only played one system, and might see these as overall weaknesses of the system, which I don't believe to generally be the case

@Rerollto1 important clarification, which is mentioned in the video - it's not a case that I didn't know _how_ to make monsters in PF2, the guidance given in the rules is excellent and clear. The problem was it just wasn't enjoyable - it took often felt like box ticking, which I acknowledge in the video is a ME "problem" with my personal preference, and not a reflection on the system. I was very deliberate throughout the video to make it clear none of the "problems" I had are systemic, and were all due to my specific group's situation. I still play PF2 (I just got done playing a game this evening), it's just not my go-to system for running long form heroic fantasy campaigns anymore.

Presumably the dragon was modified from its base CR13? But a party of five against one CR 11 creature is *just* over the deadly threshold for XP, so with the right combo of classes or magic items, or depending on their tactics I can totally see it feeling a lot less deadly. If the party has 6 PCs then the challenge for that drops right down to medium. I've been building 5e encounters strictly RAW since we made the jump back and the combats have been some of the best we've ever had. With only a couple exceptions, deadly encounters have been down to the wire and the combats have behaved as expected. The '24 rules do look like they are going to slightly raise the power of the PCs via a lot of little action economy tweaks, so I hope the designers make the necessary tweaks to the monsters to accommodate in the MM, but time will have to tell for that.

PF2E casters certainly feel weak. And they are kind of boring to play quite frequently.

It took me quite a while to adjust to 5e after 3.5/PF1. I cut my teeth on 3/3.5 and ran a full 1-20 PF1 campaign before ever playing 5e so it took a while to get used to the differences for sure!

The issue at hand is that it seems the Pathfinder community is quite the bit more hostile towards homebrew compared to DnD's. Not to mention a system like pathfinder being far more "balanced" means that people are going to be afraid to topple that balance.

There is a fair bit less third party stuff for Pathfinder, even accounting for their size compared to WotC. I think a lot of it comes down to Paizo being so on the ball with releasing loads of stuff each year so for most tables there's just no need for third party or homebrew stuff.

@@IcarusGames There is also much less incentive to publish your homebrew, because it takes effort and there is usually some costs involved as well. Hostility to 3rd party content aside, the playerbase is just so much smaller that even the most popular 3rd party gets used/bought by way fewer people than in the 5e space.

@@blockyuniverseproductions6587 Naah, not really. I've been homebrewing 20+ different troops for an entire chapter in my campaign so quickly I used the extra time to make an entire diplomacy subplot to avoid/subvert major battles, PCs acting as generals in this. As long as you stick to the table, you can homebrew you're heart's desires. The secret is not every step of the way has to be done by the rules, but rather use the rules in the measure they help you describe your story. This last bit it's baked in the introduction of every basic book in PF2. You can make it about the rules as much as you like. Basic rules are same as D&D5, hands down, I can teach both in the same amount of time. That said, PF2 doesn't give you that "Gotcha" moment that makes 5e fun to play but in the same way 5e doesn't give you that "we could've all died in there" that makes PF2 fun. I don't see them as different in rules weight but rather player agency vs rules. I found that in D&D5 the rules and effects drive player agency while the GM acts to harness the resulting chaos while in PF2 the rules and effects limit the scope of action of the PCs allowing the players and GM the agency to move away from them to tell a better story (which takes less effort and makes the GM a happy player as well).

I like movement being constrained. It SHOULD be constrained in combat. Reactive strike not being a universal rule in PF2E really hurts verisimilitude.

Oh yeah there's still going to be map making, software, and non D&D system stuff coming! I've got my eye on some software to cover later this year that I've been watching with interest for a good while now.

yeah a lot of Paizo's adventures are from when the system was new and they barely even follow the game's own encounter design guidelines, but it sounds like y'all really liked the system but just had GMs who'd rather be playing? Changing system doesn't actually solve either problem

@@lawrl777 I didn’t necessarily dislike the system and my coworker still gets the books/Paizo subscription because sunk cost fallacy. A lot of the issues mentioned in this video though were things that definitely came up for our group when we played. There were indeed moments where you would seemingly have 30 or so feats to choose from, but only 4 or so that felt like they actually would do something (5E has this problem too if you play with feats). It was refreshing when I showed up trying to use shields because most people had written off shields and said they sucked. After using shields on a few characters, I completely understand why people think that. Using shields means either committing to feats and intelligence to fix them up in a jiffy or getting into the habit of literally tossing them aside every other fight or so to get a new shield. The action economy for PF2E didn’t bother me because I understand 5E characters with an Action, Move, Bonus and reaction every round are really strong/busted most of the time. So I made it a point to make characters that would use up all 3 actions. Most of the time my 3rd action was to raise shield or position myself in a doorway or a funnel. This will probably make people mad but, I truly do not understand how PF2E got the reputation of having super balanced encounters. Some adventure paths from Paizo as you mentioned are written sometimes before the actual rules were created for PF2E (Just like 5E’s Hoard of the Dragon Queen). The DM that took over ran his own homebrew adventure in a dwarven mine and followed the encounter design process; only to nearly TPK us all the time despite the encounter math being correct. A Violet Fungus is a perfect example of PF2E cranking monster difficulty to 11. In 5E and Shadowdark it’s a low level fungus that moves roughly 5 ft a round (1 grid square), has 5 AC and can slap you a few times. PF2E’s Violet Fungus is a low level monster (CR3) that moves at double the speed of its counterparts, has reach, 17 AC, and drains your STR and CON via enfeebled and drained. With PF2E’s action economy, this low level monster can actually move 20 ft (4 grid squares usually) and slap you from 10 ft away down to 0 CON aka instant death. I will freely admit while I may be an optimizer, my coworker definitely is not. He wanted to play characters like Indiana Jones. The people who were still playing PF2E when I joined, still didn’t really understand the system well after months of playing. It really showed with the new DM but also in the players. So having players not be super optimized or knowledgable could have affected the encounter balance. After months of playing a weekly game, to have people still not fully grasp the system, shows just how complicated PF2E can really be at times. TLDR: All the factors I mentioned previously has led me to the same conclusion as this video. I would give PF2E another chance, but it is definitely not my game of choice. I went with Shadowdark because it’s one of the first RPGs I’ve played where I can’t purposefully optimize the fun out of the game. When I level up I literally roll dice to see if I get a stronger sneak attack on my rogue or advantage on my initiative. I am actively hunting for magic items to just do all the broken stuff my 5E and PF2E characters get just for leveling up.

@@The-0ni You're 100% correct about the PF2 encounter system. Creatures Ratings are based on how difficult they are for a highly optimized party playing to maximize their actions, equipment and feats/spells. I can handle that pretty well as a player but as GM (which I am in the current game we're running) I've found myself nerfing some encounters because I know the players don't fight optimally. If you have a bunch of people who won't minmax their build and grind out all three actions on a turn while squeezing every copper's worth of value from their items monsters can get quite deadly. Also, I had one player waltz into a bar full of hostiles and pick a fight but I suppose that has more to do with player sanity than game balance.

​@The-0ni where in its stats does violet fungi reduce con I cant find it

@@somerandommorron7069 Sorry previous stay block I mentioned was PF1E. PF2E you get a DC20 Fort or become enfeebled and then enfeebled and drained. The drained condition does lower your max HP and your Fort checks.

I made a video on my first impressions on DC20 recently. There's a bunch of stuff in there I like, some stuff I don't, but ultimately it's too young for me to even consider switching my longterm game to. I'd want to wait until the core books are out and I've got a clearer picture of the life of the game before considering jumping to it for anything more than one shots or short arcs.

It's definitely not 5e or bust for the channel 🤣 D&D definitely performs better than any other system for sure, but I've got videos planned to talk about a bunch of other systems in the coming months!

@@IcarusGames sweet!

Society play attracts the “Rules Lawyers” types like moths to a flame. The whole PFS system is based around the accrual of “points” and progression which makes for a slog IMO.

@@donalddouds6033 Exactly!

From what I can tell, it's more of a pressure created by the fanbase which gives the impression that "Pathfinder is perfect and needs no fixes", leading to what happened with the video's creator, where he was too afraid to try and make something because it may "break the holy balance".

I don't believe in perfection. Perhaps it is an impression given by the wealth of options and details that Pathfinder 2e presents in comparison to systems that leave several gaps for the narrator to fill. I agree that sometimes it can seem like a lot of material, but for me it's easier to change a detail here and there or ignore one rule or another, than to invent an infinite number of house rules to cover up the holes in a poorly designed system. Furthermore, I don't like having to put limits on players' choices because the system's rules break at some point. Balance is important, but it's not everything, fun has to come first. For me, the normal thing is to play with house rules regardless of the system. In some you create rules to fix problems and others to make the game more fun.

Hell for all we know starfinder 2e next year when fully released (unless the playtest really spikes the algorithm next month) is gonna repeat this on dnd ppl surge into it, along lines “it’s dnd IN SPACE!” Or “spelljammers, but better.” On video naming, stay for 1-2 years then back to dnd.

I made my first PF2 video in May of '22 and made 10 other PF2 videos before the OGL even happened. I did get a big spike in PF2 related traffic during the OGL, but I was already deep into the system and making videos on it before that hype train started. I actually made more PF2 content before the OGL than after it 🤣 But you're not wrong, outside of the swell of traffic during the OGL, non-D&D games don't tend to get as much traffic as videos on D&D for the most part, and the entire time I was making PF2 content I was very clear that the content would keep coming so long as people kept watching, because otherwise it's hard to justify doing it. Most D&D creators I know and speak to regularly have a long list of other games they want to talk about, but every time you make a video that isn't D&D you're acknowledging there's an increased chance the video performs poorly, so there's always trade offs.

I think the community attitude is definitely a minor contributor. So interesting to hear that perspective about not wanting to be a player though, that's not one I've come across before!

I'm with you, friend. Post-OGL, the vibe for a long time was "I just won't talk about TTRPGs online anymore" because... yeah. For so many people, simply not being 5e on principle was enough for them to become diehard PF fans overnight. And to play 5e, even though I last gave Hasbro money 10 years ago, was supporting Hasbro. Somehow. But PF is just... such a clumsy system. I tried. Really. But at least an hour of every session was consumed by "Actually, because of..." discussion and it just killed me. Experienced players of 5+ years who convinced me it would be incredible would still take a minute or more on their turns in combat. Everything about it is so ponderous and suffocating that I just can't do it. They wanted to play a high-level one-shot, and I tried to set the scene with a literal god creating a labyrinth. They descended into "Is that Wall of Stone? How big is the labyrinth? How does he have that many spell slots? How is he casting so much simultaneously? Forget it. We can't even win, why are we even playing?" Literally a system so choked by rules that its fans question the mechanics of cinematic pretext. Ugh.

I'm not trying to persuade you, though, that's the point. I am giving my feelings on my experience with PF2, but that doesn't make them empiric truth - you don't need some British guy on the internet you tell you what you should like. Neither PF2 or 5e, or very many published systems are BAD, they are just different, and by explaining the broader why of me not liking the system, it might help some folks articulate problems they are currently having, or if they are considering a crunchier more codified system like PF2, make them consider if that's for them based on their specific needs.

Not really, it just wasn't the right fit for this particular group. Nothing to stop me making D&D videos while still running PF2 in your hypothetical.