Why Pathfinder 2e Spellcasting is Better 

All great points as always, Rob!! I went ahead and pinned the comment in case anyone is curious. That said, the main thing I want to address is the bit about spontaneous casters and heightened spells since I didn’t talk about signature spells in this video intentionally. I plan to cover those features more thoroughly in future class guides since those are class-specific features and less broad-strokes casting rules (from my POV at least).

@@ConstructedChaos while i agree that signatures spells is more class specific, coming from a CRB-only pov, it might as well be part of what being spontaneous caster is as there's only 2 spontaneous casters and both of them have signature spells. haven't checked the other newer casters though so you may be right in this approach.

@@TheRobversion1 haha either way, I’ll make sure to cover it later. I wasn’t sure if some spontaneous casters didn’t get signature spells since the rules online say “most” spontaneous spellcasting classes provide abilities like the signature spells class feature.

@@ConstructedChaos no worries. all good. i think it was safer that way. i did do a check just now though and here are the results: there are 5 spontaneous casters: bard, sorc, psychic, oracle and summoner 4 have signature spells: bard, sorc, psychic and oracle 1 has unlimited signature spells: summoner (all spells chosen are signature spells) so yeah i think they really intended signature spells to go hand in hand with spontaneous casters.

@@TheRobversion1 haha good to know then!

Very true! And it does make the wizard more reliant on finding spells from other spell books and such within an adventure or campaign!

@@ConstructedChaos A lot of spellcasters also want to keep a good stock of scrolls and wands as well to supplement their spell slots. So they need a good bit of downtime to scribe those scrolls as well. Even clerics and druids could do with a few in their back pocket for emergencies. Seen people complain about the lower number of spell slots though that may just be PF1e veterans.

Not full access, prepared casters like the Cleric and Druid only automatically gain common spells. They still have to find and learn uncommon and rare spells.

@@gamereaperoz Ah good on ya! I appear to have missed that bit! I'll make sure to cover it when I go over each class!

I'll add that there are feats/spells that can provide focus points without refocusing like energized font, familiar focus and divine inspiration.

Did I forget to mention that you only recover one focus point at a time? I think I did mention that.

Thankfully in the remaster this rule is getting changed so that you can regain all your focus points when you refocus.

Oh that is good to point out! Thanks for adding that to the conversation here!

i've asked this elsewhere already before but whats your take on these 2: 1. can you sustain a spell on the round you cast a spell? 2. does illusory creature get to use it's 2 action on round you cast it (either freely or if sustaining a spell is allowed on the casting turn)? or does the illusory creature do nothing when summoned and you have to wait until your next turn when you can sustain it that it gets to take their 2 actions?

@@TheRobversion1 1) I think yes, but if the spell has this line: "the first time you Sustain this Spell each round" than you can only have it's effect once per turn, so it wouldn't do much... 2.) If you sustain it than yes. That's why the normal summon spell are 3 actions, because one is used to give a minion 2 action to wreck havoc.

@@szegediadam8793 thanks for the response. just kind of collating responses and seeing which is more common. i'll share the reasons why i asked: 1. others have argued that you can't sustain a spell on the turn you cast them (and thus an illusory creature can't do something on the turn they are summoned) pointing out the verbiage in sustaining an activation where it's clear sustaining can only be done the turn after you've activated the effect. 2. so in line with #1, i saw responses wherein they just had a "Wink, wink" agreement with the GM that the GM wouldn't attack the illusory creature until after you've gotten a chance to sustain it or the more common response is that the GM is nice and just allows the illusory creature 2 actions when it comes into play (much like most summoned creatures even though it doesn't have the summoned trait). if you have rebuttals to these, i'd be interested as well.

​@@TheRobversion1 Requirements You have at least one spell active with a sustained duration, and you are not fatigued. Choose one spell with a sustained duration you have in effect. The duration of that spell continues until the end of your next turn. Some spells might have slightly different or expanded effects if you sustain them. Sustaining a Spell for more than 10 minutes (100 rounds) ends the spell and makes you fatigued unless the spell lists a different maximum duration (such as “sustained up to 1 minute” or “sustained up to 1 hour”). If your Sustain a Spell action is disrupted, the spell immediately ends. This is the sustain a spell activity I see no wording that would prevent me from using it in the same turn I cast said spell :)

Absolutely! It's kinda funny because you can see that WOTC has tried implementing crit successes and crit fails into some other extended rules in certain supplements but not into the base mechanics. I really like it better so their loss!

I feel this would be the danger of a caster in reality, though. You can only prepare so much and what you prepare directly corresponds to each spell. It's not quite vancian casting but it does have a similar look and feel. And I think it's just one way that a caster's balance could have been brought back in line--and it's the way they chose to do it.

i think this is why i rarely play prepared casters. i always beeline for sorcs and occasionally play bards.

I agree whit you, but that's why homebrew exist. I for exemple, made a rule that you can use any spell whit your spell list (just like in 5e), but for upcasting, you have to use one of your spell slots to prepare the upcast version of the spell, for exemple, a wizard that wants to use a level 5 fireball have to prepare the fireball spell and a level 5 fireball spell. This way we can get away from the vancian magic system, the most disturbing thing ever created for magic systems.

@@gabrieldossantossanta5656 Fair enough! That seems like a reasonable compromise!

@@ConstructedChaos I feel the drawback here is that the limitation comes from putting more homework on players. I think some of the homebrewed "spell failure" systems achieve a similar result while still making it fun and spontaneous

Thanks so much! I try to stay within the bounds of the given TTRPG's available art when I do these!

@@ConstructedChaos It's a much appreciated detail. :)

agreed. as a fellow immigrant from 5e, i like how the casting system here is more balanced compared to 5e. i especially liked how they did traditions and how they clearly didn't want casters to be the end all and be all of the game unlike in 5e.

@@TheRobversion1 The traditions are great! They really give so much more flavor to magic and the game as a whole (also, alignment sometimes matters).

@@domenceuspriest yup, mostly in the clerics case. i also liked how even the traditions are balanced against each other. like in 5e at higher levels, arcane casters were clearly the top tier due to access to spells like wish and covering pretty much every spellcasting need. here each tradition has strengths and a weakness even though arcane, imo, is still the best: 1. arcane strengths-blasting, utility, control weakness-healing 2. divine-blasting, healing, buffing weakness-control 3. primal-blasting, healing, control weakness-debuffing 4. occult-debuffing, buffing, control weakness-blasting so even if you play sorc of each tradition, each has a different playstyle and feels different. there's even nuances in differences in strengths. like arcane casters may be more predisposed to using spell attacks, divine casters lean alot towards touch spells and primal casters lean towards aoe.

Happy to cover this awesome system and I'm glad you're finding it all enjoyable too!

Absolutely! I'm still not playing as much PF2 as I'd like since DND is still more popular but I appreciate the system more and will definitely continue making content for it!

as the GM of my table, we have fully switched. I got so frustated at the end of my last game of D&D from how the system just breaks down at higher level that I needed a system change. While I love 5e and appreciate it for all its done, Pathfinder is just amazing and I want to play so much more of it.

Thanks!! I wasn't planning on it but that's a really good idea! Maybe I'll do that after covering the conditions!

@@ConstructedChaos I'd second his request here. this is one of the big plusses imo of pf2e over 5e. martial combat is more interesting with all the traits and crit specializations. weapons here actually feel like weapons and not a random stat stick where the only important factors are dmg dice and whether it's melee/ranged.

Haha not to worry! I’m trying to go full time this year so I’m sinking a lot of time into the channel until that’s possible!

@@ConstructedChaos fingers crossed we get the low-cut top, speaking in an accent variant of you in a future shorts! ;)

@@TheRobversion1 😂😂😂🤙🏼

3pp? I’m not familiar with the term! But I am a big fan of pathfinder and I plan on continuing to create content around it!

I think 3pp means Third Party Content.

@@The482075 yes it does

​@@ConstructedChaos 3pp = 3rd party publishing

@@PsyrenXY gooooot it haha thank you!

Thanks so much! I'm glad the videos have been useful for you! I have a 5e video coming at the start of next week and then I'm jumping back into PF2e to cover those conditions!

Same here!

there are tho

@@TheTomoyaNagase I was meaning more along the terms of like Dungeons & Dragons where every single spell that has a duration you can only have one of app at any given time or as in Pathfinder as long as you've got 3 actions to spend on sustaining them you can have multiple spells up but if you Take a condition that would make you lose concentration then yes the spells will drop then.

you could play spontaneous casters. sorcs have access to all the traditions anyway.

@@TheRobversion1 And they are still way too restricted. Why should I have to relearn a spell at a different level rather than simply put more energy into the spell to make it more powerful? It makes _no_ sense. And I didn't like sorcerers much in 5e simply because of the limit to how many spell I would know at any given level. Wizards made more sense: there are only so many different verbal, somatic and material component combinations even the most Intelligent person could keep track of at one time, but you can change that out whenever you want, so long as you had a study guide (your spellbook) to refresh your memory. The concept of a sorcerer is cool: the Magical Artist who wields magic instinctually. But why can do they only know how to cast a _very_ limited number of spells per level? Why can't they figure out how to manipulate the "Weave" (to use Faerunian terminology) differently after a long rest? I get the 'balance' issue... But this is silly.

@@seannemo8076 i agree this way of learning spells is not ideal but yeah its balance. I think the solution is just to learn less spells but no need to learn heightened versions but also prepared casters must prepare less again for balance reasons. Personally i love sorcs in 5e. I think the tashas sorcs were done well and people arent really counting that tashas sorcs actually know more spells than a wizard or other prepared casters. If sorcs were able to do what you said, there would be no point in using a wizard. So yeah balance again. Sometimes its best to suspend logic for balance purposes otherwise the game becomes broken. Like right now, 5es "broken" because of that wide martial/caster gap. Thats one of the things i appreciated when i moved over to pf2e. Martials and casters are more balanced and casters isnt the end all be all toolbox for every situation.

@@TheRobversion1 I know I'm whining here. And I'm not trying to say that no one should play a Pathfinder spellcaster. I'm just saying that _I_ won't be playing one. I'm fine with martial and stealth characters. I just find what I refer to as "Fire-and-Forget" systems clunky and stupid. I read some of Vance's Dying Earth books after finding out that they were the inspiration for Gygax's magic rules; and even though they make more sense in the books (probably because there _is_ a reason for them), I wouldn't play a spellcaster that was limited to 4 spells a day. And I think that TTRPGs that base their magic systems on that are a bit lazy. But then, I actually prefer GURPS. It's just impossible to find a group that plays with that system. I'm mainly trying to learn Pathfinder because I'm getting tired of WotC's garbage decisions of late.

@@seannemo8076 why not just play gurps then or homebrew 5e/pf2e? like you i got tired of wotc's garbage decisions and made the move to pf2e once i saw the writing on the wall in dec. i read about the blueprint initiative and dnd being undermonetized and i thought things weren't going to go well. then i talked to a friend who works at wotc and he said something big and shitty was about to happen soon and lo and behold in jan the ogl fiasco happened. and yeah it isn't over, at least plan wise. wotc just decided to scale it back a bit to not scare people away from the recent dnd movie as they needed that to make more money. the only time really that it will be over for wotc is if we hear them scrap the blueprint initiative. i dont think that's going to happen so i'm happily settling in pf2e.

Are they doing away with spontaneous casters in OneDND? I wasn't aware.

@@ConstructedChaos Correct - Jeremy Crawford explains the design team's rationale here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-AY0Qr1dsRXY.html @ 6:03

@@PsyrenXY Hmm that is interesting! I haven't really allowed myself to delve TOO deep into the OneDND playtests since I'm mostly focused on pumping out 5e and Pathfinder content for now.

while i don't like vancian casting either. its much more penalizing in 5e because spontaneous casters have few spells known. not so much in pf2e due to signature spells, retraining and learning more spells per level (3-4).

PF2 has rules for retraining your spells for spontaneous casters (it's not hard) and if someone really wants 5e style casting, there's the flexible spellcaster archetype that turns a prepared caster into a 5e caster.

you could entice the player with a carrot? like allowing everyone to play with free archetype or giving them extra gold to buy magic items. Just some ideas. of course, i'd give a better suggestion if i knew why your player is dropping out.

Haha I always try to work the sponsor in organically since it makes the video more enjoyable for the audience and often better for the sponsor as well! I like Rob's suggestions here but it is also important to point out that fun as a DM is just as important as fun as a player. If you and the rest of your group want to play PF2e and one person doesn't, it's no biggie. It just means that they might not be a great fit! It's all about having a good time at the end of the day!

Yep! I intentionally left that out since it is a class-specific feature that I plan to cover with individual class guides. Still, I’ve pinned a comment covering this in case anyone is curious. Thanks for looking out!

one thing i'll clarify here is that this only applies to the full casters. if getting spellcasting via dedication, they only get 1 signature spell every 3 levels (3 total).

@@Extradecentskeleton Don’t think of a enemy succeeding as a compensation, think of it as the intended effect. A fail is amazing, a crit fail is an impossibility, a once in every 10 session effect. It’s better if you think of it like this. Critical Fail = Double Critical Fail = Critical Success Success = Success Critical Success = Fail

agreed. i'd also add they did this with spells to make martials worth using/close the martial/caster gap as martials can buff their success rates through the potency runes and spell buffs while casters cant. the best spellcasters can do is impose long-lasting conditions that hit saves that also work on a success (like something that does frightened 2). with that said there are still a few spells that have effects that work regardless of save such as the difficult terrain on entangle, walls, etc.

Yes the system is pitched as more degrees of success, when in reality, its almost no chance at your spell achieving critical success (and incapacitation removes that option completely on monsters it affects) success is a watered down consolation prize, failure a slap in the face, and crit fail way too likely. I honestly prefer only two options of success that have more even chances of occuring than this illusion of grades of success that overwhelmingly often is really just fail, or crit fail, and if really lucky success.

Thanks for pointing that out! I need to make a new version of this since they released the remaster shortly after I released this video haha

Here, here! Welcome fellow pf2e immigrant! I made the move last jan as well and i havent regretted it so far.

Welcome to PF2e, friend! I hope you enjoy the changes as so many others I've seen have!

I absolutely agree with you on this one. Though, as usual, I can understand the GM's plight, it's only because I am all-too-familiar with the feeling that comes along with watching your players beat down an awesome encounter that you spent a lot of time designing. That said, what's really needed here is a change in perspective from your GM. While it's true that things like this can feel broken or overpowered, your players should be allowed to feel that way occasionally. If someone has a great idea like this, it isn't just a win for the players. It's a win for the WHOLE TABLE. I get stoked when my players crit the big bad or fool them into doing something stupid with some great deception rolls. In my mind, there's not much up for debate here. You should have been able to do what you were trying to do in that combat.

@@ConstructedChaos so holes in a wall isn't fine/intricate details right? i think that's where my GM thought what i wanted to do isn't intended. he probably interpreted the "shaping' more like resizing or changing it to the primary shapes like circle, triangle, etc. tbh, in hindsight, i should've just gone with a triangle/trapezoid shape, the monster still wouldn't be able to pass through and we would be able to cast spells/shoot crossbow bolts through the spaces the triangle/trapezoid creates with the surrounding walls. i do understand his plight too. by saying yes to my plan, he knows we're a bunch of smart, tactical optimizers. say yes to one good plan and you create a precedent. if you say yes, it won't just happen occasionally. it will happen as often as a GM puts us in a similar situation. meaning, he can never put a brute monster and us in an enclosed stone space ever again as what we'll do is simply resort to stone shaping the walls and shooting spells/ranged weapons through it which limits his monster choices (he has to pick ones with spells/ranged options) or would have to resort to options like teleportation traps to put us into his killbox. does your table repeat smart, optimal tactics? do you feel that it limits you as a GM? Personally, i never feel limited when i GM when players pull out smart tactics as it forces me to improvise as a Gm and play around with different monsters. our main DM kind of likes the traditional monsters that are thematic/aligned with certain fantasy tropes. I think our GM doesn't have problems with us getting crits or lucky rolls on skill checks. he understands that it's not consistently repeatable. i think he's more "cautious" of us figuring out optimal solutions to challenges he prepared that can be repeated over and over without any sort of rolls.

Ah what you are talking about is called "murder holes" castles use them all the time particularly in gateways for precisely this reason

@@spencervance8484 yup. our GM didn't like us doing that with stone shape.

Haha not necessarily that but I can understand your take. What I'm saying is that PF2e is better because it makes it harder to be a spellcaster. Martials get better just on the merit of not having to rely on spells to be useful in that case.

@@ConstructedChaos so Pathfinder is relatively better for martials, not for spellcasters. I get what you want to say, I agree, the system moves the martials under the spotlight, but I think that magic is not more fun to play in PF2e, maybe more balance, 100% ok with that, but really more frustraiting and less intuitive

That *is* a good point! Thanks for bringing that up!

agreed. this is 1 of the reasons why the vancian casting here is faster than it is in 5e.

I totally respect your opinion here. But I didn't say that Pathfinder has the best spellcasting. I did say that it's better than DND 5e's spellcasting and I mentioned multiple times that I think this is mainly due to the difficulty it adds to casting. It makes casters less potent and harder to pilot, yes. But they really should be in my opinion. It keeps things even between casters and martials. Sorry to hear you didn't enjoy playing but that's okay if you still prefer 5e! I wish you many happy adventures in the future, regardless of the system you prefer!

Agreed and disagreed here. i agree it ruins casters who prefer certain types of spells like 3 action spells or short range/touch spells. i disagree however that this describes all caster playstyles. you just have to select longer range spells and use mounts. or perhaps a different role such as being a buffer/healer/summoner. i agree with chaos as well. the point of saying "better" here is in comparison with 5e if you are concerned with balance. i'm a 5e optimizer and i barely play pure martials. that was how bad the martial/caster gap is. when i moved to pf2e, i still play mostly casters but now i saw a reason to play martials. imo that's better for the game.

@@ConstructedChaos "Less potent and harder to pilot" doesn't equal good unless you are masochistic. Spellcasters are just the worst aspect of an otherwise solid system in PF2E. Even spellcasting monsters used by the DM are much weaker than martial monsters, or are made better by being a spellcasting monsters that also has unreasonably strong AC and martial attacks, not really achievable in the same archetypes by PCs. This is a weakness of the system because they didn't arrive at a balance between martials and casters, they just crapped all over and nerfed casters into oblivion. I would be all for something that felt balanced between martials and casters, but PF2E, for all it does right, sorely missed the mark here.

@@darksavior1187 I don't really agree with your opinion here but I can understand your frustration coming from 5e if you wanted casters to feel so much more powerful than everything else. I stand by what I said in my video and maybe that makes me masochistic haha. But I do feel like PF2e strikes the martial/caster balance much better than D&D 5e does, regardless.

@@ConstructedChaos I agree the balance is way better, but casters are weaker than martial overall even if you need 1 caster for certain monsters you face. Overall if casting was just a bit more flexible everything else would be fine and I don't think it would make them op.

I hope to deliver on that soon! There is the new DND edition releasing in September that I'll be covering but I'll try to slip some PF2e in there as well!

i recommend the the pathfinder 2e beginner box which is one of the best in the business. the dungeon dudes have an unboxing video of it on their channel. i'd also say as a recent immigrant from 5e, i was actually surprised how it was easier to pick up pf2e.

I mentioned in my first video that I felt the complexity of transitioning is really no more than learning a new system. I can totally understand not wanting to ask that of players, though. My group still plays in 5e although they've all told me they would be fine with switching should it become necessary.

Hell yeah you can! And it makes sense, right? I love how much thought they put into everything.

Yep! And I pinned a comment from my good pal Rob Vera who pointed that out in case anyone gets confused. Sorry! I’m new to PF2 as well. I’m glad that’s the only thing I missed haha

@@ConstructedChaos No problem, mate. Thanks for the video!^_^

@@jbdigrz happy to make it! I appreciate you looking out for that mistake too.

You would know better than I would--as a newbie to PF2e. However, I was mainly just going by what's written in the spells section of the core rulebook.

from what i've observed/read uncommon/rare spells are typically not allowed by alot of GMs so yeah it might as well not exist. on the components, i already pointed that out to Chaos previously so i'd just like to add you missed out on the sorc being able to hand-wave mat components as well. the only CRB class really that has a components issue (and rightfully so) is the wizard.

Well said! Good insight here.

i think this was done in pf2e to really balance out casters vs martials and prepared casters vs. spontaneous casters. i agree 5e's version is easier to use but i do appreciate the thought that goes into balance here. especially, if you're like me, and sick of wizards and other prepared casters always being the best class in every single edition and after every sourcebook update.

There is a class archetype for caster that make the use f spell slots like 5e.

​​@@TheRobversion1dk monks at max keep up with the best casters if you know what your doing. I play a mighty mighty cleric who's pushing homebrew at this point and my buddies lvl20 shadowmonk aarakockra usually can end most fights on less than a turn in battles with more than 1 high level enemy. Don't ever underestimate that stunning strike 😅😅 but tye other classes like barb or rogue/ranger in 5e are more for niche rp than battling other players and are just as good as the monk but not in the same way. in 5e the only broken caster class imo is cleric

@@johnnyhorsewhale3116 DK monks? Are we talking but pf2e or 5e here? Disagree on strongest caster class in 5e at higher levels. The cleric is actually one of the weaker ones. The arcane casters are the top 3 in the wizard, sorc and bard. Access to wish is a big deal. The arcane list is also much better than the divine list. sorcs also have metamagic. I also think factoring homebrew.into class assessment leads to unfair and unrealistic.conclusions. Stunning strike is actually suboptimal. Someone else has already.done.the math and you may have seen the memes for it for a certain critical role character. i think you are also severely undervaluing the ranger post-tashas. They are clearly better than the monk,.rogue and barb post-tashas due to a couple of upgrades that they got to a couple of their spells that make those broken. Furthermore, even without that, gloomstalkers exist which are part of the best martial nova class in the game.

@@TheRobversion1 5e and sure wish is great but that'd really only apply to those classes at lvl 17 when they get that wish vs the cleric at 17 who'll have to rely on divine intervention to negate that wish but having such a low percentage on the dice is nigh impossible at 17. Now at max the cleric can just use it while within that time those arcane classes with wish who have a 33% chance of never being able to use it again. My middle ground happy for this argument would be the arcane cleric is the only and most op broken class in 5e 😅😅

Glad you enjoy it!

awesome! 5e refugee/immigrant/exile here too!

Thanks so much!! Welcome to Pathfinder!

I do feel like this was a better system for 5e since it helped to balance the game but I will say that the 2024 PHB has done a decent job of giving martials more power so they can compete without having to take this approach.

good point however that approach also imbalanced 5e strongly towards the casters. i do agree for realism 5e's take is better. i think the middle ground here between the 2 systems is to use 5e's system but to limit the amount of spells you know/prepare further. like casters in 5e shouldn't just be regularly using cantrips at lower levels but also at higher levels so that using martials actually makes sense. personally, i preferred the 4E system as it was the most balanced as whether someone was a caster or a martial they had the same amount of resources (at will powers, encounter powers, daily powers), knew the same amount of resources and recovered those resources in the same way. it was great balance but the classes felt "samey."

@@TheRobversion1 Realism is probably not the right word when talking about magic. That said, I do see where you’re coming from even if spell slots honestly make about as much sense as any magic system as far as I’m concerned.

@@Coffeewings334 Yeah; it is not "Realism" , but rather "Simulationism " : Magic and guns strong; attacking with a slightly larger butter knife weak. - While 4E and PF2E often prefer the "Gamist" approach, to balance the different systems of the game, - so that a talented butter knife user stands a good chance against someone who can easily drop large doses of napalm onto the battlefield . 😉

@@Badbentham To me at least, that doesn't really have anything to do with either simulationism or realism (even though I would agree PF2E is not simulationist compared to 5e or 3.X). If fighters are supposed to be more grounded than Wizards, cap their levels or something.

That sounds a bit more like a spell balancing issue than a fundamental caster issue doesn't it?

@Constructed Chaos It's tricky, because in a typical campaign, combat encounters are common and dangerous, whereas skill/utility encounters are less common and often less dangerous. I want casters in my campaigns to feel good about preparing spells like alter self and gaseous form, and not worry that they didn't prepare magic missile once at each spell level

@Constructed Chaos Even when I was running campaigns in first edition, in the late 1980s, I had alresdy adopted a system like 5e for prepared casters. (Spontaneous casters weren't really a thing yet.)

@@jameswhite3043 Okay I can see your point there wherein players might be more tempted to take combat spells 90% of the time. But wouldn't that just leave more room for other players to succeed in situations where their characters might have skills and abilities that fill in the gaps? I'd say it's best to keep casters from always having the answers to every problem in the game.

@@ConstructedChaos i agree with this 100%. its like people who complain about this every time just want casters to have every tool in the box. it's can't be like that otherwise there would be no point in playing a martial. there has to be opportunity cost. there has to be a weakness. there has to be variety and balance. moreover, people underestimate how many more spell selections pf2e gives you compared to 5e to make up for having to select heightened version of spells.

i dislike it as well. however, it's not like we don't have options. you could play sorcs and bards. that's what i play when i want to play casters.

Vancian magic doesn't work in a "I have the magical energy" way. Honestly the possibilities for different magic systems are literally endless and I get annoyed when people are militant aboot wanting all magic systems to only work in the one way they're used to from Final Fantasy or WoW or whatever.

To each their own, obviously. But, I don't honestly think it makes playing a caster all that difficult. Still, I understand where you're coming from. I do think I'd prefer to have martial's power increased rather than caster's power decreased.

@ConstructedChaos Same. I never understood the stigma of casters in dnd being overpowered because the casters I made were never powergamey. I played dnd with fellow casuals and in almost every combat situation the martial artists came out on top. Now, granted, it's not as if I were expecting a divination focused character to out damage a duel wielding fighter, but even as a damage focused caster I'm 2nd place to the fighter (Disclaimer: this is low-mid levels without the notorious fireball spell. I have a feeling alot of people attribute spellcasting to being broken because of spells like these but none of my characters have them). But pathfinder sounds alot like it's hammering down the nail ALONG with the entire house with it, which sounds like it'd just make things harder for people who want fun characters that arent martial artists. For example a boomerang wielding spellcaster who uses wind and wind spells to guide his weapon. What in the blazes am I to do when a martial artist pulls up with 42 damage? (Level 7) I die before I even get to roleplay how I wanted my character to express their combat style. Nothing I have can ever match that because my strongest spell is a concentration with a single low roll of damage. Meanwhile I'm seeing everyone else call this same class OP for a spell I would never ever use, and I'm hearing that pathfinder nerfs me further for it. It's just not a good feeling from my perspective, and I really don't want things to be more miserable than they already are. I really wish they'd just nerf the problem-spells instead of the entire concept of the spellcasters.

I think this is the struggle a lot of groups are experiencing. I'm still mostly running 5e but the door is open now and I'm constantly looking at other systems.

Of course! Thanks for watching and I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Very much worth noting! Thanks for adding this!

Silly question, why would you give example of starting at 3rd level and omit how much money 1st level character has?

@@AllanSavolainen if it helps, you start with 15gp at level 1. If you're purely a caster, you won't be spending it on weapons or armor (non-magical staves and clubs are free), so you'll have room for a couple scrolls. My first example was just 3rd level because my group usually starts there, sorry about that.

​@@spingus2325 No problem, I was just missing the context on how much money you start with. And also didn't know you can buy scrolls during the character building phase. In DnD5e games I've played, you don't get any magical items before the game begins (unless the race specifies that you can have spellcasting focus or spell component pouch).

i think what Chaos means as better, is it's better balanced. prepared vs. spontaneous and caster vs. martials. and i agree with him. i agree with you as well that upcasting is done better in 5e. i guess it depends on what you're objective is. if your goal is to balance prepared/spontaneous casters and martials/casters then pf2e spellcasting is better. if you're objective is to make prepared casters more powerful, then 5e casting is better. i'm of the former btw.

Rob is exactly right here, as per usual. It's all about improving game balance and ultimately making casters MORE fun to play by LIMITING what they can do.

@@ConstructedChaos agreed. and even among casters balancing them. i'm so tired of the "WEEZARDS ARE #1 DURR! i think the balance here is better where other classes bring something to the table that you actually can't say the wizard is better at everything. this makes class choices, spell choices actually matter. in 5e, it didn't really matter as much what arcane tradition you picked. you were still a wizard with access to the wizard spell, prepared spellcasting and ritual spellcasting.

Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoyed it!

@@ConstructedChaos how much did they pay you to lie?

@@colorpg152 Probably the same amount you were paid to make this comment

@@ConstructedChaos dnd started with war gaming where player were encouraged to learn and so they gained more and more options and everything became possible, that was 3.5 and possible even p1e but then customization was striped, complexity was dumbed down, system mastery was called power gaming, cleverness was called shenanigans and railroading became the norm, tell me have you no heart? are you truly a monster who can destroy such beauty and still have the guts to celebrate it? if so you deserve worse than hell and you will certainly face the karmic consequences for your actions

That's definitely a good observation too! I kinda like PF2e's approach here because you can get the same info from spell descriptions in less time once you're familiar with the system. Sometimes, I have to double check spells in 5e and it takes forever to get through all the word vomit.

@@ConstructedChaos Agreed. traits made it easier to read spells once you understand what certain traits do like incapacitation, death, etc. the rules text to read becomes simpler and not daunting to read.

I think that it does in some cases! And, in particular, I think Pathfinder has found a way to make spellcasting more balanced than it is in 5e. Is it the only way it does this? No. Is it the best way? Probably not. But, it is a way and it is, in my opinion, better.

while i think that sometimes it's not, depending on player's preferences, it's also sometimes is. in this case i agree with Chaos. it is.

@@ConstructedChaos it's fine that you like it better, but it is not objectively better. To me, PF2e has a lot of interesting ideas that I want to work, but again, for both me and my group PF2e is awful.

@@because4337 i think saying something is objectively better is flat out false unless you don't mean objectively as factual. clearly other people believe otherwise and i'm sure can bring up proof (for example spell components). i think this is all a matter of preference/opinion. it's not better/doesn't work for you and your group and it's better/works for other people. imo it's different from 5e and is better in certain regards and not better in certain regards.

@@because4337 you’re totally entitled to that opinion! This is mine!

Ahh! You are absolutely right, my friend! I'm not sure how I missed that! I'm in the process of roughly cutting that misinformation out of the video here on youtube so I don't confuse anyone. I really appreciate you pointing that out!

a smaller nitpick... i'd like to add only for prepared casters. haha. spontaneous casters don't need to prepare cantrips. they either know them or they don't.

@@TheRobversion1 I've fixed it now so that it just doesn't go into that level of detail on cantrips. Most of a class's interaction with cantrips are detailed in their spellcasting features anyway so I'll touch on those when I touch on signature spells and other class-based features.

@@ConstructedChaos all good. Looking forward to you doing more pf2e content. I really hope you get more views/interactions/subs/likes on the pf2e vids so the channel can have more of a balance when it comes to pf2e and dnd content.

Personally, I kindof like how 5e handles alignment--which is to say that it doesn't do much at all. I prefer to view and run RP in my games as something less intrinsically tied to mechanics because TTRPGs are somewhat cathartic for our group in that way. I don't want to tie a player down to behaving a certain way unless they want to explore that story beat--which it sounds like this player does. So, to answer your question, I'd run it on a case by case basis. But, regardless of the mechanics there, if a character was acting in a way that would piss of their god/patron/party, there would naturally be consequences to some reasonable degree.

@@ConstructedChaos yeah if i was the GM, i'd run it as well on case to case basis. I'd start out though by asking the player if he wants that weaved into his character arc. I can understand though why my GM didnt factor it in as he must have so many things mixing in his head being a 1st time GM for pf2e. i do appreciate both the way 5e and pf2e handles it and i may do a mix of both when i GM pf2e one day. Like i'd enforce the tenets/code like pf2e does but i wont make it as punitive if he breaks the tenets/code (like i may downgrade the negative effects and even give him free passes for the 1st couple of times he breaks it). That way he'd also be free to express himself in another alignment/make another RP/story choice if he really wanted to. For sure though i will still make it have negative effects because i want choices to matter in my games.

That's totally a fair assessment as this video is fairly subjective depending on what you believe about one system versus another. That said, I don't think PF2 has the "perfect" system for spellcasting. Realistically, I'd rather see martials get a boost rather than nerfing casters.

@@ConstructedChaos I fully agree when it comes to boosting martials. Most d&d settings have magic all over the place except for arguably magic items. So I see no reason why such magic couldn’t explain the superhuman feats performed by martial characters, assuming that you even need an explanation for why a zen archer build fires like a machine gun. That being said, to me, the needing to know fireball at multiple levels seems ridiculous compared to the scaling system of 5e. Needing to only pick up cure wounds or inflict wounds once to cast a variable amount of healing/damage always was a draw of 5e to me. Seemed cool. Tbf you be only played a prepared caster in 5e, but that one change always seemed great. My initial turn off towards 5e was ppl marketing it as low magic. Bump that, gimme airships & a magic shop in every major town. Gimme implications to spells that create & alter the taste of food. Gimme implications within the society when a town has been fighting off goblins for years. Like, make the PCs start as newbies rather than the town’s only hope despite having a grizzled guard captain. If I wanted to be surrounded by level 1 commoners unable to cast a single spell then I could just play something abt commoners or some modern day game. Ppl don’t play world of darkness games to play boring humans never seeing vampires, werewolves, mages, & ghosts. Likewise, I don’t play dnd to fight commoners w/pitchforks & see little to no magic. A campaign setting like Eberon or Baldur’s Gate is simply superior to the simple midevil plus of a low magic setting. Tldr: DND 5e is good. Pathfinder 2e might also be good. But a lot of the stuff that ppl proclaim as great about any system can be subpar & boring. Scalable spells are great. Vancian magic is less so but is pretty integral to both systems. I wish everyone luck in the latest bout of edition competition & I honestly hope that dnd5e & PF2e beat out OneDND if only bc I don’t trust WotC/Hasbro any further than I can throw them. Big companies, pretty sure I can’t lift em. PF2e plus is inherently better for being published under the a new & likely somewhat better license. I wish us all well and many slain or at least convinced amazing npcs in the future. Good luck everyone!

@@hiro2protagonist small clarification learning a higher level spell to heighten is only for spontaneous casters and they are given tools for a small number that get automatically known heightened levels. So a wizard cleric Druid can prepare the heightened versions and a sorcerer can specialize in fireball.

Playing martials is also more complex in pathfinder than in 5e. Even at level one they have loads of things to do on their turn, not just attacking. Fighter is also considered the most powerful class in PF2. Spellcasters also do not scale as quickly in PF2 even when they get higher level spells, as casters can't really boost their spell DCs with runes like martials can boost their attack bonuses.

Wow that is a pertinent story haha. Sorry your party all got the snot beat out of them! As for free archetypes in PF2e (and, really any boost like level 1 feats in DND 5e) I personally prefer not to break away from RAW too distantly. However, like your GM, I'm always open to what the players want. If they take an extra feat or free archetypes early, I just let them know that the encounters will end up being slightly more difficult to compensate. At the end of the day, as long as the game is challenging, I'm okay with players doing cool stuff with their characters.

@@ConstructedChaos yeah. Haha. All good. its nice to experience multiple new things in a new system. The others and myself just felt bad because we died so early in the campaign and one thing i'll say about pf2e, the threat of death is real especially if the GM is strict about the rules and not pulling punches. In 5e, the threat of death wasnt as conclusive because you know, if you wanted to, you could make a new character, use raise dead, and bring your character back. Getting a character to level 9 wont take long. Theres also revivify which you can use post-combat. No such thing in pf2e. you have to wait for higher level spells such as wish to bring people back from the dead. So death is more pressing, creates more tension and is almost permanent. This also kind of forces you to consider other strategies instead of just going through every combat. Maybe you want to talk your way out of it or avoid it entirely because if you die, it will be tough to bring you back. There are real stakes. As a group who's played 5e for years, we're used to characters dying. It just hit harder here since these were our 1st pf2e characters (yeah, sentiment) and it happened so early. As a GM i tend to stick with RAW as well. just heard from others who play pf2e that the FA optional rule was common like feats in 5e. So i was curious on your view on this as a newcomer.

Hey Rob! Just trying to keep on that consistent video grind! My initial reaction to this is: "Holy cow, I guess you weren't kidding when you mentioned PF2e gave the Ranger a huge boost in power compared to DND 5e!" haha What is keeping you from taking on the MAP? I'm not as familiar with some of the finer rulings of PF2e yet haha.

@@ConstructedChaos yeah saw the recent druid vid. as far as the MAP, basically this is where my 3 attacks come from per turn: hunted shot: 1st at no map, 2nd at -5 map. cat: 1st at no map (animal companions don't share map with their owner unless the owner mounts the animal companion). then my remaining 2 actions are devoted to casting save spells which doesn't add or is affected by map such as right now: electric arc and eventually as we get to higher levels lightning bolt and chain lightning (i like the earth and lightning theme for this character).

@@TheRobversion1 Oh I see! I don't know why but I read that as you having no MAP for all 3 attacks haha. Good ole morning brain! This is sick, though! And I'm happy your GM is giving everyone the boost in power after the near wipe. That should raise everyone's spirits!

@@ConstructedChaos yeah though we have arguments in our group chat again. lol. as i told you before, we typically discuss our characters with the GM and each other before the session (it's our version of session zero) either via chat or zoom calls. so i guess this is the segueway to the GM question of the week: my friend wants to play a goblin fighter now and wants to dual wield dogslicers (an uncommon goblin weapon) while riding a wolf (think the scene in 2 towers of LOTR with the goblin riding wargs). a common reading of RAW of how to do this is to pick up the goblin weapon familiarity ancestry feat to gain access to dogslicers which will allow you to apply your simple weapon proficiency bonus to it. This is my GM's ruling. my friend however disagreed and thinks that this rule only applies to non-goblins as he said if he was another race he'd still have to pay this feat tax to gain access to the weapon. he also said there's no point to becoming a goblin to wield a goblin-specific weapon. so how would you rule a racial weapon being used by that weapon's race? do they get access to it for free or do they have to pay the feat tax like every other race?

@@TheRobversion1 Haha of course! But, as long as these aren't arguments and they're just conversations and everyone is having fun, I see no harm! Without being as well-versed in these sets of rules my gut reaction would be to agree with the GM on this one. The existence of the ancestry feat implies to me that just being a goblin or descended from them doesn't give you the proficiency inherently. But, regardless, uncommon weapons ruling states that the GM is ultimately in charge of this anyway. As the GM, I'd probably wave this but I can understand your GM's opinion here and fully support it.

Yea it can be bothersome to keep track of but it helps to tone down the power of casters so I'm okay with it.

@@ConstructedChaos Honestly I'd rather supercharge the Martials with more power/utility overall to better match casters and call it a day rather than kneecap the casters. D&D is in many ways a high power fantasy type game for the players, wouldn't kill 'em to buff Martials overall

@@Isaax I'm absolutely with ya there. That's what I'm hoping we get from all this One D&D UA but I guess we'll see.

Yeah, I also always hated this Spells-as-Ammo treatment from D&D. I'm glad they changed that in D&D 5e. And yes, I also want to see martial being buffed.

It just feels bad to play, imo. It barely even feels like magic to me. It honestly feels more like something an Artificer should have. And having to be either boring as hell preparing mostly damage spells or having to be a goddamn clairvoyant to use half your spellslots effectively when they're your main class feature is so sucky.

I do agree with you to an extent here. I think the balance is better in PF2 but I would personally rather see martial buffs. And it looks like the new UA is proposing some of what I'd like to see but I worry they're still boosting some of the casters as well. For now, PF2 is better but still not perfect.

agreed with all points here. thats why casters are typically better in most games, even pf2e. it's just a great toolbox that you have to either nerf it or stack alot of advantages on the martial side to make it balanced. dnd 4e, imo, did this best. pf2e does a great job as well. on the movie though, i think they did it that way as they didn't want to have such a big budget just for CGI. the barb would also feel useless as the only non-caster in the group if the 3 other classes all started casting spells.

5e was my first TTRPG, yes but I’m expanding my horizons now!

for me, mechwarrior, legend of the 5 rings, a homebrew steampunkish/fantasy system by an old friend, vampire the masquerade, gurps, 3.5e and 4e. Post-5e, i'm currently playing pf2e.

I'm actually not all that familiar with it. Was it similar to this one?

I wasn't really planning on it as I don't typically view my channel as "news content" I may weigh in at some point, though. Overall, I'm pretty cool with most of what they announced but it does irk me that they've moved away from the OneDND naming convention after touting it as the "end of editions"

@@ConstructedChaos all good. Was just curious. I'm more invested in pf2e stuff nowadays anyways. On the naming convention.for the edition, it think what they did is just stupid. Everybody's still going to call it 5.5 or 6E because of all the drastic changes. Why not just say its not going to be backwards compatible and use the 5.5/6E naming convention? simple. Its all about money. They want the brand recognition 5e offers but the truth is they'll probably stop printing the old 5E books and just print the new versions. Most of the time, when decisions are made to make money instead of deciding to put out the best product for your consumers that's when things fall off.

I can see where that sort of failure could bore a player and see them "take up their phone" but I think a compelling enough battle will engage the player all the same. The reality is that some spells are just save or suck and it all comes out in the wash. Casters just can't be good at everything--otherwise you're sacrificing game balance.

@@ConstructedChaos I guess the crux of the issue is that too often either in APs or even homemade the memorable moments are when the party punches above their weight class and casters just struggle with punch above aspect. On homemade at least its easier to justify bumping down the enemy a little and introducing some minions in order for wizards to get off their fireballing fantasies, while APs often are in such small spaces that there isnt even a use for all the 60+ feet range spells to buy yourself some time before its hacked to pieces (or martials get hacked to pieces and you have to bail). They tried with Elementalist archetype to make damage dealing caster but the pay off is not worth it as persistent damage or +damage per spell level doesn't matter if the caster can't hit the AC or enemy out-maths the saves. Runelord has the 3.0/3.5 aspect of sacrificing 2 schools of magic... for better defence against their own school at near capstones which also does nothing to actually let wizard/caster specialise in something so the only way to be a wizard is to be generalist or fill half their spell slots with actual save-or-suck spells as the consolation prize success effects might as well be spend on. Alas martials can easily spec in sweeps, single attack damage, supports or skill monkeys. Hell people are still advocating to directly port 4e Warlord in a way so they could edge out casters on support despite marshal existing. Have hopes for Remastered to at least acknowledge it but I do feel like im setting myself up for disappointment.

i agree that casting is designed to get enemy succeeds on their save effect. that's why going through the spells and picking the ones that have good effects on a success or just outright work (buffs or no saves like wall of stone/ice). i agree with chaos though that this is good for game balance otherwise we have a repeat of 5e where casters rule everything. Not all players who want to play casters want to deal dmg to feel good. this may be common among casuals or newbies but it's more subjective for vets. i dont really care about dealing dmg as a caster (or even as a martial). I only care about swinging action economy (regardless if that's through control, buffs or high dmg) as much like 5e, action economy is king in any tactical game. I find that casters in pf2e can still be effective vs. single target if optmized enough. no need to wish your GM brings out minions so you can throw out fireballs (unless that;s the fantasy you actually want to RP). I am one of those coming into the game who expect casters to be battlefield controllers (coming from 5e treantmonk school of god-wizard). so imo it really depends what your preference is and how much you want to optimize.

@@ConstructedChaos i think if casting is approached through the lens of looking through success as the normal effect and failure as the crit failure effect then the player won't be bored/disinterested. all it takes is a simple mind-reframing. plus you can always just play with buffs or no save spells.

@@Kokszo personally having played a caster in pf2e coming over as an optimizer in 5e i've never had a problem "punching above my weight class." this however could be due to 2 facts: 1. i am an optimizer and perhaps casters just require more "work" than martials in pf2e. 2. we dont play tier 1 in 5e and even when we migrated to pf2e we start out campaigns at level 6 at the least and are considering starting at 8 or 10 in the future since pf2e seems well balanced for higher level play. also i dont have those fireballing fantasies and tbh the memorable moments in our campaigns typically involve RP and doing something unusual in combat. it's rarely about dealing dmg. personally, as an advocate of balance between martials and casters, i find pf2e refreshing. i never had a reason to play a pure martial in 5e (i had like over 40+ optimized builds, some shared on this channel and only 1 of them was a pure martial) and i'm glad in pf2e i expect that ratio to be higher.

i think the balance is fine. signature spells helps out spontaneous casters and personally, as an optimizer, i prefer the spontaneous casters in pf2e over prepared.

while spontaneous casters lack in versatility they are superior in flexibility, when it is needed spontaneous caster could burn all slots for heal or magic missle while prepared caster is locked to the spells that he had chosen that morning

5E: Wizards are in general stronger than Sorcerers ( only the later books introduced Sorc types that are similarly broken, like Clockwork and Aberrant) as they already get the most significant benefits from Spontaneous Casting. ( Upcasting, and " casting-at-will" ) PF2E: Sorcerers are actually considered stronger in many regards; most of the versatility needed in the game comes from casting from scrolls. Also, they are less limited than their 5E counterparts ( apart from Aberrant/Clockwork) with their Spells Known. And: They can even choose their Tradition.

Casters only feel weaker than martials in pf2e earlier levels. With proper spell selection, some casters should be pulling ahead by level 9. imo adding the changes you suggested pretty much turns pf2es balance back to 5e and there will be a martial/caster gap again across all levels. Personally coming from 5e, i prefer the martial/caster balance here and i'd still rate casters over martials overall if we factor in the full 20 levels. They dont need the boost even here. i do agree it could be more flexible, but there has to be a trade-off elsewhere. Like we can make it like 5e (no need to know heightened versions of a spell) but prepared casters prepare significantly less spells, spontaneous casters know significantly less spells.

@@TheRobversion1 I will have to see how caster feel past level 10. That is the highest level campaign I ever got to in pathfinder 2e. (Had 4 from 1 to 10) . I do know casters start to feel decent around level 7, but still behind martial. I don’t think it would bring it to level of 5e casters because most spells are weaker then the 5e counter part. Also pf2e martial are stronger and do more damage then a blaster caster in pf2e. Also many utility item casters do can be completed with skills. Lastly, they are amazing buffers and debuffers which mainly helps the martials not the casters(why a caster is needed). Also doesn’t the best spells have incapacitation on them making it really hard to use for bosses unlike 5e that it just works normally. So I can see you saying adding flexibility would make them to strong, but it’s absurd to say it would make them as strong as 5e casters.

@@richardmenz3257 let me clarfiy then. i meant the gap will be like 5e martials and 5e casters. take note while spells are weaker in pf2e, you also get more slots and martials got stronger but not as strong as the more optimized 5e martials. you could say the pf2e martials floor got raised in pf2e compared to 5e's martials but the ceiling is the same. Coming from a 5e optimizer here, i've theorycrafted a few optimized pf2e martial builds already and have done minor playtesting and they don't match the performance of let's say a fighter/gloomstalker/assassin. now back to casting in pf2e. for sure, you have to try higher levels. it's more balanced than 5e higher levels. 5e typically gets unbalanced around level 9-13 (wall of force, forcecage, etc) for the casters and that's why most 5e campaigns end around those levels. in pf2e playing an unbroken campaign until level 18 is plausible (10th level spells dont come until level 19 and those are the only spells that can be broken. there's no early game spells that are broken. no conjure animals/woodland beings, rope trick, sleep, etc). at level 7 in pf2e, yeah i'd still put casters behind martials. my group started our current campaign at level 6. currently at level 11. the gamechangers for casters imo are 5th level spells like wall of stone/ice, synaethesia, etc. casters here yes arent as good at dmg as their 5e counterparts but there's potential at higher levels that's competitive with pf2e martials. you'll see polar ray crit-fishing builds online. i have my own hydraullic push crit-fisher. but yeah again not as good as 5e casters which imo is needed for balance. as for utility, casters are still superior to martials across all levels since casters can pick up skills/skill feats too. as for buffs, who says they don't help the casters? depends on the build but casters can use their debuffs for themselves too. for example, use synaesthesia to debuff an enemy. that helps the martials yes, but that same caster can launch a 1 action spell attack like elemental toss and benefit as well. then launch more spell attacks the next round. i find this as one of the most ridiculuous myths when i made the jump from 5e to pf2e. yes, the best spells have incap but there are control spells that don't and alot have an effect even if the enemy makes their save. one of the best is wall of stone. this is closer to 5e's wall of stone. box enemies in for a bunch of turns with no save. then go deal with other enemies. then of course, there's other roles that casters cover such as healer, support and summoner. so in raw power yes, martials are generally better (except in higher levels where spell heightening and 10th level spells make casters better in this regard too) but casters still have the edge and versatility in all other party roles. the thing with 5e though was that the casters had the edge in everything across all levels that if your table needed an optimized party, there was no reason to play a pure martial. most would be casters or gishes (this comes from a guy who cranked out 40+ optimized builds in 5e and could only come up with an optimized pure martial once.) if curious, you can see some of my older builds in the older comments in past videos on this channel as i share them with Chaos.

@@TheRobversion1 thank you for the detailed response. Looks like I need to play more high level content to get the true feel of the power between the 2. I do see a lot of power gain from looking at the 5th level plus spells. I think I dislike not being able to use all these cool spells because if I lock it in x slot and the situation never comes up it’s wasted. So I only pick optimal spells I can always use so might as well not have 1/2 the spells that exists. I guess the intent is for these spells to be scrolls instead of active used player spell, but I never like the idea of the power coming from a paper I found vs the caster itself.

@@richardmenz3257 that's another thing that's different from pf2e and 5e. the amount of magic items you have in 5e is highly manipulated by GM fiat. pf2e assigns gold value per character level and states that you are expected to have a certain #/value of magic items per level as they balanced monsters assuming PCs have that level of magic items + consumable items GMs may provide as treasure (we'll circle back to consumables in a bit). they even go so far as providing an automatic bonus progression table in case GMs don't like handing out magic items often. oh and they also make it very accessible for players to craft magic items (unlike 5e where this mostly unused though i see alot of pf2e GMs banning crafting of magic items). so as you can see here, it's expected that you can gain access/cast more spells through magic items like wands/staves. i also tend to just pick optimal spells most of the time but i also like niche spells like you. this is why i typically only play spontaneous casters like sorcs and bards. for example, i like gust of wind (1st level spell). it's a nice anti-flight/control spell. but if i'm not facing flying enemies it's wasted. the good thing about being a spontaneous caster is i can pick an optimal 1st level spell like heal that in case the anti-flight situation never comes up, the spell slot/spell known is never wasted because i can always just convert that gust of wind into heal. now circling back to consumables and what you said about scrolls. yes this is expected. as mentioned earlier, pf2e assumes your dM hands out consumable magic items on the regular or you're allowed to craft them as that's how creatures are balanced. so yeah for those more niche spells like restore senses, you're better off just buying/crafting that as a scroll. personally, at our table our GM bans crafting, regularly awards consumables (potions, scroll, necklace of fireballs, etc) as treasure/quest rewards and allows us access to shops to buy permanent magic items (consumables aren't buyable). now as for specific access to spells/magic items, pf2e states that players should be allowed unfettered access to common spells/magic items. the only ones really up to GM fiat is uncommon or rare spells/magic items which the GM has every right to not include in the game/not hand out as rewards. anyway glad you took the time to read the wall of text. i definitely encourage higher-level play for pf2e. it's fun and it won't give GMs a headache. haha.

I believe you're correct although I haven't played 1st or 3rd edition D&D myself.

agreed for the most part. high-level casters though can be great single-target too. i wish there were more spells that leaned towards spell combos and more 1 action spells.

yes the caster/martial balance is better than 5e. if you're not an advocate for balance, then moving to pf2e will feel like a nerf. objectively though and with balance considerations in mind, spellcasting in pf2e is better especially if focusing on the spontaneous caster side. prepared casters get a heavier nerf bat in pf2e because they are stronger in 5e. if you were someone looking forward to finally playing a martial class, then pf2e is a awesome. me, i'm a caster guy but i enjoyed our recent move because i finally got to see more class variety at our table. as a 5e optimizer playing at a table of 5e optimizers, every campaign was like: Me: What you playing? I'm playing an aberrant mind sorc. Player 1: I'm playing a lore bard. Player 2: I'm a conjure animals shepherd druid. Player 3: I'm playing a scribes wizard. GM; anyone planning to play a monk like anytime soon? US: "crickets" GM: a rogue? Player 1: I have an arcane trickster/sorc multiclass in the works GM: a barb? Player 3: Huh? What's that? Now in pf2e players are talking about monks as one of the most fun and optimal classes. and for the 1st time ever, not everyone at our table isn't a caster.

5E casting: Drop Shield, Slivery Barbs, Hypnotic Pattern, Polymorph, Force Cage; the latter 3 immediately ending encounters unless a BBEG has Legendary Resistances, or some other mechanic, as a poor workaround. - How very exciting. ^^

Hell yeah!! Happy adventuring with a new system!

thank you! and thank you for your videos, they're super helpful@@ConstructedChaos

@@malypejlou4914 happy to help!

I'm not saying it's the best solution! But I am saying that it's better!

Ahhh good old Vancian casting, eh? I'm not a huge fan of that specifically but I respect it and I get where you're coming from!

@@ConstructedChaos I think if I would design a magic system, I'd use roll to cast (simpler than using spell attack rolls and enemy saving throws), but instead of forgetting the spell, failure would cause one level 1DD style exhaustion (-1 to all rolls). And instead of having magic mishaps on nat 1, I'd have them when you fail by big enough difference.

@@PiiskaJesusFreak Oh wow! That is an interesting concept but I do feel it's pretty strong as it stacks. Maybe if casting the spell were easy enough to succeed more than often.

@@ConstructedChaos Shadowdark handles this by giving you advantage on your signature spells. Say, you choose magic missile and have 16 intelligence and plat an elf. Then you have ~88%, chance of succeeding, and it goes up with levels.

@@PiiskaJesusFreak Oh neat! I figured something like that might exist but I have exactly 0 experience with that system.

Absolutely! There is some cantrip scaling in 5e but I find it to be so inconsistent and rare that I often forget about it when it actually happens!

absolute the oposite @@ConstructedChaos

That's a totally fair take, honestly! Although, I do feel spellcasting at large can be pretty unfriendly to beginners.

Of course! Happy to do it!

Oh I wasn't aware of that variant! I'll have a look. Thanks!

That's totally fair! I think I've mentioned in other comments that I don't think this is the best possible implementation of spellcasting but it does at least level the playing field with martial classes somewhat.

good news, you can already play a sorcerer or a bard and not have to make that decision

Haha we're all entitled to our own opinions! I think it makes the game more challenging/intriguing but I can see why you'd prefer not to worry about it too

@ConstructedChaos it just takes a lot of the fun out of being a magic user. Being able to solve problems with magic is kind of the point of magic. I don't know the spells very well in this game, but let's say nobody wanted to play a rogue and you knew you were breaking into a building, so you took an educated guess and grabbed a spell to unlock a door and a fireball to deal with whatever you might find inside. You open the door and inside you find.... a second locked door, well you Couldn't have possibly known that. You already have to guess what type of spells you might need for the day in a lot of games, but having to also properly guess how many of each spell you will need is bonkers. You are basically playing the lottery and the rare jackpot is actually being useful.

@@ThatBigRedBear I understand your point but having the solution to every problem all of the time makes a lot of other characters less impactful. Plus, I actually find it fun to work through challenges with creative solutions.

@ConstructedChaos That is resolved by limited spell preparation and spell slots as a feature in general. You are never going to prepare a spell for every occasion and, evem if you get lucky and you do, if you open 3 doors, you done have any more slots for fireball. You are rewarded for making an educated guess about what problems you might run into either way, but your chances of being useful drop significantly when you need to also know the number of times you might need to solve a problem and take up several slots with one spell on a whim. The thing is, if you are using up an already limited spell prep slot for a spell to unlock doors when you have a rogue skilled out for picking locks, you are A) a jerk purposefully trying to outshine a fellow player and B) wasting a slot you could have prepped a spell in that solves a problem you don't already have a solution to.

I saw some dice somewhere recently for crit locations for this exact purpose and thought about incorporating that into my next campaign! I like it!

I respectfully disagree. First, if you're going to do that to casters, you'd also have to do that to martials, determining whether or not a limb was broken that can effect attacking (if at all) or movement...or Reflex saves. Second, Given how squishy casters already are and given that many of the better spells already take two of their three actions, I think it screws them over even more. Briefly, it's an added layer of complexity to an RPG that already had enough rules.

Hmm thanks for the feedback! I'll take that under advisement since it's the first time I've had someone bothered by it. As I understand, it helps to keep retention on these videos. But, if retention is the same without it, it would certainly save me a ton of editing time haha.

imo if you're a fan of prepared casting, then yes pf2e spellcasting is not superb. it was done this way for balance purposes. if you're a fan of spontaneous casting then, pf2e is indeed better than 5e. i'm of the latter so i'm actually happy with the balancing. was so tired of wizards being the #1 class (until clock sorc came along).

I do think a system could be made that isn't quite as tedious and balances casters via other means but it is better than 5e for sure!

I do have to say that I think I'm enjoying the OneDND approach of empowering martials better. Still, I do think pathfinder's approach makes spellcasting more involved and balanced compared to 5e. And, I also find that pathfinder's system makes me feel a bit more connected to the semantics of casting. Instead of just saying "I cast fireball", it forces me to think about what that actually looks like in their system.

@@ConstructedChaos I think that a lot of that flavor is a table to table/player to player thing. Most players dont want to be bogged down with a lot of non essential stuff. I tax my casters 30 percent of their share of the loot, and in exchange they never have to worry about spell components, half casters get taxed 15 percent. Its simple, makes casting have a material cost, but is simple and able to focus on other aspects. If players want to ham up the components, they can, but its pretty much fluff, and most dont. The One DnD martial improvements are a START of what they need to do but its at least a start. I think they should have gone harder on WM, and Monks not getting them is stupid and I am gonna fix that oversight.

@@shadowmancer99 I don’t disagree with you. But it’s hard to deny that the power casters have in 5e make it difficult to play a strong build without at least dipping spell casting along the way. I didn’t say PF2e has the best solution-only that it’s better than no solution at all.

@@ConstructedChaos Let me be clear, I start with the understanding that casters will be more powerful than martials. They just are. Nothing beats Wish. 1. Yes, I agree that there is a divide and that if you are playing for more than just casual fun, ie optimized even a little, than yes there is strong incentives to get other goodies on straight melees. And not all casters are made the same. I can make an excellent argument that Clerics are martial, and even Hexblades. So ya, if you are going to more optimized game, you do want to look at what other tools and multi class you can add to a martial. 2. Now Pathfinder nerfing the spells, and/or how casting is done however seems to be a non solution. Yes, its something that brings them down, but does it actually make the game more fun...maybe for those who like martials but at the equal or greater dislike of those who like casters. Hence, its not really a solution it just shifts who is upset. 3. So, like you, I think the One DnD is a BETTER approach. RAISE the martials with Weapon Mastery and options on the Barb Brutal Crit and Rogue Sneak Attack features. They didnt go hard enough in those classes, but there was improvement. And by hard enough, I dont mean everyone needs spell or supernatural abilities, but better scale their abilities to keep up with and excel in the jobs they need to do. They really failed the fighter by not tossing the Battle Master, and making that subclasses manauver feature core to ALL fighters for example. Is there a perfect solution, no. Because anyone who wants a perfect solution is going to violate the first thing I said, that casters are, will be, and should be more powerful than the guy swinging a sword. So the next best thing is to raise the sword guys options in appropriate and fun ways without falling into the 4e trap of "powers".

@@shadowmancer99 well said-although I do still believe that a world where martials and casters are on equal footing does exist.

Is it? I'd never played it but I do know that Pathfinder was born and inspired from 3.5e so I wonder if that's why.

@@ConstructedChaos that's probably it! This is are not core rules from phb, this is similar more to extension to phb and that's combat&tactics.

How were casters in Ad&D? My closest reference was baulders gate where you cast all your spells then have to use a dumb sling until you can rest.

@@Extradecentskeleton exactly like that. :) let’s take identify for example, you couldn’t identify evething all at once and use as a ritual. You would roll for how much info you got for item, once per day. :) and healing was like 2 hp per day on day you would rest. :)

I mean, don't get me wrong, the arcane trickster in 5e is pretty great! But I do see how you could play it a little differently with the Pathfinder mechanics!

agreed the sneak attack on spell attacks is an interesting mechanic which makes a rogue with a caster dedication or a caster with a rogue dedication an interesting build. as a fellow 5e immigrant and optimizer, this concept definitely feels better here compared to how it is in 5e.

Absolutely agree! My point wasn't that they were made weak. My point was that they were made weakER compared to 5e. Still, I think casters in PF2 have plenty of upside!

i'd agree with chaos here. i also found it to be a light uptick in complexity but i'm coming from the viewpoint of a long time optimizer and GM in 5e where i specialize in rule mechanics and rules interactions. i could see it being more complex for a casual or a player who was new to ttrpgs in general.

I promise it only seems way more complex because it's not what you're used to! That was the case for me!

@@ConstructedChaos Ditto. However, you and I bother reading the rules in both 5e and PF2e. i know there are a lot of casuals out there who just know how to make their characters and take advice from vids/reddit posts/their GMs/party members on how to play/build their characters without really understanding things work. for those kinds of people, pf2e could be more complex because the thicker rulebook is daunting and they don't necessarily enjoy reading. there are lots of players out there who think oh fireball that's cool. other people like fireball. i'll pick fireball. They wont even bother reading the rules text for other damaging spells and compare. if they did, they'd realize that unlike in 5e, lightning bolt deals more dmg so both spells are useful but for different scenarios. they'd find out cone of cold eclipses fireball once it's accessible and against certain enemies spells like holy cascade does more.

@@TheRobversion1 You're absolutely right! That's part of the reason I wanted to start making guide content in the first place haha.

@@ConstructedChaos since we just got a dnd guide vid, do we now have pf2e next?

i'm curious. if you prefer casting in pf2e why not just move over? it's not a hard transition imo. i was a 5e optimizer for years and i made the jump last jan. and since like las month, i can consider myself already quite knowledgeable about the rules and mechanics of pf2e capable of optimizing (at least with source limitations as there's just too many books to read at this point but definitely with the core books).

​@@TheRobversion1 "Sadly", I'm a DM who is a big fan of the class and subclass system. Also, while the number of races is bordering on ridiculous these days, there are several that I still like to see on the table. Among other things. I'm not saying I don't like Pathfinder 2e, but I see them as two different games. I enjoy both. And it saddens me that one of them is going down a bad path, and I want to be able to enjoy one without leaving the other. Enjoy both worlds and the rules of each one.

@@kaneicosasrandom8630 I DM for 5e but i feel for pf2e i'm going to need more player experience before i can GM. personally, i cant seem to enjoy 5e anymore because pf2e felt like a major upgrade to me rules/mechanics/balance wise. there's less arguments about the rules at the table. there's less GM-rulings. players and GMs feel more like they are on equal ground. there's less having to look up JC tweets/podcasts or erratas. i also can't support wotc anymore after their recent debacles. the blueprint initiative, the ogl and recently sending pinkerton goons to a MTG youtuber's house to threaten/intimidate him and his wife then outright lying about it to the press. its a bit harder to enjoy a system knowing that IRL i despise the company and their leadership. given that, i think i'm staying in pf2e for awhile. there's alot of goodwill wotc has to earn back for me to return.

@@TheRobversion1 I feel almost the same. Still, I can't put 5e down AT ALL. More than anything, for small details. Seeing them as two different systems, differences between their classes, the existence of distinctive classes (Alchemist and Warlock), etc. Yes. Pathfinder has OBJECTIVELY become a better option. Of its rules, I hardly make any changes at the time of playing. They've even made the Ranger a great class without taking away the flavor! Still, 5e has its own little place for me because of subclasses, races, and its own system. However, I admit that I have now started to read more about Pathfinder advices. More and more. Of the Pathfinder rules, I only change a few things (for personal reasons. For example, as a DM, I HATE that there are multiple ways for a character to become incapacitated, even when his character is dying). While I'm sure when the new D&D rulebook comes out, I'll make quite many changes to it. But he has to do an enormous number of things wrong for her to actually decide to leave it.

@@kaneicosasrandom8630 that's fair. play what's fun for you and your group. as an optimizer though, i never considered the ranger weak in 5e, especially with the changes tashas brought in and the gloomstalker. it's just that most non-optimizers didn't know how to optimize them or overlooked certain spells/abilities. i'd even say the 5e gloomstalker is more powerful than the pf2e ranger. though in general, most stuff in pf2e is weaker when coming from 5e optimization as there's more abilities/spells that can be comboed/optimized in 5e unlike in pf2e. what pf2e offers more is balance which doesnt create a sizeable gap among different skill/knowledge players at the table unlike how 5e does. you can make shitty build in pf2e and it wont be far off from an optimizer's build which is better for casuals or those who want to focus more on RP. i personally prefer the optimization and combos in 5e but i think it's a worthy tradeoff of having to give that up to play at a table where there's less arguing and less chances of a GM worrying how i'd outshine other players by steamrolling a boss with an optimal build and tactics. there's no steamrolling in pf2e. the party has to work together. in 5e, with the right builds, you could solo encounters and not need a team.

I can totally see where you’re coming from here. But, as someone who almost never runs pre-written adventures, it doesn’t bother me. Could you not just use dnd’s worlds and lore with pathfinder’s rules?

@@ConstructedChaos yes works in rl but not in online systems like roll20 and others. Rewritting is a lot of work and it's incredible convinient if you don't have to rewrite each monster you want to use or have to find an equivalent for it and some D&D monster are even trademarked so you have to search the internet realy hard for an pf2 version what can take like 20min for a good version of it or you write a new one what takes like 30 min too. So for me I chose convience over quality. Also pf 2 isn't perfect, it has it's flaws. So i'm working at the moment on a version that combines things from different systems I adore.

@@finkelkop7204 ahhh I see where the problem comes in then. Well, we did at least see some of the new dnd rules trend a bit towards PF2 so hopefully that helps ya!

Embrace Savage Worlds

As I understand, Pathfinder was originally born from 3.5e so that makes sense to me!

@@ConstructedChaos yeah! It's a sister game

I'm not saying that this is the best way to balance casters, but it is a way. Sadly, the D&D mechanisms see spellcasters become way more powerful than martial classes pretty early on.

@@ConstructedChaos The big strength of P2e that I can see is that they made Martials better. I don't think they needed to make casters worse. I'm hoping they improve the divine spell list in the remaster!

@@ryokirah That's a fair assessment too! And I'm also looking forward to seeing what got changed! I'm glad I didn't start class guides for PF2 yet haha

Oh no reminder needed! The fact is that this is the system currently being published for that has these features currently. Paizo didn't invent the chicken, just the chicken sandwich.

Haha I appreciate the insight here but honestly, it was just because most of my audience plays D&D and most of those viewers wouldn’t click on a video without it relating to D&D in some form. I wanted to make some Pathfinder content and this is how I had to do it. To test my theory, I eventually made a PF video without any reference to D&D and it performed horribly 🤣

I understand. Good luck, friend.

@@danieldbdbthank you!

As opposed to?

@@ConstructedChaos Martial classes and their comparatively higher modifiers for same-level DC checks.

My perspective is detailed in the video but I believe the spellcasting in PF2e is "better" because it's much more balanced and gives more options for casters at the same time.

Because the player base would have gone to the barricades should Paizo just turn Martials into Spellcasters, like in 4E. 😜 - Also, any PF2E Martial already has indeed way more in-combat options available than the 5E Battlemaster. Without resource management, that is. ^^ But, agreed: Vancian Casting requires more bookkeeping.

Haha that's no worries! The system might just not be for you then. I do prefer simpler rulesets as well but I can appreciate and see the value in a system that has a rule for everything and presents a slew of options for players that play more than once per week. I think it keeps the games feeling fresh and exciting for longer!

@@ConstructedChaos spot on. I guess I worry most about spell caster players wasting entire gaming sessions fretting over exactly which spells to prepare and at what spell level. I originally played AD&D 2e, and I remember how much players avoided spell casters due to this issue.

@@whoisj I will say that this probably isn’t the *best* solution to the caster problem but it does get us there and I think it takes them down a peg.

Haha it could be! 🤪

Totally fair! I personally do prefer to run my games in a rules-lite style but I do feel like the balance that PF2e offers is hard to argue with. I also find that much of their system uses rules that are relatively intuitive.

yeah they are there for balance. i'd agree though that it can be simplified and closer to 5e. the middle ground imo is to make it closer to 5e's system but using pf2e's spell effects/costs/rules. i'd also lessen the number of spells known/prepared since once you know a spell in 5e you can freely upcast unlike in pf2e.

@@TheRobversion1 I havent studied up on the number of spells known or prepared for PF2, but have a feeling I would disagree with lowering them. I prefer the 3.5 numbers, as I think spell casters should be able to cast lots of spells....I dont like the 1 slot per 6, 7, 8, and 9 that 5e does. So much so, I got some HB stuff that potentially allows a caster to get some more higher level slots. 5e is a bit TOO basic and watered down for me, but going nut on the complexity of having to prepare and/or learn (same) spells for higher levels seems silly to me. So in that regard 5e is superior. A clock is right twice a day at least...lol.

@@shadowmancer99 well they give you alot and its pretty simple. For the sorc from spell levels 1-9 you get 4 slots per level, 4 spells known per level. You also get 1 extra spell known from your bloodline from 1-9. You get 1 10th level slot and 1 known. With a sorc feat, you can get a 2nd 10th level slot and spell known. If you pick up a familiar (its easy either as a gnome or as a sorc feat) you get another spell slot 3 levels below your highest. So a 7th level sorc would get an extra level 1 slot. Theres also multiple ways to gain extra slots or spells per day through sorc feats like divine/primal evolution or racial feats. Same with spells known through occult/arcane evolution. The latter actually gives the sorc a spellbook they can scribe found arcane spells in, essentially giving them the breadth of spells the wizard has. Then sorcs have 1 focus point/spell known which is essentially pact magic in 5e which you can increase to 3 focus points/spells known with a couple of feats. So going again to the example of a 7th level sorc, he knows 15 spells. With 15 slots without factoring anything from feats or a familiar. And 1 refreshable focus point/spell. Compare that to how many spells a 5e sorc knows. so yeah repeating spells known at times to heighten is needed as it would be imbalanced if there isnt. Add in the fact that sorcs can select 1 spell known per level which is a signature spell (freely heighten) so you have 4 signature spells at level 7. Trust me, you'll feel like you know and can cast more spells than a 5e sorc even while factoring heightening.

@@TheRobversion1 No, not really. Based on that, I still think that is pretty crappy. Personally, I again look to 3.5 and it was damage per level up to a max amount for free. No need to "up cast". I have the same issue with 5e. But if the choice is between 5e and Path 2 in this regard, Path loses. I dont claim to be an expert in all of Path 2. What I have heard, read and seen is it would APPEAR to give more customization than 5e, which is good, though I do think people overstate the "benefits" of some of the rules. Like the crits....not really loving that either. I might just have 3.5 bias. I think that if one took the customization and the willingness to have powerful characters from Path 2 and coupled with some of 5e rules, overall you'd have a better system. But I do like the Path 2 of giving each spell level 4 slots. That is what 5e needs.

@@shadowmancer99 well if you are an advocate of spellcasting above all, which is what 5e is now and what 3.5 is as well, then yeah those systems are better. my take was more about which system makes spellcasting more balanced with martials where choosing a martial is a competitive optimal choice even at the mid-levels. i was also just pointing out how in pf2e the heightening problem is overblown when compared to 5e. this comes from a 5e optimizer who specialized in casters. (you might see my builds in older comments on this channel which i typically share with Chaos). i just made the transition to pf2e last Jan due to the OGL fiasco. end of the day though play the system that's fun for you and your table. and when nothing's to your liking, consider homebrew.