Pathfinder 2nd Edition: The Devil is in the Details

Paizo announced the playtest for Pathfinder 2nd edition today.  For those who don’t know, Pathfinder is an adaption of D&D 3.5 made to be backwards compatible with its rules and have the same flavor in a time when many in the RPG community were unhappy with the radical changes made by 4e.  Pathfinder, often referred to as 3.75 or 3.X for its similarity, initially enjoyed great success at the expense of 4e but over a 10 year publishing cycle developed the same problem 3.5 had with proliferation of splat books, rules addons that were poorly thought out, imbalanced, or simply not well integrated into the game or supported, resulting in a multitude of confusing trap options.  Many of 3.5’s structural issues remained as well, with a magical item treadmill of + something weapons and armor that ultimately was negated by enemy scaling, and a power gap between casters and martial classes that often rendered the latter spectators and/or broke encounters.  In one campaign I played the DM quietly asked our shapechange wizard to reroll after he trivialized an encounter by casting Fly on my barbarian and ferrying the other party members over to the enemy ship by turning into a giant bat.

Pathfinder is also one of the first systems I played- I have fond memories of my Aztec barbarian Necalluah, and less fond memories of remaking the character because I tried to sub-specialize him into guns and effectively neutered him through poor choice of feats.  Ditto my Words of Power Sorcerer Acke- while a fun character I eventually realized after a string of defeats for our party that the Words of Power system was strictly worse than normal spellcasting in most instances and appeared to have been crudely bolted onto the system in an addon and then forgotten.  Still, though I haven’t touched the system in years, I like the breadth options Pathfinder has to offer- I particularly found myself missing templates when trying to design interesting encounters while running 5e.

In recent years Pathfinder seems to have faded as 5e’s star has risen, at least according to roll20 statistics; neither WoTC or Paizo are releasing their sales publicly so we are left with educated guesses.

Pathfinder “dying” is by no means a foregone conclusion but having experienced the system it makes sense to me that it is having trouble attracting new players given its complexity and the clunkiness inherited from 3.5- Paizo has been trying to move away from this framework with the Unchained rules but past a certain point it’s too much for one system to hold.  There is certainly room for improvement.

So will 2nd edition improve on the first?

The proficiency bonus and backgrounds, while not terribly original given that 5e did both, along with their emphasis on streamlining, make me think that Paizo has learned some lessons from how difficult Pathfinder could be to use.

Their reference to continued use of feat trees in the opening announcement makes me think they haven’t learned all the lessons they should, and how while complexity is a selling point for them too much of a good thing can strangle a system.

Pathfinder’s generous policy of allowing a wiki with most of its rules– while appreciated by me- in some ways exacerbates the issue with its complex rules, making them all available at once with little context, and while convenient for new players who don’t want to buy the books doesn’t change the fact that 5e is simpler, and sharing books within gaming groups seems to be the norm anyway.

Honestly, this will live or die on the spell and feat list.  Shifting to a 3 action economy changes how everything scales but the specific wording of spells and the sheer number of feats are the root of both Pathfinder’s caster supremacy and difficult complexity.  Pathfinder 2.0 can sink on this iceberg even if the rest of the rules are solid, and re-releasing Pathfinder with only the spells and feats streamlined and improved could fix most of what is wrong.

Personally?  I don’t think they can pull it off- Starfinder , Paizo’s recently released system, seems to have- admittedly based on anecdotes I’ve heard, though its not making many bestseller lists- gotten a lukewarm response, and Pathfinder has walked in 3.5’s footsteps including its problems despite 3.5 being well-explored by the time Pathfinder was released.  There is room for a good system that marries the ease of use of 5e with a wider variety of options but I don’t think Paizo will make that system.  They had the examples of 3.5 and 4e the first time around and didn’t learn anything from the Tome of Battle, feat taxes, or the proliferation of splats.  Paizo has a limited window or as 5e releases more source books Pathfinder 2e won’t even have more options, its main selling point.

I would be glad to be wrong- I think the success of Pathfinder forced WoTC to do better on the next edition, making 5e as strong as it is, but even if the balance issues are initially fixed Paizo has a strong incentive to pump out splat books for sales in the short term if they are selling complexity, even if it hurts the system.

I don’t think Paizo will go out of business or Pathfinder will go out of print- DnD has survived its share of business failures and buyouts- but I doubt it can recapture its status as the de facto RPG that Pathfinder managed to hold for some of DnD 4e.


Two Handed Weapons: An Analysis for 5e DnD

Which two-handed weapon is best for a character to wield in 5e Dungeon & Dragons?  Many nominally have the same or similar max damage but the dice used in rolling them.

Specifically this will be an analysis of heavy two handed weapons.  A longsword wielded in two hands has a damage die of d10, the same a a glaive, but it can’t be used with Great Weapon Master (GWM) so it is harder to force higher concentration checks with it; not all of this will apply.  I’m going to focus on expected damage per hit- a whole series of articles could be written on the trade offs between damage types and interactions with various feats.

Average Weapon Damage:

All die have a uniform distribution, assuming they are fair, their average being the median of possible rolls.  3.5 for a d6, 5.5 for a d10, and 6.5 for a d12, with E[] being the expected value or average of a successful hit with a weapon, not including attributes and other bonuses.

EX: E[1d6] = (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6)/6 = 21/6 = 7/2 = 3.5 or

(1/2)*[6+1] = 3.5

Greatsword & Maul: E[2d6] = 3.5 + 3.5 = 7

Greataxe = E[1d12] = 6.5

Glaive, Pike & Halberd = E[1d10] = 5.5

Greatclub = E[1d8] = 4.5

The 2d6 weapons narrowly pull ahead of the Greataxe, though the axe offers a stronger interaction with the Half-Orc racial ability and a greater weight to the higher end of damage results, which can be useful for inflicting higher concentration checks on spellcasters.  Polearms noticeably fall behind though they offer potential damage increases and battlefield control through the Polearm Master and Sentinel Feats, especially when combined with Tunnel Fighter Unearthed Arcana fighting style or the Knight UA fighter archetype.

The different damage types are relevant, notably skeletons are resistant to piercing damage, but again these are determined by the DM so I won’t try to quantify them.  Also encumbrance is generous enough in this addition that a strength based character should be able to carry a backup weapon with a different damage type.

Averages with Great Weapon Fighting Style

The Great Weapon Fighting Style allows  a 1 or 2 on the die to be rerolled- I will model the impact by replacing 1s and 2s in all distributions with the averages calculated above.  All results will be rounded to the 10s place.

E[1d6|GWF] = (3.5+3.5+3+4+5+6)/6 = 25/6 = 4.2, so:

Greatsword & Maul = E[2d6|GWF]= 4.2 + 4.2 = 8.4, gain of 1.4

Greataxe = E[1d12|GWF]= (6.5+6.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12)/12 = 88/12 = 7.3, gain of .8

Polearms = E[1d10|GWF]= (5.5+5.5+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10)/10 = 63/10 = 6.3, a gain of .8

Greatclub = E[1d8|GWF]=(4.5+4.5+3+4+5+6+7+8)/8 = 42/8 = 5.3, a gain of .8

The 2d6 weapons not only have a higher average but disproportionately benefit from GWF since they have a much higher probability of rolling a 1 or a 2 with 2 smaller dice.  On average they deal at least 1.1 more damage than a Greataxe, the equivalent of a +1 to every roll in a system that does not offer many damage increases.  Absent other factors the Greatsword and Maul are a better choice for characters looking to wield two handed weapons.

Notably the Greatclub is outperformed by the 1d8 one handed weapons(E[]=6.5) such as the rapier, or even short sword(E[]=5.5) with the Duelist fighting style which also allows the wielder to have a shield or other utility item in the offhand, such as a spell focus.  It objectively the worse than a 1 handed weapon for a character that gets to pick a fighting style and will not be considered further.

Polearm Master’s hilt attack also has an expected increase of .5 damage, but this conflicts with GWM bonus action attacks as well as with class features such as the Frenzy Barbarian’s extra attack or some Battlemaster maneuvers- the action economy is complex and I won’t try to quantify it.

Notably paladins with an extra 2d8(E[2d8] = 9) smite damage even with a level 1 slot will likely get less than 50% of their damage from their actual weapon- in these cases it may be better to take the Armored fighting style to conserve resources and help keep them up to use all their smites.  Again the Tunnel Fighter style combined with the Sentinel feat in theory allows unlimited attacks per round against an enemy who isn’t careful in their movements.  Depending on your campaign and DM it may be a better pick.

From here on out I will focus on the trade off of greataxe versus the 2d6 weapons in the case of critical hits.

Critical Hits with Savage Attacks (or Brutal Critical 1)

The Greataxe is better in the event it scores a critical hit and is wielded by a Half-Orc who may roll and additional weapon die in the event of a crit, from their Savage Attacks feature.  In this case another d12 is rolled instead of only 1d6 for the Maul of Greatsword, offering an expected damage increase of:

E[1d12] – E[1d6] = 7.3 – 4.2 = 3.1  or 3 if GWF is not selected, with an increase of only about 2 if a pole arm is used.

My first instinct was simply to treat crits as a 1/20 chance but we are considering only the pool of hits- in which case the proportion of critical hits rises substantially.

For example, at level 1 an optimized strength based martial character using the stat array should have a +5 to hit modifier, +3 from strength and +2 from proficiency.  A goblin has an AC of 15.  You must roll at least a 10 to hit the goblin, an 11/20 chance- so the probability of hitting is 11/20 with one of those hits being a crit.

Therefore the expected increased damage from a crit with, which occurs in one of 11 hits while fighting a goblin, is E[crit]/11, or in the case of a Half-Orc wielding a Greataxe, 3/11 = .3,  compared to an expected increase of 1.1 damage from rolling the greatsword damage again compared to a greataxe.

Even with only a 55% chance to hit the extra critical damage is much less than the roughly +1 bonus to damage from wielding a maul or greatsword.  For the greataxe/half orc combo to be worth while we need:

1 = 3/(21 – x)  

with x being the minimum roll d20 roll to hit a given enemy, and rounding the 2d6 advantage down to 1 for simplicity.  The less likely you are to hit the more valuable crits become.  However, we can solve this equation to find the minimum to hit roll needed to make the greataxe better than the maul or greatsword on average.  We multiply both sides by the denominator:

21-x = 3 => x = 18

The crit combo give less expected damage unless you hit only on an 18 or higher; an armor class of 23 for an optimized level 1 character.  For context the Tarrasque, a CR 30 creature, has an AC of 25.  It seems the greatsword or maul is a better choice even for half orcs unless all the enemies you fight have Shield prepared.  For martial characters of other races the 2d6 weapons have more expected damage per hit, including for crits, and as such are optimal even for crit fishing builds.

Expanded Crit Range with Savage Attacks

What if our half orc is a champion fighter with an expanded crit range?  For the 19-20, we have two crits in our pool of hits, or an expected gain of 6 over the greatsword, and an expected gain of 9 for a 15th level champion fighter who crits on a 18-20.  The minimum to-hit rolls needed to make them viable are:

1 = 6/(21-x) => 21-x = 6 => x = 15

1 = 9/(21-x) => 21-x = 9 => x = 12

With Champion Fighter we start to get some plausible to-hit rolls to make the half-orc greataxe build outperform the 2d6 weapons.  For a level 3 fighter the AC that makes this perform better is a 20, plausible if you are fighting an enemy with the Shield spell or an actual shield.  For the 15th level champion with a +10 to hit, enemies with buff spells and magic armor are quite likely to have an AC of 22 with magic equipment, but it’s a long time for this to pay off and stop being situational.

Brutal Critical (Barbarian)

Barbarian has a class feature, Brutal Critical, similar to the half-orc racial except that it adds up to 3 weapon die.  We have effectively examined up to the 3 die case with a tripled chance of critical, with a trippling of the crit chance being equivalent to rolling 3 die instead of one on a crit, at least from the standpoint of averages.  So a 17th level Barbarian will find it worthwhile to wield a greataxe in the same circumstances as a 15th level half-orc champion fighter, the loss of expected damage per swing being offset by the extra crit damage against heavily armored enemies.

However this class feature stacks with the half-orc racial, the better to encourage that classic race/class combination, allowing up to 4 extra weapon die to be rolled in the event of a crit, in addition to the usual doubling of damage dice.

A critical with 4 extra weapon die (A 17th-level half-orc barbarian):

1 = 12(21 -x) => 12 = 21 -x => x = 9

or at least a minimum target AC of 19 for a barbarian capable of rolling this many dice, assuming maximized strength.

Expanded Crit Range and Brutal Critical

A character with two extra weapon die on a crit and an expanded crit range of 19-20, say a half-orc champion fighter 3/barbarian 9 is statistically identical to a level 17 half orc barbarian with 4 extra weapon die on a crit, with the greataxe being superior with a minimum roll to hit of 9 or more without advantage.  Bonuses acrue quickly from here, for 3 weapon die from 17 levels in barbarian or 13 levels and the half orc racial:

1 = 18(21-x) => x = 3  

so that the greataxe deals more damage per hit against almost any enemy except those not wearing any armor.  A 20th level half-orc with Champion Fighter 3/ Barbarian 17 will always have a higher damage per hit, the cutoff to-hit roll for the greataxe being negative.

1 = 24(21 -x) => 24 = 21 -x => x = -3

However this is unlikely to be worth giving up the increased to hit chance, damage, AC, and hp from the barbarian capstone.

Critical Hits with Advantage and Savage Attacks

Adding advantage makes things complicated- crits become more likely but a hit in general is also more likely.  We are going to have to get into higher statistics for this- the Cumulative Distribution Function of a uniform distribution is:

CDF: (x – a – 1)/(b – a) with a being the start of the distribution and b being the highest draw possible.  The CDF is the probability of drawing a number of x or less from the distribution, or in this case rolling x or less. For a d20 a=1 and b=20, and we subtract an additional 1 from x as we hit on a tie, so we have:

CDFd20: (x- 2)/(19) for  0 < x < 20  

So our probability of hitting on a given roll is 1 – CDFd20, again with x being our number needed to hit.  Our probability of hitting with advantage is our miss chance squared as we must roll under with both rolls, or:

Chance to hit = 1 – CDFd20^2 = 1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2

assuming away an AC of 1 as no such creature exists in the Monster Manual and it breaks the math.  Our expected gain from a crit with a half orc wielding a great axe is:

3*(probability of a critical hit given a hit) = 3*[(crit chance)/(hit chance)]

The probability of a critical hit given advantage is:

1- (19/20)^2 = 1- .9025 = .0975

So the cutoff to hit roll for a non-champion fighter half orc wielding a greataxe to outperform a 2d6 weapon is:

1 = 3*[.0975/(1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2)]

The solution to which is x = slightly less than 18 according to Wolfram Alpha, barely a budge from the attack without advantage.  So even with advantage, say from barbarian’s Reckless Attack, this math doesn’t work out with 1 die.

However, gains are larger with two extra weapon die on a crit:

1 = 6*[.0975/(1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2)]

with a solution of about 14 for Wolfram Alpha, compared to 15 without advantage.  The gap widens significantly for 3 weapon die, with a minimum to hit roll of 9 or higher needed to make the greataxe have a higher average per hit, compared to a 12 without advantage, a condition quite likely to be met at any level.

With Brutal Critical a half orc barbarian can add up to 4 weapon die on a crit, giving us:

1 = 12*[.0975/(1-[(x-2)/19]^2)]

Which has an imaginary result for x- meaning it is always better for a 17th level Half-Orc barbarian to wield the greataxe and Reckless attack regardless of the minimum AC to hit, at least for the purposes of maximizing damage.

Expanded Crit Range with Advantage & Savage Attacks

Unlike the barbarian weapon die, the champion fighter expanded crit range interacts differently with advantage than it does with normal hit probabilities- we must recalculate the crit probability in each instance.  Notably this only applies to half-orc champion fighters or those multiclassed into barbarian, or both, and an unmulticlassed champion fighter will need their allies to give them advantage.

Probability of Crit on 19-20:  1 – (9/10)^2 = .19

Probability of a Crit on 18-20: 1-(17/20)^2 = .2775

So the minimum to-hit roll needed to make greataxe superior for a Champion Fighter/Half orc with advantage or a Chamption Fighter 3/Barbarian 9 is:

1 = 3*[.19/(1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2)]

or x = 15 since rolling a 14.4 is not possible.  The result for a Barbarian 3/Champion Fighter 15 or Half-Orc Chamption fighter 15 is:

1 = 3*[.2775/(1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2)]

or x = 10, a plausible requirement; an AC of 20 on enemies will not be uncommon at this level.

Expanded Crit Range with Advantage and Brutal Critical

For two weapon die and an expanded crit range the cutoff is:

1 = 6*[.19/(1 – [(x-2)/(19)]^2)]

which again gives an imaginary result so with at least two extra weapon die on a crit, expanded crit range, and advantage, the greataxe is the two-handed weapon with the highest expected damage per hit for any possible minimum roll to hit.  This can be achieved by a half orc Champion Fighter 3/Barbarian 9.

With a 17th level barbarian and 3rd level champion fighter half-orc 4 weapon die on a crit with expanded crit range is possible, but the greataxe is already proven superior without the expanded crit range in this case so it will not be considered.

15th level Champion Fighters will need to be at least level 24 to benefit from Brutal Critical, so multiple weapon die and a triple crit range will not be considered.

TL,DR: The greatsword and maul almost always have a higher expected damage per hit, the greataxe being superior only for high level half-orc barbarians or champion fighters, or characters with levels in both, going up against heavily armored enemies.  Most campaigns will not reach the point where the greataxe is superior, the crit damage just doesn’t scale fast enough, and the fall off is worse for polearms.


Given that a character with disadvantage has a 1/400 chance of critting I will not consider damage trade offs when attacking with advantage, it seems unlikely a greataxe crit build will ever perform well in that case.


I wanted to look at how the increased weight of polearms and the greataxe at the upper tail of their damage distribution increases the likelihood of forcing a failure on a concentration check but the topic is extensive enough that it deserves its own article.

Dungeons & Dragons 5e: A Review in Perspective

I was looking at reviews of DnD 5e recently and most of them were published shortly after the system was, sometimes before even all the core books were out.  I’m a firm believer that you don’t really know a game system until you’ve played a campaign with it, possibly more than one, and I thought I would take a look at what 5e did right and wrong after a campaign in the Dungeon Master’s chair and as a player.

Fifth edition has returned to the game’s roots while keeping some of the improvements made in 4e and making major quality of life improvements that make the game easier and more fun to play.  Most of the balance issues decried at the beginning, notably the large health pools available to moon druids, have turned out to not be issues in practice, at least in my experience.  With more features for martial classes, concentration limits keeping spell casters from rendering other characters obsolete, and a more balanced implementation of former prestige classes and sub classes, things tend to run smoothly.  Some of the launch options such as the beastmaster ranger and four elements monk are as lackluster as they appear, but all classes have at least one viable implementation, usually more, and the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide & Unearthed Arcana releases have some good fixes and options,  showing that the design team has learned from their mistakes.

Feat taxes have been removed so dexterity based characters are no longer a pain in the ass to run, and much of the system has been simplified or turned over to DM discretion so that you don’t run into the 3.X and 4e problem of needing to constantly consult the rules, while still having enough crunch that the structure of the game is easy to follow.  I wasn’t originally a fan of the 4e style skill system where you pick a few broad options instead of spending a mound of individual skill points, but it makes managing a character much easier and with the choice of background skills it offers more customization both narratively and mechanically for your character than 3.X or 4e where players are penalized for going outside class skill lists; I recommend letting the players put together custom backgrounds from the features and skills available.

The Player’s Handbook is streamlined, has examples, and is actually written in such a way that a new player could pick it up, read it, and make a character following the instructions, rather than serving as an encyclopedia for someone who already knows how the game works.  The player experience in general is much better, with a range of balanced and interesting classes to choose from, simple and easy to follow rules, and less bookkeeping than previous editions.  The changing of feats to powerful but rare options, removal of preparing individual spell slots, and consolidation of a horde of floating bonuses into the advantage/disadvantage system and proficiency removes all the tedious chores of previous editions and leaves a smaller number of more meaningful choices for the player.  From eliminating the mandatory 4e battle mat to speed up combat, hit dice healing based on the 4e healing surges removing the need for healbots or carts full of potions, to ritual casting so you don’t have to manage a long list of utility spells almost every aspect of the game has seen quality of life improvements.

In contrast to the PHB, the great flaw in 5e is the Dungeon Master’s guide, a confusingly laid out reference tome of magic items and random tables.  Originally I was going to write a rant in the style of the Angry DM’s critique of earlier editions, but my attitude has softened somewhat.  Games like The Witch is Dead make good use of random tables, and I’ve made good use of the ones in the DM’s guide, especially the chase tables, but it is not a replacement for instructions on how to run a game, which are largely absent.  In contrast to the easy to follow layout of the PHB, the DM’s guide opens with advice on organizing the planes and cosmology of your campaign, which is not necessarily relevant and a terrible place to start.  There are no instructions for how to set up a first session, no full session examples, and no example dungeons.  5e is an improvement because it in part returns to the lighter rules of earlier editions, but nothing in the DM’s guide gives suggestions on how to use this new discretion- it is assumed the reader already knows how to run the game.  In light of robust instructions for setting up a session in single author games such as Monster of the Week the Dungeon Master’s guide is pathetic and probably has limited 5e’s growth by barring all but experienced players from the Dungeon Master’s chair.

The suggested adventuring day of 6-8 encounters remains difficult to fit into a 4 hour session, and its failure skews the suggested challenge rating and encounter compositions; I will probably test out the optional longer rest rules the next time I run a game- they look promising.

Dungeons and Dragons was not originally meant to be played at high levels and it still shows in this edition.  The wheels start to come off of bounded accuracy with armor largely becoming meaningless in the face of growing proficiency bonuses as levels go into the double digits, and while martials remain relevant in combat the utility gap yawns wide with spellcasters often having more skills and utility spells such as teleports and flying, while the thief subclass can’t even get a climb speed.

I leveled my players up to 20 for our final session and it just wasn’t interesting; nothing threatened them.  Dungeon World‘s system for retiring characters might be a useful house rule, as is Tim Kask’s suggestion that characters retire after founding a stronghold.  I’m looking forward to Matt Colville’s house rules on the subject.  There are experimental mass combat rules in the Unearthed Arcana and based on my limited experience with them DnD is not a system that functions well in mass combat- FATE and Savage Worlds handle it better- and Dungeon World has more robust mechanics for building cities.  At some point it stops making sense for high level characters to be vagrants rummaging through ruins, and the system does not handle it very elegantly.

At times it feels like DnD has been re-purposed into something it wasn’t meant to be; the original TSR editions were based on exploration and treasure-finding as much or more so than combat.  The Dungeon Master’s handbook supports this in saying that a game should rest of a triad of combat, social interaction, and exploration, but few rules, examples, or suggestions are given for the latter two.  5e works despite this but it feels like aspects of the game have been abandoned, and I wonder how much better it could be.  The absolutely lackluster ranger that the game launched with might be worsened by wilderness exploration falling to the wayside.  Combat, skills, and magic all feel tight and well written; I just wish the exploration and social aspects had gotten a fraction of that attention.

I figured it out on my own eventually but the first campaign I ran could have been much better, and I had been a long time player before stepping up to run a game.  My complaints boil down to the weakness of the first time DM experience.  I’m now comfortable with the system and can improvise what the rules do not cover, in part from learning from systems with more guidance such as Dungeon World and The Sprawl, but I have lost a lot of time and the game has lost a lot of players to that initial rough patch.  Wizards of the Coast claims that 5e is selling well, better than previous editions, and my own experience matches that- many of the people I have played with are sitting down at the RPG table for the first time, more so than when I played Pathfinder, but while it may be doing well, I think it could have been done better.  Maybe the purchasable adventure paths solve these problems, but I had a taste of them in Adventurer’s League and didn’t care for them.

5e fixed what was broken from past editions but was too afraid to make some needed structural changes to help the DM and lessen the focus on combat after the commercial failure of 4e.  There are fan made resources to fix these issues- Youtubers such as Matt Colville, message boards, reddit, tumblr, tg, and other communities all can offer a lot of help.  This is the edge that DnD has over all other games- its community is huge and picks up the slack.

TL,DR: 5e is a system that has learned from Dungeons & Dragons’ past mistakes and successes to make a good low fantasy experience; problems from previous editions remain but are greatly diminished.