Who plans to still play 1E after 2E?


Prerelease Discussion

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean the thing is I did not go for 5th edition but their was things I liked about it. Their is nothing wrong with grabbing the good parts and leaving the bad. maybe the parts they grab are bad from your perspective (I haven't seen enough yet to tell.) and thats fine but just because it has some similarities are no reason to drop it. After all their is guaranteed to be some similarities because their all based on D&D.

Your words are kind, thank you, but i didn't like anything in 5e other then the common d&d troops (races and classes). I'm trying my best to keep an open mind until the playtest starts.


Phantasmist wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
I mean the thing is I did not go for 5th edition but their was things I liked about it. Their is nothing wrong with grabbing the good parts and leaving the bad. maybe the parts they grab are bad from your perspective (I haven't seen enough yet to tell.) and thats fine but just because it has some similarities are no reason to drop it. After all their is guaranteed to be some similarities because their all based on D&D.
Your words are kind, thank you, but i didn't like anything in 5e other then the common d&d troops (races and classes). I'm trying my best to keep an open mind until the playtest starts.

This will be my 4.5th edition change that I've gone through So My suggestion is to give it a chance. Wait and see till you can look over everything and make as informed a decision as you can. :D


Thanks for listing all the faults that folks think are problematic. It reminds of time 9 years ago when Wizards was fixing 3.5 and making 4.0. It seems the same list of problems keeps coming up. I guess it's all about personal views. For me D&D 4.0 fixed nothing I thought was wrong and kept things I thought needed work, thereby making it D&D worse. Pathfinder addressed the issues I had with the d20 mechanic. The same situation seems to be brewing now again. Different people have issues with different aspects of the rules. And like everything in life, not everyone will be happy.

BTW, I've taught many kids how to play Pathfinder and they don't seem to have issues with learning. That's the beauty of the d20 mechanic. It's easy to understand. Start with the basics. As they are understood, layer in more and more nuances until you reach full rules. Hmm, where is my Trailblazer book.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I will Play 1E adventures in 1E, and 2E adventures in 2E, as long as the rules jive with me.


Morgen wrote:
I've already burned all my old books and am now waiting for the play test book to come out to start playing it. It's dead to me.

Now that's commitment ;)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'll likely play both, since my game of Hell's Rebels likely won't wrap up before Aug 2019, while my Strange Aeons game is at such a glacial pace that it might actually see the dawn of Pathfinder 3ed.

However, if will likely kick off a PF2 campaign, unless the ruleset is completely borked.


Maybe sorta kinda.

Clear as mud?

I HEAVILY houserule/restructure PF.

Probably way too much work to start over with PF2 unless it changes in the same direction as my houserules, but I likely will appropriate any good bits I want from PF2


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I have a huge investment in PF1, I have a huge collection of other games and limited time to game, for my pathfinder style gaming needs I will have more than enough PF1 Books and AP's to keep me going for a decade. So no PF 2 unless it turns out to be completely different than my expectations.
Ars Magica, Hero System, Runequest , Traveller and Star wars are more appealing to me when I want another system so I will continue with PF 1 and when I run out of PF1 Material and feel the need for a game like that I will look at PF2 , PF3 or D+D6 or whatever we are up to by that point


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Samy wrote:
Bryan Bagnas wrote:
I still don't understand what they are trying to fix with a second edition.

I absolutely understand.

1) They feel that the CRB is very badly organized and doesn't read well to people new to the game. Witness Strategy Guide as their stopgap measure to try to address that.

2) They feel that there are a lot of mechanics that have been introduced after the CRB that really *should* be in the CRB, like swift/immediate actions, traits, archetypes. They want to rewrite the CRB so that these very basic components of gameplay are introduced in the most core book. (Or made obsolete, as in action economy.)

3) They feel that they have accumulated a ton of FAQs on post-it notes over the years that aren't available in print anywhere, and re-doing the CRB gives the opportunity to incorporate all these FAQs and clarifications.

All of which could just be put into a new printing of the CRB. Call it PF2 if you will. It still doesn't need a new rules set.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't played PF1 in a while as is, most likely PF2 is what will bring me back. I at least plan to play test, but it's hard to find PF players where I live so I might be stuck with 5e either way.

Grand Lodge

I'll be playing PF in my Homegames for at least two more years, likely longer though you never know. We're beginning a new campaign in a two months and that will be Pathfinder for the entirety of its course, likely a couple years. My PbP will also continue to be Pathfinder; we've been playing for 16 months with no end in sight. And I still want to DM the new Taldor AP and play through the three Cheliax APs (Cot, HR & HV).

But I'll participate in the Playtest PF2 from the ground-up starting in August, running demos as a courtesy to my FLGS and promoting Paizo. And I'm sure in my homegame over the next few years there will be sessions where, because a player is absent that weekend or for whatever reason, I don't DM my main campaign but do a one-shot -- and those almost certainly be PF2.

.

I started 1E in 1981 and didn't gradually switch to 2E until 1992-1993, a good three years after 2E came out. And I didn't stop plying 2E until about 2001-2002 when I gradually started 3E, again, a couple years after the d20 system was out. I transitioned from 3.5 to PF almost immediately, but it was easy to add Alpha and Beta playtest stuff to our 3.5 game. Now that the game is going to PF2 from PF, I have no hurry to make my homegame PF2 -- but will still participate in the playtest.


I've not played the "real" 1E for my entire time playing Pathfinder, which is basically 5-6 campaigns over a 8 year period. I never did do PFS so every campaign I was in has done a ton of house rules to minimize the rules bloat. Maybe for once I'll actually play the edition as actually written.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I have lived through edition wars of various roleplaying games, starting with AD&D.

I have no intention of investing in second edition. Not because I care anything about the system.

We'll keep on playing 1e because we have 10+ years of Adventure Paths for our two weekly groups to play through, and thousands of dollars invested in the campaign setting and rules for 1e. I'll be in my late 50s by the time we finish existing APs (and I am interested in running every single one of them) and since we have all the campaign setting books, the fun doesn't even end there.


Role-playing games never die, the old guard still swears by OD&D and it virtues. Likewise an upstart my come along and decide it‘s worthwhile supporting 3.5 player. Who's to say. In the end I'm not really worried even if I like pathfinder 1e.


I won't decide this alone, that's for sure. That's a thing to discuss with my groups.


As much as I have spouted off on my opinions, the truth is I've only really played Pathfinder as solo game with the wife GMing. Recently we haven't been playing much of that at all - so I will likely just play HERO (our group's only system) or Genesys from FFG (for solo play) and let Pathfinder go it's own way, and come back in a few years for notalgia (which is how I got into Pathfinder after taking a few years off 3.5)

Dark Archive

I'll be playing for the foreseeable future. I'd probably be content with it for the remainder of my life, but the cooperative nature of the game means it is not only my choice. I love playing, I even really like complicated systems of options to craft different ideas, but I don't like just picking up a new rules set to try and learn.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

We have years off experience with the 3.X system, we have lots of time and money invested in the 3.X system. we have years worth of unplayed adventure paths. we like the 3.X system and enjoy the game. We picked up pathfinder 1 because it was just an expansion on the 3.X system, we had no desire to reinvest time and money to learn a new and different system. We still feel that same way, so unless PF2 is the same as Pf1, which we're betting it's not, then we will simply stick with PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Zero interest in 2E. If I can't find 1E to play, I will likely play D&D 5E.


(Game #1) I've talked things over with my co-GMs (shared game) and we're not planning to convert to PF2e, but we'll re-evaluate from time to time. We certainly wouldn't convert to support a PF2e testing phase.

The GMs who create their own adventures are fine. The GMs who run canned modules will run off the existing stock of PF1e modules and hope that 3PPs continue.

We are counting on Hero Lab continuing to remain viable, though admit we'll likely not have a Hero Lab Online option. That will likely save us a monthly fee, but be a bit less convenient than an all-web implementation might be. If the native Hero Lab application went out of support, we'd be in trouble.

(Game #2) I also participate in another shared-GM game. I suspect that game will switch because the primary GM is active in Paizo's Pathfinder Society play. The ultimate outcome is hard to say. That was once a game that converted from D&D 3.5e to D&D 4.0 and the players at the table hated it, which led to the game going with PF1e. Anyways, that game generally has less continuity, so it can hop between game systems and not suffer too much.

(Game Club) The Saturday game club has much more turnover in game systems. Its tied to a University schedule. I suspect PF2e will show up there in the mix with a number of other things.

(Notes) In terms of Paizo sales, I'd still like to support them, but things have changed. I've been buying both books and Hero Lab data sets, but I've come to realize that I don't use the books anymore. So for the last few book releases I experimented and just bought the data sets. That's worked out. So now I don't plan to buy books anymore. A book is just becoming a specification for a developer to implement.


I'd still play PF1 after PF2, and I'd probably play PF2 if it becomes easier to find players. Right now, we're having a lot of trouble finding PF1 players. D&D 5e has a lot more tables of groups playing.

I think PF1 is leaps and bounds better. I am hoping PF2 will improve the situation. So, I think in the end I will be playing both. I've got all the PF1 books and lots of material.


GM Nitemare wrote:

Misery loves company, right. I'd like to know how many people on these boards I'd have to game with if I wanted to play 1E in a year or two.

Once 2e is released I will stop all 1e gaming.


Filthy Lucre wrote:
GM Nitemare wrote:

Misery loves company, right. I'd like to know how many people on these boards I'd have to game with if I wanted to play 1E in a year or two.

Once 2e is released I will stop all 1e gaming.

That's pretty confidant of you....

I have not seen 2E yet, so I'm not willing to write it off yet....willing to give it a go, even though I'm not liking what I'm hearing so far....

I'm probably a little more cautious than you :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have no intention of not playing 1e in the future. I like the stories I can experience with it, and if I'm feeling cynical, if I stopped playing it I would feel like I wasted what little money I can spend on entertainment there.

As for 2e, I have no plans. I don't know what it will look like after the play test. I've seen things I'm quite excited for, as well as things that inflict the nauseated condition, so I'll wait to see how it pans out. I'm all for a system that has my favorite class as core, but if I don't like it, it's not really the end of the world. Just the end for core support on a game I enjoy.

Here's to hoping it turns out great. I'd love to add another shelf to my library.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

As far as me and my group we will be sticking with 1E. We have far too much cash invested in it to just drop it and learn a whole new system. To me this smacks of when WOTC rolled out 4E and it was a disaster. At least after they stop putting out material for 1E next August I will be saving my money.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

In 5-years, when Paizo release the "Pathfinder On-Chains", a book that brings back all the stuff I liked on PF1 and drops away this "Resonance" stuff, I migrate to PF2.

Until there, I'll stick with PF1


I'll buy the CRB and give PF2 a try.

If it plays like 4e or 5e, I'll finish my AP collection and pick up the Slumbering Tsar material.

Between the two, I'll have enough material to keep me going for the next couple of decades.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

As long as I enjoy the people I'm playing with, it really doesn't matter to me. In the past 4 years I have played PF1, 3.5, 5E, OD&D, PFS, AL, CoC, and Star Trek. I've enjoyed all of them because the other players were fun to be around. Heck, I'd even play 4E if there was a group that wanted to play and the meeting time was convenient.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

After playing mostly with the action economy from Unchained since it dropped, and the health system from UC (only because it made lower levels beefier and we tend to play in the 1-7 range while still enjoying larger combats) I'm pretty sure I'll make the swap. Being built with that economy in mind will hopefully eliminate a lot of the problems we had with Unchained's economy (some stuff was totally janky!) I also like that we seem to be getting 2 or so character choices each level, though I rarely get to play I do love seeing my players get excited about actual choices, so that is another plus for me.

Also my fiancee is keen to try roleplaying, and a new edition where the whole group is learning and exploring is an amazing time to do that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll stick with PF1. Too much money(books and HeroLab) and time invested as well as options for a lifetime. Same thing for Adventure path and modules, I have 2 groups and can run them forever. We are all near or over 40 and the majority don't want to learn all again, some haven't catch some basic rules after 10 years...

As a GM, I think my player prefer to keep it as it is and I have a load of adventures I'd like to run that I already own that I wouldnt have to convert.

As a player, each time I make a new PC I play it for 2-3 years, so I'm not near to have tried all that I'd like in PF1

That said, I will probably buy the PF2 CRB out of curiosity and see what it is, and I may add I'm preaty sure it will be well done. For futur AP, il continue to get each new one as I like reading them for the story. If I like an AP so much that it's what I want to run, I will probably convert it to PF1. Same thing for Campaign settings, I like them for the lore and will continue to get them, with maybe the exception of the more mechanic oriented ones.

I understand why Paizo is doing that move and like I said, I'm sure it will be great but I'm not changing and while not perfect I still enjoy PF1 a lot as do my players.


I'll have to agree. I have too much invested in PF1. I'm a GM. If it becomes difficult to get players as a result of Paizo focussing 100% of its develooment efforts on that, making PF1 unappealing, that won't exactly motivate me to adopt PF2.

I'd suggest to Paizo to, instead, allocate 10% of its (Pathfinder) resources to PF1 and 90% to PF2 for at least 4 years to give us all a good transition.

After all new books for PF1 were released in the last 12 months, so I'd like to have more time to use them before Paizo declares PF1 development dead. Going to be hard to get players for a dead product.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'd still play PF1 after PF2, and I'd probably play PF2 if it becomes easier to find players. Right now, we're having a lot of trouble finding PF1 players. D&D 5e has a lot more tables of groups playing.

I think PF1 is leaps and bounds better. I am hoping PF2 will improve the situation. So, I think in the end I will be playing both. I've got all the PF1 books and lots of material.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'll have to agree. I have too much invested in PF1. I'm a GM. If it becomes difficult to get players as a result of Paizo focussing 100% of its develooment efforts on that, making PF1 unappealing, that won't exactly motivate me to adopt PF2.

I'd suggest to Paizo to, instead, allocate 10% of its (Pathfinder) resources to PF1 and 90% to PF2 for at least 4 years to give us all a good transition.

After all new books for PF1 were released in the last 12 months, so I'd like to have more time to use them before Paizo declares PF1 development dead. Going to be hard to get players for a dead product.

You're already having a lot of trouble finding players, even without PF2. Why do you think keeping a dying line going would make is suddenly more attractive to players?


My group will probably be playing PF 1e for at least 2 or three years after PF2e comes out (or play Fate and M&M more often), simply because PF2e wont have enough content for us to have interest. Even then, I don't like Golarion so if the new material ends up too tied to the setting we'll probably never play it post Playtest.


I mostly intend on wrapping up any ongoing games, give 2.0 a fair shake and if that doesn't pan out move onto greener pastures (IE other games). I have very little patience for PF1 anymore and if PF2 doesn't appreciably change my opinion that'll do it for me.


My group stopped playing Pathfinder 1st edition when D&D5e came out. I’m going to run the playtest with them and I hope it will sway them to 2nd edition. I don’t see any of us playing 1st edition again although I will still listen to it being played as long as the GCP keep playing it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

We'll still play Pathfinder Classic when the new edition comes out.


We tend not to convert ongoing games to other systems, so we'd still play PF1 from time to time when we go back to games we took a break from. I also have an ongoing odd structured game built for drop in play that I run before all the players show up, and that's PF1, and probably not going anywhere anytime soon.

We'll play the playtest material for sure. So far Pf2 is looking really similar to Starfinder though, and as a group we stopped playing that very quickly. I'm expecting a few of us to try running something under the rule set at some point, but unless it's secretly nothing like Starfinder, I don't expect it to become our primary.


Will I play PF1e? Yeah, if I can get a group together. I have issues with 1e, but I play it now, so if someone wants to get a 1e game going, I'd probably say yes. Would I GM PF1e, maybe. I've only seen as much of 2e as has been shown, so how much I like it remains to be seen. If my players revolt then I won't, but as far as I've seen, then I probably will, as I like most of the 2e design decisions. I expect my group to move on to 2e, since most of us see the benefits as good, but the playtest will be as much for us as for paizo. If it winds up as a downgrade, we probably won't move on, but I expect it will wind up at least as a sidegrade (until more supplements come out), and if and when it winds up being an upgrade to PF1e, I expect to move on without looking back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I currently play a mixture of 3.5, Pathfinder, and some house rules, but the system is starting to show it's flaws at this point.

I started writing my own system about a year ago. It's been difficult but I pretty much have the skeleton done for it.

When I saw that PF2 was coming out, I thought to myself, "well, maybe I won't need to finish my system!"

The first few tidbits of info were nice. I was even wondering if Paizo had bugged my computer. (I had the idea of just having "actions" instead of different kinds of actions, and Resonance seemed to work kind of like my Spirit Point system.)

But then, details started coming out and as far as I am concerned, unless the playtest revisions are drastic, this game is garbage to me.

The first issue I had with PF2, (and to be honest, this really isn't Paizo's fault at all) is that they didn't move to a classless system. That's probably the biggest thing I wanted from PF2: The ability to mix and match different "class abilities" to make exactly the character you want without having to grab a bunch of stuff you don't want or slog through 7 levels of multiclassing nightmares to finally get to play the character you wanted to play from the start. I really can't blame them for this, as it's a reasonable design choice to include classes. I just wanted a classless system.

The 3 action mechanic is ruined by stuff like changing your grip on your weapon, raising a shield, taking a deep breath, etc. costing actions. There is zero benefit to fighting with two weapons aside from covering more potential weaknesses unless you have a feat. Said feat lets you attack with both weapons for TWO actions, but only applies Resistance once. (Que sarcastic "woo")

The Resonance mechanic, while awesome in my mind, is just added complexity, since it doesn't replace the stuff that such a system should replace (X times per day, X charges, etc.).

The new magic system, where you learn a spell once and can cast it at any level was great (and one of the things core to my system before I even heard about Paizo doing it). Then they revealed that sorcerers get shafted and don't get to participate.

The skill system definitely needed a tweak, but I feel as though Paizo went WAY too far the other way, taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach. In case you haven't heard the saying: "One size fits all, doesn't."

They don't appear to have abandoned feat taxes or requiring feats for trivial things. In fact, they have ADDED feats for stuff that used to be available to everyone. Want an Attack of Opportunity? Play a fighter or spend a feat. Want to charge someone? Spend a feat! Want to walk, talk, and pick your nose, and scratch an itch in one round? Screw you, you don't have enough actions to do that!

The biggest reason why I won't be playing PF2, without some serious rules revisions, is that half of the characters I like to play in PF1 can't exist, RAW in PF2.

2 of my characters had really high stats at level 1 with serious drawbacks. That isn't an option anymore. 18 is the highest starting stat and the game virtually shoves an 18 down your throat during character creation.

My favorite character is a sorcerous gish, and they murdered the sorcerer class, so he's dead.

All I have left are my generic Paladin and my generic Cleric. My Bard will have to wait until we get Tieflings and apparently my archer got shot in the foot because of the way they are handling bows now.

I could make all new characters for PF2, but I don't think it's worth the hassle, given everything else above.

When I heard PF2 was going to give us MORE options, I thought that meant, "in addition to stuff we already had". In reality, we appear to have gotten all of our favorite classes gutted for abilities, and sold back to us as "options" we need to get what we already had.


Yes.

Shadow Lodge

I expect to play 1e for at least a year or two after 2e is released, because of currently running games that would be too hard to convert.

After that it depends on how much I like 2e and how many character options have been published at that point.

There's a lot of stuff I still would like to try in 1e, though, so I certainly don't feel a need to switch.


Currently, yes. For the forseeable future, yes.

None of the games I'm in can convert due to setting or characters at this time.

I also still have ideas I want to try which is anyone's guess as to when I can try them in PF2(Cough, Everything Brawler/Alchemist).

But more to the point, I haven't seen anything in the blog posts that made me jump and say "I need to play it for THIS reason(s)" or things I already do for my own actual home games with homebrewing or rules they put out.

PF2 seems to fix things that aren't broken at my table outside of a few things. And I can convert those to PF1 with some work. I look forward to seeing what alchemist stuff I can port over.


Both, but how far I go with P2 will depend on how dependent we are on healers.

I have two groups of beginners and it's easier to teach P2.

Even now I am starting to convert P1 to P2 on-the-fly.


Tbh I've only played PF1 for a couple of sessions. I quite liked it, but not enough to run my first proper campaign in it with a bunch of newbies. My campaign is slowly drawing to its end, and should hopefully finish a few months after the release of the playtest at the latest.

I'm definitely getting tired of 5e and I'd like to switch systems, and from what I've seen I'm in love with a lot of the design behind PF2, with the things I'm iffy on not being dealbreakers. Still, I suppose if I consider it to have gone horribly, horribly wrong when it drops I might be willing to run PF1.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I've not played PF1 for about 2 years now. There is a lot of bloat and not much that actually adds dynamics to the system. It actively encourages doing one thing stupidly well (so well no one else can compare) and then doing that thing over and over again. Planning was a nightmare because none of the numbers lined up properly any more.

Unchained made it better, but it only shows me how much better a game can be if designed with the Action Economy assumptions from the ground up. It made the game flow a lot more dynamic, but because it was a bodge on a system we spent a lot more time working out how edge cases should be covered.

Now whether PF2 moves me away from other systems has yet to be seen. So far it looks promising. My group likes the DnD paradigm but 5e is just too bland for me to enjoy running it much.


Our gaming group still plans to keep playing 1e for many more years.


I have just started shattered star and intend to go straight into return of the runelords thereafter - based on the speed we went through rise of the runelords that's about 5 years of play right there.


CrystalSeas wrote:
Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'd still play PF1 after PF2, and I'd probably play PF2 if it becomes easier to find players. Right now, we're having a lot of trouble finding PF1 players. D&D 5e has a lot more tables of groups playing.

I think PF1 is leaps and bounds better. I am hoping PF2 will improve the situation. So, I think in the end I will be playing both. I've got all the PF1 books and lots of material.

Mark the Wise and Powerful wrote:

I'll have to agree. I have too much invested in PF1. I'm a GM. If it becomes difficult to get players as a result of Paizo focussing 100% of its develooment efforts on that, making PF1 unappealing, that won't exactly motivate me to adopt PF2.

I'd suggest to Paizo to, instead, allocate 10% of its (Pathfinder) resources to PF1 and 90% to PF2 for at least 4 years to give us all a good transition.

After all new books for PF1 were released in the last 12 months, so I'd like to have more time to use them before Paizo declares PF1 development dead. Going to be hard to get players for a dead product.

You're already having a lot of trouble finding players, even without PF2. Why do you think keeping a dying line going would make is suddenly more attractive to players?

We have two groups. One meets every week and the other meets for 6 hours every other week -- we share some members between groups but also have members that only belong to one group or the other. It has been harder than I'd expect to find players -- until I started calling out all the advantages we have with PF1 over 5e in my ads. This lead me to the conclution that PF1 is suffering from at least in part a marketing problem and a need for Paizo to follow a strategy I outlined in another blog entry to leverage game stores better.

5e still has a much larger following, and I do hope the PF2 can help with that problem.

But PF1 is far from dead and I don't want it to get pushed over a cliff by stopping all development on it. Paizo should continue a sustaining level of development on PF1 till PF3 development starts at which point PF2 goes into sustaining.

Paizo, itself, clearly doesn't seem to think PF1 is dead -- or they wouldn't have released another book just last month.

I'm just asking them not to prematurely kill it off by stopping all development. Checkout the this blog thread where people remain committed to PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm staying with PF1.
Not interested in the direction PF2 is going.

101 to 150 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Who plans to still play 1E after 2E? All Messageboards