why should i move to PF2?


General Discussion


7 people marked this as a favorite.

After reading the whole ruleset for the playtest, I get so disapointed.

Im not going to lie, there were some rules that I liked (equipment section only).

But as a responsible customer, one who take care of what i buy and such, why do i need to move to pf2 if the rules offers nothing new at all?

I mean, Racial Powers (now called Feats) were in D&D4thE. Class Powers (now called class feats) were in D&D4thE PHB.

Someone told me last night "the half elf and half orc are a feats only for humans"... yea, but that was also a rule from 4thE. You need to be a human, and take the "half vampire feat" to make your human a dhampir.

Skills: they overcomplicated the things you could do without feats in PF1, now you realy will need a feat to take a shower or so.

I think that paizo´s crew need to remember why we all moved to Pathfinder 1 back in 2008: because we all dislike D&D4thE.

Gladly this is the first step for what seems will be a loooong playtest (if they hear us all). So, with a lot of luck, we, the testers have a lot of work to do to make it the game we want/need/desrerve.

I will not test this round, tell me when round 2 is out because this one really sucks


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There’s no round 2, friend. The new edition is coming out in about a year. This is your one and only chance to provide your feedback, use it or lose it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
There’s no round 2, friend. The new edition is coming out in about a year. This is your one and only chance to provide your feedback, use it or lose it.

I guess i will keep my game in PF1 then, with some equipment rules from pf2


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Im sure about it, but we all 3.X players runaway from D&D because of 4the. don´t know why they made those decisions to bring it back for pf2 at all


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.
Im sure about it, but we all 3.X players runaway from D&D because of 4the. don´t know why they made those decisions to bring it back for pf2 at all

Not really, I left D&D before 4e due to being burned-out on 3.5 and wanting to try some other systems: Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, WoD, Ars Magica, even 4e. Unfortunately, 4e proved particularly ill-suited to the kinds of games I enjoy (particularly compared to games cited above, but even 3e could work at a pinch).


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).


Arachnofiend wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).

Signature Skills are awful. They are currently my biggest fault with the rules I have found so far.

As for who to appeal to, being a nerd is cool now. TCGs, video games, board games that aren't made by Parker Bros. All of these things have had a huge surge in popularity. If you could make a game that has interesting complexity but is easy for a new group to start playing, you could get a huge following. Not saying Paizo will pull that off, or even if that is their goal. But their are plenty of people out there that like games and like being social.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).

The world isn’t divided into “die hard 3.X fans” and “the 5e crowd.” As you rightly observed, the 5e crowd is not a fertile market for Paizo. But neither are die hard 3.X fans. 5e fans will keep playing 5e, die hard 3.X fans will keep playing PF1. PF2 is aiming for people who want more depth than 5e can offer, but less complexity than PF1 asks you to manage. People like myself.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).

The world isn’t divided into “die hard 3.X fans” and “the 5e crowd.” As you rightly observed, the 5e crowd is not a fertile market for Paizo. But neither are die hard 3.X fans. 5e fans will keep playing 5e, die hard 3.X fans will keep playing PF1. PF2 is aiming for people who want more depth than 5e can offer, but less complexity than PF1 asks you to manage. People like myself.

Despite what people are saying, it feels like PF2e actually is more complex than the core (and maybe +PG) of PF1e TBH. At least to me, it seems a lot harder to grasp.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charlaquin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Tithron wrote:
No one is forcing you to stop playing PF1. Especially if you are really enjoying it. Paizo seems to be trying to reach a new market outside of "die hard 3.X fan" which is a bit of a niche. Time will tell how it goes.

Paizo is never going to win the 5e crowd. The 5e crowd plays 5e because of the name recognition advantage D&D has and because that system requires zero mental energy to create a reasonably successful character.

I honestly have no idea who PF2 is supposed to appeal to. On one hand it presents itself with far more depth than anyone interested in 5e would ever want, and on the other hand all of that depth is for nothing because trying to build Your Dude and making something that doesn't play exactly to the type Paizo envisioned involves trap option after trap option after trap option (hello, signature skills).

The world isn’t divided into “die hard 3.X fans” and “the 5e crowd.” As you rightly observed, the 5e crowd is not a fertile market for Paizo. But neither are die hard 3.X fans. 5e fans will keep playing 5e, die hard 3.X fans will keep playing PF1. PF2 is aiming for people who want more depth than 5e can offer, but less complexity than PF1 asks you to manage. People like myself.

If that's truly the case, I'd have to say they've failed on both counts.

I have yet to see any aspect of play in PF2 tha is unambiguously simpler than it was in PF1. I've not played much 5e since its own playtest, but PF2 seems roughly comparable in (the admittedly vague and difficult to quantify metric of) 'depth'


3 people marked this as a favorite.

So, with all due respect-

Why should anybody else take the time to try to convince you to try playing a free game in the off chance that you might enjoy it?


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The "why should I move to PF2" is in my honest opinion one of the most important questions to answer for any company wanting to make a new edition of a game. I believe that a new edition should if not be "better" than the previous edition be something that enhances it. I think you will always see an "edition war" concept, after all a game is going from something people are already enjoying to something different. I think it is extremely valid to ask "Why should I switch". I get that noone wants to be drowned in negativity. But that is to be expected and the design team should have braced themselves for impact. Being a playtest packet I can handle the layout being confusing and not user friendly. My own observations from my FLGS and my own group is that this is not the game we were wanting. That assessment is strongest from the players who play PF1 almost exclusively to any other game. The guys who play more variety do not hate this, but the first impression (basically being looking at the char sheet) that was a massive turnoff. It is very "busy". The players who despised 5th ed found the similarity in skills, and char creation to be a massive negative. The core character stat creation, none of us liked that, at all. The base 10 then do boons/flaws for each step and having that as a bonus later at 5ht level etc.. and the 18 cap at char gen... that was very disappointing. IT felt less like what I assume the intent was (to allow more stat customization) than a forced march to sameness. For us, as it is now, the answer to the question is " I would not". This game is not close enough to the game we loved to make it a desirable follow on, and on its own merits, I would not buy this game as it is. The final product needs to have something that stands out above the crowd.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Despite what people are saying, it feels like PF2e actually is more complex than the core (and maybe +PG) of PF1e TBH. At least to me, it seems a lot harder to grasp.

I'm personally certain the base structure of the game is simpler.

However, that simplification also led to regimentations that made some things less intuitive or *seem* more complicated than they are. For example, when you can learn that you use a move action to move x feet in PF1, you know what a move action does most of the time, and you can learn the variations on moving as either ride-along effects or exceptions. In PF2, every movement option is its own action, so it's initially more overwhelming even if it's a very similar level of actual complexity in options.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So, with all due respect-

Why should anybody else take the time to try to convince you to try playing a free game in the off chance that you might enjoy it?

Because the point of the free game is to bring you around to eventually buying the game, and time has value.

There's an opportunity cost even for playing a free game.

Paizo and people who want Paizo and PF2 to succeed should convince others to try the game in order to (for Paizo) make the sale eventually and for PF2 players to grow the community of PF2 players so they have more opportunities for games.

I'm fairly anti 5th edition, but the relentlessness of my friends has drawn me in. If there's no one pushing for PF2 for me I won't end up playing it, and when you multiply the effect the difference between an insular group berating people who are wary to the game telling them to go away and a group always trying to answer the question the OP asked can make a huge difference in total participation.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After perusing the rules, I can understand now why they won't be allowing existing PFS characters to convert to PF2; as opposed to tweaking the existing rules, seems more like a complete re-write to me so a conversion would be nigh impossible. I also concur with those that say PF2 seems just as complex as PF1...but I admit that may be because I'm used to playing PF1...

I'm gonna give the playtest a shot...but, based solely upon scanning the rules and creating a PC for the playtest, I can't say I'm very optimistic. Seems to me they've nerfed the Ranger (an Elven ranger is my favorite dude to play) and made the longbow pretty much obsolete. The skills now seem more similar to 5e than to PF1. Hoping the playtest proves me wrong...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is where I'm stuck too. What is PF2's value proposition to players who might otherwise be playing PF1, or 5e, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Gloomhaven? What kind of player is PF2 looking to attract who is underserved by the current library of games? What will PF2 do better than any of the other options?

I've played a lot of different kinds of games with a lot of different kinds of gamers, and after reading the rulebook, I can't think of a single person I've played with who would say "yes, I'd rather play this than my current favorite game." If Paizo could state a specific design goal that we're trying to make a game that does X better than any other game does or that appeals specifically to Y kind of players, that would help greatly in the community's ability to provide feedback on reaching that goal.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

mmm im here by my own, excited as all of you on how the game i love will take changes, i love changes with purpose, and im not a d20 player only, i played CoC, WoD, Runequest, D&D, and some others.

The fact that launching a new edition is an important happening, a risky move (see what happened to WotC when they tried to steal from us with that awful 4thE), but also, i think you must offer something atractive, and decide for whom you are making this new edition.

There will be ppl loving it, entusiatical, esceptical, and haters... im still in a disapointed mood... trying to be optimistic and i want to offer my experience, but i think this will be a waste of time.

In the 5thE playtest (wich took 3+ years with fans to test) we all apport something, and you can see your opinions making it a better edition than it was intended.

But with pathfinder 2, it seems they already have done the edition, and want to line up the finishing details.

sorry if i look so underwhelming.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:

This is where I'm stuck too. What is PF2's value proposition to players who might otherwise be playing PF1, or 5e, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Gloomhaven? What kind of player is PF2 looking to attract who is underserved by the current library of games? What will PF2 do better than any of the other options?

I've played a lot of different kinds of games with a lot of different kinds of gamers, and after reading the rulebook, I can't think of a single person I've played with who would say "yes, I'd rather play this than my current favorite game." If Paizo could state a specific design goal that we're trying to make a game that does X better than any other game does or that appeals specifically to Y kind of players, that would help greatly in the community's ability to provide feedback on reaching that goal.

Man this is my same feelings... I don´t understand how this will be beter than PF1... making changes just because you want to launch a new edition isn´t a good move.

You need to offer something new, evolved mechanics from previous edition (see how D%D1 changed to AD%D, then AD&D2E and so on, there were significant and atractive changes).

Runequest is another example on how to take the bullet; since 7th edition is about to come, we all still love the 2 edition of it, and it seems that 7th edition will take a lot of it.

World of darkness evolved too... more simple (ppl say that the last version of the game was like D&4thE too) and White Wolf take note on it.

So, moving to PF2 with this set of rules, is at least to me, going back to 2008 and jumping from 3.5 to 4thE entirely blindfolded

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

To the question: "Why should I make the move to PF2?", the answer is: You shouldn't. The game isn't even out yet. Heck, they just started their open playtest! If you're interested in influencing development and providing feedback on the current state of the game, then you should give it a shot, but I wouldn't hard switch to a new system that isn't even finished yet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
After reading the whole ruleset for the playtest, I get so disapointed. ...I think that paizo´s crew need to remember why we all moved to Pathfinder 1 back in 2008: because we all dislike D&D4th

I wasn't too keen on 4E myself, but a lot of peolpe here are - let's not speak for others.

I hear your disapointment, but sometimes it's better to count to ten and then give deliever your critisism in a constructive way.

Deadmanwalking has started a thread on this forum which does exactly this. Go and check it out, maybe that'll help:-)

This from someone who himself has issues with this new version.

Good Gaming to You:-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will echo some of the feelings other have put forth, the guide is not easy to read or understand. There's a lot of new terms that are not clearly defined (but oddly ones like AC, Perception, HP are defined). I tried to make a sorcerer just for an extra challenge. The spell section talks about being a Prepared, Spontaneous, or Innate caster and it's not obvious which one I needed to know about. Sorcerer's also had this line: "Because you’re a sorcerer, you can usually replace Material Casting actions with Somatic Casting actions, so you usually don’t need spell components", but doesn't explain when that happens.

Then there's Spell Points which are used for Powers (which don't use spell slots) but the points aren't used for spells. Can you be any more confusing?

I also found character creation being tougher than I think it should be. I like the ability boosts, but at the end of the day, I want to make someone interesting and PLAY them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Davor wrote:
To the question: "Why should I make the move to PF2?", the answer is: You shouldn't. The game isn't even out yet.

That's an answer in search of a question. Nobody is asking "why should I switch my gaming to a playtest"; people who playtest know why they playtest.

The important question is "why should someone switch to the eventual released version of the game", in other words what gamer niche or market is PF2 being designed to attract? Because a) that strongly informs the kind of feedback we give, and b) it's not clear that the game we've seen so far successfully appeals to *any* market.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
Davor wrote:
To the question: "Why should I make the move to PF2?", the answer is: You shouldn't. The game isn't even out yet. Heck, they just started their open playtest! If you're interested in influencing development and providing feedback on the current state of the game, then you should give it a shot, but I wouldn't hard switch to a new system that isn't even finished yet.

Exactly what I was thinking.


Davor wrote:
To the question: "Why should I make the move to PF2?", the answer is: You shouldn't. The game isn't even out yet. Heck, they just started their open playtest! If you're interested in influencing development and providing feedback on the current state of the game, then you should give it a shot, but I wouldn't hard switch to a new system that isn't even finished yet.

Yes - this. :)

Check out PF2 in a year. If you like it, switch. If not, there's enough content in PF1 to keep you busy for a lifetime. :)

I don't intend to switch - there's about 20,000 pages of PF1 3PP stuff and Paizo APs I own but haven't used yet.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.

FINALLY Got my book, scanned through the rules. There are a few things I like, but many things I do not like.

I could find nothing about healing and curing wounds even by looking in index. Not one mention as Heal or Cure. No spells of heal or cure. Yes, I may be missing something.

Then Ranger Crossbow? Really? Why not a regular bow, or a composite bow? That seems odd.

Characters seem to "Cookie Cutter" Never was a fan of point buy.

I have 2 games I am running. Both are PF not PF2. They are both in depth games. To change to PF2 would be impossible. Unlike when we were 3.5 and moved to PF, it was pretty simple to convert with some changes

I can understand Paizo wanting to release a "New" Version, it's how they make money. Kind of like WotC with Magic and then 3.0 to 3.5 to 4. to 5.

As a player since 1979, Even TSR did a 1st to 2nd, but seems drastic changes like PF to PF2 are not the route I want to take just like 3.5 to 4e was.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:

So, with all due respect-

Why should anybody else take the time to try to convince you to try playing a free game in the off chance that you might enjoy it?

Quite the opposite.

Some of us are giving the play test a run to see if we like it, regardless of what our first reactions are.

So far, it has done nothing but confirm my initial reaction. It's a bastardized hybrid of 4e and 5e that brings very little new to the table.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
IceniQueen wrote:

FINALLY Got my book, scanned through the rules. There are a few things I like, but many things I do not like.

I could find nothing about healing and curing wounds even by looking in index. Not one mention as Heal or Cure. No spells of heal or cure. Yes, I may be missing something.

Then Ranger Crossbow? Really? Why not a regular bow, or a composite bow? That seems odd.

Characters seem to "Cookie Cutter" Never was a fan of point buy.

I have 2 games I am running. Both are PF not PF2. They are both in depth games. To change to PF2 would be impossible. Unlike when we were 3.5 and moved to PF, it was pretty simple to convert with some changes

I can understand Paizo wanting to release a "New" Version, it's how they make money. Kind of like WotC with Magic and then 3.0 to 3.5 to 4. to 5.

As a player since 1979, Even TSR did a 1st to 2nd, but seems drastic changes like PF to PF2 are not the route I want to take just like 3.5 to 4e was.

Youngster. I have been playing since 1977 :) On a quick note, I like where they are headed with the game. Pathfinder 1st ed. is in a place where in the 1st round of an encounter, by the 3rd or 4th initiative order, the encounter is over. I play a lot of PFS, and the higher the level you go, the more unbalanced the game gets. I hope this new edition will level it out and bring back an assemblage of balance which I am looking forward to seeing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is what I asked myself before I read the playtest. I had some things I wanted accomplished. Pf2e does none of those things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guurzak wrote:
This is where I'm stuck too. What is PF2's value proposition to players who might otherwise be playing PF1, or 5e, or 4e, or 13th Age, or Dungeon World, or Blades in the Dark, or Gloomhaven? What kind of player is PF2 looking to attract who is underserved by the current library of games? What will PF2 do better than any of the other options?

PF2e vs PF1e: It will be better balanced (theoretically) and will have adventures my group hasn't played. If you don't care about balance and have a surplus of PF1e adventures lying around then you should stick with PF1e.

PF2e vs 4e/Dungeon World/Other games I've never heard of: It will have a playstyle I enjoy that isn't too dissimilar to PF1e. While the mechanics have a strong resemblance to 4e at first glance, they're potentially being used to very different effects if Paizo makes some changes. I say potentially because I haven't played yet.

PF2e vs 13th Age: This the strongest competition because 13th Age took 4e and spliced in 3.5e which is what PF2e essentially is. AFAIK 13th Age doesn't get 6 volume APs published twice a year though. Assuming that's true, that's why you'd play PF2e.

PF2e vs 5e: PF2e will actually have extensive character support with 2 APs published twice a year vs 2 super adventures published twice a year.

If future AP support, character options and a more balanced game aren't all important to you, then stick with whatever your current game is. If only some of these are important to you, then depending on what your current favourite game is will depend on which game you should play.

For me the all 3 are important which is why I have a vested interest in positively influencing the playtest. Personally speaking: If you're unhappy with the playtest then I want you involved because chances are we have similar tastes. The more you get involved the better the chances PF2e will be a game we like. Unfortunately I can't force you to participate.

Juda de Kerioth wrote:

I mean, Racial Powers (now called Feats) were in D&D4thE

Class Powers (now called class feats) were in D&D4thE PHB.

Someone told me last night "the half elf and half orc are a feats only for humans"... yea, but that was also a rule from 4thE. You need to be a human, and take the "half vampire feat" to make your human a dhampir.

Racial feats and non-fighter/barbarian/ranger/rogue class feats aren't really like 4th ed powers. Unfortunately Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Rogue powers bear significantly closer resemblances to them. But take a closer look at press and open. They're more complicated then 4e which might mean they play different, but they might not. Dunno. Need to playtest.

Juda de Kerioth wrote:
Skills: they overcomplicated the things you could do without feats in PF1, now you realy will need a feat to take a shower or so.

I think they've actually struck a really good balance here myself.

Juda de Kerioth wrote:

Gladly this is the first step for what seems will be a loooong playtest (if they hear us all). So, with a lot of luck, we, the testers have a lot of work to do to make it the game we want/need/desrerve.

I will not test this round, tell me when round 2 is out because this one really sucks

Unfortunately this playtest has 1 round and 1 round only. I'm really disappointed to hear that myself. But it's even more important for people to playtest early and playtest often.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Juda de Kerioth wrote:
But as a responsible customer, one who take care of what i buy and such, why do i need to move to pf2 if the rules offers nothing new at all?

The reason I'm sure I'm going to support PF2 (without knowing what it is yet) is that Paizo will be producing adventures at least monthly and terrific campaign supplements probably less often than monthly.

If PF2 fails, so will the company which produces my favorite RPG supplements ever.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Could someone explain to me how pf 2e is in any way LESS complicated that PF 1?

In PF 1, you pick a race, and a little blurb give you all the info you need on what playing as that race does

In PF2, picking you race, literally the first thing you do, requires you to pour over a big list of racial abilities, and try to decide what will be most useful to you, when you ostensibly have yet to PLAY THE GAME.

In PF 1, aside from casters, most of your classes abilities are neatly summarized right on the class table. You can see what you will get, and its name gives you an idea what it does.

In PF2, the class table just points you to a long list of options to pour over for each and every level, making it hard to get a feel for a class at a glance.

In PF1, if you wanted to multi class, you just took levels in the class you wanted levels in.

In PF2, if you want to multi class, you need to again pour over a list of possible options, which are essentially copies of abilities printed elsewhere in the book.

In PF1, combat feats, and metamagic feats are just that, feats, that only need to be printed once.

I definitely see a few cool concepts thrown into this edition, but the changes made to basic things like bab, class abilities, races, multi-classing etc. are just mind boggling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:

Could someone explain to me how pf 2e is in any way LESS complicated that PF 1?

In PF 1, you pick a race, and a little blurb give you all the info you need on what playing as that race does

In PF2, picking you race, literally the first thing you do, requires you to pour over a big list of racial abilities, and try to decide what will be most useful to you, when you ostensibly have yet to PLAY THE GAME.

In PF1, you have to actually know what all of the 6 different racial trais that apply to you are, and what they do. I have a player that I'm pretty sure still doesn't remember he has Hardy, because it was piled in a list of a ton of other things, and the only thing he picked out of that was a dwarven waraxe early because that was a weapon choice. And then we can get into alternate racial traits, and how valid swapping X for Y is, or swapping W and X is for Z.

Compared to that, you pick one to two things, and since you had a choice in it, it's a lot easier to remember than the ton of default choices you got slapped with.

I can buy an argument that it's less customizable, but more complicated it's not.

Dairian wrote:

In PF 1, aside from casters, most of your classes abilities are neatly summarized right on the class table. You can see what you will get, and its name gives you an idea what it does.

In PF2, the class table just points you to a long list of options to pour over for each and every level, making it hard to get a feel for a class at a glance.

I'm...really not sure how this has become harder from PF1.

The fact that you're limited to the pool you can grab from makes decision-making a lot easier (instead of the however-many-level 1-feats PF1 had, quite a few of which were also prerequisites for others).

PF2 is a lot like rogue talents or barbarian rage powers, both of which are in PF1 and reasonably easy to choose from. This is just standardizing that for everyone.

Dairian wrote:


In PF1, if you wanted to multi class, you just took levels in the class you wanted levels in.

In PF2, if you want to multi class, you need to again pour over a list of possible options, which are essentially copies of abilities printed elsewhere in the book.

This one is less due to complexity and more due to practicality in how multiclassing was generally an insanely bad idea unless you knew exactly what you were doing. Basically, it's to make it so that you don't have to be a system master to multiclass and not utterly destroy your character's efficiency.

Dairian wrote:
In PF1, combat feats, and metamagic feats are just that, feats, that only need to be printed once.

The problem is the fact that basically everyone has access to every single feat choice at all times, and that makes decision-making for new players incredibly difficult unless there's someone guiding them. Even in the CRB, there's still more than enough choices in a single feat that it's easy to get lost in it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dairian wrote:
Could someone explain to me how pf 2e is in any way LESS complicated that PF 1?

Lets look at the categories of things you can do during an encounter:

PF1:
Move Action
Standard Action
Full-round Action
Swift Action
Immediate Action
Free Action
Miscellaneous Actions
Attacks of Opportunity

— and a lot of those are mutually exclusive, or interfere with each other. For example you can take a miscellaneous action to make a 5 foot step before, during or after other actions, but only if you don't move otherwise.

PF2:
Action
Free Action
Reaction

An expert PF1 player with system mastery may have internalised all of the myriad of rules for this, and so don't notice how complex PF1 is in this regard. But to a new player this is a huge difference. I've got veteran players who still don't understand PF1's action system — as learning it is just too much work for them.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / why should i move to PF2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion