Should I get PF2?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Voss wrote:
Crayon wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'd wait on the SRD before deciding
I would actually recommend not doing this. I find SRDs a good way to reference information, but a bad way to learn the information. If $15 isn't too much money for you, I'd definitely recommend purchasing it.

Agreed. I was recommending perusal of the SRD to get a sense of whether or not PF2 is a system you actually want to learn which I think it should prove adequate for.

As for actually learning the rules from an SRD, it would admittedly be a challenge (at best) due to the layout if nothing else

I'm not seeing this. RPG books are reference materials, they don't need to be read in a strict order. Unless the SRD version ends up abysmally nested with no links or sidebar/top bar menus, material is more accessible, not less.

Learning rules is a matter of flowing from one topic to the next, which can easily be done on modern webpages.

And while hopefully they are not, if the final books are as badly edited and organized as the playtest, an SRD website version will be a flat out far superior way of learning the rules.

An interesting position.

How do you feel the PF1 versions of the core and its SRD compare to each other in that respect?


11 people marked this as a favorite.

If you're in this hobby, you probably have come to understand that there's joy to be found in just reading the books. i have the core rulebooks for some games I have never played or ran, where I do not regret the purchase because I enjoyed reading them and might play them someday.

I can't speak to anyone's entertainment budget, but the Core Rules for PF2 absolutely feel like worth owning. After all the book looks gorgeous and the system is much easier to tweak and modify to one's liking than similar products (this, I feel is PF2's greatest strength.)


Voss wrote:
I'm not seeing this. RPG books are reference materials, they don't need to be read in a strict order. Unless the SRD version ends up abysmally nested with no links or sidebar/top bar menus, material is more accessible, not less.

There's a huge difference between a book written as a guide to learning something and a reference work. For example, compare educational literature to an encyclopedia. This is a big problem when writing RPGs, because they mostly have to fill both roles.

In the boardgame biz, Fantasy Flight Games have gotten pretty good at publishing games with two rule books: one for learning the game ("This is what the game is about, this is how you set the game up, this is how a round goes and what you do in each phase and some things to remember about them, this is how you win or lose.") and another as a rules reference (where you can e.g. quickly find out what is and isn't an Asset and what you can do with one). But an RPG, at least one like Pathfinder (1 or 2) is slightly more complex than can be explained in 16-32 pages, so that approach might not be super-functional.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.

And arguably use of house rules by their very nature would suggest an individual falls into the category of "at least have a look" to see if any of the new rules address things you houseruled and do it better

But this is a great summary!


Reckless wrote:
PF2 is a remarkably different system from PF1.

This is a sentiment that I have seen around the forums and it absolutely baffles me. Having explored a lot of RPGs, I can absolutely not see this. This strikes me as hewing pretty close to Pathfinder and seems like a natural development. Fractional math seems to be a sticking point for people and, honestly, it makes little difference in actual play.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
Reckless wrote:
PF2 is a remarkably different system from PF1.
This is a sentiment that I have seen around the forums and it absolutely baffles me. Having explored a lot of RPGs, I can absolutely not see this. This strikes me as hewing pretty close to Pathfinder and seems like a natural development. Fractional math seems to be a sticking point for people and, honestly, it makes little difference in actual play.

It depends on what you mean by 'remarkably different'.

PF2 is almost as different from PF1 as D&D 4E or 5E are in terms of 'under the hood' mechanics (it's much more consistent at making the same world than either of those, though), so it's pretty different within the realm of 'D&D-like games'.

On the other hand, if you include non-D&D games, the similarities start outweighing the differences pretty quick.

So the question comes down to what exactly are you comparing it to when you say it's remarkably different?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Some people sounding like my first edition D&D DM who never moved on. I have so many problems with the rules for 1st edition D&D. We could never get him to move forward so we left him behind.

Incidentally I have all the PF1 books and will still be buying PF2. We will probably not start playing it till they have a bit more content out however.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.

Where did the quoted post say anything about buying a book? Check out doesn't need the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Crayon wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

If you think PF1 is a perfect game and can't imagine how to improve it (or can, but have already done so via House Rules), then you should keep playing PF1 and not even examine PF2. Full stop.

If you like PF1, but see various problems with it, you should probably at least have a look at PF2, as it is, at least in part, the designers response to their own perceived problems with PF1, and they're smart people who had the time and resources to come up with good solutions. Their solutions may not agree with yours, but examining what they are is still a very useful exercise.

I like PF1, but I also very much see a number of problems with it that I think PF2 solves. That's not true for everyone, but I think the vast majority of players of PF1 have at least some issues with it, meaning they should take a look at PF2.

Only those with absolutely no issues with PF1 should not at least examine PF2.

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.

DMW: "If you have issues with PF1, give PF2 a look"

Crayon: "That's strange, bordering on nonsensical!"

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pf1 is like a giant box of legos of all different shapes, but they also have different connectors. So you have to sift through them looking for parts that will fit together and look cool to make your contraption. Pf2 unifies all those connectors so the legos will all work together.

Some people want to jump immediately to Pf2, they can't understand why you wouldn't want it to all work smoothly out of the box. These people don't understand that hunting for that perfect piece is a big part of the fun for us. They find these complexities unnecessary and frustrating. Reading through the previous posts it is clear to me that the very features that one person thinks Pf2 fixes are the same features that another person wants to stick with Pf1 for.

Personally, I'm in the wait and see camp. I expect that like everything else these days, there will shortly be some errata. So I plan on waiting for the bugs to be patched before buying the book. I'm also in multiple Pf1 games and don't plan on killing them to swap systems, but I do intend to give it a try and will hopefully end up getting to play a bit of both.


Crayon wrote:
Voss wrote:
Crayon wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Crayon wrote:
I'd wait on the SRD before deciding
I would actually recommend not doing this. I find SRDs a good way to reference information, but a bad way to learn the information. If $15 isn't too much money for you, I'd definitely recommend purchasing it.

Agreed. I was recommending perusal of the SRD to get a sense of whether or not PF2 is a system you actually want to learn which I think it should prove adequate for.

As for actually learning the rules from an SRD, it would admittedly be a challenge (at best) due to the layout if nothing else

I'm not seeing this. RPG books are reference materials, they don't need to be read in a strict order. Unless the SRD version ends up abysmally nested with no links or sidebar/top bar menus, material is more accessible, not less.

Learning rules is a matter of flowing from one topic to the next, which can easily be done on modern webpages.

And while hopefully they are not, if the final books are as badly edited and organized as the playtest, an SRD website version will be a flat out far superior way of learning the rules.

An interesting position.

How do you feel the PF1 versions of the core and its SRD compare to each other in that respect?

Exactly the same, though pf1 wasn't as bad as the play test doc (even before the updates made it worse, it was a cross referencing nightmare)

The only real barrier I can see with the pf1 SRD was that it didn't include the golarion god domains, but considering I didn't use them and find them inadequate as a pantheon, that wasn't an issue, and wasn't a problem with the format.

Text is text- I went for years without buying any PF material past the PDF core rulebook (which I almost never used after the first month), and the humble bundle deal a couple years back was the only reason I bought more. The official SRD was far more useful, and organized the information much more effectively.

The current version is even better since it doesn't involve hunting multiple books for the dumpsters full of feats, spells, archetypes or whatever.

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.

I didn't say 'buy'. I said 'check out'. Looking over the SRD seems quite a reasonable way to do that.

Playtest files, preview blogs, and reviews are not the game itself in its entirety (playtest blogs are incomplete, the playtest stuff has been radically changed for the final game, and reviews are often incomplete, biased, or both), and probably wouldn't.


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

I want to underscore DMW's point about bias in reviews.

Lots of people in the business of reviewing things are actually in the business of self promotion. Youtubers, bloggers, and even forum and reddit posters are incentivized to present their material in a manner that drives views and clicks rather than in an unbiased, fair manner. An accurate review is likely going to essentially boil down to "If you like x, y, and z, then you should convert to PF2, if you don't, then stay where you are" which everyone already knows and is pretty boring. It's so much more entertaining to play up the controversy between The One True Opinion and The Obviously Wrong Viewpoint.

Sure, there will be good reviews out there, but it can be hard to tell which are which. Best to give the rules a good look over with your own two eyeballs before discussing it in a rational manner with your group.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Crayon wrote:

This argument strikes me as strange bordering on nonsensical.

The playtest files, SRD, preview blogs, and reviews (once the game is released) should prove more than sufficient for potential buyers to decide whether it's worthwhile for them to invest in the new edition or not without shelling out cash for a book they may have no use for - indeed it's the primary reason they were created in the first place.

I didn't say 'buy'. I said 'check out'. Looking over the SRD seems quite a reasonable way to do that.

Or literally check out from your library if they are fortunate enough to have a copy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Real men just blindly buy the books and if they don't like it just put it on the back of their book shelves so they can still be like yeah I own that one.

51 to 66 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Should I get PF2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.