Is "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" a better game then "Pathfinder 1st Edition"?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Also, both Sorshen and Nocticula have left their lustful selves in PF1 along with their evil alignments and revealing outfits.
They have? I'm not sure I've seen anything confirming this. Both are CN now, certainly, and probably less inclined to be manipulative a&#%#!*s, but I've seen no evidence either is exactly chaste or disinclined to revealing outfits. Where's that info found?

Return of the Runelords for Sorshen - multiple volumes of that AP.

Tyrant's Grasp, Book 6 - Finale for 1E Dev entries and Nocticula's listing as a Goddess.

Sorshen's new look might be best described as sultry but tasteful in the artwork. Nocticula in Book 6 Tyrants Grasp? Ewww - one of the worst renditions (clothes or no) I've seen for her. Not a fan of that artwork at all. It's just plain bad.

All purely subjective, obviously. And nothing to do with the original purpose of the thread.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

By that I was referencing both Nocticula's ascension abandoning the lust purview (she doesn't even grant the charm domain anymore, at least in PF1) and Sorshen retraining her Lust specialization away (which is what I gather "Even as Sorshen increasingly abandons the old ways..." means when in reference to magical traditions).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
SteelGuts wrote:

I don't care about Seoni new outfit the old one was just over the top sexualised, but it is a shame for Sajan. He looks less Shoanti now, I think.

However some of that PG thing just wrecked my favorite monsters: Ogres were way better before. Now they look like generic cannibal monsters, but no more consanguinity or mutations, that's a shame. Same for the Succubus, who looks like a Tieffling courtisan rather than the lust demon.

I think that being more conservative for players is okay, but some monsters should keep the atrocity/maturity they deserved, in the core representation.

I am afraid when the art of Noctila & Sorshen are going to come out. They both use lust power.

And it is not for the sake of it, just that if you want to have some mature thematic and monsters, it should be ok for these few monsters to be represented in terrible ways. That is what make them monsters and opponents.

I remember a time when Goblins hide for trying to catch and eat childrens... Now they eat pickles for god's sake.

Sajan was never shoanti, he's vudrani. And his PF2 art update is one of my least liked. He lost so much muscle and the ab/pecs window.

Also, both Sorshen and Nocticula have left their lustful selves in PF1 along with their evil alignments and revealing outfits.

EDIT:

And to be a little on topic. For me it's not a better game. The codification of EVERYTHING is a drawback. Ancestries have been pruned too much from the races (still hate having half-elf and half-orc in the human ancestry btw). Martial stuff is great (kinda iffy on the champion). Caster classes most important feature has been gutted though: spells only scaling by spell slot feels awful, the number of spells has gone way down (supplemented by at-will and encounter powers though, which I'm mostly postivie about, even though only damage cantrips and shield feel worthwhile, both dancing lights and prestidigitation are worse than in PF1 and don't scale at all), they have toned down most buffs as...

I have noticed a couple of changes in the artwork:

1) Most of the iconics are skinnier and younger looking. Maybe this was a deliberate decision to make them look more like the teenagers that they supposedly are?

2) In the Bestiary, every monster with a humanoid form is now wearing clothes. I guess that avoids the need for strategic posing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

For my own group it was like that: We never even considered PF1 as our game system, but after looking at the PF2 Playtest it was immediately clear for us that we'd change from D&D 5e to PF2 (and I do not agree with any ideas that it would be "like 5e". In truth it does most things much different.

We especially like that you are not tied to "fixed sub-classes", but instead can design your character on a "by-feat" basis. We also liked the 3-action-system a lot!

And there seemed much less "overpowered sub-classes" than in 5e (sorry, if this is more PF2 vs. 5e than PF2 vs. PF1, but as I said, for PF1 we never even thought about changing to it - with PF2 we changed to it pretty early in the playtest already).

So in Short: Yes, in the opinion of our group PF2 is better than PF1. By a large measure.

Best regards,
Steffen


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.

I'm not really sure how much your little girls will be running into combat in real life, though...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
Diego Hopkins wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
I think her outfit is fine though. It definitely feels bulkier than her PF1 outfit, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing and I think it's a little silly to call anything about her outfit puritanical.
Of course her outfit itself is far from puritanical. However, the general movement towards covering up more naked skin in fantasy and towards making the fantasy genre more PG has been noticeable over the last decade. It's the general trend I oppose. As I said, I am just as opposed to Sayan not showing off his sick abs. ^^
A part of the reason for this trend is that more young girls and women are openly participating, so it's moving away from a male fantasy space and into a shared space. I like this. I have 3 little girls that I'm introducing to the hobby. I would like to discourage them from running into combat with their vital areas and arteries exposed.
I'm not really sure how much your little girls will be running into combat in real life, though...

Comically missing the point.

Liberty's Edge

I was aware of Sorshen's new look...it's less revealing I'll grant, but I'd still definitely agree with the description 'sultry'.

I wasn't aware of Nocticula's. Interesting.

Amaranthine Witch wrote:
By that I was referencing both Nocticula's ascension abandoning the lust purview (she doesn't even grant the charm domain anymore, at least in PF1) and Sorshen retraining her Lust specialization away (which is what I gather "Even as Sorshen increasingly abandons the old ways..." means when in reference to magical traditions).

Ah, fair enough. Both do seem to have abandoned lust magic. I'm not sure that's quite the thing being objected to, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly have zero idea why Magnuskn is here.
You have talked serious trash since the playtest. You have proclaimed you have no intention of playing PF2. But you're here giving hyperbolic opinions to people who are wanting to try it out.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Barnabas, that's not really very fair. I may disagree with Magnus, but questioning someone's right to be here is a bit much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Magnuskn wrote:


I'm not really sure how much your little girls will be running into combat in real life, though...
Comically missing the point.

Emphasis on the "comic". Or did you miss that I was making a joke? ^^

Captain Morgan wrote:
Ugh, I knew this thread would get awful, but this is baaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

Really? We are having a polite discussion here, not sure why you think that is bad.

Barnabas Eckleworth III wrote:

I honestly have zero idea why Magnuskn is here.

You have talked serious trash since the playtest. You have proclaimed you have no intention of playing PF2. But you're here giving hyperbolic opinions to people who are wanting to try it out.

I'm mostly keeping out of other discussions for the very reason that I am not going to play it. But threads like "Was the Wizard nerfed?" and "Do you think 2E is better than 1E?" are topics which give me the chance to voice a few first opinions (which I'm bound to have on the two first days of the release of the game), before I leave you guys to it. Or do you think dissenting opinions are bad and people should not be allowed to voice them, so as to not offend your innocent eyes? C'mon, diversity is the spice of life and I sure am not unhappy for the people who are ecstatic to play PF2E.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hm... I'm not sure it was a very well-timed joke? I can see what you are going for, but it comes across as dismissive of Diego's point of view.

I don't think that was your intention, but people who actually are dismissive of those views are common enough that you may wish to consider avoiding being lumped in with them?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me it is, the core book is about equal to CRB+APG of PF1e in build flexibility when it comes to functional builds. (if not better)

I like the art better, the organisation of the rules is generally better and I prefer the cohesive design elements that while take a bit of effort to learn are easier to burn into my memory.

This said, I am tired of 3.X having played it since 2001 and I am not one for system loyalty in the first place making it a goal of mine to learn 3-4 new systems every year.

I also own every PF1e hardcover and will still be running/playing in PF1e games for years to come. But I do think at its core PF2e is a better game at its core and I am happy I bought it.

For the record, while I enjoy build crafting I see that as only a small amount of the game on a whole and how the game actually PLAYS is more important to me.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I think potentially the reason we get "fewer 'sexy' people in our RPG sourcebooks" is the gradual realization that nobody with the internet has even the slightest bit of trouble finding that sort of thing.

Plus the aesthetic we're going for is more about "cool" or "interesting" and we have stopped relying on 13 year old boys to inform our sense of such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Watery Soup wrote:

Correct - I apologize if I come across like I'm trying to say there's something wrong with you.

I more or less agree with your assessment of the world. I just think that the benefits outweigh the costs.

No problem, it's just that people who try to pin "bad views" onto the discussion partners they disagree is all too common. I appreciate your view of things, even if I disagree with it.

Watery Soup wrote:


Agree. The mobs are a negative when they're on target, and a double negative when they're off target. But we get a bunch of positives, too - the expanded popularity is huge both in terms of exposing us to new artists and new players.

Is there a way to have a popular game where artistic expression and free will isn't limited? I suspect the answer is no.

We see it all the time in other artistic media - graphic novels, books, movies, etc. - all of them get "sanitized" before they're released to a wide audience. My wife asked me what the difference between a dwarf and halfling was, I said Gimli and Frodo and she knew exactly what I was talking about.

Yeah, I see your point. While I focused here specifically on the effect on Pathfinder, the whole desexualization thing is pretty much happening worldwide, with the US moral mentality of "sexual things bad, violence good!" pushing most of it. It would be hugely off-topic to go into that in detail, though, so I'll leave it at that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't questioning his right to be here.
I was honestly curious. Because when people ask questions, you're not just, "Eh, it's not my cup of tea." It's similar to, "Sure it's a great game, if you want to play awful classes with terrible concepts who are ugly!"
I do get that some people mean to be cheeky and it doesn't translate to text well.
Just wasn't sure if he was lurking or what.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm... I'm not sure it was a very well-timed joke? I can see what you are going for, but it comes across as dismissive of Diego's point of view.

I don't think that was your intention, but people who actually are dismissive of those views are common enough that you may wish to consider avoiding being lumped in with them?

I was just making fun of a certain turn of phrase he used, so I'm not sure how that dismisses his entire point of view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
magnuskn wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

Hm... I'm not sure it was a very well-timed joke? I can see what you are going for, but it comes across as dismissive of Diego's point of view.

I don't think that was your intention, but people who actually are dismissive of those views are common enough that you may wish to consider avoiding being lumped in with them?

I was just making fun of a certain turn of phrase he used, so I'm not sure how that dismisses his entire point of view.

Instead of addressing his point of view, you made a joke. When someone addresses a statement to you and you make a joke instead of considering their statement and replying to it, it can give the impression that you are choosing to dismiss their statement instead of engage with it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Now this is my personal opinion, but...

From what I have read alot of the grognards and self-centered power gamers (which drove me away from PF1) do not like the new system, so yes I would already say its a better game. xD

Also, on a more serious note, the book is beautiful and I am loving all the new changes to the system to the game. Streamlines everything. Math fixed (or at least improved) room for expansion without to many game breaking options.


Amaranthine Witch wrote:

And to be a little on topic. For me it's not a better game. The codification of EVERYTHING is a drawback. Ancestries have been pruned too much from the races (still hate having half-elf and half-orc in the human ancestry btw). Martial stuff is great (kinda iffy on the champion). Caster classes most important feature has been gutted though: spells only scaling by spell slot feels awful, the number of spells has gone way down (supplemented by at-will and encounter powers though, which I'm mostly postivie about, even though only damage cantrips and shield feel worthwhile, both dancing lights and prestidigitation are worse than in PF1 and don't scale at all), they have toned down most buffs as well as flight and teleportation (both my favorite kind of magic), duration and number of targets of spells down across the board, upping base spell levels (teleport, purify food and water!!!, fly...), the uncommon tag is a plague upon the spell chapter...

(Yes, I'm salty)

When I play, I play mainly spellcasters, and I don't know if I can enjoy PF2's take on those classes. I'll still try them though, as I want to want to keep giving Paizo my money.

But many of your spells now scale with your casting skill, through attack rolls or saves, as well as through heightening.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GM JIB wrote:

Now this is my personal opinion, but...

From what I have read alot of the grognards and self-centered power gamers (which drove me away from PF1) do not like the new system, so yes I would already say its a better game. xD

Also, on a more serious note, the book is beautiful and I am loving all the new changes to the system to the game. Streamlines everything. Math fixed (or at least improved) room for expansion without to many game breaking options.

I agree with this. I have seen various people fretting about not being able to stat dump (or at least without consequence) despite it fundamentally not being necessary any more - what with stat dumping only needed to make some concepts really playable

So if people who think about things that way don't like it then that is a positive

Same for the people who have spit venom (mainly on reddit) about Divine Grace not being the same or new multi-classing in general when they really only wanted dips for maximum benefit such as 2 levels in Paladin, 3 in Unchained Rogue, 1 in Inspired Blade Swashbuckler and the like


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
lordcirth wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:

And to be a little on topic. For me it's not a better game. The codification of EVERYTHING is a drawback. Ancestries have been pruned too much from the races (still hate having half-elf and half-orc in the human ancestry btw). Martial stuff is great (kinda iffy on the champion). Caster classes most important feature has been gutted though: spells only scaling by spell slot feels awful, the number of spells has gone way down (supplemented by at-will and encounter powers though, which I'm mostly postivie about, even though only damage cantrips and shield feel worthwhile, both dancing lights and prestidigitation are worse than in PF1 and don't scale at all), they have toned down most buffs as well as flight and teleportation (both my favorite kind of magic), duration and number of targets of spells down across the board, upping base spell levels (teleport, purify food and water!!!, fly...), the uncommon tag is a plague upon the spell chapter...

(Yes, I'm salty)

When I play, I play mainly spellcasters, and I don't know if I can enjoy PF2's take on those classes. I'll still try them though, as I want to want to keep giving Paizo my money.

But many of your spells now scale with your casting skill, through attack rolls or saves, as well as through heightening.

While that is true it does nothing for utility spells and buffs, they must be cast at a higher level to get better, if at all.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

The one problem I have with the update to those two characters in question is it kind of perpetuates this old trope that associates sexuality with immorality, especially for women.

It's something that you used to see a lot in old TV shows, where the evil female character is inherently more sexualized than the good female characters. Most obvious and egregious when you'd occasionally see a "good character turned evil" scenario where good female characters become more promiscuous and risque as part of 'going bad.' It's less common now, but still a theme that crops up.

Having characters like Sorshen and Nocticula lose their association with lust and charm and button up their clothes, metaphorically, when they get bumped up from evil to neutral feels like kind of an extension of that stereotype and leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth because of it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That's a fair interpretation, swoosh, and I hadn't considered it that way.

Personally I think (and hope) it's more Paizo trying to leave those tropes behind wholesale, but time will tell.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm still not sure I agree that Sorshen is leaving behind lust and suggestive clothing in any real sense. She's wearing somewhat more, but that's still an outfit definitely defined by its sex appeal to a large degree.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm still not sure I agree that Sorshen is leaving behind lust and suggestive clothing in any real sense. She's wearing somewhat more, but that's still an outfit definitely defined by its sex appeal to a large degree.

And in the case of Nocticula, literally any other humanly conceivable outfit would be less suggestive than what she used to wear...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think they are generally moving away from the cheesecake illustrations, as is obvious if you compare (for example) the PF1 lyrakien azata with her PF2 counterpart.

I have seen no indications that this has anything to do with desexualizing anyone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All fair points and I assume that's Paizo's intent too, but intentions and how those intentions can look or feel don't always line up. I'm more just commenting on an initial impression and how things might appear implicitly than accusing Paizo of anything. They're good people.

Nocticula literally dropping that entire aspect of her portfolio doesn't help a lot though, even if MaxAstro's point about her outfit is completely valid.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
I think they are generally moving away from the cheesecake illustrations,

Now, stepping on the other foot, just because I understand why it is happening (and may be necessary) doesn't mean that I am not sad about it. :(


Better depends upon your investment. Java, C++, and assembly language are all used to write programs. Java is easily the most popular. Does that make it better? You have to know more to code in C++, but once you get the hang of it, you are better in C++ than Java. Assembly language is just too low level for anyone to want to master, and the improvement over C++ is nominal. For me, Shadowrun is kind of like assembly, PF1 is kind of like C++, and PF2 is kind of like Java.

It's not a perfect analogy because I am kind of tired of the complexity of shadowrun and PF2 preparation and combat is probably better than most games with this level of complexity. Even though there are some things about PF2 I don't like, what it does well is done so well that I think a switch is merited. You have to get used to a few tonal shifts, such as elves kind of sucking now, good strategy is to take down the fighter first instead of trying to go after the wizard (like in Conan, where you ignore the wizard until the real threat is gone), goblins are awesome and everywhere (not all bad: my 7-year-old loves his goblin alchemist bomber and was able to build it with only a little assistance), to name a few, but I think positives outweigh negatives.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think PF2 is more like C#


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:


Instead of addressing his point of view, you made a joke. When someone addresses a statement to you and you make a joke instead of considering their statement and replying to it, it can give the impression that you are choosing to dismiss their statement instead of engage with it.

Yeah, sorry that I seem to have upset one of the humor impaired. He wasn't really adding anything new to the conversation, since he basically just repeated what Watery Soup had already said. I wouldn't have answered to his post in normal course, I just found that particular turn of phrase funny and wanted to riff on it. And that's it.


Technically, probably (hard to be objective with games); but time (fun) will tell.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.

"On balance" was actually a figure of speech meaning "taken overall, weighing the pros and cons in the balance" :P

As far as game balance, that does seem to have improved, though.


Cole Deschain wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.
"On balance" was actually a figure of speech meaning "taken overall, weighing the pros and cons in the balance" :P

Where was that?

I thought it was just homogeneousness. The dangers therein.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Absolutely, though the quest for balance can lead to undesirable results if taken too far, from what I've experienced.
"On balance" was actually a figure of speech meaning "taken overall, weighing the pros and cons in the balance" :P
Where was that?

In my post you responded to with the post I'm quoting :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A very subjective question.

many would say "yes."

I'm among those who say "no."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

That is like asking if D&D 5th edition is a better game than pathfinder 1st edition.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber

To the OP.

We need time to assess the sales results.

Which are the only reliable way to objectively decide if PF2 is "better" than PF1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think any two similar things exist in a "one is objectively better than another" state, barring situations like "the two plates of pasta in front of you are made with identical ingredients, save for one uses tasty mushrooms and the other uses deadly mushrooms."

Games in particular are subject to the taste of the moment for what is going to resonate the best with any particular set of users. Like it's darn near impossible in this hobby to have more fun in a session of a game than "Paranoia with the right people in the right mindset" but, like Cookie Monster's beloved cookies- it's a sometimes thing.


Nyet; but that's a loaded question. We all have different preferences, personalities and playstyles.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
MaxAstro wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
I'm still not sure I agree that Sorshen is leaving behind lust and suggestive clothing in any real sense. She's wearing somewhat more, but that's still an outfit definitely defined by its sex appeal to a large degree.
And in the case of Nocticula, literally any other humanly conceivable outfit would be less suggestive than what she used to wear...

Wearing absolutely nothing would be less suggestive than her previous outfit.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Amaranthine Witch wrote:
Also, both Sorshen and Nocticula have left their lustful selves in PF1 along with their evil alignments and revealing outfits.
They have? I'm not sure I've seen anything confirming this. Both are CN now, certainly, and probably less inclined to be manipulative a*$#%!~s, but I've seen no evidence either is exactly chaste or disinclined to revealing outfits. Where's that info found?

In Return she greets the party doing The Dance of Seven Veils, so while the “Lust” aspect of her character may be toned down (for a given value of toned down) sensuality is still a part of her character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Darth PUGS! wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

Not that a critical mass of people now have their books, I want to ask a general question.

Is Pathfinder 2 a better game then its predicessor Pathfinder 1?

That is like asking if D&D 5th edition is a better game than pathfinder 1st edition.

Yep, this.

If you ask me and just me, then PF1E is a "better" game than 5E, but only slightly. Both are great.

If, on the other hand, you magically quantify total hours of "person-joy" created, the PF1E might be leading through sheer age, but 5E is steamrolling along and will take over (if it has not already) and is certainly way ahead if you just compare both games at the same age.

But there is no "truth" in any of those metrics. Maybe there is one person at Paizo who set out to make their own personal dream game and all else is just happenstance. If that is the case, then we will never know if it is perfection or a fiasco.

But all that aside, I'm comfortable sitting on the limb labeled "alienating a chunk of prior fanbase is not good".


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BryonD wrote:
But all that aside, I'm comfortable sitting on the limb labeled "alienating a chunk of prior fanbase is not good".

I think this was inevitable. I doubt there is a way Paizo could have done a new edition without alienating some people. From reading the boards, I get the feeling that the "I wanted a natural progression/evolution" people, feel alienated right now, as they wanted what PF was to 3.5 from the new edition. This would have raised a lot of questions though for why even release a new edition and in the process alienating people who were looking for a change and not more of the same.


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

I also think Starfinder was their natural evolution game. I know personally I can't go back to Starfinder as in comparison to 2e it is hamstrung by all the same engine problem as 3.5/PF1. But for those who like that engine it very much survives in that product.


I'll likely play both for a very long time. I'll add my vote for "PF2 is a very different game from PF1 more than better or worse" though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't see the fact that putting more clothes on a succubus is good. Succubus are slutty, just like Elves have pointy ears, and Dwarfs beards. They are Chaotic Evil Lust Demons. Not love, or flirt, or romance. Lust. For a lots of Angels, the new skins make sense, because Chastity is one of their trait. Not demons, base on the sins of mortal souls. I don't see any sin in that Succubus. )

And a lots of people focus my comment on outfits, but I got an even bigger grudge with Ogers and Goblins. Rise, which let's be honest, made the succes of Pathfinder, showed us the marvelous creative freedom of Paizo with roleplay for a few classical monsters.

I mean for me the Ogers are a chaotic evil rednecks from the Hill Has Eyes who practice cannibalism and inbreeding and mutilations. Now they are just cannibals. Even their new look is more classical.

And Goblins are funny Drow. Because they are good, but not really. Just enough for having a few in a party.

Don't get me wrong, I'll playtest the game next week, and so far I am very confident that I'll like it. But the art and the settings updates, for a lot of reasons, make me sad that Paizo is going for a less mature spirit in Golarion. I like my Golarion grittier. And yes I can always use preivous material, but for me it is a shame that the default assumption for the universe is to be so innocent. Because it was not the case for the past ten years, and sometimes it does not make sense.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

A succubus is actually more likely to wear clothes than a dryad is.

A succubus occasionally wants to corrupt someone in a public setting. That is hard to do if she is not dressed appropriately.

But where would a dryad who can't move far from her tree get clothes?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:

To the OP.

We need time to assess the sales results.

Which are the only reliable way to objectively decide if PF2 is "better" than PF1.

It’s hard to judge sales results in a vacuum. PF1 did so well in the marketplace because 4e was....well it is was 4e.

PF2 is not only competing against 5e which is leading a new renaissance in role playing games, but also against PF1 which is beloved by purists. So I strongly doubt PF2 will beat PF1 in terms of sales.

I think PF2 will be more of a niche product which aims to offer up a game with more complexity and options than 5e, but is less intimidating and more new player friendly than PF1. Personally, I hope PF2 takes off as it offers the sweet spot of play that I was looking for.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I was very skeptical, and negative after playing 2 playtest games.

However, we are starting an Age of Ashes game later today. And I literally spent most of yesterday jumping around on the Archives of Nethys page, comparing classes and having a hard time to pick.

The cleric page was a bit confusing, as it didn't explain the "Cleric Focus Powers" section, but a friend who has the PDF could easily steer me to the correct answers.

Ended up rolling a Fighter, because Ive never been a fan of casters. I really like how a lot of it has turned out. Only actual play will let me decide if I like it better.

I also watched some review/reveal clips on youtube. One of which was almost 2 and a half hours... So yeah, I am exited to give it a go.

101 to 150 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Is "Pathfinder 2nd Edition" a better game then "Pathfinder 1st Edition"? All Messageboards