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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.


Malk_Content wrote:
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.

Yeah, Starfinder didn't go far enough for me, and at this point PF2 seems to have gone a bit too far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The_Hanged_Man wrote:
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.

I find PF2 to be the most intimidating to new players, very dense. I would use any other edition to get new people into RPGs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.

I think the difference is gonna be that because of the auto-scaling in PF2 it's gonna be really hard to suck. Possibly easier with casters if you pick your spells poorly, but an average Fighter walking around with a Greatsword and feats that obviously synergize with a Greatsword is going to be pretty good at hitting bad guys with a Greatsword.

It reminds me of the Kineticist in PF1 in a lot of ways. The Kineticist was quite effective and at many tables seemed overpowered simply because a Kineticist just works with what's on the class table; you need either Precise Shot or Weapon Finesse depending on your build and past that the Kineticist's abilities scale well enough on their own to compete with standard expectations. PF2 classes are built much like the Kineticist.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, Pathfinder 2e doesn't have to beat PF1e lifetime sales. It just has to be more profitable than PF1e was in its later years and carve out a dedicated niche while being more accessible to newer players.

I cannot get newer players into PF1e games anymore because I tend to introduce them to 5e first and a PF1e character is way less flexible in play than a 5e character. Leading to character concepts either requiring a lot of rules mastery to play, or worse, leading to rules concepts that are just not viable even if you can technically play it.

(by cannot get, I mean people end up excited by the character creation and play for about 5-6 sessions and then would rather go back to 5e because it engages them more. Especially those who didn't go T1 casters)

Pathfinder 2e I believe can sidestep some of these issues. It won't ever overtake 5e barring some massive mistake on WotC's side of things, but hopefully it will find a strong niche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.

I think the requirement for being "you must be X strong" is pretty hard to not meet.

For example, you'd pretty much have to be a fighter with 14 or lower Str and Dex at level 1. Even then, you'd still probably be pretty tolerable thanks to fighter bonuses, so you also would have to avoid putting stat bonuses in either as you got higher level.

And at that point, let's be real - you're intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

Or be a wizard focusing on attack spells with a 14 Int. Even then, Magic Missile is still functional, and theoretically you'd be able to do some damage with a weapon because your stat boosts went elsewhere.


Cyouni wrote:
MerlinCross wrote:

It's fresh. It's new. It's shiny.

It needs time for the new paint to wear off and the community to solve the math problems. Then we'll see if it's a better game or not.

Because I see the term "Tier list" adopted by the community at large, AGAIN in PF2, and a general expected mathed out "you must be X strong" come up AGAIN in the community and official books; it will in my opinion have failed.

I think the requirement for being "you must be X strong" is pretty hard to not meet.

For example, you'd pretty much have to be a fighter with 14 or lower Str and Dex at level 1. Even then, you'd still probably be pretty tolerable thanks to fighter bonuses, so you also would have to avoid putting stat bonuses in either as you got higher level.

And at that point, let's be real - you're intentionally shooting yourself in the foot.

Or be a wizard focusing on attack spells with a 14 Int. Even then, Magic Missile is still functional, and theoretically you'd be able to do some damage with a weapon because your stat boosts went elsewhere.

Between you and Arachnofiend I feel like I need to expand.

You build a Fighter. It's expected you go with These Feats during level ups or even this Dedication. Because the community expects it as it does the most, and thus the devs also start to work with that being the 'standard'.

You pick up a wizard, it's fully expected you take these spells. You go shopping, it's clearly time to pick up X item or you're shooting yourself in the foot. Why would you not do Y because it's mathed out to be the best? You must build "Z way" or you're not playing it right.

This is what I want to see avoided. All the math solved, all the choices discarded for the most standard and board reaching options.

The actual rules are still brand new so no one has had time to actively sit down and solve them and even then a splat book or two might mess that math up.

But that math will be solved again. It's just how much that actually settles into the standard community that I'm waiting to see.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Even with the explanation I'm with Cyouni and Arachnofiend here. If a game developing optimization paths and preferred builds as it develops is what constitutes a failure... then the vast majority of products that exist or will ever exist are automatically failures.

That seems like a poor metric.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

In my last PF1 game I played in my inquisitor absolutely dominated the table. I did as much damage (yay sacred huntmaster) as 2-3 of the other players combined, I had great utility spells like invisibility and social spells, my skills were great and I was the party face. It was just all too much really and eventually I just suggested we convert the campaign to 5e to have more table balance. I think since then it’s been more fun for the group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yup, PF2e will absolutely have tier lists or fun builds. But if it has pulled off it's advancement correctly it won't result in the "one player is worth half the party" issue that happens in PF1e as you described.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gratz wrote:
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.

Shrug. I don't think that is at all accurate.

I seem to find that the "natural progression" theme is just a red herring constantly thrown up to focus the conversation on hypotheticals and avoid discussing the issues with the real game that does exist.

WotC has demonstrated that you can produce a game that fragments your base AND you can produce a game that pulls your base together. So, clearly, it is not unavoidable.

But, in the end, it seems we are in agreement that "alienating a chunk of prior fanbase" happened [I certainly do and you are labeling it "inevitable"] and I presume you agree that avoiding would be preferable.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
So, clearly, it is not unavoidable.

Even 5e has "a chunk" of people who dislike it, sometimes very vocally. So not really.

But you said you like 5e, while you dislike PF2, so those people aren't part of the narrative you want to construct.

That's the meat of this, you keep trying to abstract the conversation into broad strokes about fanbases and consumer trends but really it's about you being upset this game doesn't cater to you.

That's fine, but trying to aggrandize the issue doesn't help.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Even 5e has "a chunk" of people who dislike it, sometimes very vocally. So not really.

Ok, if you are going to stand on that argument as remotely equivalent, then I'll find that telling of your open-mindedness to the situation.

Quote:
But you said you like 5e, while you dislike PF2, so those people aren't part of the narrative you want to construct.

And yet, against the great majority, I also state that I *prefer* PF1E to 5E. I should be one of the people complaining. But, quite simply 5E rocks in its own right and is hugely popular and deservedly so.

Quote:

That's the meat of this, you keep trying to abstract the conversation into broad strokes about fanbases and consumer trends but really it's about you being upset this game doesn't cater to you.

That's fine, but trying to aggrandize the issue doesn't help.

So now we come to the part where you tell me what I'm thinking. Well. you are wrong.

Do I wish that 2E had retained a focus on the aspects of gameplay that I expect? Of course I do. But the fanbase alienation is a thing and would be a thing if I happened to love this edition and would be a thing if I never heard of this edition.

I'd say it is better to be honest about the reactions across the market as whole rather than to just stick your head in the sand and get angry at people who point out what you don't want to hear.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BryonD wrote:
Ok, if you are going to stand on that argument as remotely equivalent, then I'll find that telling of your open-mindedness to the situation.

It's your own argument. You said that grumblings from former fans were a sign of a failure within the system and a serious issue. I guess it only counts sometimes though.

Quote:
And yet, against the great majority, I also state that I *prefer* PF1E to 5E. I should be one of the people complaining. But, quite simply 5E rocks in its own right and is hugely popular and deservedly so.

Good, I'm glad you're having fun. That doesn't really detract from the point though, if anything it only highlights it further.

Quote:
So now we come to the part where you tell me what I'm thinking. Well. you are wrong.

Well, if you want to say that, I guess you can. Your own opinions kind of speak for themselves though.

Quote:
I'd say it is better to be honest about the reactions across the market as whole.

If that's what was the issue here, that'd be one thing. Your belief that anyone who dares to disagree with your assertions is 'sticking their head in the sand' belies your supposed objectivity though.


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?

Quick answer:

Most definitely Yes

Long answer:
People are usually suspicious about any change (sorry Tzeentch). No matter how detailed your explanations will be, some of us will simply react cautiously if not skeptically, being more comfortable with the past and its legacy and status quo. Fair enough. Paizo made a business choice, legitimate and thoughtful alike. We'll see how successful it will turn out. I am sufficiently optimistic about it.

Thanks


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:

Even with the explanation I'm with Cyouni and Arachnofiend here. If a game developing optimization paths and preferred builds as it develops is what constitutes a failure... then the vast majority of products that exist or will ever exist are automatically failures.

That seems like a poor metric.

Optimization paths and preferred builds - okay.

Community and dev expectation that they are the absolutely only way to play the game - bad.

I'm tired of being told I need a barrel of happy sticks. I'm tired of being told I'm bad if I select a tier 1 and struggle. I'm tired that everyone rolls their eyes if I pick Rogue or a class-race that isn't optimal.

I'm tired that everyone seems to expect everyone to min max. Even the devs at this point.

And if PF2 shapes up the same way, then yes, I'll consider it a failure.

Arakasius wrote:
I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

I don't mind when people do that but I mind when people fully accept it as "The only way to play".

PF2 is a failure to me if it sells itself on all this 'customization' and "oh these are viable" only for the community to throw out 75% of it and keep playing with the same builds again and again regardless of if it fits the character or not.

I don't want to pick Fighter in PF2 and instantly have the community and even Devs expect "Oh he's going Two hander cause that's the only way to play that class at this point". I don't want to pick Wizard and the answer be "Oh pick X, Y, and Z" and have the community AND GAME tell me I'm bad if I don't.

Also; "We want better builds than others". Yeah. That's how the arms race begins.

Dark Archive

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

PF2 was never about being 'better' than PF1.

Sales numbers have been declining steadily for PF since 5e was introduced. To the point that the numbers from last year had Pathfinder dropping out of the top 5 on the ICv2 sales charts.

Paizo saw this coming a while back, and determined to cater to a customer who was interested in a simpler experience in chargen and play. A customer who needed to be guided through the experience and then have assistance with 'well, what should my character do now' from 1 to 20.

And so, we now have PF2, which caters to a customer who enjoys having many of their decisions made for them. Pick a given path in a class, and then at each level, there's only a couple of things to choose from, rather than the massive number of options available in PF1.

This probably makes characters easier to run though 1-20, from a 'how it's built' standpoint. I personally feel that it limits players from many classic combinations that have been built and played over the past couple of editions.

PF sales number did come up in Spring. It seems that they've been doing a good bit of pre-sales for PF2, while also selling off all the old PF1 hardcopy stock they have in the warehouse. Good for them, for the quarter.

If they can manage to pull in more new players than they loose from the PF1 base, then they'll have succeeded. I personally see PF2 as Paizo's 4e, but time will tell.

I will probably continue to pick up Adventure Path material, and just mod it to work with PF1. I wish them luck, as I like the writing, which I find to be superior to WotC.

As things stand today, however, I will not be transitioning the players at my table over to 2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MerlinCross wrote:
Squiggit wrote:

Even with the explanation I'm with Cyouni and Arachnofiend here. If a game developing optimization paths and preferred builds as it develops is what constitutes a failure... then the vast majority of products that exist or will ever exist are automatically failures.

That seems like a poor metric.

Optimization paths and preferred builds - okay.

Community and dev expectation that they are the absolutely only way to play the game - bad.

I'm tired of being told I need a barrel of happy sticks. I'm tired of being told I'm bad if I select a tier 1 and struggle. I'm tired that everyone rolls their eyes if I pick Rogue or a class-race that isn't optimal.

I'm tired that everyone seems to expect everyone to min max. Even the devs at this point.

And if PF2 shapes up the same way, then yes, I'll consider it a failure.

Arakasius wrote:
I disagree with that too. We absolutely want better builds than others. We want people who explore and theorycraft to find synergies that are hidden (and then of course make guides/posts/videos about it). If there wasn’t room to get superior (and by that also inferior) builds in PF2 then the game would imo be a failure. What they do need to do to succeed though is have the gap be narrower. Too often in PF1 one character would overshadow the table and make them useless. There was a hug gap between optimized and incorrectly built, but the bigger problem was the huge gap between optimized and averagely built.

I don't mind when people do that but I mind when people fully accept it as "The only way to play".

PF2 is a failure to me if it sells itself on all this 'customization' and "oh these are viable" only for the community to throw out 75% of it and keep playing with the same builds again and again regardless of if it fits the character or not.

I don't want to pick Fighter in PF2 and instantly have the community and even Devs expect "Oh he's going Two hander cause that's the only way to play that class at this...

Those are all organized play problems not problems with the game itself and that isn't going away. PF2 was made for PFS players, not me and others like me that run home games.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Translucent Wolf wrote:
And so, we now have PF2, which caters to a customer who enjoys having many of their decisions made for them. Pick a given path in a class, and then at each level, there's only a couple of things to choose from, rather than the massive number of options available in PF1.

That doesn't really seem like an accurate assessment. You're making one or more decisions on what to add to your character every level, which is kind of the opposite of "having their decisions made for them". If you were playing a class that didn't have talents the number of decisions you're making when you level up is higher than in 1e.

The number of options within each decision is reduced, but that has more to do with the amount of material that exists than the amount of choices you have to make.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PFRPGrognard wrote:
PF2 was made for PFS players, not me and others like me that run home games.

As someone who exclusively runs home games and doesn't go near PFS with a ten-foot cattle prod, lemme tell ya, this is assuming a great deal, and doing so incorrectly.


Home game and PFS users go to the same forums, same discussions, and same guides.

The only difference between the two is that home games dont have to follow a "standard of play". So they can change/add/remove any rule they want at any point in time as needed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

As stated earlier, Sajan was always Vudrani. But yeah, his new shirt looks weird. Overall I prefer the older art. Although I do think Seoni was absurdly over the top in her sexualization, and I find the new art to be an improvement. Such over the top cheesecake sometimes feels a bit insulting to me honestly. It sometimes feels like some exec somewhere is figuring the fan-base is just a bunch of adolescent boys who are easily swayed in their purchases by boobs. No, I don't think that was ever Paizo's intent, but it can be off-putting.

Ogres are still inbred with mutations (from the new bestiary): " Ogres practice incest regularly, believing that it makes for stronger familial bonds, and most ogres are misshapen or mutated from generations of inbreeding." Also lots of mention of their cruelty and how they mentally scar their captives. The artwork is a bit different, but I'd chalk that up to different artists unless we start seeing them portrayed differently consistently.

Goblins ate pickles all the way back in Burnt Offerings. The goblin ancestry is downplaying their nastier aspects in favor of zany ones, because that's the player focused side. But the bestiary entry still mentions stealing babies and has the goblin song with implicit baby eating and more explicit people eating "Chase the baby, catch the pup. Bonk the head to shut it up. Bones be cracked, flesh be stewed, We be goblins! You be food!"

I don't think the monsters are being sanitized as such. But there has been a trend over the years for Paizo to imply some of the more extreme and mature content more than to state it explicitly. Ogres were very explicitly rapey in PF1, in the PF2 bestiary entry, you have to read more between the lines for the sexual violence. This seems to me to be a good approach. That way they can have mature themes and content, while not rubbing people's faces in it. And those who don't want that kind of thing can just ignore or downplay the implications, while those who like it still have it around if they look. For Adventure Paths, this basically leaves the content rating up to the GM to a good extent.

As I'm currently running Carrion Crown, one of the main examples of implying mature content in my mind is from Haunting of Harrowstone (admittedly this is relatively older material)

Minor Haunting of Harrowstone Spoiler:
Near the end, you find the skeleton of the warden strapped to the rack where he was tortured by the inmates. His key-ring is laying in the pelvis of the skeleton, while the text just said the prisoners used his former symbol of authority as a tool to torture him with. They don't explicitly say "They shoved the key-ring up his rectum." But it's pretty clearly implied.

And back to the thread's topic of is PF2 better than PF1. Well that's clearly a subjective choice where everyone will have a personal answer based on their specific tastes. My reaction is mixed and unclear at the moment. There's a lot that I like, even love. But some significant aspects that I'm not happy with. Does the good outweigh the bad for me? I don't know yet. Very possibly yes, but I'll need to become more familiar with it before I can really make that judgement.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Translucent Wolf wrote:
And so, we now have PF2, which caters to a customer who enjoys having many of their decisions made for them. Pick a given path in a class, and then at each level, there's only a couple of things to choose from, rather than the massive number of options available in PF1.

That doesn't really seem like an accurate assessment. You're making one or more decisions on what to add to your character every level, which is kind of the opposite of "having their decisions made for them". If you were playing a class that didn't have talents the number of decisions you're making when you level up is higher than in 1e.

The number of options within each decision is reduced, but that has more to do with the amount of material that exists than the amount of choices you have to make.

Agreed. And I can't help but think what the reaction would be, had the chronology of PF1 and PF2 had been reversed.

Players would look at PF1 and say: "What? If I'm a barbarian I HAVE to get some generic damage reduction now!? If I'm a paladin I HAVE to be lawful good? What happened to my choices? PF is dead; it's catering to folks who like many of their decisions made for them!"


4 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?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnCap Dawg 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?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.

Already happening on reddit... every pf2e topic regardless of what it is is getting downvote swarmed :(

I have seen worse spelling and more logical fallacy on display than during the 3.5 to 4e period. Disgraceful (and this is coming from someone who was on the anti 4e side)

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

When 3ed d&d came out, it was so all around better than ad&d2 that we switched immediately and never looked back. When pathfinder 1 happened, it was basically just some good updates to the 3e system and we switched immediately again. Now with pathfinder 2, it's something different. It looks to be a good game, but it's not a straight upgrade, it's just different. As someone whose been playing for a long time now it's just... I don't see any good reason to change editions.
For new players, I'd definitely recommend pf2. For casual players too, or those who have not played a lot of pf1. However, I've been GMing games in basically the same rule set for the past 19 years and am very comfortable with its idiosyncrasies. I can run a better game using pf1 over pf2 because I understand the old tools and not the new ones. The new toolbox just doesn't do enough better or quicker to warrant the change for me, but if you are buying a set of tools for the first time, I definitely recommend the new ones.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BryonD wrote:

Shrug. I don't think that is at all accurate.

I seem to find that the "natural progression" theme is just a red herring constantly thrown up to focus the conversation on hypotheticals and avoid discussing the issues with the real game that does exist.

WotC has demonstrated that you can produce a game that fragments your base AND you can produce a game that pulls your base together. So, clearly, it is not unavoidable.

But, in the end, it seems we are in agreement that "alienating a chunk of prior fanbase" happened [I certainly do and you are labeling it "inevitable"] and I presume you agree that avoiding would be preferable.

Yes, I think it was inevitable and there are people who didn't enjoy the release of 5e (a minority obviously). 5es biggest success wasn't to pull together the base, but to expand it massively.

Also, I don't get the red herring part, but I see plenty of people here discussing and critiquing the game, while a couple of people derail discussions with the same talking points of what they perceive to be "the issues with the real game", without contributing anything of substance.


gnoams wrote:

When 3ed d&d came out, it was so all around better than ad&d2 that we switched immediately and never looked back. When pathfinder 1 happened, it was basically just some good updates to the 3e system and we switched immediately again. Now with pathfinder 2, it's something different. It looks to be a good game, but it's not a straight upgrade, it's just different. As someone whose been playing for a long time now it's just... I don't see any good reason to change editions.

For new players, I'd definitely recommend pf2. For casual players too, or those who have not played a lot of pf1. However, I've been GMing games in basically the same rule set for the past 19 years and am very comfortable with its idiosyncrasies. I can run a better game using pf1 over pf2 because I understand the old tools and not the new ones. The new toolbox just doesn't do enough better or quicker to warrant the change for me, but if you are buying a set of tools for the first time, I definitely recommend the new ones.

This is a stance I can actually get behind. I don't even think PF2 is a 'bad game' but it does nothing that says "Play me" to the point of not only switching systems but switching over to that(If I'm jumpping systems, I'm detouring to Shadowrun first).

For newer players, yeah I'd say give PF2 a shot but at the same time I don't see what makes PF2 really stand out from DnD 5E. Now that's not to say it's a clone of it but some things do remind me of DnD 5 that I don't like. Example; Some classes having to pick a certain focus after X level feels a lot like DnD 5E's "You're level 3, pick your actual build" idea. I didn't like that there, I don't like it here.

But I honestly can't say if it'll be better or not. It's certainly a different flavor and it might appeal more to new players and vets. Not me but hey, hope it works out well enough for Paizo to keep the lights on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2e is frustrating for me because I love the structure of the system, but if I played it would feel like I'd need to homebrew a lot of the specifics so I can't Personally justify playing it over other systems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm not switching systems, I plan on using both.

But mostly we play Starfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
AnCap Dawg 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?

Hey I have an idea! Let's invite an edition war! Those are always fun.

Already happening on reddit... every pf2e topic regardless of what it is is getting downvote swarmed :(

I have seen worse spelling and more logical fallacy on display than during the 3.5 to 4e period. Disgraceful (and this is coming from someone who was on the anti 4e side)

That's rediculus, they'res never any fightng on Reddit!


Doktor Weasel 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.

As stated earlier, Sajan was always Vudrani. But yeah, his new shirt looks weird. Overall I prefer the older art. Although I do think Seoni was absurdly over the top in her sexualization, and I find the new art to be an improvement. Such over the top cheesecake sometimes feels a bit insulting to me honestly. It sometimes feels like some exec somewhere is figuring the fan-base is just a bunch of adolescent boys who are easily swayed in their purchases by boobs. No, I don't think that was ever Paizo's intent, but it can be off-putting.

Ogres are still inbred with mutations (from the new bestiary): " Ogres practice incest regularly, believing that it makes for stronger familial bonds, and most ogres are misshapen or mutated from generations of inbreeding." Also lots of mention of their cruelty and how they mentally scar their captives. The artwork is a bit different, but I'd chalk that up to different artists unless we start seeing them portrayed differently...

I for one welcome our new Shakespearean Ogre Overlords! A little drama with our backwoods cannibalism never hurt anyone!

Except for maybe the person being cannibalized.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

To be fair, Pathfinder 2e doesn't have to beat PF1e lifetime sales. It just has to be more profitable than PF1e was in its later years and carve out a dedicated niche while being more accessible to newer players.

I cannot get newer players into PF1e games anymore because I tend to introduce them to 5e first and a PF1e character is way less flexible in play than a 5e character. Leading to character concepts either requiring a lot of rules mastery to play, or worse, leading to rules concepts that are just not viable even if you can technically play it.

(by cannot get, I mean people end up excited by the character creation and play for about 5-6 sessions and then would rather go back to 5e because it engages them more. Especially those who didn't go T1 casters)

Pathfinder 2e I believe can sidestep some of these issues. It won't ever overtake 5e barring some massive mistake on WotC's side of things, but hopefully it will find a strong niche.

How in the world is 5e more flexible and engaging than PF1? I found myself constantly feeling hamstrung in 5e regardless of class, compared to PF1.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
sherlock1701 wrote:
How in the world is 5e more flexible and engaging than PF1? I found myself constantly feeling hamstrung in 5e regardless of class, compared to PF1.

It's flexible in play, rather than in character building, and engaging in the sense you need a lot less investment and time into learning the rules to have fun.

I personally also find the lack of depth in character options, and especially in monster design less than ideal, but as sales indicate, we are in the minority in that regard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
How in the world is 5e more flexible and engaging than PF1? I found myself constantly feeling hamstrung in 5e regardless of class, compared to PF1.

It's flexible in play, rather than in character building, and engaging in the sense you need a lot less investment and time into learning the rules to have fun.

I personally also find the lack of depth in character options, and especially in monster design less than ideal, but as sales indicate, we are in the minority in that regard.

It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

Concentration as a mechanic innately limits flexibility in spell choice and usage. Same for the pathetic spell durations, effects, and lack of scaling and slots.

Bounded accuracy is a straightjacket that prevents character development and makes play feel grossly unsatisfying.

Only one reaction per round completely shuts down any reaction based play.

Lack of any add-on content leaves options feeling lacking.

Can scour books and guides for 10 to 15 hours and wind up with a character who is no better than your initial 2 hour pass.

Save every round on most debilitating effects means that they are minimally useful.

No access to magic items by default means you will rarely get the items you want, or be able to have a variety of fun toys.

Forced movement generally not interacting with effects that trigger on movement eradicated interesting combos.

There are other reasons but yeah, 5e is way less flexible in play and in build. A lot of these are gripes I have with the new system too (or have similar complaints about).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

YES! MUCH BETTER!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In a way 5e is like a mobile RPG. The rules are the bare basics, and there isn't much costumization, but it's so easy to play and has so many ads that millions will play it and find it fun. Heck, even has a sort of micro transaction model with how D&D beyond is set up (at least no gacha from what I saw).

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My view is this... It does not reflect others view, it is how I feel having played every version of D&D starting in 1979.

There are some good, there are some bad. What I like
Champion instead of Paladin. I like the fact that you can now be the "knight" and not have to be lawful good.

I like 3 actions (This will prevent those monks (I hated monkss from almost every version existing) from hitting 6X in a round and doing mass damage. They may still do mass damage, but they are not doing stunning fist all the time and hitting 6X

I like Cleric healing 1 action if you touch, 2 actions if you heal within 30 feet, and 3 actions to do a 30 to all

The break down of exploration, downtime (and I am drawing a blank on the third) Exploration is when your party is out doing just that, adventuring.

Then you have the downtime, when you are in a town, doing side work, healing.

Somethings I don't like
I miss the charts on character creation. It is all in text hidden. No more, your a blank, take +2 ere and here and -2 here. It seems to be more hunt to find

HP are all static. Your a Dwarf you get 10 HP, Your a fighter, you get 10 more. You raise to level 2, you get 10 more. 3rd level, here have 10 more. No more randomness, not everyone is the same

In the past you had fast, medium, and slow progression. Now you have 1000XP and you just went from level 3 to 4. Anther 1000 xp you are now 5.

I also do not like that by X levels you need to have X permanant magic items (This is not potions or things that you use up) If you run light magic worlds, that is not good. And players may complain saying... well the rules say this and that. Yes, you as a DM can control this, but it just adds more for the DM to manage in rules.

PF2 seems like it is designed for Paizo's world and it's not for outside of that world. It may not be that way, just seems this way to me.

I'm not sure how many of my ever shrinking group is going to want to dish out another $60 for this flimsy book, after spending years on 1st ed (Only needed 3 books but most had PH, DMG, MM, FF, UC, D&D), Then into 2nd ed with all their books, then 3.0, then 3.5 then PF1, (Most of use avoided 4, but some of us got PH, DMG, and MM), then into 5E (PH, DMG, and MM once again avoiding most of the other crap)

It gets old having to rebuy into a game and to shelve the others because no one wants to play it (Part of why my group is shrinking, they want to play ONLY 5E, not anything PF)

So, what it is worth, buy it ONLY if that is what it means to play. But if not, avoid it.


sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just some feedback after our 1st 2e session. It felt a lot better than the playtest ever did. I cannot pinpoint anything specific, but a lot of nice changes. It felt smoother as well.

So good job, looking forward to the next session.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things,because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Like each member of your team could do something cool to disadvantage that giant you are fighting,but each one past the first doesn't actually do anything, and worse no matter what you do its all cancelled by a single advantage. For all the freedom 5e gives you very quickly end up standing still and attacking.


Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).


Malk_Content wrote:
For all the freedom 5e gives you very quickly end up standing still and attacking.

Odd, I find the opposite. As movement is not an action and you can move freely while attacking, it has way more movement than any previous edition, especially 3rd Ed/PF1, with its stand-and-whack encouragement (Full attack).

I am very happy that PF2 has taken on Unchained's Revised Action Economy, that has definitely helped my 3rd Ed/PF1 games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).

But all the conditions largely give Disadvantage. Which means they don't actually stack in any meaningful way. You can do lots of different actions, but they don't actually mean anything because the end result is the same. Once an ally as disadvantaged an enemies attacks and defence there is no point to me doing anything more than hit it (hitting can be with spells and abilities but just hit nonetheless.)

As for moving in combat, that amounts to the same thing. Sure I can move freely between attacks, but that just means I get hit by AoO and the advantage is? Maybe if I'm faster than the enemy and have a range advantage it is nice but other than that? Like if the end state of the round is "me and the enemy are engaged in melee" and my moving didn't actually detriment the opposition in anyway (which because movement is free, probably didn't) the only thing me moving has done was let the enemy try for a free hit on me.


Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).
But all the conditions largely give Disadvantage. Which means they don't actually stack in any meaningful way. You can do lots of different actions, but they don't actually mean anything because the end result is the same.

That is absurd, which leads me to believe you are either totally ignorant of the rules of the game, or are deliberately spreading propaganda (an agenda). It's fine not to like a game, but to completely misrepresent it, is just not cricket.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Conditions in 5e that give either advantage or disadvantage:

Blinded, Charmed, Frightened, Invisible, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Stunned, Unconscious (not really counting this one of course but for completion's sake), and Exhaustion. The only condition that doesn't invoke the Advantage system that doesn't also just completely incapacitate the target is Grappled... which does nothing if the target wants to be in melee.


Arachnofiend wrote:

Conditions in 5e that give either advantage or disadvantage:

Blinded, Charmed, Frightened, Invisible, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Stunned, Unconscious (not really counting this one of course but for completion's sake), and Exhaustion.

That's not all they do, at all, this just confirms the dishonesty I suspected.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
sherlock1701 wrote:
It's far less flexible in play. A lack of codified options/listed rules for actions means that often you simply can't do things you could do in PF1, or that they'll be very subject to DM fiat.

What sort of actions/options do you feel are missing?

It seems to have most of what 3rd Ed/PF1 has (shoving, tripping, grappling, disarming, AoO), plus some nifty new Action options like Climb onto a Bigger Creature.

Not Sherlock but my problem is that while 5e lets you do lots of things, because they mostly confer one condition and that condition doesn't stack the options might as well not exist.

Hmm, not sure what you mean, not all results of an action inflict a condition (frightened, stunned, etc). Like, as far as stuff you can do, well, you pretty much have as many choices as PF1, you can trip, grapple, jump, overrun, shove, tumble, disarm, AoO, opposed rolls (contests), etc. Plus, there is more movement than any other edition (move freely while making attacks).
But all the conditions largely give Disadvantage. Which means they don't actually stack in any meaningful way. You can do lots of different actions, but they don't actually mean anything because the end result is the same.
That is absurd, which leads me to believe you are either totally ignorant of the rules of the game, or are deliberately spreading propaganda (an agenda). It's fine not to like a game, but to completely misrepresent it, is just not cricket.

I mean I'm looking at the list of conditions right now, what Arachnofiend above says is true. There is no point me dodging an enemy if they are frightened, there is no point me poisoning a creature if its already blinded. There is no point in me trying to gain MORE advantage if I have at least one already etc.

Now if you houserule that each instance of Advantage and Disadvantage only cancel out one of the other, then there is something to be said. But RAW is 1 disadvantage is functionally identical to 2,3... and the same is true for advantage.

If I've got a rule wrong let me know.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Conditions in 5e that give either advantage or disadvantage:

Blinded, Charmed, Frightened, Invisible, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Stunned, Unconscious (not really counting this one of course but for completion's sake), and Exhaustion.

That's not all they do, at all, this just confirms the dishonesty I suspected.

Yes some do more than the base, but many don't. And the core freedom of 5e is to let GMs apply disadvantage/advantage as the situation allows without needing explicit rules for it. But that freedom is largely meaningless because dis/adv is probably already in play.


Baby Samurai wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

Conditions in 5e that give either advantage or disadvantage:

Blinded, Charmed, Frightened, Invisible, Paralyzed, Petrified, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Stunned, Unconscious (not really counting this one of course but for completion's sake), and Exhaustion.

That's not all they do, at all, this just confirms the dishonesty I suspected.

Poisoned straight up does not have any bonus other than inflicting disadvantage. Prone, Restrained, Frightened, and Exhausted have the same issue as Grappled in that movement penalties are irrelevant to any enemy that wants to be in melee.

So I guess Blinded is pretty good on its own. All the other conditions take an enemy out of the fight entirely.

151 to 200 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