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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 311 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think the problem lies in thinking that one's opinions on a system, or subsystem, are objective truth rather than just opinions that not everyone will share.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Usually, if I say something is objectively true, I mean it in a cheeky, "obviously hyperbole" way. I was shocked to find out that Sherlock is actually the keeper of Plato's ideal game system.


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?

First post, so forgive me if I missed something patently obvious, but I have several 1st edition books, so I'm trying to find out if or to what extent 1st edition is convertible to 2nd. A cursory look through questions posted so far hasn't turned this up so I had to ask.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

On Bulk: It's an abstraction that is useful and easier to track and isn't a measure of mass; it's a measure of how hard something is to carry; and while it may have some weak spots with light bulk where you can carry 19 hatchets as easily as a spear, its more aimed towards making it so you can't carry 15 physical tables as easily as adventuring gear. So what bulk is a house, infinite unless you are some manner of giant, you can use pounds and ton for things where you need to know the mass of something but Pathfinder never really had a comprehensive system for engineering things, neither did any other direct descendant of old school DnD. If you ever really need exact mass, length, etc. for what's going into your games you care homebrewing heavily anyway (which is perfectly good and I encourage people to change the game to suit them) and could probably do away with bulk if you so wish. I've never played PFS but I imagine GM's there aren't letting you try and pick-up houses anyway so it's probably a non-issue there. Somethings do have odd Bulk for what they are but that's and entirely different issue than bulk itself being bad.

CRB Page 629 wrote:
Bulk - A value indicating an item’s size, weight, and general awkwardness. It takes 10 items of light Bulk to equal 1 Bulk, and 1,000 coins are 1 Bulk. A character becomes encumbered if they carry Bulk greater than 5 + their Str modifier, and they can’t carry more than 10 + their Str modifier.

As for the main point of this thread. A game can't be "better" than any other game in anyway other than subjectively and by general consensus of what people find subjectively better. A game can have better systems, it can have better coherence, it can have more polished stories and it can have many things like that but that doesn't make a "better" game. I still play Wolfenstein 3D and love it even though it may not be as technically well made as Fortnite or something else; does that make it a better game, yes, to me, does that make it a better game to someone that likes Fornite, no, to them.

Is PF2 a better game than PF1, the answer is yes, to some people and no to some other people. It's introduced many changes that I quite like and a small handful that I'm still Iffy about, and on the flip-side there are people that don't like those changes and wish it had stayed the same. Pathfinder 1 still exists and Paizo will keep selling PDFs for it until there is no longer a business case for it (which will likely never occur unless they go out of business), they aren't foolish enough to pull the PDF's from their store because they know what can happen when a business tries that. They will also sell whatever stock they have already printed and I'm fairly sure Erik Mona said they'll keep reprinting the soft cover CRB as long as it keeps selling. It has a decade of content, more than most people could ever play through in their lives and if people are disappointed by the fact that new content isn't being created for it anymore (by Paizo, 3PP still exist) they are going to be disappointed a lot in their life because things move on, grow, change and end. Doesn't mean you can't still play PF1, doesn't mean that PF1 was a bad game, most of the Devs for PF2 would be sad to hear if you think PF1 was bad because they spent a considerable amount working on it before PF1. If your sad that PFS no longer plays with PF1 rules or that it'll be harder to find a group, find solace in the fact that people still play AD&D home-games and the internet has plenty of people you can find, so you should still be able to find a PF1 home game for you with a little searching.

Lot's of Tabletop Role-playing Games exist, literally hundreds at this point, there is the right one out there for anyone. Give PF2 a chance if you can, but if PF1 or 5e or Fate or World of Darkness or any thing else is what you would prefer to play, go and play it. Other people having fun with a different system won't make yours less fun for you.

And for anyone who's problem with PF1 is that the game encourages new players, or makes things easier on people, includes more diversity, is "Politically Correct", or anything similar to that; PF2 probably isn't for you, Paizo does what it can to make this a hobby for everyone, and if that means that people that don't like that get upset, I for one couldn't care less.

As for something I like about this new system, Heritage feats. I know it has its detractors but choosing which thing my Halfling is good at for being a Halfling rather than just being given a bulk set of abilities made it feel more likely a Halfling, not less. My Halfing rogue knows about acrobatics, stealth and Halfing lore because he grew up listening to stories of Halfling folk heroes, that's the story in my head, if I had just been given a bulk set of abilities at level 1 without any choice I probably wouldn't have added that to my characters backstory. It would have just been another ability on my Character Sheet that I frequently forget about.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Templar Questor 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?

First post, so forgive me if I missed something patently obvious, but I have several 1st edition books, so I'm trying to find out if or to what extent 1st edition is convertible to 2nd. A cursory look through questions posted so far hasn't turned this up so I had to ask.

Stories and adventures mostly convert readily, simply replacing monsters with their PF2 version and adjusting treasure. Character types (like 'Fighter using a Greatsword') also convert pretty easily for the most part.

Specific mechanics or mechanical interactions don't convert at all.

It's a completely different system designed to tell the same kinds of stories, and with many of the same thematic options.


Squeakmaan wrote:
I think the problem lies in thinking that one's opinions on a system, or subsystem, are objective truth rather than just opinions that not everyone will share.

Ye gods, this distillation is genius to mine eyes.

I may just keep re-quoting this every 15-20 posts in this thread.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I bought both Core and Bestiary. Make me sad, but I tried to like PF 2e.

I compare to PF 1e and D&D 5e. While D&D 5e have better (modern) rules IHMO, PF 1e had better classes and monsters.

There is too many conditions and types/subtypes for everything. The bonuses and magical item inflation continued.

I think was regression compared to 1e. Should be a simplification and enhancement of 1st edition.

There is good and new things, yes, but I weighted the good and bad and I will stay with 1st edition for now.


To have read 2E's rules, I can say that the streamlined rules are extremely useful and less confusing.

Does it make it better? Not yet... as my major pet peeve with 2E is how they went back to square 1 instead of square 5 (out of 10 [years]).

You mean to tell me that the ONLY things worth converting to 2E for base rules were the Alchemist class, the Goblin race/ancestry and handuls of spells, feats and monsters?

Where are the planar scions as base ancestries? Where are the gunslinger, summoner, kineticist, magus, occultist and shifter? Where are the rest of the 1st Bestiary's monsters?

Right now, P2E feels more like a video game reboot with everything going back to their roots than a proper sequel in which everything you knew was carried over and optimized.

As I said, I love the new rules, but I hate the lack of options currently available.

Liberty's Edge

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

JiCi,
They probably wanted people to be able to pick up the Core Rulebook without having to resort to a forklift.
The book is large and heavy enough at the moment, including 5 years, half the lifetime of the entire PF1 ruleset would have doubled, at the very least, the weight.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
You mean to tell me that the ONLY things worth converting to 2E for base rules were the Alchemist class, the Goblin race/ancestry and handuls of spells, feats and monsters?

I think it makes sense that the core book is most concerned with the key things around which everything else has to be balanced.

In PF1, alchemist were a later add-on that did high damage against touch AC which most enemies just didn't have. So you have a class that'd do almost automatic damage. Definitely a design failure. We do want to have alchemists in our game, but this time we build the game with them in mind from the start.

Planar scions didn't cause nearly the balance problems that alchemists caused, so they're not critical to solve in the core rulebook. The one thing that annoyed people, their immunity to Charm/Dominate Person spells, isn't really a problem anymore since those spells have been made less picky.

If you look at the new core rulebook it's considerably thicker than the previous one. You can already simulate many of the previous hybrid classes with the new multiclassing system. I'd say we got a pretty good start here.


The task of isolating both versions from their past and only having the core rulebook in front of you is a tough one to put anyone up for. The quality of the core rulebook is unknown by itself, these things really come to life when you begin adding on top of it. Like an empty house, you only know what it is like to live in it when you have it full of furniture and few years of chores.

You don't start the ruleset with gunslingers, spell dueling and social combat. What is Pathfinder 2 like when it has atleast half of the books Pathfinder 1 has?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

For our group, PF2 is a better game in every way. The systems are easier to use and more fun as well (we love the crit/fumble system for example), and they finally got rid of lots of stupid old AD&D baggage. Since we play APs we also really appreciate that high level play now just plain works, where before it started to bog down at around level 12-13.

We mostly play core classes/races so the huge difference in material does not bother us, but if you/your players love cooking up combos out of the gazillion of ingredients Paizo has pumped out for the last ten years, PF2 might just be too sparse - at least for now. So then my advice my advice would be to try it, then go back to PF1 for a year, until the Advanced Player's Guide has been released for PF2 along with all the other new material along the way.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Paul Watson wrote:

JiCi,

They probably wanted people to be able to pick up the Core Rulebook without having to resort to a forklift.
The book is large and heavy enough at the moment, including 5 years, half the lifetime of the entire PF1 ruleset would have doubled, at the very least, the weight.

So that's the Core Book (576 pages)+

Gamesmastery Guide (320 pages)+
Advanced Player's Guide (336 pages)+
Ultimate Magic (256 pages)+
Ultimate Combat (256 pages)+
Advanced Race Guide (256 pages)+
Ultimate Equipment (400 pages)+
Ultimate Campaign (256 pages)

Pathfinder 2 Core Rules (640 pages), so just including everything from the rule book line, that's 2656 pages worth of stuff or about 4 times the size.
Being generous and ignoring Ultimate Campaign and Gamesmastery Guide as fairly rules light it's 2080 or 3 and a quarter times the size.
Weight aside (and that weight would count as a pretty damn good workout), that kind of workload increase would send Paizo staff into the looney bin double quick.
I can understand wanting many more options but that's a wee bit unrealistic.


Getting every rule is definetly not feasible (or sane for most companies). But, I feel that some were disappointed the options they liked didnt get a high priority. For example geniekin could easily work as half- heritages available to any race. Even just 1 geniekin heritage with a choice of element to determine pre-reqs would had worked.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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?

i would say it appears to be a better framework and appears like it will be missing many of th epf1 issuesand i am looking forward to what all comes next.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.


The ShadowShackleton wrote:

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.

Heh I saw 3.5 players still saying there wasn't enough content in PF1e two years ago.

I did however force a few through AoN feat lists and give them some comparative numerical lists vs 3.5 numerical lists to change their tune :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The ShadowShackleton wrote:

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.

I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
The ShadowShackleton wrote:

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.

I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.

Having taught new players, it is very new player friendly. Due to there being very few "wrong" choices you don't have to present them with everything at once. They literally only need to know the choice of options presented at every level. That plus "here is the one and only way every resolution mechanic is calculated" made it leaps and bounds easier than when I've tried to teach any 3.x Engine game.

Hell it was easier to teach than extremely narrative focused games like Vampire.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
The ShadowShackleton wrote:

It feels like a lot of things people don’t like will be resolved in a book or two. I saw a lot of the same with early pathfinder where it took a few years before many groups switched over from 3.5.

It’s early days.

For what it’s worth I think the new system will be a tremendous boon for introducing new players to the game.

I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.

I really don't see it. I'd say PF1 was much more byzantine. Lots of things that all work slightly differently and weird edge-case rules. After a decade my group still runs into weird situations where we have to look things up and then argue over them for way longer than it should take. PF2 is rather dense, with a lot of options, but the base rules are pretty simple and straight forward in comparison. Everything works in a consistant fashion everywhere (well Spell Levels are an odd man out, working differently from all other levels, but I'll leave that old Hobby Horse for another day). It's probably harder for old players to pick up than new ones, because you've got to get over how it used to be done and lose your initial assumptions. I think it was mentioned that the playtest data showed exactly that, new players were catching on very quickly, faster than the experienced ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I don’t know that I’d feel comfortable if I were a new DM with 4 new PCs. All the keywords, codified actions and conditions would intimidate me, I think.

I’d be happy as an experienced DM running a bunch of new gamers though.


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

I don’t know that I’d feel comfortable if I were a new DM with 4 new PCs. All the keywords, codified actions and conditions would intimidate me, I think.

I’d be happy as an experienced DM running a bunch of new gamers though.

I think the modern demographic of new gms will be quite comfortable with those things. Afterall they likely come from board or videogames, which have also been heavily codifying as a recent (5 years or so) trend.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yeah, you may well be right. I’m hardly the target demographic. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will go on record as saying, categorically, PF2 is a better designed game than PF1. It is original, unique, and yet still feels like THE game system to facilitate the exploration and continued growth of Golarion. It will need to grow and expand to be able to tell all of Golarion’s stories, but this is a framework that is leaps and bounds ahead of the old one for being able to do so.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I've just started getting aquainted with PF2, and I didn't do the playtest, but so far I'm encouraged.

What I'm looking for in the new system is a consistent set of meta-rules.

Meta-rules are the axioms of the world. They determine things like roughly how powerful should a nth level spell or ability be, or what can you expect from a feat. It underpins the world with a sanity which maintains suspension of disbelief (IMVHO).

This should stop min-maxing and other sorts of exploitations, and future proof the game as long as the axioms are never broken.

Looking at the way everything is so carefully "typed", it encourages me to think that a lot of time and effort has been put into these axioms. Going forwards, I hope the editorial team will be dilligent in ensuring that future rules of any sort stick to them.

Richard

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Better designed? Yes, of course. Better game? Don't know yet, need to play/run it first.

Also it doesn't matter because D&D 3E/3.5/PF1 is an awesome game system and that will never change. PF2 doesn't need to be better, it just need to be good enough.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
WormysQueue wrote:

Better designed? Yes, of course. Better game? Don't know yet, need to play/run it first.

Better designed? That's questionable. Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak. At least Pathfinder was designed to be "compatible with 3.5, but better. And it succeeded at that. Maybe it didn't go far enough, but it largely succeeded.

Depending how you look at it, you could say that in some ways, PF2 did manage to create a system that is easy for developers and GMs to tell the stories they want to tell, for instance.

A better game? Well, we shall see...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:


I do not think PF2 is new player friendly; it's very dense, byzantine, seems more like an advanced RPG.

Anecdotal experience here. I taught PF2e to a group of new players on the night and had them create their characters on the spot.

It was easy and they picked up the mechanics fairly quickly with less confusion than when they were learning 5e.

I taught the same group PF1e a bit later, they struggled over weird edge case rules. Had issues with building viable characters and didn't absorb the disconnected rule systems in play very well.

I even had one person who said they didn't like 5e because it was too complex say they really liked how Pathfinder 2e was so coherent and easy to understand.
Now, PF2e is a more complex game to learn than 5e. BUUTTTTT as a player being taught it doesn't seem like it because of how inter connected all the mechanics are.

For instance, learn the counteract rule? cool you now know the core math behind EVERY counteracting ability/spell in the game.


Wow, suddenly people having all this experience teaching these new players PF2 in the last 9 days, impressive.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, almost like the game being out allows people to play it or something. Pretty wild.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's terrible. Mind you I thought the playtest was terrible too, so there's not really any surprise I don't like the end product.

Specific things
PF1 casters were already weak compared to D&D did they really need weakening further?
Why do we need 10th level spells suddenly?

And the big one for me, which I also said in the playtest,
There is nothing in these rules that I think is better than PF1, there is only different, or worse. Different I can take or leave, worse I can just do without.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Wow, suddenly people having all this experience teaching these new players PF2 in the last 9 days, impressive.

Lets not veil it, want to call us liars go ahead.

Personally this is a game I've been following for over a year, of course I wanted to jump in as fast as possible. Oh and I've had my book for 15 days.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean, I just converted 4 level 8 characters this week and plan to start diving in with my group this weekend if possible. I also spent quite a lot of time putting together a custom character sheet, and formalizing house rules, so if I didn't have to do that I would have already tried to teach my group last weekend.

Edit: Oh, I did have time to teach my mom how to create a character in 2E on the weekend, and she said it was a breeze. She'd last played a little bit of 3rd edition about a decade ago.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NotBothered wrote:
PF1 casters were already weak comapred to D&D did they really need weakening further?
Huh?
Quote:
Why do we need 10th level spells suddenly?

Because they were cool. We had them in DnD but then some jerk went and killed the Goddess of Magic by being an idiot.


Rysky wrote:

We had them in DnD but then some jerk went and killed the Goddess of Magic by being an idiot.

Which time? I lost track of the number of times she died. Was it three or four altogether?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
NotBothered wrote:
Rysky wrote:

We had them in DnD but then some jerk went and killed the Goddess of Magic by being an idiot.

Which time? I lost track of the number of times she died. Was it three or four altogether?

I have no idea, just that it involved one of them.


NotBothered wrote:

I think it's terrible. Mind you I thought the playtest was terrible too, so there's not really any surprise I don't like the end product.

Specific things
PF1 casters were already weak compared to D&D did they really need weakening further?
Why do we need 10th level spells suddenly?

And the big one for me, which I also said in the playtest,
There is nothing in these rules that I think is better than PF1, there is only different, or worse. Different I can take or leave, worse I can just do without.

have you ever GMed a long lasting campaign in PF1....to level 15+?

or even played one from start to end?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dunno if you are still readying this thread OP - but here is an opinion from myself (and the group I play with all who *hated* the playtest).

We don't know yet - even with the book in hand - *so much* is different we just don't feel like we are going to know without giving it a shot.

As such we figure we'll try the first book of the AP - and 'test drive' it so to speak. Some of the things we think were outrageous still exist (Goblins went from +6 to hit, to +8 to hit - a new level 1 cleric made up had an AC of 16 - giving that -1 level goblin a 65% chance to hit a level 1 cleric) - however all that said we are willing to play it out to make any final determinations.

My personal feeling is - if money is tight - I'd wait. I don't believe any amount of math analysis is going to tell you if this game is good or not - that will really come down to playing it - and the adventures. We have a ton of Savage Worlds, Mutants and Masterminds, Fate, and Call of Cthulhu stuff, along with PF1 AP's we want to play (and I for one enjoy D&D 5e so I have a separate group for that)- so the question for us isn't that the new system is 'good' - it has to be *better* than those other systems at telling a story.

We'll try it though - hope that helps you make a decision.


IceniQueen wrote:

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...

Many good points, but there is a slow, medium, and fast track in the book. 800xp per level for fast, and 1200 for slow


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There may be thing I don't like on PF2 and others I need still be sold, but I think it can be said with safety that is a better game.
On the other side, while PF1 has problems and that is one of the reasons for PF2, reading some people seems a unplayable game, and while is sure not easy, it can be played at high level and enjoy it. I find untasteful the current desdain for PF1, honestly.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
Wow, suddenly people having all this experience teaching these new players PF2 in the last 9 days, impressive.

A few things

1) Many of us got our books early

2) The playtest existed, which was more complex to explain in many ways and people have experience in that. While there have been many changes to the benefit of the system it is not so different that having experience teaching the final version.

3) Yes, some of us have been excited and have active groups? Does that surprise you?

The Exchange

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Richard Crawford wrote:
Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak.

Not even remotely true. And that statement you made about PF 1 succeeding in being better than 3.5? Very questionable as well.The two biggest problems 3.5 had were CM/D and high level/epic gameplay. And contrary to PF 2, PF1 didn't even try and touch those two topics.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Yes, some of us have been excited and have active groups? Does that surprise you?

That I can buy, but not that PF2 is easier to teach than any previous edition of D&D/PF.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Baby Samurai wrote:
That I can buy, but not that PF2 is easier to teach than any previous edition of D&D/PF.

Well, you hate the system so that's not super surprising.


WormysQueue wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak.
Not even remotely true.

Oh, which of the stated design goals aren't?

WormysQueue wrote:

And that statement you made about PF 1 succeeding in being better than 3.5? Very questionable as well.The two biggest problems 3.5 had were CM/D and high level/epic gameplay. And contrary to PF 2, PF1 didn't even try and touch those two topics.

But Pathfinder did touch those two topics - many of the more "game-breaking" spells were nerfed (wild shape, Divine Power, Polymorph and their derivatives, Web, the Save-or-die spells, etc). Combined with buffs to the fighting classes and simplifying of feats like Power Attack.

The question of whether they went far enough is still open, of course. But they did make progress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
Baby Samurai wrote:
That I can buy, but not that PF2 is easier to teach than any previous edition of D&D/PF.
Well, you hate the system so that's not super surprising.

Ha, well let's not get hysterical, hates a strong word, and I have never said I hate it.

There's quite a bit I like, so far: the proficiency system (it inspired me to tinker with the proficiency Bonus of 5th Ed), action economy (though I have been a fan since Unchained's RAE), Monsters, Perception not being a skill; I've just not been cheerleading every aspect of it as some have for the past year or so.


For what little it counts, my players, most of them previously from 5e only, don't appear to have had much trouble picking up the rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Appletree wrote:
For what little it counts, my players, most of them previously from 5e only, don't appear to have had much trouble picking up the rules.

Liar! Pf2 is the most obscure tpg since Eclipse Phase. If you think it's easy you must be a blinded fanboy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Richard Crawford wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Richard Crawford wrote:
Design principles have always been wishy washy marketspeak.
Not even remotely true.

Oh, which of the stated design goals aren't?

Well, let's actually walk through each of them.

Quote:
Create a new edition of Pathfinder that's much simpler to learn and play—a core system that's easy to grasp but expandable—while remaining true to the spirit of what makes Pathfinder great: customization, flexibility of story, and rules that reward those who take the time to master them.

What's the issue this is specifically aimed to address? PF1 had the latter, but definitely not the former - it was customizable, but dear god I'd never want to teach it to someone new. The first campaign I played in was a bumbling mess of errors and characters were all the characters were barely effective despite us running on 25 point buy, and that was despite heavy research on some people's parts.

I'm also still learning things about some basic rules that I didn't know existed then, and that was quite a few years ago.

Quote:


Ensure that the new version of the game allows us to tell the same stories and share in the same worlds as the previous edition, but also makes room for new stories and new worlds wherever possible.

What's the issue here? Specifically, they wanted to make sure that it was the same game at its heart. If it suddenly turned into DnD 5e, that wouldn't fulfill this requirement, because that changes the stories told by a ridiculous amount.

Quote:
Work to incorporate the innovations of the past decade into the core engine of the game, allowing the best rules elements and discoveries we've made to have an integrated home in the new system (even if they aren't present in the initial book).

What's this specifically addressing? Well, as they've noted in quite a few interviews and panels, all the things they've built into PF1 over the years have been somewhat duct-taped onto the chassis, and as a result some of them don't handle well.

The go-to example here is archetypes. Some of them are great! Some of them are wizard and cleric, where there's barely anything to trade out, and as a result they're pretty much universally feast or famine (and usually the good ones are "you get something for spending practically nothing" - I'm looking at you, Exploiter Wizard).
The other example is gun archetypes, where because of how archetypes are designed they have to have an archetype for each class. This is inefficient and takes up a lot of space that they can use elsewhere, and is something they've mentioned they wanted to fix.

Quote:
Forge a more balanced play environment where every character has a chance to contribute to the adventure in a meaningful way by allowing characters to thrive in their defined role. Encourage characters to play to their strengths, while working with others to bolster their place in the group.

Anyone who's experienced the martial/caster disparity in PF1 will know why this is mentioned. Even in just the CRB, bard outshines rogue to such a level that the rogue doesn't have a place in the party. The wizard will outshine the rogue in a similar fashion - knock basically nullifies any investment the rogue's made into Disable Device.

Quote:
Make Pathfinder a game that's open and welcoming to all, no matter their background or experience.

Well, given some of the threads that have come up about this subject...I hope I don't have to say why this one needed to be mentioned. Let's just say some people are insistent on not being accepting of others.


Malk_Content wrote:
Appletree wrote:
For what little it counts, my players, most of them previously from 5e only, don't appear to have had much trouble picking up the rules.
Liar! Pf2 is the most obscure tpg since Eclipse Phase. If you think it's easy you must be a blinded fanboy.

Unfortunately I have no idea how complex Eclipse Phase is, I have never played it. The most complex I've played was Shadowrun 5, and I was one of the two party minmaxers. -_-

251 to 300 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