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


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

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

Appletree wrote:
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. -_-

My personal lookup of Eclipse Phase indicates it's hilariously simple. Their sarcasm isn't conveyed well in text.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cyouni wrote:
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.

I think 5th Ed is more amenable to telling stories in Golarion than PF2, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed/PF1 Lite.


Cyouni wrote:
Appletree wrote:
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. -_-
My personal lookup of Eclipse Phase indicates it's hilariously simple. Their sarcasm isn't conveyed well in text.

Oh, thanks.


Baby Samurai wrote:
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.

So what was the point of your post saying "suddenly people have had experience teaching Pf2e after only 9 days" then?

The game has more coherent game design principles, as I explained.

PF1e has a bunch of systems that were developed with different math and advancement systems in mind, some interacted, others did not and some had conditional interaction. It makes it muccchhhh harder to teach to a new player.

PF2e you teach a mechanical concept and when that player knows the mechanical concept (through themselves or through another player) then it is easy to reference the other times the core of that mechanic is used elsewhere.

There is more consistency and coherence in design. This is a fact, whether that makes it a better system or not is up to personal preferences/desires but that fact also makes it easier to teach. Even simple things like calling attacks "strike" makes it less confusing for people who have to refe3rence a rule.
Reflecting on 5e, you should see how many confused queries were sent to JC and MM over "what counted as an attack" and "I am attacking something, does that count as an attack roll?"
Did they do it perfectly? nah, but they did a better job than PF1e did.

It still makes me irritated that 3.0 was designed with trap options intentionally.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
PF1e has a bunch of systems that were developed with different math and advancement systems in mind, some interacted, others did not and some had conditional interaction.

What do you mean by all these different systems?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
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.

I wish I could get my group interested in Eclipse Phase. So much cool stuff, although the system might be a little lot clunky. The concepts are awesome though with resleeving tech, cortical stacks, post scarcity economies, uplifts and lots of semi-hard SF. And also more gonzo things that result from that like Meathab, the Scum with stuff like their Swarm Cat races and RMGCNN.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, My group is dying... FAST. No one want so go to PF2 in the group, they don't want to go to 5e, they want to stay on PF1, and to top it off, no one outside of my dying group wants to play PF1 or PF2

While I prefer PF1, I still have 2 campaigns being run, and was in the middle of 1 I was playing on. Cannot convert the current play on any of them.

Might aw well just give up and hide in a hole or go play 5e at a LGS (Which I hate going to as none of them are good in my local area)

Sigh... It's been a fun 10 years


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
IceniQueen wrote:

Sadly, My group is dying... FAST. No one want so go to PF2 in the group, they don't want to go to 5e, they want to stay on PF1, and to top it off, no one outside of my dying group wants to play PF1 or PF2

While I prefer PF1, I still have 2 campaigns being run, and was in the middle of 1 I was playing on. Cannot convert the current play on any of them.

Might aw well just give up and hide in a hole or go play 5e at a LGS (Which I hate going to as none of them are good in my local area)

Sigh... It's been a fun 10 years

...

I would think you have enough PF1/easily converted 3.5 material to last another fifty years at this point...

If your group doesn't want to switch, they don't have to.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Better game?

Hum tricky question. Guess it depends on what you are looking for. I can say I don't see myself ever playing 2E. I lurk here just to get a general idea about it, I hear about far more things I hate than things I like.

With this said, I did manage to keep my group grounded on PF1 for now too, so I'm not as affect as some others whose group decided to move on to it.

Design wise I don't see 2E as better either. It would be like comparing a duck and a shark. Both touch the water, but both seek to do completely different things.

Liking one certanly doesn't mean you will like/Support the other.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Baby Samurai wrote:
Cyouni wrote:
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.
I think 5th Ed is more amenable to telling stories in Golarion than PF2, as 5th Ed is sort of a 3rd Ed/PF1 Lite.

The shallower power scale is most problematic to me (as someone who has now run a couple of APs in 5E).

Early 5E characters (3rd level) are much more powerful than early PF1 characters but late 5E characters are much less powerful than late PF1 characters.

Golarion stories have generally been that zero-to-hero style and the vast difference in scope of action across the various levels is difficult to model in 5E in my opinion.

Paizo Employee Customer Service & Community Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Closed.

301 to 311 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