Count me an unlikely convert to 2e.


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

To be precise, I've been looking at book 5.

Book 5:
My first problem was seeing if I could give the ferrugons (rust devils) a thing besides their manticore-like spray. I think I ended up giving them a sort of 1-action effect that could buff the party but also applied similar effects to Paranoia to them.

My more recent trouble has been the nightwing and shadow giants. In addition to the castings of harm the nightwing has, they also get the ability to try counteracting versus the target's Will DC on a hit. Shadow giants were built using the cloud giant as a base, but I also gave them the cleric's darkness domain spells. Not really sure if that's enough.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Was that supposed to be in another thread?


Fumarole wrote:
Was that supposed to be in another thread?

The post above yours is linked to the discussion where the OP is talking about converting Hells Rebels


BellyBeard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:
BellyBeard wrote:
Free action spell from haste, I assume.
I thought haste was restricted to stride and strike, is there a work around or are we speaking the Bard?
Assume I'm wrong, and it's the other thing, since I actually don't know and was just guessing. :)

A Bard that selected the 18th level feat for using a Composition spell while permanently quickened does allow another cast of a spell, so theoretically:

A: Composition
A: Shield
A: True Strike
A: ????
R: Feather Fall (not on their list, but let's say they get it somehow)

I am not sure what other single action spells that aren't compositions logistically exist, but it could be possible.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Card Game, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:


I am not sure what other single action spells that aren't compositions logistically exist, but it could be possible.

One action Magic Missile (on list), comes to mind.

There's also 1 action Heal, though that's off-list.


First World Bard wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


I am not sure what other single action spells that aren't compositions logistically exist, but it could be possible.

One action Magic Missile (on list), comes to mind.

There's also 1 action Heal, though that's off-list.

Pick it and feather fall up with a primal sorcerer MC, plus guidance which is on list.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ideally, I'll end up getting to play some of both 1e and 2e. 2e is a different game, it is also fun, but by no means a better game. It is a sidegrade to the previous edition, being equally as flawed and full of bad decisions, but also equally full of good decisions and fun options. Whichever one you like more will be entirely subjective.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Ideally, I'll end up getting to play some of both 1e and 2e. 2e is a different game, it is also fun, but by no means a better game. It is a sidegrade to the previous edition, being equally as flawed and full of bad decisions, but also equally full of good decisions and fun options. Whichever one you like more will be entirely subjective.

I strongly agree. 2e is better casual game (casual isn't a pejorative) and 1e is a better serious (serious =\= better) game. They both have their positives. But casual gamers are more common, and casual games help being potential serious gamers into the community.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I dunno. The fact you guys think PF2e is a casual game would suggest you haven't played 5e. Now THAT is a (boring) casual game.

I can definitely agree it's a side grade, with some simplification. But I dont think it's a casual game by any stretch of the imagination.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:


I strongly agree. 2e is better casual game (casual isn't a pejorative) and 1e is a better serious (serious =\= better) game. They both have their positives. But casual gamers are more common, and casual games help being potential serious gamers into the community.

Define serious in this context please.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:


I strongly agree. 2e is better casual game (casual isn't a pejorative) and 1e is a better serious (serious =\= better) game. They both have their positives. But casual gamers are more common, and casual games help being potential serious gamers into the community.
Define serious in this context please.

Not wishing to put words in people’s mouths but at certain stages of 1E the players really need a lot of system knowledge / put a fair amount of time into the game to ensure they have bases covered e.g resistances (having them and overcoming them), different movement types etc

I had a group trigger a mass combat in a Book 4 of an AP and lack of flight and the right resistance spells made it an incredibly hard challenge

I even had someone recommend on the boards that equipment purchasing was so vital AND time consuming at this stage that it should be done out of session

It is past the point where they can just turn up and roll dice

So this is what I at least would consider a key difference between casual and “serious”


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hey!
Not only I was sceptical about PF2e, but despite my support to Paizo as a company, I basically ended up hating PF1. But I always reward courage, I'm a huge fan of 4e and its well defined actions/keywords approach, so I couldn't miss this.

PF2e borrows a lot from despised systems and it is the greatest thing they could do. Paizo had the courage to create their own beast, against all odds and I'm super happy to say that this game can easily be my go to for modern d20 gaming.

While I love storytelling oriented stuff like 13th AGE or the awesome tactics from 4e, I believe PF2 gets the best of all worlds.

I support 5e as well and I played it a lot, probably GMing it again in the future, but I've always felt a lack of personality and despite some excessive complications, I vastly favour courage over blandness.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Liking 4e and hating PF1 doesnt really make you an unlikely convert to PF2. In fact some might argue your the core audience :P

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would call PF2 a casual game in that you can make whatever character and the rules force you to create something viable (unlike PF1 where it is possible to make a wizard that can't cast his spells for example). The randomness is so prevalent due to the tight math that you can't be awesome, nor can you be terrible. Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle. For PF1 you could spend hours combing through rules to come up with good combinations, but in PF2 that fun/pain isn't there. This makes PF2 a game to jump in and play without requiring as much preparation time, which lends it to be more casual friendly.

You think PF1 is complex? You haven't played Hero system. Just because there are simpler games or more complicated games out there, does not preclude these games from also being considered simple or complicated. Simple/casual does not mean bad. There are many players and situations for which these are better. Complex is better for when you have a group of people with the time and interest to put in to it (I'll continue running pf1 for my home game), otherwise it is worse. For one offs, PFS, and kids, I would definitely say casual is better (I'll be playing pf2 for organized play and other public games at the game store).


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I think char gen is more casual but actual play is less. Pf1 was a game of strategy, you lined up all your ducks before a game and if you've done it right the obstacles dont matter. Pf2 is a game of tactics, you have to try to mess up the pregame but as shown by plenty of folks troubles on here, the in game stuff takes effort to make work.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
For PF1 you could spend hours combing through rules to come up with good combinations, but in PF2 that fun/pain isn't there.

I disagree.

If you compare Core to Core, PF2 easily has just as many options and far more combinations alone in MCD.

I agree that you do not have to spend a lot of time if you want to make a character viable, but I do not agree that investing that time to find meaningful combinations isn't a thing.

If anything, because of how much more balanced everything is, it makes choosing what combinations to use almost tougher, because it pretty much comes down to preference.

A low skill floor does not dictate a low skill ceiling.

You could argue complexity has gone down on the build side, but complexity on encounters has drastically increased. (Ninja'd by Malk)


gnoams wrote:
For PF1 you could spend hours combing through rules to come up with good combinations, but in PF2 that fun/pain isn't there. This makes PF2 a game to jump in and play without requiring as much preparation time, which lends it to be more casual friendly.

The game is barely out, so it makes sense that there's not as many options to comb through. So it may be more "casual" (accessible might be a better word) than 1e at the moment, but in a decade could be just as complex. Nothing inherent to the rules makes 1e that much more complicated to play, it's just that system mastery is harder to achieve with such a large system. We'll see how the system develops through the years.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Casual and hardcore I think are always the wrong terms for what we're talking about, since you can do anything casually, and you can get way too into anything.

Where I think PF2 shines in comparison to PF1 is "the barrier to entry and general cognitive overhead is a lot lower." Where I think PF1 has a significant edge is that the mechanics are rewarding to optimizers in a way PF2's likely never will be.

Neither is more casual than any other. But someone who is casually into the game is going to be a lot more successful in one than the other.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there is plenty of system mastery (perhaps a bit too much) to the game. It is just mostly weighted towards the round by round decisions you make. The tight math and degrees of success built into the game means small differences in the math have huge impacts. Things like knowing when to feint or demoralize, flanking, targeting weak saves, exploiting a monster's weakness, timing your attacks and spells, and the like all make a huge difference on success or failure.

Here exploration, build and spell selection can have a significant impact on success, but it is not the same sort of impact it had in First Edition where it decided success or failure all on its own. It's more that your build provides you with a set of tools that you have to utilize to win the day. Some builds will be more suited to a given encounter than another, but you still have to execute. As an example a monk who has elemental fist has the ability to pretty much target a wide variety of monster weaknesses with their ki strike, but actually executing on it involve a series of choices made while playing the game that they would not have access to with a different build.

Character build in this game is more like building a Magic deck. You can build the best deck you know how to, but you still have to play the game, might get some bad draws, or run into decks that have strong counters to what you can do. Does that make any sense?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle.

This is a rather “glass half empty” view of things...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
If you compare Core to Core, PF2 easily has just as many options and far more combinations alone in MCD.

665,280 possible MC combinations to be exact.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

I dunno. The fact you guys think PF2e is a casual game would suggest you haven't played 5e. Now THAT is a (boring) casual game.

I can definitely agree it's a side grade, with some simplification. But I dont think it's a casual game by any stretch of the imagination.

It's definitely a simplification, and that's a good thing. I wouldn't get to play pathfinder if it was 1e levels of complex.

2e is on the more serious end of casual, but it's still casual. You could make a strong argument that it's square in the middle, but I don't.

I actually like 5e. It knows what it wants to be and does it well. For my very casual players it's perfect. It's also very easily modded.

EDIT: I regret involving the terms casual and serious (I tend to use them in regards to gamers than systems) but please be clear on this: I don't think any type of gamer is bad, unless you're a jerk who takes away other's fun.

The simplicity, intuitiveness, and streamlined nature sold me on 2e and are a point in its favor. 2e isn't everyone's cup of tea, but not everyone likes the same things. Down the path of edition wars lies madness.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 I would say is less complex but has more depth than PF1. The rules are much more unified, you're not dedicated headspace to a grappling flowchart anymore nor are you tracking BAB or asking your GM for help figuring out how to multiclass. The rules complexity has undeniably been dialed back, and the end result is a game that you can actually wrap your head around.

But the actual depth of the system seems to have expanded significantly. The 3 action system combined with a host of action-oriented feats and spells has created immense tactical variety. The prevalance of full attacks and generally applicable spells in PF1 meant most turns resembled one another, without even the dimension of positioning mattering much because no one would move unless they absolutely had to. PF2 meanwhile has feats that can purchase actions that can combo into other actions. MAP and the two-action nature of most spells means there's usually a choice every turn where you do something of actual tactical significance, at least repositioning, swapping out weapons, making intimidation checks, what have you. And not making use of these new tactics will utterly crsh a party.

And because there's all this depth in play, there's some amount of depth in chargen. Feat chains are largely gone, instead offering mostly a la carte tactical options rather than straight upgrades to numbers. The number of arguably optimal builds therefore has increased significantly, almost to the point where you have to be sandbagging to create a character that is objectively suboptimal. Chargen is easier overall to understand, sure, but there's far more numerous optimal playstyles and fewer cookie-cutters that aren't sandbagging just to be different.

For those familiar with collectible card games, I'd say PF1's metagame would be like a CCG meta dominated by netdecks that are largely easy to pilot. You could certainly build your own character/deck and there's a huge amount of system mastery that can go into that deck/character building, but someone more clever than you has already posted a build online that is generally better and is almost braindead to pilot. In fact, most characters/decks are braindead to pilot, most of the "skill" in the game is just in the building. Fun for some, not so much others.

With PF2, I would say it's more like a Living Card Game with a small, heavily structured deck size and well-balanced cards and everything is actually hard to pilot. You're not choosing from the whole catalogue of cards/feats when choosing to fill slots in your deck/build, but choosing subsets, and the balance of your choices makes it very hard to make an especially bad or good deck/character. But because you just have way more choices each turn, there's no real autopilot, you have to think during each of your turns and work to alter the conditions of the board/encounter to be more favorable to you.

PF1's playstyle has a certain appeal to it, and more power to folk who prefer that more chargen-focused stuff. But I feel moving the system mastery from chargen to actual play was a good move. Pathfinder is inherently cooperative, so having a "high skill ceiling" relative to the floor is very undesirable, that's where you start overshadowing other players and it gets less fun, there's no matchmaking like in a video game to make sure you're always playing with similarly skilled people. Moving the skill from chargen to actual play is, aside from being more fun in my opinion, allows players to more naturally cooperate and share tactics so that the group as a whole is playing on a similar level, and players can more quickly iterate on what works and what doesn't (they can even respec their build to a limited degree to adapt). A newer player can get better at Pathfinder pretty quickly, and it feels more like victories are actually earned

That's what I mean by "deep but not complex." PF2 is still more complex than 5e because it's hard to be as simple as 5e and still have real character customization or involved tactical combat, but a lot of PF1's complexity added no depth whatsoever or even actively removed depth (like, again, grappling, which could be boiled own to just a flowchart and required such heavy investment that it just never came up for most PC's). Characters were harder to figure out how to build, but feat chains removed the actual variation quite a bit and the competition between combat relevant feats and everything else meant you weren't often making serious decisions between more utility-focused feats. Choice of race/ancestry was essentially automatic due to the wonkier attribute system. CMB to trip attempts did not make PF1 a better game.

PF2's probably not a game I would throw at someone if they're particularly flighty or expect TTRPG's to be very rules light, it's probably the crunchiest TTRPG with mass appeal made in the last decade. It's only really getting outcrunched by clusterf!&#s of systems like Shadowrun, Eclipse Phase, and maybe proper wargames. It's not a game you can just start playing within 5 minutes while barely mentioning the rules, and chargen is next to impossible in that timeframe without pregens.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

In PF1 I would come up with a character concept, then it would take a fair amount of time to figure out the combination of abilities to make the rules support this concept. So I want to play a bumbling halfling that succeeds on dumb luck. Through a combination of classes, feats, and items I make a character with exceptionally high defenses that gives his teammates bonus defenses and redirects enemy attacks. It's fun, different, extremely effective, and took several hours of research to make function. Now I couldn't make that character in PF2, but I couldn't make that character with just the CRB in pf1 either. So lets do something simpler and just make a spear wielding warrior.
In PF1, you need to plan out all those right feat chains and maybe you multiclass a bit to combine some abilities from multiple classes and if you put in that time then you make the most amazing spear wielder ever. If you don't then you miss miss miss and do piddly damage and the game mechanics aren't supporting your concept of awesome spear fighter. In PF2 it just works out of the box, you don't need to invest all that time to make your character good. Not that you can't spend time to optimize, but the reward for that time is a 5-10% increase in effectiveness, rather than the 200-300% increase you got in pf1. So it supports being casual in that you don't feel punished for being a casual player, unlike pf1.

Lanathar wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle.
This is a rather “glass half empty” view of things...

Not the way I see it.

In Pathfinder 1, you are John Wick slaughtering your way through hordes of hapless foes. Only the badest enemies hold the slightest challenge for you and even then it is a foregone conclusion. You are the best, they aren't.

In Pathfinder 2, you are John McClane. You get the ever living @#%! beaten out of you over and over, but you die hard, you keep going, you get up each time they knock you down, and you persevere in spite of overwhelming odds.

Coming from the super heroes of PF1, it feels like your characters really suck in PF2. That's not necessarily a bad thing, the game mechanics just make for the telling of a different sort of story. At least, thus is my experience with the system so far.


I think gnomes you are just failing to adjust encounters. Pf1 was easy mode so you could hit above cr all the time. Perhaps shifting the level for enemies down by one will help get back that feel.


Cyouni wrote:

To be precise, I've been looking at book 5.

** spoiler omitted **

Tangent from the main thread but one of the creatures you mention here is now on AON

(I couldn’t seem to do a PM)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

PF2 I would say is less complex but has more depth than PF1. The rules are much more unified, you're not dedicated headspace to a grappling flowchart anymore nor are you tracking BAB or asking your GM for help figuring out how to multiclass. The rules complexity has undeniably been dialed back, and the end result is a game that you can actually wrap your head around.

But the actual depth of the system seems to have expanded significantly. The 3 action system combined with a host of action-oriented feats and spells has created immense tactical variety. The prevalance of full attacks and generally applicable spells in PF1 meant most turns resembled one another, without even the dimension of positioning mattering much because no one would move unless they absolutely had to. PF2 meanwhile has feats that can purchase actions that can combo into other actions. MAP and the two-action nature of most spells means there's usually a choice every turn where you do something of actual tactical significance, at least repositioning, swapping out weapons, making intimidation checks, what have you. And not making use of these new tactics will utterly crsh a party.

And because there's all this depth in play, there's some amount of depth in chargen. Feat chains are largely gone, instead offering mostly a la carte tactical options rather than straight upgrades to numbers. The number of arguably optimal builds therefore has increased significantly, almost to the point where you have to be sandbagging to create a character that is objectively suboptimal. Chargen is easier overall to understand, sure, but there's far more numerous optimal playstyles and fewer cookie-cutters that aren't sandbagging just to be different.

For those familiar with collectible card games, I'd say PF1's metagame would be like a CCG meta dominated by netdecks that are largely easy to pilot. You could certainly build your own character/deck and there's a huge amount of system mastery that can go into that deck/character building, but...

More and more, I've started to consider PF1 characters to be wind up toys you set down and unleash in battle. How well you built the thing determines how well it does.

A PF2 character is something you need to actually play in combat, rather than only play outside combat during roleplay and the like.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Helmic wrote:

For those familiar with collectible card games, I'd say PF1's metagame would be like a CCG meta dominated by netdecks that are largely easy to pilot. You could certainly build your own character/deck and there's a huge amount of system mastery that can go into that deck/character building, but someone more clever than you has already posted a build online that is generally better and is almost braindead to pilot. In fact, most characters/decks are braindead to pilot, most of the "skill" in the game is just in the building. Fun for some, not so much others.

With PF2, I would say it's more like a Living Card Game with a small, heavily structured deck size and well-balanced cards and everything is actually hard to pilot. You're not choosing from the whole catalogue of cards/feats when choosing to fill slots in your deck/build, but choosing subsets, and the balance of your choices makes it very hard to make an especially bad or good deck/character. But because you just have way more choices each turn, there's no real autopilot, you have to think during each of your turns and work to alter the conditions of the board/encounter to be more favorable to you.

PF1's playstyle has a certain appeal to it, and more power to folk who prefer that more chargen-focused stuff. But I feel moving the system mastery from chargen to actual play was a good move. Pathfinder is inherently cooperative, so having a "high skill ceiling" relative to the floor is very undesirable, that's where you start overshadowing other players and it gets less fun, there's no matchmaking like in a video game to make sure you're always playing with similarly skilled people. Moving the skill from chargen to actual play is, aside from being more fun in my opinion, allows players to more naturally cooperate and share tactics so that the group as a whole is playing on a similar level, and players can more quickly iterate on what works and what doesn't (they can even respec their build to a limited degree to adapt). A newer player can get better at Pathfinder pretty quickly, and it feels more like victories are actually earned

This.

Well-articulated.
The analogy had not occurred to me before reading this.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
I think gnomes you are just failing to adjust encounters. Pf1 was easy mode so you could hit above cr all the time. Perhaps shifting the level for enemies down by one will help get back that feel.

My Pf2 experience thus far is from paizo published scenarios only. I think if I were to run my own thing, I'd be using much easier enemies for first level, and drop all the DCs by 4 or so. And perhaps it is just their authors who fail to understand the new system and given experience they will bring things down to be easier. Time will tell.

Silver Crusade

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

In PF1 you win or lose combat at character generation and advancement. If you do it right and your buddies do it right, you win every non-rigged combat short of rare losing of initiative to a full caster and failing to save against some SoD/SoS.

In PF2, that ain't the case and your tactics and choices during the fact matter as much, if not more, than your choices made during leveling up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.

So in amongst all the people complaining about how the game us brutally hard you somehow come out with the reading that you always succeed?

I can't remember if this is a troll alias or not.


PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.

Not even remotely true at all. Where does this statement come from?


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

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.

PF1: Follow the accepted meta, build characters based on guides --> breeze through everything.

PF2: Make build choices based on personal preference --> pay attention and use your brain in combat or die.

Sounds like PF1 has more people being the same and always succeeding.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:

Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

Gonna take a hard pass on it. Don't care for what's been done to combat in the slightest. It's been watered down much too much.

Not even remotely true at all. Where does this statement come from?

Clearly, it's from someone who has never played the game and thus has no credibility whatsoever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Lanathar wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Everyone just sucks equally somewhere in the middle.
This is a rather “glass half empty” view of things...

Not the way I see it.

In Pathfinder 1, you are John Wick slaughtering your way through hordes of hapless foes. Only the badest enemies hold the slightest challenge for you and even then it is a foregone conclusion. You are the best, they aren't.

In Pathfinder 2, you are John McClane. You get the ever living @#%! beaten out of you over and over, but you die hard, you keep going, you get up each time they knock you down, and you persevere in spite of overwhelming odds.

Coming from the super heroes of PF1, it feels like your characters really suck in PF2. That's not necessarily a bad thing, the game mechanics just make for the telling of a different sort of story. At least, thus is my experience with the system so far.

This is pretty on spot. Level 1 is so far fun. I don't expect levels 8+ to be as fun as in PF1.

Silver Crusade

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

Anybody who says that every character in PF2 is the same should hover over to Ravingdorks Character Emporium thread and see what RD was able to build using just the CRB. And if you can say one thing about Ravingdork it's that he never skipped his time crafting his PCs.

Or you can be the hammer and everything about PF2 is a nail, I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can't say I agree with everything folks are saying about 1e or 2e. 1e is a great game with so many options it's often overwhelming and very tactical combat (optimizing is hardly unique to 1e, and as Paizo publishes products 2e will suffer the same issues... eventually). The point of this thread is not to disparage 1e. I still love it.

I just also have fallen in love with 2e, but for different reasons. Like 1e, 2e is hardly a perfect game (even just the core mechanic). Both systems set out to solve different issues, and both have done an excellent job of it.

I have my issues with both. But a player sitting at my table in 1e who thinks they deserve to win and won't be met with a challenge because they printed an outdated Treantmonk's guide, they're in for a rough time. I'd expect the same. Spam the same spell/feat combo/item/combat routine all day and expect a TPK.

In the same way, not every combat in 2e needs to be a grueling miss fest. I've had lots of fun fighting technically underpowered encounters that were still tactical and complex.

Overexaggerating the qualities of one or the other feels like a waste of time. 2e is less tactical than 1e, but 1e has way more wargame blood in it's veins. 1e has way more options, but it's also got 10+ years of lead time. 2e has a lot of character options and cool stuff to do in combat, but it's 1 book. In 10 years, we can compare which system is better and we can have a new round of complaints about 3e :)

I guess I'm saying loving 2e doesn't mean hating 1e. 1e isn't everyone's cup of tea, but neither is 2e.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the complaints about "lack of character diversity" are ultimately misplaced. What I think is really going on here is- in PF1, when you were making choices for your character there were right choices and there were wrong choices; avoiding the bad choices and making the good choices makes you feel smart.

PF2 doesn't really had bad choices you can make, which has the benefit of it being hard to accidentally make a bad character, but does not provide that endorphin rush all the people who read all the guides are seeking.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

In PF1 you win or lose combat at character generation and advancement. If you do it right and your buddies do it right, you win every non-rigged combat short of rare losing of initiative to a full caster and failing to save against some SoD/SoS.

In PF2, that ain't the case and your tactics and choices during the fact matter as much, if not more, than your choices made during leveling up.

Indeed, it is like saying chess is a casual game because all you do is setup pieces on a board. Tell that to a grandmaster and the AI that try to beat them.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gorbacz wrote:

Anybody who says that every character in PF2 is the same should hover over to Ravingdorks Character Emporium thread and see what RD was able to build using just the CRB. And if you can say one thing about Ravingdork it's that he never skipped his time crafting his PCs.

Or you can be the hammer and everything about PF2 is a nail, I guess.

Thanks Gorbacz!

Here's a little link for anyone who is interested in checking it out:

RAVINGDORK'S CRAZY CHARACTER EMPORIUM


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't even say pf2 is less war gamey than pf1. I'd just compare them to different war games. Pf1 is like Warhammer, you have thousands of points and you can tailor your army down to single point desicions about which model has a buckler vs having a spear. But after you've set up the battlefield you are fairly restricted in options.

Pf2 is more like a malifaux or warmahordes. You have less points and each expenditure is a significant portion of those points, but there is more to do in the battle with even the simplest of units having multiple options.


Lanathar wrote:
Cyouni wrote:

To be precise, I've been looking at book 5.

** spoiler omitted **

Tangent from the main thread but one of the creatures you mention here is now on AON

(I couldn’t seem to do a PM)

Ooh, I appreciate it. Glad the players delayed just enough that they didn't run into that last session, then.

That one ability was one I was unsure of whether to replicate or not (as that ability was something that was hit/miss on whether it was removed or not). Everything else looks pretty similar to what I ended up putting together.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The first tabletop miniatures wargame I played was Warzone: Mutant Chronicles (from back in the 90s), in which each of your guys got 3 actions a turn (except some heroes or big monsters might get more). So when I first heard about the Pf2 mechanic I was oh, like Warzone, but apparently nobody else remembers that game. I think I had a point but... oh well.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Malk_Content wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

So in amongst all the people complaining about how the game is brutally hard you somehow come out with the reading that you always succeed?

Maybe this meant, "In PF2, you always succeed at making viable characters. A real RPG is one where if you make single mistake in your build you can get stuck with a useless PC holding the group back. PF2 has taken all the fear, tension and excitement out of character generation by turning it into something anyone can do."


Matthew Downie wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

So in amongst all the people complaining about how the game is brutally hard you somehow come out with the reading that you always succeed?

Maybe this meant, "In PF2, you always succeed at making viable characters. A real RPG is one where if you make single mistake in your build you can get stuck with a useless PC holding the group back. PF2 has taken all the fear, tension and excitement out of character generation by turning it into something anyone can do."

There are still totally trap options, extremely situational feats, and ways to build am ineffective character. PF2e requires significantly less system knowledge to create an effective character, but it still has a floor.

The higher floor and lower roof (good things, in my opinion) mean there's less of a disparity between party members. Building a unoptimized fighter in 1e isn't actually a problem until you a druid or summoner completely overshadowing them. Unless you're playing an AP, encounters aren't fixed and a good GM adjusts the game to their party anyway.

It's just that can be a nightmare in 1e when you have 2 absolute optimizers and 2 narrative first players. True story.


Artofregicide wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
PFRPGrognard wrote:
Yeah. Everyone is the same in PF2 so you always succeed. No need to worry.

So in amongst all the people complaining about how the game is brutally hard you somehow come out with the reading that you always succeed?

Maybe this meant, "In PF2, you always succeed at making viable characters. A real RPG is one where if you make single mistake in your build you can get stuck with a useless PC holding the group back. PF2 has taken all the fear, tension and excitement out of character generation by turning it into something anyone can do."

There are still totally trap options, extremely situational feats, and ways to build am ineffective character. PF2e requires significantly less system knowledge to create an effective character, but it still has a floor.

The higher floor and lower roof (good things, in my opinion) mean there's less of a disparity between party members. Building a unoptimized fighter in 1e isn't actually a problem until you a druid or summoner completely overshadowing them. Unless you're playing an AP, encounters aren't fixed and a good GM adjusts the game to their party anyway.

It's just that can be a nightmare in 1e when you have 2 absolute optimizers and 2 narrative first players. True story.

Yes balancing for widely divergent power level within a party can be an absolute nightmare in 1E.


Artofregicide wrote:
Building a unoptimized fighter in 1e isn't actually a problem until you a druid or summoner completely overshadowing them. Unless you're playing an AP, encounters aren't fixed and a good GM adjusts the game to their party anyway.

Though if the GM isn't adjusting encounters, for reasons of time or gaming philosophy ("It's your job to keep the party alive, not mine."), then for every unoptimized PC you need an optimized PC to balance out the party and prevent TPK. Not that this does anything to prevent player frustration...


Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For me, the question is not whether I will convert to 2e but when. Clearly, my group wants to finish our current 1e campaign. After that, the Player Companion Chronicle of Legends has some options that I would like to try out in the next campaign. By the end of that next campaign, 2e should have enough material out to be a better choice than yet another 1e campaign.


Malk_Content wrote:
I can't remember if this is a troll alias or not.

Successful Troll can confirm is successful alias.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Count me an unlikely convert to 2e. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.