Tell me why I should switch from PF1 to PF2

[Malk_Content]

Artofregicide wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

... they've been using PF1e-like tactics not much more complicated than "hit it until it dies".

I hear this a lot about 1e, and it's never been my experience except with very unimaginative GMs. I mean, most combats boil down to dealing hp damage but in most of my experience combat has been just as dynamic as 2e.

The big difference is that tactical variation is an emergent property of pf2s mechanics. Yeah good gming can add tactical spice to pf1 (although a lot of that is through contriving scenarios that hamper player's go to options) the same is true of all rpgs. Having it be a core part of the game means that gm spice goes further and it is still tactical without it.

Eg I'm actually happy using random encounters in pf2 because they will be an interesting gameplay experience.

[MaxAstro]

Artofregicide wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

... they've been using PF1e-like tactics not much more complicated than "hit it until it dies".

I hear this a lot about 1e, and it's never been my experience except with very unimaginative GMs. I mean, most combats boil down to dealing hp damage but in most of my experience combat has been just as dynamic as 2e.

I should have specified "level 1 tactics".

Sure, at higher levels in PF1e the party can come up with some crazy tactics to faceroll everything - my Hell's Rebels group put together an abuse of teamwork feats that was as hilarious as it was overpowered.

But low levels of PF1e do tend to be a bit more boring, and I was expecting the same from PF2e - was pleasantly surprised that doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, my point was more that in PF1e, once you find tactics that work, you almost never have to adapt them to your enemies; good tactics tend to work on everything.

[Crayon]

Artofregicide wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

... they've been using PF1e-like tactics not much more complicated than "hit it until it dies".

I hear this a lot about 1e, and it's never been my experience except with very unimaginative GMs. I mean, most combats boil down to dealing hp damage but in most of my experience combat has been just as dynamic as 2e.

That was always my favourite part of PF1. Combat is always boring regardless of system, but fast and simple trumps slow and complicated.

[Malk_Content]

If you dislike combat I'm not sure I'd ever recommend anything in the dnd lineage. Almost no other series of games dedicate as much of their rules and character focus to it (I only say almost not because I know of any game that does, but recognise that such a game might exist.)

[Temperans]

Like Warhammer?

[Malk_Content]

Temperans wrote:

Like Warhammer?

I've not played the warhammer rpg. But I imagine it is likely combat focussed yes.

[Malk_Content]

Temperans wrote:

Like Warhammer?

Never played or read it. Having played the war game I can assume its heavily combat focused but couldn't say for sure. Doesn't hugely deteact from my point that if you dont like combat anything dnd is probably the wrong game.

[Bluenose]

Malk_Content wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Like Warhammer?

Never played or read it. Having played the war game I can assume its heavily combat focused but couldn't say for sure. Doesn't hugely deteact from my point that if you don't like combat anything dnd is probably the wrong game.

The "classic" WFRPG campaign is The Enemy Within. Shadows over Bogenhafen is the first part, and it's largely an investigation/mystery scenario with very few fights. Death on the Reik is the second part, where the PCs inherit a trading barge and end up using it to move up and down the river making deals while discovering clues to another threat. Power Behind the Throne and Something Rotten in Kislev also are more about investigation with not a huge amount of combat. Empire in Flames does have rather a lot, though by that stage of their careers the PCs should be more able to handle it. There are a few adventures that focus more on combat, but most involve a lot less than you get in Paizo Adventure Paths.

[Bandw2]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

Artofregicide wrote:

MaxAstro wrote:

... they've been using PF1e-like tactics not much more complicated than "hit it until it dies".

I hear this a lot about 1e, and it's never been my experience except with very unimaginative GMs. I mean, most combats boil down to dealing hp damage but in most of my experience combat has been just as dynamic as 2e.

My experience of playing 3.x since the early days of 3.0 was... You build a character to be good at 1-3 things depending on how strong the class is. Then every combat is an attempt to do that one good thing.

It isn't much to do with GM interaction, but rather viable options available to a player at any one time.

I am not going to say PF2e is a revelation in this respect, but it is a bit looser than PF1e allows for on a pure mechanical level especially when it comes to martials.

That is to say that I believe that in PF1e a fight's outcome is more rooted in character creation strategies than moment to moment tactical acumen.

i think this is the real thing casters had over martials, playing my wizard in my current 1e game is definitely doing more than just 1-3 specific things. he's a divination wizard so inside of combat he has a very generalist bag of tricks, a few pits, some fire balls, some illusion spells, etc.

a lot i can do in any given turn.