So Who Is Still Playing Pathfinder 1st Edition


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

501 to 550 of 761 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure, but what gives that game its wider appeal?

A more streamlined system, less complex or annoying rules, and a much larger appeal to beginners, since it's so much easier to learn. See the success of D&D 5e, which is orders of magnitude less complex than 3.5 but flows much more smoothly and is far easier for beginners to get into.

From what I can tell, that's the direction Paizo wanted to take 2e. It remains more complex than 5e, but many of the changes have come in the form of making the classes more balanced, lowering the power divide between martials and casters, and making gameplay and character building overall more intuitive. That may not be "perfect" in the eyes of people (like me) who actually enjoy the insane complexity and ridiculous power that you can achieve in 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, but to others, it may be a vastly more enjoyable system.

Also see the ability of fighters and the like to do much more than charge and full attack- there are options in 2e that did not exist, or were not easily accessible, in 1e. A game can contain more, or simply improved, options without being complex.

I don't think that "technically perfect" or "better rules" applies at all to this comparison. There is no strictly objective way to make a game like Pathfinder better, hence all the rabid arguments over the two editions that spring up so frequently.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheGreatWot wrote:

Sure, but what gives that game its wider appeal?

A more streamlined system, less complex or annoying rules, and a much larger appeal to beginners, since it's so much easier to learn. See the success of D&D 5e, which is orders of magnitude less complex than 3.5 but flows much more smoothly and is far easier for beginners to get into.

From what I can tell, that's the direction Paizo wanted to take 2e. It remains more complex than 5e, but many of the changes have come in the form of making the classes more balanced, lowering the power divide between martials and casters, and making gameplay and character building overall more intuitive. That may not be "perfect" in the eyes of people (like me) who actually enjoy the insane complexity and ridiculous power that you can achieve in 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e, but to others, it may be a vastly more enjoyable system.

Also see the ability of fighters and the like to do much more than charge and full attack- there are options in 2e that did not exist, or were not easily accessible, in 1e. A game can contain more, or simply improved, options without being complex.

I don't think that "technically perfect" or "better rules" applies at all to this comparison. There is no strictly objective way to make a game like Pathfinder better, hence all the rabid arguments over the two editions that spring up so frequently.

And again I ask how is it simpler, a more streamlined system? How are its rules less complex or annoying?

Is it easier for newcomers? I’ve watched newcomers to 5e flounder in confusion at the system and struggle to figure out how to do things.
Does there need to be more balance between martial and spellcaster? I’ve seen many spellcasters completely overwhelmed by martial characters. What options exist in 2e that didn’t in 1e? Fighters have always had many options other than charge and full-attack so I don’t see any improvement.
You are just asserting these things without giving real examples, if the game really does have these improved qualities then they should be easy to put on display.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The1Ryu wrote:
And again I ask how is it simpler, a more streamlined system? How are its rules less complex or annoying?

Fine, here you go. Here's a list of some changes that make gameplay simpler, more intuitive and less bloated or confusing.

1. Combat maneuvers don't require feats.
2. Moving and then making effective attacks is no longer super difficult due to the 3 action system, which streamlines combat overall. You no longer have to have 13 int and two feats to try and trip someone.
3. Several skills have been consolidated.
4. Nearly everything is a feat now- you no longer have a ton of static class features, and instead choose feats for them.
5. Spell slots are set, not increased by casting stat.
6. You have a single AC score, not three.
7. Magic items and their slots are simplified, as are the bonuses they grant.
8. There are no longer ten thousand types of bonuses (profane, sacred, circumstance, enhancement, deflection...)
9. There are only four spell lists.

These things are not "better" or "worse", they serve to make the game more streamlined and balanced- you are less likely to see Pun-Pun, and less likely to feel useless if you pick what was once a suboptimal class. The system is more accessible to new players, though it of course contains its own complexities. In 1e, you do have options- a great breadth of options.

If you could let go of the rabid 2e hate that I see so often- that I once held myself- you would know these things, and might be able to appreciate some parts of system, even if you don't favor it over 1e.

I myself enjoy 1e far more than 2e, but I don't hate 2e, and I don't ignore its benefits. Just because people can struggle to learn a system does not mean that it was not designed to be more accessible than the one that predated it. Most people will pick up 5e more easily than 3.5, even if 5e is difficult for some.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Pf2 is easier for new players. There is a uniformity to the pf2 rules that makes them a bit more intuitive than pf1 is.

The difference between an optimized and a suboptimal character is narrow in pf2, while it is vast in pf1. Making a character in pf2 is quick, there's a lot less choices to consider, and you can just make a 1st level character and level as you go without fear of losing out. In pf1, planning your character to every level is part of optimization and you will be unable to take most options if you don't build for them, leaving an unplanned character far weaker.

The actions system is simple up front, do three things on your turn. There are complexities to it, but they can be explained later. PF1 action system is complex up front and requires a bit more explanation to get started. Pf2 actions also lends itself to a more mobile fight, which can feel more dynamic and exciting.

If none of this makes sense to you and you won't take other peoples' word for their experiences with the system, then you need to actually go read it and try it out yourself.

All that said, I still prefer playing pf1. I'm willing to use the clunkier old rules because I find the characters to be more interesting. I enjoy planning builds, which is something that pf2 lacks (purposefully as not requiring planning makes the game more balanced and accessible). I also don't mind imbalance, especially when it is supporting verisimilitude. PF2 puts too much emphasis on balance imo, and I think parts of the game suffer because of that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gnoams wrote:
Pf2 is easier for new players. There is a uniformity to the pf2 rules that makes them a bit more intuitive than pf1 is.

Again there are no examples here, just assertions. How is making characters in 2e faster when you have to pick all your class features? How is the optimal/suboptimal gap smaller? Optimizing any character takes planning that’s not unique to 1e. You can do three things a turn in 1e: move, standard, and swift action. How is that more complex? How is 2e less complex? Why do I have to take an action to defend myself with a shield?

I have read and played these rules I fail to see how they make the game better, they just force me, the GM, to make more rulings and interpret the rules. However I can fall back into established ruling from older systems, new players don’t have that benefit. That dependency doesn’t make the game better, but does create more problems via conflicting interpretations of the new less precise rules. However that experience is irrelevant to the conversation, if you make an assertion it’s on you to provide examples to prove that assertion.

Silver Crusade

The1Ryu wrote:
gnoams wrote:
Pf2 is easier for new players. There is a uniformity to the pf2 rules that makes them a bit more intuitive than pf1 is.
Again there are no examples here, just assertions. How is making characters in 2e faster when you have to pick all your class features?
Though I don't care for the name the ABC process results in much faster characters for me since I'm finagling with point boy, I build my character around their backstory and the stats add themselves.
Quote:
How is the optimal/suboptimal gap smaller? Optimizing any character takes planning that’s not unique to 1e.
There's not a "you're completely screwed if you pick this" option and the ceiling is much lower so you can't really optimize to the point of making encounters/other PCs unnecessary.
Quote:


You can do three things a turn in 1e: move, standard, and swift action. How is that more complex? How is 2e less complex?

In P1 those actions could only be spent on those things, or they could be combined, except when they couldn't

In P2 pretty much everything is a flat action, not you move so you can't attack. It's you have 3 Actions, you can spend them on whatever you want and aren't cut off from entire strategies just cause you moved 10ft that round.

Quote:
Why do I have to take an action to defend myself with a shield?
The math is tighter and shields are more involved this edition rather than just being armor number 2.
Quote:


I have read and played these rules I fail to see how they make the game better, they just force me, the GM, to make more rulings and interpret the rules.

That's a good thing.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

How am I agreeing with Rysky and Gorbaz!? Am I having that nightmare again!?

In seriousness, I appreciate everyone trying to be civil here when dealing with a poster who is clearly new to posting expectations on these forums. The Paizo forums genuinely are a great place.

My advice to The1Ryu is to take a step back and breathe. We're not here to battle you or attack you. And threads aren't a contest.

I want to see this particular thread stay open so we can look back and still see people playing PF1e years later.

But to address the PF1e vs. PF2e question, I think they're both good but in different ways and for different reasons.

And yes, there are many games that have simple mechanics that lead to deep, complex strategy. Like chess. Or Battle for Wesnoth. You're really missing out of you haven't experienced this.

So yeah, we're not your enemies. You're not winning any arguments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Getting back to the thread title, I’m GMing two in-person campaigns and a couple of PbP games. For the in-person games, I’m running Curse of the Crimson Throne and a slightly homebrewed mash-up of several Paizo 3.5 era adventures. I’m just lucky to be in area of the world where coronavirus hasn’t hit hard. Online, I’m running some Season Zero PFS—it’s really interesting to see how much the setting, encounter design, and writing styles have changed over the past decade. I’m also running Doom Comes to Dustpawn and thinking allowing six PCs in an adventure designed for 4 has had predictable results :)

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You remember that one scene, in Iron Man 2, where Black Widow beats up a hallway full of security guards, while that one dude struggles to take down one of them?

In pf1, you can make a character in 15 minutes, and you'll be that dude. If you spend 3 hours on that character, you can be Black Widow.

In pf2, 3 minutes or 3 hours, you're all still that dude. It's a level playing field, which makes it a lot more balanced game, but I kinda like playing Black Widow.


gnoams wrote:

You remember that one scene, in Iron Man 2, where Black Widow beats up a hallway full of security guards, while that one dude struggles to take down one of them?

In pf1, you can make a character in 15 minutes, and you'll be that dude. If you spend 3 hours on that character, you can be Black Widow.

In pf2, 3 minutes or 3 hours, you're all still that dude. It's a level playing field, which makes it a lot more balanced game, but I kinda like playing Black Widow.

I think that was agent Coulson, but I could wrong.

I'm just being pedantic here, but just than printing a premade there's no way I could create a PF1e or PF2e character in 15 minutes. And I write statblocks for fun.

If you're talking about optimization, my concern is that you either overshadow the group, force the GM to adjust the encounters so they're harder, or both.

That said, you can't beat the feeling of stepping away from a completed PF1e character sheet. I once spent a week creating a 13th level wizard who was a blast to play.


But to the thread topic, here's my update:

Running Strange Aeons Book 2 in PF1e, Reign of Winter Book 1 in PF1e, Hell's Rebels in PF2e, Starfinder Homebrew campaign, and playing in a 5e Homebrew campaign. I also off and on am running my spouse through a mythic solo Wrath of the Righteous, they're still in Book 1.


Artofregicide wrote:
Running Strange Aeons Book 2 in PF1e, Reign of Winter Book 1 in PF1e, Hell's Rebels in PF2e, Starfinder Homebrew campaign, and playing in a 5e Homebrew campaign. I also off and on am running my spouse through a mythic solo Wrath of the Righteous, they're still in Book 1.

Hey, you forgot one! Where's my shameless plug?

Jon Brazer Enterprises

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
I think that was agent Coulson, but I could wrong.

Coulson knew BW and what she could do. IIRC it was Jon Favreau's character, Hogan.

Silver Crusade

Yep.

501 to 550 of 761 << first < prev | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So Who Is Still Playing Pathfinder 1st Edition All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.