So Who Is Still Playing Pathfinder 1st Edition


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 761 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really sure why folks who think Pathfinder 1e is dead (or should be) are on this forum at all. Like, if that's your opinion, great, but clearly it's not shared here.

Do you really think you'll convince anyone to stop playing the games they enjoy because you made a snarky quip? It just doesn't feel positive and constructive.

Overall, this thread is posters talking about their 1e and less and less folks complaining that PF2e exists. Which is good!

Ranting aside, I've decided to run Reign of Winter in 1e instead of 2e. We may switch at a later date. Yet to be seen.

Still running 1 player gestalt run of WotR for my spouse.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Artofregicide wrote:
I'm not really sure why folks who think Pathfinder 1e is dead (or should be) are on this forum at all. Like, if that's your opinion, great, but clearly it's not shared here.

For the same reason people post about how 2E shouldn't exist.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven’t seen a post that 2E shouldn’t exist for a long time. Of course, I no longer go to those boards. I think a second edition was inevitable. It just should have been more backwards compatible with 1E. Changing to be more like 4th D&D was an odd decision.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Yes, it was popular for certain reasons, certain reasons that don’t exist anymore as DND 5e and Starfinder game out.

Assuming I've understood your post correctly, this is mostly incorrect.

Firstly, conflating the popularity of SF (which is a game I love) or even PF2e (another game I love) with D&D 5e (a game I'm okay with) is misleading.

D&D 5e took the market by force. 5e has Critical Role. The closest that Pathfinder has is the Glass Cannon Network.

But 5e also introduced a ton of casual gamers to the hobby, which is great.

The Dark Horse in all of this is the Indie game market, who have split the hobby's focus even further.

There's also a ton of people still playing AD&D, Traveller, and White Wolf games and a billion others. I bet there are still D&D 4e tables.

Stop reducing a complex topic down to a misleading simplification. There are still a lot of die-hard PF1e fans, and even if you don't agree with them (which is fine) you should still respect their opinions (and they yours).

Toxicity, not diversity, kills the hobby.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
I'm not really sure why folks who think Pathfinder 1e is dead (or should be) are on this forum at all. Like, if that's your opinion, great, but clearly it's not shared here.
For the same reason people post about how 2E shouldn't exist.

I mean, what Melkiador said. But even so, one wrong doesn't justify another.

Shadow Lodge

One wrong isn't going to stop another either.


My GM is starting up a game of Tyrant's grasp on Fantasy Grounds. After sinking my teeth in to 2e (And absolutely loving it), it is nice to go back to the wealth of options in PF1. I am making a Wayang Arcanist (School Savant) with the Shadow subschool and amateur investigator. Essentially an insufferable know-it-all. Lots of cool options, but there are those moments of "Oh yeah, [this pf1 thing] sucks".

Still, as a man that enjoys Shadowrun, I'm okay with some crappy things. PF1 and PF2 will both be enjoyed by me for years to come. Hell, my PF1 collection isn't quite complete, either.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Still planning to run RotR, but currently on hold for obvious reasons. Playing through the Emerald Spire online to tide me over.

Regarding the recent spate of posts: Is there a mute function on these forums? Some posters strike me as consistently unhelpful and antagonistic and it'd be great to filter them out. Failing that, perhaps they could comport themselves with more dignity and stick to forums for games they actually enjoy?

Silver Crusade

Artofregicide wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Yes, it was popular for certain reasons, certain reasons that don’t exist anymore as DND 5e and Starfinder game out.

Assuming I've understood your post correctly, this is mostly incorrect.

Firstly, conflating the popularity of SF (which is a game I love) or even PF2e (another game I love) with D&D 5e (a game I'm okay with) is misleading.

D&D 5e took the market by force. 5e has Critical Role. The closest that Pathfinder has is the Glass Cannon Network.

But 5e also introduced a ton of casual gamers to the hobby, which is great.

The Dark Horse in all of this is the Indie game market, who have split the hobby's focus even further.

There's also a ton of people still playing AD&D, Traveller, and White Wolf games and a billion others. I bet there are still D&D 4e tables.

Stop reducing a complex topic down to a misleading simplification. There are still a lot of die-hard PF1e fans, and even if you don't agree with them (which is fine) you should still respect their opinions (and they yours).

Toxicity, not diversity, kills the hobby.

You did not understand it all, granted it was vague.

I’m not conflating P2 and SF with DnD5, I’m not sure how you got that even with my rather vague post?

You then proceed to list what I was actually talking about, P1 was (even more) popular due to having to compete less appealing options, with DnD5 and SF and other games out that isn’t the case anymore.

I also don’t disagree with anyone who still plays P1, I still play P1.

Most of my posts in here have been with addressing and interacting with incorrect assumptions and flat out falsehoods I believe (this thread has been up awhile though).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Tsukiyo wrote:


Regarding the recent spate of posts: Is there a mute function on these forums? Some posters strike me as consistently unhelpful and antagonistic and it'd be great to filter them out. Failing that, perhaps they could comport themselves with more dignity and stick to forums for games they actually enjoy?

I don't think so. If you find one, let me know.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm still running two PF1 games and enjoying them, so no dice on sitting this one out.

The fact that I'm enjoying them does not preclude the fact that I'm of opinion that a) PF1 falls apart, especially at higher levels and is a mind-bending chore to GM and b) it's a dead system, on its way to obscurity.

But yes, I'm still playing it! I'm sure I'll get now cuzzly wuzzies from ya'll and Dragon78 will favourite this post =)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The fact that I'm enjoying them does not preclude the fact that I'm of opinion that a) PF1 falls apart, especially at higher levels and is a mind-bending chore to GM and b) it's a dead system, on its way to obscurity.

I would put money down that it remains more popular than most older systems. Having stuff be freely available is very appealing to people.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I should have made it clearer: financial obscurity - people still play 2e and there's the whole OSR movement that's even bringing money into people's pockets, but it won't feed a 100-people company anymore.

It's important because a lot of people seem to go "fine, you could do a new edition, but why won't keep doing stuff for the old one?" - same as why WotC isn't putting out 3.5 content despite people still playing it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The fact that I'm enjoying them does not preclude the fact that I'm of opinion that a) PF1 falls apart, especially at higher levels and is a mind-bending chore to GM and b) it's a dead system, on its way to obscurity.

Well, I agree to a), but since these problems have been known for a while, there are solutions to them. More HP for both sides, banning a few options, focusing on (rather) simple foes and some Roll20 scripts works for our campaign - my players are at level 18 now. The fixes shouldn't be necessary, but can be considered the bill for having so many options. Details on the fixes:

Spoiler:
We started with full HD for everyone, for a more tactical game, but currently I consider switching to double standard HP - it's more fair for creatures with high Con, Toughness etc. and fights rocket-tag further.

Dazing Spell... doesn't exist. Several battlefield control spells had to go, especially if they don't allow a save or take out a creature for the entire fight. Or worse, multiple (mass icy prison, I am looking at you).

I pretty much stopped building high-level casters, instead I pull big creatures from the Bestiaries, augment existing simple creatures with additional HD (such as hellhounds or demilichs) or add a few class levels.

Especially for the attacking routine, with all those bonuses that could be activated or not. Thanks to one of the players.

When it comes to the dead system (I guess you mean "no new rules from Paizo"), some GMs are actually relieved they don't have to deal with new stuff anymore. Now they can work their way through the pile of material they didn't check out yet, feeling more and more in control. And there is the good old escalation of commitment: After spending so much time with learning all the rules, some people feel it would be a waste to forget about all that and move on to another system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I should have made it clearer: financial obscurity - people still play 2e and there's the whole OSR movement that's even bringing money into people's pockets, but it won't feed a 100-people company anymore.

It's important because a lot of people seem to go "fine, you could do a new edition, but why won't keep doing stuff for the old one?" - same as why WotC isn't putting out 3.5 content despite people still playing it.

That said, WotC has gone and put lots of their old stuff up for sale as PDFs on DrivethruRPG.

1st edition through to 4th you can still buy it.
I bought the Night Below to convert into a Pathfinder Campaign.

Heck they have Gamma World and Boot Hill there too.

Nobody has to move on to anything, continuing to sell the electronic copies doesn't cost the company anything and they can even include Print on Demand options.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
Tsukiyo wrote:


Regarding the recent spate of posts: Is there a mute function on these forums? Some posters strike me as consistently unhelpful and antagonistic and it'd be great to filter them out. Failing that, perhaps they could comport themselves with more dignity and stick to forums for games they actually enjoy?
I don't think so. If you find one, let me know.

Ignore is a wonderful thing.

I actually don't know if it still works though - I did use it for a long time though, just to filter out some of the worst. But then I started to develop an internal filter, and now I just don't see some posters posts... so I guess I have modified my internal filters.

At one time, before I found it, I was at the stage of giving up on the boards, and finding the Ignore V5 actually enabled me to remain on-line and active in the community... so I hope it still works.


Wow, you loose power for a day or so, and everyone starts posting again;)

Jon Brazer Enterprises

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

I should have made it clearer: financial obscurity - people still play 2e and there's the whole OSR movement that's even bringing money into people's pockets, but it won't feed a 100-people company anymore.

It's important because a lot of people seem to go "fine, you could do a new edition, but why won't keep doing stuff for the old one?" - same as why WotC isn't putting out 3.5 content despite people still playing it.

It will be very good for a small company like Jon Brazer Enterprises that is continuing to support the game—which if I may make a shameless plug—you can do right here: (Paizo store link)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Still playing, still writing adventures for, and inventing some amusing things in first edition Pathfinder


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Toxie2725 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Toxie2725 wrote:

We're sticking with pf1. Well, actually we JUST converted from 3.5!

That said,v2 has some interesting things but because of how v2 has treated wild shape and magic in general we're not switching.

A small aside, but I cannot for the life of me understand walking away wholesale from a successful product like 1e. It's good to expand, but many people are going to stick with 1e...

You actually have your answer in your post, you just started Pathfinder 1, the designers have had to deal with that ruleset for over a decade, which was an evolution of a different company’s ruleset rather than something truly their own.

Also how successful, and continued success, is a question that also factored into them starting a new edition.

It's one thing to start something new, and quite another to abandon it altogether. 3.5/pathfinder etc have been popular for thirty years. It's popular for a reason.

So is 5e, and it has ditched 3.5, shot it repeatedly in the head and let it die by the wayside.

Also, 3.5 dates to 2000, so it's 20 years.

Well, one would hope that Paizo learned from the mistakes of Wizards.

Also, 3.0 came out in 2000. 3.5 Came out in 2003. I was exaggerating for effect.

Silver Crusade

(If you’re intentionally exaggerating for effect then you should exaggerate i.e say half-a century or something, just saying :3)

And with the amount of money 5e is raking in, that’s a wonderful “mistake” that I’m sure they’re happy with and Paizo would be more than happy to have a “mistake” like that as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The 4E thing is because of the homogenization. The classes gain class feats at the same levels. It feels very plug and play. Like 4E.

Silver Crusade

Reminds me more of Star Wars Saga, which I have no doubt also inspired DnD4.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My only real problem with PF2e is going back and playing 'core' rules again, after being able to enjoy the marvelous diversity of PF1e.

5 years from now...if PF2/Paizo is still a thing...maybe they will have released enough content for me to find it engaging.

None of the current playable options really spark my interest, most of them are the same ones I have been playing for the last 40 years...the Alchemist is new at least, just not my style. None of the classes scheduled for release at GenCon really appeal to me either, so at a minimum, I'm looking at 2+ years from its original release before Paizo releases a class I actually care about...and that is if I get lucky and they put a class I like in next years book...if not, then it will be 3 (or maybe even more) before I actually care about PF2e.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
The 4E thing is because of the homogenization. The classes gain class feats at the same levels. It feels very plug and play. Like 4E.

Also +level to everything, and 3 bonus types. OTOH D&D 4e powers did more (if less than PF1/D&D 3.x) and PF2 feels more mobile with the 3 actions thing.


avr wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The 4E thing is because of the homogenization. The classes gain class feats at the same levels. It feels very plug and play. Like 4E.
Also +level to everything, and 3 bonus types. OTOH D&D 4e powers did more (if less than PF1/D&D 3.x) and PF2 feels more mobile with the 3 actions thing.

Except neither D&D 4e nor PF2 add level to everything. PF2 adds level, but not to everything. 4e adds to everything, but it is only half-level.

The feats thing is more-or-less true of 4e (I can't be bothered to check if it is actually true of PF2), but disingenuous because 4e feats really only map general feats in PF2. Class feats map more closely to powers, about which it is completely untrue.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Half level or full level is a serious difference if you're looking to convert material from one system to the other glass, but not so much if you're comparing how the systems work. And for PF2 it's close enough to everything, skill checks made unskilled excepted.

You are pretty much wrong about class feats vs. powers BTW. D&D 4e powers have a much wider design space and greater effects allowed, I can't see how you'd think otherwise.


avr wrote:
You are pretty much wrong about class feats vs. powers BTW. D&D 4e powers have a much wider design space and greater effects allowed, I can't see how you'd think otherwise.

4e class powers cover more ground than PF2 class feats do currently (which kinda shoots the "4e classes are all the same" argument in the head), but nonetheless, PF2 class feats map more closely to 4e powers than 4e (general) feats. So I am not wrong.

_
glass.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Reminds me more of Star Wars Saga, which I have no doubt also inspired DnD4.

4e's lead designer (Rob Heinsoo) was inspired by RuneQuest (from the 70s) when he pushed the idea "every class should have special powers". At least afterwards he noticed that's not what everyone wants... According to an essay by him in the Complete Kobold Guide to Game Design.

Who knows, Pathfinder probably wouldn't exist if a certain guy hadn't picked up a certain RPG several decades ago...


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't mind the mechanics of PF2 I just can't stand the character creation. I'll play it if you give me a pre-made character, I won't be terribly invested in it but I will play. Meanwhile I love making characters in PF1.

the metaphore I've used in the past is that PF2 gives you a bunch of boxes. You take one thing from each box, snap them together and at the end you have your character. In PF1 you have a couple of boxes and a huge crate full of legos. You grab a piece from each of the first couple of boxes and then you rummage through the crate snapping in pieces that fit or just look cool or spiral out all over the place until you have something you like.

Neither is wrong but I just happen to like Legos. So I stick with PF1

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SheepishEidolon wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Reminds me more of Star Wars Saga, which I have no doubt also inspired DnD4.

4e's lead designer (Rob Heinsoo) was inspired by RuneQuest (from the 70s) when he pushed the idea "every class should have special powers". At least afterwards he noticed that's not what everyone wants... According to an essay by him in the Complete Kobold Guide to Game Design.

Who knows, Pathfinder probably wouldn't exist if a certain guy hadn't picked up a certain RPG several decades ago...

To me that is kind of a strange statement. I am very much an old RQ player from back in the 70s and 80s and the one thing I really liked about it was that there WASN'T any "classes". A character wasn't a Fighter or a Cleric or a Rogue or whatever. The game system didn't have classes. A character might have a SOCIAL class (Nobleman or Peasant or Barbarian or something like that) but...

Your PC was a Hero. If your hero learned how to pick a lock, swing a sword and cast a Healing spell, they did it because they learned those things, not because they were some strange thing called a "Class". If you got to be really good swinging swords, this did NOT mean you got better at shooting crossbows (there are no "levels" either, not just no "classes") So... saying that "...he pushed the idea "every class should have special powers"." makes not sense at all to me. RQ doesn't HAVE classes... how can each of them have special powers if there aren't any of "them" in the game?

Silver Crusade

Maybe he was inspired by the fact that Runequest didn’t have any of that?

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Maybe he was inspired by the fact that Runequest didn’t have any of that?

how so?

he was inspired by the lack of a mechanic in an RPG that has not been in common use in over 30 years to include aspects of that mechanic (that is a fundamental part of most other RPGs developed sense then)?

?? It must be a Monday - I'm totally lost.

Perhaps he was inspired by chess too? At least in chess "every class should have special powers" - every piece has special powers, abilities few other pieces have.

The Exchange

I adore old RQ. If there was some aspect of old RQ that is not common in other systems that IS in 4e, it would encourage me to take another look at it (as I didn't notice it when I looked at 4e before).

What does 4e do like RQ that other RPGs do not?

Silver Crusade

nosig wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Maybe he was inspired by the fact that Runequest didn’t have any of that?

how so?

he was inspired by the lack of a mechanic in an RPG that has not been in common use in over 30 years to include aspects of that mechanic (that is a fundamental part of most other RPGs developed sense then)?

Thats what I’m guessing, not having seen the interview.

And RQ may be old but he may have recently played it. Or he played it much earlier and and everyone should have a class with powers is a mindset that stuck with him afterwards?

The Exchange

Rysky wrote:
nosig wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Maybe he was inspired by the fact that Runequest didn’t have any of that?

how so?

he was inspired by the lack of a mechanic in an RPG that has not been in common use in over 30 years to include aspects of that mechanic (that is a fundamental part of most other RPGs developed sense then)?

Thats what I’m guessing, not having seen the interview.

And RQ may be old but he may have recently played it. Or he played it much earlier and and everyone should have a class with powers is a mindset that stuck with him afterwards?

?? ah well. I'm totally lost at this point. Not to worry - it must be a Monday.

Silver Crusade

You can be inspired in how not to do something is the point.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My group went from D&D 3.5e to Pathfinder for a reason. We like that style of game and plan to stick with it. I just finished Rise of the Runelords and started running Shattered Star (using Roll20). In person one of the other players is going to start running Hell's Rebels, but that's on hold until it's safe to gather again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

how so?

he was inspired by the lack of a mechanic in an RPG that has not been in common use in over 30 years to include aspects of that mechanic (that is a fundamental part of most other RPGs developed sense then)?

?? It must be a Monday - I'm totally lost.

I think you’re focussing on the “class” part not the “have special powers” part.

I haven’t read the article, nor have any special insight into what he meant, but I’m imagining the process something like:

“Okay, we’re obviously going to have classes because that how we do things now. But remember this cool classless game from the 70s? One of the things I liked about that was that you were always tinkering and expanding your character’s abilities in lots of little, cool ways. Let’s try to incorporate that feel into our class based game. One way is to make sure there’s no dead levels and that every class gets loads of special powers to choose from. Some of the choices will be very significant - they can be daily powers, others are more about cultivating a cell of the class - those are at-will powers.”

Inspiration is not - “let’s do it the way they did it”. It can be more about capturing a feel or the germ of an idea.

The fact that in RQ anyone could do anything* doesn’t mean there wasn’t some inspiration taken in building a game siloed around classes.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

3.5 still alienated fans who saw it as a cash grab and were upset at the disconnect between 3.0 content released right before the update. Paizo had less problem with that going to Pathfinder but I still recall similar complaints. Not that they should be given any credence, as cash grab accusations always arise at new releases or changes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
3.5 still alienated fans who saw it as a cash grab and were upset at the disconnect between 3.0 content released right before the update. Paizo had less problem with that going to Pathfinder but I still recall similar complaints. Not that they should be given any credence, as cash grab accusations always arise at new releases or changes.

Sure, but those complaints are of a different nature than the more fundamental changes between 1E and 2E or 3.5 to 4E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
Artofregicide wrote:
The argument that both share changing editions alienates the core fanbase is true to a degree, but it's true every time that a game changes editions.

Except 3.0 to 3.5 to Pathfinder 1E. Which were each upgrades to a working system. I get the reasons that the devs chose to go the 2E route, but I disagree with their decision and chose to stay with what they had lovingly put out before.

Also, despite some clear issues with it being so gear dependent, Starfinder was way more of an update to the PF1E system than 2E turned out to be. I wonder why they didn't go that way with 2E. If anybody got a link to a (hopefully extensive) developer comment about this (because surely they have been asked about the topic), I'd be grateful for a link.

This is mostly correct. I was thinking more along the lines of D&D2e to 3e than 3e to 3.5e or 3.5e to PF1e. I should have been more clear.

I don't have a quote (and I rather expect that we won't see a explicit explanation) but I gather the general strategy has been to not split their product line and fanbase. Whether they've been successful, I don't know.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I mean that feats are much more of window dressing and less essential elements of your character. They spice you up a bit, but getting them right is no longer the core of character-building experience that it was for martials and partial casters in PF1.

On that note, PF1 was mostly a character-building simulator which left little to tactics or chance if you got your Landsknecht/Vehement Agriculturist build right. In SF, that's very much not the case, there's far less dependency on twinking out your PC (reduced further by the rate of SF crunch going out, which makes PF2 look fast, not to say anything about PF1).

The only area where SF is really much like PF1 is the skill system, which is also it's the weakest part with all the PF1 nonsense of mandatory Perception and getting few ranks in more skills making less sense than maxing out few. Then again, thanks to far fewer bonuses to skills and fewer opportunities for stacking, there's less absurd PF1 situations of somebody having +40 to a skill at level 10.

301 to 350 of 761 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 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.