magnuskn |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Kinda disagree about the feats, there's quite some powerful stuff there. But I haven't played the game in a practical sense, so I'm theorycrafting here.
Also disagree about the lack of tactics in PF1E, but then again I almost never saw the cheese that people put into some of the character guides or presented on the forums. ^^
About the skill system, I'm pretty fine with the skill system of 3.X, although it needed pruning, especially Perception, which you rightly point out as mandatory for everyone.
Steve Geddes |
Gorbacz wrote:Kinda disagree about the feats, there's quite some powerful stuff there. But I haven't played the game in a practical sense, so I'm theorycrafting here.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.
Which do you think are powerful? I agree with gorbacz on that - feats seem far less significant than they do in PF1. I mean there’s a few “obvious” choices but even if you don’t take those, your character doesn’t end up hugely weaker.
Gorbacz |
Improved Initiative in PF1 is a battle-winner if you are a moderately optimized caster and can leave all that laughable martial lowlife behind, don't you agree, magnuskn? :)
In SF, it's a nice thing to have, but as casters don't dominate the game nearly as much, it's no longer an autopick and a feat that decides who wins the fight.
magnuskn |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Initiative in PF1 is a battle-winner if you are a moderately optimized caster and can leave all that laughable martial lowlife behind, don't you agree, magnuskn? :)
There you go again with the assumption that martials are bad in PF1E. Martials are awesome when they do what they are supposed to do and a ton of fun to play (not so much GM against, though). I actually got the casters moaning in my games that they don't do nearly as much damage as martials. ^^
In SF, it's a nice thing to have, but as casters don't dominate the game nearly as much, it's no longer an autopick and a feat that decides who wins the fight.
Going first will always be useful, IMO, since you can set the pace of the fight with a good first action. That goes for martials as well as casters.
Steve Geddes |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We always let the player use it at least once - it just doesn't do much.
You spend your reaction following them, so they can still then cast their spell, move away or use ranged attacks with impunity.
EDIT: Maybe "first" wasn't very good language - I meant step up (ie the "first" in the feat chain). Step Up on it's own is hardly ever meaningful - it's really just a placeholder so you can get the good one - hence my view that Step Up and Strike is good, but costs two feats.
mmurphy1968 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still play 1e with two groups. One online with my old gaming group where I grew up and one around a table locally where I live. I had been the GM for the group that is now online since beta was out, I finally got tired of running Pathfinder and moved onto Savage Worlds but one of my players has stepped into the GM role for Pathfinder so we trade off.
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
unfortunately because of leveling, buying new stuff, and technical difficulties, it took 4 hours before we could even start.
I tell my group the week before when they're leveling so they can level during the week. They know to let me know when they'll be online and I have the server running for them. This saves serious time in game.
Artofregicide |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dragon78 wrote:unfortunately because of leveling, buying new stuff, and technical difficulties, it took 4 hours before we could even start.I tell my group the week before when they're leveling so they can level during the week. They know to let me know when they'll be online and I have the server running for them. This saves serious time in game.
What sorcery do you possess to bend your players to your will like this? For me it's more akin to herding goblins or skittermanders.
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
Artofregicide |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Artofregicide wrote:What sorcery do you possess to bend your players to your will like this? For me it's more akin to herding goblins or skittermanders.I just asked them. They're all adults and go, "Alright, I don't want to take the time during game."
Ah, I see. Max ranks in diplomacy is basically a form of enchantment in of itself.
Dale McCoy Jr Jon Brazer Enterprises |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I see. Max ranks in diplomacy is basically a form of enchantment in of itself.
Thank you. On a totally unrelated topic, you may want to check out our Pathfinder 1e products here at Paizo. They provide solutions you are looking for.
[/attempt to use max ranks in Diplomacy over]
Artofregicide |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Artofregicide wrote:Ah, I see. Max ranks in diplomacy is basically a form of enchantment in of itself.Thank you. On a totally unrelated topic, you may want to check out our Pathfinder 1e products here at Paizo. They provide solutions you are looking for.
[/attempt to use max ranks in Diplomacy over]
I want to resist but my charisma penalty really tanks my diplomacy DC :(
Guess I'll have to buy something.
aboyd |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To answer the original question back in post 1, I'm still playing PF1. I'm GMing Rise of the Runelords and we're in module 6. Once that's done, one of the players will become GM and run us through Curse of the Crimson Throne.
I also have a 2nd group that is going through a "campaign" of PF1 PFS scenarios, each strung together to form a long story arc. AND we're using only modules/scenarios from the first 5 seasons, so we have all the original factions and faction missions, and so on. I've snuck in Flight of the Red Raven, and it'll tie to the end-cap with all the Eyes of the Ten scenarios. Should be cool, IF we stick together (this is the group that is having the most trouble keeping at it).
I also have a 3rd group that is running through Dragon's Demand. I expected them to hate it. They're all young (20s) and love D&D 5th edition, and I'm the odd-man-out, in my 40s and running them through a Pathfinder 1 module. But they seem to love it, and have asked that I come up with good follow-up modules to keep playing after Dragon's Demand, so that's nice.
I suspect I won't give up PF1 until PF3. PF2 didn't go in a direction I want. I saw that Wizards of the Coast course-corrected when D&D 4th edition didn't go well, so I'm holding out hope that maybe PF3 will be a course correction in about 8 years. But if not, that's OK. I have TONS of material to go through with PF1, and the rules are forever free online. So it's great!
TxSam88 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We play every Saturday. PF1. currently in Serpent's Skull, I'm playing an elven Magus Ninja (gestalt). We are playing all of the Adventure Paths in order. each path takes about 18 months. we figure we have 20 years worth of material to play and have no desire or need to switch to any other game system.
Gorbacz |
There's no contest between Reign of Winter and Giantslayer. The former has adventures that range from solid to Rasputin Must Die!(one of the best Paizo modules ever), while Giantslayer has a great first adventure, a good second adventure and then it takes a massive nosedive, with adventure 5 being notoriously a contestant for the worst Paizo module ever prize.
It gets a lot of nostalgia vibes from grognards who are ooooh it's Against the Giants, but it's really one of Paizo's weakest outing.
Gorbacz |
Well I am for Reign of Winter, some people in the group want something more "traditional".
Yeah, that's what they wanted after "revolutionary" Iron Gods and RoW and Paizo made a traditional AP which just accidentally happens to be a stinker.
If the want a traditional AP, Ironfang Invasion is a much better choice.