This has probably been asked a thousand thousand time over...
I used to play D&D 3.5 back in the day, I have heard that Pathfinder is a "Crunchy" system and complex so I have 2 questions:
-How similar is Pathfinder 2nd Edition mechanic wise to D&D 3.5?
-How "crunchy is the system", will I be doing more math and rule look up than having fun just playing the game (do the rules stand in the way)?
Thank you for you replies and your patience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Never played 3.5 so can't quite comment on that, but I can say that I look up rules somewhat frequently during the game. But with websites like Archives of Nethys and PF2.easytool.es being allowed to have all the rules for free online, looking up a rule only takes a few seconds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has probably been asked a thousand thousand time over...
I used to play D&D 3.5 back in the day, I have heard that Pathfinder is a "Crunchy" system and complex so I have 2 questions:
-How similar is Pathfinder 2nd Edition mechanic wise to D&D 3.5?
-How "crunchy is the system", will I be doing more math and rule look up than having fun just playing the game (do the rules stand in the way)?
Thank you for you replies and your patience.
- PF2 is decently similar to 3.5. It's a d20-with-modifiers game with Vancian casting (including recognizable spells), feats, AC, the same six stats and three saves, and a lot of classes you're familiar with. The action system is simpler, and skill ranks have been replaced by proficiencies. Then there's the usual changes you'd expect between editions: statuses, crafting rules, etc. If you're on the GMing side, setting up DCs is a little different.
- I'd consider it to have less looking up of rules, and definitely less math on the player side (no checking six different bonus types). The rules that you need to look up tend to be in unexpected places. Figuring out how you handle an ambush in the system, looking up the "incapacitation" trait for spells, and that sort of thing. The looking-up dies off faster than it did for 3.5/PF1, though.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not similar in the mechanics despite surface look-alike but you can tell the same stories. More streamlined and less one-sided. Also a greater emphasis on tactics in combat (and not only build).
Rules stand far less in the way of playing than in 3.5 once you get the hang of them.
|
|
-How similar is Pathfinder 2nd Edition mechanic wise to D&D 3.5?
Depends on what standards you're using. It's probably about as close to 3.5 as D&D 4E or D&D 5E are...which is to say, as QuidEst notes it's got the same basic stuff (d20 rolls, attack, AC, same 6 stats, spell names, classes, etc.), but they work in pretty different ways mechanically.
So, if all your previous RPG experience is with 3.5 it's gonna feel very different. But if you've mostly played other games having nothing to do with D&D, it's gonna feel much more similar to D&D than it does to those other games.
-How "crunchy is the system", will I be doing more math and rule look up than having fun just playing the game (do the rules stand in the way)?
It's pretty crunchy compared to some games, but less so than 3.5, IMO. However, for people used to 3.5 it's sometimes counter-intuitive in specific details, which can occasionally be an issue.
A comex game but since the underlying systems are cohesive and things are well referenced it is probabpy the easiest system of its type to teach. I have had better rules retainment from new players than with 5e because learning how one rule works means people tend to know how a number of other rules work.
No 3.5 rules knowledge will transfer over outside of simple things like modifier types don't stack and a d20+ modifier is rolled against DCs (but what counts as a DC and stuff like tiers of success means even that changed)
My advice, check out the free rpg day kobold release this weekend if you can. There is alsp a beginner box releasing later this year.
Some pros for pf2e
- very hard to build and ineffectual PC even going for pure flavour choices.
- rules are consistent and the game stays pretty stable into higher levels atm.
- easy tool and similar web apps are fantastic to use for in game rules lookups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a higher learning curve to get started. But once you internalize the system, it's an actual SYSTEM that means that whenever you read up on a new class or ability, you're not reading a paragraph that is its own subsystem.
Best example of this is Counteracting. It's a system for resolving two effects that collide with each other: dispelling a magic spell, casting a spell to cure a disease, etc. For any one particular application 2E gives you what seems like an abstruse system. Surely there's a simpler way to do this? But once you learn it you now have a system that is universally applicable. So a water elemental has a special ability that can counteract the party's magical flame that is its source of light. No need to write a paragraph full of if-then statements that leaves room for corner cases. Just say: "make a counteract check."
That's the source of the learning curve: because the system is redesigned from top to bottom and is rationalized, you will need to have knowledge about what certain traits mean and have a few formulas at your fingertips, at the beginning of learning PF2. But once you get them, you "get" them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2nd Edition has a reasonable learning curve. We've just finished running the first Adventure Path (Age of Ashes), and I did choose to stop and look up rules fairly regularly. In many cases, I could have just taken my "best guess" and kept things moving (and looked up the rules later - or not) without damaging the game at all. But I'm trying to master the rules, so it was worth taking the extra time.
At this point, the only thing I'm looking up with regularity is specific spells (because the four degrees of success: Crit Success, Success, Fail, Crit Fail) means that it takes longer to memorize what the various spells do. And I'm developing a quick shorthand in my prep notes to cover this most of the time, so it's getting a lot better.
For the most part, the game plays very smoothly. It's a LOT easier to run than 3.5 was. And high-level play is EXACTLY as smooth as low-to-mid-level, which is incredibly helpful. (I ran the Age of Worms campaign in 3.5 which finishes at 20th level. I'd spend hours prepping each high-level session just trying to adjust monsters to be the right level of challenge for my group, and even then, it was either a slog or rocket-tag. You don't have to stress over any of that with PF2 - the math is so much tighter, and the character classes are extremely well balanced. Truly, running at high levels is an absolute joy.)
I do strongly recommend the Condition Cards. I was ambivalent about them before I got them, figuring I could print copies of those pages - but the cards are very clearly and concisely worded, and are very handy to place in front of whoever needs to remember to apply the condition.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think pf2 could possibly be easier to learn for people who didn't play 3e/pf1. The mechanics appear similar on the surface so that I am constantly confused by the slight differences that I don't notice when reading through. The game has so many of the same terms and ideas, but they don't quite mean the same thing, or relate to each other the same way.
For me, pf2 is a lot harder to run than 3e/pf1, but that's probably because I have 20+ years of experience with those games. I am used to being able to trust my instincts to set DCs and make rulings on the fly, but those numbers and rules are not correct for pf2.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A big difference with 3.5 is a general concept of degrees of success, vs. hard yes/no cuts.
Failing a skill check isn't so bad (but you make no progress); it's critically failing that's bad. But if you're good at a skill that won't happen very much.
Getting hit by an enemy isn't good, and you get hit more often than in 1E, but you can cope with more damage and it's less likely that you get one-shot.
Spells tend to do something, even if the enemy saves, but it's better if they fail of course.
On the whole 2E characters succeed at most adventures, but they have more setbacks along the way - a missed check here and there, a critical failure and a critical success now and then. A good 2E adventure is built like that: it doesn't assume the players succeed at every step. But overall you're still set up to win.
It's a big difference with 1E where a character would often be good enough at some skills to guarantee success, but on the other hand adventures would often require you to succeed at everything because even one failure could be catastrophic.
While it does use the same dice sets, and a lot of the same terminology and parts such as attributes it is not what I know as a D20 system like 3.5. It’s a separate system and for best results I suggest trying to learn it separately instead of risking getting the two mixed up in your mind.
That said, it’s one of the easiest systems to play and learn I’ve seen in a while. Something like 80% of a character runs off the proficiency system for instance. Learn that, and it’s not particularly complex, and you’ve learned most of how to play. Some parts can feel counterintuitive based on previous editions, such as spells getting more powerful only from heightening and never from caster level, but if you don’t get caught up in presumption you should be fine.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you look at a lot of discussions on the forums, you'd get the impression the game is more crunchy in play than it is. In play, the game is actually fairly smooth to run and play and runs very well.
A lot of the crunch, engineering, etc and such of the system is internal and invisible if you go looking for it. The system is extremely specifically designed and tuned... if it doesnt bother you that it's targeted that players "succeed on a 10" in most cases, there's no need to go dig up why it's set up that way.
For my group, it's been a massive improvement over previous systems in how fun it is to both run and play. For players, it adds massive customization and character design over 5e. As a GM, it added all sorts of QOL features and designs, and provides the most useful creature and encounter design toolset ive seen in an RPG for creating encounters that will function as I expect.