Going Backwards

[Ravingdork]

Has anyone else, after playing Pathfinder 2E, gone back to older games, such as Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder, or D&D 3/4/5? If so, what was it like for you?

I've had my head buried in 2E for what seems like two years now, and a friend just invited me to join his Starfinder campaign. I played a lot of Starfinder when it first released (as evidenced by my many characters), but now I find I'm struggling to re-remember rules and having to re-read the combat chapter to get reoriented again. It all seems so clunky now that I'm looking at them from a eye-opened 2E perspective.

Though I'm sure my brain will snap back into place and I'll once again grasp the rules in short order, I don't think it's ever going to feel the same again. It's like driving a Maserati, then going back to a Toyota for a pleasure cruise. It's just not the same after "the Maserati experience."

Have an of you experienced anything similar?

[Planpanther]

IDK, im in the phase of getting used to PF2 and it seems plenty clunky. Im no where close to wishing every game I played was like this. There is always a period of readjustment, at least for me, when switching between systems like PF.

[WWHsmackdown]

I've played in a friend's 5e campaign and combat is a chore. It's a lot less fun than I remember after playing p2e

[Squiggit]

I'm in a PF1 game right now and it's pretty fun in general, but definitely moments of frustration, particularly regarding the action economy, martial play and the way whatever faint vestiges of balance the game had is just starting to crumble to pieces now that we're past level 10.

[Staffan Johansson]

Ravingdork wrote:

Has anyone else, after playing Pathfinder 2E, gone back to older games, such as Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder, or D&D 3/4/5? If so, what was it like for you?

I've had my head buried in 2E for what seems like two years now, and a friend just invited me to join his Starfinder campaign. I played a lot of Starfinder when it first released (as evidenced by my many characters), but now I find I'm struggling to re-remember rules and having to re-read the combat chapter to get reoriented again. It all seems so clunky now that I'm looking at them from a eye-opened 2E perspective.

Though I'm sure my brain will snap back into place and I'll once again grasp the rules in short order, I don't think it's ever going to feel the same again. It's like driving a Maserati, then going back to a Toyota for a pleasure cruise. It's just not the same after "the Maserati experience."

Have an of you experienced anything similar?

One of my friends is running a D&D5 campaign on Roll20 every few weeks, and I enjoy that as well as Pathfinder. I do miss the three-action system, and I believe that if I was DMing I'd miss monster abilities beyond "move up and hit" or "cast X spell", but at the same time there are many things I like better about 5e. Bardic Inspiration and Vicious Mockery are awesome abilities, and I enjoy the small bit of resource management I have on my Battlemaster fighter (action surge, superiority dice).

Another thing I have noted is that the abilities of PF2 characters are much more tightly constrained, relative to their level. Most abilities tend to be either some variant of action economy booster or accuracy compensator*. But you generally don't see monks bending their elements to their will, or druids calling on spores to do necromancy stuff. Neither do you have warlocks or artificers at all, and the differences between different PF2 clerics pale in comparison to how much neatness lies in a D&D5 cleric's choice of domain.

PF2 lets you make lots of small choices in character creation and advancement, and you can really dig yourself down into the details. In the campaign I'm running, there's an 8th level occult hag-blood sorcerer, and he is quite different from what my own primal elemental sorcerer looked like at that level – but I don't think those differences are as big as between a D&D5 wild mage sorcerer and a D&D5 draconic sorcerer. Basically, PF2 lets you paint a picture of your character using a hundred shades of the finest paints of a single hue, while D&D5 might only give you a dozen crayons, but those crayons are of all sorts of different colors.

To some degree, this is because D&D5 is five years older than PF2, so it has a head start, but that's not all of it. Compare the clerics from the core rules in the two games. In Pathfinder 2, you have two big choices at first level: war priest or cloistered cleric, and what god do I worship? You then get another choice every two levels about what feat to take, usually from about 5 options (in the core rules). By contrast, the D&D player has a single choice: domain. So there should be more variety in PF2, right?

I don't think there is, not really. Yes, the PF2 cleric has about five choices per level. But usually, several of them are shut off by previous choices—do you have a heal or harm font, are you good or evil, do you have a prerequisite feat? What's more, they don't have all that much variety to them. There are a lot of feats that improve your divine font in various ways or that give you additional options for Emblazon Armament (if you already have that feat). You also have domains which give you a focus spell, but from what I can tell this focus spell is usually fairly weak. And yes, you have your choice of deity which usually adds about three spells to your spell list at various levels.

By comparison, the D&D5 cleric basically makes a single choice: what domain do I want (mechanically, the choice of deity is irrelevant as long as you get to take the domain)? But this domain comes packed with a whole raft of abilities. Some give you weapon and armor proficiencies, subsuming the PF2 warpriest (though the D&D5 cleric starts out from a stronger position with medium armor). They all give you about ten spells that are prepared for free - you still need to spend slots to cast them, but it means that a cleric of Light always has a Burning Hands available as long as they have any level 1+ spell slots uncast. The PF2 cleric of Sarenrae only has Burning Hands if they actively prepared it. Most of them also give Channel Divinity abilities that are far more powerful than the focus spells given by PF2 domains.

So sure, the PF2 cleric of Sarenrae gets to choose at 8th level whether to be able to convert the Heals from their Divine Font into various condition relief, or whether they want their Heals to set undead on fire... but they're still all about casting those Heals. That's a much smaller difference than that between a D&D5 Nature cleric and a Trickery cleric.

I really do enjoy both games, but there's something to be said for sometimes painting with bolder strokes, even if you lose detail by doing so.

* There isn't much to increase your maximum accuracy, but there's plenty of stuff that reduces penalties or does something similar, like letting you make two attacks at full bonus.

[thenobledrake]

For me, the ceasing of playing a game comes in two flavors:

Flavor A: It's just that I'm done with that particular campaign, but at any time in the future, I'm open to another campaign using that game.

Flavor B: Never. Again. Period.

D&D 3.x, 4th & 5th, PF1, Shadowrun 4th & 5th, DCC (in terms of making a long-term campaign instead of a deliberate one-off thing), Rifts... there are probably a few others I'm forgetting... those are all Flavor B because either my first experiences with them were very poor, or small irritations built up over time to the point that when I was done I was done.

Going back to games that didn't drive me up the wall in some way is easy, though. Just like popping on to play some Super Mario Bros. after finishing up Final Fantasy VII Remake - both fun, but different fun.

My other campaign besides the two PF2 campaigns I'm in right now is basically heavily house-ruled AD&D (HackMaster '4th edition').

[Guntermench]

I'm playing in a 5e game with a cheesy build so combat is exciting in that I hit really hard, but it's really samey.

[Salamileg]

I'm playing a level 6 drow twilight cleric in a friend's 5e campaign. I'm having a lot of fun, but most of the things I'm enjoying have nothing to do with the system itself. The only thing from the system that I'm really enjoying is the sheer amount of utility casting I have, it feels like I have an answer for every problem even though we're just early Tier 2. But while it's fun, I do find I have to dial it back intentionally to allow other players to use their tools or let the GM's plans work out, which I've never seen a player have to do in PF2.

[fanatic66]

Salamileg wrote:

I'm playing a level 6 drow twilight cleric in a friend's 5e campaign. I'm having a lot of fun, but most of the things I'm enjoying have nothing to do with the system itself. The only thing from the system that I'm really enjoying is the sheer amount of utility casting I have, it feels like I have an answer for every problem even though we're just early Tier 2. But while it's fun, I do find I have to dial it back intentionally to allow other players to use their tools or let the GM's plans work out, which I've never seen a player have to do in PF2.

A cleric of Eilistraee by chance? Twilight domain looks super strong and fun as a side note.

[Salamileg]

fanatic66 wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

I'm playing a level 6 drow twilight cleric in a friend's 5e campaign. I'm having a lot of fun, but most of the things I'm enjoying have nothing to do with the system itself. The only thing from the system that I'm really enjoying is the sheer amount of utility casting I have, it feels like I have an answer for every problem even though we're just early Tier 2. But while it's fun, I do find I have to dial it back intentionally to allow other players to use their tools or let the GM's plans work out, which I've never seen a player have to do in PF2.

A cleric of Eilistraee by chance? Twilight domain looks super strong and fun as a side note.

You got it!

[Kasoh]

I'm running a 2e game with some folks and its a struggle because we're also 9 sessions into A PF1 War for the Crown campaign and everyone likes that game more. Four of the five PF2 players are in the PF1 game.

Basically, if I can't convince this group that PF2 is actually fun to play, I'll go back to PF1 and sigh longingly at my PF2 AP books.

[William Werminster]

- Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition for that good old memories flavour.

- Pathfinder 1E and D&D 3.X because we have invested in SO many books I'd be a shame not to use all that content.

- Tried to make a Starfinder PC once but I had to pass because for some unknown reason it wasn't my cup of tea (and I love space themed games).

- In Pathfinder 2E we made only a few tests that can't even count as full sessions (thanks COVID), but we are really looking for what is to come in the future.

- D&D 5th felt... bland, to our liking.

There are other games out there but I left them out. Special mention to the pc games Baldurs Gate 1 & 2 because I'd never, EVER, get tired of them.

[WatersLethe]

I'm still in a Starfinder game and GMing another Starfinder game. I want to take the Starfinder system out back and do an Office Space Printer Scene on it.

I still love the setting, my GM and players, the kinds of stories we can tell, and I'm having fun. But I'm sick to tears of everything in the mechanical rules trying to get in my way.

Long story short: the weapon, armor, skills, ability score generation, themes, archetypes, multiclassing, and general feats are nauseatingly bad compared to PF2.

[Malk_Content]

Anything close to Pathfinders 2E wheelhouse, I struggle to enjoy. Starfinder hurts the most because it was developed during the time PF2 was an it is painful that it has almost none of its benefits. Starfinder really feels like an attempt to keep the 3.5 market through its mechanics.

Anything not close to PF2E? Yeah I'll happily play it. Still love me some WoD for example.

[The-Magic-Sword]

No chance, this system is good enough they'd have to make a hell of a case for me to want to move forward.

We decided to get into Starfinder (specifically for science fiction go-to system) and that was a big compromise decision for us, since we wished it was based on the 2e rules engine.

[Milo v3]

After some PF2e, my main group went back and played some Starfinder, and my side group run by one of my players has kept playing 5e. So far we are greatly preferring going back to SF & 5e to PF2e.

My main group is currently playing a non-D&D aligned game, and it'll probably be a long time or maybe never before we play PF2e again.

[Omega Metroid]

Hmm... honestly, I still like 5e because it offers a design space that PF2 goes out of its way to avoid, and PF1 because it's fun to come up with fun or silly builds using the near-infinite amount of content available (and 3.5e would presumably feel similarly to PF1 to me, but I haven't done anything with it yet, outside of d20 Star Wars when I was in my early teens (and that doesn't really count as 3.5e itself)). I do wish 5e had PF2's highly-specific-and-nuanced-concept depth, PF1 had PF2's extra feat slots, and PF2 had either system's flexibility, though, so it feels like it's always one step forwards and one step back no matter which one I turn to next.

None of the systems feels like a clear, undeniable improvement over the other, at least to me; each one feels like some things are better, but others are worse.

• 5e grants more freedom, but is incapable of capitalising on it due to lack of choices; you can build almost any concept in 5e, but you're going to need homebrew or house rules if you want to add some mechanical oomph to your concept. The system itself is perfectly designed to add more depth tools as optional rules, and even operates on a module system where everything is optional so you can customise the game as needed for your game, but for some reason we have yet to see an equivalent to, e.g., PF1/PF2's class feats or PF1's alternative racial traits. (Which is weird, with how much 5e did take from PF1.)
• PF2 has a ton of choices, but mainly because it split a lot of PF1 archetypes and basic class features into feat chains; most of PF2's choices are locked down by a decision you made 3+ levels ago, your ability to branch out (multiclass and/or archetype) is heavily locked down, and even some of the more unique choices from PF1 were locked down or nerfed in ways that aren't necessarily balance-related (Oracle's Curse is the one that miffs me, since rewriting the entire system from the ground up means they could easily have been both balanced and selectable, though a few Rogue & Barb things had a similar vibe).
• PF1 feels like it has a good compromise between 5e's and PF2's extremes, with a system flexible enough for wide concepts yet with enough crunch built into it to give them the depth they need to truly shine... but it has nowhere near the feat slots required to truly take advantage of it, what with most customisation being from feats (and/or class-feats-in-all-but-name) and everything having to compete with your core combat/casting/control/etc. feat chain(s) for space. It has a ton of great systems that either saw no use because they weren't as numerically good as your core feats, or didn't get the development they needed (often because they went unused because they weren't viable enough to compete with your core feats). And that's even without getting into the severe balance issues that were intrinsic to the entire d20 system, like the infamous "I have features more powerful than your entire class" 3.5e/PF1 problems.

Overall, it feels like each one has a single piece of the perfect system, but zealously hoards that piece and refuses to share with the others. And as a result, whenever I go from one of them to another, I feel a sense of relief at the options I gain, but sadness for the ones I lose.

So, I guess I feel a mirthful melancholy about system switching in general, then. xD

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

Has anyone else, after playing Pathfinder 2E, gone back to older games, such as Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder, or D&D 3/4/5? If so, what was it like for you?

PF1, 5e, Rifts, battletech

Ravingdork wrote:

Have an of you experienced anything similar?

PF1: You know that comfy old t-shirt and sweat pants you throw on when you want to relax. Yeah, that's the feeling. Had to look up the off thing just to make sure I was remembering it right but it was mostly all there.

5e: Got baldurs gate video game that runs off of it and the game was fun so I took a dive in. Hadn't played since the playtest days and a lot had changed: it wasn't as awful as I recall but after a few games I'd had enough.

Rifts: I played enough of this that I know it as well as you can. It's old school enough that until a few years ago, parts of the books where literally photocopied from other books. It's a jerry-rigged Frankenstein that could really use a real overhaul to unify rules across all the books. For all it's flaws though, it's one of the games I've enjoyed the most.

battletech: pretty much remembered it: just had to check the books a bit more.

[Planpanther]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

PF2 lets you make lots of small choices in character creation and advancement, and you can really dig yourself down into the details. In the campaign I'm running, there's an 8th level occult hag-blood sorcerer, and he is quite different from what my own primal elemental sorcerer looked like at that level – but I don't think those differences are as big as between a D&D5 wild mage sorcerer and a D&D5 draconic sorcerer. Basically, PF2 lets you paint a picture of your character using a hundred shades of the finest paints of a single hue, while D&D5 might only give you a dozen crayons, but those crayons are of all sorts of different colors.

omega metroid wrote:

PF2 has a ton of choices, but mainly because it split a lot of PF1 archetypes and basic class features into feat chains; most of PF2's choices are locked down by a decision you made 3+ levels ago, your ability to branch out (multiclass and/or archetype) is heavily locked down, and even some of the more unique choices from PF1 were locked down or nerfed in ways that aren't necessarily balance-related (Oracle's Curse is the one that miffs me, since rewriting the entire system from the ground up means they could easily have been both balanced and selectable, though a few Rogue & Barb things had a similar vibe).

These quotes sum up the hard time I'm having of coming around to PF2. A lot of folks complained about 4E gameplay, but it was 4E chargen and particularly multi-classing that killed the game for me. PF2 has made many of the same choices, albeit plays differently at the table.

[Deriven Firelion]

Planpanther wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

PF2 lets you make lots of small choices in character creation and advancement, and you can really dig yourself down into the details. In the campaign I'm running, there's an 8th level occult hag-blood sorcerer, and he is quite different from what my own primal elemental sorcerer looked like at that level – but I don't think those differences are as big as between a D&D5 wild mage sorcerer and a D&D5 draconic sorcerer. Basically, PF2 lets you paint a picture of your character using a hundred shades of the finest paints of a single hue, while D&D5 might only give you a dozen crayons, but those crayons are of all sorts of different colors.

omega metroid wrote:

PF2 has a ton of choices, but mainly because it split a lot of PF1 archetypes and basic class features into feat chains; most of PF2's choices are locked down by a decision you made 3+ levels ago, your ability to branch out (multiclass and/or archetype) is heavily locked down, and even some of the more unique choices from PF1 were locked down or nerfed in ways that aren't necessarily balance-related (Oracle's Curse is the one that miffs me, since rewriting the entire system from the ground up means they could easily have been both balanced and selectable, though a few Rogue & Barb things had a similar vibe).

These quotes sum up the hard time I'm having of coming around to PF2. A lot of folks complained about 4E gameplay, but it was 4E chargen and particularly multi-classing that killed the game for me. PF2 has made many of the same choices, albeit plays differently at the table.

This may be hard to accept, but PF2 is a DM's edition as much a I can tell.

My buddies and I had way more fun building characters in 3E and PF1, not so much 5E so I don't get that comparison. 5E was basically get advantage in some way, then attack. I have no idea how Staffan saw that as different. It didn't matter if you got advantage due to darkness, some fortune ability, spending a hero point equivalent, or any other way, it was always just advantage. Basically, a hundred different ways to get advantage described slightly differently, then do some damage. We quit 5E because the game wasn't built with feats in mind, it was imbalanced, and every character felt the same as did the tactics. Every tactic was just some way to get advantage.

PF2 is far more tactically complex than 5E. Which is why it isn't as easy to play as 5E for new players.

That being said the tight math puts severe limitations on play that a person who DMs a lot can appreciate. It disallows the type of powergaming and rules lawyering to force power gaming options that plagued 3E and PF1. As a DM I despised the power creep of PF1. As a player I built the most monstrous character I could within the rules framework. And you could build some absolutely monstrously powerful characters that trivialized the game and made DMing a nightmare.

I think a player who likes to roleplay, build a character that looks like they want it to look, likes to play tactically, and enjoys a challenge will enjoy PF2. I think DMs who like a game that doesn't break as you get to higher level, while providing a fun, interesting, and entertaining rulset for adventure building will enjoy PF2.

[Amaya/Polaris]

None of that really gets into character building, which is what they're talking about.

5E pretty much lives and dies on subclassing, and to a much lesser extent the 3.PF multiclassing (technically a variant rule like almost everything else). Subclasses are a lot brighter and chunkier than PF2's class paths and feats, it's not too hard for any half-decent homebrewer to come up with a subclass for any class that'll add a bunch of color to it and impact the way it plays very strongly, and though a surprising amount of the core WotC subclasses are (even intentionally!) bone-dry boring, it's a legitimate strength of the system that any subclass gets to play out its flavor more deeply than the equivalent additions in PF2 tend to have the space to.

It's just, you know, that you really need to savor those subclass features because it's only a handful of levels that you get more, spread out across 20 levels at different rates and amounts for every class (rest in peace Wizards ending at Lv 14, everyone's jealous of Sorcerers and Paladins that near the cap with their Cool Chosen Thing), it's 1 pre-built package so you make almost no other meaningful choices unless you grab feats or multiclassing, and some of the default class features you get stuck with can themselves bore you to tears (see the previously-mentioned Cleric's lack of anything else other than the Turn Undead CD, the main reason why Clerics don't really excite me). TCE helps with some of this, but not all.

We haven't played 5E in many months now due to college, but when we get back I'm going to upgrade my Monk/Cleric's Kensei subclass just because its austerity has proven less charming and more Fighter-like over time. I only just started PF2 again (play-by-post RAW server, began with some really dumb/clunky rulings on hexploration but I'm liking the RP and we're slowly getting there), in the meantime I've been playing PF1 with the unchained action economy and enjoying it plenty for what it is.

[fanatic66]

5E is simpler no doubt, but I do like the cool abilities you get from your subclass. With PF2E's "subclasses", you might an ability, focus spell or two, but that's it. Everything is also significantly toned down for the most part in regards to magical abilities. A subclass like the Shadow Monk is way too magical for PF2E. Now on the flip side, once you pick a 5E subclass, you're locked barring multiclassing, which can be boring. Meanwhile with PF2E, you get new feats to customize your character fairly often.

[Planpanther]

You may get lots and lots of feats in PF2, but the list of choices is pretty much pick 1 of 3 after first level. Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting. PF2, so far for me, has shaped up to be the ultimate one trick pony edition.

[WWHsmackdown]

I feel like archetyping is how you achieve the subclass niche of 5e. A p2e war cleric with a fighter/weapon/champion dedication depending on exactly what you want is gonna give you your 5e war domain cleric (or the closest approximation). That's the beauty though, you get to tailor the "subclass" into exactly what you want. I find that preferable even if the individual nuts and bolts are less impactful

[AnimatedPaper]

I feel like 5e's subclasses are trying to solve a different problem than Pathfinder's class paths; pathfinder introduces entirely new classes when they want to alter a class to the extent that subclasses hit 5e classes. Given their respective publishing cycles, both approaches make sense for their systems.

If we get class archetypes, I could see them being similarly impactful.

[fanatic66]

Planpanther wrote:

You may get lots and lots of feats in PF2, but the list of choices is pretty much pick 1 of 3 after first level. Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting. PF2, so far for me, has shaped up to be the ultimate one trick pony edition.

"Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting." Eh, I don't know if that's true. If you're only facing high level enemies, then yeah, but ideally you're facing a mix of low level to high level enemies. One of the strengths of PF2E over 5E is that you have more options as a martial class. In 5E, a Fighter really can't do much but just use their action to attack every turn. They get more attacks as they level up, but its ultimately just the same thing every turn. In PF2E, a Fighter can do more than just attack. They have more tactical options such as flanking (not a thing in 5E), many combat maneuvers depending on their skill choices, and other skill applicable actions like Treat Wounds or Recall Knowledge. A flail&shield Fighter with good athletics and intimidation can raise a shield, trip, demoralize, and attack. Their 5E version can't do anything but attack.

I do agree with a previous poster that PF2E feats are less powerful in scope. Instead of broad brushstroke changes like 5E abilities/feats, PF2E features/feats are more like small, detailed updates. Which makes sense as you get way more feats with PF2E than 5E. In 5E, you only get a handful of features, and maybe a feat or two, so you want each new ability to feel really impactful since its so scarce.

I do miss some of the over type abilities from 5E though. Being able to play a shadow Monk teleporting from shadow to shadow like a magical ninja isn't really possible in PF2E. Yeah, you can use the Shadow Dancer archetype, but it takes a while to come online and is much more limited.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

I never really stopped playing/running other games.

5e I still like running as a fast easy worknight game and it handles sandboxes well

PF1e I am sick of and the earlier my group shifts the happier I will be.

B/X, simple and I love it. Has a really nice feel.

AD&D, I tend to like B/X more but AD&D has the best of what 5e offers and just suffers a little from overcomplication of niche rules imo.

3.5e I refuse to play a non E6 3.5e game now.

4e, never been a fan of how it runs. I know people say roleplay is system agnostic, but if the system doesn't support it well it feels like a struggle. I also feel combats run too long and the game leans even further into high power anime style play that I don't like.

PF2e, I have many issues with it but it is by far the most balanced system I have run and my players all love it.

[Planpanther]

fanatic66 wrote:

Planpanther wrote:

You may get lots and lots of feats in PF2, but the list of choices is pretty much pick 1 of 3 after first level. Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting. PF2, so far for me, has shaped up to be the ultimate one trick pony edition.

"Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting." Eh, I don't know if that's true. If you're only facing high level enemies, then yeah, but ideally you're facing a mix of low level to high level enemies. One of the strengths of PF2E over 5E is that you have more options as a martial class. In 5E, a Fighter really can't do much but just use their action to attack every turn. They get more attacks as they level up, but its ultimately just the same thing every turn. In PF2E, a Fighter can do more than just attack. They have more tactical options such as flanking (not a thing in 5E), many combat maneuvers depending on their skill choices, and other skill applicable actions like Treat Wounds or Recall Knowledge. A flail&shield Fighter with good athletics and intimidation can raise a shield, trip, demoralize, and attack. Their 5E version can't do anything but attack.

I do agree with a previous poster that PF2E feats are less powerful in scope. Instead of broad brushstroke changes like 5E abilities/feats, PF2E features/feats are more like small, detailed updates. Which makes sense as you get way more feats with PF2E than 5E. In 5E, you only get a handful of features, and maybe a feat or two, so you want each new ability to feel really impactful since its so scarce.

I do miss some of the over type abilities from 5E though. Being able to play a shadow Monk teleporting from shadow to shadow like a magical ninja isn't really possible in PF2E. Yeah, you can use the Shadow Dancer archetype, but it takes a while to come online and is much more limited.

I agree on 5E comparisons, im not one of the crowd saying its better than PF2. My thoughts are just on PF2 at the moment, but mostly in comparison to PF1. Chargen feels claustrophobic to me. To be fair, PF1 has tons of supplements and archetypes which may come about for PF2. Though, right now it feels very 4E in chargen. Essentially, each class has two maybe three paths. You can be a sneak thief rogue or you can be a thug robber rogue, but not both. You can toe dip into other classes through hybrid/dedication multi-classing, but it feels like the more you try and add options to your toolbox the worse you are at everything.

Could be a couple things going on here. Likely, I just dont have the experience yet to fully appreciate PF2. However, the three action economy system makes failing secondary options less of an issue than in the past. In PF1 taking a feat to do something that is likely to fail is like losing a turn over and over. PF2 3 actions takes the sting out of that experience. Also, you try it more often so odds are you will get the occasional success. Maybe thats good enough? I dont know right now tho.

[RexAliquid]

Planpanther wrote:

You may get lots and lots of feats in PF2, but the list of choices is pretty much pick 1 of 3 after first level. Also, due to the math anything not tied to your primary ability score is likely not to be worth taking and attempting. PF2, so far for me, has shaped up to be the ultimate one trick pony edition.

Thats not really true. Investing in proficiency and items will keep actions relevant even if they aren’t your main stat. A lot of barbarians go into Intimidation, for instance.

[Gnollvalue]

After playing 2e for about a year, an associate on a discord server asked me to GM an AP as a favor. I said sure, but after about 2 weeks, I regretted it. I completed the first chapter, then work got in the way and I was somewhat thankful for it. It was the final nail in the coffin for 1e.

I think 2e has a much better gauge on the power-threat level. Play feels more powerful across levels, but also the threats feel in accordance with that power. I (almost) never feel anything anything is unfair or a cakewalk on either side of the screen.

I occasionally miss my dips and multiple archetypes, but I don't think I'll be going back, and I know 5e isn't for me. Maybe Starfinder org play because I feel like they've had some good stories, I'm still interested in other non-D&D/PF games since they scratch a different itch.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Gnollvalue wrote:

I occasionally miss my dips and multiple archetypes, but I don't think I'll be going back, and I know 5e isn't for me. Maybe Starfinder org play because I feel like they've had some good stories, I'm still interested in other non-D&D/PF games since they scratch a different itch.

I feel this is where the free archetype rule comes into play. It over powers characters in the hands of anyone used to optimizing but still doesn't break down like 3.x does.

Personally I don't use it outside of shorter campaigns. If it is only going to be 3-8 or something I can get behind it, but for a full 1-20 experience I like the more restricted feel.

[WatersLethe]

Free archetype is amazing and I strongly recommend it for anyone who feels PF2 is too constraining for them. Free archetype gives you a ton of potential optimization room too.

[Squiggit]

I really like free archetype, but a lot of the characters I like to brainstorm are ones that sort of try to go in a weird direction to begin with so having the extra feats feels really good.

Dual-class is also pretty fun for similar reasons.

Trying to convince a friend to run dual-class, free archetype, and ancestral paragon all at once.

[Planpanther]

Just looked up free archetype and agree, it would help me enjoy PF2 a lot more.

[Omega Metroid]

Hmm... been thinking about it, and what I would love to see is a system with:

• 5e's width: Each class/archetype combination supports a lot of ideas, albeit mainly by being a super-light framework that has enough content to give you a flavour but too little to interfere with RPing.
• 5e's "big" conceptual packages: Each feat has to be worth "+1 to everything you care about", and thus tends to give you major options that significantly change your playstyle. Multiclassing gives you everything, including archetype if you choose cleric or "spend" a feat on dipping 2-3 levels instead of just 1 (seriously, Fighter Lv.2 is the best casting feat in 5e).
• PF2's depth: While its heavily reliance on feat chains is one of the more troublesome things to have inherited from 3.5e/PF1, it does a wonderful job of making you feel like you're really good at one thing. It can really flesh a character out; two, e.g., archers will play significantly differently depending on which chain they choose (class feats, Archer archetype, Eldritch Archer archetype), and even if they take the same chain, there'll be noticeable differences depending on how deeply they go into it. PF2 may have trouble with characters that don't follow their class' & Lv.1 class option's core concept exactly, but it is extremely good at fleshing out characters that do adhere to those concepts.
• PF2's subclassing: PF2 multiclass archetypes, while not traditional multiclassing, are an extremely good adaptation of Etrian Odyssey-style subclasses to the tabletop RPG format. I would love to see them in a system that also supports traditional multiclassing, it'd give us an insane amount of flexibility.
• PF2's feat system: This is by far the best part of PF2, providing design space for a ton of ideas without running into the "everything competes with your core feats" issue of 3.5e/PF1 or the "if you're paying '+1 to everything important' for it, it needs to be huge" requirement 5e imposes on its feats. There's a lot of room for small, stylistic plugins that give you a nifty little ability or quirk, most if not all of which won't negatively interfere with your combat performance.
• PF2's martial options: Seriously, PF2 is probably the best system at making martials feel like more than just weapons with weird fleshy things growing out of their hilts. No contest here, really.
• PF1's fine-tuning: PF2 is a nice take on it, but being able to control our skill builds more precisely would be a fine way to add more personality to our characters. This is more of a personal thing, though; PF2's system is good enough here, but I feel it has much more room to improve. PF1's traits are a fun take on backgrounds, too, especially the drawbacks; honestly, I'd love for PF2 or 5e to add options that let you select a drawback like that for your character, even if it isn't paired with a mechanical benefit, since it'd give them more flavour.
• 3.5e/PF1's option library: Self-explanatory, really. Each of these two has a lot more content than both 5e & PF2 combined, which makes it that much likelier that you'll find exactly what you need for your character concept... if you can sift through it all. ;3
• 5e or PF1's gishiness: PF1 is probably the best system for gishes, with its iconic 2/3 caster design, though 5e isn't too bad about it either (albeit mainly due to not needing you to minmax for CL, giving most casters room to branch into martial classes for some girth, or due to the few archetypes that focus on gishing). PF2... really flounders here, alas.

This would be a pretty big task, and absurdly hard to balance; the ideal balancing point would be somewhere between 5e and PF2, giving just enough wiggle room to let you explore more builds without being significantly hampered by not minmaxing your key stat, and ideally with level not being one of the biggest numerical influences on balance.

WatersLethe wrote:

Free archetype is amazing and I strongly recommend it for anyone who feels PF2 is too constraining for them. Free archetype gives you a ton of potential optimization room too.

Agreed. A lot of concepts go from near-impossible to build with default rules to easy to build and with room to flesh them out without compromising their core identity once free archetype is added to the mix. Dual-classing opens things up even more, but will probably be overpowered unless a lot of care is taken. And both combined... Ooh, boy. <3

[Staffan Johansson]

Deriven Firelion wrote:

My buddies and I had way more fun building characters in 3E and PF1, not so much 5E so I don't get that comparison. 5E was basically get advantage in some way, then attack. I have no idea how Staffan saw that as different. It didn't matter if you got advantage due to darkness, some fortune ability, spending a hero point equivalent, or any other way, it was always just advantage. Basically, a hundred different ways to get advantage described slightly differently, then do some damage.

That is not how I have experienced it. But I think we're talking about two different levels of complexity, both tactical and logistical (or, what happens on the battle map vs what happens on my character sheet).

I admit that I haven't played a martial character in PF2, but what I've mostly seen (based on two champions, one rogue, one monk, and one barbarian) from both sides of the screen is that there's a lot of move, hit, raise shield type of stuff going on. Or move and double-attack, or move, intimidate, and attack. Occasionally someone goes "oh s@&$, that really hurt!" and use a healing ability or something. And sometimes someone knocks someone over or grabs them, but those are uncommon things. These classes tend not to have a bunch of resource management going on – none of the campaigns have gotten high enough that we've gotten the double or triple refocus feats, so the ones with limited-use abilities only get to use them once per fight.

Now, look at my 4th level fighter in 5e. As a base fighter, he has two independent resources to manage: action surge (take a second action on his turn), and second wind (moderate self-heal as a bonus action, very strong at low levels but rapidly losing oomph at higher levels). In addition, I have chosen the Battlemaster subclass, which gives me a number of special moves I can do, usually retroactively (I hit, and then I decide if I want to use one). I have three of those, in my case: Disarming Attack (deal +d8 damage and target must make a save or drop their weapon), Maneuvering Attack (deal +d8 damage and one of my buddies get to move a bit, not provoking reactions when doing so), and Riposte (when someone misses me in melee, I can make a counter-attack and if I hit I deal +d8 damage). I can do these things a total of four times per short rest.

These things make me feel awesome in a fight. It lets me add that extra oomph just where I need it. That's generally not a thing martials do in PF2. They have lots of ability to adjust to the situation, but they don't have any particular reserves to call upon. And fighter feats tend to be on all the time, which means they are generally a bit meh, because you can't have awesome things all the time. Either meh things all the time, or awesome things some of the time. I prefer the latter.

But that's just my character. For another example, look at bards. For one thing, Pathfinder bards don't have Vicious Mockery, which is just sad. I'd mock them for it, but that would be unfair of me. For another, look at their inspiration mechanics. The PF bard has Inspire Courage, which gives +1 to attacks, damage, and saves vs fear. In order to help your allies do other things than fight, you need to take the Inspire Competence feat, which is only available to a subset of bards, and it doesn't really let you do anything you couldn't have done without helping them in some other way. 5e, on the other hand, have Bardic Inspiration which lets the bard hand out bonus dice for later use. They can be used for whatever check you need, and most sub-classes also let you use them for other things.

For a PF2 bard, using Inspire Courage is a no-brainer, because it's a really strong buff, but it's a passive buff. It's a +1 that's definitely appreciated, but it'll only really help 1/10th of the time. But for the 5e bard, it's a limited resource, so you need to consider when to use it, and how. Do you give the barbarian a bonus die to give them insurance when they use Great Weapon Mastery? Do you give the cleric a bonus die so make sure they don't fall to an unlucky save? And then the player who got the die has to make the same call – I rolled a 14 on my attack, and I'm not quite sure but I think I need a 16 or 17 to hit, is it worth using my d6 on this roll?

The sub-class system also lets you give out cool abilities earlier. A 5e monk can choose the Way of Shadow at 3rd level, and cast minor illusion as a cantrip, or darkvision, darkness, pass without trace, or silence for a few ki points. At 6th level, you get to teleport a short distance from shadow to shadow. In PF2, you can't even start becoming a Shadowdancer until 8th level, and that only gives you (greater) darkvision and a stealth bonus. You don't get any magic until 10th level, and that magic is IMO not as good as a 6th level 5e monk's. Because the 5e subclass is treated as a package, it can be balanced as a whole, instead of having each individual ability being a thing you can pick from a menu. So you have significantly fewer choices, but each choice has a BIG impact.

[Guntermench]

Quote:

So you have significantly fewer choices, but each choice has a BIG impact.

And you hit level 3, make your last choice outside of a couple feats if you use them, and don't really get much new ever again.

Fun.

[Omega Metroid]

Gonna agree with Staffan on the Bard thing there, choosing when to use their BI dice can be really fun. Especially when we look at the greedier ones like Swords College, since they have to choose between giving an ally a consumable buff, finishing off a weakened enemy, buffing their AC to tank a strong hit, or getting a key movement burst so they can reach an ally that needs their help. And Vicious Mockery is just plain fun, as is their ability to just go and learn a few spells outside their list (which, admittedly, is also really unbalanced, but that can be worked around if it bothers the group). They have a lot of things that I'd love to see ported to PF2~.

Guntermench wrote:

Quote:

So you have significantly fewer choices, but each choice has a BIG impact.

And you hit level 3, make your last choice outside of a couple feats if you use them, and don't really get much new ever again.

Fun.

That's a failing of WotC more than the system itself, really. 5e has room for more content, and was designed with adding new pieces in mind (that's why basically everything is an optional rule). The issue is that WotC released the framework itself, but we haven't actually been given the plug-ins that the framework was meant to accomodate, and it feels pretty barren as a result.

[Albatoonoe]

Playing Starfinder can be a little rough sometimes, but it has different baselines that make it worthwhile. Though I didn't get to play it for various reasons, I was semi-recently gonna do a PF1 game. Making the character was a lot tougher than PF2. The way everything worked together in arcane ways was a lot more tedious.

5e, well, I don't care for. However, there is some brilliant 3pp stuff for the system that I still buy. Humblewood and Hellboy are both super fun and tempt be back. Coming from PF, I like to make unusual and unique characters. I tried to make a kung-fu assassin type character by multiclassing Monk and Rogue. It went poorly.

5e has really colorful options in the subclasses, but that is pretty much what you get to work with. There are pros and cons to each, but I think PF2 is my platonic ideal for a system.

[fanatic66]

I don't think the Battlemaster is a great case for the strengths of 5E. I would try to make a martial Fighter. Many of the stuff the Battlemaster can do, a PF2E Fighter can do with the right skills, and without as many limits. And the nice thing is that any martial (or caster for that matter) can do combat maneuvers. It's not limited to a specific subclass of a specific class and the frequency isn't gated behind short rests.

However, I think the heart of your Steffan's post does point to a certain issue PF2E has. Besides focus points and spells, few abilities have a "cooldown", which means you can spam them all day long. That is really cool, but the downside is that their power level can feel meh because the abilities are balanced around the fact there are unlimited in frequency. 5E abilities usually are limited to X times per short or long rest, which means they can be more impactful, but at the cost you can't do them all the time. There are some exceptions, but that's the general design. Some players like having strong abilities and resource management, while others don't.

Resource management also comes with design difficulties such as the infamous 5 minute adventure day. One of the flaws of 5E for me is the poor balance of short rest vs long rest classes. Since the game is designed around the average adventure day (6-8 encounters), the balance suffers if you just run 1-3 combats a day. This lets people go nova with their abilities, and favors long rest classes that have more powerful abilities limited to X times per long rest. PF2E elegantly gets past this issue by making abilities limitless except for spells (for the most part). So you can run 1-3 encounters in PF2E without having to worry about short rest classes get screwed over.

Now, if you like to run dungeons or long adventuring days, then disregard my last paragraph, but I don't like those type of games. And from I've read online, not many others do.

With all that said, I would like to have more impactful abilities in PF2E that are on "cooldown", but the designers would have to be careful to prevent the game from evolving into 5E's problem adventure day design.

[Salamileg]

Omega Metroid wrote:

That's a failing of WotC more than the system itself, really. 5e has room for more content, and was designed with adding new pieces in mind (that's why basically everything is an optional rule). The issue is that WotC released the framework itself, but we haven't actually been given the plug-ins that the framework was meant to accomodate, and it feels pretty barren as a result.

I agree with this pretty strongly actually. 5e at its core is a really good system imo (with some glaring flaws that can be worked around) but WotC has absolutely refused to do anything interesting with it.

[Verdyn]

Salamileg wrote:

I agree with this pretty strongly actually. 5e at its core is a really good system imo (with some glaring flaws that can be worked around) but WotC has absolutely refused to do anything interesting with it.

I have no idea why they're sticking with one major rule book per year with everything else being an adventure or a setting guide with each offering maybe a handful of new spells and items to their buyers. I don't think they'd want to go back to a 3.x book every month or two breakneck pace - even if I'd love that - but even a substantial rule book every quarter would be a huge upgrade over the current paucity of major updates.

[Cyouni]

Ravingdork wrote:

Has anyone else, after playing Pathfinder 2E, gone back to older games, such as Pathfinder 1E, Starfinder, or D&D 3/4/5? If so, what was it like for you?

I've had my head buried in 2E for what seems like two years now, and a friend just invited me to join his Starfinder campaign. I played a lot of Starfinder when it first released (as evidenced by my many characters), but now I find I'm struggling to re-remember rules and having to re-read the combat chapter to get reoriented again. It all seems so clunky now that I'm looking at them from a eye-opened 2E perspective.

Though I'm sure my brain will snap back into place and I'll once again grasp the rules in short order, I don't think it's ever going to feel the same again. It's like driving a Maserati, then going back to a Toyota for a pleasure cruise. It's just not the same after "the Maserati experience."

Have an of you experienced anything similar?

We were finishing up a high-level PF1 campaign while (mostly) the same group was also finishing up a high-level transferred PF2 campaign.

Let's just say that between the high-power diabolist witch, the antipaladin sanguine angel, and the cleric necromancer (also the bard, I guess), difficulty was reduced to shreds.

It was rough every time we could see the comparisons to the other campaign, and that PF1 campaign finished up a lot faster than we'd originally planned.

[fanatic66]

Verdyn wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

I agree with this pretty strongly actually. 5e at its core is a really good system imo (with some glaring flaws that can be worked around) but WotC has absolutely refused to do anything interesting with it.

I have no idea why they're sticking with one major rule book per year with everything else being an adventure or a setting guide with each offering maybe a handful of new spells and items to their buyers. I don't think they'd want to go back to a 3.x book every month or two breakneck pace - even if I'd love that - but even a substantial rule book every quarter would be a huge upgrade over the current paucity of major updates.

It's infuriating as a long time 5E fan that WotC has a glacial pace of content, but I see their point. D&D is booming more than ever and I think they are too scared to do anything that might compromise that spectacular success. To be fair to them, 5E is now like the gateway drug for TTRPG, so keeping it casual with not an overwhelming amount of content might make sense. Even if it irks more hardcore enthusiasts like myself.

Thankfully 5E has a great homebrew community with honestly some better content than what WotC produces. But I would still want some official content.

[Verdyn]

fanatic66 wrote:

It's infuriating as a long time 5E fan that WotC has a glacial pace of content, but I see their point. D&D is booming more than ever and I think they are too scared to do anything that might compromise that spectacular success. To be fair to them, 5E is now like the gateway drug for TTRPG, so keeping it casual with not an overwhelming amount of content might make sense. Even if it irks more hardcore enthusiasts like myself.

Thankfully 5E has a great homebrew community with honestly some better content than what WotC produces. But I would still want some official content.

I should really get over it but I've rarely allowed any homebrew or 3rd party stuff into my games. I'd usually rather work with my players to get them what they want in a way that's tailored to us or try to brew a working build-out of existing material. I know this isn't fair and that homebrew has come a long way from what it was in the early 2000s but sometimes these habits stick.

[Cyrad]

I find it difficult to play Starfinder at all. The lack of content, rough low levels, inflexible class options, and the unsatisfying spellcasting classes are already strikes against it. Now, I come to it wishing it had 2nd Edition Pathfinder's action economy system.

I still look forward to the books coming out, including the nanocyte.

[fanatic66]

Verdyn wrote:

fanatic66 wrote:

It's infuriating as a long time 5E fan that WotC has a glacial pace of content, but I see their point. D&D is booming more than ever and I think they are too scared to do anything that might compromise that spectacular success. To be fair to them, 5E is now like the gateway drug for TTRPG, so keeping it casual with not an overwhelming amount of content might make sense. Even if it irks more hardcore enthusiasts like myself.

Thankfully 5E has a great homebrew community with honestly some better content than what WotC produces. But I would still want some official content.

I should really get over it but I've rarely allowed any homebrew or 3rd party stuff into my games. I'd usually rather work with my players to get them what they want in a way that's tailored to us or try to brew a working build-out of existing material. I know this isn't fair and that homebrew has come a long way from what it was in the early 2000s but sometimes these habits stick.

Honestly, if you're playing 5E and not using homebrew, I feel like you are missing out. The benefits of the system being simple and WotC's glacial pace of new content are that there is a large demand for quality homebrew. There are still plenty of duds and OP stuff, but there's a lot of highly reviewed and curated homebrew content including new classes, subclasses, monsters, ancestries, feats, spells, etc.

[fanatic66]

Cyrad wrote:

I find it difficult to play Starfinder at all. The lack of content, rough low levels, inflexible class options, and the unsatisfying spellcasting classes are already strikes against it. Now, I come to it wishing it had 2nd Edition Pathfinder's action economy system.

I still look forward to the books coming out, including the nanocyte.

I played a 1 shot of Starfinder and dived into the setting beforehand. The setting is cool and I love the Solarian. But after playing 2E, Starfinder would feel way too clunky. The 3 action economy would help that game and frankly most TTRPG games. I wish 5E had the 3 action economy

[Deriven Firelion]

Omega Metroid wrote:

Hmm... been thinking about it, and what I would love to see is a system with:

• 5e's width: Each class/archetype combination supports a lot of ideas, albeit mainly by being a super-light framework that has enough content to give you a flavour but too little to interfere with RPing.
• 5e's "big" conceptual packages: Each feat has to be worth "+1 to everything you care about", and thus tends to give you major options that significantly change your playstyle. Multiclassing gives you everything, including archetype if you choose cleric or "spend" a feat on dipping 2-3 levels instead of just 1 (seriously, Fighter Lv.2 is the best casting feat in 5e).
• PF2's depth: While its heavily reliance on feat chains is one of the more troublesome things to have inherited from 3.5e/PF1, it does a wonderful job of making you feel like you're really good at one thing. It can really flesh a character out; two, e.g., archers will play significantly differently depending on which chain they choose (class feats, Archer archetype, Eldritch Archer archetype), and even if they take the same chain, there'll be noticeable differences depending on how deeply they go into it. PF2 may have trouble with characters that don't follow their class' & Lv.1 class option's core concept exactly, but it is extremely good at fleshing out characters that do adhere to those concepts.
• PF2's subclassing: PF2 multiclass archetypes, while not traditional multiclassing, are an extremely good adaptation of Etrian Odyssey-style subclasses to the tabletop RPG format. I would love to see them in a system that also supports traditional multiclassing, it'd give us an insane amount of flexibility.
• PF2's feat system: This is by far the best part of PF2, providing design space for a ton of ideas without running into the "everything competes with your core feats" issue of 3.5e/PF1 or the "if you're paying '+1 to everything important' for it, it needs to be huge" requirement 5e imposes on its feats. There's a lot of room for...

Why do you say PF2 has feat chains? What's an example of a PF2 feat chain? I have found PF2 to not be specialized.

In every version of D&D, PF1, and 5E, you are more specialized than PF2. PF2 is the first game where my players pick up a missile weapon because they don't feel punished for doing so.

The difference in damage between a non-specialized character choosing to use a different weapon is far smaller than it has ever been before. Feat chains are usually 2 feats with some additional optional feats you may not need. Many of the feats work with a variety of weapons, so no specialization required.

Between the large number of ability bonuses, weapons scaling with dice, no outsized bonus to hit for various feats, lots of abilities and feats working across multiple weapons like weapon specialization, and the like, there is no tight specialization. You can pick up a different weapon and be effective.

PF2 is one of the least specialized versions of D&D I've played. After playing PF1 where you commit strongly to real feat chains that cross multiple levels, the feat investment for PF2 is very light. Maybe two or three feats and you'll be as good as you need to be in a particular weapon style. You have plenty of room to mix a variety of feats into a few fighting styles if you so choose.

A ranger as an example can be both an archer and have a well-developed animal companion. His Hunter's Edge works for both. He's still good at melee if he needs to as his Hunter's Edge works with melee.

The fighter is more specialized than most classes with his weapon group. But even if he switches to another weapon he's just as good as every other martial with that weapon.

When I played my barbarian, I hardly stuck with a single weapon. Took one feat to be able to use thrown weapons with rage. I could easily switch between weapons as all my class features worked fine with them.

You don't need strong feat chain investment in PF2. You can go a lot of different directions and do a few things well. Or just be a generalist easier than any other edition.

[Amaya/Polaris]

Opinion Zone time: I don't really like Bardic Inspiration. It can be used on a lot of things, which...is exactly the issue for me. I imagine I'd get wicked choice paralysis deciding who to pre-buff or what to use it on, and our campaign's Bard has mostly spent his time fighting and casting to the point we usually forget it exists until some important roll has been flubbed and we think back to whether we got it at some point. I like the build-a-toolbox feel composition cantrips can grant. Though, I suppose it's been a long time away, and PF2 design has made me appreciate its effects more...when actually playing, it just doesn't feel like things directly matter as much due to attrition being the main source of difficulty outside of homebrew experiments that have sometimes gone pretty poorly.

Oh, and don't get me started on Battle Master. It rocks. It's the coolest Fighter subclass in the entire core retinue, and it makes me angry, because it's the only one like that and, furthermore, gets those mechanics from what all Fighters, and even all martials, could have been in that system. Playtest 5E gets me so tilted for everything they left on the operating table, and what they continue to cut from UA offerings. >w>;

That said, yeah, PF2 is my preferred system, but it doesn't strike me as the pinnacle of all TTRPG potential, and some of the cores of 5E's design (that WotC neglects or misuses) could be worthy mix-ins. I very much look forward to seeing the many years of cool stuff that PF2's lifespan will bring it, but I can't help but wonder what will come afterwards too. I have a good feeling about it. ~w~