Which do you prefer? PF 1 or 2?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

You can play Ganzi Fetchlings in P2


PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.


Yes.

No joke, depends on what kind of mood I'm in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Edition warring will get your posts removed and your threads closed.

Probably not a good idea to deliberately post a baiting headline and encourage such warring.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Or maybe for once it can be a mature thoughtful discussion on the nuances between the editions and not a war. Maybe a new person came here with hope about the brand and wanted quantifiable opinions on the likes of fellow posters.

Maybe...

Wouldn't it be nice?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I prefer PF1 bwcause it is crunchier and I love to munch on the crunch. PF2 is also good, especially with the expansion of certain aspects, and feels more easy to use but I simply do not vibe as well with the streamlined aspects, similar to how I do not vibe with D&D 5e.

I feel like both have their merits though.


I have heard it said that most players appreciate the mechanics of PF1 more due to character options and the ability to get really intricate effects from the way certain rules can interact. I've heard that most GMs like PF2 more due to the ease in which they can put an encounter together and the way the math works out so that encounters aren't decided by whomever has the first action.

And I've heard that most players appreciate that their GMs like PF2 more, because that means they are more likely to run adventures they can play in.

That's a lot of hearsay, but my limited experience (with PF2) supports it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I have absolutely no experience with or even knowledge of PF2's rules. My group began playing in 2009 with PF1 and decided it is the version we'd one day "retire from gaming" with. Our reasons were pretty valid, at least to us. We don't get to play very often anymore, after 35+ years and spending literally thousands of dollars (as a group) we have no interest in investing time and cash into another set of rules, and, quite simply, we like the vast array of options available to players and the crunchy goodness it packs into every bite...er...dice roll.

PF2 is probably a fine game, for all I know. Many players love it, I'm sure. We're just old and set in our ways. And miserly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

One other thing I forgot in my original reply.
I feel like PF2 has a much heavier hand when it comes to the lore and worldspace, directly referencing it and giving details on the setting in the core rulebook.
Me personally, I never liked the official lore, I prefer to do my own worldbuilding and I feel like PF1 facilitates that better.


Dr Offe T. Radar wrote:

One other thing I forgot in my original reply.

I feel like PF2 has a much heavier hand when it comes to the lore and worldspace, directly referencing it and giving details on the setting in the core rulebook.
Me personally, I never liked the official lore, I prefer to do my own worldbuilding and I feel like PF1 facilitates that better.

I have never played in a published setting, having learned to play AD&D 1e in a homebrew setting and have created my own ever since. I honestly thought the Forgotten Realms stuff was just Ed Greenwood wankery and Golarion just didn't appeal to me, either.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.

System and setting are not the same.

I'm not sure what the OP was asking about.

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

Or maybe for once it can be a mature thoughtful discussion on the nuances between the editions and not a war. Maybe a new person came here with hope about the brand and wanted quantifiable opinions on the likes of fellow posters.

Maybe...

Wouldn't it be nice?

Oh, come on. You know better than that.

This is the internet.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.

System and setting are not the same.

I'm not sure what the OP was asking about.

I care more about the lore than the rules. I answered the question in the way it applies to me.

Radiant Oath

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.

This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder. Not even close. (Though I haven't learned much of PF2; it's just not worth the time.)

For me, mostly it's what DungeonmasterCal was saying earlier (though I love the setting). There's just so much 3E and PF material to really sink one's life into, and so many years of gaming in the system, there's no point in learning a new one. Of course I bought the PF2 Core and Bestiary and read over it -- and still support Paizo because they have done so much for the gaming world that I want to support them. .... I had figured, when PF2 came out, that I'd stick with Pathfinder for a couple years then switch -- like I did going from the 80s to the 90s with the new edition, like I did going from the 90s to Monte Cook's system in the new millennium. I just assumed that would be the case. But several years in to PF2 and I can't imagine I'll ever leave the Pathfinder game.

But I can totally understand newer gamers preferring PF2. Absolutely! I'm sure it's a great system and of course it's easier to learn and teach than Pathfinder. I recommend new players to check it out. But again, I stick to the system I know and have so many more decades of gaming to do: Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1. Was not happy with PF2 rollout, and the cliques that developed in light of it.


AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.

3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've played both, and I find PF2 far easier to learn and run than PF1.

Additionally, Paizo is no longer producing new material for PF1 and hasn't for 3 or 4 years. Nor is it issuing errata.

And, no matter which platform you use, there are more PF2 games available than PF1.


Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?

It is not. It's still not. Won't be until 2025.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I ran 1e for 2 years and simply did not like it much after a point (we finished up the AP though). Any attempt to get new people interested in the game failed basically immediately especially given how much labor has to go in to setting up an NPC character sheet for use and how needlessly complicated character building and use could be.

2e has better encounter building tools, more robust and interesting character building with less pointless options, a superior focus on the setting and the people in it, and much improved gameplay in the moment. I've been able to introduce so many people to RPGs with it. Among Fantasy d20 Games it's definitely my top position that I've tried, but also I run plenty of other games as well that aren't as high crunch as either Pathfinder.

Edit: oh yeah and the books are just kind of better. No more dinky little 40 page books pumped out monthly with little editorial oversight and they can actually give the topic of the book attention instead of trying to broad strokes cover an entire thing in a small paperback.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

keftiu wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.

System and setting are not the same.

I'm not sure what the OP was asking about.
I care more about the lore than the rules. I answered the question in the way it applies to me.

Ah! You realize that PF1 lore works perfectly well with PF2 rules (exception, the changes to summoning).

Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?
It is not. It's still not. Won't be until 2025.

Okay, Ace Of Moxen, made a math error. Give him a break.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.

System and setting are not the same.

I'm not sure what the OP was asking about.
I care more about the lore than the rules. I answered the question in the way it applies to me.
Ah! You realize that PF1 lore works perfectly well with PF2 rules (exception, the changes to summoning).

You’re not trying to get anyone else to change their answer - why me?

I’ve run PF1. I think PF2 is a much cleaner game system. Plenty of other voices in this thread have that perspective covered, so I offered another point of perspective: PF1 treated everywhere outside of its Fantasy Europe as a theme park to go kill people in. Even if PF2 wasn’t a system I prefer much more massively, the effort to not blindly write a bunch or colonialist pulp violence would elevate it any day of the week, IMO.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
keftiu wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
keftiu wrote:

PF2 treats folks from outside Avistan as people.

Let’s just say PF1 did not.

System and setting are not the same.

I'm not sure what the OP was asking about.
I care more about the lore than the rules. I answered the question in the way it applies to me.
Ah! You realize that PF1 lore works perfectly well with PF2 rules (exception, the changes to summoning).
You’re not trying to get anyone else to change their answer - why me?

Actually, I am not. Your issue with the colonialism baked into the old pulps is entirely justified. Serpent's Skull is the worst offender here, but Jade Regent deserves some dishonorable mention.

There are older gamers (like myself) us who may actually feel more comfortable with the mechanics of PF1. However,… that's no reason to keep the problematic lore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only experience I have with PF2 was the playtest which I did not enjoy, so PF1 for me.

That said I am personally moving towards a Spheres of Power, Might and Guile, focus with it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I started playing DnD with the French version of the Basic red box 37 years ago. Then I went ADD for about 2 years.

I later drifted to other systems and only came back to DnD with the launch of 3.0

I have been playing regularly, and almost exclusively, 3.5 then PF1 from 2006 to 2018.

Then the PF2 playtest happened and I never looked back.

Even though I too spent a small fortune on this passion of ours, PF2 took the place of PF1 in the part of my headspace dedicated to crunchy TTRPGs and I would be hard-pressed to play PF1 again.

And I say all this as an eternal player (rather than GM) of the 3.5/PF1/PF2 systems.

On a sidenote, it is interesting to see so many staunch PF1-forever posters on this thread. Might be due to its unusual location on the boards.

Love you all, people.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Forgot to say that I love PF2 because

- it is simpler to learn (at least the basics, system mastery is still there though not at the same place nor with the same impact)

- optimized build is not so essential anymore : a basic build and an optimized one can perfectly venture side by side, which makes the game more accessible to more people

- there are lots of simple toggles that the GM can use to improve the experience for everyone (players and GM alike), especially in homebrew settings

- we now have APs (and a workable system) that goes up to 20

- Paizo devs work on improving PF2 (see Remastered for a great example). They will not go back to improving PF1

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
W E Ray wrote:

Pathfinder. Not even close. (Though I haven't learned much of PF2; it's just not worth the time.)

For me, mostly it's what DungeonmasterCal was saying earlier (though I love the setting). There's just so much 3E and PF material to really sink one's life into, and so many years of gaming in the system, there's no point in learning a new one. Of course I bought the PF2 Core and Bestiary and read over it -- and still support Paizo because they have done so much for the gaming world that I want to support them. .... I had figured, when PF2 came out, that I'd stick with Pathfinder for a couple years then switch -- like I did going from the 80s to the 90s with the new edition, like I did going from the 90s to Monte Cook's system in the new millennium. I just assumed that would be the case. But several years in to PF2 and I can't imagine I'll ever leave the Pathfinder game.

But I can totally understand newer gamers preferring PF2. Absolutely! I'm sure it's a great system and of course it's easier to learn and teach than Pathfinder. I recommend new players to check it out. But again, I stick to the system I know and have so many more decades of gaming to do: Pathfinder.

PF2 is Pathfinder too. Saying otherwise sounds extremely scornful for PF2 and the people who enjoy it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

10 people marked this as a favorite.
chongjasmine wrote:
Dancing Wind, the reason I ask the question is because I am new to pathfinder and role-playing, and can't decide whether to buy PF1 or PF2.

Well first off welcome to the Pathfinder world! :)

This is important information, because while I prefer PF1, I would highly recommend PF2 to new players.

The reason is PF1 was developed as an offshoot to D&D 3.5e. While I'm sure as always getting new players was a goal for Paizo when launching Pathfinder, the people who initially got into it, playtested it, and championed it were already experienced D&D players who wanted an improvement on the 3.x engine rather than switch to D&D 4e, which WoTC marketed and playtested poorly and made design decisions many (though not all) longtime players found unpalatable. In short, PF1e presumed, to an extent, familiarity with D&D 3.x (something newer and younger players have no idea what that is like).

I was one such player, and I was already eight years into playing 3.x when I decided to switch to Pathfinder, because I liked what it kept from that prior system while making what I felt were major improvements. However, 3.x and Pathfinder moreso are built on a complex system of bonuses and conditional situations which can be overwhelming to new players (which I've experienced when trying to teach people to play PF1 who had no familiarity with 3.x). I've stuck with PF1e over the years because I learned the system extensively, all the moreso when I spent about seven years freelance editing for Paizo.

While you can see the origins of 3.x in PF2e, Paizo much more intentionally stripped it down and rebuilt it to be a system much more easily teachable to newer players. It has its own complexities, IMO, but there is a codification and consistency applied to the mechanics that makes them easier to track.

At the same time, by the time PF2 came out, I had now been playing Pathfinder and 3.x combined for 18 years. I could see how the new design would be appealing to newer players and GMs, but I would have to significantly unlearn a great deal to adapt. Being at an age/stage of life where my fellow gamers don't have a lot of time to play together, learning a system (while unlearning another) was unappealing to all of us, and without folks to play with (I didn't really want to learn it via PBP/online) I really had no reason to pursue it. So it's not that I think PF2 is worse or unplayable, just that it arrived at a time I wasn't ready to learn a new, complex system. (I have started learning other systems, like FATE Core and Modiphius 2d20, but they tend to be simpler ones that are easier to pick up, and are ones entirely divorced from Pathfinder/D&D so there is not information to unlearn.)

I think PF2 will be easier for a new player to learn and find fellow players for, and engaging a system that the developers are actively working on can be more exciting. The only advantage for PF1 is since it's obsolete, you can easily find all the mechanics you need--it's fixed and nothing new is going to come out that will complicate it further. But for many that is a flaw, not a benefit.

As an aside to pure system issues, I will say I really liked that PF1e's core rules and core rule hardcover line remained setting neutral, which made it easier to homebrew and/or use/convert D&D adventures from other settings. I was developing my own setting for 3.x when PF1 came out, and the core rules staying setting neutral made conversion tremendously easy for me to do so. PF2 incorporates Golarion into its core rules, and while stripping it out is not difficult (I have no doubt many folks have successfull homebrew campaigns in PF2), it's still one more step to take. (Also I have a raging hatred for Golarion goblins and are irked by their core presence in PF2 and would have to write them out in any game I ran in that system, were that ever to happen, but that is an extraordinarily small matter that has little to do with the value of the actual system mechanics.)

chongjasmine wrote:
Also, I will like to know which is more active in play by post forum, whether here or elsewhere. That is the mode I am playing, play by post, and I will prefer to buy the more active one.

I would say here you will have luck finding both in roughly equal measure (I think slightly more PF2 games are coming out but I am finding plenty of 1e games to consider apping into). Other places I do not know, but I would presume you may have better luck with PF2 since it is the living system.

Quote:
Final question: Where can I play pathfinder play by post, regardless whether it is PF 1 or PF 2. Other than here?

I only play PBP here. The only PBP-via-message board server I am aware of is rpol.net but I don't know what is available there. Many folks these days play via Discord (PBP as well as voice chat) and as a Discord newbie I don't really know how to find games there yet. I hope some other folks notice your question and answer it, but if not you might try the Online Campaigns subforum and repost this question in the general discussion sub-subforum.

Whatever you decide to do, good luck and happy gaming!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As the years went on with PF1, I had start developing an evergrowing list of house rules/optional rules for my games. I had my own document and everything. When they announced PF2, imagine my surprise when nearly every idea I had for PF1 were going to be in PF2. Executed better, too.

My list of things I'm dissatisfied with concerning 2e is very small, and a couple of those problems were still present in 1e. PF2 is pretty darn close to an ideal system for me.

Also, I can play an Ifrit Dwarf of Dhampir Fetchling. That is rad.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
PF2 is Pathfinder too. Saying otherwise sounds extremely scornful for PF2 and the people who enjoy it.

.

It's certainly not intended. PF or PF2 / Pathfinder or Pathfinder Two. Or however.

Radiant Oath

W E Ray wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
PF2 is Pathfinder too. Saying otherwise sounds extremely scornful for PF2 and the people who enjoy it.

.

It's certainly not intended. PF or PF2 / Pathfinder or Pathfinder Two. Or however.

Almost no one says "the great war" to refer to WW1, for an example. You might try "original pathfinder," like we say the "original trilogy" of Star Wars.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I agree with DQ's entire post, pretty much, but this part was like looking in a mirror. I'm sure this sums up so many people's experience.

DeathQuaker wrote:
At the same time, by the time PF2 came out, I had now been playing Pathfinder and 3.x combined for 18 years. I could see how the new design would be appealing to newer players and GMs, but I would have to significantly unlearn a great deal to adapt. Being at an age/stage of life where my fellow gamers don't have a lot of time to play together, learning a system (while unlearning another) was unappealing to all of us, and without folks to play with (I didn't really want to learn it via PBP/online) I really had no reason to pursue it. So it's not that I think PF2 is worse or unplayable, just that it arrived at a time I wasn't ready to learn a new, complex system.

That said, I have delved into a couple PF2 PbP games, and the one starting at level 1 wasn't too hard to get into, and I've levelled a dwarven rogue up to level 3 with little issue; but the level 9 witch that I've brought over from PF1 to PF2 was pretty hard to convert. Predictably.


DeathQuaker wrote:
chongjasmine wrote:
Dancing Wind, the reason I ask the question is because I am new to pathfinder and role-playing, and can't decide whether to buy PF1 or PF2.

Well first off welcome to the Pathfinder world! :)

This is important information, because while I prefer PF1, I would highly recommend PF2 to new players.

The reason is PF1 was developed as an offshoot to D&D 3.5e. While I'm sure as always getting new players was a goal for Paizo when launching Pathfinder, the people who initially got into it, playtested it, and championed it were already experienced D&D players who wanted an improvement on the 3.x engine rather than switch to D&D 4e, which WoTC marketed and playtested poorly and made design decisions many (though not all) longtime players found unpalatable. In short, PF1e presumed, to an extent, familiarity with D&D 3.x (something newer and younger players have no idea what that is like).

I was one such player, and I was already eight years into playing 3.x when I decided to switch to Pathfinder, because I liked what it kept from that prior system while making what I felt were major improvements. However, 3.x and Pathfinder moreso are built on a complex system of bonuses and conditional situations which can be overwhelming to new players (which I've experienced when trying to teach people to play PF1 who had no familiarity with 3.x). I've stuck with PF1e over the years because I learned the system extensively, all the moreso when I spent about seven years freelance editing for Paizo.

While you can see the origins of 3.x in PF2e, Paizo much more intentionally stripped it down and rebuilt it to be a system much more easily teachable to newer players. It has its own complexities, IMO, but there is a codification and consistency applied to the mechanics that makes them easier to track.

At the same time, by the time PF2 came out, I had now been playing Pathfinder and 3.x combined for 18 years. I could see how the new design would be appealing to newer players and GMs, but I...

Eloquence AND beauty.

DQ IS OP!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF1E even if it ports over all the flaws of3.5. With very small attempts to fix those flaws at that.

I was going to get into PF2E with the remaster on the horizon will switch to thst instead.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1e.

I am trying to get into PF2e via a PbP game, but between that and the many times I've tried reading rules written for it my efforts don't seem to make the game attractive. I don't think there's anything objectively wrong about PF2e, but it's possible the "nearly everything is written like a feat" format is hard for me to evaluate. Or maybe I'm getting old. Or I have other D&D3e-derived games to use when PF1e fails. In any case, I will likely be sticking with PF1e and simply using a mountain of 3rd party offerings to get it where I like it.


Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?

No, it can't. 3.0 released in 2000, then 3.5 was like 2 years later. Pathfinder, as a system, released in 2009.

Radiant Oath

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RedRobe wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?
No, it can't. 3.0 released in 2000, then 3.5 was like 2 years later. Pathfinder, as a system, released in 2009.

sigh. OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

PF1 only because of familiarity (or, what DQ said).

That said, both systems share what's probably an unavoidable consequence of their versatility and the sheer number of options they permit: it's easy to make a character that isn't as capable as module designers expect; and conversely, system mastery allows a player to create a character that's more capable than module designers plan around. In a social gaming setting where you're playing with your friends, this isn't as big a deal as it is when you're doing Organized Play and/or PbP with people you don't know, and if your character doesn't have anything to do because you fluffed the build you're unlikely to have much fun playing.

One of the things I'm a little down on PF2 for is that it feels like they're basically speedrunning adding options--Secrets of Magic, Guns & Gears, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive came out in a span of just under 11 months, two years after the PF2 Core Rulebook release. The closest I saw to that in early PF1 was Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat coming out within a few months of each other, two years after the PF1 Core Rulebook came out, but none of the other Ultimates came out anywhere close to that.

(Granted, PF1 Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures came out within a month of each other, but that was six years after the Core release.)

In any case, PF2 feels like drinking from a fire hose. If I played it more I expect I'd get the hang of it more quickly, though.


AceofMoxen wrote:
RedRobe wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?
No, it can't. 3.0 released in 2000, then 3.5 was like 2 years later. Pathfinder, as a system, released in 2009.
sigh. OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

Um...sigh...no. The quote is PF1 starts with a 25 years out of date operating system. No it doesn't. Since PF1 starts in 2009 from a 2000 launch date of the beginning of the system it cannot start with a 25 year out of date operating system 9 years later.

sigh. If the language were cleaned up and amended to PF1 runs on a 25 year (rounded up for simplicity) out of date operating system then sure.

le sigh


AceofMoxen wrote:
RedRobe wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
PF2. Cleaner ruleset. Closer parity between classes. 3 Action economy.
This, and a million little things that make up keftiu's comment, and I was genuinely tried of 3.5's problems. PF1 starts with a 25-years out of date operating system. We've had so many innovations since then.
3.x was 25 years old when pf1 came out? That can't be right...can it?
No, it can't. 3.0 released in 2000, then 3.5 was like 2 years later. Pathfinder, as a system, released in 2009.
sigh. OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

Wow.

That's a long time.

I maintain that PF1 is badly flawed, and it always worried me that few were interested in addressing those flaws within the system without creating a new one.

Radiant Oath

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
AceofMoxen wrote:
OP is starting with PF1 now, in 2023. So PF1 is running on a system that was cutting edge 23 years ago, which I rounded to 25.

Wow.

That's a long time.

I maintain that PF1 is badly flawed, and it always worried me that few were interested in addressing those flaws within the system without creating a new one.

3rd edition was fine, 3.5 was incredible, but by late 3.5 (the polymorph fix and swift actions), the system was showing its age compared to newer games. Pathfinder one killed dead levels and improved on 3.5, but at that point, the game was improving much slower than the gaming landscape around it. Unchained didn't solve much, and the late PF1 stuff seemed to lean into problems rather than introduce solutions.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps true, but playing the d20 system since 2000, and having all those books and supplements, and knowing how to Houserule the tweaks that work best for your group, -- combined with being able to continue with the system for decades to come without running out of material, -- just flat out means that there's no reason to change to a marginally better system in PF2. And learn a Whole new system. And buy a library of Whole new books. (only to have to do it all over again in 2030 when PF3 comes out)

I have no problem with Paizo doing PF2. Or PF3 in 2030-31. And I continue to financially support Paizo somewhat. (certainly don't pay for WotC crap!). But I still play Pathfinder. And that's still D&D.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It is not DnD

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
John Woodford wrote:

PF1 only because of familiarity (or, what DQ said).

That said, both systems share what's probably an unavoidable consequence of their versatility and the sheer number of options they permit: it's easy to make a character that isn't as capable as module designers expect; and conversely, system mastery allows a player to create a character that's more capable than module designers plan around. In a social gaming setting where you're playing with your friends, this isn't as big a deal as it is when you're doing Organized Play and/or PbP with people you don't know, and if your character doesn't have anything to do because you fluffed the build you're unlikely to have much fun playing.

One of the things I'm a little down on PF2 for is that it feels like they're basically speedrunning adding options--Secrets of Magic, Guns & Gears, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive came out in a span of just under 11 months, two years after the PF2 Core Rulebook release. The closest I saw to that in early PF1 was Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat coming out within a few months of each other, two years after the PF1 Core Rulebook came out, but none of the other Ultimates came out anywhere close to that.

(Granted, PF1 Advanced Class Guide and Occult Adventures came out within a month of each other, but that was six years after the Core release.)

In any case, PF2 feels like drinking from a fire hose. If I played it more I expect I'd get the hang of it more quickly, though.

The gap between a character built for fun and one built for mechanical optimisation is orders of magnitude lower in PF2.

It is quite feasible to have both adventure side by side.

I have never seen any problem like this in PFS ever since PF2 was released, and it is what I play almost weekly.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
It is not DnD

Well, what it is is built on OGL System Reference Document, but that sounds less sexy.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

The gap between a character built for fun and one built for mechanical optimisation is orders of magnitude lower in PF2.

It is quite feasible to have both adventure side by side.

This. This right here is why I prefer PF2. Players who want to let the narrative of the story shape how they build without focusing on the quest for the best mathematical synergies and players who want to optimize can play in the same campaign without the former getting left behind by the latter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
dirtypool wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:

The gap between a character built for fun and one built for mechanical optimisation is orders of magnitude lower in PF2.

It is quite feasible to have both adventure side by side.

This. This right here is why I prefer PF2. Players who want to let the narrative of the story shape how they build without focusing on the quest for the best mathematical synergies and players who want to optimize can play in the same campaign without the former getting left behind by the latter.

That makes it sound as if pf2 removes all flaws in character from gaming and that is simply not true. There are always going to be people who want their character to be mathematically sound, or even superior, in any tabletop game.

1 to 50 of 71 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Which do you prefer? PF 1 or 2? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.