Why do you still play PF1e / 3.x - and why not newer or older editions of the game?

[Ozreth]

As the title says. There are newer games (5e, PF2e). There are older games (AD&D 1e/2e, BECMI, RC, endless OSR clones and even games like Runequest and others).

I’m sure many of you came from 80s and 90s games. I’m sure many of you have tried the newer games.

What’s your history and experience with these games and what about the rules of the 3.x/PF1 system have kept it as your go to system, if it is?

[Arkat]

PF1e was the fix that D&D v3.5 needed.

We bought pretty much all the PF1e books because we liked those fixes.

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

[Lord Fyre]

Why not new editions (PF2E)?
- My group rejected PF2E. :( (We are also in our late 50s.)
- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

And now, PF2E Remaster is going to get a lot more expensive.

[Dragonchess Player]

IMO, you play the system that is the best fit for the campaign. AD&D (1st, 2nd, Player's Option), BECMI D&D, Ars Magica, GURPS, HERO System, 3.x, PF1, PF2, Warhammer, etc. all have strengths and weaknesses that suit different themes and playstyles. No one system is the best in every situation.

[Warped Savant]

My first RPG was AD&D 2ed, followed by GURPS and Vampire and a bunch of systems for short periods of time including 3.5 for a little while.
I'd run games for the systems I liked, but mostly I was a player.
Then Pathfinder came along and I liked it enough to try GMing it. Then I wanted to GM more of it, then I found another group to GM it for.... after many years of running APs I still have some I want to eventually get to, and I've spent a lot of money on Pathfinder books.

It's a fun system, my players all enjoy it, and I have at least a few more years of pre-written adventures I want to (eventually) run.
Why would I try to convert those adventures over to other systems instead of simply running them in a system we all enjoy and know.
(Plus, there are so many options the players haven't gotten bored / feel like they're making characters they've already made before yet.)

[DeathlessOne]

... I play way too many systems at this point but Pathfinder 1e is simply home for me. I started getting interested in D&D when Baldur's Gate first emerged on the PC, so that was late stage AD&D2e, and 3.0 was all the rage. I immersed myself in 3.5e and refused to follow Wizards after they created 4e. That is when I pivoted to Pathfinder and that is where I set down permanent roots.

I play 5e and PF2e often. I'm dabbling with Cyberpunk, Dragonbane, Warhammer 40k (and the Fantasy version), Soulbound, Blackbirds, The Dark Eye, Savage Worlds (and many of the spinoffs, including Savage Pathfinder and Savage Supers), and too many other systems to name off the top of my head.

I just like Pathfinder 1e. While it can't really model all the kinds of stories that people would like to experience (without some serious tweaks), the type of games and stories I like to play are well suited for it. Heros, villians, objective morality (more or less), swords, sorcery, infinite realms to explore, etc, etc.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Hero System is my preferred system, but I like Pathfinder 1E. I friend got me into Pathfinder, and I started running it after a while. I have a substantial amount invested not only in books but also in Hero Labs. When Pathfinder 2E came out I took a look and found that Hero Labs for 2E is only available online, so that killed any interest in using that and put me off from upgrading. Pathfinder 1E is a mature system that has enough options to make it interesting. The system works very well for a simple game that does not take a much effort to create a character but offers enough variation that I can create pretty close to the character I want. If I want a more complex system that allows me to do anything I will use Hero System. I see no reason to invest more money in a third system.

[Tom Sampson]

I wouldn't say Pathfinder really was the fix 3.5 needed. Some of the things that Pathfinder did just make me sigh in disappointment, like powering up Wizards, the rounds per day accounting of bardic performance rounds (which messes up fascinate and inspire competence performances, in addition to the use of inspire courage for large-scale warfare), the fact that the versatile performance class feature of Bards doesn't retrain skill ranks, the fact that Rangers are ironically the class that is most punished for traveling to new places and fighting new enemies, or its insistence on reproducing boring 3.5 Core martial classes instead of a system that allows for more fun and interesting options than full attacking or attempting maneuvers that often require feats and are nevertheless poised to fail at higher levels. Pathfinder replacing 3.5's psionics with its psychic spellcasters was also just a badly designed mess if you ask me. Pathfinder picks up where 3.5 left off and while it does some things better (like the new polymorphing rules or giving everyone more class features) there are other things where I just wonder why Paizo thought that was a good idea (like the fact that Pathfinder's smite evil now applies to every attack until the target is dead...). Pathfinder was more of a sidegrade to 3.5 really.

The boring truth of it is that it's mostly that Pathfinder continued where 3.5 left off, and neither 4E nor 5E were a lot more simple systems so people went to Pathfinder when 3.5 stopped receiving content. Pathfinder 2E also lacks the appeal of PF1E.

Much like 3.5E, the game is better if you ban some parts of Pathfinder, use some small houserules, and selectively allow quality 3rd party (or 3.5E) content. But mostly you accept that the game is going to be unbalanced. The same went for 3.5E.

[Lord Fyre]

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Hero System is my preferred system, but I like Pathfinder 1E. I friend got me into Pathfinder, and I started running it after a while. I have a substantial amount invested not only in books but also in Hero Labs. When Pathfinder 2E came out I took a look and found that Hero Labs for 2E is only available online, so that killed any interest in using that and put me off from upgrading. Pathfinder 1E is a mature system that has enough options to make it interesting. The system works very well for a simple game that does not take a much effort to create a character but offers enough variation that I can create pretty close to the character I want. If I want a more complex system that allows me to do anything I will use Hero System. I see no reason to invest more money in a third system.

Off topic sidebar: In your opinion, which is better Fantasy Hero or Pathfinder?

[Tom Sampson]

Quote:

The boring truth of it is that it's mostly that Pathfinder continued where 3.5 left off, and neither 4E nor 5E were a lot more simple systems so people went to Pathfinder when 3.5 stopped receiving content. Pathfinder 2E also lacks the appeal of PF1E.

Ah, let me rephrase that: The boring truth of it is mainly that Pathfinder continued where 3.5 left off, and both 4E and 5E were a lot more simple systems which for most 3.5E players wasn't quite their cup of tea so they went to Pathfinder when 3.5E stopped receiving content. Pathfinder 2E also lacks the appeal of PF1E.

[Lord Fyre]

Tom Sampson wrote:

Ah, let me rephrase that: The boring truth of it is mainly that Pathfinder continued where 3.5 left off, and both 4E and 5E were a lot more simple systems which for most 3.5E players wasn't quite their cup of tea so they went to Pathfinder when 3.5E stopped receiving content. Pathfinder 2E also lacks the appeal of PF1E.

Another off topic sidebar: What do you feel is "missing" from Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

Note I'm not arguing with you. My own group didn't want to make the shift.

[TxSam88]

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

[Ozreth]

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

[Ozreth]

Tom Sampson wrote:

Much like 3.5E, the game is better if you ban some parts of Pathfinder, use some small houserules, and selectively allow quality 3rd party (or 3.5E) content. But mostly you accept that the game is going to be unbalanced. The same went for 3.5E.

This is any edition of D&D whether OD&D, AD&D etc. Groups should always house rule and pick and choose materials that suit their companion.

[Mathmuse]

I consider Pathfinder 1st Edition to be a more elaborate game than Pathfinder 2nd Edition. It has more character options leading to richer gameplay.

In contrast, Pathfinder 2nd Edition was built from the ground up with clearer rules, so I find it easier to run and to teach to new players. Paizo adds options to PF2 every year, so one day it will be as rich as PF1.

These days, I play Pathfinder 2nd Edition, so I have left behind Pathfinder 1st Edition. The main reason is that Paizo is writing their newest adventure paths for PF2.

Lord Fyre wrote:

Another off topic sidebar: What do you feel is "missing" from Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

Note I'm not arguing with you. My own group didn't want to make the shift.

Pathfinder 2nd Edition dropped power-fantasy gaming in which the heroes are superior than everyone else due to optimization. The designers attempted to balance gameplay accurately, and they made sure that no character is grossly more powerful than the average for their level. Thus, a well-designed 4th-level character cannot defeat a squad of 2nd-level town guards, and will struggle against a 4th-level monster. My players are okay with this, because they prefer to win through teamwork rather than power, but some players who try PF2 are disappointed that they cannot win the campaign during character creation.

[Ozreth]

Mathmuse wrote:

Pathfinder 2nd Edition dropped power-fantasy gaming in which the heroes are superior than everyone else due to optimization. The designers attempted to balance gameplay accurately, and they made sure that no character is grossly more powerful than the average for their level. Thus, a well-designed 4th-level character cannot defeat a squad of 2nd-level town guards, and will struggle against a 4th-level monster. My players are okay with this, because they prefer to win through teamwork rather than power, but some players who try PF2 are disappointed that they cannot win the campaign during character creation.

There’s the in between option of the groups who play 3.x as the designers intended and don’t look for loopholes or min max, and DMs who lay out what options are available in their game so that it doesn’t turn into a situation where players can “win the campaign.”

One thing that was lost in the early 2000s is the fact that the designers did not intend for their to be new classes beyond core. The new way to multi class and the addition of feats was supposed to allow you to make enough fantasy archetypes that you wouldn’t need a bloat of classes. You’ll notice that the first four 3e splat books did not have classes.

When Tweet, Cook and Williams were pushed out of 3e by Hasbro shortly after its release, the trajectory changed. 3.5 and later PF are not how the game was intended to be treated by its 3 core designers.

It plays best when you play close to core and pick and choose what you allow.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

I taught my players PF1E.
Many of my players are not neurotypical, and don't like change.

The 2e Playtest left a bad taste in their mouth regarding character creation and playstyle (because I was playing by the book to find the rules issues, rather than just trying to run the game as I would instinctively as a GM).

I am very proficient in playing with the balancing of PF1e due to sheer weight of experience. So I can do things like Free archetype or free VMC, adding a 7th ability score, building skill challenges and reskinning stat-blocks.

I would like to run a 2e campaign, for my group but ultimately we have more than enough 1e content to last us a long time. So it is what it is.

[TriOmegaZero]

I started with 3.5, I'll end with 3.x.

[Bjørn Røyrvik]

For D&D and adjacent games, I like what PF1 did. It fixed some things from 3.5, failed to fix others, and introduced new issues, but on the whole I like it. My players are used to it and being comfortable with a system makes running it a lot easier. D&D-ish systems from 4e and on have failed spectacularly to interest me. From the D&DINO mechanics and royally messed up setting lore of 4e, 5e being unbrearably dull and minimalistic, or just doing most things in ways I don't like as PF2.

OSR is not of any interest because I have 2e and BECMI/RC already and can run those if I want. Older editions of the game are fun but I like the mechanical complexity of 3.x.

[TxSam88]

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

[Ozreth]

TxSam88 wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

Fair enough, what system did you come from before moving into 3.x?

[DAOFS]

I, as a very young person who was left alone with a ton of PF1e rulebooks during the pandemic, really really love it. I've tried a couple of other systems, most notably D&D 5e, but they just don't give me the same feeling. As for why I don't care much for PF2e, there are a couple of things, but the big one is that potentially my favorite part of Pathfinder is digging through rulebooks (and these forums) and finding something I've never heard of, first party, in a rulebook, and they're always weird and interesting. And then I make a theorybuild. There's such an incredible wealth of interesting and niche and funny and cool content that exists hidden in the many years of Pathfinder 1e that the newness of PF2e is part of what turned me off to it. Also a bit of spite about the fact that it's so much harder to find 1e stuff. Additionally, while I think it was a pretty solid idea and I see why they did it, the departure from the base mechanics of Pathfinder doesn't interest me all that much.

Uh, that was a bit of a rant. TL;DR I love all the weird bits of 1e and 2e doesn't have those yet.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Lord Fyre wrote:

Mysterious Stranger wrote:

Hero System is my preferred system, but I like Pathfinder 1E. I friend got me into Pathfinder, and I started running it after a while. I have a substantial amount invested not only in books but also in Hero Labs. When Pathfinder 2E came out I took a look and found that Hero Labs for 2E is only available online, so that killed any interest in using that and put me off from upgrading. Pathfinder 1E is a mature system that has enough options to make it interesting. The system works very well for a simple game that does not take a much effort to create a character but offers enough variation that I can create pretty close to the character I want. If I want a more complex system that allows me to do anything I will use Hero System. I see no reason to invest more money in a third system.

Off topic sidebar: In your opinion, which is better Fantasy Hero or Pathfinder?

Fantasy Hero is the better system, but Pathfinder has more resources available. Setting up a FH campaign is a lot more work, but worth the time if done properly. The combat system is far superior and allows a lot more tactical options.

The big difference is that Pathfinder is a complete game. Fantasy Hero is more of a structure that allows the GM to create the game they want.

[DungeonmasterCal]

When we made the switch to Pathfinder in 2009 or 2010, our group as a whole decided that after playing together, with the occasional new person dropping in or out or absences and players returning due to life, that we'd spent enough on new materials and upgrading every few years. We thoroughly loved the changes PF made to 3.5 and the ease of converting the latter to PF rules ensures us an unending supply of options and ideas for as long as we continue to play.

[TxSam88]

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

Fair enough, what system did you come from before moving into 3.x?

of Actual D&D I've played

Basic
1st ed
2nd ed
3rd ed
3.5
4th
5th

I've also played many other FRPGs, including
Rolemaster
S&S
Amber
Ars Magica
GURPS
MERPS
Zweihander
Conan

plus a number of sci-fi and super hero RPGS.

All of the games have various merit - the actual D&D titled games have tons of merit due to how prolific they are - I've traveled the world and been able to find play groups - not so much with other games.

that being said, I think Rolemaster is the best game system, but difficult to find players. 3.5/PF1 has an extensive following even still and it's easy to find games, and IMO is better than what has succeeded it, not to mention the lack of desire to reinvest in more gaming books.

[Ozreth]

TxSam88 wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

TxSam88 wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

- Sunk Cost into PF1E.

This.... I'm way too tired of buying thousands of dollars worth of game systems just because there's a new hotness on the market.

Well, theres old D&D in consideration in the convo as well.

Well, if you want to have that conversation - IMO - 3.5/PF1 are simply the best versions up to that point of D&D.

Fair enough, what system did you come from before moving into 3.x?

of Actual D&D I've played

Basic
1st ed
2nd ed
3rd ed
3.5
4th
5th

I've also played many other FRPGs, including
Rolemaster
S&S
Amber
Ars Magica
GURPS
MERPS
Zweihander
Conan

plus a number of sci-fi and super hero RPGS.

All of the games have various merit - the actual D&D titled games have tons of merit due to how prolific they are - I've traveled the world and been able to find play groups - not so much with other games.

that being said, I think Rolemaster is the best game system, but difficult to find players. 3.5/PF1 has an extensive following even still and it's easy to find games, and IMO is better than what has succeeded it, not to mention the lack of desire to reinvest in more gaming books.

Awesome. And being a Rolemaster fan definitely translates into being a 3e fan from what I have seen of RM, though I’ve not played it.

[MrCharisma]

Arkat wrote:

PF1e was the fix that D&D v3.5 needed.

We bought pretty much all the PF1e books because we liked those fixes.

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I basically agree with this.

In my group we rotate GMs, particularly when we run one-shots. We also like to try new systems - We've played a few of the Freeleague YZE games (I'm a big fan of this for combat-lite games), some Call of Cthulu and Delta Green (d100 system), some Pulp Cthulu (2d20 system) and of course PF2E.

Each system has its own strengths and weaknesses, and they tend to be suited to telling different types of stories. Trying to play an investigation or horror in either PF1E or PF2E is an uphill struggle, and while it's doable it tends to be more fun in a system built for it. I Highly recommend people try a few systems and find the one(s) best suited for their group. If you prefer telling a particular type of story then use a system that works for that kind of game.

For me, PF1E and PF2E are suited to the same kinds of story, and I much prefer PF1E. I think PF1E has better story-telling mechanics than PF2E, as PF2E feels more like a board game and less like a simulation (neither is better, just different preferences). However PF2E's more game-y feel comes with some inherent advantages, notably that it tends to be easier for the GM to run, and to balance (or rebalance) encounters since there is less variance in the numbers that come from the PCs. We're pretty democratic about what kinds of games we want to play but ultimately if you want to play a particular system you have to be willing to run it. The two main GMs in our group prefer PF2E, and if they're wanting to run games I'm willing to play them.

So I'm still playing a bit of PF1E (finishing off our Iron Gods campaign) but sadly I'm unlikely to play much more of it unless I can organise myself to run a campaign. I'd actually love to do that, but I'm a chronically disorganised person so ... we'll see =P

I'll still hang around on here though =)

[Foeclan]

My friends and I are still mostly playing 1e. There's some appeal to being 'breakable': it's nice to feel that you're super good at something, particularly skills.

It's harder to achieve that in 2e, but it's been getting better the last few times I've run it. I think their encounter design has improved, so we haven't had an entire party of PCs wiped out by a single boar lately (lookin' at you, Fall of Plaguestone).

[magnuskn]

Personally, I've moved on from 1E, but a rather significant number of my friends have not. And I committed to running a Hell's Rebels and War for the Crown campaign (the first starting next Sunday, the other one still a few years away) for those friends. So, while I do run one 2E campaign with a second one on the horizon in a few years, I do still run a significant amount of 1E content and am also a player in a few campaigns.

When the those campaigns and the two I've run are finished, we'll see what happened next for those friends who do not want to move on to 2E. Maybe 3E is out by then and they will like that edition more. Or they might have changed their opinion. I personally prefer 2E at this point, even with some minor foibles I've found since starting using the system.

[DeathlessOne]

I just discovered Fantasy Craft (yeah, way late to this one), and I am seriously considering adopting it into my top five. Got to play a session or so, and its hitting all the mechanics that I've come to enjoy over my fairly robust experience with different tabletop games. Its chassis is so close to 3.5e D&D that it becomes very easy to port things from 3.5e and Pathfinder 1E to work in it, given a few tweaks.

Just thought I'd mention it here. It hits that sweet spot that I've come to recognize when playing 3.5E and PF1E. Its like 3.5E, 4e, PF1E, and Savage Worlds agreed to a temporary cease fire, collaborated, and created something great.

[zimmerwald1915]

I am ideologically committed to player character-non-player character transparency, and PF1 gives me that.

[Ozreth]

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

I am ideologically committed to player character-non-player character transparency, and PF1 gives me that.

Interesting, care to extrapolate on why such a commitment?

[thorin001]

Ozreth wrote:

zimmerwald1915 wrote:

I am ideologically committed to player character-non-player character transparency, and PF1 gives me that.

Interesting, care to extrapolate on why such a commitment?

In PF2 PCs and NPCs work on different rules. For example a 12th level NPC fighter does 3d8 damage without having a magic weapon. Or a bog standard NPC orc has a racial ability that a PC orc cannot have.

[fujisempai]

Mostly still doing pathfinder 1e due to not having completed all of the APs yet. Players in my groups also have a lot of character concepts they still want to try out.

I do still play DnD 5e a bit, but I don't like it as much. Dead levels and what spells are actually concentration vs having a duration annoy me. I also don't want to support the shoreline casters.

pathfinder streamlined the stuff in 3.5 my groups didn't like so we don't tend to go back to that.

Older stuff just has a lot of things i don't like. e.g. different classes having different experience rates, weapon speeds, expectation of having leadership feat equivalent, etc. Thac0 is ok if terribly named/framed

[Goldcape]

Because I have spent to much money on 1e

[Dragon78]

I started with 2nd edition D&D, then got into 3.0/3.5, but really love Pathfinder 1e.

Plus I spent so much money on Pathfinder I had no interest in spending more on a new system.

[TriOmegaZero]

I’m going to spend the money anyway, so I figure I will keep giving it to Paizo even if I don’t use the 2E books much.

[Tim-Ra the Undying]

I started playing D&D in the mid-80s with Basic and Expert, then AD&D 1E. As 2E, 3E, and 3.5 came out, I readily adopted each new rules set as my go-to game. But 4E failed to grab me--it was the first edition that I wasn't excited to GM. So my group and I stuck with 3.5 for about 10 years, until we finally decided to try PF 1E. Then we pretty much left D&D behind--though I did frequently convert material from my sizable D&D library to PF.

My wife and I tried out PFS sometime during the next couple years, and that soon became a large percentage of our gaming. I had mostly run homebrew campaigns up to that point, but eventually got burnt out on the amount of prep work required, so organized play let me keep scratching the GMing itch for much less work.

When Starfinder came out, it took a little time to get traction in our area, but once it did (mid/late-S1 of SFS), that became a regular part of our diet, too.

Similarly, PF 2E faced resistance from many of our local regulars (including the store owner, who was perfectly happy to host it but decided it wasn't his thing after playing a few times). But between the end of new 1E PFS material and my wife becoming a VO, 2E soon vied with 1E for our game of choice.

Somewhere along the way, we tried out D&D 5E. I enjoyed it, both as a player and GM, but it just wasn't as robust as PF1 or PF2. My kids (who were teens at the time) got into it far more, and it was definiteky their (and their friends') game of choice for a few yesrs. But then the 6E OGL fiasco soured all of us on playing more 5E, or wanting to ever try 6E.

I still play PF1, just not as much as I used to. Some of us locals who regularly GMed PF1 formed a weekly round-robin group (which went online during covid and has atayed there). We're be wrapping up our latest campaign in the next couple months, and I'm not sure if the group will continue. My wife and I also started playing in an old friend's PF1 homebrew game, but we're the two remote players in an otherwise in-person game, which can be challenging at times.

There is a lot that I like better about 1E and a lot I like better about 2E, and I'm not really sure how to articulate my reasons. I haven't yet GMed 2E, which is probably the longest that I've ever played a RPG without taking a turn as GM. But with SF2 coming out, I've decided to try running that early on, which means that--as my wife and eldest child put it--"then you can come run PF2 with us, too!"

There are still some 1E adventures that I very much want to play or run, but I can see that the end of my engagement with thst edition is looming on the horizon. Keeping two versions of two RPGs straight in your head is a lot of work, and probably not viable long-term.

[Joynt Jezebel]

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

[Ozreth]

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

[Melkiador]

Lord Fyre wrote:

What do you feel is "missing" from Pathfinder 2nd Edition?

I most miss class and race identity. 2E made everything too modular. And there's a certain charm to having the "default fighter" or the "default elf" to compare other things to, when evaluating options.

[Joynt Jezebel]

Ozreth wrote:

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

Arkat wrote:

To move on to PF2e would mean another huge investment. My friends and I are all approaching 60 years old. We're tired of buying new versions of games.

We're happy with PF1e, so that's what we're sticking with.

I have the same sort of "if it ain't broke don't fix it" approach. And PF1 has so many more possibilities than D&D 5th ed.

And I am even older, 64, and should properly be referred to as a "Great Old One". Memory declines with age and learning new systems becomes more difficult. So does sorting between different versions of the same system.

I am still playing the 1st iteration of Vampire and Werewolf. Another of my favourite games is Star Wars d20 saga ed. Sadly, aside from World of Darkness [which is still having new material produced despite there being a newer version] these games are dying as far as players go.

64, nice! Did you move through all the editions? Have you ever gone backwards and tries TSR editions again?

I started way back in 1979 when only a starter version of D&D was available in Australia which only went to 3rd level if my memory serves me well.

I played a huge amount of Advanced D&D that came next. I overdosed in a major way and played mostly other RPGs for a long time. World of Darkness, Shadow Run, Champions others. For a long time I played D&D reluctantly when there were not better alternatives available or so I thought at the time.

Really, I suspect what I saw as faults in D&D were faults in the very early versions which were hopelessly disorganised and encouraged confrontation between players and DM. That and the fact that we were all new to playing and DMing and like beginners in anything made a lot of mistakes.

Just an aside, I have been DMing for 46 years and am still learning.

I really became more of an enthusiast around the time PF1 appeared. My then group wanted to play it and I was rather surprised to find it was really good. I don't want to abandon such a great game just because it is no longer commercially supported but it keeps getting harder to find players.

D&D 5th is OK but PF1 has so many more possibilities.

Given my history it should be no surprise I have done little if any revisiting of older versions. For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior. And I don't play with other Great Old Ones who might be inclined to go that far back in time.

[Anguish]

We tried some PF2 in its early days. Two things made it a fail for us.

One: insufficient material. When it was first released there was basically no content unless you were playing the first AP. We burned through the first module and then... what? None of us had the time to create playable content. Experiment ended.

Two: the experience. Part of the whole point with PF2 was a realignment of the math. To this day the mantra is that "the math makes it so you can't 'win' during character creation by optimizing". True. But the moment you make a character and find it underwhelming and post to the forum, you get told "you chose wrong". Point being that while you can't make a character that is more than mediocre, you sure as heck can make a character that is a failburger. Personally I don't find a lot of joy in doing a bunch of research to avoid all the trap options that are flavorful but definitely the wrong choice.

[Diego Rossi]

I started wit AD&D 1st ed, alternating with D&D Basic, Expert and Companion, then AD&D 2nd, and 3rd ed., Rolemaster, Ars Magica, and trying a bit of other systems, plus Scence Fantasy (Shadowrun), Science Fiction (Traveler, Gamma World), and Superheoes (the DC version, ouch) plus a few others.

I tried D&D5 and PF 2, but I feel that they lack something.

PF1 has its limits and would have benefited a lot from a remastered edition, but my group and I have enough experience that doing that isn't really difficult. Some of the more unbalancing factors are some metamagic and metamagic rods.

Spellcasters aren't exactly more powerful in 3.x/PF1 than in AD&D/BECMS, but their focus has changed. In the older editions, failing a save at high level was a rarity, but the characters had fewer hit points, so damage-dealing spells were the norm; now, resisting spells from focused spellcasters is way harder, so spellcaster focus on (small) battlefield control and disabling powerful targets.
3.x/PF1 spellcasters don't have a large impact on large battlefields, instead, they have a large impact in removing enemy commanders.
AD&D 1st ed. spellcasters had larger impacts on armies (with my druid, I was very fond of flying through enemy formations in sparrow form while maintaining a circular wall of fire around me).
The most striking difference is in recovering spells. In the older editions, you needed 10 minutes of preparation to recover 1 level of spells (so 60 minutes for a 6th-level spell). In a day, you could recover, at most, 48 levels of spells. Now, in 1 hour (or even less), you can recover all your spell slots. That makes a lot of difference in character management, and even in creating a story plot.

[Ozreth]

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior? At the very least, the quickness, simplicity of rules (in combat, at least), modularity and how easy house ruling is etc can be seen as a boon for AD&D 1/2e in the face of 3.x/PF1e, no? Not to mention characters staying within a reasonable power level at all levels, without loads and loads of abilities and feats and skill piling up to keep track of, especially during combat rounds. And the ease of running monsters! You can run a plant monster like an assassin vine, for example, without having to then go and look up all of the "plant traits" and keep track of those on top of everything already on the stat block, and thats just a simple example of a low level monster.

[TOZ]

Ozreth wrote:

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior?

Probably because they remember their history and experience.

[Dragonchess Player]

TOZ wrote:

Ozreth wrote:

Joynt Jezebel wrote:

For me to get the appropriate nostalgia hit it would involve going way back to AD&D which is markedly inferior.

I suppose I wonder if it has been so many decades since trying it, why do yu deem it inferior?

Probably because they remember their history and experience.

^ This.

AD&D had a lot of issues. Which is why it was so heavily house-ruled.

Even with house-rules (or the 2nd Edition Player's Option versions of effectively "official" house-rules), 3.x and PF1 did many things "better" (or at least in a more consistent, coherent, and unified way) than AD&D. AD&D is still enjoyable, IMO, but later versions support a wider breadth of game play.

[Alakqualyn]

Generally, I prefer games that adhere to a certain standard of simulation-ist mechanics. It's a component of immersion and the meat of sourcebooks that make me actually want to read them. 3.5 and Pathfinder 1e always felt like the designers cared about modelling things, even less "important" stuff like social structures and hazards. Pathfinder did admittedly break some things; create water at-will breaks droughts and channel energy breaks battlefield hospitals (unless you treat those injuries as non-hp thing, which I think is bad for system health). But, overall, I feel Pathfinder still did a good job keeping the world-building in mind.

Pathfinder 2e and 4e don't have that same feel to me, and I can point to a lack of multiclassing as an example of the pervasive design philosophy. Both systems push power-ups on a character that aren't flavor-neutral. You have to get better at being a wizard, even if your character has second thoughts about their career choice. You have to get more dwarf-y in pathfinder 2e as you level up, even if your character isn't really interested in their heritage.

5e technically has this issue with its multiclass limitations, but no one really goes into a class without the appropriate stats so it isn't really relevant. I have enjoyed the amount of video content produced for 5e, though I have my gripes with it (crossbows and polearms, weapons famous for requiring a ton of training and being speedy to attack with). The books are also bland in comparison to 3.5, which I consider the best art-wise due to variety, and the mechanics don't flow naturally out of the surrounding text (the lore is also still very borked from 4e). Really, though, the reason I'm dropping 5e is because of the OGL; I don't feel I can support them, even with eyeballs.

So, yeah. To add a bit more to my point, if I'm not looking to mechanics for immersion, I'd just prefer a system with simpler mechanics, so there isn't much draw there for me for 2e and stuff. If there's ever a Pathfinder 3e, I'll probably check it out, but it's tough for me to imagine something that would both appeal to me and to the 2e fanbase.

Oh, and for the older games. 3.5 was my entry edition, so I don't really have experience with them. Glanced over some, but that's about it.

[Sysryke]

Swinging back by the threads, and once again finding myself at the kids table :p Only 37 here.

My first exposure to D&D was pouring through the original 1st ed. Monster Manual in my uncle's room at my grandparents house when I was 3 or 4. I probably read that book hundreds of times, and creatures have always been my favorite part of any system.

My mom got me a 2nd edition starter set when I was 10 or so, but this was right before 3rd edition came out, and I never had anyone to play with. I just collected and poured through 3e books in junior high and highschool, but still couldn't find a group.

For better or worse the first game I actually got to play in was a 4e game in my Friendly Local Game Shop. I was blessed to find a good GM and welcoming tablemates. 4e wasn't as good as what I'd read of 3rd edition, but that DM taught me that "the roleplaying is what you bring to the game" and I have many happy memories. 4e mechanics were definitely beginner friendly, and while I'd grown up reading books set in Faerun, I didn't hate the new lore, it was just new. 4e is definitely not the best system, but I'll never agree with the hate some folks throw at it.

Eventually though, I got invited to join home games set in 3.5. The history and splat of the older system offered greater customization which I've always enjoyed. Around that time, some of my fellow players were getting into Pathfinder, and the conversion was a natural step.

Eventually I settled in with a core crew, some from my 4e days, others who I met through conventions and Pathfinder friends. Everyone just settled in with Pathfinder, and 15 some odd years later, no one wants to make the effort to adapt to a new system when Pathfinder has more content than we'll live to play through.

I did play with a Marvel crew that I loved for years, and that's the one system that I try to occasionally entice my friends with, but no bites for now. I would love to play in any edition of World of Darkness. My brief exposures to that system show me it's much better for horror and shape-shifters characters (I'm forever a critter guy). However, I've never played with a Storyteller who was competent, experienced, or well versed enough with those systems. As it's been pointed out, those games are dying off, so it's hard to find people.

I've played test games and convention one-offs of maybe a dozen other systems. I didn't have a great intro to 5e, and what I've heard in the years since hasn't given me much optimism. Aside from that, they're all fun for what they are, but with the exception of the MURPG (diceless Marvel, 3rd iteration??), no other system has ever allowed for as much customization and specificity of character creation as Pathfinder for me.

[Diego Rossi]

Alakqualyn wrote:

create water at-will breaks droughts

Not really.

It creates 2 US gallons every 6 seconds/level.
Based on what I did find on the Internet and a bit of math, a 1st-level caster would need to cast the spell about 40 times to cover the needs of a square yard of wheat during a drought, and repeat that every few days. So 4 minutes for each square yard of wealth.
The caster output will be 1,200 gallons/hour.

As a comparison, a small irrigation pump priced at a few hundred of € has an output of 17,760 gallons.

An acre is 4,840 square yards. 322 hours, i.e. more than 32 days, to create the water for 1 acre of wealth, while casting a spell for 10 hours every day.

Put another way, 1 first level caster can maybe water 1/10 of an acre during a drought.

Unless every person on the planet has Create water, it is practically impossible to counter a drought with it. It is a spell to create enough water to keep people and animals hydrated, not a spell to irrigate farmland.