Printable View
Been playing it for 2 months now and my short impression so far is the 1000xp normal leveling and easier to digest rules seems like a great option for new to intermediate players and GM's, but TBH 1st edition still represents what a real D&D like experience they could have ever gotten. I will be playing both!
Well, considering Pathfinder First Edition is completely based on D&D 3.5E, then that's expected. And it also depends on what you think a "real D&D like experience" actually is - there have been over 5 different versions of D&D over the years, some of which were quite different from their predecessors.Quote:
Originally Posted by KILLGORE
My recommendation is treat Pathfinder Second Edition as it's own RPG system. It's roots are in D&D 3.5E, but it's different enough. There's no harm in liking, and playing, both.
And 1,000xp per level is great for the players, but for GMs who calculate XP (don't use milestone levelling) it's a lot more complex than just totalling the XP of all the creatures defeated and dividing among the PCs (which is what Pathfinder first edition did).
When I play first edition I miss second edition. 'Nuff said.
I didn't think this was going to be the case, In fact I bought the First edition Bestiary for the Second Edition rewrite of Kingmaker. I will not be using it.
We have a guy in our regular Monday night game who groans when we mention playing Pathfinder. He's quite liking second edition.
I'm a bit annoyed that I'm probably going to end up running some first edition in our local con in a couple of weeks time, If I don't run or play we won't be able to make the five table minimum to run the Gallowspire special.
So, yeah. Horses for courses. I'm all in on second edition.
1st Edition needed an overhaul because things were already broken with 3.5 ruleset. In my opinion they blew it out of the water and I cant wait to see what they will do next. Personally I'm excited about Second edition and my group hasn't looked back.
Me and my group too.Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateGM
Me and my group really love Pathfinder 2, and ever since we made the move we really don't want to play Pathfinder 1 again, and we most likely won't ever miss it either.
I only switched from 5e because youtube recommended the pf2e dev videos and I recognized Logan from 4e books. Amazed as the entire video they was all about the object based keyword design and every monster has unique abilities and encounters are easy to build - sounded a lot like 4e. Doubt I will go back to 5e as pf2e hit the sweet spot of what I want. Already like Paizo much better as a publisher; the pacing, the sub discount, free pdfs and pdf discount on FG is great. I was someone that hated 3.x/pf1 so never thought I would be here. Even seeing Paizo devs on their forum is very cool, tells me they are just as much fans as we are.
That's interesting, I was big into 3rd and then 3.5. When 4e came out I tried it and decided that I really didn't like it. I expected to like it, I was reading all the web content and really looking forward to it. It just never really worked for me. That's when I found Pathfinder and thought it was much more my thing. When 5e came out I gave it a go as well, I found it lacking in depth and options. Like 2e but with slightly saner maths. Wizards said there were going to be options in the DMG that would let you modify 5e to be like 3rd, so we persevered until they released the DMG and then it was like "well where are these options you said would be here?". Final verdict, Ok but not worth leaving Pathfinder for.Quote:
Originally Posted by yarnevk
From that point of view, it seems we're at different ends of a spectrum. But we're both finding things to like in PF2e. It seems to have depth and balance. I'm enjoying playing 1st level characters again. I'm really hoping it keeps its balance into the higher levels. It was one of their design goals and they seem to have got a really solid game in the early levels, so there is hope.
Edit: I forgot I wanted to say. The problems they were solving were the same problems that 4e and 5e were trying to solve. It's not surprising if some of the solutions look similar.
Personally, I can't stand 3.x or PF1e. I'll play Ad&d, D&D 4e but not those. I really, really liked PF2e and now I finally got to meet Golarion.
And that is a good sweet spot for them to be in, I always thought it would be a pf1 update that could be ignored, but they really went clean slate on mechanics yet kept the same flavor. The mechanics learned a lot from 5e/4e with what worked and did not work and surprised how many on reddit have been saying that 5e was their first RPG and are liking pf2e. Will be interesting to see how online table counts change at next years data dump.
PF2e is good but it absolutely has its faults.
There are alot of finicky rules here and there that kinda get in the way. I also dislike how when playing with the rules as written, certain basic things are essentially impossible without certain skill feats (instead of just being easier with said feats). Some mechanics can be a bit onerous too (like the different "detected" states, handling afflictions and bonus stacking).
The strict Vancian casting is my least favorite thing about PF2. There some ways around this. I just allow my spontaneous casters to treat all spells as signature spells so if a players wants to play a caster further removed from Jack Vance, then he can. I really wish they would have just cribbed 5e casting. Oh well.
Alot of this stuff is easy enough to house rule away. But you are stuck with some of it.
Still, the core is super solid and makes for an engaging experience. The 3-action economy and how it impacts character building and gameplay is the star for me. 4 degrees of success is cool too. I really like the treasure system and that gold matters in this game. Now players have a use for all that loot. In 5e, I had to really work to add in subsystems and story hooks so players had a use for gold. In PF2, its just part of character customization as you get cash to work on your character's loadout.
Ultimately, its less cumbersome than 3.X, it challenges players more than 5e, and its less gamey than 4e. So, all in all, its a good game and one I can see playing over other fantasy titles currently out.
I used to think there was no way to beat PF1, but then I tried PF2. I won't be going back.
Sure, it has its flaws, but not many, IMO, and they will hopefully errata those away.
I obviously enjoy it (from all the contributions to the system I put into it). As important, my groups enjoy it a lot! Compared to PF1e, it's a homerun. I GM a lot of newer players and less rules intense types. For them, 5E was a blessing as they got to learn or rejoin the D&D worlds at a pace and difficulty level that brought them in with relative ease. Second Edition Pathfinder came along at a perfect time. It offered a little more crunch, much more customization, and some relatively easy to learn combat complexity for those ready to try something a little meatier.
Of the three groups I actively GM (online and in person), I'd say the vast majority of my players now prefer PF2 over any other version. I do have one PF1 holdout (he loves.. LOVES.. being able to really discover ways to seemingly break the system - he wants to find those combos that really create strong characters). I have a couple who still like the simplicity and ease of 5E. The rest are, at worst, equally enjoying PF2 or prefer it (with the edge on prefer).
The only area I reserve judgement on myself is what the future holds. It's easy for companies to try to continue to raise the bar with each companion book or expanded rules guide, creating the bloat and uncontrolled synergies of the previous version.
Honestly, right now, I think the bar is in a sweet spot. I eagerly look forward to the expansion of classes, races, creatures, etc., as well as new APs and Adventures, and trust that they've learned a lot from their caretaking of the 3.5E to PF transition. I expect PF2 to be an ever evolving product that doesn't need to one-up itself, just build upon what is a great product to start with.
For me it's a much needed change of pace from running 5E campaign for two years. I am about to start the PF2 adventure path so by the time I finish that 6th edition will be out!
Plays good at low level , suitably deadly and challenging. I never enjoyed DM'ing 3e or 5e above level 10 so it will be interesting to see whether high level play is manageable .
I am not too keen on a couple of the classes being Champions and Alchemists and i don't think the Fall of Plaguestone is a great module or even a good module
My group has been die hard PF1. I also pulled two from a current and long term 5e. Both sets (2 players from each system) love Pathfinder 2e.
I am happy with it as well. Shade Ravens contributions have really helped and Trenloe has been quick to update the engine to bring in new features we want!
I spend over a decade running basically nothing but PF1e, so it's reasonable to say I am a pretty big fan of 1e.
Recently my friend asked me to co-GM Return of the Runelords with him, and I said I would only agree on the condition that we converted it to 2e, because I don't feel like running any more 1e games.
Yeah, I'd say Paizo nailed it with 2e. :)