So, I've been prowling around on the Archives of Nethys because it is very fascinating, and I can't decide whether I'd rather DM/play PF1e or 2e. So, which one do you like more? What are their strengths and weaknesses?
Printable View
So, I've been prowling around on the Archives of Nethys because it is very fascinating, and I can't decide whether I'd rather DM/play PF1e or 2e. So, which one do you like more? What are their strengths and weaknesses?
PF1 has a lot of choices that lead to a lot of variety and have a big impact on how your character plays.
PF2 has a lot of choices that lead to very marginal differences and have almost zero impact on actual gameplay.
So yeah, I'd go with the former, all the way.
Having played neither but read each extensively during spare time: I’d love to get a table to play PF1 at, and I’ll bill you my overtime rate if you want me to show up for PF2.
PF1 is very much 3.5e with a lot of sharp corners rounded off. There’s still lots of fiddly numbers but various outliers have been nudged or tugged towards center. If you want crunchy zero to superhero D&D it delivers. Note that I am including various 3rd party options in this consideration. Path of war is probably my favorite player options splatbook across all D&D and adjacent systems.
PF2e is a system that was designed with a primary goal of not being broken, and being fun didn’t make it as the secondary goal either. Progression is mostly Number Go Bigger with little player input on the matter, as character options provide minuscule gains while being siloed off in prerequisite chains. Skills do too little too late and only a few classes get anything that feels vaguely like level appropriate noncombat utility. At almost every turn it convinced me I’d rather just be playing 4e D&D, which is at least honest about Number Go Bigger and does a far better job of offering customization in character progression while rewarding archetype loyalty.
Thanks! The only problem is... how to get my group to go to PF1e over 2e...Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Well what does your group want out of a TTRPG? Making a blind guess is this a 5e D&D refugee group?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
It's just my brother, sister, and me, with it all our first non-5e RPG... my brother wants Star Wars, my sister wants whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xervous
20+ years later my group still plays 3.5 after having tried 4e, 5e, PF1e and a few games of C&C and AD&D. So I'm of course going to say PF1e as it is basically 3.5.
If you're the DM then that's just what the group plays if you choose to run it, or they'll need to find another game. Otherwise, easiest thing to do would be to compile a list of the less subjective criticisms of 2e, particularly in contrast to 1e, and share that with the group and see what they think.
So that’s a setting desire, what about structural desires? Is it about the exploration, the challenge, the role playing, driving the plot, beating lots of powerful monsters? PF 1 or 2 is going to be a lot of the same, and both of them are heavier on crunch than 5e D&D.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
PF1 has a lot of impactful choices, but a lot of trap choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
PF2 has choices be a lot less impactful, but removes most of the outright traps (the big danger is persuing too many Feat lines). It also pretty significantly streamlines character creation and has some cool additions like Racial Feats. It also has a reworked action economy that sadly spellcasting doesn't play with that much.
Personally I prefer 2e, but not everybody will like the ways it differs from 1e. My big suggestion would be to nab the Advanced Players Guide/Platyer Core 2 when you can, it gives a lot of Archetypes that cover a wide range of options, and possibly use the optional Free Archetype rules.
Racial Feats aren't new. What's new is that some of them are stripped out of core mechanics for the races in question and instead spread out over several levels. Similarly quite a few of the "choices" for classes are things that used to be standard features in 1e taken out and put up as Feat costs instead while most of the rest is just a +1/-1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymouswizard
Yes, Pathfinder 1e had some bad choices, some Feat chains that absolutely could have and should have been shortened and likely weren't because "that's too powerful for a single Feat", but the way 2e's bounded accuracy and balance goals work they seem afraid of giving you any actual power or ability to do something individually. As you point out spellcasting doesn't really interact well with the reworked action economy, which itself just comes down to "how much can I do without wasting one of my three arrow things, oh right and using this shield that I am actively holding requires a reaction" and in many cases still manages to let you do less than you could in 1e.
Quite a bit of which of the systems people like seems to come down to how much someone values bounded accuracy and whether they're willing to accept the possibility of punching above their weight or not. 1e took 3.5's tendency to let the people who really try get absurdly powerful at the same time as some end up very weak, that understandably doesn't feel good for some people but it's undeniable that the freedom of choice and the potential to make some of those "bad choices" actually work can be very fun for some. 2e on the other hand revolves around the designer's love of very tight math, everything is highly regulated and rationed and things like magic that could potentially break out of that balance have been muzzled so the standard unit of Adventuring measurement is instead the Fighter, for some people the idea that nobody can steal the spotlight and you are actually reliant on your party as a whole for everything is amazing and the claim of "you can just set down this enemy with this rating and know roughly how the fight is going to go" appeals to GMs who hate how unpredictable CR could be.
They both have strengths and weaknesses but they also have such extremely different design goals that they're terrible comparisons for each other. Pathfinder 2 isn't like 1e, it's not even like D&D 5e which is the other common comparison because they're both the newest editions of their respective games, Pathfinder 2e is instead better compared to D&D 4e in both feel and design partially because some of the same people were in charge of both and felt they were somehow the logical evolution of 3.5's and Pathfinder 1e's mechanics.
Well, I took the advice you all had and told my sister that her Kitsune barbarian could be a lot more powerful in PF1e, so she's fine with that. Still have to ask my brother.
Well that didn't take much effort. Sounds like your players may not have any strong opinions about system choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Also, for PF1e questions moving forward you'll likely get a lot more interaction in the 3.5 sub-forum here. It is the most active.
Star Wars... well, at a wild guess he wants to play a Jedi? PF1 offers several jedi-like classes such as the Magus. Maybe that's a good angle :smallamused:Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Of those two, I'd pick PF1 every time.
However, you do have a lot of other options as well. For example, one thing PF2 does have over PF1 is much stricter balance - CR is much more accurate and PCs vary much less in power. However, there's a family of what I'd maybe call "post-4E" games that achieve that same balance + tactical element while being much more streamlined. They don't give as wide an array of possibilities as PF1, but they're at least as good as PF2 in that regard. The ones I can think of are:
Strike!
Lancer (very different setting, but my favorite of these)
Icon (fantasy game from the makers of Lancer, haven't played it)
Fabula Ultima (maybe; haven't played it much, so this is from what I've heard about it)
13th Age (maybe, haven't played it)
Note that most (all?) of these are somewhat loose / narrative about stuff outside combat. Which is often how 5E is run, so it may not be an issue for you / your group, but be advised.
Personally, PF1 all the way. Is it far more broken in general? Yes. Would that matter for total newcomers? Likely not, as the broken-ness comes out when people start digging into the system. A low-level group of new players isn't gonna see any issues (aside from that the game is actually rather lethal at those points!). And frankly, anything you could play in PF2 at levels 1 to 14 can be played in PF1 at levels 1 to 9 or so.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
I have to restate this - PF2's focal point of design is the Fighter. Not the 2e Fighter, even, but the 1e CRB Fighter - i.e. a class that interacts with the game on an equal footing with every beatstick monster ever printed (except for often worse numbers, because monsters get free STR and CON and w/e). They are subject to the same action economy costs, same limitations, and have little to no abilities that let you bypass core game rules - unlike all those spellcasters (and most non-beatstick monsters, really). They are beholden to basic game rules from level 1 to level 20, and scrambling to find a useful way to bypass them is the cornerstone of making a Fighter useful.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonochromeTiger
This results in game design where the most important thing are the numbers - if your numbers are worse than your enemy's numbers, you lose, because numbers are the only thing determining a Fighter-based design's position on the food chain. Your main goal is to manipulate numbers in such a way that your numbers are now higher and therefore you win. Now take that principle and design the whole game around that number manipulation, offload 90% of it into gameplay time rather than build time, and you will have something very much resembling PF2.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't kitsune pretty bad barbarians in 1e due to the Strength penalty?Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Honestly, I remember buying the PF2e book, taking it home and paging through it... and immediately saying to myself "This is exactly why I ditched D&D4e for Pathfinder in the first place."
I genuinely have no idea why they thought that was what their player base wanted. Or at least my little section of it.
In the grand scheme of things, -1 attack and -1.5 damage isnt that big of a dealQuote:
Originally Posted by catagent101
Not really. If they start with 16 str, that's 20 in a rage; and a base melee attack for +6 / 1d12+7 has no problem contributing in most parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by catagent101
If you prefer, Barbarian has an archetype which is dex-based.
Hmm, I don't know. I'll have to talk to her about that because she wants her barbarian to be really good at throwing things, and isn't throwing things by default STR?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Dex to hit, str to damage. And check out the Lesser Hurling rage power.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Oh, I see. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crake
Ah okay makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Ever thought of playing spheres of power/might. I find it adds more versatility in character building.
At its core, the real difference is whether you'd rather have a system that the vast majority of the content for it (if not all) is already out or one that has new content continuously produced, at least for me.
Of course, there are gameplay differences. PF2e is more balanced, for certainty, though pretending that it's at 4e levels of same-ness for gameplay options is a bit much. I stick to 1e because that's the system I've spent almost a decade homebrewing content and updating 3e/3.5e stuff for. If I didn't have a sunk cost, I'd probably move on, but I *like* my stuff a lot more.
I'd say 4E has way more diversity in gameplay options than PF2 does.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemu1234
This is primarily because 4E doesn't shy away from big flashy effects, even at low level there are numerous powers that flat-out immobilize every enemy in a 5x5 area; whereas PF2 powers are more like giving a single enemy a 10'-penalty to speed, but only on a crit-failed save (usually about a 10% chance) because we wouldn't want to overpower anything.
That is one of the big issues, magic got the legs cut out from under it as the devs' personal solution to the complaint of magic being overpowered. Instead it's so weak that its main purposes are occasional AoE damage, contributing a few more +1s to the martials, and tossing out a couple -1s so your numbers are ahead by a slightly larger margin. The actual full effect of the spell, the thing the spell is literally being cast for, is usually locked behind your target crit-failing their save which is an insultingly unlikely result so magic using classes are instead trained on the idea that what they're really doing is going for partial successes on already heavily nerfed versions of spells. Baleful Polymorph for example, or as it's renamed in Pathfinder 2 "Cursed Metamorphosis", the two most likely results are either gaining a Sickened condition which they can get a new Fortitude save on as a single action or being transformed for one minute with the option to spend a full round on a new Will save to immediately end the effect. The chance of your target actually critically failing are low so anyone using it is most likely doing so expecting a -1 that might waste an action on the enemy's next turn or the enemy very temporarily being out of the fight for one to ten rounds depending on their Will saves and the GM's rolls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
They give a much weaker standard effect than what Pathfinder 1e had but on top of that they give as many methods of ending the effects as possible so what a magic user using crowd control and disabling effects really does is make an enemy choose between keeping a couple -1s or wasting an action each turn until they're gone. their role is firmly reduced to support, and if they try to resolve that by focusing on dealing damage they still come in well behind a Fighter who has taken the role of primary damage dealer. If someone really hates magic users solving problems that has appeal but it's done in a way that honestly feels more petty and malicious than anything, "we couldn't figure out the way to let everyone keep their toys and have our idea of balance so we just changed who is on top and tell the Wizards and Clerics and Druids that what they really want is to play cheerleader."
As a side note, while it has a number of design elements I don't love, Starfinder is entirely playable, probably better balanced than 1e and I like it a lot better than 2e. Personally, I would redo the spaceship design rules, which are pretty gamist. But as long as you ignore some of the dumber RAW parts you can star wars just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Alternately, the Dreamscarred Press psionic Soulknife (on the pfsrd) is a pretty cool Jedi class, although its a bit better than barbarian so you may want to consider adding small boosts to the barbarian over time if she seems underpowered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
The funny thing to me is that I often consider leaders to often be pretty weak in 4e. You might get a +2 to last a turn which has a 10% chance to cause something to hit instead of missing. PF2 manages to basically run with this but with smaller bonuses and applies it more broadly to all caster.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonochromeTiger
Which PFSRD? this one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnaeus
Yes. Dreamscarred Press has some very popular psychic classes and content that are included on d20pfsrd as well as in their third party books. You'll see it if you scroll down to alternate rule systems and use the Psionics heading. That site should also show a few other third party options under the same Alternate Rule Systems section as well as both Mythic Adventures and Occult Adventures which are official Paizo content.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHalfAasimar
Paizo did come out with their own psychic magic and classes in Pathfinder 1e, under the Occult Adventures stuff, but it very clearly wasn't as much of a focus as the Dreamscarred Press version of psionics since most of the Occult class versions boil down to "this is basically an existing magic class like Wizard but with class features gutted out for a gimmick like summoning a themed ghost."
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonochromeTiger
Aah, I see. Thanks!
In the vein of 3PP content, I'd say that the Spheres stuff is very solid. Spheres of Power is easier to learn than normal casting, IMO - although if coming from 5E you have a head start on the latter (Arcanist is the closest to a 5E Wizard, incidentally). Spheres of Might does add complexity over standard martials, but IMO it's worth it, and helps with their weak points, such as lack of mobility.
This is by far my main turnoff about PF2. For folks looking for balance I'm sure it's great. But for me, the tiny effects of spells coupled with the tiny chance of experiencing those effects just feels like a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Even the martial stuff feels lower key in PF2. I mean, the floor is higher at least, and a PF2 Fighter is generally effective , but not (IMO) that exciting.
Instead of "Boom! Made a huge dent in the monster and knocked it on its ass!" effectiveness looks like "Ah yes, good, you can see from this trend that I'm gradually drawing ahead, and eventually I'm going to win."
Like I said earlier and I'm fairly sure I've said in a few other threads, PF2 seems like it's afraid to give you actual power or the ability to hold your own individually. They balance everything close together but in a way where your high point is "adequate" while your possible low point is still "terrible" and they set it all up so you are reliant on your entire party doing their jobs correctly to accomplish anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by icefractal
3.5 and Pathfinder1 both build around the power fantasy to some degree, even the "weak" and underperforming classes by some standards can pretty quickly reach the point of superhuman levels of power and it makes complete sense why the player characters are important and effective heroes able to stand up to the threats they face. Pathfinder 2 instead seems to embrace a recent trend of seeing power fantasy as something to be deeply ashamed of. In PF2 you aren't the hero out to save the world, you aren't the villain out to conquer it, you aren't the chosen one, you're the bunch of people who happen to be around at the time with enough training to not hold your weapon by the pointy end. Everything from the granular approach of PF2 classes to the way it's balanced seems to be there to disguise the fact that if you put a Pathfinder character next to a Pathfinder 2 character the former could easily put the latter to shame in just about every regard.
Path of War, cannot recommend it enough. Now if only someone rebalanced a few disciplines so they wouldn't be as silly (Broken Blade and Unquiet Grave, looking at you in particular) damage-wise, I'd even recommend it to new players.Quote:
Originally Posted by icefractal
The issue is, sometimes a critical failure on a save absolutely wrecks the encounter. Like, a critfailure against a Slow turns any enemy into a training dummy for a minute (-2 actions per turn), even if they are level+4, and if your party isn't one foot in the grave with no recovery at the moment it happens, a Slow critfailure wins you the bossfight almost automatically. And because of that (I assume it's because of that), critfailures "had" to be done in a way as to be almost impossible for enemies at your level or above. It's not good design. 5% chance to dumpster a climactic fight, 25% chance to do what you intended to do, 50% chance to mildly inconvenience the enemy for 1 round, and 20% chance to do nothing - it's simply not fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
Except when you're a fighter with a Deadly weapon, who is actually capable of "boom I took out half of the enemy's HP in a single strike" on a semi-regular basis. Because it's a Fighter's game played by Fighter's rules, and Fighter is given higher numbers to take advantage of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by icefractal
Somehow, people often don't understand that decently tactical gameplay and power fantasy don't have to be exclusive to one another. PF2 apologists in my group say that it's good because PF2 forces you to work together, nobody actually has spotlight, and it's a party game so of course it should be balanced around the party rather than characters.Quote:
Originally Posted by MonochromeTiger
I mean, I sorta get that perspective. For someone who likes carefully plotting out every move they make in combat, they could get annoyed that in PF1 you don't usually need to do that. And that consequently, if you tell the other players "Hey, we need to be strategic on every move, you can't just run off and attack the foe who you hate the most!", then the reply would likely be "Well I think the difficulty is ok currently, but if you're right and we do TPK, I'll bring in a stronger character next time." Because (from a "combat is a competitive puzzle" standpoint) it shouldn't be possible to make sub-optimal moves in combat and yet win anyway, that's practically cheating.
Except, it's not a perspective that appeals to me at all. Optimize hard during char-gen? Sure, if the rest of the table wants to play that way I'm happy to - after all, I'm doing it outside game-time, so I can just pick the time during the week that I feel the most analytic. Optimize hard at the table? Not always the mental space I'm in the mood for, so I don't want to be forced into it to play - and I like being able to do somewhat foolish and/or IC-motivation-driven things.
I guess I view D&D kinda like a potluck - the "cooking" is best done in your own kitchen, with plenty of time and no distractions. Then when you're enjoying it later with your friends, it's fine to be joking around, because the technical part is done. Not 100% done, because I do enjoy some tactics during combat, I just want the slack to play a bit loose.
True enough, many players don't want to play a tactical boardgame in their D&D time.Quote:
Originally Posted by icefractal
That said, if I don't want a tactical game, I'd go with either PF1 or 5E, but definitely not the tiny-modifier-addiction that is PF2.
Whereas if I do want a tactical game, I go with PF1 again, because PF2 is hardwirded so that tactics don't actually make a difference.
Like, 90% of PF2 players I've seen spend literally every turn doing two attacks, then either a move or their class special ability, with no variation. If I want simple gameplay like that, I'll play something less fiddly and cumbersome.