Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I agree with most of what is said here. That said, I also think that it is definitely a system (both 1e and 2e) that is best suited for players who actively are going to engage a more crunchy system.I'd say out of 36 yrs of table topping its by far one of my favorite systems right out of the box Its a very streamlined system compared to PF1, less convoluted rules, as it didn't have to carry over the 3.5 baggage that PF1 did. The rule make sense more so then many other systems, sure there are a few things her and there but even those work. In its streamlined structure, things like character creation is robust. If I remember correct with the Core Rulebook alone there are something like 42,000 combinations that can be made. That number has grown as there have been some major releases like the Advanced Players Guide and Ancestry Guide that have expanded and built on what is already established. It also spreads your choices out over 20 levels and if you're running the premade adventure paths all the 6 book ones go to level 20 now. So every level you are making a choice to define your character more where In 5E DnD has a streamlined system but you basically make a choice at 1st and 4th and then you're done .
I prefer the class balance and multiclass system of PF2 - easier to create the concept you want without causing yourself to be underpowered. The disparity of Casters and Marshal isn't skewed like previous where in the later levels the marshals are there to just carry things for the Wizard. Yes Casters have been toned down at higher levels but it isn't just a switch of whos on top. Many who thought so were not using all the tools at casters disposal. Staves are a major item for casters and can be compared to importance as one would think of a marshal class not using weapons. so while they upgrade their weapons you upgrade your Staves and have some wands. Id say armor for the marshal but as casters can wear full plate and cast spells with no penalty to their casting that's not really a thing that's just on their side. So if Gm'ng make sure to put in stave's as often as you put in weapons
Also the classes are all really balanced, Lets take one of the more unbalanced classes from pf1: the Gunslinger, it will be released later this year. In PF1 the gun rules made it completely broken in a lot of content . Pf2 version first off the PF1 Bolt Ace (the crossbow using gunslinger) is built into it completely seamlessly so even if you don't want guns you can still have players be a crossbow sharpshooter without having a subset of rules Guns can do bursty crit dmg but are balanced and since there is no touch ac are not auto hitting most things like pf1. The Gunslinger plays like martial debuffer with dmg then a full out dmg character. Just an example of how classes are from pf1 to pf2
Most importantly the system encourages being a team and playing off each others strengths and weaknesses, more tactical thoughts as the system has synergies built into it and more get added with every release. Every party I've ran through an adventure path, one shot, Society scenario , the ones the succeed are the ones who work together instead of just being a group who everyone does their own thing. Encounters can be rough but a few things to remember all premade encounters assume players at full health or close to, so take those 10 min breaks refresh focus spells and do some treat wounds. For example If you have a rogue with the dread striker feat , then use that one remaining action to toss a intimidating glare at an enemy so they are flat footed to the rogue. Things like that can swing a battle in the players favor really fast.
Converting pf1 to pf2 isnt hard. Treasure is usually the sticky point as there are no more stat stick boosters
For PF2 I've GM'd or currently Gm'ng: pf1 converted to pf2 versions of Strange Aeons, Rise of the Ruinlords, Skull n Shackles, Curse of the Crimson Throne, soon Ill be doing a converted Ruins of Azlant
the pf2 APs I've Gm'd are Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, and many Society scenarios since it started
Currently Playing in the first book of Agents of Edgewatch and played and Gm'd both The Slithering and Plaguestone
Some good resources for help with converting from pf1 to pf2 can be found at https://discord.gg/eEHAyHW We are working converting all the Pf1 Ap's to pf2 and sharing the work done
Also for some good options to add to a game , check out the Gamemasters Guide, lots of good stuff inside including rules to
- Increasing the number of Ancestry feats players get without unbalancing everything
- Give a free archetype (multiclass) one of the most popular options
and a host of other options that you can add if you want or trade out
Remembered something. The PF2 Beginner's Box is less of an investment then the Core rulebook to try out. What is nice about is, it contains the full rules just smaller amount of options instead of its own set of rules that once through it wont transfer over. So once you're through it the character you made is 100% compatible with one made from the core rulebook It contains a lite players handbook and a lite Gm's guide , a starter adventure for a party of up to 4 and a Solo adventure teaches you step by step and some other handy stuff.
For the diabolic bloodline two of your three bloodline spells, brace the Pit and Hellfire Plume, are labeled as evil in their descriptions. So my would-be good character would have to violate her alignment or be weaker than other characters by not using those spells. As other sorcerers use theirs.I don't know if being from an evil bloodline necessarily makes your abilities evil, unless you picked the Sorcerer spell that gives people Ghoul Fever and turns them Undead or something.
JG
Not the circus-based one I mentioned, tgat’s for sure. When I commented about asking the DM direct questions about what he was saying and if it was really written the way he described it, it was with regards to the introduction of the plot that spans the Adventure Path.What good “good guys save the world” sorts of adventures are there? Bear in mind,
In Golarion, monster crimes are especially heinous. The city of Absolom has an elite squad dedicated to investigating adventurer cases. These are their stories.All Adventure Paths have a certain amount of buy in from the players needed. Why play at all if going to the authorities is an option?
I think that’s basically Agents of Edgewatch.In Golarion, monster crimes are especially heinous. The city of Absolom has an elite squad dedicated to investigating adventurer cases. These are their stories.
That was the one my GM was mulling over. He ended up choosing Extinction Circus, so apparently we're going to be in the same situation as Ralph.I think that’s basically Agents of Edgewatch.
All Adventure Paths have a certain amount of buy in from the players needed. Why play at all if going to the authorities is an option?
Is Savage Pathfinder part of the comparison or not?As per title, which do you prefer, and why?
How is chargen?
What about classes, 1e or 2e?
Rules, are they better?
What about spells?
How are the settings?
How is the gameplay?
What are your thoughts?
I ran PF1 for six or seven years (mostly APs and adventure modules) and ran PF2 for about a year year (a sandbox hexcrawl, which recently switched to OSE). My answer is I don’t know. There are things that put me off PF1, but there are things that I dislike about PF2. It’s difficult to pick one over the other. My preferences also shifted as I ran PF2, so I’m inclined to say neither. If I had to choose, I’d probably go with PF2 and make changes to accommodate the areas where my group fared poorly (like combat difficulty).As per title, which do you prefer, and why?
How is chargen?
What about classes, 1e or 2e?
Rules, are they better?
What about spells?
How are the settings?
How is the gameplay?
What are your thoughts?
Thanks for this. I didn’t get back to it a couple weeks ago.I ran PF1 for six or seven years (mostly APs and adventure modules) and ran PF2 for about a year year (a sandbox hexcrawl, which recently switched to OSE). My answer is I don’t know. There are things that put me off PF1, but there are things that I dislike about PF2. It’s difficult to pick one over the other. My preferences also shifted as I ran PF2, so I’m inclined to say neither. If I had to choose, I’d probably go with PF2 and make changes to accommodate the areas where my group fared poorly (like combat difficulty).
Things I think PF2 does well
PF2 does a pretty good job of breaking rules down into components. If you’re not dealing with an element, you can just pretend it’s not there. That’s how the Beginner Box can be compatible with the core rules without having all of the content. Character creation is more guided compare to PF1: you work through your ABCs and assign boosts. Rolling is an option, but it’s not the default. Combat is highly tactical, and the work Paizo did to balance out the math shows. You can’t (character) build your way to victory. You have to use your tools effectively to do succeed, especially in higher-threat encounters. We didn’t get past 6th level, but I understand high-level play generally works pretty well compared to PF1.
I like the way classes work in PF2 compared to PF1. It is very difficult to create a bad character. If you have a group of players where some are builders and some like taking things for RP reasons or because they sound cool, you’ll find a lower level of variance between characters compared to PF1. You can still make bad characters, but it takes effort (like not taking any armor as an alchemist …). I would suggest using free archetype variant in the GMG. With the fighting style archetypes in the APG, you have much more flexibility in playing different combat styles without having to take the fighter dedication.
Gameplay feels a lot like PF1 (especially if you used the new action economy in Pathfinder Unchained). The big difference is that the party is expected to fight together effectively like a team. A party that works together to impose buffs and debuffs and play smartly can take on much tougher challenges. Along with the changes to character building, this works to eliminate system mastery from something you do prior to or between sessions and something you do during the session.
I like exploration mode. It’s a call back to exploration procedures from older editions, though it has a few gaps (no morale, reaction, or escape procedures). We made pretty good use of it in my sandbox game. We didn’t use hexploration, but it was easy to adapt exploration mode into another procedure. The system is pretty nicely modular in that regard.
Things I think PF2 does poorly
The BB is a well-written, succinct product. It does a pretty good job of organizing information and explaining how to play the game. The CRB is not those things. It is needlessly verbose in many places, and information is organized all over the place. The BB has one place to look up DCs. The CRB has several. You can also mess up character creation following the CRB’s procedure. It’s not obvious you should stack your boosts to get an 18 in your primary stat (the BB ensures you get one). It’s also easy to forget that you need to apply your free boosts (as my players did our first time playing).
Combat is hard. If you want tactical play with good encounter-building guidelines, PF2 has those. If your group is not good at tactical combat (like mine), they will struggle. We had one TPK, and if I hadn’t tuned things down (and switched to the Proficiency Without Level variant), we may have had more deaths. I expect the difficulty of combat will be the biggest source of trouble for groups. There are some rough encounters in the early adventures and APs (Age of Ashes seems to have mostly moderate- to severe-threat encounters). I don’t know if that’s improved any in the latter ones (though I hear good things about Abomination Vaults).
I don’t like skill actions. PF2 took many of the random modifiers you could add to skills in PF1 and turns them into actions. When I ran PF2, I never felt like I was fully proficient with the system because there’s a lot of stuff, and we’d inevitably have to look something up that came up rarely. PF2 could really use a good default result for skills like it does for basic saving throws. Even better, a lot of skill usage could be handled by the VP subsystem in the GMG, which is basically progress clocks.
Things I think are mixed
PF2 drastically reined in casters. The rarity system helps limit access to potentially game-breaking spells. Whether this is good or not depends on the extent one cares about caster-martial parity. If you played a caster in PF1, you will feel weaker. They also kept the slot-based preparation system from PF1. The arcanist changed things up, but that’s not the default in PF2. Everyone is either prepared or spontaneous, and all prepared casters work the same. You can upcast, but you have to prepare the spell in that slot.
Golarion is the default setting. The line has been simplified into fewer books, but now all the character options are in setting-specific books. I ran a homebrew setting, so I avoided that stuff. It was not too difficult to homebrew stuff because I could grab bits and pieces (like ancestry feats) from various sources, but it was a lot of work. I balked at having clerics in my campaign because you need to come up with anathema and various spells (including deity-specific focus spells) if you’re not going to reskin the Golarion deities. PF2 also advanced the timeline to after all the PF1 APs are over, so if you had been doing a living setting in PF1, you may have some reconciliation to do depending on how things played out in the APs you ran. One notable exception is Kingmaker, which appears to have been excepted (probably because it’s getting converted to PF2).
Ironically, this one seems most appealing to my folks. It seems insane enough to tempt their jaded palettesNot the circus-based one I mentioned, tgat’s for sure. When I commented about asking the DM direct questions about what he was saying and if it was really written the way he described it, it was with regards to the introduction of the plot that spans the Adventure Path.
it really cane across as the NPC saying “There is this horrible thing coming that could doom the islands at some point in the future! You circus folk should go save everyone from this horrid fate! What? Tell authority figures and present my evidence? Go with you? Offer up my gold to fund you instead of doing things that won’t matter if we’re all going to die? Shut up and get on the train for this plot railroad!”
Again, this is where I get to play the Orc Barbarian/Clown.Ironically, this one seems most appealing to my folks. It seems insane enough to tempt their jaded palettes
I don’t think “insane” is a good descriptor, but I’d be curious to hear your play experience.Ironically, this one seems most appealing to my folks. It seems insane enough to tempt their jaded palettes
we will see. won't be for a couple of months, i think. we still have 4 sessions of cortex prime left, at one every two weeks (so, early july) and we have vacations scheduled in july. probably won't be going until august.I don’t think “insane” is a good descriptor, but I’d be curious to hear your play experience.
thanks for this. we are planning an all goblin party, and i can see a lack of dedicated healer easily.In the Extinction Curse game we ended up getting a Total Party Kill. Which is the first time that's happened in a while. Part of it was because we triggered the event that brought us to the final boss of the first module before we'd rested up, but part of it was that we were very fragile. It's like we needed to rest up after every encounter cause it was all we could do not to get killed and ended up having to use up our healing magics for the day. Thing is, in Extinction Curse, you're encouraged to build your character as a member of a circus first and then figure out their game role, and since that's what we did, we ended up making things harder on ourselves.
Specifically, there wasn't a dedicated healer. There was a Bard with Soothe and a Chiruegon Alchemist, but it wasn't quite the same. We didn't have a dedicated tank. The closest thing to a tank was me, and that's only because as a full-blooded Orc Barbarian, I had half again as many hit points as everyone else. I needed all of them. And my AC wasn't that bad. It's just that if you want to defend in this game, you need a shield or triggers like Nimble Dodge, and that didn't fit the character.
Basically we didn't build our group as an adventuring team. After the last fight, the GM gave us the option to try again with new PCs or start over with Age of Ashes. We did the latter. Now I've got a stereotypical Dwarf Warpriest who has both a shield and healing abilities, we have a Monk (finesse fighter), a Rogue/Arcane Trickster and a Lizardman Druid. It's only been a couple fights, but it's working better so far.
JG
Not crazy, cause it can be intimidating at first, but I also think that it isn't that big of a deal in practice once you get over that initial hurdle of "holy crap that is a lot of options).Am I crazy and just prematurely getting overwhelmed?