Pathfinder 1E Are there compelling reasons to upgrade to PF1 from 3.0?

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Really? I just call them sub-classes, and if anyone's familiar with that idea from 5E, they instantly get it.

I've seen people really dislike how archetypes can replace base class features, and how that makes using multiple archetypes in some cases quite complicated. You might have archetypes that are incompatible because they modify or replace the same base class feature.

 

[payn]

I've seen people really dislike how archetypes can replace base class features, and how that makes using multiple archetypes in some cases quite complicated. You might have archetypes that are incompatible because they modify or replace the same base class feature.

Usually folks where after super combos and archetypes was one area that Paizo was pretty reasonable about in restriction. YMMV

 

[GuardianLurker]

But if PF1 is less complex that 3.0, I’d certainly be open to upgrading.

If you're looking for less complex, you might want to check out the PF2e ruleset on AoN. It does a good job of reducing the overly fiddly bits while still retaining flexibility. And while it's relatively easy to convert from 3.x to PF2e (because it is still d20 math), the system does have significant changes. It may not be to you taste.

And it still works fine for Theater of the Mind combat.

 

[dead]

If you're looking for less complex, you might want to check out the PF2e ruleset on AoN. It does a good job of reducing the overly fiddly bits while still retaining flexibility. And while it's relatively easy to convert from 3.x to PF2e (because it is still d20 math), the system does have significant changes. It may not be to you taste.

And it still works fine for Theater of the Mind combat.

Oh... is PF2 less complex? What percentage less complex would it be?

I have been eyeing off the shiny new Remastered books. I also like how the 2nd edition of Starfinder will be compatible with PF2 as I was thinking of doing a fantasy/sci-fi crossover.

The alternative to that is to use the Legendary Games' Arcforge setting to do a PF1 fantasy/sci-fi crossover (in lieu of Starfinder being compatible with PF1).

For those who play PF1 but don't particularly like PF2, what are the reasons? Is it just a different feeling play experience? I mean, PF1 is clearly a progression from 3.5. I hear PF2 has a 4E feel.

 

[pawsplay]

I'd say PF2 is maybe 10% less complex. Actually, character creation is often more complex in PF2 at first level, but levels off more quickly. I'm a Remastered convert after skipping the initial 2e release; the improvements are minor but there is considerable thematic and quality-of-life improvement in the books. But it's still a pretty complex game.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's a much cleaner game. System-wise it's more balanced, it does retain a lot of the complexity but in different ways that are generally easier to interact with. You still have a bunch of axes of customizability, but overall they've made it so there aren't really "trap choices" and long, necessary feat chains are gone.

 

[pawsplay]

It's more consistent, with more general cases and fewer specific ones. But it still has a lot of moving parts and a fair number of complex procedures.

 

[payn]

Oh... is PF2 less complex? What percentage less complex would it be?

Id go a bit higher than other folks and say about 50% less complex. A few reasons for that, I think chargen and leveling up is incredibly streamlined and easy. Folks who balk at the amount of feats and system mastery required for 3E/PF1 will be very pleased with the changes of PF2. Also, buffs and untold amounts of stackable modifiers are pretty much gone. If you can somehow find a +1 its a very big deal in PF2. So, it runs and plays simpler in that regard.

That said, where the complexity stays is in applying conditions and understanding how the emphasis on tactical team combat has arisen.

I have been eyeing off the shiny new Remastered books. I also like how the 2nd edition of Starfinder will be compatible with PF2 as I was thinking of doing a fantasy/sci-fi crossover.

The alternative to that is to use the Legendary Games' Arcforge setting to do a PF1 fantasy/sci-fi crossover (in lieu of Starfinder being compatible with PF1).

Im just rolling up a character now for SF. I skipped it mostly because Im a Traveller guy for my sci-fi but fell into a game. SF definitely seems like the road to PF2 so far. Im liking chargen and will sound off more once I get play experience.

For those who play PF1 but don't particularly like PF2, what are the reasons? Is it just a different feeling play experience? I mean, PF1 is clearly a progression from 3.5. I hear PF2 has a 4E feel.

There is a lot of stuff from 4E in the DNA of PF2 I dont like. The fact that multiclassing, archetypes, and prestige class all compete for the same resource. It's a hybrid style of chargen that sort of keeps players in their lane so to speak. On the flip side, it has simplified chargen and kept the balance more inline so folks cant go bonkers like they could in PF1. I understand the approach but I would have chosen something like BA instead to do it. I get why Paizo didnt do that tho because they are getting out from under WotC shadow.

I dont like strong team tactical games where combat takes up a lot of time. Its also why I didnt take to 4E. This is a preference thing however and I think the PF2 system works very smoothly. So, if that sounds appealing, I highly recommend PF2. On the GM side the CR system is very accurate and reliable. If you chose to use Foundry VTT running and playing the game is a dream.

For my personal taste I would run PF2 with the proficiency without level variant to open up the level binding a little. I wouldnt run or play again without the free archetype variant which has become standard for most groups anyway.

 

[GuardianLurker]

I'll second payn of the free archetype, especially if you want to see them in play. The core class abilities they replace are good enough (and diverse enough) to be very compelling. I'll raise a caution flag on the "proficiency without level" option, though. While I'd love to run the game that way, as it exposes more of the math, making it easier for me to juggle, it's so baked into the system that unless you're running with a tool that will do the calculations for you, it just really isn't feasible (IMO).

One way to (dismissively) categorize PF2e is that it's what D&D4e should have been. Easier to learn, "cleaner" systems, more diverse classes that are balanced (mostly) with each other, meaningful character choices, good tactical play (without requiring minatures), full 1-20 play that works, etc. It's a D**N good system.

In terms of complexity, I'd say it's at about a 30% reduction. Ancestry+Heritage, Background, and Class flows really, really smoothly for character creation. But Traits and Conditions make up the slack.

 

[pawsplay]

Character creation in 2E requires more choices and more calculation than in PF 1. First you pick an ancestry, and get a heritage. Apply ability boosts. Background, apply ability boosts. Class, apply ability boost. Here's three different funnels of feats you need to understand by level 2. Also, here's a side system that uses those feats to create archetypes, and here's additional heritages you can swap in. Smooth, I guess, once you are used to it. I was really struck, making my first few 2e characters, how involved character creation actually is.