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

GuardianLurker

Adventurer
I would strongly caution against Pathfinder 2.

It is a very different game and engine than 3.0/3.5/PF1. Completely incompatible. Not only stats and numbers, but the entire rhythm and flow of adventures is different. Much like 4E D&D, a PF2 adventure is immediately recognizable as such, and you cannot easily use a d20 module with either 4E or PF2, or either a 4E or a PF2 module with any other system.
.
I'll strongly disagree with you here. I'm adapting 3.0 modules for use in my PF2e campaign on a regular basis. It requires roughly the same amount of effort I used when adapting 3.x modules for use in 5e.

Now, I can't use the module's stats-as-written directly (beyond very basics), but that's pretty much been true for all of the editions. Even though I, like many, many, others, ran plenty of B/X modules with AD&D 1e rules, the only things that fully ported (stat-wise) were: AC, HP, Damage, and spell names. I.e. the very basics. At that level, d20 is d20 just about all the way down.

I also disagree with your characterization of the system, but I can understand why you feel that way. But not every game system appeals to everyone, nor is it supposed to.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Enrico Poli1

Adventurer
I’m still running a 3.0 game. I never updated to 3.5. I didn’t see the point. 3.5 seemed too similar to buy the core books all over again - plus it seemed like they were trying to be more tactical and less theatre of the mind in 3.5.

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

If I were going to dive into it, I was thinking of eventually getting these books:
  • Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (2009)
  • Bestiary (2009)
  • GM Screen (2009)
  • GameMastery Guide (2010)
  • Bestiary 2 (2010)
  • Bestiary 3 (2011)
  • Bestiary 4 (2013)
  • Bestiary 5 (2015)
  • Bestiary 6 (2017)
Is the GameMastery Guide necessary? Sounds like it’s more GMing advice rather than a “core” book like the Dungeon Master's Guide.

Are the Bestiary books helpful? I’ve got all the 3.0/3.5 monster books: Monster Manual, Monster Manual 2, Fiend Folio, Monster Manual 3, Monster Manual 4 and Monster Manual 5. Will I be able to survive off them or would it be better to pick up the PF1 bestiaries?

And what’s the deal with the Mythic rules? Is a mythic 1st level character more powerful than a normal 1st level character? Do mythic characters and normal characters exist on Golarion at the same time?

Thank you
- D&D3.0 has a more old school, sword&sorcery vibe, D&D 3.5 and P1 are more high fantasy. Plus, they trimmed some abusable spells and item. P1 characters are generally a bit stronger. Also, P1 is a bit more complex.

- Your preference can be different about the classes (for example I reslly love the P1 Barbaruan) and the splatbooks. Do you prefer Champions of the Wilds, Tome of Battle or Ultimate Combat? So you have to know them to really decide.

- The P1 Gamemastery Guide is not necessary. The Advanced Player's Guide basically is. I also like Ultimate Combat.

- I am a collector and love the P1 Bestiaries more then the D&D ones. Yes, they're fantastic. But if you have the D&D ones, the P1 are not necessary to play.

- Mythic Rules. Basically you can add up to 10 Mythic Levels besides normal level. Beware, they are so strong and unbalanced that they will destroy your campaign. I suggest to use Mythic Levels for enemies only.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
PF2 characters are incredibly tied down, and you can't come even close to the customization freedom of 3.0/3.5/PF1.
My group looked very briefly at PF2 when it came out, and that was the conclusion that we came to as well.
PF2 puts the quest for balance first and foremost. Similarly to 4E, this results in characters not allowed to meaningfully deviate from the expected power grade.
This is true, and is a real shame. I know a lot of people want to find a "crunchy" RPG system that allows for a great deal of freedom and variability while still keeping everything tightly balanced, but I'm convinced that these two things – options and balance – are opposites, in that you can't maintain balance without introducing constraints on options. Personally, I'm of the opinion that balance is something which happens just as much at the table as in the books (i.e. the GM tailors things to challenge the group appropriately, while still maintaining verisimilitude), so I much prefer that the game put options first and balance second.
 

dead

Explorer
Thanks, guys, for the info on PF2. I might stick with 3.0 for now and try to simplify some things. Combine some skills into one - like Spot/Listen as Perception and Hide/Move Silently as Stealth. And then maybe try out a simplified skill system like the ones presented in the Unearthed Arcana 3E supplement.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
My group looked very briefly at PF2 when it came out, and that was the conclusion that we came to as well.

This is true, and is a real shame. I know a lot of people want to find a "crunchy" RPG system that allows for a great deal of freedom and variability while still keeping everything tightly balanced, but I'm convinced that these two things – options and balance – are opposites, in that you can't maintain balance without introducing constraints on options. Personally, I'm of the opinion that balance is something which happens just as much at the table as in the books (i.e. the GM tailors things to challenge the group appropriately, while still maintaining verisimilitude), so I much prefer that the game put options first and balance second.
Well, most games fail at both, so... ;)

PF2 is incredibly tied down. Another way of putting it is that it sacrifices everything at the altar of balance.

Which I am impressed you could see after only looking at it "very briefly". Most people would be dazzled by the huge (insanely huge, in fact) array of options you get, and only later realize that you are very very rarely given any gamechanging options. Paizo is nickle and dimeing you, by chopping up every conceivable bonus in as many and as small increments as possible.

Sometimes forgetting even basic gameplay options. For instance, you basically can't crawl unless you pick a feat for that (perhaps it was called Nimble Crawl). But having to spend a resource that after all is limited on removing artificial limitations there only to be able to present a larger catalogue of choices is deeply deeply unfun.

This crawl example is of course not super important, but it exemplifies a truly detestable rules design approach: in order to find out your true limitations, you need to know all of the feats. There are way too many instances where a data point you need to understand what you can and cannot do is buried in the feats chapter.

PF2 is an inexplicable game. How anyone could think writing a book that comes across as a boring catalogue right after the trainwreck that was 4E that did the exact same thing as regards presentation is completely beyond me. To me PF2 reads as if written by people entirely unaware of 4th Edition and its reception.

Then there are a couple of outliers. These I could have forgiven if they didn't symbolize the full extent of the design process that PF2 embodies: Talismans. These... I have no words. They're atrocious, basically. Asking a human play group to track the usage of Talismans without computer support is a travesty and nothing less. If you know how they work, you know what I mean. If you don't, then, well, I plead with you to not look up the rules.

Basically, you're asked to jump through several hoops for a one-time bonus of the smallest and most restricted kind possible. I couldn't believe my eyes when I first read that chapter. I wanted to rip the pages out of the book, was my immediate reaction. But you be the judge, or ideally, not.

---

I stand by my assessment that basic combat is excellent in PF2. The way monsters generally outclass heroes, but that heroes somehow always comes out on top, is a genuine fresh breath.

Of course, it also means it is its own game (for similar reasons 4E is its own game). You can't take any old encounter and just expect it to work. PF2 encounters are meant to be highly calibrated. If you haven't run official Paizo scenarios you need to do that before responding.

In the end, I think players tire of playing in this new paradigm, so in that regard it is a failure. But it sure is exciting for a while; a decent try to spice things up D&D combat-wise. My end analysis is that PF2 combat fails for much the same reasons 4E combat fails - it forgets that the story must trump the mechanics. The way regular D&D combat (meaning OD&D, AD&D, 3E and 5E here) can feel sloppy is a net positive, because it allows story to influence how fast or slow it concludes. The more "balanced" combat becomes (involving more parameters) the only way we got quick fights were when we could see already from the beginning we were going to win easily... and then it feels like a complete waste of time going through the motions. Whereas in regular D&D combat, swish swish and that easy fight is done.

PF2 and 4E excels at centrepiece combats. But are terrible at humdrum combats. I much prefer the simpler rhythm of regular D&D, and realize that everything that more elaborate combat systems like 4E and PF2 adds becomes a hindrance in the end.

Btw, PF2 is a big improvement upon 4E in one area: spellcasting. This is because, for some inexplicable reason, Paizo did trust spellcasters(?!) What I mean is that the magic system largely survives intact from regular D&D. Sure they added Incapacitation, which comes across as a very crude solution, but play the game enough, and you realize they needed to do something, and besides, if you basically ignore spells with that trait altogether, it can't hurt you.


But as said, that's still a decent try and not what I'm dinging the game for. What fails for me is how PF2 exudes a feeling of not trusting the player. At every turn, players are given the smallest choices imaginable, and many aspects of chargen from 3rd edition (and PF1) is just locked away.

And then there's Talismans. If I ever had to report a crime against decency in rules design, that would be my top contender.
 

There are fewer dead levels in the PF1 classes as Paizo wanted to encourage the players into sticking with a single class instead of doing a multiclass dip. The sorcerer class in 3.0/3.5, for instance, just gave the player two features (Summon Familiar and Eschew Materials) at 1st level and spellcasting, and that was it. Paizo tried to fix this by introducing the various kinds of Bloodlines a Sorcerer could descend from, and each bloodline came with it's own set of bloodline spells, feats, skills and powers. As a result, there was a bit more customization for this class in PF1 than there was back in 3.0/3.5.
 


GuardianLurker

Adventurer
Thanks, guys, for the info on PF2. I might stick with 3.0 for now and try to simplify some things. Combine some skills into one - like Spot/Listen as Perception and Hide/Move Silently as Stealth. And then maybe try out a simplified skill system like the ones presented in the Unearthed Arcana 3E supplement.
Another option you might want to try is Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed (note the word order). A very interesting take on an Alternate D&D. And that is playable with 3.x directly.
 


PF2 is an inexplicable game. How anyone could think writing a book that comes across as a boring catalogue right after the trainwreck that was 4E that did the exact same thing as regards presentation is completely beyond me. To me PF2 reads as if written by people entirely unaware of 4th Edition and its reception.
On another thread I was told by another poster that Paizo hired some 4e designers when they were coming up with PF2. I can't confirm this rumor, but if it is the truth, then PF2 was written by people who were entirely aware of 4th edition and the reception it got.

How is PF1 doing compared to PF2 these days?
 

Split the Hoard


Split the Hoard
Negotiate, demand, or steal the loot you desire!

A competitive card game for 2-5 players
Remove ads

Top