PF2 Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

Zardnaar

Hero
Point 3 isn't relevant anymore as there aren't the number of FLGS there used to be; people buy online in the main.

I buy quite a few POD classic D&D material on DMs Guild and I make a point of telling people about the Guild whenever possible.

Do your bit, spread the word - in person and online.
I do but there's something about holding it in your hand.
 

pcrotteau

Explorer
1. People don't know they exist.
2. They don't sit in your book case or can be held in the hand.
3. You don't see them in the shelf at the FLGS.

I've never bought one and I'm well aware they exist.
Part 1 is definitely valid.

I don't think that part 2 holds water. The Pathfinder Society scenarios are in demand for PF1 and 2. They are not printed and must be bought as pdfs. Having run and played the early seasons of AL, I was not impressed by the quality of writing, editing, or overall content. The PFS adventures are always professionally laid out, have quality maps, and in the later seasons have all of the statblocks for the encounters included as well as listing the books that the material was pulled from.

But I use the old Dungeons, older edition material and 3pp adventures so I'm never really short of adventures to run.
I concur completely. As an old gamer, I draw from my 1st ed adventures or the better of the published 5e books.

With the similarity of most of the adversaries between 5e and Pathfinder, adapting PF1 adventure paths to 5e shouldn't be that hard either.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Adapting a Pathfinder 2 adventure to 5e should be just as easy. Part of the design priorities were ensuring that the Pathfinder 2 monsters were of a similar level as Pathfinder 1 CR. They are almost one to one. They wanted to ensure that if you wanted to use old adventures you would only have to convert the unique adversaries.
 

5ekyu

Adventurer
(A question for those planning to play PF2; if you’re not, this isn’t really for you - don’t threadcrap, please).

So you’re planning on playing PF2. While you are probably coming from PF1, is anybody coming from 5E?

Obviously, it’s not a permanent thing; you can play more than one game, try out others, all that stuff. But I was curious whether there’s a demographic out here who feel PF2 is offering something that they prefer to what 5E offers? Or at least hope that’s the case, in the absence of seeing the final game yet.

PF2 clearly isn’t an “advanced 5E” but I feel like it is kinda pitched as the “advanced mainstream fantasy RPG”. Is that how you see it?
"PF2 clearly isn’t an “advanced 5E” but I feel like it is kinda pitched as the “advanced mainstream fantasy RPG”. Is that how you see it?"

First, after picking up the pdf, I now hope to run a few one shots at flgs. Hope that counts as enough "planning to play" to not be considered thread crapping. If not, just wipe the post.

I did not play PF1 so not coming from there.

I am currently running a 5e game snd playing in FASERIP Marvel supers, so most recently, I am coming from there.

Before that Serenity, Trsveller (many) , Esper Genesis, Stargate, MnM, HERO system (lots) VtM, D&D 1e, 2e, 3e... and many more... so I might be seen as coming from those.

PF2 in its hype and its playtest and now its rules in final seems like another in a long line of "like ABC but crunchier" products that have traditionally followed on the heels of each game that hit big or even loyal but moderate auduences.

I wish it success however I have a bit of concern.

The massive audience gain from 5e on many levels reminds me more of the VtM surge than any other RPG surge over the decades in that it is drawing from outside the gamer and wargaming community and drawing in what seems to be a more story focused crowd.

So, while obviously PF1 became the king of "like ABC but crunchier" on the 3e and ogl surge (which imo drew mainly from all corners of existing rpg players and gamers) I see PF2 and 5e as much more different in terms of audience break-downs.

It's kinda why I want to see how much interest PF2 one shots fet.

What I wonder is (and think might could be the modern equivalent or the "PF1 is to 3e as ABC is to 5e") would be if a new version or new game that aims to be "like 5e but more story" friendly.

You would want less crunch, more story driven character definition with a major emphasis on the descriptive play and [to be frank) very easy to emulate what we see in streaming games.

Maybe something like a Blue Rose or MnM core with stronger emphasis on a stunt system that empowers "on the fly" dramatic actions over builds would be the "like 5e but..." that scratches more of the itches of the new crowd drawn to 5e.
 

Zardnaar

Hero
I bought the PDF but want to try a game as a player before dripping money on the books.
It's to hard to get into so some amount of DM hand holding would be preferred.

PFS here collapsed with 5E so I don't think I'll get to play it. So willing to play don't want to run it.
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
Played first game of Pathfinder Society today. We played through The Absolam Initiation scenario which is meant to be players introduction to Pathfinder Society. Lots of great role playing and lore in the scenario. It was also fairly brutal. My Barbarian dropped 3 times throughout, including two in the last encounter. He almost did not make it through - got down to Dying 3. Luckily I had one Hero Point left. Several of the other characters also went down at least once.

Things played pretty quick even with 6 players. Combats took about the same amount of time as they take with my Fifth Edition group. The game is pretty swingy. Critical hits are a really big deal. The higher level monster the 6 of us faced in the last part nearly took out 3 of the 6 us. The fight was tense.

I have to say that I am really enjoying the secret rolls for things like Gather Information, Searching, and Recall Knowledge. It creates an environment of uncertainty that I really enjoy. We ended up having a much harder time disrupting the ritual in the second part of the scenario because we were operating under faulty information from a Critical Failure on Gather Information.
 
Yup, for our group it really scratches the itch of wanting a rules system that handles a deeper more complex game better, and more involved character building, with the relative streamlining to give it most of the benefits that 5e has. It makes me feel like where 5e messed up (in terms of engaging my interest) was in the department of creating a game that is simpler, but gets relatively little bang per buck on it's simplicity vs. depth trade off.

2e is much simpler than pf1e, while being a step up in complexity relative to 5e, but while having the sheer depth I haven't gotten to experience since 4e. It also works better because there's a lot more guidance for things like exploration and downtime, which means those systems aren't as hit or miss based off your DM.
 

zztong

Explorer
I know a friend will bring PF2 back from GenCon and I'm pretty sure we'll try it. We were a PF1 game until the PF2 playtest. After the PF2 playtest, and a couple of post-playtest PF2 adventures, we've been testing the waters with 5e and played several sessions. I've no idea where that game will end up long term.
We've largely completed the Plaguestone adventure, after having done the playtest and a couple of homebrew adventures between the playtest and the release of the completed rules.

Over beers this weekend, my friend told me that he was bailing on PF2 after this and going to D&D 5e. (We played PF1 for many years and not D&D 5e.) He might be interested in trying PF2 again in a year, but right now he saw "more negatives than positives." I'm trying to remember what he liked and didn't like. I recall he wasn't happy with our characters that multiclassed and the oft-expressed player frustration about too many tiny feats. I know he liked the bestiary, the action system, and the more-defined exploration mode. We talked about the "fail forward" approach to skills and the higher DCs and how that wasn't a good fit for some of the players. We talked about how the table dynamic has changed with more casual players and folks with less time, thus less patience for complex rules. PF1 had been working because we already knew, and were comfortable with the rules, but it too probably wouldn't have worked for the current group if we were just starting.
 

Xenonnonex

Adventurer
We've largely completed the Plaguestone adventure, after having done the playtest and a couple of homebrew adventures between the playtest and the release of the completed rules.

Over beers this weekend, my friend told me that he was bailing on PF2 after this and going to D&D 5e. (We played PF1 for many years and not D&D 5e.) He might be interested in trying PF2 again in a year, but right now he saw "more negatives than positives." I'm trying to remember what he liked and didn't like. I recall he wasn't happy with our characters that multiclassed and the oft-expressed player frustration about too many tiny feats. I know he liked the bestiary, the action system, and the more-defined exploration mode. We talked about the "fail forward" approach to skills and the higher DCs and how that wasn't a good fit for some of the players. We talked about how the table dynamic has changed with more casual players and folks with less time, thus less patience for complex rules. PF1 had been working because we already knew, and were comfortable with the rules, but it too probably wouldn't have worked for the current group if we were just starting.
Our group was also similarly disappointed with the plethora of microfeats and the lackluster ancestries.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?
 

dave2008

Adventurer
One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?
That was the same issue a lot of people had with 4e. I heard that argument all the time on the old WotC 4e forum
 

Parmandur

Legend
One concern of mine is something I don't often see discussed:

The way feats enable highly specific actions (or uses of skills).

Does that mean you can't do that unless you have the skill?

If "yes", this means the game becomes a nightmare for the DM who ought to learn all thousand feats by heart, and say "no" to every attempt to use something without the requisite feat.

If "no", then... why take the feat?
That's been a problem with Feats since 3E was released.
 

kenada

Explorer
I think that’s a fair take, and it’s mine too. I think it’s fine, because it reminds me of how PbtA systems view moves, but I can see its causing friction and problems in groups that want something more freeform.

That said, when I ran it for my group, the basic actions seemed pretty broadly applicable. I could deal with improvised actions, but I admit one has to be diligent about following the rules as written.
 
Last edited:

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
In general if you follow the advice on improvising actions you should mostly be fine. Abilities from feats tend to be far more effective in terms of the action economy.

Skill feats tend to extend existing actions and make them better or lift restrictions.
 

kenada

Explorer
Definitely. I had no problem handling improvised actions when I ran PF2. The place where I see friction is when players try to do something outside the boundaries like try to Make an Impression to or Request of a group, which normally only works on an individual, but they expect the GM to make a ruling and let them try anyway. I don’t think PF2 is wrong for working the way it does, but I can understand that might be an issue for some people.
 

Advertisement

Top