Pathfinder 1E Did most PF1e Players migrate to 2e or stick with 1e?

[VHawkwinter]

While I think that's entirely legitimate, when I want that I, well, play a non-class based system.

Yeah, the thing is, I want that all the time, even when I want to run high-ish level Forgotten Realms, with D&D magic system and magic items (a common setting choice for me).

I have tried to work out how to build 10th- 12th level FR wizards (published ones) in GURPS. I was up to ~500 points of nonmagic, and spent a few weekends trying to figure out how to reasonably price out D&D magic as both a magic system, and the spells. It would certainly be a job. Enraged Eggplant's sprawling blog of content would help these days though. I have considered adapting his builds to run a "GURPS Forgotten Realms" notebook. I have considered that as a possibility though, and tried to figure out the best way to build it in GURPS more than once.

But, for ~17 years, a curated mashup of 3.x books and homebrew did a pretty okay job of it, while none of the classless systems I was aware of were really up to the task.

In addition to GURPS, I do kind of like Unisystem as well though. And the Dark Eye. And Shadowrun 4e/20th Anniversary Edition.

I'm not super fond of the d100 systems but I have some of them.

And I have Everstone and a few years back I bought Eclipse.

Anyway. I don't always play D&D. But when I do, I still want a classless RPG.

 

[Alzrius]

And I have Everstone and a few years back I bought Eclipse.

I'm curious how well Eclipse worked out for you?

 

[VHawkwinter]

I'm curious how well Eclipse worked out for you?

After I bought it I never got a chance to run it. I built a few characters though. It's alright. I do have some gripes about the book's organisation and some assumptions I didnt understand until I was half way through volume 2, like how HD are priced, some stuff I wished had options in there did not, and I found its limited selection of ability modifiers annoyingly fuzzy, and he has some weird abilities in there that just seem to be hacks to make the math work out. But overall, I would still consider it an upgrade over stock 3.0/3.5/PF1.

If I were to run 3e FR again though, I probably would consider using his builds of the PF1 classes as a baseline and then remove the things that give a point break, use the 3.5 skill list and convert that back, a few key 3e houserules, and balance up to the higher point values with some limits, bolt on PF1 wound thresholds and spell invention, and use PF1 Bestiaries as the base, plus the 3.5 one just for a few monsters and then the 3e FR monsters and EN Creature Catalogue.

It's pretty good, not perfect, I have some minor design gripes, but I appreciate what he was going for - and simultaneously, it is not a user friendly text, so I can partly see why it didnt really catch on in 2007.

 

[Alzrius]

After I bought it I never got a chance to run it. I built a few characters though. It's alright. I do have some gripes about the book's organisation and some assumptions I didnt understand until I was half way through volume 2, like how HD are priced, some stuff I wished had options in there did not, and I found its limited selection of ability modifiers annoyingly fuzzy, and he has some weird abilities in there that just seem to be hacks to make the math work out. But overall, I would still consider it an upgrade over stock 3.0/3.5/PF1.

While I agree that the organization could be tweaked, and that some of the options needed further clarification (e.g. how corruption and specialization can give either price breaks or enhanced functionality in exchange for a commensurate weakness/limitation), the variable nature of what can be done through the aforementioned use of corruption and specialization, in conjunction with other things which are essentially mutable (e.g. the Immunity ability) or variable in effect (e.g. the Accursed drawback, or taking Restrictions) seems like they should provide an incredible array of options. To that end, I'm curious if you can get further into specifics (if not, that's okay too).

 

[Tigris]

That was definitely on my list of things keeping me from diving full into PF2.

Yeah the problem with the feat based multiclassing in PF2 is that its just another of the points where PF2 designer stole 4E design without understanding it and with it took another of 4Es flaws and made it worse.


Feat based multi classin was in 4E because it allows to have classes be front loaded. So gaining everything needed to fulfill their role and not just instantly die on level 1. That is why level 1 in 4E is something like level 3-4 in 3E or 5E. This is not possible with level based multiclassing


PF2 took the design, but it is not really front loadet, so it did not make use of the advantage of the design. Meanwhile it keeps the weakness of the feat based multiclassing, (it feels weak) and makes it even worse!

• In 4E initial multiclass feats are strong
  • They give a new skill training (which normally costs a feat itself)
  • It gives as bonus one of the new classes mechanics in a weakened form which is worth a feat (like once per combat using sneak attack)
  • It unlocks a lot of new class feats, so more options, which can have quite a bit of power.
• In 4E it costs a "general" feat not a "class power increase" unlike in PF2. So you do NOT have to give up on a class power increase (which is a new power or a level increase of a power), meanwhile in PF2 you have to
• The class options you can pick thanks to the initial feat, are as strong as in the main class! So you can pick with a feat a feat from the other class or exchange one of your powers with the power of the other class both of which are same level/power as if you would be the class you multi class in. Meanwhile in PF2 you even need to pick a lower level feat of the class you multiclass in.
• Also feats in 4E have a lot higher total power budget than they have in PF2, so they can have more impact. In PF2 most power budget is in the numbers (attack and defense etc.) or spell slots which are independant of feats
• On top of that class feats are dependant on one another, because they often represent a subclass choice. So you are dependant on picking some class feats even if they are weak, leaving less feats to use for multiclassing.

But in order to fix the "damn multiclassing is so weak that (almost) no one would ever pick it" PF2 added another of 4Es faults by having "free optional power". In 4E its character themes, which were added later, and give low level characters quite a bit more power, in PF2 the free multiclassing DOUBLES the class feats you get after level 1! And it does not bring any difficulty adjustment with it. This either means that multiclassing is sooooo extremly weak that it literally makes no different in power budget or that characters with free multiclassing are just stronger in a way which is not accounted by the system. This is one of the laziest fixes one could have implemented. Just give options which are too weak for free (as an optional rule) instead of balance them properly.


And then the "free archetypes" makes another 4E flaw even worse "too many weak feats/options". Having yet another feat type added to the 4 existing one, which has just small (mathematically by the system rules negligible) power just adds to the "too much things to track"/ "too many weak feats/options" feeling 4E gave.

 

[VHawkwinter]

While I agree that the organization could be tweaked, and that some of the options needed further clarification (e.g. how corruption and specialization can give either price breaks or enhanced functionality in exchange for a commensurate weakness/limitation), the variable nature of what can be done through the aforementioned use of corruption and specialization, in conjunction with other things which are essentially mutable (e.g. the Immunity ability) or variable in effect (e.g. the Accursed drawback, or taking Restrictions) seems like they should provide an incredible array of options. To that end, I'm curious if you can get further into specifics (if not, that's okay too).

The biggest issue there, was that I thought corrupted and specialised were too fuzzily defined and not very granular for if youre trying to build more heavily modified traits, and it really needed more specific stackable modifiers a là GURPS.
And though I don't remember which traits, I do remember at the time that there were several instances where I thought Challenging Challenge Ratings or the ARG race builder had more reasonable prices as a percentage of a level, for some trait or another.

Although I referenced it for inspiration while pricing the prebuilt character building traits for RoS, I eventually ended up tossing out the corrupted and specialised ideas from Eclipse and made a bigger list of more specific more granular modifiers inspired by ones in GURPS and a bit of HERO, and in some cases manually adjusted prices of traits from there - though RoS is pretty tailored to its setting. I didnt include all the modifiers, I built a collection of predefined traits and used my custom list of enhancements and limitations to help price out point values.

Anyway. As I said, its pretty good even though I think it could use a rebalance and reorganisation, and think it needs more trait modifiers.

I vaguely remember finding his take on Druid wildshape mechanically awkward and confusing, but I no longer remember why.

 

[payn]

Yeah the problem with the feat based multiclassing in PF2 is that its just another of the points where PF2 designer stole 4E design without understanding it and with it took another of 4Es flaws and made it worse.


Feat based multi classin was in 4E because it allows to have classes be front loaded. So gaining everything needed to fulfill their role and not just instantly die on level 1. That is why level 1 in 4E is something like level 3-4 in 3E or 5E. This is not possible with level based multiclassing


PF2 took the design, but it is not really front loadet, so it did not make use of the advantage of the design. Meanwhile it keeps the weakness of the feat based multiclassing, (it feels weak) and makes it even worse!

• In 4E initial multiclass feats are strong
  • They give a new skill training (which normally costs a feat itself)
  • It gives as bonus one of the new classes mechanics in a weakened form which is worth a feat (like once per combat using sneak attack)
  • It unlocks a lot of new class feats, so more options, which can have quite a bit of power.
• In 4E it costs a "general" feat not a "class power increase" unlike in PF2. So you do NOT have to give up on a class power increase (which is a new power or a level increase of a power), meanwhile in PF2 you have to
• The class options you can pick thanks to the initial feat, are as strong as in the main class! So you can pick with a feat a feat from the other class or exchange one of your powers with the power of the other class both of which are same level/power as if you would be the class you multi class in. Meanwhile in PF2 you even need to pick a lower level feat of the class you multiclass in.
• Also feats in 4E have a lot higher total power budget than they have in PF2, so they can have more impact. In PF2 most power budget is in the numbers (attack and defense etc.) or spell slots which are independant of feats
• On top of that class feats are dependant on one another, because they often represent a subclass choice. So you are dependant on picking some class feats even if they are weak, leaving less feats to use for multiclassing.

But in order to fix the "damn multiclassing is so weak that (almost) no one would ever pick it" PF2 added another of 4Es faults by having "free optional power". In 4E its character themes, which were added later, and give low level characters quite a bit more power, in PF2 the free multiclassing DOUBLES the class feats you get after level 1! And it does not bring any difficulty adjustment with it. This either means that multiclassing is sooooo extremly weak that it literally makes no different in power budget or that characters with free multiclassing are just stronger in a way which is not accounted by the system. This is one of the laziest fixes one could have implemented. Just give options which are too weak for free (as an optional rule) instead of balance them properly.

Feat based multi-classing is also one of the big reasons I bailed on 4E. I never had an issue with "dipping". All the problems I had in 3E were from prestige classes and other later era splats. Paizo kinda did the same thing with some of their design, but I could pick and choose and work around the edges.

And then the "free archetypes" makes another 4E flaw even worse "too many weak feats/options". Having yet another feat type added to the 4 existing one, which has just small (mathematically by the system rules negligible) power just adds to the "too much things to track"/ "too many weak feats/options" feeling 4E gave.

I dont want the free archetype because I dont have enough feats or because they are weak. I want it because characters feel exceedingly boring in PF2 without a lack of options to make them feel any different than any other X class.

 

[VHawkwinter]

All the problems I had in 3E were from prestige classes and other later era splats. Paizo kinda did the same thing with some of their design, but I could pick and choose and work around the edges.

Yeah, I do have some gripes with the core rules, but I'm inclined to agree that most of the content got worse over time. Post-2005 D&D 3.5 was much worse IMO, than doing 3.5 core with 3.0 splats + FR.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Feat based multi-classing is also one of the big reasons I bailed on 4E. I never had an issue with "dipping". All the problems I had in 3E were from prestige classes and other later era splats. Paizo kinda did the same thing with some of their design, but I could pick and choose and work around the edges.


I dont want the free archetype because I dont have enough feats or because they are weak. I want it because characters feel exceedingly boring in PF2 without a lack of options to make them feel any different than any other X class.

My players complained about that in 5e a lot. The first major complaint was something like "why do I have to choose between my character being useful and being even a little interesting and entertaining to play".

 

[Thomas Shey]

View attachment 440481

Class feats are every other level, so it's more like adding 3 feats to the first 5 levels.

I was going by your statement.