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

[Thomas Shey]

When I gave up I was up to 1700 pages of DMs Guild content, 75 pages of houserules and homebrew, and about 1600 pages of 5e Hasbro content I actually allowed

Yeah, my rule of thumb would be even if there's nothing quite serving your purposes out there, chances are if you're adding in more than about 20 pages of houserules, there's probably something closer than what you're currently using.

(Discounting for the moment the cursed problem that you may be able to get people to play heavily houseruled D&D just because it has the name "Dungeons and Dragons" on it who wouldn't play a less houseruled version of something else).

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

If you want 3e style high level magic, I'm not sure GURPS would be my choice either.

To be fair, almost any other system is going to be a pain in the behind if you literally want the D&D magic system, because the D&D magic system is about the most ridiculously idiosyncratic and special-case focused magic system I've seen in any fantasy game out there, including even some other D&D derivatives. I stand by the opinion its one of the things that feeds decision paralysis and people who really don't understand what their characters can do the moment the character hits even moderate levels.

I don't doubt if I was insane I could reconstruct both the general workings of D&D magic and even the individual spells in the Hero System using some ideas from the last version of Fantasy Hero. It wouldn't even necessarily be prohibitively expensive in character points. But the amount of work would be, to say the least, extensive and I can't imagine wanting to enough to do that work.

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.

I don't mean offense, but I think wanting a classless system and the D&D magic system in all its--glory--is asking largely for two pieces of rope that don't meet in the middle. I suspect trying to make D&D work properly without classes would require virtually reconstructing it from the ground up, and I have no faith anyone could do it without balance problems galore.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I'm not sold once the current set became available and the internal options that made them more diverse that they were boring. I just think even with those it was too easy to have concepts that were too hard to realize if even possible. Its still not impossible to run into that (because no class system is really going to be excited to let you build, say, a fighter/sage with limited magical capability and still be good for anything) but free archetype at least makes the number of those cases considerably less common.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Besides some of the multiclassing issues (I don't think at least 3.5 ever really solved the problem of making arcane multiclasses that didn't either dilute your spellcasting too much or alternatively make you question why you would ever play a pure spellcaster) I found that at about 14th level the GMing overhead on using a lot of the opponents you needed to to make a proper challenge was more than I felt like dealing with.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Besides some of the multiclassing issues (I don't think at least 3.5 ever really solved the problem of making arcane multiclasses that didn't either dilute your spellcasting too much or alternatively make you question why you would ever play a pure spellcaster) I found that at about 14th level the GMing overhead on using a lot of the opponents you needed to to make a proper challenge was more than I felt like dealing with.

(Unlike the e6 crew) I think the sweet spot for 3.x is level 7 or 8 to 13 or so, 14 I consider near the end of the campaign. I am inclined to agree the combat can be harder to set up then.

even if there's nothing quite serving your purposes out there, chances are if you're adding in more than about 20 pages of houserules, there's probably something closer than what you're currently using.

There are few games Ive tried that I would run again with that little in the way of houserules, besides GURPS, and each of them I would only use for their specific usecase. (Shadowrun 20th anniversary, Rolemaster 4e, The Dark Eye).

(Discounting for the moment the cursed problem that you may be able to get people to play heavily houseruled D&D just because it has the name "Dungeons and Dragons" on it who wouldn't play a less houseruled version of something else).

Probably only if the base was whatever the current D&D edition is, though.

If you want 3e style high level magic, I'm not sure GURPS would be my choice either.

I'm not sure Fantasy HERO would be easier. But maybe.

To be fair, almost any other system is going to be a pain in the behind if you literally want the D&D magic system, because the D&D magic system is about the most ridiculously idiosyncratic and special-case focused magic system I've seen in any fantasy game out there, including even some other D&D derivatives.

That would be the goal for a D&D alternative, yes. Good chance I'd want to specifically run a Faerûnian sandbox.

I stand by the opinion its one of the things that feeds decision paralysis and people who really don't understand what their characters can do the moment the character hits even moderate levels.

There are certainly players like that.

I don't doubt if I was insane I could reconstruct both the general workings of D&D magic and even the individual spells in the Hero System using some ideas from the last version of Fantasy Hero.

The amount of work would be, to say the least, extensive and I can't imagine wanting to enough to do that work.

Yeah, that's why I gave up on the idea with GURPS in 2020 or 2021. It looked like more work than I had the patience to build.
But there are substantially more GURPS D&D conversions now than there were 5 years ago. I'd maybe be more willing to try it now.

I don't mean offense, but I think wanting a classless system and the D&D magic system in all its--glory--is asking largely for two pieces of rope that don't meet in the middle.

None taken, but I do think that Eclipse is a worked example of that, and that PF1e comes close to also being a clunkier worked example of that with its hyper-customisable classes + unrestricted baseclass multiclassing.

I suspect trying to make D&D work properly without classes would require virtually reconstructing it from the ground up, and I have no faith anyone could do it without balance problems galore.

it is certainly not a small task.

 

[payn]

(Unlike the e6 crew) I think the sweet spot for 3.x is level 7 or 8 to 13 or so, 14 I consider near the end of the campaign. I am inclined to agree the combat can be harder to set up then.

Yeah I ran all the APs but fixed it so they ended at level 12. That’s both the length of a campaign and where I think the best wrap up was for 3E/PF1

 

[VHawkwinter]

Yeah I ran all the APs but fixed it so they ended at level 12. That’s both the length of a campaign and where I think the best wrap up was for 3E/PF1

I don't much like 1-5. Never have. Been mostly starting them at 6-8 since 2007 or so. But yes, often campaigns are short. That's also true.

 

[Staffan]

Besides some of the multiclassing issues (I don't think at least 3.5 ever really solved the problem of making arcane multiclasses that didn't either dilute your spellcasting too much or alternatively make you question why you would ever play a pure spellcaster) I found that at about 14th level the GMing overhead on using a lot of the opponents you needed to to make a proper challenge was more than I felt like dealing with.

The problem is that full 9-level spellcasting is extremely powerful, both in its actual effects and the steady DC increase. So there's little budget for anything more in a caster class, and you really don't want to swap out the casting for anything else. You might get away with one level of non-casting increase in a prestige class, but that's iffy.

6-level casters are much more interesting design-wise, because they give a lot more room for interesting class features. That also means you can swap out those class features for meaningful other features when either doing an archetype or a prestige class, and maintain the actual spellcasting.

 

[Tigris]

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 never liked normal multiclassing to begin with so for me the feat based is less of a problem as I dont miss multiclassing, but I agree it was not ideal/not a strong point of 4e.

What I wanted to say is that there where reasons why in 4e they did mulriclassing like this because level 1 were way stronger than other levels and also because it tried to keep the number of powers low so it replaced weaker power with stronger ones which both would be strange in classical multiclassing.

4e later brought the hybrid characters which 13th age improved upon.


Also 4e has "prestige classes" with the paragon class and epic destiny. Both things PF2 does not have


PF2 does not have the extreme strong level 1 and weak power curve like 4e has, nor does it replace powers so it did not had to copy the 4e multiclassing. (Especially when it lacks paragon classes, epic destinies and character themes to distinguish characters).

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.

I Understand! You want to customize characters more especially mechanically. And in PF2 free archetype is one of the phew ways ro do it, I just think that having phewer strong choices would be better in general than adding a lot of micro "choices" which may matter not much or are predetermined anyway.


Like how in 5e a fighter subclass choice makes a much bigger difference in play than in PF2 fighter class feat selection does. (Especially after having decided on what kind of weapon to use).

 

[payn]

I never liked normal multiclassing to begin with so for me the feat based is less of a problem as I dont miss multiclassing, but I agree it was not ideal/not a strong point of 4e.

What I wanted to say is that there where reasons why in 4e they did mulriclassing like this because level 1 were way stronger than other levels and also because it tried to keep the number of powers low so it replaced weaker power with stronger ones which both would be strange in classical multiclassing.

4e later brought the hybrid characters which 13th age improved upon.


Also 4e has "prestige classes" with the paragon class and epic destiny. Both things PF2 does not have


PF2 does not have the extreme strong level 1 and weak power curve like 4e has, nor does it replace powers so it did not had to copy the 4e multiclassing. (Especially when it lacks paragon classes, epic destinies and character themes to distinguish characters).

And that is fine. 4E had way way way way too many levels for me. My ideal game would have 10-12 levels tops.

Problem with prestige if PF2 added them, is it would just be another swap a class feat thing which is a non-starter for me.

I Understand! You want to customize characters more especially mechanically. And in PF2 free archetype is one of the phew ways ro do it, I just think that having phewer strong choices would be better in general than adding a lot of micro "choices" which may matter not much or are predetermined anyway.


Like how in 5e a fighter subclass choice makes a much bigger difference in play than in PF2 fighter class feat selection does. (Especially after having decided on what kind of weapon to use).

You are pretty laser-focused on class. I dont want a lot of micro choices; I want choices in at least ancestry, background, and class at every level. 3E/PF1 did this, but had the micro problem. A lot of piddly +1s that didnt mean jack unless you hyper-specialized in the thing to begin with. The sunny side of that is that you could switch paths or specializations as you leveled, something that 5E and PF2 really dont allow. However, I think both 5E and PF2 have cracked that piddly bonus issue for the most part. The cost in 5E is in complexity and depth, in PF2 it's silo'd so that you have less and less impactful choices as you level.