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

[Thomas Shey]

(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.

That requires truncating off the upper end of the available spell range which, while it makes things easier, also makes there less reason to bother with a D&D adjacent in the first place;. (It doesn't matter as much for non-casters where it tends to be to some extent just more of the same anyway).

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).

Its not impossible that there's simply nothing out there serving your purposes (why I qualified with probably) but I see people doing an enormous amount of work hacking a given system into shape just because they're famlliar with it, and in the largest number of cases they could have learned a new system that was closer to what they wanted and done less net work. It does require one to either broadly know or be able to find what's out there, though.

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

True. Assuming they can tell. Thoroughly hacked up 3e might be hard to distinguish from thoroughly hacked up 5e.

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

The main advantage of FH is that its got a construction-from-ground-up approach to powers, so the individual spells would probably require less ad-hoc choices. At one time making it look like the D&D magic system as a whole and making the purchase non-prohibitive would have been hard because the basic structure doesn't support it, but as of the last version of FH there were some options that would somewhat frontload the costs but then keep successor spell acquisition cheap. At that point someone with a lot of spells would be more than your typical 150 point starting FH character, but then, someone with a lot of spells isn't a starting D&D character, either.

But that doesn't make doing all the spells any less time and effort consuming.

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

I guess it turns on how much the specifics of the magic system have to match up for you to figure you can do that (or of course, how much you simply like it)

There are certainly players like that.

Honestly, when people come in having problems with PF 2e (other than the ones about character building, limited to talking about in-play issues here, and excluding the people that, to be blunt, are just used to martials mostly just being there to prop up the casters long enough for them to solve a problem) the combination of people who can't be bothered to understand their character and/or dithering makes up a pretty large component of it. Though not always spelled out, I'd bet a majority of those are spellcasters.

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.

Well, if someone else has done the work for you in a way that feels satisfactory, that's always ideal.

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'm not sold PF1e actually solved all the multiclassing problems. Only thing it had going for it was that there was better compatibility control over new classes than I think there was with D&D3 so it was a little less likely to produce new and exciting emergent problems, but some of the more basic ones were still there.

it is certainly not a small task.

Well, like I said, I'm not sure I believe its possible, or if it is, whether it would resemble D&D all that much by the time someone had resolved the potential balance problems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yup. Dropping even a spell level was just really, really painful.

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.

Though as I commented, you have to decide sacrificing access to those high level D&D spells is okay in the first place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Depends on what you mean by "impactful". PF2e doesn't necessarily give you choices that improve you vertically (to the degree they do that, its baked into the basic level structure), but there can be a fair number that improve you horizontally (i.e. that allow you to do things you couldn't do previously. Not all of them are as important as others depending on play and campaign style, but there are usually things that matter, at least within the class feats (it gets more complicated with general and skill feats, but then, that's why those are acquired separately).

 

[Staffan]

Though as I commented, you have to decide sacrificing access to those high level D&D spells is okay in the first place.

I don't think I was clear enough with my conclusions. Since 6-level casters are much more suitable for playing around with, it would have been better if the game had been balanced around having those as main casters in the first place. You probably couldn't get away with just making 6-level casters the default without futzing around with other things (like spell DCs), but it would be a good place to start.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think I was clear enough with my conclusions. Since 6-level casters are much more suitable for playing around with, it would have been better if the game had been balanced around having those as main casters in the first place. You probably couldn't get away with just making 6-level casters the default without futzing around with other things (like spell DCs), but it would be a good place to start.

I suspect that would have played badly with it transitioning from AD&D2e, which, even if in practice they were normally out of player reach, still had carried forward the 1-9 spell level thing.

 

[VHawkwinter]

That requires truncating off the upper end of the available spell range which, while it makes things easier, also makes there less reason to bother with a D&D adjacent in the first place;. (It doesn't matter as much for non-casters where it tends to be to some extent just more of the same anyway).

Yeah, thats fair, it doesnt cover "I am the Archmage Khelben Blackstaff Arunsun". That sort of game would be much harder to GM in D&D though. Especially if you try to run it using gameplay loops from low level D&D. Probably at some point, most of the game would mostly turn into a political game managing various agents, punctuated with an occasional epic wizard battle. But thats a very different kind of game. And then youre essentially GMing Lords of Waterdeep, the Campaign.

Its not impossible that there's simply nothing out there serving your purposes (why I qualified with probably) but I see people doing an enormous amount of work hacking a given system into shape just because they're famlliar with it, and in the largest number of cases they could have learned a new system that was closer to what they wanted and done less net work. It does require one to either broadly know or be able to find what's out there, though.

I've seen many who do that. Often they reinvent the wheel, just making some other game but worse and hacked out of current edition d&d.

True. Assuming they can tell. Thoroughly hacked up 3e might be hard to distinguish from thoroughly hacked up 5e.

Point.

The main advantage of FH is that its got a construction-from-ground-up approach to powers, so the individual spells would probably require less ad-hoc choices. At one time making it look like the D&D magic system as a whole and making the purchase non-prohibitive would have been hard because the basic structure doesn't support it, but as of the last version of FH there were some options that would somewhat frontload the costs but then keep successor spell acquisition cheap. At that point someone with a lot of spells would be more than your typical 150 point starting FH character, but then, someone with a lot of spells isn't a starting D&D character, either.

But that doesn't make doing all the spells any less time and effort consuming.

Hero system is on my bucket list. I have some HERO books on my shelf, mostly 6th Ed but with I think one 5th Ed or 4th Ed book. Interesting looking but I haven't played or run it yet. And yeah, rebuilding D&D content in another system is no small task.

I guess it turns on how much the specifics of the magic system have to match up for you to figure you can do that (or of course, how much you simply like it)

If I want to run Faerûn, nearly all. Otherwise, less is fine.

Honestly, when people come in having problems with PF 2e (other than the ones about character building, limited to talking about in-play issues here, and excluding the people that, to be blunt, are just used to martials mostly just being there to prop up the casters long enough for them to solve a problem) the combination of people who can't be bothered to understand their character and/or dithering makes up a pretty large component of it. Though not always spelled out, I'd bet a majority of those are spellcasters.

Thats probably most of them. I always liked more janky playstyles and weird abilities. And when I tried PF2 (in 2019 or 2020 mind you, there were only a few books out), "Meaningfully contributes without interacting with enemy HP" didnt really seem to be a viable or variable supported playstyle. Most of my other gripes at the time were on the character customisation side. I concluded it seemed much like PF1 but blander.

Well, if someone else has done the work for you in a way that feels satisfactory, that's always ideal.

Yeah, I certainly wouldnt have wanted to build all of these in GURPS myself, but they exist.

Wizardry: Spell Index

Wizardry: Spell Index Since wizardry is my new Sisyphean task, and there already are many spells written up, I have to create an index for ...

enragedeggplant.blogspot.com

I'm not sold PF1e actually solved all the multiclassing problems.

I was more saying that the stackable archetypes + customisations (on base classes so no prereqs) practically let you design your own 1-20 class to play, and I think "build-a-class" comes pretty close to being classless, but with more involved homework.

Only thing it had going for it was that there was better compatibility control over new classes than I think there was with D&D3 so it was a little less likely to produce new and exciting emergent problems, but some of the more basic ones were still there.

Yeah, thats a fair statement. It wasn't a particularly extensive rebalance over 3.5.

Well, like I said, I'm not sure I believe its possible, or if it is, whether it would resemble D&D all that much by the time someone had resolved the potential balance problems.

This premise is the origin of my own system which is coming along but isn't finished yet. I have patched out some balance issues, but it is certainly looking less like D&D (and its to run my own setting, not an official D&D setting). Part of that is because I intend a rather different (less combat-centric) gameplay loop and rate of progression than D&D's assumed ones though. I did spend almost half a year on character option rebalancing. As for whether I will have crippling balance problems, on paper it looks like it should be less of an issue than 3.5’s. Hopefully issues beyond that reveal themselves in playtesting.

 

[VHawkwinter]

I don't think I was clear enough with my conclusions. Since 6-level casters are much more suitable for playing around with, it would have been better if the game had been balanced around having those as main casters in the first place. You probably couldn't get away with just making 6-level casters the default without futzing around with other things (like spell DCs), but it would be a good place to start.

Do you mean 6th character level or level 6 spells?

 

[Staffan]

Do you mean 6th character level or level 6 spells?

Level 6 spells, like the bard or magus.

 

[VHawkwinter]

Level 6 spells, like the bard or magus.

Personally, I kind-of think level 7 spells make pretty good capstone spells at the end of a campaign and level 8 and 9 spells feel more like epic characters.

But I don't think I need spells with lesser casting progressions to accomplish that. I can just normal campaign end at 15 if we're not doing an epic level thing rather than 20, and then for an epic levels thing, maybe we start at 14 or 15 and go to 25 or 30.

So I kindof agree, but without feeling a need for more HD per spell level.

 

[Staffan]

Personally, I kind-of think level 7 spells make pretty good capstone spells at the end of a campaign and level 8 and 9 spells feel more like epic characters.

But I don't think I need spells with lesser casting progressions to accomplish that. I can just normal campaign end at 15 if we're not doing an epic level thing rather than 20, and then for an epic levels thing, maybe we start at 14 or 15 and go to 25 or 30.

So I kindof agree, but without feeling a need for more HD per spell level.

It's not so much about the cap of spell power itself as it is to move power budget from the spellcasting progression to other class features. That in turn leaves room for trading those features out using archetypes and/or prestige classes.