Pathfinder 2E Do you think 1st or 2nd edition is more complicated?

[Zardnaar]

Yeah if you still have people playing 1E locally that's an incentive to stick with it. In my area of the woods I know of at least five GMs who moved to 2E (including myself) and as a result there are lots of 2E groups and no one plays 1E anymore.

Every now and then I get nostalgic for my 3E/PF1E days and crack open the books. One look at a monster stat block reminds me of just how much the game improved in terms of respecting the GM's time. I used to joke that for every 45 minutes of gameplay I invested in one hour of prep time but it was basically true. With PF2E I can spend about 1-2 hours prepping and have enough material for 5-10 hours of play, easily. As a result, once learned, it is incredibly hard to go back to 1E no matter how much I enjoy reminiscing.

Same.

'Ive got my prep time down to a 1-4 ratio with 5.5. Probably less prep i did this week did t get used still using previous session prep.

3.5 it was close to 1-1.

 

[nevin]

Given how D&D 3e was to run, I really have trouble picturing learning PF2e as a GM not being worth it. If you don't find PF1e middlin' tedious to run you might not feel that way about it however.

I found PF2 just as tedious. The problem isn't the power creep its the fact it's built like a board game. The math is tighter and it's all small numbers but it's the same kind of min max get all your bonuses just right to be effective. In fact the tighter math encourages even more of the min maxing/play your role style of gaming that broke 3e and PF1e for so many. The whole game is very anti theatre of the mind and very strategic/tactical use the battlemap and make sure you end each round facing the right direction with the correct party members in the correct spots for the next turn. I'd just as soon play a board game as PF2e

 

[Thomas Shey]

I found PF2 just as tedious. The problem isn't the power creep its the fact it's built like a board game. The math is tighter and it's all small numbers but it's the same kind of min max get all your bonuses just right to be effective. In fact the tighter math encourages even more of the min maxing/play your role style of gaming that broke 3e and PF1e for so many. The whole game is very anti theatre of the mind and very strategic/tactical use the battlemap and make sure you end each round facing the right direction with the correct party members in the correct spots for the next turn. I'd just as soon play a board game as PF2e

That's your choice, but I still stand by my opinion that the coherence and consistency of PF2e would be massively more preferable to me than PF1e or D&D3e if I was going to use something as exception based as most of the the D&D sphere. I don't consider tactical focus particularly a flaw, so any negatives others get from that is not a downside, and PF2e didn't do as broad strokes in non-combat areas as something like D&D 4e.