Okay. I spent a lot of loot on 1e Pathfinder material, and I have to say I enjoy the vast majority of it. Before I go out and drop my hard earned loot on any 2e stuff, I want to know that it's worth it. So, for those of you who have it, how does it compare to 1e, and is it really worth my time and money to get all new stuff?
Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e
I don't want to be dismissive of your question, but there's already been a lot of discussion about PF2 and there are several established discussions that you could review to see individual opinions. You're going to get a mixed response.
As a person with a partially negative view, my advice is use freely available sources to try out the system and see if you like it. My group has one book that we share.
I'm only a data point. I'm not reporting a trend. Of the two games I participate, one stayed with PF1. The other participated in the PF2 playtest and is playing the Plaguestone adventure. That group is of mixed opinions.
Arilyn
Hero
I really like how PF2 plays. It's a lot of fun and there are more meaningful decisions in combat. The character creation system works fine, but I do miss the openness of PF1 in this area. I try to approach PF2 as a separate game to avoid constant comparisons. Haven't played it much yet, but am planning on running Fall of Plaguestone next week.
I agree with darjr. Use the SDR and give it a spin.
I agree with darjr. Use the SDR and give it a spin.
Arilyn
Hero
The game is crunchier than D&D 5e, but more streamlined than PF1. It's not as onerous as many critics suggest, and not difficult at all to learn. The keywords seem daunting at first, but are all clearly explained in the excellent index/glossary. It's got a lot of flavour, that I hope doesn't get lost by players assuming more complexity than is actually there.
PF2 is quite a bit easier on the player than PF1 was, with 4e-style "guard rails" on player choices clearly visible. A lot of the more mathematically complex options in PF1, like 3e-style multiclassing and skill points, were resolved by simply scrapping the options entirely and replacing them with alternatives that are much less flexible but much easier to calculate. Overall the system is pretty similar to what a lot of people initially expected 4e to be, a system that retains a lot of mechanical similarities to 3e while paying greater attention to game balance and hand-holding than 3e did.
Whether that's a good or a bad direction for Pathfinder to take is very much in the eye of the beholder. However there are some aspects of the new ruleset I think will be broadly popular, such as the new occult power source and the fact that you can now be a spontaneous divine or nature caster without having to jump through the sometimes-bizarre idiosyncrasies of the oracle. Other changes were probably needed for game balance even though they can be painful for certain builds, like the nerfs to sneak attack and summons/companions.
Is PF2 "worth it"? I think that depends on what you were hoping to see in a Pathfinder sequel. If you're the kind of player who adopted PF1 while taking a fair amount of inspiration/ideas from 4e, then you'll probably be happy with PF2 as it provides a happy medium between those two rulesets. However if you fled D&D for PF1 because you disliked the forced simplicity of 4e, then you may not be as enthusiastic about the 4e-style guardrails on player choice that PF2 provides and you might be tempted to either stick with PF1 or else move to 5e. But it's important not to be too "over the top" either way" because PF2 is still recognizably a Pathfinder game.
Whether that's a good or a bad direction for Pathfinder to take is very much in the eye of the beholder. However there are some aspects of the new ruleset I think will be broadly popular, such as the new occult power source and the fact that you can now be a spontaneous divine or nature caster without having to jump through the sometimes-bizarre idiosyncrasies of the oracle. Other changes were probably needed for game balance even though they can be painful for certain builds, like the nerfs to sneak attack and summons/companions.
Is PF2 "worth it"? I think that depends on what you were hoping to see in a Pathfinder sequel. If you're the kind of player who adopted PF1 while taking a fair amount of inspiration/ideas from 4e, then you'll probably be happy with PF2 as it provides a happy medium between those two rulesets. However if you fled D&D for PF1 because you disliked the forced simplicity of 4e, then you may not be as enthusiastic about the 4e-style guardrails on player choice that PF2 provides and you might be tempted to either stick with PF1 or else move to 5e. But it's important not to be too "over the top" either way" because PF2 is still recognizably a Pathfinder game.
We've played three sessions plus one that was mostly character generation (which took a while because people weren't used to the system and we only had one book + my PDF). So far I like it a lot. The main issue we've had so far is that the alchemist seems like something of a dud - the bombs do not seem to compare favorably to my primal sorcerer's electric arc dealing 1d4+4 to one or two targets with a save for half.
So far we like it. I'm not sure how well it will hold up at high levels (the DC-by-level table seems a little steep for skills given that about half your skills probably won't go above Trained), but that's what playing is for.
I'm not going to abandon my Princes of the Apocalypse campaign for PF2 (particularly since the campaign is fairly close to done), and I have planned to run an Eberron campaign after that. But I am definitely tempted by the blurbs about the next AP (traveling around Starstone Islands as part of a circus while also stopping threats From Below). We'll see.
So far we like it. I'm not sure how well it will hold up at high levels (the DC-by-level table seems a little steep for skills given that about half your skills probably won't go above Trained), but that's what playing is for.
I'm not going to abandon my Princes of the Apocalypse campaign for PF2 (particularly since the campaign is fairly close to done), and I have planned to run an Eberron campaign after that. But I am definitely tempted by the blurbs about the next AP (traveling around Starstone Islands as part of a circus while also stopping threats From Below). We'll see.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
It personally hit a lot of the right notes for me personally. I have played a couple sessions, but have not gotten a chance to run the game although I really want to. Characters are pretty broadly capable and every class can be good at any skill. I really like how uncertain things seem to be, including how secret checks create a fog of war at the table. In exploration mode the game really feels like a more modern iteration of the Moldvay B/X.
I absolutely love how uncertain and perilous combat has felt so far even in moderate encounters. Small decisions can make a big impact. Combat feels fast and furious to me and can be pretty deadly. I have dropped a number of times, but hero points have helped me stay alive. Things have felt tense.
All that being said I do not think the game is for everyone. You get beat up a lot and there is a really big focus on risk. Few things you do will be certain and the game can be really swingy. I love that, but others might not feel the same.
I absolutely love how uncertain and perilous combat has felt so far even in moderate encounters. Small decisions can make a big impact. Combat feels fast and furious to me and can be pretty deadly. I have dropped a number of times, but hero points have helped me stay alive. Things have felt tense.
All that being said I do not think the game is for everyone. You get beat up a lot and there is a really big focus on risk. Few things you do will be certain and the game can be really swingy. I love that, but others might not feel the same.
CapnZapp
Legend
It really is a mixed bag.
Combat and monster design seems good. I would love it if "You get beat up a lot and there is a really big focus on risk." holds true even as you leave the lowest levels. For me fun and excitement has always in D&D been the greatest at levels low enough where you actually risk death. But in 5E this fades real quick, already by 5th level monsters start to struggle against optimized characters in a game with options turned on. If PF2's Bestiary is designed to handle that, it would be a huge bonus.
That it isn't for everybody is true though. The amount of math and things to keep in mind is to me manageable, but to people struggling with 5E it will be an insurmountable obstacle.
The game certainly comes across as having been designed in a vacuum - Paizo has not cared to learn much from the success of 5E, and I see few if any areas where the devs have been inspired by 5E, which really is boggling the mind when you think about it. (Why on Earth would Paizo think they can afford to ignore 5E? How could they not see that their game looks if not feels too much like 4E, a failed edition common sense tells you to distance yourself from? We might never know if it was hubris or ignorance...)
Some areas of rules design seems oddly restricted, like the way you don't get to influence your weapon, armor and save proficiencies - once you choose your class at level 1, these are locked in for you.
And then there's a couple of real howlers. There are feats and talents with such miniscule impact it will make you cry.
You are definitely asked as a player to make build choices that ultimately don't matter much, if at all.
Consumables like Talismans are so fiddly for so little benefit it's like the 4th edition of your nightmares.
(Luckily you can ignore Talismans entirely, at the price of half a dozen rulebook pages being a complete waste.)
Combat and monster design seems good. I would love it if "You get beat up a lot and there is a really big focus on risk." holds true even as you leave the lowest levels. For me fun and excitement has always in D&D been the greatest at levels low enough where you actually risk death. But in 5E this fades real quick, already by 5th level monsters start to struggle against optimized characters in a game with options turned on. If PF2's Bestiary is designed to handle that, it would be a huge bonus.
That it isn't for everybody is true though. The amount of math and things to keep in mind is to me manageable, but to people struggling with 5E it will be an insurmountable obstacle.
The game certainly comes across as having been designed in a vacuum - Paizo has not cared to learn much from the success of 5E, and I see few if any areas where the devs have been inspired by 5E, which really is boggling the mind when you think about it. (Why on Earth would Paizo think they can afford to ignore 5E? How could they not see that their game looks if not feels too much like 4E, a failed edition common sense tells you to distance yourself from? We might never know if it was hubris or ignorance...)
Some areas of rules design seems oddly restricted, like the way you don't get to influence your weapon, armor and save proficiencies - once you choose your class at level 1, these are locked in for you.
And then there's a couple of real howlers. There are feats and talents with such miniscule impact it will make you cry.
You are definitely asked as a player to make build choices that ultimately don't matter much, if at all.
Consumables like Talismans are so fiddly for so little benefit it's like the 4th edition of your nightmares.
(Luckily you can ignore Talismans entirely, at the price of half a dozen rulebook pages being a complete waste.)
Last edited:
