What are the most compelling reasons to switch from PF 1 to PF 2?

[kenada]

the core book doesn't go into NPC design (that's going to wait until the GM Guide I believe),

For what it’s worth, Paizo posted the monster and hazard creation guidelines recently.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[zztong]

Given that it will take us close to a year to complete, it's a fairly big decision as to whether to play PF1 or PF2.

You could perhaps run the Plaguestone adventure to get a taste without committing to a full AP. That's levels 1-4. Its an okay module and you'll see the system.

PF1, which I find tends to fall apart after 10th level (crazy high skill bonuses, colossal amounts of feats & special abilities to track, etc.).

The math in PF2 is tighter so you're less likely to see it fall apart. Getting into matters of taste, some of our crowd thought the math was too tight and didn't let characters become distinct.

 

[Alzrius]

I do see some some improvements, especially in the way advancement feats are structured and the 3 action economy, but overall I don't see any compelling reason to change from PF 1.

If you decide not to change from PF1, remember that the 3-action economy was originally presented as a variant rule for that game in Pathfinder Unchained. You can find the rules for it over here.

 

[Campbell]

As a GM the way it embraces exercising focused GM judgement while providing plentiful guidance and tools to help make the right calls. I also like how it calls back to Classic Dungeons and Dragons through more modern takes on encumbrance, long term consequences, and the 10 minute exploration turn. It hits me in Moldvay feels. It's a seriously good dungeon crawler. Also the monsters are really fun.

I am also a really big fan of how rarity helps a GM to customize the game to fit the experience they are looking to provide. The recently released Monster and NPC Creation rules also allow you to design just the NPC you want to build in an extremely flexible way. They basically gave us their internal design guidelines. The game is extremely modular and the Gamemastery Guide is going to basically be a Hacker's Guide with creature and hazard design guidance, magic item design guidance, a whole chapter devoted to altering the underlying game engine, and guidance for designing your own subsystems.

As a player so far I am finding it really easy to design the sorts of characters I want to play without resorting to system kludges and having to take on abilities I do not want to take. I am really enjoying how modular character creation is. I think this is the best incarnation of the skill system in Modern Dungeons and Dragons. I can build Fighters that are believable fully formed knights, bounty hunters, and assassins. My Dragon Instinct Barbarian who is a displaced Chellaxian Noble has the social skills and predilection for Arcana to fully back up the character I envisioned with no need to resort to multi classing.

As a player I have also been really happy with how exploration plays out. There has been a lot of love and attention paid to how noncombat works and making skills feel relevant.

 

[mewzard]

Aside from some of the obvious stuff like the action economy, I'm really partial to how skills work and the feat system in general. No more deciding if I want to dedicate feats to make myself a better skill character or if my build requires these specific combat feats to work so I get no skill love, both have their time to shine.

Some of these skill feats (on top of some fantastic class feats) also help Martials do more truly heroic things. You can keep your Wizard's Flight magic to fight the Dragon, my Monk will quite literally leap up into his face 100 feet up, put a boot upside his head, and enjoy the ride back down damage free. It gets into your face? Maybe toss said Dragon 30-40 feet away into the nearby rocks, or literally scare it to death with an intimidation roll.

The ability to be a solid healer with the Medicine skill is also something I love. It's a lot easier to do in 2E than in 1E, that's for sure.

 

[GrahamWills]

Based on the ongoing campaign I am playing in, I'd say the top reasons I prefer PF2 to PF1 are:

• Three action economy is complete win; more tactical options are available AND it runs faster.
• Exceeding target by 20 => critical hit (and similar for fails) makes for more fun and varied combats, and rewards teamwork and clever thinking; you spend more time thinking "how can I get an extra advantage to have a good critical chance" and also "how can I make sure the big solo doesn't crit me on a 14"
• Character leveling. The balance of options versus complexity is great -- I don't feel snowed under (as PF1 / 4E made me feel) or locked into few choices (5E)
• Ancestry feats make me excited about my race and background; it's not just a set of stat bonuses. I loved the race-based options in 4E and these feel pretty close.
• Reactions. I think reaction actions are necessary for tactical combat, but allowing many of them makes the game tiresome. One reaction, with rules for using if for feats (e.g. Nimble Dodge), shield usage -- the rules just work well. A minor but cool example is that when you ready an action, it gives you the readied action as a reaction -- no need to change initiative order, nor conflict with other reactions (because you can only do one) -- it makes GM and player lives simpler without removing a fun thing to do.
• Spellcasting -- Tying actions to the VSM aspect is genius, with heal/harm and magic missile great examples of how to make variant spells for this. Having spell meta magic (reach, silent, widen) often take extra actions rather than change spell levels is another simple effective rule. I find the changes here very cool.

 

[dave2008]

Based on the ongoing campaign I am playing in, I'd say the top reasons I prefer PF2 to PF1 are:

All of these sound great, except this one:

• Exceeding target by 20 => critical hit (and similar for fails) makes for more fun and varied combats, and rewards teamwork and clever thinking; you spend more time thinking "how can I get an extra advantage to have a good critical chance" and also "how can I make sure the big solo doesn't crit me on a 14"

I don't want to spend (and I don't want my players spending) any more time thinking how can get every possible + to get a better critical.

 

[ikos]

A draw for some is that PF2 is far less abusable than it’s predecessor. If you’re tired of cheesy build-based shenanigans, and gentleman agreements being the only thing keeping the game from exploding, the sequel ( while maybe not as exciting or sexy as it’s progenitor) is much more even-keeled, a return to an older styles of play rather the 3x mini-game of finding the exploit combos. I’m terribly pleased they formally dismounted; that horse was dead.

 

[Shroomy]

A draw for some is that PF2 is far less abusable than it’s predecessor. If you’re tired of cheesy build-based shenanigans, and gentleman agreements being the only thing keeping the game from exploding, the sequel ( while maybe not as exciting or sexy as it’s progenitor) is much more even-keeled, a return to an older styles of play rather the 3x mini-game of finding the exploit combos. I’m terribly pleased they formally dismounted; that horse was dead.

Though I would say that some of those problems are going to emerge over time given the amount of content that is likely going to be released, a problem shared with 3e, 4e, and PF 1e. Will it be as bad as it's predecessor? Probably not unless Paizo loses its mind and introduces stuff like new bonus types or monkeys too much with the action economy.