I was wondering if anyone here had played in or DMed a game with the playtest for Pathfinder 2e. I have been thinking of DMing a game in it. From reading it, I think it helps streamline some of...
I was wondering if anyone here had played in or DMed a game with the playtest for Pathfinder 2e. I have been thinking of DMing a game in it. From reading it, I think it helps streamline some of the unnecessary complexity without destroying the customization that defines Pathfinder.
Slightly offtopic, but I would be curious to hear people's thoughts on Pathfinder in general. I have dabbled in D&D 4th and 5th (both as a player and GM) but don't really enjoy them all that much...
Slightly offtopic, but I would be curious to hear people's thoughts on Pathfinder in general.
I have dabbled in D&D 4th and 5th (both as a player and GM) but don't really enjoy them all that much and so I keep going back to good ole 3.5e. However it's getting harder and harder to find games/players for that, especially since new-to-tabletop players just don't seem to have the time/inclination to learn the older, more archaic systems. I have heard Pathfinder harkens back to the D&D 3.5 days but without the overcomplication... is this really true in people's experience? If so, I might finally have to take plunge into Pathfinder.
Eh, I wouldn't say it's without the overcomplications. I played quite a lot of original Pathfinder. It's basically v3.75 of D&D. They simplified some skills, cleaned up a few spell lines, and...
Eh, I wouldn't say it's without the overcomplications.
I played quite a lot of original Pathfinder. It's basically v3.75 of D&D. They simplified some skills, cleaned up a few spell lines, and built some nice archetype bits into the classes so that you could more easily have different flavors of each base class. They did a very good job, and it's better than 3.5 by a solid margin.
That said, it's evolved into the new GURPS. Pathfinder has so many books, classes and versions of classes, power, feats, rules, splatbooks from fifty publishers, and acres of player-made content out there. It's turned into an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink RPG that has hoovered up almost the entire D20 ecosystem. If you're going to try out Pathfinder stick to the core stuff and it'll be much simpler. If you let in all the rest, well, the munchkins at your table are going to be able to build plenty of invincible characters and cause you headaches. A lot of what's out there for Pathfinder, particularly from 3rd party publishers, is just plain broken.
I haven't looked at 2.0 yet since I moved on to D&D5, which feels more like D&D2.1 (and that's just fine with me). Pathfinder was definitely due for some streamlining, cleanup, and consolidation, so the concept of 2.0 sounds good to me, if they actually pulled it off. I'll probably give it a try sometime myself, once my group's ready to start a new campaign.
I have never played either edition of Pathfinder, but I have read both core handbooks and some extra books. I tried to convince my old group to play, but none of them were interested. I do know...
I have never played either edition of Pathfinder, but I have read both core handbooks and some extra books. I tried to convince my old group to play, but none of them were interested. I do know that both editions of Pathfinder are much crunchier than 5e. What I really like about Pathfinder is the crazy amount of character customization and the deeper combat. I would definitely recommend reading through the handbooks, specifically the combat section.
Heh, yeah, I have actually had the pathfinder docs downloaded and sitting on one of my hard drives ready to read for ages now... but just never got around to doing it. I guess I will have finally...
Heh, yeah, I have actually had the pathfinder docs downloaded and sitting on one of my hard drives ready to read for ages now... but just never got around to doing it. I guess I will have finally to do that. Thanks. And thanks for your comment as well @amarok.
p.s. I love your description of it as "crunchier than 5e".
Pathfinder does simplify some things and make a number of other things more player-friendly. For example, a lot of things you do in combat (grappling in particular!) are much simpler. It's an...
Pathfinder does simplify some things and make a number of other things more player-friendly. For example, a lot of things you do in combat (grappling in particular!) are much simpler. It's an opposed check like a skill check, except it uses and checks against a different derived stat.
Another change (especially noteworthy for folks like me who like to play full casters) is that the item crafting feats no longer have an XP cost. This was an absolutely ridiculous decision in D&D that only served to punish players for using their class features. Speaking of class features, they've made some steps toward making classes more interesting and providing variety. They didn't manage to solve the power imbalance between martial characters and casters, but doing that may well have broken the backwards compatibility they were so eager to maintain.
I should point out that there is a bit of power creep in PF compared to 3.5, though. Characters have slightly better attributes, slightly more wealth, slightly more power. It isn't ridiculous Punpun levels of power, but it's still noticeable.
I was wondering if anyone here had played in or DMed a game with the playtest for Pathfinder 2e. I have been thinking of DMing a game in it. From reading it, I think it helps streamline some of the unnecessary complexity without destroying the customization that defines Pathfinder.
Slightly offtopic, but I would be curious to hear people's thoughts on Pathfinder in general.
I have dabbled in D&D 4th and 5th (both as a player and GM) but don't really enjoy them all that much and so I keep going back to good ole 3.5e. However it's getting harder and harder to find games/players for that, especially since new-to-tabletop players just don't seem to have the time/inclination to learn the older, more archaic systems. I have heard Pathfinder harkens back to the D&D 3.5 days but without the overcomplication... is this really true in people's experience? If so, I might finally have to take plunge into Pathfinder.
Eh, I wouldn't say it's without the overcomplications.
I played quite a lot of original Pathfinder. It's basically v3.75 of D&D. They simplified some skills, cleaned up a few spell lines, and built some nice archetype bits into the classes so that you could more easily have different flavors of each base class. They did a very good job, and it's better than 3.5 by a solid margin.
That said, it's evolved into the new GURPS. Pathfinder has so many books, classes and versions of classes, power, feats, rules, splatbooks from fifty publishers, and acres of player-made content out there. It's turned into an everything-and-the-kitchen-sink RPG that has hoovered up almost the entire D20 ecosystem. If you're going to try out Pathfinder stick to the core stuff and it'll be much simpler. If you let in all the rest, well, the munchkins at your table are going to be able to build plenty of invincible characters and cause you headaches. A lot of what's out there for Pathfinder, particularly from 3rd party publishers, is just plain broken.
I haven't looked at 2.0 yet since I moved on to D&D5, which feels more like D&D2.1 (and that's just fine with me). Pathfinder was definitely due for some streamlining, cleanup, and consolidation, so the concept of 2.0 sounds good to me, if they actually pulled it off. I'll probably give it a try sometime myself, once my group's ready to start a new campaign.
I have never played either edition of Pathfinder, but I have read both core handbooks and some extra books. I tried to convince my old group to play, but none of them were interested. I do know that both editions of Pathfinder are much crunchier than 5e. What I really like about Pathfinder is the crazy amount of character customization and the deeper combat. I would definitely recommend reading through the handbooks, specifically the combat section.
Heh, yeah, I have actually had the pathfinder docs downloaded and sitting on one of my hard drives ready to read for ages now... but just never got around to doing it. I guess I will have finally to do that. Thanks. And thanks for your comment as well @amarok.
p.s. I love your description of it as "crunchier than 5e".
Pathfinder does simplify some things and make a number of other things more player-friendly. For example, a lot of things you do in combat (grappling in particular!) are much simpler. It's an opposed check like a skill check, except it uses and checks against a different derived stat.
Another change (especially noteworthy for folks like me who like to play full casters) is that the item crafting feats no longer have an XP cost. This was an absolutely ridiculous decision in D&D that only served to punish players for using their class features. Speaking of class features, they've made some steps toward making classes more interesting and providing variety. They didn't manage to solve the power imbalance between martial characters and casters, but doing that may well have broken the backwards compatibility they were so eager to maintain.
I should point out that there is a bit of power creep in PF compared to 3.5, though. Characters have slightly better attributes, slightly more wealth, slightly more power. It isn't ridiculous Punpun levels of power, but it's still noticeable.