Pathfinder 2e: Worth the hassle to learn it?

[Brother Michael]

I’ve heard good things about Pathfinder for both its combat and roleplay capacity, but I’m not sure if I want to go through 700 pages of rules interspersed with images of armored shegros. I’d be reading from a DM’s perspective. Worth the time?

[UltraFan123]

What good thing I can say about it is that it’s definitely a better system than DnD 5th edition, but I still personally prefer the 1st edition of the Pathfinder rule set.

It also boils down to the amount of potential players that know and prefer this newer 2nd edition in comparison to the ones that still stick around and prefer the 1st edition that was phased out back in 2018 over 5 years ago.

EDIT: Oh yeah, something that I believe may also be worth noticing is that Paizo the publisher has always been woke asf since the very beginning, but when they brought the 2nd edition of Pathfinder they decided to double and triple down on the pozzling.

Like, at least the iconic female characters had sizeable busts and were showing some skin in the 1st edition artwork, but the second edition artwork made all the women flat as a board and covering everything. lol

[WhiteShark]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

[UltraFan123]

If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead.

Well color me surprised because I was under the impression that relatively few people still played the 1st edition of Pathfinder, but if the majority of people still prefers the 1st edition over the 2nd one then I believe that's a good thing. kek

[Acrux]

Personally, I prefer the P6 rules for Pathfinder 1st edition.

https://www.p6codex.com/

Basically, it caps character leveling to 6 at the maximum, but then characters continue to grow by purchasing feats with XP (generally every 5000 XP). Instead of really high-level games where everything is super-magical (and classes are weirdly balanced), it focuses on the types of stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels. The wizard who can cast fireball is actually a pretty big deal!

This ends up being really close to giving it the feel of the original D&D, IMO, with the added benefits of modern system design.

The original inspiration for the D&D equivalent (E6) was a Dragon magazine article: “Gandalf was a 5th level magic user”.

[rusty_shackleford]

Pathfinder 2E was a flop, it was a big departure from 1E. Nobody asked for it or wanted it.

[Brother Michael]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

[rusty_shackleford]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

If you've already got a group looking to play something other than 5E, maybe you'd be interested in the RPGHQ OFFICIAL TABLETOP RPG Adventurer Conqueror King System™?
https://autarch.co/adventurer-conqueror-king/

[Brother Michael]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

If you've already got a group looking to play something other than 5E, maybe you'd be interested in the RPGHQ OFFICIAL TABLETOP RPG Adventurer Conqueror King System™?
https://autarch.co/adventurer-conqueror-king/

[rusty_shackleford]

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

If you've already got a group looking to play something other than 5E, maybe you'd be interested in the RPGHQ OFFICIAL TABLETOP RPG Adventurer Conqueror King System™?
https://autarch.co/adventurer-conqueror-king/

It's made by a chud instead of the pinkhaired gender amorphous blobs at paizo

[UltraFan123]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

I have not played 4e myself either, but from what I have gathered, the 4e of DnD wasn't an objectively bad tabletop game perse, but rather it was pretty lame when compared to its direct predecessor which was 3.5 edition.

[rusty_shackleford]

@J1M is making a CRPG based on 4E's ruleset, you could probably learn more about 4E from checking it out.
viewtopic.php?t=259-4th-age

[Rand]

Pathfinder 2e has a weird action economy where you have three actions and a simple attack (called a strike) takes one action, giving even 1st level characters up to three attacks a round if they don't move.
Where it gets weird is that things like readying a shield to be any defense at all requires the use of an action to make it work until the beginning of your next round.
There are other weird things as well.

Give me the (relative) simplicity of D&D 3e/Pathfinder1e.
It just needs some tweaks to keep the bonuses under control and limit insane power creep.

[J1M]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

The first page of this thread I made may give you another perspective on 4e. A lot of what you can find on the web about it today is popular content creators with no personal experience summarizing bad-faith criticism. I like talking about 4e so if you have specific questions about it, the reaction to it, or anything else I'm happy to engage with you.

viewtopic.php?t=233-4e-is-the-best-edition-of-d-d

EDIT: If you want to learn the 4e rules, the best resource is the Rules Compendium. It doesn't contain any classes or monsters, but it has all of the rules including the errata that were made to them over 4e's lifespan. In terms of size it's equivalent to a 150 page 3.5 or PF2 book.

[Oyster Sauce]

If you're interested in PF2 for its mechanics, I recommend playing D&D 4e instead. If you're interested in Pathfinder because it has a large playerbase, I recommend PF1 instead. PF2 felt very mechanically constrained and boring compared to D&D 4e.

Definitely for the mechanics, the group would already be set up, only they’ve only really played 5e. Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

If you've already got a group looking to play something other than 5E, maybe you'd be interested in the RPGHQ OFFICIAL TABLETOP RPG Adventurer Conqueror King System™?
https://autarch.co/adventurer-conqueror-king/

It's not official until a game has been run

[rusty_shackleford]

It just needs some tweaks to keep the bonuses under control and limit insane power creep.

3E with just the concentration mechanic from 5E would go a long way towards fixing this imo.

---

Pathfinder 1E / 3.5E also has some variant rules that are interesting.
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... -and-vigor / https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adve ... Points.htm
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... onal-rules
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... lled-shots
https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/ ... -reduction / https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adve ... uction.htm
https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adve ... Facing.htm

[UltraFan123]

There are also variant rules I really like the sound of for spellcasting classes, like using a recharge system of cooldowns instead of spells-per-day:

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... harge.html

Or this one called "Spell Points" which reminds me a bit of mana or MP:

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... oints.html

EDIT: Also found this extension to the Spell Points variant rules from a 3rd party book made for compatibility with Pathfinder 1e:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant- ... ic-system/

[Acrux]

There are also variant rules I really like the sound of for spellcasting classes, like using a recharge system of cooldowns instead of spells-per-day:

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... harge.html

Or this one called "Spell Points" which reminds me a bit of mana or MP:

https://srd.dndtools.org/srd/variant/un ... oints.html

EDIT: Also found this extension to the Spell Points variant rules from a 3rd party book made for compatibility with Pathfinder 1e:

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/variant- ... ic-system/

I have found that the spellpoints variant works really well in bringing an Old Skool feeling of limiting casters if you use the fatigue, exhaustion, and possible death rules.

[WhiteShark]

Interesting that I hear soytubers complain about 4e but never really elaborating beyond a “lack of complexity.” What is it like?

It focuses strongly on tactical skirmishing and there's a huge amount of material for buliding characters. Player characters are larger than life, not average joes, and the game shines in big, dramatic, setpiece battles. It doesn't do armies, strategic logistics, or domain management at all. If you're interested in those, check out ACKS, which @rusty_shackleford linked above. Somebody in the other thread compared 4e to Final Fantasy, and I think that's apt: it's heroic, not gritty.

The biggest (actual) flaw of 4e is that it has a lot of... 'handwavium', or anti-simulationist elements. Why can the fighter only do his special sword trick once per day, despite its ostensibly being a feat born of pure martial prowess? How can you 'Trip Up' an ooze? How exactly does a Warlord's Inspiring Word heal despite being nonmagical? Yes, I know that hitpoints are supposedly not meatpoints. The rules don't actually reflect this in any edition. How come a creature can't be marked by two different enemies even when those marks come from completely different power sources? This is the point many who instinctively did not like 4e were trying to make, but most did not articulate it very well.

If that sort of thing doesn't bother you, or if you just rule that it's actually all magic, then game on. My longest lasting campaign was in 4e, and my players loved it.

[WaterMage]

PF 2e = The worst of 5e + the worst of 4e.

Go play a retroclone.

, I prefer the P6 rules for Pathfinder 1st edition.

https://www.p6codex.com/

Basically, it caps character leveling to 6 at the maximum, but then characters continue to grow by purchasing feats with XP (generally every 5000 XP). Instead of really high-level games where everything is super-magical (and classes are weirdly balanced), it focuses on the types of stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels. The wizard who can cast fireball is actually a pretty big deal!(...)The original inspiration for the D&D equivalent (E6) was a Dragon magazine article: “Gandalf was a 5th level magic user”.

I think that this excessive focus on low level is silly. And Gandalf as a 5th level magic user is also silly. First, he is not a pure mage, he is a fighter/mage capable to fighting hordes of orcs alone. Second, he had harsh "rules of engagement" and din't showed his full power. Third, Sauron uses spells very similar to high tier spells, like dominate monster,

Lastly, stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels, well, to name some.

Merlin was a Cambion and could do all types of powerful enchantments and even shapeshift into dragons. Count Dracula could control the weather(6th tier spell), could shapeshift(4/5/6th tier spells), could fly(3rd level), charm monster, dominate person(5th tier) among many other abilities.

Lastly, original D&D was not low level only.

I did a quick Python script to scrap all AD&D original adventures ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... ns_modules ) and calculate the average level fort D&D 1 and 2e. The average classic D&D adventure is a lv 6 to 9.5 adventure and average level is 7.75.
EDIT : Here is the python script : https://pastebin.com/JdSAvLyE

[Acrux]

PF 2e = The worst of 5e + the worst of 4e.

Go play a retroclone.

, I prefer the P6 rules for Pathfinder 1st edition.

https://www.p6codex.com/

Basically, it caps character leveling to 6 at the maximum, but then characters continue to grow by purchasing feats with XP (generally every 5000 XP). Instead of really high-level games where everything is super-magical (and classes are weirdly balanced), it focuses on the types of stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels. The wizard who can cast fireball is actually a pretty big deal!(...)The original inspiration for the D&D equivalent (E6) was a Dragon magazine article: “Gandalf was a 5th level magic user”.

I think that this excessive focus on low level is silly. And Gandalf as a 5th level magic user is also silly. First, he is not a pure mage, he is a fighter/mage capable to fighting hordes of orcs alone. Second, he had harsh "rules of engagement" and din't showed his full power. Third, Sauron uses spells very similar to high tier spells, like dominate monster,

Lastly, stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels, well, to name some.

Merlin was a Cambion and could do all types of powerful enchantments and even shapeshift into dragons. Count Dracula could control the weather(6th tier spell), could shapeshift(4/5/6th tier spells), could fly(3rd level), charm monster, dominate person(5th tier) among many other abilities.

Lastly, original D&D was not low level only.

I did a quick Python script to scrap all AD&D original adventures ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_D ... ns_modules ) and calculate the average level fort D&D 1 and 2e. The average classic D&D adventure is a lv 6 to 9.5 adventure and average level is 7.75.
EDIT : Here is the python script : https://pastebin.com/JdSAvLyE

You're arguing against what I wrote less than you think.

The way player abilities scale in AD&D is much, much different than how it works in 3.5/Pathfinder.

https://trekhead.livejournal.com/90753.html

And sure, people might quibble about where the breakpoint is - I've also seen E7 up to E12 depending on preferences - but the d20 ruleset has some major shifts in power levels and class imbalances as you go up.

There's a reason why Gary limited most classes to approximately level 14 originally. And he definitely didn't want players to have access to spells like Timestop.

[UltraFan123]

Low-level gritty fantasy settings are not inherently bad, is just that many people who are into fantasy like the genre because it's, well, "fantastical". Especially if you are a participant in the setting in contrast to just watching the story as an outsider.

We may enjoy watching how Frodo struggles to overcome his obstacles because hobbits are physically weaker than humans, but if given the chance to be part of the story, I'm pretty sure that most people would rather be Legolas or Gandalf rather than a hobbit. kek

EDIT: Fixed the dumbass typo.

[Acrux]

We may enjoy watching how Frollo struggles to overcome his obstacles

The Hunchback of Notre Dame/LOTR crossover we've all been waiting for.

[UltraFan123]

We may enjoy watching how Frollo struggles to overcome his obstacles

The Hunchback of Notre Dame/LOTR crossover we've all been waiting for.

lol darned mobile keyboard.

[WaterMage]

The way player abilities scale in AD&D is much, much different than how it works in 3.5/Pathfinder.

I agree. Og D&D limited abilities much more than PF1e/D&D 3.5e. Casters for eg, had much less spell slots and spell scrolls was much more rare in most campaigns. There are way more hard counters against casters, like Hakeashar.

Some retroclones like AS&SH has a lv cap of 12. And in PF1e, a Adult Red Dragon has CR = 13, so your party at lv 10/11 with preparation CAN take one out.

IMO, high level abilities, mainly spells would be better implemented if was large scale rituals, not something that you can cast multiple times per day. For eg, meteor swarm, if this was a ritual requiring a lot of expensive reagents, multiple casters and multiple hours to cast but also be able to destroy an huge army approaching the city and had consequences for casting it like the archmage and his apprentices becoming unable to cast any spell for a week till they recover, that would be cool. GURPS has a lot of ritual casting, as well WoD(Vampire, and Mage). Could also have risks if the spell fails.

[fkirenicus]

Personally, I prefer the P6 rules for Pathfinder 1st edition.

https://www.p6codex.com/

Basically, it caps character leveling to 6 at the maximum, but then characters continue to grow by purchasing feats with XP (generally every 5000 XP). Instead of really high-level games where everything is super-magical (and classes are weirdly balanced), it focuses on the types of stories commonly written about in mythology or in fantasy novels. The wizard who can cast fireball is actually a pretty big deal!

This ends up being really close to giving it the feel of the original D&D, IMO, with the added benefits of modern system design.

The original inspiration for the D&D equivalent (E6) was a Dragon magazine article: “Gandalf was a 5th level magic user”.

Thanks, cool to know! I'll be sure to look up that site for my D&D 3.5 group.

[fkirenicus]

We may enjoy watching how Frollo struggles to overcome his obstacles

The Hunchback of Notre Dame/LOTR crossover we've all been waiting for.

lol darned mobile keyboard.

Oh yes... could kill that Samsung virtual keyboardist????? - keyboard, for f**k's sake - sometimes.

[J1M]

Low-level gritty fantasy settings are not inherently bad, is just that many people who are into fantasy like the genre because it's, well, "fantastical". Especially if you are a participant in the setting in contrast to just watching the story as an outsider.

We may enjoy watching how Frodo struggles to overcome his obstacles because hobbits are physically weaker than humans, but if given the chance to be part of the story, I'm pretty sure that most people would rather be Legolas or Gandalf rather than a hobbit. kek

EDIT: Fixed the dumbass typo.

Correct! Unfortunately, the people who want to play as Gandalf and Legolas also want to have a bunch of their friends play as hobbits and so they clamor for gritty low level settings. But what people say and what they buy are different things.

[Acrux]

Low level ≠ gritty

[Brother Michael]

Thanks for the resources. I think what I’m looking for right now more so than character building is dynamic combat rules, i.e. anything to discourage just standing still and attacking repeatedly. This might just come down to how I structure/present my encounters.