Pathfinder 1E Are there compelling reasons to upgrade to PF1 from 3.0?

[Justice and Rule]

PF2 seems to be doing quite well. Books are coming out at a good pace with good quality, the line consistently charts at the second place in the ICv2 ranks and in this last report they said that they were a place where D&D people (particularly older players) were migrating to. They won't take out Wizards any time soon, but I don't think that's a reasonable measure of success. By any measure we have, it's a huge success, unless you're one of the guys who thinks them doing a Humble Bundle is a sign of impending bankruptcy.

Honestly, the most surprising thing I saw in the last ICv2 report was that Starfinder charts so high. Good to know it's doing okay.

 

[Schmoe]

Thanks, guys, for the info on PF2. I might stick with 3.0 for now and try to simplify some things. Combine some skills into one - like Spot/Listen as Perception and Hide/Move Silently as Stealth. And then maybe try out a simplified skill system like the ones presented in the Unearthed Arcana 3E supplement.

I think this is a really good option, tbh. My system of choice is 3.5. I've thought about switching to PF1 multiple times, but they made a number of changes I'm not really happy about and at high levels it gets really, really heavy. So I've gradually just imported some of the changes that I really did like, like combining some skills, or backgrounds, better sneak attack, etc. It has worked pretty well so far.

 

[GreyLord]

PF2 seems to be doing quite well. Books are coming out at a good pace with good quality, the line consistently charts at the second place in the ICv2 ranks and in this last report they said that they were a place where D&D people (particularly older players) were migrating to. They won't take out Wizards any time soon, but I don't think that's a reasonable measure of success. By any measure we have, it's a huge success, unless you're one of the guys who thinks them doing a Humble Bundle is a sign of impending bankruptcy.

Honestly, the most surprising thing I saw in the last ICv2 report was that Starfinder charts so high. Good to know it's doing okay.

A rising tide floats all boats. With how popular D&D has been over the past few years it would be surprising if PF2e wasn't benefiting from that.

Edit: I've been leaning more towards Starfinder myself these past few years, so I suppose I'd be one that is making SF be a little higher in the rankings...though obviously PF2e is much higher.

 

[amethal]

For those who play PF1 but don't particularly like PF2, what are the reasons? Is it just a different feeling play experience? I mean, PF1 is clearly a progression from 3.5. I hear PF2 has a 4E feel.

I've been playing PF1 for a long time, and I have all the books apart from the hardcover Book of the Damned (haven't been able to find that at a reasonable price). I feel like I know how to run PF1 games, even high level ones, and the groups I play in are happy with PF1. I have enough PF1 to last me the rest of my life, and there's still plenty of 3rd party stuff out there for me to buy.

We'd need a compelling reason to change to PF2, and so far we haven't had one. The impression I get is that PF2 is more balanced, but as a result has less options and is less quirky - which for us is a reason NOT to change, since we value the latter more than the former.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Edit: I've been leaning more towards Starfinder myself these past few years, so I suppose I'd be one that is making SF be a little higher in the rankings...though obviously PF2e is much higher.

Starfinder going to Paizo 2E mechanics might get me to look more thoroughly at those books. As someone who cut his teeth on WotC Star Wars I was kind of done with 3.X space stuff, but this might perk my interest. It'd have to be really good, though, get me away from Genesys/FFG SW.

 

[payn]

Starfinder going to Paizo 2E mechanics might get me to look more thoroughly at those books. As someone who cut his teeth on WotC Star Wars I was kind of done with 3.X space stuff, but this might perk my interest. It'd have to be really good, though, get me away from Genesys/FFG SW.

I felt similar but for me it was Traveller. I would say its definitely a crunchy PF brand of sci-fi so it feels different enough for me to enjoy it.

 

[Xenolith234]

I've been playing PF1 for a long time, and I have all the books apart from the hardcover Book of the Damned (haven't been able to find that at a reasonable price). I feel like I know how to run PF1 games, even high level ones, and the groups I play in are happy with PF1. I have enough PF1 to last me the rest of my life, and there's still plenty of 3rd party stuff out there for me to buy.

We'd need a compelling reason to change to PF2, and so far we haven't had one. The impression I get is that PF2 is more balanced, but as a result has less options and is less quirky - which for us is a reason NOT to change, since we value the latter more than the former.

I’ve not played PF1e, but my group just moved away from PF2e for that exact reason. TTRPGs are of course a team-based game, but PF2e’s heavy balance around a team functioning perfectly as a team and abilities that just seemed to lack impact and oomph drove us away.

 

[payn]

I’ve not played PF1e, but my group just moved away from PF2e for that exact reason. TTRPGs are of course a team-based game, but PF2e’s heavy balance around a team functioning perfectly as a team and abilities that just seemed to lack impact and oomph drove us away.

Yeah, I had a hard time with that too. On one hand, it makes solos entirely possible which isnt something many, if any, editions can boast. On the other, it sucks when your biggest guns become your weakest options. Which means sticking to at level or lower fights most of the time or get used to killing enemies by a thousand paper-cuts.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, I had a hard time with that too. On one hand, it makes solos entirely possible which isnt something many, if any, editions can boast. On the other, it sucks when your biggest guns become your weakest options. Which means sticking to at level or lower fights most of the time or get used to killing enemies by a thousand paper-cuts.

Its probably an unavoidable problem to some extent; if you want uphill fights to not be anticlimactic, you can't have a situation where one individual character can just deal with the problem. The only other approach I've seen work is the 13th Age business of just putting a cap on the hit points of targets that a spell or power work on--but that being current hit points, so you can whittle them down to where it works. But that also feels weird to some people, so...

 

[Weiley31]

If you do stay with 3.0, I'd say completely JACK the PF1E skills system (and Feats too if you fully want to embrace the mixing heresy of such a route). And then from there, jack some of the class buffs from Pathfinder