Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Are there compelling reasons to upgrade to PF1 from 3.0?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="payn" data-source="post: 9302183" data-attributes="member: 90374"><p>Id go a bit higher than other folks and say about 50% less complex. A few reasons for that, I think chargen and leveling up is incredibly streamlined and easy. Folks who balk at the amount of feats and system mastery required for 3E/PF1 will be very pleased with the changes of PF2. Also, buffs and untold amounts of stackable modifiers are pretty much gone. If you can somehow find a +1 its a very big deal in PF2. So, it runs and plays simpler in that regard.</p><p></p><p>That said, where the complexity stays is in applying conditions and understanding how the emphasis on tactical team combat has arisen.</p><p></p><p>Im just rolling up a character now for SF. I skipped it mostly because Im a Traveller guy for my sci-fi but fell into a game. SF definitely seems like the road to PF2 so far. Im liking chargen and will sound off more once I get play experience.</p><p></p><p>There is a lot of stuff from 4E in the DNA of PF2 I dont like. The fact that multiclassing, archetypes, and prestige class all compete for the same resource. It's a hybrid style of chargen that sort of keeps players in their lane so to speak. On the flip side, it has simplified chargen and kept the balance more inline so folks cant go bonkers like they could in PF1. I understand the approach but I would have chosen something like BA instead to do it. I get why Paizo didnt do that tho because they are getting out from under WotC shadow.</p><p></p><p>I dont like strong team tactical games where combat takes up a lot of time. Its also why I didnt take to 4E. This is a preference thing however and I think the PF2 system works very smoothly. So, if that sounds appealing, I highly recommend PF2. On the GM side the CR system is very accurate and reliable. If you chose to use Foundry VTT running and playing the game is a dream.</p><p></p><p>For my personal taste I would run PF2 with the <em>proficiency without level </em>variant to open up the level binding a little. I wouldnt run or play again without the <em>free archetype</em> variant which has become standard for most groups anyway.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="payn, post: 9302183, member: 90374"] Id go a bit higher than other folks and say about 50% less complex. A few reasons for that, I think chargen and leveling up is incredibly streamlined and easy. Folks who balk at the amount of feats and system mastery required for 3E/PF1 will be very pleased with the changes of PF2. Also, buffs and untold amounts of stackable modifiers are pretty much gone. If you can somehow find a +1 its a very big deal in PF2. So, it runs and plays simpler in that regard. That said, where the complexity stays is in applying conditions and understanding how the emphasis on tactical team combat has arisen. Im just rolling up a character now for SF. I skipped it mostly because Im a Traveller guy for my sci-fi but fell into a game. SF definitely seems like the road to PF2 so far. Im liking chargen and will sound off more once I get play experience. There is a lot of stuff from 4E in the DNA of PF2 I dont like. The fact that multiclassing, archetypes, and prestige class all compete for the same resource. It's a hybrid style of chargen that sort of keeps players in their lane so to speak. On the flip side, it has simplified chargen and kept the balance more inline so folks cant go bonkers like they could in PF1. I understand the approach but I would have chosen something like BA instead to do it. I get why Paizo didnt do that tho because they are getting out from under WotC shadow. I dont like strong team tactical games where combat takes up a lot of time. Its also why I didnt take to 4E. This is a preference thing however and I think the PF2 system works very smoothly. So, if that sounds appealing, I highly recommend PF2. On the GM side the CR system is very accurate and reliable. If you chose to use Foundry VTT running and playing the game is a dream. For my personal taste I would run PF2 with the [I]proficiency without level [/I]variant to open up the level binding a little. I wouldnt run or play again without the [I]free archetype[/I] variant which has become standard for most groups anyway. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Are there compelling reasons to upgrade to PF1 from 3.0?
Top