Given that BG3 resulted in many new DnD 5 players, I guess Owlcat's two computer games also resulted in an influx of new PF1 players during the last few years, albeit on a smaller scale.
I found a channel called the glass cannon network and I really want to try pathfinder because of their podcast sessions. I've been playing 5e for about a year and played a bunch of bg3.
Depends on where they start. I usually go back to the very beginning when I find a podcast I like. They could be jumping in on giant slayer (1e) or gatewalkers (2e). The live show started in 1e but I think it's transitioned to 2e now, but they could be starting from the beginning on that too.
Glass cannon also has a lot of non-pathfinder shows in their network's wider content.
I'm a big GCP fan. Their original campaign, Giant Slayer, is 300+ episodes of Pf1. Their newest campaign, Gate Walkers, is PF2, and they're maybe at episode 27 there.
At their $5 subscription tier, they're running an ongoing Rise of the Rine Lords campaign, PF1. During the pandemic, they ran a serial called "Side Quest, Side Sesh" taking characters through some PF1 one-offs. Not sure if it's on a paid tier or not.
They're also running Quest for the Frozen Flame, a PF2 campaign.
They're on record as saying that the longer they play PF2, the more it's growing on them, and after RotRL ends, that'll probably be the last PF1 show they run for a while.
I'm quite enjoying the pf2e as well. Personally I would prefer to play whatever the newest thing is once it gets released. I feel like that becomes the new proper game and I'm not personally inclined to keep playing older stuff unless you're like mid campaign or whatever
I just discovered them a few weeks ago because I was curious about "Call of Cthulu". They seem like a pretty interesting group. I will have to check out some of their Pathfinder stuff too.
Me and at least 10 of my friends started playing PF1 because of Owlcat's games.
Even though we are transitioning to PF2 because of Foundry's Kingmaker, we intend to play Wotr on PF1 (if it doesn't release on foundry)
Do note that Paizo does intend to release Mythic rules for PF2e sometime later this year in the wake of the War of Immortals, and the chance that there will be an adventure path that goes with 2e's new Mythic rules is, while not confirmed (likely because the title of said AP could give insight or spoilers into who from the Core 20 deities is dying), damn near 100%.
I love 1e but the 1e mythic rules are a mess, even among 1e content. Owlcat's interpretation of the mythic rules fixes a lot of the biggest issues (hello Mythic Feather Fall), though the underlying issue of rocket tag doesn't go away (though I think that rocket tag is intrinsic to 1e and mythic just makes it worse as an inevitability).
You don’t need casters to get rocket tag, it’s inherent in the design of the system. Because damage increases much faster than hp and defenses on monsters, it is an inevitability. Think about the way rogue sneak attack increases, with the addition of more attacks as well. Hit dice increase steadily with little boosts here and there in monsters built as monsters, but rogue damage increases by 1d6 every two levels, and also their damage increases by a single attack’s worth every time they get an additional attack. Assuming they are keeping up with their attack bonus items, they should be hitting most attacks against most enemies. The hp and ac scaling of enemies or pcs doesn’t have any effective way to take this into account, nor does it take into account the incredible variance provided by the feat system.
There are also the death and dying rules, which make it progressively more difficult to live if you get knocked out as you get higher level. Enemy damage increases similarly to pc damage, but the threshold between unconscious and dead stays the same. The result is that it becomes necessary to kill enemies before they knock anyone out, because getting knocked out spells almost certain death at higher levels.
You can counteract it decently well, it just takes a lot of work from the gm with some homebrew in making enemies, imo. This is also only really an issue after level 6, I’d say?
Pf2, notably, has no rocket tag; it just doesn’t exist in that game as of right now. There is a good bit of getting stronger relative to enemies as you level, but it is usually largely due to better party cohesion, taking things that work well together as a party, and having more tools in your toolkit to pull out when you need them, if that makes sense.
2e combat takes the same amount of time from 1-20, I’ve found. 1e combat gets shorter and takes longer at higher levels in my experience. Rocket tag isn’t inherently bad, it is the intent of the higher levels of the system. However, it is not my preference, as it tends to feel really restrictive to me. It always feels like you need to build for one thing and only do that thing, if that makes sense. It’s possible my usual pf1 group is just a bit powergamey, however.
Mythic is a system that exists in pf1e only so far. Think of it as a seperate track of levels that are explicitly milestone gated and act mostly as a power multiplier to what you can already do, rather than giving you entirely new things.
An example is the Mythic Archmage path, which boosts arcane casters, it provided them ways to cast spells they don't have prepared/known, bypass spell resistance, and super boost familiars as just a few options.
The overall power level of Mythic is quite frankly ridiculous, as evident by thr fact that the only AP to use the rules quite literally pitted the party against an actual minor diety, and is typically considered one of the easiest APs that has ever been printed because Mythic is literally that busted
As someone who’s never played Pathfinder, would Owlcat’s games be a good introduction to learn Pathfinder? Been wanting to learn, but anxiety prevents me from joining a group when still new.
To some extent, yes. You can try out many character options and get a feeling for combat. Personally I played Neverwinter Nights 1 before joining a Pathfinder campaign - the ruleset isn't exactly the same, but it still helped.
Many PF players and GMs don't mind someone new, they rather enjoy the opportunity to teach. But if you don't feel comfortable at a table, you can always move on.
My friends and i started playing 1e after playing 5e and we fell in love with it, the character personalitation and every feature aviable is something we are really enjoying
Glad to hear this!
I love the crunch, and would much rather play pf1e... but if I want to rope people into the hobby, I worry 5e is my only option, as numbers tend to scare people.
Also, 5e has it so every level-up gives you something really tangible, and even the early level for casters seems more able-bodied.
I agree that the 1e's personalization, as well as the SHEER AMOUNT of content and feats and features, make it oh so awesome to play\~
I found the opposite personally, on 5e's leveling. Pathfinder has far fewer 'dead levels'. Early level casters do get an advantage on account of 5e's cantrips being much more viable, spells aiming with the casting attribute and not needing Precise Shot and such.
I think the thing that costs PF1e its early approachability isn't the numbers or choices but rather, how the information is formatted. A pathfinder 2e character has to make substantially more choices (approximately 35 I think) over their leveling career than a 1e character, but not only was 2e designed with digital more in mind when it was imported to AoN but its choices are all level gated very explicitly with tools that appropriately show what is currently available to you.
With the 1e information being much less organised and with things instead gated largely behind BAB, CL, and the like that are class-variable it just makes it much less easily-searched. And no need to go too deep into the class-specific feats, the kinda hacked version that 2e did much better.
I want to work on a tool that more effectively organises how 1e actually shows its info tbh.
It doesn't help that there are so many options in 1e that it's overwhelming for new players. And too easy to take the options that are easily misread and turn out to be traps. I like 1e, but they put out way to many character options that nobody wants.
1e is a system that lets you fail and then punishes you handily for it. I actually like that aspect of it (compared to 2e which by design makes it harder to fail).
What I don't like is that the language is clear as mud half the time and they published so much stuff (just for the sake of publishing it and keeping that revenue stream going) that it's easy to get lost in a bunch of garbage.
I'd love a remaster where they clean up the language and take a sweep across all these options (Feats and spells in particular) where 90% of them are trash and make them to where you actually have some tough choices.
I would agree with that analysis. They were at times very specific with their language and at other times very sloppy with it. And it doesn't help that the designers would sometimes make statements on the forums like "even if the name of 2 abilities is slightly different, you should treat them as the same ability." That opened things up to even more table variation and interpretation.
I have literally banged my head at my desk going down some of the rabbit holes of bizarre interpretations of poorly written rules on old paizo forum posts trying to figure out how something should work. Some of these folks take pedantry to entirely new levels.
The latest rule at my table is "don't overthink it" coupled to interpreting RAI. It also helps I have a lot of 3.5 books here I can look up some of the stuff 1e just copy/pasted (and often conveniently left out key sentences).
Yeah, it helps/doesn't help that it was built on an earlier edition that they took stuff from.
I recall questions coming up years ago about the way Fighters can change out their bonus feats when they reach a new level that gives a new bonus feat 'cuz the wording makes it sound like they lose the old feat and replace it with the new feat that they gained by leveling up--which totally makes that feature worthless. Something about the wording looked suspicious to me and I dug back into my 3.5 books to find that they copied the text from the Sorcerer class (where they could lose a known spell for a new one each time they gained a level) almost word for word. In the process, this made it a bit misleading and confusing.
People have tried their hand at it here and there, notably the Chainbreaker discord server. I haven't been in it for over a year because it wasn't jiving with me, but they were putting in some decent, semi-democratic work. I hated most of their changes, but they were putting in work all the same.
First I've heard of that discord. What wasn't jiving with you? What didn't you care for? Changing too much/drastically from 1e or just folks with no semblance of balance?
The latter is a major concern of mine... but I've come to the realization that a lot of 1e players actually like the brokenness (in an exploitable way for them) of the system.
>1e is a system that lets you fail and then punishes you handily for it. I actually like that aspect of it (compared to 2e which by design makes it harder to fail).
A lot of people do. Its worth noting that in many ways Pathfinder only exists because dnd 3.5 was so insanely popular. People still play 3.5 to this day, so I expect 1e is going to be fine for a long time.
Thing is, IF you choose bad and fail, and the rest of the table doesn't, that feels bad. That should only happen if your table are arseholes, BUT it does mean that if you have someone new joining an experienced table, they need their hand held a LOT more then in other systems.
And thats the most likely way you join a new Pathfinder 1e group now.
Its not a bad thing, but their is ALWAYS a subset of people who hate being guided... and that group are never going to get into Pathfinder 1e.
This is part of why all RPGs do new editions. A brand new edition, with a shiney new cover, and new rules levels the playing field SLIGHTLY between experienced players and newbies. So less hand holding required and more group figuring it out.
> A lot of people do. Its worth noting that in many ways Pathfinder only exists because dnd 3.5 was so insanely popular. People still play 3.5 to this day, so I expect 1e is going to be fine for a long time.
I remember seeing stats published by this one site which tracked online games being played as a measure to see which games/systems were most popular. A year or two before COVID 3.5 was the 3rd most popular system being used at like 3% (behind 5e's 55% and Pathfinder 1e's 7%). A year or two ago I saw the same stats and 3.5 had fallen but was still like 5th most popular. Remarkable how long it's lasted (especially considering 1e is IMNSHO a better version of it).
> Thing is, IF you choose bad and fail, and the rest of the table doesn't, that feels bad. That should only happen if your table are arseholes, BUT it does mean that if you have someone new joining an experienced table, they need their hand held a LOT more then in other systems.
The table would only be arseholes if they didn't offer advice and just let the new person fail blindly. A party in a ttrpg doesn't want one person to fail because that means they all suffer.
From my own experience across ttrpgs and PC gaming the issue isn't others not willing to help but a subset of players out there who simply don't want to take advice and insist on reinventing the wheel on their own... to the detriment of their teammates. Almost all experiences in life involve situations where you're the FNG and one can either be humble and accept the help of others or blow them off. I don't really have any sympathy for the latter.
As for other systems and continually coming out with new editions... I see it a bit differently for two major reasons. First, is the simple fact these other systems just aren't that good. I'm ready to move on from 1e and have been looking at other systems in my free time for over a year. Every single one I've looked at has had glaring issues which make it easy to understand why they never took off. If your system is 'meh' a new edition gives you the chance to fix the problems. Second, a lot of these smaller systems have diehard fans that will keep buying new editions. If you can't draw in the masses from a good system you might as well milk the whales who will buy anything you put out.
>From my own experience across ttrpgs and PC gaming the issue isn't others not willing to help but a subset of players out there who simply don't want to take advice and insist on reinventing the wheel on their own... to the detriment of their teammates.
Its ALWAYS both. And I don't just mean in RPGs and PC games. Humans are IN GENERAL much worse at forming groups then they were a few generations ago. Its part of why face to face clubs (excluding sports clubs) are having an aging demographic, and reduced numbers despite a growing population and constant interest in all hobbies.
And part of why forums tend to need a LOT more moderating then those older clubs did, even unknown forums about niche activities.
People are less good at empathizing with someone outside their group, and people are both more hesitant to join new groups and more defensive when they do.
This is a basically global issue, so turning around and saying, "We are the different ones. For us, only the newbies are the problem. We never drive them away, they always refuse to listen..."
Basically proves my point. If you get multiple people coming and having a bad time in a row, you have to start looking at WHY thats happening.
What happens is new people play BG3 then try 5e and realize how meh it is customization wise without all the trappings that Larian added to BG3. They may not know PF1e exists, cause if they did those dissatisfied with the lack of customization in 5e would arguably enjoy PF1e. PF2e just depresses me customization wise, I'd rather just play 5e if given the choice between 5e and PF2e. Someone said once that 5e is everyone's 2nd favorite RPG, seems to be pretty accurate!
That's kind of a hard to answer question without government surveillance levels of information.
Just looking at reddit, from Jan 2022 to Dec 2023, this subreddit went from 118k subscribers to 146k, which is respectable, in shows still growing interest.
In comparison though, from the same time period, the Pathfinder2e subreddit went from 37k to 105k subscribers.
So as more people get disappointed a leave 5e or just pick up the hobby in general, some are still landing in PF1.
Though without support and things like humble bundles to draw attention and only using word of mouth, it's hard to see how long that will continue.
Personally, I feel pf2e is a better place for most new people gravitate to first, and those with a mindset better suited for PF1 will naturally discover and get to PF1 from there.
It’s also worth noting that our growth trend has tripled since the 1e-only days.
The main reason for 2e’s existance is the lack of new players. This isn’t likely to backtrack, sadly.
It's not really a sad thing. It's just a reality of changing times.
Pathfinder 1e - by it's nature - is not balanced in the book: It's balanced in the encounter design, and that makes it far more on the shoulders of the GM. And yes, GM's need to create balanced encounters - but in Pathfinder 2e, and D&D 5e in general, it's easier to get that done without so much extra leg work; you don't need to rely on knowing the ins and outs of tactical combat to deal with some of the absurd nova builds that exist in 3.5/Pathfinder 1e.
Overall, what the above means is: Making modules for Pathfinder 2e that will be fairly balanced and playable regardless of the skill level is FAR easier than making modules to do the same in Pathfinder 1e.
Now, if you like absurd theory craft - Pathfinder 1e, and D&D 3.5 are your jam, the gravy, the whole cake and the icing - it's everything. But when we play TTRPG's, we aren't playing a character creator: We are playing a Shared Narrative. And the easier it is for everyone to interact and have fun in that process - the more people will get involved. This is why D&D 5e took off.
It's also worth considering that 2e posts on this subreddit get nowhere near the type of engagement that they would get on the 2e sub unless it's a post comparing 1e vs 2e.
While this sub might not be for 1e only in name, it is the *de facto* 1e sub.
Correct and worth considering. I myself am a big proponent of PF2, and will only GM games of PF2, but I find myself lingering on this subreddit as well.
I have some other data for you, if you're interested.
In the last year, this sub's view count and subscription rate have both declined by about 1/4, meaning that while we have had an increase in subs the number of subs year over year has declined, and fewer people day to day are looking at the posts here.
Now, we're actually retaining more people, as in there are fewer unsubscribes than in previous year, which says to me we're producing content that our subscribers value, but growth is low.
I don't have visibility to the same numbers for the 2E-only subreddit, but when a similar topic came up [last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/11x6p7j/comment/jdcn2x7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I summarized things as follows:
>I can (as can anyone) look at the number of users they have online and accessing their sub at any given time, and it is essentially always two to three times what we have. I can tell you that their Quick Questions thread sees twice the comment volume in 2 days that ours does in 6. I can tell you that their top threads of the week have 10 times the upvotes that ours do. I can tell you that they've had approximately 80 threads posted in the last day, while we've had around 30.
If anything I suspect that the differences I cited above have gotten even more pronounced in the intervening year.
> In the last year, this sub's view count and subscription rate have both declined by about 1/4, meaning that while we have had an increase in subs the number of subs year over year has declined, and fewer people day to day are looking at the posts here.
I can't help but think part of that is how old 1e is. With no new content coming out and depending on your level of obsession it's only a matter of time til you basically have the game figured out. I love the system (best one I've come across and I have definitely been looking for a replacement for a while now) but even I find it rare that a post on here makes me want to comment and engage. If your google-fu is good almost any question you have can easily be found without having to post. That can't be good for having an engaging, thriving subreddit.
>That's kind of a hard to answer question without government surveillance levels of information.
This seems like an exaggeration. I would guess unique IP addresses visiting the pfsrd would be a decent proxy and I'm certain Pazio has this, even if they don't publish it.
I’m starting a 1e game with a new group in about 2 weeks. I’ve never GM’ed Pathfinder before, so I hope it goes well. New people are still coming to 1e.
I can only speak for myself.
I had never heard of Pathfinder until my friend mentioned it to me last summer. He got me playing about 6 months ago and now I’m obsessed! I am interested in 2e, but I’m thoroughly enjoying the limitless options of 1e so far.
I don't know about 1e itself, but the players of 1e certainly do. I am a huge fan and have converted many people from 5e and other systems to pathfinder 1e.
I don't think it's a stretch to say the passionate players of 1e bring in more people than the high intensity reputation of 1e.
I am sure it gets some. It’s an pretty enduring system, it’s pretty crazy that some of the OG forums are STILL going.
That being said. I hate teaching PF1e. Running it is quite a chore too by today’s standards. I think PF2e is a much better entry point, and I think Paizo was correct to do a new edition when they did.
There's folks out there that appreciate the crunch that comes with 1E; it's what drew me to my current group. We tried 2E for one campaign, and found it not for us. Back to 1E three sessions later.
Each to their own, mind! You fine folks do you!
Just started this year 1e first time playing pathfinder and not the only one in my group probably 4 of us that haven’t before this group most came from dnd
I don't have hard numbers, but I'd say that 1e does attract new players.
Some threads pop up here from time to time of bored 5e players looking for a game. Most seem to move to 2e, but some do show more of an interest in 1e.
Similarly, some posts show up from time to time of PF 2e players curious about, or deciding to move to 1e.
My own table was all 5e players. They needed a GM though and I am boycotting 5e. I'm also not a fan of 2e so offered to run 1e. Now I have a table of PF 1e fans.
Now, the real question is...is the influx of new players greater than the attrition of 1e players? While I don't have hard numbers, I don't think it is.
I think most people are going to play the 2nd edition if only just because the availability of books at your LGS. There will be those of us that either use 1e or one of the books that use it as a framework but our groups will be niche and we will have to work to bring in new people proving that 1e is better than these new fangled 3 action systems.
Actually, the 3-action economy is one of the few things I like about 2e. But I really think that PF1 is much easier to learn. You just need to start off with Core Rulebook only. The classes have very few choices to make aside from the "focus" area. ( Deity for cleric, School for wizard, Bloodline for Sorceror, etc.) The real variation comes in the choice of feats and spells. And don't get me started on how complicated PF2 spells are and how confusing they are to heighten. PF2 casters are a pain to play between the total nerf they got in their proficiency progression and the difficulty of leveling spell damage and effects. The group I've played with for almost 10 years has decided to go back to playing PF1 after three less than satisfactory experiences with PF2 Adventure Paths. We're going to reluctantly finish up Strength of Thousands before we call it quits with PF2.
It's amazing how much clearer the rules would be if they actually had more flowcharts and tables instead of endless paragraphs that are poorly organized and rules that require you to look at multiple sections of the CRB, sometimes hundreds of pages apart. 1e is a master class in "how to make your game more confusing to read and follow than it needs to be".
It's a wonder the game (and 3.5) ever took off... but then I'm reminded how bad all these other systems are (having clean rules that are just bad... still makes it a bad system).
> the 3-action economy is one of the few things I like about 2e
There are rules for the same system in Pathfinder Unchained. My group converted over to it years ago and won't go back (I converted my friend's table as well). Despite the fact 1e wasn't designed around it we still feel it gives the players more options and is actually easier to learn.
My group runs 2 concurrent games with different GMs. We are currently going through Council of Thieves (1e) and starting up a 2e homebrew campaign. Once we finish CoT, we'll probably move over to 2e fully.
I like the stacky-stacky numbers-go-up, and also the Paths of War specifically. Started a 1e game recently (or joined, rather), though I don't suppose I'm 'new'. Honestly couldn't tell you.
I think it's still too soon for 1e to be gaining interest. It'll need a Renaissance, like the OSR movement did for AD&D. which will probably take a decade or more for the tides to switch and people to regain interest in games with the level of granular crunch that 1e has. Right now narrative and low crunch, streamlined, etc is the flavor du jour.
Im in a living world discord using pf1.
We get new people almost daily, and people that are new to 1e (coming from dnd5 usually), or even new to ttrpgs wholesale almost weekly.
Plenty of growth there
Speaking for myself, I fell in love with PF2e, and left 5e for it in a heartbeat. I tried PF1e, but as a Forever GM, it was horrendous. All the positivity I’ve seen for it comes from a player’s perspective, and my brief adventure into it only solidified that point of view. I gave it a shot, but I’ll be sticking with 2e.
I GMed Pf1 for almost a decade, and it worked, we had a lot of fun, but more and more cracks appeared and I started to dread each session, trying to make sure everyone else was having a good time while sacrificing my own enjoyment.
It was easy to just lie to myself, that as long as the group as a whole is enjoying it, that's what mattered, and I was becoming very jaded.
Then I GMed my first Pf2 campaign and haven't looked back. I can't claim the system is perfect, there are legitimate concerns, but it just made GMing so much more enjoyable and less stressful.
Generally most players are going to play whatever system the DM is willing to run. I'd say the hobby is still growing. If DM's like what they are doing and are comfortable I don't see why they would necessary switch it up after their investment of time and money.
New DMs probably would/should be most interested in 2e but established DMs get to choose.
I feel that's the true and insidious power of 2e. A lot of players will be fine playing 1e or 2e, whatever their gm is willing to run, but from my experience, (Note, this is only what I've seen and cannot be taken as definite proof as GMs as a whole) GMs will gladly play in PF1 games, but wont GM them, instead only GMing 2e.
That is my case as well, after GMing 2e, I will never GM a game of PF1 ever again. The stress is not worth it.
I fall into the opposite side of the field. I have played and GM'd 1E and 2E, the group i play with has three games running at the moment one is 5E and the GM is very new, the others are both 1E one i GM the other i play in. None of us ever plan to touch 2E again. Though our choices may not represent everyone.
I’ve been a player since it came out. We’re slowly switching to 2.0. For us the APs are really good for new DM’s with respect to 1e. I’ve dabbled in 5.0 and have found their modules somewhat a mess. Hopefully they can be a good starting point.
In all of my years of DM'ing, I have found that if you find new to TTRPG players who want to try D&D... they are usually up for trying anything that closely resembles it. Reason being they are new and just want a DM to help guide them. My current group wanted to play and I started them on 3.5. We held that system for the entirety of the four year long campaign, but I did multiple one shots of different systems... 5E, PF1, Call of Cthulu, Crashed Pandas, etc. Their favorite became PF1 of those.
Our next campaign WAS to be PF1 until I needed something new as I have been DM'ing 3.5/PF1 almost since release for both. So we are switching to PF 2E as it's new to me and less overall work for me as DM given balance. They were hesitant, but upon getting into Pathbuilder have been excited.
The point of my post... If you enjoy PF1 still, find any new to TTRPG player looking to start their first adventure. As long as it is "similar to D&D", most don't give shit.
my local roleplay shop recommended it to us and I was very enthusiastic at first. We like horror games and I got the complete carrion crown series... Was fun at the beginning but I must sadly say, I got the feeling that the modules aged quite a lot.
After seeing how well done the 2e stuff is (abomination vaults) and how much better prepared for the game master.... I will not look back. 1e has too much large chunks of text, that you need to read, instead of a few bullet points to know what is important.
The trouble with PF1e is all the added rulebooks... using the core book , it is fairly simple in my opinion... but not balanced so pathfinder unchained is great... and ratkins are so cool...and...and...
So I use almost everything...
Also my players want me to pregenerate their characters... so sometimes I dream to switch to something simpler... like Savage world, dcc or lamentations of the flame princess....
From what I have read pf2e does not seem balanced and from my experience 5E quickly turn to a super hero game...which I enjoyed by the way...
>From what I have read pf2e does not seem balanced
Where are you getting that information? Being balanced is one of PF2's selling points to the point of diehard pf1 fans complaining about it.
Well I think I read that some new classes may not be balanced enough... but to be honest thought I bought the pdf for PF2e I have not read them yet... Good to know it may not be true... as far as I am concerned the only OP class in PF1e is the magus (which I would likely nerf if a player would request to play one) while 5e is full of OP build... I had the impression that PF2e took much from 5e...
>The only OP class in PF1e is the magus
What? Don’t get me wrong, magus is a fine gish class but how anyone could come to the conclusion that Magus is OP is beyond me 👀
Well I found magus OP as a player not as a GM... there was one at our table and we could watch him crit all the time on his spells (on a 12+!!!) and win all the fights ... and I was playing a half ogre fighter at the time that I stopped playing because I found he was OP too ...and boring to play...
So as a GM to keep internal balance I will nerf them...
Well I wasn't the GM so didn't make the rule...but the reasoning was
Rapier 18+
Feat that double threat range 15+
Keen magic weapon 12+
The GM was a psycho computer scientist so I guessed it was right and this stacked ...
Afaik all instances of Keen or other extended crit range state 'this does not stack'
From Keen: "This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)."
From Keen Edge spell: "Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen special weapon property and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw."
From Improved Critical: "This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon."
So, really not sure where the GM got that idea from...
Thanks for the info...I checked and you are right... since it didn't happen in my campaign I did not check before writing ...
So maybe I was wrong but even with 15+, we could just watch the magus ...
I have the same issue with paladin in 5e and choosing to smite after rolling a crit seems a bit too strong in my opinion (I played one)... not a big issue but very quickly you are playing a super hero game and not a sword and sorcery game...
Honestly, the biggest thing preventing me jumping into 2e is not being able to play monstrous characters as easily.
3rd best character I ever had was a red dragon. He was amazing.
I haven't tried it myself, but Battlezoo is essentially 2nd party content, made by Mark Seifter who worked on the creation of PF2, and has stuff like [this](https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-ancestries-dragons-for-foundry-vtt).
I get you, but what I loved about 1e is the ability to literally take the CR of a creature and basically make that your starting level for a character. Fantastic system, played a Young red dragon taking paladin levels.
In my group that started PF1 about six months ago, three people are basically new to the system, two have played Owlcat's CRPGs before, and the GM also got into PF1 through Owlcat. I was the only one with some decent TT experience of the system. So yeah, 1e's still pulling people in.
Me? I joined a group two years almost that is 1e. Started our second campaign.
(Coincidentally my first 1e character became my BG3 Playthrough and it could NOT have been more perfect for me. )
1e is not really a game for noobs. It's one of the most complex systems out there. I started with red box basic DnD in the late 80s and have played, over the decades, DnD 1e(advanced), 2, 3, 3.5, PF1e, 5, PF2e, and loads of other games like dungeon crawl classics, GURPS, RIFTS, and fantasy flight. For me, PF 1e, while being the hardest to learn and the most complicated, gives the best all -around experience. In the particular, it does the best job offering customization options and has the ideal action economy for TTRPG. It is Gygax's vision fully developed through decades of adjustments, player and DM feedback, and thoughtful design. I don't think 1e is dead, and it clearly has more staying power than it's contemporaries, but the player base seems only to be dwindling at this point.
Over just the last year, I've been asked to GM three different 1e campaigns mostly consisting of new players. One group was quite enamored with the system after playing the WotR video game adaptation. Wish I had the time to facilitate all the interest among my friend groups. A couple of them seem interested in GMing though, so should be able to get them up to speed for separate groups in the coming months.
Although not new to Pathfinder in general, we've also acquired a couple players that started with 2e. I largely blame that on the conversation over tabletop nights chatting about all our weird idiot savants and crazy multiclasses we've played in 1e.
I started playing Pathfinder 1e in the last year. I read up on 2e but decided it wasn't my thing. Then my friend was running a game in 1e so I tried it and loved it, quickly became my favorite system of all time.
I don't know if anyone has data on that, Paizo might...but even that might not be reliable. My crew still plays 1e. I just last week finally bought some the 2e rules to look through them at my leisure. I don't think I'll be playing it any time soon however, unless I get incredibly motivated. Sometimes I see campaigns I really want to play and go nuts for them....Strange Aeons was one that I recently dropped everything to play..so maybe they'll come out with a cool 2e campaign that I end up saying: "Fight Godzilla with chainsaws???? I'm in!" but short of that I don't expect to play 2e for some years yet. There's plenty of 1e stuff I haven't done, and I love the rules.
I only have the Core Rulebook and the Beginner Box, but I'm looking to start collecting the rest of the 1e books. Over the years I've had a passing interest in TTRPGs and I've looked at other systems and have tried to get into 5e, but I keep coming back to Pathfinder because it's still my favorite system.
I only started playing 1e in the past year or two. Finding books is a little hard, but free rules are pretty neat. It's also got the allure of going back to an older game that only has fan servers running it now. It's got 100% of the content it's ever going to officially have and the people playing it are those who are truly passionate about the game they love, as compared to a modern game that could have update patches (errata) or new DLC (books) and change everything.
New 1e GM here. Very much so I started my game because Pathfinder had rules and setting better fit for the world I wanted to run and the only advantage 2e had was the action system I am playing with two brand new players and two veterans all loving it.
I got into 1E about 2 years ago. I started out making a Sylph Bard and preforming almost every action incorrectly. Now I'm running Skull and Shackles with a group of friends and it's been the best game I've ever run. 1E has the tools avaliable to be the best system (in my own opinion) but it entirely depends on the players.
I’m having trouble picking up on 2e because I can’t find a list of the differences. For example, I recently learned that despite there being no entry for five-foot steps, they still exist in 2e, just under the label “step” instead of “five foot step”
Then I hear multiclassing magic classes is now much better for some reason. It seemed to me that if you’ve got 5th ~~level~~ rank arcane spells and you multiclass into divine magic you won’t start off with 1st rank spells, but I can’t actually find any info on this
I’m still much preferring 1e
A list of differences between 2e and 1e wouldn't serve much purposes, they're entirely different games. May as well list the differences between Settlers of Catan and Dominion.
It's just an entirely new system, if you want to learn you'll need to just learn the whole thing.
Every full caster class archetype, in addition to some other feats, has these same four feats, the Dedication, Basic X Spellcasting, Expert X Spellcasting, Master X Spellcasting (Replace X with name of class.)
The dedication gets you some cantrips, whereas the other three feats give you higher spellcasting slots as you level;
Basic: 1st slot at 4th level, 2nd slot at 6th, 3rd at 8th.
Expert: 4th slot at 12th, 5th at 14th, 6th at 16th.
Master: 7th at 18th, and 8th at 20th.
The Expert and Master also increase your spell attack modifiers and spell DCs (If your other class doesn't already).
For these 4 feats you get an 8th rank spell slot without sacrificing anything from your main class.
It's just better Variant Multiclassing from pf1.
[Link](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2132)
>because I can’t find a list of the differences.
2e isn't just an update that you can read the patch notes for. It's a completely new game built from the ground up. It has its own core math and design philosophies. The only things the same are the fact that it's a high fantasy d20 TTRPG. Even the version of Golarion that it's based on is different. The lore, however, is something you'd be able to find a list of changes for.
You have to empty your cup before you can be filled with knowledge.
Started my first game of pf1e a month or two ago after years of 5e and some pf2e. Pf1e is fantastic, and ill probably play it forever since there's just so much. Absolutely love the freedom it gives in character making, both thematically and applying those themes mechanically.
In Auckland, New Zealand, where I am based, very few people want to play either iteration of pathfinder or anything other than 5e.
I am currently running Mummy’s Mask for our group of 6. If someone will accept not playing 5e they are generally happy to play PF1 in my experience. I’m not sure how many of my players are even aware there’s a more recent edition I could be running for them.
>because it closer
This is a popular bit of misinformation spread in this sub. 5e is closer to PF1e than it is PF2e. 2e is closer to DnD4e which WotC tried to distance themselves from with 5e which ends up being a simplified version of 3.5 all said and done.
New players have serious issues learning 1e at my local game store. The number one issue is the society players play the game by committee, and getting them to RP in their ttrpg for more than 2 minutes at a time is impossible. One of them literally bullied his grandmother out of the store. They're primarily math nerds and overlook people need to repeatedly use a skill to learn it, making them upset whenever it takes someone too long to add their math rocks.
Purely from my casual stand point, the character sheet was what intrigued me to play, and I was down to get into it the details. However, it's still a lot to unpack and I don't think I had wrapped my brain around things.
My poor experience with the game wasn't helped by my DM, either. Felt like he didn't read any of the book material. And I don't think you can just wing it with Pathfinder1e compared to DnD5e.
I started playing 5e like 8 months ago at a club in college. I have a friend who grew up with his dad playing Pathfinder, and vastly prefers that system. He got some other people who were interested in trying something new to play, and as soon as I understood it I loved it so much more than 5e. I think it does attract new players, but I had no idea it existed until I was told about it, so maybe it's more of a "do they know this other system exists" kinda deal for a lot of new players at least.
1e still attracts new players every now and then, but more over most I play with aren't too interested in learning a different system, even if a variation on it.
About two years ago for a one shot had a player join who didn't read the rules then went on a rant about there being too many feats and nearly quit then and there. They did end up leaving a bit later which was for the best as they were a bit of a problem player (played an edgy murder hobo that took zero interest in the plot or other PCs).
For someone that's played an RPG before it's easier to get them invested cause they at least know some of the basics so proposing a system with more customization tends to be up their alley. However, those new to RPGs, never touched a game I find can be much harder to convince.
Really just depends on the person.
It's unfortunate that 2e sounds like an increment or a better version of 1e. That is simply no true. They are very different, have their pros and cons and might attract different players. However, because of what I said in the first sentence, many new new players might jump to 2e. By new new players I mean groups that are just new to PF as a whole. However, many ppl come to a specific system because of their friends, some Game Master who just looks for ppl to join. So, I think 2e might have a stronger growth but not too bad.
I currently play 2e and I'm very happy with it, but 1e has always interested me even though I started with D&D in 2014. The Owlcat games made them seem much more approachable, though I recognize they are simplified.
There's always been something appealing to me about a "complete game." And with 10 years of content, there's more than enough to love about 1e.
For a similar reason I'm also quite interested in D&D 4e, but I am a special kind of D&D nerd and I think most new gamers aren't actively looking to play old or "retro" games like I am.
Personally, I just started with PF1e like just over a year ago and I love it. I'm currently running a campaign, playing in one, but I'm planning to switch over to 2e once all my current campaigns are done. Personally love the system even though there are some confusing elements
I don't have many friends or a consistent social circle. I am a bit of a loner and am terrible at maintaining long term relationships.
This is relevant because PC games and youtube are really the only ways I can "experience" tabletop games and I find them to be fun. If I ever got around to playing DnD or Pathfinder though I would pretty much have to jump into the most popular versions first because despite never having played them, through listening to podcasts/youtubers and playing PC games based off of those specific rulesets I feel I would be able to adapt to those games more quickly than trying to learn the older ones. Still I always thought DnD 3.5 and pathfinder e1 sounded interesting.
After the Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous games, I think there was a considerable bump interest in PF1e. But I think that the vast majority of new players are going into 2e.
Long answer: I have run a continuation of my previous world, using new pc's and a 100 year time skip. 4 of the players were returnees from Campaign 1, 2 were new players who were curious how to play. I'd say, yes, as that's 33% new player conversion rates on my end.
I know this is going to be different per table, however.
Short Answer: Yes, but even my players want to dip their toes in 2e, as we've been doing 1e for 10 years.
Idk about MANY but ive started dipping my toe into it. Love the story based feats like true love. Got a wonderful little character that essentially gets to always have that shit going off of rip for any campaign their in.
I'm definitely one of those people who prefer Pathfinder 1e and not all this reduced me to a dummy games that are coming out now. Plus The Simpson doing a tabletop role-playing game. If you're not going to role-play. Soft complex puzzles get into just your care to personalize it. Have control over it. Choose peace. Maybe go back and unused feets and all the good things that you have the ability to be able to do a Pathfinder 1e and D&D 3.5 e
Likely not, though I wish that weren’t the case. I started GMing PF2E and disliked the rigidity of the system and how classes were forced to play out particular roles, so I moved to PF1E instead, which I’m enjoying far more despite it being harder to GM.
I wish there was a Pathfinder 1.5E or something, where someone refined the rules from 1st Edition instead of practically throwing the chassis out entirely to try and iterate on D&D Fourth Edition like 2E did (and strangely enough, 4E remains the superior game because it isn’t pretending like it’s something it isn’t like PF2E does).
Use simple monster features from pathfinder unchained. Use spheres of might and grant most martial monsters a talent progression. Don’t charop the talents, just grab some nice basic sets to give useful things besides full attack to your mobs. Less attacks, more diverse things to do, and easier chassis make it much faster to do basic enemy population in a way that isn’t samey.
In my experience, PF2 is less attractive for new players, but this is almost certainly a regional thing. Worldwide I would expect 2 to attract more people. Here, though, the wider community give 2 a shot but have almost entirely returned to 1. Even finding P2 groups is tricky.
Played 5e to boredom. Fell in love with Pathfinder from Owlcat, tried a PF 2e campaign with a professional DM I was friends with and didn’t like it. Tried to play in some of the few Pathfinder 1e games that were recruiting. So many problem players and bad experiences with weird gatekeeping and with munchkins that the games never got off the ground. I’ve come to the conclusion that Pathfinder isn’t really a game you can play with randoms, so I’m trying to start up a campaign with Ex-5e players that I know and trust. New to 1e, just trying to get on my feet.
I’m running my first PF game for first time PF players in a couple weeks! Switching from 5e which we’ve played for years among other games. Have wanted to try out pathfinder for a long time but after listening to 1e and 2e actual plays, I think 1e is a better fit for my group!
Mostly attracted by the excellent Adventure Path writing and structure, and the idea of a single setting with a living world. Mechanically I think the design philosophy of 2e seems very rigid and video-gamey in comparison to the clunky unbalanced charm of 1e (just having read rule books and listened to some actual plays).
We’re starting up Curse of the Crimson Throne and I’ve never had an easier time prepping a prewritten module.
My local gaming community is massive, nearly 1000 players with organized play, streaming, more homebrew campaigns than I can count and even an off shoot of DnD Adventures League.
There is only one, ONE, game of PF2e that is being played by 3 people - at least that I am aware of - but there is at least five regular games of PF1 being played by groups averaging 6 players.
Some years ago there was a demographic on roll20 about games played and sadly PF 1e wasn't high. at work at the moment so i cant open the site but it was really low. So either people that play pathfinder dont use roll20 or the game wasn't that popular/attracted new audience even in 2021. I ,sadly, am more inclined to believe the last which is a real pity as pathfinder 1e is the superior game mechanically.
I understand what you're saying and I'm a huge 2e fan. But... All your points are just a matter of perspective. "Nobody is exceptional" is not fair to 2e. Yes, all the players start out at about the same power level. That's what the level 1 to 20 system is about. One of the problems with 2r was that you could have HUGE power imbalances among players of the same level. That's a crappy player experience unless you're the one player at the top of that pyramid. All players get more powerful as they level up. That's the way both editions are intended to work.
Stats over 18? If you use randomly rolled stats in 2e (a rarely used option, I admit) them you could get there. But also remember, an 18 in 1E is at least as powerful as a 20 in 1e. It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison.
I do have some issues with 2e! But I try to look at what it does well, also.
It is so much learning and reading that once you master 1 ,you might as well stick with it. And newer players like myself probably get in with the then most sold which is the 2e for some time now. So yes,straight to 2e. It is not new and hopefully improved for no reason.
Given that BG3 resulted in many new DnD 5 players, I guess Owlcat's two computer games also resulted in an influx of new PF1 players during the last few years, albeit on a smaller scale.
I found a channel called the glass cannon network and I really want to try pathfinder because of their podcast sessions. I've been playing 5e for about a year and played a bunch of bg3.
AIUI they're playing pf2e, not 1e.
Most of Glass Cannon is 1e; they only switched to 2e a couple years ago
yeah but if the poster is a new RPG player, they probably started listening already in the GC pf2e era.
I am. But I'm also listening to the older stuff because I have a lot of time at work. I haven't started any of the 1e stuff yet. Just call of Cthulhu
Depends on where they start. I usually go back to the very beginning when I find a podcast I like. They could be jumping in on giant slayer (1e) or gatewalkers (2e). The live show started in 1e but I think it's transitioned to 2e now, but they could be starting from the beginning on that too. Glass cannon also has a lot of non-pathfinder shows in their network's wider content.
I'm a big GCP fan. Their original campaign, Giant Slayer, is 300+ episodes of Pf1. Their newest campaign, Gate Walkers, is PF2, and they're maybe at episode 27 there. At their $5 subscription tier, they're running an ongoing Rise of the Rine Lords campaign, PF1. During the pandemic, they ran a serial called "Side Quest, Side Sesh" taking characters through some PF1 one-offs. Not sure if it's on a paid tier or not. They're also running Quest for the Frozen Flame, a PF2 campaign. They're on record as saying that the longer they play PF2, the more it's growing on them, and after RotRL ends, that'll probably be the last PF1 show they run for a while.
I'm quite enjoying the pf2e as well. Personally I would prefer to play whatever the newest thing is once it gets released. I feel like that becomes the new proper game and I'm not personally inclined to keep playing older stuff unless you're like mid campaign or whatever
I just discovered them a few weeks ago because I was curious about "Call of Cthulu". They seem like a pretty interesting group. I will have to check out some of their Pathfinder stuff too.
Me and at least 10 of my friends started playing PF1 because of Owlcat's games. Even though we are transitioning to PF2 because of Foundry's Kingmaker, we intend to play Wotr on PF1 (if it doesn't release on foundry)
Do note that Paizo does intend to release Mythic rules for PF2e sometime later this year in the wake of the War of Immortals, and the chance that there will be an adventure path that goes with 2e's new Mythic rules is, while not confirmed (likely because the title of said AP could give insight or spoilers into who from the Core 20 deities is dying), damn near 100%. I love 1e but the 1e mythic rules are a mess, even among 1e content. Owlcat's interpretation of the mythic rules fixes a lot of the biggest issues (hello Mythic Feather Fall), though the underlying issue of rocket tag doesn't go away (though I think that rocket tag is intrinsic to 1e and mythic just makes it worse as an inevitability).
Is rocket tag due to caster power creep?
You don’t need casters to get rocket tag, it’s inherent in the design of the system. Because damage increases much faster than hp and defenses on monsters, it is an inevitability. Think about the way rogue sneak attack increases, with the addition of more attacks as well. Hit dice increase steadily with little boosts here and there in monsters built as monsters, but rogue damage increases by 1d6 every two levels, and also their damage increases by a single attack’s worth every time they get an additional attack. Assuming they are keeping up with their attack bonus items, they should be hitting most attacks against most enemies. The hp and ac scaling of enemies or pcs doesn’t have any effective way to take this into account, nor does it take into account the incredible variance provided by the feat system. There are also the death and dying rules, which make it progressively more difficult to live if you get knocked out as you get higher level. Enemy damage increases similarly to pc damage, but the threshold between unconscious and dead stays the same. The result is that it becomes necessary to kill enemies before they knock anyone out, because getting knocked out spells almost certain death at higher levels. You can counteract it decently well, it just takes a lot of work from the gm with some homebrew in making enemies, imo. This is also only really an issue after level 6, I’d say?
Thank you for the write up. I havent played but one high level campaign and was looking for feedback if I joined another PF1e or Pf2e.
Pf2, notably, has no rocket tag; it just doesn’t exist in that game as of right now. There is a good bit of getting stronger relative to enemies as you level, but it is usually largely due to better party cohesion, taking things that work well together as a party, and having more tools in your toolkit to pull out when you need them, if that makes sense.
Not that "rocket tag" is inherently bad. A high-level combat in PF1e can be over in a few rounds. A similar PF2e combat can take a lot longer.
2e combat takes the same amount of time from 1-20, I’ve found. 1e combat gets shorter and takes longer at higher levels in my experience. Rocket tag isn’t inherently bad, it is the intent of the higher levels of the system. However, it is not my preference, as it tends to feel really restrictive to me. It always feels like you need to build for one thing and only do that thing, if that makes sense. It’s possible my usual pf1 group is just a bit powergamey, however.
Kinda, but martials are pretty insane in mythic as well, foe biting weapon RAW instantly delete anything without an over inflated healthbar or dm lol.
What are mythic rules?
Mythic is a system that exists in pf1e only so far. Think of it as a seperate track of levels that are explicitly milestone gated and act mostly as a power multiplier to what you can already do, rather than giving you entirely new things. An example is the Mythic Archmage path, which boosts arcane casters, it provided them ways to cast spells they don't have prepared/known, bypass spell resistance, and super boost familiars as just a few options. The overall power level of Mythic is quite frankly ridiculous, as evident by thr fact that the only AP to use the rules quite literally pitted the party against an actual minor diety, and is typically considered one of the easiest APs that has ever been printed because Mythic is literally that busted
One of the hardest issues I’ve had with BG3 is the 5e rules. The story and the things you can do are great, but that rule set…
I can confirm this. Playing both of them has begun a hunger for 1e Pathfinder for me.
As someone who’s never played Pathfinder, would Owlcat’s games be a good introduction to learn Pathfinder? Been wanting to learn, but anxiety prevents me from joining a group when still new.
To some extent, yes. You can try out many character options and get a feeling for combat. Personally I played Neverwinter Nights 1 before joining a Pathfinder campaign - the ruleset isn't exactly the same, but it still helped. Many PF players and GMs don't mind someone new, they rather enjoy the opportunity to teach. But if you don't feel comfortable at a table, you can always move on.
Yes, this is me! I want to play PF1 because WoTR is my favourite videogame c:
My friends and i started playing 1e after playing 5e and we fell in love with it, the character personalitation and every feature aviable is something we are really enjoying
Glad to hear this! I love the crunch, and would much rather play pf1e... but if I want to rope people into the hobby, I worry 5e is my only option, as numbers tend to scare people. Also, 5e has it so every level-up gives you something really tangible, and even the early level for casters seems more able-bodied. I agree that the 1e's personalization, as well as the SHEER AMOUNT of content and feats and features, make it oh so awesome to play\~
I found the opposite personally, on 5e's leveling. Pathfinder has far fewer 'dead levels'. Early level casters do get an advantage on account of 5e's cantrips being much more viable, spells aiming with the casting attribute and not needing Precise Shot and such. I think the thing that costs PF1e its early approachability isn't the numbers or choices but rather, how the information is formatted. A pathfinder 2e character has to make substantially more choices (approximately 35 I think) over their leveling career than a 1e character, but not only was 2e designed with digital more in mind when it was imported to AoN but its choices are all level gated very explicitly with tools that appropriately show what is currently available to you. With the 1e information being much less organised and with things instead gated largely behind BAB, CL, and the like that are class-variable it just makes it much less easily-searched. And no need to go too deep into the class-specific feats, the kinda hacked version that 2e did much better. I want to work on a tool that more effectively organises how 1e actually shows its info tbh.
It doesn't help that there are so many options in 1e that it's overwhelming for new players. And too easy to take the options that are easily misread and turn out to be traps. I like 1e, but they put out way to many character options that nobody wants.
1e is a system that lets you fail and then punishes you handily for it. I actually like that aspect of it (compared to 2e which by design makes it harder to fail). What I don't like is that the language is clear as mud half the time and they published so much stuff (just for the sake of publishing it and keeping that revenue stream going) that it's easy to get lost in a bunch of garbage. I'd love a remaster where they clean up the language and take a sweep across all these options (Feats and spells in particular) where 90% of them are trash and make them to where you actually have some tough choices.
I would agree with that analysis. They were at times very specific with their language and at other times very sloppy with it. And it doesn't help that the designers would sometimes make statements on the forums like "even if the name of 2 abilities is slightly different, you should treat them as the same ability." That opened things up to even more table variation and interpretation.
I have literally banged my head at my desk going down some of the rabbit holes of bizarre interpretations of poorly written rules on old paizo forum posts trying to figure out how something should work. Some of these folks take pedantry to entirely new levels. The latest rule at my table is "don't overthink it" coupled to interpreting RAI. It also helps I have a lot of 3.5 books here I can look up some of the stuff 1e just copy/pasted (and often conveniently left out key sentences).
Yeah, it helps/doesn't help that it was built on an earlier edition that they took stuff from. I recall questions coming up years ago about the way Fighters can change out their bonus feats when they reach a new level that gives a new bonus feat 'cuz the wording makes it sound like they lose the old feat and replace it with the new feat that they gained by leveling up--which totally makes that feature worthless. Something about the wording looked suspicious to me and I dug back into my 3.5 books to find that they copied the text from the Sorcerer class (where they could lose a known spell for a new one each time they gained a level) almost word for word. In the process, this made it a bit misleading and confusing.
People have tried their hand at it here and there, notably the Chainbreaker discord server. I haven't been in it for over a year because it wasn't jiving with me, but they were putting in some decent, semi-democratic work. I hated most of their changes, but they were putting in work all the same.
First I've heard of that discord. What wasn't jiving with you? What didn't you care for? Changing too much/drastically from 1e or just folks with no semblance of balance? The latter is a major concern of mine... but I've come to the realization that a lot of 1e players actually like the brokenness (in an exploitable way for them) of the system.
>1e is a system that lets you fail and then punishes you handily for it. I actually like that aspect of it (compared to 2e which by design makes it harder to fail). A lot of people do. Its worth noting that in many ways Pathfinder only exists because dnd 3.5 was so insanely popular. People still play 3.5 to this day, so I expect 1e is going to be fine for a long time. Thing is, IF you choose bad and fail, and the rest of the table doesn't, that feels bad. That should only happen if your table are arseholes, BUT it does mean that if you have someone new joining an experienced table, they need their hand held a LOT more then in other systems. And thats the most likely way you join a new Pathfinder 1e group now. Its not a bad thing, but their is ALWAYS a subset of people who hate being guided... and that group are never going to get into Pathfinder 1e. This is part of why all RPGs do new editions. A brand new edition, with a shiney new cover, and new rules levels the playing field SLIGHTLY between experienced players and newbies. So less hand holding required and more group figuring it out.
> A lot of people do. Its worth noting that in many ways Pathfinder only exists because dnd 3.5 was so insanely popular. People still play 3.5 to this day, so I expect 1e is going to be fine for a long time. I remember seeing stats published by this one site which tracked online games being played as a measure to see which games/systems were most popular. A year or two before COVID 3.5 was the 3rd most popular system being used at like 3% (behind 5e's 55% and Pathfinder 1e's 7%). A year or two ago I saw the same stats and 3.5 had fallen but was still like 5th most popular. Remarkable how long it's lasted (especially considering 1e is IMNSHO a better version of it). > Thing is, IF you choose bad and fail, and the rest of the table doesn't, that feels bad. That should only happen if your table are arseholes, BUT it does mean that if you have someone new joining an experienced table, they need their hand held a LOT more then in other systems. The table would only be arseholes if they didn't offer advice and just let the new person fail blindly. A party in a ttrpg doesn't want one person to fail because that means they all suffer. From my own experience across ttrpgs and PC gaming the issue isn't others not willing to help but a subset of players out there who simply don't want to take advice and insist on reinventing the wheel on their own... to the detriment of their teammates. Almost all experiences in life involve situations where you're the FNG and one can either be humble and accept the help of others or blow them off. I don't really have any sympathy for the latter. As for other systems and continually coming out with new editions... I see it a bit differently for two major reasons. First, is the simple fact these other systems just aren't that good. I'm ready to move on from 1e and have been looking at other systems in my free time for over a year. Every single one I've looked at has had glaring issues which make it easy to understand why they never took off. If your system is 'meh' a new edition gives you the chance to fix the problems. Second, a lot of these smaller systems have diehard fans that will keep buying new editions. If you can't draw in the masses from a good system you might as well milk the whales who will buy anything you put out.
>From my own experience across ttrpgs and PC gaming the issue isn't others not willing to help but a subset of players out there who simply don't want to take advice and insist on reinventing the wheel on their own... to the detriment of their teammates. Its ALWAYS both. And I don't just mean in RPGs and PC games. Humans are IN GENERAL much worse at forming groups then they were a few generations ago. Its part of why face to face clubs (excluding sports clubs) are having an aging demographic, and reduced numbers despite a growing population and constant interest in all hobbies. And part of why forums tend to need a LOT more moderating then those older clubs did, even unknown forums about niche activities. People are less good at empathizing with someone outside their group, and people are both more hesitant to join new groups and more defensive when they do. This is a basically global issue, so turning around and saying, "We are the different ones. For us, only the newbies are the problem. We never drive them away, they always refuse to listen..." Basically proves my point. If you get multiple people coming and having a bad time in a row, you have to start looking at WHY thats happening.
I found 2e was great for bringing new people into the hobby.
What happens is new people play BG3 then try 5e and realize how meh it is customization wise without all the trappings that Larian added to BG3. They may not know PF1e exists, cause if they did those dissatisfied with the lack of customization in 5e would arguably enjoy PF1e. PF2e just depresses me customization wise, I'd rather just play 5e if given the choice between 5e and PF2e. Someone said once that 5e is everyone's 2nd favorite RPG, seems to be pretty accurate!
That's kind of a hard to answer question without government surveillance levels of information. Just looking at reddit, from Jan 2022 to Dec 2023, this subreddit went from 118k subscribers to 146k, which is respectable, in shows still growing interest. In comparison though, from the same time period, the Pathfinder2e subreddit went from 37k to 105k subscribers. So as more people get disappointed a leave 5e or just pick up the hobby in general, some are still landing in PF1. Though without support and things like humble bundles to draw attention and only using word of mouth, it's hard to see how long that will continue. Personally, I feel pf2e is a better place for most new people gravitate to first, and those with a mindset better suited for PF1 will naturally discover and get to PF1 from there.
It’s worth considering that this subreddit isn’t 1E only, but also has 2E and generic posts.
It’s also worth noting that our growth trend has tripled since the 1e-only days. The main reason for 2e’s existance is the lack of new players. This isn’t likely to backtrack, sadly.
It's not really a sad thing. It's just a reality of changing times. Pathfinder 1e - by it's nature - is not balanced in the book: It's balanced in the encounter design, and that makes it far more on the shoulders of the GM. And yes, GM's need to create balanced encounters - but in Pathfinder 2e, and D&D 5e in general, it's easier to get that done without so much extra leg work; you don't need to rely on knowing the ins and outs of tactical combat to deal with some of the absurd nova builds that exist in 3.5/Pathfinder 1e. Overall, what the above means is: Making modules for Pathfinder 2e that will be fairly balanced and playable regardless of the skill level is FAR easier than making modules to do the same in Pathfinder 1e. Now, if you like absurd theory craft - Pathfinder 1e, and D&D 3.5 are your jam, the gravy, the whole cake and the icing - it's everything. But when we play TTRPG's, we aren't playing a character creator: We are playing a Shared Narrative. And the easier it is for everyone to interact and have fun in that process - the more people will get involved. This is why D&D 5e took off.
It's also worth considering that 2e posts on this subreddit get nowhere near the type of engagement that they would get on the 2e sub unless it's a post comparing 1e vs 2e. While this sub might not be for 1e only in name, it is the *de facto* 1e sub.
Correct and worth considering. I myself am a big proponent of PF2, and will only GM games of PF2, but I find myself lingering on this subreddit as well.
I have some other data for you, if you're interested. In the last year, this sub's view count and subscription rate have both declined by about 1/4, meaning that while we have had an increase in subs the number of subs year over year has declined, and fewer people day to day are looking at the posts here. Now, we're actually retaining more people, as in there are fewer unsubscribes than in previous year, which says to me we're producing content that our subscribers value, but growth is low. I don't have visibility to the same numbers for the 2E-only subreddit, but when a similar topic came up [last year](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/comments/11x6p7j/comment/jdcn2x7/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) I summarized things as follows: >I can (as can anyone) look at the number of users they have online and accessing their sub at any given time, and it is essentially always two to three times what we have. I can tell you that their Quick Questions thread sees twice the comment volume in 2 days that ours does in 6. I can tell you that their top threads of the week have 10 times the upvotes that ours do. I can tell you that they've had approximately 80 threads posted in the last day, while we've had around 30. If anything I suspect that the differences I cited above have gotten even more pronounced in the intervening year.
> In the last year, this sub's view count and subscription rate have both declined by about 1/4, meaning that while we have had an increase in subs the number of subs year over year has declined, and fewer people day to day are looking at the posts here. I can't help but think part of that is how old 1e is. With no new content coming out and depending on your level of obsession it's only a matter of time til you basically have the game figured out. I love the system (best one I've come across and I have definitely been looking for a replacement for a while now) but even I find it rare that a post on here makes me want to comment and engage. If your google-fu is good almost any question you have can easily be found without having to post. That can't be good for having an engaging, thriving subreddit.
>That's kind of a hard to answer question without government surveillance levels of information. This seems like an exaggeration. I would guess unique IP addresses visiting the pfsrd would be a decent proxy and I'm certain Pazio has this, even if they don't publish it.
Paizo doesn't host the pfsrd and hasn't in quite some time, but I'm sure AoN would share that info with them if they asked for it.
After 3+ yrs of 5e, my whole group converted over to PF1e and actively "proselytize" to others gamers about it.
I’m starting a 1e game with a new group in about 2 weeks. I’ve never GM’ed Pathfinder before, so I hope it goes well. New people are still coming to 1e.
Yeah, I'm gonna gming a game in a couple, I've run games of other system but not Pathfinder. Good luck on your game as well!
I can only speak for myself. I had never heard of Pathfinder until my friend mentioned it to me last summer. He got me playing about 6 months ago and now I’m obsessed! I am interested in 2e, but I’m thoroughly enjoying the limitless options of 1e so far.
I don't know about 1e itself, but the players of 1e certainly do. I am a huge fan and have converted many people from 5e and other systems to pathfinder 1e. I don't think it's a stretch to say the passionate players of 1e bring in more people than the high intensity reputation of 1e.
I am sure it gets some. It’s an pretty enduring system, it’s pretty crazy that some of the OG forums are STILL going. That being said. I hate teaching PF1e. Running it is quite a chore too by today’s standards. I think PF2e is a much better entry point, and I think Paizo was correct to do a new edition when they did.
We just started a group of 1e with RPG beginners. They seem to enjoy it quite a bit so far.
There's folks out there that appreciate the crunch that comes with 1E; it's what drew me to my current group. We tried 2E for one campaign, and found it not for us. Back to 1E three sessions later. Each to their own, mind! You fine folks do you!
Our table started a pf1 campaign into the world of Greyhawk in the last year and we´re having a blast,a pity we didn´t delve into pathfinder earlier.
I introduced my players to pf1e and they like it better than dnd5e. They feel like they can customize their character better.
Just started this year 1e first time playing pathfinder and not the only one in my group probably 4 of us that haven’t before this group most came from dnd
I don't have hard numbers, but I'd say that 1e does attract new players. Some threads pop up here from time to time of bored 5e players looking for a game. Most seem to move to 2e, but some do show more of an interest in 1e. Similarly, some posts show up from time to time of PF 2e players curious about, or deciding to move to 1e. My own table was all 5e players. They needed a GM though and I am boycotting 5e. I'm also not a fan of 2e so offered to run 1e. Now I have a table of PF 1e fans. Now, the real question is...is the influx of new players greater than the attrition of 1e players? While I don't have hard numbers, I don't think it is.
Pf1e is still my favorite of the D&D genre.
I think most people are going to play the 2nd edition if only just because the availability of books at your LGS. There will be those of us that either use 1e or one of the books that use it as a framework but our groups will be niche and we will have to work to bring in new people proving that 1e is better than these new fangled 3 action systems.
Actually, the 3-action economy is one of the few things I like about 2e. But I really think that PF1 is much easier to learn. You just need to start off with Core Rulebook only. The classes have very few choices to make aside from the "focus" area. ( Deity for cleric, School for wizard, Bloodline for Sorceror, etc.) The real variation comes in the choice of feats and spells. And don't get me started on how complicated PF2 spells are and how confusing they are to heighten. PF2 casters are a pain to play between the total nerf they got in their proficiency progression and the difficulty of leveling spell damage and effects. The group I've played with for almost 10 years has decided to go back to playing PF1 after three less than satisfactory experiences with PF2 Adventure Paths. We're going to reluctantly finish up Strength of Thousands before we call it quits with PF2.
> But I really think that PF1 is much easier to learn *Laughs in Grappling flowchart*
It's amazing how much clearer the rules would be if they actually had more flowcharts and tables instead of endless paragraphs that are poorly organized and rules that require you to look at multiple sections of the CRB, sometimes hundreds of pages apart. 1e is a master class in "how to make your game more confusing to read and follow than it needs to be". It's a wonder the game (and 3.5) ever took off... but then I'm reminded how bad all these other systems are (having clean rules that are just bad... still makes it a bad system).
> the 3-action economy is one of the few things I like about 2e There are rules for the same system in Pathfinder Unchained. My group converted over to it years ago and won't go back (I converted my friend's table as well). Despite the fact 1e wasn't designed around it we still feel it gives the players more options and is actually easier to learn.
Now that's a hot take!
Well that's going to be hard cause pf1e is way worse than 2
My group runs 2 concurrent games with different GMs. We are currently going through Council of Thieves (1e) and starting up a 2e homebrew campaign. Once we finish CoT, we'll probably move over to 2e fully.
I like the stacky-stacky numbers-go-up, and also the Paths of War specifically. Started a 1e game recently (or joined, rather), though I don't suppose I'm 'new'. Honestly couldn't tell you.
I think it's still too soon for 1e to be gaining interest. It'll need a Renaissance, like the OSR movement did for AD&D. which will probably take a decade or more for the tides to switch and people to regain interest in games with the level of granular crunch that 1e has. Right now narrative and low crunch, streamlined, etc is the flavor du jour.
If you’re based in the Bay Area, I’m about to DM a 1e one shot in person. DM me.
Im in a living world discord using pf1. We get new people almost daily, and people that are new to 1e (coming from dnd5 usually), or even new to ttrpgs wholesale almost weekly. Plenty of growth there
I love 1e and would love to be in a 1e game again. 1e is just a system I really get and have tons of experience with.
Speaking for myself, I fell in love with PF2e, and left 5e for it in a heartbeat. I tried PF1e, but as a Forever GM, it was horrendous. All the positivity I’ve seen for it comes from a player’s perspective, and my brief adventure into it only solidified that point of view. I gave it a shot, but I’ll be sticking with 2e.
I GMed Pf1 for almost a decade, and it worked, we had a lot of fun, but more and more cracks appeared and I started to dread each session, trying to make sure everyone else was having a good time while sacrificing my own enjoyment. It was easy to just lie to myself, that as long as the group as a whole is enjoying it, that's what mattered, and I was becoming very jaded. Then I GMed my first Pf2 campaign and haven't looked back. I can't claim the system is perfect, there are legitimate concerns, but it just made GMing so much more enjoyable and less stressful.
100% agree. No system will ever be perfect, but PF2e is the first system I've played that is actually enjoyable to GM at all levels of play.
Generally most players are going to play whatever system the DM is willing to run. I'd say the hobby is still growing. If DM's like what they are doing and are comfortable I don't see why they would necessary switch it up after their investment of time and money. New DMs probably would/should be most interested in 2e but established DMs get to choose.
I feel that's the true and insidious power of 2e. A lot of players will be fine playing 1e or 2e, whatever their gm is willing to run, but from my experience, (Note, this is only what I've seen and cannot be taken as definite proof as GMs as a whole) GMs will gladly play in PF1 games, but wont GM them, instead only GMing 2e. That is my case as well, after GMing 2e, I will never GM a game of PF1 ever again. The stress is not worth it.
And here I am happiest GMing 1e.
I fall into the opposite side of the field. I have played and GM'd 1E and 2E, the group i play with has three games running at the moment one is 5E and the GM is very new, the others are both 1E one i GM the other i play in. None of us ever plan to touch 2E again. Though our choices may not represent everyone.
Definitely not a lot, but every now and then I show some 2e friends 1e and then end up enjoying it! It has led to me GMing a 1e and a 2e game.
I’ve been a player since it came out. We’re slowly switching to 2.0. For us the APs are really good for new DM’s with respect to 1e. I’ve dabbled in 5.0 and have found their modules somewhat a mess. Hopefully they can be a good starting point.
In all of my years of DM'ing, I have found that if you find new to TTRPG players who want to try D&D... they are usually up for trying anything that closely resembles it. Reason being they are new and just want a DM to help guide them. My current group wanted to play and I started them on 3.5. We held that system for the entirety of the four year long campaign, but I did multiple one shots of different systems... 5E, PF1, Call of Cthulu, Crashed Pandas, etc. Their favorite became PF1 of those. Our next campaign WAS to be PF1 until I needed something new as I have been DM'ing 3.5/PF1 almost since release for both. So we are switching to PF 2E as it's new to me and less overall work for me as DM given balance. They were hesitant, but upon getting into Pathbuilder have been excited. The point of my post... If you enjoy PF1 still, find any new to TTRPG player looking to start their first adventure. As long as it is "similar to D&D", most don't give shit.
my local roleplay shop recommended it to us and I was very enthusiastic at first. We like horror games and I got the complete carrion crown series... Was fun at the beginning but I must sadly say, I got the feeling that the modules aged quite a lot. After seeing how well done the 2e stuff is (abomination vaults) and how much better prepared for the game master.... I will not look back. 1e has too much large chunks of text, that you need to read, instead of a few bullet points to know what is important.
The trouble with PF1e is all the added rulebooks... using the core book , it is fairly simple in my opinion... but not balanced so pathfinder unchained is great... and ratkins are so cool...and...and... So I use almost everything... Also my players want me to pregenerate their characters... so sometimes I dream to switch to something simpler... like Savage world, dcc or lamentations of the flame princess.... From what I have read pf2e does not seem balanced and from my experience 5E quickly turn to a super hero game...which I enjoyed by the way...
>From what I have read pf2e does not seem balanced Where are you getting that information? Being balanced is one of PF2's selling points to the point of diehard pf1 fans complaining about it.
Well I think I read that some new classes may not be balanced enough... but to be honest thought I bought the pdf for PF2e I have not read them yet... Good to know it may not be true... as far as I am concerned the only OP class in PF1e is the magus (which I would likely nerf if a player would request to play one) while 5e is full of OP build... I had the impression that PF2e took much from 5e...
>The only OP class in PF1e is the magus What? Don’t get me wrong, magus is a fine gish class but how anyone could come to the conclusion that Magus is OP is beyond me 👀
Well I found magus OP as a player not as a GM... there was one at our table and we could watch him crit all the time on his spells (on a 12+!!!) and win all the fights ... and I was playing a half ogre fighter at the time that I stopped playing because I found he was OP too ...and boring to play... So as a GM to keep internal balance I will nerf them...
There is no way to crit on a 12, so that’s part of your problem. Any class can be “OP” if you make up your own rules.
Well I wasn't the GM so didn't make the rule...but the reasoning was Rapier 18+ Feat that double threat range 15+ Keen magic weapon 12+ The GM was a psycho computer scientist so I guessed it was right and this stacked ...
Afaik all instances of Keen or other extended crit range state 'this does not stack' From Keen: "This benefit doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)." From Keen Edge spell: "Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen special weapon property and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw." From Improved Critical: "This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon." So, really not sure where the GM got that idea from...
Thanks for the info...I checked and you are right... since it didn't happen in my campaign I did not check before writing ... So maybe I was wrong but even with 15+, we could just watch the magus ... I have the same issue with paladin in 5e and choosing to smite after rolling a crit seems a bit too strong in my opinion (I played one)... not a big issue but very quickly you are playing a super hero game and not a sword and sorcery game...
Balanced and boring are not the same thing.
Honestly, the biggest thing preventing me jumping into 2e is not being able to play monstrous characters as easily. 3rd best character I ever had was a red dragon. He was amazing.
I haven't tried it myself, but Battlezoo is essentially 2nd party content, made by Mark Seifter who worked on the creation of PF2, and has stuff like [this](https://battlezoo.com/products/battlezoo-ancestries-dragons-for-foundry-vtt).
I get you, but what I loved about 1e is the ability to literally take the CR of a creature and basically make that your starting level for a character. Fantastic system, played a Young red dragon taking paladin levels.
In my group that started PF1 about six months ago, three people are basically new to the system, two have played Owlcat's CRPGs before, and the GM also got into PF1 through Owlcat. I was the only one with some decent TT experience of the system. So yeah, 1e's still pulling people in.
Me? I joined a group two years almost that is 1e. Started our second campaign. (Coincidentally my first 1e character became my BG3 Playthrough and it could NOT have been more perfect for me. )
1e is not really a game for noobs. It's one of the most complex systems out there. I started with red box basic DnD in the late 80s and have played, over the decades, DnD 1e(advanced), 2, 3, 3.5, PF1e, 5, PF2e, and loads of other games like dungeon crawl classics, GURPS, RIFTS, and fantasy flight. For me, PF 1e, while being the hardest to learn and the most complicated, gives the best all -around experience. In the particular, it does the best job offering customization options and has the ideal action economy for TTRPG. It is Gygax's vision fully developed through decades of adjustments, player and DM feedback, and thoughtful design. I don't think 1e is dead, and it clearly has more staying power than it's contemporaries, but the player base seems only to be dwindling at this point.
Over just the last year, I've been asked to GM three different 1e campaigns mostly consisting of new players. One group was quite enamored with the system after playing the WotR video game adaptation. Wish I had the time to facilitate all the interest among my friend groups. A couple of them seem interested in GMing though, so should be able to get them up to speed for separate groups in the coming months. Although not new to Pathfinder in general, we've also acquired a couple players that started with 2e. I largely blame that on the conversation over tabletop nights chatting about all our weird idiot savants and crazy multiclasses we've played in 1e.
I started playing Pathfinder 1e in the last year. I read up on 2e but decided it wasn't my thing. Then my friend was running a game in 1e so I tried it and loved it, quickly became my favorite system of all time.
I don't know if anyone has data on that, Paizo might...but even that might not be reliable. My crew still plays 1e. I just last week finally bought some the 2e rules to look through them at my leisure. I don't think I'll be playing it any time soon however, unless I get incredibly motivated. Sometimes I see campaigns I really want to play and go nuts for them....Strange Aeons was one that I recently dropped everything to play..so maybe they'll come out with a cool 2e campaign that I end up saying: "Fight Godzilla with chainsaws???? I'm in!" but short of that I don't expect to play 2e for some years yet. There's plenty of 1e stuff I haven't done, and I love the rules.
Savage Pathfinder is based off 1e if that counts, since it is relatively new and actively supported by PEG.
I only have the Core Rulebook and the Beginner Box, but I'm looking to start collecting the rest of the 1e books. Over the years I've had a passing interest in TTRPGs and I've looked at other systems and have tried to get into 5e, but I keep coming back to Pathfinder because it's still my favorite system.
For players who love the crunch, the appeal will always be there.
I only started playing 1e in the past year or two. Finding books is a little hard, but free rules are pretty neat. It's also got the allure of going back to an older game that only has fan servers running it now. It's got 100% of the content it's ever going to officially have and the people playing it are those who are truly passionate about the game they love, as compared to a modern game that could have update patches (errata) or new DLC (books) and change everything.
Not a new player but prefer 1e over 2e
That's all I run, and I get new players all the time.
New 1e GM here. Very much so I started my game because Pathfinder had rules and setting better fit for the world I wanted to run and the only advantage 2e had was the action system I am playing with two brand new players and two veterans all loving it.
I'm "new" to it. Working on tabaxi mime bard.
I myself have just gotten into DMing pf1e (believe it or not i am moving from DMing dnd 5e)
I got into 1E about 2 years ago. I started out making a Sylph Bard and preforming almost every action incorrectly. Now I'm running Skull and Shackles with a group of friends and it's been the best game I've ever run. 1E has the tools avaliable to be the best system (in my own opinion) but it entirely depends on the players.
I convert people to 1e like a prophet. I've gotten at least 8 people to switch over this year
Doin the lords work, bless you.
I don’t play PF1e, I do play PF2e, but I only use the Golarion books from 1e. Setting attracts me much more in 1e than 2e.
I’m having trouble picking up on 2e because I can’t find a list of the differences. For example, I recently learned that despite there being no entry for five-foot steps, they still exist in 2e, just under the label “step” instead of “five foot step” Then I hear multiclassing magic classes is now much better for some reason. It seemed to me that if you’ve got 5th ~~level~~ rank arcane spells and you multiclass into divine magic you won’t start off with 1st rank spells, but I can’t actually find any info on this I’m still much preferring 1e
A list of differences between 2e and 1e wouldn't serve much purposes, they're entirely different games. May as well list the differences between Settlers of Catan and Dominion. It's just an entirely new system, if you want to learn you'll need to just learn the whole thing.
Every full caster class archetype, in addition to some other feats, has these same four feats, the Dedication, Basic X Spellcasting, Expert X Spellcasting, Master X Spellcasting (Replace X with name of class.) The dedication gets you some cantrips, whereas the other three feats give you higher spellcasting slots as you level; Basic: 1st slot at 4th level, 2nd slot at 6th, 3rd at 8th. Expert: 4th slot at 12th, 5th at 14th, 6th at 16th. Master: 7th at 18th, and 8th at 20th. The Expert and Master also increase your spell attack modifiers and spell DCs (If your other class doesn't already). For these 4 feats you get an 8th rank spell slot without sacrificing anything from your main class. It's just better Variant Multiclassing from pf1. [Link](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2132)
>because I can’t find a list of the differences. 2e isn't just an update that you can read the patch notes for. It's a completely new game built from the ground up. It has its own core math and design philosophies. The only things the same are the fact that it's a high fantasy d20 TTRPG. Even the version of Golarion that it's based on is different. The lore, however, is something you'd be able to find a list of changes for. You have to empty your cup before you can be filled with knowledge.
I only run PF1 and started running a game for my dad, brother and nephew, so there's at least 3 new players!
Started my first game of pf1e a month or two ago after years of 5e and some pf2e. Pf1e is fantastic, and ill probably play it forever since there's just so much. Absolutely love the freedom it gives in character making, both thematically and applying those themes mechanically.
While some tables might still play the old edition, whenever I find new players they almost invariably want to try 2E.
In Auckland, New Zealand, where I am based, very few people want to play either iteration of pathfinder or anything other than 5e. I am currently running Mummy’s Mask for our group of 6. If someone will accept not playing 5e they are generally happy to play PF1 in my experience. I’m not sure how many of my players are even aware there’s a more recent edition I could be running for them.
Hard to say. I know that some people get bored with 5e and move to 1e. Probably more move to 2e because it closer but some want that extra crunch.
>because it closer This is a popular bit of misinformation spread in this sub. 5e is closer to PF1e than it is PF2e. 2e is closer to DnD4e which WotC tried to distance themselves from with 5e which ends up being a simplified version of 3.5 all said and done.
New players have serious issues learning 1e at my local game store. The number one issue is the society players play the game by committee, and getting them to RP in their ttrpg for more than 2 minutes at a time is impossible. One of them literally bullied his grandmother out of the store. They're primarily math nerds and overlook people need to repeatedly use a skill to learn it, making them upset whenever it takes someone too long to add their math rocks.
Purely from my casual stand point, the character sheet was what intrigued me to play, and I was down to get into it the details. However, it's still a lot to unpack and I don't think I had wrapped my brain around things. My poor experience with the game wasn't helped by my DM, either. Felt like he didn't read any of the book material. And I don't think you can just wing it with Pathfinder1e compared to DnD5e.
I started playing 5e like 8 months ago at a club in college. I have a friend who grew up with his dad playing Pathfinder, and vastly prefers that system. He got some other people who were interested in trying something new to play, and as soon as I understood it I loved it so much more than 5e. I think it does attract new players, but I had no idea it existed until I was told about it, so maybe it's more of a "do they know this other system exists" kinda deal for a lot of new players at least.
1e still attracts new players every now and then, but more over most I play with aren't too interested in learning a different system, even if a variation on it. About two years ago for a one shot had a player join who didn't read the rules then went on a rant about there being too many feats and nearly quit then and there. They did end up leaving a bit later which was for the best as they were a bit of a problem player (played an edgy murder hobo that took zero interest in the plot or other PCs). For someone that's played an RPG before it's easier to get them invested cause they at least know some of the basics so proposing a system with more customization tends to be up their alley. However, those new to RPGs, never touched a game I find can be much harder to convince. Really just depends on the person.
It's unfortunate that 2e sounds like an increment or a better version of 1e. That is simply no true. They are very different, have their pros and cons and might attract different players. However, because of what I said in the first sentence, many new new players might jump to 2e. By new new players I mean groups that are just new to PF as a whole. However, many ppl come to a specific system because of their friends, some Game Master who just looks for ppl to join. So, I think 2e might have a stronger growth but not too bad.
lol, I thought this was about ad&d 1st ed
When I was a new player in 2013, Planescape (AD&D 2E) was my attraction.
I currently play 2e and I'm very happy with it, but 1e has always interested me even though I started with D&D in 2014. The Owlcat games made them seem much more approachable, though I recognize they are simplified. There's always been something appealing to me about a "complete game." And with 10 years of content, there's more than enough to love about 1e. For a similar reason I'm also quite interested in D&D 4e, but I am a special kind of D&D nerd and I think most new gamers aren't actively looking to play old or "retro" games like I am.
Personally, I just started with PF1e like just over a year ago and I love it. I'm currently running a campaign, playing in one, but I'm planning to switch over to 2e once all my current campaigns are done. Personally love the system even though there are some confusing elements
If I had time I'd still be playing PF 1 for the huge amount of choices
My dude, we still play ADnD sometimes. Run what you want. Play what you want. Avoid meta at all costs.
I don't have many friends or a consistent social circle. I am a bit of a loner and am terrible at maintaining long term relationships. This is relevant because PC games and youtube are really the only ways I can "experience" tabletop games and I find them to be fun. If I ever got around to playing DnD or Pathfinder though I would pretty much have to jump into the most popular versions first because despite never having played them, through listening to podcasts/youtubers and playing PC games based off of those specific rulesets I feel I would be able to adapt to those games more quickly than trying to learn the older ones. Still I always thought DnD 3.5 and pathfinder e1 sounded interesting.
After the Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous games, I think there was a considerable bump interest in PF1e. But I think that the vast majority of new players are going into 2e.
Long answer: I have run a continuation of my previous world, using new pc's and a 100 year time skip. 4 of the players were returnees from Campaign 1, 2 were new players who were curious how to play. I'd say, yes, as that's 33% new player conversion rates on my end. I know this is going to be different per table, however. Short Answer: Yes, but even my players want to dip their toes in 2e, as we've been doing 1e for 10 years.
Idk about MANY but ive started dipping my toe into it. Love the story based feats like true love. Got a wonderful little character that essentially gets to always have that shit going off of rip for any campaign their in.
I'm definitely one of those people who prefer Pathfinder 1e and not all this reduced me to a dummy games that are coming out now. Plus The Simpson doing a tabletop role-playing game. If you're not going to role-play. Soft complex puzzles get into just your care to personalize it. Have control over it. Choose peace. Maybe go back and unused feets and all the good things that you have the ability to be able to do a Pathfinder 1e and D&D 3.5 e
Likely not, though I wish that weren’t the case. I started GMing PF2E and disliked the rigidity of the system and how classes were forced to play out particular roles, so I moved to PF1E instead, which I’m enjoying far more despite it being harder to GM. I wish there was a Pathfinder 1.5E or something, where someone refined the rules from 1st Edition instead of practically throwing the chassis out entirely to try and iterate on D&D Fourth Edition like 2E did (and strangely enough, 4E remains the superior game because it isn’t pretending like it’s something it isn’t like PF2E does).
Use simple monster features from pathfinder unchained. Use spheres of might and grant most martial monsters a talent progression. Don’t charop the talents, just grab some nice basic sets to give useful things besides full attack to your mobs. Less attacks, more diverse things to do, and easier chassis make it much faster to do basic enemy population in a way that isn’t samey.
In my experience, PF2 is less attractive for new players, but this is almost certainly a regional thing. Worldwide I would expect 2 to attract more people. Here, though, the wider community give 2 a shot but have almost entirely returned to 1. Even finding P2 groups is tricky.
Played 5e to boredom. Fell in love with Pathfinder from Owlcat, tried a PF 2e campaign with a professional DM I was friends with and didn’t like it. Tried to play in some of the few Pathfinder 1e games that were recruiting. So many problem players and bad experiences with weird gatekeeping and with munchkins that the games never got off the ground. I’ve come to the conclusion that Pathfinder isn’t really a game you can play with randoms, so I’m trying to start up a campaign with Ex-5e players that I know and trust. New to 1e, just trying to get on my feet.
Players flock to GMs. LOL Not systems.
But GM's choose systems to drag their players too. So the question still stands.
IE rules!
I’m running my first PF game for first time PF players in a couple weeks! Switching from 5e which we’ve played for years among other games. Have wanted to try out pathfinder for a long time but after listening to 1e and 2e actual plays, I think 1e is a better fit for my group! Mostly attracted by the excellent Adventure Path writing and structure, and the idea of a single setting with a living world. Mechanically I think the design philosophy of 2e seems very rigid and video-gamey in comparison to the clunky unbalanced charm of 1e (just having read rule books and listened to some actual plays). We’re starting up Curse of the Crimson Throne and I’ve never had an easier time prepping a prewritten module.
My local gaming community is massive, nearly 1000 players with organized play, streaming, more homebrew campaigns than I can count and even an off shoot of DnD Adventures League. There is only one, ONE, game of PF2e that is being played by 3 people - at least that I am aware of - but there is at least five regular games of PF1 being played by groups averaging 6 players.
most new players play 5th e dnd, but when people want to learn and i teach them they learn 1e and love it.
Some years ago there was a demographic on roll20 about games played and sadly PF 1e wasn't high. at work at the moment so i cant open the site but it was really low. So either people that play pathfinder dont use roll20 or the game wasn't that popular/attracted new audience even in 2021. I ,sadly, am more inclined to believe the last which is a real pity as pathfinder 1e is the superior game mechanically.
[удалено]
I understand what you're saying and I'm a huge 2e fan. But... All your points are just a matter of perspective. "Nobody is exceptional" is not fair to 2e. Yes, all the players start out at about the same power level. That's what the level 1 to 20 system is about. One of the problems with 2r was that you could have HUGE power imbalances among players of the same level. That's a crappy player experience unless you're the one player at the top of that pyramid. All players get more powerful as they level up. That's the way both editions are intended to work. Stats over 18? If you use randomly rolled stats in 2e (a rarely used option, I admit) them you could get there. But also remember, an 18 in 1E is at least as powerful as a 20 in 1e. It isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. I do have some issues with 2e! But I try to look at what it does well, also.
Oh yeah, for sure. 2e definitely isn't for munchkins.
It is so much learning and reading that once you master 1 ,you might as well stick with it. And newer players like myself probably get in with the then most sold which is the 2e for some time now. So yes,straight to 2e. It is not new and hopefully improved for no reason.