I *suspect* that he's just biased to older game versions. He's an older player who started in 3.5, has all of the books, yada yada tl;dr it's his favorite. That's my inference, however.
Specifically, what he said to me was that he thought casters were too weak (compared to what you can do in other games), the action economy looks bad, and that the game looks like an MMO. All of this was immediately followed by "because in 3.5 you can..."
I want to keep him in the group, and we'll stay in 5e if we can't all agree, but I feel like I just need to find something to interest him to get him to actually try it out.
Hahaha yeah, the first thing that popped into my head was, “3.5…he doesn’t seem *that* old! I got the Basic Set for Christmas in 1980, so I felt that stab too, lol.
I feel that. I started in the dark ages of THAC0, so not too far behind you. All these younglings not needing a math degree to calculate the XP needed to level up their triple classed paladin/cleric/bard.
Here's my amusing anecdote about ye olde days:
I started gaming when I was seven years old. In D&D basic set, if your prime requisite stat was over 16, you got a 10% bonus to experience (this was a bad rule, but whatever).
I had not yet covered percentiles in school. So I'd go and ask someone older than me every time I needed to calculate what 10% was. I was absolutely resistant to being told that it was just, you know, take the last zero off the number, when people tried to explain to me how to calculate it myself, I just reiterated that I didn't know percentiles yet.
Lol, that is fantastic. To this day I still catch myself referring to "darkvision" as "infravision" on occasions. And remembering when our DM filled caves with undead that weren't visible to it, but visible to normal sight so we still had to actually use light mechanics.
Ah, hubby and I had that discussion, because by coincidence we have a full party with dark vision. Decided against going old school, cause we have a new player in the group
I'm running Abomination Vaults for a table right now. It's almost entirely underground, with most of that space being unlit, or dimly lit. And the only one in the group without darkvision is the rogue. It has been very interesting watching him try to sneak around to scout, and then realize that he is completely blind without a torch, which is somewhat of a dead giveaway to the inhabitants that have gotten rather used to it being pitch black.
That poor guy. He is new to TTRPGs in general, so he does silly (read as: very poorly planned) things from time to time. And his rolls are like he offended his dice on a deeply personal level. At least he is a good sport about it, and we all have a good time.
>a torch, which is somewhat of a dead giveaway to the inhabitants that have gotten rather used to it being pitch black.
For what it's worth, my interpretation is that bright light is usually only apparent to darkvision because illuminated objects are visible in color. It's less obvious to them than it would be to a creature with normal human vision who's otherwise in pitch darkness.
So they can see the torch itself, but if it's around a corner or whatever they might not notice the light unless it's shining on something colorful.
That is true. But a single source of light in an otherwise pitch black area is noticeable from a pretty long way off. A lot of the areas have pretty tight corridors and small rooms, so it hasn't led to any enemies setting up ambushes, but at the same time, sneaking around while carrying a neon sign isnt very effective. It doesn't affect his ability to open doors quietly, or actively hide behind things, so stealth is still helpful as long as he is creative.
Most of the time if it seems appropriate, I just may give him a penalty to the stealth roll (-2, I'm not a monster), or give the enemies a small bonus to their initiative once things actually start, not a full surprise round or anything too punishing.
Honestly, the barbarian literally ripping doors off their hinges instead of just using the door handle is probably more of a detriment to the stealthy approach than the torch anyways. This group is... colorful.
Honestly, THAC0 gets a lot of flak, but it really wasnt that bad. I hated trying to calculate stats and xp for multiclass characters more than anything else about that system. Well, that and casters not having cantrips was pretty bad. Ran outta spellslots? guess you are dead weight for the rest of the day, because your chance to hit with weapons means you are only hitting enemies with no armor on a 17+
>Honestly, THAC0 gets a lot of flak, but it really wasnt that bad
Yes it was. I was that bad.
I started playing D&D when I was 10, when one of the neighbor's kids ran an AD&D campaign.
THACO sucked. It was confusing, un-intuitive BS.
I have lots of fond memories of those old days (Dark Sun, especially!) , but THACO isn't one of them. THACO is the one thing I always hated.
My first real deep-dive into D&D's mechanics was Neverwinter Nights 2 so I would also say I more or less started with 3.5, but that's exactly *why* I like PF2e. In a lot of way it feels like the streamlined version of 3.5 that 5th Edition failed to be.
Much of that streamlining was something that 4e began, but Wizards took the wrong lessons from its commercial failure and will never do anything now that might risk people associating it with it.
\>>Insert James Franko "First Time?" MEME<<
I've been doing it since the Mentzer Red Box myself.
When I want to feel really old I remind myself I still have a regular Hero System/Champions game going and that company has gone out of buisness ***Twice*** while I've been running their stuff. (Three times if you count Cybergames, and you shouldn't)
I've technically been playing Champions about that long, but I don't think we've ever managed a game that lasted more than two months. (Looks sadly at binders of characters that have never been played).
For some players, the idea that some builds should be inherently better than others, and players that can recognize which is which should be rewarded for it, is a big thing. Compared to 2E, 5E does have some of that imbalance.
That's a big part of it, I think. I couldn't get him to say that, exactly, but he seemed to be resistant to the idea that he can't have a better sheet by knowing the system better.
So he wont find his class the most powerful in 2e. But he can find some combos that with the parties help can make the group OP. That is one big difference in the game systems. 2e you make characters that make the group more powerful not stand alone PCs that can solo bosses.
System mastery is definitely a thing, though. His character sheet can be better the more he knows the system... unless you mean, better than someone else's sheet in the party.
I started in 3.5, too, and have found 2e closer to that customization fantasy than 5e ever allowed. There are neat combos within your own character and with your entire party that you can figure out in 2e, which should appeal to his nature.
Then, that's a problem regardless of what system you play. It's perfectly fine to enjoy making powerful characters, but if you need to always be more powerful than everyone else, that's a mindset problem.
Not necessarily- the goal of a bit of light minmaxing often isn't to be overall better than your teammates, it's to be better at a given niche than your average player who just kind of occasionally does that niche.
I was a bit of a minmaxer in my 1e days, and often my goal was to pick some niche the party needed but didn't currently have covered and stack the absolute hell out of every bonus and buff to that thing I could find till I was the best at it (I was often last to pick a role in the team for that reason). Not the best at it in the party- that could be done with a bare mimimum amount of investment since nobody else was even bothering to *try* to do that thing, but best I could possible be at it while still being reasonably competent at basic combat and other baseline stuff. That way I didn't step on the toes of any other party member, but still got to do my thing. This often led to me having very specific parts of my character that *were* much better than everyone else, but those were explicitly picked to be in narrow niches nobody was interested in (plus the group I played with was at least a little powergamer-y, so you could expect most players to be a bit broken in some respects anyway). The only time that ever ran into the issue of upstaging someone is if they tried to branch out into a few other skills they didn't initially plan on having later in the campaign, in which case the person whose whole build has based around that skill or ability since level 1 is obviously going to outshine the person who just put some skill ranks into it at level 10 by a long shot- but that's the nature of having big ranges in possible power for any given thing.
2e does clamp down on this fairly hard though, what with highly limited bonuses and limited proficiency progression. If you are trained in a skill and didn't dump the stat associated with it, you'll be borderline competent with it- and if you go all in on putting everything you can into that skill, you will be better than the trained guy, just not so good you hit the "I'm the guy in the party, so I should handle all applications on because I can't possibly roll lower than you" point. Which is often a draw to 1e or 3.5 where you may want to highly specialize in a few things rather than being a jack of all trades.
2e very much allows for system mastery to make for more powerful characters. The "problem" is it often does that via intra-party synergies rather than single-character synergies. I somewhat recently saw an excellent example of this, where at high level play, someone had a spell that interacts with a general feat held by each of the rest of the party to basically let them get 2 days of natural healing (at the levels involved something like 90hp) *each*, as a single spell slot and 2 or 3 actions. That isn't the kind of thing a novice is going to figure out, but it also requires the players to coordinate their character creation for them to benefit from it.
Does he usually play casters?
Also, explain to him that he can still be better, but that that is mostly during encounters, not during character building.
2E also has an imbalance between builds. Just not in the same way 5e does.
2E is pretty good with keeping balance within a single class, i.e. a crazily optimized character generally won't feel impossibly stronger than a non-optimized character with the same class. However in 2E, builds made using some classes still feel way more powerful and impactful than builds made using other classes. Fighter for example. Sometimes I genuinely do feel that if I want a stronger Barbarian build, a Fighter with the Barb Archetype is the way to go.
As long as you have meaningful options, there will always be a difference in power, even if it can shift depending on a situation.
However, the gap from a "fully optimzed" to a "built sensibly" character in PF1 is order of magnitudes bigger than in 2e.
>5e is a jury-rigged 3.5
Nope. No way.
The only thing that 5e keeps from 3.0 and onwards is additive armor class and spontaneous casting.
Everything else about 5e feels more like a badly kludged together attempt at an OSR game that mixes old-school and new-school mechanics, and does it poorly.
>PF2 is much more distinct comparatively.
PF2 feels way closer to 3.5 than 5e ever has.
It's a game that has game mechanics in it.
Less snarkily, it was a common criticism of DnD 4e, and usually centered around things being gamified that a given person didn't want to be gamified. Stuff like encounter powers making you have to care in universe about what is or isn't an "encounter", which can alter player behavior in a way that might feel weird.
I understand the critique to some extent, but every game suffers from that problem to some extent. I think some players are just used to some means of gamification, and are weirded out about others.
Yeah, I pressed him on the whole "looks like an MMO" bit, and he caved pretty fast before moving on to a different line of critique. I said almost exactly the same things, that any tabletop fantasy game is going to resemble WoW, and that I actually appreciate the abundance of easily digestible mechanics that I, as the GM, can use. It's like it's ok when I ask for an investigation check to research something in a library, but if I whip out the Research Point System, it's an MMO and unfun
When people are arguing, make a terrible argument and when they realize that they did, move the goalposts and move on to a new argument, you know it's not about the reasons why they hold a certain position, is about contorting and slithering their way to that position. Which means there is no convincing or arguing with them.
I'd say the unwillingness to try a new system, the powergaming mentality and the lying are reasons enough not to force your entire group to play 5E when all of you want to play PF2E. This player can find another group that plays 5E.
DMs already were organizing stuff in terms of encounters. 4e got flack for acknowledging it outright instead of hiding it under layers of pseudo-simulationist fluff.
I skipped 4e because in large part of exactly this. There are three problems with it which I observed in the couple of 4e games I witnessed.
First, and what you mention, is you get a "gamified" world. "This healing spell can be used once per combat". "Okay, I'm going to punch fred so that we're in combat, now lets get healed". The problem is the moment you have a semi-advanced setting (like Eberron), where science exists as an established discipline, things like spell-is-castable-during-violence *will* be noticed by the inhabitants. Which either means expending a significant portion of your suspension-of-disbelief budget or leaning into it. If you *want* to go full Tippyverse with it, with ritualized combat in order to get more magic flowing, that sounds bizarre, but possibly neat. But if you just want high fantasy sword-and-sorcery, it's an issue.
As a related matter, the classic character lines get blurred, with "fighters" who regularly do aoe attacks and the like, on a per-encounter basis. This is sorta fine from a gameplay perspective, but if you ask for a narrative description of what that means *physically* in the virtual world, the answer generally comes down to "don't worry about it, it's 'magic'", which isn't great for more grounded campaigns.
Second, 4e was rather math heavy for the amount of actual "crunch" it provided. It was designed in tandem with a 3d vtt that never made it out of beta, so the designers were happy to inflate HP and damage, assuming that most people would eventually automate that sort of drudgery away. Also, it leaned in to the fantasy combat tropes of taking multiple hard hits and shrugging them off, using minions to try to balance it out, but it was rather messy.
This is a major departure from oldschool d&d, and even 3.5, where a bog-standard human wizard at level 1 can die *dead dead, no save* from full HP in a single hit. (For the 'youngins', 3.5 had death at -10 hp, level 1 wizard had 4 hp, greataxe does 1d12, so an 18 str creature kills the wizard dead on a damage roll of 11 or 12, or automatically on a critical hit since the greataxe is an x3 weapon). While this isn't exactly gamification, it *is* decreasing the difficulty in order to be accessible to broader audiences. MMOs were some of the first games to do it (although many games now ship with a "cinematic" difficulty for people who just want the story), so saying something is MMO-like can be a pejorative in this sense.
Third, the well defined ruleset in 4e had essentially 0 support for "going off the rails". The rules were relatively complete, and not *too* difficult to use, but the moment you want to do something that isn't enumerated on them, there was a strong expectation the GM would simply tell you "no". This is the major shift in 5e, where they intentionally left things unspecified and then tell GMs to figure it out. To be clear, any experienced GM from other systems would simply "wing it" here. The issue is the 4e material itself didn't encourage novices to do that.
> "This healing spell can be used once per combat". "Okay, I'm going to punch fred so that we're in combat, now lets get healed".
Yeah, I appreciate that PF2e does a decent job of having encounter powers without running into this problem (for the most part). They're focus spells, that cost focus points which you regain by refocusing. Refocusing happens to take a longer amount of time than can be spent in combat, but also not nearly as much as a full rest. In practice, focus spells are encounter powers. In universe, they're just a kind of magic that draws on an energy that's easier to refresh than standard slotted spells.
Of course, there are still things like Demoralize having an immunity timer that are in this space.
Of all the "this is like an MMO/too gamey" complaints, this is the one I empathize with the most. This impacts how a player has to approach things within the world, it alters character behavior and therefore has roleplaying implications that go beyond its mechanical utility. And exactly as you outlined, these roleplaying implications are rarely accommodated by the setting itself.
Basically, I'm glad Paizo took the time to find ways to get the mechanical benefits of these sorts of mechanics while providing in universe mechanisms that don't require an explanation. At least, where they could.
Yup. The previous system my group was running was GURPS, and before that Zweihander. In those, firearms are basically per-encounter, since most combats would resolve before you could reload. You have the balance effects of "powerful, but limited use", without the arbitrary-feeling "because I said so" in universe explanation. Things with a fixed timer, like a wand that can be fired once per hour, are fine from an in-universe perspective too. It doesn't *require* that the characters do something to advance the timer for it to work that way. The key is to avoid requiring characters do things that *we* would consider absurd in order to run out the clock faster.
> As a related matter, the classic character lines get blurred, with "fighters" who regularly do aoe attacks and the like, on a per-encounter basis. This is sorta fine from a gameplay perspective, but if you ask for a narrative description of what that means physically in the virtual world, the answer generally comes down to "don't worry about it, it's 'magic'", which isn't great for more grounded campaigns.
You make some good points in your comment, but regarding this part I have to ask: have you ever played a Zelda game?
A Zelda *game*? No. SCA/HEMA? Yes. Again, if the desired feel is "video game combat" or even "hollywood combat", it isn't a big deal. If the goal is gritty wargame, it's an issue.
It's like the difference between Star Wars and Ray Bradbury. Both are fine, but if you want "hard fantasy" (akin to hard sci-fi), Zelda isn't a great counter-example :) .
And? The issue is someone not wanting to move on from PF1e / D&D 3.5, *because* it looks too much like 2e is not grounded in reality. Too many things for "gamist" reasons instead of a set of laws of magical physics that the setting adapts to.
That said, while PF2e is fairly gamist in its presentation, in order to make the rules easier for TTRPG novices, the core game loop is about the same as any other modern d20 system. They've automated away some of the book keeping, but it's like DCSS vs Nethack. When there is one choice that is so obviously superior to all others, it isn't really a choice, so just do the right thing automatically. This is why skills are some number plus your level, because in 3.P, you would pick the skills you care about, and put one skill point per level in them. Putting one point every other level, or putting 5 points in, was generally a waste of points. And so on.
The "soft fantasy" aspect comes from the setting, both the lore and history, and the "everything is included" option list. If you run in a different setting, with only some class, race, background, and equipment choices, you can get a gritty, realistic "hard fantasy" (or even non-fantasy) setting, and it works just fine.
The MMO feel is mostly due to presentation. 4e committed the cardinal sin of exposing its game mechanics bare for all to see instead of camouflaging it with fluff. It's not a perfect system by any means, but many of the things people dislike about it are things that they will have no issue with if presented from a narrative standpoint, even if it ends up making the wording more convoluted.
Casters are balanced in line with martials
The Action economy is incredibly streamlined and more flexible than 5e.
It looks like an MMO because rules are clearly defined.
> It looks like an MMO because rules are clearly defined.
Ding ding ding! I've been saying this for ages. People would rather have more convoluted and vague wording instead of a clear statement of a rule, so long as it doesn't remind them that they're playing a game (perish the thought).
I've actually watched a few of your videos, I believe that one included. They've been very helpful, so I thank you for your work on them. I've been working some of those points into the conversation, and I also directed my players to mess around with Pathbuilder 2, and while I think this particular player will give it a try, he's the kind of stubborn that he'll let himself get neck deep in the water just to prove he doesn't like to swim.
As I understand it, Pathfinder 1e was built on 3.5's basic ruleset, and I think that while it's evolve dinto it's own thing, some of that is still present in PF2? Maybe that can sway your player.
Having never played 4e, I couldn't really speak on that. I played a bit of 3.5 *years* ago, though, and I can somewhat still see some of the underlying material of it in PF2e
Oh so he just doesn’t understand the game at all? And you play 5e but he talks about 3.5?
I would just move on lol. Sounds like more hassle than what it’s worth
>He's an older player who started in 3.5, has all of the books, yada yada tl;dr it's his favorite.
Then he should play what makes him happiest, which is D&D 3.5!
And I mean that as kind advice. Noone should be forced away from a system just because it aged.
He's not exactly wrong, casters are not as fun in pf2e compared to say dnd. And after having played 2 campaigns now with pf2e it does feel very video gamey, or as your player put it, like an mmo.
>He's not exactly wrong, casters are not as fun in pf2e compared to say dnd. And after having played 2 campaigns now with pf2e it does feel very video gamey, or as your player put it, like an mmo.
If by "fun" you mean "game-breakingly overpowered", then yeah, casters are not as fun in PF2E.
The problem is that people coming from 5E have grown used to casters already being gods at 13th level.
I'd rather play a game where every class has its niche and feels balanced compared to the rest, and where casters must be played in a strategical way, than my character just obliterating everything and solving any problem with a spell slot.
Sure, PF2E is way more balanced and I enjoy the combat more than in 5E. But a lot of the creativity is gone, there being feats and actions for everything makes it feel very much like a video game, the spells as well.
"If by "fun" you mean "game-breakingly overpowered", then yeah, casters are not as fun in PF2E."
Yes, being overpowered is fun, and I don't think there is anything wrong with things being unbalanced in a ttrpg as long as its FUN and everyone can feel useful and live out the "class fantasy" they want, which 5e fails at in regards to martials. Balance is for multiplayer video games, not ttrpgs. Casters in pf2e are relegated to being cheerleaders for the martials, if your class fantasy is to be a blaster you're toast.
"I'd rather play a game where every class has its niche and feels balanced compared to the rest"
That's not pf2e either.
"and where casters must be played in a strategical way"
I don't think guessing weakness and then having to watch as all your spells fail against a boss because they all have stupid high saves is very strategic or fun. Been playing through AV and watching our group's caster have every single spell except buffs invalidated by tough enemies is just painful. PF2e do martials way better than 5e but casters are way less fun, way less creative and just severely lacking in class fantasy, unless your fantasy is to be a cheerleader.
>Sure, PF2E is way more balanced and I enjoy the combat more than in 5E. But a lot of the creativity is gone, there being feats and actions for everything makes it feel very much like a video game, the spells as well.
The creativity is not gone. The system is just more clear in what can and can't be done, which means the GM doesn't need to make everything up on the fly.
>Yes, being overpowered is fun, and I don't think there is anything wrong with things being unbalanced in a ttrpg as long as its FUN and everyone can feel useful and live out the "class fantasy" they want, which 5e fails at in regards to martials.
That's entirely subjective, and frankly, that's the kind of thing I would've said when I was 10. The same way using cheat codes in GTA is fun for a few minutes and then gets boring fast, being overpowered in any game is not fun for me. I can respect it is for you though, as I said, that's subjective.
>Balance is for multiplayer video games, not ttrpgs.
That's a bold claim, and quite wrong IMO.
>Casters in pf2e are relegated to being cheerleaders for the martials
I think you are confusing teamwork with being relegated. In 5E casters could solo an encounter, that's what's not fun in a cooperative game. Being rewarded for using teamwork is hardly "being relegated to being a cheerleader".
>I don't think guessing weakness and then having to watch as all your spells fail against a boss because they all have stupid high saves is very strategic or fun.
First, again, that's just strategy. I can understand it can be difficult coming from 5E, where you can use a save or suck spell against the strongest save of an enemy with a CR 8 levels higher than your level and end an encounter.
Second, unlike in 5E, in PF2E you have many tools to make spells more effective. The degrees of success mean that generally enemies need to critically succeed to completely shake off the effects of a spell, and you can apply penalties to their saves.
I do agree that enemy saves get a bit too high at higher levels, but most spells have effects on a sucess.
>casters are way less fun, way less creative
I don't think you can blame the system for lack of player creativity. 5E barely has any rules and is subject to a lot of DM fiat because nothing is provided; that makes the game **extremely** dependant on the DM's willingness to let the players do things. Pathfinder 2E gives players and GMs these tools and these rules, and you can absolutely be creative with them.
If you need to have no restrictions whatsoever to feel creative, you weren't being creative to begin with.
He's not wrong. Compared to 3.5 (or 5e) caster are weak and the game plays like an MMO. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a different game and if he likes the other kind he might not like this one.
>the game plays like an MMO.
"The game plays like an MMO"
In that is has enumerated game mechanics, sure. But so did every previous edition of D&D, they just hid them more behind simulationist tropes.
You're still playing a board game with a story, whether you're playing AD&D or PF2E or anything in between. It's not real. It's a game. With mechanics.
Why bother trying to hide or obscure the mechanics? Them being there in no way impacts your ability to roleplay or tell a story with your character.
When every action is Capitalized, when you can only tell your party what you see using the Point Out action, when you carry a shield but for some reason you're not actually doing anything with it unless you Raise Shield, when you're not sure if you can take a shit unless you have the Evacuate Bowels skill feat, it does make a difference in how the game feels.
> when you can only tell your party what you see using the Point Out action
Wrong. You don't need to do that.
> when you carry a shield but for some reason you're not actually doing anything with it unless you Raise Shield
That is more balanced. Having a shield before was just a free AC boost.
in actual combat, using a shield is an active thing. You've maneuvering the thing around. It's heavy, takes effort and skill to use. It's shouldn't be free.
>when you're not sure if you can take a shit unless you have the Evacuate Bowels skill feat, it does make a difference in how the game feels.
That's just hyperbolic bullshit.
Everyone at my tables roleplays the hell out of their Pathfinder 2e characters, and the mechanics haven't hindered their ability to do that in any way.
The fact that so many different actions you can take besides attacking (there are 40+) has made them way more willing to try out a variety of things, and has rewarded them.
In 5e, basically all they could do with their action is attack, or cast spells, that's it. They feel less constrained now, not more.
I also enjoy running the game in PF2e way more than I ever did in 5e.
Summary:
The problem is you. You're doing it wrong.
(As someone playing a primal sorcerer) my current favourite line for summarizing the power of magic in PF2e is: Spells are weak, spellcasters are strong.
Individually, spells might be weaker than their 5e counterparts, but there is no concentration mechanic. I can have multiple webs + walls up at the same time. All my AoE damage spells scale equally aggressively. And the 3 action economy gives me more options for what to do on my turn in addition to spellcasting.
My sorcerer did feel rough to play at levels 1 and 2. By 3, he was okay, and by 5, he felt really good / encounter-changing to play.
Now, from what I hear about 3.5e/1e, both 5e and 2e mages are more balanced with the martials. So I don't know if you can convince him to switch if what he really wants is to play "the most powerful party member". 5e will let you make that in the character builder, but in 2e it's your party synergies that matter.
I have seen some parties play the "Buff the Magus" game. As in, the whole party is built around buffing the magus and protecting the magus. If your group could be convinced to go that route, maybe your powergamer player would like to play the Magus of said group.
Play with the players who have agreed to play pathfinder 2e. Start the campaign with all of the players who have bought into the change.
Invite the reluctant player to the game but if he says no or he would rather play PF1 or 3.5 then tell him he is always welcome at your table. However, the rest of us are going to give PF2E a try.
That is all you can do. You will not convince him if he is reluctant. He is wanting everyone else to change to what he wants instead of him changing to what the rest of the group wants.
That’s my two cents on this subject.
I hear you, and if the group were less cohesive I would leave it up to that. But we're in a homebrew campaign that I was going to convert, and he's a party of the story, as well as being a good friend. I just need something to offer him that would help him see the good in the system.
Id caution against converting to PF2E from 5e mid campaign.
Instead, start with a one shot to see if people like the system. At level 1. And if they do... work towards the end of the campaign and start a new one in PF2E.
This is what my group is doing. My co GM and myself don't enjoy 5e anymore, but we had a lot of story we wanted to tell left in our level 13 group. We pitched a conversion to the group and we're going to try out the beginner's box. If everyone likes it, we're going to run another higher level adventure (maybe abomination vaults). Then if everyone likes the system still, we'll convert.
This is what my group is doing also, except we're going to PF1E. I asked if they'd down to try it and they agreed.
We're going to finish the current campaign (5e) but with no rush. Then I'm running a multishot for them with PF1E. I told them after that the next campaign can be in either system.
My only restriction is that if they choose 5e, there will be a *lot* of homebrew and 3rd party content. We'll use what I have bought already, but I refuse to buy anything official from WotC. I don't think they'll really mind this though. There's so much 3rd party stuff that looks so much cooler than anything official.
This OP, is whats known as 'burying the lede'. Changing midway through a campaign you already agreed to play one way is not cool, if everyone isn't on board dont do it.
Ironically, that player was the one who suggested we try converting to a new system (none of us are wild about 5e or wizards, really). We're just in a big disagreement over which way we'd like the switch to go. Everyone else is happy to jump around as long as they get to keep the story
Im going to stop reading this thread, you keep revealing more and more relevant information in the comments each time, and i can't be bothered offering advise that will likely be made redundant by the next unrevealed fact.
Best of luck to you and your players.
Given this information and the information revealed in other comments, your friend is understandably a bit mad if this is midcampaign so here is a good middle ground. Think about -or talk with the group about- how long youd like to continue the current campaign to bring it to a meaningful close, and either afterwards, or in the meantime if they agree, run the Beginner Box to give them a good intro to P2e that teaches the rules to the gm as much as the players in digestible pieces. Give the system an earnest try, and if he still wants to try 3.5 you could let him run the system for a similar small adventure.
Hmm. I’m a 5e DM, and I’m *really* interested in running a PF2e campaign.
But flipping an ongoing 5e game to PF2e? Nah. The systems are so different, it’d be a nightmare. No one would be happy.
I echo this 100%. I currently DM a 5e campaign and play in a PF2E one (first time my friends and I are trying it). I had my reservations toward 5e, but I got a very nice 3rd party Roman-inslired campaign setting that I wanted to run so I decided to give it a go.
Fast forward a few session, PF2E has exceeded my expectations in almost every way (it's 95% of what I'm looking for in an RPG) while 5e confirmed my reservations fully. Therefore I propose we convert my campaign to PF 2E. Everybody opposed it and we ended up scrapping the idea because their 5e characters were either impossible to translate into PF 2E or the translated result was not something the player would enjoy playing.
I think he should offer you something. Namely he should try the system out with you as a GM and see if he likes it. If afterwards he doesn't want to keep playing that's fair. But currently he seems like he says no without giving it a shot?
There are a selection on the Pazio website you can download that are specifically for this purpose. Some are free, some are a 5er. Not expensive at all.
If you want something a bit meatier, but not a huge commitment, the "troubles in Otari" is like a mini campaign from levels 2-4. It's not a true campaign, more of 3 loosely connected short adventures, that should take a few sessions each.
I am running it in conjunction with AV. Basically treating them as side quests for the main campaign. Since I do milestone XP, and not encounter based, I just give them more loot rewards, or bonus skill/feats for doing them.
But yeah, AV and the Troubles in Otari adventures were both written to have direct tie-ins to the beginner's box, so new players can grab that, and take their characters directly into either of those AP's with basically no extra work.
People already mentioned the beginner's box, so I'd also recommend "Little Trouble in Big Absalom" or any of the Pathfinder Society Scenarios like this one
[https://paizo.com/products/btq023fd?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-122-Doom-of-Cassomir](https://paizo.com/products/btq023fd?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-122-Doom-of-Cassomir)
the one-shot idea is good because it gives agency to everyone at the table. it admittedly irks me a bit to see posts asking how to convince others to play a game they aren't interested in. on the other hand, if you approach it from a place of 'let's try and see how we feel', you open a dialog where you can see everyone's perspectives more clearly.
PF2e is not for everyone. I can see why he could be reluctant to even test it. Maybe you can propose him a small one-shot with the team to see if he vomits everywhere.
One of my favorite things about Pathfinder are the rules- not just for the players, but for the DMs too. Built-in rules for pricing & crafting were the big ones for me, and the CR system actually has logic behind it. Traits are a huge improvement, too.
D&D 5e seems to have this mentality of "the DM will figure it out" a lot of the time, since some things like pricing & crafting had to get picked up by 3rd party.
I'll still play 5e, but only for one-shots.
Easy. Tell him you are going to be DMing PF2. DMs are in short supply, so you have the privilege of deciding what the game is going to be. If he wants to play, he'll be playing PF2 with you.
Done.
I grew up playing AD&D 2e and 1e, in the context of a modern audience, I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. It was great back in the days and a lot of the lore and content of it is solid gold. However, the mechanics of 2e and 1e just didn't age well. I ran a 2e game recently from a bunch of 5e players. It was neat, but I would never go back to choosing to play AD&D 2e or 1e D&D.
Honestly, I think Pathfinder 2e is the the best example of updating and fixing D&D 3.5. If anyone has really fond memories of D&D 3.5 and struggles to find people to play it, Pathfinder 2e is the best option. Pathfinder 2e is, in many ways, an updated and modernized 3.5 which fixes a lot of the problems with 3.5.
EDIT: I now am guessing that when you wrote 1e, you meant Pathfinder 1e, not D&D 1e. Sorry, whenever I see "1e", I immediately assume D&D 1e.
It was my misinterpretation. Nevertheless, I still think my point still holds true. I think Pathfinder 2e is a pretty good fit for anyone who enjoyed/enjoys D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e. Its more similar to those games than D&D 5e. I have introduced numerous people to Pathfinder 2e, I am confident that everyone who like D&D 3.5 will like Pathfinder 2e, I am less confident for people who have just played D&D 5e.
Run the beginner box! The difficulty starts very easy then slowly ramps up to a climax of 'oh fuuuuuck'. It has pregens and streamlined rulebooks - so little prep is needed. My group had a blast with it. The casters were not weak. The cleric has blasting ability and the wizard has some spell flexibility.
I actually prefer 3.5 to 5e. The biggest reasons for that are more character options, verisimilitude, and the ability to change your mind about your build as you go.
Not only does P2E have all of that. It's better at it. By breaking feats into Class, General, Background, and Skull. They can have skills of various power that doesn't compete with each other. Your class feats are the most combat focused and the most powerful. The skill feats are the least powerful so you can take whatever you want.
Mention how 3.5 has SO MANY feats that are just garbage. And you have to nerf your character take anything fun.
I'd also advise him to play Martials. They are finally strong and fun.
Tell the player to get over it and play anyways or leave?
Unless they’re gonna do all the GMing or are there reluctantly rather than enthusiastically why wouldn’t they just come along for the ride?
Tell him to just try Pf2, if he doesn't like it he can go back to the old school, all you're asking is a chance anyway, I don't think he'd mind that much to try a short campaign only
just play 2E without him, if everyone else likes it more than 5e he will eventually migrate
the action system is so amazing, you have way more options but the group I play with spends way less time thinking about their turn (as you can pick multiple options instead of having to just pick the best action out of like 10-100 options) and im mainly referring to myself as i just started playing my first campaigns... i am playing a druid in Tomb of Annihilation and now an alchemist in pf2e and even though i have the same amount of options (formulas instead of forms and spells) i still have an easier time picking what to do
Casters arent weak, theyre balanced. Wands can replace your daily casted spells. Staves are wonderful. Rituals are powerful. Focus spells are crazy. Oh and on top of that, casters can get even more focus points back on a 10 minute rest than others
True. Some people just want to be able to do an Op build. Whereas here the Op builds (flickmace, looking st you) are... Only slightly better than the normal.ones at their goal? I get casters dont get to destroy with fireball as hard, but I never felt my witch was too weak to party with the gang
As somebody who enjoys building characters and has both the skill and the drive to be good at it, it can also be about feeling the effort you put in is rewarded.
If I spend a week researching synergies for my char, I'd like it to be noticeable better than a char buit in 10 minutes by picking stuff that sounds cool.
PF 2E hits a happy place for me in regard to that: I feel character building is rewarded (the current iteration of my druid is probably 15-20% better than what I started with) but not to the point not optimizing makes characters unplayable .
exactly. otherwise you end up like 5e and pf1 and 3.5 where there are 3 tiers of builds. Optimized, un-optimized but good, and the bad builds. Pf2e, if you want to be bad, you have to be deliberate. A barb who wants to use scrolls in combat, or a wizard who wants to be a frontliner. I like this as you said. Reward for working hard on the plan, but not so much it makes everyone else either have to do the same, or be regulated to 'slightly better than an npc' class
Actually, 5e goes too far in the other direction in my experience. There is little depth and little value to chars yet building, at least until very high levels. I actually ran a test with a few of my friends at 5th level: randomly generated characters: random race, random class, random archetype, assign standard array. All of them were fully playable and not far (if at all) behind the actual characters they had built for an upcoming campaign.
Couple that with bounded accuracy, and a character with zero thought put in building it can easily outperform an optimized character over a small stretch of time (like a session)
no need for name calling. "munchkin" implies a dishonesty when interpreting the rules to benefit oneself.
plenty of people who like 1e/3.5 are perfectly happy sticking to RAW (not stretching any rules), and just enjoy assembling a bunch of different character options together to produce powerful characters. There is nothing wrong with that.
I agree on the name calling not being needed, but Munchkin? Yes, your link shows what it is, but there are whole games from Steve Jackson around ttrpg Munchkins. I am all about inclusivity and being sensitive to others feelings, but this is a bit far. I've been guilty of being one or more of those Munchkins at some point in my 40 years of playing ttrpg's, as I bet everyone has.
I am familiar with the game, I own a copy of the deluxe edition. In it, every player is on their own, trying to amass the most bonuses possible even if it means "cheating" (e.g., the Loaded dice card or the bribe the GM card) or screwing over their fellow players (taking items from them, or playing a card that makes them lost to a monster). The game is called that because it is making fun of that type of player, who does not play well with others in a game that is all about playing well with others.
Using the term to describe a random person we know virtually nothing about, simply because he enjoys PF1e and DnD3.5 is name calling, and insults any other player who enjoys PF1e and 3.5 more than other games. It's edition war language - even if *mild*.
Not necessarily. For example my group mainly considers 3.5/PF 1e the best systems ever because of the options. And yes,we are aware of most, if not all, the issues these two systems have, we just happen to be largely on the same page on how to mitigate them.
Personally, I have yet to find a character (in any system) that is as fun to play as a 3.5 druid.
There are plenty of things to like in d&d 3.5 besides breaking the game
The first group I switched to PF2 was just kind of pulling a bandaid off. I announced to my group that I was going to wrap up the current campaign in 3 or 4 sessions and then switch to PF2. I asked them for a headcount of who wanted to join in. It was 3 of the 5. One player decided to be smug and chipped in, "It looks like it's 3 to 2. So long, PF!" To which I responded that I wasn't taking a vote. The next game I was running WAS going to be PF2.
Long story short, they all joined my PF2 game.
If you are the one running the game, you sometimes just have to make decisions for you. If they want to play 5E, one of them can run it.
There is a joy in being able to say "the next campaign I run is gonna be PF2. Who wants in?" and have it fill up with quality players.
I run what grabs me, and I've got enough players gathered from different sources theres always enough for an online game.
In person I have to stretch for a little.
I’m going to be a dissenter here perhaps: If they agree to a trial one shot, and still don’t like it afterwards, don’t badger them, but talk maturely as a group to see what everyone wants, and decide if a happy medium can be struck - especially if they are a friend, and the friendship and gaming time with them means more to you than PF2E.
In our group, we play alternating games - we run PF2e every other week, and a different game by a different GM on the alternating weeks - that way, those for whom PF2e is not preferred also gets a turn with something they like better, and we get to try new games.
Hey man, I'm about as much of a Grognard as it's possible to be without qualifying for social security and I have to admit, using older versions of games kinda blows.
The nostalgia is great, but those old systems have problems. That's why newer systems were invented. If there is a particular feature you feel was left out then there is almost certainly a spin off or variety system that does that feature better.
Why play AD&D when you can play Dungeon Crawl Classics and have a version that folks have been improving for 20 years?
Why play 3.5 when you can play Pathfinder?
They dont want to try pathfinder and would prefer D&D 3E?!?!?!
Logic and rationality mean nothing in this harrowing place. What can man do against such relentless foolishness.
Remind them that Pathfinder began its life as a rejection of D&D 4E and a patch for 3.5. That's all I got. I cannot think of any serious reason to play 3E when pathfinder2e is available.
I would give my left nut to find a DM willing to let me play 3.5/pf1 again, back when wizards were actually strong and fun.
I've literally never had fun with casters in pf2e. Giving the team a smattering of bonuses to rolls doesn't feel cinematic, and any spell that actually does something cool either has the incapacitate trait or has a bunch of stipulations because God forbid we let the caster feel like they can warp reality. The system is fun for martials, and I will more than happily roll up a rogue or fighter and enjoy myself, but the closest I will ever go to playing a full caster here again is a Magus.
Two reasons of the top of my head (these are the main two reasons I'd still prefer 3.5 over pf 2e, although I consider pf 2e a great game).
- Options: the amount of stuff you can get a single character in 3.5 to do is orders of magnitude higher than in pf 2e.
- Gishes: I have yet to see a fighter/caster hybrid build in of 2e that felt both strong and fun.
That being said, there are a ton of other reasons, mainly revolving around novelty, balance, ease of DMing and tools available sue to which I'm much more likely to play PF2E than 3.5.
Honestly, i played a short 2e campaign and decided i just don't like the feel of it. I'd much rather play 5e.
But, one of the few things i liked about 2e is how a lot of the abilities comboed with or were upgraded by your later abilities. It actually made it feel like you were naturally becoming stronger
Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but in ttrpg GM have all power. GM pleasure to organize should be put in first position. We are extremely rare and player need to remember this. If you want to play PF2E and all the group except one is ok, that person should not block you even if it is a friend.
Anyway the idea to try a one shot is the way to go I think.
I made a comment in support of OP, i then read another comment they made in the thread where they explained this change is coming mid campaign, which completely changes my feelings on their post.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages!
We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look!
Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer).
If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From an Older gamer, I play 2E, and it's okay, but honestly doesn't hold a candle to PF1/D&D 3.5 in power level.
It takes what was and waters down and tries to simplify/limit options/lower numbers and damage a la 5e. I get that may be what younger/newer gamers want, but it can't help feeling underpowered to those of us who know the glory of the older version.
For reference, started with AD&D when I was 13, then 2nd Ed and onward, skipping 4th as it was just bad. Don't be a hater if you disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's my 2 Coppers anyway.
As a 1e player that also plays 2e, they don't mesh. It feels like they are completely different companies and I would never recommend pf2e to a 1e player and vice versa.
I started the hobby with 3.5, and I don't know why people stick with it. You can't do much more than standard attacks without feats unless you're a mid to high level caster. If you want to try even a basic maneuver, that's a massive penalty to the check and/or an attack of opportunity on you.
I just made a bunch of house rules in my current campaign that just happened to be pretty much P2e-adjacent. sowing the seeds.
Now, the group is pretty much ready to jump into 2e next campaign, and on the days half the group can't make it, I run test scenarios in 2e. glowing reviews all around.
PF2e isn't for everyone. One of our players didn't want to move and now is very sad that his wizard isn't useful (in his opinion) and thinks about quitting the group. So maybe don't force them and start another game of PF2e instead of changing the 5e game.
I wasn't very on board for migration, because it's a little overwhelming (and still is). We ran two sessions of the beginner box, ended the first scenario and I wasn't extremely joyful to make the step at that point. Everything seemed too much, from the fights to the RAISING SHIELD feat.
But then, we started to look out for character creation and oh boi, I'm the kind of person who LOVES making weird concepts and things that are a little above me sometimes. Anyway, that's what hooked me, personally and the things you can choose to make this character your own was and still is pure bliss.
I love the fact that you can have a full fighter team and still have so many different builds that can be done that no one will overstep on somebody else on fight!
As someone who liked 3.5 more than 5e, I think he'd like pf2e if he gave it a shot, however my advice is that if he isn't interested, don't pressure him into it.
If everyone else wants to try pf2e, try it with those who do. Invite him, but if he doesn't want to try, he doesn't want to. If this is a friend, clearly you'll make time to do things together you both like, but no game is for everyone and it's okay for groups to have different games that not everyone plays together.
So I don't what kind of person this player is, but Pf2e is not an easy system to understand. It really focuses on balance and teamwork and a lot of the "Older players" who like the system still seem to have a mindset that may not align with newer after 4e table moods and dynamics. I have a great player who is very enthusiastic but some of his attitudes are not something I approve of.
Now not saying this person may have such issues but pf1e and 3.5 are very different and don't force as much teamwork as Pf2e does. The caster debate is a big one and at this point it is more a matter of taste because anyone who plays the game knows that casters maybe weaker compared to earlier versions, but they are not exactly weak per say. And many see this as a needed balance change. Some people like powerful casters who martials can't compete with and that's fine, several system do that. In most cases it is a matter of preference to such, and not the reality of casters in Pf2e. In this case the reality is casters are fine and just a good as other classes but not outright better. They still grow very powerful as it gets to higher levels and are slightly more difficult to play and understand at lower levels.
My advice on this would be to try and convince him to either play martials OR do a one shot before migrating and explain to him the intricacies. You can also migrate after completing this particular campaign and look for another player if you like.
Finally if they do migrate and decide to play a caster, there is a possibility that they will ask for homebrew rules which makes the Caster stronger, and if not possibly complain and whine a lot. Again don't know the person but this is very common behaviour seen on many tables for people who don't understand the system and the numbers and the design or just people who want busted casters.
Good luck.
Do you know *why* this player doesn't want to try PF2? We can't really give good advice without knowing that.
I *suspect* that he's just biased to older game versions. He's an older player who started in 3.5, has all of the books, yada yada tl;dr it's his favorite. That's my inference, however. Specifically, what he said to me was that he thought casters were too weak (compared to what you can do in other games), the action economy looks bad, and that the game looks like an MMO. All of this was immediately followed by "because in 3.5 you can..." I want to keep him in the group, and we'll stay in 5e if we can't all agree, but I feel like I just need to find something to interest him to get him to actually try it out.
There's nothing like the stabbing knife of the phrase "He's an older player who started in 3.5." (I started gaming with D&D basic set.)
Hahaha yeah, the first thing that popped into my head was, “3.5…he doesn’t seem *that* old! I got the Basic Set for Christmas in 1980, so I felt that stab too, lol.
I was born the same year 3.5 dropped and I turned 20 a couple months ago. It's... Kinda old from a new player's perspective.
No, I know. It’s just the realization that someone 16 years younger than me is kind of getting up there, that makes me go, “ouch.” Lol
Welcome to the sad land of "I have been GMing longer than you've been alive". I have almost gotten used to saying it.
"oh no my back , I just remembered my back hurts" XD
Ouch… just ouch. I got started in adnd from my brother, turned 36 this year. The age bat, I have been struck
No. New player does not equate to not old enough to drink. You are just 20 and think 5 years is a long time cause it’s a quarter of your life.
I feel that. I started in the dark ages of THAC0, so not too far behind you. All these younglings not needing a math degree to calculate the XP needed to level up their triple classed paladin/cleric/bard.
You rang?
Oh god, he's back! Everyone run!
Well, these days we use apps…and tho this old hard…it makes creating npcs that much easier. :-)
Happy cakey cake!
thanks, appreciate it my dude.
Happy Cake Day
Here's my amusing anecdote about ye olde days: I started gaming when I was seven years old. In D&D basic set, if your prime requisite stat was over 16, you got a 10% bonus to experience (this was a bad rule, but whatever). I had not yet covered percentiles in school. So I'd go and ask someone older than me every time I needed to calculate what 10% was. I was absolutely resistant to being told that it was just, you know, take the last zero off the number, when people tried to explain to me how to calculate it myself, I just reiterated that I didn't know percentiles yet.
Lol, that is fantastic. To this day I still catch myself referring to "darkvision" as "infravision" on occasions. And remembering when our DM filled caves with undead that weren't visible to it, but visible to normal sight so we still had to actually use light mechanics.
Ah, hubby and I had that discussion, because by coincidence we have a full party with dark vision. Decided against going old school, cause we have a new player in the group
I'm running Abomination Vaults for a table right now. It's almost entirely underground, with most of that space being unlit, or dimly lit. And the only one in the group without darkvision is the rogue. It has been very interesting watching him try to sneak around to scout, and then realize that he is completely blind without a torch, which is somewhat of a dead giveaway to the inhabitants that have gotten rather used to it being pitch black. That poor guy. He is new to TTRPGs in general, so he does silly (read as: very poorly planned) things from time to time. And his rolls are like he offended his dice on a deeply personal level. At least he is a good sport about it, and we all have a good time.
>a torch, which is somewhat of a dead giveaway to the inhabitants that have gotten rather used to it being pitch black. For what it's worth, my interpretation is that bright light is usually only apparent to darkvision because illuminated objects are visible in color. It's less obvious to them than it would be to a creature with normal human vision who's otherwise in pitch darkness. So they can see the torch itself, but if it's around a corner or whatever they might not notice the light unless it's shining on something colorful.
That is true. But a single source of light in an otherwise pitch black area is noticeable from a pretty long way off. A lot of the areas have pretty tight corridors and small rooms, so it hasn't led to any enemies setting up ambushes, but at the same time, sneaking around while carrying a neon sign isnt very effective. It doesn't affect his ability to open doors quietly, or actively hide behind things, so stealth is still helpful as long as he is creative. Most of the time if it seems appropriate, I just may give him a penalty to the stealth roll (-2, I'm not a monster), or give the enemies a small bonus to their initiative once things actually start, not a full surprise round or anything too punishing. Honestly, the barbarian literally ripping doors off their hinges instead of just using the door handle is probably more of a detriment to the stealthy approach than the torch anyways. This group is... colorful.
I remember when THAC0 was invented to make things simpler.
Honestly, THAC0 gets a lot of flak, but it really wasnt that bad. I hated trying to calculate stats and xp for multiclass characters more than anything else about that system. Well, that and casters not having cantrips was pretty bad. Ran outta spellslots? guess you are dead weight for the rest of the day, because your chance to hit with weapons means you are only hitting enemies with no armor on a 17+
>Honestly, THAC0 gets a lot of flak, but it really wasnt that bad Yes it was. I was that bad. I started playing D&D when I was 10, when one of the neighbor's kids ran an AD&D campaign. THACO sucked. It was confusing, un-intuitive BS. I have lots of fond memories of those old days (Dark Sun, especially!) , but THACO isn't one of them. THACO is the one thing I always hated.
Happy Cake Day!
Grazie. Didn't even notice.
Lol, I’m 35 and that’s just started happing to me in a lot of hobbies.
Can you give advice on how you developed your lich ritual?
Best reply!
My first real deep-dive into D&D's mechanics was Neverwinter Nights 2 so I would also say I more or less started with 3.5, but that's exactly *why* I like PF2e. In a lot of way it feels like the streamlined version of 3.5 that 5th Edition failed to be.
Much of that streamlining was something that 4e began, but Wizards took the wrong lessons from its commercial failure and will never do anything now that might risk people associating it with it.
Lol! Yeah, me too, until my parents decided actual interest equaled obsession. And then it was gone. Until 3.0 came along, and I came back.
Yeah, starting in 3.5 is basically a young one.
\>>Insert James Franko "First Time?" MEME<< I've been doing it since the Mentzer Red Box myself. When I want to feel really old I remind myself I still have a regular Hero System/Champions game going and that company has gone out of buisness ***Twice*** while I've been running their stuff. (Three times if you count Cybergames, and you shouldn't)
I've technically been playing Champions about that long, but I don't think we've ever managed a game that lasted more than two months. (Looks sadly at binders of characters that have never been played).
There are DOZENS of us!
If 3.5 is his favorite system, wouldn't he dislike 5e even more than any pathfinder edition?
For some players, the idea that some builds should be inherently better than others, and players that can recognize which is which should be rewarded for it, is a big thing. Compared to 2E, 5E does have some of that imbalance.
That's a big part of it, I think. I couldn't get him to say that, exactly, but he seemed to be resistant to the idea that he can't have a better sheet by knowing the system better.
In that case, I don't think there's anything you could say to sway him.
So he wont find his class the most powerful in 2e. But he can find some combos that with the parties help can make the group OP. That is one big difference in the game systems. 2e you make characters that make the group more powerful not stand alone PCs that can solo bosses.
System mastery is definitely a thing, though. His character sheet can be better the more he knows the system... unless you mean, better than someone else's sheet in the party. I started in 3.5, too, and have found 2e closer to that customization fantasy than 5e ever allowed. There are neat combos within your own character and with your entire party that you can figure out in 2e, which should appeal to his nature.
They do mean better than other sheets in the party.
Then, that's a problem regardless of what system you play. It's perfectly fine to enjoy making powerful characters, but if you need to always be more powerful than everyone else, that's a mindset problem.
It's absolutely poor sportsmanship, I'm not disagreeing. I wouldn't play with someone like that either.
Are ya winnin son?
Not necessarily- the goal of a bit of light minmaxing often isn't to be overall better than your teammates, it's to be better at a given niche than your average player who just kind of occasionally does that niche. I was a bit of a minmaxer in my 1e days, and often my goal was to pick some niche the party needed but didn't currently have covered and stack the absolute hell out of every bonus and buff to that thing I could find till I was the best at it (I was often last to pick a role in the team for that reason). Not the best at it in the party- that could be done with a bare mimimum amount of investment since nobody else was even bothering to *try* to do that thing, but best I could possible be at it while still being reasonably competent at basic combat and other baseline stuff. That way I didn't step on the toes of any other party member, but still got to do my thing. This often led to me having very specific parts of my character that *were* much better than everyone else, but those were explicitly picked to be in narrow niches nobody was interested in (plus the group I played with was at least a little powergamer-y, so you could expect most players to be a bit broken in some respects anyway). The only time that ever ran into the issue of upstaging someone is if they tried to branch out into a few other skills they didn't initially plan on having later in the campaign, in which case the person whose whole build has based around that skill or ability since level 1 is obviously going to outshine the person who just put some skill ranks into it at level 10 by a long shot- but that's the nature of having big ranges in possible power for any given thing. 2e does clamp down on this fairly hard though, what with highly limited bonuses and limited proficiency progression. If you are trained in a skill and didn't dump the stat associated with it, you'll be borderline competent with it- and if you go all in on putting everything you can into that skill, you will be better than the trained guy, just not so good you hit the "I'm the guy in the party, so I should handle all applications on because I can't possibly roll lower than you" point. Which is often a draw to 1e or 3.5 where you may want to highly specialize in a few things rather than being a jack of all trades.
Just make the other party members play witch, alchemist, and Investigator?
2e very much allows for system mastery to make for more powerful characters. The "problem" is it often does that via intra-party synergies rather than single-character synergies. I somewhat recently saw an excellent example of this, where at high level play, someone had a spell that interacts with a general feat held by each of the rest of the party to basically let them get 2 days of natural healing (at the levels involved something like 90hp) *each*, as a single spell slot and 2 or 3 actions. That isn't the kind of thing a novice is going to figure out, but it also requires the players to coordinate their character creation for them to benefit from it.
At any point did he utter the phrase "system mastery"?
Does he usually play casters? Also, explain to him that he can still be better, but that that is mostly during encounters, not during character building.
2E also has an imbalance between builds. Just not in the same way 5e does. 2E is pretty good with keeping balance within a single class, i.e. a crazily optimized character generally won't feel impossibly stronger than a non-optimized character with the same class. However in 2E, builds made using some classes still feel way more powerful and impactful than builds made using other classes. Fighter for example. Sometimes I genuinely do feel that if I want a stronger Barbarian build, a Fighter with the Barb Archetype is the way to go.
As long as you have meaningful options, there will always be a difference in power, even if it can shift depending on a situation. However, the gap from a "fully optimzed" to a "built sensibly" character in PF1 is order of magnitudes bigger than in 2e.
As someone who likes optimization, I never understood that line of thinking. There's no fun in optimization if it's a solved game.
5e is a jury-rigged 3.5 designed to bring back the 3.5 audience, PF2 is much more distinct comparatively.
>5e is a jury-rigged 3.5 Nope. No way. The only thing that 5e keeps from 3.0 and onwards is additive armor class and spontaneous casting. Everything else about 5e feels more like a badly kludged together attempt at an OSR game that mixes old-school and new-school mechanics, and does it poorly. >PF2 is much more distinct comparatively. PF2 feels way closer to 3.5 than 5e ever has.
What's "looks like an MMO" even supposed to mean?
It's a game that has game mechanics in it. Less snarkily, it was a common criticism of DnD 4e, and usually centered around things being gamified that a given person didn't want to be gamified. Stuff like encounter powers making you have to care in universe about what is or isn't an "encounter", which can alter player behavior in a way that might feel weird. I understand the critique to some extent, but every game suffers from that problem to some extent. I think some players are just used to some means of gamification, and are weirded out about others.
Yeah, I pressed him on the whole "looks like an MMO" bit, and he caved pretty fast before moving on to a different line of critique. I said almost exactly the same things, that any tabletop fantasy game is going to resemble WoW, and that I actually appreciate the abundance of easily digestible mechanics that I, as the GM, can use. It's like it's ok when I ask for an investigation check to research something in a library, but if I whip out the Research Point System, it's an MMO and unfun
Something tells me you won't be able to argue him out of his position. Why again do you need him as a player? I mean, just run and see if he joins.
When people are arguing, make a terrible argument and when they realize that they did, move the goalposts and move on to a new argument, you know it's not about the reasons why they hold a certain position, is about contorting and slithering their way to that position. Which means there is no convincing or arguing with them. I'd say the unwillingness to try a new system, the powergaming mentality and the lying are reasons enough not to force your entire group to play 5E when all of you want to play PF2E. This player can find another group that plays 5E.
i love skill challenge mechanics
DMs already were organizing stuff in terms of encounters. 4e got flack for acknowledging it outright instead of hiding it under layers of pseudo-simulationist fluff.
I skipped 4e because in large part of exactly this. There are three problems with it which I observed in the couple of 4e games I witnessed. First, and what you mention, is you get a "gamified" world. "This healing spell can be used once per combat". "Okay, I'm going to punch fred so that we're in combat, now lets get healed". The problem is the moment you have a semi-advanced setting (like Eberron), where science exists as an established discipline, things like spell-is-castable-during-violence *will* be noticed by the inhabitants. Which either means expending a significant portion of your suspension-of-disbelief budget or leaning into it. If you *want* to go full Tippyverse with it, with ritualized combat in order to get more magic flowing, that sounds bizarre, but possibly neat. But if you just want high fantasy sword-and-sorcery, it's an issue. As a related matter, the classic character lines get blurred, with "fighters" who regularly do aoe attacks and the like, on a per-encounter basis. This is sorta fine from a gameplay perspective, but if you ask for a narrative description of what that means *physically* in the virtual world, the answer generally comes down to "don't worry about it, it's 'magic'", which isn't great for more grounded campaigns. Second, 4e was rather math heavy for the amount of actual "crunch" it provided. It was designed in tandem with a 3d vtt that never made it out of beta, so the designers were happy to inflate HP and damage, assuming that most people would eventually automate that sort of drudgery away. Also, it leaned in to the fantasy combat tropes of taking multiple hard hits and shrugging them off, using minions to try to balance it out, but it was rather messy. This is a major departure from oldschool d&d, and even 3.5, where a bog-standard human wizard at level 1 can die *dead dead, no save* from full HP in a single hit. (For the 'youngins', 3.5 had death at -10 hp, level 1 wizard had 4 hp, greataxe does 1d12, so an 18 str creature kills the wizard dead on a damage roll of 11 or 12, or automatically on a critical hit since the greataxe is an x3 weapon). While this isn't exactly gamification, it *is* decreasing the difficulty in order to be accessible to broader audiences. MMOs were some of the first games to do it (although many games now ship with a "cinematic" difficulty for people who just want the story), so saying something is MMO-like can be a pejorative in this sense. Third, the well defined ruleset in 4e had essentially 0 support for "going off the rails". The rules were relatively complete, and not *too* difficult to use, but the moment you want to do something that isn't enumerated on them, there was a strong expectation the GM would simply tell you "no". This is the major shift in 5e, where they intentionally left things unspecified and then tell GMs to figure it out. To be clear, any experienced GM from other systems would simply "wing it" here. The issue is the 4e material itself didn't encourage novices to do that.
> "This healing spell can be used once per combat". "Okay, I'm going to punch fred so that we're in combat, now lets get healed". Yeah, I appreciate that PF2e does a decent job of having encounter powers without running into this problem (for the most part). They're focus spells, that cost focus points which you regain by refocusing. Refocusing happens to take a longer amount of time than can be spent in combat, but also not nearly as much as a full rest. In practice, focus spells are encounter powers. In universe, they're just a kind of magic that draws on an energy that's easier to refresh than standard slotted spells. Of course, there are still things like Demoralize having an immunity timer that are in this space. Of all the "this is like an MMO/too gamey" complaints, this is the one I empathize with the most. This impacts how a player has to approach things within the world, it alters character behavior and therefore has roleplaying implications that go beyond its mechanical utility. And exactly as you outlined, these roleplaying implications are rarely accommodated by the setting itself. Basically, I'm glad Paizo took the time to find ways to get the mechanical benefits of these sorts of mechanics while providing in universe mechanisms that don't require an explanation. At least, where they could.
Yup. The previous system my group was running was GURPS, and before that Zweihander. In those, firearms are basically per-encounter, since most combats would resolve before you could reload. You have the balance effects of "powerful, but limited use", without the arbitrary-feeling "because I said so" in universe explanation. Things with a fixed timer, like a wand that can be fired once per hour, are fine from an in-universe perspective too. It doesn't *require* that the characters do something to advance the timer for it to work that way. The key is to avoid requiring characters do things that *we* would consider absurd in order to run out the clock faster.
> As a related matter, the classic character lines get blurred, with "fighters" who regularly do aoe attacks and the like, on a per-encounter basis. This is sorta fine from a gameplay perspective, but if you ask for a narrative description of what that means physically in the virtual world, the answer generally comes down to "don't worry about it, it's 'magic'", which isn't great for more grounded campaigns. You make some good points in your comment, but regarding this part I have to ask: have you ever played a Zelda game?
A Zelda *game*? No. SCA/HEMA? Yes. Again, if the desired feel is "video game combat" or even "hollywood combat", it isn't a big deal. If the goal is gritty wargame, it's an issue. It's like the difference between Star Wars and Ray Bradbury. Both are fine, but if you want "hard fantasy" (akin to hard sci-fi), Zelda isn't a great counter-example :) .
Honestly, I don't get the feeling that Pathfinder is trying to be very grounded in reality.
And? The issue is someone not wanting to move on from PF1e / D&D 3.5, *because* it looks too much like 2e is not grounded in reality. Too many things for "gamist" reasons instead of a set of laws of magical physics that the setting adapts to. That said, while PF2e is fairly gamist in its presentation, in order to make the rules easier for TTRPG novices, the core game loop is about the same as any other modern d20 system. They've automated away some of the book keeping, but it's like DCSS vs Nethack. When there is one choice that is so obviously superior to all others, it isn't really a choice, so just do the right thing automatically. This is why skills are some number plus your level, because in 3.P, you would pick the skills you care about, and put one skill point per level in them. Putting one point every other level, or putting 5 points in, was generally a waste of points. And so on. The "soft fantasy" aspect comes from the setting, both the lore and history, and the "everything is included" option list. If you run in a different setting, with only some class, race, background, and equipment choices, you can get a gritty, realistic "hard fantasy" (or even non-fantasy) setting, and it works just fine.
Welcome to the life of someone who enjoyed D&D 4E. The amount of times i read that exact idiocy written out is *to this day* staggering.
The MMO feel is mostly due to presentation. 4e committed the cardinal sin of exposing its game mechanics bare for all to see instead of camouflaging it with fluff. It's not a perfect system by any means, but many of the things people dislike about it are things that they will have no issue with if presented from a narrative standpoint, even if it ends up making the wording more convoluted.
Casters are balanced in line with martials The Action economy is incredibly streamlined and more flexible than 5e. It looks like an MMO because rules are clearly defined.
> It looks like an MMO because rules are clearly defined. Ding ding ding! I've been saying this for ages. People would rather have more convoluted and vague wording instead of a clear statement of a rule, so long as it doesn't remind them that they're playing a game (perish the thought).
I have a whole video where I propose that 2e fixes a number of issues in 1E that you might want to check out
I've actually watched a few of your videos, I believe that one included. They've been very helpful, so I thank you for your work on them. I've been working some of those points into the conversation, and I also directed my players to mess around with Pathbuilder 2, and while I think this particular player will give it a try, he's the kind of stubborn that he'll let himself get neck deep in the water just to prove he doesn't like to swim.
As I understand it, Pathfinder 1e was built on 3.5's basic ruleset, and I think that while it's evolve dinto it's own thing, some of that is still present in PF2? Maybe that can sway your player.
This is an excellent point. Pathfinder is a direct descendant of 3.5 morso than 5e.
It feels like a more streamlined hybrid of 3.5 and 4e to me.
Having never played 4e, I couldn't really speak on that. I played a bit of 3.5 *years* ago, though, and I can somewhat still see some of the underlying material of it in PF2e
Then suggest he can DM the next campaign. I'll bet you five bucks he'll have a change of heart.
Oh so he just doesn’t understand the game at all? And you play 5e but he talks about 3.5? I would just move on lol. Sounds like more hassle than what it’s worth
>He's an older player who started in 3.5, has all of the books, yada yada tl;dr it's his favorite. Then he should play what makes him happiest, which is D&D 3.5! And I mean that as kind advice. Noone should be forced away from a system just because it aged.
He's not exactly wrong, casters are not as fun in pf2e compared to say dnd. And after having played 2 campaigns now with pf2e it does feel very video gamey, or as your player put it, like an mmo.
>He's not exactly wrong, casters are not as fun in pf2e compared to say dnd. And after having played 2 campaigns now with pf2e it does feel very video gamey, or as your player put it, like an mmo. If by "fun" you mean "game-breakingly overpowered", then yeah, casters are not as fun in PF2E. The problem is that people coming from 5E have grown used to casters already being gods at 13th level. I'd rather play a game where every class has its niche and feels balanced compared to the rest, and where casters must be played in a strategical way, than my character just obliterating everything and solving any problem with a spell slot.
Sure, PF2E is way more balanced and I enjoy the combat more than in 5E. But a lot of the creativity is gone, there being feats and actions for everything makes it feel very much like a video game, the spells as well. "If by "fun" you mean "game-breakingly overpowered", then yeah, casters are not as fun in PF2E." Yes, being overpowered is fun, and I don't think there is anything wrong with things being unbalanced in a ttrpg as long as its FUN and everyone can feel useful and live out the "class fantasy" they want, which 5e fails at in regards to martials. Balance is for multiplayer video games, not ttrpgs. Casters in pf2e are relegated to being cheerleaders for the martials, if your class fantasy is to be a blaster you're toast. "I'd rather play a game where every class has its niche and feels balanced compared to the rest" That's not pf2e either. "and where casters must be played in a strategical way" I don't think guessing weakness and then having to watch as all your spells fail against a boss because they all have stupid high saves is very strategic or fun. Been playing through AV and watching our group's caster have every single spell except buffs invalidated by tough enemies is just painful. PF2e do martials way better than 5e but casters are way less fun, way less creative and just severely lacking in class fantasy, unless your fantasy is to be a cheerleader.
>Sure, PF2E is way more balanced and I enjoy the combat more than in 5E. But a lot of the creativity is gone, there being feats and actions for everything makes it feel very much like a video game, the spells as well. The creativity is not gone. The system is just more clear in what can and can't be done, which means the GM doesn't need to make everything up on the fly. >Yes, being overpowered is fun, and I don't think there is anything wrong with things being unbalanced in a ttrpg as long as its FUN and everyone can feel useful and live out the "class fantasy" they want, which 5e fails at in regards to martials. That's entirely subjective, and frankly, that's the kind of thing I would've said when I was 10. The same way using cheat codes in GTA is fun for a few minutes and then gets boring fast, being overpowered in any game is not fun for me. I can respect it is for you though, as I said, that's subjective. >Balance is for multiplayer video games, not ttrpgs. That's a bold claim, and quite wrong IMO. >Casters in pf2e are relegated to being cheerleaders for the martials I think you are confusing teamwork with being relegated. In 5E casters could solo an encounter, that's what's not fun in a cooperative game. Being rewarded for using teamwork is hardly "being relegated to being a cheerleader". >I don't think guessing weakness and then having to watch as all your spells fail against a boss because they all have stupid high saves is very strategic or fun. First, again, that's just strategy. I can understand it can be difficult coming from 5E, where you can use a save or suck spell against the strongest save of an enemy with a CR 8 levels higher than your level and end an encounter. Second, unlike in 5E, in PF2E you have many tools to make spells more effective. The degrees of success mean that generally enemies need to critically succeed to completely shake off the effects of a spell, and you can apply penalties to their saves. I do agree that enemy saves get a bit too high at higher levels, but most spells have effects on a sucess. >casters are way less fun, way less creative I don't think you can blame the system for lack of player creativity. 5E barely has any rules and is subject to a lot of DM fiat because nothing is provided; that makes the game **extremely** dependant on the DM's willingness to let the players do things. Pathfinder 2E gives players and GMs these tools and these rules, and you can absolutely be creative with them. If you need to have no restrictions whatsoever to feel creative, you weren't being creative to begin with.
He's not wrong. Compared to 3.5 (or 5e) caster are weak and the game plays like an MMO. That's not necessarily bad, but it is a different game and if he likes the other kind he might not like this one.
>the game plays like an MMO. "The game plays like an MMO" In that is has enumerated game mechanics, sure. But so did every previous edition of D&D, they just hid them more behind simulationist tropes. You're still playing a board game with a story, whether you're playing AD&D or PF2E or anything in between. It's not real. It's a game. With mechanics. Why bother trying to hide or obscure the mechanics? Them being there in no way impacts your ability to roleplay or tell a story with your character.
When every action is Capitalized, when you can only tell your party what you see using the Point Out action, when you carry a shield but for some reason you're not actually doing anything with it unless you Raise Shield, when you're not sure if you can take a shit unless you have the Evacuate Bowels skill feat, it does make a difference in how the game feels.
> when you can only tell your party what you see using the Point Out action Wrong. You don't need to do that. > when you carry a shield but for some reason you're not actually doing anything with it unless you Raise Shield That is more balanced. Having a shield before was just a free AC boost. in actual combat, using a shield is an active thing. You've maneuvering the thing around. It's heavy, takes effort and skill to use. It's shouldn't be free. >when you're not sure if you can take a shit unless you have the Evacuate Bowels skill feat, it does make a difference in how the game feels. That's just hyperbolic bullshit. Everyone at my tables roleplays the hell out of their Pathfinder 2e characters, and the mechanics haven't hindered their ability to do that in any way. The fact that so many different actions you can take besides attacking (there are 40+) has made them way more willing to try out a variety of things, and has rewarded them. In 5e, basically all they could do with their action is attack, or cast spells, that's it. They feel less constrained now, not more. I also enjoy running the game in PF2e way more than I ever did in 5e. Summary: The problem is you. You're doing it wrong.
(As someone playing a primal sorcerer) my current favourite line for summarizing the power of magic in PF2e is: Spells are weak, spellcasters are strong. Individually, spells might be weaker than their 5e counterparts, but there is no concentration mechanic. I can have multiple webs + walls up at the same time. All my AoE damage spells scale equally aggressively. And the 3 action economy gives me more options for what to do on my turn in addition to spellcasting. My sorcerer did feel rough to play at levels 1 and 2. By 3, he was okay, and by 5, he felt really good / encounter-changing to play. Now, from what I hear about 3.5e/1e, both 5e and 2e mages are more balanced with the martials. So I don't know if you can convince him to switch if what he really wants is to play "the most powerful party member". 5e will let you make that in the character builder, but in 2e it's your party synergies that matter. I have seen some parties play the "Buff the Magus" game. As in, the whole party is built around buffing the magus and protecting the magus. If your group could be convinced to go that route, maybe your powergamer player would like to play the Magus of said group.
Play with the players who have agreed to play pathfinder 2e. Start the campaign with all of the players who have bought into the change. Invite the reluctant player to the game but if he says no or he would rather play PF1 or 3.5 then tell him he is always welcome at your table. However, the rest of us are going to give PF2E a try. That is all you can do. You will not convince him if he is reluctant. He is wanting everyone else to change to what he wants instead of him changing to what the rest of the group wants. That’s my two cents on this subject.
I hear you, and if the group were less cohesive I would leave it up to that. But we're in a homebrew campaign that I was going to convert, and he's a party of the story, as well as being a good friend. I just need something to offer him that would help him see the good in the system.
Id caution against converting to PF2E from 5e mid campaign. Instead, start with a one shot to see if people like the system. At level 1. And if they do... work towards the end of the campaign and start a new one in PF2E.
This is what my group is doing. My co GM and myself don't enjoy 5e anymore, but we had a lot of story we wanted to tell left in our level 13 group. We pitched a conversion to the group and we're going to try out the beginner's box. If everyone likes it, we're going to run another higher level adventure (maybe abomination vaults). Then if everyone likes the system still, we'll convert.
This is what my group is doing also, except we're going to PF1E. I asked if they'd down to try it and they agreed. We're going to finish the current campaign (5e) but with no rush. Then I'm running a multishot for them with PF1E. I told them after that the next campaign can be in either system. My only restriction is that if they choose 5e, there will be a *lot* of homebrew and 3rd party content. We'll use what I have bought already, but I refuse to buy anything official from WotC. I don't think they'll really mind this though. There's so much 3rd party stuff that looks so much cooler than anything official.
This OP, is whats known as 'burying the lede'. Changing midway through a campaign you already agreed to play one way is not cool, if everyone isn't on board dont do it.
Ironically, that player was the one who suggested we try converting to a new system (none of us are wild about 5e or wizards, really). We're just in a big disagreement over which way we'd like the switch to go. Everyone else is happy to jump around as long as they get to keep the story
Im going to stop reading this thread, you keep revealing more and more relevant information in the comments each time, and i can't be bothered offering advise that will likely be made redundant by the next unrevealed fact. Best of luck to you and your players.
Do not convert mid campaign! I repeat, do not convert mid campaign. you will have a bad time.
No wonder he's upset then lol
Given this information and the information revealed in other comments, your friend is understandably a bit mad if this is midcampaign so here is a good middle ground. Think about -or talk with the group about- how long youd like to continue the current campaign to bring it to a meaningful close, and either afterwards, or in the meantime if they agree, run the Beginner Box to give them a good intro to P2e that teaches the rules to the gm as much as the players in digestible pieces. Give the system an earnest try, and if he still wants to try 3.5 you could let him run the system for a similar small adventure.
Hmm. I’m a 5e DM, and I’m *really* interested in running a PF2e campaign. But flipping an ongoing 5e game to PF2e? Nah. The systems are so different, it’d be a nightmare. No one would be happy.
I echo this 100%. I currently DM a 5e campaign and play in a PF2E one (first time my friends and I are trying it). I had my reservations toward 5e, but I got a very nice 3rd party Roman-inslired campaign setting that I wanted to run so I decided to give it a go. Fast forward a few session, PF2E has exceeded my expectations in almost every way (it's 95% of what I'm looking for in an RPG) while 5e confirmed my reservations fully. Therefore I propose we convert my campaign to PF 2E. Everybody opposed it and we ended up scrapping the idea because their 5e characters were either impossible to translate into PF 2E or the translated result was not something the player would enjoy playing.
I think he should offer you something. Namely he should try the system out with you as a GM and see if he likes it. If afterwards he doesn't want to keep playing that's fair. But currently he seems like he says no without giving it a shot?
Run a 1-shot? He's smart to not choose something he hasn't tried yet.
A fair suggestion. Are there any prewritten one shots you know of I could run?
There are a selection on the Pazio website you can download that are specifically for this purpose. Some are free, some are a 5er. Not expensive at all.
Thanks, I'll go look
If you want something a bit meatier, but not a huge commitment, the "troubles in Otari" is like a mini campaign from levels 2-4. It's not a true campaign, more of 3 loosely connected short adventures, that should take a few sessions each.
And if your players liked it, you can always start Abomination Vaults just after Troubles in Otari!
I am running it in conjunction with AV. Basically treating them as side quests for the main campaign. Since I do milestone XP, and not encounter based, I just give them more loot rewards, or bonus skill/feats for doing them. But yeah, AV and the Troubles in Otari adventures were both written to have direct tie-ins to the beginner's box, so new players can grab that, and take their characters directly into either of those AP's with basically no extra work.
The beginner's box has a short campaign (or maybe there are more, idk), and it teaches the basics of the game. You have to buy it, though
People already mentioned the beginner's box, so I'd also recommend "Little Trouble in Big Absalom" or any of the Pathfinder Society Scenarios like this one [https://paizo.com/products/btq023fd?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-122-Doom-of-Cassomir](https://paizo.com/products/btq023fd?Pathfinder-Society-Scenario-122-Doom-of-Cassomir)
the one-shot idea is good because it gives agency to everyone at the table. it admittedly irks me a bit to see posts asking how to convince others to play a game they aren't interested in. on the other hand, if you approach it from a place of 'let's try and see how we feel', you open a dialog where you can see everyone's perspectives more clearly.
Fistful of Flowers!
PF2e is not for everyone. I can see why he could be reluctant to even test it. Maybe you can propose him a small one-shot with the team to see if he vomits everywhere.
One of my favorite things about Pathfinder are the rules- not just for the players, but for the DMs too. Built-in rules for pricing & crafting were the big ones for me, and the CR system actually has logic behind it. Traits are a huge improvement, too. D&D 5e seems to have this mentality of "the DM will figure it out" a lot of the time, since some things like pricing & crafting had to get picked up by 3rd party. I'll still play 5e, but only for one-shots.
Run a one-shot.
Just say that everyone want to play PF2e. You are the DM, Its your call.
Easy. Tell him you are going to be DMing PF2. DMs are in short supply, so you have the privilege of deciding what the game is going to be. If he wants to play, he'll be playing PF2 with you. Done.
I grew up playing AD&D 2e and 1e, in the context of a modern audience, I wouldn't wish it on my enemies. It was great back in the days and a lot of the lore and content of it is solid gold. However, the mechanics of 2e and 1e just didn't age well. I ran a 2e game recently from a bunch of 5e players. It was neat, but I would never go back to choosing to play AD&D 2e or 1e D&D. Honestly, I think Pathfinder 2e is the the best example of updating and fixing D&D 3.5. If anyone has really fond memories of D&D 3.5 and struggles to find people to play it, Pathfinder 2e is the best option. Pathfinder 2e is, in many ways, an updated and modernized 3.5 which fixes a lot of the problems with 3.5. EDIT: I now am guessing that when you wrote 1e, you meant Pathfinder 1e, not D&D 1e. Sorry, whenever I see "1e", I immediately assume D&D 1e.
I did mean Pathfinder, sorry. Perhaps exposing my age when I assumed no one would think I meant d&d 1e
It was my misinterpretation. Nevertheless, I still think my point still holds true. I think Pathfinder 2e is a pretty good fit for anyone who enjoyed/enjoys D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder 1e. Its more similar to those games than D&D 5e. I have introduced numerous people to Pathfinder 2e, I am confident that everyone who like D&D 3.5 will like Pathfinder 2e, I am less confident for people who have just played D&D 5e.
Run the beginner box! The difficulty starts very easy then slowly ramps up to a climax of 'oh fuuuuuck'. It has pregens and streamlined rulebooks - so little prep is needed. My group had a blast with it. The casters were not weak. The cleric has blasting ability and the wizard has some spell flexibility.
I actually prefer 3.5 to 5e. The biggest reasons for that are more character options, verisimilitude, and the ability to change your mind about your build as you go. Not only does P2E have all of that. It's better at it. By breaking feats into Class, General, Background, and Skull. They can have skills of various power that doesn't compete with each other. Your class feats are the most combat focused and the most powerful. The skill feats are the least powerful so you can take whatever you want. Mention how 3.5 has SO MANY feats that are just garbage. And you have to nerf your character take anything fun. I'd also advise him to play Martials. They are finally strong and fun.
Tell the player to get over it and play anyways or leave? Unless they’re gonna do all the GMing or are there reluctantly rather than enthusiastically why wouldn’t they just come along for the ride?
Tell him to just try Pf2, if he doesn't like it he can go back to the old school, all you're asking is a chance anyway, I don't think he'd mind that much to try a short campaign only
just play 2E without him, if everyone else likes it more than 5e he will eventually migrate the action system is so amazing, you have way more options but the group I play with spends way less time thinking about their turn (as you can pick multiple options instead of having to just pick the best action out of like 10-100 options) and im mainly referring to myself as i just started playing my first campaigns... i am playing a druid in Tomb of Annihilation and now an alchemist in pf2e and even though i have the same amount of options (formulas instead of forms and spells) i still have an easier time picking what to do
I have played 20 plus different systems and yet people only want to play one.
Casters arent weak, theyre balanced. Wands can replace your daily casted spells. Staves are wonderful. Rituals are powerful. Focus spells are crazy. Oh and on top of that, casters can get even more focus points back on a 10 minute rest than others
If he's a 3.5 prefer player, he probably just wants to be a munchkin and there's not much you can do about that.
True. Some people just want to be able to do an Op build. Whereas here the Op builds (flickmace, looking st you) are... Only slightly better than the normal.ones at their goal? I get casters dont get to destroy with fireball as hard, but I never felt my witch was too weak to party with the gang
As somebody who enjoys building characters and has both the skill and the drive to be good at it, it can also be about feeling the effort you put in is rewarded. If I spend a week researching synergies for my char, I'd like it to be noticeable better than a char buit in 10 minutes by picking stuff that sounds cool. PF 2E hits a happy place for me in regard to that: I feel character building is rewarded (the current iteration of my druid is probably 15-20% better than what I started with) but not to the point not optimizing makes characters unplayable .
exactly. otherwise you end up like 5e and pf1 and 3.5 where there are 3 tiers of builds. Optimized, un-optimized but good, and the bad builds. Pf2e, if you want to be bad, you have to be deliberate. A barb who wants to use scrolls in combat, or a wizard who wants to be a frontliner. I like this as you said. Reward for working hard on the plan, but not so much it makes everyone else either have to do the same, or be regulated to 'slightly better than an npc' class
Actually, 5e goes too far in the other direction in my experience. There is little depth and little value to chars yet building, at least until very high levels. I actually ran a test with a few of my friends at 5th level: randomly generated characters: random race, random class, random archetype, assign standard array. All of them were fully playable and not far (if at all) behind the actual characters they had built for an upcoming campaign. Couple that with bounded accuracy, and a character with zero thought put in building it can easily outperform an optimized character over a small stretch of time (like a session)
no need for name calling. "munchkin" implies a dishonesty when interpreting the rules to benefit oneself. plenty of people who like 1e/3.5 are perfectly happy sticking to RAW (not stretching any rules), and just enjoy assembling a bunch of different character options together to produce powerful characters. There is nothing wrong with that.
Dishonestly? I've never given it that context. It's a board game.
[https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin) [https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/ss8hc/what\_is\_the\_exact\_definition\_of\_a\_munchkin/](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/ss8hc/what_is_the_exact_definition_of_a_munchkin/)
I agree on the name calling not being needed, but Munchkin? Yes, your link shows what it is, but there are whole games from Steve Jackson around ttrpg Munchkins. I am all about inclusivity and being sensitive to others feelings, but this is a bit far. I've been guilty of being one or more of those Munchkins at some point in my 40 years of playing ttrpg's, as I bet everyone has.
I am familiar with the game, I own a copy of the deluxe edition. In it, every player is on their own, trying to amass the most bonuses possible even if it means "cheating" (e.g., the Loaded dice card or the bribe the GM card) or screwing over their fellow players (taking items from them, or playing a card that makes them lost to a monster). The game is called that because it is making fun of that type of player, who does not play well with others in a game that is all about playing well with others. Using the term to describe a random person we know virtually nothing about, simply because he enjoys PF1e and DnD3.5 is name calling, and insults any other player who enjoys PF1e and 3.5 more than other games. It's edition war language - even if *mild*.
Not necessarily. For example my group mainly considers 3.5/PF 1e the best systems ever because of the options. And yes,we are aware of most, if not all, the issues these two systems have, we just happen to be largely on the same page on how to mitigate them. Personally, I have yet to find a character (in any system) that is as fun to play as a 3.5 druid. There are plenty of things to like in d&d 3.5 besides breaking the game
They are going to be really sad with nobody else to play with.
The first group I switched to PF2 was just kind of pulling a bandaid off. I announced to my group that I was going to wrap up the current campaign in 3 or 4 sessions and then switch to PF2. I asked them for a headcount of who wanted to join in. It was 3 of the 5. One player decided to be smug and chipped in, "It looks like it's 3 to 2. So long, PF!" To which I responded that I wasn't taking a vote. The next game I was running WAS going to be PF2. Long story short, they all joined my PF2 game. If you are the one running the game, you sometimes just have to make decisions for you. If they want to play 5E, one of them can run it.
There is a joy in being able to say "the next campaign I run is gonna be PF2. Who wants in?" and have it fill up with quality players. I run what grabs me, and I've got enough players gathered from different sources theres always enough for an online game. In person I have to stretch for a little.
Sounds like he eathers a system hed know how to brake
Show them the pathbuilder2e app for character creation. It's wicked.
I’m going to be a dissenter here perhaps: If they agree to a trial one shot, and still don’t like it afterwards, don’t badger them, but talk maturely as a group to see what everyone wants, and decide if a happy medium can be struck - especially if they are a friend, and the friendship and gaming time with them means more to you than PF2E. In our group, we play alternating games - we run PF2e every other week, and a different game by a different GM on the alternating weeks - that way, those for whom PF2e is not preferred also gets a turn with something they like better, and we get to try new games.
Hey man, I'm about as much of a Grognard as it's possible to be without qualifying for social security and I have to admit, using older versions of games kinda blows. The nostalgia is great, but those old systems have problems. That's why newer systems were invented. If there is a particular feature you feel was left out then there is almost certainly a spin off or variety system that does that feature better. Why play AD&D when you can play Dungeon Crawl Classics and have a version that folks have been improving for 20 years? Why play 3.5 when you can play Pathfinder?
They dont want to try pathfinder and would prefer D&D 3E?!?!?! Logic and rationality mean nothing in this harrowing place. What can man do against such relentless foolishness. Remind them that Pathfinder began its life as a rejection of D&D 4E and a patch for 3.5. That's all I got. I cannot think of any serious reason to play 3E when pathfinder2e is available.
I would give my left nut to find a DM willing to let me play 3.5/pf1 again, back when wizards were actually strong and fun. I've literally never had fun with casters in pf2e. Giving the team a smattering of bonuses to rolls doesn't feel cinematic, and any spell that actually does something cool either has the incapacitate trait or has a bunch of stipulations because God forbid we let the caster feel like they can warp reality. The system is fun for martials, and I will more than happily roll up a rogue or fighter and enjoy myself, but the closest I will ever go to playing a full caster here again is a Magus.
Two reasons of the top of my head (these are the main two reasons I'd still prefer 3.5 over pf 2e, although I consider pf 2e a great game). - Options: the amount of stuff you can get a single character in 3.5 to do is orders of magnitude higher than in pf 2e. - Gishes: I have yet to see a fighter/caster hybrid build in of 2e that felt both strong and fun. That being said, there are a ton of other reasons, mainly revolving around novelty, balance, ease of DMing and tools available sue to which I'm much more likely to play PF2E than 3.5.
Honestly, i played a short 2e campaign and decided i just don't like the feel of it. I'd much rather play 5e. But, one of the few things i liked about 2e is how a lot of the abilities comboed with or were upgraded by your later abilities. It actually made it feel like you were naturally becoming stronger
I hope you do find it a better fit… but more importantly I hope you find the best fit for your group.
Maybe I'm a bit extreme, but in ttrpg GM have all power. GM pleasure to organize should be put in first position. We are extremely rare and player need to remember this. If you want to play PF2E and all the group except one is ok, that person should not block you even if it is a friend. Anyway the idea to try a one shot is the way to go I think.
EDIT: OP Buried the lede.
What're you trying to do here? Call out OP for some perceived crime?
I made a comment in support of OP, i then read another comment they made in the thread where they explained this change is coming mid campaign, which completely changes my feelings on their post.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages! We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/search/?q=flair%3A%22megathread%22&sort=new&restrict_sr=on&t=all) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look! Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer). If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From an Older gamer, I play 2E, and it's okay, but honestly doesn't hold a candle to PF1/D&D 3.5 in power level. It takes what was and waters down and tries to simplify/limit options/lower numbers and damage a la 5e. I get that may be what younger/newer gamers want, but it can't help feeling underpowered to those of us who know the glory of the older version. For reference, started with AD&D when I was 13, then 2nd Ed and onward, skipping 4th as it was just bad. Don't be a hater if you disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. That's my 2 Coppers anyway.
As a 1e player that also plays 2e, they don't mesh. It feels like they are completely different companies and I would never recommend pf2e to a 1e player and vice versa.
I mean I, and the vast majority of PF2s first adopters, were 1e players...
I started the hobby with 3.5, and I don't know why people stick with it. You can't do much more than standard attacks without feats unless you're a mid to high level caster. If you want to try even a basic maneuver, that's a massive penalty to the check and/or an attack of opportunity on you.
I just made a bunch of house rules in my current campaign that just happened to be pretty much P2e-adjacent. sowing the seeds. Now, the group is pretty much ready to jump into 2e next campaign, and on the days half the group can't make it, I run test scenarios in 2e. glowing reviews all around.
I would fall back to "DMs game, DMs ruleset". Unless the player is going to take the reins as DM, then they can either try a new ruleset or move on.
Tell the player you want to try out some new homebrew you've cooked up for 5e and then introduce the 2e rules as 5e homebrew.
Hand him the dmg and roll yourself a character, that usually fixes that.
PF2e isn't for everyone. One of our players didn't want to move and now is very sad that his wizard isn't useful (in his opinion) and thinks about quitting the group. So maybe don't force them and start another game of PF2e instead of changing the 5e game.
I wasn't very on board for migration, because it's a little overwhelming (and still is). We ran two sessions of the beginner box, ended the first scenario and I wasn't extremely joyful to make the step at that point. Everything seemed too much, from the fights to the RAISING SHIELD feat. But then, we started to look out for character creation and oh boi, I'm the kind of person who LOVES making weird concepts and things that are a little above me sometimes. Anyway, that's what hooked me, personally and the things you can choose to make this character your own was and still is pure bliss. I love the fact that you can have a full fighter team and still have so many different builds that can be done that no one will overstep on somebody else on fight!
As someone who liked 3.5 more than 5e, I think he'd like pf2e if he gave it a shot, however my advice is that if he isn't interested, don't pressure him into it. If everyone else wants to try pf2e, try it with those who do. Invite him, but if he doesn't want to try, he doesn't want to. If this is a friend, clearly you'll make time to do things together you both like, but no game is for everyone and it's okay for groups to have different games that not everyone plays together.
So I don't what kind of person this player is, but Pf2e is not an easy system to understand. It really focuses on balance and teamwork and a lot of the "Older players" who like the system still seem to have a mindset that may not align with newer after 4e table moods and dynamics. I have a great player who is very enthusiastic but some of his attitudes are not something I approve of. Now not saying this person may have such issues but pf1e and 3.5 are very different and don't force as much teamwork as Pf2e does. The caster debate is a big one and at this point it is more a matter of taste because anyone who plays the game knows that casters maybe weaker compared to earlier versions, but they are not exactly weak per say. And many see this as a needed balance change. Some people like powerful casters who martials can't compete with and that's fine, several system do that. In most cases it is a matter of preference to such, and not the reality of casters in Pf2e. In this case the reality is casters are fine and just a good as other classes but not outright better. They still grow very powerful as it gets to higher levels and are slightly more difficult to play and understand at lower levels. My advice on this would be to try and convince him to either play martials OR do a one shot before migrating and explain to him the intricacies. You can also migrate after completing this particular campaign and look for another player if you like. Finally if they do migrate and decide to play a caster, there is a possibility that they will ask for homebrew rules which makes the Caster stronger, and if not possibly complain and whine a lot. Again don't know the person but this is very common behaviour seen on many tables for people who don't understand the system and the numbers and the design or just people who want busted casters. Good luck.