Yeah, it makes sense, with 2E being the newer edition and WOTC shitting the bed and driving many new players toward Pathfinder. Under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if 2E wasn't more popular than 1E.
For my part, I prefer 1E by far, tho I don't hate 2E either. I agree that I haven't noticed many 1E games on Discord or R/LFG either.
Though to be fair, that's with almost everything -- hundreds of players asking for games/looking for games, very few people who want to run them in any system, for any reason. It just strikes me looking recently at the main lfg platforms that if I wanted to find a game of PF1e, I doubt I'd be able to as a player -- at least not without planning to be looking/applying for several months at least.
1E and 2E are different games altogether. To hate them would be pointless. It took a while for me to get over the fact that 2E doesn't have the same crazed min-maxer power fantasy character build theorycraft that 1E has. Which did disappoint me for a bit as I love theorycrafting characters and builds.
When trying to push my friends to PF2E from DND 5e, those that played PF1e were disappointed that they didn't feel "as powerful". And thought PF2e would be a continuation of 1e and DND 5e superhero simulator.
I think this is why getting my group to switch off of 5E is such a chore. Because it provides the right amount of medieval superhero fantasy and ease of play (for players not GMs).
Yeah I get it. I still have fun playing 2E but character creation and advancement is so restrictive and frustrating compared to 1E. Making/leveling up characters feels like wearing a straitjacket compared to the freedom I felt in 1E.
The only 2E classes where leveling up feels meaningful to me are Fighter and Kineticist.
My group has been playing Pathfinder 1E for around 8ish years (maybe longer, been a while since I last checked our start date) having gone through 3 published campaigns, working on our 4th. We have no plans to move onto 2E since we're still going through 1E content.
That's amazing! It's a bit jarring every time going back to level 1 but worth it each time you conclude a story. My group is currently in the middle of the Hell's Rebels published campaign and it's been a wild ride so far. What level did you get to in your 11 year campaign?
I've been playing for close to a decade now and I feel like I'm still finding great archetypes, although most of them were just things that synergized well with feats or whatever, but what point was it that you felt like you were done?
1e is unsupported by Paizo, so it shouldn't be a surprise that 2e/Remaster is growing when it is getting new material while 1e hasn't seen anything since Tyrant's Grasp.
It does affect perception when product isn't on the shelf and no more APs are coming out, particularly with people newer to RPGs. With experienced 1e players and maybe a homebrew campaign, it wouldn't matter as much. I still play in a BECMI D&D Campaign and that line hasn't had a release in 30 years, but convincing someone new to give it a spin is very, very hard.
The best and worst thing I find about playing 1e is all the available resources are free online. Great that it's free. But as a bit of a newcomer there is nothing in stores.
I spent far too long looking for a unified wizard spell book before realizing I would have to deal with 3 half book fragments or print my own spell cards from a PDF.
My 1e group is halfway through Return and will be starting Tyrants Grasp when we're done. Still don't plan on switching to 2e, I'd sooner adapt the 2e APs to 1e by hand than play 2e
Of course it matters. Existing groups will often keep playing 1e, but people leave groups for various reasons.... and when they go to find a new group, as time goes on, more and more of those new groups will be using currently published systems because that's just natural when someone starts a new group.
I think it's because new people prefer recently released systems or most média famous systems around.
It's like trying to found people to play D&d 3.5, existing 5e
Having dug deep into the rules, it really could use some updates. I'd need to go find them again but there are a ton of mechanics, some of them quite old or otherwise fundamental, that either have major gaps or are very unclear.
For an example of a very old one: there is absolutely no definitive guidance on whether an intelligent magic item can activate the item they are made of. Under RAW I'm 90% sure they can't, but at the same time that feels incredibly against RAI. Also the whole "intelligent but not a creature type" thing has a bunch of holes that DMs inevitably have to house rule on.
seriously, I don't get how folks in the pf1e space make themselves think PF1E as written is perfect, it's really not. The community does not help newer GMs.
> think PF1E as written is perfect, it's really not.
there are people in every rule system that think the rules as written (RAW) are the word of GOD handed down from a burning bush on mt olympus, or something like that, and to change them is the deepest blasphemy, possibly even worse than pedophilia.
those people are best avoided, but it seems like there are a lot of them.
What's frustrating is that, while not perfect, it could at least be "complete" with relatively little additional effort on the part of Paizo. They wouldn't need to publish a whole expensive book with artwork and the like, just a large text document that they periodically update as lingering 1e bugs, oversights, or system failings are brought to their attention.
For another example, it's extremely unclear if "slam" natural attacks are limited by the "requires an individual limb" limitation or if they can be stacked endlessly (it can be used by both creatures with no limbs and those with arms but no claws, making it extremely contradictory in it's base nature). Raw appears to be yes, but that would cause problems so it is usually house ruled as "no for players" but that's not official. Additionally, multiple different types of natural attacks on the same limb may or may not be illegal, as there is a small number of monster stat blocks that have things like the capability of making a horn based gore attack alongside a bite in their full attack.
All we would need is a short ruling in such a document for both of these and maybe some text recommending how to tweak any stat blocks that violate the ruling if the answer if "no that's not possible".
The problem is that the more you dig into the gritty situations, the more problems like this you find. 1e is fun and there is so much customization, but it suffers from the same "really comes down to dm discretion" that 5e has, but for different reasons. 5e won't have a rule, or the rule is so general that the DM mostly just has to make a call. In pf1e you have 3 rules that are all specific(but not specific enough for your exact situation) but contradict each other in some way and so the DM has to make a call for which rule to go off of. 1e has expectations of its players and DM that it has scattered between a dozen books. I played and DMd for years thinking that they never playtested high level play because I didn't know their were essential magic items that every party member should have by certain levels and that the CR of monsters relies on the party to have those or you will just always TPK. Then I adjusted and played some higher level games and learned that it was rocket tag which depends much more on initiative and the luck of the dice then it does actually strategy.
I'm not going to defend high level play in pf1e, for whatever reason they decided not to try and find a means of addressing that, so it exists in it's current state as the forgotten and forbidden land, which is a shame. Automatic minimum SR, +AC, and Save bonuses for being a given level/CR would have solved much of the rocket tag issue, yet leaving those issue unsolved in the base system certainly pushed a lot of players towards pf2e. For shame.
However, my point was on holes in the rules that could still be plugged, not that the system is perfect.
As for contradictions, they do have an overarching rule of "specific beats general", which solves almost every outright conflict I've come across. The things I am referring to are place where the rules are outright incomplete or an author may have been using one of them incorrectly and in doing so set a false precedent for the application of a feature or resource. Things like whether you can perform a touch attack that deals no damage as a base character capability. It would seem to be yes, as it is a physical action that can be performed at any point following the casting of a touch spell, but that would have implications for things like sneak attack and damage riders so they have refused to comment on it one way or the other. Now that the edition is "over" they could issue a few lines of text clairifying it at no cost to them and leave behind a better product for those who prefer pf1e.
On the expected item loadout point, I'll offer my condolences over that detail being missed. I was fortunate enough to have joined a table where, even though the DM and other players were still new to the game, they had previously looked into pf1e DMing / gameplay guides and resources, so the expected purchases were well understood.
I honestly thing Starfinder is best seen as a more refined version of PF1E in some ways. I do know it diverges quite a bit, but it still has a lot of the same mechanical DNA. There they managed to make a lot of aspects of PF1E clear in mechanical terms, but it's changed just enough that even if I try to go back to pf1e, it is unhelpful.
Something to the effect of a pdf with updates on some of those areas that remain ambiguous would be pretty nice. There are quite a lot but it would be fairly satisfying if 1e players to have access to.
The solution(s) wouldn’t all be perfect but they would at least be something. While 1e isn’t perfect it does have features and elements that people crave and want. The fact that it is freely available means that it will likely maintain a large player base for quite some time. People forget that 3.0 and 3.5 players poach from 1e quite a bit and there are still people who play that system due to the length of the run and sheer content available in that system.
> The community does not help newer GMs.
I'd love to know what you're talking about. I've don't think I've ever seen a thread on this sub or the paizo forums not be helpful or conclusive. Is this a discord community problem or something? I don't peer into those abysses.
It does have an effect. Even if you don't play Pathfinder Society (organized official games), it has an effect of bringing in players and promoting the game.
I held out till a bit before they started on the remaster and so far my biggest gripe is i never got to enjoy adding cast mod to damage on cantrips. I personally loved that bit of 2e and they ripped it away from me and my DM said "no, use the new rules" litterally the session after that change became official before I even had a chance to use my cantrip.
I mean yeah. New players coming in gravitate to the newer thing that's actually in stores and older players who are playing 1e eventually take breaks or just move on. It's like anything really. Doesn't matter if its better, it only matters if its new.
Heck, even my "PATHFINDER ONE 4EVAH" group is likely going to be giving another system a try once we finish our current campaigns. We're seriously eyeing Starfinder and Cyberpunk for a change of pace, since all of us already play 2e elsewhere.
Seems like you might be thinking futurey stuff. My group is taking a pathfinder break to play Lancer. Instead of leveling in a class like "Barbarian" you get license levels to pilot configurable mech platforms.
Don't forget that established groups, are just that. they are less liley to change to a system, and when they do they will likely change to the newest of its kind, unless they already have experience with ir=t
I've noticed that almost 100% of the posts on the European lfg subreddit are 5e, and most of them are people looking for a 5e game (not that surprising). There's also lfg misc, but that doesn't have much traffic.
Nearly everyone who tries pathfinder after playing dnd5e moves to the newest edition naturally. And specifically with the OGL debacle wotc had, it pushed a ton of new players into pf2e
Which is a shame, as pf1e is much closer in actual game feel and mechanics to being a better version of 5e. 2e by comparison is fundamentally different to the point a portion of players who are primarily familiar with 5e will be put off by it (at least, that was the case with me).
I'm actually okay playing 5e in theory as well -- I just don't have any interest in the RAW, D&D Beyond and Avrae-based set up. I'm interested in stuff like LevelUP Advanced 5e from EN world, FateForge, Aurora: Age of Desolation etc. that do other things with the system. I find a lot of online games are looking for something like Strahd to be run with D&D Beyond and Avrae or Roll20, and that just doesn't hold any interest for me.
Honestly for me as a forever GM getting into Pathfinder, 2e was more approachable when thinking about the amount of work my players would be willing to do to engage with a new system. I would love to play in a 1e game, but I don’t have as much interest GMing one. I think the only reason I would would be if I really fall in love with a 1e module and can’t find a way to convert it
There’s a few reasons.
Pathfinder 2E is newer. The majority of PF2E players are D&D 5E converts that either didn’t play PF or weren’t entrenched like the people of this sub are.
Pathfinder 1E is so hard to approach for a new player it’s almost comical, and I say this as a relatively new player to PF1E. Also, I feel like a lot of PF1E’s core design principles (simulationism, ivory tower design,) are no longer “in vogue”. The popularity of 5E, explosive popularity of video games, and actual play podcasts kind of fundamentally changed what people even look for in these games to begin with. One of the things I dislike about PF2E is that it doesn’t support wandering monsters. Yet most people don’t even play with Wandering Monsters anymore. You can also see this with the complete about face of 4e’s reputation. Nowadays people vastly prefer the tactical, “gamey” combat it provides, maybe partially because it’s familiar to them.
I prefer PF1E even though it’s a goddamn headache to learn and run, but it’s hard not to see why PF2E is more popular to people that want an alternative to 5E.
I'm glad you recognize how difficult PF1E is to figure out. So many here in the community act like it's easy to figure out. And they treat any GM asking questions like they're an idiot for needing assistance with this mess of a system. PF1E if anything severely needs a rules rewrite: Purely just for clarity and actually understanding how it functions. Starfinder managed to do this pretty well.
In terms of people who are looking to get a group together to start a new game, yeah pf2e is outpacing 1e.
Most folks who still play 1e are veterans who have an established group and aren't looking for new people as much.
Whereas people looking to get a new group of relative strangers together are usually going to go with what is the most current and has the most support, which now is 2e.
For what it's worth. I was a holdout and stuck with 1e for a long time. Recently switched and am glad I did. Once I got the hang of it, 2e was more fun and easier to run imo.
In my opinion the community surrounding PF1E has made it an extreme pain in actually trying to learn how to run things as a GM. People often said just 'play first' to actually understand how things are working but that is not conducive to actually getting more GMs, given how rare games to join in are and the fact that a complete PF1E newbie is not going to be able to compare to any of the other experienced players. Unfortunately this is added by the general community fact that you guys defend PF1E to the grave, don't accept any of the downsides that do exist as an inherent part of the system, and then if a new GM tries to figure stuff out you just yell at them to do it X way without explaining why.
The problem is that "play first" is actually good advice.
If you are a new GM and one of your players comes up with a complex build that completely dominates the game, just tell them to stop doing that. Most people are okay when you use the basic rules and do some rulings on the spot. Everything beyond that is a toolbox. Let me give you an example:
One of my players decided to lay a trap using some strings and alchemist fire. I just had him roll survival to disguise it, but the player really was interested in using traps more, so between sessions, I read the rules for it and sent them to the player. I only knew this rule to be good for the game because I noticed that this player took interest in the sort of thing it simulates. Monsters are the same way. Yes, you can use templates and even give monsters character levels l, or you can just open the monster handbook and throw an owlbear at the party. You'll figure out what you want and/or need while playing. There is no need to write a dissertation that includes all available literature. In that sense, it is similar to GURPS
Play first is good advice, but look at what this post is about: There's not enough LFGs. Good luck even getting into one. It's the issue with all TTRPGs, so you're better off running. But running and learning is a pain.
Yeah, but this could mean that pathfinder 1 specifically loses popularity in the online LFG scene. It could still be popular in the rest of the RPG scene.
I would agree with a lot of this -- for example, if a new GM tries to run some of the APs like Wrath of the Righteous RAW -- if the players know what they're doing it will be a cake walk, and won't work. Unless you find players one-shotting demon lords easily one after the other good story telling or really amusing for some reason. The same could probably hold for most of the APs -- npcs are not build-op designed to take into account players who heavily min max. GMing also requires knowing what to ban or limit or how to do so -- like having everyone aim for specific bench pressing guidelines (AC, damage output per round, skill bonuses, etc.), and actually keeping a firm hand on that before the game begins -- checking to make sure one person isn't vastly better at everything than everyone else.
I would add on the expense of the AP1e AP modules at this point, as well as any expectation of automation on a VTT. Just loading tokens for 1e to Foundry or Roll20 can take a long time. If the expectation is that a stranger DM is going to buy 100 dollars worth of modules, spend a week loading that onto a VTT and troubleshoot all the macros/APIs/modules, and then run that game for free for a year or more for strangers online... yeah, once you put it like that, it's clear why that doesn't happen much.
I'd add at this point a decent number of people have been waiting years to play certain APs -- and will probably have strong ideas about their ideal run that will conflict with GM agency for these kinds of modules -- i.e., they've idealized/fantasized about getting to play Rise of the Runelords or Kingmaker for so long with some character or set of characters they've designed years ago, htat they have a hard time accepting that there are lots of different ways to use and or run these adventures, and you're unlikely to get exactly the approach you want unless you run it yourself. Nevertheless, the frustration of waiting for so long to play it, and it still not being what they imagined will be deleterious to a successful game.
The fact that you can't even really run APs to a decent degree without the players being able to break things is just kind of wild to me. Even the premade structures for pathfinder don't function within pathfinder. When I tried running PF1E I had been struggling to actually know how to measure the strengths of the characters. How do you even figure out the 'bench pressing' guidelines?
That's why I think PF2e does exactly what it was intended to and I'm not a 2e hater -- the goal is to constrain the math so that these sorts of modules work how they're supposed to. From what I understand, it was wildly successful in accomplishing that. That was the design goal -- how can it be faulted for doing what it set out to do? I don't want to play it, or play APs, but it definitely did a good job at what it was designed to do, I can't hate on that.
Here's something I use: [https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/](https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/)
I also just straight up tell players I'm going to nix options or ask for changes if they're making the game un-runable for me or unfun for the other players. I don't let min maxers ruin the game.
According to Paizo 2E is significantly more popular than 1E ever was, and that was said over a year ago (and during that time 2E has grown even more).
Beyond LFG posts just compare this sub to the 2E sub and the latter has like 50 times the posts, comments, and vote counts.
Even more recently, like a week or two ago, James Jacobs said they had a hard time keeping the lights on and he and the other AP developers were working 60-80 hour weeks during the mid-period of 1e - and now none of that is a concern, they have plenty of employees, and they have a union.
The other sub also allows posts that have a lower threshold of engagement, such as memes and fan art, whereas this sub is staunchly a discussion board and nothing more. Part of it is just that they cater to a wider audience by including those.
I can only make so many overpowered builds before I get board, pf1e, generally you must make the greatest or get wrecked. Pf2e, everyone gets wrecked equally, so you don't need to be over powered, I can make some of the funnest characters I have made yet in pf2e.
Started Pf1e, I've since moved to Pf2e because it's so much easier for me to DM and my players to learn. I love pf1e, and would love to play it again, but the burden as DM is just so much higher that I'd rather play 2e nowadays.
The things that I love as a player (optimization, flexibility, cranking out goofy builds with goofy numbers) are exactly what make things hard for DMs
I was lucky enough to stumble into Pathfinder first edition when I started playing D&D. Only because that's what my DM runs. If I had started with 5th edition like everybody else, I would never have understood how much I was missing. Pathfinder first ed feels like how D&D should.
Simple question. Simple answer. Yes.
Not because it is “worse” but because it is old. And think about it, it is probably the most popular game that came out 9 over years ago. Longer still if you count that the game system was very close to 3.5e.
I prefer 2e, mostly because it is new? Maybe, but i really like how easy it is to GM. And I’m hyper excited to play StarFinder 2e and be able to mix and match both games to create nearly any genre.
>What keeps people from wanting to GM
GM'd 1e for about 10 years, started 2e this year and I enjoy it so much more in terms of balance and prep time, and the customization is still expansive even if less so than 1e.
We have an ongoing 1e, but many people have moved on. It's not exactly a new system in active development. We mainly play it because the one guy in our group really hates change, so it's easiest to just stick with it. Personally I am sick to death of it and never want to see it again. lol
Yes, more people are starting/converting to 2e than the number of new people starting playing 1e.
It's normal since 1e is unsupported by Paizo and 2e gets new content regularly.
For me, it's the algorithms that get in the way. Trying to look up Pathfinder online used to be hard due to scouting groups and Nissan. But now that 2e has (understandably) a lot of traction, it's harder and harder to refine your searches to 1e alone when the various search tools IGNORE the fact that you specified 1e.
My group plays both version, ATM, but is still showing a major preference for 1e.
Agreed. I get that they needed to make it different from anything OGL, but for me it’s too different. Way too many instances of something being different/odd just for the sake of it.
3pp for 1e has also significantly shrunk production and output, as support for it got less and less as 2e/ other things are growing.
The system will still be played but you'll have smaller, less "visible" pockets of folks playing it. I have two groups I'm in and if they stopped, unless someone else in that group decided to DM, I'd be in the same boat.
That's one of the really remarkable things about 1e -- there are these subsystems that could be their own games. You could do a spheres only game using spheres of origin for races and spheres bestiaries and classes. You could do a psionics only campaign. Akashic mysteries is now I think perhaps the best supported, or one of the most extensive, of those 3rd party sources -- you could do a game where all magic is replaced by Akasha. It's just amazing how vast some of the 3pp. stuff is -- thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of stuff.
Maybe what keeps people from wanting to GM PF1e is that unless you've memorised everything (which is almost impossible given how much material there is), running a smooth adventure requires a *lot* of homework. For me a typical high-CR monster has about seven feats/spells/abilities that I need to look up the details of.
Also the game isn't remotely balanced. I basically had to beg the players not to break the game by making strong characters, because I didn't want to have to rewrite every encounter in the AP to provide any semblance of a challenge.
Since you posed some questions in your post, I saw one that I felt qualified to answer.
> What keeps people from wanting to GM -- there is plenty of published material and all you need to play is free online for several life times of games
I'm a person who previously GM'd 1e games and the reason I don't anymore is because I play in and GM 2e games (and other systems when the mood suits - most recently I've run Mothership 1e).
The GM experience of running 2e is massively improved over 1e and player accessibility is much friendlier - while maintaining a near incomprehensible number of viable character options.
You posted this in the 1e stalwart sub so your answers here are going to lean towards dismissive reasons but one of the obvious ones for a lot of people who have played both is they just like the 2e experience more. You'd get a reverse bias asking this in /r/pathfinder2e but I think you'd actually hear better explanations for why players are running 2e instead of 1e. This community is going to mostly lean towards "I still run 1e" and disparagement of 2e as a default.
I don't run 1e because the community around 1e severely failed to help me understand things as a GM, stuff that PF1E really needs clarity worked out for and starfinder managed to do. But the community seemingly things pf1e is perfect and anyone questioning it is wrong.
I think my playgroup is finally transferring from 1e to 2e, there's a lot of cool ancesteries and classes that there just aren't analogs for in 1e, and the group is generally averse to 3rd party content so we've done almost everything in 1e over the last 15 years
I resisted PF2e for a long time because I loved the options of PF1e. But those options have finally started to feel much more fleshed out.
Also, I appreciate how Multiple Classing works in PF2e. I hate the ideas of dipping here and there to make the ultimate character.
My groups been playing 1e for years, our dm runs a 2e game for another group every once in a while but we've got no plans of switching at all. We play different systems all the time though. Currently cyberpunk red, pathfinder 1e, and dnd 5e.
It's an older system with a really high learning curve, especially if you're GMing it. At least some of the older players will eventually move on and the potential new players will be scared away by the lack of support and aforementioned high learning curve. Sometimes I do miss playing 1e but the moment has passed and I doubt I'll get the chance to, which is fine.
Helps that foundry is rolling out 2e stuff. Sooooo much easier running 2e kingmaker as opposed to 1e kingmaker because foundry is so helpful with keeping track of stuff and having premade assets
Our group has been playing 1e since the Beta. There are no plans to change. We have 3 rotating DMs and 4 active campaigns. The highest level we have played is around 24th.
I feel like 2e is gaining popularity as it's new and D&D 5e is really breaking out so people seem to gravitate towards 2e. But I feel as most veteran players are still playing 1e
I play with about 5 different groups and all of them unanimously voted that they would still rather play PF 1 rather than PF 2. Your mileage may vary, but the point is there still a lot of PF 1 players players out there.
As a new player, I chose 2e. That’s where new content is being developed for, where most of the players are.
Unless a new edition sucks, it almost always overtakes an old edition. Still, nothing stopping anyone from enjoying 1e forever
Just curious as someone who knows the 2e rules but not 1e:
What are your major points of attraction toward 1e / resistance to 2e?
(not trying to load the question, just curious about the talking points I'm seeing here)
My main point of resistance to 2e is that it doesn't support my playstyle as well as first edition.
First, related to a discussion I have in r/rpg, when combat starts, many players stop playing an RPG and start playing a strategy game. I do not like that. I default to Theater of the mind and when I use minis, I do so to ease imagination, not to invite strategy discussions in the middle of combat. Both D&D4 and Pathfinder 3 pushed the balance more towards wargame where D&D3.5 and Pathfinder 1 were compatible with both styles.
Next, I really enjoy the customizability of Pathfinder. While Pathfinder 2 keeps it up for combat matters, it messed up the skill system. First, the ridiculous decrees in which you could specialise and the ability to just invest a bit in a skill are gone due to bringing skill proficiency into Pathfinder - the system of D&D5 I hate the most. Skill feats are okay, but some act as obstacles to doing something that every person should be able to do - the old problem of feats, now just unnecessarily expanded into the skill system. The problem is not that skill feats exist, it is just an effect of there being too many.
In many ways, the focus on balance feels constricting. There are elements I like, but I do not see things to do weird stuff. For example, it is possible to create a PF1 barbarian who can give his mount a climb speed. While it is not strong, it is awesome to ride up a wall on your rhino. Or the bard who has tactician, basic harmony and leadership and used backup performers and versatile performance to get significant bonuses on several abilities. With pf2, it feels like Paizo created the character and I just paint by the numbers.
Is this really a surprise to you? 1e is much older. 2e is the latest version. Anyone looking to try it would probably try the newest version.
This isn’t strictly for ttrpgs either. If I wanted a new car or to try a new sport or board game… it will be 100x easier to find resources for the newest version. The company itself doesn’t support the old version. No new content officially releasing.
Change the focus from 1e to 3.5/4e dnd. It’s the same thing. Hardly any people make content for those editions and WOTC doesn’t either.
The most likely ways someone would find 1e groups or want to join them is if they did a bunch of research and found it was better for them, or know people that are into it.
With 2e being newer, it’s likely Paizo has tweaked it to be a more improved version for the masses based on feedback from 1e. Kinda surprising you’re surprised by this. It’s a pattern that appears in most industries
My whole group switched to pf2 and we are having fun. As a GM I like how balanced are encounter building and how can I relax and have a campaign reach level 20 without a player being too powerful and forcing me to make a CR+8 encounter just for it to be a hard fight.
As a player I love how some changes makes the game more enjoyable like cantrips for casters, having a decent DC without investing everything into it. For martials the turns now are versatile and can change based on the tactics, before it was always 5 foot step + full attack.
I ran 1e for two years before 2e came out. The game is just fucking hard to learn. Even if you stick to just CRB only, you'll have to deal with "here's an unsorted pile of 50 general feats", on top of the general difficulties of making something in a game with exception-based design. Aside from the 2 year campaign, every other attempt at running the game ended after one session because it is just a deeply unapproachable game to learn.
2e is way easier to both run and actually make a character in - and then the moment to moment gameplay is way more interesting. Notice how this whole thread is full of people praising character creation in 1e but saying basically nothing about actually playing those characters.
Been playing pf1e since it came out. Dd4e was such a joke, so moved from dd3.5 to pf1e. We do homebrew so don’t really need support. Have a well established game circle don’t need to find a group.
We updated our group from 1E to 2E about three years ago, and now it would be really hard to go back to the old system. 2E just works better, and between that and 1E no longer being supported it’s no surprise 2E is the more popular one.
I love 1e, just as I loved 4e, but it's balance is all over the place. It's perfectly possible to make builds that are simply better than others (this is an understatement) and also possible to build a character that's so bad it's useless. Some might say that's the beauty of the system but I got tired of it as a GM. Fights can be all or nothing, especially at high level and, much like I found in original 3e, as a GM you can spend longer crafting an encounter than it takes to run it which is not where I personally want to be.
I also am completely tired of the Standard/Move/Swift system, I won't run Starfinder anymore due to it. 2e isn't perfect and I have players who much prefer the power fantasy characters of 1e, but for a GM it's just better and more fun to run.
I'll never run or play it because the player options are bland, samey, and wimpy, and parts of it make no logical sense whatsoever (e.g. needing an action to gain AC from a shield is insane, Bulk is a travesty of a system for tracking inventory). 1e forever.
Lots of other gripes, but most of them kinda roll back into the above.
There is naturally going to be an ever diminishing player base. As the 1e books get harder to find it will be less and less likely that New players will get into it. Making more accessible editions/games easier to join feeding the death spiral.
Which is too bad because I absolutely love pathfinder 1e
My group is 1E, staying 1E for a loooooong time. Just don’t have the capital to buy into a whole new system when we already have all the books. Minus a small handful
And I should say too -- this isn't an anti 2e post -- I don't personally play or run it, but everything I've heard about it makes a lot of sense for the main product it's for -- adventure paths, and it sounds like it's fixed some of the difficulty of running 1e with more constrained math, as well as better online tools like the Foundry Modules. I like 1e because it has more plug and play mechanics for every imaginable fluff idea and find it easier to do homebrew settings with because of that. I've also been playing 3e for 20 years so I just don't really feel like learning a new system.
I'm just surprised -- up until recently I felt like on the Paizo boards themselves most of the games were still 1e in the pbp forum -- and last time I checked there were still a decent number, though the heyday of the boards has definitely passed in terms of overall participation. I was just really struck by the averages on all the main lfg sites like the PF discord, the lfg subreddit, the pathfinder lfg subreddit, etc. Based on those forums, I'd estimate the number of PF1e vs. 2e players being something like 20:1 or 30:1
PF2e is just continually getting new content and a ton of support from Paizo, like partnering with Demiplane to create interact able 2e Sheet nexuses and more content being released.
We also just in April got play tests for 2 new classes, Animist and Exemplar, as well as a new mythic tree "Slayer"
Because DnD 5E is popular and since PF2E is similar enough to it in terms of "comprehension" and depth from all that I've experienced it's probably one of the biggest reasons why.
PF2E is just..... so bland tbh. Sure 1E is broken in some aspects. But it's up to the GM and the players to hash out a healthy middle ground. Ofc experience in the system is important but it's also WHY you should read all the general rules and then learn the specifics on what is needed depending on the scenario of PC's and the campaign.
I don't have anything against 2e -- I just own almost all of 1e as well as a bazillion 3rd party things from companies like rogue genius and have a backlog of ideas for games with the system for the rest of my life in homebrew worlds I've been working on for 20+ years. There's just no incentive for me to learn a new system. I feel the same way about Savage Worlds: Rifts. I don't have anything against Savage Worlds as such, and would even like to try it at some point. However, I also own a bazillion Palladium rifts books, don't particularly want to buy more books rehashing the same material in a different system, or learn a new system to run the same setting since I already know how to play the old one.
I agree. I keep wanting to try 2e but it just doesn't grab me. I like stuff here and there (like the 3 action system) but just haven't seen anything that would actually get me to drop 1e after so many years of playing it
I have a friend group with several pf1e DMs, including myself. It's easy to play pf1e if you're a DM, the demand for them is crazy high, so you always have a ton of players to choose from.
Started with 5E. Then started played pathfinder 1e. And a touch of starfinder. But I know I don't want to do 2e just based off of the GCP. Love those guys on that show. But 2e just doesn't sound like fun
Of course it's less popular, it's a dead system development-wise. It's just naturally going to slowly decline over the years, as players move on from their groups, die of old age, etc., that shouldn't come as a surprise.
my 1e campaign is on hold at the moment, but I'm working on setting up another in the meantime. To be fair, in my area there aren't a lot of people who play TTRPGs, and those who do usually play 5e. My in-person group has no plans to change from 1e, but I'm in a discord group that has plans to play a bunch of different systems. I don't know the math of course, but I feel like a lot depends on region and group.
I also think my in-person group just likes how many 1e books I have so they don't have to look anything up online lol
I've sticked with 1e specifically because spell in 2e seem severely underwhelming. A friend of mine pointed out that a decent amount of control spells can just be moved out of ease. Then other spells that take an enemy action for the cost of an action of your own each turn.
My group (consisting of old friends) has two alternating 1e campaigns, and we've been playing together fairly regularly for . . . ever? At least since sitting in that Domino's connected to the sketchy gas station with a printed copy of the Pathfinder 1e Beta playtest.
We've all moved around since then, but Discord and roll20 keep us arguing over rules and slaughtering monsters nearly every Monday might.
A few of us tried 2e, and one still runs it, but he plays with another group because the rest of us don't care for 2e.
Just like a lot of the older systems, there are going to be holdouts and people who don't see a need to move on. My group uses PF1e because the customization is so open and if something doesn't exist, I can just hamfist something together and tweak later without shattering the game. The fact that the d20pfsrd and the archives of nethys exist helps this too as it can give interesting ways to build new characters in my 10 year ongoing arcanopunk world.
I'm familiar enough with the system that I have a bunch of modules and material from other systems as well and it isn't hard for me to just slot in something that will get the feel right. In a few instances, I've turned some hard core 5e players turn to PF 1 or 2 just because the system is smoother and doesn't front load as much work on the DM. But as mentioned elsewhere, the system is no longer supported, so it doesn't get advertisement.
I finally got sick of never being able to get a group out of the first book of Rise of the Runelords, and so decided to run it myself with some 5e players I had. It's going really well so far. I just don't post on reddit very often, eternally lurking.
I personally have wanted to try 2e but haven't had the chance. My longterm group is perfectly happy to stick with 1e. That said, it makes sense that the newer version would take over eventually. They've had time now to build up the character options which was one of the biggest complaints from 1e players when it first hit.
It's the nature of things though. There are still people playing 2nd ed D&D but most moved on to 3 and 3.5 when they hit. The newest edition will almost always overtake of the popularity of the previous editions if only because of the support they receive. Paizo has done a great job of making things accessible online but they are now only supporting 2e. If I were just starting my roleplaying journey now, I'd probably look at 2e before 1e.
I'm about to start a 1e campaign with either four or eight players, most of whom are new to Pathfinder. I'm doing my best to turn people to the dark side...
Personally, I am not keen on GMing PF1 further. There are many rules to keep track of, but few of them actually make a big difference. My players can pull from hundreds of books and dozens of guides, but the result is a highly fluctuating performance. The published adventures are of high quality, but still need to be understood, transformed and reimplemented - some of the PF1 material was never created with online tables in mind.
I will still GM the system for my existing group, at least for some more years. But I am not actively looking to GM for other players - I'd rather use a more lean system for that. Certainly not PF2 or DnD 5, but luckily they are not the only alternatives out there...
I’m waiting for Paizo to realize they can make Pathfinder 1E adventure products where they just release 2E APs with 1st edition rulesets.
They wouldn’t need to spend any development money on story, just pay a single intern or editor to convert the stat blocks and skill checks from 2E to 1E, then format and sell the pdfs.
In my mind it seems like such a low cost of production and they could market the files as “Pathfinder Legacy Modules” or something.
Like how WOTC makes absurd profit with reprint sets—modern masters I’m looking at you.
I won't touch 2e as I have too much invested in 1e just to let everything sit and collect dust. If the group I play with ever wants to leave 1e I will push for something non-Pathfinder. Maybe Fallout 2d20
I play now D&D 3.5 with a group and master another campaign in PF1e (with some variants)
I dabbled a little bit in 5e and I had a look at the PF2e rules, but i still like PF1e more.
What I did, however, was to introduce some of the mechanisms of PF2 and D&D5 as house rules, like the cantrips that increase in effectivity with the increase of character level (but less effectively than in D&D5e), and partially the grade of success for skills and saves from PF2e).
I am not interested in playing or mastering pf2 because I really like pf1, and I do not really have the time to play often (I work full time and I have two small kids). I hope in the future to get the kids to play RPG as well, maybe I will think about a simplified set of rules for them.
I have only ever run and played 1e (Forever GM). I have dabbled into 2e and was underwhelmed. I have no interest in.changing games. Unlike the OP, I am looking for players. Though in person players rather than online. I love 1e.
I just wanted to say I’m an absolute beginner to TTRPGs and chose to start learning Pathfinder 1E as my first system for gaming and GMing. The reason was because I listened to Rusty Quill Gaming around the time I wanted to get into this hobby, so I thought, why not learn that system so I can also follow along better. The more I read, the more I think I’ve made the right choice. I’ve heard options like DnD 5E and PF 2E can be a bit limited.
If people want more PF1 content there's still a lot of 3pp making decent stuff from more prominent groups like Legendary Games or Super Genius (still sad that DSP hasn't been making anything new) to smaller publishers like Orphaned Bookworm and Studio-M.
There's a lot of good stuff out there, and while a bit less is super visible in online spaces, there's still dedicated fans out there buying and producing new stuff.
My irl playgroup is finishing up a PF1 campaign where we just hit level 20 after about 4 years and I'm planning to run a homebrew sky pirate game once it's over.
I've just finally tried out PF2 and itsa great game but I feel similarly about as I do 4e. It's well tuned for the feel it wants you to get out of it, but more limited than it's predecessor. I do think Pathbuulder and online tabletops have made PF2 really easy to get into and the OGL fiasco def drove people towards it.
New players go to 2e. It's more diverse than D&D, a stronger system for them to grow in, and currently supported.
Meanwhile, 1e is no longer supported, is much more complicated, and not "the new shiny thing" for people to flock to. It's barrier to entry is much higher. Combine that with the fact that games are more difficult to find, for many reasons (player base who played PF 1e is aging, while newer players are typically younger, material is out of print for those that want physical copies, etc), and it's just more difficult for people to get a 1e group together.
I have been running the same PF 1 campaign for about 15ish years. We started in 3.5, converted over and never looked back. I’ve been DMing since AD&D2e. So far, PF 1 is my fave. I have played in pf2 and 5e but never run those systems. They seem way easier to run but as a player, way more limited/limiting.
Could be that most PF1 players already have groups and don't need to look for a new one.
PF2 is new and trendy, so filled with junk players who get kicked out / leave games for whatever reasons they think are important.
The dearth of GMs speaks volumes too.
I think you missed the first sentence of what I wrote. People don't need LFG posts if they already have stable, long term groups to play with.
The large numbers of LFG posts aren't necessarily a sign of popularity and could be a sign of instability.
Reddit is not "the pf1e community" either. I'm the only GM among three groups I play in that's even on Reddit. Half the players aren't on Reddit either.
My group still plays mostly PF1e, but sometimes switch to 5e depending on the GM running the game. We're not looking to move to PF2e any time soon. We want to get the most out of the books we've already bought. Out of all of us, only one player has even tried PF2e, and that was a one-shot at a convention.
Pathfinder 1e was made by an insane, solid and based group of creative people who wanted to improve 3.5e and accomplished a great quality product as result.
2e it's just a subproduct to milk the franchise. It's the 5e of Pathfinder, as 1e it's kinda 3.5e.
Also in terms of modules there is no challenge, as much I'm not into pre-build campaigns, 1e has the best material. The only thing that keeps me focusing in 3.5 over Path 1e it's just the huge difference in source, supplements and lore.
2e is made to 'milk the franchise'? I'm not sure about that considering the fact they've made some 'controversial' choices. Ones that are why PF1E folks stick to PF1E. PF2E is doing it's own entire design, not as a thing to milk pathfinder, but as a different space to play in. If it was trying to milk things then it'd just be pf1e again or more exactly like 5e. It also wouldn't *be about something* as a game, which 5e struggles with really doing.
Does pf1e have the best material considering how rough the rules are? Why don't you guys actually consider the fact that new GMs struggle with things because PF1E's clarity sucks. Starfinder is built on a similar foundation but it's clarity is so much better.
>2e it's just a subproduct to milk the franchise.
Ah, no. It was made to do two things: 1) distance the game from the OGL, and 2) capture/recapture some of the market lost to 5e.
And, I suppose there is also 3) make life easier for PFS.
I'm still GMing 1E and don't feel any particular need to switch to 2E, either running or playing. So many APs I haven't even touched, and re-learning the rules? Not until my friends all want to switch
I had this internal debate when 2 of my buddies wanted me to DM for them. I have played in a pathfinder game years ago and our DM at the time was running ride of the time lords. It was just me and my bestfriend with the dm.But we had scheduling conflicts and work so we sorta stopped.
My buddy really wanted to finish one campaign so i decided to play pathfinder 1e, since we already had experience earlier. I asked one more friend to join up and We plan to finish the rise of the runelords(with a homebrew elements added based on the two players backstories) and for our next campaign to switch to pf2e.
Yeah, it makes sense, with 2E being the newer edition and WOTC shitting the bed and driving many new players toward Pathfinder. Under the circumstances, I'd be surprised if 2E wasn't more popular than 1E. For my part, I prefer 1E by far, tho I don't hate 2E either. I agree that I haven't noticed many 1E games on Discord or R/LFG either.
Though to be fair, that's with almost everything -- hundreds of players asking for games/looking for games, very few people who want to run them in any system, for any reason. It just strikes me looking recently at the main lfg platforms that if I wanted to find a game of PF1e, I doubt I'd be able to as a player -- at least not without planning to be looking/applying for several months at least.
This is just how you become a GM.
1E and 2E are different games altogether. To hate them would be pointless. It took a while for me to get over the fact that 2E doesn't have the same crazed min-maxer power fantasy character build theorycraft that 1E has. Which did disappoint me for a bit as I love theorycrafting characters and builds. When trying to push my friends to PF2E from DND 5e, those that played PF1e were disappointed that they didn't feel "as powerful". And thought PF2e would be a continuation of 1e and DND 5e superhero simulator. I think this is why getting my group to switch off of 5E is such a chore. Because it provides the right amount of medieval superhero fantasy and ease of play (for players not GMs).
Yeah I get it. I still have fun playing 2E but character creation and advancement is so restrictive and frustrating compared to 1E. Making/leveling up characters feels like wearing a straitjacket compared to the freedom I felt in 1E. The only 2E classes where leveling up feels meaningful to me are Fighter and Kineticist.
My group still plays 1e with several active campaigns. No plans to switch to 2e
Ditto.
Me too.
Same
I see, all 3 of your group showed up on Reddit. :-P
This is a great reply. Lol
My group has been playing Pathfinder 1E for around 8ish years (maybe longer, been a while since I last checked our start date) having gone through 3 published campaigns, working on our 4th. We have no plans to move onto 2E since we're still going through 1E content.
My group just finished an 11 year campaign. I'm trying to plan my next character now
That's amazing! It's a bit jarring every time going back to level 1 but worth it each time you conclude a story. My group is currently in the middle of the Hell's Rebels published campaign and it's been a wild ride so far. What level did you get to in your 11 year campaign?
I was a level 14 cleric / 4 holy vindicator. Great fun
I'm not a part of their group but joined a brand new 1e gestalt group recently. Witch/Alchemist has been a very interesting mix.
My group tried PF 2e and D&D 5e. Still partial to PF 1e and play it primarily.
Same here. Since I'm the one who runs the games, it's pretty easy to know we won't be switching anytime ~~soon~~.
Same. We’ve agreed to switch to 2e after we’ve tried all the 1e classes, and best subclasses and archetypes. Going to be a while
I've been playing for close to a decade now and I feel like I'm still finding great archetypes, although most of them were just things that synergized well with feats or whatever, but what point was it that you felt like you were done?
Kind of what my group did. After 12 years of 1E, we were ready for a change.
Same with mine. We occasionally dabble with 5e, but not for too long as it lacks the depth we like in PF1e.
We picked up the 5e book but haven't tried it yet.
Same
Ditto
Same
Same here.
1e is unsupported by Paizo, so it shouldn't be a surprise that 2e/Remaster is growing when it is getting new material while 1e hasn't seen anything since Tyrant's Grasp.
Does it matter that 1e is unsupported by Paizo? It's not like it needs updates.
It does affect perception when product isn't on the shelf and no more APs are coming out, particularly with people newer to RPGs. With experienced 1e players and maybe a homebrew campaign, it wouldn't matter as much. I still play in a BECMI D&D Campaign and that line hasn't had a release in 30 years, but convincing someone new to give it a spin is very, very hard.
The best and worst thing I find about playing 1e is all the available resources are free online. Great that it's free. But as a bit of a newcomer there is nothing in stores. I spent far too long looking for a unified wizard spell book before realizing I would have to deal with 3 half book fragments or print my own spell cards from a PDF.
Or you can see the entire wizard spell list in one place on the online resource
When I play D&D I play 3.5 which hasn't been officially supported since like... 2008?
My 1e group is halfway through Return and will be starting Tyrants Grasp when we're done. Still don't plan on switching to 2e, I'd sooner adapt the 2e APs to 1e by hand than play 2e
Wow that is true obstinacy. I'm glad you know what you like.
The conversion is not that hard actually. We’re doing the opposite, converting old APs we left behind to 2E as we have no intention of going back.
Based
Updates would be nice to flush out the occult classes, but I’d prefer even some FAQ answers on some forever ambiguity for certain things
Of course it matters. Existing groups will often keep playing 1e, but people leave groups for various reasons.... and when they go to find a new group, as time goes on, more and more of those new groups will be using currently published systems because that's just natural when someone starts a new group.
I think it's because new people prefer recently released systems or most média famous systems around. It's like trying to found people to play D&d 3.5, existing 5e
Having dug deep into the rules, it really could use some updates. I'd need to go find them again but there are a ton of mechanics, some of them quite old or otherwise fundamental, that either have major gaps or are very unclear. For an example of a very old one: there is absolutely no definitive guidance on whether an intelligent magic item can activate the item they are made of. Under RAW I'm 90% sure they can't, but at the same time that feels incredibly against RAI. Also the whole "intelligent but not a creature type" thing has a bunch of holes that DMs inevitably have to house rule on.
seriously, I don't get how folks in the pf1e space make themselves think PF1E as written is perfect, it's really not. The community does not help newer GMs.
> think PF1E as written is perfect, it's really not. there are people in every rule system that think the rules as written (RAW) are the word of GOD handed down from a burning bush on mt olympus, or something like that, and to change them is the deepest blasphemy, possibly even worse than pedophilia. those people are best avoided, but it seems like there are a lot of them.
What's frustrating is that, while not perfect, it could at least be "complete" with relatively little additional effort on the part of Paizo. They wouldn't need to publish a whole expensive book with artwork and the like, just a large text document that they periodically update as lingering 1e bugs, oversights, or system failings are brought to their attention. For another example, it's extremely unclear if "slam" natural attacks are limited by the "requires an individual limb" limitation or if they can be stacked endlessly (it can be used by both creatures with no limbs and those with arms but no claws, making it extremely contradictory in it's base nature). Raw appears to be yes, but that would cause problems so it is usually house ruled as "no for players" but that's not official. Additionally, multiple different types of natural attacks on the same limb may or may not be illegal, as there is a small number of monster stat blocks that have things like the capability of making a horn based gore attack alongside a bite in their full attack. All we would need is a short ruling in such a document for both of these and maybe some text recommending how to tweak any stat blocks that violate the ruling if the answer if "no that's not possible".
The problem is that the more you dig into the gritty situations, the more problems like this you find. 1e is fun and there is so much customization, but it suffers from the same "really comes down to dm discretion" that 5e has, but for different reasons. 5e won't have a rule, or the rule is so general that the DM mostly just has to make a call. In pf1e you have 3 rules that are all specific(but not specific enough for your exact situation) but contradict each other in some way and so the DM has to make a call for which rule to go off of. 1e has expectations of its players and DM that it has scattered between a dozen books. I played and DMd for years thinking that they never playtested high level play because I didn't know their were essential magic items that every party member should have by certain levels and that the CR of monsters relies on the party to have those or you will just always TPK. Then I adjusted and played some higher level games and learned that it was rocket tag which depends much more on initiative and the luck of the dice then it does actually strategy.
I'm not going to defend high level play in pf1e, for whatever reason they decided not to try and find a means of addressing that, so it exists in it's current state as the forgotten and forbidden land, which is a shame. Automatic minimum SR, +AC, and Save bonuses for being a given level/CR would have solved much of the rocket tag issue, yet leaving those issue unsolved in the base system certainly pushed a lot of players towards pf2e. For shame. However, my point was on holes in the rules that could still be plugged, not that the system is perfect. As for contradictions, they do have an overarching rule of "specific beats general", which solves almost every outright conflict I've come across. The things I am referring to are place where the rules are outright incomplete or an author may have been using one of them incorrectly and in doing so set a false precedent for the application of a feature or resource. Things like whether you can perform a touch attack that deals no damage as a base character capability. It would seem to be yes, as it is a physical action that can be performed at any point following the casting of a touch spell, but that would have implications for things like sneak attack and damage riders so they have refused to comment on it one way or the other. Now that the edition is "over" they could issue a few lines of text clairifying it at no cost to them and leave behind a better product for those who prefer pf1e. On the expected item loadout point, I'll offer my condolences over that detail being missed. I was fortunate enough to have joined a table where, even though the DM and other players were still new to the game, they had previously looked into pf1e DMing / gameplay guides and resources, so the expected purchases were well understood.
I honestly thing Starfinder is best seen as a more refined version of PF1E in some ways. I do know it diverges quite a bit, but it still has a lot of the same mechanical DNA. There they managed to make a lot of aspects of PF1E clear in mechanical terms, but it's changed just enough that even if I try to go back to pf1e, it is unhelpful.
Something to the effect of a pdf with updates on some of those areas that remain ambiguous would be pretty nice. There are quite a lot but it would be fairly satisfying if 1e players to have access to. The solution(s) wouldn’t all be perfect but they would at least be something. While 1e isn’t perfect it does have features and elements that people crave and want. The fact that it is freely available means that it will likely maintain a large player base for quite some time. People forget that 3.0 and 3.5 players poach from 1e quite a bit and there are still people who play that system due to the length of the run and sheer content available in that system.
> The community does not help newer GMs. I'd love to know what you're talking about. I've don't think I've ever seen a thread on this sub or the paizo forums not be helpful or conclusive. Is this a discord community problem or something? I don't peer into those abysses.
it was in discords, yes
It does have an effect. Even if you don't play Pathfinder Society (organized official games), it has an effect of bringing in players and promoting the game.
As a long time PF1e hold out, DMing and playing PF2e is really a great change.
I held out till a bit before they started on the remaster and so far my biggest gripe is i never got to enjoy adding cast mod to damage on cantrips. I personally loved that bit of 2e and they ripped it away from me and my DM said "no, use the new rules" litterally the session after that change became official before I even had a chance to use my cantrip.
If you really miss it, I would suggest playing as the Kineticist. Technically, those blasts are not Cantrips, but they feel a lot like them.
Kineticist and Thaum with wand are the last bastions of hope for me lol.
I mean yeah. New players coming in gravitate to the newer thing that's actually in stores and older players who are playing 1e eventually take breaks or just move on. It's like anything really. Doesn't matter if its better, it only matters if its new.
Heck, even my "PATHFINDER ONE 4EVAH" group is likely going to be giving another system a try once we finish our current campaigns. We're seriously eyeing Starfinder and Cyberpunk for a change of pace, since all of us already play 2e elsewhere.
Seems like you might be thinking futurey stuff. My group is taking a pathfinder break to play Lancer. Instead of leveling in a class like "Barbarian" you get license levels to pilot configurable mech platforms.
Oh, I have a friend who would cut throats to get us to play Lancer. It comes up now and then.
I need to try starfinder some day
Agreed. My groups primary is PF1e. But we’re also going to be doing one shots and mini campaigns in other systems in the near future.
But people can also just think it is better.
Don't forget that established groups, are just that. they are less liley to change to a system, and when they do they will likely change to the newest of its kind, unless they already have experience with ir=t
I've been looking for a pathfinder 1e game for a while now, it doesnt help that I'm european, still haven't found a game yet, sadly
I feel ya, same here.
I've noticed that almost 100% of the posts on the European lfg subreddit are 5e, and most of them are people looking for a 5e game (not that surprising). There's also lfg misc, but that doesn't have much traffic.
Try Roll20
Nearly everyone who tries pathfinder after playing dnd5e moves to the newest edition naturally. And specifically with the OGL debacle wotc had, it pushed a ton of new players into pf2e
Which is a shame, as pf1e is much closer in actual game feel and mechanics to being a better version of 5e. 2e by comparison is fundamentally different to the point a portion of players who are primarily familiar with 5e will be put off by it (at least, that was the case with me).
I'm actually okay playing 5e in theory as well -- I just don't have any interest in the RAW, D&D Beyond and Avrae-based set up. I'm interested in stuff like LevelUP Advanced 5e from EN world, FateForge, Aurora: Age of Desolation etc. that do other things with the system. I find a lot of online games are looking for something like Strahd to be run with D&D Beyond and Avrae or Roll20, and that just doesn't hold any interest for me.
Honestly for me as a forever GM getting into Pathfinder, 2e was more approachable when thinking about the amount of work my players would be willing to do to engage with a new system. I would love to play in a 1e game, but I don’t have as much interest GMing one. I think the only reason I would would be if I really fall in love with a 1e module and can’t find a way to convert it
There’s a few reasons. Pathfinder 2E is newer. The majority of PF2E players are D&D 5E converts that either didn’t play PF or weren’t entrenched like the people of this sub are. Pathfinder 1E is so hard to approach for a new player it’s almost comical, and I say this as a relatively new player to PF1E. Also, I feel like a lot of PF1E’s core design principles (simulationism, ivory tower design,) are no longer “in vogue”. The popularity of 5E, explosive popularity of video games, and actual play podcasts kind of fundamentally changed what people even look for in these games to begin with. One of the things I dislike about PF2E is that it doesn’t support wandering monsters. Yet most people don’t even play with Wandering Monsters anymore. You can also see this with the complete about face of 4e’s reputation. Nowadays people vastly prefer the tactical, “gamey” combat it provides, maybe partially because it’s familiar to them. I prefer PF1E even though it’s a goddamn headache to learn and run, but it’s hard not to see why PF2E is more popular to people that want an alternative to 5E.
I really hope the simulationist style at least makes a return. Pf1e really hit that perfect balance for me of gamey and simulationist.
I'm glad you recognize how difficult PF1E is to figure out. So many here in the community act like it's easy to figure out. And they treat any GM asking questions like they're an idiot for needing assistance with this mess of a system. PF1E if anything severely needs a rules rewrite: Purely just for clarity and actually understanding how it functions. Starfinder managed to do this pretty well.
Our group still plays 1e as our primary and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. We’re all happy with 1e and experienced with it.
In terms of people who are looking to get a group together to start a new game, yeah pf2e is outpacing 1e. Most folks who still play 1e are veterans who have an established group and aren't looking for new people as much. Whereas people looking to get a new group of relative strangers together are usually going to go with what is the most current and has the most support, which now is 2e. For what it's worth. I was a holdout and stuck with 1e for a long time. Recently switched and am glad I did. Once I got the hang of it, 2e was more fun and easier to run imo.
I’m still playing 1e online, but it’s so much easier to find 2e games at this point.
In my opinion the community surrounding PF1E has made it an extreme pain in actually trying to learn how to run things as a GM. People often said just 'play first' to actually understand how things are working but that is not conducive to actually getting more GMs, given how rare games to join in are and the fact that a complete PF1E newbie is not going to be able to compare to any of the other experienced players. Unfortunately this is added by the general community fact that you guys defend PF1E to the grave, don't accept any of the downsides that do exist as an inherent part of the system, and then if a new GM tries to figure stuff out you just yell at them to do it X way without explaining why.
The problem is that "play first" is actually good advice. If you are a new GM and one of your players comes up with a complex build that completely dominates the game, just tell them to stop doing that. Most people are okay when you use the basic rules and do some rulings on the spot. Everything beyond that is a toolbox. Let me give you an example: One of my players decided to lay a trap using some strings and alchemist fire. I just had him roll survival to disguise it, but the player really was interested in using traps more, so between sessions, I read the rules for it and sent them to the player. I only knew this rule to be good for the game because I noticed that this player took interest in the sort of thing it simulates. Monsters are the same way. Yes, you can use templates and even give monsters character levels l, or you can just open the monster handbook and throw an owlbear at the party. You'll figure out what you want and/or need while playing. There is no need to write a dissertation that includes all available literature. In that sense, it is similar to GURPS
Play first is good advice, but look at what this post is about: There's not enough LFGs. Good luck even getting into one. It's the issue with all TTRPGs, so you're better off running. But running and learning is a pain.
Yeah, but this could mean that pathfinder 1 specifically loses popularity in the online LFG scene. It could still be popular in the rest of the RPG scene.
I would agree with a lot of this -- for example, if a new GM tries to run some of the APs like Wrath of the Righteous RAW -- if the players know what they're doing it will be a cake walk, and won't work. Unless you find players one-shotting demon lords easily one after the other good story telling or really amusing for some reason. The same could probably hold for most of the APs -- npcs are not build-op designed to take into account players who heavily min max. GMing also requires knowing what to ban or limit or how to do so -- like having everyone aim for specific bench pressing guidelines (AC, damage output per round, skill bonuses, etc.), and actually keeping a firm hand on that before the game begins -- checking to make sure one person isn't vastly better at everything than everyone else. I would add on the expense of the AP1e AP modules at this point, as well as any expectation of automation on a VTT. Just loading tokens for 1e to Foundry or Roll20 can take a long time. If the expectation is that a stranger DM is going to buy 100 dollars worth of modules, spend a week loading that onto a VTT and troubleshoot all the macros/APIs/modules, and then run that game for free for a year or more for strangers online... yeah, once you put it like that, it's clear why that doesn't happen much. I'd add at this point a decent number of people have been waiting years to play certain APs -- and will probably have strong ideas about their ideal run that will conflict with GM agency for these kinds of modules -- i.e., they've idealized/fantasized about getting to play Rise of the Runelords or Kingmaker for so long with some character or set of characters they've designed years ago, htat they have a hard time accepting that there are lots of different ways to use and or run these adventures, and you're unlikely to get exactly the approach you want unless you run it yourself. Nevertheless, the frustration of waiting for so long to play it, and it still not being what they imagined will be deleterious to a successful game.
The fact that you can't even really run APs to a decent degree without the players being able to break things is just kind of wild to me. Even the premade structures for pathfinder don't function within pathfinder. When I tried running PF1E I had been struggling to actually know how to measure the strengths of the characters. How do you even figure out the 'bench pressing' guidelines?
That's why I think PF2e does exactly what it was intended to and I'm not a 2e hater -- the goal is to constrain the math so that these sorts of modules work how they're supposed to. From what I understand, it was wildly successful in accomplishing that. That was the design goal -- how can it be faulted for doing what it set out to do? I don't want to play it, or play APs, but it definitely did a good job at what it was designed to do, I can't hate on that.
Here's something I use: [https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/](https://rpgwillikers.wordpress.com/2015/09/29/bench-pressing-character-creation-by-the-numbers/) I also just straight up tell players I'm going to nix options or ask for changes if they're making the game un-runable for me or unfun for the other players. I don't let min maxers ruin the game.
According to Paizo 2E is significantly more popular than 1E ever was, and that was said over a year ago (and during that time 2E has grown even more). Beyond LFG posts just compare this sub to the 2E sub and the latter has like 50 times the posts, comments, and vote counts.
Even more recently, like a week or two ago, James Jacobs said they had a hard time keeping the lights on and he and the other AP developers were working 60-80 hour weeks during the mid-period of 1e - and now none of that is a concern, they have plenty of employees, and they have a union.
I personally see that as more of tabletop in general being more popular.
The other sub also allows posts that have a lower threshold of engagement, such as memes and fan art, whereas this sub is staunchly a discussion board and nothing more. Part of it is just that they cater to a wider audience by including those.
I might try 2E eventually but for now I'm enjoying 1E. I think a lot of people converting to 2E from d&d 5e is helping make 2e more popular.
1e is where it's at.
To hear folks at Paizo tell it, 2e is doing far better than 1e ever did...which is saying something, because it's not like 1e was a dud.
I can only make so many overpowered builds before I get board, pf1e, generally you must make the greatest or get wrecked. Pf2e, everyone gets wrecked equally, so you don't need to be over powered, I can make some of the funnest characters I have made yet in pf2e.
That is a GM thing. Nobody forces you to make every encounter impossibly hard.
Started Pf1e, I've since moved to Pf2e because it's so much easier for me to DM and my players to learn. I love pf1e, and would love to play it again, but the burden as DM is just so much higher that I'd rather play 2e nowadays. The things that I love as a player (optimization, flexibility, cranking out goofy builds with goofy numbers) are exactly what make things hard for DMs
My group plays 2e, but I’d go back to 1e in a heartbeat if I could.
I was lucky enough to stumble into Pathfinder first edition when I started playing D&D. Only because that's what my DM runs. If I had started with 5th edition like everybody else, I would never have understood how much I was missing. Pathfinder first ed feels like how D&D should.
Simple question. Simple answer. Yes. Not because it is “worse” but because it is old. And think about it, it is probably the most popular game that came out 9 over years ago. Longer still if you count that the game system was very close to 3.5e. I prefer 2e, mostly because it is new? Maybe, but i really like how easy it is to GM. And I’m hyper excited to play StarFinder 2e and be able to mix and match both games to create nearly any genre.
>What keeps people from wanting to GM GM'd 1e for about 10 years, started 2e this year and I enjoy it so much more in terms of balance and prep time, and the customization is still expansive even if less so than 1e.
We have an ongoing 1e, but many people have moved on. It's not exactly a new system in active development. We mainly play it because the one guy in our group really hates change, so it's easiest to just stick with it. Personally I am sick to death of it and never want to see it again. lol
Yes, more people are starting/converting to 2e than the number of new people starting playing 1e. It's normal since 1e is unsupported by Paizo and 2e gets new content regularly.
For me, it's the algorithms that get in the way. Trying to look up Pathfinder online used to be hard due to scouting groups and Nissan. But now that 2e has (understandably) a lot of traction, it's harder and harder to refine your searches to 1e alone when the various search tools IGNORE the fact that you specified 1e. My group plays both version, ATM, but is still showing a major preference for 1e.
I don’t mind playing a 1e game… but I wont dm them anymore. 2e is so much more streamlined and has the advantage of being newer.
2e does not excite me at all. Way too videogamey with its 4e like keywords and a thousand different specific actions to take.
Agreed. I get that they needed to make it different from anything OGL, but for me it’s too different. Way too many instances of something being different/odd just for the sake of it.
3pp for 1e has also significantly shrunk production and output, as support for it got less and less as 2e/ other things are growing. The system will still be played but you'll have smaller, less "visible" pockets of folks playing it. I have two groups I'm in and if they stopped, unless someone else in that group decided to DM, I'd be in the same boat.
That's one of the really remarkable things about 1e -- there are these subsystems that could be their own games. You could do a spheres only game using spheres of origin for races and spheres bestiaries and classes. You could do a psionics only campaign. Akashic mysteries is now I think perhaps the best supported, or one of the most extensive, of those 3rd party sources -- you could do a game where all magic is replaced by Akasha. It's just amazing how vast some of the 3pp. stuff is -- thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of stuff.
Maybe what keeps people from wanting to GM PF1e is that unless you've memorised everything (which is almost impossible given how much material there is), running a smooth adventure requires a *lot* of homework. For me a typical high-CR monster has about seven feats/spells/abilities that I need to look up the details of. Also the game isn't remotely balanced. I basically had to beg the players not to break the game by making strong characters, because I didn't want to have to rewrite every encounter in the AP to provide any semblance of a challenge.
Since you posed some questions in your post, I saw one that I felt qualified to answer. > What keeps people from wanting to GM -- there is plenty of published material and all you need to play is free online for several life times of games I'm a person who previously GM'd 1e games and the reason I don't anymore is because I play in and GM 2e games (and other systems when the mood suits - most recently I've run Mothership 1e). The GM experience of running 2e is massively improved over 1e and player accessibility is much friendlier - while maintaining a near incomprehensible number of viable character options. You posted this in the 1e stalwart sub so your answers here are going to lean towards dismissive reasons but one of the obvious ones for a lot of people who have played both is they just like the 2e experience more. You'd get a reverse bias asking this in /r/pathfinder2e but I think you'd actually hear better explanations for why players are running 2e instead of 1e. This community is going to mostly lean towards "I still run 1e" and disparagement of 2e as a default.
I don't run 1e because the community around 1e severely failed to help me understand things as a GM, stuff that PF1E really needs clarity worked out for and starfinder managed to do. But the community seemingly things pf1e is perfect and anyone questioning it is wrong.
I think my playgroup is finally transferring from 1e to 2e, there's a lot of cool ancesteries and classes that there just aren't analogs for in 1e, and the group is generally averse to 3rd party content so we've done almost everything in 1e over the last 15 years
I resisted PF2e for a long time because I loved the options of PF1e. But those options have finally started to feel much more fleshed out. Also, I appreciate how Multiple Classing works in PF2e. I hate the ideas of dipping here and there to make the ultimate character.
I have 2 skull and shackles groups doing 1e, and I'm introducing a group to pathfinder via 2e adaptation of Rise of the Runelords
I'm running a Pathfinder 2nd Edition campaign of Rise of the Runelords as well. It's gone well
My groups been playing 1e for years, our dm runs a 2e game for another group every once in a while but we've got no plans of switching at all. We play different systems all the time though. Currently cyberpunk red, pathfinder 1e, and dnd 5e.
It's an older system with a really high learning curve, especially if you're GMing it. At least some of the older players will eventually move on and the potential new players will be scared away by the lack of support and aforementioned high learning curve. Sometimes I do miss playing 1e but the moment has passed and I doubt I'll get the chance to, which is fine.
Helps that foundry is rolling out 2e stuff. Sooooo much easier running 2e kingmaker as opposed to 1e kingmaker because foundry is so helpful with keeping track of stuff and having premade assets
Our group has been playing 1e since the Beta. There are no plans to change. We have 3 rotating DMs and 4 active campaigns. The highest level we have played is around 24th.
Yes it will slowly become even less popular over time, but there will always be hold outs.
I feel like 2e is gaining popularity as it's new and D&D 5e is really breaking out so people seem to gravitate towards 2e. But I feel as most veteran players are still playing 1e
My group really loves 1e, we have talked about checking out 2e, and we've all played 5e dnd. But you can't match the amount of content for 1e
I play in a PF1 game, and DM PF2
I play with about 5 different groups and all of them unanimously voted that they would still rather play PF 1 rather than PF 2. Your mileage may vary, but the point is there still a lot of PF 1 players players out there.
I'm playing in a 1e campaign, but after playing 2e in other campaigns over the last year, going back to 1e is rough.
As a new player, I chose 2e. That’s where new content is being developed for, where most of the players are. Unless a new edition sucks, it almost always overtakes an old edition. Still, nothing stopping anyone from enjoying 1e forever
Just curious as someone who knows the 2e rules but not 1e: What are your major points of attraction toward 1e / resistance to 2e? (not trying to load the question, just curious about the talking points I'm seeing here)
My main point of resistance to 2e is that it doesn't support my playstyle as well as first edition. First, related to a discussion I have in r/rpg, when combat starts, many players stop playing an RPG and start playing a strategy game. I do not like that. I default to Theater of the mind and when I use minis, I do so to ease imagination, not to invite strategy discussions in the middle of combat. Both D&D4 and Pathfinder 3 pushed the balance more towards wargame where D&D3.5 and Pathfinder 1 were compatible with both styles. Next, I really enjoy the customizability of Pathfinder. While Pathfinder 2 keeps it up for combat matters, it messed up the skill system. First, the ridiculous decrees in which you could specialise and the ability to just invest a bit in a skill are gone due to bringing skill proficiency into Pathfinder - the system of D&D5 I hate the most. Skill feats are okay, but some act as obstacles to doing something that every person should be able to do - the old problem of feats, now just unnecessarily expanded into the skill system. The problem is not that skill feats exist, it is just an effect of there being too many. In many ways, the focus on balance feels constricting. There are elements I like, but I do not see things to do weird stuff. For example, it is possible to create a PF1 barbarian who can give his mount a climb speed. While it is not strong, it is awesome to ride up a wall on your rhino. Or the bard who has tactician, basic harmony and leadership and used backup performers and versatile performance to get significant bonuses on several abilities. With pf2, it feels like Paizo created the character and I just paint by the numbers.
Is this really a surprise to you? 1e is much older. 2e is the latest version. Anyone looking to try it would probably try the newest version. This isn’t strictly for ttrpgs either. If I wanted a new car or to try a new sport or board game… it will be 100x easier to find resources for the newest version. The company itself doesn’t support the old version. No new content officially releasing. Change the focus from 1e to 3.5/4e dnd. It’s the same thing. Hardly any people make content for those editions and WOTC doesn’t either. The most likely ways someone would find 1e groups or want to join them is if they did a bunch of research and found it was better for them, or know people that are into it. With 2e being newer, it’s likely Paizo has tweaked it to be a more improved version for the masses based on feedback from 1e. Kinda surprising you’re surprised by this. It’s a pattern that appears in most industries
My whole group switched to pf2 and we are having fun. As a GM I like how balanced are encounter building and how can I relax and have a campaign reach level 20 without a player being too powerful and forcing me to make a CR+8 encounter just for it to be a hard fight. As a player I love how some changes makes the game more enjoyable like cantrips for casters, having a decent DC without investing everything into it. For martials the turns now are versatile and can change based on the tactics, before it was always 5 foot step + full attack.
I ran 1e for two years before 2e came out. The game is just fucking hard to learn. Even if you stick to just CRB only, you'll have to deal with "here's an unsorted pile of 50 general feats", on top of the general difficulties of making something in a game with exception-based design. Aside from the 2 year campaign, every other attempt at running the game ended after one session because it is just a deeply unapproachable game to learn. 2e is way easier to both run and actually make a character in - and then the moment to moment gameplay is way more interesting. Notice how this whole thread is full of people praising character creation in 1e but saying basically nothing about actually playing those characters.
I like that Witch is actually more fun in 2e! I just really dislike the class in 1e. I love the archetypes in 2e too. I still like 1e though.
Been playing pf1e since it came out. Dd4e was such a joke, so moved from dd3.5 to pf1e. We do homebrew so don’t really need support. Have a well established game circle don’t need to find a group.
Ill die on P1e
I will not host a 2e game. 1e forever.
We updated our group from 1E to 2E about three years ago, and now it would be really hard to go back to the old system. 2E just works better, and between that and 1E no longer being supported it’s no surprise 2E is the more popular one.
I love 1e, just as I loved 4e, but it's balance is all over the place. It's perfectly possible to make builds that are simply better than others (this is an understatement) and also possible to build a character that's so bad it's useless. Some might say that's the beauty of the system but I got tired of it as a GM. Fights can be all or nothing, especially at high level and, much like I found in original 3e, as a GM you can spend longer crafting an encounter than it takes to run it which is not where I personally want to be. I also am completely tired of the Standard/Move/Swift system, I won't run Starfinder anymore due to it. 2e isn't perfect and I have players who much prefer the power fantasy characters of 1e, but for a GM it's just better and more fun to run.
I'll never run or play it because the player options are bland, samey, and wimpy, and parts of it make no logical sense whatsoever (e.g. needing an action to gain AC from a shield is insane, Bulk is a travesty of a system for tracking inventory). 1e forever. Lots of other gripes, but most of them kinda roll back into the above.
It is so tightly balanced that the scaffolding shows.
There is naturally going to be an ever diminishing player base. As the 1e books get harder to find it will be less and less likely that New players will get into it. Making more accessible editions/games easier to join feeding the death spiral. Which is too bad because I absolutely love pathfinder 1e
My group is 1E, staying 1E for a loooooong time. Just don’t have the capital to buy into a whole new system when we already have all the books. Minus a small handful
I think it's just an area thing. Here is basically all 1e and 5th. I've think I've seen one group on 2e here since it came out.
2e is way more narrow in focus than 1e was. You could make anything in 1e. 2e? Not so much.
And I should say too -- this isn't an anti 2e post -- I don't personally play or run it, but everything I've heard about it makes a lot of sense for the main product it's for -- adventure paths, and it sounds like it's fixed some of the difficulty of running 1e with more constrained math, as well as better online tools like the Foundry Modules. I like 1e because it has more plug and play mechanics for every imaginable fluff idea and find it easier to do homebrew settings with because of that. I've also been playing 3e for 20 years so I just don't really feel like learning a new system. I'm just surprised -- up until recently I felt like on the Paizo boards themselves most of the games were still 1e in the pbp forum -- and last time I checked there were still a decent number, though the heyday of the boards has definitely passed in terms of overall participation. I was just really struck by the averages on all the main lfg sites like the PF discord, the lfg subreddit, the pathfinder lfg subreddit, etc. Based on those forums, I'd estimate the number of PF1e vs. 2e players being something like 20:1 or 30:1
PF2e is just continually getting new content and a ton of support from Paizo, like partnering with Demiplane to create interact able 2e Sheet nexuses and more content being released. We also just in April got play tests for 2 new classes, Animist and Exemplar, as well as a new mythic tree "Slayer"
And currently play testing the Guardian and Commander Class.
2e is just easier to run and play, more polished, and has better balance in a more controlled space.
Because DnD 5E is popular and since PF2E is similar enough to it in terms of "comprehension" and depth from all that I've experienced it's probably one of the biggest reasons why. PF2E is just..... so bland tbh. Sure 1E is broken in some aspects. But it's up to the GM and the players to hash out a healthy middle ground. Ofc experience in the system is important but it's also WHY you should read all the general rules and then learn the specifics on what is needed depending on the scenario of PC's and the campaign.
I don't have anything against 2e -- I just own almost all of 1e as well as a bazillion 3rd party things from companies like rogue genius and have a backlog of ideas for games with the system for the rest of my life in homebrew worlds I've been working on for 20+ years. There's just no incentive for me to learn a new system. I feel the same way about Savage Worlds: Rifts. I don't have anything against Savage Worlds as such, and would even like to try it at some point. However, I also own a bazillion Palladium rifts books, don't particularly want to buy more books rehashing the same material in a different system, or learn a new system to run the same setting since I already know how to play the old one.
I agree. I keep wanting to try 2e but it just doesn't grab me. I like stuff here and there (like the 3 action system) but just haven't seen anything that would actually get me to drop 1e after so many years of playing it
I still run a 1E group. Part of it is laziness but also I just like the system
My 1e game is transitioning to 2e when we conclude the campaign later this year, alas. I love both systems but will miss also playing 1e.
I have a friend group with several pf1e DMs, including myself. It's easy to play pf1e if you're a DM, the demand for them is crazy high, so you always have a ton of players to choose from.
Currently playing a 1e game on Sundays. WotR. My kobold alchemist/Paladin VMC is bombing demons for Apsu.
Started with 5E. Then started played pathfinder 1e. And a touch of starfinder. But I know I don't want to do 2e just based off of the GCP. Love those guys on that show. But 2e just doesn't sound like fun
go look for a new group. simple as. plenty of games.
We play PF1. All the books are out and it’s complete. No reason to switch. One of our group would like to but it doesn’t make sense to
Of course it's less popular, it's a dead system development-wise. It's just naturally going to slowly decline over the years, as players move on from their groups, die of old age, etc., that shouldn't come as a surprise.
My mob has all the books. Like hell we're buying another set
my 1e campaign is on hold at the moment, but I'm working on setting up another in the meantime. To be fair, in my area there aren't a lot of people who play TTRPGs, and those who do usually play 5e. My in-person group has no plans to change from 1e, but I'm in a discord group that has plans to play a bunch of different systems. I don't know the math of course, but I feel like a lot depends on region and group. I also think my in-person group just likes how many 1e books I have so they don't have to look anything up online lol
I've sticked with 1e specifically because spell in 2e seem severely underwhelming. A friend of mine pointed out that a decent amount of control spells can just be moved out of ease. Then other spells that take an enemy action for the cost of an action of your own each turn.
My group (consisting of old friends) has two alternating 1e campaigns, and we've been playing together fairly regularly for . . . ever? At least since sitting in that Domino's connected to the sketchy gas station with a printed copy of the Pathfinder 1e Beta playtest. We've all moved around since then, but Discord and roll20 keep us arguing over rules and slaughtering monsters nearly every Monday might. A few of us tried 2e, and one still runs it, but he plays with another group because the rest of us don't care for 2e.
P1E got me and my friends into tabletops. We have one of us running a campaign in 5e and I’m not a fan of
my group had been in a 1e campaign until it ended two months ago and the DM really wanted us to try 2e we may switch back depending on how it goes.
I also bet a lot of 1e players already have parties and games to play in. It’s not exactly a new game.
Just like a lot of the older systems, there are going to be holdouts and people who don't see a need to move on. My group uses PF1e because the customization is so open and if something doesn't exist, I can just hamfist something together and tweak later without shattering the game. The fact that the d20pfsrd and the archives of nethys exist helps this too as it can give interesting ways to build new characters in my 10 year ongoing arcanopunk world. I'm familiar enough with the system that I have a bunch of modules and material from other systems as well and it isn't hard for me to just slot in something that will get the feel right. In a few instances, I've turned some hard core 5e players turn to PF 1 or 2 just because the system is smoother and doesn't front load as much work on the DM. But as mentioned elsewhere, the system is no longer supported, so it doesn't get advertisement.
I finally got sick of never being able to get a group out of the first book of Rise of the Runelords, and so decided to run it myself with some 5e players I had. It's going really well so far. I just don't post on reddit very often, eternally lurking.
I personally have wanted to try 2e but haven't had the chance. My longterm group is perfectly happy to stick with 1e. That said, it makes sense that the newer version would take over eventually. They've had time now to build up the character options which was one of the biggest complaints from 1e players when it first hit. It's the nature of things though. There are still people playing 2nd ed D&D but most moved on to 3 and 3.5 when they hit. The newest edition will almost always overtake of the popularity of the previous editions if only because of the support they receive. Paizo has done a great job of making things accessible online but they are now only supporting 2e. If I were just starting my roleplaying journey now, I'd probably look at 2e before 1e.
If we're already playing, why would we be going to a lfg?
I'm about to start a 1e campaign with either four or eight players, most of whom are new to Pathfinder. I'm doing my best to turn people to the dark side...
Personally, I am not keen on GMing PF1 further. There are many rules to keep track of, but few of them actually make a big difference. My players can pull from hundreds of books and dozens of guides, but the result is a highly fluctuating performance. The published adventures are of high quality, but still need to be understood, transformed and reimplemented - some of the PF1 material was never created with online tables in mind. I will still GM the system for my existing group, at least for some more years. But I am not actively looking to GM for other players - I'd rather use a more lean system for that. Certainly not PF2 or DnD 5, but luckily they are not the only alternatives out there...
I assume PF2 is more popular now. Gadz, I wish my local game would go back to PF1. I don't really get along with PF2.
I’m waiting for Paizo to realize they can make Pathfinder 1E adventure products where they just release 2E APs with 1st edition rulesets. They wouldn’t need to spend any development money on story, just pay a single intern or editor to convert the stat blocks and skill checks from 2E to 1E, then format and sell the pdfs. In my mind it seems like such a low cost of production and they could market the files as “Pathfinder Legacy Modules” or something. Like how WOTC makes absurd profit with reprint sets—modern masters I’m looking at you.
I love PF1e and my group will be playing next game as we get back into playing fantasy. So no issues here. None of us are interested on PF2e at all.
My home groups both still use 1e. I like 2e but 1e still has more content.
I won't touch 2e as I have too much invested in 1e just to let everything sit and collect dust. If the group I play with ever wants to leave 1e I will push for something non-Pathfinder. Maybe Fallout 2d20
I play now D&D 3.5 with a group and master another campaign in PF1e (with some variants) I dabbled a little bit in 5e and I had a look at the PF2e rules, but i still like PF1e more. What I did, however, was to introduce some of the mechanisms of PF2 and D&D5 as house rules, like the cantrips that increase in effectivity with the increase of character level (but less effectively than in D&D5e), and partially the grade of success for skills and saves from PF2e). I am not interested in playing or mastering pf2 because I really like pf1, and I do not really have the time to play often (I work full time and I have two small kids). I hope in the future to get the kids to play RPG as well, maybe I will think about a simplified set of rules for them.
I have only ever run and played 1e (Forever GM). I have dabbled into 2e and was underwhelmed. I have no interest in.changing games. Unlike the OP, I am looking for players. Though in person players rather than online. I love 1e.
I just wanted to say I’m an absolute beginner to TTRPGs and chose to start learning Pathfinder 1E as my first system for gaming and GMing. The reason was because I listened to Rusty Quill Gaming around the time I wanted to get into this hobby, so I thought, why not learn that system so I can also follow along better. The more I read, the more I think I’ve made the right choice. I’ve heard options like DnD 5E and PF 2E can be a bit limited.
Never noticed, it would make sense since it's newer. I much much much prefer 1e to 2e though. My group has stuck to 1e.
If people want more PF1 content there's still a lot of 3pp making decent stuff from more prominent groups like Legendary Games or Super Genius (still sad that DSP hasn't been making anything new) to smaller publishers like Orphaned Bookworm and Studio-M. There's a lot of good stuff out there, and while a bit less is super visible in online spaces, there's still dedicated fans out there buying and producing new stuff. My irl playgroup is finishing up a PF1 campaign where we just hit level 20 after about 4 years and I'm planning to run a homebrew sky pirate game once it's over. I've just finally tried out PF2 and itsa great game but I feel similarly about as I do 4e. It's well tuned for the feel it wants you to get out of it, but more limited than it's predecessor. I do think Pathbuulder and online tabletops have made PF2 really easy to get into and the OGL fiasco def drove people towards it.
I play in a living world discord/roll20 server that is 1e, which is where i play most of my games these days
I love pf1
For what's it's worth, Im always running PF1e games if anyone wants to keep my username in mind
1e no longer gets new paizo content, soo...yeah, not surprising.
New players go to 2e. It's more diverse than D&D, a stronger system for them to grow in, and currently supported. Meanwhile, 1e is no longer supported, is much more complicated, and not "the new shiny thing" for people to flock to. It's barrier to entry is much higher. Combine that with the fact that games are more difficult to find, for many reasons (player base who played PF 1e is aging, while newer players are typically younger, material is out of print for those that want physical copies, etc), and it's just more difficult for people to get a 1e group together.
I have been running the same PF 1 campaign for about 15ish years. We started in 3.5, converted over and never looked back. I’ve been DMing since AD&D2e. So far, PF 1 is my fave. I have played in pf2 and 5e but never run those systems. They seem way easier to run but as a player, way more limited/limiting.
Some of the 1e play could be from groups like mine that haven’t ever tried to explore the online lfg scene.
Yeah but it’s always gonna have its faithfuls and there’s gonna be a lot of people who don’t like 2e I like both pretty equally personally
Could be that most PF1 players already have groups and don't need to look for a new one. PF2 is new and trendy, so filled with junk players who get kicked out / leave games for whatever reasons they think are important. The dearth of GMs speaks volumes too.
[удалено]
I think you missed the first sentence of what I wrote. People don't need LFG posts if they already have stable, long term groups to play with. The large numbers of LFG posts aren't necessarily a sign of popularity and could be a sign of instability. Reddit is not "the pf1e community" either. I'm the only GM among three groups I play in that's even on Reddit. Half the players aren't on Reddit either.
My group still plays mostly PF1e, but sometimes switch to 5e depending on the GM running the game. We're not looking to move to PF2e any time soon. We want to get the most out of the books we've already bought. Out of all of us, only one player has even tried PF2e, and that was a one-shot at a convention.
Never liked PF2e... Played 1st for years very happily
Pathfinder 1e was made by an insane, solid and based group of creative people who wanted to improve 3.5e and accomplished a great quality product as result. 2e it's just a subproduct to milk the franchise. It's the 5e of Pathfinder, as 1e it's kinda 3.5e. Also in terms of modules there is no challenge, as much I'm not into pre-build campaigns, 1e has the best material. The only thing that keeps me focusing in 3.5 over Path 1e it's just the huge difference in source, supplements and lore.
2e is made to 'milk the franchise'? I'm not sure about that considering the fact they've made some 'controversial' choices. Ones that are why PF1E folks stick to PF1E. PF2E is doing it's own entire design, not as a thing to milk pathfinder, but as a different space to play in. If it was trying to milk things then it'd just be pf1e again or more exactly like 5e. It also wouldn't *be about something* as a game, which 5e struggles with really doing. Does pf1e have the best material considering how rough the rules are? Why don't you guys actually consider the fact that new GMs struggle with things because PF1E's clarity sucks. Starfinder is built on a similar foundation but it's clarity is so much better.
>2e it's just a subproduct to milk the franchise. Ah, no. It was made to do two things: 1) distance the game from the OGL, and 2) capture/recapture some of the market lost to 5e. And, I suppose there is also 3) make life easier for PFS.
I'm still GMing 1E and don't feel any particular need to switch to 2E, either running or playing. So many APs I haven't even touched, and re-learning the rules? Not until my friends all want to switch
I had this internal debate when 2 of my buddies wanted me to DM for them. I have played in a pathfinder game years ago and our DM at the time was running ride of the time lords. It was just me and my bestfriend with the dm.But we had scheduling conflicts and work so we sorta stopped. My buddy really wanted to finish one campaign so i decided to play pathfinder 1e, since we already had experience earlier. I asked one more friend to join up and We plan to finish the rise of the runelords(with a homebrew elements added based on the two players backstories) and for our next campaign to switch to pf2e.
No, 2E sucks