Pathfinder 1E versus 2E

Pathfinder 2e and 1e are both tabletop roleplaying games that share the same core setting and similar gameplay mechanics. However, there are some significant differences between the two editions.

1 - Character Creation: Pathfinder 2e has simplified character creation, making it more accessible for new players. There are fewer options to choose from, but the options are more streamlined and balanced. In contrast, Pathfinder 1e has a vast array of options, allowing for a high degree of customization but can be overwhelming for new players.

2- Action Economy: Pathfinder 2e features a revised action economy, which streamlines and speeds up combat. Characters can perform up to three actions per turn, which can be spent on various activities like movement, attacking, and using abilities. In contrast, Pathfinder 1e's action economy can be more complex, requiring players to keep track of different types of actions, such as move actions, standard actions, and swift actions.

3 - Magic System: Pathfinder 2e has reworked its magic system, making it more intuitive and easier to use. Spells are divided into different categories, including arcane, divine, occult, and primal, with each category having unique mechanics. In contrast, Pathfinder 1e's magic system can be complex, with spells having different levels, schools, and components that can affect how they are cast.

4 - Skill System: Pathfinder 2e has revised its skill system, making it more streamlined and easier to understand. Each skill has a specific set of actions and tasks associated with it, making it easier to determine what actions are possible in different situations. In contrast, Pathfinder 1e's skill system can be more complex, with skills having different ranks and various modifiers.

5 - Rule Complexity: Overall, Pathfinder 2e has simplified many of the rules in the game, making it easier to learn and play. Pathfinder 1e, on the other hand, has a vast array of rules, options, and subsystems, making it a more complex game that can take longer to master.

In summary, Pathfinder 2e has streamlined many of the game mechanics and made it more accessible to new players, while Pathfinder 1e has a higher degree of customization and complexity, which can appeal to more experienced players.

TeePublic:

Coloring Books:

Socials:
Twitter or YouTube @mstephenjoy

[curtiskilbourn]

It seems like this review/comparison is biased against 1e. Everything in 1e is a criticism but 2e is praised. The bias for the mechanics is clear ("cruchy this, crunchy that"), but it seems based on your interpretation of "easier". For those of us who have been around the gaming scene for 3+ decades, we have experienced Warhammer, Rolemaster, AD&D, etc. in fantasy games and in my experience, Pathfinder 1e helps to capture a lot of the nostalgia of the old-school character details system with a focus on mechanics and chances of success/failure without being overly "crunchy" as a d20 based system. It does not pander to gaming soft systems where character/PC death is not really on the table. 1e is the type of system offers a system of encouraged roleplay and risk-taking that lend to the heroic tale-spinning of a campaign. 2e deals that a blow by going down the D&D 5e path of simplification. I do suggest that perhaps the grappling rules could use a tune-up, but I found that Spycraft offers good options that integrate in 3.0/3.5/PF 1e compatibility, including feat trees. Overall, I do appreciate the effort to create a comparison video, but I only found it to support my perspective on 2e as something that I don't want.

[tristenshaw]

With respect, I've heard nothing here that shows me that 2e is any better than 1e. 95% of it is cosmetic improvements on the readability of the book, which means nothing to me unless I like the mechanics. The only thing mentioned about mechanics that was really mentioned is that it has "less actions" which could mean anything. The gamer in mean reads this comment as "The actions have been watered down."

Maybe that's not the case, perhaps they did strike a good balance, but I haven't been told enough to know. Now days the trend is towards watering games down to the point where nothing is truly epic anymore and every change is something that makes the games simpler, faster, and in my opinion, more boring. Which is what happened to DnD. 3.5 was truly epic and you could customize a character in infinite different ways, and then 5e comes along with it's cookie cutter classes, waters feats down to the point where they hardly matter, a handful of cookie cutter domains and and such. Once you've played a fighter, you've played a fighter and there is very little you can do to change up the experience, and the same for the other classes. And, I'm just hoping that this isn't the route that PF 2e has taken.

[robertbromley]

1e did a great job of giving players more choices while making race/ancestry less essential in nature with the APG and Advanced Race Guide. I think it’s safe to say that these books paved the way for 2e’s approach to ancestry and heritage.

[josephpurdy]

The feats in 1e were all in one place. Now in 2e you have to dig through the entire book. Which makes it take longer looking at all the possibilities. There are many cases that permit you to choose alternate ways to build similar characters. That adds even more time because you might as well read the entire book. Then, go reread all sections for you specific build.

[haydongonzalez-dyer]

Good to have a comparison. I would be interested in your thoughts after you get more 2e experience as well

[SkeIIum]

On the race thing, it's never really been accurate to do 'race' term wise. Ignoring any other potential or possibility of an issue just using a more accurate term is something I appreciate.

[farlanghn]

Have you ever heard of Dragonbane? That game has been put at the top of my favorite list.

[PestoPosta]

I have now played quite a lot of P2, and I have very mixed opinions of it.
It does a lot I like, (Underline that and bold it), and a lot I don't
Specifically the layout and simplification of the core system.
Playing it though it kinda feels like it feels rather underwhelming.

I think the problem is, the core is really solid, all the things around the core are not so solid.
The engine is good, the car is rusty.
Now one of the two classes I am playing is homebrew and is actively being improved,
The gunslinger however... well apparently golfball sized hunks of lead being flung around at super sonic speeds deal a d4...

Also I think I am becoming less and less of a fan of crunch,
I don't want to have to activate 6 abilities to be optimal in combat.

[peebothulhu]

From experience a quick "Off the cuff" comparison is that P2E is 'Ballanced' (Possibly to within an inch of its game mechanics) The crunchy game mechanics are indeed "Tight" 'Stranglehold' comes to kind as a fitting description. while P1 is 'Fair'. Anything the player's can do with the rules? The GM can do/copy. With the same generally going back the other way. Anything the GM can work into a monster the player's can generally reverse engineer and play with as well. Over all, I'd still be playing P1 if Paizo hadn't taken it out behind the shed. Put a round through its head and left it in a ditch. I.E. Paizo don't make P1 no more. You, the customer is 'Helically inclined' gee, where did we see THAT happen before?

[christophemortier]

Left dd5 for pathfinder 2e, then because it's bad left for pathfinder 1e

[lamMeTV]

this is just OSR rambles not about pathfinder

[_pie]

I wonder how would this comparison change, now that paizo fully released the remaster

[Attilathepun]

I prefer pf1e, my group runs 3.5e and occasionally supplements with some pf1e content.

[mirieus]

This race argument is cringe, it s a game in a fantasy world, those who complain are sick - Go play golf instead

[danieldenis]

I have no idea what "crunchy" is suppose to mean in relations to a rule book.
Is crunchy good or bad? No clue...

[maxnever]

pf 1 is better pf 2 is
it's a mix of great things but very wrong and not crunchy things and the warrior and the spells are wrong..
the only thing to save are the 3 actions that in the alternative rules can be used in the first one so the first one is better

[_pie]

dnd 3.5.5 players are too butthurt because they expected dnd 3.5.5.5, but instead got a more creative and original game lmaoo
I really just cannot understand these people who are so afraid of change

[tyren]

Honestly couldn’t watch the video with how much you kept saying crunchy this crunchy that but gave no actual descriptions just freaking crunchy, you didn’t say much of which made what better just readability, the getting information from this video is crunchy

[CrackJackFlood]

The change from race to ancestry isn't because its problematic for some people. Sure that can be part of the reason for it.

Its because race as a word orginally mean't *common ancestry* and went on to quickly be used during the enlightenment period to form the basis of scientitic racism(phrenology and concept of race) psuedo sciences that were all debunked well over 100 years ago. Yet the language still remains and is often used in societies as reference to these old disproven outdated scientific concepts. The reason why race isn't used and really should not be used is because its dumb meaningless word that was only used so that humans of one place could say they were superior by lineage/ancestry vs other humans.

Now while I might agree races in the concept of their actually being different species of sentient creatures kind of works. Personally always used Species but that makes things sound sciency.

[geoDB.]

Your fingers look like Vienna sausages