PF 1e or 2e?

[MonochromeTiger]

Which PFSRD? this one?

Yes. Dreamscarred Press has some very popular psychic classes and content that are included on d20pfsrd as well as in their third party books. You'll see it if you scroll down to alternate rule systems and use the Psionics heading. That site should also show a few other third party options under the same Alternate Rule Systems section as well as both Mythic Adventures and Occult Adventures which are official Paizo content.

Paizo did come out with their own psychic magic and classes in Pathfinder 1e, under the Occult Adventures stuff, but it very clearly wasn't as much of a focus as the Dreamscarred Press version of psionics since most of the Occult class versions boil down to "this is basically an existing magic class like Wizard but with class features gutted out for a gimmick like summoning a themed ghost."

[TheHalfAasimar]

Yes. Dreamscarred Press has some very popular psychic classes and content that are included on d20pfsrd as well as in their third party books. You'll see it if you scroll down to alternate rule systems and use the Psionics heading. That site should also show a few other third party options under the same Alternate Rule Systems section as well as both Mythic Adventures and Occult Adventures which are official Paizo content.

Paizo did come out with their own psychic magic and classes in Pathfinder 1e, under the Occult Adventures stuff, but it very clearly wasn't as much of a focus as the Dreamscarred Press version of psionics since most of the Occult class versions boil down to "this is basically an existing magic class like Wizard but with class features gutted out for a gimmick like summoning a themed ghost."

Aah, I see. Thanks!

[icefractal]

In the vein of 3PP content, I'd say that the Spheres stuff is very solid. Spheres of Power is easier to learn than normal casting, IMO - although if coming from 5E you have a head start on the latter (Arcanist is the closest to a 5E Wizard, incidentally). Spheres of Might does add complexity over standard martials, but IMO it's worth it, and helps with their weak points, such as lack of mobility.

[Psyren]

I'd say 4E has way more diversity in gameplay options than PF2 does.

This is primarily because 4E doesn't shy away from big flashy effects, even at low level there are numerous powers that flat-out immobilize every enemy in a 5x5 area; whereas PF2 powers are more like giving a single enemy a 10'-penalty to speed, but only on a crit-failed save (usually about a 10% chance) because we wouldn't want to overpower anything.

This is by far my main turnoff about PF2. For folks looking for balance I'm sure it's great. But for me, the tiny effects of spells coupled with the tiny chance of experiencing those effects just feels like a waste of time.

[icefractal]

Even the martial stuff feels lower key in PF2. I mean, the floor is higher at least, and a PF2 Fighter is generally effective , but not (IMO) that exciting.

Instead of "Boom! Made a huge dent in the monster and knocked it on its ass!" effectiveness looks like "Ah yes, good, you can see from this trend that I'm gradually drawing ahead, and eventually I'm going to win."

[MonochromeTiger]

Even the martial stuff feels lower key in PF2. I mean, the floor is higher at least, and a PF2 Fighter is generally effective , but not (IMO) that exciting.

Instead of "Boom! Made a huge dent in the monster and knocked it on its ass!" effectiveness looks like "Ah yes, good, you can see from this trend that I'm gradually drawing ahead, and eventually I'm going to win."

Like I said earlier and I'm fairly sure I've said in a few other threads, PF2 seems like it's afraid to give you actual power or the ability to hold your own individually. They balance everything close together but in a way where your high point is "adequate" while your possible low point is still "terrible" and they set it all up so you are reliant on your entire party doing their jobs correctly to accomplish anything.

3.5 and Pathfinder1 both build around the power fantasy to some degree, even the "weak" and underperforming classes by some standards can pretty quickly reach the point of superhuman levels of power and it makes complete sense why the player characters are important and effective heroes able to stand up to the threats they face. Pathfinder 2 instead seems to embrace a recent trend of seeing power fantasy as something to be deeply ashamed of. In PF2 you aren't the hero out to save the world, you aren't the villain out to conquer it, you aren't the chosen one, you're the bunch of people who happen to be around at the time with enough training to not hold your weapon by the pointy end. Everything from the granular approach of PF2 classes to the way it's balanced seems to be there to disguise the fact that if you put a Pathfinder character next to a Pathfinder 2 character the former could easily put the latter to shame in just about every regard.

[Ignimortis]

In the vein of 3PP content, I'd say that the Spheres stuff is very solid. Spheres of Power is easier to learn than normal casting, IMO - although if coming from 5E you have a head start on the latter (Arcanist is the closest to a 5E Wizard, incidentally). Spheres of Might does add complexity over standard martials, but IMO it's worth it, and helps with their weak points, such as lack of mobility.

Path of War, cannot recommend it enough. Now if only someone rebalanced a few disciplines so they wouldn't be as silly (Broken Blade and Unquiet Grave, looking at you in particular) damage-wise, I'd even recommend it to new players.

I'd say 4E has way more diversity in gameplay options than PF2 does.

This is primarily because 4E doesn't shy away from big flashy effects, even at low level there are numerous powers that flat-out immobilize every enemy in a 5x5 area; whereas PF2 powers are more like giving a single enemy a 10'-penalty to speed, but only on a crit-failed save (usually about a 10% chance) because we wouldn't want to overpower anything.

The issue is, sometimes a critical failure on a save absolutely wrecks the encounter. Like, a critfailure against a Slow turns any enemy into a training dummy for a minute (-2 actions per turn), even if they are level+4, and if your party isn't one foot in the grave with no recovery at the moment it happens, a Slow critfailure wins you the bossfight almost automatically. And because of that (I assume it's because of that), critfailures "had" to be done in a way as to be almost impossible for enemies at your level or above. It's not good design. 5% chance to dumpster a climactic fight, 25% chance to do what you intended to do, 50% chance to mildly inconvenience the enemy for 1 round, and 20% chance to do nothing - it's simply not fun.

Even the martial stuff feels lower key in PF2. I mean, the floor is higher at least, and a PF2 Fighter is generally effective , but not (IMO) that exciting.

Instead of "Boom! Made a huge dent in the monster and knocked it on its ass!" effectiveness looks like "Ah yes, good, you can see from this trend that I'm gradually drawing ahead, and eventually I'm going to win."

Except when you're a fighter with a Deadly weapon, who is actually capable of "boom I took out half of the enemy's HP in a single strike" on a semi-regular basis. Because it's a Fighter's game played by Fighter's rules, and Fighter is given higher numbers to take advantage of that.

Like I said earlier and I'm fairly sure I've said in a few other threads, PF2 seems like it's afraid to give you actual power or the ability to hold your own individually. They balance everything close together but in a way where your high point is "adequate" while your possible low point is still "terrible" and they set it all up so you are reliant on your entire party doing their jobs correctly to accomplish anything.

3.5 and Pathfinder1 both build around the power fantasy to some degree, even the "weak" and underperforming classes by some standards can pretty quickly reach the point of superhuman levels of power and it makes complete sense why the player characters are important and effective heroes able to stand up to the threats they face. Pathfinder 2 instead seems to embrace a recent trend of seeing power fantasy as something to be deeply ashamed of. In PF2 you aren't the hero out to save the world, you aren't the villain out to conquer it, you aren't the chosen one, you're the bunch of people who happen to be around at the time with enough training to not hold your weapon by the pointy end. Everything from the granular approach of PF2 classes to the way it's balanced seems to be there to disguise the fact that if you put a Pathfinder character next to a Pathfinder 2 character the former could easily put the latter to shame in just about every regard.

Somehow, people often don't understand that decently tactical gameplay and power fantasy don't have to be exclusive to one another. PF2 apologists in my group say that it's good because PF2 forces you to work together, nobody actually has spotlight, and it's a party game so of course it should be balanced around the party rather than characters.

[icefractal]

I mean, I sorta get that perspective. For someone who likes carefully plotting out every move they make in combat, they could get annoyed that in PF1 you don't usually need to do that. And that consequently, if you tell the other players "Hey, we need to be strategic on every move, you can't just run off and attack the foe who you hate the most!", then the reply would likely be "Well I think the difficulty is ok currently, but if you're right and we do TPK, I'll bring in a stronger character next time." Because (from a "combat is a competitive puzzle" standpoint) it shouldn't be possible to make sub-optimal moves in combat and yet win anyway, that's practically cheating.

Except, it's not a perspective that appeals to me at all. Optimize hard during char-gen? Sure, if the rest of the table wants to play that way I'm happy to - after all, I'm doing it outside game-time, so I can just pick the time during the week that I feel the most analytic. Optimize hard at the table? Not always the mental space I'm in the mood for, so I don't want to be forced into it to play - and I like being able to do somewhat foolish and/or IC-motivation-driven things.

I guess I view D&D kinda like a potluck - the "cooking" is best done in your own kitchen, with plenty of time and no distractions. Then when you're enjoying it later with your friends, it's fine to be joking around, because the technical part is done. Not 100% done, because I do enjoy some tactics during combat, I just want the slack to play a bit loose.

[Kurald Galain]

I mean, I sorta get that perspective. For someone who likes carefully plotting out every move they make in combat, they could get annoyed that in PF1 you don't usually need to do that.

True enough, many players don't want to play a tactical boardgame in their D&D time.

That said, if I don't want a tactical game, I'd go with either PF1 or 5E, but definitely not the tiny-modifier-addiction that is PF2.
Whereas if I do want a tactical game, I go with PF1 again, because PF2 is hardwirded so that tactics don't actually make a difference.
Like, 90% of PF2 players I've seen spend literally every turn doing two attacks, then either a move or their class special ability, with no variation. If I want simple gameplay like that, I'll play something less fiddly and cumbersome.