PF Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

Zardnaar

Hero
Have I waxed cynical about the way people meet complaints early in a playtest with "it's too soon, don't worry, it'll be fine" and then, at some point, a switch flips, and it's "well it's too late, now! you should have said something earlier," but it's never, ever the right time to be complain?
I'm sure I have.

One of the things I liked, of course (I also liked Attunement in 5e, but they miraculously kept it, anyway).

The way I see it, 5e has gone all old-school TSR, DM-centric.
PF(2) doesn't need to change focus from player to DM because 5e did, let alone try to be 'rules lite' because 5e pretended too.
You kind of have to have a DM centric game though, player centric alot of DMs won't want to run it as the inmates are running the asylum. 3E and 4E for example gave players easy access to magic items, creates DM headaches.
 
Last edited:
YOu kind of have to have a DM centric game though, player centric alot of DMs won't want to run it as the inmates are running the asylum. 3E and 4E for example gave players easy access to magic items, creates DM headaches.
3e was, in retrospect, a nightmare to run. I did do it for a bit but the effort to payoff on the DM side of the screen was discouraging. 4e was at least as player centric, arguably more so, but DMing it was on the opposite extreme: downright too easy, made me lazy, anyone could run an Encounters adventure - there was never a shortage of DMs.

DM centric games can be quite a challenge to run - requiring experience, or skill or talent or hard work - but there can be a corresponding payoff.
 
Last edited:

CapnZapp

Adventurer
You kind of have to have a DM centric game though, player centric alot of DMs won't want to run it as the inmates are running the asylum.
Yes, 5E is undeniably much easier for the DM than d20/PF. A very very good thing.

3E and 4E for example gave players easy access to magic items, creates DM headaches.
While it is undeniably true 3E expected a certain minimal "magic item progression", taking way the entire magic item economy throws out the baby with the bathwater.

Magic items is fun. Not just finding random (or not so random) items, but also being able to purchase items of your own choosing with your heard-earned gold, is an essential part of the D&D experience.

Removing the need/expectation from PCs and NPCs alike is a great development.

But not giving the proper tools for those DMs who choose to feature magic shoppes in their campaigns (by logic and utility based price formulas, properly challenging monsters, and so on) is a definite regression in 5E compared to d20!

They could and should have stopped at "no need to equip NPCs" (and therefore also "no looting NPCs") and no core demand for magic shoppes, and kept the remaining very fun aspects of d20 magic item purchasing.
 
Last edited:

Zardnaar

Hero
Yes, 5E is undeniably much easier for the DM than d20/PF. A very very good thing.


While it is undeniably true 3E expected a certain minimal "magic item progression", taking way the entire magic item economy throws out the baby with the bathwater.

Magic items is fun. Not just finding random (or not so random) items, but also being able to purchase items of your own choosing with your heard-earned gold, is an essential part of the D&D experience.

Removing the need/expectation from PCs and NPCs alike is a great development.

But not giving the proper tools for those DMs who choose to feature magic shoppes in their campaigns (by logic and utility based price formulas, properly challenging monsters, and so on) is a definite regression in 5E compared to d20!

They could and should have stopped at "no need to equip NPCs" (and therefore also "no looting NPCs") and no core demand for magic shoppes, and kept the remaining very fun aspects of d20 magic item purchasing.
Not essential at all , B/X, AD&D and 5E (the popular editions you know) don't have it. And they did include prices you just don't like them.
 

Kaodi

Adventurer
It might be interesting to see how many of the specialized subsystems for Adventure Paths can be retooled for PF2 with a reasonable amount of work. The only actual PF1 products I ever bought (because I have not had disposable income for a long time) were the first and second adventures of Kingmaker, and I wonder how the new rules will interact with the Kingdom sysem. Or with the Caravan system from Jade Regent.
 

zztong

Explorer
The Kingdom system got revised in Ultimate Campaign. I still use it (with modification) in parts of a PF1 game. The devil is in the details, but if I remember it correctly much of it should still be useful. You would have to switch it to use silver instead of gold, but that's easy. The skill system might be an issue since it scales differently.

At the time we played the Jade Regent, we tried the Caravan system for a few sessions and then threw it in the trash. I don't remember the details. I've not seen those rules appear anywhere else.
 

Voadam

Adventurer
The only conversion system that really works in all cases is this:

1. Look at your old-system character sheet.
2. On a blank paper using basic English only, write down what the character can do. Use no numbers and no game terms. Focus on what the character actually does most of the time, and not the things it can theoretically do but usually doesn't.
3. Burn the old character sheet.
4. Create a brand new character in the new system, using the plain-English description from step 2 to guide you.
5. Done!


Every attempt to map specific game mechanisms and numbers from one system to another is bound to fail eventually, and is likely so cluttery and complex all it accomplishes is giving off a veneer of accuracy while still not giving acceptable results half the time.

Even for relatively close systems, like AD&D to Pathfinder, or d20 to 5E for example.

It's not worth it. Just go with my system instead. It has the benefit of always working, no matter which systems are involved!
You are only looking from the player character conversion end. There is also the DM end of converting old monsters and magic items and modules to the new system.

For instance it is fairly trivial to use a B/X module with AD&D or a 3.0 module with PF 1. It takes a little converting but not redoing every stat from the narrative elements the way you would if you were converting to Savage Worlds or the Hero system.

For 3e to PF1 monster conversion at the table for instance you can use most everything as is while converting a few specific elements. Skills turn into the PF equivalent (spot turns into perception, etc.) without worrying about having the math being the same as if starting from scratch in the new system, grapple bonus turns into the two grapple stats in PF (Grapple attack and grapple attack plus touch AC, modify the size bonus if desired), decide if you want to use the 3e or PF version of feats, spell like abilities, poison, DR, and class abilities. Throwing a 3e version of most of those mechanics against PF characters still works fine if that is easier for you than changing them. Be aware that PF versions are a little tougher than their 3e versions of the same CR, but not a big difference.

I did this a lot in the B/X to AD&D era and in the 3.0/3.5/d20 Modern/PF1 era. It would be nice to have easy conversions for all the d20 DM stuff to PF2.
 

Advertisement

Top