log in or register to remove this ad

 

Savage Pathfinder Pathfinder Adventure Paths Are Coming To Savage Worlds!

Pinnacle Entertainment Group has announced that it will be bringing Paizo's Pathfinder adventurer paths to Savage Worlds, starting with Rise of the Runelords. They will be launching a Kickstarter in January 2021.

The Kickstarter includes a core ruleset called Savage Pathfinder, and a Rise of the Runelords boxed set.

127243145_3902632729770774_8928856243244391689_n.jpg


 PRESS RELEASE



It’s Thanksgiving here in the United States. For our international friends, that’s a time when we come together as friends and family and tell everyone what we’re thankful for.

Today, Pinnacle Entertainment Group is INCREDIBLY thankful to our good friends at Paizo for letting us play in their amazing world of Golarion, setting of the phenomenally successful Pathfinder Roleplaying Game!

Following the incredible reception we had with Kevin Siembieda’s phenomenal world of Rifts®, we’re bringing Pathfinder’s fantastic Adventure Paths to the Savage Worlds™ system, starting with the best-selling Rise of the Runelords™!

The Kickstarter begins mid-January, 2021, and will feature the Savage Pathfinder core rules, a boxed set with all the usual Savage Worlds accessories, AND the Rise of the Runelords boxed set with all six books of the Adventure Path and other deluxe accessories!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey


log in or register to remove this ad

Retreater

Legend
Just for info, the implementation of SWADE in Fantasy Grounds is amazing. If calculates raises, wounds, soaks, ammo consumption from high rate of fire and has specific statuses tacked on to the powers that deliver them (e.g. a specific ‘quicked’ status attached to the Slow / Speed power). It really lifts a chunk of the mechanical load off the GM and players.
I might look into that when my new computer arrives. I have been unable to run FG for nearly two years without access to a regular computer (I've been using a Chromebook).
Of course in this situation it would mean the PF subsystem would have to be put into FG, or we might have an even worse mess.
 


Retreater

Legend
Not necessarily. Releasing Paizo APs for 5e has two significant downsides:
It would also play into Paizo's strengths (world building and adventure design), bringing them to an audience of (I'm guessing) the most widely adopted TTRPG of all time. It would also allow them to avoid what I think is their Achilles Heel (rules design) - I've been critical of their balance issues since the 1e APG.
They have the marketing to promote it and are unlikely to be lost in 3pp anonymity. Dropping their most successful product line (PF1e), refusing to adapt to a changing landscape of gaming, while exclusively supporting a new system that is struggling to gain a foothold would be foolish or a demonstration of hubris.
I don't think the folks at Paizo are foolish or too proud to adapt. I think they'll resume making material for PF1 or begin conversions to 5e if PF2 doesn't pick up.
 


Sir Brennen

Adventurer
Even though I've played Savage Worlds, it definitely checks all the boxes for "I don't have the mental bandwidth." Around a year ago I ran a game for our old college friends' Gamer Weekend. I had to constantly look to other players. "How many wounds would that be, after subtracting the armor piercing from the toughness, dividing that total by four?" and "You're attacking a tank with a laser sword - which gets past all armor and toughness - so how many wounds does the tank have?" It was exhausting, even in person without the restraints of VTT, fiddling with connections in Zoom, etc.
I will admit SW is deceptively simple to a degree. IMO it's not on the level of PF with regards to crunchiness, but there are several rules you need to read the wording of exactly, and many of the "simple" moving parts interact in complicated ways. Just read through some of the official answers on the rules in their forums to get an idea.

And because I'm an older gamer playing multiple systems, and in some cases, have the rules of multiple editions of some of those in my head, I often have to double check I've got the right rule for this system and this edition.

I definitely think a key part of running SW (or any system, really) is just being prepared, especially for any parts of the game you're less familiar with. In your example, I'd definitely have the stat block of a tank somewhere handy, printed or bookmarked, if I knew there was going to be a tank this session. Not much different than looking up a monster with special abilities in a d20 game.

Creating a simple printed chart or using an online tool for calculating success and raises over a range of target numbers can also be handy, though I don't have much trouble with the calculations. Here's a simple and effective one: RaiseCalculator.xlsx (webcommando.com)

I'm currently running a sci-fi game in SW, and any session that will involve starship combat, I make sure to have the stats printed out. My core and setting books have a few post-it tabs for quick reference. Next session will start with a vehicle chase, so that's been re-read, bookmarked and for my VTT game, a quick ref doc of options during the chase for the players will be available.
 

Reynard

Legend
It would also play into Paizo's strengths (world building and adventure design), bringing them to an audience of (I'm guessing) the most widely adopted TTRPG of all time. It would also allow them to avoid what I think is their Achilles Heel (rules design) - I've been critical of their balance issues since the 1e APG.
They have the marketing to promote it and are unlikely to be lost in 3pp anonymity. Dropping their most successful product line (PF1e), refusing to adapt to a changing landscape of gaming, while exclusively supporting a new system that is struggling to gain a foothold would be foolish or a demonstration of hubris.
I don't think the folks at Paizo are foolish or too proud to adapt. I think they'll resume making material for PF1 or begin conversions to 5e if PF2 doesn't pick up.
If Paizo was going to move into supporting 5E, I imagine they would have done so rather than launch a new edition of Pathfinder. My guess is they do not want to find themselves once again hitched to the fortunes of WotC and D&D, which could change drastically at any time. Those rumors going around about Hasbro selling it ff? If that were true and some vampire firm bought it to extract its value and leave it crippled would kill D&D outright. Why would Paizo want to risk something like that, or another 4E?
 

Retreater

Legend
I definitely think a key part of running SW (or any system, really) is just being prepared, especially for any parts of the game you're less familiar with. In your example, I'd definitely have the stat block of a tank somewhere handy, printed or bookmarked, if I knew there was going to be a tank this session. Not much different than looking up a monster with special abilities in a d20 game.
The problem was that there wasn't stats for the tank. In the setting book, monster book, SWADE core, etc. There was no knowing how much damage it could take - and if you just ran it like a monster, this mechanized death bringer (like an AT-AT from Star Wars) would be dropped in a single round from a character with a sword.
But then you assume you roll on a chart, which might give you a random system to take out of the ship.
And you have 4 different kinds of vehicles, 6 different kinds of enemies, vastly different weapons and armor, etc. Damn, it was exhausting. About an hour a turn to play through.
 

Retreater

Legend
If Paizo was going to move into supporting 5E, I imagine they would have done so rather than launch a new edition of Pathfinder. My guess is they do not want to find themselves once again hitched to the fortunes of WotC and D&D, which could change drastically at any time. Those rumors going around about Hasbro selling it ff? If that were true and some vampire firm bought it to extract its value and leave it crippled would kill D&D outright. Why would Paizo want to risk something like that, o
It's a vastly different landscape now than when 4e was released. First off, just taking from the table the widescale adoption of 5e compared to 4e, look at the OGL for 5e. Sure it's a little more restrictive than the one for 3rd edition, but nowhere near what came out for 4e.
Paizo's entire product line was based around hitching to WotC's highly successful 3rd edition. Why they wouldn't want to do the same now is beyond me. And if Hasbro were to sell D&D and 5th edition would be ended - hell, that's the perfect storm for Paizo to have a rebirth as industry leaders. They would be the largest company still producing content for the most successful edition of D&D that had ever been released.
Hitching to Savage Worlds is more risky than that. Pinnacle is a mom and pop business compared to WotC. But making an AP conversion for Savage Worlds is a low risk. The same would be true for a 5e conversion. There is absolutely nothing in the OGL saying that Paizo cannot produce material for their house system (PF2), Savage Worlds (or any other system), AND 5e. (Frog God Games does this; Monte Cook Games does this; Troll Lord Games does this; Legendary Games does this.)
Paizo has the official numbers. I can only glean a little bit of data from what's reported online and my anecdotal experience, which indicates that PF2 is DOA. If it's not, that's great news for Paizo - but I would like to see more evidence in the form of increased 3PP support, better VTT integration, more PFS events (if it means the staff need to run the games to get them out there, then make your staff run the damn promo games). Right now PF2 seems very half-assed when it should be taking the gaming world by storm. If not, drop the thing and move on.
We're nearly a year and a half into the new system. If it continues to stay at 1.5% on Roll20 (compared to 4% for the decade-old PF1); if Society Games continue to focus on Starfinder; if major 3PP keep releasing only PF1 material, then it might be time to rethink what you're doing.
 


wilcoxon

Explorer
I can only glean a little bit of data from what's reported online and my anecdotal experience, which indicates that PF2 is DOA. If it's not, that's great news for Paizo - but I would like to see more evidence in the form of increased 3PP support, better VTT integration, more PFS events (if it means the staff need to run the games to get them out there, then make your staff run the damn promo games). Right now PF2 seems very half-assed when it should be taking the gaming world by storm. If not, drop the thing and move on.
PF2 is definitely not DOA. PFS for PF2 is thriving - I think there were like 70 tables for the specials at virtual cons over the summer (pretty sure that's larger than any AL (5e) events recently (but not positive). I don't follow your "more PFS events" - I was playing multiple games per week and still could be (but I've run out of PFS material since it's only early in season 2).

Anecdotally, I don't know anyone that has tried PF2 and not liked it. I know multiple people that are basically transitioning to PF2 from 5e after trying PF2 (and I know quite a few people transitioning from PF1 to PF2).

As near as I can tell, PF2 has more players than SF (definitely not based on any hard data - just observations of con events and people talking about playing *Finder).
 

It could be just a personal anecdote, but I feel like the OSR is growing pretty substantially. I wouldn't be surprised if the movement overtakes PF1 as an alternative version of D&D - though it's not going to come close to overtaking 5e. Old School Essentials just finished a massive Kickstarter.
In my own groups, I am playing in an OSE game and DMing both Swords & Wizardry and 5e. Presently, I don't have the mental bandwidth to try to a) learn a new system, b) convert it to a VTT, and c) teach it to new players virtually. OSR games (for players in my age group) are a familiar, casual feel for stressful times. Game theory, in depth crunch, and 600+ page rules tomes can wait until life gets back to normal.
I'm running four overlapping campaigns now, and three of my 10 players are old school folks for whom AD&D is "their" version of the game. It would have been easier for them if I had just busted out OSRIC or a 1E derivative. But five of the other players are kids and I know that, if they want to play D&D with their friends, 5E will be the expected game for middle schoolers and probably most high schoolers, so that's the way we went.

Luckily, the 5E ruleset has enough similarities to 1E that it hasn't been a big transition beyond flavor changes and how certain monsters and abilities operate. (Darkvision is not infravision, for instance, and that's a good thing.)

I do use a lot of OSR material for inspiration on my side of the screen and will be converting Operation Unfathomable to 5E for the group with the most grognards, whom I expect will enjoy an acid trip version of the Underdark.
 

when the market crashes (as will happen like it did in the 3.x/OGL 3rd-party days), it would be better to not be part of it (a LOT of small publishers went under because of that - Paizo is probably big enough not to go under but would still be significantly impacted).
Most of the third-party publishers today are survivors of the 3E crash and will survive the next crash, if there is one. (All of them have a system in addition to 5E they're publishing for, notably.) The others are folks doing it as a part-time gig. I don't believe even the most prolific people publishing through DMs Guild have quit their day jobs, for instance.

I think the folks who will be hurt most if/when there's a 5E crash are live-streamers, except for the ones nimble enough to see the crash coming and hop to something else to bring in comparable eyeballs.
 


Sir Brennen

Adventurer
The problem was that there wasn't stats for the tank. In the setting book, monster book, SWADE core, etc. There was no knowing how much damage it could take - and if you just ran it like a monster, this mechanized death bringer (like an AT-AT from Star Wars) would be dropped in a single round from a character with a sword.
But then you assume you roll on a chart, which might give you a random system to take out of the ship.
And you have 4 different kinds of vehicles, 6 different kinds of enemies, vastly different weapons and armor, etc. Damn, it was exhausting. About an hour a turn to play through.
I'm not sure why you would have included vehicles in a scenario that you didn't know what their stats are. But relying on the art of extrapolation, it's pretty easy to assign what you think the values should be and go from there. Especially for a one shot. There are several examples of tanks and even a couple of futuristic military vehicles in the core rules (SWADE pg 83-84).

There are also clear cut rules for vehicles in general, as well (pg 81). They are not Extras that go down with a single hit. They take 3 Wounds before getting wrecked. Large vehicles can take 4. Huge (probably a good estimate for an AT-AT) would take 5. Almost all military vehicles would have the Heavy Armor property, meaning only a weapon with the Heavy Weapon property can even damage it.

Further rules for attacks on/by vehicles are covered on page 117, in the Chases and Vehicles section. There is a table to roll on when a vehicle takes damage, and also to see if the driver/pilot keeps control of the vehicle.

These are all things I would have reviewed/bookmarked before the session. In fact, I have for my upcoming session that I know will involve a vehicle chase. This sounds more like a system familiarity issue than a problem with the system itself.
 

Retreater

Legend
I'm not sure why you would have included vehicles in a scenario that you didn't know what their stats are.
I was running a one-shot, pre-published adventure with nearly zero prep time available. So much for "fast, furious, and fun" when you can't do that with the system, right?

Almost all military vehicles would have the Heavy Armor property, meaning only a weapon with the Heavy Weapon property can even damage it.
Yeah, so that would be accurate. In Savage Rifts (nearly) all melee weapons have the mega damage property. So yes, a character can disable a tank with a single hit.

These are all things I would have reviewed/bookmarked before the session. In fact, I have for my upcoming session that I know will involve a vehicle chase. This sounds more like a system familiarity issue than a problem with the system itself.
So pages 81, 83, 117 would all need to be bookmarked? Plus the stats for all the different opponents? Plus the adventure? Plus having access to the website to convert damage to wounds?

I'm not saying this is a bad system. I'm just saying it's at least "medium" in terms of rules complexity. It's definitely "furious" when a minion can one-shot a PC or a PC can one-shot a tank. It can certainly be "fun" depending on your group. But "fast" it's definitely not.
 

There was a lot of similar concern about Rifts too. Original Rifts is a high powered, unbalanced, complicated, obtuse and nearly unplayable mess of a game system with super unbalancing class character options... And Yet they pulled it off for Savage Rifts.

They took a game that's a class and level game, full of bloated hit points, and Savaged it successfully.

Pathfinder isn't the same unbalanced mess that Rifts is. PF is another class/level game that has a lot of high powered fantasy, yet the underlying structure of PF1 is much more balanced overall compared to Rifts.

I don't think I quite buy that.

Rifts was a kitchen sink setting (everything and anything fits into the same setting) and SW is a buffet rules system (pick and choose). All Rifts really has to do to be compatible with SW it say, "Go to the buffet and pick one of everything." Like the setting of Rifts is kind of defined by the contrast of styles. It's intentionally, explicitly inconsistent. It's "What if the end of Time Bandits but a tabletop RPG?" If anything wonkiness or mismatched feels would support rather than detract from the game. Rifts was as natural pairing with SW as I could imagine.

Pathfinder isn't that. It's setting has a feel and a tone. Sure, it happens to match D&D 3.5e, but that's still a tone, feel, and pace of play that is much different than SW.

Plus Pinnacle has been working on this translation for a year. I'm feeling secure in their ability to Savage Pathfinder.

This will also fill a niche of a fantasy dungeon crawler that's sort of been missing from Pinnacle's line of Official Savage settings.

I guess? I just don't know why I would ever choose SW for my dungeon crawler game. "It can do it" is... pretty weak reasoning, because I don't think it does it well and there are many alternatives that do. I love SW for certain styles of games, but dungeon crawler I would put pretty far down. I'm sure not everyone feels that way because everyone has preferences for style, but my sense remains that it won't work. My expectation is that we will get a module whose narrative resembles Rise of the Runelords but is otherwise quite different in essential ways. That is, a remake, not an adaptation, and remakes can go off the rails.
 

Retreater

Legend
PF2 is definitely not DOA. PFS for PF2 is thriving - I think there were like 70 tables for the specials at virtual cons over the summer (pretty sure that's larger than any AL (5e) events recently (but not positive). I don't follow your "more PFS events" - I was playing multiple games per week and still could be (but I've run out of PFS material since it's only early in season 2).
Not that I'm seeing. Maybe I need to look elsewhere besides the Paizo site? And the PF2 FB group doesn't have much actual play going on. Everything is theoretical character build stuff, not actual playing the game.
Anecdotally, I don't know anyone that has tried PF2 and not liked it. I know multiple people that are basically transitioning to PF2 from 5e after trying PF2 (and I know quite a few people transitioning from PF1 to PF2).
Hi, I'm Retreater. ;)

We didn't hate it, to be fair. I think I disliked the experience of running it for that specific group of players, of that specific Adventure Path, on that specific Virtual Table Top. Get me a group of players who aren't rules-lawyers and aren't actively trying to "break" the system and make other players feel like crap with misogynistic attitudes. Get me an AP that is well designed or let me make my own material. Get me on a VTT that actually supports PF2 - or at least let me play in person. With all those factors, and well-rested at the end of the pandemic, maybe I can run it okay. But when a game doesn't work for me in the current environment, that tells me maybe it's not the best fit in general.
 

Retreater

Legend
I'm running four overlapping campaigns now, and three of my 10 players are old school folks for whom AD&D is "their" version of the game. It would have been easier for them if I had just busted out OSRIC or a 1E derivative. But five of the other players are kids and I know that, if they want to play D&D with their friends, 5E will be the expected game for middle schoolers and probably most high schoolers, so that's the way we went.

Luckily, the 5E ruleset has enough similarities to 1E that it hasn't been a big transition beyond flavor changes and how certain monsters and abilities operate. (Darkvision is not infravision, for instance, and that's a good thing.)

I do use a lot of OSR material for inspiration on my side of the screen and will be converting Operation Unfathomable to 5E for the group with the most grognards, whom I expect will enjoy an acid trip version of the Underdark.
Without going too off topic in this thread, here's how 5e clashes with OSR sensibilities for me.
1) Power levels are crazy in 5e
2) Healing is easier
3) Nearly every character gets spells
4) The fiddly bonus action - which is confusing even to people I've been playing 5e with for 2+ years
5) Endless 0-level spells
6) And magic isn't special, spells are nerfed compared to previous editions
7) There are rules for nearly everything - reducing the importance of DM rulings
8) Death Saves mean characters rarely die

Having come to 5e from 3.x/PF/4e/etc., I think it seems simple and a little more old-school by comparison. But when I play with my friends who are used to systems like Labyrinth Lord, their eyes cross and they ask "what is all this fiddly nonsense?"
 

Stacie GmrGrl

Adventurer
I don't think I quite buy that.

Rifts was a kitchen sink setting (everything and anything fits into the same setting) and SW is a buffet rules system (pick and choose). All Rifts really has to do to be compatible with SW it say, "Go to the buffet and pick one of everything." Like the setting of Rifts is kind of defined by the contrast of styles. It's intentionally, explicitly inconsistent. It's "What if the end of Time Bandits but a tabletop RPG?" If anything wonkiness or mismatched feels would support rather than detract from the game. Rifts was as natural pairing with SW as I could imagine.

Pathfinder isn't that. It's setting has a feel and a tone. Sure, it happens to match D&D 3.5e, but that's still a tone, feel, and pace of play that is much different than SW.



I guess? I just don't know why I would ever choose SW for my dungeon crawler game. "It can do it" is... pretty weak reasoning, because I don't think it does it well and there are many alternatives that do. I love SW for certain styles of games, but dungeon crawler I would put pretty far down. I'm sure not everyone feels that way because everyone has preferences for style, but my sense remains that it won't work. My expectation is that we will get a module whose narrative resembles Rise of the Runelords but is otherwise quite different in essential ways. That is, a remake, not an adaptation, and remakes can go off the rails.
All I know is Savage Pathfinder gives me a version of Pathfinder I can play without having the mind numbing headache that Paizo Pathfinder induces in me.
 

Advertisement1

Latest threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top