|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Thank you, Thaine. That's very helpful.
I hadn't realized all that the 5E system assumes the characters have that PF characters don't because of system restrictions.
I guess that converting the other way would likewise increase the power of PF classes beyond design intentions since they'd be picking up all the stuff that PF requires a feat for that 5E gives for free to all.
Thank you very much!
Specifically, I'm interested in the 5E Warlock... But, any conversion guidelines might be helpful.
Also, how much are 5E feats worth compared to PF feats? I'm guesstimating them at about the value of 2 PF feats. Any thoughts?
One of my goals would be to be able to convert from 5E to PF and from PF to 5E.
I don't think it'd be all that hard. In fact, I think it'd be very easy to do.
Advantage/Disadvantage is easy to substitute for various situational modifiers.
Relaxing AoO rules to 5E standards is easy enough.
Allowing arcane casters to cast when wearing armor they are proficient with is easy.
Eliminating confirmation rolls on crit threats is easy (but, may result in too many crits with default PF threat ranges and threat range increasers).
The 5E Death and Dying rules would be easy to import.
I think much of the 5E engine could be used unchanged with 3X characters and monsters.
Yes and no.
5E math is closer to what you'd see in E6/P6 (orP7). But, 5E still goes to level 20 and still has spells from 4th to 9th level. But, the ones that some may consider problematic aren't present in 5E Basic (no telling about Core, yet). Also, spell buffs are limited to one at a time, if my understanding is correct.
Magic items are limited, too. The default is that they're extremely rare (can't be bought or sold). Also, the better ones require a character to be "attuned" to them in order to get their benefits. A character can only be "attuned" to a max of three items.
I'm a fan of E6 and have been for years. For me, there are similarities between 5E and E6, but they aren't the same game. 5E still assumes there are four tiers of play, while E6 concentrates on the first two tiers. But, 3X tiers aren't necessarily the same as 5X tiers.
Mathematically, I'd say that 5E extends the "sweet-spot" found in E6 all the way to 20th level. And, that's a huge plus, for me.
Has anyone compared pathfinder and 5e creatures (bestiary entries)? Are they at all inter-compatible?
They're not directly compatible, but I have been tinkering with some homebrew conversion.
5E attack bonuses, saves, and skill difficulty checks are on a different scale than PF/3X. Low-level stuff is close, but the disparity rises the higher things get in level. The highest base attack bonus in 5E is +6 compared to +20 in PF/3X. For Saves, it's +6 in 5E compared to +12 in PF/3X. And skill difficulty checks range somewhat higher in PF/3X than in 5E.
After looking at it and crunching some numbers, I think it'd be easier to convert 3E/PF to 5E than the other direction. That said, I'm waiting to see the 5E Core Rulebooks before doing to much conversion.
Ultimately, I expect our group will convert to 5E for rules but stay with homebrewed conversions of a lot of PF/3X material. Mostly because of the "flatter" math underlying the 5E engine and the fact that we've already have so much PF/3X material.
Is using string and rulers really easier or better than a grid?
It's really up to you (especially as it's a system neutral option).
Depending upon the size of the battlefield, rulers, strings, or tape measures might work better for some folks.
For instance, one of our DM's enjoys having large battlefields built in 3D on 4 ft by 8 ft foam boards. He might have several minibattles within a single larger battle all going on at once. If my elf sorcerer with his trusty bow wants to fire a shot at an enemy 3/4's of the way across the board at an angle, it's often quicker to use a tape measure to calculate distance.
Also, he's not a fan of the 1-inch grid. Says it seems too small next to some of the Reaper minis we use. So, gridless works better for him.
Our group played about 3 sessions or so of the 5E Starter Set.
It was very easy to DM. I used miniatures for the first session, but then went to just drawing a map on graph paper and tracking marching order. That worked very well. And, though I expect we'll continue using miniatures, we'll be ditching the grid in favor or string or rulers.
But, what I'm most happy with is the change in the underlying math of the game (resulting from Bounded Accuracy) that allows for low level monsters to remain threats (in larger numbers) at higher levels without adding all kinds of levels to the beasts. Also, the new math doesn't appear to be all that hard to reverse engineer for Pathfinder stuff (so converting Pathfinder material (even the classes and feats) shouldn't be too hard, at all).
So, my plans are to get the core books of DnD5e and homebrew the rest of what I want from my 1e, 2e, 3e/3.5, and PF collection. I plan on continuing to purchase upcoming Paizo products like the Advanced Class Guide and Pathfinder Unchained and use them as sourcebooks for a PF/5E hybrid.
I heartily agree with the idea that "5e seems to be channeling a lot of the aspects of E6 that I was intrigued about."
Thank you for the perspective.
I did notice that there were a few places in published (3.5) adventures where CRs were lowered because a monster was inadequately equipped or deliberately made weaker than the standard version in order to hit a desired CR.
I was hoping that by decreasing monster hit points by 50%, that I could at least drop the CR by 1 (if not 2).
And, this wouldn't be a wounded hit point total. It would be the creature's new fully healed total.
James Jacobs wrote:
I like the sound of this.
Any advice on converting AE classes to PFRPG?
I'm especially concerned about the 21st to 25th levels, since PFRPG only goes to 20th. Would these classes just lose them? Or, are the PFRPG core classes strong enough to stand side-by-side with 25 level classes?
Also, could the class features from the AE 21st to 25th level be moved down to 16th through 20th without making the classes too strong next to PFRPG classes?
The cool thing about these "Demon Lord" rules is that (with a little work) they could be malleable. You could use the same rules to create and stat out Infernal Archdukes or Daemonic Harbingers (Who would be LE and NE, of course) or just use them to represent whatever the main "fiendish" entities are in your unique setting.
I'm actually hoping for traits for the Archdukes and Daemonic Harbringers, too. Also, traits for the upper opposition would be nice, too.
Magus...holy crap is it a good deal for him, especially since at level 5+ he can just give any weapon Keen anyway. Not just shocking grasp; frigid touch is possibly even nastier.
I've never played or seen a magus in play.
I didn't realize that the magus' attack benefitted twice from getting a confirmed critical. I would have thought only the weapon could've scored a critical and the spell damage wouldn't be multiplied.
Just read a review of 13th Age on Enworld.org.
The playtester explained that that game uses an escalation die. A great big d6 that sits on the table and is used by the GM to count up after the first round (maxing out at +6). In 13th Age, the PC's get to add that number to their to hit rolls (and other things).
What if Pathfinder had an escalation die for critical threat ranges? It would make combat more dangerous as the fights wore on. By the 7th round of combat and beyond, the chances of getting a critical threat would be 30% higher.
Does SKR's reasoning still hold true for the PFRPG?
Would it be a reasonable houserule to allow keen and improved critical to stack?
And, does anyone know why PF didn't adopt the philosophy that keen and improved critical should stack?
I'd classify cure light wounds as an attack only if it is used to harm an opponent. So, if you cast cure light wounds on an ally, it's not an attack. But, if you cast it on a skeleton, it's a melee attack spell.
Thanks for the input about grapple and the disruptive feat. If I were to implement this feat as written, it would trump disruptive and wouldn't just add a +4 bonus to the check for casting defensively.
That said, I now think the proposed feat is not good, as written. It's too good (because of it's negating grapple and the disruptive feat, entirely).
I agree the feat isn't needed. I do, however like your proposal that it allows the caster to take 10 on concentration checks.
Not sure what direction I'll take on this, if any.
Thanks for the input, everyone.
I like the idea of having it be a feat, instead of a general rule change, Captain Xenon.
Here is what I'm thinking:
Not sure which subforum this belongs in, but since I'm primarily concerned about the full PF RPG rules, I'll ask it here.
I thought I understood this, but then we went on trip and didn't want to take the full Pathfinder RPG and miniatures... So, I bought a copy of the Beginner Box to give it a try.
So, my question is this...
In the Beginner Box,
So, my question (if I understood the BB rules correctly) is...
In the full PFRPG rules, I'd always thought that the casting of a melee attack spell provoked an AoO when within a threatened area.
● Is that actually the case?
I fully agree with that, James.
Most of the characters I GM and play are under 10th level.
I only have a handful from AD&D of the 80's that actually reached higher level. And, it's only very few of those that would be epic level if converted to Pathfinder. Those few would be along the lines of the beings from the mythologies presented in the AD&D Legends & Lore.
So, for my purposes, not having official epic rules for Pathfinder works fine.
If I can understand how the demon lords are built, that should be enough for me. The package of Demon Lord Traits in the blog post answers most of this, I think. Just waiting to see how numerical advancement is handled for these beings.
Will there be guidance for statting up homebrewed demon lords? (I'm assuming the answer is yes.)
James Jacobs wrote:
Thank you for the reply, James.
While I'm sad to read that expanded epic rules are that unlikely, it does give me comfort that if I house-rule how it works based on what's given in the CRB (& Mythic), it won't be overruled any time soon.
Basically, I would have a class level cap (so no 21st level fighters), but no character level cap (so a 15th level fighter, 10th level cleric would be possible). BAB would probably be capped at a max of +20 and base saves at a max of +12.
Can't wait to get a look at one of the demon lord stat blocks!
James Jacobs wrote:
Thank you, James.
I'm still hoping for Epic level support for Pathfinder, in the future, but I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Mythic rules asap. And, practically salivating over these demon lords' stat blocks!
I believe that's been the level limit for a while. There are suggestions on how to allow people to go past level 20, but that's just for GMs who want that.
Thank you. I was thinking that 21+ level characters were really considered house-rules territory, even though such levels are briefly mentioned in the CRB. The term "max level" pretty much confirmed it.
James Jacobs wrote:
Demon lords are intended to be tough. Things that a max level, max tier party will probably TPK against unless...
By "max level, max tier party"... Am I correct in understanding we're talking about 20th level characters with 10 mythic tiers, each?
In other words, max level equals 20th level?
I'm running The Shackled City. The player's characters have been converted to Pathfinder RPG rules, but I'm running the campaign and the monsters as is.
For me, no conversion is really necessary other than converting a skill check or something similar, here and there. However, it would be possible to do lots of conversion if I were to truly convert all the statistics of the various monsters to 100% Pathfinder. But, I only do that when I have time and if I really think it's necessary.
Wouldn't constitution-less undead die at negative charisma score?
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Truer words may never have been written about this game!