Ezren

Thrandir's page

10 posts. 1 review. 1 list. No wishlists.


RSS


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mathmuse wrote:

1. Many popular combat feats are now fighter-only class feats, so I will need substitutes.

2. Some feats that share the same name between PF1 and PF2 now act differently, so I might have to substitute those, too. For example, PF1 Power Attack is useful for characters with a high attack bonus. PF2 Power Attack serves better with a low attack bonus.

3. The DCs of hazards might need to be changed. Due to the +level to proficiency, the PF2 characters might have higher skill bonuses. Or due to lack of +3 from class skills, they might have lower skills bonuses. I will have to make a conversion chart, that might change with level.

4. Some PF1 class features became optional PF2 class feats. I will have to decide whether to drop an optional class feat in order to grab a more thematic feat.

5. Level differences might be more extreme. In Pathfinder 1st Edition, each level increased the power of the character by about 41%. In PF2 my current estimate is that each level increases the power of the character by about 68%. This means that a level+3 creature, a...

Totally agree with you on these except maybe point 3 - Ever since the intro of DC I've always used an one the spot set of decisions and gone with the DC that makes it appropriate for the situation and suitable for the sake of the story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
FowlJ wrote:

I think it's weird to single that out as a '4e' issue when lack of direct backwards compatibility is really pretty common for new editions of things, and 4e was not the first (or last, the tremendously successful 5e also doesn't work with older content) version of D&D to do so.

It sucks to have things you made no longer work, and I can understand not being able to justify moving over because of that, but calling it a 'mistake' on Paizo's part really isn't very accurate, in the grand scheme of things - I for one am very interested in a system more radically different from the 3.X chassis than anything with backwards compatibility could achieve.

I believe there is at least one company working on their own 'revised pathfinder', if you'd like to keep an eye on it - 'Porphyra', I think it was called, though there may be others as well.

Actually 5E is more compatible with what my group use than 4E, but that aside as I said issue is the time & money spent. From my viewpoint at this point in time I cannot see myself converting to PF2, this is always subject to change.

The 'mistake' I was referring to was the throwing out of lots of lore of the older version(s). I did not say Paizo is making a mistake, was stating please don't ignore the lore - which is something I feel is important. I have since read they are not going to do this which lessen my apprehension on that score.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I really don't understand the constant throwing around of the spectre of 4e.

Do people really have that little faith in Paizo?

It was not meant as a dig (or lack of faith) at Paizo but more of please don't mess too much with a system & lore that works.

Hence the reason I made the comment about 4E - considering I have played RPGs since Original DnD Red-box, I have seen quite a few edition changes not just in DnD style games but many.

My apprehension stems from the statements elsewhere on Forums & FAQs that PF2 is not backwards compatible - which means the hundreds of man hours spent designing/writing my own World plus products I have bought are now going to be useless if this is the case; which for me equals the same state 4E presented my group with, which in turn made us pick up PFRPG.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My issue with any edition change is cost - I've played DnD since 1978 & still going strong but I stopped with 3.5 due to the mounting costs & having to re-learn a system because they threw the baby out with the bath water.

I subscribe to PF APs because they are a) generally well written b) easy to convert if it needs any at all c) reasonably priced. Being time poor due to work commitments this helps in my GM'ing role of 2 campaigns.

What I say to anyone playing any RPG is if your not having fun then why are you playing? Tabletop gaming is not computer gaming and is therefore extremely flexible in the outcomes that can be achieved.
I really wish game designers would actually remember this and not cater to make a tabletop game a computer game.

A rule I've always ascribed to with any RPG system I've played is if the 'rules' are not working for your group don't use them.

I know my group will not be using PF2 unless it is somehow/what compatible with PF1/3.5 - if not then we shall be keeping the baby in the bath.


Great feedback and thoughts - it is interesting reading other people's take on the changes between editions.
There are aspects of all versions of RPGs that people like/dislike or are meh on.

My group & I use the 'rules' as guide to our fun and have never let them interfere with the fun.
What I say to anyone playing any RPG is if your not having fun then why are you playing?
Like you I am a little apprehensive about what the final product is going to be like because if there is no backward compatibility with previous adventures/characters etc.. then you have lost something. That something is what made/makes the game great for so many people.
WoTC found this out when they made 4th Ed Paizo please do not make the same mistake they did.


Sounds like your group had a good run there Cleanthes.

My group opted for a heap of bluffs and acting as reinforcements for the Triad until they got to Skaven.

They retreated using rope trick to recuperate .... :)


Thanks Haakon1 for sharing your thoughts and ideas.
I've intergrated some of them into my campaign to help flesh some of the economics of the city for my players.


I love how your players are wanting to be part of the areas they are adventuring in :) I love it when your players throw you curve balls like that.
Mine seriously thought about renovating The Laughing Monkey, instead my rogue player decided to recruit all the surviving Alley Bashers and re-establish the guild to combat the Last Laugh ....

Re the original posters quandry do the one you'll have the most fun with. I've run AoW and currently running SCAP. I have made modifications to suit my world and my players style .... thoroughly enjoy the AP's that appeared in Dungeon.


Shouldn't be too much of a problem the whole SCAP is quite adaptable ... just make sure they can all swim :)


I am currently using the Styes as a side adventure/new stroy for my group.

They've completed the first 4/5 Chapters of SC and wanted to explore more of the surrounding lands.
Like all of my adventures I am running it in my world so my players felt it was time to explore some more of the local area so to speak. I used The Forsaken Arch (Dungeon 120) as the linking adventure between their work in Cauldron. I used Artimus as a henchman of Hamfist and left them some bread crumbs leading them onto Styes.
They're currently enroute to Styes ......