Pathfinder Second Edition Conversion Guide

Yeah. This was... decidedly unhelpful. I'm sorry but at the very least you could have included some basic rules for converting foes to the 2nd edition monster rules. You could have shown an example - for instance, Nualia from Rise of the Runelords could have been shown from her 1st edition to 2nd edition, and why these choices were made. Or you could have shown one of the monsters from the rules which aren't in PF2 and how you could do an approximation for the monster.

For all the aspects of 2nd edition I like, I'm running two 1st edition campaigns that are not going to wrap up for a couple of years at least. Admittedly, this gives the PF2 rules time to settle with any addendums or rules fixes you implement, but given the huge number of PF1 content I have available and players happy with the current rules? There's little incentive to switch over. This didn't help matters any, I'm truly sorry to say.

I mean, it's pretty much an extended version of what we already knew - you can't just plug numbers into a function and output a PF2 result.
I hope it helps someone, but I can't see it as a great plus. Glad to see the item price/modifier table, at least, since it took me a while to build one for my relic advancements :)

The best part of that conversion guide was the table of first edition classes and suggested second edition class combinations to approximate the feel. Although many of those were straightforward (ACG classes), the others were an interesting place to start.

@Tangent101, there is literally a paragraph explaining why basic conversion rules for monsters are impossible. An in-depth example of approximation would be way overkill.

I don't see how Nualia is all that different from the example they did give?

You can do it the long way, by building her as a character, or you can do it the quick way by modifying an existing creature (for which purpose you could use the Aasimar Redeemer, or some other creature if you wanted). You change out the good based Champion abilities for evil equivalents, or for abilities more like a Warpriest of Lamashtu, you trade the longsword and shield for a bastard sword and probably Attack of Opportunity, and then you're literally done.

'Don't do a whole bunch of unnecessary work' is pretty much the whole idea of the new monster rules.

'Don't do a whole bunch of unnecessary work' is pretty much the whole idea of the new monster rules.

Exactly! It seems OP is upset because they still want to do things the hard way...

The magic item conversion table is very useful, and helps set an expectation of the kind of weapons and armour that players have at various levels.

The monster conversion guide is pretty much how I've been doing it for my homebrew campaign since January (with playtest rules), and that's been going well so far. The biggest problem is the lack of medium humanoid creatures above 6th level to base stats on.

I am happy this was posted. The item conversion was really helpful.

However, I am in a bit of a conversion crisis because I can't play my barbarian/alchemist brewmaster that wields a barrel of ale. I really wanted to play this character so I can continue to use his mini and the new alchemist and barbarian dedication are perfect for him.

However, the improvised weapon rules are vague, punishing, and lack options to support a build using them. The rules leave it entirely on the GM's shoulders to figure out, which doesn't fly in PFS.

Well this helps me recommend what class to one of my players who likes guns, so I’m home brewing it to him as a surprise

The magic item conversion table is very useful, and helps set an expectation of the kind of weapons and armour that players have at various levels.

{. . .}

The severe non-linearity of the progression of the old and new costs is rather unsettling . . . .

As I read the guide the overwhelming message I get is that 2e is a completely new game from 1e, sharing only some superficial nomenclature with the older edition. And for me, that's fine. 1e was increasingly becoming an unwieldy beast.

It reminds me of trying to covert from 1e (or 2e) to 3e in DnD. You could hand-wave it, but a mathematical conversion was nigh impossible.

Here's hoping to the success of this new game :)

Has anyone used the item conversion table to try and extrapolate money conversions? A couple of folks have made their own formulas and I'm curious how they compare. I may take a stab at it myself.

As I read the guide the overwhelming message I get is that 2e is a completely new game from 1e, sharing only some superficial nomenclature with the older edition. And for me, that's fine. 1e was increasingly becoming an unwieldy beast.

It reminds me of trying to covert from 1e (or 2e) to 3e in DnD. You could hand-wave it, but a mathematical conversion was nigh impossible.

Here's hoping to the success of this new game :)

I can agree with you about the 2E comments - it is significantly different from 1E which makes it pretty difficult to convert. Back during the playtest, I mentioned that the migration to 3.0 was helped a lot by the conversion guide put out by WotC - but PF2E was just too different, I thought, for a meaningful guide to be made.

The ADnD2E to 3.0 Conversion Guide DID provide a lot more mathematical conversions, like 18(00) Strength = 23 in new system, etc, etc (don't quote me on the exact numbers, going from memory). So, I have to disagree with you there. Using that guide, I was able to migrate my Dnd 2E characters to 3.0 fairly easily. So, over the years, I've moved characters from White Box -> 1E -> 2E -> 3.0/3.5 -> Pathfinder. Tried doing that for Pathfinder 2E and frankly, hit a wall (a wall not unlike trying to go 3.0/3.5 -> 4E). If a new system deviates too much from the previous, conversion becomes more and more problematic.

For those of us that like to run persistent worlds (my current one is 35 yrs old) and also try to keep some verisimilitude across editions - radical changes just aren't good. That was one reason going to 4th Ed wasn't in the cards for me - I couldn't make it feel like DnD for me. So, when me and my group found Pathfinder, we loved it and went all in - and converting our 3.5 characters over was a breeze. Pathfinder 2E is different enough that I if I do choose to migrate (a lot of work) not only is that system on the table as an option, but so is 5E. But, much more likely, I will use some variant of the P6/P8/Px type of rules with Pathfinder 1E and choose a power level I'm comfortable with. Added advantage now is that I'll have a set of 1E rules that won't be seeing much more development/change (unless 3p guys really jump on doing 1e support and add some really compelling content).

EDIT - if I was going to 2E, I think this Guide is certainly helpful and while it does mention you may need to ad-lib more than a few things, there is enough crunch to make it useful. I hope Paizo updates it going forward as they release new 2E content/classes/etc. Some of us might not be 2E folks now, but down the road, once it's fleshed out with a few more products? I hope they look at this Conversion Guide as a living document and update/expand it as more content is created.

@Dracovar

Yeah, we have a similar decision to make. Our campaign has been running for 7 years in PF. Moreover, I had a 1e campaign (which actually started as a basic D&D campaign) that I converted to 3e. With that older campaign I eventually gave up on hard conversions and did it more by "feel". Yeah, an 18 strength might equal a 23, but the feats, etc... made the character feel completely different.

My solution to this problem was to try to pare down each character to it's 'concept' - i.e. what was he/she really known for. Then try and replicate that in the new system and see what was left over. It didn't always work, but it usually came pretty close. It was a bunch of work, but about the same as trying to convert it using a formula.

The question is, as always, is it worth the effort? Like many people I have a ton invested in 1e and it's now "complete". I can rest, knowing that there won't be anything official added to it going forward. It's still a bloated, unintuitive system. Is it worth changing?

My feeling is that we'll migrate as a group if 2e is fun. And since we are only in book 1 of Tyrant's Grasp, we have a while to defer that decision. We're thinking of running a few short sessions of 2e in between books to see how it plays. As said before - fingers crossed it's good.

@Dracovar

Yeah, we have a similar decision to make. Our campaign has been running for 7 years in PF. Moreover, I had a 1e campaign (which actually started as a basic D&D campaign) that I converted to 3e. With that older campaign I eventually gave up on hard conversions and did it more by "feel". Yeah, an 18 strength might equal a 23, but the feats, etc... made the character feel completely different.

My solution to this problem was to try to pare down each character to it's 'concept' - i.e. what was he/she really known for. Then try and replicate that in the new system and see what was left over. It didn't always work, but it usually came pretty close. It was a bunch of work, but about the same as trying to convert it using a formula.

The question is, as always, is it worth the effort? Like many people I have a ton invested in 1e and it's now "complete". I can rest, knowing that there won't be anything official added to it going forward. It's still a bloated, unintuitive system. Is it worth changing?

My feeling is that we'll migrate as a group if 2e is fun. And since we are only in book 1 of Tyrant's Grasp, we have a while to defer that decision. We're thinking of running a few short sessions of 2e in between books to see how it plays. As said before - fingers crossed it's good.

For me it's both the effort to convert and the 'feel' of 2E. When I look at what some of my original characters looked like, and what they are now under PF1E, they've evolved, no doubt. 5E or PF2E seems like a devolve somehow. Just purely subjective opinion tho, I don't expect that anyone shares it.

And, Tyrant's Grasp - **if you are the GM**, check my post history - and what I now call the "Cole Deschain sidebar". I think his endgame tweak really salvages the AP for me.

How about a guide for converting Starfinder to the new action economy? *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*

Yeah. This was... decidedly unhelpful. I'm sorry but at the very least you could have included some basic rules for converting foes to the 2nd edition monster rules. You could have shown an example - for instance, Nualia from Rise of the Runelords could have been shown from her 1st edition to 2nd edition, and why these choices were made. Or you could have shown one of the monsters from the rules which aren't in PF2 and how you could do an approximation for the monster.

For all the aspects of 2nd edition I like, I'm running two 1st edition campaigns that are not going to wrap up for a couple of years at least. Admittedly, this gives the PF2 rules time to settle with any addendums or rules fixes you implement, but given the huge number of PF1 content I have available and players happy with the current rules? There's little incentive to switch over. This didn't help matters any, I'm truly sorry to say.

I agree with you, reading through the guide I wouldn't even call it a guide. More of an afterthought or a bad joke and I am seriously disappointed with it. Not even sure why Paizo would post something this unhelpful.

I don't see how Nualia is all that different from the example they did give?

You can do it the long way, by building her as a character, or you can do it the quick way by modifying an existing creature (for which purpose you could use the Aasimar Redeemer, or some other creature if you wanted)

Yes, but, assuming I do it the first way, what character level is equivalent to what creature level? A single creature of party level + 4 is supposed to be a challenging solo boss. If I built a level 15 NPC using character creation rules, it would get decimated by a level 11 party due to action economy.

I'm fine with waiting for NPC creation rules, but in the mean time they could have given us a table of PC level 1-20, and the rough equivalent in creature level.

Also, I would have liked to receive the action/actions/reaction font. I like to type out my monster stats. Right now it seems the only way to get it is to apply as a third-party developer, but I don't see why it can't be added to the community resources for us plebeians to use.

Level = Level. This was always supposed to be the case (the reason NPCs have an extra level compared to their CR in PF1 is because they have less magic items and stuff - if they are built to the same parameters as PCs then CR = Level).

One 'change' that they could have noted is that the equivalence works better than it did in PF1, and so a well built party won't stomp a Level+4 enemy (which in both PF1 and PF2 is meant to be a potential party wipe) with all their extra actions. But the underlying rules of the system and the way that encounters are designed hasn't actually changed in this regard.

Level = Level. This was always supposed to be the case (the reason NPCs have an extra level compared to their CR in PF1 is because they have less magic items and stuff - if they are built to the same parameters as PCs then CR = Level).

One 'change' that they could have noted is that the equivalence works better than it did in PF1, and so a well built party won't stomp a Level+4 enemy (which in both PF1 and PF2 is meant to be a potential party wipe) with all their extra actions. But the underlying rules of the system and the way that encounters are designed hasn't actually changed in this regard.

Hrm...I'm very, very skeptical. I'm looking at the Ancient White Dragon stats, and it really doesn't seem equivalent to a level 15 character with the item guidelines. The attack bonuses, HP, immunities, damage dice, all seem higher. I can keep building level 15 characters and throwing them into 1 on 1 battles and see if the dragon seems to consistently win.

The lack of compatibility between PF2 and its predecessor was both explicitly mentioned by the developers in the lead-up to the playtest well over a year ago and, frankly, was obvious anyway.

The utility of this guide then is primarily for people who don't frequent the Paizo website - ie. not any of us.

FowlJ wrote:

Level = Level. This was always supposed to be the case (the reason NPCs have an extra level compared to their CR in PF1 is because they have less magic items and stuff - if they are built to the same parameters as PCs then CR = Level).

One 'change' that they could have noted is that the equivalence works better than it did in PF1, and so a well built party won't stomp a Level+4 enemy (which in both PF1 and PF2 is meant to be a potential party wipe) with all their extra actions. But the underlying rules of the system and the way that encounters are designed hasn't actually changed in this regard.

Hrm...I'm very, very skeptical. I'm looking at the Ancient White Dragon stats, and it really doesn't seem equivalent to a level 15 character with the item guidelines. The attack bonuses, HP, immunities, damage dice, all seem higher. I can keep building level 15 characters and throwing them into 1 on 1 battles and see if the dragon seems to consistently win.

Monsters do tend to have somewhat better numbers than a PC, though often they have worse AC and their saving throws aren't notably better. Dragons do seem a little beefy for their level, probably owing to their significance as climatic boss encounters in the story.

What they don't have-- and what might not be showing up in your scenario-- is the full package of features and feats a PC has. A dragon might have some immunities, but it doesn't have evasion-- many PCs have master on two saving throws at this point and treat successes as critical successes. Nor does the dragon have something like Certain Strike. The idea is that once you apply all those feats and stuff a PC is roughly even with an equal leveled monster.

But all of those feats and features would be extremely unwieldy for a DM to use or not fun for a PC to play against. I'd be pretty bummed if the dragon had evasion and kept taking no damage from my fireballs, for example. Consequently the monster's raw numbers are beefed up to make up for its more minimalist ability suite.

Also, I would have liked to receive the action/actions/reaction font. I like to type out my monster stats. Right now it seems the only way to get it is to apply as a third-party developer, but I don't see why it can't be added to the community resources for us plebeians to use.

If it helps, my current workaround for this is to use the Wingdings font numbers that look like black cue balls with white numbers for 0 (free action) and 1 2 3 (for the # of actions); and Wingdings3 has a curved-back-around arrow that works perfectly for Reactions.

So far, I hate 2E, it's the worst of D&D's 4E with 5E gimping. Sure, there was a lot of rules bloat in 1E but you don't have to use everything, if you keep it simple and gradually integrate. However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics, selling one-shot modules and adventure paths don't pay the bills, sourcebooks in which everyone in the group "must own" does.

So far, I hate 2E, it's the worst of D&D's 4E with 5E gimping. Sure, there was a lot of rules bloat in 1E but you don't have to use everything, if you keep it simple and gradually integrate. However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics, selling one-shot modules and adventure paths don't pay the bills, sourcebooks in which everyone in the group "must own" does.

However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics

D&D 5E

right back to rules creep

what

So far, I hate 2E, it's the worst of D&D's 4E with 5E gimping. Sure, there was a lot of rules bloat in 1E but you don't have to use everything, if you keep it simple and gradually integrate. However, 2E and D&D 5E will get right back to rules creep because of eonomics, selling one-shot modules and adventure paths don't pay the bills, sourcebooks in which everyone in the group "must own" does.

5e seems to be doing OK so far with a limited release schedule. Paizo likely could too though I think it's unlikely that they'll actually do so.

I do think Paizo would like to put some brakes on the supplement treadmill as well - that business model's pretty much dead as it is and beyond a certain point you're just competing against your own product which means greater overhead/production costs for the same income.

Personally, I don't really care for either game - too modular for my tastes, but there's no point dwelling on that. Just play something you do like instead.

Hrm...I'm very, very skeptical. I'm looking at the Ancient White Dragon stats, and it really doesn't seem equivalent to a level 15 character with the item guidelines. The attack bonuses, HP, immunities, damage dice, all seem higher. I can keep building level 15 characters and throwing them into 1 on 1 battles and see if the dragon seems to consistently win.

Well, let's compare.

An Ancient White Dragon has 330 HP (but Weakness 15), AC 36, +30/+26/+24 Saves (and another +1 vs. Magic) and attacks at +31 for 3d12+16+3d6 (46 average), and has +31 Athletics and +28 Intimidate, with no Skill Feats.

An Animal Instinct Half Orc Barbarian, with Str 21, Dex 12, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 18, Cha 16 can have the following: 278 HP w/Toughness plus 20 Temp HP (but Resistance 5 vs. Piercing and Slashing), AC 37 (+19 Proficiency +5 Dex/Armor +2 Magic Armor +1 Rage due to Animal Skin), has +30/+23/+27 for Saves (with another +1 vs. magic), and attacks at +28 (+21 Proficiency +5 Str +2 Handwraps) for 3d12+23+2d6 (various Runes, 49.5 average), though they can do various impressive debuff stuff with a +28 Intimidate (with Skill and Class Feats to back it up), and can manage +30 Athletics as well when Raging.

That really looks quite comparable for the most part. The offense is lower due to reduced accuracy, but the defenses are actually quite a bit better due to Legendary Fort and Master Will, better AC and, in practice, better HP (despite the lower number) due to various ways to get additional Temp HP, having Resistance, and not having a Weakness.

I had a similar idea for the classes (I made a topic about it), but I do have a question...

If the Investigator was designed as a hybrid class between Rogue and Alchemist, and that Paizo is suggesting Rogue with the Alchemist archetype... then why is it considered a "difficult" class to convert???

What did the Investigator have in P1E that cannot be replicated in P2E? I am aware that some classes are due to be come in October, including the Investigator, but it does beg the question.

I mean, P2E currently don't have firearms and eidolons/phantoms, but... you can play an Investigator normally in P2E with that combo... right?

I am also concerned about the Occultist... To me, it felt like a Fighter-Mage, or Magus with psychic magic... but as of now, it took one huge blow to its core concept. I feel like in the future, Paizo should consider releasing a 5th type of magic: psychic, and give us a way to give us a psychic-based class. Here is my take:
- Have the new class being the Psychic
- Give it specializations based on Disciplines, Stares, Implements and Spirits.
- For the Spirit specialization, make a mix between the Medium and Spiritualist. Don't go hating, a Medium could manifest one of his spirits as a Phantom.

On a sidenote, I would like to suggest that for the Vigilante, any class archetype can work with any class, considering how versatile the class was in P1E thanks to its archetypes. The main idea for the Vigilante is to have 2 identities with technically 2 sets of abilities. At this point right now, pick your class, pick your archetype and "swap" between styles by putting a mask and a hoodie :P

I had a similar idea for the classes (I made a topic about it), but I do have a question...

If the Investigator was designed as a hybrid class between Rogue and Alchemist, and that Paizo is suggesting Rogue with the Alchemist archetype... then why is it considered a "difficult" class to convert???

What did the Investigator have in P1E that cannot be replicated in P2E? I am aware that some classes are due to be come in October, including the Investigator, but it does beg the question.

I mean, P2E currently don't have firearms and eidolons/phantoms, but... you can play an Investigator normally in P2E with that combo... right?

Short version: Inspiration and Studied Combat. Inspiration (ie: being able to get instantaneous bonuses on skills) and Studied Combat (the ability to gain Int-related combat bonuses) were both integral to how the Class actually functioned in PF1.

There are not good replacements for either of them in PF2 as of yet, though presumably the Investigator Class in the APG will include some version of both (I already have theories).

JiCi wrote:

I had a similar idea for the classes (I made a topic about it), but I do have a question...

If the Investigator was designed as a hybrid class between Rogue and Alchemist, and that Paizo is suggesting Rogue with the Alchemist archetype... then why is it considered a "difficult" class to convert???

What did the Investigator have in P1E that cannot be replicated in P2E? I am aware that some classes are due to be come in October, including the Investigator, but it does beg the question.

I mean, P2E currently don't have firearms and eidolons/phantoms, but... you can play an Investigator normally in P2E with that combo... right?

Short version: Inspiration and Studied Combat. Inspiration (ie: being able to get instantaneous bonuses on skills) and Studied Combat (the ability to gain Int-related combat bonuses) were both integral to how the Class actually functioned in PF1.

There are not good replacements for either of them in PF2 as of yet, though presumably the Investigator Class in the APG will include some version of both (I already have theories).

I can see these as Class Feats, but... we will have to wait until they are released.

So one of my Home Game groups I'm GMing is a little slow, we're just starting the "When the stars go dark" mission from the Playtest next week, just to finish out the story. As such, I was wondering if anyone had converted the playtest materials to P2 yet?

I imagine it would involve going over the playtest dc tables and referencing the challenge adjustment in the p2 tables. But I'm efficient (lazy) and was wondering if anyone else had done this or could point me in such a direction.

I notice that this file has a version number. So I guess it will be updated as more books with better class conversions are published?

JiCi wrote:

I had a similar idea for the classes (I made a topic about it), but I do have a question...

If the Investigator was designed as a hybrid class between Rogue and Alchemist, and that Paizo is suggesting Rogue with the Alchemist archetype... then why is it considered a "difficult" class to convert???

What did the Investigator have in P1E that cannot be replicated in P2E? I am aware that some classes are due to be come in October, including the Investigator, but it does beg the question.

I mean, P2E currently don't have firearms and eidolons/phantoms, but... you can play an Investigator normally in P2E with that combo... right?

Short version: Inspiration and Studied Combat. Inspiration (ie: being able to get instantaneous bonuses on skills) and Studied Combat (the ability to gain Int-related combat bonuses) were both integral to how the Class actually functioned in PF1.

There are not good replacements for either of them in PF2 as of yet, though presumably the Investigator Class in the APG will include some version of both (I already have theories).

I would be intrigued by your investigator theories . Instant skill bonuses seems like it would break the maths of this edition - but I haven’t studied it in detail to be certain

I guess studied would work a bit like the ranger hunt prey as the first action and then have feats keyed to it. It would probably work well that way. But I do wonder how it would be different as all of the ranger options seem like they could work

Had a look out of idle curiousity - not a lot there, is there? But, I suppose, that tells me a lot about PF2 in itself, it's too radically different for PF 1 to have any bearing for me. I converted from AD&d to 3.0 and 3.0 to 3.5 and that was work I'm not inclined to repeat again, honestly. (Even by the time PF rolled out, I elected that it was too much like hard work to not just pinch some of the best ideas. (Heck, I've only been importing more than a cursory number of bits of PF1 into my 3.5 games in the last couple years.)

(It took me hours upon hours or work to just get the spell lists updated with dymanic page numbers, but the time houserules and revisions and moving spells from the splatbooks to documents (because of cutting my physical number of books down) were accounted for across the majority of 3.5's splatbooks, plus more to update the monsters to a more PF-like-level thereafter...)

I'm hitting 40 this year, and from current experience, we're managing an AP in about three years, so I now have more AP than I will ever realistically *use* (I don't imagine everyone will be *around* in another 30 years, which is "only" ten AP if I did nothing but run them back to back.)

So, my interest in PF2 is definitely going to be confined to the fluff books. (though to be be fair to PF, APs and the Golarion source books were all I bought for PF1 and I bought the latter JUST for the fluff; which makes Golarion, what, the second RPG ever to achieved that and the first was Rolemaster and Middle Earth, which has a leg up to start with. But Paizo (literally) sold me when I discovered Golarion was an actual solar system in space...)

I would be intrigued by your investigator theories . Instant skill bonuses seems like it would break the maths of this edition - but I haven’t studied it in detail to be certain

My current theory is that they can burn Reagents for a flat bonus to one Skill check (or to one Skill for a period of time), but it's an Item Bonus. This would make it not take them over the math assumptions (or not much...it'd probably be one over like Mutagen is), since the math already assumes PCs to have Item bonuses on Skills.

I guess studied would work a bit like the ranger hunt prey as the first action and then have feats keyed to it. It would probably work well that way. But I do wonder how it would be different as all of the ranger options seem like they could work

I can think of various options. One neat possibility is that it just adds Int to damage, either replacing the current stat or adding on top.

On a sidenote, I would like to suggest that for the Vigilante, any class archetype can work with any class, considering how versatile the class was in P1E thanks to its archetypes. The main idea for the Vigilante is to have 2 identities with technically 2 sets of abilities. At this point right now, pick your class, pick your archetype and "swap" between styles by putting a mask and a hoodie :P

Or just make a Vigilante archetype directly, and graft the alternate identity mechanics onto your existing class. PF1 has enough class archetypes that could be described as "The original class but with identify stuff stirred in," it would make sense for PF2 to just take that to its logical conclusion.

Can anyone shed any light on the item conversion table?

I notice , for example that weapons from 1,500 to 11,500 (levels 4-9) are all marked as having “+1 striking”

That seems like a downgrade for those on the upper end. Or am I supposed to add further runes to bridge the gap but no more bonuses or striking ?

So could I add returning to a +1 striking dagger to make it an 135gp item? Therefore a level 5 item?

But conversely that item in PF1 is 8,300 so a level 8 item worth 475gp but capped at +1 striking. So what do I do here? Add the difference in gold and other items

I am a bit confused but this is also confusion / uncertainty with the new rune / magic item rules ...

Can anyone shed any light on the item conversion table?

I notice , for example that weapons from 1,500 to 11,500 (levels 4-9) are all marked as having “+1 striking”

That seems like a downgrade for those on the upper end. Or am I supposed to add further runes to bridge the gap but no more bonuses or striking ?

So could I add returning to a +1 striking dagger to make it an 135gp item? Therefore a level 5 item?

But conversely that item in PF1 is 8,300 so a level 8 item worth 475gp but capped at +1 striking. So what do I do here? Add the difference in gold and other items

I am a bit confused but this is also confusion / uncertainty with the new rune / magic item rules ...

I believe the idea is that you can add more expensive property runes to the item to raise its level and its value. That doesn't fill all of the level gaps, but you don't have to get a new weapon every level - use those levels to grant other magical items instead.

The table just lays out the level expectations given in the core rules - until level 10, you should not have (easy) access to +2 weapons.

Thanks I will consider this interpretation

*

The other mildly irritating point it the thresholds here. E,g +1 is for 500gp but given masterwork weapons in 1E there are loads of circa 300gp weapons at early levels !

Always been taught to round down but it doesn’t seem right here!

*

On weapon runes - is there a cap on how many non fundamental runes I can add - e.g only one on a +1 (so +1 returning striking is the max possible) ?

Also what is the level of said item? Returning is 3 and +1 striking is 4 - is it just the highest ?

Per the rules on runes, it is the highest level among the base item and its runes. There can be a number of property runes equal to the potency (+X) of the item.

The conversion guide could really use an update soon...

On a similar topic, I was trying two wrap my head around how the skills for PF2 match up to their PF1 equivalents. I made a chart to help myself and it occurred to me that it might be helpful for others as well. If you do look at it, let me know if you find any errors please.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1-rMaEjKSu0cp2QRvbGiDNSQJ7pFMEr/view?usp= sharing

The conversion guide could really use an update soon...

On a similar topic, I was trying two wrap my head around how the skills for PF2 match up to their PF1 equivalents. I made a chart to help myself and it occurred to me that it might be helpful for others as well. If you do look at it, let me know if you find any errors please.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1-rMaEjKSu0cp2QRvbGiDNSQJ7pFMEr/view?usp= sharing

I doubt it will ever get enhanced, but I've found THIS useful.

Agrafell wrote:

The conversion guide could really use an update soon...

On a similar topic, I was trying two wrap my head around how the skills for PF2 match up to their PF1 equivalents. I made a chart to help myself and it occurred to me that it might be helpful for others as well. If you do look at it, let me know if you find any errors please.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m1-rMaEjKSu0cp2QRvbGiDNSQJ7pFMEr/view?usp= sharing

I doubt it will ever get enhanced, but I've found THIS useful.

Strong warning: the money converter from that website is way off (it’s based on the eyeballed levels in this blog doc rather than system comparisons). The DC converter is based on system comparisons and actually works pretty well.