My weekly group plays and has played D&D 2nd edition for over 15 years. I've tried several times over the years to get them to try something new. The average age of our group is 42 so getting them to try anything new is a tall order. I think I might have broken them down enough to where they might give Pathfinder a shot.
I’ve played a bit of 3.5 with another game group so I’m familiar as a player to the system.
What I’d like is a little advice about what aspects of running a long term Pathfinder game tend to be the most troublesome. I know from my limited 3.5 experience that power creep was an issue. By 8th level the GM had a tough time challenging us.
Anyway, if any other GM’s have gone from 2nd edition D&D to PF I’d love to hear your experiences, mistakes, and successes so that I can go in with some wisdom.
Thanks
-MD
My weekly group plays and has played D&D 2nd edition for over 15 years. I've tried several times over the years to get them to try something new. The average age of our group is 42 so getting them to try anything new is a tall order. I think I might have broken them down enough to where they might give Pathfinder a shot.
I’ve played a bit of 3.5 with another game group so I’m familiar as a player to the system.
What I’d like is a little advice about what aspects of running a long term Pathfinder game tend to be the most troublesome. I know from my limited 3.5 experience that power creep was an issue. By 8th level the GM had a tough time challenging us.
Anyway, if any other GM’s have gone from 2nd edition D&D to PF I’d love to hear your experiences, mistakes, and successes so that I can go in with some wisdom.
Thanks
-MD
From a players standpoint, they will be intimidated a bit by the kind of options they will have...and may feel guilty by how awesome their characters are. Just assure them that it's ok, and you'll see them fall in love with the new system :D
paizo did a great job in making everything more balanced out across the board. but i find the greatest tool is the morale listing in the besitary.
every creature will fight to a certain extent. some will run with 5 hps, some will go to til the death.
whenever i gm my group, i think to myself "ok, how would an evil cleric react to the party?" and i adjust accordingly. i use the terrain available. if the party is attacking the cleric in her bedroom, then she uses a chair as a partial block (30% chance to miss). if she is in her cathedral, then shell jump on the altar for the +1 height bonus. If she has Summon monster/nature/whatever available, i choose the correct one, like a big ant or dire rat or whatever, get some flank bonuses. I actually killed off half the party with a proper use of a sleep spell. sure the group was mad, i just told them "shouldve roleplayed better". that always gets them on their game. new characters come in, and they fight better, tighter, more decisive, thus challenging me to roleplay the villan/enemy/antagonists better.
i would say get them to make some characters, or if not, use some pregens, and run a pregen game, like rise of the runelords. starting off at level 1 and roll from there. tons of fun.
...Anyway, if any other GM’s have gone from 2nd edition D&D to PF I’d love to hear your experiences, mistakes, and successes so that I can go in with some wisdom...
In any group that doesn't know the system I'd suggest that you walk everyone through step by step; and tell them not to worry to much if something doesn't make sense since you can just change it after you are done. Since they might have some 2nd edition idea before you begin you might to make sure they know that any race can be any class, that they will be able to buy magic items later on so they don't have to use a weapon that will come up often in treasure, and make sure they know that this isn't new even though its new to them. It has been tested and as a system works fairly well.
First select a race, then a class, then buy stats (if you decide to roll them then you might want to have them do this sooner), then skills, traits if you use them, feats last since they have prerequisites that you have to meet, and then gear them up.
|
If you're not running published adventures, my best suggestion is to use the slow advancement track with them. This will help to prevent them from levelling too quickly, and give them a chance to embrace their characters before they get too powerful too quickly. It will also let you advance as a DM and give you more time to provide them with appropriate encounters as they level up.
Basically, they will face roughly 30 level-appropriate encounters before levelling up (instead of roughly 13 for fast or 20 for medium.)
Basically with fast progression, you'll likely level every other game, maybe every three games. With standard progression, every 3-5 games, and slow about every 5-7 games, assuming a 4-6 hour game session.
This will give you the best chance to acclimate to the game's rules and give the players a chance to acclimate to the new rules and their new characters.
|
|
First select a race, then a class, then buy stats (if you decide to roll them then you might want to have them do this sooner), then skills, traits if you use them, feats last since they have prerequisites that you have to meet, and then gear them up.
I'd highly recommend rolling stats, to show them that not everything has changed. But you know your players better than I.
These are all great tips, thanks.
I will not have any magic item stores in the game. I like players to discover relics and items via adventure. Our table seems to respond well to low magic realms.
The slow advancement track seem the way to go. I suspect the players will get the hang of things faster than the GM as they only have to manage 1 character were the GM has to manage pretty much everything else.
Looking forward to this.
|
I'm familiar with going the reverse route (having gone from 3.5 to 2nd to play with a group), but I'll try to offer some helpful advice.
The people I know who still stick with 2nd edition are convinced that newer rules cheapen the game by making it easier and increasing character power levels. I'd keep as much of the game that isn't mechanics driven the same. Stat rolling, campaign setting, the types of fights they encounter, these can all stay the same.
When rolling stats, be sure to point out some of the differences in the way they work. My biggest issue with going back to 2nd edition was the way that most stats provided little to no benefit for having a 14 when compared to a 10, or sometimes even lower. Make a point out of saying that every stat follows a unified mechanic, so they don't have to refer to charts all the time.
Speaking of unified mechanics, another point of confusion I had going from 3.5 to 2nd was the (seemingly) arbitrary alternation between wanting a high die roll and wanting a low die roll. Between skill checks, attack rolls (and then calculating THAC0), ability checks, rolling to find doors, et cetera I had a hard time adjusting. I kept rolling a natural 18 and throwing my fist up in excitement only to be told that that was a dreadful failure.
Skills are another big change that I think favors 3.5/PF. Unified mechanics for skills make the game a lot easier to learn. I have no idea if your players will agree with me, but it offers a lot of customization that I welcome.
|
Personally I wouldn't do it. If your group is happy with 2nd ed they are going to have some issues with the 3.5/PFRPG ruleset.
What is your motivation for wanting to cross over to a different game?
The reason I ask is because I was in the same boat as you a few years back and yeah, for the most part I have regretted switching over, and I was the sole motivator (DM) in getting this done. At this point after multiple conversions 2nd ed/3.5/PF Beta/PFRPG it is just easier to stick with the current game until we drop it altogether for another game system we are going to switch to down the road.
There are some very cool ideas in 3.5/PF but I am trying to figure out your motivation for wanting to switch your crew over.
apparently i misinterpreted the question...lol derp!
|
|
Here are few of the issues just off the top of my head with crossing over from 2nd ed to 3.5/PFRPG:
- Magic item dependency rises up considerably
- Casters are much more powerful. No spell disruption on hits, saves are harder for all their targets, math lends itself to make casters much more powerful (exploding broken save DC system) then their appropriate level.
- Multiclassing in 3.0/3.5/PFRPG is just not good.
- Creatures not designed very well (with casters in mind) or didn't transition well with new system
- Wealth expectations, wealth by level
- Poor initiative system - breeds Attacks of Opportunity, locked init cycles
- Fast track level advancement at core of game. Even on the slow track this is much faster than 2nd ed.
- Uneven valued feats, creates trap feats (bad) and optimal feats (good for cost) which in turn creates suboptimal and optimal character creation and advancement
- Too easy to create magic items (magic item deflation)
- Game lost risk vs. reward paradigm. Spells lost risk vs. reward paradigm (haste doesn't age, etc)
- Plenty of math and mechanical loopholes, DC system is terrible as it was laid out in 3.5, could be repaired but too much work.
- Plan out PC levels from 1-20, plus prestige classes (ugh)
- Game is too easy, PC have way too much power (as compared to 2nd ed) derived primarily from increased spell effect, spell availability and spell use.
Some of the things they may enjoy:
- More options – feats, class options, etc
- No racial limitations, no level caps
- No attribute caps, no hard attribute requirements. Attributes go up with levels
- Skill system, more detail then NWP system (sort of)
- Single mechanic, d20 system. Easier to understand or at least remember
- More hp, durable characters
- More options for wizards, can attack in a few ways beyond listed spells.
Personally I wouldn't do it. If your group is happy with 2nd ed they are going to have some issues with the 3.5/PFRPG ruleset.
What is your motivation for wanting to cross over to a different game?
The reason I ask is because I was in the same boat as you a few years back and yeah, for the most part I have regretted switching over, and I was the sole motivator (DM) in getting this done. At this point after multiple conversions 2nd ed/3.5/PF Beta/PFRPG it is just easier to stick with the current game until we drop it altogether for another game system we are going to switch to down the road.
There are some very cool ideas in 3.5/PF but I am trying to figure out your motivation for wanting to switch your crew over.
Thanks for the reply Aux,
First of all it's been 15 years with the same people playing the same system. And we all played 2nd edition before we met so some of the players literaly have not played ANY other RPG but 2nd edition D&D for 20+ years.
I'm basicly hoping a new game system might bring a spark of life to the table. Second edition is not quite a loveless marrage but the honeymoon has long since been over.
-MD
|
|
Well, there's nothing like playing a living game. You have product support, new product, a community. Paizo puts out some good product, and while I don't agree with and use all their rules for PFRPG I do appreciate their efforts and stewardship of the D&D game. They have a strong respect for the history of the game and that carries over in many of their adventures, modules, creatures, classes and so on.
I can see your point about bringing some new life to the game; I just wouldn't want your group to go through 3.5 "shock".
Personally, if it was me doing this all over again I would do things differently. I would identify the holes and problems of the potential new game ahead of playing - maybe run a few playtest games or do more research and also (this is critical) see I could figure out how maintain a sense of the old games feeling.
I do my best to try and run a D&D "classic" game, and while some of that feeling isn't all there (and no, it isn't nostalgia - 3.5/PF is a different game) I try and keep it as such.
I use a different init system, multiclassing (more like 1st/2nd) and taken out a few things which have cause 3.5/PF to be lopsided towards casters.
Older players will have a hard time transitioning over -no lie, just walk them through each change and make the comparison between how it works in 2nd (elves +1 to hit with bows and swords) and how it changed in PFRPG (now just proficient).
They may want houserules to make the game a bit more familiar and if I was the DM I wouldn't oppose them in trying to get a compromise out. They may not like all the rules - that's cool, there are a ton of alternate rules and homerules people have put out there that might work as a fix.
If you enjoy playing with this group and they are set in their ways expect some pushback, but don't be discouraged. Focus on what is similar to 2nd and work from there.
What house rules does your group use? Knowing these might give us some insight on your players likes and dislikes and allow us to point out things to keep in mind.
|
|
As having a very similar background,I played a lot of first and second editions but I only played a very little bit of 3rd edition having disliked it from the start as I was a "Old School Gamer" at heart.
I started running Pathfinder recently for multiple groups and i found I enjoy the game that has players with little to no 3.5?Pathfinder experience more than the game that has experienced 3.5/Pathfinder players and here is why.
#1. Pathfinder compared to 1st or 2nd editions DnD is insanely rule heavy and a inexperienced GM can go nuts if they have experienced players looking over their shoulders and correcting them at every turn. (its fine that they do but it slows down the game/causes arguments and just spoils game play)And this shouldn't be your case.
#2. Pathfinder kind of assumes that your characters are going to have certain abilities or items along the way that are going to fill certain roles. Example at certain levels characters are expected to have the abilities to fly or certain pluses of magical weapons and saves and the game is balanced on these facts.
#3. For me 0 level spells really unbalance the game for me. Characters having the abilities to detect magic or throw acid splashes and other abilities at will seems too powerful.
#4 Which kind of goes along with the rules heavy side is characters can do a lot in games terms and the power creep is crazy if you are used to old school gaming. !st 2nd edition DnD you basically cast a spell or attacked, in Pathfinder you can do a lot more and while in early editions there were not specific rules for doing things now there is.
Now do not get me wrong, I believe Pathfinder is the best incarnation of DnD to date, I'm now now finding how much more complex it is to run a game properly than it was to run older editions.
I was thinking about this and with the possible exception of rolling stats I would advice don't use ANY house rules what so ever. If you are going to play Pathfinder play it and let them see if they like it. Any sticking point you guys don't like you can house rule it later.
I was thinking about this and with the possible exception of rolling stats I would advice don't use ANY house rules what so ever. If you are going to play Pathfinder play it and let them see if they like it. Any sticking point you guys don't like you can house rule it later.
+9000
This. You can keep them on the slow XP track so they get more of a feel for their levels, but I would keep the game as written as much as possible until you find things that don't work in play. Even the magic items and wealth. The guidelines in the gamemaster section about purchasing magic items make sense, heck you can even roll up what magic items a given community has.
But you don't have to make finding them easy. Magic items in your game might have an underground economy, one that is not looked on well by the authorities (who might consider them to be dangerous devices and weapons to be controlled/seized).
It sounds like your group may like gritty, mostly realistic games. I would see if they would consider using the point purchase for stats, as it grounds you into choosing what your character is good at and what they are bad at, rather than trusting to lady luck for stats. Either 15 or 20 point purchase is a good sweet spot for average games. It also makes racial bonuses, and stat boost items/spells much more valuable, and makes calculating appropriate monster with CR more accurate.
If there was ONE house rule I would ever suggest, and it may be too drastic for your group but I have found it to be very satisfying:
Get rid of XP all together and just level the party up after they have accomplished a significant story goal.
What this lets you do is let them sit in their characters until they start to feel like they want to advance in levels. It takes a major meta-game desire to kill that extra monster out of the equation and lets the PCs focus more on their own in-character motivations. After a session or three in which the PCs have bested a powerful enemy or challenge, ask them "Do you feel like you should gain a level at this point?" If they answer is yes, and you agree, then that is when they should level. For the players this links advancement with advancement of the story, and has them gain abilities at story appropriate times, not half way through the dungeon.
As an added bonus, all YOU have to do is calculate treasure. No more adding monster XP and calculating other story bonuses, wondering if they advancing too fast, etc. All in all, best thing every introduced to our games.
We went from 2nd ed to Pathfinder, with nothing in between, and have really enjoyed the transition.
It is a case of 'same same, but different' and I have had to try and keep a lid on old biases etc, but it has been a good experience.
I say go for it.
I did this over time, but remember enough to help...
Here are some of the points that sold me.
1) you can be any class, any race, any time.
2) all abilities work the same. Goodbye percentile strength
3) saving throws are simpler
4) always roll high. doesn't matter what.
5) multi-classing makes sense, and dual-classing is just gone. That never worked well anyway.
6) there's more fun stuff per level, like rogue traits and what not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If players complain that they 'feel too powerful'; then assure them that the opposition got a boost too.
Monsters now get con bonuses
Monster hit dice change, not always a d8
monster abilities are improved. Trolls get rend, for example, which is terrible the first time you see it.
|
#2. Pathfinder kind of assumes that your characters are going to have certain abilities or items along the way that are going to fill certain roles. Example at certain levels characters are expected to have the abilities to fly or certain pluses of magical weapons and saves and the game is balanced on these facts.
The major assumptions are, I think, that you will have a spellcaster, a healer and someone who can hit things really hard, possibly with a sneak as well.
For magic equipment the big one is saving throws, the game seems to assume that you'll have Cloaks of Resistance even though there are a bunch of cloaks which seem cooler/more fun.Everyone wants a magic sword and cool armour so that's fine but the cloak of resistance thing is counter-intuitive.
My weekly group plays and has played D&D 2nd edition for over 15 years. I've tried several times over the years to get them to try something new. The average age of our group is 42 so getting them to try anything new is a tall order. I think I might have broken them down enough to where they might give Pathfinder a shot.
I’ve played a bit of 3.5 with another game group so I’m familiar as a player to the system.
What I’d like is a little advice about what aspects of running a long term Pathfinder game tend to be the most troublesome. I know from my limited 3.5 experience that power creep was an issue. By 8th level the GM had a tough time challenging us.
A big part of the 3.5 power creep issue was how many splats you used--splats were often poorly designed and playtested and if you used everything in every book ever, a splat-built 8th level character was drastically more powerful than a core 8th level character (while suggested CRs were still often based on core). If you stuck to core and whatever else you needed on a case by case basis to make a character/concept worked, power creep was a less of an issue. Of course I realize for many part of the fun of RPGs is buying every supplement and using it.
As far as Pathfinder goes with that: it looks like Paizo are publishing more RPG supplements than I had a sense they were going to at one time (somehow at one point I got the idea that the GMG and the APG were going to be it)--but they're still doing roughly two supplements a year as opposed to WotC's, what, 5-10 or so?
I can also at least say that looking at the APG, I see little power creep--I think you could take a character built with the APG and a character built core and they would be balanced against each other. That said, there are a few feats, etc. that do concern me. I am concerned about power creep with Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat coming out (but on the other hand I'm personally not planning to use/buy those)---but at the same time, I trust Paizo to still at least test and try to balance options better than some of the WotC supplements did.
Now, there are some additional abilities introduced in the different campaign setting books (Chronicles, Companions, etc.). I don't play in Golarion and thus don't collect those books so I can't speak to whether those contribute to power creep or not.
And of course there is the flip side to there not being a lot of PFRPG rules books out: if you're used to playing AD&D with every ____'s Handbook and loads of setting materials and so on and so on, and then switch to Pathfinder where you've currently got four books (core rulebook, bestiary, GMG, and APG, and only two of those are really pertinent to player character options), maybe you or your friends feel lacking, I don't know. I certainly don't--I find the APG alone to be utterly overwhelming (but in a nice way) with choices.
As to running a long term game, I've been running a campaign for two years--it started with a slightly houseruled 3.5 and then "upgraded" to Pathfinder when that came out. It started at 14th level and characters are now 18th. I don't have trouble challenging the players, although running in a high level game, I have to prepare a lot of NPCs and challenges myself as Paizo doesn't make anything for high level games, so you're on your own if you want to go that high. Even the choices for high CR monsters are largely limited to dragons and outsiders (fun, but not always appropriate to every story) and it's time consuming to build NPCs with lots of class levels (though they certainly make effective villains when you do).
That said, if you're thinking of starting at 1st level and going to 10th then the aforementioned issues shouldn't be problematic.
Also, Paizo's monster templates (young, giant, advanced, etc.) make it easy to tweak a monster if you find they're too strong or not strong enough.
Anyway, if any other GM’s have gone from 2nd edition D&D to PF I’d love to hear your experiences, mistakes, and successes so that I can go in with some wisdom.
I haven't gone straight from AD&D 2nd to Pathfinder, but I used to play AD&D a good bit and can imagine a little what it might be like (and I have one character of mine who started as an AD&D character and got converted to various editions as time has passed). I'm probably overlapping others' advice but this is what comes to mind:
- Remind yourself and your players that in many ways, this is a brand new game. It shares a lot of the trappings and tropes, but the way you build a character and the way a lot of things work. Try to approach it as something new rather than pushing it as an improvement (or downgrade) on an old, loved model. (And have a good discussion about whether you want to try to convert characters or start new--either can work, but just be aware that expectations will and must change.)
(Tangent: I think one of WotC's biggest mistakes marketing 4e was many of their introductory marketing materials went out of their way, frequently and with much vitriol, to badmouth 3.x. "Stop playing that, this is cooler," was their message, and I think it turned a lot of gamers off, feeling like their favorite game was being attacked, rather than simply feeling invited to try something else. If they had simply went forth and said, "Hey, we have a new way to approach fantasy gaming!" I think it would have caused maybe (perhaps only fractionally :) ) fewer flame wars. This is not a judgment on 4e in itself, which in its own right is an interesting game; just a remark on the marketing.)
- Some conceptions are going to change or go out the window. Even simple things like, "Clerics are not restricted to bludgeoning weapons," and "anybody can multiclass and in exactly the same way as everyone else" can be a little jarring at first, when looking at concepts and what you want to build.
- The mechanics are more and yet less complex. PF (and its 3.x predecessors) works much more consistently on its d20+modifier mechanic for everything, whereas AD&D had a habit of going all over the board--sometimes you rolled a d20 and wanted to roll high, sometimes you wanted to roll low, sometimes you rolled percentile dice, etc. (Okay, there's still percentile dice in PF but used far less frequently). At the same time, while the mechanic's always the same, there's a lot to roll for---not just to hit, saves, and ability checks but also combat maneuvers and skills and caster level checks (including concentration checks). There is more complexity with skills and feats---but the other side to that skills and feats offer more choices and customization than things like even nonweapon proficiencies and kits could often achieve.
Just some thoughts. Good luck!
#2. Pathfinder kind of assumes that your characters are going to have certain abilities or items along the way that are going to fill certain roles. Example at certain levels characters are expected to have the abilities to fly or certain pluses of magical weapons and saves and the game is balanced on these facts.The major assumptions are, I think, that you will have a spellcaster, a healer and someone who can hit things really hard, possibly with a sneak as well.
For magic equipment the big one is saving throws, the game seems to assume that you'll have Cloaks of Resistance even though there are a bunch of cloaks which seem cooler/more fun.
Everyone wants a magic sword and cool armour so that's fine but the cloak of resistance thing is counter-intuitive.
I've never used a Cloak of Resistance on any Character. I just can't get past the what the other cloaks do. I mean Cloak of Resistance or Cloak of Displacement, I'll displacement over resistance any day.
I've never used a Cloak of Resistance on any Character. I just can't get past the what the other cloaks do. I mean Cloak of Resistance or Cloak of Displacement, I'll displacement over resistance any day.
#2. Pathfinder kind of assumes that your characters are going to have certain abilities or items along the way that are going to fill certain roles. Example at certain levels characters are expected to have the abilities to fly or certain pluses of magical weapons and saves and the game is balanced on these facts.The major assumptions are, I think, that you will have a spellcaster, a healer and someone who can hit things really hard, possibly with a sneak as well.
For magic equipment the big one is saving throws, the game seems to assume that you'll have Cloaks of Resistance even though there are a bunch of cloaks which seem cooler/more fun.
Everyone wants a magic sword and cool armour so that's fine but the cloak of resistance thing is counter-intuitive.
That's great, but what he's getting at is that if you look at some of the higher CR monsters such as demons and dragons, the saving throws to defend against their abilities are usually high enough that IF you are playing a fairly typical game (15-20 point buy or 4d6 drop lowest stat gen; standard wealth, etc.) AND you do not have some kind of magical boost to your saving throws, your chances to save are usually 30% or less. There's an old thread about this. And usually the only way to boost your saves besides buffs are either cloaks of resistance or getting a belt that boosts dex and con and a headband that boosts wis.
(Well designed monks and paladins with the right high stats might be able to be fine on their own.)
I agree, getting into the spirit of things I would much rather have a cloak of displacement or even just something kooky but flavorful like a cloak of the manta.
But it is true it is hard coded into the game via the monsters designed that most characters are expected to have higher saving throws than "naked saves" would allow. That's the point.
If your personal preference is wearing other cloaks and you've had good luck with that, I'm glad to hear it. :)
One of the things my GM and I have discussed is taking the "vanilla" stat bonus items, and giving them more character. Our concern was Amulets of Natural Armor. So we talked about those amulets being made of powerful animals, and perhaps they pass on some of those traits to the wearer. Perhaps, if it is made from a Dragon scale, it might also include a little energy resistance, and perhaps turn your eyes the color associated with that dragon, or maybe cause your grow some scales of your own. SOMETHING to make them more than a stat bonus.