If I can't easily convert/transfer the three Pathfinder 1st edition campaigns I'm running into 2nd edition, then I have no use for a second edition.
There's no reason to wipe out everything that came before, especially when it sounds like the setting is treating the change as no change at all.
I want to support Paizo on this, but if I have to wait another several years to play an Occultist like I could do before, I'll just keep my money instead of investing it into this new system.
This is the only issue holding me back as well. I've sunk so much into my 1E collection that it'll be hard to move forward, not because I'm adverse to the rules being improved (what I've read so far and heard on the podcast sounds pretty good), but because of the sunk cost fallacy. Even though I understand this form of cognitive bias, I'm finding it hard to shake off lol. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but just got into Adventure Paths this year (they're amazing BTW). So I started collecting all the old APs (I'm addicted to dead tree game books) and I'm down to only 4 more books for a complete collection. My group just started RotRl and we're having a great time. I don't see myself abandoning literally decades of gaming fun currently sitting on my bookshelves.
I know myself and I'll definitely buy the Pathfinder 2E rulebook but I don't think my group will want to make the switch to 2E until it has the same variety in classes, archetypes, and races that 1E has given us. I don't expect that 2E will be broadly compatible with 1E, especially when it comes to the classes and races. I understand how hard it would be to redesign your entire rule set and make it backwards compatible, but for my players and myself, the variety in class and race options is a big part of what makes the game fun.
This sounds like you will be a late adopter. Stick with OPF (Old Pathfinder) until NPF has enough books and splatbooks to give you a wider option menu. The 12 core classes probably won't be enough for you, but maybe after year 2 or so, with the equivalent of Advanced Player Guide and Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic (or however it's called), you might find there's enough.
That's something I have read in the forums from other posters, and it's totally OK. Lot of current OPF players still played 3.5 for a while, then made the switch when OPF was big enough for them.
Building a NPC in PF that comes close for all intentions to the same NPC in PF2 MIGHT be a bit more complicated
Funny enough, it seems like upgrading OPF NPCs in old APs to the New Pathfinder is easier (was done on the fly in the Podcast), even if you want said NPC to come close for all intentions to the same NPC in OPF.
Which, again, go back to the point: whatever is the arbitrary bar of difficulty of Prep time that OPF has (be it 5 mins, 1min, or 5 hours), it's more than in NPF. Which is one of the reasons why NPF is being built, and one of the reasons why its stated design goals include easing the prep time. Because less prep time doing fuzzy math gives you either more free time to do things not related to the game, or more time to spend in prep time for the things that really matter, such as changing the plot to integrate the PCs background and such.
This sounds like you will be a late adopter. Stick with OPF (Old Pathfinder) until NPF has enough books and splatbooks to give you a wider option menu. The 12 core...
This is the only issue holding me back as well. I've sunk so much into my 1E collection that it'll be hard to move forward, not because I'm adverse to the rules being improved (what I've read so far and heard on the podcast sounds pretty good), but because of the sunk cost fallacy. Even though I understand this form of cognitive bias, I'm finding it hard to shake off lol. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but just got into Adventure Paths this year (they're amazing BTW). So I started collecting all the old APs (I'm addicted to dead tree game books) and I'm down to only 4 more books for a complete collection. My group just started RotRl and we're having a great time. I don't see myself abandoning literally decades of gaming fun currently sitting on my bookshelves.I know myself and I'll definitely buy the Pathfinder 2E rulebook but I don't think my group will want to make the switch to 2E until it has the same variety in classes, archetypes, and races that 1E has given us. I don't expect that 2E will be broadly compatible with 1E, especially when it comes to the classes and races. I understand how hard it would be to redesign your entire rule set and make it backwards compatible, but for my players and myself, the variety in class and race options is a big part of what makes the game fun.
That's probably what I'll do. It's tough because I also don't want to be "left behind" and want to support Paizo, a company that has brought my friends, myself, and now my daughter, niece, and nephew so much gaming enjoyment. Maybe I'll buy and stockpile the new books until they hit that critical mass of variety in classes and races.
Building a NPC in PF that comes close for all intentions to the same NPC in PF2 MIGHT be a bit more complicatedFunny enough, it seems like upgrading OPF NPCs in old APs to the New Pathfinder is easier (was done on the fly in the Podcast)
since thew blog stated that the monsters were stated for PF2 in prep,
The only preparation for this adventure was to pull together existing monster statistics that correspond to those in the adventure. So, if the adventure featured wolves, the document I had with me had the new wolf stat block
and we haven't seen a non-standard monster or NPC in that Podcast it remains to be seen how easy it will be in reality
And again, it doesn't matter to me how easy it will be to build NPCs for PF2 since I have no intentions to play PF2. what matters to me, however, will be how easy conversion will be. That's two different things and it is really not a concept that should be hard to understand
And again, it doesn't matter to me how easy it will be to build NPCs for PF2 since I have no intentions to play PF2. what matters to me, however, will be how easy conversion will be. That's two different things and it is really not a concept that should be hard to understand
It doesn't matter to you, because you want to stick with your OPF edition with slower prep time, regardless of what, for whatever reasons (aversion to change, sunken cost fallacy, whatever).
That doesn't change the fact that OPF has a slower prep time, and that NPF is being built to reduce that concern, because plenty of people preffer to reduce prep time, including new players.
I actually think converting from PF2 to PF1 will be easier, at least for the first two-to-four years.
- Monsters will mostly be from a new first bestiary- mostly fantasy staples.
- Classes are all represented in PF1, so you can use a book of NPCs to get pre-generated NPCs of a certain level for stats if you're too busy to convert. (Plus, most of the spells will have the same names.)
- Traps will probably be okay as-is, and poisons/diseases sound like they're using unchained rules more or less.
- Treasure is different, but checking WBL every so often does a pretty good job there. Talk to your players about how they want to handle it.
- Maybe handle bosses by hand? That's one major monster/character conversion per book, and pretty reasonable.
I'm guessing that you will also be able to find a thread with somebody who had more time to do conversion, and put their work up for everybody to use.
Keeping the game compatible with previous versions is what caused many of the players to choose PF.
While this is true, if Paizo decides to turn Pathfinder into Call of Duty game releases that just add more of the same and reskin previous content, people aren't going to stick around and will eventually become bored with it.
Topics like these are always a double-edged sword. People want change, but they don't want to lose what they already have.
Sad to say, the world doesn't work that way. Evolution exists in this world for a reason, and this is precisely why it does. However, a fun fact about evolution is that it is slow and progressive, which means that the changes between an older, "obsolete" game and a newer, "updated" game require time and phases between the product results.
In short, the best answer to appease both parties (the Change/Compatibility parties, for short,) is to strike a perfect compromise of both Change and Compatibility between the two systems. Which in my opinion, requires compromises on both party's ends to meet. Change requires work and willingness to do so, and Compatibility requires appropriate channels with which conversions can be made. One can work with the other as long as it is handled properly.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That doesn't change the fact that OPF has a slower prep time, and that NPF is being built to reduce that concern, because plenty of people preffer to reduce prep time, including new players.
To be fair, we don't know that Pathfinder 2.0 will actually have reduced prep time.
They have claimed it will, but they've also spent the past decade vigorously denying that the caster/martial disparity was an actual thing.
That doesn't change the fact that OPF has a slower prep time, and that NPF is being built to reduce that concern, because plenty of people preffer to reduce prep time, including new players.To be fair, we don't know that Pathfinder 2.0 will actually have reduced prep time.
They have claimed it will, but they've also spent the past decade vigorously denying that the caster/martial disparity was an actual thing.
That's fair, but it's a stated goal. If they fail at that goal, that's a different issue.
And again, it doesn't matter to me how easy it will be to build NPCs for PF2 since I have no intentions to play PF2. what matters to me, however, will be how easy conversion will be. That's two different things and it is really not a concept that should be hard to understandIt doesn't matter to you, because you want to stick with your OPF edition with slower prep time, regardless of what, for whatever reasons (aversion to change, sunken cost fallacy, whatever).
That doesn't change the fact that OPF has a slower prep time, and that NPF is being built to reduce that concern, because plenty of people preffer to reduce prep time, including new players.
As someone who has been DM/GMing for many years, I agree that it takes me quite a bit a time to build NPCs and unique monsters in Pathfinder 1E. Hero Lab has really helped but I would be excited about rules that make building NPCs and Monsters faster or on the fly.
Because to be honest, I have a lot of older Paizo products and use a fair amount of third party stuff, spheres of power, to use one example. So if the system is tremendously difficult to update stuff to, it's likely that I'll either stick with 1E or just mosey on to Onyx Path or M&M.
Now granted, that puts the writers in a bit of a bind--if you don't make some pretty fundamental changes, people start wondering why you're trying to get them to buy edition 1.1, but on the other hand, a fair number of players either have lots of old paizo product they haven't gotten to yet, or third party stuff, so some attention should be paid to trying to figure out how to make upgrading easier.
There will be some conversion material, but it won't be nearly as easy as converting 3.5 to PF was. That was mentioned in the FAQ or on the video. I forgot which.
It definitely won't be a situation where you can drop a character into a without doing any conversions, which is somewhat possible with 3.5 and PF.
While I still enjoy PF1 I also know that RPG's reach critical mass after a certain time and these things are neccessary from a business point. It also allows for a chance to make improvements that cant be done under the current system.
Of course players will be lost because they don't care to convert for whatever their reasons may be, but typically enough stay to bring on new players, and things continue going uphill.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, coupled with new action economy, different spellcasting, I think compatibility is close to zero.Wait, do you think Unchained is not compatible with PF??
No, but I think that several thousand feats built for 3,x/PF will have much different impact if I try to port them directly to PF2, spells are said to be completely differently balanced regarding save DC, damage dice and stuff, and different math for attacks, crits and saves means any thing (feat spell or magic item) that gives a numeric bonus has to be revised. For me that's incompatible. Unchained economy is just icing on the cake, more because it seems that all classes will have a lot of different actions to take in addition to standard casting-moving-attacking paradigm from 3.x, so anything that is a new action to take or an option during an action will have to be compared to existing PF2 options.
Comparing things from 3.5 to PF conversion where I basically had to check an occasional skill prerequisite or calculate CMB/CMD (edit, you could also go by grapple modifier and +10 for CMD) for a monster and add a feat or two, it's pretty incompatible.
Well I just got some of my fears soothed by a mighty Dinosaur. Porting some of the old stuff over will be possible. Not easy but at least possible.
I'm fine with that, Not afraid of a little extra work on my part to get the game where I want it.
Still nervous about PF2 but looking forward a little more than I was.
The thing is, the opposite of "simple" and "fast" is " complex" and "slow".
I don't think there is a single person who plays PF because it's complex and slow. There's a lot of people who play it because it's tactically challenging, or because it has depth, or because the variety of options, or the combination of layers, or whatever.
The goal of Paizo, is to make the game more streamlined, but without removing those layers of options and width. If they have success or not remains to be seen. But the point is: just because you want to streamline something, or make the system more elegant, it doesn't mean you want to make it a copy of 5e. DnD 4e was also an attempt to streamline things, and it's nothing like 5e.
I always use this example of unnecesary rule in PF that need to go:
If a tiny or smaller creature put armor, his armor halves. So a pixie with a pixie-sized full plate, has +4 AC. Because a lighter layer of steel protects less. However, a Titan with a titan-sized armor, which probably is like one feet thick, does not get extra AC from it.
Why?
Who did that rule?
Who thought that rule was useful, or fun?
Who thought anybody will remember that rule when they give full plate to his pixie bodyguards of the pixie queen?
Why would your PF experience be diminished if no longer exist a segregation of AC given by armor based on the tiny size of the wearer?
WHO CARES?
As I just began a Kingmaker campaign a few months ago, I'm hoping we'll be able to convert it over to the playtest version without great trouble. Will the playtest include a basic bestiary?
As I just began a Kingmaker campaign a few months ago, I'm hoping we'll be able to convert it over to the playtest version without great trouble. Will the playtest include a basic bestiary?
They'll have a list of monsters to use for the playtest, yeah!
I think some here are making Backward Compatibility a popular and imo it's not. Again my experiences and anecdotal in my gaming group everyone who claimed to want to convert 3.5. material to Pathfinder never did. Even if they were very vocal about PF1 pre-release. When it's all said and done. Many want the ability to convert they just don't convert material. With 3.5. simply gathering dust or from a campaign of misinformation from other players that 3.5. material is broken to unbalanced. To like myself being too lazy to do it.
It's not that easy convert either nor hard it's time consuming. All that hard work can be wasted if the DM refuses outright to use 3.5. material. From what I can see converting from PF1 to PF2 will be not be too hard and not too easy. The only good thing is their should be less " I don't allow PF1 material it's broken and/or overbalanced" at table.
Again I'm not saying people do not convert material from 3.5. to PF1. Is it in enough numbers for PF2 to be fully compatible. As well how they are going to sell the same system twice to the same fanbase with no changes. If you thought 5E was taking away their market share that will kill it imo.
As I recall for one of the playtests they streamed, the person doing it just grabbed the converted monsters listed and did everything else on the fly.
I agree that right now it seems like a bigger conversion than the 3.5 to PF conversion. I do not know if it is as bad as converting from AD&D 2.0 or not.
Also, some of us do play other systems such as Fantasy Hero/Hero System. I didn't care for the rules in RIFTS, but the background had interesting content.
Let's try to avoid game system wars, alright?
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo sees it that way -- and it would be nice if Paizo would make a statement, now, relating to my suggestion below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo sees it that way -- and it would be nice if Paizo would make a statement, now, relating to my suggestion below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
yeah, uh, no. discount on PF2 won't do me any good. I don't intend to buy the books so that would be customer support that doesn't really support me as a PF customer
However, and that is a pipe dream I know, if Paizo really wants to support those, who like me, will be keep playing PF1and keep on milking us dry, I guess producing AP HCs (in PF1 of course) would be the way to go. That way we could still (re)buy Paizo products
How do you determine who gets the discount?
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT.
Oprah-style
YOU get a discount! YOU get a discount! EVERYBODY GETS A DICOUNT!!!| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't seem to be any reason why existing customers can't be supported with a discount toward the purchase of PF2 -- because what we're talking about is an upgrade and NOT REALY an entirely new product. I hope Paizo sees it that way -- and it would be nice if Paizo would make a statement, now, relating to my suggestion below:
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT. An effort should be made to help us preserve our original investment. I'd reply to the people who replied to my original posts on this topic -- but for some reason I can't due to what appears to be a limitation of the system.
The basic issue, here, is called customer support. How well Paizo supports its existing customer base. There should be a reasonable path forward from PF1 to PF2 -- both financially (minimally) but also in terms of following the same strategy for organizing the material.
A Core Rule book is a Core Rule book, Horror Adventures is Horror Adventures, Ultimate Magic is Ultimate Magic, ...
Consolidation by bringing material, for example, the Ultimate books into a smaller group of books would be great. BUT just guggling things around to sell new books for no other purpose is not fair to the customer base.
When Microsoft releases new Windows versions, for example going from Windows 7 to Windows 10, we generally get to use all that software we bought -- we don't have to buy it all again. Managing this feat in software is much harder than doing that for a set of books. I am just advocating that the way forward for PF2 be done in an existing customer friendly way.
We get it, you want Paizo to give you free stuff. There's no need to cut and paste the exact same post about it into like 5 threads.
Not to mention it's probably not going to happen. I used own a lot of 5 1/4 floppy disks do you think companies that manufactured them switched over to 3 1/2 floppy disks gave discounts to customers. We received nothing. Like everything that has editions it's always a risk purchasing the current edition. It's something standard in the business. To think that somehow Paizo would never do a new edition, given that it's a rpg industry where a new edition comes out every five years. I don't know what to tell you.
So no Paizo is probably not going to give any major discounts on PF1 material. Maybe a 10% to 5% discount not much more until maybe 3 months before PF2 is released.
|
|
How do you determine who gets the discount?
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT.
Oprah-style
YOU get a discount! YOU get a discount! EVERYBODY GETS A DICOUNT!!!
And then Paizo releases a gigantic bomb? (A Wrinkle in Time reference, for those who are confused)
How do you determine who gets the discount?
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT.
I bought a lot of material directly from Paizo. It shows up for my account. That's one way. For the PF1 books I bought, probably the most flexible way for them and me is to just issue credit toward PF2.
Another way would be to provide proof of purchases from Paizo materials bought elsewhere -- in the past this would be to cut out and send in the UPC code.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the "how much did anyone actually use 3.5 compatibility"... in every case I knew of something in 3.5 I considered balanced and well-designed that I couldn't do well with material in PF at the time. Which wasn't a lot, largely due to my opinion of 3.5 compared to PF, but a big part of that was that I started playing only a few years ago so the majority of PF classes and such were already available, so it wasn't necessary/valuable as often as it would be with a brand new edition. Even then, currently planning to play an Archivist/Balanced Scale of Abadar in my group's next game, which is for the record Legacy of Fire, so... yeah.
My hope is that there will be close to zero compatibility with first edition, and any compatibility that there is would be by accident. I'm hoping they are making something completely fresh.
I agree with this. I don't play PF now because the 3.x/PF engine doesn't work for me. I love the feel of how that engine plays, but in practice, the amount of work makes it unappealing, and that's before adding in the problems with casters and so on.
Conceptual conversion, that is to say that you can take the general concept of a thing from PF1 and turn it to PF2, will be as far as I hope it goes. Trying to design the whole game with backwards compatibility in mind would just hamstring it unnecessarily.
I think it will be easier to translate PF1to PF2 content (and vice versa) then most d&d system conversions. Probably some monster adjustments but the rest should carry over. But the goal of PF2 should not be to be backwards compatible with 1. You’re never going to do enough to satisfy the people resistant of change other than basically gutting any opportunity of actually making a new relevant product that can compete with 5th and other new systems. This is the chance to clear a whole bunch of 3.5isms and to make a game that is actually fun to GM and play into high levels.
What I’ve read all sounds pretty good. Keeping customization like 1, simplifying math (CMB/D changes, attack bonuses, stacking bonuses), reducing high level rocket tag, simplifying spells a bit, new action economy all sound great. It’s still going to be more like PF1 than like 5th or anything, but it should be more reasonable to run and better to onboard new players.
Hm. That's an idea. Discount PF1 instead of or in addition to offering existing customers a deal on PF2 ...
|
|
How do you determine who gets the discount?
We should have a way to make the transition from all the PF1 material we have purchased to PF2 with AT LEAST SOME SORT OF DISCOUNT.
I bought a lot of material directly from Paizo. It shows up for my account. That's one way. For the PF1 books I bought, probably the most flexible way for them and me is to just issue credit toward PF2.
Another way would be to provide proof of purchases from Paizo materials bought elsewhere -- in the past this would be to cut out and send in the UPC code.
How do they determine a cutting off point? Should it be based entirely on the dollar amount that you've previously purchased from them? What if someone has bot a TON of stuff from them, but nothing for 2-3 years? Are they more worthy of a discount than someone relatively new, but who has purchased a lot of the newer stuff?
How would you feel if they DID do this, but you failed to meet whatever nebulous criteria that Paizo put in place for people to receive the discount?