Its too early to say how easy it would be to port mechanical content written for PF2e back to PF1e.
Its usually easy to deal with skill system differences as the GM so long as the skill lists are similar. If they're good in a skill in PF2e, you just quickly ad-hoc a roughly similar number for the same PF1e skill. Now if they radically change the skill list then it becomes a hassle.
If combat stats (BAB, Damage) stay in the same mathematical range, you're also good. But they're talking about a different mathematical range where LEVEL appears to figure into everything, so you're likely going to have to come up with some kind of Saving Throw conversion factor.
The other option is to completely remake each opponent using PF1e rules, but that will bog you down in game prep.
Yeah, coupled with new action economy, different spellcasting, I think compatibility is close to zero.
Converting an adventure sounds like it will be reasonably easy.
no word on the rest
Hopefully, not very.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping it's close enough that I can make my 3pp stuff fit with a little work.
I mean really. Peterson games gives me the option of playing a Dreamlands Cat from the Cthulhu Mythos and then Paizo takes it way.
At least give us some kind of Conversion document so that I can drag my old stuff Kicking and screaming into the new edition.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keeping the game compatible with previous versions is what caused many of the wonky rules in pf1e. Hopefully they concentrate on making a good game without worrying about it working with old versions, that way they don't feel forced to hang on to old rules that no longer fit with their new design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope they don't let people convince them to hold on to compatibility as strongly as they did with P1e. I love the APs, but playing with an system that's essentially 18 years old is really starting to chafe.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.
I think hoping that adventure paths and what have you are still useful is reasonable. I can't imagine things like feats classes spells archetypes etc are going to be very compatible.
Yeah, coupled with new action economy, different spellcasting, I think compatibility is close to zero.
I'm not seeing that right now. I'd say it's debatable.
Martials still have to hits in the same range in P1E that they do in PF2e.
Spellcasters have lower To Hit...but the strength of P1E spellcasters were not always necessarily their ability to hit, but the impact of their spells.
Their spells are still looking to be of a bigger impact from P1e than they will be in PF2e, so that might actually be a BIG equalizer there.
What we need to see is how the save system integrates into all of this.
It could still be very compatible, but you'd have to switch things up on the fly, be familiar with both PF2e and P1e possibly.
I think it will take some work on the part of DMs to make the older stuff work. For example with spells you would have to see to it that they fit the new caps.
Classes might be trickier depending on what the new math is like but if you look at them, most classes Paizo has made are built around the idea of "Pick a Talent" with a few locked in abilities, which seems to be the design philosophy behind Class Feats. Particularly with later classes like the Shifter. How far is that one from how classes will be in PF2
For Races, who knows. Depends how much the basics there change and what Ancestry Feats look like. Could be as easy as just coming up with starting HP bonus and turning racial options into feats.
It's going to come down to how much the math has changed I think.
Yeah, coupled with new action economy, different spellcasting, I think compatibility is close to zero.
The new action economy sounds like it's a polished up version of what we have already seen in Unchained. The Spell casting changes are just made to fit in with that. It's a change in how you play yes but it's one you could impliment in the game right now. Using the Unchained rules was just a little clunky cause it's a Patch rather than something the system is built around.
So honestly that's actually not a concearn at all as far as compatability goes.
If I play a Gunsligner with that action system what does it actually change for me. "BANG, Move, Reload. my round is done."
It's Math changes we have to worry about, much more so than the system changes.
I think it will take some work on the part of DMs to make the older stuff work.
well that's where I hope the Playtest can fix things to easier comptibility. a little bit of damage control
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.
I honestly really, really hope they don't cave in to this mentality and weaken the game overall as a result.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
But it's time in many people's minds to stop letting ourselves be tied down to a dusty old system from almost 20 years ago.
If you're just looking to still use old adventures, well, in the playtest Jason is mostly converting on the fly. So maybe it will still be fairly useable in that regard.
backwards compatibilty is a must. we came to Paizo exactly because of this. We stayed because of the qality of the setting and adventures, but we wouldn't be here in the first place if it weren't for 3.5 compatibilty. Take that away and all that's left is adventures that we can't even use.I honestly really, really hope they don't cave in to this mentality and weaken the game overall as a result.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
But it's time in many people's minds to stop letting ourselves be tied down to a dusty old system from almost 20 years ago.
If you're just looking to still use old adventures, well, in the playtest Jason is mostly converting on the fly. So maybe it will still be fairly useable in that regard.
yeah well I'm not looking to use old APs. I am looking to use my collection of 3PP stuff. I want to play a Dreamlands Cat Sorcerer with a human familiar. I want to keep using Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might, or Ultimate Psionics or the Neo Exodus Setting
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??
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
Bingo!
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.
Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
Bingo!You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
So how good, do you think, the APs will still be to me if I can't play them anymore because of compatibility issues?
So how good, do you think, the APs will still be to me if I can't play them anymore because of compatibility issues?Bingo!You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
I played Curse of the Crimson Throne with 4th edition. Plenty of conversion was made on the fly ("there is an encounter with PF skeletons? I just pick 4e skeletons").
So it depends on your ability, exclusively.
In any case, if you are unable, it's not a problem at all. There is not an admentemnt in the Constitution giving you rights to backward compatibility in RPG editions. If you can't play 2E, then go play something different.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
As someone who has played, GMed, and seen lot of Paizo's APs being played with DnD 4e, DnD 5e, and other rulesets which are FAR less compatible than PF2 will be to PF1, I'm not worried about this, at all.
So how good, do you think, the APs will still be to me if I can't play them anymore because of compatibility issues?Bingo!You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance. Others have said they came from starting in 5e because they wanted more customization and complexity. I'm sure I've seen several other stated reasons in the last few days.
Good enough to change systems if you like them. I play P1e, a system I don't especially like, for them. You can do the same. Or don't play them at all, if you hate a system you never seen so much. Why even stick around if you're so full of bile that you can't even refer to Pathfinder: Second Edition by it's name?
It's not an ability issue, it's a time issue. I can convert APs into any system I want, given enough prep time. that's not a problem. The problem is, the more time I have to spend prepping it, the less attractive it gets to do it. If it's a matter of just changing a monster from PF2 to the same one from PF1 and it still works mechancally, that's great. And it looks like that will be possible anyway, geven recent Dev statements on that matter. Non-standard monsters and NPCs are were the real work is. If it will be as simple as that, changing a PF2 lvl 12 Paladin (with Feats x, y and z) to a PF1 lvl 12 Paladin (with Feats x, y and z) and it won't change the encounter significantly, perfect. If I have to switch maybe Feat x (PF2) to Feat w (PF) that's obviously more work but still okay. If I have to rebuild the Paladin from scratch, giving him archetypes, completely different skills, dip two levels Warpriest and still don't come close to what PF2 lvl 12 Paladins do. Then that's a problem, because I'll probably habe to do that not once during an AP but a lot of times. And it is time consuming. Time I'd rather spent thinking about how I run those parts of the adventure to give my group more roleplaying opportunities, make the encounters memorable or customize them to fit their backstories.
So, what you are saying, is that you have little preparation time, and the PF1e requires way too much prep time because building NPC from the scratch is too time consuming, right?
You will love to know that PF2 will reduce prep time and make NPC building much faster. Welcome on board. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, the more time I have to spend prepping it, the less attractive it gets to do it.
This is a very valid concern, so don't take my thoughts as disagreement. I did note something in another thread that might be useful here, though.
...the AP forums are renowned for their homebrew solutions and willingness to share. I bet that people who go through the effort to convert 2e adventures themselves will be more than glad to share the fruits of their labor here for others to make use of. ^_^
Obviously we'll have to wait and see if this is something that happens reliably, the quality of the remade statblocks/treasure, etc. But if the AP itself is popular enough to attract lots of GMs, you might not have to worry about doing the conversion work yourself.
You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
There's going to be one releasing with the game, from what they said. That's all most people will need. For people who need more, upconverting from P1e to P2e is supposedly fairly easy. For people who would rather downconvert, well, there's already lots of APs/3PP support.
Trying to twist my words is not only a dick move, but if you do so, at least do it right. No, PF requires not too much prep time. As it is right now I have still enough time to incorporate things in prewritten adventuresto customize them for the needs of my group just fine. And adventures I write myself even more so, because I know from the beginning what I want the NPCs to look and feel like and how I want to build them. But converting is always unnecessarily complicating things. So less time spend on converting = more time spend on customizing = more fun at the table.
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs. Thats counter intuitive and unpractical. Sometimes NPCs can become new PCs and old PCs might hang around as NPCs so they should always work on thesame principles. (Also, it means nothing to me how fast a NPC can be build in PF2 when I have no intention to play PF2, but you know that)
The problem is, the more time I have to spend prepping it, the less attractive it gets to do it.This is a very valid concern, so don't take my thoughts as disagreement. I did note something in another thread that might be useful here, though.
...the AP forums are renowned for their homebrew solutions and willingness to share. I bet that people who go through the effort to convert 2e adventures themselves will be more than glad to share the fruits of their labor here for others to make use of. ^_^Obviously we'll have to wait and see if this is something that happens reliably, the quality of the remade statblocks/treasure, etc. But if the AP itself is popular enough to attract lots of GMs, you might not have to worry about doing the conversion work yourself.
That's true and I suspect the community in the AP forums will do something like this. At least for the first few APs. I fear however, as time moves on, this will become less frequent. There are not many 4E conversion for recent APs for example or any 3.5 conversions that were posted in the forum for at least 5 or 6 years. For the first couple of APs however, I agree, someone in the community will post conversions, maybe I'll even do it myself if no one else does it, depending on the AP
So, you have no plan to play P2e, but you plan on participating in the playtest to make it as little change as possible?
So basically, you want to ruin the playtest for a game you'll never play?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's going to be one releasing with the game, from what they said. That's all most people will need. For people who need more, upconverting from P1e to P2e is supposedly fairly easy. For people who would rather downconvert, well, there's already lots of APs/3PP support.You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
can we please not call it downconverting? chances are high PF will not be the inferior product as that word implies
So, you have no plan to play P2e, but you plan on participating in the playtest to make it as little change as possible?
So basically, you want to ruin the playtest for a game you'll never play?
no, I want it to be the best game possible. If it attracts new players that's good for the hobby. Most game mechanics, such as the new action economy, won't affect compatibility of prewritten adventures in any way or form and that's still something where I can throw my (and my group's) hat in the ring without thinking twice about implications for PF. There will be lots of changes like that, were we could be of help.(and the best thing about it, we can look at it from a somewhat neutral point of view, we don't have any horses in that race)
However, backwards conversation WILL be something I (we) have an eye on while playtesting, if for nothing else than testing (for us) how much work we will have to put into the APs while prepping them. And of course we will give feedback on that
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.
That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours, when converting stuff to your favorite kind of NPC construction rules.
The only thing that we get from your post, is that converting things from 2e to 1e will be much harder, because prep time in 1e is longer than in 2e because NPC rules are way more complicated. Then, of course, you have the prerrogative of preffering the complicated system with longer prep time, it's up to you.
But the fact that it takes longer to prep things in 1e, gives us a clear hint about why they are building 2e the way it's being built.
can we please not call it downconverting? chances are high PF will not be the inferior product as that word impliesThere's going to be one releasing with the game, from what they said. That's all most people will need. For people who need more, upconverting from P1e to P2e is supposedly fairly easy. For people who would rather downconvert, well, there's already lots of APs/3PP support.You might have come for backwards compatibility, but many others didn't. I came for the APs, for instance.Backwards compatibility is the difference between PF2 starting out with lots of adventure paths available, and starting out with none. (Or one, or however many they've written/converted by the time the rules come out.)
I think the word is just perfect. Downconverting will officially be the word to talk about converting things from New Pathfinder to Old Pathfinder.
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours,
building an NPC in PF takes what? 5 minutes? not counting equipping which might duble the time if I'm not entirerly sure what to give him.
I don't get where you get the countless hours of building PF NPCs from. It's not rocket science. It is when those 5-10 minutes, 15 when the NPC is really complicated come on top of the prep time I already have to do anyway where it becomes time consuming
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours,building an NPC in PF takes what? 5 minutes? not counting equipping which might duble the time if I'm not entirerly sure what to give him.
I don't get where you get the countless hours of building PF NPCs from. It's not rocket science
Then downconverting them from PF2 shouldn't be that hard.
It's difficult for you to defend simultanously that Old Pathfinder is quick and has little prep time, and that downconverting from New Pathfinder takes too much time.
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.
And I will never be on board a system that uses a vastly different ruleset and philosophy for creating NPCs than for creating PCs.That's cool. But then, if you like to spend lot of time building NPC from scratch so everything adds up by the rules, you should be happy that you have to do exactly that, for countless hours,building an NPC in PF takes what? 5 minutes? not counting equipping which might duble the time if I'm not entirerly sure what to give him.
I don't get where you get the countless hours of building PF NPCs from. It's not rocket scienceThen converting them from PF2 shouldn't be that hard.
that depends entirerly on HOW MUCH needs to be done. If PF2 classes work very differently this has to be taken into account at converting, or else the encounter's intend might differ. if the NPC in PF2 is designed to use up 25% of the party's ressources, because he has ability X and spell Z and the PF1 counterpart lacks those abilities and spells and therefore the party spends less of their ressources on the 1:1 PF1 encounter, this has to be taken into account. That's where the time in prepping and rebuilding goes. To build a lvl 14 Barbarian is not hard. To build a lvl 14 Barbarian that also does X and Z might not be that easy. So maybe multiclassing is needed, maybe the equipment has to fundamentally change. There are a lot of decisions to be made in that process, that I normally wouldn't make in the NPC creation process. So yes, building a NPC in PF is not difficult. Building a NPC in PF that comes close for all intentions to the same NPC in PF2 MIGHT be a bit more complicated