| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just how backwards compatible is Pathfinder 2nd Edition?
I have an entire bookshelf of Paizo material (and I do not have the complete line), and I will be very reluctant to put all of that into the recycling bin.
I also know that "backwards compatibility" with D&D 3.5 was a major selling point of Pathfinder when it first launched (vs. D&D 4th).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old archetypes won't work.
Old races won't work.
Old class expansions (rogue tricks, rage powers) won't work.
Feats very much won't work.
It's a new version of the game. Nothing is backwards compatible.
Well... monsters still seem to mostly match. The math there is mostly the same. You could probably convert them on the fly.
Getting more familiar with how feats need to work in the new game, we could probably convert a lot of old stuff over, honestly. Especially feats.
I am a consummate homebrewer, though. My capability on this may be a bit higher than the average player.
Old archetypes won't work.
Old races won't work.
Old class expansions (rogue tricks, rage powers) won't work.
Feats very much won't work.It's a new version of the game. Nothing is backwards compatible.
You didn't mention "magic items" (i.e., Resonance). :)
That could be a problem. Lack of any backwards compatibility with the previous edition was one of the factors that crippled D&D 4th Edition (though not the primary one).
I mean it's why none of my groups are going to make the jump to playtest or even PF2 first print. And that might make groups also not want to make the jump until after their own games are done.
Which is to be expected. I'm upset yes but I don't blame them for not printing as much stuff as they had for PF1 in core.
Mind you, playtest isn't all the info. I think we might get more feats and items at full release. Still not enough but hopefully a little more?
But I see no way to transfer my Tinkerer Alchemist with Poppet/Clockwork Familiar and Junk Golem protector.
Or my Brawler that uses Alchemical items to help boost and hide his fighting ability.
Or... I could go on.
That said, working to port the Trinkets from PF2 to PF1.
I see that someone has a similar concern, but comes at it from a different angle.
I mean it's why none of my groups are going to make the jump to playtest or even PF2 first print. And that might make groups also not want to make the jump until after their own games are done.
This is actually a non-trivial problem for the launch of what appears to be a new game system.
I see that someone has a similar concern, but comes at it from a different angle.
I mean it's why none of my groups are going to make the jump to playtest or even PF2 first print. And that might make groups also not want to make the jump until after their own games are done.This is actually a non-trivial problem for the launch of what appears to be a new game system.
Meaning it's a problem or not?
Look I'll not pretend to speak for all the players but of my 3 different groups, only about 2 people are interested it. A very small sample size yes but can't be alone.
I don't expect people to be able to fully convert their games till later on in PF2's lifespan unless the group played Core or the swap isn't as bad as it sounds(Friend runs Warpriest. Is Cleric/Fighter close enough?).
The adventures and enemies seem easy enough to convert though given thta someone did it live on stream easily though they might have experience in doing the converting. Conveting from PF1 Classes/combos to PF2 however seems too far off to be a 1 to 1 swap and even then probably will only be in the ball park.
Meaning it's a problem or not?I see that someone has a similar concern, but comes at it from a different angle.
I mean it's why none of my groups are going to make the jump to playtest or even PF2 first print. And that might make groups also not want to make the jump until after their own games are done.This is actually a non-trivial problem for the launch of what appears to be a new game system.
It will be a problem.
Fan rejection of D&D 4th, ultimately doomed that version. Lisa Stevens herself explained the problem. So, a slow launch could end badly for Paizo.
Look I'll not pretend to speak for all the players but of my 3 different groups, only about 2 people are interested it. A very small sample size yes but can't be alone.
You aren't. Other posters on the playtest boards have already confirmed that.
I don't expect people to be able to fully convert their games till later on in PF2's lifespan unless the group played Core or the swap isn't as bad as it sounds(Friend runs Warpriest. Is Cleric/Fighter close enough?).
It should be; the Warpriest was a hybrid of these two classes. But some of the later classes/archetypes, which are used in the adventures and APs (such as the Technomancer in Iron Gods) may also be problematic.
The adventures and enemies seem easy enough to convert though given thta someone did it live on stream easily though they might have experience in doing the converting. Conveting from PF1 Classes/combos to PF2 however seems too far off to be a 1 to 1 swap and even then probably will only be in the ball park.
But, the "Resonance" rules could screw even adventure conversion up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, if I don't make the jump in the end, it will be quite a question if I'll keep up my AP suscription to convert the adventures. I already am putting a ton of work into them, having to rework all the encounters could be too much for someone with a full-time job and other stuff in his life besides roleplaying games. :-/
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The backwards compatibility that I desire is being able to adapt the PF1 adventure paths. I had hoped that I could have the best of two worlds, the simpler GM-friendlier game system of PF2 and the existing great adventure paths of PF1.
And the Paizo Blog previews did not dispel that notion until the Multiclassing preview. The three-action turn was no problem, because the old abilities could work in the new turn structure: a move action would be come a single action and a standard action would become a double-action, unless Paizo already defined the switchover. New designs for weapons would still let the adapted characters carry the weapons named in their stat blocks. Spell points replacing uses per day would be a simple calculation. Resonance would require merely adding a new number to track. The archetype changes were drastic, but NPCs seldom used archetypes. No longer counting rounds of rage or rounds of bard song remaining is easier than before. Bards being full casters meant that I might have to move their known spells to new spell levels, but I believed that they would try to keep the same names to give me a clue.
The new rule about encounter mode, exploration mode, and downtime mode were already the way I ran my games. PF2 merely formalized that.
Alas, now in the Playtest rulebook, I see that formerly common feats such as Power Attack are now restricted to a single class. I will need to replace feats. Enough class features have been rearranged and renamed that I will need to spend an hour writing down the new versions for a high-level character. Skills are rearranged drasticly, and everyone has skills. If the skills are truly simplified, I might manage to convert the skills without much effort, but how do I translate mastery in a skill that is a non-Signature skill for the class in PF2? And the enemies were designed with deliberate weaknesses in their skills--my players loved to bluff evil lords who had no Sense Motive or sneak past troups that had no Perception--that are now almost as proficient as trained skills.