|
It isn't a situation where you can do a straightforward, 1-for-1 conversion: both (1) because of differences in how classes are structured and how multiclassing works, and also (2) because release content (though there's a lot of it) won't give you as broad a set of options as 10 years of published material for PF1. (E.g., while the PF2 Core defines PF1-style class archetypes, it doesn't in lude any; it also doesn't include PF1 favorites like the Oracle or the Witch.)
That said, PF2 Core rules look like they will support a pretty broad set of character types, so you should be able to recreate many concepts or characters by building something that tries to make similar build choices or to capture the same theme.
|
Yeah, you won't be able to do a level by level mechanical conversion, but if your PF1 character is a 5th level Human Bard/Fighter wielding a falchion, you can certainly make a 5th level Human Bard (multiclassing Fighter) wielding a falchion in PF2 who can achieve most of the same stuff in-world.
This obviously gets less true as your Class and Race/Ancestry get more obscure until PF2 gets versions of those things, but you can probably work something out that's at least vaguely close for most characters.
Don't think you're supposed to just switch and keep going with your old adventure. Gotta start over.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think you're supposed to just switch and keep going with your old adventure. Gotta start over.
This is actually not necessarily true. It can be for some adventures and some characters, but as long as you're willing to remake characters and the GM is willing to redo treasure and maybe replace a few monsters, you should be able to, say, continue on with Chapter 3 of many adventure paths just fine in PF2.
Don't think you're supposed to just switch and keep going with your old adventure. Gotta start over.This is actually not necessarily true. It can be for some adventures and some characters, but as long as you're willing to remake characters and the GM is willing to redo treasure and maybe replace a few monsters, you should be able to, say, continue on with Chapter 3 of many adventure paths just fine in PF2.
That is exactly what we did with chapter 3 of our adventure path and the playtest, in fact. It is quite doable indeed.
So it won't be initially possible to tell every story you can tell in PF1 right out of the gate in PF2. But just because there's a new edition does not mean you can't continue to play the old one if it supports the specific story you want to tell. Like our Ironfang Invasion game has a Geokineticist, a Sworn of the Eldest Inquisitor of Magdh, a Cleric of Erastil/Hinterlander, and a Grenadier Alchemist. One of those characters translates neatly to PF2, two of them not at all, and one of them about halfway.
But I figure give it a few years and most if not all of those things will be back in some form, and we move on to telling stories about other people in the meantime.
Once PF2 comes out, the initial question will be "do I want to tell stories about elves, dwarves, and gnomes; fighters, wizards, and clerics? Or would I rather tell stories about gillmen, kitsune, and aasimar; oracles, witches, and occultists?" If it's the former, go for PF2, if it's the latter PF1 is still there.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way that we described 2E to our friends is that it is much easier to build your mechanical character around your concept of their personality than in 1E where you ended up building your character's persona more around the things you could do in game. I'm loving the flexibility so far.
There's a lot of people converting APs to 2e who are posting the results on these forums. When the books are out it should be quite easy.
Ancestries are likewise not difficult to translate from 1e to 2e. The really hard part would be to convert a whole 1e class, but if you can imagine it as an archetype for at least one of the existing 2e classes, you can do that instead.
In August my group and I will convert WotR and the characters and resume the AP.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will switching a character from Pathfinder to Second Edition be easy or difficult?
It really depends on your game. Examples: I'm part of two different PF1 games.
One game generally plays APs and characters are largely forgotten at the end of the APs. There is little continuity other than the framework Golarion provides and loose integration with an in-game adventuring house similar to the Pathfinder Society. This game is not necessarily tied to the game system and can switch to PF2, or any other game system, which captures the imagination of those involved.
The other game values continuity, has a great many continuing characters and lots of customized settings. Changing game systems is a lot of work and characters lose something in the translation. (We've done it before: D&D 2 -> D&D 3 -> PF1.) Those involved with the game do not want to change to an incompatible game system. There is no desire among those involved to change to PF2, just as there was no support to change to D&D 4e.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other game values continuity, has a great many continuing characters and lots of customized settings. Changing game systems is a lot of work and characters lose something in the translation. (We've done it before: D&D 2 -> D&D 3 -> PF1.) Those involved with the game do not want to change to an incompatible game system. There is no desire among those involved to change to PF2, just as there was no support to change to D&D 4e.
This is pretty reductivist. I care about continuity more than is entirely healthy, but would happily switch over to the new system (assuming I like it, which is likely) in an ongoing game if the characters and setting of the AP in question were readily built with PF2 (so, yes for CotCT or Kingmaker, probably no for Reign of Winter at the moment given its heavy use of things like Witches and guns, definite no for Iron Gods until we get PF2 stuff on Numerian tech).
This is because what I care about is continuity of world and story rather than exact mechanics. I care that characters can do the same things with basically the same explanation in-universe...not that I do them the same way by the rules. And by 'same things' I mostly mean big stuff like winning the same fights or having the same spells at close to the same level, not every tiny little thing.
Your argument is framed as only people who are relatively casual about the setting would convert, but I assure you that's simply not the case. I think PF2's rules probably do a fine job of representing the world of Golarion, and that's all that's really necessary to make such a conversion for me, since the world and story are my primary concern.
What I expect us to do is a bit of a double track, keep existing characters and their plots in P1 but as we start new PCs and adventures those will begin in P2.
Does anyone have any experience at their table with switching to Pathfinder from 4e or something similar (3 to 3.5 or 3.5 to P1 is a bit dissimilar since they were explicitly designed to be backwards compatible).
|
|
I've had good experiences in the past with making game system changes a LOT more significant than 1 version of D&D to another version.
I've changed a campaign that had been running for over 5 years from Feng Shui to a modified Mutants and Masterminds (the power level had gone up sufficiently that Feng Shui was just no longer able to handle it well).
I've also changed from Gurps Supers to Hero.
The key is to make sure that the conversion is a collaborative process that keeps the things that excite the players about their characters. And to NOT worry about whether the end result is strictly legal or balanced. For example, I can see a conversion from PF1 to PF2 might require some house rules and possibly even have characters end up at slightly different levels (or with an extra feat or two or the like).
It also helped a lot that I (the GM) did the bulk of the conversion and so the result was balanced enough for my purposes. Letting (at least one of) my players free to mini-max Mutants and Masterminds to his hearts content would have been, uh, less successful :-)
Your argument is framed as only people who are relatively casual about the setting would convert, but I assure you that's simply not the case. I think PF2's rules probably do a fine job of representing the world of Golarion, and that's all that's really necessary to make such a conversion for me, since the world and story are my primary concern.
No. You framed my words into an argument that "only people who are relatively casual about the setting would convert." What I did was relay an example.
If you want a broad rule or position, then...
I would summarize my position as each game needs to evaluate its own situation. This involves considering the work involved to convert, how the characters will feel after conversion, changes to the magic system, magic items, changes to the setting, and much more.
Game #2 in my examples has weighed the conversion and decided against it. The word we choose to convey why is "continuity" as we think it best describes the collective reasons.
EDIT : The original message was edited to be less wordy and perhaps more civil.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. You framed my words into an argument that "only people who are relatively casual about the setting would convert." What I did was relay an example.
Okay, to be clear: It certainly seemed like you were trying to make a more general argument rather than merely relaying an example.
As it seems that wasn't your intention, you have my sincere apologies for the misinterpretation. My bad.
If you want a broad rule or position, then...
I would summarize my position as each game needs to evaluate its own situation. This involves considering the work involved to convert, how the characters will feel after conversion, changes to the magic system, magic items, changes to the setting, and much more.
This is totally fair, and I'm in general agreement with this position.
Game #2 in my examples has weighed the conversion and decided against it. The word we choose to convey why is "continuity" as we think it best describes the collective reasons.
This is also fair. I dunno if that's the terminology I'd use, but it seems reasonable enough.
EDIT : The original message was edited to be less wordy and perhaps more civil.
Probably a good call. I probably should've done something similar with my initial post to make it less confrontational.
Probably a good call. I probably should've done something similar with my initial post to make it less confrontational.
Yeh, it is cool. The internet is odd, and first readings aren't always good readings. We're all usually under time pressures, plus there's a desire for brevity. It's a recipe for poor writing and reading.