I've seen this sentiment lately, and as a person who's moving from 5e to PF2 (as opposed to PF1 to PF2) I don't quite get. If you don't get what I mean, I mean stuff like do you feel to explain why wizards can use shields now? Or why parties don't carry around wands of light cure wounds anymore? Or why light cure wounds isn't a spell anymore? I personally don't feel the need to, converting my homebrew world from 5e to PF2, but I'm curious to see what the community as a whole thinks.
I've seen this sentiment lately, and as a person who's moving from 5e to PF2 (as opposed to PF1 to PF2) I don't quite get. If you don't get what I mean, I mean stuff like do you feel to explain why wizards can use shields now? Or why parties don't carry around wands of light cure wounds anymore? Or why light cure wounds isn't a spell anymore? I personally don't feel the need to, converting my homebrew world from 5e to PF2, but I'm curious to see what the community as a whole thinks.
This has come up and I have a big uneditted meandering mess that I wrote with regards to this topic. The meandering mess follows.
It is a slight problem for me but not that big of one. As I have posted elsewhere recently, I don't run Pathfinder's core setting and I may have been--in fact--mispelling it for a while now.
I either like game rules that describe the mechanics of a world or I like a world that flows naturally from the mechanics of a game.
However, this preference is not sacrosanct to me; I have played D20 Modern, World of Darkness, and Savage Worlds in a "realistic" setting and enjoyed myself. Those rules all ostensibly describe the same "world" even if the behaviors that would be practical in one system would be nonsensical in another. For instance: a character that has gain a lot of experience in D20 Modern could probably take down 5 armed men but a character with a lot of experience in World of Darkness cannot. Why can't there be two games with different versions of cure light wounds and goodberry? Could two different rules models describe the same "world" more or less? I post that they can.
Which system is better depends in part on how I would like to imagine a world, which things I believe should be possible/impossible, and which sorts of behaviors are interesting to encourage or discourage. But what do I think Golarion is like? I have no idea. Homebrew4lyfe.
Here is what I think is happening with other people though: Some folks have a very clear picture of what Pathfinder's world is after years of playing it under one rules set and now the ruleset has changed and since there is no alternative version of that setting save for the one modeled in their own games and in PF1 adventure paths, it is obvious to them that "their" version of Golarion has changed.
Unlike the "real world" that I have described before people have one predominant view of the core setting molded by the mechanics of the original system.
For me, that isn't even a problem. I created Zolenthal (my home brew setting) in large part to model the kind of world that pathfinder and 3.5 DnD describe: a world where one badass can punch through walls and kill demons that could ruin nations of normies single handed. The actions of great men and women--and those nations and society that attract great men and women--determine the path of history. A new rules set means a changed Zolenthal and that works just fine because I still get a rules set that generates a setting.
I tend not to convert on going games to avoid players feeling like their in universe abilities are changing arbitrarily. I only use homebrew settings, and so have no specific lore complaints about whether or not the world can be consistent between editions, though I have seen that complaint.
I think much of the problem in converting from PF1 to PF2 could be solved by increasing a character's level by between 30 and 50 percent. PF2 is a lower powered event so you'd end up with a miss match by trying to keep character's levels identical rather than their abilities.
As to the specific complaints you mention, PF1 wizards should be using light mithral shields and bucklers, so allowing it slightly earlier isn't much of an issue. The specific functioning of wands probably isn't an important character or world feature, and spell names are unlikely to be consistent from caster to caster. I'd expect effects like no longer being able to stay shapeshifted all day, sneak while looking for traps and scouting for enemies, or ride on a floating disk, would all be more likely to change how players interact with the world.
I have no problem adjusting expectations brought to the setting between edition changes. For me, the fact that a battle was won with a particular mechanic that's changed is a non-issue: the important part is who won the battle, how they won it is mostly decoration. In this way, I think most of the changes between first edition and second become issues of the decorations around stories, moreso than directly affecting the story itself. Even if some particular power is retconned out of existence, it's easy to imagine the hero who used it might have some other power with which to save the day instead. Also if a power doesn't exist in second edition yet, or is weaker than before, you can always imagine the GM gave the hero the special power for that story if it makes you feel better.
Not in the slightest.
My games are about the hero (or bastard) acting as they do to change the day! All rules are just hard wired mechanics to resolve a game ruled action.
If the rule set is just junk, there's a different story. (That's not even a slight against 4e;I just wasn't going to buy a new different edition considering how much was spent in a short time on 3/3.5)
Both lore and mechanics are important to me, but I look at every edition change as a brand new game. Quality rather than continuity of lore is what matters to me. A big part of the reason I am such a fan of Exalted Third Edition is because I think the lore changes make for a better game.
I do tend to run shorter 1-2 year campaigns.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is important that the world works the same between the two editions. That a novel written with the mechanics of PF1 be also legal and reasonable (if perhaps with different levels and Classes or the like) in PF2, or that an adventure could reasonably go the same way in both editions (even if specific spells and items are different).
That said, the world and novels seldom refer to spells by name, never used Wands of CLW as the primary healing methodology, and seldom refer to specific non-spellcasting Classes. So none of those changing cause any issues for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not especially. I like setting lore, but trying to wrangle gameplay changes into setting logic either forces developers to create sacred cows by not changing certain abilities because of how they influence the narrative, or create incredibly hamfisted narrative cataclysms that explain away the changes.
Both usually end up making the game worse.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the D&D setting of forgotten realms, every new edition came with a major world shattering event, like the spellplague from 3e to 4e, which was used to explain why the rules changed in setting.
For my homebrew setting it doesn't really fit in to pathfinder rules exactly, but it's the system I use to play games with, so I make it fit as best I can. Going from one imperfect system to another, shrug, it's just the mechanics to be able to play a game with. I'll still have to tweak it to fit the aesthetics of my world.
For Golarion though, it does bug me a bit. I mean, that's their setting, and now they're changing it. Since they didn't explain the changes in world, it's like a comic book retcon, and those never quite sit well with fans.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For Golarion though, it does bug me a bit. I mean, that's their setting, and now they're changing it. Since they didn't explain the changes in world, it's like a comic book retcon, and those never quite sit well with fans.
I'd argue that the setting hasn't actually changed much at all. Just the rules used to reflect it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Only on the coarsest terms. Like if Pathfinder 2nd edition was never going to specifically enable "Witch" as a thing, that would bother me because canonically Irrisen is ruled by witches.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen this sentiment lately, and as a person who's moving from 5e to PF2 (as opposed to PF1 to PF2) I don't quite get. If you don't get what I mean, I mean stuff like do you feel to explain why wizards can use shields now? Or why parties don't carry around wands of light cure wounds anymore? Or why light cure wounds isn't a spell anymore? I personally don't feel the need to, converting my homebrew world from 5e to PF2, but I'm curious to see what the community as a whole thinks.
There is a level at which it would bug me, but I haven't been fussed running Golarion in any edition of D&D from 0E, 4E and 5E or in Pathfinder (obviously).
If wizards suddenly couldn't cast spells and could only summon, or barbarians lost any meaningful rage ability I think it would bother me. It has to be at that extremely coarse, not-going-to-happen level though for me to struggle to accept it.
I adopt the relatively common view that the ruleset I'm using is an approximation to the world's physics. However, I think all of them are lousy approximations, so differences across editions are just explained away by reference to some underlying, nebulous "experimental error". Provided elves have pointy ears, dwarves like mining, fighters are better in armor than wizards and monks hit things without needing weapons I'm not too stressed if the mechanical representation of all those things changes. (I don't care how long it takes to prepare spells or regain hit points, for example despite both of those things being an objective feature that "should" be preserved by any model - it just doesn't matter enough to me).
Even if there was something that made me balk, I suspect it would only take a few sessions under the new scheme would be enough for me to internalise the changes.
It REALLY bugs my longest player. It used to bug me a long time ago (not PF2E of course, but when similar changes would happen in the past with other RPG stuff), but not so much anymore. But the player I talk about often gripes a bit about how he feels its disheartening to 'know' he'll never be able to do the kinds of things that 'people in the past' used to be able to (he often uses PF1E style magic when describing his vision of Thassilon, and how 'that could never happen now'). How there are so many abilities that people just 'up and lost' one day.
I'm working on getting him past it. I think since I'm starting a new campaign, a view of history that fits with current abilities is best, particularly when anyone can have any ability now (ie, NPC creation rules aren't PC creation rules). Double so since history is an imprecise narrator. I'd rather see the fresh innovation and ideas rather than paying continued homage to sacred cows whose time has come and gone, and gripes aside, I'm pretty sure midgame that my players prefer it too, even if some of them grumble occasionally.
It mostly doesnt bother me. But I do find it jarring that paladins seem to have lost smite evil, or that permissible alignments of some deities have become overly restrictive.
So in the abstract I dont mind class features changing or alignment requirements getting tweaked. But in the practical I do mind specific applications.
It's not enough to get me to not play the new edition. But had they been more extreme it would have.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the player I talk about often gripes a bit about how he feels its disheartening to 'know' he'll never be able to do the kinds of things that 'people in the past' used to be able to (he often uses PF1E style magic when describing his vision of Thassilon, and how 'that could never happen now'). How there are so many abilities that people just 'up and lost' one day.
I'm not sure this follows. You can do most world altering stuff with magic in PF2 that you could in PF1, and the stuff you can't can still be assumed to exist, just not in published form for the new system as of yet.
Like, I'd assume Blood Money or something like it very much still exists (or, I guess, existed, since it would be a Unique spell in Karzoug's spell book, and he's dead). We just don't have print rules for it...at least not yet.
But I take serious issues with Champions suddenly not being able to Detect Evil or Smite Evil early on.
Smite Evil was never a named in-world ability. 1st level Champions can do Good damage, which is really a pretty similar thing in-universe.
The Detect Evil thing is a bit trickier to reconcile, but frankly not a lot. There are precious few canonical Paladins of less than 5th or 6th level in PF1 books. They exist, but not in any great numbers.
Having played d&d since the red box, through Ad&d 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, and PF1, I have to say it bothers me, but it’s about feel rather than detail.
It wouldn’t bother me if Magic Missile suddenly did d6 rather than d4 damage. I’m not even fussed if a classes fundamental abilities have changed. But it did bother me with 4e that an RPG that supported a predominantly ‘theatre of the mind’ game suddenly became a grid based miniatures game modelling a MMORPG - to the point where I jumped ship to Pathfinder after a literal lifetime of playing d&d.
I’m still struggling to place PF2 - some of it feels familiar (good), but other parts feel ‘not d&d’ - so struggling to love it at the moment. At least it doesn’t feel as alien as 4e/5e does to me, so I’m hopeful it will grow on me with more play. It took a while for 3e to feel like home as well...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on HOW the rules differ.
Transitioning from 3.5 to Pathfinder or even Pathfinder 1e to 2e isn't a big deal, because tone and feel of the game stays relatively the same. The way combat turns work differs for example doesn't matter to me, because turn based combat is an abstraction of the narrative anyway, which of course is real time. The mental images a player gets of how combat happens will remain the same as long as the narrative descriptions remain the same. Same goes for different spell names; the change from "cure light wounds" to "heal" cast at level 1 is irrelevant because nobody in character says any of those words.
I actually feel like converting from 5e to Pathfinder or vice versa is quite a bit more jarring, because 5e FEELS different from Pathfinder, due to the fundamental difference in how power levels are balanced. If I convert a d&d 5e game to pathfinder 2e I'd seriously consider removing the +level to proficiency, just so I can keep the same gritty tone that comes from bounded accuracy.
So to me it depends on whether or not the two systems can be used to tell the same story. If the story I want to tell includes an army of low level soldiers suffering heavy losses to slay a dragon, I would use 5e, because that story is POSSIBLE in that system; if instead I want my story to include a near-invincible dragon that can destroy entire nations, defeatable only by legendary heroes, then I would use Pathfinder instead.
As to more significant class ability changes compared to just renaming spells....do people feel like justifying how a character suddenly learned a new feat every time they level up too? The party wizard now carrying a shield can be explained as "he learned to use a shield". It's as simple as that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smite Evil was never a named in-world ability. 1st level Champions can do Good damage, which is really a pretty similar thing in-universe.
You can dismiss whatever you want to. But I find it notable that a few people have flagged this. It's just like Rage isn't a named ability in world. But GEE WILLIKERS would barbarians feel weird without it.
[EDIT]: Replaced an "offensive curse" (apparently Paizo's coders/board administrators find g~+*$@n offensive?)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is continuity between editions, in regards to how mechanics and lore interact, important to you?
Not even remotely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen this sentiment lately, and as a person who's moving from 5e to PF2 (as opposed to PF1 to PF2) I don't quite get.
These specific examples don't faze me. The overall reduction of caster potency does.
If you don't get what I mean, I mean stuff like do you feel to explain why wizards can use shields now?
Wizards always could use shields. Most wizards just weren't very good with them. A simple dip in another class or a feat choice meant that any particular wizard could be. So the easy way to view this is that the wizards we happen to be telling stories about today - as opposed to last year - are the ones who have done whatever is necessary to learn how to use shields.
Or why parties don't carry around wands of light cure wounds anymore?
Again, the parties we happen to tell stories about this year are the ones that don't use wands that way. There are still many, many people out there doing what they've always done. We just aren't focusing the camera on them.
Or why light cure wounds isn't a spell anymore?
I've personally never really viewed the printed names of spells as being tied intrinsically to their effects. Meaning that in-setting, characters likely use all sorts of shorthand to refer to spells. Languages vary, regions vary. Trunk of a car, boot of a car. The in-game spell descriptors haven't changed. Just the way us out-of-game players refer to things.
I personally don't feel the need to, converting my homebrew world from 5e to PF2, but I'm curious to see what the community as a whole thinks.
Change is part of edition change. The only thing that bothers me is the inexplicable reduction in spell potency. Casters have fewer slots, the slots they have are reduced in duration (generally), impact fewer targets, can be done less often, and so on. That's a bit jarring for me mechanically and plot-wise. It used to be that dimension door was a potent, available, common thing. Now it's not.
So... I guess... now we're telling the stories of the casters who... aren't very good relative to what they used to be. Shrug.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
> Is continuity between editions, in regards to how mechanics
> and lore interact, important to you?
It depends on the game. I participate in two of them.
One game plays through an AP and then throws the characters away. It doesn't need any continuity outside of that AP.
My other game has a long history from decades of play, lots of homebrew material and many characters. Continuity is a major appeal to the game. Yes, in that game it matters to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, I have a very strong suspension of disbelief
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, to the point I won't be playing P2E due to the amount of changes to the setting the rules represent. There simply is not continuity between the P1E setting and the P2E setting. Fundamental laws of reality shifted in directly measurable and observable ways. It doesn't just matter that a thing happened, it very much matters how it happened. To say otherwise is to say it doesn't matter that a Paladin harmed innocents to win the day. All that matters is the Paladin won, the details are just dressing. To say otherwise is to say that the crit the fighter rolled to kill the big bad when all seemed lost doesn't matter.
Why can't there be two games with different versions of cure light wounds and goodberry? Could two different rules models describe the same "world" more or less? I post that they can.
Because the differences in Goodberry magically/physically prevent the same story from happening. No different than if a character could fly in one and not fly in the other. Losing the ability to fly and assuming they could never fly means you have lost the stories that involved the ability to fly.
Not especially. I like setting lore, but trying to wrangle gameplay changes into setting logic either forces developers to create sacred cows by not changing certain abilities because of how they influence the narrative, or create incredibly hamfisted narrative cataclysms that explain away the changes.
Except for the fact that for all of the changes, sacred cows still exist. If I have to deal with the pile of changes, then why the hell am I still dealing with a D20 mechanic and Vancian spellcasting?
The changes to magic already feel as if magic works completely differently in the setting. Has already retconned some of my stories in to nonexistence. A completely different magic system would make me more likely to play P2E. I said this multiple times during the playtest: If you are going to change things, change them.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, rules are just an abstract representation of how a world work. The minutiae is less important than the Cohesive Whole™. The whole thing has changed only slightly, I would argue. Things like the alignment rules, for instance, are a change to the baseline. Still feels like the same world to me.
Another way to look at it is the release schedule. Just because something isn't represented doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the setting. Every new book doesn't mean new things sprang into existence. If something is not present in the new edition, it could still exist in a similar form.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is Smite Evil different from Bardic Performance, Rage, or Wildshape?
It isn't. But having abilities with those names is not important. Having abilities with the effects in question, is what's important, and the effect of Smite Evil is that Paladins are better at killing Evil stuff, especially things like Fiends.
Paladins remain good at that, and do so from 1st level due to being able to do Good damage.
I mean I wouldn't have a problem if the only change was changing the damage type, values, or duration a bit (like they did with Rage). But as it stands Smite Evil is completely different and opt-in ability instead of a default thing for Lawful Good Champions with no way to get it at lv 1.
The ability named Smite Evil is quite different, yes, but a 1st level Paladin can do Good damage, which works a lot like PF1 1st level Smite Evil in terms of what it does to Evil foes (ie: increases the Paladin's effectiveness against them).
Having an option (probably a Class Archetype) to make it a bit more targetable would be good, but it's not necessary for the world to keep making sense.
Let's continue the discussion in PMs. (Wanted to post this here for continuity).
Honestly, this seems super on topic, which is why I'm continuing it here.
You can dismiss whatever you want to. But I find it notable that a few people have flagged this.
That's fair. And a Class Archetype that gives up the Champion Reaction for something a little more like PF1 Smite Evil is something I'd be very pleased with, but I think this is more an issue with playstyle and mechanic changes than it is with how the character interacts with the world.
The fiction and narrative don't have Paladins actually yelling 'smite evil', they just have them glowing with holy light and wrecking Evil stuff...and they're still quite good at doing exactly that.
It's just like Rage isn't a named ability in world. But GEE WILLIKERS would barbarians feel weird without it.
Rage isn't named, but it's effects are felt, I agree. But I wouldn't care if they renamed it or changed how it worked mechanically (which, in fact, they did), as long as Barbarians still went berserk and became better at fighting.
Likewise, I don't care what Paladin's 'I do better when fighting evil stuff' ability is called. And that's very much still a thing for even 1st level Paladins.
[EDIT]: Replaced an "offensive curse" (apparently Paizo's coders/board administrators find g~#~*@n offensive?)
It's the board software, which I don't believe they coded from scratch. It does that with swear words in general, though editing out stuff the board already censors has never seemed necessary to me.
No I can't think of anything less important to me other than maybe the change in how Hobgoblins look, that's also meaningless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.
If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.
Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.
Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.
If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.
Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.
Doesn't that only matter if you're converting an existing PF1 game over to PF2 or play every game in the same exact world as the last?
With my table when we start a new campaign we don't really consider anything that happened in the previous one. We're playing Age of Ashes now so what we did in the random PF1 games we played before has no bearing.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.
Where do you observe it? Like so?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really, the things that exclusively affect player characters (like how class abilities or spells work) changing when there's a new edition is no different from how these same sorts of things change when a new book comes out that has options that weren't previously available. Golarion had no shapeshifting martials at all before the Metamorph alchemist in Ultimate Intrigue and when Ultimate Wilderness came out suddenly the Shifter class had always been part of the world.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the differences in Goodberry magically/physically prevent the same story from happening.
I just feel like this is far too fragile of a stance to take when we're dealing with a game. Because if that's the case, then any sort of errata or update or even new splatbooks are all potentially setting annihilating too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.Where do you observe it? Like so?
The examples I've given are things that are easy to count. 2d4 berries in 6 seconds vs 1 in an hour. 50 charges you are able to use up in 1 day vs 1 charge a day forever. So if I'm playing the same characters as 10 years ago, what is the in universe explanation? I can't feed the same number of survivers in the same amount of time, so they can't have always worked like that. Do then can my character not count? Can they not remember how things worked? When did the change happen? Did things pop in to existence GitP style? Did the Gods created a mini Gap so no one noticed and all records were changed? How did the setting get from A to B, when B is not, and never had been, A?
The examples are also differences in the CRBs, so there is no "later release" excuse.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, because it's a game and the rules changed, and the rules didn't actually change the world or how it functions in any meaningful way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just feel like this is far too fragile of a stance to take when we're dealing with a game. Because if that's the case, then any sort of errata or update or even new splatbooks are all potentially setting annihilating too.
Because the differences in Goodberry magically/physically prevent the same story from happening.
And "continuity doesn't matter" is far too fragile of a stance to even consider. Not one person actually holds it. What they hold is "this continuity doesn't matter to me" and it will suddenly matter when continuity they care about is thrown out the window. If it doesn't matter how things worked yesterday, what does it matter how many spells I cast an hour ago? How many spells I cast to win the encounter doesn't matter, that's just dressing. What matters is that I won the encounter.
Not 'what'.
'Where'.
In my wizard lab, with tons of detailed notes.
No, because it's a game and the rules changed, and the rules didn't actually change the world or how it functions in any meaningful way
Except that it did. Wands and magic items do not work the same. Spells have completely different effects.
The mechanics of a fighter attacking did not change the world in a meaningful way. The physical effects of magic very much did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to handwave and hurry past instances where mechanics changes affect story continuity because—at the end of the day—trying to map every mechanics change to the setting and story (both past and present) is a veritable rabbit hole.
However, for players who need that justification, I think the key is to be vague and brief:
- The PC was always able to do that, and has probably done it before, but never within the scope of a session we've played.
- The PC has been learning how to do this over the years and only recently became confident enough with the ability to use it.
- The PC never did it that way—you're probably just misremembering it— or it was a one-off due to special circumstances or sheer luck.
- The PC used to be able to do that, but either due to a lack of practice or a shift in focus, either they've grown rusty or are no longer predisposed to using it
I'd rather be blunt (i.e., "I can't explain the difference, sorry") or provide a plausible excuse than comprehensively map these differences. Because if you give in-depth reasoning for one, then you have to do them all, which is quite daunting (especially if we're considering errata within a system too).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.
If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.
Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.
You should try to see it in terms of fights.
You have 1 use of treat wounds while in combat. Once the combat is done, you could rest yourself.
If you do it with wands or healing tool doesn't change anything, since players will be overloaded with wands.
They just semplified the resting part.
And given how 3x action system works, it is something which gives a support option to anyone who decides to skill medicine.
I think we just have to wait for an errata regards battle medicine in terms of hands, equipe tool, and so on, but apart from that the rest is ok.
You could argue that a healer kit should have charges. That would be a good call. But I see no purpose in s long term scenario.
Once again, a party having access to XYZ healing isn't the issue. The issue is that wands are fundamentally different items with fundamentally different functions. 10 years ago you could use a wand of fireball 50 times in 1 fight. Now that is physically impossible. What is the in universe explanation for this difference? Everyone in existence just miss remembers wands having 50 charges?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands are sticks that cast magic spells. Spells are magic things that do things. The granular details really aren't anything to throw a fit over.
If you're playing in 2E, wands have one charge. They don't have 50. It's as simple as that. Nothing changed in the world. They're just different. There's no world-shattering event that decharged every wand; there is no story explanation because there doesn't need to be one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wands are sticks that cast magic spells. Spells are magic things that do things. The granular details really aren't anything to throw a fit over.
If you're playing in 2E, wands have one charge. They don't have 50. It's as simple as that. Nothing changed in the world. They're just different. There's no world-shattering event that decharged every wand; there is no story explanation because there doesn't need to be one.
It isn't as simple as that, because P2E takes place in the same setting. Point of fact, something did change in the world, in the story, and thus an explanation is needed wherether or not it is provided.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Once again, a party having access to XYZ healing isn't the issue. The issue is that wands are fundamentally different items with fundamentally different functions. 10 years ago you could use a wand of fireball 50 times in 1 fight. Now that is physically impossible. What is the in universe explanation for this difference? Everyone in existence just miss remembers wands having 50 charges?Yes, but the issue isn't whether a party as access to XYZ amount of healing. The issue is that wands used to be sticks with a set 50 charges and are now once per day items(plus a limited overcharge) that last forever. This is a directly observable and measurable in universe change that has no explanation.I see no problem in converting a homebrew world.
If we consider a party of 4 players in a world of xx milions of people, the fact that one of the main characters could have or not a shield doesn't change your world at all.
Same goes for wands.
If you use first aid instead of low cost wands with 50 charges, all will remain the same.All of this stuff doesn't really change a thing. If you had talked about adding space robots, then you would have had issues.
You should try to see it in terms of fights.
You have 1 use of treat wounds while in combat. Once the combat is done, you could rest yourself.
If you do it with wands or healing tool doesn't change anything, since players will be overloaded with wands.
They just semplified the resting part.
And given how 3x action system works, it is something which gives a support option to anyone who decides to skill medicine.
I think we just have to wait for an errata regards battle medicine in terms of hands, equipe tool, and so on, but apart from that the rest is ok.
You could argue that a healer kit should have charges. That would be a good call. But I see no purpose in s long term scenario.
Who is remembering this? The fake NPC's from 10 years ago? Are you still playing the same character from 10 years ago? Why does it matter at all if you're starting a new game? Are you planning on the new PC's investigating the past and noticing things changed?
This is entirely a non-issue unless every game takes place in the same world and is reliant on the previous campaigns from years ago to inform the new one.
GM- we're starting a new game in PF2
PC- I need detailed info on how the world has changed from PF1 or none of it makes sense because my PC is somehow aware of how the world worked in a different campaign that had nothing to do with them.
I feel like this only matters if you make it a big deal and want to complain about it. From the NPC/character viewpoint the world has always followed the PF2 rules. If you want to have one continuous world that every campaign has existed in then just handwave the differences.
"I heard about this dude that made tons of goodberries at once to feed people"
"Yea he was a legend, knew some secret trick or version of the spell that let him do that but never shared it"
Rules difference handwaved and we move on.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The characters don't know the rules exist. They can have no cognizance that things have changed, because in-universe, nothing has changed. Only the rules have changed.