Take up of Second Edition

[Lanathar]

What do people know about the success / popularity of 2E so far?

For context the Glass Cannon Podcast just released a new Patreon show today using 2E rules. There are a couple of very vocal 2E critics on their reddit suggesting the 2E has not been picked up or switched to in gaming circles

They cited warhorn as an example but when I looked the 1E and 2E numbers were rather close. Which given how little adventure content there is for 2E is something worth commenting on

There were also at least two people claiming (one of them the same as above ) that because the Pathfinder subreddit has far more 1E activity it follows that 2E isn’t popular. They chose to ignore or downplay the dedicated sub for 2E

So what have others seen?
Is the game really floundering already? Or is it too early to tell?
Or is this just a few vocal people who are upset about 1E being dropped and are shouting the loudest about it?

From my perspective there not being much of a switch yet isn’t necessarily indicative of a problem with the game. I personally haven’t switched because I am mid 1E AP so realistically can’t

I am just intrigued

[Deriven Firelion]

It would be interesting to see. My group has taken to it well. When we ready it we were skeptical. Magic seemed too powered down. Things seemed overly complicated. Once you play it, it's really fun. It's far more flexible than D&D and PF1. The action system is great. The skill system makes skills seem meaningful, not just the number, but the level of expertise. It provides a better framework to make someone who invests in a skill to feel like an real expert.

[steelhead]

It is taking me a while to read the rules, but I'm excited to play my first game at a local Con in January. That's where i will really start learning the rules! At this point it is way to early to tell.

[Salamileg]

I've switched one of my group's over to the system from 5e (I play with a few of them in a second group, but that one's still 5e). I'll still play 5e, but for GMing I'm definitely sticking with PF2 for the time being.

[Joana]

I started one of the first P2e PbPs on the Paizo boards, and I've been a bit surprised how few of them have been on offer in the recruitment forum since then. As you say, it could have to do with the relative lack of material. As a snapshot, right now, the first ten threads in recruitment are for P1e, P1e, Mutants & Masterminds, Starfinder, 5e, Starfinder, 3.5, P1e, P1e & Call of Cthulhu.

[Laran]

I would say that there is a lot of resistance with large communities who were heavily invested in the PF1 splat books. I know that people in my area are saying we have lots of scenarios to play for PF1 so let us wait another year or two until more material comes out, the APG comes out, and the kinks have been worked out.

I play 2e with a small group and that seems to be the only group around

[Vlorax]

The pf1e subreddit is a bad sampling to use since they auto downvote 2e threads, remove crossposts to the pf2 sub and generally discourage mentioning it exists.

[1bent1]

For my PFS community we're finally close to getting a character out of the 10-11 tier of 1ed PFS scenarios. I believe by mid summer my group will transition to PF2 in full.

[thenobledrake]

Something that is a factor in the early months of a new edition coming out is that, when direct conversion isn't easy such as is the case with PF1 to PF2, groups often finish up the campaigns they already have in progress.

There are other factors, of course, but I think PF2 is gonna be doing just fine (I admit this opinion could be me and my group having adopted the new edition, and assuming a large number of people to be the same as us)

[Salamileg]

Vlorax wrote:

The pf1e subreddit is a bad sampling to use since they auto downvote 2e threads, remove crossposts to the pf2 sub and generally discourage mentioning it exists.

Yeah, that sub has been rather negative about PF2 ever since they realized it wasn't going to be Pathfinder 1.5e.

[RDG72]

I never played PF1. My group just kept playing 3.5 when 4 came out, and we never played PF1. When 5th ed came out we moved to it and enjoyed it alot. However, I am a person who loves super high fantasy settings, and PF2 caught my attention early. Grabbed the playtest at gencon and have not looked back since. I joined PF society in September after the rules went live and am loving it. I play mostly casters (wizard mostly) and sometimes rangers or fighters. My groups that are in 5th ed games are split on switching, but most are willing to try PF2 when our current campaigns end.

My favorite aspects of PF2 are the way skills are implemented and the 3 action economy.

[ofMars]

my group is already about a third 2e games, and would be more if we weren't in the middle of 4 APs

[Gorbacz]

The CRB has 197 reviews on Amazon in 5 months, which is already more than the Starfinder CRB accumulated in 2 years. Given that % of purchasers who bother to review is pretty much consistent for pnp RPGs and that Starfinder is pretty much unanimously considered a critical and commercial success, this bodes well.

[Fion]

There's a dedicated PF2 subreddit? Do tell!

As to PF2, personally I haven't played much of PF1 and not in years. I was never that big a fan of D&D 3.5e. I'm a D&D GM more than anything (though I do love some other games, I don't get the run them nearly as often).

I've only done some test play, but so far me and my friends really enjoy it. :)

[Ediwir]

Vlorax wrote:

The pf1e subreddit is a bad sampling to use since they auto downvote 2e threads, remove crossposts to the pf2 sub and generally discourage mentioning it exists.

As a general note, no, that is not the case.

Yes, people randomly downvote 2e threads - but no longer to major extents. No, mods do not remove 2e threads (mine were stickied for a bit, even).
That subreddit is also joined with the discord.gg/pathfinder server, which actually has more 2e activity than 1e. So it's a mixed bag.

Tbh I disliked the reddit split back then and I still do :/ should've gone differently.

[The Rot Grub]

I've followed the "edition war" pretty closely and I think there's a natural polarizing going on, where some forums cluster around one edition and other forums around the other.

PF2 is a strong design and that is the most important thing, so I'm not worried. As someone said above, many people are still in the middle of PF1 campaigns and there is too little PF2 material to convert easily.

In the discussion threads I've found that a preponderance of people who haven't switched to PF2 yet didn't feel strongly one way or the other, and were just waiting for more stuff to come out.

Next to PF1's 10 years of material, the brand new baby on the block is not going to win everyone's hearts right away. The OP's observation that there are about as many PF2 games as PF1 games looks surprisingly good to me, tbh.

[Quandary]

Ediwir wrote:

Yes, people randomly downvote 2e threads - but no longer to major extents. No, mods do not remove 2e threads (mine were stickied for a bit, even).

So it's a mixed bag. Tbh I disliked the reddit split back then and I still do :/ should've gone differently.

IMHO there should be clear separation by edition for rules content because otherwise is confusing,

that doesn't need to be hostile thing and each should probably highlight the other in sidebar blurb/suggested links,
and all the other pathfinder content that is setting related or minis or other rpg lifestyle stuff can be crossposted.
Somehow the original one claiming all pathfinder while hosting anti-2e sentiment was formula for bad blood.

[Malk_Content]

On the idea of play by post I think pf2 is naturally not going to do well there. Its biggest asset (the new action economy) is fantastically liberating in live play but is a pace destroyer for pbp

[Zapp]

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

But for the life of me I cannot fathom who greenlighted an edition that in some ways are so similar to 4th Edition. Did Paizo learn nothing? (Not only is 4E WotC's biggest failure - it is also the specific edition Paizo's customers actively chose NOT to play!!)

---

Things that feel wonky include:
The way fundamental proficiencies (weapon, armor, save) are locked down - there is no way to differentiate your character, and picking up a different proficiency is an outright trap (since it never auto-upgrades)!

The obsession with locking down numbers in general. It's outright stifling the way you're supposed to spend a lot of attention just shifting around which skill bonus you get to use for various checks.

There are close to zero ways to actually get ahead of the curve: no feats and very few items and spells. You can't feel awesome if everybody in the group has the same bonus - "if everyone's special, noone is"

This is especially wonky cause there ARE gamechanging spells, just not ones that provide any numerical advantage. (I mean, I'm glad they kept the 3e/5e spell paradigm rather than the boring 4e paradigm, but wonky it feels).

Too many magic items are like in 4E: bland and forgettable. Magic items, being under the purview of the GM, needs to be able to break the curve. 3e and 5e got it right. 4e and PF2 does not.

Consumables are tragically overpriced. While a 50-to-1 ratio sure was too cheap, the new 4-to-1 ratio doesn't make a lick of sense. Basically, nearly every consumable that isn't a healing potion becomes instant vendor trash.

---

Things that are outright heinous:
Talismans. Frak that crap. Doing all that admin for such small benefit. Playing a RPG should be fun, not feel like work.

I absolutely refuse to go through all the stages of selecting a talisman, affixing it, remembering to use it, for what: the teeniest and least generous bonus imaginable! For a very steep cost :(

Hell no, that's not just broken, the talisman rule needs to be taken out back and shot!

[andreww]

The 2e section of the organised play discord is pretty active and we have a large numbr of 2E PFS games being run on a weekly basis. I have yet to have a problem filling tables and generally have far more people than I can take. Online it seems to be doing pretty well.

[Gorbacz]

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

[Lanathar]

Gorbacz wrote:

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

Thanks for this. You beat me to it. I was trying to investigate some pretty strongly worded online claims that no one is picking up 2E. Someone basically said “look at your gaming group - I would put money on them having not switched”

Now that might be true but it seems like it could well be because of lack of published adventures or existence of current games as already mentioned

[Ediwir]

Lanathar wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

Thanks for this. You beat me to it. I was trying to investigate some pretty strongly worded online claims that no one is picking up 2E. Someone basically said “look at your gaming group - I would put money on them having not switched”

Now that might be true but it seems like it could well be because of lack of published adventures or existence of current games as already mentioned

Let this guy know he owes me money.

Took 4 minutes for someone to claim the prize. Pf1 group switched to pf2 around lv8.

[Malk_Content]

Yeah "look at your group of players who you know haven't switched, what a surprise they haven't switched!" isn't exactly market data.

Of course my group has switched, and the 5e dm is talking of switching when his campaign is done so I guess there is 100% uptake or planned uptake!

[Salamileg]

Maybe I'm completely off base with this, but I think the number of APs will have a lot to do with this. Back when PF2 was in the playtest, a lot of people said that they wouldn't switch because they still have a lot of APs to play through, and I've seen a lot of people saying that PF2 doesn't have enough APs yet.

This is pretty different from 5e, where people do play the published books, but homebrew campaigns seem to be overall more popular. I wonder if this is a demographics thing? It would make sense if the player base of Pathfinder is overall older, and thus has less time to prepare games. Or maybe Pathfinder players are just more invested in Golarion lore than D&D 5e players are in the Forgotten Realms.

[Midnightoker]

I have two groups playing the game currently and I hadn’t run a game in a long time, was a player in a few APs.

The ease of gming I feel in this ruleset in terms of preparation is a big deal to me. That and players feeling like they have a lot of agency so I don’t have to present a lot of opportunities for agency.

I hope it’s doing well, but if it isn’t, I’ll just have to buy more books I guess.

I think once GMs see how easy it is to run, it’ll pick up more steam. And reddit is honestly not the best place to get unbiased information in general (and I say that as someone that frequents that site daily). It’s not terrible, but everything I read, I do so with a large grain of salt. A lot of marketing companies have caught on to the value of using reddit as a tool, so whenever products are getting discussed I tend to tune out unless concrete data is presented.

[Ikos]

All I have is anecdotal. We alternate each week between PF2 and 5e. The former replaces a 10-year run for PF1. The optimizers in that group can be grumpy. Those less interested in those shenanigans are happy to play the game without having to engage in the 3x mini game of finding the exploit. Even though it could have been leaner design, PF2 is clearly a much better system than its predecessor, but this can be easily lost on players trying to replicate the PF1 experience. I suspect as more content is released, many in the PF1 crowd will slowly come around or find themselves in an ever-shrinking camp.

[Ezekieru]

Salamileg wrote:

Maybe I'm completely off base with this, but I think the number of APs will have a lot to do with this. Back when PF2 was in the playtest, a lot of people said that they wouldn't switch because they still have a lot of APs to play through, and I've seen a lot of people saying that PF2 doesn't have enough APs yet.

This is pretty different from 5e, where people do play the published books, but homebrew campaigns seem to be overall more popular. I wonder if this is a demographics thing? It would make sense if the player base of Pathfinder is overall older, and thus has less time to prepare games. Or maybe Pathfinder players are just more invested in Golarion lore than D&D 5e players are in the Forgotten Realms.

That's a mighty darn shame, since I love doing homebrew campaigns/one-shots, and I've found that building encounters and making adventures for PF2E is way easier for me to do right than using the encounter building rules for D&D 5E. Now all I need to do is think of a nice boss fight, a few encounters beforehand to soften the players up with, and then tie it together with a nice plot string.

Hopefully in time, the praise for the encounter building will get more groups to try homebrewing some sessions.

[Paradozen]

Anecdotal evidence, but the local PFS lodge dropped 1e like a rock pretty much as soon as 2e came out. They play 2e and starfinder with no 1e on the horizon.

[Cyouni]

Lanathar wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

Thanks for this. You beat me to it. I was trying to investigate some pretty strongly worded online claims that no one is picking up 2E. Someone basically said “look at your gaming group - I would put money on them having not switched”

Now that might be true but it seems like it could well be because of lack of published adventures or existence of current games as already mentioned

The group I'm GM for has switched mid-campaign, but that's heavily due to my influence. The other group I'm in pretty much unanimously voted to switch to PF2 as soon as the current campaign is over, likely on a conversion of Rise of the Runelords.

[Lanathar]

Cyouni wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

Thanks for this. You beat me to it. I was trying to investigate some pretty strongly worded online claims that no one is picking up 2E. Someone basically said “look at your gaming group - I would put money on them having not switched”

Now that might be true but it seems like it could well be because of lack of published adventures or existence of current games as already mentioned

The group I'm GM for has switched mid-campaign, but that's heavily due to my influence. The other group I'm in pretty much unanimously voted to switch to PF2 as soon as the current campaign is over, likely on a conversion of Rise of the Runelords.

What level was the switch at? My group is at level 13 which i think is too high to switch. Also I have a kineticist that is unlikely to be something we can recreate

Are you going to be running the Runelords conversion? That is my plan for after my current AP. I am hoping to try and do some work on a conversion in the near future (might get the most time over christmas)

[Cyouni]

Lanathar wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Zapp wrote:

There are some genuinely good things in Pathfinder 2.

The topic of this thread is "What's the status of commercial performance of PF2". The "Damning praise of PF2 feat. melodrama about what we don't like" topic is ---> that way :)

Thanks for this. You beat me to it. I was trying to investigate some pretty strongly worded online claims that no one is picking up 2E. Someone basically said “look at your gaming group - I would put money on them having not switched”

Now that might be true but it seems like it could well be because of lack of published adventures or existence of current games as already mentioned

The group I'm GM for has switched mid-campaign, but that's heavily due to my influence. The other group I'm in pretty much unanimously voted to switch to PF2 as soon as the current campaign is over, likely on a conversion of Rise of the Runelords.

What level was the switch at? My group is at level 13 which i think is too high to switch. Also I have a kineticist that is unlikely to be something we can recreate

Are you going to be running the Runelords conversion? That is my plan for after my current AP. I am hoping to try and do some work on a conversion in the near future (might get the most time over christmas)

My Hell's Rebels switch was at exactly 13, but it was a Vigilante Hellknight, Hunter, Mystic Theurge, and Teisatsu Vigilante, so not that hard a conversion.

Another GM's going to be running the Runelords conversion.

[ErichAD]

It's hard to say. I know my group has had a false start at it but may give it another go later. My irregular group is staying Pathfinder and a connected group is staying regular Pathfinder, but dropping PFS so they can modify the rules a bit. I don't know any other groups that have even tried it. My daughter's high school tabletop club only plays 5e, though the only member other than my daughter that I spoke to has played Pathfinder and made a face when I mentioned PF2.

However, it's still in the top 100 on the Amazon fantasy gaming list(58 today), so people are still buying the book. And apparently Starfinder did well, and I know nobody who played that beyond a handful of sessions, so I probably just don't know the market Paizo's new design appeals to.

[Midnightoker]

Ezekieru wrote:

Salamileg wrote:

Maybe I'm completely off base with this, but I think the number of APs will have a lot to do with this. Back when PF2 was in the playtest, a lot of people said that they wouldn't switch because they still have a lot of APs to play through, and I've seen a lot of people saying that PF2 doesn't have enough APs yet.

This is pretty different from 5e, where people do play the published books, but homebrew campaigns seem to be overall more popular. I wonder if this is a demographics thing? It would make sense if the player base of Pathfinder is overall older, and thus has less time to prepare games. Or maybe Pathfinder players are just more invested in Golarion lore than D&D 5e players are in the Forgotten Realms.

That's a mighty darn shame, since I love doing homebrew campaigns/one-shots, and I've found that building encounters and making adventures for PF2E is way easier for me to do right than using the encounter building rules for D&D 5E. Now all I need to do is think of a nice boss fight, a few encounters beforehand to soften the players up with, and then tie it together with a nice plot string.

Hopefully in time, the praise for the encounter building will get more groups to try homebrewing some sessions.

I actually want to echo some parts of this, but say I think it applies to all parts of the game.

I run a home brew world and they created a very modular and elegant system. I created a new ancestry that’s present in my setting because one of my players wanted to play one, and it was fairly straight forward to develop within the structure they’ve set.

In 3.5/PF1 homebrew it didn’t feel quite as authentic, I don’t know quite how to describe. Not that I couldn’t write world specific things then, but parity with options felt less meaningful.

I almost feel rewarded when completing something homebrew specific in this world, because even though I’m given a relatively lean structure, I still feel a strong sense of creative freedom within that box.

It’s so early in the life time in the system, but I dare say it’s my favorite one to gm in the dnd/pathfinder family

[BellyBeard]

I agree, I've done more homebrew race and specialized class options then I ever did in PF1 because the structure in place makes it easy to logically build up your own stuff. Combined with the super easy monster building, which are easy enough I think with experience you could generate creatures totally ad hoc with just some reference tables, I think the system lends itself very well to homebrew.

[Salamileg]

I also agree. I've made a homebrew race, a tiefling heritage to hold us over until the official one comes out, a couple archetypes, and some various bits and bobs. Super easy.

[Ediwir]

There’s also my old hometown gaming club, who apparently is taking up the system really quickly (despite having to go through a handful of english speakers). However, most of that club shares my... gameplay viewpoint? Gaming perspective? Whatevs. Some kind of approach that fits 2e very well.

I think it comes down to that, in the end.

[Lanathar]

My guess on the home brew is the lack of the gamemastery guide. Not everyone was hovering on the paizo site within for the monster building advance preview to drop

Also it is not currently clear how NPCs work but there will be a whole set of templates in the upcoming book

So I wouldn’t be surprised if the home brews increase exponentially when that comes out

Add in how the APG looks like it will bring in a large amount of things people wanted but couldn’t fit in the core book, exponentially increasing options i would expect a big uptake after that (so by this time next year)

Honestly it seems like (but I could be wrong) that those “left behind” will be those who can’t get over the loss of quadratic spellcaster power or those who really want to play certain APs but don’t feel they have the time or inclination to convert. The former will never be satisfied by this edition and there is nothing that can be done to change that. The latter is an entirely fair enough point but likely to be a minority

(Of course I could be well off base there)

[Ediwir]

Well, for that last point, I’m trying to start up a small conversion group. Getting some more people in, working conversion bit by bit, helping each other.

There’s 20 APs out there just waiting to join second edition. And a lot of modules.

[Gorbacz]

I'm at the point (Hell's Rebels book 4, *that fight*) where converting NPCs and monsters to PF2 is quicker than analysing their classes/feats/spells/items in order to run them properly under PF1.

[Ediwir]

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm at the point (Hell's Rebels book 4, *that fight*) where converting NPCs and monsters to PF2 is quicker than analysing their classes/feats/spells/items in order to run them properly under PF1.

Sometimes that happens as early as book1 or 2. When there’s that one npc from a class you never even looked at and it says absolutely nothing and you have to learn it by next week because you overlooked it? Yeah. Bye.

[Lanathar]

Gorbacz wrote:

I'm at the point (Hell's Rebels book 4, *that fight*) where converting NPCs and monsters to PF2 is quicker than analysing their classes/feats/spells/items in order to run them properly under PF1.

That is a monster fight. I can see your point on conversion being easier!

I only have one combat left of book 4 but I don’t see a conversion suggestion really flying with my group as almost all of the characters will not be realistically convertible

That is probably more of a barrier than anything !

[Staffan Johansson]

Salamileg wrote:

Maybe I'm completely off base with this, but I think the number of APs will have a lot to do with this. Back when PF2 was in the playtest, a lot of people said that they wouldn't switch because they still have a lot of APs to play through, and I've seen a lot of people saying that PF2 doesn't have enough APs yet.

This is pretty different from 5e, where people do play the published books, but homebrew campaigns seem to be overall more popular. I wonder if this is a demographics thing? It would make sense if the player base of Pathfinder is overall older, and thus has less time to prepare games. Or maybe Pathfinder players are just more invested in Golarion lore than D&D 5e players are in the Forgotten Realms.

Paizo is a bit of an odd duck among game publishers, because their primary product has historically been adventures, not rule- or sourcebooks (although the adventures have had sourcebook elements to them). From what the Paizo folks have written about the process of creating Pathfinder, it basically went something like this:

1. People really like the adventure paths we're doing in Dungeon Magazine.
2. Damn, we lost the Dungeon license because Wizards want to bring the magazines in-house.
3. Let's look at what they're saying about third-party stuff for 4e.
4. HELL NO.
5. But we can still make adventures for 3.5e under the OGL and publish them in a magazine-like format, and we have a pre-existing customer base predisposed to liking that kind of thing.
6. But making adventures for a "dead" rule set is not a good long-term strategy.
7. So let's re-release 3.5e with some tune-ups, and then make adventures for that rule set!

So it makes sense that pre-existing Pathfinder fans skew toward those who are fans of adventure paths. It also makes sense that many of them are mid-campaign, and one of those can last for quite a while (I and my buds play more-or-less weekly, and we've been playing since shortly after the PF2 release, and we're coming close to what I believe to be the final bits of Hellknight Hill - playing through the full Age of Ashes will probably take like 2 years at this pace). In addition, many APs dig fairly deep into monsters from later bestiaries, classes and feats from later sourcebooks, and so on - which means that they'd be hard to convert right over. Converting Rise of the Runelords or Curse of the Crimson Throne over to PF2 probably wouldn't be all that hard, but something like Iron Gods would pose a bit of a challenge - particularly since the core book has very little support for homebrewing stuff and instead leaves that to the upcoming GMG.

Taken together, this means that it's hard to convert an existing PF1 campaign to PF2, so that's probably going to be rare. So at this point I think PF2's success is probably better measured by how many new campaigns are starting in either system, rather than in how many campaigns each system is running right now.

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

The game I was running (Reign of Winter) is on hiatus since players moved away. If I was converting it, I'd wait on changeling and dhampir in the upcoming APG. And benefit from the GMG and Bestiary 2 out by then.

I've felt daunted by GMing. 2e looks a lot less daunting.

[Gorbacz]

I'm midway through two Paizo PF1 APs and I'm already converting things with a view towards switching to PF2 once APG lands in July. It's not as hard as it appears at the first glance. The reversed monster/NPC design paradigm of PF2 makes such much easier. You take target numbers, add 1-2 active, cool abilities based on what did the PF1 monster/NPC do and off you roll.

And with Kingmaker incoming for PF2, people will get one of the beloved-est PF1 APs (which I honestly never got into, but I can see the appeal of hex crawling kingdom building for old grogs).

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Everyone I have converted has enjoyed it so far.

Takes time for wider adoption to occur. PF Reddit is still pulling the downvote crap but it is less than it was and generally only when there are a decent number of new posts (then you start seeing 40-50% downvotes again.

[Lanathar]

My barrier so far has been treasure conversion
I know there is the guide that talks about benchmarking against levels but that isn’t always the easiest

There is also some percentages somewhere else that get applied but are different as the levels change (I know Captain linked to them at one point but can’t recall where they are from )

[Ediwir]

Lanathar wrote:

My barrier so far has been treasure conversion

I know there is the guide that talks about benchmarking against levels but that isn’t always the easiest

There is also some percentages somewhere else that get applied but are different as the levels change (I know Captain linked to them at one point but can’t recall where they are from )

What, for monetary values?

Usually I just line up all ‘cash location’ and mark them with a $. Then add more $s if there was lots. At the end, tally and count, divide total loot by $s, assign fractions of loot to each $, flavour, fix details. Takes 20 mins.

[Lanathar]

Oh so you apportion treasure by approximate percentage? With the total the percentage applied being...the total expected for the level? Or something else? Does it address the APs giving out more gear than expected?

So form of apportionment was going to be my approach

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Personally I don't bother with conversion. Note down the plot important items and just distribute wealth appropriately elsewhere using the wbl table as appropriate.