| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
-snip-
We know Zapp's story because he's brought it up before, he's a player in a group that switched over to PF2e, he likes some things about it, but vitriolically dislikes others and has consistently expressed bewilderment that Paizo didn't build pf2e to be more like Dungeons and Dragons 5e because he feels that it's success is indicative that it represents the future of TTRPGs and that Paizo could have gotten more of 5e's success that way.
My personal opinion is that 5e is too dominant in it's space to be beaten at it's own game, and Paizo made the right call in creating a product that focuses on what it doesn't do well to create an alternative for the players that aren't as enthused with it's flaws.
To him, pf2e is stuck in the past, having more in common with 3.5e and 4e than with 5e. At the very least he feels it should be further from 4e DND which he considers to be an abject failure (as a player that loved 4e, I consider this a point of contention.) He also seems to support a move to a very different model altogether (like his classless system.)
In my experience, he doesn't take criticism especially well and tends to accuse others of being rude to him in order to deflect if his fundamental beliefs are challenged but otherwise is absolutely arguing in good faith, even if he would really be happier playing another system.
Can you tell I've gone a few rounds with him in the past? XD
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having just finished reading the GMG, I have to say that there are a lot of things I loved about it and a lot of things that I felt disappointed by in it.
I love the tone of the writing and how the book mostly feels like it reaches right out to address me and make me feel comfortable as a GM making up the things I need to run my own home game. I think the book is strongest when it is doing these things.
My biggest gripe is that I think combining the Gamemastery guide, variant rules, and NPCs into one book leaves every section feeling like it should have been its own separate book. This is especially a rough deal on the "game mastery" sections because I frequently found myself wanting 2 to 3 times as much content in many of these sections, as well as more concrete examples to illustrate the points.
For example, what does running a mounted combat without a grid look like as far a tracking a lot of the nitty gritty conditions and effects of combat that grant significant bonuses? If I have a player that gains a mount, do I need to move most of my combats off of grid? Can we get discussion about how to do more large scale gridded combat including using the longer ranged weapons, because I feel like ranged combat and mounted combat are massively underserved by the traditional close grid/dungeon crawling encounters. We might see more of this kind of thing in a future AP, but I feel like the GMG should be more helpful in setting this up than it ends up being able to do because it is just spread to thin.
I could have just as detailed an example of how I want more help fleshing out down time and exploration mode possibilities. We get hints about these things, and decent coverage of basic money making stuff with down time, and I love the discussion of helping players develop long term goals for downtime, but I want more examples and help fleshing that out.
Maybe these would be good places for supplemental blogs.
I am starting to grow a little wary of the 2E book model of mixing a bunch of different stuff, that is about half way fleshed out, into one book instead of having more focused and complete books that cover their topics in full. I am sure this is working for now as far as getting people to feel like they have to buy everything, but I am not sure if it will be able to keep me coming back if I feel like I only have about 70% of what I need to run the campaign that I want to run and that I have to keep waiting and buying every book to get the specific pieces I am waiting for.
Overall, I am saying that I loved what was present and I want more, enough so even to pay for it again, but I wish the sections I did get felt more complete.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What a thoughtful response that includes reasonable feedback, complimentary positives, and an overall informative and well intention meaning post.
Thanks Unicore :)
There are quite a few sections of Chapter 1 that you would benefit from reading over. There is a lot of good advice for new GMs that is just as helpful a refresher for old hands.
I'd read the whole book when I posted, cover to cover. Speed reading for the win.
I skimmed through it in my quick summary, but it's definitely a lot more detailed than you'd expect from the name. It's also quite PF2-specific - even the sections that are more general usually have a few PF2 details scattered about to help contextualize it.
Yes, there were some sections more "PF2-specific" but IMO they were still things a seasoned DM didn't need pointed out: for instance, the section on False information is PF2 specific but stood out to me as obvious to those that aren't on their 'first rodeo'. I'm not saying some of it wasn't useful but I found myself thinking after a lot of the advice sections that I'd have done it that way without reading that section and it's been quite a few years since I've been an active DM. It's of course a 'mileage may vary' thing: my list was on why I liked and disliked after all. I wasn't making an objective list I expected everyone to agree with.
My biggest gripe is that I think combining the Gamemastery guide, variant rules, and NPCs into one book leaves every section feeling like it should have been its own separate book.
This. So much this. I was here for the variant rules: I'd have bought a book just of them. I can see others that might have wanted just a pure Gamemastery advice book or an NPC book. But I like books that [mostly] cover a single topic so it's easier to find it in the future so you don't have the issue of 'where is that NPC? gamemastery? Monster manual? some AP? Maybe...? That and it's easier to pick and choose what content you want/need.
My biggest gripe is that I think combining the Gamemastery guide, variant rules, and NPCs into one book leaves every section feeling like it should have been its own separate book.This. So much this. I was here for the variant rules: I'd have bought a book just of them. I can see others that might have wanted just a pure Gamemastery advice book or an NPC book. But I like books that [mostly] cover a single topic so it's easier to find it in the future so you don't have the issue of 'where is that NPC? gamemastery? Monster manual? some AP? Maybe...? That and it's easier to pick and choose what content you want/need.
I think this is mostly a result of trying to cover all of the basis as quickly as possible. I think the variant rules are in there for two reasons. 1) they had extra space since some of the things from the original GMG are covered in the P2CRB and 2) to help bring over people who really wanted a different outcome from the playtest.
Having just finished reading the GMG, I have to say that there are a lot of things I loved about it and a lot of things that I felt disappointed by in it.
I love the tone of the writing and how the book mostly feels like it reaches right out to address me and make me feel comfortable as a GM making up the things I need to run my own home game. I think the book is strongest when it is doing these things.
My biggest gripe is that I think combining the Gamemastery guide, variant rules, and NPCs into one book leaves every section feeling like it should have been its own separate book. This is especially a rough deal on the "game mastery" sections because I frequently found myself wanting 2 to 3 times as much content in many of these sections, as well as more concrete examples to illustrate the points.
For example, what does running a mounted combat without a grid look like as far a tracking a lot of the nitty gritty conditions and effects of combat that grant significant bonuses? If I have a player that gains a mount, do I need to move most of my combats off of grid? Can we get discussion about how to do more large scale gridded combat including using the longer ranged weapons, because I feel like ranged combat and mounted combat are massively underserved by the traditional close grid/dungeon crawling encounters. We might see more of this kind of thing in a future AP, but I feel like the GMG should be more helpful in setting this up than it ends up being able to do because it is just spread to thin.
I could have just as detailed an example of how I want more help fleshing out down time and exploration mode possibilities. We get hints about these things, and decent coverage of basic money making stuff with down time, and I love the discussion of helping players develop long term goals for downtime, but I want more examples and help fleshing that out.
Maybe these would be good places for supplemental blogs.
I am starting to grow a little wary of the 2E book model of mixing a bunch of different...
I feel like I both agree and disagree with this. I like the mix and it being in one place, I would have really liked it being comparable in page count to the CRB with each section fleshed out. Dunno if it would sell as well at the higher price point that entails.
Yeah, I would have liked it to be a longer book too, and with certain sections expanded further (a larger npc section for instance, and dual classing that wasn't "balance? what balance... don't worry about it".
Oh and more magical items, I really feel like a wider ranger of magical items would be nice before july this year, ah well. At least there is guidance on creating them.
I would say that the book is the right size to not be so daunting to newer GMs, but then they still have to deal with the CRB behemoth :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, thanks @Midnightoker! Those are really kind words.
I think this is mostly a result of trying to cover all of the basis as quickly as possible. I think the variant rules are in there for two reasons. 1) they had extra space since some of the things from the original GMG are covered in the P2CRB and 2) to help bring over people who really wanted a different outcome from the playtest.My biggest gripe is that I think combining the Gamemastery guide, variant rules, and NPCs into one book leaves every section feeling like it should have been its own separate book.This. So much this. I was here for the variant rules: I'd have bought a book just of them. I can see others that might have wanted just a pure Gamemastery advice book or an NPC book. But I like books that [mostly] cover a single topic so it's easier to find it in the future so you don't have the issue of 'where is that NPC? gamemastery? Monster manual? some AP? Maybe...? That and it's easier to pick and choose what content you want/need.
I don't think they had extra room. I think the community was hungry for a lot of the variant rules presented here specifically. I just wish they could have been published as an unchained book. The basic gamemastery section is good information, but could have used a lot more development as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PF1 GMG was mostly GM advice, with some extra systems and tools and whatnot for adventure design. I feel like this is a 2E version of that book in a lot of ways, and it would have needed a different name if it wasn't.
I also think it would have been a big mistake to print a big book of variant rules.
One, the system isn't very old, so printing a bunch of interesting variants is harder because fewer new ideas have hit tables yet.
Two, a small percentage of players are ever going to play with any of these variants, so it makes sense to focus on some that have come up repeatedly (like level zero, dual classes, free archetypes, level-less proficiency) which have been discussed on the forums since the playtest rules. Others, like the guidelines for removing alignment, are things that some people have wanted as a core system conceit for decades and represent the culmination of the system design the designers planned from the outset to allow that modularity.
Three, there are plenty of GM tools that just didn't officially exist yet. If they hadn't literally given them away for free already, we'd be raving about the monster and hazard building rules. Those who don't spend all their time on the forums or the blog will be seeing these for the first time. The sample NPCs are great to have, as are the new items for GMs to include or build adventures around. The Tools chapter is just full of stuff.
I think they did a good job in balancing the content. For variants, people will always create wacky home systems that don't need to survive balance, but here they would mostly take up page count for no benefit to the typical reader. I'll *never* run a game with skill points. Ugh. But it's only one page. I might run a game with proficiency without level, just to tell a different kind of story, but maybe not. DeadManWalking already wrote great guidelines for that on the forums a year ago, though having official adjustments for DCs and treasure is nice. Literally any game could end up with vehicles, though, so those six pages are much more likely to be used than anything in the variants chapter.
Let the system settle for a few years before we clamor for more variants. I'd rather Logan and team spend their time on fun new rules my players or I will actually use.
Specifically, I want the opposite of variant rules: more errata. I want all the errata and official ruling clarifications.
Edit: The skill point variant isn't actually bad, I just think it's not really worth the hassle over the default, which mostly feels customizable without being fiddly. Variant rules that allowed for the kind of early access to legendary that was asked for in this thread would be so specifically antithetical to the system design and balance that I'd be more annoyed to see it printed even as an "official" variant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have two probs with PF2e. One (bounded accuracy) was addressed in the GMG as an option, but even with those rules a creature scales like from +0 to +9 over just the first ten levels so it's still twice the stepping of 5e.
The other is that as much problems as 5e has, its a fantastic Rosetta stone of editions. I've ran 2e, 3e, PF1, B/X, OSR, third party 5e stuff all mixed up with 5e as the framework, it's so easy to convert. Yes, part of that is due to 5e's loosey-goosey and sloppy nature but it works at the table.
PF2e is pretty much only compatible with PF2e. It's even easier to bring the PF1e stuff over to 5e.
PF2e such a tight clockwork of a game, a perfect crystal of matching puzzle pieces. 4e had the same problem, it was also incompatible with everything else.
What I would've thought would've been a perfect opportunity for Paizo would've been:
- We're going to make characters that can play 5e modules,
- and we're going to make adventure paths that 5e characters can play,
- but they're going to be very different from 5e by having the unique selling point that it's much more detailed mechanically.
A PF2e character has tons of build options, the three action econ instead of 5e's hacky "bonus actions" system, the boost system, so many more feats, so many more choices at every level. People would've loved to take that up against Acererak.
Paizo's adventure paths are already world-renowned and people are already running PF1 adventure paths with 5e. Create monsters that are more varied and unique and have more actions and more griddy tactics that can still be a good match for 5e characters.
So you could've sold the character books to groups running 5e adventures and you could've sold the adventure paths to groups running 5e characters. And if it was good, people would see "wow, these characters are super good, I want to check out their adventures" and vice versa. And ofc you could've still just used the new character books with the new adventure paths straight up and not have to touch a WotC book.
5e's SRD and OGL were much more generous this time around than in the 3e era (not to mention the practically non-existant 4e era).
It's just so weird how this game tries so hard to not even look at 5e. It's fine to want to do things differently, where you think you've got a better idea.
Specifically, I want the opposite of variant rules: more errata. I want all the errata and official ruling clarifications.
I'd have been fine with a book with both those. In addition, I'd hoped to see some guidance on a lot of the 'ask your DM' sections of the game: how to run minions in exploration mode, how to damage objects, ect. So basically, FAQ's too.
variant rules: I play online, so variant rule make life a LOT easier when joining a new game. Instead of a DM having to go into length about a houserule, they can just say 'no alignment variant' or 'dual class variant' and just with that everyone knows what the rules are. That's why, for me and the community I play in, the book couldn't have too many variant rules. ;)
For variants, people will always create wacky home systems that don't need to survive balance, but here they would mostly take up page count for no benefit to the typical reader.
It's hard to say what would benefit the 'typical reader' but I don't know that the 'typical reader' needs a big section of NPC's either. I know plenty of people that just play AP's and premade adventures or make important NPC's with PC rules while using generic stats for non-important ones. Heck, I don't think the 'typical reader' needs variant to roll your stats but that was in CORE so IMO anything more common that that should be fair game.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2e is pretty much only compatible with PF2e. It's even easier to bring the PF1e stuff over to 5e.
Huh? This statement makes no sense to me.
Converting anything but PCs to PF2 is one of the single easiest things I can imagine doing. You just rebuild them at the right level using the rules in the GMG, and monster building with those rules is a breeze.
4E worked differently on a fundamental level than most other equivalent games. PF2 doesn't really work differently in the same structural way, it just has different math, and building things according to that math is pretty easy.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just so weird how this game tries so hard to not even look at 5e. It's fine to want to do things differently, where you think you've got a better idea.
5e is it's own game and one that many people here have played, know about, or have interacted with in some way. That we're here means that we want something different. Making a game to duplicate another isn't what many in the community wanted, and -I assume- not was the designers wanted either.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have two probs with PF2e. One (bounded accuracy) was addressed in the GMG as an option, but even with those rules a creature scales like from +0 to +9 over just the first ten levels so it's still twice the stepping of 5e.
The other is that as much problems as 5e has, its a fantastic Rosetta stone of editions. I've ran 2e, 3e, PF1, B/X, OSR, third party 5e stuff all mixed up with 5e as the framework, it's so easy to convert. Yes, part of that is due to 5e's loosey-goosey and sloppy nature but it works at the table.
PF2e is pretty much only compatible with PF2e. It's even easier to bring the PF1e stuff over to 5e.
PF2e such a tight clockwork of a game, a perfect crystal of matching puzzle pieces. 4e had the same problem, it was also incompatible with everything else.
What I would've thought would've been a perfect opportunity for Paizo would've been:
- We're going to make characters that can play 5e modules,
- and we're going to make adventure paths that 5e characters can play,
- but they're going to be very different from 5e by having the unique selling point that it's much more detailed mechanically.
A PF2e character has tons of build options, the three action econ instead of 5e's hacky "bonus actions" system, the boost system, so many more feats, so many more choices at every level. People would've loved to take that up against Acererak.
Paizo's adventure paths are already world-renowned and people are already running PF1 adventure paths with 5e. Create monsters that are more varied and unique and have more actions and more griddy tactics that can still be a good match for 5e characters.
So you could've sold the character books to groups running 5e adventures and you could've sold the adventure paths to groups running 5e characters. And if it was good, people would see "wow, these characters are super good, I want to check out their adventures" and vice versa. And ofc you could've still just used the new character books with the new adventure paths straight up...
See the issue with your entire post (and one that Ruzza has picked up on already) is that you mention 5E far too many times in it
This game is not 5E and is not trying to be. What would be the point? It tries hard to not look like 5E because it doesn’t want to
You mention wanting to play with exactly the same bounded accuracy as 5E and play 5E modules. So why not play 5E? I am quite confused ? What is drawing you to this enough that you want to use this material but fairly fundamentally steer it back to 5E rules?
I do wonder how big the market actually is in adventure paths for people buying them to convert to other systems ...
I liked your introduction but I'm going in another direction.
I have two probs with PF2e. One (bounded accuracy) was addressed in the GMG as an option, but even with those rules a creature scales like from +0 to +9 over just the first ten levels so it's still twice the stepping of 5e.
The other is that as much problems as 5e has, its a fantastic Rosetta stone of editions. I've ran 2e, 3e, PF1, B/X, OSR, third party 5e stuff all mixed up with 5e as the framework, it's so easy to convert. Yes, part of that is due to 5e's loosey-goosey and sloppy nature but it works at the table.
PF2e is pretty much only compatible with PF2e. It's even easier to bring the PF1e stuff over to 5e.
PF2e such a tight clockwork of a game, a perfect crystal of matching puzzle pieces. 4e had the same problem, it was also incompatible with everything else.
Yes backwards compatibility is a bit more work. I know Paizo wants to sell us new modules but we all want to reuse some of the existing ones we have too.
I'm not interested in converting PF2 to 5e, but really 1e through 5e to PF2.
It may be a little bit more complex but I don't see it as impossible or even really hard. For sure its a bit more work but the GMG option gives you the hint. I find that I can pick up a module in one system and play it in another quite simply. It really only takes a few minutes to convert. For PF2 the hint is in the GMG where they talk about the variant with proficiency without level.
PF2 is really dominated by a number tied to level. Work out what it is and you can modify really quickly.
Its based on the level the players are at, and it doesn't change till the players level again.
I've done it enough with different systems I can do it on the fly now. Yes I'm really just eyeballing it and moving on. What I do can be rough but it does work if you are prepared to accept a certain lack of precision, and are not afraid to adjust as you go. You can take a bit more time to get more quality if you like.
If you want to run an entire campaign based on an old D&D campaign. Then maybe you could use the "Proficiency without Level" and dial down your PF2 characters. Don't be upset if you think that creates too big a range still. Subtract two on all the proficiency modifiers and get started.
Surely someone else has covered this in more detail elsewhere ......
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just so weird how this game tries so hard to not even look at 5e. It's fine to want to do things differently, where you think you've got a better idea.5e is it's own game and one that many people here have played, know about, or have interacted with in some way. That we're here means that we want something different. Making a game to duplicate another isn't what many in the community wanted, and -I assume- not was the designers wanted either.
I agree PF2 is different game for which I am very happy. If anything I'd prefer the differences to be greater.
If Paizo wanted to become a glorified 5E 3PP, they would have done so.
But they already twice got burned on relying on being compatible with somebody's else core product, so I doubt the sentiment for returning o that model of business is any high for them.
Burned twice ? I thought it was just the 3.5 to 4E switch? What is the second ?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If they hadn't literally given them away for free already, we'd be raving about the monster and hazard building rules. Those who don't spend all their time on the forums or the blog will be seeing these for the first time.
I think this is important to reiterate. As forum goers, we are a small minority of players. Paizo needs to cater to all of its customers, not just us.
PF2 feels like it shares a fair amount of 5e stuff to me. Proficiency, spell heightening, some renamed skills, short rest mechanics. It did all those things somewhat differently, of course, and some of those were done in Starfinder already. But it certainly feels closer to 5e than PF1 does.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Burned twice ? I thought it was just the 3.5 to 4E switch? What is the second ?If Paizo wanted to become a glorified 5E 3PP, they would have done so.
But they already twice got burned on relying on being compatible with somebody's else core product, so I doubt the sentiment for returning o that model of business is any high for them.
Star Wars license for magazines and events.
Converting anything but PCs to PF2 is one of the single easiest things I can imagine doing. You just rebuild them at the right level using the rules in the GMG, and monster building with those rules is a breeze.
Thank you for this important clarification.
Let's say you are converting the rock baboon's from B4 The Lost City. Page 8 in that book. It's on dungeon level 2.
It says that six appear.
AC 6, HD2, hp 9, #at 2, damage 1d6/1d3.
So for 5e I'd get AC 13 by subtracting the old AC from 19, I'd get attack bonus by adding half HD to two, and the rest of the stats I can just use straight up.
For PF2e, I'd want, uh, is this the mook squad from GMG p 48? Or can I go up to 15 xp per creature and make it party level minus three?
That means +0 on ability mods and perception. AC, uh, 12 maybe? 5 hp per. +4 to attack for 1d4.
I'm not super used to this kind of budget building (I couldn't get the hang of it with 4e either). I'm not trying to put the game down, I'm trying to understand it.
It took me a bit longer and it feels super weird to me that it's scaled to character level instead of to a specific location that the players could discover at any time, but it does seem to work.
I don't want to misrepresent PF2e, ever. I haven't switched over to it but I want to look at it in the best possible light. So thank you again Deadmanwalking for bringing this up.
It's a solution similar to 4e when the "MM3 on a business card" came out. It's a little look-up heavy but it works.
5e is it's own game and one that many people here have played, know about, or have interacted with in some way. That we're here means that we want something different. Making a game to duplicate another isn't what many in the community wanted, and -I assume- not was the designers wanted either.
What I hear from a lot of people is what they want specifically different from 5e is a game that is more buildy, more precise, and less loosey-goosey. That could be a very different niche from 5e attracting a different crowd, while still picking up things from 5e that are good or using some concepts from 5e to ease transition from 5e to PF2e. Even OSR games are using things like advantage.
It could also mean that 5e itself could double-down on being a less buildy and less precise game so you wouldn't be cannibalizing each other, just appealing to different kinds of groups and players.
See the issue with your entire post (and one that Ruzza has picked up on already) is that you mention 5E far too many times in it
Is 5e so taboo that you can't even look at it or mention it? It's OGL, just like 3.5 was. (More so because you get the character classes etc which you didn't get in 3.x's SRD.)
This game is not 5E and is not trying to be. What would be the point? It tries hard to not look like 5E because it doesn’t want to
One of the big mistakes of the 4e eras was to try to draw a land in the sand saying "this is how D&D is now, if you don't like it, tough", cutting off PDF sales of older material etc, trying to undo the OGL with the weird "GSL". And making a game that was radically different and incompatible from all the material out there.
With 5e it's been one big kumbaya of re-releasing the older editions, older material etc and making everything compatible.
A big selling point of RPGs compared to something like Magic or PACG is that it's open source, you can mix and match. Sort of like the www itself, everyone can toss some HTML up there and it becomes part of this big old messy web. Walling yourself in like 4e did is frustrating to me regardless of which side of the wall I'm on.
You mention wanting to play with exactly the same bounded accuracy as 5E and play 5E modules. So why not play 5E? I am quite confused ? What is drawing you to this enough that you want to use this material but fairly fundamentally steer it back to 5E rules?
I want Paizo to survive and thrive. They didn't chose the direction I would've bet on, so all my second-guessing and backseat-driving is too late. Hopefully they'll survive&thrive with the direction they did go in.
For PF2e there is the Fall of Plaguestone, the two adventure paths, some PFS stuff. And Trailseeker but not much other 3pp. This is so weird to me that they're betting the farm to this extreme extent on this tiny amount of content. When people were asking for a follow up to the PF1 beginner box, the message was that they didn't want to split the player base and keep building on the slightly incompatible version of Pathfinder that was in that first BB. So this is such a 180° from that. That's all I'm saying.
PF1 was "4e is incompatible with our stuff so let's build on the worlds most played game ever and make a hot rod version of it that's back-compatible but has cooler stuff so people switch to it".
That is what I'd propose for PF2 too.
Instead we got… a game that's incompatible with everyone elses stuff and their old stuff.
Is 5e so taboo that you can't even look at it or mention it? It's OGL, just like 3.5 was. (More so because you get the character classes etc which you didn't get in 3.x's SRD.)
5e's open game content (the SRD) is only a fraction of what they have published for their game. Whereas Pathfinder, practically everything is included except the adventures themselves. It's the major thing that has me disliking 5e. You can't just look up random spell x, or subclass y without using a paid site, the book itself, or hoping it's not just some 3pp item of the same name on a questionably legal wikia.
Now, as far as converting other systems to PF2. Converting encounters can be a little trickier than just converting monsters and npcs. I find it to be relatively easy. I ask myself what the challenge was supposed to be in the original system, easy/moderate/hard, then pick what level the opponents need to be in PF2 to match that, then either create them from scratch or grab an existing statblock.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it because they're both fantasy games? I don't see anyone asking for Warhammer Fantasy to be more like 5e.
Is it because they both have their roots in 3.5? I didn't see anyone asking for Pathfinder to be more like 4e.
Is it because they have a a large percentage of the roleplaying market? I don't think it's much of a reach to say that 5e already has plenty of copycats.
What exactly makes you think that RPGs have to be compatible with all other RPGs?
What exactly makes you think that RPGs have to be compatible with all other RPGs?
The million dollar question.
But then I also think that any TTRPG is compatible with any other TTRPG if you want to put in the time.
And if someone wants to argue that it takes more time to do conversions to PF2 over every other system, I'll listen to it, but I don't have to agree that it's true.
I would say based on how the game is structured, it's pretty easy to intuit the conversion in most cases. If the expectation is some kind of 1 to 1 translation, that's not gonna be true for really any edition besides things like 3.0->3.5->PF1, and is hardly an expectation.
Just because 5E has the "eh, just give them advantage/disadvantage" blanket option doesn't make it "better".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What do you specifically mean by incompatible with the old stuff?
You can run most of book 1 of Rise of the Runelords by just using the 2E monsters direct from the bestiary . The NPCs can either be from the NPC rules, PC rules (they would be weaker then) or probably from that new NPC chapter for some of them
And that book 1 is both 3.5 and PF1
Indeed until PF1 was released Rise needed work to convert to PF1. Speaking as someone whose GM majestically failed at doing a good job of that it may not be as easy as implied
So there is a compatibility point I am not understanding?
*
And as to the point on is 5E a taboo topic to mention. Of course it isn’t . But the response there wasn’t really reasonable as the post I commented on did more than merely mention 5E. It referenced it multiple times throughout and remarked that a rules variant was not close enough to 5E . Not quite the same thing in my view at least
What exactly makes you think that RPGs have to be compatible with all other RPGs?
That was the idea that made PF1 a hit.
4e came around was incompatible and PF1 said don't worry we gotchu fam and was compatible.
As DM, being able to mix and match stuff is great. I run an AD&D2e campaign setting with some OSR modules placed around a village from a 5e book. I've mixed in house rules from Apocalypse World, Dramasystem, Stars Without Number, Burning Wheel, it's a big beautiful mess.
If 5e was only compatible with 5e I would not have been into it. I was playing a Labyrinth Lord game when 5e came out and the fact that I could just pick up and keep running the same stuff straight up was fantastic.
I don't want to hop into a walled garden that is only compatible with itself.
I love how fantasy roleplaying is a world of ends. How it's fueled by "rough consensus and running code".
Is Hasbro some kind of charity organization? No! They suck! The 5e OGL is limited, more limited than Pathfinder's OGL, but it's not as bad as 3e's OGL which at the time was good enough for PF1 to interface with.
What exactly makes you think that RPGs have to be compatible with all other RPGs?That was the idea that made PF1 a hit.
4e came around was incompatible and PF1 said don't worry we gotchu fam and was compatible.
As DM, being able to mix and match stuff is great. I run an AD&D2e campaign setting with some OSR modules placed around a village from a 5e book. I've mixed in house rules from Apocalypse World, Dramasystem, Stars Without Number, Burning Wheel, it's a big beautiful mess.
If 5e was only compatible with 5e I would not have been into it. I was playing a Labyrinth Lord game when 5e came out and the fact that I could just pick up and keep running the same stuff straight up was fantastic.
I don't want to hop into a walled garden that is only compatible with itself.
I love how fantasy roleplaying is a world of ends. How it's fueled by "rough consensus and running code".
Is Hasbro some kind of charity organization? No! They suck! The 5e OGL is limited, more limited than Pathfinder's OGL, but it's not as bad as 3e's OGL which at the time was good enough for PF1 to interface with.
What system was labyrinth lord that made it easy to switch to 5e? I'm having trouble imagining any ttrpg or version of dnd being a simple no work switch.
The ease of monster creation and encounter design in PF2 is what has me even considering converting anything to it. Where in the past I wouldn't have even converted something from 3.5 to PF1.
What I hear from a lot of people is what they want specifically different from 5e is a game that is more buildy, more precise, and less loosey-goosey.
From my perspective, this is what 2E is (well, part of what it is). I don't think you can just add these things to 5E without also changing other core aspects of the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ruzza, what you said was really hurtful. I know you can't know what's going on in my life recently but I've been having a rough time.
What system was labyrinth lord that made it easy to switch to 5e? I'm having trouble imagining any ttrpg or version of dnd being a simple no work switch.
It was a clone of B/X D&D.
The ease of monster creation and encounter design in PF2 is what has me even considering converting anything to it. Where in the past I wouldn't have even converted something from 3.5 to PF1.
That sounds fantastic♥
See, that's what I want for the game. I'm glad to hear that.
From my perspective, this is what 2E is (well, part of what it is). I don't think you can just add these things to 5E without also changing other core aspects of the game.
Remember how Iron Heroes was "an alternative PHB" for 3.5? You could've made it so that you could swap out the PHB but still keeping the same modules, and/or vice versa. Then of course if you ran PF2e characters with PF2e modules you'd unlock the whole experience♥
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel as though Pathfinder 2E couldn't be doing all the cool things it's doing if it was chained to another system. A lot of the features that drew me to the system and made me fall in love with it would not have been possible if compatibility had been so strongly prioritized.
What system was labyrinth lord that made it easy to switch to 5e? I'm having trouble imagining any ttrpg or version of dnd being a simple no work switch.It was a clone of B/X D&D.
The ease of monster creation and encounter design in PF2 is what has me even considering converting anything to it. Where in the past I wouldn't have even converted something from 3.5 to PF1.That sounds fantastic♥
See, that's what I want for the game. I'm glad to hear that.
I'm not surprised the PCs were easy to convert, but the monsters & encounters?
Unless it was the basics (skeletons, trolls, etc.) Which should be easy enough regardless of edition. At least at low levels.
Unless it was the basics (skeletons, trolls, etc.) Which should be easy enough regardless of edition. At least at low levels.
OK, that's good to hear.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If one wants a system that is like 5E, and is compatible with 5E, but with more detailed mechanics, would it not be better to ask for 5E to improve rather than ask Pathfinder to become a 5E variant?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For many of us, it is easier to convert and prep PF1 APs to PF2 then it is to just to prep them as PF1 adventures. That's largely because of two main reasons.
1) PC optimization was so varied in PF1 you couldn't really write an encouner for any kind of average party. If your group was significantly ahead of the curve you'd be adjusting your monsters to match while hoping you don't overshoot and TPK. And don't even get me started if one PC was way stronger than another PC.
2) Monsters had so many more feats you had to painstakingly check to see how it influences their combat actions. P
PF2 statblocks are just so much easier to run at high levels, and the optimization variance has really been tightened up. There's also little things like everything being tied to level making it really easy to figure out how difficult something is or whether an item is appropriate to drop.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really have to wonder what made some people expect the Gamemastery Guide to be the book that makes Pathfinder Second Edition into a totally different game.
For many of us, it is easier to convert and prep PF1 APs to PF2 then it is to just to prep them as PF1 adventures. That's largely because of two main reasons.
1) PC optimization was so varied in PF1 you couldn't really write an encouner for any kind of average party. If your group was significantly ahead of the curve you'd be adjusting your monsters to match while hoping you don't overshoot and TPK. And don't even get me started if one PC was way stronger than another PC.
2) Monsters had so many more feats you had to painstakingly check to see how it influences their combat actions. P
PF2 statblocks are just so much easier to run at high levels, and the optimization variance has really been tightened up. There's also little things like everything being tied to level making it really easy to figure out how difficult something is or whether an item is appropriate to drop.
Point 1 cannot be emphasised enough in my view. I have had to take a pretty large hatchet to Hells Rebels from pretty much book 3 onwards due to the insane AC and saves of my players. It is in danger of becoming a game where the d20 is only important if it is a 1 or a 20. Monster spell DCs are pretty awful for example
If it wasn’t for the Kineticist in my group I would be trying to push a switch even though we are in book 5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really have to wonder what made some people expect the Gamemastery Guide to be the book that makes Pathfinder Second Edition into a totally different game.
I think hope would be a better word. The whole idea behind variant rules is to bring the game from what it currently is to more of what you want it to be: as such, it's not unreasonable to say that people that want those kind of rules want a different game to some degree and since Paizo printed some of those rules they acknowledge that it's not a perfect fit for everyone.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you for this important clarification.
Let's say you are converting the rock baboon's from B4 The Lost City. Page 8 in that book. It's on dungeon level 2.
It says that six appear.
AC 6, HD2, hp 9, #at 2, damage 1d6/1d3.
So for 5e I'd get AC 13 by subtracting the old AC from 19, I'd get attack bonus by adding half HD to two, and the rest of the stats I can just use straight up.
Okay. I'm just gonna start by saying that this is because you're familiar with 5E. It is thus intuitive for you. PF2 will not be instantly as intuitive no matter how easy it is inherently, just because you're more used to 5E. That doesn't mean it's inherently more difficult, just that you're used to 5E.
For PF2e, I'd want, uh, is this the mook squad from GMG p 48? Or can I go up to 15 xp per creature and make it party level minus three?
No, you're going about this wrong. What threat are these intended to be to what level of PC? That's the right question.
It's on dungeon level 2, and those stats look pretty nasty for low level AD&D, so say a Severe level 2 encounter. That's 120 xp to work with (going by the Encounter Building guidelines on p.489) giving 20 per creature, making them level 0 each (they'd be level 1 each if you made it a Severe level 3 encounter instead, and each level -1 if you made it a Severe level 1 encounter).
That level choice is arbitrary, but when converting any adventure, you should know roughly what level PCs are expected to be at what point.
That means +0 on ability mods and perception. AC, uh, 12 maybe? 5 hp per. +4 to attack for 1d4.
Uh...what? Those stats bear basically no resemblance to how the GMG says you should make monsters. I'm not sure where you got them. Are you trying to infer level -2 monster stats? That's both unnecessary and not a good idea, IMO. It also still wouldn't result in those stats, I don't think.
Let's say you're building these at level 0. That involves grabbing the High number from level 0 for AC (since 6 is actually pretty good in AD&D and previous editions) and, say, Str, then the Moderate ones for most other things (we'll also go high on attack and damage since we're not giving these any cool abilities...we're aiming to be quick, and low on Will Save), and picking out Athletics as the only Skill they really need, and applying the Animal Type stuff.
That deterministically makes their stats the following (or very close):
+6 Per, AC 16, +6/+6/+3 Saves, 15 HP, +8 to hit for 1d4+3 damage (the table says 1d6+2, but with the +3 Str I added below, this appeals to me more and doesn't matter mathematically). That's probably all you need and you could stop there if you wanted.
But if you care to figure them they can also be easily figured to have: +3 Str, +2 Dex, +2 Con, -4 Int, +2 Wis, +0 Cha, +5 Athletics.
There. Free Baboon stats. They probably aren't perfect, but they'll do at least as well as your 5E conversion and you can probably do them in 5 minutes if you have the GMG tables in front of you and know what level creature you want.
I'm not super used to this kind of budget building (I couldn't get the hang of it with 4e either). I'm not trying to put the game down, I'm trying to understand it.
Absolutely. The thing about budget building is that it's actually not complicated, just different. You need to think about it differently, and in a way I'm not sure I can easily articulate. I had trouble with it too, at first, and then it just clicked.
But this goes back to my first point. If budget building is hard for you, then of course converting encounters to a system that uses it is gonna be harder than one that doesn't...but that's a personal and quite possibly temporary issue for you personally, not a systemic issue. Some people will find budget building easier, and others harder. It's not a blanket difficulty increase for everyone by any means.
It took me a bit longer and it feels super weird to me that it's scaled to character level instead of to a specific location that the players could discover at any time, but it does seem to work.
Oh, no no no, Encounters do not magically change based on the PC level. How much XP they're worth does. For example, in the Age of Ashes AP, in the first dungeon you can wind up fighting a 'Severe Level 3' encounter (or whatever) when you're level 2. This involves recalculating XP, not changing the encounter (and is usually as simple as upping a Moderate to a Severe or a Severe to Extreme, or whatever...that's not quite accurate, but figuring it out isn't super hard).
In terms of encounter building, you build based on the level you think the PCs will be when they find it (the 'expected level' for the dungeon area in question), but that's not super hard to figure in most games, and not really different from having a CR 12 encounter where you expect level 10-12 PCs to run into it in PF1.
I don't want to misrepresent PF2e, ever. I haven't switched over to it but I want to look at it in the best possible light. So thank you again Deadmanwalking for bringing this up.
No trouble. It leaped out at me because I think easy conversion of various enemies and similar things is one of PF2's strengths, and seeing you view it as a weakness was jarring to say the least.
It's a solution similar to 4e when the "MM3 on a business card" came out. It's a little look-up heavy but it works.
It's look-up heavy in a sense, but it's looking at the same 6 pages of tables and picking numbers from a very narrow range. It doesn't take too much time.
I really have to wonder what made some people expect the Gamemastery Guide to be the book that makes Pathfinder Second Edition into a totally different game.I think hope would be a better word. The whole idea behind variant rules is to bring the game from what it currently is to more of what you want it to be: as such, it's not unreasonable to say that people that want those kind of rules want a different game to some degree and since Paizo printed some of those rules they acknowledge that it's not a perfect fit for everyone.
I think there's a line between "variant" and "gut the system for something else"
At their worst some of the stuff in the OP calls for an overhaul, and at the very least, several pages of rules to satisfy a mechanic that many may not even use.
I mean the last request quite literally might not even be an issue with the APG release, because the varying level of proficiency archetypes are going to be available which could satisfy a lot of the people that might have been interested in such a mechanic.
Asking for a "variant" of that magnitude in the literal second rulebook? Come on.
I think there's a line between "variant" and "gut the system for something else"
It's a VERY thin line. You add just some of the current variants together it can look like a gut job. You can change how you get stats, change what stats you have [-constitution + agility], drop alignment, get 2 classes, free archetype feats, automatic bonuses, assigned skill points and stamina ALL in the same game so you can already make the game look quite different: is that a gut?
At their worst some of the stuff in the OP calls for an overhaul, and at the very least, several pages of rules to satisfy a mechanic that many may not even use.
I wasn't really making a comment on the OP or how reasonable what they wanted was. However, as I pointed out a section was made on rolled stats and other things that many may never use. Myself, I don't think I'll ever see a game with proficiency without level or stamina and I don't think the 'average' person will either but they are in there.
Asking for a "variant" of that magnitude in the literal second rulebook? Come on.
They made a whole section on building creatures and there is no reason a similar section couldn't be made for classes, so it's not undoable. My issue would be that it would be essentially a classless system that would be inherently unbalanced without being built around: ie, more would have to change other than this so it's not a simple patch. So I'd agree it wasn't an overly realistic expectation.
It's a VERY thin line. You add just some of the current variants together it can look like a gut job. You can change how you get stats, change what stats you have [-constitution + agility], drop alignment, get 2 classes, free archetype feats, automatic bonuses, assigned skill points and stamina ALL in the same game so you can already make the game look quite different: is that a gut?
I agree mostly, but here I just want to point out that combining a bunch of different Variants and a single variant that fundamentally reworks the whole game is a bit different.
Like, Words of Power is a pretty invasive Variant, but even that only affects Casters. And one would expect this to be in a dedicated book for Casting variants.
I'm not saying what was requested couldn't eventually show up, but in the second rule book I think that's beyond the realm of realism.
I could see it in an Unchained PF2 book pretty substantially into the life cycle, but not before concepts in the APG and other books get a turn at bat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying what was requested couldn't eventually show up, but in the second rule book I think that's beyond the realm of realism.
I could see it in an Unchained PF2 book pretty substantially into the life cycle, but not before concepts in the APG and other books get a turn at bat.
Oh I agree: I think we'd most likely see it as a third party product before we'd see anything close from paizo as we'd be talking about a niche product that by itself would take a sizable chunk of page count and that would, IMO, be too niche for general consumption. What makes a book like Unchained work is having enough different variants that it covers multiple niches allowing it to attract a big enough audience where a 'classless PF2' wouldn't.
PF2e is pretty much only compatible with PF2e. It's even easier to bring the PF1e stuff over to 5e.Huh? This statement makes no sense to me.
Converting anything but PCs to PF2 is one of the single easiest things I can imagine doing. You just rebuild them at the right level using the rules in the GMG, and monster building with those rules is a breeze.
Agreed. I'm in the middle of running Howl of the Carrion King using PF2 and I haven't encountered any issues.
