The real conversion was the friends we made along the way.

FWIW, there's been word that Paizo will allow publishing material with the CUP and ORC license that refers to pre-ORC content, just so long as you don't reprint whole sections of text.

A great discussion. Enlightening. A shame that its so much work to convert stuff between editions and/or systems as there are some real gems out there that i missed out on

1:54:06: Rubber duck programming is fantastic.

1:34 actually you can 1 for 1 translate from one language too another language. As some languages are more precise than others in different areas. Examples. 1) Some languages don't have a word for blue. 2) Some languages have five levels of distance , some have 3 & some have 7 levels. 3) Some languages are gendered ( everything has female or male ) and some have 3 types ( male , female & neutral ) 4) some languages use limited range of words that get re-combined to make new words.

This is so cool!

To stop confusion I would have put pathfinder 2e in the title not pathfinder because pathfinder 1e is still a thing a lot of people play.

@shallendor

11 күн бұрын

That is my problem, i play Pathfinder and not Pathfinder 2E, but people say Pathfinder when they mean Pathfinder 2E! Pathfinder 2E looks good, but i can't play my current primary current character(Rogue/Swashbuckler) in Pathfinder 2E : (

@malkyn9998

11 күн бұрын

@@shallendor Multiclass archetypes exist in PF2e. Free archetype variant rule makes it an easy add-on. If you're doing like a straight 50/50 split, see if the GM will let you play at level -1 with dual classing.

@animeboy400

11 күн бұрын

What the h is -1 leve?

@malkyn9998

11 күн бұрын

@@animeboy400 Party Level - 1. So if the party is level 4, you play a dual-class (gestalt) character at level 3. A rogue/swashbuckler would be a highly complimentary dual-class, which the PF2e rules for dual-classing suggest is worth an effective +1 level.

@travisbaggett2813

11 күн бұрын

It is utterly untrue to say you cannot play a rogue-swashbuckler in 2e.

The three action economy is cool, but 5e basically has the same number of actions: move 1/2, multiattack, move 1/2, take bonus action and voila you have taken more actions than pf2. Dnd 5e offers the same level of options. Especially if you are casting spells (almost all take two actions), where you essentially have two actions and can't split your movement. If you are also maintaining a spell that is another action when the equivalent in dnd 5e, concentration, is a free action. If I am a 5th level fighter, i get two attacks, which I can move between and still take a bonus action . They are different, but it is not accurate to say the three action economy always provides more things to do in every round.

@LordZeebee

11 күн бұрын

And don't forget things like climbing over a 5ft high wall to get to someone you want to stab, which in 5e you just pay for with an extra 5ft of your movement. One action to stride to the wall, one action to sheath weapons(non-negotiable since there are feats specifically made to ignore this), one action to actually do the climbing, one action to draw weapons and then one last action to stride where you actually wanted to go. With one action left to stab with. What is almost free in 5e suddenly takes nearly 2 full uninterupted rounds to execute. Three action economy is awesome but it does have it's own inherent limitations.

@Shilques

11 күн бұрын

I mean, sure, but you don't have the same set of options If you're a fighter in dnd at level 1, you can as a action: attack 1x, dash, disengage, shove/grapple, hide As a bonus action: heal using second wind, attack a 2th time if you're using 2 weapons or have a feat (only to V. Humans) like PAM or XBE Movement you can only move, technically you can count climb, swim and fly as part of it Reaction: opportunity attacks So, in general your turn will only be a combination of a attack in the action, if you can use it, a second attack in your bonus action and movement if you really need it At pathfinder with 3 actions system you can do much more things and can mix them way better At a single action you could: attack, move, raise shield, step, demoralize, shove/trip/grapple/repositionate, recall knowledge etc, if you have feats (that you get every level) you could also attack and make a recall knowledge, attack without increasing your MAP, enter a stance, attack and make your target vulnerable (flat-footed/off-guard), bon mot, battle medicine etc With 2 actions activities if you have a feat you could also do some things like attack 2 times without being affected by MAP, attack a single time but dealing extra damage or moving twice and attacking at the end of your movement At reactions you have opportunity attacks (that not everyone has, so movement in general is more useful), shield block if you have a shield or reactive shield (feat) Your turn can be a mix of everything like that, you're way more versatile than a 5e fighter and because how proficiency works you're in general way better at taking and dealing damage than a wizard that for some reason learned how to use weapons and invested in dex/str

@RogueEidolon1

11 күн бұрын

You can absolutely 100% wind up doing things that take more turns to accomplish in PF2 or fewer to accomplish in 5e. You are correct that it isn't really about *how much* you can do in one turn. It comes down to flexibility of exchanging actions, so that when it comes to designing creature abilities in particular, you generally have more room to mix and match their turn's action economy up in PF2 by virtue of being able to create special abilities of a wide array of costs that can interlock in different ways. Both can be true!

@Akeche

7 күн бұрын

@@LordZeebee You fell into the trap of thinking that a feat existing for something means it cannot even be attempted. This is not the case. Being able to scamper over a wall of your height is something you can attempt, you just might have a penalty to the climb check and won't get any of the other benefits of the feat such as action compression etc.

@LordZeebee

7 күн бұрын

@@Akeche The action suppression was what i was pointing to. Read it again, i was just walking through each step of climbing over the wall. One may have viewed the sheathing of weapons as a step too much and that the GM wouldn't have to stick that closely to the RAW but what i was pre-emptively pointing out was that due to not having to sheath them being an actual feat in the game that step is non-negotiable. You have to sheath them or that feat looses all meaning.

"Don't make this mistake!" You mean converting anything into Pathfinder? Yeah, I agree.

The flight thing at the start, it's just dumb. One of those things which really doesn't make any sense, and it is an example of flavor and fun butchered at the altar of "balance". Essentially. If you're not going to let an ancestry fly right from Level 1, don't make it playable. Same with things like automatons and skeletons somehow needing to worry about disease and poison. There is a line of going too far with balance. But PF2e is also the edition where Paladins somehow lost the ability to ignore disease so.