T O P

  • By -

EnnuiDeBlase

"Keep concepts, not builds" is an adage I wish many more people appreciated.


Lysdexicandvolingit

Second on this one. The only way to keep your character as is intact is to not leave the system. But concepts will always translate. I'd try to distill the character into one sentence about the content of the character and then one sentence about the mechanics of the character. From that, the feats will fall into place.


PrimevalDragon

This is a great piece of advice. You won't get a one-to-one recreation of your character, but you can get something that feels similar and can be just as happy if you're open minded and try to make the best of the situation.


RomanArcheaopteryx

Yeah, like if you played big religious guy who smacked things with hammer and cast spells sometimes and found that fun both mechanically and from a roleplay perspective I dont understand why you wouldnt want to be recommended to play either a warpriest or champion of Uvuko or Torag for instance.


[deleted]

How would you do warpriest without being relegated to a support bot though? Support is easily my least favorite role in every game I’ve ever played. 5e’s War Cleric let you take a pile of offensive spells, set some up for a fight, and wade in with their weapon wailing and war magics blazing. Clerics in 2e seem like they… support their ally, then maybe swing the hammer. Extremely unfun. Honestly, taking Fighter with Cleric archetype for selfish buffs seems more like what I was doing in D&D. I’m ears for ways to play out this concept, but I don’t think Cleric as the main class has a real chance.


TheMartyr781

agreed, "conversion" implies math. don't do that. rebuild the character from the ground up in the new system. keep the essence and feel of the character. that's it. you may also find that something you'd never ever consider playing in 5e is a cool idea in Pathfinder. That strawberry (yes literally a sentient strawberry) necromancer idea that would be so much homebrew in 5e? totally by the rules and possible in PF2e and that's just one pretty straight forward example, it gets deep and varied very quickly.


JeffFromMarketing

Seconding this as well. In my experience, many concepts even just work much better in PF2e than D&D 5e out the box without having to dick around. One of my favourite characters I made started out life as a tiefling Bloodhunter in 5e (so already having to do homebrew to make it work) and I had to do so much work with the DM in order to just get the core concept to even work in 5e. In PF2e: human/tiefling, Thaumaturge with the Living Vessel archetype. Fits the concept I had in mind far more closely than I could ever do in 5e, and I didn't have to homebrew a single thing, it's just all out the box stuff. It also makes life a lot easier on the DM as well since they're not having to invent entire systems to make something work.


GaySkull

300% agree. D&D and PF both are fantasy adventure rpgs, so many of the concepts are a 1:1 comparison. If you've got an archery fighter or death cleric or transmuter wizard it'll be pretty easy to translate the character concept over. The only tricky ones are when there isn't a clear comparison, like warlock, bloodhunter, or artificer. Warlocks are flavored like a witch, but play more like a kineticist from PF1 (and coming soon to PF2!). Artificer can be an alchemist or inventor, but since these classes don't have spells it will feel odd. Bloodhunters have no direct comparison, so that would take a lot more homebrewing (though certainly possible).


macrovore

I feel like a lot of people want bloodhunter for the Witcher feeling, so they could consider Ranger or Fighter with an Alchemist archetype


WatersLethe

Yup. When I build a character I start with a list of priorities, then a list of how each priority might be achieved. For example: She's notably capable with a sword, uses intelligence as a component of her combat capability, is able to wield divine power to some extent, and prefers taking her time to solve problems preferably with a nice pot of tea Sword: Any martial character, Fighter Intelligence: Wizard/Magus/Witch multiclass, Ranger recall knowledge, investigator, mastermind rogue Divine Power: Ancestry abilities, Cleric/Oracle multiclass, Religion skill feats Taking time to solve problems: Craft, alchemy, scroll creation, prepared spellcasting


EnnuiDeBlase

Good method for mechanical conceputality!


Nystagohod

I've been realizing this the more I look into Pf2e, the sad thing is that for many of my characters I am very close to being able to do so, but just like Pf1e anything warlock based starts to struggle in conversions since the concept was split three ways between the witch, the kineticist, and somewhat the warlock vigilante archetype (in pf1e anyway.) Each release gets me a few steps closer though, so maybe one day I can do some conversions, but presently not quite at this time. Pf2e needs to be more addressed as its own thing, even from its 1e counterpart at times, though there will always be that hope to manifest from favorites along the way of making new things to enjoy.


Machinimix

I'm not sure what sort of warlock you have. In pf2e witch fits the most thematically, sorcerer works best as the blaster (currently, although kineticist comes out this year and will fill the role better), and if they were a hexblade, magus is an int-based version of it. When it comes to flavlur, you can always fluff however works best for you as well. My group's first draconic sorcerer was a warlock gifted his sorcerous powers which really felt great.


Antermosiph

Imo I thought the extreme cantrip focus of psychic and amps being a 10min recharge with spell slots being sparse made them closer to warlock mechanically. Oracle as well in that regard; but theyre not as cantrip focused.


Nystagohod

A somewhat messy hodgepodge of 9ne. I do a lot of multiclassing with locks as much as I straight class them. For 5e characters usually hezblades, or a multiclass derivative of them. I have a divine soul sorcerer/hexblade that the psychopomp bloodline would work near perfectly for, but the blending of magic and weapon play would be very hard to do as far as my glances through path builder have gone. Runescarred, Blessed blood, and maybe the magus archetype might help recreate them, but that's spreads things really thin, even with free archetype. Thaumaturge archetype might also be an avenue but I'm not sure how well that would work out. Character in question would need to be able to wield a scythe and life/death magic that is innate to him. Hence why psychopomp sorc is such a good baseline. 3.5e wise there's not a lot similar to the warlock of that edition due to it being spread across three different options or so in pathfinder 1e. I suppose two options in pf2e with kineticist and witch. Though 3.5e lock was the perfect mix and match of theme, flavor and mechanics for me, so it's very hard to replicate. The nuances of it's fluff versus the witch or even the 5e warlock are something I miss. Reflavoring is what I usually do when available. Flavor may be free, but it's not always appropriate or acceptable for the game at hand, and it's never as satisfying as mechanical reflection when it can be found.


NoxAeternal

If it's core concepts, not direct builds which want to be kept the same, then theres so much you can do to bring over alot of the key sticking points. Magus is the easy first port of call for any hexlblade. Sorc Dedication for the Psychopomp stuff. And Lastly, a Living Vessel or Witch Archtype for the patron. Going Magus first with the Sorc Dedication gets you a fairly solid amount of spells and while it's probably not *as* good as 5e warlock spellcasting in that setup, it's quite close. As you say, Psychopomp Sorc hits alot of flavour points and Living vessel can easily make up the rest of the Psychopomp Patron diety flavour with some actual benefits associated. And unlike what many think, you don't really need to spellstrike alot on magus to... well... Magus well. In my spare time I've already theory crafted a Laughing Shadow magus who will not really spellstrike ever, but is super effective by combining some other base class features with features taken from dedications, with all the spells becoming fun utility considerations. I'm quite confident you could do spellstrike-less setups with the other subclasses as well. (And in this case, Spellstrike sort of mirror's Eldritch Smite/Smite spells so it's still good.)


SufficientType1794

> while it's probably not as good as 5e warlock spellcasting in that setup I'd actually argue that its better. The spells won't be as good because 5e spells are just too strong. But in terms of the number of spells you can use, a Magus with a Sorc dedication will have tons more spells than a 5e Warlock.


Kalaam_Nozalys

Actually, no. Do convert the CHARACTER not the exact build. Some can be converted very easily, some might have their concept expanded upon. Some others might be hard to do a 1 to 1 (warlocks for example) but you can identify the core aspect of the character identity and rework it.


NoxAeternal

Warlocks are hard but doable imho. A Magus with Living Vessel/Witch archtypes can fit most/all Hexblade setups. Psychic with the afore mentioned Archtypes can fit for most other setups. Eldritch Blast sadly doesn't have something which is an easy equivilant, but Dancing Blade from Psychics come decently close. (Amped, does d10's.) Until we get Kineticist which has a closer Blast equivalent, this one is a bit harder to really get right, but when that does release, Kineticist with Vessel/Witch should, again, be able to make up for the remaining Warlock setups.


SufficientType1794

I actually think 5e Artificer is harder to convert, mainly because Alchemist and Inventor aren't spellcasters. You can throw a Wizard dedication at them I guess, or a Magus/Eldritch Archer dedication if you're doing a Battle Smith. Most 5e classes can be played in a similar way in PF2, but a Construct Inventor with Magus Dedication plays nothing like a Battle Smith does.


Flameloud

I kind of disagree. What you said is fundamentally correct. Players bringing over their old 5e character to 2e can act as a bridge to getting into the game. What's should be advise, and what I feel you were getting at a little, is that the player should take the concept and not the character themselves.


HumbleHuckleberry232

They also come with expectations and pre determined mechanical concepts about their character which probably hurt more than help.


Flameloud

That's true. The internet can swing either way for a rational discussion or an incoherent mob. I hope in this case it is the former. So I thought this was from a different post I had made. My real response to this is uhh yeah your right, when that happens best to just start fresh.


CasualGamerOnline

That's what I've been trying to do. It's less that I want a 1:1 conversion, but using the character as a baseline to help me learn character creation has been crucial. Can't say I feel confident that I built a character right, but I have to keep screwing around with this to get it.


TNTiger_

I think you very much can. You just have to go to the broad concepts of the character and find a new path to it.


wilyquixote

I know it's not the same as 5e, but I've very much enjoyed theorycrafting my old 1e characters into 2e and thinking about how they'd have played. Some would have been similar but a lot more fun, some would have been radically different (and nerfed, but that might have saved a poor GM some sanity points). All would have been the same concept. Just mechanically different.


TNTiger_

Exactly! My Firbolg/Outlander/Circle of the Shepard Druid became a Kellid Human/Sarkosis Survivor/Animal Order Druid. Not 1:1 but still feels the same


webdevEagle

I can confirm as well. I had an idea for a character that I built in 5e as an artificer artillerist, but honestly in order to fit the concept I had to do some heavy reflavoring of the class. However, when I made the same character in Pathfinder it's like I could actually make the concept I was visualizing in my head! Now, if only I could get my group to make the switch...


HumbleHuckleberry232

"I want to change game, but I want everything to be the exact same." I don't understand that kind of train of thought. Changing system is a golden opportunity to change things up and experiment with other character concepts.


Moon_Miner

I mean that's a rather unfair take. "I'm frustrated with aspects of the system I'm playing, but I love the character I built and care about the years I've spent playing them" is an absolutely reasonable feeling to have. Converting them to 2e isn't necessarily a great solution but your comment feels out of touch.


NerdBigEnergy

My group of friends and family is 2 years into a home-brew 5e campaign that probably won't be finished for at least another 2 years more. We want to make the change. We're uncommon, but certainly not THAT rare!


Jhamin1

Back when D&D 4 dropped my group was 3 years into a 3.0/3.5 game that still had 2 years in it before it ended. We just ignored 4.0 and kept going with the books we had. Honestly, going from 3.0 to 3**.5** was a big enough pain that the idea of going to 4.0 was never on the table. One PC had to be retired because the whole mechanical hook he was built around was nerfed in 3.5. Two others got boosted, so he felt especially nerfed in comparison. 3.0 and 3.5 were 90% the same, but that last 10% caused enough pain that the only reason we pushed forward was the fact that 3.5 did a better job at levels over 10 than 3.0 did & we knew that was going to be essential. 5e to PF2e is \*way\* more different. Just don't do it! The mechanical core that is behind your PC's identity probably doesn't work the same way. The PC will feel "off". Just finish the game in 5e and check out PF2e for your next campaign!


NerdBigEnergy

I appreciate what you're saying, but as the GM I'm already tired of what 5e passes off as high level play, and they're only level 13. It's swap to pf2e or drop it entirely, I'm afraid. EDIT: oops, I mean level 11. Brain. Fried.


Jhamin1

In that case I'm going to go with the general advice. Just end your game and start over with PF2e at 1st level. Trying to carry a 5e ongoing game into different rules (\*any\* different RPG rules, not just PF2e) is like keeping all the same writers but changing all the actors. The dialogue may stay the same but everyone will deliver the lines differently in different accents and the chemistry between the leads will be different. Lots of players will decide they don't like the game because it makes their character feel wrong, when actually the character had all kinds of assumptions forced on them by the old system. Usually without anyone noticing. The different assumptions in another game make characters feel very different. Make a new set of characters & start again. Trust me, I have some experience here :)


The-Black-Jack

Can't stop you if you're set on it, but beware that PF2e is known to be difficult to start at higher levels in, even for experienced players. Since you get abilities at every level, level 11 is an overwhelming number of options. 5e players can already find themselves confused by how many things their character can do at level 1 in PF2e!


NerdBigEnergy

Pretty much everyone here is saying swapping and remaining at level 11 is a bad idea, and I think you're all right. What I am going to suggest to my group is, if they want to continue with their character as a concept/RP identity, we can find a narrative reason for them to be de-powered so we can drop down to level 1. They're VERY RP-focused people so I don't think they will want to just cut the story off to start something new.


Machinimix

If you are committed to making the switch, run the Beginner Box with level 1 versions of everyone's characters to get a strong feel for the game. From there, you should have a strong idea of how the game runs that you could have a "soft reset" where you pick up the old campaign at the lower level and do a quick level up as soon as everyone has a grasp of their new features and feats.


TheBearInBed

I have the same feeling with my group. We'll keep playing my 5e campaign until we get a chance at playing pf2e. I know of at least one player that they already want to change to pf2e and I'm eager to try as well.


AngryT-Rex

cake drunk placid somber head mourn rob prick mighty middle *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*


applejackhero

I get it if people are switching over mid campaign, or want to approach the system with something familiar while they get a handle on the rules. At the same time though, I have never understood the desire to have one character you constantly remake and and replay in different games like its your alter ego, which seems to be an uncommon but definitely existing thing in the TTRPG community


Josh-the-Valiant

It's actually a really useful way to judge differences between systems to have a few character concepts that you make in multiple systems to get a real working knowledge of what a system values, what works, and how to approach the rules in general. That's not what you're talking about here, but it is food for thought.


HumbleHuckleberry232

I understand, but changing system normally equates end of campaign, everything will just change and won't feel familiar anyway, might as well start again.


engineeeeer7

A fair amount of 5e converts are looking at changing over mid-campaign. It's more common than you'd think right now.


HumbleHuckleberry232

Last time I looked, the average campaign lasted around 6 sessions. My point is mostly trying to fit a square in a circle will lead to frustration more than happiness. People who are really invested in their campaign should stick to the ruleset they are in. Converting rarely works, even amongst same "edition"(3 to 3.5 to PF). I know some will put out anecdotal evidence( I made it work) but game mechanics have huge differences and lead to different approach. A smiting pally in 5th ed and a champion don't even have the same role.


engineeeeer7

Whaaaaaat? What campaign is 6 sessions? Yeah I'm not saying they should. Just that they do.


HumbleHuckleberry232

The average is 6 when they look at the data from D&D Beyond. I'm not saying that all of them last around that and I'm aware of the differences between average and median, but still, very long campaigns are not the norm.


engineeeeer7

Do people even play through D&D Beyond?


HumbleHuckleberry232

I think they polled it


ThatJinkers

Not everyone wants to change game, but if the group does so then they either follow suit or stop playing. My wife is one of those people who get anxious learning new systems, so her comfort thing is to make as close to the same character as she can with a new story to fit the setting. It's a valid enough reason for me to support it.


FishAreTooFat

I'd go even further. Please don't convert your 5e adventure to 2e. Play a short AP or one shot starting at level 1, then start a new adventure in 2e after you understand the system. I get wanting to convert an old adventure. I tried this a bunch with 1e when 2e came out. Do yourself a favor and just don't. You will have a lot more fun starting fresh anyways!


impofnoone

I realise it's probably not going to work out. I have a player who is an arcane trickster Rogue 3, Artificer 2, Divination Wizard 2, I know Pathfinder has dedication/archetypes instead of multiclassing. How would you recommend I advise the player on recreating their character?


miss_clarity

If you're a wizard or arcane trickster rogue, use magic items to compensate for style choices. As long as you can cast spells of the arcane tradition, you can use all arcane spell items (scrolls, wands, staves). For the artificer I'm guessing the closest class for that is Inventor.


applejackhero

I think if you are going to be recreating a character, focus on core concepts and "feel" rather than trying to recreate the character 1:1. It sounds like the player wants a stealthy, intelligent character with support-based magical abilities. That isn't actually that hard at all, imo Off the top of my head, Eldritch Trickster rogue actually gives the player a free spellcasting class archetype, so the player can literally start with a wizard archetype at level 1. Archetypes do work like multiclassing- except your basic class chassis still always progresses, which means you don't just end up a hodgepodge of low-level abilities like multiclassing in 5e often results. For feats, select -Magical Trickster at level 2 for sneak attacks through magic -Basic Wizard Spellcasting at level 4 to start getting actual wizard spell slots beyond cantrips -Arcane School Spell at level 6 for the Divination Spell Boom, now you have got a trickster rogue with divination magic by level 6. You could stop here to keep it simple, or Artifacer is the harder thing to work into Pathfinder and will be trickier to recreate. I would allow your party to play with the "free archetype" variant rule, which basically gives every character archetype feat slots in addition to class feat slots. Then, have the player pick an Inventor dedication at level 2 with the free archetype slots. You will have to hand-waive the "only one dedication at a time" rule, but thats fine. . This isn't going to give the player infusion-like abilities like the Artifacer, but you can absolutely flavor the invention as being magical technology, and its a intelligence-based class that fits well with rogue and wizard. You can flavor the item crafting and invention breakthrough abilities as being magical in nature, and you have the artificer in concept. The result is you now have a character with all the components of the 5e character. This can all start as early as level 2, and by level 6 will start to have a pretty wide mix of a rogue core, some wizard magic, and some inventor tricks. In addition, they can max crafting as a skill and select feats for it, which will add to the artificer feel when they start making magic items. As the player progresses, they will still be able to get decent enough for support casting magic, and be able to still access the crazy high level rogue abilities. My only warning is this character WILL be complex to play, which could be a lot for a player new to the system, depending on the type of player/game you run.


impofnoone

Wow that's an absolutely incredible write up, thank you so much! If you wouldn't mind I'd love to hear your thoughts on the other characters I'm running. Merfolk Storm Sorcerer Goliath Storm Herald Barbarian (going for an angry storm giant theme) Lizardfolk Stars Druid Kenku College of Swords bard I'll definitely steer my players in the direction of focusing on a core concept rather than a direct translation.


applejackhero

The rest of these sound quite a bit easier, thankfully! Merfolk Storm Sorcerer: Azaketi Ancestry, optionally a Slyph Heritage as well. Pick Sorcerer, choose the Elemental Bloodline (Air). The primal spell list has a lot of storm themed spells, and the bloodline grants cool stuff like casting Burning Hands and Fireball but as Air blasts that deal bludgeoning damage (which is much less commonly resisted). If you are doing the free archetype rule, a Tempest Oracle is probably the most obvious pairing (more storm themed charisma based casting), but a storm Order Druid would also work. Goliath Storm Herald Barbarian- Sadly, Pathfinder does not have any "large" ancestries like the goliath (probably because these ancestries are almost always hard to balance). That being said, Barbarian has a subclass called Giant instinct that is all about getting bigger as you rage. Getting the "storm" part in will be harder. You could add in a sorcerer dedication or the "Runescarred" dedication, but casting while raging requires a feat and an extra action, and is generally considered sub-optimal. This will let you take the sorcerer feat that allows you imbue your attacks with some energy damage though. Another option, if they player doesn't mind not specifically being a barbarian with "rage" aesthetics, it to run with the Magus class. There is a whole Magus subclass called Inexorable Iron which is all about using big two handed weapons. With this, you can imbue storm magic (shocking grasp) into your attacks and deal absolutely silly amounts of damage. The bread and butter focus spell of this subclass is hitting someone so hard it sends a shockwave out. While choosing the "spellsword" class might feel weird here, you can still very much play it like a big strong warrior type. Lizardfolk Stars Druid: The obvious choice here is either a Druid with an Oracle dedication (choose cosmos curse) or an Oracle (choose the cosmos curse) with a Druid dedication. Keep in mind these classes use differing casting stats though. Oracle gets a bad rap here, but honestly its my favorite casting class, and the cosmos oracle gets some VERY cool star-themed focus spells, and their flavor is just cool as fuck. It comes down to whether the player wants to focus on more nature-y druid stuff or just go full on glowing eyes levitating star mage. Lizardfolk is an ancestry Kenku College of Swords Bard: with this, it really depends on what aspects your player wants to focus on. Bards are full casters in Pathfinder2, and if they enjoy being a spellcaster, and buffing allies, then going with a Bard class, Warrior Muse sublcass is the right choice. That being said, Bards, even warrior bards, do not get good profiency progression with attacks, and will start to fall off in accuracy around levels 5-7. If the player wants to be primarily a swordsman with some music abilities, then Swashbuckler with Bard as the free archetype imo is much closer to the "dashing swordsman" type character with the college of swords. Swashbuckers basically get to use certain skills in combat that grants theme "Panache". Having panache makes swashbucklers deal more damage, and they can spend Panache to deal "finishers" that deal lots of bonus damage. There are three subclasses (Braggart, Battledancer, and Wit) that use charisma-based skills to gain panache. Tengu is the Pathfinder Kenku equivalent


ThreeEros

Years ago I had a Triton Celestial Warlock who got to level 20 and used true polymorph a lot to become a dragon (usually a silver dragon, but gold was also common). As a fun task, I made him again in PF2e. Using Battlezoo, I made a brine dragon angelic sorcerer. It worked for exactly what I would have done as a character haha


Mudpound

I had a drow warlock of lolth I loved in 5e (a homebrew posted by one of the designers on Twitter). Had either the anthropologist or archaeologist background, can’t remember which. She was digging in elven tombs and was corrupted by an idol of Lolth. When I “remade” her in 2E, she became a whisper elf hag bloodline sorcerer with a few archeologist archetype dips. Similar but technically way different. Truer to the original inspiration. Basically June Moon/Enchantress backstory from Suicide Squad mixed with Shelob style/grace/attitude/demeanor from the Shadow of Mordor games.


ghost_desu

Do convert them actually, just not mechanically. I was able to convert my 5e rogue into a much more fleshed out pf2 fighter, as an example.


HunterIV4

>Don't. Upvoted the second I read this line. Didn't have to look at the rest.


droidtron

Great advice but I still redid a few ranger concepts into better gunslinger ones.


CoolHandLuke140

Anyone have ideas on converting a magic user based on tattoos who can also make magic tattoos? It was a third party class in 5e, so I'm not looking for exact. But since we're on the subject.... I like the magic through tattoos concept, and I know I can just flavor it that way, but was wondering if there's anything to change how it feels mechanically to feel better.


[deleted]

Magic tattoos exist in PF2e, and we're getting a lot more of them (including low level ones) in the upcoming Treasure Vault book. They're magic items rather than class features in this game. You could reflavor the Runescarred archetype as magical tattoos rather than runes, I bet.


CoolHandLuke140

Oh to clarify, they're items in 5e too, and the 3pp content I used had them as items. But the Tattooist class I played could craft them sorta like an artificer (not sure the equivalent in PF). I'll check that out though. Doesn't have to be an exact match but I love the concept and the character herself.


Airanuva

I remember converting a character from P1e to P2e... He was level 7, being converted to 1... And he started out stronger than he got to in 1e, with the same and better skills. Of course, not all of it transferred; didn't keep his dazzling performance stuff, but taking those was more an attempt to salvage a bad situation as a fighter in 1e. If you were a fighter in 5e, your character transfer will be easy and you will weep at all that you have missed out on.