Project is dead.

Wish the post could be deleted...

Have a nice day

Great work. Looking forward to more and see where this goes.

Pretty impressive.

But may I ask one question: the document looks like you are trying to convert the system and not the setting. Basically, you are taking everything that makes Pathfinder such a cumbersome system and convert it into Genesys. For a setting conversion, I would just stat up the races as species/archetypes, the classes as careers, add some talents, get a basic list of equipment, then convert the monsters according to the rules in the Genesys core book, and that is enough. I would get rid of the complex spell system, and instead use the Magic system presented in Genesys. That's exactly designed to handle fantasy magic. Also, the monsters don't need half their qualities from Pathfinder. Instead build them as minions, rivals and nemesis according to the Genesys book.

All in all, Pathfinder is simply an iteration of an OSR clone. Thus, converting monsters might be better off starting with OSR bestiaries that use simpler notations. Orcs, Goblins etc are clearly minions. Then you have more powerful critters like Owlbears, Ogres, etc that are rivals, then iconic monsters like Mind Flayers, Dragons etc are nemeses.

I like what you have done with mathfinder and look forward to the final version. Do you intend to convert all the (apparently pathfinder) spells you have to listed to Genesys? If so, I admire your fortitude considering how daunting the task will be.

4 hours ago, lyinggod said:

I like what you have done with mathfinder and look forward to the final version. Do you intend to convert all the (apparently pathfinder) spells you have to listed to Genesys? If so, I admire your fortitude considering how daunting the task will be.

I intend do do as much as possible. I don't think every spell could be converted due to the fact that in term of Genesys rules, some of them kind of overlap. I'm not really the "forum" guy so if you want faster replies and regular update on my work, join the discord server: https://discord.gg/ZpCdgUq

Man, Mathfinder would be a great setting though

On 01/01/2018 at 8:21 AM, JohnChildermass said:

Pretty impressive.

But may I ask one question: the document looks like you are trying to convert the system and not the setting. Basically, you are taking everything that makes Pathfinder such a cumbersome system and convert it into Genesys. For a setting conversion, I would just stat up the races as species/archetypes, the classes as careers, add some talents, get a basic list of equipment, then convert the monsters according to the rules in the Genesys core book, and that is enough. I would get rid of the complex spell system, and instead use the Magic system presented in Genesys. That's exactly designed to handle fantasy magic. Also, the monsters don't need half their qualities from Pathfinder. Instead build them as minions, rivals and nemesis according to the Genesys book.

All in all, Pathfinder is simply an iteration of an OSR clone. Thus, converting monsters might be better off starting with OSR bestiaries that use simpler notations. Orcs, Goblins etc are clearly minions. Then you have more powerful critters like Owlbears, Ogres, etc that are rivals, then iconic monsters like Mind Flayers, Dragons etc are nemeses.

The magic system vas the very first reason I wanted a conversion. The Genesys Magic system lacks a lot of flavor is you ask me. It offers no reward from progression beside being able to cast the same spells from the start but more easiliy. In the game I'm running (THat I convert as we go), the first comat os the campaign, the wizard casted 2 "Chain Lightning" spells, which was Magic Attack Action paired Lightning/Autofire. One one check, he triggered the Autofire twice and once of the other. While it may sounds fine, in the Pathfinder, this is just absurd. Based on the Genesys rule, Wizards can't use Augment spells. Say what ? Wizards in PAthfinder use a lot of Augmentative spells. What's Next? Priest can can Fireball-like spells? Again, can be fine in other FAntasy setting but that doesn't fit Pathfinder at all.

While combat rules of Pathfinder are indeed cumbersome, they are nice rules that makes immersion well... more immersive so I won't put them aside; such as a rewarding spellcasting system.

For monsters, Pathfinder has many. I disagree that all individual of the sames species are of the same type. I could make a battle with bunch of golin warrior (Minion groups), 2 golbin beast rider (Rival) and a goblin shaman chieftain (Nemesis).
Monsters are mostly easy to design once you have special abilities list you can jsut pick from so that's no really a problem.

The task for this conversion is indeed heavy, but so far, it has proven a good idea. The more I convert to Pathfinder, the more me and my team of players actually enjoy the game. Stting aside the unwanted complexity of Pathfinder (Mostly for the GM) and keeping the concepts we do like and was making Pathfinder a nice game.

3 hours ago, siabrac said:

Man, Mathfinder would be a great setting though

The setting is not what makes it Mathfinder, unless your questing for the mythic tome of Quadratic Equations to learn more algorithms spells, its the mechanics of the game. The setting is the world, peoples, cultures, monsters, cities, locations, etc but that flavor can also include how magic functions. There is definitely a place for variations of Vancian magic in a Genesys powered setting depending on the system. The example magic system that the CRB includes is just that, a light weight bare bones magic system designed to provide the most bang in the least pages. The magic systems we see in upcoming setting books may look nothing like the basic magic system in the CRB.

I was previously working on a setting for the Hero System (speaking of math) that included unstable magic. This required a new mechanic for that setting that didn't exist in the core toolkit. Converting it to Genesys, the advantage/thread system almost exactly reflects this mechanic. However the basic magic system in the CRB is a bit too open ended for me. For balance I am opening several spells to Arcane and primal but limiting a number of them by restricting Arcane to affecting only inorganic (healing, conjuring, augmenting, etc) and Primal to affecting Nature (Spirits, Animals, Elemental stuff, etc). For me this blunts the somewhat excessive open ended default magic system in the CRB.

1 hour ago, Korlall said:

The magic system vas the very first reason I wanted a conversion. The Genesys Magic system lacks a lot of flavor is you ask me. It offers no reward from progression beside being able to cast the same spells from the start but more easiliy. In the game I'm running (THat I convert as we go), the first comat os the campaign, the wizard casted 2 "Chain Lightning" spells, which was Magic Attack Action paired Lightning/Autofire. One one check, he triggered the Autofire twice and once of the other. While it may sounds fine, in the Pathfinder, this is just absurd. Based on the Genesys rule, Wizards can't use Augment spells. Say what ? Wizards in PAthfinder use a lot of Augmentative spells. What's Next? Priest can can Fireball-like spells? Again, can be fine in other FAntasy setting but that doesn't fit Pathfinder at all.

There is a fundamental difference between Pathfinder and Genesys: a beginning Genesys character is a lot more competent than a beginning Pathfinder character. But an advanced Pathfinder character will be better than an advanced Genesys character. The systems scale substantially different.

To me, converting all the spells to Genesys seems like a lot of work. But to each their own. It seems much more worthwhile to convert the setting (Golarion) than the system (Pathfinder).

I would probably prefer a "Dungeon Fantasy" setting for Genesys a lot more than a specific game system conversion.

I wish you the best of luck with your efforts.

1 minute ago, JohnChildermass said:

There is a fundamental difference between Pathfinder and Genesys: a beginning Genesys character is a lot more competent than a beginning Pathfinder character. But an advanced Pathfinder character will be better than an advanced Genesys character. The systems scale substantially different.

To me, converting all the spells to Genesys seems like a lot of work. But to each their own. It seems much more worthwhile to convert the setting (Golarion) than the system (Pathfinder).

I would probably prefer a "Dungeon Fantasy" setting for Genesys a lot more than a specific game system conversion.

I wish you the best of luck with your efforts.

Well that setting document does both as it includes species, career and equipment. Someone wanting those without the magic system could do so as well. It's just not me and my players are aiming for.

On 1/4/2018 at 4:52 AM, Korlall said:

The magic system vas the very first reason I wanted a conversion. The Genesys Magic system lacks a lot of flavor is you ask me. It offers no reward from progression beside being able to cast the same spells from the start but more easiliy. In the game I'm running (THat I convert as we go), the first comat os the campaign, the wizard casted 2 "Chain Lightning" spells, which was Magic Attack Action paired Lightning/Autofire. One one check, he triggered the Autofire twice and once of the other. While it may sounds fine, in the Pathfinder, this is just absurd. Based on the Genesys rule, Wizards can't use Augment spells. Say what ? Wizards in PAthfinder use a lot of Augmentative spells. What's Next? Priest can can Fireball-like spells? Again, can be fine in other FAntasy setting but that doesn't fit Pathfinder at all.

While combat rules of Pathfinder are indeed cumbersome, they are nice rules that makes immersion well... more immersive so I won't put them aside; such as a rewarding spellcasting system.

For monsters, Pathfinder has many. I disagree that all individual of the sames species are of the same type. I could make a battle with bunch of golin warrior (Minion groups), 2 golbin beast rider (Rival) and a goblin shaman chieftain (Nemesis).
Monsters are mostly easy to design once you have special abilities list you can jsut pick from so that's no really a problem.

The task for this conversion is indeed heavy, but so far, it has proven a good idea. The more I convert to Pathfinder, the more me and my team of players actually enjoy the game. Stting aside the unwanted complexity of Pathfinder (Mostly for the GM) and keeping the concepts we do like and was making Pathfinder a nice game.

I agree with JohnChildermass . I am doing a conversion of my own. When I saw you had done one too I looked at the magic system 1st. I knew it was way too complicated for what Genesys is supposed to be. So instead of making a whole convoluted magic system to fix the issue, why not just make a house rule that allows Augmentive spells to be cast by a non Primal or Divine but with an increased difficulty. Say +1 or +2 Difficulty. Better yet just categorize them as intened. Arcane, Divine and Primal. When converting a pathfinder arcane spell that is classified as an Augment in Genesys, leave it as a divine or primal spell. Spells may have to be shifted around, it is ok. In fact if the player realy wants that spell he can get ranks in that skill to do so. This helps out with that one player that pours all his exp into one skill. This is one of the reasons why I let the players create their own class instead of preset ones.

If you want your players to be able to increase their library of spells why not just have them buy them like Syrim. Or give them an opportunity to do research to discover new spells. The mechanic would be very similar if not the same to buying regular items except with a feeling of more adventure.

For example the play says I want the burning hands spell. The GM then says roll a Knowledge (history), Knowledge (Lore), etc or what ever roll you think might be necessary. A success would mean that the player found a location of a spell scroll he can transcribe or a spell caster that is willing to teach it, etc. The beauty of the system is it lets you use disadvantage to say "You found a burning hands spell that was in the next town over but was stolen in a raid of Orcs." You got now a mini quest while at the same time a chance for players to earn more powerful magic. This forces the character to split his skill focus between using spells and finding them. Not to mention casting spell costs 2 strain to cast and strain threshold isn't easy to come by, or shouldn't be anyway. Also magic spells should be a little bit more difficult to obtain, through quest or much more expensive that weapons thus making combat skills the quick and easy path but the magic path more expensive and more difficult to find but more appealing when found. On the other hand your system lets them magically obtain it at some arbitrary moment in time.

As far as the actual spell levels. I like the spell difficulty based on spell level. In fact that is the exact same way I split it up. I also like the way you do the duration of the spells. Since you seemed to have done away with adding difficulty dice to spells you have forced your self to come up with a different method of making them interesting while balanced. Take your summon monster 1 spell. at the end you add that plays can use 2 advantages to increase the amount of summons but it is limited by Spell Mastery, when instead you could just use the rules that are already there and have them use the Additional Summon Difficulty modifier on page 217 of the Genesys core book. Other wise Spell Mastery is just another unnecessary step to find out exactly what they can do.

It is in the spells conversion where you get your "flavor" that you are talking about. Not in making a complicated magic system to replace it.

No disagreement as far as monsters go.

9 hours ago, sevick said:

I agree with JohnChildermass . I am doing a conversion of my own. When I saw you had done one too I looked at the magic system 1st. I knew it was way too complicated for what Genesys is supposed to be. So instead of making a whole convoluted magic system to fix the issue, why not just make a house rule that allows Augmentive spells to be cast by a non Primal or Divine but with an increased difficulty. Say +1 or +2 Difficulty. Better yet just categorize them as intened. Arcane, Divine and Primal. When converting a pathfinder arcane spell that is classified as an Augment in Genesys, leave it as a divine or primal spell. Spells may have to be shifted around, it is ok. In fact if the player realy wants that spell he can get ranks in that skill to do so. This helps out with that one player that pours all his exp into one skill. This is one of the reasons why I let the players create their own class instead of preset ones.

If you want your players to be able to increase their library of spells why not just have them buy them like Syrim. Or give them an opportunity to do research to discover new spells. The mechanic would be very similar if not the same to buying regular items except with a feeling of more adventure.

For example the play says I want the burning hands spell. The GM then says roll a Knowledge (history), Knowledge (Lore), etc or what ever roll you think might be necessary. A success would mean that the player found a location of a spell scroll he can transcribe or a spell caster that is willing to teach it, etc. The beauty of the system is it lets you use disadvantage to say "You found a burning hands spell that was in the next town over but was stolen in a raid of Orcs." You got now a mini quest while at the same time a chance for players to earn more powerful magic. This forces the character to split his skill focus between using spells and finding them. Not to mention casting spell costs 2 strain to cast and strain threshold isn't easy to come by, or shouldn't be anyway. Also magic spells should be a little bit more difficult to obtain, through quest or much more expensive that weapons thus making combat skills the quick and easy path but the magic path more expensive and more difficult to find but more appealing when found. On the other hand your system lets them magically obtain it at some arbitrary moment in time.

As far as the actual spell levels. I like the spell difficulty based on spell level. In fact that is the exact same way I split it up. I also like the way you do the duration of the spells. Since you seemed to have done away with adding difficulty dice to spells you have forced your self to come up with a different method of making them interesting while balanced. Take your summon monster 1 spell. at the end you add that plays can use 2 advantages to increase the amount of summons but it is limited by Spell Mastery, when instead you could just use the rules that are already there and have them use the Additional Summon Difficulty modifier on page 217 of the Genesys core book. Other wise Spell Mastery is just another unnecessary step to find out exactly what they can do.

It is in the spells conversion where you get your "flavor" that you are talking about. Not in making a complicated magic system to replace it.

No disagreement as far as monsters go.

All these suggestions are great, but doesn't feel much like Pathfinder to me. In another fantasy system, I would probably do otherwise but in this case, I think it fits perfectly.

My current party have 2 main casters (cleric and Wizard) and the magic system is playtested as we develop it. So far, we like it more than the original. Even my wizard player at first was like "Can I really cast chain lighting from the start?", to which I say "Yes but it would be hard to do so, so you'll want to keep it simple at first". And then, after 3 combat in which he spammed chain lightning, triggering auto-fire, he was like "Isn't that a bit broken?". When we switched it, he was more than happy with the new system.

What we wanted to recreate is actual progression of discoevering higher spells level and getting more possibilities rather than making existing possibilities easier to achieve.

So far, the "complicated magic system" doesn't bother any of us so we'll keep it "comlicated" for the time being so we'll keep it.

Maybe this conversion is more adressed to players used to complicated system like the actual Pathfinder but at the same time like the Narrative Dice System, the gridless sytem, the slow scaling, etc. rather than the ones who are used to light-rules system and looking to try a different setting. I agree those people might be overwhelm by such new mechanics.

I can see how magic attacks are a problem though. All the increases to difficult to add additional effects for the attacks act as though you would use just one generic attack spell and alter it on the fly. The only one I would use is the augment that increases the range. I would just convert the spells like you have been and Maybe turn the augments into talents something like this:

Name: Pyromancer, Activation: Active, Tier: 2, Description: You may increase the difficulty of an attack spell by 1 to add the burn quality to it equal to your characters rating in knowledge.

That way players can still access some cool effects they can mix into their spells only they will have to make the choice if its worth the exp or not. You could even add some limiting factors like "May only use once per encounter" to stop them from spamming them. Also you could say "Choose one spell to apply this effect to". The tier of the talent is obviously debatable.

6 minutes ago, sevick said:

I can see how magic attacks are a problem though. All the increases to difficult to add additional effects for the attacks act as though you would use just one generic attack spell and alter it on the fly. The only one I would use is the augment that increases the range. I would just convert the spells like you have been and Maybe turn the augments into talents something like this:

Name: Pyromancer, Activation: Active, Tier: 2, Description: You may increase the difficulty of an attack spell by 1 to add the burn quality to it equal to your characters rating in knowledge.

That way players can still access some cool effects they can mix into their spells only they will have to make the choice if its worth the exp or not. You could even add some limiting factors like "May only use once per encounter" to stop them from spamming them. The tier of the talent is obviously debatable.

Not a bad idea but still, I'll add bunch of talents already so I'm really not sure about having full caster spend EXP on magic skill as well as on Talents just to get spells right. It was a bit like that in Genesys, forcing spellcaster to increase Knowledge so they can get better rating with brun, blast, etc.

That "complicated" magic system remplaces the additional XP investment with mostly "game time", which works fine by my group.

I do intend to bring back the flavor of of some caster feats from Pathfinder as well as the magic school-based feats and abilities. We'll see how it turns out.

3 minutes ago, Korlall said:

Not a bad idea but still, I'll add bunch of talents already so I'm really not sure about having full caster spend EXP on magic skill as well as on Talents just to get spells right. It was a bit like that in Genesys, forcing spellcaster to increase Knowledge so they can get better rating with brun, blast, etc.

That "complicated" magic system remplaces the additional XP investment with mostly "game time", which works fine by my group.

I do intend to bring back the flavor of of some caster feats from Pathfinder as well as the magic school-based feats and abilities. We'll see how it turns out.

Yeah I did think that was a little wired they chose the knowledge skill. Then again you could always just change it to a chosen magic casting skill.

My idea to address that issue is the Signature Spell talent taken from the GenCon Adventure. I would make it a Tier 2 ranked talent. Each rank allows you to customize a spell beforehand with all the options you want (e.g. Acid Arrow [Deadly, Fire, Range] - normally difficulty 4). When casting a signature spell, you reduce the difficulty by 1. For each rank in the talent, you may create another signature spell.

Regarding spell discovery: the book states on page 210 that increasing your magic skill could be tied to in-game events. Thus, it's not just a matter of spending experience points, but for example you have to discover tomes of magic written by the great mages of times past and study them (kind of like Raistlin is collecting the spellbooks of Fistandantilus in Dragonlance).

Also, maybe you could introduce talents designed to make castings easier (like @sevick suggests), e.g. Cryomancer (Your attack spells automatically add the ice quality without increasing difficulty). I would see such talents as Tier 3.

Just now, sevick said:

Yeah I did think that was a little wired the chose the knowledge skill. Then again you could always just change it to a chosen magic casting skill.

We really wanted to limit character progression as the game goes while concerning spellcasting as it felt more right to us. The current system allowed to "rush" skill building. A character starting with a single rank in let's say Arcane skill simply need to invest the remaining 4 ranks, which 70 XP, or about 5 sessions. While this may not be a problem for some players/GM, it felt totally wrong for us. That Spell Access/Spell Mastery homebrew rules were more on track with what we wanted.

I'm not sure what I'm proposing have issues. I agree that's it's not for everybody but it fits what we want just great.

I was surprised to not find that Signature spell Talent from Gencon into the Core Book. I intend to do something similar, mostly for Wizards, probably linked to their specialized school. Not sure how yet but I'll find something when I'll be working on that part. It's not like I was done with making that docuement yet.

Spell discovery in Pathfinder, at least for mages, came from both independent researches as well as lost tomes and scrolls. The proposed rules keep that in mind. For what is to invest XP in the skill, I made the skill progression mostly like the Talents. This way, someone can't rush into a single talent. It forces character to be a bit more versatile. Again, not for everyone, but it works fine with my current group.

I do intend to make new talents related to casting magic, whether adding new elements or modifiying existing ones, including difficulty.

That conversion is going at a good paste but still, it's colossal work but I love doing this. I'm pretty confident that the more it goes, the better it gets. I just want to say that this document is not meant to become the generic fantasy I wish that was included in the core book. This is really Pathfinder realated. But of course, someone could make its more "light-rules" Pathfinder setting by keeping my proposed magic system aside, but I really do feel this system is compatible with the mind of Pathfinder.

Yes, it is compatible with the spirit of the Pathfinder system . Nobody is disputing that. I simply think that it's a way of converting the system and not the setting. This is mostly a lesson learned from Savage Worlds and Fate. And since your topic title is talking about "Pathfinder Setting ", maybe people read this topic with a different expectation than what you are actually trying to do. That would explain comments that suggest different ways of going about a conversion. The system of Pathfinder is mainly D&D 3.5+ (commonly seen as D&D 3.75) which comes with its own conceits and assumptions. The Pathfinder setting is the World of Golarion. As the main title of Pathfinder is the core rulebook without much setting references, I can understand that "Pathfinder" conflates settting and system into one thing. But some of us differentiate system and setting. So this could explain the reactions you are getting to your proposed ideas.

I guess that saying "Pathfinder System" on the tin would make things clearer.

1 minute ago, JohnChildermass said:

Yes, it is compatible with the spirit of the Pathfinder system . Nobody is disputing that. I simply think that it's a way of converting the system and not the setting. This is mostly a lesson learned from Savage Worlds and Fate. And since your topic title is talking about "Pathfinder Setting ", maybe people read this topic with a different expectation than what you are actually trying to do. That would explain comments that suggest different ways of going about a conversion. The system of Pathfinder is mainly D&D 3.5+ (commonly seen as D&D 3.75) which comes with its own conceits and assumptions. The Pathfinder setting is the World of Golarion. As the main title of Pathfinder is the core rulebook without much setting references, I can understand that "Pathfinder" conflates settting and system into one thing. But some of us differentiate system and setting. So this could explain the reactions you are getting to your proposed ideas.

I guess that saying "Pathfinder System" on the tin would make things clearer.

I think I'll have to do this then as I'm mostly making the conversion, or at least an "adaptation" of its system.

Not sure how the Setting could be converted though as pure lore isn't linked to rules so there isn't really something to convert there. Golarion will remain Golarion, whatever the rules that are used.

The key thing is we are not all likely to agree on a single method for converting pathfinder. Brain storming ideas for conversions helps me perfect my ideal way to convert the system. I already have taken some tricks from Korlall's conversion I liked, for example the duration of the spells increasing based on un canceled successes. In the end we all are probably going to make our own variation. Which in turn gives people another viable option to use.

2 minutes ago, Korlall said:

Not sure how the Setting could be converted though as pure lore isn't linked to rules so there isn't really something to convert there. Golarion will remain Golarion, whatever the rules that are used.

Take a look at the Dragonlance conversion. A setting is usullay converted by:

- Providing Species/Archetypes modelled on what one would expect a certain Archetype/Species to behave in the chosen setting (i.e. the Pathfinder races)

- Providing Careers modelled again on what one would expect from the setting (i.e. Classes)

- Providing additional talents that help model the world (usually magic and fanatsy-specific talents that are missing from Genesys corebook)

- Providing equipment lists based on the ones in the world

- Adapting the magic to at least somewhat match what's going on in world (like adapating the magic skills, providing different spells to different skills, providing new spells)

Basically, everything that you are doing already, but in a more cursory manner that leaves Genesys assumptions intact instead of transferring system assumptions from the system that the world usually uses.

That's just an example. Not close rules to follow. And for your purpose you are doing fine.

2 minutes ago, sevick said:

The key thing is we are not all likely to agree on a single method for converting pathfinder. Brain storming ideas for conversions helps me perfect my ideal way to convert the system. I already have taken some tricks from Korlall's conversion I liked, for example the duration of the spells increasing based on un canceled successes. In the end we all are probably going to make our own variation. Which in turn gives people another viable option to use.

With this document, I wasn't implying I had the only viable option nor the best one either

2 minutes ago, Korlall said:

With this document, I wasn't implying I had the only viable option nor the best one either

Oh I know I just didn't want my comments to come off as "This is what u need to change" but rather "here are some ideas you might try."

I think I'll add a note at the beginning of the magic chapter that is section modifies how magic was intented to be used in comparision to Pathfinder, and that using that chapter is not mandatory to use the rest of the document. I must agree though for the moment, few species and careers from Pathfinder are made available as my PC group is already chosen so we have no need to further character creation choices. That doesn't mean I call those sections completed either. I intend to add more as soon as I have all the bases covered.