Forums of the Megaverse®

Hey, I've just decided that I've played Rifts long enough and I wanted to give PF a spin. Well I ordered myself PF second ed and I was wondering, what are the differences between the two editions? I've seen a bit of the first ed... age rules and the such. Are those still in there? I know they have a tendancy to remove cool things from their books when they remake them. Anyways... if anyone could just tell me any differences they've noticed that'd be cool.

Can't wait for it to come in.

The differences between PF1E and PF2E are huge. PF2E is the megaversal system, which you'll be familiar with from RIFTS. PF1E predates that, and is not megaversal.

In PF1E:

Skills are handled differently
There are no physical skills
Characters don't generally have S.D.C.
P.P.E. doesn't exist.
Psionics are categorized completely differently
Many more warlock spells are wizard usable
Many psi abilities and some magic spells aren't around, and some are there which later vanish
Hand to hand is different
Monsters and Creatures are much weaker
Priests are far superior

Also, the 1E mainbook has some good content that the 2E mainbook lacks, most notably an incredible adventure called Tombs of Gersidi.

Edited for spelling.

It comes up often enough that there should be a sticky topic for the differences between 1ed and 2ed.

Here is a list of very roughly organised topics with variable degrees of usefulness.

Updating, converting, and differences
viewtopic.php?t=40863
viewtopic.php?t=35453
viewtopic.php?t=33099
viewtopic.php?t=25924
viewtopic.php?t=34939
viewtopic.php?t=26946
viewtopic.php?t=33662
viewtopic.php?t=47415
viewtopic.php?t=21353
viewtopic.php?t=37056
viewtopic.php?t=34931
viewtopic.php?t=21605

Yin Sloth updates, conversions, and differences
viewtopic.php?t=44229
viewtopic.php?t=34492
viewtopic.php?t=29906
viewtopic.php?t=21030
viewtopic.php?t=35641

Paladin
viewtopic.php?t=33140
viewtopic.php?t=36588

Mind Mage
viewtopic.php?t=30340

Hand to hand combat
viewtopic.php?t=20164
viewtopic.php?t=40076

Timiro royal family
viewtopic.php?t=31024
viewtopic.php?t=45561

Tombs of Gersidi
viewtopic.php?t=39403
viewtopic.php?t=30611

The Defilers
viewtopic.php?t=27856
viewtopic.php?t=29428

Miscellaneous
viewtopic.php?t=23783
viewtopic.php?t=45290
viewtopic.php?t=44433
viewtopic.php?t=41446
viewtopic.php?t=39403
viewtopic.php?t=36531
viewtopic.php?t=34793
viewtopic.php?t=28830
viewtopic.php?t=26455

Thanks. This'll do nicely.

but I thought that Tombs of Gersidi. was availible n the main site as a d/l???

Giddoen

Giddoen wrote:but I thought that Tombs of Gersidi. was availible n the main site as a d/l???

Giddoen

No, that is the Arms of Nargash-Tor that is available for download.

DevilDog0331 wrote:

Giddoen wrote:but I thought that Tombs of Gersidi. was availible n the main site as a d/l???

Giddoen

DO you know if I can find the Tombs of Gersidi adventure anywhere online?

Once A Marine- Always A Marine
Semper Fi
0331

No, it hasn't been posted anywhere.

No, it isn't online. If you do find it online, it's an illegal copy.

Hi all, I need help here. I always thought that there was a Palladium fantasy first edition. And then they released a 'revised edition'. Can anyone confirm whether there was an earlier edition? I recall that when I got the Old Ones supplement the book seemed to be in a style not quite so compatible with the 'revised edition'.

There was an unrevised First Edition, as well as at least two versions of the Revised Edition (differentiated by cover art and by the presence or absence of a "sexual deviations table").

Yeah, I was hoping to get a copy of the 'unrevised' edition. I saw something dated as released in 85' and found out it was a 'revised' version. So which year was the game first released? I saw a copy ages ago back in 92'ish and realize now that I should've bought it then.

I hate SDC.

Unrevised first edition came out in 1983. Look for the black cover with a red dragon, and NO little white writing under the word "playing" in "Palladium Fantasy Role-Playing Game". Both my unrevised's are first printing 1983 ones, and my revised black-cover is a third printing 1986. I'm not sure which edition 2nd printing is, but if you've got a 1985 saying revised, it looks like only first-printing is unrevised.

The notorious "sexual deviations table" appeared in printings 1 through 4, both unrevised and revised. Printing 5 used the revised insanity tables, and I believe it is printing 6 that began using the Parkinson cover.

As for SDC though, any first edition will do. SDC for people was not introduced in to PFRPG until second edition in 1996. All unrevised and revised PFRPG 1E is strictly hitpoints for the living, with SDC for inanimates.

One thing that ups the scariness quotient is make all level gains go to SDC... that makes any HP damage a truly scary event for PCs

Remember that some things will still do direct to HP... poison, for example. Death Blow, as well.

MrNexx wrote:One thing that ups the scariness quotient is make all level gains go to SDC... that makes any HP damage a truly scary event for PCs

Thank you soooo much for this idea.

My group merged them together. We prefer the SDC system and essentially went with 1st Ed with SDC and Mana.

rcmalamutes wrote:Thanks Tony - but do you know at what point all of the books BECAME second edition only? Like I know Palladium "rewrote" Adventures in the North..... into the 2nd edition book Wolfen Empire..... so at what point are all of the PFRPG books essentially only 2nd edition?

book 8 Western Empire is the first 2nd ed only book in the fantasy setting Books 6 Island at the End of the World and book 7 Yin Sloth Jungles have yet to be "officially" published as 2nd ed books

rcmalamutes wrote:Let me be a bit more specific -

Once you get past Yin Sloth (I just went through the catalog) - it seems most, if not all, of the books are just areas - very few new OCC's etc, etc.... they are just supplement area books (similar to what White Wolf used to do with their "By Night" series.... you would buy a book that detailed a new city....)

So it seems to me, for the most part - that you can take the first seven books and run with it.......

I mean the Wastelands book (Book 8 I think) looks kind of cool.

So - one, is that assessment relatively accurate, and two - if not, and those books are really cool to have - is the conversion system back to 1st ed really that painful????

Thanks again

well there are a few "new" OCCs and RCCs in the 2E books but the conversion is fairly simple
eliminate sdc for critters and poof done for the most part
the skills system is slightly different but easily converted
the only rough part IMO is the class specific HTH's but even that hurdle is easily covered....(pre 2E i had already converted the magic system to utilize PPE Which I felt was more "balanced" than the spells per day method of 1E)

I always enjoyed chuckling over the probability of canibalism on the racial chart... That's gone.
So is the graphical representation of each of the major area's coins.

Section lay-outs are different (primarily the Skills section).

While both are good, the 1ed book is easier to read and find things in.

Western Empire jumps out immediately; very little crunchy bits, just lots and lots of world information. Baalgor Wasteland would be significantly harder; lots of races to deal with. Mt Nimro has a bit of crunch, but its a good bit world information. Eastern Territories is the same. Library of Bletherad probably wouldn't be your best choice... it's stuffed with 2nd edition crunchy bits which, while not terribly hard to convert, would require a lot of work (I still suggest it, incidentally). northern Hinterlands and the Land of the Damned books are very crunchy... if you're pure 1st edition, converting them is a lot of work.

Don't get me wrong... the world information is great. There's just some crunchy bits you won't be able to use, because they're not statted to 1st edition. And a lot of that will mean just cutting off the SDC, and maybe rebalancing HP.

Either East or West will work, but if you've got Yin-Sloth, West will tie in with that. If you have Adventures and Further Adventures in the Northern Wilderness, then East will have good tie-ins. Neither will give you conversion issues.

pawsplay wrote:Things I noticed right away:
- The psionic illusionist is gone.
- Monks went from a quirky class of pacifist scholars to widespread friar/templar types with martial arts.
- Palladins gained supernatural abilities. Also, lots of kick attacks.
- Mercenaries went from being sub-par compared to Soldiers in the bonuses department to easily matching or exceeding them in hand to hand skills.
- A lot of the really great creature info was moved to Dragons and Gods.

Both the Psionic Illusionist and the Pacifist Monk are revised in Book II: The Old Ones. And some of that great creature info was added to Monsters and Animals.

I'd also suggest RIFTS Dark Conversions for some good monsters; all are laid out with SDC stats for use in PF and Heroes as well as their MDC equivalents.

-Mike <8]

IF I recall correctly, All the 1st/Revised Ed stuff can be Purchased Via Drivethrourpg.

IMHO 2nd ED is just a Non-MDC Fantasy version of Rifts. I Still have all of my First/Revised edition books(Basically all of the first edition stuff.)

While I will admit that much of the 2e stuff does make sense, I disagree with the nerfing that the 2e has done to/with the game.(This applies to ALL Megaversal titles)

One of my PFRPG House rules is that most weapon strikes flat out ignore SDC and goes direct to Hit points. SDC is basically for Indirect and non-weapon damage.

Lol, SDC is one of the reasons I like PF!

From the sounds of things, 1st ed wasn't for me. I like SDC/HP, PPE/ISP etc.

FreelancerMar wrote:IF I recall correctly, All the 1st/Revised Ed stuff can be Purchased Via Drivethrourpg.

Seems some can: http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/6 ... tion-Rules

I heard that the 2nd edition of Old Ones doesn't have stats for the Old Ones, but by comparing their stats ni the 1st Ed to the stats for gods/demons/devils in 1st ed you can approximate their power in 2nd ed.

Grom the Goat Getter wrote:

J. Lionheart wrote:The notorious "sexual deviations table" appeared in printings 1 through 4, both unrevised and revised. Printing 5 used the revised insanity tables, and I believe it is printing 6 that began using the Parkinson cover.

Hm, that is fascinating. I definitely have to check it out. I have a copy somewhere I picked up for passing around as a spare without realizing it was different than Second Edition. I just discarded it when I discovered the difference. Awe, the folly of youth... Apparently I don't know what I was missing. Was the sexual deviation chart a part of character generation?

It was part of the Insanity Tables, so basically, yeah, it was a part of Character Generation, albeit an optional part.

My edition of PRPG, while lacking the sexual deviations table, still contains a couple references to rolling on that table under random insanity and the wizard's cauldron... so I still consider it canon

Back when I did PF 1e, I had come off Robotech and Rifts. It was fun, but I prefer 2nd myself and that's fine.

pawsplay wrote:Things I noticed right away:
>Snip<
- Mercenaries went from being sub-par compared to Soldiers in the bonuses department to easily matching or exceeding them in hand to hand skills.
>Snip<

Makes sense, since if you consider the Real World example, Mercs tended to be *slightly* better than the average trooper. That being said, their survival rate tended to be as high as it was (for a largish portion of 'em, which is why they were so reviled even while they were used), due to the high level of turning coat a merc force would do if they believed they were about to be on the loosing side.
Many Merc companies were infamous for wearing the enemy's colours under their armband for just this kind of occurrence. (They would wear the colours of their client on their arm, since they did not wear the same uniform as the soldiers they fought beside.)

Borast wrote:Makes sense, since if you consider the Real World example, Mercs tended to be *slightly* better than the average trooper. That being said, their survival rate tended to be as high as it was (for a largish portion of 'em, which is why they were so reviled even while they were used), due to the high level of turning coat a merc force would do if they believed they were about to be on the loosing side.
Many Merc companies were infamous for wearing the enemy's colours under their armband for just this kind of occurrence. (They would wear the colours of their client on their arm, since they did not wear the same uniform as the soldiers they fought beside.)

I think the assumption is slightly different in the game. Well, maybe not the ability to change sides, I think that probably still stands just fine.

Soldiers: I believe the soldiers are supposed to be "professional" soldiers who spend a fair amount of time in training. At least, that is what the description in the book seems to be. Their bonuses are very focused on parrying and dealing damage. Actually, that is all they get, really. Progressive attacks per melee, increased parry/dodge, increased damage, and at the levels for them, the increased crit chance and the chance to stun. This seems to me to be more focused on unit fighting, where you are always expected to have your gear to hand.

Basically, these are probably not your town guards, unless you are in a really militarized setting. These guys have the potential to be the core fighting force holding the pass at Thermopylae.

Mercenaries: Going just from their bonus progression, I would mark them as slightly less dangerous in a line of battle. Their progression in all the various bonuses is a little behind that of the soldier, which falls in line with picking up tricks wherever they can. They are also slightly more versatile due to getting a kick attack, meaning that disarming them doesn't leave them as helpless as a soldier (the soldier doesn't get that option at all).

These are people that probably fit the rambling adventuring man of arms, the basic body guard, caravan guards, and so on. Something I have been thinking of doing is changing their progression to slip in a x2 damage from behind perk at some point. They are probably more likely to be doing some individual night raiding (or at least be thinking about that sort of thing) than your standard soldier, I would expect.

That is the way I see it and present them in my games anyway.

The one thing I miss about 1e was the hand to hand differences. Each man of arms class had slightly different hth bonuses. I don't remember details, but I liked the idea. If I ever play it again, I think I'm going to bring (something like that) back borrowing heavily from Ninjas & Superspies

Grammarsalad wrote:The one thing I miss about 1e was the hand to hand differences. Each man of arms class had slightly different hth bonuses. I don't remember details, but I liked the idea. If I ever play it again, I think I'm going to bring (something like that) back borrowing heavily from Ninjas & Superspies

Looking back, I find the differences between the different hand to hands to be overstated.

Mark Hall wrote:

Grammarsalad wrote:The one thing I miss about 1e was the hand to hand differences. Each man of arms class had slightly different hth bonuses. I don't remember details, but I liked the idea. If I ever play it again, I think I'm going to bring (something like that) back borrowing heavily from Ninjas & Superspies

Looking back, I find the differences between the different hand to hands to be overstated.

I've been thinking about this over the last few days, and I think it depends a lot on how you look at things. If you look at the progression from the point of view of everyone at level 15 on the charts, the differences are much less, because the differences are most noticeable during play as characters progress. I do agree that (for the most part) the +1's to parry/dodge and damage do relatively little to differentiate the different hand to hand skills. The significance of those bonuses do grow when horsemanship is involved, but I will address that later. However, there are other means of progression that have a significant impact on how dangerous a particular character/npc is in combat.

First, there is the number of attacks. Since the base number of attacks in 1E is 1 attack/action per melee, it is a big deal to get the increases through hand to hand training. Non-men of arms get their first upgrade the latest at level 4 and cap out at 4 attacks per melee within the 15 levels on the charts. The most "aggressive" men of arms like the palladin, knight, and soldier have the fastest progression gaining their second attack at level 2 and their 3rd at level 5. Then there is sort of a less "aggressive" progression that covers men of arms like the mercenary, ranger, and long bowman which gain their 2nd attack at level 3 and their third at level 6 or 7. Things do vary a bit as things progress due to other abilities (some really important to that particular hand to hand style) being included that push an attack upgrade back a level for a particular hand to hand style.

Second, I will throw 2 things together, and that is the critical hit chance and stun chance. The critical hit upgrade always happens first, usually followed 2-4 levels later by the stun for those styles that get a stun at all. Not only do these upgrades come at different levels, but the critical range is varied as well. The long bowman is set apart by getting no melee crit/stun, but gaining the 18-20 crit range with their bow at level 6. Palladins and assassins gain the crit chance the earliest while having the highest crit range at 17-20.

Third, there are the oddball modifiers, like backstab damage multipliers, which primarily apply to thieves and assassins. Those kick in at level 4 for double damage but increase to .4 damage by level 13 or 14. Non-men of arms get the base level of critical from behind at level 6, but it never improves beyond that. Assassins fall behind palladins in their attacks per melee at level 9 due to gaining their death blow on a 20 at level 9.

I mentioned horsemanship at the top, and it ties in primarily with the Knight and Palladin. General horsemanship is pretty basic and gives fairly low bonuses for combat while mounted. Horsemanship Druid/Knight is a decent step up from there with the Palladin version having the highest combat bonuses, especially for charge damage. If mounted, both of those OCCs have a fairly significant bonus to damage. The damage bonus just for being mounted starts at level 3 for both, while the charge damage bonuses start at 4. Obviously, druids can benefit from this as well, if they are inclined to do so, but their damage bonuses won't be as impressive unless they have a totem that boosts their damage.

So I would say there is quite a bit of differentiation between the progression of the different styles. At level 15, the differences are less pronounced except for style/OCC exclusive modifiers/abilities.

The main differences i notice are the earlier bonuses to number of attacks per round, and the soldiers bonus to parry and dodge. For the fighter class i do tend to recommend the soldier and most of my players seem to agree.