DigitalMage's page

Good for you. Bad for all of us who like D&D.

Well I liek D&D too! But as I said I guessed that the lack of Vancian magic was probably likely one of the biggest factors in deeming 4e "not D&D", so judging by your reaction that is true.

Have you seen the 4e rules?
Where the hell are gnomes or half-orcs? Not in the PHB!
[...]
And that's just races. Classes are worse: Bard, Barbarian, Druid and Sorcerer are nowhere to be found, but there's Warlock and Warlord now.

True, the organisation is different enough that if you want to be core book only (and not buy the later Player Handbooks which will apparently introduce those races and classes) then the lack of those things as playable would be a pain and a turn off.

Gnomes are in the MM though and so could still appear as NPCs I guess.

As for the lacking classes, yes it is a pain, but then I see classes as building blocks so could probably make the existing classes fit a concept to some degree. For example when considering converting my Eberron con scenarios to 4e I believe I could use Warlord instead of Bard as the concept of the characters was a military leader and war-poet.

Still, I guess that yes, if you want only the mechanics to change between editions and not the choices of races then I could see this being a fairly big problem and one that would make PF much more attractive if you feel tired or frustrated with 3.5.

And what are Dragonborn? Eladrin are a player race now? What's the matter with Elves? What are Tieflings doing in the player races section, and where are the Aasimar to balance them out (dispelling the rumors that D&D is a game for satanists)?

Well, whereas I can understand being frustrated at losing some classes and races to the new stuff, the existence of new stuff by itself shouldn't be a problem - just don't use it!

I don't know anything about Shadowrun. Don't care, either.

Fair enough, I was just trying to draw a parallel for those who are familiar with the game, that 4th ed of Shadowrun changed some quite fundamental rules mechanics of Shadowrun to the point that some could have considered it "not Shadowrun anymore" (splitting out of some attributes, making it an attribute + skill system, removing the damage categories, allowing mages to conjure Elementals in an instant and Shamen to bind multiple nature spirits at once etc). However those changes didn't cause half as much uproar amongst the Shadowrun fanboys (me included).

I guess it maybe comes down to the fact that with Shadowrun - the setting is the constant, the things that defines it as Shadowrun. However with D&D there is no integral setting and so the rules become the constant. Therefore mucking about with the rules is more likely to change the feel of D&D than it would for something like Shadowrun (or Deadlands, or Fading Suns etc).

DigitalMage wrote:

The fact that people will choose to play a Pathfinder RPG game over a D&D 3.5 game shows to me that the change is significant enough to affect the attitude of players and their choice of games.

What?

What I meant was (though I admit I made a mess of explaining it :)) was that if people will actively choose one game system over the other, then there must have been significant changes made. If changes were trivial then people wouldn't be as bothered which system they played.

Aren't those the PDFs that end up costing more than the print books - and that was before you could get the stuff pretty cheap?

True. Which is why I am reluctant to purchase too many. However as I normally buy hardcopy & PDF versions of a book, buying just a PDF albeit at full RRP wouldn't actually work out any more expensive.

However WOTC do seem to have their pricing right for the 4e PDFs (and they have actually released the PHB, DMG & MM in pdf for 4e!) which is another factor that is making me think that is a better choice for me*.

*Most of my 3.5 books are setting based (i.e. Eberron) and so as I am not prepared to mix & match 3.5 and PF rules I feel I would get more use out of my 3.5 books with D&D4e - a couple of 4e books will provide the Eberron specific crunch, and I can continue to use my 3.5 Eberron books for background and setting info.

DigitalMage wrote:

Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(

There's no ongoing production of the 3.5 books, so they will get that option less and less. If PFRPG is viable, though, they will at least have the option to play a living game that's close to 3.5.

I wasn't necessarily talking about organised play / living games but the con scenarios that the 3.5 fans run at cons.

I wrote and ran my first 3.5 scenario after the announcement of 4e - and I am writing more and intend to run more at conventions (3.5 Eberron). Now I already expected 4e would cause a number of potential players from wanting to play my games, but thought 3.5 is so popular that the player base woudl still be sufficient.

However, now with Pathfinder on the scene I see a further reduction on potential players where alternative PF and 4e scenarios are being touted. Because of this, rather than stepping up to Pathfinder I am considering going 4e as that game will have the biggest share of players and will actively be supporting the setting I enjoy.

wizards and their 4e ignore them - no, let me rephrase that: They go out of their way to invalidate the game's history.

I can understand this in terms of a setting, and how Forgotten Realms has been handled in 4e. But for a rules system is there really that much of a change between 3.5 and 4e compared to changes between original D&D, AD&D, AD&D2 etc?

I guess Vancian magic could be a big sacred cow to get rid of, but I hate that anyway. But 4e still seems to have the familiar classes, levels, races etc. From what I have seen of it, it is no worse than the difference between Shadowrun 4th edition and the previous 3 editions - it was the biggest change but it was still recognisably Shadowrun and I liked the changes.

DigitalMage wrote:

Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(

Tell me how they could have avoided that?

That's right: They coudln't. With change, there comes fraction.

From the original suggestion of what Pathfinder was going to be it seemed to be a direct replacement for the D&D3.5 core books - without little change. However the size of the change has IMHO made Pathfinder a different RPG system, as much as Conan d20, Everquest, D20 Modern and even Mutants & Masterminds are different RPGs.

The fact that people will choose to play a Pathfinder RPG game over a D&D 3.5 game shows to me that the change is significant enough to affect the attitude of players and their choice of games.

You might want to hurry up, though, as many of those books (including everything wotc) are no longer printed, and some shops are already holding clearance sales (I myself managed to get 4 3e books for the price of 1 book last weekend).

Well, I have already got the entire Eberron back catalogue cheap in hardcopy format. But as my bookshelf is so full now, I am happy going PDF only for some things - and the PDFs (at least WOTC's) are here to stay for a very long time to come.

The traditions and history of our 30+ years of community and coherency were threatened.

You see, maybe I am in the minority, but I got into D&D with v3.5 and I have only bought one issue of Dungeon magazine for the free minis map, so for me there was no tradition or community that was being threatened.

I see 4e as just as 'correct' a way to evolve as PF.

To my credit, I've brought along 12 other players who now play PRPG rules rather than 3.5.

I have to ask, would those 12 players now still be willing to play in a 3.5 campaign?

Also if at a convention and they had a choice between a 3.5 or a PF game, would they ever choose the 3.5 game? If not then PF is doing as I feared & fracturing the player base even more :(

IMHO the comforting thought is that whether you seek to stay and play 3.5 ad infinitum, or wish to move to PRPG rule improvements, PAIZO is the place to continue...

For some people then yes, but for others like me, if I want to continue with 3.5 Paizo will not be the place to continue, instead I will look to the WotC back catalogue of 3.5 stuff and maybe those 3pp who are still supporting 3.5.

If such a version of PF offered something unique and attractive then maybe, it would need to distinguish itself just like any other RPG.

Also that distinguishing factor could be its setting. If I found Golarion to be a great setting (I see potential but need to play in it more) then I may buy the rules, whatever they may be, to play in it.

In fact, as I already feel PF Beta has lost compatibility the setting is likely to be the main reason I will buy PF as my GM is using the PF rules to run the setting.

Its the same reasoning that I am considering buying 4e even though I don't like it too much from what I have seen - 4e will be supporting Eberron and that is reason enough for me to play it.

I think that Pathfinder is trying to be both evolving and backwards compatible - unfortunately it can't be all things to all men.

I personally feel PF has aleady lost it backwards compatibility, I now just see it as another d20 based game alonside Conan, Everquest and the like.

In light of that PF really needs to offer me something different enough to make me feel its worth the time, effort & money to buy into.

Unfortunately because it is still trying to be backwards compatible for others it isn't being different enough. So in that respect then yes I do feel backwards compatibility is holding PF back.

If I want to use my 3.5 stuff I have no reason in my mind to not just continue to use D&D3.5.

If I want to play in the world of Hyporborea I will buy Conan.

And if D&D3.5 beco es a dead system in terms of finding players and I want to continue playing in my favourite D&D setting of Eberron then I have decided to get into 4e as it will have 100% compatible crunch when the 4e Eberron books come out, and for fluff I can still use my 3.5 books.

DigitalMage wrote:

I am not quite sure whether your sarcasm means you agree with me or not?:S

Agreement.

Cool! Sorry for not reading the subtext :)

DigitalMage wrote:

TBH I hope it is for this reason that the Beta does not carry a 3.5 OGL compatible logo - because it isn't 100% compatible and it would be misleading to state otherwise.

How dare you suggest this? Obviously you think Paizo nefariously plots in smoke-filled back rooms and/or secretly telegraphs their next evil move.

I am not quite sure whether your sarcasm means you agree with me or not?:S

I don't think there is any conspiracy or anything, Paizo have been quite open with the amount of change they are putting into the Beta release (the fact that there is a whole open playtest indicates that there are significant changes to playtest). Not putting a 3.5 OGL compatible logo on the book is, to me, only honest and correct given the amount of changes the rules have undergone.

If anything, putting a 3.5 compatible logo on the rules would IMHO be a dubious act. I am not sure whether it would go so far as to breach the trade descriptions act (or whatever the US equivalent is) but as a consumer I would consider it misleading.

Last I heard (and keep in mind that being ensconced in the editorial pit, I am sometimes a bit behind on things), the plan was for us to develop some sort of bug or logo to put on our Pathfinder RPG products like the adventure paths and modules that says: "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD."

Unless each product is 100% compatible with both RPGs then I would rather such a logo was limited to purely "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG".

This is for the simple reason that I have chosen to treat Pathfinder RPG as just another d20 based RPG and am not planning on mixing and matching D&D3.5.

So if I bought a book claiming to be "Compatible with the Pathfinder RPG or the 3.5 SRD" and I found a feat with a pre-requisite of "Perception 3 ranks" than I would want my money back. Petty? Maybe. But if I have to do even that level of conversion I could just as well buy a 3.0 supplement or a Conan d20 supplement.

TBH I hope it is for this reason that the Beta does not carry a 3.5 OGL compatible logo - because it isn't 100% compatible and it would be misleading to state otherwise.

I understand that some folk are disappointed that we're moving on to the PFRPG from 3.5, but that evolution isn't really a choice for us. The games we publish HAVE to have a support rulebook available in venues other than used book stores and eBay.

I would argue that the evolution is a choice, because "evolving the ruleset" and "publishing a ruleset to keep the core rules in circulation" are not mutually exclusive options.

If your business model is to make significant money off of sales of the Pathfinder RPG then, yes it would be wise to evolve the product so that you maximise sales.

However if instead the business model was to make the majority of revenue off supplements and adventure paths (as Paizo has done up until now) then it might have been a better idea to simply republish the 3.5 rules unchanged, just in a different package. This would have allowed Paizo not to estrange any existing D&D3.5 players.

Yes, it would have meant that sales would have been much less (it would also not have allowed two versions of the rules to have been sold within the the space of two years) but then it would be a loss leader (or rather a minimal contribution leader hopefully).

I do admit though that not evolving the ruleset may not have won back some players who gave up on 3.5 due to some problems that Pathfinder now apparently fixes.

In the end Paizo has made its choice - which is fine, however Paizo have to accept that this may have estranged some 3.5 players even if that was not the goal.

Perhaps Paizo simply doesn't want to debar themselves from producing officially 4E/GSL compatible material in the future. [...] Paizo would effectively support two editions of D&D at once (if 3E more tenuously), which is the very thing that a great number of people wish WotC would have done. However, to do so, their "3.5/OGL compatible" logos would have to come off. At least, that's my understanding of the great problem with the GSL.

The GSL (or OGL for that matter) makes no conditions of the "3.5/OGL compatible" logo as thatis something created wholly by Paizo (other publishers have their own versions of a logo indicating 3.5 compatibility).

Paizo simply cannot have both 4e books via the GSL and books using the OGL in the same product line. It doesn't matter what logos they do or do not put on those products. If even a single product in the product line uses the OGL (even if it was so they could reference some Mongoose RuneQuest stuff) then it would be a violation of the GSL.

Basically, if Paizo converted a single Pathfinder product to 4th edition under the GSL they would need to cease production and distribution of all other products released under the OGL in the same product line, and it is WOTC who "reasonably define" what that product line is - they could say anything with Pathfinder on it is a line, or they could just say that it is just Adventure Paths (if an AP was converted) or even a specific AP.

Upon the first publication date of a Conversion, Licensee will cease all manufacturing and publication of the corresponding Converted OGL Product and all other OGL Products which are part of the same product line as the Converted OGL Product, as reasonably determined by Wizards (“Converted OGL Product Line”). Licensee explicitly agrees that it will not thereafter manufacture or publish any portion of the Converted OGL Product Line, or any products that would be considered part of a Converted OGL Product Line (as reasonably determined by Wizards) pursuant to the OGL.

I reward XP after each encounter, not at the end of the night, but having the XP table on the screen is not high-priority.

Ah, I think I misunderstood what was meant by XP chart, I thought it was the chart that shows how much XP is needed to reach each level at the Fast, Medium and Slow progression rates (i.e. Table 4–1: Character Advancement and Level-Dependent Bonuses) however I now think you mean Table 12–3: Experience Point Awards. In which case, yes that could be useful on the screen.

This sounds great, my Pathfinder GM has put together a screen using good old fashioned paper and glue and put it in hit Savage Worlds GM screen.

* XP Chart

Is this necessary on a screen? It only seems to be something referred to ever so often rather than a number of times per session. Could the space be used for something else?

IT might still be a no-brainer: It's quite possible that you won't find much new 3.5 material in a year's time, as several publishers will switch to Pathfinder, and others abandoning 3e altogether
make things worse.

However there is already a ton of 3.5 stuff out there, both in pdf, available on ebay, and also still available in thevretail chain. I just purchsed PHB II in pdf format and have previously bought up the entire Eberron back catalogue. I am currently eying up the 8 book Complete series.

Also as Eberron is my fave setting, I am now reconsidering my choice to go 4e. As I personally am not willing to mix & match PF & 3.5, if I want to run Eberron games at cons I may as well go with 4e.

I don't think a crunchless campaign setting would feel right. It's pretty light on crunch as it is, but none at all?

I think it could have worked - the Gazatteer was pretty much that. Also systemless campaign settings are becoming more common, Pirates Guide to Freeport is completely systemless, Glorantha the Second Age has only one reference to one attribute (POW) I believe and Cursed Empire will soon be getting a systemless setting book too.

Minimal crunch could have worked, for example saying an NPC was a Fighter 3 / Rogue 2 would have been wholly compatible with PF RPG.

I have also had a few players ask why Pathfinder Society isn't played by Pathfinder Beta rules? Pathfinder Society is Season Zero playtest year; Pathfinder Beta are playtest rules; so why not use playtest rules in Pathfinder Society's playtest year? Players are really enjoying the Pathfinder Beta rules, but are frustrated by not being able to use them in the Pathfinder Society setting. I've even had one player claim he doesn't want to play any more Pathfinder...

This is a tough one and to be honest I think Paizo made the right call. As so many people are familiar with 3.5 then PFS scenarios have players and GMs ready to go from the start. I for example I soon to GM my first PFS scenario.

However had PFS season 0 been Beta rules, not as many GMs would have been ready to run it right off the bat (I certainly wouldn't be running it) and people may be reluctant to play it either.

The thing about the Beta rules is that although the PDF is free most people like a hardcopy at teh table, and some people who aren't interested in playtesting it, would be reluctant to spend money on a hardcopy of the rules which will be redundant in less than a year. And even for those who can afford a hardcopy not everyone may be bothered to read it, only to have to read another version next year.

Let me flip your question back to you. Would half of us give two cents about Pathfinder if it was little more than Moongooses's pocket reprint of the SRD?

Funnily enough I wouldn't mind having a digest sized PHB - but I haven't found any of the Mongoose ones around, and I am not sure whether they are 3.5 or 3.0 anyway.

But yes, I agree that if PF RPG was exactly like D&D3.5 then we might not be so excited about it. However, we might ALL be excited about the supplements, adventure paths and organised plays scenarios that would be being produced for it.

As it is, some people like me who will continue to focus on 3.5 will be reluctant to buy Paizo PF supplements as they won't be 100% compatible.

I will likely be focusing my supplement spend on just one system - and that may be 3.5, PF or 4e, I don't know yet. But if PF and 3.5 had been the same then my choice of supplements would be a no-brainer as any supplements bought for PF would complement 3.5 and vice versa.

Basically by changing PF too much Paizo are changing a player's decision from "stick with 3.5 or go 4e" to "stick with 3.5, go PF or go 4e". The amount of change has actually got me considering 4e again.

I am especially pleased that you know very well that you don't like doing conversions and such. It takes some people a long time to realize what they enjoy doing and don't enjoy.

Part of my reluctance to mix & match is that I am not familiar with d20 enough to know what problems may arise. I have been running a Shadowrun 1st edition scenario using 4th ed rules and a bit of conversion work - and I am happy with this as I know the system. I am not so sure with d20.

For example D&D3.5 PHBII has a feat called Intimiating Strike. The only pre-requsite is 4 ranks of Intimidate. In 3.5 that means if Intimidate is a class skill you can take the feat at 1st level, but if it is a cross class skill you would have to be level 5 at minimum.

Now in Pathfinder RPG the pre-requisite would change to 1 Rank of Intimidate for Class Skills, and 2 ranks for classes where it is a cross class skill. That means that for classes without Intimidation as a class skill they have to be Level 5 in 3.5, but only level 2 in PF.

Now I have no idea whether allowing that particular feat 3 levels earlier is unbalancing or not, and that is the point; I don't know so I really on the designers' judgement. Now i know that sometimes designers get it wrong and stuff is unbalanced - but relying on their judgement is better than nothing. But the designers didn't write that feat for PF, but for 3.5, and so their judgement of balance doesn't really apply.

Now someone will likely point out that PF is more balanced compared to the other 3.5 splats - that may be true or not I have no idea, but I can't be arsed with making decisions about conversions and whether pre-requisites are balanced anymore or not.

I am thus happy for others to mix & match, and I will be happy not.

I wish you all the best for gaming and hope you find lots of happiness now with your new view of Pathfinder.

Thanks! I appreciate it.

I think I will likely end up doing the following...

With my home group I will
Run 3.5 Freeport and Eberron
Play Pathfinder RPG and Pathfinder Chronicles

At conventions I will
Run 3.5 Eberron & PFS Season 0
Run Pathfinder RPG PFS Season 1+
Run 4e Eberron
Play any of the above

Pathfinder will be just another system to sit alongside D&D3.5 and D&D4e for me, rather than being a replacement for the former and an alternative to the latter.

No, it won't. <snip>

And that's it. Not a lot for a 200+ page book.

Still, with my control freakery I think that means:

If I buy the PF Campaign setting to run home games will use D&D3.5 to run Golarion games

If I only want to run Gloraion based games as part of the Pathfinder Society, when Season 1 comes round I will use the PF RPG rules but I will not buy the PF Campaign Setting and make do with the Gazatteer.

I still think it is odd! Perhaps when the final PF RPG is out and Paizo need to do a new print run of the Cmapaign Setting book they will revise it (just as publishers take the opportunity to include errata in re-printings). If they do that they may even sell a few more for those wishing to upgrade to the revised edition.

A good question is why you didn`t see that earlier, why it required an epiphany on your part to realize that no way could you use your 3.5 core books (give and take a couple of penciled "errata") playing Pathfinder modules in the future.

I did see this earlier (I have been moaning about it for some time :) my epiphany was more a case of realising that in my games I simply can elect not to mix & match making the changes moot.

Yes it does mean I will have to read another ruleset to gain that familiarity to play in my mate's game (a familiarity I already had with the 3.5 rules), but then I will have to accept that.

It also means that when I play Pathfinder RPG, my characters will only be made from stuff in the core book as I don't use stuff from books I don't own for my characters (and I won't be buying any Pathfinder RPG supplements, or using any of my 3.5 supplements). So my characters may be limited compared to those whose players are willing to buy more PF supplements and / or who are willing to mix & match. But I am happy to suffer that limitation in return for not having to do any conversions on the fly.

When you run 3.5 do you only use core classes, core spells, and core rules? Or do you allow the use of supplemental and 3rd party products?

Until recently I only owned the core 3 books and the Eberron & FR campaign settings. I have now purchased Expanded Psionics Handbook, Unearthed Arcana and Players Handbook II.

To be honest, I will likely stick with WOTC 3.5 products (I don't want 3.0 products unless they are 100% compatible with 3.5 as well). The only non WOTC D&D3.5 products I own is the d20 Freeport Companion and the Freeport Trilogy (updated to 3.5) and Crisis in Freeport (again 3.5).

If you do allow supplemental and 3rd party products, how are they any different from Pathfinder?

They would be 100% compatible with the core 3.5 rules, i.e. skill names, feat pre-requisites etc. At least they should be 100% compatible with teh 3.5 rules if that is what is said, obviously the quality may vary dependent upon publisher.

Many of the supplemental (splat book) classes are a bit more powerful than the core classes and the Pathfinder classes fit right alongside them.

I haven't yet run much D&D and played only a bit more so imbalanced classes are not yet apparent to me (for example I have never seen a Druid played in any game).

Some rules are different, but then some rules from 3.5 and 3.0 are different as well.

Luckily I only got into D&D with 3.5 so I don't have any 3.0 compatibility issues :)

The reason I have a hard time understanding the complaints about backwards compatability is I routinely use sources from AD&D, GURPS, and other games with mechanics all together foreign to 3.5 and intergrate them with little problem. So how is it so difficult to use a ruleset that is nearly identical such a major problem?

Different people have different ability to convert on the fly. Also different people have different views on whether they want to have to convert on the fly. I am very much a control freak, i like things to be exact and specific if I am playing a crunchy game. If I want to have to make judgement calls as a GM I will run a very rules light system instead.

Seriously, now that I have had my epiphany on how to view Pathfinder I really don't care how much it changes from 3.5 - I will read both rulesets and become familiar with them and I won't mix & match or allow players in a game I am in to mix & match. However if players or GMs in games in which I am only playing in want to mix and match then fine - the onus is on them to do any conversions, I won't have to for my character. And so everyone is happy :)

What I intend to do, is to say to the players without PFS numbers that I will hold off reporting the event for a week, and if they can register and email me their character IDs in that time, I will report the game with those IDs, otherwise I will report without (and their character won't get credit).

I don't believe the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book has much "crunch" in it, but I believe the bits that are there are designed for D&D3.5 (I remember seeing some NPC stats or something in the back of the book).

When the final version of the Pathfinder RPG is released, will there be a revised version of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book? It would seem a little odd to have the setting book not be 100% in synch with the RPG system of the same name.

Cheers!

Some of you may have noticed that I have been quite critical of the fact that Pathfinder RPG is incorporating a number of changes to the classes, skills and rules of 3.5.

My main issue was not with what the changes were (I actually like some of them) but that I felt the changes stopped Pathfinder RPG being backwards compatible, and may cause a fracturing of the player base.

Well, I have been doing some thinking and I now feel quite happy about the Pathfinder RPG. I started to think about why I had such issues with Pathfinder RPG when I happily pick up and play other d20 based games such as Mutants & Masterminds, Spycraft and Star Wars d20 RCR.

In the past I have also played in an Everquest game and even bought the PHB for that game (for reference only, I never read it and plan to sell it now that I don't play that game now).

One of the players in my group at one point really got enthused about the Conan RPG and if that had gone on to being a core game for our group I would likely have bought the core book and read it (as it was I bought some Conan fiction to at least familiarise myself with the setting).

So why did I have no issue about these other iterations of the d20 rules but did about Pathfinder RPG?

The answer was because I didn't see those games as trying to replace D&D3.5, or be used as a ruleset to run D&D3.5 settings, or use D&D3.5 material. If I ran M&M which has changed the skills in a similar way to Pathfinder, it didn't bother me because I would only use M&M stuff with other M&M stuff.

So I figured, how can I make my peace with the Pathfinder RPG and stop my pissing and moaning about the changes being made?

And then the epiphany came. I would treat Pathfinder RPG, not as a replacement for D&D3.5 (even if others did) and instead see it as just another of many d20 based RPGs.

So for me, if I want to run Eberron I will continue to use D&D3.5 and will not utilise any Pathfinder RPG supplements (no books of feats or spells or whatever Paizo eventually release to support the new RPG). If I want more supplements for my D&D3.5 games I will seek out old WOTC books (I still have the Complete series in my sights and yesterday bought the PHBII in PDF format).

However, if I want to run in the Golarion setting I will happily use the Pathfinder RPG rules. As a player I will probably utilise only official Pathfinder RPG supplements and not choose to build my characters using any material from D&D3.5 products. Now my Pathfinder GM may well mix and match, but if he is fine doing that why the hell should I worry? And if I choose not to mix & match 3.5 and PF stuff, then I should have no issue with the lack of backwards compatibility in my eyes.

I have the Pathfinder Beta rules at the moment, and I will not GM with them, nor will I read them in depth. Instead they will simply be a reference to look up the specific rules and feats that are particular to my characters. My GM can handle all the other rules - he seems quite capable in that respect.

When the final Pathfinder RPG rules come out, if it is still the rules of choice for one of our weekly group's core games then I will likely buy a copy and read it in its entirety. That way I get the familiarity that I have with D&D3.5 and can concentrate more on the plot. If I become particularly comfortable with the final PF rules I may even GM season 1+ PFS scenarios (I have already chosen to run PFS season zero scenarios as they use the 3.5 rules).

So eventually I will have and use both D&D3.5 and also Pathfinder RPG. And as for my concerns about confusing the rulesets, well if I can handle M&M, Star Wars d20 and Spycraft as well as D&D3.5 without getting too confused I am sure I can add PF RPG to that list and not get confused.

On the conern over fracturing the market, well if that does happen and I become familiar with both rulesets then I will will straddle both camps and so should still be able to get enough games and players. Of course if PF only players become the majority I may have to give up on the idea of running Eberron using 3.5 - but my weekly group have said they will play it using 3.5 and so that shouldn't become a problem.

And if I find myself wanting to play Eberron games, and my only chance becomes doing so at conventions, then well I have a D&D4e PHB on its way to me and I may be persuaded to buy into D&D4e to play it.

So I have finally made my peace with the Pathfinder RPG by thinking of it as just another d20 based RPG. This may not be how Paizo hoped the other customers would thin of it, but it works for me.

Of course, now that I see Pathfinder RPG as a self contained game that I won't be seeking any compatibility with D&D3.5 for, I am probably interested in Paizo making even more changes! :) For example, as was suggested in another thread - get rid of spell resistance and in some way wrap it up in with the existing save rolls - screw the fact that this may make it less compatible with 3.5! :)

So, rather D&D3.5 and Pathfinder being a case of "The King is Dead, long live the King!" I think of it more as "The King still lives! And we now have another slightly different King over there too!" :)

EDITED to ASK: Where did you get the fillable PFS character sheet? I'd love to have a copy of that, too...

:)

It is actually an MS Excel spreadsheet character sheet I put together for D&D and then tweaked for PFS. I have uploaded a copy here.

Printing direct from the spreadsheet provides clearer graphics (the image quality is lost in the PDF as I created it using PrimoPDF).

Pathfinder RPG does not need to introduce big changes to appeal to people who already own 3.x rules. People who already own 3.x rules are not Pathfinder RPG's target market. The main purpose of Pathfinder RPG is to keep 3.x rules in print to enable new players who don't already own the rules to join the game.

Pathfinder RPG's number one goal is to enable people to purchase and play Paizo's line of Adventure Paths, which are their main juggernaut product.

Dead on! I anticipated the PF RPG to just be a means to keep what was an OOP game, in print and thus enable them to continue doing what they were doing prior to 3.5 being dropped by WOTC.

Do Paizo see sales of the Pathfinder RPG core books to be where the main revenue will come from? I saw the PF RPG as just a facilitator to enable their main revenue generating stream to continue.

I had expected the D&D3.5 core books and PF RPG to be pretty much interchangeable - but they are now looking to be far from that.

My worry is that, rather than uniting and supporting the loyal 3.5 player base, they will instead fragment it further into:

a) D&D3.5 players who feel PF is too much of a change and so stick to running and playing 3.5 and wouldn't be interested in running or playing PF.

b) Players who love PF so much (or who hate doing the conversion of 3.5 material to PF) that they move wholly onto PF and wouldn't be interested in running or playing 3.5 anymore.

c) Players who like PF as a ruleset, but are happy to play in both games and use material for both.

I guess Paizo is betting on c) being the biggest proportion, and I guess I hope it will be too so that players will be happy to play in my 3.5 games.

The Beta is free, but it is also a whole lot of paper to print (if you don't bring a lap-top to your game).

Yep I completely agree (apologies if I wasn't clearer above).

As an alternative I have created some pre-generated characters based upon the D&D3.5 PHB suggestions. A PDF of the characters can be found here.

The characters are Barbarian, Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue and Sorcerer.

They can be "tweaked" by allowing the player to choose bonus languages, faction & a faction feat, and deity and domains for the cleric etc. At the bottom of each character sheet is a summary of what is still to be done.

Given this mish-mash of players and rules, it might be useful to release a Compatibility document (preferably as a free PDF download) that outlines the minimum changes to play a Pathfinder character while still using your PHB.

Now this is an excellent idea - while it could be argued that it is not needed as the Beta PDF is free, it would be nice to have a summary sheet per class of the changes - something easy to print out being the key thing.

As far as I know, Paizo's bread and butter will still be whatever stuff it publishes on a monthly basis: adventure paths and setting stuff for the "World of Golarion". The setting stuff is probably 80% rules-neutral, and the adventure paths should be close enough to 3.5 to allow easy conversion (hope, hope).

For some people (yes me) however, not being quite 3.5 may mean those sourcebooks and setting stuff are no longer attractive.

I have bought the Pathfinder Gazatteer as it is pretty much all fluff and even then, the rules bits (Deities & their domains) are 3.5 and PF compatible. Such a product would continue to be appealling to bith 3.5 and PF players.

However a book of Feats designed for PF may not be so attrative to 3.5 players if there is significant conversion to be done, or redundancy involved (e.g. Feats that directly affect CMB which doesn't exist in 3.5 may be useless to a 3.5 player).

Why should someone who is more or less happy with 3.5 and all the stuff he/she had bought for it switch to Pathfinder?

Yeah, I almost started a thread asking "So what's my motivation?".

For me I am worried that my "motivation" will be based purely on non-games mechanics. For example, if it will become easier to get players to play Pathfinder than it would to get players to play D&D3.5, then yes, there is an incentive to learn Pathfinder.

Also, as one GM in my weekly group (the host) has chosen to run Pathfinder (and doesn't look at all interested in running 3.5) then there may be some incentive to run PF to harmonise the rules knowledge of our players, and avoid confusions. My PF GM is happy to still play 3.5 and is by no means insisting that others switch to PF when GMing, but it is still a potential motivator.

Other than those two things, I am not familiar with the problems of 3.5 to see the benefit of PF. I admit there are changes that I like, for example Cleric's not having to sacrifice spells to heal others and Demoralise being able to be performed at a distance, there are other changes that I don't like, e.g. Improved Trip being toned down. So overall to me it isn't anything I could not houserule (or find an official Feat to do).

The key word here is optional. It's not much more than a published house rule.

Okay, I picked a bad example. In my example I was suggesting that Racial Hit Points may be something that is not optional in the final version but a core rule. Anyway, it was purely illustrative and I am sure there are other rules out there that are different and can cause confusion.

Yeah. Sorry for the remark. It's just that someone makes a point of mentioning how he will not play the very game that is to be discussed in the current message boards, and further makes a point of saying that books that use the new rules should be marked so he can avoid them more easily, it raises some red flags.

No need to apologise, to be honest I am probably venting about my current frustration with my gaming in general - I am playing games I am really not bothered about and not playing the games that I have sitting on my shelves. But specifically I am venting because I am only just getting really enthused about D&D3.5 and it seems I am too late - and rather than Pathfinder continuing the game I like, it may actually be helping to kill it further. I am seeing Pathfinder as an alternate 4th edition, rather than a continuance of 3.5.

It's not quite as easy as that: If you convert from D&D to Pathfinder, you might have to read the book again to find the differences, but I'd say that once spotted, it's not so hard to "relearn" things.

But if you go from D&D to 4e, you'll have to learn a whole new system. The differences aren't subtle at all.

To be honest, I think I would find it easier to learn a completely new system than try to seek out and remember all the little tweaks between 3.5 and Pathfinder. If the differences aren't subtle they are more obvious and they easier to notice. Its the same reason I don't find my knowledge of 3.5 confusing my GMing of World of Darkness, but I do sometimes find it confusing me for Spycraft or Star Wars d20 RCR.

As an addedum, the more conversion a GM and player has to do to use Pathfinder with 3.5 scenarios and sourcebooks the more I fear that Paizo run the risk of having some players simply decide to use another OGL system which they already own and are familiar with, for example True20, Castles & Crusades etc.

For example, if I am going to have to convert stuff I may simply decide to go a bit further and use Mutants & Masterminds (possibly with upcoming the Warriors & Warlocks sourcebook).

For me, the Beta is already too far removed from 3.5 to make it backwards compatible. I was hoping that the written stats for a character would remain unchanged, just the implementation of the rules behind those stats would change to fix things.

For example, I don't have a real issue with the way they changed the Improved Trip feat, the rules behind that feat have changed, but the feat has not been merged with another, renamed or has its pre-requisites changed. This means if I see an NPC stat block that lists that feat, I know that in Pathfinder he would still qualify for it and that it is still applicable.

The change to 15 of the original 35 skills, and the way that skill ranks and cross class skills work means that there is now some conversion work to be done, even if it is for some people trivial.

These changes also mean some forward compatibility will be lost. For example, say I wanted to stick with D&D3.5 for a base ruleset, but that I was interested in a Pathfinder supplement that includes some new feats and prestige classes.

If one of those PF feats or prestige classes has a pre-requisite of Acrobatics 4 ranks, I would assume that I would need 7 ranks in 3.5, but I am not sure. Also, because Acrobatics is actually three skills in 3.5 (Balance, Jump and Tumble) would my 3.5 character need all 3 skills at rank 7 or would he need only one of those skills at rank 7? What if he had 7 ranks spread between all 3 skills?

So for me, Pathfinder seems to have already lost its backwards compatibility. So I will likely stick with 3.5, however even though I will be sticking with 3.5 I was also hoping to maybe buy some Pathfinder supplements - but forwards compatibility has been lost as well. So I will likely buy up old WOTC D&D3.5 supplements rather than buy Paizo stuff.

If it ever gets to the point where Pathfinder RPG becomes so popular that it effectively replaces D&D3.5, i.e. where players will refuse to play in a game if I use 3.5 rather than Pathfinder then I will probably convert to D&D4e - as it will likely have a larger fan base than Pathfinder, will actively be supporting my favourite fantasy setting (Eberron), and would also open up stuff like D&D Experience and D&D Games Days to me.

So, I am afraid that for me, Pathfinder has lost me. My only interest in it now it purely as a player because one of our GMs has chosen to go Pathfinder (and has even bought us all copies of the Beta edition).

Their target market is not people who already have all the books they need. That's a pretty hard market.

Its not the people who have all the books they need, but the people who have the core books they need, but who want to continue to buy supplements. I.e. me!

Paizo believes that selling books for a game whose core rules are no longer available isn't goint to work

I agree, and that was why I was originally enthused about the idea of Pathfinder. I imagined it would be teh 3.5 rules with a minor tweak here and there - but little enough that the PF core and teh D&D3.5 core books could be used interchangeably. Those new to the game could buy PF, those who already owned 3.5 could simply buy the Pathfinder supplements. It seems however that the 3.5 players will need to buy Pathfinder core to really make the most of any new supplements.

But since PF and 3e are so closely related, you'll find people willing to go back to 3.5 if you run it.

I hope so. I guess my concerns are based on my own attitude of not wanting to have to do any conversion. I have never bought any 3.0 books and would be put off playing in a game if someone were using the 3.0 rules. Hopefully most players aren't like me :)

Of course, they might expect the same of you: Adapt to them.

Well I am trying it out because our GM has decided to run it. The fact that the PDF is free at least makes me more likely to give it a try. Now, if the PDF of the final release is signicantly priced it may dissuade me from playing beyond the Beta, instead relying on my GM to spoon feed me the rule changes.

If you don't want that confusion, agree on a game and run that.

Unfortunately it is not that simple, my group has a lot of GMs and we all want to run our favourite systems and settings. If I want to run my favourite (currently 3.5 Eberron) I have to accept that I will have to play in other people's favourite games, even if they are not quite my cup of tea.

What racial HP bonus?

Its an optional rule in Beta, but I was using it as an example of how a very core rule may differ significantly between 3.5 and the final Pathfinder.

I'm starting to think that you're in the wrong place, as you seem quite uninterested in the Pathfinder RPG.

Yeah, I'm sorry for pissing and moaning. I am interested in Pathfinder because I am playing in a game and for one GM in our group it will likely become his system of choice. I am also interested in it because its success may in some way increase the peer pressure to convert myself (I plan to run 3.5 at conventions, but if the players are more interested in Pathfinder based games, then I may not get any interest).

And if I do feel the pressure to convert to Pathfinder - which for me woudl mean reading cover to cover the final core rulebook(s) and learning the rules and how they differ from 3.5 - then I may be tempted to simply choose to go with D&D 4e, at least that system will actively be supporting the setting I like (Eberron).

It won't? I suspect in 2 years no one will be publishing new material for 3.5 outside of very small PDF publishers. Look at the big 3PPs they are all moving to either 4e or Paizo. I don't think the 3.5 market is fracturing, I think it's dying and Paizo is ensuring that it's legacy continues in PRPG so they can keep publishing APs.

unfortunately I wasn't talking about the market, I was talking about the player base - which i think will / is fracturing with those players who will stick with 3.5 (just like many people still play AD&D 2nd ed) and some going to Pathfinder.

I am worried that if the rulesets become too different, Pathfinder players won't want to play a 3.5 game, and 3.5 players will find it difficult to adjust to play a Pathfinder game, especially for one shot con games.

I would agree, that as it stands, the Beta is 3.x dependent.

yeah, I just re-read the Beta Introduction and it says:

"Although nearly complete, you might find it useful to have the 3.5 rules set available as a reference to help fill in a few small gaps."

The question still remains though - how do you spot the difference between an intentional omission and an accidental one?

I had assumed that Pathfinder Beta version, whilst not the final product, was at least a complete game in and of itself.

However I have seen a number of posts that say something to the effect of "anything not in the rules is assumed to be unchanged from 3.5" - i.e. that really I need to have my 3.5 books on hand to fill any gaps.

Is this true?

If so, how do you know that a "gap" in the Pathfinder Beta wasn't an intentional omission?

How can they fix things that need fixing if they cannot touch it? Some mechanics, grapple probably being foremost among them, are in need of a fix. That means that in the beginning, you'll lose some time looking them up again. But I'd say that the changes are learned quickly enough, and after that, there'll be a lot less headache for everyone.

For those people who find it a problem, the fix is most likely welcome. For those who didn't have an issue with it then it is a bit of a pain to learn the new rule. But I admit the latter people are probably in the minority. I wish my current GM was sticking with 3.5 at the moment, but then he has just been kind enough to buy us all copies of Pathfinder beta :)

Pathfinder doesn't fracture anything: the PF core book will replace the 3.5e core books, which are no longer printed and will, sooner or later, disappear off the shelves.

The 3.5 core books may disappear, but a hell of a lot of people already have them, and so I don't think it will "die off" quickly or to the extent that older editions have (and no edition ever truly dies).

My concern is that some people may want to play 3.5 and not be bothered about Pathfinder, and vice versa. If in a couple of year's time I go to a convention and offer to run a D&D3.5 game, will there be players who have moved onto Pathfinder who now won't give my game a go because it isn't Pathfinder? Maybe not, but I have that worry.

Even in my home group one GM has chosen to go Pathfinder and we are using the Beta rules. I however will run 3.5. Our players will have to get used to the subtle differences and I expect to run into a fair bit of confusion, e.g. "Improved Trip only adds +2 to the roll, I though it was +4?", "Why are my HP so high? I added my racial HP bonus, what do you mean that doesn't exist in 3.5?"

Again, I may be worrying over nothing, but it does give me concern that subtle differences could trip people up or cause issues that we don't immediately notice (like the time I played in a Star Wars d20 Living Force game and a D&D only player doubled his damage on a critical, the GM didn't notice and applied it to the BBEG's Wounds and the climactic battle was over in 1 round).

Also, for things like the living campaigns where GMs & players have to run by the RAW and cannot just plug and play, then people will really have to learn the differences. I for example plan to GM Pathfinder Society Season Zero scenarios as they are D&D 3.5, but come season 1 and the move to Pathfinder I will stop GMing as I don't plan to get that familiar with the Pathfinder rules (I will only play, if that).

I guess that other publishers will not make that many 3.5 books any more, since they face the same problem as Paizo would face if they didn't make their own book: It's not easy to sell supplements for a game...

If 3pp do start making supplements specifically for Pathfinder I really hope they will label them as such - so those of us who don't want to handle any conversion issues can choose appropriately.

What I would really live is to have Pathfinder lead to someone publishing a book of Feats that are 100% compatible with both 3.5 and PF - unfortunately due to the change in most skill names I doubt that will be easy and will put me off buying it, if it is not 100% compatible with 3.5

I think Pathfinder may be the next step for those who played enough 3.5 to notice the issues that Pathfinder is meant to fix.

However for those people like me who have not played enough 3.5 to notice those issues, then moving to Pathfinder is more effort than it is worth - and I will stick to running 3.5 and if any player wants to buy the core rulebook I will direct them to eBay to get a copy of the D&D3.5 players handbook.

When I heard about Pathfinder I had hoped that at least all stats etc would be exactly the same with only slight changes on how those stats are used in play.

My mate seems to like Pathfinder and we are playing Beta at the moment, he seems to think it is extremely backward compatible.

However the other week we spent a lot of time looking up how to do a grapple in Pathfinder (we only had one hardcopy of the rules). If this had been 3.5 I already know the rules and it could have played faster.

Also, my recent purchase of SORD means my 3.5 games will go a lot quicker, but SORD is not compatible with Pathfinder so I have not been able to use it in the Pathfinder game :(

I have bought a hardcopy of PF Beta now, just so I can reference it during play to see how feats have changed etc.

So, in summary I think PF can stand alone, but that it has actually fractured the market further with some people like me staying 3.5, some going to Pathfinder, some going to 4e and some doing a combination.

One of the other players objected to us having to roleplay a scene which involved the female character being romantically linked to a male NPC. While most of the interaction was discussed one on one with the player a bit of it was done in general session as well. Two players grumbled about it but one was particularly objectionable. He e-mailed me with the next day and said it was not what he wanted from the game, that the session made him feel uncomfortable and he wanted it to stop.

If this is the case, then would these other players feel the same if they witnessed a male player, with a male character roleplaying out a romantic scene with you as GM playing a female NPC? It sounds as if they would.

So whilst the other players' attitude may still stem from some level of homophobia, the answer is not to have the male player change the sex of his female character, but instead to avoid all such romantic roleplaying, no matter who is involved.

Of course, if some of you want such romantic sub plots, then you want different things to the other players and you may either need to compromise play styles or split the group.

What was the creature's DEX? A PRPG version of that creature might have 'agile maneuvers' so that his CMB is calculated with DEX not STR.

No idea about the DEX but I would imagine fairly high, but even at +4 Dex modifier, the -2 for size would have meant a CMB of +5, so DC 20, more difficult yes, but still doable.

I believe the foe also has Shield of Faith cast on him, providing a Deflection bonus. That bonus would have made the touch attack harder in 3.5, but as it is not stated that it adds to CMB it meant it didn't affect the grapple.

I just ran into a potential problem with Grapples under Pathfinder rules (well it went in my favour as a player, but in general could be a problem).

Our party was up against a tiny character who was very quick and with plenty of magic to make his AC even higher. We were all struggling to hit it.

And then I tried to grapple it. As far as I am aware, the Pathfinder RPG removes the need to make a touch attack first, you just go straight to a CMB test. Well although the creature was very quick, he wasn't that strong (Str Mod of +0 I guess), therefore his CMB score worked out to be only +1 (BAB of +3, Strength +0 and Size mod of -2).

Meanwhile I had a CMB of +6 (normally +4 but I has Enlarge Person cast on me to make me Large and give me extra Str).

It was a simple matter to grapple the foe even though I shoudl have been struggling to hit it.

It would seem that Grapple could turn out to be the default method to attack a small sized creature as it side steps their Touch AC. I can see Improved Grapple becoming a very much desired feat.

Oh and the reason I got slightly frustrated playing a cleric in the last FR campaign? First of all the band aid problem as everyone else has mentioned - I burned all my spells to heal. The GM wasn't really at fault here as he was running a published campaign so the threat level was pre-determined.

The other problem I had was having too many spells to choose from! If I could cast all the spells spontaneously, fine, but having to choose all my spells at the start of the day from a huge list was cumbersome. In the end I just came up with a default list that I always used. Personally I woudl prefer to play a sorcerer!

Teh constant need for a cleric to heal to me seems like a flaw in the design of the opposition, rather than the cleric class.

To me, initial skirmishes in a scenario should never be life threatening unless you get some weird dice rolls (multiple crits inflicted on the party for example), instead they should simply result in a few spell slots having to be used, and a few HP lost - but nothing that would prevent the party carrying on without having any magical healing.

Maybe its just me but I like a grittier feel, where PCs don't magically recover from near death to full health after every fight. This is the main thing that turned me off 4e - the high number of healing surges and that a nights rest heals you completely.

When I run D&D I never require the party to contain a cleric - I always tailor the opposition and challenges to the characters.

I will soon be running a Pathfinder Organised Play scenario and I really hope it isn't written so that every combat is life threatening - meaning a cleric is required.

For example, the company I'm with offers $5 per month, you can access 20Meg, $8 per month for 100Meg, or $12 per month for 200Meg.

I usedto have Web n Walk from T-mobile for £7.50 a month, but I cancelled it as I wasn't using it enough.

When I wnet to Continuum recently they had free Wifi though, so that would have been no problem (I actually used the wifi to download some of my rules and a PDF to create an ad hoc scenario :))

If you want Digitalmage I can ask for them sooner so I have them with me for the con you are talking about (Assuming its Oddcon as we'll both be there).

I fyou could get some that would be great! And yes it is OddCon I am referring to :)

This is just a suggestion, and certainly may not work for everyone, but if you or one of the players at your table have a 3G web-enabled mobile phone, you can access the Paizo website and sign up using your mobile phone.

Whilst I have such a phone, unless the site has free wi-fi I am not prepared to pay for the data downloads.

Surely there must be another way, or should I consider dropping running PFS until Paizo have got the process a bit more robust?

I am planning to run a Pathfinder scenario at a local convention and I imagine that I may get at least one person who hasn't yet registered and / or got a character.

Whilst I can create and provide pre-generated characters for a player to use, how can they get a Pathfinder Society ID so that I can record that they played?

DigitalMage wrote:

Why wouldn't pre-gens be allowed? In effect all that is changing is who creates the character.

I imagine they don't want a hundred people all playing Valeros, for one.

That is easily fixed by just removing the name and specific background from the stats.

Additionally, having people invest the time and energy into making a character also makes them want to play them again, and that means they need to register for an account. I can see Paizo's marketing take on Org play, and I think that pregens, while convenient at the table, take away that important step of establishing one-on-one contact between the company and the customer.

Creating an account etc can come later - but if I have a player wanting to play a game and I turn him away because we don't have pre-gens then that could potentially sour the relationship with Paizo and that customer - it could also make some people feel excluded from the campaign.

I already made the Pre-Gens to Society rules.. But I am not sure if Pre Gens are allowed to for the Society game

Why wouldn't pre-gens be allowed? In effect all that is changing is who creates the character.

BTW please could I get a copy grant_erswell at yahoo dot com thanks!

I too would liek to see pre gen characters. I don't own any Pathfinder APs (I am playing in my first now) but am thinking of running a PFS scenario at my next con at the end of October. Having some pre gens I can print out will be very useful!