Are 3.5 FAqs valid (if not overriden by Paizo FAQ or Developer post)


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Long Ago, DnD emerged from second edition. 3.0 it was called, and it evolved into 3.5. WotC offered this new edition under the OGL, and it was good.

When they tired of their creation, they abandoned their spawn and created 4th edition.

3.5 had many issues that remained unresolved; many more were resolved by the creators, their wisdom passed along in revered (and maligned) documents we recognize as "FAQ."

Then along came Paizo. These restless developers saw the abandoned 3.5, saw that it was good despite the inherent flaws, and made it better. They expanded on it to create that which we call "Pathfinder."

Yet, as disciples of Pathfinder, we also have many questions. Many of these questions were previously resolved by the 3.5 FAQs. Yet in the years that Paizo has been nurturing Pathfinder, many questions addressed in 3.5 FAQs have not been clarified in Pathfinder FAQs.

Is this to test our faith? Or is it that these "3.5 FAQs" remain valid, unless they declare otherwise in their "Pathfinder FAQs," or even in their direct communications with the faithful via these message boards?

Ok, a bit silly, but I just watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and couldn't resist.

Simply put, as the title says it all, Much of the OGL content was brought directly into Pathfinder in the Core book and some supplements afterwards (I haven't read them all, 3.5 or Pathfinder), often unchanged from the original wording. Much of this was clarified in 3.5 FAQs, however, many of the same questions re-emerged, and in 4+ years (according to my Core book, anyway), Paizo has not addressed some of them. Are the old 3.5 FAQs valid unless Paizo FAQ (including PFS FAQ) or Developer post says otherwise?


Pathfinder and 3.5 have a lot of difference in how they view even the exact same text, much less ones that have been changed (off the top of my head, in 3.5 you could put boots on a snake for example)

I think they make a good guideline but i wouldn't expect it to be binding to a dm.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

No.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

If a GM wants to use them as a way to inform calls they make where there aren't rulings in PFRPG, they can, but you can't expect them to be anything more than a place to get a viewpoint.

Silver Crusade

The 3.5 FAQ's were not in the OGL, and are/were intellectual property of WotC and successors, so they could not be used by Paizo. Pathfinder has taken different direction than 3.5 did, and they aren't the same game anymore. BNW explains it well. The FAQ's from 3.5 are not part of Pathfinder at all.


reyyvin wrote:

Long Ago, DnD emerged from second edition. 3.0 it was called, and it evolved into 3.5. WotC offered this new edition under the OGL, and it was good.

When they tired of their creation, they abandoned their spawn and created 4th edition.

3.5 had many issues that remained unresolved; many more were resolved by the creators, their wisdom passed along in revered (and maligned) documents we recognize as "FAQ."

Then along came Paizo. These restless developers saw the abandoned 3.5, saw that it was good despite the inherent flaws, and made it better. They expanded on it to create that which we call "Pathfinder."

Yet, as disciples of Pathfinder, we also have many questions. Many of these questions were previously resolved by the 3.5 FAQs. Yet in the years that Paizo has been nurturing Pathfinder, many questions addressed in 3.5 FAQs have not been clarified in Pathfinder FAQs.

Is this to test our faith? Or is it that these "3.5 FAQs" remain valid, unless they declare otherwise in their "Pathfinder FAQs," or even in their direct communications with the faithful via these message boards?

Ok, a bit silly, but I just watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail and couldn't resist.

Simply put, as the title says it all, Much of the OGL content was brought directly into Pathfinder in the Core book and some supplements afterwards (I haven't read them all, 3.5 or Pathfinder), often unchanged from the original wording. Much of this was clarified in 3.5 FAQs, however, many of the same questions re-emerged, and in 4+ years (according to my Core book, anyway), Paizo has not addressed some of them. Are the old 3.5 FAQs valid unless Paizo FAQ (including PFS FAQ) or Developer post says otherwise?

3.5 FAQ's have NO official bearing on Pathfinder rules, but unless the words have changed they are often accurate as to the intent so for home games, and for support in debates they can be useful.

PS: I did not intend to hit the FAQ at the top of this post. I meant to press reply, but I can't remove it.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

The other posters here are correct—they have no official weight in the Pathfinder rules set. Also note that you are posting in a PFS specific forum, and 3.5 rulings definitely hold no water at a PFS table.

A player or GM might reference one as food for thought on a topic of table variation, but it should be considered as nothing more than another opinion.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Basically, 3.5 FAQs hold about as much weight as the opinions of the forumites who might post responses to a thread over in the Rules forum. They're ideas to consider, and might be good ones, but you can't assume they're right by default.

As Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn has had to point out more than once, this is Pathfinder, not 3.5.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Basically, 3.5 FAQs hold about as much weight as the opinions of the forumites who might post responses to a thread over in the Rules forum. They're ideas to consider, and might be good ones, but you can't assume they're right by default.

As Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn has had to point out more than once, this is Pathfinder, not 3.5.

At the same time, it does get a little silly sometimes to say "the rules don't say that" when the people who wrote them said "... we said that".

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

Basically, 3.5 FAQs hold about as much weight as the opinions of the forumites who might post responses to a thread over in the Rules forum. They're ideas to consider, and might be good ones, but you can't assume they're right by default.

As Lead Designer Jason Bulmahn has had to point out more than once, this is Pathfinder, not 3.5.

At the same time, it does get a little silly sometimes to say "the rules don't say that" when the people who wrote them said "... we said that".

I actually have not encountered this yet; at least, not in a case where the rule in question—in its current form—was actually written by anybody at WotC.

Even then, we already have at least one case of WotC writing rules and meaning one thing, and Paizo copy-pasting the exact same text but deciding they'll have it mean something different.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Jiggy wrote:
Even then, we already have at least one case of WotC writing rules and meaning one thing, and Paizo copy-pasting the exact same text but deciding they'll have it mean something different.

What case? I'm curious.

As to the OP question, there are very few things that are relevant. Things like "SLA counting for casting" was forbidden in 3.5 but allowed in PF. Then there are things that were removed but assumed to be still present (like the definition of "Known spell" for Wizards was removed in PF but we all assume it still means the same thing.)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

@James

The "Native Outsiders are proficient in Martial Weapons" comes to mind.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Relying on the 3.5 FAQ to handle or settle Pathfinder rules issues is like dancing in a minefield. Sometimes they perform well, and other times it's just a comic blowup.

Despite Pathfinder's ancestry, the two games were never the same, and have diverged with each new book that's come out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:


Despite Pathfinder's ancestry, the two games were never the same, and have diverged with each new book that's come out.

The games themselves are new editions of each other. (3.0 and 3.5 weren't even far enough apart to be different editions)

What the failure of 3.5 faq's indicate is that RAW is kind of a myth. If RAW works the FAQs for both should be the same.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

James Risner wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Even then, we already have at least one case of WotC writing rules and meaning one thing, and Paizo copy-pasting the exact same text but deciding they'll have it mean something different.
What case? I'm curious.

The one I had in mind was SLAs counting as spellcasting for prereqs. As far as I know, all the actual rules language on SLAs is unchanged between 3.5 and Pathfinder. But as I understand it (based on commentary from SKR), they wanted to make SLAs and spells more similar without rewriting the rules, discovered that the existing rule allowing SLAs to work for item crafting prereqs could serve as a precedent, confirmed that no rules language actually contradicted the notion of SLAs fulfilling spellcasting prereqs, and so they posted the now-legendary FAQ(s) that basically declared "the intent has changed".

Point being, you can no longer assume Pathfinder and 3.5 work the same even when the text is identical, let alone when it's been altered.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Despite Pathfinder's ancestry, the two games were never the same, and have diverged with each new book that's come out.

The games themselves are new editions of each other. (3.0 and 3.5 weren't even far enough apart to be different editions)

What the failure of 3.5 faq's indicate is that RAW is kind of a myth. If RAW works the FAQs for both should be the same.

3.5 had major changes in the base classes, among other things. Buff spells were also given a big swing with the nerf bat in 3.5.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are 3.5 FAqs valid (if not overriden by Paizo FAQ or Developer post) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion