Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Launch Poster Rolled

I must admit more HP at starting level is a good idea. I played Star Wars RCR before I got into D&D3.5 and so I was used to a 1st level character having Wounds = Con Score + Vitality = Max Hit Die. When I read D&D3.5 I was amazed that PCs get just the equivalent of Vitality.

This has meant I prefer to start characters at 2nd or 3rd level.

I couldn't disagree more! It is completely a different game. I tried it! i did! but then I had to make a search check, but my character sheed HAD NO SEARCH! i had to use PERZUEPTION! what is this? total ripoff! and there is no use rope. NO! USE! ROPE!

Okay, sarcasm aside, I don't doubt that people can convert on the fly - my current GM is doing it. But that doesn't negate the fact that there are differences!

Look at it this way, using your examples above. Say I decided to run my new campaign using Pathfinder and I have some players who are brand new to D&D and Pathfinder.

I keep asking for Search checks (because I am used to 3.5) and the players get confused because it isn't on their character sheet. Ditto for Concentration checks etc. Yes, that confusion can probably be cleared up but it is still there and wouldn't help new players learn the rules.

But my biggest worry with branding PF as being the same as 3.5 is me running a 3.5 game and someone turning up with a Pathfinder RPG rulebook (or worse, buying it specifically for my game) becuase they have learnt PF = 3.5, and me saying sorry, you need a D&D3.5 PHB.

I am not disputing that Pathfinder and 3.5 material can be used together without too much conversion, and that conversion can be done on the fly (just like I have been using Shadowrun 1st ed material with 4th ed rules). What I don't like is the perception being promoted that PF = 3.5.

Put it this way, would you be happy if makers of 3.5 compatible products started slapping Pathfinder Compatible logos on their products? I guess not as one of the clauses is "You agree to use your best efforts to ensure that the licensed products are fully compatible with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game as published in August, 2009."

So if their products used Search, Spot, Listen, Move Silently, Hide, Use Rope and reference to 3.5 skill ranks as pre-requisites for feats & prestige classes, they would not be allowed to use the Pathfinder Compatible Logo?

Why then should Paizo feel it alright to sell books with a 3.5 Compatible logo when the content may include feats and prestige classes etc that have pre-requisites like "Diplomcy 4 ranks" (implying only 4th level PF characters should be allowed it, but in 3.5 allowing 1st level characters have it), or "Percepion 5 ranks, Stealth 5 ranks" (which aren't skills in 3.5 and would require a judgement call as to whether a 3.5 character would need Spot, Listen, Hide & Move Silently at appropriate ranks to qualify, or just Spot and Hide?

I applaud Paizo for creating the Pathfinder RPG and I will likely buy it, read it and play it. I may even GM it if I like it that much. But please see it as the next evolution of 3.5, not 3.5 itself.

If you ask me, real, full, 100%, total compatibility cannot be achieved without leaving the game completely unchanged.

I have the search/spot/listen -> perception thing, too. I say "make a spot check" instead of "make a perception check". It might create some small confusion, but even the slow guys get it after I told them what I mean after the third explanation (each taking 20 seconds or so).

I do think that the game is more than similar enough to let you use rules and supplements interchangeably with but a minimum of fuss, and think that it more than qualifies for a "3.5 compatible" logo.

In the end, it's all about personal opinions, I think, which go from back to whight through endless shades of grey. Where do you draw the line? You cannot satisfy everyone.

I think it's compatible enough to justify the claim of compatibility.

I've run first two modules of Curse of the Crimson Throne with PFRPG Beta. I've run maybe two or three of the encounters with converted npc's and everything else how it's written. It means no extra hitpoints for npcs, or new spiffy abilities (when CMB comes up I'll calculate it on the fly). Some fights are easy, some are really hard, just like in 3.5. I'm convinced that I can run the whole campaign with Beta rules without touching any monsters or npcs, without any extra prep work. That's compatible enough for me =).

If you ask me, real, full, 100%, total compatibility cannot be achieved without leaving the game completely unchanged.

I agree in terms of the core book, but supplements could be 100% compatible with both 3.5 and PF if dealt with well. For example if the only crunch in a book was a new feat that said "This feat provides a +4 bonus on attacks rolls against Goblins" then that is 100% compatible with both.

Similarly new weapons, feats, and possibly even prestige classes as long as none of those referenced skills that have been dropped or renamed, and don't have pre-requisites of skill ranks.

A lot of people focus on using 3.5 adventures and NPC stat blocks with PF RPG rules, I am more concerned Player Character resources such as Feats, Prestige Classes, Weapons, Spells etc. These sorts of things shouldn't require any conversion that requires a judgement call - as this can lead to GM and Player conflict if they interpret things differently.

I am also thinking in terms of how Pathfinder supplement will be in a game run under the D&D3.5 rules - basically will I be able to buy PF stuff for use in my 3.5 game?

What I don't want to see are scenes like this in a D&D3.5 game...
GM: "Hold on, can I have a look at that feat, it seems awfully overpowered for a level 1 character"
<Player1 hands GM a Pathfinder supplement>
GM: "Ah yes, this requires 4 ranks in Intimidate"
Player1 "Yeah, and my Fighter character has Intimidate at 4 ranks"
GM: "But in Pathfinder Skill ranks work differently, in 3.5 you would need 7 ranks in Intimidate to be the equivalent"
Player1: "But that means I can't take that feat until 4th level"
GM: "Sorry! Choose another feat"
<Player1 then starts scouring sourcebooks looking for another feat>

Later in the same game...
Player2: "Okay I'm now level 3 and I know how skill ranks work in Pathfinder so can I have this Feat "Invisible Scribings" from Pathfinder Supplement X?"
GM: "Lets take a look..Hmmm... Linguisitics 3 ranks"
Player2: "Yeah, so in 3.5 that means I need 6 ranks right? Well Decipher Script would be the 3.5 skill equivalent and my Wizard has Decipher Script at 6 ranks"
GM: "Well, the feat is about reading invisible runes, but technically Linguistics comprises both Decipher Script and Forgery, so you would also need 6 ranks in Forgery"
Player2 "But Forgery isn't a class skill for Wizards, that means I would need to be 9th level to have 6 ranks in a cross class skill in order to get this feat - that is another 6 levels!"
GM: "Well you could cross class to Rogue for a level so Forgery becomes a class skill, of course that may mean you suffer an XP penalty"
Player2: "Forget it, I'll choose another feat"

Now I would hope you wouldn't get such a strict GM as above when negotiating conversions, but the point is, where conversions may require a judgement call there can be the possibility for conflict.

I'm convinced that I can run the whole campaign with Beta rules without touching any monsters or npcs, without any extra prep work. That's compatible enough for me =).

I'm fully confident of that as well.

But to be fair, DigitalMage's point isn't that PF isn't compatible, but that it isn't actually 3.5. Which despite all compatibility, it is obviously not.

However, I think DigitalMage is extending the reach of the advertising slogan beyond its real impact. In stores, this will draw people to it who know 3.5, who find the poster looks cool, or whatever. If someone is running an actual game and says "Dungeons & Dragons 3.5", I feel most people will hesitate (or ask for help in the store) before buying something that says "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game" instead of "Dungeons and Dragons", even if it says 3.5 on it.

Edit: Heh, ninja'd by DigitalMage... Ah, some decent points, though I don't think they quite apply to the original topic.

I agree, having a 3.5 campaign use Pathfinder will be the ultimate test (such as running Council of Thieves under 3.5 - how easily will that conversion be?). Most think it will be relatively simple, but it's true that we don't really know.

Skill rank prerequisites (being so ubiquitous) will be one of the largest points of contention, no doubt... though I'm more worried about people *ignoring* options because they think they have to be 3 levels *higher* than the ones trying to get it too soon.

Similarly new weapons, feats, and possibly even prestige classes as long as none of those referenced skills that have been dropped or renamed, and don't have pre-requisites of skill ranks.

That is awfully limiting to the design process, though, and I woudn't want that.

A lot of people focus on using 3.5 adventures and NPC stat blocks with PF RPG rules, I am more concerned Player Character resources such as Feats, Prestige Classes, Weapons, Spells etc. These sorts of things shouldn't require any conversion that requires a judgement call - as this can lead to GM and Player conflict if they interpret things differently.

Weapons shouldn't be a problem, since I doubt that they'll change the way weapons work - nothing needs to be fixed there, really. Maybe the weapon size versus category thing, according to some people (I'm not among them), and the way differently-sized weapons work for you, but that wouldn't change the weapon's stats to be changed.

Wait: There is one thing: Manoeuvres. If you have a weapon that is good for tripping, then there will be "imcompatibility" as CMB and CMD don't exist in 3e.

Feats and PrCs might rely on skills to some extent, so that means you'll have to do adjustments. Also, they might refer to parts of the game that are changed - say, a feat that improves a bard's bardic knowledge ability.

Spells could fall under one of the categories of spells that have been changed (a polymorph spell, a death spell...) or affect some of those changed areas in play (a spell that makes you really good at disarming people, for example)

You can expect some "conversion work" needed there, unless you limit yourself rather strictly by avoiding anything that has changed. I'd rather take a second or ten to convert.

What I don't want to see are scenes like this in a D&D3.5 game...
GM: "Hold on, can I have a look at that feat, it seems awfully overpowered for a level 1 character"
<Player1 hands GM a Pathfinder supplement>
GM: "Ah yes, this requires 4 ranks in Intimidate"
Player1 "Yeah, and my Fighter character has Intimidate at 4 ranks"
GM: "But in Pathfinder Skill ranks work differently, in 3.5 you would need 7 ranks in Intimidate to be the equivalent"
Player1: "But that means I can't take that feat until 4th level"
GM: "Sorry! Choose another feat"
<Player1 then starts scouring sourcebooks looking for another feat>

Then you better make it clear how these things work in a 3.5 game as opposed to a PF game. No, wait: The PFRPG core book, or maybe a free conversion guide better makes it clear how these things work.

In the example above, I guess we talk about a feat that was meant for 4th-level characters. Players and GMs (with help from the litarature) should make sure they're in synch about this stuff.

Later in the same game...
Player2: "Okay I'm now level 3 and I know how skill ranks work in Pathfinder so can I have this Feat "Invisible Scribings" from Pathfinder Supplement X?"
GM: "Lets take a look..Hmmm... Linguisitics 3 ranks"
Player2: "Yeah, so in 3.5 that means I need 6 ranks right? Well Decipher Script would be the 3.5 skill equivalent and my Wizard has Decipher Script at 6 ranks"
GM: "Well, the feat is about reading invisible runes, but technically Linguistics comprises both Decipher Script and Forgery, so you would also need 6 ranks in Forgery"
Player2 "But Forgery isn't a class skill for Wizards, that means I would need to be 9th level to have 6 ranks in a cross class skill in order to get this feat - that is another 6 levels!"
GM: "Well you could cross class to Rogue for a level so Forgery becomes a class skill, of course that may mean you suffer an XP penalty"
Player2: "Forget it, I'll choose another feat"

Bad example. In that case, Decipher Script clearly is the more logical choice.

But in general, it is, once more, something that is not really avoidable without limiting the possibilities for feats severely. And, again, the literature should have guidelines about this sort of thing - say a "master stalker" PrC that requires 10 ranks in stealth. In this case it's probable that you need to be good in both hiding and moving silently, so a dual requirement does make sense. But maybe there will be a discount so you don't need 13 ranks in both.

Now I would hope you wouldn't get such a strict GM as above when negotiating conversions, but the point is, where conversions may require a judgement call there can be the possibility for conflict.

Well, since I play only with reasonable people who are able to make good judgement calls (i.e. defer to my vastly superiour judgement ;-)), I don't see a problem in that.

If you get a guy who screws you by requiring forgery in a decipher script situation, you're in trouble, anyway, because he's probably the kind of GM who confronts paladins with Holy Undead...

But to be fair, DigitalMage's point isn't that PF isn't compatible, but that it isn't actually 3.5. Which despite all compatibility, it is obviously not.

Actually I think that the two groups are looking at two different compatibilities here. the majority is looking at Pathfinder being backwards compatible with 3.5 (which it is as proven above). DigitalMage is looking at 3.5 being forward compatible. While I believe that they are (with a minimal amount of conversion such as splitting perception into listen, search and spot and calculating grapple mods)

Those international shipping costs are insane. Is there any way we can get to order a poster that's folded instead of rolled up? That should be cheaper.

I think you must have had Priority Mail selected at the time. This should ship to most countries outside of North America for $5.53.

(I feel as though I've said that before...)

So how much to ship to... ummm... Cuba?

Yah. Cuba!

I am also thinking in terms of how Pathfinder supplement will be in a game run under the D&D3.5 rules - basically will I be able to buy PF stuff for use in my 3.5 game?

What I don't want to see are scenes like this in a D&D3.5 game...
GM: "Hold on, can I have a look at that feat, it seems awfully overpowered for a level 1 character"
<Player1 hands GM a Pathfinder supplement>
GM: "Ah yes, this requires 4 ranks in Intimidate"
Player1 "Yeah, and my Fighter character has Intimidate at 4 ranks"
GM: "But in Pathfinder Skill ranks work differently, in 3.5 you would need 7 ranks in Intimidate to be the equivalent"
Player1: "But that means I can't take that feat until 4th level"
GM: "Sorry! Choose another feat"
<Player1 then starts scouring sourcebooks looking for another feat>

Quote:

4 ranks in 3.5= 1 rank in PF. rule is rank-3. As you could have 4 ranks at level 1 and 1 rank in PF(+3CS) it's the same.

Remember rank-3

DigitalMage wrote:

Later in the same game...
Player2: "Okay I'm now level 3 and I know how skill ranks work in Pathfinder so can I have this Feat "Invisible Scribings" from Pathfinder Supplement X?"
GM: "Lets take a look..Hmmm... Linguisitics 3 ranks"
Player2: "Yeah, so in 3.5 that means I need 6 ranks right? Well Decipher Script would be the 3.5 skill equivalent and my Wizard has Decipher Script at 6 ranks"
GM: "Well, the feat is about reading invisible runes, but technically Linguistics comprises both Decipher Script and Forgery, so you would also need 6 ranks in Forgery"
Player2 "But Forgery isn't a class skill for Wizards, that means I would need to be 9th level to have 6 ranks in a cross class skill in order to get this feat - that is another 6 levels!"
GM: "Well you could cross class to Rogue for a level so Forgery becomes a class skill, of course that may mean you suffer an XP penalty"
Player2: "Forget it, I'll choose another feat"

Incorrect. The feat call for Decipher Script. The pc meets that need with Linguisitics.

Also even if you needed forgery which you do not you would need 3 ranks. Class dipping will not help with the 3 ranks as the +3 class bones DOES NOT count toward requirements.

Many bad calls on the GM part there

Can I buy a copy of the poster without the edition snarking?

... without the edition snarking?

Huh? This is about continuity, community, development and growth.

In a way, its too bad that perhaps you've misunderstood the poster. Among its messages is the bold statement that if anyone questioned whether 3.5 would survive... it not only will, but continues to thrive by its strong community of supporters.

Our community and the game thrives - something we should all be proud of, a victory for gamers everywhere. And a shining moment for the open game movement as well.

What we celebrate is support for Pathfinder, an unlikely game that was in-part built by holding the worlds biggest playtest ever. This poster announces we have shifted from survival (an act of fear) to thriving (made possible through community nourishment and growth), and heralds in the next decade through the reminder that our v.3.5 collection will still be backward-compatible with a new supported game, the OGL still produces great works such as Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, and the open game community thrives.

If posters are your thing, this is one to be proud of.

DM Jeff wrote:

Different strokes. This is the reason I just ordered the thing for my game room.

And I think that's totally cool. Just ruffles me when someone gets lumps cuz they don't think something is the cat's meow or they think it misrepresents the game in some way. Key point: What good does it do to be dismissive when someone voices an opinion?

Wow, hadn't checked in a while. I see how that came off, sorry man. Wasn't trying to be dismissive, I just thought it ironic the part you didn't care for was my selling point! Opinions can be very valuable, again sorry if I came off crude.

-DM Jeff

No worries Jeff, it actually wasn't you that got me going. Someone else getting dismissed actually. I have an overblown sense of self and don't generally feel dismissed, now matter how hard people try. Instead, I just think I must be even more important to have attracted the attention.

Pres Man, on the whole, you are a gadfly.

Much like the Gadfly of Athens, Socrates.

Huh? This is about continuity, community, development and growth.

Indeed, departure from the 3.5ed. Why bother saying 3.5 thrives, when obviously it is not when people are moving away from it. A better description might be that 3.5 evolves.

In a way, its too bad that perhaps you've misunderstood the poster. Among its messages is the bold statement that if anyone questioned whether 3.5 would survive... it not only will, but continues to thrive by its strong community of supporters.

Except it will not, at least not through PFRPG. Paizo has decided, for very legitimate reasons, to move away from 3.5. Does anyone think that there will not be a PFRPG 2 down the road at some point, and that this will be an even further departure from 3.5. How then is this a sign of 3.5 thriving? It is a sign of 3.5 having a lingering death.

Our community and the game thrives - something we should all be proud of, a victory for gamers everywhere. And a shining moment for the open game movement as well.

Yup, but what does that have to do with 3.5 version of the game?

What we celebrate is support for Pathfinder, an unlikely game that was in-part built by holding the worlds biggest playtest ever. This poster announces we have shifted from survival (an act of fear) to thriving (made possible through community nourishment and growth), and heralds in the next decade through the reminder that our v.3.5 collection will still be backward-compatible with a new supported game, the OGL still produces great works such as Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, and the open game community thrives.

The OGL was a wonderful thing, truly. But PFRPG is just another derivative, just like True20, Conan, etc. It is no more helping 3.5 thrive, then any of those are. Is PFRPG in compatible with 3.5? Probably not, since that was a goal, but 3.5 was also compatible with 3rd edition, that doesn't mean they are the same thing or that 3.5 made sure that 3rd edition "thrived". 3.5 consumed 3rd edition, just as I am sure Paizo hopes PFRPG will consume 3.5.

Wohoo! Ordered!

...Wait, strike that, no way I'm paying $26.70 to ship a $6.99 poster.
Sigh, damn international shipping.

Same problem here in Finland :( Woulda loved to have one framed on our gaming rooms wall

Just got home to see a wonderful Paizo poster tube on my doorstep.
:-D
This (beautiful) baby is flattening on my game table as I write this. Guess I better buy a frame. 10 bucks well spent IMO.

Edit: Oh, first to post on receipt. *Do a happy dance.

GentleGiant wrote:

Wohoo! Ordered!

...Wait, strike that, no way I'm paying $26.70 to ship a $6.99 poster.
Sigh, damn international shipping.

Same problem here in Finland :( Woulda loved to have one framed on our gaming rooms wall

Give the order another try, it seems like the postage defaults to the expensive rate if you've had something in your shopping chart which required the more expensive rate. I ordered it again and was able to select another shipping rate of $5.53.

Pres Man you summed up my feelings, and the point very clearly.

It is a great poster, and a great RPG, but 3.5 is dead, long live is true successor, but posters like this just aggravate those of us who have room on our gaming shelf for more then one game.

I'd like a poster that says PFRPG across the top, a picture of Iomedae kicking demon ass, and across the bottom "The Inheritor"...

Not for shop windows, for the players, for the "inside joke".

That's about as much reference to edition that I'm happy with. I like subtlety.

Can I buy a copy of the poster without the edition snarking?

Isn't snarky something like "rude, condesencing, snappish"?

I don't think it applies at all. It doesn't say "4e sucks, and so does your mom" or anything like that.

It says that 3.5e survives - no, not survives, but thrives. A positive statement for those who love 3.5e, something, which doesn't preclude also liking other editions - or so I've been told.

Pax Veritas wrote:

Pres Man, on the whole, you are a gadfly.

Much like the Gadfly of Athens, Socrates.

May I prepair a drink for you sir? :P

pres man wrote:

Pax Veritas wrote:

Pres Man, on the whole, you are a gadfly.

Much like the Gadfly of Athens, Socrates.

May I prepair a drink for you sir? :P

Are you suggesting I am corrupting the youth? ;)

Lord Fyre wrote:

pres man wrote:

Pax Veritas wrote:

Pres Man, on the whole, you are a gadfly.

Much like the Gadfly of Athens, Socrates.

May I prepair a drink for you sir? :P

Are you suggesting I am corrupting the youth? ;)

Would I suggest a thing like that? :(

pres man wrote:

Lord Fyre wrote:

pres man wrote:

Pax Veritas wrote:

Pres Man, on the whole, you are a gadfly.

Much like the Gadfly of Athens, Socrates.

May I prepair a drink for you sir? :P

Are you suggesting I am corrupting the youth? ;)

Would I suggest a thing like that? :(

Only if he corrupted them before you got a chance to.

I just a bit disappointed no one is signing these babies like the Rifts posters are signed.

I just a bit disappointed no one is signing these babies like the Rifts posters are signed.

I am sure that if you went to GenCon you might, with some arm twisting, get yours signed.

Aristodeimos wrote:

I just a bit disappointed no one is signing these babies like the Rifts posters are signed.

I am sure that if you went to GenCon you might, with some arm twisting, get yours signed.

Now that is a good idea! I'll put my poster in with my battlemat when I got to PaizoCon. If the USPS can get it to me in time...

Aristodeimos wrote:

I just a bit disappointed no one is signing these babies like the Rifts posters are signed.

I am sure that if you went to GenCon you might, with some arm twisting, get yours signed.

if there is any left, will these be brought to GenCon?

DigitalMage wrote:

Similarly new weapons, feats, and possibly even prestige classes as long as none of those referenced skills that have been dropped or renamed, and don't have pre-requisites of skill ranks.

That is awfully limiting to the design process, though, and I woudn't want that.

And neither would I. I am not saying Pathfinder should be 100% 3.5 compatible (I gave up that hope ages ago), but that if it isn't going to be 100% compatible it shouldn't be labelled as "3.5 Compatible". There might be the odd case where in a mostly fluff book, any crunch may actually be 100% 3.5 and PF compatible - in which case use the logo!

Then you better make it clear how these things work in a 3.5 game as opposed to a PF game. No, wait: The PFRPG core book, or maybe a free conversion guide better makes it clear how these things work.

But what if neither the GM or the player actually know Pathfinder RPG well enough - maybe the player just bought a Pathfinder sourcebook labelled "3.5 Compatible" - I haven't read the Beta cover to cover, and it might be a while before I read the final PF RPG - it is conceivable that even I could get caught out if a player brought a PF RPG sourcebook to my D&D3.5 game because it was labelled '3.5 compatible'.

Bad example. In that case, Decipher Script clearly is the more logical choice.

Not necessarily, maybe the fluff background of the feat talks about how an organisation of forgers created the Invisible Runes to secretly "sign" their work. Maybe then Forgery might be considered appropriate as well. The point is - it would be open to interpretation.

DigitalMage wrote:

I am also thinking in terms of how Pathfinder supplement will be in a game run under the D&D3.5 rules - basically will I be able to buy PF stuff for use in my 3.5 game?

4 ranks in 3.5= 1 rank in PF. rule is rank-3. As you could have 4 ranks at level 1 and 1 rank in PF(+3CS) it's the same.

Remember rank-3

Please review my example again - the scenario is a Pathfinder RPG sourcebook being used in a D&D3.5 campaign. The requirement in Pathfinder RPG is 4 ranks, implying a character must be at least level 4 to take the feat. So converting it backwards a D&D3.5 character should have at least 7 ranks (you have to be at least level 4 to have 7 ranks in a skill - and it has to be a class skill).

Incorrect. The feat call for Decipher Script. The pc meets that need with Linguisitics.

As stated above the scenario is of a Pathfinder supplement - so the Feat calls for Linguistics at rank 3. However the D&D3.5 character does not have the Linguistics skill, but the player made the assumption that Decipher Script was good enough; however the GM disagreed.

Also even if you needed forgery which you do not you would need 3 ranks. Class dipping will not help with the 3 ranks as the +3 class bones DOES NOT count toward requirements.

Again as this is a backwards conversion 3 ranks in Pathfinder should equal 6 ranks in D&D3.5.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't feel it is correct for Pathfinder RPG supplements to be labelled with a "3.5 Compatible" logo because of the lack of clarity in backwards conversion. I would hope that nothing beyond the core Pathfinder RPG rulebook has that logo unless a product is actually 100% compatible.

Even a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the core rulebook (as was suggested by Erik Mona) could open the door for some rule lawyer player to try to pull a fast one. For example a player trying to take the Pathfinder version of the Alertness feat to get a +2 bonus to Spot, Listen and Sense Motive in a 3.5 game.

Again as this is a backwards conversion 3 ranks in Pathfinder should equal 6 ranks in D&D3.5.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't feel it is correct for Pathfinder RPG supplements to be labelled with a "3.5 Compatible" logo because of the lack of clarity in backwards conversion. I would hope that nothing beyond the core Pathfinder RPG rulebook has that logo unless a product is actually 100% compatible.

Even a "3.5 Compatible" logo on the core rulebook (as was suggested by Erik Mona) could open the door for some rule lawyer player to try to pull a fast one. For example a player trying to take the Pathfinder version of the Alertness...

The goal was to make all existing 3.5 material usable in a PF setting, not to allow Pathfinder material to be back ported to run in a 3.5 campaign.

PF Rules supersede 3.5 rules, so if a new PF module is released, and it references a feat in that exists in both rules, the PF modules is assumed. If you are working with older content and trying to use it in a PF setting then you may need to up convert. For example skill requirements, in beta, for prestige classes it was stated that the skill requirement is the same if it is a class skill, and double if it is a cross class skill, but otherwise the same. In which case class dipping to make it a class skill would be worthwhile. It make some prestige classes easier to achieve, but works out cleanly. The same could be assumed for feats.

Still there is to my knowledge no intention that a PF Prestiege class, as is, can be necessarily used with 3.5 without back conversion.

The goal was to make all existing 3.5 material usable in a PF setting, not to allow Pathfinder material to be back ported to run in a 3.5 campaign.

And that is fine, I just wish Paizo would stop making suggestions (e.g. as implied by the poster) that Pathfinder = 3.5. Pathfinder is an evolution of 3.5.

Really, I like what Paizo are doing now, and I think some of the changes in the Beta are improvements over 3.5, but it isn't 3.5.

If the poster had said "3.5 evolves" I wouldn't have had any issue with it. And if future Pathfinder RPG supplements don't have a 3.5 compatible logo, but instead have a phrase in the back cover blurb saying "Largely compatible with the 3.5 edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" then again I would be happy.

And neither would I. I am not saying Pathfinder should be 100% 3.5 compatible (I gave up that hope ages ago), but that if it isn't going to be 100% compatible it shouldn't be labelled as "3.5 Compatible".

By that definition, no game except the game itself, and carbon copies of the game, are ever going to be called compatible to the game.

Galnörag wrote:

The goal was to make all existing 3.5 material usable in a PF setting, not to allow Pathfinder material to be back ported to run in a 3.5 campaign.

And that is fine, I just wish Paizo would stop making suggestions (e.g. as implied by the poster) that Pathfinder = 3.5. Pathfinder is an evolution of 3.5.

Really, I like what Paizo are doing now, and I think some of the changes in the Beta are improvements over 3.5, but it isn't 3.5.

If the poster had said "3.5 evolves" I wouldn't have had any issue with it. And if future Pathfinder RPG supplements don't have a 3.5 compatible logo, but instead have a phrase in the back cover blurb saying "Largely compatible with the 3.5 edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" then again I would be happy.

You have made yourself more than clear on this issue. There's really no point to keep carping on it.

We will not be using the language on the poster for very much longer one way or the other.

--Erik

By that definition, no game except the game itself, and carbon copies of the game, are ever going to be called compatible to the game.

Yep, but sourcebooks can be 3.5 compatible, and that is where that sort of logo should be used IMHO, e.g. on products like those still being produced by LPJ Design (I am not suggesting Pathfinder supplements should be compromised to make them 100% compatible).

You have made yourself more than clear on this issue. There's really no point to keep carping on it.

Understood, its just a bugbear of mine (no pun intended) on which I find difficult to leave posts unanswered.

We will not be using the language on the poster for very much longer one way or the other.

Good to hear. Pathfinder is a strong brand name, it can stand on its own two feet - especially with the good reputation of Paizo behind it - and I will continue to help promote it where I can (I ran 3 PFS scenarios at Conception earlier this year and have introduced the local D&D Meetup group to Pathfinder in the shape of 3 more PFS scenarios).

DigitalMage wrote:

Galnörag wrote:

The goal was to make all existing 3.5 material usable in a PF setting, not to allow Pathfinder material to be back ported to run in a 3.5 campaign.

And that is fine, I just wish Paizo would stop making suggestions (e.g. as implied by the poster) that Pathfinder = 3.5. Pathfinder is an evolution of 3.5.

Really, I like what Paizo are doing now, and I think some of the changes in the Beta are improvements over 3.5, but it isn't 3.5.

If the poster had said "3.5 evolves" I wouldn't have had any issue with it. And if future Pathfinder RPG supplements don't have a 3.5 compatible logo, but instead have a phrase in the back cover blurb saying "Largely compatible with the 3.5 edition of the world's most popular fantasy RPG" then again I would be happy.

You have made yourself more than clear on this issue. There's really no point to keep carping on it.

We will not be using the language on the poster for very much longer one way or the other.

--Erik

Alas, your audience is a persnickety, nit picky, details oriented group of people, and for better or for worse, you are stuck with us :P

Lord Fyre wrote:

Aristodeimos wrote:

I just a bit disappointed no one is signing these babies like the Rifts posters are signed.

I am sure that if you went to GenCon you might, with some arm twisting, get yours signed.

if there is any left, will these be brought to GenCon?

Nope. They are just too big and unwieldy to ship being unfolded and all. So the only way you can get one of these is to buy one here. Or go to Paizocon this coming weekend, cause I can fit some in the back of my car. :)

-Lisa

Still there is to my knowledge no intention that a PF Prestiege class, as is, can be necessarily used with 3.5 without back conversion.

Yup. So how again is this making 3.5 thrive again?

Hey pres man,

We get it. You can stop now.

Hey pres man,

We get it. You can stop now.

Isn't there a dead horse that roams these boards?

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Hey pres man,

We get it. You can stop now.

Isn't there a dead horse that roams these boards?

More like some poor fellar's dog was being kicked.

Sorry, didn't mean to upset you folks.

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Hey pres man,

We get it. You can stop now.

Isn't there a dead horse that roams these boards?

You called?

taig wrote:

Joshua J. Frost wrote:

Hey pres man,

We get it. You can stop now.

Isn't there a dead horse that roams these boards?

You called?

Sorry, I was wrong. I'm looking for a kicked puppy. You know where I can get one of those?

Sorry, I was wrong. I'm looking for a kicked puppy. You know where I can get one of those?

3.... 2... 1...

taig wrote:

Sorry, I was wrong. I'm looking for a kicked puppy. You know where I can get one of those?

3.... 2... 1...

Is that the countdown for a lock?

Is that the countdown for a lock?

naw... Gary's uploading a puppy avatar... wait.. we already have the poodle!

Vic Wertz wrote:

taig wrote:

Sorry, I was wrong. I'm looking for a kicked puppy. You know where I can get one of those?

3.... 2... 1...

Is that the countdown for a lock?

That was the countdown for a kicked dog. Apparently he got scared away...

Tarren Dei wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

taig wrote:

Sorry, I was wrong. I'm looking for a kicked puppy. You know where I can get one of those?

3.... 2... 1...

Is that the countdown for a lock?

That was the countdown for a kicked dog. Apparently he got scared away...

I was thinking lock, but hoping for a kicked dog. Denied on both counts. No pun intended.