I realize that being able to say "Pathfinder is absolutely compatible with your 3.5 material!" is a major concern in regards to getting people to adopt it. I get that.
At the same time, I'm seeing what appears to be a very uneven application of the principle. Getting rid of iterative attacks is bad for backwards compatibility, but completely reshuffling the skill list (and adding new skills that no imported stat block will have an analog for), adding a new "Combat Maneuvers" statistic and rules system, and so forth are not, for instance.
I think at some point in the not-too-distant future, you're going to have to make a strongly-defined decision on where the backwards-compatibility line is drawn, because right now it seems to be a bit "all over the board".
Speaking only for myself, I don't care as much about being absolutely plug'n'play as I do about pruning all of the 3.x baggage while still being "close enough for government work". I'll be quite honest with you, when I thought that 4E was going to be a "Saga-ized 3.x" I was all for it -- it's only when I saw that they were just trading one brand of baggage for another that I decided it wasn't for me.[1] So from my perspective, anything you can do to make "3.Paizo" have the "classic 3.x flavor" on the surface but run with the "modern, streamlined engine" of a post-3.x system is pure win.
On the opposite side, if you aren't going to go that way, then you need to go back and re-evaluate the changes being made so far. The new skill list is NOT backwards-compatible, not directly. The "quick conversion" method on p. 62 isn't really all that quick -- "add feats and powers to high level NPCs, recalculate their hit points, and refigure the CMB for any creatures that aren't medium" is not a big deal for a 1st level module, but is huge for a 15th level one. And what do we do about all those common feats that were removed or changed? etc.
I guess what I'm getting at, is you can't really have it both ways. If you're going to make big changes, go ahead and MAKE BIG CHANGES. If you're going to make it almost unchanged, LEAVE IT ALMOST UNCHANGED. Right now, it appears to be in danger of falling into the "just different enough to be a pain to use" category, and IMO that's a recipe for disaster.
-The Gneech
[1] I don't want to get into a 4E thread here; let's just say I don't like the direction it's headed and leave it at that.
|
I agree with your concerns, but would like to put my vote into the NOT changing things too much category. The farther we stray from our old books the more the library, again, become as useless as if I had moved onto another system.
I think the best way to do this is to continue to monitor these boards, offer suggestions and side with folks who think some of the changes stray too far from the 3.5 rules as they currently are. Be heard.
I'm betting plenty of Paizo designers have favorite 3.5 books they won't want invalidated by taking things too far either!
-DM Jeff
Well, the issue of "change more" or "change less" isn't really what I'm getting at, so much as "pick a direction and stick to it like glue". ;) Right now I'd say they're either changing too much or too little.
-The Gneech
PS: Change more! Woohoo! But that's just me. ;)
I don't see the problems as being that great:
The "combat maneuver" system is indeed fully functional. I don't remember ever seeing things like trip, disarm or feint being mentioned anywhere except the PHB. At the very most a creatures tactics section will say "it will try to disarm ...". What set of rules you use to make the disarm atemp is up to you. Creatures stats nlocks will only hold an entry "Improved Sunder". What acctual effect this feat has depends on the combat maneuver system you use, PF or PHB.
With skills, I don't see such a great problem either. If a npc has 2 or 5 skill points too many doesn't really have an impact on the game and I guess when creating NPCs, most gms will pick a number of skills and max them out anyway. The difference is, that with skill points, that means about 10 skills maxed out for a rogue at any level and when they use learned skills, the number will rise by 1 for every second level. But reducing the number of initial skills learned and the speed for gaining new skills, it should about level out. And there are also just so many skills that appear in combat and those will be maxed out in any occasion.
I also think it wise to not change anything dramaticaly. But when the stat blocks remain unchanged, but you only have it mean different things, there's no compatibility problem whatsoever.
Also keep in mind, that it's still 16 months until the PFRPG and they actually want to hear our oppinions how things would be balanced best. I'm sure within a year, a lot of stuff in the alpha 1 has completely gone from almost everyones mind again, because it has long been replaced by something better.
I guess the idea is that you won't need to buy the Pathfinder RPG if you want to use all your 3.5 splat Wotc as there are... There is no way your 3.5 Scout will be able to compete (from a game balance perspective) with the Pathfinder Rogue or Ranger for exemple... But if you only use your 3.5 material, it will be really easy to use pathfinder adventure with a minimum of conversion (conversion that could also be done by Paizo if nesserary)...
Before I respond to the actual thread, I have to comment on where I am right now with respect to Paizo and its products. I'm not sure how many folks here even know who I am, but I was a charter subscriber. I'm now on the fence, and hence not continuing my subscription until I have both the Pathfinder beta and 4E in hand and have a chance to make an informed decision. I had planned to finish out Crimson Throne whether Paizo moved to 4E or not, but I didn't foresee a "3.75." I expect to go 4E, and after some hard thought I am not totally opposed to using a Pathfinder RPG as my primary RPG if it is a tweak to 3.5; however, I do not have any interest in a "3.75."
I'm saying this because I think the OP is right. In the first Alpha, the application of the "backward compatibility" design goal is very uneven. In my opinion, when improvement and compatibility conflict, compatibility should win.
For example, bumping the wizard and rogue hit dice is a good idea. It gives a nice uniformity to the BAB/HD relationship (except for barbs...can't we just given them toughness every as a bonus feat two levels or something?), makes wizards a little less fragile, and most importantly, is easy to convert. Have something with wizard or rogue levels? Add one hit point per level. Done. Similarly, most prestidge classes can easily be adjusted with a little thought as to their purpose.
Likewise, unlimited 0-level spells (with the exception of cure minor wounds) is quick, easy to convert, and finally banishes the "wizard with a crossbow" problem.
I could even deal with skill consolidation, because as long as you don't change the way the skills function, the worst thing you'll have to do is keep a list of skill equivalencies handy and maybe hand out a few extra skills. I'd prefer just giving everyone 2 more skill poiints, as that would obviate the need for said list, but I can see going either way.
Some changes seem to generate work for little real payoff. Changing racial stats? A mess of re-calculation, possibly including skill points, skills, bonus spells, hit points, AC etc. No way. Given half-elves and half-orcs a non-stat related boost someplace that doesn't cause a cascade of recalculations.
Other changes are just too big: Feats that depend on other feats used in the prior round? Trees of spell-like abilities for specialists? Those might be good ideas, but they harpoon backwards compatibility, and, in the case of the feats, actually *add* to bookkeeping. Put that stuff in prestidge classes, where it can effortlessly be ignored if so desired.
Any changes made to the pathfinder RPG should amount to little more than a common set of houserules. The RPG itself should be a way to keep the 3.5 rules in print, perhaps with new art direction, etc., with the small changes integrated. If you go too far down the "change" path, then you don't have D&D 3.5 any more, and you lose a big reason for *not* moving to 4E.
|
|
Any changes made to the pathfinder RPG should amount to little more than a common set of houserules. The RPG itself should be a way to keep the 3.5 rules in print, perhaps with new art direction, etc., with the small changes integrated. If you go too far down the "change" path, then you don't have D&D 3.5 any more, and you lose a big reason for *not* moving to 4E.
Agreed, and quoted for truth. In fact Paizo states backwards compatibility is very high on the design list so I imagine them taking this route is the best.
-DM Jeff