I think the Paizo definition of backwards compatibility differs from mine. I want to be able to pick up a Pathfinder product and be able to use it with my PHB. If I have to buy the Pathfinder PHB just to decipher the changes, why shouldn't I just convert to 4E?
To be clear: I want to buy Pathfinder products. I like Golarion and want to run campaigns in it. I don't want a whole new game system that makes my 3.5 stuff incompatible and obsolete.
I want to be able to run ninjas without them being severely outclassed by the PFRPG rogues.
Man the changes are no worse then 3.0 to 3.5 and I do that all the time no fuss no issue not a prob. the alpha classes are not an issue i made some up last night and i could throw em in any 3.5 adventure without an issue at all.
I'd argue that the fundamental changes in regards to how feats work is too big a change.
As far as converting characters goes...no one is going to object to more feats (they're all giggling like school girls). But clerics and wizards have been amped up big time.
I think many of the changes to Pathfinder are more extreme than 3.0 to 3.5 (which felt more like a cleanup).
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If I have to buy the Pathfinder PHB just to decipher the changes, why shouldn't I just convert to 4E?
You would convert to PRPG if you like 3.75 rules better than 4E rules.
You would convert to 4E if you like 4E rules better than PRPG.
I, for one, like 3.75 rules better (and I have been to DDXP and played 4E.)
When I look at the alpha #1, I don't see anything that would make it difficult to run an adventure created under those rules with the 3.5e PHB. A fighter would have an attack or damage bonus you don't find the reason for, or a celric has no domain spells prepared but some spell like abilities, but you wouldn't have any problems using them as creatures in a fight. If you dislike the special abilities, just ignore them.
Anything that doesn't change npc stats blocks is 100% compatible.
FWIW, Erik Mona has said elsewhere that a statblock-by-statblock comparison showed 3.5 and PRPG characters to be pretty much interchangeable ... so if the final result holds to that you should be able to run the adventures with your 3.5 PHB just fine.
We'll see if that survives the playtest, tho! ;)
-The Gneech
I think many of the changes to Pathfinder are more extreme than 3.0 to 3.5 (which felt more like a cleanup).
really look at the 3.0 ranger and tell me the 3.5 isnt that diff thats a big power boost that I liked same with the bard. but if u dont like the new classes use the ones you have. the thing is you put the PHB classes next to any WOTC splat book class and there left wanting.if you can use a warblade in an 3.5 adventure without issue I dont see what the problem is with the alpha classes.
FWIW, Erik Mona has said elsewhere that a statblock-by-statblock comparison showed 3.5 and PRPG characters to be pretty much interchangeable ... so if the final result holds to that you should be able to run the adventures with your 3.5 PHB just fine.
We'll see if that survives the playtest, tho! ;)
-The Gneech
I read that comment too. However, just because both stat blocks have Power Attak in them doesn't mean they play the same way. 3.5 Valeros doesn't have to wait until round 3 to Spring Attack. By that time, Seoni's probably blasted his target to bits anyway.
I think the Paizo definition of backwards compatibility differs from mine. I want to be able to pick up a Pathfinder product and be able to use it with my PHB. If I have to buy the Pathfinder PHB just to decipher the changes, why shouldn't I just convert to 4E?
That's not how backwards compatibility is defined in any industry.
backwards compatibility is a situation where what has already been created can be utilized with the most recent product, in this case allowing us to use 3.5E materials in Pathfinder RPG.
The reason no one does what you propose is because it's a poor business model. They're setting out to create a new product line; Paizo's moving forward. However, if they design their products to be ported to a defunct system by default, how new can it actually be? And how successful can it be, especially in the long run.
Paizo and WotC share a common goal in their undertakings: they don't want people to keep playing the 3.5 edition of the game; they want us to move on and start playing the new system they'll be offering. The key difference between the two approaches is that where WotC is telling us we have to replace all the 3.5 books we've already purchased, Paizo is developing a system that will allow us to retain their use.
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Paizo and WotC share a common goal in their undertakings: they don't want people to keep playing the 3.5 edition of the game.
Hello, HA. I wanted to say that I appreciate your articulate explanation.
But It doesn't square with my understanding. I'd be happy to be corrected, but I'd understood:
- Paizo was writing adventures that were indeed 3.5-compatable.
- But as of August 2008, there will not be a 3.5 rulebook in print. As Lisa has noted, this would be a heavy disincentive for a gamestore to carry further 3.5-compatable products.
- So Paizo will be offering the Pathfinder rules system.
Explicitly, the adventure paths and modules don't care whether we're playing a strict SRD game, or a "shelf-full of 3.5" game or a Pathfinder Rules System game. Adventuring in Golarion should work under any of those rules sets.
Now, I'm sure that Jason and the Pathfinder Rules System people would appreciate our buying the rulebooks and using those. And after August 2009, the Pathfinder Society games might either presuppose or require that rules set.
But my understanding is that Paizo is principally interested in selling adventures, and that need drives the necessity for a compatible and in-print rules set.
If people who already own the D&D 3.5 rules keep playing Pathfinder adventures under those rules, I imagine --and again, I could be wrong here-- that that would be just fine with Paizo.
|
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.
GOOD. I think a Wizard should be a Wizard, not a gateway class to "which prestige class do I want to take to get some abilities."
Also, Tome of Magic, well those spellcasters pretty much laugh at core spell classes.
Nine swords.. why play a fighter?
Also, if the new classes make prestige classes obsolete because they're better, GOOD. That's one less hardcover you have to carry around for 5 pages that you need inside of it. :P
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.
I agree with this, Paizo needs to remember that LESS is MORE. At least when they are looking at rule changes. I'm all for them fixing the problems, but I'm not interested in a full rewrite. If the system isn't going to be backwards cmpatible it really isn't worth buying.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.I agree with this, Paizo needs to remember that LESS is MORE. At least when they are looking at rule changes. I'm all for them fixing the problems, but I'm not interested in a full rewrite. If the system isn't going to be backwards cmpatible it really isn't worth buying.
There in lies the debate. The changes they have made don't go far enough to fix all of 3.5's flaws. They need to rewrite half or so of the system. Doing so can still retain most of the PrC and older 3.5 rules as compatible.
You assert they are no longer compatible if any changes, I assert they can change half the rules and retain compatibility.
I complety agree with Chris Mortika post above...
If you want to play 3.5E you just won't have to buy the new Pathfinder RPG and still use the Pathfinder adventures will only some quick conversions... You don't need to know that the Power Attack rules or grappling rules don't work exactly like those of 3.5.. Just use those of 3.5... The adventure will be exactly the same...
***I posted the following in another thread, but I think it bears repeating here***
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 points, 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.
double post FTL
But my understanding is that Paizo is principally interested in selling adventures, and that need drives the necessity for a compatible and in-print rules set.
If people who already own the D&D 3.5 rules keep playing Pathfinder adventures under those rules, I imagine --and again, I could be wrong here-- that that would be just fine with Paizo.
Oh, I think you're totally correct in your observations. But at the same time, I think the ideal situation Paizo's hoping for is the majority of their customers to change to the new rules; they're likely to sell more material that way, after all.
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.
Backwards compatible doesn't necessarily mean there won't be conversion work involved. Let's face it, D&D 3.5E and Pathfinder RPG are going to be different games; they're going to be close enough that you can still use existing 3.5E material, but you might have to put in a bit of work to make it function as intended under the new rules. That's simply the nature of the situation.
If you want to continue playing 3.5E with no changes, and without applying effort on your end, from what I understand this project will not appeal to you. You'll be able to run Paizo's material fine until 2009, but once they switch to their new rules you likely won't be able to use it without at least some conversion work.
|
|
All I can offer is, in response to my own similar fears...
Jason and Paizo's design goals for PRPG are to make sure there is minimal effort to run pre-PRPG materials with PRPG. Any conversion guidelines we create should be simple and fast.
Let's hold them to that as the playtesting continues!
-DM Jeff
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.I agree with this, Paizo needs to remember that LESS is MORE. At least when they are looking at rule changes. I'm all for them fixing the problems, but I'm not interested in a full rewrite. If the system isn't going to be backwards cmpatible it really isn't worth buying.There in lies the debate. The changes they have made don't go far enough to fix all of 3.5's flaws. They need to rewrite half or so of the system. Doing so can still retain most of the PrC and older 3.5 rules as compatible.
You assert they are no longer compatible if any changes, I assert they can change half the rules and retain compatibility.
I suppose I should explain my way of thinking better. I'm not opposed to them making rules changes to fix the problems in the game. More I don't like correction by subtraction.
For example, the changes to the cleric class are nice, and the end result looks like a more enjoyable cleric to play. The biggest change being the change to domains. Now, instead of a domain granting you a domain spell each spell level and a domain power at 1st. You don't get domain spells, and get a domain power every 2 levels. With the majority of the domain powers simply being the same spells you would have had with a new mechanic.
The problem I have with this, is every reference in a prestige class, or feat that refers to domain spells is now obsolete. I would have prefered if they kept the existing domain spell mechanics, and changed only the domain powers, with additional domain powers gained at higher levels. (But at a reduced rate.)
Anytime they write a game mechanic out of the rules, they make anything that references that mechanic obsolete.
Creative Director
|
One thing to keep in mind is that were more than a year away from final on these rules. There's a LOT of time to make changes and adjustments. For the Alpha, trying out new things is important. It lets us all test them out, to see if they are indeed better than they were.
For example... is it a strength of the game that few players stick with their base class and don't multiclass? Personally, I think that prestige classes like Archmage are unnecessary; they exist only to make being a high-level wizard more fun, but that works better by just making the high level wizard more fun from the start! That way, prestige classes can focus on being more specialized and unique.
ANYway... yeah. The goal is so that years from now, when you pick up Pathfinder #43 to start up a new adventure path, you'll be able to run it more or less without problem using dog-eared and well-loved 3.5 Core Books. (Perhaps with a few pages of errata.) It might not seem that way yet... but in the end, that's the final goal.
The problem I have with this, is every reference in a prestige class, or feat that refers to domain spells is now obsolete.
Well this really isnt an issue just change said spell to the new domain i mean evil domain is still evil domain just change from spell a to power a or level whatever of domain . easy no fuss
I could be wrong, but I think the philosphy behind this is that they don't want to make the Pathdinfer RPG game mechanic necessarly compatible with all the 3.5 WoC splat books... But they want to make sure that you can use Pathdinfer Adventures with a minimum of conversion... So yes, the Pathfinder RPG is a new RPG game with different rules... not a reprint of the 3.5 core rulesbook...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... Let's face it, D&D 3.5E and Pathfinder RPG are going to be different games; they're going to be close enough that you can still use existing 3.5E material, but you might have to put in a bit of work to make it function as intended under the new rules. That's simply the nature of the situation.
If you want to continue playing 3.5E with no changes, and without applying effort on your end, from what I understand this project will not appeal to you. You'll be able to run Paizo's material fine until 2009, but once they switch to their new rules you likely won't be able to use it without at least some conversion work.
(nods) Yes, absolutely.
Moreover, here's a secret: you probably already have to do that.
There's an enormous difference between SRD-only 3.5 and "D&D 3.5 with all the bells, whistles, splat books and supplements." Does your illumian Warmage use reserve feats? Then you're playing at a higher power level than the SRD. I'm not talking about the accidental "broken build" that crops up when you combine this class ability with that couple of feats. I'm talking about an "inevitable" power creep that happens when spiffy new books come out.
There's also the significant matter of play style. Different groups value different goals. Some are commando-style combat teams. Others like to explore and build the campaign environments.
And it's the DM who determines what works in her campaigns and how to adapt each module.
It won't be any different in fall of 2009.
|
|
For example... is it a strength of the game that few players stick with their base class and don't multiclass? Personally, I think that prestige classes like Archmage are unnecessary; they exist only to make being a high-level wizard more fun, but that works better by just making the high level wizard more fun from the start! That way, prestige classes can focus on being more specialized and unique.
Just the thing my wife and I were discussing the other night. Prestige Classes where they just make the core better without some unique/bizarre specilization isn't cool. But then again I have indeed run a number of campaigns since 2000, one to 15th level, one to 17th level, one to 19th level (yeah SCAP). In all I did have players who stuck with their core class all the way up without concerns or wanting to flee elsewhere. I guess this is a common conern that hasn't affected my little group?
-DM Jeff
ANYway... yeah. The goal is so that years from now, when you pick up Pathfinder #43 to start up a new adventure path, you'll be able to run it more or less without problem using dog-eared and well-loved 3.5 Core Books. (Perhaps with a few pages of errata.) It might not seem that way yet... but in the end, that's the final goal.
THIS should be stickied, enlarged, and put up as forum motto on the top of every forum. It's a great promise, and hopefully won't get watered down in the creative processes of Pathfinder. :D
|
If I have to buy the Pathfinder PHB just to decipher the changes, why shouldn't I just convert to 4E?You would convert to PRPG if you like 3.75 rules better than 4E rules.
You would convert to 4E if you like 4E rules better than PRPG.
I, for one, like 3.75 rules better (and I have been to DDXP and played 4E.)
I totally agree with Gurubabaramalamaswami.
And I fear I have to disagree with you, James: It's not that easy. I don't like 4e, and I expect PRPG - which was announced as 3.5 compatible - to live up to this label. For me something announced as 3.75 can't be less compatible to 3.5 than 3.5 was to 3.0.
Cheers,
Guenther.
|
|
Backwards compatible doesn't necessarily mean there won't be conversion work involved. Let's face it, D&D 3.5E and Pathfinder RPG are going to be different games; they're going to be close enough that you can still use existing 3.5E material, but you might have to put in a bit of work to make it function as intended under the new rules. That's simply the nature of the situation.
If you want to continue playing 3.5E with no changes, and without applying effort on your end, from what I understand this project will not appeal to you. You'll be able to run Paizo's material fine until 2009, but once they switch to their new rules you likely won't be able to use it without at least some conversion work.
So you are better in the know than Jason?!
He just mentioned that he is very interested in our opinions on this very subject.
And apparently there are quite some people who don't want a PRPG which is hardly earning the label '3.5 compatible'.
Cheers,
Guenther
So you are better in the know than Jason?!
He just mentioned that he is very interested in our opinions on this very subject.
And apparently there are quite some people who don't want a PRPG which is hardly earning the label '3.5 compatible'.
Cheers,
Guenther
My points still appear to be true; based on what we know they are going to be two different games, and conversions will need to be performed to update 3.5E to the new rules, as well as to rollback Pathfinder RPG material to the existing game.
I don't claim to be better in the know than anyone. I simply base my statements on observation, common sense, and business knowledge.
Man the changes are no worse then 3.0 to 3.5 and I do that all the time no fuss no issue not a prob. the alpha classes are not an issue i made some up last night and i could throw em in any 3.5 adventure without an issue at all.
seeker... I feel exactly the same way. Actually, the changes have been a bit liberating to me cause now I feel I can fully use both my 3.0 stuff AND my 3.5 stuff... because nothing will be 100% totally the same on either camp with Pathfinder, YET, everything works.
I got really excited when I realized that by taking what Pathfinder has offered us in just the immediate along with my books, I already had a new role playing game in a sense... well, a new one right now in a small sense... but all the same.Granted, I do believe that the team on this will have to be very careful in the end not to void the backwards compatible ability, but as of right now it works...
|
|
now I feel I can fully use both my 3.0 stuff AND my 3.5 stuff... because nothing will be 100% totally the same on either camp with Pathfinder, YET, everything works.
I can't really follow you on this one: I agree with the first (if my worst fears about PRPG are confirmed), but your conclusion sounds like a contradiction to that first notion. (If 'nothing will 100% totally the same': how is everything (= 3.0 + 3.5 + PRPG?) to work smoothly with each other?)
I can't really follow you on this one: I agree with the first (if my worst fears about PRPG are confirmed), but your conclusion sounds like a contradiction to that first notion. (If 'nothing will 100% totally the same': how is everything (= 3.0 + 3.5 + PRPG?) to work smoothly with each other?)
Man I have run 3.o since 2000 I have been using 3.5 books and dragon mags and adventures for years now. there is not that big of a diff really .I find it damned easy to use the alpha looks just as easy to use with 3.0 as 3.5 was the skills are the biggest change for me really and there easy to use with skill points they just look like maxed out skills damned easy.So yeah I find alpha to be very plug and play and really easy to use with my 3.5 adventures in fact im gonna run some soon unaltered to see how much looks easy to me.
|
|
My points still appear to be true; based on what we know they are going to be two different games, and conversions will need to be performed to update 3.5E to the new rules, as well as to rollback Pathfinder RPG material to the existing game.
I don't claim to be better in the know than anyone. I simply base my statements on observation, common sense, and business knowledge.
Please read Eric Mona's posting above: compatibility is a topic for Paizo!
It's evident that PRPG needs to have a usp in order to attract more than the late arrivers without access to 3.5 in 2009+.
But differentiation from 3.5 can also be reached by fixing less compatibility hampering issues like skill system, grappling rules, certain feats, and minor changes to classes and races... Add new Golarion specific magic traditions (Runelords, rune magic, rituals(?)), spells, PrC, maybe new magic item rules etc and there you are with a mostly 3.5 compatible system which provides both new crunch and a flavour of its own.
But if you just extract part of the whole (upgrading some of the classes, but others and the monsters not) causes inbalances and incompatibilities with 3.5. I won't follow any such path, but fortunately Paizo has ears for both our points of view and alpha is apparently supposed to contain the most provocative proposals before smoothing things (-> stuff postings).
Cheers,
Guenther.
|
|
I find it damned easy to use the alpha looks just as easy to use with 3.0 as 3.5 was the skills are the biggest change for me really and there easy to use with skill points they just look like maxed out skills damned easy.So yeah I find alpha to be very plug and play and really easy to use with my 3.5 adventures
I recommend you to read the last 3 pages of A1: In contrast to 3.0 -> 3.5 the power increase of base classes *will* be an issue which is yours to take seriously or to ignore...
|
|
Sorry, I just don't see that. The alpha changes to character class already make many prestige classes obsolete and very sub par. That's not backwards compatibility.
My Blu-Ray player is backwards compatible with standard definition DVDs, but the Blu-Ray discs offer an audio and video quality that makes my old DVDs 'obsolete and very sub par.'
...My Blu-Ray player still plays the old DVDs, so it's backwards compatible. PRPG is analogous.
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that ninja's are just a flavored kind of rogue?
Want to build a ninja ? Take the special feats required for it and call it a ninja.
If you want to go further just replace the special abilities rogue get by equivalent ninja ones.
There are those of us who like to use rule books as is... ;-)
I want to keep on using 3.5 books and not spend my time simulating 3.5 with 3.75 rules... (That's what I call compatibility;-) )
EDIT: If I was keen on that I would choose 4e.
@ the attentive audience so eagerly replying to my postings: Maybe you are not looking for 3.75/ PRPG, but 4e instead, if backwards compatibility is not an issue foryou?
|
|
...My Blu-Ray player still plays the old DVDs, so it's backwards compatible. PRPG is analogous.
So you have to 'hammer' your DVDs into Blueray format in order to play them on your DVD compatible blueray player?!
Would you call a blue ray player with such nice 'features' backwards compatible?;-)
If you don't believe me, check the last 3 pages of the A1 pdf.
Enjoy!
I think I’m a in a little bit of a different opinion then some of the posters here. I could really care less about backwards compatibility, I know it’s a design goal, but I also think it’s an unnecessary one. The reason I’m interested in pathfinder is simply 4th edition seems to do little to nothing to fix the problems that it claims to address, and in my opinion also creates a large amount of additional problems in the process. Since there is no other place I can go to express this I came here.
I can't really follow you on this one: I agree with the first (if my worst fears about PRPG are confirmed), but your conclusion sounds like a contradiction to that first notion. (If 'nothing will 100% totally the same': how is everything (= 3.0 + 3.5 + PRPG?) to work smoothly with each other?)
now I feel I can fully use both my 3.0 stuff AND my 3.5 stuff... because nothing will be 100% totally the same on either camp with Pathfinder, YET, everything works.
Yeah, I re-read it myself...
Okay, let me explain a bit better.Before, I was stickler... I was a bit overly anal, even with the Forgotten Realms core book as it was written for 3.0, not 3.5. Now, seeing how nothing is going to be 100% the exact same rules, but all workable with a minimal amount of tweaking, or actually no tweaking if you are not too fussy, it all works together... Pathfinder Alpha, 3.0, 3.5.
I mean, a fighter in Alpha is not the same as a fighter in 3.0 and a fighter in 3.5 is not the same as either but they are all workable in the same game, with minimal differences. One character might make the same skill check with a Sleight of hand while another might do it with a Theft check... the other will attempt this with a Pick Pocket. What I mean as far as accuracy is this... if you place a 3.0 prestige class on a 3.5 character that would allow for class skill ranks in Pick Pocket, you would automatically know that Sleight Of Hand would be the correct skill to consider as class rank. The same, in Pathfinder, would be Theft.
There are differences, Pathfinder is not 100% accurate on the exact same rules as 3.0 and 3.5, but it is still workable enough to be backwards compatible with both.
|
|
So you have to 'hammer' your DVDs into Blueray format in order to play them on your DVD compatible blueray player?! Would you call a blue ray player with such nice 'features' backwards compatible?;-)
If you don't believe me, check the last 3 pages of the A1 pdf. Enjoy!
I took another look at the conversion notes. I would still argue with the same analogy. PRPG Option one--make minor adjustments (I consider these minor because they seem a lot like what I might do anyway to adjust the tempo in an adventure, etc.), or simply ignore the differences; and this is akin to either playing a standard DVD in a Blu-Ray player as is, on your HDTV, or adjusting you HDTV's settings to enjoy a standard DVD where upscaling isn't automatic. Or, PRPG Option 2, completely convert; akin to copying a standard DVD and re-imaging it with h264, then playing it through AppleTV as a high-def movie.
Another poster mentioned that these conversions aren't any more difficult than 3.0 to 3.5, but I'd say, right now, they're easier than, say, the conversions necessary with the 3.0 FRCS.
How will the PRG work with other 3.5 materials? Will we still see other publishers' material showing up in Pathfinder materials like we have been, or will it have to be abandoned?
I think it's important to note there are two distinct forms of compatibility:
1) Adventure Compatibility: Read random statblock/adventure info, be able to run that information in *your* game, whichever that might be. So far PFRPG does this pretty well, the biggest threat being the new feats (Scorpion Style, etc.), that don't exist in 3.5. Basically the names have *not* been changed to protect the innocent.
2) Player Compatibility: An experienced 3.5 player coming into a PFRPG game, or a PFRPG player coming into a 3.5 game should be familiar enough with what's going on to quickly make a character and get in sync with everything. This is where PFRPG is having a much harder time. Feats like Cleave have changed a good bit, and Domains and School specializations are rather big changes. All in all though most individual changes (e.g. the streamlined Combat Manuever Bonus rules) are not actually too extreme. Collectively it looks a little bewildering at the moment though.
James said that for the Alpha experimenting is important. I hope the Alpha version changes are *anticipated* to contract, closer to 3.5 core, as things are tried, and perhaps simpler fixes made. See JackDaedalus's compromise fix for skill choices vs. skill ranks.
|
I find this just a very very interesting thread. Not so long ago,people were on the bandwagon for Paizo to come out with 3.75, but now, it seems, people don't want 3.75, they just want to stick to 3.5
To me, backwards compatible does NOT mean that PRPG is going to be used with the PHB. If that were the case why make it. Remember 3.5 PHB was NOT designed to be used with 3.0 PHB. What I expect is that PRPG completely replaces the crappy 3.5 PHB. However, the scores of splatbooks I already have can be used with PRPG with a little work.
I have no problem with Character Classes being more developed and richer to play. SO far I like the changes. The Races, on the other hand, I see no real benefit or necessity for the change other than for change itself.
Skills are a work in progress and looking good. I have decided I like the Combat Feats, but the old Feats need to be returned to their old catagories. Some need to return to their old descriptions (Combat Expertise using Int Modifiers? Come on, I am a Fighter! My Int at most is going to be a 13! Now it's a useless Feat) Combat Feats are a great way for Paizo to add some new dynamics and original ideas.
Combat is looking GREAT and I think is nearly 100%.
Spells need a LOT of reworking though. From level 15+ whenever it gets to a caster's turn the rest of the party can leave the table go out to dinner, see a movie, hang out at the mall and come back and still have twenty minutes left before the caster is ready. THEN he casts the stinking spell, and the saves have to be made, the resistances made, the ranges calculated and the shape of the spell, and finally the dice that scatter the minis so carefully placed on the mat. And then we find out that the critter is immune to that spell.
And as far as conversions being easy enough, you have to be kidding. It took us nearly a year to find MOST of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 "What do yo mean that spell lasts only 4 rounds? It used to last 4 HOURS!" Looks at the gnome, "What do you mean you suddenly lost 30,000 xp? Your favored class changed and your multiclass no longer works right?" Looks at halfling "What do you mean you only did 3 points of damage? Oh your sword suddenly shrank in size!"
Don't kid yourselves, 3.0 to 3.5 was a major change, 2/3 of which were for the worse.
I expect PRPG to be just as dramatic, but to increase the pleasure of play. I expect my splatbooks can be used with PRPG, not the other way around.
I find this just a very very interesting thread. Not so long ago,people were on the bandwagon for Paizo to come out with 3.75, but now, it seems, people don't want 3.75, they just want to stick to 3.5
To me, backwards compatible does NOT mean that PRPG is going to be used with the PHB. If that were the case why make it. Remember 3.5 PHB was NOT designed to be used with 3.0 PHB. What I expect is that PRPG completely replaces the crappy 3.5 PHB. However, the scores of splatbooks I already have can be used with PRPG with a little work.
I have no problem with Character Classes being more developed and richer to play. SO far I like the changes. The Races, on the other hand, I see no real benefit or necessity for the change other than for change itself.
Skills are a work in progress and looking good. I have decided I like the Combat Feats, but the old Feats need to be returned to their old catagories. Some need to return to their old descriptions (Combat Expertise using Int Modifiers? Come on, I am a Fighter! My Int at most is going to be a 13! Now it's a useless Feat) Combat Feats are a great way for Paizo to add some new dynamics and original ideas.
Combat is looking GREAT and I think is nearly 100%.
Spells need a LOT of reworking though. From level 15+ whenever it gets to a caster's turn the rest of the party can leave the table go out to dinner, see a movie, hang out at the mall and come back and still have twenty minutes left before the caster is ready. THEN he casts the stinking spell, and the saves have to be made, the resistances made, the ranges calculated and the shape of the spell, and finally the dice that scatter the minis so carefully placed on the mat. And then we find out that the critter is immune to that spell.
And as far as conversions being easy enough, you have to be kidding. It took us nearly a year to find MOST of the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 "What do yo mean that spell lasts only 4 rounds? It used to last 4 HOURS!" Looks at the gnome, "What do you mean you...
every thing he said .
Its not incompatible with 3.5.
It certainly makes old books obsolete though.
Thank you for this compact summation. Obsolete old books means money down the drain for me and existing NPCs that are obsolete as well.
Ultimately, ask yourself "Will these changes require some tweaking in my current campaign, a major overhaul, or should I just end it and start a new one?" If it's the latter two, I'd have to argue that "backwards compatibility" is a little misleading.
Take the Age of Worms AP. Before they called it quits, the Paizo players were about halfway through it. How much work would the players and Erik (as DM) have to do to update it to run with PFRPG. What would Jeremy Walker do to update his scout?
I do (grudgingly) admit that Tyralandi would be kickass with the domain changes.
Anything that doesn't change npc stats blocks is 100% compatible.
Except these changes do. An NPC created under 3.5 will have substantially fewer hit points and feats than one of the same level created under P-RPG.