There is another issue, the legality of pathfinder. The OGL is still in play, and always will be so, however if pathfinder is releases as a word for word direct copy of 3.5 edition, I’m sure wizards would take legal action.
By making the system similar to, but not the exactly same as the previous edition it removes that possibility. It’s safer bet legally.
|
... However, the scores of splatbooks I already have can be used with PRPG with a little work...
Complete and total agreement.
...Don't kid yourselves, 3.0 to 3.5 was a major change, 2/3 of which were for the worse.
I don't know about this part--I went from 1E (with elements of 2E --salt for the meat) to v3.5. My only actual conversion experience, 3.0 to 3.5, is the FRCS, which wasn't too bad.
If giving an orc 5 levels of warrior is too much (boring home-) work in 3.5, how is doing conversion not going to be?
[quote=]There is another issue, the legality of pathfinder. The OGL is still in play, and always will be so, however if pathfinder is releases as a word for word direct copy of 3.5 edition, I’m sure wizards would take legal action.
By making the system similar to, but not the exactly same as the previous edition it removes that possibility. It’s safer bet legally.
The parts in the SRD can be copied word for word, legally. The parts not in there can not. Just because you have to come up with new xp tables and such doesn't mean that the skills have to be changed.
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.
THe changes from 3.0 to 3.5 were so small that I could use a 3.0 PHB and have all my other books in 3.5 without a problem. I can't do that here.
I'm all for full backwards compatibility with 3.5 and D&D splatbooks; IMO, the extensive changes made by Alpha 1 in the skills, feats or classes not only prevent full compatibility (which I really hope will be the first and foremost aim of the design team) but also add unnecessary complexity to a game that is already complex.
The PFRPG should fix only minor bugs in 3.5 rules, not change whole sets of rules for the sake of power gamers who want to have 30-HP 1st-level arch-wizards -- the risk is not only to make all the 3.5 sourcebooks obsolete, but to spoil the very fun of running an adventure path with 1st level PCs all the way through high levels.
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
"Did you know that the first Matrix was designed to be a perfect human world? Where none suffered, where everyone would be happy. It was a disaster. No one would accept the program."
|
I'm all for full backwards compatibility with 3.5 and D&D splatbooks; IMO, the extensive changes made by Alpha 1 in the skills, feats or classes not only prevent full compatibility (which I really hope will be the first and foremost aim of the design team) but also add unnecessary complexity to a game that is already complex.
The PFRPG should fix only minor bugs in 3.5 rules, not change whole sets of rules for the sake of power gamers who want to have 30-HP 1st-level arch-wizards -- the risk is not only to make all the 3.5 sourcebooks obsolete, but to spoil the very fun of running an adventure path with 1st level PCs all the way through high levels.
I mostly agree with this notion:
Simplification of rules (-> skills, grappling) is desirable while staying mostly 3.5 compatible is mandatory. Remember Lisa: PRPG is supposed to be there after 3.5 is out of print!Imho PRPG's first task is to continue providing printed 3.5 rules after 2008 while fixing the most annoying rule "bugs".
If someone looks for a new rule set or wants to see changes being realized which "unfortunately" didn't make it into 4e, then PRPG doesn't seem to be your system. So much is evident after reading the official announcements...
Cheers,
Guenther
What announcements do we have so far? What I've seen the last days is partly contradictory (which includes some announcement, user comments, and my own interpretation of the alpha rules)?
|
|
Actually I don't give much credit to other readers' claims of knowledge - so far all of us can only guess and rely on those few facts mentioned in the announcements (see above). If you also feel that this is not enough, I invite you to contribute to this thread (<- link) , too. Maybe someone from Paizo cares to answer, if enough of us request it.
Cheers,
Guenther
I do really believe that the rules are very close right now. I do think that it would take a decent chunk of time to fully convert a 3.5 character to the alpha rules, but in most cases I can easily see just not converting most things perfectly.
Currently I feel there is a significant difference between a 3.5 fighter and a Pathfinder Alpha fighter. However I don't think that it would be completely necessary to convert them just to used them either way from a Pathfinder AP because the adventure is designed with that creature in mind. I think that if you are playing a high level Pathfinder adventure from #45 in 3.5 and the party faces off against a 20th level fighter you wouldn't need to remove all his extra class abilities because that was already considered in the adventure design. In either game the party would be of roughly equal power and each party should have an nearly equal amount of trouble with the fighter, no significant conversion necessary.
|
|
I think that if you are playing a high level Pathfinder adventure from #45 in 3.5 and the party faces off against a 20th level fighter you wouldn't need to remove all his extra class abilities because that was already considered in the adventure design. In either game the party would be of roughly equal power and each party should have an nearly equal amount of trouble with the fighter, no significant conversion necessary.
?!?!
You just mentioned the considerable higher feat number of a PRPG level 20 fighter (a1 draft) in comparision to a 3.5 level 20 fighter and yet you claim that either are "an nearly equal amount of trouble"!?!Not really, you must be kidding (and we didn't talk about the HP advantage yet).
EDIT: You are right if you assume that any 3.5 using group would replace AP #45's PRPG fighter by standard 3.5 fighter stats. But why should I buy any such adventure when still using 3.5? I expect to be able to use future AP stats with no/ only minor changes required for 3.5 compatibility (Paizo claims it to be 3.5 compatible, so I can expect as muxh at least).
Swapping a few skills is ok. Having to recalculate HPs and to redistribute feats is a completely different matter, though.
I think that if you are playing a high level Pathfinder adventure from #45 in 3.5 and the party faces off against a 20th level fighter you wouldn't need to remove all his extra class abilities because that was already considered in the adventure design. In either game the party would be of roughly equal power and each party should have an nearly equal amount of trouble with the fighter, no significant conversion necessary.?!?!
You just mentioned the considerable higher feat number of a PRPG level 20 fighter (a1 draft) in comparision to a 3.5 level 20 fighter and yet you claim that either are "an nearly equal amount of trouble"!?!
Not really, you must be kidding (and we didn't talk about the HP advantage yet).EDIT: You are right if you assume that any 3.5 using group would replace AP #45's PRPG fighter by standard 3.5 fighter stats. But why should I buy any such adventure when still using 3.5? I expect to be able to use future AP stats with no/ only minor changes required for 3.5 compatibility (Paizo claims it to be 3.5 compatible, so I can expect as muxh at least).
Swapping a few skills is ok. Having to recalculate HPs and to redistribute feats is a completely different matter, though.
When I said it seemed easily compatiple I meant that I think I can shove 3.5 characters into a Pathfinder RPG adventure and run it as a 3.5 game without making significant modifications to the 3.5 characters or the Pathfinder RPG encounters. If I need a grapple bonus I calculate it as fast as I can on the fly it would be the CMB minus the current size bonus plus the old size bonus. If I need a spot check I just use the perception bonus. I don't think I have to readjust the fighter's feats just to keep it even with the PCs.
What I expect from the compatibility is that, overall, I could just as easily shove my 3.5 characters into a Pathfinder RPG without being forced to convert them just to play the game. Similarly I would expect I could toss my Pathfinder Alpha characters into a 3.5 Adventure Path and not need to do any significant conversions on the monsters because they are close enough.
Does that monster get 5 feats or 6 feats? Does it get those 12 extra hit points? I don't think that these differences amount to incompatibility yet.
Given what I have seen the quick conversion isn't much of a chore... in fact I've already gone thru the process of converting a few ideas in short order...the concepts are totally new for me and still it only took a short amount of time.
I would agree that for those who really want to stay with the 3.5 system with no new conversion, perhaps a guide to converting back should be included in the system.
Simply put, if forward conversion is fairly easy, with some instruction the reverse should be just as easy. I think this is more than possible and would lead to a larger variety of players...and also lead to a larger conversion or players sooner or later.
Even with the skill system, I already figured out all you have to do is split the changes and viola...back to old and just use similar numbers to the set numbers. It's pretty easy and could even be done on the fly for the majority of rules with little brain-bending.