Contributor
|
So there has been a lot of discussion about how much or little Pathfinder should/will diverge from 3.5 and why, and what the goal is.
And right now, I think a lot of this discussion is being generated by people talking past each other based on their own interpretation of Paizo's intent with this game and in particular with how "Backwards Compatibility" is actually defined.
To clarify: Does backwards compatibility mean that you can pick up any Pathfinder module and play it with 3.5? (James Jacobs defined it this way in one thread) or, does it mean that you can pick up any 3.5 module and play it using the Pathfinder rules? Or does it mean both?
My impression is that the first of these three things is the most important, because then you satisfy those who want a modified 3.5 and those who want to stick with their existing ruleset.
The thing that makes the second thing important is the existing APs, unless Paizo is going to provide free conversion notes for them. But in the long run, this is less important as the purpose of the Pathfinder game is to give continued rules support for the new APs and modules. Paizo doesn't really have a vested interest in making sure that you can play WotC's out of print adventures with their new rules.
Setting up Pathfinder to run all your old 3.5 stuff also strikes me as impossible. Paizo can't legally work with all the material outside the SRD, and even if they could, there is so much that it would be outrageous. So if you want to play a module with a 3.5 ninja npc, there aren't going to be any corresponding rules for the ninja class. Unless it is a completely new invention, that is visibly not an infringement of WotC's IP.
Which sort of leads to another point. How compatible is compatible? If you are running Pathfinder adventures in 3.5, are you at all hindered by having to use deception for bluff and sense motive? Can you just ignore the feats that aren't in your 3.5 rules? How much required conversion work is acceptable? Will each adventure need a page of conversion notes for people who want to use straight 3.5? If so will those notes be provided? If they are, will it be a generic guide printed each time, or will there be specific conversion notes?
Will 3.5 players be satisfied if they have to do some minimal conversion work on their own? Say on the level of converting 3.0 to 3.5? (Which I have done on the fly many times)
I'm very curious as to where Paizo stands on this, and I strongly suspect that different customers have different perspectives on it. I think it might be an important starting point for a lot of this discussion.
I'm going to go a step further and say that clarifying this will help resolve a lot of potential conflict before it happens. I suspect that now that people are done arguing over 3.5 vs. 4E because they have a personal vested interest in what Paizo decides, we will soon see similar arguments of backwards compatibility because it affects how useful future Pathfinder products are to each customer. Mostly because the more of your own house-rules you can get worked into the game, the better for you as a purchaser. In fact I think that's part of the large volume of posts so far. We're already getting a bit of the attitude that "a previous poster supported something I disagree with! I'd better speak up or Paizo might listen to him!"
Just to clarify, I don't think that the Pathfinder threads have descended into the problems there were in the 4E threads for a while. I just think that a) the volume is tremendous and b)things could go that way.
Creative Director
|
Yeah... to me, "Backwards Compatable" means that I print Pathfinder #100 and it uses the Pathfinder RPG rules, but someone who picks up that volume and only has the 3.5 rulebooks and has never seen the Pathfinder RPG can go ahead and run the adventure with little problem.
I would call 3.5 backwards compatable with 3.0, for example. A person using 3.0 rules will periodically hit some funny parts when he sees something like a skill called "Survival" when he's looking for "Wilderness Lore," but the layout of the book itself, the way the stats are presented, and the rules you need to get through the game are all there. He could take a 3.0 fighter stat block and a 3.5 fighter stat block and would be able to figure out how to make them work together. Especially because the stat blocks look so similar.
As it currently stands the Pathfinder RPG alpha is a bigger change than the 3.0 to 3.5 change (whether it remains that big a change or not depends on how we and our playtesters [you] feel in a year or so), but if we were to build an adventure using the Pathfindeer RPG rules, a person using only 3.5 rules would be able to run the game. It wouldn't be like he picked up a 2nd edition Shadowrun adventure and tried to figure out the rules using his 3.5 books as his only resource.
Yeah... to me, "Backwards Compatable" means that I print Pathfinder #100 and it uses the Pathfinder RPG rules, but someone who picks up that volume and only has the 3.5 rulebooks and has never seen the Pathfinder RPG can go ahead and run the adventure with little problem.
Excellent!
Excellent!Yeah... to me, "Backwards Compatable" means that I print Pathfinder #100 and it uses the Pathfinder RPG rules, but someone who picks up that volume and only has the 3.5 rulebooks and has never seen the Pathfinder RPG can go ahead and run the adventure with little problem.
Seconded,
I would also like all the developers and play testers to tattoo "Backwards Compatable" on the inside of their eyelids so that the whole goal of this beast is not forgotten.
The Troll
While I agree with much of what you said, I wanted to comment on this statement.
Mostly because the more of your own house-rules you can get worked into the game, the better for you as a purchaser.
I disagree with that being true for all purchasers. I don't think that if a system had all of my houserules that it would make me any more likely to purchase the system. What I would be interested in if it could be used with the widest amount of different 3.5 3rd party (and 3.5 WotC) products. The more difficult that becomes, even if it is still fairly easy, the less desireable the system. A widely uniform system, with some flaws, is much nicer in the long run than a "perfect" individualized system.
|
Contributor
|
While I agree with much of what you said, I wanted to comment on this statement.
Mostly because the more of your own house-rules you can get worked into the game, the better for you as a purchaser.I disagree with that being true for all purchasers. I don't think that if a system had all of my houserules that it would make me any more likely to purchase the system. What I would be interested in if it could be used with the widest amount of different 3.5 3rd party (and 3.5 WotC) products. The more difficult that becomes, even if it is still fairly easy, the less desireable the system. A widely uniform system, with some flaws, is much nicer in the long run than a "perfect" individualized system.
Right, bur what I actually meant is that if Pathfinder the game includes your houserules, then the Pathfinder modules will be written to be more in line with how you play your games, meaning that they are a more useful resource for you. It's more about making the adventures desireable than the actual rules (although there is some of that too).
I would, for one, advise not straying too far from the base document.
Fix things a consensus of fans want fixed, but my vote is not for a wholesale change in the game.
(If that's what I want, then that option will be available this summer ;) )
I think a lot fans on these messageboards are creative folk, and it's a nice idea to play (let's find a way to tinker and get "our" favorite house rule put into this Pathfinder rpg). There are advocates for a good number of alternative subsystems on the boards right now. Any one of them is cool, neat, and could deliver a kick to a particular playing style.
But taken in their entirety, that's a lot of rules changing, and to me, defeats the purpose of the PF rpg. Optional rules are OK, but the baseline document should remain intact. That's the game we know and love.
Submissions for Dungeon and Dragon magazines had this philosophy (for a host of different reasons, I understand), but the intent was to keep the game grounded, keep it familiar, keep it "knowable" -- if that's even a word.
The basic idea -- to keep the 3.5 rules in print -- is best adhered to if they remain the 3.5 rules.
By all means, fix those things that seem to vex a lot of players. But I'm not sure a wholesale reworking of classes, feats and skills is what will serve you in the long run.
My definition of "backwards compatible" would be for Pathfinder RPG and D&D 3.5 material to intermix as easily as D&D 3 and D&D 3.5 material, or AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e material.
Power levels might require forethought, but it was easy enough for a DM to houserule things to allow, say, a 1e PHB assassin and a 2e specialty priest from Faiths & Avatars to take a spelljammer to planet to plunder the Tomb of Horrors.
I would call 3.5 backwards compatable with 3.0, for example.
Thanks, James. That was the kind of answer I've been looking for. Now, I think I'm in the minority, the anal-retentive minority, but what I saw as an "incompatibility" was why I upgraded to 3.5 in the first place.
First, I hate winging rules/stats. Completely out of my element. I'm always worried that I will TPK a party because I did the wrong thing.
So I will wait until I'm ready to run a PRPG adventure before I upgrade to the rules set. If the rules are absolutely the bees-knees, then I may run a PRPG game early than I currently think. But that's a TBD...
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Greg
Yeah... to me, "Backwards Compatable" means that I print Pathfinder #100 and it uses the Pathfinder RPG rules, but someone who picks up that volume and only has the 3.5 rulebooks and has never seen the Pathfinder RPG can go ahead and run the adventure with little problem.
That's what I like to hear!
I would call 3.5 backwards compatable with 3.0, for example.
I agree. This would be a reasonable goal for PRPG. The Alpha is on the edge, but still certainly usable without much, if any, changes on the part of a 3.5 DM. But it's definitely at the limit of changes, IMO.
The goal of backwards compatibility sounds promising so far.
I intend to find out, as just B.P.* I was getting together a Savage Tide game and coincidentally the first 3.5 game that I've DMed (I Dmed extensively in 1e tho). I don't own any of the myriad books, just the core and will put the compatiblity issue to the test. I noticed that other books were referenced (with numerous alternate and extra feats and rules)as this was 100% WotC content but since I don't have em I'll just have to get by.
(I may buy Fiendish Codex:Hordes of the Abyss tho ;)
That's what alpha test is all about!
*=Before Pathfinder RPG Alpha Release 1
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
I've switched my 3.5 party (in part*) over to the Alpha playtest and even with the wildly different skill system and a few rules and feat changes I was able to run a long session of Burnt Offerings with no real compatability issues.
So even as big a jump as the Alpha rules are right now I think that the compatability is still there.
*It was only a partial change because one of my players is playing a 3.5 druid. We bumped his HP by race (I prefer that option), allowed him to cast unlimited cantrips as per the cleric and I think he went ahead and switched his skills over (but I left that choice up to him).
|
|
I would call 3.5 backwards compatable with 3.0, for example. A person using 3.0 rules will periodically hit some funny parts when he sees something like a skill called "Survival" when he's looking for "Wilderness Lore," but the layout of the book itself, the way the stats are presented, and the rules you need to get through the game are all there.
And to many of us these changes were so small in irrelevant we simply eyeball it on the fly. If this is the type of backward compatibility with PRPG, then, outstanding!
-DM Jeff
That is precisely how I would like to see PRPG evolve. Thanks!
Yeah... to me, "Backwards Compatable" means that I print Pathfinder #100 and it uses the Pathfinder RPG rules, but someone who picks up that volume and only has the 3.5 rulebooks and has never seen the Pathfinder RPG can go ahead and run the adventure with little problem.
I would call 3.5 backwards compatable with 3.0, for example. A person using 3.0 rules will periodically hit some funny parts when he sees something like a skill called "Survival" when he's looking for "Wilderness Lore," but the layout of the book itself, the way the stats are presented, and the rules you need to get through the game are all there. He could take a 3.0 fighter stat block and a 3.5 fighter stat block and would be able to figure out how to make them work together. Especially because the stat blocks look so similar.
As it currently stands the Pathfinder RPG alpha is a bigger change than the 3.0 to 3.5 change (whether it remains that big a change or not depends on how we and our playtesters [you] feel in a year or so), but if we were to build an adventure using the Pathfindeer RPG rules, a person using only 3.5 rules would be able to run the game. It wouldn't be like he picked up a 2nd edition Shadowrun adventure and tried to figure out the rules using his 3.5 books as his only resource.