When the possibility of Paizo releasing an updated 3.5 with some rules tweaks - a "3.75" edition - my assumption was that they would change as little as possible.
Then, when it was formally announced, with backwards compatibility as one of the stated goals, my assumption about changing as little as possible felt confirmed.
Then I saw the Alpha 1 document and some of the proposals on the boards. Now I'm wondering: maybe my assumption was wrong. Is this just an attempt to fix some bugs with a few rules tweaks, or is this an attempt to build a new game using the same mechanics?
The more things change, the less this is going to feel like "3.75" D&D and the more this is going to seem like something in the vein of Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes: a different game using the same mechanics.
So how extensive is the rules revision going to be? How extensive should it be?
It seemed to me that the goal of backwards compatibility would be best served by tweaking what needs fixing, but otherwise changing as little as possible. But maybe truly fixing 3.5 means undertaking a more extensive revision. And if so, then what becomes of backwards compatibility?
I can see your point, and feel almost the same.
There are a few things to try and keep in mind.
First, this is just the Alpha. Meaning this is when all the "weird" stuff gets tried first. If this were the Beta test, I'd be more concerned at the level of differences.
Second, every one seems to think (correctly, or incorrectly) this is the time to point out all their little pet peeves, and other general dislikes of the game. And to present their fixes that work great for them, and their group, but haven't tried to exist in the "real world." A lot of things look great at first, but once a ton of people get their hands on it they turn out to be worse than what was already there.
Finally, I believe that Paizo really means it when they say Pathfinder RPG will be backwards compatible. We still have almost a year of playtesting to go through. When we get our hands on the Beta we will have a better idea of what the final product will look like.
Having so many class changes so early doesn't feel very backwards compatible to me. Changing abilities also removes the backwards compatibility, and makes it look a bit like some of what's being incorporated into 4e. For a design goal, it doesn't look like backwards compatibility is going to make it to the end of the design phase.
That may not altogether a bad thing, especially since Paizo has already said that they plan to move over to their new RPG system.
|
Second, every one seems to think (correctly, or incorrectly) this is the time to point out all their little pet peeves, and other general dislikes of the game. And to present their fixes that work great for them, and their group, but haven't tried to exist in the "real world." A lot of things look great at first, but once a ton of people get their hands on it they turn out to be worse than what was already there.
Totally agree with this statement. I felt this way the third day after the alpha was released.
The changes to classes I dont see as a problem. Whether good or bad, they'll be compatible. Its all about balance.
What worries me, are some of the other suggestions on the board. Changes to armor rules, getting rid of hit points. That kind of stuff is too far fetched to accomplish the goal of being backwards compatible. I have faith in Paizo in ultimately making the game how they want it, with input from the fans of course, but holding the final decision.
|
|
To toss a cliche into the discussion, I would point out that its not the quantity of changes, its the quality. A few well thought out fixes that address shortcoming in the ruleset would be much more palatable to a wider audience than a large number of "kewl" changes that would likely divide the audience.
Ultimately, self-contained fixes like some of the new class abilities, slower XP, or the new feat progression can easily be used or not, and thus maintain backwards compatibility.
Condensed skill lists, completely reworked combat moves, and new features like the bonded item for wizards (which I adore) are more difficult to switch back to 3.5
If most of the changes fall into the 1st category, it would be good IMO. Too many changes that resemble the later list, however, distance the stat blocks and game balance too far from vanilla 3.5 and must be approached carefully.
In some ways I'd almost wish that the Pathfinder system was actually Unearthed Arcana Vol 2 with lots of optional bits but nothing mandatory. Things that can be used to streamline or enhance your game but aren't standard in every game since many people play the game a different way.
|
In some ways I'd almost wish that the Pathfinder system was actually Unearthed Arcana Vol 2 with lots of optional bits but nothing mandatory. Things that can be used to streamline or enhance your game but aren't standard in every game since many people play the game a different way.
This would be the ideal. Minimal changes, but more *options.*
If you want to play a Swashbuckling Fighter, it isn't the core class that needs to be changed, you simply should be provided a set of alternate class features or a class variant that fills that niche.
I love the idea of this Pathfinder PRG, but also worry that it's starting to look like a significant revision, rather than simply a tidy-up of all the raw edges in 3.5...
In particular, if I was to use this product, I'd want to know that I could, with relative ease, graft in all the other, non-core (OGL) 3.5 books and adventures. I worry that that's going to become a fairly difficult task if things go too far - it will become 3.99 instead of 3.51.
Examples of things that I think will ruin backwards compatibility:
1. Changing starting hp for 1st level PC's - a 1st level PC is supposed to be green, hence should still fear an orc, not have 4 times its hp. If you want more survivable PC's, just start your game at 2nd level and write some level of experience into the characters' back-stories to explain how they came to be significantly more capable than the average humanoid.
2. Too much tinkering with the skills system - the current system looks slightly simpler (but not a lot), but does seem to give you a huge number of skills as your level up, and they are all maxed out. I don't actually see how this improves the game, and it sounds like a DM's nightmare for conversion of monsters in 3.5 books and adventures.
There are other things I am fairly ambivalent about, such as various 4.0 ideas being incorporated, as well as some ideas from the 3.5 splat books - that's OK, just be aware of resulting balance (e.g. Fighters now seem to be getting pushed into only being the party tank - I don't see how you could create a swashbuckling type of fighter, you'd probably have to be a rogue for that). There's also other tweaks that, while different, don't seem to materially affect the game (e.g. aiming for a target DC in a grapple etc is good, but to say the new grapple rules are simpler is a joke - the existing rules are not complex if you actually read them top to bottom and use them a few times, and the new rules look to be no simpler and potentially flawed).
Basically, I'd just like to see the following rule applied:
"If it ain't broke, don't try and fix it"
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Examples of things that I think will ruin backwards compatibility:
1. Changing starting hp for 1st level PC's - a 1st level PC is supposed to be green, hence should still fear an orc, not have 4 times its hp. If you want more survivable PC's, just start your game at 2nd level and write some level of experience into the characters' back-stories to explain how they came to be significantly more capable than the average humanoid.
2. Too much tinkering with the skills system - the current system looks slightly simpler (but not a lot), but does seem to give you a huge number of skills as your level up, and they are all maxed out. I don't actually see how this improves the game, and it sounds like a DM's nightmare for conversion of monsters in 3.5 books and adventures.
1. I don't think the change in HP affects backwards compatability at all. First level characters are too light in base HP IMO. One encounter in the morning and then rest until the next morning. Where's the heroism? Since the added HP are not likely going to affect the power of individual monsters I don't see this as a campatability issue. It seems to be more of a matter of taste if you want a grittier game go back to lower HP. Although higher HP will also open up more options for DMs without giving up the other frailties of first level PCs.
2. The Pathfinder skill system is undergoing a more changes so I wouldn't worry too much about the content of that chapter just yet. We'll need to wait for the next release to see what Jason has in store for us.
2. Too much tinkering with the skills system - the current system looks slightly simpler (but not a lot), but does seem to give you a huge number of skills as your level up, and they are all maxed out. I don't actually see how this improves the game, and it sounds like a DM's nightmare for conversion of monsters in 3.5 books and adventures.
Dont seem hard to me really I have done a few in the last couple of days hardest one I had was nothing to do with pathfinder but I changed a werewolf/cleric 1 to a ghoul and ...but his skills weren't an issue.
last one I did was a riding dog. skills by mm 3.5
Jump +8, Listen +5, Spot +5, Swim +3, Survival +1*
i worked them out to be
acrobatics+11,perception+6,survival+6/10 when tracking by sent
feats i replaces tracking with toughness for the breed I was using but over all fast easy work.
|
1. I don't think the change in HP affects backwards compatability at all. First level characters are too light in base HP IMO. One encounter in the morning and then rest until the next morning. Where's the heroism? Since the added HP are not likely going to affect the power of individual monsters I don't see this as a campatability issue. It seems to be more of a matter of taste if you want a grittier game go back to lower HP. Although higher HP will also open up more options for DMs without giving up the other frailties of first level PCs.
The problem is that if you are converting a 3.5 adventure, you have to take the 1st level hp increase into account for every NPC of every level, including monsters with classes. Otherwise, you're getting into the separate rules for PC's and NPC's mess.
|
I just wanted to share my thoughts on Backward Compatibility, there so many threads to chose from.
1. Races: I don't think any of these changes are too dramatic and the ability bonuses are easy enough to add on the fly. Nothing seems to be a game breaker if you forget to make the change in a stat block, which IMHO is the most important part of "backward compatibility".
2. Classes: The classes could use some rebalancing, but the drastic changes to classes that are already the most powerful(Cleric, Wizard), especially abilities that make them more powerful and versitile can't help, and with the extensive changes every stat block has to have so much added to it. For basic adding of more feats or a few abilities (Fighter/Rogue), it is not so tough, even adding feats to all classes isn't so bad, but adding a whole suite of abilites is just too much to do and kills game balance.
3.Skills: Plenty of changes, the need to add lots of skills to every crature with lots of HD/Levels will be tough but at least the math is simple. Basically everything gets lots more skills.
4. Feats: OK now we get to the point of NO "backward compatibility", there are lots of feats for 3.5 and once you start changing them you get a riple effect though every stat block in the Monster Manuals, modules, splat books, everything!! Feats with other feats as pre-reqs get messed up. Feats are such a basic part of 3.0/3.5, if you change them you lose all your "backward compatibility".
5. Combat: Combat Maneuver Bonus, cool, calculate one number add it to the stat block. All the feats still work with the Combat Maneuver system, use it for more stuff(Tumble). Changes to Grapple, certainly a step in the right direction, it is a difficult thing to adjudicate many game designers have tried.
6. Spells and Magic: Changing the schools around is way too much work, think of what it will do the the Rise of the Rune Lords, I can't beleive this is "backward compatibile" at all, same with Domains it is changing the fundamental power level of every Cleric in every stat block and every monster that uses Domains. Now changing a few spells is not so bad especially when they support another changed rule set like Identify does for Appraise.
Clearly I fall in the "Keep the Changes Small" crowd, keep the Backward Compatibility a focus of PFRPG.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
What worries me, are some of the other suggestions on the board. Changes to armor rules, getting rid of hit points. That kind of stuff is too far fetched to accomplish the goal of being backwards compatible. I have faith in Paizo in ultimately making the game how they want it, with input from the fans of course, but holding the final decision.
You do not need to worry at all about changes of this magnitude. Whether or not an increase in starting hit points has a long-term effect on "portability" of stat blocks between systems is an interesting and useful discussion. Suggesting that we change the core classes or races or that we ditch Vancian spellcasting or what have you is not helpful, as it violates the spirit of the project.
Some of these suggestions are really cool, and I can already see an "add-on options" book forming in my head, but we are not going to reinvent the wheel into a square.
In some ways I'd almost wish that the Pathfinder system was actually Unearthed Arcana Vol 2 with lots of optional bits but nothing mandatory. Things that can be used to streamline or enhance your game but aren't standard in every game since many people play the game a different way.This would be the ideal. Minimal changes, but more *options.*
If you want to play a Swashbuckling Fighter, it isn't the core class that needs to be changed, you simply should be provided a set of alternate class features or a class variant that fills that niche.
Like the Swashbuckler, from Complete Warrior! Which is why backwards compatibility is important.
Not to say that the swashbuckler class doesn't have problems of its own...
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
The problem is that if you are converting a 3.5 adventure, you have to take the 1st level hp increase into account for every NPC of every level, including monsters with classes. Otherwise, you're getting into the separate rules for PC's and NPC's mess.
I don't see such a small difference between NPCs and PCs to be a mess.
I am playtesting the alpha rules right now with Rise of the Runelords and my PCs are still low level (we're about midway through Burnt Offerings and using the Racial HP rule) In the session I ran where we converted the PCs over I had to make 0 changes to the module. I don't see the need to boost every thug and goblins HP just because the PC HP went up. Now when they get to the end well maybe I'll boost the BBEG's HP maybe not. So I might adjust 1 or 2 enemies. I hardly call that a mess to convert.
As the characters go up in level I'll probably bother to make that adjustment even less frequently as the bonus HP will mean less and less. The largest bonus any of my characters have to their starting HP is 6. By the time my PCs are sixth level it will be nearly impossible to tell the difference between a PC who recieved the bonus and an NPC who did not. The more levels you stack on (unless your player never has any bad rolls) the fuzzier this line gets.
PCs are the focus of the campaign. They are expected to fight and move on, and fight and move on, for as long as they can. With a few extra HP PCs can do this a little longer each day. Monsters and Villains (with a few exceptions) are expected to show up and die horrible violent deaths at the PCs hands. Each has a differnt purpose. Nobody is proposing the kind of radical shift in NPC/PC building that 4e will make it's just a few HP to reflect those differing purposes.
Even if in the finished product Pathfinder NPCs get the HP boost you don't need to make every PFRPG change to prepublished 3.0 or 3.5 adventures for them to still be balanced and for you and your group to have fun.
I think the goal should be to simplify where possible.
For example, the changes to skills are extremely easy to implement. I remember too many late night sessions where I leveled up and tried to recalculate the number of skills I was supposed to get.
The feat changes are harder to implement, but a core system of good feats is better than feat shopping through ten different books just to find a decent feat.
Overall, cleaning up the dumb parts of DnD makes converting old material really easy.
Honestly, I haven't seen anything in the Alpha rules that breaks "backwards compatibility" for me. But I don't really anticipate having to do a lot of conversion work myself. I'm currently running RotRL, and I will probably start using the new rules this month.
In my opinion, there's a minimum threshold of changes that Paizo is going to have to make to 3.5 in order for it to make sense to publish a new book.
If it's only 3.51, why publish a book at all? Just release a 10-page free PDF of rule fixes and call it a day. And I also don't see the point of making a book of 100% optional rules. It's been done already.
But I think it's a bit harsh to call PRPG "3.99" or the equivalent of Iron Heroes. Iron Heroes is pretty much not backwards compatible due to large number of changes to character building, feats, action resolution and the relative lack of magic. It's a very cool system, but I can see where it would be hard to convert most OGL modules to the system. But the system is so cool that it's tempting. I briefly considered trying to run RotRL in Iron Heroes. But it seemed like a bit too much work.
However, I am allowing my players to use Arcana Evolved character classes in my RotRL campaign. We're still using the standard 3.5 magic system and spell lists. So far, it's been working out fine. So although a product like Arcana Evolved has some pretty major changes in it, I would still consider it backwards compatible with 3.5.
If the Pathfinder RPG goes as far as Arcana Evolved (or even a bit farther) without straying into Iron Heroes level changes, I think backwards compatibility would be satisfied.
I answered a very similar sentiment in another thread. If we lose backwards compatibility, we may as well play 4th ed. On the other hand, keeping 85% of 3.X, while fixing some of the issues that brought 4E about in the first place....well, shoehorning 15% into a legacy game isn't that tough for any DM worth his salt.
I've seen some good ideas and some truly awful ones, but the important part is that they are out there...keep em coming.
Can't help but wonder what would have happened if WotC had done this two years ago...invited public opinion on rules changes. I don't recall ever seeing anything like this.
That's because nothing like this has ever happened before.
Isn't it great!
YAY! WE'RE NOT IN A TIMELOOP!
I've commented on this somewhat in the combat forum, but then I found this.
My main concern, even with the initial release, is breaking backwards compatability. Even the changes that are there are iffy in a few places, in my opinion. I have not had time to do a full, in-depth read of the rules, but I skimmed them all pretty thoroughly, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
In particular, the changes to the classes, to grappling, and to the skills concern me.
There is an existing precedent for altering classes: alternative class features. There is no need to change the base Fighter class when an alternative class feature can be provided. This was done in a number of the 3.5 sourcebooks and in Dragon magazine. I have not made a comparison with the spellcasting and 3.5 in depth, but changes there are concerning as well - I really don't want to redo years worth of campaign development in order to use Pathfinder, much as I want to use the system.
Secondly, the changes to grappling seem gratuitous to me. They don't really simplify it much, and they add an element of round-to-round recordkeeping that was not there previously. In addition, I think the special rules regarding size (when a creature is a LOT larger than you) were dropped, I'm hoping inadvertently. When you consider that grappling is an integral part of MANY creatures' attacks, you're potentially opening a huge can of worms when you fiddle with it.
Finally, mucking with the skills means that virtually all of the existing 3.5E materials are invalidated. I suppose I can hand-edit all of the PCGen tables to take these things into account, and I even totally sympathize with the intent, but it makes for a lot of work.
A lot of people on the boards seem to thing that the release of Pathfinder is justification to revamp virtually the entire system, while I have the opposite viewpoint - I want Pathfinder to be an awesome extension of the system, not a rewrite so that a bunch of house rules modify 3.5 into something else that I can't use unless I rewrite all of my books and material as well.
We made one minor change to the grapple rules and fixed it. Trash improved grapple. Anything out there that CAN grapple effectively generally has an insane modifier to it's grapple score. Agains anything size Huge or larger...forget it. So, subtracting any damage from the opponents roll means the PC has a MUCH better chance of breaking said grapple compared to current rules. Give the critter mobility, and you suddenly have a decent challenge that doesn't immediately become so one-sided as to be ridiculous.
|
|
Nothing seems to be a game breaker if you forget to make the change in a stat block, which IMHO is the most important part of "backward compatibility".
This is about the level of backwards compatibility I'm looking for.
See, I'm lazy. 90% of the time I'm just going to run 3.5 adventures as is, without changing the stats, even if I'm playing Pathfinder. I'll run the new rules for creating new characters and grappling and all, but I'm most likely not going to go back and re-stat everything. So when I say "backwards compatibility," I mean I want to be able to run most 3.5 baddies in Pathfinder without changing anything.
Many rules changes won't make a big difference. If Pathfinder gives a few more hit points or a few more/less skill points, whatever, I'll probably just use the old stats for those encounters. If skills change names and I can say, "Sleight of Hand? Oh, that's Thievery now," fine. And things like combat maneuvers that add one simple number to the stat block; I can handle that.
What I don't want is to have to re-calculate BAB for every encounter, re-calculate a bunch of skill ranks 'cause the key ability scores switched, re-allocate a whole bunch of spells 'cause they are at different levels now, things like that. Once in a while, for a boss baddie or a major NPC, okay, but not for every mook and goblin in a 64-page adventure. I want the new rules (and the outcomes of the new rules) to be close enough to 3.5 that I can pretty much use them side by side without being unfair to my PCs.
To clarify, the mess is the argument over whether NPC's and PC's should have different rules. It was a hot button topic around here for a while.Otherwise, you're getting into the separate rules for PC's and NPC's mess.I don't see such a small difference between NPCs and PCs to be a mess.
Seriously? Damn, I can't believe I missed that. Not to derail - a simple yes/no is all I actually want here - but do you happen to recall if anybody brought up NPC classes as an argument towards PCs being different?
This is about the level of backwards compatibility I'm looking for.
See, I'm lazy. 90% of the time I'm just going to run 3.5 adventures as is, without changing the stats, even if I'm playing Pathfinder. I'll run the new rules for creating new characters and grappling and all, but I'm most likely not going to go back and re-stat everything. So when I say "backwards compatibility," I mean I want to be able to run most 3.5 baddies in Pathfinder without changing anything.
Agreed. Some degree of conversion is inevitable, but it doesn't have to be a painstaking recreation of every statblock in an adventure.
Hit points are simple. Rogues and wizards get an additional one or two per level to account for the hit die upgrade. If there is a more significant boost to 1st level hp, simply tack a few more on, or assume the NPC needs "just one more hit" to bring him down. I mean, what DM doesn't want to milk another round out of his baddies?
Skill bonuses are easy, too. If the creature in question should have a good bonus to a certain skill, assume it does and give it the max bonus (HD + 3 + relevant ability bonus, under the 1.1 rules). Remember few skills are actually used in an encounter against the PCs, so skill conversion should be a snap. No one will be dissecting your stat block looking for misplaced skill points.
Feats are a little trickier, but the key here is having a solid understanding of the rules, past and current. A sticky note on a stat block updates Power Attack calculations, attack bonuses, and such (it's also a good place for CMB, AC, and hp adjustments). In a pinch, you can drop defunct or undesirable feats from a statblock and substitute easy to implement ones like dodge, toughness, or quick-draw. Quick, neat, and requires only one change.
Spellcasting is the most worrisome, but even that doesn’t have to be brutal. Again, understanding the differences between rules versions is key. If the average combat is three to six rounds long, you only need to look at the six highest level spells the caster can access (adding one or two more for quickened and swift spells). Chances are, you'll be familiar enough with low level effects to wing them if combat stretches on longer than anticipated. The point is, you don't need to figure out a full spell list for the NPC, just the stuff he's most likely to use against the PCs before getting squished.
Hope this helps!
~ Andrew V
I see alot of talk about what systems people want to add but the issue is that 3.5 is overloaded with systems that do not work together or stack well at all. You can end up with a tangled and messy character at the end of the day.
Thats the problem hence a 3.75 or 4.0. Now for 3.75 we need to look at ways we can combine systems that are the same thing with different names, or things that will never stack with other systems.
Arcane/Divine/Psionic casting should be one system with different sources. Their spell lists should be minimal, and they should stack when you take prestiege class or another class that provides casting from this source.
Feats comb this mess into a few categories with neatly stacking abilities. I see this being done, Thank you by the way.
Skills a simple list that smoothly flows with the other parts of a charater, I suggest synergy with other feats and spells. That is up to the designers though jsut my thought.
Stances, Binds, Incarnium, taint, sanity, and more then I care to list. These need to be intergrated into classes, feats, and spells. The systems are intresting and fun but can become overwhelming when you try to use them with the existing systems.
As ive seen they are desolving systems together and simplfing the game greatly. Hopefully in the next months we will see the system fall into place were we can freely add anything we want from any 3x and 4 source with only minor balancing.
Good luck to everyone, and so far so good.
|
|
What worries me, are some of the other suggestions on the board. Changes to armor rules, getting rid of hit points. That kind of stuff is too far fetched to accomplish the goal of being backwards compatible. I have faith in Paizo in ultimately making the game how they want it, with input from the fans of course, but holding the final decision.You do not need to worry at all about changes of this magnitude. Whether or not an increase in starting hit points has a long-term effect on "portability" of stat blocks between systems is an interesting and useful discussion. Suggesting that we change the core classes or races or that we ditch Vancian spellcasting or what have you is not helpful, as it violates the spirit of the project.
Some of these suggestions are really cool, and I can already see an "add-on options" book forming in my head, but we are not going to reinvent the wheel into a square.
Maybe I'm wrong, but the way I see Pathfinder is that a 3.5 Cleric and a PRPG Cleric will be comparable. You should continue to be able to play Pathfinder adventures with your 3.5 Cleric.
|
|
Nothing seems to be a game breaker if you forget to make the change in a stat block, which IMHO is the most important part of "backward compatibility".This is about the level of backwards compatibility I'm looking for.
See, I'm lazy. 90% of the time I'm just going to run 3.5 adventures as is, without changing the stats, even if I'm playing Pathfinder.
This is a question of mine because I see alot of people say "That will mess up backward compatibility", but when they say that do they mean that they want everything to be just like 3.5? If that's the case, no offense meant at all, but that person should just keep playing 3.5. Pathfinder already has a different skills rules and some of the hitpoints have changed, but the general flavor and play of the game is 3.5 all of the way.
My thinking of backwards compatibility is that in 2009 when a person has a D&D3.5 character that he plays with in a group of people who are still playing D&D3.5, like how some people still play D&D2nd now, and this same person wants to sit in with a group that plays Pathfinder RPG this person will only have to 'plug in' or change maybe up to 5 minor things,add hit points, redo skills,ect. And the same goes for a Pathfinder RPG character to convert to a D&D3.5 character. Unlike in 4th edition where it has been stated in a podcast that character going from 3.5 to 4.0 will pretty much have to roll up a new character using the same stats as before and character name.
In some ways I'd almost wish that the Pathfinder system was actually Unearthed Arcana Vol 2 with lots of optional bits but nothing mandatory. Things that can be used to streamline or enhance your game but aren't standard in every game since many people play the game a different way.
Who says it isn't? I can/will just take some rule changes (grapple, etc.) and not others (super-powered classes,etc.).
By the way, Unearthed Arcana was the best non-core book in 3.5.
My thinking of backwards compatibility is that in 2009 when a person has a D&D3.5 character that he plays with in a group of people who are still playing D&D3.5, like how some people still play D&D2nd now, and this same person wants to sit in with a group that plays Pathfinder RPG this person will only have to 'plug in' or change maybe up to 5 minor things,add hit points, redo skills,ect.
Unless I am misreading everything that Erik, James, Jason & co. have been posting, it sounds like Souphin's definition could be adopted as the official one for describing "backwards compatibility."
|
|
It bugged me that there were two problems addressed in the Alpha intro -grapple and polymorph- and only one of the two had a solution presented. It feels like less energy should have been spent on revising feats and skills and more on the problems all acknowledged with the game.
Right now there aren't many situations in Pathfinder RPG Alpha that hurt reverse compatibility. Making all the PH races slightly superior hurts compatibility because non-OGL races are now slightly inferior. Combat Feats, while better than when they first showed up, have compatibility problems because they are inferior to non-OGL feats. A melee character could be made up entirely of feats chosen from Player's Handbook II and Complete Warrior and not be hampered by rules that restrict how many of their feats can be used in a single round.
This isn't to say no other proposed rules changes have their issues, they just aren't incompatible. If PCs get more Feats, just add a few feats to monsters they face. Or figure out how many more feats the monsters should have under the Pathfinder rules and add that number to their BAB or AC. Similar to HP. If all PCs get six more hit points at first level, add 6 to every NPC and monster's hit points.
That said, I think compatibility should be the Pathfinder RPG's top priority. My group already doesn't want to make the "switch" to Pathfinder because they feel too many changes were made to the 3.5 system. Ideally, Pathfinder shouldn't feel like a switch at all, just an expansion with a few tweaks.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
It bugged me that there were two problems addressed in the Alpha intro -grapple and polymorph- and only one of the two had a solution presented. It feels like less energy should have been spent on revising feats and skills and more on the problems all acknowledged with the game.
We've got to break it down one way or the other, and no matter what we did first someone's pet problem was going to go uncovered. There are several significant problems that will be addressed in each of the three Alpha releases. Polymorph is handled in the one that is scheduled to hit the site late next week, but that doesn't mean we're done addressing significant problems. There are more of them out there. (Skills, incidentally, is one of these trouble areas, and will probably see the most tinkering before we get to the Beta stage.)
Making all the PH races slightly superior hurts compatibility because non-OGL races are now slightly inferior. Combat Feats, while better than when they first showed up, have compatibility problems because they are inferior to non-OGL feats.
I don't really believe this is the case. As normal for all classes, races, magic items, and spells, some are a little more powerful than they should be, some are a bit too powerful, and others are just right. Jason approached the Pathfinder RPG with the idea that, in part based upon the non-OGL stuff, the core classes and races were a bit "behind the curve". His fixes are intended to bring them into the "just right" category. That one or two of the umpteen thousand rules bits that WotC (or anyone else) published over the last eight years are going to remain in the "a bit too powerful" category no matter what we do with the core rules is not something we can fix. Honestly, it's not even something we are trying to fix.
If something is too powerful relative to everything else, it is the duty of the GM to make adjustments as befits his campaign.
That said, I think compatibility should be the Pathfinder RPG's top priority. My group already doesn't want to make the "switch" to Pathfinder because they feel too many changes were made to the 3.5 system. Ideally, Pathfinder shouldn't feel like a switch at all, just an expansion with a few tweaks.
Compatibility is the most important goal of the project, but it is not the only goal. So long as Paizo is going to be spending tens of thousands of dollars keeping the core rules in print, we're going to fix some of the cracked paint and stinky bits.
--Erik Mona
Publisher
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Here's the problem that I don't think people are understanding: What exactly does "backward compatability" mean?
To me, "backward compatability" means that I should be able to take a group of characters using the revised PRPG rules through any adventure or product written originally for the standard 3.5 rules with little or no conversion or adjustment. Whatever rules are added or changed or adjusted in the "3.75" version should not affect the difficulty or gameplay presented in the "3.5" product.
Disagreed. There's a reason that the PS2's ability to play PSX games was described as "backwards compatible."
So if the new barbarian class, for example, uses a different system for rage with new abilities, does it really make it less compatible? What's really changed that we can't run these characters in an older module or adventure path? We're assuming that the 3.5 system with all of its hundreds of sourcebooks and player options is a perfect, delicate balance for everybody. Its not, and you know this! So what if a new barbarian class made it more balanced for barbarian characters, or more importantly, more interesting or even more FUN! How is the compatability affected by this? I'll tell you: it's not! If anything, it'll be enhanced.
Actually, the problems with changing a mechanic like that are a little more complicated. Game mechanics are frequently an iterative process; many, many things have function derived from some other game mechanic. For example, Wild Shape is based on Alternate Form; if you change the way Alternate Form works, you're probably changing the way Wild Shape works. Now, this isn't a problem in itself; the problem is that some of these derivative sources are outside the core, and are exactly the stuff that the new system is backwards compatible with. Let's take your Rage example. If you change the Rage mechanic, then this has an impact on any systems derived from the rage mechanic, such as the dervish battle dance or the frenzied berserker's frenzy. And if you change the core mechanic too radically, the derivative mechanics stop working, because they're modifications to mechanics which no longer exist. Best case scenario, you have to rewrite the derivative mechanic; worst case scenario, the derivative mechanic is inherently unusable.
|
|
Disagreed. There's a reason that the PS2's ability to play PSX games was described as "backwards compatible."
And there's also a reason why the PS3 isn't backwards compatible with anything anymore. It used to be and now it's not. Why? Because they forgot it was a gaming console and tried to stuff too many other things into it... yet the 360 has it all.
The point is, there's room something new and still have the old. Pathfinder RPG can be Paizo's Halo 3. It's the same thing with a lot of good changes. (Sadly 4E will likely be Call of Duty 4.)
Making all the PH races slightly superior hurts compatibility because non-OGL races are now slightly inferior. Combat Feats, while better than when they first showed up, have compatibility problems because they are inferior to non-OGL feats.I don't really believe this is the case. As normal for all classes, races, magic items, and spells, some are a little more powerful than they should be, some are a bit too powerful, and others are just right. Jason approached the Pathfinder RPG with the idea that, in part based upon the non-OGL stuff, the core classes and races were a bit "behind the curve". His fixes are intended to bring them into the "just right" category. That one or two of the umpteen thousand rules bits that WotC (or anyone else) published over the last eight years are going to remain in the "a bit too powerful" category no matter what we do with the core rules is not something we can fix. Honestly, it's not even something we are trying to fix.
If something is too powerful relative to everything else, it is the duty of the GM to make adjustments as befits his campaign.
I think that's spot-on. The revised races aren't disrupting the previous balance of races, because previously, race balance was a joke. There's a serious argument to be made that, in 3.5, human is a better PC race than tiefling. Guess which one of those has a level adjustment?
Disagreed. There's a reason that the PS2's ability to play PSX games was described as "backwards compatible."And there's also a reason why the PS3 isn't backwards compatible with anything anymore. It used to be and now it's not. Why? Because they forgot it was a gaming console and tried to stuff too many other things into it... yet the 360 has it all.
The point is, there's room something new and still have the old. Pathfinder RPG can be Paizo's Halo 3. It's the same thing with a lot of good changes. (Sadly 4E will likely be Call of Duty 4.)
Actually, backwards compatibility was removed from the PS3 because it required PS2-specific hardware and Sony was trying to cut out every single thing they could to drop the price. And the 360's backwards compatibility is actually fairly piecemeal; there's a number of major X-Box titles with no backwards compatibility support at all, and a rather larger list of titles with known, common, and sometimes serious bugs in compatibility.
The only systems to have had any real, true, 100% backwards compatibility have been the DS, Wii, and PS2. The video game system metaphor for backwards compatibility is seriously flawed, and I'd suggest we stop trying to use it.
(And for the record, Call of Duty 4 has been enormously successful, popular, and praised.)
Disagreed. There's a reason that the PS2's ability to play PSX games was described as "backwards compatible."Uhm... hate to burst your bubble, but you are actually agreeing with me here. PS2 is the engine (i.e. the ruleset) and an older PS1 game is the 'adventure module'. But thanks for offering yet another reason why video games and tabletop games don't translate the same way. ;)
Hmm, I guess I do agree with you.
I can't tell if that's good or bad.
Archon's example is somewhat confusingly worded, but ultimately correct. Backwards compatibility is the ability to use extant 3.5 material in the Pathfinder RPG ruleset with negligible conversion.
I think the key word here is "negligible". Personal thresholds of what constitutes "negligible" will vary drastically. As a personal barometer, if I have to change something that is written, that is no longer negligible. For example, if AC is now calculated differently and I have to recalculate the AC of old stat blocks, that's not negligible.
|
Contributor
|
I was under the impression that Paizo's intent with backwards compatibility was the opposite; that you will be able to play adventures written for Pathfinder using the old 3.5 rules with minimal conversion. Since their goal is to provide continuing rules support but not require players to drop their old game system if they don't want to.
|
Contributor
|
I was under the impression that Paizo's intent with backwards compatibility was the opposite; that you will be able to play adventures written for Pathfinder using the old 3.5 rules with minimal conversion. Since their goal is to provide continuing rules support but not require players to drop their old game system if they don't want to.And that would be an example of (brace yourself!) forward compatability. Now ask yourself, if that were the case, why would they need a revised ruleset?
Be that as it may, it is what James Jacobs said in an earlier post.
And as to why they need new rules, it is so that new people coming into gaming who have not played 3.5 have a current ruleset that matches the adventures to buy. While they want Pathfinder rpg to be attractive to people playing 3.5, the game allows them to continue producing stuff for their existing audience.
|
|
Actually, backwards compatibility was removed from the PS3 because it required PS2-specific hardware and Sony was trying to cut out every single thing they could to drop the price. And the 360's backwards compatibility is actually fairly piecemeal;
And if they were building a game console instead of a mini-super computer that played blue ray movies, they wouldn't have needed to cut all that. As far as piecemeal 360.. all the titles most people care about/still play are there and that's all that matters.. some is better then none.
In any case, it was an analogy, not a video game debate. :)
|
|
Compatibility is the most important goal of the project, but it is not the only goal. So long as Paizo is going to be spending tens of thousands of dollars keeping the core rules in print, we're going to fix some of the cracked paint and stinky bits.
That said, I think compatibility should be the Pathfinder RPG's top priority. My group already doesn't want to make the "switch" to Pathfinder because they feel too many changes were made to the 3.5 system. Ideally, Pathfinder shouldn't feel like a switch at all, just an expansion with a few tweaks.
I sympathize with Paizo's position, because making the Pathfinder RPG what some would call 3.75 ed is a Catch-22. Too similar to 3.5 and there's no reason anyone would buy it. They'd buy expansions, but what game gets expansions if the core rulebook doesn't sell? Too different from 3.5 and you lose the built-in audience, those who want to stay with 3.5 because they don't want to learn a whole new system and want the books they've bought previously to stay relevant.