|
The issue of backwards compatibility is probably the most crucial aspect of the Pathfinder RPG.
While some people hope that the backwards compatibility should be maintained entirely, others, like me, don’t mind a little bit of paper work if the result is a more fluid game.
So I figured I’d come up with a ranking system for Backwards compatibility in the hopes that someone at Paizo could produce a poll that could be filled out by the playtesters on the forums. People can then use this same ranking to give their opinions on how backwards compatible other people’s ideas are on these forums.
Ranks
***** The suggestion requires no change in the rules and utilizes existing mechanics with a slight tweak to make them better. Example modifying DCs of skill checks.
**** The suggestion requires minor changes in the rules and utilizes existing mechanics applied to another area of the games structure. Example using flat DCs instead of opposed rolls for grapple or the new undead turning in Alpha 1.
*** The suggestion requires minor changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to one area of the games structure. Example introducing defense values to classes or the combining of skills like in alpha 1.
** The suggestion requires major changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to one or two areas of the games structure. Example restructuring the spell system or using static saves.
* The suggestion requires major changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to multiple areas of the games structure; restructuring the level system or complete reworking of the CR system.
Ranks
***** The suggestion requires no change in the rules and utilizes existing mechanics with a slight tweak to make them better. Example modifying DCs of skill checks.
**** The suggestion requires minor changes in the rules and utilizes existing mechanics applied to another area of the games structure. Example using flat DCs instead of opposed rolls for grapple or the new undead turning in Alpha 1.
*** The suggestion requires minor changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to one area of the games structure. Example introducing defense values to classes or the combining of skills like in alpha 1.
** The suggestion requires major changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to one or two areas of the games structure. Example restructuring the spell system or using static saves.
* The suggestion requires major changes in the rules and utilizes new mechanics applied to multiple areas of the games structure; restructuring the level system or complete reworking of the CR system.
Well, I believe backward compatibility is not related to the amount of rules changed or amount of mechanics introduced, but rather to the invalidation of existing material (or necessity to modify it). It's like computer programming - you may change 100 lines of code and the other 100 lines may continue working - or you may change a single line and everything else crash.
For instance, the change of grapple rules, although a radical change in terms of rules and mechanics, basically don't bring compatibility issues because there is no need to re-stat monsters, NPCs and prestige classes to adapt to them. Perhaps some feat or prestige class relies on specific details of grapple rules, but you can certainly use at least 99% of your owned material with them.
In the other hand, merging or removing skills brings a compatibility issue because you have to change the stat blocks of monsters/NPCs which have these skills, and change feats, prestige classes, etc. which refer to the skill.
Removing skill points and replacing them with level-dependant values, although technically a more radical change (in terms of rules and mechanics) than the previous one, actually has a lesser impact on backward compatibility, since you can still use the existing stat blocks for monsters/NPCs (they only won't be consistent with the character building rules).
|
I believe backward compatibility is not related to the amount of rules changed or amount of mechanics introduced, but rather to the invalidation of existing material (or necessity to modify it).
I agree 100%. I don't mind learning new rules but I do not want to have to re-stat a bunch of stuff just to run old 3.5 adventures or use old 3.5 supplements.
Director of Games
|
Hi there all,
Although backwards compatibility is very important to the Pathfinder RPG, I am a firm believer that having a fun and balanced game is the most important goal. Part of that is making sure that much of the content you have come to know and love over the past 8 years is still usable.
That said, I am trying to make sure that none of the changes rates lower than a *** according to your rankings, with most falling in the * and ** camps. There might be a few ****, but they would need to be big problems, I am not sure I have really come across one yet. The current alpha skill system is a **** in my book right now, and I think I am going to change it back to a ** or a ***.
Just some thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Hi there all,
Although backwards compatibility is very important to the Pathfinder RPG, I am a firm believer that having a fun and balanced game is the most important goal. Part of that is making sure that much of the content you have come to know and love over the past 8 years is still usable.
That said, I am trying to make sure that none of the changes rates lower than a *** according to your rankings, with most falling in the * and ** camps. There might be a few ****, but they would need to be big problems, I am not sure I have really come across one yet. The current alpha skill system is a **** in my book right now, and I think I am going to change it back to a ** or a ***.
Just some thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Jason, it's not April fools anymore. Shouldn't your *'s be *****'s and your **'s be ****'s? I hope.
As I see it, 3 is much do rigid to be archieved in practice, and 2 is allready much too far. I think between 2 and 3 is room for a quite considerable range of campatibility.
I sense a lot of player input in a lot of these responses, and much less input from DMs.
I say this because of the vast quantity of people saying "hey, fix this class feature" or "wouldn't it be cool if class X could do Y?"
The problem is, every single one of those *** changes is going to invalidate existing material. A lot of it. And the sad thing is that so many of them could be done in non-breaking ways (see my posts about using alternative class features rather than changing the base classes).
I fear that while Paizo is saying that they're backward compatible with 3.5E, they're not actually developing a compatible system.
At the present time, I have a several year long home campaign that runs under 3.5E, and am part of the team running a long-standing convention campaign that switched to 3E back in the day. Unless the compatibility of the core classes and other parts of the system steps up a bit, it will not be worthwhile switching either to Pathfinder, the changes will just be too great.
Not that we'll be switching them to 4E either, but if I did want to make a change that radical, I'd switch to 4E so that I would gain the direct support of new materials. Having played 4E, I can't say it's any better or worse than 3.5E, it's just different.
That difference is the problem with Pathfinder Alpha - it's failing to meet the "we won't invalidate all of your existing game materials" proclamation that Paizo made when they announced it.
Jason, it's not April fools anymore. Shouldn't your *'s be *****'s and your **'s be ****'s? I hope.Hi there all,
Although backwards compatibility is very important to the Pathfinder RPG, I am a firm believer that having a fun and balanced game is the most important goal. Part of that is making sure that much of the content you have come to know and love over the past 8 years is still usable.
That said, I am trying to make sure that none of the changes rates lower than a *** according to your rankings, with most falling in the * and ** camps. There might be a few ****, but they would need to be big problems, I am not sure I have really come across one yet. The current alpha skill system is a **** in my book right now, and I think I am going to change it back to a ** or a ***.
Just some thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
GOD'S I hope not love the alpha style system more please.
|
Jason, it's not April fools anymore. Shouldn't your *'s be *****'s and your **'s be ****'s? I hope.Hi there all,
Although backwards compatibility is very important to the Pathfinder RPG, I am a firm believer that having a fun and balanced game is the most important goal. Part of that is making sure that much of the content you have come to know and love over the past 8 years is still usable.
That said, I am trying to make sure that none of the changes rates lower than a *** according to your rankings, with most falling in the * and ** camps. There might be a few ****, but they would need to be big problems, I am not sure I have really come across one yet. The current alpha skill system is a **** in my book right now, and I think I am going to change it back to a ** or a ***.
Just some thoughts.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I think that some of the things that have been released in Alpha have already been changed. I think when we see the Alpha 2 we'll see that it isn't as radical change as first feared (or hoped).
Personally, I'm in favor of a mostly compatible system. I'm happy to see changes that actually make the game better and can be 'applied on the fly' to any existing material. Thus, changes in skills can be fine (consolidating) as long as they can be refigured very quickly. Within 1-2 minutes is what I'd like to see. The quickest for me is a system that allows me to figure the total number of skill points and spend them without regard to a character's first level or order of classes. For a published source, this kind of information just isn't included. And with a tool like that, I trust I can create the 'feel' of the monsters skills pretty easily.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Although backwards compatibility is very important to the Pathfinder RPG, I am a firm believer that having a fun and balanced game is the most important goal. Part of that is making sure that much of the content you have come to know and love over the past 8 years is still usable.
As long as there is a complete revised SRD available (PHB/DMG/MM) under Pathfinder rules, it seems to me that a simple chapter in each book on how to convert non-SRD 3.5 content to the new rules should make backwards compatibility much easier.
If you're running an adventure from a 2005 issue of Dungeon and it refers to a monster from the MM, replacing it with the new stats is as easy as looking at the monster's entry in the PRPG rules. If it refers to a monster from a splatbook or MM3, simply follow the step-by-step instructions on doing the conversion yourself. A similar table to instruction template can be applied to just about anything, from traps to PrC's to spell balance.
This all assumes there will be rules and statblocks for specific monsters in the PRPG rules, but if not, surely there will be easy guidelines for making conversions.