Pathfinder RPG = D&D 3.5

[Blackbird]

Well well well... it seems that I've been a bit over-excited lately with Pathfinder RPG. It's a good idea to be D&D 3.5 compatible, but currently it's remaining too close to the original to become a game on its own.
Take a new D&D player for example, he'll have a hard time finding differences between both! And IMO that's not a good thing. To sum things up: PFRPG isn't enough "added value" compared to 3.5... Yes indeed, I am against full retro-compatibility with D&D 3.5.

I bet that if you take a random adventure, run it once with a group of non-hardcore players using 3.5, erase their memory, run it again in PathfinderRPG, there won't be any significant difference regarding the actions they chose to do and the effects those actions had on the environment (provided they chose the same character classes for both games). If so, what's the point in changing the game?

I'm reading some people saying very interesting things on other 3.5-evolved systems such as Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Maybe "the truth is out there"...

In any case, when looking at the "bigger picture", I don't find Pathfinder RPG necessary.

[neceros]

Agreed. AE is a great example on how to balance. The core system needs a balance, then the fluff and crunch willow follow.

[CourtFool]

Some people are looking for the continuation of 3.5. Just sayin’.

[hogarth]

CourtFool wrote:

Some people are looking for the continuation of 3.5. Just sayin’.

Exactly. No one is stopping DMs & players from using Arcana Evolved in their campaigns. And yet somehow 3.5 D&D is still more popular. So why should Paizo hitch its wagon to Arcana Evolved and not 3.5 D&D?

[grrtigger]

CourtFool wrote:

Some people are looking for the continuation of 3.5. Just sayin’.

This is definitely me. Part of what I like about Pathfinder is that I will be able to mine my existing 3.5 library with little or no work. I'm sure Paizo could make a completely awesome new RPG only loosely based on 3.5, but then everything I'd want to use from my 3.5 books would be even more work to include.

[Zootcat]

Blackbird wrote:

but currently it's remaining too close to the original to become a game on its own.

Becoming a game on it's own, isn't really the purpose of the PFRPG. Rather, the purpose is to keep a PHB in print. The changes in the rules aren't meant to be radical. Rather, they are merely meant to fix some problems with 3.5.

[Callous Jack]

grrtigger wrote:

CourtFool wrote:

Some people are looking for the continuation of 3.5. Just sayin’.

This is definitely me. Part of what I like about Pathfinder is that I will be able to mine my existing 3.5 library with little or no work. I'm sure Paizo could make a completely awesome new RPG only loosely based on 3.5, but then everything I'd want to use from my 3.5 books would be even more work to include.

Same here.

[Penny Sue]

I really don't think Pathfinder is about newbies noticing a difference. It's about offering an improved version of v3.5 for those that want one. Frankly I'm glad it's not completely and vastly different because I actually liked v3.5. Yet it had shortcomings and problems which I feel Pathfinder is smoothing over, filling in, or fixing. To me it's a good thing new players wouldn't notice much of a difference; the game is already complex enough and transitioning to Pathfinder will be smooth.

You're right; it's not necessary. I could have just played on with out Pathfinder or any other OGL product out there. I don't think Arcana Evolved is necessary either. I find the vast majority of the splat books and other products released for 3.5 to be unnecessary.

[Vic Wertz]

Blackbird wrote:

Yes indeed, I am against full retro-compatibility with D&D 3.5.

Given that that's a primary design goal here, the Pathfinder RPG is probably not going to be the game for you. That's ok—we know it's not for everyone.

[darth_borehd]

Well, it's for me! It's like th3 3.5 that we know and love, only better! Like getting chocolate syrup on your ice cream--so much yummier.