Sean K Reynolds wrote: Well, for one, it won't just be a reprint of the 3.5 MM. It almost certainly won't have all the 3.5 monsters (time to cut the chaff) and probably will have some classics that were rereleased as Open content by other publishers.
And for two, we'll need to update all the monsters to take into account the PFRPG rules--skills consolidated or changed, new feats, more feats, etc.
Sure, you could use your 3.5 or even your 3.0 MM with PFRPG, but if you like PFRPG you're going to want the monsters to have the same treatment as the PCs. That is, if you're a GM. ;)
Okay, I've already stated that I'm not sure BC is important, but at this point I'm not even sure what it IS supposed to accomplish.
As I understand it, BC refers to the desire to allow 3.x and d20 and OGL material be compatible with the new pathfinder rule chasis. This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.
Am I wrong on this?
I as because as best as I can see it:
The classes are all different so any NPCs in previously published material won't be compatible and need a rewrite.;
Any old spells, feats, or magic items will likely need the same treatment as they will either be over or underpowered to the new power curve.
Now we are told (if we hadn't figured it out already) that the monsters of 3e will also need a rewrite to truly fit with pathfinder.
This basically says to me that nothing other than flavor text at this point is backwards compatible.
So, am I missing something about BC?
Backwards compatibility - you can use old stuff with PRPG.
ckafrica wrote:
I as because as best as I can see it:
The classes are all different so any NPCs in previously published material won't be compatible and need a rewrite.;
I really don't see the need why Bob, the NPC Fighter that needs to die in encounter #4 should be fully converted to all new feats/skills/abilities of PRPG. You can simply run his 3.5 statblock and players probably won't notice the difference. Yeah, they will kill him a bit easier, but then again, the point of the game in a way is for them to win anyway.
ckafrica wrote: Any old spells, feats, or magic items will likely need the same treatment as they will either be over or underpowered to the new power curve. Like everything ever before. The point is that you can use them. You can take magical item from The Uninspirationally Named Book of Magical Items and use it with the PRPG if you want.
ckafrica wrote: Now we are told (if we hadn't figured it out already) that the monsters of 3e will also need a rewrite to truly fit with pathfinder. Unsurprising. Paizo needs a PRPG monster book anyway, since D&D MM is eventually going to disappear off the shelves.
ckafrica wrote: This basically says to me that nothing other than flavor text at this point is backwards compatible.
So, am I missing something about BC?
Yes, you are. It is extremely naive to think that PRPG is simply some fix to 3E D&D. It is a system for itself. It will have its own monster books, splatbooks and campaign setting(s). However, being similar to 3E D&D it will enable you to use your old d20 material. Yes, the XYZ feat from Complete Warrior will probably be less desirable for your players. That doesn't mean that they can't take it if it somehow fits their character concept.
ckafrica wrote: ...
Okay, I've already stated that I'm not sure BC is important, but at this point I'm not even sure what it IS supposed to accomplish.
As I understand it, BC refers to the desire to allow 3.x and d20 and OGL material be compatible with the new pathfinder rule chasis. This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.
Am I wrong on this?
...
I wrote a post about it.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/compatibilityAndBalanceBasicPrinciples
My conclusions were:
As long as the Pathfinder party is balanced for the enemies of the same Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as the D&D party of the same level, the change in the character creation rules don't matter at all. In D&D you could (at least in theory) replace the party of Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard with a party of Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade and Favored Soul and play the same adventure. Similarly you could use the party of Pathfinder Rogue, Pathfinder Fighter, Pathfinder Wizard and Pathfinder Cleric to play the same adventure.
Similarly, the change in rules, mostly Combat Maneuver Bonus, shouldn't change things too much. CMB (if properly balanced) can make some enemies weaker, some a bit stronger, but the medium point should remain the same. The changes in the spells should be similar. Only most powerful spells should be weakened in a decisive way, and those were exactly the spells which were not often used by typical NPC wizards.
What in D&D should be possible to use as-is with the Pathfinder rules, without ANY convertion? (I don't count changing the name of skills)
1) Settings
2) Adventures
3) Monsters
4) Properly designed basic non-core classes and the prestige classes designed for them - the prestige classes only if they are taken mostly as intended, that is to the end of class. Here I think of such classes as beguiler, binder, factotum, warblade, crusader, swordsage, dread necromancer, warlock etc.
What parts of D&D 3.5 will be incompatible or will require DM to check and approve them?
1) Prestige classes, especially for core classes
2) Feats.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
baduin wrote: ckafrica wrote: ...
Okay, I've already stated that I'm not sure BC is important, but at this point I'm not even sure what it IS supposed to accomplish.
As I understand it, BC refers to the desire to allow 3.x and d20 and OGL material be compatible with the new pathfinder rule chasis. This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.
Am I wrong on this?
...
I wrote a post about it.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/compatibilityAndBalanceBasicPrinciples
My conclusions were:
As long as the Pathfinder party is balanced for the enemies of the same Challenge Rating and Encounter Level as the D&D party of the same level, the change in the character creation rules don't matter at all. In D&D you could (at least in theory) replace the party of Rogue, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard with a party of Beguiler, Factotum, Warblade and Favored Soul and play the same adventure. Similarly you could use the party of Pathfinder Rogue, Pathfinder Fighter, Pathfinder Wizard and Pathfinder Cleric to play the same adventure.
Similarly, the change in rules, mostly Combat Maneuver Bonus, shouldn't change things too much. CMB (if properly balanced) can make some enemies weaker, some a bit stronger, but the medium point should remain the same. The changes in the spells should be similar. Only most powerful spells should be weakened in a decisive way, and those were exactly the spells which were not often used by typical NPC wizards.
What in D&D should be possible to use as-is with the Pathfinder rules, without ANY convertion? (I don't count changing the name of skills)
1) Settings
2) Adventures
3) Monsters
4) Properly designed basic non-core classes and the prestige classes designed for them - the prestige classes only if they are taken mostly as intended, that is to the end of class. Here I think of such classes as beguiler, binder, factotum, warblade, crusader, swordsage, dread necromancer, warlock... Linked.
ckafrica wrote:
The classes are all different so any NPCs in previously published material won't be compatible and need a rewrite.;
Any old spells, feats, or magic items will likely need the same treatment as they will either be over or underpowered to the new power curve.
Now we are told (if we hadn't figured it out already) that the monsters of 3e will also need a rewrite to truly fit with pathfinder.
This basically says to me that nothing other than flavor text at this point is backwards compatible.
So, am I missing something about BC?
My understanding was that classes published in 3.5 splatbooks are generally more powerful than the 3.5 core classes, and the changes in PF are intended to bring them up to the power level of these classes. So most splatbook stuff should be usable as written. And for core, if you've got a character or monster from an old module who you now feel is underpowered, in many cases you could just add a level or HD rather than rewriting them. Also, in most cases PF adds things rather than taking them away, making conversion fairly quick. As Jason says in the introduction to Beta:
Jason Bulmahn wrote: I wanted to make sure that any rules we changed were adaptable to the extensive body of work that exists for the 3.5 rules set. In addition to being compatible, I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this meant adding to existing rules, instead of subtracting from them. From this I understand that "backwards compatible" is intended to mean "easy to adapt" rather than "requiring no adaptation".
ckafrica wrote: This should allow things like old modules and splatbooks to be fully compatible with new system.
Am I wrong on this?
I think the problem is; how could it be fully compatible while making changes? Clearly it can't be both; so they're trying to make it fully compatible where possible, and easily adaptable where not.
Hope this helps.
Kobajagrande wrote: Backwards compatibility - you can use old stuff with PRPG. Yeah that is exactly what I said I thought it was.
Kobajagrande wrote:
I really don't see the need why Bob, the NPC Fighter that needs to die in encounter #4 should be fully converted to all new feats/skills/abilities of PRPG. You can simply run his 3.5 statblock and players probably won't notice the difference. Yeah, they will kill him a bit easier, but then again, the point of the game in a way is for them to win anyway.
well besides the obvious problem that it means new players to the game would have to pick up a WOTC PHB so they can luck up all the old stuff, I guess I'm fine with that.
But then it really doesn't matter what the old fighter used to be like when considering what the new fighter will now does it. Really BC doesn't apply as long as it fits the old CR system.
Kobajagrande wrote: Like everything ever before. The point is that you can use them. You can take magical item from The Uninspirationally Named Book of Magical Items and use it with the PRPG if you want. Oh good that means you'll have no problem running characters with save or dies from the spell compendium? Because if BC is in effect you can't complain when I pull stuff out of these sources.
Kobajagrande wrote:
Unsurprising. Paizo needs a PRPG monster book anyway, since D&D MM is eventually going to disappear off the shelves.
Again my point regard people's need to pick up these disappearing books to continue to use old modules... or converting them themselves which defeats the purpose of having published adventure in the first place.
Kobajagrande wrote:
ckafrica wrote: So, am I missing something about BC? Yes, you are. It is extremely naive to think that PRPG is simply some fix to 3E D&D. It is a system for itself. It will have its own monster books, splatbooks and campaign setting(s). However, being similar to 3E D&D it will enable you to use your old d20 material. Yes, the XYZ feat from Complete Warrior will probably be less desirable for your players. That doesn't mean that they can't take it if it somehow fits their character concept.
Where exactly did I state that PRPG is a fix to 3e? It's extremely ignorant of you to claim I said something I never said. Please don't do it again.
Sure I might be able to use some things from the old splats after carefully examining each but so many mechanics, spell and feats will have been changed, including the balance point of them (as soon as SoDs where nerfed the who balance threshold shifted) but the reality is I will have to assume most of it doesn't fix like the 3.0 to 3.5 shift, rather than assuming that it does.
As best as I can see BC is either going to require a Comprehensive conversion manual, or I'm gonna have to wait for splats to be translated in 3P. And as such have BC restricting the developers ability to make improvements to the system makes me look as BC as a white elephant personally.
Biggus wrote: [My understanding was that classes published in 3.5 splatbooks are generally more powerful than the 3.5 core classes, and the changes in PF are intended to bring them up to the power level of these classes. So most splatbook stuff should be usable as written. And for core, if you've got a character or monster from an old module who you now feel is underpowered, in many cases you could just add a level or HD rather than rewriting them. Also, in most cases PF adds things rather than taking them away, making conversion fairly quick. As Jason says in the introduction to Beta:
Jason Bulmahn wrote: I wanted to make sure that any rules we changed were adaptable to the extensive body of work that exists for the 3.5 rules set. In addition to being compatible, I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this meant adding to existing rules, instead of subtracting from them. From this I understand that "backwards compatible" is intended to mean "easy to adapt" rather than "requiring no adaptation".
Well I think most of the base classes from the splats are worse than most of the CORE, but that has been debated and not really the point of this thread.
Concerning Jason's statement, it seems to me that BC has been broken throughout the 3P process. Think of all the old Domains, how do I use any of the hundred or so domains that have not been converted? That is more than just a minor adaption. Though one could do piecemeal, it does really mean that all old material is all at DM's discretion while before, I would have generally allowed anything WoTC, with a few noted exceptions, I'd now want to carefully want to look over it all before OKing it.
I guess I take issue with the concept because it seems disingenuous. BC is giving the impression that 3P will work like a charm with the old material when really it's gonna take a lot more shoehorning to fit.
Ugh the domains again...just convert them as needed...dont worry with converting the 17 cultists just run em as is.
Domains do not need shoehorned, just converted I used 3.0 stuff with PF and 3.5 stuff with PF this really is very nit picky
ckafrica wrote: Kobajagrande wrote:
I really don't see the need why Bob, the NPC Fighter that needs to die in encounter #4 should be fully converted to all new feats/skills/abilities of PRPG. You can simply run his 3.5 statblock and players probably won't notice the difference. Yeah, they will kill him a bit easier, but then again, the point of the game in a way is for them to win anyway.
well besides the obvious problem that it means new players to the game would have to pick up a WOTC PHB so they can luck up all the old stuff, I guess I'm fine with that.
But then it really doesn't matter what the old fighter used to be like when considering what the new fighter will now does it. Really BC doesn't apply as long as it fits the old CR system.
Why would a new player have to pick up an old WotC PHB? A new plpayer would use the PF books. Backwards compatibility is primarily for existing players, to allow them to use their old 3.x books with Pathfinder. Does this mean you can take *any* thing from *any* 3.x source and just drop it in? Of course not. But PF uses the same basic rules structure as 3.x, so everything *can* work. You can't expect a new rewrite of a game to match *everything* that's ever been produced for that game.
One of the stated goals of BC is: "I wanted to ensure that any conversion work would be minimal. In most cases, this means adding to existing rules, instead of replacing them."
So taking Bob, the NPC Fighter, you add a few feats, add a few class abilities, and he's pretty much converted. And you look in the PF handbook instead of the 3.4 PHB for rules descriptions. How much work you spend converting is up to you, but Beta has a 2-page spread (p.298-299) on how to do it.
Maybe I don't understand your question, but it seems like you want the Pathfinder RPG to do everything for the GM. I don't think that's the case in any tabletop DMG. The GM has to check and possibly convert everything published by an outside source to fit into his world, his game, and his style of play.
ckafrica wrote:
Concerning Jason's statement, it seems to me that BC has been broken throughout the 3P process. Think of all the old Domains, how do I use any of the hundred or so domains that have not been converted? That is more than just a minor adaption. Though one could do piecemeal, it does really mean that all old material is all at DM's discretion while before, I would have generally allowed anything WoTC, with a few noted exceptions, I'd now want to carefully want to look over it all before OKing it.
I guess I take issue with the concept because it seems disingenuous. BC is giving the impression that 3P will work like a charm with the old material when really it's gonna take a lot more shoehorning to fit.
Note that I said " in most cases" and "in many cases". Yes, there are a few things which will require some work to change, but most of it won't, as far as I can see. Are there a lot of rules which you feel will need substantial work to adapt?
ckafrica wrote:
well besides the obvious problem that it means new players to the game would have to pick up a WOTC PHB so they can luck up all the old stuff, I guess I'm fine with that.
As far as I've seen, every single thing in PHB exists in PRPG or is going to be in. There's no need for new people to buy original PHB.
ckafrica wrote: But then it really doesn't matter what the old fighter used to be like when considering what the new fighter will now does it. Really BC doesn't apply as long as it fits the old CR system.
I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here.
ckafrica wrote: Oh good that means you'll have no problem running characters with save or dies from the spell compendium? Because if BC is in effect you can't complain when I pull stuff out of these sources. I think you and I have a different definition of the word "can". I prefer to think of it as a "I am able to do it, but I don't have to do it".
ckafrica wrote: Again my point regard people's need to pick up these disappearing books to continue to use old modules... or converting them themselves which defeats the purpose of having published adventure in the first place. Dude. As far as I know, published modules have statblocks for every encounter in it. You can just run it with that statblock. If you really really care about it you can convert it. It makes no difference in the long run.
Skills changed? Who cares. Modifiers are the same even if ranks are not. A monster won't have athletics, but will have jump. Big deal.
Increased HPs? No one is gonna care if an enemy dies after suffering 60 or 70 points of damage.
New abilities? Just run the enemy without them. The enemies are there to be defeated anyway.
ckafrica wrote: Where exactly did I state that PRPG is a fix to 3e? It's extremely ignorant of you to claim I said something I never said. Please don't do it again. Ok, look. You asked questions, I gave you an honest answer. If your hobby is being snide to people or if you just like to go around and insult people on the internet, please go away. I don't really have patience to deal with people like that.
ckafrica wrote: Sure I might be able to use some things from the old splats after carefully examining each but so many mechanics, spell and feats will have been changed, including the balance point of them (as soon as SoDs where nerfed the who balance threshold shifted) but the reality is I will have to assume most of it doesn't fix like the 3.0 to 3.5 shift, rather than assuming that it does. I can't help you there. I am one of the people who doesn't pay much attention to the number crunching and doesn't concern himself with too much balance. My view on conversion stuff is totally different.
I have a great little supplement on wild magic. I could, with minimal fuss, use it to make a character in pathfinder with the wild caster template and thats something i`m grateful for.
d20 was really good for random stuff, people were publishing books and tiny magazines on all manner of things they liked. I have numerous hardbacks on "steampunk", one book all about tieflings and aasimar, the wildmagic book, loads of drow stuff, etc.
Backwards compatability means that i can salvage a great deal of stuff from my investment there, rather than having to throw it all out. As a gm thats a real godsend. As a player its also very nice.
Interestingly, i play a standard pathfinder barbarian at the moment, with no funny rules. Pathfinder itself offers a lot of good stuff, but i know that when the mood takes me, or when i get a hankering to try something a bit off the wall, its there for me to use.
It's not perfect, but it means i dont have to throw out all my old books. Thats good for me.
The only way for the Pathfinder RPG to be 100% compatible with the old books is for it to be 100% identical -- in short, for it to not exist at all, and for people to continue using only the out of print PHB and DM in their games.
That said, it's definitely close enough so I'd think it would be possible to 'wing it' 90% of the time without doing much (or any) conversion work. The NPCs who the PCs fight aren't going to make more than one appearance most of the time, so if, for example, you've got a fighter who you're worried about not matching up to his CR, just give him 10 additional hit points and a +2 or +3 to damage for every 4 levels he's got, and he'll probably fulfill his role just fine.
For recurring characters, a bigger 'makeover' is needed -- but the material's still similar enough so it's probably more in the realm of 'heavy tweaking' in most cases, rather than a 'full rewrite.' (Of course, I tend to completely rewrite recurring characters anyway, if they appear in published material, since I want them to fit better into my campaign, but the principle remains -- the mooks can be 'eyeballed' and the recurring characters are few enough in number that they won't be excessively obnoxious to upgrade.)
IMO, of course.
At this point I just don't see any problem whatsoever with running a warlock, beguiler, or binder alongside PFRPG classes. Very minimal tweaking is needed with these classes.
And that's backwards compatibility. A minimum of tweaking and you drop it in largely as is. Easy.
I'm not saying that it will always be that simple. But the tarresque is just going to get some feats and minor skill reworking. That's all most of the monsters are going to need.
I just don't see what all the fuss is about.
I'm far more concerned with how Power Attack has been sub-optimized and nerfed to the lowest level of Hell.
There are several aspects to backward compatibility:
1) The ability to use adventures, NPCs and other pre-created game content without the need to convert it.
(Note: Pathfinder RPG scores high on this aspect of backward compatibility - the only thing endangering this somewhat is the power creep in Pathfinder RPG).
2) The ability to easily, accurately and quickly convert PCs, NPCs, items, monsters, etcetera from the original system into the follow-on system.
(Note: This is not a particularly important type of backward compatibility if aspect 1 is satisfied to a large degree, since in that case only very little needs to be converted [mostly the PCs and perhaps the most important NPCs], so a decent amount of time can be spent on each, though clear procedures should still be available and in the Pathfinder RPG that is the case).
3) The ability to use mechanical materials from the original system in combination with the mechanical materials in the follow-on system.
(e.g. Using feats from 3.5E with Pathfinder RPG characters)
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
|
