Simple question. Is idea of backwards compatability holding Pathfinder back from its potential.
If it was a full on brand new RPG, I doubt I'd be sticking around for it. I'm on board because I like a lot of the elements of 3.5, and want to see its continued support.
In fact, I wish the Beta, as it stands now, were a bit more backward compatible. No matter how cool some new abilities may seem, each new addition is a step away from why I'm sticking with Pathfinder.
Not that I don't want some change, just . . . not too much.
Backwards compatibility is a loaded phrase, particularly as it can be taken to mean different things and can be viciously fought over, all in the name of what's "right".
3e to 3.5e was an underwhelming transition for me. Personally I'd prefer an evolution rather tweak. 4e may be the new edition (and even cool in it's own way) but it is not an evolution of 3e it's a whole other beast. While there is a certain charm to being able to pick up any of my old splat books and use them, I could just stick with what I have and forget about Pathfinder then. As it stands now I kind of feel enough has been changed to make using 3.5 products slightly ackward but not enough to really warrent an actual purchase. I think it's in a weird, and potentially detrimental no man's land right now where it's in danger of neither satisfying those who desire continued support for an old edition or those you are looking for a different evolutionary course than the one charted by WotC.
I agree, it is in kind of a no man's land right now, but if it leans towards "new, don't worry about 3.5, were just kinda like that game," then its not for me. For me, it needs to lean a little more back towards 3.5.
|
If I wanted to play a minority fantasy roleplaying game that wasn't compatible with D&D 3.5, I'd play Runequest/BRP or Rolemaster 2/Classic. However, I do like 3.5 and I do want something close to it, and compatible with it, produced (and I am sinking money into Pathfinder APs and Chronicles and Companions and Modules as well as the Pathfinder RPG, with the expectation that I'll be able to use them with the Pathfinder RPG that comes out next Summer). Backwards compatibility is a pain in some respects, sure -- 3.5 is broken in some ways that are somewhat fundamental -- but without a significant amount of it, the endeavour isn't worth the candle, so far as I am concerned.
Yes, it is. Pathfinder should instead strive to be the "real" D&D 4e. AD&D 2e and 3e were still clearly D&D even though they weren't "backwards compatible" per se. 4e's not, it's jumped the shark, it's a totally different game.
I want Pathfinder RPG to keep the "D&D-ness" we all know and love, but it doesn't have to be fully back rules compatible. Have gnomes, but they don't have to be statted the same. Have Vancian magic, but there can be alterations. etc.
I've played any number of different game systems. The only reason I switched to 3.0/3.5 was because Dungeon supported those systems. If Paizo wrote APs for Bella Sera rules, I'd probably be OK with them, too.
|
|
AD&D 2e and 3e were still clearly D&D even though they weren't "backwards compatible" per se.
The 1e --> 2e transition wasn't that bad (although it seemed like it at the time). It was pretty obvious how to interconvert, at least.
I say again, though, that I'm not interested if it's not compatible. Furthermore, I wonder how many people would be; Paizo has a good reputation for writing great 3.x adventures and is still writing them, with PFRPG the continuing vehicle for that. If they rule out the market of people that are still into 3.5 down to those that wanted a new version but not the one that they got in 4e, how many people will there be left buying their stuff? Obviously, Paizo make their own decisions, but I for one will be pretty pissed off when I bought into all this (at some expense) mostly because of the compatibility aims. After all and as I said, if I was after a game that wasn't basically 3.5, I have a lot of other choices (including some, like Rolemaster and Runequest, into which I have also made significant investments over the years).
Backwards compatibility is absolutely essential to Pathfinder's future. I look at my bookshelf full of 3.x material, and I know I don't want to go to 4th edition. It's not an uninformed decision, either. I've played a short game of 4.0, and it was fun, but it wasn't the D&D I've been playing for the better part of this decade. It's transition bears a great resemblance to the change from AD&D to 2nd edition, and I didn't enjoy that, either.
Yes, I think it holds Pathfinder potential back. I agree with the earlier post, I would like to see an advancement of 3rd edition (3.0 or 3.5).
3.5 was kinda snuck in by WOTC to drive a new product strategy. I liked a few of the changes, but disliked just as many (especially spells) that 3.5 brought. Though the tremendous support and unprecedented artwork (at the time) brought me fully on board.
4E is ok, but not the direction I wanted to see the game go.
D
Simple question. Is idea of backwards compatability holding Pathfinder back from its potential.
If backwards compatibility prevents Pathfinder from repairing the core problems inherent in the system, things as fundamental as challenge ratings and the inability of the system to handle a large range of values of X in d20+X, then yes, backwards compatibility would be holding it back.
So far, all we've really seen is PC-power creep, with none of the desperately-needed overhauls of the challenges they face.
-Matt
|
I want a bit of evolution with an eye towards the roots of D&D. I think the mechanics of 3rd ed are ok, but I would like to see paizo clean up some of the flaws in the current system. I do not want to see paizo hold on to something just because it is in the 3.5 core rules. If it does not work, throw it out. I also want paizo to simplify and streamline where they can.
I do think of pathfinder as a D&D 3.75, and if it were up to me, I would take the character classes down a notch rather than up a notch.
Personally, I dislike the term "Backwards Compatible" as it relates to PfRPG. To me, saying it's BWC implies that it is nearly 100% interchangable.
I think a better term in this case is "Legacy Support". That says, you can still run all of your existing 3.5 material, you don't have to modify existing adventures, but in order to enjoy the full benefits, you might want to upgrade them.
From that standpoint, I think making PfRPG labor under the pretense of BWC rather than LS could hold the designers back somewhat. However, I don't see that affecting the client base really. Either way, we can still make use of our 3.5 libraries — just the expectations of how they are used is altered somewhat.
|
Personally, I dislike the term "Backwards Compatible" as it relates to PfRPG. To me, saying it's BWC implies that it is nearly 100% interchangable.
I think a better term in this case is "Legacy Support". That says, you can still run all of your existing 3.5 material, you don't have to modify existing adventures, but in order to enjoy the full benefits, you might want to upgrade them.
I think (something like) your prayers have been in answered, if you look at the recent announcement of the fifth Adventure Path here on paizo.com.
The Council of Thieves Adventure Path is the first to take full advantage of the new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules, and works with both the Pathfinder RPG and the standard 3.5 fantasy RPG rules set.
To be sure, for some people, the phrase "works with" may well be underwhelming. Last week, I ran a 4E module on the fly for my 3.5 group (not so much because I thought the module to be overwhelming, but because I was interested in the experiment for its own sake). All I needed was the 3.5 MM on the table when it came to combat. So, the 4E module "works with" my 3.5 MM, and thus with my 3.5 game.
|
To be sure, for some people, the phrase "works with" may well be underwhelming. Last week, I ran a 4E module on the fly for my 3.5 group (not so much because I thought the module to be overwhelming, but because I was interested in the experiment for its own sake). All I needed was the 3.5 MM on the table when it came to combat. So, the 4E module "works with" my 3.5 MM, and thus with my 3.5 game.
But so many of the mechanics of 4th Edition are different that the games are incompatible without reworking, for example spell progressions.
But I can (and did for a while) take a 3.5 campaign adventure, unaltered, and run it with PRPG characters. The PRPG PCs were overpowered, but aside from that it required no extra work. In fact, we even used the 3.5 version of feats and spells.
|
|
In my opinion, not at all! They are sticking with their promise, which means a lot.
Yes indeed (and it's on that promise that my own investment has been predicated).
It seems to me that if one wished for a 'fixed 3.5-related game' for some set of fundamental perceived flaws with 3.5, then backwards compatibility would be a real problem for that. However, that's not what Paizo set out to do, because they also stressed relative ease of interchangeability. Sure, for some people it will therefore be too little change (and for some, too much!) but it's looking pretty much like what they set out to do as per their commitment from the announcement. So, good job so far (even if I don't like all of the rules in the Beta...).
|
|
Simple question. Is idea of backwards compatability holding Pathfinder back from its potential.In my opinion, not at all! They are sticking with their promise, which means a lot.
-DM Jeff
A huge agreement here...that backwards compatability in NOT holding Pathfinder back and promises kept are a great thing.
|
Personally I could care less about backwards compatibility.
I can take a character from Vampire, Shadowrun, AD&D or whatever, and make it to a 3.5 or Pathfinder character in no time.
Books from all types of games are my sources. I can see backwards compatibility holding the system back from its full potential. Unfortunately, its fans want Pathfinder to be backwards compatible, so the very best ways of handling some classic problems are not available.
Darn shame.
So, in a nutshell, I think that backwards compatibility will make Pathfinder popular but will make it a weaker game in the long run.
I think Backward Compatability is keeping alot of us in this game if they didnt do Backwards compatabible then lots would leave
Just make enough changes to improve the game 3.0 to 3.5 kinda of improvements
This term needs to be more accurately and universally defined. 1.0 > 2.0 > 3.0 > 3.5 is a backwards compatible progression, as you could start a campaign in first edition and convert from there all the way to 3.5. Those are some pretty extensive changes. Which gives a lot of room to actually do what it needs to do.
If you erroneously apply a far stricter definition than it actually warrants, what you end up getting is a Wiki of house rules produced as a commercial product. Um, no. There is no reason to buy something well within one's ability to create for themselves for free. Go beyond the minor scope amateur skill level and it becomes worth the sticker price.
In summary, the term only holds back PF when falsely used to refer to things that are just like 3.5 complete with the over 9,000 flaws, except slightly different. Slightly.
|
|
I need to go look up that 'definition of backwards compatibility' thread, because I'm not sure what does or doesn't constitute it. They add in a bunch of extra features to some classes like the rogue, but balk at the idea of changing certain features of others. Then they completely remove some things like assassin spells and the archmage prestige class. Which means NPCs of previous modules have to be completely rewritten. I don't know.
I'm not interested if it's not compatible. PFRPG has evolved in a way that I do not like anything (mostly, the magic, too nerfed) If it is not compatible, Paizo’s adventures are useless to me, and if so are his adventures will also be Golarion. If it's not compatible, I will come back to play in Faerûn, better documented and more classic.
I need to go look up that 'definition of backwards compatibility' thread, because I'm not sure what does or doesn't constitute it. They add in a bunch of extra features to some classes like the rogue, but balk at the idea of changing certain features of others. Then they completely remove some things like assassin spells and the archmage prestige class. Which means NPCs of previous modules have to be completely rewritten. I don't know.
I'm not sure if anyone knows. Including the writers themselves. It's like asking what is the meaning of life. Or what is furry.
|
|
I think that Pathfinder is trying to be both evolving and backwards compatible - unfortunately it can't be all things to all men.
I personally feel PF has aleady lost it backwards compatibility, I now just see it as another d20 based game alonside Conan, Everquest and the like.
In light of that PF really needs to offer me something different enough to make me feel its worth the time, effort & money to buy into.
Unfortunately because it is still trying to be backwards compatible for others it isn't being different enough. So in that respect then yes I do feel backwards compatibility is holding PF back.
If I want to use my 3.5 stuff I have no reason in my mind to not just continue to use D&D3.5.
If I want to play in the world of Hyporborea I will buy Conan.
And if D&D3.5 beco es a dead system in terms of finding players and I want to continue playing in my favourite D&D setting of Eberron then I have decided to get into 4e as it will have 100% compatible crunch when the 4e Eberron books come out, and for fluff I can still use my 3.5 books.
|
|
The way i see it, PF is as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0. I remember one change specifically in 3.5 that they did away with in 3.0, and that was the druids animal companion. I remember when 3.5 came out, and i saw the change they made to the druid animal companion i was really POed. No longer could i have an evil druid with Class Level * 3 or 4 (cant remember now) rats whos name just so happens to be Willard. [/threadjack]
In any case, to me, and it's been said from others, that PF is essentially DnD 3.75. And i'm okay with that.
|
|
No. Backwards compatability is an asset to PRPG.
Lack of backward compatibility would be a deal-breaker. Part of the excellence of the PAIZO writers is the legacy of their decade of work on Dungeon and Dragon magazines and the myriad rules and content they've worked with like potters with clay. IMHO, there truly is no better place for the legacy of the game formerly known as d&d to continue. That said, 3.5 is a sophisticated ruleset, and if PAIZO does an even better job at refining some of the rough spots, and also being very clear in their writing (please see the SORD 3.5), then they will have created another industry leader. There really isn't any reason why the industry of 3pp games cannot continue as before by supporting 3.5 and PRPG.
Provided sales have remained consistent or look promising, perhaps someone might also consider just staying 3.5 for Pathfinder and making the Pathfinder role-playing game an advanced tool one can jump to.
Look, the main idea is that PRPG was developed at a time when the grievous waters were troubled by a fourth edition that negated previous edition use. The traditions and history of our 30+ years of community and coherency were threatened. Pathfinder soothes the threat of 4e ripping the carpet from under us.
That said, whatever Pathfinder becomes, in its own right is a great game to play. Pathfinder materials, in my opinion can shift forward to the new PRPG ruleset, or quite frankly, remain 3.5 (the same as it ever was). The point is 3.5 is pretty much the engine beneath it all. Players should be able to play PRPG modules and adventure paths using 3.5 or the new PRPG when final rules are published in August '09.
I am greatly excited about PRPG. To my credit, I've brought along 12 other players who now play PRPG rules rather than 3.5., but seriously, both flow nicely into one another at this point with no major breaking points imho (as long as all players at the table are aligned in choosing one ruleset or the other).
In every case, I encourage everyone to STAY with Pathfinder, no matter which ruleset you actually use. Support for PAIZO is a way to show support as a community for: continuity and 30+ years of tradition and coherency. Stay the course, good sirs, because game design companies need to know that "our" game really belongs to us, the players, and should not be continually evolved for the sake of profit, or for the sake of providing "new" designers with a fresh, less cumbersome pallate to draw from. Obviously, the PAIZO community does believe in change, but for the sake of improvement and refinement, not just for the sake of change.
IMHO the comforting thought is that whether you seek to stay and play 3.5 ad infinitum, or wish to move to PRPG rule improvements, PAIZO is the place to continue to get the highest quality, authentic materials for the game formerly known as d&d.
|
|
Look, the main idea is that PRPG was developed at a time when the grievous waters were troubled by a fourth edition that negated previous edition use.
Yes, but it will be sold at a time when this is far less pressing and the whole backwards compatibility issue may have taken a back seat compared to all the attention it got in good ol' 2008. You know, in a year 3.5 will feel the way 3.0 felt in 2004: a dead edition that's been left behind for a year already. 3.5ers had money burning in their pockets for a new RPG this year and bought the Beta, they'll have money next year buying the final product, no matter the (minor) protests to the contrary at the moment. Most importantly, like 4E it will sell like hot cakes even to people who don't intend to play but simply want to know what the whole thing was all about. (Remember: no free PDF next year!) It'll be the largest sales boost Paizo will ever see in a long, long time to come. No prob to drop some old Pathfinder consumers on the way to get that. I certainly don't blame them, and people actively looking forward to a new game openly embrace them for that.
|
|
Look, the main idea is that PRPG was developed at a time when the grievous waters were troubled by a fourth edition that negated previous edition use.Yes, but it will be sold at a time when this is far less pressing and the whole backwards compatibility issue may have taken a back seat compared to all the attention it got in good ol' 2008. You know, in a year 3.5 will feel the way 3.0 felt in 2004: a dead edition that's been left behind for a year already. 3.5ers had money burning in their pockets for a new RPG this year and bought the Beta, they'll have money next year buying the final product, no matter the (minor) protests to the contrary at the moment. Most importantly, like 4E it will sell like hot cakes even to people who don't intend to play but simply want to know what the whole thing was all about. (Remember: no free PDF next year!) It'll be the largest sales boost Paizo will ever see in a long, long time to come. No prob to drop some old Pathfinder consumers on the way to get that. I certainly don't blame them, and people actively looking forward to a new game openly embrace them for that.
Not only do I not see that selling one-time to a bunch of people that don't plan to play it whilst ditching a bunch of the loyal playtesters is a good idea, it just doesn't seem to be what Paizo have in mind. The whole business model -- from magazines to APs through to the other subscriptions -- seems to be based on sustainability, not spectacular one-shots.
|
|
Not only do I not see that selling one-time to a bunch of people that don't plan to play it whilst ditching a bunch of the loyal playtesters is a good idea, it just doesn't seem to be what Paizo have in mind. The whole business model -- from magazines to APs through to the other subscriptions -- seems to be based on sustainability, not spectacular one-shots.
Look, I have no doubt that the RPG they launch next year will be hugely sustainable, but that will happen regardless of how 3.5 compatible it will be. They'll have re-invented their whole marketing model around an RPG that underlies their every single product. How is that not a model based on sustainability? And the most solid base to expand their customer base well beyond the board regulars?
All I said regarding people who "don't plan to play" was restricted to a few die-hard 3.5 fans who, despite their misgivings right now (mind you, I'm one of them), will more likely than not buy the new shiny book next year anyway. I never said that only (or even primarily) people who don't intend to play it will buy it, even though I remain convinced that a significant amount of Paizo customers buy their product to read, not to play (for lack of a gaming group - blessed are we who have one!), and those people don't care much about backwards compatibility either. Why should they?
Honestly, I'd be interested in comparing the number of people invested in the playtest to the number of subscribers and potential buyers next year.
I still think that a lot of forum regulars overestimate the impact they have on Paizo's product placement and development. (Please note that by saying this I don't for a minute intend to detract from the extraordinary loyalty and time commitment Paizo officials display every day on these boards.) Paizo still has this stigma of the small company catering to a very small fanbase. Of course, that's precisely what Paizo was at the time of launching Pathfinder Adventure Paths (what with such declarations of love as Richard Pett's in Skinsaw Murders, page 8). The incredible thing are the leaps and bounds Paizo have taken in an incredibly short time towards a company model that is much, much closer to Wotc than (say) to Goodman Games in terms of market recognition and brand power. I felt this recently, when comparing the preface of the Pathfinder Chronicles CS - which is all about "oh me! look at all the famous people we enlisted in this product! look at the names on the opposite page!" (names who, dare I say, only volunteer generic remarks without so much as a whiff of emotional investment in Golarion) - to that of GoodmanGames' CS ("The World of Aereth"). The latter comes across as the small company it is, and I inserted a photocopy of it in my copy of the Pathfinder CS. Sorry to rumble on for so long, you're compensated in the end by those beautiful words of author Harley Stroh in the aforementioned Campain Setting.
Now is nearly midnight. Tomorrow I will forward the manuscript on to Chicago. Is the world finished? Absolutely not. Given another four months, we could write - record - another two hundred pages. But like Gygax taught us all those years ago, games are meant to be played, not perfected. This gazetteer isn't a crystal ball peering into every corner of the world; it's a magic mirror, offering you a glimpse of a world you've never visited but have always known.
Now all that's left is for you to step through.
|
|
We can only hope Paizo is listen to people like you
I was going to laud your sarcasm when I read some of your other posts to realize you are perfectly serious. Anyhow, here is some food for thought re my upthread claim that the RPG sales will go through the roof and thus may well have the potential to reverse the set-up we've come to be used to with Paizo so far (modules first priority, ruleset second):
Brilliant sales figures.|
|
Three point five never dies.
Its a good d&d edition. PRPG enhances it.
Although different, it preserved the essentials of the past.
The community of 3.5 gamers will continue and thrive because of the Open Game License and the associated System Reference Document that contains enough "Monte Cook" to make this, and variant permutations such as PRPG the standard for the game formerly known as dungeons and dragons for a long, long time.
Backwards compatability is a must in Pathfinder. PAIZO stories need it, the writers excel in it, and with Jason, Monte, et. al. making refinement changes, we're sure to receive an edition that forms the groundwork for years and years of brilliant PAIZO module and adventure path products.
Keying in on the need to create a game that extends the voices of the players into the design makes PAIZO both very modern and part of the web 2.0 trend that is boosting every company that moves in that direction.
At PAIZO, we am not treated like gamer-sheep that need to be herded or lied to and insulted year-after-year. Instead, we are part of a valued community that will make PRPG the best it can be. PAIZO values gamers, they value and respect tradition. They are wize. They are the stewards of our game.
Instead, I argue, the lack of backwards-compatability in 4e is holding wotc back. They've chosen to abandon the legacy of our game in hopes of woo-ing us with something different. But they are poor judges of the times, or the needs of the 3.5 community.
Breaking backwards compatability would be a dealbreaker for me. Period, it's not an argument or anything else, I like pathfinder becuase it is still 3.5 If I wanted to play something that wasn't 3.5 I wouldn't be here or using pathfinder.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I may be mistaken, but my understanding of backwards-compatable means: take any current published adventure for 3.5. Running that adventure under Pathfinder ought to be transparent.
For example, an NPC stat block might say that a sorcerer can cast Grease, so there needs to be a grease spell in Pathfinder. It can be revised, because the details of the spell aren't part of the original adventure.
For example, an adventure for 4th-Level characters might have an encounter with five spiked-chain-wielding wights. The rules for tripping, and reach, and turning undead, might all be different in Pathfinder, but there should still be spiked chains, there should still be wights, and the encounter should still make sense as a challenge for 4th-Level characters.
Paizo's now in the business of selling books, not magazines. "Rise of the Runelords" is still available on store shelves, and will be for years to come. New players will need a game to buy, and new DMs will need the new rules to work with Paizo's adventure offerings.
This term needs to be more accurately and universally defined. 1.0 > 2.0 > 3.0 > 3.5 is a backwards compatible progression, as you could start a campaign in first edition and convert from there all the way to 3.5.
I don't think that's the same thing. I know several groups of old WEG "Star Wars" gamers who "converted" their campaigns to the d20 WotC game mechanics. It's certainly doable, Jedi padawans were still Jedi padawans, Bothan spies were still Bothan spies; but I wouldn't call that a mark of backwards compatability. Every NPC in every adventure needed to be restatted.
The question is, can you take a 2nd Edition AD&D module right now, and run it in 3.5, without changing anything? And I'd argue against that: you'll need to assign skills and feats for all the NPC's, double-check the treasures, assign DCs to all the non-combat skill checks, and make sure that the threats are still level-appropriate (see, for example, undead and dragons).
1st Edition AD&D might even be worse. In "White Plume Mountain" you run into NPCs with stats like: "F4, 15 hp". You'll need to flesh that out a little more in 3.5!
If you ... apply a far stricter definition ..., what you end up getting is ... something well within one's ability to create for themselves for free. Go beyond the minor scope amateur skill level and it becomes worth the sticker price.
I'm not sure that I'd be "able to create for myself" something with the experience and expertise of the Pathfinder design team, but let that be as it may. And I'm not sure that it's easier to make subtle corrections than it is sweeping changes.
There'd be little reason for someone who already owns D&D 3.5 books to buy such a product, perhaps.
The Pathfinder game rules aren't primarily for people who already own D&D. It's for next year's new players and new DM's who are getting into the hobby and need a rulebook. It's to support Paizo's adventure books and modules and Organized Play scenarios.
Standard disclaimer: This is how the game works. Change it or deal with it, but opinions never enter into the equation be they mine or anyone else's.
By the definition of 'must work without changes' it is impossible for PF to be 'backwards compatible' unless it's just a verbatim reprint of 3.5. Which cannot be done due to legal issues. The project is doomed from the start.
As for the scope of changes, have a look at them. They range from stuff that doesn't even meet amateur standards aka is a carbon copy of fighter fix rejects on house rule boards to stuff that is needed but is very obviously needed so as to be a no brainer to stuff that makes you wonder just what the hell they were thinking (caster buffs and melee nerfs all over PF, anyone?) which overall puts it roughly on par with one guy putting his personal campaign house rules on a Wiki somewhere. Except this is many guys on a commercial venture. They are held to higher standards. Mostly because you have to pay for their work.
By the definition of 'must work without changes' it is impossible for PF to be 'backwards compatible' unless it's just a verbatim reprint of 3.5. Which cannot be done due to legal issues. The project is doomed from the start.
Only with regard to those things not in the SRD.
|
|
Standard disclaimer: This is how the game works. Change it or deal with it, but opinions never enter into the equation be they mine or anyone else's.
By the definition of 'must work without changes' it is impossible for PF to be 'backwards compatible' unless it's just a verbatim reprint of 3.5. Which cannot be done due to legal issues. The project is doomed from the start.
Actually, the point of backwards compatibility as I have seen it described here is exactly what Chris describes. You can take a 3.5 module and its stat blocks and play it with PFRPG. The only issue you might have is with game balance due to the increase in the general power levels of the PCs. So you can choose to adapt to PFRPG some aspects (like key NPCs) if you want to, but you don't have to.
As for the scope of changes, have a look at them. They range from stuff that doesn't even meet amateur standards aka is a carbon copy of fighter fix rejects on house rule boards to stuff that is needed but is very obviously needed so as to be a no brainer to stuff that makes you wonder just what the hell they were thinking (caster buffs and melee nerfs all over PF, anyone?) which overall puts it roughly on par with one guy putting his personal campaign house rules on a Wiki somewhere. Except this is many guys on a commercial venture. They are held to higher standards. Mostly because you have to pay for their work.
Perhaps, but not really relevant to the discussion of backwards compatibility.
Different skill arrangements likely giving them more skill points, different maneuver system, different spells (some differences don't matter, the ones that change entire themes do... just try converting a Druid build around Wild Shape verbatim).
At best you will get one of those bad cross over moments. Assuming the universe does not simply implode upon itself, then explode, spewing D20s across the universe. Then implode again for the lols.
So yes it is holding it back due to the false belief the line has not been crossed or because it hasn't done enough yet and needs to depending on which definition you use.
|
|
I don't really disagree with the general point you are making, merely pointing out what backwards compatibility is supposed to mean. I also agree that increasing the power of the casters seems an odd thing to do, and one of the very positive contributions that you and other playtesters have made is to bring this to the fore. Moreover, many of the changes made, at least in the early and more experimental period, seemed to borrow heavily from 4e without having the balancing factors built into that system. But I think that a radical revamp (i.e. massive changes to the general descriptions of powers and abilities of the character classes) of 3e is not going to happen, because of the need for backwards compatibility. PFRPG is basically there to support the Pathfinder game, which will be OGL/3e at a time when the 3.5 books will be out of print, and to allow for earlier 3e stuff to be playable with it (most of which, by the way, is also Paizo product through Dungeon). If that somehow "fails" (debatable - I'm actually pretty happy with 3.5, you and other aren't, and the silent majority are, well, silent) then that may be down to differing expectations about what PFRPG is all about. And that can be obscure, sometimes - what is and what is not allowable or acceptable to Jason is not always clear.
Actually my stance is 3.5 as written is flawed. 4.0 and PF as written are more flawed. I already worked out how to fix 3.5, therefore for anything else to convince me it either needs to take less effort to fix than my current revised version, or have less wrong with it to start before I go tinkering with it.
For the record, examples I give assume RAW. If it doesn't work that way in RAW, I don't bring it up. So yes, if I give an example it applies with or without house rules in effect. More likely it applies less even with the house rules as I have already thought of it and fixed it to some extent. For example, one corrective houserule I use is HD average 3/4th and not 1/2th. 1d4 becomes 1d3+1, 1d6 becomes 1d4+2, 1d8 becomes 1d5+3, 1d10 becomes 1d6+4, and 1d12 becomes 1d7+5. End result of course is everyone gets more HP.
However...
1: The melee guys have the highest HD, therefore they benefit the most.
2: This means the HP difference between them is a lot more meaningful as now it's the difference between 2.5 vs 6.5 at the extreme ends to a difference between 3 and 9 at the extreme ends. A 4 point differential became a 6 point. This increases the ability of melee to do their job. Especially important since melee gets no real defenses barring gishes.
3: Most of monster HP come from incredibly high Con scores. Even the Tarrasque only gains 72 on top of 858 and 48 HD is about as high as it gets as far as I can recall. That's not even 10%. It's certainly a smaller proportion than PC melees get.
Even with this rule helping PC melees more than anyone else, there still are a number of near death experiences best summarized as 'one or more enemies attack the melee guy for one round, often just one enemy unless they're (your level -6) mooks or something'. Naturally it is not hard to extrapolate that if you are regularly surviving one round with 30 or fewer HP left because of a house rule that granted you 28 extra HP in your current state... need I say more? Or to use the more recent example, regularly taking 120ish damage a round when you have 150-200 HP. That's Heal spell every round material or die. That's just with the main enemy attacking. Had the enemies even made a passable attempt at focusing fire they'd easily kill 1, perhaps 2 a round. Even the mooks are doing small amounts of damage, and the Nalfeshnee was respectable in melee as well. Doesn't take much to make up the rest.