I cannot say, that I'm a big fan of vanilla 3.5 ruleset (it only becomes a great game for me with addition of supplements and net guides, that alleviate the need to memorize these supplements). However, by now, after watching discussion on these forums for a time (and participating briefly here and there) I have decided not to switch Pathfinder. There are main reasons for that:
1)Backwards compatibility or, more accurately, lack of it. Let me tell my opinion straight. At this point, any talk of backward compatibility with 3.X is ridiculous sham. If I cannot take a 3.X monster or adventure and run it under Pathfinder on the fly, the game is not backwards compatible. And I cannot. Yeah, most skills can be switched on the fly, because the new skills are produced by merging the 3.X ones. Except for (pun unintended), the Fly skill, which frankly is one of those fifth wheels that killed my interest in the game. Exactly what was so unworkable in 3.5 system for flight. Then there is CMB. Not only it is calculated by different formula than old grapple and trip modifiers (which were the only combat maneuver modifiers that did matter), this formula nerfs combat maneuvers in general, delivering solid kick to the nuts to all monsters who were depending on them. Then there is the fact, that all characters now have more feats. Why, Paizo, why? Wouldn't it have been better to make crap core feats not-crap, instead of invalidating almost every classed 3.X NPC writeup ever at the same time causing enormous upheaval in balance of core + supplements games (making some feat-intensive builds, such as giga-damage spellcasters so much easier to achieve, for example)? Then, there is bigger HPs for everyone. Well, at least this is relatively easy to adjust and, frankly, changing Hit Die for some classes is actually a reasonable change. However, HPs lead me to my next big problem:
2)Too much 4theditionitis. To be frank, I hate 4E. Any iteration of 3.X rules that I'm willing to buy should, at the very least, stay as far away from it as 3.5 is. Extra HPs at the first level (at least strongly suggested)? Thanks a lot, now I know, that running fragile characters that must actually think twice before rushing into danger and be reasonably cautious around any tough-looking thug is wrong. It wasn't like I could start characters at 3rd level in 3.X, if I wanted them to kick ass from the get go. No Save or Dies? [Insert your favorite expletive here], is there any reason for these rules except to remove interesting tactical choices and reward dumb players that cannot be bothered to obtain easily-available protections against common SoDs? Maybe some of them, such as Flesh to Stone were too damn annoying for their level, thanks to lack of such protections, but, ironically, they remain in PBeta.
3)Tons of minor changes, that add nothing to the game, add some fairly insignificant benefits, not worth the effort of relearning the rules, or mess with things that actually worked. Most feat, spell and magic item changes fall right into this category. Perhaps I wouldn't have been turned off by them, if all of these changes were well thought-out and worked toward some goal I can approve. They aren't. Melee feat nerfs, I'm looking at you!
4)On the other hand, none of major issues seem to be fixed. Spellcasters still win DnD at high levels (without suffering so much at low levels) and actually win harder as soon as you add supplements, because melees still suck, and moreover, optimizing them now is actually harder (thanks a lot for above-mentioned melee nerfs), while optimizing spellcasters is easier (extra feats and free metamagic sure don't matter much... except they do). Lots and lots of buffs are still integral to the mid-high level game (because, well, melees still suck on their own). Wealth is still directly linked to power, leading to incredible variety of abuses. Options that were well-known traps in 3.5 (fencing, sword and board, Evocation school, monks, to name a few examples) mostly remain traps - paladin is the only exception that comes to mind. Not even all of the stuff that provably breaks campaigns in half is fixed. You can still chain-bind outsiders or mine planes for infinite wealth and you can still scry & fry (well, the latter can be countered by a prepared DM, but, in my opinion, it narrows the range of potential opposition too early and too much).
5)Finally, Pathfinder doesn't seem to offer any major benefits or revolutionary breakthroughs to make itself interesting, despite of above-mentioned failures. I would have been interested in Pathfinder, if it, for example, admitted the actual power scale of DnD (which is pretty friggin' steep, with competent characters above level 10th or so being able to do stuff that puts all but the most overpowered and godlike fantasy heroes to shame) and made appropriate adjustments for the expected playstyle, scale of abilities for all classes and the setting. But for now Pathfinder simply does not offer any significant pros to balance it cons. It is not the game that I can DM without houserules, it is not truly backwards compatible, and it is not noticeably better that my own houserules, most of the houserule sets that I can find on the net, or than 3.5+supplements without a handful of obvious gamebreakers (some of which still are present in PBeta).
To summarize, I might still be buying some of Pathfinder material, such as APs or monster books, because I like to read them and they can be mined for ideas, but actual conversion to Pathfinder rules is, at this point, out of the question. After watching the boards, I lost practically all hope for any positive changes between PBeta and the final version.
FatR,
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
Because I think that's Paizo's bread and butter currently, not selling rule books.
My two cents: I'll ultimately use the bits and pieces of Pathfinder that I like (e.g. sorcerer bloodlines, getting rid of the barbarian's "rage 1/day", consolidating Disable Device and Open Lock, nerfing Glitterdust) and ignore the bits I don't like (e.g. some of the new feats, bonus spells for non-specialist wizards, consolidating Listen and Search). And I'd certainly consider buying another adventure path if I thought it was as good as Age of Worms or Savage Tide; I really don't think it will be that tough to use in a 3.5 campaign.
I use 2nd Ed. Books all the time. Just ignore the stat blocks, but that not what interests you (at least me) in an adventure.
It's the story and the characters that really matter.
Do they?
FatR,
I want to say right out that my concern for PFRPG is backwards compatibility, and I *am* seeing it. I'm running two 3.5 campaigns under it right now, on the fly, with virtually no problems at all. Backwards compatibility from that respect is right on. I can't speak to forward compatibility (running a PFRPG campaign under 3.5), but from all I've seen it looks simple enough.
>Exactly what was so unworkable in 3.5 system for flight.
Simply? Turning. I've been playing 3rd for 8 years, and I can't tell you how far a creature with average maneuverability would have to travel to turn 180 degrees around (i.e. the turning radius). Or how much movement that would count as. And I can quote you almost any other rule in the SRD. The Fly skill is no perfect solution at all, but it certainly doesn't break something already useful.
>Then there is CMB.
I shared your concern. Past tense. I took the time to compare creatures with varying relative Grapple modifiers and CMB's. Here's the chart.(The third line is if CMB worked off 12+) They work out to look very similar, with just a 15% shift down in the chance of success. Considering how many auto successes I've seen when it comes to grapple, that is something of an improvement. Also, as it is no longer an opposed roll, at some extremes it makes success far more likely.
As far as the monsters using it go, I'm far more likely *to* use them considering the ease of resolution.
>Then there is the fact, that all characters now have more feats. Why, Paizo, why?
To my eyes, because a 5th level non-human should have more than two feats. However, very important to remember there are not *that* many more feats. Only one extra per 6 character levels - it's not that huge a change.
>Extra HPs at the first level (at least strongly suggested)?
Annoying, but I would say only offered as an option. I'm certainly not using them.
>No Save or Dies? [Insert your favorite expletive here],
Don't be so vulgar!.. oh wait.. *my* favorite expletive.. oops.
The extreme amounts of damage these spells do make them quite close to save or die, just as disintegrate has been. I will miss them a bit, but I often avoided the spells entirely because of the overly random nature of them.
>Minor changes made vs. Major changes left alone
I appreciate many of the changes made, a few I don't understand. In the realm of backwards compatibility, I'm glad very few major changes were made.
Take care FatR. If you haven't, I would suggest actually running PF a bit first, perhaps with a 3.5 adventure, to see how well it flows off the page.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
FatR,
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
Hogarth, I can't speak for FatR, of course, but for myself, that's an open question.
First-Level Pathfinder characters are significantly more powerful than their 3.5 analogues. So I'm worried that the first Adventure Path that uses Pathfinder rules will start out being too lethal for my 3.5 party. (Maybe I ought to run another couple of unrelated adventures first, to get them to 2nd Level.)
My two cents: I'll ultimately use the bits and pieces of Pathfinder that I like and ignore the bits I don't like. And I'd certainly consider buying another adventure path if I thought it was as good as Age of Worms or Savage Tide.
Agreed, in principle if not specifics.
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
I'm also not liking the direction of the Pathfinder RPG, but I do buy Pathfinder adventures and would like to continue doing so in the future. I will probably continue my subscription and see how the first few adventures written under the Pathfinder RPG look for backwards compatibility before I decide.
I view Pathfinder as a big set of houserules, much like Unearthed Arcana, or Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved. Some of them I'll use, others not, and in any case, I'll do like I've done in every edition all the way back to 1st, and make my own houserules a-plenty. I'm forced to agree with many of FatR's points that mean Pathfinder won't be played as-is at my table if I can convince the players to go along with substantial alterations... but that doesn't matter; as long as 3.5/Pathfinder adventures aren't too annoying to convert, I'll keep subscribing, so it's a win-win deal.
I'm running the first adventure in the Rise of the Runelords AP under modified Pathfinder rules and I'm really not running into that many issues at all. The only thing that I kept from 3.5 were the Skill points (meaning how many @ start and per level) I use the actual skills from Pathfinder except now when I see a creature / NPC with Listen +2, Spot +2 I just add and divide by 2 for thier Perception socre. The same thing with Move Silently + Hide /2 = Stealth.
It's turned out not to be that big of a deal in actual play.
For starting Hit Points I use CON score + Max HD for PC's and classed NPC's and monsters. Hit points per level are 1/2 HD + Con bonus. It's great because now I dont feel like I have to go easy on them. I removed confirming for crits and use Paizo's critical hit decks.
So far everything is going pretty smoothly.
>Extra HPs at the first level (at least strongly suggested)?
Annoying, but I would say only offered as an option. I'm certainly not using them.>I would suggest actually running PF a bit first, perhaps with a 3.5 adventure, to see how well it flows off the page.
QFT: I've found that conversion can be done on the fly, with nary a pause, if you've taken 10-15 minutes ahead of time to up hps and figure the CMBs.
On the subject of hps, I guess I'm suprised that it annoys. As DM, it relieved my anxiety about new pcs being too easily offed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I've found that conversion can be done on the fly, with nary a pause, if you've taken 10-15 minutes ahead of time to up hps and figure the CMBs.
On the subject of hps, I guess I'm suprised that it annoys. As DM, it relieved my anxiety about new pcs being too easily offed.
Maikurion, so far, there's no way to test the other direction.
I know I want to stay with the D&D 3.5 ruleset. I can't expect Pathfinder to be compatable with my entire 3.5 library (How do the Pathfinder grappling rules interface with my goliath sword sage / reaping mauler?)
So the question is: how transparent is the interface between adventures intended to be run under Pathfinder, and the 3.5 ruleset? Will monsters with the same name have exactly the same statistics? And, as I wondered before, how will a beginning module deal with my 3.5 sorcerer with 4 hit points?
Will I be able to translate an NPC back from Pathfinder, on the fly? (I've watched a player playing a Pathfinder Society sorcerer try to translate the character he built using the Beta rules back into a legal PFS character on the fly; he couldn't do it.)
That's my concern.
|
My main problem is that I am losing faith that the combat fixes will be enough. I was bothered enough about the Power Attack and Combat Expertise nerfs even before Mattastrophic and Jess Door made a really persuasive case that the old versions should come back and just as normal combat options open to all (to make AC work as more than just a saving throw which can easily be close to an autofail at higher levels).
EDIT: But I don't think that it's a bad system and I also don't think it'd be hard to convert either way, to or from 3.5 material.
I've found that conversion can be done on the fly, with nary a pause, if you've taken 10-15 minutes ahead of time to up hps and figure the CMBs.
On the subject of hps, I guess I'm suprised that it annoys. As DM, it relieved my anxiety about new pcs being too easily offed.
Maikurion, so far, there's no way to test the other direction.
I know I want to stay with the D&D 3.5 ruleset. I can't expect Pathfinder to be compatable with my entire 3.5 library (How do the Pathfinder grappling rules interface with my goliath sword sage / reaping mauler?)
So the question is: how transparent is the interface between adventures intended to be run under Pathfinder, and the 3.5 ruleset? Will monsters with the same name have exactly the same statistics? And, as I wondered before, how will a beginning module deal with my 3.5 sorcerer with 4 hit points?
Will I be able to translate an NPC back from Pathfinder, on the fly? (I've watched a player playing a Pathfinder Society sorcerer try to translate the character he built using the Beta rules back into a legal PFS character on the fly; he couldn't do it.)
That's my concern.
My take is that it is a matter of spectrum. There are some things that are much more difficult to convert, and some that admittedly won't convert at all. For the claim of backwards compatibility to be reasonable, the preponderence of the game (which I can only assess by playing) must fall outside of these categories and in the "little to no conversion necessary."
I guess it really doesn't bother me that monsters with the same name might not have the exact same statistics, any more than it bothers me that my pcs keep running into monsters with the exact same statistics. I figure there is a built-in tolerance that in many circumstances I will not feel the need to make square: if the monsters vary a bit (going either way), then I would rationalize that there was some variation in the creature, unless it was going to cause some obvious problem.
Your sorcerer case is a genuine instance, and I understand if it caused your player frustration. The question becomes, is it worth the trade-off? Since 3.5 sorcerers were one of the classes that I was really not happy with, making the substantial changes were an improvement that outweighs the frustration. As far as converting both directions, I can see that there will be some occasions for going Pf to 3.5. But given that Pf is intended to be an improvement on 3.5, won't the preponderance of conversions be to use 3.5 materials with Pf, rather than Pf materials with 3.5? (Backwards compatibility vs. compatibility). If it were an NPC, I would worry about conversion only if for some reason it was really important to the game.
So I guess I have to admit that my interests diverge some from your own, and this affects the application of "tests". I would be more likely to use 3.5 materials with the Pf ruleset, and to not use post-08/09 Pf materials with the 3.5 rules (when I play those rules, I will stick with its material). But given the mass of 3.5 materials on the one hand, and the transition to Pf in society play next season on the other, I don't see a lot of problems for me and my crews in the foreseeable future. But I may have been naively assuming that most folk were in the same boat as I?
First-Level Pathfinder characters are significantly more powerful than their 3.5 analogues. So I'm worried that the first Adventure Path that uses Pathfinder rules will start out being too lethal for my 3.5 party. (Maybe I ought to run another couple of unrelated adventures first, to get them to 2nd Level.)
No they are not that much more powerful. Use 3.5 stranded hp like I do. The deffacnes in power are vague and really only keeps them going longer. With standard HP they do not become tough enuff that you notice it to much. Ask my STAP group who with 7 PF beta players almost died so many times in the 1st part. They have a bit more staying power but not really that much tougher then 3.5. Channel is the biggest boost at level 1 really.
FatR,
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
Likely, yes, if it will be of the same quality as RotRL or AoW. Although I'll take a good look at them before starting to buy them - I'm disappointed by the new AP format of Second Darkness (as well as by its greater-than-usual railroading, its somewhat underpowered opponents and by the blue-skinned drow - yes, I know they had the similar appearance in most of 3.5, it still looks bad to me), although I'm still considering getting the rest of it. Anyway, quality of APs likely will be the deciding factor. Paizo APs aren't free from some common flaws of D&D adventures (very passive enemies, for example), but, despite this, they are among the best adventures published for any edition of D&D.
|
To the OP, your interest being lost is fine. It seems like you had a lot of issues with 3.5, and Pathfinder, while fixing a lot, still uses 3.5 as the base system.
Pathfinder is the vanilla icing on a chocolate cake. If you didn't like chocolate cake to begin with, the icing isn't going to change your mind. If you liked chocolate cake, then the icing is going to make it even more delicious.
|
|
To the OP, your interest being lost is fine. It seems like you had a lot of issues with 3.5, and Pathfinder, while fixing a lot, still uses 3.5 as the base system.
Pathfinder is the vanilla icing on a chocolate cake. If you didn't like chocolate cake to begin with, the icing isn't going to change your mind. If you liked chocolate cake, then the icing is going to make it even more delicious.
It sounds to me like he plays a fuller 3.5 and does enjoy that, and doesn't like PFRPG for the reasons he states, as a replacement for the core to that fuller 3.5 ruleset. That's sort-of the market Paizo are aiming for, I think.
I'm a little confused by your last post, Bagpuss. Do you think the OP is or is not in Paizo's target audience?
I favor what Hogarth says. Take what you like, ditch what you don like. periot.
The APs, CHronicles and Game Mastery Modules are the finest stuff here and I strongly recomend you continue with those, just cnvert them to your own rules/homeworld and voila!
I'm a little confused by your last post, Bagpuss. Do you think the OP is or is not in Paizo's target audience?
He's saying that he's already playing "3.5 + fixes"; he doesn't need to buy a new game that's "3.5 + fixes + some random changes".
But at any rate, if he's still tentatively willing to buy Paizo adventure paths or modules, that means that the Pathfinder set of rules is a success so far (in the sense of not totally driving away customers who wish to play plain ol' 3.5 and not some kind of "3.75" hybrid).
|
|
The only real conversions I do when I run my 3.5 APs with Pathfinder, is to figure out the CMBs, and change HPs from 1/2 max HP to 80% max HPs...this keeps the monsters in the game for just long enough to prevent them from being too nasty...I also check to see if they need an extra feat...That's it!
The skills don't bother me too much.
|
|
I'm a little confused by your last post, Bagpuss. Do you think the OP is or is not in Paizo's target audience?
He is in the target audience in the sense that PFRPG is supposedly pitched so that existing 3.5 splatbooks will be in line with the new (PFRPG) core. Thus, people using said splatbooks must be part of the target audience (or else why bother?). So, for power level, people playing with splat-heavy 3.5 should be able to run campaigns for PFRPG at the power level at which they are written (in theory), which is presumably part of why Paizo have taken this course (they can then write APs that work for PFRPG and splat-heavy 3.5).
|
*shrugs*
well cest la vie... everyone to its won...
i myself dislike some changes... fly being one of them, i haven't checked msot of the feats since my characters are not so combat oriented... but i hate more the idea of some changes not being made just to keep backward compatibility including MOST of the magic (i hate 3.5 magic in general) and the fact that for mechanical issues players and designers are unable to see skills for what they are and keep cripling players with such low skill poitns for classes like the fighter, cleric, paladin, wizard and sorcerer...
what i ahte more is thatsome of this changes are to keep the mechanic of "planned obsolescense" on magical items... which stoped being special... just costly... they have no more emotion thatnwohoo anew +1 sword, in summary... there is no more 'magic' in magic items... just a dull item of the mass product era.
in my case i enjoy Paizo's quality, i love most of the changes to the races and the classes (specially the domains and the channeling), the CMB i still think that DC 15+ is to high... but i have discovered that 10+ is too low... so i am ambivalent
when i play (using modeules, APs or my own stories) i give all my characters a booston skills of +2, i give them 2 traits (ohh i so much loved this change! i am sad they won't bea bel to fit in the final book) before i gave them 1 feat, not any more.
depending the kind of history i gave them more money to begin with... specially city stories... but because i don't plan in giving them loot... they need to earn money... i gave them 1 or 2 mw items but they know they might not be finding a new magic item... and more importantly if they want to buy a magic item...its never the cost of the lsit but a lot higher...
yes... i hate the magic-marts...for me they only exist in paizo's modules and APsand even then they should be expensive
this is to try to solve the [for me] problem of "chrismtas trees" characters
also i use magic from 3.5 for the duration and lots of the effects, taking just a few of the spells created by paizo, in my 1st oportunity i will have to mix paizo's spells with Arcana Evolved spells list...just tohave theebst of the 2 worlds
PS: i buy Paizo's books for the fluff mostly, not the crunch
|
|
He is in the target audience in the sense that PFRPG is supposedly pitched so that existing 3.5 splatbooks will be in line with the new (PFRPG) core. Thus, people using said splatbooks must be part of the target audience (or else why bother?). So, for power level, people playing with splat-heavy 3.5 should be able to run campaigns for PFRPG at the power level at which they are written (in theory), which is presumably part of why Paizo have taken this course (they can then write APs that work for PFRPG and splat-heavy 3.5).
What we need to test this theory is an adventure written for Pathfinder. If you can run it with 3.5 characters, then it's all good. If you can't... well, it means at least another look at what's going on.
A big question would be how much you are willing to "gloss over" as irrelevant if it's not immediately clear how it fits into your world:
"Channel positive energy 5/day (DC 16, 4d6)?" What the hell does that mean? Oh well, if it's positive energy, it won't affect the PCs anyway...
How they respond to something like that will probably determine for a lot of people whether the game actually qualifies as "backwards compatible" or not.
|
|
Shisumo
you are supposing that anyone who buys the APs and other adventures would be ignorant of Pathfinder changes
most would understand what possitive channel is...
still there are no pathfinder adventures outside, so they still have half a year of Adnenture Paths, Modules nad Society Scenarios for 3.5 to play with
in the meantime we will see what happens
i prefer to leave 3.5 behind... including some thigns about the magic... a few of which i will complain when the time comes under the magic part
Huh, to each their own.
I GM'd 1st level Pathfinder Beta PCs (Fighter, Bard, Cleric) through the True20 version of "Death in Freeport" (based in the Shackles on Golarion) and threw in some 3.5 Savage Tide sidetreks since it was a Saturday-Sunday maxi-game.
I adjusted on the fly as I didn't have very much prep time. Yellow Sign Adepts became 1st level Sorcerers with the Abyssal heritage or 1st level Evokers surprising the party by spamming bolts of fire during a running battle through some alleys.
Pf-Beta adds a little oomph compared to 3.5, but it's a nice oomph. The party was able to keep on trucking due to their higher than average HP at 1st level, and the Cleric loved using his Channel Positive Energy to heal instead of relying on Cure Light Wounds.
I like the changes so far and look forward to the final version.
|
|
A big question would be how much you are willing to "gloss over" as irrelevant if it's not immediately clear how it fits into your world:
"Channel positive energy 5/day (DC 16, 4d6)?" What the hell does that mean? Oh well, if it's positive energy, it won't affect the PCs anyway...How they respond to something like that will probably determine for a lot of people whether the game actually qualifies as "backwards compatible" or not.
Personally, I think that when things are settled down and PFRPG is live, Paizo should post some conversion guidelines for that very purpose. It would appear to serve their primary interest of selling APs to as big an audience as possible...
|
|
Shisumo
you are supposing that anyone who buys the APs and other adventures would be ignorant of Pathfinder changes
most would understand what possitive channel is...
Not quite. I'm positing the corner case as a means to test the boundary. GMs familiar with Pathfinder who nevertheless choose to stick with 3.5 are, almost by definition, either going to ignore PFRPG material entirely or reach their own accomodation with it. Trying to generalize for such people is almost literally impossible.
|
Put me in the "meh" category. For every poster that says "you've strayed too far from backward compatibility!" there's another saying "you haven't gone far enough!" And that discounts the posters that are clamoring "kill backward compatibility!" "To each there own," and "you can't satisfy everyone," and all those other sayings.
Personally, I'm happy to ditch the 3.5 splatbooks altogether. Most of them were rubbish with a few pearls thrown in here and there. Barring financial calamity, I'll buy the Pathfinder rules and probably try to convince my group to switch over. Since I've no interest in 4e, I look at this a good "system reboot" of 3.5 OGL.
On a slight;y off-topic subject, I've been prepping rules for my campaign-after-next by reworking some of the D&D 1e rules (not AD&D, I'm talking "red box" rules). It's eye-opening to look through those old rules and see how Fighters were not remotely balanced against Magic-Users of the same level (which is why they have different level/XP progressions). Given the much talked-about stale taste of 4e, it makes me wonder if all this balance is a flavor killer.
-Skeld
|
I personally don' t care if PF will be more backward compatible or less. For me the reason for welcoming PF-RPG is pretty simple. I Don't like the way the evolution from 3.5 to 4E has been done. Its a totally different style of game that I am playing/ are used to. Pathfinder is closer to my liking.
1st:4E allows me less use of my already bought and owned 3.5 books than Pathfinder does. So by going with the PF Rules, I feel can still use my old books (with a few simple changes in the rules/stats).
2nd: As I like to keep any of my future campaigns to be as close to 3.5, and not being willing/able to invest time to constantly write my own adventures/campaigns (after all, I have a 40 to 50 hour week of regular work to do in order to make money to pay for my bills,), I rather opt for any good game of any Company who will keep supplying me with written and published adventures/campaigns. So far, that is only being done by Paizo with Pathfinder. Taking into account that almost no other company of quality will keep publishing any adventures for 3.5 (or 3.x) longer than for (estimated)18 month, (by End of next year, I don think most will be going with 4E ), it seems that Paizo is the only one to fit into the gap. Thus allowing me to keep playing my kind of game for many more years. Going with the PF-RPG Rules is only a small price to play (and not a bad one at that). And as has been mentioned by some of the above contributors: ignore those rules that you don't like and use those you like. Anyway, I have not stumbled upon any game in the last 30 years that did not make me change one or the other rule or even ignore some of the rules. So far any RPG that I have played had to be complimented by our own house rules, and I don't think that will change in the future. Only difference between 4E and PF; 4E needs to be changed a lot where as PF might only be needed to be changed a little; 4E adventures need a big overhaul to be played with 3.x rules, PF based adventures none or just a little.
The real question is: do you think you would purchase any stuff from Paizo in the future? E.g. would you buy an adventure path and semi-convert it/mine it for ideas?
As long as I can continue using the APs with the 3.5 rules with little to no work (eg. I consider 3.0 -> 3.5 to be "little to no work"), then I will continue to buy all of Paizo's APs and modules.
If I can't, then I will quit buying Paizo's stuff.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
At this point in the game, aren't these types of discussions even more pointless than ever? Paizo has committed nine months of development already and has expended a significant amount of resources toward the game, and it's pretty set in its general shape. If it's not bc enough for you now, chances are you missed the boat to get that feedback into the game. If a major characteristic of a class were to change drastically now, when would it get playtested? The time to mention this was a few months ago, when Jason would have time to post new versions of things while those topics were still current. Now that we're into PrCs, sorcerer bloodlines and overall design goals for the whole project is too untopical to even be worth discussing as far as I'm concerned. Then again, here I am discussing it, so take that for what it's worth.
It sounds to me like he plays a fuller 3.5 and does enjoy that, and doesn't like PFRPG for the reasons he states, as a replacement for the core to that fuller 3.5 ruleset. That's sort-of the market Paizo are aiming for, I think.
This is correct. I'm currently playing straight 3.5+supplements (being aware of its problem helps to avoid them in actualy play) and DM 3.5 with house rules. I don't feel that Pathfinder offers an overall improvement over that. There are some good ideas (which I can and did borrow for my houserules), and I suppose that the final product will be more fun to play that vanilla core-only 3.5. But not good enough to switch. The introduced fixes do not compensate its problematic interfacing with 3.5 supplements, and too many of them are misaimed (from my viewpoint). See the original post, for examples.
|
|
Not quite. I'm positing the corner case as a means to test the boundary. GMs familiar with Pathfinder who nevertheless choose to stick with 3.5 are, almost by definition, either going to ignore PFRPG material entirely or reach their own accomodation with it. Trying to generalize for such people is almost literally impossible.Shisumo
you are supposing that anyone who buys the APs and other adventures would be ignorant of Pathfinder changes
most would understand what possitive channel is...
consider this
any dm who is going to use the future rules would see changes... since the Beta is free, at least all clients of today (or at least a bunche of them) would udnerstand the termif someone arrives after August 2009 and he seesdifferent things
well he will have tolearn or to ask or ignore, that is personaldecision
is like trying to play a 3.0 adventure with 2nd edition rules...(ok nos as crazy as that)but in general the base is the same... the other details they wll have to deal with it, not to much trouble since i suppose both are in the same languague... DnD RPG
try explaining the same to a player of Vampire... that is another matter
|
|
Personally, I think that when things are settled down and PFRPG is live, Paizo should post some conversion guidelines for that very purpose. It would appear to serve their primary interest of selling APs to as big an audience as possible...
A big question would be how much you are willing to "gloss over" as irrelevant if it's not immediately clear how it fits into your world:
"Channel positive energy 5/day (DC 16, 4d6)?" What the hell does that mean? Oh well, if it's positive energy, it won't affect the PCs anyway...How they respond to something like that will probably determine for a lot of people whether the game actually qualifies as "backwards compatible" or not.
i agree
|
|
I personally don' t care if PF will be more backward compatible or less. For me the reason for welcoming PF-RPG is pretty simple. I Don't like the way the evolution from 3.5 to 4E has been done. Its a totally different style of game that I am playing/ are used to. Pathfinder is closer to my liking.
i agree
It sounds to me like he plays a fuller 3.5 and does enjoy that, and doesn't like PFRPG for the reasons he states, as a replacement for the core to that fuller 3.5 ruleset. That's sort-of the market Paizo are aiming for, I think.This is correct. I'm currently playing straight 3.5+supplements (being aware of its problem helps to avoid them in actualy play) and DM 3.5 with house rules. I don't feel that Pathfinder offers an overall improvement over that. There are some good ideas (which I can and did borrow for my houserules), and I suppose that the final product will be more fun to play that vanilla core-only 3.5. But not good enough to switch. The introduced fixes do not compensate its problematic interfacing with 3.5 supplements, and too many of them are misaimed (from my viewpoint). See the original post, for examples.
This is true.
Pathfinder has many more changes than I want. At some point they should keep what is working and revert everything else.
The power of all classes has been raised where it should have been just a few. I say this as a playtester (who will continue to playtest): we've crossed the line between bug fixes and feature creep.
I still cling to the hope that the last phase of Beta development will axe a lot of new material. Unless they pare it back some before the final release, I will be unable to convince my players that Pathfinder is "better" than 3.5, and it will just become another book of rules to augment a 3.5 game.
My list for the creme of the crop:
I can go either way on CMB.
Wizards and Clerics have been woefully mishandled, IMO. I agree with the spirit of the changes, but the Beta solution is worse than the problem. The wizard especially has become even more of a management chore with more obscure rules that come in the form of non-spells.
I hope at the end of this playtest they cut everything that isn't absolutely needed, brilliantly reorganize what remains, pack it up and sell it to us. Take everything that got cut and print it in an optional rules book. I came to this game looking for revised core rules, at the moment it has become an across the board power boost.
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.
I was hoping we wouldn't need one.
|
|
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.I was hoping we wouldn't need one.
there are always people who as them, even if the rest think is unecessary
Wizards and Clerics have been woefully mishandled, IMO. I agree with the spirit of the changes, but the Beta solution is worse than the problem. The wizard especially has become even more of a management chore with more obscure rules that come in the form of non-spells.
I hope at the end of this playtest they cut everything that isn't absolutely needed, brilliantly reorganize what remains, pack it up and sell it to us. Take everything that got cut and print it in an optional rules book. I came to this game looking for revised core rules, at the moment it has become an across the board power boost.
i respectfully disagree
the players i have using wizards love the changei myself love the cleric domains, i like them as they are but i read in the chat it was goign to change.
and lets remember what one person believes that doesn't work another person applauds
and no nor domains nor schools should be optional rules... andistill hope they add traits to the rules, many people see the Beta just as playtes to see if you like the changes
my group is not considering changing to Pathfidner, we are already in the ship
lol ironically the only one that doesn't is the DM of Burnt Offering, but he wants to run Crimson Chrown with Arcana Evolved rules...
i will pass.. i like my cleric or the rogue to much, thank you
and considering all the optional rules outthere using inhuman races, overpowerful classes... more than power boost it brings the game to day
i respectfully disagree
the players i have using wizards love the change
i myself love the cleric domains, i like them as they are but i read in the chat it was goign to change.and lets remember what one person believes that doesn't work another person applauds
My point was a little clumsy so I'll add:
It's my opinion. Reasonable people may differ.
Right now if asked to explain Pathfinder Beta to a 3.5 player, I would tend to call it "feature creep" rather than "bug fix".
EDIT: I still consider myself "interested" in Pathfinder (not like the OP), and I still consider myself a playtester. I came to Pathfinder because I wanted to see the Open Gaming movement survive. I am now a believer in the AP format, and the production quality that Paizo offers.
But I'm not yet a lifer. I feel I should express my regrets, else Paizo would be denied the opinion of a new, casual customer on the fence about becoming a lifer.
It isn't too late to evaluate which changes are truly necessary.
I'm 99.43 % certain we'll be creating a conversion guide booklet.
|
|
I've actually had a somewhat bizarre experience, myself. I originally got into Pathfinder with the hope that all of my old stuff would still be viable (and largely, it is, with 5 minutes of conversion or so). But now that I've seen the rules themselves, I'm very tempted to run a strictly "core" game without all the splatbook stuff I have.
As for backwards compatibility, I honestly think that DMs can largely use 3e monsters or NPCs with no conversion at all, they just won't match with the PCs entirely. With one or two exceptions (CMB and Skills are the only things I can think of) all of 3e's stats are present. Characters still have AC, BAB, Saving throws, etc. It's just the nitpicky stuff that has changed. For example, a 3e Beholder will interact with 3e PCs in the exact same way it will interact with Pathfinder PCs. It won't match them entirely, with it's skills and such, but a DM can simply drop one on their players on the fly and players probably wouldn't know the difference.
Admittedly, I like to have all of my stuff match, so I will probably do all the work to make my monsters and NPCs match with the PCs, but if I'm in a rush, I could theoretically ignore all of that stuff.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
the players i have using wizards love the change
i myself love the cleric domains,Ironically the only [member of my gaming group] that doesn't [approve of the changes in Pathfinder] is the DM of Burnt Offering, but he wants to run Crimson Crown with Arcana Evolved rules...
I will pass; I like my cleric or the rogue too much, thank you.
Of course each individual player likes the increase in power Pathfinder provides. 1st-Level clerics love healing everybody in the party 1d6 hit points, several times a day. People love it when their beginning PC's have 20 hit points. Arcane casters love casting detect magic at will. Rogues love being able to sneak attack skeletons and shadows. Everybody loves getting a +2 Attribute bonus.
Everybody would like characters with frikkin' laser beams on their foreheads, too.
"Stronger characters" does nothing to convince me that Pathfinder is a better system.
Seriously, have you ever seen a thread where people agreed that a particular race or class needed to be reduced in power from 3.5? (There are threads that argue that a particular empowerment in Pathfinder has gone too far; that's different.)
and considering all the optional rules out there using inhuman races, overpowerful classes... more than power boost it brings the game to day.
All races except one are inhuman.
I vote no to laser beams...frikkin or not...