1) I certainly don't think that the sorcerer is overpowered; he just has some class features now. I do think that the "universal school" wizard is a bit overpowered, though.
2) A DM can always challenge his players. But you should note that Pathfinder PCs are somewhat tougher than 3.5 PCs, especially at low levels (because of extra HP and various "at will" abilities).
3) It should be pretty easy to convert from 3.5, IMO. The classes are pretty similar, for the most part.
For now (and until the release of PF RPG final) the Beta is a Variant Players Handbook of some sort to me.
I pick and choose what I feel like it makes the game easier/more fun to play (like CMB, Skills, some feats, some class features...)
Depending on how the Final RPG turns out to be I might switch to it, or pick and choose again.
Hence I only will answer question 3:
It's pretty easy to make the conversion, but you might have to remind yourself and your players sometimes that they don't roll a grapple-check, but a CMB-check. Or that it's not Listen, it's Perception.
It's in the details.
For now (and until the release of PF RPG final) the Beta is a Variant Players Handbook of some sort to me.
I pick and choose what I feel like it makes the game easier/more fun to play (like CMB, Skills, some feats, some class features...)
Depending on how the Final RPG turns out to be I might switch to it, or pick and choose again.
By the way, I feel likewise: Come what may, I will pick the bits I like, and leave out the bits I don't.
|
First of all - welcome to the boards!
During my playtesting none of the classes seemed overpowered (although none of my players played a bard or a barbarian). Remember that when the Core Rulebook is published, a book full of pathfinderized Monsters will have already hit the shelves - and i'm confident that the powerlevel between PCs/NPCs and Monsters gets more even then.
Converting from 3.5 isn't hard. I did most conversions on the fly (full conversion of important NPCs only, Monsters recieved 10%-20% more HP, skimmed over DCs).
P.S.I don't know if you are aware of that, but second darkness is still core 3.5 - no Pathfinder rules in there.
P.P.S. Please forgive my crappy grammar, I haven't slept in 32 hours - writing in a foreign language doesn't come easy at the moment.
The only major difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is CMB.
The power level of the PCs is one step increased, but to me that's more fun as a DM, since I don't have to pull so many punches, and they tend to feel stronger, so they don't want to rest after every encounter...
My group had no trouble picking up Pathfinder, it plays like 3.5, with some minor tweaks.
The only major difference between Pathfinder and 3.5 is CMB.
The power level of the PCs is one step increased, but to me that's more fun as a DM, since I don't have to pull so many punches, and they tend to feel stronger, so they don't want to rest after every encounter...
My group had no trouble picking up Pathfinder, it plays like 3.5, with some minor tweaks.
Pretty much exactly my experience, running two PF games. Sorcerer isn't overpowered from what I've seen. It does pick up a few extra tricks, but very few of the options *stack* on their spellcasting - makes them broader without vastly increasing power.
|
|
First of all - welcome to the boards!
During my playtesting none of the classes seemed overpowered (although none of my players played a bard or a barbarian). Remember that when the Core Rulebook is published, a book full of pathfinderized Monsters will have already hit the shelves - and i'm confident that the powerlevel between PCs/NPCs and Monsters gets more even then.
Converting from 3.5 isn't hard. I did most conversions on the fly (full conversion of important NPCs only, Monsters recieved 10%-20% more HP, skimmed over DCs).
P.S.I don't know if you are aware of that, but second darkness is still core 3.5 - no Pathfinder rules in there.
P.P.S. Please forgive my crappy grammar, I haven't slept in 32 hours - writing in a foreign language doesn't come easy at the moment.
That's one thing I do, normal monsters have 80% max HP rather than 50% and BBEGs always have 100% HP.
CMB is the only other real conversion I do for monsters...except tweak feats at the 3 break points.
|
Where have you seen that?
I'm basing my comment on the following linked article, which is an interview with James Jacobs (emphasis mine):
-What are some of the specific challenges in designing an RPG that's backwards-compatible with an existing system?
The big challenge is to avoid over-designing. It's really tempting at times to get carried away and try to make something like, say, the rules for falling objects more complex and more "realistic." The 3rd edition rules are pretty graceful and strong as is, though, and in a lot of cases, we change things and realize that the original method was better all along. The Beta is a lot less backwards compatable than the final game will be as a result.
And actually, I prefer just saying "Compatible with 3.5." I don't really like implying that one version of the rules is "backwards" to the other; the vast majority of the products we'll be producing are going to not be rules products; they'll be built using the PF RPG, but they'll be compatible with 3.5. Just sounds nicer without saying "backwards." That could just be me though. :-)
I might be wrong in my interpretation of what James says, or possible taking this comment out of context (which I why I've include the entire question and James' response). But this seems indicative that final rules are a "reigning in" of the Beta.
-Skeld
Okay, a bit of background. I'm an old-school gamer. I first played the paper rulebooks, then 1e, didn't like 2e (played it twice), extensively played 3 and 3.5. I tried to like 4e. I really did. But there's a few factors that affected my decision to stop.
1)I do not play Warhammer for a reason. I don't want to have to spend $8 billion on an rpg.
2)(and most importantly) it doesn't feel like D&D to me. It just doesn't. I like some of the ideas, but It doesn't feel like the game I love.
So, I'm investigating pathfinder. Bought the beta playtest book and the campaign setting. Bought a few of the Second Darkness books. I'm almost ready to make the switch completely to pathfinder, but I have a few concerns that I wanted to have people that have experience playing pathfinder to answer for me. They are as follows...
Welcome, welcome :) I can relate, as I've been playing D&D in one form or another since 1978 (eek!) My group has been playing with the Beta Rules since they came out in August, and are very happy with them to date.
1)One concern I have is that some classes (i.e. sorceror) seem a bit...cheesy or overpowered. Is this how it works out for you guys or does it turn up okay?
Not sure what you mean by cheesy, and I can see where a read would make the sorcerer look overpowered, but from play, I've found my gal to be well balanced and flexible. And in another campaign, a friend has his gnomish sorcerer (he hasn't played D&D since 2nd edition) and he's having a blast with the little guy :)
2)Sort of following question #1, I am the sort of DM that hates cheese. I'm not a player killer, but I like to almost kill the players every game, make them feel like they actually overcame a challenge. I like. Is pathfinder a good fit for this philosophy of DMing?
I know that as a player and as a GM, the characters have been on the edge of dying several times. The risk is definitely still there, and we really feel good as players when we win by the skin of our teeth :) My players really sweated their way through the Dead Warrens in Edge of Anarchy, and loved the flexibility of many of the new powers that allowed them all to participate no matter what.
3)How easy is the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder? In other words, if your players are familiar with 3.5, is the transistion to pathfinder difficult or weird?
Any constructive opinions are welcome.
A few things are weird, but then I'm still stumbling over old memories from 1st and 2nd edition sometimes :) But on the whole, the transition has been very smooth for us.
1)One concern I have is that some classes (i.e. sorceror) seem a bit...cheesy or overpowered. Is this how it works out for you guys or does it turn up okay?
Well I've removed the spell lag that Spontaneous caster suffer and the Sorcerer still isn't broken.
1)One concern I have is that some classes (i.e. sorceror) seem a bit...cheesy or overpowered. Is this how it works out for you guys or does it turn up okay?
In fact, bards are still weak, jack of all trades but master of none, and druids took a huge hit to their power level and now are, by far, the worst of the primary casters, bad enough I talk my players into ignoring the druid all together, or playing the 3.5 version.
Everything else seems fairly well balanced.
2)Sort of following question #1, I am the sort of DM that hates cheese. I'm not a player killer, but I like to almost kill the players every game, make them feel like they actually overcame a challenge. I like. Is pathfinder a good fit for this philosophy of DMing?
You can use that philosophy in every game. Heck, if you're winning a game of chess you could push right to the point of a checkmate, then back off, deliberately lose, and your opponent will feel like he overcame a challenge.
My point is, it's not the game or the system that facilitates or inhibits this style of DMing, so find any system you like and DM how you like - Pathfinder will suit you just fine in this regard.
3)How easy is the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder? In other words, if your players are familiar with 3.5, is the transistion to pathfinder difficult or weird?
Any constructive opinions are welcome.
Very little transition.
Read up on CMB.
Make sure you and all your players take nothing for granted. Lots of little stuff has changed.
For example, sorcerers and bards can use the Quicken Spell feat now.
So don't assume anything. Even the simplest rule, one you've used for a decade with 3.x, should probably be looked up in pathfinder, just to see if it changed or not.
Like Power Attack.
The Devil is in the detail!
|
There are many many small changes in the beta version of pathfinder which will greatly affect the way your players build their PCs. In fact, I have begun to make a thorough step by step analysis of the differences between beta and 3.5, but I am not getting anywhere fast.
A few examples : Improved Trip is far less powerful. Expect Spiked chain experts to quickly disappear.
Paladins do not need Wisdom anymore, since their spellcasting relies on Charisma in beta (alas for Clerics, channeling is still based on Charisma).
A barbarian's rage abilities really improve with level. Taking only 1 level of barbarian is still enticing, but pursuing the class to higher levels has become much more interesting.
Expect less intelligent rogues : they do not need that many bonus skill points to properly advance their essential skills anymore.
And the list goes on and on ...
1)One concern I have is that some classes (i.e. sorceror) seem a bit...cheesy or overpowered. Is this how it works out for you guys or does it turn up okay?
Sure, several classes got a nice boost to their power. But those were usually the classes who were lagging behind. The two classes that generally were considered to be the most powerful (cleric and druid) are actually not as powerful as they used to be.
What mainly happened is that the classes got more options. More options is always nice.
2)Sort of following question #1, I am the sort of DM that hates cheese. I'm not a player killer, but I like to almost kill the players every game, make them feel like they actually overcame a challenge. I like. Is pathfinder a good fit for this philosophy of DMing?
While races got a little boost, many classes got a little boost, and characters get feats a little sooner and a little more often, you still have a lot of control over the power level:
You can still control the way they generate attributes. Want powerful characters? Let them roll 5d6 (drop 2 lowest) 9 times and get the 6 best scores, or let them purchase their ability scores with 30 points.
Want weak characters? Only give them 10 points, or let them roll 3d6 6 times.
And everything else that worked in 3e still works here.
3)How easy is the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder? In other words, if your players are familiar with 3.5, is the transistion to pathfinder difficult or weird?
The final verdict is still not in, since we only have the beta, which is more extreme than the final product.
Right now, it takes a little time to get used to the big changes and spot the little ones, but most of the time, the surprises are pleasant.
Right now, it takes a little time to get used to the big changes and spot the little ones, but most of the time, the surprises are pleasant.
Yes, like 'Paladins and Monks now can freely multiclass'
Or 'Barbarians are not Illiterate anymore'
Or 'Any character (not only casters), with a good investment of Skill Points and an extra Feat (Master Craftsman - you can find it here ), can create Magic Weapons"
And so on...
Right now, it takes a little time to get used to the big changes and spot the little ones, but most of the time, the surprises are pleasant.
Yes, like 'Paladins and Monks now can freely multiclass'
Or 'Barbarians are not Illiterate anymore'
Or 'Any character (not only casters), with a good investment of Skill Points and an extra Feat (Master Craftsman - you can find it here ), can create Magic Weapons"
And so on...
Or "skill points, cross-class skills and multiclassing aren't a nightmare for players - and Hell itself for GMs - any more."
... and druids took a huge hit to their power level and now are, by far, the worst of the primary casters, bad enough I talk my players into ignoring the druid all together, or playing the 3.5 version.
I just wanted to say that the Druid I played was quite a bit of fun and not underpowered at all (1st-5th level). And discouraging anyone from playing the PF version kinda makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy don't you think?
All in all - very easy conversion for us. There *are* lots of tiny differences. However since they *are* tiny, if you miss them the first time around, it doesn't make too much impact.
Our group was dragged into pathfinder by a player who wanted to be half-fey. he is much happier with the pathfinder rules. Prior to conversion, his character was fun, well-played and ineffective, after the conversion his character is no longer ineffective.
Glad I read this thread, didnt realize first level skill points had changed!
|
|
Another big change is Channel Energy.
It is quite different from Turn/Rebuke Undead.
Using it a certain way, it can actually encourage the style of play you talked about, inasmuch as the party can be brought really low, the cleric can give them all a little bit of healing, and they can finish off the bad guy by the skin of their teeth.
Additionally, it does a little bit of damage to all undead within its range, even if they make their saving throws, unlike a failed turn undead check. So it's never a wasted action on the part of the Cleric.
|
|
To answer your original post:
1) Paizo’s PF Rpg publishing schedule should be much less aggressive than WOTC’s, mainly due to the fact that they have 5 other project lines to publish at the same time (Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Pathfinder Companions, Pathfinder Adventures, Pathfinder Chronicles, and Planet Stories).
2) If 3.5 feels like D&D to you, so will PF Rpg.
1) They have done a lot to balance the classes against each other, as well as bring them up to speed with some of the Complete line base classes. I’ve been playing PF since the alpha release, and nothing has struck me as being overly cheesy. Disclaimer: from 3e to 3.5 to PF, my group has not done any real high level play. The highest level characters I have run for have been 13-14th level.
2) Absolutely that can be done in PF Rpg. I have had tpks and near-tpks using PF to run 3.5 modules as-is.
3) The skill consolidation will trip you up on occasion, but, as others have said, you make little discoveries and move them little by little into the game. One nice thing is that most of the Players will find they have a few more options both when generating and when levelling up their characters (for instance, they now get a feats more frequently.)
|
|
Another big change is Channel Energy.
It is quite different from Turn/Rebuke Undead....it's never a wasted action on the part of the Cleric.
I was sceptical at first reading, but this is starting to grow on me.
The more undead encounters I run, especially where undead are the main or sole creature type, the more I realise that the 3.5 either/or, on/off, win/lose effect isn't ideal. Especially when the PCs have to then chase those undead down and hack them to bits while they mewl piteously. Doesn't scream 'heroic' to me.
I do have a reservation, in the fact that leader undead no longer have the 3.5 option of bringing along some skeletons or zombies, as an 'ablative shield' vs the first few Turn attempts. Some extra methods of gaining stackable Turn Resistance may resolve that loss, though.
I do have a reservation, in the fact that leader undead no longer have the 3.5 option of bringing along some skeletons or zombies, as an 'ablative shield' vs the first few Turn attempts. Some extra methods of gaining stackable Turn Resistance may resolve that loss, though.
No stackable turn resistance! Let those damn powergaming corpses suffer! }> ;-P
... and druids took a huge hit to their power level and now are, by far, the worst of the primary casters, bad enough I talk my players into ignoring the druid all together, or playing the 3.5 version.I just wanted to say that the Druid I played was quite a bit of fun and not underpowered at all (1st-5th level). And discouraging anyone from playing the PF version kinda makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy don't you think?
Warning: derailing ahead, read on at your own risk:
[derail]
Not to derail this thread, but the huge hit I was talking about is to druids' wildshape ability, not to any power loss in the levels 1-5.
Instead of becoming a bear, they become a druid in a foam-rubber bear suit.
I've analyzed this in other threads on the druid.
Further, the other three primary spellcasters (cleric, sorcerer, wizard) gained at-will abilities that let them be useful at really low levels, dishing out ranged touch attacks for d6+1/2 levels at will. Druids did not (unless they give up their animal companion which is really too steep a price to pay).
So while that isn't exactly a loss of power from 3.5, it is a relative inequality of power compared to the other primary spellcasters.
And they've always had the weakest spell list of the primary spellcasters.
In return for this big hit to wildshape, and the lack of enhancement that the other three primary casters got, druids only compensation in Pathfinder is the option to lose their animal companion to get one cleric domain - something that might be interesting from a RP perspective but otherwise is really just another reduction in druid power for anyone who takes this option, especially after Jason rewrote animal companions to be slightly better than they were before.
[/derail]
3.5+supplements > Pathfinder (Pathfinder is completely incompatible with 3.5 supplements, and the entire system will disintegrate on attempt). Main reasons:
1)Class and class features balance in PBeta aren't any better than in 3.X. For the biggest example, any character who can craft magic items will, by definition, overshadow any character that can't if such thing as "downtime" exist in the campaign at all. Monks got the least improvement of all classes, while wizards got really good stuff, etc. For that matter, none of real 3.5 problems are fixed in Pathfinder.
2)Everyone has less mechanically valid combats options, as developers got infected by 4E school of thought ("negative conditions that actually matter should not exist"), therefore combats are less interesting. Of course, this hits melee characters hardest of all, as they never had much options to begin with. Now all they can do is dealing damage.
3)3.X has more of everything. Paizo's work on its game is glacially slow, so don't expect much suppplements.
As about PBeta characters being "overpowered". They are actually significantly weaker that 3.5 characters can be (and must be to overcome published adventure that don't anti-optimize opponents... too much). Unless you allow them to use stuff from 3.X supplements. In which case full casters will rape the game harder than ever before.
(Pathfinder is completely incompatible with 3.5 supplements, and the entire system will disintegrate on attempt).
Wow...if you can't get even get bits and pieces of Pathfinder to work with 3.5, you must not be very talented at integrating different rule sets. Because some pieces of Pathfinder are trivial to add to a 3.5 campaign.
But for what it's worth, I would agree with the equation:
3.5 + supplements > Pathfinder
although I'd express it as:
most of 3.5 + bits of supplements + bits of Pathfinder > Pathfinder
Wow...if you can't get even get bits and pieces of Pathfinder to work with 3.5, you must not be very talented at integrating different rule sets.
Bits and pieces (such as class features for some classes, such as rangers and rogues) can be incorporated and I even actually did this in my houserules, but Pathfinder as a whole screws melee on basic rules/feats level, while trying to compensate this with individual class features, while giving better class features to wizards and, arguably clerics, and compensating this by nerfing their spells. If you allow 3.5 supplements, the features of basic classes aren't going to matter much as they still aren't nearly strong enough to discourage power dipping, but stronger chassis for casters will matter alot.
(Pathfinder is completely incompatible with 3.5 supplements, and the entire system will disintegrate on attempt).Wow...if you can't get even get bits and pieces of Pathfinder to work with 3.5, you must not be very talented at integrating different rule sets. Because some pieces of Pathfinder are trivial to add to a 3.5 campaign.
But for what it's worth, I would agree with the equation:
3.5 + supplements > Pathfinder
although I'd express it as:
most of 3.5 + bits of supplements + bits of Pathfinder > Pathfinder
Agreed. What I do in my campaigns involved 3.5 + most supplements + chunks of Pathfinder (use the Pathfinder core classes except for Wizard. Replace Turn Undead with Channel. Use the skill consolidation. Thinking about feats every 2 levels instead of 3) = awesome.
Basically, I see the whole Pathfinder system as sort of like another Unearthed Arcana. It is a (huge) tome of alternate rules and core classes that I can incorporate into my games to bring the balance I want. I can leave out the parts that I don't like (for example CMBs or the new Power Attack/Combat Expertise). From what I've seen so far, it is good enough that I will happily pay for the book when it comes out.
Bits and pieces (such as class features for some classes, such as rangers and rogues) can be incorporated and I even actually did this in my houserules, but Pathfinder as a whole screws melee on basic rules/feats level, while trying to compensate this with individual class features, while giving better class features to wizards and, arguably clerics, and compensating this by nerfing their spells. If you allow 3.5 supplements, the features of basic classes aren't going to matter much as they still aren't nearly strong enough to discourage power dipping, but stronger chassis for casters will matter alot.
Wow...if you can't get even get bits and pieces of Pathfinder to work with 3.5, you must not be very talented at integrating different rule sets.
I agree, pretty much. That's why I think it's silly to make outlandish claims like saying Pathfinder is "completely incompatible" with 3.5. It's like any other 3.5-compatible book: Take the best, and leave the rest.
|
|
3.5+supplements > Pathfinder (Pathfinder is completely incompatible with 3.5 supplements, and the entire system will disintegrate on attempt).
I gotta say, having brought a number of 3.5 supplements into my Pathfinder game over last summer and fall, and having utterly failed to have my game disintegrate, I think you're being a bit hyperbolic here.
1)Class and class features balance in PBeta aren't any better than in 3.X. For the biggest example, any character who can craft magic items will, by definition, overshadow any character that can't if such thing as "downtime" exist in the campaign at all. Monks got the least improvement of all classes, while wizards got really good stuff, etc. For that matter, none of real 3.5 problems are fixed in Pathfinder.
Unless you are limiting your claim strictly to the Beta itself and not to any of the playtest material that has released since, claiming that characters who can make magic items win over those who can't is kinda strange in a discussion of class features, since anyone who wants to can take a feat to make magic items (weapons, armor, and wondrous items, anyway).
2)Everyone has less mechanically valid combats options, as developers got infected by 4E school of thought ("negative conditions that actually matter should not exist"), therefore combats are less interesting. Of course, this hits melee characters hardest of all, as they never had much options to begin with. Now all they can do is dealing damage.
High-level meleeists have the ability to drop substantial numbers of negative conditions on opponents, including stunning, blinding, ability damage, and more. What specifically are you referring to here?
3)3.X has more of everything. Paizo's work on its game is glacially slow, so don't expect much suppplements.
It doesn't seem much slower than most other game companies. It's just actually happening entirely in the open. What's the standard of comparison here?
As about PBeta characters being "overpowered". They are actually significantly weaker that 3.5 characters can be (and must be to overcome published adventure that don't anti-optimize opponents... too much). Unless you allow them to use stuff from 3.X supplements. In which case full casters will rape the game harder than ever before.
All PBeta characters are weaker than their 3.5 counterparts? Really?
Creative Director
|
In which case full casters will rape the game harder than ever before.
Just a friendly heads up. Using "rape" as a verb to indicate something other than an actual rape is one of my pet peeves; I find such use tasteless and offensive, and it's a good way to prevent me from otherwise treating someone's post seriously.
Just a friendly heads up. Using "rape" as a verb to indicate something other than an actual rape is one of my pet peeves; I find such use tasteless and offensive, and it's a good way to prevent me from otherwise treating someone's post seriously.In which case full casters will rape the game harder than ever before.
That actual definition of word "rape" has more than one meaning depending on the context in which the word is used.
So using the "destroy and strip of its possession" definition of rape the statement means full casters will destroy and strip fighters of the roles they possess in the game. So by definition that works in this context.
Though care needs to taken to get the context right however.
I strongly suggest to the OP a swift Pathfinder conversion. PF Beta is already way better than 3.5, and the final release will be WAY better than beta. Every class and race is now powerful and its niche is protected better than 3.5. PRC are no more a ZOMGmusthaveasap!!!11!!one!!
Of course, if you blindly admit in your game all 3.5 resources, casters will be uber as usual. You should allow material on a case-by-case base.
ps. Clerics now have domain powers, before they had domain powers and spells. IMHO the old cleric war WAY more abusable and less flavourful. BUT cleric spells have been nerfed, which is good. Now CODzilla is much more difficult to play...with CORE, of course.
Druids have been nerfed. OF COURSE. They were so overpowered... Have you ever heard of the mighty CODzilla's deeds?
Sorcerer has been empowered in its own right. Wizard was god(TM), while sorcerer was an handsome blaster cretin.
Wizard has been empowered. Sigh. I hope that final PF release will fix this issue.
Just a friendly heads up. Using "rape" as a verb to indicate something other than an actual rape is one of my pet peeves; I find such use tasteless and offensive, and it's a good way to prevent me from otherwise treating someone's post seriously.In which case full casters will rape the game harder than ever before.
That actual definition of word "rape" has more than one meaning depending on the context in which the word is used.
So using the "destroy and strip of its possession" definition of rape the statement means full casters will destroy and strip fighters of the roles they possess in the game. So by definition that works in this context.
Though care needs to taken to get the context right however.
Technically speaking, you are correct. In fact, there are lots of definitions of the word.
The three most common, in order of common usage (copied from Dictionary.com but substantiated by a number of other dictionaries):
1. (the obvious and unpleasant definition as used in courts of law)
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.
But here are a couple less-known definitions:
4. –noun the residue of grapes, after the juice has been extracted, used as a filter in making vinegar.
5. –noun a plant, Brassica napus, of the mustard family, whose leaves are used for food for hogs, sheep, etc., and whose seeds yield rape oil.
That said, everyone in the English-speaking world knows the first definition. Some people know the 2nd or 3rd, but I would be it's less than half of all English speaking people. I have no statistics, but I bet less than 1 in 100 could give the 4th or 5th definitions off the top of their head.
When someone uses the word in question, they are almost certainly intending to evoke the unpleasant connotations that are connoted by the first definition. Even those educated enough to know other definitions are almost certainly educated enough to know that they are not evokong those other definitions in their readers.
Like it or not, despite the other available definitions, when you choose to use the word in question, you are deliberately or subconsciously intending to evoke definition #1. And if you're not, then you really don't understand the minds or vocabularies of the people who will read what you're writing.
3)How easy is the transition from 3.5 to pathfinder? In other words, if your players are familiar with 3.5, is the transistion to pathfinder difficult or weird?
I was all pro-Pathfinder until I got the Beta Player's Handbook. It wasn't as backwards compatible with 3.5 as I had hoped and I still have a problem with "CMB" or whatever it's called.
Don't get me wrong, I still root for Pathfinder and love to see positive press and reviews for it. I still continue to purchase Paizo-published adventures. I'll probably give Pathfinder another chance when it goes to print later this year. However, I don't see it supplanting 3.5 for me unless I take time (I don't have) to compartmentalize 3.5 and learn Pathfinder.
I just foresee a lot of confusion trying to keep 3.5 and Pathfinder separate and "straight" FOR MYSELF (I fully admit I'm not as sharp as I once thought I was...)