A comment plucked out of another thread, somewhat out of context:
So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.
Do you think the bolded part is true? I'm sure a large number of groups will take advantage of the backwards compatibility but our group is moving on completely. We're currently selling off all our 3.5 books and playing pathfinder-only. I'd be curious to hear what others are doing now the final rules are here.
A comment plucked out of another thread, somewhat out of context:
So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.Do you think the bolded part is true? I'm sure a large number of groups will take advantage of the backwards compatibility but our group is moving on completely. We're currently selling off all our 3.5 books and playing pathfinder-only. I'd be curious to hear what others are doing now the final rules are here.
All the groups I have seen play Pathfinder, ok so its only 4, but they use the core book to replace the DMG, and PHB while still using the supplements.
My opinion: I really don't see the point of getting rid of the splat books. Pathfinder is not that different. They just made a few changes, and while some of the splat books have some things I wont ever use, a lot of them also have some good stuff.
A comment plucked out of another thread, somewhat out of context:
So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.Do you think the bolded part is true? I'm sure a large number of groups will take advantage of the backwards compatibility but our group is moving on completely. We're currently selling off all our 3.5 books and playing pathfinder-only. I'd be curious to hear what others are doing now the final rules are here.
Most folks will do what they did before. If they have and use a lot of non-core stuff they will continue to use it. If they stuck pretty close to core they will continue doing that.
There are some groups that are getting rid of their 3.5 supplemental books but probably not a lot. My GM has a lot of non-core stuff and allows us to use some of it but it's by no means 100% available, then it never was 100% available.
As far as what's in Paizo's best interest, I'm not sure why that's relevant. They already have their Pathfinder product mix laid out for another year+ to 2 years and and by that time the market will have moved on from 3.5 one way or another.
My group will definitely be using both, especially if we plan on playing in other settings besides Golarion, such as Forgotten Realms. After all, there is a lot of 3.5 stuff out there that would not fit into Golarion and because of this there is a lot of stuff that will probably never see an official PFRPG version of it published.
|
I spent a bit of money on FR stuff, some splats and 3pp books, and since they all work (some with a little tweaking) with PfRPG, I see no reason to stop using them. The game I'm in now is a heavily houseruled Pathfinder game with feats, spells and other things from various splats and 3pp, so we are still getitng use and value out of our old stuff.
To the OP, dude, let me know what you're selling, especially if you have FR books :)
I spent a bit of money on FR stuff, some splats and 3pp books, and since they all work (some with a little tweaking) with PfRPG, I see no reason to stop using them. The game I'm in now is a heavily houseruled Pathfinder game with feats, spells and other things from various splats and 3pp, so we are still getitng use and value out of our old stuff.
To the OP, dude, let me know what you're selling, especially if you have FR books :)
I probably should have posted here when I sold them but it didnt occur to me. (Although I guess that organising shipping to the US would no doubt make it all that much more complicated). I sold a pretty much complete set of WoTC 3.5 books including all their forgotten realms stuff. There is another guy in our group with a sizable collection planning on trading it in through some gaming store - I'll ask him how that's looking.
|
One point that was made was that using 3.5 splats with PF pretty much negates all the nerfs. The wizard actually comes out ahead if he can use the Spell Compendium spells unmodified with his PF class structure, because plenty of those spells were just like the PHB spells with different flavor text. So he gets the same game breakers along with more hit points and extra class features.
One point that was made was that using 3.5 splats with PF pretty much negates all the nerfs. The wizard actually comes out ahead if he can use the Spell Compendium spells unmodified with his PF class structure, because plenty of those spells were just like the PHB spells with different flavor text. So he gets the same game breakers along with more hit points and extra class features.
We didnt analyse it particularly closely, but considerations like this were part of the reason we decided to make a clean break. (Though as Dennis mentioned above - we hardly ever used any of the splatbook stuff anyhow so it's not surprising that we didnt see much value in continuing).
(And we dont really have the time to pore over stuff sifting through what the ramifications are of allowing this bit or that bit. The time factor is another huge determinant).
|
|
That was the other point made. It takes more work to port some feats over than it does spells. Things are changed. How does Greater Manyshot interact with Manyshot now that it is a full round action instead of a standard? And other ones that reference rules that don't work at all the same, like Channel Energy? A group like yours will not spend the time on those, and so the fighter loses options while the wizard gains. So much for backwards compatibility.
As a GM I will continue to use my pretty extensive 3.5 library for as long as we're playing a D&D-like game. Heck, I plan to run Expedition to the Barrier peaks someday soon as a side game - with quite a bit of renovation both in terms of both rules and content. Rules might change but ideas are still ideas; and there are a lot of good ones in the old TSR/Wizards materials.
M
For things like Manyshot I let the players choose which version to use. The same goes for stand still. For things like Power Attack we stay with the new one. It depends on how much the power difference is, and whether we beleive it upsets the balance to use the old feat. For the Spell Compendium we have not used any spells that go against Pathfinders, such as granting blanket immunity yet so we will cross that bridge when we get to it.
|
|
One point that was made was that using 3.5 splats with PF pretty much negates all the nerfs. The wizard actually comes out ahead if he can use the Spell Compendium spells unmodified with his PF class structure, because plenty of those spells were just like the PHB spells with different flavor text. So he gets the same game breakers along with more hit points and extra class features.
Unnerf the spells, save the cheerleader....
I hate spell nerfs...
In the group I run, the "policy" is that Pathfinder Core is automatically allowed and everything from 3.0-3.5 is allowed subject to DM approval.
One of the characters in the group has taken Practiced Spellcaster and both of the arcane spellcasters have one or two spells from the Compendium, but other than that, no one has felt the need to go beyond Core yet. (granted, they aren't that high level yet).
Our group, when we play a modern version of D&D, will be playing Pathfinder without WotC books. The only thing made for 3.5 that we will be using that is non-Paizo is the Necromancer Games character sheets that look like the old 1e character sheets.
One point that was made was that using 3.5 splats with PF pretty much negates all the nerfs. The wizard actually comes out ahead if he can use the Spell Compendium spells unmodified with his PF class structure, because plenty of those spells were just like the PHB spells with different flavor text. So he gets the same game breakers along with more hit points and extra class features.
Most 3.5 games I've played in required the DM to at least look at non-Core stuff before allowing it. I've played in a couple of "anything goes" games, but in both cases the DM ended up unhappy because someone ended up being more powerful than he suspected.
So I imagine Pathfinder will be the same way: the players will ask "can I take XYZ?" (whether "XYZ" is from a 3.5 splatbook or a PFRPG splatbook) and the DM will say "yes" or "no" accordingly. So basically I won't see much of a difference from 3.5.
Even if you somehow manage to outlaw every spell that is more powerful than the PF baseline (which would be quite a feat!), simply adding the breadth of options to classes with unlimited or near-unlimited spell access is a power-up.
I guess your playing experience is different from mine. In the majority of (3.5 & PFRPG) campaigns that I've played in, the DM indeed has to give the explicit OK for every non-core spell that the players want to use. So it doesn't really strike me as much of a feat at all.
|
I allow the PHB2 as it is. If somebody takes a psionic/ToM/ToB class - fine, the book is in. I also liberally drop MIC items around because they are fun, cool, thematic, and most are balanced. I generally don't allow Spell Compendium for oh so many reasons, with some exceptions.
As for the other splats ... I try to avoid even showing them to the players, because I know that half my group will just roll eyes and the other will begin OCD dumpster diving for killer combos.
Except that the best classes got a bunch of upgrades bolted onto their frame in exchange for spell nerfs, and spell nerfs diminish in importance the more non-core material you allow. PF didn't fix one of the most broken parts of wizards and clerics (and to some extent druids): nearly every non-core guide increases their power.
Even if you somehow manage to outlaw every spell that is more powerful than the PF baseline (which would be quite a feat!), simply adding the breadth of options to classes with unlimited or near-unlimited spell access is a power-up.
AMiB, do you play this game, or just criticize it full time?
I'm asking you directly because I think you're kind of ingenious, but you're also really, really negative. At least today! Sorry to pull it off-topic, but you kind of launched into a design diatribe and it wasn't really to the OP's point.
ANYWAY
I use a lot of 3.5 stuff, but not too much from WotC other than the early splats that we bought before we started to feel "had". A lot of the 3rd party OGL stuff plays to a niche that's unlikely to get filled by Paizo or anyone else for a long time. Stuff like Noble Steeds doesn't really need a PF update at all, it's still useful.
|
Right now my group is just using the PF core books mainly. The three prestige classes, and 3 feats from Seekers of Secrets have been added to the "you don't have to ask, this allowed" category. I imagine the prestige class from the devil book will be added eventually as well to that list.
I will let my players use feats and prestige classes(or core classes) from 3.x, subject to DM modification/approval. I am not allowing 3.x spells in at this time (although if a player had found a spell they really wanted, it would a topic that could be discussed), nor am I allowing in magic items from 3.x that duplicate spell effects not found in the PFRPG books that are allowed.
But to answer the OPs question: Yes my 3.x books still get use. The fact that they could be converted and used fairly easily was a very strong, if not the strongest overall selling point of the PFRPG for my group.
love,
malkav
My point is that even when this is done absolutely flawlessly (and nobody's perfect; I underrated Murderous Mist for a long time for reasons I cannot fully explain), it's still a powerup for those classes because every new spell is a new option for free or nearly free.
Sure, but of course this was just as true in 3.5 as it is in PFRPG. This particular situation is not really an issue of "PFRPG" vs. "PFRPG + 3.5", it's more an issue of "Core" vs. "Core + splatbooks" (where "Core" and "splatbooks" could be 3.5 or PFRPG or whatever).
I'm still determining how I'm going to use the Pathfinder RPG wtih 3.5.
I have yet to run a game using Pathfinder, so I'll know a lot more when I do. If conversion cannot be done by me easily on the fly, then I'll go base 3.5 and use bits from Pathfinder.
Bottom line is that my 3.x collection is much, much bigger than my Pathfinder collection - and it would take about 20 years of Pathfiner products to change that - so I'm going to go with a solution that makes the best use of all of my stuff.
|
Most folks will do what they did before. If they have and use a lot of non-core stuff they will continue to use it. If they stuck pretty close to core they will continue doing that.
This is my feeling too. I own a good chunk of the 3.5 books, snatched up as cheaply as possible in the 4e rush when Amazon sellers all either priced the books way down (which I bought) or priced them way up due to being out of print (I declined on that one). I always bought them mostly as inspirational material, suitable for cherry-picking -- I'm not particularly attached to them and don't find I have a need to figure out how to make, say, a Sublime Chord work in Pathfinder.
In the new world of Pathfinder, I think I'd use them mostly as a source for the occasional "off list" spell (given by a god and only accessible by his worshippers, or jealously hoarded by a wizard who researched it), and perhaps some PrC's or feats. I'm much more likely to use Pathfinder-specific content in the future, though -- I find the quality of things much higher, particularly things from trusted sources like Paizo,KQ, or SKR Games.
One point that was made was that using 3.5 splats with PF pretty much negates all the nerfs. The wizard actually comes out ahead if he can use the Spell Compendium spells unmodified with his PF class structure, because plenty of those spells were just like the PHB spells with different flavor text. So he gets the same game breakers along with more hit points and extra class features.Most 3.5 games I've played in required the DM to at least look at non-Core stuff before allowing it. I've played in a couple of "anything goes" games, but in both cases the DM ended up unhappy because someone ended up being more powerful than he suspected.
So I imagine Pathfinder will be the same way: the players will ask "can I take XYZ?" (whether "XYZ" is from a 3.5 splatbook or a PFRPG splatbook) and the DM will say "yes" or "no" accordingly. So basically I won't see much of a difference from 3.5.
My thoughts exactly.
Plus if my players show a strong interest in certain things, it enables me to bump that up the TO DO list in regards to converting to be 100% compatible.
Same as before. PF Core + WoTC splatbooks. We routinely use the following :
PF Core
PF Bestiary
Complete Splatbooks
Environment Splatbooks
Races of Splatbooks
Spell Compendium (Now with a caveat I have to approve the spell, or modify it as needed)
Unearthed Arcana (Specifically Spellpoints vs Vancian)
Arms & Equipment Guide (Tweaked)
Magic Item Compendium (Extensively)
Draconomicon (On occasion)
I have to say, one of the best books I think WoTC ever put out was the Magic Item Compendium. There are a handful of items in it I never give out, too good. The rest? Just tons of low-level and level-appropriate do-dads that are nice, makes each treasure hoard unique.
But it's doubly so in PF, because spellcasting classes received buffs in exchange for spell nerfs. New class abilities, a skill point back, +1 or +2 HP per level, etc.
Introducing a bunch of new, non-core spells is doubly problematic because of one or two skill points and one or two hit points per level, and some level 1 and 8 abilities? I'm afraid I don't share your sense of proportion. :-)
At any rate, whether it's 1.01x worse or 2x worse, it's still basically the same issue that 3.5 had, and DMs will treat it the same way, I'm sure.
Pathfinder only here. Every 3.5 supplement just added to the brokeness of 3.5. Hopefully they are more careful with the PAthfinder game going forward. Don't get me wrong, I loved 3.5, and it had some great books, but it became a chore just to make a decent character without making some game breaking combo. Rigth now Pathfiner feels like pure roleplaying....Again when more books start coming out I might have to revise this statement.
A comment plucked out of another thread, somewhat out of context:
So I think it's in Paizo's best interest to realize that most Pathfinder players are going to be using WotC's 3.5e books.Do you think the bolded part is true?
I think that the statement is technically true, but I don't agree with the assumption that is apparently behind that, that "Most Pathfinder players use *lots* of WotC content" to begin with that would impact their choices.
Some do, some don't.
My game has always pretty much core-only, with minor additions from Unearthed Arcana, and sometimes Psionics. I possess quite a few additional books, that go mostly unused. The same applies going forward to new PF content.
I agree with the post about people continuing to do what they've always done. The groups that didnt have alot of problems with non-core 3.5 will probably continute to use it, those who stuck closely to core in 3.5 will do that in PFRPG.
My group is at the moment going by the conventions it always had. Options have to be approved by the dm prior to use. It would be sad to throw out all the good options there were in 3.5 just because of the bad apples. There are great spells in the Spell Compendium that I would be loath to give up, particularly baleful transposition and 'give me that' also known as Entice Gift come to mine.
|
It works like this:
>Got a 3.5 collection and want to keep it relevant? Pathfinder RPG is backward compatible. Your gamemaster will determine what is included in her campaign.
>Don't have 3.5 and want to continue in the tradition and history of the past 30+ years with an improved fantasy role-play system? Pathfinder RPG is a critical hit of improvements and includes all the depth and style of vancian magic, and most other elements of the previous system. Welcome to the game!
>Enjoy Pathfinder RPG and are just now collecting v.3.5/d20/OGL materials? Fantastic! Pathfinder RPG keeps the Open Game Movement alive/relevant/current/persistant! You are part of the community that values Ryan Dancy's OGL and want to see it continue forever, as it was meant to be, with lots of publishing freedom for third party publishers.
>You've switched to Pathfinder RPG and are making a clean start? Great, because PAIZO will continue support for Pathfinder RPG with an upcoming Advanced Players Guide, and Gamemastery Guide. You can participate in open play-tests provided by a company, PAIZO, who truly values and listens to its active community.
>You're satisfied with v.3.5? Awesome, because you can still pull elements of Pathfinder RPG into your game. Many really do enjoy the sophistication of the v.3.5 system and would gladly show up to your game even if it includes some Pathfinder elements as you see fit to use.
Options folks! We have options! And a great, friendly company to support our game! Great to have these options. Its all good. Enjoy!
P.s. (this list not all-inclusive). P.p.s. My preference is PFRPG with backward compatibility as I see fit as a gamemaster. I am very proud of the open game movement and wish to see in-print support for d20/OGL for the next 30 years. I believe its important to support each other, and continue the open gaming movement.
Considering that Paizo doesn't actually 'control' anything that goes on at my gaming table, I think its a huge compliment that I really don't want to leave their core books for much. The new core classes are interesting.
I want to see if the new players guide is as good.
I use all sorts of splat books for inspiration but I tend to constrain the stuff that ends up in the players hands. An NPC that has a strange ability is interesting and more 'adaptable' if they prove to be broken.
I think its sort of the 80\20 rule. I probably supplant %20 of the stuff from pathfinder with outside sources and %80 of that is likely behind the storyline not in the hands of the players.
Sigurd
The problem is that the only real nerfs to spellcasters are the spell nerfs, and adding spell options reverses those nerfs even when you comb out all of the problematic non-core spells. It's an old problem that non-core material benefits wizards and clerics more than pretty much anyone, but it's magnified by the non-spell buffs those two classes received.
Is there a thread here somewhere that lists or at least discuses these problematic spells from the Spell Compendium in PF? I have a player who has recently asked if I would allow spells from that source and a resource like this could cut down my time spent looking into the various spells.
Is there a thread here somewhere that lists or at least discuses these problematic spells from the Spell Compendium in PF? I have a player who has recently asked if I would allow spells from that source and a resource like this could cut down my time spent looking into the various spells.
The problem is that the only real nerfs to spellcasters are the spell nerfs, and adding spell options reverses those nerfs even when you comb out all of the problematic non-core spells. It's an old problem that non-core material benefits wizards and clerics more than pretty much anyone, but it's magnified by the non-spell buffs those two classes received.
There is nothing particularly more problematic about Spell Compendium + Pathfinder. Some folks (myself included) felt is was broken under 3.5 and continues to be broken.
I'm not sure it's a specific list of spells so much as the net sum of the product. There are some threads around that discuss it but there is no real consensus.
My suggestion is to simply make Spell Compendium and third party spells much more rare in your game world and things will likely work out fairly well.
We now run off the core PF rules and if whichever GM wants to work in major rule changes from other books we discuss it. Otherwise spells, items, classes, whichever outside of the core books or older edition, the player would always get the GM's ok to work it in...usually for really oddball stuff, after the player got the ok for it, they would still have to wait for it to come into play and usually with some strings attached.
It's actually getting pretty hard to find some core 3.5 content from even just a couple years ago too. Pathfinder was really good for some of our newer players who couldn't find 3.5 books at decent prices; we like to switch up GMs pretty regularly, open to whoever is interested, so we need enough hardcopies for a few people at a time to do the homework.
I come to PF from a slightly different background than most(?) players, in that I have not played D&D for years (was using other systems), and never played 3.0 or 3.5. So I have no existing library of 3.5 books I feel any compelling need to use.
That said, while I could see dipping into 3.5 for some of the "softer" material (adventures and campaign material, mostly) I personally would never use any of the "cruchier" stuff like character classes, spells, etc, as I think that would tend to negate the hard work that Paizo did in fixing all the "cruchy" bits that were percieved as broken in 3.5.
I'm sure there must be some worthwhile and balanced content that could be imported from 3.5, but it seems to me that Paizo provides enough new and fully PF compatable core material now that I don't see the necessity of trying to fit old, and possibly problematic, 3.5 material in anyway.
Even when I used to play AD&D and other RPG systems, I never really felt the need to continue layering on more and more supplementary material on top of the core system. By its very nature I feel such additions have a tendency to creat problems through introducing unbalanced or poorly thought out consequences. It seems to me the current and planned PF "core" books provide enough flexibility, variety, and complexitiy that there is no real need to add more "stuff" other than just for the sake of adding "stuff".
I mean, do other players realy feel that they absolutly have to add things like more spells, more PC races, and morePC classes to enjoy PF?
I mean, do other players realy feel that they absolutly have to add things like more spells, more PC races, and more PC classes to enjoy PF?
That really depends on a lot of variables, but one I have seen before is players who have played D&D/fantasy games for many years and are either tired of playing the core classes and races or just don't like the core stuff. I have been playing since 1st Edition and I still like the core stuff so long as I can multi-class, but I have known other players like in my example. So what would you rather have, a player who is either not having fun or outright quits because of this or a player using material from a 3PP or older stuff you have to update to PF rules and who enjoys the game. I prefer happy players and a fun for everyone game.
Now, the way you phrased what I quoted from you sounds like you are referring to munchkins, min/maxers and power gamers, and on that point I agree with you. I will not have one player happy in that way because that will usually ruin the experience for everyone else.