|
Hi,
Can someone point me at a link with the differences between D&D 3e and 3.5e please? I read this interesting review of editions of D&D and 3e got higher than 3.5e overall. I of course sold off my 3e books when 3.5e came out. But now I'm wondering about the wisdom of that. With pfRPG out I guess it really doesn't matter. Still curious.
Thanks,
S.
You will find some free downloads that will tell you what you want to know.
Hi,
Can someone point me at a link with the differences between D&D 3e and 3.5e please? I read this interesting review of editions of D&D and 3e got higher than 3.5e overall. I of course sold off my 3e books when 3.5e came out. But now I'm wondering about the wisdom of that. With pfRPG out I guess it really doesn't matter. Still curious.
When I heard there was going to be a '3.5E' and they wanted me to buy brand new (and considerably more expensive) rule books for the game only three years after the originals, I laughed long and hard. I honestly believed WotC were taking the mickey right up until the books came out.
To be honest, I never bought them or even looked at the errata. Someone else in the group picked up a copy, made a list of the salient changes, and then just mentioned them as they came up. Otherwise I continued to use my original 3.0E stuff.
You are not the only one. I am also still using my 3.0 stuff, and using 3.5 stuff along with it. If necessary, I adapt the 3.5 stuff (and Pathfinder stuff as well) to the 3.0 stuff and it is never an problem.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Perhaps Monte Cook's review of 3.5 as it premiered might give you some perspective.
Perhaps Monte Cook's review of 3.5 as it premiered might give you some perspective.
I've read this before, and it's certainly a fascinating article.
Also, is it bad that after six years I've only just realised that the planet on the cover of the 3.5 DMG is Oerth? Although I've only looked at it about three times in that period so maybe not.
It's interesting how many of his concerns apply equally to Pathfinder.
I'm not to sure about this. It's been six years since 3.5 and nine since 3.0 (which is disturbing, as I still remember buying the 3.0 PHB on day of release), so the timespan complaint is no longer valid (2E also got its revised edition, albeit of a far smaller scale, after six years). It's certainly time for an updated and revised version of the game. Pathfinder also has all-new art, which was the other major complaint, so that's not an issue either. And of course the big difference between the two is whilst that you could happily ignore 3.5 if you wished and continue playing 3.0 and picking up new 3.5 material and it would broadly hang together, without Pathfinder there wouldn't be much in the way of new 3.x material material appearing, and interest in it would dry up without a 3.x PHB being on the market to attract new players.
To sum up, back in 2003 there was no real reason to release 3.5, certainly not at that time with changes of that scale, as 3E would continue to exist without it just fine. In 2009 there are much stronger arguments as to why Pathfinder is needed and without it the whole 3.x game would just disappear, certainly as far as new material and new releases are concerned.
These are as true of 3.0 to 3.5 as they are of 3.5 to PF.
How dare thee question the greatness of that which is PF!
These are as true of 3.0 to 3.5 as they are of 3.5 to PF.
It seems like you missed the point of the previous post: 3.0 was alive and well when 3.5 came out, the argument could be made that the only reason to come out with 3.5 was to get people to buy more core books. Currently the situation has changed. There is no longer support for 3.5 (or 3.0 for that matter) if PF didn't exist 3.5 would be a dead game. Paizo couldn't overhaul 3.5 too much without losing part of the core design philosophy: Backwards compatibility.
These are as true of 3.0 to 3.5 as they are of 3.5 to PF.
Except that Pathfinder is an 'alternative solution' for D&D 4.0E whilst retaining backwards compatibility with the existing game. If Pathfinder had "D&D 3.75 Edition" or whatever on the front cover (as opposed to just being described as that), I would agree. Instead, the cumulative changes from 3.0 to PF (via 3.5) are more akin to the changes between 1E and 2E, and therefore appropriate as per Monte's argument that such changes should be held back for a new edition.
Also, and I may be wrong on this, didn't they have to make some noticeable changes to the rules to qualify as a new product, otherwise they could have gotten into copyright trouble by just being a glorified reprint of another company's material?
How dare thee question the greatness of that which is PF!
I've never played it, to be honest. A couple of people in our gaming group are so burned out on 3E of whatever stripe that they want to give it a much longer rest before we try PF. PF might be a steaming pile of dingo's kidneys for all I know, although I have looked through the PHB and it does not appear to be the case.
The point is that the situation and circumstances in 2009 with a third-party company taking over the mantle of D&D 3E-compatible products otherwise those products would wither and die is radically different to the original rights-holding company issuing a revised, more expensive edition of the same game three years after the original (whilst it's still selling) in a somewhat confusing manner.
If you are retaining backwards compatibility, you need to be honest and clear in what you are breaking and why. Arguing about semantics over what is or isn't a new edition is missing the point; the point is that claiming backwards compatibility means that you shouldn't spring gotchas on anyone who tries to convert, and both 3.5 and PF are lousy with gotchas.
Interesting. As I have said, I haven't played PF so I'm not aware of such issues. Is there a full list of changes between 3.5 and PF available anywhere or do we just have to pile through the rules? I already now about the revised EXP tables and streamlined skills.
These are as true of 3.0 to 3.5 as they are of 3.5 to PF.Except that Pathfinder is an 'alternative solution' for D&D 4.0E whilst retaining backwards compatibility with the existing game. If Pathfinder had "D&D 3.75 Edition" or whatever on the front cover (as opposed to just being described as that), I would agree. Instead, the cumulative changes from 3.0 to PF (via 3.5) are more akin to the changes between 1E and 2E, and therefore appropriate as per Monte's argument that such changes should be held back for a new edition.
What were the core design goals of PF? They could have changed basically nothing, republished it with errata and new art and new page layout, and called it Pathfinder if they wanted. That they made changes means that the changes are fodder for criticism.
And then be slammed for not even attempting to fix anything that was wrong with the core rule set? Yeah, that would have been a bright move....
The changes were not transparent
I'll grant that.
damaged backwards compatibility,
...the hell? I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm masochistic: Where did you ever come up with that?
and did not effectively accomplish many of the stated goals. 3.5 had the same problems.
Where's the list of stated goals so I could check them out and judge for myself?
And then be slammed for not even attempting to fix anything that was wrong with the core rule set? Yeah, that would have been a bright move....
What were the core design goals of PF? They could have changed basically nothing, republished it with errata and new art and new page layout, and called it Pathfinder if they wanted. That they made changes means that the changes are fodder for criticism.
How about just failing miserably? The number one issue with 3.x was the unbalance between full casters and everyone else. This wasn't fixed in the least.
And then be slammed for not even attempting to fix anything that was wrong with the core rule set? Yeah, that would have been a bright move....
What were the core design goals of PF? They could have changed basically nothing, republished it with errata and new art and new page layout, and called it Pathfinder if they wanted. That they made changes means that the changes are fodder for criticism.
By who? If you don't set yourself the goal of fixing things, then nobody can criticize you for not fixing things.
By the same people that criticize for not reason other then that can. Kinda lame really.
damaged backwards compatibility,...the hell? I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm masochistic: Where did you ever come up with that?
Spell changes. Class changes. Skill changes. CMB/CMD. Changing core monsters and not reprinting a bunch of OGL monsters. These are things that damage backwards compatibility.
They can't "brake" backwards compatibility because it didn't even exist for 3.5 until PF showed up. Now, Pathfinder Version 2.0 could if it ever comes out. Until then though PF is either backwards compatible or it isn't. And it is compatible. Maybe htey didn't fix the things that you view are wrong with the game, or didn't nix your own pet peeves for 3.5 or didn't include your house rules, but none of that changes the face that is backwards compatible.
Where's the list of stated goals so I could check them out and judge for myself?
http://paizo.com/store/paizo/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy88yj
Do you know what page it's on? I have a game to prepare for and I don't feel like digging though 6 pages to find it.
They can't "brake" backwards compatibility because it didn't even exist for 3.5 until PF showed up. Now, Pathfinder Version 2.0 could if it ever comes out. Until then though PF is either backwards compatible or it isn't. And it is compatible. Maybe htey didn't fix the things that you view are wrong with the game, or didn't nix your own pet peeves for 3.5 or didn't include your house rules, but none of that changes the face that is backwards compatible.Paizo has trumpeted from the rooftops that Pathfinder works with 3.5 material. That is backwards compatibility. If your claim is "No, Pathfinder is a clean break" then we have no discussion.
Um, I don't know where that came from because it didn't really have anything to do with what I said. To reiterate:
Pathfinder is not a clean brake. (I'm throwing this in for clarity)
The first edition of the Pathfinder rules cannot brake backwards compatibility with 3.5 because backwards compatibility did not exist until the Pathfinder Core rules came out. (Though is possible that if they came out with a Pathfinder Core Rules Version 2.0 that they could brake said compatibility)
Meaning Pathfinder either is backwards compatibility or it's not. You feel that it isn't (by my understanding) I feel that it is.
The first edition of the Pathfinder rules cannot brake backwards compatibility with 3.5 because backwards compatibility did not exist until the Pathfinder Core rules came out. (Though is possible that if they came out with a Pathfinder Core Rules Version 2.0 that they could brake said compatibility)Semantics. Pathfinder's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion, just like 3.5's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion. It does not work very well in the same way that 3.5's didn't work very well.
Not semantics- two different types of issues, but whatever. I'm sorry that, for some reason, you have to do "tons of obnoxious conversions". I've never spent more then 5 minutes to convert something. And now that it seems like the conversation is going nowhere but circles, I say "Good day, sir."
damaged backwards compatibility,...the hell? I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm masochistic: Where did you ever come up with that?
For what it is worth, I found that there is a definite lack of backwards compatibility as well. I do not own the Pathfinder RPG book, so I don't really have any way to check on things, instead I keep getting my Pathfinder subscription with the latest AP and have to scratch my head when I read over the stats of the creatures.
The poison does what? I can't really use that in my 3.5 game as I have no idea what it means. Perhaps the opposite is true and it is really easy to take 3.5 stuff and play it in Pathfinder, or maybe it is just easy for someone who knows both systems to convert, but someone with no frame of reference for what the changes are will find it difficult to just pick up a Pathfinder module and use it as is.
Sean Mahoney
damaged backwards compatibility,...the hell? I'm going to regret asking this, but I'm masochistic: Where did you ever come up with that?For what it is worth, I found that there is a definite lack of backwards compatibility as well. I do not own the Pathfinder RPG book, so I don't really have any way to check on things, instead I keep getting my Pathfinder subscription with the latest AP and have to scratch my head when I read over the stats of the creatures.
The poison does what? I can't really use that in my 3.5 game as I have no idea what it means. Perhaps the opposite is true and it is really easy to take 3.5 stuff and play it in Pathfinder, or maybe it is just easy for someone who knows both systems to convert, but someone with no frame of reference for what the changes are will find it difficult to just pick up a Pathfinder module and use it as is.
Sean Mahoney
Ah, ouch. That's something I hadn't thought of. I would imagine that would be more difficult to do. Have you downloaded the conversion guide? Since it tells you how to convert from 3.5 to PF it may be of some help in converting back the other way....
|
Semantics. Pathfinder's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion, just like 3.5's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion. It does not work very well in the same way that 3.5's didn't work very well.
Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
Semantics. Pathfinder's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion, just like 3.5's backwards compatibility requires a ton of obnoxious conversion. It does not work very well in the same way that 3.5's didn't work very well.Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
A bunch of little changes just goes to the point that Monte Cook's issues with the switch from 3e to 3.5 still applies to the switch from 3.5 (or 3e) to PF.
|
|
Did you ever try to run a 3.5 adventure under PF rules ? How much time did you *have* (as in, was necessary in order to be used with PFRPG) to spend converting it ?
It's not the prep time, it's the gotchas. "Oh, huh, that level 3 cleric behind two skeletons just TPKed the group." "Oh, you want to grapple him? Hold up while I do some math..." "Oh, he just walked out of the Solid Fog? Can I take my action back?"
It's almost exactly the same as my 3.5 experience.
OK, but that means that your idea of backwards compatibility says that the mechanics stay the same. You want the grapple to remain an opposed check, solid fog to slow everyone to 5ft and the turn undead to be silly useless. If something of that changes, it's not backwards compatible for you.
As far as I understand, Paizo's vision of backwards compatibility means that you can take an exisitng 3.5 AP (and APs are what floats the boat for Paizo, in terms of both creativity and income) and run it under 3.5 with minimum prep time. I strongly believe that was one of the major goals of Jason.
I am running RotRL under PFRPG rules and I can say that it doesn't go according to your vision of BC (ok guys, detect magic works now like this ...) but it does according to Paizo idea of BC (hmm an NPC, let's calculate his CMD/CMB/Concentration and off we go).
Most of the folks why cry foul about PF being a missed chance to make 4.0 the way (they) think it should look like completely forget that Paizo has a massive backstock of 3.5 material they make a living off. And since it's gaming industry, we all know that "living" means ramen and discount toilet paper, so one has to count his blessings.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'll concur with pres man and Man in Black.
Twice now, I've taken over running a Pathfinder play-by-post game based on published 3.5 material, and I'm finding that I have to re-configure all the encounters. It's one thing to redefine terms so that, for example, the Pathfinder Cleave feat does not behave the way the D&D Cleave feat does. That would mean that a D&D stat block would do different things when interpreted under the Pathfinder mechanics, but at least I could, in theory, run a D&D NPC under Pathfinder.
But it's another thing when Pathfinder characters have different hit dice, skill points, numbers of feats, and so on. Monsters have different hit dice, saving throws, attacks, feats, and down the line. That means that I can't just use the D&D stat blocks, because they don't compute correctly under Pathfinder rules.
And I don't have a problem with that. The game is not "backwards compatible," and that ended up being the game Jason wanted to rite and Paizo wanted to publish. I can argue that there are rules differences I don't prefer, but there's a lot I think are good, too. If I want to translate "Crypt of the Everflame" into D&D play (and may the heavens have mercy on those 3.5 PCs' souls) or "Hungry are the Dead" into Pathfinder, I know that I'm going to have to do some conversion work, the same as if I were converting into Arcana Evolved, the d20 version of 7th Sea, or Iron Heroes.
(Is Pathfinder a superior game to 3.5? Shrug. It's more refined. Characters are tougher, and magic is more commonplace. People like playing tougher characters.)
And these were the same charges leveled against 3.5 in 2003. The bulk of the changes were each good ideas. (Seriously, did you ever play with anybody using 3rd Edition's version of rhinohide armor?) But the bulk of them were subtle (Did you notice what happened to the spells control plants and command plants?), and there were most likely changes for the sake of change. And all the classes got a little boost, to encourage players to switch over from 3rd Edition to 3.5.
|
|
GRAPPLE
I don't have issues with PF grapple rules. And I didn't have many issues with 3.5 grapple. But I am aware that this particular rule subsystem is the D&D equivalent of 80's Beirut ... and everybody has his own idea of how grappling should be worked out.
MONSTERS
Dragons - OK, you have a 3.5 dragon with some CR, you take the PF dragon with the same CR, the dragons are OGL, the problem is ... ?
MM1 monsters not in bestiary - apart from WotC intellectual property and a few monsters nobody cared about, we're missing anything crucial ?
OK, Monsters with PC classes. Having faced this issue I say there's the low road (run them as written, god damn the fact that NPC Barbarian won't have rage powers) or the high road (restat from grounds up). But you're not *forced* to take the high road in order to run the encounter.
NOT FIXED ENOUGH
As far as I understand your recent posts, you're in the "3.5 casters are gods, melee sucks donkey balls" camp. OK, that means you have an issue with a problem which lies at a very deep bottom of the rule system, and trying to alleviate that would likely throw the game upside down. And that's not going to happen due to business factor outlined earlier.
Also, and I may be wrong on this, didn't they have to make some noticeable changes to the rules to qualify as a new product, otherwise they could have gotten into copyright trouble by just being a glorified reprint of another company's material?
Reprinting somebody else's material is a violation of copyright law, unless the copyright holder(s) [usually the authors] have given you permission ("a license") to reprint that material.
Likewise, reprinting somebody else's material with small changes ("creating a derivative work") is a violation of copyright law, unless the copyright holder(s) [usually the authors] have given you permission ("a license") to publish a derivative work.
Wizards of the Coast is the copyright holder for Dungeons & Dragons. They published an Open Game License that allows parties who accept that license, to republish most (but not all) the material of Dungeons & Dragons. Material that can be so republished is called "Open Game Content".
The license does not make a distinction between republishing verbatim, or creating a derivative work with modifications. The only restrictions are that only Open Game Content may be republished, and a copy of the license must be included with the republication. (And, if you do make a derivative work, indicating what (if any) of your original material you consider to be Open Game Content is also wise.)
If Wizards could revoke the OGL, they would do so in a heartbeat. The Game System License (GSL) was Wizards attempt to do this in a roundabout way (accepting GSL meant giving up your rights under OGL), but smart companies like Paizo made their save against the Dispell License spell.
I'd speculate on the economic strength of products that need to use legal skullduggery to keep competing products out of the free market; but that side quest into microeconomics is beyond the scope of this thread.
If Wizards could revoke the OGL, they would do so in a heartbeat. The Game System License (GSL) was Wizards attempt to do this in a roundabout way (accepting GSL meant giving up your rights under OGL), but smart companies like Paizo made their save against the Dispell License spell.
Funny though, Goodman is back to selling it's 3.x Dungeon Crawls in pdf form as well selling 4e Dungeon Crawls. Seems as if they weren't exactly stupid themselves.
But if I'm running a 3.0 game (which I am) and was going to switch over completely to 3.5 (which I'm not), I'd have to deal with all kinds of changes to the game.
I'd like to chime in with my agreement with those who say that the compatibility isn't perfect. I would further say that it shouldn't necessarily be.
When I first got 3.5, I had read a review that claimed the reviewer switched from 3.0 to 3.5 in mid-adventure. I looked at 3.5 and said "No way am I switching to this in mid-adventure!" The PCs were fighting a group of wererats. So suddenly their +1 weapons which were good against the wererats would no longer be so good, just because those +1 weapons weren't silver. So I stuck with 3.0. That didn't mean I couldn't later start a NEW campaign with 3.5.
And the same goes for Pathfinder RPG. I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
So yeah, you shouldn't just blindly play a 3.5 adventure using Pathfinder RPG.
But listen, I ran plenty of 2nd Edition adventures in 3.0, and that's an even BIGGER difference. The conversion was TONS of work. It would typically take me over an hour to convert a single monster or NPC from 2nd Edition to 3rd. I once spent WEEKS converting a 32-page module to 3rd Edition. But I felt it was worth it, just because I really wanted to run 3.0, and I really wanted to run certain 2nd Edition material.
This is, of course, all just my own distorted, myopic view. I'm sure other people have had different experiences that made them feel completely different, based on more evidence than I could even imagine.
But listen, I ran plenty of 2nd Edition adventures in 3.0, and that's an even BIGGER difference. The conversion was TONS of work. It would typically take me over an hour to convert a single monster or NPC from 2nd Edition to 3rd. I once spent WEEKS converting a 32-page module to 3rd Edition. But I felt it was worth it, just because I really wanted to run 3.0, and I really wanted to run certain 2nd Edition material.
This is, of course, all just my own distorted, myopic view. I'm sure other people have had different experiences that made them feel completely different, based on more evidence than I could even imagine.
I think the point people are making is that while you did alot of conversions for 2e to 3.x, you knew that you were converting and thus little things midgame probably didn't surprise you because you dealt with it already during that hour of time it took you to convert the monster. With a change from 3e to 3.5 or 3.x to PF, there are likely things that you would think are fine and then midgame suddenly realize something doesn't match. This is because they are little minute changes that add up when taken together. That is the point. Sometimes being too similar is actually harder to deal with than being very different.
|
If Wizards could revoke the OGL, they would do so in a heartbeat. The Game System License (GSL) was Wizards attempt to do this in a roundabout way (accepting GSL meant giving up your rights under OGL), but smart companies like Paizo made their save against the Dispell License spell.
+1
Long Live The Open Game Movement!
Ah, ouch. That's something I hadn't thought of. I would imagine that would be more difficult to do. Have you downloaded the conversion guide? Since it tells you how to convert from 3.5 to PF it may be of some help in converting back the other way....
I didn't know there was one... last I heard there wasn't a plan to produce one. Maybe I will go looking for it again...
I suppose I should... right now I am finding that I have less and less interest in keeping up my subscription if the modules are something I can't run with my group (they are still enjoyable to read though), especially when I can't get a consistent time that I will be billed for them.
I guess I am still in the camp that feels that there is enough changes that I no longer would have mastery of the system like I would with 3.5 and if I took the time to learn the difference it would take just as long to learn the differences in 4E (which had a lot of design decisions that I thought made a lot of sense)... so I am not sure why I just wouldn't go that way (I guess a good argument is "because WotC can't make adventures as well as Paizo" with the rebuttal being "I love lots of new crunch books and I won't see that with Paizo").
Ah, ouch. That's something I hadn't thought of. I would imagine that would be more difficult to do. Have you downloaded the conversion guide? Since it tells you how to convert from 3.5 to PF it may be of some help in converting back the other way....I didn't know there was one... last I heard there wasn't a plan to produce one. Maybe I will go looking for it again...
I suppose I should... right now I am finding that I have less and less interest in keeping up my subscription if the modules are something I can't run with my group (they are still enjoyable to read though), especially when I can't get a consistent time that I will be billed for them.
I guess I am still in the camp that feels that there is enough changes that I no longer would have mastery of the system like I would with 3.5 and if I took the time to learn the difference it would take just as long to learn the differences in 4E (which had a lot of design decisions that I thought made a lot of sense)... so I am not sure why I just wouldn't go that way (I guess a good argument is "because WotC can't make adventures as well as Paizo" with the rebuttal being "I love lots of new crunch books and I won't see that with Paizo").
I can understand that, both systems have their pros and cons. You can always convert Paizo stuff to 4th. I haven't tried it personally, but I can't imagine it'd be difficult. Time consuming possibly, but probably not difficult. You can also check out www.d20pfsrd.com to get a feel for how Pathfinder works. I personally like it better then 3.5 and I've had zero problems with converting 3.5 stuff over to it. In the end though, just play what you enjoy!
As far as I understand your recent posts, you're in the "3.5 casters are gods, melee sucks donkey balls" camp. OK, that means you have an issue with a problem which lies at a very deep bottom of the rule system, and trying to alleviate that would likely throw the game upside down. And that's not going to happen due to business factor outlined earlier.That's one problem, yes. Why did they claim it was one of the major selling points of PF if they weren't going to fix it?
To completely fix it would require a completely re-designed magic system, which means no backward compatibility. What PF RPG does do is 1) boost melee so that it's a bit more effective (fighter and paladin especially) and 2) "nerf" some of the most overpowered spells (polymorph, etc.) so that spellcasters are a bit less powerful.
Did they go too far or far enough? That's a subjective question. Personally, I think that some rule changes (trade iterative attacks for extra 5 ft steps, eliminate casting defensively to avoid AoOs [or make it an opposed concentration check vs. CMB check] and possibly make more spells full round actions, etc.) can still be made; others may feel they are too much.
|
|
That's one problem, yes. Why did they claim it was one of the major selling points of PF if they weren't going to fix it? I can understand saying "Okay, this is unfixable without scrapping everything." I cannot understand "We're going to say we're fixing this, then not actually fix it." You aren't seeing me criticizing 3.5 for this because 3.5 didn't set out to fix the gap between spellcasters and melee.
Could you point me to any spot where Paizo claimed that PF will bring casters and melee back into the same line ? I have a hard time finding that. From the official promo material I can see that following were touted:
- streamlining combat maneuvres into one mechanic
- removing dead levels
- skill consolidation
- new feats/class options
- new XP system and CR/XP relation
- magic item creation no longer caster only
- poison/diesase revamp
- spell changes
Except for the varying degree of success with maneuvres (again, note: PF doesn't claim to "make all CM's viable and effective", it claims to "streamline into one mechanic") I believe that all of those are present. Class re-balancing is not on the list, alas.
Heck, if you read Jason's design goals from Alpha and Beta you won't find even one sentence that goes along the line of "Spellcasters vs. others imbalance and how we're going to fix it".
So you might say that either Jason is blind and doesn't see the imbalance (unlikely) or that he went with the "unfixable without reinventing the system, which we won't do".
I think the point people are making is that while you did alot of conversions for 2e to 3.x, you knew that you were converting and thus little things midgame probably didn't surprise you because you dealt with it already during that hour of time it took you to convert the monster. With a change from 3e to 3.5 or 3.x to PF, there are likely things that you would think are fine and then midgame suddenly realize something doesn't match. This is because they are little minute changes that add up when taken together. That is the point. Sometimes being too similar is actually harder to deal with than being very different.
The point I tried to make - and I know many people will disagree with me on this point - is that you SHOULDN'T try to run a 3.5 adventure in PFRPG on the fly. At least, I wouldn't. To do so is risky. You never know when some little detail might come along to bite you.
I'm still trying to learn PFRPG, and I'm a little confused...
(trade iterative attacks for extra 5 ft steps,
I thought you could NEVER make more than 1 5-foot step in a round. And you can still take a 5' step during the full attack action. So what's all this about trading iterative attacks for extra 5 ft steps? Could someone please explain this to me?
I'm still trying to learn PFRPG, and I'm a little confused...
(trade iterative attacks for extra 5 ft steps,I thought you could NEVER make more than 1 5-foot step in a round. And you can still take a 5' step during the full attack action. So what's all this about trading iterative attacks for extra 5 ft steps? Could someone please explain this to me?
It's part of a parenthesis in the middle of a sentence, which makes sense a bit more and explains itself if you remove the additions:
That's a subjective question. Personally, I think that some rule changes (....) can still be made; others may feel they are too much.
IE, it's something DCP wanted that other people feel was too much change, and PF never added.
Oops. I see. Now I feel foolish (not for the first time.) Thanks.