|
From the post:
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?Sometimes I do. But the topic at hand is "Things you preferred in 3.5", not "Do you use house rules in PFRPG?"
I found Hogarth's reply intriguing. Paizo has touted the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game to be backwards-compatible with the 3.x rules so folks can continue to use, and enjoy, their enormous libraries unabated. I considered that a feature of the rules, and point it out to naysayers.
But as Pathfinder enters its second year and the 3.x rules are a fading memory, is that once vaunted feature passe? I can understand why one can't use 3.x rules in Open Play ala the Pathfinder Society. That makes sense. Is it time to put 3.x books once and for all in storage (I'm reconsidering selling/trading mine), occasionally to take out as inspiration for houserules or to reminisce about "those old days" that some folks get about pre-3.x rules?
Thoughts?
|
Huh. Nothing changed in the 2 years. Some 3.5 things work without any changes, some require a slight tweak, and some became redunant with the introduction of APG.
You can use your 3.5 library just fine. A whole different question, quite unrelated to the concept of BaComp, is about to what degree the new PF crunch (APG and upcoming UM/UC) will outshadow 3.5 material.
|
|
I have always found that "backwards compatibility" was more of a marketing strategy to help piggyback name recognition with 3.5e. Which is entirely fair.
There is nothing... wrong about converting over your 3.5 supplementals over but it suffers from ineloquence and shows the aging process that a LOT of that older material has undergone. You more/less have to break apart a good bit of the old material to fit in pathfinder because of the way certain things have changed, among the biggest offender here are any abilities that are tied to feats or feat progression.
While you can a square peg work, it isn't exactly comfortable or optimal for a round hole.
|
|
Right now is a feature. I can still use with minumum hassle subsystem such as that for political debate (from Dynasties and Demagogogues) or the one for skirmish/PC centric battles (from Heroes of Battle), and obviously the humongous number of spells, creatures, feats, etc. from a rather large d20 library.
With a modicum of forethought, even some alternative rules.
As years and PFRPG specific supplements will pile up, it will be time to say goodbye and "boldly go where no rule system has been before".
Me, I say at least another 5 years.
|
I actually ran most of STAP with PF beta and 3.5 material and I came to regret that. If you have a player who wants to create a very particular character that requires some 3.5 material, it's probably fine, but there is a very different philosophy at work in the Pathfinder rules. Much of the splatbook material imports just fine, but it brings with it the problem of too many feats and spells that aren't balanced against each other. What 3rd party material used to be to 3.5, 3.5 has become to Pathfinder.
Just my opinion, but 3.5 is mostly passé. Its to be used with caution, if at all.
|
While Paizo stick with the current edition of the PF RPG they may as well keep using it as a marketing tool, yes it is becoming less relevant, but it hasn't yet become completely irrelevant, so they should still point it out, just don't make it the key marketing tactic.
Mind you I would prefer if they used the term "Largely compatible" as it is not a seamless compatibility, it is no more compatible than Shadowrun 2nd ed was to 1st ed.
When the time finally comes for a 2nd edition of Pathfinder, I feel Paizo should throw the backwards compatibility constraint in the bin.
Thoughts?
Backwards compatibility to me means that I can continue using my 3.5 books while running Paizo's APs, with little/no problems (which is how it is right now).
As soon as I can no longer run the APs with 3.5, I stop buying Paizo's products.
Thoughts?Backwards compatibility to me means that I can continue using my 3.5 books while running Paizo's APs, with little/no problems (which is how it is right now).
As soon as I can no longer run the APs with 3.5, I stop buying Paizo's products.
I think you just pointed out an interesting difference in how people think about backwards compatability. The rules are not entirely compatible anymore. 3.5 cannot mix with Pathfinder seemlessly. But the APs are less rules heavy, and the places that they need rules are covered within 3.5. And if your NPCs are slightly more powerful or able to do things the players cannot, it is not as big of a deal. I think you could mostly ditch rules compatibility but still make adventures that are able to be run in both sets.
|
|
The APG alone made me pretty much move the Completes into storage - it just has more useful material than all C's together.
The GMG made me throw DMG and DMG2 into the cellar void of oblivion.
I expect that UM/UC will finish off any player splats left on my shelf, maybe except PHB2.
Monster books will survive a while longer, (specific monster books in particular, Draconomicon I am looking at you) for obvious reasons. So will psionics and some oddball books (MIC, ToM, Bo9s).
I'm using pretty much anything that provides me with monsters to throw at the players. So my Draconomicon, Monster Manuals and such will stick around. MAybe i will also use some old races with slight tweaks.
I'm even considering introducing the ToB and its classes but im not sure on that yet. I remember them to be a lot of work to build properly, and I don't want to toss that at my rather inexperienced players.
|
|
I like it as a feature as it makes it easier to mine things without having to completely brew it up though some players I know take it to extremes.
What I find it an issue on is areas like Bard feats which don't convert at all (generally speaking).
Overall backwards compatability is a plus for me and one I'm happy to see but its far from seamless and requires updates a lot of the time.
Reality and Feature.
|
|
The APG alone made me pretty much move the Completes into storage - it just has more useful material than all C's together.
The GMG made me throw DMG and DMG2 into the cellar void of oblivion.
I expect that UM/UC will finish off any player splats left on my shelf, maybe except PHB2.
Monster books will survive a while longer, (specific monster books in particular, Draconomicon I am looking at you) for obvious reasons. So will psionics and some oddball books (MIC, ToM, Bo9s).
How about 3.x adventures?
|
|
Thoughts?Backwards compatibility to me means that I can continue using my 3.5 books while running Paizo's APs, with little/no problems (which is how it is right now).
As soon as I can no longer run the APs with 3.5, I stop buying Paizo's products.
Thanks for the reply, Arnwyn. Great to hear from folks still playing 3.x but using Pathfinder material for their campaigns.
For me there is no difference now then when pathfinder beta first came out. I use what I want from my back library as do my players (with dm approval on a line item basis). I wouldnt consider my phb2 for instance any more a fading memmory then I do any PFRPG product.
|
|
How about 3.x adventures?The APG alone made me pretty much move the Completes into storage - it just has more useful material than all C's together.
The GMG made me throw DMG and DMG2 into the cellar void of oblivion.
I expect that UM/UC will finish off any player splats left on my shelf, maybe except PHB2.
Monster books will survive a while longer, (specific monster books in particular, Draconomicon I am looking at you) for obvious reasons. So will psionics and some oddball books (MIC, ToM, Bo9s).
I have CotCT and LoF left to run from 3.5 era. I'm running RotRL and it's backwards compatible enough.
|
|
I think it depends on the players and GMs in question. Which is a nice way of saying (with a straight face) that it's both.
For many groups, a dissatisfaction with 3.5, especially the Rules Bloated version of late 3.5, is a strong factor in the decision to migrate to Pathfinder RPG. For those groups, leaving 3.5 entirely behind in the rear-view mirror for Pathfinder is a "feature", not a bug. They have a shelf full of 3.xx hardcovers. Walking away from that invsetment is difficult to do -- or to rationalize.
For other groups (which I would argue are also "many" in number), the ability to bring over 3.5 classes, spells, feats and other aspects of 3.5 rules without too much trouble is a feature, not a bug.
One group is running away from 3.5; the other is dragging it happily along with them. Neither is right; neither is wrong. Both choices are viable and supported. Each group can pursue their own preferences, rules and play styles, untroubled by what is perceived as a bug/feature by the other.
A remaining middle ground exists where groups pick and choose between those elements of 3.5 they would prefer to drag along for the ride and those they would leave behind. Essential compatibility of both adventures and monsters is the best example of this. Can you run them without modification? Probably, yes. Can you convert them more laboriously if you care to? Yes, again.
Either way, I don't see that this is a choice that anybody needs to make. It's not an either/or choice. While the likelihood of people playing 3.5 as their game of choice decreases on a going forward basis simply by the passage of time (this observation applies to every RPG ruleset ever created), a backwards compatibility with the previous incarnations of the game -- especially when it comes to adventures-- is a feature that Pathfinder has over 4E.
Given that Paizo had published more adventures for 3.5 than anybody else -- and continues to sell them -- whereas WotC had comparatively few published adventures for 3.xx? This factor explains as much as any other reason why WotC went in one direction and Paizo chose another path.
Whatever the case, I don't see how backwards compatibility with not-that-many conversion issues can ever be a bad thing from the customer's perspective.
Fundamentally, it's always going to be backward compatible, in the same sense that I can still run a 1st Ed D&D adventure.
It, as stated earlier, is largely marketing. I don't think there should be some sort of rigid demarcation point, but it is something I expect to happen on a more natural basis.
|
Now THAT would be an interesting twist in the upcoming Jade Regent AP :-)Oh great, dinosaur monks. Don't let James Jacobs hear you or we'll be up to our eyeballs in the scaly wretches in the next Adventure Path! :)
Excuse me now, I have some new mantras to master for my new monk level.
Hmm.. I thought the next adventure path was the Carrion Crown AP. I guess we could encounter putrid undead, enery-draining dinosaur monks though thatis a bit of a stretch, but hey this is a fantasy game after all.
|
I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.
Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.
|
|
Hmm.. I thought the next adventure path was the Carrion Crown AP. I guess we could encounter putrid undead, enery-draining dinosaur monks though thatis a bit of a stretch, but hey this is a fantasy game after all.Now THAT would be an interesting twist in the upcoming Jade Regent AP :-)Oh great, dinosaur monks. Don't let James Jacobs hear you or we'll be up to our eyeballs in the scaly wretches in the next Adventure Path! :)
Excuse me now, I have some new mantras to master for my new monk level.
You are correct. Carrion Crown is next but the AP following has been (unofficially?) announced as a Tian Xia based Jade Regent AP that will be released at GenCon 2011.
|
|
I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.
Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.
+1.
I use PF as a Brand New Day to reset my sourcebook collection. PF+APG+UM/UC - that should be enough for years.
From the post:
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?Sometimes I do. But the topic at hand is "Things you preferred in 3.5", not "Do you use house rules in PFRPG?"I found Hogarth's reply intriguing. Paizo has touted the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game to be backwards-compatible with the 3.x rules so folks can continue to use, and enjoy, their enormous libraries unabated. I considered that a feature of the rules, and point it out to naysayers.
But as Pathfinder enters its second year and the 3.x rules are a fading memory, is that once vaunted feature passe? I can understand why one can't use 3.x rules in Open Play ala the Pathfinder Society. That makes sense. Is it time to put 3.x books once and for all in storage (I'm reconsidering selling/trading mine), occasionally to take out as inspiration for houserules or to reminisce about "those old days" that some folks get about pre-3.x rules?
Thoughts?
There are still some good things in those books, even the bad books normally had a gem or two. I would not just do away with them, because getting rid of options brings nothing to the table. I just allow things on a case by case basis.
|
|
You are correct. Carrion Crown is next but the AP following has been (unofficially?) announced as a Tian Xia based Jade Regent AP that will be released at GenCon 2011.Hmm.. I thought the next adventure path was the Carrion Crown AP. I guess we could encounter putrid undead, enery-draining dinosaur monks though thatis a bit of a stretch, but hey this is a fantasy game after all.Now THAT would be an interesting twist in the upcoming Jade Regent AP :-)Oh great, dinosaur monks. Don't let James Jacobs hear you or we'll be up to our eyeballs in the scaly wretches in the next Adventure Path! :)
Excuse me now, I have some new mantras to master for my new monk level.
Ack! What he(she?) said. That'll teach me to reply before the first cup of coffee.
It would be impossible to remove the backwards compatibility in Pathfinder because the system was intentionally left very similar to that of D&D 3.x which is what creates the backwards compatibility.
I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.
Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.
We have only had 1 person try to use any 3.5 material, and that had to be converted (it may have even been 3.0). Then the APG came out, and they decided against the prestige class in favor of the variant sand druid. I don't forsee a situation like this happening again, since Pathfinder already has more quality classes out than 3.5 put out over its entirety.
|
|
I use PF as a Brand New Day to reset my sourcebook collection. PF+APG+UM/UC - that should be enough for years.
Re: reset. That seems to be what a lot of folks are doin'. I'm also lookin' at Pathfinder-compatible materials like from LPJ, Rite Publishing, SGG, etc. Oddly enough, my favorite 3PP product is actually designed for 3.x: Trailblazer by Bad Axe Games.
|
|
We have only had 1 person try to use any 3.5 material, and that had to be converted (it may have even been 3.0). Then the APG came out, and they decided against the prestige class in favor of the variant sand druid. I don't forsee a situation like this happening again, since Pathfinder already has more quality classes out than 3.5 put out over its entirety.I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.
Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.
What was the material?
|
|
Ack! What he(she?) said. That'll teach me to reply before the first cup of coffee.You are correct. Carrion Crown is next but the AP following has been (unofficially?) announced as a Tian Xia based Jade Regent AP that will be released at GenCon 2011.Hmm.. I thought the next adventure path was the Carrion Crown AP. I guess we could encounter putrid undead, enery-draining dinosaur monks though thatis a bit of a stretch, but hey this is a fantasy game after all.Now THAT would be an interesting twist in the upcoming Jade Regent AP :-)Oh great, dinosaur monks. Don't let James Jacobs hear you or we'll be up to our eyeballs in the scaly wretches in the next Adventure Path! :)
Excuse me now, I have some new mantras to master for my new monk level.
Well, you're not wrong.The Jade Regent is upcoming. Just not next, which isn't what you said.
What was the material?We have only had 1 person try to use any 3.5 material, and that had to be converted (it may have even been 3.0). Then the APG came out, and they decided against the prestige class in favor of the variant sand druid. I don't forsee a situation like this happening again, since Pathfinder already has more quality classes out than 3.5 put out over its entirety.I was pretty excited that PRPG was going to be 'backwards compatible' when it was being developed. I mean, I have a massive 3.5 library.
Honestly though... I haven't really even wanted to use a single 3.5 source for any game I have run or played in since I started playing with the BETA and then moved on to the Core rules. I've actually only played with one person who has, and I honestly think she was just trying to munchkin out her character.
There was a sand shaper prestige class he found somewhere. I felt it was weaker than the standard druid, but it fit his concept well. The new alternate druid class features fit him just as well and don't require modifications.
Creative Director
|
Whether or not any one particular gamer incorporates 3.5 material into his Pathfinder game or doesn't isn't the concern for us here at Paizo; it's that that gamer has the OPTION to do so if he wants. I know I use 3.5 material in my Pathfinder games. I certainly use 3.5 material (although updated to sync better with the new rules) in print in pretty much every volume of the Pathfinder AP.
So if someone wants to abandon the use of 3.5 material in their game, that's fine! With every Pathfinder release, the game stands more and more on its own. But we have no intention of officially doing anything to "cut off" the backwards compatibility in the future. The first time we'd even consider such a drastic step is if/when we do Pathfinder 2nd edition, and even THEN changing the game so dramatically that a customer couldn't use any of the past 10 or 20 years (or however long it's gonna be until we get to Pathfinder 2E... it won't be less than a decade from 2010 though, I suspect and hope) of our products is shooting ourself in the foot.
Compatibility with previous editions is good for the game.
|
I certainly use 3.5 material (although updated to sync better with the new rules) in print in pretty much every volume of the Pathfinder AP.
I was going to point out something similar. I know in doing writing for Rite Publishing I've been relying on 3e stuff. Steve is a strong advocate of bringing in non-core material and a good bit of that is old 3.5 material. Of course, as the fully PFRPG compatible material increases, that will be brought in more and more. But certainly, anyone claiming that 3.5 is dead is not paying attention to the OGL section 15 in material being released.
My players stay out.
When my group get to the brain eating cyclops in Kingmaker #3, all of his spell book spells are going to be pulled straight from Spell Compendium (Pathfinderized, of course).
Plus those old books are great for inspiration.
But certainly, anyone claiming that 3.5 is dead is not paying attention to the OGL section 15 in material being released.
Not if you're looking at Jon Brazer Enterprises material. We do all new. All of it. We don't take short cuts.
|
|
But certainly, anyone claiming that 3.5 is dead is not paying attention to the OGL section 15 in material being released.Not if you're looking at Jon Brazer Enterprises material. We do all new. All of it. We don't take short cuts.
Things like monster books and new rule subsystems will, of course, not have much they have to rely upon, outside of the core rules. But modules and setting books are going to glean from a wider swath.
Things like monster books and new rule subsystems will, of course, not have much they have to rely upon, outside of the core rules. But modules and setting books are going to glean from a wider swath.
Yes and no. There haven't been many 3pp modules produced. So while that is true that grabbing a single spell or a single monster from a book does draw from a wider source, its not really a major occurrence in actual practice.
And while reprinting someone's own 3.5 material in mass quantity is ok (you put the work in initially, you get the benefit), taking several books from companies that are either defunct or have moved onto bigger and better things and cutting and pasting material and making it the majority of the book is simply a short cut way to fast profits while not actually contributing much of anything of their own.
We do all new. All of it. We don't take short cuts.Oh?
Yep, the Book of Beasts => All New Monsters. The books we've got on the drawing boards will be using all new material. The 2 Book of the Faithfuls released thus far used all new material. We did look into using some Eldritch Sorcery cleric domains for the (eventually coming) Book of the Faithful #3, but the majority were either not useful (due to PFRPG rules changes) or were close enough to another domain that a subdomain would cover it. But ultimate we made the decision to go with new domains/subdomains.
|
|
Things like monster books and new rule subsystems will, of course, not have much they have to rely upon, outside of the core rules. But modules and setting books are going to glean from a wider swath.Yes and no. There haven't been many 3pp modules produced. So while that is true that grabbing a single spell or a single monster from a book does draw from a wider source, its not really a major occurrence in actual practice.
And while reprinting someone's own 3.5 material in mass quantity is ok (you put the work in initially, you get the benefit), taking several books from companies that are either defunct or have moved onto bigger and better things and cutting and pasting material is a short cut way to fast profits while not actually contributing much of anything of their own.
Is there anyone doing that latter practice?
Rite is coming out with setting material and modules, as is Open Design. I finished Coliseum Morpheuon for Rite, a high level adventure/campaign setting. I also contributed an adventure to Tales of the Old Margreve for Open Design (though that one was all new material for the most part) and wrote up a jungle adventure (The Monkey's Key) for Tabletop Armory (updated a beast from Testament for it too). So I know personally that there are some adventures being done.
Rite is also seeking patrons for the Questhaven patronage project, a city setting where half the purpose is to draw in material from a wide selection of 3pp material. When writing Kavit M. Tor's Emporium of Collectible Curiousities, me and Tarren actually had to redo it because Steve wanted non-core material in all of the NPCs.
On the opposite side of the coin, I've also been making monsters for various books and just finished up Secrets of Divine Channeling (now in layout) for Rite, so I understand the creation of new material too. But when writing adventures or making NPCs, having that library of 3e material to open up is a real boon.