Pathfinder's Backwards Compatibility: Feature or time to say Goodbye?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Jon Brazer Enterprises

Wicht wrote:
But when writing adventures or making NPCs, having that library of 3e material to open up is a real boon.

Absolutely. Its awesome for that. That is what the OGL was originally created for.


Wolfthulhu wrote:

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.

My experience is very similar. I still have my full library of 3.5 books, but I find that I am normally only using the Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Pathfinder Bestiary, Pathfinder GameMastery Guide, and now the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide. For my upcoming campaign (starting on Sunday, 19th September) players are only allowed material from the Core Rulebook and the APG. I might still use monsters and classes from 3.5 books, but none of my players have shown any interest in non-Pathfinder material for their characters. The new APG classes are a massive hit and we will have a member of each class present in the campaign. This is not due to any "I hate 3.5 " sentiment, it simply worked out this way. So the backwards compatibility is a perk, but I don't consider it as important as others do.

Dark Archive

Wicht wrote:

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

That reminds me: Rite Publishing just posted the patron project is, like, over 40% fulfilled or something?

Scarab Sages

joela wrote:
Wicht wrote:

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

That reminds me: Rite Publishing just posted the patron project is, like, over 40% fulfilled or something?

Where did you see that?

Dark Archive

Wicht wrote:
joela wrote:
Wicht wrote:

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

That reminds me: Rite Publishing just posted the patron project is, like, over 40% fulfilled or something?
Where did you see that?

Argh! It's 22% filled. Need another cup of coffee....


I'm still using a fair amount of my 3.5 books, and will continue to do so. I prefer some of the base class solutions that the Completes (for example) provided to the milieu than the alternate class builds from the APG, for example. My list of "allowed" classes numbers a full 35-36 classes, some of which are homebrewed, some of which are from third party supplements, but most of which are classes that I really liked and I feel cover the bases better as independent classes rather than feature swaps. I'll likely continue to use vast amounts of my 3.x collection for some time to come, and I hope that Paizo continues to effectively support it.


Compatibility is also nice for people running campaigns in other publishers' 3.5 settings which have a series of "iconic" materials which will never see an official PF release. We do run an occasional Dragonlance campaign, have moved to PF, but compatibility is quite manageable for things like prestige classes, which are a landmark of the setting.
In our group, it is true that we have boxed most of the 3.5 splatbooks (problematic they were, indeed) and stick to PF and APG except for those materials which are setting-connected, like the aforementioned DL, the rules additions to War of the Burning Sky, and, the few times we keep playing, FR.

Scarab Sages

joela wrote:
Wicht wrote:
joela wrote:
Wicht wrote:

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

That reminds me: Rite Publishing just posted the patron project is, like, over 40% fulfilled or something?
Where did you see that?
Argh! It's 22% filled. Need another cup of coffee....

I though 22 was the last number I had seen. I thought maybe I had missed something.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Truth be told, I don't see Pathfinder as anything but a variant PHB, the same as Iron Heroes and Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. And I agree that 'backwards compatible' was just a marketing choice.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with previous editions is good for the game.

Hug!


joela wrote:

From the post:

hogarth wrote:
joela wrote:
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?

I would have mildly preferred they not bother with backwards compatibility (kind of feels like the horse has bolted though - it's pretty much going to stay backwards compatible since any changes which violated that would make earlier PF stuff incompatible I would think). I've switched systems I-don't-know-how-many-times over the years and rarely get particularly attached to one. The pathfinder release was a good chance to do so again and take a fresh look at RPGing. I find it invigorates the game somewhat and makes everything that little bit more exciting when you roll up your first character in a new game.

It doesnt make much difference, of course - we do what we do, others do what others do. Nonetheless, by keeping the rules backwards compatible, Pathfinder was by necessity limited in its choices - I think it was almost certainly an excellent decision in terms of pleasing more customers, but it would have suited me personally if they'd made a clean break.

Maybe the Paizo people would have come up of all kinds of good mechanics if they had had the luxury of a completely blank page, who knows?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

with the APG out, the only remaining use I have for 3.5 material is settings info. I am more than happy to otherwise shove the whole Complete Mess of feats, Prcs, and other baggage completely out the window save for the Psionics material which still sees some use with a bit of Pathfinder tweaking.

What I would have wanted to keep, Pathfinder has either already updated or provided more tasty alternatives to.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Moment of Zen... What does 'backwards compatible' truly mean?

To me it means that Pathfinder should be 'backwards compatible' with the core SRD, which it (mostly) is.

Completes? Spell Compendiums? Heck that stuff might be 'compatible' with the SRD, but most folks agreed it wasn't 'balanced.'

Compatible to me means that if a player wants to play a 3.X half elf (for some insane reason) it will fit in. If they want to play a 3.x fighter, and use Pathfinder feats, it will fit in. Will it be the *best* choice? No, but it will be playable.

Yeah, stuff like Bo9S, or even the Spell Compendium will 'break' Pathfinder, and likely give headaches to some (most) DMs who let it in. That's ok. Pathfinder wasn't meant to plug'n'play that stuff. The fact that many people found stuff in WotC supliments that 'broke' a 3.x game won't change because you're using a different ruleset.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Yeah, stuff like Bo9S, or even the Spell Compendium will 'break' Pathfinder, and likely give headaches to some (most) DMs who let it in. That's ok. Pathfinder wasn't meant to plug'n'play that stuff. The fact that many people found stuff in WotC supliments that 'broke' a 3.x game won't change because you're using a different ruleset.

The only Spell Compendium stuff that I've encountered that may be broken (admittedly I'm not great at optimizing spellcasters, but neither are my players) is the Bite of X spells that druids get, and they're weaker than they were in 3.5, since the Druid can't simulcast them on themselves [u]and[/u] their animal companions. Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Yeah, stuff like Bo9S, or even the Spell Compendium will 'break' Pathfinder, and likely give headaches to some (most) DMs who let it in. That's ok. Pathfinder wasn't meant to plug'n'play that stuff. The fact that many people found stuff in WotC supliments that 'broke' a 3.x game won't change because you're using a different ruleset.
The only Spell Compendium stuff that I've encountered that may be broken (admittedly I'm not great at optimizing spellcasters, but neither are my players) is the Bite of X spells that druids get, and they're weaker than they were in 3.5, since the Druid can't simulcast them on themselves [u]and[/u] their animal companions. Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...

I see you never saw how Orb spells could dust dragons.. heavy damage, no SR, and no saving throw. The spell compendium was by it's nature a mixed bag, some good stuff, some really unbalanced stuff, and a lot of very situational stuff.


Matthew Morris wrote:
Completes? Spell Compendiums? Heck that stuff might be 'compatible' with the SRD, but most folks agreed it wasn't 'balanced.'

Actually, I think the general belief from people that have actually sat down and analyzed the various classes is that most of the classes from the complete books are more balanced than the core classes.


LazarX wrote:
Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Yeah, stuff like Bo9S, or even the Spell Compendium will 'break' Pathfinder, and likely give headaches to some (most) DMs who let it in. That's ok. Pathfinder wasn't meant to plug'n'play that stuff. The fact that many people found stuff in WotC supliments that 'broke' a 3.x game won't change because you're using a different ruleset.
The only Spell Compendium stuff that I've encountered that may be broken (admittedly I'm not great at optimizing spellcasters, but neither are my players) is the Bite of X spells that druids get, and they're weaker than they were in 3.5, since the Druid can't simulcast them on themselves [u]and[/u] their animal companions. Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...
I see you never saw how Orb spells could dust dragons.. heavy damage, no SR, and no saving throw. The spell compendium was by it's nature a mixed bag, some good stuff, some really unbalanced stuff, and a lot of very situational stuff.

My brother's shadow conjurer loved orb spells. No need to bother memorizing shadow evocation really, and he could take evocation as a banned school as a specialist without really losing much.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
I see you never saw how Orb spells could dust dragons.. heavy damage, no SR, and no saving throw.

I used orb spells a lot and never got huge huge numbers, even into the higher range of levels, like 15. Couldn't dust a dragon with their HP and their usual amounts of resistances.

Also, my DM figured out what level of touch AC was needed to completely neutralize orb spells.

What were the players (or you) doing to be able to dust a dragon? Meta magic feats?

The Exchange

Long time lurker, first time poster.

The way I see it, while it's awesome that if I wanted to I could go back and play OGL adventure paths with little fuss, or use OGL Chronicles (like Gods and Magic) or Companion books (Elves of Golarion) and not really need to change much, I feel that opening up the expanse of 3.5 material is almost detrimental to a Pathfinder game.

Pathfinder was a way to rebalance and start afresh the 3rd edition system. If you play a game using the Core Pathfinder rules but also EVERYTHING else that was released for 3.5 then you are undoing what Pathfinder did. For myself, Pathfinder is a game in and of itself. I feel that most 3.5 stuff sullies what is a well balanced, well made system.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

kevin grob wrote:
Long time lurker, first time poster.

Greetings. Hope to see you posting more. *Steals a cookie off of Lillith's plate* Have a cookie.

Dark Archive

kevin grob wrote:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

The way I see it, while it's awesome that if I wanted to I could go back and play OGL adventure paths with little fuss, or use OGL Chronicles (like Gods and Magic) or Companion books (Elves of Golarion) and not really need to change much, I feel that opening up the expanse of 3.5 material is almost detrimental to a Pathfinder game.

Pathfinder was a way to rebalance and start afresh the 3rd edition system. If you play a game using the Core Pathfinder rules but also EVERYTHING else that was released for 3.5 then you are undoing what Pathfinder did. For myself, Pathfinder is a game in and of itself. I feel that most 3.5 stuff sullies what is a well balanced, well made system.

Hi, Kevin!


Most of my 3.5 stuff would probably fall into the module/adventure category. All these modules/adventures require little to no work to run in PF rules (most work for me is converting classed oponents which is easy) So I say Feature! :)

As for accessories, I always was pretty much splat-free Core books only with some extra books for DM tools and/or flavor (Frostburn, Draconomicon, etc). The PF core has been great for us. I havent cracked open a 3.5 book in a long time.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
kevin grob wrote:
Long time lurker, first time poster.
Greetings. Hope to see you posting more. *Steals a cookie off of Lillith's plate* Have a cookie.

i'm jealous, when i first joined, i never got a cookie off of lilith's plate. (i still never got one)

sorry for threadjacking.


joela wrote:

From the post:

hogarth wrote:
joela wrote:
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?

Personally, I'm glad it's a feature of the system. Particularly for simplicity of conversion of adventures. But for the most part, I like Pathfinder on its own, especially with the APG, and all the variations it provides to the system.


I think "backwards compatible" has a nicer ring to it than "somewhat backwards compatible", even though the latter might be more strictly true. I'd vote to keep it more or less like 3.5.


kevin grob wrote:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

The way I see it, while it's awesome that if I wanted to I could go back and play OGL adventure paths with little fuss, or use OGL Chronicles (like Gods and Magic) or Companion books (Elves of Golarion) and not really need to change much, I feel that opening up the expanse of 3.5 material is almost detrimental to a Pathfinder game.

Pathfinder was a way to rebalance and start afresh the 3rd edition system. If you play a game using the Core Pathfinder rules but also EVERYTHING else that was released for 3.5 then you are undoing what Pathfinder did. For myself, Pathfinder is a game in and of itself. I feel that most 3.5 stuff sullies what is a well balanced, well made system.

Yay!

Welcome, Kevin.


welcome kevin *Stares with jealousy as kevin is given a cookie that the nekogami herself was never offered, she readies a divinely empowered attempt to pounce and steal the rest of Lilith's plate*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Also, I believe that when they're ready, Paizo should do PF2E and move further away from 3.5 to make it truly their own game, instead of a variant 3.5.


LazarX wrote:
I see you never saw how Orb spells could dust dragons.. heavy damage, no SR, and no saving throw. The spell compendium was by it's nature a mixed bag, some good stuff, some really unbalanced stuff, and a lot of very situational stuff.

Well, I'm not at high levels yet, but whenever the Warmage in my campaign busts out the orb spells rather than something simple like Magic Missile... she misses or does little effect. Granted, she's still only a first level Warmage and there haven't been any epic fights with dragons, but it hasn't really impressed me much.


The only real problem spell among the orbs was the Orb of Force. No SR, no Save, ranged touch (most monsters have low touch ACs), and force damage (virtually no monsters are resistant or immune to force). Even capped at 10d6 damage, this spell is pretty hot as far as spells go (especially 4th-level ones).

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i'm jealous, when i first joined, i never got a cookie off of lilith's plate. (i still never got one)

Sorry Shuriken. *Steals Lillith's plate of cookies and goes into her fridge and grabs the milk and then two glasses* Care to join me in some cookies and milk?


When I switched my group over to PFRPG, I said we would start with only the Pathfinder material to familiarize ourselves with the changes. That was with PFRPG Beta. Now, my group has forgotten about 3.5 stuff. We have not found any need to even think about going backward, compatible or not. The wealth of material available and the overall quality has provided more than enough for even my groups most jaded player. There are a few spells and feats that were missed initally, but given the amount of garbage that had to be sifted through is not missed at all. There are so many overpowered spells, unballanced PrCs and feat combinations that it became unwieldy. I really enjoyed getting back to basics and starting new. Plus, what is not to love about new base classes and archetypes? (Ok, I know there are plenty of arguements with the last comment, but I am enjoying the challenges of finding what works and what is questionable.)


Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:
Yeah, stuff like Bo9S, or even the Spell Compendium will 'break' Pathfinder, and likely give headaches to some (most) DMs who let it in. That's ok. Pathfinder wasn't meant to plug'n'play that stuff. The fact that many people found stuff in WotC supliments that 'broke' a 3.x game won't change because you're using a different ruleset.
The only Spell Compendium stuff that I've encountered that may be broken (admittedly I'm not great at optimizing spellcasters, but neither are my players) is the Bite of X spells that druids get, and they're weaker than they were in 3.5, since the Druid can't simulcast them on themselves [u]and[/u] their animal companions. Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...

Most of the time it was a misreading of the rules. In every thread where I defend the book that happens, or someone allows something like the infinite attack or damage(I forget which) combo for the Crusader, but things like that and the diplomancer(Optimization theory build) should never be allowed anyway. The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i'm jealous, when i first joined, i never got a cookie off of lilith's plate. (i still never got one)
Sorry Shuriken. *Steals Lillith's plate of cookies and goes into her fridge and grabs the milk and then two glasses* Care to join me in some cookies and milk?

i will. *accepts the cookie offer and joins in liliths baked goods*

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Disciple of Sakura wrote:
Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...

Sword Sage + spiked chain + ability that allowed X amount of damage per target tapped (friend or foe) in the previous round to be added to be automatic upon a successful hit. The sword sage regularly did 90+ hp of damage before rolling for the weapon's damage.

We were 8th-ish level.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i will. *accepts the cookie offer and joins in liliths baked goods*

Thank you for joining me. Us kobolds rarely get house guests that we don't have to kidnap first.


wraithstrike wrote:
Most of the time it was a misreading of the rules. In every thread where I defend the book that happens, or someone allows something like the infinite attack or damage(I forget which) combo for the Crusader, but things like that and the diplomancer(Optimization theory build) should never be allowed anyway. The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.

It it was damage as I recall.


WWWW wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most of the time it was a misreading of the rules. In every thread where I defend the book that happens, or someone allows something like the infinite attack or damage(I forget which) combo for the Crusader, but things like that and the diplomancer(Optimization theory build) should never be allowed anyway. The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.
It it was damage as I recall.

The 3.5 fighter and barbarian both outdamage the warblade(ToB offense based class).

I am looking for the thread that shows this if it still exist on WotC's boards or forums so I can provide the link.

edit: The post no longer exist or my search-fu is weak.

Dark Archive

wraithstrike wrote:
... The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.

That book was tossed into the same bin I put savage species, the spell compendium, the epic rules and psionics the first time I had a player try to drag the sun back over the horizon "with a roar of effort."


greatamericanfolkhero wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
... The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.
That book was tossed into the same bin I put savage species, the spell compendium, the epic rules and psionics the first time I had a player try to drag the sun back over the horizon "with a roar of effort."

LOL. You should have thrown the player into that bin.


James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Yes, it would indeed be shooting yourselves in the foot. ~grins~ OTOH, sometimes it is good to make a clean break. However, you all are doing a good job so far. Keep up the good work.


wraithstrike wrote:
WWWW wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most of the time it was a misreading of the rules. In every thread where I defend the book that happens, or someone allows something like the infinite attack or damage(I forget which) combo for the Crusader, but things like that and the diplomancer(Optimization theory build) should never be allowed anyway. The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.
It it was damage as I recall.

The 3.5 fighter and barbarian both outdamage the warblade(ToB offense based class).

I am looking for the thread that shows this if it still exist on WotC's boards or forums so I can provide the link.

edit: The post no longer exist or my search-fu is weak.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me or even talking about the same thing. I was giving clarification as to the crusader combo being damage not attack.

The Exchange

I've been running Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Golarion and a some homebrew campaign with Pathfinder so, the backwards compatibility is the primary reason I bought it.
If it had not been compatible I probably would have just stuck with 3.5 and the retro-clones. Like most 3.5 players I had enough books to keep me playing 3.5 for decades, but it is nice to have new material to use.

Dark Archive

Capt. D wrote:

but it is nice to have new material to use.

+1.


joela wrote:
Capt. D wrote:

but it is nice to have new material to use.

+1.

+2.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
i will. *accepts the cookie offer and joins in liliths baked goods*
Thank you for joining me. Us kobolds rarely get house guests that we don't have to kidnap first.

thank you *eats a cookie and drinks a glass of milk*


Considering the wealth of character options now available to players with PRFPG now, it's easy to start ignoring more and more of 3.5. Bottom line, though, is that every game can be different, use different material, different rules, etc., and it's all a good thing.

I'm writing up a new spell system to test out for my games; if it works, maybe others can use it, too. Either way, fun is the goalpost.


I like BaComp. I fully integrate 3.5 into PF games I run, and find that it really expands options. Also, as a former devotee of CharOp boards over at WotC, it thrills my cold, dead, optimizer's heart knowing that there is the possibility of NEW numbers to crunch.

That said however, I think PF can stand on its own, especially with the APG release. I will probably run some PF only games in the future, and such games are far simpler to run. Having the option to do either however... that's what makes me a fan of PF and Paizo.


WWWW wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
WWWW wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Most of the time it was a misreading of the rules. In every thread where I defend the book that happens, or someone allows something like the infinite attack or damage(I forget which) combo for the Crusader, but things like that and the diplomancer(Optimization theory build) should never be allowed anyway. The Iron Heart Surge thing should be clearly edited by a DM also, so silly things like stopping gravity don't happen.
It it was damage as I recall.

The 3.5 fighter and barbarian both outdamage the warblade(ToB offense based class).

I am looking for the thread that shows this if it still exist on WotC's boards or forums so I can provide the link.

edit: The post no longer exist or my search-fu is weak.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me or even talking about the same thing. I was giving clarification as to the crusader combo being damage not attack.

I thought it was the other poster. How I did not notice the name I dont know.


James Jacobs wrote:
Compatibility with previous editions is good for the game.

Especially from my perspective as current DM for Man Day Adventures. I use 3.0/3.5 materials with little conversion from my side of the screen while the players and PCs are largely PF core only. Thus, for example, my cache of Goodman Games PDFs still gets play.

Mark L. Chance | Spes Magna Games

51 to 100 of 111 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Pathfinder's Backwards Compatibility: Feature or time to say Goodbye? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.