|
I have seen this argument pop up again and again in discussions across this board. The words "Backwards compatibility" tend to be used alot, even though Pathfinder itself had changed alot when it comes to how the game is played.
For example, I can tell you right now that EVERY race in Pathfinder would have an ECL +1 based on their stat adjustments, several weapons would not be allowed to exist and several other racial weapons DON'T exist. Tip of the iceberg stuff here.
I was just wondering what other differences people have noticed and how you all "Fill the holes" as it were. I am of the opinion that Paizo has created it's own game in Pathfinder, not just an extension of someone else's. Just an opinion, mind you.
Any and All comments welcome, FIRE AWAY!!!
It really is D&D 3.75... or really D&D 3.5
3.5 should have been called 3.01 : it really changed very little, and was a collection of errata.
Pathfinder changed a little, but 90+ % of it is the same. Most feats from 3.5 you could take without any modification at all, your character could move from one to the other and still be your character, so i don't see the reason to think that it's its own game.
|
|
Thanks for starting a flame war, we didn't have enough of those as it is :/
Not starting a flame war, just a discussion on pathfinder itself. I grant that this is a controversial subject, but I want to hear some views on this. If people decide to be passionate about their views, it's cool as long as we can all respect each other, whether or not our opinions match.
Don't be so glum, chum. We're all gamers, right?
|
|
Dredd... see how thick the CoreRules are and theAPG and other things that are coming up?
Bottom line...it's not just a reprint of the SRD that the Mongoose Pocket Guides are. It's a different game that has a decent amount of compatibility with 3.5, but that's not why those of us who play Pathfinder play it. If anything it's the differences which make it more compelling... compelling enough for me to send my 3.5 library to recycling.
Yes I have seen, and I agree with you 100%!
For those who believe in the 'backwards compatibility' idea, I need to see their reasoning and how other GMs balance this concept in their games. That gives me greater awareness as to the uses and flaws of such a concept. I denoted one flaw that I have seen with adapting the races from 3.5 to Pathfinder as an example of my experience with it, to start off this conversation.
|
|
It really is D&D 3.75... or really D&D 3.5
3.5 should have been called 3.01 : it really changed very little, and was a collection of errata.
Pathfinder changed a little, but 90+ % of it is the same. Most feats from 3.5 you could take without any modification at all, your character could move from one to the other and still be your character, so i don't see the reason to think that it's its own game.
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions.
Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with.
These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
|
|
It really is D&D 3.75... or really D&D 3.5
3.5 should have been called 3.01 : it really changed very little, and was a collection of errata.
Pathfinder changed a little, but 90+ % of it is the same. Most feats from 3.5 you could take without any modification at all, your character could move from one to the other and still be your character, so i don't see the reason to think that it's its own game.
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions.
Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with.
These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
|
|
Your experience is a lot like the comparison between two different groups of Mac OS X users.
The first group were people who were long time Mac users who had gotten used to the nooks and crannies and crankeries of Classic Mac OS 9 and earlier versions. The second were people coming from different operating systems altogether, Windows, Amiga, Unix,whathave you.
The first group had the bigger problem because they kept looking for the "old " Mac OS in the new, whereas the second not having such expections generally learned the new operating system with a lot more grace.
It really is a mental exercise of unlearning a lot of what used to hold true, but not any more than transitioning from AD+D to 3.0 was. Or from that matter the changes between 3.0 and 3.5.
Trust me, there was a lot of screaming in the halls in the transition between 2.x and 3.0.
Wouldn't say that entirely. Some good ideas in 3.5 got left out of Pathfinder. However, I like the way Pathfinder is set up better. Some of the questions I've asked here have been answered with rulings that I were told were "backwards compatible".
When attempting to use these solutions most were not nearly as compatible as stated, but a few others actually worked BETTER within this system. It is a question of adaptibility, in the end.
You are right about the screaming between 2nd and 3rd edition D&D! I remember that argument VERY well.
I don´t think you´re understanding what Paizo means by ´backwards comptable´.
Your usage seems to expect it to BE the same game. It´s not. Things aren´t going to be just the same.
If a 3.5 racial weapon ´doesn´t exist´ (hasn´t been printed by Paizo), I don´t see how weapon stat blocks have changed between 3.5/PRPG, so there should be no problem using the 3.5 weapon. Any weapon that either explicitly counts as a racial weapon or qualifies by having the race name in it´s title by default PRPG rules counts as a racial weapon if it exists in your game at all... which is a choice up to you.
´Several weapons would not be allowed to exist´ ...You´re saying PRPG weapons wouldn´t be allowed in 3.5? Presumably because WotC was SOOO consistent in their ´balancing act´ between crunch printed in various source books? Using PRPG material in 3.5 ruleset games is not a concern of Paizo-defined BW-compatabilty in the first place (though most PRPG material would work just fine if you wished to play like this).
Yes, if you imported PRPG racial stats into a 3.5 game, they should probably have a +1 ECL. Again, going backwards isn´t really what ´backwards compatability´ is about, but using this info as a guideline, it seems clear that you should be able to use 3.5 +1ECL races as-is in PRPG games just like other player races. ECL no longer exists in PRPG, but I don´t mechanically see why any ECL 3.5 races couldn´t be used, probably knocking off a +1 from their rating to account for the above (i.e. using ECL in PRPG... remember it doesn´t tell you that you CAN´T use ECL, it just doesn´t provide any races which use it).
Yeah, horses/warhorses changed quit a bit... That doesn´t create a problem in running a warhorse 3.5 stat block, which is the goal of BW-compatability - you just need to calculate it´s CMB/CMD if a maneuver happens (not that hard), and maybe if it is going to be in your game more than a one-off, you can probably rebuild it´s skills an any other minor aspects that have changed. Similar but easier than using 3.5 class level NPCs, who would need more choices to be made/ mechanical details updated to account for class abilities and geneal changes (HPs, skills, etc). But there´s not reason you can´t decide that the local horse vendor has 3.5 stat heavy war-horses available for sell to your PCs, if you so want to. Paizo just doesn´t print those stats themselves.
I agree with the general gist of the thread title... Though I think of PRPG as the REAL AD&D 4.0 and Hasbro´s version as a new re-write (with tangential connections to the original), rather than an evolution of the same ´code base´ that PRPG represents. PRPG is undoubtedly light-years more backwards compatable with AD&D 3.5 than Hasbro AD&D 4.0 is. In any case, I think that PRPG now stands fine on it´s own especially with the APG, and doesn´t NEED 3.5 material, though that could well be my preference against infinitely expanding splat. 3.5 adventures and the like can well be integrated with PRPG rules games, either as quick drop in (not as accurate re: CR/power) or via a slightly more in-depth ´updating´. Alot more BW-comptable than using Hasbro 4.0, much less D6 or Shadowrun or other systems :-)
Backwards compatibility was pure marketing, nothing more.
I'd have to disagree.
I can use my 3.5 books with minimal tweaking (as a GM) in pathfinder where as I could not use them at all - well except as a source of inspiration - in 4E.
Backwards compatibility was pure marketing, nothing more.
Now, now, TOZ, you know that's not true. This whole thread is flamebait, for sure, but you don't have to add kindling to the fire.
EDIT: By the way, original poster, on the off-chance that you actually care: you might want to look up the definition of backwards-compatible. It does not mean what you think it means. Your definition more closely resembles that of forward compatibility, although even then it has significant problems.
|
Any and All comments welcome, FIRE AWAY!!!
Does it matter?
There will people who will give Pathfinder the 3.75 tag and those who won't. Among both camps, there are people who apply or deny the 3.75 tags with positive inflection or negative. It ends up being flamebait as both sides try to goad the other into a debate with no possible winner... except those of us with popcorn.
|
|
To me it feels and plays like D&D 3.75. PFRPG has the same basic mechanics engine that 3.x has, but for the most part characters and monsters have been upgraded a bit and are more powerful. Sure some of the things have changed, but the basics are the same.
I agree with Dark Mistress, in that I have been able to pull things out of my 3.x books and in most cases been able to use them as written. I am running LoF using the PFRPG rules set with very little difficulty.
The more I think about this topic, the more I think that PFRPG is as backwards compatible as the group wants to make it.
I think Pathfinder is backward compatible if moving forward. That is taking Pathfinder and using 3.5 material in that game. Using 3.5 and using Pathfinder material doesn't work as smoothly but it can be done.
For example taking ECL +1 race from 3.5 is easy to move into Pathfinder. Basically becomes a base race in terms of power. Taking a Pathfinder race and going back means stripping it down some or applying a ECL +1 to that race.
I removed a couple posts and replies to them. Inter-forum drama really has no place here.
It really is D&D 3.75... or really D&D 3.5
3.5 should have been called 3.01 : it really changed very little, and was a collection of errata.
Pathfinder changed a little, but 90+ % of it is the same. Most feats from 3.5 you could take without any modification at all, your character could move from one to the other and still be your character, so i don't see the reason to think that it's its own game.
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions.
Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with.
These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
backwards compatiable means backwards compatible with tweaking, not plug and play.
|
backwards compatability works great, it just means that you have to put a little work in. i use 3 and 3.5 modules all the time, it takes about an hour tops to tweek them. you can also use classes from splatbooks with a little work. i guess it all depends on how much time you want to put into doing conversions and upgrades
This. Hell, if you aren't anally insistant on everything being 100% Pathfinder-approved, you can run most 3.0 and 3.5 stuff completely as written. For example, if there's a NPC that the PCs are unlikely to encounter more than once or twice, I would probably just use his 3.0 stat block as-is, since he's relatively uniportant.
It really is D&D 3.75... or really D&D 3.5
3.5 should have been called 3.01 : it really changed very little, and was a collection of errata.
Pathfinder changed a little, but 90+ % of it is the same. Most feats from 3.5 you could take without any modification at all, your character could move from one to the other and still be your character, so i don't see the reason to think that it's its own game.
My main issue with this is that some of the things I've attempted to use were not backwards compatible. For example, a heavy warhorse isn't NEARLY that same in the two editions.
Races have been problematic, Feats changed to odd usage, the name of some do not match their usage while others. When I stopped thinking of the game as D&D things got alot easier to deal with.
These are my experinces, others will have different ideas. It is these ideas I would like to draw upon, to gain more insight on some problem-solving tactics.
Your confusing different design approaches in bestiaries with lack of backwards compatibly.
The heavy war horse(3.5) and the heavy horse(pathfinder) are not the same animal. For a start, they have different numbers of hit dice. Now, if we set out to build the 3.5 heavy warhorse in pathfinder, the two creatures could be made to be very similar. That still has nothing to do with backwards compatibly.
How you would measure it's backwards compatibly, would be to take said 3.5 heavy warhorse, and use it in pathfinder. The less you have to change it, to allow it to function, the more backwards compatible it is.
In the case of the warhorse, a slight CR shift might be in order, and unless their is a CMB user in the party, you would not have to change anything else. That is pretty damned backwards compatible. And the vast majority of 3.5 will work in Pathfinder with minimal change.
Does everything? No, but the vast majority does, and where it doesn't, the changes are usually minor.
|
Crap, my cheap shot at TOZ got deleted *shakes fist*
.
Anyway.
I am running RotRL since Jan 2008. I am running it under no less than SIX systems: 3.5, PF Alpha 1, PF Alpha 2, PF Alpha 3, PF Beta, PF Final. I've never ran into anything that would require more work than a 3.5 DM does anyway. In fact, several "on-the-fly" monster conversions I did ended up surprisingly close to the official conversions in Bestiary 2.
The only moment where my players got confused was the switch of skill system, but after we sorted it out everybody concluded that PF skill system is miles ahead of 3.5e one.
|
|
I use to think Pathfinder was D&D 3.75, somehow this made me feel like I was still playing 'D&D'. But now I see Pathfinder as Pathfinder, and I'm happy about that, 3.5e had become the elephant in the corner. Paizo has done a great job to create a 'new' game based on one that the owner decided to kill. My group has stopped living in the past and play 100% Pathfinder.
3.x is dead, long live Pathfinder!
S.
You should learn pathfinder first and know the differences between the two. Then as stated above, you can tweak certain aspects of 3.5 to be compatible. Otherwise, just stick with 3.5, if you are happy. The only downside is overtime most people will move to the latest and greatest whether it is pathfinder, 4E, or whatever comes next.
So whether compatible means 99.9%, 80%, 75%, etc. is up to the person using 3.5 and pathfinder. Your milleage will vary.
|
|
Backwards compatibility was pure marketing, nothing more.Now, now, TOZ, you know that's not true. This whole thread is flamebait, for sure, but you don't have to add kindling to the fire.
EDIT: By the way, original poster, on the off-chance that you actually care: you might want to look up the definition of backwards-compatible. It does not mean what you think it means. Your definition more closely resembles that of forward compatibility, although even then it has significant problems.
Like I said earlier, not looking for flaming (Though it would seem that you ARE), Just ideas and some opinions. It seems this is a far more controversial subject than I originally thought, but chiding others for being opinionated while doing it yourself would seem self-contradictory.
Lets try to stick to the issue of Pathfinder compatibility to 3.5 and vice versa (which I have found NOT to be true in my experiences thus far, though I am still happy to accept ideas to the contrary) rather than the flaming you just chose to perform. Try to be civil, everybody. This is a discussion, not a war.
|
|
For the record, it would seem that I need to apologize for unintentionally starting an unneccessary battle here, not to mention that the purpose of this post has failed utterly.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have learned here is that the idea of 'backwards compatibility' was simply marketing strategy. Taking ideas from one game and using them in another is all that is occurring here. It would seem that not every D20 system is compatible. If I am 'tweaking' things for them to be compatible, the are NOT compatible. In that case, I am merely using ideas from one game and tranferring them to another, separate game which suggests lack of compatibility rather than the existence of compatibility. I could perform the same 'tweaking' with two entirely different systems. In either case, I would seem to be more trouble than it's worth, as this entire discussion has been.
I thank all those who presented ideas and criticism with good intent. It has allowed me to come to this conclusion.
This post has also taught me not to ask about concepts or anything that is not directly quoted in the Pathfinder material. Doing so just seems to cause unneccessary conflict and unprecedented lack of civility.
Put simply, sorry I asked. At least I got a solid conclusion from it.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have learned here is that the idea of 'backwards compatibility' was simply marketing strategy. Taking ideas from one game and using them in another is all that is occurring here. It would seem that not every D20 system is compatible. If I am 'tweaking' things for them to be compatible, the are NOT compatible.
It all depends on what your definition of compatible is. Your specific one seems very stringent to me.
I can run a 3.5 module with Pathfinder PCs/rules with little or no tweaking if I want to. To me that's backwards compatible. I don't think you can disagree that doing this looks a lot different from trying to run a 3.5 module with 4E PCs/rules.
This post has also taught me not to ask about concepts or anything that is not directly quoted in the Pathfinder material. Doing so just seems to cause unneccessary conflict and unprecedented lack of civility.
Put simply, sorry I asked. At least I got a solid conclusion from it.
Seriously, why get upset when people answer your question? Did you already have a preconceived notion of what the answer had to be?
I can take a 3.0 lion and run it with zero changes in a PF game. Granted, I have to know that his spot and listen checks are found on the Perception skill tables, but nothing else needs to change. He uses attack rolls, hp, saves, etc, all the same. Whether my PF players are fighting a 3.0 lion or 3.5 players are fighting a PF lion, almost nothing needs to be done.
In the same way, I can put a PSone game in my PS2 and run it. I might have to push a different sequence of buttons to get my mod chipped machine to load up, but it plays. Aka, backwards compatible.
For the record, it would seem that I need to apologize for unintentionally starting an unneccessary battle here, not to mention that the purpose of this post has failed utterly.
Unfortunately, the only thing I have learned here is that the idea of 'backwards compatibility' was simply marketing strategy. Taking ideas from one game and using them in another is all that is occurring here. It would seem that not every D20 system is compatible. If I am 'tweaking' things for them to be compatible, the are NOT compatible. In that case, I am merely using ideas from one game and tranferring them to another, separate game which suggests lack of compatibility rather than the existence of compatibility. I could perform the same 'tweaking' with two entirely different systems. In either case, I would seem to be more trouble than it's worth, as this entire discussion has been.
I thank all those who presented ideas and criticism with good intent. It has allowed me to come to this conclusion.
This post has also taught me not to ask about concepts or anything that is not directly quoted in the Pathfinder material. Doing so just seems to cause unneccessary conflict and unprecedented lack of civility.
Put simply, sorry I asked. At least I got a solid conclusion from it.
Your point of view on this seems increadibly black and white. Compatiblity is not an on/off kind of deal. As kyrt points out 3.5 was occationally not even fully compatible within itself, so expecting pathfinder to be entirely 100% compatible is unrealistic.
Backwards compatiblity is like morality, knowledge and almost every thing, instead a spectrum. Pathfinder is an evolution of 3.5, and paizo has been entirely up front about that. No evolution of the system could be perfectly compatible, but pathfinder solves many issues of 3.5 and maintains very high levels of compatiblity as well.
|
|
In the same way, I can put a PSone game in my PS2 and run it. I might have to push a different sequence of buttons to get my mod chipped machine to load up, but it plays. Aka, backwards compatible.
Not sure why you mention the mod-chip, since PS2s were compatible with PS1 games straight off the shelf. If you paid extra to make your PS2 compatible, I hate to break it to you, but you got ripped off.
In the same way, I can put a PSone game in my PS2 and run it. I might have to push a different sequence of buttons to get my mod chipped machine to load up, but it plays. Aka, backwards compatible.Not sure why you mention the mod-chip, since PS2s were compatible with PS1 games straight off the shelf. If you paid extra to make your PS2 compatible, I hate to break it to you, but you got ripped off.
LOL No, I got it when I was stationed in Korea, and most of the games there were burnt. I needed a mod chip to play the burnt games.
|
|
I have seen this argument pop up again and again in discussions across this board. The words "Backwards compatibility" tend to be used alot, even though Pathfinder itself had changed alot when it comes to how the game is played.
For example, I can tell you right now that EVERY race in Pathfinder would have an ECL +1 based on their stat adjustments, several weapons would not be allowed to exist and several other racial weapons DON'T exist. Tip of the iceberg stuff here.
I was just wondering what other differences people have noticed and how you all "Fill the holes" as it were. I am of the opinion that Paizo has created it's own game in Pathfinder, not just an extension of someone else's. Just an opinion, mind you.
Any and All comments welcome, FIRE AWAY!!!
Well to answer your question, I used to think of Pathfinder as “D&D 3.75”. Then after thinking about it I thought I was doing Pathfinder a disservice.
I now think of Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D as two different games. I think that Pathfinder evolved from 3.5 D&D.
I enjoy having the best of both worlds so to speak. I find that I can use the majority of my 3.0 3.5 library with a small amount of adjustment.
And for the most part I like the changes in Pathfinder.
I don’t know if this answers your question. And what I have said has probably been already addressed
A strange thread.
If you ask me, PF is too backwards compatible. It's more 3.55 then 3.75.
|
|
A strange thread.
If you ask me, PF is too backwards compatible. It's more 3.55 then 3.75.
OK, this week is weird. First I agree with TOZ, and now with Cirno. For the record, the over-compatibility doesn't bother me but yeah, I hope that PF 2.0 takes a big step away from several less-than-stellar 3.5 ideas (iterative attacks and xmas tree syndrome, I am looking at you).
Heh... to say that it's 3.75 could also suggest, that the Pathfinder is half-way between 3.5 and 4E, which it isn't... It could perhaps be 3.5 mk II? :o)
To OP, I play PFRPG and cherry pick from 3.5 and 3.0 books to use stuff out of them. Typically I can do this with little to no tweaking. A few things take a bit more work. To me that is the very definition of backwards-compatible.
I do pretty much the same thing. The only thing that has required serious consideration is base classes from 3.x that havent been reproduced or replaced in pathfinder. A few feats here and there required a tweak, but for the most part as long as I looked at the options/items/classes/etc one at a time and considered pathfinder changes, adopting 3.x material was very easy in my game.
|
OK, this week is weird. First I agree with TOZ, and now with Cirno. For the record, the over-compatibility doesn't bother me but yeah, I hope that PF 2.0 takes a big step away from several less-than-stellar 3.5 ideas (iterative attacks and xmas tree syndrome, I am looking at you).A strange thread.
If you ask me, PF is too backwards compatible. It's more 3.55 then 3.75.
Amen to that.
OK, this week is weird. First I agree with TOZ, and now with Cirno. For the record, the over-compatibility doesn't bother me but yeah, I hope that PF 2.0 takes a big step away from several less-than-stellar 3.5 ideas (iterative attacks and xmas tree syndrome, I am looking at you).
Back in the dark ages of role playing the old Empire of the Petal Throne rules had an alternative to iterative attacks. There was a chart which compared the attackers level (it differentiated fighters, clerics and magic users) to defenders level / hit dice. The result was how many hit dice of damage was done. One was the normal basic and it ranged up to four.
I tried it out as a method for determining how many attacks characters got in OD&D. Iterative attacks, which had been in the Chainmail derived combat rules and then dropped with the d20 based attack charts (which figured in levels unlike Chainmail). It worked pretty well. Against opponents of equal skill you recieved one (2 at high level) attacks and against inferior opponents you could get up to 4. The logic of multiple attacks when you're skill is superior and limited attacks against an equal / superior opponent seemed very reasonable.
*edit* It's one of those thing I've considered reviving in one form or another as a house rule. Pretty far ranging consequences though that would have to be worked out...
Btw, I think backwards compatibility is excellent for the bulk of people. They don't want to tinker with the game. They want to use the catalog of 3.0 / 3.5 stuff they've accumulated with minimum effort to convert. Some of us do of course like to mess with the system, and that's what rule 0 is for.