| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.
Absolutely, as long as the content in question didn't change.
Case by case. Sometimes the people now in charge did not agree with some or many of the calls made by people in charge of the 3.5 faq.
It's certainly useful as a list of things that aren't clear in the rules. Whether Paizo will choose to clarify the rules in the same way is anybody's guess, though.
3.5 FAQs are useful in rules discussions regarding rules that are less clear than they could be, and unless Paizo has clarified the issue themselves then the ruling in the 3.5 FAQ would generally be my stance.
However, on at least one occasion Paizo has clarified a rule exactly opposite to how the 3.5 FAQ clarified the same rule (despite the actual rules text being the same), so rulings from the 3.5 FAQ won't necessarily apply to Pathfinder.
I find them helpful, in general. They're useful when the wording of the original rules or the intent of the designers were unclear.
No.
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.
To whom? ["Whom", not "who", as corrected by hogarth.]
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.To who?
Speaking of FAQs, here's a handy FAQ on the word "whom". :-)
Speaking of FAQs, here's a handy FAQ on the word "whom". :-)Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.To who?
Gah! And I was fighting with myself as to which word to type... :D
I avoid them when running a pure Pathfinder game, which one of my two games is. I find them far more misleading than useful - you have to know so much about which things changed in Pathfinder and which ones didn't that but the time you've got that down, you don't need the 3.5 FAQ.
On the other hand, my other game is a 3.5e game that happens to allow Pathfinder rules, but backported to 3.5e. And for that one I typically still ignore the FAQ :)
I find that I don't agree with lots of their "rulings," many of which seem to have been made by someone that never ran a game an/or who always err on the side of "we'll go with the version that makes PCs more powerful" as opposed to "let's go with the version that is more realistic and/or easier to explain in game world terms."
FAQ are created when a rule is unclear and needs clarified.
If a rule that received a FAQ for 3.5 was unchanged from 3.5 to Pathfinder and Paizo has not bothered to create an FAQ for that same rule, then the 3.5 FAQ is absolutely the ONLY clarification you are going to get. Therefore, but definition, it's the best clarification you are going to get.
If Paizo releases an FAQ for that same rule that disagrees with the 3.5 FAQ, then, naturally the Paizo rule clarification takes precedence.
No.
So if there is an unclear rule that Paizo has not clarified, but was previously clarified in 3.5, you ignore that clarification and stick with confusion instead.
Makes perfect sense :P
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Never ever ever start with the 3.5 FAQ. Here's a good order of operations when you have a rules question:
1) Start with re-reading the relevant rule(s) in the CRB. About 80% of rules questions I see are answered explicitly in the rules text. Typically when someone reads a given rule, they're either just getting the basic idea of how it works or looking for one particular detail; in either case, they'll tend to glance past details that don't seem relevant at the time. When they come up with a question later on, there's a good chance that question was answered by one of those details that they don't remember from when they read that rule a few months/years back. Always always always start with re-reading.
2) This is sort of a corollary to step #1; read related rules. Rules questions very often come in the form of "how does X interact with Y?". If re-reading X didn't clear it up, then re-read Y. It's possible you've been doing Y wrong all along, but never had a reason to look it up until X came along and confused you.
3) If you still have a question, check out the official Pathfinder FAQ. It's linked in the upper-right-hand corner of the screen here. Go to the correct section (such as "Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook") and see if your question is answered there. If you've already completed steps #1 and #2 above, then there's a very good chance the official FAQ will have the answer.
4) Steps #1-3 will answer at least 85% of rules questions. Even so, sometimes you find a weird, sideways interaction or are just having weak search-fu that day. In these cases, head to the Rules Questions forum and search for your question. If you don't find an answer, make a new thread. In either case, look for/ask for citations of rules text. Why? Because 50-80% of the people answering questions haven't even followed step #1, let alone #2 or #3, so they're probably either full of crap or correct by accident. I hate to say it, but don't take people's word for things.
5) And finally, if your question is one of the 1% or less that fails to be answered by steps #1-4 above, take a look at the 3.5 FAQ. Use caution when doing so, however. If the 3.5 FAQ seems to answer your question, compare the implications of that answer to related rules in Pathfinder (using steps #1, #2, and possibly #3-4 as needed) to make sure that the answer you found doesn't contradict existing rules in Pathfinder. If it all checks out, then congratulations: you've done a proper job of solving a rules question.
Are 3.5 FAQs of any value in pathfinder, for discussions concerning RAW or RAI.
They are of value, but they are not official rules.
The game is backwards compatible, and unless the wording has changed the meaning of those words should remain the same, otherwise backwards compatibility is kind of screwed since Pathfinder was built to bring in 3.5 players
No.So if there is an unclear rule that Paizo has not clarified, but was previously clarified in 3.5, you ignore that clarification and stick with confusion instead.
Makes perfect sense :P
Yes, take a look at the HiPS rules. Sure, one can use the 3.5 clarification that being hidden makes your foes flatfooted. But stealth , perception, and even “flat-footed” have all been redefined.
Same with most everything else. Generally, most time I have seen someone want to use a 3.5 FAQ with PF, it’s because of wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking makes many think that being hidden makes your foes lose his DEX in PF. It doesn’t. Well, maybe soon, they have a blog where they discuss this as a possible NEW RULE.
I believe most of us who advocate the potential value of the 3.5 FAQ refer to using it in situations where the actual rules text remains the same in Pathfinder as it was in 3.5.
If a given rule has changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder, the 3.5 FAQ entries on that rule obviously has zero value.