|
I've been GMing Pathfinder for 4 years with adventure books written for 3.5.
It's backwards compatible. There isn't a transparent exchange of rules between the two, but adventure content can be used as-is with only slight tweaks.
Incompatible means that running the original printings of Curse of the Crimson throne in Pathfinder would take as much work as running a NWoD or Burning Wheel or Shadowrun or 4e adventure series in Pathfinder. It is absolutely easier than that.
Yes, I may have to adjust the CRs, or the experience track, but I do that even when I run Pathfinder material in Pathfinder. The fact is, when I go to roll an attack or mark off NPC hit points, I have those numbers in exactly the place they would be found, 3.5 or PF.
I kind of view "backwards compatibility" as a neccessary at the time launch gimmick to get the evolving version of Pathfinder off the ground and in the hearts of the target market.It is still necessary. And though it may not be the kind of compatibility you desire, it is more than a gimmick. The original 4 Pathfinder APs can be played with little effort in the new system. That's backwards compatible.
Another way to phrase this: The rules are not backwards compatible, but the new rules are compatible with the old content. That's much more important to me than being able to bust out an old 3.5 splatbook and have it "work" with my new PF splatbooks.
I agree with the spirit of your post - one can easily run a 3.X game with Pathfinder rules and maintain the illusion of the same system. However, where the game loses compatability is when attempting to run Pathfinder material in a 3.5 game. There is too much information required that cannot be found in the 3rd edition books.
And it's too hard to just "ignore" parts of statblocks in that case. For example, every sorcerer is going to have extra spells over 3.5. Which ones? You have to know the bloodlines. That's too much work beforehand, and WAY too much work at the table.
Stick to your guns, Paizo. Don't make the mistake that other game made.
The mistake of still being alive after 4+ editions?
|
Have to agree with ShadowcatX, even the core rules are different enough as to prevent backwards compatability with 3.5.
Uhm, no. I do often retroengineer PFRPG adventures/stuff (both from Paizo and from 3PP) for a 3.5 core-only campaign, and I've found close to zero problems doing that.
It's way more difficult updating 3.X material to the newer game.
I get the impression that there were things Paizo would have liked to have fixed/changed, but that they had to be conservative to ensure backwards compatibility, since they had no idea the Pathfinder game would take off.
I am betting that at some point, probably far off for now, they will publish a new edition, and backwards compatibility with 3.5 will be less a concern.
Like not overhauling the monk because it would change too much of the statblock? Yeah, I see your point.
It's a tough line to walk. The things you can fix while preserving the utility of your back catalog are not always the things that most need fixing. The monk is a great example of that — the current PF rules give the monk an effective full BAB in many cases, but an actual full BAB would have been a headache for GMs using the old adventures. Now it's just a headache for everyone equally. :)
|
Stick to your guns, Paizo. Don't make the mistake that other game made.The mistake of still being alive after 4+ editions?
Only if it's this kind of still alive that we're talking about.
|
|
Have to agree with ShadowcatX, even the core rules are different enough as to prevent backwards compatability with 3.5.Uhm, no. I do often retroengineer PFRPG adventures/stuff (both from Paizo and from 3PP) for a 3.5 core-only campaign, and I've found close to zero problems doing that.
It's way more difficult updating 3.X material to the newer game.
So what you're actually saying is that some people (myself) find it bothersome to convert PRPG to 3.5, while others (yourself) find it so for 3.5 to PRPG.
Seems like a pretty convincing case that they missed compatability by a fair degree.
|
|
Seems there's a basic misunderstanding. Compatibility means that you (me, anyone) can translate a 3.X concept - characters, monsters, spells, etc. - to PFRPG and viceversa, with a bit of custom work.
It could be easy, difficult or somewhat in between, but nonetheless doable using the broad references of two similar (compatible, DUH) game systems.
No compatibility means that you (me, anyone) can't do that at all without re-inventing the same concept from the ground up using completely different blueprints - or just vastly different ones.
What I'm actually saying is that there is backwards compatibility, and it's subjectively easier in one sense rather than in another.
3.5 and PF are plenty compatible, it's just a long and messy process. I just wish there was some kind of streamlined guide that details EXACTLY what got changed. The "conversion guide" PDF is a joke, it's little more than a preview of the Beta version. It was more of a "here's some ideas we're thinking about..."
If anyone has a clear-cut, bullet point breakdown of what changed, you would be my most favoritist person evar.
As someone who continues to use both 3.5e and Pathfinder material in one home campaign, I can say its definitely possible.
There's no horrific problems that come out. Sure, I have to fudge a few skills here and there on the fly, but it's really not a big deal if I count a creature's Stealth modifier as its Move Silently and Hide modifiers. It all works pretty darn well, and my players have been greatly enjoying the new selections of feats and spells they have available. Sure, in a few cases it takes some effort (e.g. anything to do with grappling, for example), but the effort is minimal.
I really don't forsee Paizo making any vast changes to the rules. WoTC did that with the 3.5e to 4e transition. Not that it worked out horribly, but it certainly was no raging success; in fact you could say it created the success that is Paizo today.
Besides, as I see it the Pathfinder rules are solid. Sure, there's complaints "OMG monks R BROKEN" but none of those reflect a fundamental failure of the rules.
I have zero interest in Pathfinder 2. It is annoying enough that I can see the sunset on my large, expensive 3.5e library. If that were to turn into sunset on a nearly as large and far more expensive Pathfinder library, that would disturb me greatly.
Does that mean Paizo can't release a book called "Way of the Monk" that provides a completely alternate version of a monk class? Hell no. Does it mean that people running old adventures/modules might have to do some conversion on the fly? Sure. But people have been doing it for years when they run 3.5e stuff in Pathfinder, and I really don't see that being an issue.
Count me in with the folks who like 3.5 and PF being compatible and have little difficulty converting the old stuff to the new system. My first group of players to this day continues using most if not all of our old books and info for a Hybrid game that's been our mainstay for years; I only use pure PF-only for my other game, which is full of newbie players save one.
Never tried back-converting PF to 3.5 though.
This got asked on Another Forum, and I think the response was that Hasbro does not sell IPs for anything. If D&D 5 flops, for example, they'll shelve it and not let anyone else use the D&D brand name.
They couldn't actually do that.
If they stopped publishing products under the Dungeons and Dragons name, they'd eventually lose the trademark and someone else could come along and use it.
|
|
I can't imagine that PF 2.0 can afford to be the radical re-imagining of the ruleset that some people seem to be expecting.
What I would expect Pathfinder's rules revision, when it happens, will be minimal.
The equivilent of 3.0 -> 3.5
The revision will eventually have to occur, to consolidate rules revisions and new material at the very least.
Monopoly hasn't changed it's ruleset for the better part of what a century now? I don't see a need for a change to Pathfinder at all.
1) Monopoly has changed its rules over the years, from adding a speed die to changing the shape of the boards to making the money electronic.
2) Hasbro is not reliant on Monopoly to make up the vast majority of their business like Paizo is reliant on Pathfinder, so the comparison is not a good one to make.
Not to single out you specifically, as a lot of people bring up Monopoly as a comparison for RPGs, and it's a bad comparison to make.
As to backwards compatibility, I've used Pathfinder with 3rd edition adventures with no troubles at all. I occasionally have to figure out CMB or CMD, but overall it's pretty easy to do. I haven't bothered to convert the duskblade or spirit shaman or whatever to a Pathfinder equivalent, but I have done so with monsters with very little problem, so I now have Pathfinder versions of beholders, mind flayers, and the like.
As to future compatibility, I'd kind of like it if Paizo tried to keep things more or less compatible within one step of the current rules. So a Pathfinder 2nd edition would be roughly compatible with the original but not so much with 3.5. That way the game can continue to evolve, use some of its old source material, but not be bound to very old rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what you're actually saying is that some people (myself) find it bothersome to convert PRPG to 3.5, while others (yourself) find it so for 3.5 to PRPG.
Seems like a pretty convincing case that they missed compatability by a fair degree.
Or that you can't please everybody.
if they made a pathfinder 2nd edition, a bounded accuracy type idea might be a good idea
Huh?
I'm sorry, I know there's another thread discussing this term, but it sounds like an empty buzzword to me.
If you were to try and unhook BAB and saves from level in Pathfinder, you'd basically weaken the encounter balance metrics (CR, APL, WBL, etc) that are a large part of what makes Pathfinder work.
Lots of games let you invest in improvement in only certain things. "Bounded Accuracy" is really starting to drive me crazy.
|
|
Seems there's a basic misunderstanding. Compatibility means that you (me, anyone) can translate a 3.X concept - characters, monsters, spells, etc. - to PFRPG and viceversa, with a bit of custom work.
It could be easy, difficult or somewhat in between, but nonetheless doable using the broad references of two similar (compatible, DUH) game systems.No compatibility means that you (me, anyone) can't do that at all without re-inventing the same concept from the ground up using completely different blueprints - or just vastly different ones.
What I'm actually saying is that there is backwards compatibility, and it's subjectively easier in one sense rather than in another.
At some point, it becomes disingenuous to suggest compatibility when there are glaring issues in doing so easily. Compatibility to me means "run modules without extra prep work". I agree that the two systems appear similar and use the same basic concepts to facilitate conversions, but that to me is not what was implied by the initial design goals. Since it was borne out of a reaction to 4e, it's kind of ironic that converting a module from either system to 3.5 takes about the same amount of work: recalculate hp, change skills, adjust racial attributes, look up class features, etc.
I wouldn't market a windshield wiper as being compatible with all Chevy cars when it actually requires sawing off a plastic tab.
if they made a pathfinder 2nd edition, a bounded accuracy type idea might be a good ideaHuh?
I'm sorry, I know there's another thread discussing this term, but it sounds like an empty buzzword to me.
Even with that thread, I can't figure out what it means.
|
|
Even with that thread, I can't figure out what it means.if they made a pathfinder 2nd edition, a bounded accuracy type idea might be a good ideaHuh?
I'm sorry, I know there's another thread discussing this term, but it sounds like an empty buzzword to me.
In short, your chance of success at anything does not improve simply by gaining levels, or does so very slowly at a controllable rate.
|
It means you can only increase bonuses to a certain bound. The minimum and maximum bonus possible do not change from the start of the game to the end of the game.
Bounded accuracy means you can hit a CR 20 at level 1, but you won't be able to kill it before it kills you, due to HP disparity between you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, where the game loses compatability is when attempting to run Pathfinder material in a 3.5 game.
Thankfully, it turns out that it's pretty easy for me to convert Pathfinder stuff for use with the 3.5 rules.
I use Pathfinder APs in my 3.5 games all the time.
I get the impression that there were things Paizo would have liked to have fixed/changed, but that they had to be conservative to ensure backwards compatibility, since they had no idea the Pathfinder game would take off.
I am betting that at some point, probably far off for now, they will publish a new edition, and backwards compatibility with 3.5 will be less a concern.
Yes it will. If they do not have backward compatibility how will they keep selling old copies of their adventure paths without taking a lot of time updating them?
Backwards compatible does not have to mean 100% identical.
Pathfinder characters are very different from 3.5e characters; yet both can play in the same game with no difficulty.
One of the players in our campaign is a multiclass ranger/scout - that's a Pathfinder ranger multiclassed with a 3.5e Complete Adventurer scout. It works great. I use Pathfinder monsters all the time, and had a grand old time with the devil talismans from Book of the Damned Vol. 1, but reskinned as demon amulets.
I could not do anything of the sort with anything from any of my numerous 4e books - there was no compatibility whatsoever. I won't sell them (hell, I never sell any of my books, drives my girlfriend crazy), but nor am I too likely to use them again due to their incompatibility.
On the other hand, look at what Paizo does. Before ToH was updated, they were pulling material from the old 3.5e ToH all the time, and they still use material from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary on a regular basis. That is what compatibility is about.
Pathfinder books are just 3.5 splatbooks to me.
I feel the same way. Which is why it didn't take more than a year for me to get tired of Pathfinder.
I, for one, was actually ready for a new edition by the time 4e came out.
|
I agree that the two systems appear similar and use the same basic concepts to facilitate conversions, but that to me is not what was implied by the initial design goals. Since it was borne out of a reaction to 4e, it's kind of ironic that converting a module from either system to 3.5 takes about the same amount of work: recalculate hp, change skills, adjust racial attributes, look up class features, etc.
I wouldn't market a windshield wiper as being compatible with all Chevy cars when it actually requires sawing off a plastic tab.
You don't actually have to do those things though. So what if the 3.5 NPC has one less feat, just drop his CR by 1 and wala. If you know how the old 3.5 stuff works you can still use it on your players, very rarely will they even notice.
At that point, however, they'll have a bigger back catalog of PfRPG products than they ever did of 3.5 material, so backward compatibility with PfRPG will be a definite financial concern, both for not getting stuck with a warehouse full of obsoleted material and due to their business model which is predicated on monthly subscriptions to product that isn't on the verge of being outdated. I can't imagine that PF 2.0 can afford to be the radical re-imagining of the ruleset that some people seem to be expecting.
I haven't seen anyone talking about a 'radical re-imagining' of the ruleset at all. The quantum shifts between editions such as the transition from AD&D to 3e or 3.5 to 4e are unusual. Very few game companies implement such radical changes between editions of the same game-- especially not every edition as Wizards seems so keen on doing.
I'm talking about something far more gentle, akin to the switch from AD&D to AD&D 2e or from 3e to 3.5e-- or like 3.5e to Pathfinder in the first place-- which people properly consider to be almost 100% compatible. I played AD&D with 2e books for years before I realized that they weren't fully compatible. People on this forum regularly talk about using 3.X material in their Pathfinder games, or vice versa, with minimal adaptation.
Compatibility to me means "run modules without extra prep work". I agree that the two systems appear similar and use the same basic concepts to facilitate conversions, but that to me is not what was implied by the initial design goals. Since it was borne out of a reaction to 4e, it's kind of ironic that converting a module from either system to 3.5 takes about the same amount of work: recalculate hp, change skills, adjust racial attributes, look up class features, etc.
I think it depends on the amount of work you put into it. If you want everything to run by the system, then there's some conversion work to be done. But if you're willing to run things without worrying about every detail, there's very little effort to put in.
For example, if I'm running a 3.5 adventure that calls for an azer (maybe that's already in a Pathfinder book somewhere, but I'm just grabbing an example at random), I can use the azer's stat block without having to change too much. Hit points, initiative, Armor Class, and so on requires no real conversion. Its +6 Spot becomes a +6 Perception. I know what spell resistance means, what a warhammer does, and what immunity to fire/resistance to cold is. For the purposes of the game, the stat block is pretty much 100% usable, with the only conversions I need to make being changing some skill names and maybe figuring out CMB if it comes up.
Now if I want to make sure things run 100% by the rules at all times (rules, I might add, that nobody else at the table will notice are missing except for me), then I'd have to bump up its hit points, give it an extra point in AC because scale mail gives a bigger bonus, and so on. But unless I'm planning on using the azer for more than a single combat encounter, there's really no point in doing this. The numbers I have work just fine and nobody is going to stress out if its hit points are not perfect.
Converting a critter from a 3.5 adventure is like applying the young template to a monster. There's the fast way to do it, which works fine most of the time but is not 100% correct, and then there's the tougher way to do it, which requires a bit of work. In terms of backwards compatibility, it's only when you get to using a lot of the non-core 3.5 stuff, like psionics, that Pathfinder has a real situation with not being backwards compatible.
|
When I took over as GM for my gaming group recently, we were playing 3.5. I gave everyone the option of using Pathfinder mechanics and material, and some of them took me up on it. We have played several sessions now with 3.5 PCs and Pathfinder PCs side by side, and have had minimal issues (I do go through the APs ahead of time and place stickynotes on monster stat blocks to fill in CMB/CMD, etc.)
Most of the group is liking the Pathfinder material and converting their characters to those rules. Although not everyone has switched, none have complained or returned to 3.5 once they tried Pathfinder.
YMMV
+1, Viktyr. I was actually about to post a thought very similar to yours. When I see a a Pathfinder 2nd edition coming out in the indefinite future, the amount of change would be comparable to that between the 1st and 2nd editions of AD&D.
Much of the debate about "compatibility" kinda misses the point. The reason why Pathfinder RPG has had to be "compatible" with 3.5 was not to be painless, but to be able to target the 3.5 players who had large back catalogs of 3E products, to which they were still loual, who were disaffected by the radical reinvention of 4E. Paizo was not a market leader at that point and could not plant its flag around a new ruleset disconnected from previous rulesets, and expect to attract a new market around it.
In 2007 and 2008, WotC was the undisputed market leader and had the freedom to reinvent the wheel. But when I imagine a 2nd edition of Pathfinder, it would not be that radical a reimagining of the game (or, let's be honest, invention out of whole cloth an entirely new game).
Some folks think that a new edition renders everything before it obsolete because the two most recent examples of new editions from WoTC (3rd and 4th editions) WERE reinventions of the basic maths and character design of the game.
Rather, a 2nd edition of Pathfinder would be comparable to the shift from 1st to 2nd edition of AD&D, in that the entire back catalog of products would not be made obsolete. People used 1st edition adventures with 2nd edition rules all the time. At the same time, because Pathfinder, as a market leader, will have more freedom to innovate and "bring along" the bulk of the gaming community with it and make some changes to underlying assumptions (Christmas Tree Effect, I'm looking at you) that they couldnt do when Pathfinder first came out.
As to bounded accuracy, I'm not totally sure that's my thing. I don't see the difference between a 1st level character hitting a CR 20 creature but doing negligible damage and a 1st level character not being able to hit a CR 20 creature except on a crit. Both mean that my 1st level character isn't going to face off against a significantly higher-level threat without some big guns in my corner. Maybe more demonstration of the bounded accuracy feature will change that, but right now it's something that sounds cool but isn't something I really think is all that revolutionary.
More to the point of the original topic, Pathfinder has technically already grown apart from D&D in that D&D went in a very different direction. 4th edition changed a lot of things, and 5th edition's bounded accuracy looks like it will be changing things even more (albeit while trying to retain the "feel of D&D," whatever that is). Pathfinder, by sticking closer to an edition that D&D itself has moved away from, is already significantly different from that brand.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People who insist on 100% compatibility or talk about the dificulties of making full conversions make me laugh. If there's a 15-HD monster that the characters are going to meet, fight, and kill, then my conversion would consist of giving it a guestimated CMB and CMD. There's no need to spend more than a few seconds to do a detailed conversion for something that's going to be dead in a half-dozen rounds.
Personally, I'd find a backwards compatible PF2 to be a waste of effort, I suspect. I prefer their policy of minor clarifications/corrections via new printings (even with the limitations that involves).
I don't see what the gain is, to be frank. If the new PF is going to work smoothly with the old PF doesn't that imply "the big problems" (whatever one thinks they are) will still be there? If you don't like the christmas tree effect (as an example) and change pf2 to avoid that - wont the old APs and rulebooks jar somewhat?
I've been running Curse of the Crimson Throne for about the past 2 1/2 - 3 years using Pathfinder as the core rules system.
Has it been RELATIVELY easy to convert the adventure from 3.5 to Pathfinder? Yes. But it depends on the person I think. I use Hero Lab to cut down the time it takes to convert major encounters and NPC's.
Even then with the addition of the APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat I've found that with certain encounters that I want to tinker with an NPC and make him an Alchemist instead of Rouge. Or that I have to add an extra level of Cleric to that evil Priestess of Urgathoa in order to bring her CR up to par.
I read and prep my adventures whether they are pre-written or not. I find that way and also knowing what my 5 player party is like I'm able to adjust challenges better.
I havent don conversions the other way around (from Pathfinder to 3.5) so I'm not going to speculate. But from 3.5 to Pathfinder as far as adventures go? Not that hard to after the inital learning curve. At least not for me.
Stuff
Yes, I agree. Something akin to where AD&D was at in the late 90s. By that time AD&D was 20 years old. (25 years old, if you consider that a lot of its elements originated with the first OD&D Greyhawk supplement.)
Personally, I wouldn't mind saying goodbye to the large modifiers in high-level play. So bounded accuracy doesn't sound like a bad idea -- I always thought it was weird, in earlier D&D, how accuracy automatically scaled with HD to begin with.
My main concern is it's currently an exclusive club of GMs who can play epic high-level high stories in their campaigns because of the crunch involved.
I am certain I will stick with Pathfinder after D&D Next comes out, but I'll also be looking forward to when the time is right for the talented folks at Paizo to do more than just tinker under the hood and can do some judicious redesign that stays true to the spirit of the game.
I'd rather that Pathfinder 2E DID make major system changes. You can't fix the problems inherent in the d20 system by doing nothing more than wrapping some more tape around it.
To which problems are you referring? The level of complexity is a foregone conclusion and is for the most part considered a feature by the fans. The amount of prep time required is generally offset by the fact that Paizo's main product line does the prep work for you. And the balance problems can, indeed, be solved with a handful of rules patches-- controversial patches, to be certain, but no more controversial than making sweeping changes.
When a 2nd edition comes, I don't expect a significant overhaul.
What I am interested in, is if Paizo decides to tackle epic play or psionics, how closely they adhere to 3.5 rules or if they decide to forge their own path. That will probably be a bigger indicator of the type of changes that a 2nd edition pathfinder may entail.
This got asked on Another Forum, and I think the response was that Hasbro does not sell IPs for anything. If D&D 5 flops, for example, they'll shelve it and not let anyone else use the D&D brand name.They couldn't actually do that.
If they stopped publishing products under the Dungeons and Dragons name, they'd eventually lose the trademark and someone else could come along and use it.
There's a lot of legal red tape involved in someone attempting to free up an unused trademark.
Further, they can shelve the RPG and release something branded "D&D" every so often (five years?) and avoid any issues in that respect. It wouldn't even have to be an RPG product - say, another board game, or a deck of D&D-themed playing cards, whatever.
if they made a pathfinder 2nd edition, a bounded accuracy type idea might be a good ideaHuh?
I'm sorry, I know there's another thread discussing this term, but it sounds like an empty buzzword to me.
If you were to try and unhook BAB and saves from level in Pathfinder, you'd basically weaken the encounter balance metrics (CR, APL, WBL, etc) that are a large part of what makes Pathfinder work.
Lots of games let you invest in improvement in only certain things. "Bounded Accuracy" is really starting to drive me crazy.
I think the problem comes in the fact that there are a lot of us who think that those 'encounter balance metrics' don't work.
I personally think the concept shows a lot of merit. For one thing, it will eliminate the need for WBL, which I've come to really dislike over the last 10 years.
The article on bounded accuracy in Legend & Lore is worth a read, it explains the concept far better than I'm inclined to...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of backwards compatibility and ease of conversion I find that most people who find it easy are usually concerned with using 3.5 adventures & monsters in a PF game. In these instances, conversion is probably easy - because it doesn't have to be accurate, a monster will only see play in a single encounter and so any conversion only has to be "good enough". If it turns out it was a bit underpowered, who cares it won't be seen again, or if it is the GM can do a bit more conversion work (ditto if its overpowered).
In the end, I would be curious how easily I could use a 4e monster in a 3.5 game assuming I know the 4e terminology (i.e. that Shift means move without provoking AoO, Recharge means rolling a d6 to see if a power is available again once expended).
I imagine I could just take 10 off Reflex, Will and Fortitude defences and have them rolled, cut HP in half and maybe require an attack against Touch AC for effects that would target Reflex, and have Saves versus the attack bonus +10 for attacks that would normally target Fort and Will.
All that I could do on the fly and it would probably be "good enough" to work. So in that respect 4e adventures could be considered 3.5 compatible to some degree.
However, conversion of stuff that the PCs will use - feats, classes, prestige classes, equipment, spells etc require a bit more conversion work and thought. This is because those mechanics are going to be in the game for a long while, and if they prove to be under or over powered any attempt to "tweak" the conversion may come up against player resistance.
This is the sort of times when I imagine some people may complain that conversion isn't easy and thus question backwards compatibility. There is no way that a 4e class for a PC would be compatible!
And it becomes even more "iffy" when using PF material in a PF game, for example using the APG in a 3.5 game (it is labelled as "3.5 OGL Compatible" after all) may find the GM and player scratching their heads on how to use alternate Favoured Class benefits if they are unfamiliar with the PF core rulebook and how the favoured class mechanic has changed significantly.