| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To a degree, certainly. Though tenuous, it can lend credence to one position over another. But for someone who had played a lot of 3.5, there's always the problem of minute changes that nobody notices. For example, I play in two live groups, one as a DM, and one as a player. In the span of a week, the statement "You're dead at -10" had come up in both, while it's actually "Dead at -Con Score" now.
|
When I play Pathfinder I use the rules presented as a stand alone system. I do not consider what was or might have been in 3.5, it only adds to confusion and arguments when the inevitable "Well in 3.x such and such did so and so". It is a challenge to willfully "forget" previous systems, but the rules are as presented here, not back then.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'm often left with guidelines in my head for how things work, that were imprinted by 3.0 and 3.5.
i knocked a lot of them out reading the "what changed in pathfinder from 3.5 thread" which is full of hidden goodies.
i was dead set that comprehend languages required you to touch the person or object in order to read or understand it, only to discover that Pathfinder changed it when I got into an argument with a player on how it works, and he pulled out the PF rulebook and showed me the spell. I'd never had occasion to look up that particular spell change. So now I double check spells before casting as a player, and as a GM when I can.
but there's a lot to draw from in guidelines.
the whole Reach being square from 3.5 still follows a lot of GMs, even though paizo has tried to make Reach round.
certain paragraphs and words get dropped, even though the rest is directly copy/pasted from 3.5, so in a lot of cases, some clarification or additional points get lost.
complete arcane made it perfectly clear (well, a lot clearer ) what a weapon-like-spell is, and that you could take weapon focus (touch attack) / weapon focused (ranged touch), while pathfinder singled out Rays as weapon like, and allowed weapon focus (rays), while leaving ranged touch attacks standing out in the cold.
there's a lot of RAI support.
even some of the FAQs seem to re-clarify things that were clarified in 3.5 ( like temporary hit points from different sources stacking ).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Since I played 3.5 for so long, I am certain it affects how I perceive some rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there is an ambiguity in the PF rules, and there's additional text in corresponding 3.5E rules that clarifies, do you consider that compelling evidence as to the meaning of the rules, or do you assume it's an intentional change?
I say this with the greatest of love, but I've never credited Tabletop Roleplaying Game sourcebooks with an overabundance of careful editing.
When D&D moved from 3.0 to 3.5, and then from 3.5 to Pathfinder, there was a lot of copy/pasting going on. Artifacts from earlier editions made it into later editions (like text in Armor Proficiency that describes Fighters gaining it as a bonus feat). Things get cut off. Things get missed, and sometimes designers get their wires crossed.
Honestly, if a sentence or two is cut out then I'm more likely to assume it was lost by mistake in the transfer between editions. I'll go with whatever the current rule is, but if nothing else it's helpful to see what came before.
In some ways 3.5 rules are to pf what british law is to canadian law. Something a judge can look to for guidelines if there appears to be no canadian law. But the difference is there is no need to. A dm can make any decision he wants if a rule isn't clear re-write it so its clear and make sure the players know. Sometimes you make on the spot decisions and move on. But 3.5 rules honestly are not relevant to pf.
That said were influenced by everything we read snd interact with. I've played the game since the late 80s and its very easy to accumulate a ton of house rules no one is aware are house rules based on bits and pieces of half remembered rules.
If there is an ambiguity in the PF rules, and there's additional text in corresponding 3.5E rules that clarifies, do you consider that compelling evidence as to the meaning of the rules, or do you assume it's an intentional change?Speaking only for myself: If the text is present in the d20 SRD, but not in Pathfinder, I assume it's an intentional change. Otherwise I assume it's not intended as a change, mostly.
If I need an official answer, I'll go by the Pathfinder rulebook when there's a contradiction or omission.
That said, official rulings really don't mean much to me in my own games, where I lean more towards a mix of Pathfinder rulebook, with 3.5 rulebook and d20 SRD for clarifications if needed, and common sense overruling all three.
3.5 certainly did have an influence, especially early on when we first switched. There are things that need some clarity that are sort of just left out.
Prime example, nowhere in the PFCRB does it say that you get any benefit for attacking out of stealth. I assume this is an oversight.
And a lot of little things persisted as artifacts for our group for a long time until we discovered that they had changed (lile the diagonal exception for reach). And even then we waffle on some concepts from gm to gm.
Not one bit. I barely played 3.5. I'm probably more influenced by old 2nd Edition rules than I am by 3.5.
Pathfinder is its own game. I give no weight to arguments that fall back on 3.5 mechanics, especially those that had to be explained in magazine articles instead of official rules material.
Edit: As for "creature from another plane", trap the soul doesn't need this statement, as the description for the extraplanar subtype already covers it:
This subtype is applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have it when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, or the Plane of Shadow.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They cause lots of misinterpretations.
But seriously, when there is a rule that wasn't changed I usually keep 3.5 clarifications and interpretations unless they don't mesh with other PF rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in 3.5 has any bearing on any official Pathfinder ruling. You cannot use Rugby rules to adjudicate an American Football game, even though they have some similarities.
That said, it's a wonderful place for a clarification if you're making a house rule.
You're kidding right? There are not "some similarities", 80% of the CRB is direct copy/paste of the d20 3.5 SRD. Many little clarifying statements in the D&D 3.5 Core Rulebooks are absent from the SRD. And WotC's well deserved reputation for aggressively defending it's written word is likely the only reason they didn't make the leap. Paizo was "betting the farm" when it took on D&D head to head, and they couldn't afford any chinks in the armor.
I have been around D&D/PF forums from 1999, and I can tell you the same questions and clarifications have been on the web in all three versions of d20 fantasy: 3.0, 3.5, and now PF. When PF came out, people were asking the Paizo devs about rules that were written two editions back by WotC devs, and expecting to have the ruling handed down from "on-high".
Pathfinder may have had the largest beta test on record, but that is nothing compared to the live testing that the d20 SRD has received. And some of the insights that arose during its run are available to those who are willing to look.
After all, these rules have always been 'guidelines' from all the way back in 70's with Gygax. It is up to us as players and GMs to interpret and adjust them as we feel it necessary. To that end, the 3.5 books, and most particularly the 3.5 Rules Compendium, can be a great research tool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look to the 3.5 rules a lot when playing Pathfinder. The Core Rulebook is about 80 pages shorter than the combination of the Player's Handbook and Dungeon Masters Guide.
I kind of see it the other way around. I us Pathfinder for the improvements it made to the 3.5 rules, but when a 3.5 rule makes more sense to me I stick with that.
You do realize that 'Extraplanar' and 'From another Plane' are identical right?
In the same way that extradimensional means not from this dimension.
Or extraterrestrial means not from this planet.
Extraplanar means that it is not from this plane. The plane referred to here is the material plane, hence the term Outsider.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is its own game.
I agree with Can'tfindthepath, when it was explicitly designed to be a "fixed" 3.5, I don't think you can claim that with a straight face.
And, you know those magazine articles you don't like were probably written by Paizo, right? They produced Dragon for quite a while during 3.5.
Don't get me wrong, PF has many differences, but they aren't systemic or sweeping.
thenobledrake, I can't imagine how you could enjoy PF and didn't like 3.5 at all. You hated "every minute" of it, but the premise and base mechanics are all still the same.
Well, I first learned this game in 3.0, then I had to transition to 3.5, then I played pathfinder beta with a friend, then I only played 3.5 and started reading the boards for 3.5 and did a lot of my learning of the game, and then I moved onto pathfinder games and still go back to 3.5 games now.
I get things mixed up all the time still, especially since everyone I know uses houserules even if they claim its RAW only. Really glad we can just look things up in a few moments with todays technology.
3.5 had a terrible multi-classing system that I dislike... Pathfinder mostly kept that system, but yet has managed to make staying single-classed appealing enough that I almost never see my players bring multi-classed characters to the table - just to provide an example of how there can be such a dramatic change in my opinion of the game with such minor alterations made.
Sort of, they also made multiclassing worse. That's one reason why you don't see it very often. A lot of people didn't do favored class or multi-class penalties in 3rd edition because they were a hassle, so they were houseruled out. I'm not sure if I'd call PF improved. Actually 3.5 had classes that multi-classed really well too, such as martial adepts getting half their progression with classes who aren't them. Don't see any of that in PF really.
Ha, I got you all beat. I started in 1st edition. I used 1, 2, 3, 3.5, 4, and PF. I got more rules to be confused by. :-)
That said, I look back to see how something evolved to interpret RAI. I use printed or PDF, and rarely errata or FAQ (due to not bothering to look), when I try to figure out RAI.
There is also the "Rule of Cool". As a player, I will if I can get something by such a rule, but am fine with the GM's decision. As a DM, when something is ambiguous, yet "cool", I will let it fly. Likewise, if uncertain, I will make a session houserule and have a RAW/RAI official ruling for the next session. I don't let rules look-ups slow play. If you look stuff up on others' turns, and show me, that is fine. As a player I also look stuff off my turn when not sure. Slowing down play is the surest way to break immersion.
For the multiclassing issue, I felt there had to be story to back up the choices, and not just mechanics. It is why I am multiclassed now in PF. What PF changed was forcing players to choose at 1st what their entire career would be as opposed to deciding each level, due to the heavy feature loss by multiclassing. Houseruling away FC bonus or XP penalty never came up for me because I never incurred it. While I would like to be a munchkin, I can only go so far because I must have a story to back it & I also apply all the rules even (especially?) when they hurt the mechanics. I enjoy overkill in battle, but I need the roleplay to have fun for the entire session. [We have had sessions with no fights that were quite fun due to roleplay.] Rules for multiclassing were different in each edition. I liked 3/3.5 best because you could evolve your concept. Some like to use it only for mechanics. I like the idea, but if it does not fit the concept, it does not happen. In both 2 and 3.5 I even came up with a homebrew class so I could have a concept.
/cevah
Sort of, they also made multiclassing worse. That's one reason why you don't see it very often. A lot of people didn't do favored class or multi-class penalties in 3rd edition because they were a hassle, so they were houseruled out. I'm not sure if I'd call PF improved. Actually 3.5 had classes that multi-classed really well too, such as martial adepts getting half their progression with classes who aren't them. Don't see any of that in PF really.
Also, Pathfinder has removed most of the Prestige Classes and say what you want the small handful that weren't play-tested well and had abusive abilities, Prestige Classes are strictly awesome.
I know PF has a few-- but only the ones that weren't fun/cool for the most part. And very few things ever felt as good as when you got into your prestige class, and then got to the abilities that made you want to get into it-- even if they really weren't that good.
To a certain point yes. It depends on how different the wording is. I had to relearn mirror image after realizing the wording was changed. Sometimes I go to the rules compendium for clarification if the wording has not changed. That book was basically an FAQ that had to be paid for, but some things are spelled out in detail.
Some of the splat books also had rules. Looking back on it, I dont like the idea of putting actual rules, into splat books the way 3.5 did. As an example complete arcane explained weapon-like spells, but that should have been an update to the core rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing in 3.5 has any bearing on any official Pathfinder ruling. You cannot use Rugby rules to adjudicate an American Football game, even though they have some similarities.
That said, it's a wonderful place for a clarification if you're making a house rule.
That is incorrect. Many of the rules had to be the same for backwards compatibility. So "nothing" is definitely the wrong word to use. Now if you want to say some of the rules have no bearing, that is different, adn Rugby was not meant to be backwards compatible with American Football or vice versa so that argument does not stand.
|
|
I try to take PF as a complete ruleset and not use 3.5 as having any impact; which is sometimes difficult for me as I prefer 3.5 and actively play it more (possibly more often than PF).
I even do this when the PF rules do not make much sense to me (e.g. Grapple rules) even trying to point out to a PFS GM that PF did not have the 3.5 10' Reach rules exception for the double diagonal - in that instance both the GM and another player insisted PF uses the exception. TBH I was happy to go along with this once I knew that was how it was to be run as I feel it another area where 3.5 is superior to PF.
But yeah, if you can't make sense of a PF rule without having to refer to 3.5 material then something is wrong with the PF rule.
I try to take PF as a complete ruleset and not use 3.5 as having any impact; which is sometimes difficult for me as I prefer 3.5 and actively play it more (possibly more often than PF).
I even do this when the PF rules do not make much sense to me (e.g. Grapple rules) even trying to point out to a PFS GM that PF did not have the 3.5 10' Reach rules exception for the double diagonal - in that instance both the GM and another player insisted PF uses the exception. TBH I was happy to go along with this once I knew that was how it was to be run as I feel it another area where 3.5 is superior to PF.
But yeah, if you can't make sense of a PF rule without having to refer to 3.5 material then something is wrong with the PF rule.
Sometimes it is just the reader of the rule, and as for grapple, that changed so much it is hard to use anything from 3.5. As much as I like to reference 3.5 I can only do it if the words are the exact same or very similar.
Sure I can. The product stands or falls on its own merit.Pathfinder is its own game.I agree with Can'tfindthepath, when it was explicitly designed to be a "fixed" 3.5, I don't think you can claim that with a straight face.
And, you know those magazine articles you don't like were probably written by Paizo, right? They produced Dragon for quite a while during 3.5.
Yes, those were written for 3.5 (and probably earlier; I'm no historian), and I've read a few of them. I never said I didn't like the articles; I said that I didn't like a system that had to be explained in reams of supplemental magazine articles. In general, I liked Dragon and Dungeon magazines for the parts that added new things to the game, whether optional rules, lore, or just a well-crafted crawl.
Don't get me wrong, PF has many differences, but they aren't systemic or sweeping.
Plenty of the differences are systemic, though perhaps not sweeping--it is still a d20 game, after all. Nevertheless, they don't have to be either. Paizo made their game, and it is sufficiently different that it stands on its own. I don't look for WotC rules articles (though occasionally I look for a class or concept that I liked from 3.5 or earlier), and I don't own a copy of the 3.5 DMG or PHB. While quite useful for playing 3.5, they're utterly useless to me for playing or running Pathfinder. If they had made the game as an expansion or a campaign setting rather than a standalone RPG, then I'd look at playing the game from that perspective. They didn't, and Pathfinder is stronger for that decision.
they're utterly useless to me for playing or running Pathfinder. If they had made the game as an expansion or a campaign setting rather than a standalone RPG, then I'd look at playing the game from that perspective. They didn't, and Pathfinder is stronger for that decision.
Since it is a continuation of 3.5 it could be seen as an expansion in the sense the 3.5 built upon 3.0.
Many times when I have been right in an ongoing debate I have used points made in 3.5, so to say the 3.5 rulings do not matter is not true at all. Now you can say that just because X is true in 3.5, that does not make it true in PF, but that is an entirely different argument from 3.5 has no influence on something being ruled a certain way in Pathfinder. If that is not what you are saying then I misunderstood.
I never said I didn't like the articles; I said that I didn't like a system that had to be explained in reams of supplemental magazine articles.
None of those magazine articles were necessary to explain the system; certainly no more so than the Paizo rules blogs are necessary to explain Pathfinder.
I never said I didn't like the articles; I said that I didn't like a system that had to be explained in reams of supplemental magazine articles.None of those magazine articles were necessary to explain the system; certainly no more so than the Paizo rules blogs are necessary to explain Pathfinder.
And are you ok with rules that have to be clarified in stacks and stacks of FAQs hidden away on this website?
Also, as was mentioned earlier, Paizo was the company writing all those magazine articles. . .
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is its own game.I agree with Can'tfindthepath, when it was explicitly designed to be a "fixed" 3.5, I don't think you can claim that with a straight face.
It might not be the same at the 3.5 ruling, and for those of you that still reference that, you have my sympathies, but this is Pathfinder not 3.5 and we are not going to see everything exactly the same way.
Absolutely not, I never owned the 3.5 books. This is Pathfinder produced and sold by Paizo, not D&D sold by Wizards or Hasbro or TSR. How are you going to explain to a new player that he needs to get all of these out of print rules to understand the game he is playing?
If there is an ambiguity in the PF rules, and there's additional text in corresponding 3.5E rules that clarifies, do you consider that compelling evidence as to the meaning of the rules, or do you assume it's an intentional change?
I assume the Paizo devs didn't know how exactly they wanted it to work, so they omitted the clarifications knowing that people would play it in all kinds of different ways, and then when enough feedback on it comes back in the forums, they can eventually make a ruling on it.
It's a convenient way to deal with "undecided" issues when you have a printing deadline to meet: make the rules intentionally vague in the printing, then clarify with FAQs in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking, the Core Rules are actually missing sections that are needed for play. Mainly bits in treasure generation, and how to level up a character. So yes, 3.5 must inform your decisions if you are looking for a technically complete ruleset.
Now, those rules have largely been patched in by subsequent non-core books, so you can also make the case that Pathfinder is a complete ruleset.
Does it matter? Only if you're having a problem that referring to 3.5 will resolve, and get you gaming again.
If there is an ambiguity in the PF rules, and there's additional text in corresponding 3.5E rules that clarifies, do you consider that compelling evidence as to the meaning of the rules, or do you assume it's an intentional change?I assume the Paizo devs didn't know how exactly they wanted it to work, so they omitted the clarifications knowing that people would play it in all kinds of different ways, and then when enough feedback on it comes back in the forums, they can eventually make a ruling on it.
It's a convenient way to deal with "undecided" issues when you have a printing deadline to meet: make the rules intentionally vague in the printing, then clarify with FAQs in the future.
Sounds like software.
In many places the "left out" parts from the 3.5 PG/DMG to the PFCRB was because the extra bits of text were not in the OGL.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Strictly speaking, the Core Rules are actually missing sections that are needed for play. Mainly bits in treasure generation, and how to level up a character. So yes, 3.5 must inform your decisions if you are looking for a technically complete ruleset.
This claim surprises me, given that I started with Pathfinder and was able to level up my character just fine. What's missing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strictly speaking, the Core Rules are actually missing sections that are needed for play. Mainly bits in treasure generation, and how to level up a character. So yes, 3.5 must inform your decisions if you are looking for a technically complete ruleset.This claim surprises me, given that I started with Pathfinder and was able to level up my character just fine. What's missing?
Some people need more direction than others. You are pretty good with the rules so the missing text may not have bothered you. Many of the rules require some level of parsing, and some people need to be told things in very specific terms or they don't get it. It does not mean they are dumb. People just don't process information the same way.
PS: I am aware that you did not call anyone dumb. :)
Strictly speaking, the Core Rules are actually missing sections that are needed for play. Mainly bits in treasure generation, and how to level up a character. So yes, 3.5 must inform your decisions if you are looking for a technically complete ruleset.This claim surprises me, given that I started with Pathfinder and was able to level up my character just fine. What's missing?
Well, yes the info on leveling up is there, but it is not presented forthright and clear like it was in D&D. As well, some things about character creation are strangely buried; notably first level hit points...go ahead, find it. (Hint, it only appears in the Common Terms section under Hit Points) Now, while that entry is totally appropriate, and helpfully explanatory, it is odd not to mention it under the actual character creation section....
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder was originally marketed mainly to to D&D 3.5 players as an improved 3.5. It is based on the SRD 3.5 rules, without the addition of the D&D 3.5 specific examples and clarifying language, and with intentional changes, additions, and omissions from the SRD 3.5. During the early days, it embraced that history with the marketing phrase, "3.5 Thrives!" As it established it's own position, it has moved away from emphasizing that history, with the developers saying they are different games.
SRD 3.5, on it's own, has gaps. In publishing D&D 3.5 from the SRD, WotC plugged some of those gaps with clarifying language and examples. Through the 5 year history of publishing and supporting D&D 3.5, it plugged other gaps and provided additional clarifying languages, rulings, and suggestions through the Rules of the Game articles, Sage Advice (which largely served as the source for the D&D FAQ), errata, Rules Compendium, etc. All of this additional insight and rules coverage was a value added layer that materially improved players' understanding of the game. It made a better game from the original SRD.
Paizo effectively picked up SRD 3.5 c. 2003, made intentional changes, and excluded all of the additional clarifying language, rulings, etc. that was added to to the SRD 3.5 to make the game that was D&D 3.5 in 2008. This was a necessary process given the nature of the development of PF for many reasons. The decision to follow this necessary process was intentional. On a macro scale, this was an intentional decision. On a micro scale, though, these are not individual intentional decisions, and they have consequences that have sometimes been unintended.
************************************************
When PF is missing rules coverage, and yet that coverage is provided in the the layer that created mature D&D 3.5 out of the SRD, I use that material. I use it to provide insight into the intent of the rules. I do not treat it as PF RAW. As the player base has changed from what was originally nearly 100% D&D 3.5 players to a current base where many never played 3.5, I have changed my expectations that others necessarily see this as reasonable. When I tap the D&D 3.5 layer, I try to clearly point it out; this allows those of like mind to understand where it comes from while allowing those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer wholesale to reject what I have to say for their own understanding.
I suspect that the vast majority of players who came from 3.5 tap that D&D 3.5 layer, and that the vast majority of those who reject the D&D 3.5 layer either never played 3.5 or were not seriously invested in the game. We use the tools we have, and everyone has a different toolkit.
I suspect that there are few players who were heavily invested in 3.5 that, when faced with an area that isn't adequately addressed in PF, but which is addressed in the D&D 3.5 layer, knowingly reject the coverage from that layer, unless they actively didn't like what the layer provided in the first place.
|
Pathfinder was originally marketed mainly to to D&D 3.5 players as an improved 3.5. It is based on the SRD 3.5 rules, without the addition of the D&D 3.5 specific examples and clarifying language, and with intentional changes, additions, and omissions from the SRD 3.5. During the early days, it embraced that history with the marketing phrase, "3.5 Thrives!" As it established it's own position, it has moved away from emphasizing that history, with the developers saying they are different games.
SRD 3.5, on it's own, has gaps. In publishing D&D 3.5 from the SRD, WotC plugged some of those gaps with clarifying language and examples. Through the 5 year history of publishing and supporting D&D 3.5, it plugged other gaps and provided additional clarifying languages, rulings, and suggestions through the Rules of the Game articles, Sage Advice (which largely served as the source for the D&D FAQ), errata, Rules Compendium, etc. All of this additional insight and rules coverage was a value added layer that materially improved players' understanding of the game. It made a better game from the original SRD.
Paizo effectively picked up SRD 3.5 c. 2003, made intentional changes, and excluded all of the additional clarifying language, rulings, etc. that was added to to the SRD 3.5 to make the game that was D&D 3.5 in 2008. This was a necessary process given the nature of the development of PF for many reasons. The decision to follow this necessary process was intentional. On a macro scale, this was an intentional decision. On a micro scale, though, these are not individual intentional decisions, and they have consequences that have sometimes been unintended.
************************************************
When PF is missing rules coverage, and yet that coverage is provided in the the layer that created mature D&D 3.5 out of the SRD, I use that material. I use it to provide insight into the intent of the rules. I do not treat it as PF RAW. As the player base has changed from what was originally nearly 100% D&D...
I wish I could favourite this post many, many times.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of repeating, with less eloquence, that which Howie23 posted with such clarity, I'll take a different tack.
When we learn stuff, our understanding changes from what it used to be before we understood. Obvious, yes, but although our understanding changed at that point in time, we don't always remember why we now know what we know! We can't always tell you exactly how we know something, because that isn't the important part; only the knowledge itself is important to most of us most of the time.
So, for those that played 3.5 extensively, when a rule was ambiguous or badly understood there came a time when we gained an understanding, whether through Sage Advice or (the excellent) Rules Compendium or the Magic Item Compendium or whatever. Without needing to remember exactly why, we now understand that you can Sunder on any attack during a full attack, what 'attack action' actually means, that all attacks in a Pounce get the +2 bonus from charging, etc. etc.
These things were explained. We understood.
Even now, if we have a rules question we can use those sources if we want to understand a rule, on the principle that PF is the same as 3.5.....except where they (deliberately) changed it!
But those people who didn't go through that edition have no history of trusting those sources! To them, it's a completely different game!
Those people are losing out.
Some of the very questions being asked by PF players were asked, and answered, in 3.5. If a rule didn't change, then the 3.5 answer is good for PF...unless the devs decide to change it!
So 3.5 is a valuable resource.
I love Pathfinder. Many things are better than they were in 3.5. But some things are worse. Leaving aside the obvious 'personal taste' issue, some very basic d20 rules engine stuff was left out in the cut&paste process. Whether by error, for copyright reasons, word count issues or for other obscure reasons, PF is a worse game than it could be because of these omissions. Diagonal reach is the poster child example here, but there are others. The lack of the simple (and obvious) explanatory line, '(You must see or hear the spell's verbal or somatic components.)' after the, 'Identify a spell being cast.' entry in the Spellcraft skill has actually led to the sincere belief among PF players that spellcasting itself has a visible and audible effect beyond verbal and somatic components, leading to imaginary phenomenon that even Jason Buhlman cannot begin to describe but which render Still, Silent spellcasting to be both visible and audible! If this had actually been a deliberate change to the way spellcasting works then Jason would be aware of it! This is a perfect example of why 3.5 helps us get the right and sane answer so simply!
This doesn't mean that every change was accidental, but enough are that knowledge of how 3.5 solved particular problems is very valuable in resolving those exact same problems when they come up in PF.
Yep. Pathfinder is just 3.5 houseruled, so I still have a lot of 3.5isms cluttered in my head that come out at the worst possible times.
And 3.5 is 3.0 house ruled, and 3.0 is just someone's house rules published and sold.
Everything is just house rules. The original just started with someone's house rules.
Yep. Pathfinder is just 3.5 houseruled, so I still have a lot of 3.5isms cluttered in my head that come out at the worst possible times.And 3.5 is 3.0 house ruled, and 3.0 is just someone's house rules published and sold.
Everything is just house rules. The original just started with someone's house rules.
I don't think that's how that works.