Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder questions

[Merlin's Shadow]

I assume then, if one were so inclined, they could pick up the PF Core Rulebook and the Beastiary, and just run games using that? As in, they are not expecting everyone to mainly use the old 3.5 stuff to pad it out, it is a full game on its own that has the potential for further growth?

Yes.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I assume then, if one were so inclined, they could pick up the PF Core Rulebook and the Beastiary, and just run games using that? As in, they are not expecting everyone to mainly use the old 3.5 stuff to pad it out, it is a full game on its own that has the potential for further growth?

Yes all you need is the one core book. You could still use the 3.5 MM if you wish. However as it is out of print they are making a new one with the small changes needed to be 100% PFRPG.

So yes all you need is the PFRPG core book and the monster book.

 

[Feeroper]

awsome. I initially thought it was just more supplementary than anything else. Ill definatly check it out. Since I have alot of 3.5 books, I will hold onto them.

 

[Giorgio]

awsome. I initially thought it was just more supplementary than anything else. Ill definatly check it out. Since I have alot of 3.5 books, I will hold onto them.

That last sentence is a key point for me to buy the PF RPG. I got a small library of D&D 3.0 and 3.5 books I have been buying over the last nine years, and backwards compatibility is a primary concern with me.

I have just started work on a new PFB Dragonstar campaign with the beta rules, and with only a few modifications to my existing materials I have been able to prepare the game, with no real problems.

Lots of people here and on the Paizo forums have been running D&D games with the beta rules, and from where I can tell the majority are happy with the way the game runs.

I for one really like what they did with the core classes, and it makes SENSE to take a character from level 1 to 20, and get something new every level. The skill system is very nice and user friendly, the XP calculations looks weird (to me) but seems to make good sense, the racial ability scores are nice…..

I could go on, but there is a lot more threads that cover all the changes!

 

[vazanar]

awsome. I initially thought it was just more supplementary than anything else. Ill definatly check it out. Since I have alot of 3.5 books, I will hold onto them.

My group has been using the beta and playing the Red Hand of Doom module. As a dm there are a few minor conversions but most you can make on the fly. (ie hide-->stealth and grapple-->CMB).

 

[EricNoah]

There are a couple of interesting ways one could go with this...

1) You could stay mostly with 3.5, but continue to use Paizo's PF modules and supplements for adventure and setting material. You might want to have a copy of the PF RPG on hand if you want details on anything that's very specific to that version of the game, but if not you could always just ignore anything that's not straight 3.5. (This is probably the way I will go).

2) You could go mostly PF RPG, but continue to use your old 3.5 modules and supplements for adventure and setting material. You might want to have handy access to the 3.5 SRD in case something from an old module needs clarification.

3) Go whole hog PF RPG.

My guess is folks will do a lot of mixing and matching between PF RPG and 3.5. My instinct is that you would want the PCs to be either all PF or all 3.5 for the sake of balance on the PCs' side of the table.

 

[Giorgio]

My guess is folks will do a lot of mixing and matching between PF RPG and 3.5. My instinct is that you would want the PCs to be either all PF or all 3.5 for the sake of balance on the PCs' side of the table.

Given a choice between the 11 core D&D 3.5 PHB I classes, and the 11 core Pathfinder RPG classes, I figure more people will choose the latter (all else being equal).

 

[Atlatl Jones]

I'm curious whether the PF book will have any guidelines on how to change spells from 3e supplements to better fit the PF ethos. For example, it's been stated that PF got rid of save-or-die spells. It would be nice if there was a text box somewhere in the book that said what was changed, and why, so GMs would know what to avoid or change from 3e supplements.

 

[EricNoah]

Agreed; and hopefully there will be other conversion notes (particularly what you have to do to 3.5 monsters and NPCs to "Pathfinerize" them - generating/calculaing the Combat Maneuver Bonus, for example, to replace Grapple etc.).

 

[crazy_cat]

I'm curious whether the PF book will have any guidelines on how to change spells from 3e supplements to better fit the PF ethos. For example, it's been stated that PF got rid of save-or-die spells. It would be nice if there was a text box somewhere in the book that said what was changed, and why, so GMs would know what to avoid or change from 3e supplements.

I doubt Paizo can even reference, let alone suggest revision of, non OGL material in Pathfinder.