Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder RPG AR3 -- Review

[Scurvy_Platypus]

But now, with Paizo changing 3.5 so much for Pathfinder, I can tell that they aren't going to be giving me what I want.

Odd. I was wishing they'd actually push the envelope and not worry so much about backwards compatibility. In fact from my perspective, they're really not changing very much. More like putting a new coat of paint on.

I'll probably pick up the book next year though. I dig the art and while I wish they had chosen to go with a "3.75" instead of focusing on backwards compatibility, I understand why they've done what they have.

Like Erik said, download it and see for yourself. It's not going to cost you anything, which is a darn cool thing for them to have done. And it's a nice looking document too. Not some "printed to pdf from Microsoft Word" looking homebrew job.

 

[SSquirrel]

Malhavoc's arcana unearthed, ill requires the Dungeon master's Guide, and the Monster Manual. So you are still refering back to the SRD if your the DM,. This is true even of its updated status to Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved.

Actually it doesn't. You're fully capable of just using the magic items in the Diamond Throne setting guide (or the AE book) and using the monsters from Legacy of Dragons.

 

[zacharythefirst]

Good review. Thanks for the information.

I wish they had come up with something that was very similar to 3.5, but it looks like that's not what they're doing. That's a shame because I liked 3.5 a lot. With Paizo putting out 3.5 stuff and WotC putting out 4e stuff I would have been purchasing from both. But now, with Paizo changing 3.5 so much for Pathfinder, I can tell that they aren't going to be giving me what I want.

Really? I haven't felt its that radical of a departure thus far.

 

[Nifft]

Good review. My (very) limited experience looking at Pathfinder agrees with everything you've said.

Thanks, -- N

 

[BryonD]

Really? I haven't felt its that radical of a departure thus far.

I agree.
I'd really like to see an example of something that is incompatible.

Obviously I'd not run a game with 3.5 PA and PF PA, I'd use one or the other. But it wouldn't be incompatible to use either version with old stuff or to use either version with yet to come PF stuff.

Barbarians? Run one of each side by side, whats the big deal?

Cleric domains? Again, what is the problem. Want to use an old domain they haven't updated? Use it as is. No problem. Nothing would be incompatible about putting a cleric with two 3.5 domains shoulder to shoulder with one with two PF domains. (If it were me I'd be chomping at the bit for an excuse to build my own version of a domain, but that is just me). Heck, you could even use one 3.5 domain with slots limited to spells from the one domain, and one PF domain that works as presented there. All these options are 100% compatible.

What is not?