Pathfinder vs. 3.5?

[trickybob]

I've been sufficiently satisfied with 4e that I haven't been watching Pathfinder really closely, but from everything I've seen, they're using a VERY loose definition of "backwards compatability".

It's VERY loose seen through eyes that haven't been watching really closely....Hmm, why not take a GOOD look and then tell us what you ACTUALLY see?

 

[czak]

I'm running an adventure path right now, have no time to spend converting / messing around with the rules and the Pathfinder Beta rules are working just fine. Only thing I've had to do so far is give some baddies a HP boost, and calculate CMB.

It seems to be very backwards compatible to me.

 

[Belen]

There has been... but we haven't been posting every final change to the Beta to the public. It's important to remember that the PF RPG is still in its Beta playtest, and will be for a couple more weeks. We're deep into the analysis of the playtest feedback, from the messagboards and from our own in-house playtests, and there's been a LOT of feedback to go through. And even though we're still gathering the last bits of data before we nail things down and send the book over to editing in a month or so, I can say this: the final game will be closer to compatibility with 3.5 than the Beta is. Not everything in the Beta works, and in some cases, experimenting with options only showed us how elegant and strong a 3.5 (or even 3.0) design element really was.

In the end, though, all I can ask is that folks check out the final rules when they release this Gen Con. If the game works for you, great! If you still prefer 3.5, also great! As it turns out, we'll still be printing adventures and sourcebooks that are compatible for both systems, so even if you don't switch to Pathfinder RPG, there'll still be options for 3.5 gamers. (We'll be releasing a conversion booklet, in any event, to help folks make the transition from 3.5 to PF RPG, or to help transition PF RPG products to 3.5.)

I suppose that, in the end, the best preview for what kind of game we're hoping to make PF RPG be is to look at the adventures and sourcebooks we've been doing in Pathfinder's Adventure Path and our other products; if we can't keep making products with those sensibilities and design philosophies, then we failed at the PF RPG.

Anyway... like I said above, we're getting close to the end of the playtest. If there's still something about the Beta you'd like to see changed (or would like to NOT see changed), please post on the playtest threads at paizo.com. Or alternatively, shoot me an email at james.jacobs@paizo.com with your concerns. I can't guarantee a response to every email... but I can guarantee they'll all be read and if the concern's something that hasn't been addressed already I'll make sure Jason hears about it.

Thanks for posting, James. I was a bit concerned that their would be too many changes. Overall, I like pathfinder. I do wish that we could get away from all the conditional mods etc, but realize that may be impossible.

 

[jephlewis]

I like the pathfinder adventure paths, and some of the pathfinder chronicles. I'll be buying the 'legacy of fire' adventure path for sure [last 3.5 adventure path]. I just got PF17 yesterday, and it's as gorgeous like the rest of them as well as 'not just a dungeon crawl'.

I'm not yet sold on pathfinder:RPG...I'm not sure what it's going to be, what changes will be made and what will be different, so I'll wait until either someone releases a review with 'here's what's changed!', or something like that before I make up my mind.

James, thanks for posting and reminding us things can still possibly change. I've downloaded the alpha and the beta, flipped through them, and liked a lot of stuff, such as the bigger HD for the wizard and rogue. The reason I like this change is because it 'narrows the gap' between characters that gets bigger at higher levels.

What i'd like:

1. have the game more simplified [buff spells last until the end of the encounter; the DM defines 'encounter']
2. fighters get cool stuff too [tome of battle type stuff for martial classes]
3. less numbers fiddling [no skill points, trained or untrained, no touch or flat footed AC...just give a bonus to hit]
4. easier for the DM to prepare, run, and make an adventure [smaller monster stat blocks, 'create an NPC' rules and instructions just like spycraft 2.0 chapter 7, monsters have one or two special abilities but the DM chooses from a list of three to five]
5. multiple campaign options and guidelines for them [E6, high level, gritty]
6. notes on weak points of 3.5 and multiple suggestions for how to handle them [ban polymorph OR limit polymorph this way OR this way]

tl'dr: quicker and more flexible than 3.5, classes closer in power level/abilities, less math, easier on DM.

P.S. James, I love Wayne Reynolds' art. He really helps me 'see' golarion.

 

[Erekose]

Overall, I like pathfinder. I do wish that we could get away from all the conditional mods etc, but realize that may be impossible.

Sums up my feelings too

 

[dnddays]

What i'd like:

1. have the game more simplified [buff spells last until the end of the encounter; the DM defines 'encounter']
2. fighters get cool stuff too [tome of battle type stuff for martial classes]
3. less numbers fiddling [no skill points, trained or untrained, no touch or flat footed AC...just give a bonus to hit]
4. easier for the DM to prepare, run, and make an adventure [smaller monster stat blocks, 'create an NPC' rules and instructions just like spycraft 2.0 chapter 7, monsters have one or two special abilities but the DM chooses from a list of three to five]
5. multiple campaign options and guidelines for them [E6, high level, gritty]
6. notes on weak points of 3.5 and multiple suggestions for how to handle them [ban polymorph OR limit polymorph this way OR this way]

tl'dr: quicker and more flexible than 3.5, classes closer in power level/abilities, less math, easier on DM.

Perhaps then you should be checking out 4e? It meets every one of your points.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Perhaps then you should be checking out 4e? It meets every one of your points.

He didn't list all the stuff he doesn't want.

Presumably 4e has all that, too.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Heh - thread necromancy....

I am still playing my 'just three sessions' Pathfinder campaign. (Session 25 was last week. ) One really noticeable thing - folks are playing sorcerers. Previous to Pathfinder I had more players who wanted bards than sorcerers. Now it is even. (One of each in the current party.)

Barbarian was a short lived choice for one player. Both figuratively and literally - got deaded in the second session as the first casualty for the group. His fighter has been longer lived. (He is also a tad more conservative in his actions - the barbarian died charging into a combat where he was outnumbered four to one, at second level.... Even with the tweaks for starting characters in Pathfinder he only lasted two rounds. Sadly, the rest of the party stayed in hiding rather than aid the annoying barbarian.)

Other than a few changes the feel is very much like 3.X.

The Auld Grump

 

[DragonBelow]

I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.

I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X

 

[joela]

I don't see it as a contest of systems. they are compatible. That's the great advantage.

I would go with PF as a base just because it is currently being supported by a company. but I wouldn't hesitate to sprinkle it generously with elements of 3.X

Ditto.