Pathfinder 1E Paizo's backwards compatibility

[Delta]

I agree with the OP, actually.

 

[Voadam]

Okay: this is not snark. I love the Paizo news.

But I'm new to this whole "backwards compatibility" concept when it comes to gaming. Can someone explain to me how modules written to be balanced against 3.5 PC parties AND Pathfinder PC parties? I mean the latter party's going to have a fighter with a feat every level plus weapon and armor training. I mean, that's great, and the 3.5 fighter was under-powered anyway, but is it really possible to write a balanced adventure for both kinds of fighters? And with altered skills and spells systems?

Again, I'm genuinely curious as to whether it's been successful before to write adventures that work for multiple systems and, if it hasn't worked before, whether there's any reason it couldn't work now.

IME it has worked before.

I used basic D&D adventures in my 1e games with no problems. 1e adventures in 2e games with no problems. I used some Arcana Unearthed stuff in my 3e games with no problems. I've used 3.0 stuff in my 3.5 games with no problems.

I have not looked over the pathfinder rules yet but I expect this to be like using Arcana Unearthed Stuff in a 3e game.

Different spell systems is no different than if your 3.5 party has a psion instead of a wizard or a Bo9S warrior instead of a fighter, they should all work out fine against appropriate level module challenges.

 

[hong]

IME it has worked before.

I used basic D&D adventures in my 1e games with no problems. 1e adventures in 2e games with no problems. I used some Arcana Unearthed stuff in my 3e games with no problems. I've used 3.0 stuff in my 3.5 games with no problems.

I have not looked over the pathfinder rules yet but I expect this to be like using Arcana Unearthed Stuff in a 3e game.

Different spell systems is no different than if your 3.5 party has a psion instead of a wizard or a Bo9S warrior instead of a fighter, they should all work out fine against appropriate level module challenges.

It's that "appropriate level module challenges" that might be the problem. Analogously, you could take PCs built using the Spells & Powers book into a 2E module, and they would probably trash the place, despite S&P ostensibly being an extension of 2E. Now part of that was because S&P was just broken, but the potential for breakage remains.

 

[Mark Hope]

Looking at the brief section on converting characters at the back of the Alpha release, it seems to me that the Pathfinder RPG will be very much backwards-compatible. Fast & dirty conversion is very easy, so much so that you could do it on the fly once you get to know where the differences are. Looks fine to me. And a fuller conversion seems to be on a par with converting from 3.0 to 3.5, ie. not an overwhelming amount of work at all. It's worth taking a look at that section of the release - there's a decent description of the process there. We'll be seeing more on this (specifically monsters and NPCs) in later Alpha releases.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

My thought, that is for the "christmas tree" complaint of 3.5. If your class gives you the equivilent bonus of +1 armor, do you need +1 armor? And so on.

If it stacks, people will get both*. Especially if you get the benefit of more feats.

If not, this might work out differently.


*unless Paizo fans are all well disciplined gamers that don't take options that could break the game. Which some of them might, since most of them are probably a little more than "casual gamers" and have probably a better grasp on D&D rules as a whole then the average gamer. But I wouldn't count on it...

 

[Voadam]

It's that "appropriate level module challenges" that might be the problem. Analogously, you could take PCs built using the Spells & Powers book into a 2E module, and they would probably trash the place, despite S&P ostensibly being an extension of 2E. Now part of that was because S&P was just broken, but the potential for breakage remains.

Having read it over now, I agree. It does not seem to be balanced against normal D&D but makes changes to be D&D plus some powers at every turn.

So it is like using D&D modules with gestalt, or free LA, or high point buy, or high wealth, or more than 4 party members, or with Iron Heroes Characters with D&D wealth. They will be a little tougher than equivalent level standard D&D characters.

Other than that the only relevant big changes system wise that I see for running a game mixing and matching modules and parties would be the combat maneuvers and grapple.

 

[Arnwyn]

For me to continue to be a Paizo/Pathfinder customer, the backwards compatibility must allow me to run the new modules using standard 3.5 characters.

Looking at the Alpha document shows me that, so far, that's the case.

 

[EricNoah]

for me the issues are -- the underlying "numbers game" (i.e. does a +1 mean the same thing in each edition, does 5th level mean the same thing, etc.) and the basics of what you can do in a round (move & attack, or move & cast a spell, that sort of thing). At first blush, 3.5 and Pathfinder seem to be on a pretty even field in these regards, in my opinion.

Other issues -- like flexibility (having more choices -- but still being limited to how much you can do in one round), or the longevity of the adventuring day (how many encounters you can participate in before resting) aren't nearly as vital to me in terms of compatibility.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

You know, I bet if you used the 'slower progression' XP chart, things would work out just fine for a standard Pathfinder AP. Don't adjust anything; over the course of the campaign, being 1, eventually 2, levels lower than expected would probably counterbalance any slight power creep.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You know, I bet if you used the 'slower progression' XP chart, things would work out just fine for a standard Pathfinder AP. Don't adjust anything; over the course of the campaign, being 1, eventually 2, levels lower than expected would probably counterbalance any slight power creep.

Depends a bit on what spells are changed. There are a few spells that are based on caster level vs HD alone, and they are broken if you leave the expected values.

I have witnessed this already in Shackled City - there was some kind of Half-Fiend monster with a spell-like ability like this. I think it was - against my first assumptions - totally by RAW, but basing the caster level on HD who were notably higher than its CR made this ability a lot more powerful then was appropriate. And I believe there might be more "hidden variables" here at work that can wreck a game...