Pathfinder 1E Paizo's backwards compatibility

[roguerouge]

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.

 

[+5 Keyboard!]

I believe the term "Backward Compatibility" refers mostly to the mechanics of the rules set. Tweaking back and forth between 3.0 and 3.5 isn't difficult because the guts are the same. Most likely, you'll need to watch for things that are unique to each system that may not cross over with the same CR ratings and whatnot, but those types of things are pretty easy to adjust by giving or taking away a power, better/lower AC, more HD/hp, etc. or simply swapping it out for something comparable in the subsystem of your choice.

The same will hold true when tweaking from Pathfinder to v.3.5 or v.3.0. There are just those minor differences you'll need to account for.

 

[SPoD]

Yeah, it's "compatible" not "identical". I think the idea is if an adventure has a fighter NPC, the DM has to add one feat per odd level before running it, but that's still a lot easier than replacing it with a 4E fighter. Perfect balance with older adventures isn't really the goal; serviceable balance is. Close enough is good enough.

Although, if Paizo is smart, they will include a few fighter-only feats that have simple mathematical benefits and can be taken multiple times, to assist with compatibility. For example, if there's a feat that adds +1 to some base stat, the DM can update a 3.5 fighter NPC to a Pathfinder fighter NPC by just giving them the feat Y times (where Y is the number of odd levels minus one). Quick, easy, and (sort of) balanced.

 

[Erik Mona]

That's a pretty good summary of where we're coming from.

--Erik

 

[Arkhandus]

I don't think it's going to be a significant power difference, let alone as much of one as WotC's own Warblade class, which is their version of a 'better fighter than a Fighter' class. More of a minor boost plus some extra flexibility.

It's not like Clerics and Druids weren't already better fighters, anyway. So it's already in the game as-is, an expectation that the old Fighter is not up to snuff with everything else. The new Fighter may be somewhat stronger or more flexible, but it's not overshadowing the old Fighter any more than other core classes already did for the past, oh, 30 years or something?

Well, at least in the old days, casters had a very small supply of mojo each day, so they only overshadowed the fighter on short, sporadic occasions.

 

[EricNoah]

The chief appeal of backwards compatibility from the DM side of the screen is that I can use old modules with the new rules, or the new modules with the old rules. I would think on the player side of the screen you would want all 3.5 or all Pathfinder RPG characters, probably not a mix. But, as I'm looking at the Pathfinder classes ... I don't necessarily see an increase in power, I see an increase in flexibility. I don't see that breaking a game.

 

[el-remmen]

Anyway, it is not as if you can really trust any adventure, even ones written for current rulesets as they come out to be perfectly (or even nearly) balanced. Adventure-writing it a crapshoot.

 

[roguerouge]

I don't know... Flexibility IS power. It seems like the higher the modules assume the characters are, the more of a power difference there will be between 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG parties. PRPG characters eventually will have: 3 more feats, casters have at-will powers, fighters have five armor and five weapon bonuses, rogues will have 4 rogue talents, wizards will have 9 more 1/day spells, and clerics will have 4 1/days and 2 multi/days.

I think one of the things you will want the game testers to figure out is what the level adjustment is between 3.5 and your system.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Anyway, it is not as if you can really trust any adventure, even ones written for current rulesets as they come out to be perfectly (or even nearly) balanced. Adventure-writing it a crapshoot.

There are two questions:
- How much (if at all) worse will it get then it already was?

- Will it actually matter, or will most people that will put out the Pathfinder modules also use the updated 3.75 rules anyway?
The other way around might be harder: Will old modules/adventures still work with 3.75 out of the box, without the playeres feeling every encounter a cakewalk? (The moment a DM has to adapt a module only because of the ruleset, the major advantage of having a module is gone, in my opinion.)

 

[dmccoy1693]

I mean the latter party's going to have a fighter with a feat every level plus weapon and armor training.

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.