Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Alpha "crunch" discussion

[Hunter In Darkness]

I didnt have that issue. however avg will some times read a corrupt files that way.

 

[resistor]

I think an important point out that, while Pathfinder is designed to be backwards compatible, it is not designed to be strictly so. We have to accept that there will be some differences, so there will be some areas of incompatibility. However, the intent is to keep the divergence small.

As an example, I don't think the overall power boost will be a big compatibility issue. For how many adventures is one level the difference between a severe challenge and a cakewalk? The point is not that every little detail will work out the same as it would under 3.X, but that the adventure is still useable without conversion. It's slightly easier, yes, but that just means you through it at them when they're on the lower end of the intended level range of the adventure, rather than the midpoint!

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I could certainly see a player wanting to keep his old changeling warlock or whatever, while other players use the PF races and classes which currently have a quite limited selection.

I think it might depend on the class.

Case in point, there's been some grumbling from the D&D DM of the last campaign I played in of running another one, potentially under Paizo's "3.55" (I'm sorry, it's too bloody similar to 3.5 to call it 3.75 at this point) but using the same characters from the last campaign if we so choose.

I played a Human Warblade, and about the only "upgrade" I'm expecting for the guy beyond racial traits is how his skills are tracked. But since that book came out towards the end of the D&D 3.5e production cycle and is promo material for 4e, those classes shouldn't get a "Paizo upgrade."

 

[blargney the second]

Paizo's "3.55" (I'm sorry, it's too bloody similar to 3.5 to call it 3.75 at this point)

Make it 3.14 and we can just call it D&D pi. I like pi.

 

[Desdichado]

That's actually not as simple as just giving 1st level characters more hit points.

Starting characters at 3rd level means more hit points, more BAB, more feats, more spells. Most often I emphatically don't want to do that. It shortens the sweet spot. I want PCs to grow into their abilities, not start them with more.

Pathfinder's already got a few options for beefing up 1st level characters (hit point wise) already anyway.

I think making the races the equivalent of LA +1 is a big mistake that makes backwards compatibility significantly trickier, while some of the optional 1st level boosters work just fine as is.

Rather than taking basic races and making them the equivalent of LA +1, they should be taking some popular LA +1 races and making them the equivalent of LA +0.

 

[Desdichado]

Again, a critical point here is it is not a free +1 LA. It is a different baseline across the board. This distinction is very important.

Which is exactly why it creates backwards compatibility problems. 3.5 today has a lot more races than just the PHB races; if they're no longer on the same baseline, they're essentially invalidated as highly suboptimal choices. That's what I've been trying to get at here. Your solutions to this problem are strikingly inelegant. The elegant (and IMO by far the best) option is to not raise the bar on races in the first place.

 

[BryonD]

Which is exactly why it creates backwards compatibility problems. 3.5 today has a lot more races than just the PHB races; if they're no longer on the same baseline, they're essentially invalidated as highly suboptimal choices. That's what I've been trying to get at here. Your solutions to this problem are strikingly inelegant. The elegant (and IMO by far the best) option is to not raise the bar on races in the first place.

I think you are blowing it way out of proportion. I think playing a changeling warlock exactly as is in an otherwise PF game would be no worse than playing a half-elf bard in a current D&D game (and that is before we talk about how very little of PF is presented and how it is intended to change from here). I certainly wouldn't call it incompatible. Balance issues have been around for a while.

That said, and as I've said before.... I agree with you. I'd prefer they just stayed with a constant power baseline. I think that would be better.

But it is just plain wrong to say it isn't compatible. If they had a really crazy hair going and wanted to say that PF characters were as powerful as D&D characters 3 levels higher, but weren't supposed to get any magic gear at all, it would still be compatible. And if they further said that all adventures should be six levels higher just because PF is supposed to be a lot harder than D&D, it would still be compatible. The balance would be out the window and it would be a bad idea, but everything would still function. It would still be compatible.

 

[BryonD]

I think you've lost track of the discussion you were participating in a little bit. I was responding to your comment in post 175 which was responding to Kinem's post 173 in which he said

And I was repsonding to exactly that in context.

We're talking about an old 3.5 module for level 10 adventurers using 9th level PF characters.

agreed

The old module assumes they have level 10 wealth out of the 3.5 DMG.

Actually, i find that is rarely true, but for sake of this discussion I'll assume it is.

It is possible PF will bump up expected wealth a level compared to 3.5 but we don't know that yet.

ok

They are facing D&D adversaries designed for level 10 D&D players. There may be conversion mechanics adjusting how CR and party level interact in PF so that the same encounters for a 10th level D&D party will result in the same proportion of advancement of a 9th level PF party, but that is highly speculative at this point.

Well, if you just say that a CR10 D&D encounter is an appropriate encounter for level 9 PF characters and 13.33 level appropriate encounters makes you go up one level, then everything works just fine.

They would receive the gp and magic rewards suggested for a 9th level PF party only if PF bumps up the expected gp and magic rewards by a level.

So? The balance difference here is not a big deal. And even if it were, you are still just talking about a balance tweak. Everything would be functional. It would be 100% compatible.

I agree with your point that if everything is set to the new increased power balance point then you can skip LA effects on xp and wealth and have everything be balanced.

I'm not arguing with your technical distinction between compatible and balanced.

I am saying that using older materials will have mechanical implications because of the different power baselines.

But you haven't listed any. These are just balance issues.

As written now, assuming the PF characters are taking on 3.5 modules designed for 3.5 characters one level higher and using 3.5 rules that PF has not changed, they will gain more xp from those challenges than the higher level 3.5 characters get, need less xp to advance levels,

No they won't.

and the same loot as the higher level 3.5 characters.

So?

Until we see the PF changes, if any, on wealth and xp then saying the 10th level 3.5 module will give 9th level PF characters the same challenges, advancement, and loot as a 9th level standard PF module is speculative at best.

I don't see how that is slightly a problem.
And again, the advancement part is trivial to resolve and the challenges and loot parts being purely balance issues. The loot part is also trivially easy to adjust to DM preference. I almost never run modules, but even when I do I always customize the treasure.

 

[Arnwyn]

But it is just plain wrong to say it isn't compatible. If they had a really crazy hair going and wanted to say that PF characters were as powerful as D&D characters 3 levels higher, but weren't supposed to get any magic gear at all, it would still be compatible. And if they further said that all adventures should be six levels higher just because PF is supposed to be a lot harder than D&D, it would still be compatible. The balance would be out the window and it would be a bad idea, but everything would still function. It would still be compatible.

Sure, I agree with your technical definition of 'compatible'.

But, of course, if this is what Paizo meant when they said that they would make it backwards compatible with all your existing 3.5 material, it would - at best - be extremely misleading.

So no, I suggest that using the above technical definition of 'compatible' isn't very valuable in this conversation.

 

[Desdichado]

I think you are blowing it way out of proportion.

:shrug: I don't think you know to what proportion I'm blowing it. All I'm saying is that I think it's a bad idea. I'm not threatening to drive out to Seattle, storm the Paizo offices and scalp Jason Buhlman for coming up with it, I'm just suggesting that it makes the game less appealing because it makes non-core races (of which there are a lot) gimped to the point where hardly anyone would ever want to use one. I think that significantly defeats the purpose of moving to the Pathfinder RPG in the first place, so I advise against it.

But it is just plain wrong to say it isn't compatible. If they had a really crazy hair going and wanted to say that PF characters were as powerful as D&D characters 3 levels higher, but weren't supposed to get any magic gear at all, it would still be compatible. And if they further said that all adventures should be six levels higher just because PF is supposed to be a lot harder than D&D, it would still be compatible. The balance would be out the window and it would be a bad idea, but everything would still function. It would still be compatible.

I think reducing "compatability" to such a vague term that questions of balance are completely "out of scope" for it means that compatability become meaningless and there's no longer any point in talking about it. Obviously the break points are different for everyone, but they exist; the point where it's too much trouble to adopt Pathfinder at all and you just stick with 3.5 instead. If all the core races are bumped up to the equivalent of LA +1, then I have to either 1) only allow the core races, 2) disallow the core races, and flip back and forth between 3.5 and Pathfinder, or 3) fiddle with things to make them fit; your LA +1 solution being one way to do that. At some point, if I have to make houserule changes like that too often, there's no point in adopting the Pathfinder RPG at all, unless I no longer care about using large chunks of my 3.5 books anymore.

I personally am looking for no more compatability issues (less, in fact) than between 3e and 3.5. To me, this is a major strike against Pathfinder and well on the verge of telling me that I'm not going to be interested in it after all.

The good news is that, as you say, with a relatively high degree of compatability, I could probably still continue to use my 3.5 books with subsequent Pathfinder products, but still; if I'm doing that, then the whole exercise of creating the Pathfinder RPG is a waste of time.