Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[Alzrius]

Weird. I did not get this sense at all with 3.5. I would expect PF to at LEAST make as many changes as 3.5 made.

The proof is how 3.0 books suddenly wouldn't sell. Maybe you didn't feel your 3.0 books were made obsolete by 3.5; more power to you in that case. But the market pretty clearly didn't agree.

I guess maybe some people have a very stringent definition of "compatible."

Again, just look at what happened as a whole. Looking beyond your own self is a good thing.

I thought this was what they were doing? Certainly not everything that gets piped up on the Paizo boards is shoveled onto PF.

No, but it helps to crowd out more helpful feedback; that is, feedback on the existing changes made in the Alpha documents. In the meantime, there's a lot of threads where people are clamoring for unrelated changes that really aren't very helpful except to them.

So let's get specific: Where?

How about the needless revision of the XP tables (and don't say that the existing tables are PI - they can be legally reprinted because they're just a math formula; there's no need to have several different tables).

How about that several of the base classes have new abilities that change their math (such as the fighter's armor and weapon training)?

How about the substantial changes to skills, which pretty drastically alter how many skill points a character has and how they're allocated?

How about changing the feat progression, requiring that every character look over the feats list and add several more (as well as convert to the new revised feats).

How about how domains now work very differently, requiring that you alter the number of spells clerics have, and give them special powers (pretty much making any domains not listed there incompatible with PFRPG).

These aren't all the changes in the book that don't need to be made; this is just a list off the top of my head. The point is that none of these are fixing problems that a great number of people were bemoaning about 3.5. Moreover, the increased number of changes makes it very hard for DMs to convert NPCs, because they'll need to do so whenever using a 3.5 NPC in a Pathfinder game (or vice versa).

These are changes for the sake of looking good, which is really just change for the sake of change. And that's what turned me off to 4E.

I don't dislike Pathfinder. In fact, I'm very excited about it. And I know the final version isn't out yet - I just think the Alpha 3 document is indicative of the mindset at Paizo, which is that they need to "jazz" up 3.5. That's going to come back to haunt them when people decide that Pathfinder is just different enough to make using it in their 3.5 a chore.

 

[GVDammerung]

IMO, PF must be generally compatible with 3x. Put another way, it should be as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0 (as those two versions can be switched back and forth with little difficulty in 9 out of 10 cases by anyone reasonably familiar with both versions). PF being as compatible with 3.5 as 3.5 was with 3.0 is essentially saying Pathfinder takes the place of a 3.75.

This said, a 3.75 is not just 3.5, so absolute rules identity with 3.5 is not only out of the question, it is undesireable. General identity or general compatability, not specific, is good enough.

To survive, Pathfinder must establish its own identity, even as it looks to assume a compatible, 3.75 niche in the market.

So, the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. is not the 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. Such a comparison completely misses the point.

So, the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. is better/worse than the 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. Such a comparison completely misses the point.

The question is - is the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. capable of being played in a campaign alongside the 3.5 version (remember a same/different, better/worse comparison is not the point!)? If they can, all is well.

By comparison can a 4e Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc. be played in a campaign alongside a 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter? The answer is clearly "no" as too many rules for how they play are different. So long as PF avoids this level of rules divergence, it accomplishes its basic design goals. Now, of course, within this broad definition of success, there is plenty of room for this approach or that and thus room for some to find PF not to their taste. This, however, should not be confused with saying PF has failed in its design objective. PF's design objective is not to be to everyone's taste because that is impossible. PF's design objective is to assume a 3.75 niche - compatible with 3.5, even if not identical, but not so radical a departure as 4e.

In my estimation, PF is holding to its fundamental design objectives, and I like it. I think many people are conflating these two distinct observations. To many try to justify a "not to taste" feeling with
a "they're doing it wrong" argument. Those observations are distinctly different and should not be confused.

 

[Gundark]

I have felt people exaggerating. But aren't you exaggerating here a bit too?

You would think...I saw some pretty outlandish claims of "that's it!!! that's a dealbreaker!!!" with reagrds to 4e.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The proof is how 3.0 books suddenly wouldn't sell. Maybe you didn't feel your 3.0 books were made obsolete by 3.5; more power to you in that case. But the market pretty clearly didn't agree.

To be fair, there's a difference when WotC publishes/updates a new edition and anybody else publishes... anything.

These aren't all the changes in the book that don't need to be made; this is just a list off the top of my head. The point is that none of these are fixing problems that a great number of people were bemoaning about 3.5.

These are changes for the sake of looking good, which is really just change for the sake of change. And that's what turned me off to 4E.

I don't dislike Pathfinder. In fact, I'm very excited about it. And I know the final version isn't out yet - I just think the Alpha 3 document is indicative of the mindset at Paizo, which is that they need to "jazz" up 3.5. That's going to come back to haunt them when people decide that Pathfinder is just different enough to make using it in their 3.5 a chore.

I am generally in agreement with Alzrius, here.

1) Open discussion to identify the problems.
2) Paizo makes final decision on problems to fix, and solidifies them into a working design document.
3) Paizo designs, and solicits, solutions to problems on the design document.
4) Community playtests solutions and provides feedback.
5) Iterate.

You can maintain separate forums for each of those, with strict and focused moderation.

Strict and focused moderation for Jason, too.

I do think that Paizo runs the risk of conflating their Product Identity-- which is the stellar writing, artwork, cartography, etc.-- with the rules. IMO Paizo doesn't need to be substantially different from 3.5 mechanically. I don't think most folks are coming to Pathfinder looking for "nifty rules."

 

[Spatula]

Its funny how some say that Paizo is now changing for the sake of change (just in different words) when 4E has gone well beyond this.

errr... that's the point? If you are turned off by the changes in 4e, then you're probably not too eager to port them into your 3e game.

 

[der_kluge]

Ok, I skipped pages 4-6 of this thread, but Hobo and I already hashed this out over at CircvsMaximvs - there are two kinds of "backwards compatibility".

Type #1 - I'll call "Backwards Compatibility" - let's you use existing modules rather easily, or let's you use an existing campaign setting, etc., with relative ease. "There's a lot of backwards compatibility between 1st edition modules and Castles and Crusades".

Type #2 - I'll call "Sideways Compatibility" - let's you use rulesets and other mechanics within the same 'engine'. For example, Grim Tales is a d20 product, but not very "sideways compatible" with other d20 modules, necessarily. Eberron is not very sideways compatible with Greyhawk modules, even though they're all D&D.

Bottom line is this:

For some people, sideways compatibility isn't really that big a deal. I could really give a crap how well Bo9S meshes with Pathfinder. For me, I care more that I can continue to play a game that my players basically already know, and I get to keep Bards, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Gnomes and Druids.

For me, Backwards Compatibility is more important than Sideways Compatibility.

For others, not the case.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Ok, I skipped pages 4-6 of this thread, but Hobo and I already hashed this out over at CircvsMaximvs - there are two kinds of "backwards compatibility".

Type #1 - I'll call "Backwards Compatibility" - let's you use existing modules rather easily, or let's you use an existing campaign setting, etc., with relative ease. "There's a lot of backwards compatibility between 1st edition modules and Castles and Crusades".

Type #2 - I'll call "Sideways Compatibility" - let's you use rulesets and other mechanics within the same 'engine'. For example, Grim Tales is a d20 product, but not very "sideways compatible" with other d20 modules, necessarily. Eberron is not very sideways compatible with Greyhawk modules, even though they're all D&D.

Bottom line is this:

For some people, sideways compatibility isn't really that big a deal. I could really give a crap how well Bo9S meshes with Pathfinder. For me, I care more that I can continue to play a game that my players basically already know, and I get to keep Bards, Barbarians, Sorcerers, Gnomes and Druids.

For me, Backwards Compatibility is more important than Sideways Compatibility.

For others, not the case.

And thats where it gets different with me. As broken as 3.5E was, and as frustrated as I eventually became with it, I can't imagine playing it without:

Complete Series
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Spell and Magic Item Compendiums
Book of Nine Swords
Tome of Magic(one of my circle just loves the Binder)
Players Handbook II
Fiendish Codex II(I can't remember our last game without a Hellbred character)
Savage Species(We have a fur in our group)
Races of X
Eberron Campaign Setting(We just use some stuff from here, it isn't set in Eberron)

If I want to play a straight laced core game, I'd rather play 2E or even 4E for that matter. 3.5E to me is going crazy with all the high powered stuff it encouraged you to do, and just run the game starting from 3rd-5th level and end it when it starts degenerating into rocket tag.


If they power up the core PHB classes, for balance/fairness sake, I can't imagine not powering up a whole pile of classes from those books, and excluding Complete Psionic that I'm not terribly familiar with, thats 27 base classes I count from the above list, with uncounted Prestige Classes on top of that. For my purposes, that is a mess.

Its easier just to stick with 3.5E D&D.

 

[Zurai]

How about the substantial changes to skills, which pretty drastically alter how many skill points a character has and how they're allocated?

Uh... no. The only change to skills is to do away with the stupid cross-class skill penalty and a bonus on the first rank with a skill IF it's a class skill. There's no "drastic change" to the number of skill points a character has. Actually, there's no effective change to how many skill points a character has.

 

[SSquirrel]

To SSquirrel....

Pot. Kettle... etc.
How is that different from the Pro 4E folks here? Its one of the reasons I dont post here that much anymore.

There is a big difference between constructive criticism of what I see in the alphas and people saying stuff like "yeah I looked at a page or 2 of the 4E PHB in a store and decided it wasn't for me" or saying that 4E is "A crime against nature." (ok that alst one was part of an Amazon review mentioned in a thread here, but still).

 

[Zurai]

I can't imagine playing it without:

Complete Series
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Spell and Magic Item Compendiums
Book of Nine Swords
Tome of Magic(one of my circle just loves the Binder)
Players Handbook II
Fiendish Codex II(I can't remember our last game without a Hellbred character)
Savage Species(We have a fur in our group)
Races of X
Eberron Campaign Setting(We just use some stuff from here, it isn't set in Eberron)

If I want to play a straight laced core game, I'd rather play 2E or even 4E for that matter. 3.5E to me is going crazy with all the high powered stuff it encouraged you to do, and just run the game starting from 3rd-5th level and end it when it starts degenerating into rocket tag.


If they power up the core PHB classes, for balance/fairness sake, I can't imagine not powering up a whole pile of classes from those books, and excluding Complete Psionic that I'm not terribly familiar with, thats 27 base classes I count from the above list, with uncounted Prestige Classes on top of that. For my purposes, that is a mess.

Its easier just to stick with 3.5E D&D.

Let me put it this way...

My PFRPG game is a 4 person gestalt game. We have a Bard//Battledancer (me), a Barbarian//Crusader, an Artificer//Duskblade, and a Ranger//undecided (but not core class).

Other than generic changes, like changing HD to match BAB (ie, Battledancer gets d10 HD for being a full BAB class) and consolidating the skill lists to match PFRPG, we've done no conversion. No one has complained that the only viable choices are the core ones. No one has even thought it. With 8 classes, we only have 3 PF core classes, and we have two decidedly "substandard" classes (battledancer and duskblade).

I fail to see how the Pathfinder system forces you to do all kinds of arduous conversion work to use non-core classes. I really do. I looked at all kinds of classes when deciding what to use on the other side of the Bard gestalt and I never once felt "oh, now there's a class that's just a wimp now that we're using Pathfinder!".

And it's not like we're a bunch of RP weenies, either. I'm a powergamer to the core, as is the guy playing the Artificer//Duskblade. I enjoy playing optimized characters, and I still didn't run across anything that I felt had to be re-worked in light of the Pathfinder changes just to be viable... at least, not anything that wasn't already so weak as to not be viable in the first place (hello, Swashbuckler and Samurai).