Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GVDammerung" data-source="post: 4323180" data-attributes="member: 33060">IMO, PF must be generally compatible with 3x.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; So, the PF Thief or Wizard or Fighter etc. is not the 3.5 Thief, Wizard or Fighter etc.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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!)?&nbsp; 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?&nbsp; The answer is clearly &quot;no&quot; as too many rules for how they play are different.&nbsp; So long as PF avoids this level of rules divergence, it accomplishes its basic design goals.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This, however, should not be confused with saying PF has failed in its design objective.&nbsp; PF's design objective is not to be to everyone's taste because that is impossible.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I think many people are conflating these two distinct observations.&nbsp;&nbsp; To many try to justify a &quot;not to taste&quot; feeling witha &quot;they're doing it wrong&quot; argument.&nbsp; Those observations are distinctly different and should not be confused.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GVDammerung, post: 4323180, member: 33060"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification