Judging upon the only thing we have available right now (the alpha) it looks to me as if a PathfinderRPG Adventure Path will be just as difficult to convert to a RAW 3.5 game as a 4e Adventure Path. Maybe that won't be the case once the final version is released, but it seems to me that Paizo's definition of "compatible" doesn't necessarily agree with mine. I still say the best move for Paizo would be to continue producing Adventure Paths using the RAW from the 3.5 SRD as much as possible in order to appeal to the widest audience of 4e non-adopters.Zil said:
D&D 4E What was Paizo thinking? 3.75 the 4E clone?
- Thread starter Shadewyn
- Start date
Lord Mhoram
Hero
Klaus said:
Depends on the group. Our group has been a single system group since it came together sometime about 15 years ago. I ran D&D 3.0 when it first came out for a few months, and it was an unmitigated disaster.
We only play the one system (HERO if anyone is interested), and we are all good friends, but we share that gaming taste. If someone wanted to really play another game, I'd give it a halfhearted try, but likely not enjoy it. But to be honest, I'm the only one that actually has bought a non Hero game book in the last decade.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
The fact that every player in our group GMs some of the time (we usually have 4 or 5 campaigns active at once, and rotate every adventure cycle or two) and we play weekly, heck or high water probably has something to do with it. If someone wanted to run something else, everyone might be nice and let him run it, but we would likely move to one of the Hero games before long.
No real reason to post other than as a single data point that is not as you described.
Glyfair
Explorer
They are planning on making it "compatible." As we have seen with other games in the past, the meaning of this statement varies from person to person (ask any Mage Knight or DDM player). They may not reach this goal, even though it is clearly a goal.Transit said:
I said a long time ago that I might not switch to 4E (although the switch is coming more & more likely). If I should decide to stick with 3.5 for my D&D games, I am not going to be buying hardly any D&D products. If I should continue 3.5 it will because there is plenty I have that I never used, I certainly won't need more. I'll even less want a new system to play it. So, for me Paizo's announcement doesn't serve me. How many it serves will be seen in the future.
Last edited:
Shadewyn
First Post
I am amazed at the "my players play what I want to GM cuase I said so" comments.
I have run a weekly game group for 10+ years and if I ever said we are playing X cause I said so I would get laughed at. My group may play forgotten realms in D&D or greyhawk settings but then tunr around and refuse Planescape or Ravenloft. If you try and force them they simply dont play or it cuases enough drama to ruin it for everyone.
RPGs are a social exparience where everyone should try and have fun, if your ego tripping then something has gone horribly wrong.
---
As to backward compatible ... if the new Pathfinder is as backward compatible as 3.5 was to 3.0 then my point is already made. go download their free alpha package. PCs change FAR more than the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. That means the DM has to work extra hard to compensate or simply play only the Pathfinder material. And if your are just playing with Pathfinder material then you are not exactly gettign a lot of good out of your 3.5 splatbooks. But that point has been beaten to death already.
I have run a weekly game group for 10+ years and if I ever said we are playing X cause I said so I would get laughed at. My group may play forgotten realms in D&D or greyhawk settings but then tunr around and refuse Planescape or Ravenloft. If you try and force them they simply dont play or it cuases enough drama to ruin it for everyone.
RPGs are a social exparience where everyone should try and have fun, if your ego tripping then something has gone horribly wrong.
---
As to backward compatible ... if the new Pathfinder is as backward compatible as 3.5 was to 3.0 then my point is already made. go download their free alpha package. PCs change FAR more than the 3.0 to 3.5 shift. That means the DM has to work extra hard to compensate or simply play only the Pathfinder material. And if your are just playing with Pathfinder material then you are not exactly gettign a lot of good out of your 3.5 splatbooks. But that point has been beaten to death already.
Dire Bare
Legend
Interesting that some see Pathfinder Alpha as incompatible when I see it as 99% compatible. If you decide to play Pathfinder, and pick up an old 3.0 or 3.5 edition module, you should be able to run the adventure with few to zero changes. Likewise, if you stick with WotC 3.5, and you pick up a new Pathfinder module, you should be able to run the adventure with few to zero changes. Pick a spell, monster, prestige class, magic item from either system and you should be able to use them either way with few to zero changes.Ourph said:
I read the entire Alpha document, a work in progress, and I see it.
The changes outlined are on par with Dragon Magazine articles and the alternate rules in Unearthed Arcana, not to mention many 3rd party d20 products designed to work with standard D&D.
I'm sure Pathfinder will not be to everyone's tastes, but I fail to see any incompatibility with 3.5. This truly is a 3.75 edition with the D&D logo removed in favor of Paizo's own brand.
I dig it. My only problem now is the hideous choice of focusing on the upcoming Pathfinder RPG or the D&D 4th Edition. I'm already torn!
Dire Bare
Legend
Hmmm, I found 3.0 to be perfectly and easily compatible with 3.5. I certainly heard all the board griping and the perception it was incompatible (poor WotC marketing?), but I never had any such problems.Shadewyn said:
I ran the entire WotC 3.0 adventure path (starting with Sunless Citadel) in a 3.5 game and simply made a few minor adjustments on the fly as we gamed. It was easy. Never did see why so many thought the games were so wildly different.
Lord Mhoram
Hero
Shadewyn said:
Given how I feel about those last two settings, I would have to say your group has good taste.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
I find myself pretty disappointed. I was looking forward to trying the Adventure Path with something other than 3.X. As it is looks like I'm looking forward to whatever up and coming young turk RPG designer/publisher will be 4e's Paizo.
Dragonblade
Adventurer
Dire Bare said:
Well, given that 4e comes out in 3 months and Pathfinder doesn't come out for at least a year, you can get both! Its a win-win.
I'm 4e all the way, but Paizo does good work. I anticipate I'll probably pick up the core book for Pathfinder and set it on the shelf between my 3.5 books and my shiny new 4e books.
Belorin
Explorer
Okay, my group got togerther to discuss Paizo's new rpg. Two of our number play in another group that plays Pathfinder and have been trying to ge me to try it also. Since I run mostly FR or Arduin (when I can find players) or other rpgs Shadowrun, CoC, M&M and Stalking the Night Fantastic: Bureau 13, I wasn't really keen on learning a new rpg.
I convinced them if they wanted to run the game I and the others would be more than happy to play. So I downloaded the 'free' rpg alpha (good call there!) and have been perusing the rules, my assessment so far... meh. It's a good patch for 3.5, don't get me wrong and if 4E wasn't coming out I'd be very tempted to switch over, but it is good enough that if my group wants to run it I'll play. May even submit some playtest reports.
Bel
I convinced them if they wanted to run the game I and the others would be more than happy to play. So I downloaded the 'free' rpg alpha (good call there!) and have been perusing the rules, my assessment so far... meh. It's a good patch for 3.5, don't get me wrong and if 4E wasn't coming out I'd be very tempted to switch over, but it is good enough that if my group wants to run it I'll play. May even submit some playtest reports.
Bel
Similar Threads
