Basically, he's playtesting the Pathfinder rules, not classes.

I have generally found harsh words to be detrimental to understanding.

Unless, of course, you both understand that harsh words is what you want, which seems rather silly to me.

One thing that bugs me... all this rage point/song point (I forget?) jazz. It sounds like new things to track. Some players like that, but some players don't. And it's rarely good for the GM.

If the power level of the classes are really on par with Tome of Battle, that's a problem. But I don't see that being the case thus far.

I do agree with one poster on the paizo board that if two handed power attack is the option at high levels (as it is in 3.5), that's a problem and other options need to be brought up to snuff.

Yeah, but honestly, this compatibility bit is important to me, too. I like what Paizo has done, but they aren't going to replace my entire library of cool stuff. It has to work together. If it doesn't, I'll be eking out my own solution instead.

I'm looking at it and while I like some of what they've done with classes, other stuff is too overpowered. Like, two domains and 0-level spells at will for clerics. So they get an extra spell at each level. They still can't cast any more and it adds flavor. As for unlimited 0-level spells, it's always seemed like a good idea to me.

On the other hand, the Monk is still broken, the Paladin is now broken and the Druid gets two abilities that make him the perfect hitman (Poison immunity and alter-self at will), which just made me go 'whaat?'.

Quote from: Hobo;255346I was talking about the 3.5 psionic rules, you dumbass.  And how they don't mesh well with the Pathfinder classes because of the power disparity.

How can you claim there is a power disparity when the Pathfinder psionic rules haven't even come out? You are projecting this erronious claim of "power disparity" on something that doesn't exist yet.

Quote from: Hobo;255346So, until you can actually acknowledge stuff that's in print right here in the thread right in front of your face in the portions of the posts that you're purportedly quoting and responding to, I'm forced to the conclusion that your ability to talk intelligently about the Pathfinder RPG (or anything else, for that matter) is about equivalent to that of a brain damaged goat.

Again, been called worse by better men than you.


Post #5

Quote from: Hobo;255346To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material. To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.

Now, I questioned you on this in post #11, you didn't give a straight answer in post #16 and instead got pissy. I asked you the same question again in post #18 and additionally requested some specific examples. In post #23, you brought up psionic classes as one of the examples of "nerfed" classes:

Post #23

Quote from: Hobo;255346I already did. Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

and managed to get even more pissy about having your claim questioned while still not providing any examples of this "power disparity".

Quote from: Hobo;255346Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point? I don't think it's a particularly difficult one. If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field? The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes. You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is. Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant. My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material. In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options. If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point. For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying. That's difficult to understand? If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing. I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.

In post #25 I actively began calling you on your unwillingness to be intellectually honest. To which you finally answered my original question in post #27 with a lot of snark added in for effect. Although in that same post you kept indicating that a portion of the classes you think are nerfed are psionic:

Post #27

Quote from: Hobo;255346Are you always this dense? Proof? That's absurd.

Complete Warrior. Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale. Complete Adventurer too. Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races. Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you? I've got plenty more.

and none of the examples you have given are mechanically incompatible with the Pathfinder rules. You finally reveal in the same post that you do not find the classes to be mechanically incompatible, but feel that there is a "power disparity" between non-standard 3.x races and classes and Pathfinder races and classes:

Quote from: Hobo;255346You state that Pathfinder and 3.5 are backwards compatible, where I think it's immediately obvious that they're only compatible in that they use the same basic mechanics, not in the sense that they actually mesh well together.

And after that, I just decided to mock you because you hadn't bothered to read the rules before forming an opinion. Asking when Paizo would convert entirely over to Pathfinder

Post #46

Quote from: Hobo;255346Here's a related question: at what point will Pathfinder products switch to being compatible with the Pathfinder RPG vs. 3.5? Or are they not going to make a distinction?

when the answer is right there in the Introduction to the Pathfinder Beta playtest book just confirms to me that you haven't read the book that you are opining upon.

So, yeah, I'm being pretty honest about acknowledging the stuff you are posting. Hell, I'll even acknowledge that on the subject of Pathfinder, I think you should be mocked until you have Read The Fucking Manual and can speak intelligently about it.

Quote from: Hobo;255235Jackalope; I'm not sure I'm following.  You're characters are a mix of multiclassed wizards splatbook classes and Pathfinder core classes?

Yes, because despite Seanchi's amazing ability to spew bullshit, the games are extremely compatible.  

There is the rare feat or prestige class that needs tweaking to make it work, but the games are as compatible as 3.0 and 3.5, which is to say that you can use most stuff without any changes at all.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;255355Basically, he's playtesting the Pathfinder rules, not classes.

That's what I was trying to clarify.  He's running 3e (or 3.5) modules, right?  And 3.5 classes?  Exactly what Pathfinder rules, then, are involved in the playtest?  Like I said, that sounds like merely a 3.5 game with a few rules cribbed from Pathfinder as house rules.

Which is fine, but if I'm understanding that correctly, let's not assume that that this playtest is proving something that it's actually not even addressing at all.

Quote from: NarfI have generally found harsh words to be detrimental to understanding.

Unless, of course, you both understand that harsh words is what you want, which seems rather silly to me.

I don't have any harsh words for Jackalope.  :confused:

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;255362Yeah, but honestly, this compatibility bit is important to me, too. I like what Paizo has done, but they aren't going to replace my entire library of cool stuff. It has to work together. If it doesn't, I'll be eking out my own solution instead.

Exactly my point.  I like it when someone else comes along and says what I'm trying to say in a nice way.  

Quote from: jeff37923;255408How can you claim there is a power disparity when the Pathfinder psionic rules haven't even come out? You are projecting this erronious claim of "power disparity" on something that doesn't exist yet.

Full stop.  See; right there, I already am not reading the rest of your post.  Because you've already ...again made this completely erroneous claim that I've said anything at all about Pathfinder psionics rules.  Even as you were quoting the part of my post where I clarified ...again that I was talking about the 3.5 psionics rules and using them as an example of where you have to use 3.5 rules to fill in a hole that doesn't yet exist in Pathfinder, and that there's a power disparity between Pathfinder core classes and 3.5 non-standard core classes.  You keep making this claim, over and over again, as justification to dismiss anything I say, even though I never made that claim.  You've completely pulled it out of your ass and have done so the entire run of this thread.

The unescapable conclusion is that you either 1) don't even want to have any discussion and are simply trolling in this thread, or are 2) literally dumber than an actual box of rocks.  I mean, you can't possibly be this obtuse unless you're doing it on purpose.

Quote from: Seanchai;255228If you've been reading this thread, you'll notice that some of us think you're full of shit.

So far, I haven't seen anyone say that I'm full of shit.

You, on the other hand, are so full of shit that surely your eyes must be brown.

QuoteAnd I don't have to convert nWoD mechanics to use them in a D&D game either.

:emot-fappery:

If you think that's true, then you're an idiot.  Unless I'm really misinformed and nWoD uses the D20 engine, then you have to do a LOT of conversion to run a nWoD adventure for D&D.  

QuoteIn which case you're not playing Pathfinder.

It seems to me that you're shifting the goalposts around to make it impossible to win.  

First you claim that Pathfinder isn't backwards compatible because you can't run 3.5 material in Pathfinder without onerous conversion.  Then when you're told it is possible to do this, you claim that I'm not really playing Pathfinder because I'm using 3.5 material in my game.

So if I play 100% Pathfinder, it's not backwards compatible, but if I use some amount of 3.5 material (and thus prove it is backwards compatible) then I'm not playing Pathfinder.

Again: :emot-fappery:

QuoteYou're saying, in effect, that if you have a Mac, a PC emulator, and a PC-only program running under that emulator, that the program is actually a Mac program. Or that the PC program is now magically able to run on a Mac. It's not. It's a PC program running under an emulator. It may run on a Mac with the help of an emulator, but that don't make it a Mac program.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I'm only saying that Pathfinder is backwards compatible, and that you can run 3.5 material in Pathfinder.  To use your very stupid analogy, I'm saying that you can run 3.5 software on a Pathfinder platform.  You would need to use an emulator (convertor) to run nWoD software on the Pathfinder platform, but you don't need any such software to run 3.5 on Pathfinder.

QuoteActually, I do have plenty of experience to back it up with. Decades, in fact. Just not with Pathfinder. But you don't need to have played Pathfinder to understand how it's not backwards compatible. General experience and general experience with RPG mechanics will show you that.

In other words, you're talking out your ass about things you have no experience with.

Brilliant.

I'm not keeping track of who's said what harsh words, but there's certainly been a lot slung about.

It's all rather silly. It's a game, you've probably never even met the other person and the sum total impact on your life even just next month will amount to less than the mosquito that my *Amazing Psychic Powers tell me will bite you in precisely thirty-one days.

* And if you buy that, hey, I've got this great bridge...

Quote from: Hobo;255417I already am not reading the rest of your post.  

Aww, come on. It's a hoot because I show the exact posts where you said the things you claim you haven't.

Quote from: Hobo;255346And now I'm a bit suspicious of how useful this Jackalope playtest is, since most of the characters he lists have classes that aren't in Pathfinder.  What exactly is being playtested?  The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder.  But maybe I'm not getting a very good picture of exactly what the parameters of this playtest run actually are.

Okay, first of all, you suck at math.  Four characters:   Pathfinder Fighter
Pathfinder Cleric
Pathfinder Rogue/WOTC Hexblade + Dragon addendum
Pathfinder Wizard/WOTC WarbladeOf the six classes represented, four are Pathfinder classes.  Thus, when you say that "most of the characters listed have classes that aren't in Pathfinder" you're confused.

I'm using an OGL 3.5 adventure.  I'm allowing players to use anything they want from the WOTC 3.5 splatbooks and Dragon magazine, just as I always do.  Anything in the 3.5 rules is superceded by anything in the Pathfinder rules.

Because again, the question I'm seeking to answer is "Can I switch to Pathfinder and still use my WOTC/OGL material?"

Now, you may call that " a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder," but I would point out that Pathfinder is 3.5 with a few houserules, so like Duh.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;255429I'm not keeping track of who's said what harsh words, but there's certainly been a lot slung about.

It's all rather silly.

I'd feel ashamed if I thought that I was unjustly pointing out where someone was wrong in his facts.

Oh, point out all the wrong facts you want. I just don't see the point in getting all that emotionally involved in it.

Not saying you are - Like I said, I'm not keeping track. But if you aren't, that post was probably not aimed at you, anyway.

Quote from: Jackalope;255436Okay, first of all, you suck at math.

No, I'm asking for clarification on a reference to a playtest that wasn't very clear.  I saw patently non-Pathfinder core classes in there, so I didn't know exactly what was being playtested.

That said, the rest of this post (which I'm not quoting) was exactly what I wanted to know, so thanks.

Quote from: JackalopeNow, you may call that " a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder," but I would point out that Pathfinder is 3.5 with a few houserules, so like Duh.

Yeah, you could fairly do that.

Then again, you could say the same thing of the d20 Star Wars game and True20 too, if you wanted to.  With a certain amount of fairness.

The question I was trying to get to the bottom of was the scope of the playtest was all.  Obviously you can use all this material side by side; but how well does it all work?

Quote from: jeff37923;255438I'd feel ashamed if I thought that I was unjustly pointing out where someone was wrong in his facts.

Oh, you would not.  I was willing to believe for a while that you were merely mistaken or stubbornly stupid, but now you're just flat out lying.  

And you're still a complete jackass.  You're trying dishonestly paint my statement that the power levels weren't compatible as something else.  Especially when you say that I "finally admit" that that was what I was getting at.  WTF?  That's what I said in the very post I made in the thread.  Finally admit, indeed.

You're a complete tool.

Quote from: Hobo;255447Oh, you would not.  I was willing to believe for a while that you were merely mistaken or stubbornly stupid, but now you're just flat out lying.  

And you're still a complete jackass.  You're trying dishonestly paint my statement that the power levels weren't compatible as something else.  Especially when you say that I "finally admit" that that was what I was getting at.  WTF?  That's what I said in the very post I made in the thread.  Finally admit, indeed.

You make me smile. The evidence is in the posts.

Quote from: Hobo;255447You're a complete tool.

Maybe so, but at least I can bother to read a book before discussing it.

Quote from: Jackalope;255415Yes, because despite Seanchi's amazing ability to spew bullshit, the games are extremely compatible.  

Newsflash for you: I'm not remotely the only one who thinks they're not compatible. I'm not even the only one on this site who thinks that, much less EnWorld and TBP. Attack me if you like, but that doesn't change matters...

Seanchai