Quote from: Seanchai;257321Not really.

It seems to me that the classes in 3.5 are all made out of the same building blocks. And the same number of them. It also seems to me that the classes in Pathfinder are made out of different types of building blocks - even when just considering itself - and more of them.

For example, no classes in 3.5 have point pools. Some classes in Pathfinder apparently do.

Two classes out of, what? Eight? core classes... never mind that those are two classes that are never listed as 'mandatory for a balanced party' but are rather sort of marginal optional replacements. Can't have a party without a fighter, but you can sub in a barbarian. No party NEEDS a bard, and most players I know would rather nobody brought a bard (except the guy that wants to play one...).   The other classes are made up of the same blocks. Fighters still get bonus feats, for example. Wizards still get spells...

QuoteIf you a take a class that wasn't build around the idea of point pools being in the game and throw it into a game where the classes - even those without pools - were balanced around the idea of point pools and...well...

Thats silly. Seriously.   The 'rage pool' is simply a way of looking at the length of time a barbarian can rage. Off the top of my head its even computed the same way at 1st level. The only changes (again, off the top of my head) is that since he's tapping a pool, he can chose to rage less time at once for more times a day, more usable, and he has access to class abilities that are fueled by the same points that reduce, obviously, the length of time he can rage.   So a barbarian without the pool  is just like a barbarian that just rages the same number of times a day and never taps his cool powers. THey get the same number of rounds, the same penalties.  I won't speak to the bard's pool because honestly I haven't read up on it. I reference Pathfinder as I need it, otherwise I'm just running 3.5 with a different book in my hands.

QuotePersonally, I could care less if NPCs use the same mechanics as PCs. But, up until 4e, that's basically been the case with D&D. Thus what's good for the goose (the NPCs) is also good for the gander (the PCs). And vice versa. If I'm playing a D&D game and I run up against a new Prestige class, I'm thinking I ought to be able to take that Prestige Class when I level next (provided I qualify).

Not really relevant to what I said per se, but then would you be telling me I never really ran 3.5 because I never really used the character creation rules to mock up 99% of my NPC's?  You are using a standard that is far and away more strict than I would consider normal, if so.

QuoteWhat I don't see is how that would work if Pathfinder's mechanics are meant to replace 3.5, such as is the case with the Barbarian class and it's Rage mechanic. Could a character be a Barbarian 5/Barbarian 2? Or take a 3.5 Feat that's intentionally not available in Pathfinder? Or take a new Pathfinder Feat that breaks a 3.5 class or Prestige Class? How would that work? Why would you want that as someone interested in the integrity of the game?  

Again, a clear reading of the P-Barbarian class shows that this is unnecessary. Rage Pool points are computed essentially Identically (at first level) to the length of time a 3.5-Barbarian can rage, plus he gets the ability to use a 'rage power' instead of just raging.  Its a more flexible version of the same class, but functionally identical in every other respect.  A P-Barbarian gets the same benefits and penalties for raging, rages for roughly the same number of rounds, he just has a bit more control (unimportant for NPC's...) and access to class abilities that reduce his total 'rage time'.  

The prestige classes gets interesting: There are none in the beta playtest, and with the changes to the skill system you obviously have to apply a minimal amount of thought to conversions. If a Prestige class requires, say, Spot, you'll have to cross that off and write in 'perception', then you have to think 'hey! Pathfinder gives out fewer skill points, so do I count the 'class skill' bonus as ranks?'...  Oooh! Hard work!

QuoteSo, absolutely, part of my argument centers around them being the same name. But that's just the surface of the argument.
Seanchai

Again, I think you are applying a ridiculous level of strictness on naming conventions and you do appear to be operating from a lack of familiarity with the Pathfinder rules.  

Normally I like reading your posts and enjoy your arguements, but you've backed me into Jackalope's corner with what appears to be obstinent grognardiness and frankly silly arguments (seriously: WOD in 3.5 D&D being the same as Pathfinder in D&D?  Who are you trying to convince, a down syndrome three year old?)

Quote from: Jackalope;257335You seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I'm talking about.

Yes, I just realized we are coming at it from opposite angles. I am going to argue it does not impact the overall argument, but let`s see.

Quote from: Jackalope;257335I am NOT suggesting that you can take a Pathfinder core class and use it in a 3.5 game.  That would be a massive power jump.  I am not suggesting that Pathfinder material can be used in previous editions.  If that is what people mean by backwards compatible, then that's a very different thing.

You have lost me there. The notion of compatibility is symmetric: two things are compatible with one another, there is no such thing as A being compatible with B but B not being compatible with A. Now I am saying plucking Pathfinder classes into my 3.5 game (mind you, a game not using ToB) would hurt it, you agree. You then say that plucking 3.5 classes into your Pathfinder game won`t hurt it and hasn`t hurt it.

Quote from: Spike;257336Windjammer:
Consider that Jason has a vested interest in getting people to convert more in that it keeps them buying product. The Beta book cost money.

You know, I have been drinking so much of that "oh no, Paizo is all doing it for their fans, whereas WotC is doing it all for the bling bling!" that I have missed this really, really obvious point (and I mean no sarcasm here, for a change): they`re just replicating WotC marketing a propos 3.5. Introducing changes for the sake of changes which, once they add up, make for planned obsolescence. Which reminds me of this:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In particular (beware: light cosmetic touches in place),

Quote from: Monte CookYou see, while some of the changes are merely revisions, many are also completely different rules. Despite what Paizo has said, there are conversion issues between 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG (your half-orc barbarian is going to be a fairly different character in PF-RPG). Many of the changes, some of them even good ones, are ones I would never have allowed in a "revision," but only in a new edition.

Allow me to clarify. If I were in charge of the world (or at least D&D), I'd make sure that in a revision, there were no actual rules changes that could retroactively alter a character or a campaign. Changing the price of magic item, clarifying an unclear rules, even adding a new piece of equipment or tweaking a spell is not going to significantly alter anyone's character or campaign. But if I'm running a 3.5 game (which I am) and was going to switch over completely to Pathfinder RPG (which I'm not), I'd have to deal with all kinds of changes to the game. Suddenly it costs a lot more to bring someone back from the dead. Suddenly dwarven armor is made of adamantite rather than mithral. Suddenly devas are called angels. Suddenly half-elves are the best diplomats in the game. And so on. You might see some or all of these things as good changes -- some of them are. But in my definition of a revision, they just shouldn't be part of these books. This is 4th Edition material. I shouldn't have to change my campaign just because Paizo needed cash.

Quote from: Windjammer;257345Yes, I just realized we are coming at it from opposite angles. I am going to argue it does not impact the overall argument, but let`s see.

Well, okay, but you and I fundamentally disagree with what "backwards compatible" means.  I assume only that previous material may be used with the new edition, not the other way around.

QuoteYou have lost me there. The notion of compatibility is symmetric: two things are compatible with one another, there is no such thing as A being compatible with B but B not being compatible with A.

Sure there is.  Programs that run under Windows XP run under Windows Vista, because Windows Vista is compatible with Windows XP, but Vista programs won't run on XP, because XP is not compatible with Vista.

QuoteNow I am saying plucking Pathfinder classes into my 3.5 game (mind you, a game not using ToB) would hurt it, you agree. You then say that plucking 3.5 classes into your Pathfinder game won`t hurt it and hasn`t hurt it.

Yeah, though I'm specifically talking about using a 3.5 class for an NPC, whereas you're talking about using 3.5 classes for PCs.

I wouldn't let a player create a new Barbarian for my campaign that used the 3.5 barbarian rules.  Though I wouldn't let them do this because it's contra to the purposes of the campaign (to playtest Pathfinder), not because they'd be weaker comparatively.  I would just recommend against it because of the comparative differences.

But those differences really only play out over time.  You can't really notice the difference between a 3.5 Barbarian and P-Barbarian over the course of a few combat rounds.  Over the course of a few combats, the P-Barbarians more efficient allotment of Rage would have a noticeable effect.

That's why you can run a 3.5 barbarian NPC has a combat encounter in Pathfinder without meaningful conversion (those orc barbarians I mentioned required literally zero conversion) and without causing any harm to the game.

Quote from: Seanchai;257333Oh, snap! You are playing Pathfinder, though, aren't you?

No, I am not. I am using the Beta as a supplement (mostly, as a DMsupplement). Jackalope is using it as his new core rulebook. Compared to him I am not playing Pathfinder at all. As regards that, he has got a valid point: there is a difference to where we are coming from when we approach the Beta.

The fact remains that, if Jackalope is correct, this very difference should not matter. And yet it does. There is a reason why I don't pluck the new classes into my game.

Quote from: JackalopeYeah, though I'm specifically talking about using a 3.5 class for an NPC, whereas you're talking about using 3.5 classes for PCs.

You know what's been really funny? Just as I use the monster table on page 294 (Table 12-6) to run combat on the fly using no other monster resource, I have resolved to use the new core classes when designing villain NPCs. I mean, not all my players have read the Beta carefully - they won't know what hit them!

Huh.  I have to admit, I think Monte Cook is completely full of it.

1. I always thought Dwarven armor was made of admantium, and that Elven chain was the one made from mithril.  I can't imagine this change is really going to affect all that many campaigns.  It's certainly not along the lines of "Now Dwarves live on the surface and are Aztecs."  I'm not even sure where he's getting this from.

2. Half-Elves were the best diplomats as of 3.5's Races of the Wild, or at least that's what all the half-elf specific feats would lead you to believe.  The new half-elf only buils naturally on those ideas, and is actually an effective character race.  I haven't seen anyone play a half-elf since 2E, and in 2E it seemed like every third character was a half-elf.  So I definitely think the half-elf needed repair.

3. If changes in the price of magical items don't matter, I don't see why changes in the cost of Raise Dead matter.

4. The change from Devas to Angels is literally a name change.  It's entirely meaningless, and can't possibly alter your campaign in any meaningful way (and hell, its not like you can't just keep calling them Devas if you like).  I've called them angels for decades, and always assumed they were called Devas to avoid offending certain types of people.

Hey Windjammer, where did Monte Cook post that?

By the way, I still think the Pathfinder RPG is going to end up being ass-tastic but that does not diminish my love of Paizo's APs or Golarian. In fact, I am going to keep buying PF products for the fluff and just use 3.5E, Fantasy HERO, or even 4E.

Quote from: Jackalope;257354Well, okay, but you and I fundamentally disagree with what "backwards compatible" means.  I assume only that previous material may be used with the new edition, not the other way around.

You know, that is easily the most important point I have taken away from this discussion so far. I may totally misunderstand what Jason is after when he is talking about backwards compatibility. Maybe what I am after is (for want of a better term) "foreward compatibility" - I would like to buy Paizo adventure modules and run them (mostly) with my ruleset as is. but Paizo apparently wants me to buy both the modules and the ruleset. And frankly, no, if I buy the ruleset I am not sure I can "use previous material with the new edition" with the current ease, but let's not open that can of worms again.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;257361Hey Windjammer, where did Monte Cook post that?

Man, it's a fake. As I said in that post, "beware: light cosmetic touches in place". For the real thing you got to go to his webpage which I linked already:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In the original post, Monte isn't talking about Paizo, he is talking about WotC switching from 3.0 to 3.5. My point was that we're seeing it all again - in fact, Paizo has said so repeatedly - but that includes the very elements Monte mentions in that review.

Quote from: Windjammer;257364Man, it's a fake. As I said in that post, "beware: light cosmetic touches in place". For the real thing you got to go to his webpage which I linked already:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In the original post, Monte isn't talking about Paizo, he is talking about WotC switching from 3.0 to 3.5. My point was that we're seeing it all again - in fact, Paizo has said so repeatedly - but that includes the very elements Monte mentions in that review.

Ah, I see what you did. Hilarious. I wonder if he would say the same thing now.

Actually, once again I am forced to admit that Jackalope seems to be saying what I agree with in his review of Monte Cook's commentary, regardless of if it was 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Apparently the bar for allowable changes must be low enough that no one would actually consider paying money for the new rule-set... in other words an errata, nothing more.

Quote from: Spike;257373Apparently the bar for allowable changes must be low enough that no one would actually consider paying money for the new rule-set... in other words an errata, nothing more.

Yeah, so far I have heard Paizo staff only say that they do the Pathfinder RPG for the love of the hobby. Without keeping the 3.5/OLG core rulebooks in print, our beloved edition will die, since it won`t draw new gamers into the hobby or into this edition in particular. Paizo has also explicitly said they want to draw new customers into the range of their core product, the Adventure Path Modules, and to do that they have to keep the 3.5/OGL or a lightly revised version of that in print. For prospective new customers, you see.

But I haven`t heard Paizo ever say: "yes, we want to render the core books of extant Paizo customers obsolete." And yet you seem to think that they should say that. Because plainly, anything that goes beyond errata has precisely that (intended) effect. In fact, the longer this thread grows the more I grow convinced that Paizo hasn`t been as straightforward in their marketing of this product as I was led to believe. My main beef with Paizo isn`t so much which design decisions they take with their new ruleset, as with an increasingly disingenuous marketing strategy - the very type of marketing strategy 3.5 costumers have learnt to hate with a passion during 4E`s promotion, I might add, not to mention the outcry when 3.5 was released (yep, Monte sums that up pretty well).

Can we agree that with regard to my quoted sentences in this post, (a) these are two different things Paizo can say and (b) that to date they have not said the second of these things but instead done as much as possible to cast themselves as 3.5`s savior and not just as its inheritor?

I don't think the one thing invalidates the other. They may have a sincere intent to do A, but they wish to make a good profit so they do B as a means of accomplishing A, ya follow?

And I expect even babies to grasp that businesses are not in the business of presenting their plans in the worst possible light, thus must be lying if their advertising is not so...

Quote from: Windjammer;257382Yeah, so far I have heard Paizo staff only say that they do the Pathfinder RPG for the love of the hobby. Without keeping the 3.5/OLG core rulebooks in print, our beloved edition will die, since it won`t draw new gamers into the hobby or into this edition in particular. Paizo has also explicitly said they want to draw new customers into the range of their core product, the Adventure Path Modules, and to do that they have to keep the 3.5/OGL or a lightly revised version of that in print. For prospective new customers, you see.

But I haven`t heard Paizo ever say: "yes, we want to render the core books of extant Paizo customers obsolete." And yet you seem to think that they should say that.

Heh.  That's because the head of Paizo is Erik Mona, and Erik Mona's background is in public relations.  They have said something to the effect of 'We want the changes in Pathfinder to be noticeable and meaningful enough to justify the purchase to people who already have the 3.5 core books.'  which is a very polite way of saying they want to sell 3.5 D&D players a new set of core books.

It's like I was saying to one of my players last session;  Erik Mona is a genius.  He's sold me an unfinished book to replace a finished book I was quite happy with, and intends to sell me the finished book in a year.  And I'm going to buy it, and I'm actually happy and excited about that.  Which, viewed from a certain angle, makes me look like quite the sucker.

It's a real lesson in the importance of good public relations for a company.  I could be playing 4E right now, but WOTC just did about everything they could to say "Fuck you, you're not welcome, we don't want you or need you."  And this is a company I used to consider the savior of D&D.  They spend good will like George Bush.

Whereas Paizo is selling a shitload of unfinished books that you can get for free to people who don't need them with the promise to sell them the finished book in a year for twice the price.  And people are going crazy over it!  The Beta -- again, a book you can download for free, and will be invalid in a year -- is going into it's second printing.  And they're doing that primarily on the power of making gamers feel involved in the process, excited about the game again, and tapping in to a vast resevoir of antipathy towards 4E but excitement over the idea of a new edition.

QuoteBecause plainly, anything that goes beyond errata has precisely that (intended) effect. In fact, the longer this thread grows the more I grow convinced that Paizo hasn`t been as straightforward in their marketing of this product as I was led to believe. My main beef with Paizo isn`t so much which design decisions they take with their new ruleset, as with an increasingly disingenuous marketing strategy - the very type of marketing strategy 3.5 costumers have learnt to hate with a passion during 4E`s promotion, I might add, not to mention the outcry when 3.5 was released (yep, Monte sums that up pretty well).

I kind of have to disagree with you here.

Is the marketing campaign for Pathfinder disingenuous?  Possibly (though I don't think it is).  It's very carefully spun, as you would expect from a company lead by someone with a background in PR.  What they do say is very strategic, and what they don't say is rather illuminating.

But whatever it is, it's not the same as WOTCs campaign for 4E.  

WOTC's campaign for 4E was very secretive, very closed off to the gaming public, and came off as very corporate and manufactured.  The actual designers were sequestered away from the public, WOTC flat out lied about their plans, and the changes they made were drastic and extreme.  Then to top it off, they went out of their way to spit on long time fans -- their decision to mock 1E on April Fool's Day was a really bad idea, a very poor read of their audience --

QuoteCan we agree that with regard to my quoted sentences in this post, (a) these are two different things Paizo can say and (b) that to date they have not said the second of these things but instead done as much as possible to cast themselves as 3.5`s savior and not just as its inheritor?

It'd be kind of dumb of them to say that second thing though.  I mean, it may be true -- clearly it's true! -- but actually saying it is pretty cynical.

Oh, I see. It's really bad for WotC to rile us up lying through their teeth. But Mr Mona and company are free to do so because they can do it really, really well.