Quote from: Windjammer;257505Oh, 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.

Okay, "lying through your teeth" is very strong language.  And honestly, I don't know if it's fair to accuse either WOTC or Paizo of that.  Can you cite some examples of the "lies" that WOTC promoted?  Because it wasn't the lying that riled me up, it was the pissing all over 30 years of tradition, and pissing all over 3.0's greatest contribution to gaming: the OGL and 3PP.

Also, that was a really unfair summation of my argument.  You don't "see" what I was saying from where I'm sitting.  I mean really windjammer, this conversation with you has been pretty reasonable so far, far more so than the one with Seanchai.  Please, don't go off the deep end of internet fuckwittery by pulling this "Oh I see, you're saying insert complete strawman here." crap.

I didn't say that it was okay for Paizo to lie to their audience -- remember, I haven't agreed with you that they have been disingenuous -- I said that Paizo was showing WOTC how you sell a new edition for a game and get people excited about it, rather than making them feel abandoned and unwanted.

Quote from: Jackalope;257334You don't have to ignore the micro mechanics.  That doesn't make any sense.

You said the macro-mechanics don't require conversion but the micro-mechanics do, but that the games are still compatible. That might be true if you ignore some of the micro-mechanics (some because I'm sure some of the stayed the same from 3.5 to Pathfinder). Of course, the micro-mechanics form the bulk of the game.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;257335If that is what people mean by backwards compatible, then that's a very different thing.

I'm trying to be nice, but do you just not fucking speak English?

Quote from: Jackalope;257335So he's got quite the challenge ahead of him: Proving it doesn't work to someone who has done it, and seen it work.

Except you haven't seen what you think you've seen.

Seanchai

Quote from: Spike;257342Two classes out of, what? Eight?

It sounds like all the classes changed in some way. But whether it's a class, Feat, skill, spell, or whatever

Quote from: Spike;257342Thats silly. Seriously.

Not at all. It's like using regular D&D classes in a Midnight game. They're built differently, use different power levels, etc..
 

Quote from: Spike;257342Not 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?  

No, you're saying it.

Quote from: Spike;257342If 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!

It might be. It might not be. Regardless, it's work that some are saying is unnecessary.

Quote from: Spike;257342Again, 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.  

I don't care about naming conventions. As you say above, Pathfinder gives out fewer skill points and has different skills. That changes core assumptions made about every 3.5 PC, NPC, and monster. So, yeah, if you want to bring any of those into a Pathfinder game and not hand wave conversion issues, you've got a lot of work to do. Why anyone would say that's completely or almost completely compatible - especially when that's just one conversion issue - is beyond me.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;257356No, I am not. I am using the Beta as a supplement (mostly, as a DMsupplement). Jackalope is using it as his new core rulebook.

Either way, you've read the rules and are putting at least some of them into play.

Seanchai

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.

The point to consider is this: What's the bar for allowable changes after you claim your product is backwards compatible? What's the bar for allowable changes when you claim one of the selling points of your product is backwards compatibility?

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;257382In 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.

Personally, I'm not so sure it's an issue of straightforwardness as much as it is dumbness. It's dumb to tell a whole bunch of people that your product is going to be backwards compatible when you know it is.

As I said up thread, personally, I think they should ditch this aspect of the product and it's marketing and just let it stand on it's own two feet...

Quote from: Windjammer;257505Oh, 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.

That's par for the course though. If WotC uses non-compete clauses, it's terrible. Inhumane. Never mind that other RPG companies likely do the same or worse.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;257889The point to consider is this: What's the bar for allowable changes after you claim your product is backwards compatible? What's the bar for allowable changes when you claim one of the selling points of your product is backwards compatibility?

Seanchai

I view it, being the game, as modular.  Swap out the module labeled 'characters' with the other charaters module and it works exactly the same.  Swap out the smaller module of 'grappling rules' and the game plays the same except that now grappling is easier.

Sure, the modules aren't 100% compatable with each other, but the system works the same with either the original part or the new part. Thus the parts in Pathfinder are, in essence, compatable with the system of 3.5 D&D.

Pathfinder is analogous to buying an aftermarket muffler for your car, or brembo brakes, or or or...

Quote from: Jackalope;257789Also, that was a really unfair summation of my argument.  You don't "see" what I was saying from where I'm sitting.  I mean really windjammer, this conversation with you has been pretty reasonable so far, far more so than the one with Seanchai.  Please, don't go off the deep end of internet fuckwittery by pulling this "Oh I see, you're saying insert complete strawman here." crap.

I didn`t say "Oh I see, you are saying p". I said "Oh, I see. p" Where, in the case at hand, p was my reaction to a situation you described, not a description of what you took yourself to be saying. To be honest, I am surprised you took it that way and resorted to the term "fuckwittery" to describe what you took my post leaning towards.

Anyway. I totally understand you don`t like the language I used when reacting to something you described. Still, it's perhaps more helpful to focus on the issue of why I used that language in the first place. I basically said "Paizo should have been more upfront in announcing their decision to make 3.5 rulebooks obsolete. They announced the complete opposite, so that is disingenuous." To which you replied, saying "It is true that Paizo effectively want to render 3.5 core obsolete. But them saying it would be cynical on their part." (I sincerely hope you regard these quotations as faithfully representing what we said up thread.)

I should have asked that the first time round: why is it cynical to say something that is true if (perhaps) not favorable for one`s own case? Isn`t that honest or (to use another word I used in this post) just upfront? It may be naive to do that in a marketing context, but cynical? Aren`t you just groping for a way to make it excusable from a non-marketing point of view that Paizo aren`t outspoken about this? Maybe you are not, but my impression is you could be.

However, my beef is not so much with what Paizo didn`t say. Not saying something is just unhelpful towards those who might wish to be in the know about this (here: extant 3.5 customers of Paizo). But it`s not disingenuous yet. It starts to get disingenuous when a company puts all its marketing weight on the flat contradiction of what it actually intends to do. Okay, you don`t like my description of that act "lying through one's teeth", but let us first settle whether we can agree on the factual basis to which I attach that description. Mona has effectively not just slipped every opportunity to say he`s rendering 3.5 obsolete, he has effectively used as much marketing weight as possible to say the complete opposite. I can`t find the initial press release on Paizo.com, but thank heaven it`s the internet where every inch is preserved. So here we go. True to my rhetoric leanings, I cut and emphasize (no cosmetic touches this time, honest!).

Quote from: Paizo Press ReleasePaizo press release follows:

Paizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG™

Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.

Observe the heading. That`s the news break. Fair statement, isn`t it?
Onto the text.

Quote from: Paizo Press ReleaseMarch 18, 2008 (BELLEVUE, Wash.) – Paizo Publishing today unveiled the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that will serve as the anchor for the company’s popular line of Pathfinder adventures, sourcebooks, and campaigns. Today marks the beginning of a year-long open playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License. The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library.

That last line was a deliberate pointer to the 4E marketing campaign, in its full wake at the time (what with edition flame wars reaching their peak).

I remember the orgasms Paizo fans had upon press release. "Hurray, we're staying with 3.5. Paizo is the true heir to the throne!!!" When a couple of people on Enworld pointed out how that's not a triumph for 3.5 but for Paizo's own new game, they got booed down as 4E fanboys who just wanted to score another cheap point in the edition wars. In fact, the people weren`t so much 4E fanboys as 3.5 fanboys and included people like myself. Incidentally, it`s the same people who are put in a tight spot now and feel pressurized to avow again and again to like Paizo and value their products even though they are not going along with Paizo`s marketing and design decisions. Because obviously - I mean, obviously - disliking a company`s design and marketing decisions means you hate them to the bone and want them to die!!! While I get carried away, it`s worth pointing out just how much of 4E the release of Pathfinder replicates, because it isn`t just the company, it`s the fans too.

Back to topic. You see, Paizo capitalized big time on the edition wars which WotC marketing helped to unleash in the first place. It was all about mocking 3.5 or defending it, and the Paizo press release really left not a shred of doubt where they were on that issue. They would continue under 3.5.

I call that disingenuous. If I am riled up as a fan of 3.5 that the company owing the D&D brand effectively renders my 3.5 core books obsolete, how can I not get riled up about another company doing the same? Because that other company does it with grace and charm, you say. In my book, however, grace and charm do not impact the issue of whether someone is disingenuous or not. What is more, Pathfinder RPG is effectively rendering nearly my entire 3.5 library obsolete (ToB, I never owned you, but you can stay), and here is the press release saying the complete opposite. So either Mona doesn`t know what he is saying or he`s lying. Maybe it was uncharitable of me to assume he`s lying. But I just don`t doubt his competence.

Edit. I forgot to mention the source of the press release. It`s from a neutral site which just reported it. Observe the very title of the webpage, will you? "Paizu using pathfinder rpg to stick with 3.5." That was the news break. Paizo bending backwards to keep 3.5 in print.

http://ogrecave.com/2008/03/18/paizo-using-pathfinder-rpg-to-stick-with-35/

Quote from: Seanchai;257862You said the macro-mechanics don't require conversion but the micro-mechanics do, but that the games are still compatible. That might be true if you ignore some of the micro-mechanics (some because I'm sure some of the stayed the same from 3.5 to Pathfinder). Of course, the micro-mechanics form the bulk of the game.

Actually, I didn't say that micro-mechanics need conversion, with the exception of Grapple to CMB.  So far that is the only consistent conversion I've found one has to make to use 3.5 adventures with Pathfinder, and even that only comes into play when the creature is large+ or small-, or has Improved Grapple.  It's also simple enough to do on the fly, so it doesn't add anything to the prep time.

QuotePersonally, I'm not so sure it's an issue of straightforwardness as much as it is dumbness. It's dumb to tell a whole bunch of people that your product is going to be backwards compatible when you know it isn't.

As I said up thread, personally, I think they should ditch this aspect of the product and it's marketing and just let it stand on it's own two feet...

I'll do you a favor and assume you meant isn't, not is.

Here's what I think:  Paizo has claimed Pathfinder will be backwards compatible.  They have made it fairly clear that by "backwards compatible" they mean "3.5 collections will not be made obsolete by this game."

I would say that claim is very true.  I would agree with anyone who claimed that Pathfinder is not 100% perfectly backwards compatible.  There are some elements in Pathfinder that make previous feats, talents and special abilities superfluous.  A few elements do require conversion -- Grapple, skills (though in actual play, I have found no need to actually convert skills at all).  If one wants to keep power levels accurate, one has to essentially add the Pathfinder template to any creature, but you can alternately just knock it's CR down by one an it's the same effect.

I'd say it's somewhere between 90% and 95% compatible without conversion, about 4% to 9% compatible with minimal conversion, with about 1% made completely obsolete by Pathfinder.

And that's pretty excellent in my opinion.  That means that the 2/3rds of my DCCs that I have yet to run are still viable.  That means the two dozen WOTC splatbooks I own don't need to go into storage because they are still useful.

I don't see why Paizo shouldn't market their game as a new edition that won't make your existing collection obsolete.  That's exactly wat it is, especially when viewed in light of 4E, which does make old collections -- even the fluff! -- obsolete.

Quote from: Windjammer;257911I didn`t say "Oh I see, you are saying p". I said "Oh, I see. p" Where, in the case at hand, p was my reaction to a situation you described, not a description of what you took yourself to be saying. To be honest, I am surprised you took it that way and resorted to the term "fuckwittery" to describe what you took my post leaning towards.

Apologies.  I'm starting to see Seanchai's comments in everything.  He got my dander up.

QuoteAnyway. I totally understand you don`t like the language I used when reacting to something you described. Still, it's perhaps more helpful to focus on the issue of why I used that language in the first place. I basically said "Paizo should have been more upfront in announcing their decision to make 3.5 rulebooks obsolete. They announced the complete opposite, so that is disingenuous." To which you replied, saying "It is true that Paizo effectively want to render 3.5 core obsolete. But them saying it would be cynical on their part." (I sincerely hope you regard these quotations as faithfully representing what we said up thread.)

Yeah, that's a fair assesment.

QuoteI should have asked that the first time round: why is it cynical to say something that is true if (perhaps) not favorable for one`s own case? Isn`t that honest or (to use another word I used in this post) just upfront? It may be naive to do that in a marketing context, but cynical? Aren`t you just groping for a way to make it excusable from a non-marketing point of view that Paizo aren`t outspoken about this? Maybe you are not, but my impression is you could be.

Telling your customers that you see them only as a market to be fleeced -- even if that's what they are, from a certain cynical perspective -- is like spitting in those customers face.  It's not just bad marketing, it's fundamentally stupid marketing.

QuoteHowever, my beef is not so much with what Paizo didn`t say. Not saying something is just unhelpful towards those who might wish to be in the know about this (here: extant 3.5 customers of Paizo). But it`s not disingenuous yet. It starts to get disingenuous when a company puts all its marketing weight on the flat contradiction of what it actually intends to do. Okay, you don`t like my description of that act "lying through one's teeth", but let us first settle whether we can agree on the factual basis to which I attach that description. Mona has effectively not just slipped every opportunity to say he`s rendering 3.5 obsolete, he has effectively used as much marketing weight as possible to say the complete opposite. I can`t find the initial press release on Paizo.com, but thank heaven it`s the internet where every inch is preserved. So here we go. True to my rhetoric leanings, I cut and emphasize (no cosmetic touches this time, honest!).    Paizo press release follows:

Paizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG™

Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.Observe the heading. That`s the news break. Fair statement, isn`t it?
Onto the text.   March 18, 2008 (BELLEVUE, Wash.) – Paizo Publishing today unveiled the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that will serve as the anchor for the company’s popular line of Pathfinder adventures, sourcebooks, and campaigns. Today marks the beginning of a year-long open playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License. The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library. That last line was a deliberate pointer to the 4E marketing campaign, in its full wake at the time (what with edition flame wars reaching their peak).

Just for future reference, it's better to indent quotes like that, so they don't disappear when I respond.  

I think you have fundamentally misread what paizo is saying, which is understandable.  A lot of people get confused this way.  Pathfinder and Pathfinder RPG aren't the same thing.  When that press release says "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." they are referring to Pathfinder the periodical/book/heir to Dungeon magazine.  They are referring to that set of books sold under the title "Pathfinder" that starts with Pathfinder #1: Rise of the Runelords and is currently on Pathfinder #13.  That book will continue to under the 3.5 rules until the release of the final version of the Pathfinder RPG, after which point it will switch to the Pathfinder RPG.

So, that's not a lie.  That's just you misreading a press release.

QuoteI call that disingenuous. If I am riled up as a fan of 3.5 that the company owing the D&D brand effectively renders my 3.5 core books obsolete, how can I not get riled up about another company doing the same? Because that other company does it with grace and charm, you say. In my book, however, grace and charm do not impact the issue of whether someone is disingenuous or not. What is more, Pathfinder RPG is effectively rendering nearly my entire 3.5 library obsolete (ToB, I never owned you, but you can stay), and here is the press release saying the complete opposite. So either Mona doesn`t know what he is saying or he`s lying. Maybe it was uncharitable of me to assume he`s lying. But I just don`t doubt his competence.

Well, he isn't lying, because he wasn't saying what you thought.

But I would also argue that it's quite ridiculous to claim that "Pathfinder RPG is effectively rendering nearly [your] entire 3.5 library obsolete."  It is, at best, rendering 1% or so of your collection obsolete.  I mean, you can still use 99% of the feats, spells, subsystems, and monsters in Pathfinder, many of those with absolutely no conversion at all.

I look at it this way:  I own Complete Scoundrel.  The best things in that book are the Ambush Feats and the Skill Tricks.  Both are still completely usable under Pathfinder.  The Ambush feats require no conversion at all, the Skill Tricks take minimal conversion (mostly altering the pre-reqs).

Complete Arcane's best feature is the Reserve Feats.  Still entirely usable in Pathfinder, with zero modification.  Tome of Battle is still completely usuable, and no longer disgustingly unbalanced.  The Taint system from Heroes of Horror is usable with no modification.

Now, some people are going to say I'm weaseling around by arguing this, but I'd also claim the monsters in the monster manuals are completely usuable with no conversion if you understand 3.5.  Like I don't need to convert the skills of monsters to Pathfinder's skill to use them, because I know 3.5 well enough to have monsters use whatever skill system they are published under.  So I sure don't feel my monster manuals have been invalidated, which is great since I own like 15 of the damn things (if you count OGL books like Tome of Horrors and the Penumbra Bestiary).  Of course, I use 3.0 monsters with zero modification, so maybe I just play fast and loose.

The only books that Pathfinder seems to make obsolete are the PHB and DMG.

Quote from: Jackalope;257964I think you have fundamentally misread what paizo is saying, which is understandable.  A lot of people get confused this way.  Pathfinder and Pathfinder RPG aren't the same thing.  When that press release says "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." they are referring to Pathfinder the periodical/book/heir to Dungeon magazine.

That`s a really interesting take on the press release and I`m surprised it never came up on EnWorld back in March (or is my memory just too selective?). I remain unsure whether I was mistaken, though. The press release coincided with Paizo branding ALL its products to "Pathfinder™", the Gamemastery Modules being a case in point. Recently they even renamed the Players Guides (for the very Adventure Paths) into "Pathfinder™ Companions", not to mention the "Pathfinder™ Chronicles" line. I wouldn`t bet any money on it, but I am not convinced that, at the time of the press release, it didn`t cover all the products thus trademarked. And the announced ruleset quite obviously carries the trademark too. And while it's ludicrous to say a formerly non-extant product such as the Beta "continues under 3.5", it's a legitimate claim to say that the brand, as such (meaning the entire product range), continues under 3.5.

Quote from: Jackalope;257964But I would also argue that it's quite ridiculous to claim that "Pathfinder RPG is effectively rendering nearly [your] entire 3.5 library obsolete."  It is, at best, rendering 1% or so of your collection obsolete.  I mean, you can still use 99% of the feats, spells, subsystems, and monsters in Pathfinder, many of those with absolutely no conversion at all.

Ok, it`s nice to talk to someone about this who is bringing up examples of favoured mechanics which I largely share. Take Complete Scoundrel. One of my favorite prestige classes was, and is, the master of masks. It actually had a roleplaying prerequisite, namely to successfully dupe people into mistaking you for a close friend/well known ally of theirs. You could take a skill trick to negate the penalty on disguise checks when people know the person you impersonate really well. So that`s just one instance of how extant crunch interrelates. I just checked the Disguise Skill entry in the Beta and, hey, the DC penalties have not changed. So the particular instance doesn`t break down.

However, there is a problem still. I cited but one instance of WotC crunch interlocking in the nuts and bolts. WotC crunch is like a huge beasty of interlocking clockwork wheels, so if you alter one bit, the repercussions for the rest of the machine are vast. Say, I did the impossible and used the Beta as a rulebook on my 3.5 gaming table. We realized that a couple of spells had become more powerful (e.g. flaming sphere doing 3d6 instead fo 2d6 damage now). That sounds harmless, doesn't it? But wait until all the little differences add up, and you will find the old synergies of game mechanical elements don't chime the way they used to. (I'd go as far and say that the designers of the splatbooks weren't maximally aware of this. A good deal of broken mechanics in 3.5 splatbooks had little do with individual feats etc. taken on their own, but with the potential to create unintended combos with yet other splatbooks which really broke the game.)

And, there is of course only one way to find out. To check it case by case as it turns up in the game. That was another of Monte's points in the posting I linked. The switch from 3.0 to 3.5 brought most games to a complete halt, because people no longer knew which bits remained the same and which didn't. It's not that we read up stuff beforehand point by point. It's rather that we trade on familiarity with the game until someone says, "nope, they changed that bit". And which bits were these? The bits where smaller bits start to interact (read up Monte's post, he gives pretty good examples).

I am aware that none of the points I made impinge on compatibility (or lack thereof) in any major way. But I did feel you were cheating by claiming the subsystems in the Complete books could be taken over by Beta. Of course they can, just as I can take over stuff from Iron Heroes into my 3.5 game. Man, I love Iron Heroes stunts. But it took some time to realize the stunt system was designed to be run in a game where PCs had little leverage to boost their skills by magical means. By contrast, PCs up to their necks in potions of Cat's grace and donning winged leather boots can run havoc with the stunt system and its DCs. You see? Mechanical synergies mess up cross-game imports, it's not the "ok, let's look at this case by case".

Edit. While I am waffling away with my own examples, here's a pretty good one coming directly from the Beta:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/design/ability/powerCreepInPathfinderThe222AbilityScorePowerBoost&page=3#737482

Quote from: Jackalope;257964I think you have fundamentally misread what paizo is saying, which is understandable.  A lot of people get confused this way.  Pathfinder and Pathfinder RPG aren't the same thing.  When that press release says "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." they are referring to Pathfinder the periodical/book/heir to Dungeon magazine.  They are referring to that set of books sold under the title "Pathfinder" that starts with Pathfinder #1: Rise of the Runelords and is currently on Pathfinder #13.  That book will continue to under the 3.5 rules until the release of the final version of the Pathfinder RPG, after which point it will switch to the Pathfinder RPG.

So, that's not a lie.  That's just you misreading a press release.

The press release is:
   March 18, 2008 (BELLEVUE, Wash.) – Paizo Publishing today unveiled the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, a tabletop fantasy roleplaying game that will serve as the anchor for the company's popular line of Pathfinder adventures, sourcebooks, and campaigns. Today marks the beginning of a year-long open playtest of the new rules, which are based upon the popular 3.5 rules available under the Open Game License. The Pathfinder RPG is designed with backward compatibility as one of its primary goals, so players will continue to enjoy their lifelong fantasy gaming hobby without invalidating their entire game library.

How can one argue that the press release is not in reference to the Pathfinder RPG?

Quote from: Windjammer;257990That`s a really interesting take on the press release and I`m surprised it never came up on EnWorld back in March (or is my memory just too selective?). I remain unsure whether I was mistaken, though. The press release coincided with Paizo branding ALL its products to "Pathfinder™", the Gamemastery Modules being a case in point. Recently they even renamed the Players Guides (for the very Adventure Paths) into "Pathfinder™ Companions", not to mention the "Pathfinder™ Chronicles" line. I wouldn`t bet any money on it, but I am not convinced that, at the time of the press release, it covered all the products thus trademarked. And the announced ruleset quite obviously carries the trademark too. And while it's ludicrous to say a formerly non-extant product "continues under 3.5", it's a legitimate claim to say that the brand, as such (meaning the entire product range), continues under 3.5

Sure, like I said, it's confusing.  I think they really need to rename Pathfinder™.  They should call it "Pathfinder Adventure™" so there is less confusion.  Anyways, the point of that line in the press release was to reassure people that Pathfinder™ would continue as a 3.5 game despite the announcement of Paizo releasing their own OGL compatible RPG.  They wanted people to know that for the time being the APs would continue to be 3.5.  Since that release, they have announced that Legacy of Fire will be the last D&D 3.5

QuoteOk, it`s nice to talk to someone about this who is bringing up examples of favoured mechanics which I largely share. Take Complete Scoundrel. One of my favorite prestige classes was, and is, the master of masks. It actually had a roleplaying prerequisite, namely to successfully dupe people into mistaking you for a close friend/well known ally of theirs. You could take a skill trick to negate the penalty on disguise checks when people know the person you impersonate really well. So that`s just one instance of how extant crunch interrelates. I just checked the Disguise Skill entry in the Beta and, hey, the DC penalties have not changed. So the particular instance doesn`t break down.

One of my player's ran a Master of Masks in my Freeport campaign.  I waived the RP requirement because his character, a male half-elf, had the entire party convinced that he was a female human.  To this day, when he talks about his character -- Leon -- he has to remind them that he's talking about Savanah, and that the character wasn't actually a woman.  I figured duping the whole party into thinking you were a woman for several weeks was close enough.

QuoteHowever, there is a problem still. I cited but one instance of WotC crunch interlocking in the nuts and bolts. WotC crunch is like a huge beasty of interlocking clockwork wheels, so if you alter one bit, the repercussions for the rest of the machine are vast. Say, I did the impossible and used the Beta as a rulebook on my 3.5 gaming table. We realized that a couple of spells had become more powerful (e.g. flaming sphere doing 3d6 instead fo 2d6 damage now). That sounds harmless, doesn't it? But wait until all the little differences add up, and you will find the old synergies of game mechanical elements don't chime the way they used to. (I'd go as far and say that the designers of the splatbooks weren't maximally aware of this. A good deal of broken mechanics in 3.5 splatbooks had little do with individual feats etc. taken on their own, but with the potential to create unintended combos with yet other splatbooks which really broke the game.)

Well, here I just have to point out that the idea that 3.5 as a whole was internally balanced is pretty ludicrous.  It's like you think that Pathfinder is way more powerful than 3.5 D&D, but you don't use Tome of Battle.  I do, so I think Pathfinder is balanced with 3.5 D&D.  At least, the way my players work the system.  Perceptions of power balance are more in the mind than the rules themselves.

This is why I find the power level differences = incompatibility argument rather weak.  Because, as Jason points out: "Power Creep is one of my major concerns, and you are right, the level we are going for has not been quantified, primarily because there is no real metric for doing so with divergent classes. That said, this is more of an "art" decision and not a "science" decision."

In my current playtest, I am still finding that the most unbalancing things come from WOTC.  Like right now, the thing causing me the biggest headache?  The feat Intimidating Strike combing with the Hexblade's curse ability is leaving most of my badguys spending the entire battle at -6 to hit, and -2 to damage, which turns them into big whiffing machines and makes the battles boring and unchallenging.  Intimidating Strike is from Complete Scoundrel.

QuoteI am aware that none of the points I made impinge on compatibility (or lack thereof) in any major way. But I did feel you were cheating by claiming the subsystems in the Complete books could be taken over by Beta. Of course they can, just as I can take over stuff from Iron Heroes into my 3.5 game. Man, I love Iron Heroes stunts. But it took some time to realize the stunt system was designed to be run in a game where PCs had little leverage to boost their skills by magical means. By contrast, PCs up to their necks in potions of Cat's grace and donning winged leather boots can run havoc with the stunt system and its DCs. You see? Mechanical synergies mess up cross-game imports, it's not the "ok, let's look at this case by case".

Sure, but Pathfinder is nowhere near as divergent from the base assumptions of D&D as Iron Heroes is.  Pathfinder assumes the same access to magical items and spellcasters as D&D.  The stunt system is specifically designed to replace the cool shit spells are normally used for.

Quote from: Spike;257900I view it, being the game, as modular.  Swap out the module labeled 'characters' with the other charaters module and it works exactly the same.  Swap out the smaller module of 'grappling rules' and the game plays the same except that now grappling is easier.

Sure, the modules aren't 100% compatable with each other, but the system works the same with either the original part or the new part. Thus the parts in Pathfinder are, in essence, compatable with the system of 3.5 D&D.

Pathfinder is analogous to buying an aftermarket muffler for your car, or brembo brakes, or or or...

Except, to my mind, a set of aftermarket brakes that causes the wheels to seize up, ruins the rotors, damages, the disks, etc., isn't, in essence, compatible.

To continue this analogy, we could take said brakes and modify them so that they don't do those things, but a) that's work and may not be worth the time and trouble and b) doesn't, again, make them compatible.

I'll use a more concrete example. We decided to play the Day of the Beast campaign for Call of Cthulhu. So I read the campaign book and we came to the table to play. One of the players said, "Let's use the d20 CoC rules instead of BRP's." So we did that. One of the players said, "Instead of the 1920's, let's play a modern day game." So we switched eras.

Thus instead of running Day of the Beast in the 1920s with the BRP rules, I ran it in 1990's with the d20 rules.

I didn't mechanically convert any monsters or NPCs. If a monster from the campaign didn't appear in the d20 CoC rulebook, I just guessed at what its abilities, stats, etc., should be under d20. I used the templates out of the d20 rulebook for NPCs or, similarly, just guessed what their abilities, stats, etc., should be.

If I understand the claims being made in this thread, the above example means that the d20 and BRP rules are backward compatible. After all, I converted nothing.

Seanchai