Quote from: Seanchai;258771Except, 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.

Seanchai

Have you read the Pathfinder Beta plytest rules yet? Because upthread you said you had only read the Pathfinder Alpha playtest and skimmed the Pathfinder Beta playtest.

Its not nearly as bad as you'd like to claim that it is.

The situation you are melodramatically describing is more like the comparison between 4e and 3.x.

Quote from: Jackalope;257917Actually, I didn't say that micro-mechanics need conversion, with the exception of Grapple to CMB.

"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."

Those are all micro-mechanics. Again, you're telling us one thing explicitly, then providing us with examples that counter your argument.

Quote from: Jackalope;257917They have made it fairly clear that by "backwards compatible" they mean "3.5 collections will not be made obsolete by this game."

If I have to change every NPC and monster's skills, look at their Feats, adjust their power levels, etc., how is that not making my 3.5 library obsolete?

And if you persist with this argument, then 4e hasn't made that library obsolete either as I can make a whole bunch of modifications to my 3.5. 3e didn't make my Basic materials obsolete as I can modify them as well. And so on.

Seanchai

Quote from: CavScout;257994The press release is:
   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. [/I]

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

It's a gift.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;258774Have you read the Pathfinder Beta plytest rules yet?

That's the playtest you have to pay for, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;258780That's the playtest you have to pay for, right?

Seanchai

No. You can download it for free. You only have to pay for a printed copy.

Here's a link to the free Pathfinder Beta PDF download.

Quote from: Seanchai;258775"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."

Those are all micro-mechanics. Again, you're telling us one thing explicitly, then providing us with examples that counter your argument.

No, I'm telling you one thing and then providing examples of what I mean.  Only you, in your stubborn refusal to read English like a normal person, think that I'm contradicting myself.

QuoteIf I have to change every NPC and monster's skills, look at their Feats, adjust their power levels, etc., how is that not making my 3.5 library obsolete?

You don't have to do any of that, you just can if you ant.  You can also just knock the CR down by 1, and then you only have to convert their Grapple to CMB.  Since Grapple and CMB are exactly the same for most creatures, this isn't actually a "conversion" at all.  Only -- as I've known said a dozen times -- if the creature is Large+ or Small- do you actually have to do any math (and I have a quick look-up table already on my custom GM screen).

In Pathfinder, I can run any Medium sized creature straight from the 3.5 Monster Manual, the Tome of Horrors, the Fantasy Bestiary, the Creature Collections, all with one simple modification: I should drop the CR by 1.  But if I don't mind going a bit easy on my players, I don't even have to do that.

And I don't know about you, but my 3.5 library also contains hundreds of spells, none of which require any conversion at all (and are unusable in 4E), as well as hundreds of feats that require no conversion at all, as well as hundreds of magic items, equipment, exotic weapons, armor, etc.  All of which require no conversion at all.

QuoteAnd if you persist with this argument, then 4e hasn't made that library obsolete either as I can make a whole bunch of modifications to my 3.5. 3e didn't make my Basic materials obsolete as I can modify them as well. And so on.

Exactly a WHOLE BUNCH of modifications, as opposed to one or possibly two extremely simple changes (which literally consist of subtracting or adding 1 or 2 to a standard integer) that can be done in one's head on the fly.

Quote from: Jackalope;258821You don't have to do any of that, you just can if you ant.  You can also just knock the CR down by 1, and then you only have to convert their Grapple to CMB.  Since Grapple and CMB are exactly the same for most creatures, this isn't actually a "conversion" at all.  Only -- as I've known said a dozen times -- if the creature is Large+ or Small- do you actually have to do any math (and I have a quick look-up table already on my custom GM screen).

Cool! Can you post that? By the way, it may be worth posting it over there, since it means you can do 3.5 monster conversion on the fly!

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/gMScreenInserts

PS. I don't mean to re-open debate on that one, but in hindsight I wanted to clarify how I ever got to use the phrase "lying through one's teeth" in the first place. I have since found an interesting 4E review site which uses just that language (in a post back from August last year).

Quote from: The AlexandrianWell, it's important to understand that WotC has now established a lengthy track record of lying through its teeth when it comes to the release and content of new editions. Back in February of this year, for example, they claimed that they had no plans for a new edition of D&D and that the earliest we could conceivably see it would be 2009. Well, now it turns out that they -- even as they were saying that -- they'd already been in development for 4th Edition for more than a year. And, before that, there were the false claims that the 3.5 revision of the rules would not be incompatible with the 3.0 rules.

The lie about the nature of the 3.5 revision contributed significantly to the d20 collapse: Third party producers continued their development cycles and local retailers continued stocking their products in good faith that they would not be rendered obsolete with the release of 3.5, only to be sand-bagged when the actual rules came out and did precisely that. I, personally, built a business plan which took into consideration WotC's February statement regarding the non-imminent release of 4th Edition (and I'm sure many other third-party publishers did the same).

My point with all this is that, frankly, I'm not really going to expect anything in particular until we actually see the books in May of next year. Anything that's said before then may not, in fact, have any resemblance to what actually happens.

Source:

http://www.thealexandrian.net/archive/archive2007-08.html#20070820

Quote from: Windjammer;258831Cool! Can you post that? By the way, it may be worth posting it over there, since it means you can do 3.5 monster conversion on the fly!

Sure:   Colossal -8
Gargantuan -8
Huge -6
Large -3
Medium +0
Small +3
Tiny +6
Diminutive +8
Fine +8
Has Improved Grapple? -2So, if it's a Large creature with Improved Grapple, you subtract 5 from the creature's Grapple, and that's their CMB modifier.  Simple as pie.

Thanks, that's really great! / Edit. Two minutes later it's penciled into my Beta. Really great. I know it's as simple as pie, but the point is to have it ready at the table without having to think about it

I don't know that an accusation to Paizo of lying is warranted.  Did anyone rule out simple change in focus as the design evolved?

Quote from: Hobo;258853I don't know that an accusation to Paizo of lying is warranted.  Did anyone rule out simple change in focus as the design evolved?

I no longer hold that it's "warranted", if only because "lying" is perhaps too strong a term when all Paizo did was purposefully help to create an impression that is at odds with their actual intentions (these intentions being up to grabs). A "change in focus as design evolved" would ideally be announced, though. It may be a "simple" matter, but a weighty one. Then, the key changes with the unmotivated power creep turned up in the Alpha 1, so I don't quite see when a "change" occured.

Quote from: Jackalope;258821No, I'm telling you one thing and then providing examples of what I mean. Only you, in your stubborn refusal to read English like a normal person, think that I'm contradicting myself.

"A few elements do require conversion -- Grapple, skills (though in actual play, I have found no need to actually convert skills at all)."

"Actually, I didn't say that micro-mechanics need conversion, with the exception of Grapple to CMB."

Which is, they need conversion or they don't? It's just Grapple or it's Grapple and skills?

Quote from: Jackalope;258821You don't have to do any of that, you just can if you ant.

And I don't have to roll dice, write anything down on a character sheet, etc.. See my example about the Call of Cthulhu campaign for an example of using one game's materials without converting it.

But if I want to use the Pathfinder rules, then it sounds like there's quite a bit to convert.

Quote from: Jackalope;258821Only -- as I've known said a dozen times -- if the creature is Large+ or Small- do you actually have to do any math (and I have a quick look-up table already on my custom GM screen).

"You don't have to do any of that, you just can if you ant."

Again, which is it?

Quote from: Jackalope;258821In Pathfinder, I can run any Medium sized creature straight from the 3.5 Monster Manual, the Tome of Horrors, the Fantasy Bestiary, the Creature Collections, all with one simple modification: I should drop the CR by 1.  But if I don't mind going a bit easy on my players, I don't even have to do that.

So they're straight from the book, but modified.

Quote from: Jackalope;258821And I don't know about you, but my 3.5 library also contains hundreds of spells, none of which require any conversion at all (and are unusable in 4E)...

They're all usable in 4e. All I have to do is do just what you're doing with Pathfinder and 3.5: throw them in a game and hand wave away issues when the mechanics don't quite match....

Quote from: Jackalope;258821..as well as hundreds of feats that require no conversion at all...

What happens when a) they've been nerfed, b) they no longer exist, or c) they reference rules that have been changed or no longer exist?

Quote from: Jackalope;258821as well as hundreds of magic items

I thought the way in which magic items were handled, etc., have changed.

Quote from: Jackalope;258821Exactly a WHOLE BUNCH of modifications, as opposed to one or possibly two extremely simple changes (which literally consist of subtracting or adding 1 or 2 to a standard integer) that can be done in one's head on the fly.

Except it's NOT one or possibly two extremely simple changes needed when moving from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Folks can do what you're doing and ignore said need, but if you want to use the Pathfinder rules, you've got to look at new class abilities, new skills, new Feats, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;258856A "change in focus as design evolved" would ideally be announced, though.

Ideally. But that would steal a lot of the game's thunder. I mean, without being backwards compatible, Pathfinder is just another Arcana Evolved, True20, Iron Heroes, Midnight, Iron Kingdoms, et al.. It's the promise of backwards compatibility that sets it above the other games I've listed.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;259034Which is, they need conversion or they don't? It's just Grapple or it's Grapple and skills?

Seanchai, do you even understand that you have reached a point in this argument where you are acting like a childish little shit?

I mean seriously, are you four years old?

I'm not answering your questions anymore.  You're just trying to play gotcha, and grind your axe, and you can go fuck yourself.

I've been playing Pathfinder for several months now.  You haven't even read the book (you didn't even know the book was free!).  Your opinions are not worth considering, irrelevant, and you don't know what you're talking about.  You're being obtuse to the point of ridicule, your counter-arguments are completely retarded, and you don't actually seem to have a point.

Good day sir!

Quote from: Seanchai;259037Ideally. But that would steal a lot of the game's thunder.

To be sure, I wasn't very precise earlier on. I meant "ideally" from a customer's perspective. Customers might, ehm, want to know what they buy into when pre-ordering the thing, for instance.
Coming from a marketing perspective it's obvious a company wants to appeal to as wide a target audience as possible. Not that that always works (*cough - 4E - cough*), but Paizo has tried it's best to do that. I think they have since cut down on the "sure there are a couple of changes for the better in 4E, let's integrate those, without going all the way". Remember Jason's first list of skills in the Alpha 1? That was (in principle) a good idea to attract those people who (a) appreciated 4E's streamlining of extant mechanics but (b) hadn't bought into the need to codify everything into powers. I see the power creep related to racial ability boosts as a relic of that - giving +2 twice for picking a race is a 4ism which seems out of place in 3.5.

The thing that itches me more currently is how much the Pathfinder RPG is, you know, a version of 3.5 specifically aimed at Paizo's core audience. It's not just that these are the people who give most vocal playtester feedback, it's also that Paizo always wanted to have the ruleset for people playing their modules. However, Paizo modules have their own design principles. I am wondering how well the new ruleset caters towards those. I mention two.

1. The first one is a bit controversial. It comes from Sett, who first detected the heavy emphasis on encounter-centric module writing in Paizo way before WotC gave us Delve, Expedition to, etc. I wonder how much of the reworked classes reflect that idea. The fact of orisons and 0 level wizard spells being at-will now seem to come from that angle. They sure make no sense to me from a simulationist perspective. And again, it's a 4Eism that was never called for. It sure doesn't improve the playability of 3.5, it simply alters it into a different style of play.

2. The XP award system. I did a little exercise recently and calculated XP for my players' two recent sessions. Where 3.5. admonishes the DM not to dish out non-combat awards lightly (DMG, p. 40) Pathfinder goes all over thep place with this. Not only are non-combat roleplaying situations awarded heavily regardless of how much is at stake for the player, Paizo introduces the idea that people get XP for "story points". Meaning, if they have completed the dungeon and return to the quest-giver, they get an extra salary so to speak (/cue NeverwinterNights end_mission sound). Sounds like milestones to me - an artificial, meta-plot driven break off point that is not geared to individual events in the game. The discrepancy of the XP I'd have awarded was enormous: the PCs would have leveled up on either system, but they sure needed those 80% more XP (vis a vis 3.5) from "story" etc. to hit the next level on the slower Pathfinder system (mind you, there are three XP progression systems now). I can't help but to see Paizo module writing having a hand in this. I'm not saying it's for the better or worse, it just caught my attention. Such things sure have the potential to be selling points or deterrents for some.