Quote from: Windjammer;259449Take "Perception", which goes proxy for "Spot" and "Listen" in Pathfinder. The number of times a 3.5 DM would have called for "Spot" and "Listen" checks equals the number he (playing Pathfinder) asks for "Perception" checks. So the range of situations in which skill checks are called for haven't changed.

No, but I'm thinking more about the efficacy of the skills in question.

If I used to have 9 ranks total in Listen, Spot, and Search in 3.5 and I'm moving over to Pathfinder, if I just put 9 ranks in Perception, it seems to me that my character's senses are now overpowered. After all, Pathfinder has reduced the number of possible skill ranks. I could guesstimate where Perception should be, but if I'm just guessing for some characters, shouldn't I guess for all of them? Moreover, I could still make the character overpowered or underpowered? And what do you if the 3.5 concept was someone with great visual acuity but poor hearing when you're converting?

Quote from: Windjammer;259449The other thing you said, that the fighter gets shafted even more, isn't true either. The fact that players now have fewer skills to invest their (identical) number of skill points in, means they - on average - have more ranks in the skills.

You misunderstand. I think fighters get the shaft in terms of skills in 3e and 3.5.

Quote from: Windjammer;259449It may help to remember that investing skill points in skills which aren't class skills for you no longer comes with any penalty (this is only slightly balanced by the fact that being trained in a skill now gives a flat +3 bonus once you invest the first skill point).

To my mind, this isn't helping the case for skills not being an issue in conversion. Or the case of Pathfinder being backwards compatible in general. For whomever might be making said cases.

Quote from: Windjammer;259449Remember? I'm on board with you on saying that Pathfinder (a) doesn't have the "3.5/OGL compatible" sticker on it and (b) that there is a justified reason for that being so.

Sure. But, directed at whomever, I'll ask again: is a GM knowledge of both systems a requirement for backwards compatibility then?

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;259491Your claim that "all of it" discuss 3.5 compatibility is patently false.

You're absolutely right. I was looking at a truncated version of the press release elsewhere on the web. I'll amend my statement: The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5.

Quote from: Jackalope;259491If you still don't understand what the line "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." means after reading that line, you're a fucking idiot.

Oh, I do. It's the title of a press release about how the new Pathfinder RPG is going to be backwards compatible with 3.5 and, as such, refers to main point or gist of the release.

Quote from: Jackalope;259491A careful read of this claim will notice something:  Nowhere does Paizo make the claim that no part of your gaming library will be invalidated.  

So we need to read what Paizo says carefully to figure out what they're really saying, huh?

Quote from: Jackalope;259491So long as at least some part of the average 3.5 D&D gamer's library remains valid and compatible with Pathfinder RPG, then their claim remains truthful.

It would make the claim about the gaming library true, but not about the claim in regard to being backwards compatible true. The two statements taken together, it's clear that Paizo meant the majority of one's gaming library would be valid and compatible.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;259838Running a 1st Edition module in 4e would require a good deal of re-writing, to the point of simply using the plot line and the maps.

But if you're "re-writing" on the fly, apparently it doesn't count as conversion work. At least, that's what I'm getting from this thread. I disagree with that point and I think that my "converting" a BRP CoC campaign to d20 on the fly really wasn't converting it at all and that my doing so wasn't any indication that the two rules systems are compatible, backwards or otherwise.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;259876You're absolutely right. I was looking at a truncated version of the press release elsewhere on the web. I'll amend my statement: The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5.

You must have failed a lot of reading comprehension tests.  The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules, as well as launching organized play, but their current lines will continue under 3.5 rules until August 2009.

QuoteOh, I do. It's the title of a press release about how the new Pathfinder RPG is going to be backwards compatible with 3.5 and, as such, refers to main point or gist of the release.

Then why is the game referred to as Pathfinder RPG™ everywhere in the article except this one line, where you claim it is referred to as Pathfinder™?

Why isn't that a reference to Pathfinder™, the monthly adventure book, as it is in every other Paizo press release?

Why do you ignore the statement "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."?

Or best question of all:  How does a brand new game continue to do anything, when it's done nothing to date?

QuoteIt would make the claim about the gaming library true, but not about the claim in regard to being backwards compatible true. The two statements taken together, it's clear that Paizo meant the majority of one's gaming library would be valid and compatible.

And I would argue that the majority of one's 3.5 library does remain valid under Pathfinder.

Quote from: Koltar;259770Oh For Pity's Sake!!!  If you had paid attention over the past 2 or 3 years - ALL of PAIZO"s Gamemastery products have used the phrase : "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game." Rational, reasonably intelligent gamers know that refers to D&D 3.5.
- Ed C.

Ed, I take it you work at a retail store which sells the Pathfinder Beta and 3.5 stuff from WotC. May I ask if you also sell other Paizo product? If so, please have a look at the back of Gamemastery or Pathfinder adventure modules, or Pathfinder Chronicles, or .... I'm sorry to say, but if anyone hasn't paid attention to Pathfinder products over (specifically) the "last 2 or 3 years" it's you. The Beta Ruleset is the very first Pathfinder product in print which doesn't carry the orange "3.5/OGL compatible" logo.

PS. And as another poster said it, the phrase you quoted isn't pertinent to the point, since the logo to go with that phrase is a different one now. http://www.rpgnow.com/images/85/56879.jpg

PPS. Is it to much to ask Mona to stick the following logo on Pathfinder RPG?
http://enworld.rpgnow.com/images/52/category4331.jpg
It's what I feel has the closest chance of ringing true.

Quote from: Jackalope;259982Why isn't that a reference to Pathfinder™, the monthly adventure book, as it is in every other Paizo press release?

Because by Paizo's own reckoning , it's the name of a brand, not of a product line, and most definitely not an exclusive reference to the product line you see referenced here. (Check how, once you click that link, the browser head reads "Pathfinder TM".)

I stick to my point that the press release is about the brand as such, and thus holds for any product with the name on it. I've said that before, and I don't expect you to agree, but for middle grounds I recommend you leave the overstatement "only refers to Pathfinder TM Adventure Path modules" behind - it's unnecessary for your cause. All you need is for the brand, at the point of announcement, to exclude the RPG. Which is a point of contention, but a much more persuasive ground to argue that the press release (as quoted) isn't about the RPG than smuggling in an "Adventure Path" that isn't there. You did a pretty decent analysis of the remainder of the press release, so why not let go of that detail.

Quote from: Windjammer;260193Because by Paizo's own reckoning , it's the name of a brand, not of a product line, and most definitely not an exclusive reference to the product line you see referenced here. (Check how, once you click that link, the browser head reads "Pathfinder TM".)

Dude, seriously, I don't want to insult your intelligence...but that's the page for Pathfinder™, which -- on the very page -- is described:   Pathfinder™
Welcome to Pathfinder, the premiere monthly outlet for your next fantasy roleplaying campaign. Every month, Pathfinder brings you an Adventure Path installment—an ongoing series of interconnected quests that, together, create a fully developed plot of sweeping scale and epic challenges. In each volume of Pathfinder you'll meet nuanced characters, visit fantastical locations, face deadly foes, and learn ever more about nefarious plots and an incredible world forged by some of the most popular authors and artists in fantasy gaming.You seem to be really confused.  Yes, "Pathfinder" is the brandname for Paizo's RPG efforts, but Pathfinder™ is the name of the adventure path line.  Likewise, Pathfinder RPG™ is the RPG game, Pathfinder Chronicles™ is the DM support line, Pathfinder Companion™ is the player support line, and Pathfinder Modules™ is the module line.

It really helps to remember that Paizo sees themselves as a company that produces kick ass adventures first and foremost, and that the RPG is to support the adventure paths, not the other way around (as it is with most game companies).

QuoteI stick to my point that the press release is about the brand as such, and thus holds for any product with the name on it. I've said that before, and I don't expect you to agree, but for middle grounds I recommend you leave the overstatement "only refers to Pathfinder TM Adventure Path modules" behind - it's unnecessary for your cause. All you need is for the brand, at the point of announcement, to exclude the RPG. Which is a point of contention, but a much more persuasive ground to argue that the press release (as quoted) isn't about the RPG than smuggling in an "Adventure Path" that isn't there. You did a pretty decent analysis of the remainder of the press release, so why not let go of that detail.

Because I'm right, and frankly, I'm a bit dismayed that you are actually arguing this with me.  From where I'm sitting, this conversation has a very "The sky is bright pink." quality to it.  As in you just pointed to the blue sky and said "The sky is bright pink."

Seriously man, you're asking me to cede the middle ground when I'm completely in the right and you don't have a leg to stand on.  I should meet you halfway and pretend the sky is lavender?  Why? You're wrong.  Pull on your big boy shorts and get over it.  It happens.

Quote from: Jackalope;259982You must have failed a lot of reading comprehension tests. The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules...

Er...

What I said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What you said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules..."

What I said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What you said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules..."

Really? I mean, you're really going to go on and on about other people's reading comprehension.

Quote from: Jackalope;259982Then why is the game referred to as Pathfinder RPG™ everywhere in the article except this one line, where you claim it is referred to as Pathfinder™?

I have no idea what you're talking about...

Quote from: Jackalope;259982Why do you ignore the statement "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."?

I haven't ignored it at all. As I said, "It's the title of a press release about how the new Pathfinder RPG is going to be backwards compatible with 3.5 and, as such, refers to main point or gist of the release." I amended my statement about every sentence of the press release referring to the new RPG, remember? Here's one that doesn't - big deal.

Quote from: Jackalope;259982And I would argue that the majority of one's 3.5 library does remain valid under Pathfinder.

How do you know what's in my gaming library?

But, yeah, we know you'd argue that. It's just not the case, however.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;260241It really helps to remember that Paizo sees themselves as a company that produces kick ass adventures first and foremost, and that the RPG is to support the adventure paths, not the other way around (as it is with most game companies).

Oh, if it's down to quoting Paizo's webpage I can co the same. If you think the press release only covers the Adventure Paths, it ipso facto leaves out the other products and the customers which subscribe to those. But it didn't. None of the subscribers said "Hey, what about me here? Is my product line going to be compatible?". Please explain. I take it, all these customers were deluded, they gratuitiously assumed that Paizo had assured them when, in truth, Paizo hadn't so much as meant to issue a press release that was addressed to them.

From the webpage.

First of all, the bit you quote has been updated since the Pathfinder TM brand has been updated. Here is the updated version.

QuoteThe Pathfinder Adventure Path is Paizo Publishing's monthly 96-page, perfect-bound, full-color softcover book printed on high-quality paper. Each volume is brought to you by the same staff which brought you Dragon and Dungeon magazines for over five years, and each volume contains an in-depth Adventure Path scenario, stats for about a half-dozen new monsters, and several support articles meant to give Game Masters additional material to expand their campaign. Because Pathfinder uses the Open Game License, it is 100% compatible with the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game.

Now for the other products. I have put the things I lean on in bold script.

QuotePathfinder™   /   Pathfinder Modules

If you're looking for devious, expertly crafted adventures to fill in your gaming schedule, Paizo's Pathfinder Modules have you covered. Pathfinder Modules are 32-page, high-quality, full-color, OGL-compatible adventures for use with the world's most popular fantasy roleplaying game. All Pathfinder Modules include four pre-made characters, so players can jump right into the action, and full-color maps and handouts enhance play.

QuotePathfinder™   /   Pathfinder Companion
Pathfinder Companion is an invaluable resource for players and Game Masters. Each 32-page bimonthly installment explores a major theme in the Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting, with expanded regional gazetteers, new player character options, and organizational overviews to help players flesh out their character backgrounds and to provide players and Game Masters with new sources for campaign intrigue.

QuotePathfinder™   /   Pathfinder Chronicles
The world of Pathfinder comes alive in the Pathfinder Chronicles series of sourcebooks and game accessories! Venture across the borders of Varisia into the wilds of Golarion with beautiful map folios, tempt fate and fortune with a quick game of Harrow, or explore the far reaches of the world with guide books and hardcover sourcebooks aimed at enhancing your Pathfinder experience. The Pathfinder Chronicles line is the only place to get all this great material, and the only way to ensure that you get all of it is to start an ongoing Pathfinder Chronicles subscription today!

According to you, the things I have put in bold script are misnomers. I take that to be a reductio. Also, the TM does not appear here where you claim it does (as in Chronicles TM, Modules TM) - no, it's Pathfinder TM Chronicles/Companion/... Finally, as someone familiar with Paizo boards you should be aware that there are lots of people who only subscribe to the 30 page Modules and those who only subscribe to the Chronicles series. I think the press release was meant for them too, that's all.And the press release specifically talked about the brand as such.

QuoteUntil the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set.

The bold part is my take on the much debated header "Pathfinder TM to continue under 3.5." It's the nearest literal echo of that line in the press release you will find.

Again, could you please use the INDENT tag if you're going to quote outside material an argue about it.  When I respond to your message, half of it disappears because you are using QUOTE tags.  It's really fucking annoying.

Quote from: Windjammer;260333If you think the press release only covers the Adventure Paths, it ipso facto leaves out the other products and the customers which subscribe to those.

I don't think the entire press release only refers to the adventure paths, that would be clearly idiotic. I think the single sentence "Pathfinder™ to continue under 3.5 rules." refers to Pathfinder™, the book.  Which is what I've said.  Several times now.  To the point where it's starting to really get on my nerves that you don't get it yet.

QuoteBut it didn't. None of the subscribers said "Hey, what about me here? Is my product line going to be compatible?". Please explain. I take it, all these customers were deluded, they gratuitiously assumed that Paizo had assured them when, in truth, Paizo hadn't so much as meant to issue a press release that was addressed to them.

They probably read the whole press release, which includes the line "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."

Notice that it doesn't say "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder™-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."

QuoteFirst of all, the bit you quote has been updated since the Pathfinder TM brand has been updated. Here is the updated version.

Dude, I was quoting the page you linked to earlier.  I have no idea where you are quoting this other stuff from.  That's sort of cheating.

QuoteAccording to you, the things I have put in bold script are misnomers. I take that to be a reductio.

I'd like to see the context you copied these from.

QuoteThe bold part is my take on the much debated header "Pathfinder TM to continue under 3.5." It's the nearest literal echo of that line in the press release you will find.

Yes, I know, I pointed that out myself.

Quote from: Seanchai;260243Er...

What I said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What you said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules..."

What I said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What you said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules..."

Really? I mean, you're really going to go on and on about other people's reading comprehension.

Dude, seriously, you cut my statement in half.  Are you for real?

Let's try that again:

What you said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What I said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules, as well as launching organized play, but their current lines will continue under 3.5 rules until August 2009."

What you said, "The point or gist of the press release is that the Pathfinder RPG is backwards compatible with 3.5."

What I said, "The point of the press release is that Paizo is releasing a new RPG that is backwards compatible with 3.5 rules, as well as launching organized play, but their current lines will continue under 3.5 rules until August 2009."

Oh hey, what do you know, when you don't edit them and remove half my statements, suddenly it's obvious we're saying two very different things!

Imagine that!  You, being a fuckwit and arguing like a retard!  It's amazing!

Quote from: Windjammer;260179The Beta Ruleset is the very first Pathfinder product in print which doesn't carry the orange "3.5/OGL compatible" logo.

So, I asked Paizo about this and got an answer from Vic Wertz, their technical director.

Vic said that Paizo put the "3.5/OGL Compatible" logo on their products to identify which game system one uses the book with.  There is no such logo on the Pathfinder Beta because, obviously, it is a core rulebook, and thus there is no need to identify which system you need to use the product.

Quote from: Jackalope;260426Vic said that Paizo put the "3.5/OGL Compatible" logo on their products to identify which game system one uses the book with.

Great. Perhaps let Vic use his own words?

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy

Quote from: Jackalope;260388They probably read the whole press release, which includes the line "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set." Notice that it doesn't say "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder™-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."

Thanks, that's a pretty decent summary of your case. I now leave it to others to evaluate its merits, because you're just pounding your fists and hurling abuse. My quotes all came from the webpage I linked earlier - just click on the product lines, and you'll see that the trademarking doesn't work the way you claim it does.

Quote from: Windjammer;260453Great. Perhaps let Vic use his own words?

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/missing35OGLCompatibleLogoConspiracy

Here's Vic's own words: "The point of that logo on our other products is to tell you what rule system to use with the product. In this case, the Pathfinder RPG *is* the rule system, so it's not needed."

Here's what I said: "Vic said that Paizo put the "3.5/OGL Compatible" logo on their products to identify which game system one uses the book with. There is no such logo on the Pathfinder Beta because, obviously, it is a core rulebook, and thus there is no need to identify which system you need to use the product."

Are you suggesting that I misrepresented what Vic said?  Because I didn't.

Also, I wouldn't expect much of an answer from paizo.  Your question is dumb, and there's no way to answer it without pointing out that you're basically being obtuse and failing to read.  While I will point that out, I've noticed that the Paizo guys tend to just ignore really dumb questions that require a lot of arguing of the premise.