Quote from: Jackalope;260503Are you suggesting that I misrepresented what Vic said?

Your paraphrase inserts assetions not contained in Vic's full statement, and doesn't contain all elements of Vic's statement; heck, even when quoting him now you didn't quote him in full. In my book that's not an accurate representation. Unless your inaccuracy was intentional, it doesn't qualify for a misrepresentation though.

So yes, by all means I thought (and still think) it worthwhile to inform RPGSite readers of the full official response from Paizo by linking to their website.

Quote from: Jackalope;260390Oh 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!

I edited it out because "as well as launching organized play" can't be 3.5 compatible and thus can't be the subject of the press release's title.

As for, "...but their current lines will continue under 3.5 rules until August 2009," like Paizo never claiming one's entire 3.5 gaming library would be compatible with Pathfinder, that's just gravy.

Seanchai

My gaming group started our new campaign a couple months ago using the Pathfinder beta rules, but are also using all the other old 3.5e books (and a 3.5e adventure path).  The back compatibility's not 100%, but it's been working fine, and it's been quite enjoyable.  

So far the main hiccup was that since clerical domains are different now (powers rather than spells), some of the feats etc. in Complete Divine didn't make sense any more.  In the grand scheme of things, that's pretty minor.  Sure, every throwaway 3.5e NPC's skill ranks aren't completely Pathfinder accurate, but that's not a real panty-buncher for any of us.  There's been no in-game issues at all.

Is there anywhere one can download the current Pathfinder rules without having to subscribe somewhere to do so?  I would like to take a look at them but it's not important enough to me to jump through hoops to do so however small those hoops may be.

@Spinal Tarp: unfortuantely, no. You could resort to filesharing programmes, if that is an option for you, although doing so is considered illegal in most countries.
-------------
As a matter of integrity, I would like to direct readers once again to the Paizo thread a part of this thread has triggered, since two officials - Vic Wertz and Sean K Reynolds - have responded within the last 24 hours to show that the 3.5 logo issue I raised (here, upthread) was premised on factual mistakes.

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

The issue of backwards compatibility with Pathfinder RPG is currently actively debated also in these threads:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/howFarShouldPFRPGStrayFromThe35Model

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

Quote from: Windjammer;261293The issue of backwards compatibility with Pathfinder RPG is currently actively debated also in these threads:

I saw your comment about using the 4e module in the 3.5 game. That's what I'm taking about - is that really backwards compatibility? Because the folks who claim that hand waving makes Pathfinder backwards compatible with 3.5 are some of the ones saying the same can't be done with 4e. To my mind, you can do that with most anything and just that alone does not make something backwards compatible.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;261325That's what I'm taking about - is that really backwards compatibility?

No. Backwards compatibility has a reasonably narrow definition, which that doesn't really fit. On the other hand, that definition doesn't apply to roleplaying games, which have an utterly different mode of operation to software, which is one of the many reasons this conversation - and, of course, Paizo's use of the term - is such a goat rodeo.

Quote from: Seanchai;261325I saw your comment about using the 4e module in the 3.5 game. That's what I'm taking about - is that really backwards compatibility?

I hope the point I was trying to make there was reasonably obvious. A lof of people enter the backwards compatibility debate based on criteria I can't take seriously. But then, that's what other people say about my criteria, and I think we've seen a similar stalemate in this thread. What I find far more interesting at this point is the number of people in the Paizo fanbase who now come out and say they don't give a hoot about backwards compatibility. I'm curious to see how that influences the development of the game until its release next year. The huge advantage of Pathfinder RPG is that nothing is set in stone. Declaring backwards compatibility with 3.5 was extremely important for Paizo this year and will be - I think - much less so next year when the thing comes out.

Quote from: Windjammer;261342What I find far more interesting at this point is the number of people in the Paizo fanbase who now come out and say they don't give a hoot about backwards compatibility. I'm curious to see how that influences the development of the game until its release next year.

I'm curious to see if the actual finished game will split the Paizo fan base, as I saw a fair number of folks who were more interested with Pathfinder sticking closer to 3.5.

Personally, I think they ought to choose either to remain as "backward compatible" as possible or to evolve the system now, then let their fans know. Better they find out now than when Paizo is trying to drum up positive support for their recently released RPG...

Seanchai

Based on what I've seen and the recent work done on the PrCs, at this point I think they're better off changing as little as possible and republishing 3.5E. It's clear that Jason doesn't have enough skill as a game designer to pull off a GOOD rewrite and the playtest reporting is so unstructured as to be worthless. Seriously, Paizo's strength is campaign and setting design, not game design, and this is just TOO painfully clear.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;261394Based on what I've seen and the recent work done on the PrCs, at this point I think they're better off changing as little as possible and republishing 3.5E. It's clear that Jason doesn't have enough skill as a game designer to pull off a GOOD rewrite and the playtest reporting is so unstructured as to be worthless. Seriously, Paizo's strength is campaign and setting design, not game design, and this is just TOO painfully clear.

QFT. I'd add "gaming equipment" to the list of Paizo's strength. Have you seen the Dungeon Tiles Jason designed for WotC? God knows, he must have tons of spare time at his hands right now.

Yeah. I'm a BIG fan of thier equipment cards.

The problems people have with DnD never made too much sense to me... I always stopped my games at 9th level, because I believe that it stops making sense at that point. 9th was epic, so I hardly had time for Polymorph to be a big deal... so he casts it twice and most of the named characters have a good saving throw bonus...

I thought 3.5 was fine. All I ever asked for was some class abilities for the Fighter like what the Rogue has and I'd be happy.

True, Cranewings.

I have come to the understanding that, in my opinion, D&D (in its original, first, second, and third editions) is a very strong game from 1st to 12th level and quickly breaks down after that. While others might find how the mechanics come together at 13th level and beyond stage enjoyable, I do not.

And now that I've come to that understanding, what I can do is take the high level material and repurpose so it is accessible to lower levels but not in conventional ways.

True, Cranewings.

I have come to the understanding that, in my opinion, D&D (in its original, first, second, and third editions) is a very strong game from 1st to 12th level and quickly breaks down after that. While others might find how the mechanics come together at the 13th level and beyond stage enjoyable, I do not and personally believe that you can have the whole entire D&D experience in those first 12 levels of play since nothing one can achieve at the highers levels is iconic to D&D. The fact that nearly all D&D campaign settings unconsciously assume only those twelve levels of power exists is proof enough.