I'd rather mix Arcana Unearthed / Evolved with Iron Heroes than bother with Pathfinder.

Quote from: Zachary The First;254794We still have other games we love--TFT, Epic, our old bastardized, crazy houseruled Rolemaster hybrid, Amber, and some crazy bastards still shouting for AD&D 2e--but we're also pretty happy with the opportunities Pathfinder looks to present.

Here's a related question: at what point will Pathfinder products switch to being compatible with the Pathfinder RPG vs. 3.5?  Or are they not going to make a distinction?

I like Paizo a lot too, but I find their strategy a little curious; they're very stand-offish about 4e (as opposed to just saying, "hey, it's a fine system, but due to the GSL we won't support it" or something like that) and they seem pretty heavily invested in moving on a bit from 3.5 to their own RPG.  To me, their strategy made the most sense when they were poised to pick up the 3.5 not migrating to 4e player base, but the more Pathfinder diverges from 3.5, the more I'm not sure I understand exactly what they're doing strategically after all.

Quote from: Jackalope;254761I'm currently running a Pathfinder playtest game, and I can promise you that you're wrong...Many of the encounters in Whiterock feature barbarians.  I do not give them Rage Points, and I do not track their rage that way.  I simply run them using the 3.5 rules for rage.  Works fine.

In other words, you're not actually using Pathfinder. 'Nuff said.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;254759Yes, though the "named spells" have all had their name's change to be more generic.  So Bigby's Grasping Hand is now Grasping Hand, and Mordekainen's Disjunction is now "Mage's Disjunction."

If I remember correctly, this type of change was part and parcel of 3.5 in its finished state, due to WotC' very own Spell Compendium.

I was rather impressed with what I read.  The key for me was just their "more options" approach to things, and the changes add a lot of cool flavor and options to the game while still feeling like a 3.5 game.  

I was impressed.  I think if this game had come out as 4th Ed., I would've been a hell of a lot more excited about it than the abortion of a revamp we got instead.  I'm still hoping that when 5th edition rolls around the do some kind of "Back to the classics" sort of thing.

Quote from: Seanchai;254885In other words, you're not actually using Pathfinder. 'Nuff said.

No, that would not be a fair restatement of what I said.  that would, in fact, be an asinine restatement of what I said.

The question is: Is Pathfinder compatible with 3.5.  I can run 3.5 stuff in my Pathfinder game without making any changes, and it works fine.  That does not mean I'm not actually using Pathfinder, it means the games are completely compatible.

Quote from: Hobo;254861Here's a related question: at what point will Pathfinder products switch to being compatible with the Pathfinder RPG vs. 3.5?  Or are they not going to make a distinction?

After August of 2009, all Pathfinder and GameMastery products will be PFRPG, not 3.5.

QuoteI like Paizo a lot too, but I find their strategy a little curious; they're very stand-offish about 4e (as opposed to just saying, "hey, it's a fine system, but due to the GSL we won't support it" or something like that) and they seem pretty heavily invested in moving on a bit from 3.5 to their own RPG.  To me, their strategy made the most sense when they were poised to pick up the 3.5 not migrating to 4e player base, but the more Pathfinder diverges from 3.5, the more I'm not sure I understand exactly what they're doing strategically after all.

They are trying to position themselves as the inheritor of D&D, and to become the core of the OGL movement.  Their hope is that Pathfinder will be 3.5ish enough to hold 3.5 players, but different enough that other OGL supporters will support them rather than 3.5.

What Paizo didn't want to do was compete with Mongoose and others to release a straight up 3.5 PHB and split market share.

Quote from: Jackalope;254758Also, James Jacobs is fucking insane about dinosaurs, so it will likely include too many of those.

And demons.  James Jacobs is a rawkstar.  I'm a huge dinosaur and demon fan myself.

Quote from: Jackalope;254761One of my players is playing a Hexblade.  We upped the power of the Hexblade using the guidelines provided in Dragon magazine by the creator, as he's admitted that the Hexblade as published was nerfed to the point of being too weak.  He works fine alongside the Pathfinder Fighter and Pathfinder Cleric.

Ooh, I missed that one (I think).  Do you know which issue, by any chance?

Quote from: Jackalope;254897They are trying to position themselves as the inheritor of D&D, and to become the core of the OGL movement.  Their hope is that Pathfinder will be 3.5ish enough to hold 3.5 players, but different enough that other OGL supporters will support them rather than 3.5.

What Paizo didn't want to do was compete with Mongoose and others to release a straight up 3.5 PHB and split market share.

But that's only splitting market share on the "this is our version of the SRD in print" book.  It's not like it should do anything to their core lines of products.  Unless they're trying to position the Pathfinder RPG itself as a core product instead of (in addition to, actually) the modules and setting material.

For that matter, is anyone releasing another "3.75" or is that Mongoose thing a throwaway what-if?

* Also interested. 4e isn't an update of 3e; it's more of a ND&D.

Quote from: Jackalope;254896That does not mean I'm not actually using Pathfinder, it means the games are completely compatible.

Except if barbarian get Rage Points and related abilities in Pathfinder and you're not giving them those abilities, you're not using the Pathfinder rules. You're using the 3.5 rules.

I can take a character from the nWoD, throw it into a D&D game without converting it, and use all the necessary mechanics from nWoD when needed, but that doesn't make nWoD backwards compatible with D&D.

But, more interestingly, if Pathfinder is so incredibly compatible with 3.5, why haven't you taken the time to convert the barbarian? If they are compatible, it should be a snap to convert them, right?

Seanchai

I spent some time looking through the Pathfinder Beta and the character options look interesting and fun from the player perspective.   However, two glaring points became obvious (a) the power level is 4e superhero fantasy and (b) the GMs job does not look any easier than 3e.  

As a GM, I want to spend a bare minimal time on mechanics.  It's why I have almost given up on every point based game.   If I can't build it super fast, then I don't run it.  

I already have an easy to run superhero fantasy game so my next non-D&D purchase is most likely going to be Dragon Warriors.

I'd just like to take this self-congratulatory moment to say that, although the system I'm making is point-buy and complex, the first two monsters I made took 30 seconds each.

Strength +4
Grace +2 (Movement -5)
Willpower -1
Comprehension -3
Charisma -3
Insight -5
Zombie.

Strength +2 (Health -5)
Grace +4
Willpower +0
Comprehension -1
Charisma -2
Insight -1
Skeleton.

Z'all you need.

[/down from the pedestal]

That's still rough.  I generate D&D NPCs on the fly.  Pull an AC and To Hit out of the air.  Pick a damage die on a whim.  He's up until I'm tired of having him fight, then his hit points are out.

Lots of rules doesn't mean difficult to use.

A good fast rule of thumb for NPCs under 3.5 is their "level" or CR +3 to all relevant checks, and their level to all others. AC is CR + 10, HP is con + their (level x whatever HD you think they should have). Very similar to what they ended up doing for 4e, actually, though my DM's been using something similar for years beforehand.

Quote from: Seanchai;254956I can take a character from the nWoD, throw it into a D&D game without converting it, and use all the necessary mechanics from nWoD when needed, but that doesn't make nWoD backwards compatible with D&D.

C'mon dude, you're not seriously going to make that argument, are you?  Really?  Do you think the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck?

I don't know nWoD, but I'm guessing it ain't too different from oWoD.  So I'm guessing that it uses d10s, and dice pool mechanics.  And that it lacks features like Armor Class, Hit Points, Base Attack Bonuses, etc.  Which means when your WOD character makes an attack roll, you'll know how many success he got, but not what AC he hit, and when someone attacks him, you'll know how many dice to roll to soak damage, but not how many level down the damage track you move.

See, a 3.5 barbarian swings, hits, deals damage and takes damage using the exact same mechanics as a PRPG barbarian.  So if a PFRPG Barbarian and a 3.5 Barbarian get into a fight, they are fighting with the same mechanics.

The only difference is how they are tracking their Rage ability.  The two games use the same base mechanics.  You don't have to convert AC, Hit Points, THAC0, Damage, etc.  They're the same, they work the same, and the two characters can battle without the different tracking systems for their ability affecting the game at all.

QuoteBut, more interestingly, if Pathfinder is so incredibly compatible with 3.5, why haven't you taken the time to convert the barbarian? If they are compatible, it should be a snap to convert them, right?

Because I'm not converting anything.  That's how I'm contributing to the playtest.  I'm running a massive 3.5 adventure with zero conversions, except those forced by the game, to find out if it really is backwards compatible -- I'm seeking an answer for those who ask "Can I run the massive backlog of 3.5 adventures I have under Pathfinder without converting?"