TheRPGSite

As I understand it, the basic idea is to 'fix' 3e while still keeping it 3e. However, last I looked at it (The free alpha), it looked like 3e, only annoyingly munchkin - More special powers instead of real change.

Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

Your estimation is pretty spot on.

There are numerous smart and diligent people like Crusader of Light, Psychic_Robot, and Squirreloid who have been trying to point this out and numerous other problems with 3.5E but it seems like literally EVERYONE AND THIER MOM is trolling them.

On top of that, from a cursory read of numerous threads, I have the feeling that many of the posters simply do not know the system (like knowing that blaster wizards are weak, 2H being better than TWF, druids are good, etc.) or thier exposure is limited (thier range of play is mostly levels 1-8). This means that multiple issues are not going to be addressed (high level play, bears are not monsters, etc).

Seriously, at this stage of the game, if Paizo really wants to one-up Wizards, they should hire (pay) people who know the game and have them look over the system and recommend changes.

I'm really serious. Things are not looking good.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;254362Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

Excellently.

The minor bugaboos that I had with 3.x have been addressed with Pathfinder to my satisfaction. Its all minor tweaks, but they definitely make for a smoother game during play.

The Pathfinder Alpha is pretty bare bones, download Pathfinder Beta to see how improvements have been made with feedback from the playtest. Both versions are free to download and the playtest is still going on.

Free Pathfinder Beta Download (http://paizo.com/store/downloads/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy84o0)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;254362Anyway, the idea of a cleaned-up 3e version sounds good to me; how does Pathfinder do on that score?

I haven't paid too much attention to it as I have no plans on purchasing a playtest or reading through a bunch of playtest materials I'm not actually playtesting, but it seems to me that Pathfinder will:

a) end up as a beautiful, playable, and enjoyable game

b) that is far enough from D&D 3.5 to make it at least a bit of a hassle to mechanically convert material from one to the other.

I'm going to get it - the final version, that is - but not to run my existing 3e and 3.5 materials with. I already have shelves full of materials for those editions of D&D - I don't need anything more or anything new. It's likely it'll just sit on my shelf, but, as I said, I expect it to be purdy.

Seanchai

I think Paizo missed the boat with the RPG system, frankly.  I'd agree that it's like 3.5 except with all new problems and it fixed few of the existing problems.

To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material.  To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.  Therefore, they immediately lost my interest with their failure to address this; what's the point?  Why not just keep playing 3.5 and incorporate the odd actual fix as a houserule?  You can pick up a "draft" version of the rules as a free pdf anyway, so even more I don't see the point of buying the $50 book.

I guess, honestly, it depends on what you saw as the problems with 3.5, though.  Plenty of folks seem to think that the Pathfinder system addresses them very well; in my opinion, they completely ignored the most glaring problems, or in some cases even made them worse.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254363There are numerous smart and diligent people like Crusader of Light, Psychic_Robot, and Squirreloid who have been trying to point this out and numerous other problems with 3.5E but it seems like literally EVERYONE AND THIER MOM is trolling them.

I'm not sure which of those three assholes you are, but those three people are (assuming they aren't the same person, and assuming you mean Crusader of Logic and not Light) are widely considered obnoxious, unreasonable trolls on the Paizo boards.

As for Pathfinder, I really like the way it is shaping up.  I plan to support it as long as it's available.  The only real problem I've seen is the boards have become home to a group of very opinionated, egotistical, and self-aggrandizing asshats who seem to be completely incapable of understanding that just because people disagree with their very limited power-gaming munchkin perspective doesn't mean they don't know jack shit about the game.  

The three people mentioned above, and a few others, have made the playtest process really obnoxious.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254363Seriously, at this stage of the game, if Paizo really wants to one-up Wizards, they should hire (pay) people who know the game and have them look over the system and recommend changes.

You were doing good until about there.

I don't know much about Buhlman (sp?), but Paizo has plenty of people on their payroll that know the system very well indeed, and find the assertion they don't to be a bit bizarre to say the least. I'll take James Jacob any day over any of the current WotC staffers.

Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

Quote from: Jackalope;254445I'm not sure which of those three assholes you are, but those three people are (assuming they aren't the same person, and assuming you mean Crusader of Logic and not Light) are widely considered obnoxious, unreasonable trolls on the Paizo boards.

I'm neither of them, you shit (my user name is DeadUematsu, by the way, look it up) and if I had to deal with some of the nonsense thrown thier way, I would become cagey as well.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254471You were doing good until about there.

I don't know much about Buhlman (sp?), but Paizo has plenty of people on their payroll that know the system very well indeed, and find the assertion they don't to be a bit bizarre to say the least. I'll take James Jacob any day over any of the current WotC staffers.

Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

Because they unbelievably improved spellcasters but made non-casters worse. Spellcasters still have access to SoS effects AND have additional powers while non-casters got nonsense like rage points (with most of the new rage powers being worthless and rage points being a pain in play), worthless feats (like Power Attack and Improved Trip, two of the most worthwhile feats fighters could get, really needed to suck), and more expensive magic items (like non-casters need to pay more for the items they need to compete). How could someone with system mastery allow that nonsense to slide?

I also don't think Monte Cook has as much clout as you think he does (if things started looking more like Arcana Evolved or the Book of Experimental Might, I would be happier but cautious; the guy has a serious love for all things spellcaster) and Sean hits as often as he misses (for every non-absolutes article you receive, you get crap like level adjustments; though he maybe gotten the hint that the monster creation rules suck and they should simply base monsters on most played building block in the game: character classes - his beholder character class is a step in that direction).

I have read the alpha and skimmed the beta and I am unimpressed - the problems I have as a 3e GM aren't addressed.   True20 was a much better take on 3e rules.   However, I won't make a final judgment until the actual book comes out.    

Paizo does a good job, but I have no doubt that Pathfinder is going to be its own RPG and the game appears to appeal to a much higher power level than 3.5 core.

But I have to give them kudos for SELLING their beta test.   That's impressive and smart because they knew the 3.5 holdouts have money burning holes in their pockets and need to buy something RPG this year.

Quote from: Hobo;254428To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material.  To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.  

Just to make sure I'm understanding your criticism here, you don't find the Pathfinder Playtest appealing because the non-standard races or classes from 3.x are now really non-standard, correct?

Quote from: Seanchai;254425I haven't paid too much attention to it as I have no plans on purchasing a playtest or reading through a bunch of playtest materials I'm not actually playtesting, but it seems to me that Pathfinder will:

a) end up as a beautiful, playable, and enjoyable game

b) that is far enough from D&D 3.5 to make it at least a bit of a hassle to mechanically convert material from one to the other.

I'm going to get it - the final version, that is - but not to run my existing 3e and 3.5 materials with. I already have shelves full of materials for those editions of D&D - I don't need anything more or anything new. It's likely it'll just sit on my shelf, but, as I said, I expect it to be purdy.

Seanchai

Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254512I also don't think Monte Cook has as much clout as you think he does (if things started looking more like Arcana Evolved or the Book of Experimental Might, I would be happier but cautious; the guy has a serious love for all things spellcaster) and Sean hits as often as he misses (for every non-absolutes article you receive, you get crap like level adjustments; though he maybe gotten the hint that the monster creation rules suck and they should simply base monsters on most played building block in the game: character classes - his beholder character class is a step in that direction).

I see we have little ground to agree here. Your "treasures" are my "garbage". I thought Sean's article on non-absolutes was absolute rubbish, a reflection of the sort of non-productive game design think that designs around extremes at the expense of the norm.

Most of the guys in my group have downloaded it by now, and are pretty happy with most of the changes and tweaking of level benefits and power level overall (we really like no "dead" levels).  A few things the jury is still out on are a few issues with the domains (Travel comes to mind), and how skill points are handled, especially at first level.  But by and large, no huge complaints.  I'm pretty happy with the way Paizo has handled the rollout, staffing decisions, and playtest, and curious to see the final product.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254529I see we have little ground to agree here. Your "treasures" are my "garbage". I thought Sean's article on non-absolutes was absolute rubbish, a reflection of the sort of non-productive game design think that designs around extremes at the expense of the norm.

I thought it was a very productive article. Seriously, low-level characters being able to thwart invisibility and arcane lock spells cast by high-level characters is just one kind of nonsense that needs to go, especially since it's a extreme that often creeps up in normative play, and there are others as well. I simply do not believe that any game designer should be absolved of the responsibility of heading off problematic rules interactions when commonly used rules (these are 2nd level spells I'm talking about here) are concerned.

Quote from: jeff37923;254524Just to make sure I'm understanding your criticism here, you don't find the Pathfinder Playtest appealing because the non-standard races or classes from 3.x are now really non-standard, correct?

Quote from: jeff37923;254526Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Just to make sure I'm understanding these two posts: you're taking me to task for complaining about a major area of backwards compatability that isn't compatible, and in the very next post you claim the playtest versions are backwards compatible?

No, you don't understand my point.  You're misrepresenting my point.  I don't care how standard material is or isn't; by default the entire Pathfinder game is non-standard.  I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes.

Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.  Since the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself.

Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254552I thought it was a very productive article. Seriously, low-level characters being able to thwart invisibility and arcane lock spells cast by high-level characters is just one kind of nonsense that needs to go,

You mean with a bag of flour or taking the hinges off?

Quote from: Hobo;254553Just to make sure I'm understanding these two posts: you're taking me to task for complaining about a major area of backwards compatability that isn't compatible, and in the very next post you claim the playtest versions are backwards compatible?

Yes, because in your own words, the backwards compatibility problem was centered upon non-standard races and classes. Which, doesn't sound like a problem with Pathfinder as much as it sounds like a problem with the non-standard races and classes being too non-standard.

Quote from: Hobo;254553No, you don't understand my point.  You're misrepresenting my point.  I don't care how standard material is or isn't; by default the entire Pathfinder game is non-standard.  I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes.

If you do not care how standard material is or isn't and consider the entire Pathfinder approach to be non-standard, then I'm sure you can grok my confusion. Which is why I asked you for clarification.

Quote from: Hobo;254553Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.  Since the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself.

Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

OK, so you do not share a design goal of a design team which you are not a part of for a game which you think is non-standard. Right?

Maybe I could understand your position better if you gave some examples of the compatibility disconnect as you see them. Could you give some examples?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254471Further, they did hire two people to do just that: Monte Cook and Sean Reynolds. Now I frequently disagree with Reynolds' gaming ideals, but you can't say he doesn't know the game.

I love Monte, and think he's an awesome designer.  I've also seen the caster/non-caster power differentials in Arcana Evolved, bought a number of power-boosting supplements, and generally had to conclude that he really rewards munchkinism.  With all due respect to his talent, I don't know that he's a good choice to help the designers scale back the power levels in Pathfinder. :)

As far as Pathfinder goes, it took the wrong tack for me from Alpha 1.  I agree with Hobo that compatibility was somewhat sacrificed and replaced by increased character power.  This is fine - but it makes it a standalone game, much like the aforementioned Arcana Evolved. :)

So far, it has also fixed things I didn't think were broke, and didn't address things that I actually did think were broke.

I'm glad it's appealing to so many people - but sadly, much like 4e for some others, I don't think it's the game for me.

-O

Quote from: Hobo;254553I do care, however, that the supposed, purported and reported goal of backwards compatability was sacrificed on the altar of powering up the core races and classes...Which meets a design goal that I don't share with the Pathfinder team.  I think 3.5 is powerful enough by far.  And I think keeping the core classes on the same level as non-core classes is a design imperative.

I understand your point, but fundamentally disagree.

I've been running D&D 3.5 since 2003, and as time as gone on I have seen players consistently choosing the non-core races and classes over the core races and classes, for one simple reason: the non-core classes are better, more powerful, and more effective.

This is, of course, too broad a statement.  Not all non-core classes are created equal.  The early non-core classes -- Hexblade, Healer, Marshall, Samurai, Flavored Soul, etc. -- sucked and were largely viewed as sub-par compared to core.  The next wave of classes -- Warmage, Warlock, Binder, Namer, etc. -- were about on par with the core.

Then WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Pathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

I do think that Paizo will need to redo the Psionics book to bring those classes up to par.  I think the Psychic Warrior and Psion are still good (the Psychic Warrior really benefits from the faster feat gain), though a lot could be done with the Psion's discipline, but the Soul Knife and Wilder need serious improvement -- the Soul Knife in particular should be way more "I'm a fucking JEDI bitch!" than he is.

QuoteSince the Pathfinder Campaign setting refers to non-core races and classes (including psionics, by the way) there's a significant compatability disconect.  If the Pathfinder campaign setting references them, they are not non-standard anymore; they need to be compatible with material in the Pathfinder game itself....Unless, of course, the Pathfinder campaign setting isn't actually for the Pathfinder game, but is instead just another 3.5 setting.

The Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a 3.5 setting, not a Pathfinder RPG setting.  Paizo is not releasing any material for the Pathfinder RPG until August 2009.  All of the material in Campaign Setting should be compatible with the Pathfinder RPG however (and it would require a radical departure from the Beta for this to not be true of the Final version).

The real improtant part is whether a PF PHB will have the unchanged 3.5 spells in it or not.

Quote from: Jackalope;254599This is, of course, too broad a statement.  Not all non-core classes are created equal.  The early non-core classes -- Hexblade, Healer, Marshall, Samurai, Flavored Soul, etc. -- sucked and were largely viewed as sub-par compared to core.  The next wave of classes -- Warmage, Warlock, Binder, Namer, etc. -- were about on par with the core.

Then WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Pathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

I think that the goal of making interesting choices/abilities at every level is the central goal (and a laudable one), with the power consequences an afterthought.

I disagree with commonly held assertion that fighters got the shaft and suck arse compared to wizards in 3.x, except outside of combat. Creatures are so loaded with resistances and immunities at high levels (where wizards become problematic). Meanwhile, under 3.5, power attack was significantly powered up, allowing two-weapon power attackers to blow through the most common fighter defense: DR, which had been nerfed. The result was, I found that I was designing encounters around the fighter whereas I found the typical creature selection to be pretty effective at perturbing the mage.

Druids and clerics I agree need the nerf stick as their over-poweredness pretty much makes them "better fighters".

I think there need to be two major corrections to the fighter, and it's not more power:
1) make more options viable than two weapon power attack.
2) give the fighter more to do out of combat. That means lean heavier on the skill system.

Considering that in the first Alpha was ready to kick the skill system in the nuts the same way 4e does, I'm not holding my breath for #2. #1, on the other hand, seems to be in striking distance.

Quote from: jeff37923;254558Maybe I could understand your position better if you gave some examples of the compatibility disconnect as you see them. Could you give some examples?

:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

Quote from: Jackalope;254599I understand your point, but fundamentally disagree.

Fair enough.

Quote from: JackalopeI've been running D&D 3.5 since 2003, and as time as gone on I have seen players consistently choosing the non-core races and classes over the core races and classes, for one simple reason: the non-core classes are better, more powerful, and more effective.

We all laughed at the Duskblade in our last campaign because he was obviously broken.  Other than that, we've had a lot of non-core races and classes and not seen a balance disparity.  Granted, maybe our playstyle disguises power levels to a certain extent, but that's the only really egregious case we've seen.  And frankly, given that player, he needed the handicap just to keep up anyway.

Quote from: JackalopeThen WOTC started upping the ante.  PHB 2 introduced several new classes significantly more powerful than the core classes: Duskblades, Knights, and the fucking Beguiler.  Jesus Beguilers are fucking awesome.  Then Tome of Battle came out, and fuck me if I can think of reason to play a Fighter over a Warblade.

Ah, well, we've experimented more with the earlier classes than the later ones, then.

Quote from: JackalopePathfinder reset the core classes to the power level of these later classes.  At least, that was my group's experience.  YMMV, and obviously does.

Probably because we've mostly run with different non-standard classes.  With the exception of the duskblade, as mentioned above.

Quote from: JackalopeI do think that Paizo will need to redo the Psionics book to bring those classes up to par.  I think the Psychic Warrior and Psion are still good (the Psychic Warrior really benefits from the faster feat gain), though a lot could be done with the Psion's discipline, but the Soul Knife and Wilder need serious improvement -- the Soul Knife in particular should be way more "I'm a fucking JEDI bitch!" than he is.

I agree; but again---my early understanding, and my early interest in the Pathfinder game, was its stated goal of backwards compatability.  I'd have liked to see a game that was more usable out of the box with existing 3.5 classes rather than one that resets the balance meter at some other point.  Otherwise, it isn't backwards compatible (to a certain extent; obviously it's still mechanically similar enough that a lot of stuff can be ported) and is more of a stand alone game.

That's fine, if that's what you want.  I took the backwards compatability claim to heart and was therefore mostly disappointed when it failed to live up to that claim.

Oh, and for my money, the simple fix of giving the Soulknife fighter BAB makes it OK.  Still a bit blander than I'd like, but not a bad class anymore at that point.

Quote from: JackalopeThe Pathfinder Campaign Setting is a 3.5 setting, not a Pathfinder RPG setting.  Paizo is not releasing any material for the Pathfinder RPG until August 2009.

:confused:  I have the, admittedly, Prototype, rules pdf.  I've seen the rules book on sale in my FLGS.  I didn't realize that the CS was explicitly a 3.5 setting instead of a PRPG setting though.  Although that explains a lot of my disconnects with the Pathfinder ruleset.

Quote from: JackalopeAll of the material in Campaign Setting should be compatible with the Pathfinder RPG however (and it would require a radical departure from the Beta for this to not be true of the Final version).

Depends on what you mean with compatible.  My group isn't made up of powergamers by any means, but at the same time, nobody wants to play obviously inferior characters either.

Quote from: Hobo;254606:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

Thus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

Quote from: Hobo;254606Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

I'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

Do I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

Do I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you?

Quote from: Hobo;254606:confused:  I already did.  Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

Thus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

Quote from: Hobo;254606Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point?  I don't think it's a particularly difficult one.  If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field?  The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.  You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is.  Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant.  My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material.  In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options.  If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point.  For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying.  That's difficult to understand?  If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about.  Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing.  I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.  :confused:

I'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

Do I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

Do I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you? Because I could always just say that you are full of shit on this subject and be done with it.

Quote from: jeff37923;254526Except that:

b) A major design goal for Pathfinder is that it will be backwards compatible with previously published 3.x material. So far it has done that with the playtest versions released.

Funny how folks don't think that's true then...

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;254635Psionics are only addressed on two pages of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting (p234 & p235) in a "fluff text" manner. There have been no rules mechanics for psionics published yet for Pathfinder.

No, psionics was mentioned at varous other sections in the setting; it was only specifically given a header on pages 234 and 235.

Quote from: jeffThus, my request for clarification because I cannot see how "fluff" weakens  character classes that have yet to be described by actual rules in Pathfinder.

And that's my confusion; who cares?  You're talking about a stand alone game that hasn't yet released the psionics module; I'm talking about a game where the stated design goal was backwards compatability wherein you wouldn't need to release a psionics module because you've already got one.

If there was an issue with class balance, and backwards compatability is the goal, the fixed classes should have been balanced to a 3.5 default level, not some new level that's obviously higher on the power scale.

I think we're talking past each other because you see Pathfinder as a complete replacement for 3.5 (correct me if I'm wrong here) wherein I saw it as a purported "fix" for things that were wrong with 3.5 that was fully integratable with 3.5 material.

If you're looking to chuck all your 3.5 material and play Pathfinder instead, sure, go right ahead.  I'm not even addressing that position, because my complaint (and my only real complaint) was that Pathfinder was sold (at least I was sold on this idea) as the backwards compatible game that fixed stuff the way 3.5 supposedly fixed issues with 3e.  The Pathfinder we got wasn't that.  But that's what I wanted it to be.  Hence I complained that it didn't meet what I needed nor what I understood the design goals to be.

Clearly if you don't care about freely integrating Pathfinder and 3.5 material, then that complaint is irrelevent to you.  That doesn't, however, mean that it's an invalid complaint.  Just that it's not relevent for you.

Quote from: jeffI'm a little suspicious of your motivations here because instead of giving examples of non-compatibility in Pathfinder for us to examine, you are instead crying "foul" that you've been asked to provide some proof for your assertion.

:confused:  Are you always this dense?  Proof?  That's absurd.

Complete Warrior.  Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale.  Complete Adventurer too.  Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races.  Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you?  I've got plenty more.

Quote from: jeffDo I think you are being overly dramatic? Yes.

OK.  I said I have a problem with this aspect of the game because it doesn't meet my expectations.  You got all defensive.  Who's being dramatic again?

Quote from: jeffDo I think you know what the fuck you are talking about? No. Why? Because you have yet to give any solid examples of all the 3.5 material that is invalidated by Pathfinder and your position reads like something derived from reading other people's forum postings without finding anything out for yourself and coming up with your own informed opinion.

Or is that too coy for you?

That's more like it.  But honestly; you think I don't know what I'm talking about because I hadn't actually enough specific examples for you?  I think you're being wilfully obtuse here, or unforgively stupid if you couldn't put two and two together and figure out that, for example, that a goliath hexblade is way underpowered compared to a Pathfinder dwarf fighter, and that means that backwards compatability between Pathfinder and 3.5 material is limited.  Seriously?  I have to spell that out for you and you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

You state that Pathfinder and 3.5 are backwards compatible, where I think it's immediately obvious that they're only compatible in that they use the same basic mechanics, not in the sense that they actually mesh well together.  I'm really perplexed how you're sitting here telling me that you think I'm just regurgitating fodder from other messageboard posters.  This has been my consistent complaint at every message board I've posted at, and I feel like the lone voice in the wilderness for thinking that this is a deal breaker for me.  On every messageboard; ENWorld, CM, Paizo, all of 'em.  This issue is especially my baby, and I've taken flak from people like you who feel like the Pathfinder cheerleader squad, for daring to even want to mix and match Pathfinder and 3.5, or for pointing out that it doesn't really work.

Quote from: Hobo;254606The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes.

Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

As I said, I've got a shelf full of WotC and third party 3.5 materials. And ideas are a dime a dozen. Why would I want to go to that trouble to use Pathfinder when I've got plenty of materials I don't need to convert?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;254652Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

As I said, I've got a shelf full of WotC and third party 3.5 materials. And ideas are a dime a dozen. Why would I want to go to that trouble to use Pathfinder when I've got plenty of materials I don't need to convert?

Well, that's exactly what my point was too.  If Pathfinder had coherently fixed a few problems with 3.5 and been, as was initially promised, a kind of 3.75, that would have been one thing.  As it stands now, Pathfinder is, IMO, essentially telling you to quit playing 3.5 and play Pathfinder instead.  Which greatly weakens its appeal.

Quote from: Hobo;254651No, psionics was mentioned at varous other sections in the setting; it was only specifically given a header on pages 234 and 235.

And the rule mechanics for psionics in Pathfinder are where?

Wait! That's right! They haven't been published yet, so according to you, they must nerf the psionicist!

Quote from: Hobo;254651And that's my confusion; who cares?  You're talking about a stand alone game that hasn't yet released the psionics module; I'm talking about a game where the stated design goal was backwards compatability wherein you wouldn't need to release a psionics module because you've already got one.

If there was an issue with class balance, and backwards compatability is the goal, the fixed classes should have been balanced to a 3.5 default level, not some new level that's obviously higher on the power scale.


 I'm not even addressing that position, because my complaint (and my only real complaint) was that Pathfinder was sold (at least I was sold on this idea) as the backwards compatible game that fixed stuff the way 3.5 supposedly fixed issues with 3e.  The Pathfinder we got wasn't that.  But that's what I wanted it to be.  Hence I complained that it didn't meet what I needed nor what I understood the design goals to be.

Clearly if you don't care about freely integrating Pathfinder and 3.5 material, then that complaint is irrelevent to you.  That doesn't, however, mean that it's an invalid complaint.  Just that it's not relevent for you.

Now you are misrepresenting me.

I'm trying to understand your position because I don't see all these backwards compatibility problems that you claim.

Quote from: Hobo;254651:confused:  Are you always this dense?  Proof?  That's absurd.

Well, if the point you are trying to make is valid, then providing some proof for your point wouldn't be so taxing on your brain that you'd call the request absurd, now would it? Unless, you are simply full of shit.

Quote from: Hobo;254651:Complete Warrior.  Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale.  Complete Adventurer too.  Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races.  Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you?  I've got plenty more.

I understand your point now, but it isn't valid because from your perspective it wouldn't be sensible to play any of the NPC classes either since they are all low on the power scale. Nothing in the Pathfinder rules say that you cannot play a non-standard class or race, you alone think it wouldn't be sensible because they are now not powerful enough for your tastes in comparison to the Pathfinder core races and classes that have been released.

And again, your complaint about psionics is bullshit since Pathfinder has yet to produce rules for psionics which could then be compared and contrasted with 3.5. The conclusions you are drawing about psionics in Pathfinder are merely wishful thinking on your part.

Quote from: Hobo;254651OK.  I said I have a problem with this aspect of the game because it doesn't meet my expectations.  You got all defensive.  Who's being dramatic again?

You.

Quote from: Hobo;254651That's more like it.  But honestly; you think I don't know what I'm talking about because I hadn't actually enough specific examples for you?  I think you're being wilfully obtuse here, or unforgively stupid if you couldn't put two and two together and figure out that, for example, that a goliath hexblade is way underpowered compared to a Pathfinder dwarf fighter, and that means that backwards compatability between Pathfinder and 3.5 material is limited.  Seriously?  I have to spell that out for you and you tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about?

Yes, because your examples of underpowered non-standard races and classes aren't in the SRD which Paizo has to work with to remain legal.

Not to mention that there is still nothing mechanically rules-wise preventing you from using Pathfinder to play your preferred non-standard races or classes. You, Hobo, just do not want to because you now consider those non-standard races and classes to be underpowered in comparison to the base races and classes in Pathfinder.

It appears you don't like Pathfinder because you feel you cannot get your munchkin on in the game like you have become accustomed to. That's understandible as a complaint, but it is only a problem for your personal application of the rules and not the Pathfinder rules backwards compatibility themselves. You can still play splatbook races and classes with Pathfinder, they just aren't the special snowflakes you prefer anymore.

Bah.  That's a ridiculous argument, and I refuse to believe that you don't know it.  Of course I can choose to play a nerfed class, just as I can choose to play an NPC class in 3.5, but with very rare exceptions, who would want to?  And what kind of idiot do you have to be to claim that it's ridiculous for me to want to play a 3.5 class in a Pathfinder game in the exact same thread that you said they were perfectly compatible?

And I want to play munchkined out character, huh?  This coming from the guy who's literally having an orgasm thinking about the twinked out Pathfinder races and classes as he's typing?

You are a complete asshat who clearly has no interest in discussion on this topic.

Quote from: Hobo;254680Bah.  That's a ridiculous argument, and I refuse to believe that you don't know it.  Of course I can choose to play a nerfed class, just as I can choose to play an NPC class in 3.5, but with very rare exceptions, who would want to?  And what kind of idiot do you have to be to claim that it's ridiculous for me to want to play a 3.5 class in a Pathfinder game in the exact same thread that you said they were perfectly compatible?

And I want to play munchkined out character, huh?  This coming from the guy who's literally having an orgasm thinking about the twinked out Pathfinder races and classes as he's typing?

You are a complete asshat who clearly has no interest in discussion on this topic.

See, there you go again Hobo. Being wrong.

I am interested in having a discussion on Pathfinder and its percieved problems. Unfortunately for you, I'm only interested in having the discussion with people who have read the material, crafted informed opinions, and have valid arguements to bring into the discussion. I'm not interested in phantom complaints about psionic rules that haven't been written yet or compatibility problems with material that works mechanically but doesn't make the player feel "special" enough about their character or race choice.

As to your claim that I'm an asshat, I've been called worse by better.

I'm off now to enjoy my multiple orgasms over Pathfinder. I only wish more could be as lucky as I in that level of enjoyment of a game still in playtest.

Huh, what about the spells, kids?

Quote from: Settembrini;254689Huh, what about the spells, kids?

What do you want to know specifically?

Some spells remain the same, some have changed. No spells require xp to cast anymore and magic items no longer require xp to create (spells with xp cost now have a material component cost equal to 5 times the old xp cost). All of the polymorph spells have been overhauled and made much clearer. Find The Path has been nerfed to allow the detection of routes to locations, but not specific objects or creaturers.

Oh, how sad.
But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Quote from: jeff37923;254682See, there you go again Hobo. Being wrong.

No I'm not wrong.  No one who can say with a straight face that I'm a munchkined out powergamer because I'm complaining that Pathfinder reset the power level of all core races and classes at an obviously higher level than 3.5 is interested in having a discussion.  Hence; not wrong.

Plus, anyone who can say with a straight face that Pathfinder and 3.5 are perfectly compatible, because hey!  Playing a 3.5 class or race in a Pathfinder game is no different than playing a commoner or a warrior in a 3.5 game would have been, right? isn't interested in having a serious discussion.  That's just inane.

Well... maybe I shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "nobody" train.  But nobody who's capable of having intelligent discussion about the issue, regardless of willingness, would make these absurd claims that you've made so far.  To say nothing of continually bringing up the red herring of psionics not being released yet for Pathfinder (so frigging what?  That's completely irrelevent to my point about psionics) or of coming to the bizarre conclusion that I don't even know anything about the rules... because I was able to spot obvious power level discrepancies?

I've got news for you; if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion about this issue, quit being the stumbling block to reasonable discussion about the issue.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;254604I think that the goal of making interesting choices/abilities at every level is the central goal (and a laudable one), with the power consequences an afterthought.

Same here.  Power balance has never been a primary concern of D&D, nor should it be.  It's enough to rein in the excess, everything doesn't have to be perfectly balanced.

QuoteI disagree with commonly held assertion that fighters got the shaft and suck arse compared to wizards in 3.x, except outside of combat.

So do I!  I am a huge fan of the Fighter, have been since Basic, and I think people regularly discount the Fighter's dominance in actual play, viewing him only through the warped lens of "testing."   Under laboratory conditions, the Fighter seems sub-par compared to the Wizard.

But in the field?  Fuck Wizards.  Infinite tools, but never the right one for the job.  A good, solid dependable sword solves more problems than any spell.  

But I was comparing the Fighter to the Warblade, which is a Fighter who trades feats for D12 hit dice and access to massive damage boosting special attacks that make Power Attack look like chump change.  It's the "replacement Fighter" class basically.

QuoteDruids and clerics I agree need the nerf stick as their over-poweredness pretty much makes them "better fighters".

A fix as simple as changing most of the buff spells so they can't be cast on one's self.  Clerics need to accept their role as SUPPORT character.  I get really tired of having my fighters die because the fucking cleric player built a CODzilla and wasted all of his fucking healing spells turning himself into a nominally better fighter than me for ONE battle, and is now spent for the day.

QuoteI think there need to be two major corrections to the fighter, and it's not more power:
1) make more options viable than two weapon power attack.

Pathfinder hasn't done this that I can see, depending on how you define "two weapon power attack."  There are certainly many other viable tactics, but every Fighter still needs to be able to fall back on either a two weapon combo, a double-weapon, or the classic Sword & Board.

I don't really expect that to change, as they would have to ridiculously nerf two-weapon fighting to make single weapon styles as effective.

They have made some real improvements though.  Sundering is now worthwhile, as they've added the "broken" condition so it's no longer all-or-nothing.  Combine Improved Sunder with Intimidating Attack and you can -- with a single blow - give your opponent a -4 to all attacks and -2 to damage for the fight.  

Quote2) give the fighter more to do out of combat. That means lean heavier on the skill system.

This is one area where Pathfinder has made some real improvements.  Humans who choose Fighter as their Favored Class and choose the Favored bonus skill point over the bonus hit point get 4 skill points per level in pathfinder.  Since non-class skills now cost 1 point for 1 rank, Fighters can diversify much more than they previously could.  Finally, Knowledge (Dungeoneering) and Knowledge (Engineering) have been added to their class skills list, helping them fulfill their role as "generic dungeon explorer guy."

Rolling Tumble and Balance in with Jump into Acrobatics and making the whole thing an Untrained skill also really boosts the fighter's potential.

QuoteConsidering that in the first Alpha was ready to kick the skill system in the nuts the same way 4e does, I'm not holding my breath for #2. #1, on the other hand, seems to be in striking distance.

They backtracked mightily on the skill system changes from Alpha.  It's still much more simplified -- a "Class Skill" gets a +3 bonus if you put a rank into it, you get the same number of skill points at 1st level as you do every other level, no more "half ranks," the skill list is condensed -- but I think they've actually accomplished this goal, of giving the Fighter stuff to do out of combat.

Quote from: Settembrini;254603The real improtant part is whether a PF PHB will have the unchanged 3.5 spells in it or not.

The Beta already has all the spells from the PHB, whether they've been altered or not -- though many of them are found in a web supplement.  The final version will include ALL the spells from the PHB, unchanged or not, and possibly some new ones.

The final PRPG book will be a complete replacement for the DMG and PHB.  Originally it was also to include monsters, but rather fervent demand on the board has resulted in the decision to release a separate Pathfinder Bestiary to replace the Monster Manual.  

It will feature most of the creatures from the Monster Manual, minus the creatures that are WOTC Product Identity and few lame monsters introduced in 3.5 (Erik Mona has all but said the tojanida will get the axe).  It will probably alter some of the core monster to reflect their new role in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting -- Intellect Devourers are getting a promotion and will now occupy the spot vacated by Mind Flayers for example -- and may include some of the many monsters introduced in the Pathfinder adventure series.

Also, James Jacobs is fucking insane about dinosaurs, so it will likely include too many of those.

Quote from: Settembrini;254702Oh, how sad.
But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Yes, 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."

Quote from: Seanchai;254652Personally, I'm concerned with balance in terms of backwards compatibility but rather the basic building blocks of character. If Pathfinder barbarians all have Rage Points, I've got to all Rage Points to any 3.5 barbarian. If Pathfinder creates a new must have Feat for fighters, then I've got to rework the Feats of at least some of the fighter I bring from 3.5 into a Pathfinder campaign. And the same is true in reverse, using Pathfinder materials with bog standard 3.5.

I'm currently running a Pathfinder playtest game, and I can promise you that you're wrong.  I'm using Goodman Games Castle Whiterock for the playtest, and running it completely unmodified.

You do not have to make many changes to run 3.5 adventures in Pathfinder.  Recalculating the Grapple of many creatures -- particularly creatures with Improved Grapple or non-Medium sized creatures -- is the only change I have to make consistently, and it's easy enough that I can do it on the fly.  

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.

One 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.

Quote from: Hobo;254731No I'm not wrong.  No one who can say with a straight face that I'm a munchkined out powergamer because I'm complaining that Pathfinder reset the power level of all core races and classes at an obviously higher level than 3.5 is interested in having a discussion.  Hence; not wrong.

Plus, anyone who can say with a straight face that Pathfinder and 3.5 are perfectly compatible, because hey!  Playing a 3.5 class or race in a Pathfinder game is no different than playing a commoner or a warrior in a 3.5 game would have been, right? isn't interested in having a serious discussion.  That's just inane.

Well... maybe I shouldn't be so quick to jump on the "nobody" train.  But nobody who's capable of having intelligent discussion about the issue, regardless of willingness, would make these absurd claims that you've made so far.  To say nothing of continually bringing up the red herring of psionics not being released yet for Pathfinder (so frigging what?  That's completely irrelevent to my point about psionics) or of coming to the bizarre conclusion that I don't even know anything about the rules... because I was able to spot obvious power level discrepancies?

I've got news for you; if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion about this issue, quit being the stumbling block to reasonable discussion about the issue.

[BUZZ] [CLICK] [ANSWERING MACHINE VOICE]

We're sorry, but the person you are trying to reach is too busy enjoying  multiple orgasms brought on by the Pathfinder playtest to take your call at this time. Please hang up and try your call again later.

And have a nice day...

[BUZZ] [CLICK] [/ANSWERING MACHINE VOICE]

Quote from: Settembrini;254702But still, all of the SRD ones are included with their name? Just a little different sometimes?

Yes. Only some have been modified beyond the no xp cost.

If I can take a different approach towards Pathfinder for a minute:

No, Pathfinder won't be the cure-all for all ailments 3.5 had.  And I'm not sure its the "dream" system for anyone in my group.  But hey, no system is perfect, and the older we get and less time we have, the less time we'll spend chasing something like that.  We all have divergent tastes in gaming.  But we've found enough common cause and more than enough to like in Pathfinder with where we've been (and what we've bought) and what we want to do to consider it as a lingua franca, so to speak, a great middle meeting ground where we don't need to spend precious game time learning new rules.  We've also put in about, what 8 years now each finding out our likes and dislikes for d20 and its spinoffs.  Not only are we open to a system that allows us to build on that experience, but takes our feedback on it (even if they don't necessarily implement it in the final product).

And here's the other thing:  as a group, we have a high regard for Paizo and the products they've been putting out over the last couple of years.  We like how they've been running things, we like (overall) their personnel decisions, we liked their magazine work, we LOVE their Gamemastery line and overall art direction--in short, its a company that we genuinely like, that we feel listens to us and makes things we want, and that makes it easier to jump aboard with support for Pathfinder.

We 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.

Quote from: Jackalope;254756They backtracked mightily on the skill system changes from Alpha.  It's still much more simplified -- a "Class Skill" gets a +3 bonus if you put a rank into it, you get the same number of skill points at 1st level as you do every other level, no more "half ranks," the skill list is condensed -- but I think they've actually accomplished this goal, of giving the Fighter stuff to do out of combat.

Oh, I know. And I am sure glad they did. And it's a start.

But really, it's not quite enough to do what I envisage to make the fighter less than boring out of combat.

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. :D

[/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?"

Quote from: Hobo;255030Lots of rules doesn't mean difficult to use.

Agreed!

Quote from: Jackalope;255039Because 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?"

Huh.  That's an interesting experiment.  Come across any problems yet?

Quote from: Jackalope;255039C'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?

The rest of you?

Quote from: Jackalope;255039You don't have to convert AC, Hit Points, THAC0, Damage, etc.

But you do have to convert the rest. Moreover, even if they use the same mechanics, they're not necessarily on the same scale.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;255156But you do have to convert the rest. Moreover, even if they use the same mechanics, they're not necessarily on the same scale.

Seanchai

But you don't know that because by your own admission upthread, you have not been paying attention to the Pathfinder playtest.

This is like Hobo's inquiry about when will Paizo convert fully to the Pathfinder RPG for its product line. The answer is in the Introduction of the Pathfinder Beta playtest and would be known if the material had been read.

You have to get the information before you have an informed opinion.

Quote from: jeff37923;255184But you don't know that because by your own admission upthread, you have not been paying attention to the Pathfinder playtest.

The power scale is so obvious you don't need to actually have played a crocked class to have an informed opinion.  You just need to have read the classes side by side to see that they're crocked on one side of the rules divide.

I'm talking asking about other problems that may or may not have surfaced.

Quote from: Seanchai;255156The rest of you?

Yeah, as in the other people reading this thread.

QuoteBut you do have to convert the rest.

No, actually, you don't have to convert the rest.  You don't need to change a 3.5 Barbarian's class abilities at all.  An NPC Barbarian doesn't need the range of options a Pathfinder Bararian gets, and the 3.5 Rage still works under Pathfinder.

Other than bland assertion, you got anything to back that claim up?  How many sessions of Pathfinder Beta have you run?  I've got ten sessions under my belt so far.

Isn't this a clear case of the ignorant arguing with the informed?  I think it is.  I mean really, all you're doing is saying things, you've got no argument to back it up, no experience to base your opinion on, and frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

QuoteMoreover, even if they use the same mechanics, they're not necessarily on the same scale.

That's generally true, but it hasn't been an issue in actual play.  I'll explain more in my response to Hobo.

Quote from: Hobo;255128Huh.  That's an interesting experiment.  Come across any problems yet?

The single largest problem I've encounter so far involves the monster special ability Improved Grab.  Pathfinder's change to the grapple system means there are two different ways to determine if an attack with Improved Grab results in a grapple.

1) On a successful hit, make a free grapple attack.
2) If a successful hit would also be a successful grapple, the attack is a grab.

I've been using method one, but method 2 would also work.  There's no statement in the rules about how to handle it.

There have been several points where we've encountered problems because 3.5 rules have somewhat more depth than Pathfinder.  Not a real problem, since we just assume the 3.5 default if Pathfinder doesn't make it clear.

The power level issue is not noticeable to me.  I've been playing D&D with all the splatbooks active for some time and regularly run Dungeon Crawl Classics (which are pure Core), and I haven't found Pathfinder to be excessively more powerful than WOTC + Splats.  If the WOTC Splatbooks created characters that were +1 ECL compared to WOTC Core, then Pathfinder creates characters that are ECL +2 compared to WOTC Core:  Very noticeable at the lowest levels, with diminishing returns as the party levels.

To give an example from my most recent session:

Three players:  A Human Fighter 5, a Human Cleric 4 and a Hexblade/Rogue  3/1 (the Wizard/Warblade couldn't make it).

The players are on level 4 of Castle Whiterock, which is the lair of a tribe of Troglodytes lead by a Half-Red Dragon Troglodyte.  The first major battle of the level is against 3 groups of 3 Trog Warriors (1st level).

The Trogs did 1 point of damage to the party, and were entirely wiped out.  Their BAB of +1 was simply too pathetic, and I rolled for crap.  The Fighter has Cleave as well.  So it was a pretty short, brutal fight.  Nothing about Pathfinder in particular made the fight go this way.  The +1 AC the Fighter gained from Armor Training wasn't enough to make a difference, nor was the +1/+1 hit/damage from Weapon Training.  The Hexblade is a WOTC Standard character for all intents and purposes.  The Cleric got Pushed Back into an open pit on the first round of combat, and spent most of the battle trying to climb out.

The next major encounter was to be a battle with a Trog Fighter 4, followed by a battle with 4 Trog Warrior 2s.  Given the poor performance of the earlier Trogs, I suspect neither fight would be challenging -- solo fighters are rarely effective, and the 4 warriors had nothing to support them -- and the session was coming to a close.  The players were questioning a female Trog they had cornered, and she sent them off into a trap with bad information.

So while they were off realizing they were hoodwinked, she ran to alert the fighter and the four warriors, and they ambushed the party as they retreated from a maze of Cave Moray nests.

Now, according to Core 3.5 rules, a partly with a ECL of 3.5 versus 4 Warrior 3 and a Fighter 5 (adjusting for the Trog's ECL) should be a VERY challenging fight, and indeed it was.  The cleric burned through all of his Channel Energies keeping the Fighter from falling over, and even the Rogue -- who rarely actually gets into it -- was taken within a few HP of collapse.

Essentially, the only major differences I've encountered between 3.5 and Pathfinder is a healthy power boost at first level that makes it far easier to survive to 2nd level -- I really enjoyed that my players were able to clear the entire first level of Whiterock in two sessions with no rest stops, and they've been maintaining a clip of a about 2 sessions and 1 rest per level, and the rests they have been taking have been sensible, rather than forced by the 5 minute adventuring day.

Quote from: jeff37923;255184But you don't know that because by your own admission upthread, you have not been paying attention to the Pathfinder playtest.

The playtest. I haven't been paying attention to the car wreck of a playtest. But, obviously, I know something about the product. I have skimmed it and read commentary here, at EnWorld, and at TBP.

But I noticed you didn't outright say there wasn't a power bump. You selected what you thought you could argue with and discarded the core truth of the matter. Pretty telling, wouldn't you say?

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;255212Yeah, as in the other people reading this thread.

If you've been reading this thread, you'll notice that some of us think you're full of shit.

Quote from: Jackalope;255212No, actually, you don't have to convert the rest.

And I don't have to convert nWoD mechanics to use them in a D&D game either.  

Quote from: Jackalope;255212An NPC Barbarian doesn't need the range of options a Pathfinder Bararian gets, and the 3.5 Rage still works under Pathfinder.

In which case you're not playing Pathfinder.

You're saying, in effect, that if you have a Mac, a PC emulator, and a PC-only program running under that emulator, that the program is actually a Mac program. Or that the PC program is now magically able to run on a Mac. It's not. It's a PC program running under an emulator. It may run on a Mac with the help of an emulator, but that don't make it a Mac program.

Quote from: Jackalope;255212I mean really, all you're doing is saying things, you've got no argument to back it up, no experience to base your opinion on, and frankly, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Actually, I do have plenty of experience to back it up with. Decades, in fact. Just not with Pathfinder. But you don't need to have played Pathfinder to understand how it's not backwards compatible. General experience and general experience with RPG mechanics will show you that.

Quote from: Jackalope;255212That's generally true, but it hasn't been an issue in actual play.  I'll explain more in my response to Hobo.

Then, again, it ain't exactly backwards compatible.

Seanchai

Jackalope; I'm not sure I'm following.  You're characters are a mix of multiclassed wizards splatbook classes and Pathfinder core classes?

Quote from: Seanchai;255219But I noticed you didn't outright say there wasn't a power bump. You selected what you thought you could argue with and discarded the core truth of the matter. Pretty telling, wouldn't you say?

Seanchai

That's because I don't see an issue there. So far, during actual play, there hasn't been any problems with power levels at all. Thus, no problem during play and therefore not an issue.

Quote from: Hobo;255194The power scale is so obvious you don't need to actually have played a crocked class to have an informed opinion.  You just need to have read the classes side by side to see that they're crocked on one side of the rules divide.

And the comment you quoted was directed at Seanchi.


See, Hobo, my perception of you is that you have barely skimmed the Pathfinder books or else you would not have made such sophomoric statements like the psionics classes have been nerfed (when the psionics rules haven't been published yet) or that you didn't know when Paizo was converting all of its material to Pathfinder (which is in the Introduction to the Pathfinder Beta).

So until you and Seanchi actually read the rules, I think that the two of you have uninformed opinions on them.

Some guys from our gaming group ran a session last night (I didn't get to go) with some folks who hadn't been following its development like the rest of us (but did have decent d20/3.5 experience).  I'm really curious to see how it went.

Hi everyone. I've tried to communicate my stance on a key issue raised in this thread on Paizo's own boards. I'm sure my proposal got its flaws and loopholes, but it communicates my sentiments pretty exactly. It's a reaction to my players refusing to switch to (what they call) the munchkinism that is Pathfinder RPG.

 My posting  (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/design/ability/rantNonRantRacialBuildsAProposedFixForPathfinderRaces&page=1#785350)

Quote from: jeff37923;255305And the comment you quoted was directed at Seanchi.

So?  This isn't a public internet now?

Quote from: jeffSee, Hobo, my perception of you is that you have barely skimmed the Pathfinder books or else you would not have made such sophomoric statements like the psionics classes have been nerfed (when the psionics rules haven't been published yet) or that you didn't know when Paizo was converting all of its material to Pathfinder (which is in the Introduction to the Pathfinder Beta).

See, my perception of you is that you don't actually even know what I said when you keep going on and on about the Pathfinder psionics rules that I never once mentioned.  I was talking about the 3.5 psionic rules, you dumbass.  And how they don't mesh well with the Pathfinder classes because of the power disparity.

So, until you can actually acknowledge stuff that's in print right here in the thread right in front of your face in the portions of the posts that you're purportedly quoting and responding to, I'm forced to the conclusion that your ability to talk intelligently about the Pathfinder RPG (or anything else, for that matter) is about equivalent to that of a brain damaged goat.

And now I'm a bit suspicious of how useful this Jackalope playtest is, since most of the characters he lists have classes that aren't in Pathfinder.  What exactly is being playtested?  The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder.  But maybe I'm not getting a very good picture of exactly what the parameters of this playtest run actually are.

Basically, he's playtesting the Pathfinder rules, not classes.

I have generally found harsh words to be detrimental to understanding.

Unless, of course, you both understand that harsh words is what you want, which seems rather silly to me.

One thing that bugs me... all this rage point/song point (I forget?) jazz. It sounds like new things to track. Some players like that, but some players don't. And it's rarely good for the GM.

If the power level of the classes are really on par with Tome of Battle, that's a problem. But I don't see that being the case thus far.

I do agree with one poster on the paizo board that if two handed power attack is the option at high levels (as it is in 3.5), that's a problem and other options need to be brought up to snuff.

Yeah, but honestly, this compatibility bit is important to me, too. I like what Paizo has done, but they aren't going to replace my entire library of cool stuff. It has to work together. If it doesn't, I'll be eking out my own solution instead.

I'm looking at it and while I like some of what they've done with classes, other stuff is too overpowered. Like, two domains and 0-level spells at will for clerics. So they get an extra spell at each level. They still can't cast any more and it adds flavor. As for unlimited 0-level spells, it's always seemed like a good idea to me.

On the other hand, the Monk is still broken, the Paladin is now broken and the Druid gets two abilities that make him the perfect hitman (Poison immunity and alter-self at will), which just made me go 'whaat?'.

Quote from: Hobo;255346I was talking about the 3.5 psionic rules, you dumbass.  And how they don't mesh well with the Pathfinder classes because of the power disparity.

How can you claim there is a power disparity when the Pathfinder psionic rules haven't even come out? You are projecting this erronious claim of "power disparity" on something that doesn't exist yet.

Quote from: Hobo;255346So, until you can actually acknowledge stuff that's in print right here in the thread right in front of your face in the portions of the posts that you're purportedly quoting and responding to, I'm forced to the conclusion that your ability to talk intelligently about the Pathfinder RPG (or anything else, for that matter) is about equivalent to that of a brain damaged goat.

Again, been called worse by better men than you.


Post #5

Quote from: Hobo;255346To make matters worse, one of the main reasons the Pathfinder RPG was intriguing in the first place was compatability with existing 3.5 material. To some extent that's true, but the fact that the rejigged the power balance on all the standard races and classes means that any 3.5 era non-standard race or class is now incompatible balance-wise, and quite markedly so.

Now, I questioned you on this in post #11, you didn't give a straight answer in post #16 and instead got pissy. I asked you the same question again in post #18 and additionally requested some specific examples. In post #23, you brought up psionic classes as one of the examples of "nerfed" classes:

Post #23

Quote from: Hobo;255346I already did. Psionics is described several times in the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, yet psionic classes are noticably weaker than "core" classes.

and managed to get even more pissy about having your claim questioned while still not providing any examples of this "power disparity".

Quote from: Hobo;255346Seriously; how many times do I have restate my point? I don't think it's a particularly difficult one. If the stated design goal was to be compatible with 3.5 products, therefore not obsoleting all my 3.5 material (of which I've got quite a bit) then why were the races and classes all rebalanced on a completely different playing field? The obvious result of that is that any non-standard race or class is no longer balanced with the core races and classes. You keep jumping on non-standard as if that's some kind of "a-ha! Gotcha!" kind of thing, but I don't see how it is. Non-standard is not equivalent to unimportant. My group uses at least as much (if not considerably more) non-standard material than it does standard material. In fact, that's one of the main attractions of 3.5 as near as I can tell; so much material has been published for it that you've got tons of options. If you're going invalidate fairly large chunks of 3.5 material, you've kinda missed the point. For us, that makes Pathfinder a non-starter, and personally I'm kinda disappointed that the design goal of compatability with 3.5 seems to have been more or less chucked aside.

That's all I'm saying. That's difficult to understand? If you think I'm being overly dramatic about making this an issue, just say so, don't be coy and say you don't understand what I'm talking about. Otherwise, I'm not sure where you're going with this clarification thing. I thought I stated my main complaint about the system sufficiently clearly.

In post #25 I actively began calling you on your unwillingness to be intellectually honest. To which you finally answered my original question in post #27 with a lot of snark added in for effect. Although in that same post you kept indicating that a portion of the classes you think are nerfed are psionic:

Post #27

Quote from: Hobo;255346Are you always this dense? Proof? That's absurd.

Complete Warrior. Has several new core classes that would be incredibly dumb to play in a Pathfinder game, because they are incredibly low on the power scale. Complete Adventurer too. Expanded Psionics Handbook and Complete Psionic.

If you want to run an Eberron game with Pathfinder, you can't have shifters, kalashtar, changelings or warforged as races, without redesigning the stats yourself, since Pathfinder races are all more or less equivalent to LA +1 or even 2 compared to 3.5 races. Same thing for any of the alternate races in the environmental or Races of... series.

Is that enough specific examples for you? I've got plenty more.

and none of the examples you have given are mechanically incompatible with the Pathfinder rules. You finally reveal in the same post that you do not find the classes to be mechanically incompatible, but feel that there is a "power disparity" between non-standard 3.x races and classes and Pathfinder races and classes:

Quote from: Hobo;255346You state that Pathfinder and 3.5 are backwards compatible, where I think it's immediately obvious that they're only compatible in that they use the same basic mechanics, not in the sense that they actually mesh well together.

And after that, I just decided to mock you because you hadn't bothered to read the rules before forming an opinion. Asking when Paizo would convert entirely over to Pathfinder

Post #46

Quote from: Hobo;255346Here'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?

when the answer is right there in the Introduction to the Pathfinder Beta playtest book just confirms to me that you haven't read the book that you are opining upon.

So, yeah, I'm being pretty honest about acknowledging the stuff you are posting. Hell, I'll even acknowledge that on the subject of Pathfinder, I think you should be mocked until you have Read The Fucking Manual and can speak intelligently about it.

Quote from: Hobo;255235Jackalope; I'm not sure I'm following.  You're characters are a mix of multiclassed wizards splatbook classes and Pathfinder core classes?

Yes, because despite Seanchi's amazing ability to spew bullshit, the games are extremely compatible.  

There is the rare feat or prestige class that needs tweaking to make it work, but the games are as compatible as 3.0 and 3.5, which is to say that you can use most stuff without any changes at all.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;255355Basically, he's playtesting the Pathfinder rules, not classes.

That's what I was trying to clarify.  He's running 3e (or 3.5) modules, right?  And 3.5 classes?  Exactly what Pathfinder rules, then, are involved in the playtest?  Like I said, that sounds like merely a 3.5 game with a few rules cribbed from Pathfinder as house rules.

Which is fine, but if I'm understanding that correctly, let's not assume that that this playtest is proving something that it's actually not even addressing at all.

Quote from: NarfI have generally found harsh words to be detrimental to understanding.

Unless, of course, you both understand that harsh words is what you want, which seems rather silly to me.

I don't have any harsh words for Jackalope.  :confused:

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;255362Yeah, but honestly, this compatibility bit is important to me, too. I like what Paizo has done, but they aren't going to replace my entire library of cool stuff. It has to work together. If it doesn't, I'll be eking out my own solution instead.

Exactly my point.  I like it when someone else comes along and says what I'm trying to say in a nice way.  :)

Quote from: jeff37923;255408How can you claim there is a power disparity when the Pathfinder psionic rules haven't even come out? You are projecting this erronious claim of "power disparity" on something that doesn't exist yet.

Full stop.  See; right there, I already am not reading the rest of your post.  Because you've already ...again made this completely erroneous claim that I've said anything at all about Pathfinder psionics rules.  Even as you were quoting the part of my post where I clarified ...again that I was talking about the 3.5 psionics rules and using them as an example of where you have to use 3.5 rules to fill in a hole that doesn't yet exist in Pathfinder, and that there's a power disparity between Pathfinder core classes and 3.5 non-standard core classes.  You keep making this claim, over and over again, as justification to dismiss anything I say, even though I never made that claim.  You've completely pulled it out of your ass and have done so the entire run of this thread.

The unescapable conclusion is that you either 1) don't even want to have any discussion and are simply trolling in this thread, or are 2) literally dumber than an actual box of rocks.  I mean, you can't possibly be this obtuse unless you're doing it on purpose.

Quote from: Seanchai;255228If you've been reading this thread, you'll notice that some of us think you're full of shit.

So far, I haven't seen anyone say that I'm full of shit.

You, on the other hand, are so full of shit that surely your eyes must be brown.

QuoteAnd I don't have to convert nWoD mechanics to use them in a D&D game either.

:emot-fappery:

If you think that's true, then you're an idiot.  Unless I'm really misinformed and nWoD uses the D20 engine, then you have to do a LOT of conversion to run a nWoD adventure for D&D.  

QuoteIn which case you're not playing Pathfinder.

It seems to me that you're shifting the goalposts around to make it impossible to win.  

First you claim that Pathfinder isn't backwards compatible because you can't run 3.5 material in Pathfinder without onerous conversion.  Then when you're told it is possible to do this, you claim that I'm not really playing Pathfinder because I'm using 3.5 material in my game.

So if I play 100% Pathfinder, it's not backwards compatible, but if I use some amount of 3.5 material (and thus prove it is backwards compatible) then I'm not playing Pathfinder.

Again: :emot-fappery:

QuoteYou're saying, in effect, that if you have a Mac, a PC emulator, and a PC-only program running under that emulator, that the program is actually a Mac program. Or that the PC program is now magically able to run on a Mac. It's not. It's a PC program running under an emulator. It may run on a Mac with the help of an emulator, but that don't make it a Mac program.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

I'm only saying that Pathfinder is backwards compatible, and that you can run 3.5 material in Pathfinder.  To use your very stupid analogy, I'm saying that you can run 3.5 software on a Pathfinder platform.  You would need to use an emulator (convertor) to run nWoD software on the Pathfinder platform, but you don't need any such software to run 3.5 on Pathfinder.

QuoteActually, I do have plenty of experience to back it up with. Decades, in fact. Just not with Pathfinder. But you don't need to have played Pathfinder to understand how it's not backwards compatible. General experience and general experience with RPG mechanics will show you that.

In other words, you're talking out your ass about things you have no experience with.

Brilliant.

I'm not keeping track of who's said what harsh words, but there's certainly been a lot slung about.

It's all rather silly. It's a game, you've probably never even met the other person and the sum total impact on your life even just next month will amount to less than the mosquito that my *Amazing Psychic Powers tell me will bite you in precisely thirty-one days.

* And if you buy that, hey, I've got this great bridge...

Quote from: Hobo;255417I already am not reading the rest of your post.  

Aww, come on. It's a hoot because I show the exact posts where you said the things you claim you haven't.

Quote from: Hobo;255346And now I'm a bit suspicious of how useful this Jackalope playtest is, since most of the characters he lists have classes that aren't in Pathfinder.  What exactly is being playtested?  The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder.  But maybe I'm not getting a very good picture of exactly what the parameters of this playtest run actually are.

Okay, first of all, you suck at math.  Four characters:   Pathfinder Fighter
Pathfinder Cleric
Pathfinder Rogue/WOTC Hexblade + Dragon addendum
Pathfinder Wizard/WOTC WarbladeOf the six classes represented, four are Pathfinder classes.  Thus, when you say that "most of the characters listed have classes that aren't in Pathfinder" you're confused.

I'm using an OGL 3.5 adventure.  I'm allowing players to use anything they want from the WOTC 3.5 splatbooks and Dragon magazine, just as I always do.  Anything in the 3.5 rules is superceded by anything in the Pathfinder rules.

Because again, the question I'm seeking to answer is "Can I switch to Pathfinder and still use my WOTC/OGL material?"

Now, you may call that " a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder," but I would point out that Pathfinder is 3.5 with a few houserules, so like Duh.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;255429I'm not keeping track of who's said what harsh words, but there's certainly been a lot slung about.

It's all rather silly.

I'd feel ashamed if I thought that I was unjustly pointing out where someone was wrong in his facts.

Oh, point out all the wrong facts you want. I just don't see the point in getting all that emotionally involved in it.

Not saying you are - Like I said, I'm not keeping track. But if you aren't, that post was probably not aimed at you, anyway.

Quote from: Jackalope;255436Okay, first of all, you suck at math.

No, I'm asking for clarification on a reference to a playtest that wasn't very clear.  I saw patently non-Pathfinder core classes in there, so I didn't know exactly what was being playtested.

That said, the rest of this post (which I'm not quoting) was exactly what I wanted to know, so thanks.

Quote from: JackalopeNow, you may call that " a 3.5 game with a few house rules borrowed from Pathfinder," but I would point out that Pathfinder is 3.5 with a few houserules, so like Duh.

Yeah, you could fairly do that.

Then again, you could say the same thing of the d20 Star Wars game and True20 too, if you wanted to.  With a certain amount of fairness.

The question I was trying to get to the bottom of was the scope of the playtest was all.  Obviously you can use all this material side by side; but how well does it all work?

Quote from: jeff37923;255438I'd feel ashamed if I thought that I was unjustly pointing out where someone was wrong in his facts.

Oh, you would not.  I was willing to believe for a while that you were merely mistaken or stubbornly stupid, but now you're just flat out lying.  

And you're still a complete jackass.  You're trying dishonestly paint my statement that the power levels weren't compatible as something else.  Especially when you say that I "finally admit" that that was what I was getting at.  WTF?  That's what I said in the very post I made in the thread.  Finally admit, indeed.

You're a complete tool.

Quote from: Hobo;255447Oh, you would not.  I was willing to believe for a while that you were merely mistaken or stubbornly stupid, but now you're just flat out lying.  

And you're still a complete jackass.  You're trying dishonestly paint my statement that the power levels weren't compatible as something else.  Especially when you say that I "finally admit" that that was what I was getting at.  WTF?  That's what I said in the very post I made in the thread.  Finally admit, indeed.

You make me smile. The evidence is in the posts.

Quote from: Hobo;255447You're a complete tool.

Maybe so, but at least I can bother to read a book before discussing it.

Quote from: Jackalope;255415Yes, because despite Seanchi's amazing ability to spew bullshit, the games are extremely compatible.  

Newsflash for you: I'm not remotely the only one who thinks they're not compatible. I'm not even the only one on this site who thinks that, much less EnWorld and TBP. Attack me if you like, but that doesn't change matters...

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;255426Then when you're told it is possible to do this, you claim that I'm not really playing Pathfinder because I'm using 3.5 material in my game.

You're confused because I'm saying your claim is bullshit. There's no shifting of goal posts.

Quote from: Jackalope;255426So if I play 100% Pathfinder, it's not backwards compatible, but if I use some amount of 3.5 material (and thus prove it is backwards compatible) then I'm not playing Pathfinder.

No. If you use 3.5 material that's changed in Pathfinder without changing it, then you're not playing Pathfinder. I'm not sure why you can't wrap your brain around that, but there it is. Barbarians, among other things, are different in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5 and you're telling us that you're using the 3.5 versions. Thus aren't playing Pathfinder.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;255408How can you claim there is a power disparity when the Pathfinder psionic rules haven't even come out? You are projecting this erronious claim of "power disparity" on something that doesn't exist yet.

Er, he already told you he was contrasting it with the 3.5 psionics.

Do you, like, bother reading posts before you reply?

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;255523Er, he already told you he was contrasting it with the 3.5 psionics.

Do you, like, bother reading posts before you reply?

OK, tell me how you can contrast Pathfinder psionics with 3.5 psionics when the psionics rules for Pathfinder haven't come out yet. The only thing related to psionics that has come out for Pathfinder is fluff text on p234 and p235 of the Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting book. There have yet to be rules about psionics in Pathfinder. So without rules to compare them to, a person would be contrasting 3.5 psionics with a blank wall.

Can you grok the logical disconnect then with the arguement that Pathfinder psionics are nerfed? Especially since they don't exist yet?

Quote from: jeff37923;255536OK, tell me how you can contrast Pathfinder psionics with 3.5 psionics when the psionics rules for Pathfinder haven't come out yet.

You are trying to redefine the statement and then call it wrong. From where I am from, we call that strawman bashing.

Hobo was making the point about compatibility. You are wallowing in your own illogic here, be trying to tell him that he was making comparison to a system that doesn't exist, and ignoring Occam's Razor on the fact he wasn't.

And then, after he clarified, continued to press the point!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;255541You are trying to redefine the statement and then call it wrong. From where I am from, we call that strawman bashing.

Hobo was making the point about compatibility. You are wallowing in your own illogic here, be trying to tell him that he was making comparison to a system that doesn't exist, and ignoring Occam's Razor on the fact he wasn't.

And then, after he clarified, continued to press the point!

Go reread post #23 and post #27, where psionics are claimed by Hobo to be points of incompatibility. Hell, I've even quoted them upthread. So much for your strawman bashing assertion.

Now if you want to argue incompatibility, then say how the incompatibility manifests in using the Pathfinder rules with previous 3.5 material. Give examples, because the damn rules work mechanically - so show the imbalance. Let me and everyone else see this "power disparity" that is being claimed.

Quote from: Seanchai;255485No. If you use 3.5 material that's changed in Pathfinder without changing it, then you're not playing Pathfinder. I'm not sure why you can't wrap your brain around that, but there it is. Barbarians, among other things, are different in Pathfinder than they were in 3.5 and you're telling us that you're using the 3.5 versions. Thus aren't playing Pathfinder.

I'm actually using both types of barbarian.  The Pathfinder Barbarian is open to PCs and any NPC barbarians -- one of the NPCs that briefly helped the party was Hugin, a Pathfinder Barbarian 2.  The 3.5 Barbarian is not open for new characters, but I'm not converting any barbarians that appear in the Castle Whiterock adventure.  

What you originally claimed is that you "have to" convert 3.5 barbarians.  You do not.  You can run 3.5 barbarians under Pathfinder.  You do not have to change any of their statistics (except their Grapple if they are Large+ or Small-).  You can run them straight out of the module, as written.

Now you can say I'm full of shit all you want, but at the end of the day I'm actually running a Pathfinder campaign and you're just an opinionated blowhard on the internet who can't wrap his feeble mind around the very simple idea that Saying It Repeatedly Doesn't Make It So.

Dumbass.

Quote from: Jackalope;255576Saying It Repeatedly Doesn't Make It So.

This seems to be the underlying message of the thread.  No matter how many times you say something stupid and wrong, it will never magically become right.

So, to move this thread back to something useful and away from "Your mum's a poop!", has anyone tried combining Pathfinder with Iron Heroes or Arcana Unearthed? Just from internet scuttlebutt those seem to be two of the most popular 3.x variants, and easy compatibility would be a major selling point for me, since I intend for my next 3.x game (whenever that is) to be a mix of them.

Quote from: Jackalope;255576What you originally claimed is that you "have to" convert 3.5 barbarians.  You do not.  You can run 3.5 barbarians under Pathfinder.

And you don't have to convert any nWoD characters to run them in a D&D game.

The fact is, there are different barbarians in Pathfinder than there are in 3.5. A game is made up of it's mechanics. You "have" to convert 3.5 barbarians to Pathfinder barbarians because if you don't, you're not playing with Pathfinder's rules. I can grab a Monopoly board and cobble together some rules so that it works with the Sorry board game, but can I really say I'm playing Sorry or even Monopoly in those cases?

Quote from: Jackalope;255576You do not have to change any of their statistics (except their Grapple if they are Large+ or Small-).  You can run them straight out of the module, as written.

Now we come to the real core of your argument: supposed absolutes that's full of exceptions. "You never have to convert except here, here, and here and you can run this class in Pathfinder using 3.5 mechanics except in this instance and that one. Oh, and you never have to worry about power levels - except here, here, and there."

Quote from: Jackalope;255576I'm actually running a Pathfinder campaign and you're just an opinionated blowhard on the internet who can't wrap his feeble mind around the very simple idea that Saying It Repeatedly Doesn't Make It So.

And what would your argument be if I found some folks who are running Pathfinder campaigns who agree with me? Or starting running one myself?

If something's valid, it's valid whether or not I've run a Pathfinder game. Fact is, many people - evens ones who are much more familiar with Pathfinder - agree with my basic points.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;255667And you don't have to convert any nWoD characters to run them in a D&D game.

Yes, actually, you do.  As I already pointed out, nWoD uses an entirely different mechanic for determining success in attack, effectiveness of attack (i.e. damage), and effectiveness of armor.  You cannot make an attack roll using the nWoD character's attributes and get a result that is meaningful in D&D.  "4 success" is not "AC 18 or worse."  Or maybe it is.  There's no way to know without doing some sort of conversion process.

Thus, the stat block for a nWoD character is sufficiently different from that of a D&D character that you cannot use the nWoD without converting from one system to another.  You can be as obtuse as you want and claim that results in the Storyteller system are the same as results in the D20 system, but it just plain isn't so.

Pathfinder, which uses the OGL D20 system that 3.5 D&D uses, is backwards compatible.  You can use unmodified 3.5 stat blocks in Pathfinder without meaningful conversion.

QuoteThe fact is, there are different barbarians in Pathfinder than there are in 3.5. A game is made up of it's mechanics. You "have" to convert 3.5 barbarians to Pathfinder barbarians because if you don't, you're not playing with Pathfinder's rules.

Following that logic, it would be impossible for any game to be backwards compatible.  Because if you use something from the previous edition, you wouldn't be using the current edition, thus the current edition is not backwards compatible.

You can convert 3.5 material, if you want to, but if you don't have the time, energy or inclination you can simply run 3.5 material in Pathfinder with minimal effort.

QuoteNow we come to the real core of your argument: supposed absolutes that's full of exceptions. "You never have to convert except here, here, and here and you can run this class in Pathfinder using 3.5 mechanics except in this instance and that one. Oh, and you never have to worry about power levels - except here, here, and there."

The only person supposing an absolute is you.

QuoteAnd what would your argument be if I found some folks who are running Pathfinder campaigns who agree with me? Or starting running one myself?

That you're delusional and stupid.  That your entire argument hinges on a series of ridiculous assumptions and patently false assertions, and is thus an unreasonable crock of shit.

QuoteIf something's valid, it's valid whether or not I've run a Pathfinder game. Fact is, many people - evens ones who are much more familiar with Pathfinder - agree with my basic points.

Legions of people agree with you in secret!

You can keep claiming Pathfinder is not backwards compatible til you are blue in the face.  I will maintain the position I have always maintained: that it is backwards compatible to a very large extent, at least as compatible as 3.5 and 3.0, and far more compatible than 3.0 and 2E, or 3.5 and 4E.   It's D&D 3.75, as promised.

And yes, sometimes you do have to do some minor tweaking to make things work -- just as one has to do some tweaking to make some 3.0 material work with 3.5 -- but if you want to run a 3.5 adventure with Pathfinder, it works fine.  And if you want to use WOTC 3.5 supplements with Pathfinder, it works fine.

Now, if you want to use bullshit definitions of "backwards compatible" that can only be achieved by making absolutely no changes to 3.5, then you're an idiot and there's no point in arguing with you.  Since that appears to be what you are doing, you can kindly go fuck off back to whatever basement you crawled out of.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;255659So, to move this thread back to something useful and away from "Your mum's a poop!", has anyone tried combining Pathfinder with Iron Heroes or Arcana Unearthed? Just from internet scuttlebutt those seem to be two of the most popular 3.x variants, and easy compatibility would be a major selling point for me, since I intend for my next 3.x game (whenever that is) to be a mix of them.

Pseudoephedrine, I've never used IH in its entirety in my d20 gaming sessions since I'm mostly a 3.5 conservative. However, I'm a huge fan of what Mearls did with the 3.5 skills system in IH - skill challenges (beware: different rose by the same name) and stunts. If I make an on the fly-ruling on which skill to select for a stunt, I always go for the basic question: is this a STR- or DEX-based stunt/combat maneuver? (I'm quite sure there's a line to that effect in IH.) Now, 4th Edition wonderfully streamlined that process by building this into the Athletitcs/Acrobatics dichotomy which exhaustively covers physical skills. Pathfinder RPG doesn't go all that way with Athletics - still have Climb, Ride, etc. - but it introduces Acrobatics to fold Balance, Jump and Tumble. So it speeds up the stunt system, and makes it even easier for me to transport one of my favourite non-WotC d20 rules expansions into a running game.

Speaking of which, I can't get my group to pick Pathfinder races and classes. We've got no interest in devalidating player choices that so far were valid and (most of all) valuable in 3.5. However, we've agreed to take over the revision of the 3.5 skills system, since
a) folding skills makes sense as long as you don't go all the way of 4E and
b) the class/cross-class divide is handled more elegantly in Pathfinder than in 3.5, esp. at higher levels.

May I also say that the stuff I enjoyed most about the Beta so far was the DM-specific stuff. VERY little alterations, just the 3.5 DMG set up in a much better organized and visually pleasing way. Paizo really shows how much you can do with the late 3.5 monster stat block format, and is using it to present all other mechanics such as traps and spells (not that I'll ever buy into using at-will spells in my 3rd edition game). As a result, this part of the rulebook is a pleasure to read and a pleasure to use, in a way that I felt 3E books graphically never were. Superficial point, but important one at that. And obviously one that won't resonate with everyone.

Quote from: Jackalope;255712I will maintain the position I have always maintained: that it is backwards compatible to a very large extent, at least as compatible as 3.5 and 3.0 ... It's D&D 3.75, as promised.

I'd say it's at least as incompatible as 3.5 was with 3.0. (Count the number of people mixing 3.0 material with 3.5, easy as that.) In which case - adding a 0.5 - it's D&D 4.0 as promised, and would be called thus if it wasn't for that other company which is sitting on the license.

Quote from: Windjammer;255740I'd say it's at least as incompatible as 3.5 was with 3.0. (Count the number of people mixing 3.0 material with 3.5, easy as that.) In which case - adding a 0.5 - it's D&D 4.0 as promised, and would be called thus if it wasn't for that other company which is sitting on the license.

I said "it's 3.75, as promised" because sometime last year -- before Pathfinder even existed -- Erik Mona said that if WOTC didn't get the GSL worked out and to Paizo in time for them to have 4E products ready for GenCon 2008 then they might be forced to release their own version of D&D, which he said would be 'like a D&D 3.75.'   Pathfinder is that game.

Quote from: Jackalope;255712Yes, actually, you do.  As I already pointed out, nWoD uses an entirely different mechanic for determining success in attack, effectiveness of attack (i.e. damage), and effectiveness of armor.

And Pathfinder uses an entirely different mechanic for Rage than 3.5 D&D does.

Quote from: Jackalope;255712You can use unmodified 3.5 stat blocks in Pathfinder without meaningful conversion.

Ah, now it's "meaningful conversion," huh?

Quote from: Jackalope;255712...you can simply run 3.5 material in Pathfinder with minimal effort.

And "minimal effort."

Quote from: Jackalope;255712The only person supposing an absolute is you.

"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." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=254896&postcount=50)

Quote from: Jackalope;255712I will maintain the position I have always maintained: that it is backwards compatible to a very large extent, at least as compatible as 3.5 and 3.0, and far more compatible than 3.0 and 2E, or 3.5 and 4E.

"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." (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=254896&postcount=50)

Quote from: Jackalope;255712Now, if you want to use bullshit definitions of "backwards compatible" that can only be achieved by making absolutely no changes to 3.5, then you're an idiot and there's no point in arguing with you.

No, but changing the way the basic classes work, etc., don't strike me as minor changes. So we're not talking about "absolutely no changes." Your response to folks pointing out that they're making a lot of changes is: "Well, you don't have to convert. You can just ignore the fact that they're two different mechanics and run them as is."

Seanchai

I feel like I've stumbled into the Mirror, Mirror thread, where I find Jackalope is the one making sense and those opposed are making spurious arguments...

I must go lay down now...

Quote from: Seanchai;256077And Pathfinder uses an entirely different mechanic for Rage than 3.5 D&D does.

No, Pathfinder uses an entirely different mechanic for tracking how long rage lasts.   It still boosts your Strength and Constitution, which increases your Attack Bonus, Damage Bonus, and Hit Points.

The Rage spell uses a "different mechanic" than the 3.5 Rage class ability, and the Pathfidner Rage class ability.  The point?  You don't have one.

QuoteAh, now it's "meaningful conversion," huh?...And "minimal effort."

Yeah.  I made a hasty generalization.  You caught me!

You're still an obtuse moron with no actual point.

[qupte]No, but changing the way the basic classes work, etc., don't strike me as minor changes. So we're not talking about "absolutely no changes." Your response to folks pointing out that they're making a lot of changes is: "Well, you don't have to convert. You can just ignore the fact that they're two different mechanics and run them as is."[/QUOTE]

That isn't my response, that's a quote you just made up.

My response to ignorant obtuse jerks who speak from ignorance and claim you HAVE to convert 3.5 material to use it in a Pathfinder game is: No, you're wrong, and you're a big stinky poopy head.

Quote from: Jackalope;256215No, Pathfinder uses an entirely different mechanic for tracking how long rage lasts....The Rage spell uses a "different mechanic" than the 3.5 Rage class ability, and the Pathfidner Rage class ability.  The point?  You don't have one.

No, the point is that they're not compatible.

You keep saying they're "compatible" out of one side of your mouth and that they're "entirely different" out of the other. You might check out the definition of compatible: "designed to work with another device or system without modification."

D&D 3.5 Barbarians aren't designed to run under Pathfinder and if I took Ragnar the 3.5 Barbarian out of a 3.5 supplement, I'd have to modify him if I wanted him to use the Pathfinder rules.

Quote from: Jackalope;256215That isn't my response, that's a quote you just made up.

It's not a direct quote, but it certainly is your response.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;256392No, the point is that they're not compatible.

Seanchai

Bullshit.

Give specific examples where Pathfinder Beta and 3.5 are not compatible.

Quote from: Seanchai;256392You keep saying they're "compatible" out of one side of your mouth and that they're "entirely different" out of the other.

No, I'm not Seanchai, you're twisting my words because you're a pathetic wanker who can't handle nuanced arguments.  I'm saying they are highly compatible and require minimal conversion to work together.

QuoteYou might check out the definition of compatible: "designed to work with another device or system without modification."

I'm not sure where you pulled that definition out of, it seems like you're using a computer/electronics definition, but the common definition of compatible is "capable of existing or living together in harmony" and "Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others."

And by that definition, Pathfinder is most definitely compatible with 3.5 D&D.

QuoteD&D 3.5 Barbarians aren't designed to run under Pathfinder and if I took Ragnar the 3.5 Barbarian out of a 3.5 supplement, I'd have to modify him if I wanted him to use the Pathfinder rules.

Yes, if you wanted Ragnar to run under Pathfinder rule,s you would have to modify him.  My point is that if you just want to run 3.5 Ragnar without modification, you can.

QuoteIt's not a direct quote, but it certainly is your response.

"I'm a big fucking wanker asswipe with an axe to grind!"

Not a direct quote, but it sums up your responses in this thread.

Quote from: jeff37923;256397Give specific examples where Pathfinder Beta and 3.5 are not compatible.

Barbarians.

Wow, that was ridiculously easy. And something you could have discovered by reading the thread...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;256809Barbarians.

In what way?

Quote from: Seanchai;256809Wow, that was ridiculously easy.

Seanchai

See, here's the thing. Pathfinder and 3.5 and 3.0 have differences, but all of them are compatible with each other. You can take a Barbarian from Pathfinder and play it in 3.5 or 3.0, but the Barbarian from Pathfinder is different from the one in 3.5 and 3.0. The use of Rage Points in Pathfinder for the Barbarian makes it a more versatile trait of that character class. The uses that those Rage Points can be put to still use the same compatible rules of 3.5 or 3.0.

Pathfinder and 3.x is not like 4.0 and 3.x. You can still mix and match Pathfinder, 3.5, and 3.0 and play them under the same rules with thier differences intact. You cannot play 4.0 with anything but 4.0, because that version of the game is incompatible with anything that came before it.

Quote from: Windjammer;255740I'd say it's at least as incompatible as 3.5 was with 3.0. (Count the number of people mixing 3.0 material with 3.5, easy as that.) In which case - adding a 0.5 - it's D&D 4.0 as promised, and would be called thus if it wasn't for that other company which is sitting on the license.

I think in terms of scope (i.e., amount of things that changed) that's a fair statement.  I think in terms of some other elements, however, that's not as true.  I still point out that you can't mix and match 3.5 and Pathfinder races and classes without adjusting balance yourself, for example.

I know, I know, it's fair to say that 3.5 itself saw a fair amount of power creep, especially in the later splatbooks.  I think that's a red herring and a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the fact that there is an immediately noticable disparity in power level between most 3.5 race/class combos and Pathfinder race/class combos.  That was not one of the issues you had to deal with with 3e to 3.5.

Quote from: Hobo;256819I know, I know, it's fair to say that 3.5 itself saw a fair amount of power creep, especially in the later splatbooks.  I think that's a red herring and a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the fact that there is an immediately noticable disparity in power level between most 3.5 race/class combos and Pathfinder race/class combos.

Is this observation based on actual play, or on a reading of the rules?

I've been running & playing Pathfinder for several months now, and had been running & playing 3.5 for a few years before that.  And based on actual play, I would disagree with you.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422I'm saying they are highly compatible and require minimal conversion to work together.

Jackalope: "the games are completely compatible."

Moreover, how the hell would you know about what it takes to convert them? As you've said, you're purposefully not converting material and, according to you, if you don't have direct experience with something, apparently your opinion automatically invalid.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422I'm not sure where you pulled that definition out of...

It's called a dictionary.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422it seems like you're using a computer/electronics definition...

Nope, just the most apropos definition for games.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422but the common definition of compatible is "capable of existing or living together in harmony" and "Capable of existing or performing in harmonious, agreeable, or congenial combination with another or others."...And by that definition, Pathfinder is most definitely compatible with 3.5 D&D.

If D&D and Pathfinder were getting an apartment together or working together on the same project team, your definitions might fit. They're not, however.

Of course, you know that already. According to your first definition, for example, I could lay Dogs in the Vineyard next to Pathfinder and if they didn't get in a fight, I could say they were compatible.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422Yes, if you wanted Ragnar to run under Pathfinder rule,s you would have to modify him.

Thanks. That took a lot of effort, but thanks.

Since Pathfinder has made such sweeping changes - the classes are different, skills are different, Feats are different, the spells are different, the way magic items work are different, et al. - taking existing material and using it with Pathfinder will require a lot of modification.

If we're talking about modifying a favorite NPC, a spell, a Feat, a Prestige Class - "a" as in a singular instance - or whatever, no problem. But it's not as if my shelves of 3.5 materials are available for use on a whim.

Quote from: Jackalope;256422My point is that if you just want to run 3.5 Ragnar without modification, you can.

Except a Pathfinder Barbarian already exists. If you want to use the Pathfinder rules, you've got to modify him because Pathfinder has rules that deal specifically with Barbarians, Rage, etc..

If you could find a 3.5 class or whatnot that didn't interact with Pathfinders rules and rules changes, then, yeah, I could see you claiming you could just drop it in a Pathfinder game without worry. I just don't think, given the scope of the changes, that finding such an element is going to be a too frequent occurrence.

I can take a True 20 character, an Iron Heroes character, an nWoD character, a Champions character, etc., and throw them into a Pathfinder game, just hand waving away any inconsistencies or problems that arise. That doesn't mean the games are compatible with one another. It doesn't mean shelves full of materials from those games are now magically compatible with Pathfinder, each other, etc.. It just means I have the capacity to ignore rules and hand wave.

Seanchai

Quote from: Hobo;256819I think in terms of scope (i.e., amount of things that changed) that's a fair statement.  I think in terms of some other elements, however, that's not as true.  I still point out that you can't mix and match 3.5 and Pathfinder races and classes without adjusting balance yourself, for example.

I know, I know, it's fair to say that 3.5 itself saw a fair amount of power creep, especially in the later splatbooks.  I think that's a red herring and a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the fact that there is an immediately noticable disparity in power level between most 3.5 race/class combos and Pathfinder race/class combos.  That was not one of the issues you had to deal with with 3e to 3.5.

So now the question isn't one of incompatibility as you initially claimed, but your percieved power disparity between the systems. Glad we got that all cleared up.

Quote from: jeff37923;256811In what way?

They use different mechanics, for example, for Raging.

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;256817Pathfinder and 3.x is not like 4.0 and 3.x. You can still mix and match Pathfinder, 3.5, and 3.0 and play them under the same rules with thier differences intact. You cannot play 4.0 with anything but 4.0, because that version of the game is incompatible with anything that came before it.

This is just horse shit. You say that being mechanically different doesn't prevent two games from being compatible, but then go on to say that when it's 4e that's mechanically different, this no longer applies.

If Pathfinder and 3.5 are "compatible" despite using different mechanics, then 4e and Pathfinder are also "compatible."

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;256841This is just horse shit. You say that being mechanically different doesn't prevent two games from being compatible, but then go on to say that when it's 4e that's mechanically different, this no longer applies.

If Pathfinder and 3.5 are "compatible" despite using different mechanics, then 4e and Pathfinder are also "compatible."

Seanchai

You can run a character from any of 3.0 in 3.5 in Pathfinder because they are all similar enough in design to be compatible, the mechanical differences are slight. You cannot run a character from 4.0 in anything but 4.0 because it was designed to be incompatible with anything else, the mechanical differences between 4.0 and everything else are so great that they are incompatible.

That's not horse shit, that's fact. Don't think so? Go play using the rules above and see which works with what.

Quote from: jeff37923;256834So now the question isn't one of incompatibility as you initially claimed, but your percieved power disparity between the systems. Glad we got that all cleared up.

Oh, are you still posting here in this thread?

I'm glad you were finally able to see what I said in the very first post I made in this thread, too.  Maybe now you can stop with the dipshittery, now that that's cleared up.

Quote from: Jackalope;256824Is this observation based on actual play, or on a reading of the rules?

Reading.

Quote from: JackalopeI've been running & playing Pathfinder for several months now, and had been running & playing 3.5 for a few years before that.  And based on actual play, I would disagree with you.

Good for you.  Although didn't you yourself say that a Pathfinder character was more or less equivalent to an LA+2 3.5 character?  In this very thread?

That doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me; it just sounds like you disagree with whether or not that's important.

Quote from: Hobo;256852Oh, are you still posting here in this thread?

I'm glad you were finally able to see what I said in the very first post I made in this thread, too.  Maybe now you can stop with the dipshittery, now that that's cleared up.

Can't stand when you are called on your bullshit, can you? Next time read the fucking book before you say stupid shit then.

Perhaps you folks should come to an agreement on what “backwards compatible” means. It appears some have the notion that it means “works with the old stuff without revisions” (which is how I would use the term) and others seem to believe it means “works with the old stuff with a minimal amount of revisions”.

Quote from: jeff37923;256857Can't stand when you are called on your bullshit, can you? Next time read the fucking book before you say stupid shit then.

You truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

Quote from: CavScout;256906Perhaps you folks should come to an agreement on what "backwards compatible" means. It appears some have the notion that it means "works with the old stuff without revisions" (which is how I would use the term) and others seem to believe it means "works with the old stuff with a minimal amount of revisions".

I think one problem is both your offered definitions can be applied to pathfinder as being argued here.

You can run pathfinder without revisions at all, but some people will point out that there is a power disparity, thus... to them... it needs minimal revisions (for example, altering the listed power level of prexisting modules, converting non-core races to pathfinder standard stats (I can do twenty or thirty races in five minutes if I wanted....)..

The point of dispute seems to be, in at least one thread of argument, that there are now, essentially, two barbarian classes that share the same name. IF the P-Barbarian had a different name it would take a lot of wind out of the sails of that argument.  The rules are completely compatable, the classes are slightly less so (pathfinder classes being generally more powerful in the long run) and the classes require minimal conversion once you leave the core races...

Quote from: Seanchai;256841This is just horse shit. You say that being mechanically different doesn't prevent two games from being compatible, but then go on to say that when it's 4e that's mechanically different, this no longer applies.

If Pathfinder and 3.5 are "compatible" despite using different mechanics, then 4e and Pathfinder are also "compatible."

Okay, I don't even know why I'm bothering, since you clearly are a jackass who doesn't want to try to understand what other people are saying, but you're using mechanics to mean two different things.

There are, for lack of better terms, micro and macro mechanics.  An example of a micro-mechanic would be the Rage mechanic, an example of a macro-mechanic would be the combat system.

Pathfinder is a 3.5 OGL game.  It uses the exact same macro-mechanics as all 3.5 OGL games.  4E (and nWoD and DitV, other games you've named) do not use the same macro-mechanic: they do not use the 3.5 OGL engine.

The claim that is being made is that because Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D use the same engine (the 3.5 OGL engine), they are compatible.  They may use different micro-mechanics in different situations, but they use the same macro-mechanics, and can run side by side in the same session.  That is, in actual play, you do not have do any serious conversion (only the Grapple issue I've mentioned) to run 3.5 D&D characters in a Pathfinder game, and for the most part you don't have to do any meaningful conversion to use WOTC splatbooks with Pathfinder.

There are some minor changes on has to make to use certain micro-mechanics, but these changes are rare, easy to make, and no more onerous than the changes one has to make to use most 3.0 material with 3.5.

But I seriously doubt you have any interest in trying to understand that.  You clearly are just a fuckwit with an axe to grind.

Seriously dude, did Pathfinder touch you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?  Where does the mindless hate come from?

Quote from: Spike;256978I think one problem is both your offered definitions can be applied to pathfinder as being argued here.

It`s interesting, then, that the designer (Jason Bulmahn) does not consider the 'no modifications and you do fine' approach once. Not once. I am referring to pages 298 to 299 in the Beta Ruleset, which is mostly but not exclusively geared to converting 3.5 monsters to the Beta.

Jason gives two options, and for the sake of the debate this thread has seen, I ignore what he offers under "Complete Conversion". Let us just say that complete conversion is heavy work, and that a hypothetical "errata" sheet of the 3.5 MM compared to the forthcoming Pathfinder MM will put WotC´s own errata files (Monster Manual II and Monsters of Faerun, I am looking at you) in a shade, by a far margin.

As I said, let´s ignore this because people most vexed about compatibility in this thread are quite aware that full conversion is heavy, heavy, work. So let us look at the other alternative. Jason calls it 'Quick Conversion'. Interesting enough, he starts out on a very promising note (pun intended), "The simplest option in converting existing material to work with the Pathfinder RPG is to use the content as is." Great! We have seen that assertion made in this thread over and over. However, at this point Jason turns round 180°. "Despite this, there are still some things to keep in mind." What follows are step by step instructions to level up monsters (giving them more abilities, more hitpoints, and so on) which aren't nearly as long as the ones Jason gives under the 'Complete Conversion' option. But they are there.

To be honest, I tire of people debating the break off point at which the number of things Jason here (rightly) regards as obligatory to do even if you want to "use 3.5 material as is" hits a level where your own sentiments of compatibility are violated. If you think you (pl.) can reach a consensus on this topic in this thread by rational argument, you are wrong. We are talking about a felt level of how much work each of us, as a DM, is prepared to do before he or she says 'nope, that is not convertion, it's making a new game'. Obviously citing 3E-4E is uncontentions, but that is pretty much as far as uncontentions claims will go in this thread.

As I said, I am not interesting in debating the cut off point, because Jason finishes his entry under "Quick Conversion" with a complete howler. "Converting (player) characters is simple as well. Most classes do not lose abilities and most gain a number of new powers. Simply add these new power to the existing characters. Each character will also need to rebuild their feat and skill selections."

I am with Seanchai on this point. If Jason starts off with 'you can use 3.5 as is' and then tells me to add rage point mechanism etc. to my extant barbarian, then somewhere something has gone amiss. I mean, Jason does not even consider running the 3.5 barbarian and his Pathfinder pendant side by side as an option worth mentioning.

I am not claiming that people who (claim they) do actually follow this option are delusional, but they are off a tangent not even shared by the people most keen on communicating that you can use 3.5 as is in their new game.

Quote from: Jackalope;257027Pathfinder is a 3.5 OGL game.  It uses the exact same macro-mechanics as all 3.5 OGL games.
...
The claim that is being made is that because Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D use the same engine (the 3.5 OGL engine), they are compatible.

Look, I understand where you are going with this. But I don´t think you have used the most desirable terms to get the point across, in particular with reference to 3.5 OGL. On terms of "being generic" (both mechanical and fluff-wise) we can perhaps agree on a scale from D&D 3.5 to d20 to 3.5 OGL. I mean, we can agree on this because Erik Mona decided for the d20 logo to come off Pathfinder products long ago. But he has kept the OGL logo, and for a good reason. Just as the d20 logo, the 3.5 logo tells people something, and that is not some symbolic bullshit which only the visually apt can decipher. It is a boxed set of text (in orange) which reads "3.5 OGL compatible". Hey, I have got it right in front of me, with the Rise of the Runelords modules and the campaign setting.

Guess what. No 3.5 OGL logo on the Beta. And that is for the simple reason that 3.5/OGL compatibility as defined in the OGL itself applies no longer. It is as simple as that. So I would find it more helpful if you tried to use a less contentious term to get your point across.

For what it is worth, I actually agree with your point as someone who is - very, very selectively - using the Beta ruleset at his 3.5 gaming table. But my DM attitude towards a player bringing a Pathfinder barbarian to the table is similar to my attitude towards a player wishing to play a Tome of Battle core class: "Look, we can do this. But you realize you (a) set the tone of the campaign and (b) have effectively forced everyone else to abandon their more moderate class choices?"

Quote from: Windjammer;257146It`s interesting, then, that the designer (Jason Bulmahn) does not consider the 'no modifications and you do fine' approach once. Not once. I am referring to pages 298 to 299 in the Beta Ruleset, which is mostly but not exclusively geared to converting 3.5 monsters to the Beta.

Jason gives two options, and for the sake of the debate this thread has seen, I ignore what he offers under "Complete Conversion". Let us just say that complete conversion is heavy work, and that a hypothetical "errata" sheet of the 3.5 MM compared to the forthcoming Pathfinder MM will put WotC´s own errata files (Monster Manual II and Monsters of Faerun, I am looking at you) in a shade, by a far margin.

As I said, let´s ignore this because people most vexed about compatibility in this thread are quite aware that full conversion is heavy, heavy, work. So let us look at the other alternative. Jason calls it 'Quick Conversion'. Interesting enough, he starts out on a very promising note (pun intended), "The simplest option in converting existing material to work with the Pathfinder RPG is to use the content as is." Great! We have seen that assertion made in this thread over and over. However, at this point Jason turns round 180°. "Despite this, there are still some things to keep in mind." What follows are step by step instructions to level up monsters (giving them more abilities, more hitpoints, and so on) which aren't nearly as long as the ones Jason gives under the 'Complete Conversion' option. But they are there.

To be honest, I tire of people debating the break off point at which the number of things Jason here (rightly) regards as obligatory to do even if you want to "use 3.5 material as is" hits a level where your own sentiments of compatibility are violated. If you think you (pl.) can reach a consensus on this topic in this thread by rational argument, you are wrong. We are talking about a felt level of how much work each of us, as a DM, is prepared to do before he or she says 'nope, that is not convertion, it's making a new game'. Obviously citing 3E-4E is uncontentions, but that is pretty much as far as uncontentions claims will go in this thread.

As I said, I am not interesting in debating the cut off point, because Jason finishes his entry under "Quick Conversion" with a complete howler. "Converting (player) characters is simple as well. Most classes do not lose abilities and most gain a number of new powers. Simply add these new power to the existing characters. Each character will also need to rebuild their feat and skill selections."

I am with Seanchai on this point. If Jason starts off with 'you can use 3.5 as is' and then tells me to add rage point mechanism etc. to my extant barbarian, then somewhere something has gone amiss. I mean, Jason does not even consider running the 3.5 barbarian and his Pathfinder pendant side by side as an option worth mentioning.

I am not claiming that people who (claim they) do actually follow this option are delusional, but they are off a tangent not even shared by the people most keen on communicating that you can use 3.5 as is in their new game.

That's a pretty reasonable breakdown.

Quote from: Spike;256978IF the P-Barbarian had a different name it would take a lot of wind out of the sails of that argument.

Not really.

It seems to me that the classes in 3.5 are all made out of the same building blocks. And the same number of them. It also seems to me that the classes in Pathfinder are made out of different types of building blocks - even when just considering itself - and more of them.

For example, no classes in 3.5 have point pools. Some classes in Pathfinder apparently do.

If you a take a class that wasn't build around the idea of point pools being in the game and throw it into a game where the classes - even those without pools - were balanced around the idea of point pools and...well...

Personally, I could care less if NPCs use the same mechanics as PCs. But, up until 4e, that's basically been the case with D&D. Thus what's good for the goose (the NPCs) is also good for the gander (the PCs). And vice versa. If I'm playing a D&D game and I run up against a new Prestige class, I'm thinking I ought to be able to take that Prestige Class when I level next (provided I qualify).

What I don't see is how that would work if Pathfinder's mechanics are meant to replace 3.5, such as is the case with the Barbarian class and it's Rage mechanic. Could a character be a Barbarian 5/Barbarian 2? Or take a 3.5 Feat that's intentionally not available in Pathfinder? Or take a new Pathfinder Feat that breaks a 3.5 class or Prestige Class? How would that work? Why would you want that as someone interested in the integrity of the game?  

So, absolutely, part of my argument centers around them being the same name. But that's just the surface of the argument.

Seanchai

Quote from: Jackalope;257027It uses the exact same macro-mechanics as all 3.5 OGL games.

You mean roll a d20, add modifiers, and then check it against a result?

Quote from: Jackalope;257027The claim that is being made is that because Pathfinder and 3.5 D&D use the same engine (the 3.5 OGL engine), they are compatible.

Except the micro-mechanics far outweigh the macro-mechanics.

Quote from: Jackalope;257027They may use different micro-mechanics in different situations, but they use the same macro-mechanics, and can run side by side in the same session.

By ignoring all the micro-mechanics. That doesn't seem wise and doesn't make the games "completely compatible" or "almost entirely compatible" or however you'd like to phrase it.

Quote from: Jackalope;257027But I seriously doubt you have any interest in trying to understand that.

Oh, I understand what you're saying. And why. You're just wrong. No amount of personal attacks will change that. You're just plain wrong, a wrongness born out of a fanboy's love for his product.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;257146I am with Seanchai on this point. If Jason starts off with 'you can use 3.5 as is' and then tells me to add rage point mechanism etc. to my extant barbarian, then somewhere something has gone amiss. I mean, Jason does not even consider running the 3.5 barbarian and his Pathfinder pendant side by side as an option worth mentioning.

But your arguments are based solely in the blackest pits of ignorance and blinding hatred for Paizo, right? I mean, you couldn't be claiming this if you actually had play experience with the rules set.

Oh, snap! You are playing Pathfinder, though, aren't you?

Listen, the kids can think what they want, but I'm still buying Pathfinder and Paizo products. I've been planning to buy Pathfinder since day one.

I just don't think Paizo should be positioning its product as 3.5 compatible when it's not. It's unwise. Pathfinder is its own thing, just like Iron Heroes, True20, etc., and that's awesome. No need to contrast yourself to the Big Dog when you'll pale in comparison.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;257324You mean roll a d20, add modifiers, and then check it against a result?

QuoteYeah, basically.

QuoteExcept the micro-mechanics far outweigh the macro-mechanics.

Hmm.  Which should I believe?  A forceful assertion on the internet from a dude who has never played the game, or my own experience running and playing in the game.  Hmm.

QuoteBy ignoring all the micro-mechanics. That doesn't seem wise and doesn't make the games "completely compatible" or "almost entirely compatible" or however you'd like to phrase it.

You don't have to ignore the micro mechanics.  That doesn't make any sense.

QuoteOh, I understand what you're saying. And why. You're just wrong. No amount of personal attacks will change that. You're just plain wrong, a wrongness born out of a fanboy's love for his product.

But I'm not wrong, I'm speaking from experience.  And you are speaking from a total lack of experience.  No amount of personal attacks will change that.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.  That's why you can explain why I'm wrong.  That's why you can't explain how come my sessions run smoothly despite the fact that I am doing no preparatory conversion of the 3.5 adventure I've been running for the last few months.

Quote from: Windjammer;257149For what it is worth, I actually agree with your point as someone who is - very, very selectively - using the Beta ruleset at his 3.5 gaming table. But my DM attitude towards a player bringing a Pathfinder barbarian to the table is similar to my attitude towards a player wishing to play a Tome of Battle core class: "Look, we can do this. But you realize you (a) set the tone of the campaign and (b) have effectively forced everyone else to abandon their more moderate class choices?"

You seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I'm talking about.

I am NOT suggesting that you can take a Pathfinder core class and use it in a 3.5 game.  That would be a massive power jump.  I am not suggesting that Pathfinder material can be used in previous editions.  If that is what people mean by backwards compatible, then that's a very different thing.

What I am saying is this:

I am running a Pathfinder game.  We are using Pathfinder as the default for everything.  If a player wants to play a Barbarian, they must use the Barbarian from the Pathfinder Beta Playtest.  We started a new, fresh campaign for this playtest, so we we're not converting a campaign in progress (which is what I believe Jason was referring to).

I am running a 3.5 OGL adventure in my playtest.  That adventure includes barbarians.  3.5 Barbarians.  I do not convert them to Pathfinder barbarian before running the encounters.

It works fine.

That's all I'm saying.  Seanchai can claim it doesn't work all he wants, but I have done it several times already -- there were bunches of Orc Barbarians on level 2 of Whiterock -- and it actually does work.

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

Windjammer:

Consider that Jason has a vested interest in getting people to convert more in that it keeps them buying product. The Beta book cost money. The presumable finished product will cost money and any monster manual conversions will cost money. Thus Jason, and Pathfinder as a result, is geared towards convincing you to using their superior mechanics, or undertaking labor intensive conversions (leveling up monsters rather than just using the same monsters at lower levels and using bigger/more monsters at the level you used to use the old monsters at...).

Piazo doesn't make a dime off the old 3.5 books. WOTC makes those dimes.

Quote from: Seanchai;257321Not really.

It seems to me that the classes in 3.5 are all made out of the same building blocks. And the same number of them. It also seems to me that the classes in Pathfinder are made out of different types of building blocks - even when just considering itself - and more of them.

For example, no classes in 3.5 have point pools. Some classes in Pathfinder apparently do.

Two classes out of, what? Eight? core classes... never mind that those are two classes that are never listed as 'mandatory for a balanced party' but are rather sort of marginal optional replacements. Can't have a party without a fighter, but you can sub in a barbarian. No party NEEDS a bard, and most players I know would rather nobody brought a bard (except the guy that wants to play one...).   The other classes are made up of the same blocks. Fighters still get bonus feats, for example. Wizards still get spells...

QuoteIf you a take a class that wasn't build around the idea of point pools being in the game and throw it into a game where the classes - even those without pools - were balanced around the idea of point pools and...well...

Thats silly. Seriously.   The 'rage pool' is simply a way of looking at the length of time a barbarian can rage. Off the top of my head its even computed the same way at 1st level. The only changes (again, off the top of my head) is that since he's tapping a pool, he can chose to rage less time at once for more times a day, more usable, and he has access to class abilities that are fueled by the same points that reduce, obviously, the length of time he can rage.   So a barbarian without the pool  is just like a barbarian that just rages the same number of times a day and never taps his cool powers. THey get the same number of rounds, the same penalties.  I won't speak to the bard's pool because honestly I haven't read up on it. I reference Pathfinder as I need it, otherwise I'm just running 3.5 with a different book in my hands.

QuotePersonally, I could care less if NPCs use the same mechanics as PCs. But, up until 4e, that's basically been the case with D&D. Thus what's good for the goose (the NPCs) is also good for the gander (the PCs). And vice versa. If I'm playing a D&D game and I run up against a new Prestige class, I'm thinking I ought to be able to take that Prestige Class when I level next (provided I qualify).

Not 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?  You are using a standard that is far and away more strict than I would consider normal, if so.

QuoteWhat I don't see is how that would work if Pathfinder's mechanics are meant to replace 3.5, such as is the case with the Barbarian class and it's Rage mechanic. Could a character be a Barbarian 5/Barbarian 2? Or take a 3.5 Feat that's intentionally not available in Pathfinder? Or take a new Pathfinder Feat that breaks a 3.5 class or Prestige Class? How would that work? Why would you want that as someone interested in the integrity of the game?  

Again, a clear reading of the P-Barbarian class shows that this is unnecessary. Rage Pool points are computed essentially Identically (at first level) to the length of time a 3.5-Barbarian can rage, plus he gets the ability to use a 'rage power' instead of just raging.  Its a more flexible version of the same class, but functionally identical in every other respect.  A P-Barbarian gets the same benefits and penalties for raging, rages for roughly the same number of rounds, he just has a bit more control (unimportant for NPC's...) and access to class abilities that reduce his total 'rage time'.  

The prestige classes gets interesting: There are none in the beta playtest, and with the changes to the skill system you obviously have to apply a minimal amount of thought to conversions. If 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!

QuoteSo, absolutely, part of my argument centers around them being the same name. But that's just the surface of the argument.
Seanchai

Again, 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.  

Normally I like reading your posts and enjoy your arguements, but you've backed me into Jackalope's corner with what appears to be obstinent grognardiness and frankly silly arguments (seriously: WOD in 3.5 D&D being the same as Pathfinder in D&D?  Who are you trying to convince, a down syndrome three year old?)

Quote from: Jackalope;257335You seem to be talking about something entirely different than what I'm talking about.

Yes, I just realized we are coming at it from opposite angles. I am going to argue it does not impact the overall argument, but let`s see.

Quote from: Jackalope;257335I am NOT suggesting that you can take a Pathfinder core class and use it in a 3.5 game.  That would be a massive power jump.  I am not suggesting that Pathfinder material can be used in previous editions.  If that is what people mean by backwards compatible, then that's a very different thing.

You have lost me there. The notion of compatibility is symmetric: two things are compatible with one another, there is no such thing as A being compatible with B but B not being compatible with A. Now I am saying plucking Pathfinder classes into my 3.5 game (mind you, a game not using ToB) would hurt it, you agree. You then say that plucking 3.5 classes into your Pathfinder game won`t hurt it and hasn`t hurt it.

Quote from: Spike;257336Windjammer:
Consider that Jason has a vested interest in getting people to convert more in that it keeps them buying product. The Beta book cost money.

You know, I have been drinking so much of that "oh no, Paizo is all doing it for their fans, whereas WotC is doing it all for the bling bling!" that I have missed this really, really obvious point (and I mean no sarcasm here, for a change): they`re just replicating WotC marketing a propos 3.5. Introducing changes for the sake of changes which, once they add up, make for planned obsolescence. Which reminds me of this:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In particular (beware: light cosmetic touches in place),

Quote from: Monte CookYou see, while some of the changes are merely revisions, many are also completely different rules. Despite what Paizo has said, there are conversion issues between 3.5 and Pathfinder RPG (your half-orc barbarian is going to be a fairly different character in PF-RPG). Many of the changes, some of them even good ones, are ones I would never have allowed in a "revision," but only in a new edition.

Allow me to clarify. If I were in charge of the world (or at least D&D), I'd make sure that in a revision, there were no actual rules changes that could retroactively alter a character or a campaign. Changing the price of magic item, clarifying an unclear rules, even adding a new piece of equipment or tweaking a spell is not going to significantly alter anyone's character or campaign. But if I'm running a 3.5 game (which I am) and was going to switch over completely to Pathfinder RPG (which I'm not), I'd have to deal with all kinds of changes to the game. Suddenly it costs a lot more to bring someone back from the dead. Suddenly dwarven armor is made of adamantite rather than mithral. Suddenly devas are called angels. Suddenly half-elves are the best diplomats in the game. And so on. You might see some or all of these things as good changes -- some of them are. But in my definition of a revision, they just shouldn't be part of these books. This is 4th Edition material. I shouldn't have to change my campaign just because Paizo needed cash.

Quote from: Windjammer;257345Yes, I just realized we are coming at it from opposite angles. I am going to argue it does not impact the overall argument, but let`s see.

Well, okay, but you and I fundamentally disagree with what "backwards compatible" means.  I assume only that previous material may be used with the new edition, not the other way around.

QuoteYou have lost me there. The notion of compatibility is symmetric: two things are compatible with one another, there is no such thing as A being compatible with B but B not being compatible with A.

Sure there is.  Programs that run under Windows XP run under Windows Vista, because Windows Vista is compatible with Windows XP, but Vista programs won't run on XP, because XP is not compatible with Vista.

QuoteNow I am saying plucking Pathfinder classes into my 3.5 game (mind you, a game not using ToB) would hurt it, you agree. You then say that plucking 3.5 classes into your Pathfinder game won`t hurt it and hasn`t hurt it.

Yeah, though I'm specifically talking about using a 3.5 class for an NPC, whereas you're talking about using 3.5 classes for PCs.

I wouldn't let a player create a new Barbarian for my campaign that used the 3.5 barbarian rules.  Though I wouldn't let them do this because it's contra to the purposes of the campaign (to playtest Pathfinder), not because they'd be weaker comparatively.  I would just recommend against it because of the comparative differences.

But those differences really only play out over time.  You can't really notice the difference between a 3.5 Barbarian and P-Barbarian over the course of a few combat rounds.  Over the course of a few combats, the P-Barbarians more efficient allotment of Rage would have a noticeable effect.

That's why you can run a 3.5 barbarian NPC has a combat encounter in Pathfinder without meaningful conversion (those orc barbarians I mentioned required literally zero conversion) and without causing any harm to the game.

Quote from: Seanchai;257333Oh, snap! You are playing Pathfinder, though, aren't you?

No, I am not. I am using the Beta as a supplement (mostly, as a DMsupplement). Jackalope is using it as his new core rulebook. Compared to him I am not playing Pathfinder at all. As regards that, he has got a valid point: there is a difference to where we are coming from when we approach the Beta.

The fact remains that, if Jackalope is correct, this very difference should not matter. And yet it does. There is a reason why I don't pluck the new classes into my game.

Quote from: JackalopeYeah, though I'm specifically talking about using a 3.5 class for an NPC, whereas you're talking about using 3.5 classes for PCs.

You know what's been really funny? Just as I use the monster table on page 294 (Table 12-6) to run combat on the fly using no other monster resource, I have resolved to use the new core classes when designing villain NPCs. I mean, not all my players have read the Beta carefully - they won't know what hit them!

Huh.  I have to admit, I think Monte Cook is completely full of it.

1. I always thought Dwarven armor was made of admantium, and that Elven chain was the one made from mithril.  I can't imagine this change is really going to affect all that many campaigns.  It's certainly not along the lines of "Now Dwarves live on the surface and are Aztecs."  I'm not even sure where he's getting this from.

2. Half-Elves were the best diplomats as of 3.5's Races of the Wild, or at least that's what all the half-elf specific feats would lead you to believe.  The new half-elf only buils naturally on those ideas, and is actually an effective character race.  I haven't seen anyone play a half-elf since 2E, and in 2E it seemed like every third character was a half-elf.  So I definitely think the half-elf needed repair.

3. If changes in the price of magical items don't matter, I don't see why changes in the cost of Raise Dead matter.

4. The change from Devas to Angels is literally a name change.  It's entirely meaningless, and can't possibly alter your campaign in any meaningful way (and hell, its not like you can't just keep calling them Devas if you like).  I've called them angels for decades, and always assumed they were called Devas to avoid offending certain types of people.

Hey Windjammer, where did Monte Cook post that?

By the way, I still think the Pathfinder RPG is going to end up being ass-tastic but that does not diminish my love of Paizo's APs or Golarian. In fact, I am going to keep buying PF products for the fluff and just use 3.5E, Fantasy HERO, or even 4E.

Quote from: Jackalope;257354Well, okay, but you and I fundamentally disagree with what "backwards compatible" means.  I assume only that previous material may be used with the new edition, not the other way around.

You know, that is easily the most important point I have taken away from this discussion so far. I may totally misunderstand what Jason is after when he is talking about backwards compatibility. Maybe what I am after is (for want of a better term) "foreward compatibility" - I would like to buy Paizo adventure modules and run them (mostly) with my ruleset as is. but Paizo apparently wants me to buy both the modules and the ruleset. And frankly, no, if I buy the ruleset I am not sure I can "use previous material with the new edition" with the current ease, but let's not open that can of worms again.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;257361Hey Windjammer, where did Monte Cook post that?

Man, it's a fake. As I said in that post, "beware: light cosmetic touches in place". For the real thing you got to go to his webpage which I linked already:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In the original post, Monte isn't talking about Paizo, he is talking about WotC switching from 3.0 to 3.5. My point was that we're seeing it all again - in fact, Paizo has said so repeatedly - but that includes the very elements Monte mentions in that review.

Quote from: Windjammer;257364Man, it's a fake. As I said in that post, "beware: light cosmetic touches in place". For the real thing you got to go to his webpage which I linked already:

http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26.html

In the original post, Monte isn't talking about Paizo, he is talking about WotC switching from 3.0 to 3.5. My point was that we're seeing it all again - in fact, Paizo has said so repeatedly - but that includes the very elements Monte mentions in that review.

Ah, I see what you did. Hilarious. I wonder if he would say the same thing now.

Actually, once again I am forced to admit that Jackalope seems to be saying what I agree with in his review of Monte Cook's commentary, regardless of if it was 3.5 or Pathfinder.

Apparently 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.

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.

Yeah, so far I have heard Paizo staff only say that they do the Pathfinder RPG for the love of the hobby. Without keeping the 3.5/OLG core rulebooks in print, our beloved edition will die, since it won`t draw new gamers into the hobby or into this edition in particular. Paizo has also explicitly said they want to draw new customers into the range of their core product, the Adventure Path Modules, and to do that they have to keep the 3.5/OGL or a lightly revised version of that in print. For prospective new customers, you see.

But I haven`t heard Paizo ever say: "yes, we want to render the core books of extant Paizo customers obsolete." And yet you seem to think that they should say that. Because plainly, anything that goes beyond errata has precisely that (intended) effect. In 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. My main beef with Paizo isn`t so much which design decisions they take with their new ruleset, as with an increasingly disingenuous marketing strategy - the very type of marketing strategy 3.5 costumers have learnt to hate with a passion during 4E`s promotion, I might add, not to mention the outcry when 3.5 was released (yep, Monte sums that up pretty well).

Can we agree that with regard to my quoted sentences in this post, (a) these are two different things Paizo can say and (b) that to date they have not said the second of these things but instead done as much as possible to cast themselves as 3.5`s savior and not just as its inheritor?

I don't think the one thing invalidates the other. They may have a sincere intent to do A, but they wish to make a good profit so they do B as a means of accomplishing A, ya follow?

And I expect even babies to grasp that businesses are not in the business of presenting their plans in the worst possible light, thus must be lying if their advertising is not so...

Quote from: Windjammer;257382Yeah, so far I have heard Paizo staff only say that they do the Pathfinder RPG for the love of the hobby. Without keeping the 3.5/OLG core rulebooks in print, our beloved edition will die, since it won`t draw new gamers into the hobby or into this edition in particular. Paizo has also explicitly said they want to draw new customers into the range of their core product, the Adventure Path Modules, and to do that they have to keep the 3.5/OGL or a lightly revised version of that in print. For prospective new customers, you see.

But I haven`t heard Paizo ever say: "yes, we want to render the core books of extant Paizo customers obsolete." And yet you seem to think that they should say that.

Heh.  That's because the head of Paizo is Erik Mona, and Erik Mona's background is in public relations.  They have said something to the effect of 'We want the changes in Pathfinder to be noticeable and meaningful enough to justify the purchase to people who already have the 3.5 core books.'  which is a very polite way of saying they want to sell 3.5 D&D players a new set of core books.

It's like I was saying to one of my players last session;  Erik Mona is a genius.  He's sold me an unfinished book to replace a finished book I was quite happy with, and intends to sell me the finished book in a year.  And I'm going to buy it, and I'm actually happy and excited about that.  Which, viewed from a certain angle, makes me look like quite the sucker.

It's a real lesson in the importance of good public relations for a company.  I could be playing 4E right now, but WOTC just did about everything they could to say "Fuck you, you're not welcome, we don't want you or need you."  And this is a company I used to consider the savior of D&D.  They spend good will like George Bush.

Whereas Paizo is selling a shitload of unfinished books that you can get for free to people who don't need them with the promise to sell them the finished book in a year for twice the price.  And people are going crazy over it!  The Beta -- again, a book you can download for free, and will be invalid in a year -- is going into it's second printing.  And they're doing that primarily on the power of making gamers feel involved in the process, excited about the game again, and tapping in to a vast resevoir of antipathy towards 4E but excitement over the idea of a new edition.

QuoteBecause plainly, anything that goes beyond errata has precisely that (intended) effect. In 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. My main beef with Paizo isn`t so much which design decisions they take with their new ruleset, as with an increasingly disingenuous marketing strategy - the very type of marketing strategy 3.5 costumers have learnt to hate with a passion during 4E`s promotion, I might add, not to mention the outcry when 3.5 was released (yep, Monte sums that up pretty well).

I kind of have to disagree with you here.

Is the marketing campaign for Pathfinder disingenuous?  Possibly (though I don't think it is).  It's very carefully spun, as you would expect from a company lead by someone with a background in PR.  What they do say is very strategic, and what they don't say is rather illuminating.

But whatever it is, it's not the same as WOTCs campaign for 4E.  

WOTC's campaign for 4E was very secretive, very closed off to the gaming public, and came off as very corporate and manufactured.  The actual designers were sequestered away from the public, WOTC flat out lied about their plans, and the changes they made were drastic and extreme.  Then to top it off, they went out of their way to spit on long time fans -- their decision to mock 1E on April Fool's Day was a really bad idea, a very poor read of their audience --

QuoteCan we agree that with regard to my quoted sentences in this post, (a) these are two different things Paizo can say and (b) that to date they have not said the second of these things but instead done as much as possible to cast themselves as 3.5`s savior and not just as its inheritor?

It'd be kind of dumb of them to say that second thing though.  I mean, it may be true -- clearly it's true! -- but actually saying it is pretty cynical.

Oh, 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.

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

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. (http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy84o0)

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.

Quote from: Jackalope;259045I'm not answering your questions anymore.

That's not surprising. I noticed, for example, you didn't redress the issue of how the press release was actually referring to the Pathfinder RPG, not the Pathfinder line, or how, according to your "logic," we should ignore everything you're saying about converting because you're not actually converting anything. When you're beat, you don't concede - you run away and hide.

So...run and hide.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;259051The 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.

Yeah. And it always has been. Where I think they'll run into trouble is with their "open" playtest. Not only are the playtest participants just a fraction of the consumer base, but what do you tell the folks whose ideas, suggestions, etc., weren't incorporated? "Sorry, I know we said we were going to design the game around your input, but your ideas weren't good enough, the direction we wanted to go, etc.."

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;259051The 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.

I have to disagree with you here.  I think the addition of unlimited orisons and cantrips, as well as the addition of an at-will attack power for almost all 1st level wizards, both dramatically improves play and makes the game feel far more like a fantasy epic.

My players who play spellcasters have really taken a shine to these powers, as they allow them to be a spellcaster all the time, in every combat.  No longer do they have to fall back on using their light crossbow.

In my group, we talk about the video game Gauntlet, and the Wizard from Gauntlet who simply ran around zapping things all day long.  That's what we want.  You never see pictures of wizards carting around crossbows to use when their spells are depleted, but the world is full of fantasy references to wizards who can shoot little blasts of energy from their fingertips at will.

Granting wizards and clerics an unlimited magical ability goes a long ways towards justifying the existence of 1st level adventuring wizards and clerics, wizards in particular.  They seem far more "graduate of magical school" and far less "apprentice who should still be under the protection of his master."

And plus, even an apprentice should be able to cast Mage Hand all day long.  It adds so much more flavor to the game when the player can do things like float the salt shaker across the table to himself without worrying that he's wasting a vital resource.  Unlimited Detect Magic is nice as well, as it allows the Wizard to do the "I'll look for magical auras while the thief checks for traps." thing more often, instead of just standing around doing nothing.  And Wizards should be able to sense magical auras whenever they want, that's such a wizardy thing to do.

Additionally, cantrips and orisons that were NEVER used in my 3.5 campaigns are now getting regular use.  Open/Close for example.  Not once in seven years was this spell cast by one of my players.  Now the wizard always stands behind the fighter and opens doors for him.

Quote from: Seanchai;259058That's not surprising. I noticed, for example, you didn't redress the issue of how the press release was actually referring to the Pathfinder RPG, not the Pathfinder line,

The press release was about the Pathfinder RPG.  The single italicized line at after the title of the press release -- the slug line -- the line "Pathfinder(TM) to continue under 3.5 rules." was a reference to the Pathfinder adventure paths.

That line existed because most of Paizo's fans first question upon hearing that Paizo was releasing a Pathfinder RPG was "Will Pathfinder use 3.5 rules or Pathfinder RPG rules?"  That line answered that question.  The body of the press release was then about the game.

It's like 4th grade reading comprehension guys.  I haven't pressed the issue because I didn't want to point out that any other reading is pretty dimwitted.

Quoteor how, according to your "logic," we should ignore everything you're saying about converting because you're not actually converting anything. When you're beat, you don't concede - you run away and hide.

I think most people here can understand what I'm saying.  You're just being deliberately obtuse and refusing to actually stop and think about what I've said.  Instead you're just trying to trip me up and play gotcha, for no reason other than this:  you're a fuckwit!

I'm not "running and hiding," I've just got better things to do with my time than go in endless circles with someone who is displaying the intellectual capacity of an petulant toddler, i.e you.

Quote from: Jackalope;259077It's like 4th grade reading comprehension guys.  I haven't pressed the issue because I didn't want to point out that any other reading is pretty dimwitted.

I guess we must be... since you did post, "I'm not answering your questions anymore" and yet here you are answering his questions.

I guess I need to bone up on my comprehension as "I'm not answering your questions anymore" means one thing to the rest of us and something else to you.

Perhaps we need mensa decoder rings to keep up.

Quote from: Jackalope;259074I have to disagree with you here.

My impression was that, in a sense, you didn't. You mentioned all sorts of ways how the design decision to have orisons for free makes for a different style of play, as opposed to improving the flow of the game for an extant style of play. Hey, if you like that new style of game, more power to you. And anyone who has played Gauntlet immediately goes into my book of favorite people. (If you recall, the archer didn't run out of arrows. That kind of thing offends my sense of playing a character in a world I can take for real. Which is all I was saying. Magic a non-depletable resource? Nay.)

Quote from: Seanchai;259034"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?

Since I think it was here you broke Jackalope's final straw and I am sufficiently interested in the topic for the thread not to deteriorate into standard RPGSite diet, here's my proposed explanation of what you're pinpointing. As you say in your final line, Jackalope seemed to be of two minds whether converting skills were necessary for 3.5 monster stat blocks or not. Here is my take.

There is a huge difference between Grapple and Skills. Converting Grapple to CMB isn't just exchanging one expression by another: it involves a (however small) calculation of the number next to that expression. Not so for skills. Skill bonuses stay where they are. What's new are the terms that attach to them. At least, that's almost always true for monsters, as I am going to show.
Let's look at a concrete sample.

Quote from: 3.5 Stat block, Aspect of BaphometSenses darkvision 60 ft.; Listen +15, Spot +15
----------------
Skills Climb +17, Diplomacy +4, Handle Animal
+13, Hide +4, Intimidate +13, Jump +17,
Knowledge (nature) +14, Knowledge (the
planes) +14, Listen +15, Move Silently +7, Ride
+4, Sense Motive +15, Spot +15, Survival +15

Here's what happens when you go Pathfinder.
Step 1. Senses: are now covered by "Perception". Take the average of Listen and Spot bonus.
Step 2. Other skills: beware synergies. As a rule of thumb (potential problem!), take the mean number. So:

Quote from: Pathfinder Stat block, Aspect of BaphometSenses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +15

Skills Climb +17, Diplomacy +4, Handle Animal
+13, Hide +4, Intimidate +13, Acrobatics +17,
Knowledge (nature) +14, Knowledge (the
planes) +14, Move Silently +7, Ride +4,
Sense Motive +15, Survival +15

Guess what? Apart from folding "Spot" and "Listen" into "Perception", and "Jump" into "Acrobatics", no changes were needed. Since the list of skills mentioned in a 3.5 monster stat blocks (contrast NPCs) is constant, this is all you ever need to do. The reason why a Pathfinder DM could run 3.5 monsters out of the book as far as skills are concerned, is simply that he is familiar with how skills translate over from 3.5 to Pathfinder from his experience with asking skill checks from the PCs. It's like propping open the 3.0 Manual of Planes and not thinking, "gosh, here is Intuit Direction, how does that translate into the 3.5 skill system?". Fact is, of the many, many problems behind 3.0-3.5 convertion, skills has never been one of them.

I agree that skill conversion isn't important.  You can simply use the relevent rules from the ruleset from which the element comes and apply it to the situation.  For example, 3.5 monster can Spot and Listen while a Pathfinder monster in the same situation can Percieve.  There's really no need to convert those, since in both cases you have a rule that works the same way to cover the same situation; it just has a different label.

Quote from: Jackalope;259077The press release was about the Pathfinder RPG.  The single italicized line at after the title of the press release -- the slug line -- the line "Pathfinder(TM) to continue under 3.5 rules." was a reference to the Pathfinder adventure paths...It's like 4th grade reading comprehension guys.  I haven't pressed the issue because I didn't want to point out that any other reading is pretty dimwitted.

"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."

The press release - all of it - is clearly intended to let folks know that they'll be able to use their 3.5 materials with the Pathfinder RPG.

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;259129There is a huge difference between Grapple and Skills. Converting Grapple to CMB isn't just exchanging one expression by another: it involves a (however small) calculation of the number next to that expression. Not so for skills. Skill bonuses stay where they are.

Perhaps. But since D&D has become more of a skill-based game outside of combat, what skills you have and how many points you have to put toward them matter. Consider the poor 3e or 3.5 fighter, who, in my estimation, gets the shaft and is made less enticing because of it. Thus, to my mind, when Pathfinder reduces the skill list and number of skill points available, it's not a matter of labels, but a matter of capacity.

Quote from: Windjammer;259129The reason why a Pathfinder DM could run 3.5 monsters out of the book as far as skills are concerned, is simply that he is familiar with how skills translate over from 3.5 to Pathfinder [ifrom his experience with asking skill checks from the PCs[/i].

So Pathfinder is only backwards compatible if you're familiar enough with the rules sets?

I'll bring up my CoC campaign again. I used BRP materials for a d20 game - in a different era, to boot - without ever sitting down and doing a conversion. I either made up the relative statistics and attributes out of the whole cloth as needed or guesstimated based on past experience with both systems. Does that make BRP and d20 backwards compatible? Isn't the essence of Jackalope's argument that if a GM can do that, they're backwards compatible?

Because if you think that doesn't make them backwards compatible, what a GM can do or not do on the fly is a moot point in terms of Pathfinder being backwards compatible with 3.5.

But, really, for me, this goes far beyond just skills. It seems to me that Pathfinder isn't just changing a few things, but making at least small changes in a wide variety of areas. It's that, more than any other one thing, which I think makes Pathfinder not so suitable for use with my library of 3.5 materials.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;259376when Pathfinder reduces the skill list and number of skill points available, it's not a matter of labels, but a matter of capacity.

I think that's a non sequitur, just as the reduction of skills (and skill points) in 4th edition doesn't entail that (a) skill checks come up less rarely in the game and (b) that the set of skills, in their entirety, now covers a narrower range than in previous editions (3.5, Pathfinder) which had more skills. Take "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. (Contrast a case where a skill is simply gone - "Use Rope" vanished from Pathfinder, but to be honest, I didn't use it much, if ever, in my 3.5 games.)

The 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. My wizard player actually didn't like this, he thought that wizards in Pathfinder get too many skill points. So it's hard for me to find common ground with you here. It 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). That alone shows that, in the long run, players will end up with higher ranks in a wider range of skills than they would have in 3.5. Agreed?

Quote from: Seanchai;259376So Pathfinder is only backwards compatible if you're familiar enough with the rules sets?

Remember? 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. However, when I wrote my post you quote from, I totally avoided the backwards compatibility issue. For the reason you mention:

Quote from: Seanchai;259376But, really, for me, this goes far beyond just skills.

Exactly. No way could I use a monster statblock in 3.0 Manual of the Planes in its entirety in my 3.5 game just "out of the book". A lot of stuff changed with 3.5 - hit points, CRs, damage reduction (oh boy), not to mention any monster with any spell-like or supernatural ability. There are tons of changes, as a single look at WotC' own 3.0->3.5 errata files will tell you. Tons. However, skills was never a problem. If you just looked at skills, you could run a 3.0 stat block out of the book, and I say the same holds for 3.5 into Pathfinder. And agreed, this doesn't mean that Pathfinder is, as far as skills go, let alone as a complete system, "backwards compatible". But, if you look again, I was trying to debate a point on Jackalope's behalf: there is a difference in the amount of effort to convert into CMB and into Pathfinder skills. What conclusions you draw from that is up to you - believe me, I am certainly drawing my own.

Quote from: Seanchai;259370The press release - all of it - is clearly intended to let folks know that they'll be able to use their 3.5 materials with the Pathfinder RPG.

No.  I'm sorry, but you have the reading skills of a six year old if you believe that is true.

Here  (http://paizo.com/paizo/news/v5748eaic9l3h)is the press release we are discussing in it's entirety:   Paizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG™
Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.
Tue, Mar 18, 2008, 12:00 PM

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. The first Pathfinder RPG Alpha release is available now as a free 65-page PDF download at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. 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'm really excited to work with the playtesters to make this the best game possible," said Jason Bulmahn, Paizo's Lead Designer. "In the spirit of the Open Game movement, the Pathfinder RPG is really your roleplaying game. It's a huge thrill to get to lead the design process."

Paizo will issue additional Pathfinder RPG Alpha releases in the coming months, covering new changes and additions to the 3.5 rules. Gamers can download, read, and participate in the free open playtest by setting up a paizo.com account and joining the discussion with Paizo's design staff at paizo.com/pathfinderRPG. The Pathfinder RPG will be backward-compatible with the 3.5 rules, and the staff has kept this goal as a primary focus since design began in 2007.

This coming August, Paizo will release a massive, full-color, softcover Pathfinder RPG Beta release for $24.99. This book will be available on paizo.com, at Gen Con, as well as through hobby distribution at local game stores. Just like the Alpha releases, the Beta release will be available as a free PDF download on paizo.com. As Wizards of the Coast's core 3.5 rulebooks are expected to go out of print with the release of 4th Edition, Paizo will use the Pathfinder RPG as a replacement for the 3.5 core rules. The Pathfinder RPG Beta release will represent Paizo's first published take on an updated 3.5 system, and playtesting will continue through spring 2009, when Paizo will incorporate the open playtest feedback and create a hardcover Pathfinder RPG for release in the hobby trade, bookstores, and paizo.com in August 2009.

Paizo hopes to support 4th Edition with fan-created online conversions of its Pathfinder products and a complete line from its partner company, Necromancer Games, a trend-setter in the original Open Gaming movement. Necromancer has already announced a new 4th Edition version of their award-winning Tome of Horrors monster encyclopedia, and has plans for additional player and GM support products.

Today, Paizo also announced the hiring of Nicolas Logue to run the Pathfinder Society organized play campaign, a massive mega-campaign to launch at this year's Gen Con. The Pathfinder Society will feature events at major conventions, retail stores, and home play as a way to involve thousands of players in a constantly evolving campaign environment fueled by downloadable scenarios released by Paizo. Nicolas Logue is a long-time Paizo contributor to the print versions of Dragon and Dungeon as well as the Pathfinder Adventure Paths and Pathfinder Modules line. He also co-runs an annual competition at Gen Con called Iron DM that will continue to be co-run by Nicolas Logue and his Iron DM compatriots. Nick begins working at Paizo in April.

"Nicolas Logue is one of the most energetic, personable gamers I have ever met," said Erik Mona, Paizo's Publisher and the co-founder during his tenure at Wizards of the Coast of Living Greyhawk, the largest organized play RPG campaign in history. "Running a successful organized play campaign involves a magical combination of cool ideas, organizational skills, and enthusiasm. Nick is absolutely the perfect man for the job, and I'm thrilled that he will be joining us here at Paizo."

Additional information on the Pathfinder Society campaign can be found at paizo.com/pathfindersociety.

Clearly, anyone with the intelligence of a 12 year old can tell you that this press release discusses multiple topics.  Your claim that "all of it" discuss 3.5 compatibility is patently false.  Obviously the discussion of the hiring of Nick Logue had nothing to do with compatibility, nor does the announcement of Pathfinder Society, or the bits about 4E and Necromancer Games.  So obviously you're wrong, and why are you wrong?  Poor reading comprehension stemming from an obtuse refusal to actually read what's written, and instead replacing it in your head with cockamamie bullshit.

But the actual point of contention is this line, the sub-title:   Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.Let's look at the title and sub-title next to each other:   Paizo Publishing® Announces the Pathfinder RPG™.  Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.It's really hard to put it anymore clearer than that, but one could actually connect the two statements explicitly (for the readers out there with 3rd grade and lower comprehension levels):   Paizo announces the Pathfinder RPG, but Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules.Finally, there is this 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.If 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.

I mean seriously, you are just balls stupid.  You should hang your head in shame because you are a Grade A moron.

Also, here are the only statements in the press release that actually address backwards compatibility.  All two sentences.
   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....The Pathfinder RPG will be backward-compatible with the 3.5 rules, and the staff has kept this goal as a primary focus since design began in 2007.A 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 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.

Folks, get your mensa decoder rings out...

Quote from: CavScout;259507Folks, get your mensa decoder rings out...

Don't bring that crap into RPG, Cav.

Quote from: Jackalope;259513Don't bring that crap into RPG, Cav.

Wait.. I've double checked... yep, you're insulting folk's intelligence in this thread.

Suck it up pansy.

Quote from: CavScout;259529Wait.. I've double checked... yep, you're insulting folk's intelligence in this thread.

Suck it up pansy.

No, I mean that bullshit of demanding an explanation for something, then when you get that explanation pretending...I don't know, that it's too "intelligent for you to understand."  So that the thread just become sabout you and your stupid "I'm a puppetmaster, I can make people post." three-year old nonsense.  That bullshit that you do that makes Politics so fucking intolerable.

I mean seriously dude, are you just here to troll and cause problems, or are you here to talk about RPGs?  Are you just trying to derail this thread?  Because right now, that's all you're doing, is intentionally derailing the thread.

For what?  So you can avoid saying "Oh yeah, I get it."?

Also, CavScout, I'm not sure how you have convinced yourself that you've insulted my intelligence, but when you say "Get the Mensa decoder ring." it sounds like you need someone to dumb things down for you.

So, if that was supposed to be an insult to my intelligence, then it really backfired.  The only person whose intelligence you are slighting with a comment like that is your own.

I mean seriously, I thought you were just being a dick and refusing to acknowledge that I had addressed your point from earlier.  That you were being a troll.  I had no idea you were attempting to insult my intelligence.

Now I just feel vaguely sorry for you, since in your sad attempt to insult me all you've done is imply I'm a genius and that you need things spoon-fed to you on a elementary school level.

Quote from: Jackalope;259679No, I mean that bullshit of demanding an explanation for something, then when you get that explanation pretending...I don't know, that it's too "intelligent for you to understand."  So that the thread just become sabout you and your stupid "I'm a puppetmaster, I can make people post." three-year old nonsense.  That bullshit that you do that makes Politics so fucking intolerable.

I mean seriously dude, are you just here to troll and cause problems, or are you here to talk about RPGs?  Are you just trying to derail this thread?  Because right now, that's all you're doing, is intentionally derailing the thread.

For what?  So you can avoid saying "Oh yeah, I get it."?

I suppose when you stop telling people they are too stupid to understand your points you can then complain about people calling you out on it. Oh yeah, the guy who routinely tells people to kill themselves in unwitty detail really doesn't have the standing to complain, or suggest, others are "trolling".

Quote from: CavScout;259681I suppose when you stop telling people they are too stupid to understand your points you can then complain about people calling you out on it. Oh yeah, the guy who routinely tells people to kill themselves in unwitty detail really doesn't have the standing to complain, or suggest, others are "trolling".

So...what?  Saying "Get the Mensa decoder ring" is now an example of "calling me out?"  How does that work exactly?

I don't believe you.  I think you're desperately grasping at straws, because you can't simply admit I have a point.

Quote from: Jackalope;259680Also, CavScout, I'm not sure how you have convinced yourself that you've insulted my intelligence, but when you say "Get the Mensa decoder ring." it sounds like you need someone to dumb things down for you.

So, if that was supposed to be an insult to my intelligence, then it really backfired.  The only person whose intelligence you are slighting with a comment like that is your own.

I mean seriously, I thought you were just being a dick and refusing to acknowledge that I had addressed your point from earlier.  That you were being a troll.  I had no idea you were attempting to insult my intelligence.

Now I just feel vaguely sorry for you, since in your sad attempt to insult me all you've done is imply I'm a genius and that you need things spoon-fed to you on a elementary school level.

See, mensa logic at work.

Quote from: Jackalope;259683So...what?  Saying "Get the Mensa decoder ring" is now an example of "calling me out?"  How does that work exactly?

I don't believe you.  I think you're desperately grasping at straws, because you can't simply admit I have a point.

You have a point, it is only those who are stupid don't agree with you, but you mistake having a point with being right.

Quote from: CavScout;259687You have a point, it is only those who are stupid don't agree with you, but you mistake having a point with being right.

Do you actually disagree with me?

Can you provide an actual argument as to why?

Quote from: Jackalope;259689Do you actually disagree with me?

Can you provide an actual argument as to why?

You mean like back in 162 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=257994&postcount=162) which you just ignored?

Quote from: CavScout;259700You mean like back in 162 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=257994&postcount=162) which you just ignored?

I ignored it because I suspected that you were trolling, and responding to you would just lead to this sort of crap that we're engaged in right now.  You have given me no reason to believe I was wrong in the suspicion.

At any rate, all you did in post #162 was quote a different part of the press release, and then asked a fundamentally stupid question (though I suspect you asked it not because you are dumb, but becuase you are a trolling fuckwit who uses loaded and misleading questions as his primary means of derailing threads).  You asked "How can one argue that the press release is not in reference to the Pathfinder RPG?"

The problem with that question is that no one has argued that the press release does not reference the Pathfinder RPG.  What you were responding to is my claim that a line in the press release, "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." is a statement about Pathfinder™ and not about Pathfinder RPG™.

Now, I don't want to repeat myself, so I'll just point you back to post #191 where I show the intent of that statement.

So, do you have an actual argument, or are you just going to do your normal troll act and ask another misleading question full of wrong assumptions?

Quote from: Jackalope;259717I ignored it because I suspected that you were trolling, and responding to you would just lead to this sort of crap that we're engaged in right now. You have given me no reason to believe I was wrong in the suspicion.

So you'll excuse me when I don't jump to your "demands" that I detail some disagreement when you routinely just ignore them when they are posted.

Quote from: CavScout;259730So you'll excuse me when I don't jump to your "demands" that I detail some disagreement when you routinely just ignore them when they are posted.

No, I won't excuse you, because you're making excuses.

You have done this exact thing since you first appeared on this board, this game of refusing to defend your assertion, refusing to provide arguments, refusing to actually engage in discussion.  You just troll and derail threads for your own amusement.

That's why I ignore you, because everytime I don't ignore you, this bullshit happens.  You don't get to use the fact that you have encouraged most people on this board to ignore you as justification to continue in the behavior that causes people to ignore you.

Seriously, if you think I'm wrong, why not just explain why?  Why do you insist on putting all of the effort into justifying why you don't have to or won't explain yourself?

Why can't we actually talk about fucking role-playing games in the RPG section, instead of having this fucking bullshit non-conversation about why CavScout doesn't think he should explain what the fuck he's talking about?

But hey, keep it up man.  I've already reported you for trolling RPG.  Just pile on some more evidence that you're here to lawncrap rather than discuss RPGs.  I would love seeing you get banned.

I think everyone knows you only started posting to RPG after Kyle started giving you crap for only posting to Off-Topic.  And now you are doing exactly what I warned Kyle would happen: you're crapping all over the important part of this site.

Quote from: Jackalope;259746That's why I ignore you...

Wouldn't demanding I provide some answer to some point of yours be the opposite of "ignoring"?

But I guess that is like you declaring "I'm not answering your questions anymore" to Seanchai and then immediately are "answering" his questions and calling him names.

Seriously, you actually call others trolls? Really?

But as Seanchai noted in this post (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=259058&postcount=180) this is your MO. You'll demand something, while ignoring posts, while complaining the other guy won't answer, while answering his answer by calling him a moron, while demanding that someone respond to you....

You fling shit about wildly and then complain when you find some on your clothes.

Quote from: Jackalope;254896No, 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.

Anyone mind if I back up Jackalope here?

In the past month or two, we've had PATHFINDER groups play at the store. When they play their game sessions several of them buy 3.5 books directly off of our shelves - because they are still mostly compatible with what they are playing.

One Saturday we had 18 people split into 3 groups playing the game at our store, last saturday it was around 6 or 7 (some of the regulars had schedule problems). One of their players, a housewife, drove all the way up from Louisville , Kentucky just to play in a PATHFINDER game.

Mark this in your notebooks - I'm halfway threough the thread and agreeing with most of what Jackalope is saying on this topic.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;259746I think everyone knows you only started posting to RPG after Kyle started giving you crap for only posting to Off-Topic.  And now you are doing exactly what I warned Kyle would happen: you're crapping all over the important part of this site.

Agreed.  Block him from everything except Off-Topic.

Quote from: CavScout;259747Wouldn't demanding I provide some answer to some point of yours be the opposite of "ignoring"?

Who fucking cares Cav?  Really man, does this have anything to do with the anything?  No one cares why you won't answer a simple question.  You've said I'm wrong, so why?  Why am I wrong?

Why do you think the statement "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." is a statement about the Pathfinder RPG™ and not about the Pathfinder™ line of adventure paths, even after being shown the clarifying 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."

Where is the confusion?  What makes you think I'm wrong?

Quote from: Koltar;259751Anyone mind if I back up Jackalope here?

In the past month or two, we've had PATHFINDER groups play at the store. When they play their game sessions several of them buy 3.5 books directly off of our shelves - because they are still mostly compatible with what they are playing.

One Saturday we had 18 people split into 3 groups playing the game at our store, last saturday it was around 6 or 7 (some of the regulars had schedule problems). One of their players, a housewife, drove all the way up from Louisville , Kentucky just to play in a PATHFINDER game.

Mark this in your notebooks - I'm halfway threough the thread and agreeing with most of what Jackalope is saying on this topic.

I still (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=256906&postcount=122) say much of the thread could be avoided if the first thing agreed what what "backwards compatible" meant.

Quote from: CavScout;259507Folks, get your mensa decoder rings out...

Cavie - they don't need a "decoder ring" .

Lord help me , but I'm siding with Jackalope on all of this. Paizo publishing used pretty plain language, so did Jackalope.

In this whole trumped argument , Jackalope is quoting directky from PAIZO press releases. Its also the same thing those of us at the retail staores have been told.

ANY D&D 3.5 product that we still have on our shelves is supposed to be compatible with PATHFINDER books when they come out.


Oh, and its the local version of the PATHFINDER society that has been meeting at our store. They're all good folks and look like they are all having fun with the game.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;259753Who fucking cares Cav?

Obviously you do. You will declare you need something while at the same time ignoring said something as it suits you. You keep demanding something be posted a second time that was ignored purposely the first time.

You must think I am insane to "[do] the same thing over and over again and [expect] different results".

I mean, shit, when Seanchai responds to you, your reponse begins with, "No. I'm sorry, but you have the reading skills of a six year old if you believe that is true." Makes me kinda of glad you sometimes ignore me.

Quote from: Koltar;259758ANY D&D 3.5 product that we still have on our shelves is supposed to be compatible with PATHFINDER books when they come out.

I am guessing you've simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then... as the issue is what does "compatible" means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it's really not compatible while others are argue that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

As one poster pointed out, if it is 3.5 compatible, why doesn't it carry that logo?

Quote from: CavScout;259763As one poster pointed out, if it is 3.5 compatible, why doesn't it carry that logo?

Oh 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 :

Quotecompatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game.

Rational, reasonably intelligent gamers know that refers to D&D 3.5.


- Ed C.

Yet you ignored or missed:

I am guessing you’ve simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then… as the issue is what does “compatible” means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it’s really not compatible while others are arguing that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

Quote from: CavScout;259773Yet you ignored or missed:

I am guessing you've simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then... as the issue is what does "compatible" means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it's really not compatible while others are arguing that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

No I didn't miss it.

 You're just wrong and like to argue too much.

 On this topic, Jackalope happens to be right.




See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;259770Rational, reasonably intelligent gamers know that refers to D&D 3.5.
- Ed C.

Not anymore it doesn't...

Quote from: Koltar;259775See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.

So, you've defined "compatible" as what folks do in your store? I mean, shit, we're right back to my post back in #122 (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=256906&postcount=122). You've simply done what others have done by defining the term your way and declaring others wrong based off that definition.

It seems as if this entire discussion hinges on the definition of "backwards compatible," but no one has really made an effort to define the term, and thus the truth of its compatibility or lack thereof is obscured behind a fog of rhetoric. Which is too bad, because the issue here is not whether Pathfinder's degree of interoperability with D&D 3.5e is sufficient to be considered "backward compatible," but rather what that degree of interoperability is, itself.

No, I take that back: both questions are interesting and valid, but there seems to be some confusion - some purposeful, some not - between answers to the two questions.

Quote from: Engine;259811It seems as if this entire discussion hinges on the definition of "backwards compatible," but no one has really made an effort to define the term,......................

My definition? : If its "backwards compatible" enough that my customers can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with PATHFINDER.

If my customers and gamers at the store are happy with it - then thats compatible just enough.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;259775See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.

But I can do that with a 1st edition AD&D module and 4e. Are they now compatible?

Seanchai

Quote from: Koltar;259823My definition? : If its "backwards compatible" enough that my customers can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with PATHFINDER.

If my customers and gamers at the store are happy with it - then thats compatible just enough.

And that's a very logical and practical definition for you, personally, because it addresses the extent of your concerns. However, for a general discussion involving many people who aren't present at your gaming store, it would be insufficient and unverifiable.

We could adapt the definition, of course: one could say, "if its 'backwards compatible' enough that one can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with Pathfinder." But this seems unnecessarily broad, as well: I can [and probably will] use GURPS with Shadowrun, but I wouldn't say in a press release that GURPS is "backward compatible with Shadowrun!"

It seems to me that the discerning factor - if there can be said to be a discerning factor, and not a range of consideration - is the amount of effort required to use one with the other.

Quote from: Seanchai;259827But I can do that with a 1st edition AD&D module and 4e. Are they now compatible?

Seanchai

It depends upon what degree of 'compatible' a given individual is comfortable with.

For example, (and I swear to God I made a reply about this earlier today), I can run Office 97 on Vista with limited problems.  A few tweaks to the memory set up, and I am good to go.  There is no way on this earth that Office 2007 will run on Windows 95, short of ripping out the guts and re-writing just about all of it.

Running 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.  Using a 4e module in 1st Edition would require as much or more.  Probably more, because the 1st Ed monsters can be mapped to the same monster in 4e, or a similar one.  4e monsters would be more difficult to map back to 1st Ed, as there are fewer correlations, and a conversion would require intensive work to change at-wills and encounter powers to something compatible, including damage ranges.

In that regard, 4e is somewhat backward compatible, but not as much as 2nd Ed.

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  (http://paizo.com/pathfinder), 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  (http://paizo.com/pathfinder), 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.

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.

I'd put it that, beyond the first twelve levels, the settings are woefully underdeveloped.

I mean, suddenly planeswalking becomes easy and even routine...And there's (AFAIK), very little material to support that. I mean, 3.5 you can visit afterlives while alive. I think the possibilities just sort of overwhelm most developers. You're not fantasy heroes any more; you're fantasy super-powered heroes.

Maybe looking at it from that direction would provide more material?

Because fantasy super-powered heroes are not iconic to D&D? The average person does not imagine Superman in a Paladin Suit when he thinks D&D, instead he thinks of thieves and other scoundrels popping the ruby eyes off a demonic idol. Is this the campaign world's next Justice League? Let's not hold our breath.

Seriously though, in earlier editions, the superhero scale was so faraway and the 1-12 range was enjoyable enough that most people simply did not care about those high levels. By the time most people got there, the campaign had already climaxed and they were ready for new characters. It also doesn't hurt that most kickass modules were designed for 1st to 12th level ranges and these modules showed that you could do a variety of awesome epic things without resorting to level inflation.

Simply put, the fact that the rules were there didn't mean people actually used them and I don't blame them for not using them either. In my opinion, they were unnecessary with what you could already do with twelve levels.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. I was taking a bath on the elemental plane of fire. :D

But seriously, I recognize only two real restrictions on my gaming.

1) Am I enjoying this game?

2) Is this game making me feel sick?

If 2, then 1 = no. So it's pretty much one restriction.

I'm amused by the fact that both you guys and the forgies insist your method of play is better.

Oh har har. :rolleyes:

You can laugh this off too but I would also like to state that it was good how 3rd Edition, though some of that edition's mechanical additions really exaggerated and distorted the issues, exposed the designers (that stayed onboard) to the lunacy that high level play of older editions can entail and agree with them in thier opinion (but not thier exact implementation) that a lot of nonsense had to go since it was spoiling the core D&D experience at those high levels (although Wish was definitely not one of them - even moreso in 3rd Edition).

Aside from a computer game or two, I started playing D&D with 3rd edition. My first 'real' game of AD&D just started on this very forum.

So I don't really have any context for any editions outside of 3rd. In the end, I'll play what I enjoy and hopefully not end up insisting it's the only way to play the game.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;261787I'm amused by the fact that both you guys and the forgies insist your method of play is better.

WTF? Grouping me with forgies? Nowhere did I insist that my method of play is better AND everyone should do it. I even stated that if you like playing above 12th level, all the more power to you. It's just that, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION AND FROM MY OBSERVATIONS AND IN NO WAY SHOULD YOU THINK I AM TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, the 1st to 12th level range is more iconic to D&D. These are the levels where you go through stuff like Keep in the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavelords, and Against the Giants.  Do I literally need to sissy up my argument by adding more coddling words as not to send people into a nerd rage?

Quote from: DeadUematsu;261869WTF? Grouping me with forgies? Nowhere did I insist that my method of play is better AND everyone should do it. I even stated that if you like playing above 12th level, all the more power to you. It's just that, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION AND FROM MY OBSERVATIONS AND IN NO WAY SHOULD YOU THINK I AM TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD DO, the 1st to 12th level range is more iconic to D&D. These are the levels where you go through stuff like Keep in the Borderlands, Temple of Elemental Evil, The Slavelords, and Against the Giants.  Do I literally need to sissy up my argument by adding more coddling words as not to send people into a nerd rage?

So glad you posted before me. I agree with this post totally.

I just ran a dnd game that went about 6 months. For the first like, 16 games they were running from almost everything and getting their asses kicked by the same wizard over and over again.

When they made it to 8th level, they showed up in a city after dark where the king's son, Duke of the land, was a vampire and so were a lot of his knights. The party instandly destroyed the lot of them, cast out all the ghouls, and took over the city.

The next game, a player needed help on the country side so the Paladin, without asking me if it was ok, said, "I grab my hundred finest knights and ride out to meet him.

8th level is so epic to me... I just can't imagine a game with 12th or 15th level characters.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;261794Aside from a computer game or two, I started playing D&D with 3rd edition. My first 'real' game of AD&D just started on this very forum.

So I don't really have any context for any editions outside of 3rd. In the end, I'll play what I enjoy and hopefully not end up insisting it's the only way to play the game.

You aren't missing much. 1st and 2nd editions are almost the same as third. They use the same chance to it, AC, spells, classes... you get more of a revision in English text books.

Quote from: Cranewings;262016You aren't missing much. 1st and 2nd editions are almost the same as third. They use the same chance to it, AC, spells, classes... you get more of a revision in English text books.

Completely disagree. I've played almost a decade of third edition and before that, almost two decades of 1st and 2nd edition (as well as classic D&D).

All fine games that felt very different to me in play from 3rd and also varied in the prep department and handling of things.

I can really see why some people love a particular edition while disliking another because to me, they are very different.

Quote from: Consonant Dude;262033Completely disagree. I've played almost a decade of third edition and before that, almost two decades of 1st and 2nd edition (as well as classic D&D).

All fine games that felt very different to me in play from 3rd and also varied in the prep department and handling of things.

I can really see why some people love a particular edition while disliking another because to me, they are very different.

I think the mood of the artwork and flavor text in the books has more to do with it than anything. I haven't been gaming for as long with you, but I started with 2.0 and played a fair share of 1.0. To me, the games were just about the same. I liked them for the same reasons and we ran the same kinds of games. The GM's style was 90% of the difference from game to game... meaning if Frank runs 2.0 or 1.0, it is still a Frank game.

I'll admit, the settings for 3.0 are a LOT different than the other settings, but asides from Dragon Lance and FR, we rarely used them. It was always home brew.

Maybe the people you played with changed?

Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

Nah, Consonant Dude is right. There are pretty strong differences in play between the various editions IF you play BTB.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262076Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

Look, you are the one who grouped me in with The Forge and knowing how people around here view the Forge and its kind, it's fair to extrapolate that your view is negative at best and meaningfully insulting if worse. Okay?

Also, I can and I did argue my point without hyperbole. In my opinion (and I hope I do not have to explicitly state this every time), 13th level and beyond play is unnecessary. For me, there is nothing that you can do in the full 20 levels that cannot be done in the first 12. Seriously. Age of Worms would have been better, again in my opinion, if it were written for 1st to 12th level. Fundamentally, it is saying 1st to 12th level is better than the higher levels. If that sounds like condescending gravel to you, tough. I could not care one iota because such an opinion should not be getting your briefs in a bunch. Especially since I have no control over what and how you play. And if I do, man...

Nah, the Forge is deliberately pretentious and irrevelant to most game designing and this place is occasionally unintentionally pretentious and relevant to most game designing.

Sorry for the insult, but I don't subscribe to the 'Forgies are out to kill gaming' theory, so I didn't see it.

Again, I'm not angry about it. When I get angry, I get very, very icy. :)

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;262076Nerd rage? How does 'amused' equate to 'nerd rage'?

Yeah, if you can't argue this without resorting to hyberbole, there's really no point.

So I'll just end with 'It sure sounded to me like you were saying 1-12th was better than the higher levels'. If that's not what you were trying to say, sorry for the confusion, but you weren't very clear on that.

I'll say it. I think dnd makes very little sense from levels 1-12, and becomes nonsense at anything higher. I actually don't like dnd beyond 8th, but I'll run it to 9th.

If someone runs a game that everyone likes at level 13 or higher, good for them. GMing is like making music. The fact that someone likes it is enough to make it... good.

You just won't catch me playing or running that 13+ game, because I feel, in my heart, it sucks.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;254363Your estimation is pretty spot on.

There are numerous smart and diligent people like Crusader of Light, Psychic_Robot, and Squirreloid who have been trying to point this out and numerous other problems with 3.5E but it seems like literally EVERYONE AND THEIR MOM is trolling them.

On top of that, from a cursory read of numerous threads, I have the feeling that many of the posters simply do not know the system (like knowing that blaster wizards are weak, 2H being better than TWF, druids are good, etc.) or thier exposure is limited (thier range of play is mostly levels 1-8). This means that multiple issues are not going to be addressed (high level play, bears are not monsters, etc).

Seriously, at this stage of the game, if Paizo really wants to one-up Wizards, they should hire (pay) people who know the game and have them look over the system and recommend changes.

I'm really serious. Things are not looking good.

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I thought the following is a good instance of some of the more worrying aspects of the open Beta test: a thread is closed down on the pretext of its having been opened by a person who's been banned previously. The site editor concluded

QuoteHowever, continuing this discussion as started by the OP serves no purpose.

I found that awkward, since there was plenty of helpful discussion in that thread. And seeing it reminded me of DeadUematsu's post in this thread (quoted above). Here's the Paizo thread:

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

Ayup. I called it.

Pathfinder has only 3-4 months to dramatically improve itself and there's no chance in hell that's going to happen especially when the main contingent of supporters think that there is nothing terribly wrong with the game, think that anyone who points out power imbalances is a munchkin, are rabid 4E haters, are not testing the rules as written, believe GMs should fix the broken rules on their own, or simply do not know the rules!

If I were at the company's helm, I would eat humble pie, admit that we are an adventure publishing company and not a game workshop, and start making 4E adventures. Oh, and if I was worried about the GSL, I would probably hire a copyright lawyer or make a deal with Kenzer to see how to get around that.

...I'm long past regretting making this thing and now I just wish it would die already...

Quote from: DeadUematsu;279245If I were at the company's helm, I would eat humble pie, admit that we are an adventure publishing company and not a game workshop, and start making 4E adventures.

This poll on ENworld gives reason to not jump on the 4E bandwagon, (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/247762-changeover-poll.html)

I'm counting a total of about 58% out of 1063 posters that are not interested in 4E because they have either tried it and don't like it or just plain aren't interested. There are 9% of that same 1063 who only play half or less of their gaming as 4E. Those numbers don't show a strong support for 4E in the marketplace.

Quote from: jeff37923;279267This poll on ENworld gives reason to not jump on the 4E bandwagon, (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/247762-changeover-poll.html)

I'm counting a total of about 58% out of 1063 posters that are not interested in 4E because they have either tried it and don't like it or just plain aren't interested. There are 9% of that same 1063 who only play half or less of their gaming as 4E. Those numbers don't show a strong support for 4E in the marketplace.

Enworld is not only non-representative, it was created around fandom specifically for D&D3 (and 3.5), so I'm not really surprised that the poll shows something like that.  If you ran the same poll here it would show like 90% disapproval, I'm sure.

In the real world, D&D4e is doing amazingly well. Ask any game store owner. I help manage a gamenight at a place near me, we've gone from 1 table and 6 guys to 5 DMs and around 40 players showing up in the last couple of months. We now have 314 members of the local 4E meetup group. There was a large 3.5 game running concurrent to ours on Thursday nights; it has since folded (players stopped showing up, and some drifted over to our tables) and now we have two of their players playing 4e full time.

A lot of people that are hoping desperately that 4e will not be successful--never even played D&D3.5 on a regular basis, and have no intention of starting.

There is also a sizable chunk of griefers that played 3e kinda but not really- they didn't use miniatures or attacks of opportunity or whatever. Their judgement on the matter doesn't actually represent anything. How can it? They didn't even engage the rules in 3e, so they don't know how the changes matter.

A lot of people that are hoping desperately that Pathfinder will be successful have no intention whatsoever in playing it, ever. They just want to see WOTC be humbled somehow, which also won't happen. D&D will continue to rule like a medieval overlord for the next decade.

A lot of people who are angry about 4e were heavily emotionally invested (seriously!) in the Living Greyhawk campaign and are resentful that it ended with only a year to wrap things up. This is probably the position I have the most sympathy for, actually.

The bottom line: D&D3 is a great game- I played it plenty, and Jason Buhlman is a nice guy-- but having a network where a sizable percentage represents disgruntled fans and griefers vice having a network of actual players will ultimate doom the project.

The only real question for 4e haters is "how often did you play 3e?"

I guess I just don't see it in our area.  There's some 4e gaming, but there's as much 3.5/Pathfinder and other systems going on (actually more, I think).  All that shit's anecdotal anyhow.  Sounds like you have a pretty strong network of support for it in your area, which is really awesome.

As for everything else, the most we can do is wait and see.  I don't share your enthusiasm for D&D's future with WotC, but I'm no seer. :)

EDIT:  Before I forgot, PM sent, Maw.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279274A lot of people that are hoping desperately that 4e will not be successful--never even played D&D3.5 on a regular basis, and have no intention of starting.

True dat.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279274A lot of people that are hoping desperately that Pathfinder will be successful have no intention whatsoever in playing it, ever. They just want to see WOTC be humbled somehow, which also won't happen.

And..true dat.

Seanchai

Pathfinder is a bit like someone's mildly interesting house rules for 3.5. I can't see why I'd pay for that when I already have my own 3.5 house rules I like better.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279274Enworld is not only non-representative, it was created around fandom specifically for D&D3 (and 3.5), so I'm not really surprised that the poll shows something like that.  If you ran the same poll here it would show like 90% disapproval, I'm sure.

In fact, it was created around fandom for D&D.  It just so happened to coincide with the release of 3.0.  Eight years of familiarity with the same game system will have an entrenching effect, but ENWorld is first and foremost a D&D fansite; they have what is likely the largest body of knowledge regarding D&D outside of WotC.  If they are resistant to 4e, that really does mean something.  They represent the thoughts of the average D&D only gamer who has invested nearly a decade in time, money and gaming in 3.x.  If over half of ENWorld is spurning 4e, I would say the numbers out in the real world are not likely significantly different.

Quote from: StormBringer;279348If they are resistant to 4e, that really does mean something.

Other than people, in general, resist change?

Quote from: StormBringer;279348In fact, it was created around fandom for D&D.  It just so happened to coincide with the release of 3.0.  Eight years of familiarity with the same game system will have an entrenching effect, but ENWorld is first and foremost a D&D fansite; they have what is likely the largest body of knowledge regarding D&D outside of WotC.  If they are resistant to 4e, that really does mean something.  They represent the thoughts of the average D&D only gamer who has invested nearly a decade in time, money and gaming in 3.x.  If over half of ENWorld is spurning 4e, I would say the numbers out in the real world are not likely significantly different.

And yet, the numbers in the real world show a lot of people seem to be supporting the new game, and the numbers of people playing 4e at GenCon and DDXP last year were record numbers..

Anyhow, Enworld is no longer a general D&D fansite and hasn't been for years. The original name of the site was "Eric Noah's 3e News", and that was the original focus, but commercialism and the third party industry have changed them. If the Ennies are any indicator, they have very much lost their focus on D&D and are more in the realm of a general D20 fandom site now (partnered with a Doctor Who fandom site). They also find themselves in an internal identity conflict now with an entrenched yet very vocal griefer faction in the community that is more focused on telling people what not to play then on actually talking about playing anything-- much as you did throughout the early 2000s at RPGnet.  But you lost that battle and you'll be losing this one too. Because even as lame as online fandom is, people would rather play than hear a bunch of bullshit from a guy who has already come to the conclusion that he's too smart to have fun with a game.  

Eventually I hope Enworld finds it's way. I used to give them money every once in a while.

I think its interesting that the poll I linked to on ENworld wasn't taken at face value and instead as evidence that ENworld is full of 4E griefers. ENworld was fully supporting 4E as I recall. What has changed?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279355And yet, the numbers in the real world show a lot of people seem to be supporting the new game, and the numbers of people playing 4e at GenCon and DDXP last year were record numbers..

Ah, the 'statistics pulled out of your ass' trumps everything once again.

QuoteAnyhow, Enworld is no longer a general D&D fansite and hasn't been for years.

The readings on the bullshit meter require careful calibration, so I need you to answer the next question as truthfully as possible:  Do you know what ENWorld is?

Quote...much as you did throughout the early 2000s at RPGnet.  But you lost that battle and you'll be losing this one too. Because even as lame as online fandom is, people would rather play than hear a bunch of bullshit from a guy who has already come to the conclusion that he's too smart to have fun with a game.

Ah, your 'pull an unrelated statement that is also a complete lie out of your ass'  trumps everything once again.

Seriously, is there some chemical imbalance that shuts your higher brain functions down when someone disparages, to the least degree, whatever game of the month you are over-identifying with?  One that causes you to lash out blindly in pain and rage at whatever you think is causing the distress?

It's like you have some kind of custom spider that crawls web pages looking for people who don't speak in glowing terms about 4e so you can don your purple and black costume with the yellow mask to sally forth as The WotC Defender, crushing all who are not wholly enthusiastic about everything Wizards does! .

Or, this is Mearls' anonymous account used to piss and moan when the sand in your vagina gets to be too much.  Actually, I take that back.  I have read a bunch of Mearls' stuff, I don't think he would use a second account for that.  Sadly, I am led to believe you are always like this.

Quote from: jeff37923;279362I think its interesting that the poll I linked to on ENworld wasn't taken at face value and instead as evidence that ENworld is full of 4E griefers. ENworld was fully supporting 4E as I recall. What has changed?

Well, clearly they haven't been a D&D fansite for years.  Which means I must have been reading BizzaroENWorld, where there is quite a bit of support for D&D, and there has been for some time now.

Did you make sure you had the right URL for that poll, Jeff?  Maybe it was from BizzaroENWorld, too.

Quote from: StormBringer;279375Well, clearly they haven't been a D&D fansite for years.  Which means I must have been reading BizzaroENWorld, where there is quite a bit of support for D&D, and there has been for some time now.

Did you make sure you had the right URL for that poll, Jeff?  Maybe it was from BizzaroENWorld, too.

It must be hard to live in a world without any friends.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279376It must be hard to live in a world without any friends.

Taking notes from CuntScab?

Tell ya what, I'll step up and be the man here (as if there was a different option).

Quote from: StormBringer;279377Taking notes from CuntScab?

Tell ya what, I'll step up and be the man here (as if there was a different option).

I'd tell you which orifice your head appears to be currently in but I am sure OHT would come riding in to issue threats and what not.

Quote from: StormBringer;279348If they are resistant to 4e, that really does mean something.

They have 80,703 folks on the board. If every single one of them was vehemently opposed to 4e, they would represent 1.79 percent of the number of D&D players not making the switch according to WotC's figures (which are 4.5 million D&D players total).

Even if we cut the total number of players down to 1 million, we're still talking about 8.07 percent of the total number of players.

And, of course, from the poll, we might conclude that half of those 80,703 members actually enjoy 4e.

But we're also talking about self-reporting done on Internet message boards.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;279454They have 80,703 folks on the board. If every single one of them was vehemently opposed to 4e, they would represent 1.79 percent of the number of D&D players not making the switch according to WotC's figures (which are 4.5 million D&D players total).

Even if we cut the total number of players down to 1 million, we're still talking about 8.07 percent of the total number of players.

And, of course, from the poll, we might conclude that half of those 80,703 members actually enjoy 4e.

But we're also talking about self-reporting done on Internet message boards.

Seanchai

So are you saying that the poll does not provide a representative sample and is invalid because of that?

Quote from: jeff37923;279456So are you saying that the poll does not provide a representative sample and is invalid because of that?

No, I think it's a good sample of how EnWorld feels about 4e. I don't think EnWorld or it's poll is necessarily a good sample of how D&D players as a whole feel.

Seanchai

I am thinking it is a good sample of how hardcore fans feel.  While the ENWorld folks are above and beyond the average hardcore player, in that they voice their concerns on the Internet, I don't think that extra characteristic, in and of itself, means the sample is useless.  People self-select for any number of surveys and polls, by being the ones who want their voices heard.  Those samples are still used and trusted to represent the views of the population at large.

OK, this may be a lost cause, but the poll seems to be a representative sample of D&D fans and there is no practical way to poll every D&D player in the world. So, does this show that 4E is losing its popularity now that it has been out for awhile?

Quote from: jeff37923;279469OK, this may be a lost cause, but the poll seems to be a representative sample of D&D fans and there is no practical way to poll every D&D player in the world. So, does this show that 4E is losing its popularity now that it has been out for awhile?

Can a poll on a website really ever be considered "representative sample" of the population as a whole, or in this case, D&D?

Quote from: jeff37923;279469OK, this may be a lost cause, but the poll seems to be a representative sample of D&D fans and there is no practical way to poll every D&D player in the world. So, does this show that 4E is losing its popularity now that it has been out for awhile?

I would further narrow the audience to the hardcore 3.x fans and say they are not likely going for it in the numbers WotC would have hoped.  Now, what percentage of them have a group behind them that will probably not get 4e because of their resistance?  Difficult to say, but you can play averages.  Let's say the ENWorld poll is rather overvalued, and the numbers are closer to 30%.  Out of, say, 10mil world wide, that is already 3mil.  If they influence one, and only one, other person with no overlap, you have lost over half your potential market.  Add in some overlap and make it .5 people each, you are still sitting at just under half.

The numbers would have to be wildly inaccurate, to the tune of over 50% lower.  If it was around 10%, that is 1mil, or 2mil if they influence just the one person.  Clearly, none of us here are at the top of the marketing field, but Toyota's retention rate of 64.6% (http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx?ID=2007292) is considered unusually high.  If customer retention for 4e were in the 90% range, there would be no WotC.  They would be bought for an astronomical sum and absorbed by some other company so they would have access to the God of Marketing that is employed by WotC.

I don't find 42% retention unbelievable.  Whether or not that is higher than retention from 2e to 3.0 is debatable, but I would say likely not.

Quote from: jeff37923;279456So are you saying that the poll does not provide a representative sample and is invalid because of that?

It's absolutely representative of Enworld- which was originally a community based around fandom for D&D3e, but was eventually transformed (just look how the Ennies transformed over time) into a more general D20 and D&D all-editions community. If you are into Spycraft, or Castles and Crusades or part of the "old school resurgence"-- Enworld is one of the main places where you go, and some of those people are very hostile to D&D4e for different reasons.

Many D&D3 players who hang around at Enworld are too well invested in D&D3 and still having fun and are unwilling to change.

Many people in the general D20 crowd are upset because the old D20 license is going away or changing. Enworld itself runs it's own D20 store and includes a ton of the original crowd of D20 content creators amongst it's site supporters. Some of them even served as admins at one time or another.  

Many people who are into the older editions are upset because the game itself is different. Many of these guys are collectors and historians and have interests that are totally different than being a general friday night player.

And many people are D&D fans that are excited by the 4E  rules and are playing that.  

All of those people are represented by the poll. But the poll doesn't represent anything other than the specific community that has come to hang out at Enworld.

Quote from: jeff37923;279469So, does this show that 4E is losing its popularity now that it has been out for awhile?

Keep in mind that some of the most vocal opponents to 4e were also amongst the most vocal opponents of 3e and had no intention of ever playing either game. You can't be disgruntled if you've never even been gruntled, can you?

I suspect the only way to prove any of this would be to wait a year and then see how many people are still playing or talking about 4th Edition, and then a year from that do it again, and so on and so forth. Once we get to five years and people are still happily playing D&D, I guess it won't matter anymore.

Alternately you could go to GenCon and just count the filled RPGA events.

Quote from: jeff37923;279469OK, this may be a lost cause, but the poll seems to be a representative sample of D&D fans and there is no practical way to poll every D&D player in the world.

I would just call it a lost cause and leave it at that. We learned the hard way years ago in regards to Shadowrun that forum members were not a valid statistical representative of the product-buying populace as a whole. Personally, I think it's not worth trying to separate the truth from the statistics, in a case like this.

Yeah, I'm throwing in the towel on this one.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;279481Keep in mind that some of the most vocal opponents to 4e were also amongst the most vocal opponents of 3e and had no intention of ever playing either game. You can't be disgruntled if you've never even been gruntled, can you?

I was one of the biggest, best known cheerleaders of D&D and D20-supremacy, and had played a couple of 3e campaigns (one regular, when it first came out, and one Midnight campaign).

QuoteI suspect the only way to prove any of this would be to wait a year and then see how many people are still playing or talking about 4th Edition, and then a year from that do it again, and so on and so forth. Once we get to five years and people are still happily playing D&D, I guess it won't matter anymore.

Or wait till WoTC declares that its shutting down, or being absorbed by hasbro or something like that.  And you can bet that, just like TSR, right up to the moment they go utterly broke they'll be claiming that they've had the "Best year ever for sales" and that they are doing spectacularly and that rainbows and unicorns are coming out of their asses.

Unfortunately, with internet-buzz its sometimes very difficult to tell if a game has 20 or 20000 fans. Because sometimes those 20 fans can be very vocal. But what you have to watch for are little details inside the actual company, and the choices, successes or failures they have that are so big as to be noticeable, plus what retailers are up to. That's how you'll know how things are really going.

RPGPundit

Going back to the topic of Pathfinder. Someone here has suggested that Pathfinder is someone's interesting houserules for 3e.  That's not right. Pathfinder is EVERYONE'S interesting houserules for 3e.

Now, I have no intention of playing either Pathfinder or 4e, I should make that clear. But as to the question of Pathfinder "good/bad" there is clearly a few things that set Pathfinder aside from 4e.

1. Pathfinder begins from the basis of 3e and tries to create a new actual edition. 4e just plain rewrites the game all but from scratch.

2. Pathfinder is working in a long-term and profound consultation process with everyone who wants to get on board with them, you can get to be a playtester and your feedback will be noted just by getting on their forums. Its the ultimate in interactive design and for that they deserve credit, IMO.  
4e was basically not playtested. It was "tested" by the authors and a tiny group of their close friends and co-workers who were all pre-convinced that they were going to redo the wheel and that it was a really brilliant idea on their part to do so, and had a vested interest in claiming that the system is awesome and works fine and will be loved by the unwashed proles.

So what Pathfinder's differences from 4e mean is that Pathfinder will appeal to a cadre of loyal 3e-people, and they will cement their loyalty by the feeling that THEY are the ones getting to influence the "new edition".  

On the bad side, its going to be "uber-3e" and probably exaggerate some of the flaws that 3e had.

But really, its a brilliant idea from a marketing POV for Paizo.  I don't think they could have imagined, beyond their wildest dreams really, that WoTC would fuckup the marketing and promotion and design process and internet plan and... well, everything about how they released 4e, and would get such a HUGE number of people pissed off with them to the point that they would be more interested in Pathfinder.  

Had Wizards been smarter, and less of a bunch of incompetent lying asses in their promotion and design process, Pathfinder would have been a blip.  As it is, its going to be a viable mid-tier game for a long time to come, and according to sales figures has shotup stratospherically as a bestseller in the RPG world, even in only its Beta edition.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jeff37923;279469So, does this show that 4E is losing its popularity now that it has been out for awhile?

It might show that 4e is losing popularity on EnWorld...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;279614It might show that 4e is losing popularity on EnWorld...

Seanchai

Because fanboi Zealotry will not allow you to possibly think otherwise, which is why I threw in the towel on this.

Quote from: StormBringer;279462I am thinking it is a good sample of how hardcore fans feel.

I'm hardcore. I like 4e.

Quote from: StormBringer;279462While the ENWorld folks are above and beyond the average hardcore player, in that they voice their concerns on the Internet, I don't think that extra characteristic, in and of itself, means the sample is useless.

The sample is useless for predicting patterns in the population because it isn't random. If you could somehow create a poll that randomly selected people to answer questions from a multitude of RPG forums, then you'd be

Quote from: StormBringer;279462Those samples are still used and trusted to represent the views of the population at large.

No, they're not.

Quote from: StormBringer;279478I would further narrow the audience to the hardcore 3.x fans and say they are not likely going for it in the numbers WotC would have hoped.

Except WotC has publicly and privately said that 4e's sales wildly surpassed their expectations.

Quote from: StormBringer;279478Let's say the ENWorld poll is rather overvalued, and the numbers are closer to 30%.  Out of, say, 10mil world wide, that is already 3mil.

WotC says there are 4.5 million D&D players world-wide. Personally, I think that number is far too large. But it would yield a number of 1.35 million folks unhappy with 4e.

But I'd literally eat my shorts if EnWorld's poll turned out to be a true representation of the population.

Quote from: StormBringer;279478Clearly, none of us here are at the top of the marketing field, but Toyota's retention rate of 64.6% is considered unusually high.

For the automotive field. In purchases that are tens of thousands of dollars. Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people eat at McDonalds only once? Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people read the second, third, fourth, etc., book in a series?

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;279553I was one of the biggest, best known cheerleaders of D&D and D20-supremacy, and had played a couple of 3e campaigns (one regular, when it first came out, and one Midnight campaign).

And then, based solely on the fact that 4e had been announced before you thought it was going to be, you literally announced that you were going to turn on WotC and hate 4e. You don't get to come back and say, "I was one of their biggest fans..." after that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;2795562. Pathfinder is working in a long-term and profound consultation process with everyone who wants to get on board with them, you can get to be a playtester and your feedback will be noted just by getting on their forums. Its the ultimate in interactive design and for that they deserve credit, IMO.

Profound consultation? Posting a message on a message board (using a handle like "UnicornLover83" or "Drizzt1234712364"), which may or may not be read, much less taken into consideration, is "profound consultation"?

If that's the case, then 4e's designers had "profound consultation" with the members of this board about 4e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;2795564e was basically not playtested.

Uh-huh. Yeah. Totally.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279556So what Pathfinder's differences from 4e mean is that Pathfinder will appeal to a cadre of loyal 3e-people, and they will cement their loyalty by the feeling that THEY are the ones getting to influence the "new edition".

Will? There are already loyal 3e fans turning away from it.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279556But really, its a brilliant idea from a marketing POV for Paizo.

Right up until the point that it comes out. Then the game is going to fail to meet the impossible expectations it built up. Non-Paizo message boards are going to inundated with posts by people disappointed that their suggestions didn't make the final cut or that it didn't fix 3e in the manner they wanted. Then the folks who were on the fence or hadn't gotten around to buying it yet are going to reconsider purchasing it.

And then what is Paizo going to do?

All the above is just supposition, of course. Pathfinder might do great. Then it's no harm, no foul for Paizo.

But what if Pathfinder isn't the kind of success they need? WotC said it spent millions of dollars developing 4e. Pathfinder is similar in nature - although I doubt Paizo has spent millions on it yet. Regardless, the development cost has got to be high. They changed the direction of their company to one that's based around their in-house game. If it doesn't bring in the numbers they need, what are they going to do? Eat crow, say, "Whoops!," and start producing 4e adventures? Given their rather public distaste of 4e and WotC, I doubt that would be the outcome they choose...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279556...well, everything about how they released 4e, and would get such a HUGE number of people pissed off with them to the point that they would be more interested in Pathfinder.

Give us an idea of what you mean by "huge." Put a number on it. Is it ten folks? One hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand?

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;279621I'm hardcore. I like 4e.

The survey doesn't say 100% of ENWorld hates it.  There are roughly 40% of that group that likes it too.  Your assertion doesn't make it invalid, it puts you in the minority.

QuoteThe sample is useless for predicting patterns in the population because it isn't random. If you could somehow create a poll that randomly selected people to answer questions from a multitude of RPG forums, then you'd be

Most polls aren't random.  Public opinion polls are random, and those are the ones people hear about the most.  Marketing surveys, usability reports, customer satisfaction surveys and dozens of other surveys are also self-selecting, and those are taken quite seriously.

QuoteNo, they're not.

In fact, they are.  General public opinion polls are statistically designed to account for many factors, and are accepted as representative of an entire population as a whole.  No one dismisses a Gallup poll because the participants are 'self-selected as people who like to take surveys'.

QuoteExcept WotC has publicly and privately said that 4e's sales wildly surpassed their expectations.

No one is expecting WotC to announce that sales are shit, and they are ready to go out of business.  No company that is interested in staying in business says their product is crap and no one is buying it.

QuoteWotC says there are 4.5 million D&D players world-wide. Personally, I think that number is far too large. But it would yield a number of 1.35 million folks unhappy with 4e.

Which is 1.35 million folks who are telling their friends not to waste their time and money on it.  I defy you to find any marketing literature that claims bad word-of-mouth is irrelevant to sales.

QuoteBut I'd literally eat my shorts if EnWorld's poll turned out to be a true representation of the population.

Not a risky bet.  No poll claims to be a 'true' representation, just one that is close enough, statistically, to matter.

QuoteFor the automotive field. In purchases that are tens of thousands of dollars. Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people eat at McDonalds only once? Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people read the second, third, fourth, etc., book in a series?

Precisely my point.  For a purchase of tens of thousands of dollars, they have a proven 65% retention rate, which is likely lower than a survey would show.  Hence, 58% on a survey would indicate that a lower percent actually follows through with additional purchases.

Eating at McDonald's is less a matter of satisfaction than convenience.  How many people would suggest McDonald's for a business dinner?  Or a place to impress your date?  Nothing about McDonald's popularity suggests 'satisfaction' or 'preference'.

Regarding sequels, they only rarely earn more than the original, for movies at least (http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/06/news/companies/sequels/index.htm).

Quote from: Article from 2003Of the 19 sequels released last year, only four generated more ticket sales than their original, according to figures from Box Office Mojo.com, another box office tracking service. And many of the sequels had higher costs than their originals for production, marketing or both, according to available figures.

They sold fewer tickets, but had higher costs.  Not a recipe for success.  Books are not much better.  In fact, rather than earning more money on their own, there is some evidence (http://800ceoread.com/blog/archives/006422.html) they have more effect in boosting sales of the original.

Quote from: jeff37923;279619Because fanboi Zealotry will not allow you to possibly think otherwise, which is why I threw in the towel on this.

No, I took a class in statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics))

"Nonprobability sampling is any sampling method where some elements of the population have no chance of selection (these are sometimes referred to as 'out of coverage'/'undercovered'), or where selection probabilities cannot be accurately determined. Either of these conditions places limits on how much information a sample can provide about the population...In the former case, the sample can never provide information about the part of the population that is out of coverage."

In other words, an EnWorld poll doesn't tell us anything about what's happening outside of EnWorld because only the folks on EnWorld were "covered."

That aside, zealotry is having every indicator that 4e has been a success, including outside, objective ones, and still refusing to accept it because, presumably, it impinges on one's feelings of self-worth, self-esteem, et al..

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;279655No, I took a class in statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(statistics))

"Nonprobability sampling is any sampling method where some elements of the population have no chance of selection (these are sometimes referred to as 'out of coverage'/'undercovered'), or where selection probabilities cannot be accurately determined. Either of these conditions places limits on how much information a sample can provide about the population...In the former case, the sample can never provide information about the part of the population that is out of coverage."

In other words, an EnWorld poll doesn't tell us anything about what's happening outside of EnWorld because only the folks on EnWorld were "covered."

That aside, zealotry is having every indicator that 4e has been a success, including outside, objective ones, and still refusing to accept it because, presumably, it impinges on one's feelings of self-worth, self-esteem, et al..

Seanchai

How can I argue with the logic of putting your hands over your ears and yelling, "Nah-nah! I can't hear your heresy against 4E!"? I have already said that I was throwing in the towel on this one.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Public opinion polls are random...

Pretty much not ever.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648General public opinion polls are statistically designed to account for many factors, and are accepted as representative of an entire population as a whole.  No one dismisses a Gallup poll because the participants are 'self-selected as people who like to take surveys'.

Actually, many people involved in the utilization of, say, Gallup polls do indeed question their validity for many of the reasons you've stated. And there is utterly no comparison between the confidence interval of a Gallup poll and an ENWorld poll.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648No poll claims to be a 'true' representation, just one that is close enough, statistically, to matter.

And do you have any evidence at all that this particular poll is "close enough, statistically, to matter?" Look, I'm not saying you can't inform your opinion with this poll, and I agree it's useful to do so, but this poll cannot be assumed or believed to be anything reflecting reality. The sample size is too small and the nonresponse bias is utterly unknown. It's just not "close enough, statistically, to matter."

Pathfinder is dongs, unfortunately.  It had potential, but then the devs decided to shit on it.  It fixes some of the overwhelming issues that 3e has, but it leaves others untouched.  It's basically a set of houserules with excellent artwork that gives 3e that shiny, new system feel, but it's really just a coat of paint over the moldering, termite-infested shack that is 3e.

But damn, I do love that shack.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Most polls aren't random.

I agree. And most polls don't accurately reflect or accurately portray anything about the greater whole.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Marketing surveys, usability reports, customer satisfaction surveys and dozens of other surveys are also self-selecting, and those are taken quite seriously.

Taken seriously as an indicator of how the sample feels or taken seriously as an indicator of how the greater whole feels? People are right to do the former.

A poll conducted in K-Mart or on K-Mart's website will accurately reflect the attitudes of K-Mart shoppers. It should be taken seriously if that's its purpose. It won't, however, tell you how Wal-Mart shoppers or shoppers as a whole feel.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648No one dismisses a Gallup poll because the participants are 'self-selected as people who like to take surveys'.

media.gallup.com/PDF/FAQ/HowArePolls.pdf

"Probability sampling is the fundamental basis for all survey research. The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly.  

...

Thus, it is Gallup's goal in selecting samples to allow every adult American an equal chance of falling into the sample...

When setting out to conduct a national opinion poll, the first thing Gallup does is select a place where all or most Americans are equally likely to be found. That wouldn't be a shopping mall, or a grocery store, an office building, a hotel, or a baseball game. The place nearly all adult Americans are most likely to be found is in their home. So, reaching people at home is the starting place for almost all national surveys.  

...

...Today, approximately 95% of all households have a telephone and every survey reported in this book is based on interviews conducted by telephone."

In other words, EnWorld's poll isn't a random sample. Gallup uses random samples because it is only through random samples that we can get an mostly accurate picture of how the whole population feels.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648No one is expecting WotC to announce that sales are shit, and they are ready to go out of business.  No company that is interested in staying in business says their product is crap and no one is buying it.

Those are two different things. Companies - even RPG companies - do comment on their sales, letting the public know when sales are low. But, that aside, there's a difference between announcing bad sales and crowing about great sales.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Which is 1.35 million folks who are telling their friends not to waste their time and money on it.  I defy you to find any marketing literature that claims bad word-of-mouth is irrelevant to sales.

I'm not saying word-of-mouth advertising isn't important.

I'm saying a) you don't understand statistics, b) EnWorld's poll doesn't mean what you think it means, c) there aren't 10 million D&D players out there, d)

Quote from: StormBringer;279648No poll claims to be a 'true' representation, just one that is close enough, statistically, to matter.

"The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly."

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Precisely my point.  For a purchase of tens of thousands of dollars, they have a proven 65% retention rate, which is likely lower than a survey would show.  Hence, 58% on a survey would indicate that a lower percent actually follows through with additional purchases.

It's not precisely your point because your point isn't that people are less stringent about purchasing items with lower MSRPs.

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Eating at McDonald's is less a matter of satisfaction than convenience...Nothing about McDonald's popularity suggests 'satisfaction' or 'preference'.

That old chestnut, huh? You don't like things to be convenient? Moreover, people have no choice but to go to McDonalds?

Quote from: StormBringer;279648Regarding sequels, they only rarely earn more than the original, for movies at least (http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/06/news/companies/sequels/index.htm).

They sold fewer tickets, but had higher costs.  Not a recipe for success.  Books are not much better.  In fact, rather than earning more money on their own, there is some evidence (http://800ceoread.com/blog/archives/006422.html) they have more effect in boosting sales of the original.

Neither which address my question: "Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people read the second, third, fourth, etc., book in a series?"

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;279670A poll conducted in K-Mart or on K-Mart's website will accurately reflect the attitudes of K-Mart shoppers.

Worse, a poll on K-Mart's website can only reflect the opinions of visitors to K-Mart's website who saw the poll, read the poll, and replied to the poll; these people may not be shoppers, they may not understand the questions, they may not answer accurately even if they do...and this assumes the questions themselves are worded in the most accurate possible way for all people who might respond!

Statistics is a very, very complex affair, and treating a poll on one website as accurately describing anything like the whole is just plain ludicrous, and anyone who wishes to accept those results as universally valid is either deluded or attempting to delude others.

Quote from: Seanchai;279670The place nearly all adult Americans are most likely to be found is in their home. So, reaching people at home is the starting place for almost all national surveys.

Which is huge cause for nonselection bias, since it cannot reflect the positions of people who work during the hours most surveys are conducted, people who have unlisted numbers, people using cellular phones [as a rule; this is changing], or people without phones. Or people who hang up, which is an enormous, enormous, enormous percentage. Even the most carefully-built statistical model is riddled with inaccuracies; it is the art of the statistician to weed them out. Just reading poll numbers will almost never tell you anything meaningful.

Quote from: Seanchai;279670You don't like things to be convenient? Moreover, people have no choice but to go to McDonalds?

That's a very good point. You can't divorce preference from all the things that effect preference; yeah, a McDonald's hamburger isn't the best-tasting thing you can eat, but given its price and ubiquity and convenience, it is often preferred to other hamburgers. Good catch.

Quote from: Seanchai;279670I'm saying a) you don't understand statistics, b) EnWorld's poll doesn't mean what you think it means, c) there aren't 10 million D&D players out there...

No, but 10mil is an easy number to throw percentages at.  You aren't really hinging an argument on my choice of population size, right?

Quote"The basic principle: a randomly selected, small percent of a population of people can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people, if the sample is selected correctly."

Aside from your assertion, how are the people at ENWorld not a 'randomly selected, small percent of a population'?  Are you saying their attitudes and ideas are exactly the same across the whole membership?  Or because they happen to congregate at the same place?  The latter one will knock a whole lot of surveys out of the running.

QuoteIt's not precisely your point because your point isn't that people are less stringent about purchasing items with lower MSRPs.

My point in that case is, they would be.  I would expect people to be much less discriminating about dropping $8 on the next paperback in a series than $18,000 for the same brand of car.  Yet, the opposite appears true.  Fewer people go to a movie sequel, sometimes by half.  Later books in a series often have lower sales, but increase sales of the earlier books.  You are trying to make the point that people will get the next in a series almost reflexively, yet they appear far more discriminating about their entertainment dollar.

QuoteThat old chestnut, huh? You don't like things to be convenient? Moreover, people have no choice but to go to McDonalds?

Old chestnuts tend to get that way because they are accurate.  You are implying sales are through the roof because 4e is way better than the previous version, while dredging up McDonald's as an example of repeat business.  I think you will find almost no one to vouch for the quality of McDonald's food.

QuoteNeither which address my question: "Do you really think fewer than 65 percent of people read the second, third, fourth, etc., book in a series?"

Actually, they both do.  And while I don't have the exact numbers for each book being published currently, I would not be surprised if they were in the 65%-75% range, possibly less.  At best, the second book in a series would have high sales, dropping off as the series progressed.  I would not expect book 5 to have the sales of book 1, so your contention that follow up products necessarily have similar popularity as the original is unsupported by the evidence or common sense.

Quote from: Seanchai;279629And then, based solely on the fact that 4e had been announced before you thought it was going to be, you literally announced that you were going to turn on WotC and hate 4e. You don't get to come back and say, "I was one of their biggest fans..." after that.

Possibly, unless perhaps if you'd dedicated the last several years before that to defending D&D, D20 and WoTC and was known as one of the most (in?)famous defenders of the game against its detractors...

QuoteProfound consultation? Posting a message on a message board (using a handle like "UnicornLover83" or "Drizzt1234712364"), which may or may not be read, much less taken into consideration, is "profound consultation"?

Except that its a process a lot more involved and honest than that.  I don't know if you really don't know that, or if you're intentionally trying to distort facts here, I'll try to be generous and assume its the former...

QuoteRight up until the point that it comes out. Then the game is going to fail to meet the impossible expectations it built up.

Dude, the BETA version has been out for quite some time now, and is apparently one of the top five bestselling RPGs of the year... Paizo is already making a killing here...

QuoteAll the above is just supposition, of course. Pathfinder might do great. Then it's no harm, no foul for Paizo.

But what if Pathfinder isn't the kind of success they need? WotC said it spent millions of dollars developing 4e. Pathfinder is similar in nature - although I doubt Paizo has spent millions on it yet. Regardless, the development cost has got to be high. They changed the direction of their company to one that's based around their in-house game. If it doesn't bring in the numbers they need, what are they going to do?

Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game? I mean shit, if 4e doesn't end up living up to WoTC's expectations, you could say the same about them. If Hackmaster 5e or the new Traveller or White Wolf's latest gamble doesn't pay off, then that'll suck for their companies too. You're not really making much of a revealing point here, or at least not relevant to this discussion.

RPGPundit

Pathfinder looks almost exactly like 3rd edition D&D to me.

Sure, some things have been tweaked, but nothing really changed.  Nothing that I really care about, anyway... I wasn't of the Boy Who Cried "Balance".

In a way, I admire that Paizo is trying to do something worthwhile... keep an outdated gaming system alive.  That aspect I totally respect.  They also tried to fix some things that people thought were broken... that's ok too I guess.  I never had any problems with 3e, at least concerning the things they addressed.  My bones with 3e are a lot more fundamental, that necessitated me moving to a different game altogether.  That's a story for another day, however.

The crowd rallying around Pathfinder is really those who wish to continue a style of fantasy gaming I'm no longer genuinely interested in.  I suppose that *if I was* I would certainly get the books, because I've come to like the idea of playing an in-print game.  I would probably be running Pathfinder exclusively.  If you spill coffee on you're book, you don't have to go hunting on ebay to find a replacement.

I however will be running Labyrinth Lord for the time being... a game made for many of the same reasons Pathfinder was, only using a different game as the basis.

Quote from: Engine;279677Statistics is a very, very complex affair, and treating a poll on one website as accurately describing anything like the whole is just plain ludicrous, and anyone who wishes to accept those results as universally valid is either deluded or attempting to delude others.

Or they're just misinformed. Having taken a statistics class, worked on a degree in marketing, and having helped organize surveys and focus groups, I'm aware of how stringent you have to be when selecting a sample. Others may not be. But now they know.

Quote from: Engine;279677That's a very good point. You can't divorce preference from all the things that effect preference; yeah, a McDonald's hamburger isn't the best-tasting thing you can eat, but given its price and ubiquity and convenience, it is often preferred to other hamburgers. Good catch.

Thanks. I've had some practice with the whole McDonalds-quality thing.

Seanchai

For the record, I have no intention of playing Pathfinder just because I love to use Pathfinder adventure modules ("use" as opposed to "play them as written" - they make for amazing resources, but as written are pretty awful railroads replete with NPCs who lead the PCs by the nose for 16 levels).

But the fact that Pathfinder adventure modules will convert to Pathfinder RPG will probably not hinder me from buying Paizo's adventure modules in the future (which is their core product really). That's because I think conversion work will be pretty slim, since I am confident there will be handy fan-made conversion files available on Paizo's website of the very variety that already enables you to play Pathfinder adventure modules using 4E. The number of skill challenges you find in the newest modules suggest that Paizo is certainly not beyond taking what they deem to be good in 4E and leaving the (to them) less useful stuff behind.

But that's just scene-setting for my main point.

What people seem to be forgetting here is that Pathfinder as a product line is in a enviable position which WotC is currently struggling to achieve. WotC sold its core books but apparently has a hard time to find enough buyers of its follow up product. They actually cut down on follow up product pretty steeply, if you look at the fact that the Forgotten Realms product line for 4E is completed already. With Pathfinder it's the opposite. They don't have to convince people to buy their follow up product - adventure modules and source books - because they already have an extant customer stock of people subscribed to them.

In short, Pathfinder will succeed because it's succeeding already. It need not yet establish a healthy product line since it has accomplished that already. With 4E we have yet to see if they can follow suit.   Not least, the criteria by which a product line is "healthy" are much steeper for Hasbro than they are for Paizo. And that may well be the core problem.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Aside from your assertion, how are the people at ENWorld not a 'randomly selected, small percent of a population'?

They're not randomly selected because they self-selected: they chose to join a specific forum. That alone tells you a lot about them: they're people who own computers or have access to one, who have internet service or access to same, who chose to join a specific forum on the internet. Additionally, they self-select as answerers of the poll itself; anyone who chose not to answer is left out.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Or because they happen to congregate at the same place?  The latter one will knock a whole lot of surveys out of the running.

Absolutely. You have to be incredibly dubious of any sort of survey that doesn't include rigorous statistical controls; polls on websites are pretty much the definition of not-rigorous.

The joke we used to tell is that you can't poll the drivers at a Alfa Romeo rally to see how reliable their cars are, because the ones with unreliable Alfas never got there in the first place. Selection bias, plain and simple.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700No, but 10mil is an easy number to throw percentages at.  You aren't really hinging an argument on my choice of population size, right?

No, I was basing it on statistics, and I seem to have won that battle.

Snark aside, generally when folks make arguments, they do so based on facts. Generally when they throw around numbers, they're using real-world numbers unless they specify otherwise. Maybe I missed you doing so, but I certainly considered you to be making an argument based on real-world numbers.

And, yes, it does matter whether it's one million or 10 million. That's a huge difference. Your argument is that some number of folks aren't making the switch to 4e. The magnitude of that number matters - if 1,000 people aren't making the switch, that's trivial; but if it's 10 million...

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Aside from your assertion, how are the people at ENWorld not a 'randomly selected, small percent of a population'?  

You have what's called a population in statistics. That represents the whole that the results are supposed to represent. Thus if we want a poll to be representative of all D&D players, the population of our survey would be all D&D players.

In order for the sample to be random and thus reflect with some degree of accuracy the population, every member of the population must be eligible to be drafted into the sample. In a poll about all D&D players, that means each and every D&D would have to have a random chance of being selected to participate in the poll.

In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

Because of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700Or because they happen to congregate at the same place?  The latter one will knock a whole lot of surveys out of the running.

It's this. And it isn't so much that the surveys, polls, etc., are "wrong," but that they don't represent a greater whole.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700I would expect people to be much less discriminating about dropping $8 on the next paperback in a series than $18,000 for the same brand of car.  Yet, the opposite appears true.

If you weren't comparing apples and oranges, that might be the case.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700You are trying to make the point that people will get the next in a series almost reflexively, yet they appear far more discriminating about their entertainment dollar.

Not reflexively, just that data about an $18,000 purchase doesn't reflect how folks will spend $8. If we were talking about $10 versus $8 or even $18 versus $8, that'd be one thing.

Quote from: StormBringer;279700You are implying sales are through the roof because 4e is way better than the previous version...

No. I think sales are through the roof because people like it, not because they like it better than [blank].

Quote from: StormBringer;279700...while dredging up McDonald's as an example of repeat business.  I think you will find almost no one to vouch for the quality of McDonald's food.

First, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

But we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

In the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food. Consumers go to fast food restaurants to get food fast. That's what McDonald's delivers. True, they may not always be the best tasting burgers, but that's generally not the most important consideration for people going to a fast food restaurant...

Seanchai

Quote from: Windjammer;279859. With Pathfinder it's the opposite. They don't have to convince people to buy their follow up product - adventure modules and source books - because they already have an extant customer stock of people subscribed to them...

You mean like DDI? Because uhm.. 33 adventures and counting in DDI right now. New ones every month. $4.95

Yeah, I know, it's supposed to be all hip and smug to laugh about DDI, but there's some good stuff there. Menace of the Icy Spire alone was worth it. There's also an adventure path (Scales of War) but I haven't bothered looking at it.

QuoteIn short, Pathfinder will succeed because it's succeeding already. It need not yet establish a healthy product line since it has accomplished that already. With 4E we have yet to see if they can follow suit.  [/b] Not least, the criteria by which a product line is "healthy" are much steeper for Hasbro than they are for Paizo. And that may well be the core problem.

Pathfinder is not really growing from what I can tell. I predict that by 2011- it will eventually MAYBE reach the same level of support for Arcana Unearthed (the Monte Cook game), but it might be gone altogether, who knows? 4E is simply put, an easier, more appealing game than 3e, much easier to teach and more fun to play with new players. It's less configurable and versatile by far, I will grant that. But, eh. I don't care. I don't play D&D because I really want to play Spycraft. I play D&D.

I seriously doubt they even made enough money selling Pathfinder to pay off Wayne Reynolds for his artwork. His paintings are expensive!

I know it seems impossible to say this out loud right here at the RPGsite, but in the real world? People don't care that much about loyalty to the ideals of the 1970s, the D&D legacy, the lifestyle, the brown booklets, "how hit points used to work",  artwork nostalgia or whatever else.

People in general? They just want to play a game, and if it's a game with cute little miniatures and you run around battling monsters and building your character up with items.. and oh, you get *powers* too? They'll play.  

I suspect at least 50% of Pathfinders main supporters have no intention of ever buying anything for it. Ever. The loudest cheerleaders here, how many Pathfinder items have you bought? Where are your Pathfinder campaigns? It's a passing concern at best what happens in Pathfinder, except that these people (unfairly to Paizo, really) see it as their personal champion in battle against the hated WOTC.

The remaining 50% of Pathfinders supporters are certainly made up of people who are unwilling to convert to 4th edition, but I bet those guys will eventually figure out on their own that

1) declaring allegiance to Pathfinder in order to protest or "send a message" had no effect whatsoever. 4e still came out.
2) If they really like 3e, and this isn't some StormBringer-esque malevolent "how can I jump in to try and ruin it for the mainstream D&D-players" nonsense, then they don't really need to support a whole other company to keep playing 3rd edition. They could just.. keep playing what they were playing. I mean.. I don't care. Plenty of adventures and other material out there and the ability to "build your own" is one of D&D3's greatest strengths.

But if you want to get in on that weekly gamenight with 40 people in the room, you'll probably want to be playing D&D4. Because that's what the norms (the hated, reviled, "mere hobbyists", not the dedicated scions of gaming that you guys represent) will be doing. And having a great time. At the end of it, you will be like WalkerP, the unhappiest gamer in the world. "I try to find gaming in my area.. and all anyone ants to play is D&D!" God, how I used to chuckle at him.

Or how about this for a suggestion:

There's a living Pathfinder campaign called the Pathfinder Society. They will have events at Gencon.

There will be RPGA events at Gencon.

Please compare attendance and numbers. Decide who is doing better on your own...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Possibly, unless perhaps if you'd dedicated the last several years before that to defending D&D, D20 and WoTC and was known as one of the most (in?)famous defenders of the game against its detractors...

But, clearly, your dedication was utterly false and self-serving. You threw the company and the game over in a heartbeat because they released 4e earlier than they said they were going to. You clung to D&D because of philosophical reasons.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Except that its a process a lot more involved and honest than that.

How so? What makes it more "involved and honest" than collecting posts off a message board and then either choosing to listen or not?

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Dude, the BETA version has been out for quite some time now, and is apparently one of the top five bestselling RPGs of the year... Paizo is already making a killing here...

First, you're a fucking hypocrite if you bring up sales as a measure of success, popularity, or, really, whatever...

Second, if you actually don't give a damn about being a hypocrite and press on with your argument, I'll do what you do when presented with sales figures, etc., about 4e: stick my fingers in my ears, hum real loud, and pretend.

Third, wait, you find IGN to be more credible than a national newspaper's bestsellers list?

Fourth, you are talking about IGN's list, right? I don't remember seeing anything in the article that suggested their list was based on sales. Does anyone have a link to the article so we can all read or re-read it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;279737Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game?

To a degree. But Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Seanchai

In my opinion, both sides are full of fail and the only real winner in this is SenZar. Campaign, anyone?

Quote from: Seanchai;279874In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

There is no chance every McDonald's patron could be selected to participate either.  Some don't take their receipts.  Some don't have access to a phone/the internet.  Some don't see the survey offer.  Responses are collected from people who a) got their receipt, b) went to the webpage/called the number, c) were able to navigate the menus to take the poll.

You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.  People who go to the mall are self-selected for taking surveys.  It's not compelling.

QuoteBecause of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.  

QuoteFirst, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

Which is why I said 'almost no one'.

QuoteBut we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

How the food tastes is certainly a measure of the quality, subjective or not.  Customer service is subjective as well, but the consumer is considered the final arbiter when it comes to rating that.  You are approaching this as though an entire survey would consist of the question "Do you like McDonald's?"  The quality of the food and the quality of the customer service are tracked separately.  It would be preposterous to think these two scores would be routinely combined for an overall rating.  They may be looked at as affecting each other, however.  With three broad categories of Restaurant, Service and Meal, certainly a low score on Restaurant (because the place was filthy) would tend to lower the score for Service or vice versa.  But simply adding them all together for a final number is useless.

So, if you are talking about McDonald's as a convenience, you are talking about a very different perspective than McDonald's as a fine eatery.

QuoteIn the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food.

No, McDonald's has quality service, for certain definitions of 'service'.  McDonald's has spend ungodly amounts of money to update their menus and continue to adapt to the pressures of the market.  As you mentioned yourself, people tend to weight convenience over taste, so keep going back to McDonald's.  That has nothing to do with the separate category of taste, in which McDonald's consistently scored lower than even other fast food places.  Hence, they started changing their menus and offerings to bring that score up.  Had they only looked at their 'service' rating, or a blind combination of the three categories, they would not have changed their menus.

All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.  Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero fans, if fewer than half of them were interested in the 2009 8c Spider (http://www.leftlanenews.com/alfa-romeo-8c-spider.html), a reasonable person would suspect there is something to be concerned about.  And much like the Alfa Romero rally drivers, the people at ENWorld have been over every nuance of their system for eight years.  If anyone would know about a problem, it would be them.

The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.  The argument then leads to this deficiency completely invalidating the results.  While they may not be as accurate as desired, they don't have to be.  It is close enough for government work.  It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.  Because they aren't all of the same mind.  Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.  At least, general D&D gamers.

Further, self-selection is really a problem when you are determining causes of discrepencies.  No one is trying to point out the reasons, merely that in a simple poll, response is not as high as was expected.  And there are methods for filtering out self-selection bias, but again, those aren't necessary, as this poll is just a rough estimate.  I mean, you don't whip out the HP statistical calculator and start hammering in the RPN when you ask a few friends if they like a movie, right?

We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.  If the numbers had come back closer to 75% in favour, I would be saying that seems right, and shows that hardcore D&D fans seem to approve of the new edition.  The important point here is:  that didn't happen.  The Alfa Romero drivers hopped in the new model, took it for a spin, and came back with a negative review.


Seanchai[/quote]

Quote from: Seanchai;279874In the case of the EnWorld poll, there's no chance that every D&D player could be selected to participate. Some are not online. Some are not on EnWorld. Some didn't see the poll. So the sample isn't random. Responses were only collected from people who a) were online, b) went to EnWorld, and c) saw and responded to the poll.

There is no chance every McDonald's patron could be selected to participate either.  Some don't take their receipts.  Some don't have access to a phone/the internet.  Some don't see the survey offer.  Responses are collected from people who a) got their receipt, b) went to the webpage/called the number, c) were able to navigate the menus to take the poll.

You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.  People who go to the mall are self-selected for taking surveys.  It's not compelling.

QuoteBecause of that, the population for the poll isn't all D&D players, but rather just people who a) are online and b) visit to EnWorld.

What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.  

QuoteFirst, a common sense litmus test tells us that someone, somewhere, will indeed tell us that McDonalds has quality food.

Which is why I said 'almost no one'.

QuoteBut we're talking about business. In business, quality doesn't mean "tastes good." Quality is the ability of a product to meet consumer needs. Whether or not food tastes good is entirely subjective.

How the food tastes is certainly a measure of the quality, subjective or not.  Customer service is subjective as well, but the consumer is considered the final arbiter when it comes to rating that.  You are approaching this as though an entire survey would consist of the question "Do you like McDonald's?"  The quality of the food and the quality of the customer service are tracked separately.  It would be preposterous to think these two scores would be routinely combined for an overall rating.  They may be looked at as affecting each other, however.  With three broad categories of Restaurant, Service and Meal, certainly a low score on Restaurant (because the place was filthy) would tend to lower the score for Service or vice versa.  But simply adding them all together for a final number is useless.

So, if you are talking about McDonald's as a convenience, you are talking about a very different perspective than McDonald's as a fine eatery.

QuoteIn the business sense, yes, indeed, McDonalds has quality food.

No, McDonald's has quality service, for certain definitions of 'service'.  McDonald's has spend ungodly amounts of money to update their menus and continue to adapt to the pressures of the market.  As you mentioned yourself, people tend to weight convenience over taste, so keep going back to McDonald's.  That has nothing to do with the separate category of taste, in which McDonald's consistently scored lower than even other fast food places.  Hence, they started changing their menus and offerings to bring that score up.  Had they only looked at their 'service' rating, or a blind combination of the three categories, they would not have changed their menus.

All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.  Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero fans, if fewer than half of them were interested in the 2009 8c Spider (http://www.leftlanenews.com/alfa-romeo-8c-spider.html), a reasonable person would suspect there is something to be concerned about.  And much like the Alfa Romero rally drivers, the people at ENWorld have been over every nuance of their system for eight years.  If anyone would know about a problem, it would be them.

The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.  The argument then leads to this deficiency completely invalidating the results.  While they may not be as accurate as desired, they don't have to be.  It is close enough for government work.  It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.  Because they aren't all of the same mind.  Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.  At least, general D&D gamers.

Further, self-selection is really a problem when you are determining causes of discrepencies.  No one is trying to point out the reasons, merely that in a simple poll, response is not as high as was expected.  And there are methods for filtering out self-selection bias, but again, those aren't necessary, as this poll is just a rough estimate.  I mean, you don't whip out the HP statistical calculator and start hammering in the RPN when you ask a few friends if they like a movie, right?

We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.  If the numbers had come back closer to 75% in favour, I would be saying that seems right, and shows that hardcore D&D fans seem to approve of the new edition.  The important point here is:  that didn't happen.  The Alfa Romero drivers hopped in the new model, took it for a spin, and came back with a negative review.

Quote from: Seanchai;279881But, clearly, your dedication was utterly false and self-serving. You threw the company and the game over in a heartbeat because they released 4e earlier than they said they were going to. You clung to D&D because of philosophical reasons.

Not true. I didn't like everything about 3e, but I had respect for Wizards as a company, the process that created 3e, the people involved, and especially with the concept of the OGL and D20 as a system, which I adored (and still do adore).

QuoteHow so? What makes it more "involved and honest" than collecting posts off a message board and then either choosing to listen or not?

Ok, I see. You're pretending that they're throwing darts to determine what advice they'll listen to and which they won't, rather than the actual process of feedback that is going on. Gotcha.

QuoteFirst, you're a fucking hypocrite if you bring up sales as a measure of success, popularity, or, really, whatever...

Really? Hypocrite? You sure that's the word you're looking for here? Because I've always been a pretty big advocate of financial success as a measure of game-success.

QuoteSecond, if you actually don't give a damn about being a hypocrite and press on with your argument, I'll do what you do when presented with sales figures, etc., about 4e: stick my fingers in my ears, hum real loud, and pretend.

That tactic seems to work well for you, but its not what I was up to; I'm not pretending that 4e hasn't sold a lot of books, way more books in terms of sheer quantity than Pathfinder or any other RPG this year.  
The difference is that that sales does not equal financial success in and of itself. The measure of "financial success" is based on sales as compared to the investment put into the project and the company's expectations of sales results. THAT is what I'm doubting strongly as far as Wizards' hopes for 4e.

QuoteTo a degree. But Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Yes, that's fair enough. And you have a point that were Pathfinder to be a financial failure for them, they'd be fucked, badly. But again, ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder would be pretty fucked if they failed, so while your point is technically correct, its not really relevant to the question of 4e.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;279900What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Please re-read my last few posts, then, which have been exclusively addressing how ENWorld cannot be assured of being a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900All that aside, ENWorld does have a selection bias to it, but not the one you mention.  They have the most damning selection bias possible in this case:  they are, to a greater or lesser degree, very supportive fans of D&D.

That would be another selection bias, yes. However, you're discounting all the other self-selection biases, without providing any reason for doing so.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900Much like Engine's example of the Alfa Romero...

Romeo.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".

Yes, that's exactly the question.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900We don't need calculus to determine that the numbers are too low for a poll conducted on a site that is ostensibly for fans of the game.

You understand that the sort of Alfa drivers who go to Alfa rallys aren't representative of Alfa drivers as a whole, right? They're the most dedicated fans, a group of people who have made this make of car important in their lives. Now, if you take a group of them out in a Brera, they're likely to say things like, "It's okay as a car, but it's just not an Alfa," or, "What's with all the weight? This car is no fun to drive at all." But if you take the whole Alfa driving population and survey them, they're likely to say the Brera is a beautiful car which drives and feels excellent.

The enthusiast is not representative of the entire buying populace. Surveying only enthusiasts will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace. Surveying only enthusiasts from one particular group will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace. Allowing enthusiasts to opt-in to a voluntary poll will not produce results relevant to the entire buying populace.

Could the results of this poll match those of the general population? Absolutely. But there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that. In the absence of such evidence, making the assumption that the results match is logically untenable.

Quote from: Engine;279967Yes, that's exactly the question.

Again, that is the question you want to address, because it is the only winning strategy.  It completely misses the point that a group of people who are hardcore fans are not flocking to the latest iteration.

QuoteYou understand that the sort of Alfa drivers who go to Alfa rallys aren't representative of Alfa drivers as a whole, right? They're the most dedicated fans, a group of people who have made this make of car important in their lives. Now, if you take a group of them out in a Brera, they're likely to say things like, "It's okay as a car, but it's just not an Alfa," or, "What's with all the weight? This car is no fun to drive at all." But if you take the whole Alfa driving population and survey them, they're likely to say the Brera is a beautiful car which drives and feels excellent.

Which is nice and all, but I wouldn't use that to gauge long term success.  Three laps out on the track might feel like the best car ever, but after a couple of months, they start to notice all that extra weight makes it less agile under road conditions.  The brakes aren't as tight as the last model, and getting them adjusted is a nightmare.  Any one of a dozen problems that don't get noticed immediately.  Problems that hardcore fans may have pointed out months earlier.

But again, this all beside the point.  No one is making the argument that this poll is rigorous enough to pass as a valid survey.  The real point that these smoke and mirrors is trying to obscure is that the people most likely to embrace a new edition are lukewarm about it.  Is that the whole argument?  Of course not, but it is an indicator.  You have the people who are most likely to champion a new edition, and most vocal about doing so, staying away in droves.  Perhaps not droves, but it's 50/50.  While the poll won't pass muster for accuracy or validity, the argument that it is wholly irrelevant is false.  If someone pointed to it and tried to extrapolate causes, self-selection bias would be a stronger argument.  As it stands, you would have to invalidate any customer service poll on those same grounds, so I am not finding that a strong counter point.

Because, that is what we are really talking about here.  A customer satisfaction survey.  Therefore, the argument really isn't how valid it is as a poll.  No one is claiming the end of RPGs because of these results.  No one is holding up the results and crowing "This!  This proves 4e is made of fail!!".  What people are asking is:  if 4e has a less than stellar reception at ENWorld, what does that say about long term viability?  If ENWorld isn't out there promoting the game online and off, can WotC pick up the slack?  There are all kinds of questions this points to and indicates a possible answer to.

(Personally, I think ENWorld has a reasonable cross-section of gamers that reflect the general population, but that is just an intuition from reading posts over there.  In other words, the odds of running into - or general ratio of -  'gamer type x' would be roughly equivalent between ENWorld and the general population.  In that light, it should be troubling that the numbers are so low.)

Quote from: StormBringer;279993Again, that is the question you want to address, because it is the only winning strategy.

Uh, I don't really care to "win," and I'm not utilizing a "strategy" to do so. I'm attempting to explain why this web poll cannot be assumed to be an accurate reflection of the full sales base of the product. I've no stake in the product, the argument, or much of anything else. I just like to caution people who are drawing unsupported conclusions from minimal information.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993No one is making the argument that this poll is rigorous enough to pass as a valid survey.

Any conclusion drawn from these results is simply logically untenable, unless the conclusion is, "X percent of the users who chose to reply to this poll on this site feel this way," and even that's subject to serious question.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993While the poll won't pass muster for accuracy or validity, the argument that it is wholly irrelevant is false.

Well, let's put it this way: in my opinion, any argument supported by facts which cannot "pass muster for accuracy or validity" is not provably accurate or valid.

Again, I'm in no way saying you are incorrect; what I'm saying is that this poll cannot usefully prove general trends. If you want to prove general trends, use something besides the poll, as indeed you've been doing.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908Not true. I didn't like everything about 3e, but I had respect for Wizards as a company, the process that created 3e, the people involved, and especially with the concept of the OGL and D20 as a system, which I adored (and still do adore).

Because the company, the process, people, and core concept supported your views and your war against the Swine.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908You're pretending that they're throwing darts to determine what advice they'll listen to and which they won't, rather than the actual process of feedback that is going on. Gotcha.

I don't have to pretend. There's a lot of advice on their and some of its contradictory. They can't possibly take all of it. And we know they haven't - because their boards and other boards are full of folks who say, "Pathfinder hasn't fixed what was wrong with 3.5. Instead, they beefed up the [blank] class, making the situation worse..."

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908Because I've always been a pretty big advocate of financial success as a measure of game-success.

Except when it comes to 4e...

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908The difference is that that sales does not equal financial success in and of itself. The measure of "financial success" is based on sales as compared to the investment put into the project and the company's expectations of sales results. THAT is what I'm doubting strongly as far as Wizards' hopes for 4e.

Uh-huh. Because Wizards has said a) that they sold over a year's worth of 4e in the first month of its release and b) that it wildly exceed their expectations. You know this. And so you've been talking for months now about how 4e is a success.

Quote from: RPGPundit;279908But again, ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing with Pathfinder would be pretty fucked if they failed...

"Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game?"

Look at the goal posts shift. First it was "any company" and now it's "ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing..."

As I said and as we both recognize but you won't admit, other RPG companies aren't making that sort of commitment. Can you even think of another one that has? Again, Paizo very publicly repudiated its former associates, took a different tack, and is now taking a gamble on what is basically a new consumer base for them.

Also, did you ever find that IGN list? That was your basis for saying Pathfinder had sold well, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;279900You are listing vague technicalities that are already taken into account for any poll.

No, actually, they're not. Consider, for example, the information I posted from Gallup about how they conduct their polls.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900What you and Engine have (I can only assume purposefully) refused to address is how the people at ENWorld are some hive-mind, or don't represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population.

Yes, we have. We've posted information about the methods needed for the math in surveys and polls to represent a reasonable cross-section of the larger population. It's not esoteric math or methodology either - anyone with a statistics textbook or the ability to use Google could find the same information. That's just how statistics, random sampling, etc., work.  

Quote from: StormBringer;279900The question isn't "Is the poll wholly compliant with statistical norms and survey standards?".  No one has said it is.

No, but you and others have repeatedly said that the EnWorld poll is representative. It's not. It can't be as it didn't use a random sample.

Quote from: StormBringer;279900It shows that among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, there is much less support than would be expected.

No, it shows among the hard-core loyal fans of D&D on EnWorld that support for 4e is less than expected (although I don't know whom is doing the expecting and how it's accomplished).

Again, if you want the EnWorld poll to demonstrate anything about the attitudes of the hard-core loyal fans of D&D, then it needs to follow the proper methodology.  

Quote from: StormBringer;279900Their attitudes regarding D&D or games in general would be sufficiently random to represent a reasonable cross-section of general gamers.

Except it's not. Statistically speaking, the poll doesn't mean a thing about any larger population. You brought up Gallup Polls as supporting evidence for your views. I posted information directly from Gallup about how you're wrong. This isn't my opinion. This isn't something I'm creating on the fly. This is how statistics works.

Seanchai

I got into fantasy roleplaying through Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition. For better or worse, to me D&D and the 3rd edition system are one in the same. After getting into a variety of different systems for different genres ( Chaosiums BRP, Kult's system, Storyteller 1 & 2, Palladium Megaversal system, to name but a few) I'm convinced that 3.5 fantasy is pretty much the best RPG system for fast paced tactical combat in close quarters. D&D 3.X offers players and DM's a lot of options when it comes combat. Miniatures may or may not be implemented. If they are, the  group can include as much detail as they ever want. Players are given to chance to participate in any capacity their players can. The level system is a perfect gauge for a player's prowess. The game rewards character growth through physical activity, but it also lets the DM put in effect other goal based systems. D&D makes dungeoncrawling fun and challenging by giving the players many options they can use if they are mindful of their characters strengths and limitations.
That piece-of-shit,World of Warcraft-wannabe 4th Edition dumbs down the game to the point of being condescending. It is a very stupid game that requires you to buy shitty plastic miniatures and cardboard dungeon pieces. 3rd Edition gave allowed you decide what is good for your game and what isn't.
Pathfinder is the cleanest iteration of the 3.0 version of the D20 System.  If you already own the 3.5 books then you may argue that buying the book is redundant. I lost all my 3.X books so I can't wait till Pathfinder comes out this summer.
Paizo is an amazing company who is being smart by going into the D20 market that Wizards of the Coast tried to destroy for no apparent reason. They definitely deserve my business.

I got into fantasy roleplaying through Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition. For better or worse, to me D&D and the 3rd edition system are one in the same. After getting into a variety of different systems for different genres ( Chaosiums BRP, Kult's system, Storyteller 1 & 2, Palladium Megaversal system, to name but a few) I'm convinced that 3.5 fantasy is pretty much the best RPG system for fast paced tactical combat in close quarters. D&D 3.X offers players and DM's a lot of options when it comes combat. Miniatures may or may not be implemented. If they are, the  group can include as much detail as they ever want. Players are given to chance to participate in any capacity their players can. The level system is a perfect gauge for a player's prowess. The game rewards character growth through physical activity, but it also lets the DM put in effect other goal based systems. D&D makes dungeoncrawling fun and challenging by giving the players many options they can use if they are mindful of their characters strengths and limitations.
That piece-of-shit,World of Warcraft-wannabe 4th Edition dumbs down the game to the point of being condescending. It is a very stupid game that requires you to buy shitty plastic miniatures and cardboard dungeon pieces. 3rd Edition gave allowed you decide what is good for your game and what isn't.
Pathfinder is the cleanest iteration of the 3.0 version of the D20 System.  If you already own the 3.5 books then you may argue that buying the book is redundant. I lost all my 3.X books so I can't wait till Pathfinder comes out this summer.
Paizo is an amazing company who is being smart by going into the D20 market that Wizards of the Coast tried to destroy for no apparent reason. They definitely deserve my business.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993Again, that is the question you want to address, because it is the only winning strategy.  It completely misses the point that a group of people who are hardcore fans are not flocking to the latest iteration.

I'm sure what the significance of that is supposed to be. Do you imagine that a similar polls on the Wizards boards wouldn't show something completely different?

Quote from: StormBringer;279993No one is making the argument that this poll is rigorous enough to pass as a valid survey.

Yes, you are. You repeatedly have. Because if the information is invalid, we shouldn't listen to it, right? But you're saying we should pay attention to it, that it does mean something.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993The real point that these smoke and mirrors is trying to obscure is that the people most likely to embrace a new edition are lukewarm about it.

They are? Or is your point that some people haven't embraced it? Because, again, EnWorld as a whole represents something like 1.7 to 8.07 percent of the D&D playing population.

Quote from: StormBringer;279993Is that the whole argument?  Of course not, but it is an indicator.

So are overwhelming sales...

Quote from: StormBringer;279993While the poll won't pass muster for accuracy or validity, the argument that it is wholly irrelevant is false.

This is just nonsense. You're saying outright that a) the poll isn't accurate and b) we should heed what it tells us about 4e popularity. If it isn't accurate or valid, why should we listen to it?

If I polled kindergartners about their attitudes about 4e, should we listen to that poll, too? I mean, it would obviously be inaccurate and invalid, but that doesn't seem to be a problem.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;280578So are overwhelming sales...

So, you are willing to use this as an indication of success, but not an informal poll as an indication of troubles.

Quote from: StormBringer;280601So, you are willing to use this as an indication of success, but not an informal poll as an indication of troubles.

Yes. One is objective and mathematically robust. Your poll isn't. Or, rather, isn't outside of the population for the poll, which is EnWorld.

Seanchai

Quote from: StormBringer;280601So, you are willing to use this as an indication of success, but not an informal poll as an indication of troubles.

I am imagining a man lost at sea, stuck on a raft with nothing but a compass and a chart drawn from his memory of where he is pretty sure the land is.

He travels for days on swift currents. His raft has traveled for hundreds miles, adrift on the ocean, and is soon to die of thirst and hunger.

Suddenly, he can see actual land. He can see..people! civilization!

He compares it to the homemade chart he drew. It doesn't match at all.

The compass works fine, the chart is exactly as his memory and imagination told him to draw it. He knows he will die soon!

So he compares the chart to the coastline, and since the reality doesn't match his imagination or theory.. he decides the coastline must be wrong, and turns his raft away, towards where the other land must be...  he continues to drift. He dies within a day, because he was too stupid to get off the boat.

hello TheRPGSite! Welcome to the ocean!

How, or why, would a poll at Enworld be a better indicator than say one conducted on this site?

Quote from: Seanchai;280621Yes. One is objective and mathematically robust. Your poll isn't. Or, rather, isn't outside of the population for the poll, which is EnWorld.

Seanchai

Ah, so you have the sales numbers...?

Quote from: Seanchai;280565Because the company, the process, people, and core concept supported your views and your war against the Swine.

I think you have that kind of backwards. I hate the Swine because of their war on D20 and mainstream games.

QuoteExcept when it comes to 4e...

No, including 4e. Its just that with D&D, especially with the kinds of ambitions Wizards was talking about in this project, the margin of their success must be several orders of magnitude higher than with any other RPG.

QuoteUh-huh. Because Wizards has said a) that they sold over a year's worth of 4e in the first month of its release and b) that it wildly exceed their expectations. You know this. And so you've been talking for months now about how 4e is a success.

Except that WoTC has proven you can't believe anything their PR people say.
So the only way we'll know is over time, when we see what they end up doing and whether they end up treating 4e like it was a success or not. I'm not calling 4e a failure yet, I'm saying its too soon to tell and there are some mixed signs.

Quote"Yes, that's quite a conundrum, but couldn't you really say that about any game company, about any game?"

Look at the goal posts shift. First it was "any company" and now it's "ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing..."

I don't see it as a shifting of goalposts at all. Obviously I meant with any game where there is a comparable level of significance of the product in question.  So, for example, Kenzer with the new Hackmaster.  WW with their new WoD. Etc etc.

QuoteAs I said and as we both recognize but you won't admit, other RPG companies aren't making that sort of commitment. Can you even think of another one that has?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here: are you asking if I recognize that other companies aren't going with 4e? Or that other companies aren't sticking to 3e? Or what??

RPGPundit

Quote from: StormBringer;280652Ah, so you have the sales numbers...?

No, I just have reports made about the sales numbers.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712I think you have that kind of backwards. I hate the Swine because of their war on D20 and mainstream games.

No, you hate the Swine because they were a convenient target. Anyone would have done. They just wandered along. You can argue all you like that's not the case, but we all know a) you're an online persona, a projection, and b) that you decide to do or not to do based on said persona, what attention you decision will draw to it, etc..

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712Its just that with D&D, especially with the kinds of ambitions Wizards was talking about in this project, the margin of their success must be several orders of magnitude higher than with any other RPG.

Which they met.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712Except that WoTC has proven you can't believe anything their PR people say.

So, to clarify for the home audience, 4e will only be a success if it meets WotC's expectations, but we can't listen to WotC to determine if it met their expectations. In other words, Pundit can remain on the fence forever. He can continue to call 4e is failure because only he has the keys to his definition of success...

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712So the only way we'll know is over time, when we see what they end up doing and whether they end up treating 4e like it was a success or not.

Uh-huh. Would reprinting additional books, creating products, et al. count as treating 4e like a success? Wait, no, silly question. Only you can determine if WotC is treating 4e as if it's been successful - any more objective, outside measure is doomed to fail.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712I'm not calling 4e a failure yet...

Sure you are. You do it all the time.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712I don't see it as a shifting of goalposts at all.

Of course not - you're in the frame of reference that's shifting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712Obviously I meant with any game where there is a comparable level of significance of the product in question.  So, for example, Kenzer with the new Hackmaster.  WW with their new WoD. Etc etc.

Yes, and we both agreed with that. But now it's..."ANY company making the level of commitment to a product line on the same level as what Paizo is doing..."

What Paizo is doing is greater and more risky than what Kenzer did with its new Hackmaster and what White Wolf did with their new World of Darkness.

Quote from: RPGPundit;280712I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here...

I'm saying, what other company besides Paizo used to produce products for the market leader; badmouthed the market leader; created a playtest scenario that has a real possibility of raising and then dashing the hopes of the current clientele; then went on to produce a new version of their game that isn't wholly compatible with either their old products or the market leader's products?

Some companies have done some of those things, but it strikes me that Paizo is really moving out there with Pathfinder. If it's a hit, cool. If it's not, then what? It's not like they can go and start producing 4e adventures...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;280855No, I just have reports made about the sales numbers.

Seanchai

With an outside party to confirm, I am sure.

Quote from: StormBringer;280905With an outside party to confirm, I am sure.

No. Of course, if I thought the people compiling the reports couldn't do basic math or gave me some reason to believe they weren't following the proper procedures, that would be a different story.

That's the crux of the problem with the idea that the EnWorld poll is representative of any population beyond EnWorld. The math is bad. There's no two ways about it - that's just not how statistics works.

And I know that's not how statistics works. Hence my saying repeatedly that the polls only represents the feelings and attitudes of the folks on EnWorld.

So, statistically speaking, the poll means nothing.

Now, you seem to be arguing that we should ignore statistics in favor of our gut feeling about the poll. Okay. Fine.

EnWorld has around 80,000 members. That represents something like 2 to 8 percent of D&D players as a whole. Not all EnWorld members dislike 4e.

So, just on gut feel alone, no, EnWorld's polls indicating a strong dislike for 4e doesn't mean anything. If the results were replicated on WotC's site, at other sites, etc., I might change my mind...

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;280930No.

Then, of course, those numbers are equally suspect.

You ask for adherence to the strictest of standards when considering an informal poll, but are unwilling to provide numbers that have undergone even a cursory validation, let alone what reports you are referring to.

So, you want people to trust your 'secret' knowledge without the merest shred of evidence that the numbers are accurate, other than your estimation that the report was compiled by people whose skills are beyond reproach.

Quote from: StormBringer;280935Then, of course, those numbers are equally suspect.

Absolutely. I believe the most information we have about D&D 4e sales is that they're self-reportedly "strong," that they've sold their first print run [pretty early on, right? Does anyone know how many copies were in the first run?], and that it's outselling anything else at the moment. That's really not very much information, and moreover, doesn't say anything about how much people like it. 4e got enough hype - slashdot advertising! - to sell an assload, to people who weren't even gaming at the time, but that doesn't mean they'll stay interested and keep buying; sales figures [even these largely speculative ones] can really only tell us how many people bought the thing, not how many liked it, or are still playing it, or will continue to play and buy it.

Now, if we could get hard figures on, say, an ongoing basis, we could start to get a sense of how "popular" the game really is, but given that we don't have anything like those figures, we can't do anything but speculate based on the information we have. Anyone who says differently, the man tells me, is selling something. Metaphorically, anyway.

Quote from: StormBringer;280935You ask for adherence to the strictest of standards when considering an informal poll, but are unwilling to provide numbers that have undergone even a cursory validation, let alone what reports you are referring to.

"Of course, if I thought the people compiling the reports couldn't do basic math or gave me some reason to believe they weren't following the proper procedures, that would be a different story."

That's the part of my response you conveniently left out.

Again, I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the poll isn't a valid for the use you're (repeatedly and erroneously) attempting to put it to. If the sales data were coming from Joe's Ye Wee Hobby Shoppe and I knew their data was bad, then I'd have some reason to suspect said data. In the absence of any such doubts, there's no reason to be suspicious. I wouldn't call any conclusions based on said data 100 percent beyond reproach, but...

Seanchai

Y'know, this thread is really making me regret that I own both the Pathfinder Beta book and the Campaign setting book.


Not because they are bad, but because, like an idiot, I keep clicking the stupid link going 'oh... pathfinder discussion' before I remember that its about eight fucking pages of e-peen waving over a stupid ass poll on another website that wasn't even about fucking Pathfinder to begin with.



I now return you to your regularly scheduled time wasters...

Quote from: Spike;281050I now return you to your regularly scheduled time wasters...

Thank you! Geeze! The audacity of some folks!

But, you know, if you want to create a thread free from this kind of discussion, just say that in the OP and I'll do so...

Seanchai

The setting itself is pretty cool.

It's ecletic but well constructed with a strong halloween fantasy feel that puts Ravenloft in the dustbin. There's crazy goblins, haunted places, ancient civilizations, and sleeping horrors all over the place. Abasolom is like Greyhawk City with a better setup (basically you have numerous megadungeons on the island and if you want to adventure in a particular place/environment, it's a boat ride away). You have Andoran which is like early America and Galt which is like revolutionary France. Osirion having ties with Acuturn is like Egypt having ties with the Old Ones. There's science fiction elements in Numeria and elsewhere. There's also possibility for extraplanetary adventure ala Lin Carter's Green Planet/Howard's Almuric and Burrough's Red Planet in the planets of Castrovel the Green and Akiton the Red. There's about a dozen more things I could list but you get the picture. I LIKE THE SETTING A LOT.

If there's one thing I do not like, it's the stance of unchallengeable deities. It especially makes no sense since you have a CR 32 demon throwing one into a hissy fit all of the time.

Given the fact that there is a hard coded way to acheive apotheosis that is given FREQUENT mention throughout the book I feel it would have been somewhat proper to at least discuss the 'common knowledge' of how this god-test thing actually was supposed to work.  I mean: are people supposed to ninja their way into the temple?  Touch a rock?  

Nada. Just that there is a rock, in a temple, in a city... that makes people gods. Sometimes.  And people TRY alla time to get godhood and fail. Or they tried and died. I'm not certain there either.

I'm not asking for step by step instructions, but jeebus fuck, man! A fucking CLUE might be in order.  Just ONE.

I don't find that too troublesome - published campaign settings have a tendency to skip over low-level but important details like this all the time.

Nevertheless, if I were to GM a Starstone-related ascension attempt, I would make the Test of the Sunstone into a series of eleven trials with ELs appropriate to the party attempting the trial (minimum EL 8 so a lone 12th level character could attempt the test if they so chose).

The first trial would be always involve getting across the gorge, the intermediate nine trials would test the character's mettle in combat, ability use, and problem solving skills, and the final trial would involve something relevant to the portfolio the character is attempting to obtain. After every four trials, the ascendant would get an opportunity to rest and depending on his performance in each trial, the ascendant would ultimately either die or ascend.

Of course, participants could at any point leave the cathedral (a trial within itself) with the treasures they discover within.

Yeah... see that might have been my own instinct until the damned logistician in me realized: There are priests occupying the cathedral. Every day. Doing preisty stuff. And they are old.

How the fuck is getting in supposed to be a challenge then?   UGH! The illogic makes the head assplode.

Other than that, the setting is a fairly cool pastiche of a sort of mytholigized 'real world'.