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."

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."

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...