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.