Quote from: Windjammer;336914For what it's worth, there'll be an expansive section in the upcoming Pathfinder RPG Guidebook to DMs which covers converting extant 3.x and d20 material to Pathfinder. Interesting decision, given that fans and authors felt the extant conversion manual to not answer all questions fully, and that more details are needed. And I agree. As someone put it on Paizo, it's useful to have more in-depth advice on to convert e.g. martial oriented prestige classes to Pathfinder, since the frequency by which such classes now get class goodies may have upped quite a bit and that has obvious implications on prestige class design.

I usually don't like Seanchai's obsessive concern for compatibility between Pathfinder and 3.x, but given the existence of this new chapter in the GM guide - which reflects a widely shared concern, otherwise it wouldn't be in there - I think he got a point.

What book are you talking about?

The only book I can find which resembles the one you mention is the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game GameMastery Guide (OGL) Hardcover which does not have a special chapter on conversions AFAIK because there is not one listed.

Quote from: Windjammer;336914Oh, and let's not forget the Missing OGL logo piece of history, which I revisit here.

Fellow readers, please go and view the link above.

And make sure that you are wearing your tinfoil hat, because this is moonbat territory.

SO.....

Windjammer doesn't get the concept that a rough draft or "working draft" is not the same as a final version?


oy vey.

- Ed C.

Quote from: Windjammer;336914I usually don't like Seanchai's obsessive concern for compatibility between Pathfinder and 3.x...

It's not obsessive, it's just become a topic of...conversation. People are telling me that conversion is "trivial" and that the games are "high compatible." From what I can tell, that's bunk. And how a person could not see that's bunk is beyond me (save willingly not seeing it).

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;337028It's not obsessive, it's just become a topic of...conversation. People are telling me that conversion is "trivial" and that the games are "high compatible." From what I can tell, that's bunk. And how a person could not see that's bunk is beyond me (save willingly not seeing it).

Seanchai

...and this is a moonbat.

Quote from: Seanchai;337028It's not obsessive, it's just become a topic of...conversation. People are telling me that conversion is "trivial" and that the games are "high compatible." From what I can tell, that's bunk. And how a person could not see that's bunk is beyond me (save willingly not seeing it).

Seanchai

I don't know if this has been asked and answered already, but maybe we just have a difference of terms.  Do you believe that 3.0 is "highly compatible" with 3.5, yes or no?  Because IMO the Pathfinder changes are only slightly more extensive than those differences... if you were to take out the skill point changes and CMB/CMD, I'd say it's about equal.  If you say 3.0 and 3.5 ARE "highly compatible" but 3.5 and PF are not, what is the massive difference you're seeing?  And if you feel 3.0 and 3.5 are NOT "highly compatible", then you are using a totally different scale for compatibility than most people, IMO.

Quote from: Hairfoot;335771But 4E produces loaves and fishes for the faithful.

My Jewishly-raised brain just exploded.

3e is the Old Testament, and 4e the new?

Gahhhhh!

Now I feel like a sinner for liking 4e.

Quote from: Shazbot79;336328However, I am in agreement that one need not actually play a game to make an informed decision on it. That is true for any game, whether you disregard 4E, Pathfinder or the HERO system. I don't need to actually play FATAL to know that I wouldn't want to touch it with a 10ft. pole.

I think there are some games that you don't have to play to figure out they do not work well or are not to your tastes, and others that do require some playing experience to figure them out and know if they work or do not match your tastes.

And, in my opinion, 4e is one of those you have to play to figure out.  And, I didn't think it was, until I played it.  And, if my experience is not enough, you can look at the dozens and dozens of people who reported the same experience.  Many of whom thought they would hate 4e after reading it, and then liked it once they played it.  And some of whom the reverse happened to.

4e does not tend to play the way it reads.  Some games are just like that.

Quote from: Koltar;336640Because of events this past weekend I'm pretty pissed off and at 4th edition D&D. Hell I'm considering seriously selling my corebooks to HALF-PRICE Books.

 Pathfinder is looking pretty good to me right now.


- Ed C.

You can be such a drama queen sometimes.

So, Koltar, what happened to you this weekend?

Quote from: Mistwell;3370434e does not tend to play the way it reads.  Some games are just like that.

Doesn't this sort of thing strike you as a massive flaw? In the writing of the books, if not the rules? If I liked 4e I would be pretty pissed about it because part of what an introductory RPG book is supposed to do is convey what it's like to play the game and what's fun about it – "play it for six months, you'll get into it" is a real shitty pitch when someone can just go "no, I'll play this other game, the one that looks like it will be fun."

That sort of "just play it, you'll see" approach works for video games because the whole process is much much quicker.

I like Pathfinder pretty well. It pleases me probably as much as 3.5 pleased me over 3.0. I think it's the haters that put Pathfinder on a pedestal. I don't know too many Pathfinder koolaid drinkers.

Quote from: Mistwell;337043I think there are some games that you don't have to play to figure out they do not work well or are not to your tastes, and others that do require some playing experience to figure them out and know if they work or do not match your tastes.

And, in my opinion, 4e is one of those you have to play to figure out.  And, I didn't think it was, until I played it.  And, if my experience is not enough, you can look at the dozens and dozens of people who reported the same experience.  Many of whom thought they would hate 4e after reading it, and then liked it once they played it.  And some of whom the reverse happened to.

4e does not tend to play the way it reads.  Some games are just like that.

I rather like 4e, in spite of my experiences playing it.  I've only played 4e in RPGA games, and they were truly horrible.  No RP allowed at all, each had 3 combat encounters and 1 skill challenge (completely formulaic, with 1 extended rest allowed between the 2nd and 3rd combat each time), set treause no matter what you find or scavenge during the adventure, etc.  One time I won initiative and decided to try talking to the enemies rather than just attack yet again, which drew groans all around the table.  Rather than waiting to see if my words had any effect, the next person in order charged and attacked as they were supposed to.  These are my experiences with 4e, and they only served to reinforce the claims that it's only about combat.  BUT, in spite of actual play, I still think a proper game that includes role-playing could be done with 4e, even if the rules don't really support it and it apparently isn't how it's supposed to be done...

Quote from: Imp;337047That sort of "just play it, you'll see" approach works for video games because the whole process is much much quicker.

Maybe one day WotC's designers will reinvent the wheel and sell the revolutionary idea that, "YES! RPGs actually are NOT like computer games! -GASP!- This is the second coming, my friends, and it changes everything!ONE! Believe in 5th edition's might!!1!"

That day, I will have to post this:

Quote from: Imp;337047Doesn't this sort of thing strike you as a massive flaw? In the writing of the books, if not the rules? If I liked 4e I would be pretty pissed about it because part of what an introductory RPG book is supposed to do is convey what it's like to play the game and what's fun about it – "play it for six months, you'll get into it" is a real shitty pitch when someone can just go "no, I'll play this other game, the one that looks like it will be fun."

That sort of "just play it, you'll see" approach works for video games because the whole process is much much quicker.

Yes, it is a flaw.  They needed a good fiction writer to write some things for the PHB to really give readers a sense of what it is like to play, and they didn't not do that.  

And the next big flaw was the modules they put out at first were not very good.  So, they next opportunity to give people a good sense of what it would be like to play the game long term was also messed up.

If the PHB read more like Open Grave, it would have gotten a lot less bitching.

However, that does not take away from the fact that I think it plays quite well, when a decent DM is willing to put the time in to make a decent adventure.

Quote from: samurai007;337030Do you believe that 3.0 is "highly compatible" with 3.5, yes or no?  Because IMO the Pathfinder changes are only slightly more extensive than those differences... if you were to take out the skill point changes and CMB/CMD, I'd say it's about equal.

Agreed. But your use of the word "extensive" is a bit vague here. Seanchai I suppose, and myself wouldn't say that the changes of individual elements considered by themselves constitute enormous departures from 3.5. Some perhaps (e.g. the rage pool of the Barbarian in the Beta), but that's not what's troublesome. It's the amount of details, the minutiae, which make conversion too bothersome to deal with. James Jacobs himself said that the changes - not from 3.5 to PF- but from PF Beta to Final were too numerous to list them. And that's the catch. Your 3.0-->3.5 comparison is spot on. It was a pain in the back to chase up every single spell WotC had altered so slightly. Sure, there were the handful examples everyone knew about (the buffs, haste), but there were tons of less visible instances where 3.5 differed from 3.0. Pathfinder Beta (never used Alpha at my table) did the same to 3.5. You basically never found out these changes existed unless you looked them up individually. Scorching Ray, for instance (iirc) deals 2d8 in PFBeta not 3d8 points of damage in 3.5 (beware - numbers from memory). And then all the remove condition spells which now have a caster level check where 3.5 didn't. The list goes on and on, and no one has it in their head (and how could they).

And that's the problem. I'm still playing 3.5 after having tried the Beta briefly. I'd like to try the Final version too, and initially I was hoping, two of my players could use their Beta softcovers at least to reference their spells. Well, I've given up on that, because it's too much bother. My group certainly won't invest in a whole new round of rulebooks, I'm fortunate that we got two copies, but as I said, it would have been nice for everyone to have one for table reference.

What I mean to say, in a word, then, is that the amount of conversion has nothing to do with how extreme the departures are from 3.5. (especially next to 4E), but how numerous they are. This can't be handwaived with "well, look if it comes up in play". That's the whole issue. If I have to start looking up every single line in the rulebooks just to see if it has changed I've got the worst session stopper EVER. And, if you recall, that was precisely Monte Cook's complaint with the 3.5 overhaul. He welcomed the idea of streamlining 3.0, but he hated the fact that 3.5 introduced way more changes than was strictly necessary - with the foreseeable and absoltuely intended consequence that people won't bother looking into their 3.0 books anymore. People simply picked up the new rulebook because it saves them all the hassle of conversion.

As I said, your comparison is spot on.