Now, I've only barely glanced over the pathfinder books, and I'm not a mechanics-genius in the best of circumstances. So someone tell me, if you were to pick at Pathfinder with a fine-toothed-comb, how many problems would there be with its compatibility with D20 (specifically, D&D 3.x)?  

Could I just grab a given D&D 3.5 adventure and run it sight-unseen without having to modify anything? Could I take a 3.5 sourcebook and use feats or prestige classes from that book in Pathfinder without having to change anything?

RPGPundit

Reposting my answer from the RPG Haven Pathfinder thread:

1/ Skill points distribution is streamlined.
2/ Mechanics for maneuvers like Grapple, Bull Rush etc have been streamlined under a unified roll/mechanic: CMBs.
3/ All classes get new perks, the goal being to make some of them mechanically more interesting to play (bard, monk), while making the class progression rewarding over all 20 levels (less multiclassing in PrCs just for this or that perk, hopefully).

Aside from some targeted modifications (to spells like polymorph, for instance), these are the biggies.

Converting from 3.5 to PF RPG is just a matter of adding a class ability here, and calculating the CMB there. In most cases, you can just let the skill points stay as they are.

So yeah, it's backwards compatible as far as we can tell, plus Jason repeated that, while the Beta was an experiment on possible tweaks to the system to get feedback from people, the final version would actually be closer to the original game. What I'm sharing it is what I know will end up in the final game, via DungeonADay.com, where he writes a monthly column.

My Sunday game group has been using the Beta Playtest of Pathfinder since it came out and have found no compatability problems whatsoever with 3.5. The change in grappling rules alone has made the combats much smoother.

Now see, Benoist? You could have started that thread here!

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;302264Now see, Benoist? You could have started that thread here!

RPGPundit

Christ, you know I don't like butting heads with you, Pundit, but if I have to, I will.
I just would like you to stop faning the flames. You know that doesn't bring anything good.

As for the thread, yes, I guess I could have started it myself.

Fair enough, see? You want to start the same thread in both sites, that's perfectly fine. You start a thread on that site but not this one, I may very well decide that this site is missing something from your choice to patronize them and not us, and start a similar thread.  

So if I'm inspired to post a similar thread, it is because I feel that you have said something interesting, and I'm disappointed that you did not do it here.

RPGPundit

I do patronize this site too, Pundit. There's no choice to make here, is there?

No, there shouldn't have to be a choice. If you think you'll get different conversation there from here, but that both will generate conversation, then I don't see why not post in both. If you think you would end up getting the same kind of conversation, or fail to get conversation in one of the two places, then I guess a choice would come into play.

But yeah, I'm just saying feel free to post here what you posted there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;302390If you think you'll get different conversation there from here, but that both will generate conversation, then I don't see why not post in both.

Good point.