After rereading your post: So in short it was not the game itself, but the attachments(splats, ignoring the customers, and not just dollars as a motivation) that WoTC put on it in your opinion?
That was a big factor.
When you change system to the 'new shiny edition' you are doing a leap of faith away from what you know and have invested in and over to something that could quite easily end up being a car crash that you find unpalatable. We looked at 3rd Ed, and it was a significant departure from 2nd, and this would have meant a long time learning a system over again, but we had the forewarning that the people in charge would take it further in a direction we didn't want.
Mind you we went to Shadowrun and look how THAT went!
We also dabbled in vampire/werewolf... until that too jumped the shark.
|
1) Rules changes. Pathfinder didn't fix the things I thought it should, but 'fixed' a lot other things besides. That's not an insurmountable problem, but before I houserule PF I houserule 3.5, where the overlap with my own proclivities is much larger.
2) Support. Some of the best d20 3PP material - e.g. Wilderlands of High Fantasy - and, I daresay, some of Paizo's own best adventure paths, were published for 3.5. Like others, I think conversion is mechanically not impossible, but a lot of encounters play very, very differently (famous example: derro caster in Crimson Throne #1 with Defensive Combat feat can outwit any martial character trying combat maneuvers). The only thing I consider of equal quality since Paizo went PF is Kingmaker; everything else they've produced since doesn't really reach the old peaks, such as Age of Worms, to suffice to incline a wholesale system change. Not to mention that I do own 40 WotC hardbacks, and think them superior in rules design to what the Paizo team has produced.
3) The area in Paizo's work I currently appreciate most - Golarion - is system neutral. So I continue to support and buy from them, though only by a fraction of what I used to up to 2008.
2) Not to mention that I do own 40 WotC hardbacks, and think them superior in rules design to what the Paizo team has produced.
2.This is the opposite of what most people believe. Do you care to elaborate on that?
3PP is a bit of a 'new concept' too.
It was never considered as acceptable at any table I played at (even stuff in Dragon was suspect). The evolution of 3PP from amateur enthusiasts to professional houses seems nigh on miraculous.
3PP is a bit of a 'new concept' too.
It was never considered as acceptable at any table I played at (even stuff in Dragon was suspect). The evolution of 3PP from amateur enthusiasts to professional houses seems nigh on miraculous.
The strange thing is that it seemed to happen overnight, at least for me anyway. Before Pathfinder most of the stuff was not that good. Now a lot of it is at least decent. I guess pdfs for less than 10.00 is helping them get exposure also.
On a side note, I would also like to add the much loved Car Wars to the pile of games that jumped the shark with edition change from 2nd to 3rd. As you can see, edition change has usually resulted in terminal outcomes for me, so yeah I am a bit gun shy.
|
So I just have to wonder why you seem to be implying that 3.X games have so much less of a need for house-rules than did prior editions. It's blatantly not true.
1) I'm not implying that. In fact, I really didn't say anything about any 3.X edition. What I am saying is that when people say that their system is "teh R0xx0r!!1!" -- whatever system they use -- more often than not it's some idealized, modified version rather than something right out of the box.
2) As far as how "true" it is -- give me a break. I played 3.X quite a bit with a number of different groups and we actually had very few house rules. If we actually wrote them out, it would have been less a page. After doing a long test run with 3.0, we found a number of problems that, had they not fixed in 3.5 we would have probably house ruled (like stacking bonuses on bows and arrows). So I guess that you used all the different "packages" (I forget the names of those add-ons in 2nd edition that were incredibly unbalanced) that were available in 2nd edition and you didn't see any problems with any of them. So your experience was that anything prior to 3rd edition was that you could use the rules system as is with no clarification and with no modification and every drow in your world is exactly the same, etc. then that's wonderful. And if every time you've tried to play any 3.X version and the DM handed you a textbook to read in addition to anything the official books say, then I can understand your viewpoint. Apparently my experience has been different than yours.
But it's also not what I said earlier. Please stop reading into something that isn't there.
(I forget the names of those add-ons in 2nd edition that were incredibly unbalanced)
Those were the 'Players Option' Books..and to my eternal shame I allowed them indeed I ran an entire campaign with them..the PC's were Monsters..seriously.
|
|
(I forget the names of those add-ons in 2nd edition that were incredibly unbalanced)Those were the 'Players Option' Books..and to my eternal shame I allowed them indeed I ran an entire campaign with them..the PC's were Monsters..seriously.
There was a term for them -- kits? I'm not sure -- it's been so long. And it wasn't just in the Player's Options books -- there were kits (or whatever they were) long before that. (I actually liked the Player's Options books.) It wouldn't have been that big an issue in my opinion had they been generally equal in power, but there seemed to be a HUGE disparity of power and abilities between them.
There was some of that with some of the prestige classes that I saw -- especially with 3.0 -- as well as a few feats, but they seemed to recognize some of that and fixed a lot of it with 3.5.
But again, not really my point. Really all I'm trying to do (and failing) is to help get the topic back on track. Saying that you like 3.X better than PFRPG because of the grapple system is on topic and interesting to hear (although I found it odd myself). Saying that 4th edition is the best one out there because of its similarity to 1st edition is neither on topic or helpful to the thread.
|
I think the real difference is that prior to 3.X, the game designers left large swaths of decisions to the DM's discretion. 3.X on the other hand, tried to basically have a codified official answer for any and all situations that might arise. With such over-codification, it's inevitable that there will be many areas where all the members of a certain group consider the official answer to be broken, and thus require house-ruling. Whereas I don't really think that retro systems' lack of having codified rules for something reuires house-ruling...it just needs a fair and consistant GM. I know that GM fiat has been utterly demonized since 3.X came along, but I don't agree.
(I forget the names of those add-ons in 2nd edition that were incredibly unbalanced)Those were the 'Players Option' Books..and to my eternal shame I allowed them indeed I ran an entire campaign with them..the PC's were Monsters..seriously.There was a term for them -- kits? I'm not sure -- it's been so long. And it wasn't just in the Player's Options books -- there were kits (or whatever they were) long before that. (I actually liked the Player's Options books.) It wouldn't have been that big an issue in my opinion had they been generally equal in power, but there seemed to be a HUGE disparity of power and abilities between them.
There was some of that with some of the prestige classes that I saw -- especially with 3.0 -- as well as a few feats, but they seemed to recognize some of that and fixed a lot of it with 3.5.
I see kind of the opposite thing, really. I have more of an issue with some of the later 3.5e material (Book of Nine Swords, I'm looking at you, but don't think you can hide in the corner Mr. Close-Quarters Fighting feat). But part of the problem is that with so much 3.5e material out there, it's virtually impossible to avoid there being some combination that causes issues. Just try running a game containing a high-level character with a Vow of Poverty and you'll see what I mean.
I don't have a big problem with that (I run a mixed PF/3.5e game) because I'm on the same page as my players - nobody's out the break the game, we're all there to have fun, and broken characters don't create fun for anyone.
Now, if I were to start a brand-new campaign from scratch, I'd probably go straight PF, but this campaign started in '06 and there was no way that I was going to try to transition a campaign that had been running for close to 3 years from a system with dozens of sourcebooks to one based on just the Core Rulebook.
|
|
I see kind of the opposite thing, really. I have more of an issue with some of the later 3.5e material (Book of Nine Swords, I'm looking at you, but don't think you can hide in the corner Mr. Close-Quarters Fighting feat). But part of the problem is that with so much 3.5e material out there, it's virtually impossible to avoid there being some combination that causes issues. Just try running a game containing a high-level character with a Vow of Poverty and you'll see what I mean.
I never really picked up the Bo9S so it's hard for me to really comment on that. My experience with a lot of the issues with 3.5 has more to do with incorrect interpretation of the rules than a problem with the rule itself. There was a Leap Attack/Power Attack combination that was insane if used with a raging barbarian. But more often than not, people were doing the math in the wrong order or applying the math to the wrong results which ended up doing well over 100 points of damage with one attack. Vow of Poverty was also one that was/is difficult to interpret correctly -- but even then it has more to do with role-playing opportunities than it sounded like many DMs really wanted to mess with.
My personal 3.0 experience was with a bow wielding ranger with Order of the Bow Initiate and Deepwood Sniper prestige classes. There were some broken rules with critical ranges in 3.0 that those classes combined with the appropriate feats and spells really got out of hand as well as the casting greater magic weapon on both the bow and the arrows, etc. There was also the druid prestige class that allowed the druid to shapechange into any magical beast or eventually any construct. So first I had a druid running around as a rhemoraz and then around as an iron golem. Both had serious game play issues that were difficult to work around.
A little more back on topic -- I think that one of my issues with PFRPG is -- more feats. Don't get me wrong, I at first really liked the more feats and it sounded really good. My problem is that there aren't enough different "must have" feats. It just seems too often that every fighter build still looks the same -- even with the fact that you have more feats -- regardless of how you might want to focus. For some reason having fewer feat slots and more feat options allowed for different builds more than I'm seeing in Pathfinder.
|
My personal 3.0 experience was with a bow wielding ranger with Order of the Bow Initiate and Deepwood Sniper prestige classes. There were some broken rules with critical ranges in 3.0 that those classes combined with the appropriate feats and spells really got out of hand as well as the casting greater magic weapon on both the bow and the arrows, etc. There was also the druid prestige class that allowed the druid to shapechange into any magical beast or eventually any construct. So first I had a druid running around as a rhemoraz and then around as an iron golem. Both had serious game play issues that were difficult to work around.
We never encountered that problem to such an extreme level by only allowing the Core Rulebooks. Of course 4e puts a hole in that idea...
Under PF we again allow only core books, actually going WAY back my long time group has always had this policy. Most "core" books are rather balanced (some errata needed here and there of course) and as you point out don't really explode in a hail of mismatching death-combo rules until the 'splats' start coming.While I own and enjoy APG we don't use it in game. The character concept of Witch or Cavalier can be implemented with the classes in the Core PF rulebook. I guess that's why we like 3e over 3.5e, 3.5e seemed like a large 'splatbook' for 3e to us.
Horses & Courses,
S.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My preferred "retro" system at the moment is Swords & Wizardry Complete Rulebook, a retro-clone of 0e. It's rulebook comes in at 135 pages.
I direct your attention to Mazes and Minotaurs a game very reminiscent of something like 2nd Edition AD&D. It's set in mythic Greece, and it includes a fictitious "first edition" allegedly published in 1972, and the recommended set, a "revised edition" with "historical sidebars" claiming to hail from 1987. Despite the spurious nature of the product, it's a great, playable, game.
|
|
We prefer Pathfinder over 3.5e but strangely enough my erstwhile companions prefer 3e over 3.5e. Anyone else? Seems that 3.X automatically means 3.5e in this thread.3.X refers to the vast majority of items that 3.5 and 3.0 have in common, the basics of the core classes, such as multi-classing rules, PrC's and that both have their core mechanics as open game content.
I get that, it was more that 3.5e was the seemingly default meaning of 3.X. I was wondering how many others, like my group, preferred 3e over 3.5e. If we lump 3e with 3.5e then we are basically saying that 3e = 3.5e, which if true really begs the question why 3.5e, other than interim revenue gaining, WotC bothered not just to work directly on 4e (but I see this more as Monte saw 4e as being and not as it is now - hope that makes sense). In our experience 3e plays quite differently from 3.5e even if they share the same "roll d20 + mod" mechanics. Because of this we had to choose either 3e or 3.5e and couldn't really use both simultaneously without crazy imbalances.
S.
|
|
I get that, it was more that 3.5e was the seemingly default meaning of 3.X. I was wondering how many others, like my group, preferred 3e over 3.5e.We prefer Pathfinder over 3.5e but strangely enough my erstwhile companions prefer 3e over 3.5e. Anyone else? Seems that 3.X automatically means 3.5e in this thread.3.X refers to the vast majority of items that 3.5 and 3.0 have in common, the basics of the core classes, such as multi-classing rules, PrC's and that both have their core mechanics as open game content.
Post the question on this forum, Stefan! ^_^
I prefer the 3ed DMG example NPCs over the 3.5 version. I prefer to start with a pretty fully stated out character and then tweak it than a half constructed character that I have to build up from.
I prefer 3.0 over 3.5.
Don't get me wrong. The vast majority of the changes in 3.5 were good. The skill system was better. There were more feats that should have been there. There were more spells to "boost" abilities, and by a constant number rather than a die roll. Spells that were too powerful were either reduced or else brought to a higher level. More charts were used, to clarify graphically rules like flanking. The DMG had some neat stuff, like detailed guidelines for wilderness combat maps, and descriptions of planes that saved me from having to buy the Manual of the Planes. The rules for monster PCs (and specifically, level adjustment) were made more clear, consistent, extensive, and workable. The monster illustrations in the Monster Manual were labelled. There was a sensible rule about when someone becomes a ghast, rather than a ghoul.
There were several things about 3.5 that turned me off, though. I disliked the "square" monsters. (I understand the reason for this, but still, aesthetically, it just LOOKS nicer to see a rectangle on the map, when a rectangle is appropriate.) I disliked the penalty for different weapon sizes. Of course, all this stuff could just be houseruled away. In fact, when I ran 3.5, I DID carry over some rules from 3.0, such as DCs for Spot checks for outdoor encounters. (In fact, I never understood how you were SUPPOSED to determine the DC in 3.5. Surely you shouldn't apply the same penalty as indoors, with a -1 penalty for every 10 feet! That would be ridiculous!)
But the one change in 3.5 that REALLY turned me off - that, in fact, literally made me feel nauseous when I first read it - was what 3.5 did to Damage Reduction. It necessitates the "golf bag" mentality, which is totally not the kind of game I want to play! Now our magic weapons are less effective against lycanthropes? Really?!?
I've only played one 3.x* game since 4e came out, but I'll comment just because...well, because I can. :) I ran a game for new players using 3.5 because that's what I have. Maybe 3.PF is a better game, but I seriously doubt it's better than my list of house rules which I already know.
*As far as I'm concerned, 3.x covers 3.0, 3.5, 3.PF and all 3PP renditions thereof.
Kits were all over, but the main source were the 'Complete ... Handbooks'. Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, Complete Book of Elven Cheese. I'm pretty sure I remember one kit where after a few levels your wizard turned into a spontaneous caster, able to cast any spell that was in their spellbook without preparing it, up to their normal limit of spells/day. IIRC the Cavalier granted to-hit (and/or to-damage) bonuses with certain weapons, inproving as you went up in levels, and several bonus NWPs, which you paid for by having to wear the heaviest armour you could afford and paying more for things (and I think some social considerations the GM had to adjudicate). Others weren't just less powerful, there were some that made you worse at what you mostly did - the Swashbuckler rogue kit allowed you to select a weapon that you got the same THAC0 and attacks/round as a Fighter with, and reduced the number of points you got to spend in your thieving skills to balance it.
I remember one kit, I think it was for rogues, that made you really good at eating. Yes, eating. It didn't give you any benefits for eating. But you could eat really fast. :P
Sounds useless to me, but hey, maybe pie-eating contests are a common feature in 2e adventures.
|
But the one change in 3.5 that REALLY turned me off - that, in fact, literally made me feel nauseous when I first read it - was what 3.5 did to Damage Reduction. It necessitates the "golf bag" mentality, which is totally not the kind of game I want to play! Now our magic weapons are less effective against lycanthropes? Really?!?
Yeah, the 3.0 monsters with DR of 40/+4 at CR 12 were oh so much better, because when you faced one you were utterly hosed if nobody had a +4 weapon. /snark.
Also, nobody with even a sliver of sanity invested in special weapon properties in 3.0, because a +1 flaming frost holy vicious weapon was inferior to a +2 vanilla pitchfork, for the same DR reason.
But the one change in 3.5 that REALLY turned me off - that, in fact, literally made me feel nauseous when I first read it - was what 3.5 did to Damage Reduction. It necessitates the "golf bag" mentality, which is totally not the kind of game I want to play! Now our magic weapons are less effective against lycanthropes? Really?!?
Yeah, the 3.0 monsters with DR of 40/+4 at CR 12 were oh so much better, because when you faced one you were utterly hosed if nobody had a +4 weapon. /snark.
Also, nobody with even a sliver of sanity invested in special weapon properties in 3.0, because a +1 flaming frost holy vicious weapon was inferior to a +2 vanilla pitchfork, for the same DR reason.
Yeah, it seems pretty much a wash either way. Though for myself, I do believe a mundane silver weapon should be more effective than a magic steel weapon against lycanthropes, but that is just my personal bias.
The problem with DR is that it's all or nothing, when it doesn't have to be. Some ENworlder came up with a brilliantly simple house rule a while back, and I ended up stealing it:
Basic magic DR is overcome in 5-point increments by each enhancement bonus. So if a dragon has DR 15/magic (aka DR 15/+3), and you have a +2 weapon, only 5 points of DR apply to your attacks. (Ideally, 3.0 DR values shouldn't be more than five times the enhancement bonus that completely negate them.)
It's nice, it's simple, and it makes "another bonus or another property?" an actual choice.
The problem with DR is that it's all or nothing, when it doesn't have to be. Some ENworlder came up with a brilliantly simple house rule a while back, and I ended up stealing it:
Basic magic DR is overcome in 5-point increments by each enhancement bonus. So if a dragon has DR 15/magic (aka DR 15/+3), and you have a +2 weapon, only 5 points of DR apply to your attacks. (Ideally, 3.0 DR values shouldn't be more than five times the enhancement bonus that completely negate them.)
It's nice, it's simple, and it makes "another bonus or another property?" an actual choice.
Perhaps allow enhancements that cost "+1" to be counted as +1. So a +1 flaming sword counts as +2 weapon for DR purposes.
Perhaps allow enhancements that cost "+1" to be counted as +1. So a +1 flaming sword counts as +2 weapon for DR purposes.The problem with DR is that it's all or nothing, when it doesn't have to be. Some ENworlder came up with a brilliantly simple house rule a while back, and I ended up stealing it:
Basic magic DR is overcome in 5-point increments by each enhancement bonus. So if a dragon has DR 15/magic (aka DR 15/+3), and you have a +2 weapon, only 5 points of DR apply to your attacks. (Ideally, 3.0 DR values shouldn't be more than five times the enhancement bonus that completely negate them.)
It's nice, it's simple, and it makes "another bonus or another property?" an actual choice.
Wouldn't that put the emphasis right back on having +1 weapons with +9 worth of properties?
Not to mention unique weapons. Not that they're not weird already.
I'm sticking with 3.5 myself. Like so many others, I want to stick with a system I know the in's and out's of very well, rather than one which is subtly and, sometimes perhaps, confusingly different because of that subtlety. I don't want the extra prep time in converting my 3.5 to PF; and I like the feeling that my D&D book collection is complete and I don't have to go hunting the next publication.
But one thing that bothers me about PFRPG that I haven't seen so many others posting about is that I feel their extra tweaks to the classes are somehow more limiting. From a DM's perspective, a lot of the little, almost-at-will abilities which low-level spellcasters get can be annoying when designing NPCs. They feel superfluous and like ability bloat. It's unlikely that they will often come up for the NPC in combat, but there they are, all the same. Plus, on that specific issue, it feels like the lack being addressed (running out of spells at very low level) was covered by the "infinite cantrips" rule. So again, it feels rather superfluous. And even though they provided many different paths to choose amongst with each of the spellcasting classes, the fact that you will get (possibly unnecessary and very secondary) ability X at level Y, feels more restrictive, more cookie-cutter, than just not having anything there at all. There may not be splatbloat alongside PFRPG yet (though it seems like they are releasing quite a number of books), but all the little tweaks to their classes seem more arbitrary than the more bare-bones 3.5 classes, and therefore less flexible.
Plus, many of those changes felt a little WoW-like. As I've said before, I have no problem with WoW or its influence over tabletop RPGs. But considering a lot of the hubbub over 4e revolved around how much it felt like WoW, it's strange to anything like that included in PFRPG. They felt tacked-on, too. If a game is going to borrow from WoW-style design, I'd rather they implement it more fully in the system, like in 4e, than just give a nod at the surface, which is what PFRPG seems to have done.
In the end, I feel it's easier and more satisfying for me to house rule my old 3.5 stuff, perhaps with some contributions from PFRPG (I'm looking at you, skills) than it is to switch completely.
I'm using 3.5 primarily with some of my own house rules for my homebrew. I am testing out some of these house rules in a pair of PF games I am running and they are working well. I'm using 3.5 partially because I know it a *little* bit better(I'm hardly a rules lawyer), and because it is so wonderfully, creatively flawed. PF and James Jacobs made a lot of their own specific fixes taking the game in a set direction. I want to see about making my own fixes and see how they work (or don't) and overall take the game in my own direction.
And even though they provided many different paths to choose amongst with each of the spellcasting classes, the fact that you will get (possibly unnecessary and very secondary) ability X at level Y, feels more restrictive, more cookie-cutter, than just not having anything there at all. There may not be splatbloat alongside PFRPG yet (though it seems like they are releasing quite a number of books), but all the little tweaks to their classes seem more arbitrary than the more bare-bones 3.5 classes, and therefore less flexible.
This is actually how I feel about a lot of 3.0/3.5 classes too. For example, I don't like pets. And yet half the PHB classes have animal companions or familiars or whatnot. Sure, I could simply not summon them, but then I'm wasting a class feature.
And it's not just casters. What if I want to play a barbarian without trap sense? Or an unarmed warrior without a mess of weird (and mostly useless) wuxia abilities? In fact, only a very few classes don't have at least a few tack-ons that wouldn't be better as feat options.
Plus, many of those changes felt a little WoW-like...
You had to go and use a three-letter word, didn't you? ;)
And even though they provided many different paths to choose amongst with each of the spellcasting classes, the fact that you will get (possibly unnecessary and very secondary) ability X at level Y, feels more restrictive, more cookie-cutter, than just not having anything there at all. There may not be splatbloat alongside PFRPG yet (though it seems like they are releasing quite a number of books), but all the little tweaks to their classes seem more arbitrary than the more bare-bones 3.5 classes, and therefore less flexible.This is actually how I feel about a lot of 3.0/3.5 classes too. For example, I don't like pets. And yet half the PHB classes have animal companions or familiars or whatnot. Sure, I could simply not summon them, but then I'm wasting a class feature.
And it's not just casters. What if I want to play a barbarian without trap sense? Or an unarmed warrior without a mess of weird (and mostly useless) wuxia abilities? In fact, only a very few classes don't have at least a few tack-ons that wouldn't be better as feat options.
Plus, many of those changes felt a little WoW-like...You had to go and use a three-letter word, didn't you? ;)
I completely see where you are coming from with the Barbarian. In my homebrew, I decided to make those abilities more relevant by adding more things to them instead of replacing them outright. And I do see where he is coming from with the WoW observation, as I must counter that not everything WoW is bad, it's just a game I'm not interested in playing largely because I'm already playing it in a lot of ways through 3.5.
You had to go and use a three-letter word, didn't you? ;)
Hey, I calls it like I sees it!
And I understand about the familiars, too. I do enjoy the option to choose between a bonded object or a familiar in PFRPG. I think I may keep that in my next 3.5 game, but also have the familiar grant a feat or something to make the option more appealing to my players, who (save one) have traditionally thought familiars to be fairly useless.
... not everything WoW is bad...
Complete agreement. But I feel like they it's just a periphery thing thrown on at the last minute. I would say that is what bugs me more than where it came from, but that would imply that I'm annoyed about D&D/PFRPG borrowing from WoW, which I'm not. Just do it well if you're going to do it at all, I say!
I also don't really like the HD/BAB link. It's an illusion, anyway, because they didn't change the barbarian (not saying they should); and while I'm okay with rogues getting a d8, rangers going back to a d10 struck me as weird. I like the feel of a ranger as tough, but not as much as a fighter. It's never stopped any of my players from getting into combat and doing well, and added a little more variety to the classes, I felt.
I completely see where you are coming from with the Barbarian. In my homebrew, I decided to make those abilities more relevant by adding more things to them instead of replacing them outright. And I do see where he is coming from with the WoW observation, as I must counter that not everything WoW is bad, it's just a game I'm not interested in playing largely because I'm already playing it in a lot of ways through 3.5.
Dude, you're on blogspot? Dude! I remember you mentioning a similar house rule, way back when. (Something about four alignment-based monk styles.) Can't wait to check out your ideas!
(Not that I have a lot of free time these days, but it gives me a reason to avoid procrastination. Speaking of procrastination...)
I completely see where you are coming from with the Barbarian. In my homebrew, I decided to make those abilities more relevant by adding more things to them instead of replacing them outright. And I do see where he is coming from with the WoW observation, as I must counter that not everything WoW is bad, it's just a game I'm not interested in playing largely because I'm already playing it in a lot of ways through 3.5.Dude, you're on blogspot? Dude! I remember you mentioning a similar house rule, way back when. (Something about four alignment-based monk styles.) Can't wait to check out your ideas!
(Not that I have a lot of free time these days, but it gives me a reason to avoid procrastination. Speaking of procrastination...)
DOOD, you're on blogspot too?!? AND YOU USE THE SAME BACKGROUND AS ME! That is AWESOME! I can't wait to read your stuff!!!
|
|
DOOD, you're on blogspot too?!? AND YOU USE THE SAME BACKGROUND AS ME! That is AWESOME! I can't wait to read your stuff!!!I completely see where you are coming from with the Barbarian. In my homebrew, I decided to make those abilities more relevant by adding more things to them instead of replacing them outright. And I do see where he is coming from with the WoW observation, as I must counter that not everything WoW is bad, it's just a game I'm not interested in playing largely because I'm already playing it in a lot of ways through 3.5.Dude, you're on blogspot? Dude! I remember you mentioning a similar house rule, way back when. (Something about four alignment-based monk styles.) Can't wait to check out your ideas!
(Not that I have a lot of free time these days, but it gives me a reason to avoid procrastination. Speaking of procrastination...)
Dudes! Enough of the bromance! Go to this "blogspot" and compare backgrounds or something. Threadjack(off) is makin' some of us ill ;)
1) Rules changes. Pathfinder didn't fix the things I thought it should, but 'fixed' a lot other things besides. That's not an insurmountable problem, but before I houserule PF I houserule 3.5, where the overlap with my own proclivities is much larger.
2) Support. Some of the best d20 3PP material - e.g. Wilderlands of High Fantasy - and, I daresay, some of Paizo's own best adventure paths, were published for 3.5. ... The only thing I consider of equal quality since Paizo went PF is Kingmaker; everything else they've produced since doesn't really reach the old peaks, such as Age of Worms, to suffice to incline a wholesale system change. Not to mention that I do own 40 WotC hardbacks, and think them superior in rules design to what the Paizo team has produced.
I entirely agree with this.
1) Too many spells nerfed. I hate this.
2) Pathfinder didn't fix the things I thought it should. Non-magical combat need more variety and better mechanics. PF don’t fix this.
3) Many changes that I don't agree with
4) Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
5) I have all the books I will ever need for 3.0/3.5/d20 already purchased.
I prefer my houserules to PFRPG changes, but sticking with 3.5 allows me to take the good from PF :P
1) Too many spells nerfed. I hate this.
2) Pathfinder didn't fix the things I thought it should. Non-magical combat need more variety and better mechanics. PF don’t fix this.
3) Many changes that I don't agree with
4) Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
5) I have all the books I will ever need for 3.0/3.5/d20 already purchased.I prefer my houserules to PFRPG changes, but sticking with 3.5 allows me to take the good from PF :P
Details woman, details.
If you are just using a female avatar then, oops.1. Why does the amount of spells matter. Shouldn't the specific spells, and the way they were nerfed matter.
2. What do you mean?
3. Such as?
4. See 3
5. I couldn't agree more.
1) Too many spells nerfed. I hate this.
2) Pathfinder didn't fix the things I thought it should. Non-magical combat need more variety and better mechanics. PF don’t fix this.
3) Many changes that I don't agree with
4) Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
5) I have all the books I will ever need for 3.0/3.5/d20 already purchased.
1. Why does the amount of spells matter. Shouldn't the specific spells, and the way they were nerfed matter.
2. What do you mean?
3. Such as?
4. See 3
5. I couldn't agree more.
- The changes to non-weapon combat seem gratuitously different. No easier, just different.
- Jason clearly played in a campaign where there was a caster who used Quickened ranged touch spells and he hated it, hence the arbitrary "Quickened spells are not subject to an AoO, except Quickened range touch spells which are subject to an AoO." Didn't realize those thousands of casters with Quickened range touch spells were such a problem that it required a rules change.
- DR with sufficient pluses overcomes material DR, e.g. a +4 sword overcomes some random set of things like alignment-based DR that I can never remember without looking it up.
- The skill simplification was a bit too much - just because you've got good hearing doesn't mean your eyesight is awesome too, and just because you're a tumbling fiend doesn't mean you can jump a mile, nor does it mean you've got the balance of a cat (but to be fair, I can totally see the Hide/Move Silently combination).
- Falling objects no longer do 1d6 damage per 200 lbs. They do damage based on size category, to a max of 20d6 for a Colossal object. Which means a mountain falling on you does 20d6 damage - but ONLY if it falls from more than 170 feet. Otherwise it only does 10d6 damage. I understand it's just a game mechanic, but really - 20d6 max damage? That means no matter WHAT falls on you, from how high, you take a maximum of 120 points of damage, and more often it's about 70. 70??
That's a tiny set of changes just what I'm aware of and could think of off the top of my head. The big problem is there's a lot of gratuitous little changes that could just as easily have been clarifications of existing 3.5e rules, but instead turned into rewrites due to what were likely pet peeves.
Don't get me wrong. Pathfinder's where I'm at going forward - it's supported and 3.5e is not. But I'm certainly no Pathfinder fanboy, I'll happily sit at a 3.5e or 4e table and it's not like I'm switching my 3.5e campaign over to Pathfinder either. I'm not going to throw away my library of over 200 3.5e books and modules (I've catalogued 215 of them, and that's not counting the first few years of Paizo stuff - which were 3.5e as well).
In other words: while I disagree with more of the changes than I agree with, overall compared to the rule set it's a small part, and since I greatly prefer 3.5e style over 4e style, Pathfinder is the way to go for me. Perhaps not for everyone, hell, there's still people playing 3.0, 2nd Edition and even OAD&D, but Pathfinder's where my new campaigns will be and what I recommend to people.
|
|
Jason clearly played in a campaign where there was a caster who used Quickened ranged touch spells and he hated it, hence the arbitrary "Quickened spells are not subject to an AoO, except Quickened range touch spells which are subject to an AoO." Didn't realize those thousands of casters with Quickened range touch spells were such a problem that it required a rules change.
I am not familiar with this rule/ruling. Can you supply a reference?
EDIT: Because it sounds like you might be talking about the ruling that states a ranged touch attack that is cast defensively still provokes an AoO. Which is not actually a change from 3.5, though it wasn't made explicit until Pathfinder.
Jason clearly played in a campaign where there was a caster who used Quickened ranged touch spells and he hated it, hence the arbitrary "Quickened spells are not subject to an AoO, except Quickened range touch spells which are subject to an AoO." Didn't realize those thousands of casters with Quickened range touch spells were such a problem that it required a rules change.
I am not familiar with this rule/ruling. Can you supply a reference?
EDIT: Because it sounds like you might be talking about the ruling that states a ranged touch attack that is cast defensively still provokes an AoO. Which is not actually a change from 3.5, though it wasn't made explicit until Pathfinder.
If it wasn't explicit, what makes it a rule instead of an interpretation?
In any case, it was Jason (on the boards somewhere) who stated that in this case the more general case (ranged touch provokes, which in many people's opinion was a change from 3.5e) overrides the more specific case (the Quicken feat, which says Quickened spells don't provoke).
I'll have to see if I can find the thread.
Edit: Ah, memory did not quite serve me in this case. Jason admitted in this post that the "ranged touch spells provoke" thing was unclear in 3.5e and he made it explicit because he thought ranged touch was so powerful.
On the other hand, a nameless person in "Customer Service" stated that Quickened ranged touch spells provoke, based on this post here.
Clearly there is a group out there who views casting a ranged touch spell as two actions - the casting of the spell and another distinct "ranged touch" attack, and this group includes Jason, and that's their justification for Quickened range touch spells provoking an AoO.
In any case, it was Jason (on the boards somewhere) who stated that in this case the more general case (ranged touch provokes, which in many people's opinion was a change from 3.5e) overrides the more specific case (the Quicken feat, which says Quickened spells don't provoke).
Quicken means casting doesn't provoke. Ranged attacks do provoke. Those are the same rules as 3.5. I can certainly see GMs making the ruling either way. Unless it is in official errata, it is still up to your GM. Just because Jason wrote the book doesn't really make his forum posts more than guidelines.
I do agree with his ruling, but I won't say it is wrong for you to rule the other way in your game.
|
This concerns me a lot. When I do switch to PFRPG I don't want the books falling apart. Our core 3.5 stuff has seen 8 years of continual use and they have no issues.
I think the bindings are a real issue. My PF book (given to me) looks like crap. My bestiary (bought by me) has all but completely fallen apart, while ALL of my 3.5 books are in crisp condition, even though they are 5 years old! My PH has suffered a lot of abuse, even being chewed on by a dog, but is in FAR better condition then my PFCR and bestiary.
I have not had this problem despite using my books almost daily. I've heard the first print of the core book had binding problems, but I haven't had any issues myself.
|
|
Why? Because I have a hefty library of 3.x books and really don't feel the need change over to another edition/game. I like 3.5, I have my own house rules and game material, and while there are some issues with the system, I haven't run into anything that I couldn't deal with.
While I love Paizo, but between having been (rather negatively) impacted by the recession (causing me to have less than a quarter of the disposable income I used to), having an existing ass-ton of 3.5 material, and feeling no particular aversion to 3.5... There's just nothing to push me to adopt the PF RPG (or any other edition/game).
Now there some good ideas in PF, but it makes more sense to me to crib those ideas and convert them to 3.5 than to switch over to PF and then convert my house rules and game additions to PF... I'm happy where I am and having a blast running a Greyhawk campaign with 3.5.
|
|
While I do not think Pathfinder fixes a lot of the issues that I have with 3.5 I had to sell my 3.5 books to get a new PC. Rather than spend money on buying the same 3.5 books I figured I might as well buy Pathfinder as it does have some new things. I also like a decent amount of support. With 3.5. no longer being supported and being impressed with the great stuff Paizo did with the game it's a no brainer for me. Add to that the crazy prices being offered for some 3.5 books well lets say it's more cost effective to buy from Paizo.
|
|
While I do not think Pathfinder fixes a lot of the issues that I have with 3.5 I had to sell my 3.5 books to get a new PC. Rather than spend money on buying the same 3.5 books I figured I might as well buy Pathfinder as it does have some new things. I also like a decent amount of support. With 3.5. no longer being supported and being impressed with the great stuff Paizo did with the game it's a no brainer for me. Add to that the crazy prices being offered for some 3.5 books well lets say it's more cost effective to buy from Paizo.
Uh, this thread's for why folks stayed with 3.x, not switched to Pathfinder.