Hi,
Can someone point me at a link with the differences between D&D 3e and 3.5e please? I read this interesting review of editions of D&D and 3e got higher than 3.5e overall. I of course sold off my 3e books when 3.5e came out. But now I'm wondering about the wisdom of that. With pfRPG out I guess it really doesn't matter. Still curious.
Thanks,
S.
Here's another to a "3.0 vs. 3.5" discussion (warning: may contain swearing and arguing):
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50412
The 3.5 to PF conversion guide can be found here.
General PF resources are here.
While it isn't really targeted toward people converting PF stuff back to 3.5 (understandably), it does go a long way in helping me pick out some of the changes in the adventures and will help me keep in mind what to look for in changing things back.
Thanks...
I think the biggest thing would be XP and levelling, but since my group (though not me personally) greatly prefers to just level when appropriate in the module, this won't be an issue.
Sean Mahoney
A separate consideration for the backwards compatibility issue is how it affects "all those other books on your game shelf." One of the main selling points when referring to backwards compatibility has been that you would still be able to use all of that material just fine.
While that may be true for the adventures (as discussed so far, and what most Paizo products are), but doesn't seem to hold as true for all of the additional crunch books that WotC put out for 3.5. How feats interact with the rules will have changed in some significantly subtle ways and prestige classes may or may not function as intended anymore.
I suppose in the end, they are just different and not better or worse, but it is the loss of mastery of the game mechanics and the ripple affect that it causes in everything else I worry about.
The easy solution (and one the people who didn't like a constant stream of splat books are happy with) is to just not use any of that and just use the core Pathfinder stuff. But to those who loved all the extra crunch and what it brought to the game, that is gutting the game and just about the opposite of backwards compatibility.
Another way to look at is that the backwards compatibility seems to be there for DMs who are typically the ones buying all the adventures, but less so for players who spent more of their own money (in my experience at least) on things like the complete series of books. In a group with one DM and 4 players, that means the BC wasn't really there for 4/5 of the market place.
Sean Mahoney
A separate consideration for the backwards compatibility issue is how it affects "all those other books on your game shelf." One of the main selling points when referring to backwards compatibility has been that you would still be able to use all of that material just fine.
The backward compatibility is there for all of those books, just some items will take more effort to converter then others. The only real problem is interpretation over those conversions. The way I convert a feat (or class, or whatever) from Complete Fighter may be different then the way you would convert it. So if we're both in a game with that feat converted, the DM would just have to choose which to use (if he didn't have one of his own) But frankly, that's not different then people use different house rules sitting in on a game together, there's always a bit of give and take. This behavior isn't unique to converted rules by any means. Look around any message board for any RPG and you'll see various interpretations of official rules.
I don't dispute that PFRPG keeps the same SPIRIT as 3.X. But yeah, I guess that PFRPG has just a few too many differences for me to believe the backward compatibility claim. Sorry, Paizo. I know that others - including Abbasax and Gorbacz, evidently - will disagree with me. It may be that revising 3.5 crunch to Pathfinder might be easy. I wouldn't know; I've never tried it. But that revision WOULD be necessary, I'm sure, and that doesn't fit my personal definition of "compatible."
To add to the 3.5 to PF conversation I just learn as I go. I have run about about 4 sessions, and each time I realize I did something wrong. I normally just give the 3.5 monsters feats, since I am running AoW, instead of using the bestiary all the time. I went through and converted all the bosses, then the important NPC's, and last any other encounters I happen to get too.
Edit: corrections made
That's about what I'm doing for STAP as well. It's less of a headache for me because I'm going to have to convert them all anyway because I'm running Gestalt, so I just update them to PF along the way.
That's admittedly just me though, the conversion process doesn't bother me... I enjoy it even. I can see how it might frustrate someone with less prep time though.
|
The point I tried to make - and I know many people will disagree with me on this point - is that you SHOULDN'T try to run a 3.5 adventure in PFRPG on the fly. At least, I wouldn't. To do so is risky. You never know when some little detail might come along to bite you.
There is almost no risk. My entire complete v.3.5 collection has value to me as an ostensibly supported/in-print rule set. Its not a bad one. I won't discuss the minutae of specific rulings, because everyone has a variance of preference when GMing. However, Its clear after playing the Alpha 1 playtest, Alpha 2 playtest, Beta Playtest, and now Pathfinder RPG, that it is safe to run any kind of v.3.5 game you like within PFRPG on-the-fly. This has been perhaps the easiest and most exciting time to use my v.3.5 set since Pathfinder RPG makes GMing a pleasure, especially when it comes to some of the simplifications made. I can grab any thing d20/open game licence (OGL/v.3.5 and go! Where creatures are present in the bestiary, I use that instead. My rule book is the CORE rulebook, but otherwise my library of Forgotten Realms books, The Tome of Horrors series 1-3, and everything v.3.5 is very much alive and thriving! Try it, you'll see.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have, Pax, and I have not found it smooth sailing. For example, "Hungry is the Dead" is a module where virtually every opponent is undead. Tim and Sean balanced it for 3.5, intending that rogues would not be able to get sneak attack bonuses, that clerics would be turning these things temporarily, and that a paladin's Smite wouldn't materially affect a combat. Under the Pathfinder rules, the module, unadjusted, would be a cakewalk. As I mentioned upthread, going the other direction - running "Crypt of the Everflame" for a group of 1st-Level characters under the D&D ruleset, is brutal.
And, when it comes down to brass tacks, I suppose I'm one of those DMs who argued for years "I'm paying good money for a pre-written adventure, and I want the NPCs statted correctly. If I wanted something that was acceptable at first glance, but riddled with errors, I'd have whipped something together on the fly myself." That was one of the complaints I had with a lot of 3rd Party products in the early years of OGL.
And the shift from 3rd Edition to 3.5 didn't have that problem. There was some new terminology ("axiomatic" weapons, rather than "lawful") and some of the feats required a little bit of shuffling, but the game --and in particular combat with most of the monsters-- wasn't seriously altered.
The backward compatibility is there for all of those books, just some items will take more effort to converter then others. The only real problem is interpretation over those conversions. The way I convert a feat (or class, or whatever) from Complete Fighter may be different then the way you would convert it.
You are very correct that the issue is how the feats are converted. Since I like to know what feats do and spend hours coming up with builds, I would need to convert them all prior to making a character (or at least a VERY significant amount of them). Right now, my list of feats from 3.5 products produced by WotC is right around 1700 feats... that's a lot of converting!!! Sure, some would be fine as is, but those subtle differences in things we have mentioned really come back at this point. In addition, the changing and ramping up of powers in the core classes in PFRPG means that these same feats could have some very serious (and perhaps game breaking) effects when combined with the new ways of doing things... what balance was there would be deeply upset, making the use of so many feats not as useful.
All that said... you are right that the only way to keep them all would be to start houseruling like crazy and just because you come to understand it for one persons game doesn't mean it would have any consistency in another... so lots more work and rulings there.
Overall, the undertaking we are talking about does not sound like it preserved the use of "all the books on my bookshelf."
Sean Mahoney
|
I have, Pax, and I have not found it smooth sailing. For example, "Hungry is the Dead" is a module where virtually every opponent is undead. Tim and Sean balanced it for 3.5, intending that rogues would not be able to get sneak attack bonuses, that clerics would be turning these things temporarily, and that a paladin's Smite wouldn't materially affect a combat. Under the Pathfinder rules, the module, unadjusted, would be a cakewalk. As I mentioned upthread, going the other direction - running "Crypt of the Everflame" for a group of 1st-Level characters under the D&D ruleset, is brutal.
I will be running HitD for a party made up of a: Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter and Wizard. So I guess this won't be a cakewalk :)
I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
Yes it can. I'm the DM, and I say it can. Seriously though, some of us are too tied to rules. If you've got a group whose suspension of disbelief is ruined by an edition-related rules change, you've got bigger problems than any ettin, polymorphed or not.
Zo
|
The point I tried to make - and I know many people will disagree with me on this point - is that you SHOULDN'T try to run a 3.5 adventure in PFRPG on the fly. At least, I wouldn't. To do so is risky. You never know when some little detail might come along to bite you.
I converted and ran (from levels 3 to 9) the entire Vault of Larin Karr module from 3.0 to PF Beta on the fly. I read the entire module cover-to-cover about five times (something I'd do for any game), and then I spent about an hour to an hour and a half prior to every game session going through potential encounters and noting conversions. Is the game 100% backwards compatible? Absolutely not, but nine times out of ten a simple notation here and there, or crossing-out/re-entering a piece of basic data was all that was needed. The vast majority of the times I did retool an entire encounter, it was because I didn't like the encounter in the first place, not due to an inherent conversion issue. In the end the game was fun for everybody at the table, challenging, and took me very little time to adjust, exactly what I was hoping.
I read threads like this and shake my head. Having gone through the conversion process personally, I've never had anywhere near the problems some people claim might happen in a conversion attempt. Part of me thinks this is theory of what conversion would be like vs. the reality of what conversion is like, but I'm curious from the people who actually have done conversions and had major issues or had to spend hours upon hours converting, what are the problems?
I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
Yes it can. I'm the DM, and I say it can. Seriously though, some of us are too tied to rules. If you've got a group whose suspension of disbelief is ruined by an edition-related rules change, you've got bigger problems than any ettin, polymorphed or not.
Zo
It's not just a matter of suspension of disbelief. The players have a chance to shine by guessing the truth about the ettin. Playing Pathfinder RPG, any players guessing the truth would soon say "But no, polymorphing doesn't work on unwilling creatures, and who would consent to being turned into an ettin?!"
Another problem is the possible consequences. If the players see the GM breaking rules, why can't they? Imagine those players, at a later level, saying "I want to use Polymorph to transform someone forcibly. If an NPC can do it, why can't I?"
I'm not claiming that these problems are insurmountable. But they are there, and they need to be dealt with. And if that fits your definition of compatibility, then "compatible" is a relative term.
It's not just a matter of suspension of disbelief. The players have a chance to shine by guessing the truth about the ettin. Playing Pathfinder RPG, any players guessing the truth would soon say "But no, polymorphing doesn't work on unwilling creatures, and who would consent to being turned into an ettin?!"
(Nitpick: Polymorph Any Object should work in PFRPG, although the spell is very vaguely worded. Likewise, Polymorph Any Object is the only spell that would work in 3.5 as well.)
Good point, hogarth. Okay, I'll concede the point.
RIIIIGHT! Your the guy who mentioned that document on another thread. I'd intended to post my email asking you send me the link to it then, but I was busy with something else and ended up losing the thread.
(My email is below, I'd appreciate the link Sean :) thanks man.
I shot it and several other lists I have made in excel off to you. The over all email was a little larger than I realized though, so if it doesn't come through let me know and I will break it up.
Sean Mahoney
...lots of stuff...
I can see your point, and I've played with groups with rotating DMs (the players take turns, the DM doesn't physically rotate) where something like this might be a problem, but treating the rule-set as a tax document in this way would require some sort of Platonic "philosopher-king" to write the rules. Or perhaps a deity. And we all know what happens when holy books are RAW.
Regardless, the semantics of compatibility vs. adaptability become moot with a reasonable DM and reasonable players whose imaginations are not limited (in this case) by the content of pages 323-4. Also, Polymorph Any Object isn't that vaguely worded. The only hiccup would be the application of Permanency.
Zo
Contributor
|
Here's my secret to converting 3.5 adventures on the fly:
I use varient classes- I now have "NPC" versions of the core classes (i.e., the 3.5 versions). Non-casters are CR=level-2.
CMB/CMD is fast and easy- just put a note on your screen (or wherever). It really is mostly just Base+str+size (and Dex for CMD).
Use the Bestiary if it exists, or the MM1 if it doesn't.
I've run most of Howl of the Carrion King now and it seems fine.
The point I tried to make - and I know many people will disagree with me on this point - is that you SHOULDN'T try to run a 3.5 adventure in PFRPG on the fly. At least, I wouldn't. To do so is risky. You never know when some little detail might come along to bite you.I converted and ran (from levels 3 to 9) the entire Vault of Larin Karr module from 3.0 to PF Beta on the fly. I read the entire module cover-to-cover about five times (something I'd do for any game), and then I spent about an hour to an hour and a half prior to every game session going through potential encounters and noting conversions. Is the game 100% backwards compatible? Absolutely not, but nine times out of ten a simple notation here and there, or crossing-out/re-entering a piece of basic data was all that was needed. The vast majority of the times I did retool an entire encounter, it was because I didn't like the encounter in the first place, not due to an inherent conversion issue. In the end the game was fun for everybody at the table, challenging, and took me very little time to adjust, exactly what I was hoping.
I read threads like this and shake my head. Having gone through the conversion process personally, I've never had anywhere near the problems some people claim might happen in a conversion attempt. Part of me thinks this is theory of what conversion would be like vs. the reality of what conversion is like, but I'm curious from the people who actually have done conversions and had major issues or had to spend hours upon hours converting, what are the problems?
High level NPC might be an issue due to the extra feats, and other things. It's not that I had a hard time. Only that it was time consuming, but to say it was difficult would be a hard stretch. Sometimes I dont do a rule conversion. I just add the extra feats and go with it. It's really more of a non-issue than it is an issue.
|
|
I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
Yes it can. I'm the DM, and I say it can. Seriously though, some of us are too tied to rules. If you've got a group whose suspension of disbelief is ruined by an edition-related rules change, you've got bigger problems than any ettin, polymorphed or not.
Zo
+1
Whole-hearted agreement.
I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
Yes it can. I'm the DM, and I say it can. Seriously though, some of us are too tied to rules. If you've got a group whose suspension of disbelief is ruined by an edition-related rules change, you've got bigger problems than any ettin, polymorphed or not.
Zo
+1
Whole-hearted agreement.
It was interesting that when 3.0 came out it was important to people that if the bad guys could do things then so could the good guys and vice versa (stuff happens in the rules and the rules are flexible enough to handle it). Now we see people who would like the opposite.
I am curious though, does it bug your players that the world works differently for them than everyone else?
Sean Mahoney
|
I remember a WotC free adventure, "The Ettin's Riddle," about a victim who was forcibly polymorphed into an Ettin. In Pathfinder RPG, this just can't happen.
Yes it can. I'm the DM, and I say it can. Seriously though, some of us are too tied to rules. If you've got a group whose suspension of disbelief is ruined by an edition-related rules change, you've got bigger problems than any ettin, polymorphed or not.
Zo
+1
Whole-hearted agreement.
It was interesting that when 3.0 came out it was important to people that if the bad guys could do things then so could the good guys and vice versa (stuff happens in the rules and the rules are flexible enough to handle it). Now we see people who would like the opposite.
I am curious though, does it bug your players that the world works differently for them than everyone else?
Sean Mahoney
Nope not at all, was like that in 1e/2e and is like that in 4e. In someways 3e was the "Stephen Hawkings" of RPG's - a grand unified theory...
I'm currently playing (yay playing not DMing) 4e and it's refreshing to not have a single clue what a monster is going to do until after it's done it. :) Sometimes a steep learning curve.
I take the view that when I'm DM the rules don't apply to me unless I deem them too. "But it's in/not in the book" type players would be best to find another DM if in my games. I don't tell players how their characters work and they shouldn't be telling me how my monsters work.
S.
Wasn't the cleric/ettin cursed by a deity in that module?
Even in 3.x, I think most players are willing to put deities and other greater forces outside of the "unified theory". The things most players dislike is when a human necromancer can do things they can't do ("Hey, I'm human and a necromancer, can I do that? No? What do you mean no?").
Even though there were stats for deities in 3e, I tended to treat those more as a physical representation/avatar of the deity instead of the deity itself. I think it is generally a bad idea to limit the abilities of deities in very strict fashions.
|
|
I guess I'm the opposite of Stephen. To me the game world is basically an alternate reality, bound by it's own laws and rules, and someone who understands those rules can use them for his own benefit.Maybe it's a weird perspective, I'm not sure, but I expect the game world to make sense and be a realistically universal experience for PC's and Non PC's alike.
I understand what you mean. I like my PC to have a sense of gravity if you will. But I am of the opinion if the creatures they encounter are just "PC's" re-packaged that some of the fantasy element is lost. By having monster only or more rightly monster specific abilities you introduce the unknown. Of course if I make a PC race/class as the opponent it does adhere to the same rules as a PC. But if I want a witch that turns a prince into a frog and the PHB doesn't give me a spell that does just that - I'll make my witch and she WILL have that power.
S.
|
|
That, or you could just make a spell that does that (perhaps to balance it give it a long as heck casting time with range touch or at most short range, so she has to capture the target to do so, or something) and make it available to PC's if desired.
Why give it "combat" stats? The prince becoming a frog is an adventure hook, not something the PC's will ever have done to them. I can save myself a tonne of work by saying "Witch only" followed by "Witches are an NPC only class". Problem solved. The alternative you suggest may end in an unbalancing "house rule spell" that comes back to bite my DM behind.
As soon as the rules become a hurdle for a DM to tell a story it is the rules that are in the wrong. Many RPG's have exactly this written in the first few pages. Somehow at sometime WotC writers decided that they KNOW exactly how an RPG should be played and thus removed this gem of advice to DM's. Strangely enough 4e puts it back without actually emphatically saying so?
S.
I do think that trying to switch directly from 3.5 to Pathfinder would be tough just as going from 3.0 to 3.5 was. I stopped playing 3.5 over a year ago, however, and tried some other D20 games and 4E.
When I got PFRPG in August of this year I didn't have problems with a switch because it seemed like a whole new game after a year. I have converted several 3.5 items with no problems.
I don't believe PF is meant to play easily backwards for 3.5. Paizo doesn't have the license for 3.5 stuff out of the OGL, so I wouldn't think trying to keep the 3.5 core rulebook market in supplements would make a lot of sense for them anymore. 3.5 has been gone for over a year now.
I do think 3.5 converts fairly well into PF but I'm not an exact mechanics GM. My players don't check my math and they trust me and I'm as careful as I have time for.
For me, it all comes down to the fact that PFRPG works really well. It works better than 3.5 ever did for me. Since Paizo is having a lot of success with the game, it appears they are meeting a large percentage of the needs of their audience.
|
|
I don't see it that way. To me the rules are constantly evolving and growing throughout a game. For me to just say something is because it is destroys my sense of immersion. I prefer to referee the game's 'living' rules, than to be some arbitrary external force making calls just because I want to.
I agree that rules evolve and that the "official writers" need not be the ones doing the evolving. But let's take a blue dragon, it can breath lightning. Are going to let your PC's decide they want to breath lightning? If yes then I concede your point completely for your style of game. If no, then why can a dragon do it and a PC can't? Why does this then differ from a "witch" changing a prince into a frog and it being something the PC's can (if they choose) learn?
S.
|
|
Pathfinder Draconic Sorcerer Bloodline
Dragonfire Adept
Half Dragon Template
Elemental Breath Weapon Spells
Feat options (some of them homebrew)
There are TONS of ways a PC can potentially breath lightning.
(Also, I'd have no problem with a PC who wanted to play a dragon on the young end of the scale, it would be a pain to balance, but I would try using the Beastiary's suggested path first and modify from there)
Nice come back. Ok what about an anti-magic gaze like a beholder... You negate all magic in a 90o arch to your front PC. Permanent ability, not just a spell. Or turn to stone with a gaze like a basalisk? I'm sure you get my point that there are creatures with nature abilities that PC's don't have now (no matter if I choose a bad example). Why is it a crime to add to this PC can't/don't have list but ok and fine to add to the PC can have list? Don't PC's have enough options already?
S.
S.
|
|
But Do I feel that PC's should have access to antimagic cones or stone gazes if they choose? Hell yeah! Maybe up to X rounds per day,split up as desired, activated as a swift action or something, I don't know for sure, but I'm a GM who doesn't believe in saying no, but "Lets do it this way and see how it pans out" instead.
That's heaps cool. I guess I'm more of a "core books only guys" sort of DM. Did that from 2e --> now. Why I like Pathfinder RPG, it sort of re-set the jungle that we call 3.5e. Now I can simply say - if it's in the corebook it's in the game.
S.
Prince into a frog, isn't that what baleful polymorph is for?
That's heaps cool. I guess I'm more of a "core books only guys" sort of DM. Did that from 2e --> now. Why I like Pathfinder RPG, it sort of re-set the jungle that we call 3.5e. Now I can simply say - if it's in the corebook it's in the game.
It was common in the pro-4E threads to see someone boil things down to not liking the bloat of all the additions to 3.5. I guess it shouldn't be surprising to see it for PFRPG either.
I am curious though, do you fear the release of additional rules and splat (in some ways worse because it will be spread here and there across more books with smaller amounts in each) from Paizo doing the same thing to the game?
Sean Mahoney
Simple enough, Baleful Polymorph, and then Contingency: Baleful Polymorph into human when kissed by a princess (And tell the frog that when kissed by a princess it will transform into a prince so it knows to voluntarily fail the save should the event trigger)
Baleful Polymorph can only turn things into a small or smaller animal. Using Break Enchantment with the Contingency should get the effect you are looking for though.
Sean Mahoney
|
|
It was common in the pro-4E threads to see someone boil things down to not liking the bloat of all the additions to 3.5. I guess it shouldn't be surprising to see it for PFRPG either.
I am curious though, do you fear the release of additional rules and splat (in some ways worse because it will be spread here and there across more books with smaller amounts in each) from Paizo doing the same thing to the game?
Sean Mahoney
I won't be investing in any additions to pfRPG if that is what you mean. In fact with pfRPG + Bestiary I actually carry one less book around, Paizo my first child is yours in thanks. Other than "mechanically" driven reasons I have difficulty finding a character concept the pfRPG can't do as is. It's perfect out of the box. The saving thing for 4e is the DDI character generator, all the bloat in the world doesn't really matter. 3.5e never had this central database hence book searching became painful to say the least. As pfRPG doesn't I believe plan to do something similar to DDI it is only a matter of time before the number of books required at the gaming table reaches the mammoth proportion of 3.5e I guess. As I said 4e would already be at this stage (taking into account Dragon etc) if it weren't for DDI character builder. I think WotC have hit on the solution to bloat, well I mean something that allows them to bloat-away without actually causing any player a back injury.
So my personal opinion of the up coming Oracle and Cavalier - rubbish. Cavalier can be made from a Paladin or Fighter, Oracle from a Cleric. I tell you, sometimes I think game writers could sell imported sand to someone living in a desert just by telling them the imported sand is mechanically different from the sand they are standing on!
S.
|
|
The DM is the rules.
The DM does not need any rules.
Never tell the DM he/she doesn't need any rules! lol
The magic of a good game is instantly known, and rarely is its greatness attributed to discussions about rules. A good DM has a "sense" of his/her world, and does indeed seek internal consistency within it, except of course for things that are exceptions to the rules.
Life is like this.
So too with fantasy.
The decade of players "calling out" the DM and rules has ended. Most players and GMs can wield the Pathfinder RPG Core rulebook easily enough. The rest should be left to the imagination...
Isn't the game about imagination any more?
The DM never has, nor never will, be beholden to the rules, nor a victim to them. Good DMs will, however, not abuse this power, nor ruin the players sense of enjoyment. This is where the "artform" of good DMing happens. In the end, we all know that rules are but smoke and mirrors to the magic of one's own imagination!
-Pax
Classic Tropes:
>The witch turns prince into frog
>The princess is in a deep 100 year slumber
>The Hags hut walks on its own legs
>The Soulgrinder's chamber prevents souls from departing to meet their deity on the final road.
>The people of the town do not age
>The undead pirate ships appear under a full moon
>The sword talks and has ambitions of its own
Its can be fun to described these with rules. In some cases rules have already been drawn up for use. Yet unless there is any real reason for these rules, none need to be codefied. Even in cases where it matters, a good DM can adjudicate close approximations of needed items such as a saving throw number, DR or SR number if needed.
Its helpful to think along game rule lines to adjudicate conflict, but not necessary. And, as players, you should go on believing that rules matter. Good DMs know otherwise, and like a good magician should never reveal their secrets.
No wonder you think its sucky for a DM to say, "I just made it up on a lark." That DM deflated the challenge you thought was mighty and important with an unnecessary reveal. Similarly, good DMs know when their players enjoy encounters made of crunchy, explainable bits. Likewise should revel, with the player, in these discussions post game or whatever! Enjoyment is subjective, but the precision of DM tool selection is best left to context, not some universal statement that DM's must do a, b, c. This sometimes may sound paradoxical and requires tollerance for the ambiguity of DM-Player context facilitation and know-how.
I thank you for indulging me to share this opinion.
Stefan Hill
The saving thing for 4e is the DDI character generator, all the bloat in the world doesn't really matter. 3.5e never had this central database hence book searching became painful to say the least.
S.Etools worked reasonably well for me in searching 3.5 material across several books. Maybe not all WotC content, but certainly most of it. But this is off topic. Sorry OP.
|
|
Stefan Hill
The saving thing for 4e is the DDI character generator, all the bloat in the world doesn't really matter. 3.5e never had this central database hence book searching became painful to say the least.
S. Etools worked reasonably well for me in searching 3.5 material across several books. Maybe not all WotC content, but certainly most of it. But this is off topic. Sorry OP.I think E-Tools was current up until around the end of 2006? Anyone? So you are right it covers "most" content.
The problem with Etools is it was a lot more static than the constantly evolving DDI. Each month updates to the character make you feel like to are getting something. Address my pet peeve of errata. Other than checking out the DMG errata to make sure there isn't something fundamental changed you can make a PC without worry if your PC will have slightly different powers than another PC due to a miss errata.
S.
|
|
Classic Tropes:
>The witch turns prince into frog
>The princess is in a deep 100 year slumber
>The Hags hut walks on its own legs
>The Soulgrinder's chamber prevents souls from departing to meet their deity on the final road.
>The people of the town do not age
>The undead pirate ships appear under a full moon
>The sword talks and has ambitions of its ownIts can be fun to described these with rules. In some cases rules have already been drawn up for use. Yet unless there is any real reason for these rules, none need to be codefied. Even in cases where it matters, a good DM can adjudicate close approximations of needed items such as a saving throw number, DR or SR number if needed.
Fully endorsed by someone who's opinion really doesn't matter (i.e. mine)!
:)