Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
I would try to convince them to stick with pathfinder myself as I prefer my games to be supported, but what exactly do you mean by options and simplicity? It seems like alot of the more complicated things got simplified (polymorph for instance) and given all extraneous 3.5 material is either excluded or in by dm approval, the options are far fewer even with all the 3rd party support for pathfinder.
|
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
Ok, then offer to limit the options. All sorcerors are arcane. All paladins get a horse, druids get an animal companion, pick your favorite rogue talents and make those the only ones in a set progression. It would probably take an afternoon of work on your part to pick all those for the base classes. Do it and they dont have to worry anymore. They are in the same relative boat as 3.5 in terms of 'choices' and you have the added benefit of some of the pathfinder rules improvements.
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
Wow, those are some of the things I love MOST!
Honestly, I would try to convince them to stick with it. Hopefully they will come to love Pathfinder the more they play it and get used to it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suggest they don't play Barbarians, Rogues, or Sorcerers? Okay, to be more helpful:
Maybe remind them of a couple things--that the old skill system is harder, for example; harder to remember max ranks for class skills vs cross class skills, and if they want to buy into a cross class skill they have to pay double.
Ask them what they think is simpler: 3.5 Grapple or Combat Maneuvers.
Remind them they get fewer feats in 3.5.
Also, ask them why they are having trouble tracking their class abilities? I fully admit--creating characters takes a little longer now than it used to because of extra class abilities.
But if you're starting at first level and going up at a reasonable pace, they should have plenty of time to get used to their new class abilities.
And I gotta say, if they really want something Rules Light, neither 3.5 nor PFRPG is the best choice. 4e might slightly be more up their alley--everyone levels up more or less in the same way. An even more system-light system might be their thing.
At the same time, you're the GM. You need to run a system with which you are happy, or no one will be happy. If Pathfinder's your thing, you need to make it clear that this is what you are interested in running. Maybe invite one of them to run instead.
Or, if you want to take the evil route, offer to run HERO System and make them calculate their character sheets by hand, no calculators or spreadsheets.
They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.
As a PFRPG GM, I wouldn't have any problem at all in allowing my players to play a 3.5 barbarian, sorcerer or rogue. I'd be flabbergasted, but I wouldn't have any problem with it. :-)
Evil for who? I don't have access to a super computer so I'm not sure I could run Hero System. :)
Or, if you want to take the evil route, offer to run HERO System and make them calculate their character sheets by hand, no calculators or spreadsheets.
All I said was "offer" to run. Hopefully they'll give up halfway through so you won't have to do any game prep. :D
|
|
They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.As a PFRPG GM, I wouldn't have any problem at all in allowing my players to play a 3.5 barbarian, sorcerer or rogue. I'd be flabbergasted, but I wouldn't have any problem with it. :-)
I might end up going this route. It seems like a fairly reasonable trade off.
Eh, some players are like that.
I once tried to get my group to try Hero system. I told them that the beautiful thing about Hero system was that you could be abosolutely anything you wanted to be. If you could possibly imagine it, then we could make it. No limits. No boundaries. Definitely no classes.
Best part, I would do all the work. They just had to tell me what they wanted to play and I would figure out the rules to make it happen. No research or sweat on their part required.
It lasted one session. All of the playes, every one of them, wanted to go back to D&D because they preferred having limited selection of things to choose from. They wanted a menu with 11 classes, 7 races, 20 skills, 100 feats. Pick and choose what they want from this menu and play the game without having any options for creating or advancing their character in a free-form environment.
Meh.
I can understand that, really. Why do it the hard way when you can do it the easy way?
So, if your group prefers the easy way, then that's probably what you should give them. Maybe, in time, they'll get more comfortable with the system and then maybe they'll be ready to expand their horizons.
Or have them play a party of a Swashbuckler, Samurai, Truenamer and 3.5 Paladin. Nothing to chose, everything is ready for you. Just sit back and enjoy. A lot. :)
I was going to suggest a party of Warriors, Nobles, Experts and Adepts. No pesky class features to deal with! :-)
|
This is something that concerned me too the first time I read through the PFCR. To an experienced player, all the new options for the core classes looks like Christmas morning. To a beginner or casual player, it looks like homework. I'd ask one more time, maybe pare down some of the options to simulate the traditional class builds. If they don't go for it, play 3.5. For a single group and a single campaign, "supported" isn't all that big a deal. and really, PFOGL stuff can be used in 3.5 just as easily as the reverse.
|
Discuss it with the group and try to find out all the reasons they want to return to 3.5 - there may be some extra factors involved such as system knowledge, having more 3.5 resources etc.
In the end, what game engine you use should be a group decision, and one made after a group discussion (to clear up any misunderstandings and to discuss other solutions to the issues).
The GM should probably get more of a say, so if you are the GM and you refuse to GM 3.5, then you shouldn't be forced to. However, if the players all prefer 3.5 and you are the odd one out, and one of them is willing to GM 3.5, then you may need to decide to a) play 3.5, b) change your mind and GM 3.5 or c) drop out of the group.
|
|
The other thing I have been considering is using 3.5 and slipping some Pathfinder into it. Things like port the new fighter over, bump up everyone's hit die, that sort of thing.
As mentioned upthread, I'd also try to keep the Pathfinder skills changes (including consolidation). They make a lot more sense to me than 3.0/3.5.
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
You need to tell them what any good GM would say in this scenario. "You are all dead to me."
Just kidding. Actually, I've recently converted the core of my 3.5 game to Pathfinder rules, and three of the players didn't want to switch. OK, they're using the old system. Only change I enforced was that I made them figure out that CMB/CMD, and the cleric will "turn" undead in the PF way, with an AOE blast. Mainly because turning undead was the only core class ability where you had to break out the rulebook every time you wanted to use it, roll three or four times, and look up results on charts. Even Grapple was simpler.
Other than that, using 3.5 is pretty system-safe.
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.
See I think thats the true benefit of Pathfinder. Those class-specific choices
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
Tell them to not use the options? You're the GM...run what you want to run.
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
OK, make the decisions for them. Tell them, "The arcane bloodline is the only option for a sorcerer." Make similar decisions for barbarian and rogue.
Alternatively, tell them that they can run a 3.5 class (and use the 3.5 experience progression), but that the rules will still be Pathfinder (combat maneuvers, skills, feats, etc.).
See if that helps. If it doesn't, talk to them and tell them that this is the game you want to run, but if any of them would like to run a 3.5 game, the group could alternate between campaigns. If none of them want to run a game, then "beggars can't be choosers."
Not willing to be teasing either, but maybe they would be interested in D&D 4th edition?
Not willing to be teasing either, but maybe they would be interested in D&D 4th edition?
Honestly, if they dont like the choices pathfinder presents for characters, they will like 4th edition less. In 4th every single ability is a choice among several. If their complaint is about bloodlines and rage powers, they will not enjoy 4E at all.
As a PFRPG GM, I wouldn't have any problem at all in allowing my players to play a 3.5 barbarian, sorcerer or rogue. I'd be flabbergasted, but I wouldn't have any problem with it. :-)I might end up going this route. It seems like a fairly reasonable trade off.
I'd go with this - you can *play* Pathfinder, while they have 3.5 characters/classes.
Or just play 3.5 - you can still run APs if you want.
Actually, I've recently converted the core of my 3.5 game to Pathfinder rules, and three of the players didn't want to switch. OK, they're using the old system.I'm confused - did you convert them, or did you just keep playing 3.5 adding in a few house rules based on PF?
Four of them updated their characters into Pathfinder stats and abilities. Three didn't. Oh, one was a paladin and I'm slowly leaking Pathfinder paladin abilities as "house rules" into her powers, starting with Smite lasting the whole encounter against a single foe.
But even before there was a Pathfinder rule set out there, I had them getting feats every odd level, and I combined Listen/Spot into Perception and Hide/Move Silently into Stealth five years and two campaigns ago.
|
...simplicity of 3.5...
HAHAHAHAAHA!
/sniff/rubs eyes
Cerealsly, let them play 3.5 characters and run the Pathfinder rules. If your are going to modify classes to Pathfinder's HD and BAB and such you might as well go whole hog with Pathfinder. (less work on your part)
Sorry you are going through this... it's a tough spot to be in.
This sounds like you might have a couple of different,unstated problems.
1) I already own the 3.5 books. This is a financial issue.
2) I fear all forms of change. This is a personal issue.
3) I fear for my character/my self-esteem running in a system I understand less well. This can be easily dealt with by running a few practice games, having everyone pass their character to the right every hour, spending a session working through character creation as a group, etc.
Your players are weird.
Are you sure your player's aren't just screwing with you? 3.5 being simpler sounds like a bad joke. I would think that anybody playing any tabletop RPG can make basic character choices in thier sleep.
The only time I have ever even heard 3.5 nostalgia at my table is if someone wants to play an old class like the warlock for example.
How did they ever play 3.5? Did they ever use alternate class features? Hell, did they even pick thier own feats and spells?
I guess I am a fan of picking from what works from either system.
For my homebrew, I think the Pathfinder classes are a little too much. I don't want wizards and sorcerers and clerics using cantrips at will. Magic should be something rare and rationed. Perhaps a few tweaks to 3.5 classes would be in order, but I think Pathfinder is just a little bit too "sweet" for most of my ideas.
I've also been thinking of doing a game set in the 1930s. In this case, I have a set of classes designed and balanced for that era, and the mystic class is a lot weaker in magic than even 3.5 classes. If I allowed Pathfinder clerics and wizards and sorcerers in that setting, it would destroy it. But I could use the Pathfinder rules with the classes defined for this setting, thereby gaining the advantages of both systems.
On the other hand, I am looking forward to running my "mobius world" with Pathfinder classes, assuming I can find friends.
So perhaps the best solution might be to use 3.5 classes with Pathfinder rules. If your players like simplicity, this may be the best option.
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
Pathfinder has too many options compared to 3.5? I dont understand...I guess you excluded the mountains of splatbooks with the feats, prestige classes and replacement class features?
I do ban most of those because I do not own them. They mostly struggle with sorcerer bloodlines, rage powers, and rogue talents. They would rather have a class with all the decisions made for them than do some thinking on their own.
I'm not sure why this is so surprising to everyone that some people feel that way.
Sure, you have more options with Pathfinder - but it's like I tell everyone with 4e - there's no "plain ol' fighter" class any more.
Used to be, I'd give every new player a fighter. Why? Because it was such a simple class. There ain't no simple class in 4e.
Not that Pathfinder's taken it to the extent that 4e has, but by adding to the complexity of classes like rogue, a new-ish player (or one that doesn't want to have to think so hard about character development) cannot simply be a rogue - they have to make decisions that were not necessary in 3.5e. Increased complexity.
As for grapple being simpler in Pathfinder, huh?
Pathfinder: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (10 + Str + Dex + size)
3.5e: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (d20 + Str + size)
Basically under Pathfinder the defender is always "taking 10", but gets to add their Dex modifier.
For the most part, I see them being identical except that Pathfinder has removed the ability to do actions in a grapple as iterative attacks. If a fighter has 3 iterative attacks, he still only gets one grapple action, not three.
Too man options, eh? I'd say it's time to break out the ol' 2nd Edition books....
If you want to try something slightly different, I'd recommend checking out Mongoose Publishings Conan RPG 2nd Edition. It's d20 based and is probably about 85-90% standard d20 mechanics but with some extremely interesting and appealing new takes on some things. Its low-magic and there's no elves/dwarves etc but the system itself has a lot of interesting stuff going for it. I plan to run a session at an upcoming con.
|
|
As for grapple being simpler in Pathfinder, huh?
Pathfinder: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (10 + Str + Dex + size)
3.5e: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (d20 + Str + size)Basically under Pathfinder the defender is always "taking 10", but gets to add their Dex modifier.
For the most part, I see them being identical except that Pathfinder has removed the ability to do actions in a grapple as iterative attacks. If a fighter has 3 iterative attacks, he still only gets one grapple action, not three.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you here, no way you can sum up 3.5 grapple rules in a small simple formula :)
If you don't think 3.5 grapple was overly complicated, had weird exceptions found nowhere else in the game, etc., try listening to this 3.5 Private Sanctuary...they spend the whole podcast talking about all the strange counter intuitive rules.
As for grapple being simpler in Pathfinder, huh?
Pathfinder: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (10 + Str + Dex + size)
3.5e: (d20 + Str + size) vs. (d20 + Str + size)Basically under Pathfinder the defender is always "taking 10", but gets to add their Dex modifier.
For the most part, I see them being identical except that Pathfinder has removed the ability to do actions in a grapple as iterative attacks. If a fighter has 3 iterative attacks, he still only gets one grapple action, not three.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you here, no way you can sum up 3.5 grapple rules in a small simple formula :)
If you don't think 3.5 grapple was overly complicated, had weird exceptions found nowhere else in the game, etc., try listening to this 3.5 Private Sanctuary...they spend the whole podcast talking about all the strange counter intuitive rules.
Neither one is summarized by a simple formula. In Pathfinder it's that formula plus the text on pp198-201 of the Core Rulebook describing actions you can take, while in 3.5e it's the other formula plus the text on pp155-157 of the Player's Handbook describing what actions you can take.
What made it complicated in 3.5e wasn't grappling itself, but the addition of feats like Close Quarters Fighting that give you an AoO for every grapple attempt or the other one (the name escapes me) that lets you use ANY size weapon when you're in a grapple.
I really see little difference in complexity between grapple in Pathfinder and 3.5e with the exception that Pathfinder only gives you one action while 3.5e gives you one per iterative attack.
8 year olds Dude.....
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
While I don't quite get the 'simplicity' thing, here is my answer (since you asked!):
1) What do you want to do? You need to have fun as well. Never ever run a game you're not all that interested in, regardless of what your players want.
2) And, since you asked: Go to 3.5. I, personally, consider it vastly superior to Pathfinder anyways. *ducks and runs* :D
Okay, lately some of my players have been complaining that Pathfinder has too many options and they would like to go back to the simplicity of 3.5 even with it's acknowledged flaws. Should I try and convince them to continue with Pathfinder or should I bow to their wishes and return to 3.5?
I can understand this to a certain extent. Pathfinder RPG has quite a few more options, which implies that one need to know all of the available them all in order to made the 'right' decision. Currently, that's my problem with 4th ed right now; I was offered to play and even 'though I'm sure that I can get the grasp of the rules in an instant, making a character is a daunting task given the panoply of base classes, each with their own panoply of powers... In many respects, Pathfinder RPG imposes the same challenge on its players.
My suggestion would be to 'make' a rogue class, barbarian class (etc) with fixed talents and rage powers and stick to that one. Allow only arcane bloodline and reserve the right of choice for the classes that already were granted a basic selection in 3.5, such as the wizard and the cleric.
'findel
|
|
o.O complaining about having too many options?! wha??!
A room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw anything. After thirty minutes, most hadn't started.
A different room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw a cat. After thirty minutes, they had all drawn a cat, but each cat was completely different from the other.
Moral of the story, sometimes the decision making of more options takes so much energy it drains the creativity.
I have a variety of player types in my groups and a couple of them enjoy the ability to smash stuff or blow stuff up and don't want the responsibility of building a character to do it. The 3.5 barbarian and sorcerer are perfect examples of classes these players like and prefer to the PF versions. In particular in my Monday group, where some of the other players really enjoy the build process and are master tweakers. The "just play" players don't like to feel like they messed up if they make suboptimal choices and just aren't good at telling the optimal choices from the suboptimal ones.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
A room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw anything. After thirty minutes, most hadn't started.A different room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw a cat. After thirty minutes, they had all drawn a cat, but each cat was completely different from the other.
Moral of the story, sometimes the decision making of more options takes so much energy it drains the creativity.
Some people like to build Champions characters from the ground up. Other people like to use Mutants & Masterminds templates with a little tweaking.
|
|
o.O complaining about having too many options?! wha??!A room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw anything. After thirty minutes, most hadn't started.
A different room full of people were given a blank sheet and a pencil and told to draw a cat. After thirty minutes, they had all drawn a cat, but each cat was completely different from the other.
Moral of the story, sometimes the decision making of more options takes so much energy it drains the creativity.
I have a variety of player types in my groups and a couple of them enjoy the ability to smash stuff or blow stuff up and don't want the responsibility of building a character to do it. The 3.5 barbarian and sorcerer are perfect examples of classes these players like and prefer to the PF versions. In particular in my Monday group, where some of the other players really enjoy the build process and are master tweakers. The "just play" players don't like to feel like they messed up if they make suboptimal choices and just aren't good at telling the optimal choices from the suboptimal ones.
Pathfinder didn't introduce any suboptimal choices. In fact, it corrected many suboptimal options of 3.0/3.5. Your "easy" barbarians and sorcerers faced suboptimal chocies in 3.5, where they could pick Alertness or Skill Focus (craft:basketweaving) instead of Power Attack or Spell Focus.
The Pathfinder choices are balanced for the most part (OK, Barbarian rage poweres aren't, but they are not the main feature of the class anyway).
3.5, by it's very nature, is rather brutal on "oh, I'll just take anyway, I want to smash stuff" people. The game expects one to be aware what's the difference between Power Attack and Athletic. Pathifnder didn't change it for worse, and in many places it changed it to better.
So, sorry guys but the argument "3.5 was easy and simple, PFRPG is too complicated" is kinda weak. And if somebody is a lazy player, he shouldn't be playing D&D in the first place :)
Pathfinder didn't introduce any suboptimal choices. In fact, it corrected many suboptimal options of 3.0/3.5. Your "easy" barbarians and sorcerers faced suboptimal chocies in 3.5, where they could pick Alertness or Skill Focus (craft:basketweaving) instead of Power Attack or Spell Focus.
The Pathfinder choices are balanced for the most part (OK, Barbarian rage poweres aren't, but they are not the main feature of the class anyway).
3.5, by it's very nature, is rather brutal on "oh, I'll just take anyway, I want to smash stuff" people. The game expects one to be aware what's the difference between Power Attack and Athletic. Pathifnder didn't change it for worse, and in many places it changed it to better.
So, sorry guys but the argument "3.5 was easy and simple, PFRPG is too complicated" is kinda weak. And if somebody is a lazy player, he shouldn't be playing...
Your last sentence is a rather hash comment. Having a lot of choices and options might be something good for you, but it does not make the game appealing to everyone. Not wanting to analyze the whole system to verify your comment that 'Pathfinder didn't introduce any suboptimal choices' doesn't make you lazy and unworthy of playing a RPG...
For analytic players that know the system through and through, lots of options are a good thing. For the new player or the (perfectly worthy) player who doesn't feel like studying the whole book for the sake of making optimal choices (read choices that won't be criticized by the rest of the group), lots of options might be good, eventually. What David's group is experiencing shouldn't be frowned upon: I'm sure there is a n easy way to 'dial down' the complexity of the character generation one notch without having to revert to minimus RPG...