One of the things that led me to Pathfinder was that encounters seemed shorter and more concise which allows the game to return to roleplaying. However, I'm curious if that changes at higher levels. Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?
I'm asking this because I've noticed that Pathfinder increased hp's and stats overall from 3.5.
This got me to thinking if there are any other things that people preferred in 3.5. I kind of like that level 0 spells had restricted usage as well. A very restrictive magic system makes magic feel special for me.
Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?
My 14th-level group is able to murder all their CR-appropriate in 3-4 rounds, just like at lower levels.
Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?My 14th-level group is able to murder all their CR-appropriate in 3-4 rounds, just like at lower levels.
12th-level; same finding.
I liked that 3.5 encouraged more diversity in character races. In playing PFRPG with multiple groups, they are very human heavy, or even exclusively human. Back in the day the same sets of people played as thrikreens, warforged, grey orcs, aasimar, and others. And frankly, I miss it. It is my personal preference that PFRPG blundered on non-standard characters.
¨blundered¨ as in hasn´t existed as long as 3.5 (and 2nd Edition when some of those were created) in order to have created such alternate races? I´m pretty sure that Warforged did not exist the majority of 3.5´s life span, for one...
So that´s not an issue with the rules set, since none of those races were within the Core Rules of 3.5 either, it´s just a matter of auxilliary setting material and so forth. If you want to play a PRPG game in a setting with Gray Orcs, it´s not really that hard to Pathfinder-ize the 3.5 stats, including coming up with some spiffy favored class bonuses now.
...Personally, their isn´t much I like more about 3.5 vs. Pathfinder.
(putting aside editing/Errata issues that proliferated in PRPG)
...Now, comparing PRPG to 2nd Edition, sure, there´s plenty of ways I prefer 2nd Ed´s approach, namely HUGELY more difficult Combat Casting along with Caster/Melee parity re: Standard Actions*. But in over-all game play, PRPG seems much better... After all, one can always apply arbitrary DC bumps to Casting Defensively checks.
* I actually like the way 3.0 made Standard/Full Actions tactically relevant for melee classes, just didn´t like that Casters could get off their same big guns regardless if limited to a Standard Action... If anything, I wish PRPG had gone further and made a Full Action necessary for Casters to get off their highest level spells and limited Standard Action Casting to Max Spell Level - 2 or something. OH well... at least PRPG is just as amenable to house-rules as 3.5.
Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?My 14th-level group is able to murder all their CR-appropriate in 3-4 rounds, just like at lower levels.
Excellent! That's what I was hoping to hear. OK, I'm happy now. =)
|
One thing I really miss about 3.5 that PF lacks is the sheer amount of options and ways to make a concept work (mechanically) or to break away from the mold.
I personally like the way 0 Level spells work, but can see that. I like old style concentration, up until high levels, but I generally don't like "only fail on a Nat 1" regardless.
|
The celestial / fiendish templates, bumping critter Int to 3, assigning them the ability to understand commands in Celestial / Infernal, and making them good / evil, seemed far superior to the 'Simple Templates' in the Bestiary.
With the simple templates, the celestial / fiendish critters can smite evil / smite good, but aren't actually good or evil, making a hound from hell incapable of being smited by a Paladin (or celestial eagle).
They don't have Int 3 and they don't understand commands spoken in celestial or infernal/abyssal (respectively), so they can't be commanded by a Conjurer to do anything other than the basic attacking of enemies. As a result, the summoning spells (and the Conjurer) have lost a lot of utility, and from the responses on the boards, this was not a deliberate design choice, since the official response was to allow the critters to understand the commands of the user anyway, despite the lack of such text.
That's one of the few specific rules in PF that I think is a step down from 3.5.
To clarify, that is not my dislike. I am referring to the top-down mandate from the developers and designers that monstrous/non-standard races should be mechanically inferior and dissuaded from use, FYIW.
Actually, that was the D&D 3.0/3.5 policy. Paizo's policy on monstrous and nonstandard races is "it's a complex issue that can't adequately be addressed in just a few paragraphs."
I may be the only person on the planet who really liked the 3.5 grapple rules, but there it is. :)
For me, there are a few little bits and pieces that I liked better in 3.5, but the vast majority of the system is better in Pathfinder :)
I may be the only person on the planet who really liked the 3.5 grapple rules, but there it is. :)
Make that two of us. At least the "touch attack + Str check" part; eliminating the opposed check in favor of a static DC is fine. Likewise for tripping.
In fact, there are a number of places where Pathfinder took something clear and made it more vague. For instance, the dwarf's ability to move in medium/heavy armor and encumbrance was changed to allow them to move with any armor or encumbrance.
The warlock and the goliath
Actually having combats last more than 3-4 rounds. We just hit level 4 tonight, although, this is after six deaths (two of which were insta-kills).
This is actually a selling point for Pathfinder for me; I don't like long drawn out encounters. Just personal preference though.
I like the art in the 3.5 books more than the PF books. Don't get me wrong, I think most of the stuff is good, but something about the 3.x books evoke a more vivid fantasy realm (and the drawings at the beginning of each chapter were neat).
I agree. I like the Pathfinder art, but the 3.5 art was less cartoonish.
|
|
One of the most memorable encounters I threw at my PCs was a Fiendish Gelatinous Cube Monk... when I told the ranger the cube deflected his arrow, his face was priceless.
The mind boggles... Can one deflect arrows without limbs?
Oh, who cares! Rule of cool trumps fiddly specifics! A hole opens up in the cube, and the arrow flies right through the hole, which then closes up. Arrow avoided!
I have no idea why combat lasts so shortly for everyone. My group typically has combat nearing ten rounds. But then, I run super heroic stat arrays, throw my party up against CR+3 bbeg's and plenty of CR-1/2 mooks. When base stats are 18/16/15/14/13/12, one must make challenges much more challenging. I learned the hard way that PF races are better than the old 3.5 and such good stats are so much better now.
Before anyone calls me crazy, I tend to LIKE the high powered high energy games...Players SHOULD be the super heroes, however, the next game I run will probably be a point buy... :(
|
|
While it wasn't core, a lot of the Unearthed Arcana stuff I would miss, if I weren't already gonna use it anyway...
Fractional BAB/saves, for instance.
Action points (or something similar, more like M&M's Hero Points).
Monk Fighting Styles.
Cloistered Clerics. (Oh yes.)
Specialist Wizard variants (adapted as alternate class features to replace PF specialist wizard options).
Incantations.
|
When I played PF I missed the Improved Trip and Improved Disarm feats as they were in PF. I prefer the 3.5 Combat Expertise feat as well and would probably prefer the 3.5 Power Attack as well.
I also prefer the 3.5 Grapple rules - the PF rules seem just as complicated overall, introducing new complications while removing others.
I also prefer the setting of Eberron that 3.5 supports and PF doesn't (because it legally can't).
I prefer the art in 3.5 as well.
For core books? Hmm...not much. I much prefer the PF versions of all the classes (even if I think some coulda been better), and I love the new art style.
I think the only thing I prefer, and even then only partially, is the old "trade attack bonus for X" feats (PA, Combat Expertise, etc.), and it's not that I prefer the old style completely, but I like having the choice. If the PF ones gave a choice of any of the previous steps in addition to the highest available, it'd be great.
Going outside of core...well, I loved some of the non-core classes (warlock and the psionic ones especially), and there were some neat feats and spells that don't have an equivalent yet.
I may be the only person on the planet who really liked the 3.5 grapple rules, but there it is. :)
Actually, you're not. I really liked them too.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I may be the only person on the planet who really liked the 3.5 grapple rules, but there it is. :)
It's hard to capture a mouse, but once you've got ahold of one, it's easy to keep the grapple.
It's easy to grab onto a hippopotamus, but hard to actually pin one to the ground.
The 3.5 rules, with their two rolls, covers both situations.
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?
Sometimes I do. But the topic at hand is "Things you preferred in 3.5", not "Do you use house rules in PFRPG?" Please keep the threadjacking to a minimum.
Do Pathfinder encounters start to resemble 4e encounters as levels progress?My 14th-level group is able to murder all their CR-appropriate in 3-4 rounds, just like at lower levels.
In my experience, in 3.5 and similar games like PF, could increase the TIME PLAYED for the actual round, but the number of rounds needed to kill the enemies are the same (in similar situation: magic and terrain could change things dramatically, but is less connected with monster stats).
|
|
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?Sometimes I do. But the topic at hand is "Things you preferred in 3.5", not "Do you use house rules in PFRPG?" Please keep the threadjacking to a minimum.
Wow. Another accusation of threadjacking. Thought rpg.net was hostile. But, hmmm, that does give me an idea for a related post. Thanks!
Back in regards to the OP, then, I like Cleave and Great Cleave from 3.x. Same with 3.x Wild Shape.
I may be the only person on the planet who really liked the 3.5 grapple rules, but there it is. :)Make that two of us. At least the "touch attack + Str check" part; eliminating the opposed check in favor of a static DC is fine. Likewise for tripping.
In fact, there are a number of places where Pathfinder took something clear and made it more vague. For instance, the dwarf's ability to move in medium/heavy armor and encumbrance was changed to allow them to move with any armor or encumbrance.
I think I make it number 4 in terms of liking old grapple rules.
I'm having a hard time finding things that I actually prefer from 3.5 to PF.
Tumble DCs. I preferred having a static target to reach rather than one based on the CMD of the creature tumbled around.
|
|
Hmmm... Not a lot. I guess I preferred tumble being a bit more viable for navigating; but acrobatics incorporates a number of never-taken skills from 3.5 and it's still used. I hated 3.5 grapple with a passion, too complex and too many ways to get abusive grapple #s.
Dunno, not a lot I guess.... PF really fixed most overpowered things; and the still-overpowered spells were at least caregivers. Paizo has done a great job of balancing the game and making it more fun. While there were a few neat ideas from splat books, for the most part they were cherry-picked and power creeped; whereas the APG gave some cool new classes while being very (too?) careful on power balance.
Things you Preferred in 3.5
Most things. Which is why I continue to stick with 3.5.
3.5 grapple is especially superior, IMO.
|
|
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?
I sort of do, I chose to stick with D&D3.5 in the end, so I use all my favourite 3.5 rules :)
Mind you, that also means that I stick with some rules that PF did improve (Skill Point allocation, Favoured Class mechanic, combining of Skills).
I hated 3.5 grapple with a passion, too complex and too many ways to get abusive grapple #s.
Its funny, because I feel the same way about PF's Grapple rules.
When I was playing in RotR AP we were facing a small hard to hit foe, and I actually felt guilty when I said I would try to grapple it - because I knew the PF grapple makes it easier to grab a small foe (size modifier is a penalty to CMD, whereas in 3.5 the initial Touch Attack DC is increased by the creature's size modifier).
Admittedly, we were using Beta where the size penalty to CMB (no CMD then) was compounded by the fact that Strength was being used in the DC rather than Dex, but the point re size modifer still stands in the final version of PF.
Question: With Pathfinder being backwards-compatible, why not use your favorite 3.x rule?I sort of do, I chose to stick with D&D3.5 in the end, so I use all my favourite 3.5 rules :)
Mind you, that also means that I stick with some rules that PF did improve (Skill Point allocation, Favoured Class mechanic, combining of Skills).
I hated 3.5 grapple with a passion, too complex and too many ways to get abusive grapple #s.Its funny, because I feel the same way about PF's Grapple rules.
When I was playing in RotR AP we were facing a small hard to hit foe, and I actually felt guilty when I said I would try to grapple it - because I knew the PF grapple makes it easier to grab a small foe (size modifier is a penalty to CMD, whereas in 3.5 the initial Touch Attack DC is increased by the creature's size modifier).
Admittedly, we were using Beta where the size penalty to CMB (no CMD then) was compounded by the fact that Strength was being used in the DC rather than Dex, but the point re size modifer still stands in the final version of PF.
I never saw anyone miss the touch attack to start a grapple. It was an irrelevant excess roll. And then you had the opposed str check that small characters had a penalty at. I find the defender in Pathfinder is much better off than they would have been in 3.5, but grappling is somehow more worthwhile.
I miss use rope skill. Its the one thing that has come up more than once as being wonky in Pathfinder. It doesn't make sense that casting Enlarge Person on someone would allow them to tie up the prisoner better.
One thing I miss is the ability to trip flying foes, if they fly by physical means (I.e. you can trip a roc or a dragon or a pixie, not a beholder or a flying mage).
That made bolas more interesting. I guess that is partially covered by the flying skill...
Grappling in PF is better, IMO. Maybe the retailatory full attack is odd :P but I love, LOVE the CMB/CMD, and the new maneuvers.
I like the cleric domains better in 3.5 than in PF.
I miss all the prestige classes from 3.5 I know they are backwards compatable but my game table only like to use current stuff
Wow. Another accusation of threadjacking. Thought rpg.net was hostile.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, honestly. I've just seen one too many criticism threads devolve into a chorus of posts saying: "If you don't like it, houserule it or play something else."
----
I also don't like how grapple is a standard action now instead of substituting for an attack. It makes grappling monsters much better off just full-attacking normally instead of grappling.
I also don't like how grapple is a standard action now instead of substituting for an attack. It makes grappling monsters much better off just full-attacking normally instead of grappling.
Most grappling monsters have Grab though, which makes it a free action when they hit with their normal attacks.
|
|
About the only thing that I do miss from 3.5 is the touch attack + grapple check. In the end I feel the PFRPG version is definitely simpler (and I don't have to look it up, which is a plus), however I feel that the loss of the touch attack is to the detriment of the rule. If it could've been touch attack + CMB check it probably would've been close to perfect.