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.
But they still have to use a standard action on their next turn to maintain the grapple; in general, monsters are better off full attacking on their next turn instead of holding on and squeezing.
--
I also found that combining Listen and Spot (and smell, etc.) into Perception and Hide and Move Silently into Stealth is a bit awkward in some cases. You end up having to split it into visual and audio Perception/Stealth checks anyway, like the +20 DC for pinpointing an invisible creature (which only makes sense if you're talking about sight).
I like all of the changes and am glad to have them.
The grab situation does need addressing though. An intelligent octopus/squid would immediately drop grapple after grabbing someone to avoid penalty. An animal intelligence version just has a built in penalty because of it. This is the only thing I've had to house rule so it would make sense.
3.5 assumed you had no idea what was going on so their rules explanations were normally more in depth. They also had more definitions in their glossary which made things easier to understand. There are a more things that are hard to miss interpret in PF if you never played 3.5.
Well I dont actually miss anything, since the stuff I would have missed has miraculously appeared in my pathfinder game. Like search being seperate from perception so it can be an int based skill...
the only thing I miss from 3.5 is that my friend could play more often in those days system wise, pretty much every thing is better, or not open content so I just add that stuff on my own,
|
I sort of miss the "Eastern" flavor base classes from the Complete books. I only had reason to utilize them (as a player or a GM) very rarely and haven't needed them since I switched to Pathfinder with the Beta, but I liked knowing they were there.
Honestly, the only thing I REALLY miss from 3.5 is the Hexblade class. My favorite mechanical archetype is combat skirmisher/secondary caster and I liked the Hexblade's flavor. The unrelenting awesomeness that is the Inquisitor has dampened most of my nostalgia for the Hexblade, however.
As it stands, I'm toying around with the feasibility of Pathfinderizing the Hexblade as a Fighter/Witch prestige class.
Everything outside of Core from 3.5 is easily adapted into Pathfinder, so I don't miss anything there - I carry it right over. That's why PF was made to be backwards compatible, after all ;)
For the Core rules? The paladin's previous Code of COnduct very intentionally stated that a paladin only fell for grossly violating the Code. The "Grossly" part is something that I think should still be there.
For the Core rules? The paladin's previous Code of COnduct very intentionally stated that a paladin only fell for grossly violating the Code. The "Grossly" part is something that I think should still be there.Was it an Evil act to disinclude the word "grossly"?
I want to say yes, but the more pessimistic side of me believes that every person who makes paladins fall for stupid reasons did and will do so regardless of the presence of "grossly." Nothing has changed, they just have one more bit of terrible justification for their abysmal DMing ;p
One more minor thing: I don't think that changing bardic music to rounds-per-day was an improvement.
One of the most memorable encounters I threw at my A hole opens up in the cube, and the arrow flies right through the hole, which then closes up. Arrow avoided!
LOL!
One more minor thing: I don't think that changing bardic music to rounds-per-day was an improvement.
I believe the appropriate response is +1.
It feels to me like too few rounds per day, though I like the general idea that as a bard, I can switch up my bardic music more freely, rather than give up a very beneficial Inspire Courage to just boost a skill check once.
I also miss that Inspire Courage actually granted a morale bonus to attack and damage. The change in type there kind of confuses me.
I also miss cleric's having heavy armor proficiency and (just a little bit) the old Turn Undead mechanic. Not because I particularly loved it, but because it was far easier to house rule it into deity-portfolio specific variants for those gods who honestly wouldn;t really care about the undead.
Hmm ... I miss:
1) grapple rules - call me crazy, but the size differences are *almost* ignorable now minus the 2+ size category "impossibility" thing. (or is it 3? whatever).
2) +4 to "maneuver x" w/the feats, AND getting the maneuver feat benefits in 1 feat choice (instead of a damnable feat chain ... WTF!?!?)
3) Cleric Domains ... just ... I don't like what PF did. At the same time, I'm not a big fan of domains in the 3.5 either, BUT they work conceptually, even as spell-boosters (ie: the Domain Spells) they were ok in concept and fit the theme. Now ... well, I just don't like them. At all ... :shrugs: (I've also never been much of a cleric fan either, though - so take that for what it's worth).
That's about all I can say that I really *miss* though. Nearly everything else is improved, IMO.
I barely even consider the domains much of a "miss" either, since I don't miss them so much as I'm just underwhelmed with the direction PF went with them ... :shrugs: Again, not a class I've ever really dug all that much either. Still, given the major revisions almost everyone else got, and that sorcerer's had, it would certainly *seem* to merit as close if not closer consideration for the PF pantheon and the followers of particular gods have significant, mechanical reflections of HOW they are different. I mean, if you can have a freakin' tree-lovin' sorcerer (it boggles the mind as to why/how a human and treant would decide to have progeny), why can't the clerics of X god vs. Y god be *as* mechanically pronounced and differentiated as freakin' sorcerers?
That reflex negates on Forcecage throws me for a loop. Can you walk through it? Or do you jump out of the way as it forms? Invisible mage casts a silent forcecage at a party. Party has no visual or auditory input, and yet they all suddenly leap out of the invisible, inaudible cage as it forms. Man, can you ALWAYS move 10 feet instantly at faster than immediate action speeds?
You feel a tingle down your spine as you feel the air begin to solidify around you, and a sense of dread passes over you - some manner of cruel arcane power is attempting to bar and lock you in place! Moving more on instinct then pure thought, you leap to the side, away from the wicked malediction!
...Also, I'll agree with bard song being a per-day, for somewhat the same reason - I liked the different variants in 3.5, or the abilities that used bardsong usages like Lyric Spell.
|
All right, now that it's mentioned I do remember I miss the beguiler as well. It's tough though... that guy WAS overpowered (I hearted him, but he was). A full caster (with only domains a little limited) that got 6 skill points (plus lots of encouragement for high Int) and the trap finding is "a bit much". Still, tons of fun to play... maybe they could make a "Beguiler equivalent" as an alternative Illusionist wizard (rogue skills as class skills... after all they don't need the extra skill points with Int-focus, Trapfinding at 1st, and maybe Change Self at will at 8th). In fact, that would be pretty cool :).
I will throw in my vote on "per day" bard songs probably being better too, though really after about 6 neither of them tend to run out.
I do love that Pathfinder has given varients that are actually good alternatives to having a Rogue for trapfinding. I particularly like the flavor of the detective.
All right, now that it's mentioned I do remember I miss the beguiler as well. It's tough though... that guy WAS overpowered (I hearted him, but he was). A full caster (with only domains a little limited) that got 6 skill points (plus lots of encouragement for high Int) and the trap finding is "a bit much". Still, tons of fun to play... maybe they could make a "Beguiler equivalent" as an alternative Illusionist wizard (rogue skills as class skills... after all they don't need the extra skill points with Int-focus, Trapfinding at 1st, and maybe Change Self at will at 8th). In fact, that would be pretty cool :).
I will throw in my vote on "per day" bard songs probably being better too, though really after about 6 neither of them tend to run out.
I do love that Pathfinder has given varients that are actually good alternatives to having a Rogue for trapfinding. I particularly like the flavor of the detective.
The beguiler was many things. Overpowered was not one of those things.
He didn't get full casting in the slightest. He had access to a very small number of spells.
I just
You know the pokemon psyduck? That's me, right now.
I still prefer the 3.5 experience.
I still prefer the 3.5 experience.
Oh hell ... I don't use *any* "experience" anymore in my games.
3.5's exp formula's broke me ... I like AD&D 2e's flat xp value assignments to critters, and PF went back to that, so, on that front - well done!
However, since the 3.5 formula crap completely turned my stomach, I've moved to non-exp based games. Now I run with "marks" as the equivalent to experience. Up front I ask all players for input and we'll come to a consensus as to how many "marks" will equate to a level. This is *always* the SAME NUMBER (ie: renders exp tracking in precise amounts obsolete), and every time that number of marks is accumulated, it's time for a level up.
The system is SO much easier for me as GM to deal with, and even on the PC end it's a lot easier to know exactly where you stand.
For reference, I've run with 5-7 marks per "level" so far and have had no problems at all.
The bardic music is better now, IMO, for at least one thing: each round, you can change the inspiration given.
This, both from an RP and tactical choice enjoyment standpoint, is better.
The rounds are generally speaking, at least for my gamestyle, enough anyway, and the bard has other tricks on his sleeve.
One thing I miss from 3.5 is the ease of multi-classing. I understand that Paizo wanted to make single-class characters viable again but I think they went too far with their efforts. So many bonuses have been piled onto single-class characters that multi-classed characters seem unduly penalized/gimped by comparison. Those characters with prestige class levels don't seem as prestigious as they do contemptible/pitiable. Just my 2¢.
|
I also miss cleric's having heavy armor proficiency and (just a little bit) the old Turn Undead mechanic. Not because I particularly loved it, but because it was far easier to house rule it into deity-portfolio specific variants for those gods who honestly wouldn;t really care about the undead.
Can't you do the exact same thing by swapping out Channel Energy?
Or making the alternate power be a feat that costs uses of Channel Energy?
|
One thing I miss from 3.5 is the ease of multi-classing. I understand that Paizo wanted to make single-class characters viable again but I think they went too far with their efforts. So many bonuses have been piled onto single-class characters that multi-classed characters seemed unduly penalized/gimped by comparison. Those characters with prestige class levels don't seem as prestigious as they do contemptible/pitiable. Just my 2¢.
Something you might try is changing anything that is based on class level to being based on character level.
Thus the multiclass character has more variety in his powers while not having higher power abilities.
Some abilities won't be appropriate for this, so it will have to be on a case by case basis.
Something you might try is changing anything that is based on class level to being based on character level.
A simple fix that I feel would help would be to allow prestige classes as a character's favoured class. It'd help encourage those players who are set on taking a prestige class to at least see it through to the end.
Several of the PF versions of certain domains just plain suck. Strength domain is the best example. In 3.5 it was really good for a combat cleric, probably too good, but in PF the strength domain is completely worthless for a battle cleric. Seriously a strength domain cleric who cannot can't use any of their god's strength bonuses in combat?
The biggest thing I liked better about 3.5 is cantrips. It just bugs me they are unlimited now. I know it is a minor thing but it just bugs me.
Oh yes, this too.
An Observation:
As most of you are talking in a way that makes it sound like you no longer use all the 3.5 bits you "miss", can I assume that you are basically alone in feeling that way within your gaming groups?
I ask because one would think that if everyone in your group agreed, you'd still be using those "bits" that you miss. After all, Pathfinder is backward compatable.
Anyhoo to the OP,
I would like to see a return of the touch attack pre-Combat manoeuvre as others have already mentioned.
Everything else is better imo.
|
|
An Observation:
As most of you are talking in a way that makes it sound like you no longer use all the 3.5 bits you "miss", can I assume that you are basically alone in feeling that way within your gaming groups?
I ask because one would think that if everyone in your group agreed, you'd still be using those "bits" that you miss. After all, Pathfinder is backward compatable.
Nope my group is pretty evenly split on the cantrip issue. At first we did it just like Pathfinder. I hated it and did one player. Then we switched back to 3.5 way and 2 players hated it. The other 2 don't have strong feelings one way or the other. Granted they rarely play casters.
An Observation:
As most of you are talking in a way that makes it sound like you no longer use all the 3.5 bits you "miss", can I assume that you are basically alone in feeling that way within your gaming groups?
I ask because one would think that if everyone in your group agreed, you'd still be using those "bits" that you miss. After all, Pathfinder is backward compatible.
I agree that it's easy to house-rule things back to the 3.5 version, but it's still interesting to hear other folks' criticisms. To me, anyway.
I miss the 3.5 Gnome, he was WAY cooler than the Pathfinder one, who is a lot more like the magical 4.0 elf.
Therefor in my campaigns there are both PF Gnomes, and 3.5 Gnomes that get +Int instead of Cha.
But I know that I'm probably the only person on the planet that liked to play a Gnome, because he tought they were unique.
That's pretty mouch how PFS works. Each adventure you participate in you get 1 XP. Every 3 XP's you level. With a max level of 12 it gives you more reason to try out different characters.
Well ... I'd be lying if I said this didn't sound appealing, but man! I tried organized play once (living greyhawk) and it freakin' sucked!
It sucked to the point that I just refused to even go back and *try* that style of play again - ever!
I'm not a fan of unrelated people in some office somewhere telling the gaming group how they *must* play or they're doing it wrong.
*shakes head*
The whole concept is beyond foreign ... not for me.
@TriOmega: How many marks ... depends on what goes down. I give marks for 2 things only. (1) Overcoming challenges and obstacles to the plot/adventure/whatever and (2) role playing/style/fun.
For overcoming challenges, *do* note that this does not say "kill everything and take it's stuff" (even if sometimes that's exactly how it gets done). So, what this does is allow me to grant out "full experience" to my PC's for coming up with clever ways around combat and/or for avoiding it if successful. The real point is that actions taken by PC's are actions designed to move the story/quest/adventure/whatever forward and not choices made to deride the story or plot - or simply become an exercise of declaring everything enemies so you can kill 'em and take their stuff.
For role playing - note that it's a pretty open thing for me. I *do* limit the RP awards that can be earned per level (to focus more on driving forward the plot and story), BUT I allow for up to 1/2 of the marks earned to come from just good role-playing. This is stuff like getting into character, making character-based choices, doing fun/cool stuff that adds to the enjoyment of scenes as a whole for the entire group, etc. I mean, if we're all there, all having fun and laughing for some in-character stuff you're doing, you get a mark for it - you made us all remember why we're there in the first place, you know? Fun!
So ... award-wise, it depends on what we do in the night. If there's some awesome rping going on, people can get their full on 1/2 level "marks" there from rp/fun awards. If the pc's are bounding around obstacles left and right (however it takes place) they can be picking up awards there, too. I mean ... for a given session it's entirely possible for a whole level to be picked up. Other times, it could just be 1-2 marks tops.
I'm not a fan of unrelated people in some office somewhere telling the gaming group how they *must* play or they're doing it wrong.
What?
|
|
What do I miss from 3.5 era? Mind Flayers, Beholders, Yuan-ti and a really cool pair of magazines available at retail that supported the game.
In all honesty? Not very much at all. The most significant factor would be that I preferred the art direction in the trade dress layout of 3.x/3.5 books. I especially loved my colllector's edition faux leather hardcovers.
Which does not mean that Pathfinder's "hues of brown" is a bad art style; simply that I preferred WotC's 3.5 esque shades of red with blue headers in terms of the trade dress of the product.
In the grand scheme, I can convert protected monster content as needed (indeed, we are doing so on the podcast) and trade dress is No Big Thing.
The loss of Dragon and Dungeon is water under the bridge. The rest? I am more than happy to see it in the rear view mirror.
|
|
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.
On the subject of Improved Grab, is there any reason creatures get this instead of Improved Grapple?
So many creatures out there, who, by rights should act by grabbing and constricting, but can't, because they have to break the defender's full AC first.
I also miss cleric's having heavy armor proficiency and (just a little bit) the old Turn Undead mechanic. Not because I particularly loved it, but because it was far easier to house rule it into deity-portfolio specific variants for those gods who honestly wouldn;t really care about the undead.Can't you do the exact same thing by swapping out Channel Energy?
Or making the alternate power be a feat that costs uses of Channel Energy?
There's something very different about "I make undead run in terror/turn to dust while a cleric of the god of battle grants morale bonuses to allies" to "I heal living creatures in the area a serious amount of HP, while the cleric of the god of battle grants a very low morale bonus."
The abilities my clerics had were all based upon the general balance point of Turning, and were all very situational. Channel Energy is much less situational, and much better overall. It's the sort of thing that I can't really wrap my brain around converting my old abilities to be comparable.
Turning it into feats is all well and good, but I'm not a fan of effectively taxing clerics a feat to actually have abilities in line with their deity's portfolio.
I'm doing my best to come to terms with it, but It does kind of bug me because I spent a fair amount of time working out the old abilities.
And the beguiler wasn't overpowered. In my experiences with the class, it had a high tendency to burn through its spells rapidly to accomplish what a different caster could do with a single spell. And they were hosed with regards to large classes of monsters that were immune to mind-affecting abilities. I actually gave the Beguiler Sudden Strike progression equal to a rogue as well as 3/4 BAB and d8 HD when I updated them to Pathfinder, and the Beguiler in my Kingmaker campaign's greatest strengths are still sleep and unlimited daze shutting down mooks at low levels. Something a sorcerer or wizard could do just fine.
The only time I used experience in 3.5 was when someone wanted to craft, when someone used LA races, or when we had higher level experience costing spells.
Otherwise it was just "Ok you all level up"
When I wax nostalgic, I tend to go further back than 3.5, to the hoary days of AD&D or 2nd Edition. That said, I think overall PF is an improvement and natural evolution of 3.5, and strongly approve of most changes.
My only caution is of a general nature. PF did continue what I see as a continuing power creep throughout the entire evolution of the game. PCs have gradually, and sometimes not so gradually, become more powerful with each new edition, necessitating an increase in the power of their opponents to provide the same level of challenge. It has reached the point where many posters here credibly describe the upper levels of PF as more of a superheroes game than a classic heroic fantasy game. I'm fine with this, but I wouldn't want to see the power inflation continue forever. If anything, I would be more interested in a power down. I'm probably swimming against the tide here, as I'm sure the reason the inflation occurs is the heavy demand for more powerful/cooler characters from players, and the fact they snap up products that will make their characters more powerful. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to stop at some point before 1st level characters are able to one-shot Thor.