Bo9S never once broke my 3.5 games, and they certainly haven't created an issue for Pathfinder as of yet. I'd be curious to know how they broke other people's games to see how I'm doing it differently...Sword Sage + spiked chain + ability that allowed X amount of damage per target tapped (friend or foe) in the previous round to be added to be automatic upon a successful hit. The sword sage regularly did 90+ hp of damage before rolling for the weapon's damage.
We were 8th-ish level.
It seems you are talking about Iron Heart Rhythm. It specifically says you have to touch an opponent. It is a feat on page 36.
For me and my gaming group, we're sticking with 3.5 for a very long time. We dabble with PF here and there, but we mostly play 3.5 just for the familiarity and out of habit. We have the Pathfinder core books, and we do like most of the rules changes, but we're honestly just so used to our regular 3.5 games. At some point we will do a strictly PF core game, but for now we're fine with what we're using. We're to the point where we have a strong familiarity with the rules, so the creative part is easy; we know how the mechanics work for just about everything, so we can create new stuff on the fly and plug it right in. The "newness" is definitely gone, but has been replaced with a feeling of security, like an old friend. That, and truthfully, we've invested way too much money into 3.5 to give it up completely for an all new system that isn't at least compatible. We play Star Wars Saga Edition, but the minimum investment in that system is much, much smaller compared to DnD.
That being said, I can easily see the emphasis on Backwards Compatibility being less and less important as time goes on, with more new players coming into Pathfinder, older groups switching to dedicated PF games, etc. It does make me feel better what JJ said about the future of PF being compatible, so there's that.
I know my group does not represent the majority, but we found the system we like. We try other games from time to time, but for us 3.5 isn't a number, for us it is "our" DnD; it fills all the roles of a fantasy RPG that we are looking for. We aren't worried about keeping up with what's new and popular, we just know what we enjoy playing. We aren't thinking that we're playing a "version" of DnD; for us it's just DnD.
I'll be brief and just say "It's a feature."
Really, all it does is open up the options of the game available for use. Nothing more. Options remain that "optional" and there's never an obligation to use one thing or another. Your game, your rules after all, right?
The thing that bugs me is the purist mentality of "X only and only X!" (mostly, it's PF only types of comments). To me, that's being arbitrarily narrow in thinking about the tools of the game that are open and available to you. It's one thing if you find an option you just don't like. It's something else entirely to just cut off source X as a broad, generalized ban for use in the game.
:shrugs:
I'll be brief and just say "It's a feature."
Really, all it does is open up the options of the game available for use. Nothing more. Options remain that "optional" and there's never an obligation to use one thing or another. Your game, your rules after all, right?
I am more or less in this camp. I'll add that I think it is a "smart" feature. The ability to draw on a huge reserve of potential gaming sources is a pretty cool feature.
I also think it is quite likely that Pathfinder would have fewer players if it wasn't an updated version of 3.5. If they had made a completely stand-alone RPG, I for one most likely would never have bought into it, while as it currently is I'm buying everything PF I can get my hands on. Ironically, I'll most likely run with PF only in actual games I play though :)
I never noticed the difference between useability of splatbooks in 3.5 or PF. Except that phb2 classes suck even more now, but that got fixed with APG, so I have no complaints. My DM is just as suspicios towards bo9s as he was during 3.5
Beguiler and Duskblade are as great as ever, especially if you upgrade the HD to PF standard. And the Knight and Dragon Shaman were always crap ;)
I never noticed the difference between useability of splatbooks in 3.5 or PF. Except that phb2 classes suck even more now, but that got fixed with APG, so I have no complaints. My DM is just as suspicios towards bo9s as he was during 3.5Beguiler and Duskblade are as great as ever, especially if you upgrade the HD to PF standard. And the Knight and Dragon Shaman were always crap ;)
I've had fun playing Knights, but I think the Dragon Shaman would simply make a great cohort to follow the group around.
|
I never noticed the difference between useability of splatbooks in 3.5 or PF. Except that phb2 classes suck even more now, but that got fixed with APG, so I have no complaints. My DM is just as suspicios towards bo9s as he was during 3.5Beguiler and Duskblade are as great as ever, especially if you upgrade the HD to PF standard. And the Knight and Dragon Shaman were always crap ;)
Yeah, Beguiler and Duskblade still hold their own. Knight could do, with some changes. Dragon Shaman is beyond redemption, I think.