|
Warning! This is a rambling post, apologies in advance!
Many of you will know me as someone who is critical of the Pathfinder RPG and even as someone who can get passive / aggressive about it. However I am taking another look at the game based in no small part on the good word of mouth the Advanced Players Guide is getting (see my other thread about that here).
I must admit I also miss playing in 3.x games at conventions - whilst I have played some Living Forgotten Realms using 4e it isn't always my cup of tea, I don't like the Realms as a setting and we always had to contrive reasons complete strangers would adventure together.
Basically, despite Golarion not being my preferred setting (Eberron is), it isn't a bad setting and I prefer it to FR, and so I am thinking about taking a serious crack at getting into the PF RPG so that I can once again play in the Pathfinder Society at conventions. I played and GMed PFS in season zero quite a bit, both locally and at cons, but dropped out when it moved to Season 1 and the PF RPG.
So, I think I am going to read the Pathfinder RPG cover to cover and likely buy at least the PDFs of the Bestiary and the APG, but I have a few concerns that I hope some of you guys and gals may be able to help me overcome.
Firstly, I don't want to give up 3.5 - I just bought a load of 3.5 books and still want to run Eberron. I worry that I may really like Pathdfinder and that I will then feel that I have wasted my investment on the 3.5 stuff and that I would have to give up on Eberron because I hate things not quite "fitting" perfectly.
Interestingly, I don't feel this way about 4e as it is different enough that I can see me running games in both 4e and 3.5 because they offer different things and both suppoty Eberron. But I can't see me running both 3.5 and PF because they are so similar. So is my investment of time (money is not so much an issue) in PF going to be worth it just for PFS play?
PFS does seem quite popular at UK conventions, and there is PaizoCon UK just down the road from me (I went the first time when it was still using 3.5) but didn't go this year partly because it was Pathfinder and partly because it was so close to Continuum. Is PF going to be worth the time for what may amount to 6 to 8 games a year?
Sometimes I wish I had never got into Eberron and instead got into Freeport as my preferred setting, that way I could run it using any bloody system without any fudging or conversion, I would simply buy the appropriate companions (I have d20 Freeport Companion, Savage Worlds Companion, M&M "companion" aka Warriors and Warlocks, and there are now 4e and PF companions)
Secondly, if I do get into PF I worry that my rules knowledge of 3.5 will suffer as I will get the two mixed up, even runnig 4e I sometimes bring in 3.5 rules by mistake - and PF is even more similar!
Thirdly, if I get into PF I worry that I may inadvertantly encourage other players near me to try the system out. While that may be a good thing, my big worry is that they may then covert over from 3.5 to PF and I will lose out on 3.5 players and 3.5 GMs. This issue is actally why I have such an issue with PF RPG - its the idea that it takes away the player network for 3.5; a game I still want to play. Indeed, I left my last group of several years partly because they were converting to PF.
Fourthly, PF RPG seems well tied to Golarion as a setting, and while I have the original Gazateer and a couple of AP player guides, I doubt I will be pursuing the setting much (I still have Eberron to explore). Will this affect my enjoyment of the PF RPG? Will I miss out on some of the community spirit because of it?
Fifthly, I have some issues with the changes PF made which makes me think should I just play Living Traveller at cons and house rule my 3.5 because for every good change I think of, there are some steps back:
Grapple is one of them, and though I have read through the rules again and think I can get my head around them, I still prefer the 3.5 rules.
Splitting out the Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trips feats. Indeed I think part of my hostility to PF was because I was all psyched up to play a Fighter in a mate's game with Improved Trip and Improved Disarm, only to find those feats were nerfed in Beta. Ironically, when most people were praising how PF makes Fighters better to play I was pissed off about the changes.
Some introduced ambiguity and consequences of changes - using the term Flat Footed more frequently when I think the intention was just to mean "Lose Dex Bonus to AC", unlimited Cantrips without explicitly spelling out what a Cantrip is (see threads about Infinite Magic Missiles), Ability to demoralise for more than one round and then having to make FAQ changes to avoid Fear conditions from demoralise stacking etc.
Cleric channelling - a change I actually originally liked but found later to make clerics even more essential than before, and could lead to an issue I have with 4e - PCs starting each day at full hitpoints and not being able to grind them down over a series of days (because if a cleric has Channels left at the end of the day there is no incentive not to just spam them on healing the team).
Are these valid concerns? Are they valid only with certain playstyles (e.g. you can avoid cleric spam healing by ensuring at least two combat enounters a day)?
Summary, aka TL;DR?
I am not sure what I am asking for in this post, its almost just a forum to outpout my conflicted feelings about PF. But... I prefer the 3.x ruleset to 4e, however I don't want to feel I have wasted my time and money on 3.5 books and setting (Eberron). I also don't want Pathfinder RPG to mean I have less 3.5 GMs and players.
I guess I am looking for advice, experience and help to reassure me that PF RPG is a game that is worth pursuing and doing so won't make me feel I have wasted my time and money on 3.5, and indeed it would be a worthwhile addition to pursue alongside 3.5.
|
|
A couple of other issues I have with PF RPG...
I love the fact that Paizo produce reasonably priced PDFs of their books with great bookmarks (with chapters at top level) and internal hyperlinking. But I am really concerned about the size of the PDFs and how slow they can be to render. My previous PDF of the core rules was 80MB, I just downloaded the version with the latest errata and it is 120MB - a 50% increease!!!! I even bought a hardcopy of the rules because the original PDF was not rendering quickly enough on my Eee PC to be a practical reference tool at the game table.
Are Paizo aware of this problem? If so are they doing anything about it? I know others have asked for versions of the PDFs without the heavy background images (effectively a printer friendly PDF that may also render quicker on screen), but none seem forthcoming.
The PRD is only available online, and I never was able to get the d20pfsrd to work offline (is it yet availble in a single ZIp file rather then several RAR files as it was in the past?) Either way, I don't feel either Paizo's PRD or d20pfsrd are a patch on the interface that Sovelior Sage has with the 3.5 OGC.
Can someone convince me otherwise, or at least tell me how up to date and accurate d20pfsrd is and how to get it to work offline? Is there anyone working on an interface more like Sovelior Sage for the PF OGC?
I think the best way to take a go at Pathfinder in your position is:
1) Play in someone else's existing PF game (or PFS) if you can, rather than running your own; this takes the burden of needing to be the person who keeps straight exactly which all rules are different off of you.
2) Start with core PF; yeah, you pretty much can use 3.5 material without much changing, but I think if you jump straight in this way you lose the sense of what makes PF different and, in some ways better.
This might also help you make peace with PF's angle on multiclassing, which is still (IMHO) more pro-multiclass than 1E/2E and especially 4E, but less so than 3/3.5E. In 3.5, it's a given that you would never be 20 levels of a base class, except maybe druid. In PF that's a lot more viable and it took me a while to really wrap my head around that.
3) Try to first play a kind of character that you know wouldn't have been as good in 3.5, but has different rules in PF. For me, this would be something like fighter, paladin, or sorcerer, but we all have different takes on what's interesting or not.
|
|
I believe you could roll Eberron just as easily.
Maybe, but if I did that I think I would feel "Why did I just buy the Complete series and Races of series" and I think I may have OCD because I really hate the idea of having to write up conversion notes for the Eberron crunch (e.g. Artificier, some feats etc) and carry those notes around with me.
I like things to be perfectly compatible (irrational though it may be), which is why I think I would prefer to not use PF for Eberron. As I said if I had only chosen Freeport as my preferred setting then it would only have been a simple matter of picking up the Pathfinder Freeport Companion and all my stupid conversion issues would have been solved :)
Regarding setting: I have been dedicated to the Pathfinder rules since they've come out, using the rules to run a homebrew game I started using 3.x rules. I can't tell you jack about the Golarion setting save for some names of gods and places, and I have never felt like I was out of place. Sure, I don't participate in the campaign discussions, but I've got plenty to do in the rules discussions, and I can absolutely say with confidence the rules are well independent of the setting, even as well as it suits it, or else I never would run my world with the Pathfinder rules.
(ETA: But I've also never bothered with the "Complete" series of books precisely because I'm not interested in the campaign setting. I'm not sure why you would buy them if you weren't either.)
I've played 3.5 Eberron and really, I can't see why you couldn't run Eberron with Pathfinder rules. It will take some mild conversion to make sure Warforged and Changelings, etc. are "Pathfinderized" but I imagine that work's already been done for you by other enterprising players (really, I doubt there's much work that needs to be done). Stick with your action points or use Pathfinder's Hero Point system detailed in the Advanced Player's Guide.
Regarding your other concerns:
Grapple is one of them, and though I have read through the rules again and think I can get my head around them, I still prefer the 3.5 rules.
Splitting out the Improved Disarm, Improved Grapple, Improved Trips feats. Indeed I think part of my hostility to PF was because I was all psyched up to play a Fighter in a mate's game with Improved Trip and Improved Disarm, only to find those feats were nerfed in Beta. Ironically, when most people were praising how PF makes Fighters better to play I was pissed off about the changes.
You have to remember that one reason why the +4 to a manuever in 3.5 was essential was because size bonuses differed by 4. In Pathfinder they differ by 1 (i.e., in 3.5 a Large creature gets a +4 to grapple, and in Pathfinder it gets +1). So that +2 for the Improved Etc. feat really goes farther than you think.
The Greater feats on those trees also now add something extra.
Trip is not as, I would say, exploitable as it was 3.x but in my experience having played Pathfinder since it came out, and 3.x extensively before it, it is an effective maneuver.
I can't agree with you on Grappling... we never used grapple because it was a pain in the rear end and actually do now; generally I vastly prefer the CMB mechanic and find it easier to track. This may just be a YMMV thing so--if you liked 3.5 grapple, I don't really know what to say.
Some introduced ambiguity and consequences of changes - using the term Flat Footed more frequently when I think the intention was just to mean "Lose Dex Bonus to AC",
I think except for some possible confusion over Uncanny Dodge, they're actually pretty consistent with that. The feats that render you "flat-footed" really are I believe supposed to both deny you your dex to AC and prevent you from making AOOs. Etc.
unlimited Cantrips without explicitly spelling out what a Cantrip is (see threads about Infinite Magic Missiles),
There are threats about Infinite Magic Missiles? Where?
I don't see ambiguous definitions of Cantrips.
Cantrips: Bards learn a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, as noted on Table: Bard Spells Known under “Spells Known.” These spells are cast like any other spell, but they do not consume any slots and may be used again.
Emphasis mine. Seems crystal clear to me.
Ability to demoralise for more than one round and then having to make FAQ changes to avoid Fear conditions from demoralise stacking etc.
The former I don't think is a problem, but I do agree that the nebulousness of fear vs. demoralization is/was frustrating.
I don't see a lot of demoralization effects going off very often though, but I suppose that's dependent upon campaign. I wouldn't make this a reason to avoid the whole game system though.
Cleric channelling - a change I actually originally liked but found later to make clerics even more essential than before, and could lead to an issue I have with 4e - PCs starting each day at full hitpoints and not being able to grind them down over a series of days (because if a cleric has Channels left at the end of the day there is no incentive not to just spam them on healing the team).
I see your concern -- but channeling was designed to keep clerics from having to memorize or spont cast all their other cool spells into healing. It does keep clerics in the healbot role--whether that is good or bad is a whole other discussion--but I think what is GOOD about it is it separates the healing somewhat from their spellcasting, meaning they can also be buffers, combat casters, etc. better than they could before while STILL being able to help heal the party.
It's also somewhat circumstantial---undead show up in a lot of campaigns, and in a campaign where the best use of positive energy is damaging undead then you don't have the extra healing to fall back on. (Same goes for elementals and outsiders if the appropriate feats are taken.)
I've never really worried about PCs starting with a full day's hit points... usually they find a way to heal themselves one way or the other in the games I've played, well before Pathfinder ever came out, so I can't speak to that concern.
|
|
Sure, I don't participate in the campaign discussions, but I've got plenty to do in the rules discussions, and I can absolutely say with confidence the rules are well independent of the setting, even as well as it suits it, or else I never would run my world with the Pathfinder rules.
Cool, so okay there then and I guess I wouldn't be investing too much in PF stuff given my recent splurge on 3.5 stuff anyway. I guess I will be sticking to only stuff in the RPG line, I just hope rules content I may want that first comes out in Golarion products will get reprinted in an RPG compilation I am particularly thinking of rules for Orc PCs in Orcs of Golarion, as my first PFS character (only played for 2 games) was a half orc druid and it may be cool to recreate him as a full orc.
(ETA: But I've also never bothered with the "Complete" series of books precisely because I'm not interested in the campaign setting. I'm not sure why you would buy them if you weren't either.)
The "Complete" series I was referring to buying are the 3.5 Complete Books by WotC, e.g. Complete Warrior. They are crunch books, but obviously not legal for PFS.
(I've played 3.5 Eberron and really, I can't see why you couldn't run Eberron with Pathfinder rules. It will take some mild conversion to make sure Warforged and Changelings, etc. are "Pathfinderized" but I imagine that work's already been done for you by other enterprising players (really, I doubt there's much work that needs to be done).
Even so, the perfectionist in me doesn't like the idea, strangely enough I would be up for a Legends of Anglerre conversion :) Maybe if I truly get overwhelmed by PF when I start giving it a chance, reading the rules and playing it I might think it worth the fudging.
You have to remember that one reason why the +4 to a manuever in 3.5 was essential was because size bonuses differed by 4.
Hmm, interesting, I have only thought about grappling other medium creatures or smaller creatures (where Pathfinder actually makes it easier to grab them). I guess it does make sense that you don't need such a big modifier to overcome a smaller size bonus.
Mind you, against an identical foe, if you both have a +3 dex Improved Grapple only makes the chance of success 50/50 (as CMD includes both Str & Dex but CMB only includes Str). In 3.5 if your stats were the same as the foe Improved grapple made the chance of success more like 70% (not exact I know). I guess its that discrepancy I will have to come to terms with - grappling is harder in Pathfinder. If I start seeing the game as something seperate from 3.5 I may understand that.
BTW I recognise that the CMB mechanic is much easier when looking at the whole suite of manouevres (trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc), but looking at grapple by itself I never had an issue with the basics, the complexity is what happens afterwards (Grappled Condition, Pinned Condition, Dex penalties in PF etc). Anyway, I think I will just have to keep the mantra "This is not 3.5, I can still play 3.5 when I choose" :)
Re the definition of Cantrip, certain feats and metamagic can make a spell be at an effective level 1 less than it normally is, so Magic Missile which is normally a Level 1 spell can become an effective level 0 spell. Does it now qualify as a cantrip and usable unlimited times a day?
Also, if you apply loads of metamagic to a level 0 spell so it is effectively a level 5 spell (and place it in a level 5 slot) is it still a cantrip? If so can it be used an unlimited number of times a day?
Basically, it isn't clear whether a definition of a cantrip is based upon initial spell level or effective spell level.
Re demoralise - it was a case of change the rule and when it results in a consequence the designers didn't think of, they made exceptions to the general rule. Its that sort of issue that makes me wonder whether other tweaks may have unexpected consequences because they weren't built into the system from the start, and will we see lots of FAQ or errata entries to "patch" things.
As a counter argument, looking at the errata for the core book since first printing, it is pretty small, so maybe its not as bad as I fear, and demoralise was an unusual situation; after all they did think about the issue of unlimited Cure Minor wounds and made a change, so maybe demoralise was simply one of the few issues they missed.
I've never really worried about PCs starting with a full day's hit points... usually they find a way to heal themselves one way or the other in the games I've played, well before Pathfinder ever came out, so I can't speak to that concern.
I agree with you that channelling is good in that it keep spellcasting and healing separate (I was playing as a cleric in a game where we transitioned from 3.5 to PF and I did appreciate that).
But I do hate the idea of characters routinely starting off at full HP every day; it bugs me as both a GM (its one of the things I don't like about 4e) and a player (in the same PF game as a cleric, once we moved to a lower combat scenario I felt "cheap" because I spammed healing at the end of every day).
It also makes me worried that PFS scenarios are written with the assumption that a cleric is necessary, so if I play in a game without a cleric I may find my character being part of a TPK. I think if I were ever to GM my own games in PF I may ban clerics.
Anyway, you have given me some food for thought, and got me questioning my own thoughts so I have come to realise that yes there will be some parts of PF I don't like, but as I still intend to play 3.5 as well this isn;t that big a deal - I prefer 3.5 for some stuff, PF for other stuff and 4e for still other stuff (Second Wind for the win!!!! :)
I need to see PF as a game that stands by itself, not a replacement for 3.5 or 4e, just as it isn't a replacement for RuneQuest or Savage Worlds of FATE. I should just play it and appreciate it for what it is, warts and all.
The "Complete" series I was referring to buying are the 3.5 Complete Books by WotC, e.g. Complete Warrior. They are crunch books, but obviously not legal for PFS.
Whoops! Yes, for some reason I confused that with the Chronicles series of books. (Complete, Chronicles, Companions...)
Yeah, if you're going to be playing PFS, you won't be able to use those.
We have converted select items from the Complete books for my game which did not take much work (and the reason for "select items" is just to not have 12 books to juggle when running the game--not to mention some stuff in the Complete series is a bit unbalanced, IMO). One of my players uses the Contemplative PRC from Complete Divine and I think the only thing we did was maybe make sure BAB matched HD? And changed one ability to suit the character's flavor, which was a very specific houseruley thing.
(I've played 3.5 Eberron and really, I can't see why you couldn't run Eberron with Pathfinder rules. It will take some mild conversion to make sure Warforged and Changelings, etc. are "Pathfinderized" but I imagine that work's already been done for you by other enterprising players (really, I doubt there's much work that needs to be done).
Even so, the perfectionist in me doesn't like the idea, strangely enough I would be up for a Legends of Anglerre conversion :) Maybe if I truly get overwhelmed by PF when I start giving it a chance, reading the rules and playing it I might think it worth the fudging.
I can understand that, but if you do give it a read I think you'll find there's very little fudging to do--at least, I'm speaking from having read the core Eberron book. I don't know about its splats.
Hmm, interesting, I have only thought about grappling other medium creatures or smaller creatures (where Pathfinder actually makes it easier to grab them). I guess it does make sense that you don't need such a big modifier to overcome a smaller size bonus.Mind you, against an identical foe, if you both have a +3 dex Improved Grapple only makes the chance of success 50/50 (as CMD includes both Str & Dex but CMB only includes Str). In 3.5 if your stats were the same as the foe Improved grapple made the chance of success more like 70% (not exact I know). I guess its that discrepancy I will have to come to terms with - grappling is harder in Pathfinder. If I start seeing the game as something seperate from 3.5 I may understand that.
I think that change was very intentional. If you are fighting your identical twin in all ways, how could your chances of success possibly be more than 50%?
Whether you LIKE that or not is another issue, but to me the change at least makes sense.
I think it's harder to excel at grappling but it's easier to engage in grappling, if that makes any sense.
BTW I recognise that the CMB mechanic is much easier when looking at the whole suite of manouevres (trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc), but looking at grapple by itself I never had an issue with the basics, the complexity is what happens afterwards (Grappled Condition, Pinned Condition, Dex penalties in PF etc). Anyway, I think I will just have to keep the mantra "This is not 3.5, I can still play 3.5 when I choose" :)
Sounds wise. I'd actually like to see an RL sample of a few grapples played out under both rulesets. I've seen a lot of number crunching related to both so I know how basically statistically things will turn out, but I'd like to see players do it and respond and see how they manage. What do they think is easier, what was more fair, etc. I'm not anticipating an outcome, I'm just curious.
Re the definition of Cantrip, certain feats and metamagic can make a spell be at an effective level 1 less than it normally is, so Magic Missile which is normally a Level 1 spell can become an effective level 0 spell. Does it now qualify as a cantrip and usable unlimited times a day?
I'm not familiar with feats that do this. What are they? (If they're splat feats, it's hard to account for those in the core rules.)
Also, if you apply loads of metamagic to a level 0 spell so it is effectively a level 5 spell (and place it in a level 5 slot) is it still a cantrip? If so can it be used an unlimited number of times a day?
I DID see this discussed and I did see Jason Buhlman's official answer -- IIRC (sorry it's been forever so I don't have a link): a metamagicked spell occupies a higher level spell slot and since you are casting out of that higher level slot, and you cannot cast out of any spell slot other than 0 at will, then you can only cast that metamagic-enhanced-cantrip as many times as you prepared it. (Or as many slots of that level as you have available, if you are a sorcerer).
I.e., a Still Ray of Frost is cast out of a 1st level spell slot, and you have a finite number of 1st level spell slots, ergo you only cast that Still Ray of Frost a finite number of times.
I believe the ruling was extrapolated out of here:
Effects of Metamagic Feats on a Spell: In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
Since you are preparing a cantrip as a higher level spell, it is governed by the rules for how many higher level spells you can prepare or cast per day. (It acts as a 0 level spell for the purposes of determining DC, etc., however.)
You're right, this interpretation does lead you to the trouble that if you have a way of preparing a 1st level spell as a 0 level spell, then that spell should be able to be cast at will. But again, I'm not off the top of my head familiar with such an ability, and I would just say---as with all splats--use the ability with discretion or discard it if it unbalances the game. (TBH, I'm not sure I would have even allowed such an ability in 3.5, whether it was in a book or not.) I'd appreciate it otherwise if you can point me to the ability (I am fully aware I might just be missing something).
Re demoralise - it was a case of change the rule and when it results in a consequence the designers didn't think of, they made exceptions to the general rule. Its that sort of issue that makes me wonder whether other tweaks may have unexpected consequences because they weren't built into the system from the start, and will we see lots of FAQ or errata entries to "patch" things.
Your concern is valid there, and I think part of the issue is that that particular factor wasn't discussed much in playtesting. Most of the stuff that was playtested to death works really well. I honestly can't think of other mechanics that do this besides demoralize however, as you yourself note.
(Tangentially, the one thing I really dislike in Pathfinder are the poison rules, which are utterly and unnecessarily arcane and complicated something that didn't need to be more complicated. And again--I don't think those rules were playtested. I love Pathfinder, but it's not perfect.)
I agree with you that channelling is good in that it keep spellcasting and healing separate (I was playing as a cleric in a game where we transitioned from 3.5 to PF and I did appreciate that).
But I do hate the idea of characters routinely starting off at full HP every day; it bugs me as both a GM (its one of the things I don't like about 4e) and a player (in the same PF game as a cleric, once we moved to a lower combat scenario I felt "cheap" because I spammed healing at the end of every day).
I would say as that has to do with your preferences as a GM, then as a GM it might simply behoove you to be sure that the cleric is forced to use channel abilities a lot if it seems like they're just spamming it for extra healing --- OR perhaps better, put safe places/story points to rest few and far between so that clerics have to think carefully before using all their times/day uses. Even if they manage at some point to largely heal the party, if they did so out of meticulous resource management and not just spamming an ability they have too much of, I would say that's a reward for a character well-played rather than an abuse of the system (IMHO of course).
It also makes me worried that PFS scenarios are written with the assumption that a cleric is necessary, so if I play in a game without a cleric I may find my character being part of a TPK. I think if I were ever to GM my own games in PF I may ban clerics.
I'd ask that question in the PFS subform to get a specific sense of that. I know generally speaking, clerics make certain things easier, but they are not necessary and I have seen successful cleric-less campaigns. Now, such campaigns HAD other magical healers--druids, rangers, paladins, bards. But they worked well.
Anyway, you have given me some food for thought, and got me questioning my own thoughts so I have come to realise that yes there will be some parts of PF I don't like, but as I still intend to play 3.5 as well this isn;t that big a deal - I prefer 3.5 for some stuff, PF for other stuff and 4e for still other stuff (Second Wind for the win!!!! :)I need to see PF as a game that stands by itself, not a replacement for 3.5 or 4e, just as it isn't a replacement for RuneQuest or Savage Worlds of FATE. I should just play it and appreciate it for what it is, warts and all.
I think you are approaching it with a good philosophy -- all of these systems have their place and are fun in their own way. "Not a sequel but an equal" as it were.
Honestly, I think the whole Pathfinder Society issue is a non-issue. Yes, you can't use your 3.5 Complete series with it because it's not legal for the Society, but by the same token, you can't use them for 3.5 Living Greyhawk campaigns since Living Greyhawk isn't living anymore, at least not as an official thing.
For everyone's homebrew games, you'll find them completely compatible. I'm running a Pathfinder game right now in my own homebrew world but I am still happily using 3.X stuff in it and there are some 3.X characters for their classes. Pathfinder is simply the system with the nice books.
I'm playing in another game which is 3.5 because the DM doesn't want to update his world for a longstanding campaign and that's fine too.
Eberron will port easily into Pathfinder and I know since I've done it with some classes and items. For that matter, Pathfinder could easily be ported into Eberron if you felt like it, with just a few adaptations. And if you wanted to, you could take a lot of the 4e stuff for Eberron and port it backwards into 3.5 or into Pathfinder, though this would of course require some more serious conversion.
DeathQuaker,
DigitalMage is talking about Merciful Spell from the APG. It's a metamagic feat that allows you to convert a spell's damage to nonlethal, and doesn't change the level of the spell. Combined with a Trait that lets you reduce all metamagic spells by one level, some people are saying that would let you use unlimited nonlethal magic missiles. I think they're correct by RAW because the trait is poorly worded, but as a GM I'd rule that the trait can't reduce the spell below the original level.
|
I know that I tend to ignore a lot of rules/mechanics that, to me, seem to get in the way of playing/having fun, but I have never had an issue with using 3.5 material with PF. Most of the time I don't even do conversions, I just use stuff as is.
I've had people who refused to buy PF sit at my table with characters they rolled up using 3.0 books and I've used monsters straight out of the 3.5 MM and it has never hurt my games.
The core mechanics of the game are pretty much the same, so that isn't an issue. If I ever do come across something that is dramatically different in the two versions/editions we just say that it is a different version of the same thing. Things such as spells, spell like abilities and some feats fall into this. Skills generally aren't an issue since we don't use 80% of the ones on the list anyway. Even if you use the different race and class features, you can just explain them as differences in training or regional differences. For my groups it ends up being a wash and makes almost no difference.
I'm sure that players who are more into using the rules as written may have more difficulties than I ever would, but that's just an example of different playing styles. I tend to play a lot more loose with the rules and my groups have always been those types of players, or they adapt to that style. So for me it isn't an issue.
Every single 3.5 books I own is still in use as is. I've run Dragonlance, Eberron, Ghostwalk, Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft as well as homebrew games using material from 3.5 & PF. We use the 3.5 Spell Compendium and I still tap my MM 1 & MM 2 for creatures on occassion. I only own have a few 3.0 books that weren't updated to 3.5, so they don't come into play much anyway.
All I'm saying is that issues tend to come up more or less often depending on your style and how closely you adhere to the rules. Outside of the core mechanics, I'm not terribly concerned with what the books say. So I have no problems.
However, now that I'm buying more and more PF setting material and campaigns are being set in a Golarion/Eberron shared world. The other 3.0 and 3.5 material is being used less and less.
DeathQuaker,
DigitalMage is talking about Merciful Spell from the APG. It's a metamagic feat that allows you to convert a spell's damage to nonlethal, and doesn't change the level of the spell. Combined with a Trait that lets you reduce all metamagic spells by one level, some people are saying that would let you use unlimited nonlethal magic missiles. I think they're correct by RAW because the trait is poorly worded, but as a GM I'd rule that the trait can't reduce the spell below the original level.
Heck I'm wondering why he didn't just apply the heighten spell feat with a +0 adjustment and claim the same reward (aka -1 on actual level) without giving up any damage.
If you are going to go in for a penny of cheese you might as well buy the whole pound.
Hmm, interesting, I have only thought about grappling other medium creatures or smaller creatures (where Pathfinder actually makes it easier to grab them). I guess it does make sense that you don't need such a big modifier to overcome a smaller size bonus.
Mind you, against an identical foe, if you both have a +3 dex Improved Grapple only makes the chance of success 50/50 (as CMD includes both Str & Dex but CMB only includes Str). In 3.5 if your stats were the same as the foe Improved grapple made the chance of success more like 70% (not exact I know). I guess its that discrepancy I will have to come to terms with - grappling is harder in Pathfinder. If I start seeing the game as something seperate from 3.5 I may understand that.
BTW I recognise that the CMB mechanic is much easier when looking at the whole suite of manouevres (trip, sunder, disarm, grapple, etc), but looking at grapple by itself I never had an issue with the basics, the complexity is what happens afterwards (Grappled Condition, Pinned Condition, Dex penalties in PF etc). Anyway, I think I will just have to keep the mantra "This is not 3.5, I can still play 3.5 when I choose" :)
On the question of grappling odds in Pathfinder: something to remember is that there are far more ways to improve your odds in PF than there are in 3.5. As far as I know, there are exactly two ways a 1st level character in 3.5 can improve their grapple checks: enlarge person and Improved Grapple. By contrast, in Pathfinder, you have both of those... plus bardic music, flanking, true strike, bless, and pretty much anything else that gets you an attack bonus of any kind. It's far, far easier to build up useful CMB bonuses than it was in 3.5, so in fact a dedicated maneuver build has better odds than a comparable 3.5 character does.
|
I've run two Eberron games using the Pathfinder rules and another member of my group has run one. A good deal of the material can translate as written, and what doesn't can be converted on the spot, as soon as it's brought up in play.
We use all of the "Complete..." and "Races of..." books, as well as any other non-setting book WotC published for 3.5 (incl. Tome of Battle, Spell Compendium, Magic Item Compendium, etc) as well as the PF core and APG. The only conversion we've had to do is read skill rank requirements as though they're 3 less, and when the game checks a skill that no longer exists, we just use the skill that the old skill was folded into.
To be fair, we actually kept Concentration and Search as separate skills, but other than that, it's by the book with all 3.5 or PF crunch allowed. Rules arguments are at a minimum. We have far more frequent arguments over the Exalted rules in our other game.
Warning! This is a rambling post, apologies in advance!...
Hi DigitalMage,
Eberron is a great setting and I would absolutely run it with Pathfinder!I have a ton of 3.5 books and they're a great source for the PFRPG games that I GM, and they're not obsolete at all. I'd suggest that you collect those conversions that people have made of Eberron classes, then make a little "laboratory/library" - sort of a hidden basement, where you can look the material over without committing yourself to going one way or the other. Doing so may dispel, or confirm your "fear" about using Pathfinder for your campaign.
Don't be afraid that you might get to like something (but I understand that feeling). At worst you may have to play two different games, but you'll have good reasons for doing so - and I think that might put you at ease..?
GRU
|
|
Am I the only one who is lost regarding what your point is?
Yes, I apologise for my meandering posts and unclear direction,
When WotC announced 4e I was like many a bit pissed off - I was only just getting into 3.5, had just written my first scenario to GM, and now 4e was going to "make my books obsolete".
Yes, I know my books wouldn't have become obsolete, I could still use them. But as someone on RPG.net once said "a new edition doesn't steal your books, it steals you players".
But when 4e was seen to be quite different and people started saying they would be sticking with 3.5 I was very happy, I thought "Cool, I will still be able to find players and GMs for my 3.5 games".
And then Pathfinder RPG was announced. At first I was happy, because I thought it would be just the 3.5 rules re-formatted, some WotC Product Identity replaced (gods and some monsters) and maybe some things explained with greater clarity. Basically I thought it was going to keep 3.5 alive.
However, as Pathfinder RPG came along it soon became clear it would be a revision - not a massive change like 4e - but enough of a revision that it would not be 3.5, that I wouldn't be able to take my 3.5 PHB along to use in a PF game or vice versa.
Basically, I grew to be a bit hostile of PF because I feared it would do more to make 3.5 (the game I was exicted about) obsolete than 4e ever did.
And some of that came true, two of the GMs in my weekly group switched to PF RPG and so in those games I lost some system mastery and was forced to buy a new book if I wanted to regain that (and I haven't done that).
Anyway, I am now trying to overcome that hostility to PF RPG, that wasn't generated out of any actual rules changes, but rather that it seemed a threat to the 3.5 network externalities, i.e. the liklihood that I could find a GM running 3.5 and players willing to play 3.5.
PF RPG does make some great improvements over 3.5 - collapsing the skill list, removing cross class skills costing double etc. But it also did some things I didn't like, which means looking at things from a purely rules perspective means I am still conflicted.
I think the key to me making my peace with PF is to see it as a seperate game to stand alongside 3.5, just as I see 4e. I got into 4e funnily enough because of PF (that and I got a free copy of the PHB given to me by WotC) - I was worried that I wouldn't find people willing to play 3.5 Eberron so I thought maybe I could at least find players for a 4e Eberron game.
I am now running a 4e Eberron campaign, but I never for one moment thought that this meant I would never run a 3.5 game again - I liked too much about 3.5 for me to give it up and there are still some groups around here who play 3.5 (when I offered to run the Eberron campaign I offered to run it as 3.5 or 4e, 4e won out for the particular group of players).
Now I think I need to see Pathfinder RPG as a game I will play at conventions in PFS games, but not one that will replace 3.5 for me(despite it being so close to 3.5). I love the phrase DeathQuaker used "Not a sequel but an equal". Eberron will still be the game I run in either 3.5 or 4e, not PF. Freeport, well if I buy the Pathfinder Companion I could run that with either if I really wanted to learn the PF rules well enough to be confident to GM it.
You don't want to play Pathfinder because you're afraid you might like it??
It is weird isn't it. But I don't think massively unusual, if someone invests significantly in something, and then something better comes along people often make excuses not to like that new thing so as to rationalise that their investment wasn't a mistake.
E.g. someone buying a laptop with Windows Vista just before Windows 7 comes out, someone buying an iPhone just as iPhone 4 is announced, someone buying one games console just as a different games console is announced (I don't console game so wouldn't know if PS3 is better than Xbox or whatever :)
Now part of the argument is that with some minor fudging my 3.5 books can be used with Pathfinder RPG, so that investment wouldn't be wasted even if I did choose to move to PF RPG as my core rules. But there are two factors that complicate that:
a) Some PF GMs are banning 3.5 material because its a chance to start afresh and because they feel books like the APG does similar things better. If I ever wanted to play with these GMs, I still couldn't use my 3.5 books.
b) But more significantly, I am anally retentive and play completely by the book (I started doing this several years ago when I started attending conventions and also demoing Shadowrun). Now I never tend to houserule, at most I may elect to use official optional rules, e.g. such as those presented in Unearthed Arcana or Masterminds Manual for M&M. Fudging 3.5 material into a PF game is for me something that doesn't feel right - just as using 3.0 material in 3.5 wouldn't. It would seem like houseruling, and also unnecessary considering I have the 3.5 rules to run with that wouldn't necessitate conversion.
Yes, you bought some books for 3.5. Those books will largely, but maybe not entirely, integrate with Pathfinder. That's what is called a "sunk cost".
Yes, but the fact that the sunk cost was made yesterday makes it seem less so (and yes I did spend £100 on 3.5 books just yesterday).
If you had a ten year old car which was beaten up a bit and which didn't give you the same joy as a new car and you had the option to buy a new car, would you hold on to the old car because of the money you had put into it?
I am not sure that is the right analogy, at least at present (as I am not yet sure the new car would give me the same joy as the old car; just perhaps more joy in certain areas and less joy in others, sort of like a 4x4 versus a sports car).
I think perhaps a better analagy would be: would I give up my old DVD player for a BluRay player if some of the DVDs I own and love will never be release on BluRay and play with some issues on the BluRay player (flickering or stretched picture maybe)?
I think in that scenario I would keep the old DVD player to play my old DVDs and use the BluRay player to play BluRay discs. Of course some DVDs will be available as BluRay discs as well and so I could upgrade and use the BluRay player (Golarion and Freeport), but not all would be (Eberron).
So why does this thread exist? I think this thread is therapy for me, just by responding to posts I am being forced to analyse my own thought processes and reasons and help me find out what the real issues are.
I think I shall play PF RPG in addition to 3.5, and if by doing so I get to a stage where I love PF RPG so much that I feel I can put up with the conversion / fudging for Eberron I may make the switch completely to PF (in which case PF replaces 3.5). But if I never get to love PF RPG that much? Well at most it may mean I get into a bit of rules confusion by having two rulesets in my head.
I used to think there was no reason for me to pursue both 3.5 and PF because PF didn't offer enough change to warrant the time to take to learn all the rules tweaks. But now I can see although the rules may not offer the incentive, PFS play at conventions might. Fingers crossed anyway. :)
Way over thinking things. Pathfinder is a game, similar to risk and monopoly, not a life altering decision. We're not even selecting college majors here. Play it once, twice, or a couple of times. If this experience is more enjoyable than 3.5 continue, if not stop. It's really that simple. What you purchased in the past is an irrelevant sunk cost.
While "it's just a game" is a good argument for when people are getting truly wanky over things (breaking up friendships over a bad GM call), I think this is certainly not the case.
I think what DigitalMage and others like him is asking is about (though apologies in advance for speaking for someone else--I have a point, really) whether it is worth the investment of his time and money, on top of the time and money he has put into 3.5 and 4e, and time and money can be "serious business" worth having a discussion about.
Think about it:
Monopoly MSRPs at $18.99 and you can order it online for $14.29.
With that, you have everything you need to play. It takes maybe a half and hour/45 minutes to learn the rules if you've never played before, and it takes a few hours to play. There are no expansion packs, no dungeon masters. People pack up and go home. One session of Monopoly
does not ever impact what happens in the next session of Monopoly. Hasbro (Holy crap when did they buy out Milton Bradley?) doesn't put out a new supplement of Monopoly rules every few months--the rules with some minor revisions have largely stayed the same since 1934.
You're comparing this to a roleplaying game. Now, the cost is variable when it comes to Pathfinder--maybe free if you're trying to live off the PRD or $10 if using the .pdf (but then we also know you've invested a few hundred bucks in a laptop that is getting used for this purpose--certainly not the only reason you bought that laptop, but the fact remains you're using expensive equipment to assist your running of the game). It's upwards of $50 if you buy the physical rulebook (maybe up to 30% off if you get it at Amazon, but it's still more costly than a board game). And if you want the Bestiary, that's another $10 for a .pdf or $40 ($26 discounted). And so on and so on for every rules supplement you use, not to mention any setting material (and the OP is vacillating on whether he wants to use the setting). And THEN there's Adventure Paths, Game Mastery Accessories, dice, whatever it is you use for miniatures, battle grids (even if it's fairly cheap gaming paper), etc. etc. etc.
On top of a game that can cost an invested player literally hundreds of bucks, we're looking at a significant time investment. Even if you spend nothing on game materials--you borrow books, you borrow dice and minis, you use online resources--you're talking about game sessions that typically last 3-5 hours at LEAST and, unless you are playing a one-shot, you must be able to commit to these several hour long sessions multiple time a year, month, etc. DigitalMage mentioned doing Pathfinder Society--hosting events which require commitment and preparation to be successful. If you're a GM--I know I easily spend probably a few days' worth of manhours to prepare for a session --- now, I do this BECAUSE it is a gam and it is FUN but I also have to sit down and be willing and able to take time away from other things I could (and sometimes should...) be doing to prep a session. Even running from a module requires a few hours preparation beforehand, reading and understanding the module, making sure you have all monster stats available, preparing handouts, and making any alterations necessary due to the level, play style, or makeup, etc. of your party. It takes a LOT OF TIME to be a GM and I think deciding to learn and GM a new game is worth an inquiry.
In terms of "should I INVEST my TIME and my MONEY in Pathfinder"--you can't say the game is just like Monopoly. You can't compare it to something that costs one member of your group once, under $20 and an afternoon's activity. No. It's a legitimate question.
Were DigitalMage talking about abandoning plans to adopt a child so he would have time to play Pathfinder, or leaving his significant other for more gaming time, etc. then the "Dude, it's just a game," argument would be called for. That is certainly not the case.
Moving to Pathfinder freed me from all of the rules baggage of 3.5. I bought the Complete series of Unbalanced Splat Books myself. While I still have them on my shelf, I'll probably never use them again.
You can use all of the settings material from Eberron and even adapt some of the crunch stuff.
This stuck out to me. I cannot help but to chime in that I own almost all the complete books (except complete champion, and I intentionally missed Complete Psionics - 'cause that book is exceptionally horrible).
Having gotten them all at barely over wholesale price (the only reason I have all of them), I can say first hand most of those books weren't worth wholesale. Most of them are filled with poorly written classes, a ton of bad or unbalanced feats, spells, prestige classes, and similar materials. Most of the artwork wasn't even that good, and rarely did I see anything that really felt like it enhanced the game (Blood Magus doesn't really spur my creative machinations). Likewise, I consider myself an optimizer and a number cruncher; and frankly, I've seen little more than problems from the completes and races books. I've never really felt that Goliaths added anything to the game, or that dragonwrought kobolds were well executed (or even a good idea), and generally the splat books that were intended to help martial characters either didn't help that much (complete warrior is full of useless feats, traps, and poor options, with a handful of cheesy feats that are in fact too good or poorly thought out - like shock trooper).
The complete warrior Ninja is inferior in every way to a core rogue, and that's not even counting the PF improvements to the rogue (seriously, core 3.5 rogue gets more skills, better sneak attack, and can mimic everything the ninja can do with standard magic items on the cheap via UMD, and are less multi-ability dependent). Complete Warrior samurai is borderline useless except via fear-stacking cheese. Shugenja is weaksauce with a poorly written ability which gives interpretations ranging from "completely useless" to "near omnisentient". I could go on for a long time really.
With the exception of a few feats or items from the books, which would have been more like a free paizo web-enhancement (I love you Paizo), the books go largely unused.
That Being Said...
The 3.5 books I really love are my Expanded Psionics Handbook, Eberron Campaign Setting, Magic of Eberron, Sharn City of Towers, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting, Draconomicon, Complete Mage (exception!), and Red Hand of Doom adventure path.
Also the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Rise of the Runelords, and Curse of the Crimson Throne, which are also 3.5 books (just not WotC books).
|
|
I think that change was very intentional. If you are fighting your identical twin in all ways, how could your chances of success possibly be more than 50%?
Whether you LIKE that or not is another issue, but to me the change at least makes sense.
I think it's harder to excel at grappling but it's easier to engage in grappling, if that makes any sense.
Yes, I guess you're right, it just a change to expectations regarding the odds, and actually if you initiate the grapple and the foe doesn't break out (and I infer also doesn't reverse the grapple) you get a +5 bonus for subsequent grapples, so maybe the odds are more in line than I imagined and the lower chances to initiate a grapple are actually mirrored by 3.5's extra Touch Attack which involves a probability of failure.
Yes, I am hapiper with PF grapple now (I still am not a fan of the grappler being able to release as a free action though :)
Your concern is valid there, and I think part of the issue is that that particular factor wasn't discussed much in playtesting. Most of the stuff that was playtested to death works really well. I honestly can't think of other mechanics that do this besides demoralize however, as you yourself note.
Cool, looking at the size of the errata I am beginning to think the Demoralise "patching" was the exception rather than the rule, so happier here too.
DigitalMage is talking about Merciful Spell from the APG. It's a metamagic feat that allows you to convert a spell's damage to nonlethal, and doesn't change the level of the spell. Combined with a Trait that lets you reduce all metamagic spells by one level, some people are saying that would let you use unlimited nonlethal magic missiles.
Thanks for the info, its not something I could remember, I just remember seeing the thread.
Play, don't play, 3.x, Pathfinder, 4e, whatever.
They're all just games, meant to facilitate the having of fun, not festering nerd range or angst.
Like everything else, take the things you like and dump the things you don't.
Whilst I can somewhat appreciate that, one of roleplaying biggest draws is also its biggest drawback - you need other people willing to play the game you want to. If it was a computer game that I could play just by myself, I wouldn't be worrying about it and would stick with what I know.
However, if I prefer 3.5 but can't find people to play, then I can't play 3.5. My choice to try PF RPG again is based largely on this - I want to be able to play 3.5 at conventions but Pathfinder and 4e have largely taken its place.
Roleplaying is a passion for me, so not being able to play the games I want to play can be very frustrating, not quite angst inducing, but frustrating.
In terms of "should I INVEST my TIME and my MONEY in Pathfinder"--you can't say the game is just like Monopoly. You can't compare it to something that costs one member of your group once, under $20 and an afternoon's activity. No. It's a legitimate question.
This is pretty much it, although for me money is not so much the issue as the time to read the books and physical shelf space.
I am a slow reader so one of my initial resistances to PF was that I would feel I would need to read a very large rulebook (taking me several weeks) to play a game that is only slightly different from one I already know.
Time that could be spent reading other books. Now I am coming round to the idea of overcoming my irrational need to read game books cover to cover (at least when it comes to PF) and instead read just what I need to play. I have also purchased the PF version of SORD that should help tremendously in learning and referencing common rules quickly.
Although I may want to GM PFS again sometime, it will likely only be once I have played a lot more and made some effort to at least read some chapters of the core book (e.g. the complete Combat chapter, all the Skill descriptions etc)
The good thing is that PF is available in PDF (so no shelf space), bad news is that the core book at least was not able to render fast enough to be used instead of a hardcopy (so I got that too). FOr any more PF purchases PDF only will be my preferred option, I am hoping they will be okay on my Eee PC.
You're coming across like you're saying "give me a reason to like Pathfinder while I'm aggressively looking for reasons to not like it".
That's a very stupid thing to do. It's a waste of your time and ours.
You are pretty much spot on, although I would phrase it as "help me a see the positives in Pathfinder and overcome my antagonism towards it, without making me feel that 3.5 is dead and was a waste of my time & money".
I have become antagonistic toward PF because I saw it as a threat to what was becoming my favourite game (D&D3.5). I recognise this and am trying to overcome the antagonism (making my peace) because I want to participate in a living campaign of 3.x again (and if 3.5 is not available maybe I can enjoy PF).
I was hoping this thread would help me come to realise that some of the rules issues I have with PF aren't that bad, and also to promote other aspects, maybe saying how great it would be to use some of the APG stuff in my PFS character.
One thing I have also gotten out of this thread is the realisation that PF can stand beside 3.5, that I don't have to convert over wholesale if I don't want to, I can still use 3.5 to run Eberron and use PF for PFS and maybe Freeport if I wanted to (despite all the posts extolling the virtues and ease of an Eberron Pathfinder game).
I want to have this thread make me feel positive about Pathfinder RPG without making me feel negative about 3.5 (or 4e for that matter).
So basically, I don't feel its a stupid thing to do and I don't think its a waste of my time - if you feel its a waste of your time I suggest you avoid this thread.
But so this post doesn't end on too much of a negative, I just wanted to reiterate my thanks to DeathQuaker for helping me see aspects of PF in a different light. Cheers!
I agree with Whales: $30.00 gets you started and it doesn't take more than a day or two of evaluation to see if you like it. After that, if you have a positive experience, you can begin porting Eberron over to PF.
Personal Note: Pathfinder saved me, for what that is worth. I had been out of roleplaying for over a year and 4E wasn't going to bring me back any time soon. I was introduced to PF and promptly fell in love. My beloved Fighter class finally got the treatment it deserved.
Summing up - by some PDFs and give the system a proper go. You might be surprised.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Digitalmage,
I understand your concerns about Pathfinder phasing out your fellow 3.x players. Funny thing is that PFRPG was designed to reach out to those players, as they had been 'phased out' by 4e.*
I agree with what others have suggested about playing in a PFS game to get 'the feel' of Pathfinder. As has been discussed with the size mechanics changes to grapple, some of the 3.x -> PFRPG changes are subtle in their implimentation.
As to the infinate magic missile exploit, I see there are two ways of looking at it. The first is, yes, you have found an exploit. The second is to see that the metamagics all refer to spell slots. Since no class has zero level spell slots anymore, it can't be memorized as a zero level spell. YMMV of course.**
Personally, I hope you chose Pathfinder as a core RPG for you. I find it to be a worthy replacement to D&D. I understand the urge to unpack the 3/x books and keep running Eberron in the edition it was built for. Heck, I still have the urge to run a MSH game with the Universal chart at times. Whichever route you choose, keep gaming.
*
**
|
|
I agree with Whales: $30.00 gets you started and it doesn't take more than a day or two of evaluation to see if you like it. After that, if you have a positive experience, you can begin porting Eberron over to PF.
[...]
Summing up - by some PDFs and give the system a proper go. You might be surprised.
Okay I think I may need to clarify my status with PF to date.
What I own:
I own the PDF of the RPG
I own the hardcopy of the RPG
I own the PDF of the Beta Version
I own a hardcopy of the Beta Version (a gift from the GM who wanted to try it out).
What I have played:
I have played in books 1 & 2 of the Rise of the Runelords AP using first PF Beta, then PF RPG. I played a fighter who multiclassed into sorcerer (I do like the new bloodlines - they are very nice!)
I played in a few Forgotten Realms Tearing of the Weave scenarios (I think that was the campaign) as a Cleric, we started with D&D3.5 but then moved to Pathfinder.
What I haven't done:
Read the PF RPG cover to cover
Read more than the class descriptions for the 3 classes I played.
Read more than the feats, spells and combat manouevres that my classes used.
Seen the APG
So I have bought the books and played some PF
I like some of the changes.
I don't like some changes
There are some changes I initially didn't like but am now beginning to understand and am becoming "okay" with (e.g. grapple is still as complicated IMHO, but luckily I was okay with that level of complexity in 3.5 so I should be okay with that level of complexity in PF - I just need to familiarise myself with the differences).
What I guess I would like to do is become more involved with PF as I like the community, and even reading PF rules debates helps my 3.5 knowledge (as I usually double check how it was before). I also want to be able to play a living 3.x campaign at conventions.
What I don't want to do is feel as though I may as well chuck my 3.5 books and the Eberron setting because people only want to play PF and Golarion. And no, I know no one is suggesting that but if I was going to go GM PF, I would likely go with a 100% compatible PF setting e.g. Freeport or Golarion, but not Eberron.
some of the 3.x -> PFRPG changes are subtle in their implimentation.
I am beginning to appreciate this and think maybe I need to read more beyond the individual feats and classes that I play to appreciate the bigger picture. This thread has helped in that regards.
Personally, I hope you chose Pathfinder as a core RPG for you. I find it to be a worthy replacement to D&D.
Do you hope that I select PF to replace 3.5, or just that I choose it as one of several RPGs I play? If its the former, may I enquire why you hope that?
This is part of my trouble, I get the feeling (and this is my perception, so it is by its nature subjective and not based on objective truth) that the expectation is that I should be converting to PF from 3.5 rather than playing them both. The more people who keep suggesting I should convert my Eberron game over to PF the more I instinctively get defensive about 3.5 and thus antagonistic to PF. I know those people are being helpful I am just explaining how I feel.
I don't mean to insult anyone, or seem ungrateful, but for now at least running Eberron under PF is not going to happen. Even if I appreicate PF to be a good game, I don't (yet) feel it is so superior that I am better off doing even a little conversion work when I am perfectly happy with 3.5 (even with its flaws) as the base rules set.
Maybe by playing more PF, by even GMing some PFS scenarios in the future I may come to think of it as superior and be happy to leave 3.5 behind, but for now I get a little afraid at that thought (just as I imagine some of you may have felt when 4e came out and you realised you didn't want it to replace the 3.5 game you loved).
Anyway, thanks for all the replies so far!
DM, I'm still using a LOT of 3.5 books, including Eberron.
If you're going to do organized play, you might not have that option (I don't know the rules for that) but as far as the home game is concerned, just make sure you get a GM who knows the 3.5 library and is willing to use some of it.
The games are 90% identical.
|
|
If you're going to do organized play, you might not have that option (I don't know the rules for that)
No, and I am cool with that. I imagine the APG is legal though and I have heard really good things about that so I might get it to see what it offers, even if it only sees use in PFS play.
but as far as the home game is concerned, just make sure you get a GM who knows the 3.5 library and is willing to use some of it.
Well for my home games I will likely be the GM and I will be happy to let everything in my collection as fair game - if it proves a problem in play then we can look at nerfing it, or swapping things about if underpowered.
Thinking about things though, I am currently running my 4e campaign at someone else's house. Now although I will try to schedule the games I run in the future at my place, sometimes I may not be able to. In those instances PF may be just the ticket as I can travel much lighter with PF - Corebook, Bestiary and APG on PDF, its all good to go. So if and when I want to run Freeport I am better off running it at another venue, I may well consider PF.
|
I understand your concerns about Pathfinder phasing out your fellow 3.x players. Funny thing is that PFRPG was designed to reach out to those players, as they had been 'phased out' by 4e.*
And I think that 3.X would actually be phasing out a LOT faster if it wasn't for Pathfinder. Although some people like to pretend that extensive conversion work needs to be done to make a product for one system compatible with the other, it's very minor...in fact when I use a 3.X product, I don't do anything other than change the name of a few skills or calculate a very rough CMB or CMD on the fly.
There's still an enormous wealth of 3.X material out there, both from the past and still being produced. If not for Pathfinder, I'd wager that at least some of the 3.X stuff that is still being produced would be 4E.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Do you hope that I select PF to replace 3.5, or just that I choose it as one of several RPGs I play? If its the former, may I enquire why you hope that?
Personally, I hope you chose Pathfinder as a core RPG for you. I find it to be a worthy replacement to D&D.
I meant the later. I enjoy Pathfinder by itself, but (so far) my 3.x collection hasn't gone anywhere, and I have/read multiple game systems. What I meant by 'core' was one you purchase and play and enjoy. I will likely get M&M 3rd at some point, for example, for the DC Bible, just like I bought the Wild Cards book for the charactersand fluff. But if I want to get together with friends I'll blow the dust off of my MSH books. For me, MSH is a 'core' RPG.
Don't worry about staying with 3.5, from my experience you should still be able to find players (just added 2-3 3.5 players to one of my games in the last month). It takes a little work, you might need to recruit at the local game store. Or talk to your current players to see if there is anyone they think might want to play.
Remember just like with PF, 3.5 gone be started free of charge with the 3.5 SRD.
3.5 continues to survive (though perhaps not thrive) in this day and age.
If you ever run a 3.5 pbp Eberron game on here, let me know I'd love to play (even though I don't have any Eberron material, Races of Eberron is more of a Races book than Eberron book).
Whilst I can somewhat appreciate that, one of roleplaying biggest draws is also its biggest drawback - you need other people willing to play the game you want to. If it was a computer game that I could play just by myself, I wouldn't be worrying about it and would stick with what I know.
However, if I prefer 3.5 but can't find people to play, then I can't play 3.5. My choice to try PF RPG again is based largely on this - I want to be able to play 3.5 at conventions but Pathfinder and 4e have largely taken its place.
Roleplaying is a passion for me, so not being able to play the games I want to play can be very frustrating, not quite angst inducing, but frustrating.
Well, PFRPG is certainly not to be blamed for our inability to play 3.5 D&D on conventions. WotC dropped the support of the game and PFRPG somewhat keeps the older edition in print and existence.
|
|
And I think that 3.X would actually be phasing out a LOT faster if it wasn't for Pathfinder.
Perhaps, we'll never really know for sure, but I can't help imagine that all the people who declined 4e and now play PF wouldn't still be playing 3.5 were it not for PF - do you think that without PF more people would have converted to 4e or other games (e.g. FantasyCraft) rather than stick with 3.5?
Although some people like to pretend that extensive conversion work needs to be done to make a product for one system compatible with the other, it's very minor...in fact when I use a 3.X product, I don't do anything other than change the name of a few skills or calculate a very rough CMB or CMD on the fly.
I think you need to be a little careful with your turn of phrase here or risk offending someone. How much conversion is "good enough" may differ for each GM, also how much conversion is too much effort is likewise subjective - so suggesting that these people are "pretending" about the level of conversion work implies that they are actively being deceptive; or at least that is how your post could be read.
Fo you, changing the name of a few skills and calculate a rough CMB or CMD is enough, however for others having the GM have to adjudicate any conversion on a feat by feat, spell by spell, base class by base class, prestige class by prestige class or item by item basis may be tiresome and too much effort for a player.
Also some GMs my prefer to change Hit Dice and thus HP of NPCs, along with adding in more skill ranks (because if they had Concentration5, Spot 5 and Listen 5 before, all they need now is Perception 5 so they have 10 ranks to spend eslewhere), more feats (because PF provides more), recalculate skill modifiers for Fighter NPCs because armour penalty is reduced as a class feature in PF etc
And I think this is key, conversion covers two main areas:
1) NPCs and Scenario specific rules
2) Rules that will be utilised by PCs
And how much conversion is desired can differ:
a) "Good enough" to be in the ball park
b) Accurate and thorough conversion
For 1) then conversion a) may be good enough for many GMs as the screen time of the end result is limited - "Good enough" is acceptable for an NPC or trap that will only be encountered in an hour of gaming. Though the effective challenge rating may be skewed by this limited conversion and may not be desirable for recurring NPCs.
For 2) then conversion b) may be more appropriate as the feats, spells etc are going to see use again and again in every session.
However, for some GMs a) is good enough for both 1) & 2), whereas other GMs may desire b) for both 1) and 2).
So basically, I think the level of conversion can be an issue for some and those people should not necessarily be thought of as "over egging it"; it just may not be what other people (even the majority) feel is necessary.
What I meant by 'core' was one you purchase and play and enjoy. I will likely get M&M 3rd at some point, for example, for the DC Bible, just like I bought the Wild Cards book for the charactersand fluff. But if I want to get together with friends I'll blow the dust off of my MSH books. For me, MSH is a 'core' RPG.
Cool! Understood now and thats how I am thinking of PF now and it makes things a lot easier. Interestingly I have similar issues with M&M - I have loads of 2nd ed stuff and not played it much, and now 3rd ed comes out! I doubt I will be converting until and if they produce new Freedom City material as I have no interest in DC.
Don't worry about staying with 3.5, from my experience you should still be able to find players
I have actually found this to be true (which is maybe why I am finding my hostility to PF subside)/ I co-organise a Meetup group and there area few 3.5 games going on (interestingly enough no PF though).
Mind you, to get where I am I left my weekly gaming group of several years who were converting to PF. That wasn't the whole reason, I was (and am) being selfish wanting to pick and choose which games I play and GM more often - the Meetup group is allowing me to do that. I really can't see me ever joining an ongoing weekly gaming group again while Meetup is running, rather I join games and stay with a group for that particular campaign, then look for or start the next game.
I still see my old gaming group and we are still friends - they are a great bunch of people, our gaming wants just diverged.
If you ever run a 3.5 pbp Eberron game on here, let me know I'd love to play (even though I don't have any Eberron material, Races of Eberron is more of a Races book than Eberron book).
I have not had much luck with PbP games, they tend to fizzle out and move too slowly for my liking, also I think d20 is a poor system for PbP for me, I would like something more narative like FATE if I did another PbP.
The old saying "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants" applies here.
You seem to be full of good quotes today, I commented on one in the Paizo Tied for 1st place thread :)
Well, PFRPG is certainly not to be blamed for our inability to play 3.5 D&D on conventions. WotC dropped the support of the game and PFRPG somewhat keeps the older edition in print and existence.
I don't think its totally to blame, but I couldn't definitively say that any PF games at conventions are not at the expense of 3.5 games being run by the GMs instead.
In terms of Living Campaigns then yes, the fact that 3.5 is no longer supported by WotC means that there can't be any official 3.5 living campaign, however there are some unofficial ones still going - but I am not so familiar with those and they are not as popular as PFS, so for convention play at least I am willing to go for PF.
|
|
Just though I would mention that yesterday I bought the PDFs for Bestiary, APG and GM screen.
One thing I immediately like about the Bestiary is that each monster starts and ends on its own page, a layout that I loved in D&D4e as it makes referencing things so much easier, and also neat print outs can be made from the PDFs that don't contain the tail ends of other monsters.
I recognise that the core book may have been pushed for space as is, but its a format I wish had been used for races and classes (e.g. Monk to start at the top of a new page rather than at the bottom corner of page 56).
Just though I would mention that yesterday I bought the PDFs for Bestiary, APG and GM screen.
One thing I immediately like about the Bestiary is that each monster starts and ends on its own page, a layout that I loved in D&D4e as it makes referencing things so much easier, and also neat print outs can be made from the PDFs that don't contain the tail ends of other monsters.
I recognise that the core book may have been pushed for space as is, but its a format I wish had been used for races and classes (e.g. Monk to start at the top of a new page rather than at the bottom corner of page 56).
I haven't purchased any of the later game material since it went to PFRPG, but do they still split up stat blocks on separate pages, or have they done like what DigiM mentioned above and start them on the beginning of a page? That was one thing that always annoyed me was having the defensive stats on the bottom of one page and the rest of the information on the top of the next page. Seeing as how stat blocks are essentially "side-bar" items, following the paragraphs seems kind of pointlessly disruptive.
|
|
You know the more I think about some of the changes made in Pathfinder the more I realise my initial dislike for the game was due to things other than the rules and the particular changes made.
My dislike seems pretty much to stem from too issues:
Issue 1: It wasn't 100% compatible with 3.5 and as Eberron was my preferred setting that would mean conversion - if I wanted to use PF for it, if I stayed with 3.5 for Eberron but played PF in others' games I would need to keep the two rulesets in my head and run the risk of confusing them (its easier to confuse two similar systems, than two different system, e.g. 3.5 and Savage Worlds).
This point has not really got a resolution, rather I have resigned myself to keeping two rulesets in my head 3.5 for Eberron and perhaps other games, PF for PFS. My experiences with discussing 3.5 and PF on these forums so far has at least given me some confidence that I can keep the two seperate - so that is something at least.
Issue 2: The fact that I would need to read the rules again - cover to cover - and make mental and physical notes of what has changed and how to learn those changes. Basically, the effort and time to do this was the issue, especially when I wasn't seeing any massively big changes that I thought would make me feel it would be worth it. I believed spending that time reading other books that provided new content, new rules or story ideas would provide a greater benefit.
However, I am beginning to realise that although no single change is a compelling reason to pursue PF, together they do make it seem like it would be worth learning. Compound that with the fact that most 3.x play at conventions will be PF and PFS, I have come to the conclusion that PF is worth the effort to read cover to cover.
After I have finished reading Legends of Anglerre and maybe the 4e Eberron Campaign Guide I will look to start ploughing my way through the PF core rulebook - the Bestiary will get referenced but I won't read that cover to cover just yet (I still need to read the 3.5 MM before then!)
Scarily (and yes, it is scarily for me) I am beginning to think that maybe if and when I do get comfortable enough with PF to run it I may even use it for Eberron - at least try it out to see if conversion is too much of a pain (the Artificer will be the biggie initially as apparently the crafting rules have changed big style in PF and so I will need to actively seek out conversions or do them myself - just in case somene wants to play one).
|
|
However, I am beginning to realise that although no single change is a compelling reason to pursue PF, together they do make it seem like it would be worth learning.
The changes that I know of and find I really like are:
Collapsing the Skill List
This is great because it makes the skill points go further and I never liked the splitting of Spot & Listen and Hide & Move Silently. I do wish it had gone a bit further though (somewhere between PF and 4e would be ideal) for example Swim still being a separate skill? But that is not worse than 3.5 so I can't complain.
Skills costing 1 point at all times
The removal of cross class skills costing double is good as it simplifies things greatly when creating characters and levelling them up. It also means skill points go further.
Class Skills getting a bonus
This is good because it means if you put ranks into all class skills you get more bang for your buck. Combined with the previous two changes this makes skill points go a lot further, so much so that I don't mind that the Fighter still only gets 2 skill points per level.
More Feats
From a player perspective this is great too, and if I allow Open Minded feat from 3.5 into my private PF games, if people still feel hard done by on skill points they can exchange their extra feats for skill points.
CMB & CMD
I have to admit, when looking at the entire suite of combat manouevres, I unifying mechanic is great, whilst feats like Agile Manouevres still allow for differentiation.
Death and Dying
Dying at minus Con score and having stabilisation rolls be based on Con with a penalty of negative HP is great and actually, makes a but more sense for me. Even for someone with a Con score of only 10 and at -9 HP, the chance to stabilse is no worse than in 3.5 (d20+0 con modifer -9 vs a DC of 10 means success on a 19 or 20, so a 10% chance)
Sorcer Bloodlines
These are very cool, and for me that is enough. I have heard complaints that they don't make logical sense of that some of the powers provided don't fit well with what a sorcerer is, but for me bloodlines being interesting is enough :)
Fighter's Armour Training
This allows heavier armour to be worn without causing physical skills to be useless, so you could have a sneaky Fighter :)
There are no doubt other changes that once I discover them I will think are good.
But there are also things I think PF changed for the worse:
Grapple
I don't like the new grapple rules (beyond the CMB / CMD mechanic). Considering this is one area a lot of people complained about in 3.5, I would have thought Paizo would have simplified this a lot more, instead they have changed things and caused complications in different ways.
Also some simplification is at the expense of ambiguity (do anything you can with a free hand). The Grappling and Pinned consditions don't seem to mesh well, and the rules are now spread over several sections of the rulebook (Skills, Magic, Combat and Glossary).
Power Attack and Combat Expertise
I don't like the fact that you can no longer choose how much of these to use. I also get the impression that Power Attack may be too powerful now for my liking with a two handed weapon you take a -4 to get a +12 damage! That is 50% more than what you would get in 3.5. Perhaps Power attack was under powered in 3.5?
Fly skill
Why oh why oh why? I would have preferred to have not had this, got rid of Swim skill and then have a single skill for doing movey stuff (e.g. Acrobatics) that could be use in whichever environment you had a move speed for (Fly speed, Swim speed etc) - sort of like Fields of Experience in James Bond, so Skiing Field of Experience allowed you to use your Evasion skill whilst skiing.
Channelling
Originally I loved this idea as I was playing a cleric in a very combat oriented FR campaign under 3.5 which converted to PF, I was happy now that I could heal the party without using all my spells to do so.
However I soon found that I still wasn't getting to cast my spells because the party were getting hammered straight away and I was having to spend my first turn of the combat healing, and the combat was over in only a couple of rounds! Now I realise this was down to a lack of tactics, but I was the one whose fun got diminished because of another's recklessnes.
In addition when we moved to a more investigative set of scenarios, we were only having one combat a day - however this meant I had no reason not to spam my healings so we started at full the next day. As a player I didn't like this and as GM I know I wouldn't like it. I am running a 4e campaign at the moment with only one or two combats a day and I feel the same way - I can't grind the characters down over time because they recover completely overnight, if I want them to feel threatened I have to do so in a single encounter.
I think Channelling whilst solving the problem of clerics using all their spells to heal isn't the solution I now want - I would like something akin to Second Wind so everyone can pull their own fat out of the fire at least once in a combat. Does PF have anything like this?
Overall however, I think PF is probably the better system than 3.5 (even before now I have said that). And now that I have determined to take the time to learn the rules I hope to appreciate that more.
|
|
Digital Mage, I've been following your thoughts for a few weeks and resisted responding as I was not sure I could help. But a few thoughts now that I've been thinking about it for some time. When WotC switched to 3.5 I did not rush out and buy new books as I wasn't sure the changes were worth it. What I did do though was compare the rules as I went along and in my games I gradually ported in rules I liked (Rangers) but mostly ignored anything that I didn't know or care about. My games were thus some wierd blend of 3.0 and 3.5 and you know what? It worked fine. The rule systems were close enough together that if you mixed up a rule or two between them on the fly the players never knew and never cared. Pathfinder is the same way when you play at home. If you don't like the fly skill only use it when you have to and ignore it the rest of the time. Ditto with power attack - though I find it works just fine. The fighter still has to hit to get that extra boost and at 12th level, an extra +12 (assuming 2-handed) to damage is not all that high.
Keep in mind (and for non-designing-GMs this is a point they may miss) but most monsters now have more HD per CR. I know when doing conversions this is the chief thing I look for when porting stat blocks. A monster from older modules can be used as is, but you generally will want to lower the CR by 1.
Also, the change to power attack does speed up the game a little in my experience as the player can just write one line on their character sheet to reference it. I don't think the math before was hard but it was always a time killer with players trying to figure out the percentages. Now its either a yes/no thing as opposed to a sliding scale of probability.
Anyway, my point is that while they are not 100% compatible, if you end up mixing and matching the rules, for the most part, nobody will notice or care and the system will still work. And if you end up getting a rule mixed up in a society game, most people are pretty understanding in this regards as it is not that uncommon an occurance for people who have played multiple variations of the 3rd edition rulesets.
|
|
Play it, change it to your liking or stay with 3.5 (and its ever decreasing player base).
There is no other choice. You already seem to have had a closer look on the rules, now play them. Then the feeling in your guts will tell you whether you like the game or not.
Regarding 3.5 compatibility: In the same posting you claim that you want to continue to use your 3.5 stuff and worry about the continued usefulness of your Eberron gaming books. Then you complain that 3.5 might be too similar to PF to keep it apart from each other.
Apparently you already know the answer you want to hear. ;)
If you feel that not enough players support 3.5 anymore, you might be forced to choose the lesser of two evils and give it a try. You'll be surprised that PF still shows a certain similarity to 3.5.. And there is still the possibility of house rules in your very own group which turn back some of the PF changes.
Wish you fun and tell us about your first PF game experiences.
Kr,
Günther
|
|
at 12th level, an extra +12 (assuming 2-handed) to damage is not all that high. [...] Also, the change to power attack does speed up the game a little
Thanks for this, I think I may have to stop thinking about what might be an issue and actually play and see if it is an issue - I have never played a game of 3.x about level 7 or so, so maybe I have overestimated how useful Power Attack is at higher levels. Thanks!
Keep in mind (and for non-designing-GMs this is a point they may miss) but most monsters now have more HD per CR. I know when doing conversions this is the chief thing I look for when porting stat blocks. A monster from older modules can be used as is, but you generally will want to lower the CR by 1.
Thanks for this, I guess I will have to bear that in mind or if I ever do run a published scenario spend the time to level up monsters (or run it for lower level characters) to compensate.
And if you end up getting a rule mixed up in a society game, most people are pretty understanding in this regards
Cool, I am glad to hear that.
|
|
Play it, change it to your liking or stay with 3.5 (and its ever decreasing player base).
I think I will be doing a bit of both, luckily for me for my Meetup group PF RPG hasn't made any in-roads and so 3.5 play is still popular, but if that changes I guess I may have no choice but to run PF as well.
Regarding 3.5 compatibility: In the same posting you claim that you want to continue to use your 3.5 stuff and worry about the continued usefulness of your Eberron gaming books. Then you complain that 3.5 might be too similar to PF to keep it apart from each other.
The usefulness issue is more a case of whether its too much effort to convert stuff to PF (even spending the extra few seconds to determine what level an NPC's Acrobatics skill could mount up "Balance is +4 so Acrobatics is +4, no wait, he has Tumbling at +12, so its +12").
The bit about being too similar to keep apart that is more ruleswise in my head, I may get confused as to whether Grappling is a Standard or an Attack action in PF, but I wouldn't have that confusion between 3.5 and FATE because FATE doesn't have the concept of Standard Action versus Attacks (hell it doesn't even have detailed grapple rules).
Apparently you already know the answer you want to hear. ;)
Yeah I am coming around to the idea that PF is really a good game with a few niggles that 3.5 didn't have, but that overall it has more improvements than niggles.
Plus the PFS community here in the UK seems to be more visible than any LFR stuff, for example I dropped into the quiz night at OddCon last night (a local convention) and there was a big banner for PFS with an almost life size picture of the fighter girl with the big sword. It was also fancy dress night at the con and some of the PFS players from Sheffield came dressed as some of the PF iconics :)
Wish you fun and tell us about your first PF game experiences.
Well I had my first PF game ages ago, but I am looking forward to my first PFS game using PF RPG and my first PF RPG game that I will play once I have fully read and appreciated the rules.
Cheers!
|
|
It also makes me worried that PFS scenarios are written with the assumption that a cleric is necessary, so if I play in a game without a cleric I may find my character being part of a TPK. I think if I were ever to GM my own games in PF I may ban clerics.
Given that PFS (or any Organised Play) usually involves sitting down with random strangers, the scenarios can't assume any mix of PC classes.
I don't think the scenarios seem overly harsh to require a cleric.
For Paizocon UK 2009 (Season 0 3.5 rules), it wasn't until my third game that we had any kind of healer, yet we all survived (barely, being dropped to -9hp in the first slot).
Were you at that Con? If so, which one were you?
Paizocon UK 2010 (Season 1 PF rules) didn't appear to require clerics either.
What I did see, far more than in typical home play, were PCs being far more self-reliant. Potions of healing have always been standard gear at the first payday, but I saw numerous PCs with ranks in Use Magic Device; even at level 1 and 2, as opposed to the usual 3.5/PF tactic of 'waiting till level 7 then sticking max ranks in it'.
|
|
Keep in mind (and for non-designing-GMs this is a point they may miss) but most monsters now have more HD per CR. I know when doing conversions this is the chief thing I look for when porting stat blocks. A monster from older modules can be used as is, but you generally will want to lower the CR by 1.Thanks for this, I guess I will have to bear that in mind or if I ever do run a published scenario spend the time to level up monsters (or run it for lower level characters) to compensate.
"Spending the time" in this regard equals applying the advanced simple template from the Bestiary on the fly: an extra +2 to all rolls and +2 hp/HD.
There was actually quite a bit of thought that went into the books and its one of those things where the more time you spend with it, the better you appreciate the simplicity of a lot of the ideas, like the aforementioned advanced simple template. When I first read that template, I thought, thats soo simple why waste space for it, but having then used it a time or two, it actually is a pretty nifty little "fix" for bumping up a monster with no real work.
And I think that 3.X would actually be phasing out a LOT faster if it wasn't for Pathfinder.Perhaps, we'll never really know for sure, but I can't help imagine that all the people who declined 4e and now play PF wouldn't still be playing 3.5 were it not for PF - do you think that without PF more people would have converted to 4e or other games (e.g. FantasyCraft) rather than stick with 3.5?
After 4E was released (and I played that for a while with one group) and 3.5 was no longer supported/realms were nuked etc, my friday group started trying to find a new system to play. We played white wolf for a while, then Hero System, then Shadowrun, and they were all good systems with their own flaws we just didn't have 9+ years invested in learning those systems so our system mastery fell short. Then we learned about the pathfinder beta, learned the new changes in a few sessions working the kinks out, and haven't looked back.