Pathfinder removed the Cleric heavy armor proficiency. It renders my beloved class unplayable.
Pathfinder removed the Cleric heavy armor proficiency. It renders my beloved class unplayable.
I will never forget that thread. :)
Pathfinder removed the Cleric heavy armor proficiency. It renders my beloved class unplayable.
Doubtful. Heavy Armor Proficiency feat? check.
Pathfinder removed the Cleric heavy armor proficiency. It renders my beloved class unplayable.Doubtful. Heavy Armor Proficiency feat? check.
It's the act of removal that matters. It shows the total lack of regard for the weakest 3.5 class. Next to powerhouses such as 3.5 Paladin and Truenamer, the Cleric was a sad joke. Pathfinder just finished him off.
Because I've already purchased the core books for 3.5 and don't really want to drop another $100 for new books. Especially when my gaming is extremely limited these days, and that $100 pays for miniatures I'll get to paint sooner than use said books. And at today's tin prices, that's like . . . five minis . . . .
Besides, it's not like Pathfinder is a completely alien system that I can't use with 3.5.
|
Well, as I said in that thread, PF has too many little 'gotcha' changes to learn lest they crop up in play. Sticking with 3.5 allows me to take the good from PF, while knowing every change I make.If I may ask, which parts of the Pathfinder RPG did you adapt as houserules for your 3.x game?
Hmm. I've done the BAB/HD pairing, but I'm having second thoughts about it. It sounds clever, but in practice just limits class design.
I stole the CMB/CMD thing because my monk player was having too much trouble keeping up with the grappling rules. She still can't keep up, but at least we get it handled quicker.
We're using the 'every other level' feat progression, but that's hardly a big change.
I'd say we're using the classes, but I don't know that counts since the only non-3.5 ones being used are Kirth's rewrites.
All I can think of off the top of my head. The more I look around the gaming community, the more I see that the changes PF made were not all that original.
That's a few things off the top of my head. I don't have a problem with PF, and if anyone is totally new and wants to know what system they and their group should probably try, I'd recommend PF. For myself, I didn't give up 3.5 for WotC, and I have no interest in giving it up for Paizo.
A corollary from the thread, Why PF over D&D 3.5.
For me it's rather simple.
I have all the books I will ever need for 3.5 already purchased. I haunt ebay and the local used book stores like a theif seeking his next mark to find excellent condition 3.5 stuff at really cheap prices or at least what they were when they were new.
I do use the PF adventures and some other stuff because it's easy to convert to 3.5 as opposed to trying to decipher 4.0 system.
Last but not least haveing read the PF system I can say that I do not prefer the way they deal with magic, IMO, thye have continued the depowering of casters that started in 3.5 and got really bad twords the end of 3.5 and haveing seen 4 the trend has continued.
Some of the PF ideas have a great deal of merit, the item familiar was a good change but the house rule we have is 1 familiar= 1 free feat. That way your not stuck with a potential furry hostage bait or something that can cost you exp.
We are not ignoreing the fine work done here at Paizo and we support it as much as our budget allows but we honestly prefer 3.5 over the changes PF has made.
A corollary from the thread, Why PF over D&D 3.5.
Easy.
Epic rules. :)
(...not that this is stopping me from playing Pathfinder at the moment...)
For me its 2-fold: 1) too much invested in 3.5 to move to a new system - including many unplayed adventures and 3 APs (AoW - just started, ST and RotRL) and 2) none of my players have even heard of PF, let alone are interested in it (and I'm not going to plunk down the money on the core books just to see if it's worth trying to convince them).
Greg
PF didn't fix any problems with the system, it just gave a different version.
Cleric armor proficiency, reach on spiked chain, improved natural attack not working with monk's unarmed strike, monsters shouldn't be played as characters, etc. all show a design viewpoint that I don't agree with.
Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
Necessity to purchase table full of new books to be used in the group, can't mix 3.5 PHB with PF Core book.
Core book is too large, too expensive, and has binding issues (not really a reason not to switch but just an area of concern).
3.5 isn't "missing" anything that PF gave. Frankly 3.5 isn't leaving me feel missing anything anyway.
Gimped many feats and combat options.
3.5 SRD is free and irrevocable, so don't need official books in print to keep new players with the rules. That's a few things off the top of my head. I don't have a problem with PF, and if anyone is totally new and wants to know what system they and their group should probably try, I'd recommend PF. For myself, I didn't give up 3.5 for WotC, and I have no interest in giving it up for Paizo.
I literally agree with all your points...
I think the bindings are a real issue. My PF book (given to me) looks like crap. My bestiary (bought by me) has all but completely fallen apart, while ALL of my 3.5 books are in crisp condition, even though they are 5 years old! My PH has suffered a lot of abuse, even being chewed on by a dog, but is in FAR better condition then my PFCR and bestiary.
I also do not have faith in Paizos rules writing anymore, and with each new book I get pushed further away. 3.5 feels more streamlined and plays much smoother, which I think may be due to the lack tacked-on-mechanics spamming that PF added. Really, PF hasn't brought anything that innovative to the game I haven't seen before, IMO. The more I look back and compare, the more I appreciate what has been done before. I do not believe that the designers for 3.5 are given enough credit nowadays, and people easily write them off in lieu of PF (which includes a lot of regurgitated ideas from 3.5)
Unfortunately it took too much money and time spent on cheaply made PF books for me to realize that I prefer my own house rules over Paizo's.
|
I don't see much of a point to this thread unless someone feels that the Pathfinder/4th Edition wars weren't pointless enough.
I posted it more or less out of genuine curiosity, especially after noting the (polite) dissatisfaction of the PF rules from the other thread. As for that (3.x) PF/4th Edition, I've always maintained that was stupid back then and is stupid now: I play(ed) both systems and, to paraphrase Matt James, a designer for 4th edition, I "do what makes me horny!". ;)
What do you mean by transformers?
Ok I get it. thanks...
I liked that change
in general I found the extra stuff added to the combat classes to be too much for my liking. Seemed to be complexity for complexities sake.
I liked pf skill changes, some cmb stuff, the sorcerer blood lines, some spell changes and pretty much left the rest. I particularly disliked most of the pf feats.
***spoiler omitted***
*Picks up dropped to the floor jaw*
Isn't that an issue with Golarion more than Pathfinder? (I guess an argument could be made that one kind of defines the other since the publisher is one and the same, but still.)
PF didn't fix any problems with the system, it just gave a different version.
Cleric armor proficiency, reach on spiked chain, improved natural attack not working with monk's unarmed strike, monsters shouldn't be played as characters, etc. all show a design viewpoint that I don't agree with.
Needless changes that just cause added confusion.
Necessity to purchase table full of new books to be used in the group, can't mix 3.5 PHB with PF Core book.
Core book is too large, too expensive, and has binding issues (not really a reason not to switch but just an area of concern).
3.5 isn't "missing" anything that PF gave. Frankly 3.5 isn't leaving me feel missing anything anyway.
Gimped many feats and combat options.
3.5 SRD is free and irrevocable, so don't need official books in print to keep new players with the rules. That's a few things off the top of my head. I don't have a problem with PF, and if anyone is totally new and wants to know what system they and their group should probably try, I'd recommend PF. For myself, I didn't give up 3.5 for WotC, and I have no interest in giving it up for Paizo.
I literally agree with all your points...
I think the bindings are a real issue. My PF book (given to me) looks like crap. My bestiary (bought by me) has all but completely fallen apart, while ALL of my 3.5 books are in crisp condition, even though they are 5 years old! My PH has suffered a lot of abuse, even being chewed on by a dog, but is in FAR better condition then my PFCR and bestiary.
I also do not have faith in Paizos rules writing anymore, and with each new book I get pushed further away. 3.5 feels more streamlined and plays much smoother, which I think may be due to the lack tacked-on-mechanics spamming that PF added. Really, PF hasn't brought anything that innovative to the game I haven't seen before, IMO. The more I look back and compare, the more I appreciate what has been done before. I do not believe that the designers for 3.5 are given...
Disagreeing does not make one a fanboy. Being illogical and blind to the opposing debater's arguments, assuming there is a debate makes one a fan boy.
Isn't that an issue with Golarion more than Pathfinder?
Yeah it is. I am not all that big on Golarion yet though so I can just ignore that. Of course I will continue to ignore it if I ever use Golarion so I guess it does not matter.
Disagreeing does not make one a fanboy. Being illogical and blind to the opposing debater's arguments, assuming there is a debate makes one a fan boy.
See the post 4 up for the latter example. :D
Investment in 3.5 is the biggest issue, and pathfinder not being 100 percent backwards compatible, without a lot of work. That is offset if you just use the pathfinder material that is free on the web.
4E was worth a try, but they went to far on some of their changes, when it wasn't necessary. But making the mechanics the same for all the classes, while allowing them to have unique abilities was great.
I am always hoping another OGL product will come out that takes 4E and 3.5, and meets somewhere in the middle. But I have a bridge to sell you while we wait.
Disagreeing does not make one a fanboy. Being illogical and blind to the opposing debater's arguments, assuming there is a debate makes one a fan boy.See the post 4 up for the latter example. :D
He is being facetious, and making fun of arguments before they pop up, which I do find amusing. :)
I am always hoping another OGL product will come out that takes 4E and 3.5, and meets somewhere in the middle. But I have a bridge to sell you while we wait.
Oh yeah, well I got a Nick Logue pre-order product you can put money on. LOL.
A corollary from the thread, Why PF over D&D 3.5.
For many of the reasons already listed in this thread. Some reasons (but not all) include:
- we don't have many problems with 3.5, and what problems we did have with it have long since been houseruled/fixed by us... and fixed optimally for our specific group
- PF didn't fix anything for us, it's just different
- no interest in purchasing new core books when we already have ones that work perfectly fine
- no interest in learning a new rules system
- all of our mechanical interests have already been (long since) covered by 3.5
- Play in (old-school) FR and have no interest in Golarion
- like the (already-3.5-statted) old-school D&Disms (Outer/Inner Planes, Lolth, 9 Hells, classic Demon Lords, etc)
- etc
And I can pick and choose certain things from PF and put into our 3.5 game (e.g. spell nerfing).
I removed a post and added some spoiler tags. No reason to get upset, just flag as "Needs spoiler tag" and move on.
I am curious: How many of you that stick with 3.5 play straight 3.5? Or do you integrate some Pathfinder or other 3PP material (like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes)?
I run a Pathfinder game, but I certainly integrate 3.X material. We use Secrets of Pact Magic for an expanded binder class, and one of my players is an archivist. I still get a lot of use out of monsters that Paizo isn't allowed to convert. I suspect there is a wide spectrum of groups between pure 3.5 and pure Pathfinder, with plenty of blending in the middle.
|
|
I am curious: How many of you that stick with 3.5 play straight 3.5? Or do you integrate some Pathfinder or other 3PP material (like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes)?
I run a Pathfinder game, but I certainly integrate 3.X material. We use Secrets of Pact Magic for an expanded binder class, and one of my players is an archivist. I still get a lot of use out of monsters that Paizo isn't allowed to convert. I suspect there is a wide spectrum of groups between pure 3.5 and pure Pathfinder, with plenty of blending in the middle.
Definitely in the middle. In a campaign where using the Pathfinder rules with FF's Midnight and its classes and, most importantly, magic system.
|
You see all the material you bought for 3.5 as an investment. I pretty much bought probably as much as you did and as a GM, I found it changing from an investment to a ball and chain., trying to keep track and balance all of the splatbooks, complete splatbooks, spell compendia and what not, well over a dozen player-centered rulebooks. I welcomed pathfinder for the chance to retire all of that junk.Investment in 3.5 is the biggest issue, and pathfinder not being 100 percent backwards compatible, without a lot of work. That is offset if you just use the pathfinder material that is free on the web.
I personally have always seen splatbooks as options, not requirements. They aren't a ball and chain because I'm not obligated to use them. I use from them what I want. If your pattern is to incorporate everything, can can just as easily reset 3.5 by using core books only. In addition, PF will gain the same issues regarding rule-bloat as time moves on. At some point, you have to decide to limit the rules resources in the game, or the rules resources will limit you. :)
I personally have always seen splatbooks as options, not requirements. They aren't a ball and chain because I'm not obligated to use them. I use from them what I want. If your pattern is to incorporate everything, can can just as easily reset 3.5 by using core books only. In addition, PF will gain the same issues regarding rule-bloat as time moves on. At some point, you have to decide to limit the rules resources in the game, or the rules resources will limit you. :)You see all the material you bought for 3.5 as an investment. I pretty much bought probably as much as you did and as a GM, I found it changing from an investment to a ball and chain., trying to keep track and balance all of the splatbooks, complete splatbooks, spell compendia and what not, well over a dozen player-centered rulebooks. I welcomed pathfinder for the chance to retire all of that junk.Investment in 3.5 is the biggest issue, and pathfinder not being 100 percent backwards compatible, without a lot of work. That is offset if you just use the pathfinder material that is free on the web.
Yeah, I've never been able to follow that logic.
"3.5 had all these additional rules and I didn't want to play with them, so I want to switch to PF."
Except:
1)I would imagine it would be easier to convince your group to scale back to core 3.5, then to drop 3.5 all together and purchase brand new material. Stop using already purchased material vs. forcing to purchase new material AND stop using already purchased material.
2)PF is "compatible" with 3.5, so if you are not capable of telling your group not to use all that other stuff, then you shouldn't still be able to stop them from using it in PF either, thus you haven't gotten rid of it all.
The number 1 reason for 3.5 players to switch to PF is, they jumped on the 4e bandwagon and sold off all of their 3.5 stuff and then developed buyer's remorse.
The number 1 reason for 3.5 players to switch to PF is, they jumped on the 4e bandwagon and sold off all of their 3.5 stuff and then developed buyer's remorse.
I don't think that's the number 1 reason. I still have all my 3.5 stuff. In fact, I've been hunting for more of it since Pathfinder Beta came out. I'm still looking for a Magic Item Compendium priced at under $60. I also still have all my 4E stuff. I play Pathfinder because I like the changes. Some people say it isn't innovative enough, but I'm ok with that. I like that they took a lot of the little improvements and good house rules people have been using and compiled them all together.
Edit: Ninja'd!
|
|
I am curious: How many of you that stick with 3.5 play straight 3.5? Or do you integrate some Pathfinder or other 3PP material (like Arcana Evolved or Iron Heroes)?
I run a Pathfinder game, but I certainly integrate 3.X material. We use Secrets of Pact Magic for an expanded binder class, and one of my players is an archivist. I still get a lot of use out of monsters that Paizo isn't allowed to convert. I suspect there is a wide spectrum of groups between pure 3.5 and pure Pathfinder, with plenty of blending in the middle.
It's been awhile since I played pure 3.5. My very first game? Splat books have been a part of it from the very start, with me and my friends picking up all sorts of new material to try out. My two favorite characters used 3rd party splats (Lasserator Monk from The LE Games 'Unorthodox Monks' and Terrelian Knight from Green Ronin's 'Corwyl: Village of the Wood Elves') Hence my joke in the other thread about 'people play 3.5 without houserules?' Even now I use plenty of fan material in my games.
|
I really like how some folks dismiss PF because they think it's Caster Edition, while others say they didn't switch over because PF nerfed casters. Guess you can never make everybody happy! :)
I'd love to see a proper flamewar between the two camps, alas the most vehement defender of the former point of view doesn't hang around anymore. What a shame. ;-)
|
|
I really like how some folks dismiss PF because they think it's Caster Edition, while others say they didn't switch over because PF nerfed casters. Guess you can never make everybody happy! :)
Truer words were never spoken.
I'd love to see a proper flamewar between the two camps, alas the most vehement defender of the former point of view doesn't hang around anymore. What a shame. ;-)
Blessed Buddha NO! ^_^