|
The first thing that flashes across my mind is to have Fun! The DM tells a tale that brings to life a world that he created (or A Adv. Path that he wants to run because it seems interesting).
The second thing to cross my mind is to relieve the stress of the week, get lost in a story and get a break from reality for a while.
I had a guy tell me once... "You DM games you wish you could play in." I find that to be more and more true everyday.
Group Dynamics
2 players are Min/Maxers + RP guys (good mix)
2 are into the RP aspect and build under powered PC alot of the time with flavor.
2 are not serious players and show up whenever and just build a character in 15 minutes to play.
1 is a full on RP guy with really cool flavor but way under powered.
1 is an all out Min/Maxer who would just as easily play miniatures combat only and have no RP.
My DM resume
- DM for over 20 years / DnD / Adv. DnD / (missed 3.0) / 3.5 and now PF + dozens of other D20 / D10's / D6's games.
The group has 5 people who can DM with me and two others doing most of the DMing. The rest jump in for short spans, games that cap at 7 - 12 levels, to give us a break. We switched from 3.5 to PF about 2-3 years ago. I voted yes only if we would still allow 3.5 content in our games and we all agreed. Now at the present time 3.5 content is seldom allowed into any games but mine. They never say to me... hey lets do straight PF when I offer 3.5 content and always pick crazy races + classes to play (which is awesome and fun - which is the point right?)
I allow 3.5 content in 95% of my games. I have ran dozens of games to the high 20's levels and a 2 1/2 years game to level 42 where they became gods. I allow level adjusted creatures, Savage Species both the 3.0 and the Bestiary levels found in PF conversion forum and even custom Gestalt games where LA races + classes level together.
I have spoken at length to the group on this subject and they all know how I feel and the answer they always give is this...
- 3.5 is too broken and the games become uncontrollable.
I find this hard to believe. I have no problem handling it in my games and they use to run 3.5 all the time before we switched. I have been through every class that I care to in PF already and am bored and yearn for the builds I want to play for my Fun. Don't get me wrong I love the PF system, way better then 3.5 but combining the two gives you the ability to literally create any fantasy character you can imagine.
My Bucket list builds/3.5
Rogue / Invisible Blade / Master Thrower
Barbarian / War Hulk
Fighter / War Forged Juggernaut
Druid / Planar Shepherd
Dread Necromancer
Warlock / Hellfire Warlock
Sorc / Demon Binder
Sorc / abjuration champion / Force mage
Fighter / Disciple of Dispater
and many many more...
If I stop DMing the group just games less and I rather DM then not as it is a great way to spend time with friends. But every up and coming future game is low level and PF only and I see myself having no fun in any of the games that are being planned.
- Does anyone else allow 3.5 content in their games? If not why?
- Anyway to handle this better as I am starting to resent them somewhat and have lost respect for them as we all agreed to add PF to our gaming system not switch over completely. I have described many "broken" PF builds just to show them that any system can be abused. But recently have considered playing them and that's a path that leads to no fun for anyone. They just seem unwilling to compromise or work with me so I can enjoy gaming as much as they do.
- Just curious if anyone else has faced this? Would love some good advice as I use to love playing with these guys.
I have similar experiences. I chose to go along with it as playing pathfinder only is better than not playing at all imo.
But I would still prefer higher levels and higher power(/more splat books)
|
|
I agree its better then not playing at all but has your group given you the same reason? It's not a valid reason in my opinion. Their are several builds that break the game with straight PF rules and PF will keep coming out with more books (they have to if they want to make money) and it will not be long before it in the same boat as 3.5.
"Broken" is in the eye of the builder... anyone can do it but if it is not your intent to build a broken PC, then whats the problem is my question?
"Broken" is an overused term I think, and yes. I've heard it with regards to 3.5. "Overpowered" and "unbalanced" are two other words used far too loosely, and all given as reasons for not allowing 3.5.
I've just accepted it although not agreeing with it, and started bringing whiskey to gaming sessions :p
Have you just tried asking for the builds you want and select feats? Just curious how much compromise you have tried.
I don't consider 3.5 broken, in fact the Pathfinder base classes are much more powerful.
|
|
I have not tried that yet but its kinda door open or close with our group. If they open it for one player the rest want in... which I find funny that they all want to play 3.5 but no one wants to DM it???
I agree PF has more powerful Base classes but the new PF PRC's (Archetypes) are not near as colorful and much more limited then 3.5 PRC's.
I have not tried that yet but its kinda door open or close with our group. If they open it for one player the rest want in... which I find funny that they all want to play 3.5 but no one wants to DM it???
I agree PF has more powerful Base classes but the new PF PRC's (Archetypes) are not near as colorful and much more limited then 3.5 PRC's.
I am not so sure that the archetypes are more limited unless you mean their are not as many of them as 3.5 has prestige classes, which would be true.
|
Personally I just find 3.5 really boring. The classes are so dull, the only way to make them near interesting to play is to combine a bunch of classes together. If I play a Paladin it's because I want to play that, I don't want to be a Paladin/Sorc/Fighter combination to be worthwhile (course in 3.5 Pally sucked balls anyway).
Though personally, I would have no issue playing a PF/3.5 hybrid because it gives me the far more enjoyable classes from PF (in my opinion) whilst giving plenty of flexibility.
I find that 3.5 works fine with just the core. It's when you introduce all of the optional books that abusive combinations come in to play.
My group is the same way. If I let one person do it, they all want to do it. So I have to be really careful what I let in.
I currently only let PF corebook in and everything after that is subject to me saying no. I have a mix about like yours too... a couple of min maxers, a couple of RPers, and a couple that just sit there to hang out and don't care about the game really.
The min maxers are good at breaking systems. I know the word broken gets thrown out a lot, but I'll just say to me "broken" means that their characters can't really be touched unless I toss out EL + 5 encounters at them, which I don't want to have to do.
I do open up access to my 3.5 library since I own every book that was published, but they have to get my approval first to use anything out of those.
|
|
I find that 3.5 works fine with just the core. It's when you introduce all of the optional books that abusive combinations come in to play.
My group is the same way. If I let one person do it, they all want to do it. So I have to be really careful what I let in.
I currently only let PF corebook in and everything after that is subject to me saying no. I have a mix about like yours too... a couple of min maxers, a couple of RPers, and a couple that just sit there to hang out and don't care about the game really.
The min maxers are good at breaking systems. I know the word broken gets thrown out a lot, but I'll just say to me "broken" means that their characters can't really be touched unless I toss out EL + 5 encounters at them, which I don't want to have to do.
I do open up access to my 3.5 library since I own every book that was published, but they have to get my approval first to use anything out of those.
That's another reason... All the money spent in books, I still am buying 3.5 books as I love reading them but it makes me want to play the classes in them. I understand about being careful, if your a respectful player you'll not purposely make such a powerful combo so as to ruin the game for all. Although I do admit it can happen on accident, sometimes you just get a perfect combo without trying.
Do you think PF heading the same way?
|
|
Personally I just find 3.5 really boring. The classes are so dull, the only way to make them near interesting to play is to combine a bunch of classes together. If I play a Paladin it's because I want to play that, I don't want to be a Paladin/Sorc/Fighter combination to be worthwhile (course in 3.5 Pally sucked balls anyway).
Though personally, I would have no issue playing a PF/3.5 hybrid because it gives me the far more enjoyable classes from PF (in my opinion) whilst giving plenty of flexibility.
I agree that the core classes are boring compared to PF but I prefer a PRC class over an archetype that only makes small changes to a base class. PRC's make a whole different character. I played 3.5 for years and never had any PC's in the groups be even near like the one I had. In PF almost every game I had another player with a similar character like mine. You can only have so many monks, fighters, healers, casters before you might as well just photocopy a player sheet hand them out and just Change name, race, sex...
There are a number of spells and feats I miss from my 3.5 days. Oh Alter Fortune, how you are missed. I don't think there's a single class/PRC that I miss, although there are alt abilities that I miss.
Out of boredom, waiting for Pathfinder to be officially released, I transcribed every spell in every official WOTC source (including dungeon and dragon, 3.0 and 3.5, and website) into a single document, sorted alphabetically and by class). That document sits on my shelf unused. Sigh.
|
|
The problem is not that anything is broken. You can scale encounters to any power.
The problem is power disparity. That is to say the relative power level.
The larger the pool of sources the bigger the difference between the min/max player and the pure rp player.
There was a clear consensus that the tier 1 and 2 classes are just plain better than the others.
It is this class based power disparity which is 'broken' and which is worse in 3.5 than in Pathfinder.
These two issues combined seem a good reason to play pure pf.
Don't you think PF is heading this way? They will keep putting out books and as you said the more sources the player has to combo together...
|
|
There are a number of spells and feats I miss from my 3.5 days. Oh Alter Fortune, how you are missed. I don't think there's a single class/PRC that I miss, although there are alt abilities that I miss.
Oh... Man how I miss alternate class features... The Monks soul warped strike or a Druids Elemental companion.
No, I don't think PF is heading that way. 99% of all the new content is not stronger than most of whats in the core and the strongest options are still core options.
So I agree with lightbulb that 3.5 has the problem that a player who knows all the materials can easily build a character that will completely overshadow anything that a well build core character can do.
That is a problem of 3.5 (along with wonky rules).
|
|
No, I don't think PF is heading that way. 99% of all the new content is not stronger than most of whats in the core and the strongest options are still core options.
So I agree with lightbulb that 3.5 has the problem that a player who knows all the materials can easily build a character that will completely overshadow anything that a well build core character can do.
That is a problem of 3.5 (along with wonky rules).
Using the core PF players book you couldn't but your not really looking at what Adv / UM and UC did for mixing powerful combos. I totally disagree that core is the strongest option. I would place a UC build against any core building.
|
|
I don't allow 3.5 content because of it's inconsistent quality. The Complete Books are a great example in that they served some classes really well and other classed just awfully, so I banned all of them for fairness sake.
There is a very very limited 3.5 content that I use. And that's mainly because Pathfinder pretty much has everything I think is needed or useful for a game.
I agree PF has everything needed for a complete, very full well rounded game. What it lacks is options for truly unique characters, for those of us who have played hundreds of characters.
I do agree that books / power levels were all over the place. Although I am not coming so much from a power level but more from not playing something that has been played to death or 3 of the same types of PC's in the same game. I like to have a lot of options.
WhipShire asked in the title, "What is the purpose of a DM/GM or gaming in general?" The answer for me, about gaming in general, is to learn in a fun environment. I often learn by reading books and taking courses, but those drain my mental energy. The games teach me while recharging me. Even when I am the GM.
I have tried writing stories and have posted fan fiction in obscure corners of the Internet. But as GM I can get a critique on my story, plot, and setting by watching the players run impetuously over it. The paladin does not want to listen to my villain monologue. He wants to kill the villain. The super-intelligent wizard is reluctant to commit himself until he learns more details, and he never gets enough details. The rogue could lead the party, but he is so accustomed to working from the shadows that he never steps up. These are not my characters, who would listen to the villain's monologues to reveal background to the reader, who would make decisions that push the plot further along, who would move from anti-hero to hero to leader. These are my player's characters. I learn from them.
I do not allow D&D 3.5 rules and supplements in my Pathfinder games, except for adapting 3.5 modules for adventure content. This is to keep the game affordable and simple for the players. Some have the 3.5 books, others don't. Some are previous 3.5 players, some have mastered several gaming systems, and one is a newbie who never roleplayed before Pathfinder. They get to experience the new Pathfinder content undiluted: combat maneuvers, rogue powers, monk ki pool, ranger APG spells, alchemists, oracles, witches, etc. I don't see 3.5 as any more broken or uncontrollable than Pathfinder.
Hi WhipShire, I've noticed several D&D 3.5 PC class conversions on these boards. Maybe if the DM/GM is hesitant to bring over a 3.5 class for fear of it being overpowered, you could offer a modified version of the class. This may involve making the class slightly weaker is some way, you'd have to be working closely with the DM for this to work. Talk to them about what makes the class too powerful and adjust accordingly.
From the thread title I thought this might have been writen by some epic level TROLL. I thought it was going to be like "Pathfinder/RPGs SUCKS, your'e all nerds!" I was pleasantly surprised though ;P.
I've recently given the green light for a player to play a Swordsage from the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, I guess I'll see how that turns out.
The problem is not that anything is broken. You can scale encounters to any power.
The problem is power disparity. That is to say the relative power level.
The larger the pool of sources the bigger the difference between the min/max player and the pure rp player.
There was a clear consensus that the tier 1 and 2 classes are just plain better than the others.
It is this class based power disparity which is 'broken' and which is worse in 3.5 than in Pathfinder.
These two issues combined seem a good reason to play pure pf.
I agree that power disparity between PCs is a problem if it is too extreme, but there will always be a disparity of some kind. Even if all the PCs where perfectly equal in power, different classes excell when facing different challenges and there would be times when some PCs would seem more powerful than the others.
I would agree that with fewer options PCs could be kept more in line with each other, I'm just not sure that it's worth diminishing someone's potential fun to do so.
Personally I allow all things non-core on a case by case basis. The only non-core rules that are pretty much guaranteed in my game are products by super genius games, a 3pp. That said, players in my game have used 3.5 options, APG, UM, and UC options, stuff from pathfinder campaign setting books and plenty from 3pps. I like options. I like giving options. No one option will 'break' the game, its always combinations. So by allowing things on a case by case, I can look at the options in the context of the other things the character can do and ask the player to explain to me what he wants to do with it, watching for combinations I dont like.
I remember when we first switched to pathfinder I had a discussion with another dm in the group about 3.5 material. He was gung ho core rules only (the only pathfinder book at that time), and I wanted to allow 3.5 material. Like you I have huge 3.5 library and wasnt about to throw it out. So he asked me to name 3 things from 3.5 I never wanted to go without. I think i named 5 that he agreed with off the top of my head, unique things that worked well and were not a part of pathfinder (many still are not). So we compromised on the case by case. Basis, which has worked quite well.
I definately know how you feel about the whole, 'you run the game you wish you could play in' thing. But that is just the nature of the beast. You want to run a game that is to your tastes, and not everyone has the same tastes. Sometimes you find that holy grail of groups where everyone is on the exact same page, but my group like many is a group of friends who also game, so there is disparity in our play style and preferences.
|
|
3.5 PHB only, the wizard was the most powerful class. The other books allowed clerics and druids to become just as good if not better. 3.5 has lots of extremely unbalancing builds, all of which make the various fighting classes look bad. CoDzilla pretty much removed the need for the fighter. Barbarian was okay with Power Attack + Leap Attack + Shock Trooper.
PF Core was somewhat more balanced, but APG + UM + UC has unbalanced things again. Anytime more materials are added, balance usually skews.
It's all relative. 3.5 fighter was super weak, so of course PF fighter is better. But it's arguable if PF rogue is better. With PF, they can't Sneak Attack off of Blink, they can't do Sneak Attack off of splash weapons, Grease was nerfed, so rogues couldn't Sneak Attack off of that. But they are allowed to critical hit much more monsters.
I'm sure I'm not even bringing up the correct things for 3.5 that were unbalancing.
Many of the GMs I play with don't allow 3.5 anymore. Not even because of balance issues, but just from bloat of so many different sources.
|
|
Hi WhipShire, I've noticed several D&D 3.5 PC class conversions on these boards. Maybe if the DM/GM is hesitant to bring over a 3.5 class for fear of it being overpowered, you could offer a modified version of the class. This may involve making the class slightly weaker is some way, you'd have to be working closely with the DM for this to work. Talk to them about what makes the class too powerful and adjust accordingly.
From the thread title I thought this might have been writen by some epic level TROLL. I thought it was going to be like "Pathfinder/RPGs SUCKS, your'e all nerds!" I was pleasantly surprised though ;P.
I've recently given the green light for a player to play a Swordsage from the Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords, I guess I'll see how that turns out.
Tomb of Battle is a powerful book. Warblade was my favorite that and Jade Phoenix. My friends played a pair of Swordsage Dwarf Deepwarden Sentinels. They were awesome to watch gliding around on their pillars of earth + that book has one of the best ways to get Dex to damage.
I will take a look at the conversions but the groups very resistant to homebrew and prefer published. I am ok with homebrew as the creators meant the rules to be a guideline not set in stone.
|
|
First of all, there was, in it's time, a general consensus that 3.5 was about as good as D&D could get. PF is better. However, there is only one reason we went with pathfinder, at least initially. It was because it was compatible with 3.5, and we owned most of the books. So we allow pretty much all of 3.5 rules.
The 2nd thing is that we like the expanded base classes in 3.5 MUCH better than the ones in PF. The swashbuckler, warmage, warlock, favored soul, are all popular in our game. Even the duskblade, which I admit was overpowered in 3.5. In PF, we find that with the enhanced base classes, the duskblade is no more (or less) powerful than anyone else. The only one of the new classes in PF that has drawn any interest at all is the alchemist, and that from the youngest player in our group, because he likes to blow things up.
Don't get me wrong, if you like the new classes, good for you. Enjoy them. But I do think that some of it is because the 3.5 classes were not OGL. I have to believe that PF would have come up with a swashbuckler had it been available. Too bad, because I bet they would have done a better job of it.
Duskblade and Warlock are some of my favorites along with Warmage.
I don't allow 3.5 content because of it's inconsistent quality. The Complete Books are a great example in that they served some classes really well and other classed just awfully, so I banned all of them for fairness sake.
There is a very very limited 3.5 content that I use. And that's mainly because Pathfinder pretty much has everything I think is needed or useful for a game.
See, I'm the complete opposite. I love options. Even options I'll most likely never get around to using, I like knowing that I have them just in case. I love using stacks and stacks of splatbooks, so I encourage my players to do so if they wish.
When I DM, I only make splatbook restrictions based on what's appropriate for the setting. In a theme-heavy and restrictive setting like Ravenloft, I'm very stringent about what is allowed. In a vanilla/generic setting like Greyhawk or Golarion, I encourage my players to go nuts and bring anything they want. One of my (few) strengths as a DM is that I can adapt to things on the fly, so I like the challenge. Fortunately, in my current group, my players are all pretty fair and good-natured players who don't go out of their way to break the game, so it works out.