|
This is a bit of a rant so apologies in advance! :)
Paizo seem to be going from strength to strength with the Pathfinder RPG and the Golarion setting, and they seem to be expanding in more and more ways doing new cool stuff (painted minis, cardboard minis, gamesmastery cards, an MMO, comics, novels etc).
The Pathfinder Society organised play is extremely popular with conventions specifically for them (PaizoCon UK here) and many tables running at other conventions.
The books look great, full colour, glossy pages, complemented by good pricing on PDFs.
The map packs and flip mats complement the scenarios and adventures.
So with all this going on I really wish I could fully embrace Pathfinder and Golarion and love it. I want to be part of that popular community (as after all RPGs are games that require other people to play), and I want all the cool tools to inspire me when I am not playing.
Alas, I find I cannot embrace Pathfinder as I would wish.
First off I am still a bit bitter that Pathfinder RPG has helped to make D&D 3.5 games harder to find, especially at conventions.
I look at the Pathfinder rules and despite liking some of the improvements I can't help wince when I see stuff that are steps backwards from 3.5, things that are more vague or unclear now, things that are less intuitive now, and things that didn't address the real problem about an issue and instead made other things worse.
I look at the Golarion setting and although it is growing on me I still see the collection of mini settings, the too close to Earth like cultures that breaks my sense of immersion.
I look at the collection of sourcebooks and see the setting bloat and that it has spread across both 3.5 and Pathfinder material - there is no way I could catch up and get to know this whole world.
I don't know, sometimes I wish I could just abandon 3.x completely and be happy just pursuing that other love of a gaming system FATE. However I like my the 3.5 system too much and so will continue to make do with Pathfinder if its the closest I can get to it - the community is largely inviting (snipes at 4e aside) and I am trying to be a part of it.
Anyway, well done Paizo, I envy the success you have had with Pathfinder, I just wish your efforts could have been done under the official D&D brand and Eberron was the setting of choice for your organised play.
Hmm. I can honestly say I don't think anything in Pathfinder is a step back from 3.5
And what you see as 'setting bloat' I see as very tiny bits of an immense (more than just a) universe. You aren't supposed to know it all, if you did it wouldn't be much of a universe. I do understand the urge to know it all though, I certainly still try.
|
I like the setting.
I do agree that some of the rules changes are things I'm less keen on. Mostly when they "fixed" something that wasn't broken.
But then, I think that undershooting the powercurve is nearly as bad as overshooting it (yes, in some cases we can just pretend the option doesn't exist, but it slows down time looking for usable options, misleads new players who dont have a sense of where the power curve is for each level, and is a waste of space in the book), and the paizo devs disagree with me on that.
Example: Cleave (Pathfinder version, as opposed to the non-stellar, but acceptable 3.5e version).
|
I like the setting.
I do agree that some of the rules changes are things I'm less keen on. Mostly when they "fixed" something that wasn't broken.
But then, I think that undershooting the powercurve is nearly as bad as overshooting it (yes, in some cases we can just pretend the option doesn't exist, but it slows down time looking for usable options, misleads new players who dont have a sense of where the power curve is for each level, and is a waste of space in the book), and the paizo devs disagree with me on that.
Example: Cleave (Pathfinder version, as opposed to the non-stellar, but acceptable 3.5e version).
You mean the current Cleave that the fighter uses in my party to great and deadly effect?
You mean the current Cleave that the fighter uses in my party to great and deadly effect?I like the setting.
I do agree that some of the rules changes are things I'm less keen on. Mostly when they "fixed" something that wasn't broken.
But then, I think that undershooting the powercurve is nearly as bad as overshooting it (yes, in some cases we can just pretend the option doesn't exist, but it slows down time looking for usable options, misleads new players who dont have a sense of where the power curve is for each level, and is a waste of space in the book), and the paizo devs disagree with me on that.
Example: Cleave (Pathfinder version, as opposed to the non-stellar, but acceptable 3.5e version).
And Cleaving Finish, if you prefer the 3.5 version of Cleave...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Current Cleave, the standard action where you have to lose your iterative attacks to use it? And you need greatcleave before you have any chance of making up for it? Yeah thats the one. I'm not a fan of it. I'm especially not a fan of how its a special attack action and cant be used on a charge, etc.
As for Cleaving finish, the fact that it requires the "new" cleave is a dealbreaker if you're not a fighter with tons of free feats, in my opinion.
I say it was a nerf, to a feat that wasn't overpowered in the first place. Yeah there's the "bag of rats"+whirlwind attack exploit that some people proposed in 3.5, but I've never seen a game where that ridiculousness would fly. And thats IF the gm accepted the idea that whirlwind attack counted for cleave, which, I'm not sure on the official ruling, but I heard many GMs say it didn't.
But even if you disagree with me on this one specifically, that doesnt change the fact that many feats, class features, etc are pathetic when compared to their peers with the same types of costs and requirements; which is what I was talking about.
3.5 sucked.
Fat and bloated with a bajillion splat books of widely varying quality.
It managed to get dragged along, Weekend at Bernies style, and now finally it has been laid to rest.
4th Ed killed 3.5 if you want to worry about Games Cons, just as sure as the 3rd killed 2nd.
Pathfinder is now as close as you are getting so get on board, or learn 4th ed.
|
|
4th Ed killed 3.5 if you want to worry about Games Cons, just as sure as the 3rd killed 2nd.
I am not so sure that 4e was that much of the killer RPG as otherwise PF wouldn't have had a market. For me, 4e didn't probably push 3.5 to the floor, but Pathfinder made sure it wasn't going to get back up again.
Pathfinder is now as close as you are getting so get on board, or learn 4th ed.
I am sort of on board with PF, I play and have even run PFS, but I don't expect to buy any more books for it than I already have and will decline a game if its being run using PF but not under PFS.
As for 4e I have learnt it (ironically the emergence of PF encouraged me to do so, so that I would own a current ruleset that would support my preferred setting of Eberron). I have bought as many, if not slightly more books for 4e than I have for PF and I have GMed and play 4e. But TBH I still prefer 3.5 to 4e.
I still also run 3.5 and would jump at a chance to play it as well.
So I guess I am covering all my bases :)
|
|
You still have those problems that nobody else does. Healing in-combat always was a bad move in 3.5 (except for casting heal) so all that channeling does is saving you some gp on happysticks. And in 3.5 there never was a "do we have a Cleric" question, the only question was "do we have someone who can use happysticks?". And between Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor there are even *more* classes that actually can use happysticks now.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4th Ed killed 3.5 if you want to worry about Games Cons, just as sure as the 3rd killed 2nd.I am not so sure that 4e was that much of the killer RPG as otherwise PF wouldn't have had a market. For me, 4e didn't probably push 3.5 to the floor, but Pathfinder made sure it wasn't going to get back up again.
Again, your rants are misplaced. If there's anyone whom you can blame on not having dozens of 3.5 Eberron games around, it's WotC.
|
|
You still have those problems that nobody else does.
I am not suggesting my issues are universal, but I imagine I am not the only one with them.
Healing in-combat always was a bad move in 3.5 (except for casting heal) so all that channeling does is saving you some gp on happysticks.
So I should never expect to see Channeling being used in combat then? Cool I will look out for that when I next play/run PFS :)
In reality, when someone goes down in a fight and another is close to going down, Channelling can be a good move. I think you perhaps overstate your point when you said healing in combat was always a bad move.
And in 3.5 there never was a "do we have a Cleric" question, the only question was "do we have someone who can use happysticks?". And between Witch, Oracle and Inquisitor there are even *more* classes that actually can use happysticks now.
Only just this week we have had a thread asking for advice because the party doesn't include a cleric. But yes, the general advice was Wands of CLW, and I have seen in threads about 3.5 that it is expected that "happysticks" are used routinely. To me that feels cheap and one of the things I dislike about both 3.5 & PF - if you're going to allow pretty much cheap unlimited healing outside of combat, then you may as well hard code that into the rules like 4e did rather than make it rely on Wands that then leads to the odd party, none of whom can use Wands of CLW being at a severe disadvantage.
Again, your rants are misplaced. If there's anyone whom you can blame on not having dozens of 3.5 Eberron games around, it's WotC.
I am not just talking about 3.5 Eberron games, but 3.5 in general. Simply put I don't think it is disputed that a lot of 3.5 players didn't convert to 4e (I was one of them originally) - I speculate that that pool of 3.5 players, had it not been for PF may have been continuing to run 3.5 at cons. But with the release of PF, a lot converted form 3.5 to PF.
Anyway, this is a rant, there is no real point to it other than to get my thoughts out there, to vent. If anything it is a compliment to Paizo that they are doing so much that impresses me despite my bitterness, I just wish there was those few little niggling things that stop me embracing PF and going along with the ride in full (rather than just for PFS), I know I could clear some much needed shelf space if I was to dump my 3.5 books, but alas PF hasn't yet comnvinced me to do so.
You still have those problems that nobody else does. Healing in-combat always was a bad move in 3.5 (except for casting heal) so all that channeling does is saving you some gp on happysticks. And in 3.5 there never was a "do we have a Cleric" question, the only question was "do we have someone who can use happysticks?". .
This was never my experience in 3.5.
I have the same problems digital elf does with the pathfinder changes to channelling, amongst other things.
I too wish I liked the raw pathfinder system or enough of the system so i could houserule a few changes and still use it. But I don't.
I am still a paizo fan, I still get plenty of golarion stuff and appreciate the adventure path stuff. It is creative and interesting. But I don't read it as soon as I get it anymore. In fact I don't think I have read a complete adventure path cover to cover since they became pathfinder.
Like Gorbacz the only healing I ever saw in game came from wands. Clerics were not played all that much.
|
|
I look at the Golarion setting and although it is growing on me I still see the collection of mini settings, the too close to Earth like cultures that breaks my sense of immersion.I look at the collection of sourcebooks and see the setting bloat and that it has spread across both 3.5 and Pathfinder material - there is no way I could catch up and get to know this whole world.
If it breaks your sense of immersion, then it breaks your sense of immersion.
Whilst I have very little idea what the culture of ancient Egypt was actually like, I don't imagine Paizo have paid too much attention to re-producing it since they aren't writing history textbooks. I don't think the real Egypt had a city built in and around the carapace of a gigantic beetle, or that elementals howled across the desert interior, or that there was a nation to the west selling the elixir of eternal life. Maybe concentrating on the fantastic elements would help you here?
Also, if Golarion didn't have a culture a bit like a fantasy Egypt, then it wouldn't have any fantasy Egypt type adventures and that would be a real shame in my opinion. (I really like Entombed with the Pharaohs, and The Pact Stone Pyramid.) To me, your immersion problem is a small price to pay in order to achieve that.
As for setting bloat, I really don't see that as an issue. If you wanted to get into Golarion you could just buy the Inner Sea Primer, which gives a sparse description of each country. For more detail, if required, pick up The Inner Sea World Guide, which is a thing of beauty and well worth owning even if you never play in Golarion.
Or yuo could just use the Pathfinder Wiki and look things up at yuor own pace.
If you want to run an adventure in the Ustalav, pick up Rule of Fear - or don't pick it up if you don't feel you want any of the extra detail. If you have no intention of running an adventure in Ustalav then what does it matter that you don't have the book and have no idea what it contains? Why would you want and expect to be able to "know a whole world" anyway?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Actually I want to compliment Paizo on their branching out.
While 3pp can make Pathfinder compatible content, I applaud Paizo's spreading out by handling things in house they do well (writing, maps, paper products) and licensing out things they don't have the infrastructure for (metal minis, plastic minis, comics, etc.) When you factor in other licensed products (I think the paper minis are licensed, yes?) and other 'bare bones' systems that have been lept on because of the OGL (JBE's Kingdom rules) I don't see it as 'bloat' yet, more as a cornocopia of options. More importantly, it's those license purchasers (and indepentents) that are taking the risks. Paizo doesn't need to buy up a miniature factory, Wizkids and Reaper already have 'em.
Also because of the OGL, if any of the open content products that 3rd Party Publishers produce catch a developer's eye*, they can be incorporated into a source book. Paizo wants a spontanious Magus type? They can make their own, use SGG's Vanguard or my own Damascarran. Diversity works both ways. Note how Paizo uses/used Tome of Horrors monsters, but can't/won't use White Wolf's 'Crippled SRD' monsters.**
As to 'no one plays 3/x anymore' blame WotC. If Changelings, Shifters, Duskblades etc were OGC, you'd have more life as other publishers would pick them up for their own uses.***
As to 'world bloat' I don't see that, even in PFS.**** For a GM, the books are options to expand the world. Pathfinder assumes a GM can say "No"
*
**
***
****
It's true, finding 3.5 games at conventions may be harder with PF out there. On the other hand, it is probably easier to find games that will give you 80% (or more) of the experience you'd get with a 3.5 game thanks to PF providing ongoing support to a 3.5-based game. Without PF, you'd probably just have an shrinking pool of 3.5 DMs willing to run at conventions as they drifted off to other games with more ongoing support.
I'd say if you want a 3.5 game based on world you can't possibly license for, email Mike Mearls and give it your best shot. Paizo chose their direction, pursued the spirit of great gaming, and I think have rocked the house. If anyone disagrees, they should start their own global publishing company, design the perfect fantasy roleplaying game with no flaws, and put everyone else to shame.
Failing that, we should all probably jsut be glad we're not stuck with 4e, be grateful to the company that made that possible, and have the most fun however we choose to have it.
|
|
If it breaks your sense of immersion, then it breaks your sense of immersion.
Yep, and to be fair I had the same issue with D&D3.0 Forgotten Realms. I know people say Eberron nations have real world counterparts, e.g. Thrane and Spain, Aundair and France, but for me if there is that association it is well hidden and in theme only, not in actual stuff like names, architecture etc. Different strokes and all...
As for setting bloat, I really don't see that as an issue.
Its a perception thing, people say how D&D3.5 got ruined by rules bloat (we even had that mentioned in this thread by Shifty) but there is nothing saying you have to use all the rules etc.
I guess its the same with setting material - Golarion seems like such a large setting with so much information that it can be intimidating (a bit like Glorantha). Personally I also like to be a bit of a setting completionist (Freedom City of M&M, Eberron for D&D) and I did at one point start putting together a list of all the Pathfinder Setting books to see how much it would cost to buy and how much I would have to read. The sheer size of it put me off.
If you wanted to get into Golarion you could just buy the Inner Sea Primer, which gives a sparse description of each country. For more detail, if required, pick up The Inner Sea World Guide, which is a thing of beauty and well worth owning even if you never play in Golarion.
I have bought and read the Gazateer (read twice), Inner Sea Primer, Guide to Darkmoon Value and Guide to Absalom as well as the Osirian Players Companion (yes ironic I know, but I was going to try to see if I could get past my immersion breaking by immersing myself deeper). I have bought the Inner Sea World Guide on PDF, but not read it (and will likely not read it for the foreeable future as I have loads of other books still to read).
I still feel a bit like I only know a tiny bit about the world of Golarion though, and I can't seem to get even the basic of facts into my mind like what nations are called and what the Gods are. PFS is helping that a bit but I am still along way off from feeling comfortable with it as a setting.
|
but you're required to bring (and produce) any book that your character took something from
That's a PFS rule, but the game is more than just PFS. Some GMs might just ask "how does that feat work" and be happy with a short explaination, rather than demanding you bring in a book solely for a single feat.
And I think that without Pathfinder, 3.5 would probably fade away more quickly than it has done to this point. After all, how many people were actually playing 0E, BX, 1E, etc before the OSR started up?
Who cares about Cleave in a game where you stop fighting multiple opponents around level 5?
Umm...nobody, I guess. But I've never played a 3.5 or Pathfinder game like that.
|
|
It's true, finding 3.5 games at conventions may be harder with PF out there. On the other hand, it is probably easier to find games that will give you 80% (or more) of the experience you'd get with a 3.5 game thanks to PF providing ongoing support to a 3.5-based game.
True, and that is why I eventually bit the bullet and re-joined playing PFS post season zero.
This is a bit of a rant so apologies in advance! :)
Paizo seem to be going from strength to strength with the Pathfinder RPG and the Golarion setting, and they seem to be expanding in more and more ways doing new cool stuff (painted minis, cardboard minis, gamesmastery cards, an MMO, comics, novels etc).
The Pathfinder Society organised play is extremely popular with conventions specifically for them (PaizoCon UK here) and many tables running at other conventions.
The books look great, full colour, glossy pages, complemented by good pricing on PDFs.
The map packs and flip mats complement the scenarios and adventures.
So with all this going on I really wish I could fully embrace Pathfinder and Golarion and love it. I want to be part of that popular community (as after all RPGs are games that require other people to play), and I want all the cool tools to inspire me when I am not playing.
Alas, I find I cannot embrace Pathfinder as I would wish.
First off I am still a bit bitter that Pathfinder RPG has helped to make D&D 3.5 games harder to find, especially at conventions.
I look at the Pathfinder rules and despite liking some of the improvements I can't help wince when I see stuff that are steps backwards from 3.5, things that are more vague or unclear now, things that are less intuitive now, and things that didn't address the real problem about an issue and instead made other things worse.
I look at the Golarion setting and although it is growing on me I still see the collection of mini settings, the too close to Earth like cultures that breaks my sense of immersion.
I look at the collection of sourcebooks and see the setting bloat and that it has spread across both 3.5 and Pathfinder material - there is no way I could catch up and get to know this whole world.
I don't know, sometimes I wish I could just abandon 3.x completely and be happy just pursuing that other love of a gaming system FATE. However I like my the 3.5 system too much and so will continue to make do with...
I can relate to where DM's coming from. I like many(but not all) of the "upgrades" PF made to 3.5, but something just feels off. I feel better about PF thinking of it as it's own game, and not "D&D 3.75." There were just way too many little changes that crept in under the radar that sabotaged any easy conversion, in my case. Yes, I was one of those "system mastery" fans in 3.5 and I took pride in learning the in's and out's of the entire system. Resetting all that memorized material has been a nightmare and makes me feel very awkward and lacking confidence when I run a PF game. Some of our other groups have just said "screw it" and went back to 3.5e rules(I'm not the DM of those games in case anyone's wondering).
As soon as I feel comfortable with running a PF game, one of my players brings up another change we missed before and we're back to square one. A lot of times I feel like it would have been easier just picking up an entirely new system and learning it, rather than trying to replace and relearn 1,000 little rules that have had the past decade to embed themselves in my brain. Unlearning is a lot harder for me than just learning something new.
I think Pathfinder would have been an amazing RPG had I skipped 3.5e entirely and learned PF from the ground up. On it's own, it's an amazing game from an amazing company. I'm just taking forever warming up to it, and I constantly feel like I'm doing things wrong in game, constantly looking up and double-checking, and still getting it wrong most of the time.
I can relate to where DM's coming from. I like many(but not all) of the "upgrades" PF made to 3.5, but something just feels off. I feel better about PF thinking of it as it's own game, and not "D&D 3.75." There were just way too many little changes that crept in under the radar that sabotaged any easy conversion, in my case. Yes, I was one of those "system mastery" fans in 3.5 and I took pride in learning the in's and out's of the entire system. Resetting all that memorized material has been a nightmare and makes me feel very awkward and lacking confidence when I run a PF game. Some of our other groups have just said "screw it" and went back to 3.5e rules(I'm not the DM of those games in case anyone's wondering).
As soon as I feel comfortable with running a PF game, one of my players brings up another change we missed before and we're back to square one. A lot of times I feel like it would have been easier just picking up an entirely new system and learning it, rather than trying to replace and relearn 1,000 little rules that have had the past decade to embed themselves in my brain. Unlearning is a lot harder for me than just learning something new.
I think Pathfinder would have been an amazing RPG had I skipped 3.5e entirely and learned PF from the ground up. On it's own, it's an amazing game from an amazing company. I'm just taking forever warming up to it, and I constantly feel like I'm doing things wrong in game, constantly looking up and double-checking, and still getting it wrong most of the time.
The best post in this thread. Josh, you are speaking from experience and have articulated the very problems I would expect if I were to take up the PF rules. I DM 3.5 and have been since 2004. I have abandoned convention play with the end of Living Greyhawk. (PFS factions turn me off before I can even sit down to give it a go.)
I am so glad PF is around and in a sense takes up the mantle of 3.5. PF is like the offspring of 3.5 and as long as it endures, in a sense 3.5 is not dead. That being said, I just have not felt compelled to convert yet. I foresee Josh's issues being real and true hurdles for me and my group. I do intend to give PF a whirl one of these days, but don't have a burning desire to do so as I have very little issue with 3.5. It does not feel bloated to me, I have invested much time and money, yada, yada, yada.
But, I have invested quite a bit in PF also and have every Paizo RPG product from the company's inception up until (and not including) the recent beginner box. That's a lot, and now feels like so much that I really don't want anymore for the time being.
My bookcases runneth over with 3.5 and PF. I look forward to PF one day, but still have so much 3.5 to explore and still too little time.
Anyway, this is a rant, there is no real point to it other than to get my thoughts out there, to vent. If anything it is a compliment to Paizo that they are doing so much that impresses me despite my bitterness, I just wish there was those few little niggling things that stop me embracing PF and going along with the ride in full (rather than just for PFS), I know I could clear some much needed shelf space if I was to dump my 3.5 books, but alas PF hasn't yet comnvinced me to do so.
I'm still not sure why you'd want to. Personal example: My group and I are happily sticking with 3.5, as we all find Pathfinder materially inferior. We also don't also much care for Golarion, as we have long since selected our campaign world(s) of choice (though we do appreciate the design mentality behind Golarion, of containing and supporting multiple genres, which is what our group particularly likes).
What we're VERY happy about is that Pathfinder is around pumping out modules and - most importantly - APs that we can easily play with 3.5 rules (as well as grabbing choice bits of Pathfinder rules to add to 3.5). I very much agree with Kthulhu - that 3.5 would have faded away much faster without Pathfinder around. (IMNSHO, Pathfinder being here is keeping 3.5 very much alive.)
But that's just my group and I.
3.5 was owned by WoTC..Pathfinder couldn't "kill" it..it died when 4E came out and they stopped producing 3.5 stuff. If you want a 3.5 game at a con..run on. The local cons here have a mix of 3.5 and pathfinder, with a few 4E and 2E. As far as not liking the official world..don't use it. I have never used an official setting, from 2e on up. Keep 3x for your home game, and use Pathfinder stuff in it if you want. There really is no reason to sit on here and rant. If you don't like it, don't use it, and let people that do go about their happy little lives. I have had this same talk with a guy that ONLY plays 2E..gives me a headache
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
but you're required to bring (and produce) any book that your character took something fromThat's a PFS rule, but the game is more than just PFS. Some GMs might just ask "how does that feat work" and be happy with a short explaination, rather than demanding you bring in a book solely for a single feat.
And I think that without Pathfinder, 3.5 would probably fade away more quickly than it has done to this point. After all, how many people were actually playing 0E, BX, 1E, etc before the OSR started up?
Apologies Kthulhu, I thought I was clear in I was referring to PFS, itself. in a 'home game' that would be fine.
I also prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder. But, you are looking at the situation as an all-or-nothing scenario.
My group actually plays a house-ruled mish-mash of 3.5, Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Book of Experimental Might. I love how interchangeable the OGL-derived rule systems are with one another. As DM/GM, I can craft the game that is the most fun for my group to play.
And, we play in Eberron. I adapt Paizo's modules and adventure paths to conform to my group's campaign setting of choice.
We have a blast.
I also prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder. But, you are looking at the situation as an all-or-nothing scenario.
My group actually plays a house-ruled mish-mash of 3.5, Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Book of Experimental Might. I love how interchangeable the OGL-derived rule systems are with one another. As DM/GM, I can craft the game that is the most fun for my group to play.
And, we play in Eberron. I adapt Paizo's modules and adventure paths to conform to my group's campaign setting of choice.
We have a blast.
That's what I want to try, and sort of am doing with the group I DM for. Technically, we're playing PF, but I allow most 3.5 stuff in there as well(case by case basis). If it were solely up to me, I'd just run 3.5 with a heavy helping of PF updates.
For example, I love the core classes in PF. The Sorcerer and Fighter especially, are leaps and bounds better than their 3.5 counterparts.
No ones ever going to make the perfect game system that does what everyone wants it to do. There are plenty of things about PF that I wish they hadn't held over from 3.X like DR. I think DR is a terrible system as it can keep players who don't have access to whatever defeats the DR from assisting in a fight. I've seen it happen in 3.X and PF and it's frustrating to not be able to do anything in a fight if you've run out of spells or can't do the damage needed to affect a monster regularly.
If you don't like it, you don't like it. Still its not fair to blame Paizo for the lack of 3.5 games at conventions and that you'd have to convert Eberron yourself. I'm sure that any convention that has any official WotC connection will be pressured to run 4th Ed rather than 3.5. As for Eberron, there isn't much they can do unless WotC was willing to sell Paizo the lisense cheap. While I'd love that to happen I doubt it would.
So ultimately you have the choices of altering PF to do what you want it to do, find people still willing to play 3.5, give up and find something new, or go with 4th so you can keep getting content on the liscensed settings you like. As there are still groups who play 2nd Ed or retro clones, I'm sure that there are groups that still play 3.5 and since PF is Backwards compatible, it shouldn't be that hard to convert PF products you like to 3.5.
As for Channeling and Clerics, I've been in plenty of games without them. I've also played a few in both 3.5 and PF and found that I was able to heal when other PCs started to whine about it and not loose spells I might have wanted to use later. To me it meant that I could play a healer and be other things too then being just the healbot. Still I think each progressive jump has lessened the need for the Cleric as other classes have access to those abilities but Clerics still can excel at them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
WotC killed 3.5. Once they pulled the plug and you couldn't buy new books from them anymore all of the after market 3.5 books doubled in price which discouraged new players from giving it a try. Without new players, and with a shiny new (albeit inferior) game out, 3.5E was doomed.
Hmm. I can honestly say I don't think anything in Pathfinder is a step back from 3.5.
Neither do I. I also would never call Pathfinder less intuitive than 3.5. The whole grappling debacle that was 3.5 has no analogy I am aware of to illustrate how non-intuitive it was. That's just one example. If anything, Pathfinder might rely too much on intuition, judging from some of the complaints of syntax/context for rules questions, and the like.
I actually like Pathfinder better than 3.5, to be honest. And I was something of a holdout, jumping on a few months into release because I had been debating whether to just keep running 3.5.
I also am not sure how anybody could blame Pathfinder for a dearth in 3.5 materials. Doubtless, without support, those would all have gone the way of the dinosaur anyway. At least with Pathfinder around, the OP has a chance at new material for his 3.5 games, with just some small tweaks.
As for Golarion, I don't generally worry about campaign settings other than my own anyway. I always find them lackluster no matter how well put-together they are. I have nothing against Golarion, I just don't play in other worlds much. And how could Eberron have been the setting of choice for PF? It's WoTC's IP.
My only advice would be to just let it all go. Be happy with what you've got. It's just a game.
|
|
My group actually plays a house-ruled mish-mash of 3.5, Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Book of Experimental Might.
This sounds cool.
I love the 'Disciplines' in the BoXM. I'd be willing to play a 'Wizard' with no spells at all, just a Discipline every level, and build it as a Warlock!
Removed some posts. Keep it civil, and please, let's stay away from edition war nonsense.
I really don't see a huge difference between 3.5 or Pathfinder. Our group has never had any issue or headache with conversion. As for Golorian I think from what I have read is one of the best campaign worlds going. It combines I think some of the best themes from a variety of earlier campaign worlds and does a very good job of combineing those themes in a world that is easy to play in. I never got on the Erberron flying train but It seems to me you could adopt Erberron to PF with little trouble. Granted that would be your own game and not at conventions.
|
|
but you're required to bring (and produce) any book that your character took something from
I thought you just had to be able to produce the "Rule"?
For the (admittedly few) PFS games I've gone to, I brought my core book and APG, and any feats/spells/item descriptions I used (which got referred to less often) I printed out the relevant rules text, copy pasted onto a bunch of pages at the back of my character sheet, with page numbers to say what books and pages they came from, and it was sufficient - but maybe that isnt supposed to be sufficient, I dont know. Its sure alot less crap to carry around all day, and saves the *time* of having to look it up. Thats what I always do these days.
One thing I took away from when I tried 4e, (using the standalone Character Builder) is that it makes sense to have all your "options" right with your character sheet, instead of referring to the book all the time.
I also prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder. But, you are looking at the situation as an all-or-nothing scenario.
My group actually plays a house-ruled mish-mash of 3.5, Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Book of Experimental Might. I love how interchangeable the OGL-derived rule systems are with one another. As DM/GM, I can craft the game that is the most fun for my group to play.
Hmm. My last game I ran was something like this. A couple players made a huge fuss about "Why aren't we just playing Pathfinder, Rules as Written, out of the book, bothering to remember that we're using houserules, and what they are, is too much of a hassle, even with the houserules spelled out in a Word Document that has a table of contents to find everything" and at the moment I'm not willing to run a d20 game, due to the headaches of my last campaign. I'll play in one, but I'm not interested in running Pathfinder by RAW, or 3.5 by RAW, and haven't been for a long while.
The next time I run d20 I'll be doing something like Kirthfinder, and I'll be handing the players a rulebook with all the houserules worked in.
I still have been buying many of the Pathfinder books because I like reading them though, and the modules are always good. Anything I like I'll appropriate into "DHFinder" or whatever I end up naming it, and I'll likely use the bestiaries As-Is for Pathfinder.
So yeah, I'd prefer to pick and choose my OGL, and use a few things I wrote myself. I'll play PF or 3.5 by RAW, but I'm not very interested in running them. Lots of little things bug me about both of them, and if I'm running the game, I'm inclined to change the rules I don't like, before I start running it.
Of course that's just me (and Presumeably Kirth Gersson, since he put his own version of d20 on the internet, and thats what he runs at home).
Do I like PF more than 3.5? For the Most Part. Do I prefer a game that allows options from both? - Yeah, there are a few feats and such that I prefer from 3.5, or that have no Pathfinder analog, as well as a wealth of magic items that dont convert, which I would like to make use of as a player or GM.
I'm not satisfied with how either one handles multiclass spellcasters though. And Trailblazer is as close as I've gotten to being satisfied with that particular issue.
WotC killed 3.5. Once they pulled the plug and you couldn't buy new books from them anymore all of the after market 3.5 books doubled in price which discouraged new players from giving it a try. Without new players, and with a shiny new (albeit inferior) game out, 3.5E was doomed.
What's more, I was working at a FLGS at the time the 3.5 to 4.0 transition was taking place and we were given to understand that there had been a recall of the 3.5 books from major retail chains so that they could be destroyed. WoTC/Hasbro wanted 3.5 to go away as fast as they could possibly make it... to do otherwise would have threatened the success of their new baby.
Pathfinder is keeping all the old 3.5 material alive. I've been playing a Pathfinder game set in Ravenloft with virtually no conversion needed... I know friends playing Forgotten Realms and Eberron games using Pathfinder as well. Heck, when I think about it the one campaign setting I can't recall my friends using right now is Golarion... but the gods only know they are sure making use of the Pathfinder rules.
Meh as people have posted, WOTC killed 3.5 when they released 4th ed, in that 3.5 became a redundant system that was no longer supported.
Had Pathfinder not been kicking around, most of the gamers probably would have evolved onto 4 or just hopped off the hobby (or switched gaming brands).
Yes I agree that latetly there has been a few 1st and 2nd ed modules run, but those have all been aimed (at least in this country) at the older crew of nostalgia gamers who are cracking the dust off and reliving a bit of 'back in the day' fun for an afternoon.
Its fun, its retro, and its as cheezy and corny as we like it.
Now as to the OP, you don't have to use the Golarion setting from home games etc, we don't.
Don't need to know too much about Golarion even when you DO use the AP's.
The benefit to PF over 3.5 is that PF is a currently supported game.
By the way, in full disclosure, I hated 3rd ed and never played it (apart from trying it out to see if it was good)
|
|
I personally, like 3E moreso than PathFinder, though it is close. I also, personally, do not care much for the "official" Golarion, but much less that I do for the "official" Faerun, for example, (though I don't like FR much at all). Both (official) settings have to much personal preference to certain aspects of the game that stiffle players creativity (in my world, all _____ are ____/must do/be/have ______, etc. . .).
I really do miss all the options and possibilities that 3E offered to customize and build a character. I have never understood the we hate Prestige Classes mentality some people say is the majority. I miss all the options that 3E had for different themes, playstyles, and settings. PathFinder has plenty of fluff stuff, but very little mechanics to actually play games around those things.
I also wish that both Golarion and PFS had been completely (100%) divorced from PathFinder materials as well. Not saying that they are very similar, but there is are some things in there designed for a organized playstyle that doesn't need to be in home games.
|
|
Ok, my comment about Pathfinder making sure 3.5 never got back up seems to have become the focus of this thread, which was never my intention. However that is the nature of internet forum threads :)
I will say this on the matter. I don't believe Pathfinder killed 3.5, I agree that WotC's decision to release 4e was a big factor in the decline of 3.5 play (and note I am talking about play here, not product release, I couldn't care whether any more 3.5 stuff is being released or not, just that people are playing 3.5).
However I did notice that a lot of 3.5 players weren't happy with 4e and weren't converting and so I thought "great! those people will likely keep playing 3.5". But when PF came out, because other people do like product being released, it seems like a lot of the 3.5 holdouts moved over to PF, making the final 3.5 holdouts even fewer in number, and perhaps below the critical mass needed for a decent player network.
Of course we can never know how much play 3.5 would be getting had PF not come out, but I theorise that it may be more than it is now, but accept that my theory could be wrong. At the very least I am pretty sure my old weekly game group would have stuck with 3.5 (they hated 4e) if PF had not appeared, and if they had I might still have been gaming with them today.
|
|
I also prefer 3.5 over Pathfinder. But, you are looking at the situation as an all-or-nothing scenario.
My group actually plays a house-ruled mish-mash of 3.5, Unearthed Arcana, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and Book of Experimental Might.
I tend to run games (and want to play them) RAW with no houserules - though official optional rules like Action Points and Reserve Points that are OGC are cool. The reason being I run at conventions, and play in different groups and so its easier that everyone is on the same page when it comes to rules. I started to be a RAW only man when I started running Shadowrun Missions at conventions - I cut out all my houserules and re-learnt the RAW. Now I just don't even think about houserules.
As for all or nothing, at present I run 3.5, play 4e and play and GM PF in terms of PFS. However that means my reading time and rules knowledge is spread across three editions - and when I still have several 3.5 books on my shelf still unread, I would like them to take priority over reading the PF core rules, APG or Inner Sea World Guide. Also as I also wnat to play Traveller, FATE, RuneQuest, M&M, Savage Worlds etc I would have preferred if there was not the 3.5/PF divide in my time and collection. But alas that is not meant to be as I like Eberron too much, and find enough niggling issues with PF that weren't issues with 3.5 to offset the great improvements PF made (skill consolidation, favoured class bonuses, same cost for cross class skills etc).