|
I would strongly advise trying out Pathfinder using some of the free material to see if you feel it is worth the money and effort to upgrade.
As D&D Next is also on the way you may wish to wait to see if that will be to your liking, I would hate for anyone to spend a load of money on Pathfinder only to find D&D Next is a better fit for them.
I personally was underwhelmed by Pathfinder RPG, and if anything slightly frustrated with it.
First off PF RPG does make some really good changes to the 3.x ruleset:
Combining Skills (though personally I wish they had gone further to something like 4e's skill list)
Favoured class as a carrot not a stick
CMB/CMD mechanic
However, there are also changes that I don't like:
Introduction of Fly skill
Clerical channelling now makes the healing ability disparity between a party with and without a cleric even greater
Grapple rules beyond the CMB/CMD stuff is more complicated (having to keep track of who is winning the grapple, whether they have one hand free etc) and less intuitive (its often easier to escape from a Pin then just a Grapple)
A few tweaks to the 3.5 rules were made but not completely thought through leading to FAQ and errata wavering on interpretation e.g. use of weapon bonuses to trip now rules all weapons add a bonus that makes trip weapons pretty much pointless.
Some feats seem contrived to just support backwards compatibility e.g. Stealthy feat that in 3.5 gave a +2 to Hide and Move Silently in PF gives a +2 to Stealth and Escape Artist??? Stealthy as a feat should just have been dropped and instead Skill Focus (Stealth) been used.
Overall for me, it was just extra expense to have to buy another core rulebook (and the PDF is too slow to render to get away with using that at the game table so I had to buy a hard copy) for little gain.
I also find it is enough change that backwards compatibility is debatable - NPCs in adventures can be converted fairly easily on the fly, but if players want to use feats, classes or equipment from 3.5 books then the GM will likely need to make some judgement calls on how to convert (there are whole threads on converting stuff).
I only run and play PF RPG now because of the PFS Organised Play campaign - if its not PFS I am not interested and rather play / run 3.5 (I am currently running Freeport using D&D3.5).
Personally although I prefer 3.5 to play I am actually finding DMing it a bit of a pain in terms of prepping NPCs (ditto when running PFS) and so am enjoying 4e more and more and I am very keen to see what D&D Next brings.
TL:DR - try out Pathfinder using the free resources and hold off buying anything until you see if D&D Next will be a better fit for you.
In my opinion the worth of the differences between 3.5 and PF are impossible to judge without playing them. You'll like some of them and not others and different people will value them differently.
One big advantage of playing PF is that it's still supported (and they have no immediate plans to begin a new edition, so it should be safe for a good couple of years and probably considerably longer). That means there's new bits and pieces coming out for Pathfinder that just might blow you away. This is more relevant if you like settings and adventures, but I think it's true for rules and expansive subsystems as well.
I have to say, having played a reasonable amount of both, that I prefer Pathfinder. I find it runs nicer over all. Although I do miss a lot of the extra splat and setting specific material from 3.5.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
|
|
But Pathfinder is 3.5, just some people are too blind to see that. :)
Can I ask what you mean by this? Or were you just trying to make a joke?
Luckily, PF material is forward-compatible with 3.5. :)
Not to the extent that I would like, there are several things that would need conversion (skill names) or relate to concepts that simply don't exist in 3.5 e.g. favoured class options, CMB & CMD modifiers. So to make much of the APG content work in 3.5 you would have to houserule in some of the PF RPG rules.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But Pathfinder is 3.5, just some people are too blind to see that. :)Can I ask what you mean by this? Or were you just trying to make a joke?
Luckily, PF material is forward-compatible with 3.5. :)Not to the extent that I would like, there are several things that would need conversion (skill names) or relate to concepts that simply don't exist in 3.5 e.g. favoured class options, CMB & CMD modifiers. So to make much of the APG content work in 3.5 you would have to houserule in some of the PF RPG rules.
I have no problem using PF material with 3.5 and vice versa. All the stuff you write about can be done using 5 functional brain cells in 5 seconds.
What's real funny is that making PF material work with 3.5 sometimes takes less energy and time than making 3.5 material work with 3.5. And I won't even touch the topic of 3.0 stuff :)
|
|
I have no problem using PF material with 3.5 and vice versa. All the stuff you write about can be done using 5 functional brain cells in 5 seconds.
First off, you would need to have knowledge of the Pathfinder RPG in order to do some of those changes - hand the APG to someone who isn't familiar with PF RPG and only D&D3.5 and they will likely be confused by terms such as Combat Manoeuvre Bonus and what Favoured Class Options are - yet the APG carries a 3.5 OGL Compatible logo and people such as yourselves state that PF = 3.5?
Really, PF != 3.5, its close but noticeably different, just like Shadowrun 1st Edition and 2nd Edition were similar but not the same.
Also, the fact that games companies produce PF versions of material they created for 3.5 (e.g. Green Ronin's Pathfinder Freeport Companion) rather than just release the 3.5 version again with a Pathfinder logo on is evidence that some conversion (some trivial, others not so) is required.
Again, just looking at the number of threads asking for advice on how to convert 3.5 material to PF implies that not everyone is as gifted as yourself with converting material. Some of us would require more than 5 seconds even though we do actually have more than 5 functional brain cells.
|
|
Paizo makes it possible to own PDFs of their books, and supports them with updates that include errata
Yep, if you do need PDF support for your RPG then Paizo's Pathfinder wins hands down over 3.5 despite the PF PDFs being very image heavy and slow to render (painfully slow sometimes).
Unfortunately the 3.5 core books were never released in PDF legally and I only bought a few of the 3.5 PDFs when they were still on sale (PHB2, Eberron Campaign Setting, Unearthed Arcana). I really hope WotC eventually releases the 3.5 (and 4e) PDFs for sale again.
There was a suggested wealth by level in 3E and 3.5, as well. Maybe you (or your group) just weren't aware of it.I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
Only thing i know of in 3.5 is the starting wealth for NPC, characters above 1st.
And I admit that i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.
You can get much of the core 3.5 rules here (not the books necessarily).
They even conveniently have them in zip files for you at the bottom.
*cough*Would be nice if a more "customer focused" company did something similar, just saying.*cough*
Shouldn't be too hard to make pdfs of those (or even books in some cases).
As to using PF stuff in 3.5, sure you can do it but I'd say it isn't super simple. How do you advance a PF monster that doesn't advance by level in 3.5? There is no advancement line in PF. Does it size get bigger? How far can it be advanced?
I know, see the PF rules, then I'm not using 3.5 am I? There is a bunch of fiddly changes like that in the system. All that matters is how interested someone is in investing the time to do the conversion.
Removed a few posts and replies to them. We do not tolerate any talk of pirating any materials on paizo.com. Additionally, please consider your analogies carefully and revisit the messageboard rules.
|
Again, just looking at the number of threads asking for advice on how to convert 3.5 material to PF implies that not everyone is as gifted as yourself with converting material. Some of us would require more than 5 seconds even though we do actually have more than 5 functional brain cells.
If the terms "Combat Maneuver Bonus" and "Favored Class Options" are unfathomable to a 3.5 DM, then I would have to agree with Gorb's assessment of their cranial capacity.
There's also the handy conversion guide for updating 3.5 to PF, which is also forward-compatible enough to facilitate converting PF to 3.5.
So to make much of the APG content work in 3.5 you would have to houserule in some of the PF RPG rules.
You're already houseruling in PF options, so I don't see the difference between them and the other mechanic. A Favored Class Option selection is just as much a houserule as the Favored Class Option mechanics. I don't understand your complaint.
There was a suggested wealth by level in 3E and 3.5, as well. Maybe you (or your group) just weren't aware of it.I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
Only thing i know of in 3.5 is the starting wealth for NPC, characters above 1st.
And I admit that i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.
3.5DMG page135 table5-1 Character Wealth by Level. I used it as a 3.5 DM as well as the pathfinder version as a Pathfinder DM.
Not to start up another WBL discussion but WBL is a guideline to demonstrate how the game designers expected wealth to apply to players. Too much and the battles get easier. Too little and they get harder. Modifying the WBL is fine, as long as you are aware of the consequences.
- Gauss
DigitalMage, a couple of points for me:
I like the new fly skill mechanic as the old fly rules were very cumbersome and hard to use.
For me, Clerical Channeling does not increase the disparity between a party with and without a cleric. It DOES make the cleric more than a healbot by allowing his spells to do something else besides healing. Combined with the quick channel feat the cleric can heal and cast a spell in a round. In a party without a cleric they will still have the same thing they always did...wands of cure.
While I agree there should be a PDF option to reduce the pdfs to their basic (rules without graphics) components you can actually speed up the PDF by adjusting some options in the preferences. The search function for the PDFs is initially slow but if you increase the buffer size and then keep the pdf open for an hour or two itll be indexed after that (more or less permanently).
- Gauss
When you realize that the game is not meant to simulate reality, rather it is to simulate a story and to be a game, then it does make sense.i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.
Yes and no.
If I am interested in the story and try to "interect" more with it, why punishe the character?<shrug> May just be me.
I'm a PF GM for a casual gaming group (lightly familiar with the rules). I'm also thinking about returning to 3.5 rules.
Basically, PF is too much of a pain. PF added hps to everything without changing hp amounts for other stuff. This means all damage and cure spells/abilities have been effectively nerfed. Instead, PF adds MORE spells and abilities, which equals longer combats and more work for me as a GM - to the point where it sucks some of the fun out of the game. A few examples:
A barbarian wants to rage? In 3.5, players says "I'm going to rage" - frankly, this ability is already kindof a pain cause I have to recalculate their HPS, hit rolls, damage rolls, saves, AND AC. But I'm willing to put up with it cause this is a central ability for barbs. In PF, they actually made this ability MORE complicated. Now, in addition to the (too many) calculations), I have to tabulate how many rounds he's raging and keep track of a multitude of rage abilities, in addition to all of the other crap that's going on during combat.
Zero level spells may be cast "at will" now. At first, I thought this would be a good change. Now, I hate it. Light sources are now useless. That USED to be a fun part of the game - what can the characters see? Who's carrying a torch? Your torch gets knocked out, NOW what!? Now, the casters just cast light at whatever they want to see. I barely even bother with lighting issues anymore - that kills a lot of the creep of a dungeon. Also, now, during combat, EVERY round, the arcane casters are casting a spell or spell-like ability. It REALLY slows combat down AND spell effects are barely, or often not even, the equivalent of swinging a sword. I remember when wizards were fun - they held on to their money spell, just basically trying to survive, until just the right moment and BAM!!! Out comes the gamechanging spell! Those used to be climactic moments. No more. Now, with everyone having a substantially more hps and reflex abilities, Fireball rarely kills anyone, it just burns them some - not much better than a fighter attack. Yawn.
More attacks. Now we're rolling even more dice when melee classes attack. Yay. THAT slows down combat.
MORE friggin feats and abilities. Man, I'm tired of trying to keep track of feats and abilities. Plus, some players (at least in my group) don't want to mess with that. For those players, I used to recommend they play fighter, monk, or rogue. You know, simpler and easier-to-play classes. Not anymore. Every class has a bunch of rules baggage now. (Paizo, please note: MORE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER).
And I don't even bother with the additional base classes and subclasses that have been added to the game. And I don't have an issue with people wanting to play with those, but now they are starting to seep into PF adventure publications and I have to learn about them, and I just don't need more stuff to learn.
PF is just more work. And combat is unnecessarily complex (and consequently slow). Maybe this is good for fanatic gamers who are always wanting more customization, but it's definitely not for casual gamers.
What PF has going for it IMO is ongoing publications. Their adventures are THE BEST products, content-wise.
But for me, there's enough 3.5 material (including some of the quality stuff published by Paizo) that I think I could go back without missing anything.
Okay, that's my rant (it's been a little pent up on this topic). Excuse any tendency I have for minor exaggeration, but the "small" differences between PF and 3.5 seem more glaring to me everytime I play now.
A barbarian wants to rage? In 3.5, players says "I'm going to rage" - frankly, this ability is already kindof a pain cause I have to recalculate their HPS, hit rolls, damage rolls, saves, AND AC. But I'm willing to put up with it cause this is a central ability for barbs. In PF, they actually made this ability MORE complicated. Now, in addition to the (too many) calculations), I have to tabulate how many rounds he's raging and keep track of a multitude of rage abilities, in addition to all of the other crap that's going on during combat.
Really? I require my players to include all their stats. So barbarians have stats when not at rage and when in rage (I don't have to recalculate anything, players are required to have this data on their sheets.) My players sheets also have their BAB, their adjusted BAB, and their Adjusted BAB with spell buffs, and for each weapon they wield. The same for alchemists in evolved form, wild shaped druids (including all wildshape forms they plan to use).
In combat, all my players roll their dice simultaneously witnessed by other players, all hits are calculated, then damage roll is calculated. Then by initiative, each player tells me what AC they could hit, I tell them how many hits, and they tell me the damage dice (which they already rolled for this round), I subtract the hp from the monster. And the next round begins. It doesn't take much to cut down the time it takes to do a combat round, if your players make their rolls and damage ahead of time.
The problems you have, I do not.
Light sources are always useless in D&D - why is that even an issue? Having torches and lanterns are only necessary when their is no spellcaster in the party. Besides we've got elven rogue characters who'd rather not have a light spell activated so they can maintain stealth in the dark. Our players would prefer everyone to have Darkvision so light sources are never turned on.
You seem to have lots of bookkeeping issues that I do not, since my players are required to have all such information on their sheets. If a barbarian character in rage, cannot tell me when it ends, then I'll end it arbitrarily, because they are required to know and be able to tell me whenever I ask.
Besides, I don't mix PF with 3.5 - I keep 3.5 where it belongs in the trash.
Leper, I see one of your problems right off. Why are you doing your players' jobs? You should not be the one calculating their hps, attack and damage rolls, saves and AC. Nor should you be calculating the rounds of rage.
Regarding your problem with spells, feats, etc. I agree that for some PF is more complicated. Especially the base classes. However, compared to the experience that many have it is simpler. Instead of having to hunt through a massive amount of splat books for the one prestige class that will make your fighter relevant you just pick a fighter or fighter archetype and his feats out of 4 books. There was almost never a reason for a fighter, wizard, or sorcerer to stay with the class past the point of prestige classing. Now there is.
For those players that didn't prestige class this is a problem. For the rest of us we can play a single class until retirement. Yes, I realize that many of the prestige classers were also power gamers that looked for any and every advantage they could find. But many prestige classers werent. For those that weren't PF rocks.
- Gauss
Edit: One question, you do know the light spell only allows one light spell active at a time right?
Kthulhu, whether WotC did or did not release the PDFs is immaterial if they then yanked them. Anyone possessing a 3.5 pdf that they did not personally make or was not purchased from WotC or some retailer of theirs is guilty of theft in the eyes of the law. Note: I am not saying I wouldn't acquire them either if I were so inclined. ;) - Gauss
There was a suggested wealth by level in 3E and 3.5, as well. Maybe you (or your group) just weren't aware of it.I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
Only thing i know of in 3.5 is the starting wealth for NPC, characters above 1st.
And I admit that i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.
Who does that? 99% of the nobles in my campaign are level 1-3 aristocrats. A few have actual class levels, and a few of those might actually be powerful. If one of my players picked a superhero noble's pocket successfully, goodie for them--they may have just gotten something awesome (and may also be the target of divination and reprisals). Likewise, 10 levels later, if they go around picking random nobles' pockets, they're likely to get what amounts to junk at their level--some gold or baubles, a letter to a mistress, a fancy-looking but normal dagger. WBL doesn't have to make everything in the world scale with the players to be useful.
Besides, you can always just ignore it. If the party wanders into the clearly marked Cave of the Irresistably High Level Great Wyrm of Chaos to go after its legendary horde, let them. It'll be a moot point soon after that.
I was a huge 3.5 fan and had doubts about Pathfinder, I love what they did to the classes, it puts them on equal level(if not better) with 3.5 Prestige Classes. PrC from 3.5 are still easy to use with Pathfinder. A house rule I like to use with PrC - if you multiclass into PrC with a single core class you continue get favored class bonuses, if you have to have 2 core classes to gain the prestige class you get your favored class bonus every other level(fighter/wizard/eldritch knight), unless you have have 2 favored classes(half elf).
I don't think classes are more confusing if you start at 1st level and know your character, along with GM, its all on paper. Alot of the abilities you see at various levels are a continuation of a previous ability.
I read a post that said theres less material then 3.5 and thats true, but you get alot more crunch in a PF Rulebook by far then a 3.5. They organize so much better and leave the fluff where it belongs, in campaign books.
What do you do about abilities that grant the favored class bonus, retroactively, to a Prestige Class then? Do those bonuses just cease to exist. The Red Mantis Assassin get that in the Inner Sea Magic by getting prestige in that secret society.
There was a suggested wealth by level in 3E and 3.5, as well. Maybe you (or your group) just weren't aware of it.I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
Only thing i know of in 3.5 is the starting wealth for NPC, characters above 1st.
And I admit that i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.Who does that? 99% of the nobles in my campaign are level 1-3 aristocrats. A few have actual class levels, and a few of those might actually be powerful. If one of my players picked a superhero noble's pocket successfully, goodie for them--they may have just gotten something awesome (and may also be the target of divination and reprisals). Likewise, 10 levels later, if they go around picking random nobles' pockets, they're likely to get what amounts to junk at their level--some gold or baubles, a letter to a mistress, a fancy-looking but normal dagger. WBL doesn't have to make everything in the world scale with the players to be useful.
Besides, you can always just ignore it. If the party wanders into the clearly marked Cave of the Irresistably High Level Great Wyrm of Chaos to go after its legendary horde, let them. It'll be a moot point soon after that.
<SIGH>
I would rather have a bunch of plot hooks. It keeps me interested in the game.Who does this? Some very nice people that i dont game with anymore. I wish them well.
I found another group that is very promising. Yay Ravenloft!
:)
I'm pretty sure they were. The fact that they were later yanked doesn't mean there were never sold at all (although I'm sure WotC appreciates your revisionist history).
Actually, I'm pretty sure they weren't (if it matters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To get back to the original post, I was a die hard 3.5'er too, but I like Pathfinder a lot better. Pathfinder gives you options. You can't just say: I'm a Fighter anymore. You class actually tells very little about you. You'd have to say I'm a ranged fighter. If you just say "I'm an oracle" people wouldn't know if they should make a healer because you'll take the tank role, or if they should make a tank because you have the healing role. I love that about Pathfinder.
There was a suggested wealth by level in 3E and 3.5, as well. Maybe you (or your group) just weren't aware of it.I dont like the weath by level (WBL) in pathfinder.
The way some people run, your loot in a scheam depends on how much you currently have?
(although that may be a DM-specific failure)
Only thing i know of in 3.5 is the starting wealth for NPC, characters above 1st.
And I admit that i have seen it from one DM.
But it seems silly that what is in pocket of a noble that i picked is dependent on how much wealth the character has.Who does that? 99% of the nobles in my campaign are level 1-3 aristocrats. A few have actual class levels, and a few of those might actually be powerful. If one of my players picked a superhero noble's pocket successfully, goodie for them--they may have just gotten something awesome (and may also be the target of divination and reprisals). Likewise, 10 levels later, if they go around picking random nobles' pockets, they're likely to get what amounts to junk at their level--some gold or baubles, a letter to a mistress, a fancy-looking but normal dagger. WBL doesn't have to make everything in the world scale with the players to be useful.
Besides, you can always just ignore it. If the party wanders into the clearly marked Cave of the Irresistably High Level Great Wyrm of Chaos to go after its legendary horde, let them. It'll be a moot point soon after that.
<SIGH>
I would rather have a bunch of plot hooks. It keeps me interested in the game.
Who does this? Some very nice people that i dont game with anymore. I wish them well.
I found another group that is very promising. Yay Ravenloft!
:)
Well, I suppose the letter could be a plot hook. . . .
To get back to the original post, I was a die hard 3.5'er too, but I like Pathfinder a lot better. Pathfinder gives you options. You can't just say: I'm a Fighter anymore. You class actually tells very little about you. You'd have to say I'm a ranged fighter. If you just say "I'm an oracle" people wouldn't know if they should make a healer because you'll take the tank role, or if they should make a tank because you have the healing role. I love that about Pathfinder.It really wasn't that different in 3.5.
Sure it was. There was some room to differentiate within a class, but not nearly enough. That's why even the non-munchkins never simply went cleric or fighter. They took a dozen prestige class or six to differentiate their character from the vanilla class type.
|
|
Kthulhu, whether WotC did or did not release the PDFs is immaterial if they then yanked them. Anyone possessing a 3.5 pdf that they did not personally make or was not purchased from WotC or some retailer of theirs is guilty of theft in the eyes of the law. Note: I am not saying I wouldn't acquire them either if I were so inclined. ;) - Gauss
I'm not denying any of that. But what DigitalMage stated was that the 3.5 core rules had never been released as PDFs legally, which I'm fairly sure is NOT the case.
|
|
If the terms "Combat Maneuver Bonus" and "Favored Class Options" are unfathomable to a 3.5 DM, then I would have to agree with Gorb's assessment of their cranial capacity.
I agree that they may get the general gist of those terms, but a 3.5 only GM would not know how to implement them.
For example "Combat Manoeuvre Bonus", okay that sounds like a bonus you add when making a Combat Manoeuvre, and I guess Trip, Disarm etc are all Combat Manoeuvres. But what is it actually a bonus to?
When making a Trip attack in 3.5 you make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target, if that succeeds you then make a Strength test opposed by the target's Dex or Strength check. So does a CMB add to the unarmed melee touch attack or does it add to the Strength check (like the bonus from Improved Unarmed Trip feat)?
As for Favoured Class, okay the APG pretty much explains how they work, but in 3.5 you don't get to choose your favoured class, so how does the 3.5 GM expect to have balance - one player's Elven Wizard will get these benefits but another player's Dwarven Rogue never will. Also Humans and Half Elves don't have a favoured class as such - "When determining whether a multiclass human takes an experience point penalty, his or her highest-level class does not count", so does a human always get these Favoured CLass bonuses no matter what class they take, e.g. a Human ROgue 2, Fighter 2, Wizard 3 would get Favoured Class bonuses for all 7 levels?
Those are rhetorical questions by the way, but the point is - without knowledge of how the PF RPG works the APG by itself added to a 3.5 is likely to be confusing - but apparently you feel that just means their "cranial capacity" is less than five brain cells, nice!
There's also the handy conversion guide for updating 3.5 to PF, which is also forward-compatible enough to facilitate converting PF to 3.5.
I made a comment:
"I love the APG stuff, I only wish it was written for 3.5"to which you replied
"Luckily, PF material is forward-compatible with 3.5"
I responded
"Not to the extent that I would like, there are several things that would need conversion (skill names) or relate to concepts that simply don't exist in 3.5 e.g. favoured class options, CMB & CMD modifiers."
To which your response is to suggest that CMB and Favoured Class options should not be unfathomable to a 3.5 DM (despite no familiarity with the PF RPG) and then to suggest using the conversion guide.
I am not saying that you couldn't use the APG in a 3.5 game if you are prepared to do some conversion and have some knowledge of the PF RPG and / or the PF Conversion guide - of course you could.
What I was suggesting is that I don't want to have to do that conversion and would prefer a version specifically written for 3.5, and that some 3.5 GMs without knowledge of PF RPG or the conversion guide wouldn't be do the conversion easily or at all because some concepts and implementations of those concepts are unique to the PF RPG.
You're already houseruling in PF options, so I don't see the difference between them and the other mechanic. A Favored Class Option selection is just as much a houserule as the Favored Class Option mechanics. I don't understand your complaint.
The point is that if there was a 3.5 version of the APG I wouldn't be houseruling in PF options.
|
|
Unfortunately the 3.5 core books were never released in PDF legallyI'm pretty sure they were. The fact that they were later yanked doesn't mean there were never sold at all (although I'm sure WotC appreciates your revisionist history).
If they were, they weren't on DriveThruRPG as I would have bought them. I did buy PHB2 and Eberron campaign setting for 3.5 and had earmarked a load of other 3.5 PDFs to buy (but held off because the prices were too high for me).