Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?
3.P (3.5 with some Pathfinder) is more popular than P.5 (Pathfinder with some 3.5)
Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?
My group did not convert to pathfinder until wizard said they were making 5th edition.
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
Huh? It's not top of the heap now. Sure, it's still not dead, but the Top is split between 4th, 3.5 and PF.
3rd lasted 8 years.
AD&D (1st & 2nd ed, there was less difference between them and 3/0 vs 3.5) lasted 18 years.
Sure, some people still play 3.5 but some still play Ad&D.
So we have
ODD= 3 years
AD&D= 18 years & still played
3rd= 8 years & still played.
4th = 4 or 5 years, soon to be dead.
PF= 4 years and counting.
Like the others here, I've played and DMed just about every version of D&D in existence, bar none, and I have to say that so far, Pathfinder is my favorite. The only things I don't like about PF are:
1 The game world. WAY too anime-riffic outfits, armor etc. Not enough political complexity.2 The near total lack of traps in the PF modules. Really people! And those poisons should have higher DC's, although I do like the change in how often the damage is dealt.
3 Some of the classes, like Alchemist, Gunslinger, Monk, Summoner, "Ninja", Samurai. Get your 1800's and Wuxia/Japan crap out of my fantasy game!
4 Many of the posters on this forum are obsessed with "optimization", which essentially means munchkinism.
5 The hate on for the venerable Rogue and Fighter here on the forum.
1. Same back in AD&D.
2. True, but many see that as a Good Thing.
3. Same back in 3rd ed. Ninja, Samurai, Wu-Jen, Shugenja etc. Summoner isn't 1800's or woo at all. I don't like it, but it fits. Gunslinger is optional, thank Prime. Oriental Adventures came out in 1985.
4. Wow, the optimization in PF pales besides the Optimization in 3.5. It's not even close.
5. Same back in 3.5 and even AD&D.
While OGL certainly helped establish the presence of 3.X, It's success may have led to it's demise as well. After all all of that third party success wasn't feeding WOTC's coffers.
Indirectly it was. The d20 stl games required access to the PHB. Even separate stand alone OGL games could utilize material from WotC. And 3pp weren't making huge fortunes and diverting piles of cash from the coffers of WotC. The "problem" with 3.5 was simple. It was slowing down. Each succeeding splat book was selling a few less (a guess on this, but I think a good one). In any event they weren't selling hundreds of thousands of core books as they had been in the beginning. And for Hasbro, WotC's owners, success wasn't measured in lower sales of splat books. They wanted the halcyon days of core rulebook sales. They were, imo, also thinking of sales as a zero sum game. For any 3pp to make money ,it meant Hasbro was losing money. Not quite accurate but the toy oriented sales / marketing people at Hasbro would see it that way. The toy business is pretty cut throat. The OGL was created to foster a symbiosis between WotC and 3pp which would benefit both (and hopefully WotC more). Hasbro saw the OGL as allowing parasites to take advantage of WotC IP. Hence 4E, new core sales and no bothersome OGL, just the highly restrictive GSL which benefitted WotC overwhelmingly as opposed to any prospective 3pp. The digital platform plans WotC had, which took a few years to get in place, weren't too friendly to 3pp material either. Besides the marketing angle and online angle I'm sure there were, and are, people at WotC who wanted to create their version of D&D, to put their spin on it and to "improve" the game (which is largely, I think, a matter of opinion and perspective). Whether or not I end up playing DDN I'm curious to see the way it goes and how their licensing scheme works.
There's a lot of people that have been playing 3.x of the most famous RPG since Monte Cook and company released it back in, what 1998?
2000.
If I had a steady home group instead of organized play, it would be 3.5.
I realise that there's lots of people who like it - it just sounds to me like it was getting harder and harder to find a 3.5 game nowadays.
The more Pathfinder material that comes out, the further the two games "default assumptions" become. It seems that way to me anyway.
Pathfinder is essentially a houserules document on 3.5, while pumping a ton of more material into the 3.X library (and facilitating 3PP to do the same.)
To players like myself who see it all as a culmination of a single addition (in addition to 3.0) it's all just one big game with tons of toys to add to my game.
It seems to me that backwards compatibility doesnt always mean the earlier products are "forward compatible".
.Granted I know next to nothing about the rules, so perhaps it's just a generalisation that doesnt apply to this specific situation, mixed with a skewed sample. But my impression from the comments on the forums that it's easy enough to use 3.5 material in a pathfinder game but not so straightforward to pick up a Pathfinder supplement and just drop it into a 3.5 game (without unintended consequences and/or knowing a lot about Pathfinder already).
|
Are there many people still playing 3.5?
I hope to play more 3.5. I ran the Freeport Trilogy last year using 3.5 (even though I own Pathfinder) because I still prefer that system overall. Although I am not currently playing it (GMing a Starblazer Adventures Star Wars campaign) I do hope to run some Eberron with 3.5 next.
I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other.
This was my biggest fear about the success of Pathfinder, and in terms of convention play Pathfinder does seem to be much more prevalent than D&D3.5, and hence why I play Pathfinder RPG; Pathfinder Society is the closest I can get to a 3.5 game at conventions.
In my local area Pathfinder isn't as popular though it seems. In my gaming meetup it was ages before we had any PF games and now there is only one ongoing PF campaign, whilst there have been many more 4e games and still some 3.5 games.
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?
I can't recall any 3.5 3rd party products being released recently, though this was never a big deal for me as I pretty much stick with WotC stuff.
Freeport was the one exception and why I am very sad that the latest edition of the City of Adventure is going from being a systemless setting (with multiple rules companions supporting Savage Worlds, 3.5, 4e, M&M2e, FATE etc) to being tied in with Pathfinder RPG. It means I won't be continuing on the Freeport voyage :(
Like the others here, I've played and DMed just about every version of D&D in existence, bar none, and I have to say that so far, Pathfinder is my favorite. The only things I don't like about PF are:
1 The game world. WAY too anime-riffic outfits, armor etc. Not enough political complexity.2 The near total lack of traps in the PF modules. Really people! And those poisons should have higher DC's, although I do like the change in how often the damage is dealt.
3 Some of the classes, like Alchemist, Gunslinger, Monk, Summoner, "Ninja", Samurai. Get your 1800's and Wuxia/Japan crap out of my fantasy game!
4 Many of the posters on this forum are obsessed with "optimization", which essentially means munchkinism.
5 The hate on for the venerable Rogue and Fighter here on the forum.
1. Same back in AD&D.
2. True, but many see that as a Good Thing.
3. Same back in 3rd ed. Ninja, Samurai, Wu-Jen, Shugenja etc. Summoner isn't 1800's or woo at all. I don't like it, but it fits. Gunslinger is optional, thank Prime. Oriental Adventures came out in 1985.
4. Wow, the optimization in PF pales besides the Optimization in 3.5. It's not even close.
5. Same back in 3.5 and even AD&D.
Nope, I recall how the Bard got crap because of that goofy outfit he was wearing on the class page, but even THAT pales in comparison to the decidedly silly fashion models that are in Pathfinder.
2 Blech. Poor babies, they can't take minor inconveniences like deadly traps and puzzles. "Many" are lazy.
3 The older stuff was less wild, closer to realistic. Summoner was thrown in, but I forgot to mention just how confusing and generally broken the class is.
4. Disagree. In the old 3.5 stuff, optimization depended on how many prestige classes you took etc. Now, it's all about feats and magic items. Because of the sheer number of each, it's worse.
5. Nope. I was there. Main problem the Rogue had was percentile skills and the huge bennies being had from kits back in AD&D. I don't recall any major malfunctions with Rogues in 3.5, nobody complained that I knew of.
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
That seems a strange assumption... In a world WITH an OGL, yeah, the most popular system is going to be the one that uses it...
But if there never WAS an OGL... why wouldn't the game have kept going the way it did anyway?
I never actually played 3.x till we jumped on Pathfinder a year or two ago... but we played 2E for about 10 years after it 'died'... fact is we STILL have a 2E game going twice a month.
For us it was the writing in the APs and a continued support now that jobs and families are stopping us from writing out year long homebrew campaigns...
the Rule set is kind of inconsequential. If they still published kick butt 2E adventures and new kit books... (and hadn't destroyed the realms) we'd still be playing that.
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.
My group did not convert to pathfinder until wizard said they were making 5th edition.
I really picked up Pathfinder when it became apparent 5th Edition isn't going anywhere either. So being finally commited to 3rd Edition and wanting to put some homebrew online, I chose Pathfinder because that game actually has a future.
I really don't like that PF has so many class features that cram something new and exiting into every level, but since I stick to the level 3 to 8 range almost all the time anyway, it seems not to be such a big problem as I thought.
While OGL certainly helped establish the presence of 3.X, It's success may have led to it's demise as well. After all all of that third party success wasn't feeding WOTC's coffers.
That's not what those who were there at the time have said.
|
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.
Exactly. Pathfinder doesn't owe it's success to either the OGL or the d20 system, the success is due to the fact that it is getting a lot of great support material from Paizo.
All you have to do is look at the other top RPGs at the moment to realize that the OGL has little to do with success or popularity. I'd have to double check to be sure, but Fantasy Flight Games RPGs don't use the OGL to the best of my recollection. 4E doesn't use it, instead using the GSL, and I'd be surprised if 5E goes back to the OGL (although it might use another similar license...perhaps one that's even more open than the OGL).
Are you trying seriously to claim that Pathfinder has more feats and magic items than 3.5? Because there are numbers which shut down that claim rather badly :]
Also, the fact that 3.5 Rogue was a failure of class design was pretty much obvious since the day it was printed.
Sigh, no but I am saying that the sheer number of feats and magic items ALREADY out there in so brief a time and mostly in an organized fashion compounds the risks. As Palladium Rifts has shown, when you focus on the shiny, messed up things start happening.
That bit about 3.5 Rogue is a matter of opinion. I never heard any complaints with it before. :ppppp
|
I also have the original cheesy wood grain D&D first box set with the dice you had to send out for. I played thru 3.5 and stopped short. 4 was all about killit and grabit combat puppies only. I play a Bard - no room at all for a BS artist who can't roll decent dice. I watched a D&D next game the other night - killit killit again.
3.5 is around because some of us want to ROLL PLAY!!!
If you wanna kill stuff, you don't need or want a table, get machine and smash thru 456 levels to your hearts delight until you find the +500 God Killer Axe. The only thing you need a table for is to play cleaning out every level of Hell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you trying seriously to claim that Pathfinder has more feats and magic items than 3.5? Because there are numbers which shut down that claim rather badly :]
Also, the fact that 3.5 Rogue was a failure of class design was pretty much obvious since the day it was printed.
Uh...I would (and have! many times!) gladly play the 3.5 rogue over the PF one. The basic 3E class in core was deeply flawed and nigh useless against a significant chunk of the monster manual, granted. But even in core 3E, I could at least have "claims to fame" PF denies me:
1. I'm the actual skills master! Those cross class rules sure are strict, aren't they, Mr. Wizard?
1a) It's a part of 1, but "Use Magic Device" may as well just have been a Rogue and Bard class feature, like it was in 3.0. Very hard for others to get a decent modifier early on.
2. You want to find traps? Good luck, finding only nonmagical ones w/ DC 20 or less. Nevermind disarming them. Trapfinding actually means something!
3. Tumble is a DC 15 / 25 and (I keep going back to it, but #1 really was nice niche protection) unique to few classes. So I can always get good tactical positioning, reach some MacGuffin, and just in general set up sneak attack super easy.
4. Got a Ring of Blinking? Good, every attack you ever make from now on will be a sneak attack!
5. Give me some flasks of acid or fire and I'm instantly a sexy machine god of death! (in 3E, you could SA with splash weapons, attacking flatfooted touch AC)
And that's just in core. It's really, REALLY unfair to compare the core 3E game that came out a decade ago to PF, which presumably should have learned from its mistakes at least somewhat, as an adaptation of 3E. The fact is, as 3E rolled on the designers *did* note the failures of the rogue class and actually worked pretty hard to gradually fix them. You got various means to sneak attack forbidden creatures, like the truedeath weapon crystal and the vine/grave/golem-strike swift action spells. You also got alt. class features to straight up let you SA for half damage against things immune (Penetrating Strike from Dungeonscape, and iirc a different version in Ravenloft). You also saw Staggering Strike feat, which all by itself made rogue a survivable melee class. And as early as Unearthed freaking Arcana, they had already provided a strong option for anyone who just plain didn't want to deal with sneak attacks - get a fighter feat progression!
Getting away from SA related stuff, you further saw the Darkstalker feat, which singlehandedly made stealth (hide and move silently, as they were known back then) viable in a world where you can hardly throw a stone w/o hitting some bastard that has tremorsense, blindsight, scent, or some other "**** your ninja skills!" ability.
3E Rogue was blatantly better than the PF Rogue is. Both on its own merits, and in comparison to the other classes / class balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
That seems a strange assumption... In a world WITH an OGL, yeah, the most popular system is going to be the one that uses it...
But if there never WAS an OGL... why wouldn't the game have kept going the way it did anyway?
Paizo created Pathfinder to continue 3.x to support their AP business. Apparently they felt they needed a living system (one with ongoing support and material) to hang their business on and expand it, not a "dead" system with no ongoing support. You can play a dead system if you don't expect commercial support. Without PF I would have continued to play 3.5 but then I do all my own adventures in my own setting.
I never actually played 3.x till we jumped on Pathfinder a year or two ago... but we played 2E for about 10 years after it 'died'... fact is we STILL have a 2E game going twice a month.
And my brother runs a 0E/1E game. He prefers it and doesn't use outside material. Me, I played 0E, 1E, 2E, 3.0 and 3.5 before PF. And calling my game PF is a bit of a stretch. It's a 3.x / PF / homebrew game. Again I do my own adventure material, have my own setting and don't use APs.
For us it was the writing in the APs and a continued support now that jobs and families are stopping us from writing out year long homebrew campaigns...the Rule set is kind of inconsequential. If they still published kick butt 2E adventures and new kit books... (and hadn't destroyed the realms) we'd still be playing that.
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.
The point is, that Pathfinder is the system it is because of the OGL. They did not invent a whole new system. They built on a solid foundation of what came before, or more accurately they refined what existed. The OGL made that possible. Legally as well as mechanically. Even the retro-clone OSR games that are out now use the OGL as the foundation. None of these games would exist without the OGL. The commercial support these games have would not exist without the OGL. The support of older editions of D&D would not be a commercially viable business without the OGL. It would be a hobbyist, amateur, small, pool of enthusiasts self publishing and flying beneath the radar of most gamers. This wouldn't particularly bother me. I looked at 4E and said "no". I planned on continuing my 3.x game. When Pathfinder came along it was nice, because it meant a continuing source of new ideas and new books. My older books are in pretty good shape but new is nice and I like the continual source of ideas and inspiration as well :)
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.Exactly. Pathfinder doesn't owe it's success to either the OGL or the d20 system, the success is due to the fact that it is getting a lot of great support material from Paizo.
All you have to do is look at the other top RPGs at the moment to realize that the OGL has little to do with success or popularity. I'd have to double check to be sure, but Fantasy Flight Games RPGs don't use the OGL to the best of my recollection. 4E doesn't use it, instead using the GSL, and I'd be surprised if 5E goes back to the OGL (although it might use another similar license...perhaps one that's even more open than the OGL).
Pathfinder could not exist without the OGL. It's success is a combination of continuing a popular game (3.5) and, yes I agree, providing excellent support. Which I don't use. I don't buy APs or for that matter much Golarion centered stuff. I do my own. I've expressed this several times; it exists because of the OGL, it's popularity is due to Paizo and, to a lesser extent, backwards compatibility with 3.5.
Pathfinder is in number 1 currently and it uses the OGL. I think the constellation of 3pp which have built up around Paizo / Pathfinder have helped it get there. 4E has the GSL, which really didn't do that well for it, and the "D&D" name. It's number 2. What comes next is way down the line. FFG has the Star Wars and Warhammer 40K names going for it to come in a distant 3rd and 4th. I am looking forward to seeing where DDN goes, and what their licensing system, if any, is.
Was thinking last night after the game. Dangerous idea, I know.
There's a lot of people that have been playing 3.x of the most famous RPG since Monte Cook and company released it back in, what 1998? This system has chugged along for a long time. What do you think has kept it going more?
The system mechanics itself? Or Paizo? Would you still be playing the 3.X ruleset were it not for the Paizo development?
Does continuation of a game depend on new content?
I was thinking about this because last night I realized how crazy and convoluted some of the rules are. But I keep playing anyways, because I can't wait till Ultimate Campaigns comes out.
I don't mind d20 and 3.5. I have been playing them since they started. The mechanics can get a bit cluttered and I think the mechanics do sometimes fight the purpose of fantasy games, and the late level complexity can get damn silly.
As for paizo and pf, it has actually pushed me away from 3.5 a bit after pushing me back to 3.5 (at first). There is a lot to convey so I'll go slow.
The problems with pf, the stealing of feats from splat books (but missing some of the best and most basic additional feats) and then messing some of them up (manoeuvres, pay more to get what you had); the terribly cheap classes that get too much (alchemist, summoner, magus) of what I don't want to see more of, has caused some serious consideration of the hobby.
The bribery of come to this version of 3.5 you get more from the classes only increased crunch and bloat, although it was really sexy at first. The balance between the classes is awful and while spellcasters keep their strategic focus, melee and rogues have gone the way of DPR or you are shit (if you want to do com manoeuvres rather than just bash out the damage the defence will climb so high, so good luck pulling that off mid to late levels). It really is sad to see that come across so strongly.
There are positives, not with paizo, god no (lolz, joking), and the positives are that as a dm and player, the years of paizo spamming into the 3.5 pool has caused me to consider if there are better ways to run fantasy. So I've been making my own systems (whereas in 3.5 before I only experimented with mass combat, social combat and crit charts of doom rules). The crunch of pf has pushed me in other directions. The growth of magic item fixation, crafting spellcasters and powergaming or you are rubbish attitudes does not make me feel so welcome (I wonder what is wrong with such people, is it greed, pride or envy that makes them act in these ways?)
On the continuation of the game, I think it depends on new adventure paths, new settings. Rules can get into the crunch pool of perpetual add-ons. Dms now and for a time have had to limit what from paizo they allow, so much has come out, some things like the gunslinger rub fantasy purists the wrong way (and I am totally against the gunslinger with his fast reload of a 30 second required to reload flintlocks task).
New inspiring adventures, new bad guys, new monsters, new tombs/dungeons/castles. That is what will keep it going, but while I love the adventure paths I find myself yearning for simplicity, which I don't get from pf (or really from 3.5, but I am far more used to that with its simpler classes).
So that is me coming out totally honestly, attack and rend if you will for criticising paizo and pf (I have the hp, I'll be fine).
Except that without the OGL 3.x would have died an untimely death back in 2008... as opposed to being top of the heap in 2013. Which pretty much makes the OGL a major reason for the longevity of 3.x if not it's popularity.
That seems a strange assumption... In a world WITH an OGL, yeah, the most popular system is going to be the one that uses it...
But if there never WAS an OGL... why wouldn't the game have kept going the way it did anyway?
Paizo created Pathfinder to continue 3.x to support their AP business. Apparently they felt they needed a living system (one with ongoing support and material) to hang their business on and expand it, not a "dead" system with no ongoing support. You can play a dead system if you don't expect commercial support. Without PF I would have continued to play 3.5 but then I do all my own adventures in my own setting.
I never actually played 3.x till we jumped on Pathfinder a year or two ago... but we played 2E for about 10 years after it 'died'... fact is we STILL have a 2E game going twice a month.
And my brother runs a 0E/1E game. He prefers it and doesn't use outside material. Me, I played 0E, 1E, 2E, 3.0 and 3.5 before PF. And calling my game PF is a bit of a stretch. It's a 3.x / PF / homebrew game. Again I do my own adventure material, have my own setting and don't use APs.
...
For us it was the writing in the APs and a continued support now that jobs and families are stopping us from writing out year long homebrew campaigns...the Rule set is kind of inconsequential. If they still published kick butt 2E adventures and new kit books... (and hadn't destroyed the realms) we'd still be playing that.
The OGL let Pathfinder exist... but frankly we don't use any 3.x books or 3rd party stuff.. If pathfinder had been its own good system with the support and writing it still has, the OGL wouldn't mean anything to us.
3.x / PF / homebrew game can be damn good. A little confusing for new players but why take the good and the bad when you can fashion what is all good for you? Homebrew for life.
If Paizo hadn't announced Pathfinder, somebody else would have published a 3.x rulebook. There's a question as to how successful it would be without Paizo's APs and similar support, though.
The real what-if scenario is, what if Wizards had released 4th under the OGL and in cooperation (previews and such) with the various major 3PPs, much like it did with 3rd?
The terms of the GSL were insane (even after revision); you couldn't even write an adventure for 4e that reprinted statblocks for Monster Manual monsters. And nobody got much in the way of sneak peeks, so publishing times meant nobody could develop for it until after it was released.
But if Wizards had launched 4th in a 3PP-friendly manner, would there have been any publisher of significance who wouldn't have spent 2007 and 2008 investing deeply in making 4th edition-compatible lines? If Paizo could have as a practical matter released the Pathfinder Chronicles: Campaign Setting in September 2008 as a setting for 4th Edition, would they really have taken the risk of trying to keep on with 3.x?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's just in core. It's really, REALLY unfair to compare the core 3E game that came out a decade ago to PF, which presumably should have learned from its mistakes at least somewhat, as an adaptation of 3E. The fact is, as 3E rolled on the designers *did* note the failures of the rogue class and actually worked pretty hard to gradually fix them. You got various means to sneak attack forbidden creatures, like the truedeath weapon crystal and the vine/grave/golem-strike swift action spells....
3E Rogue was blatantly better than the PF Rogue is. Both on its own merits, and in comparison to the other classes / class balance.
True, though most of that is because of the weird nerfs to sneak attack Paizo added for some reason.
A PF Rogue using 3.5 rules would be better, but a 3.5 rogue using PF rules would be worse.A 3.5 rogue using 3.5 rules is better than PF Rogue, but a PF rogue using 3.5 rules (acid Flask qualify for sneak attack, etc).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still prefere 3.5 to PF, myself, and if I could find a few more player's I'd go for that. PF did some nice things, particularly with Skills, but there is also a lot I don't care for as much. Enough that I'd rather house rule it to 3.5 though I do buy a lot of Paizo stuff still and will likely continue. I'll likely give 5E a try, but I'm not overly impressed with what I've seen so far. I'm not sure that having an OGL for 4E would really have helped. Every time I hear a complaint about the game, it's basically that people just didn't like aspects of the system, that it was way too simple, too balanced, everything was too similar, too combat focused, or something along those lines. The system didn't fit their tastes or allow them to do what they wanted with it, so I'm not sure if anything would really have changed that besides, well basically a new game.
As to the original question, I think that the d20/3E system itself is very good (not perfect), and the amount of options that they presented through various splats and settings is one of the biggest reasons why it's still going pretty strong. 3E was extremely open to allowing the individual to build a concept through a lot of means, to run a variaty of different playstyles, and made efforts to include any type of setting or genre with fairly little modification needed. Wizards did a lot of work in answering fan questions on why things worked they way they did, and if something was suppossed to work this way or that, which helped a lot, but still left room for house rules as needed or desired.
Longevity? The OGL.
That said, it's never just one factor. Necessary vs. sufficient condition, and all that. But take away the OGL, and there would be no Pathfinder, and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.
And that's just in core. It's really, REALLY unfair to compare the core 3E game that came out a decade ago to PF, which presumably should have learned from its mistakes at least somewhat, as an adaptation of 3E. The fact is, as 3E rolled on the designers *did* note the failures of the rogue class and actually worked pretty hard to gradually fix them. You got various means to sneak attack forbidden creatures, like the truedeath weapon crystal and the vine/grave/golem-strike swift action spells....
3E Rogue was blatantly better than the PF Rogue is. Both on its own merits, and in comparison to the other classes / class balance.
True, though most of that is because of the weird nerfs to sneak attack Paizo added for some reason.
A PF Rogue using 3.5 rules would be better, but a 3.5 rogue using PF rules would be worse.A 3.5 rogue using 3.5 rules is better than PF Rogue, but a PF rogue using 3.5 rules (acid Flask qualify for sneak attack, etc).
Well, yes, I completely agree. The nerfs to rogue were mostly "stealth nerfs" you don't notice just looking at the class entry in isolation.
A rogue with the PF class features including all the new talents (weak they may be, it's still something) is basically a 3E rogue with added stuff. As long as you then turn around and use 3E class skill rules, tumble DC, sneak attacking with flasks, blinking makes foes flatfooted, and so forth. Clearly. But I think it's more likely you'd be comparing an "all 3E" rogue with an "all PF" rogue, or if there were a mix, it would be using the PF rules system, if only because PF is the newer product. I almost never see threads about a game using 3E rules but PF classes brought in, almost any hybrid game I see posted about is a PF game that is allowing some amount of 3E content, and thus adhering to the core rules that hose over the rogue in PF.
I really like the changes PF made to 3.5. I only wish they went a little bit further with the d20 mechanic, and used it for Arcane Spell Failure and possibly the miss chance mechanic. I also wish there were some Constitution-based skills (maybe replacing the Endurance feat, keeping Constitution (especially for non-spellcasting purposes, like Heal and Disable Device, etc.) and adding a Labor (ditch digging and chopping wood, etc.) skill).
What is the 5th Edition going to be like? Is it still d20, feat and skill based? Is it going to be like 4th Edition (daily/encounter/at will), or something different? Will it worry about the perceived magic-user/non-magic-user power discrepency? Skill-based combat? Skill-based magic?
I really like the changes PF made to 3.5. I only wish they went a little bit further with the d20 mechanic, and used it for Arcane Spell Failure and possibly the miss chance mechanic. I also wish there were some Constitution-based skills (maybe replacing the Endurance feat, keeping Constitution (especially for non-spellcasting purposes, like Heal and Disable Device, etc.) and adding a Labor (ditch digging and chopping wood, etc.) skill).What is the 5th Edition going to be like? Is it still d20, feat and skill based? Is it going to be like 4th Edition (daily/encounter/at will), or something different? Will it worry about the perceived magic-user/non-magic-user power discrepency? Skill-based combat? Skill-based magic?
DDN is more like older editions of D&D as opposed to 4E. It's still in play-testing and still changing. It has class features, spells, feats and skills. On the whole I think it's looking good and there are some nice ideas in it. We'll see how it goes. I still don't see myself going strictly "by the book". I'll be collecting both, home brewing either and stealing ideas from the other in all likelihood :)
Me, I tend to follow the rule of logic. If it seems reasonable given the circumstances, I have no trouble modifying the game rules. However, I rarely do so, because I like the fact that Pathfinder has, since 1977, endured more playtesting and generally monkeying around than any other rules set. Essentially, I believe Pathfinder inherits the original D&D system, and as such evolved from that, unlike 4E.
Now I gotta question for you guys. What do you know about rpg sales figures? How are the various game companies/game systems doing?
In particular, I want to know about Palladium's Robotech, Palladium overall, Pathfinder, and White Wolf overall. Where do they stand in rank? Is anyone losing money? I have a theory, but won't voice it until I see the results.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...I like the fact that Pathfinder has, since 1977, endured more playtesting and generally monkeying around than any other rules set. Essentially, I believe Pathfinder inherits the original D&D system, and as such evolved from that, unlike 4E.
Did I skip the day that Paizo and/or Monte Cooke passed out the Kool-Aid?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the fact that Pathfinder has, since 1977, endured more playtesting and generally monkeying around than any other rules set.
I'll buy since 2000, but Pathfinder, 3.5, 3.0, etc. are very different animals that 2nd edition and earlier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3.0 was 2nd with some bugs ironed out, WBL, EL, and free multiclassing. The differences are there, but hardly oil and water.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RE: the OP.
0. Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Ed. launched in 2000.
1. A TOZ stated, the OGL. This basic system has lasted because a single publisher can't kill it. Even if Paizo wasn't doing Pathfinder, another company, or several other companies, would have picked up the slack. (So, while I'm not a fan of where it looks like Pathfinder Online is going, I'd still buy Ryan Dancy a beer.)
1 a. If Paizo folds tomorrow, Pathfinder (or some 98% compatible evolution of it) would be printed by another company.
2. The D20 system, or as the OP put it, the mechanics. Abilities + feats (I like the M&M term advantages more) + skills + powers (class abilities and spells and equipment) equals a relatively simple system at its base, but highly variable in the specific.
2 a. The game is complicated. But a newbie playing a sword and board fighter doesn't need to know all the rules. I'm not sure if they need to know more rules than, say, chess.
3. Evolution, not replacement. (Chainmail war game ->) Original D&D -> 1st Basic / AD&D 1st -> 2rd -> 3rd -> 3.5 -> Pathfinder. I might not like every change, but I do think the game is better now than it was when I started. The biggest change since 1974, in my opinion from 2nd to 3rd, made D&D (also IMO) a much better game. I'd buy Monte Cooke a beer too.
4. Paizo. I'm not sure another company could have picked up the steering wheel as the leader. Even with the OGL for D20/D&D 3.5, having the highly supported kitchen sink of Golarion helps everyone. Also, Lisa and Vic get beers for realizing the 3PPs help Paizo far more than they hurt Paizo. Collaboration helps even in a completive environment.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I personally find 3e and 4e to be more similar to each other than either are to any of the pre-d20 editions.
No. Just no. I've played almost every edition from 1974 on, from 0E to 1E to 2E to 3E to 3.5 to PF (read, borrowed ideas but never played Basic). My campaign and game moved between every edition. Until 4E. I couldn't move my game to 4E without massive changes. The move from 2E to 3E took some work but it was "doable" and the game stayed recognizable. After I read 4E I gave my new 4E books away to someone who wanted to give it a go and stuck with 3.5 (and PF).
|
|
It's kind of true though, in it's own way. Pre3E, there was no real rules consistancy. Pretty much all of the different typs of actions used it's own unique rules system, form attacks to THAC0, to Saves, to Turn Undead. 3E made almost everything work off of a similar base system (1d20+stat mod + relevant stuff mods). 4E continued this in some ways too, (though I agree a lot of the basic premise, available powers, and playstyle changed significantly that it made a lot of older material completely undoable).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3.0 was 2nd with some bugs ironed out, WBL, EL, and free multiclassing. The differences are there, but hardly oil and water.
You think?
Really, when we started looking at 3.0, the ONLY thing we recognized were the 6 stats. Thac0, Feats, Skills, multiclassing, AoO... NOTHING stayed the same from 2---->3
Grabbing a book from 1st edition and putting it in 2nd? No problem. Going from 2nd to 3rd??? whole new game.
Better or worse is a matter of debate, but there was more then a simple 'playtest evolution' going on there.
It's kind of true though, in it's own way. Pre3E, there was no real rules consistancy. Pretty much all of the different typs of actions used it's own unique rules system, form attacks to THAC0, to Saves, to Turn Undead. 3E made almost everything work off of a similar base system (1d20+stat mod + relevant stuff mods). 4E continued this in some ways too, (though I agree a lot of the basic premise, available powers, and playstyle changed significantly that it made a lot of older material completely undoable).
I was already using a system in which unarmored = 0 and armor added to it giving the number required to hit a given AC which I referred to as "Base to Hit" (while playing 1E). A one was an auto miss and a twenty was an auto hit. I had reworked Thief skills to be d20 based as well at the same time, again with one an auto failure and twenty an auto success. For me the weapon and non-weapon proficiencies were a solid foundation for a skill system beyond the Thief's class skills. The systemization of things that came with 3.0 was, for me, a positive thing. My campaign transferred smoothly to 3.0 from 2E although I had to re work elements of my game or re-adapt some of my homebrew systems to the new d20 system (i.e. I reworked my religious orders, but I kept my own unarmed / improvised combat system). All in all, while it involved work to go from 2E to 3E I found it to be a positive change. As I contemplated a change from 3.5 to 4E I realized it would mean abandoning my current game and completely redoing things. Rather than updating I would be demolishing my old campaign. I was not willing to do that. Ymmv.
I still prefere 3.5 to PF, myself, and if I could find a few more player's I'd go for that. PF did some nice things, particularly with Skills, but there is also a lot I don't care for as much. Enough that I'd rather house rule it to 3.5 though I do buy a lot of Paizo stuff still and will likely continue. I'll likely give 5E a try, but I'm not overly impressed with what I've seen so far. I'm not sure that having an OGL for 4E would really have helped. Every time I hear a complaint about the game, it's basically that people just didn't like aspects of the system, that it was way too simple, too balanced, everything was too similar, too combat focused, or something along those lines. The system didn't fit their tastes or allow them to do what they wanted with it, so I'm not sure if anything would really have changed that besides, well basically a new game.
As to the original question, I think that the d20/3E system itself is very good (not perfect), and the amount of options that they presented through various splats and settings is one of the biggest reasons why it's still going pretty strong. 3E was extremely open to allowing the individual to build a concept through a lot of means, to run a variaty of different playstyles, and made efforts to include any type of setting or genre with fairly little modification needed. Wizards did a lot of work in answering fan questions on why things worked they way they did, and if something was suppossed to work this way or that, which helped a lot, but still left room for house rules as needed or desired.
Here here, they made some good decisions regarding skills, but I still prefer to keep jump separate from acrobatics.
...
I think the longevity of 3.5 is a combination of the OGL (meaning it could survive even after the company that released it cut it off) plus the fact that it's based off of the game that many of us have been playing since the 1970s or 1980s, but is a version "done right". That's really how I see 3e-- it's D&D "done right". Pathfinder improves on 3.5e, but the basic structure is there, and is much more sane than what we had in 1e and 2e. 4e was a huge change in the style, nature, and feel of the game; some like it better, but for those who liked "classic D&D", it was a far more jarring change than 3e was from 2e. So, more people stuck with 3.5e than stuck with 2e during the 2/3 transition.To me, this is the core issue - 3.0/3.5 was such an improvement on the versions that had gone before. I began playing D&D when the very first boxed set of small pamphlets came out in the mid-'70s, and played off and on for several years before our group drifted away to Traveller, Runequest, Call of Cthulhu and other systems. About 10 years ago I began playing again with a friend who was a true 2E/AD&D devotee, with a bookcase literally filled with rulebooks and a campaign world developed over decades of DM-ing. He was (and is) a great DM and his campaign world marvelously well thought out, but the restrictive and needless complexity of many of the rules that had accumulated around core D&D since last I'd played were a frequent irritant (to me, anyway. ;D)
3.0 (and subsequently 3.5) changed all that, and finally got me DM-ing again. The iconic "landmarks" of old-time D&D were there, but the simplifications and improvements to the magic system, combat system, weapons rules and dozens of other minor tweaks streamlined the game so that it was once again as much fun to play as it had been back in first-1st Edition days. Heck, we eventually even got my 2ED/AD&D buddy to switch over (after much screaming, kicking and gnashing of
You can always trim down the total offal mass, take what you want and what fits for the setting. That is how I and other 3.5 dms I know do it, with some books being totally banned.
Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?
We are still around. I even know a AD&D guy and his crew.
I like some things from 3.5 but I prefer how PF handles most things.
Though I tend to combining Climb, Swim, and Jumping into Athletics(STR).
offal messThis made me grin.
Ha, the problem is indeed there, but getting around it is easy. Like using a good movement to get away from an ooze.
You can't eat all that with your mouth sir, best to keep distance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are still around. I even know a AD&D guy and his crew.Are there many people still playing 3.5? I figured Pathfinder's success would have a more deleterious effect on that game than it did on just about any other. (I know it's compatible to a pretty large degree, but it isn't identical. And presumably Pathfinder is more compatible with 3.5 than 3.5 is with Pathfinder?).
I dont recall any recent 3PPs producing stuff for 3.5 - havent they all switched to supporting Pathfinder?
Yeah - I'm an AD&D guy (by choice anyway, we tend to move between a lot of those oldschool systems but in my head I just translate it all to AD&D).
It didnt seem to me that there were many 3.5 groups who hadnt moved to PF though (just from hearing people talk about the difficulty of finding a 3.5 game - I have no actual knowledge about it).
It seems to me there's kind of a 'badge of honor' thing about playing the original versions of the games. I havent seen the same pride (yet?) displayed amongst 3.5 holdouts.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Paizo hadn't announced Pathfinder, somebody else would have published a 3.x rulebook. There's a question as to how successful it would be without Paizo's APs and similar support, though.
Someone did. Bad Axe Games put out Trailblazer, which is a different take on a revision of 3.5. It's not as purty, and has B&W pictures, but the system is actually a much better revision of 3.X than Pathfinder achieved. However, it didn't come from a familiar company, and they provided almost no support...little wonder it's fairly obscure.
Pathfinder's success is based on the recognition Paizo had gained in the industry prior to 4e, the enormous amount of quality support they have given the game, and their relatively high production values.
It's not based on a half-page legal annex that most players have never bothered to read.