Longevity of 3.x


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Merchandising!


IIRC, Trailblazer was the one that sought to replace iterative attacks with damage bonuses?

That alone turned me off immediately.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Actually it traded iteratives for higher attack bonuses on your remaining attacks.


If I remember right (warning: this is second-hand, I don't actually own the book) it went something like this.

Level 6: two attacks at -2 to hit

Level 11: two attacks at -1 to hit

Level 16: two attacks at full BAB


kyrt-ryder wrote:

If I remember right (warning: this is second-hand, I don't actually own the book) it went something like this.

Level 6: two attacks at -2 to hit

Level 11: two attacks at -1 to hit

Level 16: two attacks at full BAB

Correct, though, to clarify, rather than Level 6/11/16, it's BAB +6/+11/+16.


Kthulhu wrote:


see wrote:


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.

It may not be "based on it" in that it's not the sole factor... but it was made possible by that little half page legal annex that most players have never read.

Most Americans have never read the entire Constitution, with Amendments and important Supreme Court cases either. But they still think it's a great country. Despite the fact that the Constitution's based on what would be "prior art" like English constitutional monarchy, English colonial democracy, various Enlightenment philosophers and so on. Without that base, no Constitution. So...

The fact that Pathfinder is well supported and pretty is a reason for it's success. None of which would be possible without the OGL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
The fact that Pathfinder is well supported and pretty is a reason for it's success. None of which would be possible without the OGL.

Well that and already having their foot in the door with their deal with WotC to produce official game content prior to the end of 3.5.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I played a little AD&D in middle school.
I really got into RPGs with 2nd, which was my game (along with Marvel Super-Heroes) throughout high school and college.
I resisted the switch to 3.0 for about a year, but relented and made the switch to 3.0 when most of the rest of my players wanted to. Surprisingly, the update to 3.5 didn't bother me that much and I dove right in.
I balked at 4th. I didn't like what I saw. I considered it World of Warcraft D&D.
All three campaigns I'm involved in are 3.5.
Around 2011, I was beginning to desire new material, so I began to get Dungeon and Dragon magazines from the Paizo era. They turned out to be quite good, so I bought the bound Shackled City hardcover. Also pretty good.
I started dipping my toe into PF last year. Now that's it's become apparent WOTC doesn't know what the hell it is doing, I've begun to buy more and buy books (and lots of plastic minis).
My next campaign will most likely be Pathfinder, but I will continue to use the Forgotten Realms as the setting.


The 3.x d20 chassis.

It means that I can go from playing 3.0, to 3.5, to Mutants and Masterminds, to Star Wars Saga Edition, to d20 Modern, to Pathfinder, and even Dungeons & Dragons Online, while maintaining a fairly consistent set of rules and mechanics, cutting down on the amount and degree of relearning needed to adapt to each system. It also means that if I, or a friend of mine, is feeling creatively intrepid, pieces can be borrowed from one edition or system and ported into another with relative ease. Something appear to be missing from SWSE that you have in d20 Modern? Check it for balance then just stick it in.

Also, (and this is said from the perspective of someone who started playing tabletop with 3.0, and who has only ever dabbled a tiny bit in Vampire: The Masquerade and D&D 4E) the system works fairly logically. Sure, there are some weird rules, and a lot of individual cases that break from the established rules, but for the most part, there is both an internal consistency, and a logical consistency that can be applied to reading the rulebooks of the aforementioned systems. That means that if I read something that's missing a line of text, it will often jump out at me, that things that may not seem clear in and of themselves can be held up against other, similar parts of the system to reach a reasonable conclusion. Things like, higher level spells should be stronger than lower level spells, especially when they cover similar territory. This is one of the problems I had with 4E (aside from its departure from the FEEL of 3.x): I kept coming across things in the first printing that didn't make sense (misprints, omissions, inconsistencies) that I had absolutely no basis for comparison, because half of the system (powers) are each different from the next, and in ways that aren't necessarily intuitive. Spells in 3.x are similar, but they make up a smaller portion of the system, and they often have some strong visualization or logic attached to them. Powers in 4E are often quite abstract.

Finally, I'd say it's the community. There have been playing in this system for a decade and a half, and unlike with the older versions of D&D, they have been doing so while plugged into the larger internet community, sharing ideas, and interacting with the writers and developers of the game system. That's a fairly vast database of knowledge and experience to draw upon when toying with new ideas or seeking clarifications.


Brand identity piled on the OGL combined with inerta, good advertising support and good luck with PFS.

TOZ wrote:
Merchandising!

Pathfinder the flamethrower.

Shadow Lodge

I think what they mean is that before 4E there was (and is) a sort of unofficial line in the sand between optimizers/roleplayers, but with 4E, everything was very much already balanced and optimized, that the distinction kind of vanished. Youu really had to work at making an ineffective character in 4E, while in the previous editions, not knowing what you where doing might lead to a mistake in your effectiveness.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
see wrote:

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.

There were and are other publishers of 3.5 books and clones. However just getting out a rules set by itself isn't an engine for succcess. Paizo had advantages going out the gate that no other company could duplicate, such has already having an established market and fan base from being the publishers of first Dragon, Dungeon, and then their own Pathfinder series of 3.5 modules and adventure paths, as well has having staff with ties to WOTC itself.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Pathfinder left 3.5 behind pretty much at the Core Rulebook, but managed to keep the grognards who were still fuming at WOTC, oblivious to the fact. No, however Pathfinder has reached a standing in it's own right that being a carryover of 3.X no longer has to be it's main selling point.

Not sure that's true. I hear all of the time people talking about either converting material to Pathfinder, or using the Pathfinder rules to run older material, and if the hypothetical Pathfinder 2E was not OGL/d20/3E based, I doubt that nearly as many people would continue to support it, though they might still purchase and use more of the flavor products. I think people might be very surprized just how many people don't actually play Pathfinder as written, and rather just take the bits of it they like and continue to run the 3E based game they always had.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I think people might be very surprized just how many people don't actually play Pathfinder as written, and rather just take the bits of it they like and continue to run the 3E based game they always had.

To be honest very few people seem to play most RPGs strictly as written and that's half the fun of it :D. Anyway, I play in a few games at a FLGS and I have to say that for the most part since someone first picked up Pathfinder a year or two back it's been "Pathfinder with a splash of 3.5" instead of "3.5 with Pathfinder ideas" as you say, but my experience is hardly scientific evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
I feel that 4E was an honest attempt to address a few of the major concerns that many people have had with almost every Edition of D+D all the way up to 3.5, in particular the quadratic/linear disparity of spellcasters vs combat classes.

Which is why they put dragonborn and warlocks in core, adopted a core cosmology that looked like nothing else in D&D history, redefined archons from lawful good angels to chaotic evil elementals, made halflings taller, et cetera, et cetera? That was all to end class disparity and fix math?

Yeah, I've got to amend my previous explanation. There are three reasons as to why 3.x is still around:

1) The OGL made it easy for third parties to keep it alive.

2) The GSL and non-cooperation on the part of Wizbro gave third parties a financial reason to keep it alive.

3) The designers of 4E didn't even try to make a new edition of what you might call "Greyhawk-style" D&D; they decided to make their own vision of D&D, substituting their own story elements from the ones that had sustained D&D for 30 years. This left the market of people who liked "Greyhawk-style" D&D (as opposed to "a fantasy roleplaying game that I can find other players for") wide open for the first time ever.

Previously, there had been no way to reliably distinguish the "Greyhawk-style" market from the "likes fantasy roleplaying, plays D&D because it's easiest" market, because they both bought the same thing. A major problem Wizards ran into was that they didn't realize they were separate markets.

They could have hedged their bets by making a "Greyhawk-style" setting, but not realizing they were making a bet they should hedge, they instead blew up the Forgotten Realms.

They could have accidentally avoided making the market split also a system split by having worked with the 3PPs and using the OGL. There's a decent chance that Golarion would have been basically implemented under 4e rules in such a case, with lots of in-the-setting-book "classic flavor" rules. (In this second case, Wizards could have then noticed that split, and could have moved to recapture the market without changing editions by mating a "Greyhawk-style" Essentials release with a Greyhawk campaign setting release).

But, with all three elements in place, you get what happened.


see wrote:
They could have accidentally avoided making the market split also a system split by having worked with the 3PPs and using the OGL. There's a decent chance that Golarion would have been basically implemented under 4e rules in such a case, with lots of in-the-setting-book "classic flavor" rules. (In this second case, Wizards could have then noticed that split, and could have moved to recapture the market without changing editions by mating a "Greyhawk-style" Essentials release with a Greyhawk campaign setting release).

I know Paizo found several elements of the GSL to be unacceptable. Nonetheless, they've also said that once they saw the ruleset they didnt want to publish material for 4E (on 'aesthetic' grounds, if you like - though that's my word not theirs).

.
Abandoning the OGL was a problem for WotC persuading people to move to 4E, but there are also many people who rejected the game 'in its own right' as it were.


LazarX wrote:
There were and are other publishers of 3.5 books and clones. However just getting out a rules set by itself isn't an engine for succcess. Paizo had advantages going out the gate that no other company could duplicate, such has already having an established market and fan base from being the publishers of first Dragon, Dungeon, and then their own Pathfinder series of 3.5 modules and adventure paths, as well has having staff with ties to WOTC itself.

They also have a focus on quality and a vision as to what that actually means which is widely shared by the gaming community.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I like that it is customizable, versatile, and modular. The baseline mechanics are easy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Never liked Greyhawk myself. Got no trouble with the idea of losing it. It was so damned greytone/generic that I hated their deities. None had any interesting bits about them, nor did they actually DO anything.

Now, I DID like Castle Greyhawk, that was fun!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
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.

Yes, I do think. Sure, it is a simplification, but not by that much. THAC0 was changed to a simple 20-x attack bonus that was far more intuitive but essentially the same. Skills replaced the completely ludicrous NWP system from 2nd, though I will admit it IS a change. Feats were new, certainly, but had a very clear ancestor in the handling of NWPs and weapon specializations in 2nd. Attacks of opportunity had been in the game before in the guard option, it was a generalization and clarification of what previously existed.

The big changes were not the above ones. The really big ones were, to my thinking: Wealth by level as a guideline for what equipment people should have, including the fact that you were now expected to be able to buy and sell magic items. The challenge rating/encounter level system that actually told the DM what monsters were reasonable to send at the PCs. The fact that every living thing in the game now followed the very same rules for statistics and so on, which brought a massive flexibility (but of course also increased the time needed to work this properly). Multiclassing instead of the clunky and uninspiring kits was supremely elegant and useful... only the balance issues that originally prevented the change were not necessarily solved by the new system.

But I restate, quite confidently: Going from 2nd to 3rd is generally simple, and I have done it time and time again.

On the topic of munchkinism, it existed very early in the first RPG campaigns. I think what made it so obvious in 3rd was that with the WBL guidelines, characters now no longer had all sorts of magical hardware, and any optimization had to be done in other places.


Piccolo wrote:

Never liked Greyhawk myself. Got no trouble with the idea of losing it. It was so damned greytone/generic that I hated their deities. None had any interesting bits about them, nor did they actually DO anything.

Now, I DID like Castle Greyhawk, that was fun!

Generichawk. Dull, safe, samey, borrowed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

But, incredibly malleable for just that reason.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and string of responses. Edition wars are not OK on paizo.com.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greyhawk is a bit of a generic campaign setting, it's true. But that's because Greyhawk largely defined what a campaign setting was.


Sissyl wrote:
On the topic of munchkinism, it existed very early in the first RPG campaigns. I think what made it so obvious in 3rd was that with the WBL guidelines, characters now no longer had all sorts of magical hardware, and any optimization had to be done in other places.

Hear, hear!

I myself used basic D&D to munchkin, by taking a dwarven Fighter and using a spiked shield and an axe. Gave me an extra attack each round, and I kept my AC bonus from the shield. One guy protested, but the DM overruled him, saying that there was nothing in the game rules to prevent me from doing that.

Now, my current problem is taking some old 3.0 and 3.5 adventures, and translating each and every encounter over to Pathfinder. It sucks. I either have to reduce the level of the encounter, OR find a replacement in the Gamemastery guide and Bestiary 1-3.


Edition wars? I don't understand. This thread seemed civil, but then I haven't checked it in a day or so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Optimization has been around forever.

it is nor exclusive to the new editions.

nor is it a bad thing. my optimization issues have nothing to do with optimizing or editions. they have to do with the following issues.


  • players who overinvest in a single specific weapon or tactic beyond all else and are screwed when denied the ability to utilize their specialization. there is a reason a wizard should carry multiple spellbooks and a reason why i recommend the fighter maintain at least 4 weapon types, one of which must be ranged, one light, and a third, common.
  • players who are too dependant on a buddy or cohort to help them and forget to help mitigate the buddy's limited resource issues. at least keep some spare diamonds if you want the cleric to raise you.
  • players who play builds that contribute nothing for a minimum of 3-5 levels and only start becoming viable when they take that obscure item or feat that makes them effective
  • players whose builds are dependant on a highly specific and easily counterable set of conditions such as 2WF rogues who require both a flanking partner and a full attack. the combination of which can easily negated.


That overinvestment you mention neglects the concept that durability and flexibility is paramount in dangerous environments, like say dungeon crawls. That means it's a very good idea to take Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes and Iron will to help your class' poor saves.

That's just for starters. Wizards should take Improved Counterspell, Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Combat Casting, and Improved Initiative (low HP and AC means get your spell off first or get hosed), Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot to fire into melee.

That's just one class. It gets worse. I could make a list for each class, just to deal with dungeon crawls and not get nailed.

Going for flanking improvements with your Fighter and Rogue (or variants) is a valid strategy, although I wouldn't count on getting full attacks each round. Most parties take Raise Dead and scrolls/potions of Gentle Repose to reduce the cost of resurrections. Most warrior types tend to have one main weapon, one projectile weapon even if they suck at it, and one blunt weapon to get past DR, combining these with silver, cold iron, and adamantine metals.

What you are complaining about, Lumiere, is munchkinism. That's what it was known as once upon a time, and to the older gamers. That's just the start of their characteristics, unfortunately. It gets worse. I've broken quite a few of their habits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Greyhawk is a bit of a generic campaign setting, it's true. But that's because Greyhawk largely defined what a campaign setting was.

Not really. Most were homemade prior and after to Greyhawk's introduction. Greyhawk was a super generic, labeled and double bagged for your protection setting. Horrible.


Greyhawk existed before those other homemade settings.


Piccolo wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Greyhawk is a bit of a generic campaign setting, it's true. But that's because Greyhawk largely defined what a campaign setting was.
Not really. Most were homemade prior and after to Greyhawk's introduction. Greyhawk was a super generic, labeled and double bagged for your protection setting. Horrible.

Only Blackmoor came before Greyhawk, and even that’s debatable. Greyhawk & Blackmoor were in ODD, long before just about anyone was playing.

Greyhawk is not generic at all. Only people whose first campaign was in 3rd ED or later would think so.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Lisa Stevens explains what's cool about Greyhawk better than any of us will.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Piccolo wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Greyhawk is a bit of a generic campaign setting, it's true. But that's because Greyhawk largely defined what a campaign setting was.
Not really. Most were homemade prior and after to Greyhawk's introduction. Greyhawk was a super generic, labeled and double bagged for your protection setting. Horrible.

Only Blackmoor came before Greyhawk, and even that’s debatable. Greyhawk & Blackmoor were in ODD, long before just about anyone was playing.

Greyhawk is not generic at all. Only people whose first campaign was in 3rd ED or later would think so.

I beg to differ. My first campaigns were in AD&D 2nd ed, and also at the same time D&D. Greyhawk was so generic, it was painful. None of the deities had any real personality or agenda, nothing about their churches structure etc.


Piccolo wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Piccolo wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Greyhawk is a bit of a generic campaign setting, it's true. But that's because Greyhawk largely defined what a campaign setting was.
Not really. Most were homemade prior and after to Greyhawk's introduction. Greyhawk was a super generic, labeled and double bagged for your protection setting. Horrible.

Only Blackmoor came before Greyhawk, and even that’s debatable. Greyhawk & Blackmoor were in ODD, long before just about anyone was playing.

Greyhawk is not generic at all. Only people whose first campaign was in 3rd ED or later would think so.

I beg to differ. My first campaigns were in AD&D 2nd ed, and also at the same time D&D. Greyhawk was so generic, it was painful. None of the deities had any real personality or agenda, nothing about their churches structure etc.

That's the thing. D&D was old and established by then - it had its own lore and assumptions. The reason Greyhawk seemed generic to you was that it was the established baseline against which the other settings were measured against.

I'd definitely caution against holding the view 'the deities had no personalities'. No game setting's deities have personalities until you read the various bits and pieces about them. You obviously didnt have much exposure to the goings on amongst Greyhawk's movers and shakers, but they were not bland (especially considering it was the first*). There werent the glossy supplements and easy access PDFs that we have now, but there was information and richness if you were lucky enough to find it.

*:
Kinda.


In Depth Greyhawk material:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Greyhawk_Fantasy_Game_Setting
The World of Greyhawk consisted of a thirty-two page folio (this edition is often called the "World of Greyhawk folio" to distinguish it from later editions)[3] and a 34" x 44" (86 cm x 112 cm) two-piece color map of the Flanaess, by Darlene Pekul.[4] The book comes with a folder containing maps and a gazetteer describing every state and region on the maps.[4] In addition to details of geography, history, and political states mentioned above, Gygax also included the following:
names for the days of the week (Starday, Sunday, Moonday, Godsday, Waterday, Earthday, Freeday),
names for the twelve 28-day months and the four 6-day festivals that made up the 360-day year (Needfest, Fireseek, Readying, Coldeven, Growfest, Planting, Flocktime, Wealsun, Richfest, Reaping, Goodmonth, Harvester, Brewfest, Patchwall, Ready'reat, and Sunsebb)
notes on scale and movement, so the DM could keep track of how long it would take the players to move from region to region
royal and noble precedence, so the DM could ensure the players addressed heads of state properly
orders of knighthood, for players who desired to join one
a glossary of runes and glyphs that the DM could use to create puzzling messages, mysterious omens and vaguely worded portents

and

New material was also added, mainly culled from the Dragon magazine articles published in the previous three years.[5] This includes information about trees and other flora of the Flanaess, an examination of populations, including distribution of the four main human races, demi-humans (elves, dwarves, halflings), and humanoids (goblins and orcs), and human racial characteristics, including languages, appearance and modes of dress. There are also two one page maps, one of regional alignments (good, evil, etc.) and one of regional products and resources.
One fifth of the Guide is devoted to the deities of Greyhawk; in addition to the nineteen gods introduced in Gygax's Dragon articles, another thirty-one gods are added, for a total of fifty deities. However, only twenty-two are given a full description of their appearance, areas of influence, and worshipers. Nineteen of those are the original Greyhawk deities from Gygax's Dragon articles; the other three given full descriptions are Raxivort (whose full description had been previously published in issue No. 64 of Dragon,[22]) Ulaa, and Xan Yae. Combat statistics and specific powers for these twenty-two deities are also included, but placed in a separate appendix in the Glossography booklet. The remainder of the deities are simply listed by name and sphere of influence.
In Gygax's original Dragon articles, no mention had been made of racial preferences for any of the gods. The boxed set edition introduces four pantheons, one for each of the four human races. (In this edition, there are no deities for non-humans.) The twelve deities of the Suel pantheon had been created by Len Lakofka, and he would subsequently publish a five-part article on them in the July–November 1984 issues of Dragon. Most of the other gods are assigned to one of the three remaining pantheons, while a few are either declared either common to all humans or of unknown origin."

And that's not all. Many other modules, etc expanded upon this.
So yeah. In AD&D Greyhawk was anything but generic. It only became generic with 3rd ed, which is how you can tell someone really isn't an "old school" grognard.


DrDeth wrote:
So yeah. In AD&D Greyhawk was anything but generic. It only became generic with 3rd ed, which is how you can tell someone really isn't an "old school" grognard.

I'd hesitate to even call it generic in 3E - it was simply the default setting, with the barest minimum of background or support material.

Certainly, I never got the "generic" vibe from anything in the 3E books. What bits saw printed were quite compelling to me, being far different bits of fantasy than I was used to, leading me to dig deeper into the Greyhawk mythos (and, ultimately, be rather upset that the line wasn't going to get any decent campaign support).

101 to 150 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Longevity of 3.x All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.