I loved Greyhawk even before I ever Played a game of D&D and I didn't really get into any RPG until after PFRPG was released. I think just before Ultimate Combat was released...
Most of the Greyhawk I have read is fairly Detailed. Though most of it was similar to Golarion. Only a few regions were Highly Detailed with the rest just a Guideline for People to modify as needed.
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.
** spoiler omitted **
You did note the wording of my last post, right? The fact that I played 2nd ed and basic D&D simultaneously, right?
Compare Greyhawk to the much later Forgotten Realms, and you will see what I mean about how generic Greyhawk was. I didn't necessarily like FR back then, thought it was too overpowered. These days when I run it, I make like the famous high powered NPC's do not exist.
You did note the wording of my last post, right? The fact that I played 2nd ed and basic D&D simultaneously, right?
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.
** spoiler omitted **
Yeah: "My first campaigns were in AD&D 2nd ed, and also at the same time D&D." - your first campaigns occurred after 2nd edition had come out.
Compare Greyhawk to the much later Forgotten Realms, and you will see what I mean about how generic Greyhawk was. I didn't necessarily like FR back then, thought it was too overpowered. These days when I run it, I make like the famous high powered NPC's do not exist.
I was ultimately responding to your reply to Kthulhu. The reason Greyhawk seemed "generic" to you was that it was the first - the baseline from which others have developed. It was prior to the homebrew games you cited (since it was prior to those homebrew creators even knowing about the game). I also prefer FR to Greyhawk, but calling Greyhawk generic is like criticising Tolkien for "yet another same-old-same-old approach to elves".
.I dont care what edition you played - but it can be hard to remember what life was like "pre-internet". One's impressions tended to be much more insular and (consequently) much more likely to be wrong through lack of information and/or exposure to alternate views.
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.
** spoiler omitted **
You did note the wording of my last post, right? The fact that I played 2nd ed and basic D&D simultaneously, right?
Compare Greyhawk to the much later Forgotten Realms, and you will see what I mean about how generic Greyhawk was. I didn't necessarily like FR back then, thought it was too overpowered. These days when I run it, I make like the famous high powered NPC's do not exist.
i started with 3.5 but played freeform for at least a decade before that. i too, never got a chance to learn about the settings, due to a combination of my frequent deaths in 3.5 with Weekly William, time spent crafting characters, i had to make a dozen so that one could be accepted, and time spent playing freeform RP.
the problem with transitioning from freeform to tabletop comes with the culture shock of character creation limitations. a lot of popular freeform characters aren't really viable in a stock d20 game. and most attempts to convert a freeform character require crazy high levels and highly multiclassed builds that are just not suited for the tabletop.
Actually, I have extensive experience in AD&D 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5, and some in basic D&D.
Try not to make assumptions.
Actually, I have extensive experience in AD&D 2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5, and some in basic D&D.
Try not to make assumptions.
i'm not assuming you aren't a grognard. i game with a few. though i am not personally a grognard. i picked up knowledge of some of the quirks of the Era.
Even in 1e and 2e. a DM only had as much power as his players allowed him. the difference in 1E/2E, is that DMs were not ashamed to take bribes or develop pet players. in fact back then, i heard that you didn't need a resource tax to play a 2nd PC. in fact, all you had to do was ask the DM and propose a case. bribes could vary in benefit from playing a nonstandard race or class, to a floating reroll on a saving throw, or a free 1 time cheat death with 1HP card.
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.
*raises hand*
I tried to switch up to Pathfinder, but it just didn't take. Tried running several campaigns, played in even more, and the longer I played PF, the less I liked it and the more glaring the rules changes from 3.5 I didn't like became.
If I had my choice, it'd be 3.5 all the way. But, PF is the only (fantasy) game around here, so it's either play PF, or play nothing(aside from my kick-ass Star Wars Saga group). Nobody else I know of is interested in playing 3.5e.
I'm pondering joining up a friend's PF game simply because I miss gaming. I'm trying to teach myself to ignore the rules and focus on the game, but being OCD really sucks in that respect(I focus way too hard on editions and minor details, and not enough on just playing the game).
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.
I think it just comes down to active support and new product. Period.
PF has new material, and an active community discussing it.
3.5e has a few old dedicated forums, discussing things that have already been discussed a millions time over. There's no new ground being broken, just new discussions on old content.
It's just harder to publicly continue dead games. Not impossible, but definitely much more difficult as compared to finding groups for a game that has new product and active support; support being new errata, dev feedback and discussion, new rules updates. If there were new errata all of a sudden for 3.5 material, it'd fall on deaf ears.
It's only natural. As new players come to the hobby, what do they find on display ay the shelves? Pathfinder, not 3.5e. Sure, you might find some 3.5e books in the back of the store on the OOP shelf, but not prominently displayed. I've read several threads on this forum of players who are now starting their RPG hobby with PF, and have never played any iteration of 3.5 at all.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason Greyhawk seemed "generic" to you was that it was the first - the baseline from which others have developed.
Hamlet is full of cliches. Couldn't the author come up with anything new? Uncle killed the father, "to be or not to be", "get thee to a nunnery", "the plays' the thing", gah!
:)
There is the sizable library of 3.X material, building on the even older editions of D&D. Players like me don't like to be told that their library is now obsolete. I'm fairly sure better systems could be created. I am just not interested in them. YMMV of course.
More than a single reason exists for 3.X longevity and success. At or near the top of the list for me is what Stereofm said above. The depth of the rules and world continue to grow without the threat of loosing relevance. Stability matters. My investment matters. I truly appreciate the continue effort to flesh out the current world instead of rushing off to the next.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did "No True Grognard" become a thing? :P
This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008. Pathfinder is a different game. Are we talking "longevity" as in, how it lasted from 2000 to 2008?
Otherwise, let me know if I can use my Magic of Incarnum and Dragon Magic books at a local PFS game.
|
|
Pathfinder is to 3.5e as 3.5e is to 3e. It's very clearly the same system, evolved. Hence, the continued publication of Pathfinder is the continued publication of 3e, in fact if not in name.
You also can't use your Synthesist Summoner at a PFS game. Does that mean that Pathfinder is not the same game as Pathfinder?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is to 3.5e as 3.5e is to 3e. It's very clearly the same system, evolved. Hence, the continued publication of Pathfinder is the continued publication of 3e, in fact if not in name.
I strongly disagree. Long drawn out "O" sound and everything.
You could say the same for Trailblazer being the "continued publication of 3e." just as much.
PF is little more than a 3PP set of house rules, as far as I'm concerned. They were written so that Paizo could keep selling AP's.
This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008.
Beats me. All I know is that I'm still getting support (not perfect support, but support) for the 3.5 game today. New adventures and entire adventure paths that only require a tiny bit of tweaking, new rules subsystems (with no tweaking), and even new prestige classes, feats, spells, and magic items if I want 'em (that require little or even no tweaking).
So, it's "longevity" of my d20 game to me...
|
Otherwise, let me know if I can use my Magic of Incarnum and Dragon Magic books at a local PFS game.
Being banned in one house-ruled campaign does not mean they cannot be used.
Otherwise, let me know if I can use my Magic of Incarnum and Dragon Magic books at a local PFS game.Being banned in one house-ruled campaign does not mean they cannot be used.
One? I gave up after the 4th DM said no.
This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008.Beats me. All I know is that I'm still getting support (not perfect support, but support) for the 3.5 game today. New adventures and entire adventure paths that only require a tiny bit of tweaking, new rules subsystems (with no tweaking), and even new prestige classes, feats, spells, and magic items if I want 'em (that require little or even no tweaking).
So, it's "longevity" of my d20 game to me...
Let me ask you this, becuase I have not tried yet; is it easier to work 3.5 character options into a PF AP? For example, having a Soulborn PC in Carrion Crown? Because I tried it the other way around(PF characters in a 3.5 adventure), and it was a train wreck.
I blame myself more than the system for that, though.
I was referring to your comment about PFS.
I thought PFS was the "official" public game? I didn't think it was subject to houserules. I've never played it, so that's why I ask.
Actually, it's more accurate to say that PFS has it's own "house rules", as specified in the Campaign Guide and Additional Resources page on this site.I was referring to your comment about PFS.I thought PFS was the "official" public game? I didn't think it was subject to houserules. I've never played it, so that's why I ask.
A subset of house rules for an existing set of house rules? Ummm....
I'll go check them out. Might find what I'm looking for, actually.
Let me ask you this, becuase I have not tried yet; is it easier to work 3.5 character options into a PF AP? For example, having a Soulborn PC in Carrion Crown?
Yes, absolutely. For our group, at least, we've had no problems whatsoever - and we don't change much in the AP. (We even leave oracles and witches as they are, for example, and just call them 'unique monsters', really. Almost all their stats and abilities are simple 3.x stuff anyways.)
For our group, we have 6 PCs and we don't modify the AP much (i.e. we don't make it harder).
In fact, I'd say it's orders of magnitude easier putting using PF stuff in 3.5 than it is using 3.5 stuff in PF. (And that's why I'm still buying APs and adventures from Paizo and they're still getting my money - though through Amazon and less than before, admittedly, since they started weirding it up the last couple/upcoming APs.)
I tried to switch up to Pathfinder, but it just didn't take. Tried running several campaigns, played in even more, and the longer I played PF, the less I liked it and the more glaring the rules changes from 3.5 I didn't like became.If I had my choice, it'd be 3.5 all the way. But, PF is the only (fantasy) game around here, so it's either play PF, or play nothing(aside from my kick-ass Star Wars Saga group). Nobody else I know of is interested in playing 3.5e.
I'm pondering joining up a friend's PF game simply because I miss gaming. I'm trying to teach myself to ignore the rules and focus on the game, but being OCD really sucks in that respect(I focus way too hard on editions and minor details, and not enough on just playing the game).
If it helps Steve, you might actually enjoy it somewhat. Where the rules are concerned, remember that most of the changes were made to reduce complexity and to discourage multiclassing from a need to a maybe. Often, I find it helps to change my perspective a little. Instead of looking this as "it's too different", try thinking to yourself "it's been patched, and at least the artwork is interesting and the editing is pretty good".
When you or your new group encounters a changed rule, especially if it seems confused, your OCD is actually a help. See, by then you've found the discrepancy, and can explain it to the others, plus you are more aware of it than they are right from the start. That's one of the reasons why autistics like boardgames, as they have clear rules and allow for social interaction (something most autistics crave despite their protestations to the contrary).
Really hope this helps somewhat. I'm pullin' for ya.
Pathfinder is to 3.5e as 3.5e is to 3e. It's very clearly the same system, evolved. Hence, the continued publication of Pathfinder is the continued publication of 3e, in fact if not in name.I strongly disagree. Long drawn out "O" sound and everything.
You could say the same for Trailblazer being the "continued publication of 3e." just as much.
PF is little more than a 3PP set of house rules, as far as I'm concerned. They were written so that Paizo could keep selling AP's.
Actually, much of 3.0 was a set of commonly used houserules, as was 2nd ed of AD&D, as was AD&D of D&D...
Give it a good think? Remember, it's all a matter of perspective. Also, if you dislike PF, why are you here? Makes me think you don't dislike it strongly.
Also, if you dislike PF, why are you here? Makes me think you don't dislike it strongly.
That's a good question.
Honestly? I'm thinking there's something I'm missing. I'm hoping I find that one "thing" that helps my head go "click" and everything works. I started out loving PF rules 4 years ago, just as time when on I got tired of finding a thousand things changed that I didn't catch in any guide, or whatever. I'm hoping I figure out what the heck my problem is, and get back to enjoying this game.
Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about. I spend most of my time in the non-PF boards, like Gamer Talk, Off-Topic, etc. I've found several other 3.5-centric boards, but they are for example, mostly ghost towns(wizards.com), or full of PF-conversions, anyway(giantitp.com). Of all the gaming communities, I dunno, I just like it here.
Mostly, I just like to talk about gaming, and no other board I've been to is as active or diverse.
The conversation has moved well past this point, but in all the posts I never saw anyone even mention this:
Ryan Dancy (at that time of Wizards of the Coast, now better known to us of Goblinworks) did an excellent interview that is published [ on WotC's website from just before the release of the OGL and d20 system rules basically in defense of their move to releasing an open game, the genesis of the idea, and why he believes it will thrive.
Reading between the lines and with 20x20 hindsight, I think you can see not only how he was right about why OGL/d20/the opening gaming movement will be successful in many ways (for WotC-D&D, for 3PP, for gamers, and now for Paizo-Pathfinder, etc.) and I even think you can see him predicting why the GSL released 4th ed. might fail in a post-OGL world (you can't put the genie back in the bottle).
Also, if you dislike PF, why are you here? Makes me think you don't dislike it strongly.That's a good question.
Honestly? I'm thinking there's something I'm missing. I'm hoping I find that one "thing" that helps my head go "click" and everything works. I started out loving PF rules 4 years ago, just as time when on I got tired of finding a thousand things changed that I didn't catch in any guide, or whatever. I'm hoping I figure out what the heck my problem is, and get back to enjoying this game.
Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about. I spend most of my time in the non-PF boards, like Gamer Talk, Off-Topic, etc. I've found several other 3.5-centric boards, but they are for example, mostly ghost towns(wizards.com), or full of PF-conversions, anyway(giantitp.com). Of all the gaming communities, I dunno, I just like it here.
Mostly, I just like to talk about gaming, and no other board I've been to is as active or diverse.
First off, sorry I called you Steve. I got some names mixed up.
Second, maybe you would have more fun actually playing if you concentrated on finding a group that appears to be having fun, and laughing. Then, join it and concentrate on taking things as they come, just reacting instead of anticipating. If you do that, you'll spend more time thinking about the social interaction and protecting your buddies than the quirks in the game rules you don't like. Try to see it from new eyes, in other words. Shift your perspective.
PF is little more than a 3PP set of house rules, as far as I'm concerned. They were written so that Paizo could keep selling AP's.
That's funny - really. I'm not being sarcastic / evil about it. I remember thinking of 1E with it's emphasis on following the rules as Gary's campaign / house rules for D&D. Modules were an increasing product in those days which benefitted by the standardization of the rules.
In any event if PF is a set of house rules, it's house rules from a lot of the same people who worked on 3.0 / 3.5 at WotC... which is pretty much why I accepted 1E. But for me it was just D&D and I went on making my own changes :D
Pathfinder is an evolved set of rules derives from 3.5. And the people making the changes are many of the same ones who worked on the ancestral 3.5. And I'm still making changes :)
Or Hone & Polish your Blade.
Pathfinder is an evolved set of rules derives from 3.5. And the people making the changes are many of the same ones who worked on the ancestral 3.5. And I'm still making changes :)
Why, Nitro Furgueson, izzat you?!
;)
Pathfinder is an evolved set of rules derives from 3.5. And the people making the changes are many of the same ones who worked on the ancestral 3.5. And I'm still making changes :)
Why, Nitro Furgueson, izzat you?!
;)
Nah, I'd never make anyone wear the hubcap of shame :D
| 2 people 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.
*raises hand*
I tried to switch up to Pathfinder, but it just didn't take. Tried running several campaigns, played in even more, and the longer I played PF, the less I liked it and the more glaring the rules changes from 3.5 I didn't like became.
If I had my choice, it'd be 3.5 all the way. But, PF is the only (fantasy) game around here, so it's either play PF, or play nothing(aside from my kick-ass Star Wars Saga group). Nobody else I know of is interested in playing 3.5e.
I'm pondering joining up a friend's PF game simply because I miss gaming. I'm trying to teach myself to ignore the rules and focus on the game, but being OCD really sucks in that respect(I focus way too hard on editions and minor details, and not enough on just playing the game).
I feel you brother. I love 3.5 and tolerate PF.
Now that is a post I can get behind.
|
|
This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008. Pathfinder is a different game.
I agree Pathfinder is a different game, but to be fair the thread title refers to 3.x not 3.5; so that to me includes 3.0, 3.5 and 3.P (i.e. PF).
Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about.
That is pretty much the reason I play PF, I only play PF RPG in Pathfinder Society organised play games because its the closest I can get to a 3.5 living game at conventions that is popular enough for me to always get a game.
In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.
When a monthly local PFS game ended in a TPK after only two adventures it was suggested just playing a non-PFS PF rpg game. I was reluctant but said I would be interested if I could use it as an opportunity to trey out some 3.5 sourcebook material, maybe a class from Tome of Battle - the potential GM was reluctant to allow 3.5 material and so the game never happened.
I love 3.5 and tolerate PF.
Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings too, and my tolerance has to keep getting more and more as I discover more and more weird stuff about PF that worked okay in 3.5 (e.g. grappling and most recently how Ability Penalties and Bonuses give counter-intuitive results when 3.5's way worked fine)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if you dislike PF, why are you here? Makes me think you don't dislike it strongly.That's a good question.
Honestly? I'm thinking there's something I'm missing. I'm hoping I find that one "thing" that helps my head go "click" and everything works. I started out loving PF rules 4 years ago, just as time when on I got tired of finding a thousand things changed that I didn't catch in any guide, or whatever. I'm hoping I figure out what the heck my problem is, and get back to enjoying this game.
Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about. I spend most of my time in the non-PF boards, like Gamer Talk, Off-Topic, etc. I've found several other 3.5-centric boards, but they are for example, mostly ghost towns(wizards.com), or full of PF-conversions, anyway(giantitp.com). Of all the gaming communities, I dunno, I just like it here.
Mostly, I just like to talk about gaming, and no other board I've been to is as active or diverse.
First off, sorry I called you Steve. I got some names mixed up.
Second, maybe you would have more fun actually playing if you concentrated on finding a group that appears to be having fun, and laughing. Then, join it and concentrate on taking things as they come, just reacting instead of anticipating. If you do that, you'll spend more time thinking about the social interaction and protecting your buddies than the quirks in the game rules you don't like. Try to see it from new eyes, in other words. Shift your perspective.
It's ok. I figured that's what happened with the multiple quotes, so I didn't point it out. I do it all the time, lol.
Also, I inadvertently took your advice last night. Joined up a new PF game my gaming group started. Once again, "PF material only", leaving the Shadowcasters and Soulborn at home.
Trying a fresh start, a clean break; no archetypes, no alternate class features, no crazy races, just going back to basics with a concept I'm innately familair with. So I rolled up a human Ranger(my favorite class since AD&D), even used my special set of dice that went to my first 3.0 character(also a Ranger). I stuck only with things from the CRB, and once I finished rolling up my character, I put the book down and just played. Not focusing on what's different, what rules are what, just playing to whatever the in-game situation calls for.
We had a lot of fun! The players and atmosphere are an important thing I downplayed in the past several groups I played in. I'm still lamenting not getting to use my 3.5 stuff, but that's up to the group, and not indicative of the system necessarily(although smoother backwards compatibility would likely have made it less of an issue).
Point is, I'm involved in a fun PF game and I'm trying to get over myself. The 3.x feel is still kinda there, but I'm still hoping to at least run a 3.5 game at some point(I'm jonesin' for my Half-dragon Incarnate concept). Maybe by building up some game karma I can try once this game winds down.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Josh,
Glad to hear you had fun. I think it's good to go back to basics now and again. As a Battletch player, I like my ER PPC, Streak-6 and MMLs, but it's also nice to go back to 3025, when the Atlas was a mech to be feared, and the clans were nothing but a silly Scottish Tradition :-)
@Greyhawk. It's really as 'dead' as the GM who runs it. I've a friend who could very much bring it to life *because* of its history.
@Longevity Every game system has its players and adherents. I'm sure someone even plays F.A.T.A.L. (why I don't know...) Longevity comes from bringing in new players. TO do that you need evergreen products. Thus the need for PAthfinder RPG.
@Paizo. Paizo generated a great deal of goodwill in their stewardship of Dragon and Dungeon. This gave them the potential for at least some start up captial in their efforts for Pathfinder. I know I declined a refund of my subscriptions to take a look at these new 'Adventure Path' thingies, and the rest is history.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I have been playing Fantasy Role-playing games since they were invented. The system really doesn’t matter that much. I have had fun playing OD&D, AD&D, T&T, C&S, Runequest, Pendragon, Fantasy Hero, 3.5, 4th and even Bunnies & Burrows... not to mention a few I can’t even remember. The DM and your fellow players are what make the game fun , not the system.
Now yes, sometimes the rule system can get in the way of fun. C&S for example was too math oriented, the rules got in the way- and T&T was too simple, the combat system breaks down at higher levels. Both could still be fun.
I think 3.5 got too much material there at the end and thus some real munchkiny things could creep in too easily. But it’s still fun. So far, I have had the most fun with AD&D and PF, but 3.5 comes in a close 3rd.
This thread confuses me. As far as I can tell, 3.5e died in 2008. Pathfinder is a different game.I agree Pathfinder is a different game, but to be fair the thread title refers to 3.x not 3.5; so that to me includes 3.0, 3.5 and 3.P (i.e. PF).
Also, this is the most active community about a game, that at least resembles a game I care a lot about.That is pretty much the reason I play PF, I only play PF RPG in Pathfinder Society organised play games because its the closest I can get to a 3.5 living game at conventions that is popular enough for me to always get a game.
In terms of non PFS games I now decline to play (and it was one reason why I left my weekly game group of several years). Basically I want to make use of the 3.5 material I have on my shelves.
When a monthly local PFS game ended in a TPK after only two adventures it was suggested just playing a non-PFS PF rpg game. I was reluctant but said I would be interested if I could use it as an opportunity to trey out some 3.5 sourcebook material, maybe a class from Tome of Battle - the potential GM was reluctant to allow 3.5 material and so the game never happened.
I love 3.5 and tolerate PF.Yep, that pretty much sums up my feelings too, and my tolerance has to keep getting more and more as I discover more and more weird stuff about PF that worked okay in 3.5 (e.g. grappling and most recently how Ability Penalties and Bonuses give counter-intuitive results when 3.5's way worked fine)
Yeah, some of the changes to the mechanics below the surface are shaky. 3.5 did it better.
I remember a pf player was complaining about special attacks, grapple, sunder and such in 3.5. How it was confusing, simpler in pf. I did him a favour, I broke them all down into simple math equations with a few sentences of explanation (since the grapple section really needed an editor, and it can be broken down to be very simple and clear). Then I went through and explained why using str here, bab not mattering here, two-hander being important for this but not that and such made sense. Each was trying to do a different thing and simplifying as pf did meant that if a foe has too high a cmd, you just won't get anywhere. Where as in 3.5 your feats mattered more in helping, and you could use the right technique for the opponent (oh they have low str, they are not two-handing, their grapple will be lowish).
You know, I have been playing Fantasy Role-playing games since they were invented. The system really doesn’t matter that much. I have had fun playing OD&D, AD&D, T&T, C&S, Runequest, Pendragon, Fantasy Hero, 3.5, 4th and even Bunnies & Burrows... not to mention a few I can’t even remember. The DM and your fellow players are what make the game fun , not the system.
Now yes, sometimes the rule system can get in the way of fun. C&S for example was too math oriented, the rules got in the way- and T&T was too simple, the combat system breaks down at higher levels. Both could still be fun.
I think 3.5 got too much material there at the end and thus some real munchkiny things could creep in too easily. But it’s still fun. So far, I have had the most fun with AD&D and PF, but 3.5 comes in a close 3rd.
A Player of Games. Salute.