What official 3.5 material do you think makes Pathfinder a better game?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coridan wrote:


Expanded Psionics Handbook (I like the dreamscarred stuff, I just wish Paizo supported it in their campaign/adventures etc)

I really don't think we need to have Paizo requiring it's PFS GMs to buy third party material in order to run scenarios. It's not really in their interests to torque off GM's when there's no profit to be doing so. Especially if they plan on exploring that ground in areas not compatible with the present 3rd party stuff. For example just to explore the most talked about 3pp material, at least one dev as made it clear that Paizo has no love for the old 3.5 psionic mechanics and if they plan on exploring psionics it'll be with entirely different ones.


dragonomicon, just change the dragonborn to having a choice of 2 draconic aspects, and select one non-cultures related trait for the base applied race to retain (ex:dwarf with slow and steady)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Magic Item Compendium (Still used)

Vigor Spells (from Spell Compendium)

other than that, I don't really use any 3.5 stuff any more.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Morgen wrote:
What makes the game better or worse are the people your playing it with. Some times I worry you folks forget simple stuff like that.

I certainly didn't "forget it" because I don't actually think it is the case that it is solely the people you play with that makes a game better or not (maybe it is for you). If everyone felt as you do, there wouldn't be any errata, no revisions, no editions beyond the first. Different rules or extra material can make a game better for myself and I imagine many others.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:
Coridan wrote:


Expanded Psionics Handbook (I like the dreamscarred stuff, I just wish Paizo supported it in their campaign/adventures etc)

I really don't think we need to have Paizo requiring it's PFS GMs to buy third party material in order to run scenarios. It's not really in their interests to torque off GM's when there's no profit to be doing so. Especially if they plan on exploring that ground in areas not compatible with the present 3rd party stuff. For example just to explore the most talked about 3pp material, at least one dev as made it clear that Paizo has no love for the old 3.5 psionic mechanics and if they plan on exploring psionics it'll be with entirely different ones.

I am aware of all this. That's why we are here discussing things we'd like, not things that are likely =p


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The 3.5 Warlock, and that other class that had an at-will breath weapon (Dragon Adept or something like that, maybe?) The only issue I had was that they fell off a bit in later-game due to lack of iterative, but the at-will magical/supernatural attack thing is something I really like.


One of the classes I really liked that was non-standard was the Shiar.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Sha'ir? The genie binders?

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

Sha'ir? The genie binders?

==Aelryinth

Yes


Lots of the non-OGL stuff; Incarnum, Pact/Binding, etc.

I prefer how 3.5 handled Force damage, unless I'm missing something. Force-effects actually did stuff(bypassed specific things, etc), wasn't just a flavorful description like in PF.


Coridan wrote:
Expanded Psionics Handbook (I like the dreamscarred stuff, I just wish Paizo supported it in their campaign/adventures etc)

Paizo has actually used DSP's psionics in adventure paths already:)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would echo that the spellcraft/counterspelling rules in 3.5 were much clearer, and allowed for any caster with the right feats(still+silent spell) to do some stealth spell casting. That anyone with a rank in spellcraft can identify spells even when there is no verbal/somatic components just feels wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think 3.5 had much better Lycanthrope rules.

YMMV, of course.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love the 3.5 draconomicon, does wotc material count?


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I love the 3.5 draconomicon, does wotc material count?

The subject is official 3.5 Ed material. I'd be surprised if there are any WotC 3.5 Ed stuff that is not considered official 3.5 Ed


137ben wrote:
Coridan wrote:
Expanded Psionics Handbook (I like the dreamscarred stuff, I just wish Paizo supported it in their campaign/adventures etc)
Paizo has actually used DSP's psionics in adventure paths already:)

If I'm not mistaken, what Paizo used was some of the psionic powers/effects/creatures in an AP. Typically what I understand someone to mean when they say "support psionics" is "support a power point based casting system".


Charender wrote:

I would echo that the spellcraft/counterspelling rules in 3.5 were much clearer, and allowed for any caster with the right feats(still+silent spell) to do some stealth spell casting. That anyone with a rank in spellcraft can identify spells even when there is no verbal/somatic components just feels wrong.

Particularly for Illusionists and Enchanters. This is iirc an example of how the game got worse after it was originally published as this FAQ ruling didn't exist in the beginning.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

There is -one- thing I miss from 3.5, but it's only from the later Monster Manuals.

Each creature had a separate box that had something for the GM to read if a player made a successful Knowledge check. The higher the check, the more you would be able to discern from the monster.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Zenogu, check here.


Haladir wrote:


I prefer the 3.5 rule on how reach weapons work on the diagonal.

But, aside from a few things here and there, I do prefer Pathfinder very much over 3.5.

And, for all the talk about it (and the theory-craft behind it), I simply do not see any martial-caster imbalance in actual gameplay.

Yeah, that's one thing PF got very wrong. (Sorry Sean!)

I agree.

We're about 11th level in one group, and altho the Fighter still can't be beat for DPR. But the versatility of the spellcaster classes is really starting to show. They can fly, teleport, solve puzzles by use of spells, etc.

But here's the thing- D&D is not a PvP arena game. The classes are part of a team. So what if the Fighter can't access someplace without magic? the Wizard gets him there and the fighter "SMASH!".

In 3.5, if you add all the splatbooks, then by the time spellcasters could do 9th level spells, the fighter was indeed outclassed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Things I miss from 3.5...

1. Faerun... so much
2. Eberon... less so but still
3. Ravenloft... ehhh yeah I sometimes miss it
4. Artificer - Give me my insane gnome genious back!
5. Book of Nine Swords - What melee should have been from the start.

And last but most important.

6. Prestige classes. I like them. Archtypes are fun... but as an avid Theorycrafter and Forum leach I miss the good old days of mixing and matching different prestige classes together to make cool builds. There was more flexiblity and more room to find fun concepts. But with the way PF is built, I think Prestige classes are dead. It would be almost insane to prestige out of most base classes because of the increased amount of abilities that scale with class level. In 3.5 it was pointless to stay in a base class past level 5.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I much prefer the modular Alternate Class Features of 3.5 to either Prestige Classes or Archetypes. The Specialist Wizard swap-outs in Unearthed Arcana, for instance, were pretty awesome. A Necromancer that can have a permanent skeleton companion, instead of a familiar, but isn't locked into taking all three possible options, or giving up his bonus feats or spells for alternate features that might not fit his theme? Sweet. Customizability is awesome.

Fractional BAB and Fractional Saves and Magic Rating, from Unearthed Arcana, would be a great improvement for multiclassing, IMO.


Probably already mentioned, but Tome of Battle/Book of Nine Swords.


Dragonamedrake wrote:


6. Prestige classes. I like them. Archtypes are fun... but as an avid Theorycrafter and Forum leach I miss the good old days of mixing and matching different prestige classes together to make cool builds.

This is something I don't understand. I'm not saying your style of fun is BADWRONGFUN, but if you like to find creative combinations of stuff, why not work on finding creative combinations of stuff that is actually meaningful? There are people who have over 100 patents. There are people who license their patents and don't need to work. What you're doing seems like such a brain loss.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Ghostwalk. I long to see Ghostwalk resurrected.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Justin Rocket wrote:
What you're doing seems like such a brain loss.

I know, right? We should all just stop playing RPGs and work more.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Justin Rocket wrote:
What you're doing seems like such a brain loss.
I know, right? We should all just stop playing RPGs and work more.

Its not work if you do it for fun.

Shadow Lodge

The problem with your suggestion is that the fun of finding combinations of rules may not translate to the finding of combinations of ideas.

Some of my friends enjoy making art. They specifically do not do it professionally because it takes the fun away.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Ghostwalk. I long to see Ghostwalk resurrected.

Sure, if we'd actually get to play as ghosts. Such a misleading book. It's one of the very, very few 3e books I read once, and put away.


Justin Rocket wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


6. Prestige classes. I like them. Archtypes are fun... but as an avid Theorycrafter and Forum leach I miss the good old days of mixing and matching different prestige classes together to make cool builds.
This is something I don't understand. I'm not saying your style of fun is BADWRONGFUN, but if you like to find creative combinations of stuff, why not work on finding creative combinations of stuff that is actually meaningful? There are people who have over 100 patents. There are people who license their patents and don't need to work. What you're doing seems like such a brain loss.

It's "actually meaningful" if something fulfills a creative outlet. Seriously, by your account, everyone here should stop playing RPG's and "grow up." Being creative within a given system is what draws a lot of players to this game in the first place.


Moradin.


The problem with bringing back all the old PrC and allowing the theorycrafters to have fun designing weird combos is that then said combos are presented as reasons why the system is broken and horrible. E.g. Sno-cone wish machine and Str 60 Blood Money.

Such things, which no-one plays with and rely upon a strained and corner interpretation of RAW (and are entirely outside RAI) are then presented as PROOF! that Paizo has done a terrible job of writing a game, that balance is way off, that the Devs are incompetent, and so forth.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zenogu, check here.

I would have liked them inside the Bestiaries, but at least this is a problem I can throw money at.

Thanks TOZ

Shadow Lodge

I like the skills system in 3E (meaning mostly 3.5), much better. I liked having more points to spend as desired than the small handful that PF gives, though they work out to the same if both are used to max out a skill. I also still dont think that Appraise, Fly, and a fewothers should be skills, while I do think Concentration should be.

Not a fan of PF Clerics or Domains, Turn Undead, Elemental Domain powers, or the relation to Oracles and Paladins. All divine casters sort of step to much on the Clerics toes.

I like the 3E reach rules.

I like the 3E version of most Feats more, particularly Cleave chain. Sunder would be the most notable exception.

For the most part I like 3E spells better. More balanced and fun, but also the sheer greatness that having so many options from setting material to the spell compendium, to climate focused books to race focused books (and this goes for everything really not just spells), was far superior. I am generally disappointed with most of PFs similar books on this account.

I really miss all the options that 3E allowed. PF instead likes to create new clases to fill roles rather than allow Feats, Prestige Classes, or the like to allow existing material to branch out. Not really a huge fan of that approach.

I like 3Es approach to balancing the amount of crunch vs fluff. Both in setting books and core material. Im not really a fan of Golarion, and I agree that another new setting or two would be a great idea, give Golarion a rest a few years, or at least the locations and themes that have been promonent from the start.


DrDeth wrote:

The problem with bringing back all the old PrC and allowing the theorycrafters to have fun designing weird combos is that then said combos are presented as reasons why the system is broken and horrible. E.g. Sno-cone wish machine and Str 60 Blood Money.

Such things, which no-one plays with and rely upon a strained and corner interpretation of RAW (and are entirely outside RAI) are then presented as PROOF! that Paizo has done a terrible job of writing a game, that balance is way off, that the Devs are incompetent, and so forth.

To be fair, people are making such negative accusation without the existence of PrC's.

And really, it was only a small handful of PrC's that were the problem. Ur-Priest, Incantatrix, etc. Stuff that's not OGL to begin with.

I think just having more PrC's, not necessarily reprinting all the old ones, would be a lot of fun to have.


Zenogu wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zenogu, check here.

I would have liked them inside the Bestiaries, but at least this is a problem I can throw money at.

Thanks TOZ

Highlights a bigger problem though; paying money for a 3PP supplement of what originally was included in the book to begin with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I love the 3.5 draconomicon, does wotc material count?
The subject is official 3.5 Ed material. I'd be surprised if there are any WotC 3.5 Ed stuff that is not considered official 3.5 Ed

If WOTC created it, it's official material. IF it was NOT copied into the SRD, than it's material that Paizo, nor anyone else can touch unless specifically granted a license to do so, such as the license Paradigm Press got to write it's book on Mind Flayers.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I like the skills system in 3E (meaning mostly 3.5), much better. I liked having more points to spend as desired than the small handful that PF gives, though they work out to the same if both are used to max out a skill.

Paizo collapsed a fair number of redundant skills, like Hide and Move Silently to Stealth. They also eliminated the half rank per point cost of non-class skills. IT would be really hard to show any example of Pathfinder vs. 3.5 where Pathfinder doesn't come out ahead in skills.


LazarX wrote:
KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
I love the 3.5 draconomicon, does wotc material count?
The subject is official 3.5 Ed material. I'd be surprised if there are any WotC 3.5 Ed stuff that is not considered official 3.5 Ed
If WOTC created it, it's official material. IF it was NOT copied into the SRD, than it's material that Paizo, nor anyone else can touch unless specifically granted a license to do so, such as the license Paradigm Press got to write it's book on Mind Flayers.

Note that Paizo (or anyone else) can use game mechanics from WotC, as long as the presentation and wording is completely different (and obviously the names). For example, see the OSRIC adaption of the (non-OGL) AD&D rules. Or, more relevantly to PF, the upcoming Path of War, which is an adaption of ToB.

Of course, it is more work than simply copy/paste. But it is also a chance to actually improve stuff (and, judging from the playtests for path of war, DSP has certainly improved upon the Bo9S.)

Shadow Lodge

I disagree, hence the statement above. What PF also did was remove the #+Int x3 at first level, which means that even characters with 2 skills and a low Int had a fair number of Skill Points to throw around, if they wanted. This meant that say a Dwarf 10 Int Fighter had 8 Skill Points, and they could put 1/2 Rank in a bunch of Know Skills for example, which would at least allow them to attempt the skills if they wanted or go the only option that PF allows, and max out 2 skills.

So, between the two options, I would rather have 3.5, personally. However, that being said, I do like pretty much everything else that Paizo did in regards to skills.


LazarX wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I like the skills system in 3E (meaning mostly 3.5), much better. I liked having more points to spend as desired than the small handful that PF gives, though they work out to the same if both are used to max out a skill.
Paizo collapsed a fair number of redundant skills, like Hide and Move Silently to Stealth. They also eliminated the half rank per point cost of non-class skills. IT would be really hard to show any example of Pathfinder vs. 3.5 where Pathfinder doesn't come out ahead in skills.

Iaijutsu Focus, Skill Tricks & more uses for skills in 3.5!

Go to Skills.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
137ben wrote:

Note that Paizo (or anyone else) can use game mechanics from WotC, as long as the presentation and wording is completely different (and obviously the names). For example, see the OSRIC adaption of the (non-OGL) AD&D rules. Or, more relevantly to PF, the upcoming Path of War, which is an adaption of ToB.

Of course, it is more work than simply copy/paste. But it is also a chance to actually improve stuff (and, judging from the playtests for path of war, DSP has certainly improved upon the Bo9S.)

Many of these works may very well be threading a fine line when it comes to copyright issues of derivative work. Much of the smaller fish may be surviving simply because WOTC hasn't had them in their radar. You can bet dollars to donuts however that they will be taking a VERY close look at anything Paizo puts out.


I like some of the 3.5 classes like Scout, Beguiler, Duskblade and most of the feats etc are fine as well apart from the broken ones like persistent spell.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

I disagree, hence the statement above. What PF also did was remove the #+Int x3 at first level, which means that even characters with 2 skills and a low Int had a fair number of Skill Points to throw around, if they wanted. This meant that say a Dwarf 10 Int Fighter had 8 Skill Points, and they could put 1/2 Rank in a bunch of Know Skills for example, which would at least allow them to attempt the skills if they wanted or go the only option that PF allows, and max out 2 skills.

So, between the two options, I would rather have 3.5, personally. However, that being said, I do like pretty much everything else that Paizo did in regards to skills.

ranger skill comparison, assuming 10 int, first level, maxing skills

3.5 ranger 24 skill points
search 4 ranks
spot 4 ranks
listen 4 ranks
survival 4 ranks
knowledge (nature) 4 ranks
handle animal 4 ranks
points remaining, 0

pathfinder ranger 6 skill points
perception 1 point +3 for class skill, effective 4 ranks
knowledge (nature) 1 point +3 for class skill, effective 4 ranks
handle animal 1 point +3 for class skill, effective 4 ranks
points remaining, 3

Shadow Lodge

You seem to not be getting what I'm talking about.

That said Ranger could put a point or 4 into Tumble, Use Magic Device, or Escape Artist or whatever, and not hurt their other skills so much was okay in 3.5, but you can't really do that in PF.

I'm not saying that 3E had less skills, or that the way PF lumped some skill together was bad, (mostly). I'm saying that of the two systems, I'd rather have the one that allows more freedom to place skills, one has a pool of 24 points the other has a pool of 6 points, which more or less fork out evenly.

(Also, your 3E Ranger is probably not going to have Search, so will actually have 4 Skills remaining, not 0, however to sort of make my point, that's 4 Ranks that they can use for something else they want their Ranger to be able to do, or be above average at, for example Heal, Tumble, or Craft: Cow-Patty Pies Could also probably do without one or the other of Spot or Listen. Which puts the 3E Ranger 4 or 1 Rank behind the PF one. BUT the PF Ranger does not have the option to have more than 6 skills with Ranks in them, which is the point I was making.)


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'm saying that of the two systems, I'd rather have the one that allows more freedom to place skills,

I'd rather not because each character's skill set is less distinguishable in your preferred way of doing it.

Shadow Lodge

Which is perfectly fine. Both are valid opinions /preferences. :)


Jagozen wrote:
LazarX wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I like the skills system in 3E (meaning mostly 3.5), much better. I liked having more points to spend as desired than the small handful that PF gives, though they work out to the same if both are used to max out a skill.
Paizo collapsed a fair number of redundant skills, like Hide and Move Silently to Stealth. They also eliminated the half rank per point cost of non-class skills. IT would be really hard to show any example of Pathfinder vs. 3.5 where Pathfinder doesn't come out ahead in skills.

Iaijutsu Focus, Skill Tricks & more uses for skills in 3.5!

Go to Skills.

Sorry here's a better link.

expanded skills.

Also adding Teamwork benefits from PHBII, DMGII, Heroes of Battle, and Dungeonscape.

Tumble DC 40 10 ft. step from oriental adventures

Another great thing from 3.5 was the many ways to replace the uses of an ability score with another. Here's a good link for you all.

ability score goodness.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So...

Some of the things I would like to see make the transition to PF, that I miss...

Battledancer (Dragon Mag Annual)
Tibbit race. (Pleaaassseee!!!)

Warlock - A great alternative mechanic to magic that is centered around self used auras and a blast ability. 4TH ed warlock is basically Magic User number three.

I also miss the Soul Knife, though I wouldn't necessarily need a Soul Knife class in PF to be Psionic. (In relation to the mechanical F.U.B.A.R. that the power source is in all editions)

I also miss the Bard being the Jack of All Trade in 2nd edition, but there shouldn't be a class that is hamstrung like that in the current market, so it is just so much remembrance of a character past that was successful despite his many shortcumings. (Alas, poor Strawdor)


Believe this thread should be in the 3pp forum.

51 to 100 of 135 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What official 3.5 material do you think makes Pathfinder a better game? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.