stuff about skills
Its funny I hated the 3.5 half point system. I found the half skill point thing a book keeping issue. Your ranger example has some flaws.
The pf ranger gets full value for any side skills he has. Gets enough skill points to handle his core skills and if he wants to max a side skill hell be har better at.
In 3.5 I had an elf archer intended to cover a lot of fantasy elf themes with. For some reason I chose fighter. Keeping both sneak and hide maxed as as cross class skills was prohibitive.
The same char if I ever did it in pf wpuld be a lot more fun.
In general the only book I'd ever consider using wpuld be the magic item compendium. I actually find a lot of the books people are listing (like ToB) are stuff I disliked about 3.5
I remember another one now. Having a bonus or penalty on saves against fear also affected how easy or difficult it is to intimidate or be intimidated
I may have been unconsciously keeping that going...
|
IT would be really hard to show any example of Pathfinder vs. 3.5 where Pathfinder doesn't come out ahead in skills.
Whilst I liked the fact that Paizo collapsed the skill list, I wish they had gone further like 4e and collapsed some of the knowledges into fewer named skills (and ditched Profession skills). Also Swim and Climb still being a separate skills and not part of an Athletics skill.
However just in comparison to 3.5 the only things I feel are perhaps worse is the loss of Concentration as a skill, and the addition of Fly.
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.
I disagreed with a lot of the "skill consolidation." For example, I feel Jump should be STR based, not rolled up into the DEX based "Acrobatics."
Purely fantasy example; The Hulk. He is well documented as being able to jump massive distances due solely to his strength. According to Marvel Wiki:
"The Hulk uses his superhumanly strong leg muscles to leap great distances. The Hulk has been known to cover hundreds of miles in a single bound and once leaped almost into orbit around the Earth."
http://marvel.com/universe/Hulk_%28Bruce_Banner%29, under "Powers" tab
I can't imagine even the Hulk(minus the newer always-on version) being all that dextrous. So, to play a similar "powerful leaping" character in PF, they have to have a high DEX? Don't like it.
You can copyright expressions of ideas. Systems are expressions. WOTC did not open source 3.5 experience point table, so Paizo had to come up with their own. (they did three in the end)
No, you can't copyright a game. Not a little, not a tad, not a jot, not at all.
You can copyright your description of the game. You can copyright your layout of the rules. You can copyright specific names (such as the names they had in spells like floating disk in 3.5).
But rules systems for a game can not be copyrighted.
If you don't believe posters here (which I can totally understand), you would I'm hoping believe the US Copyright Office.
Or yet So Broken It dose not play well with other 3.5 classes. That why It called book of The of Nine Broken Swords. Or the pay ahpha play test for D&D 4th ED.Tome Of Battle.
How to play a real martial hero or a random anime protagonist in a single hardcover. No book ever was that wide in range and yet still so clean on rule interpretation.
Hah, next time read your history.
ToB came after Orcus not 4E rules.
4E is the alpha playtest of ToB in 3.5 not the other way around.
They changed everything to make 4E. ToB doesn't resemble 4E.
|
I don't like Climb being Str based for small or larger creatures.When you climb, you are pulling your weight up through physical strength. I don't see why it would be otherwise for small or larger creatures.
I also agree that Jump should be Str-based, maybe using a combined Athletics skill (Jump, Climb, Swim), similar to Acrobatics for Dex-based skills.
And yet when I look at the Olympics or other sports the jumpers don't look like the shot-putters, they look like the sprinters.
When I look at nature the creatures that climb; it isn't the hippos, it's the spider monkeys.
More than a few retroclones have copied BECMI/AD&D experience tables exactly. Maybe they are different to 3rd eds xp tables so one can get away with it.
More than a few retroclones have copied BECMI/AD&D experience tables exactly. Maybe they are different to 3rd eds xp tables so one can get away with it.
the XP tables from 3rd are based on a mathematical formula, that makes them uncopyrightable. Otherwise, you'd be able to copyright 2+2=4 and nobody else could use it. And due to constraints imposed by the usability, copyrighting a table of numbers based off a formula isn't possible. Been a dozen court fights about it over the last 100 years, and each time tables of raw data (which is what the XP table is, it's a table of raw data based on the formula calculation) can't be copyrighted. Even the table layout can't be copyrighted, it doesn't rise to the level of 'creative expression'.
Or yet So Broken It dose not play well with other 3.5 classes. That why It called book of The of Nine Broken Swords. Or the pay ahpha play test for D&D 4th ED.Tome Of Battle.
How to play a real martial hero or a random anime protagonist in a single hardcover. No book ever was that wide in range and yet still so clean on rule interpretation.
Hah, next time read your history.
ToB came after Orcus not 4E rules.
4E is the alpha playtest of ToB in 3.5 not the other way around.
They changed everything to make 4E. ToB doesn't resemble 4E.
Hesitant to ask but I couldn't figure put how Orcus fit into the conversation or how 4e could possibly be a test for some future ToB product.
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)
I can't speak to the battledancer or tibbit...
I did like the warlock.
However, have you checked out Dreamscarred Press' updated soulknife?
Their version of psionics was written by the same person as 3.5's XPH, and is good enough that Paizo has used it in adventure paths. IMO, the updated soulknife is better balanced than the 3.5 version.
I don't believe the statement in bold is accurate.
Separate from the response above, I do believe this is all the official sources.
Books labeled Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 from WOTC
Eberron (see above)
Forgotten Realms (see above)
Official Web Articles on WOTC website
Dragonlance (from mid 2003 to late 2007)
Kingdoms of Kalamar (from mid 2003 to August 2007)
Ravenloft (from mid 2003 to mid August 2005)
Dungeon and Dragon magazines (from mid 2003 to the end of 2007?)
Any 3rd edition material from the above sources when it is applicable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me it has to be the Dragonlance stuff, both from WOTC and Margaret Weis Productions.
The first chapter was dedicated to rules for playing as ghosts. I'm not sure I understand that criticism.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.
It was the way they worded it. You weren't a "ghost," what was it, you were an Eidolon? You weren't ethereal, and at some point not even undead? Doesn't sound very ghosty to me.
I haven't cracked that book open since I got it 7 years ago. I could have misread it, but that's as far as I got. The classes and everything else were really underwhelming as well. Glad I only paid $3 for it on Amazon.
I'd really enjoy something new and updated, at least revisiting the idea of an all-paranormal campaign.
Hesitant to ask but I couldn't figure put how Orcus fit into the conversation or how 4e could possibly be a test for some future ToB product.Or yet So Broken It dose not play well with other 3.5 classes. That why It called book of The of Nine Broken Swords. Or the pay ahpha play test for D&D 4th ED.Tome Of Battle.
How to play a real martial hero or a random anime protagonist in a single hardcover. No book ever was that wide in range and yet still so clean on rule interpretation.
Hah, next time read your history.
ToB came after Orcus not 4E rules.
4E is the alpha playtest of ToB in 3.5 not the other way around.
They changed everything to make 4E. ToB doesn't resemble 4E.
It wasn't. This link should clarify things some.
Hesitant to ask but I couldn't figure put how Orcus fit into the conversation or how 4e could possibly be a test for some future ToB product.Or yet So Broken It dose not play well with other 3.5 classes. That why It called book of The of Nine Broken Swords. Or the pay ahpha play test for D&D 4th ED.Tome Of Battle.
How to play a real martial hero or a random anime protagonist in a single hardcover. No book ever was that wide in range and yet still so clean on rule interpretation.
Hah, next time read your history.
ToB came after Orcus not 4E rules.
4E is the alpha playtest of ToB in 3.5 not the other way around.
They changed everything to make 4E. ToB doesn't resemble 4E.It wasn't. This link should clarify things some.
Exactly, they nerfed recharge ability (you can't) in 4E.
...I miss being a half-illithid barbarian...
|
|
I don't like Climb being Str based for small or larger creatures.When you climb, you are pulling your weight up through physical strength. I don't see why it would be otherwise for small or larger creatures.
I also agree that Jump should be Str-based, maybe using a combined Athletics skill (Jump, Climb, Swim), similar to Acrobatics for Dex-based skills.
And yet when I look at the Olympics or other sports the jumpers don't look like the shot-putters, they look like the sprinters.
When I look at nature the creatures that climb; it isn't the hippos, it's the spider monkeys.
Sprinters and jumpers have tremendous lower body strength for their mass. (Make upper body Strength and lower body Strength two different scores?!)
Monkeys have tremendous upper body strength for their mass.
(Give size bonuses and penalties on climb?)To me, the first is an odd change (splitting Strength up). The second doesn't seem like an odd change.
Power-to-weight ratio helps smaller climbers because of the square/cube law. PF doesn't represent that; it just gives a bonus based on Str.
Size doesn't come into the PF equation directly. It does indirectly, by making larger creatures stronger than smaller creatures. But IRL larger (heavier) creatures are not better at climbing than smaller (lighter) creatures, so PF fails in the verisimilitude test.
Size (reach) helps climbing, but size (weight) hinders climbing. Since height and weight are freely chosen within very broad limits but Str and Dex are rolled/allotted from a finite source of points, raw Str and Dex scores are inadequate.
Creatures smaller than Small can use their Dex instead of there Str score for the Climb skill. It would be better to say that the stat modifier to the climb skill is taken from the higher of your Str and Dex. Even then the 'unrealistic' climbers will be the elephants, whales and T-Rexes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whether it's cleaner rules or something that helps close the gap between martials and casters, give me your list.
Uh... it'd be a far shorter and much easier to compile list if I just mentioned the things I *wouldn't* port over. Of course, in reality I'd be playing 3E with a few good PF changes (like the half- races having a purpose and the Paladin class) because I like most of 3E and dislike most of PF's changes to it.
But in any case, I would NOT port over to PF the following from 3E:
- Basically anything that buffs casters, like divine metamagic and other feats, many prestige classes such as Planar Shepherd, many of the spells such as Celerity and Power Word Pain, magic items like Night Sticks, etc... The newer caster classes like Warmage and Wu Jen are fine, though, they're actually more balanced than the core casters by a long shot. Except Archivist and Artificer... those would totally not be ported over.
- Savage Species. The entire book is just an atrocity. Ridiculously unbalanced.
- Complete Psion. The entire book is an atrocity, for the exact opposite reason SS is.
And...that's about it. I'd probably port over just about everything else. Including the core rules mechanics in favor of Pathfinder's in pretty much every instance, whether it be tumble DCs, class skill rules, combat maneuvers, etc... This is a very generic posting, though, because I don't feel like delving through dozens of books and writing a thesis on this, going over every little minute broken thing. There are other things I'd avoid porting that are too obscure to even talk about, like the super-poorly thought out "Lucid Dreaming" skill. But in general, this post about sums it up.
|
|
you do understand that aside from the psionic class, which Paizo has no interest in working, all of that stuff you mentioned is closed content which Paizo can't touch? As for the psionic stuff, if you miss the 3.5 material that badly, Dreamscarred has you covered. Paizo is looking to do something they call "psyhic magic" which is probably going to be a different kettle of fish, the way Mythic is from Epic.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)
Uh.... The Tibbit and the Battledancer were both in Dragon Magazine (and the annual that came out at the tail end of 3.5's run) Though they could be "closed" because Wizard's was the "publisher" of the original content, I doubt that it would be impossible to bring these two things over with a slight name change and upgrade into Pathfinder rules.
I have yet to see a Halfling/housecat hybrid race in D&D since then.
There are quite a number of things that I would love to port over from 3rd edition into Pathfinder. It's a bit late tonight, and am too tired to get into much, but one thing would be many of the things from Eberron (warforged and artificer mostly), as well as a few of the things from complete divine, warrior, adventurer, and arcane (the other completes were horrible).
I would also like to bring over some of the monsters that are "D&D" such as umber hulk and displacer beast, though not so much the various beholders or illithids.
The Dread Necromancer from Heroes of Horror. I do regret purchasing Savage Species, Psionics Handbook (the original, not extended), and Magic of Incarnum. I get more use from the Miniatures Handbook than that one. Which reminds me, I actually kinda liked the Healer class presented in that book, and thought of updating that and making it spontaneous.
The 3 enviroment books (frostburn, sandstorm, stormwrack) were enjoyable books for me, and would like to update some of the stuff from there.
I do wish Paizo would make at least 1 more campaign setting, though I honestly couldn't imagine what it would be about. Golarion (or should I say, Inner Sea) is so "must include everything in this certain portion of the world!" that I can't think of something else. I guess something more than the damn Inner Sea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I miss 2/3 of Tome of Magic. The Binder and the Shadowcaster were awesome and really cool. Yes I know paizo made a "Shadowcaster" archetype for the wizard but it is really.... bleh, and just doesn't FEEL like the shadowcaster of old. The binder was awesome and give a really cool Lovecraftian feel.
The other thing I miss was Magic of Incarnum. That book had some awesome classes and ideas that were fresh and new.