| 1 person 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.
Here's some of mine.
Vecna (Paizo doesn't have a deity that can compare with the big V! I mean he's like the Dr Doom of D&D, though he would bow before Doom!)
Reshar (Bo9s fame! The guy is bad@$$! Talk about a guy who's mythic and could take down mythic casters. I can only imagine his personal maneuver set.)
Let's just say overall fluff. A lifetime's worth.
Darkstalker ("Nuff Said")
Maneuvers, Soulmelds, Psionics, Inspiration points, Invocations, Vestiges, (All excellent sub systems that helps characters be less cookie cutter.)
Some excellent prestige classes. (For all your dipping needs!)
Dragon & Dungeon magazine. (Chock-full of wholesome goodness.)
How the d&d 3.5 FAQ handled the use of armor spikes (Suck it! ;-)
Adiós.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 3.5 method for handling Ability Damage, Penalties and Bonuses.
The 3.5 Exception for Threatened Reach.
The 3.5 Grapple rules.
The 3.5 ruling that only tripping weapons can be used to trip (and that they mean you don't provoke).
If Pathfinder was revised to use all of the above (or an amalgam of the 3.5 and PF rules for Grapple) I would be much happier with the PF ruleset.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any 3.5e material is better to me than Pathfinder stuff, with some exceptions of course.
Illusion spells.
3.5 actually clarified how they worked.
Alternate features for the fighter like counter attack
Feats. 3.5 just had better feats in general.
Alternative class features. My favorite version of diversifying your character. Don't like prestige classes or the archetypes. Prestige classes were just used for dipping, and archetypes are just too rigid.
My group is using the Book of Vile Darkness, since it's an evil campaign. Myself, I like incorporating the rules about skill availability from 3.5, that is if you don't have it as a class skill and it cannot be used untrained, then you cannot put ranks into it. Makes rogues a little less useless.
I also like having access to (by my discretion) spells and magic items from 3.5 since there are so many good ones that we simply will never get because they aren't OGL. The compendiums being the main books I look through.
skill availability from 3.5, that is if you don't have it as a class skill and it cannot be used untrained, then you cannot put ranks into it. Makes rogues a little less useless.Where was this rule in 3.5 if you don't mind me asking - its not familiar.
Characters could only put a full skill rank into skills that were listed as class skills. All other skills were considered cross-class and required 2 skill points rather than 1 in order to purchase a rank in that skill. In addition to that, you could only have half the ranks that you could have in a class skill, in that cross class skill. If a skill was only usable by trained characters (something like Use Magic Device for example) and it did not appear on you class skill list, then you could never put ranks into it unless you multiclassed, or took an alternate class feature or something.
I like skills being exclusive, I like rogues being basically the only non caster class that gets access to UMD. So I keep the rule that you cannot put ranks into something that is trained only, and that isn't one of your class skills. But I keep the pathfinder rules about how many ranks you can put in a skill, and there are no such things as half ranks.
|
|
Characters could only put a full skill rank into skills that were listed as class skills. All other skills were considered cross-class and required 2 skill points rather than 1 in order to purchase a rank in that skill. In addition to that, you could only have half the ranks that you could have in a class skill, in that cross class skill.
Yep, that is all familiar to me.
If a skill was only usable by trained characters (something like Use Magic Device for example) and it did not appear on you class skill list, then you could never put ranks into it unless you multiclassed, or took an alternate class feature or something.
This is what isn't familiar. Was this something in 3.0 that was dropped in 3.5? I just had a brief look through my 3.5 PHB and couldn't see such a restriction - did I miss something?
I can't seem to find it either, maybe it was one of those house rules indoctrinated into my psyche as core....
Spells
Close Wounds Spell
Feats
Practiced Spell Caster
Domain Spontaneity
Telling Blow
Extra Smite
Improved Favored Enemy
And any feat that helps you Multi class
The fact that Channel stacked for Paladin and Cleric. And it dose not now.
The fact that Alchemist can not use pear of power because they do not cast spells. But they have to use some bead that dose the same thing and cost the same. Although no other caster can use it. Make it dum in my book because I am less inclined to give it out because now have to give two out the party.
|
Characters could only put a full skill rank into skills that were listed as class skills. All other skills were considered cross-class and required 2 skill points rather than 1 in order to purchase a rank in that skill. In addition to that, you could only have half the ranks that you could have in a class skill, in that cross class skill.Yep, that is all familiar to me.
If a skill was only usable by trained characters (something like Use Magic Device for example) and it did not appear on you class skill list, then you could never put ranks into it unless you multiclassed, or took an alternate class feature or something.This is what isn't familiar. Was this something in 3.0 that was dropped in 3.5? I just had a brief look through my 3.5 PHB and couldn't see such a restriction - did I miss something?
Precisely.
In 3.0 certain skills were 'exclusive' to one or more classes; you couldn't put any ranks into these skills unless at least one of your classes had it as a class skill. Since these were each also 'trained only' you couldn't even attempt a check without any ranks.
The exclusive skills were Animal Empathy, Decipher Script, Read Lips, Scry and Use Magic Device.
As part of the change from 3.0 to 3.5 the concept of 'exclusive' skills was entirely written out of the game. Any class could now put ranks into any skill whether it was a class skill or not.
Characters could only put a full skill rank into skills that were listed as class skills. All other skills were considered cross-class and required 2 skill points rather than 1 in order to purchase a rank in that skill. In addition to that, you could only have half the ranks that you could have in a class skill, in that cross class skill.Yep, that is all familiar to me.
If a skill was only usable by trained characters (something like Use Magic Device for example) and it did not appear on you class skill list, then you could never put ranks into it unless you multiclassed, or took an alternate class feature or something.This is what isn't familiar. Was this something in 3.0 that was dropped in 3.5? I just had a brief look through my 3.5 PHB and couldn't see such a restriction - did I miss something?Precisely.
In 3.0 certain skills were 'exclusive' to one or more classes; you couldn't put any ranks into these skills unless at least one of your classes had it as a class skill. Since these were each also 'trained only' you couldn't even attempt a check without any ranks.
The exclusive skills were Animal Empathy, Decipher Script, Read Lips, Scry and Use Magic Device.
As part of the change from 3.0 to 3.5 the concept of 'exclusive' skills was entirely written out of the game. Any class could now put ranks into any skill whether it was a class skill or not.
I guess when we switched from 3.0 to 3.5 we never really noticed that change and kept playing that way.
Skill tricks were fantastic. That alone would be super. While I didn't like all of them, the concept is solid; just make it possible at certain ranks.
I actually really liked prestige classes, and my groups rarely dipped. I liked being a "Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil" as opposed to an "Abjurer". It's unfortunate they're not quite as good, but they are still decent enough for my group, but I'm the only one who had interest.
Marthkus is right about feats. That "Unseat" feat was one of three parts of a "Tactical Feat" in 3.5. Those feats had neat abilities, but as they said in the book, "...individually not strong enough to justify a feat". So it came in a package of three abilities. I was stunned to see it alone in PF.
|
|
There are a few things in the game system itself which have been accidentally or deliberately changed as a result of incomplete cutting and pasting.
The description and table of the Spellcraft skill missed out the part about being able to see/hear a spell's verbal/somatic components in order to be identified with Spellcraft as it is being cast. If a spell had no verbal/somatic components then it couldn't be identified with Spellcraft because there were no visible/audible indicators. Since PF didn't bother to cut and paste that part, it's now been decided that you can identify the spell even if it has no components, leaving even Jason Bulmahn in the dark about what is actually being observed, leading to speculation that spellcasting is visible and audible before a spell comes into being, and those things are not verbal/somatic components.
Another cut and paste omission is the '3.5 exception' in the rules for reach weapons, leaving the users of reach weapons in PF vulnerable to being charged down a diagonal that doesn't exist, and the complete inability of a reach weapon user to attack a foe in a 5-foot wide diagonal corridor.
The definition of 'attack action' was retconned to support the imprecise wording of the Vital Strike feat. In 3.5 'attack action' was any weapon-like attack, such as each individual attack in a full attack. Manoeuvres like Sunder and Disarm could be used instead of any usual attack action, making them usable in a full attack. When the Vital Strike feat used the 'attack action' wording when it was speaking about an attack as a standard action (and not as one attack of a full attack), then the definition of 'attack action' changed to mean 'attack as a specifically standard action', causing problems with other feats/abilities that were written with the previous definition. This caused a huge problem with Sunder in particular, which had the 3.5 'attack action' wording cut and paste from 3.5. Previously any attack in a full attack could be a Sunder attempt, but under the new definition this was no longer possible. After a long time PF FAQed/errata'd Sunder to be usable in a full attack once again.
So, although I prefer PF for it's rules that are used in the d20 game engine, I use the game engine itself as it was in 3.5. It's better, it works, and the changes seem accidental and I'll-considered.
The Epic Level Handbook.
I second this.
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.
I'll nth the way Skills work. Having a class skill in Pathfinder is great at level 1 (+3 skill), but by the time 10 th level rolls around, it isn't much of difference, and becomes less and less helpful as levels increase.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Im happy with pathfinder rules and what changes they have made or added its just the setting
Campaign worlds...3rd ed had lots to choose from.
slight rant now sorry...
Pathfinder is sevrerly lacking in good worlds. The Inner Sea is getting a tad boring and repetitive for a 5 year run so far and it seems as if there is no end to what they will churn out next to milk it. Pazio really need to start thinking about the other conitents at least. I mean robots next year uhhh not what I want at all (although it seems im in a minoroity here). 3.5 had lots of good worlds to pull ideas from, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ebberon, Scarred Lands etc etc.
I know you can take ideas from these and add/use but I kind of like having the original books to read rather than PDF's.
I like the dieties of the Inner sea though.
Im hoping that Frog Gods Lost Lands will suffice when it arrives in the future.
Ferrin, do take into account the fact that the D&D worlds and settings were being built since the days of 1st edition. They've had much more time to develop them. However, I do agree that having only one campaign setting with very specific rulings on some things can make some fans shy away.
The multiple settings was a big part of TSR's demise, as well. I'd like to see lots of worlds but not if it means I'm more likely to see nothing.
I wouldn't say having multiple settings was economically awful all by itself. Having 8 settings run simultaneously and supporting all of them with 10+ books and boxes might have been overdoing it, though.
Especially when most the material is basically "GMs only".
But in the end, it's the Box Sets that provide pretty much the whole experience, and having a couple of settings on publications that get 3 or 4 books each shouldn't be that bad. You would have to keep an eye on which settings are popular enough so another book would net a profit. If you don't keep on releasing books for a product line that hasn't made a profit with any of it's last three releases, it shouldn't be a problem. Not sure if anyone at TSR monitored what products caused which costs and made what income. If not, that would obviously result in increasing losses with no idea where the problem lies.
Also, make most books aimed at players by filling them with general lore and details about the setting. You only need one or two books with secret information that only GMs should have.
I am somewhat supprised that there don't seem to be much 3rd party Campaign Settings around either. The only one I know about is Midgard, but I don't feel like paying big money for a setting without having a clue what it's like, and I never had any luck finding any helpful information on that.
I wouldn't say having multiple settings was economically awful all by itself. Having 8 settings run simultaneously and supporting all of them with 10+ books and boxes might have been overdoing it, though.
Especially when most the material is basically "GMs only".But in the end, it's the Box Sets that provide pretty much the whole experience, and having a couple of settings on publications that get 3 or 4 books each shouldn't be that bad. You would have to keep an eye on which settings are popular enough so another book would net a profit. If you don't keep on releasing books for a product line that hasn't made a profit with any of it's last three releases, it shouldn't be a problem. Not sure if anyone at TSR monitored what products caused which costs and made what income. If not, that would obviously result in increasing losses with no idea where the problem lies.
Also, make most books aimed at players by filling them with general lore and details about the setting. You only need one or two books with secret information that only GMs should have.I am somewhat supprised that there don't seem to be much 3rd party Campaign Settings around either. The only one I know about is Midgard, but I don't feel like paying big money for a setting without having a clue what it's like, and I never had any luck finding any helpful information on that.
If I recall correctly, Liz (co-owner of Paizo) was one of the people who did go through TSR and figure out officially what hurt them, and it was the box sets (which IIRC were more expensive to produce and so made a lot less profit, and were also hard to move) and multiple settings (which divided up the fanbase). That is pretty much why they won't add additional completely separate settings from Golarion.
But it would be nice to get the other planets/continents fleshed out more.
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.
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. It plays fine if that all you play is nine swords stuff. But GM had nothing realy to conter your broke power it was cheese cake with creamcheese iceing with with multed cheese on top put in to grilled cheese samwich, covered in nocho cheese, floating on cheese fondue powers. And that dose not even cover 1/2 of the cheeseness that it was We called it the Game of Super Omga Tinky Muchkin. I hope the mthic stuff is not so bad.
If I recall correctly, Liz (co-owner of Paizo) was one of the people who did go through TSR and figure out officially what hurt them, and it was the box sets (which IIRC were more expensive to produce and so made a lot less profit, and were also hard to move) and multiple settings (which divided up the fanbase). That is pretty much why they won't add additional completely separate settings from Golarion.
But it would be nice to get the other planets/continents fleshed out more.
It was not just splitting the maket with differnt realms but 2 set of rules or games. The AD&D line and Basic D&D line. Paizo talked about this in one editorial in Dragon Magazine before it folded but they are and did make the same mistake by putting out a "Basic box verision". I mean the Core Rule set is written for 4th graders how much more do you want to "Dumd down" the game.
Alternative class features. My favorite version of diversifying your character. Don't like prestige classes or the archetypes. Prestige classes were just used for dipping, and archetypes are just too rigid.
+1
I actually made a decent bard with alternative class features in 3.5
The Complete Books really helped with that.
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. It plays fine if that all you play is nine swords stuff. But GM had nothing realy to conter your broke power it was cheese cake with creamcheese iceing with with multed cheese on top put in to grilled cheese samwich, covered in nocho cheese, floating on cheese fondue powers. And that dose not even cover 1/2 of the cheeseness that it was We called it the Game of Super Omga Tinky Muchkin. I hope the mthic stuff is not so bad.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.
I dont think that much cheese can be squeezed out of Bo9S.
Heroes of Battle, however, was a very fine addition to the 3.5 group of books and has one of my favorite prestige classes - War Weaver, which is bad ass for a bard...
I use the Practiced Spellcaster feat.
I prefer the 3.5 rule on how reach weapons work on the diagonal.
I prefer how 3.5 handled ability drain and ability damage.
A few other things here and there that aren't immediately coming to mind.
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or yet So Broken It dose not play well with other 3.5 classes.
Bravo! Excellent grooming sir! My wizard looks out of her private demi-plane long enough to give an opera clap.
3.5 lol I have been thinking of using some 2nd ed material like magic item creation rules and dumping the item creation feats.
I always liked the racial paragon classes, may not have been the strongest mechanically but they came with cool abilities.
I always liked the racial paragon classes, may not have been the strongest mechanically but they came with cool abilities.
agreed, that's why I came to love kirthfinder so much.
As mentioned:
-- Skill tricks. Just buffing skills in general. Extremely high skill bonuses should allow for ridiculous/awesome actions.
-- Tome of Battle. Give martial classes nice things.
Prestige classes: I go back and forth on this. 3.5 might have made them too broken, but I think PF has erred too far on the other end and made them pretty useless. I think prestige classes are a good idea, though, if done correctly.
@Op Vecna is dead. Didnt you play Die Vecna Die?
Hmm. It seems you believe just as the Master wants you to. It is understandable though, you are a divineshadow after all and not an arcane one.
You see the Master prefers those who take what exists and makes it their own. Not those who can only borrow power from other entities and have none of their own. Don't worry though you'll soon forget this conversation ever too place!
On that note check check out Venca-Blooded Template on p.66 of Monster Manual V.
