Things you disliked at first, but eventually grew into.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Firearms and bows in the same setting. At first, I was strongly in the camp of having guns either be the primary weapon of the setting or not having guns at all, with no in between. Mixing guns with longbows and crossbows made me unhappy. Now mixing guns with bows and crossbows is exactly what I do in my campaign setting. Not really sure what changed my mind.

Summoners. Used to ban them completely. Then I watched Fairy Tail, and now I don't ban them, even if I'm unlikely to play one myself.

Anything that doesn't have a full BAB. Back when I played 3.5, I wouldn't play anything that was missing even one point of BAB. That changed when I switched over to Pathfinder and saw how cool the Witch and Sorcerer were.

The biggest one, however, is Psionics/Rune Mages. Originally wasn't too interested in psionics, despite having the Dreamscarred Press books. Thought about refluffing psionics, saw the rune mage suggestion, and rejected it as not particularly good and went looking for other fluff. See, to me runes are Germanic writing, like so. I do think that picture looks pretty cool, but using Germanic writing as the basis for an entire magic system? That just doesn't work for me. Then I had the thought that since, to me, runes come from a language, they are a means for a spellcaster to communicate intent. Which in turn means that a spellcaster who's language does not use runes should use their own alphabet and language. So, the first picture remains a completely valid choice for how a rune mage might use runes, but this is just as valid. If you speak a Latin based language, it even makes more sense. Likewise, you can do this, this, this, this, or this. There isn't a set alphabet. Even those who use the same alphabet may use very different art styles. Of course, runes drawn in the air during combat are not so fancy as the runes one would use when enchanting an item. No time for that kind of detail. Rune mages should be the best when it comes to magic items, in fact, because flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There was a time I didn't like the magus or the cavalier, but in a Final Fantasy game my character has levels in both and I'm having quite a bit of fun. :)

Shadow Lodge

Also Summoners.

Practically any non-core stuff, in my first year of play. Good thing I'm over that now.

Food. That took a while to get used to.


I was OK with guns. Then I played with them. I dislike guns. They cut right through the martials primary defenses.

I used to be OK with summoners. Now I ban them. Broke class.

I did not have this issue.

I avoided psionics in 3.5. DSP psionics are amazing. I will not GM a PF campaign without them legal (in some form or another like as Rune magic).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rhedyn wrote:

I was OK with guns. Then I played with them. I dislike guns. They cut right through the martials primary defenses.

I used to be OK with summoners. Now I ban them. Broke class.

I think you misread the title, perhaps jumbled the word order a little.


thegreenteagamer wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

I was OK with guns. Then I played with them. I dislike guns. They cut right through the martials primary defenses.

I used to be OK with summoners. Now I ban them. Broke class.

I think you misread the title, perhaps jumbled the word order a little.

Some of us went through the opposite process.

Liberty's Edge

Roleplaying, who comes to Tabletop RPGs' with the expectation of being anything other than a MurderHobo?

Heh.

Seriously though, caster supremacy. It really irked me when I first started playing, now I just accept it. Normally I just try and play a 3/4 Caster, you keep up a little better and can still build a functional damage dealer if that is what you are after.

Silver Crusade

Rhedyn wrote:
thegreenteagamer wrote:
Rhedyn wrote:

I was OK with guns. Then I played with them. I dislike guns. They cut right through the martials primary defenses.

I used to be OK with summoners. Now I ban them. Broke class.

I think you misread the title, perhaps jumbled the word order a little.
Some of us went through the opposite process.

Then I'd suggest finding a thread that was asking for what you're talking about.

Me personally, I warmed up to pure mundanes (like Barb and Gunslinger) after looking over them more. I still like some magic in my builds, but I'm also more comfortable with being entirely mundane in reference to magic.

Sovereign Court

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Published adventures. I think it was a combo of not coming up with it myself and fear of going off the page. Once I realized I could use published adventures as an outline and make it my own way I got over it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DinosaursOnIce wrote:
Roleplaying, who comes to Tabletop RPGs' with the expectation of being anything other than a MurderHobo?

Oh, that was me. My very first character was a Paladin! :)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pants... and this whole process of wearing them.. I have slowly grown into them though.

Well, actually, I use to dislike divine casters, but over the years, I now enjoy playing them.


Pan wrote:
Published adventures. I think it was a combo of not coming up with it myself and fear of going off the page. Once I realized I could use published adventures as an outline and make it my own way I got over it.

Have to second that. Early on in my 3.5 GMing days I always thought published adventures were for GMs who were too lazy to come up with their own material. Then I bought a Pathfinder AP and realized that using it would save me a ton of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The removal of racial class restrictions. Dwarf wizards used to blow my mind. Also, elf paladins.

D20 initiative. I used to enjoy the previous system, with weapon speeds and spell casting times, but man did it take forever to get through a combat round.

Liberty's Edge

TempusAvatar wrote:

The removal of racial class restrictions. Dwarf wizards used to blow my mind. Also, elf paladins.

D20 initiative. I used to enjoy the previous system, with weapon speeds and spell casting times, but man did it take forever to get through a combat round.

I never played the older editions but I did try the latest edition of Hackmaster. I gotta agree, weapon speeds and spellcaster times were cool but Good Mystra...

I decided i'd never complain about combat time In Pathfinder again.


Yeah I'll agree with Richard, however my 'growing into' was more due to the fact shaman and oracles came out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Vancian magic i came from games like GURPS and Drakar och Demoner and the fire and forget magic system of Classic D&D ditent sit with me. Now i dont love it. But it is not somthing i hate and the game have variations now that it ditent have back then.

Grand Lodge

Prepared Casting.


multiclassing into things that should have taken years of training...

Took a long time to wrap my mind around that one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
phantom1592 wrote:

multiclassing into things that should have taken years of training...

Took a long time to wrap my mind around that one.

15 year old half-orc Rogue 1 decides to be a wizard too. The next day, he is.

I have to agree with prepared casting. It is the least fantasy thing in the universe and especially for clerics makes the handing down of divine might hilariously uncinematic.

The god of war, for your devout worship, bequeaths you the strength of an ox... two times per day.

or once a day if you think you need long arms today too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I HAVE overcome/got used to:

- Playing full casters: Didn't like the thought of not being able to take up a sword if I need to. But who needs swords when spells, SLA, SU and Ex abilities are just better?

- Not multi-classing: Staying in one class for too long tends to feel boring and I start to long for "more". But I managed to play my late witch without dipping until the campaign ended at 11th or 12th level.

What I'm still working on getting used to:

- I am still trying to get over my hate for "omg my weapon is bigger lol" builds with "5-handed weapons". Have not been successful with overcoming that. Perhaps I'll just have to play such a roXX0r guy myself.

- And I, too, am still trying to get over hating the notion of "You can't play that archetype as a yx. Only xz may take that. And no, its not possible that your YX managed to learn similar stuff." For example a Halfling thundercaller bard. I was not allowed to play one because only Shoanti can be thundercallers per the fluff. Still working on overcoming being irritated by such ideas.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Just a Guess wrote:
- And I, too, am still trying to get over hating the notion of "You can't play that archetype as a yx. Only xz may take that. And no, its not possible that your YX managed to learn similar stuff." For example a Halfling thundercaller bard. I was not allowed to play one because only Shoanti can be thundercallers per the fluff. Still working on overcoming being irritated by such ideas.

Racial archetypes only make sense if some function of the archetype is based off a biological aspect of the race. For cultural things, you can justify almost any race taking almost any archetype. On the other hand, your elf is probably not trained as an Airborne Ambusher, no matter what his background is.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
- And I, too, am still trying to get over hating the notion of "You can't play that archetype as a yx. Only xz may take that. And no, its not possible that your YX managed to learn similar stuff." For example a Halfling thundercaller bard. I was not allowed to play one because only Shoanti can be thundercallers per the fluff. Still working on overcoming being irritated by such ideas.
Racial archetypes only make sense if some function of the archetype is based off a biological aspect of the race. For cultural things, you can justify almost any race taking almost any archetype. On the other hand, your elf is probably not trained as an Airborne Ambusher, no matter what his background is.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm the one who wanted to play the Halfling thundercaller and I disliked being not allowed. Now I'm in the process of trying to get used to things like it but did not manage yet.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pizza hut breadsticks.

I was 10.

Last time it happened.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Using D20PFSRD/Archives of Nethys/the PRD. "Why do I need some website when I have all my books right here?"
Whenever I run VTT games now I use a dual-screen setup so I can have the rules open on one screen and the tabletop on another. I can't imagine playing Pathfinder without hyperlinks.

Published Adventures. While I still have fun creating my own campaigns at times, running or modifying an AP or a supermodule instead of starting fresh every time is a massive time saver.

Pointbuy! While I'm not always thrilled to see yet another full caster with an 18 in their casting stat, I still find it a massive improvement over rolled stats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I used to hate Elves, Gnomes, and Bards, mostly from portrayals elsewhere. Pathfinder made me really appreciate them.


Albatoonoe wrote:
I used to hate Elves, Gnomes, and Bards, mostly from portrayals elsewhere. Pathfinder made me really appreciate them.

Bards are cool, but Elves and Gnomes will always be elitist jerks and annoying clowns to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder.

Especially after feeling cheated by the quick turn around between 3.0 and 3.5 (read: 100 bucks times two) - they should have done a simple recall like car dealerships do. And now suddenly we have 3.75! Are you kidding me? Next thing you know you can't find any gaming groups except those that play PF. Another 100 bucks. And slowly discovering that the game is actually pretty diverse and robust. Not going to stop me from implementing 100 house rules though...

Scarab Sages

WARNING: ILLUSION RANT

I used to hate illusions; been playing since '79, and illusions have to have been the most badly-written school of magic that ever existed in the history of the game.
Even the games writers didn't agree on how they worked, with terrible advice columns and examples in gaming mags and adventures (PCs/NPCs can be KO'ed by non-existent 'fireballs' and 'summoned monsters' ....GGGGAAAAHHHHHUUHHHGGLE! NNNNOOOOOO!).

Inconsistent use of the same spell;
"If the orc believes the ledge is real, and steps on it, he'll fall to his death!" would be followed, in the same session, by the same player with "I can make a bridge for the pack animals. They're too dumb to know it's not real, so they'll be able to walk across!".

Just as there is a element that constantly tries to argue that charm person can sub for every spell of every level in the enchantment school, ever ever, so every group had 'That Guy' who would argue that his level 1 phantasmal force (and THAT's a perfect example of boneheaded rules writing, giving that name to a spell that is neither a phantasm, nor is it capable of exerting any force (GGGNNNNG!)), aka 3E silent image should be able to emulate any illusion spell of every level, in every book, plus some that hadn't been written yet.
I remember one occasion, that guy wanted to fill his space with 100 copies of himself, and wouldn't accept that they wouldn't work just like mirror image. Or that he'd be blinded by them, too.

Game sessions derailed by debates over 'What would an orc find believable/scary/tempting/etc?', with the opponents psychoanalysing the orc, back through his entire life history, to prove their point and win their alpha-dominance dick-waving display. See also, virtually every casting of an enchantment spell, ever.
Granted, this is very much an 'obnoxious player' problem, but it isn't helped by having rules so vague they could be used to justify whatever you want. I can totally see why the 4E designers stripped both schools out of the game; it's just not worth the aggravation.

The iconic party, BECMI through to 2nd Edition, seemed to be Fighter, Thief, Cleric and Bloody Green Lantern.

-------------------------

So why did things improve?
Spell descriptors. I can now point to a spell, and have something to show the player "The effects of this spell are not physically real, in any way. You have a hologram projector. You cannot do what you are trying to do. Rethink what you're trying to do, or cast a higher level spell with quasireal effects."

Illusionists are still bloody annoying, but at least now, the debates can be over in five minutes, instead of five hours.


Prepublished settings.

Oh, how I love them, now.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Oh! Just wrote this, and realized it went here:

Tacticslion wrote:
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
With non-clerics, I tend to have my character as the same alignment as the god I worship, and always with a cleric. It seems more logical to me if you think about what worship means. Of course humans are by no means always rational, but its still the way I think.

I used to do that more consistently, but recently I've been running a single-player Moonsea-based game and they arrived in Hillsfar, where the Red Plumes (the over-lord's personal mercenary army) almost all were absolute believers in Tempus (a chaotic neutral deity of war)... and almost all were neutral evil (with a fair amount of lawful or chaotic thrown in there with a few neutrals).

And that... was really fascinating. Tempus was definitively two steps away, alignment-wise, from the "general" alignment of the group. So why were they so ardent?

Precedent, and the power of a priest who was within alignment specs. The local high priest was CN, and quite powerful. A lover of battle, he sees the Zhents (lawful evil, to the core) as a rather terrible thing, and the Red Plumes are the largest singular military force in the southern region of the Moonsea, and also completely devoted to destroying the Zhentarim. So great is the priest's faith and zealotry, that he preaches that death in battle is the honorable way to go... and the 'Plumes believe and follow. They honor their fallen comrades (evil =/= without friends), they show great courage, and generally just want to shove steel into people's faces... perfect sociopathic neutral evil behavior, that just kind of dovetails nicely with Tempus' position as a god of war.

This dichotomy, the rather intense difference between their alignment and faith fascinated me, and was something that really caught me off guard.

And, before I really thought through why the relationship worked, I'll admit that I kind of hated it.

But having played through them as GM, really getting into their mindset and understanding who and what they are, it... really works. It makes a lot of sense that they'd follow the battle lord, especially given that the cleric blesses them before battle all the time with spells from the lord of battle, gives rousing and inspiring wartime speeches to steel them for combat, and opposes their greatest enemy. Not to mention that the cleric was strong allies with the overlord that paid them (before said overlord's alignment went south, I'd guess, as he was originally true neutral), and under that overlord they went from a simple mercenary band of a few hundred to over five-thousand strong, with practically unlimited authority within the city of Hillsfar (including brutal punishments and shaking down merchants for protection), so long as they don't interrupt trade.

That kind of thing can create those seemingly impossible situations, and... it's actually pretty great.

They genuinely believe they love Tempus as he is, even as they don't mesh alignment-wise. They honor him as their god, the priest as their chaplain, and are ardently faithful, even as they misunderstand some of his core tenets (despite said priest's efforts - the guy doesn't have that big a charisma bonus).

Anyway, while I still feel that it would be far more common for creatures to follow gods with similar alignments, the experience of the Tempus-worshiping Red Plumes actually taught me a lot about how strong dichotomies can come into being, and I've lost a lot of my aversion to such things.


"Kudaku wrote:

...

Pointbuy! While I'm not always thrilled to see yet another full caster with an 18 in their casting stat, I still find it a massive improvement over rolled stats.

This one too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Non-d20 or even remotely D&D based systems.

I cut my teeth on RPGs late in life, with 3.0. Sure, I'd played computer based RPGs that used 2nd ed rules, like Planescape Torment, or Baldur's Gate, but you don't really need to know the rules beyond the basics for that; the game does all the calculations and such.

Then I played D&D and fell in love. Then Pathfinder helped me forget when my first love scorned me and broke my heart with fourth edition.

Then I was introduced to other systems.

Classless systems. World of Darkness, Shadowrun. GURPS.

I remained loyal. I'll play you guys, but Pathfinder holds my heart.

Then that sexy wench Savage Worlds came along, with her irresistible five minute character building, exploding dice, super fast combat, variable per round initiative, mega light rules, and her oh so tempting ability to easily convert to any setting.

I tried to hold my own, but man, SW seduced me like a succubus trying to win a bet.

PF is a great system, and I still play Pathfinder more than anything, but mainly it's because of APs, nostalgia, and most of all, finding a Pathfinder group is way easier because PF is what people play.

But I'd drop her like a bad habit if my group agreed to switch to Savage Worlds tomorrow.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing non-wizards. I used to feel that anything was a bit like playing a limited, dombo kind of character. But now I love playing 2H heavy hitters. I just like getting my hands dirty.

RAW. The more I play PFS, the more I think the majority of it works just fine, especially if you think of the ACG as providing modernized versions of previously feeble classes.

Normal races. In my home setting humans are pretty much the only normal race; no elves, dwarves etcetera. Instead there's multiple lizardfol and plant species. This is hugely inconvenient with regards to minis.

PFS. I used to think that using other people's scenarios signalled a lack of creativity. But I'm having a lot of fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder was it for me.

I loved 3.5, but my group dissolved and I stopped played. My HERO group still met every Thursday but no D&D. That all happened about the time 4th came out. I bought some 4E Books, then realized it wasn't the game for me. So I didn't really do much, then the very first comments about D&D 5th was glimmering and I thought "Maybe this will be a good D&D". Then I thought "I still have my 3.5 stuff, and this other company made changes and is keeping it in print" and started getting PF.

Originally is was to be additive material for my 3.5 games. It only took a couple of months to completely switch over. I still use stuff from the 3.x era, including d20 games that were roughly compatible, as well as alternate versions (Unearthed Arcana is a big one).

I'm a happy camper.

The other for em would be straight martials. I love magic. The closest I came were Paladins and Monks. I've warmed up a little to them, especially with some 3PP classes (Survivor, Adventurer and Athlete recently).

Survivor - Libris Influxus Communis. Amora
Adventurer, Athlete - Alternate Path- Martials. LRGG


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder itself. I started RP's with Exalted, then we went to pathfinder. AT first I disliked its structure. now I like it moer.

in the actual game? Magic I guess oddly enough. I love skillful sneaky hit and run characters that have tools to fight smart-but its a bit harder/more expensive to do in pathfinder than Exalted. so they didn't do so well in this one. I like extract magic a lot now. normal magic a little less so. but i've grown on spontaneous formal casting. (I still find extracts to be different enough from spont or prep casting anyway)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Adventure Paths for me.

In the first twenty years I GMed, I think I ran two published adventures. As someone said upthread, I felt like it was "lazy."

But, no matter how awesome I am, it certainly can't hurt to accept a little help from folks like Greg Vaughan, Mike Shel, and James Sutter.

I'm not perfect. They're not perfect. But together it's kind of like GM Voltron.

Cheers!
Landon

Liberty's Edge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Landon Winkler wrote:

Adventure Paths for me.

In the first twenty years I GMed, I think I ran two published adventures. As someone said upthread, I felt like it was "lazy."

But, no matter how awesome I am, it certainly can't hurt to accept a little help from folks like Greg Vaughan, Mike Shel, and James Sutter.

I'm not perfect. They're not perfect. But together it's kind of like GM Voltron.

Cheers!
Landon

By your powers combined, I am Captain Plan-It!


Landon Winkler wrote:

Adventure Paths for me.

In the first twenty years I GMed, I think I ran two published adventures. As someone said upthread, I felt like it was "lazy."

But, no matter how awesome I am, it certainly can't hurt to accept a little help from folks like Greg Vaughan, Mike Shel, and James Sutter.

I'm not perfect. They're not perfect. But together it's kind of like GM Voltron.

Cheers!
Landon

I just don't use published adventures because most of it seems too combat focused and I don't railroad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder itself with me. When DnD went from 3.5 to 4.0, I had apoplexy, like so many players with me. I vowed never to involve myself in another RPG again, as the last two editions of DnD cost me too much financially, and I've always preferred the original to other systems.

When Pathfinder came out, so many of the tweaks that they made to 3.5 appealed to me, and I succumbed to the temptation, and fell in love again. Now, I look to purge my house of 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5th edition stuff (well, most of the 3.5 stuff) to make room for my new love. Hopefully, it won't be as hard as it seems.

I thoroughly enjoy Golarion and all of the Adventure Paths. I'll hang in there a bit longer.

...until my money holds out. With a new baby, the Gods know how much longer that will be.


3.x

I played 2E for nigh on 17 years and couldn't stand 3.0/3.5 rules. It was too rigid for me. Encounters were more epic in 2E because they required everyone get involved, which I've noticed in this edition isn't necessarily the case. And 2E allowed the GM more wiggle room within the rules.

Now, I'm definitely getting used to 3.x, though there are still aspects about it that I find ridiculous (like the amazingly high damage output at higher levels). Having a blast with PF!


4th edition. :)

Played for a few years and switched to PF.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Hm...nothing that I can recall. I guess I do not change, my ire is eternal.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Trying out a witch got me to play an arcane full-caster for the first time in decades. And half-orc.

And I hate to admit it, but I'm liking 5th Edition. It's a bit overly simplified (I miss all the feats of PF, and mental ability score crunch), but it's REALLY streamlined and elegant and very very quick and fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

1. Using a battlemat.
2. Internet arguments about the rules.
3. Art in RPG books.


Steve Geddes wrote:

1. Using a battlemat.

I'll agree with that one. We'd played with makeshift minis and fighting 'space' for years, but the rigidty of the 5' squares has taken a long time to get used to.

Still not a huge fan, but I manage.


Pan wrote:
Published adventures. I think it was a combo of not coming up with it myself and fear of going off the page. Once I realized I could use published adventures as an outline and make it my own way I got over it.

I still make all my own adventures. Can't stand the thought of running something someone else made.

Things I've grown to like in PF-

Core races.
This took me quite a while. I used to think they were all intrinsically boring.

Badass normals. I respect people who make broken fighters, or rouges (to a relative degree of broken, of course) to contrast the mages.

In general-
Roleplay itself.
I used to hate talking to people. Now I'm an avid roleplayer. Go figure.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

A pure disdain for power gamers and optimizers. I used to hate optimizerrs because this is a ROLEplay game, not a ROLLplay game.

Then a myriad of things happened. I got away from my previous group who strongly believed this. I started playing with people who could optimize AND roleplay very well. And most importantly, I started reading and engaging in online gaming communities like the Paizo messageboards. I found out how wrong I was through things like the stormwind fallacy, but most importantly from actually talking to and playing with people who could do both.

Another strong force in my conversion was playing with people who were socially awkward and very resistant to Roleplaying, but still loved playing the game. Who am I to deny them their fun and enjoyment? Who am I to say that what they call fun is somehow wrong? Why should I be criticizing them for being unable to roleplay a character with a +15 diplomacy or bluff when I can't perform the physical deeds of my high level fighter? The point of a game of imagination is to play and experience characters who can do the things we can't.

I now fully embrace people doing either or both (roleplay, rollplay, whatever). What matters is enjoying life and enjoying the game, no matter how you approach it. The only wrong way to play is to take away someone else's enjoyment of the game. And the best way to play is to enjoy the game yourself and ensure everyone at your table is also enjoying the game.


I can't think of anything I immediately disliked but then reconsidered and now embrace, but I do have plenty that go the opposite way:

1. Used to love doing nothing but blasting spells as since they did "awesome damage" they were clearly the "best." Really I used to be all about rolling more dice (used to like Sneak Attack too...).

2. Used to think the Witch was a really cool class and hexes were interesting, but then after seeing it in action it's more like three functional but bland hexes are the only ones worth using and the spell list has some gems but mostly just feels as bland as the hexes. Would still consider doing a Beast Bonded Witch just for the infinite body snatching mechanic; that's just awesome on so many levels.

Wait, thought of something that actually suits this topic:

1. I used to think Solo Tactics was a bleh class feature... but then I realized Paired Opportunists, Intercept Charge, and Coordinated Charge. Now I seriously consider a 3 (or 4 if I have a high cha; want to qualify for Divine Protection) level dip into Inquisitor for any full BAB build I do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Humans. I used to think they were the most boring race to play, mainly in 3.5, useful only when you wanted a bonus feat. Still then I rather would have played a Whisper Gnome.

The different ethnicities of human in Pathfinder however now make then an attractive choice for me. Taldans, Chelaxians, and Varisians are my favorites. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Brussels sprouts.

Also, sorcerers. I hated their mechanics when they first showed up in 3.0, why would I give up all that versatility, etc. Now, though, I appreciate the fact that they cut hours and hours off of prep time as both a player and DM.

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Things you disliked at first, but eventually grew into. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.