I don't really want this to be a bash PF thread. I really like PF. No, it isn't perfect and there are things I think could be better. But it is playable and popular enough to find groups to game with most of the time. And it generally works decently.
Having said that, there are a few things that have changed since earlier versions that I miss.
The main one I am thinking of at this time is the PrC's that actually changed the character.
The Dragon Disciple - Yes, the new one is much more powerful and broadly useful. But the old one actually permanently changed you into a half-dragon. How cool was that!?!
There used to be similar ones for changing you into a an insectile creature, a yuan-ti, beholder kin, etc...
They weren't all that terribly powerful, but heck they were fun. I really miss those.
One of the groups I play with has been talking about redoing some of those for PF. They would have to be scaled up a bit just to be playable but the same concept of changing your average joe character into something weird and bizarre.
What do you miss and/or thinking about adding back into your game?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if we miss them per se but off the top of my head here are a few things I usually revert back to the way they were, in no particular order.
- Power Attack and Combat Expertise - We prefer the older and simpler mechanism of just swapping BA 1 for 1. I'm not sure why Power Attack now gets 2 for 1 while Combat Expertise only gets 1 for 1 and why they complicated the feats so much.
- Cover - this is not just a PF thing but also a 3.5 thing. I just use the 3.0 cover rules.
- Skills - the new system is OK, I guess, but my players and I prefer the granualarity of the 3.5 skill system. My players rarely maxed out skills, choosing instead to spread their ranks around and none of us like the UBER skills that Stealth and Perception have become.
The way Rope Trick and Death Ward worked in 3.5
Grafts (like, Draconic, Undead etc)... Dragoncrafted gear...
Everything from Libris Mortis...
The Dragonfire Adept and Warlock classes (LOVE invocations)...
|
Skills: Back in 3.5 my group started to use what ended up being a hybrid of 3.5 & PF - and we continue to basically use it in home games. Class skills work the same as in PF - but non-(current)class skills, while they only cost 1 point each, max out at 1/2 of your character level.
HP: I think that wizards & sorcerers should go back to d4. They're plenty powerful without the extra hp.
Feats: I miss the old Spellbreaker (probably wrong name - it's been awhile) feat where you ALWAYS got an AOO against spells.
Spellcasting time: I know this is REALLY old school - before my time - but I think that some of the most powerful spells should take more than a single round to cast, especially when the spellcaster first gets them - perhaps drop down to normal casting time when character level = x3 the spell level or some such.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
These will go a ways back as I've been playing since BECMI/1e:
I miss very short fights, that can be done in five or so minutes.
I miss unaltered direct damage spells actually being a threat to a foe's hp - d6/level was a lot more meaningful when dragons and demon lord only had hp in the 80s.
I miss saving throws being easier to make as you gained levels - old school SoS/SoD spells often only had about a 25% chance to work, which meant they were more of the "Oh #%^%!" button and less the go-to option.
I miss the assumption that high level characters had political power - leading armies, running guilds, that sort of thing. Sure you can add it back in, but I kind of liked "you just hit 8th level, so some guys show up wanting to learn from you."
Yeah, I didn't like it as well when a bunch of skills were combined. It is too easy to be great at everything. On the other hand, it was a problem when a well trained fighter couldn't be good at hardly anything.
I forgot all about grafts. Those were also pretty kool.
A lot of GM's apparently didn't like and complained about the automatic armies/guilds/church thing.
Good Prestige classes oh how I miss you. I can count all the good ones in PF on one hand. Especially after the 2nd SLA FAQ.
Good Magic Weapon and Armor enchantments. Seriously the number of good magic weapon and armor enhancements in PF is vanishingly small. Even more so now that Courageous is garbage. It seriously depresses me when it comes time to buy new magic weapons and armor.
Really those two are the big things.
Anzyr just reminded me, I miss the old Ever Dancing weapon enchantment. Im pretty sure it was an epic enchantment, I think it was a +6? Not sure, never actually got it the few times I played 3.5, but I always loved the idea of a person walking into battle and just unleashing a sword to fight with him. When I moved to Pathfinder and saw the various guns, my first thought was "I wanna make those float and fire on their own." Regular Dancing just isn't as entertaining.
A lot of GM's apparently didn't like and complained about the automatic armies/guilds/church thing.
I don't recall this being a thing in 3e. It was in 1e after a character of 'name level' built/took over/etc. a stronghold/wizard's tower/thieves' guild of their own.
Warlocks and spell thieves!
|
I don't recall this being a thing in 3e. It was in 1e after a character of 'name level' built/took over/etc. a stronghold/wizard's tower/thieves' guild of their own.A lot of GM's apparently didn't like and complained about the automatic armies/guilds/church thing.
I think your right. 3.x added the Leadership feat to handle this.
I think your right. 3.x added the Leadership feat to handle this.I don't recall this being a thing in 3e. It was in 1e after a character of 'name level' built/took over/etc. a stronghold/wizard's tower/thieves' guild of their own.A lot of GM's apparently didn't like and complained about the automatic armies/guilds/church thing.
Oh yes. It was definitely a 1st ed thing (I can't remember for sure but it might have also been in 2nd ed). But is was an item of contention for a lot of GM's that felt they suddenly had to switch their adventure campaign into a set piece, city building, political campaign.
Oh yes. It was definitely a 1st ed thing (I can't remember for sure but it might have also been in 2nd ed). But is was an item of contention for a lot of GM's that felt they suddenly had to switch their adventure campaign into a set piece, city building, political campaign.I think your right. 3.x added the Leadership feat to handle this.I don't recall this being a thing in 3e. It was in 1e after a character of 'name level' built/took over/etc. a stronghold/wizard's tower/thieves' guild of their own.A lot of GM's apparently didn't like and complained about the automatic armies/guilds/church thing.
The only 'problem child' in 1e were Rangers. 2d12 random followers that just showed up out of nowhere. Larger numbers were better as they were far easier to kill off. If the roll was very, very low, however, the Ranger could have wound up with any of a number of VERY powerful followers. Like a cloud giant.
Shadow Magic, from Tome of Magic. I thought the spells were kind of weak given the low number you had, but I did like the concept and implementation. And the direct choice between more powerful spells or extra feats.
Also, the Archivist, from Heroes of Horror. Someone reminded me of the book and I can't believe I had forgotten it - one of my favorite characters was an Archivist.
Shadow Magic, from Tome of Magic. I thought the spells were kind of weak given the low number you had, but I did like the concept and implementation. And the direct choice between more powerful spells or extra feats.
Also, the Archivist, from Heroes of Horror. Someone reminded me of the book and I can't believe I had forgotten it - one of my favorite characters was an Archivist.
I to miss the Archivist as well even though it was extremely OP with access to the right scrolls. I really liked it's Dark Knowledge class feature scaling, and it combined nicely with Malconvoker.
Shaman makes for an alright replacement though.
From 2nd ed:
Higher level characters being better at saving throws, and the DC set by the effect type.
Spheres and Schools. There used to be a real difference in how arcane and divine magic felt and worked, and bards felt very different from clerics.
From 3.x:
4x skill points at 1st level. I think the way it works now is much better at levels 5+, the same at 4th, and worse from 1st to 3rd. When designing low level characters in low skill point classes there is no way to be mediocre at everything, you are simply competent at a few and awful at the rest.
Prestige classes that don't take caster level hits. There used to be a bunch of these, and now there are not nearly as many. I thought the whole point of buffing up the base classes was to make them in line with or slightly better than prestige classes. But it seems like they are just not well liked by the developers.
3.0 Haste, even though it was stupid broken and needed to be changed.
...
Spheres and Schools. There used to be a real difference in how arcane and divine magic felt and worked, and bards felt very different from clerics. ...
Yeah, that was a thing I didn't realize how big a thing it was until it was gone.
I've heard they went away from that because so many people hated the divine classes and they didn't want to 'force' them to play a divine class anymore. Bit it did kill a lot of the differentiation between the two.
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like spheres in concept, but actually figuring out your spell list became such a pain. Plus, the spheres were very unbalanced, and you could very easily end up with situation where a specialty cleric only had, say, one or two (or even no) spells at a certain level to pick from. "Welp, guess I'll memorize four castings of animate objects again today."
Nowadays someone would make an online spell list generator where you could tick spheres and it would generate your spell list for you, but back in the 90s that was tougher to come by.
Not necessarily better per se, but certainly amusing.
In 1e one could summon monster other adventurers to do your bidding, whether they wanted to or not.
why is courageous garbage now?Good Prestige classes oh how I miss you. I can count all the good ones in PF on one hand. Especially after the 2nd SLA FAQ.
Good Magic Weapon and Armor enchantments. Seriously the number of good magic weapon and armor enhancements in PF is vanishingly small. Even more so now that Courageous is garbage. It seriously depresses me when it comes time to buy new magic weapons and armor.
Really those two are the big things.
They added some words to it that make the scaling morale bonus only add to saves against fear.
Courageous Weapon Property: Is the courageous weapon property meant to help only on saves against fear? The text seems to give unfettered increases to all morale bonuses, which is way out of line for a +1 equivalent weapon ability.
A courageous weapon was meant to help only on saves against fear (either adding its enhancement bonus as a morale bonus on saves against fear, or adding half its enhancement bonus to your existing morale bonus on saves against fear, whichever is best for you). However, the wording is in error. The last sentence should say “on saves against fear” after “any morale bonus.” This change will be reflected in the next errata.
|
|
Some of what changes I didn't like. Some magic items changes sucked from 1e to 3.x notably the icon stat increase items. Gauntlets of Ogre power go from giving a 12 str person an 18/00 str to just adding 2 to str, same with the belts of giant str. I think the 1e flame tongue was a lot more cooler then the 3.x/PF version. I also didn't like the 3.x/PF weapon proficiencies. A 1st level fighter, hell a 1st level warrior gets way to many weapon proficiencies.
What I did like. More playable races and more classes. No races to class restrictions.
I like spheres in concept, but actually figuring out your spell list became such a pain. Plus, the spheres were very unbalanced, and you could very easily end up with situation where a specialty cleric only had, say, one or two (or even no) spells at a certain level to pick from. "Welp, guess I'll memorize four castings of animate objects again today."
Nowadays someone would make an online spell list generator where you could tick spheres and it would generate your spell list for you, but back in the 90s that was tougher to come by.
If I remember correctly, it was also suggested in the book that for clerics with a small selection of spheres that they have several special powers (beyond turn undead) to compensate for the lack of spells.
I also miss spell schools (evocation, adjuration, etc.) being an optional thing instead of an assumed thing. The fact that they were baked into 3.0 and later was annoying.
No WBL.
Binders.
best, most well written flavor text of any class in the game. who gives a f!!* if you can study a book and toss a few spells around, when there's a guy wandering around looking for a smooth bit of ground so that he can carve out a sigil, and bind goddamn Karsus and gain his power?
I don't know if we miss them per se but off the top of my head here are a few things I usually revert back to the way they were, in no particular order.
- Power Attack and Combat Expertise - We prefer the older and simpler mechanism of just swapping BA 1 for 1. I'm not sure why Power Attack now gets 2 for 1 while Combat Expertise only gets 1 for 1 and why they complicated the feats so much.
- Cover - this is not just a PF thing but also a 3.5 thing. I just use the 3.0 cover rules.
- Skills - the new system is OK, I guess, but my players and I prefer the granualarity of the 3.5 skill system. My players rarely maxed out skills, choosing instead to spread their ranks around and none of us like the UBER skills that Stealth and Perception have become.
1 for 1 Power Attack is a bad trade, is why. Attack bonuses are harder to come by, and more significant than damage bonuses. A 1 for 1 Power Attack is often a poor trade as a result. Mathematically you're doing less overall damage than not having it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1 for 1 Power Attack is a bad trade, is why. Attack bonuses are harder to come by, and more significant than damage bonuses. A 1 for 1 Power Attack is often a poor trade as a result. Mathematically you're doing less overall damage than not having it.
In 3.5 PA was far more situational, and rarely worth using unless you were two-handing. (at which point it became a 2 for 1 ratio) There were exceptions. Since you could choose to trade anywhere from 1 BAB to ALL of your BAB, it was useful for gishes with True Strike. Amazing against certain enemies such as oozes who are so easy to hit that you're guaranteed hitting on a 2 even with max PA. Good if you got a swing against an unbuffed wizard. Etc
But no - you didn't use it most rounds - though those with two-handed weapons would often PA for a few points on the charge when it didn't affect their iterative attacks.
I liked it better when multiclassing wasn't something you could decide to do randomly any time you gained a level.
1 for 1 Power Attack is a bad trade, is why. Attack bonuses are harder to come by, and more significant than damage bonuses. A 1 for 1 Power Attack is often a poor trade as a result. Mathematically you're doing less overall damage than not having it.In 3.5 PA was far more situational, and rarely worth using unless you were two-handing. (at which point it became a 2 for 1 ratio) There were exceptions. Since you could choose to trade anywhere from 1 BAB to ALL of your BAB, it was useful for gishes with True Strike. Amazing against certain enemies such as oozes who are so easy to hit that you're guaranteed hitting on a 2 even with max PA. Good if you got a swing against an unbuffed wizard. Etc
But no - you didn't use it most rounds - though those with two-handed weapons would often PA for a few points on the charge when it didn't affect their iterative attacks.
Wasn't taking a feat to make the penalty from power attack apply to your AC a thing in 3.5? Shock Trooper or something?