Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

KahnyaGnorc wrote:
Threeshades wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
It was a lot easier to make an interesting martial character who did things in combat beyond full attacking in 3.5.
Now this one makes me curious, mainly because I am always looking for ways to expand the on the fly options for non-casters, do you have a few examples?
Path of War, the Dreamscarred Press published "spiritual successor" to those extra martial options.

I know path of war, i have the pdf subsription to it and PoW Expanded, and its good, but I don't think creating a new class that doesn't have problem X solves problem X for the class that does have it.


Statboy wrote:
3.5 was much kinder to new players. I find that when I try to bring new players into tabletop RPG's I either need to start with DnD 3.5 or use Core rulebook only PF.

Er, this confuses me. Wouldn't Core-only PF be the default for new players? or are you saying that the entire non-Core D&D 3.5 library is more inviting than the entire non-Core Pathfinder library?

I miss the definitions of useful information, like how big Gargantuan actually is. And Perception/Stealth can get confusing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you want a fast and loose solution, dissolve the martial classes. Replace with a single 'warrior' class.

Full BAB, all good saves, 6+int skills per level. Each level the player chooses one awesome thing they want their character to gain the ability to do, and the GM works with them to make it fit the game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Er, this confuses me. Wouldn't Core-only PF be the default for new players?

Not really, when the players can Google the entire library of open content.


Bluenose wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
Raynulf wrote:
and a thorpe has at least 1 person (PF) vs 20 (3.5), implying a lone man in a shack has a store with a base limit of 50 gp and purchase limit of 500 gp and 1st level spellcasting.[/ooc]
Well, here's one thing PF didnt do better- carrying over silly names from 3.5. There aint no such thing as a 'thorpe". I mean, the word exists, but it's just means "hamlet".

No it doesn't. It derives from old Norse, and refers to an isolated farmstead. Some places may be called -thorpe which are hamlets but the name isn't specific enough to tell that.

Which does make a single farmer, though more often a family, not unreasonable.

The Old Norse may have, but the word in English means hamlet:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thorpe
thorpe
[thawrp]
Spell Syllables
noun, Archaic.
1.
a hamlet; village.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorpe
"Thorpe is a variant of the Middle English word thorp, meaning hamlet or small village."
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/thorp
"thorp
(also thorpe)
NOUN

A village or hamlet:"

image: http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.64/images/dictionaries/Wiktionary-logo.png

http://www.yourdictionary.com/thorpe

"thorpe
Noun
(plural thorpes)

(dated) A group of houses in the country; a small village; a hamlet; a dorp.
Usage notes
Survives as a part of many English placenames."


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Er, this confuses me. Wouldn't Core-only PF be the default for new players?
Not really, when the players can Google the entire library of open content.

That seems like a weird complaint. So if 3.5 had a full open game license, it would make it a worse, less inviting game?

I've never heard "The rules are too convenient to access!" as a complaint. I can see the baseline of it, but most new players likely either start out by buying their own CRB (and boy, isn't it awesome that they only have to pay about $50 to get started, instead of $90?) or by playing with experienced players who can advise them, "Just stick to the CRB section of the PRD."

3.5 and Pathfinder are both really daunting, uninviting games for new players. Pathfinder is cheaper. They both have enormous "bloat" when it comes to extra books and resources.

I'm not trying to pick a fight—I just don't think I understand the complaint, and was hoping Statboy would be indulgent enough to clarify.


I never actually played 3.5, but I hear it actively supported multiple systems, such as Psionics. Dreamscarred Press has done a fantastic job, but I suspect psionic-liking PFS players would've enjoyed the opportunity to use it in organized play...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Er, this confuses me. Wouldn't Core-only PF be the default for new players?
Not really, when the players can Google the entire library of open content.
That seems like a weird complaint. So if 3.5 had a full open game license, it would make it a worse, less inviting game?

No, it would just lead to players bringing characters with non-core rules to the game, the same as they do with Pathfinder. Rather than them not knowing there were other options unless they picked up books from the gamestore.


Sure, but they did that anyways. "Yeah, here's my homebrew class I designed called the 'exploderemancer'..."

Or, on a similar note, "I saw the psionics rules/monster PC rules/Unearthed Arcana rules on the d20srd..."

Shadow Lodge

You had new players writing up rules? I've never seen that.


New players to the group. I guess that's a bit off-topic, sorry.

But my point is, it happened before. Besides, if they successfully wrote up that character from Ultimate Combat or whatever, apparently it wasn't that daunting. It's more an issue of you failing to communicate with your players than the ruleset being too confusing for them to handle.

Heaven knows the d20srd isn't exactly the most clearly-designed website. It doesn't even give the "Getting Started" guide.


It really depends on the players background/nature. As a brand new player I must have thrown over 100 homebrew 100as at my GM... Though the only ones that stuck went to npcs lol


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Quote:


Not really, when the players can Google the entire library of open content.
That seems like a weird complaint. So if 3.5 had a full open game license, it would make it a worse, less inviting game?

3.5e didn't even need full OGL, there were still tonnes of sites like D&D tools which functioned like the PFSRD but without the third-party stuff. So it's a really really really weird complaint.


GM Rednal wrote:
I never actually played 3.5, but I hear it actively supported multiple systems, such as Psionics. Dreamscarred Press has done a fantastic job, but I suspect psionic-liking PFS players would've enjoyed the opportunity to use it in organized play...

You got a point there... a framework telling the DM what is legal and he must accept might be something interesting when applied to disliked subsystems like psionics... I've been a fan of them since 3.5 (well, since AD&D actually, but I didn't like the implementation in AD&D2 or in 3.0) but I haven't seen them in play, either 3.0, 3.5 or PF because I've never seen a DM ready to admit them to his game.


DrDeth wrote:
aboyd wrote:
I'm running it in D&D 3.5, and this is the game I just referenced, where the PCs are dying and needed days to rest.

This is an excellent argument of why Pathfinder is so superiour to 3.5, not the other way around. ;-)

I mean, how "fun" is it to sit around for three weeks?

Do... do you seriously think anyone actually sat around for three weeks? Are you trying to suggest that you can't imagine that this is almost the same exact amount of time in the real world, either way? Like this:


  • Pathfinder: "We cast spells, heal, and continue on." Time: 2 seconds.
  • D&D 3.5: "We don't have enough spells, so we rest overnight, regain spells, and heal more. Hmm. Even then we're still wounded! OK, so we rest an extra night." Time: 5 seconds.

The difference is not time wasted in real life, it's just a different story to tell. It's the story of the hero who struggled against all odds to succeed. I am not interested in the default, boring (frankly) power level of Pathfinder, where PCs can do way more stuff and the default fights are meh challenge. It's not interesting. I mean, maybe that's fun for you, but since you directly asked me how fun it is to "sit around for three weeks" as if we actually did that in real life or something -- my answer is "We like it just fine."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem with "the party spends 3 weeks (in-game) to heal up" is that this doesn't really jive with the notion that "HP is an abstraction that covers things like fatigue, morale, and frustration that eventually lead to one making mistakes that leave them open for a fatal blow." I don't actually want to run a game where a mid level barbarian requires as many arrows stuck in their body to bring down as does a tyrannosaur or a frost giant. That, to me, is much harder to swallow than "healing magic is cheap, easy, and reliable". I played a character a few campaigns ago that finished with 426 HP, 6 more than a great wyrm silver dragon, am I to believe that you could actually stick her with 80+ arrows and she'd still be standing?

I honestly like the 4e idea of rallying/second wind/healing surges because it underlines the point that HP loss is not necessarily physical damage.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I don't actually want to run a game where a mid level barbarian requires as many arrows stuck in their body to bring down as does a tyrannosaur or a frost giant.

I do! That's one pf the few cool things high level martials actually get. [High level d8 casters can acieve similar hitpoints but they have better selling points]

Quote:
I played a character a few campaigns ago that finished with 426 HP, 6 more than a great wyrm silver dragon, am I to believe that you could actually stick her with 80+ arrows and she'd still be standing?

Absolutely, this was a high level character, presumably of a martial class. The non-crits and non-knockouts may or may not have fully 'stuck,' (it is REALLY silly imagining a medium creature fighting as a living pincushion with 40 arrows in them) but they all drew blood [thus enabling each to potentially deliver poison.)


aboyd wrote:
DrDeth wrote:
aboyd wrote:
I'm running it in D&D 3.5, and this is the game I just referenced, where the PCs are dying and needed days to rest.

This is an excellent argument of why Pathfinder is so superiour to 3.5, not the other way around. ;-)

I mean, how "fun" is it to sit around for three weeks?

Do... do you seriously think anyone actually sat around for three weeks? Are you trying to suggest that you can't imagine that this is almost the same exact amount of time in the real world, either way? Like this:


  • Pathfinder: "We cast spells, heal, and continue on." Time: 2 seconds.
  • D&D 3.5: "We don't have enough spells, so we rest overnight, regain spells, and heal more. Hmm. Even then we're still wounded! OK, so we rest an extra night." Time: 5 seconds.

The difference is not time wasted in real life, it's just a different story to tell. It's the story of the hero who struggled against all odds to succeed. I am not interested in the default, boring (frankly) power level of Pathfinder, where PCs can do way more stuff and the default fights are meh challenge. It's not interesting. I mean, maybe that's fun for you, but since you directly asked me how fun it is to "sit around for three weeks" as if we actually did that in real life or something -- my answer is "We like it just fine."

you sir have never tried Giantslayer. That adventure path is brutal if you don't pay enough attention.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:


I honestly like the 4e idea of rallying/second wind/healing surges because it underlines the point that HP loss is not necessarily physical damage.

I think the problem for a lot of us who didn't move to 4e was that model takes it a bit too far. HP loss isn't necessarily all physical damage, but for some of us, it's always got some physical damage as well as loss of stamina, luck, mojo, or whatever else you want to call it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like, by the time you're down to half your hit points, the makeup people have put dirt on your face, and maybe your nose is bleeding, and you're heaving when you breathe.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:


I honestly like the 4e idea of rallying/second wind/healing surges because it underlines the point that HP loss is not necessarily physical damage.
I think the problem for a lot of us who didn't move to 4e was that model takes it a bit too far. HP loss isn't necessarily all physical damage, but for some of us, it's always got some physical damage as well as loss of stamina, luck, mojo, or whatever else you want to call it.

Perhaps ironically, 4e is the only edition where I can treat hit points as mostly or totally meat points, without rather dramatic house rules and/or variants.

On topic, I think WotC's willingness to experiment with different class subsystems (power points, Tome of Battle) is a plus over Paizo's adherence to vancian spells. Even though some of those subsystems left much to be wanted in the execution. (Hello, truenaming!)

Otherwise though, I think PF is overall an incremental improvement, to the point where some of the things that people are mentioning here have me scratching my head.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be clear, Pathfinder is great, it really freshed up the system and most of the changes are logical, useful, and fun. But there are some things where I'm like, "buh?"

One of those thing is an Orc Warrior 1 going from being cannon fodder to being nearly as dangerous as a 3e ogre. :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:


I honestly like the 4e idea of rallying/second wind/healing surges because it underlines the point that HP loss is not necessarily physical damage.
I think the problem for a lot of us who didn't move to 4e was that model takes it a bit too far. HP loss isn't necessarily all physical damage, but for some of us, it's always got some physical damage as well as loss of stamina, luck, mojo, or whatever else you want to call it.

Perhaps ironically, 4e is the only edition where I can treat hit points as mostly or totally meat points, without rather dramatic house rules and/or variants.

On topic, I think WotC's willingness to experiment with different class subsystems (power points, Tome of Battle) is a plus over Paizo's adherence to vancian spells. Even though some of those subsystems left much to be wanted in the execution. (Hello, truenaming!)

Otherwise though, I think PF is overall an incremental improvement, to the point where some of the things that people are mentioning here have me scratching my head.

Inclined to agree with this. I do miss WotC's willingness to mess around and try new things, even if it lead to the occasional slip-up. There are a ton of fun, crazy, oddball things you could do in 3.5 that just aren't options in Pathfinder. Especially since Paizo tends to be extremely conservative in design philosophy and brings down the nerf-hammer on anything that gets outside their comfort zone.

However, it definitely cleaned up some aspects of 3.5, and it's hard to fault them too much for not fixing issues that would've required a major system overhaul (martial/caster disparity), especially when the whole idea behind Pathfinder was to appeal to customers alienated by how much 4e changed from 3.5


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As an avid supporter of Pathfinder's "backward compatibility" with 3.5 product, and a 20+-year veteran of TTRPGs, I have to acknowledge the following:

1) 3.5 was better at making PrCs desirable. When you get right down to it, straight-classing in PF gets you "capstone" abilities that feel, to me, on par with the benefits of PrC-ing in 3.5. I don't quite think that this "punishes" taking a PrC in PF, but I certainly see why some feel that is so.

Used to be that I would multiclass and multi-PrC in 3.5, and still not quite get to where I wanted to be with a character's power level (which is reasonable, since all I wanted was a d8 HD full-BAB 8+Int skills skirmisher {yeah, the scout class ability} with 4th-level divine spells). Then I discovered the joys of gestalt, and got closer to what I wanted. So on, and so forth.

Now, though, I can play almost any non-archetyped PF class and like what I'm getting, even though I can't build my eponymous character with all the features I want (slayer comes pretty close, but, no divine casting). I have yet to read a Paizo PrC that screams "XXXX character must take this!!"

2) 3.5 was better at not punishing multiclassing. I would love to have a good reason for my cleric to dip 1 - 4 levels of bloodrager (for narrative purposes), but there's too great a loss at lower levels to justify doing it then, and by the time you're level 13+ in any class, why bother?

Not too big a deal, really, but it is a bit of a "feel-bad" for me.

3) 3.5 didn't have the vigilante class (Better!). Sorry, but that one's an epic fail in my book.

All that being said, though -- Pathfinder is better. And I'm glad I get to play it. :)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
2) 3.5 was better at not punishing multiclassing.

Actually you did get punished, since by the rules in 3.5 if you multiclassed into a class that wasn't your Race's favored class you'd take an XP penalty.

I never had a GM enforce that rule, but that was the rule.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
2) 3.5 was better at not punishing multiclassing.

Actually you did get punished, since by the rules in 3.5 if you multiclassed into a class that wasn't your Race's favored class you'd take an XP penalty.

I never had a GM enforce that rule, but that was the rule.

Only if the levels you had in the second (or third) class are less than the number of levels in your highest class-1. Favored class was ignored for multiclass XP penalties.

So you could be a dwarf bard 2, barbarian 2, cleric 2, druid 2, fighter 2, ranger 2, rogue 2, sorcerer 2, wizard 2, and suffer no xp penalty.

But if you're a 3rd level cleric who takes a dip level in ranger? BAM! XP penalty.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
On topic, I think WotC's willingness to experiment with different class subsystems (power points, Tome of Battle) is a plus over Paizo's adherence to vancian spells. Even though some of those subsystems left much to be wanted in the execution. (Hello, truenaming!)

It was nice, but what I think Paizo did better than WotC in that regard, is Paizo will continue to support each class they come up with in all their books they publish after releasing the new class. WotC, however, liked to pretend all classes outside of the PHB didn't exist once the book was released. It's my fear for 5th edition when they do end up releasing a fully playtested Mystic and Artificer class, that any other book they release will act like those never existed.


Rysky wrote:
I never had a GM enforce that rule, but that was the rule.

The bookkeeping on tracking experience points to begin with is a pain in the butt, I've never known anybody who wanted to track "80% of XP". Just having everybody at the table on the same track was a check on XP accounting errors.

"Okay, you kill the manticore, so that's 700 HP, divided 4 ways, so 175 each, but Franz only gets 140" is extra math done for almost no gain.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I always thought the XP penalty was a great way to game the organized play system. Once you hit a certain penalty, you'd keep playing the same level while accruing more and more wealth. I wonder if anyone actually tried it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adjule wrote:
It was nice, but what I think Paizo did better than WotC in that regard, is Paizo will continue to support each class they come up with in all their books they publish after releasing the new class. WotC, however, liked to pretend all classes outside of the PHB didn't exist once the book was released. It's my fear for 5th edition when they do end up releasing a fully playtested Mystic and Artificer class, that any other book they release will act like those never existed.

By precedent the Mystic has some advantage; the psionic classes did see some support in 3.5 - not as much as the PHB ones, but new powers and even sometimes feats and prestige classes strewn about various books (look at Magic of Incarnum or Dragon Magic, for instance) and the only not-in-core subsystem to get an (admittedly not exactly well-regarded) Complete supplement,. The Warlock followed behind (and specifically the warlock, not invocation-users) - but then, it became a PHB class from 4e onward.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I never had a GM enforce that rule, but that was the rule.

The bookkeeping on tracking experience points to begin with is a pain in the butt, I've never known anybody who wanted to track "80% of XP". Just having everybody at the table on the same track was a check on XP accounting errors.

"Okay, you kill the manticore, so that's 700 HP, divided 4 ways, so 175 each, but Franz only gets 140" is extra math done for almost no gain.

Yeah, even in 3.5 a lot of GMs I had just went with milestone-based leveling. Especially since XP-math was even more of a pain in that edition.


Rysky wrote:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:
2) 3.5 was better at not punishing multiclassing.
Actually you did get punished, since by the rules in 3.5 if you multiclassed into a class that wasn't your Race's favored class you'd take an XP penalty.

and

TOZ wrote:
I always thought the XP penalty was a great way to game the organized play system. Once you hit a certain penalty, you'd keep playing the same level while accruing more and more wealth. I wonder if anyone actually tried it?

-------->

Exactly. I never felt that the XP penalties were a punishment: more encounters meant more story, more loot, and more what I wanted the character to be. I guess I should have condensed points 1 and 2 together, since they're almost exactly the same thing, or corollaries, or somesuch. 3.5, you wanted out of your base class; Pathfinder, your capstone is the best brass ring out there.

I don't really know how I'd go about trying to fix it (though Drop Dead Studios is close, it seems) for Pathfinder, but I would like it if multiclassing and PrC-ing felt more "special", RAW.


Syrus Terrigan wrote:

As an avid supporter of Pathfinder's "backward compatibility" with 3.5 product, and a 20+-year veteran of TTRPGs, I have to acknowledge the following:

1) 3.5 was better at making PrCs desirable. When you get right down to it, straight-classing in PF gets you "capstone" abilities that feel, to me, on par with the benefits of PrC-ing in 3.5. I don't quite think that this "punishes" taking a PrC in PF, but I certainly see why some feel that is so.

Used to be that I would multiclass and multi-PrC in 3.5, and still not quite get to where I wanted to be with a character's power level (which is reasonable, since all I wanted was a d8 HD full-BAB 8+Int skills skirmisher {yeah, the scout class ability} with 4th-level divine spells). Then I discovered the joys of gestalt, and got closer to what I wanted. So on, and so forth.

Now, though, I can play almost any non-archetyped PF class and like what I'm getting, even though I can't build my eponymous character with all the features I want (slayer comes pretty close, but, no divine casting). I have yet to read a Paizo PrC that screams "XXXX character must take this!!"

2) 3.5 was better at not punishing multiclassing. I would love to have a good reason for my cleric to dip 1 - 4 levels of bloodrager (for narrative purposes), but there's too great a loss at lower levels to justify doing it then, and by the time you're level 13+ in any class, why bother?

Not too big a deal, really, but it is a bit of a "feel-bad" for me.

3) 3.5 didn't have the vigilante class (Better!). Sorry, but that one's an epic fail in my book.

All that being said, though -- Pathfinder is better. And I'm glad I get to play it. :)

That is because a decrease of PrCs and multiclassing were design goals and not unintended fails, if weren't for the contradictory backwards compatibility Pathfinder probably would not had PrCs or allow multiclassing.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Syrus Terrigan wrote:
3.5, you wanted out of your base class; Pathfinder, your capstone is the best brass ring out there.

Is the capstone really that much of a brass ring? I'm doubtful that most players expect their PCs to ever hit 20th level.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It damn sure isn't for me. I have yet to see a 20th level character in Pathfinder.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said before, I really don't like PF's animal companion rules--in particular, not getting the skills and skill bonuses of the base animal means your druid or hunter needs to get pretty high-level to have an animal as stealthy or athletic as an ordinary animal of its type.

My question is what was wrong with the 3.5 animal companion rules that PF changed them into their current iteration? Yeah, there was some broken pouncing dinosaur BS around, but were the ordinary wolves and bears and cheetahs really so game-breaking that needed such a strong nerf to their skills & abilities?

Why did PF change this?


Some core classes don't have a capstone at all (they're pure casters, so I guess it's not a big deal), and the Barbarian doesn't have a real one (Mighty Rage is just additional bonuses). On the other hand, the other classes have real shiny capstones. As for expecting to hit level 20, that'd depend on the campaigns/scenarios they play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
It damn sure isn't for me. I have yet to see a 20th level character in Pathfinder.

I've had two groups, one I played, the other DM'd. The passive capstones were used (monk, barbarian), but the active ones didn't see much play, discounting 9th level spells and grand hexes.

That said, I like the idea of capstones. I also like the house rule that James Jacobs mentioned in his thread a while ago: if your campaign ends at 17th level, give your characters their capstones then. It might not work for a campaign ending below 11th level, but your standard adventure path ends around 17. I'll probably try that for my Mummy's Mask campaign.


The Capstone being a really need ability that rewards you for sticking with one class, is a great idea.

The problem is that (likely due to legacy issues) running combat at high levels is so tedious, and certain classes have a belt-fed machine gun filled with silver bullets well before that anyway, hardly anybody wants to play at level 18 let alone 20.

A rule system where "one turn of combat" does not take 15 minutes at these levels would be one where capstones were more relevant.


edduardco wrote:
That is because a decrease of PrCs and multiclassing were design goals and not unintended fails, if weren't for the contradictory backwards compatibility Pathfinder probably would not had PrCs or allow multiclassing.

Paizo was by no means obligated to design strictly to my preferences -- so they didn't. Not a big deal.

And, even if they hadn't allowed the backward compatibility, a rule-scorner like myself would have shredded that part of their rulebook, anyway.

It's a game; have fun with it.

If it's only about winning:
. . . go play tournament M:TG, or something.


@ Possible cabbage: when you say 'turn' do you mean 'round'?

I've had plenty of rounds take around 15 minutes, especially at high level, but never a turn.

Longest turn I've seen was a level 20 minionmancer, Gestalt Chained Summoner // Necromancer with a battlefield loaded woth undead, summoned monsters, called oitsiders, his eidolon, his Druid Cohort, its animal companion and its summoned animals.

Average turn length 12 minutes, rarely branching up to around 15 as a special case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
It damn sure isn't for me. I have yet to see a 20th level character in Pathfinder.

I'll let you know when my group gets there. We made a promise to start at 1st and stop at 20 in this campaign and by gosh we're gonna do it. Right now the group is a combo of 12-14th level with varying Tiers of Mythic ranks. The 12th level player is going to get to play more often now, and she'll start to catch up soon. It's going to be yuge.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
@ Possible cabbage: when you say 'turn' do you mean 'round'?

Right, sorry. Those terms get used differently in other systems, what I mean is "It takes 15 minutes for everyone in initiative order" to do whatever they're going to do. When this happens (or even when it takes 8-10 minutes) that's generally when combat ceases to be interesting (for me at least). So we look to wrap up the game ASAP.

Combat takes FFE was IMO the fatal flaw of 4e, FWIW.


TOZ wrote:
It damn sure isn't for me. I have yet to see a 20th level character in Pathfinder.

Play one of my games, I'm on my 3rd campaign with this group (3 years ish) and we've hit 20 twice.

Shadow Lodge

master_marshmallow wrote:
Play one of my games...

Aww man, do you think we could actually get along? :)


PossibleCabbage wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
@ Possible cabbage: when you say 'turn' do you mean 'round'?
Right, sorry. Those terms get used differently in other systems, what I mean is "It takes 15 minutes for everyone in initiative order" to do whatever they're going to do. When this happens (or even when it takes 8-10 minutes) that's generally when combat ceases to be interesting (for me at least). So we look to wrap up the game ASAP.

I find on the average it takes each player around 2-3 minutes for their turn throughout the game, unless they're suddenly introduced to high level without having played it before or playing up to it.

Tack on another 4-6 minutes for the GM to manage the enemies and you're getting close to that 15 minute line that disinterests you Cabbage?


It's generally a question of "is this problem actually fixable". If it's just a matter of combat taking a while because people are unfamiliar with their options, that's going to fix itself after players figure out a few things. If it's just a question of "this has to take a while since there are a lot of moving parts" (e.g. the aforementioned minionmancer) then it's a drain on morale.

It's less a question when "big important fights" drag on and more of an issue with "perfunctory, so-you-don't-fight-the-boss-with-full-resources, sorts of fights" go forever.


Yeah, that is not a character approved for full size groups, that was a two person campaign, the other member being a Bard//Cleric.

On a smaller scale though, I played a Malconvoker through to level 20 in 3.P [Pathfinder plus 3E] with gobs of summons and a couple Bound Fiends with turns under 3 minutes every time.


TOZ wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Play one of my games...
Aww man, do you think we could actually get along? :)

Get used to hearing me say: "look it up" whenever anyone asks to do anything munchkinny. My #1 new house rule is that when someone wants to try something new I want them to do their research first and bring it to me after knowing what the rules are already instead of making me look it up mid-game.

Though "know how your own sh*t works" I feel is a pretty universal rule at most tables.


master_marshmallow wrote:
"know how your own sh*t works" I feel is a pretty universal rule at most tables.

Rule one in my view.

201 to 250 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.