Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 385 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Individual GMs can't be accounted for, but ToB was an official part of the 3.5 rules while PoW is not part of the Pathfinder rules.

Show up at a PFS game wanting to play a Path class (or a DSP Psionic class) and you're getting rejected 100% of the time.

Uh, your post was that it being 3pp so it's not allowed by certain GMs (you didn't specify PFS), when ToB, despite being 1pp was also not allowed by plenty of GMs, so yeah, individual GMs are accounted for when we're talking about what is and isn't allowed at certain tables outside of PFS, which I don't play.

I'm about to give my first PFS game a try as a player. I'm always grateful for a chance to be a player, as I'm the GM 95% of the time and have been for decades, but to be honest I'm not really very excited by it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Individual GMs can't be accounted for, but ToB was an official part of the 3.5 rules while PoW is not part of the Pathfinder rules.

Show up at a PFS game wanting to play a Path class (or a DSP Psionic class) and you're getting rejected 100% of the time.

Uh, your post was that it being 3pp so it's not allowed by certain GMs (you didn't specify PFS), when ToB, despite being 1pp was also not allowed by plenty of GMs, so yeah, individual GMs are accounted for when we're talking about what is and isn't allowed at certain tables outside of PFS, which I don't play.
I'm about to give my first PFS game a try as a player. I'm always grateful for a chance to be a player, as I'm the GM 95% of the time and have been for decades, but to be honest I'm not really very excited by it.

Hope you have fun though ^w^


I hope I do, too!


Rysky wrote:
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Tome of Battel, despite being 1st party, wasn't allowed in a bunch of games either.

Individual GMs can't be accounted for, but ToB was an official part of the 3.5 rules while PoW is not part of the Pathfinder rules.

Show up at a PFS game wanting to play a Path class (or a DSP Psionic class) and you're getting rejected 100% of the time.

Uh, your post was that it being 3pp so it's not allowed by certain GMs (you didn't specify PFS), when ToB, despite being 1pp was also not allowed by plenty of GMs, so yeah, individual GMs are accounted for when we're talking about what is and isn't allowed at certain tables outside of PFS, which I don't play.

Okay, so what I was trying to say is that 3pp material is kind of irrelevant to a discussion of what the 3.5 system did better than the PF system, IMO.

I mean, I love and use some DSP material in games I run, but I personally have never encountered another GM who would even consider 3PP material. So ToB being official material is, in my experience, very important to even getting a GM to take a look at it.

If you're lucky enough to play with GMs who allow DSP psionics and PoW, than that's great, but I've had trouble finding GMs who would even give PoW or Psionics a look in PF rules games, but they would, at the least, give consideration to officially published materials.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm fining it very odd if your GMs would allow ToB but not PoW, weird.


Rysky wrote:
I'm fining it very odd if your GMs would allow ToB but not PoW, weird.

To be clear, they're talking about 3.5e GM's allowing ToB not PF GMs. And that if PoW was official rather than 3rd party then it would be allowed at the tables of GMs who don't want to use 3rd party regardless of if they liked ToB or otherwise would like PoW.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'm fining it very odd if your GMs would allow ToB but not PoW, weird.
To be clear, they're talking about 3.5e GM's allowing ToB not PF GMs. And that if PoW was official rather than 3rd party then it would be allowed at the tables of GMs who don't want to use 3rd party regardless of if they liked ToB or otherwise would like PoW.

That's something I've always found weird, the complete and utter opposition to 3pp some GMs have regardless of the actual content, just based on the fact that it's 3pp. Explicitly here where ToB is okay, but PoW is right out, despite being the exact same thing effectively.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's even more odd when you consider how much more fun DSP [or Drop Dead Studios now, what-with their new release to cover martials] games are when compared to Paizo classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

You collectively might be thinking of it in terms of the mechanics. I generally run "paizo only" when I run PF, but it's not any judgement on quality. It's just a quick-and-easy way to keep things limited and manageable for our group.

(I realise most of the pro-3PP crowd don't see much value in arbitrary limitations, but whether you'd like the game or not - there's other reasons besides a perception of quality to restrict what books or what publishers are used).


You should try restricting outside of Paizo material some time Steve. Limited themes to structure the story asas you like, but far more interesting [and far more balanced with proper selection]


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
I'm fining it very odd if your GMs would allow ToB but not PoW, weird.

It's kind of absurd that high level Wizards are allowed in the same game as Fighters as Rogues, but people generally assume that these classes are balanced with each other because they're a part of the core rules of the game.

Many people assume that the company that created the game knows what they are doing, and that if they make something part of the rules then they did so for a reason and with an understanding of the balance of the system they created.

Meanwhile they won't even consider 3pp material because they don't want to put in the effort to examine and vet each piece of 3pp material a player might want to use.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You should try restricting outside of Paizo material some time Steve. Limited themes to structure the story asas you like, but far more interesting [and far more balanced with proper selection]

Yeah, i wasn't suggesting that was the only way to go. I had a dreamscarred press only campaign lined up, but one player really doesn't like psionics so that didn't get off the ground.

I just figured it might make it seem less odd if you consider that, for some of us, mechanics are really quite third order issues. So banning mechanically solid books might make more sense, considering a broader perspective.

In terms of being more interesting though, I'm not so sure it holds true in my case - mechanics really makes no difference to me in that regard (other than just liking simple, few options). Part of the reason I generally use paizo-only is because I like the flavor material.

Also "balance" is actually a negative, in my admittedly peculiar case.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
I'm fining it very odd if your GMs would allow ToB but not PoW, weird.
It's kind of absurd that high level Wizards are allowed in the same game as Fighters as Rogues, but people generally assume that these classes are balanced with each other because they're a part of the core rules of the game.
... not really related to what we're talking about.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Many people assume that the company that created the game knows what they are doing, and that if they make something part of the rules then they did so for a reason and with an understanding of the balance of the system they created.

Meanwhile they won't even consider 3pp material because they don't want to put in the effort to examine and vet each piece of 3pp material a player might want to use.

This is the main thing I was getting at, the automatic dismissal of something simply because it's 3pp, rather than its actual mechanics. Becomes more egregious when it comes to formerly 1pp mechanics for 3.5 such as Psionics and Blade Magic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Becomes more egregious when it comes to formerly 1pp mechanics for 3.5 such as Psionics and Blade Magic.

Even more egregious when the game they're playing is a 3rd party product.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Becomes more egregious when it comes to formerly 1pp mechanics for 3.5 such as Psionics and Blade Magic.
Even more egregious when the game they're playing is a 3rd party product.

It began as a 3pp to 3.5, but Pathfinder is a 1pp product now.


Regarding the OP: 3.5 rules were released before Pathfinder, so they permitted players and GMs to play sooner than with Pathfinder rules :-p.


Steve Geddes wrote:

You collectively might be thinking of it in terms of the mechanics. I generally run "paizo only" when I run PF, but it's not any judgement on quality. It's just a quick-and-easy way to keep things limited and manageable for our group.

(I realise most of the pro-3PP crowd don't see much value in arbitrary limitations, but whether you'd like the game or not - there's other reasons besides a perception of quality to restrict what books or what publishers are used).

Yeah, my own experience with trying to get GMs to let me run DSP classes isn't so much that they think the rules are bad as it is that this is material they'd have to read over and familiarize themselves with. The answer usually isn't a flat no so much as "It'd be a lot easier for me if you could stick to stuff I already know/understand."

Silver Crusade

Yeah, when it comes to 3pp it's pretty easy to evaluate a single class or a few feats, but when you're bringing in major system changes it takes a lot of work sometimes to get familiar with the new system, implement it, and keep things smooth. It's not even really a balance issue. That was the problem my group ran into with Spheres of Power.


I'm very fortunate in that my group (well, all but one guy, anyway) is very open to 3PP material. I'm kind of picky about the publishers I allow, but DSP is definitely one of them. I've allowed Psionics and Path of War but haven't looked closely at Akashic magic yet. I thought the original concept from (forgive me, but I forget the title) from WotC was pretty interesting, so I hope to give it a better look soon. And as far as PoW goes, I may replace the Monk with the classes from it in my next campaign, which at the rate we get to play should be about a year from now.


My experiences of the pre-pf days were that DMs who didn't want to include other subsystems due to either mechanical concerns or lack of familiarity would have Core-only games. I imagine if the DSP analogues were printed by Paizo, the same people would do the same things.


It has been a long time since I played Pathfinder with an non-DSP class or archetype.


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
I'm very fortunate in that my group (well, all but one guy, anyway) is very open to 3PP material. I'm kind of picky about the publishers I allow, but DSP is definitely one of them. I've allowed Psionics and Path of War but haven't looked closely at Akashic magic yet. I thought the original concept from (forgive me, but I forget the title) from WotC was pretty interesting, so I hope to give it a better look soon. And as far as PoW goes, I may replace the Monk with the classes from it in my next campaign, which at the rate we get to play should be about a year from now.

Akashic Magic is inspired by Magic of Incarnum.


Thank you. I couldn't remember the title of that book for anything. And I'm not feeling well physically and I didn't want to go looking for it.


Steve Geddes wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
You should try restricting outside of Paizo material some time Steve. Limited themes to structure the story asas you like, but far more interesting [and far more balanced with proper selection]

Yeah, i wasn't suggesting that was the only way to go. I had a dreamscarred press only campaign lined up, but one player really doesn't like psionics so that didn't get off the ground.

I just figured it might make it seem less odd if you consider that, for some of us, mechanics are really quite third order issues. So banning mechanically solid books might make more sense, considering a broader perspective.

In terms of being more interesting though, I'm not so sure it holds true in my case - mechanics really makes no difference to me in that regard (other than just liking simple, few options). Part of the reason I generally use paizo-only is because I like the flavor material.

Their flavor is good, but it's rather restricted in my opinion. The reason I brought up 'interesting' is because of where it diverges from PF's baselines.

Quote:
Also "balance" is actually a negative, in my admittedly peculiar case.

Your peculiar case might enjoy balance within a different flavor context? A world of Psykers and Heroes rather than Mages and Mundanes?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

That's a fair point. I haven't really challenged the preference for a number of years. My experience with games that put significant effort into balance has been disappointing, but I must confess I haven't shopped around much systemwise for a number of years now.

I'm also pretty traditional when it comes to flavor.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have seen kneejerk reactions to 3PP from some Dms. It's either Paizo and official and only that kind or material. Without even looking at 3PP. Or using the excuse that someone told them it was broken. So that means beyond any shadow of doubt that 3pp is broken. I'm all fine with a DM not wanting to use 3pp. At the very least familiarize oneself with 3pp before just saying no to it. If I listened to every instance of something being "broken" in the hobby I would never have bought anything beyond the core.

As for 3.5 being better I found that Wotc devs more than willing to to introduce new and interesting mechanics. The execution may not have always been good. At least they tried. i find that Paizo is too conservative. CRaft Ooze. Usually with Wotc either you could control it. Or it was loyal to the creator with Paizo it's neither and a waste of a feat imo.

That being said when Wotc amde mistakes they made them imo. I remember taking I think it was a Techsmith prestige class. One gets a Gondman as a construct. Think a really horrible terrible mcuh version of a Gearsman. It's bad enough one needs to be a decent level and need certain requirements for the class. Except they nerf the living daylights out of the Gondsman. The first pit trap it fell into it was destroyed.

To me at least both Paizo and Wotc both have good and bad material imo.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I have seen kneejerk reactions to 3PP from some Dms. It's either Paizo and official and only that kind or material. Without even looking at 3PP. Or using the excuse that someone told them it was broken. So that means beyond any shadow of doubt that 3pp is broken. I'm all fine with a DM not wanting to use 3pp. At the very least familiarize oneself with 3pp before just saying no to it. If I listened to every instance of something being "broken" in the hobby I would never have bought anything beyond the core.

Oh, you'll find no shortage of broken stuff in the core rulebook, both real (Planar Binding, Simulacrum) and imagined (Rogue gets sneak attack? So OP!!!)


To be fair, a lot of the 3pp stuff before Pathfinder was horribly bad, and this mindset has carried over into Pathfinder, despite quite a bit of 3pp for Pathfinder being quite good (DSP being the biggest example). So, 3pp seems to have been one instance where Pathfinder has definitely done better than 3rd edition.


I only bought a tiny amount of 3PP material for 3.5, because none of it just seemed to appeal to me. But since PF came out 3PP writers and designers have had years of experience to hone their skills, putting out better and better products.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience... Frog God Games, Dreamscarred Press, Legendary Games, Kobold Press, Interjection Games, and Drop Dead Studios have all put out a number of fantastic products. And that's just among the larger third-party publishers - there's some very decent material from others as well.

Of course, not every product is great, but I think it's a disservice to reject something solely for being 3PP unless you're playing PFS. If nothing else, I think the things players want to play are worth reading through before a decision is made.


memorax wrote:
As for 3.5 being better I found that Wotc devs more than willing to to introduce new and interesting mechanics. The execution may not have always been good. At least they tried. i find that Paizo is too conservative.

I also find 3.X more interesting in that regard, the biggest problem with that was it only took the Core rulebooks into consideration. I found that Paizo is more conservative in great part because PFS, GM in organized play with multiple and bizarre mechanics would be a nightmare.


Bears.

They don't get overshadowed by big cat as animal companion in 3.x

Some creatures also have physical stats that I find hard to agree with.

For example

Pathfinder

Doppleganger STR 18
Gorilla STR 15

3.x

Doppleganger STR12
Gorilla STR 21

I also like the fluff write ups in 3.5 about each class attitudes toward the other classes. It's a bit stereotype but also brings up some imaginative ideas.


I'm going to toss in that I strongly preferred the 3.5 PHB/DMG split. The PF CRB is a brick and its weight destroys the edges of the binding. Also, a considerable amount of GM information could not be included in the CRB without making it even bigger. I do not feel that the GMG replaces that loss.

I also preferred 3.5 starting skill points.

Infinite uses on cantrips and orisons in PF are also not appreciated.

I will also say that while I understood why munchkins did it, I personally despised all forms of multi-classing that involved "a dip here" and "a dip there" ad infinitum. Seeing yet another PC with a completely ridiculous string of level one or two in five or six classes and prestige classes with a fig leaf hung over it for a rationale caused bile to rise in my throat. Anything PF can do to discourage such silliness (and it still happens) is the cat's meow as far as I am concerned.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

+1 for Psionics. Since PF doesn't have it at all.
+1 for Tome of Battle. Because non-casters should have nice things.

Dragonfire Adept...a very self-reliant class with multiple options for support and steady in and out of combat capabilities. Plus most important of all...got to play something with a dragon-like feel. For that matter the whole of the dragon concept from a PC-perspective...which is not a part of Pathfinder (at least according to the Paizo if you read all the requests for a dragon-themed AP.)

That said PF did address a lot of the issues in 3.x though granted it created just as many a natural side effect of multiplying synergies...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rerednaw wrote:

+1 for Psionics. Since PF doesn't have it at all.

+1 for Tome of Battle. Because non-casters should have nice things.

Dreamscarred Press has got you covered.


Rysky wrote:
Dreamscarred Press has got you covered.

PFS players do get screwed by it not being official though.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dreamscarred Press has got you covered.
PFS players do get screwed by it not being official though.

Point, but the previous poster didn't specify PFS or not, just Pathfinder.


Rerednaw wrote:

+1 for Psionics. Since PF doesn't have it at all.

+1 for Tome of Battle. Because non-casters should have nice things.

Dragonfire Adept...a very self-reliant class with multiple options for support and steady in and out of combat capabilities. Plus most important of all...got to play something with a dragon-like feel. For that matter the whole of the dragon concept from a PC-perspective...which is not a part of Pathfinder (at least according to the Paizo if you read all the requests for a dragon-themed AP.)

That said PF did address a lot of the issues in 3.x though granted it created just as many a natural side effect of multiplying synergies...

Psionics exist, but as a 3pp add on, meaning they are generally rejected by closed minded DMs, not to mention unavailable for PFS play.

+1 for the dragonfire adept, I never got to play one, but wish I had... that seems unlikely though as both my 3.5 DMs have not the unnambeable and switched to 5ed, which is poor in options and not much to my taste.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

I figure psychic magic is the Pathfinder version of psionics. Unless, by "psionics" you actually mean "point based casting," in which case fair enough.


psychic magic, that's from Occult adventures, right? I don't have it yet, but it's on my to do list... and seriously, point casting aside, it doesn't look like classes like occultist and mesmerist do anything like the same things as the psionicist, psychic warrior, etc


There is some overlap that make clear even without developer comments that psychic magic is a Pathfinder version on the theme - for instance, a couple of the psychic spells are clearly spell versions of psionic powers what with having the same name and similar effects, the psychic is an Int-based full spontaneous caster like the psion is an Int-based full spontaneous-by-default manifester, and the undercast thing gives the impression of a sort of inverse take on augmenting (possibly to be made more obverse with Undercast Surge). That said, there's definitely a fair bit of difference even beyond the basic spells using spell slots/powers using power points difference, even thematically (Dreamscarred's Psionics Augmented: Occult project touches on this since it is about the interaction of their take on Pathfinder psionics with psychic magic).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Psychic magic uses a couple of words and term it has in common with psionics, like wild talent, phrenic and such, but its more mystical and spooky while psionics always had a more scifi feel.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dreamscarred Press has got you covered.
PFS players do get screwed by it not being official though.
Point, but the previous poster didn't specify PFS or not, just Pathfinder.

I guess there are no problems with the system because you can just house rule it?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Dreamscarred Press has got you covered.
PFS players do get screwed by it not being official though.
Point, but the previous poster didn't specify PFS or not, just Pathfinder.
I guess there are no problems with the system because you can just house rule it?

???

Dreamscarred Press is a 3pp company, not Homebrew.


3pp is just house rules with a printing press.

Heck, Pathfinder itself is just a set of 3.5 house rules.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Editors, actually.

Lambasting all 3pp as simply "Homebrew" is unbelievably dismissive to the efforts and works of 3pp companies.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ninja in the Rye wrote:

3pp is just house rules with a printing press.

Heck, Pathfinder itself is just a set of 3.5 house rules.

at one time. At one time America was a colony of GB. At one time, dinosaurs walked the earth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Editors, actually.

Lambasting all 3pp as simply "Homebrew" is unbelievably dismissive to the efforts and works of 3pp companies.

It's not "lambasting" it's a statement without judgement on quality.

Pathfinder is an official rules system published by Paizo, unless Paizo recognizes something as an official rule then it's not part of "Pathfinder".

Liberty's Edge

I feel like 3.5 was generally lower powered in a way that I prefer. I understand all the god-wizard/cleric staples existed in 3.5 just as much as they exist in Pathfinder but the god-wizard never came up once in the various campaigns I played in and GMed. In 3.5 'rocket tag' was a problem that came up in the mid teens. In Pathfinder rocket tag seems to start as low as levels 7-8.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ninja in the Rye wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Editors, actually.

Lambasting all 3pp as simply "Homebrew" is unbelievably dismissive to the efforts and works of 3pp companies.

It's not "lambasting" it's a statement without judgement on quality.

Pathfinder is an official rules system published by Paizo, unless Paizo recognizes something as an official rule then it's not part of "Pathfinder".

B#*+$@!~.

Just because Paizo doesn't release Psionics doesn't mean Pathfinder doesn't have Psionics. One of the reasons Paizo didn't release Psionics is because Pathfinder already had Psiconics due to Dreamscarred Press.

Claiming that if Paizo doesn't release it then it's not a part of Pathfinder, with how much Paizo uses and encourages 3pp companies and products, is complete and utter nonsense.

301 to 350 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.