Anything you feel 3.x did better than Pathfinder?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

Oh, really? I must have missed the point where WotC sold all rights to D&D 3.5 and the d20 ruleset to Paizo.

\end{sarcasm}

I hate to break it to you, but Paizo products are and have always been 100% third-party. WotC released a license to allow 3PPs to use some of their IP, under the terms of the license. Prior to 2009, Paizo published 3PP content using WotC's IP under the terms of a license for 3pps. After 2009, Paizo continued publishing 3PP content using WotC's IP under the terms of exactly the same license for 3pps.

Fanfiction doesn't magically become canon just because a few readers like it more. You liking Pathfinder doesn't magically give Paizo ownership of the system they are writing for; they still have to use WotC's property under the terms WotC has set out for them.

Silver Crusade

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

*rolls eyes*

3.5 Pathfinder Chronicles was 3pp to 3.5 DnD

Pathfinder rules however are 1pp to Pathfinder.

Using the OGL doesn't automatically make you a 3pp, moreso when the product you're supposedly a 3pp for isn't even in production anymore or otherwise supported by its owner.

Case in point, I don't need the 3.5 Player's Handbook and Dungeonmaster's Guide in order to play Pathfinder, I just need the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Rysky wrote:
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.

Oh, really? I must have missed the point where WotC sold all rights to D&D 3.5 and the d20 ruleset to Paizo.

\end{sarcasm}

I hate to break it to you, but Paizo products are and have always been 100% third-party. WotC released a license to allow 3PPs to use some of their IP, under the terms of the license. Prior to 2009, Paizo published 3PP content using WotC's IP under the terms of a license for 3pps. After 2009, Paizo continued publishing 3PP content using WotC's IP under the terms of exactly the same license for 3pps.

Fanfiction doesn't magically become canon just because a few readers like it more. You liking Pathfinder doesn't magically give Paizo ownership of the system they are writing for; they still have to use WotC's property under the terms WotC has set out for them.

So there are a couple of questionable assumptions and statements here.

1) The very definition of 1PP and 3PP. Many would argue that a product becomes 1st party when it can be used stand-alone, as in, not-a-supplement to a different rule set.

1a) The PF CRB changed paizo from a 3PP for a different ruleset into a 1PP in their own right. At least there is an internally consistent definition for calling it one.

2) The OGL isn't necessarily "the end" of the legal story regarding using the 3.5 system. Strictly speaking, numbers/mechanics are not copyrightable. The law is pretty vague about what is/isn't OK to copy word-for-word. There are a number of legal minds who feel that a *virtually* unchanged reproduction of the 3.5 ruleset would be completely legal without following the guidelines/restrictions of the OGL. Needless to say, PF is much more than virtually unchanged.

2a) The reason the OGL is widely used is because it has specific allowances which prevent the need to litigate the particulars of "what exactly is allowed" to reprint.


It's probably worth getting the thread back to what 3.x did better than Pathfinder instead of arguing what is or isn't 3pp, no?


drumlord wrote:
It's probably worth getting the thread back to what 3.x did better than Pathfinder instead of arguing what is or isn't 3pp, no?

Meh, it's page 8.

Do you have a specific thing you felt 3.5 did better than PF to help us bring it back?


I don't knw anything specific, but in anybody wants to trawl the multi-hundred page thread they got tearing it to shreds at the Gaming Den, I'm sure you'll find something. Just put on some filters and scuba gear first.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
drumlord wrote:
It's probably worth getting the thread back to what 3.x did better than Pathfinder instead of arguing what is or isn't 3pp, no?

When whatever someone says 3.5 did better than PF is met with a response of "Non-Paizo company released a product that is not an official part of the PF rules, will never show up in a published adventure, and can't be used in officially sanctioned games, but it still counts!" it's basically impossible to have that discussion.


Official preview of the next 3pp release for Pathfinder from Ninja In The Rye games: "New Feat: I win!" Take this feat and you automatically overcome every challenge by taking 1 HP damage gain 5 HP after overcoming any challenge. A challenge counts as anything the player who took the feat wants it to count as, also you don't have to take the 1 HP damage if you don't want to!"

Man, 3.5 was a lot better than PF because it didn't have broken feats that just let you win the game.


Can we all just agree to compare the main, 1st-party material and not any 3rd party material due to varying quality of work?

And while you say 3.5 didn't have any I win buttons, is 3.5 not the originator of Pun-Pun?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In fairness, the publisher of the most broken feats in the game knows they're a joke, advertises them as a joke, and actively advises against allowing people to take them.

XD

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

And most of them are actually underpowered.


BigDTBone wrote:

Meh, it's page 8.

Do you have a specific thing you felt 3.5 did better than PF to help us bring it back?

I mean, anything is better than arguing semantics.

I skipped most of 3.x. I use this thread to discover rules I can adapt for my own house rules. Or unpublished 3pp rules, if you prefer ;)


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.

And since some folks want to drag PFS in for comparison, it should be noted that psionics was NEVER allowed in the official Network Campaigns for 3.X


Rysky wrote:

*rolls eyes*

3.5 Pathfinder Chronicles was 3pp to 3.5 DnD

Pathfinder rules however are 1pp to Pathfinder.

Using the OGL doesn't automatically make you a 3pp, moreso when the product you're supposedly a 3pp for isn't even in production anymore or otherwise supported by its owner.

Case in point, I don't need the 3.5 Player's Handbook and Dungeonmaster's Guide in order to play Pathfinder, I just need the Pathfinder Core Rulebook.

When you're not the First Party creator of the work, you are by definition... a third party, a producer of derivative work. Second Party of course being the customer you and the First are vying for.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I miss the Age of Worms. . .

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually, and while not really WotC themselves or even strictly 3E, I miss having options for Campaign Settings. Golarion is sort of like the Forgotten Realms knock-off with a bit of Eberron. But I miss Raveloft and Dragonlance.


DM Beckett wrote:
Actually, and while not really WotC themselves or even strictly 3E, I miss having options for Campaign Settings. Golarion is sort of like the Forgotten Realms knock-off with a bit of Eberron. But I miss Raveloft and Dragonlance.

Yeah, "multiple official settings" was a neat thing I kind of miss (Though to be honest the only one I ever ran games in was Planescape, because I'm weird like that). I get that Paizo doesn't want to support a bunch of different settings, and this is the sort of thing that 3rd Parties can do instead.


Isn't Golarion fundamentally over a dozen settings in one?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rednal wrote:

In fairness, the publisher of the most broken feats in the game knows they're a joke, advertises them as a joke, and actively advises against allowing people to take them.

XD

Half of that book is actually brilliant for boosting martials, I don't get how the entire 'meta-attack' section is OP. Or is it OP because it's something casters have?

I was actually disappointed, because if the most OP stuff that can be come up with for martials is applying meta-magic effects to their attack, then they aren't trying that hard.


Kinda... I feel it's trying too hard and not really succeeding though, which is why I prefer campaigns and APs that remain in one small part of it rather than spanning the variety.


Klorox wrote:
Kinda... I feel it's trying too hard and not really succeeding though, which is why I prefer campaigns and APs that remain in one small part of it rather than spanning the variety.

Too much butter, not enough toast. The biggest issue you have with trying to cram so many themes into one setting is that you run into tonal issues. If you try to accommodate all playstyles in a single setting, people from the country you have one playstyle designated for are going to be very confused when they venture into another. Multiple settings would have been more work, but would have made it easier to keep a focused consistent tone no matter where you go in the world.


The strength of Golarion as a setting is that you can say to your players who don't actually want to read the setting materials, "It's revolution era France." Or "Evil Rome" or "Sherwood Forrest" or whatever and they have a basic idea of what is going on in the story.

I find the D&D settings to be deeper and more full as worlds unto themselves, but that just might be because I first read them when I was younger.


2 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.

/facepalm.

You are aware a huge chunk of what was published in 1st to 3.5 was basically built around "We came up with this in my home game, and it was fun", right? Regardless of who publishes it, this entire hobby is founded upon home games and ideas that stemmed from them.

On another note, there's a reason why some 3pp products I actually rate much higher than WotC's. It's simply a matter of willingness to sink in the time and budget in editing and maintaining consistency that (at least in my experience) WotC seems unwilling to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Raynulf wrote:
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.

/facepalm.

You are aware a huge chunk of what was published in 1st to 3.5 was basically built around "We came up with this in my home game, and it was fun", right? Regardless of who publishes it, this entire hobby is founded upon home games and ideas that stemmed from them.

On another note, there's a reason why some 3pp products I actually rate much higher than WotC's. It's simply a matter of willingness to sink in the time and budget in editing and maintaining consistency that (at least in my experience) WotC seems unwilling to do.

Okay, and ... I never said that any of that wasn't the case. I said that, when discussing when one system does better than the other, we should limit it to 1st party material, because there is often a huge variance in whether 3pp material will even be considered for a game. One is an actual official part of the system in question, and the other is not.

I'm not sure why people are so defensive over the effort and quality of 3pp material, which I've said that I very often use in the games that I run.


Hmm, what 3.5 did better... You know, I was a big fan of the binder and the totemist (and incarnum in general). The Medium sort of works like a binder in theory, but in practice they have only 6 "vestiges", and I haven´t seen anything close to incarnum. I guess the system kind of works like an occultist´s focus and the synthesist summoner can approximate a totemist, but I don´t really think it is a good equivalent.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Shaman wrote:
Hmm, what 3.5 did better... You know, I was a big fan of the Binder and the totemist (and incarnum in general). The Medium sort of works like a binder in theory, but in practice they have only 6 "vestiges", and I haven´t seen anything close to incarnum. I guess the system kind of works like an occultist´s focus and the synthesist summoner can approximate a totemist, but I don´t really think it is a good equivalent.

Dreamscarred Press' Akashic Mysteries is handling the Incarnum stuff :3

No Totemist though :(

Hmmm, it's not the same (Totemist let you attach monster pieces to yourself, like Displacer Beast tentacles and animate them, didn't it?) but the Masquerade Reveler lets you copy monster (namely Fey) abilities.


Rysky wrote:
The Shaman wrote:
Hmm, what 3.5 did better... You know, I was a big fan of the Binder and the totemist (and incarnum in general). The Medium sort of works like a binder in theory, but in practice they have only 6 "vestiges", and I haven´t seen anything close to incarnum. I guess the system kind of works like an occultist´s focus and the synthesist summoner can approximate a totemist, but I don´t really think it is a good equivalent.

Dreamscarred Press' Akashic Mysteries is handling the Incarnum stuff :3

No Totemist though :(

Hmmm, it's not the same (Totemist let you attach monster pieces to yourself, like Displacer Beast tentacles and animate them, didn't it?) but the Masquerade Reveler lets you copy monster (namely Fey) abilities.

Wouldn't be shocked if DSP gets around to the Binder at some point, given it's a fairly popular 3.5 class and they've generally been updating those to PF. The only real problem is that the other Tome of Magic classes weren't nearly so liked, so they might have a hard time making a full book.


DSP actually have taken stabs at truenaming (search for Tzocatl), if not gotten far enough to be released - I think a more important issue for shadow magic and pact magic is that other 3pp companies have done them (somewhat for shadow magic; the closest I've found uses spellcasting, but pact magic has Radiance House's Occultist).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LordInsane wrote:
DSP actually have taken stabs at truenaming (search for Tzocatl), if not gotten far enough to be released - I think a more important issue for shadow magic and pact magic is that other 3pp companies have done them (somewhat for shadow magic; the closest I've found uses spellcasting, but pact magic has Radiance House's Occultist).

Radiance House has done some tweaking and kickstarting and now we have the Pactmaster (to avoid confusion with the other Occultist) from Grimoire of Lost Souls.


LordInsane wrote:
DSP actually have taken stabs at truenaming (search for Tzocatl), if not gotten far enough to be released - I think a more important issue for shadow magic and pact magic is that other 3pp companies have done them (somewhat for shadow magic; the closest I've found uses spellcasting, but pact magic has Radiance House's Occultist).

Yeah, Truenaming and Shadow Magic would both need a lot of reworking to get up to DSP standards, given the general consensus on both in 3.5 was that they were fun ideas/concepts but an absolute mess mechanically.

As far as other 3pp party publishers trying out the concept, I don't think that should stop DSP from making their own attempt so long as what they produce is unique enough to merit being its own product.


Well, Interjection Games did a version of Truenaming, and it seems pretty solid overall. o wo/ I have no idea how close it is to any previous versions, but it exists.


Rysky wrote:
Radiance House has done some tweaking and kickstarting and now we have the Pactmaster (to avoid confusion with the other Occultist) from Grimoire of Lost Souls.

Good to know, I will admit I was mostly looking at d20pfsrd (*ahem*, limited budget).

Chengar Qordath wrote:

Yeah, Truenaming and Shadow Magic would both need a lot of reworking to get up to DSP standards, given the general consensus on both in 3.5 was that they were fun ideas/concepts but an absolute mess mechanically.

As far as other 3pp party publishers trying out the concept, I don't think that should stop DSP from making their own attempt so long as what they produce is unique enough to merit being its own product.

Shadow Magic had a significantly better reception than truenaming, so far I can tell, in that it was seen as more underpowered and with unclear things than truenaming's thoroughly broken (and personally, I did not feel I need to go to extreme optimisation to stay decent within the party when I played a shadowcaster in a 3.5 game without feeling overpowered either - though admittedly it used Mouseferatu's suggested alterations). Still, there would have been to reworking and re-theming, I just would hope it doesn't end up with shadow magic becoming spellcasting using spell slots again.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Dreamscarred Press' Akashic Mysteries is handling the Incarnum stuff :3

No Totemist though :(

Daevic does the totemist's "your soulmeld/veils are monster parts, giving you claws and bites and wings and stuff".

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Dreamscarred Press' Akashic Mysteries is handling the Incarnum stuff :3

No Totemist though :(

Daevic does the totemist's "your soulmeld/veils are monster parts, giving you claws and bites and wings and stuff".

Sweet!


DrDeth wrote:
At one time, dinosaurs walked the earth.

What are you talking about? I still walk the Earth.

351 to 385 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.