Results 91 to 120 of 201
Thread: The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook
-
2010-02-03, 02:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
-
2010-02-03, 02:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
I would say that they are fundamentally the same system, and that the same is true with PF. True, there isn't 100% compatibility. Maybe only 80%. But as someone who has played most of his AD&D adventures converted to 3.5 I would say the conversions really aren't that much. I mean, Construct BaB changes? If the DM remembers the rule it takes 5 seconds to change. If the DM fails to remember the rule, who is even going to notice?
More to the point, the systems are close enough that there is a high degree of player compatibility. Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa. If no one can publish 3.5, and no one cares enough to promote games of 3.5, at least we can carry on with something 3.5 like.Last edited by Gnaeus; 2010-02-03 at 02:13 PM.
-
2010-02-03, 02:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Pathfinder Question
I wouldn't say most. I'd say some, but not most. We have no way of knowing exactly how much of the demographic for either game matches up with the other. And a decent sized chunk of both demographics hate the other game.
And there are a lot of games people continue to play despite not being updated (2nd ed. D&D, OWoD, etc.).Last edited by UglyPanda; 2010-02-03 at 02:40 PM.
Avatar by Serpentine
If, at any point, I write something that appears humorous, just chalk it up to your twisted imagination.Spoiler
Winnie the Pooh by Sneak.
Fishing by Dr. Bath.
-
2010-02-03, 02:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
I would say most. I think we get a disproportionate amount of PF hate on boards by their nature.
This is because, in my experience, most of the people who hate PF do so for one of 2 reasons.
1. "Those jerks at paizo don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground and when I tried to explain how 3.5/their beta was broken they flamed me!"
or
2. "PF made (my favorite class/race/thing) too weak/strong and I hate the change."
#1 is true enough, and does involve a reasonable # of the most active forum posters, but not a large % of the overall gaming public
#2 is an opinion and as such is fair. But again, I think few people who otherwise enjoy 3.5 would be unable to have fun in a game using Paizo rules. It really isn't much different from any other set of 3.5 houserules. I mean, if I sat down at a game of 3.5 and they told me that all the druids use the shapeshift variant, I would frown, make a mental note, and play something that wasn't a druid and have fun. Paizo's changes are minor enough that you have to really loathe one of them to not like a game because of it if you are a 3.5 player. Most of the PF games I have played in could have been 3.5 games with rebound books and it wouldn't have altered play at all.
True, but fewer every year. Books are lost and can't be replaced. Players find new hobbies and few new players decide on their own they want to play OWoD or 2nd ed. Few games at cons use out of print systems, and less every year. Good games don't die, but they fade away.Last edited by Gnaeus; 2010-02-03 at 03:00 PM.
-
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Bronx, NY
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
Yes, if the DM remembers the rule.
How many BAB progressions for monster types do you have memorized?
As for 5 seconds, I am good with stat blocks. Really good. From comments by others, I have to say I am quite "fast" at doing up stat blocks.
Changing BAB changes:
BAB entry
CMB entry
CMD entry
every separate attack entry
For extended stat blocks, it also changes every spell entry requiring an attack roll.
Fast as I will say I am, it takes me a bit more than 5 seconds to change that many entries.
Compound that through every other change with every other creature, and it becomes a significant chore to convert an adventure using anything but SRD creatures. (For which you just look up the new version.)
-
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: Pathfinder Question
Just use the bits from PF you like and ditch what you don't like. It's that simple. Consider if Unearthed Arcana mark 2. It's a great supplement/splat book with lots of alternative class features for the base classes, effectively.
-
2010-02-03, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Indiana
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
-
2010-02-03, 03:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Pathfinder Question
But you have no idea how many players there are, how many people continue to play, or how many do indeed hate each other. You can't say most because you haven't spoken to most. There is an outspoken minority who hates, a quiet minority who likes, and an overwhelming amount of "Just doesn't give a damn". By saying most, you're giving an opinion, not a fact. By saying some, you're at least correct for the 99.99% of the time that the proportion isn't 0% or 100%*.
*Note: UglyPanda's opinions may or may not be grounded in the basis of reality. Proceed with caution.Avatar by Serpentine
If, at any point, I write something that appears humorous, just chalk it up to your twisted imagination.Spoiler
Winnie the Pooh by Sneak.
Fishing by Dr. Bath.
-
2010-02-03, 03:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Indiana
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
"Courage is the complement of fear. A fearless man cannot be courageous. He is also a fool." -- Robert Heinlein
-
2010-02-03, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
-
2010-02-03, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: Pathfinder Question
But the good news is, it doesn't cost the Atonement cleric xp to return your class anymore (just lots of money) so if you do happen to breach, you can easily retrieve your abilities again (unless your party cleric is doing something funky).
The true limitation of the paladin class: forcing the rest of your party to build around keeping your high maintenance arse active.
-
2010-02-03, 03:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
-
2010-02-03, 03:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
What? Over 90% of the spells were completely unchanged at all. Those that were were not really fixed by any definition of the word.
Nope, no real power change here.
Familiars are quick and cheap to replace, though, so charging a touch spell on a toad and using him as a softball is now viable.Last edited by Tyndmyr; 2010-02-03 at 03:45 PM.
-
2010-02-03, 04:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Over the Rainbow
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
And group #3, "When WotC asked me to retire my 3.5 books, I politely told them, No Thanks. When Paizo, asks me to do the same, I tell them exact same thing." If the entire game group all has to buy new player's handbooks in order to use the system, then it is too different for me. They can have my 3.5 PHB when they take it from my cold undead hands.
EDIT: Actually, I don't mean hate. More like, disappointed.Last edited by pres_man; 2010-02-03 at 04:54 PM.
Definition of DMPC:
1: a character that if it was run by a non-DM would be considered a PC; a special kind of Ally (see p. 104 of the 3.5 DMG)
2: (derogatory) any character used by a DM that disrupts the game
Need to replace those core 3.5 books, check out Gauric Myths.
-
2010-02-03, 04:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
-
2010-02-03, 04:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
I guess my problem with Pathfinder is that I can come up with nifty house rules myself, but what's hard to do is actually balance the classes. I would LOVE to see a 3.5 that was actually balanced, where casters didn't become gods around level 10 and could still play with melees and skillmonkeys at that level, and where any concept that a player might have can be played with any other concept without one of them being too strong and the other too weak.
But Pathfinder didn't actually rebalance in a good way. Sure, they hit Druids, but they needed to do a LOT more, and they needed to not nerf Fighters or buff Wizards. If they had actually gone through the entire spell list and rebalanced it, and had fixed up some of the weaker classes, I might have gone for it.
Plus, if that's all they'd done then preexisting campaigns would still work and it would actually be backwards compatable.
Instead, PF is full of little changes that are in some cases nifty, but have the overall effect of requiring more work for the DM to adapt things and don't tend to have a significant positive change on gameplay. In the end, I'd rather just play a bunch of more balanced non core classes in my party and use the standard 3.5 rules.
JaronK
-
2010-02-03, 04:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
Riiiiiight. I wouldn't bother converting stat blocks unless I was going to publish it. You either go "golems. Oh yeah. BAB adjustment +3" and apply a +whatever buff in combat. Or you forget AND NO ONE EVER NOTICES. It is really very simple. I cannot tell you how shocked I would be if my players were fighting a stone golem and someone watched me roll the dice and say what AC I hit and actually realized that I had forgotten to make the BAB change. If they did notice a discrepancy, they would probably just chalk it up to a DM modification to the monster.
-
2010-02-03, 04:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Atlanta, Georgia
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
I can say most, and I did say most, based on practical observation and logic. It IS an opinion, although it is a lot better than yours, because my point that "Most people who play PF would play and enjoy 3.5, and vice versa" is directly backed up by your comment that "an overwhelming amount of [players] "Just doesn't give a damn"". The casual majority of players would barely notice the rules changes, or only the most obvious ones like "Rogues get d8s now. Neat."
-
2010-02-03, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
-
2010-02-03, 04:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
-
2010-02-03, 05:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Pathfinder Question
When I mean "Don't give a damn", I mean "Refuse to get involved when people argue over Pathfinder".
There are people who would say "Why should I bother learning new rules?" and "If it's barely noticeable, why should I play it?". Simply going by the people who show up in these threads and then saying that one side doesn't count is a very bad way to make an opinion.*
*Note: UglyPanda's opinions may involve full frontal lobotomies. Please consult your doctor before taking UglyPanda seriously.Last edited by UglyPanda; 2010-02-03 at 05:24 PM.
Avatar by Serpentine
If, at any point, I write something that appears humorous, just chalk it up to your twisted imagination.Spoiler
Winnie the Pooh by Sneak.
Fishing by Dr. Bath.
-
2010-02-03, 05:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Gender
-
2010-02-03, 05:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
-
2010-02-03, 05:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Location
- Oregon, USA
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
Ok, I am a bit mystified by the its too hard to change stuff. I can buy that monster's can be hard to change (though not the CMB: BA+STR+size. really? that's hard? Unless it has an ability that says it is different, or unless it has Monk levels, its the creature's grapple mod!), but most of the class stuff from other classes seems to be just a matter of spending your new, spiffy skill points on more things, and possibly spicing up some of the weaker classes that now seem bland by comparison.
Dunno, though, I'm coming from a player perspective, and from my primary GM using a lot more Character antagonists than Monster encounters, so maybe my thinking is biased. [edit: also from a theoretical perspective, since we haven't started playing under PF yet. Which is why I'm trying to keep an open mind to potential faults/challenges)
RE Paladin: Houserule: only egregious/consistent violations result in Paladin Fall
Tada! Enjoy your new, improved, Paladin, with cool abilities and an alternate for his mount. :PLast edited by Susano-wo; 2010-02-03 at 07:04 PM.
-
2010-02-03, 05:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
Not true. Just because the wording has changed on the Paladin falling rules doesn't mean that any violation is going to lead to your fall. Falling from paladinhood was mostly a DM thing to begin with, and there are 3.5 DMs that would make you fall for stupid reasons. No matter what the book says, whether you fall or not is going to be based on your DM's whims.
I don't see why people make such a big deal out of that change - I don't think it was even meant to be a change to begin with.
-
2010-02-03, 05:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Over the Rainbow
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
Definition of DMPC:
1: a character that if it was run by a non-DM would be considered a PC; a special kind of Ally (see p. 104 of the 3.5 DMG)
2: (derogatory) any character used by a DM that disrupts the game
Need to replace those core 3.5 books, check out Gauric Myths.
-
2010-02-03, 05:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
-
2010-02-03, 05:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
-
2010-02-03, 06:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
There is a difference between houseruling and going by the spirit of the rules rather than the intention. If you go RAW, both 3.5 and Pathfinder are pretty much unplayable.
All I'm saying is if you're going to disregard the entire system because of one rule (or rather, an unfavorable interpretation of one rule) you don't like, I wonder how you're able to bring yourself to play 3.5 in the first place.Last edited by Rixx; 2010-02-03 at 06:19 PM.
-
2010-02-03, 06:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
- Gender
Re: Pathfinder Question
People that say wizards and sorcerers got stronger in Pathfinder haven't read the rules, simple as that. Yes, they did get a lot of class features that help them out, for example in the lower levels when spells are scarce and they needed help, and i that regard they've gotten stronger. But grossly overpowered spells on every level got nerfed and that was the biggest problem they had.
Arcane spellcasters aren't as good as they were, although they are still probably the strongest classes. Druids and clerics got knocked down a peg in some areas, you wont see CoDzilla any more. All the other classes got improvements, and most importantly to me, the ability to customize themselves without having to go through hundreds and hundreds of prestige classes. Every class is viable for the whole 20 levels.
Pathfinder didn't balance classes perfectly, but to do that you'd have to change the system in such a way that it wouldn't be recognizable as a 3.5 derivative any longer which is one of it's main selling points.
The turn to Pathfinder was a great one for me, since I don't like to go through a library of books every time I play the games. The core pathfinder rules are very solid and should keep you entertained for a long time, but if you want to bring stuff over from 3.5 you will probably have to houserule it a bit before implementing it. There is more stuff on the way, including the Advanced Player's Guide which will feature 6 new classes which you can check out on their homepage.Last edited by Ellington; 2010-02-03 at 06:27 PM.
T'ain't what you do.