D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
I'm not sure about that. The classes themselves have gotten a lot more interesting, but their spell lists are far less impressive than they used to be. A lot of the good old fashioned YOU LOSE LOL spells got taken down a peg. It's a lot more viable to play non-casters in Pathfinder than it ever was in 3.5.
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancellation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be foreshadowing this. Almost every one that was involved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They either went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
.
Just because a game is "dead" (a statement I don't agree with. A game isn't really dead until almost nobody plays it anymore.) doesn't mean the game isn't a totally viable option. It also doesn't mean Pathfinder is the best option.
I think 4th edition is going to last longer than you seem to think. It's a pretty good edition. It has flaws yes but so does 3.5
I'm not going to comment on Pathfinder other than to say if you think it looks good go for it.
This is a silly statement.
3.5 isn't dead or about to die.
I look at the book stores and there's no horde of 2nd hand 3.5 stuff out there.
Hell, 2nd Ed isn't dead, and that's been out of print for ages.
Stephen E
I have a standing order at most local used book stores to immediately call me if any roleplaying books come in. It's surprisingly rare, tbh, and it's usually crap. The only time I've seen ANY 3.x books come in, it was a remarkably beat up 3.0 phb.
3.5 is definitely not dead.
Pathfinder is alright, and if you enjoy 3.5, you'll probably enjoy it too. It is 90% the same, after all. On the flip side, all the promises of improved balance turned out to be pretty much blatant lies.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
D&D 3.5 is dead, and 4th ed is not going to last much longer. The cancelation of Star Wars SAGA looks to be forshadowing this. Almost every one that was invalved with D&D 3rd ed has jumped ship. They eather went on their own or work for Pathfinder. It's not 'just a bunch of house rules'. It's more like what 4th edition could have been.
Forshadowing what exactly? How does them canceling a not even close to flagship branch that costs them alot more money to run (due in part to additonal money being sent to Lucasarts) relate in any way, shape or form to them canceling one of their biggest income sources?
That sounds more like wishful thinking than anything else
Well, yes. It's true that everything can be converted, and doing so is easier than converting to 4e, but that's not saying much.
For example, tripping, grappling, skills, etc all changed. This means that every single monster requires significant rework for this alone. Not terribly hard rework, sure, but awfully tedious.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
On the flip side, all the promises of improved balance turned out to be pretty much blatant lies.
That's a bit of a shame. I was under the impression they had done a lot for the game in that department. Give the spellcasters some pretty looking toys, but put a rubber tip on the real killers (save or lose spells) and call it a day.
For example, tripping, grappling, skills, etc all changed. This means that every single monster requires significant rework for this alone. Not terribly hard rework, sure, but awfully tedious.
All you really have to do is calculate their CMB and CMD - and for Medium creatures, the CMB is going to be the same as the Grapple modifier from 3.5. 9 times out of 10, the CMD is just Touch AC + CMB. Not really tedious, unless you go through your monster books and convert all of them at once.
That's a bit of a shame. I was under the impression they had done a lot for the game in that department. Give the spellcasters some pretty looking toys, but put a rubber tip on the real killers (save or lose spells) and call it a day.
Grease is min/level now, instead of rounds/level, making it rather amusing in long fights.
Casters have d6 hp base, and it's easy to stack another hp a level on top of that via the new favored class mechanism. Thus, while melee do have a few more damage dealing options, it's essentially entirely canceled out by increased hit points, and casters have lost their main flaw...being weak at low levels. Infinite cantrips, more hp, special abilities, being able to caster from your barred schools, and core item familiars all combine to make casters better from even the earliest levels.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
All you really have to do is calculate their CMB and CMD - and for Medium creatures, the CMB is going to be the same as the Grapple modifier from 3.5. 9 times out of 10, the CMD is just Touch AC + CMB. Not really tedious, unless you go through your monster books and convert all of them at once.
I use a fair number of non-medium monsters. It's also not unusual for me to use several types of monsters in a single night...sometimes in a single fight. So, if Im going through half a dozen monsters before every night, that's a significant amount of added prep work. As you said, it's not usually hard to figure out what they should be, but it is annoying.
And that still leaves the issue of skills, which have to be converted to the new system as well. This is particularly fun when converting over monsters with class levels, such as dragons.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
I'm playing a Pathfinder game at the moment. The link in my sig's the result.
Generally I'd say core Pathfinder is an improvement on core 3.5. The classes are more interesting, skills work better, and some of the more obviously annoying things like Polymorph got fixed.
Where things get more difficult is if you're comparing it to all-books 3.5. Then it's more of a judgement call.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
The wizards/sorcs being buffed thing kinda annoys me. Almost all the main powerhouse spells got nerfed. Yes they got some more (mostly pointless) class features, but the thing that made them so good is not nearly as strong.
As for tweaked classes I like the new paladin and ranger a lot. Fighter still feels bleh, although it is decent. The number bump is ok. Barbarian feels odd to play. It is nice that the rages temporary hit points are free hit points and you don't die when rage drops.
Monk still sucks, rogues have a few neat new tricks, and druid got nerfed fairly strongly.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alabenson
Evil Intelligence is knowing the precise ritual that will allow you to destroy the peaceful kingdom that banished you.
Evil Wisdom is understanding that you probably shouldn’t perform said ritual while you’re standing in the estimated blast radius.
The wizards/sorcs being buffed thing kinda annoys me. Almost all the main powerhouse spells got nerfed. Yes they got some more (mostly pointless) class features, but the thing that made them so good is not nearly as strong.
As for tweaked classes I like the new paladin and ranger a lot. Fighter still feels bleh, although it is decent. The number bump is ok. Barbarian feels odd to play. It is nice that the rages temporary hit points are free hit points and you don't die when rage drops.
Monk still sucks, rogues have a few neat new tricks, and druid got nerfed fairly strongly.
While some spells were nerfed there seems to remain many good options and to a degree with the removal of some relatively absolute protections the applicable spells have become better choices.
Direct damage on the other hand seems to have been nerfed due to the increase in HP.
Direct damage on the other hand seems to have been nerfed due to the increase in HP.
Monster HP hasn't increased that I can see. I've found direct damage reasonably effective so far.
__________________
I'm the author of the Alex Verus urban fantasy novels. Book #3 in the series, Taken, is now out in the US and UK! For updates, check my blog or the forum thread.
Depends on the person. I'm happy that my Favorite class now has a option to take a domain from the core class rather than having to ACF/Variant/Houserule it.
Still stuck with that lump called wild shape though.
Likewise I've never had any issue (or has anyone that I've played with) with monks - PF just gives you some different options to play with.
The addition to Sorcerers is very nice, while spells may be good so is having actual class features
__________________
Thankyou to NEOPhyte for the Techpriest Engiseer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_G
Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build.
On a Semi-Related note, we had a Summoner in the campaign the other day. My skull kind of imploded from the sheer alarm of how powerful the Eidelon (or whatever it's called) was.
I will lend my support to skepticism regarding spellcaster HP, I think that was kind of a bad call rooted in Paizo trying to give everyone new toys. If I could change one thing, it'd be to move spellcaster HP down to its original. That just felt frivolous.
Monster HP hasn't increased that I can see. I've found direct damage reasonably effective so far.
I agree that I have not noticed an increase in basic monster HP overall, however things with class levels would seem to have higher HP overall. This would be a small change but it would be a change. Though not having taken an average for HP by CR I suppose monster HP could have gone down to balance this out.
As a general rule I find that going from 3.5 to Pathfinder is the same as going from 3.0 to 3.5 - a lot of little changes that, overall, make the game more enjoyable for me. If the original design goals were to fix the caster/melee balance issues in 3.5 then they failed, but I think that's just something you have to live with given the underlying assumptions of the game.
EDIT: And yes, summoners are currently broken as all hell.
__________________
I write a gaming blog. It also hosts my gaming downloads:
Fatescape - FATE-based D&D emulator, for when you want D&D flavour but not D&D complexity. Exalted Mass Combat Rules - Because the ones in the core book suck.
Last edited by potatocubed : 02-02-2010 at 02:47 AM.
I use a fair number of non-medium monsters. It's also not unusual for me to use several types of monsters in a single night...sometimes in a single fight. So, if Im going through half a dozen monsters before every night, that's a significant amount of added prep work. As you said, it's not usually hard to figure out what they should be, but it is annoying.
And that still leaves the issue of skills, which have to be converted to the new system as well. This is particularly fun when converting over monsters with class levels, such as dragons.
And then there are feats, if the creature has more than 3 HD.
And then there more subtle changes.
Constructs in PFRPG have full BAB, not 3/4.
Primary and secondary attack distinctions have changed. Because of that, multiattack has disappeared from some monsters, like troglodytes. While the first change makes them theoretically stronger, the second change makes them functionally weaker with many write ups where they have a one handed weapon and back it up with a bite and claw.
Orcs with ferocity I mentioned once before.
Altogether, it seems there are dozens of little traps like that spread throughout the rules make compatability barely above marginal, and pretty much means a near full rewrite of anything non-standard, or not in the SRD.
Why do folks assume you have to convert everything if you want to use anything? If you have one or fifty or a thousand supplements, you still only have to convert the things people actually want to use, which is a much smaller number of things than 'all of it.' And a lot of the conversions amount to 'go ahead.'
Sorry if my post wasn't as clear as it could have been. I was not trying to imply that one would convert everything. Instead I meant that each thing that was converted (and used) would make the effort not worth it in the long run.
__________________
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.
Good point, I hadn't even realized this was a change. I know most of the other ones, but yeah...it's all the annoying little details.
It doesn't require the kind of subjectivity that say, changing something from 3 to 4 would, but it still eats a lot of time in tracking down minor changes.
My biggest beef with PF is that it mainly is a lot of minor changes. It would have been better published as an Unearthed Arcana style book, with variant rules of play, making it easier for people to pick and choose which they like. After all, some of the changes are nifty...but when 90% of stuff is the same, it's often annoyingly hard to find the changes.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
I disagree Tyndmyr. I will admit that for US an unearthed arcana style book might be better. But the biggest benefit of Pathfinder is that it allows new players to enter what is essentially the 3.5 market, since actual 3.5 books aren't being published or promoted. It keeps games in what is predominantly a 3.5 format in cons and gaming stores. It keeps D&D alive. (I personally do not regard 4.0 as D&D, or groups playing it as sharing my hobby).
For that, despite its many problems, I have to be a PF fan.
I disagree Tyndmyr. I will admit that for US an unearthed arcana style book might be better. But the biggest benefit of Pathfinder is that it allows new players to enter what is essentially the 3.5 market, since actual 3.5 books aren't being published or promoted. It keeps games in what is predominantly a 3.5 format in cons and gaming stores. It keeps D&D alive. (I personally do not regard 4.0 as D&D, or groups playing it as sharing my hobby).
For that, despite its many problems, I have to be a PF fan.
Except a PF core book is not playable within a 3.5 game, thus it is not keeping 3.5 format alive. It is further splitting the 3.5 player base. If PF had just done a strict reprint plus all the added details that weren't open content (xp, wealth by level, character creation rules, etc), then I would have been a PF fan since I could have dropped a PF core book in my 3.5 game with little more than a ripple. As it is, not so much.
EDIT: As a comparison. Would anyone rationally claim that 3.5 helped keep 3e going strong? Or would most people agree that 3.5 was the last nail for 3e?
__________________
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.
Honestly? It just isn't worth the money. I like a lot of the things they've done, but if you're looking to change some stuff in your own campaign, just import the rules from the pathfinder srd and be done with it.
I'll try and stay away from my play experiences with pathfinder because they've all been quite negative as a result of who I've been playing with. To give you an example, the guy I know who always wants to play pathfinder? Of course he's playing a summoner with an Eidelon. My poor, poor sword and board fighter.
Anyways, I figure I'd have just as much fun playing pathfinder with any specific group as I would playing 3.5 with that group. I just can't recommend anyone actually spend the money on it.
EDIT: As a comparison. Would anyone rationally claim that 3.5 helped keep 3e going strong? Or would most people agree that 3.5 was the last nail for 3e?
3.5 mostly replaced 3.0. Very few games claim to be 3.0 now, though plenty of 3.5 games make use of 3.0 material to some extent.
The 3.5 -> pf conversion is more involved than 3.0, so that may change things.
Still...PF is better than 4th.
__________________
Have been sick, off forums for like...a month and a half. Apologies for anything I've missed, still in catch-up mode.
"World domination is such an ugly phrase. I prefer to call it world optimization."
I just can't recommend anyone actually spend the money on it.
I can. If some group is coming in totally fresh, looked at 4e and decided it wasn't for them, I would suggest they pick up PF. Now I wouldn't recommend anyone playing 3.5 "upgrade" to it, but for someone that hasn't started playing 3.5 (has no investment in 3.5), sure go for PF.
__________________
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.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Pathfinder Question
The DM I was going to play a game in lied to me then.
(honestly, the way the oath is worded that's sort of what it sounds like)
