First off, let me say this thread is much, much more constructive than a lot of the debates I've seen on this issue. People are most certainly being excellent to each other most of the time.
Yeah, we all seem to realize that the real enemy is the Palladium players and not each other.
The only other thing I wanted to say is this: I just don't get what people are so concerned about with the 3.5 grappling rules. It doesn't even begin to compare to the headaches wildshape can give everyone at the table. Even a 1st level Cleric has to know at least 20 to 30 spells quite well if he wants to make an educated decision on what spells to memorize each day. A summoner needs to know his stuff excellently or risk his most powerful spells summoning a bunch of space-wasters instead of helpful allies. Do you know off the top of your head how actually turning undead (as opposed to spending turn attempts on other stuff) works?
Let me give you my perspective as to why. You say a 1st level Cleric has to know 20-30 spells to intelligently decide what spells to know etc. - I disagree.
A cleric player needs to have the ability to read over the summary list of spells to see which ones jump out at him as being potentially viable, then quickly read through them to see if they are and even then, probably 80% of them will always be memorized each and every day. Call them his bread and butter spells. The only time he'll need to decide on new ones is when he gains levels, which means glancing over the spells he's already glanced over (if he hasn't gained a new spell level) or over the relatively short list of new spells of a new spell level. Thus, the only ability required is to glance over a summary list and decide which ones to research.
Sure, the cleric player could and probably should read over each and every spell available to them, but this is by no means required, in any edition.
But grappling? Sure the fighter/monk who specializes in grappling needs to know those rules as does the DM. But the cleric or wizard who have no interest in grappling had better learn it in about 30 seconds for when a monster grabs 'em...or hope their memory of it from reading the rules on grappling from last campaign are accurate. And hope that everyone remembers the rules the same way, because otherwise I guarantee you one person (and that's all it takes) to remember it differently for the game to grind to a halt while people feverishly flip through the book hoping for a way to save the aformentioned wizard.
In other words, no player is safe from having to know the grapple rules, but non-cleric players don't need to know the cleric spells available - that's the cleric player's job.
Thus, the grapple rules should, in my opinion, be as streamlined, simple, and unambiguous as possible because knowing, like red and blue lasers, is half the battle.
As a DM, these things are my daily bread and butter. Whole spell lists, dozens of monsters, feat chains, skill uses, attack of opportunity rules and slews of other rules stuff must be available in my brain all the time when we game. So the grapple rules are kinda complicated in 3.5? Dude, that's like 0.1 percent of the rules complexity I'm expected to master just to fulfill my everyday responsibilities as a DM. I couldn't care less for streamlined rules in this one department.
That .1% seems to come up in our games a bit more than any specific feat/spell/skill in the game, nevermind if it's a rarely used feat/spell/skill. Let's face it, pick a campaign. A majority of the spells/feats/skills that are selected by the players are the exact same ones selected by the players in the last campaign. And the campaign before that. And the campaign before that. And in the next campaign. It's not like you need to memorize every single possible one, only the ones that are new for you. And only the player using them needs to know that, plus the DM.
But grappling? Everyone. On top of AoOs. And actions. And special attacks. And so on. And that's just combat.
Here's another fun .1% of the rules - counterspelling. I guarantee you that none of us know how it works (ok, I do because I made a counterspeller) but no one else does because it's not relevant
to them, unlike grappling.
That .1% of text equates to more than .1% of game time, in my experience. Given that, I don't feel like I'm asking a lot by asking for them to be easier to use.
It's been a long time since I had to read my grapple rules - but I do make a point of rereading rules over and over again. Basically, when I've finished reading through all my rulebooks, I start over again on a regular basis.
I apologize for breaking your paragraph up here, but let me stop you. I can say this with perfect confidence.
No one in my group, including myself with 25 years of gaming experience going back to 1e, the most experienced player with 23 years of gaming experience going back to 1e, to the least experienced player with 8 years of experience starting at the beginning of 3.5 read the entirety of the rules ad infinitum.
We don't have time. Real life doesn't permit this for us. Not even close. I'm the only who spends any time at all looking at any rpg forum, the only one who reads any of the pathfinder/3.5 books outside of our game sessions and that's only because I'm the DM. And I envy them.
We get together to have fun, to socialize, and to have fun and socialize. It is but only a small part of our lives, and for the most part, the only time we all come together at the same time as a group.
Because of this, yeah, I want the grappling rules streamlined. I'd rather spend time playing instead of fighting the rules to have fun.
Did Pathfinder lessen my workload in a perceptible way? Unh-unh. Maybe I could save myself a percent of effort here or there - after investing the time necessary to familiarize myself with every minute rules change that will throw me off. But nothing on the scale that would make this investment worthwhile.
I hear you and would agree that Pathfinder doesn't lessen the workload for a player or DM, compared to 3.x.
However, we've found that it doesn't increase it either and it had enough that appealed to us to warrant the switch.
But certainly, I would say that if what's in it doesn't have enough appeal, you are *not* losing anything by sticking with 3.x.
So for my own DMing needs, I'll stay 3.5. For me, Pathfinder might as well not exist. You know what the big difference between this rules change and the 3.0/3.5 startover is? When 3.5 came out, there wasn't that much 3.0 material that became invalidated, and you basically had to go along and make the change to 3.5 if you wanted new material. However, after years and years of 3.5, there's enough material there to keep me busy for decades. Pathfinder just doesn't have anything to offer me.
As I glance over my substantial 3.x library, I realize that exactly the same amount of materials that 3.5 invalidated were invalidated by Pathfinder, which is to say none.
I'm not dissing the system, I'm dissing the misconception that it was necessary to publish it at all.
Oh, I'd say it was very necessary to Paizo for it to be published, due to the nature of their business model.
I think the real issue is whether or not there's a compelling reason for a group to switch to it - and I think on that, we both agree that there isn't, because people can have fun with either set of rules.
And to me, that's the only criteria that matters.
).
