(Suspended) OOC 3.5 Eberron Shipwrecked Campaign

[doghead]

There does seem to be a significant level of resistance to using 3.5 among those who have taken up Pathfinder, despite the fact that the two systems are relatively similar.

I don't mind which system you choose.

If you do go with PF, I would definitely recommend sticking to the core rules only. Use the Paizo SRD rather than the D20PF SRD. The Paizo SRD divides the rules up by book, making it simple to separate the Core rules. The D20PF SRD incorporates everything, including 3rd party material in one big resource.

You might also try adding "Recruiting" or something similar into the thread title. You would think that it's obvious, but it may help.

Thats about all I have got.

thotd

 

[airwalkrr]

Okay, I have added "Recruiting!" to the thread title. We'll see if that grabs anyone's attention.

There is a certain level of edition snobbery with regards to both PF and 4e these days. I have noticed many folks feel one edition or the other is vastly superior and going back to 3e is somehow going to ruin the game. I don't happen to think either is a horrible game. But 3.5 is a good, solid game and it is what I am comfortable running. I have played both PF and 4e and don't particularly mind playing either. But when it comes to running a game I prefer 3.5. I am aware of all the ways the game can be broken (as every game can) and I know how to handle them effectively. I feel like running PF would put me too much on the defensive as I haven't made a concerted effort to keep up with it. Plus I would have to convert all my ready-made Eberron stuff to PF. As much as Paizo claims the rules are compatible, they changed just enough to make conversion a headache. It isn't like I can take a stat block, change up one or two things, and be good to go. On top of that, not all 3.5 mechanics play nicely with PF mechanics. There would be several pages of errata I would have to do to make Just the Eberron Campaign Setting compatible. I don't care to do that.

 

[Scott DeWar]

perhaps i could convince you to hybridize with the following:

1 cmb/cmb
2 core class level features with variances for the scorcerer
3 stealth/perception

just 3 little thing.

 

[airwalkrr]

I have little to no problem with hybridizing CMB/CMD. It is actually almost exactly the way I argued WotC should have done things with 3e for literally years on the WotC forums (and a few times on this site as well). A unified mechanic for tactical maneuvers is pretty easy to do as well. It only requires the addition of one thing to every stat block, which is easily derived.

As for sorcerer class features, the sorcerer is a powerful enough class. I never felt it could use much of anything except perhaps getting a couple extra class skills, but the class is fine the way it is. I also don't want to single out classes like that for updates. The PF sorcerer is immensely more powerful than the 3.5 sorcerer. Taken in context with the rest of PF (which made every class more powerful), this isn't a big deal. But when sorcerer is already a high power tier class, I don't feel like it is really appropriate. The dead level changes from this article are probably as far as I would be willing to go for class changes.

I am also pretty well on board with the condensation of most skills (except the addition of the blighted fly skill), but not the skill system or mechanics themselves. I am not particularly fond of Perception allowing anyone to find traps (I understand rogues are better at it in PF and get an auto-spot, but that isn't enough for me). Nor do I like the easy identification of potions. So perhaps we could go with the PF condensations of skills, but still use the 3.5 skill mechanics. Even that has caused me problems in the past though, as some people seem to need constant reminders of which skills are which (usually people who haven't played PF). I actually think 4e condensation of skills was the best. I like how small and simple their skill list was. But 4e is a very different system so that would be harder to implement.

Ultimately, my problem with hybridizing PF with 3.5 is that everyone has their own opinion of what makes 3.5 good or what makes PF good. Your list of three little changes is probably different from every other PF player's list. Some people might be happy with your list, but not feel it is ideal, whereas others might feel like your list misses the whole point for of PF. So it is simplest to just do one system or the other. I am still on the fence about PF, but leaning towards 3.5.

 

[Graybeard]

I am not partial to either 3.5 or Pathfinder. I have played enough of both to have likes and dislikes in both systems. In some respects I do like the smaller skill list in Pathfinder. I never understood why they needed to add a Fly skill. In my opinion, if you have the ability to fly either naturally or via magic, then unless you are trying to do combat maneuvers, then you don't need a Fly skill. Even if you wanted to do aerial combat, just use the CMB and CMD.

 

[Scott DeWar]

I like that you are rewarded with a +3 for class skills instead of penalized with 1/2 point [accounting nightmare] point penalties along with the removal of the X 4 skill point modifier at first level that was countered with the aforementioned +3 to each class skill.

 

[airwalkrr]

I also like getting rid of the half-point limitation. But I feel the "accounting nightmare" is easily solved by allowing cross class skills to cost only one point per rank but having them subject to the normal limit of (level + 3) / 2. Most skills are still useful even at half the maximum ranks. I do as much in my current tabletop campaign and would have no problem allowing this as a house rule.

 

[Scott DeWar]

1/2 max is indicative of "not class",. You mentioned nixing fly skill, no argument here. People in general should have a chance to find a trap, imho.

 

[airwalkrr]

How many traps and how frequently they occur in my campaign will be dependent upon how well the party can manage them. If you don't have anyone with trapfinding, I won't make them a big part of the campaign. So you don't need to worry about that.

I don't intend to have a massive list of house rules. I will pick a system and go with it, perhaps making a few small adjustments. So I am not likely to be receptive to dissecting each and every rule of the game. It is easier on players when they can rely upon the mechanics in the book for 99% of circumstances.

At any rate, I am not yet ready to begin this campaign and only three players have thus far expressed interest. It may be a month or more before I am ready to begin. If using PF is a way to get more players, I may be open to it, but rules will be limited to the core rulebook.

 

[airwalkrr]

I feel pretty much the same as Graybeard. The main reason I prefer 3.5 is because I am more proficient with the tools of 3.5 and Eberron was written for 3.5, not PF. If I were doing a homebrew world, I would have less of an issue doing PF, as I could come up with everything as we went along. But I really like Eberron. And I have a lot of Eberron books with ready-made stats, ideas, and backgrounds (not to mention my own materials) which all have an assumption of 3.5 mechanics underlying the world.