Pathfinder 1E Power and Pathfinder Classes - Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[GMforPowergamers]

There're items called Nightsticks that let you get extra turning attempts.

thank you that was it...libas mortas I think now that you say that

--you won't see many Warmages or Beguilers called broken.

see that is a big problem in and of itself...they 'upped the core books to meet the later power creep classes' but the wizard and druid and cleric were more powerful then later 'powercreep' classes...so by giving wizard more class fetures as they level they destroy those classes...



what was wrong with just keeping the 3.5 books mostly as is, then we could keep 3.5 alive...as advertised

 

[Betote]

WOW...ok so you guys don't want to sell me at all on this...you just want me to change not only my, but my whole extened groups play stlye...
Just WOW..

I don't want you to do any of that. Why would I? The way you play doesn't affect me in the slightest. I just pointed to a fix for a problem you said you had.

I have NEVER played core only ANYTHING...EVER. I own every single WotC 3.5 book, and I do not Ban them...I have had problems, but theyy self correct overtime. I very rarely see the same player use the smae trick twice, becuse we pride ourselves on making new characters, so Core only gets old fast...

I want to see 3.5 kept alive...NOT just someone else take on 4e...

I want my and matts investment in EVEERY WotC book to be useful WITHOUT BANING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then you'll be happy with Pathfinder. What was overpowered in the splats, will most likely be overpowered now, but you didn't have a problem with it earlier, so it shouldn't bother you.

What I was saying is, you can't expect Paizo to fix Complete Badass, but I assure you that, at least in the Beta, Pathfinder supports using Complete Badass as well as D&D 3.x did.

I don't want to have to go through and modfy books that should work with the system, I want to save that work for homebrew and 3pp (Like mongoose that takes aot of work)

So please if you think our play styl is wrong keep it to your self...How hard is it to say I WANT MY 3.5 BOOKS TO STILL BE USEABLE...

Here you assume that WotC splats weren't unbalanced, where you yourself have pointed to great imbalances created by those same splats. I can't follow you.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

GM, I'm not quite sure why you keep asking to be "sold on Pathfinder" when you've made it very clear that Paizo could come to your house every day and give you free donuts and you'd still hate them.

Your entire argument right now seems to be "Well I hate everything about 3.5, so why should I like Pathfinder?" (Only with a hell of a lot more spealing an graamar errors, I mean oh god I'm not one to nitpick but come on it's a bit much). So here's your answer: you won't. I know you don't like that answer as you can no longer argue about things you clearly don't want to actually see the other opinions about, but there you go. Pathfinder is not for you. You hate 3.5 and everything about it. You're going out of your way to attack Paizo for things they cannot in any way control. You refuse to be sold the game, and you keep mentioning that on every damn thread Paizo's name sticks up.

We get it.

Move on.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

deleted for completeness

Now, that's harsh!

 

[GlassJaw]

Now, that's harsh!

That's not harsh, that's just getting Wulfed.

Paizo could come to your house every day and give you free donuts and you'd still hate them.

If the donuts had coconut on them, I'd hate them too.

 

[smug]

My simple rule of thumb on backwards compatibility is that it should be no more difficult to master than spelling and grammar.

Heh

 

[Betote]

My simple rule of thumb on backwards compatibility is that it should be no more difficult to master than spelling and grammar.

I think GM's hat of Piazo knows no limit...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

GM, I'm not quite sure why you keep asking to be "sold on Pathfinder" when you've made it very clear that Paizo could come to your house every day and give you free donuts and you'd still hate them.

no i would love them...but I still may not like there products..

Your entire argument right now seems to be "Well I hate everything about 3.5, so why should I like Pathfinder?"

then you are not reading my posts... or maybe

(Only with a hell of a lot more spealing an graamar errors, I mean oh god I'm not one to nitpick but come on it's a bit much).

my bad spelling and gramar may make you unable to see the truth here so let me spell it out simpley


I LOVE AND STILL PLAY 3.5 D&D...
I am currently in a 15th level game were I am a monk/warlock/arcanefist and my race is from book of vile darkness the evil humans but I can't spell the name (Begins with a V)
We also have a fighter/Rouge/Ranger/Psi warrior/Warblade in our party who is an elan
another players is a Elf Wizard/Loremaster/Archmage
another is a Cleric/Wizard/Mystic thurge
and finaly we have a half vampire Soulknife/ardent

So here's your answer: you won't. I know you don't like that answer as you can no longer argue about things you clearly don't want to actually see the other opinions about, but there you go. Pathfinder is not for you.

this may be the closest thing you have to a good point...

You hate 3.5 and everything about it.

I am currently working on a 3.5 game based on norse myth were the 'gods' are just powerful mortals of 18+ levels and the PCs will fight beside them...man I must hate that system

You're going out of your way to attack Paizo for things they cannot in any way control. You refuse to be sold the game, and you keep mentioning that on every damn thread Paizo's name sticks up.

did you notice my first post here was to ask a quastion, then the fight started becuse I had the nerve to ask HOW something was fixed...

We get it.

no you don't, maybe some one does, but not you, becuse you seam to think not likeing pathfinder sofar = hating 3.5

 

[Remathilis]

And thus the cycle continues.

Pathfinder is trying to have it both ways. It wants to revel in the vast array of 3e but it also wants to fix 3.5's problems.

I think WotC's own v.3.5 changes should reveal how well that works. If you change the system enough so that the intrinsic problems are fixed (magic vs. nonmagic disparity, high level play, etc) then you have to sacrifice something in compatibility. If you desire to keep the game compatible, you must keep the framework the same or else everything fits awkward and compatibility isn't achieved (akin to running Tomb of Horrors unconverted in 3e, while that can be done in 2e due to the lack of significant change, it doens't work so well in a land of upwards ACs and skill DCs).

Going back to 3.0->3.5, think of the changes made. There was spells rebalanced (harm, hold, haste), classes revised (bard, ranger), racial tweaks (half-elf, dwarf), expanded info (new feats/spells) and revised rules both good (DR) and bad (weapon size). In the end, 3.5 was little more than lipstick on a pig (some tweaks and cosmetic changes, but no radical overhauls) but yet its arrival stopped 3.0 production cold. Few people brought Sword & Fist to 3.5 games, and people clamored until 4e's announcement for a 3.5 Updated Epic Handbook.

3.5 made all 3.0 material (functionally) obsolete. Some stuff could be run with tweaks (modules and monsters mostly) but PC crunch all had to be revised (Hello Complete Warrior, goodbye Sword & Fist) converted by hand, or discarded. Most of the DMs I knew did the first or the last. Many (myself included) didn't allow 3.0 crunch after 3.5's arrival. Even as a DM, I rarely used MM2 because of compatibility headaches.

Pathfinder is the same, but worse. It will change the underpinnings of the game enough to make most crunch obsolete, and the nature of WotC's OGL means much of the crunch produced by them cannot be revised. It leaves two options. Convert or discard.

That is the crux of the matter. Some DMs will be content to convert and capable of doing so. Some will do it well, others will do it poorly. I think many more will be content to discard. It further aggrivated by the notion there will be plenty of fresh 3.5-era crunch (Third Age, Dungeonaday) that isn't Pathfindered. (For good or ill, once 3.5 hit, all 3pp converted to 3.5 to jump on WotC's bandwagon. I don't foresee the same universal acceptance of Pathfinder, though I may be wrong).

Thus, Pathfinder stops looking like a "revision of the 3.5 ruleset" and more like "a new RPG based on the 3.5 ruleset", really no different than Trued20 or Castles & Crusades. I think at that point Pathfinder should have been more honest with itself and really fixed the problems of 3e (something more akin to SAGA in looks) and ditch the notion of "backwards compatible" OR pretty much done a few nip/tucks on glaring 3.5 problems (polymorph, natural spell, sneak attack) and reprinted the SRD pretty much as is. (Which was the original goal: keeping the 3.5 rules in print).

Because by being beholden to two masters (innovation & compatibility) you compromise the best of both.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

3.5 made all 3.0 material (functionally) obsolete. Some stuff could be run with tweaks (modules and monsters mostly) but PC crunch all had to be revised (Hello Complete Warrior, goodbye Sword & Fist) converted by hand, or discarded. Most of the DMs I knew did the first or the last. Many (myself included) didn't allow 3.0 crunch after 3.5's arrival. Even as a DM, I rarely used MM2 because of compatibility headaches.

Pathfinder is the same, but worse. It will change the underpinnings of the game enough to make most crunch obsolete, and the nature of WotC's OGL means much of the crunch produced by them cannot be revised. It leaves two options. Convert or discard.

That is the crux of the matter. Some DMs will be content to convert and capable of doing so. Some will do it well, others will do it poorly. I think many more will be content to discard. It further aggrivated by the notion there will be plenty of fresh 3.5-era crunch (Third Age, Dungeonaday) that isn't Pathfindered. (For good or ill, once 3.5 hit, all 3pp converted to 3.5 to jump on WotC's bandwagon. I don't foresee the same universal acceptance of Pathfinder, though I may be wrong).

Thus, Pathfinder stops looking like a "revision of the 3.5 ruleset" and more like "a new RPG based on the 3.5 ruleset", really no different than Trued20 or Castles & Crusades. I think at that point Pathfinder should have been more honest with itself and really fixed the problems of 3e (something more akin to SAGA in looks) and ditch the notion of "backwards compatible" OR pretty much done a few nip/tucks on glaring 3.5 problems (polymorph, natural spell, sneak attack) and reprinted the SRD pretty much as is. (Which was the original goal: keeping the 3.5 rules in print).

Because by being beholden to two masters (innovation & compatibility) you compromise the best of both.

qft....maybe i just need you t rewrite all of my posts from now on...

Thus, Pathfinder stops looking like a "revision of the 3.5 ruleset" and more like "a new RPG based on the 3.5 ruleset", really no different than Trued20 or Castles & Crusades.

and this is what I was afriad of...if this is true then it IS worthless to me...I have my books for my older systems of D&D I would like to add to them not replace them...