Jack Daniel
Legend
I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?Is that going to be considered 3.875th edition?
I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?Is that going to be considered 3.875th edition?
If I were to have inserted it in my ISO manual id have made it a 3.1. Maybe edition numbering only offers the choice between next whole number for half the distance to the goal???I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?
There were a few critical changes to spells. The cleric buffing spells were nerfed. The duration of statboosting spells were nerfed. Haste (which was super good) was nerfed.I hate that this is how version numbers apparently work in RPGland. Like... everyone knows that "3.5" was basically D&D v3.1, right?
I can kinda see the utility in it for certain kinds of play, but the cost can often be a little hight. I would say that this is one area where PF2 got things right; building NPCs like PC is possible, but not mandatory.I've seen plenty of people I disagree with who LIKE the super complicated "PC/NPCs have same rules" dealios though <_< So even changing that is somewhat controversial depending on who you ask
Yeah. I want a 3.5 clone that lets me use my 3rd edition and Pathfinder material while simplifying and being friendlier for people who haven't played it before (this is necessary because the pool of players is dwindling).I gotta be honest, everytime I read a thread and get interested in thinking about a return to PF1E or D&D 3.5, then a discussion on the finer points of (to use this example) kneeling vs. prone or something grapple related pops up, and a cold chill grips my heart and I realize I'm just fine with PF2E and D&D 5E.
Hopefully despite focus on Corefinder Legendary will still release future Aegis of Empires adventure paths for use with PF2E, I finally ordered my copies and love the two that are out so far.
Are you familiar with the Pathfinder Beginner Box? I thought it did a very good job of getting across game concepts in an easy-to-follow way e.g. when we say Constitution we mean the actual contitution score, when we abbreviate it to Con we mean the constitution modifier.Yeah. I want a 3.5 clone that lets me use my 3rd edition and Pathfinder material while simplifying and being friendlier for people who haven't played it before (this is necessary because the pool of players is dwindling).
A lot of things in the 3rd edition ruleset are just needless complicated, and with the benefits of hindsight could be rewritten in a cleaner and clearer manner without ending up in the vagueness of 5E.
I haven't looked at it. Perhaps I should. But it's not really that I need a game that's written in a player friendly way to learn. I want it to be a little more friendly to play.Are you familiar with the Pathfinder Beginner Box? I thought it did a very good job of getting across game concepts in an easy-to-follow way e.g. when we say Constitution we mean the actual contitution score, when we abbreviate it to Con we mean the constitution modifier.
I had hoped that Pathfinder 2 would be written in the same way. I don't own it, and I'm not that familiar with it, but from flicking through the book it looks like they didn't adopt that approach.
If I was simplifying Pathfinder I'd stick to the modifiers rather than the scores. I was briefly excited to see the monsters in the P2 Bestiary have ability score modifiers listed rather than the scores themselves, only to be disappointed to find that player characters still use the scores.
The actual constitution score is relevant in one major way and several minor ways, so I'd then derive a "secondary" ability e.g. Stamina to replace it (Stamina = Con x 2 +10). You die when negative hit points equal your Stamina, you can hold your breath for Stamina rounds etc.
In theory you could do the same for Strength with e.g. a Might score for carrying capacity, but I don't really see the need to distinguish between the carrying capacity of Strength 16 (+3) and Strength 17 (+3).
Seriously that's just awful.When making a full attack, roll only one attack roll and compare your result to the target’s AC. If your attack result is lower than the target’s AC by 6 or more, you miss and deal no damage. If your result is lower than the target’s AC by 5 or less, you deliver a glancing blow, dealing an amount of damage equal to 1/2 the minimum damage you would normally deal on a hit with the weapon you’re using. Effects that trigger on a hit do not trigger on a glancing blow. If your attack result equals or exceeds the target’s AC, you score a hit, plus one additional hit for every 5 by which your roll exceeds that target’s AC, up to your maximum number of hits. At first level, you can score a maximum of only one hit, but at base attack bonus +6 and at every +5 to your base attack bonus thereafter, you can score another. This is shown on Table: Maximum Hits, and also matches the progression of iterative attacks you’d gain if you were using the core rules for attacks. For each hit you score, roll damage separately; damage reduction applies to each hit.
I feel that a lot of the prep issues could be greatly mitigated by having good software available. That's another advantage of 5E right now. Sure it's a lot simpler, but there's plenty of software out their that lets you offload a lot of the work. This I think really needs to be a priority for anyone who wants to keep D20 alive.When I went from DMing 3.5/PF to 5e, I was surprised by the speed of prep. Even running pre-published adventure modules took a lot of prep, studying up on spells, monster tactics, etc. This freed up time for me to work on crafting, painting minis, creating handouts, making maps.
I judge new systems based on "can I run this with minimal prep?" and "can I run this on a VTT while eating and enjoying a beer?" 3.5/PF is not one of those games.