Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

[Staffan]

I once had an idea of making all of the feats in a chain only require a single slot. Essentially, you bought the entire chain for the "cost" of one feat; the caveat was that you only got the benefits of the subsequent feats in the chain as you met their prerequisites. It essentially made the feat you selected level up alongside your character.

Of course, I never got a chance to put any of that into play, so I have no idea how well it'd work at the table.

I see two related possible issues:

1. In many cases, the only prerequisites for a feat is another feat (and possibly another before that). So you'd basically get the whole shebang at once.

2. It is also common that a single feat is the "root" to multiple different "branches" on the feat tree. For example, Combat Expertise is the gate to most of the Improved (Combat Maneuver) feats. You might not want someone to get all of those for just one feat.

I don't think either of these issues are dealbreakers, really. They just mean you'd have to rebuild the feat trees with that in mind.

 

[Alzrius]

I see two related possible issues:

1. In many cases, the only prerequisites for a feat is another feat (and possibly another before that). So you'd basically get the whole shebang at once.

2. It is also common that a single feat is the "root" to multiple different "branches" on the feat tree. For example, Combat Expertise is the gate to most of the Improved (Combat Maneuver) feats. You might not want someone to get all of those for just one feat.

I don't think either of these issues are dealbreakers, really. They just mean you'd have to rebuild the feat trees with that in mind.

Yeah, even a glance at the feat trees in the Core Rulebook makes it clear that those are issues.

Thinking back on this, I remember that it came about as a result of a conversation I was having with someone (though I can't recall when or with who, now) about making PF1 feats more like 5E feats. That somehow led to the other person saying that (as a generality, rather than a hard-and-fast rule) a single 5E feat was worth four PF1 feats, in terms of overall gain (e.g. Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization). That, and martials were much more likely to take feat chains, which meant that this benefited them more (with the idea being that this was good, since martials needed a boost compared to casters). Plus there are enough feat chains even in first-party PF1 to avoid a feeling of "samey-ness" among characters who do this.

But as you said, the idea of prerequisites making those feat chains be level-activated would require some reworking of existing feats, albeit not too terribly much.

 

[Bohandas]

What if each time you got a new feat you also upgraded your existing feats with another in the chain?

 

[innerdude]

If you want a more elegant 3.X chassis with the kind of monster templating and stats being described, then ditch Pathfinder and go straight to FantasyCraft.

If you're comfortable doing basic enemy conversion work, it gives you the best 3.X rules paired with the infinite published adventures of the era.

 

[haakon1]

My guess, purely a guess, is that it was a fairly gamist design choice to make a really majorly (but not completely) spell immune monster to drive it more to the Kolchak blessed crossbow bolt solution. You can kill them with +3 or better weapons or the top tier metero swarm or wish spells, but for the most part its go with the blessing. Even a 1st level reporter can kill them with their TV achilles heel. Otherwise you need powerful magic weapons (something decently powerful parties might reasonably have) or a 17th+ level magic user (as clerics and druids and illusionists did not get 9th level spells).

I agree, except I think that’s a simulationist reason. It’s making “the reality” of the Kolchak thing happen in the rules, not a rules or “balance” first thing, which is what gamist means to me.

To me,
Simulationist = crunch (rules) conforms to fit fluff (story, mythology). Gaming by storytellers.

Gamist = crunch conforms to other crunch. Gaming by rules lawyers.

What I like about the editions I like best - AD&D and 3x - is they are simulationist first, imho. 4e I like least because it’s crunch first.

 

[Bohandas]

I agree, except I think that’s a simulationist reason. It’s making “the reality” of the Kolchak thing happen in the rules, not a rules or “balance” first thing, which is what gamist means to me.

To me,
Simulationist = crunch (rules) conforms to fit fluff (story, mythology). Gaming by storytellers.

Gamist = crunch conforms to other crunch. Gaming by rules lawyers.

What I like about the editions I like best - AD&D and 3x - is they are simulationist first, imho. 4e I like least because it’s crunch first.

Agreed. The rules should match the fluff.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

If you want a more elegant 3.X chassis with the kind of monster templating and stats being described, then ditch Pathfinder and go straight to FantasyCraft.

If you're comfortable doing basic enemy conversion work, it gives you the best 3.X rules paired with the infinite published adventures of the era.

Yeah, only problem I have with FC as a 3.P replacement is that there isn't as much magic to use as I'd like. For some people, that will be a plus.