D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 E, older D&D and Pathfinder. What do D&D vets think of pathfinder

[Dannyalcatraz]

Undead I can understand. Snap a pelvis and the undead is severely damaged.

Not in the same way a living creature is- its not in pain, it won't go into shock, and none of its vital processes are disrupted.

Break every bone in a movie zombie's body and it will still keep trying to kill you. Knock the jawbone off of a skeleton and it won't even slow down.

 

[James Jacobs]

The monsters that are immune to sneak attack/critical hits in the PFRPG is actually pretty small:

Elementals, oozes, swarms, incorporeal creatures. That's pretty much it (although I feel like I'm forgetting one). Basically, monsters whose bodies are pretty much homogenous masses that aren't particularly hurt by losing a portion.

Other creatures, such as undead and constructs, CAN be hindered by lucky shots or precise shots. Just look at most movies about zombies—you kill them by a shot to the head. In the PFRPG, sneak attacks and critical hits are HOW you get in a shot to the head. And then look over at vampires—they die if you cut off their head or stick a stake through their hearts. Also support for critical/sneak attacks. And certainly while breaking a skeleton's jaw won't slow it down, snapping its leg or arm or spine would undermine its structural integrity, which is modeled in the game as "more damage." Same goes for constructs—you can hit them in the gears or the joints or the magic power sources or whatever to do more damage, kind of like how Jason takes down Talos in the old movie "Jason and the Argonauts," or how you always see robots getting messed up by getting shot in the processor, or how video games often put "weak points" on giant animated statues, and so on.

For constructs and undead, sneak attacks/critical hits are more about structural damage (in the same way you can cripple a car by cutting a fuel line or blow up a building by placing the explosives in just the right spots) than it is about shutting down key internal organs or causing lots of pain.

 

[DaemonHunter]

I can see the logic behind the changes dont get me wrong and part of me likes the idea, hell I love playing rogues But another part just finds it wrong i dont really know why, i just have a wrong feeling about it. Maybe I'm starting to show my age and finding it hard to adapt to change LOL.

But other than that which seems to have taken away from the OP I like nearly everything else, I would say Pathfinder is 96% great. I wont go into any of the other stuff as it may get outta hand but i think you can be disappointed with that Its the perfect in-heritor to 3.x and has saved my gaming and for that i thank you and everyone else involved (ok it hasnt saved it as i just kept playing 3.x but it has meant i can keep getting cool new stuff which is great everyone likes new books LOL ) Dont go changing it in the same direction as 4e please

 

[James Jacobs]

I would say Pathfinder is 96% great.

I'm more than happy with 96% great! That's a better grade than I got on the majority of my finals in college, after all!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And then look over at vampires—they die if you cut off their head or stick a stake through their hearts.

Actually, that's a tad off.

You have to stab them through the heart with a wooden stake- in most of the older stories, made from one of just a few kinds of wood (ash, hawthorn and a couple others that have mystical connotations of purity and holiness)- THEN cut off the head and stuff its mouth with garlic, a Holy Symbol or the Host.

Which, to my mind, is NOT supportive of crits & sneak attacks. That's the description of disrupting of dire magics with certain designated materials and a ritual. Stabbing them through the heart with a standard dagger 1.5B times, and they'll still keep coming back.

(I'll grant you the modern zombie, though.)

Same goes for constructs—you can hit them in the gears or the joints or the magic power sources or whatever to do more damage, kind of like how Jason takes down Talos in the old movie "Jason and the Argonauts," or how you always see robots getting messed up by getting shot in the processor, or how video games often put "weak points" on giant animated statues, and so on.

Yes, to a certain extent.

To me, that doesn't support a blanket rule of allowing crits and/or sneak attacks. To me, that supports the existence of a Feat or some kind of difficult skill check to determine whether or not a PC can gain the benefit of a crit or SA. While most humanoid creatures will share a certain similarity of internal organs and what all, each construct (or type of construct) will have unique weak spots. Talos' weak spot was in his ankle, yes, but that doesn't mean that EVERY Iron Golem's ankle is similarly vulnerable.

 

[James Jacobs]

Well... the MAIN reason to allow constructs and PARTICULARLY undead to be subject to sneak attacks is simply because it keeps the rogue viable. Both of these monster types, but particularly undead, tend to dominate adventures they're in. It's really common to see an undead-heavy adventure. One of the largest complaints we received about the Age of Worms adventure path back in Dungeon was that it more or less made rogues useless in the last half of the campaign.

In Pathfinder, giving undead bonus hit points from Charisma and allowing them to be sneak attacked makes the game more playable and more fun, I think. Especially if you play a rogue, and especially if you're going into one of those adventures that's all about undead all the time.

 

[MichaelSomething]

To me, that doesn't support a blanket rule of allowing crits and/or sneak attacks. To me, that supports the existence of a Feat or some kind of difficult skill check to determine whether or not a PC can gain the benefit of a crit or SA. While most humanoid creatures will share a certain similarity of internal organs and what all, each construct (or type of construct) will have unique weak spots. Talos' weak spot was in his ankle, yes, but that doesn't mean that EVERY Iron Golem's ankle is similarly vulnerable.

You sound like a person who both understood and regularly used the 3.5 grapple system to its fullest. Unfortunately, the Pathfinder Sneak Attack was designed for all the players who looked at the grapple rules and thought "screw that junk! I'll just whack'em!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You've got that 100% right.

 

[Steel_Wind]

In fairness, the introduction of a potential to critical doesn't favor the rogue class the most -- it favors -- and is meant to favor -- primarily the fighter types. They tend to be in combat the most, have the easiest time of confirming their criticals, and tend to do the most damage with critical hits, too.

All be way of saying that putting sneak attack back in the game for rogues, together with CMB/CMD has made for more maneuvering at the table by the rogue during combat -- which is all to the good in my opinion. Stand and swing is pretty boring.

The addition of crits to several creature types goes a way towards putting a little more damage dealing power back in the hands of the combat classes and allows for them to shine a little brighter next to the Wizard Howitzers. While this can be a little difficult to swallow in terms of verisimilitude, it's not so hard to swallow that the taste becomes overly bitter.

So I'm good with all that.

If anything, I think Pathfinder didn't go far enough with some of the changes to combat style. One of the elements of Star Wars: Saga Edition that I really enjoy is the cover rules and how those influence more intrictate maneuvering and defence during combat. While expecting such maneuvering and emphasis on cover in a melee combat game might be misplaced, I may get around to try to implement some of those rules in Pathfinder combat anyway just to see how it plays out. After all, when the fireballs, scorching rays, lightning bolts and magic missiles start flying -- it's not REALLY just a melee game anymore, it it?

Anything that makes the combat in the game more dynamic tends to be something I'm in favor of, generally.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

All be way of saying that putting sneak attack back in the game for rogues, together with CMB/CMD has made for more maneuvering at the table by the rogue during combat -- which is all to the good in my opinion. Stand and swing is pretty boring.

Anything that makes the combat in the game more dynamic tends to be something I'm in favor of, generally.

I would rather combat be stand and swing. A few, furious rounds (15 minutes or less in real time) of hacking and then back to what the game is all about, exploring and puzzle solving. I'd get bored pretty quick without a combat now and then, but nothing bores me worse than long drawn out tactical combats where everyone is furiously maneuvering to get that extra +2 to hit. Of course, if the game is all, or a majority of combat, then yeah, stand and swing can get boring, but then, it's already boring in my eyes, a more dynamic combat ain't gonna fix it.