Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 5182818" data-attributes="member: 158">I've been playing since Basic D&D in 1981, and I've played almost every edition that exists at some point, particularly a LOT of 1E, 2E, 3X, and 4E.1) Pathfinder doesn't feel like "classic" D&D to me (in the OD&D, 1E and 2E sense of the term); it feels like 3E (3.0, specifically) but with many of the rough edges filed off that annoyed me. The streamlining of the skill point system, the improved resistance to bleeding to death, and the spell fixes to things like harm, the polymorph spells, etc. do make it a better experience to me.2) Item creation just costs extra gold now. People won't be making 100% ROI investment for making magic items, which isn't a bad thing.3) I can't answer that question, as D&D has never been a "simulation of real life + fantasy" to me. It has always had its own eclectic mix of trying to model some things, and totally breezing by others (healing and hit points is a classic example). I will say that the changes that were made in practice don't seem to make a lot of difference with most classes - even the "infinite cantrips" rule (casters can cast their prepared 0-levels all day long). If anything, wizards and druids are toned back in many ways related to spells and spellcasting, and it's a good thing - my fighter in my recent game doesn't feel like a total wuss compared to the spellcasters.4) That one doesn't make much difference to me, either, because (A) pathfinder has a sliding scale of XP required to level for the DM to use, and (B) I've always been of the opinion that the PCs leveled when it was appropriate to do so - after X number of sessions, unless they were actually just sitting around doing nothing all session.RANT MODE: In my mind, whether it's solving a puzzle to uncover some hidden cultists, or fighting a level-appropriate fight, they're gaining about the same amount of XP for overcoming an appropriate challenge. CR is a tool (and IMO a bad one anyway above 8th level) for gauging the toughness of a monster in a fight, and mapping it to XP is just one way to abrogate a DM's judgement in how story-appropriate and how well-earned the players were struggling to advance play and plot. I don't care if the 5 kobolds they fought at 3rd level weren't worth a pittance of XP, if the players were struggling against crappy dice rolls all night long, and still managed to pull victory out, I'm giving them a good chunk of XP for their night's adventure, because life's too short to have a bad night at the dice ruin your evening completely. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />OK, rant over.So, long story short, the CRs still seem to map about as well as they ever did against PCs be they pathfinder or 3.5 - if anything, maybe 1/2 a CR lower?</blockquote>

Verification