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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Malachei" data-source="post: 5229912" data-attributes="member: 38657">I have been playing since the D&D Basic Set and started to run my first campaign with 1st ed. AD&D rules. My group and I have been moving on to 2nd ed., and then to 3rd edition. With 3rd edition's first appearance, my group stopped working out houserules for the first time since the early years. With 3.5 that changed, as there were two alternatives now, and we had discussions on what rule would be best. We did not switch to 3.5, because we felt many changes were no improvements. Right now, we're playing a mix of 3.0 and 3.5 rules. We haven't been moving on to 4th edition, for many reasons, one being that we're in the middle of campaigns, another that we're quite satisfied with the current rules and houserules -- from what little I saw, at the moment, 4th ed. does not seem an improvement for our game, and probably a decline, flavor-wise. But this is just our game, and I respect everyone who plays otherwise (no intention to start a 4th edition discussion here - just stating where we're coming from).Looking at Pathfinder, I see a lot of things I like, and some issues. One thing I like is the strengthening of the core classes, with removal of 'dead' levels. I think 3.x drowned us in a plethora of options (PrCs, Feats, and so on). I'm not saying options are a bad thing per se, but we eventually got a bit tired of it, and maybe wanted some more fluff and less crunch. The balancing of the classes is a good thing, although I feel there's some issues already in it: While I like that specialist wizards can learn opposed school spells at double cost, I'm not sure if that is a good decision, balance-wise. First, the universalist seems to be a bad choice, now. Second, some (especially the smaller) schools have a very small number of exceptionally useful spells that you simply need. That's fine, because you can give up schools now, that you would have never given up before, but I'm not sure whether this is good for the balance of schools. I'm not sure I like how the races are balanced, too.Also, I did not see the need for upgrading weak hit dice classes to 1d6. It seems that the strategy is to attract players by making characters stronger (as WotC has been using). This follows the 3.5 trend of downgrading the effect of offensive spells. Back in 1st edition (with its many balance issues), a fireball was a dangerous weapon, but SODs were pretty weak at higher levels due to the save progression. 3.0 did a good job in strengthening SOD spells, but had DC-issues (mainly due to PrCs with 3.0 Spell Power). 3.5 changed several SODs into high-damage-dealing spells, something I did not like. With more hit points for everyone, thus, all types of offensive spells got weaker. I would have hoped for Pathfinder to take a more 'classic' road, here. I still fail to see why forcecage should provide a reflex save (its a seventh spell spell, after all). All of this comes down to the issues that no single ruleset is the accepted norm, now -- at least for the people I know and play with.For sure, I love that 3.X is not dead. On the other hand, I have mixed feelings about the D&D community remaining divided, as I recall the heated, unpleasant debates between 3.X and 4th edition (as well as 3.0 vs. 3.5 earlier). And the third edition camp is now stretched over three rulesets. Many people I know are using material from both 3.0 and 3.5 -- with Pathfinder, we can have three reference points for a ruling, now. Whether this is a good thing or not, every group can decide.The question for me is, can Pathfinder become the univeral canon for the 3rd edition camp? As time passes, and the new rules expand, probably more people jump on board, and it can become the de facto standard. But only time will tell.</blockquote>

Verification