D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 Edition Reprints

[Lwaxy]

I usually convert all adventures on the fly, and have used 4e adventures successfully in my 3.5/PF/homebrew mix. I've also used a lot of older edition adventures that way.

It is the story that is important, stats you can make up the same way you do when making your own adventures. Which, unfortunately, I have less time to do thanks to having too many groups (kind of).

 

[Alzrius]

All I did say was that it is more complex than v3.5 and that is a fact.

It's factually incorrect.

Comparing the v.3.5 Core Rulebooks (the PHB, DMG, and MM) to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary (as ShinHakkaider noted, the GameMastery Guide is not part of the Pathfinder Core Rules) shows that the latter is clearly less complex.

Let's examine a few things to back up the point.

In 3.5 combat maneuvers all use a different set of mechanics to adjudicate. In Pathfinder, they all use the standardized CMB vs. CMD formula.

In 3.5 polymorphing spells all follow their own set of rules, save where some spells refer to other spells. In Pathfinder, there's a standard "polymorph" sub-school of magic with standardized effects that spells tweak as necessary.

In 3.5 experience points for combat encounters are calculated on a table that cross-indexes the average party level versus the Challenge Rating of the monster. In Pathfinder, each Challenge Rating has a flat XP value.

In 3.5, you need to carefully make sure that multiclassed levels a PC has (except for prestige class levels) are all within one level of each other - except for racially-set favored classes - or you'll take a -20% XP penalty. In Pathfinder, you pick a favored class during character creation, and each time you take a level in that class you gain +1 hit point or +1 skill rank.

In 3.5, cross-class skills were bought at a rank of 1/2 per skill point spent, with a cap of [(charater level +3)/2], until you took a level in a class with that as a class skill, at which point you could buy ranks at 1:1 skill points spent, to a (character level +3) cap. In Pathfinder, all skill points spent buy you 1 skill rank; ranks in class skills give you a permanent +3 bonus to that skill.

In 3.5 playable monster races often had level adjustments, which came with a host of problems at higher levels. In Pathfinder, the issue of powerful monsters as PCs is unaddressed, with a brief note saying to use the monster's CR as its total character level.

In 3.5 some spells had XP costs - as did magic item creation - throwing the creator's total XP out of whack with the rest of the party's. In Pathfinder there are no XP costs for things.

Just off the top of my head, that's more than a half-dozen ways that Pathfinder is demonstrably less complex than 3.5. And those are facts.

 

[El Mahdi]

This is kind of sad. It seems almost like they are telling us Fourth Edition was a mistake. It also looks like they are trying to win back some of the fanbase that gravitated towards Pathfinder. I seriously doubt it will work.

Ah, the sweet smell of desperation.

I'm sorry, but you're both dead wrong. One, they are not "Desperate". They are simply providing the Reprints that people have been asking for, and they feel they can actually make a profit at reprinting. Second, they are not saying that 4E was a mistake, nor are they even "almost" saying 4E was a mistake. They have however said they have made mistakes in the last few years...and that is not the same thing. The only way someone can take away the idea that anything they've said since the anouncement of 5E is saying that 4E was a mistake, is only looking for or wanting to hear them say that. All they're doing is selling reprints that gamers asked for, and trying to make a new edition. It's funny how people accused WotC of pulling pdf's because they didn't want to "compete" with themselves, then this time around when they also reprint older edition materials, they're sad and desperate. Out of every communication they've had with fans so far, I've seen only one blog where someone at WotC even came close to the type of language or marketing that was used in the runup to 4E. Once! And I'll admit even that one was pretty thin.

They have not in any way, shape, or form said that 4E was a mistake. And anyone who says so is just flat wrong.

As to the last part, of course they're trying to win back some of the fanbase that gravitated towards Pathfinder. It's a competitive market...a competitive niche market. There are only so many people that buy RPG's, and yeah, WotC would love if every single one of them also bought the 1E Reprints, the 3.5E Reprints, and 5E...just as I'm sure Paizo would love if every single one also bought Pathfinder. The truth is, WotC is trying to win back each and every person that ever played any edition of D&D, and shooting for new players to boot. Every RPG game company does the same thing.

However, there is no game company in the world...past, present, or future...that's going to win over every single potential customer. It's silly to think that they would, just as it's silly to think they won't be able to win over anyone. There will be gamers that have gravitated towards Pathfinder who will be "won over" by WotC and/or 5E. Just as there are gamers that will buy and play both 5E and Pathfinder, and gamers that will stick with Pathfinder because it's simply what works for them. I'n sure there will even be people who will stick with 4E, and 4E gamers that will be won over...whether back to 3.5E or onward to 5E. That's actually a win-win...everybody gets to play the game they want to play, which is all that really matters. There's nothing nefarious or "sad" about any of this. It's how a competitive market works. Game companies are going to try and make games and products that gamers want to buy, and gamers are going to buy what they want to play (or just read, or collect, or whatever).

This time around I've actually been quite happy, and even a bit proud, of how WotC has handled this. They have been very careful to talk about things they want with 5E in a context of how something will fulfill the goals they have for this game, and not necessarily about "fixing" anything from a past edition (which is a fools errand anyways...no game or edition is "perfect", they can only be "perfect" as a matter of individual taste). However, they do have to be honest and critical of past mechanics in order to make a cohesive and workable game...a game that incorporates elements or philosophies of all their previous editions. And that also is not calling 4E, or any previous edition, a mistake. They are most definitely trying to make a game that addresses player feedback. Now of course that still won't necessarily make a game that appeals to everybody, and I'm sure they realize that, but they certainly seem to be giving it their best while being respectful of their fans preferences.

 

[crazy_cat]

Still got all my 3.5s (and my Pathfinder as well) so no sale here.

But - reprint 1e and 2e modules, updated or compiled or as is, and I'm there.

 

[Warunsun]

It's factually incorrect.

You are wrong. Sorry. I said Pathfinder the game system is more complex. I was referring to the main rulebook line. The one you get when you tell the Paizo folks you want them to send you all the rulebooks. I was discussing how Pathfinder has become Skills and Powers like with replacement abilities for every racial trait and every class feature. It is more complex. That is a fact. Check out what I said in my post if you have doubts.

 

[Warunsun]

The only thing that would cause my heart to momentarily stop beating is if rather than reprinting older edition rule books, they instead began converting each editions adventures to be used with your preferred edition.

They could pick one or two cherished super adventure lines like T1-4/A1-4/GDQ and reprint it in an omnibus edition with game statistics for AD&D (1e & 2e), D&D v3.5, and D&D 4th edition. Such a product would have to be big and expensive. It would likely be purchased by players of all D&D editions plus variants like Castles & Crusades and Pathfinder. Village of Hommlet and the G Series already have most of the work done for them for 4E too. It is more of a dream idea but damn it could be seen as a nice product for every edition.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

It's factually incorrect.

Comparing the v.3.5 Core Rulebooks (the PHB, DMG, and MM) to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook and Bestiary (as ShinHakkaider noted, the GameMastery Guide is not part of the Pathfinder Core Rules) shows that the latter is clearly less complex.

Let's examine a few things to back up the point.

In 3.5 combat maneuvers all use a different set of mechanics to adjudicate. In Pathfinder, they all use the standardized CMB vs. CMD formula.

In 3.5 polymorphing spells all follow their own set of rules, save where some spells refer to other spells. In Pathfinder, there's a standard "polymorph" sub-school of magic with standardized effects that spells tweak as necessary.

In 3.5 experience points for combat encounters are calculated on a table that cross-indexes the average party level versus the Challenge Rating of the monster. In Pathfinder, each Challenge Rating has a flat XP value.

In 3.5, you need to carefully make sure that multiclassed levels a PC has (except for prestige class levels) are all within one level of each other - except for racially-set favored classes - or you'll take a -20% XP penalty. In Pathfinder, you pick a favored class during character creation, and each time you take a level in that class you gain +1 hit point or +1 skill rank.

In 3.5, cross-class skills were bought at a rank of 1/2 per skill point spent, with a cap of [(charater level +3)/2], until you took a level in a class with that as a class skill, at which point you could buy ranks at 1:1 skill points spent, to a (character level +3) cap. In Pathfinder, all skill points spent buy you 1 skill rank; ranks in class skills give you a permanent +3 bonus to that skill.

In 3.5 playable monster races often had level adjustments, which came with a host of problems at higher levels. In Pathfinder, the issue of powerful monsters as PCs is unaddressed, with a brief note saying to use the monster's CR as its total character level.

In 3.5 some spells had XP costs - as did magic item creation - throwing the creator's total XP out of whack with the rest of the party's. In Pathfinder there are no XP costs for things.

Just off the top of my head, that's more than a half-dozen ways that Pathfinder is demonstrably less complex than 3.5. And those are facts.

Dont bother. As soon as he stated that he was including ALL of the RPG line as mandatory rules for the sake of this discussion I bowed out of this particular discussion with him. This was after I pointed out that at this point comparatively speaking, in the life cycle of 3.5 that it had waaaaaay more splatbooks and feats and alternate rules. After I pointed out Tome of Magic or Tome of Battle he moved the goal posts by saying that they we'rent streamlined into the 3.5 system or something like that. If he can selectively include and exclude things to bolster his point then the discussing the relative complexity of both systems is in fact pointless.

The fact of the matter is this. The core system, the books you cannot play the game without are the Core Rulebook and MAYBE the Bestiary. You cannot run the game using the APG alone. You cannot run the game with Ultimate Magic or Ultimate Combat alone. You cannot run the game with the ARG alone. You cannot run the game with just the Bestiary, Bestiary 2, Bestiary 3 alone. You cannot run the game with the Gamemastery Guide alone. These books are all part of the RPG line. I would even argue to an extent that can run the game WITHOUT the bestiary. But you cannot run the game WITHOUT the Core Rules.

I'm an RPG line as well as an AP subscriber and have been running a Pathfinder game for the past three years with the same group and only the Core Rulebook is mandatory usage. Everything else is by DM approval only pretty much as it was when I ran 3.5. Pathfinder isn't 4E. Just because it's in print dosent mean that it's Core. That's where the disconnect between what he's talking about and what we're talking about is.

 

[Warunsun]

Pathfinder isn't 4E. Just because it's in print dosent mean that it's Core. That's where the disconnect between what he's talking about and what we're talking about is.

Nah. It has nothing to do with fourth edition actually. I am surprised you bring it up. It is certainly true you can play any game with a limited set of rulebooks. Looking at the rulebook line as a whole Pathfinder is more complicated with more options and interchangeable parts than v3.5. It is more Complex. My whole point goes back to that. Complexitiy isn't a bad thing if that is what you want. The one poster (not you) claimed that Pathfinder was more streamlined. It just isn't true. Pathfinder is an advanced fork of v3.5. As such I would expect new and more content! I am glad you enjoy it by the way.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Looking at the rulebook line as a whole Pathfinder is more complicated with more options and interchangeable parts than v3.5.

Not arguing one way or the other, but I'm curious how you figure? Do you have a yardstick you're using, or is this more of a "feel" thing?

 

[Argyle King]

Isn't arguing about the complexity of 3.5 versus the complexity of Pathfinder a little like arguing whether the pot or the kettle is more black?