D&D 3E/3.5 3rd Edition Revisited - Better play with the power of hindsight?

[Yora]

The use of archetypes also largely removed the appeal of prestige classes, and allowed character customisation without the need to plan way in advance. The absence of archetypes is probably the main reason why I'd hate to go back to 3.5 (although the racial substitution levels did introduce that in a small way).

The second thing I really like about Pathfinder is traits, which allowed a further amount of customisation - if you really want your Fighter to have Use Magic Device as a class skill, then you can. Obviously, they are one more thing that can be abused, but that brings me back to the original point - if you don't want a broken game, then don't break it.

Now you are reminding me of why I have much more fond memories of 3rd edition than of Pathfinder.
I always thought 3rd edition was too big with too many things you have (or can make yourself believe you have) to keep in mind when planning anything. Pathfinder core is even bigger than the 3rd edition PHB.

Though I can totally understand that both games are excellent choices for people who are looking for that scope in a game system.

 

[amethal]

Now you are reminding me of why I have much more fond memories of 3rd edition than of Pathfinder.
I always thought 3rd edition was too big with too many things you have (or can make yourself believe you have) to keep in mind when planning anything. Pathfinder core is even bigger than the 3rd edition PHB.

Though I can totally understand that both games are excellent choices for people who are looking for that scope in a game system.

Yeah, "I'd like to play a human fighter".

D&D 3.5 - great, note down the human racial traits then turn to the fighter page

Pathfinder 1st edition - are you sticking with the standard human racial traits, or do you want to look through the alternate ones? Do you have a fighter archetype in mind? Have you looked at the favoured class bonus for Human Fighters to see if you like it more than a hp / skill point?

EDIT - much as I love the complexity and customisation potential, I think racial favoured class bonuses are a step too far even for me; the benefits don't justify the effort involved.

 

[Voadam]

One thing that mechanically bugged me in 3e RAW was the difference in saves and BAB if you multiclass in the same general types of classes.

Going barbarian 3 you have a weaker fortitude save bonus from class (+3) than a barbarian 1/fighter 1/ranger 1 (+6) and a stronger will save (+1 versus +0).

For rogues and monks and such whether you multiclass after multiples of four levels impacts your BAB progression. A rogue 4 or a cleric 4 have a BAB of +3, while a multiclassed rogue 2/cleric 2 has a BAB of +2.

I liked the 3.5 UA rule of fractional BAB and saves as an adaptation to smooth that out so that ranger barbarians are not tougher or weaker willed than straight barbarians.

 

[Voadam]

One mechanical impact of the 3e save progressions is that the gap between good (+2 at level 1 and progressing +1 every two levels) and bad saves (progressing +1 only every three saves) gets progressively bigger the higher level you are.

Notably this made 3e warrior types increasingly vulnerable to steadily progressing will save attacks that generally increased +1 every spell level (with a top one gained every two levels) or every two HD. Higher level warriors became more vulnerable to being whammied by level appropriate enemies than low level ones.

I generally preferred to house rule that all PC saves advanced every two levels, so that weak saves were only two behind strong ones, keeping most saves in the same general range with only a two point gap for weak saves.

 

[payn]

One thing that mechanically bugged me in 3e RAW was the difference in saves and BAB if you multiclass in the same general types of classes.

Going barbarian 3 you have a weaker fortitude save bonus from class (+3) than a barbarian 1/fighter 1/ranger 1 (+6) and a stronger will save (+1 versus +0).

For rogues and monks and such whether you multiclass after multiples of four levels impacts your BAB progression. A rogue 4 or a cleric 4 have a BAB of +3, while a multiclassed rogue 2/cleric 2 has a BAB of +2.

I liked the 3.5 UA rule of fractional BAB and saves as an adaptation to smooth that out so that ranger barbarians are not tougher or weaker willed than straight barbarians.

I agree with the fractional BAB and saves variant. I think the idea was making classes mechanically different, which it does, but is also a design headache in practice. Along with casters touch AC to target, I think these things are better decoupled from class and differentiated in different ways. All editions since have done so.

 

[Alzrius]

One mechanical impact of the 3e save progressions is that the gap between good (+2 at level 1 and progressing +1 every two levels) and bad saves (progressing +1 only every three saves) gets progressively bigger the higher level you are.

Only to the tune of a +6 difference, which isn't insurmountable if you invest in save-boosting magic items. Now, that's admittedly widened by the fact that most warrior classes aren't going to invest in a good Wisdom score, but even leaving aside the fact having more vulnerability in a certain area is an aspect of niche protection, that's the sort of thing that emphasizes the team-based nature of the game. Clerics and wizards are supposed to help buff the martials, or have countermeasures readied for when they get hit with a mind-affecting effect and fail their save.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

The poor save progressions largely impact monsters and NPCs. If anything, monsters should have good saves (and possibly good BAB) to offset their relatively lack of features.

 

[amethal]

Only to the tune of a +6 difference, which isn't insurmountable if you invest in save-boosting magic items.

IF you invest in save-boosting magic items?

I'll happily muddle along with a bunch of +1 weapons, +1 protective devices etc., but my cloak of resistance is going up to +5 the instant I can afford it. Failing saving throws is often no fun at all.

In Pathfinder, the 1/day dominate person effect from a CR 7 Succubus has a Will DC 23. Even an 8th level cleric (good Will save) with a Wisdom of 22 fails that half of the time. Some monsters should come with a "health warning" for the novice GM.

(I seem to remember Orcs in the 3.0 Monster Manual had greataxes, but the 3.5 version have falchions instead - I assume anyone who has never played 3.x / Pathfinder would not realise why the change was made.)

 

[Yora]

That dominate person is 1/day, though. And PCs are rarely facing off against fiends alone. They would have their friends with them who would most probably have means to deal with the situation.

 

[amethal]

That dominate person is 1/day, though. And PCs are rarely facing off against fiends alone. They would have their friends with them who would most probably have means to deal with the situation.

A PC might well face off against a succubus alone, under certain circumstances ...

The cleric is the one most likely to be able to remove inconvenient conditions, but that doesn't help if the cleric is the one dominated. (A dispel magic from a wizard could work, but the CR 7 succubus uses her spell-like abilities at CL 12 so they are hard to dispel.)

So as the GM I wouldn't have the succubus adopt the high risk (since most likely to make the save) but high reward strategy of attempting to dominate the cleric. And I'd put in the monster description that they prefer not to dominate clerics, since they find it much more enjoyable to manipulate them into committing evil rather than compel them.