D&D 3E/3.5 A list of 3e problems and how they were tackled in PF

[Mark Chance]

Why the extra counting for Bards now?

Because they were shooting for a unified mechanic? Because "extra" counting is really just counting, which is a pretty easy thing to do.

 

[Remathilis]

And doesn't include natural armor, which is so big it deserves clarification. Basically anything that improved Touch AC, I think.

As someone who has used CMB (in its Beta form) for quite a while, I very much like it. I haven't dissected the final tweaks to it yet, but what I've seen so far I like even better.

The easy formula for CMB/CMD

CMB is = to a normal melee attack (bab + str mod) + the inverse of your size modifier (IE flip the size mod from positive to negative and vice-versa).

CMD is your CMB + your Touch AC (excluding size modifier, which is accounted for in the CMB).

All relevant bonuses from feats, equipment, etc, add on from there.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Because they were shooting for a unified mechanic? Because "extra" counting is really just counting, which is a pretty easy thing to do.

I rather find counting once a battle (as you had 4 uses to cover 4 battles/day at 4th) easier than 1 this rd, 1 this rd, 1 this round, etc.

Easier on paper too as less erasing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again...several things here just aren't a problem that needed addressing IMHO.

[*]Multi-classed spell casters not powerful enough?

I liked them just fine.

[*]Multi-classes BAB and Saves either too high or too low?

That never popped up on my radar- just not an issue.

[*]Save or Die/Suck spells dominating high level play?

I haven't seen that. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but not in any group I've seen.

[*]DCs for spells too high at upper levels?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.

[*]High level full attacks and actually game time to resolve them?

That never bugged me, but then again, my favorite system is HERO.

OTOH, it never seemed to bother any of my fellow players, several of whom were D&D only types.

[*]Not enough skill points for characters?

That's why you dip Rogue or Ranger.

Personally, I'm among the very few players who actually made full use out of their PC's skills.

[*]Skills that are useless (rope use/forgery)?

"Useless" is relative to your campaign and playstyle- I got uses out of both. Important uses.

[*]The 15 minute work day?

As I've said in other threads, that's a playstyle & DM issue, not a systemic issue. I've been playing D&D since 1977, and it has simply never come up.

IMHO, the 15 minute work day is more an artifact of DM/Player interaction- IOW, playstyle- than anything inherent in the system itself.

[*]Reasons to not multi-class in certain classes (fighter)?

If you know me (personally or by the weight of my posts here), you know I'll multiclass anything if I think its appropriate to the PC.

[*]Not enough feats for characters?

I can see that as a problem. I can also see that as a charming challenge- an exercise in resource management.

Still, there are many feats out there that are underpowered in such a way that they'd have been better combined with other feats or had some kind of auto-scaling feature. The Power Attack feat tree could have been one feat with tricks you learn over time...sort of like the Tactical feats. Toughness should have been an autoscaling feature +X HP/level or something.

[*]Characters too fragile at low level?

That has been an issue of sorts across the history of the game, but its easily addressable by the DM.

[*]DM prep time?

Never an issue for me.

[*]Adaptation of previous edition's modules and supplements?

I'm not sure I see the problem.

[*]Class glut?

My main problem there was with PrCls that didn't feel like PrCls. IOW, they weren't special enough.

[*]Race glut?

OK...there were too many elves...though not as many as in 2Ed.

[*]Racial Level Adjustments (LA)?

Monte Cook's AU/AE handled it perfectly, IMHO.

[*]Overall game complexity?

Not an issue to me.

[*]Complexity of Grappling?

It was poorly worded, but I didn't see it as too complex.

[*]Complexity of Turn Undead?

That could have been simplified.

[*]The complexity of the CR/EL XP system?

Ditto.

 

[Mark Chance]

I rather find counting once a battle (as you had 4 uses to cover 4 battles/day at 4th) easier than 1 this rd, 1 this rd, 1 this round, etc.

I guess, but you're still counting by ones. It's not exactly a higher order task.

Easier on paper too as less erasing.

That hardly seems like anything approaching even a minor concern.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Things that it doesn't look like changed enough from my reading. And correct me if I'm wrong.

Death: Still at too high a threashold for anything past say 10th level. When you get hit for 30-60 points of damage, those extra hit point barriers aren't going to stop it.

Full attack action. Sucked in 3.5 and still sucks.

 

[Kvantum]

Things that it doesn't look like changed enough from my reading. And correct me if I'm wrong.

Death: Still at too high a threashold for anything past say 10th level. When you get hit for 30-60 points of damage, those extra hit point barriers aren't going to stop it.

Full attack action. Sucked in 3.5 and still sucks.

Death from Massive Damage is just an optional rule now. Plus you don't actually die until you reach your Con score below 0, not just -10. Not a whole lot better than 3.5, but it's not the absurd -50% of 4e, either.

Full Attack... well, there is the Vital Strike feat chain (Vital, Improved, and Greater). They let you make a single attack (including a Spring Attack, but not a charge) as essentially a 2[W], 3[W], or 4[W] attack, in 4e parlance. I think they shouldn't have been feats but just flat automatic options for combat, but, hey, House Rules were invented for a reason.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Death from Massive Damage is just an optional rule now. Plus you don't actually die until you reach your Con score below 0, not just -10. Not a whole lot better than 3.5, but it's not the absurd -50% of 4e, either.

Full Attack... well, there is the Vital Strike feat chain (Vital, Improved, and Greater). They let you make a single attack (including a Spring Attack, but not a charge) as essentially a 2[W], 3[W], or 4[W] attack, in 4e parlance. I think they shouldn't have been feats but just flat automatic options for combat, but, hey, House Rules were invented for a reason.

Whoa, didn't the Preview say Charge?
The Fighter dude it said can charge and Vital Strike.
[Sblock]
If not, he can charge up and make a single attack with his longsword using both Power Attack and Improved Vital Strike.
[/Sblock]
Was the Peview wrong?

 

[JoeGKushner]

Death from Massive Damage is just an optional rule now. Plus you don't actually die until you reach your Con score below 0, not just -10. Not a whole lot better than 3.5, but it's not the absurd -50% of 4e, either.

I agree. Not a lot better. And in 4e, there are several ways to die. Most I've seen is from missing the three saves.

Full Attack... well, there is the Vital Strike feat chain (Vital, Improved, and Greater). They let you make a single attack (including a Spring Attack, but not a charge) as essentially a 2[W], 3[W], or 4[W] attack, in 4e parlance. I think they shouldn't have been feats but just flat automatic options for combat, but, hey, House Rules were invented for a reason.

And that sounds like a weak fix to me. Monks in many campaigns I ran would lower their initiatives to the point where almost all enemies in the campaign started carrying missing fire.

But yeah, those two things I don't see as being 'fixed' as opposed to weakly patched.

 

[jasin]

Except that they limited stat-boosting items and shifted the focus more toward oft-neglected magic items.

How have they limited them?

The bonuses to all six ability scores are there, at the exact same prices as in 3.5.

Or are you referring to the fact that it's more costly to get a bonus to two or three ability scores from the same category (physical/mental), since they must be on the same item?