Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 9290093" data-attributes="member: 3400">Probably one of the biggest, most jarring differences you would encounter is the weapon-sizing thing. That was a pretty big departure that 3.5 made from 3.0. Otherwise, much of it does systematize things a little better and, for PF specifically, add a few features to make the classes work a little better (particularly the paladin and ranger).I'd seriously consider picking up the first Bestiary so you have it as a reference with the monster modification rules and ability glossary in one place, but if you're OK with using d20PFSRD, the rest of the bestiaries are dispensable.I've run a campaign with the Mythic Rules. Not that great a fan, I have to say. It adds a lot of complexity and is completely dispensable.As far as whether it's compelling to go to PF1 from D&amp;D 3.0 or not, that's really up to you. It'll make using PF APs a bit better since they were mostly written with PF1 in mind.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="billd91, post: 9290093, member: 3400"] Probably one of the biggest, most jarring differences you would encounter is the weapon-sizing thing. That was a pretty big departure that 3.5 made from 3.0. Otherwise, much of it does systematize things a little better and, for PF specifically, add a few features to make the classes work a little better (particularly the paladin and ranger). I'd seriously consider picking up the first Bestiary so you have it as a reference with the monster modification rules and ability glossary in one place, but if you're OK with using d20PFSRD, the rest of the bestiaries are dispensable. I've run a campaign with the Mythic Rules. Not that great a fan, I have to say. It adds a lot of complexity and is completely dispensable. As far as whether it's compelling to go to PF1 from D&D 3.0 or not, that's really up to you. It'll make using PF APs a bit better since they were mostly written with PF1 in mind. [/QUOTE]

Verification