I'm using heavily altered versions of the action point system, 10-minute rests, elite and solo monsters.
And "the spine". Love the work there, worth the price even if you never touch the rest of the book.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?
- Thread starter AdmundfortGeographer
- Start date
I'm using heavily altered versions of the action point system, 10-minute rests, elite and solo monsters.
And "the spine". Love the work there, worth the price even if you never touch the rest of the book.
Oryan77
Adventurer
I am sticking with 3.5 for the following reasons:
1. I've played 3.5 long enough that I know the rules well enough to keep players from arguing with me most of the time. I'd rather spend my time prepping games than learning new rules.
2. Regardless of what anyone says, I think the 3.5 rules work perfectly fine as long as you don't have players trying to abuse them. I can use the 3.5 rules to resolve anything quickly and with little trouble. I don't care to learn an entire set of new rules just so I can resolve something just a little bit faster (and the new system probably has it's own share of problematic rules).
3. Pathfinder seemed to have taken the same road as 4e by thinking that, "less is more" as if that makes things better. I don't necessarily agree with that. For Pathfinder, it's the skill list I have issues with. I prefer my bigger skill list. I think 3.5 did it perfectly. Combining the skills into fewer skills makes things too generic for me. I think having more options gives us the ability to make more unique and individualistic characters; and that is something I enjoy out of D&D.
4. I have put a lot of work into my 3.5 campaign. At this point in time, I have so many awesome bits of information in my Excel file that I have cut my prep time down a lot. I have many reference tabs for different things. I have even created tons of rules in order to run a 3.5 Planescape game (Faction affiliation rules, planar effect rules). And I have an incredible list of monster conversions that people have made for 3.5. Tweaking this stuff for PF doesn't seem worth the effort and will make me feel like my time over the years has been wasted.
5. I have tons of books for 3.5. I don't think I could really use them all with PF. I also don't need to buy new books. I have more than enough material to run pretty much whatever kind of D&D game I want.
This doesn't mean I don't like Pathfinder though. I actually bought the PF Core book because I have considered integrating the classes from it (because I was told they are much better).
I'm not looking to switch from 3.5, but I don't mind using other editions with my 3.5 if it will improve my 3.5 game.
1. I've played 3.5 long enough that I know the rules well enough to keep players from arguing with me most of the time. I'd rather spend my time prepping games than learning new rules.
2. Regardless of what anyone says, I think the 3.5 rules work perfectly fine as long as you don't have players trying to abuse them. I can use the 3.5 rules to resolve anything quickly and with little trouble. I don't care to learn an entire set of new rules just so I can resolve something just a little bit faster (and the new system probably has it's own share of problematic rules).
3. Pathfinder seemed to have taken the same road as 4e by thinking that, "less is more" as if that makes things better. I don't necessarily agree with that. For Pathfinder, it's the skill list I have issues with. I prefer my bigger skill list. I think 3.5 did it perfectly. Combining the skills into fewer skills makes things too generic for me. I think having more options gives us the ability to make more unique and individualistic characters; and that is something I enjoy out of D&D.
4. I have put a lot of work into my 3.5 campaign. At this point in time, I have so many awesome bits of information in my Excel file that I have cut my prep time down a lot. I have many reference tabs for different things. I have even created tons of rules in order to run a 3.5 Planescape game (Faction affiliation rules, planar effect rules). And I have an incredible list of monster conversions that people have made for 3.5. Tweaking this stuff for PF doesn't seem worth the effort and will make me feel like my time over the years has been wasted.
5. I have tons of books for 3.5. I don't think I could really use them all with PF. I also don't need to buy new books. I have more than enough material to run pretty much whatever kind of D&D game I want.
This doesn't mean I don't like Pathfinder though. I actually bought the PF Core book because I have considered integrating the classes from it (because I was told they are much better).
I'm not looking to switch from 3.5, but I don't mind using other editions with my 3.5 if it will improve my 3.5 game.
It's the "we changed it just enough so that you can't use the rulebooks interchangeably" factor.
Personally, I use stuff designed for Pathfinder in my 3.5 game and don't even worry about converting it. But I've just seen no compelling reason to swap core rulebooks. (Which would represent a couple hundred bucks for our gaming group.)
Ironically, if Pathfinder had been 100% compatible with the 3.5 rulebooks my group would probably be in the process of converting over. (Several new players have hunted down used PHBs in the past couple of years who I otherwise would have pointed towards new Pathfinder rulebooks if that had been an option.)
Personally, I use stuff designed for Pathfinder in my 3.5 game and don't even worry about converting it. But I've just seen no compelling reason to swap core rulebooks. (Which would represent a couple hundred bucks for our gaming group.)
Ironically, if Pathfinder had been 100% compatible with the 3.5 rulebooks my group would probably be in the process of converting over. (Several new players have hunted down used PHBs in the past couple of years who I otherwise would have pointed towards new Pathfinder rulebooks if that had been an option.)
Thanks to everyone who provided detailed reasons.
And a reply...
The rules of PF adhere to combat maneuver system. With an exception of special modifier of +5 to maintain grapple, and that maintaining the grapple is a standard action (thus making things like multiple attacks impossible or difficult), and apart from different rules for multiple grapplers, and... you know, the differences just keep piling.
I have found PF version to be more intuitive and easier to explain. It is also safer for player characters (death by grappling is not as quick as previously).
Rest assured, PF Glabrezu still is capable of grabbing, it's a design choice to replace Improved Grab with another attack which is faster to run, does not preclude Glabrezu from engaging its multiple attacks (as I said, use of multiple attacks with a grapple is much more difficult to pull off under PFRPG) and is thematically appropriate.
Making a public post is always something of a test, don't you think?
Yes, there are things to be relearned, but it's a matter of doing some research. It's not a big of a problem, especially since information is well organized (additionally, the book comes with an index, PDF with links and bookmarks and the sites include search options).
Regards,
Ruemere
And a reply...
The rules of PF adhere to combat maneuver system. With an exception of special modifier of +5 to maintain grapple, and that maintaining the grapple is a standard action (thus making things like multiple attacks impossible or difficult), and apart from different rules for multiple grapplers, and... you know, the differences just keep piling.
I have found PF version to be more intuitive and easier to explain. It is also safer for player characters (death by grappling is not as quick as previously).
Rest assured, PF Glabrezu still is capable of grabbing, it's a design choice to replace Improved Grab with another attack which is faster to run, does not preclude Glabrezu from engaging its multiple attacks (as I said, use of multiple attacks with a grapple is much more difficult to pull off under PFRPG) and is thematically appropriate.
Making a public post is always something of a test, don't you think?
Yes, there are things to be relearned, but it's a matter of doing some research. It's not a big of a problem, especially since information is well organized (additionally, the book comes with an index, PDF with links and bookmarks and the sites include search options).
Regards,
Ruemere
I don't think power attack is nerfed. It still does plenty of damage. Have you seen the feats and abilities that high level fighters, barbarians, etc. can bring to the table? They may not equal casters in power, but they are closer than they ever have been since 3.0 was released.
Voadam
Legend
For me one group I'm in is continuing our long time 3.5 game, everyone is familiar with that rules set and the others don't want to learn new systems or change systems.
A second is trying out BESM 3e after deciding 4e wasn't for the rest of them.
Another group I may be joining is doing Pathfinder.
If I was to start up a new one I'd probably go with Pathfinder mixed with stuff like 4e healing surges and allow in 4e powers as feats. But I'd be torn between that and trying out DMing 4e for the first time with my new DDI subscription. Or the Conan RPG. And I'd also be tempted to consider doing a Mutants and Masterminds Warriors and Warlocks game. The last game I ran was Pathfinder Beta with healing surges added in and some 3.5 ones that I added in healing surges too.
I'm flexible.
A second is trying out BESM 3e after deciding 4e wasn't for the rest of them.
Another group I may be joining is doing Pathfinder.
If I was to start up a new one I'd probably go with Pathfinder mixed with stuff like 4e healing surges and allow in 4e powers as feats. But I'd be torn between that and trying out DMing 4e for the first time with my new DDI subscription. Or the Conan RPG. And I'd also be tempted to consider doing a Mutants and Masterminds Warriors and Warlocks game. The last game I ran was Pathfinder Beta with healing surges added in and some 3.5 ones that I added in healing surges too.
I'm flexible.
Silvercat Moonpaw
Adventurer
Probably a bunch of reasons:
1. I'm not terribly into D&D of the 3.5-type rules anyway.
2. All the rules I need to play Pathfinder are online for free with their SRD.
3. If Pathfinder's mostly going to still be 3.5 and not change any of the stuff I would have liked changed then it feels kind of pointless.
4. I have a bunch of 3.5 stuff. If I don't really care which I use why have to worry if various stuff fits in Pathfinder's power levels? (Converting the other way, however, will be a problem for those few products I do like.)
5. (Stupid Reason.) I like the 3.5/3.0 art better.
6. (Reason that I'm only mentioning because other people seem to consider it relevant.) I hate Golarion's downer tone.
7. There are other games out there to try, no need to deal with yet another one.
1. I'm not terribly into D&D of the 3.5-type rules anyway.
2. All the rules I need to play Pathfinder are online for free with their SRD.
3. If Pathfinder's mostly going to still be 3.5 and not change any of the stuff I would have liked changed then it feels kind of pointless.
4. I have a bunch of 3.5 stuff. If I don't really care which I use why have to worry if various stuff fits in Pathfinder's power levels? (Converting the other way, however, will be a problem for those few products I do like.)
5. (Stupid Reason.) I like the 3.5/3.0 art better.
6. (Reason that I'm only mentioning because other people seem to consider it relevant.) I hate Golarion's downer tone.
7. There are other games out there to try, no need to deal with yet another one.
Ya know . . . I agree with your "stupid" points, to some extent.
Since Paizo switched to Pathfinder from 3.5e rules, their art work has gotten more Over the Top, and I don't like that.
I'm comparing the artwork on my desk:
Tower of the Last Baron (3.5e Paizo)
and
Curse of the Riven Sky (PF Paizo)
Also, some, but not all, of the standalone modules seem to have upped the Over the Top/wazoo factor more than I'm comfortable with. I'm looking at you "City of Golden Death" and "Masks of the Living God".
That is, they are too weird and campaign-defining to fit in my home version of Greyhawk without messing around with it.
On the other hand, Kingmaker is genius. I love that they're making all these adventures about the Bandit Kingdoms . . . errr, "River" Kingdoms.
Keefe the Thief
Hero
Fighter: "I don´t know doc, i somehow feel so weak. Its all these casters around me, yaknow, i think i caught something from them."
Dr. McCoy: "Don´t sweat it son. Here´s a prescription for some high-level feats. It won´t help your condition, but it´s sure good for morale."
Fighter: "But those casters do not need high level feats to enjoy life! I don´t understand!"
Dr. McCoy: *serious* "Son, i have to tell you something that might hurt you." *Father-to-son-stare* "Let´s say it like this: we are NOT all created equal..."
Similar Threads
