Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5267877" data-attributes="member: 2205">I'm still smarting from the change from 3e to 3.5, honestly.  That seemed like too much too soon to fix too little, and change a heck of a lot of stuff that was fine.From 3.5 to Pathfinder was even more of that.  I've more or less migrated to 3.5 (although I still haven't bought a PHB or DMG more recent than 3e, because I can use online SRDs to look at the specific parts I need.)  I mostly didn't see any reason to go through what is, basically, another change just like that of 3e to 3.5.Also, the goal of backwards compatability wasn't held to in ways that I thought useful.  The balance level for all classes and races were reset; therefore, I can't use 3.5 classes and races with Pathfinder classes and races without tweaking them manually.  That's not backwards compatible.Also, if anything, Pathfinder seems to have made a number of changes that further emphasized some of the things that I already didn't like much about 3.5 rather than fixing them.  Things like the power level, prevalence of magic, discrete rule subsystems, etc. seem to be more common in Pathfinder than in 3.5, if that's possible.  Since I already play 3.5 pretty fast and loose with a hefty dose of GM adjudication replacing encyclopediac rules knowledge, that wasn't really what I was looking for.That said, I did houserule the CMB/CMD system, and the skill list truncation from Pathfinder into my 3.5 games.  But I also took some houserules from Trailblazer and integrated them into my 3.5 game too, including combat reactions and additional action point usages (I also made up some of my own new action point rules for that matter.)  My vaguely 3.5 Frankensystem also includes E6, a bunch of alternate classes and races, and a few other changes for good measure.And I do like the Golarion setting quite a bit.  Although it's starting to feel a bit too "D&Dish" to me.  Ironically, one of the things I loved about it when it was newer is that it felt like D&D did back when it was still pretty new and the sword & sorcery influence was more front and center, and the latent D&Disms hadn't been so thoroughly entrenched.  I feel like it's quickly starting to get too "D&Dified" if that makes any sense.Because I'm a fan of the setting, I've been pretty exposed to the system in out of context and ad hoc ways in more recent setting books.  Plus, I did buy the pdfs of the main rulebook and the bestiary.  Heck, for $10 a piece, they were worth it for the art alone, even if I never read them cover to cover.  Which, honestly, I probably won't ever come close to doing.</blockquote>

Verification