Is There Possibility of a PF1.5 or a 3.5 Revival? Whether Directly or Something With Similar 'Ethos'

Right. What would it look like to be a 3.x game that wasn't PF?
Some folks seem to want that, but honestly I loved most of what PF added so cant see why you wouldnt want it. In fact, all the feats, traits, archetypes, prestige classes, hybrid classes, etc.. are the appeal to me. So, not wanting those things, but wanting 3E is a little puzzling to me, but this thread has made it clear folks want a lot of different things from 3E/PF1.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Right. What would it look like to be a 3.x game that wasn't PF?
It will differ for each person. To me personally, perhaps
  • The same basic cleanup of AD&D 2e: everyone uses same xp table, all races can be all classes (no level limits), shift disparate subsystems to more unified mechanics (usually d20), etc.
  • Still retains the basic D&D structure of levels, races/species, and classes (heading off the question of 'so why not any other fantasy RPG with lots of character creation options and customizability, etc.).
  • Focus on character creation options and customization (possibly still being feats and PrCs, although see last bullet)
  • Predictable formulas (ex. slow, medium, and fast base attack progression; general formulas for a +1 AC magic item value; etc.).
  • Monsters built much like PCs, also with predictable formulas (creature type X gets Y of a feature per HD)
  • At the same time, some (really any) major feature or features done genuinely differently than what they did for 3.0, 3.5, and PF1. This could range from all non-cleric/fighter/rogue/wizard classes being PrCs to full-spellcasters having level 0-6 spells instead of 1-9 to fighting types doing more damage and getting AoEs instead of iterative attacks to the default spellcasting system being spell-point based to honestly I don't know what.
The last one is even in doubt, as I can see a complete 'take four' version of D&D3.x where nothing profoundly huge and systemic was changed, and they just did new attempts on all the different things.

It's worth noting that there were plenty of 3.x games that weren't PF, if you consider the different D20 games. Many (like d20 Star Wars and Traveller) only qualify if you squint hard enough (but maybe one can see what an alternate 3.x would look like using their design choices), but others like Radiance are pretty blatantly different attempts at a D&D-like game using the same rough model.
 
Last edited:

What gets me is how people can NEVER be satisfied with a system. Even if they love it, they will complain about "it doesn't do blahblahblah" or "it doesn't play like blahblahblah". I was almost there with Mutants & Masterminds but I caught myself - a system is gonna play how that particular system plays. Then, if there's no other game that's "better", you just apply houserules to cover the perceived holes. And nothing plays better than M&M.

It's like EVERY thread people are like "Well, the PROBLEM with blahblahblah is ....." and I ALWAYS think to myself, "That isn't a problem. It's a preference issue." I'm only bringing this up because the PF1 crowd is akin to a cabal of mad scientists constantly fiddling and fondling and tweaking the system to get more and more from it. And it's cool because of all the editions of D&D, PF1e offers groups the most options. Does it "break" at higher levels? Sure, because ALL editions of D&D break at high levels. Which is why many old-school players retired characters after reaching "Name" level (9th).

To the OP, 3.5/PF1 haven't gone anywhere. You can find a thriving community of players at Giant in the Playground. It's what they do over there and it's fun to read the forums. If you're a fan of the system anyway (y)
 

Some folks seem to want that, but honestly I loved most of what PF added so cant see why you wouldnt want it. In fact, all the feats, traits, archetypes, prestige classes, hybrid classes, etc.. are the appeal to me. So, not wanting those things, but wanting 3E is a little puzzling to me, but this thread has made it clear folks want a lot of different things from 3E/PF1.
I am just having a hard time imagining what people would like a 3.Z line to look like.
 


Its easy, however, there are a thousand different desires so it isnt going to work for a business.
I mean specifically. I am hoping for someone to.say what they think would be a good evolution of 3.0 that was not 3.5 and therefore also not PF.

I think I understand what folks might want in a continuation of PF that wasn't so divergent as PF2, though.
 

I mean specifically. I am hoping for someone to.say what they think would be a good evolution of 3.0 that was not 3.5 and therefore also not PF.

I think I understand what folks might want in a continuation of PF that wasn't so divergent as PF2, though.
Yeah, I definitely dont think a better math but with fewer options 3E knockoff is going to attract many folks. Sounds like 5E if you ask me.
 

I mean specifically. I am hoping for someone to.say what they think would be a good evolution of 3.0 that was not 3.5 and therefore also not PF.

I've talked about this before at length, since I've been using a house ruled 3.0e since before 3.5 existed, and while some 3.5 spell revisions (Haste and Harm) made it into my rules, it's still largely a fork of 3.0e that is independent of 3.5e and largely tangential.

Some of the many many changes:
1) 5 step rule changed to only allow free steps where you maintain threat of the target. So you can circle or flank but not (as easily) break contact (though you could wield a spear or halberd for example maintain some distance).
2) Spells no longer add their level to the DC of saving throws. Spell-like effects no longer add 1/2 HD to the DC of the saving throw.
3) Clerics have a spells known list and get fewer spells (starting with one less spell per day, for example, and typically having a level where they are 0+1D spells, that is, only able to cast their domain spell in the slot at that level).
4) Some classes are replaced with a more generic version: barbarian => fanatic and loses its strict tie to primitive wilderness, druid => shaman and loses its ties to Northern Europe, paladin => champion and loses its ties to a lawful good, ranger => hunter and loses its ties to good and wilderness. This allows more flexibility, so for example a hunter can be an urban bounty hunter without requiring a variant class.
5) Fighters especially and Rogues to a lesser extent start getting backloaded at higher levels (fighters gaining multiple feats per level as well as various minor class abilities). Fighters also have access to a list of class skills: porter, run, tactics, and leadership and more skill points per level. Rogues also get (even) more skill points per level.
6) Combat casting to easily avoid AoO basically eliminated.
7) All PrC's banned. Multiclassing additionally restricted by having many attribute requirements to enter a class that increase the more classes you enter.
8) Widespread rebalancing of spells and feats. For example, "Rapid Shot" for missile attacks goes away and a conceptually similar "Improved Flail" for melee attacks appears. "Natural Spell" doesn't exist. "Spider Climb" gives you a natural movement speed while climbing, and consequently a +8 bonus on climb checks, but no longer gives you just blanket ability to climb anything. "Fly" becomes a level 4 spell. In a lot of cases, a spell is the weaker of the 3.0e and 3.5e version. In some cases, neither version of the spell was deemed balanced and a more limited version exists. Additionally, feats exist that do for you basically what PrCs were created to do. So for example if you want to play a fighter/sorcerer, there are feats that fix that gap in the multiclassing design not a PrC.
9) Sorcerers choose between multiple bloodlines and potentially "mutate" as they level up.
10) Ranges on spells are basically halved, with medium range being 50+10/caster level for example. In general, it's hard for a spellcaster to outrange a melee archer or slinger.

I fundamentally agree that everyone playing 3e found a way to make it functional despite the deluge of bad rules and chargen options coming out of WotC on its aggressive publishing schedule, and that therefore no one has a consensus on how to fix it. It's not like the rules engine itself was janky and needed an upgrade. Fixing 3e involves a bunch of small tweaks that reflect the character of the designer, not the fundamental brokenness of D20.
 

Some of the many many changes:
Thanks for the detailed reply.

But this
7) All PrC's banned.
makes me sad. I think the 3.0 PrCs are the best part of that game. I mean, not the combat monster broken ones, but the ones that are part of the setting and are there to talk about the character's place in the world.

One of these days I am going to bring them back to 5E.
 

Thanks for the detailed reply.

But this

makes me sad. I think the 3.0 PrCs are the best part of that game. I mean, not the combat monster broken ones, but the ones that are part of the setting and are there to talk about the character's place in the world.

One of these days I am going to bring them back to 5E.
🤛 Yeah I think PF showed us that prestige classes can be great without being a problem.
 

Remove ads

Top