Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder

[Empirate]

Odd. By and large, the last run of books was mixed to poor from my perspective. Can't say I ever found much use for CS. To each his own I guess.

Sure enough. I can totally understand not liking the later 3.5 books. Even to me, they don't "feel like D&D" as much. But they add so much to the game, especially in terms of new and (back then) exciting mechanics: vestige binding, invocations, spontaneous fixed-list casters (Beguiler etc.), reserve and devotion feats, skill tricks, maneuvers... It's much easier to fill one and the same party role using a lot of different approaches.
Now one could say that this is not needed, that it dilutes party roles or classic class concepts or whatever, that it introduces power creep when compared to straight Core, etc. Most of these claims can even be argued quite convincingly. However, to me, the later 3.5 books made the game much bigger, much more versatile, and consequently much more interesting. Plus they provided much-needed support for some until then often neglected party roles and classes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

However, to me, the later 3.5 books made the game much bigger, much more versatile, and consequently much more interesting. Plus they provided much-needed support for some until then often neglected party roles and classes.

I liked that they experimented, and I liked some of the results (reserve feats, for example), but I liked Unearthed Arcana better.

 

[TwoSix]

I liked that they experimented, and I liked some of the results (reserve feats, for example), but I liked Unearthed Arcana better.

Yeah, put me in the group that likes later 3.5 over earlier. I'd happily play a game of only PHB2 on, with maybe some alternative class features to grab some earlier class features I like (such as bardic music or rage).

 

[knottyprof]

**Sorry, wrong post**

 

[questkick]

I would suggest 1 of 2 things.

1: You can easily limit classes to only the ones in the core rulebook. They're exactly the same as D&D 3 classes.

or

2: Adjust the game to the characters. If there's no rogue, then keep locks, traps, and stealth missions to a minimum. Make the challenges appropriate to the party. Just take a look at what abilities the party has, and give them challenges that let them use those abilities.

Also, keep in mind Pathfinder isn't a major overhaul on the D&D rules. It only has minor tweaks that smooth over a few things. If you're playing Pathfinder, you should expect the game to be pretty much the same as 3.5.

 

[brvheart]

I see someone resurrected my old thread. Well, I have been playing pathfinder for a bit longer now and find it playable at least although I am not sure I wouldn't prefer to have stuck to 3.5. By limiting mostly to core classes and races with limited exceptions it seems to be working for us now. We have had witches, inquisitors, alchemists and even a gunslinger and all sorts of archetypes. The archetypes allow for some decent variety in the game.

 

[Starfox]

By limiting mostly to core classes and races with limited exceptions it seems to be working for us now. We have had witches, inquisitors, alchemists and even a gunslinger and all sorts of archetypes. The archetypes allow for some decent variety in the game.

These two sentences do seem contradictory.

I find that the new classes, and especially archetypes, is a big part of what keeps Pathfinder fresh - with little ado the number of character options increase manyfold. And if you don't want any particluar option, it is pretty easy to forbid just that - say gunsligners - and the game as a whole will work as long as you use the four main classes or something very close to them: Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric.

 

[brvheart]

Well I am old school so I don't need the constant variety of classes, etc. We have one or two non-core classes per game which allows us to learn the new classes w/o it getting to crazy.

 

[brvheart]

I for one am not seeing this need to completely change the game system every few years. We have gone from 1E to 2E to 2.5 to 3E to 3.5 to Pathfinder and 4E somewhere in between. I don't need a D&D Next! I am starting to see why OSR is getting to popular as a lot of people are wanting to get off this train! I am getting off and this is my last stop. I have plenty of game systems to last me the rest of my life now. Some say the game has evolved, or has it devolved?

 

[Starfox]

Some say the game has evolved, or has it devolved?

Evolution doesn't lead to a "higher" from, it leads to more specialized forms adapted to specific circumstances. Something highly evolved need not be for everyone.

Applies to organisms as well as to games, it would seem. ^^