jhunton
First Post
yes but not if they do none rules releases. like woulds and settings
Pathfinder 1E So far not impressed with Pathfinder
yes but not if they do none rules releases. like woulds and settings
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
That was exactly my thought on Pathfinder's relationship to 3.5. IMO Trailblazer took a different tack, going back the 3.5's core and rebalanced around that power level instead of taking 3.5's end-life and balance around that power level. Trailblazer is a fairly inexpensive .pdf and perfectly compatible with 3.x adventures. Trailblazer just finished its successful Kickstarter project and published its monster book.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I read ggeilman's post as "the march was a total failure", and not "4e was a total failure", but I do see how you three interpreted this way.
I mean, it's very possible that's what he means. In the original post, he said: "It was about this time we as a group stacked up all of our 4E books and put them on the shelf and went back to 3.5." I think that, since his group played 4e, he might just mean that it didn't work out. I'll admit he could be slamming 4e, and if so, yeah, there's no call for that slam in this way ("4e was a total failure"). Just thought he might mean something else, and thought I'd point it out. As always, play what you like
S
Sunseeker
Guest
It's unlikely that alone could sustain them. And some of their rules are cool and creative, like the "Blood of..." books.
Their world and setting books contain feats, spells, traits, etc.
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
Which power level?
The prep-caster power level, the fighter-monk power level, or something in the vast between?
It's hard to tell isn't it, because ggeilman's maybe-4e-slam was a non-sequitor within an intimidating wall-o-text. *shrug*I mean, it's very possible that's what he means. In the original post, he said: "It was about this time we as a group stacked up all of our 4E books and put them on the shelf and went back to 3.5." I think that, since his group played 4e, he might just mean that it didn't work out. I'll admit he could be slamming 4e, and if so, yeah, there's no call for that slam in this way ("4e was a total failure"). Just thought he might mean something else, and thought I'd point it out. As always, play what you like
AdmundfortGeographer
Getting lost in fantasy maps
There is still a vast in between, but weak classes were brought up a bit and the casters were brought down a bit so the "in between" is made smaller. Trailblazer didn't try to 4e-ify the classes to be equally effective in a combat.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
The quote of ggeilman's that preceded the three replies I quoted was three lines in length. That's where the "maybe-4e-slam" was. Not an intimidating "wall-o-text" for me. As always, play what you like
Tequila Sunrise
Adventurer
My bad, I don't know why I thought the maybe-4e-slam was in the OP. I blame my long week.The quote of ggeilman's that preceded the three replies I quoted was three lines in length. That's where the "maybe-4e-slam" was. Not an intimidating "wall-o-text" for me. As always, play what you like
...Anyway, ggeilman's whole attitude is kinda bewildering to me, even aside from what may or may not be a 4e slam. I had a suggestion or two, but somehow I don't think he'll want to hear it -- so I'm off to prep for Sunday's game!
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
Yeah, it sounds like less system anyways, and more like group dynamics. Sent some XP your way... have fun with your game, and as always, play what you like
Similar Threads
