The "3.XE/PF Crowd" - where will they go? What will they play?

[Votan]

There are a few aspects of [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] that I find annoying, most of which are focused on the sluggishness and complexity of high level game-play. But [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate] is slowing typing with 3.X for my most played edition. It was fun and reasonably balanced, even with all splat books in play. It has a decent library of adventures and does most of what I wanted from WotC in the 3.5 era (slow pace of hardcovers, balanced material, good GM support in terms of modules, an interesting game world).

If I want something light and simple, games like Savage Worlds or retro clones (like Adventurer Conquerer King System) exist and are likely to not have a lot of splat books (the goal of a light game is not fulfilled, by definition, if there is a lot of rules support).

So it will be a hard trick to pull off. You can never rule out a really innovative and interesting take on the classic game that has some sort of comparative advantage.

 

[Light Knight]

I've been following the 5e rules since close to the beginning, and looked at the latest. It seems so bland and "juvenile". I just don't get it. When the core is released, I'll take a gander, but I hardly think I'll drop my current game for it. The only thing that would get me back into D&D, is doing something with D&D that would make it no longer D&D, and that's go to a skill/ability based game, instead of class base.

 

[Greenfield]

As an update of sorts: I've been reviewing the skill rules for PF, compared to 3.5.

Both systems seem to grant the same number of skill points per level, on an apples to apples basis (i.e. fighters get 2 + Int bonus per level in both systems, Rogues get 8+Int, Rangers get 6+, etc.). 3.5 gives that a 4x multiplier at 1st level that PF doesn't, so PF does get fewer skills. Or so it seems.

PF, however, gives a +3 bonus to every class skill that a person trains in, and appears to have eliminated the "cross class" rule that makes you pay double per point in 3.*.

3.* caps the skill points you can put in any one skill to your character level +3, while PF caps it at the character level. That free "+3" seems to be important to remember at this point however. I'll show why in a bit.

PF seems to have eliminated Synergy bonuses though, limiting the effective results a bit.

Let's consider a 2nd level Fighter in each system. Presume an Int of 12.

3e starts with 12 skill points. PF starts with 3. Add three more to each for the 2nd level.

Fighter buys common Fighter skills like Climb, Swim and Ride.

If the 3e maxes out all three at 1st level, he ends up with Ability +4 in all three. If the PF fighter maxes out all three at 1st level, he also ends up with Ability +4 in all three.

Now at 2nd level they both decide to try adding Survival and Jump.

Jump is now part of Acrobatics in PF, and is not "in class" for that character, so he misses out on that +3 bonus. Both will gain the same, point for point, in that arena. Except that the PF fighter gets all the other benefits of Acrobatics that the 3e fighter doesn't.

Survival is "in class" for both, so if they each spent two on "Jump", they each have one left for Survival. 3e gets Wis + 1 on Survival checks. PF gets Wis +4 on Survival checks, due to that +3 bonus.

The best the 3e can do from here out is to match the PF. In some cases 3e will have to pay double for a skill that PF pays one for, and in some cases PF will get that +3 bonus. In some cases, 3e will end up paying 4 to 1, in cases like Spot and Listen (both cross class for Fighters), but which got combined in PF. PF pays 1 for a +1 in Observation and 3e pays 4 for a comparable +1 in the two skills Spot and Listen. (Same happens with Hide/Move Silent v Stealth).

So the x4 multiplier at 1st seems to evaporate almost at once, giving no real advantage in this build. What it does do is give the 3e fighter the option of spreading out more, getting a +1 or +2 in more skills instead of maxing out the few. That slight tactical edge disappears with time, as the PF character continues to get +3 bonuses in any trained class skill, and the 3e pays double for any others.

In this example, the idea that PF "gets fewer skills" seems to be an illusion over all. It looks like it's true, but functionally it really isn't.

We could pick another class and run the comparison again, but when the dust settles we'll probably see comparable results: Early flexibility advantage for 3e, eventual impact of Synergy bonuses, but a functional skill point edge for the PF character that 3e won't ever overcome.

So yeah, even in this area, PF is a power up from 3e.

 

[Stormonu]

Having recently played PF with Rise of the Runelords (we got to 6th level), I'll agree PF is a power-up over 3E. Though it's not enough to have been detrimental to play. I do like that alternate class features have really cut back on the need for PrC classes and fighter feats look to have received some oomph so there's somewhere to go with them after 6th-8th level. Advanced classes can be troublesome (Summoner can really put a Druidzilla and his Animal Companion to shame), but they're not core, so they don't have to be allowed. I'm not really fond of the additional oomph they gave spellcasters - they were already (too) good enough, but I do like the Cleric's channel ability; it's a very tactical ability and far more useful/better integrated than Turn Undead ever was.

From perusing the books, it does look as though they've reigned in some of the higher level stuff, but our game hasn't reached that point to really try some of it out. However, I've found I never did like D&D beyond 12th level, and I doubt that will change in [notranslate]Pathfinder[/notranslate].