What made you stick with 3.x?

[John Little]

Honestly, Pathfinder sort of... well, it codifies playstyles that before had sort of been bad habits, and it felt like it detracted from the magic of the game world. Stacking up numbers was not only easier in Pathfinder, but it was more necessary. For example, take poor Bardic Knowledge... what before had been a curious and uniquely flavorful way to get insight into secrets that might not otherwise be covered by knowledge checks just became a standard knowledge check... with a numerical boost. I'd seen players just treat Bardic Knowledge as a sort of Knowledge (Whatever) skill before, and near the end of 3.5 some of the books even started treating it the same way, but for Pathfinder to make it the default assumption rubbed me the wrong way.

Having said that, I didn't neglect Pathfinder entirely, but I instead treated it as an optional rules patch to 3.5. I'd already taken Unearthed Arcana's advice to improve Half-Elves by giving them a skill point every level to give them a little something more from their human heritage, but Pathfinder's half-elf improvements were nice, and flavorful. So in addition to the extra skill-point every level, I gave Skill Focus as a free bonus feat and allowed for two favored classes instead of one. (And since I still use 3.5's favored class rules instead of Pathfinder's, half-elves become mechanically more useful as a race for people who like to dip into several levels at a time, though I confess I've never had a player interested in that enough to ask me how I handle XP penalties.)

So... I *do* use Pathfinder. Sparingly. Like Paprika. It's good in small doses, but get too much in my games and they turn into giant quests to just ramp up the biggest numbers again.

Fortunately, 5th edition is here now, and that's even *more* about the story and roleplaying, so I'm making a comfortable transition to that.

 

[Greenfield]

Pathfinder is, generally speaking, a powered-up version of D&D.

I don't consider "more PC power" an improvement.

I'd played D&D 4e, which followed a similar path, and not only I, but my entire group voted to drop that one. We'd played 10 levels, so we gave it a fair shake, but it didn't win any fans at my table.

Pathfinder was intended to fix some of the broken things in D&D, and I suppose it did. In my opinion and experience, however, they broke at least as much as they fixed.

 

[Dandu]

For those who still play 3.x, what made you stick with it rather than jump over to Pathfinder?

Newton's first law.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I looked at and found much to enjoy in the progeny of 3.5Ed- not just Pathfinder, but Midnight, AE/AU, True20 and several others found their way onto my game shelves.

However, each one made at least as many changes I disliked as changes I loved. And most of the others in my game group were...unimpressed...by the other games. So, like above, inertia ruled.

I was in the process of making an amalgam of all the 3.X rules I liked for a homebrew campaign, but 4Ed intervened, as did competing work on a Fantasy HERO campaign set in the world of M:tG, followed by (completely unrelated) DM burnout on my part. I haven't looked at 5Ed too closely- I'll probably pick up the Core plus a few more, but I'm not super-enthusiastic about it.

 

[Brian Sailor]

The thing that kept with 3.5 is the ridiculous number of books I own for it. I simply couldn't justify spending all of that (even more) for Pathfinder. And after watching the number of Pathfinder books grow and grow...

...got all I need. More than I need.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

3.x is my favorite version of the game for long-term campaign play. I like (and include) Pathfinder stuff to supplement 3.x games that I run, but Pathfinder doesn't scratch that itch for me in the same way that 3.x does.

So far, I've found 5e to be pretty good for pick up play, one shots, and new players, but it doesn't have the depth of options for character building that I like for long term games.

 

[Agamon]

Honestly, I've only purchased the Core, APG, and Paizo gave me the GMG (to help me in writing the City of Kasai Gazetteer for The Empty Throne module, Jade Regent AP). I rely on d20pfsrd.com instead of having a need to purchase anything. There's no need to purchase to play PF, is all I'm sayin'.

Oh, yeah, for sure. I played an Oracle in the last game I played, even though I just have the core book, using the pfsrd. I do prefer using books when playing, though, and pdfs when reading a game book.

 

[Grogg of the North]

I was excited for Pathfinder. Went out and bought the core rulebook and the bestiary. Showed it to my group with the hopes of getting people to jump ship. Or at least try it. The response from the group was "Yea, but we already own all this 3.5 stuff...."

 

[gamerprinter]

I was excited for Pathfinder. Went out and bought the core rulebook and the bestiary. Showed it to my group with the hopes of getting people to jump ship. Or at least try it. The response from the group was "Yea, but we already own all this 3.5 stuff...."

On face value it feels like D&D 3.5, but if your players had run even a short campaign with PF characters, they'll find that its hard to go back to 3.5 once they get used to having feats available every other level (every level for fighter), more class features, no dead levels where all you get is more skill points, more interesting versions of the monk, paladin, plus many new classes: magus, inquisitor, oracle, witch, etc. At least in my experience, as my table had those same inhibitions from going to PF from 3x, after they tried it and got used to it, 3.5 to a player point of view, seems like a step backwards.

 

[Ranes]

On face value it feels like D&D 3.5, but if your players had run even a short campaign with PF characters, they'll find that its hard to go back to 3.5 once they get used to having feats available every other level (every level for fighter), more class features, no dead levels where all you get is more skill points, more interesting versions of the monk, paladin, plus many new classes: magus, inquisitor, oracle, witch, etc. At least in my experience, as my table had those same inhibitions from going to PF from 3x, after they tried it and got used to it, 3.5 to a player point of view, seems like a step backwards.

My group was fully aware of all the things you mention and, indeed, a couple of players have played PF. But I've never been asked to run it and only one of my current regular players also plays PF (and he's not so much invested in the system as the campaign he's in). As for myself, none of the what you describe persuaded me that it was enough to justify further outlay, especially as I had not -- and still have not -- explored everything that 3.x has to offer.

But don't get me wrong, I'm delighted that there is a PF and that it's thriving. And I have bought a couple of PF APs to tinker with and refit for my 3.x games.