Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

Expand Messages
  • Chuck McIntyre
    ... I haven t seen such a guide, and I spent some time searching for it. The conclusion I came to: it s a different system, don t try to equate them, you ll
    Message 1 of 19 , Feb 24, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Steve Huntsberry <steve@...> wrote:
       

      Does anyone know a good reference that explains the differences
      between Pathfinder and D20 version 3.5? It seems like 90% of the
      rules are the same, but enough is different to be very confusing.


      I haven't seen such a guide, and I spent some time searching for it. The conclusion I came to: it's a different system, don't try to equate them, you'll confuse yourself and be wrong more often than not.

      As an overview, this was pretty useful (although too much whining and posturing as is normal in tEh int0rwebz):

      http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/252997-paizos-pathfinder-really-compatible-3-5-a.html


      If you do find a guide, let me know!

      -Chuck
    • Robert Brambley
      I would visit Paizo s messageboard and tool around there.   It is a great community of folks on there. Here s a link to a simplified FAQ.  You ll get some
      Message 2 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        I would visit Paizo's messageboard and tool around there.   It is a great community of folks on there.
         
        Here's a link to a simplified FAQ.  You'll get some info from that, but it's not an exhaustive explanation.
         
         

         
        Robert

        Back when Reagan was president, we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Now Obama is president and sadly both Hope and Cash are gone.



        From: Steve Huntsberry <steve@...>
        To: Bay Area Pathfinder <bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com>
        Cc: Steve Huntsberry <steve@...>
        Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 5:05:11 PM
        Subject: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

         

        Does anyone know a good reference that explains the differences
        between Pathfinder and D20 version 3.5? It seems like 90% of the
        rules are the same, but enough is different to be very confusing.

        I have the 3.5 rules down fairly well, but I want to make certain
        that I know about all of the areas where there have been changes.

        Thanks,

        Steve Huntsberry
        steve@huntsberry. com

      • Scott Johnson
        I don t know of a reference that explains the difference, but think of Pathfinder as D&D 3.75. Pathfinder has simply tried (and I think most will agree
        Message 3 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't know of a reference that explains the difference, but think of Pathfinder as D&D 3.75. Pathfinder has simply tried (and I think most will agree succeeded) on improving D&D 3.5.
           
          Here is just a brief - off the top of my head - list of changes.
           
          Pathfinder has:
           
          1) Improved  Defenses) Example - Dodge: is now just a +1 to your AC.
          2) Reduced Offensive Might) Example - Power Attack: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. When your base attack bonus reaches +4, and every 4 points thereafter, the penalty increases by –1 and the bonus to damage increases by +2.
          3) Consolidated Skills) Example - Jump, tumble & balance are now acrobatics.
          4) Simplified Maneuvers) Example - Grapple, bull rush and trip is now one roll by using the Paizo's combat maneuver system.
          5) Speed up game play across the board) Example the above examples: Doge has no more dodge buddy, No more dialing in Power attack and grapple is just one roll.
           
          These are but a very few changes that make the Pathfinder system better and faster playing then 3.5. Pathfinder is still so close to 3.5 that (If your playing in a home game) you can keep all your old 3.5 splat books and use their prestige classes and spells, with just minor updates (skills & feats). The system is so easy to update on the fly that I'm running a game using the Pathfinder rule set and I'm running a 3.5 module (Course of the Crimson Throne).
           
          Anyway I could clean this up and write volumes more, but I need to get back to work. ;-)
           
          Hoped this helped.
           
          Scott.
           
           
           
           
           
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 5:05 PM
          Subject: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

           

          Does anyone know a good reference that explains the differences
          between Pathfinder and D20 version 3.5? It seems like 90% of the
          rules are the same, but enough is different to be very confusing.

          I have the 3.5 rules down fairly well, but I want to make certain
          that I know about all of the areas where there have been changes.

          Thanks,

          Steve Huntsberry
          steve@huntsberry. com

        • Chuck McIntyre
          ... Agreed though there are some things it could learn from 4e*. My main point was that the differences are subtle and far-reaching. Thinking of it as 3.5 with
          Message 4 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Scott Johnson <stjstone@...> wrote:
            I don't know of a reference that explains the difference, but think of Pathfinder as D&D 3.75. Pathfinder has simply tried (and I think most will agree succeeded) on improving D&D 3.5.

            Agreed though there are some things it could learn from 4e*. My main point was that the differences are subtle and far-reaching. Thinking of it as 3.5 with augmentation will lead to confusion and misunderstanding of the rules. It's a new system, read it through!
             





            * - Better/further skill consolidation; no ranks for skills at all, you're either skilled or not; watered-down/prohibited multi-classing; saving throw is different than defense, etc.
          • Alfred Anderson
            I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better.  I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of
            Message 5 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better. 
              I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of the things I really do NOT like about 4e.
               
              I'm fine with the multi-classing in Pathfinder, it provides for some uniqueness of character but they have made it quite attractive to stick with one class as well.  In 3.5 you were almost always better off to do some multi-classing.
               
              About the only thing I might like better in 4e that you have mentioned is spell-casters attacking the defense stats of Will, Fort, and Reflex instead of the saving throw concept.  But either way it is a single die roll and works just fine.  So, I'm actually a bit ambivalent to that one.
               
              I've played both and much prefer Pathfinder.  I especially like their campaigns.  Played or currently playing in:
              Rise of the Runelords
              Curse of the Crimson Throne
              Council of Thieves
               
              And I've enjoyed the Pathfinder Society Modules as well.  Would still prefer a true Regional system like LG had with unique options for conventions and stuff.  But so far, there isn't enough demand for Pathfinder to justify it.  So, my favorite will continue to be home campaigns now, which means I really have no good reason to go to conventions anymore.
               
              :(  And that is a sad thing. :(
               
              Alfred Anderson

              --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...> wrote:

              From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...>
              Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5
              To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
              Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 4:01 PM

              Agreed though there are some things it could learn from 4e*.
              <snip>
              * - Better/further skill consolidation; no ranks for skills at all, you're either skilled or not; watered-down/ prohibited multi-classing; saving throw is different than defense, etc.

            • Chuck McIntyre
              ... Going to agree to disagree on this. Don t care enough to argue. :) ... Multi-classing has been, and still is, broken since 3.0. It s unbalancing, not to
              Message 6 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@...> wrote:
                I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better. 
                I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of the things I really do NOT like about 4e.

                Going to agree to disagree on this. Don't care enough to argue. :)
                 
                I'm fine with the multi-classing in Pathfinder, it provides for some uniqueness of character but they have made it quite attractive to stick with one class as well.  In 3.5 you were almost always better off to do some multi-classing.

                Multi-classing has been, and still is, broken since 3.0. It's unbalancing, not to mention a role-play problem. This is especially true in 3.5 but only because you have a whole bunch of other classes to choose from. The more classes pathfinder comes up with, the more multi-classing becomes unbalanced.

                 
                 
                About the only thing I might like better in 4e that you have mentioned is spell-casters attacking the defense stats of Will, Fort, and Reflex instead of the saving throw concept.  But either way it is a single die roll and works just fine.  So, I'm actually a bit ambivalent to that one.

                That's what I meant  by my comment about saving throws versus defense. I really like the concept that everything is a target number to hit, rather than having the target roll.


              • John Cramer
                How is multi-classing a role-playing problem? I don t get that at all. ________________________________ From: Chuck McIntyre To:
                Message 7 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
                View Source
                • 0 Attachment
                  How is multi-classing a role-playing problem?  I don't get that at all.


                  From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...>
                  To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 4:40:10 PM
                  Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                   



                  On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@yahoo. com> wrote:
                  I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better. 
                  I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of the things I really do NOT like about 4e.

                  Going to agree to disagree on this. Don't care enough to argue. :)
                   
                  I'm fine with the multi-classing in Pathfinder, it provides for some uniqueness of character but they have made it quite attractive to stick with one class as well.  In 3.5 you were almost always better off to do some multi-classing.

                  Multi-classing has been, and still is, broken since 3.0. It's unbalancing, not to mention a role-play problem. This is especially true in 3.5 but only because you have a whole bunch of other classes to choose from. The more classes pathfinder comes up with, the more multi-classing becomes unbalanced.

                   
                   
                  About the only thing I might like better in 4e that you have mentioned is spell-casters attacking the defense stats of Will, Fort, and Reflex instead of the saving throw concept.  But either way it is a single die roll and works just fine.  So, I'm actually a bit ambivalent to that one.

                  That's what I meant  by my comment about saving throws versus defense. I really like the concept that everything is a target number to hit, rather than having the target roll.



                • Chuck McIntyre
                  ... I m a Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard. I trained in the Legion, got beat, got really pissed off and randomly developed magic! Examples abound, and yes, there
                  Message 8 of 19 , Feb 25, 2010
                  View Source
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM, John Cramer <isbjorn19@...> wrote:
                     

                    How is multi-classing a role-playing problem?  I don't get that at all.

                    "I'm a Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard. I trained in the Legion, got beat, got really pissed off and randomly developed magic!"

                    Examples abound, and yes, there are ways to rationalize most combinations, and yes, at the end of the day you should work with your DM, but still.
                  • Alfred Anderson
                    Sounds like you prefer the 4e system, which is fine.  But if you like that so much, what is it that interests you in a Pathfinder group? Alfred Anderson ...
                    Message 9 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                    View Source
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sounds like you prefer the 4e system, which is fine.  But if you like that so much, what is it that interests you in a Pathfinder group?
                      Alfred Anderson

                      --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...> wrote:

                      From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...>
                      Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5
                      To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                      Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 4:40 PM

                       


                      On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@yahoo. com> wrote:
                      I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better. 
                      I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of the things I really do NOT like about 4e.

                      Going to agree to disagree on this. Don't care enough to argue. :)
                       
                      I'm fine with the multi-classing in Pathfinder, it provides for some uniqueness of character but they have made it quite attractive to stick with one class as well.  In 3.5 you were almost always better off to do some multi-classing.

                      Multi-classing has been, and still is, broken since 3.0. It's unbalancing, not to mention a role-play problem. This is especially true in 3.5 but only because you have a whole bunch of other classes to choose from. The more classes pathfinder comes up with, the more multi-classing becomes unbalanced.

                       
                       
                      About the only thing I might like better in 4e that you have mentioned is spell-casters attacking the defense stats of Will, Fort, and Reflex instead of the saving throw concept.  But either way it is a single die roll and works just fine.  So, I'm actually a bit ambivalent to that one.

                      That's what I meant  by my comment about saving throws versus defense. I really like the concept that everything is a target number to hit, rather than having the target roll.



                    • Chuck McIntyre
                      ... Love it or leave it, huh? I actually really don t like the 4E system. I like certain things they did to balance the system, and some of what they did was
                      Message 10 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                      View Source
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@...> wrote:
                         

                        Sounds like you prefer the 4e system, which is fine.  But if you like that so much, what is it that interests you in a Pathfinder group?

                        Love it or leave it, huh? 

                        I actually really don't like the 4E system. I like certain things they did to balance the system, and some of what they did was really cool. The characters and powers I do not like at all. Further, they went a little overboard on "balance" to the point where combat, especially at high levels, is extremely tedious.

                        I would love to adapt some of the 4E stuff to Pathfinder (and I may, if I ever run my own house game), but I was just responding to the thread.

                        Cheers,
                        Chuck

                      • Robert Brambley
                        if I may.........what I think he s trying to say is that it s frequent that players min/max options and multi-class to create a powerful build of a character
                        Message 11 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                        View Source
                        • 0 Attachment
                          if I may.........what I think he's trying to say is that it's frequent that players min/max options and multi-class to create a powerful "build" of a character that really makes no rhyme or reason sense other than the statistical advantages of the choices.
                           
                          That being said, this is not an exclusive problem to 3rd edition  -  2nd edition was rife with it as well with the advent of the "Complete Handbooks" (especially the Elves.....Bladesingers anyone.?????)
                           
                          But I digress, there's nothing inherently wrong with doing so, there's no wrong way to enjoy the game - whatever makes the game fun and is acceptable to the philosophy of the DM and overall tendencies of the table.

                          I argue that it's just as common to multiclass for a true roleplaying flavor and theme of a character like an Arcane Archer or a Arcane Trickster that require a multi-class path in order to fill that role. 
                           
                          What Pathfinder did to resolve some of the min/max tendencies to multi-class was to make the individual character classes more attractive at later levels especially, to make them at least as good (if not better) of an option to stay true to a single class and not even take a prestige class anymore.  The classes are much more rounded and better, and finally on par with the WotC supplemental classes that came after the PHB in 3.5 (such as the Scout, Ninja, Warlock, Warmage, etc). 

                          For the first time since I switched to 3rd edition in 1999 do I see a player playing an actual single-classed fighter - I have a 15th level fighter in my current Age of Worms campaign (using Pathfinder rules).  It has only ever been a class in my experience to be a "pit stop" for 1 to 4 levels for a few feats.  The new designed classes for Pathfinder pays off much more to be single classed indeed!
                           
                          Robert

                          Back when Reagan was president, we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Now Obama is president and sadly both Hope and Cash are gone.



                          From: John Cramer <isbjorn19@...>
                          To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 6:30:35 PM
                          Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                           

                          How is multi-classing a role-playing problem?  I don't get that at all.


                          From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@ gmail.com>
                          To: bayareapathfinder@ yahoogroups. com
                          Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 4:40:10 PM
                          Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                           



                          On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@yahoo. com> wrote:
                          I beg to differ on the skilled or not skilled simplification in 4e being better. 
                          I much prefer the Pathfinder skill system.  The 4e skill changes are one of the things I really do NOT like about 4e.

                          Going to agree to disagree on this. Don't care enough to argue. :)
                           
                          I'm fine with the multi-classing in Pathfinder, it provides for some uniqueness of character but they have made it quite attractive to stick with one class as well.  In 3.5 you were almost always better off to do some multi-classing.

                          Multi-classing has been, and still is, broken since 3.0. It's unbalancing, not to mention a role-play problem. This is especially true in 3.5 but only because you have a whole bunch of other classes to choose from. The more classes pathfinder comes up with, the more multi-classing becomes unbalanced.

                           
                           
                          About the only thing I might like better in 4e that you have mentioned is spell-casters attacking the defense stats of Will, Fort, and Reflex instead of the saving throw concept.  But either way it is a single die roll and works just fine.  So, I'm actually a bit ambivalent to that one.

                          That's what I meant  by my comment about saving throws versus defense. I really like the concept that everything is a target number to hit, rather than having the target roll.



                        • Alfred Anderson
                          No, not at all.  Just trying to find out what you like from each system.   I actually like the powers and combat stuff better in 4e and hate their skill
                          Message 12 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                          View Source
                          • 0 Attachment
                            No, not at all.  Just trying to find out what you like from each system.
                             
                            I actually like the powers and combat stuff better in 4e and hate their skill system.  LOL
                            So we are opposites on that it seems.
                             
                            I think 4e makes a great skirmish miniatures system, but really don't like what it does to role-play.  And I don't like the shift to rituals and all of that.
                             
                            So, I really would not want to play a 4e campaign.  I like Pathfinder for that and love their campaigns.  I play some 4e at conventions because it is there and good combat fun.  But I'm looking to get back into "real" miniatures for some convention fun instead of "skirmish" only.
                             
                            About the only thing we seem to agree on is the Defence vs Spells.  And that isn't a big deal to me.
                             
                            Alfred Anderson
                             
                             
                             
                             

                            --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...> wrote:

                            From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...>
                            Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5
                            To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                            Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:28 AM

                             


                            On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@yahoo. com> wrote:
                             
                            Sounds like you prefer the 4e system, which is fine.  But if you like that so much, what is it that interests you in a Pathfinder group?

                            Love it or leave it, huh? 

                            I actually really don't like the 4E system. I like certain things they did to balance the system, and some of what they did was really cool. The characters and powers I do not like at all. Further, they went a little overboard on "balance" to the point where combat, especially at high levels, is extremely tedious.

                            I would love to adapt some of the 4E stuff to Pathfinder (and I may, if I ever run my own house game), but I was just responding to the thread.

                            Cheers,
                            Chuck


                          • George
                            I generally agree with the comments made regarding the improvement to 3.5 by the Pathfinder rules. Multi-classing for maximum character power is an issue that
                            Message 13 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                            View Source
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I generally agree with the comments made regarding the improvement to 3.5 by the Pathfinder rules. Multi-classing for maximum character power is an issue that has existed since the advent of 3.0 and will continue as long as there are power gamers and a way to tweak your character to be a power gamer character.

                              I think that you can't throw out multi-classing without damaging the ability of players to build unique and interesting PCs. I think the improvement of the basic character classes and the addition of unique abilities in each character class as the character gains levels will limit some of the power gamer's desires to multi-class.

                              I like the simiplification of the skills that were done in Pathfinder. It just did not make sense to have perception to be broken down into spot and listen. But, I did not like the 4E simplification that you either are skilled or you are not concept. I also did not like the cookie cutter characters that the over simplification of everything in 4E created.

                              Frankly, role playing in a fantasy genre begs for "Magic" and the 4E system nerfed all magic outside the "encounter." Not to my taste at all. 4E also made combat the sole focus of the game with an ever increasing amount of time necessary to complete each combat. Again, not to my taste.
                            • Robert Brambley
                              To add to what Alfred is saying: The reason I chose to play Pathfinder and enjoy it much more is multi-faceted. Aside from the rules changes that Pathfinder
                              Message 14 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                              View Source
                              • 0 Attachment
                                To add to what Alfred is saying:
                                The reason I chose to play Pathfinder and enjoy it much more is multi-faceted.
                                 
                                Aside from the rules changes that Pathfinder instituted that much more improved the 3rd edition gameplay than not, the world of Golarion, the Adventure Paths, and companions and other resources that they've developled for the Pathfinder world and society is the most creative stuff developed for a D&D game in a very long time.  I have to go back to 2nd edition Ravenloft and Planescape to find comparably riveting and enjoyable gaming enviornment and setting.
                                 
                                Furthermore, the company of Paizo has won me over as a customer because of how they treat their customers, and the consumer base as a whole; how they approached the advent of a new system and RPG rules format.  I can't say enough about the class and professionalism and how they approached the whole changes that WotC seemed to just brush people off - customers and 3rd party publishers.  Paizo has shown a history of being true to form, true to their word, and work hard and in the open to provide those of us long-term veteran players, and allowed us a voice in how we wanted to see the game proceed. 
                                 
                                I cannot however give any such credit to the designers of 4e.  I feel that they alienated their loyal fanbase, cast off the 3rd party publishers that helped perpetuate the sales of the system, and completely lost me as a fan and customer.  So long as WotC and mother company Hasbro owns the rights to D&D I will never spend another penny on them - and trust me when I say that's a great loss, as I can assure you I have spend thousands of dollars on 3rd edtiion materials and pre-painted miniatures lines (I use to buy three whole CASES of each set of mininatures that was released in hopes of getting all 24 Rares - thats like 400 bucks per minis set alone!)  
                                 
                                As a paizo customer, I'm a subscriber to the Modules, RPG rules line, Companion, Chronicles, and the Adventure paths _ I spend no less than 45 bucks a month - usually more like 60 - 75 each and every month, and now I'm going to subscribe to the Pathfinder Fiction line as well.   They've earned my trust and my loyal patronage.   And for the first time in my 25+ years of D&D gaming, I signed up and partake in "society / league" play - because I absolutely hated the living greyhawk's philosophy with regards to forcing players to be from a specific region just based on your true address in real life.  I love Pathfinder Society, and especially the nuances with the various factions one belongs to.

                                For all of these reasons I play Pathfinder as my first choice.
                                 
                                There are a few things that 4e did that I like and some that I've carried over for my home games: such as skill based challenges, and minions combat. 

                                Like the other poster on this thread, I can't stand the "over-balanced" blah-ness of everything with regards to the classes and powers, nor the MMO-like combat nuances that turn the game into not much more than a glorified game of miniature warfare.
                                 
                                I do like the idea of the way the Will and Fort and Ref are "targeted"; but it's not really all that different to really warrant a new edition change to facilitate it.   The old system works just as well. 
                                 
                                 
                                Furthermore, as a devout fan of paladins, (half of the characters I've ever played have been paladins), I can't in good conscience play a system that doesn't regulate a Paladin's alignment to LG.  That's a sacred cow that I'm just not willing to compromise.


                                 
                                Robert

                                Back when Reagan was president, we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Now Obama is president and sadly both Hope and Cash are gone.



                                From: Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@...>
                                To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 10:06:48 AM
                                Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                                 

                                No, not at all.  Just trying to find out what you like from each system.
                                 
                                I actually like the powers and combat stuff better in 4e and hate their skill system.  LOL
                                So we are opposites on that it seems.
                                 
                                I think 4e makes a great skirmish miniatures system, but really don't like what it does to role-play.  And I don't like the shift to rituals and all of that.
                                 
                                So, I really would not want to play a 4e campaign.  I like Pathfinder for that and love their campaigns.  I play some 4e at conventions because it is there and good combat fun.  But I'm looking to get back into "real" miniatures for some convention fun instead of "skirmish" only.
                                 
                                About the only thing we seem to agree on is the Defence vs Spells.  And that isn't a big deal to me.
                                 
                                Alfred Anderson
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 

                                --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@ gmail.com> wrote:

                                From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@ gmail.com>
                                Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5
                                To: bayareapathfinder@ yahoogroups. com
                                Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 8:28 AM

                                 


                                On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Alfred Anderson <alfredwab@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                 
                                Sounds like you prefer the 4e system, which is fine.  But if you like that so much, what is it that interests you in a Pathfinder group?

                                Love it or leave it, huh? 

                                I actually really don't like the 4E system. I like certain things they did to balance the system, and some of what they did was really cool. The characters and powers I do not like at all. Further, they went a little overboard on "balance" to the point where combat, especially at high levels, is extremely tedious.

                                I would love to adapt some of the 4E stuff to Pathfinder (and I may, if I ever run my own house game), but I was just responding to the thread.

                                Cheers,
                                Chuck


                              • Robert Brambley
                                I disagree only on the point that powergaming was solely with the advent of 3rd edition.  In my previous email, I pointed to 2nd edition and the way people
                                Message 15 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                                View Source
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I disagree only on the point that powergaming was solely with the advent of 3rd edition.  In my previous email, I pointed to 2nd edition and the way people min/maxed with kits, and other aspects of the Complete Handbooks.

                                  1st edition started the trend with the Unearthed Arcana with the ridiculous power of the Cavalier, Barbarian, 2 HD of hps at 1st level for a ranger, and the stat rolling for humans using 9 dice! 
                                   
                                  And both editions ability for Humans to 'dual class'; which I had a player do all the time with his characters.
                                   
                                  3rd edition certainly provided MORE options, thus more facets to play with and tweak, thus provoking more opportunities to do so (via the removal of level-caps of certain race/class combos, and removing the restrictions on certain race/class combos in general), but I daresay that power gaming and/or min-maxing was a new concept that was excluded from previous editions. 
                                   
                                   
                                  Thanks to the PHB core classes and their lameness for levels post 8th level - especially for like wizards and clerics, it was so easy to prefer a prestige class, and/or multi-class pit stop levels to generate a character concept that one desired - it was made easier in 3rd edition because multi-classing was something that was considered after initial character creation once new levels were attained - as opposed to being part of the original creation where an elven fighter/mage was always a fighter/mage from level one on up.
                                   
                                  Robert

                                  Back when Reagan was president, we had Bob Hope and Johnny Cash. Now Obama is president and sadly both Hope and Cash are gone.



                                  From: George <dulac50@...>
                                  To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Fri, February 26, 2010 10:42:22 AM
                                  Subject: [bayareapathfinder] Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                                   

                                  I generally agree with the comments made regarding the improvement to 3.5 by the Pathfinder rules. Multi-classing for maximum character power is an issue that has existed since the advent of 3.0 and will continue as long as there are power gamers and a way to tweak your character to be a power gamer character.

                                  I think that you can't throw out multi-classing without damaging the ability of players to build unique and interesting PCs. I think the improvement of the basic character classes and the addition of unique abilities in each character class as the character gains levels will limit some of the power gamer's desires to multi-class.

                                  I like the simiplification of the skills that were done in Pathfinder. It just did not make sense to have perception to be broken down into spot and listen. But, I did not like the 4E simplification that you either are skilled or you are not concept. I also did not like the cookie cutter characters that the over simplification of everything in 4E created.

                                  Frankly, role playing in a fantasy genre begs for "Magic" and the 4E system nerfed all magic outside the "encounter." Not to my taste at all. 4E also made combat the sole focus of the game with an ever increasing amount of time necessary to complete each combat. Again, not to my taste.

                                • John Cramer
                                  I don t know, it works just fine for me. In college I delivered pizza. I got a degree in Zoology then worked for the US Forest Service doing many different
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                                  View Source
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I don't know, it works just fine for me.

                                    In college I delivered pizza.
                                    I got a degree in Zoology then worked for the US Forest Service doing many different jobs.
                                    I got several masters degrees in History and Scandinavian Studies
                                    I worked in business, then moved into IT.
                                    I'm now a project manager with a PMP

                                    I multi-classed life like crazy, min-maxed wherever I could, and have a great life.

                                    I just can't imagine being a pizza-delivery person my whole life.  But, if you want to just be one thing for your whole life go for it.  I see nothing wrong w/ a Monk/Ranger/Barbarian/Cleric/Bard/Pious Templar/Runescarred Berserker (Matt Thompson Home Game PC back in the day).  The class doesn't make the PC.  The personality does and the rest is just trappings.


                                    From: Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...>
                                    To: bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 7:19:01 PM
                                    Subject: Re: [bayareapathfinder] Pathfinder vs. 3.5

                                     



                                    On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:30 PM, John Cramer <isbjorn19@yahoo. com> wrote:
                                     

                                    How is multi-classing a role-playing problem?  I don't get that at all.

                                    "I'm a Fighter, Barbarian, Wizard. I trained in the Legion, got beat, got really pissed off and randomly developed magic!"

                                    Examples abound, and yes, there are ways to rationalize most combinations, and yes, at the end of the day you should work with your DM, but still.

                                  • Chuck McIntyre
                                    ... It s a system, not a simulation. The classes themselves have variance and are NOT the same as someone who delivered pizza their whole life. In fact, your
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Feb 26, 2010
                                    View Source
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:29 PM, John Cramer <isbjorn19@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      I don't know, it works just fine for me.

                                      It's a system, not a simulation. The classes themselves have variance and are NOT the same as someone who "delivered pizza their whole life." In fact, your career as described, makes you an Adept. Single class. Done.

                                      Nevermind the fact that I doubt you have more than 4 hp (could survive average damage from a morningstar swung by someone with a strength bonus), or the ridiculous base saves associated with (broken) multi-classing.

                                      Metaphors are _not_ rational or logical arguments.
                                    • George
                                      Yeah, John s AC sucks. He dosen t even have leather. A single kobold with a crossbow would put him out of condition. He could throw as many computer
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Mar 1, 2010
                                      View Source
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Yeah, John's AC sucks. He dosen't even have leather. A single kobold with a crossbow would put him out of condition. He could throw as many computer monitors as he wants and probably couldn't hit that kobold...

                                        George

                                        --- In bayareapathfinder@yahoogroups.com, Chuck McIntyre <chuck.mcintyre@...> wrote:
                                        It's a system, not a simulation. The classes themselves have variance and are NOT the same as someone who "delivered pizza their whole life." In fact,your career as described, makes you an Adept. Single class. Done.

                                        Nevermind the fact that I doubt you have more than 4 hp (could survive
                                        average damage from a morningstar swung by someone with a strength bonus), or the ridiculous base saves associated with (broken) multi-classing.

                                        Metaphors are _not_ rational or logical arguments.
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.