I went down to the lgs this week. They still have about the same amount of space for 4e as ever, but the Pathfinder section looked like it was about half the size that it was on my last visit. I actually had to dig around for a minute to find it, whereas in the past the PF section could not be missed*. As of now, MGT has more space.
This, of course, means nothing. maybe they sold out and were just tightening up their stock to make things look full. Who knows?
However, I got into a long conversation with one of the employees, and he invited me to an open 3.5 game that was going down at the store. I have to admit I was a little surprised. i have been given the impression that everyone that digs 3.x is now playing PF.
so here's the question for you 3e guys:
Have you played PF?
Are you playing it now?
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
Why?
*I was looking for the Gamaster's Book which I've been told is a worthy investment regardless of system.
(1) Never played it.
(2) Not playing it now.
(3) Playing 3.5 and OD&D.
(4) Pathfinder changed enough that it would require a certain amount of effort to re-master the system. But it didn't change enough for me to feel that effort + the cost of the new books would be worth it. Ergo, I haven't converted.
I might feel differently about that if I hadn't fixed the grappling, teleport, polymorph, and diplomacy rules for myself 5+ years ago. With those problematic areas plugged, the only huge problem with D&D3 is levels 15+ where spellcasters dominate... and I haven't seen anything to convince me that Pathfinder fixes that problem.
OTOH, I have been using Paizo Pathfinder material in my 3.5 game without any hassle at all.
I really just bought into it because I enjoy new things, sometimes, and the books are really nice. Plus, it is nice to help a company along that is helping keep this version of the game going. Though I have to admit, they are really fucking up my interest with their new Ninja and Gunslinger classes. What a waste of a book.
Pathfinder is actually even better for casters. So many of the options people used to make fighters good in the old days are gone. There isn't any way to get pounce now.
I like Pathfinder better than 3.5 for the low level games I play. If I was going to play higher, which I never would, I'd have to go back to an earlier version.
Quote from: Cranewings;446076Though I have to admit, they are really fucking up my interest with their new Ninja and Gunslinger classes. What a waste of a book.
I agree.
The Ninja class seems kinda meh. The only reason I can think of for them creating the Ninja and Samurai classes, is for the upcoming asian themed Jade Regent (http://paizo.com/pathfinder/adventurePath/jadeRegent) adventure path.
As for the Gunslinger class, I have no idea what the rationale is for creating such a class.
I suppose similar types of criticisms can also be brought up for bringing in Goblins as a player character race (http://paizo.com/store/games/roleplayingGames/p/pathfinderRPG/paizo/pathfinderCompanion/v5748btpy8ily).
Quote from: Aos;446068I went down to the lgs this week. They still have about the same amount of space for 4e as ever, but the Pathfinder section looked like it was about half the size that it was on my last visit.
One in the Springs? 'Cause Attactix is looking the same way.
Personally, I'll play 3.5 or Pathfinder if someone wants to start a game. There was some discussion on Saturday about returning to Midnight.
However, I haven't purchased any Pathfinders rules products - the core book, bestiaries, etc. - because I already own that set of rules, basically. I've got some APs and the now replaced setting book, but that's all. I might get some modules 'cause they look interesting. But actual rules? Naw.
Seanchai
Quote from: Seanchai;446085One in the Springs? 'Cause Attactix is looking the same way.
Seanchai
Nope, I'm back in Albuquerque now. I only get up to Denver every six months or so.
I ran and played 3.0 when it first came out. The change to 3.5 frosted me and I didn't get into 3.5 until around 2006 other than a PHB. I only played 3.5. I never ran it. I never gained enough system mastery or desire to do so.
D&D 4e didn't really scratch my D&D itch, even though it was a fun tactical exercise. So when Pathfinder came out, I realized I wanted to go back to 3.5 type of play without the rules bloat and unwieldy stack of supplements to deal with.
If I was going to want to learn 3.5 well enough to run it smoothly, I had the alternative of choosing Pathfinder instead. And Pathfinder was fun at Gen Con last year so there you have it....
Quote from: Aos;446068so here's the question for you 3e guys:
Have you played PF?
Are you playing it now?
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
Why?
I played 3.0 when it was released up until just after 3.5 came out. As levels in my 3.0 campaign increased, my sense of dissatisfaction with 3e was growing. By the time 3.5 came out, I was already looking at other systems, and 3.5's release was the nail in coffin: already dissatisfied, there was no way I was going to buy a whole new set of core books for 3e.
I tried a bunch of alternatives, and C&C felt like a breath of fresh air, so I moved from 3e to C&C. After playing C&C for a while, I realized that everything I liked about C&C was from TSR D&D, things that bugged me about C&C were almost entirely C&C-exclusive rules, and that I was house-ruling C&C to be more like TSR D&D. So I switched back to TSR D&D. It was the closest to what I was looking for.
I have not played Pathfinder, and don't expect to. (I wouldn't turn it down if someone else was running it, but I doubt anyone I regularly game with would offer to run it, and I feel no special desire to seek it out.) If I decided to run 3e (or a 3e/d20 fantasy variant), again, I'd probably just use 3.0 and house rule it as I saw fit for the campaign in question.
Quote from: Aos;4460681 - Have you played PF?
Yes, it's quite enjoyable if you're into fantasy roleplaying games like D&D.
Quote from: Aos;4460682 - Are you playing it now?
Why, yes! A DM in our club is running through one of the published modules now, and I must confess to having a blast.
Quote from: Aos;4460683 - Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
Yes. We have a huge section of 3.5 books at the club, and someone is preparing an AD&D 2e Spelljammer campaign for our next game (after this Pathfinder campaign)
Quote from: Aos;4460684 - Why?
Basically, because each edition can be milked for plenty of fun, in it's own environment. It's not like anyone ever crafted "The Best Game" yet.
Here's a link to a rather long essay on our game club's blog, if you're interested - Dungeons, Dragons & The Wargate (http://thewargate.blogspot.com/2010/12/dungeons-dragons-and-wargate.html).
I am playing neither PF nor 3.x, but the University RPG club here runs a large Fall to Spring mini-campaign every year using 3.5. I presume it is the edition with which the greatest number of DMs are comfortable with.
I have played Pathfinder and I own the core rulebook.
I am not playing it now.
I am considering a return to 3.0 (core rulebooks only).
Rules are (arguably) simple and don't necessitate minis. Books are cheap and PCGen is free.
I'm playing in several casual, infrequent games -- none meet much more than once a month. Everyone has the 3.5e books and is familiar with the ruleset, and Pathfinder is simultaneously close enough and different enough to not make it worth our time to upgrade. 4e, in contrast, is just too different and offers too few improvements to be worth the investment in time and coin.
The next D&D game I run I would probably use either something much simpler than 3.5e like Swords and Wizardry, or something much improved like Trailblazer.
I was hugely into 3.5.
I have not played Pathfinder. I don't need similar rules. I do buy a bunch of Golarion stuff, though, because i really like the setting.
These days if I want to get back into D&D style gaming, I'd likely use BFRPG. I get most of the good bits of 3e, but simplified.
Aos sez:
Have you played PF?
Yes
Are you playing it now?
Yes.
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
As sig (currently) indicated, I am running Fantasy Craft and playing Pathfinder.
Why?
Because it does clear up some things with 3.5, yet remains faithful to what I consider core D&D concepts. I like the takes on skill points (makes complex NPCs more straightforward) and the more robust classes with interesting things at every level. I like that the fighter regains his rightful place as party arse-kicker. And combat maneuvers make for interesting situations, and are done more easily and sensibly than 3.5.
It's not perfect in every way, but when I want a strongly D&Dish experience, it served quite nicely. It does still have some 3.5-isms I don't like, like PC attack progressing with skill, but defense only progressing with better armor/magic.
When I don't want such a strictly D&D experience, I go to Fantasy Craft, which eliminates my defense nitpick and has more flexibility and a more heroic default.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;446104I played 3.0 when it was released up until just after 3.5 came out. As levels in my 3.0 campaign increased, my sense of dissatisfaction with 3e was growing. By the time 3.5 came out, I was already looking at other systems, and 3.5's release was the nail in coffin: already dissatisfied, there was no way I was going to buy a whole new set of core books for 3e.
I tried a bunch of alternatives, and C&C felt like a breath of fresh air, so I moved from 3e to C&C. After playing C&C for a while, I realized that everything I liked about C&C was from TSR D&D, things that bugged me about C&C were almost entirely C&C-exclusive rules, and that I was house-ruling C&C to be more like TSR D&D. So I switched back to TSR D&D. It was the closest to what I was looking for.
I have not played Pathfinder, and don't expect to. (I wouldn't turn it down if someone else was running it, but I doubt anyone I regularly game with would offer to run it, and I feel no special desire to seek it out.) If I decided to run 3e (or a 3e/d20 fantasy variant), again, I'd probably just use 3.0 and house rule it as I saw fit for the campaign in question.
I stuck with the D&D game when 3.5 rolled out, but by the time you were searching for alternatives, I too had an itch for something different. So I looked at other systems, including C&C, LA and others, all the while sticking with 3.5, Arcana Evolved and Iron Heroes. It's later that I really burnt out, and from there, after a brief pause with the hobby, I basically started drifting back towards C&C, then AD&D and OD&D, much like you did.
So my trajectory is very similar to yours, albeit a tad delayed by comparison.
Quote from: Aos;446068I went down to the lgs this week. They still have about the same amount of space for 4e as ever, but the Pathfinder section looked like it was about half the size that it was on my last visit. I actually had to dig around for a minute to find it, whereas in the past the PF section could not be missed*. As of now, MGT has more space.
This, of course, means nothing. maybe they sold out and were just tightening up their stock to make things look full. Who knows?
However, I got into a long conversation with one of the employees, and he invited me to an open 3.5 game that was going down at the store. I have to admit I was a little surprised. i have been given the impression that everyone that digs 3.x is now playing PF.
so here's the question for you 3e guys:
Have you played PF?
Are you playing it now?
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
Why?
I haven't played
Pathfinder yet, but I'm pilfering material from it for my 3.x campaign. Our group took a break from gaming for several weeks, but we'll probably start up again pretty soon. Our game is mostly 3.5, with a slight flavoring of 3.0 and
Pathfinder.
As for why....because it works, and I like it. There are tons of options in 3.5, and I can run my campaign setting with it. Granted, it doesn't do everything I want, but it's still functional enough. I will say though, that I'd prefer a slightly grittier, and somewhat more streamlined version of D&D 3.0 that puts magic-users and non-magic-users on slightly more even footing. Maybe I'll write up my own version. We'll see.
Quote from: Aos*I was looking for the Gamaster's Book which I've been told is a worthy investment regardless of system.
I'll have to check that out.
P.S. I've also heard about
Trailblazer and
Fantasycraft, and those two games are on my "to buy" list this year.
1) No
2) No
3) 3.5
4) I've houseruled 3.5 so it does what I want it to do. I didn't want to spend out money on PF and 4E doesn't scratch my D&D itch.
Q: Are you now or have you ever been a Pathfinder player?
A: Senator, After consulting with my lawyer I will confirm that I have bought the CORE rulebook, and two adventure map supplements.
- Ed C.
I haven't played 3E/3.5E D&D since 2008.
I've only played a few sessions of Pathfinder last year. The game abruptly ended when the DM decided to stop showing up, without telling us.
Before this, I thought about picking up the Pathfinder rpg core books. Though I didn't bother, once that Pathfinder game abruptly ended.
Nevertheless, I was picking up the monthly Pathfinder adventure path books for the last several years until recently. The upcoming two adventure paths (Carrion Crown and Jade Regent) don't look very enticing to me.
Quote from: Aos;446068so here's the question for you 3e guys:
I'm not sure if I am allowed to take part in this questionnaire. Does one year of heavy advertising for 3e (from the Big Announcement to the actual release of the books) make me a 3e guy?
Have you played PF?No.
Are you playing it now?No.
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game? I played one session of pre-release 3e - that session raised expectations and won me over. It seemed like a simplified version of AD&D: a unified mechanism with a skill system that was not tacked-on like 2e's NWP's, sensible multi-classing rules, etc. (And no feats yet as WotC wanted to keep those under wraps.)
When the books came out I was heavily disappointed that the game was the opposite of what I had played. Instead of a fast-furious-fun, almost minimalistic game (like Mentzer D&D) I got rules bloat from the get-go.
I returned to an earlier version of the game - Mentzer D&D, then Microlite 20, and now Swords & Wizardry.
I could see me using Chroniques Oubliees, the French Pathfinder "clone", that (at least according to the beginner's box) is almost exactly what I played at the 3e pre-release.
Why?Because I hate rules that imply that they know a solution to everything. The looking-up of specifics during the game kills any momentum at the table.
I can live with
rulings, not rules.
And because I hate stat blocks that are longer than the room description.
Doubt this applies to me, I have only played True20.
Have I played Pathfinder? No, but I would like to. I have the Core books and I am hoping Carrion Crown will have some players interested. If that or some Ravenloft game using Pathfinder can not interest the fellas, prospects look dim.
Maybe I will be sticking to True20.
I was too burned out on rules heavy games by the time Pathfinder came out to buy in. Actually, I was getting burned out by 3.5 - the phb is the only 3.5 book that I bought. I've browsed the Pathfinder rules through the SRD and they're decent so I wouldn't object if someone wanted to run something in it. But I'd never buy a shelf of books for it as I've never been a huge buyer and now I'm even more minimalist so that sales model isnt' for me.
Quote from: Nicephorus;446278I was too burned out on rules heavy games by the time Pathfinder came out to buy in. Actually, I was getting burned out by 3.5 - the phb is the only 3.5 book that I bought. I've browsed the Pathfinder rules through the SRD and they're decent so I wouldn't object if someone wanted to run something in it. But I'd never buy a shelf of books for it as I've never been a huge buyer and now I'm even more minimalist so that sales model isnt' for me.
Well the nice thing about Pathfinder is that the book release is much slower than 3.5 was. As a player there are two books that you would want and one that you must have.
As a GM, it isn't much worse. You would need only three. And if you wanted the completely optional GM book (full of goodies) and the second beastiary (nice), you are talking about only five books. Five meaty books to be sure, but only five. The sixth one is around the corner.
Compared to 3.5's number after one and a half years and it almost looks rules light (it isn't). :D
We never seem to run into problems with the volume of rules.
Actually, AD&D 2e's lack of said rules has been what's held us up lately.
Quote from: hanszurcher;446276Doubt this applies to me, I have only played True20.
Have I played Pathfinder? No, but I would like to. I have the Core books and I am hoping Carrion Crown will have some players interested. If that or some Ravenloft game using Pathfinder can not interest the fellas, prospects look dim.
Maybe I will be sticking to True20.
True20 is the only d20 variant that I've played extensively. I eventually grew to hate the damage track, though- which is what drove me back to OD&D. I hate hit points too, but with a critical/wound system bolted on, I can live with them.
Oh yes, by the way, I'm picking up 3.5 again via PbP (player, not DM) after a long break.
I wouldn't mind playing Pathfinder RPG either.
Quote from: Aos;446331True20 is the only d20 variant that I've played extensively. I eventually grew to hate the damage track, though- which is what drove me back to OD&D. I hate hit points too, but with a critical/wound system bolted on, I can live with them.
Close to my own personal feelings...I would not say I hate the damage track, more of a general discomfort.
Never left.
Never left 3.0/3.5 but I only play it about every other month . One thing I noticed was the listings for a convention I am attending has NO RPGA listing (the schills for WOTC)and only one or two 4th edition games. Path Finder society will be there and I saw a bit of old school stuff . I know this will break the 4vengers hearts but that's the way it goes.
Have you played PF?
Yes.
Are you playing it now?
No.
Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
I pretty much stuck stuck with Pathfinder and 3.5 (for my fantasy games), and have been going back to 2E as well.
Why?
4E just didn't do it for me. I don't like the powers structure, and I don't like how many books you need to run the thing. Flavor-wise and mechanically, the game simply wasn't my cup of tea, so I kept playing the older editions.
Quote from: oldgamergeek;446544I know this will break the 4vengers hearts but that's the way it goes.
It doesn't.
First and foremost, I don't give a damn what people who aren't in my group are playing. You like Pathfinder? Awesome! Enjoy!
Second, at least according to one retailer, 4e is still outselling Pathfinder by a good margin in my area and when I checked out the booklet for a local con, there were pages of RPGA 4e games, but less than a handful of Pathfinder ones...
Seanchai
Quote from: oldgamergeek;446544Never left 3.0/3.5 but I only play it about every other month . One thing I noticed was the listings for a convention I am attending has NO RPGA listing (the schills for WOTC)and only one or two 4th edition games. Path Finder society will be there and I saw a bit of old school stuff . I know this will break the 4vengers hearts but that's the way it goes.
Do as you will, but this thread is not about 4e.
Quote from: oldgamergeek;446544Never left 3.0/3.5 but I only play it about every other month . One thing I noticed was the listings for a convention I am attending has NO RPGA listing (the schills for WOTC)and only one or two 4th edition games. Path Finder society will be there and I saw a bit of old school stuff . I know this will break the 4vengers hearts but that's the way it goes.
RPGA has always been a weird subset of gamers. The number of RPGA/Pathfinder evetns depends on how organized those groups are locally and if there is a leader willing to put in the effort to set them up.
I tried a local con recently. It was 35% RPGA, 30% Pathfinder Society, 20% boardgames, 10% slobs trying to pitch their new awful games, 5% rpgs not tainted by RPGA/Pathfinder society.
Quote from: Aos;446331True20 is the only d20 variant that I've played extensively. I eventually grew to hate the damage track, though- which is what drove me back to OD&D. I hate hit points too, but with a critical/wound system bolted on, I can live with them.
Have you tried Paizo's Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks? They can make combat a little more interesting. The decks are designed for both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;446653Have you tried Paizo's Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks? They can make combat a little more interesting. The decks are designed for both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder.
These are really fun to use. :)
Quote from: Benoist;446654These are really fun to use. :)
They
are fun. I like the extra random element they bring to the game. :)
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;446653Have you tried Paizo's Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks? They can make combat a little more interesting. The decks are designed for both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder.
I use my d4 crit table.
1. Minor Wound: 1d4 days to heal [-1 to all die rolls and - 1d4-1 to movement rate during the recovery period].
2. Major Wound: 2d8+2 days to heal [-3 to all die rolls and -1d6+1 to movement rate during recovery period].
3. Grievous Wound: d30 +10 days to heal. [-6 to all die rolls and movement reduced to 1 during recovery period]. Note: A character with a grievous wound must be stabilized within 10 rounds or make a successful saving throw otherwise the wound becomes a mortal wound, and all related conditions apply.
4. Mortal wound: Save or die. A successful save reduces the damage to a Grievous Wound with doubled recovery time. A failed save results in death in 1d6-1 rounds. AT THE REFEREE'S DISCRETION dead character may be healed by miraculous means (super science or magic) for 1d100 rounds after death.
Quote from: Aos;446658I use my d4 crit table.
1. Minor Wound: 1d4 days to heal [-1 to all die rolls and - 1d4-1 to movement rate during the recovery period].
2. Major Wound: 2d8+2 days to heal [-3 to all die rolls and -1d6+1 to movement rate during recovery period].
3. Grievous Wound: d30 +10 days to heal. [-6 to all die rolls and movement reduced to 1 during recovery period]. Note: A character with a grievous wound must be stabilized within 10 rounds or make a successful saving throw otherwise the wound becomes a mortal wound, and all related conditions apply.
4. Mortal wound: Save or die. A successful save reduces the damage to a Grievous Wound with doubled recovery time. A failed save results in death in 1d6-1 rounds. AT THE REFEREE'S DISCRETION dead character may be healed by miraculous means (super science or magic) for 1d100 rounds after death.
That looks doable. You get a crit on a natural 20, right?
Oh, also...WFRP 2e has a series of Critical Effects tables that could probably be adapted to D&D-style games. If you have that game, you might want to give those tables a test drive.
I have serious trouble with these "x days to heal from z wound" type of injury mechanics in a game that posits amazing magical healing that the PCs are likely to have access to. How do they account for that? If you get healed by the party cleric up to full hit points, in what way would they justify your still having to spend a month in bedrest?!
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;446918I have serious trouble with these "x days to heal from z wound" type of injury mechanics in a game that posits amazing magical healing that the PCs are likely to have access to. How do they account for that? If you get healed by the party cleric up to full hit points, in what way would they justify your still having to spend a month in bedrest?!
RPGPundit
A serious problem? Not at all. I don't do hit points the same way, for one thing, they come back much more quickly and burning a spell on them would just be a waste of a spell- except in very special circumstances. The 1 hit point a day recovery rate is what I have a serious problem with. Any way you slice it, imo, it is crap.
Cure light wounds- cures a minor wound- result 1 on the table.
Cure serious wound-cures a major wound- result 2 on the table or reduces a grievous wound to a major wound, which can in turn be cured with another cure serious wound.
It's not that hard.
There is no further need for bedrest, I'm not sure why you would assume there would be.
Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;446663That looks doable. You get a crit on a natural 20, right?
.
Yes; however you also have to take a roll on the table whenever you drop to zero hit points or get hit with a firearm or an energy weapon. However, unless the character has 0 hit points they get a save, the target get a saving throw, or just takes normal hit point damage.
At pundit: Also- spell casters are pretty rare in my setting (which I'm fairly certain you would categorize as "to weird to live"). Anyway, that reminds me i need to redo all the spell lists and modify some more spells.
I see. Well, I presumed "takes xd8 days to heal" or whatever would mean you'd be seriously gimped. But I like your deal about cure light/moderate/serious/etc. being able to cure the equivalent injury level.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;447049I see. Well, I presumed "takes xd8 days to heal" or whatever would mean you'd be seriously gimped. But I like your deal about cure light/moderate/serious/etc. being able to cure the equivalent injury level.
RPGPundit
Looking back at the way I initially presented it, your assumption actually seems pretty reasonable, actually.
Quote from: Aos;447092Looking back at the way I initially presented it, your assumption actually seems pretty reasonable, actually.
Well, the clarification was good, then.
RPGPundit
> Have you played PF?
I have it but I never played it.
> Did you stick with or go back to 3.5- or some other earlier version of the game?
I'm actually buying more 3/3.5E supplements now than in the whole 3E lifecycle. Right now I have eleven books "in transit" from various sources. :) What I plan to do is browse Pathfinder and use the best 3.5E ---> 3.75E rule revisions, seeing if I can retrofit them to earlier stuff.
> Why?
The quality of the writing. Every time there is an "edition war" or even a simple commentary the meat of the arguments does always seem to be the "crunch". Fact is: I think that the 3E era gave us some of the best fantasy supplements ever - ideas wise. I really like reading the books even if I don't plan to use everything in them (I always find something useful anyway).
"Manual of the Planes" and "The Book of Exalted Deeds" were two examples of books I genuinely enjoyed reading from cover to cover simply because they were well written and creatively engaging. "Power of Faerun" is a book I'll almost never use in my games, but the glance it gives at what it means to run a "realistic" fantasy kingdom made for a stimulating reading. And so on.
The 4E books I either bought or browsed, instead, sadly offered just a childish, watered down approach to many of the same topics. They aren't even worth buying for the fluff - let alone the mechanics.
I guess that, for the time being, 3.5E will remain my fantasy RPG of choice.