Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolan7]

That's pretty wild though!  In the wild-magic sense.  Using less dice means the bell curve flattens, making the high and low extremes far more likely.

Which could actually be pretty neat!  Different, though.

[Cruxador]

Ehh, reasonably high granularity of results, not as cumbersome as rolling 2D10 as D100 or an actual D100.  Seems like a good die to base your mechanics off of to me, certainly less cumbersome than rolling ND10 or D6 and then counting successes and failures.

Also way more swingy than 2d6, which I'd put at a point against it, with no counterpoint in favor.

I only play 'at the table' and I ban computers during sessions, so no silly rolling programs for me (or any of my players).

That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. Did you have a lot of problems with people screwing around before?

The idea was that the d20 system had this Open Game License thing which meant a lot of companies could use the 3.5 D&D system/engine for whatever stuff they wanted (with some strings attached, I'm sure).  For a while it was quite a fad, and even some games had d20 alternatives, like star wars and world of darkness.  Nowadays I think only pathfinder is really left.

Pathfinder isn't really "left", it isn't from that cycle at all. It was made afterward as a reaction to 4e, pandering to change-resistant grogs who didn't want to be in an old system.

[BorkBorkGoesTheCode]

The idea was that the d20 system had this Open Game License thing which meant a lot of companies could use the 3.5 D&D system/engine for whatever stuff they wanted (with some strings attached, I'm sure).  For a while it was quite a fad, and even some games had d20 alternatives, like star wars and world of darkness.  Nowadays I think only pathfinder is really left.

Pathfinder isn't really "left", it isn't from that cycle at all. It was made afterward as a reaction to 4e, pandering to change-resistant grogs who didn't want to be in an old system.

Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?

[Rolan7]

Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

[Tawa]

The rundown as I see it:

3.5 is simulationist. It's a pretty solid game and a large chunk of modern RPG memes are based on it; DM of the Rings was written as though the players were playing it. The primary issue is huge power disparity in classes; if your wizard or cleric doesn't deliberately hold back their full potential, your fighters and rogues and stuff are going to feel pretty insignificant. Also, there's a fair amount of rules clutter; moving silently and hiding are separate skills, for example. There's also an alarming amount of splatbooks, and practically anybody who's trying to optimize will take a couple of prestige classes at minimum.

4e is World of Warcraft. The game is meant to be run as that sort of hack-and-slash sort of campaign Gygax hated; almost none of the "powers" characters have are described to have any usage outside of combat and the game expects players to quickly load up on magic items for no reason. Also, there's a lot of really stupidly-written rules, like, Iron Heart Surge* level stuff; Rogues have a power that lets them run past enemies to make them attack themselves, and Vampires are a class. It's not impossible to have fun here, but the game doesn't really lend itself to the kind of character- or plot- focused gameplay that D&D pioneered in the first place.

Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD.

* Iron Heart Surge was an ability for a certain 3.5 class whose wording implies you can use it to stare into the sun and not go blind, or dive into the ocean without holding your breath and not drown.

[Gentlefish]

Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

3.0, 3.5 (Specifically, Eberron): Has the Talenta Sarrash (d10, 19-20/x4, reach).
Pathfinder: Does not have the Talenta Sarrash.

[NullForceOmega]

Ehh, reasonably high granularity of results, not as cumbersome as rolling 2D10 as D100 or an actual D100.  Seems like a good die to base your mechanics off of to me, certainly less cumbersome than rolling ND10 or D6 and then counting successes and failures.

Also way more swingy than 2d6, which I'd put at a point against it, with no counterpoint in favor.

Why would I want stable results when chance is involved?  Characters generally receive bonuses to rolls in D20 based games, that's all the safety net they need when rolling for effect.

I only play 'at the table' and I ban computers during sessions, so no silly rolling programs for me (or any of my players).

That seems like an awfully arduous restriction, considering all the super useful stuff that's digital these days. Did you have a lot of problems with people screwing around before?

When tabletop gaming the only things that should be at the table are pencils, paper (character sheets and notes), dice and the game books the DM has authorized.  Everything else is a distraction and is forbidden.  It is not a matter of whether or not people are screwing around, it is a matter of basic respect, if you aren't paying attention to what is going on at the table you shouldn't be there.  I've been doing this for twenty years and my experience is that every additional item brought to the table is a detriment to gameplay, I want my players focused and involved.

[scriver]

Could you summarize the benefits and detriments of 3.5, 4 and pathfinder?

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE

3.0, 3.5 (Specifically, Eberron): Has the Talenta Sarrash (d10, 19-20/x4, reach).
Pathfinder: Does not have the Talenta Sarrash.

Another reason Halflings are great.

[94dima94]

In my Pathfinder game we are still at relatively low levels, and we don't really have anyone throwing lots of dice yet; that being said, almost everyone at my table apparently doesn't like throwing multiple dice at once.

One of the players (the rogue) now throws 4 dice whenever she hits a sneak/flanking attack; she throws all the dice one by one.
By now it's not a problem, but I wonder whether she will give up later, or keep throwing singular dice even when the number reaches 9 or 10.

This scares me, because she already said that, when this character dies/retires, she wants to try some kind of magical blaster, and that would imply a LOT of dice every turn...

2 other players like to throw dice one by one too, but they give up when it gets to 4 or 5 dice at the same time; I have no idea why would anyone want to do this... isn't throwing lots of dice together the best part of a powerful attack?

[Kadzar]

Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD.

"A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?

[Tawa]

Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD.

"A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?

I was primarily referring to how a lot of the classes Pathfinder adds (and even some that already existed in 3.5) have abilities not entirely unlike 4th ed. powers (Swashbuckler Deeds and the thingies Gunslingers do with their Grit come to mind, for one.)

But you're definitely right, "medium" is far from the best word here. It's a very 3.5-ish medium, I suppose?

[Tack]

Also the base 10 stat pool rather than the horrible base 8 of fourth.
Or something... Right?

[Kadzar]

Pathfinder is sort of a medium between the two; it's basically a heavily modified 3.5 with rule edits to make it more balanced and streamlined. It nerfs formerly powerful classes a little to make them less lethal to game balance, and buffs most of the physical classes, along with introducing classes that blur the line between magical character and physical character like Bloodrager and Investigator. It's also got a ridiculous amount of free, legally available content on the Internet; whereas D&D characters need at least four or five splatbooks to make the kind of character optimization guides recommend, I've never found content in a Pathfinder guide not described on the SRD.

"A medium" is a little generous. If anything is a medium between 3.5 and 4, I'd say it's 5th edition, which borrows a lot of design ideas from both (and some new stuff). Pathfinder, at least talking about the core rules (they may have done new and interesting things with supplements since I stopped paying close attention to them), doesn't have short rest-based abilities, a recoverable pool of extra hitpoints for all characters (healing surges/hit dice), hit chance based on character level and ability scores rather than class, etc. that, like them or not, were taken from 4th and incorporated into 5th. What does Pathfinder have, besides a condensed skill list?

I was primarily referring to how a lot of the classes Pathfinder adds (and even some that already existed in 3.5) have abilities not entirely unlike 4th ed. powers (Swashbuckler Deeds and the thingies Gunslingers do with their Grit come to mind, for one.)

You mean effects-wise? Because their usage is nothing like 4th's At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility system (which 5 thankfully abandoned except for a few mostly reasonable class abilities). Gunslinger/Swashbuckler is more like a conditionally-refillable version of the Monk's ki pool (which is most likely where 5e got the idea for its Monk's use of ki points).

I'm not saying Pathfinder hasn't made some advancements (though the base game very much still resembles 3.5 more than anything else), I'm just saying I don't think it took all that much design direction from 4th.

[Tawa]

I'm not saying it's an exact translation. I'm saying that some parts of Pathfinder were designed with an approach similar to that of 4e, albeit in a rather different direction.

[RedWarrior0]

I'd say that Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with some token differences and significantly more free content.