Pathfinder and D&D
Posted 12 November 2011 - 04:32 PM
So what does everyone think about Pathfinder, I have heard it is an improved 3.5 is that true or has anyone played it?
My opinion is: Yes on both counts. Every system has it's faults of course but I think pathfinder is a good upgrade from 3.5.
The hardest part for me when I started pathfinder is that it's so close to 3.5 you may miss some of the subtle changes.
If you want a preview you can listen to the strand gamers games. Most of them are pathfinder (I recommend kingmaker personally).
edit: I almost forgot, you can also check out www.d20pfsrd.com to get a look at most of the meaty bits of the rules.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 01:59 AM
Where the pathfinder system does shine, however, is in the lore. Compared to the settings in 3.5, Golarion is particularly well developed. It also has enough plot-hooks innate within the lore to keep most parties busy for a nice, long while.
My suggestion, particularly for folks fresh out of 3.5, is to look the system over, decide if you like the various new things over their equivalent 3.5 options, and decide which you want to keep and which you want to be rid of, rather than jumping into the pathfinder system wholeheartedly. You might also want to have a one-off or short module run with the pathfinder rules to help round out what you like and don't like.
My group at the moment has decided that they like the pathfinder classes, skills, and magic item selection/rules, but want to keep the 3.5 spells and stackability of buffs/bonuses. We also made a blended list of the 3.5 and pathfinder feats (which tends to be whatever the more powerful version of the feat is) and I've been very lax with how I deal with the level requirements [so long as they have all the appropriate (non-level based) prereqs, I'll let them take whatever they like]. I have to say I appreciate this blended version a lot more than the default pathfinder rules, if only because there are so many stipulations, limitations, and yet extreme potentials for abuse written into the original rules it takes the better part of an hour to track down whether you can or can't do something.
Anyways, that's my shpeal. Hope you have fun with whatever you come up with. If you do decide to run a blended system, mind posting what you chose and why? I'm always curious to read up on stuff like that :P
Posted 13 November 2011 - 02:01 AM
Posted 13 November 2011 - 02:26 AM
I tend to agree with you about the spells though, I don't so much mind the loss of some save or die spells, but things like Death Ward and Mind Blank providing only bonuses to saves instead of immunity is very annoying.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 03:02 AM
As for the feats, it's been a long while since I've looked at the difference between the two (a good two years, at least), so I forget which feats specifically were more/less potent. With the compiled list one of my players wrote up, I haven't had much reason to keep current on the differences. I do remember the skill feats in pathfinder were better than the ones in 3.5 tho, and that most of my problems with the pathfinder feats were in the feat chains. I'll look into it for ya, since you've piqued my curiosity again.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 03:16 AM
I don't think two deflection bonuses from different sources would stack in D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder, I believe the only bonuses of the same type that stack are dodge bonuses to AC and untyped bonuses.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 03:46 AM
And you learn something new every day... I'd always been taught that like bonuses stacked in 3.5... must've been a (rather curious) house ruling... I wonder why I never bothered to look that up?
Anyways, going over the feats again, all of the combat maneuver feats are about half as potent as their respective counterparts are in 3.5 (+2 bonus vs a +4). In theory that's balanced slightly by the +2 bonus to defend against attacks of the chosen type, but the lowered total reduces the effectiveness of any CMB check by a noteworthy margin (4 points less on any trip/sunder/bull rush check, 2 points less on generic ones). Many of the other feats are similar or identical, but lack the tree depth or specialization that 3.5 allowed (even discounting epic level feats). Admittedly, there are a wide variety of new feats in pathfinder (and looking over pfsrd, I'm a little taken aback by the number), but the loss of things like perfect two weapon fighting and improved combat reflexes isn't cool.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 04:22 AM
I'm ambivalent about the loss of the depth of feats, spells, prestige classes etc in 3.5. On one hand, there were a lot of neat options and a lot of ways to customize a character, but at the same time there was also quite a bit of broken or unbalanced content that could create problems.
As far as epic rules, while it's not on Paizo's release schedule or anything, my understanding is that a lot of the designers are interested in making an epic level book, and I'd bet they get one out in the next couple of years.
Posted 13 November 2011 - 10:56 AM
As for the feats, most people are pretty ambivalent, and that rather saddens me. I mean, I used to build toons specifically to take advantage of the infinite attacks of opportunity (even better than great cleave to rid yourself of small monsters). Sure these extra feats are circumstantially useful, but losing some of the old builds is something that just isn't worth it, imho.
But anyways, as you said, there is no point in turning this into an edition war. And as I said, blending the rules (which are fairly similar in most regards) seems to have the best result. It's up to you how you chose to play, and I'm not here to ruin anything for anybody. Good gaming man.
PS: If you want to continue this, I suggest PM. It would seem we've taken over poor Rayn's thread >.>
Posted 13 November 2011 - 11:35 AM
Or why not start a fresh thread? Other people might be interested in the discussion and it would be a pity to keep it out of sight if you don't mind chatting in public
PS: If you want to continue this, I suggest PM. It would seem we've taken over poor Rayn's thread >.>
Posted 13 November 2011 - 05:12 PM
I play a Pathfinder game twice a month and have a long running 3.5 game that I play with my family a couple of weekends a year, and when I play the 3.5 game I'm often frustrated by various things that are more complicated or less intuitive. I say, "Well, in Pathfinder..." often enough that the other players have considered fratricide. I'd definitely recommend giving Pathfinder a try.
Posted 14 November 2011 - 12:58 AM
But it was still just a possible future game until a barbed devil, summoning another barbed devil, killed two player characters and the rest barely escaped did my players say "So, how about that kingmaker game?"
It's been great so far, and since then one of my players has his own council of thieves adventure path that I am in, and another player has a carrion crown game (and she is a first time GM), all running pathfinder.
Posted 14 November 2011 - 11:01 AM
While the core of the system remains something that a skilled GM could use to make a variety of games in a variety of settings, by providing so much support for playing the game, they've made it more than what 3.5 was.
3.5 was more of a system. Yes, there were adventures and modules done by wotc, but for the most part, what you were getting were books filled with more classes and feats and such, basically giving you more tools for your toolbox.
Now pathfinder, while they're still selling you tools, they're also selling you the projects that you can use the tools on. Instead of just admiring the shiny new hammer, you're admiring the desk you just buildt with it.
That...analogy got away from me.
Posted 31 January 2013 - 12:31 PM
Checking in the PFSRD, but I also remember this from 3.x (I think)
Stone to Flesh.
Can be used to restore someone who has been petrified (Boring).
Can also turn a statue to inert fleshy substance, or an animated statue into animated flesh (Interesting, is this just a massive lump of meat? Is it all skin? Does it have layers or any differentiation?)
Or it can be used to turn a cylinder of stone to flesh up to 3' diameter x 10' long. This would result in 282.74 (and change) cubic feet of flesh.
Can this flesh be eaten? If so, this could feed a lot of people or critters without technically having to kill something or spend resources/time growing animals.
Does this flesh immediately start to die, or can it be kept alive if fed in some way, or is it effectively immortal. Could you have vast cylinders of flesh that never goes bad in the stores of your keep for siege rations or for that year all the cattle in the area get that nasty plague?
If you create a 3' diameter, 10' deep cylinder of flesh beneath a standing 200 lb adventurer would it support their weight?
If cut, will it bleed?
Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:01 PM
Default flesh would basically be muscle tissue with fat. Aside from whatever 'meat juices' it would have, there would be no particular blood and would probably be fairly firm. I'm not entirely sure if it would even have skin necessarily (The fort save to bring back someone alive strikes me as the trapped person asserting their regular physical form, bones, skin and organs in addition just the 'meat' granted by the spell). By default I think a slab of stone would be line one large cut of meat. A giant roast.
I would say since flesh is meat, it could be eaten, hard to say what the taste would be like though. As to it 'dying' it would be already dead as it's not alive. It would decompose as normal flesh without efforts to keep it preserved.
I'm not 100% on the density of flesh without bone support, but I think in general that, yes, it would support weight fairly well, but perhaps count as difficult terrain as it would likely shift and be a bit slippery.
Posted 31 January 2013 - 01:09 PM
I was wondering if the drop of blood used as a material component might effect the overall "type" of flesh, although If this was the case a caster using his own blood would be a bit cannibalistic in eating the produced flesh.
It would be cool if the blood did have that kind of effect and you could produce chicken/beef/lamb/etc. by changing what blood you used.
I guess in the petrified human case would override that if they made their fortitude save.
oh how my mind wanders.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users