3.5 v Pathfinder

[sainy_matthew]

[QUOTE=SquelchHU;3208036]I skipped to the part that is actually relevant.

If your character existed in PF you would fail, at minimum 70% of the time. Disarm is pretty weaksauce as is, even if it worked 100% of the time because it only works against humanoid melees, aka the weakest things you could possibly face. But when a move only works 30% of the time, if it does anything less than 'kills the enemy without fail if it hits' then that move is made of fail. And all maneuvers do this in PF, because apparently James Jacobs thinks melee should do nothing but auto attack, such that if Hulk Hogan gets into the ring with the Undertaker, they will say 'screw this' and pull out swords and start auto attacking. So he went and heavily nerfed all maneuvers by giving them a success rate somewhere between 'Hail Mary' and '**** you, go play a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard if you want to influence the combat'. And then lied about it out of both sides of his mouth, his ass, and other orifices. And people actually drink that kool aid, which is sad. However confusion has a chance to break when struck.



But seriously, if you want to continue to discuss fighters of the 3.5 sort, move it over to the Level 7 Wizards vs. The World thread as its already being discussed in length.

-M

[timberhick]

Why should (or Shouldn't) we go for 3.5 or Pathfinder?

In my opinion, as this question can only be opinion no matter what some may believe.

It comes down to how you go about RPGing.

I would suggest just reading the rules for 3e and seeing if it is something you can enjoy. There is no reason to game if your not enjoying yourself.

[Chai]

3.5 for the win.

Yes it takes more effort to DM in 3.5 due to complexity. More effort doesnt equal harder or more difficult to DM however, its just more effort. Attention to detail and non cookie cutter characters and monsters are a beautiful thing.

Pathfinder tried to make 3.5 less complex and more balancing. This fails. D&D is a complex game. See the period at the end of that sentence? Good.

4E: because you cant create a PnP thread comparing two other styles without talking about it.

It is an MMO on paper. My number one gripe is it got the D&D name. People can have whatever opinion they want about it, but good, bad, or ugly, its not D&D. Its WOW and EQ2 reverse engineered on paper. Its like boxing up Chutes and Ladders in a Monopoly package and selling it.

[timberhick]

I will completely disagree with Chai about 3.5 being complex. It is a fairly simple game, unfortunately it has 3-6odd(depending on how many books you wanna add in) subsets.

[flynnjsw]

I will completely disagree with Chai about 3.5 being complex. It is a fairly simple game, unfortunately it has 3-6odd(depending on how many books you wanna add in) subsets.

Just like with anything else though, it doesn't have to. IMO, the SRD's for either are plenty enough info to jump in and play. People use the "splat books" because they want the extra cheese (or extra flavor).

[SisAmethyst]

...

You mean stuff like, super-complex and non-logical grapple/disarm/trip turned into logic unified and simpler system? For example...

First of to be honest, I not know Pathfinder and the last PnP session we had is a bit around.

Some rules in 3.5 seem to be a bit super-complex or time consuming. To give a bad but simple example you may need to give the rogue each round 5 minutes till he rolled and calculated all his sneak attack dices. Well, there are some feats and weapon stats in 3.5 that would take you some time till you A) understood it and B) then calculated it.
However that is why you can sum up those things that you think that are too complex for your group in a house rule as the most important thing I guess is to play together and have fun and using the rules only as a basis.

So what I read about Pathfinder was that they one one side simplified some rules to not take hours of dice rolls to advance in the game. On the other side - as far as I understood - they went too far and as well rewrote several basics like the way when and which feats you get and for my understanding they left the path of D&D.

So to make a note, I am a bit skeptical about Pathfinder but would first need to read the Core Rulebook for a final judgment, but my feelings say I prefer the original 3.5E

[Narcissistic_Martyr]

As a DM, I wouldn't want to run either system as they are written. That being said, I started role playing with D&D (2nd edition) and I currently run a heavily house ruled version of 3rd edition when I want to run a simple hack and slash adventure/campaign, but these days I run BESM or GURPS (house ruled as needed of course) for the freedom and the customization in the system.

[Cam_Neely]

Thanks for the info all, it was quite interesting, and I had a good time reading up on both. Unfortunately in talking with the group, I dont think we have time buy in to switch.

[Aspenor]

As a DM, I wouldn't want to run either system as they are written. That being said, I started role playing with D&D (2nd edition) and I currently run a heavily house ruled version of 3rd edition when I want to run a simple hack and slash adventure/campaign, but these days I run BESM or GURPS (house ruled as needed of course) for the freedom and the customization in the system.

GURPS and BESM are notoriously easy to shatter the game system into millions of tiny fragments. It's much, much, much easier than in D&D 3.5.

Not knockin' your choice, I'm just sayin'.

[Armouredpriest]

GURPS and BESM are notoriously easy to shatter the game system into millions of tiny fragments. It's much, much, much easier than in D&D 3.5.

Not knockin' your choice, I'm just sayin'.

I thought shattering BESM was the point

[Aesop]

I'm liking PF ... not perfect by any stretch of the imagination... and honestly could use some balancing but no more so than 3.5


Aesop

[sainy_matthew]

GURPS and BESM are notoriously easy to shatter the game system into millions of tiny fragments. It's much, much, much easier than in D&D 3.5.

Not knockin' your choice, I'm just sayin'.

However as the goal of the game is collective story telling, breaking the system would be counter productive & silly.

-M