FormCritic wrote:For instance, clerical turning does damage rather than making the undead run away. Paladins have a sword that grows in holy power as they advance in levels. Stuff like that.
FormCritic wrote:The haphazard skills system from the later AD&D hardbacks has been standardized in D&D 3.5 and continued in Pathfinder. There is also the concept of special maneuvers called "feats," which you choose for your character as he advances.
FormCritic wrote:Monsters have more complex stats in Pathfinder/D&D 3.5...making the DM work harder but also allowing a skilled DM to keep the players guessing.
FormCritic wrote:Lift up the hood on your Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 adventures and you will find the same engine that drives AD&D/OD&D purring there. The math is the same, and it still works. Roll a d20. 1 out of 20=5%. Hit. Miss. Fudge. Forget the rules you don't like but always remember your bonuses.Same as it ever was.
ashmire13 wrote:Having read that Pathfinder sounds interesting. I wish it were 1st ed, as I'd buy it. That cleric and paladin ruling above sounds good. I guess I'll stick to looking at picking up OSRIC.Tempted by Pathfinder though, I must say.
FormCritic wrote:Pathfinder and D&D 3.5 are almost exactly the same game. D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder are the same D&D you played in high school. Imagine if a DM had written down all of his house rules for AD&D. Imagine that the DM had taken great care in using exactly the right words in order to be perfectly clear. You might not like all the house rules, but they work together and at least the arguments have been cut to a minium. That is D&D 3.5.By the brilliant move of printing their own rulebook, Paizon Publications LLC has kept 3.5 in print. Essentially, Paizo adopted a child abandoned by WOTC. Exactly why WOTC made this possible is a mystery.The rules have been edited into a more workable order by placing them in a single book. Some small rule changes have been made betweem Pathfinder and D&D 3.5. For instance, clerical turning does damage rather than making the undead run away. Paladins have a sword that grows in holy power as they advance in levels. Stuff like that.The haphazard skills system from the later AD&D hardbacks has been standardized in D&D 3.5 and continued in Pathfinder. There is also the concept of special maneuvers called "feats," which you choose for your character as he advances.Monsters have more complex stats in Pathfinder/D&D 3.5...making the DM work harder but also allowing a skilled DM to keep the players guessing.Lift up the hood on your Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 adventures and you will find the same engine that drives AD&D/OD&D purring there. The math is the same, and it still works. Roll a d20. 1 out of 20=5%. Hit. Miss. Fudge. Forget the rules you don't like but always remember your bonuses.Same as it ever was.
ashmire13 wrote:I've just downloaded OSRIC pdf from the site and it looks good. I'm looking at Lulu for a printed copy, although I cant see much difference between the various copies available? Any views?
puterdragon wrote:Forum Critic's convincing me with every post. Are there any Pathfinder shortcomings?<intrigued>
Keith the Thief wrote:Given that it's 400 ppg, I'd suggest a hardcover version.I printed a good chunk of the PDF and that many pages is unwieldy without sturdy backing.The hardcover price ($25) seems quite good for a book that contains PHB, MM & DMG. It is 1E AD&D.
FormCritic wrote:No RPG is without faults or weak points.Pathfinder has the same shortcomings as D&D 3.5:1) Complex rules...because the rules are usually quite excruciatingly clear, there are technical terms to learn or look up. (For instance: You find a ring that increases your armor class by +3. Is that a morale bonus, magical bonus, deflection bonus, armor bonus, luck bonus, cover bonus or concealment bonus? It matters because different types of bonuses "stack" and the same type of bonus generally does not "stack." Also, concealment is completely different from cover.)(For instance: Your character is engulfed in a horrendous cloud of gas and fails his saving throw. Have you been nauseated, stunned, shaken, panicked, paralyzed or fatigued? Each of these terms means something specific.)[Depends on the pizza toppings.]DM's used to make these sorts of rulings on the fly. In D&D 3.5/Pathfinder these effects are described in the rules.2) Interconnected rules...so you have to be careful when you make house rulings. The effects can be more than you expected.I do use some house rules. Sometimes, my players "forget" the house rules as we have agreed upon them. They insist I am wrong. My response is to immediately begin enforcing the rules as written until the players remember why we made the original house rule and say "uncle." 3) Because the rules are more complex, it is more annoying when the DM varies from them during play.At PaizoCon, my character was adventuring in the module Entombed with the Pharaohs. A mummy-thing walked around a corner in the pyramid tomb complex...it moaned, causing some of us to panic...it fired three arrows...all in one surprise action. That is not possible in 3.5/Pathfinder. The mummy can do one of those three actions in a surprise action (walk, moan or shoot)...and it could only fire one arrow if shooting the bow was its choice. Several of our NPC's were downed and half the party was panicked before we could react. This was irritating.In AD&D, the DM would say, "This is my game. I am God. Shut up." An argument would then ensue.In 3.5/Pathfinder, the argument is already presumed to be settled and the DM is wiser to follow the letter of the rules.(The classic response to this is, "In my game I just told the players that I was boss. Like it or leave." Really? Where is your gaming group now? Arguments over game rulings sank far more AD&D campaigns than angry mothers, fundamentalist preachers or Chick tracts combined.)4) Because the rules are complex, in-game rulings are more of a shared responsibility between DM and players.In the instance I have used as an example above, the DM did in fact make a god-like ruling. He ruled automatically that we were surprised. Aside from the fact that we were already on the alert, and the appearance of a mummy in a pyramid tomb is not particularly surprising, there was supposed to be a chance to "spot" the mummy before it surprised us. Not being surprised is one of the benefits of being...for instance...a ranger.Every player at the table was more expert in the rules than that DM. We looked at each other (we were all strangers), shrugged and went on. My own gaming group would have pointed out the rules problem. They would have let the spot versus surprise ruling go, but no way could the mummy take all three actions. I would have agreed and had the mummy just walk around the corner.No game is perfect. I like to play Axis and Allies on my computer. As soon as the computer starts to lose it begins to cheat hellaciously on the dice rolls. I point out the laws of probability to my computer, but it never listens or gives in. Last night, playing the final scenario of Close Combat, A Bridge Too Far (which is essentially computerized Squad Leader), a German assault gun knocked out three of my tanks. My tanks could not trace line of sight to the German armored vehicle, which was concealed by a small shell hole, but the German somehow had no problem seeing my tanks. Go figure.
astenon wrote:I hope you like it, Puterdragon!
serleran wrote:Pathfinder does a thing called an "adventure path." There are, apparently, eight (8) of them....LinkI cannot attest to the quality as I am not interested in Pathfinder.
