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.
puterdragon wrote:Thanks for this link. Very helpful for sorting out how the APs work together to form the six-module sets. I'm impressed with PF publishing format--basically, module and mag combined in each issue. Slick.<intrigued>
puterdragon wrote:The artists and authors of PF are credible creators as well. Great lineup. I think I've found a 3.5e successor here--and another assault on my discretionaries account! <smile>
ashmire13 wrote:I think on balance (and principle) I'm going to got the OSRIC path rather than Pathfinder. Just not keen on making the jump to 3.5 essentially...
Keith the Thief wrote:Everything I've read on here, other websites, and heard from friends tells me that PF is the successor to 3.5.I have definitely found a new game to collect.Now I just need money. Lots of it. akp
