Author Topic: I just received an email titled "A Radical Proposal" from my DnD group...  (Read 9688 times)

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
... here are its contents:

"Gamers,

First of all, some of you will have noticed that there is a new name in the gaming email address list. [EMAIL1] is [NAME1], who lives in Louisville. He is not a part of our regular D&D crowd, but some of you know him. He is a BIGTIME GAMER from way back. [NAME1], I have included you in our D&D email because I think that you may find this idea interesting as well.

I am proposing that we abandon D&D 3.5 and move to the Pathfinder game instead. [NAME 2] suggested that some time ago, and now [NAME 3] has been become a believer in Pathfinder as well. He convinced me to check it out, and I have to say that Pathfinder looks great. It has a lot of advantages over 3.5, especially at higher levels. But it doesn't require a whole new learning curve. It keeps everything that was good about 3.5 , but cleans up a lot of the inconsistencies and "broken" rules, like the polymorph rules. Some people have called it D&D 3.75, and I think that is a good analogy.

One of the big advantages of it is that it is a living game. By that I mean, there are still people out there that are actively writing new material for it, like new dungeons and new campaign source material. It is VERY popular at GenCon, with a large room dedicated just to it. Plus it fixed a lot of the rules problems that show up as you get into the higher levels of play. I am sure that the other DMs will agree with me that some of the rules go completely out of control as you get past 10th to 12th level. Some of the spells get crazy, like the aforementioned polymorph spells, plus others in that same vein, like the druid's Wildshape. And eventually the spell casters leave the other characters behind in combat effectiveness, unless the DM seriously restricts them with house rules.

I will admit that I am not yet fully conversant with the Pathfinder rules. But I am encouraged by the fact that they were created by players who saw the problems listed above, and set out to fix them. And they are constantly working to further refine the rules into a system that works at all levels. From what I have seen, the regular flow of the game is the same as 3.5, so it  won't be hard to adjust our gameplay to the new rules. And the rules are consistent with 3.5, so all of the old 3.5 campaign supplements and other background info books will still be useful for our DMs.

But the character generation and level progression rules are substantially different in places. It gives a lot of incentives to keep your character as a single class. Multiclassing and prestige classes are much less attractive in Pathfinder. But there are a lot of options to customize your character within the classes. So every barbarian is not like every other barbarian, as under the 3.5 rules. And like wise with the other classes. There are enough options within classes to make everyone unique.

But that brings up the major problem with changing from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Since the character generation and level progressions are so different, it is very hard (but not impossible) to convert a high level 3.5 character to Pathfinder. If we change to Pathfinder, we will likely need to start all over again at first level. The DMs will likely breathe a sigh of relief at that thought, since we have been hard pressed to keep ahead of the increasingly godlike characters as they go past 10th level. But it will mean saying goodbye to characters that we have invested a lot of time and thought into. That is not an easy thing to do. But I really believe that those high level characters have already reached the point where 3.5 can't keep up any longer.

So I would like to know how distressed everyone would be if they had to give up their 11th to 12th level characters and start over again with new 1st level characters. I am not sure how the other DMs would handle it. But I would restart my campaign in Cormyr again, since I am already so familiar with it. All of your 3.5 Ravenloft characters would become NPCs. Maybe your new low level characters would be hired by your old NPC characters to do some work in the Hullack Forest. Your new characters would hear tales of the heroic exploits of the Lords of Ravenloft, and how they destroyed the undead menace and lycanthropes that had plagued the forest for generations. Your new characters could only dream of reaching such heights of glory!"
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline JohnnyMayHymn

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 762
  • Former Lord of the Kitchen Sink
    • View Profile
Wow, so are you going to tell them?  Or just roll up another full caster?
The Emperor
Can you find the Wumpus?

Offline Solo

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1778
  • Sorcelator Supreme
    • View Profile
    • Solo's Compiled Works
Crush their dreams and drink deep of their tears.
"I am the Black Mage! I cast the spells that makes the peoples fall down."

Offline Amechra

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4560
  • Thread Necromancy a specialty
    • View Profile
Crush their dreams and drink deep of their tears.

Yeah... I'd add more laughing to this.

More seriously, it might be smart to Reply All with a pointed email that a lot of what's in that email isn't accurate.

Point out that Rogues have been severely nerfed, spellcasters have actually been buffed, and that it's just generally kinda slapshod.
"There is happiness for those who accept their fate, there is glory for those that defy it."

"Now that everyone's so happy, this is probably a good time to tell you I ate your parents."

Offline KellKheraptis

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
  • Temporal Dissonance Technician
    • View Profile
Crush their dreams and drink deep of their tears.

Yeah... I'd add more laughing to this.

More seriously, it might be smart to Reply All with a pointed email that a lot of what's in that email isn't accurate.

Point out that Rogues have been severely nerfed, spellcasters have actually been buffed, and that it's just generally kinda slapshod.

Oh hai, all XP requiring spells now only use gold, which a proper GOD can churn out like a factory :P

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
This guy is selling Pathfinder hard and has drunk their koolaid.  I've been playing Pathfinder for about 6 months now, and to say it's D&D 3.75 is just wrong.  People have adequately covered its math issues and so on, but the thing I'd highlight is that it's commitments are just different.  He mentions the multiclassing and prestige classing thing, and it's hard to overemphasize that.  The game has a commitment -- single classed is the way to go, everything else will be handled through a proliferation of archetypes, etc. -- and that's a significant commitment.

The game does virtually nothing, I repeat NOTHING, to deal with higher level characters getting out of hand.  You can count the places where they've mitigated this on one hand:  Polymorph type effects, which, by the way is still pretty boss in Pathfinder, and Uber-Charging.  That's it, we're done.   So, if that's the raison d'etre then it's starting from a false premise. 

The thing Pathfinder does have going with it is that it's a living game.  So, it depends how much value you place on that.

My problem with this email is that the writer has already made up his mind.  So, he's in "sell mode."  At that point, I don't know how much actual discussion can really be had.  I'd point out that the thing he comes back to -- that Pathfinder is somehow more balanced at high levels than D&D -- is utterly false.  So, if there's another reason to make a switch, like the living game thing, then that might be worth it.  But, at that point, given that it means blowing up the current campaign, it might just be worth it to import various stuff from Pathfinder back into 3E, which isn't hard to do.

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Ugh.  I feel for you.  Try your best to point out how casters are even stronger and martials and especially rogues and monks got nerfed into the ground.  But they sound like they're already "converted."  I don't know why, but even usually reasonable, intelligent people can't seem to comprehend how PF is worse than 3E.  I point out how tripping and grapple are worse, how the rogue can be literally outshone in its own roles by nearly any other class, all the needless nerfs to monk features that further cripple them and some direct links to SKR posts to show the designers' outright hostility towards the build concept of fighting unarmed and unarmored.  But they just brush it off and insist it's still an improvement.  I don't get it....

Crush their dreams and drink deep of their tears.

Yeah... I'd add more laughing to this.

More seriously, it might be smart to Reply All with a pointed email that a lot of what's in that email isn't accurate.

Point out that Rogues have been severely nerfed, spellcasters have actually been buffed, and that it's just generally kinda slapshod.

Oh hai, all XP requiring spells now only use gold, which a proper GOD can churn out like a factory :P

Screw spending actual coins, just cast Blood Money.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
Ugh.  I feel for you.  Try your best to point out how casters are even stronger and martials and especially rogues and monks got nerfed into the ground.  But they sound like they're already "converted."  I don't know why, but even usually reasonable, intelligent people can't seem to comprehend how PF is worse than 3E.  I point out how tripping and grapple are worse, how the rogue can be literally outshone in its own roles by nearly any other class, all the needless nerfs to monk features that further cripple them and some direct links to SKR posts to show the designers' outright hostility towards the build concept of fighting unarmed and unarmored.  But they just brush it off and insist it's still an improvement.  I don't get it....

Well, it's less of a pain to get at supplements and so on and so forth? The fact that so many things are freely available and in one place is something going for it.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2015, 07:26:03 PM by Raineh Daze »

Offline StreamOfTheSky

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
    • View Profile
Ugh.  I feel for you.  Try your best to point out how casters are even stronger and martials and especially rogues and monks got nerfed into the ground.  But they sound like they're already "converted."  I don't know why, but even usually reasonable, intelligent people can't seem to comprehend how PF is worse than 3E.  I point out how tripping and grapple are worse, how the rogue can be literally outshone in its own roles by nearly any other class, all the needless nerfs to monk features that further cripple them and some direct links to SKR posts to show the designers' outright hostility towards the build concept of fighting unarmed and unarmored.  But they just brush it off and insist it's still an improvement.  I don't get it....

Well, it's less of a pain to get at supplements and so on and so forth? The fact that so many things are freely available and in one place is something going for it.

Definitely true.  On the other hand, there's so much garbage in there (even worse than 3E...we've covered this, but PF has feats and traits that actually make you strictly worse than before, and don't just merely "do nothing") alongside some really crazy overpowered gems, and the names are often not that helpful to figure out what something does, plus PF likes to reuse the same names in multiple places (I think there's at least three different "Honeyed Words," for example) such that actually trying to search through it to make a build...even for something as simple as a trait to make X a class skill...is so convoluted and confusing that looking into handbooks for guidance is pretty much a necessity.

But maybe to DMs, having players blindly bumble through all the options not aware that there's really good stuff they'd want hidden in there is a plus.

Offline Raineh Daze

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10577
  • hi
    • View Profile
3E is full of complete crap, too. It just happens to be in books rather than showing up whenever you try and find something. Unless you're using dndtools or something, which puts you in the same scenario either way (with worse organisation). Doesn't help that they made so many things WORSE than their original counterparts, but...

Nice that some of the thirdparty stuff is put up for free, though.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
They didn't even know about the SRD until I showed them. To me, this is the ONLY thing that Pathfinder has going for it. The SRD is a real delight.

The playgroup is excellent. Worth suffering through PF with.

Two of them are medical doctors, one is a physician's assistant, one a respiratory therapist,one a professor, and another does sales. It stands to reason that they would be capable of reason. But I find that a lot of people, including really smart people, are just blind to stuff when it comes to D&D.

Like I said, I'm going to deal with it. I will likely play a full caster in each campaign because everything else sucks and carry my team to victory. We have three campaigns, so I assume Wizard, Cleric, Druid will keep me from getting too bored. Unless Summoners or Witches are better than any of those.

Just wanted to complain a bit...

... Happy Father's Day!



... and Happy Season 2 of True Detective Release Day!

I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
I actually have forced myself to not play full casters in Pathfinder as a sort of restraint/personal challenge.  Hell, my Hunter ran roughshod over every encounter, and I wasn't even trying all that hard. 

Although now things are on a big Savage Worlds kick in my little corner of the world. 

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
The email thread is growing. Everyone is approaching it like it's a different game. Here is an excerpt:

Quote from: Person 1
I would also like to be a caster of some sort as I have not played one yet.

Quote from: Person 2
Any preference for arcane vs divine spells? And would you want to be a pure caster, or a hybrid with another class, like fighter or rogue?

Pathfinder Management

Quote from: Person 1
I have to think on it and do more research. I would lean toward more casting but I would be willing to be a hybrid if that would help the party. I just want to have casting ability.

Why would you even ask someone who says they want to be a caster if they want to be a "rogue or fighter" in addition. Haha.

I love these guys, really I do. But I'm scratching my head. I've never had anyone ask me if I want some Wizard with my Rogue before, so why the reverse?
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 03:19:35 PM by muktidata »
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Quote
I will answer the sources question first. Everything that is on the main SRD is allowed. You can find it at www.d20pfsrd.com. But there are a number of links to additional third party sources. Those are not allowed.

For those of you that are new to PF, you will recognize a lot of the SRD items from 3.5. Most of them work more or less the same too, except for character generation. The characters have the same overall flavor, but there are some significant changes. Most were done to restore play balance between the classes. For example, sorcerer vs wizard. In 3.5, you could design an excellent sorcerer for particular jobs. But in a long campaign, wizards were clearly more effective than sorcerers. That is no longer true. Sorcerers are just as powerful now. I still prefer wizards just because I like their style better. But thats just me.

At this point, I don't want anyone to worry about what the party needs. Just think of what you want to play.

So, lets see where we are so far. Mind you, none of this is set in stone.

Scott wants to be a cleric. He knows PF better than me, so I will leave character generation to him. But I assume that he will go pretty much straight cleric, with maybe a prestige class, but no multiclassing.

Paul wants to be a scout/archer but not a thief. That is definitely possible. And we are already set up for Skype play. Tried to do it with Ken but he had problems on his end. As far as I know, we are ready to go here.

Chad, there are lots of options for spell casting. It is really up to you to decide what would be the most fun. Although the party probably doesn't need 2 clerics.


Pathfinder Management

Oh, my Lord!
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
I really want to ask how Pathfinder solved the gulf between the Sorc and the Wizard.  Like, I want to hear some specifics. 

Since, y'know, they did virtually nothing in point of fact.

Honestly, he's just banging on this drum of balance, and I'm getting annoyed by proxy.  He clearly has no idea what he's talking about. 

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
To the OP:

When I first read the thread title, I thought it might be a parody in the vein of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

So, here's the thing.  Read up on this; show it to the other players so that they know what's different in the new game.

I don't know your prior relationship with the rest of the group, if you're all good friends who do non-game stuff, if this is a relatively new group, etc.

The question is if you'll still be able to have fun playing PF, even if you disagree with the other players and vice versa.  It's no secret that the game's unbalanced, but you know that, so try and get a feel for the party dynamic so that you won't upshow/be dominated by them.  Regardless, unbalanced shit is a real problem and can impact other players' fun.  In this case, it is wise to lay it out on the table if this happens and discuss a way to fix things.  I did this in Arcana High when Raineh's melee-cleric was at risk of being outshone due to her build and she was worried about this happening; it's better to nip these things in the bud before it grows too large.  But this is only if players will actually not have fun being underpowered.

Since this is in Forgotten Realms with some Ravenloft material, you might wish to inquire about "reverse compatibility."  In Pathfinder's early days this was a big sell, of reusing 3.5 material.  However, this aspect of the games' history is not so prominent anymore, and there are now PF tables who disallow all 3.5 things because it really is its own game now.  I don't know if your GM is planning to homebrew convert Forgotten Realms, using another conversion already done, or what, so that might change things a bit as well.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 06:22:19 PM by Libertad »

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
I did it. I opened the can of worms.

Quote
Hey, Jack/Scott.

Out of curiosity, is Pathfinder actually up in the air? I can't tell if Jack was actually asking in his initial email or selling.

Just to be clear, Pathfinder has done nothing to improve or balance 3.5 and has actually hurt it in those regards for the most part. That doesn't mean we shouldn't switch to it, but if the reason for switching is because you believe PF somehow balanced 3.5, I just want to warn you that it didn't at all. Literally everything that is wrong with 3.5 is just as wrong with PF or in most cases, even worse.

The only draws that I see are the SRD which is truly a delight and the fact that Jack brought up: it's a living game.

3.5 is a bad system and I don't mind switching from bad to worse. I enjoy either, but I hope you guys don't start it up thinking you've found a system that is similar to 3.5, but with a lot of fixes. That's just not what Pathfinder is. All of what Jack mentioned is just wrong except the Polymorph highlight is true to some degree.

I can be more specific if either of you are interested. It would be a lot easier of a discussion to have in person/over the phone but I'm willing to type as well. I'd just rather you have a better understanding of 3.5/Pathfinder and the differences than just "believe" it's an improvement.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Quote
I have been told by several different people that it is a vast improvement. And it is very popular at conventions. In fact, you are the only person that I have heard any negatives from. Please explain why you think it has made things worse.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
Quote
Yes, you sound very convinced. I've been baffled by the Pathfinder improved 3.5 argument since 2009 and am continuously so. A few critiques are:

1) It buffed casters significantly. And no, it did nothing to close the gap between Sorcerer and Wizard.

2) It nerfed mundane characters significantly.

3) It nerfed Rogues a little worse than the rest.

4) It nerfed Monks the hardest of all. The designers have specifically said that they don't like the idea of an unarmed, unarmed melee character. So they implemented their dislike.

5) It did nothing to solve complicated high level games. You can count the number of places where they've mitigated "broken" high level play with one hand. Polymorphing and uber-charging were specifically nerfed, but it's hard to name much else. Polymorph-type effects are still very strong in Pathfinder. But then you take something like their replacement of XP components of a spell with gold and high level play is even more hairy.

6) You mentioned the multi-class/prestige class thing, but it's hard to over-emphasize this.

7) There is a lot of broken stuff introduced by Pathfinder.

Alright, anyone interested in providing a few examples for each of these. I'm sure I'll be asked to detail them. I can, but the more examples the more to choose from/the better.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2015, 11:02:37 PM by muktidata »
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.

Offline muktidata

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 695
  • Ephesians 2
    • View Profile
I quoted you guys a bit here and there because I like your wording. I have followed the arguments enough to know the general ideas without too much detail since Pathfinder began. I think this might be a hard pill to swallow. I imagine that at the end of this conversation they will not be convinced at all.
I appreciate the logical, cool-headed responses and the lack of profanity displayed by our community.