I read a few posts comparing the games, and the overall feeling is Pathfinder 1e is a more streamlined version of D&D 3.5E, with a higher power level, smoothed out leveling, no dead levels, higher hit dice (no more d4 hit die classes), and enhanced low-end power.
A lot of people say both games aren't worth playing these days, since they take too much to learn, too much attention to detail, and players these days aren't patient enough to work through them to get enjoyment from the complex system. Other say skills are horribly unbalanced, with modifiers that can go up into the +50 range.
Some say the Pathfinder monsters are easier, and others say some of the 3.5E monsters are horribly broken and overly deadly.
Most have just given up and play Pathfinder 2E and 5E.
It is strange to see D&D 3.5E have the GURPS problem. We saw this as a simple game back in the day, and something like Rolemaster was challenging.
What I like specifically about D&D 3.5E is the prestige class system. In Pathfinder, they moved away from this concept, and either added prestige classes as subclass powers or invented entirely new classes that filled those subclass roles. It is easier to balance a class in isolation than it is a prestige class where you need to work into it, taking it anywhere from level 4 to 20, and potentially causing all sorts of unintended consequences.
But I really like the idea of starting off a fighter, and then working your way up into a prestige class, such as a divine crusader. Once you have 20-40 base classes, the only way you can create a "prestige class" is to multiclass and come up with a freakish combination. It doesn't even have a name or role in the world, just another "warlock-rogue-paladin" that can use eldritch whip, smite and backstab with it all in one attack. What even is that? I don't know, it just does something cool.
That level of character customization, where you are free to buy feats, put points into skills, and collect prerequisite powers and classes to get to a prestige class is cool. Ultimately, the system breaks apart when skills reach the +30 level, with a DC 40 of "near impossible" that is happening on a 50-50 chance. I remember DC escalation in this version, and seeing DCs from 30 to 50 was not uncommon in the D&D 3.5E rulebook.
Getting a "hostile" monster to the "helpful" attitude level, basically, an ally of the party, was a DC 50 diplomacy check. Given a +40 diplomacy skill, getting them indifferent (DC 25) or friendly (DC 35) was a given.
You can hate this as complete idiocy, or love this as ultra-high fantasy.
The D&D 3.5E Epic Level Handbook leans into this notion very hard. A bard can use performance skill, pass a DC 170 skill check, and turn a crowd of hostile monsters into fanatical supporters, willing to die for the character for any reason. That fort full of stone giants? Let's rock, and I will have them headbanging and causing a small earthquake. You do NOT get this level of hijinks and insanity in Pathfinder 1e, but you could see this in a game like Dungeon Crawl Classics.
Yes, this book was horribly broken. Modifiers over +100 mean nothing on a d20 roll. You begin to lose your mind and wonder, what the heck am I playing? This is the sort of game that makes you crave low fantasy again.
Personally, I think it is cool. For all the myths of "high level characters being more powerful than gods" - this book delivers on the promise. This was our version of Greyhawk back in the day. NPCs hanging out in Greyhawk city were literal gods, bored with the universe and spending their time in bars as they sought out things which could challenge them. They were the "bored superheroes" and always fun for my players to pick on and steal things from.
But name me a game that does zero to infinite power like this? Outside a superhero game that infinitely scales, I can't really name one.
No comments:
Post a Comment