Random Musings of the Day - On OSE, Pathfinder, Basic Fantasy and D&D 3.5

 Short post, but still part of the last few months' ongoing theme of "mulling over what games I want to play."

First off....sticking to VTT and Roll20 in particular means that anything I do will need to comport to the medium of transmission, which in this case of course is Roll20. I have Foundry but it looks a bit too much for the level of time/energy I have to invest; a friend of mine who also grabbed it wants to collaborate on figuring it out, so who knows, though....we may crack that nut sooner or later.

I like OSE because its restrained, mechanically, to the style of old school progression I am comfortable with, but also doesn't limit itself to the boundaries of old school options. Unlike B/X D&D or AD&D ca. 1978 you can play other things in OSE like drow, knights, duergar, svirfneblin and much, much more with additional supplements. The rules for OSE are comfortable with this and know that there is a large group of OSR fans like myself for which the conceptual space of OSR does not mean that players must lack choice; I burned out on the sacred quartet of dwarf, human, elf, halfling as the only allowable species for players a long time ago, and I was never on board with "class as race" so the hybrid "do both B/X and AD&D" approach of OSE is really cool, and lets everyone have their preferences.

That was a long paragraph to basically say that I looked in to the latest edition of Basic Fantasy and while the system looks nice and tight, it lacks the variety that OSE supports right out of its core books....Basic Fantasy is, peer its name, exactly what it intends to be. I am not looking for that, unfortunately; I want a system with more robust variety. I know my players well....they would be bored and dissatisfied with BF in short order (as would I). So OSE still reigns as king for me right now, an old-school system which supports a more modern range of options for characters. 

Despite toying with the idea of OSE I haven't really engaged with it, though. Instead I ended up once more thinking about how the level of complexity (both in character options and tactical combat) that I find most satisfying is still best supported by either sticking with Pathfinder 2E (which is the game my group is most invested in on Saturday), or D&D 3.5 (which is the game I find myself most deeply interested in, having realized it is evoking the most nostalgia for me right now). 

So....still pondering, but I do know that my next planned fantasy game (outside of the ongoing D&D 5E game) will be further down the road. I want to let it lie "fallow" for a while so that my interest and desire to run new campaigns can come to fruition better.....and give me some time for a little while to properly explore other games and genres (Traveller, Cypher, Call of Cthulhu, etc.).

More thoughts on running D&D 3.5, D&D 5th and Pathfinder 2E at the same time

 So for several months now I've been running three different games: a more or less weekly Saturday Pathfinder 2E game, and a rotating weeknight session that jumps between D&D 3.5 and D&D 5E. In Pathfinder the group has hit 5th level, so still relatively low powered. D&D 3.5 deliberately started at level 1 and has crept up to level 4ish for most of the group now. D&D 5E rolled in at level 3 and is hitting level 5. 

In each case I worked out a fairly detailed scenario/plotline to keep things focused. In Pathfinder the group is a gang of young acolytes in a local assassin's guild with strong political, patriotic ties to protecting the city itself. They face a crisis as the heir to the throne is killed, then resurrected under extremely suspicious circumstances, even as their senior leadership are taken out of action, leaving them alone to figure things out.

In the D&D 3.5 game I started with a level 1-3 zone in which I worked out a main dungeon of interest and several minor side quests. I then built it around leading in to a specific Necromancer Games module from the good old 3.5 days of Necromancer, which shall remain nameless in case any of my players are reading. The key conceit of this campaign is it is extremely sandboxy and open-ended; I don't care where the PCs go, as long as they do something of interest....I have most angles covered unless they suddenly decided to journey two hundred miles away in a random direction.

In the D&D 5E game I an running it in a different section of the same world the D&D 3.5 game is taking place, and it starts with a group of ragtag mostly monstrous heroes who work for a local investigator of an orc-dominated city; they are essentially given tough jobs that require protecting the interests of the city against the neighboring human kingdom which often mistrusts the orc-run area. The group is currently wrapping the latest investigation, into the attack and kidnap of a priestess who channels the will of a popular goddess, and it is exposing a deeper mystery of other groups who seem interested in sowing conflict between the orcs and humans. I started this campaign as a 3.5 venture for the first scenario, but then moved to 5E for the next storyline as I wanted to do exactly what this article is about: contrasting 3.5 D&D against its successors, 5E and PF2E.

Here's what I've learned now after several months of gaming:

Pathfinder 2E Remains Fun but it's Balance is Too Much 

Pathfinder 2E's rigidly designed skill system is annoying. Seriously, I wish it was a broader set of skills, and not so tightly woven into the structured pathology of Pathfinder's overly balanced advancement, balanced to the point of eerie predictability. In fact, after running a level 1-20 and some smaller campaigns in PF2E, I have decided that, in contrast with the editions it is meant to replace or compete with, that it's highly structured style just isn't as flexible or fun as prior editions have been. PF2E, on occasion, has been compared to D&D 4E, and I can understand why: it's design was handled with too much emphasis on a specific play experience, and not enough feedback clearly entered during design and playtest to allow for Paizo's team to realize that there are other styles of play which their new game would not support so well (such as at my table, where I am sick and tired of calling on Society checks or generic crafting checks or Nature, Survival, etc. etc. for myriad other skills that the PCs should actually have as separate skills).

 Do I still enjoy running it? Yes, particularly in Roll20, which makes it easy. But it is painfully clear that in contrast with 3rd edition and 5th edition D&D that Pathfinder 2E feels a bit more like a "sandbox playground where everything has been padded to prevent the players from escaping its confines." Moreover, my players describe PF2E as "A GM's game, for GMs who don't like uppity players." They like elements of it....such as how ancestries work, but they also sense that a lot of PF2E's design went in to removing the potential for players to design truly interest characters and unexpected synergies. 

As a GM I have come to realize that combat encounters of even 1 CR more than the players can be a pain in the ass and risk unexpected deaths and TPK, it simply doesn't have the range that you can get out of D&D's editions for encounter design due to its hard focus on tight balance. I have ranted about this in prior blog posts, of course, but to give you an idea: I mostly design encounters around a CR 1-2 less than the PCs. Anything more than that is too trivial, and anything except a rare CR+1 will be too deadly with remarkable consistency. 

D&D 3.5 Is Funner Now That It's No Longer The Only Game Around

Put simply: D&D 3.5's key flaws evaporate once people are playing it for fun and enjoyment and you no longer have a large player base and online presence talking about min/max game design and turning everything into an arms race. My group is having fun in a way that very much reminds me of the early fun days from 2001 to 2006. Sometime after that I feel the game hit a level of notoriety and the obsession with optimal builds began to infect everyone who played it. Now? It's just a fund game and I am enjoying a sandbox campaign with a group that is barely optimized for fighting paper bags, let alone serious stuff. I run it as a DM aimed at providing for a good time, and I don't worry too much about balance at all, a welcome reprieve from PF2E on the other game night.

One thing I realize with 3.5: I prefer the old skill system. It was flexible, a little unpredictable, and had more stuff in it that feels natural to call out for in the course of play. I am sure a great many people much prefer "perception" as a skill (or not at all in the OSR crowd) but I love the fact that Spot, Listen and Search are three different things and can reflect that one PC might be a keen eyed observer but have a hearing problem, while another PC might have bad eagle vision but can search methodically with great efficiency. Good stuff.

I don't anticipate running D&D 3.5 past level 12 or so, but who knows. 

D&D 5E Feels Better to Run with 3.5 Fresh in Mind

D&D 5E is good, and running it back to back with 3.5 makes me appreciate it more. Most interestingly, sometimes I find myself using 5E as a reference point for adjudicating some moments in 3.5, to keep tings simple. Other times I find myself tempted to house rule in a few items from 3.5 to 5E, but I try to restrain myself as much as possible. Like with 3.5, I suspect that as D&D 5E goes on I may grow a bit tired of its core simplicity and lack of dynamic elements in stuff like saves and damage; but I did decide with this campaign to run it using gritty resting rules and that is going a surprisingly long way toward my feeling like the players are "tough guys in a tough world" rather than the standard 5E trope of fantasy superheroes. Still...they've only just hit their good levels, so we'll see how things go in the coming months.

Also, I don't hate the D&D 5E skill system, at all. In fact, while I still like 3.5's granularity on skills,  will take the 5E skill system over PF2E's skill system any day.

After the group completes their current storyline, I am considering integrating a module, possibly Rise of the Drow, which I just snagged. We shall see.

Some Conclusions (so far)

So....it's fun running three iterations of basically the same game, and seeing how my expectations and experience in one lend to observations and changes in the other two. The real takeaway I have gotten from this experience so far has been one about how I structure and focus on campaigns. Specifically: I am not as interested in the "big story" campaigns as I once was, and the D&D 3.5 game where I basically made a sandbox for them to do whatever (including regions of different levels they can wander in to regardless of their own level) has actually been the most fun. But my structured investigation stories in the 5E game have also been a lot of fun because I took some time to lay out interesting paths of discovery and skill challenges related to the investigations. It's "pseudo-rails" in that the PCs could, like, stop investigating and go elsewhere, thus ending the module, but they had motivation and interest to proceed so it worked. 

Meanwhile, the very structured big picture storyline which admittedly makes the PCs more integrated to the world and setting proved perhaps a bit too much in terms of scope and design. I realize now that I came up with a great idea, but then sort of left it as a "and so that happened," type event, without a lot to go after the main event. Luckily I proceeded to dive in to some of the smaller angles and pieces, fleshing out the game to feel more like a sandbox, but I concede it's hard to just do sandbox in PF2E because a good sandbox should allow for the PCs to get into more trouble than they can handle on occasion, and in PF2E that can quickly turn into a lethal TPK. So....we'll continue for a while on this one, but afterwards I need to think hard on whether I plan to continue with PF2E or not, because it almost....but not quite....manages to frame the sort of adventures I like to run, but just not as well as either D&D 5E or D&D 3.5, which both do it so much better.

Final conclusion.....turns out too much balance in design is not necessarily a good idea! Who knew?

Also, and this is extremely important to stress: the D&D 5E and 3.5 edition games both have a huge edge over Poor Pathfinder 2E, in that they are live games I am running in person. PF2E is online, and while the online tools make for an easier time of it, I know my lack of time to sink into enhancing the graphic elements of the experience factor against the game to some degree, as does the predilection for the overall experience to be a generally less satisfying experience than the sort where normal humans are able to see each other live and not share a single audio channel. So, I must concede that PF2E in a live environment might still be a better overall experience than I am giving it credit for. Poor Pathfinder though....I think I got about 10 levels in to the original campaign when it had to migrate to online due to the pandemic, and its more or less lingered there ever since. May need to change that soon.

Character Generation in Advent Horizons

I have been messing around with Advent Horizons for the last few days....despite some strong contenders for my attention (e.g. The Traveller Companion from Mongoose which just released in print) Advent Horizon has captured my full focus.

Some details so far: AH is based on the 1.0a OGL which is the same OGL that Pathfinder 1.0 operates under, and therefore allows AH to be a complete rules system, as I am reasonably sure the D&D SRD for 5th edition is more limiting in this regard. The book directly mentions Dungeons & Dragons compatibility by name on more than one occasion, which is something I had thought was not permitted, but maybe I'm just assuming that because so many other products just mention it as "The World's Greatest Fantasy Game" or something else....my OGL-fu is a bit rusty here.

As a result, some parts (not many, but enough) of AH feel like 3rd edition thematics wedded to a 5th edition chassis. This actually works, because while the 3rd edition elements add some variables, they do not change the core design conceit, which was to make sure the game's numbers and math matched the bounded accuracy mechanics of D&D 5E. As a result, while a character in AH will look a bit different (and have more stuff, to be honest) than a 5E character, it will remain fully compatible from a numbers and stats point of view.

One example of these older approaches, now revamped and wedded to 5E mechanics, include proficiency slots as a purchase-mechanic for both skills and feats. By adding a point-buy mechanic to skills, and re-adding in "simpler" feats which are also purchased with the same points, you bring a level of design granularity (along with potential design pitfalls and peaks) that is more common in 3rd edition. However it is tempered with the mechanical consistency of 5E, so you do not see issues such as stacking effects and obvious out-of-control of immediately preferable build options getting in your way. Personally, I love what it is doing here....I wish 5E had a rules option similar to this, actually. But I love games with greater emphasis on skill mechanics.

So character generation is pretty straight forward and anyone who has played 5E D&D will know most of the steps. It deviates a bit...and I'll show how and where as I walk through the steps as follows:

1. Basic stuff first. Attributes can be rolled (they default to 2D6+6 for each stat) or point-buy purchased, using a variant method that is not like the standard 5E mechanic (probably for OGL reasons). You also get to pick a species and class, familiar stuff. Of note: the system defaults to metric, which is fine with me, but it has a couple interesting implications for those who are going to blend content with D&D 5E, and AH includes some conversion tables for ease of reference. I'll also note that so far my reading on AH suggests it does not expect much tabletop map/minis will be going on, and the game seems to assume more focus on TotM style combats. I am still ploughing through combat and the additional environmental rules so will confirm that in the next blog post, though.

2. Species. The species all look fairly consistent with 5E standards, and include the following choices:
--The Ba'alur, a warlike draconian race of reptiles that advanced to space through stolen or restored tech
--Colonials, the standard humans, who can pick special traits based on their type of homeworld
--Ephari, mysterious "gray" like aliens who dwell on world ships
--Empyreans, a humanlike race of transgenics
--Ixaxians, the obligatory insectoid race with the ability to communicate via radio frequencies and a penchant for technology
--Seyvul, the obligatory mischievous race that is basically a species of Rocket Raccoons
--Thothid, the totally-not-Mind Flayer species warped by strange beings of Cthulhuian origin; like mind flayers, but with wings! (Actually I love this species as presented)
--Urroru, bulky four-limbed totally-not-Tharks (hey, Starfinder has like 3 of these!) who have a  introspective warrior culture
--Xhu Akreen, an ancient race of blue skinned human-like aliens of a fallen empire

So, some good and iconic choices. All are well illustrated, too. The book looks like it would be fantastic to see in full color, but alas the Barnes & Noble edition I purchased is a black and white soft cover only.

3. Classes. Classes are varied and all built on the design principles of 5E, so they balance together (so far, I am still rolling samples PCs of each class to look for oddities). I've designed a few PCs so far though, and all look damned interesting and fun to play. The classes include:
--Agent, an espionage themed class
--Combat Specialist, the warrior themed class
--Diplomat, the negotiator class
--Explorer, a scientist/adventurer class
--Insurgent, a guerilla combatant (maybe closer to the Starfinder Operator, thematically)
--Marshal, a commander-type (think warlord) class
--Science Specialist, a skill focused academic
--Spacer, an "EVA and Zero-Gravity" specialist
--Spiritualist, a spiritual/religious themed class using akashic knowledge as its theme
--Tactician, a manipulator/operator type
--Technophile, the engineer/technologist type

Although each class follows the class design principles of 5E, they do deviate in two ways: each class at level 1 is front-loaded with four key abilities as a package they get, but none of the classes have standard D&D archetypes of any sort built in by level 3. Instead, some have a range of specific options (the combat specialist gets some soldier specializations to pick from), others give you abilities you pick over time ("spycrafts" for agents, for example), and still others either get nothing specific like this (single ability choices) or make a theme choice earlier (such as science specialists choosing their focus at level 1).  There is a reason for this, it turns out, and this is where AH varies from traditional 5E approaches to design by using proficiency slots to flesh out characters. Finally, you can multiclass in rules which are recognizable to anyone who's played a 3rd edition version of D&D (but it works fine).

4. Backgrounds: Education and Professions. Every character picks from several choices to build their background, allowing for a range of flexible design options. Backgrounds are composed of:
--Education: grants a skill or two and a personality trait based on the type of educational background you have.
--Profession: your career path, which doesn't have to be tied to class necessarily (so a combat specialist who was also an artist is perfectly acceptable). This grants a couple skills and potential reputation and credit boost, as well as an ideal.
--Events: this portion of your background details something that happens to you, as well as the trinket (momento) of your experience and the flaw you gained from that event.

AH also uses something it calls the Axis Alignment, which is a series of descriptors you can pick from to give your character a defining personality focus. The options listed include methodical, analytical, reasonable, passive, zen, passionate, impulsive, zealous, and unaligned. Inspiration rules are also stuck here.

5. Proficiency Slots. Every class grants around 14-16 slots, plus you will gain some free skills due to class as well as possibly your species and later background and profession choices. I found that this meant, on average, you could end up with around 4-6 free skills, plus your points to spend, plus your intelligence modifier in bonus slots.

The system AH uses is based on skill trees: you buy the initial skill in the tree, which opens up basic knowledge of later skills, but you only add your proficiency bonus to skills you have actual training in. For example, if you know Perception as a skill you can use it to make observational checks, but you need to spend another point to also get danger sense, which lets you observe threats you might not notice without actively searching (e.g. passive perception alone won't spot a hidden trap, but danger sense will prompt a roll even if you weren't looking for it).

Proficiency slots/points are a 1:1 cost, and you must have the requisite skills/feats along a skill tree before spending on later items in the same tree. Most of the skill trees have at least 3 layers of depth and multiple forking branches, so in fact there are a lot of things to spend points on. Interestingly, the trees include both standard skills and feats. Feats in AH are not the "deluxe package" feats of D&D 5E, however, and each one usually delivers 1 distinct ability you can use; under this mechanic, a skill is a thing you roll on, and a feat is a thing that gives you a mechanical feature or effect.

My initial thought here was, "this seems like a lot of points to spend at level 1." And it is, from a certain perspective, but most classes then go about giving you a grand total of 12 additional feat points over the next 20 levels of your career (6 for general leveling and 6 for the class; another 3rd edition element). By level 20, assuming a smart character (INT 20) in a class that starts you with 16 slots, you can have a maximum of  33 proficiency slots spent, of which around 19 were spent at level 1. I count at least 154 skill tree choices to pick from plus 14 tool proficiency skills and a bunch of racial proficiencies, and of those quite a few can be taken multiple times for additional effects/ranges....so there are a lot of choices here.

The result of this is that level 1 characters in AH are front loaded with a range of interesting skills and abilities, but then progress more slowly in their long term career. This is offset by the fact that at level 1 most characters can be dropped or even killed by one good hit from almost any handgun in the game, so characters with greater expertise don't seem so out of balance against the threat level of the galaxy.

In my experiments with character design I've looked at an array of interesting choices, from an insurgent archer from a primitive world who kills with melee attacks to a sharp-shooting survivalist scientist to a combat specialist who secretly wanted to be a retired artist. You can make a lot of interesting characters here. I'll try posting some of the characters I've rolled soon.

I have found no feat or ability so far that raised my eyebrows in question of its power level ot utility, so far. I do however imagine with a point buy system like this that some players may find ways to game it a bit, or even find odd synergies. I won't likely see any of these (if they exist) until I see what my table rolls up, though.

6. Reputation and Credit. The last bits of character generation are a Reputation Score (another 3rd edition mechanic) which is basically your "bonus to influence" on DCs, and the Credit Score which is what the game uses in lieu of tracking actual cash. This mechanic can work just fine....you can see a version of it from the old days in D20 Modern, and it's not unlike the credit rating in Call of Cthulhu, but since all purchases are made with this it can mean a lot of die-rolling when time comes to spend. You can gain credit as a reward or lose it to influence advantage on checks, too. It's a solid mechanic. Not my preferred method (I like counting cash) but it expediently focuses the game on a broader range of topics for play than just acquiring specific amounts of filthy lucre.

So far, I am really enjoying the flexibility and range of options in character generation in AH. I'll be honest....I've been so enamoured with this game's design that I've convinced my group we must try it ASAP and also ordered a second table copy through Barnes & Noble (here) for play.

I'll talk more about Combat and the other mechanics next, and post some sample PCs soon!

The Fearsome Four Get the 3.5 Treatment

So as I continue to have fun with the new AD&D and 3.5 D&D reprints I took a bit of time to translate the Fearsome Four into 3rd edition. It was a fun exercise, and also interesting to really be reminded of the subtle but distinct differences between straight-up 3.5 and Pathfinder. The AD&D versions are right here. For now, though: the 3.5 edition versions!

Corlance dan Veraskon, a human knight of the southern Octzellan kingdom of Valance. He was formerly of the Order of the Southern Crescent out of Pheralin, but left on a journey to earn his title of true knight (dan) as a knight errant, aiding the poor and needy. Corlance chose the most difficult and demanding task imaginable, in the name of his goddess Enki: the forsaken lands of Golmadras. Aware that his survival in that land depends on a measure of will and trickery, he has arrived anticipating the need to be discreet about his identity. Not long after arriving he was nearly killed by a rabble of drunken templars in the service of the Shadow Temple but was saved by the timely intervention of Syberis Darkmoon and her short ally Quentin Chance. He later made friends with lacuna Helbyrn, who he attempted (and succeeded) in beating at a drinking contest, earning a mild amount of admiration from her at his tenacity. The four have been traveling since, and Corlance plans to see the ruins of Thystivianen next (naga and lamia be damned).

Corlance dan Veraskon, human male Age 22, lawful good Paladin Level 1, native to Pheralin, Valance; STR 14 (+2), DEX 11(0), CON 18(+4), INT 14 (+2), WIS 18(+4), CHA 17(+3); HP 14, BAB +1; Fort +6, Ref +0, Will +4; Armored AC 16; Flat-Footed AC 16, Touch AC 10

 Paladin Features: Aura of God, detect evil, smite evil 1/day

Feats: Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword), Weapon Focus (bastard sword)

Languages: Middle Tongue (common), Golmadran, Elvish, Orcish

Skills:  Diplomacy +7, Heal +7, Knowledge (nobility & royalty) +4, Knowledge (religion) +5, Ride +4, Survival +5(cc)

Gear: Bastard Sword (+4 attack; 1D10+2 damage; 19-20/X2 crit); chainmail and light steel shield (+5 and +1 AB)

XP Earned: 120

  

 

Syberis Darkmoon is an ashtarth (drow) dark elf  and the youngest daughter of house Plagistron, though she does not advertise this. House Plagistron is a ruling figure in the northern city of Senempar, but she fled from that dominion years ago after an altercation that led to a call for her execution. She has since made her home in Golmadras, where a dark elf on the surface is a common sight. She provides guidance to foreigners  visiting the land to help them avoid coming into conflict with the oft-times draconian local laws. She is also a remarkably good fence and pickpocket.

Syberis Darkmoon, dark elf female Age 74, chaotic neutral rogue level 2 /wizard level 2 (ECL 6), native to Senempar; STR 16 (+3), INT 19 (+4), WIS 14 (+2), DEX 18 (+4), CON 11 (0), CHA 12 (+1); HP 13, BAB +2; Fort +0, Ref +6, Will +4; Armored AC 17;Flat-Footed AC 13; Touch AC 15

Spells/Day: cantrips - 3; 1^st level spells- 2

Drow Features: darkvision 120 feet; Spell Resistance 15; +2 Will save vs. spells and spell-like abilities; Spell Like Abilities 1/day: dancing lights, darkness, faerie fire (CL 4); drow weapon proficiencies, light blindness; Level Adjustment +2

Rogue Features: Sneak Attack +1D6, trap-finding, Evasion

Wizard Features: summon familiar (lizard), scribe scroll

Feats: point-blank shot, precise shot

Spell Book: Cantrips: all; 1^st Level Spells: Burning Hands, Charm Person, Comp. Languages, Feather Fall, Hypnotism, Identify, Jump, Shield, Sleep, Silent Image, Truestrike, Ventriloquism 

Languages: Dark Elf (ashtarthic), Middle Tongue (common), Golmadran, Elvish, Orcish, draconic, Undercommon (deep speech)

Skills: Appraise +8, Balance +9, Climb +8(+11 w/familiar), Decipher Script +9, Disable Device +9, Disguise +6, Hide +8, Knowledge (arcana) +9, Listen +7, Move Silently +9, Open Lock +9, Search +8, Sleight of Hand +9, Spellcraft +7, Spot +7, Tumble +6

Gear: Short Sword (+5 attack; 1D6+3 damage; 19-20/X2 crit); light crossbow (+6 attack; 1D8 damage; 19-20/X2 crit) with 20 bolts; studded leather +1 magical (+3 AB total)

XP Earned: 10,500

Quentin Chance is a sylenic Halfling of the South Shores (fighter/thief, CG) and a bold adventurer by the standards of his people. Quentin had a profound experience on his fortieth birthday when a gypsy woman of the Avernan Nomads read his fortune and proclaimed that he would die in the comfort of his own home, unexpectedly. He decided to thwart death by marching off into adventure, to become a roaming nomad of sorts (counter-logical thinking being common among the Chance family) and has prided himself on his adventures ever since. He took a liking to Corlance when he first met the knight, and has followed him ever since as a loyal companion.

Quentin Chance, Mixed Blood Halfling male Age 44, chaotic good fighter level 2 /rogue level 2, native to the Golmadran Coast; STR 14 (+2), DEX 14 (+2), CON 18 (+4), INT 7 (-2), WIS 16 (+3), CHA 17 (+3); BAB +3; HP 31; Fort +8; Ref +6; Will +4; Armored  AC 16; Flat-Footed AC 14, Touch AC 13

Halfling Features: Small creature (+1 attacks, +1 AC, +4 Hide, small weapons, ¾ lift), base speed 20 feet, +1 to all saves, +2 morale bonus to save vs. fear, +1 attack with slings and thrown weapons, +2 racial listen bonus (bonuses added in)

Rogue Features: Sneak Attack +1D6, trap-finding, Evasion

Feats: Cleave, Combat Reflexes, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (scimitar)

Languages: Golmadran, Halfling, thieves cant

Skills: Balance +6, Bluff +7, Climb +6, Escape Artist +6, Gather Information +7, Hide +6, Listen +9, Profession (fisherman) +6,  Spot +6, Swim +4

Gear: Small scimitar +1 (+8* attack; 1D4+3 damage; 18-20/X2 crit); small dagger (+6* attack; 1D3+2 damage; 19-20/X2 crit); studded leather armor (+3 AB)*size bonuses added in

XP Earned: 7,000

 

Lakuna Helbyrn is a human woman in her late twenties and a former Royal Guardsman of the Imperial Court in Golmadras who once went by the name Aerys Daion. She was cast out after an altercation that led to the death of her commanding officer, but for reasons unknown the Emperor himself intervened in what was ordinarily a death sentence, instead stripping her of name, rank and status and putting her on the streets. Lakuna adopted the name of the legendary warrior woman who was written about at length by the historians during the fabled War of Strife in old Imperial Hyrkania, for her prowess at laying low a balor summoned by the old armies of chaos, and she claims that her ancestry can be traced back to that very warrior so long ago. In any case, she encountered Quentin and became good friends with the scamp, reluctantly agreeing to assist his new friend Corlance in an exploratory journey of Golmadras under her assumed identity.

Lakuna Helbyrn (formerly Aerys Daion), human female Age 31, lawful neutral fighter Level 4 , native to Golmadras; STR 16 (+3), DEX 15 (+2), CON 16 (+3), INT 10 (0), WIS 10 (0), CHA 18 (+4); HP 45; BAB +4; Fort +7; Ref +3; Will +4; Armored AC 17; Flat-Footed AC 17; Touch AC 11

Fighter Features: specialization (two-handed sword; +1 attack, +2 damage; 3/2 attack rate)

Languages: Golmadran (common)

Feats: blind-fighting, cleave, power attack, weapon specialization (two handed sword)

Skills: Climb +6, Intimidate +10, Jump +5, Ride +7, Swim +8

Gear: Two-Handed Sword +1 Dragon Bane (+9 attack; 2D6+7 damage; 19-20/X2 crit; +2 magical and +2D6 damage vs. dragons); long bow (+6 attack; 1D8 damage; 20/X3 crit) and a quiver with 30 arrows, Invisible splint mail +1 magical (+7 AB; +4 charisma modifier when armor is invisible)

XP Earned: 9,900 

So much for the Revolution!

Well I am happy to have the 3.5 books again and while I'd like to us them, it looks like (as I expected) doing so will be tantamount to my getting into dentistry and pulling teeth in a matter of weeks. Maybe further down the road....but Pathfinder has its fangs very, very deep.

4E interest still percolates among some players, but not enough in any one spot at the same time for group consistency. While I managed to get a legitimate 4E game started two weeks ago it has already led to a quiet rebellion...or at least a decision this week to switch to low-level Pathfinder. My concession is I'll keep running the campaign I intended (which is a return to Chirak after a lengthy absence) although if I had my way I'd be running straight 3.5 or 1E, just so I could enjoy the fancy new books and keep the game under a D&D title. all me a brand whore, but I kinda like the idea of playing legitimate, official D&D. Heh. Hell, I'd be happy to stick with 4E even though I know it would be once more a count-down to when I grew frustrated with the limited board/minis scope of the system.

Well, the blog serves one great purpose if no other: its a vessel for me to write about the games I like but hardly ever get to play! So expect more 1st edition stuff as time permits. Maybe even more 3.5 analysis. We shall see...

On an unrelated note, I have spent the last couple days trying to play The Secret World. They have an option for recurring payments through paypal, which is good, because I had a bad experience with a credit card setup with Funcom on Age of Conan long ago, and didn't want to repeat that. Well, despite being set up for reasons unknown I couldn't log on. When I went to check my account it said the payment wasn't processed and needed my action to confirm it. Still didn't work. A customer service on their live chat (it was nice that they had live chat) said it could take two days to process paypal payments. I went over to paypal, and they showed that I had Funcom all set to pay monthly and that the only thing missing was the actual payment. I gave it a while, then in frustration decided this was yet another warning flag with Funcom, just like the Age of Conan incident a while back where I ended up massively overcharged after a long wait to get a sub going, and cancelled the recurring payment option through paypal.

I want to play your games, Funcom, so why won't you meet me halfway? I wanted to give you my money, but you wouldn't take it. I guess I might just wait until The Secret World goes free to play after all...

3.5 Revisited

I've picked up the reprints of the D&D 3.5 core rule books. They seem to be reprints of the deluxe editions (the black & silver foil cover editions) that came out many years ago...but I never actually owned those so I can't really say for sure if this is the case or not. Its possible these contain errata that postdates those editions, but I'm unable to say for sure.

It's interesting to look at these books again after having been playing Pathfinder so much for the last couple of years. There's a few interesting bits I had noticed which had not previously been so obvious (especially since I haven't look at a copy of 3.5 anything now in about four years). Among these observations:

1. The Pathfinder art seems to be generally better. I guess I'm not a huge fan of Todd Lockwood's style, more correctly. I like a lot of the art in 3.5, but the Pathfinder take seems more modern. I think Pathfinder is a byproduct of the more graphically-intensive current era of game design, whereas 3rd edition was spiralling out of the late 90's and early 00's, a time when it was still possible for a top-tier publisher to use black and white art on occasion.

2. The 3.5 font is bigger than Pathfinder's font. As a middle-aged gamer with vision issues I genuinely appreciate this.

3. The layout on the Monster Manual looks kinda crazy and heavily condensed compared to the Pathfinder Bestiaries. I am surprised to read it and realize that (among other things) the word count per entry in the 3.5 MM doesn't appear to be all that different than the 4E MM, which is ironic considering how much flak was leveled at the lack of monster fluff in 4E's presentation. For whatever reason I don't remember 3rd edition getting the same accusations. Pathfinder by contrast definitely tries to add at least a few extra sentences of fluffy goodness into each monster's description.

4. One thing the 3.5 MM seems to do better than the PF Bestiary is to provide more extensive stat blocks and variant details. Pathfinder has a bad habit of adding a bit at the end of a monster with variants and saying, "do this if you want to have variant X." The 3.5 MM simply gives those extra stat blocks to you ready for use.

5. After playing with Pathfinder's rules changes for roughly four campaigns now (each ending around level 10-15) I think I can safely say that something is weirdly off about Pathfinder math in terms of power scaling. PCs are clearly more effective on average than is implied by the level scaling advice in Pathfinder. Looking back at 3.5 now reminds me of some of the reasons why. 3rd edition PCs had fewer skill ranks, no "bonus features" for favored class (favored class being a way of penalizing characters that dabbled in a weird range of multi-class options) and of course hit points scaled a bit on the lower side (though this is fairly minor). Feats, too. You get a lot more of them in Pathfinder....and many of those feats have been enhanced or made more effective (i.e. cleave, power attack and so forth).

6. The DMG for 3.5 still stands out to me as providing more generally useful content and advice. The Gamemastery Guide is alright, and has some nice bits, but it's never really filled in as handily as the 3.5 DMG did, which carried on reasonably well from the expectations established long ago by the 1st edition DMG as an all-purpose toolkit full of cool stuff to build from.

7. I had forgotten that the whole concept of swift actions was a late-game introduction to 3.5, and does not exist as a concept in the core rulebook.

8. I think the Pathfinder book is very well presented and has a lot of interesting presentation and dialogue, but I have to say, the 3.5 rules are very clear in their presentation and succinct in explaining the game mechanics (with a few very infamous exceptions, such as with grapple).

9. If I ever get to run 3.5 again, I'll run skills by-the-book. Lengthy runs of Pathfinder have convinced me that the skill and rank expressions in PF make for some fairly over-talented and over-the-top characters. However, should I run 3.5 again I would be more rigorous in insuring PCs are recognizing skill synergies, something I think I was fairly lax about back in the day. As it stands,  I have learned over the years that I prefer more detailed and robust skill systems over streamlined and simplified. 3.5's still nowhere near GURPS-level in terms of depth, but it stands out as the most elaborate skill system in D&D's development. Proficiencies from 1/2E had broader skill selections, but with simpler math....both approaches have merit. However, 4E's easy-button skill system and Pathfinder's "everyone is either a freakin' master or they suck horribly" approach have ultimately both worn thin on me over time. I will, however, expel any player in my group who blathers on about optimizing skills and how players should be discouraged from choosing role-play skills over utilitarian skills. Those guys don't need to be in my game.

10. The 3.5 rules have a lot of bits I (and apparently many others) had forgotten about. How often have DMs let players level up and cross-class into something without requiring some background to justify the change, or a training cost in time and money? Seriously, I had forgotten about this bit on page 197 of the DMG, but if I want to slow down the pace of a campaign a bit, requiring training between levels is a clever way to do it. Add in the advice on page 198 about time to learn spells, the requirement of sorcerers to petition powerful entities for spells, and you've got a combination of "slower pacing" mixed with story elements that make progression more tangible in play.

11. If you're one of those people who freaks out about druids and their pets being overwhelming to fighters (a subject for another time) then let the fighter get special cohorts of his own.

Okay....that's it for one day's reading and review. I really would like to run another 3.5 campaign straight up to see how it feels compared to all the Pathfinder I've been running, but that may be a hard sell as my local groups are all heavily invested in Pathfinder. Paizo definitely pulled off one amazing stunt with Pathfinder: a lot of people I know who disliked 3.5 or were scared away from it will play Pathfinder, despite the fact that the two games are effectively twins, with only minor differences. I've always been impressed that he D20 system is like some sort of invasive parasite which can sustain itself so well simply by migrating to a different host...

The D&D 3.5 Reprint Covers

So ENworld's Morrus has the scoop here. They are basically variations on the same style as the 3.0 and 3.5 covers....nothing unusual I guess, although I was really hoping for a return to "cover with good art" form but ...whatcha gonna do.

I have no idea if I will ever play 3.5 D&D again, given how Pathfinder has magnanimoulsy swept through my gaming spheres like some sort of fandom-powered ramjet sail sucking up gamers like stellar gas....but I will definitely grab these books, and definitely use them if one day the opportunity arises.

I'm so used to Pathfinder with its enhanced level of character scaling now that honestly 3rd edition would feel almost quaint and traditional by comparison, I suspect.







You know what? I likese these covers, they're less busy than the 3.5 covers, and have a better thematic style to tie them together with that stylized dragon motif in the faux leather.

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 reprints....whoa!

It's up on WotC's site as an official announcement here. And not just straight reprints, but premium edition reprints.

This is a smart move. I can honestly say I think I'd prefer the more structured and less inflated (ironically!) mechanics of a good core 3.5 ruleset with a choice selection of splatbooks and add-ons over Pathfinder. Don't get me wrong, Pathfinder is good, but it's design bumped up player power by a noticeable margin without doing a lot to also bump up the equivalent challenge levels of monsters. I have also never liked the increased rate of feat acquisition in Pathfinder. I do, however, love the way Pathfinder manages skill ranks so I'd probably houserule that into a 3.5 game.

Also, and this may sound petty, but I really do prefer playing the game with the official stats for mind flayers, beholders, githyanki and other D&D icons. Call me shallow, but...well...SHALLOW! Now gimme!

So yeah....going to be pre-ordering these new editions ASAP (saves me my eternal ebay search for the pefect set that's also at a decent price; an impossibility for 3.5 edition books!)

POSTSCRIPT: After comparing and studying the Pathfinder books and the D&D 3.5 material online, I realize that Pathfinder really is, by and large, still a pretty decent progression of the system on its own. Funny, but I'd never noticed how much nicer the PF art is compared to the 3.5 art until directly comparing the two (at least in the core books).

Anyway, I'm not sure having mind-flayer stats, beholder stuff and so forth is quite worth the price of these premium editions, but from a collector's standpoint I think I would like to have them. A shame WotC can't actually produce their own direct sequel to 3.5 (as opposed to what they actually did do with 4E, which was an entirely different game system that coincidentally shared some mechanical relationships and existed in the same general world-space). I'd be keen to see what sort of organic development a hypothetical 3.5 would look like if someone worked it over in a way that kept the 3.5 core intact while trying to address issues with it. Pathfinder, of course, does that but maybe in a way that feels a bit less like a "fix" and a bit more like a "work-around."