I'm not sure I like the crits on undead part. I think they also dropped the undead type's HD down a notch.
I do like the energy channeling thing for clerics. I like the changes to the bard. Although the class wasn't great, I always liked playing a bard in 3.5. PF makes it a better class choice.
_________________
Christina Stiles
Coleston the Cavalier wrote:
I've got the book (which is very nice) but it has so many rules, it really does hurt my head. I guess I'm more of a rules lite guy.
The book is beautiful, no doubt. I admit that after playing some C&C and SW, it is hard to go back and read Pathfinder or 3.5. Heck, I'm working on a game based on M&M, a d20 derivative, and that is hurting my head just getting things in line with the system.
I've got a 3.5 game to run this weekend, too.
_________________
Christina Stiles
It really is a great looking book. If I were to ever want to go back to a 3.5e style game I would do Pathfinder RPG instead. I like the streamlined skills a lot and the rules are easier to reference. I would probably still run it as an E6 game, even using Pathfinder as the base rules set. I've got a whole lot of C&C, WFRP, Dragon Warriors, Savage Worlds, Dark Heresy, and Dragon Age to play before I ever take my game in that direction again though.
"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you." -Genghis Khan
I'll stick to 2nd ed D&D should I wish to run something other than C&C anymore. The book art is cool though.
_________________
The obvious will always trip you up FAR more than the obscure.
Baron Grignak Hammerhand of the Pacifica Provinces-
High Warden of the Castles & Crusades Society
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976." "Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed." "Certified crazy since 2009."
I have no interest in a re-hashed 3.5e. I do not like 3.x (but I DM'ed it for close to 5 years ). I would rather play 4e (which I like). However, I play C&C because I love it!
_________________
Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
PeelSeel2 wrote:
I have no interest in a re-hashed 3.5e. I do not like 3.x (but I DM'ed it for close to 5 years ). I would rather play 4e (which I like). However, I play C&C because I love it!
I agree , my dislike of 3.5 led to my discovery of C&C, so I have no interest in Pathfinder. But I'm glad it is available for those that want it.
Christina Stiles wrote:
I've got a 3.5 game to run this weekend, too.
I had been considering converting my 3.5 game to Pathfinder. This weekend, right before I ran it, I decided to stick with 3.5. I just didn't want to add numerous more of feats and abilities to the high-level characters. It seemed like overkill. If I ever run it, we'll start from the bottom.
_________________
Christina Stiles
Christina Stiles wrote:
I had been considering converting my 3.5 game to Pathfinder. This weekend, right before I ran it, I decided to stick with 3.5. I just didn't want to add numerous more of feats and abilities to the high-level characters. It seemed like overkill. If I ever run it, we'll start from the bottom.
Sounds extremely sensible to me.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Christina Stiles wrote:
I had been considering converting my 3.5 game to Pathfinder. This weekend, right before I ran it, I decided to stick with 3.5. I just didn't want to add numerous more of feats and abilities to the high-level characters. It seemed like overkill. If I ever run it, we'll start from the bottom.
I prefer to start at the bottom with any game. It seems like every game which I've played in during the last three years, which have been not too numerous anyway, have always started at third level or higher. The Star Wars Saga game that I played in briefly had the GM start us out at 7th level. I just prefer to start at level 1; I like the feeling of taking a character from zero to hero.
Plus, it gives everyone a good chance to get used to the system, learn the play styles of the other folks, and develop their group and characters together.
Different beat for a different drummer ... I prefer to start play, as a player or GM, at lower to mid-levels, enough time to learn the system, but people get obvious examples of why they shine.
It's hard to be Errol Flynn at 1st level unless you have a generous GM.
My game has 15th-level characters, who just leveled to 16th, so it was going to be a lot to add, especially for the fighter. Plus, I'm not ready to tackle the spell changes. Yep, I'll wait until there are 1st-level characters to deal with, but I will more than likely be starting such a campaign with C&C. As I get older, I want my games simpler. I just have too many other things competing for my attention.
_________________
Christina Stiles
The main game I like to start play at high(er) levels is TMNT: &OS or Heroes Unltd. The C&C type games I like starting at 1. My other games use points so it's not a subject.
_________________
The Rock says ...
