doctornecrotic wrote: Fri Dec 12, 2025 11:31 am
moonglum wrote: Sat Dec 06, 2025 6:57 pm
doctornecrotic wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 11:20 am
Honestly? I'd say go OSR/Retro or leap off from D&D. If you're otherwise dead set in 3e, I gotta chime in that PF1 is the way to go. Personally, I've been toying with a Savage Worlds conversion from a few years ago (with some tweaks) if I don't just stick with AD&D 2E.
This is interesting to me as 3rd edition (especially 3.0) is much closer to 2nd edition D&D than Pathfinder 1e is. Most of the 3.0 spells are copy/pasted from 2e. Many of the combat rules are copy/pasted (cover and concealment rules are the exact same, for example, but were changed in 3.5). Power level of core 3.0 is very similar to 2e with kits, whereas PF1e is a power up in many ways, and adds many more fiddly bits to classes. 3e was basically designed by what was still TSR at the time.
3.0 is of course one step removed from 2e, but it was designed with late 2e in mind. 3.5 was then a step removed from 3.5 and then PF1e is another step removed from 3.5.
Anyawys, my long time group plays a 3e/3.5 hybridm we use 3.5 core books but keep a lot of 3.0 rulings and spells (to us it still feels like a 2nd edition+comnbat&tactics+kits in a way that makes sense and doesn't feel like an afterthought the way everything in the 2e splats did, not to mention many of the core 2e rules themselves).
So 3e would be my vote but I am only a casual RL fan so it won't affect me either way. Ultimately you should write in the system you enjoy the most. If that is 3e then you also get the byproduct of promoting it to people who may have less experience with it.
I agree that 3e (core) has a much closer tone to what I would expect for Ravenloft, and the skills and customization enable you to add a lot of flavor. It works well enough for the RL genre and the 3e ruleset is highly customizable (hence the d20 boom of the early 2000s with so many games and genres being experimented with).
IMO, most of the removal of stuff in PF1 comes from OGL compliance. There have been fan conversions to add missing features and assets to PF1.
I have to disagree on 3E being closer to 2E. The original version that was proposed by TSR veterans had a lot more AD&D DNA. A subsequent proposal was supposed to be a grand overhaul with completely new design language. A true start over to make the game line truly WotC's rather than just a legacy product. And in fairness, it did create a new identity for WotC to work with. And with its new philosophy, new ways to play.
I mean in relation to PF1e, 3e is closer to AD&D 2e. You can find many rules, assumptions and examples of play in the 3.0 books that are either copy pasted or very very similar to their 2e counterparts. There is far less of this in PF1e, as 3.5e began removing what little TSR DNA was still in 3.0, making PF1e even further removed.
Just a few broad examples of dozens:
- If you look at the class tables in 3.0 they are quite bare. The few abilities that classes do get as they level up almost all have counterparts in 2e (either core or splatbooks) that look either the exact same or are extrapolations. PF1e has far more fiddly bits added to levels. Classes get something almost every level, and many of these are features new to PF1e.
- The spells are almost all the exact same, only accounting for the changes to the way saving throws work in 3e vs 2e. Many of the spells in 3e don't even fit on a grid the way they do in 3.5 and PF because they are the same as the 2e spells, which were the same as the 1e spells. None of which accounted for gridded combat. This was something that was altered in 3.5, and PF1e by extension.
- Speaking of spells and class abilities, rangers and druids summoned animal companions in 3.0 the same was as they had in 1e and 2e, through the animal friendship spell, which worked the same way, also allowing you to have more than one companion, and they did not level up with you and gain abilities.
- 3.0 had class restricted skills, a nod to class niche protection in 2e. 3.5 got rid of this, and PF1e by extension.
- Most of the feats and skills in 3.0 were carry overs or extrapolations on existing 2e WPs and NWPs. You can find the counterpart for almost all of them. Some of these were altered in 3.5, and many more were in PF1e.
- 3.0 did not assume miniatures or grids. Monte cook has two essays about this from back in the day. The goal was to make it playable without miniatures because he did not play with them. Whether or not they succeeeded at this is debatable. But none of the rules in 3.0 are written with squares, grids, corners, strings etc in mind. These things just are not mentioned and the rules all reflect this. There was one or two sentences mentioning these aids as helpful in the PHB and none of the play examples are on grids. The DMG dedicates a brief section to how to run the game if these aids are used, but it is a lot less strict in its implementation than even the Combat & Tactics rules for combat. There is also no rules for diagonal movement being 1.5 anwhere to be found in 3.0.
At the same time, they wanted to ensure that people who DID play with miniatures and/or grids (as this was becoming the norm by the late 90s), would have robust rules for doing so, so many C&T assumptions were brought into the mix. I think they did a good job at catering to both worlds despite some of the awkwardness.
Compare all of the above to PF1e combat assumptions.
- Many combat maneuvers and most of the combat mechanics in general are a consolidation of the 2e core rules and the 2e combat and tactics book. This is mostly the same through 3.5 and PF1e as well, but the 3.0 version of combat was much looser, with many rules calling for DM adjudication. Cover and concealment, for example, which was changed to remove DM fiat in 3.5. The 3.0 rules for this are the same exact rules as 2e, which requires DMs to rule on how much cover and concealment is given based on the source of cover, and the bonuses and affects of this are the same as they were in 2e. 3.5 codified a LOT more in combat, and PF1e continued this trend, rather than going back towards a 3.0 or even 2e flavor.
- Prestige classes, despite how they ended up being used, were initially presented as an alternative and extrapolation of 2e's kits. This direction began to change at the beginning of 3.5e and PF1e mostly ignored them. This isn't a better or worse thing, PF1e introduced archetypes and other means of specialization flavor, but you can see the line of thought from 2e kits to 3.0 prestige classes.
- Like spells, most people who picked up the 3.0 DMG would recognize the majority of magic items as working almost the exact same as their 2e counterparts. This began to change in 3.5, and even moreso in PF1e.
- Weapon sizing in 3.0 was the same as it always had been, 3.5e changed this and PF1e stuck with the change (I do prefer the change).
- Monsters in 3.0 had very few feats, often having none at all. This was changed in 3.5 to have all monsters progress the same way as other character, bloating stat blocks. Pf1e didn't change this.
- Monsters in 3.0 were the same size as their 2e counterparts, meaning if you did use miniatures, all of your traditionally sized fantasy minatures worked (long, skinny worms, for example). This was changed in 3.5e to make all monsters squared, which was maintained in PF1e.
- Speaking of bloat, the numbers in damage and hp, abilities, modifiers and so forth are all higher in PF1e and save or die (which was still very prevalant in 3e, because remember the spells are mostly the exact same as 2e) effects start to be lessened in 3.5 and even moreso in Pf1e.
I could go on and on, especially having recently done a very deep side by side comparison of the 2e>3.0>3.5 rules for my house rules. Interviews abound from 1999-2001 will find the three main designers talking about how their biggest inspiration for 3.0 were the previous D&D rules and wanting to consolidate and streamline all of the various core rules and supplements that had been released up to that point and wanting to make them work under a unified mechanic. The 3rd edition and, to a lesser extent, revised 3rd edition, really does look like this, especially when looking at just the core books.
In what ways does Pf1e more resemble 2e mechanically and flavorwise than 3.0? Damage reduction in PF1e, if I recall correctly, did a half way reversion of the 3.0>3.5 change and met somewhere in between the two. Otherwise I can't think of anything, though I admit to not being as intimately familiar with PF1e as I am with 2e, 3.0 and 3.5.
To me, at least, none of this is very controversial. 3.0 was designed in the late 90s by what was mostly still TSR. The previous edition that they had to work off of was 2nd editon. Yes, earlier drafts of 3.0 were closer to 2e than was was released, but that's not really what is in question. PF1e was a reaction to 3.5 as much as it was a reaction to 4e. It was using 3.5e as the bouncing off point and trying to fix perceived issues with 3.5e. It wasn't coming off the heels of 2nd edition, it was coming off of the heels of 3.5e which was already a step removed from 3.0.
Sitting down and comparing the 3.0 PHB to the 2e PHB+splats makes this a lot more obvious than if you were to do the same comparison with the PF1e core rulebook.
