Pathfinder or 3.5 with choice manuals?

[Cicciograna]

I'm going to begin a new campaign with my group, and we're a bit unsure on which rules to use. We have two alternatives: begin a Pathfinder campaign, or one using 3.5 Edition, using Core, Tome of Battle and Expanded Psionic Handbook, plus some variant rules from Unearthed Arcana.More precisely we'd like to use Complex Skills Checks, Character Traits, Weapon Groups Feats, Action Points, Spell Points, Incantations and Contacts.
Should we choose the second option, we would incorporate some other houserules, such as compulsory specialization for Wizards, prayerbooks for Clerics, adding a small pool of power points to Monks and so on.

Now, which of the two alternatives would you choose, which would you prefer to play?

[RelentlessImp]

If you're going to force Wizards to Specialize, I hope you let them take advantage of some of the neat ACFs for specialist wizards in Unearthed Arcana.

I'll toss a vote for 3.5 with the limited book access. I'd play in it. Possibly allow in Tome of Magic, too, if you have it - Binders are fun, and don't skew the power level too badly. Truenamers are just sad, and Shadowcasters try so hard - but Binders are cool.

All in all, though, the 3.5 game experience sounds a little more rewarding.

[Eldariel]

The latter; every role has a very decent class taking it and there's enough variety to realize a large number of character concepts, definitely larger than what Pathfinder is capable of.

And umm, if you force specialization you'll need to help the smaller schools a bit; like move Teleportation to Evocation. That way it's not an automatic ban.

[Fax Celestis]

Very much the latter, though the former could also work. However, you toss in Magic of Incarnum in your latter book set and I'm sold.

[Godskook]

I'd go the latter, and play Warblade 20 or Crusader 20 in a heart beat. Although, it kinda depends on what builds you guys want to play with.

Why no complete series?

[Epinephrine]

Just so the thread isn't dominated entirely by the 3.5 advocates, I vote for Pathfinder. We switched from 3.5 with ToB, etc. to Pathfinder and are enjoying the change.

[arguskos]

Honestly, just go with Pathfinder, add those other books, and make what minor changes you need (mostly, give CMB/CMD to classes that don't advance it currently), and call it a day.

If you are unwilling to do so, then I vote 3.5 with splats.

[Rixx]

Pathfinder has been lovely so far. I'd say go Pathfinder, but adapt any supplementary material from 3.5 that you want. Have your cake and eat it, too!

[Person_Man]

I agree with Fax. In my opinion, Psionics, ToB, Incarnum, and PHBII are the core of fun and balanced 3.5.

[Typewriter]

My group has been doing well with Pathfinder so far. It's rather nice having everything consolidated down to one book (we're not trying the whole 'backwards compatible' thing), and everything seems fresh because of all the little changes. It feels like a 3.5 Core++ campaign, without having to deal with tons of books.

Of course, as DM, I use all 3.5 material to set up challenges for my players...

[Myou]

I'm voting for 3.5! :elan:

[pres_man]

If you already own all the 3.5 materials, stick with that. If you need to purchase the materials, then go either way.

[Frerezar]

Go Pathfinder, I can´t explain why but it feels completly fresh and new.

[Woot Spitum]

Go 3.5, and save a buck or ninety.

[Crow]

I would go with 3.5, but that's my personal preference.

Try both!

[Cedrass]

I'm rather enjoying Pathfinder + ToB + Magic Item Compendium + Spell Compendium myself right now.

I have neither Incanum or Tome of Magic, but I can say that from what I've read it does not seem like something that would be hard to add in a Pathfinder game.

[Temet Nosce]

Personally, I'd go with the 3.5 material but I might steal some stuff from PF if I were you. Or even just use PF instead of the core books, although I don't like everything PF did personally.