Anybody prefer Pathfinder?

[Harperfan7]

Have any of you made the jump from 3.5 to pathfinder and found it to be a better game? I'm not asking if it is, just that if you think so, I'd like to hear from you about it.

[LibraryOgre]

I have. Until the GM moved (closer to me, but farther from most of the players), I was in an essentially bi-weekly PF game. I enjoyed it, and felt they did some nice and useful changes.

[Longcat]

Personally, after purchasing the books and trying it with my regular group, I'm still unconvinced. Some changes are pleasant (e.g. sorcerer abilities), but some were IMO uncalled for (Power attack, Trip, and monk nerfs). If I had to choose between PF and regular 3.5, I would stick with 3.5, mainly because PF does not address the balance issue in any reasonably appropriate way.

[UglyPanda]

You're going to get some selection bias here.

Since Pathfinder has a free SRD, people could form an opinion about the game without actually playing it. So a number of people who don't like it haven't played it or aren't going to. And most of the people who self-identify as "having made the jump" either like it or are forced by their fellow players to play it.

[Ravens_cry]

I actually haven't played much 3.5, but I certainly prefer Pathfinder to 4.0, as grateful as I am for it introducing me to PnP role play.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd play any D&D if I had a DM, but currently I'm DMless in real life. Though online I have 2 3.5 games.

If I ever play a Pally or Sorceror: I'd love to try the pathfinder game.

[FMArthur]

I don't like it as much as the regular 3.5 game, but I like some of it. In that way it works quite well as a sort of Unearthed Arcana II; you can cherry-pick changes and updates out of it as you and your group prefer because for the most part they are not interdependent.

[Evil the Cat]

I got the Pathfinder book soon after release, and my gaming group has been using varying amounts of pathfinder stuff (based on specific DM's choices)

Ill post here What I posted recently on my group's private wiki,

The great majority of the class changes are solid. Tracking Barbarian rage in rounds may be annoying for someone playing a Barbarian, but the rest is kind of neat. Bard's Versatile performance ability feels forced and contrived, and the changing bardic music to function in rounds with no lingering is a significant reduction in their power. I'm not thrilled with specialist wizard now getting to use spells from their opposition schools. Specialists were already generally a better choice, and now the wizard loses near nothing from specializing, while also getting additional special abilities. The non specialist wizard gets some bonuses also, but not as much as the specialists.

Skills are fine, I feel that some of the skill combinations were a little too extreme, but overall it is solid.

Feats are one area where I am distinctly not happy. The feats that benefit spellcasters are largely unchanged, while the feats for building an effective melee combatant have been divided into multiple feats, and/or nerfed completely. For example: Power attack and similar feats now give a much smaller bonus at most levels, and are all-or none.

Equipment is fine, I don't mind some of the heavier armors giving 1 more ac.

The spell changes are hit and miss. I can understand why they wanted to eliminate save-or-die spells, but that would have been more reasonable if they hadn't also given save-or-die abilities to melee characters. The changes to Finger of death for example, make this druid 8 sorcerer/wizard 7 spell far weaker than the 6th level cleric spell Harm. Harm does the same base damage, more damage on a successful save, and targets will instead of fort. I favor adding a lot of the new spells they put in as additional options, but so far I'm finding that their modifications to spells weren't very good.

Their mechanical changes to grapple/trip/etc. are also not very well thought out. They did simplify the system, this is true, but they made almost all of these attack options almost guaranteed to fail on any CR appropriate monster. As one person put it: Hulk Hogan can grapple the hell out of some random wimp with no problem, but if he grapples someone good, like Randy Savage, they will both say "**** it" and pull out swords, because neither one can EVER do anything to the other.

I have no real opinion regarding the magic item changes, its neither as improvement, nor a loss. it's just slightly different. They had a somewhat interesting idea by requiring a crafting check to enchant an item, but they basically took it away by allowing spellcraft instead of the normal craft; making the change essentially meaningless. Taking away the xp cost makes sense logically, but removes the main limiter to crafting absurd amounts of items.


Overall, I have to say that they did a lot of good things in Pathfinder, but overall it isn't superior to 3.5, just different. It helps some classes that needed it, the skill system is good, the racial changes are fine (aside from removing all flavor from Half-Orcs). I like a lot, I dislike some. I have to say that for a general system I will continue to use the 3.5 ruleset, with a lot of additions from Pathfinder. For my game, I will steadily integrate most of the racial and class changes, I will probably eventually switch to their skill system, I will not change to their versions of feats in most cases, but I will be allowing many of the new feats they added. I will be doing the same with spells. For anyone making a character who wants to use alternate versions of feats or spells from Pathfinder for their characters, I will almost certainly allow it. Overall, I do not consider Pathfinder to be an amazing new system, but I do consider it to be more than good enough to use as new source materials. Starting soon, I will almost certainly allow almost anything new from Pathfinder, and many of the things that are changed. I will be viewing much of Pathfinder in the same light as books such as Unearthed Arcana. A lot of great new things to add to the game, but not everything is useful, and the overall rules changes are flawed.

There are few changes to combat and movement, but they are mostly good ones. Their main flaw, rules-wise, is their system for grapples/trips/disarms etc, it makes it almost impossible to do any of these as an effective combat style. Aside from their CMB/CMD combat maneuvers system, I will be adopting most of their rules changes, which I will note on my House Rules page.

[ericgrau]

You're going to get some selection bias here.

Since Pathfinder has a free SRD, people could form an opinion about the game without actually playing it. So a number of people who don't like it haven't played it or aren't going to. And most of the people who self-identify as "having made the jump" either like it or are forced by their fellow players to play it.

Yeup. And FWIW I don't like it the least bit. Other opinions may vary.

[Akal Saris]

You're going to get some selection bias here.

Since Pathfinder has a free SRD, people could form an opinion about the game without actually playing it. So a number of people who don't like it haven't played it or aren't going to. And most of the people who self-identify as "having made the jump" either like it or are forced by their fellow players to play it.

UglyPanda nailed it - lots of people hate it (and a few people love it) without trying the game.

My own experiences have been positive so far, but also only at low level play so far.

The bad: (or at least the mediocre)
I think the half-orc got the short stick on racial abilities, and the bard should have gotten more uses of bardic music/day - it's not broken, but I'd rather have Extra Music be an option rather than almost a necessity. I haven't seen this in play much, because our bard PC sucks and would rather attack for 1d6-1 than actually use his class features - so he's never run out of music for the entirely wrong reasons...

The combat maneuver system needs some tweaking to work - it's simpler than 3.5's and moves faster in gameplay (thank God), but the success rate should be a bit higher. But I'm basing it off of a monk with a 16 Str, so it might just be a weak character there.

The spell changes weren't fully thought out. Lots of the strongest spells, such as Planar Binding/Ally, Polymorph Any Object, and Maze were unchanged. My favorite spell change was that now Mind Blank gives a +8 resistance bonus to mind-affecting spells instead of complete immunity, while my least favorite change was that Solid Fog only slows movement by half - I could do that 2 levels earlier with Sleet Storm! Actually, another favorite change for me was the Summon Monster line - it's now much stronger in my opinion (at least for levels 1-4)

The good:
I definitely prefer PF's skills system and reduced skill list (without reducing as far as 4E's), which is my favorite change. The change to favored class was another good thing in my opinion, and the racial re-balancing was well-done overall.

I like the new abilities for almost every class, and it also made low levels much less annoying for a wiz/sorcerer/cleric thanks to unlimited cantrips and much more low level healing endurance with channel energy.

Unlike Evil the Cat, I like most of the new feats. There are a lot more good options for melee characters than in core 3.5 (Extra Rage/Lay on Hands/Music, Stand Still, Agile Maneuvers, Deadly Aim, Lunge...), and the vital strike chain helps with the full attack issues that melees face - though I wish they had simply given melees pounce at 11th or something instead of making it another feat tax.

Splitting the combat maneuvers feats was both good and bad in my book - the bad is that I like having lots of combat maneuvers and this system makes it difficult to have more than 2 maneuver chains, the good is that some of them like improved overrun and disarm were useless in 3.5, but alright in PF - and I like that now trip and overrun grant AOO's to allies, making it more party-friendly. Having more feats overall (10 instead of 7) also helps a lot. There still needs to be more interesting caster feats though.

The changes to dying, where you die at your negative con modifier, and the check to stabilize is much easier, both get my full approval. As a DM, I enjoy knocking PCs out of the fight, but it's very difficult to do that in 3.5 after 11th level or so without killing them outright.

Overall:

I won't be switching any of my currently run 3.5 games to PF, but any future games that I run will probably be PF instead of 3.5 (except when I'd doing d20 modern or 4E or some other system, obviously). It's basically a collection of house rules, but I agree with the large majority of the house rules, so they are worth keeping in my opinion. For my own house rules, I'll probably revert the half-orc to its 3.5 version but with +2/+2 additional Str/Con, like a Water Orc, and I will probably also add another +1 bonus to the checks for Improved (Trip/Disarm/Overrun) etc, and tweak more spells.

[Evil the Cat]

Unlike Evil the Cat, I like most of the new feats. There are a lot more good options for melee characters than in core 3.5 (Extra Rage/Lay on Hands/Music, Stand Still, Agile Maneuvers, Deadly Aim, Lunge...), and the vital strike chain helps with the full attack issues that melees face - though I wish they had simply given melees pounce at 11th or something instead

I like the new feats, I don't like (most of) the changes to the old feats. For the most part, I now allow my players to take feats from either PF or 3.5, with the limiter that they can only have 1 feat of a given name.

As a side note, I do like the change to Cleave, though they made Great Cleave into a mini-Whirlwind Attack, usable as a standard action. As such I tossed in a BAB requirement for it, as it had too few prereqs imo.

[Inhuman Bot]

I haven't heard of or read any of the PF books outside of this forum, but.... Monk.. NERFS?! O.o

[Archpaladin Zousha]

One of my friends had this to say about Pathfinder:

Imagine if in 3.5 you didn;t have feats, or class feature choices, or anything like that. Just "IF YOU ARE A RANGER YOU WILL BE THIS AND THIS AND THIS!" It's like DnD: Nazi Edition.
Any truth to that?

[Optimystik]

Since Pathfinder has a free SRD,

Is that available online in an easily readable format like the 3.5 one? I'd like to look into Pathfinder.

[Kylarra]

Is that available online in an easily readable format like the 3.5 one? I'd like to look into Pathfinder.

Enjoy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) :smallsmile:

[subject42]

Having played Pathfinder, I think that it is a nice cleanup over 3.5. The skill consolidation alone makes it worth playing, in my opinion.

If people would stop complaining about their beloved shock trooper + pounce + power attack combo going away maybe they would find out that it's not going to ruin their game experience.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

If people would stop complaining about their beloved shock trooper + pounce + power attack combo going away maybe they would find out that it's not going to ruin their game experience.

Hope they don't like tripping. I hear it's a tad difficult.

[Optimystik]

Enjoy (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) :smallsmile:

Thanks!

*packs away work laptop*

[Dienekes]

My group loves pieces of pathfinder, enough so that we call our game a pathfinder game.

We loved the skill system, the feat advancement, and the classes. However for the actual feats we kept numerous of them the same as they were before (most notably power attack, and improved trip)

For CMD and all the problems therein we moved it down to 10+all the other stuff instead of 15. I really don't see how that was such a big change that everyone howled about seeing how easy a change that was, but I digress (meaning, yeah it was stupid the other way but the system was much easier to understand and fix so overall I liked it better than normal version)

For spell lists. Yeah, I like a bit of the changes, but my group is as far away from spell optimizers as is possible so I haven't been too worried about them, so we use them as is.

[DeathQuaker]

One of my friends had this to say about Pathfinder: Imagine if in 3.5 you didn;t have feats, or class feature choices, or anything like that. Just "IF YOU ARE A RANGER YOU WILL BE THIS AND THIS AND THIS!" It's like DnD: Nazi Edition.
Any truth to that?

No, not at all. That almost sounds like some complaints I've heard about 4th Ed over Pathfinder, not to say 4th ed is like that either. But I wonder if your friend got the two mixed up.

Character creation is MORE flexible in Pathfinder than in core 3.5. There are more feats than in core 3.5 (note I said core) and you get feats every odd level, not every third, so you can build your envisioned combat build more quickly and have room to spare for other things you'd like to see your character be able to do. Non-class skills no longer cost double ranks, and more skill ranks in cross class skills than you used to, so if you really want to be that diplomatic fighter, you can be. Favored classes have been loosened up a great deal--there's no racial favored classes, you just pick one you want at 1st level, and half-elves get two.

All of the classes have more features than their core 3.5 counterparts, and many of them give you different choices that you didn't have. Since you mention the Ranger, I'll use that as an example: the Ranger now has a much wider variety of feat choices for his selected Combat Style, and can choose between an animal companion or being able to share some of his favored enemy abilities with his allies.

So, I have no idea where your friend got that idea from. Pathfinder might have its flaws, but concept inflexibility is not one of them.

As to the OP's question, I'm running a Pathfinder campaign (switched it from 3.5 with house rules) and have run a Pathfinder demo at my FLGS (will be running another in December), so I've really tried to get the rules down. I really enjoy it; for me, it suits my needs as both a GM and player very well. I like the character creation flexibility as mentioned above. I like a lot of the revisions to feats and a lot of the new feats; Fighters especially get some cool fighter-only feats (including being able to disrupt casters even if they are casting defensively).

Where there's a lot of debate over is the new Combat Maneuvers system. Tripping, grappling, bull rushing, disarming, sundering, and overrunning are all handled by one universal system. You use a special attack bonus, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (CMB) and use it to roll a hit against the target's CMD (Combat Maneuver Defense), which is based on your CMB plus your touch AC. The system is streamlined and a LOT easier to handle how these maneuvers work. The "Improved [Maneuver]" feats are reduced from 4 to 2, but that's because size bonuses to maneuvers were also reduced, and you can take "Greater [Maneuver]" feats to get up to the +4 again along with an additional cool ability. More weapons also offer bonuses to certain maneuvers like disarming.

Yes, if you want your character to be really, really good at a particular combat maneuver, you have to build your character toward it, but since you have more feats, you'll get there pretty quickly. Fighters especially excel at Combat Maneuvers, since they can build on trees so quickly, as they essentially get a feat every level (either regular level up feat or bonus fighter feat).

But yes, the CM system as a whole, while easy to learn, is harder for a character to achieve versus a tough enemy. Which in my personal opinion and gameplay philosophy, is exactly how it should be. These maneuvers are tough, your average Joe shouldn't be excelling at them straight out of the box. You have to have your character train to be good at stuff like that, and I think that makes complete sense.

I've been using the CM system awhile in my campaigns, even before switching to Pathfinder fully. It works very well, and so far everyone who is supposed to be good at CMs or defending against CMs are, those who should be weak are. There was one monster I converted poorly who should have been good at Grappling and wasn't, but that was my doing a bad job converting from 3.5, IMO, not the fault of the system itself.

And that is the thing, I think. It does actually require more of a mindset shift than I think some think it does; it does change gameplay juuust enough that if you're used to a very specific style of 3.5 gameplay, you might feel Pathfinder throws everything upside down. And maybe, for some people, it does--and that's fine. We all play differently. It also does "nerf" some particular builds some gamers think were twinky to begin with--frex, the spiked chain doesn't have reach anymore. So if you like those uberduper Ultimate Combat Maneuver!!! builds you might have to say goodbye to a few of them. But at the same time, new builds are showing up "exploiting" other new items and feats in the game, so all around it's just another slight shift.

Anyway, if the basics of it look good to you, I highly recommend trying it. Just be aware it does take a little adjusting to, for all its similarity to and "core engine" being the 3.5 system.

[barteem]

We are switching this weekend. I'll report back after that.
If it all goes as well as we want it to, I'm also switching my comic over to PF rules.

[Gralamin]

I detest Pathfinder for various reasons.
Basically, if you've ever seen how Zeta Kai talks about 4e? I'm like that with Pathfinder :smalltongue:

Having said that, I don't hold it against anyone else to play it.

[Ravens_cry]

One of my friends had this to say about Pathfinder:

Any truth to that?
Hardly. Oh, there is few options compared to the plethora (love that word:smallbiggrin:) of 3.5 splatbooks, but that is only to be expected. Importing should be done with care though, as many, though by no means all, of 3.5 cheesiest cheeses come from it's multitude of splat books and the resulting complex interactions.

[Dracomorph]

My own (somewhat limited) experience with the ruleset has been pretty so-so.

In our low-level party, we have a Paladin whose class features are actually useful, for instance, so that's a nice departure from 3.5. On the other hand, my Destined bloodline Gnome sorcerer's bloodline stuff is not much of a boost either powerwise or to versatility. The fluff is great, the crunch not so much. The rest of the party has a similar mixed bag.

I really like the new skill system; it rewards spreading your skill points out, without removing the incentive to focus on key skills. Skill consolidations are handy, and by and large very well chosen.

The combat maneuver change has been tough to get used to, but it's not bad. It'll make things much easier if we can all get accustomed.

The Dragon Disciple is now pretty cool, though I'm disappointed that it requires the Dragon bloodline, because it's not very good. Yes, flavor and blah blah blah, but it would be nice if the flavorful bloodlines focused on augmenting sorcerers' magic rather than giving them claws, even if they are pretty sweet claws.

EDIT:
Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, but I miss Incarnum, and all the splatbooks. Balance issues are just as bad as ever, really, but that's never been a huge issue in the games I'm in. Will edit in more if I think of other stuff.

[hiryuu]

I like it, I just have some weird nitpicks in the transition from the early betas to the finished product. The races were a lot more powerful early on, which I liked. Races should rock your face clean off, and every race should be about +1 LA worth in power. I also was confused at the sorcerer abilities. The low-level abilities, like the claws, the minor energy blast stuff, and so on, were at-will early in the beta, and in the final product, they're limited per day. My confusion is that this means they thought 1d6+1/4 your level as a ranged touch was too much to have at-will.

Also, magic-less assassin. Yes, I am going to be a sneaky killguy in a world with magic and totally not use it. That's like saying you're going to be a modern-day assassin and use techniques from the 17th century to do your job. Sure, the techniques will kill people, but how long are you going to get away with it? However, it has been nicked in case someone in a game I run wants to use it.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I see. Here's what else my friend had to say:


There are a lot of homebrew classes that try to fill the gap, and WotC tried to fix the system by lowering spell DC's in 3.5 and creating the Dungeoncrasher variant and action points, but the best effort I've ever seen is the Ultimate Classes. Most are new versions of classic 3.5 classes, some are original, but they're the only classes I've ever seen in a 3.5 game that are completely balanced against each other. A level 20 wizard is no more powerful than a level 20 fighter.

He prefers playing fighters, as far as I can tell.

[Cedrass]

I see. Here's what else my friend had to say:

There are a lot of homebrew classes that try to fill the gap, and WotC tried to fix the system by lowering spell DC's in 3.5 and creating the Dungeoncrasher variant and action points, but the best effort I've ever seen is the Ultimate Classes. Most are new versions of classic 3.5 classes, some are original, but they're the only classes I've ever seen in a 3.5 game that are completely balanced against each other. A level 20 wizard is no more powerful than a level 20 fighter.

He prefers playing fighters, as far as I can tell.

Is this a "Pathfinder did not correct the class balance at all" claim? Well, no it didn't, and it can't. As much as 3.5's classes, no matter what Wizards does, can't be balanced against each other. It does however manage to give melee some neat tricks it can use in battle to be useful, even at higher levels

(I haven't got higher than lvl 8 right now, but reading the book, I got the feeling my Paladin and my friend's Ranger would still be useful later on, I'll see this in a couple of weeks).

Edit: I totaly love Pathfinder. It gives options the classes desperatly needed, and makes some really nice (CMB) changes. Like it's been said, some builds got the nerfs-stick hard, but other builds are sure to be discovered (not by my group though, we don't really try and find those things so... yeah).

[Akal Saris]

Well, in contrast to the magic-less assassin, rogues can now learn some minor spell-like abilities with some of their rogue abilities if they choose, so the base class got more magical and the PrC got less magical :P

Regarding the core PF PrCs...

Arcane Archer: Now advances spell-casting 7/10, and gets enhancement stuff like holy or flaming burst! I'm a strong fan of at least 4 levels of this revamped class, instead of just 2 levels in its old incarnation.

A Ranger 1/Wiz 5/Eldritch Knight 10/Arcane Archer 4 would get BAB +17 and CL 17 for 9th level spells - the true definition of a strong gish, and it's all core!

Arcane Trickster: About the same, though it benefits a lot from the skill changes. Its cap is unique - the character can deal SA damage with spells even without an attack role if her opponents are flat-footed - so you could start an encounter with a fireball that dealt SA damage.

Assassin: covered above - I think he's a little weaker overall.

Dragon Disciple: Now ties in very strongly with sorcerer to make a weird gish. I'm ambivalent, but I hated the old version.

Duelist: Huge improvement over the terrible original. The parry and riposte mechanic is elegant and fitting for the PrC.

Eldritch Knight: It's still no abjurant champion, but it's much closer now with a d10 HD and 2 more bonus feats (and levels stack with fighter for qualifying for crud). The capstone is cool - you can auto-quicken a spell when you confirm a critical hit.

Loremaster: Pretty much the same here.

Mystic Theurge: Eh, still pretty awful. It can spontaneously swap spells between lists though, and the capstone lets cast 3 spells in 1 round 1/day, which is good, right? Right?

Pathfinder Chronicler: Essentially a bard PrC (Gasp!). It's got some nifty abilities and has more flavor than any other PrC in the book, but overall is about on par with the bard for power.

Shadowdancer: I totally dig the hot gnome chick in the illustration. It basically the same class, but with some new SLA's like Shadow Evocation and some rogue powers. About on par with taking rogue levels or monk levels it seems to me, which is a good thing.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Is this a "Pathfinder did not correct the class balance at all" claim? Well, no it didn't, and it can't. As much as 3.5's classes, no matter what Wizards does, can't be balanced against each other. It does however manage to give melee some neat tricks it can use in battle to be useful, even at higher levels

(I haven't got higher than lvl 8 right now, but reading the book, I got the feeling my Paladin and my friend's Ranger would still be useful later on, I'll see this in a couple of weeks).

Edit: I totaly love Pathfinder. It gives options the classes desperatly needed, and makes some really nice (CMB) changes. Like it's been said, some builds got the nerfs-stick hard, but other builds are sure to be discovered (not by my group though, we don't really try and find those things so... yeah).

I think that's his claim. He's also said this:

It tries to be an updated3.5, but it sucks at it. There are much better ways to go about it.
I don't see what the big deal is. It looks like something my brother'd like better than 4e, since he was reluctant to start playing 4e.

Of course, I would need to actually have time to play RPGs at all to take advantage of Pathfinder. :smallredface:

[Cedrass]

I don't see what the big deal is. It looks like something my brother'd like better than 4e, since he was reluctant to start playing 4e.

It's something different for different groups. The SRD is there, and free, tell him to at least try it! A guy in my group was 100% against it, and now wouldn,t play a 3.5 game even if is life depended on it.

Mhh, maybe not that much, but you get the idea.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The guy whom I've been pulling these quotes from isn't my brother.

[Cedrass]

Who could it be then?

Oh wait a minute!

[Set]

Most classes have more options in Pathfinder than in core 3.5. Most classes have strong incentives *not* to PrC, as their Domain abilities, Fighter-only class features (Fighters get class features! OMG!), Sorcerer Bloodline abilities, Wizard Specialist abilities, etc. progress at various levels, and often have a 'capstone' for someone who sticks to the base class for all 20 levels.

If you're playing a Ranger, Sorcerer, Rogue, Bard or Wizard, you get a bigger HD, if you're playing a skill-monkey, skill consolidation will make you happy (and Bards just own skills completely, being able to sing songs that replace their Diplomacy checks and the like).

Bards and Barbarians have to deal with Bardic Music and Rage now working for rounds / day, not uses / day. For the Barbarian, in my experience, this is *awesome,* since my 1st level Barbarian has six rounds per day and can use a round here and a round there, instead of just having one Rage per day. For a Bard, previously able to strum a tune throughout an entire combat, or even through a Take 20 check, I'm not liking that mechanic *at all.*

Alternate Class Feature-style options are built right in at the start for some classes (as would make sense, we've come a long way since they were introduced) with a Wizard being able to ditch his familiar for a bonded item deal and a Ranger able to ditch his animal companion for the ability to share the hate of his favored enemy with allies.

Some spells (Righteous Might, Polymorph) got majorly or not-so-majorly tweaked. Others (Gate) got missed. Such is life.

Some of the changes (Paladin's Smite Evil lasting until the foe you activated it upon is dead or flees) are 'woo-hoo!' Others (solid fog only halves movement, polymorph spells are craptacular) are 'meh.' The Paizo forums is awash with criticism, and occasional moments of praise, over this or that, and stuff like Clerics no longer having Heavy Armor Proficiency grew into quite the mountain of protest. Heck, there were even some freak-out threads over things from Beta that didn't make it to release (in Beta, humans got a free Martial Weapon proficiency of their choice, and that's no more).

The Core races are now generally LA +1, allowing you to play any LA +1 3.5 race (such as Hobgoblins, Tieflings or Aasimar) pretty much straight, without worrying about LA. That's kind of nice, and opens up a few cool race options for a starting party. That's a change I like.

Compared to the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB + DMG, I think Pathfinder is solidly better, in most cases. Compared to core + Unearthed Arcana + PHB2 + Completes + Races of + BoED / BoVD + Magic of Incarnum / Tome of Magic / Heroes of Horror, etc. + Web Enhancements there's no competition, really. In five years, Pathfinder might have a similar bewildering array of options, but for now, it's starting out, IMO, in a stronger place than the core alone.

[oxinabox]

I'm running pathfinder... at least i play with the classes.
though i may actually be running 3.5...

[Stephen_E]

One of my friends had this to say about Pathfinder:
Quote:
Imagine if in 3.5 you didn;t have feats, or class feature choices, or anything like that. Just "IF YOU ARE A RANGER YOU WILL BE THIS AND THIS AND THIS!" It's like DnD: Nazi Edition.


Any truth to that?

No.
I don't know what game your friend was playing but it wasn't anything like the PF I play. or that's in the rules.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

Re: The opening post.
I've been playing Pathfinder for several months haveing started on Beta and gone to core.
I like it finding it less clunky than 3.5.
It's far from perfect and there are some flaws (IMHO) that I think are derived from a "Roleplay rather than Rollplay" philosophy that the head designer seems to display.
That said those flaws are workable around.

It isn't balanced, but if you want balanced you play 4.0.
3.5 is like lego. You have a large number of kitsets designed to allow you to make specific things, but also allowing you to make pretty much whatever you want. By definition this can't be made "balanced". That's up to the players and the DM. PF is designed to be 3.5 compatible thus it must maintain the lack of game built balance.

Stephen E

[bosssmiley]

< is too busy helping Jason Buhlman steal White Star Line's discarded deckchair arrangement to answer the question. :smallwink::smalltongue:

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Yeah, I'm not sure what my friend's beef is with it either. He says it's because of "how spectacularly it failed," but doesn't give any indication of what it failed at.

[LibraryOgre]

Slightly apropos, has anyone heard of Trailblazer? Someone on the Palladium Message Boards made a post regarding "the inheritors of 3.5", and it mentioned Trailblazer, which I haven't heard of before.

[Typewriter]

My entire group, me included, are all enjoying the switch from 3.5 to PF. There are 6 of us total, and only one is new, so 5 happy converts, one happy player.

And someone linked to the unofficial SRD earlier. I'm not a big fan of non-official sources, and I've actually had my players try to use that one only to find out something was written incorrectly. The officials PRD is linked below:

PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)

[BobVosh]

I have enjoyed pathfinder and most of its changes. Only problem I am having is remembering the rules changed from 3.5 to beta to release.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I'm personally hesitant to say whether I like it or not, because I'm the kind of person who tries to enjoy something no matter what it is. I'll put up with virtually any kind of crap a game throws at me, and I'll grin and bear it. I never really felt 3.5 was flawed until 4e came along, and even then I still played 3.5 and had fun. I'm the last person who could judge a game's balance or quality, so I have to rely on the word of others to point out the bad things.

I could play a nerfed monk and die a thousand times because I picked the worst feats and skills in the book, and I likely wouldn't complain.

[oxybe]

i've read up on some of the changes and while some look interesting, i'm holding out on buying it & doing a full or partial swap until i see those changes in action. 4th ed was enough of a change to warrant purchase, but my current vibe is "pathfinder is the new 3.5"

it took me a while to update to 3.5, having finally slowly purchased the core books about 3-4 years ago on the cheap after playing "real" 3.5 in a campaign.

[Saph]

Monks are actually slightly buffed in Pathfinder rather than nerfed, FYI.

I like Pathfinder from what I've played of it so far, but then I like 3.5 as well. From what I've seen so far Pathfinder is better if you want to play core-only, but if you're willing to use lots of splatbooks 3.5 comes out ahead.

[Nero24200]

Personally, I didn't like PF at first, and the more and more I look at it the more I dislike it. While there are some good ideas in there, quite a few of them are exceuted poorly, and theres even more bad ideas beside them.

Most of the better changes as well aren't even original, I've seen things like Skill Consolidation, nerfed polymorph spells, additional bard songs and a larger selection of paladin auras in quite a few homebrew forums, so it doesn't say much to me when they just happen to be, in my opinion, the better changes.

It's not really helped by their forums, which I visted frequently during the testing stages. No really, if theres one thing about PF I can't stand, it's their fanboys, I'd happily play the game despite it's problems if I didn't have to play alongside them.
Theres their circuler logic - "The cleric's new healing powers makes them less focused on healing!")

Their inability to actually see new changes - "Paizo must be geniouses to remove the 'Favoured Enemy (same race) equals evil' aspect of the ranger".

Their gross exaggerations - "3.5 was horrendous" (even though they loved it enough for 5 years to playtest a game based on it's rules)

And just plain over-the-top fanboyisim - "PF made me want to play the bard for the first time in 30 years!" (Nothing wrong with an opinion, but there was a topic entilted this a week before they previewed their bard changes, and no, I don't mean their final version of the bard, I mean their testing version of it).

If you plan on playing straight from the book with unfamilier players (who hopefully don't fall into the above catagory) it's alright. If you don't mind using house-rules, do that instead, since chances are they'll be miles better.

[Akal Saris]

Well, I think the obvious changes still needed to be made - just because everyone with experience did it as a houserule doesn't mean PF shouldn't be credited for making those changes.

My only ranger in a 3.5 game is evil right now simply because the campaign is 90% humans and I wanted FE: Humans! It was kind of a surprise to the rest of the group when my guy glowed from a Detect Evil spell. PF removing the alignment part is nice I guess, though not that big a deal - I'm not really sure why it was even there in the first part, since it doesn't make much sense.

But yeah - rabid fans can be a turn-off for any hobby. The PF guys I play with are pretty nuts too - they always rag on my friend and I for playing a 4E game on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the group playing 4E has never even heard of PF, so the feeling isn't exactly mutual :smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

Well, I think the obvious changes still needed to be made - just because everyone with experience did it as a houserule doesn't mean PF shouldn't be credited for making those changes.

My only ranger in a 3.5 game is evil right now simply because the campaign is 90% humans and I wanted FE: Humans! It was kind of a surprise to the rest of the group when my guy glowed from a Detect Evil spell. PF removing the alignment part is nice I guess, though not that big a deal - I'm not really sure why it was even there in the first part, since it doesn't make much sense.

But yeah - rabid fans can be a turn-off for any hobby. The PF guys I play with are pretty nuts too - they always rag on my friend and I for playing a 4E game on Saturdays. Meanwhile, the group playing 4E has never even heard of PF, so the feeling isn't exactly mutual :smalltongue:

Um, 3.0 had the alignment issue... 3.5 had no alignment issue. You can be human and take FE:human and be exalted in 3.5.

You shouldn't credit Pathfinder for something 3.5 did.

Did you never notice 3.5 had no take FE of same race is still good?

[Nero24200]

PF removing the alignment part is nice I guess, though not that big a deal - I'm not really sure why it was even there in the first part, since it doesn't make much sense. They didn't, that's my point. The statment was an example of how ignorent some of their fans seem, since this one in particular was crediting paizo for a change they themselves didn't even make.

[Rixx]

I've been playing Pathfinder for a while now, and I could never go back to 3.5. It makes tons of changes to the core system that make it easier to run and play, and classes become a lot more flexible. You can really tell it takes 3.5 and gives it the improvements that nearly 10 years of play should warrant.

That being said, I've never been huge into non-core 3.5, but going from the huge library of 3.5 to the relatively small core of Pathfinder would be quite a shock - and of course, people are set in their ways, and people will be really quick to dismiss Pathfinder for making changes to 3.5 at all (or worse, making changes that are different from the ones they wanted - note the roughly 3,872 "3.5 rebalancing" projects that never get finished). However, most of these complaints come from people who either never tried the system, or are way, way too serious about 3.5 in the first place (I.E. ever made a character multiclassing across four+ books).

[UglyPanda]

I'm going to add an addendum to my previous statement. Most of the people in this thread are going to be the ones who like the game. Quite a few people aren't touching the game with a ten-foot-pole.

There is always going to be somebody who likes a game. Whether or not they think it's better or worse is something else entirely. Several of the people who said they liked Pathfinder weren't that into 3.5 to begin with, so what they see in Pathfinder may not be due to the changes but instead the fact that they get a fresh start with a semi-new system.

[Fax Celestis]

That being said, I've never been huge into non-core 3.5, but going from the huge library of 3.5 to the relatively small core of Pathfinder would be quite a shock - and of course, people are set in their ways, and people will be really quick to dismiss Pathfinder for making changes to 3.5 at all (or worse, making changes that are different from the ones they wanted - note the roughly 3,872 "3.5 rebalancing" projects that never get finished). However, most of these complaints come from people who either never tried the system, or are way, way too serious about 3.5 in the first place (I.E. ever made a character multiclassing across four+ books).

...are you insulting me?

[Hurlbut]

...are you insulting me?
I don't see your name being mentioned or anything that indicated a finger pointing at you.

[Starbuck_II]

Fax is/was doing a rebalancing project, so he felt insulted that you waved your hands at that process.

[Nero24200]

and of course, people are set in their ways, and people will be really quick to dismiss Pathfinder for making changes to 3.5 at all Only true for a handful of people. I myself was pretty eager to see PF release a new version until I saw what they actually produced.


However, most of these complaints come from people who either never tried the system, or are way, way too serious about 3.5 in the first place (I.E. ever made a character multiclassing across four+ books).I wouldn't say most, a handful yes, but alot of people actually do have legitimate complaints. It also applies in reverse, as said in my previous posts some fanboys go on about how great changes XY and Z are without even playing them IG. I've personally seen some fans completely flip on opinions just because paizo said differently

For instance, players who felt the cleric shouldn't have healing magic at all suddenly saying how great that the cleric's has more healing, or complaining about how paizo "brings melee up to caster's level" even though in the past and in the case of some, still currently, arguing that the "caster's are overpowering" argument is a myth. These are just examples off the top of my head.

[Rixx]

Ah, sorry! Never meaning to foster harsh feelings! I'm sure for every 3,872 3.5 remakes that don't get finished, a few great ones do (and even get published). I just wanted to point out that many, many people have their own ideas of how to fix 3.5, and Pathfinder is guaranteed not to mesh with most of them.

GitP is still just a huge faceless mass of posters to me at this point, anyway. I don't know enough people individually to custom-tailor insults. You give me too much credit!

(Which isn't to say I don't recognize anyone across multiple posts, but I haven't put personalities and projects to names very effectively yet.)

[Harperfan7]

Aw, just noticed they didn't put titans in the bestiary. Now I'm sad.

CG always gets the shaft.

I know titans in 3.5 were just chaotic, not specifically CG like in 3.0, but still.

[Hurlbut]

Aw, just noticed they didn't put titans in the bestiary. Now I'm sad.

CG always gets the shaft.

I know titans in 3.5 were just chaotic, not specifically CG like in 3.0, but still. Well they said something like that they had creatures left over so they're working on a bestiary II

[GoatToucher]

We've been playing Pathfinder since July, and we've liked the results so far.

I think criticism based on fanboys is not really germane to the discussion here, as there are no rabid PF fanboys like the ones mentioned. Rabid 3.5 accusations would be just as far, because they are just as possible, but just as absent.

[UglyPanda]

Dude, you will find fanboys that rabid for anything.

[Akal Saris]

Um, 3.0 had the alignment issue... 3.5 had no alignment issue. You can be human and take FE:human and be exalted in 3.5.

You shouldn't credit Pathfinder for something 3.5 did.

Did you never notice 3.5 had no take FE of same race is still good?

and


They didn't, that's my point. The statment was an example of how ignorent some of their fans seem, since this one in particular was crediting paizo for a change they themselves didn't even make.

Well, I'll be damned! No, I never noticed that 3.5 removed the change.

Ah well...the evil thing caused a few laughs in my group anyhow. The character glowed under a Detect Evil, and everyone went "You're evil?!" and he went "I'm evil?!" with exactly the same disbelief. The only PC that was close to the character was also evil, so it wasn't all that big a deal anyhow. But I guess now I can consider RPing my way towards neutrality, if I wanted to.

[Rixx]

Hating people of other races: Good

Hating people of your own race: Evil

[Hurlbut]

Hating people of other races: Good

Hating people of your own race: EvilIf that was true, paladins of different orders in different nations would suddenly become fallen when those said nations goes to war against each other :smallyuk:

[Evil the Cat]

Hating people of other races: Good

Hating people of your own race: Evil

The problem is elf and drow are the same race. (In Favored Enemy terms)

As are Dwarf and Deurger.

Heck, Blue Dragons are the Brass Dragons worst enemies.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

I've been able to pry more out of my friend as to what his beef with Pathfinder is:
Red = him, Blue = me. This is probably easier to do than lots of quote boxes, and you kind of need the conversation in order to get it.

The class rebuilds suck.

Why? What is it about them that makes them suck. And don't say "They just do." That's just an excuse.

For comparison, look at the Pathfinder Firghter, and then look at this:

BEST FIGHTER EVER (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Fighter)

There are other classes besides the fighter, you know.

Not that I care about. The Fighter class is the best indication about whether or not a system is worth the paper it's printed on.

And why's that?

Because a Fighter is a nonmagical warrior. He lacks the powers of Paladins and Rangers, and the rage of a Barbarian. Yet he still must be able to keep up at every level. To do this, without magic, is the mark of a truely talented class builder. Pathfinder failed.

And because Pathfinder failed at this particular aspect, the entire system must be condemned as ****? Seems to me that's throwing the +1 sword out with the rusty scrap.

If they failed there, they likely failed everywhere else.

That's too much of a generalization in my opinion. One must examine the evidence thoroughly before making a decision. There are a lot of things Pathfinder does that are pretty good. Characters get feats every other level instead of every three levels. Skills are consolidated for more streamlined character building. Barbarian rage is now measured in rounds rather than having a set number of rages each day, and they can pick and choose what benefits their rage bestows. Paladins are given much greater ability in healing, and Smite Evil now "tags" enemies, which allows you to do the increased damage of a smite on subsequent attacks, instead of having a few smites to use on single attacks that probably will ammount to little. Sorcerers now get unique abilities from their bloodlines that originally were just feats from splatbooks. There's a lot more to RPG games than just the fighter. I'm sure there are a modicum of other positive changes Pathfinder has made that I've yet to discover.

The scorceror thing was stolen from the Ultimate classes. And the rest is just improving the power of noncaster classes rather than fixing the overpowered bull**** of the casting classes.
Any ideas how to respond?

[Nai_Calus]

Tell him he's right for the wrong reasons. Pathfinder is ****, but having a still-worthless fighter isn't the entirety of it, not by a long shot.

There are two classes in 3.5 I'm willing to play: Bards, and Clerics. Clerics they just pointlessly shuffled. Bards they nerfed, and Bards already more or less sucked ****, especially at low levels, unless you powergamed them to buff all hell out of their Inspire Courage.

There's like two changes I like that involve the skill system. Too bad I already fixed that, and fixed it further than Pathfinder did, when I made my own damned 3.5 houserules to fix the skill system.

[Stephen_E]

I've been able to pry more out of my friend as to what his beef with Pathfinder is:
Red = him, Blue = me. This is probably easier to do than lots of quote boxes, and you kind of need the conversation in order to get it.

The class rebuilds suck.

Why? What is it about them that makes them suck. And don't say "They just do." That's just an excuse.

For comparison, look at the Pathfinder Firghter, and then look at this:

BEST FIGHTER EVER (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Fighter)

There are other classes besides the fighter, you know.

Not that I care about. The Fighter class is the best indication about whether or not a system is worth the paper it's printed on.

And why's that?

Because a Fighter is a nonmagical warrior. He lacks the powers of Paladins and Rangers, and the rage of a Barbarian. Yet he still must be able to keep up at every level. To do this, without magic, is the mark of a truely talented class builder. Pathfinder failed.

And because Pathfinder failed at this particular aspect, the entire system must be condemned as ****? Seems to me that's throwing the +1 sword out with the rusty scrap.

If they failed there, they likely failed everywhere else.

That's too much of a generalization in my opinion. One must examine the evidence thoroughly before making a decision. There are a lot of things Pathfinder does that are pretty good. Characters get feats every other level instead of every three levels. Skills are consolidated for more streamlined character building. Barbarian rage is now measured in rounds rather than having a set number of rages each day, and they can pick and choose what benefits their rage bestows. Paladins are given much greater ability in healing, and Smite Evil now "tags" enemies, which allows you to do the increased damage of a smite on subsequent attacks, instead of having a few smites to use on single attacks that probably will ammount to little. Sorcerers now get unique abilities from their bloodlines that originally were just feats from splatbooks. There's a lot more to RPG games than just the fighter. I'm sure there are a modicum of other positive changes Pathfinder has made that I've yet to discover.

The scorceror thing was stolen from the Ultimate classes. And the rest is just improving the power of noncaster classes rather than fixing the overpowered bull**** of the casting classes.
Any ideas how to respond?

Don't bother.
For this person Fighters are the be-all-and-end-all. There is no discussion to be had. It'd would be like discussing evolution with a devout creationist.

Stephen E

[arguskos]

Zousha, nothing against your pal, but he's kinda got his head up his ass on this one. He's against something without taking it all into consideration? You said it yourself: there's more than just the damn Fighter to consider! I'd ignore his opinions and form your own.

As for me and PF, I liked it, in general. It's a Tome of Houserules, but some I liked, so that makes it a win in my mind.

[AslanCross]

I've been using a few elements from Pathfinder, but most noticeably I like the rogue class. The Rogue was probably among the most balanced in core 3.5, but the talents make them a lot less generic without breaking them.

[BobVosh]

I've been able to pry more out of my friend as to what his beef with Pathfinder is:
Red = him, Blue = me. This is probably easier to do than lots of quote boxes, and you kind of need the conversation in order to get it.

The class rebuilds suck.

Why? What is it about them that makes them suck. And don't say "They just do." That's just an excuse.

For comparison, look at the Pathfinder Firghter, and then look at this:

BEST FIGHTER EVER (http://www.liquidmateria.info/wiki/Ultimate_Fighter)

There are other classes besides the fighter, you know.

Not that I care about. The Fighter class is the best indication about whether or not a system is worth the paper it's printed on.

And why's that?

Because a Fighter is a nonmagical warrior. He lacks the powers of Paladins and Rangers, and the rage of a Barbarian. Yet he still must be able to keep up at every level. To do this, without magic, is the mark of a truely talented class builder. Pathfinder failed.

And because Pathfinder failed at this particular aspect, the entire system must be condemned as ****? Seems to me that's throwing the +1 sword out with the rusty scrap.

If they failed there, they likely failed everywhere else.

That's too much of a generalization in my opinion. One must examine the evidence thoroughly before making a decision. There are a lot of things Pathfinder does that are pretty good. Characters get feats every other level instead of every three levels. Skills are consolidated for more streamlined character building. Barbarian rage is now measured in rounds rather than having a set number of rages each day, and they can pick and choose what benefits their rage bestows. Paladins are given much greater ability in healing, and Smite Evil now "tags" enemies, which allows you to do the increased damage of a smite on subsequent attacks, instead of having a few smites to use on single attacks that probably will ammount to little. Sorcerers now get unique abilities from their bloodlines that originally were just feats from splatbooks. There's a lot more to RPG games than just the fighter. I'm sure there are a modicum of other positive changes Pathfinder has made that I've yet to discover.

The scorceror thing was stolen from the Ultimate classes. And the rest is just improving the power of noncaster classes rather than fixing the overpowered bull**** of the casting classes.
Any ideas how to respond?

Ah, classic RvB. Anyway: The rebalancing of casters is done through the readjusted spells. More over did you prefer 4ed to 3.5? If so then no high fantasy with multitude of systems for various classes will make mundane warriors equal to casters. Therefore you should stick to 4ed, which has one equal system with all characters.

[katans]

I ha d been playing D&D 3.5 for the best part of three years when I first put my eyes on PF. During those 3 years, I've been exploring the Net, buying sourcebooks, investing time and generally trying and understand the mechanics and balance issues in 3.5. So I was very interested in seeing a completed 3.5 rewriting project. I was, alas, disappointed.

The problem isn't PF as a roleplaying game per se. It is a solid game, absolutely playable, with great universes and a very active and creative community. The problem is that PF's editors actually believe they've got a clue of how the d20 system is balanced. They haven't. So they made a game that's in my opinion a variant of D&D3.5, but not more balanced than the original in any way, while at the same time complaining about 3.5's "buh-roken-ness" and claiming as loud as is humanly admissible (and even a bit above that) that PF is soooo much better. Sorry, this just isn't true.

PF doesn't bring anything that's not already been said, imagined, created a thousand times better somewhere. Throw in the insufferable attitude of superiority and contempt displayed by a tragically large lot of PF fans who all are unable to see the forest because of the trees, and you have a system and a community that isn't in any way better than 3.5. Slightly different, yes. Better, no.

So I'll just do what I've done successfully for years: pick up what I like, leave the rest. It's all d20-ish, after all.


The rebalancing of casters is done through the readjusted spells.

I'd so like this to be true, but it simply isn't. The spellcasting problem in 3.5 doesn't come from the sheer power of a few very abusable spells. It comes from a very simple fact: casters have more options than other classes, and they use them better. This point, unfortunately, did not change.

[Oslecamo]

I'd so like this to be true, but it simply isn't. The spellcasting problem in 3.5 doesn't come from the sheer power of a few very abusable spells. It comes from a very simple fact: casters have more options than other classes, and they use them better. This point, unfortunately, did not change.

I beg to greatly disagree. The spellcasting problem in 3.5 comes from the sheer power of a few very abusable spells.

Sure, a wizard can cast knock, but is he really going to burn all his spells per day in knocks? What if it's a sorceror? Can he afford to learn knock at all? Why don't just let the rogue unlock it or the fighter take it down?

Spellcasting variety should be limited by the fact that casters are very few spells per day. But of course, if the DM is throwin one ecounter per day, and that ecounter consists of one big slow monster whitout magic defenses, then the caster won't run out of spells. But the noncasters could as well have simply hit and run the monster untill it was depleted of HP.

Now if the party has to fight 4 ecounters per day, all where the monsters have anti magic powers(besides anti nonmagic power of course) and one of those ecounters is a group of see invisibility enemies who found the entrance to the wizard's rope trick and are lying in waiting, all that spell variety stops being so shiny when the wizard just doesn't have enough spells per day to get the job done.

So the real problem boils down to certain spells that concentrate a lot of versatility in a single package.

Polymorph and friends were hacked, as it indeed gave a lot of versatility in a single spell slot, or the wildshape insanity when the DM lets the druid bring any and all books to the table.

What still wasn't fixed is the calling spells. Wizards summoning their own minions to do the dirty job for them is one of their main strenghts, but hack the right spells, and it isn't such a broken ability anymore.

[katans]

Then let's agree to disagree.
Even if you banned Gate, Miracle, Time Stop, the Planar Binding/Ally chain and the Polymorph chain from 3.5, you'd still have casters able to fly, teleport, turn invisible, use divinations, buff the whole party, debuff the whole enemy party, summon creatures for combat and utilitary purposes, slay an enemy outright, heal, create magic items... no, really, I'd play a caster over a nonmagical class anytime, even without the highly powerful spells. (BTW, when I'm playing a caster, I refrain heavily from abusing said spells, often not choosing them at all, just because the DM could do the same, and worse).

[Reinboom]

Then let's agree to disagree.
Even if you banned Gate, Miracle, Time Stop, the Planar Binding/Ally chain and the Polymorph chain from 3.5, you'd still have casters able to fly, teleport, turn invisible, use divinations, buff the whole party, debuff the whole enemy party, summon creatures for combat and utilitary purposes, slay an enemy outright, heal, create magic items... no, really, I'd play a caster over a nonmagical class anytime, even without the highly powerful spells. (BTW, when I'm playing a caster, I refrain heavily from abusing said spells, often not choosing them at all, just because the DM could do the same, and worse).

Not to mention get have foresight always on by specializing.

That aside, I am strictly against Pathfinder.

On a game design basis, I do not feel Paizo did enough in some areas and did too much in others.
The skill system change is a wonderful idea. Very well executed. If I'm playing 3.5e, I try to get this aspect borrowed for the game.
The polymorph line of spells is also done well. A few of the smaller tweaks are also workable (such as the rage adjustment).

On the other hand... fighters are still very flat. A lot of abilities forgot to list their action requirement, such as many wizard special abilities. There are pointlessly repeated features, such as the Rogue Talents having Combat Trick (to gain a '(Combat)' feat) and Weapon Training which gives Weapon Focus (a combat feat).

Further, in actual play the difference between the two systems is not spectacular. The two largest changes for the in game being the skills and polymorph for me.
Skills: The characters just got to do more, and in more cases, more people were able to 'chime in'. The felt 'right'. It still doesn't seem like they did enough though, and I still employ my 'fluffy' rules on top of this after the experience.
Polymorph: This was a game choke. When cast, you have to quickly reference what you can do within the limitation of the spells it copies. For beast shape, look up to see what its restraints are. Hold the page in one hand, then quickly flip to the elemental spell. Check what it allows (and specific adjustments to, so things not easily noted), then - after deciding on a creature to become, figuring out which bonuses it gives. Easily one of the more annoying show stoppers.

Now, with all the little changes, it is ultimately 3.5e. In most aspects.
The largest reason, of course alongside the above, I have a distaste for pathfinder however is the 50$ price tag on the books. The price tag that is mostly WotC's work anyways. If I'm paying for a system, I'm not paying for a sham of houserules on a system I own. Especially one you did so little work for in all comparison.

[Bosh]

Is it overall better than 3.5ed?

As a GM would I bother learning it well enough to remember the 1001 fiddly little changes it made to 3.5ed and make sure that the players remember them as well? Hell no.

A lot of good ideas but overall a much much too big ratio of fiddly little changes : fixes of the core weaknesses of 3.5ed to have it be worth the effort to relearn all the rules.

[Evil the Cat]

Overall: I'd consider it to be slightly better.

However, I'm more familiar with 3.5 (especially the spells), so a complete conversion to an expensive book for slightly better isn't worth it. This is why I use the stuff I like, and ignore the rest. To me its more of a splat book with optional rules (in many ways similar to Unearthed Arcana).

I can fully understand why people don't want to switch, but it isn't crap, no more so than 3.5 is. It just doesn't fix the balance issues, and has a lot of its own flaws. As such, to many people it just isn't worth spending money, learning all the changes (especially the spells), and either not using, or having to work to adapt, all the expansion books that 3.5 has.

This doesn't make it bad, but many people will say (justifiably) that it isn't worth the hassle.

[Ranos]

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Thought that might interest some of you guys.

[Nero24200]

Hating people of other races: Good

Hating people of your own race: Evil

So a human paladin cannot fight a human blackguard?

I always felt the "hating your own race is evil" idea was always silly, since it's just as easy for a member of your own race to do evil things as it is for races usally evil (like orcs, goblins etc).

Besides, "Favoured Enemy (Same Race) = evil" never seemed like a smart idea to me anyway, since FE doesn't usally represent hatred or a particular desire to kill creatures of that type, more like its a result of training and knowledge of that particular foe. A ranger who was taught to fight via one-on-one duels with humaniods is likely to have humaniods as a favoured enemy.

But anyway, back on topic.


Any ideas how to respond? Honestly? I wouldn't bother. He clearly dislikes pathfinder. If anything, constantly arguing and pushing him towards it are just likely to make him dislike it more.

And well...to be fair, to an extent he is right, a fair number of problems do still exist - the fighter still only really being good for dips is one of them, and that seems to be an significant factor for your friend. Even if PF is your cup of tea, there are still going to be elements you wish were done better, and in this case it seems like the elements your friend likes most didn't get the treatment they deserved. Which I can kinda agree with, I honestly felt a few classes were just glanced over quickly while the PF team spent far more time on other classes (the bard and the sorcerer are good examples. The bard has only 1 or 2 changes, some of which seem poorly thought out and rushed, while the sorcerer was quite obviously looked at for a while).

Anyway, my advice is to just leave him. If theres elements he likes, let him find and look at them on his own. If you keep arguing and bringing it up, it could very well put him off PF as a whole altogether.

[Doug Lampert]

And well...to be fair, to an extent he is right, a fair number of problems do still exist - the fighter still only really being good for dips is one of them, and that seems to be an significant factor for your friend.

D&D has four basic roles, and this has been true since the Greyhawk suplement came out in 1975 (and added the Thief to the existing Magic User, Fighter, and Cleric; it also added the Paladin but Paladins weren't a basic role given the entry requirements and the fact that it's basically a fighter variant).

The archetypal class for one of these four whole roles is the Fighter. It's not unreasonable to expect it to work. Past about level 6 it's broken weak in 3.x. Broadly, any party with a fighter would be better off replacing him with a Druid or Cleric, the fighter simply doesn't fulfil his design goal of being a good combatant.

If you tell me you've "fixed" 3.5 it's not at all unreasonable to look first at what's been done to the fighter, and if that hasn't been fixed then to call the fix crap. Because this isn't some obscure splat book class or minor class like bard or monk. This is the standard class for one of your four main roles, it should WORK.

Minor changes to some spell doesn't cut it. For nerfing spells to work you need to systematically and massively nerf them ALL for it to be enough without buffing fighters, and then you won't have even a semblance of backward compatibility as "equal" CR will rip you apart unless the fighters got a massive upgrade. (i.e. either way you need to upgrade fighters.)

Worse from what the Pathfinder DEFENDERS have said about which spells were nerfed it sounds like it was MOSTLY the control and non-personal buff and debuff spells that could keep fighters and rogues RELEVANT that got nerfed, technically that weakens casters some, but in actual play it's an anti-fix to the balance problem. Polymorph works BETTER when you polymorph the fighter than when you polymorph the wizard. In most cases Fly works BETTER when the wizard is flying than when the fighter is flying. Which spell got nerfed again?

[Rixx]

I'm surprised how many people thought I was serious with that "racism = good" comment!

[Starbuck_II]

I'm surprised how many people thought I was serious with that "racism = good" comment!

Hey, we all racist againzst elves. Even elves are. They named them a different name (Drow), but they are still elfs.

[Eldariel]

Hey, we all racist againzst elves. Even elves are. They named them a different name (Drow), but they are still elfs.

Except those of us that are suffering of the Minbari Elven War Syndrome.

[LibraryOgre]

There are two classes in 3.5 I'm willing to play: Bards, and Clerics. Clerics they just pointlessly shuffled. Bards they nerfed, and Bards already more or less sucked ****, especially at low levels, unless you powergamed them to buff all hell out of their Inspire Courage.


Actually, I rather like the 3.5 bards, and what Pathfinder did with them.

3.5 Bards are not about being the combat powerhouse... they are about making everyone else better. That may seem like a boring role to play, but I've always found it to be fun... not only can I take pleasure in every hit by everyone else, because I made them more effective, but it means that all of the glory is partially my glory. If I stand in the back and trip people with my whip, I'm making the fighters and rogues more effective... the rogue got that sneak attack because I gave it to him. I saved the party from the harpies with a strum of a lute. It's an overlooked role in 3.5.

What I like about the PF Bard is how they worked skill economy. For a great number of things, Bards are saved Skill Points. Bardic knowledge means that, unless you're trying for a specific prestige class, you don't need to put more than 1 point in most knowledge skills (and that's only because of the cheapness of a +3 for putting in 1 point... you're competent without it). Versatile Performance means that, if you're using Oratory, you save 2 points a level on Diplomacy and Sense Motive... you can simply put 1 point into Oratory, and you get the equivalent of 3 skill points... AND you don't have to worry about Wisdom for Sense Motive, since it uses your Oratory check, and thus your Cha modifier. At 6th level, I can stop putting points into Intimidate, AND I get free ranks in Handle Animal, because I'm skilled in Percussion. That earlier 1 rank in all my knowledge skills? That means I can take 10 on any knowledge check, and take 20 on 1/day. The main nerfing of a Bard took place in the length of bard songs... but, even then, it can be used as a bonus number of times. Someone doing something that requires one round? You can help them many times... (level+1)*2+Cha modifier. At top level, you're looking at 22+cha modifier rounds of buffing... and many of the buffs are more effective, and able to affect more people.

[Gametime]

Actually, I rather like the 3.5 bards, and what Pathfinder did with them.

3.5 Bards are not about being the combat powerhouse... they are about making everyone else better. That may seem like a boring role to play, but I've always found it to be fun... not only can I take pleasure in every hit by everyone else, because I made them more effective, but it means that all of the glory is partially my glory. If I stand in the back and trip people with my whip, I'm making the fighters and rogues more effective... the rogue got that sneak attack because I gave it to him. I saved the party from the harpies with a strum of a lute. It's an overlooked role in 3.5.

What I like about the PF Bard is how they worked skill economy. For a great number of things, Bards are saved Skill Points. Bardic knowledge means that, unless you're trying for a specific prestige class, you don't need to put more than 1 point in most knowledge skills (and that's only because of the cheapness of a +3 for putting in 1 point... you're competent without it). Versatile Performance means that, if you're using Oratory, you save 2 points a level on Diplomacy and Sense Motive... you can simply put 1 point into Oratory, and you get the equivalent of 3 skill points... AND you don't have to worry about Wisdom for Sense Motive, since it uses your Oratory check, and thus your Cha modifier. At 6th level, I can stop putting points into Intimidate, AND I get free ranks in Handle Animal, because I'm skilled in Percussion. That earlier 1 rank in all my knowledge skills? That means I can take 10 on any knowledge check, and take 20 on 1/day. The main nerfing of a Bard took place in the length of bard songs... but, even then, it can be used as a bonus number of times. Someone doing something that requires one round? You can help them many times... (level+1)*2+Cha modifier. At top level, you're looking at 22+cha modifier rounds of buffing... and many of the buffs are more effective, and able to affect more people.

Not to mention that unless I'm reading the ability wrong, the Pathfinder Chronicler's gets around the rounds/day limitation handily. You can use up bardic performances several DAYS ahead of time, and the written version lasts for a minute anyway!

Of course, you're forcing the people you buff to use their OWN actions, but the 9th level ability solves even that.

[Doug Lampert]

Spellcasting variety should be limited by the fact that casters are very few spells per day.

I've thought about it for awhile, and I just have to respond to the above:

Very few spells per day? In what universe? If you assume that only his top 4 levels are worth anything in combat and take a non-specialist wizard (fewest spells per day in core of the non-bard full casters). Then a wizard pretty well always has 14+ spells per day that are combat useful from quite low levels on. Your proposed 4 battles per day means about 12 rounds of combat. The non-specialist, just got a new spell-level has so "very few" slots that if we ignore his lower level spells he STILL never runs out of slots even if he casts a high level spell EVERY SINGLE ROUND of combat.

How many slots do we need before it's Lots and Lots rather than "very few"?

And all that's ignoring Pearls of Power, Scrolls, Staffs, Wands and other ways to get more spells off per day.

Really, the ONLY way he can run dry is to use his high level slots out of combat, or to use many of his high level slots for quickened lower level spells (which is only worth doing if lower level spells AREN'T worthless in combat, in which case the combat usable slots more than double in number while his slot burn rate only doubles at worst).

He should use some slots out of combat, but that's just because he's so versatile and powerful that it's silly to save it all for the battle when out of battle buffing is so effective. Running out of high level slots because of this means you're more powerful since you chose a better option.

But a level 20 straight out of the box non-specialist wizard with a starting int of 17 and no inherent bonus to Int has 65 slots (20 of them of level 6 or higher), if he's never gotten access to a SINGLE spell other than those he gets for free for leveling he knows a total of 44 non-cantrip spells (20 of them of level 6 or higher) plus all the cantrips.

What shocking limits. He can ONLY cast 20 different level 6+ spell per day prior to being forced to resort to level 5 spells, gasp! How can he survive? All it takes is 4+ encounters per day with things that a level 20 wizard needs 5+ rounds to deal with and a total absense of gear and he'll be down to level 5 attack spells.

Meanwhile the level 20 human fighter has had a whole 19 feats to give himself options and versatility, and 4 or 5 feats chained togather is often almost useful, he may be good as several things (not likely, being good at multiple fighter feat chains makes the fighter MAD). What power!

[Stephen_E]

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
Thought that might interest some of you guys.

Frank Trollman hates PF.
I understand he didn't get "respect" on the PF forums.
Not to say he doesn't have some legitimate points but it's hard to sort them out from his bile.

Stephen E

[Boci]

Frank Trollman hates PF.
I understand he didn't get "respect" on the PF forums.
Not to say he doesn't have some legitimate points but it's hard to sort them out from his bile.

Stephen E

Well, provided everything he said was true, nearly all his points seem valid. Unless he missed out huge pices of information that justify the changes.

[Stephen_E]

Well, provided everything he said was true, nearly all his points seem valid. Unless he missed out huge pices of information that justify the changes.

IIRC when I 1st read it, 1) it's not all true, 2) some of what is true is taken out of context, 3) everything is given the most negative tone possible.

Stephen E

[Boci]

IIRC when I 1st read it, 1) it's not all true, 2) some of what is true is taken out of context,

Oh right. I have heard however that pathfinder did nerf power attack and trip, which is a bad sign IMO, following knee jerk reactions. But I did guess it wasn't quite as bad as Frank Trollman described it.


3) everything is given the most negative tone possible.

Stephen E

I take that as a given when we're dealing with Frank Trollman. i head one of his rants about 3.5 and he said something like "take a full round action to look up WBL guidlines" and I thought that was pushing it, you just need to remember one page.

[Gametime]

Oh right. I have heard however that pathfinder did nerf power attack and trip, which is a bad sign IMO, following knee jerk reactions. But I did guess it wasn't quite as bad as Frank Trollman described it.



I take that as a given when we're dealing with Frank Trollman. i head one of his rants about 3.5 and he said something like "take a full round action to look up WBL guidlines" and I thought that was pushing it, you just need to remember one page.

Although, in fairness, the WBL guidelines ARE buried where you wouldn't QUITE expect them. Confuses me half the time. :smallconfused:

[Boci]

Although, in fairness, the WBL guidelines ARE buried where you wouldn't QUITE expect them. Confuses me half the time. :smallconfused:

Fair enough. Right before the magic items section would make more sense arguably. Did pathfinder fix that problem?:smallbiggrin:

[Stephen_E]

Oh right. I have heard however that pathfinder did nerf power attack and trip, which is a bad sign IMO, following knee jerk reactions. But I did guess it wasn't quite as bad as Frank Trollman described it.


Power attack was made slightly stronger, but less flexible, which chopped most of the "and I now do gazillion damage" options that you could do by adding other abilities to it.

Trip hasn't actually been nerfed, and I'm a oldtime trip fan so I have some experiance here. It has been changed, and is a lot less clunky now.
Single dice roll, apply mods, resolved. That applies to all the special attacks, now called "combat manuvers" and they use the same mods/mechanics, instead of each one using slightly different mods/mechanics.
Once u work this out they actually have the potential to be more powerful. :-)
You can use True Strike to get +20 on your trip attempt. :-)

Stephen E

[Boci]

Power attack was made slightly stronger, but less flexible, which chopped most of the "and I now do gazillion damage" options that you could do by adding other abilities to it.

I dunno. I always prefered to use common sense to keep power attack limited.


Trip hasn't actually been nerfed, and I'm a oldtime trip fan so I have some experiance here. It has been changed, and is a lot less clunky now.
Single dice roll, apply mods, resolved. That applies to all the special attacks, now called "combat manuvers" and they use the same mods/mechanics, instead of each one using slightly different mods/mechanics.
Once u work this out they actually have the potential to be more powerful. :-)
You can use True Strike to get +20 on your trip attempt. :-)


How does that work? Do you add your BAB to trip attempts? If so, doesn't that hurt 3/4 BAB classes?

[Akal Saris]

Let's avoid roping Frank Trollman into this thread - he has a pretty well-documented personal vendetta against Paizo based on what he feels was the designers unjustly ignoring his advice during the beta phase. Paizo could have created the best RPG ever, and it wouldn't have mattered to Frank, because it wouldn't have followed his exact demands - and if they had followed those, it wouldn't have been to their credit, because after all they were just using his ideas.

Going back to fighters, I think fighters in PF are better off than they are in core 3.5, and arguably even in core+splatbook 3.5, given that they have actual class features every level, including a capstone, and new feats were introduced that help fighters deal with not gaining full attacks (the vital strike chain), tank effectively (Stand Still (a 3.5 non-core feat), Lunge, Step Up), let them apply battlefield control status effects (the Dazzling chain and the critical feats), and help them vs. spellcasters (Disruptive Strike and its ilk).

Splitting combat feats into two parts has some things to consider too:
1. Monsters' size bonuses against these feats were reduced dramatically, so anything larger than you is easier to grapple than before, and because of this and the changes to both spells, polymorph/wildshape isn't as big of an IWIN button as it used to be.
2. Fighter gain bonuses to their combat maneuvers from their Weapon Training class feature, which adds up to +4 at the end, meaning that for 2 feats they have +8/+7/+6/+5/+4 to combat maneuver checks, depending on which weapon they use and their level.
3. Half of the combat feats were improved. Improved Overrun now lets you not prevent AOO's, and Greater Overrun also makes opponents who you overrun provoke AOO's. Greater Disarm now moves an opponent's weapon 15ft away. Improved Trip now lets you and all your allies make an AOO, which is a stronger effect much of the time. All of the feats also add to your defense against those attacks, which didn't use to be the case for some.
4. PF gives characters more feats, so the double feat doesn't hurt as badly as it would in 3.5.

Personally, I'm ambivalent about making the feats into two parts, but it's not as cut and dried a change as many people seem to think it is.

[Stephen_E]

How does that work? Do you add your BAB to trip attempts? If so, doesn't that hurt 3/4 BAB classes?

Yep. If you're not a professional fighter don't try the fancy combat tricks.

Attack roll + CMB (BAB+Str+Size) vs CMD (BAB+Str+Dex+Size+10).
Size mods have been reduced from 3.5.

If you beat the defender they're down.
If you fail by 10+ you go down, or drop your weapon.

There's also a feat that allows the attacker to use Dex rather than Str.

Stephen E

[John Campbell]

Um, 3.0 had the alignment issue... 3.5 had no alignment issue. You can be human and take FE:human and be exalted in 3.5.

You shouldn't credit Pathfinder for something 3.5 did.

Did you never notice 3.5 had no take FE of same race is still good?

Wouldn't be the only one. I skipped 3.0, and when my current 3.5 CN human rogue dipped a couple levels of Urban Ranger, I took Favored Enemy (human) without thinking twice about it, because we fight Evil humans a lot - more than any other single subtype. The DM (who, AFAIK, has also never played 3.0) objected, saying I had to be Evil to do that. I pointed out how stupid that was, because of the many circumstances in which a Good character might find himself facing primarily Evil members of his own creature type (Good humans vs. Evil humans, surface elves vs. drow, any wangst-filled CG outcast from a Usually Evil race...), and demanded he show me the rule. Which he was, of course, unable to do, because it doesn't exist.

[Serenity]

Yep. If you're not a professional fighter don't try the fancy combat tricks.

Attack roll + CMB (BAB+Str+Size) vs CMD (BAB+Str+Dex+Size+10).
Size mods have been reduced from 3.5.

If you beat the defender they're down.
If you fail by 10+ you go down, or drop your weapon.

There's also a feat that allows the attacker to use Dex rather than Str.

Stephen E

But remember that the monk acts like a full BAB class for maneuvers. And also flurry of blows. Why they didn't just simplify things and make him a full BAB class, I don't know...

[Stephen_E]

But remember that the monk acts like a full BAB class for maneuvers. And also flurry of blows. Why they didn't just simplify things and make him a full BAB class, I don't know...

Because Monks aren't professional fighters, but they are professional "fancy move" guys. :-)

Stephen E

[pres_man]

Um, 3.0 had the alignment issue... 3.5 had no alignment issue. You can be human and take FE:human and be exalted in 3.5.

You shouldn't credit Pathfinder for something 3.5 did.

Did you never notice 3.5 had no take FE of same race is still good?

Yeah, things like that are pretty funny. I saw one guy on a thread on Paizo's site claim how PF was going to be so cool because they did things like give dwarves bonuses vs being tripped or bull rushed ... Seriously, he thought that was something PF came up with. :sigh:

[Akal Saris]

Sadly, I always note that stability bonus on my dwarven characters, and it's never come up in a game yet :(

[LibraryOgre]

Yep. If you're not a professional fighter don't try the fancy combat tricks.

Attack roll + CMB (BAB+Str+Size) vs CMD (BAB+Str+Dex+Size+10).
Size mods have been reduced from 3.5.


Huh. I missed that they changed the CMD calculation.

[Nero24200]

But remember that the monk acts like a full BAB class for maneuvers. And also flurry of blows. Why they didn't just simplify things and make him a full BAB class, I don't know...

Because "It monkeys around with too many mechanics", even though the only mechanics it affects is

1) To hit rolls - which is the main reason people wanted it boosted
2) Iterative Attacks - which is a bit of a moot point considering how many attacks a flurrying monk gets anyway
3) Combat Maneuvers - which the monk gets huge bonues to anyway.

I'll be honest, some changes I think they didn't make just because they didn't want to, justified or not. The monk's BAB is one of them. Another is the sorcerer lagging spell levels (even though the majority of fans called for this as well).

[Necron]

I've been very leery about adopting anything from PF (despite that races/classes SEEM better). My table has pretty much every 3.5 book, and I'm really hesistant to start introducing anything from PF.

I really don't want to use the combat rules from it.

But I have considered using the standard races... and the sorcerer class with my 3.5 group.

[Gnaeus]

Polymorph: This was a game choke. When cast, you have to quickly reference what you can do within the limitation of the spells it copies. For beast shape, look up to see what its restraints are. Hold the page in one hand, then quickly flip to the elemental spell. Check what it allows (and specific adjustments to, so things not easily noted), then - after deciding on a creature to become, figuring out which bonuses it gives. Easily one of the more annoying show stoppers.

I don't fully agree.

Polymorph still takes some cross-referencing, but I think it is quicker than 3.5 in 3 important ways.

1. The fact that the changes are limited means that it is easier to pick forms. You no longer need 30 cards with all your wildshape forms on them, when ALL medium animals are +2 str, +1 NA or whatever.

2. Similarly, your bonuses are less work to calculate. The druid now has 2, maybe 3 strength scores during a normal day, instead of dozens of possibilities. His con never changes.

3. The fact that the spells clearly state exactly what you do and do not get does require some reference time, but saves long arguments with DMs about exactly which abilities you acquire from different forms.

[reefwood]

I have a couple questions about one Pathfinder criticism I see mentioned a lot.

Some people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0? I wasn't around for the whole 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, so I don't know the differences between those two versions. Were those to versions less or more or equally different than 3.5 and Pathfinder?

For a little background on myself, I started playing D&D at the start of 2005 by not really learning AD&D (2nd ed?) but read up thoroughly on the rules when my group converted to 3.5 a few months later.

Tangentish: This doesn't only apply to Pathfinder, which I have only dabbled in but want to play more, but the topic of balance comes up a lot. Long story short, I like that different classes are more or less powerful than other classes at varying levels. It can give different people a chance to shine at different times. Also, I think it is the job of the DM to make the adventure/campaign work for the PCs in the party. Providing a challenge but nothing impossible and giving PCs a chance to show off their specialized abilities. It seems to me that creating balance is part of the DM's job. Although, I've only played in low to mid level games. Nothing past 8th level, so I don't know but could see that the balance complaint could be greater at higher levels.

[sonofzeal]

I have a couple questions about one Pathfinder criticism I see mentioned a lot.

Some people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0? I wasn't around for the whole 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, so I don't know the differences between those two versions. Were those to versions less or more or equally different than 3.5 and Pathfinder?

3.0 and 3.5 were closer together than 3.5 and PF.

There was considerable backlash at the time, with many people seeing it as just a senseless cash-grab. I know groups that still play 3.0 and avoid 3.5 content like the plague for whatever reason.

[Aron Times]

For one, D&D 3.5, despite its flaws, did fix most of the stuff wrong with 3.0, which was far, far worse.

Second, it's directly competing with 4E. 4E, love it or hate it, is a very playable game. Most people don't have the time to play multiple games a week, so when they do decide to play, they will have to decide between Pathfinder and other RPGs.

Furthermore, most people do not actually enjoy doing all the work necessary to play 3.5 and Pathfinder. DMs in particular enjoy the drastically reduced workload required to run a game in 4E. Players enjoy being able to contribute to the party without the DM going out of his way to make sure they wouldn't get killed by all the stuff that isn't even a challenge for tier 1 characters.

[LibraryOgre]

Some people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0?

Heck, I still see that charge leveled at 2nd edition by 1st edition partisans. ;-)

[Stephen_E]

3.0 and 3.5 were closer together than 3.5 and PF.

There was considerable backlash at the time, with many people seeing it as just a senseless cash-grab. I know groups that still play 3.0 and avoid 3.5 content like the plague for whatever reason.

Opinions vary.
I thain 3.5 was further away from 3.0 than Pathfinder is from 3.5.

As for the cash cow complaint. That complaint is always made with wach adition or part edition change.

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

For one, D&D 3.5, despite its flaws, did fix most of the stuff wrong with 3.0, which was far, far worse.

(Falls over laughing)


Second, it's directly competing with 4E. 4E, love it or hate it, is a very playable game. Most people don't have the time to play multiple games a week, so when they do decide to play, they will have to decide between Pathfinder and other RPGs.

Actually they aren't directly competing.
PF has a radically different approache to 4th Ed. PF competes with 3.5, not 4th Ed.


Furthermore, most people do not actually enjoy doing all the work necessary to play 3.5 and Pathfinder. DMs in particular enjoy the drastically reduced workload required to run a game in 4E. Players enjoy being able to contribute to the party without the DM going out of his way to make sure they wouldn't get killed by all the stuff that isn't even a challenge for tier 1 characters.

And now we have the obligatory "4th Ed is great and everyone prefers it". :smallsigh:
4th Ed is what it is and some people like it. Unless you've got numbers to back up this claim, i.e. indicating that most 3rd Ed players have switched to 4th, lets leave it with all the other propaganda.

Stephen E

[Foryn Gilnith]

Some people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0?

3.5 is a very large set of house rules. About 75 books worth of houserules. Pathfinder is unlikely to get even half of that.
When 3.5 came out, it meant that if you didn't switch you couldn't keep up with the "majority" (the ones who would just follow WotC like sheeple, and the ones who liked the officially run living campaigns). When Pathfinder came out, it didn't offer any significant increase in the prospects of finding players, since Paizo can't attract sheeple and doesn't run as many official campaigns as 4e does.

[Gametime]

And now we have the obligatory "4th Ed is great and everyone prefers it". :smallsigh:
4th Ed is what it is and some people like it. Unless you've got numbers to back up this claim, i.e. indicating that most 3rd Ed players have switched to 4th, lets leave it with all the other propaganda.


Defensive much?

I'm sure no one can tell you how popular any given edition of D&D is in absolute terms, but I'd be willing to bet money that a plurality of D&D groups play 4th now. Having a currently supported game system can be a big draw.

I would be interested in seeing how much of 4th edition's sales come from new players to the franchise and how much from converts of earlier editions.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Liking 4e because it's currently supported is quite different from liking 4e because "most people do not actually enjoy doing all the work necessary to play 3.5 and Pathfinder".

But a 4e discussion is only questionably relevant.

[Stephen_E]

3.5 is a very large set of house rules. About 75 books worth of houserules. Pathfinder is unlikely to get even half of that.
When 3.5 came out, it meant that if you didn't switch you couldn't keep up with the "majority" (the ones who would just follow WotC like sheeple, and the ones who liked the officially run living campaigns). When Pathfinder came out, it didn't offer any significant increase in the prospects of finding players, since Paizo can't attract sheeple and doesn't run as many official campaigns as 4e does.

You're kidding.
Piazzos business is publishing campaigns.
They do a good job of it, and PF is the "try something new" in their business.
Wizards hasn't done that much campaign publishing for a while.

I think there is ample reason for people to play PF based on the fact that Piazzo is supporting it with plenty of campaign material. :smallbiggrin:

Stephen E

[Stephen_E]

Defensive much?

I'm sure no one can tell you how popular any given edition of D&D is in absolute terms, but I'd be willing to bet money that a plurality of D&D groups play 4th now. Having a currently supported game system can be a big draw.

I would be interested in seeing how much of 4th edition's sales come from new players to the franchise and how much from converts of earlier editions.

Not defensive. Tired of the obligatory "my system is much better than yours" schtck.

I play damned near anything and would play 4th, except all the groups I play with looked at or tried it and dropped it before I got a chance.
From what I've seen I'd prefer 3.5 or PF, but that's because they give me things I like, and the advantages of 4th Ed aren't things that bother me.

I'll happly tell you advantages and disadvantages of systems, but don't bother talking to me about which is "better". It's a silly argument. It's simply a matter of taste.

Stephen E

[Xenogears]

ISome people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0? I wasn't around for the whole 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, so I don't know the differences between those two versions. Were those to versions less or more or equally different than 3.5 and Pathfinder?

I started DnD with 3.0 and when 3.5 came out I basically had the thought "Like HELL I am spending more of my money on newer versions of these books. Let's just keep playing 3.0." I still get surprised by the changes between the two versions because although I've read through my 3.0 PhB numerous times I only skim through the SRD since it is online. For instance. I was VERY confused as to why so many people were insisting that the Druids Animal Companion was the equal of a fighter. In 3.0 the Animal Companion was just a regular 2HD animal. So maybe at lvl 1 but not higher since it didn't scale. Very confusing 'till I realised they had changed it...

[Akal Saris]

It came up earlier in this thread, but I didn't realize the change from 3.0 to 3.5 regarding rangers and choosing their own race as a favored enemy. So you might say that 3.5 only fixes as many problems from 3.0 as its players managed to notice ;)

I do remember a lot of complaints about 3.5 being a cash-grab, btw. My group eventually made the switch, but it took about a year. It's possible that if Paizo's books start flooding stores and people decide they want more 3.5-esque material, it could pick up in popularity. Personally, I think it's probably doomed to be a second-stringer to 4E though.

[pres_man]

I have a couple questions about one Pathfinder criticism I see mentioned a lot.

Some people refer to Pathfinder as "only a set of house rules," and I am curious if the same criticism was placed upon 3.5 in comparison to 3.0? I wasn't around for the whole 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, so I don't know the differences between those two versions. Were those to versions less or more or equally different than 3.5 and Pathfinder?

Part of the "problem" with PF being critisized in this fashion is due to Paizo's own advertising. They keep sending out conflicting messages that PF is a special version of 3.5 and that PF is a new edition, derived from 3.5. They even have put out posters that say "3.5 Thrives" when refering to their new system. Huh? Is it 3.5 or not? They seem to be almost schizophrenic on the issue. Thus why people say, "It is 3.5 with a bunch of house-rules, some are good some are bad." I would say the shift larger between 3.5 and PF, than it was between 3e and 3.5. But yeah, it is fairly close.


Tangentish: This doesn't only apply to Pathfinder, which I have only dabbled in but want to play more, but the topic of balance comes up a lot. Long story short, I like that different classes are more or less powerful than other classes at varying levels. It can give different people a chance to shine at different times. Also, I think it is the job of the DM to make the adventure/campaign work for the PCs in the party. Providing a challenge but nothing impossible and giving PCs a chance to show off their specialized abilities. It seems to me that creating balance is part of the DM's job. Although, I've only played in low to mid level games. Nothing past 8th level, so I don't know but could see that the balance complaint could be greater at higher levels.

Yeah, you need to player higher level campaigns to really see this problem. Spellcasters just get crazy powerful, to the point that they have to purposefully act below their abilities in order to give the fighter and rogue a chance to do anything significant. Now personally, I've not had the big emotional problem with this because I think it allows spellcasters to explore much more underpowered options of things to do. But it is pretty obvious that a well constructed spellcaster playing in a well designed manner has little need for a PC fighter companion. What little they do could be covered with summons, planar allies, or hirelings.

[pres_man]

3.5 is a very large set of house rules. About 75 books worth of houserules. Pathfinder is unlikely to get even half of that.
When 3.5 came out, it meant that if you didn't switch you couldn't keep up with the "majority" (the ones who would just follow WotC like sheeple, and the ones who liked the officially run living campaigns). When Pathfinder came out, it didn't offer any significant increase in the prospects of finding players, since Paizo can't attract sheeple and doesn't run as many official campaigns as 4e does.

If you don't think paizo has its own flocks of sheeple, I suggest you visit their message boards a bit more. Heck just keep track of all the subscriptions people have there. It gets pretty sad sometimes with people saying things to the extent of, "I used to think playing monstrous races was fun, but then paizo's folks told me how if a race should be played it would be in the phb, so now I think playing monstrous races is dumb. That is unless they get around to doing a savage species type book, but that is at least 3 years away, but I'm fine with that. Besides monstrous species are dumb."

[AstralFire]

The important part of the 3.0 to 3.5 shift was a shift in design ideas, honestly - there were essentially zero mechanically good 3.0 books - all were pretty crap with a few gems. 3.5 was the point at which several paradigms of WotC designing took a shift. 3.5 core itself was a cash grab, and that's not a charge I levy often; however, it's pretty compatible with 3.0 rules and such, so it wasn't a big deal, either.

[Takronix]

I'm curious what you think about Pathfinder. I'm not a big fan of 4E and plan to start a campaign soon. Do you think pathfinder is a big enough upgrade to the 3.5 system to warrant spending money on?

Tak

[Mongoose87]

Not with all the rules online in the Pathfinder SRD.

[Ravens_cry]

I like books, books I can hold in my hand. They load instantly, require no power, and cause less eye strain. Finding things can take a while longer, but that's the only real disadvantage I see. And an inexpensive add on tool called a 'bookmark' allows fast and immediate access to predetermined sections.
I bought it.

[pres_man]

If you have 3.5 and are satisfied, I wouldn't bother "upgrading" (horizontal-grading?) to PF. If you want to pick up a book or so just for other possible options to include your game (or if you like pretty pictures, I understand the PF book has many), then it might be worth picking some up. But again, I wouldn't switch the fundamental systems if you are satisfied with 3.5.

[Takronix]

I'm with Ravens on the buying thing. I prefer to have books.

I think you guys are missing the point. Is pathfinder worth playing over dnd 3.5?

[cbs2186]

The search feature is nice. As are the other eleventy billion threads asking this.

</rant>


I'm new here, but I've been lurking for the better part of a year. I've played 3.5 core and Pathfinder. Comparing core to core, I can say that I prefer PF. The system cleans some things up, but doesn't do much besides add in some houserules.

If you're looking at 3.5 including splatbooks vs PF, you will lose A LOT of options. Paizo says that the 3.5 expansion books are compatible with PF, and they can translate, but doing so requires you make adjustments. If you're going to be doing the work to adjust classes that exist in print anyway, you may as well just stick to 3.5 and use houserules to fix what you don't like.

If you're starting from Scratch, I'd suggest looking into PF. But if you already have a collection of 3.5 books, don't bother right now. At the very least, wait to see how Paizo does with expansions.

[Ravens_cry]

I'm with Ravens on the buying thing. I prefer to have books.

I think you guys are missing the point. Is pathfinder worth playing over dnd 3.5?
It has some good rules, and even a few good fixes. CMB and CMD are good systems, and they fixed polymorph very well. Paladins are awesome. Monks can actually potentially hit things. The real advantage is it is supported, things are still being made for it. I played Curse of the Crimson Throne and it was fun. I am playing Legacy of Fire and it is magnificent. That's my take anyway.

[pres_man]

Is pathfinder worth playing over dnd 3.5?

For myself? No. I'm satisfied with my gaming experience under 3.5. I know most of the strengths and flaws of the system and can play around those. PF has nothing new to offer me except being new and shiny. Very few changes are things I would support, and those that are, are easy enough to houserule into my own game.

Now if I was a brand new player, I would probably grab PF. But as I said, with the experience level I have and the preferences I have, I prefer 3.5. I see no reason to toss my collection of gaming materials for a new system.

Funny thing about PF, alot of the biggest fans were angry about 4e because they saw it as a money grab to make them rebuy all the books they already have. But now that PF is out they are requesting to do just that.
PF-fan: I hope they come out with an oriental adventures type book.
3.5-fan: Don't you already have oriental adventures, why not just stick with that?
PF-fan: Because this would be a PF oriental adventures, totally different. Also I hope they come out with a savage species type book.
3.5-fan: But you have savage species right here on your shelf.
PF-fan: But this would be a PF savage species book, totally different. And a psionics book.
3.5-fan: Expanded psionic's book right here, what is wrong with it?
PF-fan: PF psionics would be totally different, duh!
3.5-fan: So why did you hate 4e again.
PF-fan: They were going to try to force me to rebuy everything I already have, Jeez where have you been?
3.5-fan: Right. Those evil greed people. :smallsigh:

[Takronix]

I don't have a 3.5 collection myself, and a buddy of mine has around 6-7 books. Everything I have 3.5 is PDF and I hate having to use them in the middle of a session.

I guess I should have mentioned this is going to be my first time DMing. figured there wasn't a much better time than with something "new"

[Fax Celestis]

and they fixed polymorph very well.

....ahahahaha. Nice try, you almost had me.

[Ravens_cry]

....ahahahaha. Nice try, you almost had me.
They put it into separate spells that told you exactly what you got for it. That's much better then the ambiguous hyper-cheese of the old one.

[cbs2186]

My first experience with PF was as a DM. Also, my first time acting as a DM. I've enjoyed it so far. Only having to have 2 books to cover everything is nice. Also, the CMB vs CMD system is much less of a headache for a DM than remembering the different rules for trip/grapple/etc. It also keeps me from over-optimizing the baddies that my party is going up against (the fewer options there are, the fewer ways to cheese).

If you're going with a new group or something, and don't mind dropping the ~$100 on two books, I'd say go for it.

[Fax Celestis]

They put it into separate spells that told you exactly what you got for it. That's much better then the ambiguous hyper-cheese of the old one.

...right, except you get better buffs in the new version.

Take form of the dragon III (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/formOfTheDragon.html#form-of-the-dragon-iii), for instance.


You gain the following abilities: a +10 size bonus to Strength, a +8 size bonus to Constitution, a +8 natural armor bonus, fly 120 feet (poor), blindsense 60 feet, darkvision 120 feet, a breath weapon, DR 10/magic, frightful presence (DC equal to the DC for this spell), and immunity to one element (of the same type form of the dragon I grants resistance to). You also gain one bite (2d8), two claws (2d6), two wing attacks (1d8), and one tail slap attack (2d6). You can use the breath weapon as often as you like, but you must wait 1d4 rounds between uses. All breath weapons deal 12d8 points of damage and allow a Reflex save for half damage. Line breath weapons increase to 100-foot lines and cones increase to 50-foot cones.


Polymorph: A polymorph spell transforms your physical body to take on the shape of another creature. While these spells make you appear to be the creature, granting you a +20 bonus on Disguise skill checks, they do not grant you all of the abilities and powers of the creature. Each polymorph spell allows you to assume the form of a creature of a specific type, granting you a number of bonuses to your ability scores and a bonus to your natural armor. In addition, each polymorph spell can grant you a number of other benefits, including movement types, resistances, and senses. If the form you choose grants these benefits, or a greater ability of the same type, you gain the listed benefit. If the form grants a lesser ability of the same type, you gain the lesser ability instead. Your base speed changes to match that of the form you assume. If the form grants a swim or burrow speed, you maintain the ability to breathe if you are swimming or burrowing. The DC for any of these abilities equals your DC for the polymorph spell used to change you into that form.

In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks. These attacks are based on your base attack bonus, modified by your Strength or Dexterity as appropriate, and use your Strength modifier for determining damage bonuses.

If a polymorph spell causes you to change size, apply the size modifiers appropriately, changing your armor class, attack bonus, Combat Maneuver Bonus, and Stealth skill modifiers. Your ability scores are not modified by this change unless noted by the spell.

Unless otherwise noted, polymorph spells cannot be used to change into specific individuals. Although many of the fine details can be controlled, your appearance is always that of a generic member of that creature's type. Polymorph spells cannot be used to assume the form of a creature with a template or an advanced version of a creature.

When you cast a polymorph spell that changes you into a creature of the animal, dragon, elemental, magical beast, plant, or vermin type, all of your gear melds into your body. Items that provide constant bonuses and do not need to be activated continue to function while melded in this way (with the exception of armor bonuses, which cease to function). Items that require activation cannot be used while you maintain that form. While in such a form, you cannot cast any spells that require material components (unless you have the Eschew Materials or Natural Spell feat), and can only cast spells with somatic or verbal components if the form you choose has the capability to make such movements or speak, such as a dragon. Other polymorph spells might be subject to this restriction as well, if they change you into a form that is unlike your original form (subject to GM discretion). If your new form does not cause your equipment to meld into your form, the equipment resizes to match your new size.

While under the effects of a polymorph spell, you lose all extraordinary and supernatural abilities that depend on your original form (such as keen senses, scent, and darkvision), as well as any natural attacks and movement types possessed by your original form. You also lose any class features that depend upon form, but those that allow you to add features (such as sorcerers that can grow claws) still function. While most of these should be obvious, the GM is the final arbiter of what abilities depend on form and are lost when a new form is assumed. Your new form might restore a number of these abilities if they are possessed by the new form.

You can only be affected by one polymorph spell at a time. If a new polymorph spell is cast on you (or you activate a polymorph effect, such as wild shape), you can decide whether or not to allow it to affect you, taking the place of the old spell. In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell.

If a polymorph spell is cast on a creature that is smaller than Small or larger than Medium, first adjust its ability scores to one of these two sizes using the following table before applying the bonuses granted by the polymorph spell.

[Nero24200]

Pathfinder fixes some problems (and by "some", I mean "very, very few") but ultimately doesn't improve much in the game. If you want a bit more balance but don't have any real desire to homebrew, use PF, since you'll get just that.

On the other hand, if you're willing to spend a little time analysing problems in your own game and write rules to fix them, do that, since it's miles better and doesn't cost you $50.

That said, if you think theres a particular problem with your game, it's good to ask on a forum like this. Whatever you do, don't ask on the Paizo forums, the fanboys are rabid and their understanding of the game is actually worse than the PF designers (as hard as it may sound).

[peacenlove]

...right, except you get better buffs in the new version.
...stuff...

They changed the modifiers to size one's? :smalleek:
Who needs fighters anyway now? (This is FAR better than tenser's transformation BTW the staple gish spell) :smallamused:

Ahem... the only thing pathfinder is good for IMO is to snatch some rules and clarifications for your games (i suggest the new skill system and i would suggest the paladin if i hadn't read Fax Celestis or One winged 4ngel's paladin (and having witnessed the second in actual play), also some spells like slow are clarified) and call it a day. :smalltongue:
Also some homebrewers here beat Pathfinder's work any day both in fluff and in crunch so i suggest if you feel you need to "refresh" 3,5 edition you should search in the Gitp forums and cherry pick the homebrew you like :smallbiggrin:.

[reefwood]

They put it into separate spells that told you exactly what you got for it. That's much better then the ambiguous hyper-cheese of the old one.


...right, except you get better buffs in the new version.

I'm not very experienced with polymorph, but like Ravens, I do like how it is broken up into multiple, clear-cut spells.

But Fax, you do not like it because these spells are more powerful than the original polymorph spell?

[peacenlove]

I'm not very experienced with polymorph, but like Ravens, I do like how it is broken up into multiple, clear-cut spells.

But Fax, you do not like it because these spells are more powerful than the original polymorph spell?

With the 3.5 polymorph you lost your spell casting and your items. Heck even with shapechange you lost your items and it was 9th frigging level. That is not the case with the PF one. Also a 6th level spell that gives you +10 strength and +8 constitution while you keep your spells and lasts minutes, as well as giving you many other abilities... well its kinda overwhelming for its level.

[subject42]

I'm curious what you think about Pathfinder. I'm not a big fan of 4E and plan to start a campaign soon. Do you think pathfinder is a big enough upgrade to the 3.5 system to warrant spending money on?

Tak

The core Pathfinder book contents are pretty nice in my opinion; if you need to pick up new core books due to wear and tear it would probably be worth it to get them instead of scouring eBay for an old copy.

Be careful with the Pathfinder book, though. I think that it's a little too large for the binding that they use.

[Fax Celestis]

I'm not very experienced with polymorph, but like Ravens, I do like how it is broken up into multiple, clear-cut spells.

But Fax, you do not like it because these spells are more powerful than the original polymorph spell?

Yup. You get to keep the effects of your gear and you get to keep your spellcasting. AND you get huge stat bonuses, size increases, immunity to further polymorph spells (seriously, the best defense against baleful polymorph is already being polymorphed), and in this instance a stack of natural attacks, a freaking awesome breath weapon, Frightful Presence at an absurd DC, a crazyawesome fly speed (and maybe a swim or burrow speed), and an elemental immunity without the associated vulnerability that some types carry. That's messed up, man.


*casts spell* LOL I R HUEG DRAGN I NOM FIGHTAR FOR BREKKIZT

...boop.

...I wish I could do that.

[Mando Knight]

They changed the modifiers to size one's? :smalleek:
Who needs fighters anyway now? (This is FAR better than tenser's transformation BTW the staple gish spell) :smallamused:

Transformation has always been weaker than Polymorph, IIRC... because you didn't lose spellcasting. (unless you were fool enough to take a form that couldn't cast spells)

[jmbrown]

I bought Pathfinder a few weeks ago (wasn't expecting a 600 page tome), read through most of it and my reaction was "meh."

Don't trick yourself by reading
In fact, the Pathfinder RPG is designed to smooth over a number of the rough spots in the 3.5 rules set, making several existing books even easier to use. and thinking Pathfinder is a fix. It's not. It's an adaption of the rules much like Hackmaster is to 2nd edition.

Does that make it instantly bad? Not at all. Like all roleplaying rules Pathfinder has its beauty and its rough spots. Problem is that the people who are fanatically devoted to the game and the people who viciously criticize it are pretty vocal about it.

To answer OP's question "Is Pathfinder a big enough upgrade?"

No. Don't be mislead into believing it's an "upgrade". If you're familiar with 3.5 then you don't need to spend any more money on a new product. If you're looking for a new RPG that's similar to 3.5 then Pathfinder may be for you.

[Set]

Do you think pathfinder is a big enough upgrade to the 3.5 system to warrant spending money on?

Test drive it using the online SRD. Pick a class and try it out, see what's changed, what you like, what you hate, etc.

In my experience, the people who are playing it are enjoying it (and I'm in about six PbPs using Pathfinder right now, and every single one of them started as a 3.5 game and was unanimously upgraded to Pathfinder by vote of the people playing it) and consider it an upgrade and the people who haven't played it seem to hate it with the fury of a thousand exploding suns.

I liked 3.5, and I miss a lot of wonderful stuff I used to use (ah, command critter cleric, with Improved Turning and a half dozen rebuked Thoqqua and Shadows to lay waste to my enemies, how I miss thee!), but Pathfinder is pretty cool, and, for the first time ever, I'm playing with Bards and Barbarians and Paladins that seem to actually be worth sharing experience with, and don't feel like annoying XP sponges riding on my shirt-tails and taking undeserved cuts of the treasure I'm earning.

[Stephen_E]

I am playing PF and liked it well enought to but the Core Rules book.
Like several here, I like to have a book at hand.

The system is not without it's "WTFs" but on the whole it's less clunky than 3.5 and you can relatively easily adapt splat book stuff (to tell the truth, most of the stuff that can't be carried straight across required work on just to use in most 3.5 campaigns).

As a new/newish GM I'd strongly advise PF because it is heavily supported with game modules/campaigns, and from those I know who have used them, Piazzo makes pretty good game campaigns/modules, and it's a quite nice world.

If you were making your own world or using a standard 3.5 world, eh, 6 of 1, a half dozen of the other.

Stephen E

[pres_man]

In my experience, the people who are playing it are enjoying it (and I'm in about six PbPs using Pathfinder right now, and every single one of them started as a 3.5 game and was unanimously upgraded to Pathfinder by vote of the people playing it) and consider it an upgrade and the people who haven't played it seem to hate it with the fury of a thousand exploding suns.

Remember the good old day when it was the 4vengers that were the ones making comments like this. Good times, good times.

[Akal Saris]

Pres_man: What's a 4venger?

Regarding PF: I play it pretty consistently, but I haven't really felt the need to spring for a hardcover book yet - I mostly use other peoples' copies and rely on the PRD (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/)when I need to look up stuff, tho the PDFs are supposedly cheaper. I'll probably buy one eventually, if I spot it going for around 20 dollars on Amazon or something.

I started looking into PF because I liked the changes that it made to the rogue and barbarian, as well as the new combat maneuvers, and it used a lot of house rules that I had already implemented (identify now just boosts your know (arcana) check to identify an item, favored class isn't restrictive or race-based, no death from massive damage, etc), so the changes were generally ones that seem to improve gameplay.

Also, the local PF community is much more active than the 3.5 community, so it was really the only game going on nearby besides my 4E group now that I'm in grad school here in Washington DC. There also is new PF content and modules coming out from Paizo and 3rd party sources, whereas 3.5 is now defunct except for a few stragglers putting out stuff - and I like having new books and modules. It helps that Paizo's art style for PF appeals to me as a weird anime-fantasy fusion, sort of like what early 3.0 had going on.

I still play 3.5 and 4E (and also a 1E and a 2E game too, actually), so it's not like PF offers a magical experience that will completely blow the other D&D-types out of the water. But I think it's an upgrade over 3.5 core rules that's worth trying out.

[reefwood]

It looks like two Pathfinder threads have become one...

Anyway, I just wanted to say thanks to those who answered my questions. Sounds like 3.0 to 3.5 was similar in the amount of change as 3.5 to Pathfinder with the change to Pathfinder being a bit more.

And since someone had a thought about it, the Pathfinder PDF is indeed way cheaper than the book.

[pres_man]

Pres_man: What's a 4venger?

I'll give you a hint. It is a person who "battles" for what they have faith in, it is related to roleplaying and it has a 4 in it. I'll leave it up to you to match the dots. :smallwink:

[Akal Saris]

So, a 4E fanboy?

I figured as much, but didn't want to jump to conclusions :P

[peacenlove]

Transformation has always been weaker than Polymorph, IIRC... because you didn't lose spellcasting. (unless you were fool enough to take a form that couldn't cast spells)

I stand corrected. Also i was in a hurry when posting and didn't see that Form of the dragon 3 was a 8th level spell while transformation is a 6th level (so no point comparing them :smallsigh:). However my point stands (compare this spell with Necrotic empowerment, a spell you can access with a feat in libris mortis. Form of the dragon 3 comes way ahead of Necrotic empowerment, only giving you less HP.). Not to mention this one is like 7 spells rolled in one (see fax's analysis).

However the big plus about PF, as others said, is its support from paizo with modules and crunchy books :smallwink: unlike the dead 3.5 edition :smallamused:. And they can be reverse-engineered to 3.5 so in a way its the continuation of said system (at least thats how i see it :smallsmile:). ( A valid counterpoint is that 3.5 edition gets more support / material / fixes from homebrewers than PF, but your call )

[sonofzeal]

I stand corrected. Also i was in a hurry when posting and didn't see that Form of the dragon 3 was a 8th level spell while transformation is a 6th level (so no point comparing them :smallsigh:). However my point stands (compare this spell with Necrotic empowerment, a spell you can access with a feat in libris mortis. Form of the dragon 3 comes way ahead of Necrotic empowerment, only giving you less HP.). Not to mention this one is like 7 spells rolled in one (see fax's analysis).

However the big plus about PF, as others said, is its support from paizo with modules and crunchy books :smallwink: unlike the dead 3.5 edition :smallamused:. And they can be reverse-engineered to 3.5 so in a way its the continuation of said system (at least thats how i see it :smallsmile:). ( A valid counterpoint is that 3.5 edition gets more support / material / fixes from homebrewers than PF, but your call )
Another point of view is that 3.5 is deep enough as it is and doesn't need to be continued, although it could benefit from some fixes. PF would be a great semi-official source of fixes, except they're playing havoc with the power curve and it makes it difficult to play non-Core classes like, oh, pretty much any base class from the Complete series. The rules are compatible but they've generally been left in the dust, and from my highly limited experience don't really have a place anymore or a way of competing. There's also the changes to combat maneuvers, spells, feats, races, and general life. At this point, I would define PF as its own game (good or bad), rather than a fix on 3.5.