Should I switch to Pathfinder from 3.5?

[Dragon Star]

So, about five years ago I started playing 3.5 D&D. When 4e came out I didn't like it (I see no reason to go into why, but please no one try to get me to start 4e), so I just continued playing 3.5. It had nearly always been my goal to collect all 3.5 books, and by the time 4e came out I had 29 books.
So I just carried on with 3.5, getting only slightly annoyed by the rising scarcity and cost of 3.5 books.
Then a friend got the core pathfinder rule-book for Christmas. He showed it to me, and I was suddenly faced with a dilemma. Pathfinder was much better than 4e, and it was in print unlike 3.5, so should I switch?
This post is to help me resolve this problem.


Pros of Pathfinder: 1. It's in print. 2. Characters are more powerful with more options (like the new class features, more feats, so on.). 3. It seems like I can use most of my 3.5 books with it, so that means i won't have wasted about $350. :smalleek:

Cons of Pathfinder: 1. Since the character are more powerful, unless the monsters are too, Pathfinder is unbalanced. 2. The very swift glance I got at the Bestiary made it seem that they've had to give up or change a lot of monsters. 3. I would have to buy the new books. 4. I would have to relearn how to play (I know this will be easier that learning 3.5 from scratch was, but there would still be rule changes.)

Please give opinions, more pros and cons, and some information on the legalities of how paziao effectively copied 3.5 D&D.:smallsmile:

[Esser-Z]

Absolutely. And instead of buying, since you know the base rules, you could just use the SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)...

[Silly Wizard]

I would only recommend switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder if you are going to use your 3.5 splatbooks alongside it. Pathfinder might be in print and all shiny, but it's got a long way to go until it's got enough new material to warrant a full switch. About the only new stuff that isn't a 3.5 convert some of the classes from the Advanced Player's Guide. The Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner) is a very awesome class (imo), and I don't think there is a 3.5 version of it).

[Eldan]

Well, if you want to buy more books, I guess that's a good point.

Otherwise, in my opinion after reading the SRD I came to the conclusion that the rules aren't sufficiently different to justify changing. They changed some things, improved some in the process, made some worse and ignored a lot of the worst problems of the system. Overall, it's basically a set of house rules of the kind you can already find in a lot of places online.

[Tyndmyr]

I would only recommend switching from 3.5 to Pathfinder if you are going to use your 3.5 splatbooks alongside it. Pathfinder might be in print and all shiny, but it's got a long way to go until it's got enough new material to warrant a full switch. About the only new stuff that isn't a 3.5 convert some of the classes from the Advanced Player's Guide. The Summoner (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/summoner) is a very awesome class (imo), and I don't think there is a 3.5 version of it).

This. However, when you run out of 3.5 books to collect, pathfinder is a perfectly legit choice. I own and use both.

[Esser-Z]

Well, if you want to buy more books, I guess that's a good point.

Otherwise, in my opinion after reading the SRD I came to the conclusion that the rules aren't sufficiently different to justify changing. They changed some things, improved some in the process, made some worse and ignored a lot of the worst problems of the system. Overall, it's basically a set of house rules of the kind you can already find in a lot of places online.

May I ask what they made worse? I haven't noticed any, myself.

[hamishspence]

If you're running a 3.5 game, what Pathfinder content is worth converting to 3.5 and using? I've heard good things about the paladin.

How about spells- maybe replacing some spells with their Pathfinder counterparts?

Monsters and templates? The Giant Creature template looks like a good way to get Large, at only LA+1: any other good ones?

[Esser-Z]

PF Paladin is amazingly better than the 3.5 version. Sorc's much cooler, too.

[Tyndmyr]

I particularily enjoy the new skill system and the free sp or hp on level up. More feats are nice.

However, they screwed up by splitting up the fighter feats resulting in negating the advantage of more feats. Only for melee types. But hey, everyone knows melee doesn't deserve nice things.

Also, the campaign setting is...ridiculously vanilla. It's like if someone decided to take greyhawk, and remove everything in it that could get them sued by wotc. Rise of the Runelords also sucks.

So...hit and miss. But the same is true of many 3.5 books. Use the good, ignore the bad.

[Esser-Z]

Paladin's melee, and he got nice things! So did Rogue! Monk got nice things but they didn't do him any good!

[Tyndmyr]

Paladin's melee, and he got nice things! So did Rogue! Monk got nice things but they didn't do him any good!

It's ok to have nice things, but only if magic gets NICER things, see?

So, we toss a few useless tidbits to the monk, and the wizard gets to still prepare spells from banned schools, cast spont a lil bit, get all the bennies of prcing, and use item familiars. This is called balance. It wouldn't be realistic if the monk was allowed to not suck. Thousands of internet forums would be turned into dissarray.

[Gnaeus]

Also, the campaign setting is...ridiculously vanilla. It's like if someone decided to take greyhawk, and remove everything in it that could get them sued by wotc. Rise of the Runelords also sucks.

I kinda like their campaign materials. :smallfrown:

[Reis Tahlen]

Thanks to this thread, I discovered Pathfinder, and now my soul moans with pain and sorrow... WHY DOES MY GM REFUSE TO LEARN ENGLISH, FOR SHAKESPEARE'S SAKE?!

[subject42]

Also, the campaign setting is...ridiculously vanilla. It's like if someone decided to take greyhawk, and remove everything in it that could get them sued by wotc. Rise of the Runelords also sucks.

You're telling me that a setting that involves human society being founded by psychic sharks and a man that rose to divinity, along with his dog, on such an epic booze bender that he doesn't remember how he did it is a boring setting?

As far as PF in general, I've noticed that it's much, much simpler from a DMing perspective. CMB/CMD, in particular, is a godsend when monsters are involved.

The best thing you can do is use PF as the core rule system, and then use 3.5 to fill in the gaps for stuff that doesn't exist yet. It seems to work pretty well for our gaming group.

[Tyndmyr]

I kinda like their campaign materials. :smallfrown:

But...they're so steriotypical. Gee...more information about barbarians. Yup, they're barbaric. Oh look, distrustful of magic, but they're cool with shamans and animistic stuff. Yeah, I've never seen that before.

[Esser-Z]

Cayden is the best god ever.

[satorian]

Would you prefer barbarians actually be gnome engineers who like to dress up in 2-gnome high raging barbarian suits?

[subject42]

Would you prefer barbarians actually be gnome engineers who like to dress up in 2-gnome high raging barbarian suits?

Actually, yes.

[Tyndmyr]

Would you prefer barbarians actually be gnome engineers who like to dress up in 2-gnome high raging barbarian suits?

Meh, gnomish engineers are another tired example. I got it, gnomes are clever, they tinker, they like illusions. Meh. I don't need to buy any more materials about that.

However, a raging gnome barbarian using, as his mount, another angry gnomish barbarian would be awesome.

[subject42]

However, a raging gnome barbarian using, as his mount, another angry gnomish barbarian would be awesome.

Only if they're both wrapped up in a bear pelt.

[Tyndmyr]

Excuse me. I should have said Bearbearian. It's the only way it could be more awesome.

[hamishspence]

How about Warhammer style barbarians? They like magic- the darker and scarier the better. And have no problems with the idea of wearing very heavy armour.

It takes some barbarian tropes- but not all of them.

[Tyndmyr]

How about Warhammer style barbarians? They like magic- the darker and scarier the better. And have no problems with the idea of wearing very heavy armour.

It takes some barbarian tropes- but not all of them.

Im cool with that. You don't have to redefine absolutely everything, just mix in something new and interesting.

I'm still using bearskin wearing gnomes as barbarians in my next campaign setting, though.

[The-Mage-King]

Cayden is the best god ever.

Seconded. A god of heroes who became a god when he got drunk and made a foolish wager involving taking ?

Sounds like a PC to me...

[oxybe]

truthfully? maybe.

lots of stuff was put there and in theory looks ok, but after 14 sessions of a PF only campaign, i still don't really see the differences in play other then grapple/trip works off a simpler mechanic. while PF tried to fix some of 3.5's issues, it still suffers from a lot of the old ones.

then again, some of our party has only just gotten to level 5, so it may be different at higher levels.

i say read through the PRD and make up your mind.

[Leolo]

I would say no. Don't switch. Pathfinder is a good system, but 3.5 is better.

But this is only a oppinion. To bring some pros and cons:

Pro:
- It is in print.
- It is a book. And has some nice artwork
- You can find more players if you have a second system that you play
- some of the changes are ok. For example the changes within the racial abilities and attribute benefits.

Contra:
- The rule changes are not really good at all. Polymorph, Bards, Skill system, multiclassing, special attacks like grapple...examples for bad changes.
- You already have 3.5
- The balance is bad (as in 3.5, but a little worse for some classes)
- If you play it with 3.5 material balance gets even worse.
- It is not compatible to 3.5, you will have to work the details out by yourself if you bring in 3.5 material.
- If you do not use 3.5 material the system is missing interesting options. For example the skill tricks from complete scoundrel, but also tons of options that gave your characters more individuality.

But my main complaint with the system is that no change tells me: "This change was made to improve the game. The designers have thought about a problem and tries to resolve it."

Many of the changes does not solve any problem. A good example is alter self. This spell has 2 Problems in D&D 3.5:

- Nothing rules what form you can take - for example if you have to see a creature before you can take her form. And how good you have to know that creature.

- Some forms are exploitable. To strong, making this spell a buff instead of a clever way to infiltrate some evil organisation.

Pathfinder changes this spell so that you can no longer exploit it by taking a special form. That is a good point. But it also changes the spell so that you can no longer use it to infiltrate some evil organisation. Because you can no longer use it to alter yourself into a individual person and the spell duration is shortened.

Also the first problem mentioned above is not solved but made worse. Not only that you still do not know what creature forms you can polymorph into. Now you also have to discuss with your DM if your new form is a non individual person. Because you can also choose the general appearance. You can say that your new form is an old granny with white hair, brown clothes and blue eyes (This is already a grey zone because no one defines if this form is still a general and typical form for this creatures). But you can not transform into the granny that you see in front of you (even if she has white hair, brown clothes and blue eyes)

What can you do with it? Well you can get a +2 to strenght and a bonus to disguise checks. And some movement speeds of the creatures. Of course you also get the +2 bonus to strength if you transform yourself into a weak old grandmother. She is a medium humanoid - you get a fix bonus. In fact you would get stronger if you transform into yourself. If you could.

Polymorph is further "improved" by splitting it into spells that allow to polymorph into other creature types. Humanoids, plants and so on. Some creature types are missing - you can not polymorph into this creatures any more, because there is simple no spell for this.

The result is: The spells are modified from "sometimes problem solver, sometimes buff" to: "buff - nearly every time i use it".

And i simple do not see how this could solve problems like the two above. In fact i did not even see that it is tried. Changes like the change above screams: "there where forum posts that told us polymorph is broken so we changed it". Without thinking about it. This is not the only example. I do not think that 3.5 is perfect. In fact, if you would not say that you don't want to play 4E i would say that 4E is the better system. But 3.5 is better than pathfinder. And i believe this is a missed chance to improve a good system.

[Zeful]

No. If you're willing to switch from 3.5 go to either 4e or switch to another system (Shadowrun, d20modern).

Many of the pathfinder class changes are stupidly underpowered (20th level Arcane Sorcerer capstone? The same thing that any Sorcerer can get at level 5, fighters just get more pluses) or horribly thought out (Sorcerer bloodlines as a whole).

You're better off looking through the SRD and simply stealing any mechanics you like/are better than 3.5.

[FelixG]

Also, the campaign setting is...ridiculously vanilla. It's like if someone decided to take greyhawk, and remove everything in it that could get them sued by wotc. Rise of the Runelords also sucks.

Where in greyhawk do they have crashed space ships and firearms in the base campaign setting? 0.o

Cause if Greyhawk has space ships like Golarion i have something fun to point out to my friends! :smallbiggrin:

[oxybe]

Where in greyhawk do they have crashed space ships and firearms in the base campaign setting? 0.o

Cause if Greyhawk has space ships like Golarion i have something fun to point out to my friends! :smallbiggrin:

expedition to barrier peaks

[The Glyphstone]

Where in greyhawk do they have crashed space ships and firearms in the base campaign setting? 0.o

Cause if Greyhawk has space ships like Golarion i have something fun to point out to my friends! :smallbiggrin:

Was Expedition To The Barrier Peaks set in Greyhawk?

[FelixG]

It was set in Greyhawk, but it was an adventure pack, i dont see it being mentioned in the actual campaign setting though, only that one little module.

[Subotei]

Having played 3.5, 4.0 and PF now (even though we only started with PF recently) PF seems decent. It certainly suits our play style more than 4.0, and we dont tend to run with more than Core plus the occasional add-on in 3.5. 3.5/PF? - a toss-up really. However there does seem to be more and more PF queries on the board recently - a comment on 4.0?

[oxybe]

a few oddities does not the setting make. Golarion is still a very much "generic fantasy setting" except with a slight renaissance-twist rather then the perpetual dark-ages of other D&D settings. people in golarion tend to be more literate with an overall better lifestyle, and there are crude and far too expensive & inelegant guns [a normal gun costs in the thousands of GP and it's an exotic weapon worse of then any bow or crossbow in it's weight class].

[Gnaeus]

Contra:
- The rule changes are not really good at all. Polymorph, Bards, Skill system, multiclassing, special attacks like grapple...examples for bad changes.
- You already have 3.5
- The balance is bad (as in 3.5, but a little worse for some classes)
- If you play it with 3.5 material balance gets even worse.
- It is not compatible to 3.5, you will have to work the details out by yourself if you bring in 3.5 material.

The pathfinder balance does not get worse. There are a lot of changes that do have real beneficial effects on balance. It does not fix the balance problems of 3.5, which are almost all still there to a greater or lesser degree, but there are a lot of low-mid tier classes that are much more playable (rogue and paladin for example). To be sure, there are changes that I don't like, such as the bards that he cites, but I find it much easier to play PF with a list of houserules that 3.5 had better than 3.5 with the list of houserules improved by PF.


Polymorph is further "improved" by splitting it into spells that allow to polymorph into other creature types. Humanoids, plants and so on. Some creature types are missing - you can not polymorph into this creatures any more, because there is simple no spell for this.

The result is: The spells are modified from "sometimes problem solver, sometimes buff" to: "buff - nearly every time i use it".

I love the polymorph change. You can still turn into creatures with all different types of movement forms, lots of different special abilities, etc. For this reason, I like it better than most of the 3.5 fixes (like shapeshift druid). You can no longer turn from a str 6 gnome druid or wizard into a str 25 bear, but that is arguably a good thing. It is still a passable buff and an excellent utility spell. Which is actually better than it was in many campaigns in 3.5, since so many 3.5 DMs ban the polymorph line altogether.

[Powerfamiliar]

I actually went from splatbook heavy 3.5 to pathfinder only. Made my time DMing much much easier, my players seem to rather enjoy it too. I like most of their changes.

The campaign setting is vast, and they do go out of their way to make sure they cover most fantasy tropes, which does lead to some nation having a feeling of "seen that". I don't mind things like barbaric barbarians as long as they don't devote tons of time and space to describe them. I do feel they belong in this type of "fit all" setting, which it has to be to fit Adventure Paths with very different feels.

[Dragon Star]

OK, some very specific questions.
1. Are the Pathfinder monsters more powerful so that the better characters don't unbalance?
2. The legal thing in my original post.
3. Approx how much rules were changed? is it like as changed as 4e, or like 3.0 to 3.5?
4. Should i get just the core rulebook to look at? is it worth it?

thanks.:smallannoyed:

EDIT: about the SRD...
i have solar power, so internet is short and sweet when im lucky enough to have it.

[Esser-Z]

I can't think of anything you can see in the core rulebook, mechanically, you can't get on the SRD.

[Powerfamiliar]

OK, some very specific questions. 1. Are the Pathfinder monsters more powerful so that the better characters don't unbalance?
2. The legal thing in my original post.
3. Approx how much rules were changed? is it like as changed as 4e, or like 3.0 to 3.5?
4. Should i get just the core rulebook to look at? is it worth it?

thanks.:smallannoyed:

2. OGL allowed them to use 3.5 core rules, and why they could no copy anything else.
3. Much much closer to 3.0 ->3.5
4. It's a nice, heavy, HUGE book and not to pricy in amazon, but the SRD posted in the first page has (I think) all the content from the book and it's free.

[oxybe]

Having played 3.5, 4.0 and PF now (even though we only started with PF recently) PF seems decent. It certainly suits our play style more than 4.0, and we dont tend to run with more than Core plus the occasional add-on in 3.5. 3.5/PF? - a toss-up really. However there does seem to be more and more PF queries on the board recently - a comment on 4.0?

these boards are decidedly more 3.5/PF though, so there is a bias.

really, it's like going on the WotC general boards and seeing little to nothing on 3.5.

different gaming communities will have their preferences.

[The-Mage-King]

these boards are decidedly more 3.5/PF though, so there is a bias.

really, it's like going on the WotC general boards and seeing little to nothing on 3.5.

different gaming communities will have their preferences.

Well... If you look in the Previous-Edition forums you'll find a batch of holdouts...

[gartius]

the main things that was changed have already been stated. polymorph got nerfed (which was awesome) grapple rules got simplified, and they encourage pcs to stick with just one class.

im not sure what you mean by the legal thing...

in terms of if you want to buy the book, its up to you but one of the best selling points is the artwork-seriously its awesome, the fact it combines the PHB and the DMG into one book is really brilliant. but if you want to to just have a look first check out the srd. its been posted already i think...

The advanced players guide was a good addition as well. 6 extra base classes, some more Pretiges classes plus some really nice options to customise the 11 base classes

the only major gripe i have is with rage and bard performance they only last a short period.

[true_shinken]

If you are looking for extra 3.5 material, look into Dragon Magazine. I'm doing it and loving it!

[Ravens_cry]

I am having fun with Pathfinder. That's the best thing one can say about a system, 'I am having fun.'

[Nero24200]

If you're happy with 3.5, honestly just stick to it. As a base, pathfinder probably is better than 3.5, but it's rare that I see anyone that uses 3.5 core only without any houserules.

Also, it may be worth asking your players - not all the changes made were positive (something I strongly beleive here, hating some of the changes made despite liking the rest) - If all your players agree on the same points then it becomes a case of just changing those areas to PF, but you may have problems if you find certain "improvments" are debated heavily amoungst your group.

Additionally, their is a PSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Home), why not check out some of the changes if you aren't certain.

[Eldan]

May I ask what they made worse? I haven't noticed any, myself.

Worse in the sense of less balance, mostly. The attempt to give wizards more class features outside of spells is commendable, as an example, but really? Free metamagic? So Power Attacking is often the strongest combat option... that doesn't mean it should be made weaker, the rest should be made stronger. Really my main problem with it is that it does not even really attempt to fix the power difference, and, more importantly, the difference in available options, between warrior types and casters.

[Hurlbut]

If you are looking for extra 3.5 material, look into Dragon Magazine. I'm doing it and loving it!Of which the last fifty(?) or so of issues have been published by Paizo who also happened to run the Pathfinder line :smalltongue:

[Gnaeus]

Worse in the sense of less balance, mostly. The attempt to give wizards more class features outside of spells is commendable, as an example, but really? Free metamagic? So Power Attacking is often the strongest combat option... that doesn't mean it should be made weaker, the rest should be made stronger. Really my main problem with it is that it does not even really attempt to fix the power difference, and, more importantly, the difference in available options, between warrior types and casters.

They did make some attempts. They nerfed some of the most broken spells, and made casting defensively much harder. Druid is clearly weaker, and cleric is probably weaker. You can't fix the power difference between warriors and casters and still claim to be remotely backwards compatible with 3.5 (and yes, I have found them to be mostly compatible with 3.5. It isn't that hard).

[Hawriel]

jumping to the end. becuase I like to.

Yes I recomend switching fully from D&D 3rd ed to total Pathfinder.

Pazio comes out with new material every month. From 10-20$ location or faction guides to full adventures that belong to a larger campaine. The rules are self contaned and work very smoothly together. Sure you may change things here or there to suite your taists but gamer doesnt. Also their world Golaren is a very rich place to adventure. Its familiar and new.

I recomend playing pathfinder for one to two campains befor adding any old D&D content. Or other third party. Mostly so you can experience the new game on its own. Im believe you would like what you see. Then the old 3rd ed stuff can be mined for ideas, insperation, or a little mechanical bits as you want. You can do this with an understanding of how it will fit into Pathfinders rule set.

Basicly its this. D&D 3rd ed is dead and gone. Pathfinder is it's reincarnation.

[Greenish]

Basicly its this. D&D 3rd ed is dead and gone. Pathfinder is it's reincarnation.It may be dead, but it's a pretty lively zombie.

[Akal Saris]

It may be dead, but it's a pretty lively zombie.

Sure, but PF is lively and not a zombie, you know? I mean, I still play in a 2E game, but that doesn't mean I'd turn my nose up if a publisher were still printing "2.5" books.

Me, I play in the PF organized play and I run 2 PF games, but I also run 3 games that have remained 3.5 with a few PF houserules. Both systems are fun, but I'm glad that my players and I now have access to the PF APG classes in addition to homebrew and 3.5 stuff. I like the vast majority of PF's changes as well - I don't think there are any that I've house-ruled back to 3.5 rules.

As a sidenote, I think the PF grappling rules are equally as confusing and poorly written as 3.5.

[Tiki Snakes]

Pathfinder is just Arcana Unearthed 2 integrated with a new core set. Only less wide-ranging than that would be.

If you like 3.5 style, but can't get the books, it's pretty much the same thing and so is without question the way to go.

But if you already have 29 books worth of 3.5, (which isn't always a hassle-free translation to the supposedly compatible PF), then I would say you may as well just take what houserules you like from the SRD. Copy them into word documents or something so you don't have to go online to check them during games, etc, and carry on with your perfectly functional 3.5 books. :smallsmile:

[pflare]

I find Pathfinder to be an excellent system. It does what its meant to - expand 3.5 with slight tweaks. I consider it to be what 4e should've been. Plus I adore the Pathfinder sorcerers- bloodlines are EPIC!

[arrowhen]

The fact that Pathfinder doesn't have 50 different splatbooks is a plus as far as I'm concerned. I like their idea of expanding the range of options for the core classes rather than continually adding new base classes in an ever-growing mess spread out over dozens of different books.

Plus, the core rule book is a simply beautiful physical object. Probably my favorite of the countless RPG rulebooks I've owned over the last quarter century, just in terms of its "bookiness". And the art, while no Elmore or Otis, is not only very good but also consistent (i.e., while it's not Elmore or Otis, it's also not Elmore and Otis!)