Why haven't you switched to Pathfinder?

[Ozreth]

I think Paizo is a wonderful company and have done great things with Pathfinder. I support them and have bought several of their modules and will continue to buy products here and there.

That being said, I've stuck to good old 3.5. Now I don't know too much about the core PF books and what has been changed, just that characters are typically stronger when they start out. I prefer 1st level characters to seem as weak as possible so that combined with my love of the look and feel of the d&d books and lore have kept me with 3.5. Also, I'm not much of a rules guy so I never noticed a lot of the issues people have with 3.5 that seem to have been fixed in PF.

How about you?

[Coidzor]

Haven't gotten a chance to start a new game to try it out & no one wants to try it out by changing over mid-game.

Still haven't taken the time to read over the changelog & core, despite actually having obtained the beta...x.x

[Das Platyvark]

I like Pathfinder, simply because in the later books they do what I look for in d20 classes: think up cool fluff and invent new(ish) mechanics to suit them, rather than: We just thought up this cool class, but instead of an interesting new mechanic to suit, it has spells and some other new stuff to give it a new feel. (3.5 doesn't do this all the time, but I start to get that feeling after a while.)

[Amnestic]

Because - in my eyes - they're essentially glorified homebrewers. Thus, I'll pick and choose what I like and discard what I don't, same as with any other homebrew(er).

[Remmirath]

It's not different enough to bother, and if it was, I might not like it.

Third edition with the house rules we have in place works perfectly fine, so there really is not a reason to switch to anything else - and I don't switch unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

I do play Pathfinder with one group once a week, but it's not my regular group, and I find that my opinion of the changes to the rules tends to vary between 'I barely noticed that changed' and 'I liked it better before'. There are a few nice things, but for my regular group, we already have those problems covered with house rules - and if I were starting a new group I'd either not worry about them or come up with a house rule that worked for everyone in that group.

[CyMage]

Because - in my eyes - they're essentially glorified homebrewers. Thus, I'll pick and choose what I like and discard what I don't, same as with any other homebrew(er).

That's how I consider Pathfinder as well. The main reason it's doing so well, is because it's Paizo's work so it has some background.

[Mad Mask]

Most people agree that Pathfinder didn't fix the inherent imbalances within 3.5e. Instead, they added a great number of small, if beneficial adjustments that oft complicate the theoretical compatibility between the two systems.

The main reason to convert to Pathfinder would be the fact that's it's continually supported by its parent company, with a nigh-complete and totally free SRD, while being mostly identical to 3.5e. I find the other incentives to be minor at best.

I played it for a while and ended up turning it into an almost completely different system by continuously adding house rules to fix perceived issues. :smalltongue:

[Greenish]

The balance between the good changes and the bad changes isn't sufficient for me to be bothered to unlearn all the stuff that's changed.

[OverdrivePrime]

There's no TOB for Pathfinder. :(


Honestly, our group is in midst of switching over. One of the other DMs just bought all the Pathfinder books (yep, pretty much all of them), and is planning a new campaign. I'm currently in the early stages of a 3.5 campaign that'll take a while, so I'll probably be the last holdout before we shift over entirely. If I can figure out a way to shift systems mid-game without screwing everything all up, I'll probably do so.

[NikitaDarkstar]

We've tried it, and for the most part like it, but we end up falling back into more or less 3.5 anyway since we have all the 3.5 books and are pretty much never satisfied with sticking to just core. (My last wizard? Yhea I needed 3-4 books just to have his spell selection covered.) That or we homebrew to the point where well it was D&D 3.5 at some point... but that was a while ago.

And next campaign we're planning will be a d20 modern so yhea.

But in essence I don't mind it, I like quite a few of their fixes (okay I admit I mainly love their rearrangement of the skills.) but we sort of keep drifting and taking our favorite parts from various different d20 systems and mashing them together until we get something we like.

[agahii]

I play 3.5 with pathfinder allowed if a player wants it. Conflicting rules are picked to be whichever the play group agrees upon. As of now no players have taken the offer so I've been keeping it all 3.5

[Pokonic]

I havent bought the second beastery yet.:smallbiggrin:

[Dr.Epic]

'Cause I ain't got no money to buy them books. Besides, I'm too busy upgrading to 4E.

[OverdrivePrime]

'Cause I ain't got no money to buy them books. Besides, I'm too busy upgrading to 4E.

Aw, boooo. :smallyuk:

[ImperatorK]

We've tried it, and for the most part like it, but we end up falling back into more or less 3.5 anyway since we have all the 3.5 books and are pretty much never satisfied with sticking to just core. (My last wizard? Yhea I needed 3-4 books just to have his spell selection covered.) That or we homebrew to the point where well it was D&D 3.5 at some point... but that was a while ago.
You can use 3.5 with PF and converting isn't THAT hard.


'Cause I ain't got no money to buy them books. Besides, I'm too busy upgrading to 4E.
Free PFSRD?

[MeeposFire]

The times that people in my group feel like playing 3e style games they want to play stuff that PF does not support such as binders and ToB. As such PF has not fixed things we wanted fixed and have been constantly annoyed by the small little changes that make things well, annoying.

As for not switching over I didn't switch for Castles and Crusaders or Hackmaster previously I don't see us switching over for the 3e version.

[ImperatorK]

The times that people in my group feel like playing 3e style games they want to play stuff that PF does not support such as binders and ToB. As such PF has not fixed things we wanted fixed and have been constantly annoyed by the small little changes that make things well, annoying.

As for not switching over I didn't switch for Castles and Crusaders or Hackmaster previously I don't see us switching over for the 3e version.
I find it funny how some people dislike PF for being "official homebrew", but are houseruling and homebrewing their asses off to make their games balanced. :smallamused:

[NikitaDarkstar]

You can use 3.5 with PF and converting isn't THAT hard.

Nope it's not, but after we've merged BESM, Slayer and a few other things in there it's really hard to say what system we're playing anymore. But when keeping things simple we tend to take 3.5 and take the things from PF we like since that's a lot less material than playing PF and converting everything we want from 3.5. (Okay so we're lazy we know.)

[Major]

{{scrubbed}}

[ImperatorK]

Nope it's not, but after we've merged BESM, Slayer and a few other things in there it's really hard to say what system we're playing anymore. But when keeping things simple we tend to take 3.5 and take the things from PF we like since that's a lot less material than playing PF and converting everything we want from 3.5. (Okay so we're lazy we know.)
Aha. So you've just homebrewed your games to the point that it's not 3.5 anymore. No wonder PF isn't compatible.

[Mystic Muse]

Because they didn't change enough for me to do an entire system change rather than take one or two things from their edition, take stuff I like myself, and mix it all into my own little abomination.

[Curious]

fixed.

On a serious note I tend to just use Pathfinder as more 3.5 books. It's not that hard to mix. Very little changed.

And let the edition war begin. :smallsigh:

[Greenish]

Kyuubi why aren't you Kyuubi anymore, you're confusing my little brain. :smallfrown:

[MeeposFire]

I find it funny how some people dislike PF for being "official homebrew", but are houseruling and homebrewing their asses off to make their games balanced. :smallamused:

Who said we homebrew anything for balance? We just played how it was and were frankly disappointed by it on the DM side in particular. PF doesn't fix much and changed enough that none of us want to mess with it. Compound that with our collective poor view of Paizo's ability to create mechanics (they make decent fluff) PF is just something we don't want.

[CodeRed]

Everyone I know who still plays all played together while 3.5 was still fresh and new. We've been at it since like 2002 so 3.5 is what we know and love (even though sometimes its like being in an abusive relationship). We tried 4.0 for a while but everyone hated it because it felt so homogenized (3-4 years later this isn't quite so much the case anymore) and too much like a tactical boardgame (stills feels this way last time I played 4.0 as of April) than a roleplaying game.

But this isn't about edition wars. I haven't played Pathfinder because I just found out about it around Christmas last year and none of the people I play with see any reason to try any other system as we have EVERY 3.5 book between us. I mean every single one, even the really crappy niche ones. The one your thinking about right now? We have it. My friend Andrew has 2 duffle bags he carries to games and they weigh about 60lbs a piece. (Needless to say, his arms are now kinda ripped. Nerd workouts and whatnot lol.)

[Greenish]

I find it funny how some people dislike PF for being "official homebrew", but are houseruling and homebrewing their asses off to make their games balanced. :smallamused:Well, I don't see why they would want to switch over, and have the hassle with both converting and homebrewing (because it's not like PF is balanced, either).

[NikitaDarkstar]

Aha. So you've just homebrewed your games to the point that it's not 3.5 anymore. No wonder PF isn't compatible.
Current game, yep pretty much. We tried running a pure Pathfinder game to give it a fair try, but me personally? I wasn't THAT impressed, as I said it has a few good points to it sure, and it fixed a few things that bugged me, and added a few interesting bits and pieces, but overall it just seemed like it would make more sense to take what we liked from PF and go back to 3.5, which we did for a while. Then we started what we're currently running and yhea, it's fun as heck, but part of me is looking forward to starting a new game and not needing a dozen text files to keep track of rules and classes. :p

Pathfinder is good, and anyone starting with D&D and choosing between either to learn might have an easier time with Pathfinder (if they for some reason don't just go to 4ed), but when you're used to 3.5 and mainly like their skills, their character traits and some of the additions they made to the fighter, you might just as well move that to 3.5 instead of the other way around. :p

[ImperatorK]

Who said we homebrew anything for balance? We just played how it was and were frankly disappointed by it on the DM side in particular. PF doesn't fix much and changed enough that none of us want to mess with it. Compound that with our collective poor view of Paizo's ability to create mechanics (they make decent fluff) PF is just something we don't want.
Sorry, wasn't talking about ou in specific.


Well, I don't see why they would want to switch over, and have the hassle with both converting and homebrewing (because it's not like PF is balanced, either).
Because it's mostly free?

[Greylond]

Why switch to PF away from either HackMaster 4th or HMb? Nah, no thanks.

[Greenish]

Because it's mostly free?So what, if you already have 3.5 books?

It still takes time and effort, and for what?

[MeeposFire]

Sorry, wasn't talking about ou in specific.


Because it's mostly free?

It is alright I was confused about the comment at first when I tried to figure how it applied to my comment. Decided either you weren't or that you were reading more into it that I wrote. I am glad to realize you weren't commenting on me.

[ImperatorK]

So what, if you already have 3.5 books?

It still takes time and effort, and for what?
For enhanced fun?

[ericgrau]

In one area I play Pathfinder because that's what others play, and in another I play 3.5 because that's what others play. And really I don't think it's different enough for me to mind either way. In a sort of small practical protest I'm using my Player's Handbook instead of the Pathfinder core rulebook, and yet I bought the Advanced Player's Guide for all the neat new classes, feats and so on they added there. I borrow a core rulebook or check the Pathfinder SRD now and then when leveling up, but I note any differences on my character sheet within a few seconds and then I don't need the book anymore.

[Pokonic]

Kyuubi why aren't you Kyuubi anymore, you're confusing my little brain.

To fit in the crazy-fast moving pony threads that i cant keep up with. Oh, and Naruto is so 2005.:smallwink:

Now, on a more thread-worthy note, the reason I am moving into Pathfinder?
Not only is the vast magority of the stuff you need to run it on the net, it is still being updated, unlike 3.5 in which you have no new options that are not fan made or outright hombrew.

[Mystic Muse]

Kyuubi why aren't you Kyuubi anymore, you're confusing my little brain. :smallfrown:

It's the ponies. They got to me. Also, I'd rather be associated with the main pony I created than a being of pure hate and malevolence.

As for 3.5 vs Pathfinder, I don't see why there has to be any switching at all. In fact, I never get these versus debates because sometimes people treat it as a "You can't have both" scenario but I don't see why.

[LansXero]

I never saw the need; 3.P works much better. Why learn a new setting and new variants on the system, when you can simply allow anything pathfinder and port it easily on a case-by-case basis?

[MeeposFire]

I never saw the need; 3.P works much better. Why learn a new setting and new variants on the system, when you can simply allow anything pathfinder and port it easily on a case-by-case basis?

It is certainly no worse than doing that with other 3rd party material. Heck I have seen people do it with Star Wars and modern stuff when it would make sense.

[Shpadoinkle]

1: I already have the 3.0/3.5e books, and I'm not paying for the same game a third goddamn time. PF isn't different enough to warrant the cost.

2: PF didn't actually fix anything, it just exchanged the problems 3.5e had for a new, slightly different set of problems. I'll stick to the edition that I'm more familiar with so I don't stumble into the shortcomings I'm unfamiliar with and stick with the edition I know so I can avoid the pitfalls I DO know.

I've adopted a couple things PF did differently as houserules because I like them (favored classes, for instance,) but I take stuff on a case by case basis. I'm not jumping headfirst into PF because I've grown comfortable with 3.Xe.

[ImperatorK]

1: I already have the 3.0/3.5e books, and I'm not paying for the same game a third goddamn time. PF isn't different enough to warrant the cost.
PF is mostly free, so that's not really an argument.

[Rogue Shadows]

As part of a gigantic fix I'm doing for 3.5, I basically started with Pathfinder and started making changes.

So I guess a better question is why can't I ever just leave a game alone?

Seriously. Saga Edition Star Wars? Spent six months creating a rough Saga Edition D&D. Actually pretty good, too.

The Planechase vairant for Magic: the Gathering? It was all of a day after I bought a pack that I started coming up with boardgame variant.

Risk? I have a version of it that's like a cross between it, Axis & Allies, and Monopoly.

Diplomacy? Added Spain as an eighth power.

I think I have a problem.

[bokodasu]

I lifted their skill system; nothing else seemed really vital to me. Like lots of others - I have all the 3.5 books, I enjoy playing 3.5, and nobody I know plays PF, so I don't really have any incentive to switch.

[Boci]

For enhanced fun?

So spending a lot of effort converting for an affect I already have is fun?

[Eldariel]

I prefer PF core classes to their 3.5 counterparts. Grappling is by and large less ridiculous in PF. I find PF Core Races preferable to their 3.X counterparts. PF has a superior LA system (if not that massively). Few spells are slightly less dominant (PF versions of Glitterdust, Grease and company are still usable, mind). The skill system feels slightly better now (cross-class ranks can actually keep you up in speed all game, just slightly behind). I like most of what they changed (not all, mind; stupid super-expensive combat maneuver trees, PA, lack of Fighter & Monk redesigns and lack of utter and complete annihilation of the full attack mechanic grate me - oh, and the fact that martial types are still dreadfully boring "I ATTACK AGAIN"-machines).

That said, given my 3.5 games are riddled with homebrew that far surpasses Paizo in terms of actually dealing with the issues with the system, I only play PF games in conventions and larger playgroups that run with the system. I don't mind downgrading back to the old problems every once in a while; nothing's stopping me from running a Wizard and now that Elves are actually good Wizards, I get my 20 Int & free Spell Penetration to go with an effective 2 HD size increase. Let others worry about keeping up; if PF Society is gonna run on Casters Rule principle, then so be it.

[Retech]

Well, I would recommend everyone still playing 3.5 to look at the new monk archetype that is coming out in Pathfinder's Ultimate Combat (the book was released, but not on the SRD yet).

It basically allows the monk to pick and choose some abilities to replace their old ones (optional to switch each individual ability). They seem to be more interesting and could probably boost the monk with some synergy, compared to the loose collection that they have now.

[ImperatorK]

So spending a lot of effort converting for an affect I already have is fun?
If I have the choice of either homebrewing and houseruling 3.5 myself or converting to PF, I will pick the later. IMO it's worth to switch to PF.

[Gnaeus]

Aside from what other people have said, I like the operation of the PFSRD and their willingness to let me buy (legal!) PDFs of their books.

3.5=30 books in a giant heavy crate.
Pathfinder=30 books in my phone! (and I can do searches of the SRD if I need to find a spell or rule)

If I am playing at my house, I don't care so much, but at cons, wow. I only recently realized how cool this is, and I am blown away by it. Dragging that huge box around dragoncon sucked and I am never doing it again!

[Wings of Peace]

Because it doesn't feel any different than 3.5 to me and I like 3.5.

[flumphy]

Pathfinder didn't actually fix the main problems I have with 3.5, and none of my favorite classes were adapted for it. Making the switch doesn't seem worth the hassle.

[Trouvere]

Lots of reasons.

But mainly, the new improved classes seem to have a lot of fiddly bits and pieces bolted on, and I just don't care enough to care. I lack the mental energy to learn all the differences. That says nothing about PF, just about me.

Also, I am irrationally devoted to having Listen and Spot as separate skills.

[Ozreth]

Well, to derail my own thread slightly, in Pathfinder's defense I don't think it was created to "fix" the problems 3.5 had. A lot of people are arguing it didn't fix the problems so it isn't worth switching.

The point was to preserve the 3.5 legacy, which it did wonderfully, and that in itself is a good enough reason to buy their products. I know we all already bought the 3.5 stuff, but it's more about supporting a dying breed of gaming (with actual paper and books) and a system you love than buying a new game for yourself.

But again, I haven't actually switched :p

[Ozreth]

Also, I am irrationally devoted to having Listen and Spot as separate skills.

Heh, likewise. Not that we couldn't do this in PF, but yeah.

[gkathellar]

Because a) their bard only gets 44 rounds of music per day, because b) the only things they've significantly improved are combat maneuvers and skills, and because c) Sean K. Reynolds makes literally the dumbest arguments for simulationist gaming I have ever seen presented with proper grammar and I don't want anything to do with anything he's involved with.

[Tvtyrant]

Mostly because I don't see what they do as progressing the basic mechanics of the game. I will adopt classes and races from it, but overall its just easier to stay with the system I know (especially when the new one is not really that much better).

[noparlpf]

I've heard Pathfinder is generally "better", but I've only been playing 3.5 for a year and want to stick with it. My uncle plays Pathfinder though, so I might be looking into the rules at some point in the next year.

[FMArthur]

It's also just a little painful to watch Paizo go through the same design phases of WotC's early 3.5; namely these ideas they have on what melee should be allowed to have and how much it should cost them...

They're gradually evolving away from that, if unintentionally, so I'm liking Pathfinder more and more as they add stuff.

[Wings of Peace]

The point was to preserve the 3.5 legacy, which it did wonderfully, and that in itself is a good enough reason to buy their products. I know we all already bought the 3.5 stuff, but it's more about supporting a dying breed of gaming (with actual paper and books) and a system you love than buying a new game for yourself.


I'm not sure I buy into that line of reasoning. It's what we were promised mind you and it's what I hoped Pathfinder would be, but many of the "official" pathfinder groups I meet in places like my local gaming store don't allow 3.5 and many people I know who learned Pathfinder first don't bother going back to look at 3.5. I recognize that's all subjective to my own experience but that's the trend I've seen.

[Sucrose]

Because:

-The Pathfinder devs have no real understanding of the fundamental issues of balance
-The Pathfinder devs are unwilling to listen to those that do have such understanding
-It is a hassle, and, contrary to ImperatorK's claims, the Pathfinder SRD has shown no sweeping alterations that would actually increase fun at my tables (some of their feats and classes might be worth back-converting, if one of my players wants it).
-I already had a homebrew list before Pathfinder came out
-Their one good general design idea, regarding class vs. non-class skills, can be easily dropped into 3.5 without the rest of their toxic design attitude. If I feel like bothering with it.

[Taelas]

There are too many changes and not enough at the same time.

I cannot keep track of everything that's changed in my head. For someone who is used to simply knowing most of Core, this is extremely annoying. I have to reference the book every time I come across a spell to learn whether or not it changed. I know most of the rules that have changed, but even there, I am not always sure whether something did or not.

But at the same time, Pathfinder still has all of the balance issues that 3.5 did.

I'll continue playing with my 3.5 mechanics, but I'd probably allow anyone to pilfer stuff from Pathfinder at will; converting it back is relatively painless.

[CapnVan]

but many of the "official" pathfinder groups I meet in places like my local gaming store don't allow 3.5

If they're playing for Pathfinder Society, that's not terribly surprising — it requires that everyone play by the same rules. That's no different than any style of organized play — it's the nature of the beast.

[LordBlades]

I haven't switched to Pathfinder for multiple reasons but mainly due to the attitude of Paizo and their game designers.

-They said they were going to fix 3.5, didn't (they made some useful adjustments, but far from enough), at some point declared mission accomplished and did their best to silence the voices that were pointing out the contrary on their forums.
-The attitude on their forums that optimization is bad and that if you try to build a char that's better than average you're doing it wrong (and this includes game designer posts)

As a game I feel it's about the same as 3.5. Better in some fields, worse in others.

[Boci]

If I have the choice of either homebrewing and houseruling 3.5 myself or converting to PF, I will pick the later. IMO it's worth to switch to PF.

I wouldn't, because I cannot have a balanced tier 3 world by switching to PF.

[elpollo]

As others have said, it doesn't fix what's wrong with 3.5, so... why would I? Changing my knowledge of a few rules for the sake of changing my knowledge of a few rules doesn't really appeal to me.

[Yorae]

My group plays 3.5, but allows Pathfinder content; e.g., you could use the PF version of a class OR the normal version of that class, if they both exist, but you'll always get your feats at 1st, 3rd, 6th, etc.

Is this what people mean when they say "3.P"?

[warmachine]

My DM has switched because of the campaign modules. I'm currently through book 3 of The Curse of the Crimson Throne and I'm enjoying it immensely. Good story and setting are more important than the failed attempt at mechanic fixes.

[Telonius]

Why I haven't:

- It didn't fix what was most in need of fixing.
- For the things it did fix, it's easier to print out one page of "Stuff from Pathfinder that we're using" and hand it out to the players, than it is to carry around yet another book and/or keep looking up the PFSRD online in the middle of gameplay.

[Psyren]

Is this what people mean when they say "3.P"?

I always took it to mean "Pathfinder classes where available, 3.5 classes if not, but with Pathfinder rules either way - more feats, consolidated skills, PF versions of spells etc."


As for me, I switched for a couple of reasons:
- I really wasn't out for it to "fix" 3.5. I like Quadratic Wizards; I feel that casters should end up more powerful than mundanes as that is what I would realistically expect.
- The problems I DID have with 3.5 were fixed - e.g. skilless fighters, base classes with no point staying in until 20, homogenous builds due to feat starvation etc, level drain being used more as an optimization trick than a true penalty etc.
- My local stores/groups are all either PF or 4e, and 4e is too homogenous for me.
- With their psionics outsourced to DSP, there's a huge opportunity to fix a lot of what was executed poorly with that system, as well as working with some of the most talented designers I've met to do it.

[Gnaeus]

I always took it to mean "Pathfinder classes where available, 3.5 classes if not, but with Pathfinder rules either way - more feats, consolidated skills, PF versions of spells etc."

I would also interpret it this way most of the time, but I would probably call it 3.P the other way as well.

[Othniel Edden]

I'm switching over because I want to DM and don't own the 3.5 books. Having the PFSRD puts me in a position to prepare everything, and I don't have to keep track of lots of books. Its also less confusing me, while being something new to explore. One thing I hope for is a consolidated environment book, to help me make a developed campaign world.

[Sception]

Because it's different enough to make conversion a hassle, and to date 3.5 just has more and better supplemental material. That may change one day, but judging from my impression of the APG (one cool class, and the rest is just a lot of rehashing of stuff that was done better in the core book), it won't change soon.

In the mean time, warblades and dread necromancers add more to my games then a simplified skill list or the new rules for combat maneuvers would.

[Psyren]

The argument that 3.5 has more splats always confused me. You can use every single one of them in Pathfinder, ergo PF logically has the most. :smallconfused:

[Boci]

The argument that 3.5 has more splats always confused me. You can use every single one of them in Pathfinder, ergo PF logically has the most. :smallconfused:

No, because you can also use PF in 3.5, so they are equal, if you take the effort to convert them, which some people do not want to do. If that is true, then 3.5 has more. PF only has more if you know that but not 3.5.

[Dsurion]

I'll mishmash whatever into my game anyway, so that I'm not really running 3.5 or Pathfinder in their original forms anyway. I really allow anything if someone presents it to me and accepts that I might make changes.

Feats: I give out more feats (1 every level) and collapse feat chains (2WF, Most archery feats) anyway. We also don't think a lot of things that are feats don't really have any pressing need to be for you to be able to do them (3.5's Leap Attack: If you have the ranks in Jump, just friggin do it)

Skills: We give out a flat +2 skills to everyone by the 3.5 method (though I'm considering using the PF method), and there ARE no cross-class skills. Everyone can take whatever they want (yes, that includes Alchemy and UMD. Golly gee, no more Able Learner tax). I give the option for everyone to give up one of their starting skill points to get a +1 bonus to all of their original class skills, too, but only once. I can also live with most of the skills as they were before the consolidating, so I don't really care about that.

Spells: No one plays casters, but we have a good idea of which spells we don't like and already had our own fixes before we ever heard of Pathfinder.

Classes: We essentially already did something to the base classes similar to PF's changes.

Races: Don't care enough, though I do like what they did.

[The Random NPC]

I haven't switched because of the fanboys I've run into. I don't want to give satisfication to the type of people who argue that because there is a process for fixing things nothing in Pathfinder is broken. I even got him to admit that if you have to fix something it is broken, but he won't admit that there are flaws in the system.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I haven't switched because of the fanboys I've run into. I don't want to give satisfication to the type of people who argue that because there is a process for fixing things nothing in Pathfinder is broken. I even got him to admit that if you have to fix something it is broken, but he won't admit that there are flaws in the system.

I think that's called the Oberoni Fallacy. "Nothing's broken because everything can be fixed by rule 0, but I won't actually bother to fix it".

I don't have much against Pathfinder, but they didn't do anything for melee (well, Ultimate Combat will change that, with an investment of a few feats into the Crane Style, you can deflect one melee attack per round, a different feat allows archers to total up all their arrow damage and have DR only apply once). Another thing is while bigger opponents don't get such a big bonus against your combat maneuvers, you have to spend two feats to get the same +4 bonus on a combat maneuver.

[Larpus]

I switched 'cus while they didn't change a lot, what they changed seemed comfortable enough for me, I especially like the simpler take on combat maneuvers, races (Half-Orcs have stopped sucking!) and class customization (not to mention making it worthwhile to single-class), almost rendering PrCs useless.