Thinking of switching over to Pathfinder

[ZiggZagg]

Ok, so just started a new campaign, and I have been interested in playing Pathfinder for a while, so I implemented the house rule that the 3.5 handbook be replaced by the Pathfinder Core Rulebook. It seems to be going alright, and it makes me wonder what else they have been able to do with the system. So, now that they have about 5 books under their belt of player content, how does the system seem to be doing? Have the edition of the other splat books done to it what happened in 3.5 and the power creep just got out of control? Or has the system remained relatively stable and balanced?

[Ravens_cry]

One thing I like is that each base class they introduce is continued to be given support in later books through archetypes and feats.
There is a butt-tonne of traits and they can be a fun way to distinguish your character mechanically at the start of a campaign.
It is balanced as 3.5 ever was, but while some traditional 3.X melee options are out, there is a lot of fun-looking and flavourful additions for traditionally underpowered classes. Ever see a monk grapple a ghost? The extra feats also allow characters to be more diverse. I can't say much for the prestige classes as I am not a multi-classing kind of person, but some have some intriguing abilities.

[agentnone]

We started out first PF campaign about 2 or 3 months ago and we love it. The core classes got a lot of attention and a considerable more customization. I'm glad the fighters got a little love to overcome fear. Low will saves can make them useless in dragon fights. lol Plus, the way the core game is, it gives the players a sense of being more powerful than in D&D while still maintaining balance between themselves and monsters. Monks are the only thing that kind of got the shaft. They still suck all over the place except at Combat Maneuvers, which got an awesome, streamlined overhaul. They should have made them a full BaB progression class. Maybe I'll house rule that for my game. Might help them a little. I don't have much knowledge/experience with supplements or anything, but they seem to do alright. Like Raven said, they still put stuff in there to help support the core classes, and if I remember right, the Ultimate books provide stuff for the core classes as well as the other base classes found in the APG. We won't go back to regular D&D again. Except to maybe convert stuff to PF. lol

[Blisstake]

Well, one of the problems in 3.5 (in my opinion anyway, some people love it) was that often times all you needed to do was take dips in all sorts of classes and prestige classes to get the good stuff, then just stop advancing. Multiclassing isn't really as good anymore, and neither are some of the Prestige Classes.

The bad news? A lot of these new Prestige Classes are boring or far too specific/specialized.

New classes continue to be released, and old ones are not neglected. Some of the new classes can be problematic (I'm looking at you, Summoner), and others can just be irritating for players and DMs (Inquisitors basically go from hardly being able to do anything, to being amazing at higher levels). Lots of feats are available as well, and they seem to be closer to balanced that most 3.5 splatbooks (which seemed to have 90% utter crap and then 5% decent and 5% absolutely abusable).

Overall, I'm slightly in favor of how Pathfinder is advancing, and I can see it getting really good or really bad in the future (Advanced Races is looking to be... a bit stupid).

If the Campaign Setting is of any interest to you, I actually think that's just been getting more and more awesome with each release. I think Golarion is my favorite D&D setting.

[Ravens_cry]

Yeah, Advanced Races I see as being, at best, a way to balance monster as characters via reverse engineering.
I know how to homebrew, Paizo. I made my first homebrew race after my second complete campaign.

[CactusAir]

Pathfinder makes the core classes much shinier and prettier, which is great if you like having loads and loads of class features.

If you play AD&D style or don't care too much about mechanics, the complete lack of anything resembling ability to perform logic on the part of the PF designers isn't a huge issue, as they mostly copy the 3.5 mechanics.

I personally don't like core, and pathfinder exacerbates most of what I don't like about core. But then, I started D&D with 3.5, so I didn't have any emotional attachment to the classic iconic "healer, blaster, stabber, sneak" party. Which totally doesn't work in 3.5 if you ever actually play by the rules completely. Works better (which is to say it still doesn't work, but covers the fact up better) in pathfinder.

So yeah, if you think the game should be Blaster Wizard, Healbot Cleric, Rogue, and Fighter, PF is good. Otherwise, you're better off buying from companies like Dreamscared Press and Radiance House, which actually do interesting expansions to 3.5

[Yora]

There has definately been some heavy rules creep. They decided to put really everything into the SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), so you can take a look at what they all got.
Almost everything is labeled so you can see which book it is from. The number of feats and new weapons and armor is just massive, and I think the number of spells has about doubled compared to the Core Rule Book. But it's easy to play "core only" plus this, and this, and this.

But is it also a power creep? I'm not an expert on optimization, but I havn't really heard much in that direction so far. The APG has an extremely good reputation that makes it sound like one of the best RPG books ever written.

[Retech]

Advanced Races Guide is just a tool for the GM. They publish a lot of tools for GMs so that even though a GM might want to custom build something from scratch, incase they don't, they even have prebuilt things like settlements or quick build rules for them.

And clearly, if the GM is using them to abuse, something has gone wrong here.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

I know how to homebrew, Paizo. I made my first homebrew race after my second complete campaign.
You know. I don't. Heck, a lot of new DMs don't. Not everyone is so smart.

I say PF is cool, but only if you mix it with 3.5.

[Fax Celestis]

There has definately been some heavy rules creep. They decided to put really everything into the SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/), so you can take a look at what they all got.

They had to, since it is material based on material released under the Open Gaming License.

[Gnaeus]

For a low-mid optimization group, PF is, in my opinion, pretty strictly better, balance-wise, than 3.5. Most of their changes make the game more friendly to newbies. Not balanced, by any means, but closer.

At higher optimization levels, their lack of rules mastery and unwillingness to listen to the optimization crowd swings this the opposite way. There is a very good argument that fighters and rogues are weaker, and wizards are stronger in PF than in 3.5 at a certain level of play.

[Yora]

They had to, since it is material based on material released under the Open Gaming License.

But there's a rather generous amount of fludd text that they didn't have to. Though I am not exactly sure sure how tightly they check for that, but it seems to be okay with them.

[Blisstake]

Advanced Races Guide is just a tool for the GM. They publish a lot of tools for GMs so that even though a GM might want to custom build something from scratch, incase they don't, they even have prebuilt things like settlements or quick build rules for them.

And clearly, if the GM is using them to abuse, something has gone wrong here.

Yeah, but they only make the big Pathfinder books (like APG, UC, UM) every 4 months. I'd really rather they didn't use those 4 months to produce a book that's half tools for GMs... most of which may not need it.

[The Boz]

Make.
The.
Switch.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I prefer 3.P. That means you use the Pathfinder basic rules but allow 3.5 material. That way you don't lose the depth of content by switching, but you do get a more polished, streamlined set of rules. And you don't have to allow the broken spells and PrCs back in (except for the core ones Paizo already published, lol).

[Gavinfoxx]

I prefer Trailblazer to Pathfinder.

[Hiro Protagonest]

We started out first PF campaign about 2 or 3 months ago and we love it. The core classes got a lot of attention and a considerable more customization. I'm glad the fighters got a little love to overcome fear. Low will saves can make them useless in dragon fights. lol Plus, the way the core game is, it gives the players a sense of being more powerful than in D&D while still maintaining balance between themselves and monsters. Monks are the only thing that kind of got the shaft. They still suck all over the place except at Combat Maneuvers, which got an awesome, streamlined overhaul. They should have made them a full BaB progression class. Maybe I'll house rule that for my game. Might help them a little. I don't have much knowledge/experience with supplements or anything, but they seem to do alright. Like Raven said, they still put stuff in there to help support the core classes, and if I remember right, the Ultimate books provide stuff for the core classes as well as the other base classes found in the APG. We won't go back to regular D&D again. Except to maybe convert stuff to PF. lol

Wrong. In PF, Monk with APG and UC is actually better than fighter with the same books. Wizards still dominate the game with conjurations and transmutations. CoDzilla is a core-only build in 3.5, and it remains the same in PF.

[Blisstake]

Wrong. In PF, Monk with APG and UC is actually better than fighter with the same books. Wizards still dominate the game with conjurations and transmutations. CoDzilla is a core-only build in 3.5, and it remains the same in PF.

Eh, CoDzilla was a lot more deadly when you got into Persistent and DMM territory. As it stands, it's still very powerful, but I never felt that core CoDzillas were that much to worry about. Except for druids, but now their wildshape has been hurt very, very hard with the nerf hammer.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Worth noting: Divine Power was nerfed. For one thing, it no longer grants BaB. Wildshape, obviously, was nerfed. CoDzilla was semi-dealt-with.

High level wizards, OTOH, are basically the same.

[Gnaeus]

The nerf, in both cases, was to protect melees turf. It is more difficult in PF (although far from impossible) to make a cleric, druid, or wizard who can do the fighter's job better than the fighter. That doesn't actually make them weaker, because in most cases they were better off not acting like a fighter anyway.

In particular, in order to do the fighter's job better than a fighter, they have to actually make long term choices that make them that way. For example, a wizard or druid planning to become a monster and fight with WS or polymorph now needs good physical stats to begin with. A cleric can take an ACF to give him the full BAB that he would have had with Divine Power, but he loses both domains to do it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Wild Shape still gives flight/pounce/trip.

Divine Power getting worse is somewhat subjective. It doesn't add a +6 enhancement bonus to strength or to your BAB, and now it isn't as friendly with multiclassing, but it does get a bonus to strength abilities and skills, and gets an extra attack at full bonus, which is good if there isn't a caster with Haste, which is part of the "destroy game with no help" schtick.

Protection from Alignment nearly always works.

Righteous Might is still a great melee buff.

Bull's Strength is now what you cast in place of Divine Favor. Lasts longer too.

Air Walk is dead useful if you're facing opponents with a shorter reach.

Blindness/Deafness.

Bestow Curse.

Druids have Call Lightning, Bull's Strength, and spontaneous SNA, plus some of the already mentioned ones. And Animal Companion.

You still have all your other spell slots.

[Gnaeus]

Wild Shape still gives flight/pounce/trip.

Yeah, but trip kinda sucks if you don't have good physical stats. So does pounce.


Divine Power getting worse is somewhat subjective. It doesn't add a +6 enhancement bonus to strength or to your BAB, and now it isn't as friendly with multiclassing, but it does get a bonus to strength abilities and skills, and gets an extra attack at full bonus, which is good if there isn't a caster with Haste, which is part of the "destroy game with no help" schtick.

3.5 cleric already had their haste effect. Righteous wrath of the faithful. Gaining an ability that you already had, and losing full BAB is a nerf.



Bull's Strength is now what you cast in place of Divine Favor. Lasts longer too.


False. Divine Favor had a duration of one day. Because it is range: Personal you see.

[Hiro Protagonest]

False. Divine Favor had a duration of one day. Because it is range: Personal you see.

I'm talking about core-only. :smallannoyed:

[Gnaeus]

I'm talking about core-only. :smallannoyed:

Well, since we are discussing splatbooks, that would be your mistake. What relevance would a core only discussion of spells and feats have in a discussion of how power creep in PF with its 5 splatbooks compared with power creep in 3.5? The rewriting of Persistent spell was a huge blow to the CoDzilla.

And your last several spells had nothing to do with how PF altered the Tier 1 caster's ability to be a better fighter than the fighter. Yes, they are still better. They can still debuff, call lightning from the sky, or do 1000 other things better than the fighter. But it is harder (not impossible, harder) for them to outmelee the fighter.

[Mooncrow]

Worth noting: Divine Power was nerfed. For one thing, it no longer grants BaB. Wildshape, obviously, was nerfed. CoDzilla was semi-dealt-with.

High level wizards, OTOH, are basically the same.

Divine Power was never that big of deal for the cleric though, outside of a few builds. Overall, they got a few nerfs, and a few buffs and their power stayed about the same. Druids were the one class that got severely nerfed though, even a lot of their more useful spells got taken down a notch (seriously, I looked at the two summon lines and just went ???)

Ironic, since druids are the weakest of the Tier 1 club. But trying to give feedback during their beta may have been the most frustrating thing I've ever taken part in.

[Midnight_v]

I can't see any real reason to change... if thats all thats different.
I'm not so much worried about "can the cleric fight as a fighter"
But moreso... "Can the fighter melee against monsters?"
Like is the pathfinder fighter as capable as a wotc made the warblade... etc?
I mean its REALLY easy to say "these spells...+effects they were good? Not so much anymore".
I'd be inclined to give them my money if they fixed what was wrong with the base melee's.
I can't help but think people miss the realization that the fighter wasn't VERY good at his jobs in the base book to begin with. :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

The nerf, in both cases, was to protect melees turf. It is more difficult in PF (although far from impossible) to make a cleric, druid, or wizard who can do the fighter's job better than the fighter. That doesn't actually make them weaker, because in most cases they were better off not acting like a fighter anyway.

In particular, in order to do the fighter's job better than a fighter, they have to actually make long term choices that make them that way. For example, a wizard or druid planning to become a monster and fight with WS or polymorph now needs good physical stats to begin with. A cleric can take an ACF to give him the full BAB that he would have had with Divine Power, but he loses both domains to do it.

Seriously, this. Casters can do the fighter's job in PF, but it's sufficiently more work now than in 3.5 that most will just bring a fighter along instead. Thus, the average gaming table wins, as the person that wants to play a Fighter or Barbarian (or yes, a Monk) so they can hit things, will still get to hit things.

Switch to PF, you won't regret it.

[Gnaeus]

Ironic, since druids are the weakest of the Tier 1 club. But trying to give feedback during their beta may have been the most frustrating thing I've ever taken part in.

It is only ironic if they were actually trying to change the class power. If their goal was to protect the melee-muggle's niche as guy who hits stuff, druid has to be the primary target.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Divine Power was never that big of deal for the cleric though, outside of a few builds. Overall, they got a few nerfs, and a few buffs and their power stayed about the same. Druids were the one class that got severely nerfed though, even a lot of their more useful spells got taken down a notch (seriously, I looked at the two summon lines and just went ???)

Ironic, since druids are the weakest of the Tier 1 club. But trying to give feedback during their beta may have been the most frustrating thing I've ever taken part in.

Druids? The weakest tier 1? Animal Companion is tier 5. Wild Shape is tier 3. Druid spell casting is tier 1. Each. Now Wild Shape is tier 4.

[Midnight_v]

It is only ironic if they were actually trying to change the class power. If their goal was to protect the melee-muggle's niche as guy who hits stuff, druid has to be the primary target.
Again... thats really bad, if they arent' careful bout that NO ONE gets to fight. Might as well bring along a summoner or something.
Hey way what was that new class called? "I wear summons".

I was thinking though you know what PF did a great job on? Psionics.
Psionic in pf is really well done, they hired dreamscarred press to do it and that may be why, but I looked at it pretty hard and it was really well done.

[Gavinfoxx]

Has NO ONE at all considered Trailblazer as an alternative? That is a collection of houserules, much like Pathfinder, but THEY had the sense to hit the Druid (well, beat to a bloody pulp) with the nerf stick!

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I can't see any real reason to change... if thats all thats different.
I'm not so much worried about "can the cleric fight as a fighter"
But moreso... "Can the fighter melee against monsters?"
Like is the pathfinder fighter as capable as a wotc made the warblade... etc?
I mean its REALLY easy to say "these spells...+effects they were good? Not so much anymore".
I'd be inclined to give them my money if they fixed what was wrong with the base melee's.
I can't help but think people miss the realization that the fighter wasn't VERY good at his jobs in the base book to begin with. :smallfrown:The core PF fighter is the same as the core 3.5 fighter, except he got some plusses and his standard tricks were changed. Fighter with splatbooks... didn't get enough love IMO. Everyone else got lots of love*, but unless I'm missing some great archetype, not so much on the fighter. Yes, I'm aware of mobile fighter. Getting a non-nerfed full attack after a move at level 20 is too late.

Still, at a low-op table, the automatic pluses add up. The fighter can still thwack things pretty hard, even if the Ranger and Monk are more versatile, the Paladin thwacks evil stuff a lot harder, and the Barbarian thwacks everything harder and friggin' gets pounce.

*Monk has options with UC/UM, Paladin had a great chassis out of the box, Ranger got needed bumps in core and various build styles in APG/UC, Barbarian gets Pounce and other relevant abilities... I'm ignoring Cavalier.

[Mooncrow]

Druids? The weakest tier 1? Animal Companion is tier 5. Wild Shape is tier 3. Druid spell casting is tier 1. Each. Now Wild Shape is tier 4.

Druid's spell list, you know, the part that actually matters, has always been the weakest in the mid-late game, especially for anything outside combat. Not that they aren't T1, but they do have limits. That's not true for any other class on the T1 list.

[Jeraa]

I wanted to switch over to Pathfinder. But after seeing just what has changed (a lot of tiny, unnecessary changes were made, but few of the real problems with 3.5 were touched), and what Paizo did to "fix" some of the problems, I started liking Pathfinder less and less.

The only reason I can see for switching to Pathfinder over 3.5 is if you want to play a game that is still currently supported. But since Pathfinder is supposedly backwards compatible, you can just as easily use what Pathfinder material you like in a 3.5 game. And with most of Pathfinders rules (anything but the Golarian specific books) being Open Content and available for free in the PRD, you don't even need to buy their books to use what you like.

[Bhaakon]

Alot of the Pathfinder half-casters are pretty well done as well. I've considered more than once banning full casters and going Inquisitor/Magus/Alchemist/Bard-only.

[Gnaeus]

Again... thats really bad, if they arent' careful bout that NO ONE gets to fight. Might as well bring along a summoner or something.
Hey way what was that new class called? "I wear summons".

Oh, no doubt Synthesist Summoner is an awesome tier 3 melee with the right choices. So are some alchemists.

But, they made choices to be strong melee. They didn't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to swap a few spells around or pick a combat form and be a superfighter while still retaining all the godlike tier 1 power.

[Midnight_v]

The core PF fighter is the same as the core 3.5 fighter, except he got some plusses and his standard tricks were changed.
*Sadface* that doesn't sound good. I was reading in another thread that the monk isn't "MUCH" better either.

I wanted to switch over to Pathfinder. But after seeing just what has changed (a lot of tiny, unnecessary changes were made, but few of the real problems with 3.5 were touched), and what Paizo did to "fix" some of the problems, I started liking Pathfinder less and less.
I do rember during the open playtest, that they were doing something "poor" with improved trip like taking the extra attack off if I remember, and nerfing power attack iirc. I just wondered what they did in the end to make things better for the fighter. I hope that its not just "You get weapon focus/Specialzation as CLASS FEATURES" that's be fairly amatuer night for a big name company, I'll just check out thier srd, I did look when the psionic came out but I missed the initial rush of the books dropping.

Edit:
But, they made choices to be strong melee. They didn't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to swap a few spells around or pick a combat form and be a superfighter while still retaining all the godlike tier 1 power.
Thats cool, I'm not saying "No one should be able to melee other than mundanes" (though it sucks if they really made a godly magical melee, and on the other tried to prevent just that)...
I'm saying the Base Melee needs to be made "approximate" to a sythiest for example, but really it needs to be sitting on tier 3 solidly.
I can't get anyone to weigh in on that... Did they?
Cause if they did its totally worth the change. If its like the people said above... I'd think its better to stay with the devil you know, somewhat... or heck start letting in homebrew.

[Yora]

Pathfinder doesn't fix anything. It does a few things different, often in a quite nice way, but it doesn't adress any of the big problems.

Standard core fighters get a bonus on Will saves against fear and +x bonuses to attack and damage on entire groups of weapons (swords, crossbows, polearms, ...). But I think the nicest part is reduced armor check penalties and increased Max. Dex to AC for all armor and later the ability to move at full speed with medium and finaly heavy armor.

However, books published after the Core Rulebook are all completely crazy about archetypes, which are fixed packages of alternate class features. And there are about 20 archetypes for every class. Some are awful and redundant, but I heard some are also quite good. But since I prefer lean rules with only limited options I completely ignore them.

My personal view is that the PF Core Rulebook is better than the 3.5e Player's Handbook, and since I want to go with only one book, it's PF for me.


Alot of the Pathfinder half-casters are pretty well done as well. I've considered more than once banning full casters and going Inquisitor/Magus/Alchemist/Bard-only.

I ditched prepared spellcasting, but mostly because spontaneous seems a bit more plausible than prepared, even though spontaneous with slots is still not as good as spell points. But with spontaneous slots, you don't have to convert anything.

[Gnaeus]

Edit:
Thats cool, I'm not saying "No one should be able to melee other than mundanes" (though it sucks if they really made a godly magical melee, and on the other tried to prevent just that)...
I'm saying the Base Melee needs to be made "approximate" to a sythiest for example, but really it needs to be sitting on tier 3 solidly.
I can't get anyone to weigh in on that... Did they?

They did not. Most melee just had little changes in the numbers. Lots of melee got really good ACFs (the monk ones are particularly good). Paladin got enough love to be a high tier 4. None of the mundane classes hit tier 3. Most of their half-caster classes made it. And they are still publishing classes that are tier 1 (witch), and I think they are still making T5s.

[Anarchy_Kanya]

None of the mundane classes hit tier 3.
What about Rogue? I read that it's tier 3 now.

[Psyren]

Has NO ONE at all considered Trailblazer as an alternative?

Does it have an SRD, and Psionics?



However, books published after the Core Rulebook are all completely crazy about archetypes, which are fixed packages of alternate class features. And there are about 20 archetypes for every class. Some are awful and redundant, but I heard some are also quite good. But since I prefer lean rules with only limited options I completely ignore them.


You can still have lean rules with limited options. Just pick the options that actually matter, like Hungry Ghost and Qingjong Monk to make the Monk better.

It seems counterintuitive to me to claim that "nothing was fixed" if you, you know, ignore the parts that actually help.