Pathfinder (ruleset)?

[Drork]

Im in a gaming group we played 3.5 enjoyed it. We tried 4th ed was not convinced it was the game for us and switched back to 3.5. Since then I have come across pathfinder rule set. Compared to 3.5 that I know reasonable well it seems like everything on the player side has been buffed significantly. Our group really likes the Ebbron world.

So I have a few questions firstly is pathfinder compatible with 3.5 rule sets can I pull something out of mm3 and drop it in a pathfinder complain with out too many problems? Or will it require simple/complex tweaking? Other examples feats from Complete series aka divine, prestige classes etc.

The Ebbron campaign setting has things that are not in the pathfinder rules due to copyright issues. Would it be hard to alter suitable stat bonuses/class abilities of the setting to fit into a pathfinder game.

How does the game feel to DM compared to 3.5. Ive always found more power makes things harder to balance/ad lib things. The more power around you have less margin for error before a tough encounter becomes an impossible one. I would appreciate anyone who is DMing a pathfinder campaign to let me know what it feels like when ad libing.

Pathfinder rules has PDF documents with linked text locations are the PDFs as cool as awesome as they seem. If I switch over I will be getting a hard copy of the rules just because I have a bookshelf for rules. I am curious of people who have the PDF is it really as powerful as it looks or as so often once you know the rules you just know them. Its not that expensive to pick it up if it will improve my experience of the game.

Finally converting from 3.5 to pathfinder have people done this or did they start a new campaign was there any significant learning curves rule alterations you missed.

PS: If you have anything else you feel is important to mention that I missed asking feel free to mention it.

[sonofzeal]

PCs have indeed been buffed overall. Every race is stronger. Most classes are stronger, although the relative disparities are the same or even bigger. Monsters are often weaker. PF, in many ways, feels like "easy mode".

Backwards Compatibility is a mixed bag. You can generally throw 3.5 monsters at a PF group without difficulty, although monsters that use Trip or Grapple or the like will have to be switched over to "CMB/CMD". And monsters using Spell-like abilities, or who actually use spells, will need a lot more tweaking since most spells have been altered or removed completely. Same for many non-Core 3.5 classes, PrCs, feats, and spells.

Altering non-Core 3.5 material to fit PF should be doable. Artificer might be a challenge though, I have no idea whatsoever what PF did to crafting, but that's the sort of area I'd expect them to have changed a lot... or worse, to have left it basically the same but changed a few subtle points that can trip you up. There's a few areas they did this for, my personal "favourite" being the Light Armor Proficiency that almost every character in the game gets, and that hardly anybody actually looks at. ACP now applies to more skills even if you're proficient, such as Disable Device and Ride.

For DMing, well, there's still the "easy mode" thing mentioned above, but this just shifts the balance point so you can boost the CR or add a few more minions and reach the same sorts of challenges as before, with the same problems. On the other hand, there's been an effort to remove one-roll-win-button binary combat, which is good.



On the whole though... if you're comfortable with 3.5, and reasonably fluent in it, there's little reason to convert. PF is a great option for people just getting into the system, or who prefer single-classed Core games as what they're comfortable with. IMO, it's not worth relearning (and the expense, if you're buying books) for the marginal gains if you're fluent and comfortable in 3.5.

[Belril Duskwalk]

I'm not exactly qualified to discuss all of this, but I do know that 3.5 material is largely compatible with Pathfinder ruleset, by design. A few feats have changed here and there, a lot of classes got some ability tweaks and a few new goodies, but it mostly works out close to the same as 3.5. Swapping monsters from 3.5 to pathfinder is fairly simple with perhaps a few minor tweaks.

Another fine selling point for Pathfinder is the non-necessity to buy-in. All the core rules and most of the official rules expansions are freely available on the SRD. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/home) For a few books, it might be handy to have a paper copy at the table, and if you're a paper-purist (like me) they are nice-looking, well-made books.

[Big Fau]

Another fine selling point for Pathfinder is the non-necessity to buy-in. All the core rules and most of the official rules expansions are freely available on the SRD. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/home) For a few books, it might be handy to have a paper copy at the table, and if you're a paper-purist (like me) they are nice-looking, well-made books.

Not so much a selling point as it is a necessity. I don't think the OGL would allow them to print the Core rules without it being OGC.

[The-Mage-King]

Regarding the pdfs...


There's an SRD (http://d20pfsrd.com/). Well, two of 'em (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/), but one only has the Paizo stuff.


3.5 stuff is fairly compatable with PF, especially if you follow this little guide (http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide) produced by Paizo.

Power level seems about equal, though, since they nerfed some spells, and buffed melee classes a bit. Probably a bit higher overall, though.

[Drork]

The main reason Im looking at switching over is because its supported. Published adventures simplify the job as a DM a lot in the group there are some people who are interested in DMing but daunted by the task having this support should make it easier for them. I find published material is great as a fill in that give me more time to polish my own adventure ideas as well. It also looks better for skill challenges which was the one thing in 4th ed I thought was really cool. However in 3.5 with such a large skill list it is a skill challenge itself to build one.

[sonofzeal]

The main reason Im looking at switching over is because its supported. Published adventures simplify the job as a DM a lot in the group there are some people who are interested in DMing but daunted by the task having this support should make it easier for them. I find published material is great as a fill in that give me more time to polish my own adventure ideas as well. It also looks better for skill challenges which was the one thing in 4th ed I thought was really cool. However in 3.5 with such a large skill list it is a skill challenge itself to build one.
Paizo is inarguably quite good at Adventure Paths. There's no shortage of published adventures for 3.5 though, either official or 3rd party. I'm not sure what you mean.

[Curious]

It also looks better for skill challenges which was the one thing in 4th ed I thought was really cool. However in 3.5 with such a large skill list it is a skill challenge itself to build one.

There are no skill challenges in PF. The only real change in PF skills is that there are no cross-class skills, class skills give an untyped +3 bonus to the skill inquestion, max skill ranks are equal to your HD, and some skills were condensed.

[sonofzeal]

Power level seems about equal, though, since they nerfed some spells, and buffed melee classes a bit. Probably a bit higher overall, though.
This is.... debatable.

In 3.5, Fighters only had a few things going for them - Improved Trip and Power Attack being the biggest. Both of those feats got shafted in PF though. My (limited) experience is that PF Fighters get marginally bigger numbers, specifically bigger attack rolls and base damage, but this doesn't really compensate for losing more useful options. The chassis is better, but the feats are often worse, and a Fighter without good feats to take is kinda left out in the cold.

Monks are also a melee class, but PF went and did things like trying to bar them from taking "Improved Natural Attack", which was pretty much the only good thing Core 3.5 Monks had going for them, for no good reason.

Also, while certain spells got nerfed, full casters in general and wizards in particular get a LOT of love in PF. From what I've heard, one of the main developers is a self-professed Wizard fan, and tends to write himself in all sorts of nifty new toys for his Wizards to play with. That's hearsay, but I've seen nothing to discredit it.

Overall, I suspect the class disparity is... well, probably not worse, but probably not better either. Druid might be a bit weaker and Paladin might be a bit stronger from what I hear, but that's about it.

[Curious]

Overall, I suspect the class disparity is... well, probably not worse, but probably not better either. Druid might be a bit weaker and Paladin might be a bit stronger from what I hear, but that's about it.

I agree that class imbalance is definitely still present and basically unchanged, but certain classes did get some nice boosts.

Rogues have a large list of new abilities to choose from now, such as losing a SA die to get a free intimidate check, or causing bleed damage, as well as an actual capstone and a higher hit die. Their sneak attack now applies to many more monsters, so they have less trouble getting off their most important method of contribution to combat. They also benefit very much from the skill condensation.

Paladins have been hugely boosted. Their Lay on Hands is now a swift action, heals 1d6 damage per two levels, and can be used multiple times per day, instead of having one smaller pool, and also heals status effects. Smite is now no longer a one-off attack, but a mark that allows you to ignore DR and add your Charisma to hit and your own AC against an enemy until the day ends or he is dead. Their caster level also equals their level -3 now, rather than 1/2 their level.

Barbarians have some nifty new abilities, but suffer from not getting pounce until level 8 or so.

Ranger's animal companion is now actually useful, since it progresses at ranger level -3, as does their caster level. They also have alternate combat styles and favored terrains, which give bonuses depending on the landscape.

Fighter's definitely got the least out of the change, just a few bonuses to saves against fear and such. They can exchange those unneeded bonuses for some okay class features though, although, again, many of those aren't terribly great.

[Psyren]

The whole benefit to compatibility though is that almost any PF change you see and dislike can be rectified by introducing WotC material. You want your barbarian to get pounce sooner? Or you want Bards to have more song options? Or you want Divine/Wild feats back? Just pull in those splats.


Not so much a selling point as it is a necessity. I don't think the OGL would allow them to print the Core rules without it being OGC.

Even so, it is a selling point; the widespread availability of the rules means that (a) anyone can try them before buying, regardless of budget and (b) it's very easy to find common ground/advice on gaming forums (like this one.)

And it sure hasn't hurt paizo's bottom line any, at least compared to the industry.

[Reltzik]

Fighters did get one more big thing out of Pathfinder: More feats. Not only are they now getting a feat every level, instead of 2/3s of the levels, but they have a much wider selection of feats even in core. Some of the feats are less impressive individually, but the bigger number more than makes up for them, and fighters have a good list of choices even at high level. (One of the problems with 3.5 core was that a fighter ran out of desirable feats around level 15.) Additionally, weapon training gives some nice bonuses, and the archetypes add a lot of customizability. It's still not the most powerful class, but it is solid.

[Big Fau]

Fighters did get one more big thing out of Pathfinder: More feats.

But that's the thing: The Fighter didn't need more feats, it needed better ones and actual class features. Almost every class feature the Fighter was given in PF Core could have been replicated by an existing 3.5 feat (which may or may not have been a bonus feat). And some of the best Fighter bonus feats were ripped appart in order to add filler to the Fighter's levels.

The Archtypes are a little better, but not nearly enough to put it in the same ballpark as the Warblade. I've said it, the people at BG and TGD said, and the optimizers at WotC said it: Fighters need better feats, not more feats. Paizo did not listen. And, if Ultimate Combat is a sign, they did not learn from it (feat trees that are nearly 4 feats long to replicate a 2nd level Iron Heart maneuver, for example).

The Core disparity is still there, and as Pathfinder continues to support 3.5 the gap will only get worse. They aren't fixing the system, they're repeating WotC's mistakes.

[Psyren]

I totally agree - paizo really should have taken lessons from ToB, and made Ultimate Combat into ToB 2.0. They had reasonable excuses for not putting a similarly rich maneuver-based system in core, but Ultimate Combat was supposed to be the chance to really step outside their comfort zone and get it done. It was a missed opportunity and I'm not sure what they were thinking. But Pathfinder isn't done yet, so there's still hope; they could even create a universal alt-combat system similar to Words of Power's alt-magic that the melee could use.

[sreservoir]

the fact that pathfinder isn't at end of life is kind of a selling point.

[SpaceBadger]

I bought Pathfinder Core Rules in hardcopy, several other books in PDF.

I hardly ever use the PDFs, because anything I have wanted to look up is available for free in the online SRD. I suppose if I was playing or working on game stuff somewhere that I had my laptop but did not have internet, then the PDFs would be good - but that hasn't happened yet.

The Pathfinder PDFs for some reason are much slower to use than any other PDFs that I have - I think it may be the background images to make each page look like the printed hardcopy, but even turning off images doesn't speed them up much. (By "slower" I mean in scrolling, in responding to clicking a link, in making a new page visible onscreen.)

I'd suggest buying the Core Rules book, then just using SRD for the rest. Unless you have sufficient "extra" money that you just want to buy stuff to support Paizo and keep the Pathfinder product line alive.

[Starbuck_II]

I agree that class imbalance is definitely still present and basically unchanged, but certain classes did get some nice boosts.

Rogues have a large list of new abilities to choose from now, such as losing a SA die to get a free intimidate check, or causing bleed damage, as well as an actual capstone and a higher hit die. Their sneak attack now applies to many more monsters, so they have less trouble getting off their most important method of contribution to combat. They also benefit very much from the skill condensation.


But you trade these benefits with losing access to sneak attack (access as in, counting as one).
Nerfs to Glitterdust, Blink (ring of Blink), Grease (no longer allows sneak attack), etc. So you do get more available creatures but you rarely get to sneak attack them unless flanking.

[Big Fau]

The Pathfinder PDFs for some reason are much slower to use than any other PDFs that I have - I think it may be the background images to make each page look like the printed hardcopy, but even turning off images doesn't speed them up much. (By "slower" I mean in scrolling, in responding to clicking a link, in making a new page visible onscreen.)

That's a layering issue. As someone who uses Photoshop and similar Adobe programs regularly for work, I know what they are doing: They aren't flattening images prior to exporting them.


But you trade these benefits with losing access to sneak attack (access as in, counting as one).
Nerfs to Glitterdust, Blink (ring of Blink), Grease (no longer allows sneak attack), etc. So you do get more available creatures but you rarely get to sneak attack them unless flanking.

Yeah, those changes pretty much killed Ranged Rogue builds.

[sreservoir]

hm, do you know of any way to flatten the pdfs without their source images?

[Big Fau]

hm, do you know of any way to flatten the pdfs without their source images?

Off-hand, no. I don't have my reference books on me ATM.

[SpaceBadger]

That's a layering issue. As someone who uses Photoshop and similar Adobe programs regularly for work, I know what they are doing: They aren't flattening images prior to exporting them.

Hmm, thanks for the info. I think it's time for me to go look up the customer support email address at Paizo and suggest that they fix this. Since their PDF distribution system supports multiple downloads for updates, they should be able to handle it. Actually, I'm surprised they haven't had enough complaints to make them fix it already. Does no one else buy their PDFs?

[Big Fau]

Actually, I'm surprised they haven't had enough complaints to make them fix it already.

The average consumer is not aware of layering issues that occur when exporting a PSD (or similar document) to PDF. That, or Paizo is cutting corners to conserve on budgets.

In all likelihood though, they probably didn't hire someone who has extensive, proper training with Adobe's products. That person simply may not have known about the issues at all. WotC does because they have to keep these loading issues to a minimum for MtGO and DDO in order to streamline the product for consumer use.

I see similar issues with White Wolf's products. If they commissioned a digital artist to do art for a book, they almost never get the layering issue right unless that artist was aware of the issue. It gets really obvious with full color pages they've been using.

[SpaceBadger]

I hardly ever use the PDFs, because anything I have wanted to look up is available for free in the online SRD. I suppose if I was playing or working on game stuff somewhere that I had my laptop but did not have internet, then the PDFs would be good - but that hasn't happened yet.

I guess I should not have made that comment. Got home and found landline/DSL dead at the box. No internet. Spooky.

Now back at my office so my daughter can use internet to work on a research paper for school. (So I still am not using my Pathfinder PDFs...)