D&D 3.5 vs Pathfinder

[Grinner]

I've been reading through the PbP games, and it seems like a lot of them are making use of the D&D 3.5 ruleset as opposed to the Pathfinder ruleset, which is supposed to be "streamlined". Is there any practical reason for that, or can it just be chalked up obstinacy towards change?

[Starbuck_II]

I've been reading through the PbP games, and it seems like a lot of them are making use of the D&D 3.5 ruleset as opposed to the Pathfinder ruleset, which is supposed to be "streamlined". Is there any practical reason for that, or can it just be chalked up obstinacy towards change?

a. Pathfinder has nerfed access to sneak attack (Blink, Grease, acid flasks, etc in Pathfinder no longer grant sneak attack). Yes, they removed immunity from some races like undead but you have to gain access before you check for immunity.
b. Pathfinder changes rules of 3.5 feats (Power Attack isn't "steamlined but changed so you can't choose penalty, Cleave isn't automatic but its own seperate action, etc)
c. changed Races (mostly Pathfinder races are all LA +1, while Core 3.5s are LA 0.5 at most like Dwarf)
There is more but already you can see reasons.

[navar100]

a. Pathfinder has nerfed access to sneak attack (Blink, Grease, acid flasks, etc in Pathfinder no longer grant sneak attack). Yes, they removed immunity from some races like undead but you have to gain access before you check for immunity.
b. Pathfinder changes rules of 3.5 feats (Power Attack isn't "steamlined but changed so you can't choose penalty, Cleave isn't automatic but its own seperate action, etc)
c. changed Races (mostly Pathfinder races are all LA +1, while Core 3.5s are LA 0.5 at most like Dwarf)
There is more but already you can see reasons.

Really? Where?

[Ozreth]

For me I just don't like the power bump in Pathfinder. I like to keep the "old school flavor" in my games and even 3e characters start off a bit too strong for my tastes and progress too quickly. PF just took it up another level. Also, I don't like everlasting cantrips :P

[Lord.Sorasen]

I've been reading through the PbP games, and it seems like a lot of them are making use of the D&D 3.5 ruleset as opposed to the Pathfinder ruleset, which is supposed to be "streamlined". Is there any practical reason for that, or can it just be chalked up obstinacy towards change?

As has been stated, a lot of people don't really care for some of the new rulings. While Pathfinder made the claim that it's more balanced than 3.5, this has been proven to not really be the case, and in some ways it can be called even worse in this regard, which urks people.

Furthermore, a lot of the splat book stuff in D&D 3.5 is somewhat difficult to convert to pathfinder just due to the way a lot of the rules have changed. People like the massive amount of splat book stuff, they aren't ready to switch to a marginally different system if it means losing all of it.

Finally, many people think that while it's streamlined, it isn't different enough to make the transition worth it.

[Grinner]

Alright. I think I get it.

[Curious]

Well, I suppose someone who actually likes Pathfinder is going to have to speak up.

First off, conversion between 3.5 and Pathfinder is incredibly easy. It requires two steps; obtain the material, place it into the game.
(Although in certain niche cases, such as negative levels and bardic music, this can take longer)

Second, while sneak attack is harder to get off with spells, there are some surprising ways to get sneak attack off easier than ever before.

Third, there are a number of minor things that Pathfinder does that are simply improvements over 3.5.
e.g., Negative levels are no longer so complicated, and rather than actually robbing you of a level, just give you a few penalties that you are allowed saves against. Favored Class now gives you bonuses rather than penalties. Combat Maneuvers are consolidated and much simpler, although the improved x feats were mostly nerfed by being split in two. There are very few dead levels, and new classes are fully supported.

Now, don't take this the wrong way; Pathfinder is essentially still the same game, with all the good and bad of 3.5. However, it is streamlined, it is supported, and it is fun.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Well, I suppose someone who actually likes Pathfinder is going to have to speak up.

First off, conversion between 3.5 and Pathfinder is incredibly easy. It requires two steps; obtain the material, place it into the game.
(Although in certain niche cases, such as negative levels and bardic music, this can take longer)

Second, while sneak attack is harder to get off with spells, there are some surprising ways to get sneak attack off easier than ever before.

Third, there are a number of minor things that Pathfinder does that are simply improvements over 3.5.
e.g., Negative levels are no longer so complicated, and rather than actually robbing you of a level, just give you a few penalties that you are allowed saves against. Favored Class now gives you bonuses rather than penalties. Combat Maneuvers are consolidated and much simpler, although the improved x feats were mostly nerfed by being split in two. There are very few dead levels, and new classes are fully supported.

Now, don't take this the wrong way; Pathfinder is essentially still the same game, with all the good and bad of 3.5. However, it is streamlined, it is supported, and it is fun.

I'm actually a huge supporter of pathfinder also, even if my earlier post made it seem like I'm not. As such I'll give some more examples of streamlining:

- combat maneuvers aren't really too much simpler for things like trip and bull rush, but it's massively simpler for grappling, and the more minor benefits for being larger seems to fit the fantasy perspective of size/strength ratio a bit better.
- cross-class skills, and in fact the skill points in general are quite different than they were before. For better or worse is debatable, but it's no doubt simpler.

[Volos]

As a DM I prefer to use Pathfinder for one simple reason. I don't have to have a list of some 46 odd books (and even more issues of Dragon Magazine) with checkmarks or X's next to them to designate whether I am allowing them or not for my upcoming game.

When running Pathfinder all I have to say is, "All Pathfinder Rulebooks, No Psionics." Nice, Simple, Easy. As of now Pathfinder has 7 rulebooks, The Core Rulebook, The Bestiary, The Bestiary 2, The Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Psionics Unleashed.

This is far eaiser than hand picking which of the 46ish books from 3.5 I will or will not be allowing in my campaign. Core classes are given many customization options and ACFs that were all developed with a similar focus in mind by the same group of game designers rather than spead among several books and written by twice as many designers.

Pathfinder is essentially still the same game, but condensed into less than one sixth as many books.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Don't go pure PF. Go 3.P. That is, PF with 3.5 rulebooks, and the concentration skill if you're including Tome of Battle. Pathfinder full casters are still tier 1, and they actually nerfed some of the more party friendly spells (BFC mainly). It has some great stuff, like Magus and a more powerful monk (play it with the right archetypes and it's easily tier 4), but they didn't fix the overall problem of balance.

[Prime32]

Second, while sneak attack is harder to get off with spells, there are some surprising ways to get sneak attack off easier than ever before.You can sneak attack undead, you mean? As a trade-off you can't sneak attack with alchemist's fire, flasks of acid, etc. You can't use Quick Draw for those items either, with no fluff explanation (the rule is actually written in a way that you can tell if an item is alchemical by drawing it and seeing how long it takes :smallconfused:)


As a DM I prefer to use Pathfinder for one simple reason. I don't have to have a list of some 46 odd books (and even more issues of Dragon Magazine) with checkmarks or X's next to them to designate whether I am allowing them or not for my upcoming game.That reason will get weaker and weaker as time goes on. The SRD containing every book is convenient though.


When running Pathfinder all I have to say is, "All Pathfinder Rulebooks, No Psionics."http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ihR7XVj46AA/Tt9Kcbgu-eI/AAAAAAAAAyU/HfVw9GmpAM0/s1600/open-a-can-of-worms.jpg


As of now Pathfinder has 7 rulebooks, The Core Rulebook, The Bestiary, The Bestiary 2, The Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Psionics Unleashed.There's a lot more than that. Sources on the SRD include Inner Sea Magic, Pathfinder Society Field Guide, Dragon Empires Gazetteer... And that's just the first-party stuff.

[Ozreth]

Yeah I've got to come back and say that I do support Paizo and what they are doing with PF, I just didn't make the switch. I buy PF products when I feel they would be cool in my game, and I drop them in without much fuss. I could care less about balance and all that, as long as the terminology is the same I'm good to go.

I also use the CMB.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh yeah, and PF is completely (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) free (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/).

[turkishproverb]

Pathfinder is...

You know that song lyric "More human than human"? It's sort of the rpg equivalent of that. It's more 3.5 than 3.5, right down to many of the problems. Wizards are stronger than ever, and given more free stuff, and for all the stuff mundanes have been given, the gap between casters and non-casters is at least as large as before. The monk, for all it's fun new toys, is decidedly a trash class in Pathfinder, maybe even more than in 3.5.

Mind you, it's not a bad game, but it failed to fix many of the problems with 3.5, even when they were obvious.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pathfinder is...

You know that song lyric "More human than human"? It's sort of the rpg equivalent of that. It's more 3.5 than 3.5, right down to many of the problems. Wizards are stronger than ever, and given more free stuff, and for all the stuff mundanes have been given, the gap between casters and non-casters is at least as large as before. The monk, for all it's fun new toys, is decidedly a trash class in Pathfinder, maybe even more than in 3.5.

Mind you, it's not a bad game, but it failed to fix many of the problems with 3.5, even when they were obvious.

Your statement is only true if you're playing core-only. And even then, casters stayed about the same in power. Did you see the spell nerfs? Outside of core, monks can be tier 4 easily. Paladins got enough to be tier 4. Rangers got buffed, especially with the two-handed weapon style in the APG.

[Curious]

You can sneak attack undead, you mean? As a trade-off you can't sneak attack with alchemist's fire, flasks of acid, etc. You can't use Quick Draw for those items either, with no fluff explanation (the rule is actually written in a way that you can tell if an item is alchemical by drawing it and seeing how long it takes :smallconfused:)

No, I mean this particular combo I just discovered that allows you to full-sneak-attack if you have some method of free movement. Unfortunately, it only kicks in at level 8.

The Rake (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/rake) archetype allows you to make intimidate checks as a free action if you sacrifice one sneak attack dice. The Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype allows you to get a single sneak attack off if you move more than 10 feet in a round. This is where it gets interesting; Shatter Defenses (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final) lets you attack a shaken enemy as if they were flat-footed. So, combined with some method of free movement, such as Accelerate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/accelerate) or hustle, you can move and full-sneak-attack, as well as intimidate your enemy.

[Prime32]

The Rake (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/rake) archetype allows you to make intimidate checks as a free action if you sacrifice one sneak attack dice. The Scout (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes/scout) archetype allows you to get a single sneak attack off if you move more than 10 feet in a round. This is where it gets interesting; Shatter Defenses (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/shatter-defenses-combat---final) lets you attack a shaken enemy as if they were flat-footed. So, combined with some method of free movement, such as Accelerate (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/words-of-power/effect-words/accelerate) or hustle, you can move and full-sneak-attack, as well as intimidate your enemy.Isn't that ineffective vs undead, constructs, plants, vermin, oozes, elementals, swarms, certain outsiders, incorporeal creatures, rogues, barbarians, paladins, people standing near paladins, people with mind blank, high-Wis creatures, and monsters with HD higher than their CR?

[Curious]

Isn't that ineffective vs undead, constructs, plants, vermin, oozes, elementals, swarms, certain outsiders, incorporeal creatures, rogues, barbarians, paladins, people with mind blank, and monsters with HD higher than their CR?

No. Undead, Constructs, Plants, Vermin, and Incorporeal creatures can all be sneak attacked (Although incorporeal demands that you have a ghost-touch weapon). Mind Blank no longer makes you immune to mind-affecting effects, just gives you a bonus to saves against them, and so is actually useless in this scenario. Monsters with HD higher than their CR wouldn't be immune either, and I have no idea why you would have that notion. :smallconfused:

Paladins, Rogues, Barbarians, Swarms, Oozes, Elementals. Those are all immune to this tactic (although the Rogue and Barbarian can be sneak attacked, providing you are a high enough level above them). However, that's a much smaller selection than would be present in 3.5, and most of them don't come up that often.

EDIT: Oh, wait, I see what you mean. Mindless creatures such as Constructs, Undead, Plants, and Vermin are indeed immune to this tactic, yes.

[Prime32]

Undead, Constructs, Plants, Vermin and Oozes can't be intimidated, and "brute" monsters with HD of double their CR or more are very difficult to intimidate.

[Curious]

Undead, Constructs, Plants, Vermin and Oozes can't be intimidated, and "brute" monsters with HD of double their CR or more are very difficult to intimidate.

Edited my post. Also, it doesn't really matter how many HD you have, the Rake can sacrifice more SA dice to gain stacking +5 bonuses to his intimidate check, so he can pretty much always make the DC.

[Psyren]

Don't go pure PF. Go 3.P. That is, PF with 3.5 rulebooks, and the concentration skill if you're including Tome of Battle. Pathfinder full casters are still tier 1, and they actually nerfed some of the more party friendly spells (BFC mainly). It has some great stuff, like Magus and a more powerful monk (play it with the right archetypes and it's easily tier 4), but they didn't fix the overall problem of balance.

Personally, I'd sub in Autohypnosis for Diamond Mind instead of Concentration. Autohypnosis has plenty of Diamond-Mind-y flavor, and I think PF had the right idea in making Concentration checks harder; it makes being a caster more nail-biting than before and encourages them to work with the melee a bit more.

[Greenish]

I've been reading through the PbP games, and it seems like a lot of them are making use of the D&D 3.5 ruleset as opposed to the Pathfinder ruleset, which is supposed to be "streamlined". Is there any practical reason for that, or can it just be chalked up obstinacy towards change?I haven't seen any reason to switch over. It'd mean relearning certain rules, feats, spells, what-have-you, for changes that amount to very little. Sure, I could convert all my favourite 3.5 content into PF (if the DM's okay with it, quite a few aren't), sure it wouldn't be hard, but on the other hand, I can just keep playing 3.5 and port stuff over (DM willing) from PF if it seems desirable (such as paladin or soulknife).

[Starbuck_II]

I haven't seen any reason to switch over. It'd mean relearning certain rules, feats, spells, what-have-you, for changes that amount to very little. Sure, I could convert all my favourite 3.5 content into PF (if the DM's okay with it, quite a few aren't), sure it wouldn't be hard, but on the other hand, I can just keep playing 3.5 and port stuff over (DM willing) from PF if it seems desirable (such as paladin or soulknife).

Are there DMs that let you port PF classes to 3.5 games?
I usually see PbP wher you are limited to just PF or just 3.5 here.

[Lateral]

One of my favourite parts of 3.5 is the breadth of material available. As such, Pathfinder doesn't particularly attract me. I've played PF games, and I don't have a problem with them, but I do prefer 3.5 as there's more stuff there. 3.P is fine, but I'm not really that familiar with the PF rule changes. There really just isn't that much in the rule changes that would make me want to change- the fundamental problems with 3.5 are still there in spades, and there are just as many problems that are exacerbated by the Pathfinder rules as there are problems that were reduced.

It has nice psionics, though. I pretty much always port the PF Soulknife, Wilder, and Metamind over if I have a player that wants to play one.


When running Pathfinder all I have to say is, "All Pathfinder Rulebooks, No Psionics."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ihR7XVj46AA/Tt9Kcbgu-eI/AAAAAAAAAyU/HfVw9GmpAM0/s1600/open-a-can-of-worms.jpg
This, exactly.

[Ravens_cry]

One thing I have noticed is there is a lot of non-divine healing in Pathfinder. Not just bards, which already had it but Witches and Alchimeists and, to a very limited extent, Wizards and Monks as well. Heck, Witches can even raise the dead in various flavours and ways.
It rather changes the dynamic a little.

[Psyren]

It has nice psionics, though. I pretty much always port the PF Soulknife, Wilder, and Metamind over if I have a player that wants to play one.


Their Uncarnate is better too, simply because you don't have to strip naked to actually walk through a wall before level 10, but still manages to be balanced.


One thing I have noticed is there is a lot of non-divine healing in Pathfinder. Not just bards, which already had it but Witches and Alchimeists and, to a very limited extent, Wizards and Monks as well. Heck, Witches can even raise the dead in various flavours and ways.
It rather changes the dynamic a little.

And psionic soon too :smallbiggrin:

But yes, this is another big draw of the PF system to me - I love non-divine classes that are capable of healing, and divines still rule the roost in this area so they don't feel diluted.

[Greenish]

Are there DMs that let you port PF classes to 3.5 games?
I usually see PbP wher you are limited to just PF or just 3.5 here.Occasionally. I haven't tried to get a PF original class (like Summoner, say) ported over, but PF soulknife or paladin usually aren't hard sells.

The PF half-casters look interesting enough that I might try my luck.

[Lateral]

And psionic soon too :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, speaking of which, is there a date for when Psionics Expanded is going to be released? I haven't seen anything.

[Coidzor]

Are there DMs that let you port PF classes to 3.5 games?
I usually see PbP wher you are limited to just PF or just 3.5 here.

Before my DM was like, "Welp, I just bought all of the books, so now we're using nothing but Pathfinder until maybe I decide to go 3.P at some indefinite point in the future," we were using the PF Sorcerer and Paladin in 3.X games between 3 of the 4 rotational DMs in the group.

Before that, there was talk of getting Magus allowed as the go-to gish, maybe with a feat for them to get duskblade's arcane channeling and then and 2nd feat to get the other version.

[Tyndmyr]

I've been reading through the PbP games, and it seems like a lot of them are making use of the D&D 3.5 ruleset as opposed to the Pathfinder ruleset, which is supposed to be "streamlined". Is there any practical reason for that, or can it just be chalked up obstinacy towards change?

Because it's not streamlined.

It's 3.5 with house rules. Some good, some bad. Meh.

[Psyren]

Yeah, speaking of which, is there a date for when Psionics Expanded is going to be released? I haven't seen anything.

The date seems to be "when it's done" - which shouldn't be too far from now, at least. There are only two books left. Jeremy's ironing some kinks out of Exemplar though and I see no sign of the skillmonkey class so it might be awhile.

[MukkTB]

My group plays 3.P. I like pathfinder, but not enough to say its clearly better than 3.5. Its more a step sideways than anything. We went to 3.P because we like to keep moving even if the direction is sideways. PF by itself doesn't have a lot of support, and our DM's don't have a problem saying "Only X is allowed," so we use everything.

[Chained Birds]

When running Pathfinder all I have to say is, "All Pathfinder Rulebooks, No Psionics." Nice, Simple, Easy. As of now Pathfinder has 7 rulebooks, The Core Rulebook, The Bestiary, The Bestiary 2, The Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Psionics Unleashed.

and now Bestiary 3!!!

My favorite thing about PF, the monster artwork. While some creatures look better in 3.5, at least 90% of them have a greater appeal to me in Pathfinder.
Following the OP: I found that PF monsters gained more unique qualities that make for interesting encounters.

[motoko's ghost]

Im not going to say one version is better than the other(not getting drawn into a edition debate:smalltongue:) but I mostly play 3.5 because thats the one I'm most familiar with and the one that usually gets played the most(partly because its mostly one campaign thats been going for a year, we're only about 1/3 of the way through and the world its set in cant really be converted to pathfinder without it either imploding or the DM manually rewriting about 700 stat blocks,plot hooks and etc)

[klemdakherzbag]

When I DM i use pathfinder with 3.5 mixed in (mostly prestige classes). One simple reason, we have more available PF material than 3.5 so there it is.

[motoko's ghost]

When I DM i use pathfinder with 3.5 mixed in (mostly prestige classes). One simple reason, we have more available PF material than 3.5 so there it is.

Ah, okay. Its the other way around for our group, we got almost every 3.5 sourcebook between us, but only the SRD for pathfinder.
funny how that works out:smalltongue:

[Blisstake]

Wow, with a title like that, I'm surprised things haven't gotten ugly (yet).

Anyway...

Reason people stay with 3.5:
Don't like the rule changes
Don't think PF changed enough
Are having fun with 3.5 and see no reason to switch

Reasons to stick with PF:
Enjoy the rule changes
It's free and has an easy to access online database
Is still being published

I'm not going to say anything in particular about what I think about the rule changes because, well...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ihR7XVj46AA/Tt9Kcbgu-eI/AAAAAAAAAyU/HfVw9GmpAM0/s1600/open-a-can-of-worms.jpg

But needless to say, some people like them, and some people really don't.

[Mystify]

I ran a pathfinder campaign recently, and I found it to be much funner. All of the classes got a good dose of awesome sprinkled on them, to the point where you generally don't even want to multiclass away from them. What they give you can be worth sticking around for, unlike 3.5 where you prestige class the first chance you get. Prestige classes are still perfectly viable, but they are no longer the "duh" option they were before. That is one thing the caster's class features added, a reason not to go into prestige classes.

A lot of things seem to be made simultaneously more powerful and less exploitable. Like power attack. It gets a distinct power hike from 3.5, while simultaneously removing the uber-charger based cheese. The return rate is greater, without being able to crank it to absurd levels because you found some means to not care about the attack penalty.

They also offer a lot more support for martial standard actions, mitigating 3.5's reliance on the full-round and the difficulty of achieving them. All the classes have a ton of option to allow you to make precisely the type of character you want.

Though it has its own set of imbalances. For instance, certain combinations of teamwork feats... explode. I had a group of 6 level 20 gestalt pathfinder characters, and they took out a 500,000 hp elder got in 5 rounds, due to the teamwork feat explosion. Basically, they all got an attack op whenever someone else crit, and could crit easy enough that they could easily burn all of their attack ops for the round hitting the enemy. All of which are carrying the paladin's smite damage, and utilizing their own class abilities to boost damage.

Nonetheless, most of the system is cleaner.

[Ravens_cry]

Ah, okay. Its the other way around for our group, we got almost every 3.5 sourcebook between us, but only the SRD for pathfinder.
funny how that works out:smalltongue:
Well, to be fair, the PF SRD practically IS the whole of Pathfinder, including stuff released before Pathfinder even existed, like the Guided weapon property, as well as third-party material.

[Crasical]

You can also use the Dirty Trick maneuver to Blind an enemy and sneak attack them that way.

[motoko's ghost]

Well, to be fair, the PF SRD practically IS the whole of Pathfinder, including stuff released before Pathfinder even existed, like the Guided weapon property, as well as third-party material.

Thats one of the reasons I like 3.5 compared to other RPGs, theres so many options to exhaust them all you'd need some sort of supercomputer playing games by itself(maybe that would stop skynet forming:smalltongue:), and that's not including homebrew.


You can also use the Dirty Trick maneuver to Blind an enemy and sneak attack them that way.

Considering your sig, how are you blinding them with your "dirty trick"?:smalleek::tongue: