Pathfinder questions by a test DM

[Ryulin18]

Gonna be DMing a campaign of pathfinder soon for the first time. Been a 3.5er for a long time but wanted to start fresh with my group, leave us all equal again.

What's the general opinion of pathfinder?
What's the difference between it and 3.5?

[Hylas]

What's the general opinion of pathfinder?
What's the difference between it and 3.5?

Some people like it, some people hate it. I'll give you my personal opinion on the changes.

What I like:
There's fewer skills to deal with, and the system gives you a bonus for putting points into class skills rather than a penalty for going cross-class.
Special attacks, such as trip, disarm, grapple, and sunder, are simplified into a single system.
There's very little, if any, of the crazy amount of multiclassing that 3.5 had.
You get feats every 2 levels instead of every 3 levels.
Unlimited use of 0-th level spells.
INT and CON increases are retroactive for skill points/HP.
Seems friendlier to newbies.
EDIT: After reading the below post, I remembered that I also liked how every class always gets something every level. No more levels where you don't get anything from a class.

What I dislike:
Magic is still magic and all-powerful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw).
Many combat feats got nerfed, specifically all of the improved (trip, disarm, bullrush, sunder, etc) got split up into two feats, hurting mundane combat classes. Metamagic feats are untouched so the additional feats that everyone gets really only helps them.
Monk keeps getting errata to become worse all of the time. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE)

[Bhaakon]

-If you didn't like 3.5 because it was poorly balanced, then you're not going to like Pathfinder, since it has many of the same issues.

-It doesn't have the shear number of classes/feats/spells/races/items/etc. as 3.5, so if you're the type of player who likes to scour obscure sources for the right combination of those things, you're not going to like it. If you thought the corpus of 3.5 material was too big to keep track of, though, you might see that as a positive. This also means that there are fewer "cheap" combos and loopholes to exploit (again, good or bad depending on your style).

-All the rules material is legally available for free online, so you don't have to worry about investing hundreds of dollars to buy the books (or tracking them down, since 3.5 books are out of print).

-There are a lot of minor tweaks that you might like (the unlimited cantrips mentioned above, improved class features for most base classes, simplified skill system, some very well designed new classes like Alchemist, magus, etc), or some you might not (a lot of people complain about the power attack change, and the elimination of some of the easier ways [grease] to get a sneak attack).

-Since the base classes now have more and better class features, and there are archetypes to provide some customizeability within the base classes, there's less incentive to multiclass, dip, or take prestige classes (and fewer prestige classes overall). YMMV on whether this is good or bad. I think it's nicer aesthetically, and it can be annoying to keep track of characters with classes drawn from many different sources, but not really a substantive change.

[Benly]

My take on things is that Pathfinder was a step in the right direction, sort of.

What I mean by this is that both 3.5 and PF are games where, at a certain level of play, you need either extensive house rules or a gentleman's agreement to make the game work "properly" - the wizard needs to know how not to break the game and choose not to do it and the fighter needs to know some serious optimization, or the GM needs to go through with a crowbar tearing out broken material for the wizard and installing better fittings on the fighter. (Or everyone can accept that they're playing a broken game - you can still have fun with a broken game, as long as you don't expect it not to be broken.) With Pathfinder, the need for such measures is less extensive - they still need to be taken, but it's not as much stuff that needs tearing out and reinstalling, and it's a few more levels before it reaches critical mass. So in that sense, even if some of the individual decisions are questionable, I consider it on the whole mostly a step in the right direction.

For players and GMs who are fully aware of the broken aspects of 3.5 and have gotten it working to their playgroup's satisfaction, there's not a lot of benefit from switching to Pathfinder. If you're happy with what you've got, well, great.

For players and GMs who have never extensively encountered or been bothered by the ways in which 3.5 is broken, they will probably like what Pathfinder does, because it smooths out a lot of bumpy spots and they probably won't be any more bothered by what it failed to fix than they were back in 3.5.

[Chained Birds]

Being a ranged character becomes more viable with class archetypes that excess at ranged combat (Like Zen Archer Monk) and certain feats like Deadly Aim (Ranged Power Attack) and Clustered Shot.

Sword and Board can be a thing with the Shield Master feat. Rangers can access this the fastest.

Less "Win" spells, though they are still there.

Monk is treated better... Kinda. Just look away from the erratas.

There are guns if you want, and the rules for them are fairly nice.

[navar100]

Generally speaking all classes except cleric and druid got beefed up. Cleric changed but is a wash. Druid got nerfed a little. Warrior classes improved the most.

The better things are:

Fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor, can swap obsolete feats, and two-handed weapon fighting is not the only option or else you're the suck. A Level 20 Fighter is worth it.

Barbarians get to do or have interesting things while raging.

Rogues can sneak attack a lot more creatures, including constructs and corporeal undead plus get to choose interesting talents to do stuff.

Paladins can get a bonded weapon instead of a mount, are less MAD because spellcasting is based on Charisma, and Smite Evil now ROCKS!

I'm not very familiar with rangers or monks but they do have more options.

As for spellcasters:

Sorcerers get bloodlines providing class features and extra spells. You generally don't want to prestige class out. The features are that good. It's a boost but a good and proper boost.

Wizard specialization now means something. You get a couple of abilities based upon school specialization. You can prepare opposition school spells, but it costs two slots. It's a boost but a good and proper boost. However, a lot of spells got nerfed. Save or die is now save or take 10 damage per level. Most spells that gave immunities are now +4 to saving throw. Some spells are weaker than their 3E version but not to the point of uselessness.

Clerics lose heavy armor and Divine Power no longer stacks with Divine Favor since both are luck bonuses. Spells also got nerfed, even Divine Power but still a good combat buff spell to cast. However, Domains now provide two abilities each for a total of four. Turn Undead is now Channeling which allows for healing at a range for multiple targets. It doesn't make clerics healbots, but healing is a lot easier requiring even less spontaneous curing. This is a good thing because clerics can now cast more spells that are not Cure Wounds.

Druids can have a Domain instead of an Animal Companion which is good for campaigns that often take place where you can't bring an animal. However, the big nerf is wildshape. Wildshaping/Polymorphing now provides specific ability score increases depending on level and specific acquire abilities also depending on level such as tripping, blindsense, natural armor, energy immunities, etc. This means a druid cannot dump physical ability scores since wildshaping might give +4 Strength instead of 3E where you can wildshape into a Strength 20 creature while you have only 8. Wildshaping fighting druids are still possible, but you have to build for it.

Many 3E feats changed - some got better, other got nerfed. This is a matter of taste. Power Attack is a controversy. It's now a set minus to hit plus to damage ratio based on level. One handed weapons use -1/+2 per iteration while two-handed weapons use -1/+3. You still get good mileage for damage, This just means two-handed weapons, while still good and awesome for Power Attack, are no longer the be all end all of combat. Shield Use and Two-Weapon Fighting have their own support. This is a good thing. There are now Critical Hit feats that apply a penalty of some kind to your opponent when you score a critical hit. Now warriors can cause Bleed, ability score damage, blindness, stunning, etc.

Skills got consolidated and cross-class skill concept no longer exists. Ranks are one for one basis with class skills providing +3 bonus. A 10th level fighter can have +10 Perception. This is a good thing.

For people who have 3E derangement syndrome, Pathfinder does not meet their approval. These people feel the need to bash 3E every time the opportunity arises. They rage against 3E magic. They wave the banhammer as they yell about Tiers. They will never be satisfied because they loathe the fundamentals of the 3E system. However, some 3E fans do have issues with Pathfinder. Mostly it's about the feats. A common complaint is 3E Improved Trip got split into two for Pathfinder and even then doesn't work the same. A supporter could argue the feats work within the Pathfinder paradigm. Still, it is an understandable gripe.

To 3E fans who don't care for Pathfinder, it is just a set of house rules. However, since WOTC fired them as customers and Paizo took up the mantle, Pathfinder is worth a look. It is quite common to play 3.P. That is, a mostly 3E game with some Pathfinder, a mostly Pathfinder game with some 3E, or a mish mash of everything. Pathfinder warrior classes with 3E feats works just fine. A Pathfinder Wizard who casts spells from Spell Compendium works fine as well. A Crusader still might outshine a Pathfinder Paladin, but the Pathfinder Paladin has nothing to be ashamed about.

[Gavinfoxx]

Pathfinder has several rules issues where it is inferior to 3.5e

1.) It didn't fix the things it set out to fix. The marketing things (during the beta) that said it fixes balance problems are flat out lies.

2.) Several of mundane's tricks got nerfed.

2a.) Let's start with the rogue. The Rogue can no longer sneak attack balancing enemies and full attack them. Rogue can no longer sneak attack with splash weapons, and thus get typed damage that isn't subject to damage reduction. Rogue can not sneak attack with ring of blinking. Ranged sneak attack builds are near impossible. Rogue cannot draw more than one alchemical item per round in any circumstance, even with quick draw, unlike 3.5e. Rogue is no longer mobile, due to the massive increase in tumble DC's, so he can't move around the battlefield to set up flanks.

2b.) And on to Fighters. 3.5e's Improved Trip grants +4 to trip and lets you make a free attack after tripping. PF's: Improved Trip grants +2 to trip. A second feat (which you can't take until lv6 at the earliest) grants another +2 and lets you make an AoO after tripping... except that this replaces the AoO you'd get when they stand up. You can no longer trip fliers, which in 3e caused them to stall. So even though you get more feats as you level up, the feats themselves tend to be worse. The fighter chassis got slightly better, but none of the (say) charging or power attack feats that the fighter relied on for solid damage came through unscathed. Power attack got hideously nerfed. Grappling is no nowhere near as useful for grappling based meleeists to do (Grapple now takes a standard to use and a move action and a new check each subsequent round to "maintain" (failure = they're free) and is far less penalizing than before (can use 1H weapons, still in your own spaces, can threaten and attack others, no loss of dex to AC)). Bull rush got nerfed heavily -- it rush now requires BAB +6 and 3 feats just to make the movement provoke AoOs, something it did with NO feats in 3E, and the checks against CMB are MUCH harder to overcome than the equivalent in 3e. Pounce is extremely hard to get in Pathfinder, where you could get it with a single level 1 dip into barbarian in 3.5e. Pathfinder nerfed some great 3.5e feats, like Mage Slayer (now called disruptive) or Stand Still (now keys off enemy CMD).

2c.) Monks. Monks can no longer take improved natural attack, use natural attacks after their flurry, apply fast movement to speeds other than land speed, acquire something like improved trip or improved disarm through their class (which is the greater versions in pathfinder), and they cannot use flurry of blows with only a single weapon (!!!!).

2d.) A good chunk of melee-specific monsters are now stronger at melee. Lions, Tigers, things that interact with the new natural attack rules, where all primary natural attacks stay primary no matter how many secondary attacks they get, and that if you attack with a single natural weapon, you get 1.5x strength to damage and get to use the two handed weapon power attack ratio. This nerfs player character melee compared to things they will have to face. Unless you are a spellcaster, and get to thus interact with the natural weapon rules yourself (Summoner's eidolon, Druid).

3.) Lots of the more powerful classes were buffed. Wizards no longer lose access to their prohibited schools. Divination is now a valid choice of prohibited school. Cleric gains free martial / exotic weapon proficiency with their deity's weapon. The new Witch class has an at will save or die at level 1 (slumber, with no HD limit), and has a fort save or die at level 10 (Ice Tomb). These hexes are once per target, but there is a level 1 feat that lets you try again if they save. Creators claim they don't like power creep, but they offer several power creep options for casters (teleportation option for classic conjuration school, robes of arcane heritage item, compsognathus familiar, their version of the persistent spell metamagic feat, the synthesist summoner option, the spell perfection feat, dazing spell, bouncing spell, reach spell, selective spell... spellcaster feats are very powerful, and they get MORE feats...)

Basically... Its a new system to learn and they didn't fix the balance. They, in several profound ways, made the balance worse. At least in 3.5e, melee could learn to do useful tricks sometimes... So why waste time learning a new system?

If you want to play a 'like 3.5e but better', look into Trailblazer (http://www.badaxegames.com/)... or better yet, Legend. (http://www.ruleofcool.com/)