Any 3.5'ers have trouble switching to PF?

[Jandrem]

Wasn't sure where to put this idea. Approaching this from a 3.5 veteran POV, so here seemed like a good place. Apologies if I am mistaken.

Simply put, I'm a 3.5 fan who can't completely convert to Pathfinder, and I'm not entirely sure why I can't. My gaming groups are all converting to PF from 3.5, I do like a lot of the changes they made, but something about it just isn't working for me.

I DM a weekly Pathfinder session, and every single session I get tripped up by some little change that crept in under the radar. I would have preferred they made open, obvious, blanket changes and documented them better. They put out a conversion guide, but it barely touches on some of the more obvious changes.

I own the core books. I've read them. It's just not sticking. I'm getting tired of getting surprised by some small, obscure rule change from 3.5 that there doesn't even seem to be an obvious reason for the rule to be changed. It practically feels like a new system, not a continuation of one. Trying to remember all the little changes after spending years learning the ins and outs of 3.5 is maddening; I'm constantly flipping through books and confusing which edition did what. At this point I'm about to just swear off PF and stick with 3.5.

Really, it's my own problem. Maybe my reading comprehension skills just suck.

Has anyone else attempted to change up to Pathfinder, but encountered similar problems?

[Malachei]

I know why I don't convert: The pure versatility of 3.5, especially Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and others.

3.5 is still my leading system: Instead of importing 3.5 accessories to PF, I've import PF aspects to 3.5 -- this may change, eventually, as PF grows, but I'll first have a look at 5e (even though Monte has left the design team).

[Righteous Doggy]

I think I only enjoy it when I compare it to core, but when I look at all the sourcebooks I've amassed it is VERY hard to switch over to pathfinder. What always made it hardest was that when I look at pathfinder I get the feel like I'm supposed to stick with one class for 20 levels. Even with prcs, the classes look like they want you to stick with them and not move out. They also still think a fighter only needs 2+ skillpoints, and no need for intellect. 2 skillpoints makes anything but combat feel lame and worthless.

But I keep rereading and finding that they're adding more and more content, I might be happy with it one day, but I feel like I need more of a ToB feel if I ever want to enjoy melee. They need nice things, and to feel like they do more than hit stuff with a big stick.

[Jandrem]

I really think the next game I run is just going to be 3.5, with some PF elements thrown in. I love what they did with the core classes, the Sorcerer especially.

But, at the end of every PF session I run, I just feel like I'd rather just run 3.5, instead of some weird clone. I know 3.5 in and out; whatever I don't know or am unsure of, I know exactly where to find it to verify.

I have almost every 3e-3.5 book, just shy maybe 5 or so. Instead of converting over 100 books to one new core book, I'd rather convert the one core book to my existing collection, like what Malachei said.

[ericgrau]

Ya I've had similar issues. But mainly I think PF isn't different enough to switch to if you like 3.5, though conversely I wouldn't avoid it either. I do like the new classes and other build options.

I would encourage, especially in your case, using 3.5 rules and treating PF like a splatbook for classes and anything else you like. If you like a certain large chunk of rules a lot then fine, but otherwise I wouldn't bother deciding which system is better on little rules changes: just go with 3.5 rules.

[sonofzeal]

I'm totally with you. This is pretty much the main reason I haven't switched, too many small little things that I think I'm familiar with but would end up having to re-learn.

[Malachei]

I think Pathfinder is an excellent product line. I really enjoy the Adventure Paths, and I think Golarion is a fine setting.

I find that apart from wizards, I tend to play mostly non-core classes, and I really miss those in Pathfinder.

I hope Pathfinder stays close to 3.5, so we're able to use mixed material for many years to come.

[Clawhound]

I wouldn't have trouble, for the most part. I'm not a system mastery type person, so not having all the options wouldn't really bother me. Heck, I still play fights sometimes (even knowing all its problems) just because I don't want to deal with all the administrivia.

For system mastery types, I can see why you'd have a problem switching. Keeping tracks of all the little changes between two system would be murder. Your power lies in using all those little rules in your own favor.

[Snowbluff]

I think I only enjoy it when I compare it to core, but when I look at all the sourcebooks I've amassed it is VERY hard to switch over to pathfinder. What always made it hardest was that when I look at pathfinder I get the feel like I'm supposed to stick with one class for 20 levels. Even with prcs, the classes look like they want you to stick with them and not move out. They also still think a fighter only needs 2+ skillpoints, and no need for intellect. 2 skillpoints makes anything but combat feel lame and worthless.

But I keep rereading and finding that they're adding more and more content, I might be happy with it one day, but I feel like I need more of a ToB feel if I ever want to enjoy melee. They need nice things, and to feel like they do more than hit stuff with a big stick.

I entirely agree. To me, PF is a group of splatbooks. Sure, I might run a PF game with full 3.5 access, but I really prefer having it clear that 3.5 material is allowed, and that I encourage mixing and matching. Messing around with character 8uilds is a third of the game (the other two thirds 8eing strategy and roleplaying). Not giving a full suite of options diminishes the effect of the game.


I really think the next game I run is just going to be 3.5, with some PF elements thrown in. I love what they did with the core classes, the Sorcerer especially.

But, at the end of every PF session I run, I just feel like I'd rather just run 3.5, instead of some weird clone. I know 3.5 in and out; whatever I don't know or am unsure of, I know exactly where to find it to verify.


This as well. Things like giving the Sorc some class features is awesome, even though I'd rather have some actually good PrCs.

[Answerer]

There are lots of good reasons not to touch Pathfinder. Paizo is not exactly a superb development team, and their changes have been rather hit-or-miss. But yeah, a major reason not to change is that they change a lot of things, but only a little bit, which makes it hard to keep track of all the changes while not actually getting very many benefits from doing so.

[SimonMoon6]

I felt the same way about switching from 3.0 to 3.5, so I never did buy the 3.5 books.

Pathfinder (to me) seems like a much better game to switch to. That is, I'd rather switch from 3.x to Pathfinder than switch from 3.0 to 3.5. There's more substantial change, making it more of a new game, and to me that's a benefit not a drawback.

But I'm not playing in any games at the moment, so it's all completely theoretical to me.

[Clawhound]

I wouldn't have trouble, for the most part. I'm not a system mastery type person, so not having all the options wouldn't really bother me. Heck, I still play fights sometimes (even knowing all its problems) just because I don't want to deal with all the administrivia.

For system mastery types, I can see why you'd have a problem switching. Keeping tracks of all the little changes between two system would be murder. Your power lies in using all those little rules in your own favor.

[Golden Ladybug]

At first, I really liked Pathfinder. I learnt it to play a game of play by post actually, which is still ongoing and is one of the most fun games I've ever had.

But, as time goes on, I am less and less interested in it, because I just keep getting annoyed by small things. I like a lot of what Pathfinder did, but small aspects just ruin it for me.

Take the Bard; I like how it gives you cool features based on what type of Music you play! Its cool how your activation time for Bardic Music decreases! I absolutely loathe the new way of determining Bardic Music duration. As such, I'll never play a Bard in Pathfinder.

In fact, I don't want to play as most of the classes. I don't want to be a Magus, or an Oracle, or a Witch. They all seem so bland, even though they might well be very cool. It's like looking at a Duskblade, Cleric and Wizard that someone recoloured and tried to pass off as a new thing.

The multitude of Feats that don't do very much to counter getting more feats also irks me. As 3.5 went on, its feats got stronger, and you picked ones that were really quite good. Pathfinder has some good feats, but most of them are rather mediocre (although almost all of the core 3.5 feats have been buffed), so you're spending your extra feats on junk.

There has also been weird, small changes to how things work. Familiar looking spells do very different things, and small changes to how things worked trip you up (it takes 2000xp to get to level 2, rather than 1000 is just one of the many things that has gotten me flustered, for instance).

The way monstrous player races have been done has me with my head in my hands. The unclear mixture of CR and LA has me with my head in my hands; the amount of unclearness in how you should determine ECL (from my understanding, the advice is eyeball a value that sort of makes sense and hope) has put up more of a barrier to playing a Drow than in 3.5 :smallbiggrin:

In general, I love the options 3.5 gives me too much to go into Pathfinder full time. I like what they did, in a lot of places, but I feel like its lost too much. Prestige Classes I miss especially, as for the most part, they've been folded into the base class as Archtypes.

Pathfinder lets you play with one book, and do well. 3.5 lets you dig through a library of books, looking for the one thing that you know you saw that one time that would be absolutely perfect!

[Jandrem]

I will say I was very impressed with the Magus. I am a huge Duskblade fan, but Duskblades are extremely one-dimensional. The Magus takes that same cool class ability, and opens it up to lots more versatility, with minimal setbacks. I'd happily swap the Magus into my 3.5 games permanently to replace the Duskblade.

But the other classes just feel really "meh" to me. The summoner is ok, the witch just looks like another boring "arcane casting variant #53", same with oracle, and the alchemist throws bottles. That's just my opinion though, because the players in my game LOVE the new classes.

[Aegis013]

When I played in a Pathfinder game the thing that irked me most about the switch to PF was having no idea what my companions could do... or were good at, or even what roles they were filling. We built all our characters with very little communication between players, but it was still just strange playing with classes I'd never heard of and had no idea how good they would be.

The small changes irked me too. For example, needing 2,000 XP to get to level 2 made me sit and ponder; relatively fast advancement is one of the biggest draws for d20 systems for me. Other systems that don't guarantee XP or take 50 hours of sessions to see any mechanical gain are hard for me to stay interested in.

Plus, I love searching through 10+ sourcebooks to craft the perfect character bit by bit. I find that to be almost as much fun as playing.

[Tief]

I started playing 3.5 (as did all of my friends) and after awhile we all switched to PF. They loved it, they found it much easier and they were much more eager to play, I found it easier to play and the stuff such as CMB and CMD really helped with combat.

But After a few weeks I got quite bored of PF compared to 3.5, PF did not seem like you could mix and match classes as well, and I love how many classes and races are built for 3.5.
So we play either now, although I always prefer 3.5, feels so much more flexible.

[Mari01]

At first, I really liked Pathfinder. I learnt it to play a game of play by post actually, which is still ongoing and is one of the most fun games I've ever had.

But, as time goes on, I am less and less interested in it, because I just keep getting annoyed by small things. I like a lot of what Pathfinder did, but small aspects just ruin it for me.

Take the Bard; I like how it gives you cool features based on what type of Music you play! Its cool how your activation time for Bardic Music decreases! I absolutely loathe the new way of determining Bardic Music duration. As such, I'll never play a Bard in Pathfinder.

In fact, I don't want to play as most of the classes. I don't want to be a Magus, or an Oracle, or a Witch. They all seem so bland, even though they might well be very cool. It's like looking at a Duskblade, Cleric and Wizard that someone recoloured and tried to pass off as a new thing.

The multitude of Feats that don't do very much to counter getting more feats also irks me. As 3.5 went on, its feats got stronger, and you picked ones that were really quite good. Pathfinder has some good feats, but most of them are rather mediocre (although almost all of the core 3.5 feats have been buffed), so you're spending your extra feats on junk.

There has also been weird, small changes to how things work. Familiar looking spells do very different things, and small changes to how things worked trip you up (it takes 2000xp to get to level 2, rather than 1000 is just one of the many things that has gotten me flustered, for instance).

The way monstrous player races have been done has me with my head in my hands. The unclear mixture of CR and LA has me with my head in my hands; the amount of unclearness in how you should determine ECL (from my understanding, the advice is eyeball a value that sort of makes sense and hope) has put up more of a barrier to playing a Drow than in 3.5 :smallbiggrin:

In general, I love the options 3.5 gives me too much to go into Pathfinder full time. I like what they did, in a lot of places, but I feel like its lost too much. Prestige Classes I miss especially, as for the most part, they've been folded into the base class as Archtypes.

Pathfinder lets you play with one book, and do well. 3.5 lets you dig through a library of books, looking for the one thing that you know you saw that one time that would be absolutely perfect!

Although you're right about the more monstrous races, things like drow, goblins, and sfvnerblin(gnome) have a "recommended" level adjustment. It's given in the Core Rule Book. However, I'm a bit glad that prestige classes aren't as good/multiclassing is encouraged. I got tired in 3.5 of casters having the prestige classes that lost nothing but gave straight up improvements. To me, a fighter/wizard looks and feels better than fighter 1/wizard4/Abjurant Champion X/ Something Else 14. That just looks too cheesy for me.

[Doug Lampert]

I felt the same way about switching from 3.0 to 3.5, so I never did buy the 3.5 books.

Pathfinder (to me) seems like a much better game to switch to. That is, I'd rather switch from 3.x to Pathfinder than switch from 3.0 to 3.5. There's more substantial change, making it more of a new game, and to me that's a benefit not a drawback.

But I'm not playing in any games at the moment, so it's all completely theoretical to me.

The 3.5 shift was effectively 3.0 with errata. They fixed some broken stuff and left the rest the same. That's a clear benefit. Unless you actually think gaming books are individually expensive (they're not when counted against the entertainment time provided), there's no reason not to upgrade.

That 3.5 to PF is a more substantial change is a PROBLEM if you accept the design goal that PF was supposed to be backward compatible. It's a new system, to use it you need to learn a new system. What's the benefit of this new system?

It plays REALLY similar to 3.5, plays so much like 3.5 that's its questionable why you should shift; it has effectively all the problems of 3.5; and it doesn't have the splat support of 3.5 or the acquired system mastery of 3.5.

I'm just not seeing the gain here unless you like changing systems for its own sake rather than for some actual improvement.

I'd put something almost identical to PF skills into my houserules years prior to PF coming out, it's not hard, and it gets almost the entire gain from PF skills into your 3.5 game. CMB is easy to backport to 3.5 if you think it's better. Feats at every odd level rather than level 1 + levels divisible by 3, that's not hard to backport if you want it.

Changed and added classes, mostly I can put these into 3.5 if I like.

So what's the advantage to switching to PF rather than houseruling 3.5 to swipe whatever PF aspects I like?

[AslanCross]

I honestly haven't run into any problems. For the most part, I consider PF backwards-compatible, and while I've only run one real session in PF, I think the changes were small enough for me not to notice. I think it may have helped that my players were all new and started with PF, so that I can easily help them convert class features over.

[Chained Birds]

As a player of 3.5 and PF (In favor of PF seeing as most of my friends play it), I'd say the greatest thing to come out of PF is the CMD and CMB system.

I know a lot of people have a problem with it as it "ruined" Trip builds and other things, but the system is all around easier to work with. It doesn't take as long to explain to someone new (unlike 3.5 grapple...) and makes enemies a lot more fun to use if you are the DM.

In 3.5 games I would port over these rules, if not for the fact that I would also have to re-word certain feats, spells and TOB maneuvers that would otherwise create an imbalance. But then again, it would be pretty minor in the end.

Pathfinder does do a lot of stupid that makes me disagree with certain erratas that have come out though. Like certain archetypes (mainly monk) being completely useless now and certain weapon changes (like the brass knuckle) contradicting what they say and do.

Oh, and Spiked Chains are useless too. Just throwing that out there; but if you are a cleric of a certain deity I think you gain proficiency with them? Whatever...

On a side note: Many of my friends enjoy the fact they can mostly stick with 1 class from beginning to end opposed to dipping into everything in order to make a character with a specific goal in mind.

[navar100]

My group converted to Pathfinder fine. A little 3E stuff is still used.

My advice: Use the Pathfinder classes and feat progression. Everything else can be 3E. You can get by using 3E spellcasters, but I still advise Pathfinder Sorcerers if only to prevent auto-Prestige Classing with them in 3E unless you don't particularly mind that. However, do use the Pathfinder non-spellcasters. They get a lot of needed love, especially Fighter and Paladin.

Obviously you don't have to convert to Pathfinder. It's hard not to since Pathfinder is the only source of new materials for the 3E system, but it's not a requirement. However, if part of you really does want to convert, go slow. Use the classes. Keep everything else: 3E skill system, 3E feats, 3E spells. The classes are the biggest hurdle. Once you're used to them, then you can tackle skills and feats. You will find some converts recommend to still use 3E feats regardless as they don't care for Pathfinder changes. I like them. It comes down to personal taste.

[Righteous Doggy]

On a side note: Many of my friends enjoy the fact they can mostly stick with 1 class from beginning to end opposed to dipping into everything in order to make a character with a specific goal in mind.

Personaly, I dislike the idea that they chose for you, no turning back nor trying something else, nor being many things. I feel that dipping was murdered in cold blood, but I might just be crazy.

[Jandrem]

Personaly, I dislike the idea that they chose for you, no turning back nor trying something else, nor being many things. I feel that dipping was murdered in cold blood, but I might just be crazy.

Multiclassing is still allowed and works identically to how it did in 3.5, so they didn't exactly murder it in cold blood. They just gave players more rewards to stay with one class. You can still multiclass just fine.

I'm a big fan of multiclassing, but I've never liked the idea of "dipping." I don't like that the crux mechanic of a class could be gained in one or two levels. That's just my playstyle preference though, and if dipping works for you, then I can sympathize a little, but not much since the mutliclassing mechanic wasn't removed like it was in later versions of D&D.

[Pegtor]

I just started as a DM after lots of 3.5 and 4.0 games, and while I must say that 4th is easier to DM it's not nearly so much fun, while I haven't tried Pathfinder My bro told me about some of the changes and frankly I doesn't sound like you can pull off quite so many shenanigans. I'm going to put my current band of chumps through Red Hand of Doom shotly (the party consisting of a half elf, human, draconic human, an OP DMPC for sitting back and laughing at the rest, and a double half dragon squid.) and the're really looking forward to it,
My long winding point being: the more broken you can get the more chance of lolz

[Pegtor]

That or I'm just bias for 3.5

:wink:

[Eldonauran]

Switching to PF? Trouble?

Not so much for me. I love several things about Pathfinder. CMB/CMD, saving throws, HP tied to BAB, feat every odd level, condensed skill list, favored class bonus, alternate racial features... The list is extensive.

I've pretty much completely converted to running Pathfinder and just pull things from 3.5 to fill in some gaps. It still feels like 3.5 and the new options are refreshing.