Regarding Pathfinder

[javijuji]

My group and I have been playing D&D 3.5 for a year now. And every now and then we here about Pathfinder and we get pretty curious about it. I also see a lot of threads in this forum are about pathfinder so it seems quite popular.

Id like to know what is it that makes it good and is it supposed to be played stand alone or can it be integrated into 3.5?

[Xerinous]

It's designed with the idea that you'll be playing it standalone in mind, though it's really easy to bring 3.5 material into it.

It's got much more of a single-class focus going on than 3.5 did; multiclassing can seriously cut down on your usefulness. This is because a lot of classes got buffed, such as fighters actually having class features now or barbarians with their rage powers.

A lot of spells were weakened, on the other hand. Spells that were save-or-die are mostly now save-or-take-large-amounts-of-damage. The only ones that I know of that are still save-or-die are Phantasmal Killer and Weird, but they're really more save-or-save-or-die. Polymorph, in its entirety, has been nerfed. Instead of using the physical stats of the creature you're turning into, you modify your stats based on what size the creature you're turning into is.

Pathfinder is a lot like 3.5 but with a lot of the game-breaking tricks broken, casters are a bit weaker, and martial characters are a fair bit stronger. Oh, and simplified combat maneuvers, that one's nice.

[White_Drake]

Firstly, it's incredibly easy to integrate 3.5 and PF, and you can use your favorites from each system with only minor conversion work. Secondly, I will direct you to Saph's 3.5/PF Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7609693). Lastly, I will throw in my two cents, which is that with archetypes and the new base classes, Pathfinder opens up some really neat character options, which are probably possible in 3.5, but would require searching stacks of books and blending together umpteen different Prestige classes and feats. Also, I would add in Pathfinder just for the Alchemist class, it is in my top three favorite classes of all time, and maybe even number one (of course that's a matter of personal opinion, take it with a grain of salt). Pathfinder claims to solve many of 3.5's balancing problems, and from what I've heard, it does a little bit to help, but doesn't come close to fixing them. Blackguard was made into a base class, like it should have been all along, and archery finally gets some love with PF feats. I'll end with the disclaimer that I've only recently began to play a 3.P campaign, so this may all be wildly inaccurate, but it's my opinion, for what it's worth. Looking back on this, it appears I've also began to master the art of speaking much and saying nothing.

[kardar233]

I'm not a fan of Pathfinder, so this post will be coloured by that.

Pathfinder is a RPG line made by Paizo Publishing (the guys who wrote Dragon magazine) after Wizards dropped the 3.5 line. It's heavily based on 3.5 with only small changes in the infrastructure of the system (important changes are in the skill system, feat progression and the CMB/CMD system for combat maneuvers) but larger changes in the classes, feats and skills.

Pathfinder is built as a stand-alone game but is fairly backwards compatible, so 3.5 material can be ported in without too many compatibility issues.

Pathfinder seems to be built for the blaster wizard/healbot cleric/S&B fighter/trapmonkey rogue kind of group. Pathfinder's core has a slightly higher optimization floor than 3.5's, which is good for this kind of group.

At higher levels of optimization, Pathfinder has the same issues as 3.5 and has added several more. The comparative lack of material available for Pathfinder also restricts the number of possible character approaches compared to 3.5.

That's about as nice as I can be about Pathfinder. The Magus, Summoner and Inquisitor are fairly well done, but many of their classes are trainwrecks.

[Snowbluff]

I wish Pathfinder fixed what was wrong with 3.5

Other than that, it's a passable system.

[navar100]

Oh boy. This question always opens the proverbial worm can.

Main differences between Pathfinder and 3E:

Skills - Pathfinder consolidated skills, such as Move Silently and Hide are now Stealth. Spot and Listen are now Perception. While there are class skills there's no such things a cross-class. You pay one point for one rank. Max ranks equals your level. Class skills give +3 bonus if you have a rank in it.

Feats - Along with new interesting feats, Pathfinder changed several 3E feats which causes controversy. The now stereotype is to focus on Power Attack and Improved Trip. Power Attack is now a set penalty to hit ratio instead of player choice. Those who hate this with a passion do so because there's no longer that great synergy with 3E's Shock Trooper and Leap Attack. The feat itself works fine. One-handed weapons get -1/+2 ratio while two-handed weapons get -1/+3. The net effect is that while two-handed weapon style still produce lots of damage it is no longer overwhelmingly so such that choosing to use sword and shield or two-weapon style is now a worthy tradeoff. Other feats exist to support those styles. Improved Trip got nerfed in that you don't get an attack after you trip someone. You need to get another feat for that. In my opinion criticism against this is warranted.

Classes - No class has a dead level, though Sorcerer is close to that at 2nd level in my opinion. (Only gets a 0 level spell known and another casting of a 1st level spell.) Non-spellcasters get lots of love. Fighters don't suck for wearing heavy armor and get bonus damage for weapon groups so they don't have to pass up a magic weapon because it's not what they've been using. Barbarians can do interesting things while raging. Paladins are the clear winner in the love department. Lay On Hands can cure more than hit points. Can have a bonded weapon instead of a mount - make your own magic weapon and you don't lose a class feature entering a swamp, dungeon, desert, or mountain. Smite Evil is now worthy of being called a Smite! Sorcerers get class features based on bloodline chosen. Sorcerers have to give up something to go into a prestige class. Clerics instead of turning undead can now heal multiple people at a range. Druids got whacked with the nerf stick. Druids still wildshape, but now you starting physical ability scores matter.

Spells - Overall power got nerfed. Save or die is now save or take 10 damage per level, though Slay Living is 12d6. Some spells got a saving throw - Ray of Enfeeblement, Irresistible Dance. Some spells changed how they work - Mirror Image, Grease, Polymorph, Protection From Evil. Most spells in 3E that gave immunity to something now give you a bonus to your saving throw, though a few immunities still exist.

Monsters - Some monsters are no longer immune to critical hits and sneak attack such as corporeal undead and constructs. Elementals are still immune. Basically monsters without any sort of anatomy at all.

New Pathfinder features:

Favored Class bonus for staying in one class - skill points, hit points, or extra class feature as an optional rule. Some people are enraged human sorcerers can get another spell known each level.

Archetypes - While Prestige Classes do exists, archetypes allow you to play the same base class but have slightly different class abilities. Many mimic 3E prestige classes or alternate class features though nerfed in many cases like Cloistered Cleric.

Interesting Feats - You can take a feat to apply some negative condition upon scoring a critical hit.

New classes - Oracle is to Cleric as Sorcerer is to Wizard. Inquisitor - a built in warrior/divine spellcaster gish, Witch, Magus - Pathfinder's answer to Duskblade.

Opinion:

Those who are enraged by 3E, whatever ticks them off about the system, will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. Those people cannot be satisfied with the system. They need a complete overhaul into something else. Such a thing exists. It's called 4E or play some other game that's not D&D. (NOT saying 4E is not D&D.)

There are 3E fans who don't like Pathfinder. Usually it's because they can't get past the changes to Power Attack and Improved Trip or Sorcerer and Wizard have class features. Some resent Pathfinder exists. They are perfectly happy with their 3E game and see no reason to pay someone for their house rules.

[TopCheese]

I wish Pathfinder fixed what was wrong with 3.5

Other than that, it's a passable system.

This is my problem with pathfinder. Paizo originally said they wanted to balance 3.5 (not in those words but yeah) yet all they did was put glitter on the broken parts of the game so ppl would think it was fixed.

They got the skill system... Kinda right but still wrong.
CmB/CMD is fantastic.
Feat progression is better BUT you get shafted since they broke 1 feat into 3 feats (maneuver feats like Imp Bullrush).

Also the classes are stick wack... The summoner being one of the worst cases of messed up. Sure it isn't a tier 1 BUT it gets its very own pet fighter (a la druid) among other things.

Before playing pathfinder I suggest you just incorporate CMB/CMD into 3.5... You get about the same game then.

Edit: One great thing about Pathfinder that I forgot is that pretty much all of it (classes/feats and such) is free online. www.d20pfsrd.com

[Corlindale]

I like Pathfinder. Like others have said, it doesn't really "fix" 3.5 (it still needs a Gentleman's Agreement not to become broken and unbalanced), though it does remove some of the more ridiculous, TO-options from 3.5.

My favourite thing about it is that most of the base classes got built-in versatility, both with class feature selection and archetypes. This in my view makes it much easier to customize your character with cool and flavourful abilities (you could do that in 3.5 too, but it would usually be accomplished by digging through a ton of splatbooks for the "just right" prestige class(es)). Ex. a sorceror in 3.5 has almost no class features, but in PF you get to choose a bloodline offering extra spells, thematic abilities and a selection of bonus feats. Makes them much more interesting.

I also really enjoy the new classes. The Alchemist is a particular favourite, though I like the Oracle a lot too. The latter is a particularly good example of the PF-tendency of offering class feature customization right out of the box.

The skill system is also very nice. Makes dabbling in many skills more viable, while simultaneously giving non-class skills a boost.

The only thing I really miss having gone to PF is the ton of options that comes with 3.5 having so many sourcebooks. Sometimes I just dream of trying out weird stuff like the Incarnate, Binder or Factotum, but that's probably not going to happen now.

[Psyren]

The main benefits are:

- It's still being supported/printed.
- It's (legally) free because all the rules are OGL.
- It's popular, so you should have no trouble finding a group or game online.
- If you know how to play 3.5, there's very little new to learn.

What it boils down to - if you largely enjoyed 3.5 you'll like it, because it's more of the same. If you didn't like 3.5, or wanted certain aspects of it changed/fixed, PF likely won't satisfy you either.



The only thing I really miss having gone to PF is the ton of options that comes with 3.5 having so many sourcebooks. Sometimes I just dream of trying out weird stuff like the Incarnate, Binder or Factotum, but that's probably not going to happen now.

Binder and Factotum fit right in; they would only probably want some minor buffs to keep pace with the core classes. Incarnate would need a bit more work, but there are a ton of conversions out there.

I ran a Totemist in a PF game and had to change very little. Check with your DM, you have nothing to lose by asking.

[Andreaz]

They are perfectly happy with their 3E game and see no reason to pay someone for their house rules.Which is silly considering PF is available for free.

[Lycar]

As far as Pathfinder goes, they went a long way to balance melee... with other melee. That is to say, by hammering in the proud nail that Power Attack was in 3.5, both Sword & Board and TWFing are now viable alternatives, especially with the feat support these styles now get.

Some people say, Fighters got shafted by the additional feats everybody gets because it means their signature feature, bonus feats, got devalued.

Well, to that I say: On the one hand, people now getting 10 feats over 20 levels compared to 7 vs. 20 feats instead of 17 isn't that much of a difference. Sure, theoretically this means non-Fighters now get about 1 1/2 times the number of feats they got before and Fighters get about 1/6th extra, but that is ignoring the fact that Fighters are still 10 feats ahead of everyone.

Also, combat maneuvers are now all chains of 2 or 3 feats. Trip has been mentioned. If you want to eat your action-economy cake by tripping a foe and have it too by adding an attack on top of that, you now need 2 feats instead of 1.

On the other hand, the 2nd feat in the Disarm line now actually makes the weapon fly up to 15 feet away from your foe instead of just dropping it at his feet.

The Dirty Trick line of feats allows Fighters to debuff enemies. Blind an enemy for 1d4 rounds (possibly more) or he needs to take a standard action to make that condition go away? 2 feats. Spend 3 and you can still use any iteratives you have left for damage.

Fighters have options. In melee. Yes, ultimately they still hit things with other things but they can now do more then just inflict HP damage.

How about using Reposition to set your target up for a nice flank with your Rogue, now that making the Tumble skill roll to move around the battlefield unmolested is no longer trivial but requires actual investment? Or take a single trait, make Bluff a class skill and Feint your target into being flatfooted... until the beginning of your next turn. For the entire part. For the low, low price of one primary attack action.

Yes, you have to chose between dealing damage or debuffing / controling the battlefield. But you can do it.

And who but the Fighter has the feats to do all that? Because, quite frankly, other classes have other things to take. They may have more feats now but they still want things other then combat maneuver feats.

On top of all that, the small bonus a Fighter gets on attacks with weapon groups just for being a Fighter? They boost the CMB too. Do the math. Fighters are the kings of combat maneuvers. If they chose to be that.