Pathfinder dissapointment, help!

[Martial_law]

Im growing tired with dnd 4 and am interested in trying my hand at the hugely versatile pathfinder style. I got a pathfinder book and was disappointed by its similarities to dnd 3.5. Where is all the variability come form that I hear people talk about?

What source material should I acquire so that I can explore this more?!

Where are the alchemists and gunslingers?!?

[zimmerwald1915]

You probably have the Core Rulebook, which contains content similar in scope and content to 3.5's Player's Handbook and Dungeon Master's Guide. If you're looking for books containing Pathfinder-exclusive classes, you'll want the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, the upcoming Advanced Class Guide, and/or a number of third-party books. If you're looking for something specific, or just want to play without having the books, most of the first-party content is online via the Pathfinder Reference Document (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/). The alchemist (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/advanced/baseClasses/alchemist.html) and gunslinger (http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/ultimateCombat/classes/gunslinger.html), for instance.

[Twilightwyrm]

Yes, Pathfinder is very similar to D&D 3.5, mostly because it was basically created for a (quite large) market of people that still liked the style of D&D 3.5, as opposed to 4.0, while taking steps to differentiate itself. So the "diversity" and "variability" you hear should be taken with the disclaimer that this is all with the understanding that it is a 3.5-esque game. I hear D&D Next has changed a number of things, so if you are looking for a system that is different from both 3.5 and 4.0, you might want to check out that, or another similarly fantasy RPG.
This being said, the variability comes with the introduction of traits and archetypes. Prestige Classes still exist, but they have a lot less focus, in favor of archetypes which are basically like Alternate Class Features expanded to effect the entire class, thereby increasing the number of base class options available, and making taking a class until 20th a lot more attractive. In addition, traits will give you additional effects, and even grant you class skills, so you don't need to dip out just to get a certain skill you would like your character to have. Finally, the game is overall better balanced (not balanced, simply more balanced that 3.5), as a result of the developers having access to a wealth of system information regarding 3.5 (to what extant they actually used this information is another debate). So if you are looking for a game like 3.5 D&D, but with more options and a slightly different feel, give it a try.

[Ssalarn]

Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75, with greatly improved core classes and tons of minor system changes throughout designed to simplify and codify the various gaming mechanics.

The CRB is largely just the revamped 3.5 material, but in the later Advanced Player Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Advanced Race Guide Paizo rolls out a lot more of their own materials with new classes and mechanics. The CRB is mainly to get you up to date on the things that have changed if you are already familiar with 3.5.

[Larkas]

Well, Pathfinder is D&D 3.5.5. No wonder you felt they were similar. Still, 3.5 is hugely versatile when compared to 4. I don't really get what's supposed to be the problem.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Pathfinder is essentially D&D 3.75, with greatly improved core classes and tons of minor system changes throughout designed to simplify and codify the various gaming mechanics.

The CRB is largely just the revamped 3.5 material, but in the later Advanced Player Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and Advanced Race Guide Paizo rolls out a lot more of their own materials with new classes and mechanics. The CRB is mainly to get you up to date on the things that have changed if you are already familiar with 3.5.

I'm not sure if improved core classes would be the right way to put it. Sure they added, stuff, to the core classes but nothing really changed to improve them. Fighters are still tier 5 and wizards are still tier 1, fighters still don't get to do what they were made for, and it is just pretty stickers on an old beat up car.

You still have the same exact problems as you did in 3.5 with the added problem of broken math in the CMD/CMB system :/. I do like some of their stuff but really it doesn't stack up to Incarnum, Tome of Battle, or the Binder from 3.5. I tend to run the CMD/CMB homebrewed differently so that it actually works past level 7(ish).

But at least polymorph any object got fixed!

[Snowbluff]

I'm not sure if improved core classes would be the right way to put it. Sure they added, stuff, to the core classes but nothing really changed to improve them. Fighters are still tier 5 and wizards are still tier 1, fighters still don't get to do what they were made for, and it is just pretty stickers on an old beat up car.

You still have the same exact problems as you did in 3.5 with the added problem of broken math in the CMD/CMB system :/. I do like some of their stuff but really it doesn't stack up to Incarnum, Tome of Battle, or the Binder from 3.5. I tend to run the CMD/CMB homebrewed differently so that it actually works past level 7(ish).

But at least polymorph any object got fixed!
This pretty much. The new fighter is kind of a pathetic improvement. All numbers and archetype bait for more numerical options. If you're a 4e player, the polymorph fix is nice.

If you are a 3.5 diehard like me, you laugh at the fix, and play a summoner instead. Most people won't notice how screwed up it is.

I prefer 3.5. Tier 3 is the best tier. ToB for life! :smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This pretty much. The new fighter is kind of a pathetic improvement. All numbers and archetype bait for more numerical options. If you're a 4e player, the polymorph fix is nice.

If you are a 3.5 diehard like me, you laugh at the fix, and play a summoner instead. Most people won't notice how screwed up it is.

I prefer 3.5. Tier 3 is the best tier. ToB for life! :smalltongue:

Tier 3 is the way to go, though I'm usually torn between ToB and MoI.

I want to make a core rulebook that is centered around maneuvers and Incarnum. Though I will throw in the binder too, probably the best fluff of any class ever made for D&D (well the vestiges at least).

Now, there are two Archetypes that make the Pathfinder Ranger a non-magical ranger with some limited but interesting options. One replaces favored enemy and makes it more versatile and the other replaces spells with tricks or something. So much potential there.

[Sception]

Agree. Oh, the core is improved slightly - I'd play PF core only before 3.5 core only, but it's not a significant improvement and doens't address most of the serious issues. I was especially disappointed by the expansion material, though. Some stuff is interesting (summoner in partiular), but for the most part there's little that's as innovative or interesting as the warlock, binder, beguiler, warblade, or the like, mostly we're talking about re-skinned and often slightly downgraded core classes (the oracle is a cleric with inferior spontaneous casting mechanics; the witch is a wizard whose only spellbook is his familiar - making the spellbook super vulnerable, and the familiar way less useful than that of a sorcerer or wizard since endangering it risks crippling your character. Alchemist is an interesting idea at least, but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired, etc.

I don't dislike pathfinder, mind, but I'd only really play it with a DM willing to port forward some of the funner/more interesting 3.5 content.

[Dorian Gray]

This pretty much. The new fighter is kind of a pathetic improvement. All numbers and archetype bait for more numerical options. If you're a 4e player, the polymorph fix is nice.

If you are a 3.5 diehard like me, you laugh at the fix, and play a summoner instead. Most people won't notice how screwed up it is.

I prefer 3.5. Tier 3 is the best tier. ToB for life! :smalltongue:

Down with the Martial Adepts! Focused Specialist is the way to go!
Except healer and warmage, I guess. Can't win 'em all.

[Snowbluff]

Beguiler and Dread Necro are cool, too.

Tier 3 is the way to go, though I'm usually torn between ToB and MoI.

I want to make a core rulebook that is centered around maneuvers and Incarnum. Though I will throw in the binder too, probably the best fluff of any class ever made for D&D (well the vestiges at least).


It's all so interesting. My muckdweller dude would be a Binder if he had the cha.


Now, there are two Archetypes that make the Pathfinder Ranger a non-magical ranger with some limited but interesting options. One replaces favored enemy and makes it more versatile and the other replaces spells with tricks or something. So much potential there. Yeah, there was a few of those in 3.5. I think 2 spell-less rangers.

I end up playing Synthesist in 90% of my PF games. :l

[Psyren]

While there are still T5s in PF, usually it's a shorter hop (an archetype or two) to get them to T4, which is good enough to be competitive with proper wealth.

There's really nothing wrong with T1s unless your players have no restraint. People play with Wizards, clerics and druids every day after all.

[Ansem]

{{scrubbed}}

[SpawnOfMorbo]

While there are still T5s in PF, usually it's a shorter hop (an archetype or two) to get them to T4, which is good enough to be competitive with proper wealth.

There's really nothing wrong with T1s unless your players have no restraint. People play with Wizards, clerics and druids every day after all.

I love playing T1 from time to time, that isn't the issue. I can have fun with a broken system if I pick the parts that aren't detrimental.

The issue is that the game has such huge gaps between different classes and did nothing to really fix that problem. You have gods among ants, and when I want to play a huge fantasy type... I have to play an ant.

Or I have to see others play classes and they can't do what they want or when they can they can't do it well. Especially new players that think that is how it is suppose to be, like having non-casters play under LotR rules while casters get to play Scion is a base rule (or base concept) of D&D/Pathfinder.

And no, it isn't a shorter hop. If I want to get out of tier 5 I can actually pick up a base non-casters class in 3.5 and be tier 3. Although she never really said it, "Let them eat cake" doesn't solve the problem of non-casters in Pathfinder.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

{{scrubbed}}.

You spouted an opinion.

Please prove that it takes less skill to play pathfinder than 3.5 or 4e.

And when did they exchange useful class features for fluff? They added more class features to Pathfinder than what 3.5 has and 4e keeps a very systematic way of giving class features.

Your post is not only overly aggressive but weird.

[Psyren]

{{scrubbed}}

I have the 'brain capacity' to know when not to bother having a debate with someone whose viewpoint is that rigid :smalltongue:


The issue is that the game has such huge gaps between different classes and did nothing to really fix that problem. You have gods among ants, and when I want to play a huge fantasy type... I have to play an ant.

Whether it's a "problem" is really going to vary from group to group. My most regular one has 2 druids, a wizard, a ranger, a magus, a ninja and a summoner all playing together just fine.



Or I have to see others play classes and they can't do what they want or when they can they can't do it well. Especially new players that think that is how it is suppose to be, like having non-casters play under LotR rules while casters get to play Scion is a base rule (or base concept) of D&D/Pathfinder.

If they're not having fun then yeah, playing something else might be the way to go. I can't speak for your group; I know that mine has both new and experienced players and everyone has fun.



And no, it isn't a shorter hop. If I want to get out of tier 5 I can actually pick up a base non-casters class in 3.5 and be tier 3. Although she never really said it, "Let them eat cake" doesn't solve the problem of non-casters in Pathfinder.

This statement makes no sense to me; "I can get out of T5 by not playing a T5 class" is redundant. I'm talking about actually starting with a T5 like Monk or Fighter and using archetypes to get it to T4.

[Ansem]

{{scrubbed}}

[Kudaku]

{{scrubbed}}

This was the first time I've used the "Report Post" tool in well over a year. Let's try to keep this thread on-topic.

@Martial_Law

It sounds like you've picked up the Core Rule Book, which is the equivalent of the Player's Handbook and the Dungeon Master's Guide. There has been some additional material published since then.

The Alchemist class is published in the Advanced Player's Guide, the Gunslinger is in Ultimate Combat.

The majority of Pathfinder content can be found online for free, though it's been stripped of setting-specific flavour and there are some details missing. The websites you might want to look into is the PFSRD (http://d20pfsrd.com/) and Paizo's own PRD (http://paizo.com/prd/). I'd suggest checking out the new classes and find out which ones you find interesting.

For a new player to Pathfinder I'd suggest looking into the Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, the Inner Sea World Guide, and the upcoming Advanced Class Guide. Between them that's about 45 different classes to play.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This statement makes no sense to me; "I can get out of T5 by not playing a T5 class" is redundant. I'm talking about actually starting with a T5 like Monk or Fighter and using archetypes to get it to T4.

Basically, which one is faster.

Picking up a class and needing to research and test out archetypes to try and get to t4. And even if you get to T4 you can still get scrwed rather easily.

Or

Picking up a base class that already has the tools to be T3. The Warblade is a Fighter that has class features that makes it T3 and I don't have to tip toe around the rules to make sure I'm useful versus the game. It is pretty hard to mess up the Warblade.

Other stuff...

Yeah, it varies from gaming group to gaming group and having fun is the priority. However I've seen it time and time again where new players have issues as to why non-casters can't be fantasy. Then they get it in their head that is the way it is supposed to be, like some unwritten rule.

[Psyren]

Thanks for your entertainment value ^^.

Sure thing!


Basically, which one is faster.

Picking up a class and needing to research and test out archetypes to try and get to t4. And even if you get to T4 you can still get scrwed rather easily.

Or

Picking up a base class that already has the tools to be T3. The Warblade is a Fighter that has class features that makes it T3 and I don't have to tip toe around the rules to make sure I'm useful versus the game. It is pretty hard to mess up the Warblade.

I won't deny for a moment that Warblade is great (though I'm one of the folks who considers it to be T4 from that other big thread on the subject - Swordsage is the only true T3 in ToB.) But ToB is divisive - many DMs simply don't like it, and many players simply want to be a Fighter without all the complexity of learning the maneuvers and stances subsystem. A simple Lore Warden fighter gets you to T4 without having to learn a brand new subsystem. And yes, I do consider "pick class, pick archetype" to be a short hop. You're vastly overstating the amount of "research" required - two seconds of looking at a fighter handbook tells me Lore Warden is good.



Yeah, it varies from gaming group to gaming group and having fun is the priority. However I've seen it time and time again where new players have issues as to why non-casters can't be fantasy. Then they get it in their head that is the way it is supposed to be, like some unwritten rule.

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be fantasy." The game expects you to have a variety of magic items as you level up, regardless of your class - is that not fantasy?

[Airk]

Im growing tired with dnd 4 and am interested in trying my hand at the hugely versatile pathfinder style. I got a pathfinder book and was disappointed by its similarities to dnd 3.5. Where is all the variability come form that I hear people talk about?

What source material should I acquire so that I can explore this more?!

Where are the alchemists and gunslingers?!?

This post seems to be unclear on what you are even looking for.

There are a bunch of weird classes and stuff in Pathfinder. But there are an equally absurd number of weird classes in 3.5. In both cases, all the weird stuff is contained in supplemental material. And in both cases, the number isn't really THAT much bigger than the number of classes and nonsense in 4E.

So. What are you actually after?

[squiggit]

I'm not sure what you mean by "can't be fantasy." The game expects you to have a variety of magic items as you level up, regardless of your class - is that not fantasy?

Presumably the idea that noncasters are generally held to pretty "normal" standards. You swing a sword and walk along the X axis and that's pretty much your entire character. You're exceptionally strong and tough, but only in scale. You can't be particularly agile or have any epic/high fantasy shenanigans at your side because ultimately you're still just swinging your sword and walking left, right, back or forward.

[Psyren]

Presumably the idea that noncasters are generally held to pretty "normal" standards. You swing a sword and walk along the X axis and that's pretty much your entire character. You're exceptionally strong and tough, but only in scale. You can't be particularly agile or have any epic/high fantasy shenanigans at your side because ultimately you're still just swinging your sword and walking left, right, back or forward.

For starters, agility isn't important for everyone - if you wear full plate and/or carry a tower shield, your benefit from dex is going to be pretty limited anyway. For those whose concept can benefit from it, you can build a dex-based fighter just fine.

As far as not being able to alter reality with your sword swings, well, that may just be something we agree to disagree on. I have no problem with flying/teleporting fighters who use items to do so, and indeed that is why magic items exist to begin with. And I even like Tome of Battle, but making it a core part of the system rather than an optional extra for those who groups who do enjoy that style of melee is where I draw the line.

[Ssalarn]

As far as not being able to alter reality with your sword swings, well, that may just be something we agree to disagree on. I have no problem with flying/teleporting fighters who use items to do so, and indeed that is why magic items exist to begin with. And I even like Tome of Battle, but making it a core part of the system rather than an optional extra for those who groups who do enjoy that style of melee is where I draw the line.

One of the best things about Pathfinder is that they've a got a strong 3pp community who are very conscientious about balance and have worked hard to present some amazing supplemental materials that may not be something that fits into every campaign world and so don't click well into core. The PF 3pp community has done a much better job of maintaining balance and controlling the general power creep and quality of their products than was seen during the 3.5 days.

Rite Publishing, Kobold Press, Super/Rogue Genius Games, Alluria Publishing, Amora Game, Interjection Games, Geek Industrial Complex, the newer Kyoudai Games, and pretty much the gold standard of 3pp materials, Dreamscarred Press, all have amazing supplemental products that do a great job of filling any holes you might perceive in your game.

[Psyren]

^ Oh absolutely, the 3rd party stuff scratches that itch quite well. The best part is that, being all OGL, Paizo themselves can and do lift bits from the higher-quality publishers to include in their APs, giving it greater legitimacy in the eyes of DMs. And with that greater legitimacy comes greater support, which leads to greater production values. It's a very symbiotic relationship overall :smallsmile:

[Snowbluff]

That being said... it's really easy to back port stuff to 3.5, and some stuff can be moved to PF from 3.5.

So if you don't like the PF specific rules you can move back to 3.5. :smalltongue:

[Larkas]

That being said... it's really easy to back port stuff to 3.5, and some stuff can be moved to PF from 3.5.

So if you don't like the PF specific rules you can move back to 3.5. :smalltongue:

Indeed. I'm actually thinking about making a handbook with guidelines for that. The whole process is generally straightforward enough, but there are a few bits and pieces that might get missed if you lift too much stuff at once.

[Psyren]

That being said... it's really easy to back port stuff to 3.5, and some stuff can be moved to PF from 3.5.

So if you don't like the PF specific rules you can move back to 3.5. :smalltongue:

Indeed, you can port pretty easily in either direction.

For myself, I port from 3.5 -> PF because I prefer the elegance of the CMB system (though the math could use some tweaking), the baseline power level of the PF races, and 90% of the time I prefer the PF wording on spells. I also like the system-wide removal of XP costs; though I use XP to plan/budget encounters, I'm more of a "okay, you level up now" kind of DM. This ties into the former point as various spells and especially powers need to be rebalanced to account for the loss of XP payments.

[Snowbluff]

Indeed, you can port pretty easily in either direction.

For myself, I port from 3.5 -> PF because I prefer the elegance of the CMB system (though the math could use some tweaking), the baseline power level of the PF races, and 90% of the time I prefer the PF wording on spells. Mhm. For posterity, I dislike CMB and the skill system, so I prefer 3.5. PF Race options are cool.


I also like the system-wide removal of XP costs; though I use XP to plan/budget encounters, I'm more of a "okay, you level up now" kind of DM. This ties into the former point as various spells and especially powers need to be rebalanced to account for the loss of XP payments.
Yeah, I do the same, but for the opposite reason. Most of my players aren't optimizers, so they never end up using XP costs. :smalltongue:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Indeed, you can port pretty easily in either direction.

For myself, I port from 3.5 -> PF because I prefer the elegance of the CMB system (though the math could use some tweaking), the baseline power level of the PF races, and 90% of the time I prefer the PF wording on spells. I also like the system-wide removal of XP costs; though I use XP to plan/budget encounters, I'm more of a "okay, you level up now" kind of DM. This ties into the former point as various spells and especially powers need to be rebalanced to account for the loss of XP payments.

Replace the CMB/CMD system with reflex and fortitude saves and it works out quite well.

Needs some other minor tweaks but setting the DC to be 10 + 1/2 Level + Str or Dex mod works nicely.