3.5e vs. Pathfinder

[jqavins]

I'm a very experienced AD&D player with some experience at 3.5e (I skipped 2e) and I've been invted to join a game using Pathfinder. Now, I know 3.5e and Pathfinder are very similar in most respects, both being d20 based systems and Pathfinder (as I understand it) having been created in response to the attrocity called 4e. (Or is it only that lots of people turned to it because of 4e?) I also know that they are not altogether the same. So I'll acquire the Pathfinder books and learn what I need to, but can someone give me the highlights of the important differences? The things I should read up on first, sort of thing.

Thanks.

[Kamai]

Pathfinder has a lot of small changes here and there. Basically every class in core Pathfinder has more options available to it.
Quick things that you might want to look at:
Low level battlefield control spells.
CMB as compared to Grapple, Trip, etc...
How skills work (condensed skill list, no more half-rank cc)
Favored class
Polymorph/Wild Shape

Other than that, make sure you double check whatever class(es) you plan on using. Imo, Ranger and Rogue has some particularly easy to miss changes. I also know there's a more detailed link floating around the boards on all of the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder, but I don't have it handy.

[JusticeZero]

I know there's a guide around, but i'm not sure where it is..
All the classes got better - no more dead levels. This, along with archetypes that swap out class features, also made the PRC dipping that is typical of D&D 3 builds the exception rather than the norm. Skills changed - no more halving cross class skills, now class skills just give +3. Some skills were merged. Ironically, this weakened the Rogue, because skill monkeying is much less important. There's lots of feats, but some were broken up. Feats come at every odd level now, but they don't stretch any further as a result. Some commonly agreed as broken spells were changed. Races now balance at +2 stat. XP drain from magic item crafting and the like isn't a thing anymore. there's a whole bunch of small changes all over the place, but all in all, no large changes. D&D 3.x had a few things that scream out for massive changes - the extreme power imbalance between some of the core classes - and this was left untouched in favor of a general compatibility. If you had to convert from 3.0 to 3.5, the amount of change is somewhat similar - lots of subtle things.`

[Lappy9001]

The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook)

One of the things the guide doesn't address is archetypes, which are sets of optional class features for classes. Pathfinder made sticking with your original class very beneficial, so it's often better to pick up an archetype than multiclass or prestige class. There are also boatloads of alternate racial traits, and a separate sort of trait that is like a half feat that you can take at 1st level (they're optional, ask your GM if they're not already using them).

Pathfinder is also less afraid to give players nice things. Most stuff isn't quite as flashy as 4e, but it's easier to pick up a smidgen of magic or grab a cool ability that is more interesting than "Move and Attack." There are also more at-will abilities (like 0th level spells!) which is always a good thing.

[Kol Korran]

My group made the transition only recently. The main thing that sold me to PF however was... The PF SRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/)- basically all of the rules, updated and erratad, with an ease of use that you don't find in D&D. It made things so much simplerthan going through a hell of a lot of books. Much cheaper too!

You don't get the pics of the actual books (And I heard the art is quite good. I miss that for some monsters, though you can find most in Google), and some of the material refers mostly to the PF world- Golarion. But if you don't play in it then there is no problem, and it's a minority of the content. (Plus, there is a Golarion Wiki, so...)

I feel that they reduced some options (Amount of spells, classes, PRCs) yet expanded on the available options (Classes are more customizable, Archetypes and so on). They also made each class quite worthy of going up to 20th level without needing a PRC class, which I like.

The skill system is more friendly, and doesn't penalize having non class skills so much as D&D did, which can lead to more varied characters.

Giving humans, half elves and half orcs a +2 to an attribute of their choice made them far more versatyle and appealing. Which I think is good as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One misconception about PF is that all classes got better.

This is not true at all.

The only class to really get a bump in power would be the Paladin, they are high tier 4 or low tier 3 and it really shows.

Druid Wildshape isn't ad powerful but they still are a full caster with neat class features so they didn't take much of a hit.

Fighter Barbarians and Rogue all have new toys to play with, sadly those toys are light brights, very flashy but really not much you can do with them. Casters still get their ipads and iphones to play with.

CMB/CMD system math is broken. Seriously you would think they could have gotten this right but alas they did not. I suggest turning maneuvers into a saving throw with FC being 10+1/2 level + STR/Dex mod. Gain +1 for improved feat and +1 for greater feat. I love the idea of the CMB/CMD system but the math breaks down and your specialized character can't do squat.

Like 3.5, many feats in pathfinder suck. You need to chain up feats and then some that you really want have ability prerequisites that are just too troublesome. To learn how to trip really well you have to have a 13 Int still... So yeah a bunch of different styles can become off limits almost automatically.

Archetypes are a great idea, however if you aren't a caster or partial caster then you can get hosed with archetypes :/. Some good ones but really just a mess of things. Monks get some nifty archetypes but then you have to play a monk.

[Airk]

{{scrubbed}}

Anyway, Pathfinder is basically D&D 3.75, and exists because of problems in 3.5, not 4E, though some people may have moved to it because 3.5 was "no longer supported" and they wanted to continue playing that game.

There are a bunch of minor changes, but there are no large systematic ones that you need to be aware of. Also, a lot of Pathfinder stuff is free, so you don't -have- to buy the books.

[jqavins]

The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?136890-The-3-5-Pathfinder-Handbook)
Thanks all, and especially this.

Pathfinder doesn't really have anything to do being a "response" to 4E, nor, thank you very much, is 4E an "atrocity" though if we can't get over acting like spoiled children about our favorite games, we deserve some.
OK, "atrocity" is a matter opinion, and I should not have assumed that that went without saying; sorry. I bought the PH/MM/DMG for 4e as soon as they came out, and on reading them I immediately thought "This isn't D&D; this is a table top port of an MMORPG!" I was playing a good deal of City of Heroes at the time, and started calling 4e "City of Dragons." Every veteran player I've talked to personally has had about the same reaction.

After writing the OP, I thought I'd look into Pathfinder's history. According to the Wikipedia article, Paizo decided to publish the Pathfinder rule system exactly because 4e was too radical a departure from 3.5e and rendered their existing published material (including Pathfinder magazine) incompatible. So, it was a response to 4e's radical departure from previous D&D editions, whether one considers that atrocious or not. (The fact that Pathfinder's sales have been at least as good as 4e's speaks for itself.)

[Airk]

Thanks all, and especially this.

OK, "atrocity" is a matter opinion, and I should not have assumed that that went without saying; sorry. I bought the PH/MM/DMG for 4e as soon as they came out, and on reading them I immediately thought "This isn't D&D; this is a table top port of an MMORPG!" I was playing a good deal of City of Heroes at the time, and started calling 4e "City of Dragons." Every veteran player I've talked to personally has had about the same reaction.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Also, 4E would make a crummy MMO. I'm glad you're here to vent your personal opinions on this topic and retread the same old tired arguments though.



After writing the OP, I thought I'd look into Pathfinder's history. According to the Wikipedia article, Paizo decided to publish the Pathfinder rule system exactly because 4e was too radical a departure from 3.5e and rendered their existing published material (including Pathfinder magazine) incompatible. So, it was a response to 4e's radical departure from previous D&D editions, whether one considers that atrocious or not. (The fact that Pathfinder's sales have been at least as good as 4e's speaks for itself.)

That doesn't make a lot of sense considering the dates of publication.

[jqavins]

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.That's good; I may need to use that. Really. But this isn't a matter of data and no one has claimed that it is. I'm just giving my reason for having used the 'A' word, and it is clear, anecdotally, that I'm far from alone.

Also, 4E would make a crummy MMO.No argument; a crummy MMO and an atrocious pen and paper game, IMO.

I'm glad you're here to vent your personal opinions on this topic and retread the same old tired arguments though.I live to serve.

That doesn't make a lot of sense considering the dates of publication.4e announced: August 2007. 4e published: June 2008. Pathfinder anounced: March 2008. Pathfinder published: August 2009.

[Jacob.Tyr]

*dodges debate*
The only really big difference is crafting XP costs being removed. Sure, you get a bonus to class skills you have ranks in, but this is at the removal of extra skill points at first level. Basically you get less flexibility at first level skills, but the skills you pick are the same as if you dumped all your points into a few skills instead of spreading them thin in 3.5.

Crafting XP cost, however, does tons to make casters even more powerful than non-casters, who have the option of spending an extra feat to then be able to take crafting feats with added penalties to the skill checks. Granted, XP costs for crafting annoyed the hell out of me because I rarely keep track of exact XP numbers. Most games I play in just use level, and everyone is just whatever level the party is. Adding crafting XP costs makes this difficult, making the change in Pathfinder basically how I played anyway.

Now, if you want to make Pathfinder a better game than 3.5, use material from Dream Scarred Press. Don't buy Pathfinder books, when those are free from the SRD. Instead pick up Psionics and Path of War from DSP, which are really solid material that expands your options in meaningful ways. I think the Psionics rules are in the SRD as well, and they are awesome.

All in all Pathfinder is just 3.5 with a fresh coat of paint, they changed a few names (ACFs are now Archetypes), made the monk more convoluted and confused, gave more feats but expanded feat chains, and gave everyone an average of a +2 stat boost at character generation.

Pathfinder couldn't have been a reaction to 3.5, because then it would have at least fixed some of the huge problems 3.5 has.

[Airk]

That's good; I may need to use that. Really. But this isn't a matter of data and no one has claimed that it is. I'm just giving my reason for having used the 'A' word, and it is clear, anecdotally, that I'm far from alone.

Glad we got some use out of this thread then. ;) The problem here is that you are basically claiming "Gamers, who are notorious change averse, didn't like a game that did things differently." If this shocked me at this point, there would be something wrong with my shock receptors. Hell, the sheer number of "I am trying to do <X> with D&D, and it's just not working! Why?" people who refuse to even consider other games alone speaks to the fact that gamers are scared by change and generally poor judges of what is even good for what they are trying to do. :)


4e announced: August 2007. 4e published: June 2008. Pathfinder anounced: March 2008. Pathfinder published: August 2009.

Not really sure what 'announcement' dates have to do with this, since I don't think even tabletop gamer are reactionary enough to judge a system by its announcement. But I guess if you're not actually writing a system, you can probably turn it around in a year. ;) Touche though, Jacob. :) To be brutally honest, I'm a little surprised it was LEGAL for Pathfinder to do what they did.

Oh well.

[Jane_Smith]

Regardless, the general consensus of pathfinder vs. 4e is that pathfinder kept the customization, options, and more in-depth character creation, and 4e made the game infinitely more simple/cookie-cuttered/streamlined - yet, too simple for some (which for some people - they took as insulting). Its the difference between a water slide, and a swing - they are meant for fun at the end of the day. But if you played 2e/3.5e? Id youd be fine in pathfinder, 4e is a whole other ruleset in my own opinion to have to learn.

Also - yes, pathfinder was made in the wake of D&D 4.0, because -several of the writers, designers and authors for D&D- found themselves without jobs after wizards of the coast was bought out by hasbro. So mid-project of 4e, several jobs were cutt, and anyone who didn't like the changes to the ocmpany, OR D&D, was also cutt. If you use the time chart given above, it makes sense. Mid-way threw announcement/release of 4.0 between 2007 and 2008, the other writers basically said f-this, and on 2008-2009, came out with pathfinder.

[obryn]

OK, "atrocity" is a matter opinion, and I should not have assumed that that went without saying; sorry. I bought the PH/MM/DMG for 4e as soon as they came out, and on reading them I immediately thought "This isn't D&D; this is a table top port of an MMORPG!" I was playing a good deal of City of Heroes at the time, and started calling 4e "City of Dragons." Every veteran player I've talked to personally has had about the same reaction.

After writing the OP, I thought I'd look into Pathfinder's history. According to the Wikipedia article, Paizo decided to publish the Pathfinder rule system exactly because 4e was too radical a departure from 3.5e and rendered their existing published material (including Pathfinder magazine) incompatible. So, it was a response to 4e's radical departure from previous D&D editions, whether one considers that atrocious or not. (The fact that Pathfinder's sales have been at least as good as 4e's speaks for itself.)
Eh, as a veteran player myself (started with Moldvay in 1983/1984), I'm completely happy with 4e and don't care for MMOs at all. As far as I'm concerned, it finally fulfilled the promises D&D had been making for decades and I personally couldn't imagine going back to 3.x. :smallsmile: (Now, Rules Cyclopedia? AD&D? Sure, I'll run/play in those in a heartbeat, but I'm reluctant to even play 3.x or any of its variants, much less run it anymore, and my recent foray into a Pathfinder game solidified this.) I'd give it a try in play if you haven't and if you have the opportunity; more than any other edition, it plays much better than it reads.

But to answer your initial question... I ran/played 3.x for most of its run (before burning out on the DM-side work), and I expected that experience to give me some help with making a Pathfinder character recently. It ... wasn't any help at all. It's built on the same d20 chassis as 3.x, and definitely bears the marks of the SRD, but it's pretty thoroughly a different system at this stage in its development, and I'm not convinced that system mastery in one carries over well at all to the other. 3.x, 4e, and Pathfinder all are crunchy games that only got more crunchy and bloated the longer they went on, and with PF you have either 6 or 14 years of adding crunchy stuff, depending on how you approach it.

[NoldorForce]

WotC was actually bought out by Hasbro in 1999 - before even 3E was published. The sense I've gotten on Pathfinder's publication was that it wasn't a response to the GSL or any of 4E's merits as a game so much as a business correction. See, Paizo's current cash cow (3rd-party products for 3E, "official" or not) was slated for a one-way trip behind the barn. Their license for Dragon/Dungeon had already been pulled earlier in 2007, so when 4E was announced (given that 3E was already reaching the end of its lifespan as a product line) they immediately started looking for some way to keep their corporate ship afloat. And I do mean immediately, there was a post by Erik Mona or some other bigwig just 1-3 months after the announcement which was already trying to poison the well and to drum up support for Something Other Than 4E. (My link to it has disappeared for reasons.) Pathfinder was definitely coming at that time; Paizo just hadn't gotten all its ducks in a row yet.

[obryn]

Yeah, the lesson of 3.5 was not lost on 3rd party publishers for D&D. :smallbiggrin:

That's why, pre-3.5, 3rd party publishers put out a lot of adventures, sourcebooks, and crunchy stuff specifically for D&D.

Post-3.5, the remaining large 3rd party publishers by and large went about building their own games on the d20 chassis rather than hitching their stars to D&D's fortunes. Pathfinder fits into this general plan, with the exception that it tried to hew closely to 3.5 (...at first...) rather than pushing into riskier d20 design space like, for example, Mutants & Masterminds. That's the context - it's a d20 offshoot owned by a publishing company so they can produce & sell sourcebooks & adventure paths, without relying on a parent company's benevolence. In effect, becoming first-party rather than third-party publishers. And without a license even existing for 4e at the time of its launch (and the subsequent license having some poison pill provisions), it was a sensible business move.

It'll be interesting to see if/when Paizo ever makes Pathfinder 2e, how that will affect the 3rd party publishers for Pathfinder.

[JusticeZero]

I think the Psionics rules are in the SRD as well, and they are awesome.
Yep. Alas, the Ultimate Psi stuff has been delayed by a shortage of people to do web stuff for the SRD at the moment. (They could use more people, i'm sure.) Worth it to get the actual books and all for that reason.

[jqavins]

Glad we got some use out of this thread then. ;) The problem here is that you are basically claiming "Gamers, who are notorious change averse, didn't like a game that did things differently." If this shocked me at this point, there would be something wrong with my shock receptors. Hell, the sheer number of "I am trying to do <X> with D&D, and it's just not working! Why?" people who refuse to even consider other games alone speaks to the fact that gamers are scared by change and generally poor judges of what is even good for what they are trying to do. :)
OK, these are my last words on the subject* and then you can have the last word if you want it. The problem here is that you're making unwarrented assumptions about me and reading more into what I've written than is there. I'm not saying all gamers hated 4e, just lots of them. Also, I and my friends have tried lots of other game systems. I'm in a moribund V&V campaign that's been going on for 30 years (and was pretty active to over 20.) I favored GURPS over D&D for a long time because it let the characters be much less cookie-cutter than AD&D without the baggage of a gazillion classes like 2e, until 3e came out and did almost as well at character diversification through feats and skills and stuff, with lots better playability. (And now 3.5 has gained the class baggage, but you can still do just as well without it.) I've dabbled in TFOS, TOON, Paranoia, and World of Darkness. So don't assume I have a knee-jerk rejection reflex of new things or that I don't consider a new game on its merits.

Oh well.Indeed.

* A sincere intention, not a promise.

[Anlashok]

Pathfinder's big changes are consolidating skills (Spot/Search/Listen => Perception, Hide/Move Silently => Stealth, Jump/Balance/Tumble => Acrobatics etc.) CMB/D (a system that consolidates all combat maneuvers like tripping and grappling into a single check system, that usually results in failure for the attacker) and an emphasize on single class play and ACFs over multiclassing. Unlike 3.5 where multiclassing was the norm, in Pathfinder it's generally terrible to make anything other than 20 levels in your base class. Pathfinder helps alleviate the problems this would cause in 3.5 by adding in variants on "fighter bonus feats" for other classes (rogue talents, magus arcana, wizard discoveries), to give a single class more variety.

Less system-based and more design based, Pathfinder tends to treat martial classes even more poorly than 3.5 does (having no Initiators and considering things like long ranger archery "hideously overpowered"). Pathfinder also takes significantly fewer risks with its design: Every spellcaster is a vancian style spontaneous or prepared caster and every martial is a full-attack based damage dealer. There's nothing outside of third party material that's anywhere near experimental or adventurous in their design.

Speaking of, because of Paizo's tendency toward playing it safe and butchering classes that aren't dedicated spellcasters, third party material tends to be significantly more accepted in the Pathfinder community than it usually is in 3.5.


4E would make a crummy MMO.
Not would, does. Neverwinter is an awful game... though that more has to do with its terrible balance, class selection, and lack of customization (in a game based on D&D?) than anything else I suppose.
You should know better than to argue with stuff like that though Airk.


So don't assume I have a knee-jerk rejection reflex of new things or that I don't consider a new game on its merits
You can't blame him, given that you start a thread asking for advice on playing Pathfinder then halfway through it start spewing pointless vitriol. One imagines if you didn't want to argue about it you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place given that it has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[obryn]

Less system-based and more design based, Pathfinder tends to treat martial classes even more poorly than 3.5 does (having no Initiators and considering things like long ranger archery "hideously overpowered"). Pathfinder also takes significantly fewer risks with its design: Every spellcaster is a vancian style spontaneous or prepared caster and every martial is a full-attack based damage dealer. There's nothing outside of third party material that's anywhere near experimental or adventurous in their design.
True fact: This Pathfinder game I mentioned, I was a goblin cavalier mounted on a boar. Awesome concept! In practice, though....

As a Pathfinder Martial class, level 8, I had one thing I was any good at. If I was charging, I was aces; high accuracy and tons of damage. If I wasn't charging, I was mechanically useless (fear my mighty 1d6+4 damage!). I had a few X/day abilities, none of which ended up having any value in practice, since they mostly amounted to "my buddies get a piddling bonus to charge stuff and to not be scared," which is frankly consistent with the limitless design space of "small bonuses to obscure things" that Pathfinder has largely settled into. And it was just weird having so many non-magical X/day abilities in Pathfinder when I'd been told that things like Fighter Dailies were abominable in 4e. :smallsmile:

...not that I'm bitter or anything. :smallwink:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

True fact: This Pathfinder game I mentioned, I was a goblin cavalier mounted on a boar. Awesome concept! In practice, though....

As a Pathfinder Martial class, level 8, I had one thing I was any good at. If I was charging, I was aces; high accuracy and tons of damage. If I wasn't charging, I was mechanically useless (fear my mighty 1d6+4 damage!). I had a few X/day abilities, none of which ended up having any value in practice, since they mostly amounted to "my buddies get a piddling bonus to charge stuff and to not be scared," which is frankly consistent with the limitless design space of "small bonuses to obscure things" that Pathfinder has largely settled into. And it was just weird having so many non-magical X/day abilities in Pathfinder when I'd been told that things like Fighter Dailies were abominable in 4e. :smallsmile:

...not that I'm bitter or anything. :smallwink:

Even for things like rage I never understood why it was a daily ability. 3.P and 4e both give the barbarian daily abilities and it is not only the weirdest thing ever but quite annoying.

Like... My anger being on a time limit. If I get angry for 10 minutes in the morning then I'm useless the rest of the day no matter how much I rest.

But anyways, 4e is made of mostly 3.5 alternate rules that were slightly modified to fit within the design system of class balance. Whenever I hear people say stuff like "this ain't d&d" or whatever I get a huge laugh... You can run 4e classes in a 3.5 game quite easily. You get a pretty amazing fighter if you use the 4.0 fighter, solid tier 4 without optimization and you may be able to break into tier 3 with the right optimization.

The three games (3.P and 4e) are more similar than what people think. The biggest difference is that 4.0 allows players to not suck just because they want to play a certain type of character. Want to play a Non-Caster? You can not suck. Want to play a caster? Boom, you don't sick. Want to play a Gish? Well you won't suck there either.

[QuidEst]

Pathfinder has a fair number of junk and even outright trap options cluttering things up. It's a lot to sift through to build a character. Optimization guides are very handy if you can resist the urge to just copy them. (I haven't played 3.5, so I can't compare the amounts of clutter very well.) There are even optimization guides that optimize for a fun idea rather than a powerful one. Stuff like how to make a blasty evocation wizard that works well.