3.5 or Pathfinder - which do you like best ?

[Seto]

I've only ever played 3.5, but a friend recently suggesting looking up Pathfinder, saying there was some nice stuff like putting together skills that were separate, upgrading classes to have less empty levels, better capstones, etc. So, objective question : what are the most significant differences between the two ? And subjective question : according to you playground, what are the strong and weak points of each system comparatively ?
Which do you prefer ? Why ?

[Esprit15]

Can't say for myself on Pathfinder, since I've only glanced over classes for a game that never really got going. GM's main gripe with it is that they made most classes stronger (which is good) but didn't do a whole lot to toughen encounters (which is bad).

The other nice thing that everyone always brings up is 3.5's plethora of options compared to most of the other editions.

Main fault of course is what is balanced and what is not, and how fiddly some of the rules are.

[Fouredged Sword]

I have come to like pathfinder. I like that it's all online, so it is group friendly. I like that classes offer SOMETHING every level, even if it's a little thing. I like archetypes as they provide lots of way to play various characters.

I wish it had better PRC support, and it isn't as expansive as 3.5 (yet).

[Dusk Eclipse]

It is OK, not really stellar, but not really bad per say; having said that it has one distinct advantage over 3.5.... it is still in print so we get new toys to play with every couple months both 1st Party and 3rd party (Dreamscarred press is an awesome company, check out their stuff if you haven't).

[Chronikoce]

I currently DM an ongoing campaign that uses PF/3.5 mix. I also play in a 3.5 game and have played a mixture of the two alternating back and forth. Given that background here is my opinion so far.

Pathfinder and 3.5 are very similar games and if you like 3.5 you probably won't mind Pathfinder. They do buff some of the martial classes but then they also buffed the main casters. Therefore if balance if 3.5 in a concern then PF doesn't really address that.

Archetypes are both cool and frustrating for me. They are a neat idea but I often find that only some of the Archetype abilities fit the concept I am going for and as a result I never end up taking them due to the loss of original abilities that would be integral to my concept.

The skill system is the biggest change in my opinion. A class skill is a flat +3 that never scales so there is not 1/2 rank spending for cross class skills. I actually don't like this (most of my players do like it though). I find that it makes specialization meaningless. A rogue and a wizard could have very similar checks by higher levels (+3 becomes meaningless at high level). I prefer games where specialization in a skill is a big deal and it means you have invested significant resources to being good at it and as such ought to be rewarded.

TL;DR I would rather play 3.5 over Pathfinder because the choices of class, race, and skills all matter more. Specializing to be good at something is more of a big deal. The free and Open-source nature of PF is very appealing to many players, especially if they are beginners because it requires no investment on their part.

Any questions?

[sonofzeal]

PF buffed nearly all races and classes, and debuffed many encounters. DMs can adjust accordingly though, throwing opponents of higher CR, or more of them, or using better tactics, etc.

I like PF's skill system. I dislike PF's changes to many feats and CMB/CMD. I like their changes to races and Favoured Class systems. I dislike their changes to many classes. I like their archetypes, dislike their approach to multiclassing / PrCing, like their prepackaged adventures, and dislike their overall setting.

It's a mixed bag,.

[Magma Armor0]

I like the variety of options available in 3.5, but PF is just more friendly in general: skills are combined that make sense: hide and move silently became "stealth", spot and listen are likewise rolled together, the system has a greater focus on flavor than numbers.

On the other hand, 3.5 has so much more material. Thousands of feats, classes, and spells, all available to be chosen from.

TL;DR: If I could wave a magic wand and update every 3.0/3.5 class/feat/spell/race/item/etc. to PF, I'd only play PF. However, I like the variety of options available in 3.5, so that's where I stay.

P.S. If you like PF, you might want to consider checking out 5e. My initial sense of it is that it's very similar to PF.

[jaydubs]

Pathfinder Pros
-Simplified, more accessible in general
-There's less material that I would consider easily abusable (though it certainly still exists)
-Skill system and archetypes allows easier (but more narrow) customization
-All material available online
-Game is still supported
-Fewer empty levels

Pathfinder Cons
-Less material, both mechanically and fluff-wise
-Fluff is less interesting
-Customization range is narrower, since multiclassing and PrCs are disadvantaged. Also, less material to work with.

Having played both, I find Pathfinder better for my groups. 3.5's main benefits seem to pop up in groups where both the DM and players have a lot of mechanical expertise, and a significant part of the enjoyment is meant to come from assembling strange builds or toying around with rule interactions. There's nothing wrong with games like that. I just find that in my groups, we're usually focusing on more basic things.

If you have time though, I think the best of both worlds is selectively porting material from 3.5 into Pathfinder.

An added point after reading Chronikace above, and how some people just have very different preferences. I love that skills are more open now. I always hated how certain classes would just always be bad at certain skills. Skillmonkeys lose their niche protection somewhat, but I never liked niche protection as a balance mechanism anyway. The fact that I can now build a wizard that's good at riding horses, or a fighter that is good at talking to people, is well worth it in my mind.

[Yael]

I stand for 3.5 because it has way more material. Also, being compatible with 3.0, its repertoire augments by A LOT.

[Alent]

Can't say for myself on Pathfinder, since I've only glanced over classes for a game that never really got going. GM's main gripe with it is that they made most classes stronger (which is good) but didn't do a whole lot to toughen encounters (which is bad).

They didn't just fail to toughen encounters, quite a few creatures like dragons had their HD reduced considerably, making them even easier to kill. They do hand out immunities to creatures to compensate, but this usually doesn't help with how accessible they made optimized damage builds.

I'm fond of backporting the improvements to 3.5 and leaving the rest behind, but some people go the other way with 3.P where they port desired legacy stuff to PF. It does have some very nice things. Some of those very nice things do have to be house ruled- I prefer to overrule the "standard action" ruling that turns feats like Cleave, Vital strike, etc. into trap feats.

As I've discovered through these threads recently, Pathfinder does have the very nice advantage of DSP content like Path of War, the Psionics update, and evidently there's a truenaming update in the pipes. So if your table is okay with 3PP, PF is actually slowly absorbing all the other subsystems of 3.5.

[Raven777]

-Fluff is less interesting


Them's fightin' words.

[Chronikoce]

Them's fightin' words.

I think it depends on which 3.5 system you are comparing Galorion to. I really like some 3.5 settings and can easily pass on others. I think I like Galorion and Faerun about the same and prefer Eberron slightly over both.

[EisenKreutzer]

I prefer Pathfinder. I love all the changes that Paizo have made, both to classes, skills, feats and races, and the overall feel of the game. Production values are stellar, the art is impeccable and the system is IMHO better balanced and more fair.
I really like Pathfinders focus on the base class, making multiclassing and dipping less attractive, and the archetypes are IMO a good replacement for PrCs.

In the end it comes down to personal preference, but I would recommend Pathfinder to anyone who enjoys D&D 3.x.

[jaydubs]

Well the fluff... it might be one of those "remember things more fondly" situations, like how childhood movies are usually far worse than we remember. 3.5 was the first system I tried, and I just remember really liking the background stuff.

I kind of take my reading of Planar Shepherd as a microcosm of 3.5 vs PF in general. I love the flavor, it allows a lot of customization options, but it can be broken very easily and is really complicated to run since you have to dig through multiple books to find all the wild shape options for different planes.

With Pathfinder, the mechanics side is just easier to deal with, but I usually just come up with my own fluff for things. *shrugs*

[Chaosvii7]

3 and a half straight years of playing Pathfinder has killed a lot of my interest in it. When Occult Adventures and Pathfinder Unchained come out I'll get back into it, maybe run it for a bit with Unchained rules, but otherwise regular Pathfinder as it is barely holds my attention in the in-store games.

3.5 is definitely the better pick for me, solely because it's where I started and it's where I learned all my optimization cheese. I'll always be down for a good 3.5 game, but Pathfinder just has this strange feeling that all the wonder and merriment to be had dwindles. Fast.

Of course, neither holds up well without variants, houserules, and homebrew, but 3.5 somehow holds it's liquor a lot better. Maybe the age matters? 3.5 is still twice the game Pathfinder is with all the published content after lasting almost as long, and Pathfinder looks like it might have to go to a new edition just to keep things fresh.

[OldTrees1]

I like feats and level by level class selection.
Pathfinder decided to nerf feats.
Pathfinder decided to focus on archetypes rather than classes. This ends up with fewer options overall for a level by level class selection.

[oxybe]

Take what follows with a grain of salt:

1- The game tries to discourage multi-classing with better capstone abilities, but many classes are still very good two-level drops, moreso if you feel like you'll never reach the capstone.

I'm playing a Tattooed Sorceror 4/ninja 2 in one game, going into arcane trickster and ninja is a very solid three level dip: swift action short-term invisibility, two dice of sneak attack, nice skill selection, etc... Because we also use the "campaign traits" (they're like mini-feats) I haven't really lost any caster levels for the multi-classing.

For the most part I ignore the capstone of classes and look at their 5-7 level range of abilities and what they offer me, since most campaigns tend to die out at the 9-11 range, with 13-14 being the high end of what i'm used to. This means I tend to look at what can I can from the front-load of a class or after several months of play.

Some of the mid to late game stuff is neat but is often stuck between either really bad content or really broken content.

Either way, non-casters can still get quite a boon from multi-classing while casters will want to keep their full caster level and spell progression if they can.

2- Most classes got a good buff up or two. Mages got somewhat of a minor downgrade in that many spells were revised to now require more round-to-round saves or were weakened (shapechanging spells don't replace your stats, but rather give you a boost or drop to your physical ones based on the size of the critter you're turning into) and if you're going "pathfinder only" you lose access to many of the DC/caster level buffing tricks 3.5 had.

when creating your character you get to pick a favoured class. this means either bonus HP or skill points upon leveling in that class. some classes have racial alternates beyond those, like more HP for your familiar, a boost to certain skills or partial points into gaining more class abilities (like say, getting 1/4 of a rogue talent. so after 4 levels of rogue, you gain a bonus talent).

Some classes can get pretty ridiculous though. Casters are still high up thanks to their versatility. Sourcebooks gives us the Summoner (the class, not just "caster who summons") has a rather ridiculous "build-a-pet" that can be setup to do stupid things like charge/pouncing with a dozen lances while the witch gets free daily control weather and the ability to turn into tiny-to-large animals for indefinite timespans as long as it wears the beast's skin. The fighter, in the meanwhile, gets more +'s to damage, AC and his combat maneuvers.

3- speaking of races, most races are better then their 3rd ed counterpart, in the pathfinder vein of giving most things a slight power boost. The half-orc is playable and actually makes a pretty decent wizard, since it gets a floating +2 in any stat (the half-elf and human also get this boon). Human is still the general-purpose superior race in most circumstances thanks to the floating stat, floating feat and floating skill point.

Some races still get some pretty funky stuff. My above mentioned sorc is a kitsune and gets standard action shapechanging. the initial ability allows only one specific human form, but for one feat you can turn into a perfect copy of ANY human you've seen, and a second, unrelated, feat gives you a "turn into a tiny fox at will" ability. This is on a high Charisma race so you can imagine what kind of shapeshifter shenanigans can occur. The party didn't know I wasn't human until I outed myself to them, after a rather dangerous situation.

In the expanded sourcebooks you can swap out racial traits for others. some are neat, others, not so much. It's a pretty mixed bag.

4-You get more feats in pathfinder then 3rd, but I often find myself either lacking the kind of feats I'd like or thinking I need more on some characters. Note that if you're sticking to pathfinder only non-casters lose access to things like the 3rd ed power attack and charge trees that made them playable. These sort-of still exist but have been nerfed IMO.

Still though, it's not hard to get your damage up to decent levels with a little bit of leg work, but you're still missing the 3.5 standards.

5- Archetypes are a blessing and a curse. If there is an archetype that fits your character to a tee you're probably golden, but because of this if you don't like the framework that archetype is built on, you're probably boned. The neat thing about 3rd ed PrC bloat is that many of them had more then one entry point and launching off point.

Pathfinder is missing a lot of these, so it's very difficult to stray a bit off of your class's main stchick mid-campaign or do some of the hyperfocusing I've seen/done in 3rd ed. I'd say the low end of pathfinder is more customizable but the high end isn't even in the ballpark of 3rd ed, even after we've culled the truly crappy PrCs.

6- Lots of tiny changes. They've changed just enough to make things familiar but still requiring you to look things up.

Other changes are for the better, IMO. they've simplified how grappling, tripping, etc... work by making it into a second attack/defense system and using that alone. So to grapple someone you roll your CMB vs their CMD. Same with tripping and whatnot.

Big things still tend to get the better end of the stick in that regard thanks to superior size mods and incredible strength, so your fighter will rarely be grappling Ogres or Mammoths (ok, the latter is impossible due to the rules, but even if you could, good luck).

speaking of grappling and whatnot: summons still generally does it better. It sucks, but while you can pick an archetype that does grappling or tripping really well, the wizard can still summon a huge 150HP beatstick or two with some DR and have them doubleteam to take down a foe. And if it can't be grappled, well the same spell can probably summon a tripper or two instead, or simply a "big numbers" damage dealer or utility monster.

7 - for more on spellcasting, blasting is still sucky and healing should be mainly done during downtime. My kitsune can actually do some decent blasting damage, but that's by design (swift action invisibility+ standard action multi-attack roll ranged touch damage spell + sneak attack). Beyond that you're best off using your spells to control enemy movement or remove them from combat. A well-placed stinking cloud, black tentacles, entangle or summoned monster can destroy enemies. Stacking these together can cause horrible things to occur to enemies far more then a double casting of fireball, and the same principles of 3.5 still work: big things have good fort, little guys are good at reflex and casters are willful so don't use those on these and you're probably golden.

While there are still ways of getting metamagic shenanigans off (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry), they have been lessened for the most part. They're still really good uses of your feat slots though, and the metamagic rods are still a fantastic use of your hard-earned gold.

Now, I will say that in-combat healing is more useable if you're a cleric with quickened channeling, allowing you to spend two channel attempts to do a swift action burst of healing, but monster damage is still out-pacing what you'll probably be able to heal with what is basically half your level's worth of d6's. Cure light is still best as a wand spell though.

8- I'm still not a fan of the sheer volume of skills and will say that they could use further consolidating but I like how they handled skills in PF better then 3rd. All "class skills" give a +3 bonus if you have a skill point in them. A witch doesn't get stealth as a class skill, but isn't penalized for wanting to put a few spare points into it, you just don't get any real boons to it.

I still feel in pathfinder, as in 3rd, that you just don't get as many skill points as I would like. 2+int mod is still a crime against the fighter (who has little use of Int), or at least one more misdemeanor in a long list of misdemeanors done against the poor class. Too many skills and not enough skill points.

As for diluting the class flavor/stepping on toes, rogues and rangers tend to get more and better use of stealth then my witch, but I can tag along as backup without being a liability. The rogue sneaks ahead, does his thing, tells me "it's safe" and I can sneak up to him without assuming everything in a 12 mile radius is aware of my presence unless I seriously mess up. This is a good thing: It makes characters overall more skilled if they want to be, but the specialized ones still stick out.

Just to get an idea of what i'm speaking of, the rogue, at level 13 is better at mundane /quasi mundane (he gets bonuses that i think might be magical when he's in the shadows. maybe.) sneaking while moving then my witch when she's magically invisible. He spent last combat sniping down an assassin and the enemy tank sent to kill the party while staying hidden in the rafters twenty or so feet from the assailants. The assassin only saw him once. the tanks only saw volleys of 70+ sneak attack damage.

In many regards pathfinder is a bit of a step up from 3rd but suffers in other places so think of it as a sidestep. I personally think 3rd has the heads up because it simply has volumes upon volumes of back-content one can use and i'm more familiar with it then PF. "still being supported" doesn't really matter to me when you have 10+ years of content you can use as a fresh-faced player.

Ideally, if I had to choose one or the other i'd pick 3rd ed as the core game, but would cherry pick things from Pathfinder since the systems are pretty interchangeable. The CMB/CMD and skill systems are superior IMO then their 3rd ed counterparts, for example.

[oxybe]

On fluff: D&D fluff is pretty forgettable in most cases. Golarion is one more kitchen sink setting in a long list of kitchen sink setting.

Not bad per-say, but I've seen all those elements done time after time again. Sometimes better, sometimes worse.

I'd say those fluff elements really only matter if the GM is well-versed in the setting and knows how to make it interesting to the players.

God knows how many GM i've played under that says it's in the world of Grayhawk, but could easily have been in a just-as-boring version of Golarion, Forgotten realms, Dragonlance, Middle-earth, etc...

Fluff by itself, I don't care much for when looking over a system and it's quality since how much and what is emphasized is entirely on the shoulders of the GM.

[aleucard]

The differences are enough to be noticed, but counterbalanced against each other enough that it's almost entirely personal preference that will carry the day between them. The fact that PF was almost tailor-made to be compatible with 3/3.5 stuff is a bonus, since it's so easy to take things you like from one into the other with minimal if any tweaking.

[Psyren]

PF wins in my book because the devs are not afraid to revisit stuff and answer questions, even years later. WotC broke some great ground, but they seem to always be chasing the next big thing.


I stand for 3.5 because it has way more material. Also, being compatible with 3.0, its repertoire augments by A LOT.

If backwards compatibility = more stuff, PF has the biggest rucksack by far.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I think I prefer 3.5 for the big stuff (classes/prestige classes/new subsystems), but prefer Pathfinder for all the little stuff like the way skill points and favored class bonuses work, CMB/CMD, etc.

[Snowbluff]

3.5 all the way. Pathfinder lacks material, and since 90% of all d20 material is crap, this also means it doesn't have as much good stuff, either.

For the record, the PF skill system is easier, but it's also crap.


If backwards compatibility = more stuff, PF has the biggest rucksack by far.

If backwards compatibility = supporters and developers were lying when they said it would be okay, then this is a deflection or a deliberate falsehood. :smalltongue:

[Pex]

Pathfinder

It continues the 3E paradigm, preventing stagnation.
It improved the Core classes with fun game mechanics.
Improved the skill point system.
It is bothersome combat maneuver feats for Tripping, Bull Rush, etc. were unnecessarily changed and nerfed, but other feat changes were done well and new feats created are worth having.
I have some issues with changes to particular spells, but overall I like the spell changes.

[Oracle_of_Void]

To be fair, 3.5 has more material because its been around for so long. Pathfinder is what, 3 or 4 years old I think? It'll only get bigger. Mind you, the games are incredibly similar. So really, its personal preference that gets you. I prefer Pathfinder because the core rulebook gives a lot more options for variants (rage powers, sorcerer bloodlines) and such. Again, personal preference.

[Snowbluff]

To be fair, 3.5 has more material because its been around for so long. Pathfinder is what, 3 or 4 years old I think? It'll only get bigger. Mind you, the games are incredibly similar. So really, its personal preference that gets you. I prefer Pathfinder because the core rulebook gives a lot more options for variants (rage powers, sorcerer bloodlines) and such. Again, personal preference.6 years. It will take 1 minute to look this up. 3rd Edition began in 2000, and was 7 when it was replaced by 4th edition in 2007. Some might say that PF has had similiar time to accomplish a creative variety to the like of Magic of Incarnum or Tome of Battle.

I hope you liked the investigator.

[Sartharina]

To be fair, 3.5 has more material because its been around for so long. Pathfinder is what, 3 or 4 years old I think? It'll only get bigger. Mind you, the games are incredibly similar. So really, its personal preference that gets you. I prefer Pathfinder because the core rulebook gives a lot more options for variants (rage powers, sorcerer bloodlines) and such. Again, personal preference.

3.5 was only around for 2 years, IIRC.

[Snowbluff]

3.5 was only around for 2 years, IIRC.

~4 years is what she means. Give or take some months. I don't think it matters, because I feel that 3.5 isn't a system wholly divorced from 3rd Edition.

EDIT: I mean, it would be stilted to give the credit of 7 years of development to 4 years of work. It would be unfair to both WotC and Paizo.

[squiggit]

I hope you liked the investigator. [/COLOR]

Screw that noise. Investigators are awesome.

[Snowbluff]

Screw that noise. Investigators are awesome.

Back in my day, we didn't have any fancy hybrid classes. If we wanted to play an alchemist rogue, we would make a Vivisectionist. It would kill everything. The skill thing sorted itself out thanks to the PF skill system. *shakes old dude cane*

[Psyren]

I have some issues with changes to particular spells, but overall I like the spell changes.

Indeed, the spell changes are great. Like how it's no longer possible for two spells to shut down an entire school of magic.

[Doctor Awkward]

My personal experience with Pathfinder is pretty much as follows:

-Mundanes, specifically rogues and fighters got shafted hard. They got buffs in the sense that they have more class abilities than their 3.5E counterparts. But the problem is that the mechanics in PF that they rely on got very badly nerfed. PF Fighters get more feats now, but it takes more feats to do the same things they could do in 3.5E. For example, in 3.5E Improved Trip gives you a +4 to your Trip attempts and you successfully trip someone you get a free shot on them (and beat them again with an AoO when they stand back up). In Pathfinder, Improved Trip gives you a +2 to your trip attempts. You can then take a second feat (no earlier than level 6) that gives you another +2 and allows you to make an AoO against someone if you trip them, but if you do you don't get to make your AoO for when they stand.
...What?
And on the same subject, in PF a spiked chain is a exotic weapon at 2d4 damage, 20/x2 crit, finesse, trip, and disarm weapon that gives NO REACH! This is mechanically worse than a sizeable number of MARTIAL weapons.

-There is the new skill system. They combined quite a few old skills (Search and Spot is now Perception, Hide and Move Silently is now Stealth, Acrobatics, etc) and streamlined how skill points and trained skills work. This is great for low skill point classes but rogues, who's niche is oftentimes skills, are sort of screwed. They have more skill points, sure, but there are fewer useful things to spend them on, and they can rarely do anything that another party member can't also do. There's almost literally no reason to play a rogue over a bard any more since anyone can find non-magical traps now (Unless you have some kind of fetish for sneak attack... but even then bard spells are more powerful). Tumbling is now rolled against the CMB of the target, a combination of BAB, size, and strength, and is therefore virtually impossible to succeed against most of the time since it can easily be well into the 30's for a mid-level encounter.

-Grappling now takes far more effort to do (a standard and a move action) and a new check each subsequent round to maintain and is far less penalizing than it was in 3.5E. Bull Rush too, since it is now based on the targets CMB which, as noted, can become ridiculously high very early. Since you need to win the roll by 5 for every 5 feet you wish to move someone, you are lucky if you can push a target more than 10 feet, if you manage to move them at all. At least you can now grapple anything, no matter how much bigger it is than you... so that's something.

-And monks... dear lord. Easily one of the weakest classes ever printed in any 3.5E book (except perhaps the Samurai from Complete Warrior). And PF found a way to make them even weaker. The short list: Monks can no longer apply their class movement speed bonus to anything other than land speed, no longer acquire Improved Trip/Disarm (without Int 13 and massive feat investment), and at one point could no longer flurry unless they were unarmed or dual-wielding... Whaaaat?
This problem stems directly from Sean K. Reynolds. You might recognize the name from the 3E Monster Manual. He is one of the brain trusts Paizo hired to create Pathfinder. ...The man hates monks. Seriously, google it. I've been told he's actually gone on record at conventions saying that the monk class has no place in a D&D fantasy setting. Upon learning this I was instantly no longer surprised at any rules changes involving monks that made them weaker. Not a very healthy attitude for someone trying to create a balanced game.

-Paladins. Paladins in Pathfinder are awesome. If nothing else, it is the one thing I will always direct people towards when they say they want to play a paladin in a d20 setting. I advise fellow players and DM's to allow Patherfinder Paladin over 3.5E paladin, even in 3.5 games. But there's a funny little story about Pathfinder Paladins. Back when the rules were first being written and tested, the paladin presented to players was actually weaker than the one found in 3E. One of the developers then prominently declared he LIKED the idea of the paladin being terrible because it offered a unique roleplaying experience of "being the underdog" or some other such nonsense (I don't know for sure if it was Sean but it wouldn't surprise me. He's said similar idiot things in the past). The beta testers and other designers literally revolted and the new much more effective paladin was the result. So Pathfinder definitely made at least one very positive change... after being dragged kicking and screaming towards it.

So by and large they broke mundanes... but did they fix casters like they claimed? Well...

-Polymorph, and concordantly, Wild Shape was "fixed". Sort of... at the very least druids can now no long dump physical stats without affecting their combat ability. Of course they still have animal companions and their full casting. So all that really did was create the possibility that druids are not the most powerful class in the game.

-Clerics lost heavy armor proficiency, but gained free proficiency with their deity's weapon of choice. Even trade, IMO. Domain powers are bat**** insane now, and they even buffed Divine Power a little bit by granting you temporary hit points.

-Wizards no longer lose access to prohibited schools when specializing. It now just costs two slots instead of one (WHAT THE @!#$&*@$%!). Also, Divination is now a valid choice for prohibited school. In addition, all primary casters got some additional class features to encourage them not to multiclass out into something else.

-There is also a new caster class called Witch. It comes with a save or die at 1st level (Slumber, Will save or fall asleep, no matter what your HD is) that they can use at will, a Fort save or die at 10th level (Ice Tomb, save or be encased in ice, paralyzed), and 9th level arcane casting. Their hexes are once per target but there's a feat you can take right at level 1 which allows you to try again next round.

-There is also the Alchemist. He is pretty much a caster-LITE who uses potions to do everything normal casters do. You typically can play him as either a ranged type who makes extracts out of spells and hurls them along with bombs at enemies or a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde type who gains huge buffs from his mutagens to turn into a melee combat beast. I actually kind of like this class, but it's yet again one more nice thing casters have that mundanes don't.

-Concentration is no longer a skill, but casting on the defense is still as easy as it was in 3.5E. So casters now have more skill points to put in other things.

-While many of the mundane combat feats were split up, none of the caster ones were. Also there is a massive pile of new metamagic feats for casters to play with like Dazing Spell, Bouncing Spell, Reach Spell, Spell Perfection, and so on.

-In addition to the above, Pathfinder needlessly complicates things with their ludicrous amount of rounds per day and minutes per day resources. That's even more bookkeeping for a great many characters. Why would you even do that?

-Tons of other little niggling things that occur all over the place. Like how you can no longer use intimidate to stack fear effects, but you still can using different spells that cause fear. Also, intimidate used to last for as long as you were around plus 1d6*10 minutes after you left. Now it's just 1d6*10 minutes. Better kill that guy quick before he decides to call for help. Why is tumbling and other combat maneuvers based on the CMB but not defensive casting? Constantly I see little hiccups and exceptions built into the rules that seem to all be predicated on the notion that "mundanes can't have nice things".

Overall, I find Pathfinder to be a very neutral change when comparing it to 3.5E. For everything they did right there's at least one more thing they did wrong. The thing that I find so ****ing offensive about it, and the biggest reason I almost never play it, is that the number of people they sucker by marketing the system as "3.5 done right!" I would say at best the gap between casters and mundanes is even wider in Pathfinder than it is in 3.5E.


Here's a thread from Gaming Den (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50083) that discusses a lot of the major problems you'll encounter being a 3.5 player going to Pathfinder.

[Snowbluff]

We used to have long threads we could direct people to. Has anyone bothered keeping the changes recorded?

The thing that I find so ****ing offensive about it, and the biggest reason I almost never play it, is that the number of people they sucker by marketing the system as "3.5 done right!" I would say at best the gap between casters and mundanes is even wider in Pathfinder than it is in 3.5E.

This is my biggest problem right here. Pathfinder is a marketing success to the point where it's used to fallaciously defend the system. I have similiar feelings about Psionics, too.

[Anlashok]

To be fair though, most of the things being complained about in that post about what's wrong with Pathfinder is... stuff that's also wrong with 3.5. Yeah, bitching about Paizo not fixing their game even though they claim they did is perfectly valid, but it's not really much of a point against Pathfinder in "3.5 vs Pathfinder" when it's also true of 3.5.

I don't think it's fair to say that the gap between casters and martials has widened either. Yeah, martials lost a lot of their high op options. Charging is still great, but not as obscene as in 3.5, tripping is very noticeably worse and PF power attack is kind of dumb... but when you compare that to losing the ability to literally remake all of reality on a whim the loss is barely a drop in the bucket.

[Snowbluff]

To be fair though, most of the things being complained about in that post about what's wrong with Pathfinder is... stuff that's also wrong with 3.5. Yeah, bitching about Paizo not fixing their game even though they claim they did is perfectly valid, but it's not really much of a point against Pathfinder in "3.5 vs Pathfinder" when it's also true of 3.5.


True, but keep in mind that that is a statement questioning the integrity of the developers rather than the overall quality of the game. People were promised a certain product that they did not receive. Certain people will claim that they received this product when they clearly did not, much to the chagrin of a certain group of other people.

[Doctor Awkward]

I don't think it's fair to say that the gap between casters and martials has widened either. Yeah, martials lost a lot of their high op options. Charging is still great, but not as obscene as in 3.5, tripping is very noticeably worse and PF power attack is kind of dumb... but when you compare that to losing the ability to literally remake all of reality on a whim the loss is barely a drop in the bucket.



I'll let Frank handle this one. he said it better than I can:
First of all, nerfing "a spell" doesn't actually do anything to spellcasters in terms of overall power as long as there is still at least one spell that still makes them win at the same level. It makes spellcasters less interesting to have less spells they want to use, but it doesn't make them any worse to use spell X to win instead of spell Y. While many staples of the wizard arsenal (like Glitterdust) have gotten nerfed to make them severely less good, and the literal death spells have been reduced to inconsequential damage dealers, there are still spells that remove enemies from combat at every level. The fine folks at Paizo even added some.
So no, primary casters are not any less powerful just because they have to cast ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death.

If you are a 3.5 player considering Pathfinder then the changes are what matter to you. In terms of balance, 3.5 is most likely the superior system, and the things you should cherry-pick from Pathfinder begin with the skill system, and end with the paladin class.

[Anlashok]

True, but keep in mind that that is a statement questioning the integrity of the developers rather than the overall quality of the game. People were promised a certain product that they did not receive. Certain people will claim that they received this product when they clearly did not, much to the chagrin of a certain group of other people.

Oh absolutely, like I said there's a very valid complaint to be made there. I just think it gets blown out of proportion sometimes in threads like this.

Personally I use Pathfinder's chassis, because consolidating skills is something I was already doing and more feats are awesome, and generally the better version of any martial feat (usually the 3.5 one) and worse version of any caster feat (which is a mixed bag)... and then everything else from both systems.


Sean K. Reynolds.

Something interesting to note regarding him is that there seems to be a bit of ... towing the party line going on at Paizo. This is the guy who compared fighting with a crossbow to being proficient with water balloons and... well yeah, everything on monks.

Then a week after he left Paizo I saw him on the very same forum talking about the value of narrativism over simulationism, the importance of remembering that Ex skills don't need to be realistic, and musing over the value (or lacktherof ) of having so many weapons that are intentionally not worth using in their book given that the game exists in a world where one can fly and shoot lasers out of their hands (which makes the idea that being a highly skilled crossbow or water balloon expert is absurd look... well, absurd in comparison).


I'll let Frank handle this one. he said it better than I can:
So no, primary casters are not any less powerful just because they have to cast ghoulish hunger instead of finger of death.
Actually he says it himself right there:

as there is still at least one spell that still makes them win at the same level.
I can't shapeshift into a Zodar in Pathfinder... or make ice assassins of gods to steal divine ranks from. Or, you know, any of the myriad of ways one can completely remake the entire universe at-will with Epic Spellcasting. So no, I can't "win at the same level" with another spell.

[Sartharina]

I think Pathfinder did some things right, but I'm really annoyed at where they didn't go far enough.

Frankly, I like the buff to spellcaster chassis. But the shanking of martials was uncalled for. And why didn't they have cantrips deal the Cleric/Sorcerer Blast-level damage (1d6+1/2 caster level), and the limited-daily blasts deal the d6/2 caster levels damage?

[BWR]

I prefer PF because:
- It's easier to build something usable and fitting a vision right out the gate. Archetypes are great.
- Class X up to level 20 is a perfectly viable progression for any class - no need to use most classes as dips to get anywhere (something I really detested about 3.5)
- skill system is better
- the idea of CMB/CMD
- the paladin class. I love what they did with the paladin. Other classes got a facelift which work for the level of optimization we play
- a host of minor changes, like poison and disease, concentration
- Combat Style feats are fun
- Golarion is basically Mystara 2.0, so that's pretty good right there.
- The adventure paths are quite entertainig, at least the ones I've read.

Its drawbacks are:
- CMB/CMD gets wonky pretty quickly, and splitting the CM feats into two was just a **** move
- less SoD - lots of the old kill effects now just deal damage. In general, the game is less lethal, and I kind of liked the days when 1st level people could meet SoD poison from otherwise wussy monsters and traps.
- some of the archetypes are less good than the base version of the class. I believe they try to avoid power creep by limiting the alternatives, but they don't always manage to balance things out.
- casters can still dominate the game ridiculously easily if they choose. In general this isn't a problem for my games because we don't optimize much and I have good players so both mundanes and casters are useful in most circumstances, not to mention I'm fine with casters being more powerful than mundanes at higher levels.

[The Insanity]

Both together.

[Jigawatts]

I prefer Pathfinder. Played 3.5 from 03-09 (we started with 2E in 98 and actually skipped over 3.0 entirely), I always thought it was too fiddly, and the characters that had a combination of 8 different classes/PrC's irked the crap out of me. I dont mind optimization, but I like it when it is clean and sensible. I even sold off all of my 3.5 books about 3-4 years ago, the only ones I have left are the full line of Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft sourcebooks, everything non-campaign setting related got ebayed.

I can absolutely see how 3.5 is a veritable min-maxers paradise, its just not a style of game my group is interested in.

[loodwig]

I'm not a spectacularly experienced player, but I've been playing pathfinder & PFS for a year and a half, and I've been GM'ing a campaign for 9 months in PFS for what it's worth. While any system can work well, and the quality of players & GM dictate most of the aspects of the story, I feel overall that Pathfinder is a strict upgrade over 3.5. That said, I find myself reaching back to 3.5 for world machinations & the historical feel of what was the last good (my opinion) edition of D&D. More often than not I simply am relying on the rules as an easier form of tournament play and accessibility for players, with the laws of nature and reality customized to the nth degree once the barrier to entry has been passed. That is to say, I like Pathfinder as a fundamental rule better than 3.5, but any good GM or campaign will take this as a guideline at best, and customize & shoehorn anything immediately. At this point, my group never fights anything in the bestiary, and I'm not above making up spells & items. But I refer back to this only being good if the quality of players are good. And while I find the barrier to entry of PFS for modules to be very easy, I still find this playstyle to be trying at best, compared to the great fun of playing with a group of friends.

So yeah, give Pathfinder a try.

[Seto]

Wow, so much info ! Thanks to everyone that has taken the time to answer.


Take what follows with a grain of salt
How could I, you're a Pokémon ?! :smallfrown: In my experience, Pokémon speak true ! (except for Liepard, that Pranking bastard.)

Ok, here's where I'm standing now : I'll probably stick with 3.5, while taking the PF skill system and races system, which I liked (thank God, half-orcs finally stop being a joke !) And allow players to play PF things on a case-by-case basis, especially if they're going for Paladin (I took a look at it, it's really nice). Like, PF capstones and punctual boons are negotiable. Classes' HP going from d4 to d6 and d6 to d8 is out, though.

[Psyren]

Both together.

This.


In terms of balance, 3.5 is most likely the superior system, and the things you should cherry-pick from Pathfinder begin with the skill system, and end with the paladin class.

Because PF has Pun-Pun, Planar Shepherd, DCFS, DMM, Incantatrix, Cheater of Mystra, Fell Drain Orbs, AP Nightmares, Zodars, Diplomancy, Ice Assassin, Dragonwrought Kobolds, Illithid Savant, Beholder Mage... clearly it is the less balanced of the two. Ah-yup.




I don't think it's fair to say that the gap between casters and martials has widened either. Yeah, martials lost a lot of their high op options. Charging is still great, but not as obscene as in 3.5, tripping is very noticeably worse and PF power attack is kind of dumb... but when you compare that to losing the ability to literally remake all of reality on a whim the loss is barely a drop in the bucket.

Yep.

[Vhaidara]

Ok, here's where I'm standing now : I'll probably stick with 3.5, while taking the PF skill system and races system, which I liked (thank God, half-orcs finally stop being a joke !) And allow players to play PF things on a case-by-case basis, especially if they're going for Paladin (I took a look at it, it's really nice). Like, PF capstones and punctual boons are negotiable. Classes' HP going from d4 to d6 and d6 to d8 is out, though.

Honestly, I feel that the PF classes are better designed. Even a little buff is nice to the mundanes. And the archetypes allow for focusing on a certain aspect.

PF classes and skills with 3.5 feats (unless no equivalent) is the route I usually go. Also, if you look at Dreamscarred Press (third party) you get PF Psionics, Tome of Battle, and (upcoming) Incarnum.

[Snowbluff]

A lot of the weaker but practical casting classes are gone.

Most of the T3 mundane and melee classes are gone.

Ergo, less game balance.

[Doctor Awkward]

Because PF has Pun-Pun, Planar Shepherd, DCFS, DMM, Incantatrix, Cheater of Mystra, Fell Drain Orbs, AP Nightmares, Zodars, Diplomancy, Ice Assassin, Dragonwrought Kobolds, Illithid Savant, Beholder Mage... clearly it is the less balanced of the two.

It also has dungeoncrashers, uberchargers, splash damage and ranged sneak attacking rogues, combat maneuver specialists, and Magic of Incarnum.

Otherwise known as melee characters that are relevant. 3.5 is easily the better system of the two. It's far easier to deny certain aspects on a case by case basis than it is to try rolling a wagon with a broken wheel.



Ok, here's where I'm standing now : I'll probably stick with 3.5, while taking the PF skill system and races system, which I liked (thank God, half-orcs finally stop being a joke !) And allow players to play PF things on a case-by-case basis, especially if they're going for Paladin (I took a look at it, it's really nice). Like, PF capstones and punctual boons are negotiable. Classes' HP going from d4 to d6 and d6 to d8 is out, though.

Good call, IMO. Here's a pro tip regarding all those little bonuses casters get to encourage them not to multi-class: You still multi-class anyway, you just now get some neat stuff on top of that.

[Divide by Zero]

Because PF has Pun-Pun, Planar Shepherd, DCFS, DMM, Incantatrix, Cheater of Mystra, Fell Drain Orbs, AP Nightmares, Zodars, Diplomancy, Ice Assassin, Dragonwrought Kobolds, Illithid Savant, Beholder Mage... clearly it is the less balanced of the two. Ah-yup.

Most of which never see play in a real game unless the game itself is high-op or the player is a jerk. CharOp is not the game. In fact, I think the fact that you CAN play at such a high power level as well as a low one (assuming all players are on the same page) is a point in favor of the system.

[Snowbluff]

CharOp is not the game. In fact, I think the fact that you CAN play at such a high power level as well as a low one (assuming all players are on the same page) is a point in favor of the system.

I contest the first sentence but not the second. CharOp is very important to the longevity of d20.

[Psyren]

It also has dungeoncrashers, uberchargers, splash damage and ranged sneak attacking rogues, combat maneuver specialists, and Magic of Incarnum.

The only ones of these you can't do in PF are dungeoncrasher and splash sneak attack. Everything else is possible, including Incarnum now.



Otherwise known as melee characters that are relevant. 3.5 is easily the better system of the two. It's far easier to deny certain aspects on a case by case basis than it is to try rolling a wagon with a broken wheel.

If you don't know how to make a wagon properly, then of course the wheels will seem broken.

[Snowbluff]

The only ones of these you can't do in PF are dungeoncrasher and splash sneak attack. Everything else is possible, including Incarnum now.Third party is outside the common assumption. Regardless of our personal feeling on DSP, it's just not commonly in use and we can not expect it.

Hell, I would consider DSP's material to be it's own system for how drastically it changes things up.

[Psyren]

Then drop Incarnum; ranged sneak attack is still doable, chargers/pouncers are still doable, and combat maneuver specialists are very doable.

[Snowbluff]

Then drop Incarnum; ranged sneak attack is still doable, chargers/pouncers are still doable, and combat maneuver specialists are very doable.

Well, playing the devil's advocate here, I think he was referring to flask rogue, which is impossible specifically in PF. Chargers are doable, but the efficacy is reduced significantly. Shocktroopers now require a longer feat chain with less synergy. Combat maneuvers can be good, but require a larger portion of your resources.

I don't know the math about CMB vs. CMD, which is why I rarely speak on the subject. However, I will point out that specializing in a maneuver is often a fruitless effort in PF in terms of how often you can use them and if it is a good tactical option at the time.

[Ansem]

{Scrubbed}

[Psyren]

Well, playing the devil's advocate here, I think he was referring to flask rogue, which is impossible specifically in PF.

I already agreed on flask rogue - post #49. But he also said "ranged sneak attacking rogues" don't exist, which is factually incorrect.

(Also, flask rogues are kind of a thing with Underground Chemist but I do agree it's been weakened.)



I don't know the math about CMB vs. CMD, which is why I rarely speak on the subject. However, I will point out that specializing in a maneuver is often a fruitless effort in PF in terms of how often you can use them and if it is a good tactical option at the time.

CMB vs. CMD has been patched via items, which any mundane can craft. It is possible to keep up with even the toughest monsters with a modicum of optimization. And for many maneuvers, like trip, mundane class features apply like Fighter's weapon training.

Can they compete with ToB, absolutely not, but can they keep up with the Bestiary? With PC wealth, easily.

[Squark]

Well, here's my two cents on the matter, prefaced with ultimately I feel like I know the 3.5 system too well to shift over anytime soon.

Classes: What I honestly wanted from 4th edition was Saga Edition-style classes. But, you know, in D&D. We've never gotten that, and Pathfinder honestly went the same direction 4th edition did. Yes, I said it. I don't want Archetypes, I want talent groups you can pick to create the character I want. That being said, I agree that whoever was in charge of the paladin did a fantastic job there.

Skills: I'm not sure about this. Skill consolidation is definately good, and simplifying the skill purchasing system isn't bad (And saga edition might have gone overboard with just untrained-trained-skill focus), but the rogue did kind of get the short end of the stick. Paizo's approach just seems a bit too quickly applied for my tastes. It looks like rogue talents do at least try to help with this, but I'm not sure how this all balances out.

In general, though, it feels like Paizo tried to apply band-aids to individual things rather than look at things systemicly. Glitterdust got toned down? Yay- wait. You didn't hit Stinking Cloud or Slow? Yes, tripping was far more popular than other combat tricks- because it was the only thing worth doing (Well, bull-rushing eventually got pretty cool with enough splatbooks)

[Psyren]

I'm confused, what's wrong with Slow and Stinking Cloud? They're good enough to use, but not game-breaking - exactly what spells should be.

[Squirrel_Dude]

In general, though, it feels like Paizo tried to apply band-aids to individual things rather than look at things systemicly. Glitterdust got toned down? Yay- wait. You didn't hit Stinking Cloud or Slow? Yes, tripping was far more popular than other combat tricks- because it was the only thing worth doing (Well, bull-rushing eventually got pretty cool with enough splatbooks)Probably my biggest frustration with Paizo is that they seem to overly focus on individual problems and don't take a more holistic approach to dealing with the problems in their game, it's lead to situations where one FAQ leads to unexpected results and more FAQs to address it.

[Squark]

I'm confused, what's wrong with Slow and Stinking Cloud? They're good enough to use, but not game-breaking - exactly what spells should be.

Err... Stinking Cloud makes subjects nauseated for 1d4+1 round. That's at least 2 rounds they're doing nothing but lurching about sick to their stomach. If you can't win an encounter with that much free time, well, you're either staring down the BBEG or his lieutenant, or you're doing something horribly wrong.

Slow does basicly the same thing to enemies using melee attacks and eliminates a ranged combatants ability to skirmish (And generally speaking, a ranged combatant stuck in melee is a soon to be dead combatant). Spellcasters aren't nearly as badly hit if they've got the proper preparations in place.

My point was that both of those spells can trivialize encounters just as easily as Grease, Web, or Glitterdust could, but they didn't get fixed the way those spells did.

[Psyren]

Err... Stinking Cloud makes subjects nauseated for 1d4+1 round. That's at least 2 rounds they're doing nothing but lurching about sick to their stomach. If you can't win an encounter with that much free time, well, you're either staring down the BBEG or his lieutenant, or you're doing something horribly wrong.

Slow does basicly the same thing to enemies using melee attacks and eliminates a ranged combatants ability to skirmish (And generally speaking, a ranged combatant stuck in melee is a soon to be dead combatant). Spellcasters aren't nearly as badly hit if they've got the proper preparations in place.

My point was that both of those spells can trivialize encounters just as easily as Grease, Web, or Glitterdust could, but they didn't get fixed the way those spells did.

Blind is far worse than Stagger because you can at least fight back, and nausea allows you to escape. And that's assuming they fail their saves or (in the case of Slow) you punch through SR.

I would have liked a save every round on those two as well but the fact is that tey are not that bad. Even at level 20 Stinking Cloud might only by you a couple of rounds, if it works at all, and Slow rapidly falls off in effectiveness as you deal with resistant enemies.

The main thing is that fort is the highest save for the majority of monsters, while if you can get them to fail a will save and beat there SR there are much worse things you could be doing than still letting them have standard actions.

[oxybe]

I think the main problem between talking about the balance difference between pathfinder and 3rd ed is that of nuking one continent over nuking two. Either way, something is going to give if you put a modicum of effort, the theoretical difference is easy to see but the practical difference is nearly invisible.

I've played casters almost exclusively, or a caster mix, in 3rd/pathfinder. Yes i'm not destroying encounters with a single casting of glitterdust i'm instead doing so with euphoric cloud (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/e/euphoric-cloud).

We still have very powerful options even if the old ones were nerfed and paizo is dedicated to bringing more and more spells in almost every supplement they bring out.

And while punpun, hulking hurlers and cheaters of mystra are the high end of 3rd ed optimization, no one ever expects to see these in play... they're almost pure theorycraft thrown at other theorycraft thought experiments to see how many galaxies explode.

I say give pathfinder time and we'll probably see their own cheater of mystra-like build.

But again: the practical difference is that instead of using a sonic screwdriver we're using a plasma cutter to open the door.

Hold person might not be one save and be boinked for the rest of the combat, but it's still paralyzed until it makes a save (which may happen on the next turn). This means instead of coup-de-grace'ing after combat, we do it mid-combat. It's still a rather potent spell.

The fogs are still great spells: Block line of sight with a large AOE and a rider effect that requires a save.

Summon monster is still hands down a fantastic line of spells due to the versatility of the critters it can bring to the fore and they seem to keep adding more to the lists every so often.

Pathfinder is still a pretty borked game. The high end isn't as borked as 3rd's high end but it's still borked with little effort.

In practical play, casters are still very powerful if played smart and they now have a tougher chassis and some class features.

[Psyren]

For both systems - If you can "destroy an encounter" with a single casting of anything, that is pretty clearly the DM's fault. It's also really easy to correct.

[Brookshw]

Never actually played PF though I've flipped through the materials. Seems okay and maybe better balanced with some of the big offenders being toned down. Still, don't think I'll be swapping systems anytime soon, much rather have a book in front of me and don't want to shell out for a 3.5 upgrade when I can just swap rules in 3.5.

[oxybe]

For both systems - If you can "destroy an encounter" with a single casting of anything, that is pretty clearly the DM's fault. It's also really easy to correct.

And as GM I shouldn't have to know every single spell in existence to make sure that my monsters aren't nullified by it. Sometimes I want to run combats or encounters/challenges that aren't mired with contingencies. I shouldn't have to play amateur game designer because the professionals let yet another one slip by the cracks.

If this happened only once then I might say it's the GM's problem, but I've heard it happen time after time where one spell or something just blindsided the guy. And I've been on the giving and receiving end of those spells too.

This means that the GM either needs to rewrite a large swath of spells, put many contingencies in his encounters or be required to ban a large number of spells due to potential borkedness.

This is the reason I stopped running 3rd ed, where I was placing more effort in making the game not broken and less time making the sessions fun. It was becoming work, rather then a hobby done for fun.

Blaming badly written spells that can break encounters on Tim who just wants to run an elfgame for John, Bill and Steve every Thursday is being rather irresponsible. 3rd ed Glitterdust seem like a fun spell on paper but at low levels it can absolutely wreck house due to how blindness works.

How is this Tim's fault?

[Psyren]

And as GM I shouldn't have to know every single spell in existence to make sure that my monsters aren't nullified by it.

You really don't have to. "Don't bunch all my monsters with a weak save and no SR into a 20ft. radius" seems like reasonable advice for any level, regardless of the players' repertoire. "Don't use a single monster" is another nugget of wisdom I could impart.

[Ssalarn]

"Sean K. Reynolds"

Something interesting to note regarding him is that there seems to be a bit of ... towing the party line going on at Paizo. This is the guy who compared fighting with a crossbow to being proficient with water balloons and... well yeah, everything on monks.

Then a week after he left Paizo I saw him on the very same forum talking about the value of narrativism over simulationism, the importance of remembering that Ex skills don't need to be realistic, and musing over the value (or lacktherof ) of having so many weapons that are intentionally not worth using in their book given that the game exists in a world where one can fly and shoot lasers out of their hands (which makes the idea that being a highly skilled crossbow or water balloon expert is absurd look... well, absurd in comparison).


Actually he says it himself right there:

I can't shapeshift into a Zodar in Pathfinder... or make ice assassins of gods to steal divine ranks from. Or, you know, any of the myriad of ways one can completely remake the entire universe at-will with Epic Spellcasting. So no, I can't "win at the same level" with another spell.

Sean was actually one of the better designers at Paizo and it was a shame to see him go. People like to howl and slaver and cry for his blood over the monk thing, but he even said in the thread (multiple times) "I just asked James, who wrote it, what he meant when he wrote it and then conveyed that on". Unfortunately the howling mass of internet monkeys had more fun flinging poo than talking about what that meant. Which kind of marked the moment, I think, when SKR decided to leave.
I'm actually pretty excited to see what happens with his Five Moons RPG (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/seankreynolds/five-moons-rpg-by-sean-k-reynolds?ref=nav_search), which hints at a lot of smart elements and looks to be well on track towards fulfilling its promise to be a balanced d20 system that doesn't get all cookie-cutter like 4e did.

[oxybe]

Catching three quarters or even half of the encounter in one debilitating spell has pretty much ruined it, especially if you catch the more dangerous ones in it.

This turns a 5v5 into a 5v3 or 5v2. If you can't see how that trivializes an encounter then there isn't much else I can say.

As for single monsters, running a lot of mooks also has it's own problems, namely they generally have lower saves so they're more susceptible to the AoE spells. One or two mooks might make it but mooks are generally ignorable by themselves: they're only really dangerous in large numbers or if they're supporting/being supported. Take away that support or the thing they're supporting and they're significantly less dangerous.

This is why spot removal is so powerful and why a single spell can wreck encounters. "I win" types of spells don't have to drop the entirety of the enemy side in one blow, but rather them going off pretty much makes your victory inevitable (barring incredible luck or unluck).

[Psyren]

Catching three quarters or even half of the encounter in one debilitating spell has pretty much ruined it, especially if you catch the more dangerous ones in it.

This turns a 5v5 into a 5v3 or 5v2. If you can't see how that trivializes an encounter then there isn't much else I can say.

Have more burst in from the trees. Or simply take it as a lesson learned and add more enemies to the next encounter. But if the DM, knowing that the players (or even just one of the players) has this kind of artillery at his fingertips and makes no adjustments to the encounters as a result, said DM has only himself to blame if things seem like a cakewalk.



As for single monsters, running a lot of mooks also has it's own problems, namely they generally have lower saves so they're more susceptible to the AoE spells. One or two mooks might make it but mooks are generally ignorable by themselves: they're only really dangerous in large numbers or if they're supporting/being supported. Take away that support or the thing they're supporting and they're significantly less dangerous.

Area spells have drawbacks of their own. If the enemy quickly mingles with the party, that stinking cloud isn't starting to seem like such a great idea for instance. And if the player is spending resources to poke holes in their spells - good! That's resources they're not spending on things like spell focus or widen in order to make the AoE even worse.



This is why spot removal is so powerful and why a single spell can wreck encounters. "I win" types of spells don't have to drop the entirety of the enemy side in one blow, but rather them going off pretty much makes your victory inevitable (barring incredible luck or unluck).

If you don't compensate for it, absolutely. But the DM's job is to challenge the players, which means exactly that.

[oxybe]

Honestly speaking, the more you reply psyren the more more you showcase what I dislike the most about 3rd ed and it's relatives.

Making the game playable is work. Not effort, not fun, but work. I shouldn't have to build contingencies and workarounds and shove more monsters in randomly because the players happened to have Stinking Cloud readied this morning.

At some point we have to blame the devs. Blaming the single GM for not being able to out-think or out-plan 5 players with a variety of abilities is being rather dishonest with reality of the situation where I doubt most GMs want to have to do all that extra legwork or prep work just to make the game playable.

Either way, I've said my part in this thread. Happy gaming to all, regardless of system.

[Psyren]

The game is perfectly playable without that work. It's just going to be either really easy for the players or really hard.

In 5e, Sleep has no saving throw. SR is no longer a thing. There are 6 saving throws instead of 3. Yes, you still have to put work in to make things challenging yet fair; it might be less, but it's not mitigated entirely. If you think for a moment that any edition of D&D doesn't require prep-work, including 5e, I have a nice bridge to sell you. :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

I prefer Pathfinder because I like the changes they've made to the classes, archetypes are a godsend when my players felt overwhelmed and unsure what PrC's to pick in 3.5e, upgrade to races, cooler monsters, more feats on my character, flavour that isn't Western Europe 99% of the time, skill system that lets me make a character concept without multiclassing, kaiju, rules for advanced tech, word magic, and dreamscarred press content.

I'll admit I haven't experienced any problems of CMB/CMD, since none of my players use them, so that might be worse as people say but still.

[Snowbluff]

There are 6 saving throws instead of 3. Yes, you still have to put work in to make things challenging yet fair; it might be less, but it's not mitigated entirely. If you think for a moment that any edition of D&D doesn't require prep-work, including 5e, I have a nice bridge to sell you. :smalltongue:
6 saves, but the main 3 from d20 are by far the most common. I think by a factor of 10 or more on the spell list alone.


I prefer Pathfinder because I like the changes they've made to the classes, archetypes are a godsend when my players felt overwhelmed and unsure what PrC's to pick in 3.5e, upgrade to races, cooler monsters, more feats on my character, flavour that isn't Western Europe 99% of the time, skill system that lets me make a character concept without multiclassing, kaiju, rules for advanced tech, word magic, and dreamscarred press content.

I'll admit I haven't experienced any problems of CMB/CMD, since none of my players use them, so that might be worse as people say but still.

Another thing that bothers me: ACFs are apparently unique to PF. :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

Another thing that bothers me: ACFs are apparently unique to PF. :smalltongue:

ACF are too tiny to matter in my experience, though I did like Elemental Companion.

[squiggit]

And while punpun, hulking hurlers and cheaters of mystra are the high end of 3rd ed optimization, no one ever expects to see these in play... they're almost pure theorycraft thrown at other theorycraft thought experiments to see how many galaxies explode.
They aren't, you're right... but it's a bit silly to take the position that X is more balance as Y, and then say the really unbalanced stuff in X doesn't count, so for the purposes of the "Which is more balanced?" discussion, they're all completely relevant.



ACF are too tiny to matter in my experience, though I did like Elemental Companion.

I sort of feel the opposite sometimes. ACFs are awesome because they're small and modular. Too often I run into a Pathfinder Archetype that gives something cool, and then a bunch of other baggage that makes it change the class in an annoying way or causes compatibility issues... I got really frustrated with the Investigator in the ACG because of this. I don't friggin' want Blind Shot. It's not bad or anything, but that one ability makes it completely incompatible with every other investigator archetype. So your master of deductive reasoning or criminal genius can't carry a gun without blowing half a million feats.

[Dusk Eclipse]

There is one distinct advantage that ACF have over PF archetypes, you can pile heaps of them into the same character; now technically you can do the same with Archetypes, but Archetypes usually trade out the same class feature across the boards thus making having multiple archetypes on the same character finicky.

[Curmudgeon]

I like Rogues, and I've got most of the 3.5 books which shore up the weaknesses of the base class. Pathfinder isn't for me.

[OldTrees1]

I sort of feel the opposite sometimes. ACFs are awesome because they're small and modular. Too often I run into a Pathfinder Archetype that gives something cool, and then a bunch of other baggage that makes it change the class in an annoying way or causes compatibility issues... I got really frustrated with the Investigator in the ACG because of this. I don't friggin' want Blind Shot. It's not bad or anything, but that one ability makes it completely incompatible with every other investigator archetype. So your master of deductive reasoning or criminal genius can't carry a gun without blowing half a million feats.
Yeah, Archetypes might be simpler to use, but ACFs were a great innovation in 3.5e. Even better, some of the ACFs could be used by multiple classes.

[Psyren]

6 saves, but the main 3 from d20 are by far the most common. I think by a factor of 10 or more on the spell list alone.

Sure, that's true now. But as they print more splats, more targeting the other three will emerge. And all you really need are one or two for each to cover your bases.

Right now for instance you can Maze the Tarrasque pretty much automatically, and there's a good chance he will stay gone for the entire duration while your party either escapes, patches up or comes up with a plan. Nearly any other spell with an Int save is going to be just as rough on the poor guy, and he has no SR anymore.


They aren't, you're right... but it's a bit silly to take the position that X is more balance as Y, and then say the really unbalanced stuff in X doesn't count, so for the purposes of the "Which is more balanced?" discussion, they're all completely relevant.

Exactly. It's pretty disingenuous.

[Jigawatts]

Because PF has Pun-Pun, Planar Shepherd, DCFS, DMM, Incantatrix, Cheater of Mystra, Fell Drain Orbs, AP Nightmares, Zodars, Diplomancy, Ice Assassin, Dragonwrought Kobolds, Illithid Savant, Beholder Mage... clearly it is the less balanced of the two. Ah-yup.


They aren't, you're right... but it's a bit silly to take the position that X is more balance as Y, and then say the really unbalanced stuff in X doesn't count, so for the purposes of the "Which is more balanced?" discussion, they're all completely relevant.
Nailed it.

[Snowbluff]

Sure, that's true now. But as they print more splats, more targeting the other three will emerge. And all you really need are one or two for each to cover your bases.

Right now for instance you can Maze the Tarrasque pretty much automatically, and there's a good chance he will stay gone for the entire duration while your party either escapes, patches up or comes up with a plan. Nearly any other spell with an Int save is going to be just as rough on the poor guy, and he has no SR anymore.
Well, I'll gladly bet that Dex/Con/Wis will maintain their vast prevalence.

And that's what he gets for being nothing but a big fighter. 0/10 would not set loose to destroy countryside again. :smalltongue:


Exactly. It's pretty disingenuous.
Because both have imbalanced options but one has a wider variety of balanced options?

[Psyren]

Well, I'll gladly bet that Dex/Con/Wis will maintain their vast prevalence.

Thing is, "prevalence" is wholly irrelevant. You need one, maybe two at most, spells to target each save, and you just whip that one out of the toolbox when needed. Whether you have one rifle or 15, you can still hunt deer for the dinner table.

Maze was the only "intelligence save" in 3.5 core too. And it was and is a damn good spell for that reason, among others, capable of shutting down any mindless or low-sentience target without fuss.



Because both have imbalanced options but one has a wider variety of balanced options?

That's not only debatable, a lot of 3.5's balanced options are gated behind books that are out of print or otherwise difficult to obtain, making them functionally nonexistent for many groups. (Well, the ones with ethics anyway.)

[Snowbluff]

Thing is, "prevalence" is wholly irrelevant. You need one, maybe two at most, spells to target each save, and you just whip that one out of the toolbox when needed. Whether you have one rifle or 15, you can still hunt deer for the dinner table.

Maze was the only "intelligence save" in 3.5 core too. And it was and is a damn good spell for that reason, among others, capable of shutting down any mindless or low-sentience target without fuss.
You're missing the defensive standpoint. Monsters won't generally be tuned for common saves all of the time. Players will be. It's a complex topic that I won't go into now, but simplifying the way you did will leave some wanting due to the spread of the saves versus the effects by level.

I'm will to bet there are other "saves" for other stats. By that reasoning, rope should be considered.



That's not only debatable, a lot of 3.5's balanced options are gated behind books that are out of print or otherwise difficult to obtain, making them functionally nonexistent for many groups. (Well, the ones with ethics anyway.)

A deflection outside the scope of the assumption. I'm not going to go into the ethics debate, either. I'll just say that you'll only make an ethics complaint when it serves you, and that could be considered unethical.

[Psyren]

You're missing the defensive standpoint. Monsters won't generally be tuned for common saves all of the time. Players will be. It's a complex topic that I won't go into now, but simplifying the way you did will leave some wanting due to the spread of the saves versus the effects by level.

But the question is actually about monster defenses, not player defenses. You're absolutely right, monsters will have weaknesses, and casters will be primed to exploit them more and more as the edition goes on.



A deflection outside the scope of the assumption.

I don't see how. Ease of access to materials is most definitely relevant when discussing breadth/versatility of those materials.

[Sartharina]

I don't see how. Ease of access to materials is most definitely relevant when discussing breadth/versatility of those materials.Even here :(

[Snowbluff]

I don't see how. Ease of access to materials is most definitely relevant when discussing breadth/versatility of those materials.

You can complain all you want, but it won't make 3.5 any worse of a system, or PF any better.

[Squark]

You can complain all you want, but it won't make 3.5 any worse of a system, or PF any better.

The question of the thread is which system you like best, though, so it is relevant to the discussion. It isn't relevant to the current tangent of relevant levels of balance, though,

[Snowbluff]

The question of the thread is which system you like best, though, so it is relevant to the discussion. The current tangent, less so.

First of all, here's a gold star of participation. *

Second of all, if the only reason why you favor a game is because you don't have others available, you may want to take a moment to reconsider that. Technically, you may like it best, but that can change very easily for several reasons.

As for the actual availability question, I won't bring up questions that would put that into question if it is an extraordinary circumstance. For example, a 3.5 group with all of the DMags (how?) or a PF group without reliable internet (don't get me started).

[Ssalarn]

I like Pathfinder best. It cut out DMM and a lot of the other broken splat I wasn't fond of, boosted the base chassis of most classes, and trimmed down the Cleric and Druid a smidge so they're not quite as insanely powerful.

It would have been nice if they'd gone a bit further with trimming full casters in some areas; I don't think Wizards really needed to have all of their schools opened up so that choosing a spell from a restricted school just puts you back where you would have been if you hadn't specialized instead of forcing you to be a bit more focused. It would have been nice if Wizards were forced to specialize and ended up a bit more like the Beguiler or Warmage instead of the omnipotent masters of all that they are. Of course, they were just as bad in 3.5, with the added frustrations that you bump into at low levels where you often cast one spell and then spend the rest of the fight plinking away with a crossbow. Cantrips and Orisons were a solid add.

Pretty much everything I liked in 3.5 is ported to Pathfinder now, generally with lots of nice improvements. DSP's Ultimate Psionics is everything I liked about 3.5 psionics with a level of polish and ingenuity that's a whole cut above.

The quality of 3pp materials in general is much improved for the Pathfinder community over the old 3.5 materials (excepting Paizo's own 3pp from back when, which was generally a few cuts above what others were putting out).

CMB/CMD doesn't scale as well as it should, but with a houserule regarding when size bonuses do/do not apply to one or the other it actually works very well and is much easier to use than the disparate maneuver rules in 3.5, particularly for players with less than high system mastery.

[Snowbluff]

CMB/CMD doesn't scale as well as it should, but with a houserule regarding when size bonuses do/do not apply to one or the other it actually works very well and is much easier to use than the disparate maneuver rules in 3.5, particularly for players with less than high system mastery.
Could you elaborate? What I've heard is that BAB is the main issue, but I don't know.

[squiggit]

Could you elaborate? What I've heard is that BAB is the main issue, but I don't know.

Pretty sure it's just that it's d20+BAB+str+size vs 10+BAB+str+dex+size. The extra modifier makes it a killer to ever land a maneuver against a martially competent foe. Size is a problem simply because most PCs are going to be small or medium and as you level up you run into increasingly more huge, gargantuan and colossal enemies. Then add on top of that a lot of enemies getting some free bonuses to CMD and it's just a major headache.

Size also leads to some rather goofy rules, i.e. a giant can almost never accurately hit a pixie thanks to the latter's size bonuses to AC, but can trivially remove the pixie's toothpick sized weapon from her person because of the huge CMB/D differential.

[Squark]

First of all, here's a gold star of participation. *

Second of all, if the only reason why you favor a game is because you don't have others available, you may want to take a moment to reconsider that. Technically, you may like it best, but that can change very easily for several reasons.

As for the actual availability question, I won't bring up questions that would put that into question if it is an extraordinary circumstance. For example, a 3.5 group with all of the DMags (how?) or a PF group without reliable internet (don't get me started).

Sorry, I meant that availability wasn't relevant to relative balance levels of the two systems. That was unclear.

[mephnick]

I'll say I prefer Pathfinder, but honestly there's so little difference between them I'm not sure why anyone argues about it either way.

[Psyren]

CMB/CMD is largely patched by adding in enhancement and insight bonuses from gear or buffs, which they have done.


You can complain all you want, but it won't make 3.5 any worse of a system, or PF any better.

Er, not complaining, making an observation.


The question of the thread is which system you like best, though, so it is relevant to the discussion. It isn't relevant to the current tangent of relevant levels of balance, though,

Indeed.

[Ssalarn]

Pretty sure it's just that it's d20+BAB+str+size vs 10+BAB+str+dex+size. The extra modifier makes it a killer to ever land a maneuver against a martially competent foe. Size is a problem simply because most PCs are going to be small or medium and as you level up you run into increasingly more huge, gargantuan and colossal enemies. Then add on top of that a lot of enemies getting some free bonuses to CMD and it's just a major headache.

Size also leads to some rather goofy rules, i.e. a giant can almost never accurately hit a pixie thanks to the latter's size bonuses to AC, but can trivially remove the pixie's toothpick sized weapon from her person because of the huge CMB/D differential.

Yeah, size is the primary culprit both in CMB not scaling well compared to CMD, and in weird scenarios like the pixie/giant one. Adventurers (by and large) tend to stay the same size while their adversaries (typically) keep getting bigger and bigger. That means that you've got this very substantial scaling bonus building on the monster's defenses with no answering counter on the hero's side.

We made a quick table of maneuvers with columns for the maneuver, CMB, and CMD, and then used a kind of common sense approach and check marks for which ones should have size bonuses applied to CMB, CMD, and/or both. For example, Disarm at our table currently does not get size bonuses to either CMB or CMD, since the whole giant disarming a pixie he can't otherwise touch makes no sense, and fingers on giants tend to be primo targets.

A simpler way of making CMB/CMD scale well is to just remove size bonuses from maneuvers all together on both sides. Suddenly everything works really well and tends to be about as logically consistent as anything else in the game is. When you think about it, they probably never should have used size bonuses in the formula in the first place. Larger creatures are generally getting proportional strength boosts and quadrapedal creatures already get a bonus on a lot of checks, so critters have kind of been double-dipping their size in the core system.


CMB/CMD is largely patched by adding in enhancement and insight bonuses from gear or buffs, which they have done.


Just to reiterate/summarize, for people who don't like using spells and/or magic items to patch up system issues, just remove size bonuses from the equation entirely. Everything works much better.

[Snowbluff]

Sorry, I meant that availability wasn't relevant to relative balance levels of the two systems. That was unclear.



Er, not complaining, making an observation.
Yeah, don't misconstrue. When I say "complain," I'm saying it's not whining. I just agree with Squark. That being said, I don't think either system is really worth playing without a healthy amount of material.


CMB/CMD is largely patched by adding in enhancement and insight bonuses from gear or buffs, which they have done.
I can't help but imagine this causes other issues. Would that mean the bonus on a weapon not being used to trip? How the hell are you getting insight bonuses?

Again, it's outside of my expertise because of the other issues with using maneuvers.

[Psyren]

I can't help but imagine this causes other issues. Would that mean the bonus on a weapon not being used to trip? How the hell are you getting insight bonuses?

Trip, Disarm and Sunder were the first, by letting you add the enhancement on your weapon. Most of the others get to join the fun with items like a Brawling weapon, Gauntlets/Belt of maneuvers, dusty rose wayfinder, thorny ioun stone etc.

[Doctor Awkward]

And as GM I shouldn't have to know every single spell in existence to make sure that my monsters aren't nullified by it. Sometimes I want to run combats or encounters/challenges that aren't mired with contingencies. I shouldn't have to play amateur game designer because the professionals let yet another one slip by the cracks.
Don't be absurd. At no point are you ever required to know every spell in existence. You only have to know about the one's on your player character's and their allies spell list. If you can't be bothered to do that much, then you aren't doing your job as a DM.


This means that the GM either needs to rewrite a large swath of spells, put many contingencies in his encounters or be required to ban a large number of spells due to potential borkedness.

Blaming badly written spells that can break encounters on Tim who just wants to run an elfgame for John, Bill and Steve every Thursday is being rather irresponsible. 3rd ed Glitterdust seem like a fun spell on paper but at low levels it can absolutely wreck house due to how blindness works.

How is this Tim's fault?
No, this just means you plan your encounters around your players. There are plenty of low CR critters that have senses that rely on things other than sight (go ahead and count the number of spiders with tremorsense) if Glitterdust is really ruining your entire campaign.
Or give more of your NPC's Iron Will. The options for monster customization are there for a reason, and if a large prep work bothers you then 3.5E is probably not the right system for you. Which is fine, but the fault lies with you, not the system. It certainly doesn't make it any kind of unplayable broken.