Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 for my newbie players?

[Malistrae]

I have recently put together an rpg group. There is a slight problem, however. None of the other members are familiar with tabletop rpgs. I basically tempted and cajoled them into joining the game one by one. Naturally, I have to be the DM.
My dilemma is that I am trying to decide whether I should run Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 for them. I sticked with vanilla D&D in the past, but I just read Book of the Damned, Vol. 3. and that gave me a lot of ideas. Neutral Evil was always my favorite alignment for villains (Chaotic Evil being my second choice), and I was disappointed by their complete lack of support in 3.5. I am now very tempted to run a daemon-focused Pathfinder campaign for my players.
However, I haven't considered the PC side of things. I saw in the OGC that Pathfinder has a lot of varied classes. I heard that these are more flavorful than the 3.5 ones. I also heard that PrCs are not that good in Pathfinder.
Which system would be more fun for new players? Being newbies, they are unlikely to be minmaxers, so the respective brokeness of the two systems is not an important factor.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Neither one is great for newer players, but if you have to go with one or the other I would recommend PF.

[Vhaidara]

I second the recommendation for PF.

[Roxxy]

No 3rd edition D&D based game is going to be easy to learn, but Pathfinder is probably the best to start out with. It's not exactly a balanced system by any measure, but it isn't quite as wonky as 3.5, and the really low levels definitely function somewhat better.

[Elricaltovilla]

I suggest pathfinder. The major points in favor of Pathfinder include:

1. Ease of access (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/): Everything your players will want to know is available for free online. Can't do that with 3.5. You either have the books or you're SOL.

2. Actively Supported: Pathfinder is still being published, and its still got active support. 3.5 does not.

3. Better developed classes: No, Pathfinder didn't fix everything in 3.5, far from it. But there are far fewer dead levels per class, and a lot of classes got at least minor upgrades, making them both more interesting and a bit more powerful.

4. Less emphaisis on Multiclassing: This ties into #3, and also what you heard about PrCs being a bit poor. Pathfinder's paradigm is based on the idea that you should be able to take a class all the way to level 20 and not feel bad about it, that means a lot of class abilities don't work well with multiclassing or PrCs. Why is this a good thing? Because your players are new, and learning how to multiclass and use PrCs just to make a halfway decent character is a serious headache. Its much simpler to be able to go 20 straight levels in a class, and with Pathfinder your players won't feel like they suck if they do it.

5. Archetypes: You're sad because multiclassing and PrCs are bad in Pathfinder? Use archetypes. Trade around a few class features and you can get a brand new focus or set of abilities that let you do something totally different with your class, while still not having to deal with the headache of multiclassing.

6. Guides: There are some amazing guides for the Pathfinder classes located all over the internets. Many of them are right here on this very site. An excellent guide for new players that just came out was written by N. Jolly. You should look at it via this finely crafted link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?390764-Everybody-starts-Somewhere-N-Jolly-s-guide-to-creating-Pathfinder-Characters). Once your players read that guide and have an idea of what kind of character they want to play, a new guide for their specific class is usually just a google search away. Or you can point them to Novawurmson's Guide Compendium for Pathfinder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?233029-PF-Optimization-Guides-Compendium).

7. Adventure Paths: Are you a new DM? Are you running out of ideas for quests, encounters or entire campaigns? Pathfinder has the answer. There are Adventure Paths and Adventure Modules that can take your group from 1-20 completely within a built in quest or campaign. It can really make the job a new DM a lot easier.

8. 3rd Party Support: So this is where I get on my soapbox for a bit, but nearly everything that didn't make it from 3.5 to Pathfinder initially can be found in Pathfinder's vast sea of 3rd party material. Just like with 1st party stuff, almost all the 3rd party material is available on d20PFSRD for free. Do you like Psionics (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed)? How about Initiating (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/path-of-war)? What about Binding (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist)? Or maybe you're a fan of Incarnum (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349964-Dreamscarred-Press-Introduces-Akashic-Mysteries)? Or Truenaming (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?380602-Dreamscarred-Press-Tzocatl-The-First-Language-Open-Playtest)? How about Shadowcasting? Well... I can't help you there, but we're working on it :smallwink:. You'll also notice, if you poke around the boards enough, that many of these 3rd party writers are active members here, and we just love to answer questions about our work! (Or at least I do).

[Renen]

I started with 3.5 almost 2 years ago now. Bloody complicated it is, and has so many different books that arent all organised in 1 srd, unless you count the site that cant be named.

So PF would be easier to learn (partially because multiclassing isnt required for a "solid" character). But ask them what they like more: iPhones, or Androids. The former is cleaner looking, doesnt get viruses, and is easy to use. The latter is abit clunkier, gets viruses, but has a much more options for people who want them and are willing to search for em.
Then tell them that PF is the iphone and 3.5 is the android.

[Vhaidara]

I started with 3.5 almost 2 years ago now. Bloody complicated it is, and has so many different books that arent all organised in 1 srd, unless you count the site that cant be named.

So PF would be easier to learn (partially because multiclassing isnt required for a "solid" character). But ask them what they like more: iPhones, or Androids. The former is cleaner looking, doesnt get viruses, and is easy to use. The latter is abit clunkier, gets viruses, but has a much more options for people who want them and are willing to search for em.
Then tell them that PF is the iphone and 3.5 is the android.

I actually would argue that point. PM me or start another thread so we don't derail this, but what can you do in 3.5 that you can't do in PF (including Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House) that isn't just a horrific game breaking imbalance?

[jaydubs]

PF is friendlier to newbies, for reasons already mentioned. Having everything online especially, is a huge, huge boon.

On the off chance they find it too crunchy, 5e and Dungeon World keep much of the same flavor, but are simpler to learn.

[P.F.]

On the off chance they find it too crunchy, 5e and Dungeon World keep much of the same flavor, but are simpler to learn.

Or you could just play Munchkins. The only drawback to that is you have to buy the game instead of using an online SRD.

But in all seriousness, I think Pathfinder is more beginner-friendly, and is nominally 3.x compatible if there's something particular that you as the DM want to port in.

[jjcrpntr]

As someone who only started the hobby a year ago. I say PF is easier. Less books unless you poet stuff over. My group has the core apg ultimate combat and magic and that's it. Plenty of options for guys to pick from. 3.5 had so many damn books.

[Rainshine]

Pathfinder, simply for the online SRD. For new players, especially, if they've got internet access, the PF sites are pretty decently laid out, and if they become interested, it'll give them a lot more to work with than the d20 SRD.

[Pex]

Just because it's published doesn't mean it needs to be used. Pathfinder and 3E are not difficult to learn for new players. What is important is not to overwhelm them with everything all at once. Balance is irrelevant. New players don't know everything ever published to come up with all the tricks and nuances 3E haters gotta hate harp on. With you as DM knowing the game, you can help new players along in building their characters and avoid any issues you think might crop up.

That said, Pathfinder is the better choice if only because it's supported. If new players were wanting to study up on D&D they'll be getting information on 5E as well as 4E and 3E. It could be confusing. With Pathfinder, players have an easy time looking up things online at Paizo's srd. With that said, Pathfinder now has a lot of splat books and 3rd party add ons, published and online. You are better off restricting everyone to the Core Rule book for their first game. It offers plenty. As treasure rewards, plot points, and/or mysterious NPCs you can introduce other Pathfinder stuff once the players get the hang of the game. The stereotypical Sage/Prophecy Maker the party needs to find could be a Lore Oracle with the Seer Archetype. When the party needs to help the village "Burn the Witch!", it could really be a Witch class BBEG. Just as wizards like to learn new spells, fighters can learn new techniques, enabling them to spend a feat on something from Advanced Player's Guide or Ultimate Combat if you think it would really help their character and/or facilitate roleplay.

[Extra Anchovies]

If they want a d20 based system? Teach them 5e. The options available in 3.P are awesome, yes, but 5e I've found to be a much smoother, faster, tighter system. I kind of prefer it, actually. what's happening to me

[Vhaidara]

If they want a d20 based system? Teach them 5e. The options available in 3.P are awesome, yes, but 5e I've found to be a much smoother, faster, tighter system. I kind of prefer it, actually. what's happening to me

*slap* Bad Anchovies! *slap* Bad!
I wish I could white text a smiley
We do not speak such heresy here! This is hallowed ground!

[Fallenreality]

I want to start this by saying Pathfinder is my favorite system so that my DM doesn't murder my characters horribly for what I'm about to say.

I would second or third or whatever the recommendation for 5e with newer players. It runs very smoothly. It does have some quirks to get used to (Thinking up useful magic items is something my 5e DM is having a lot of fun doing) But overall it's very easy to learn and build from a character end of things and it actually gives you some useful roleplay related bonuses for the background you choose, such as false identities to be used with the Charlatan background.

If you must pick 3.5 or Pathfinder I would highly suggest Pathfinder:
No need for dipping.
Easily accessed material through the SRD.
Amazing 3rd party support.
Archetypes are a very well done system in my opinion.
You can practically make an entire adventuring party out of Alchemist or Magus and no two players would feel like they were playing the same character.

4e is also a possible choice. I started my friends in high school with that. We had fun but it ended up being too mmoish and it didn't give them a good feel for tabletops as 4e doesn't have as many good rules for doing interesting things out of combat. If you're looking for a combat oriented system then 4e works fairly well, I'm just not a huge fan of it from an out of combat perspective. Also encounters end up taking 2-3 hours each if you have a large enough group.

[Renen]

*slap* Bad Anchovies! *slap* Bad!

We do not speak such heresy here! This is hallowed ground!

*comes in to help beat sense into Anchovies*
Don't say that! Feel the min/maxer within you!

[Vhaidara]

I want to start this by saying Pathfinder is my favorite system so that my DM doesn't murder my characters horribly for what I'm about to say.

Oh, don't worry, I'm doing that anyways :smallevil:

With all honesty, I have heard that 5e is a good first tabletop RPG.

[Fallenreality]

Oh, don't worry, I'm doing that anyways :smallevil:

With all honesty, I have heard that 5e is a good first tabletop RPG.

Please don't hurt me, I like the character I came up with :(

It actually works really well. There is less of a focus on numerical bonuses which makes it less math intensive. The advantage system works surprisingly well (And it obviously works since the DSP Stalker class has a few arts that give you pretty much the same thing).

My main complaint with it is that 1st level is a tiny bit boring. As soon as I got my second level ability as a rogue I instantly got this sense of "Hey, I feel like a rogue! I'm fast and can do rogueish things!" I honestly get that exact same boredom with low level 3.5 especially and to a lesser extent Pathfinder.

I would pick Pathfinder if there was a really crazy idea I wanted to try. 5e doesn't support insanity at much and there are simply fewer options atm. But 5e is moving up there for a casual group with friends sort of thing.

[137beth]

I think 3.5 is easier to learn, largely because I think the pathfinder core rulebook is organized really badly. Also, each core class in 3.5 is simpler than it is in pathfinder.
That's assuming everyone has easy access to the books, though. If they don't, then the all-OGL-content of pathfinder might win out.

[Snowbluff]

I actually would argue that point. PM me or start another thread so we don't derail this, but what can you do in 3.5 that you can't do in PF (including Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House) that isn't just a horrific game breaking imbalance?

So we have to inlcude third party for PF to be actually good. :smallconfused:

The answer is that PF is actually better for new players, but you won't get anything out of it that makes d20 worth anything.* You need a better system for teaching people.

*It's all about the character building. Complaints about dipping are bad.

[Vhaidara]

So we have to inlcude third party for PF to be actually good. :smallconfused:

Um, no. I was saying that because DSP and Radiance House account for all the subsystems Paizo is too lazy/incompetent to port. Otherwise yes, there are a massive number of things that you can build in 3.5 that you can't in PF: Psionics, Incarnum, Binding, Initiating, Shadowcasting, and Truenaming.

[Snowbluff]

Um, no. I was saying that because DSP and Radiance House account for all the subsystems Paizo is too lazy/incompetent to port. Otherwise yes, there are a massive number of things that you can build in 3.5 that you can't in PF: Psionics, Incarnum, Binding, Initiating, Shadowcasting, and Truenaming.

I'd say that 3.DSP is pretty much it's own edition now. Don't sully their good name with other system. :P

[animewatcha]

If we mention d20psrd

What about the GOD that is the webmaster of http://www.archivesofnethys.com/

[RoboEmperor]

Pathfinder for sure.

3.5 has a billion abuses. Pathfinder at least got rid of the obvious ones (polymorph), and didn't include the other obvious ones (PrC)

[Renen]

But having abuses doesnt make it less user friendly. A new player wont have MORE problems if the system allows pun pun. Said player wont even know about pun pun.

[MrMercury]

I suggest pathfinder. The major points in favor of Pathfinder include:

1. Ease of access (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/): Everything your players will want to know is available for free online. Can't do that with 3.5. You either have the books or you're SOL.




Pretty sure 3.5 is free online?

[Malistrae]

Pretty sure 3.5 is free online?

You can look up rules online, yes. But I found that Pathfinder is much more expansive. The D&D 3.5 srds I have seen restrict themselves to core, epic and psionic material. For contrast, the Pathfinder OGC includes almost all Pathfinder material.
Of course, there are ways of obtaining D&D 3.5 material online. Very easy ways. But those are fit only for unscrupulous deliquents, not the Lawful citizens of this forum.