3.5 or 4.0 pathfinder? (5.0) [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Snowbluff

2015-07-01, 10:47 PM

PF is generally easier than 3.5 and the material is free. There's a guide someone will link to show the differences.

3.5 is a player's playground, with an insane amount of customization. The amount of customization and subsystems are hard to meet. System mastery is well rewarded, but at the same time the uninitiated will be easily lost.

Also, did you mean to ask about 4e and 5e?

4e is pretty much a board game. Much maligned, but I actually think it's alright in terms of character customization.

5e is a soft rules (as in, not everything is set in stone. 3.5, rules as written is king, 5e rules as intended is the general idea, IMO).

Of course, this isn't counting homebrew, third party, and other d20 mods like Legend.

Psyren

2015-07-01, 11:43 PM

I personally prefer Pathfinder because all the material is open content, the devs are still actively issuing rulings/clarifications on how things work (as well as continuing to publish in general), I like the art style better and all my 3.5 material is easy to convert. There are some aspects I think they could stand to tune up a bit but overall I find it the most fun "edition."

Dienekes

2015-07-01, 11:51 PM

Generally, I prefer Pathfinder because all the information is here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/). But, personally, if you have a class or feat or ability that was from 3.5 that you like, or one of my players wants to use, I just port it over.

For example, Power Attack, mostly just use 3.5 version, if it comes up. Same with a few other feats, and the ToB classes, though now Dreamscar Press released Path of War (it's on the linked site) which brings ToB to Pathfinder. Some GMs are wary about adding 3rd party material like that, but I'm generally not, so it works out.

DungeonMaster11

2015-07-01, 11:52 PM

AmberVael

2015-07-01, 11:56 PM

I've largely kept with 3.5, but the biggest reason for that is more momentum than anything. I do have a few gripes about Pathfinder design (I tend to dislike per day based mechanics and they seem to sprinkle them all over the place, for one), but a lot of what they've done is good (hooray for consolidated skills!) and the continued production of new content is really tipping things in their favor.

As for how different? Not very. I've been in a pathfinder game and forgotten I was playing Pathfinder rather than 3.5. I mean, granted, for this game I wasn't consulting my sheet as much as normal, but the fact that it happened indicates that if you know one you know enough to play the other at least passably. Pathfinder is more a bunch of tweaks than a new system. Indeed, I'd say the biggest learning curve for Pathfinder isn't so much its changed content as its new content. Pathfinder has made a lot of new stuff, and learning all of it is going to take way more time than learning the things they've changed.

And uh... spells are broken just as badly (probably worse) in D&D 3.5. I'd also argue that being better at the lower levels is a good change (I despise the low levels of 3.5), but if you liked the fairly scrappy, low variety beginning portion of 3.5 then I could see that being a negative change.

Taveena

2015-07-02, 12:55 AM

Plus a lot of the rulings that Paizo gives... hurt character concepts needlessly and weaken builds that didn't need weakening.

DrMartin

2015-07-02, 01:30 AM

I've always played 3.5, but have been in a pathfinder game recently.
Differences are small, one thing is that combat maneuvers like trip and grapple etc. take only one roll to resolve, and as such got used way more often than in the 3.5 game with the same players.
There's an overall change in the attitude towards players rewards and helping players to achieve "big numbers", so for instance instead of a multiclass penalty, that punish multiclassing, you get a favored class bonus, that rewards sticking to one class. Net sum is zero, but getting a penalty sounds way worse than not getting a bonus.
There are several other changes of course, many tweaks to spells and feats and such, you can read about it in other threads on the boards...that said all the changes still don't move the game very far from the core of third edition, so on the one hand most issues with the game are exactly the same, on the other hand is very easy to mix and match content that you like and port it from one to the other system.
If i had to start a new game i'd probably use Pathfinder as a base (more solid foundations) and allow most of 3.5 content.

Never touched 4e but I've usually heard good things from people who tried it and bad things from people who never tried it.

5e is a really solid system, it's a lot of fun and very easy to learn and teach, me and my group are sticking to 3.5 /pathfinder more out of habit than anything else. Character creation is quick and customization revolve around classic fantasy archetype, through a background choice at first level and a subclass/specialization choice made between level 1 and 3. Spellcasters are still steps ahead of martials / mundanes in terms of flexibility but not nearly as much as in 3.5/Pathfinder, and as the whole system is written to rely way more on DM adjudicating actions than in rules defining them it's a smaller issue in actual play.
And maybe it goes without saying, but nobody mentioned it: it's way harder to port things (classes, feats...) to 5e than to pathfinder, as you basically have to homebrew them.

ekarney

2015-07-02, 03:19 AM

Plus a lot of the rulings that Paizo gives... hurt character concepts needlessly and weaken builds that didn't need weakening.

I heard about the multiclassing rules not too long ago.

Which I guess doesn't really affect someone if they have their build pre-planned, but as someone who's just making a character and running with it, knowing that if I dip I won't be able to go back to my original class.

The lack of content is a little off putting too.
(Lack referring to the comparison between 3.X and PF, PF has enough content by itself but when comparing it to 3.5 it's got nothing)

Firest Kathon

2015-07-02, 03:53 AM

I heard about the multiclassing rules not too long ago.

Which I guess doesn't really affect someone if they have their build pre-planned, but as someone who's just making a character and running with it, knowing that if I dip I won't be able to go back to my original class.
:smalleek: I never heard about that. Can you please link me to that ruling?

Vhaidara

2015-07-02, 05:59 AM

I think that pathfinder has a few flaws, such as spells being broken, and characters being oped at low levels. And I was talking about the new 5.0 edition that came out that supposedly puts the best rules of 3.5 and 4.0 pf together

Spells in 3.5 are worse. Like, significantly. Between Ability Score Replacement on Polymorph, the Celerity Line, Uncanny Forethought, Metamagic reduction, and the fact that about half of the ninth level spells published are broken beyond even what you should expect from a 9th level spell due to bad writing (Wish for magic items has no cost limit) or unintended interactions (Ice Assassin into Mindraping the Ice Assassin to get a clone of your target that is completely subservient to you).

I generally find Pathfinder more approachable. The fact that it has high quality third party publishers is a major factor in this. 3.5's biggest draw for me was subsystems like Tome of Battle, Pact Magic, Shadow Magic, Psionics, and Incarnum.
Dreamscarred Press: Path of War (Tome of Battle), Psionics, Akashic Mysteries (Incarnum)
Radiance House: Pact Magic Unbound
Ascension Games: Path of Shadows

And even beyond that, you get things like Dreamscarred's Lords of the Night, which created a playable vampire template (8 LA in 3.5)and included rules for supporting the play of a vampire.

Then you get into things like Spheres of Power (not yet on the d20PFSRD) which created an entirely new magic system meant to replace the Vancian model (spells/day, spells known, spells prepared). With Spheres, you always have magic, even if it is just something like the 3.5 Warlock's Eldritch Blast. What you have as a resource is spell points, which you can spend to enhance your at will abilities to make them stronger

Also, low level players needed more. And even with that, low levels are always going to be so stupidly swingy because of raw low HP numbers that I'm generally never going to be happy with them.

Suichimo

2015-07-02, 06:07 AM

I have no preference between 3.5 and Pathfinder. To me, there is pretty much no difference. There are a few small rules changes and a few balancing tweaks, but not enough to call it anything other than what it is. This isn't a bad thing, though. 3.5 was lots of fun, it just isn't anything new. Even the best stuff from the third parties, hello DSP, are reworks of older systems that weren't in the OGL. I have a problem with Paizo and their balancing rationale at times, but it doesn't come up much.

4e is one that I really dug, but no one else in my area did. So I never got to play it much. 5e has been much more eagerly accepted, though it suffers from some of 3.x's problems.

Vhaidara

2015-07-02, 06:17 AM

There have actually been some new things in pf. Even from paizo, we have brawlers with flexible feats, summoner with the eidolon, alchemists, investigators, magus, and inquisitor.

From outside paizo, we have lords of the night making vamps playable, bloodforge for more half breeds, spheres for something completely different, and a number of new psionic classes (marksman, vitalist, tactician, dread, cryptic, aegis) with no 3.5 equivalent.

Kurald Galain

2015-07-02, 06:45 AM

Hey everyone, so I am a huge fan of 3.5 and I was wondering what the preference was for others between 3.5 and pathfinder. And if you have a preference, if you could explain that would be great. Also I was wondering if anyone could enlighten me on how good and/or different it is compared to 3.5. Thanks

In my view, Pathfinder is still fundamentally the same game as 3.0 and 3.5; it has the same overall set up, the same kind of rules, and most importantly the same design principles. Basically, 3E/3.5/PF prioritize simulating a fantasy world, to which fluff is very important. 4E is primarily about tactical skirmish combats, and considers fluff to be interchangeable. 5E is mainly about fast gameplay, and omit a lot of rules on grounds that the DM can probably figure it out.

Compared to 3E, the nice thing about Pathfinder is that it offers an obvious and flavorful way of customizing certain classes, such as Barbarians (via rage powers) or Sorcerers (via bloodlines); and to a lesser extent, every class via archetypes. So rather than having to pick feats and prestige classes from a long list, you can decide "well, I've got magic powers because of my fey blood" and get a thematic group of abilities from that. This is particularly good for (1) players who look more at the flavor of abilities than at strict optimization, and (2) novice players in general.

Pathfinder also improves on the balance of 3.5. It is by no means perfect, but e.g. low-level save-or-sucks spells or the whole Polymorph line are substantially less problematic in PF than they do in 3E. Finally, Pathfinder is in active development, and has a large and active Organized Play setup. HTH!

Snowbluff

2015-07-02, 06:52 AM

Spells in 3.5 are worse. Like, significantly. Between Ability Score Replacement on Polymorph, the Celerity Line, Uncanny Forethought, Metamagic reduction, and the fact that about half of the ninth level spells published are broken beyond even what you should expect from a 9th level spell due to bad writing (Wish for magic items has no cost limit) or unintended interactions (Ice Assassin into Mindraping the Ice Assassin to get a clone of your target that is completely subservient to you). Pfft, ability replacement is possible in PF anyway, as are most of these. Who needs Ice assassin when you can Simulacrum as early as level 9, and pick up monsters with it instead.

I generally find Pathfinder more approachable. The fact that it has high quality third party publishers is a major factor in this. 3.5's biggest draw for me was subsystems like Tome of Battle, Pact Magic, Shadow Magic, Psionics, and Incarnum.
Dreamscarred Press: Path of War (Tome of Battle), Psionics, Akashic Mysteries (Incarnum)
Radiance House: Pact Magic Unbound
Ascension Games: Path of Shadows This. Don't play PF without 3rd party, IMO.

And even beyond that, you get things like Dreamscarred's Lords of the Night, which created a playable vampire template (8 LA in 3.5)and included rules for supporting the play of a vampire.

To be fair, it's only 8 LA if you have to play a vampire. If you want to play a "vampire" there are much easier ways of replicating some of the more usable abilities.

I think that pathfinder has a few flaws, such as spells being broken, and characters being oped at low levels. And I was talking about the new 5.0 edition that came out that supposedly puts the best rules of 3.5 and 4.0 pf together Eh, I wouldn't describe 5e like that. 5e have a lot more 3e in it than 4e. That sounds more like Legend to me. (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/)

Kurald Galain

2015-07-02, 07:01 AM

I think that pathfinder has a few flaws, such as spells being broken, and characters being oped at low levels. And I was talking about the new 5.0 edition that came out that supposedly puts the best rules of 3.5 and 4.0 pf together

...not particularly. 5E is more like a stripped-down-to-basics version of 2E. It doesn't have any of the customization from 3E/PF, and it doesn't have any of the tactical skirmishing of 4E either.

Psyren

2015-07-02, 08:20 AM

I think that pathfinder has a few flaws, such as spells being broken, and characters being oped at low levels. And I was talking about the new 5.0 edition that came out that supposedly puts the best rules of 3.5 and 4.0 pf together

3.5 has far more broken spells than PF. You won't find anything like Ice Assassin, Streamers, Mindrape, Teleport Through Time, Nerveskitter/Celerity or Trait Removal in PF. In addition, polymorphing got pretty nerfed in PF while still being useful.

Plus a lot of the rulings that Paizo gives... hurt character concepts needlessly and weaken builds that didn't need weakening.

They also settle internet arguments pretty decisively and empower GMs. A GM who doesn't feel comfortable about Combo X has the backing of the design team in disallowing it, while one who is okay with it can simply disregard the FAQ, and potentially even extract concessions from that player in other areas. It's win-win.

TheIronGolem

2015-07-02, 10:02 AM

Side note to OP: You've referred to "4.0 Pathfinder" a couple of times in this thread. In case it wasn't clear to you, Pathfinder and 4th Edition D&D are two completely different animals.

ekarney

2015-07-02, 10:35 AM

:smalleek: I never heard about that. Can you please link me to that ruling?

I asked my DM about it, so I can't give a link, so I could be very wrong here, but the conversation went something along the lines of:

"I'm considering multiclassing my Swashbuckler for a bit more versatility."

"Not a good idea, multiclassing in PF means you can't go back to your original class."

Unless going back provokes an xp penalty or something? I'm also fairly certain that's not a house rule, since the DM's a very laid back guy. Maybe I was just tired, I'm not sure.

Vhaidara

2015-07-02, 10:49 AM

That is a houserule. The closest thing to that I can think of is 2e dual classing, but that's completely unconnected.

Kurald Galain

2015-07-02, 10:54 AM

"Not a good idea, multiclassing in PF means you can't go back to your original class."

That is incorrect. First, this a 3.0 / 3.5 rule that doesn't exist in Pathfinder. Second, this applies specifically to the Monk and Paladin, not to every class.

Tykero

2015-07-02, 11:01 AM

I asked my DM about it, so I can't give a link, so I could be very wrong here, but the conversation went something along the lines of:

"I'm considering multiclassing my Swashbuckler for a bit more versatility."

"Not a good idea, multiclassing in PF means you can't go back to your original class."

Unless going back provokes an xp penalty or something? I'm also fairly certain that's not a house rule, since the DM's a very laid back guy. Maybe I was just tired, I'm not sure.

The only penalty for multiclassing is not getting your favored class bonus on levels where you take a different class than your favored class, generally 1 skill point or 1 hit point.

Vhaidara

2015-07-02, 11:08 AM

There is also the side effect that most PF classes work best 1-20 (not saying they all work, but they are designed to be taken to 20). With a few exceptions (Master of Many Styles Monk, Inspired Blade Swashbuckler), multiclassing isn't usually worth it.

DungeonMaster11

2015-07-02, 11:16 AM

TheIronGolem

2015-07-02, 11:22 AM

well actually in 3.5, one can multiclass if they wish and can go back to their original class at any time. Multiclassing can make a character very powerful, which is why they made a rule where unless the character is using a favored class, the character has to stay within 1 level of the multiclassing class so that a character doesn't get too OP, and this only happens with races like elves, gnomes, halforcs, and halflings.

That was the theory at the time of 3.x's design, yes. The reality turned out to be quite different - multiclassing usually makes a character less powerful, not more (prestige classes notwithstanding, and even then it's spotty).

DungeonMaster11

2015-07-02, 11:28 AM

illyahr

2015-07-02, 11:55 AM

well you do realize that when multiclassing, you get the ability to do a heck of a lot more right? So it's true that when you stick with your own class that you will be more "powerful" in that one way, but when you mulitclass, a lot of people would say that you are more powerful because of the amount of other choices of things to do than others you don't multiclass. The rules i just mentioned still apply here, it even says it in the Player's Handbook in the Races Chapter.

Multiclassing will increase your utility, but will decrease overall power unless you specialize your build.

Also, as stated above, Pathfinder is not 4.0. Dungeons and Dragons is owned by WotC (including 3rd, 4th, and 5th ed.) whereas Pathfinder is owned by Paizo after they purchased the rights for the 3.5 format from WotC.

TheIronGolem

2015-07-02, 12:02 PM

well you do realize that when multiclassing, you get the ability to do a heck of a lot more right? So it's true that when you stick with your own class that you will be more "powerful" in that one way, but when you mulitclass, a lot of people would say that you are more powerful because of the amount of other choices of things to do than others you don't multiclass. The rules i just mentioned still apply here, it even says it in the Player's Handbook in the Races Chapter.

Again, that's the theory. The reality is not like that. Multiclassed characters, in particular ones who don't "dip" for useful class features but instead go for roughly even numbers of each class, lack focus and sometimes even lack real versatility. For example, a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 is way, way less versatile than a Wizard 20.

WOTC implicitly admitted to this when they created "hybrid" classes like the Duskblade, which do a better job of representing these kinds of dual-discipline concepts because they're designed from the ground up to be able to do so.

Psyren

2015-07-02, 12:05 PM

Also, as stated above, Pathfinder is not 4.0. Dungeons and Dragons is owned by WotC (including 3rd, 4th, and 5th ed.) whereas Pathfinder is owned by Paizo after they purchased the rights for the 3.5 format from WotC.

They didn't purchase the rights - they are publishing Pathfinder under a version of WotC's Open Gaming License, which is freely available, no purchase necessary.

Honest Tiefling

2015-07-02, 12:08 PM

It's close, and I wouldn't decline a basic 3.5 game were it offered to me, but I sorta like Pathfinder better. The main draw are things additional classes like the Witch, Alchemist and the Inquisitor, who still get plenty of support. Archetypes are nifty, and I love them more then I like prestige classes. With that said, I'd probably house rule some things back in from 3.5 (like those pesky maneuver feats, why!?) but overall, I like Pathfinder a little better. The fact that 3rd party is much better and much more accessible (Okay, I am lazy, if I had money to spare, I'd be sorely tempted to get some and the fact I can look at it before buying is a huge draw).

The art is also better. Pathfinder has made me like Wayne Reynolds to some degree! I actually like the cover of the Ultimate Equipment Guide! Through I wish the men could get their shirts back at some point and the ladies could stop showing cleavage and thigh. I do appreciate their efforts to equalize things in the art and make better and more interesting iconics, but I rather see them fighting then constantly being fan service.

Psyren

2015-07-02, 12:23 PM

There's some fanservicey art but plenty that are not. I don't recall anything like that for Kyra, Seelah, Lini, Ezren, or Harsk for instance.

Ooh, almost forgot - one of my favorite aspects of Pathfinder are the races. The power bar was raised a bit, so now a much wider variety of concepts are available at "LA 0." I also much prefer PF's monsters as races rule.

Suichimo

2015-07-02, 01:01 PM

magus

Magus is one of the few things that Paizo has gotten me mad about. I was on the forums during the playtest and EVERY time someone would bring up the 3.5 Duskblade, one of my favorites, as a balancing point they'd be torn down by people blowing up about how op it is. Spellcasting AND full BAB!? BROKEN!

3.5 has far more broken spells than PF. You won't find anything like Ice Assassin, Streamers, Mindrape, Teleport Through Time, Nerveskitter/Celerity or Trait Removal in PF. In addition, polymorphing got pretty nerfed in PF while still being useful.

3.5 may have more, but PF still has plenty and casters are still gods that will never be caught up to by mortal means. But this is inevitable as caster superiority is built in to the system.

Honest Tiefling

2015-07-02, 01:06 PM

There's some fanservicey art but plenty that are not. I don't recall anything like that for Kyra, Seelah, Lini, Ezren, or Harsk for instance.

Some are good, but the Sorceress, the Barbarian, the Oracle, the Magus, the Fighter, and to some degree (and bizarrely enough) the alchemist get weird enough that I am pretty sure they are not currently engaged in combat. Well, I guess I could see the fighter trying to charge while shirtless, but less so the others.

If you count Muscle Wizard with his bulging biceps from Mythic Adventures, I guess Ezren sorta has fan service. Which I am pretty sure was NOT the tone for the book.

But still, loads better then the pimp half-orc and the sorcerer wearing belt pants from 3.5.

Kurald Galain

2015-07-02, 01:09 PM

Extra Anchovies

2015-07-02, 01:10 PM

But still, loads better then the pimp half-orc and the sorcerer wearing belt pants from 3.5.

Do I hear you talkin' s**t 'bout Hennet? Y'all better not be talkin' s**t 'bout Hennet.
http://cdn.bleedingcool.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PHB35_PG51_WEB.jpg
Seriously though, what were they thinking when they drew that? I mean, it's cool, but still. What were they thinking?

And then they effectively got full bab anyway with an archetype and a spell that removes the penalty for spell combat... :-)

What archetype is this? I'm not familiar with it.

Suichimo

2015-07-02, 01:15 PM

And then they effectively got full bab anyway with an archetype and a spell that removes the penalty for spell combat... :-)

Which archetype? I'm not seeing one like that on the SRD.

Oh, and one thing that was brought up that I don't like, as well. Paizo's treatment of prestige classes. It feels like they saw some of the broken prestige classes from 3.5 and decided to make life a living hell for anyone who wanted to use a prestige class in Pathfinder. I just don't think that they get that you can have perfectly balanced options between a 20th level class and prestige classes.

Psyren

2015-07-02, 01:26 PM

Magus is one of the few things that Paizo has gotten me mad about. I was on the forums during the playtest and EVERY time someone would bring up the 3.5 Duskblade, one of my favorites, as a balancing point they'd be torn down by people blowing up about how op it is. Spellcasting AND full BAB!? BROKEN!

And yet, the Magus can crush many full BAB classes both in combat and utility, including the Duskblade, so I see no issues with it being 3/4.

3.5 may have more, but PF still has plenty and casters are still gods that will never be caught up to by mortal means. But this is inevitable as caster superiority is built in to the system.

I find that the vast majority of so-called "broken" spells in PF are due to GMs not reading the spell properly. There are a small number of exceptions like Blood Money but still.

Now when it comes to metamagic I agree. Things like Dazing Spell, Toppling Spell and Sacred Geometry are much too cheap for what they do imo.