Why 3.5? Why Pathfinder? What ties you to the game system?

[marphod]

I'm trying to get my homebrew rules up to a point where I can publish them as a coherent whole. I would love to see other people use them and see what they think. In order for that to happen, I would need to present something sufficiently compelling that players and DMs would want to move to a new(ish) system. So the question comes down to: Why?

If you switched to Pathfinder (or Trailblazer, or any of the other d20 Fantasy post 3.5 systems), what compelled you to change? Rule improvements? Ongoing support? Changes to the underlying systems? Changes to classes and character features? Setting? Distributed Campaign opportunities (Pathfinder Society)? Something else?

If you stayed with 3.5, what have you found lacking in Pathfinder (or the other options)? Breadth of options? Smaller Ecosystem? Don't want to replace your existing library? Already created house rules that you are satisfied with? Something Else? What would compel you to try a new system?

[frost890]

I personally like using the Pathfinder sheets for 3.5. It stream lined the skills in to somethingm ore manageable. I have a whole library full of books from 3.5 and that is where my current group started. It seems to work and I am still trying to get failure with the changes in pathfinder. I am always down for trying it if you want to post the rules.

[Vhaidara]

At first,I made the switch because I wanted to apply to more PbP games. The more I played PF, the more the archetype system and the condensed skills appealed to me. But the subsystems of 3.5 kept me playing there.

Then I found Dreamscarred Press and the rest of the third party community of PF. And suddenly, PF had pretty much everything I had been staying with 3.5 for. At about the same time, the Advanced Classes Guide dropped. Despite bad editing, it did bring into play a couple of very fun classes (Brawler and Bloodrager being my favorites). Then Unchained dropped, and we finally have a good Monk and Rogue (and Chained Summoner, while less adaptable, still is quite fun). And with Occult Adventures dropping, we'll see Paizo doing original stuff. Kind of

[Curmudgeon]

I like stealthy characters. Rogue is my favorite 3.5 class. I checked out the Pathfinder Rogue, and it's much weaker. Spellcasters in Pathfinder are about the same in terms of power, which should have been the first issue a D&D offshoot addressed. That, in a nutshell, is why I didn't switch: they broke something I liked, and didn't fix the most obviously broken part of the game.

[Calimehter]

Our group only manages to game a few times a year these days, so we stick to 3.5 mostly out of familiarity. We've got the house rules where we like them, we've already got the game materials in our hands, and we don't have to waste any of our precious gaming time trying to learn a new rules set (we spend enough time looking up things that were once memorized as it is!)

[Morcleon]

I usually play both 3.5 and PF. 3.5 has an absolutely enormous amount of material, both official and homebrew, as well a broad range of power levels possible, from completely reasonable to utterly ridiculous. PF, on the other hand, is a lot more streamlined and tends to flow better, but has both a higher power floor and a much lower power ceiling, so I prefer it for games where the players aren't expected to be the movers and shakers of the world.

As for what would compel me to try a new system, it would have to fit a separate niche from 3.P's high fantasy possibilities.

[Honest Tiefling]

I think some of the base classes like Witch and Alchemist sold me on Pathfinder, along with the Archetype system. With an archetype, it really feels like you are the character you envisioned from the start, unlike a prestige class where character can feel a bit strange. Some condensed skills are actually quite nice.

However, if someone I knew to be a good DM offered me a game in 3.5 with rules and setting I liked, I wouldn't say no. I'm not married to the system.

[Krazzman]

I've got the 3.5 books (mostly) only in PDF version. Only got Unearthed Arcana, Book of the Nine Swords, Comp Mage and Magic of Incarnum.

We semi-switched in our old group, then transitioned to me DMing Pathfinder and now we no longer play 3.5.

Tried out some other systems (AFMBE, SWSE and going to M&M 2nd). But Pathfinder is really nice in certain things. Yes I try to hombrew/fix stuff on my own or with ideas from others but with some Errata/FAQ ignoring it is quite awesome.
Pathfinder's overall system of only staying in one class is better suited for my style of play and how I like to build characters.
I really dig the Gish classes. More than Warblade, Duskblade or that illusion gish I forget the name of in 3.5. Magus and Bloodrager look really awesome. Have yet to try them both in games that are higher than level 3.

[marphod]

I like stealthy characters. Rogue is my favorite 3.5 class. I checked out the Pathfinder Rogue, and it's much weaker. Spellcasters in Pathfinder are about the same in terms of power, which should have been the first issue a D&D offshoot addressed. That, in a nutshell, is why I didn't switch: they broke something I liked, and didn't fix the most obviously broken part of the game.

I certainly can grok not fixing the casters as a problem, but the Rogue being weaker? I don't get it.

BAB same. Saving Throws the same. SA progression is the same. Trap sense is the same. Evasion/Uncanny/Improved Uncanny is the same. The only difference is the Rogue Talents v Special Abilities. The PF Rogue gets 10 Talents where the 3.5 Rogue gets 4 Special Abilities. All of the Special Ability options in the 3.5 SRD are on the PF Advanced Talents list, and the PF rogue gets 6 of those. And PF Sneak Attack affects more creature types than 3.5 (Corporeal Undead, Constructs, Plants)

How is it weaker?

[Vhaidara]

Rogue lost a lot of good Alternate Class Features, and got "less better" than most other classes in the transition, but the recently released Unchained Rogue (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/unchained-classes/rogue-unchained) is a bit of a monster

[Yogibear41]

I certainly can grok not fixing the casters as a problem, but the Rogue being weaker? I don't get it.

BAB same. Saving Throws the same. SA progression is the same. Trap sense is the same. Evasion/Uncanny/Improved Uncanny is the same. The only difference is the Rogue Talents v Special Abilities. The PF Rogue gets 10 Talents where the 3.5 Rogue gets 4 Special Abilities. All of the Special Ability options in the 3.5 SRD are on the PF Advanced Talents list, and the PF rogue gets 6 of those. And PF Sneak Attack affects more creature types than 3.5 (Corporeal Undead, Constructs, Plants)

How is it weaker?

From where I sit Pathfinder made every class except for the wizard, cleric and druid better. Wizard is about the same, cleric is a little worse, and druid takes the biggest hit to power.

[Extra Anchovies]

How is it weaker?

Having the best skill list in the game doesn't matter as much. Also losing Craven and Darkstalker are big hits.

I like Pathfinder because of how many balanced spellcasters there are. Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Hunter, Investigator, Skald, Warpriest, and we're getting the Mesmerist, Occultist, and Spiritualist in Occult Adventures. All of them are at around the same power level, and you can pick any four of them pretty much at random (as long as you don't have a Bard and a Skald or an Investigator and an Alchemist) and have a good party.

[Psyren]

If you switched to Pathfinder (or Trailblazer, or any of the other d20 Fantasy post 3.5 systems), what compelled you to change? Rule improvements? Ongoing support? Changes to the underlying systems? Changes to classes and character features? Setting? Distributed Campaign opportunities (Pathfinder Society)? Something else?

All of the above.


What would compel you to try a new system?

I'd like one that takes PF's refinements and iterates on them even further. For example, I'd replace all Vancian spellcasting with the Arcanist's method, and make Combat Stamina a baseline system for all full-BAB classes + tweaking what each of the combat tricks does. I'd also go back through the "Improved + Greater" combat maneuver feats and collapse those back into one. Things like that.


Also losing Craven and Darkstalker are big hits

PF has Darkstalker, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence) and with the addition of Unchained, no sneak attacking classes need Craven.

[JDL]

Disclaimer: My favourite class is a minion based caster.

I've played tabletop games in 3.5 and Pathfinder, based on the DM preference. Both systems have a lot to offer. If I had to pick, I'd select Pathfinder for three reasons.

1. Pathfinder made a decent attempt to raise the bar on the other three archetype class positions (Fighter/Tank, Rogue/Sneak, Cleric/Healer) without drastically reducing the power of the fourth. Admittedly, the gap in power is still present, but the difference means they can still feel like they're making a valuable contribution through most levels of play. Some areas of play have been weakened, sure; the Polymorphing school of play in particular just isn't worth the effort. But that just means the caster can't turn into a melee damage machine with a few spells, which is a good thing.

2. The open source nature of the system encourages the DM to allow variety in the game rather than limiting the selection of content by purchased book. It also means the entire table can easily access any special feats or abilities during play to determine how they function when a rules question arises.

3. The selection of monsters to fight is excellent, and with the above point of them all being open source, the DM can easily prep a broad variety of challenges to suit the party without searching through multiple books. My general opinion of monsters in Pathfinder is that they're far more meaty than their counterparts in 3.5, with saving throws that mean even a focused spellcaster will still have trouble ending an encounter with one spell.

[Extra Anchovies]

PF has Darkstalker, (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/dampen-presence) and with the addition of Unchained, no sneak attacking classes need Craven.

Ick, SF (Stealth) as a prerequisite.

Also, why do SA classes not need Craven? That's the one that adds +level to damage with sneak attack. I don't see +level to damage with sneak attack anywhere in Unchained, so you may be mistaken. It may not be necessary, but it's darn good, and losing it is definitely bad for sneak attack-capable classes.

[Psyren]

Ick, SF (Stealth) as a prerequisite.

Also, why do SA classes not need Craven? That's the one that adds +level to damage with sneak attack. I don't see +level to damage with sneak attack anywhere in Unchained, so you may be mistaken. It may not be necessary, but it's darn good, and losing it is definitely bad for sneak attack-capable classes.

Of course it's good, but as you yourself noted, necessary != good.

SF is improved in Pathfinder (the bonus doubles when you get to a certain level) and you also need it for HiPS (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/hellcat-stealth) so there is added reason to want it.

As for why not, Dex to damage is easy to get, and all the current SA classes get even more on top of that - Rogues have debilitating injury, Slayers have Studied Target+Quarry+full BAB, Vivisectionists have mutagens and extracts etc.

If that somehow still isn't enough DPR for you, just port Craven in, but it really is overkill unless your GM is happily throwing encounters above your CR at you.

[AmberVael]

You know the person who saves one use items "just in case" and ends up never using them ever? Well, that's me. Except, I'm even more frugal- I'm reluctant to use per day abilities, always wondering if I'm using them too freely or early. Because of this I like classes and systems where I don't have to worry about this as much- ToB, Pact Binding, Invoking- that kind of stuff. However, Pathfinder loves per day abilities. It loves giving you something you can only use once in a day, or for a few rounds.

The diversity of its class design also seems lacking in comparison to 3.5, which introduced wacky new systems like Incarnum, Pact Binding, and Invoking. Granted there were flaws in those systems, but it really felt different. I haven't felt that as much from Pathfinder classes. 3rd party developers for Pathfinder have done some to remedy this, but in truth I'd rather just port them over to 3.5 than move to Pathfinder to use them.


I'll admit, I have a very hard time seeing what 3.5 variant could be offered that would attract me to it over 3.5 or Pathfinder. 3.5 has years of versatility, creativity, and popularity behind it. Pathfinder has a substantial catalog of material, ongoing professional support, and some pretty cool 3rd party developers. To turn my attention away from both of them would basically require someone to overtake both of them in variety and popularity, which seems like a difficult enough task for an entire company, let alone a single homebrewer.

[gadren]

I played 4e until it was announced that 5e was coming out, then went back to 3.5 groups. In my experience, most groups I've played with just mash all of PF and 3.5 together, using PF stuff by default but allowing 3.5 stuff that didn't make the conversion and applying the PF conversion guide.

[Pex]

The flexibility that I can do whatever I want in creating my character. I accept the inherent restrictions of the game system itself and the DM's add-ons, if any, provided I agree to them enough to still want to play. The game rules are about what I can do, not what I can't. The game does not apologize for letting my character do amazing things for a given level.

[Pluto!]

I play 3.5 and PF because they're the most widely-known games among gamers I know.

There are plenty of d20 versions of D&D that I like more, from Fantasycraft to 4e, but I don't play them because there already is a very similar crunch-heavy system that I don't have to teach.

Basically what I'm saying is that I play what I play because WotC did a really good job marketing back in 2000.

If I see a small-production fantasy d20 variant, I might read it, but the odds of me trying it are pretty close to zero.

[Curmudgeon]

I certainly can grok not fixing the casters as a problem, but the Rogue being weaker? I don't get it.

BAB same.
Relative to other classes, this makes the Rogue worse than in 3.5.

Saving Throws the same.
Who cares? A Rogue should avoid being targeted, so the only save which matters is Reflex. PF has made those poor saves matter. :smallmad:

SA progression is the same.
Without Craven, this makes sneak attack much worse.

Trap sense is the same.
This makes the Rogue weaker, not stronger. A Rogue should never be concerned with accidentally triggering a trap. Without something valuable as a replacement for trap sense, like Lightbringer Penetrating Strike to sneak attack more creature types, leaving this unchanged is insulting.

Evasion/Uncanny/Improved Uncanny is the same. The only difference is the Rogue Talents v Special Abilities. The PF Rogue gets 10 Talents where the 3.5 Rogue gets 4 Special Abilities. All of the Special Ability options in the 3.5 SRD are on the PF Advanced Talents list, and the PF rogue gets 6 of those. And PF Sneak Attack affects more creature types than 3.5 (Corporeal Undead, Constructs, Plants)
Where's Savvy Rogue to make those special abilities/talents better? And those talents are insulting. You need trap spotter instead of telling the DM once that you're always looking for traps. There's only one advanced talent, which means there are no special abilities in PF at all. To get Hide in Plain Sight to match the 3.5 "natural terrain" you've got to take it nine times for different favored terrain selections, which you can't start doing until level 10. In 3.5 I complained that you couldn't get Hide in Plain Sight in all natural terrains before level 13 (Wilderness Rogue); instead you had to go for Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight in FR with the Dark template in Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave at ECL 2, then buy off that +1 LA at class level 3. It's an annoying hoop to jump through, but the Rogue gets Hide in Plain Sight, a necessary capability for a stealthy character, at their first class level.

Please. Everything that's "the same" in the PF Rogue makes it a weaker class.

[Elricaltovilla]

Well for me, I play PF because of the ease of access to material, the ongoing support for the system and the fact that I'm writing material for it. Also, that's what all my friends play.

[Psyren]

Who cares? A Rogue should avoid being targeted, so the only save which matters is Reflex. PF has made those poor saves matter. :smallmad:

Without Craven, this makes sneak attack much worse.

This makes the Rogue weaker, not stronger. A Rogue should never be concerned with accidentally triggering a trap. Without something valuable as a replacement for trap sense, like Lightbringer Penetrating Strike to sneak attack more creature types, leaving this unchanged is insulting.

Where's Savvy Rogue to make those special abilities/talents better? And those talents are insulting. You need trap spotter instead of telling the DM once that you're always looking for traps. There's only one advanced talent, which means there are no special abilities in PF at all. To get Hide in Plain Sight to match the 3.5 "natural terrain" you've got to take it nine times for different favored terrain selections, which you can't start doing until level 10. In 3.5 I complained that you couldn't get Hide in Plain Sight in all natural terrains before level 13 (Wilderness Rogue); instead you had to go for Supernatural Hide in Plain Sight in FR with the Dark template in Cormyr: The Tearing of the Weave at ECL 2, then buy off that +1 LA at class level 3. It's an annoying hoop to jump through, but the Rogue gets Hide in Plain Sight, a necessary capability for a stealthy character, at their first class level.

Please. Everything that's "the same" in the PF Rogue makes it a weaker class.

All I really see when reading this is someone who has no earthly clue how to build a rogue in PF. And the one or two legitimate points were blown away in Unchained anyway.

Also, PF rogues don't need "Lightbringer Penetrating Strike" to begin with, you can SA those creature types baseline.

[Vhaidara]

Relative to other classes, this makes the Rogue worse than in 3.5.

How? It's literally the same.


Who cares? A Rogue should avoid being targeted, so the only save which matters is Reflex. PF has made those poor saves matter. :smallmad:

The point was that this is an equal, not worse


This makes the Rogue weaker, not stronger. A Rogue should never be concerned with accidentally triggering a trap. Without something valuable as a replacement for trap sense, like Lightbringer Penetrating Strike to sneak attack more creature types, leaving this unchanged is insulting.

We have those. They're called Archetypes, and most of them do replace Trap Sense with something better. Penetrating Strike isn't needed when you consider that only Ooze and Elementals (and the Protean subtype) are immune now


There's only one advanced talent

Curmudgeon, you're not reading. When the table lists "Advanced Talents", the ability lets you take advanced talents with ANY of your future rogue talents. So you get 6 (10, 12,14,16, 18, and 20). From a list of 30 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents#TOC-Rogue-Advanced-Talents) (you have to scroll down past the third party basic rogue talents)

[Milo v3]

I don't know why, but PF seems more homebrew friendly. The only things it or it's third party community doesn't really cover as well as 3.5e is Prestige Classes, which I never liked to begin with.

[Curmudgeon]

Also, PF rogues don't need "Lightbringer Penetrating Strike" to begin with, you can SA those creature types baseline.
No, instead PF introduced Aeon and Protean creatures which aren't subject to sneak attack. They shifted the goalposts. But you've ignored the point entirely. In 3.5 you've got multiple options to replace useless trap sense with something that has value. So "the same" ability means they've made the Rogue weaker.

As someone with "no earthly clue how to build a rogue in PF", explain how you can be undetected by nearly all enemies at a low level. Consolidating skills in PF means that there are more enemies who will have good Perception and be more likely to beat your Stealth check, so that makes the Rogue weaker than in 3.5 where there are a lot of enemies with poor Spot skill. Even in core D&D good Hide in Plain Sight (for every situation except pitch blackness) is available at character level 8. If you can't do much better than that, when the enemies are more likely to notice you when you're trying to be undetected, the quintessential stealthy archetype is nerfed in PF.


Curmudgeon, you're not reading. When the table lists "Advanced Talents", the ability lets you ...
I read it just fine. Every advanced talent is Hide in Plain Sight, taken many times. Going undetected is a basic requirement, so needing many steps to satisfy that prevents there being any other options available to the Rogue.

[Milo v3]

No, instead PF introduced Aeon and Protean creatures which aren't subject to sneak attack. They shifted the goalposts. But you've ignored the point entirely. In 3.5 you've got multiple options to replace useless trap sense with something that has value. In PF AFAIK you don't, so "the same" ability means they've made the Rogue weaker.

Those are tiny subtypes, compared to how several creature types were immune in 3.5e, and you can trade trap sense in most rogue archetypes, and since all archetypes work with unchained rogue. The rogue is more powerful in PF than 3.5e.

[eggynack]

I like 3.5 because I know the hell out of it. I basically just spent something like years learning the ridiculous intricacies of the system, gaining enough system mastery that I can compete with most people in most areas, and with probably all people in a few areas. I can't claim the same for PF. I am playing some PF now, and I'm having some fun with it, but there's something about the 3.5 system that really enthralled me, and that very understanding itself became something of a hobby. I doubt such an understanding will ever become a hobby for me with regards to PF.

[Morcleon]

I like 3.5 because I know the hell out of it. I basically just spent something like years learning the ridiculous intricacies of the system, gaining enough system mastery that I can compete with most people in most areas, and with probably all people in a few areas. I can't claim the same for PF. I am playing some PF now, and I'm having some fun with it, but there's something about the 3.5 system that really enthralled me, and that very understanding itself became something of a hobby. I doubt such an understanding will ever become a hobby for me with regards to PF.

This is probably one of the reasons I tend to stay with 3.5. It's a lot more broken and abusable, but that's one of the best things about it. You can create a lot of world-shaking things that you just can't do in PF because most broken things have been patched without ways around them. Plus, there are more rules for more things, and many more subsystems and sources for pretty much everything.

[Psyren]

Spoilering off-topic discussion.


No, instead PF introduced Aeon and Protean creatures which aren't subject to sneak attack.

Those are subtypes; not types. Very specific varieties of outsider. who are intended to be strong against rogues, and are just two among the vast number of challenges a DM can choose from to make an encounter. That's not at all the same thing as shutting out entire creature types like 3.5 did.


But you've ignored the point entirely. In 3.5 you've got multiple options to replace useless trap sense with something that has value. So "the same" ability means they've made the Rogue weaker.

PF has multiple options (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes) to replace Trap Sense too. Like I said, all you've done above is reveal how little you understand about building PF rogues.


As someone with "no earthly clue how to build a rogue in PF", explain how you can be undetected by nearly all enemies at a low level. Consolidating skills in PF means that there are more enemies who will have good Perception and be more likely to beat your Stealth check, so that makes the Rogue weaker than in 3.5 where there are a lot of enemies with poor Spot skill.

But that consolidation helped the rogue too. You don't have to boost Hide and Move Silently (including needing items and feats that boost both.)

You also don't have to take a full-round action to search one 5-foot square at a time - instead it's a move action to search every single square you can see. That is an unequivocal buff.


Even in core D&D good Hide in Plain Sight (for every situation except pitch blackness) is available at character level 8.

PF rogues get it at 6. They can also sneak attack in the dark (and Unchained Rogues can do it without needing a feat even.)

[eggynack]

This is probably one of the reasons I tend to stay with 3.5. It's a lot more broken and abusable, but that's one of the best things about it. You can create a lot of world-shaking things that you just can't do in PF because most broken things have been patched without ways around them. Plus, there are more rules for more things, and many more subsystems and sources for pretty much everything.
Yeah, especially with form changing stuff. I said as much in the favored class thread, but just having access to a ridiculous set of abilities from a massive number of creatures in a good number of the game books in existence is an awesome thing. I means that knowledge itself serves as a power source, and that is very appealing to me.

[JDL]

The downside being that only a specific subset of classes can access that power, meaning it restricts the selection of playable classes of the same level of optimization drastically. Not everyone wants to play an Outsider typed Grey Elf Dragonborn Generalist Wizard.

Pathfinder still gives stupid levels of power to wizards with access to Planar Binding (+5 inherent bonuses to all stats at level 11 anyone?) and other tricks. If you want to violate the gentleman's agreement between DM and Player about what is an acceptable level of power in the game, go for it. But for a good social experience sitting around a table eating snacks and cracking jokes, I'll take Pathfinder over 3.5.

[eggynack]

The downside being that only a specific subset of classes can access that power, meaning it restricts the selection of playable classes of the same level of optimization drastically. Not everyone wants to play an Outsider typed Grey Elf Dragonborn Generalist Wizard.

You can get a pretty good set of classes in a given tier, especially if you pick something like three or four. But yeah, I definitely mostly like 3.5 for the stuff you can do around druid level, for such is my domain. There's cool stuff you can do that isn't at that level, and wild shape ranger is notably an option if you want a mid-tier class with those abilities, but I definitely have my preference.

[Curmudgeon]

PF has multiple options (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/archetypes/paizo---rogue-archetypes) to replace Trap Sense too. Like I said, all you've done above is reveal how little you understand about building PF rogues.
I don't see a single option to just replace trap sense without affecting other class characteristics. What am I missing?

But that consolidation helped the rogue too. You don't have to boost Hide and Move Silently (including needing items and feats that boost both.)
Again, that makes the Rogue weaker, not stronger. The 3.5 Rogue has adequate skill points to cover being stealthy, so a system change which does not make the Rogue stealthier but makes the enemies more likely to detect the Rogue is worse.

You also don't have to take a full-round action to search one 5-foot square at a time - instead it's a move action to search every single square you can see. That is an unequivocal buff.
It's a buff which makes very little difference from a player perspective. Searching takes no play time. Sure, the other PCs might take a lunch break while the Rogue "takes 20" on a stretch of dungeon, but there's neither rolling nor role-playing required; the DM just advances the time to whatever comes next.

PF rogues get it at 6.
I asked for an explanation. So please, explain how PF Rogues get to be undetectable at level 6.

They can also sneak attack in the dark (and Unchained Rogues can do it without needing a feat even.) How is this relevant? Any 3.5 Rogue with darkvision can do that.

[Psyren]

Spoilering off-topic discussion:


I don't see a single option to just replace trap sense without affecting other class characteristics. What am I missing?

Man, those goalposts sure can boogie.



Again, that makes the Rogue weaker, not stronger. The 3.5 Rogue has adequate skill points to cover being stealthy, so a system change which does not make the Rogue stealthier but makes the enemies more likely to detect the Rogue is worse.

Do you have evidence that more creatures can perceive the rogue than before at any given CR?



It's a buff which makes very little difference from a player perspective. Searching takes no play time. Sure, the other PCs might take a lunch break while the Rogue "takes 20" on a stretch of dungeon, but there's neither rolling nor role-playing required; the DM just advances the time to whatever comes next.

Unless you need to search in combat, or track a rounds buff that is helping the rogue do that, or count down a timer of any sort whatsoever.

It also means that a PF rogue taking 20 takes half as much time, because you get twice as many search actions per turn - and it's actually far less than that, because again, you're searching every square you can see with that one roll instead of one 5-foot square at a time before moving to the next one and taking 20 again.


I asked for an explanation. So please, explain how PF Rogues get to be undetectable at level 6.

Moving goalposts yet again - your post said Hide In Plain Sight at character level 8, not "undetectable." Core 3.5 rogues get HiPS at 8; PF core rogues can get it at 6 (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/core-rulebook/shadowdancer), and outside core can even get it without a dip (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/hellcat-stealth) at the same level.


How is this relevant? Any 3.5 Rogue with darkvision can do that.

Not in magical darkness they can't.

[JDL]

Just to weigh in on the rogue debate, the minimum entry for Shadowdancer to gain Hide in Plain Sight (Su) is level 6 in Pathfinder. Rogues gain the advantage of not requiring multiple items to boost Stealth, so more gold for better items such as a Ring of Invisibility for an extra +40/+20 to Stealth (which includes being silent as well as hidden). Searching the full hallway as a single move action means your party is more likely to use shorter duration 1 minute/level spells that will last almost a full dungeon floor instead of just a single encounter, or else abandon searching for traps and simply charge in and take the hp tax for walking.

[Extra Anchovies]

Man, those goalposts sure can boogie.

Not really? Curmudgeon said "options to replace useless trap sense with something that has value", not "options to replace useless trap sense with something that has value, and also replaces other class features that I may want with new class features that I may not want". Archetypes are bundles of ACFs, and he's looking for ways to replace just trap sense.

That being said, Trapfinding is available as a trait (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits/campaign-traits/mummy-s-mask/trap-finder), and there are plenty of archetypes that replace Trap Sense, Trapfinding, and nothing else, so if you have an open trait slot you can actually sort of get a free class feature out of your Trap Sense-replacing ACF. The chart here (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Archetypes-Alternate-Class-Features) is a good way to make sure an archetype only trades away the class features you don't want.

[Curmudgeon]

Man, those goalposts sure can boogie.
Trap sense is useless, so replacing that improves the Rogue. Being forced to replace other, not useless class features is counterproductive: another weakening of the class.

Do you have evidence that more creatures can perceive the rogue than before at any given CR?
Do you have evidence that consolidating skills hasn't helped more creatures be perceptive?

Moving goalposts yet again - your post said Hide In Plain Sight, not "undetectable."
There's no goalpost movement at all; you just failed to pay attention, several posts back:

As someone with "no earthly clue how to build a rogue in PF", explain how you can be undetected by nearly all enemies at a low level.
The point of Hide in Plain Sight is not to acquire that label, but to be stealthy; the PF Rogue advanced talent Hide in Plain Sight doesn't make you appreciably stealthy. In 3.5 it annoys me greatly that adequate stealth isn't built into the Rogue class, but there are workarounds that get the job done. I asked to be undetectable at low levels, and mentioned the low bar of what's available in 3.5 core (Shadowdancer, which sucks up considerable build resources). I also mentioned the way I normally make Rogues stealthy in 3.5 at a low level (ECL 2). I don't care what the mechanism is as long as I can avoid being targeted nearly all the time. Shadowdancer is a poor answer in 3.5, and still a poor answer in PF.

Not in magical darkness they can't.
Use Magic Device and an Ebon Eyes (level 1 spell) wand. Standard equipment, to go along with Deeper Darkness cast on the tip of your blade: you've got concealment from your enemies, but enemies aren't concealed from you.

[Shackel]

What I'm getting from this is that PF made them worse by... not buffing them more, or something.

[Milo v3]

What I'm getting from this is that PF made them worse by... not buffing them more, or something.

Except it did, by making nearly no creatures immune to sneak attacks and adding in rogue talents, getting weapon finesse as a bonus feat, dex to damage, can sneak attack in concealment, changed trap sense to affect more situations, gave them the ability to debuff opponents, gave them the ability to do extra stuff with their skills, and gave them an assassin-style capstone which activates whenever they hit with a sneak attack.

[Palanan]

I can't think of anyone in the Playground who's a more ardent defender of Pathfinder than Psyren, nor anyone more doggedly capable of arguing a point down to quantum foam than Curmudgeon. They're like two moths beating against opposite sides of the same reflective pane.

Given this, maybe the Great Rogue Debate could be moved to its very own thread? Because I would love to respond to the OP, but as things are now it would just get lost in all the flailing moth-wings.

[Psyren]

Spoilering off-topic discussion.


Trap sense is useless, so replacing that improves the Rogue. Being forced to replace other, not useless class features is counterproductive: another weakening of the class.

Do you have evidence that consolidating skills hasn't helped more creatures be perceptive?

There's no goalpost movement at all; you just failed to pay attention, several posts back:

The point of Hide in Plain Sight is not to acquire that label, but to be stealthy; the PF Rogue advanced talent Hide in Plain Sight doesn't make you appreciably stealthy. In 3.5 it annoys me greatly that adequate stealth isn't built into the Rogue class, but there are workarounds that get the job done. I asked to be undetectable at low levels, and mentioned the low bar of what's available in 3.5 core (Shadowdancer, which sucks up considerable build resources). I also mentioned the way I normally make Rogues stealthy in 3.5 at a low level (ECL 2). I don't care what the mechanism is as long as I can avoid being targeted nearly all the time. Shadowdancer is a poor answer in 3.5, and still a poor answer in PF.

Use Magic Device and an Ebon Eyes (level 1 spell) wand. Standard equipment, to go along with Deeper Darkness cast on the tip of your blade: you've got concealment from your enemies, but enemies aren't concealed from you.

1) The bulk that replace Trap Sense also only replace Trapfinding, which is not needed at all in PF (unlike 3.5) - but if you really want it back, you can do so with a trait. Your concerns here are rather overblown.

2) You are the one making the positive claim here, I assumed some sort of evidence had led you to that conclusion.

3) Oh I agree it's a poor answer in 3.5, but in PF you can get HiPS much earlier, and can get it without Shadowdancer at all as I demonstrated.

4) Ah - so with a kind DM granting you access to magic-mart, a 10-minute buff that will also make you detectable and time to buff (verbally) before every combat, you'll get what an Unchained Rogue gets for free and the core one gets with a single feat. Impressive!


I can't think of anyone in the Playground who's a more ardent defender of Pathfinder than Psyren, nor anyone more doggedly capable of arguing a point down to quantum foam than Curmudgeon. They're like two moths beating against opposite sides of the same reflective pane.

Given this, maybe the Great Rogue Debate could be moved to its very own thread? Because I would love to respond to the OP, but as things are now it would just get lost in all the flailing moth-wings.

Point, I'll spoiler my responses going forward.

[Mechalich]

Pathfinder properly supports the OGL and restricts relatively little of its content. 3.5 restricts pretty much everything. As a gamer the systems may be more or less equal but as a designer and writer, the OGL support makes Pathfinder the obvious choice.

[Almarck]

Ease of access and such. I mean, literally, all of the material (except specific campaigns, adventure path, and setting things) needed to play Pathfinder is for free on a website. One with legal protections. 3.5e and 5e don't have that. At least no where to the same scale.

Also, Dreamscarred Press. This one is self explanatory.'

Admittedly, I kinda wish there were more settings than just Golarion. I mean, the place has everything to the point it's overblown. One big fantasy kitchen sink.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Almarck
Admittedly, I kinda wish there were more settings than just Golarion. I mean, the place has everything to the point it's overblown. One big fantasy kitchen sink.

I've come to sharply dislike Golarion for exactly this reason. In Runelords it's pretty generic fantasy, but the further you go from Varisia the more of a ridiculous hodgepodge the world becomes. Ustalav and Numeria in particular really grate on my grille.

[Milo v3]

I've come to sharply dislike Golarion for exactly this reason. In Runelords it's pretty generic fantasy, but the further you go from Varisia the more of a ridiculous hodgepodge the world becomes. Ustalav and Numeria in particular really grate on my grille.

There is a benefit to that though, it means they can make whatever mechanical content they want while still supporting the setting, and it will still fit the setting.

[Psyren]

I've come to sharply dislike Golarion for exactly this reason. In Runelords it's pretty generic fantasy, but the further you go from Varisia the more of a ridiculous hodgepodge the world becomes. Ustalav and Numeria in particular really grate on my grille.

Technically, with Planescape/Spelljammer D&D is one giant setting too. It's just a little easier to ignore the pieces you're not interested in, and more reason to do so since there's a wider variety of hands at the tiller.

But the nice thing about Golarion is that there are a whole bunch of unexplored planets out there too. You could easily have a planet that only has the parts of Golarion you like and nothing else, change a bunch of names and it would all still fit in PF. You could even change the names of the gods, or make new ones that are in reality Empyreal Lords or other lesser entities. The primary gods in Golarion care about that planet because it's the padlock keeping their Snarl in check - you could easily have planets in the setting they care less about.

[Almarck]

There is a benefit to that though, it means they can make whatever mechanical content they want while still supporting the setting, and it will still fit the setting.

Yeah, I suppose the advantage is that you can have cowboys going into space aboard a small artificial planet, go to a planet full of dragons and elves and reinact Eragon, go to some place rather Noir and hiding from psychic detectives, and then combat ancient undead Roman centurions in a Pyramid... but that sort of thing does kinda stretch the limits of coherency... alot.

I mean, wow, it's a big adventure packed world, but... I almost think things would be better if this was some sort of Planescape deal where each and everything was a different but bordering reality or having everything spread over a Galaxy in a manner similar to Warhammer 40k. One planet with all that is insane.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I suppose the advantage is that you can have cowboys going into space aboard a small artificial planet, go to a planet full of dragons and elves and reinact Eragon, go to some place rather Noir and hiding from psychic detectives, and then combat ancient undead Roman centurions in a Pyramid... but that sort of thing does kinda stretch the limits of coherency... alot.

I mean, wow, it's a big adventure packed world, but... I almost think things would be better if this was some sort of Planescape deal where each and everything was a different but bordering reality or having everything spread over a Galaxy in a manner similar to Warhammer 40k. One planet with all that is insane.

It's more accurate to say it's one planet full of hooks that can lead you to all that. There isn't a continent full of only dragons and elves for instance, but there's probably a portal/vessel leading to a demiplane or planet like that.

[Curmudgeon]

1) The bulk that replace Trap Sense also only replace Trapfinding, which is not needed at all in PF (unlike 3.5)
You don't see the nerf there? 3.5 Rogues can, by default, do something other classes can't. Pathfinder took away that distinction, making the class relatively weaker. 3.5 trapfinding uses Search, a good INT-based skill for a smart Rogue. PF requires a WIS-based skill, making the class more MAD. I've already mentioned the relative loss of capabilities by consolidating skills; the change to class skills (PF just +3 difference vs. 3.5 half as many ranks) means the PF Rogue can't expect to win nearly all opposed skill checks. There are lots of other nerfs. Rogue talents give meager capabilities, some of which take nothing more than a word to the DM to achieve in 3.5. In contrast Fighter weapon training, Barbarian rage powers, and the like reduce the comparative combat performance of Rogues. Tumble is a great ability (guaranteed to work as soon as you gain enough skill because of fixed DCs) for the 3.5 Rogue, but trying to use PF Acrobatics to avoid AoOs is iffy at best and gets worse at higher levels because monster CMD increases even if you keep pouring skill points into Acrobatics. And if you fail to avoid the AoO, you pretty much always fall prone where the monster will get to kill you easily. :smalleek: If I remember correctly, the PF Rogue can't throw more than one alchemical weapon per turn, and you don't get sneak attack damage from them; if you want to take Quick Draw in 3.5 you can make full attacks with splash weapons and get sneak attack on every hit. You can't make full sneak attacks with HiPS, because you can't use Stealth while attacking: a huge nerf, both offensively and defensively. PF Grease doesn't make people flat-footed automatically while balancing, so the Rogue loses a way to enable sneak attack (though I guess a readied action to attack on the enemy's turn would work :smallfrown:). Removing Lightbringer Penetrating Strike (a way to sneak attack the unsneakable) didn't remove Fortification as a way to be unsneakable. While I've already ranted about reduction in stealth removing one of the two main ways to enable sneak attack, Flanking Foil (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/flanking-foil-combat) is the abominable answer to flanking; in short, it makes every Rogue combat-ineffective. :smallfurious:

3) Oh I agree it's a poor answer in 3.5, but in PF you can get HiPS much earlier, and can get it without Shadowdancer at all as I demonstrated.
I'm still waiting for any demonstration that you can get effective stealth at a low level in PF. So far you've just linked to PF Shadowdancer.

[Almarck]

Crum, Psyren, perhaps it's time to create a second thread to discuss the whole Rogue issue?

Perhaps create scenarios with stress testing "typical" rogue builds and running statistics to see which is actually better/performing better within its own system. Get monster manuals and break out typical foes that give rogues a hard time. Have third parties decide on which rogues work better.


But anyways, yeah, accessibility was the make it or break it thing for me. It's so much easier to equip players with Pathfinder material than it is 3.5 or 5e.

[Curmudgeon]

Crum, Psyren, perhaps it's time to create a second thread to discuss the whole Rogue issue?
If you're attempting to refer to me, why do you think a second thread would be a good idea? Everything I've posted has been an attempt to provide more thorough answers to the OP's questions:

If you stayed with 3.5, what have you found lacking in Pathfinder (or the other options)? Breadth of options? Smaller Ecosystem? Don't want to replace your existing library? Already created house rules that you are satisfied with? Something Else? What would compel you to try a new system?
I've been trying to get Psyren to provide details on how a low-level PF Rogue can be stealthy ("What would compel you to try a new system?"), without success. All I've gotten is a lot of complaints about how I don't understand PF (so enlighten me, please, on those points I asked about!), and that PF is better (in ways not related to my statements about where I found PF lacking). :smallsigh:

[Psyren]

You don't see the nerf there? 3.5 Rogues can, by default, do something other classes can't. Pathfinder took away that distinction, making the class relatively weaker. 3.5 trapfinding uses Search, a good INT-based skill for a smart Rogue. PF requires a WIS-based skill, making the class more MAD. I've already mentioned the relative loss of capabilities by consolidating skills; the change to class skills (PF just +3 difference vs. 3.5 half as many ranks) means the PF Rogue can't expect to win nearly all opposed skill checks. There are lots of other nerfs. Rogue talents give meager capabilities, some of which take nothing more than a word to the DM to achieve in 3.5. In contrast Fighter weapon training, Barbarian rage powers, and the like reduce the comparative combat performance of Rogues. Tumble is a great ability (guaranteed to work as soon as you gain enough skill because of fixed DCs) for the 3.5 Rogue, but trying to use PF Acrobatics to avoid AoOs is iffy at best and gets worse at higher levels because monster CMD increases even if you keep pouring skill points into Acrobatics. And if you fail to avoid the AoO, you pretty much always fall prone where the monster will get to kill you easily. :smalleek: If I remember correctly, the PF Rogue can't throw more than one alchemical weapon per turn, and you don't get sneak attack damage from them; if you want to take Quick Draw in 3.5 you can make full attacks with splash weapons and get sneak attack on every hit. You can't make full sneak attacks with HiPS, because you can't use Stealth while attacking: a huge nerf, both offensively and defensively. PF Grease doesn't make people flat-footed automatically while balancing, so the Rogue loses a way to enable sneak attack (though I guess a readied action to attack on the enemy's turn would work :smallfrown:). Removing Lightbringer Penetrating Strike (a way to sneak attack the unsneakable) didn't remove Fortification as a way to be unsneakable. While I've already ranted about reduction in stealth removing one of the two main ways to enable sneak attack, Flanking Foil (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/flanking-foil-combat) is the abominable answer to flanking; in short, it makes every Rogue combat-ineffective. :smallfurious:

Most of your complaints boil down to a lack of skill. Take the MAD complaint - Canny Observer is like having a free 18 Wis on that rogue, yay, no MAD after all. Skill checks, especially checks based on your main stat, are easy to optimize to beat CMD, and there is Peerless Maneuver for a few emergencies per day.

Others are meaningless on their face. No monsters have Flanking Foil, so complaining about it is pointless. If the GM gives it to a monster, his aim was to challenge the rogue anyway, which he could do a number of ways in 3.5 as well. "Comparative combat performance" is also irrelevant because it's the monsters that matter, not the Barbarian and the Fighter; if the rogue can hit and do damage, the fact that a Barbarian can too is irrelevant.

For everything they've lost they gained something.

No need for ACFs to sneak attack undead and constructs.
No need for Hogwarts education to craft wondrous items, alchemical items, or arms/armor.
No need for a Magic-Mart coupon to sneak attack in the dark.
Detect an entire room full of traps with one check.
Archery that doesn't suck ass.
Confounding Blades, Resiliency, Unwitting Ally, Ninja Trick, Entanglement of Blades, Dispelling Attack, Familiar, Slow Reactions etc.

And all that is without the Unchained Rogue, whose class features make the 3.5 one cry and wet itself in the corner.


I'm still waiting for any demonstration that you can get effective stealth at a low level in PF. So far you've just linked to PF Shadowdancer.

PF Shadowdancer gets HiPS at 6th level, 2 levels before the 3.5 rogue can. Getting HiPS earlier matters, because it lets you hide in combat sooner. Combat is distracting (-5 penalty to Perception) giving you a fat bonus to your check, letting you flit about the battlefield with ease. Hellcat Stealth is an alternative that lets you do it in broad daylight even while being observed by taking a penalty, which their own penalty reduces - combine with the Skill Focus you needed to take it and you are basically taking a -2 penalty to be able to vanish mid-combat. Not a bad deal I'd say.

As far as "effective stealth" an unoptimized rogue (16 Dex, no racial modifiers, no traits, medium size, no archetypes, and no feats or items dedicated to stealth) is still starting the game with +7. Most CR 1 critters are in the +1 to +3 Perception range. Optimize him to 20 Dex, small size, racial bonus and trait bonus and he is dancing circles around everything.

[Telok]

For my group it's 3.5 because
1) We have the books already so we don't have to keep spending money.
2) We discourage e-toys at the table because a couple people have distraction issues. Fewer e-toys = more game time.
3) Unfortunately the distraction issue people are also somewhere between unable and unwilling to learn a new system.
4) PF is just a reskin of 3.5 with even more bells and whistles. More magic users. More variants on everything. More stuff to wade through and deal with. The only thing there's less of is prestige classes which we already mostly ignore.

Personally I've played every version of D&D from the original basic boxed set with B2 through 5e modules. The editions keep getting more and more heavily magic-user oriented. Have more and more stuff and bloat to track. And people seem to have been conditioned to only do things that are on the character sheet and have a number attached to them. Perhaps I'm just jaded and nostalgic but the plethora of rules and manditory options has stifled player creativity in the game in my area.

I'd love to go back to basics and roleplaying or to explore some of the other systems out there. But I'm constrained by time, money, and the willingness of friends to try new things.

[Curmudgeon]

Most of your complaints boil down to a lack of skill. Take the MAD complaint - Canny Observer is like having a free 18 Wis on that rogue, yay, no MAD after all. Skill checks, especially checks based on your main stat, are easy to optimize to beat CMD, and there is Peerless Maneuver for a few emergencies per day.
Except Canny Observer isn't free: it comes at the expense of some other talent. As you gain levels, that static bonus becomes less meaningful. You'll need to buff another ability to keep trapfinding relevant. And why bother, when any WIS-centric class can now do a better job than the Rogue? Loss of relative power is relevant; being able to work at matching many other characters in a capability isn't nearly as much fun as having a job you clearly excel at. I think PF trapfinding makes the Rogue less interesting to play. Wouldn't you agree?

Others are meaningless on their face. No monsters have Flanking Foil, so complaining about it is pointless.
You're avoiding the question. The more dangerous opponents are generally going to be NPCs rather than just dumb monsters, and Flanking Foil, as a single no-prerequisite-needed feat, is a legitimate concern. It completely removes one of the two ways of making sneak attack work.

For everything they've lost they gained something.
You somehow think that cranking out a list of capabilities I haven't asked about is an adequate substitute for actually addressing my issues with PF. :smallsigh: The point is to provide answers to marphod's question ("What would compel you to try a new system?") and I'm seeking answers to specific PF problems like how to overcome Flanking Foil. How to take down someone with Fortification. How to attack with splash weapons effectively. How to use Stealth with my attacks so I don't die on the enemy's counterattack.

Let's try this: if the PF Rogue is so compelling, what percentage of your PF characters have been Rogues? There are about a thousand classes in D&D 3.5, with about 20% base classes. Pathfinder has a much smaller selection of classes. Roughly 60% of my D&D 3.x characters have been Rogues (and over 15 years, that's a lot) because I find the breadth of options very rewarding to work with. If the PF Rogue is as great as you claim, then nearly all of your PF characters should have been Rogues. If not, then you're overselling something you don't fully believe in.

PF Shadowdancer gets HiPS at 6th level, 2 levels before the 3.5 rogue can.
If that's your best answer, it's not adequate. You get Hide in Plain Sight at ECL 2 in D&D 3.5, without having to waste build resources on prestige class entry requirements. The cost is a one-time expenditure of 3,000 XP to buy off the level adjustment. As the character advances, 3K XP is trivial compared to 2 non-useless feats and 1 Rogue level you had to miss out on.

[Milo v3]

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vqgSO8_cRio/hqdefault.jpg

3.P seems to be the most common way to play PF in my experience, I mean, PF was intentionally designed to be nearly 100% compatible with 3.5e. This also solves the above issue with rogue, since PF Rogue has access to everything the 3.5e rogue has access to. You can take what parts you want from each game.

[eggynack]

If the PF Rogue is as great as you claim, then nearly all of your PF characters should have been Rogues. If not, then you're overselling something you don't fully believe in.
Not really. It looks like Psyren is mostly speaking to the relationship between the 3.5 and PF classes, so really, the only thing that could indicate overselling is if his 3.5 rogue-play were at a higher percentage than his PF rogue-play. Comparing his PF rogue-play to your 3.5 rogue-play seems like a path to inaccurate results, as you clearly have a strong rogue preference that Psyren may not have.

[Kurald Galain]

If that's your best answer, it's not adequate. You get Hide in Plain Sight at ECL 2 in D&D 3.5, without having to waste build resources on prestige class entry requirements.

Okay. Then PF has the Ninja, which is effectively a rogue archetype, which can become fully invisible as a swift action, by level two. No special resources / races / XP buyoff needed.

[Psyren]

Except Canny Observer isn't free: it comes at the expense of some other talent. As you gain levels, that static bonus becomes less meaningful. You'll need to buff another ability to keep trapfinding relevant. And why bother, when any WIS-centric class can now do a better job than the Rogue? Loss of relative power is relevant; being able to work at matching many other characters in a capability isn't nearly as much fun as having a job you clearly excel at. I think PF trapfinding makes the Rogue less interesting to play. Wouldn't you agree?

You get 10 talents before feats; spending one on an effective 18 Wis is trivial. As for keeping trapfinding relevant, presumably you are continuing to max Perception like everyone is expecting their trapfinder to do, plus if you're truly worried you can buy a +Wis item, a +skill item and whatever else you feel you need to buff the ability.

You would bother because the more eyes the better, and you're the one who can disable it without a dispel. You're welcome to neglect Perception, but given that no character in PF should be doing that, you'd be doing yourself and your party a disservice.

And no, I don't agree that I'm having less fun. Everyone rolls Perception, just like everyone rolled Spot back in 3.5, because four eyes or more are better than two. If both the druid and I notice something, we high-five one another, I don't spit on his character sheet.



You're avoiding the question. The more dangerous opponents are generally going to be NPCs rather than just dumb monsters, and Flanking Foil, as a single no-prerequisite-needed feat, is a legitimate concern. It completely removes one of the two ways of making sneak attack work.

And if your DM is using it, they're pretty clearly trying to challenge the rogue anyway.

But again, if you're that easy to hit you don't belong in melee to begin with - not getting sneak attack is the least of your problems at that point. Don't get hit and you can flank+SA to your heart's content - it's not as automatic as you're making it sound, and if it is that automatic then your build needs serious work. The Unchained Rogue in particular can give enemies a -8 to hit him, so it's pretty much never going to come up unless you're actively trying to build your rogue badly. I'd actually encourage a DM to waste an NPC's feat slot on such an ability, and a caster in particular who's trying to whack the rogue with a melee attack to deny SA is a caster that's not, y'know, casting anything.



You somehow think that cranking out a list of capabilities I haven't asked about is an adequate substitute for actually addressing my issues with PF. :smallsigh: The point is to provide answers to marphod's question ("What would compel you to try a new system?") and I'm seeking answers to specific PF problems like how to overcome Flanking Foil. How to take down someone with Fortification. How to attack with splash weapons effectively. How to use Stealth with my attacks so I don't die on the enemy's counterattack.

The trouble is that you're throwing out niche defenses like that as though they are the be-all and end-all of being a rogue. What matters to being a rogue are doing damage, being undetected and finding traps. Enemies that need splash weapons to beat, and dealing with very niche defenses like Flanking Foil and Fortification, are not going to impugn on your fun unless your GM is actively trying to screw you, in which case you're not going to have fun in either edition of the game.

You know what is much more likely to come up than any of these? Needing to use a bow without sucking, or needing to stab someone in a dark room, or needing to notice more than one trap at a time. Those are things that could actually hurt my fun, and did back when I played 3.5.



Let's try this: if the PF Rogue is so compelling, what percentage of your PF characters have been Rogues? There are about a thousand classes in D&D 3.5, with about 20% base classes. Pathfinder has a much smaller selection of classes. Roughly 60% of my D&D 3.x characters have been Rogues (and over 15 years, that's a lot) because I find the breadth of options very rewarding to work with. If the PF Rogue is as great as you claim, then nearly all of your PF characters should have been Rogues. If not, then you're overselling something you don't fully believe in.

This metric makes no sense at all. I try a wide variety of classes because I like a wide variety of classes. That I know how to build PF rogues has no bearing on that fact.

If it matters, I have switched exclusively from CRB rogues to Unchained ones, but my spread is otherwise unchanged.



If that's your best answer, it's not adequate. You get Hide in Plain Sight at ECL 2 in D&D 3.5, without having to waste build resources on prestige class entry requirements. The cost is a one-time expenditure of 3,000 XP to buy off the level adjustment. As the character advances, 3K XP is trivial compared to 2 non-useless feats and 1 Rogue level you had to miss out on.

LA Buyoff is a variant rule and templates require DM approval because you're essentially playing a monster. They're nice in forum discussions but I prefer to make my characters without assuming favorable fiat.

[Curmudgeon]

Comparing his PF rogue-play to your 3.5 rogue-play seems like a path to inaccurate results, as you clearly have a strong rogue preference that Psyren may not have.
I think you've got a point there. What I'm trying to establish is relative system mastery at the class level, and I find Psyren's dodging of my specific questions rather frustrating. My strong preference for the class comes from lots of study and play experience. I think I've got about as thorough an understanding as anyone of how the Rogue functions in D&D 3.5. I'm looking for answers to hard problems that I've encountered in looking at the PF Rogue, and perhaps only someone with equivalent understanding of how the PF Rogue functions can provide adequate answers.

[Psyren]

Splash Weapons and Flanking Foil are not "hard problems." Using a bow effectively is a hard problem. Noticing more than one trap at a time, and taking 20 rounds to even do that much, is a hard problem. Not being able to practice alchemy because you're not a caster is a hard problem.

[Extra Anchovies]

Using a bow effectively is a hard problem.

Rogues can use bows effectively in Pathfinder? Due to the changes to Grease, it's actually harder to get ranged sneak attack in PF than in 3.5, and they don't have the BAB nor the innate to-hit bonuses (Judgement, Arcane Pool, Mutagen) to support Deadly Aim.

Also, Psyren, I like the new avatar. Welcome to the "masked figures standing with hands outstretched, one holding a long object planted on the ground and the other turned upwards" club :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Rogues can use bows effectively in Pathfinder? Due to the changes to Grease, it's actually harder to get ranged sneak attack in PF than in 3.5, and they don't have the BAB nor the innate to-hit bonuses (Judgement, Arcane Pool, Mutagen) to support Deadly Aim.

Fogcutting Lenses + Smokestick, both of which the PF rogue can make all by himself with no assistance. And of course, once you're targetting flat-footed AC you're probably going to hit. Also defeats see invisibility, true seeing, blindsense etc.

Also, Deadly Aim, Clustered Shots, Shadow Strike, Point Blank Master, Snap Shot etc. etc.



Also, Psyren, I like the new avatar. Welcome to the "masked figures standing with hands outstretched, one holding a long object planted on the ground and the other turned upwards" club :smallbiggrin:

It's an old one actually but thank you :smallsmile:

[Molosse]

Rogues can use bows effectively in Pathfinder? Due to the changes to Grease, it's actually harder to get ranged sneak attack in PF than in 3.5, and they don't have the BAB nor the innate to-hit bonuses (Judgement, Arcane Pool, Mutagen) to support Deadly Aim.

Also, Psyren, I like the new avatar. Welcome to the "masked figures standing with hands outstretched, one holding a long object planted on the ground and the other turned upwards" club :smallbiggrin:

Aye, while I'm a big fan of the UnRogue I'm not overly sure that Rogues really benefit from ranged combat. Honestly I'd say that if you wanted a Ranged Rogue you should just go for a Sniper Slayer (VMC Rogue).

Edit:/ Ah I see, you're saying that the PF Rogue is a better archer than the 3.5 Rogue.

[Vhaidara]

Aye, while I'm a big fan of the UnRogue I'm not overly sure that Rogues really benefit from ranged combat. Honestly I'd say that if you wanted a Ranged Rogue you should just go for a Sniper Slayer (VMC Rogue).

I think you meant base Slayer. Past level 6 (and honestly level 4), Sniper is actually a straight downgrade. Compare the Deadly Range from the talent to the one from Sniper

Deadly Range (Ex): A slayer with this talent increases the range at which he can deal sneak attack damage by 10 feet. A slayer can select this talent more than once; its effects stack. A slayer must be at least 4th level before selecting this talent.

At 2nd level, a sniper increases the range at which he can apply his sneak attack damage by 10 feet. Whenever the sniper is able to select a new slayer talent, he can instead choose to increase this range by an additional 5 feet. This ability replaces the slayer talent gained at 2nd level.

So you get it at level 2 (not normally an option). If they both take it at level 4, the Sniper is ahead by 5ft. Level 6, tied, from then on, the normal Slayer gains 5ft per level

[Psyren]

I think you meant base Slayer. Past level 6 (and honestly level 4), Sniper is actually a straight downgrade. Compare the Deadly Range from the talent to the one from Sniper

Deadly Range (Ex): A slayer with this talent increases the range at which he can deal sneak attack damage by 10 feet. A slayer can select this talent more than once; its effects stack. A slayer must be at least 4th level before selecting this talent.

At 2nd level, a sniper increases the range at which he can apply his sneak attack damage by 10 feet. Whenever the sniper is able to select a new slayer talent, he can instead choose to increase this range by an additional 5 feet. This ability replaces the slayer talent gained at 2nd level.

So you get it at level 2 (not normally an option). If they both take it at level 4, the Sniper is ahead by 5ft. Level 6, tied, from then on, the normal Slayer gains 5ft per level

It is indeed a downgrade - which is why they fixed it (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rwsg?Three-ACG-Errata-You-Didnt-FAQ#1):


Finally, the sniper, who traded a talent for a static ability that was strictly worse than one of the talent choices it already had, gains an actual sniping ability instead:

Replace the Sniper archetype’s Deadly Range ability with “Deadly Sniper (Ex): At 2nd level, when the sniper makes an attack against a target who is within his weapon’s first range increment and completely unaware of his presence, that attack ignores the 30 foot range limit on ranged sneak attacks, and if it is a sneak attack, he adds his sniper level as a bonus on his sneak attack damage roll. After this first attack, the target is aware of the sniper’s presence.”

[The Viscount]

As for 3.5, odd as it sounds, there is a big appeal for me in that it is finished. That is not to say that it is limited, because there is an enormous amount of material, but I find something in the fact that it is not a changing system. Considering the changes that occurred during 3.5's run time, that's probably a good thing, because the later base classes were moving into a different sort than the original core classes. I enjoy the PrC system as a series of endless tweaks you can apply to a character to make a truly unique build.

[Gnorman]

I've stuck with 3.5 because it's relatively simple and accessible, and despite years of system bloat, I can still make it fairly streamlined via homebrew. It's also just the most familiar to me - though my first experience with D&D was the Baldur's Gate series, my first experience actually PLAYING the tabletop game was 3.5.

I have yet to migrate to Pathfinder because, in all honesty, I don't have a lot of faith in the designers yet. They've shown, in my opinion, a tendency to willfully ignore or deflect valid criticism instead of acknowledging or addressing it, and a dedication to making Pathfinder even more of a Caster Edition. The designers (particularly Jason Buhlman) seem very hung up on addressing "realism problems" in non-magical classes and abilities, while obviously magic does not suffer from the same obstacle. The end result is that the Wizard and the Cleric dominate play even moreso than usual, and you pretty much have to play some kind of caster to compete. Sure, they've made that a lot easier with all of the new hybrid classes (Pathfinder is starting to feel a bit bloaty too), but it really feels like they've left concepts like the Fighter, Rogue, and Paladin in the dust. I would have no problem with that if they just admitted it, instead of trying to insist that those concepts are still viable. I admittedly haven't checked out Pathfinder Unchained yet, which may solve some of those problems.

I will give them this, though: they hire excellent artists, I really do appreciate their embracing of the OGL spirit, and they do admittedly write very good fluff. Jacobs and Mona produced some of my favorite work in 3.5.

[Vhaidara]

Unchained fixed the rogue, PF Paladin is fine (native T3), and Fighter is flawed in premise.

[Psyren]

Unchained fixed the rogue, PF Paladin is fine (native T3), and Fighter is flawed in premise.

Correction - PF Paladin is T4, but archetypes can get it to T3. (Which is not to say that T4 is not fine. Barbarian is T4 after all.)

I'm not sure that I'd agree Fighter is flawed. It's a simple class that can compete with equal-CR combat challenges all the way up if built and geared properly. It struggles outside of combat, yes, but generally the kinds of players that gravitate toward fighter don't want to participate in those to begin with, and are happy simply being pointed at the next thing that needs smashing.

[Vhaidara]

Huh. I actually thought it base hit T3.

As far as Fighter being flawed, my issue is that it is supposed to be someone who fights. We have a lot of those, and the others do it better and with more distinction
Paladin: someone who fights for good/justice
Cavalier: someone who fights from horseback/for honor
Barbarian: someone who fights with savagery
Swashbuckler: someone who fights with style
Ranger: someone who fights in the wild/in a particular style
Brawler: someone who fights with ever shifting tactics
UnMonk: someone who fights with his fists
Gunslinger: someone who fights with guns

The simple fact is that fighter has nothing to distinguish it from all of the other "someone who fights" classes.

[Gnorman]

The design space that the fighter occupies is at once too broad and too narrow. The fighter is "a guy who fights," which basically means every D&D character, because it's a game that is built, for better or worse, primarily around combat. So it doesn't really tell us anything about that concept. But the fighter also carries with it the notion of "a guy who fights without any sort of skill or magic," and so people balk at adding non-mundane abilities to the fighter.

Really, the concept should be replaced by something like "Warlord" or "Hero" or something that gives it some sort of narrative justification for not being restricted to the world of the mundane.

[atemu1234]

I use 3.5 because I have more 3.5 books.

However, I also use a lot of PF material. It's just system preference and inertia binding me down, so far.

[Psyren]

Huh. I actually thought it base hit T3.

As far as Fighter being flawed, my issue is that it is supposed to be someone who fights. We have a lot of those, and the others do it better and with more distinction
Paladin: someone who fights for good/justice
Cavalier: someone who fights from horseback/for honor
Barbarian: someone who fights with savagery
Swashbuckler: someone who fights with style
Ranger: someone who fights in the wild/in a particular style
Brawler: someone who fights with ever shifting tactics
UnMonk: someone who fights with his fists
Gunslinger: someone who fights with guns

The simple fact is that fighter has nothing to distinguish it from all of the other "someone who fights" classes.

Which one actually fights better depends on player skill. If the others are off-putting or easier to screw up for a newer player, they don't actually fight better in practice, even if they do so on paper.

One thing that's good about Fighter is that it can do anything you listed above, with feats to spare. For newer players it feels more welcoming, while for more veteran players it's a challenge.

[mostholycerebus]

Im just here for the excellent APs.

[Pluto!]

I think we can all agree that minute changes in the relative standing and deep-splatbook details of the Rogue class affect system decisions for an inconsequential portion of the playerbase.

[Tvtyrant]

3.5 was my first real RPG, and I know the rules fairly well for it and have a lot of optimization chunks stuck in my brain. Pathfinder never offered me something to draw me away, and I transitioned to E6 with some Pathfinder classes converted on. I still post here on 3.5 things because I like the system, but I mostly play 5E or my own mashed together combo of Dragonmech, d20 future and E6.

[Gnorman]

Yeah, E6 is really the only thing keeping me tied to 3.5. Not that that's a bad thing, of course.

[atemu1234]

I'm just here for the music, man.

[BWR]

I run PF because most of the changes it made from 3.5 are to my liking. I can't be arsed to get into details but it has mostly to do with polishing up certain classes (especially the paladin, which is all kinds of awesome in PF) and tidying up the skill lists. 'Oddly' enough, this claim certain people have made about how the rogue is even more useless in PF than it was in 3.5 doesn't get any proof in our games. PF rogue is a lot easier to build and a Stealth-based rogue still has little to no trouble remaining undetected, even if certain opponents can now have a better Perception score than they would have Spot/Listen scores in 3.5, and still have better ratings in more skills. I can only assume we either play at different optimization levels where PF is perfect for our needs, or some people theorycraft too much and don't get in enough actual playing time.

My other group still sticks with 3.5 because a couple of the players are too set in their ways to even consider trying anything new. Transitioning from 2e was apparently a bit too difficult and they don't want to learn a new system, or try a radically different setting or genre. I've lost all interest in 3.5 (strange how such minor differences in a system can have such an effect) but I play it because I like hanging around my friends.
*sigh*

[Vhaidara]

Which one actually fights better depends on player skill. If the others are off-putting or easier to screw up for a newer player, they don't actually fight better in practice, even if they do so on paper.

One thing that's good about Fighter is that it can do anything you listed above, with feats to spare. For newer players it feels more welcoming, while for more veteran players it's a challenge.

You see, I would say to use a Brawler then. Martial Flexibility/Versatility (I always forget which one) gives you about the same number of feats, but you don't get stuck with them. If anything, that means Fighter is MORE dependent on player skill, since once they make a choice they're pretty much stuck with it. And there are so many trap options for feats (Weapon Focus line, for example) that it really does take some experience to navigate them all.

[Psyren]

You see, I would say to use a Brawler then. Martial Flexibility/Versatility (I always forget which one) gives you about the same number of feats, but you don't get stuck with them. If anything, that means Fighter is MORE dependent on player skill, since once they make a choice they're pretty much stuck with it. And there are so many trap options for feats (Weapon Focus line, for example) that it really does take some experience to navigate them all.

Brawlers have to track encumbrance and worry about optimizing their stats for light armor though. It's a small issue, but still one fighters don't have to deal with - no matter what their dex is they can find protection that suits their needs.

Also Fighters can get Martial Flexibility too.

[nerghull]

Why ? Character building in a closed system shared by a sufficient group of character builders. That's enough for me.

[Curmudgeon]

Most of your complaints boil down to a lack of skill.
...
Others are meaningless on their face. No monsters have Flanking Foil, so complaining about it is pointless. ... "Comparative combat performance" is also irrelevant because it's the monsters that matter...
..
For everything they've lost they gained something.

Let's add one more reason not to take up Pathfinder: being told that something I enjoy in D&D, and would like to also be able to do in a different game system, is BadWrongFun. That my complaints are meaningless, and I should focus on other things instead of those capabilities I like which are lost.

If you're trying to extol the virtues of Pathfinder, Psyren, I've got to tell you: your sales pitch sucks.

[Psyren]

Let's add one more reason not to take up Pathfinder: being told that something I enjoy in D&D, and would like to also be able to do in a different game system, is BadWrongFun. That my complaints are meaningless, and I should focus on other things instead of those capabilities I like which are lost.

I never said that the things you like are badwrongfun. Thanks to backwards compatibility, everything you like can be brought forward.

You could port the improvements, like move-action searching, back to the system that is no longer supported too of course.


If you're trying to extol the virtues of Pathfinder, Psyren, I've got to tell you: your sales pitch sucks.

Your feedback is appreciated, but I was never actually holding my breath on "pitching to you." You've already made up your mind, as have I. I was merely correcting your egregious misconceptions regarding the class' capabilities for the benefit of anyone else that might take them as gospel.

[SinsI]

What ties you to the game system?
That's a wrong question.
The question you need to ask is:
"What can a new game system offer that the old one can't?"
Because the cost of switching is HUGE!
I have invested years and years playing and reading source books for A&D/2.0/3/3.5
And i have no desire to switch to Pathfinder/4/5/6 - because the little improvements they offer don't offset neither the cost nor the things lost in transition. How long did it take Pathfinder to create replacements for Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum?
It is far easier to homebrew away whatever problems arise in 3.5 than to spend years switching to another system that would get rapidly outdated anyway.

Frankly, if I were to try to switch to another game system, I'd go for one that is as far away from D20 as possible - because in that case I'd know that all the old rules and assumptions I know are completely wrong, so there is no confusion between the old and new rules.
Bonus points if it comes together with a CRPG so that you can familiarize yourself with its workings without relying on DM judgment.

[Pluto!]

Because the cost of switching is HUGE!

What proportion of PF do you think is incompatible with 3.5, or vis versa?

[SinsI]

What proportion of PF do you think is incompatible with 3.5, or vis versa?
All of it. You can take individual rules from PF and transplant them into 3.5 and back with ease, but full transition from one system to another is extremely taxing.
Pathfinder made small changes to practically everything, so if you have 5 players trying to switch over you will face situation where everyone remembers a different subset of rules. And games where everyone uses different rules are not fun.

[Milo v3]

All of it. You can take individual rules from PF and transplant them into 3.5 and back with ease, but full transition from one system to another is extremely taxing.
Pathfinder made small changes to practically everything, so if you have 5 players trying to switch over you will face situation where everyone remembers a different subset of rules. And games where everyone uses different rules are not fun.

Not really. The changes are pretty small. I mean, you could convert over all the base classes between the two, and the only one that wouldn't work in the other without something more overt than minor tweaks would be artificer. Even then it's just because it's key ability of being able to craft without needing spell prerequisites is given to all magic item crafters in Pathfinder.

[Morcleon]

Not really. The changes are pretty small. I mean, you could convert over all the base classes between the two, and the only one that wouldn't work in the other without something more overt than minor tweaks would be artificer. Even then it's just because it's key ability of being able to craft without needing spell prerequisites is given to all magic item crafters in Pathfinder.

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

[Milo v3]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

But, 3.P is bigger than both of them. Though they 3.5e only & PF only classes would have less splatbook support than the classes that they both share.

[Vhaidara]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

Honestly, I don't even know if that's still true. Paizo has published quite a number of books, and even just including some third party, you get much stronger subsystems
3 psionic books
2 initiator books
2 (3rd in beta) pact magic books
Then you also have akashic and path of shadow, with pathol of iron coming from ascension games, and spheres of power from drop dead Studios..

I really do think PF is reaching the point of passing 3.5

[Morcleon]

Honestly, I don't even know if that's still true. Paizo has published quite a number of books, and even just including some third party, you get much stronger subsystems
3 psionic books
2 initiator books
2 (3rd in beta) pact magic books
Then you also have akashic and path of shadow, with pathol of iron coming from ascension games, and spheres of power from drop dead Studios..

I really do think PF is reaching the point of passing 3.5

You're losing MIC, SpC, and all of the Completes, as a start. There's also the general lack of extremely high power options that has been hardcoded into the system as a whole.

I mostly prefer running PF rules with 3.5 material and PF material as a splatbook though, so it's a moot point for me.

[Milo v3]

You're losing MIC, SpC, and all of the Completes, as a start. There's also the general lack of extremely high power options that has been hardcoded into the system as a whole.
How are you losing any of those? PF was intentially designed so you can basically just grab that stuff and drop it into your PF game. I mean, this is part of paizo's advertising:
http://www.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=15800

[Morcleon]

How are you losing any of those? PF was intentially designed so you can basically just grab that stuff and drop it into your PF game. I mean, this is part of paizo's advertising:
http://www.rpg.net/pictures/show-pic.phtml?picid=15800

You're losing them if you're switching over completely from 3.5 to PF without porting, which is what I've found is the standard for most PF groups I've seen and been in.

Also, PF has lowered the maximum power ceiling to a relatively reasonable level, which I feel shouldn't have been hardcoded in, since this change means that it no longer supports Tippyverse, near-Tippyverse, and similar levels of play, as well as various combos that are interesting but not particularly disruptive to games.

[Milo v3]

You're losing them if you're switching over completely from 3.5 to PF without porting, which is what I've found is the standard for most PF groups I've seen and been in.

Also, PF has lowered the maximum power ceiling to a relatively reasonable level, which I feel shouldn't have been hardcoded in, since this change means that it no longer supports Tippyverse, near-Tippyverse, and similar levels of play, as well as various combos that are interesting but not particularly disruptive to games.

If anything, the tippyverse may have been helped to a degree actually, since you no longer have to meet spell prerequisites when you make items, any wizard of decent can make a tippyverse without even having to scribe a single spell. And you can still make spell traps just as easily iirc.

Also... Mythic would raise the ceiling I'd imagine.

[Vhaidara]

I'd say the ultimate line matches the complete line. Spell compendium was a gathering point more than anything else (also, wish I could check how many spells/feats each system has).

And I would say ToB 2 and Psionics 3 (complete with actual editing) is worth MIC (which is the single easiest book to port)

[Jeran Korak]

Personally, I play Pathfinder over 3.5 because I found 3.5 had serious power creep after a while. I'm naturally competitive, and the imbalances the system had didn't really serve to keep things interesting at high levels. Pathfinder does still have that problem in some respects, but martial classes are a lot better. Brawlers in particular are death-machines if built right. I also like the expanded spell lists for the base game, and the fact literally the entire rule-set is available online.

If I were recommending Pathfinder to somebody who already liked D&D 3.5, I'd first ask them what they felt were flaws and issues in the structure of 3.5, then direct them to parts of the Pathfinder ruleset that addressed those issues. I'd also emphasize the ease of transition, and tailor my responses to how the person in question felt about the power-creep in 3.5. Some people absolutely adore 3.5's 'everything overpowered is balanced out by something else equally overpowered' system (I can't deny that at times I'm one of them, either), while others hate it deeply and homebrew just to get away from it.

But primarily I'd say that marketing PF to people who already love 3.5 is a bad way to spend your time. I'd aim it more towards tabletop newbies who haven't had the time to form an entrenched opinion about a system yet. It isn't precisely easy to convince somebody interested in a 10+ year-old system to try something so similar in some respects that it can be hard for them to see the point of trying.

[GreatDane]

Mostly, my friends all play 3.5. It's also the system I've DMed in for 2-3 years now, so I'm pretty familiar with it.

Ultimately, I play 3.5 because I encountered it first, and Pathfinder's never given me a compelling reason to switch.

[Almarck]

My main issue with fully switching over from 3.5 to PF is that you lose a huge amount of splatbook support. PF just seems a lot smaller than 3.5 when you take that into account.

Not including "alternate Classes", base pathfinder is something like... 29 classes all told. With about 6 more belonging to the "Psychic Magic" submagic system coming up. And each and everyone of those classes has at minumum 5 different archetypes which can be thought of bundles of ACF's with a theme. The older core classes have more, in particular rogues and fighters having over 20 each. You can't say they're lacking classes or class features, especially since there's archetypes and ACF's for animal companions and familiars.

Certainly, there's no Incarnium, Psionics, Initiators, and Binders in base PF, but for the most part that has to do with Paizo's near adamant refusal to leave Vancian casting. This however is easily made up for by the likes of Dreamscarred Press and Radiance House, 3rd party publishers who have made ports and improvements over the older 3.5 subsystems and the materials to play these are available for free as with everything. However, I guess not everyone is willing to play 3rd party, but if you notice the threads run by DSP, you'll find lots of PF players run with them.

Pathfinder does lack sheer quantity of Prestige Classes though. Probably as a result of having so many archetypes. I do think the point of PRC's is lost though I suppose in PF, I never really cared to think about getting PrCs.


Moving onto races, since that's also a big part of splat books: We're at about....50+ races all told, 30+ are assumed to be playable. And none of them are variants of an existing race in the same way Aquatic and Dester variations of Elves existed. Instead of variants of races being seperate races, races often come packed with alternate features that allow customization.

In all, I'd say that for the most part PF has 3.5 beat in class and race quantity. Feat and spell quantity? Probably. Although Pathfinder is still getting bigger whereas 3.5 is not. I do however agree that without 3rd party, PF does seem smaller in the sense that it lacks variety.

[Calemyr]

For my part, I favor Pathfinder as a rule. It didn't do much to alter the distribution of power, but it broadened most classes immensely, with many opportunities for customization. In 3.5, only casters and the fighter class had a lot of customization features. I mean, that's what a 3.5 fighter is: a skeleton to build your own custom fighter around.

Rogues used to be simply skill monkeys that could backstab. Now they've got a number of talents they can pick from as they level up. Want a couple spells? Check. Want to be a better fighter, or make better use of your sneak attacks? We've got talents for you. Want to be tougher or more agile? Again, we've got you covered. Simply want a bonus feat instead of something fancy? Yeah, we're good.

Fighters used to be thugs with no features but more feats than they could probably use. Now we've got Weapons Training, which gives them advantages with entire classes of weaponry on top of their fighter-only feats like specialization, and armor training, which makes heavier armor much more useful. A fighter is now a whole hell of a lot more than a simple thug with feats.

Barbarians and Paladins get to keep their abilities but gain customizations that improve them. Barbarians gain additional effects while raging, while a paladin's lay on hands can cure more than simple HP.

Casters now have specialization features that make them less useless at low levels and give them a stronger feeling of flavor. Granted, they are still stupidly overpowered in the endgame, but at least they're not such a burden to the party in low level play.

Then there's the base classes and the hybrid classes, which take core classes and modify them to new roles. Ninja is a rogue with the monk's Ki resource system worked in to give them supernatural abilities. The slayer hybrid class is a useful combination of ranger and rogue, trading a ranger's encyclopedic knowledge of a limited number of targets for the ability to gain a more immediate understanding of a nearby foe or two. My brother plays one as a sniper and he's quite scary. (Ultimate Equipment includes the Sniper Goggles, which removes the 30' range limit or sneak attacks but adds +2 damage per die to ranged sneak attacks made within 30'. At 20k, it's not a low level item, but it's really useful. Then there's the greater Sniper Goggles that remove the range limitation on the damage bonus.)

And now there's even the "unchained" varieties as well. Haven't looked into them closely (as my favored classes are not present: bard, magus, alchemist), but they seem to be trying to seriously ramp up the power of classes that didn't get buffed as much as they probably should have been: barbarian, monk, summoner, and (of course) rogue.

And that's all first official stuff. Add in a host of third party resources (I'm really coming to love Dreamscarred Press's Akashic Mysteries) and an open and accessible culture that doesn't punish customization, and it's just really cool.

3.5 was a vast improvement over 3, and I think Pathfinder is a vast improvement over 3.5, though 3.5 still has many tricks left to share with Pathfinder fans.

[SinsI]

Not really. The changes are pretty small. I mean, you could convert over all the base classes between the two, and the only one that wouldn't work in the other without something more overt than minor tweaks would be artificer. Even then it's just because it's key ability of being able to craft without needing spell prerequisites is given to all magic item crafters in Pathfinder.

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I favor Pathfinder because it's easier to find people who are willing to play it than people who are willing to play 3.5, and it's easier to find the materials I would want to use in a game.

That's really all there is to it, at this point. Both systems are bloated and have really annoying fiddly bits (Skills/multiclassing in 3.5, feat chains, gun rules in Pathfinder), and both use the stupid d20. Pathfinder has better 3rd party support IMO, but in no small part (no offense DSP) Paizo couldn't't stop tenderly caressing vancian casting.

[Milo v3]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

Still disagree immensely, I mean, the Main things that have changed are: Races have been given more abilities, Classes have extra abilities to make up for their weaknesses, Favoured Class Rules have been modified to be useful rather than thrown out by everyone with a brain, Skills System is altered, some feats were enhanced or streamlined, and combat manoeuvres have been streamlined. Other than that, rule changes are rare.

To be honest, all you need to convert between 3.5e and PF in most situations is to just read the 3.5e to PF conversion guide.

[nyjastul69]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
I remember reading AD&D books back in the era of SSI CRPG games - and some elements from them are still plaguing my 3.5 games - 21 years later!

That's why 3.5 -> 4.0 switch is much easier than 3.5 -> Pathfinder.

I will immensely agree. What keeps me away from adopting PF is all the nibbly changes that don't directly affect the fundamental flaws in the system. Also, I don't want to have to read a rule book for the several dozen minor changes that it includes. I did it with the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. I have no interest in doing that again.

Edit: I choose 3e because there is a comfort level our group has reached with it. We tried 4e, and the players didn't like it. No one wants to touch 5e outside of myself. Inside of myself it's too dark to read.

[The Viscount]

Still disagree immensely, I mean, the Main things that have changed are: Races have been given more abilities, Classes have extra abilities to make up for their weaknesses, Favoured Class Rules have been modified to be useful rather than thrown out by everyone with a brain, Skills System is altered, some feats were enhanced or streamlined, and combat manoeuvres have been streamlined. Other than that, rule changes are rare.

To be honest, all you need to convert between 3.5e and PF in most situations is to just read the 3.5e to PF conversion guide.

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

[Morcleon]

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

Spells have also been changed quite a bit (the only spell change I like is the removal of XP costs).

[BWR]

The changes are small - but they are everywhere. And it means that your familiarity with one system acts as a very serious and disruptive factor that prevents you from getting accustomed to the new rules.
r.

Except it isn't disruptive, ime. Throughout our PF period (for some 3.5 years now) there have been plenty of times we've run PF using 3.5 rules because that's what we were used to and forgot to double check. The game moved smoothly and without issue. When the change was made known, we changed and everything still ran smoothly.

[Psyren]

Changes to every basic aspect of a character (race, class, skills, feats, special actions in combat) seem like changes everywhere, no?

And that's not even touching on prestige classes, poison, and polymorph effects. There are a lot of changes.

There are, but in a given session you may come across many of those, a few, or none at all. I can see it being a barrier for some, but that doesn't seem to be a universal drawback by any means.

[Socksy]

I like 3.5 because it's so hilariously glitchy. You can play as RAW-stupid or as RAI-sensible as you'd like, and it's easy to have different levels of optimisation.

[Pluto!]

I've interchanged the two for years. I've played plenty of 3e games with PF base class features or the PF Polymorph fix, and I've played plenty of PF games with Psions (prior to update), Warblades or Chameleons.

There are differences, but usually the extent of those differences' disruption is "Wait. He made a save against Ray of Enfeeblement? Maybe I'll skip that spell tomorrow."

[nyjastul69]

I've interchanged the two for years. I've played plenty of 3e games with PF base class features or the PF Polymorph fix, and I've played plenty of PF games with Psions (prior to update), Warblades or Chameleons.

There are differences, but usually the extent of those differences' disruption is "Wait. He made a save against Ray of Enfeeblement? Maybe I'll skip that spell tomorrow."

This sort of change is a flaw, not a feature, IMO. Nibbly changes that change little overall. Meh... YMMV.

[SinsI]

Except it isn't disruptive, ime. Throughout our PF period (for some 3.5 years now) there have been plenty of times we've run PF using 3.5 rules because that's what we were used to and forgot to double check. The game moved smoothly and without issue. When the change was made known, we changed and everything still ran smoothly.

What if you have players with different levels of Pathfinder experience? One player is accustomed to the 3.5 version, another to the PF version - and they conflict?
Same question if the one (not)in the know is the DM.

[Taelas]

I play both, though I vastly prefer 3.5 (because that's the system I know inside and out). It's disconcerting to play PF and encounter a rule that is changed that you didn't know about, which happens a lot in my experience.

That said, I do like some of the things PF did.

[Psyren]

What if you have players with different levels of Pathfinder experience? One player is accustomed to the 3.5 version, another to the PF version - and they conflict?
Same question if the one (not)in the know is the DM.

Then you learn and move forward, together. For most of the changes, it's intuitively easy to see why they were made - like walls of iron being worthless, or glitterdust becoming Save Ends, or arcane lock no longer auto-defeating rogues.

[Morcleon]

Then you learn and move forward, together. For most of the changes, it's intuitively easy to see why they were made - like walls of iron being worthless, or glitterdust becoming Save Ends, or arcane lock no longer auto-defeating rogues.

I liked wall of iron being able to be used for construction though. :smalltongue:

I think PF went too far in the "no permanent world changing" aspect.

[nonsi]

.
I go way back, from the time BACMI D&D ruled the scenery.
I played BACMI, 1e, 2e and 3e.
As with practically every group out there, we always had a small set of houserule tweaks.

I tried to get into 4e rules and the only sensation I got out of reading them was "Yuck" :smallyuk:
I also tried to dive into 5e rules, but for me they took away too much.

Enough was already said about PF fixing the wrong things (for every improvement, they made several bad calls), so I won't add to that.
PF designers did figure out one thing strait – 3e & 3.5e classes have way too many levels where nothing of significance happens.

After all this time, I came to the conclusion that the game with the best skeleton and overall framework of mechanics is 3.5e.
The abilities, saves, combat options, conditions, skills and more function exactly as they should, with only minor corrections needed.
They made a real effort in bringing nonmagical abilities as close as possible to real life.
It's just a shame that they were late with swift & immediate actions and that spellcasters get to use them and enjoy superior action economy over noncasters where it should've been the other way around.


The thing with all D&D editions is that they always leave you with a sensation that the game is incomplete.
You always find scenarios that you have to handwave because the rules didn't cover them.
You also find that character concepts keep popping up which you cannot bring to life without them being inferior to existing classes, so you have to invent all the time.
That's basically the economic strength of WotC's approach: give them what they want, but always keep them on the edge begging for more.


In my overhaul codex, my aim was to create a game that's truly complete from the party' side.
You can play just about any character that your delirious mind could conjure, without (re)inventing anything, and there's a very good chance that without even trying, you'll end up with a balanced character. Also, I wanted to cover (on the mechanical angle) just about any game scenario that you could face in a more or less medieval-themed world (wanna climb the giant… pool punches… play dead… foil someone's effort to activate something nasty… block a dragon's breath or a spell's line of effect… no problem – it's already in the rules).

Other than for sporadic idea gathering, I personally don't have much use for a houserules codex as a complete package if the goals are not as stated above, because there's no point in replacing a game system abundant with official materials that cover a lot with a new game system that's in its early stages and requires a lot of play testing......... unless it's designed with the goals above, which will give a solid incentive to endure its early days labor stages.