DM proposal to swap from 3.5 to Pathfinder

[Barbarian Horde]

Now my question is what would be the point. What advantages would players gain by swapping. I'm a long standing player of 3.5. Familiar with 5e. I've been involved in earlier editions and had to learn THAC0 >.> I however don't have enough experience with Paizo. My DM gave me a few examples why it might be better for roleplaying, but I honestly dont know if its worth swapping systems all together.

Your thoughts are all welcomed.

[LTwerewolf]

For the most part, you're not really going to notice a difference. I like the way a lot of the pathfinder classes are built. They tend to favor players doing different things rather tye old "i move and attack" routine. They also have much better relationships with their third party developers, which leads towards more third party support. There are a few third party companies which I think do a pretty great job at keeping their content balanced.

The way I run my group, we use the 3.5 ruleset with a few pathfinder rules ported in, and using a few pathfinder classes instead of the d&d variant. I prefer several of the 3.5 rules over the pathfinder rules, but some of the pathfinder rules work better. An example would be we use the 3.5 skill system, but consolidate the skills down with the pathfinder skills.

[Chronikoce]

Mid game or fresh game?

Personally I prefer 3.5 because of all the options available allow me to build the character I imagine more readily.

Pathfinder is more balanced but that is a false comparison in my opinion. Wizards still have world shattering power and fighters still hit stuff so the underlying disparity is not gone.

The system overall is more friendly to new players and even veteran players because everything is available on the srd. Honestly that is the strongest argument for switching in my opinion.

The best solution however is to use the system your group prefers and then allow material to be imported from the other system with group approval.

For example my current game is pathfinder base but I have a dragonfire adept and factotum from 3.5 (as well as all their supporting feats).

[Cosi]

There's no real reason to switch. The single biggest issue 3e has (Wizards > Fighters) isn't resolved, and there are a bunch of fiddly changes (and a general trend towards fiddly-ness throughout the rules). They changed how grapple modifiers are calculated, changed type definitions so you can use charm person on Giants, changed Power Attack math, changed how multi-classing works (now, instead of XP penalties you ignore you get a minor bonus to optimize), and gave everybody the opportunity to pick from twenty or thirty archetypes per class which change various different abilities. The game is more complicated, but not in any meaningful sense better.

[Segev]

I personally tend to play in 3.PF, in that it usually defaults to one or the other, but options from the other one come up and are used all the time. They're extremely similar, by design. If the DM will let you use 3.5e classes, you probably won't notice unless you use a base class that's radically different in its PF representation. (Fighters have extra stuff. Most of the core classes do.)

[Kurald Galain]

Now my question is what would be the point. What advantages would players gain by swapping. I'm a long standing player of 3.5. Familiar with 5e. I've been involved in earlier editions and had to learn THAC0 >.> I however don't have enough experience with Paizo. My DM gave me a few examples why it might be better for roleplaying, but I honestly dont know if its worth swapping systems all together.

Your thoughts are all welcomed.

The main advantages of Pathfinder are that (1) its mechanics are more flavorful, e.g. sorcerer bloodlines, barbarian totems, and traits; (2) instead of having to jump through hoops to enter a prestige class at level 6'ish, you can choose an "archetype" (i.e. subclass) right at level one; (3) it is in active development, meaning new content is still being created; and (4) although by no means perfect, Pathfinder is better balanced than 3E.

Among others, in Pathfinder it's much easier to play a Gish (instead of having to make a complicated prestige class combo, you just take the Magus class, or its divine equivalent the Warpriest); there's the bomb-throwing Alchemist and the secret-identity Vigilante; and it substantially improves on several of 3E's weaker classes such as the Rogue (unchained rogue), Monk (unchained monk), Fighter (stamina system) and Ranger (hunter class).

[Barbarian Horde]

I mean I've seen that fighters have a bit more versatility with arch types. What about healing, anything really change there?

[Kurald Galain]

I mean I've seen that fighters have a bit more versatility with arch types.
Yep. For example, there's a fighter with knowledge skills and extra skill points, and one that gets a familiar, and one that gets alchemy. They also get a wide pick of weapon- and armor-related tricks in recent splatbooks, and can get stamina points to enhance their combat feats.


What about healing, anything really change there?
Clerics and paladins can use a standard action to heal everyone within 30' for 1d6 per two cleric levels.

[skyth]

Personally I prefer Pathfinder. It fixes some of the issues with 3.x I didn't like (XP for spell components, etc).

One of the big differences is that Pathfinder discourages multiclassing. If you're a multiclass junkie like I am, it's a little bit of a turn off.

[Barstro]

Personally I prefer 3.5 because of all the options available ...

This is why I like Pathfinder. Fewer options lead to fewer unintended consequences from combining spells/feats/abilities. It also leads to more creativity on how to make a character concept work.

If everyone is already fully vested in 3.5 and has used 5.0, I cannot really recommend Pathfinder even though I prefer it. From the little I know of 5.0, that system seems to cover all the reasons Pathfinder exists in the first place.

[Kurald Galain]

If everyone is already fully vested in 3.5 and has used 5.0, I cannot really recommend Pathfinder even though I prefer it. From the little I know of 5.0, that system seems to cover all the reasons Pathfinder exists in the first place.
Not particularly. PF has much more options than 5E does, including third-party support; and PF class abilities tend towards new options whereas 5E class abilities tend towards small numerical bonuses; and 5E is low on character growth (in that over your character's career, you'd only become 10% to 15% better at anything, ever).

Sure, their audiences overlap a bit, but the goals of both games are vastly different.

[TheIronGolem]

While it may not matter to your table in particular, Pathfinder also has excellent 3PP support, particularly from Drop Dead Studios and Dreamscarred Press.

[Necromancy]

Pathfinder games run a little smoother and you have less rules errors in general. It has its own problems but at least you won't see any characters with 9 different class dips.

[Segev]

Personally I prefer Pathfinder. It fixes some of the issues with 3.x I didn't like (XP for spell components, etc).

Ironically, one of the things I like better in 3e D&D is that XP can be spent on things other than leveling up. With all classes on the same XP-table, if there's no way to expend XP on things other than leveling, there's really no point to XP. Just assign levels after so many encounters.

[digiman619]

Personally I prefer Pathfinder. It fixes some of the issues with 3.x I didn't like (XP for spell components, etc).

One of the big differences is that Pathfinder discourages multiclassing. If you're a multiclass junkie like I am, it's a little bit of a turn off.

No, it incentivizes staying in one class by giving a bonus to your favored. 3.5 discouraged multiclassing by having XP penalties for uneven class levels (not that stopped anybody)

[Barbarian Horde]

I like 5e more then every version just because of how simplified it is. Multiple combats take almost no time in comparison. Unfortunately he wants pathfinder.

[LTwerewolf]

I can understand him wanting to go pathfinder over 5E. I greatly loathe 5E and would rather play almost any other version of the game. Simplified does not always mean better.

[Segev]

I can understand him wanting to go pathfinder over 5E. I greatly loathe 5E and would rather play almost any other version of the game. Simplified does not always mean better.

...please tell me that "almost" is to exclude 4e from the list of editions you'd rather play than 5e.

4e just... I'm sure it's a perfectly fine fantasy game. It's just that it's almost, but not quite, entirely unlike D&D.

[LTwerewolf]

Yes, 4E is the almost there. Although if it were between the two and I had to choose 4E or 5E, I would choose to watch paint dry.

[Segev]

Yes, 4E is the almost there. Although if it were between the two and I had to choose 4E or 5E, I would choose to watch paint dry.

To each their own. I like 5e, myself. I prefer 3e, but 5e is acceptable, to me.

[Psyren]

The big selling points for me are:

1) Active development: both first and third party publishers are making a living producing for the system, so there's always new toys to discover. It also means a big community to bounce ideas off, help you convert and tweak stuff etc.

2) Fully (well, mostly) OGL: All existing and new rules are free to use. None of the crunch is closed content, which makes evaluating the new stuff easy. It also means lots of neat tools like SRDs, apps, PC generators, virtual tabletops etc. can use the rules to enhance and automate your gaming experience. You can get access to nearly every rule without spending a dime, though of course getting the books might help you wrap your mind around a new concept more quickly - or you may just enjoy the artwork.

3) Backwards compatibility: The learning curve from 3.5 is shallow (though can be trickier than you think in the details), which makes converting all your 3.5 characters, spells, modules and other things a snap. As a result, it also has better compatibility with older editions like 1st and 2nd than 4th and 5th do; those can capture the spirit of a rule, monster or module but can have more difficulty representing it mechanically.

4) Popular: Getting a new group is much easier than most other systems. You can meet people and make lifelong friends in a brand new city through this game (I did), or you can drop by a gaming store or convention and chances are someone will be playing it.

5) Golarion: To me the game's flagship setting melds the best aspects of other major D&D settings. FR and Planescape's intricate divine politics, Eberron's magitech flavor, Starjammer's space travel, high magic, low magic, and even smatterings of OotS like a god-killing abomination being trapped in the planet's core. The decision to align the Inner Sea nations with real-world countries is a great one that created a low entry barrier to newer players - when you can point to Galt and say "French Revolution Land" it becomes a lot easier to wrap one's head around.

There's also more specific things I like about it, like its approach to alchemy and crafting, the aforementioned art design, as well as the stuff that it brought in from 3.5 like manageable imbalance that enables a wide variety of game types to be played in the same system or even the same gameworld. You can do epic fantasy, a pulpy mystery, lovecraftian survival horror, low-magic swashbuckling or anything in between, with only a few tweaks.

[Barbarian Horde]

4e is at the back of the line. My preference is in this order d&d 3.5, AD&D, 5e, pathfinder. You'll notice how 4e is not on this list cause I loath it.

[Gnaeus]

While I agree with Kurald Galain that his reasons are valid reasons, he missed the big selling point for me.

The PFSRD is the best thing to hit the hobby in a decade.

Yeah, I have a billion 3.5 books, but lugging them to my buddy's house weekly is a pain, and taking them to a con sucks. Never again.

Yeah, 3.5 has a lot of options. But searching 20 books to find the right combat feat to level my fighter sucks. If the DM asks what spells my wizard is buying, I want a list of 6th level wizard spells, not a stack of books that comes to my thigh. Let alone when I need to look up a detail in combat and forgot which book the spell is in. Never again.

I can't overstate the convenience an open source SRD with all the supplements and class options and feats and items and spells is. It's a huge change at table.

[Barbarian Horde]

Yeah I feel your pain. Same problem when I go to to conventions and I set up a table to introduce players to the concept.

[Honest Tiefling]

I also like the PFSRD because it lets me preview third party material. In previous editions I was very leery of it (I had acquired some free RPG day materials that soured me on it), but with the SRD I can check it out and also hear of it much easier.

[Doc_Maynot]

Yep. For example, there's a fighter with knowledge skills and extra skill points, and one that gets a familiar, and one that gets alchemy. They also get a wide pick of weapon- and armor-related tricks in recent splatbooks, and can get stamina points to enhance their combat feats

Also, one that gets Int-based casting.

[Crake]

While I agree with Kurald Galain that his reasons are valid reasons, he missed the big selling point for me.

The PFSRD is the best thing to hit the hobby in a decade.

Yeah, I have a billion 3.5 books, but lugging them to my buddy's house weekly is a pain, and taking them to a con sucks. Never again.

Yeah, 3.5 has a lot of options. But searching 20 books to find the right combat feat to level my fighter sucks. If the DM asks what spells my wizard is buying, I want a list of 6th level wizard spells, not a stack of books that comes to my thigh. Let alone when I need to look up a detail in combat and forgot which book the spell is in. Never again.

I can't overstate the convenience an open source SRD with all the supplements and class options and feats and items and spells is. It's a huge change at table.

If only there was some kind of convenient tool that had a huge source of 3.5 material all catalogued and easily searchable, oh wouldn't that be the day.... :smalltongue:

[Barbarian Horde]

I too wish I had a convenient app that cataloged all of the books into a Dungeonomicon that had a search function on my phone... :smalltongue:

Anyways I guess I'll go with it. It's not like I'm gonna lose anything from switching. I think the game plan now is to do a spin off and if we don't like it, we load our old save and start again.

[Sword-Geass]

Since you already know 3.5, I would say stay there. While PF tries to balance the game that D&D was, it only ends doing so between the same type of characters. PF Wizards are less broken than D&D ones, that's true, but the main problem in balance, that is fighter-like vs wizards, is even worse in PF than it is in D&D. Why? Simple, while PF classes are all around better than D&D ones (having archetypes to diversify and better abilities to be... better) the underlying mechanics that they use are weaker, Power Attack advances to 1/5 of the "original", Sneak Attack is harder to pull of, etc. That leads to an even bigger breach between mundanes and casters, and that's the only real appeal for a system change.

Also learning new mechanics is another downside... or not, you may be some of those people who like reading through splatbooks for the sake of reading.

And if he wants some PF in his game so badly, import things without changing the system! There are some really good things to grab in PF (like the merged skills).

{scrubbed}

[skyth]

Power attack in Pathfinder is actually better I think...While the amount reduced is set, the damage bonus is 2 or 3 times the reduction unlike in 3.x.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about sneak attacks being harder to get off in PF. I know more things can be sneak attacked in PF (Undead come to mind).

[Kurald Galain]

Power Attack advances to 1/5 of the "original", Sneak Attack is harder to pull of

Both of these are incorrect. 3E's power attack gives you twice your to-hit penalty on damage whereas PF's gives you three times that (in both cases assuming a 2H weapon; it's -3 / +6 vs -3 / +9). Sneak attack is much easier in PF since much fewer creatures are flat-out immune to it, and in particular undead are not.

[Gnaeus]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Yep. That still sucks. Searching through 20 PDFs is no easier, in fact sometimes harder, than 20 books. Yes, that is the solution I am currently using for 5e (I own all the books, but have PDFs) and I will put up with it... For now. It's already less user friendly than the PFSRD, and if they hit 7-8 books without a PFSRD equivalent, they will just lose me as a player/customer until they fix it. For as rules intensive a game as 3.5, it's a poor, poor substitute.

[Mystral]

Now my question is what would be the point. What advantages would players gain by swapping. I'm a long standing player of 3.5. Familiar with 5e. I've been involved in earlier editions and had to learn THAC0 >.> I however don't have enough experience with Paizo. My DM gave me a few examples why it might be better for roleplaying, but I honestly dont know if its worth swapping systems all together.

Your thoughts are all welcomed.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/T1iSSDNDnk0Cs/200_s.gif

[DarkSoul]

It could easily be that, since it's your DM that brought up the idea, the PF system will make things easier for them. If you've got a party full of combat-maneuver-loving players, maybe the DM would rather just use CMB vs. CMD instead of the 3.5 system. Maybe they like the skills system better because it makes everyone better at their cross-class skills and he's tired of you guys blowing spot and listen checks all the time. :)

The players will be better at skills they put any points into at all, and because of the skills consolidation will likely have more skills with points in them. Rogues are spending 1/3 the points on detection skills in PF, for example, so that's another two skill points/level they get.

The players will have more feats to play with, because PF gives characters a feat every odd level vs. 3.5's 1,3,6,9, every third level progression. You get your third feat at level 5 in PF vs. level 6 in 3.5, and at level 7 you're two levels ahead, having just taken your fourth feat.

The players will very likely have more hp, because many classes gained a hit die size in the transition from 3.5 to PF. They'll also have more class abilities because most classes gained them changing over.

The downside to PF, in my opinion, is that it focuses far more on 20-level classes than the base class > prestige class progression common in 3.5, so if you're in a group of prestige class lovers you might be disappointed in the offerings from PF. The few prestige classes they have converted over are generally improved, however. The flip side of favoring 20-level classes is that they took the alternate class feature concept from 3.5 and really ran with it in PF in the form of archetypes.

Taking prestige classes in PF is still entirely possible, but you have to weigh the benefits of the PrC against the loss of scaling of your base class abilities and favored class bonus. On that subject, in PF your favored class is the first class you take a level in rather than being determined by your race, and at a minimum will grant you either an extra hit point or an extra skill point for every favored class level you take.

[Hunter Noventa]

Everyone is correct, pathfinder is very much like 3.5E.

I'm probably going to repeat some people here, but there are two changes I find both flavorful and effective. They're kind of specific, but other people covered a lot of those.

1) Unlimited 0-Level Spells This is more flavorful than anything, only a few 0-level spells have any real effects...which is all the more reason they should be more or less unlimited. Being able to use Dancing Lights, Ghost Sound or Prestidigitation all the time is fun and flavorful, and if you're creative it's really useful.

2) Simplified Skill System Cross-class skills are weirdly restricted to half ranks or some nonsense anymore. Your max ranks are equal to your class level. You get a bonus to your class skills for putting ranks into them. Some skills were consolidated into one skill. Spot and Listen are now covered by perception, hide and move silently are now stealth. Sometimes you need to make a distinction, but that's rare. The skill system just works so much better.

The other big thing is this. Pathfinder is effectively free. Everything put out by Paizo that isn't part of an adventure path ends up on the Official SRD. And any mechanical information from Adventure paths ends up on the Unofficial SRD, which also has a large number of third-party supplements included. You don't need to worry about hauling around all your books so you have references to every obscure thing your character can do because you took spells and feats from six different books. No matter which book it's in, it's on one of the SRDs.

[killem2]

There is almost no real difference in feeling. Mechanics of certain things are different and it is a good thing to go 100% one or the other than you get them both down to a science.

[Honest Tiefling]

2) Simplified Skill System Cross-class skills are weirdly restricted to half ranks or some nonsense anymore. Your max ranks are equal to your class level. You get a bonus to your class skills for putting ranks into them. Some skills were consolidated into one skill. Spot and Listen are now covered by perception, hide and move silently are now stealth. Sometimes you need to make a distinction, but that's rare. The skill system just works so much better.

This, so much this. I have been trying to find a Pathfinder group so much I forgot about the wonders of Move Silently/Hide and Open Lock/Disable Device. Even if you play 3.5, I'd really consider stealing this and backporting it to 3.5

[Deadline]

This, so much this. I have been trying to find a Pathfinder group so much I forgot about the wonders of Move Silently/Hide and Open Lock/Disable Device. Even if you play 3.5, I'd really consider stealing this and backporting it to 3.5

I do like the simplified skills, but isn't the skill system basically one of the main complaints folks had about 4E? Because from what I can see, the Pathfinder system and the 4E system are remarkably similar.

[Honest Tiefling]

I do like the simplified skills, but isn't the skill system basically one of the main complaints folks had about 4E? Because from what I can see, the Pathfinder system and the 4E system are remarkably similar.

I think 4e went a little too far in some cases (I'm actually okay with Survival and Knowledge Nature being separate for instance). Pathfinder consolidates some (like treating a lock AS A DEVICE), but doesn't go as far as 4e. In 4e, playing a skill monkey for any reason other then stealth could quickly become pointless if other people doubled up on them as they ran out of unique skills to take. 4e had a VERY limited list.

But it's going to boil down to a matter of taste. I think Pathfinder's middle approach is better, but it's going to vary from group to group.

[Doc_Maynot]

I'll just comment about my enjoyment of the inclusion of Streetwise in 4e. As opposed to PF wrapping it into Diplomacy.

[Kurald Galain]

I do like the simplified skills, but isn't the skill system basically one of the main complaints folks had about 4E?
Nope.

I'm not getting into another discussion of "why people disliked 4E" but this was really not a common complaint.


Because from what I can see, the Pathfinder system and the 4E system are remarkably similar.
Pathfinder has 36 skills (not counting separate crafts and professions), whereas 4E has 17. So in a word, no: they're not similar at all.

[Deadline]

Pathfinder has 36 skills (not counting separate crafts and professions), whereas 4E has 17. So in a word, no: they're not similar at all.

Is the lack of similarity just that the 4E skill system simplified too far? Or am I missing something fundamental about how the PF skill system works? I thought that in addition to the simplified skill groups, you basically had a skill bonus related to your level, and if you were trained in the skill you got an extra numerical boost to your skill bonus. Am I mis-remembering that?

But fair enough on not wanting to get into edition hate. That wasn't my intention with my question, I just remember that the skill systems sounded similar to me.

[Sayt]

IIRC, 4e has a binary Trained/untrained on their more limited skill list, whereas pathfinder has a 3.5 style incremental investment.

A lot of the arguments I like in favour of PF have already been made, and you can actually meld them together quite well.

Basically, Pathfinder shores up all classes a bit (except maybe vanilla monk, but seriously, vanilla monk?), and cuts the top off of some of the dumb **** that T1s got (Not that they're not t1 anymore, they still are.)

That being said, I honestly think the best way to play pathfinder or 3.5 is to start with Pathfinder, and then mix in 3.5 material (feats, magic items, PRCs, spells, whatever) to taste, with compatibility tweaks where necessary (And one or two back-tracks, like re-consolidating Combat manoeuvre feats)

[Cosi]

Power Attack: PF gives you a better base ratio, but it caps how much you can trade off and doesn't have the stacking multipliers people use to get big damage numbers.


Basically, Pathfinder shores up all classes a bit (except maybe vanilla monk, but seriously, vanilla monk?), and cuts the top off of some of the dumb **** that T1s got (Not that they're not t1 anymore, they still are.)

PF's changes are a straight power up for Wizards. I would gladly give up the ability to break the game with planar binding or wish to get less restrictive prohibited schools, special abilities from 1st level, and favored class bonuses. In fact, I would laugh while doing so. Because you are never going to get to do game breaking stuff unless the DM allows it (in which case he would obviously not change editions to stop it), and you're giving up something at 11th level for something at 1st level.

Also, in so far as you believe in backwards compatibility, ice assassin is still totally a spell you can learn, so it's not like PF Wizards can't break the game if they want.

[Chronikoce]

1) Unlimited 0-Level Spells This is more flavorful than anything, only a few 0-level spells have any real effects...which is all the more reason they should be more or less unlimited. Being able to use Dancing Lights, Ghost Sound or Prestidigitation all the time is fun and flavorful, and if you're creative it's really useful.



This is one of my biggest gripes with the system actually. For the most part it does what you say an adds fun and flavor and I really like that.

However.... Detect magic is a 0th level spell and identifying magical properties of items is done with detect magic+ spellcraft.

This means that magical traps, enemy threats, etc can all be found with the "I walk through the dungeon constantly recasting detect magic" routine.

I dislike this a lot.

[Sayt]

PF's changes are a straight power up for Wizards. I would gladly give up the ability to break the game with planar binding or wish to get less restrictive prohibited schools, special abilities from 1st level, and favored class bonuses. In fact, I would laugh while doing so. Because you are never going to get to do game breaking stuff unless the DM allows it (in which case he would obviously not change editions to stop it), and you're giving up something at 11th level for something at 1st level.

Also, in so far as you believe in backwards compatibility, ice assassin is still totally a spell you can learn, so it's not like PF Wizards can't break the game if they want.

For me, this is two separate issues.

One is a question about design philosophy. From a game design perspective I like that Paizo doesn't write spells like Ice Assassin, or enable you to multiply your damage up to 10+ times as much HP as printed creatures have (while I do admire the inventiveness and effort which went into making those builds), or goddamned craft contingent spell. (Although I am of late disappointed by Paizo's more conservative balance decisions) Pathfinder Wizards within the context of 'pure' Pathfinder do not have the iron grip on immortality that 3.5 Wizard's have. Also, with spells like, say, Shades, shadow evocation or Planar binding, Restrictive Wizarding schools are surmountable problems for anyone who spends five minutes research on the internet.

On the other hand, I have a playgroup that doesn't abuse the hell out of 3.5 material, which is fantastic, and I personally enjoy building with, say, the variety of Ranger favoured combat styles available in Pathfinder, I like the Fighter's advanced weapon and armour training options, I love the Unchained Monk and the Slayer. (Admittedly, I hate Blood Money)

[Cosi]

From a game design perspective I like that Paizo doesn't write spells like Ice Assassin,

(Although I am of late disappointed by Paizo's more conservative balance decisions)

I think those two things are directly related. If you are not screwing up occasionally, you are not taking the risks you need to to keep the game from getting stale.


or enable you to multiply your damage up to 10+ times as much HP as printed creatures have

Casters in PF are still playing the save-or-lose game, which means that martial characters need to be dishing out enough damage to kill things in a round or two.


Also, with spells like, say, Shades, shadow evocation or Planar binding, Restrictive Wizarding schools are surmountable problems for anyone who spends five minutes research on the internet.

The lowest level spell on that list is shadow evocation (a 5th level spell). Yes, a competent Wizard doesn't care about banned schools at high levels. But in PF you don't care at all and you don't have to invest any resources to get to that point. Yes, the peak Wizard is probably weaker. But no one was playing the peak Wizard, and the Wizards people actually play are stronger. Especially if you believe in backwards compatibility at all.

[Kurald Galain]

PF's changes are a straight power up for Wizards.

Not at all. Forum discussions tend to overlook the fact that many of the "wizards are god" spells have been reduced in power. For example, the fact that PF's polymorph spells add to your physical stats whereas 3E's overwrite them; or the fact that PF's Glitterdust gives a saving throw each round whereas 3E's does not.

The result is that PF really is better balanced than 3.5. And again, "better" doesn't mean "flawless".

[Florian]

Power Attack: PF gives you a better base ratio, but it caps how much you can trade off and doesn't have the stacking multipliers people use to get big damage numbers.



PF's changes are a straight power up for Wizards.

In both cases: Not really.

A lot of the more OP spells lost quite a bit of power and need more dedicated builds to keep working at the same level one was previously used to.
What Wizards, or casters in general, gained is a middle-ground between spells and crossbow/mace to fall back to and still keep the "magic" going. That greatly reduced the situations that a party had to take a rest because the caster went dry.

As for Power Attack/Deadly Aim, the Problem has always been direct conversion and Rocket Tag based on that. In hindsight, the original feat seems to be designed in a way that discounts the ability to raise you to-hit ratio at any point. We know now how easy that is and which nights can be reached by it. And no, this is not me taking away the martials toys as martials do fine in PF, they just don´t have to use one feat only to do it.

[Lorrdernie]

I think one of the strongest arguments for switching to Pathfinder actually isn't Pathfinder content at all. Dreamscarred Press is doing a lot of hard work adding good content for Psionics and what in 3.5 was Tome of Battle. The Tome of Battle type classes from their book Path of War in particular are an absolute blast to play and let you play what are essentially martial characters on par with many casters, if not necessarily on par with a well put together wizard.

[Sian]

IMHO I would probably be disinclined to move to Pathfinder, simply because i have such a high degree of system mastery in 3.5, and that they're so similar, that i would have a very difficult time remembering the important detail changes. Many rules that I have an almost unconscious awareness of in 3.5 have been changed just enough that I'd have a hard time remember the changes and repeatedly misremembers but believe that i remember correctly.

They're simply only just different enough that they appear similar but in fact aren't, consistently keeping me off balance ... It's like comparing American Football to Rugby, instead of American Football and Soccer.

[Kol Korran]

The big selling points for me are:

1) Active development: both first and third party publishers are making a living producing for the system, so there's always new toys to discover. It also means a big community to bounce ideas off, help you convert and tweak stuff etc.

2) Fully (well, mostly) OGL: All existing and new rules are free to use. None of the crunch is closed content, which makes evaluating the new stuff easy. It also means lots of neat tools like SRDs, apps, PC generators, virtual tabletops etc. can use the rules to enhance and automate your gaming experience. You can get access to nearly every rule without spending a dime, though of course getting the books might help you wrap your mind around a new concept more quickly - or you may just enjoy the artwork.

3) Backwards compatibility: The learning curve from 3.5 is shallow (though can be trickier than you think in the details), which makes converting all your 3.5 characters, spells, modules and other things a snap. As a result, it also has better compatibility with older editions like 1st and 2nd than 4th and 5th do; those can capture the spirit of a rule, monster or module but can have more difficulty representing it mechanically.

4) Popular: Getting a new group is much easier than most other systems. You can meet people and make lifelong friends in a brand new city through this game (I did), or you can drop by a gaming store or convention and chances are someone will be playing it.

5) Golarion: To me the game's flagship setting melds the best aspects of other major D&D settings. FR and Planescape's intricate divine politics, Eberron's magitech flavor, Starjammer's space travel, high magic, low magic, and even smatterings of OotS like a god-killing abomination being trapped in the planet's core. The decision to align the Inner Sea nations with real-world countries is a great one that created a low entry barrier to newer players - when you can point to Galt and say "French Revolution Land" it becomes a lot easier to wrap one's head around.

There's also more specific things I like about it, like its approach to alchemy and crafting, the aforementioned art design, as well as the stuff that it brought in from 3.5 like manageable imbalance that enables a wide variety of game types to be played in the same system or even the same gameworld. You can do epic fantasy, a pulpy mystery, lovecraftian survival horror, low-magic swashbuckling or anything in between, with only a few tweaks.


While I agree with Kurald Galain that his reasons are valid reasons, he missed the big selling point for me.

The PFSRD is the best thing to hit the hobby in a decade.

Yeah, I have a billion 3.5 books, but lugging them to my buddy's house weekly is a pain, and taking them to a con sucks. Never again.

Yeah, 3.5 has a lot of options. But searching 20 books to find the right combat feat to level my fighter sucks. If the DM asks what spells my wizard is buying, I want a list of 6th level wizard spells, not a stack of books that comes to my thigh. Let alone when I need to look up a detail in combat and forgot which book the spell is in. Never again.

I can't overstate the convenience an open source SRD with all the supplements and class options and feats and items and spells is. It's a huge change at table.


I also like the PFSRD because it lets me preview third party material. In previous editions I was very leery of it (I had acquired some free RPG day materials that soured me on it), but with the SRD I can check it out and also hear of it much easier.

Speaking as one who mostly DMed, and moved to pathfinder after long years in 3.5, I'd like to stress again that the PFSRD is a HUGE improvement on 3.5, both for the DMs and the players. This simplifies searching, comparing and checking up on content, and makes design, improvisation and running the game far more smoothly. Need a monster of CR 7? Hey, you can check that! You see an ability and don't remember it's name? Hey, just click on the link, or put it in the search function! You want to build a goblin character, and find all the goblin related feats? Just go to feats, and put "goblin" in the search function! The cleric just cast a spell you don't know for the first time? Hey, it's a click away!

You want to copy some monster/ trap stats? Just copy paste!

And ALL of the content is on one site, easily accessible, at the table, by all with a computer, so you have it all at the tip of your fingers, fast and easy.

Plus, the site is very well organized, with links between section, and, get that- consistency of the material! (Sure, there are a few rare points that are a bit off, but compared to 3.5? Please!) That alone is worth transferring to PF. A few other things (Some have been mentioned, but still):
1. Classes feel far better designed, far less dead levels, and with archetypes it's far easier creating your character fairly out of the box. And yeah, thee are still some balance issues, but as has been noted- PF is quite more well balanced than 3.5. Many of the problematic spells have been altered enough to not be game breaking, yet very fun, and flavorable, you can do more, with more skill points, more feats, and more class features (Rage powers? Rogue tricks? Paladins that actually rock? Sorcerer blood lines?). Some complain that PF seems to disfavor multi-classing and prestige classes, but why? Because the base classes really rock from the outset! And with the various features and archetypes, you can get most concepts far more easily done. Instead of your rogue needing to multi class to get that ability- hey! There's a rogue trick for that!

I moved to PF, and didn't look back. The game flowed far smoother, felt more balanced, more consistent, and the PFSRD, I'll note again- has improved the gaming experience immensely!

Ok, done being excited. I haven't yet played 5e, (Trying it out on a PbP, the PHB is quite nice, feels very much "old style D&D"), but between 3.5 and PF? PF all the way!

[Hunter Noventa]

This is one of my biggest gripes with the system actually. For the most part it does what you say an adds fun and flavor and I really like that.

However.... Detect magic is a 0th level spell and identifying magical properties of items is done with detect magic+ spellcraft.

This means that magical traps, enemy threats, etc can all be found with the "I walk through the dungeon constantly recasting detect magic" routine.

I dislike this a lot.

I can certainly see the argument in regards to magical traps, since it takes a foot of stone to block detect magic. You could incorporate Magic Aura into the trap's construction to hide its magical nature of course, but I do see where you're coming from on that level.

I don't see why identifying loot is a bad thing though. Nobody likes spending hundreds of gold on pearls to identify piles of potions.

[Psyren]

What's wrong with more classes being able to spot traps? Restricting that to the rogue was imo one of 3.5's biggest mistakes. I'm totally fine with the Bard and Psychic being able to perform trap-spotting duty.

[Lorrdernie]

What's wrong with more classes being able to spot traps? Restricting that to the rogue was imo one of 3.5's biggest mistakes. I'm totally fine with the Bard and Psychic being able to perform trap-spotting duty.

They actually also made a change in pathfinder where anybody can find magical traps, trapfinding is only required to disable magical traps.

As far as using detect magic to find any magical traps I feel like that's a pretty easy thing to solve at least from a DM perspective. The people setting these magical traps live in this same world and have arcane knowledge, they are aware of detect magic, it only makes sense that they'd design their expensive magical trap to not be found by a 0th level spell. All it needs is a thin sheet of lead or a 1 inch thick sheet of other metal to make detect magic not work. Unless your traps are being laid by complete and total morons detect magic shouldn't find them.

It also takes a solid 18 seconds per 60 ft section to discern particular magical auras so if there is magic around (like magical items on your adventurers or buff spells cast) you are going to be slowed down a bit in open areas and considerably in more twisty caverns or dungeons.

[Honest Tiefling]

What's wrong with more classes being able to spot traps? Restricting that to the rogue was imo one of 3.5's biggest mistakes. I'm totally fine with the Bard and Psychic being able to perform trap-spotting duty.

Same. If you can only make a class viable by not letting other classes do the same thing, the class is probably pretty crummy. I love the fact that rogues get more abilities to balance this out, through I am more enamored of the unchained rogue.

[skyth]

As far as using detect magic to find any magical traps I feel like that's a pretty easy thing to solve at least from a DM perspective. The people setting these magical traps live in this same world and have arcane knowledge, they are aware of detect magic, it only makes sense that they'd design their expensive magical trap to not be found by a 0th level spell. All it needs is a thin sheet of lead or a 1 inch thick sheet of other metal to make detect magic not work. Unless your traps are being laid by complete and total morons detect magic shouldn't find them.


I just house-rule that detect magic will not find magical traps (That aren't just spells cast places like Glyph of Warding).

[Barbarian Horde]

Just got on. I have to say "holy ****!" Lots of replies.

Honestly from what I'm reading PF offers a bit more ability to players to play various roles allowing for more role-play.

3.5 only remains a favorite just from the sheer amount of content it has. I can design almost anything I want in terms of flavor. And my familiarity with it.

5e simplified is not always better, but I'll be damned If I don't enjoy the lack of math required. I don't have to worry about players not adding correcting. Maybe even forgetting flanking bonus. It's either advantage or disadvantage. Action economy is amazing too, speeds up turns quite a bit.

Unfortunately this I think is where PF and 3.5 are lacking. Turns still take forever if the party has to many people, or someones just not paying attention.

[Florian]

Unfortunately this I think is where PF and 3.5 are lacking. Turns still take forever if the party has to many people, or someones just not paying attention.

That will largely depend on the specific class used. Some are pretty fiddly with a lot of moving parts (Inquisitor), other handle rather simple despite being 9th level casters (Witch) as they tend to use standardized action sets. It´s more the case of knowing you fellow players and steering them towards the right class choices.

[pi4t]

I mean I've seen that fighters have a bit more versatility with arch types. What about healing, anything really change there?

Some new things were given to the classes you might expect. In addition to the channelling of energy which someone mentioned previously, paladins can use lay on hands on themselves as a swift action, and the new class Oracle (basically to the cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard) can get extra healing-related powers if they pick the life mystery. In general, though, healing is still not worth it in combat above the first couple of levels, and extremely easy out of combat via a wand of your first level healing spell of choice.

The exception to this rule is, surprisingly, a psionic class. The Vitalist is designed specifically for healing, and after the first couple of levels it gets very good at it. At first level, you get the passive ability to redirect healing around between party members, so you won't overheal someone when another character still needs hp. You can also heal at range, and your healing grows quadratically with the number of power points you invest in the power, which means it's actually worth doing in combat.


(Although I am of late disappointed by Paizo's more conservative balance decisions)

You obviously haven't seen Sacred Geometry (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/sacred-geometry), a feat I strongly recommend pretending does not exist in all serious games. I'd say it's the most powerful feat in the game, with the possible exception of Leadership.

[Florian]

Some new things were given to the classes you might expect. In addition to the channelling of energy which someone mentioned previously, paladins can use lay on hands on themselves as a swift action, and the new class Oracle (basically to the cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard) can get extra healing-related powers if they pick the life mystery. In general, though, healing is still not worth it in combat above the first couple of levels, and extremely easy out of combat via a wand of your first level healing spell of choice.

And then there´s the Life Oradin build (Paladin and Oracle) that pretty much solved the whole in-combat healing issue.

[zergling.exe]

For everyone boasting of the PFSRD, there is an equivalent for 3.5. It may not be as good, but it still exists. Though we are not allowed to talk about it, so don't, just don't.

[ZeroiaSD]

I rather like the archetype rules of Pathfinder- they basically fill a similar role to prestige classes of giving flavorful alternate classes, but in a much simpler way of swapping class abilities and not having to worry about the issues PrC often had (either killing your spellcasting level, or being too clearly superior to the base class, depending on if the PrC had full progression or not).

Monk's a class that really benefits from this, with qinggong monk's ki powers.


Prestige classes still exists, but aren't as common and aren't too needed, archetypes replacing their flavor role is very much a good thing.

Also, retraining is good, and I like traits to spice up 1st level characters... more available no-level-adjustment-races too, often quite interesting ones.


Pathfinder's bestiaries at this point *by far* outpace the 3ed monster manuals in terms of both number of monsters and quality of monsters (no '40 pages of tiamat spawn,' and none of the 'we're not used to going from 3.0 to 3.5 so CR is off,' stuff), you'd need to go into 3rd party stuff to match it.


That said, things overall aren't too different and there's no pressing need to switch from one to another.

[Cosi]

Not at all. Forum discussions tend to overlook the fact that many of the "wizards are god" spells have been reduced in power.

Except all the ones in literally any book other than the PHB. Also, the minor image line seems to be just as good. You can nerf nine spells out of ten, but all that does is make every Wizard cast the tenth spell.

[Florian]

Luckily, Cosi-World seems to be as unpopular as Tippy-Verse when it comes to actually playing the game.

[Cosi]

Luckily, Cosi-World seems to be as unpopular as Tippy-Verse when it comes to actually playing the game.

Paizo explicitly advertised PF as "backwards compatible" with 3e. They didn't have to do that. They could have said that they were making a fantasy heartbreaker that used the d20 engine (like Warcraft d20), and I would not have had any problem with people claiming that such a game was balanced because core spells were nerfed. But the claim they made was that you could use your 3e stuff unless it was superseded by PF material. Spells such as cloud of bewilderment and wall of smoke were not superseded by PF material, and are within the margin of error of "as good as glitterdust and sleep". So the actual effect of the changes that Paizo made was that Wizards get some power to compensate for losing glitterdust and sleep, and can pocket that power and use all the spells Paizo didn't change to continue winning even harder.

That didn't have to happen. If Paizo wanted to make a good game, they had any number of options for preserving game balance and backwards compatibility. They could have made "save every round" the default for ongoing effects. They could have substantially reduced the spells a Wizard gets each day. They could have increased the power of other classes to match that of a competently played Wizard. But they did not do those things, and insisting that using the power you are allowed to use is somehow "unfair" or "wrong" is absurd.

Now, as far as your actual "I don't break the game, therefore the game is balanced and you're a stupid munchkin" argument, you're not empirically wrong, per se. Most people who play PF probably don't experience Wizards as being drastically more powerful. But that isn't because they aren't drastically more powerful, it's because of signaling effects. Announcing that you want to play PF is a way of signaling that you don't want to play a game with optimized Wizards, because if you wanted to play a game with optimized Wizards you'd just play 3.5 rather than create a complicated charade of balance.

[Kurald Galain]

Most people who play PF probably don't experience Wizards as being drastically more powerful.

Which means that there's not actually a problem with PF wizards at the levels people commonly play at. And that's precisely the point.

[Cosi]

Which means that there's not actually a problem with PF wizards at the levels people commonly play at. And that's precisely the point.

Which also means there wasn't a problem with 3.5 Wizards, because the vast majority of people didn't experience problems with them. Do you not remember literally thousands of pages of arguments that Fighters were balanced? Do we have to have those exact arguments every time someone shuffles the deck chairs on the Titanic?

[Florian]

Which means that there's not actually a problem with PF wizards at the levels people commonly play at. And that's precisely the point.

Exactly that.

[NomGarret]

IME, the shift from 3.5 to Pathfinder is closest in scale to the shift from 3.0 to 3.5. It's still the same chassis of the game. The skill lists are a little different. Some feats and spells are tweaked. Some rules are tweaked, but it's still fundamentally the same version of the game.

The question in my mind then is how you and your group feel about non-core material. If you are switching from core only to core only, then sure the barbarian will have some fun new rage powers to play with and you may appreciate the revised Polymorph rules, but for the most part it's the same game.

If you are switching from complete collection to complete collection, that's where you will start to see some meaningful trade-offs. Classes like Swashbuckler and Samurai are greatly improved over their CW counterparts, and Summoner, Inquisitor, and Gunslinger are significantly different from any 3.5 equivalent.

If you are looking for versions of psionics, ToB, or Incarnum, you will have to look to 3rd party content. Fortunately, they exist and are excellent.

[honorconner]

In pathfinder character classes are much more balanced and there are more options for character customization from level 1. I think that the prestige class system in 3.5 is far better, and is much better for powergamaing and all manner of munchkinism.

[Caedes]

I personally like both systems. As both have their own merits.

I think you have the right of it by giving it a try and see what you think.

I will say that as a player and a DM I like flexing my skills into different systems. Sometimes I get ideas from one that will work great in another.

So, I support diversifying!

[digiman619]

If you are looking for versions of psionics, ToB, or Incarnum, you will have to look to 3rd party content. Fortunately, they exist and are excellent.

Interestingly enough, all three are made by the same company: Dreamscarred Press. For the record, the books you'd be looking into are Ultimate Psionics, Path of War (and Path of War: Expanded), and Akashic Mysteries, respectively.

[Gnaeus]

For everyone boasting of the PFSRD, there is an equivalent for 3.5. It may not be as good, but it still exists. Though we are not allowed to talk about it, so don't, just don't.

Feel free to PM me with information on where I would go to get a convenient list of (for example) all first party combat feats for all books with descriptions and prereqs. Or all 4th level first party wizard spells with descriptions. Or every stat block of a monster with attached class levels ever published in a first party supplement ranked by CR for my use. Oh you can't? Thats because it isn't just illegal, it is also inferior.

[Chronikoce]

I know I already stated I prefer 3.5 but I would be remiss if I didn't given credit to the srd. That alone is reason to switch from a DM standpoint. Instant access to an online searchable beastery and (even more incredible) a huge list of npc's already rolled up with gear, spells known, and tactics is amazing.

Also Spheres of Power is an absolutely amazing third party resource that I wish I could convince my players is worth throwing the entire 3.5/pf casting system in the trash and learning instead.

[Cedar]

This is one of my biggest gripes with the system actually. For the most part it does what you say an adds fun and flavor and I really like that.

However.... Detect magic is a 0th level spell and identifying magical properties of items is done with detect magic+ spellcraft.

This means that magical traps, enemy threats, etc can all be found with the "I walk through the dungeon constantly recasting detect magic" routine.

I dislike this a lot.

My dungeons are designed in a way that most (>80%) traps and threats are shielded from detect magic either by thick walls, unidentified spells, lead sheets etc. After all, every dungeon builder knows about the lvl 0 cantrip 'detect magic' in my settings.

Also, I house-rule that if you've got 'detect magic' on your spell list and are in an area where paranoia is warranted and you are not running or such, you'll cast it automatically in each room you enter.

However, some traps don't have shielding. This may be because the shielding failed, or someone added a false positive, something isn't a trap or possibly both the shielding and the trap have stopped working.

Because most of my traps are designed as puzzles to be solved by my players, this adds some value to the spell (occasionally find a clue that a trap is there) and a possibility to make my players extra paranoid (finding false positives).

This still gives some benefit to 'detect magic' and an option to create some really devious, hard to recognize and find traps (without making a trap seem like a 'rocks fall everyone dies, DM is evil kind of trap), while still making 'real' trapfinders relevant and not getting too much 'I detect magic' spam.

[martixy]

The transition to PF might be smoother than you think.

You can just look at PF and back-port things you like. They're very compatible.

For example, I'm a big fan of PF's skill system from a game design perspective. The fact that A+B = B+A is a big bonus IMO. I do like the skills from 3.5 however, so I've got this system where the skills are still separate but 1 skill point raises all skills that are combined in PF.

[Barbarian Horde]

Well we went through the first game. I did like the infinite cantrips. Light was made readily available. Witch's hex system was interesting as well. As for melee I didn't notice any real difference there.

[digiman619]

Also Spheres of Power is an absolutely amazing third party resource that I wish I could convince my players is worth throwing the entire 3.5/pf casting system in the trash and learning instead.

I cannot second this hard enough; it makes magic fun and balanced, plus it has never been easier to make your favorite characters into your campaign; because let's be honest, every has had a character that was pitched as "Like <insert character here>, but..."

[Florian]

As for melee I didn't notice any real difference there.

Not noticeable early on, but most PF weapon-based classes have some inherent scaling ability (beyond simple BAB) that will keep the relevant numbers up without needing to resort to PrC-stacking or some such things to achieve the same effect.

[Psyren]

Well we went through the first game. I did like the infinite cantrips. Light was made readily available. Witch's hex system was interesting as well. As for melee I didn't notice any real difference there.

What classes did everyone end up deciding on? Are you going through a module or a custom campaign?

[Chronikoce]

I cannot second this hard enough; it makes magic fun and balanced, plus it has never been easier to make your favorite characters into your campaign; because let's be honest, every has had a character that was pitched as "Like <insert character here>, but..."

Indeed, I'm still waiting for my chance to play an Erza inspired character. But that would require getting one of my players to DM and approve SoP. Maybe someday