Should a Newb get into 3.5 or Pathfinder

[CuriousWanderer]

I am new to D&D and am mostly familiar with D&D 5e.

If I wanted to get into 3.0-esque system. Should I learn D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder and why?

Thank you in advance for your time.

:smallsmile:

[Necroticplague]

3.5. Pathfinder has way too many options for newer players, due to making pretty much every single class have some form of "every other level, pick an ability off of this list". Telling the utter crap from the actually good among them requires a bit of system mastery. 3.5 tends to not have as many such choices (though the choices it does have are similarly hard to distinguish the good from the bad).

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Does anyone around you play either? Otherwise, I don't recommend them. The main appeal of 3.x is generally agreed to be the shear number of fiddly bits and the depth of system mastery that is possible. If you have a group that is playing 5th ed and is open to playing different games there are numerous games that will give you a better return on spending 10-20 hours learning before playing a few sessions off the top of my head; Deadlands, SLA Industries, Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Rifts, Champions, Mutants & Masterminds, or Paranoia.

If you definitely want to learn a 3.x system at this point, I recommend Pathfinder as it favors archetyped single class characters making it friendlier to new players and groups of mixed experience levels.

[Mehangel]

I would recommend Pathfinder, but instead of using core classes use those found in Path of War and Spheres of Power.

[CuriousWanderer]

I would recommend Pathfinder, but instead of using core classes use those found in Path of War and Spheres of Power.

Thank you for your input but if I played a system I would not prefer to cherry pick it.

[CuriousWanderer]

If you have a group that is playing 5th ed and is open to playing different games there are numerous games that will give you a better return on spending 10-20 hours learning before playing a few sessions off the top of my head; Deadlands, SLA Industries, Call of Cthulhu, Traveler, Rifts, Champions, Mutants & Masterminds, or Paranoia.


I only have this forum that I can play on.

Um, I asked if you could please give reasons for you answers....

And, um , personally I do not care for the genres of most of those....

[CuriousWanderer]

3.5. Pathfinder has way too many options for newer players, due to making pretty much every single class have some form of "every other level, pick an ability off of this list". Telling the utter crap from the actually good among them requires a bit of system mastery. 3.5 tends to not have as many such choices (though the choices it does have are similarly hard to distinguish the good from the bad).

I was only planning to use the core books till I got better at it.... To be honest now that I am reading into it more 3.5 requires a lot of complex things involving multiple classes to be optimized most of the time....And it has a lot more books to deal with....

[Florian]

Pathfinder is actually quite easy to get into. The first steps are not really more complex than learning 5E.
What I would not do is try to "learn core only", as nearly no-one is going to use this and the game has expanded too much beyond that point, especially when it comes to archetypes. Take a look at the PRD, as that´s free, and slowly make your way from book to book as they´re available there.

Overall, it´s worth it, as it´s a very interesting and powerful system.

How shall I phrase that? You know, when looking at your Circle of Moon Druid and you think: My character should be able to do "XY" right here and now because he´s a druid? In Pathfinder, you won´t have that problem as building your own character is pretty flexible and you gain what you aimed for.
The downside to this is, that you have to ask yourself why the Paladin is an archer....

[BWR]

Pathfinder.
It is currently supported and fixed a lot of problems I had with 3.5. Most of the problem classes of 3.5 have been given enough of a face-lift to be more likely to work decently out of the box. It's a lot easier to pick a single class and stick with it and feel you are getting cool stuff than in 3.5 and it has streamlined a number of mechanics.

[CuriousWanderer]

Pathfinder.
It is currently supported and fixed a lot of problems I had with 3.5. Most of the problem classes of 3.5 have been given enough of a face-lift to be more likely to work decently out of the box. It's a lot easier to pick a single class and stick with it and feel you are getting cool stuff than in 3.5 and it has streamlined a number of mechanics.

That is the impression I am getting as well.

Very well pathfinder it is.

Thank you all for your input and have a good time. :smallsmile:

[Rainshine]

Pathfinder. You can find most of the mechanics material online, legally, for free. Going straight one class -- 20 fighter, 20 barbarian, 20 ranger -- is far less painful than 3.5. 3.5 builds often tend to be dips of this, a couple prestiges of that, and I find that the idea of just sticking to one class is a lot easier to follow.

[CuriousWanderer]

Pathfinder. You can find most of the mechanics material online, legally, for free. Going straight one class -- 20 fighter, 20 barbarian, 20 ranger -- is far less painful than 3.5. 3.5 builds often tend to be dips of this, a couple prestiges of that, and I find that the idea of just sticking to one class is a lot easier to follow.

That's ,uh, very good to know. Thanks. :smallsmile:

Can you direct me to where I can find that online? If that's not to much trouble for you.

[Florian]

That's ,uh, very good to know. Thanks. :smallsmile:

Can you direct me to where I can find that online? If that's not to much trouble for you.

Simple: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

There´re sources beyond that, even incorporating more available materiel, but start there.

[Firest Kathon]

While the Paizo PRD is organized by books, the D20 Pathfinder SRD page gives you a better overview about all options available for each class/race/etc., including 3rd party. Not recommended for a first look due to the overwhelming amount of information, but certainly useful later on:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

[Psyren]

Pathfinder is also much easier to find IRL games for. Go on Meetup, or to a convention, or even your local game store, and PF tables/groups near you will outnumber 3.5 ones nine times out of ten.

That's not a value judgement on 3.5 - it's just due to the fact that 3.5 is older and no longer being developed for, while PF still is. (Also, 3.5 games can be a little harder to find, because searching for "Dungeons & Dragons" often leads you to 5e groups and tables.)

[Kurald Galain]

There is a worldwide organized play program for Pathfinder called PFS (Pathfinder Society). It's a good way to try out the system for a few sessions, learn how it works, and find players for a home campaign if you want.

[Mystral]

I am new to D&D and am mostly familiar with D&D 5e.

If I wanted to get into 3.0-esque system. Should I learn D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder and why?

Thank you in advance for your time.

:smallsmile:

Pathfinder. It's better, it's cheaper (no book buying, nearly everything is on the SRD) and it is still expanding and living.

[Pluto!]

Pathfinder 100%.

In descending order of importance:
d20pfsrd.com is the single most extensive and easy-to-use D&D reference for any edition or system, and it's free. [legally, even]
PF Archetypes fill the same role as prestige classes without requiring extensive character planning to hit X prerequisite before Y level.
Classes are better designed: every level does something and every character class has a certain amount of customization built in.
If you use them, Paizo's modules are hands-down better designed than anything WotC's put out (as in more usable, with less time-sucking cross-references or awkward organization).
The sheer number of options at this point has basically swung around so that PF has more character customization options available than 3.5, once you include Dreamscarred Press, Radiance House and Frog God games. If anyone likes going down rabbit holes building characters around different mechanics and concepts, PF at this point has more directions they can take that. (That's not to say you need to go down those rabbit holes, but this used to be one of 3e's selling points)

[Elder_Basilisk]

I would also recommend Pathfinder for the following reasons:

1. My impression at the moment is that the pathfinder community is larger. That is certainly true in my area.
2. Pathfinder is still an active system with adventure materials being regularly produced. This also increases your odds of finding a game.
3. This is perhaps a less reliable impression but I think the communities are different. Pathfinder has communities that play core only and play at a lower, more newb friendly optimization level. Almost all the 3.5 discussion that I see online relates to play at a rather extreme optimization level where access to every splatbook is taken for granted and characters are not viable unless they use levels of optimization that render the game less fun for me. (Nightsticks + DMM Persist seems to be a baseline optimization level among playground 3.5 folks). That kind of game may be enjoyable for some people but it doesn't seem like a good way to start out for someone just learning the system.
4. Pathfinder made some rule improvements.
5. Pathfinder's most notable rule improvements make the game more newb friendly. Single class characters are generally viable so there is a lower optimization floor. Also, while there are a plethora of archetype options--some good, some bad, and some ugly--the base non-archetyped characters in all classes can be just as effective. This is a marked contrast to 3.5 where prestige classed characters are generally straight-up better than single-classed core characters.
5.5 The introduction of Magus, Warpriest, and Inquisitor give players who want to make multirole characters an easy vehicle for doing it rather than having to use multiclassing rules and prestige classes which are full of trap options and have very uneven power curves (a standard fighter/wizard/spellword/abjurant champion/eldritch Knight uses three prestige classes from three different books and is mediocre at level 1, weak at level 4-6, and gets very strong at level 12+ but will tend to switch playstyles at different points in his career; a magus, on the other hand can be built quite effectively using just one book plus core and is effective at all levels in his career--and can also maintain a similar playstyle at all those levels).

[Honest Tiefling]

Pathfinder. You can find most of the mechanics material online, legally, for free. Going straight one class -- 20 fighter, 20 barbarian, 20 ranger -- is far less painful than 3.5. 3.5 builds often tend to be dips of this, a couple prestiges of that, and I find that the idea of just sticking to one class is a lot easier to follow.

Yeah. And it is updated with errata, to make things easier. No more digging through questionable legal material from the Q&A department. Furthermore, Pathfinder cleaned up some systems, and you can ditch others. My last and final reason is that I find the handbooks for Pathfinder to be more recent, and more likely to well...Exist, and not be gone in the Great Purge of the WoTC forums.

If you like what you see, see if there is a Pathfinder Society group near you.

[Seppo87]

I have been playing 3.5 extensively.
Recently swapped to Pathfinder.
I'll never look back.

The only thing 3.5 can give me right now that pf can't is abundance of raw shenanigans and loopholes for extreme optimization or funny unintended effects (see builds like 9x9x9, Assplomancer and Psionic Sandwich for reference)

Pathfinder is not perfect but is much less buggy and the optimization ceiling much lower while having higher floor.

Which might be a plus or a minus depending on what experience you're looking for.
Imho 3.5 is still better for theorycrafting and (way) over the top gameplay if that's what you're after.

[CuriousWanderer]

Simple: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

There´re sources beyond that, even incorporating more available materiel, but start there.

Thank you very much.

:smallsmile:

[CuriousWanderer]

Yeah, I think I am, um, going to have to go with Pathfinder.

I hope you all have a good time in whatever game you play.

;)