Is Pathfinder easier to GM than 3.5? If so, how?

[Zaq]

I'm not in a D&D game right now. Like, at all. Which is a problem. I'm feeling antsy.

There's a lot of logistical reasons for that, of course. I've got some friends who are all feeling similarly antsy, but getting us all together at once on a highly regular basis isn't as easy right now as it was in times past, which is a big factor. The level of coordination required means that we've got to make sure that it's worth the effort. And there's a good chance that I'd need to either GM it myself or at least set up a scenario where GMing is shared equitably, so I've gotta make sure that I can perform when it's my turn to do that.

If I were to spearhead such a thing, I'd need to pick an edition. Pretty much everyone I game with (myself included) likes 4e a lot, and it's the early favorite, but it's increasingly difficult to get easy access to the material, and we have certainly played an awful lot of it. (The big advantage of 4e is that it's very friendly to GMs—it's relatively easy to come up with balanced enemies and balanced encounters, and I feel like the system's quirks match my quirks well when it comes to designing and presenting oddball challenges.) None of us are actually interested in 5e, since it seems to basically suck all the fun parts out of character creation, and I've got a lot of other issues with it as well. Legend would be absolutely perfect if we had an easy way of making opponents, but there's no Monster Manual and no big collection of existing statblocks that are appropriate for monsters/foes. (Yes, just picking tracks and feats for a critter is super fast and fun—I once went through the entire 3.5 MM1 and made Legend stubs for basically everything in there. But actually crunching all the numbers isn't something I relish doing for every single critter I'd like to throw out there, since I don't like using vast quantities of identical or near-identical things as enemies. An automated Legend builder would be something I'd happily pay cash money for, but that's not here nor there.)

But what about 3.5? I'm posting this on the 3.5 forum, after all, and I'm not doing that by accident. 3.5 is my first love as far as RPGs go, but no one I know is both willing and able to GM for it. I'm sure as hell not willing to GM it, either. It's a nightmare to keep things balanced, and you really can't afford to take any shortcuts. Keeping the party itself balanced is hard enough, but then you get into the morass that is 3.5 monsters and the joke that is the alleged CR system, and it's enough to make me throw up my hands and simply walk away. (And, if nothing else, the item economy is just a black hole of fun-sucking for anything above about level 5.) So I sincerely doubt that I'm going to end up in another actual 3.5 game anytime soon, since I don't want to GM it and I don't trust too many people I know who actually would want to.

But it occurs to me that I've never seriously looked at Pathfinder. (Have you ever really looked at your Pathfinder, man? I mean, like, really looked at it?) I've spent a little bit of time browsing the PFSRD, and from what I've seen so far, there's good parts and bad parts, just like everything else. It inherited plenty of 3.5's issues, but the hope is that it also inherited some of 3.5's strengths. And I've liked the small amount of highly-acclaimed 3PP content I've looked at (Spheres of Power, Path of War, Akashic Mysteries, and that sort of thing), which also gives me hope that there are ways of meeting some of the system's power assumptions even without a bunch of traditional full casters kicking around. But the tricky part isn't finding something I'd like to play—it's finding something I'd like to GM (and/or that I wouldn't feel straight up guilty asking my friends to GM).

So we come to the meat of this whole topic. Are there concrete and specific ways in which GMing Pathfinder is easier than GMing 3.5? If so, how? Don't just say "oh, it's easier," because that's way too broad to be helpful. Is it easier to find or create balanced enemies without a ton of effort? Does CR legitimately mean anything? Is it easy to whip up oddball challenges without straining the game's parameters? Is the item economy even a tiny bit less soul-sucking? Are the premade adventures even remotely robust enough to handle a group of optimizers (we're not straight up powergamers who seek out game-smashing power for the sake of power, but we also don't like intentionally making too many poor choices or feeling useless, if that makes sense)? I know that, since it's a direct spawn of 3.5, there's going to be balance issues and trap options and finicky parts, but as long as there's some strong and concrete ways that it's less of a nightmare to GM than true 3.5 was, I might be willing to give it a go. Or, rather, if there's some strong and concrete ways in which GMing for Pathfinder feels like GMing for 4e (since I could handle that pretty well, even if I'm just naturally inclined to be a player rather than a GM), that's the kind of thing I'm looking for.

So, please, be completely honest with me. I really don't want to get myself into something that's going to give me the same frustrations that 3.5 did/would (I love the system to pieces, but let's be blunt, there's a lot wrong with it), but I do want something that will let me stretch my optimizing and roleplaying muscles again. Is Pathfinder something that might be worth my time, or would I be better served by looking elsewhere?

[SilverLeaf167]

To be honest, the three biggest advantages of Pathfinder that I've discovered so far are these:


The base classes are a lot more interesting. Everyone got at least some cool options, which benefits mundane low-tier classes the most: yeah, casters got more options too, but nothing they couldn't already do a lot better.
A lot of 3.5's most broken content didn't make the cut, like individual classes and feats, though in my experience were hardly a problem outside PO in my experience.
The sheer incredible practicality of having everything in one SRD. Seriously, for someone who's used to 3.5's huge mess of a library, the PFSRD is a godsend that makes everything a lot easier for both the DM and the players.


As for downsides, the majority is just stuff they didn't change when they should've. Casters are still better, blah blah, most of what you know about balance in 3.5 is still true.


There's the thing: Pathfinder really is easily described as "D&D 3.75". It has the same underlying system, with the same amount of number-crunching, CR issues, magic item dependency, the works. The SRD may be a huge advantage, but PF really is more like a heavily houseruled version of 3.5 than its own system - and AFAIK, they pretty much admit that.

With no offense to Pathfinder, I mean. I really like it. But if those were your issues with 3.5, I don't think I can recommend it outright.

[Palanan]

I’m running my first Pathfinder campaign after having switched to Pathfinder a couple of years ago, following about a decade of playing and running 3.5. For me, the issues are pretty much the same running Pathfinder as 3.5—in addition to learning the various tweaks that Pathfinder has made to the system, both great and small.

I’m not nearly as severe on 3.5 as you seem to be, and I’ve never noticed anything especially soul-sucking about item economy; in fact, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. I tend not to play with optimizers, and while issues of balance are always there, I wouldn’t describe them as nightmarish, and certainly not “a black hole” of anything.

I’ve also never run or played 4E, and couldn’t make comparisons about how that feels—but I can tell you that as a longtime 3.5 player, I couldn’t make much sense of 4E, and I have a strong feeling that Pathfinder won’t take you any closer to the 4E experience. If you and your group really like 4E, and that’s your first choice of system, then you should probably go with your collective gut, because Pathfinder may end up disappointing you the way 3.5 apparently has.

[Sayt]

One thing in PF's favor regarding GMing is xp. Because there is no xp river, you can just look at a table and go "CRX encounter, party is Y size, everyone gets Z xp"

[EisenKreutzer]

Honestly, it's more or less the same.

[Tuvarkz]

In short terms
-Some of the 3.5 broken spells and stuff were removed, some were left equally dangerous, some stuff was added. Tier 1 casters can still break the game, Conjuration and Divination are still really strong, etc etc.
-Regarding the 3pp: Yes, you can use this to create a somewhat balanced mish-mash of unique classes with enough thematic and mechanic difference that they will all be roughly around the same strength but without repetitive abilities, but you'll have to gather a lot of such content and get the players to go through it to get it to work.
-CR means something, issue is that your party may effectively need slightly tougher encounters depending on its optimization level. There are some monsters, particularly those with out-of-the-way builds, that will be dangerous for the CR that has been assigned to them, so be careful.
-The Adventure Paths will be completely roflstomped by a group of decent optimizers, as they are balanced around a 4-man team of blaster wizard, healer cleric, skillmonkey rogue and BSF.
-Combat Maneuvers have been simplified, but at the same time, most player builds that focus on combat maneuvers are from mediocre-ish to weak
-Item economy is a bit better, since there are more item slots and the traditional stuff occupies a couple less slots, but overall the game generally expects to have the usual +X items around. (Particularly, path of war initiators can easily go for quite the variation in builds thanks to skill-reliant maneuvers which means grabbing skillbooster wondrous items)
-There's a few mechanical changes here and there (Particularly, there are less types that are auto immune to crit/sneak attack/flanking; and entangle has gone from a crippling debuff to a rather minor one)
-Also, yeah, the pfsrd/Archives of Nethys have gathered most of the OGC content and are rather helpful when looking for stuff.

[Krazzman]

From my experience pathfinder is a lot easier unless you know everything about 3.5 up to the shirt the designer of one of the ninja classes wore to school on his 15th birthday (I am exaggerating).

With Pathfinder you got the 11 core classes. Which roughly stay the same except you should really use the unchained variant of rogue and monks. Barbarians unchained variant is hit or miss depending on how you feel about it (my wife being seriously disappointed about it).
Add the 10 base classes and you got yourself some decent to awesome classes to chose from. 3 alternate classes (anti paladin, samurai and ninja) are roughly the same as their corresponding classes but change quite a lot of their feel and some features.
If you limit your games to this the archetypes make enough interesting concepts build able whilst sparing you the nightmare of reading through a ton of classes.
The 10 hybrid classes bring some more nice classes to the table. Then 6 more occult classes that can be ignored if you don't want that in your games. This means after looking up 38 classes you are done. Prestige classes are really only a handful that didn't change that much from 3.5 or bring not that much to make them interesting.
This makes preparing stuff easier.

Considering this with some really good adventure paths makes running pathfinder easier than 3.5.
Yes there are still problems (monk only 4 skill points , fighter only 2 and yadda yadda yadda) but it will most likely not be a problem.

Good luck.

[Zaq]

This is disappointing, but it's also precisely why I came here for advice rather than just diving in headfirst. Sounds like GMing Pathfinder is basically like GMing 3.5. I had hoped that it would be easier, but I know what I like and what I dislike, and it seems that (from a GMing perspective; I'd happily play either 3.5 or Pathfinder if I had a willing GM I trusted with the responsibility) Pathfinder didn't really do enough to alleviate the parts I dislike.


I’m not nearly as severe on 3.5 as you seem to be, and I’ve never noticed anything especially soul-sucking about item economy; in fact, I’m not really sure what you mean by that. I tend not to play with optimizers, and while issues of balance are always there, I wouldn’t describe them as nightmarish, and certainly not “a black hole” of anything.

I just really really really hate the 3.5 item economy. I normally thrive on options and fiddly bits (hell, I love the Iron Chef competition on this very board, which should tell you something), but after a while, kitting out even a semi-optimized 3.5 character's item load is just so exhausting that it's not even fun. The game leans heavily on magic items as a crutch to shore up a character's weaknesses, and sorting through all the options (while making sure that you cover your bases adequately, especially if you aren't a full caster!) takes so much time and effort that doing it feels like putting in a full day at work. And I say that as someone who will happily spend hours looking at feats and spells and PrCs and feel good while doing it. Items just wear me the hell out.

I mean, I was certainly able to do it and do it well when 3.5 was my only game, and if I were invited to play in a 3.5 game with a good GM, I'd still do it, and I'd still do it well. But after looking at Legend's item system (which is phenomenal—items don't have a numeric gold value, and picking items is almost more like picking a second set of feats than anything else) or even 4e's item system (where the item level system basically made sense, and 90% of your "you need this to numerically function" requirements were corralled into your Big Three of armor, neck, and weapon/implement) has kind of soured me on 3.5's mess.

[Serafina]

Pathfinder has one HUGE advantage: The PFSRD (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/) and Archives of Nethys (http://archivesofnethys.com/).
Yes, the D20 SRD also exists - but there's a lot of 3.5 content that it doesn't have.
The PFSRD and Archives of Nethys however have between them all official Paizo content. The PFSRD also carries a good amount of 3rd Party Content, including the excellent Psionics and Path of War rules by Dreamscarred Press.

Being able to look up everything online saves you a ton of pain of digging through different sites, books and so on. Even if you don't use it during the game, it's very convenient for planning out characters and monsters, for being aware of the spells and magic items, and for generally just being on top of things.


Also, there's arguably one more advantage:
It can be MUCH easier to keep all the player characters on the same power level, while still giving everyone a free choice of the type of character they want to play.
This is mostly done by restricting players to the classes that get a spell progression, but not a full-caster progression (so not up to 9th-level spells). Pathfinder has a great many of these, and they're rather excellent.

So if a player wants to play a Druid, you can offer them to play a Hunter instead, and if they're more into shapeshifting there's options for that too.
If they want to play a Cleric, offer them Warpriest or Inquisitor.
If they want a Wizard and mostly focus on casting, there's options with Magus and Bard and Occultist and Vigilante and Investigator - or even the Eldritch Scoundrel Rogue Archetype.
If they're into Barbarians, Bloodragers basically offer the same but with spells, which can be quite helpful.
If they're into Fighters, Bloodragers can work too but you can either go right for Path of War, or just offer classes that may not have full BAB but are still just as good at fighting.
And so on for basically any type of character you can imagine.


As a final hint: Lot's of Unchained Rules can save a lot of work.
Just using Automatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) can save you a lot of pain about handing out the right loot. With it, your players will always have the appropriate amount of +save, attack, armor, stat items (or rather, they'll be innate effects, but close enough).
You might also want to look at Background Skills (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/), because it further bridges the gap between "fighting machine who is useless out of combat" and other characters.

[Tuvarkz]

As a final hint: Lot's of Unchained Rules can save a lot of work.
Just using Automatic Bonus Progression (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/unchained-rules/automatic-bonus-progression/) can save you a lot of pain about handing out the right loot. With it, your players will always have the appropriate amount of +save, attack, armor, stat items (or rather, they'll be innate effects, but close enough).
You might also want to look at Background Skills (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/skills/background-skills/), because it further bridges the gap between "fighting machine who is useless out of combat" and other characters.

I'll disagree. Automatic Bonus Progression screws over plenty of builds, particularly those that rely on item special abilities or on non-standard use of statboosters.

[Korahir]

This is disappointing, but it's also precisely why I came here for advice rather than just diving in headfirst. Sounds like GMing Pathfinder is basically like GMing 3.5. I had hoped that it would be easier, but I know what I like and what I dislike, and it seems that (from a GMing perspective; I'd happily play either 3.5 or Pathfinder if I had a willing GM I trusted with the responsibility) Pathfinder didn't really do enough to alleviate the parts I dislike.



I just really really really hate the 3.5 item economy. I normally thrive on options and fiddly bits (hell, I love the Iron Chef competition on this very board, which should tell you something), but after a while, kitting out even a semi-optimized 3.5 character's item load is just so exhausting that it's not even fun. The game leans heavily on magic items as a crutch to shore up a character's weaknesses, and sorting through all the options (while making sure that you cover your bases adequately, especially if you aren't a full caster!) takes so much time and effort that doing it feels like putting in a full day at work. And I say that as someone who will happily spend hours looking at feats and spells and PrCs and feel good while doing it. Items just wear me the hell out.

I mean, I was certainly able to do it and do it well when 3.5 was my only game, and if I were invited to play in a 3.5 game with a good GM, I'd still do it, and I'd still do it well. But after looking at Legend's item system (which is phenomenal—items don't have a numeric gold value, and picking items is almost more like picking a second set of feats than anything else) or even 4e's item system (where the item level system basically made sense, and 90% of your "you need this to numerically function" requirements were corralled into your Big Three of armor, neck, and weapon/implement) has kind of soured me on 3.5's mess.

I feel you. Pathfinder is the same in this regard. I am currently hunting for a cloak of resistance +3 or higher. Feels close to running diablo at times. Just recently all 4 PCs were parked around a pond we refused to enter because we all suck at swimming and fighting in water and watched 6 rounds of combat: summons vs a tortoise. And then my faerie dragon familiar entered the water to secure the loot. Nothing of real interest was among it. 20 minutes of real time passed.
If you can't stomach stuff like that don't go for Pathfinder. Although I have to admit I have a lot more fun playing PF than 3.5 because of the slight balance changes and I like the favoured class system. Alhtough just like you I like the IC contest and hunt for the perfect build, it is still just an thought exercise and in play we still would all suffer the same: need weapon +x because i fall off.

[Milo v3]

I find it easier than 3.5e because the XP system and encounter building are much more sensible, but otherwise there isn't much of a difference in how much prep is needed.

[Scorponok]

Personally, I feel if you're playing from level 1, 3.5 is fine. Unless your group starts at 5th level+, even some of the broken stuff isn't campaign breaking. I imported a lot of stuff I liked from 4e and even 5e into 3.5 in the form of books the martials could collect, study, spar/practice and finally 'learn' the technique. My current campaign's players are having loads of fun with it.

As for 3.5, it's certainly not HARD to DM. Yes, there are more rules to know, as opposed to say, 5e, but if you don't mind just hand waving things until after the session is over to look up the advanced rule for a certain situation, then it's fine. Or get the best rules guy in your game to look it up while play is going on.

As for the item power creep, "if the PCs don't have it, then neither do the NPCs" seems like something I follow. Granted, a lot of my campaign involves the PCs taking over kingdoms of other humanoid type creatures, so throwing a lot of level 1 and 2 NPCs at them doesn't need a lot of equipment optimization.

[Stealth Marmot]

In my opinion, Pathfinder as written is no easier to DM than 3.5, at least not in any measurable way. Pathfinder, to me at least, is an improved version of 3.5 that is better for the PLAYERS, and that the character archetypes and creation are a lot better balanced, as well as a little simpler in some regards. However, that doesn't help the DM.

However, when I say Pathfinder AS WRITTEN is no easier, Pathfinder can actually be a lot easier on the DM when you take a very simple change: You get rid of Experience.

Not even kidding. Pathfinder removed the XP component from spells and item creation, so the last vestiges of having a reason to even keep XP tracked is no longer needed. You can instead just decide certain spots where players level up.

I've done that in my game so far and no players have been complaining in the slightest, including veteran players. It makes it easier to decide when and where there are enemies, and how much of a challenge you have to have the players face. It removes the padding of added encounters and enemies that are awkwardly added to fill out an XP quota.

You could argue the same could be done for 3.5, but 3.5 has XP components in certain spells and in magic item creation, so removing that component takes a lot more effort.

So Pathfinder has the potential to be simpler, but it requires you slaughtering a sacred cow.

[Grod_The_Giant]

This is disappointing, but it's also precisely why I came here for advice rather than just diving in headfirst. Sounds like GMing Pathfinder is basically like GMing 3.5.
Playing Pathfinder is like playing 3.5 with a DM who's throwing in an inordinate amount of houserules. I'd actually recommend against switching; you know 3.5's foibles well enough, and Pathfinder will just introduce a different set of weird interactions while also changing enough little fiddly bits here and there to keep you thoroughly off-balance. Unless you're hungry for new material (in which case I suggest back-porting classes and such), there's no reason to switch.


I just really really really hate the 3.5 item economy. I normally thrive on options and fiddly bits (hell, I love the Iron Chef competition on this very board, which should tell you something), but after a while, kitting out even a semi-optimized 3.5 character's item load is just so exhausting that it's not even fun. The game leans heavily on magic items as a crutch to shore up a character's weaknesses, and sorting through all the options (while making sure that you cover your bases adequately, especially if you aren't a full caster!) takes so much time and effort that doing it feels like putting in a full day at work. And I say that as someone who will happily spend hours looking at feats and spells and PrCs and feel good while doing it. Items just wear me the hell out.
Yeeeaaaahh... my least favorite part as well. May I recommend looking into some homebrew to simplify the problem (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357810-Chopping-Down-the-Christmas-Tree-Low-Magic-Item-Rules)?

[GungHo]

The official PF SRD being in one place, featuring all the latest crunch and curated for errata. I like the online SRD because it's a lot easier than carting around books or searching disassociated PDFs. There are also alternatives available which include 3rd party inputs, both generic and non generic.

Yes, the WotC 3.5 SRD is also online (well, it was the last time I looked for it), but it's not actively curated. You get what's there. Beyond that, it's deprecated.

Beyond that, do you like vanilla or do you like chocolate? It's really down to your preference.

[NomGarret]

PF certainly has its benefits over 3.5, but in terms of ease of DMing, any benefits are quite minor relative to the difference between 3.5 and 4e.

[Afgncaap5]

I personally have a huge preference for 3.5 over Pathfinder. Having said that: if your background is in 4e and you liked 4e, then Pathfinder might be the better choice for you. Pathfinder takes a number of shortcuts in the 3.5 rules for the sake of convenience, so Pathfinder's a teensy bit more on the "game" side of things. Not by a *lot*, mind you, but enough that it can make some people prefer it and some people dislike it.

Apart from that, the only thing I can say for sure is that I hear a lot of Pathfinder GMs say that they can't challenge their players after the level 12 to 14 range because their players are too capable. I've never seen that issue rise up myself from the few times I've run Pathfinder (I tend to prefer the 5-8 level range myself), but I've heard the complaint often enough that I think it's worth mentioning.

Ultimately, though, they're both good systems. Whichever one you go with will, I think, ultimately be enjoyable.

[icefractal]

Yes, for one big reason - d20pfsrd.com

You're making an adventure, and you want a CR5-6 corporeal undead creature that can fly? Ok, just take a quick look at "Monsters by CR" and ... Ghoul Bat. Check its stats to see if it looks like a good match for the party, then copy it into a text editor and make any tweaks you want to, print it, done. And you can do all of that when you're away from your books. You can do most of it on your phone while you're commuting. Also, the monsters are somewhat better CR'd than in 3.5.

It's also handy when figuring out treasure and spells, but that one's not as big of a difference since the MIC and SC were already pretty good for that.

Now as a player - I like 3.5 better. But if I was running it, it's going to be Pathfinder unless I have a whole group of players who significantly prefer 3.5 and already have the books. Because that's another factor - Pathfinder: point people to the SRD. 3.5: Either bring a big suitcase of books to the game, or tell people to use less than legal methods. :smallfrown:

[Quertus]

In my opinion, Pathfinder as written is no easier to DM than 3.5, at least not in any measurable way. Pathfinder, to me at least, is an improved version of 3.5 that is better for the PLAYERS, and that the character archetypes and creation are a lot better balanced, as well as a little simpler in some regards. However, that doesn't help the DM.

However, when I say Pathfinder AS WRITTEN is no easier, Pathfinder can actually be a lot easier on the DM when you take a very simple change: You get rid of Experience.

Not even kidding. Pathfinder removed the XP component from spells and item creation, so the last vestiges of having a reason to even keep XP tracked is no longer needed. You can instead just decide certain spots where players level up.

I've done that in my game so far and no players have been complaining in the slightest, including veteran players. It makes it easier to decide when and where there are enemies, and how much of a challenge you have to have the players face. It removes the padding of added encounters and enemies that are awkwardly added to fill out an XP quota.

You could argue the same could be done for 3.5, but 3.5 has XP components in certain spells and in magic item creation, so removing that component takes a lot more effort.

So Pathfinder has the potential to be simpler, but it requires you slaughtering a sacred cow.

So, in 3.x, I tell players up front that I don't want pc's of divergent levels. I only want to have to calculate XP once. So I require them to use XP component rules for item creation so that they don't fall behind. Similarly, whether it exists in RAW or is a house rule, I require similar usage of XP components (1 XP = 5 GP) for casing spells with an XP cost, or anything else that would cost XP

Thus, it would be no problem for me to move to an arbitrary leveling system. I don't, because I happen to like the idea of an XP system, but, should you play 3.5 again, consider using this option if it (plus arbitrary leveling) make your life easier.

[Zaq]

This is all good info, which I appreciate.

My tables all pretty much eyeball XP anyhow, and I don't think I've ever played a game where someone actually used XP components or heavy crafting. When I have any control over a game, I am heavily against unequal party level, so I'm already in favor of streamlining that by whatever means are necessary.

Overall, though, it sounds like the consensus is that Pathfinder isn't that much easier to GM than 3.5 is overall, though I will happily accept and acknowledge that the PFSRD is a fantastic resource.

I mean, there's definitely some sadness here. As I said, 3.5 is my first great love as far as RPGs go (I've made no shortage of fun and kooky characters for it, after all, and I have some very fond memories of it), and I genuinely would like to play it (or something sufficiently similar to it) again. But as I said already, I just do not want to GM it, and I don't want to ask my friends to GM it, because while GMing is always a labor of love, GMing 3.5 in particular is just a special sort of challenging-to-the-point-of-not-being-fun, and my friends agree with me that it's not worth the effort of keeping things on an even keel.

Has anyone tried E6 in Pathfinder? Is that substantially different from E6 in 3.5? My last solid 3.5 game was E6, which was good fun for a while. But it would feel a little weird to impose a major set of houserules on a system I've technically never played before.

[Akal Saris]

Just to add to others' comments, the d20pfsrd is an incredible resource. It's nothing like the 3.5 SRD. It is all Pathfinder material, in one place. If you're like me and constantly pulling up monsters and loot on the fly, it's a lifesaver. I can't even bring myself to run 3.5/4E nowadays because finding things in PDFs feels so...obsolete.

The other big GM help I find with Pathfinder is that the modules/adventure paths are top-notch. Paizo used to run Dragon/Dungeon magazine, after all, and their deep experience in creating adventures serves them well.

I'm afraid I haven't run E6 games before. I suspect PF will do fine in E6/E7 (Due to the PF feat progression, E7 might make more sense) since it has many more bard-type classes (3/4 BAB and moderate spell-casting), which are in a solid spot at those levels. But you might want to ban summoners in such a game, as their power level is quite high until maybe levels 9+ when the other PCs' gear and feats begin to outstrip an eidolon more significantly.

[Pugwampy]

No difference . Some aspects are made easier but things like classes and feats are more complex .

Channel energy is very nice and simple really pumps that cleric .
CMD is a great generalist idea .
Melding spot and listen skills into perception which includes touch and taste is awesome .

Making power attack 2.5 well thats just harder to calculate . Most of us can x2 in seconds

[Ualaa]

If you have DM experience, then no edition is that much easier to run than another.
They're all essentially the same experience, as far as an RPG goes.
The mechanics are different from one system to another, but in the end you get a bunch of friends together, they expect a story with challenges, run their characters, and you run everything else.



4th doesn't mention roleplaying all that much.

Mechanically, with the half per level thing, everything scales mathematically quite well.
The ease of making adversaries, with the simple templates... two soldiers, four brutes... but make half of the brutes minions, PCs are level 9 and you want whatever challenge so make them level 11 or whatever.
You can find monsters that fit that, or just fluff them however you want and set the game stats appropriately.

No other edition of D&D/Pathfinder has been that easy to make encounters for.

I really like the solo, elite and minion system, and the encounter building rules.
I don't like that it is massively resource management, both in terms of frequency of use and having one of each appropriate action per round (standard, move, minor).



Pathfinder is similar enough to 3.5 that the systems are about the same.

It is less broken, with a lot of the crap not making the jump to Pathfinder.
There is enough broken content (much less), that you'd want to either look carefully at builds or reserve the right to not have something in your game; but that is a lesser issue than with 3.5.

The pluses for Pathfinder are the adventure paths, with two per year being released.
And that things are defined much more so, than in 3.5; there is less ambiguity in how something works in many cases.

The system is huge, so it is an investment if you want it all.
However, you can go with the Core Book, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Magic and say a Bestiary or two.
Heck, almost all of it is available online and free.
I just like to have the physical books in front of me.

Our group uses Hero Lab, which is not at all essential, and is as much a plus for just about every other system.
You can use it as a database, to search for most terms like 'channel' or anything that requires 'power attack' or whatever (through whatever books you've added to your license).
You can print a stat block, or have a copy of each character and import the monsters/created character adversaries you need for that battle.
Then run the combat with some digital support, through their 'tactical console', even if all you use it for is to track what you have.
It can do hit points, initiative, apply any number of conditions and stack their adjustments correctly, hit point damage vs lethal damage.
It does not have a duration tracker, so if something lasts four rounds you need to note it landed on round three and expires after that mob's turn on round seven.
If also doesn't have multiple damage option, so if the PC wizard does a fireball, you need to apply full and half damage to six mobs one at a time... unless their hit points are tracked on paper...



Pathfinder has ongoing support, in the form of a couple of new hardcovers per year, plus a bunch of softcovers and two adventure paths per year.
There is also third party support.

I'd take a hard look at Ultimate Psionics, Akashic Mysteries, and Path of War (and Path of War: Expanded), all by Dreamscarred Press.
Psionics is the most balanced it has been in a D&D system.
Akashic Mysteries is Magic of Incarnum (from 3.5), but balanced to the Pathfinder system.
Path of War is Tomb of Nine Swords (also 3.5), but again balanced to Pathfinder.

The floor on these classes is a lot higher than most of the Pathfinder options.
And the ceiling, or maximum optimization level, isn't as high as you can go with the default caster classes.
A good balance.

I'd also heavily recommend Spheres of Power, as your magic system.
The system has a high level of balance, with powers scaling linearly against caster level, it allows multiclassing between caster classes without starting over... so you could be an Incanter 4 and (sphere archetype) Cleric 4, with the powers of an 8th level caster and your abilities cast at caster level 8, not two level 4 guys that are useless to every group other than supremely not interested in mechanics at all tables.
Spheres breaks magic down to twenty spheres (sort of like schools of magic) with a lot of talents per sphere.

It is non-Vancian, so you don't have spell ranks; either you know something or you don't.
A lot of the stuff is always available, so you don't have the low level wizard who resorts to a crossbow after a few rounds of combat...
The better stuff (usually base stuff, but augmented) is based off of limited spell points; they end up with the equivalent of unlimited 1st level spells and more 3rd level spells per day, than a typical 5th level wizard would have, but spells are balanced in what they can do.

You can build just about any concept from any novel, game or movie, and play that concept from low levels onwards, not becoming your jedi at character level 13 or whatever, but being a jedi from level 1 onwards (just a weak one) and progressing.
Once a class has been built, you end up with less flexibility than a core Wizard, Druid or Cleric... so ultimately probably weaker, but also probably less god-like in regards to the non-casting classes. Still a lot more options though.

I've heard of a lot of groups running with Path of War, Akashic Mysteries, Ultimate Psionics and Spheres of Power, as their only class options.
Spheres of Might just finishes it's kickstarter today (Feb 14, midnight) so that will be available near the end of 2017, if you like the Spheres of system... it's for martials and a similar treatment.
The result of running these is that martial classes are a lot stronger and caster classes are a lot weaker; the disparity is still there and casters have a lot more options, but the gap has narrowed.
I don't like to limit, so our group allows the Paizo classes too, but none of the martial options are close.

In a lot of cases, being all spheres for magic would simplify things; I'll be going that route, in our next game.
Spheres invisibility scales with caster level... you get a bonus to a stealth check, and even if they detect your square (say from distortions in the air, or whatever fluff you want to go with) they have a 50% miss chance like blur.
Vancian invis is a flat bonus to stealth.
So a sphere invis can be much worse at lower levels and much better at higher levels.
Vancian see invis is also binary, it's on or it is not.
Sphere see invis is a bonus to perception, based on caster level.
If you use both systems, how does the interaction work... is a sphere invis (greater invis basically, but available from 1st level and up) subject to a perception check to be spotted and automatically fails to a see invis... or does the Vancian system require perception/stealth checks?
Easier if you go with one magic system, especially since each of the Paizo classes has an archetype to retain it's flavor while using the sphere magic system.
In our case, if the more balanced (against character level, and scaling with level) sphere system conflicts with the Paizo/Vancian system, we're using the sphere method for resolution.



TLDR

I'd go with Pathfinder, for a 3.5 style game.
I'd also use Ultimate Psionics, Akashic Mysteries, Path of War and Spheres of Power in the game.
Hero Lab is a nice tool to have.

[Krazzman]

Making power attack 2.5 well thats just harder to calculate . Most of us can x2 in seconds

Could you clarify this? Power Attack (and Deadly Aim) are quite easy to calculate. For each -1 do +2 damage (or 3 if using a two handed weapon). As such: I have -5 to hit = +10 dmg. It's either x2 or x3 depending on your choice of weaponry.

Remembering that every 4 points of BaB (most likely every level divisible by 4) leads to another -1 and that offhand attacks only get -1 +1 and you are set.

In my opinion Pathfinders Power Attack is easier to use.

[Ualaa]

I'm not sure where the 2.5 comes from, but multiplying by that is pretty easy too.

If you can double a number and halve that same number, you have done x2.5 quickly.
Also if you can work with quarters (the coin) to know how much money you have, same deal.

56 x 2.5...
50 doubled is 100.
06 doubled is 012.
So 112 doubled.

50 halved is 25
06 halves is 03
So 28 halved.

140 if you add those together.


If you have 13 quarters, how much money do you have?
4 quarters per dollar.
So 3 dollars and one quarter left over... $3.25

So 13 x 2.5 = 32.5

[blackbloodtroll]

The ease of removing XP entirely is one of the better parts. Access to information and resources favors Pathfinder. I would rather eat my own feces than run, or play in a 4E game.
Now, 5E, is rather easy to run, comparatively, but sacrifices a bit of customization.

[Ualaa]

Our group eventually moved to 3.0, once they stopped producing material for AD&D 2nd edition.

Then we moved to 3.5, because it was essentially the same game, but newer material.
And we could use whatever we had from 3.0, as 3.5 was marketed as reverse compatible.

Then we tried 4th edition, including every book published and all of the adventures from actual products... not the magazine adventures.
We've looked at Scales of War, but haven't run it.

We moved back to Pathfinder, because the 3.x style was more fun than the 4th edition.
Especially once they stopped producing new 4th edition material.

With the continuation of Pathfinder material, despite there being a new edition of the game... I don't see our group moving to 5E, until Paizo stops producing Pathfinder content.
Hopefully that's in the distant future, if ever.