Consensus: Pathfinder v D&D 3.5

[tedcahill2]

Can 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder be used pretty interchangeably? Can I just grab a class from Pathfinder and use it in D&D and expect it to be balanced?

I know I'd have to tweak the skills and such, but balance wise what's the consensus?

[Dagroth]

Can 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder be used pretty interchangeably? Can I just grab a class from Pathfinder and use it in D&D and expect it to be balanced?

I know I'd have to tweak the skills and such, but balance wise what's the consensus?

Most classes, I expect so.

Some classes... it's a little more complicated.

A Pathfinder Monk relies heavily on the Pathfinder "Combat Maneuver" system. It might be easier to port certain improvements to a class, rather than the class wholesale.

Positive/Negative Energy Channelling in Pathfinder is more useful than Turn Undead attempts in 3.5, until you get all the feats & things that can use Turn Undead attempts for other things.

Some classes just don't fight the typical AD&D world. Gunslinger, for one.

The improvements to Sorcerer are welcome... but be aware that makes already Tier-1 class and gives it more power. The reason it works in Pathfinder is large amount of repair that has been done to Metamagic & Spells in general in Pathfinder.

I personally love the sheer amount of options available in 3.5... even if most of then are "bad ideas" according to the "build your character to be the best" crowd. I encourage the idea of porting over the Pathfinder version of the Fighter because it's better in ways the class needs to be better.

Having even more options by adding more classes is fine by me.

[Cosi]

The changes Pathfinder makes are:

1. Nerfs to the most egregious core spells (this is irrelevant if you are backporting).
2. All classes get class features (this is a minor buff to Wizards in the grand scheme, but it can be significant at low levels).
3. The addition of a truly enormous amount of fiddly bits to almost everything (this is irrelevant if you're backingporting a specific option, but rapidly makes character creation insanely complex).

Overall, Pathfinder is worse than 3e in most important ways (the nerfs are all really obvious stuff anyone could fix better and faster than Paizo did), but if it has something you think is cool, it won't hurt you to use it.

[Gnaeus]

Can 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder be used pretty interchangeably? Can I just grab a class from Pathfinder and use it in D&D and expect it to be balanced?

I know I'd have to tweak the skills and such, but balance wise what's the consensus?

Question is incomplete. Balanced compared to what? A magus or alchemist is worse than a wizard and better than a fighter. Question assumes that 3.5 is balanced against itself, which isn't true.

PF isn't much better balanced than 3.5, nor is it much worse balanced. Some options may seem too strong or weak depending on optimization level, sources etc...

MOST of the new options are in the Tier 3-4 range, which is good, since that seems to be what most people prefer. But there are Tier 5s and Tier 1s and even the Tier 3s are broken strong when compared with weak 3.5 classes like fighter and monk. Something like unchained monk is obviously unbalanced compared with 3.5 monk, because it's just better. But it is more balanced compared with most of 3.5

[GilesTheCleric]

I don't think they are. Each time I've delved into a 3.P character, some niggling detail has always come up to ruin the build. I see that detail as frequently being the actual system mechanics and assumptions of the games.

For example, making a grappler in 3.5 and PF is very different, because the rules for grappling in the two games are very different. Even setting aside the creation of CMB/ CMD and changes to the required feats in feat chains/ common prereqs, when you start to get into the complexities of grappling (eg. adding constriction damage, swallowing foes, automatic grapples on attacks, adding arms/ extra grappling appendages, using unusual/ larger weapons while grappling), you quickly learn that the two just aren't compatible. The basic mechanics for the same action between the two systems are too different to support consistent RAW interchangeability between the two, not to mention the changes in assumed scaling (both numeric bonuses and applicability of grappling vs. creatures of varying sizes).

Edit: I should also note that PF's assumptions on classes, ACFs, Archetypes, PrCs, and multiclassing are almost the exact opposite of 3e, which doesn't help things, either.

[Grim Reader]

Can 3.5 D&D and Pathfinder be used pretty interchangeably? Can I just grab a class from Pathfinder and use it in D&D and expect it to be balanced?

I know I'd have to tweak the skills and such, but balance wise what's the consensus?

I've tried running 3.P with Pathfinder classes allowed. My experience was that Pathfinder classes are better than their 3.5 equivalents, and have a higher floor. They also come with more options built-in. If the players don't have much optimization skill, the higher floor will also let Pathfinder classes dominate.

[Gnaeus]

I've tried running 3.P with Pathfinder classes allowed. My experience was that Pathfinder classes are better than their 3.5 equivalents, and have a higher floor. They also come with more options built-in. If the players don't have much optimization skill, the higher floor will also let Pathfinder classes dominate.

So Magus and Alchemist dominate Crusader, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Totemist? They dominate Druid? I wouldn't have guessed that. Please explain.

[Cosi]

So Magus and Alchemist dominate Crusader, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Totemist? They dominate Druid? I wouldn't have guessed that. Please explain.

That's a little unfair. He's not saying that PF classes are better in general than 3e classes, he's saying PF classes are better than equivalent 3e classes. I think that's probably true, particularly if you let people cast 3e spells. The PF Wizard is like a 3e Wizard, except banning schools means less and he gets totally arbitrary bonus abilities from his race and school specialization. That's a better deal than the 3e Wizard's "bonus feats".

[Scorponok]

That 3.5 Druid though...dang. I had a player join our group near the end of the campaign, around level 13-14 that did the multi-beast summoning schtick as well as wild shape into giant squid. It was to say, quite powerful. I heard Druids have been nerfed in PF though.

[JoshuaZ]

Both still have the same basic tiers, but the weaker classes in PF got enough of a boost that they have slightly more of a chance at holding their own. Importing from 3.5 to PF is a bit easier than the reverse (the monk example has already been mentioned). Pathfinder's combat maneuver system makes for slightly faster combats where things like grapples and the like are concerned. The PF skill system is also better- simpler, easier to learn, and makes it easier to make interesting characters (if I want to play a sorcerer who grew up by the sea, I can put 2 points in Swim without it really hurting that it isn't a class skill). Backporting classes to 3.5 can be tricky- the monk example is the most extreme as already discussed, but most other classes can be imported with no trouble. The witch and magus for example can both be made into 3.5 classes with essentially zero work.

[Psyren]

They're both the same level of rules-heavy; if you can understand one you can understand the other. For me, many (but not all) of the changes they made were intuitive, so it made the learning curve fairly easy.

It's not as simple as lifting class X from one and porting it to the other with no modifications, but if you're willing to put in the work it takes to build a character or encounter in this system, especially if it means using third-party or houserules, you've got what it takes to play/run PF. Others have compared it to a houseruled version of 3.5 and that's honestly what it boils down to in the end, just with the added benefits of playtesting and popularity so that you have a community all speaking the same language.

[Gnaeus]

That's a little unfair. He's not saying that PF classes are better in general than 3e classes, he's saying PF classes are better than equivalent 3e classes. I think that's probably true, particularly if you let people cast 3e spells. The PF Wizard is like a 3e Wizard, except banning schools means less and he gets totally arbitrary bonus abilities from his race and school specialization. That's a better deal than the 3e Wizard's "bonus feats".

No, he's saying that PF classes dominate 3.5 classes. Yes, PF fighter is a little better than 3.5 fighter. They get some non-0 stuff on otherwise dead levels. But they are clearly playing the same game. On the same Tier even.

But I don't think that's what OP is talking about. The core classes are basically the same with small improvements. But do they outclass equivalent classes. Are there classes that play on the same level as fighter or monk? Yes. Swashbuckler. Cavalier. Is their optimization floor way higher? No. Does Magus outclass fighter? With a higher optimization floor? Surely. Does it dominate similar options in 3.5 like the TOB classes? No not really. I think the question is more about can I add the PF classes like witch and cavalier and alchemist. And the only good answer is "it depends on which level of 3.5 you are playing"

Do I suggest he have someone playing a 3.5 fighter and a PF fighter in adjacent seats? No! But if someone is playing a wildshape ranger or crusader then the PF fighter is way way better balanced, and the 3.5 wizard hoses both of them. Because the statement that PF classes are overpowered with a higher optimization floor compared with 3.5 is flat wrong as a blanket generalization.

[Psyren]

That 3.5 Druid though...dang. I had a player join our group near the end of the campaign, around level 13-14 that did the multi-beast summoning schtick as well as wild shape into giant squid. It was to say, quite powerful. I heard Druids have been nerfed in PF though.

Shapeshifting in general was nerfed, and the druid took an additional swatting via its animal companion being a touch weaker (it's very hard to get something over Large) and chassis (fewer spells per day, though it can get more by giving up the animal companion.)

On the plus side, they get the more interesting forms for their wildshape (elementals and plants) considerably earlier and more often than 3.5 ones do. So if you're looking for useful abilities like regeneration or earth glide, the PF druid gets them far earlier.

[Ualaa]

I'd say with the exception of the Druid, just about everything that existed in 3.5 and was revised in Pathfinder is a stronger version of whatever it was in 3.5.

That said, Pathfinder has balanced/nerfed things which were stronger in 3.x.
A lot of spells have caps or deal significant damage instead of killing something.

If you were to play the 3.5 ruleset, with the same class from Pathfinder as that class from 3.5, the Pathfinder class is probably a bit stronger.
Not necessarily massively so, but still it has an edge.

The reverse is less true, even though Pathfinder was supposed to be fully reverse compatible.
It is... to a degree.
A lot of the absolutely broken stuff from 3.5, doesn't work the same way in Pathfinder, so it is not as broken.
That's not to say there aren't broken aspects of the game...
But there are a lot fewer of them.

In general, if I consider something broken and one of my players wants to abuse it.
That's okay...
Because every mob or classed NPC is also going to abuse the same mechanic in the same way.
So whoever wins initiative will win that battle.
And even if a player stacks +initiative, they'll sometimes roll less.
But maybe other groups want to see how far they can break the system, and are okay to play with broken mechanics.
If that's the case, there are more broken 3.5 or 3.0 builds than Pathfinder builds.
It's not for our group per se, but maybe someone elses.

The Pathfinder (Dreamscarred Press's Ultimate Psionics) presents a much stronger Soulknife than the 3.5 equivalent.
Casters in general have a lot more options at lower levels... between Bloodline abilities and Specializations.
Everyone gains something, not necessarily huge but a feature or a feat at almost every level in Pathfinder; there aren't many dead levels, and in 3.5 there were a ton.

I'd be less worried about importing a Pathfinder option into 3.5, than the reverse.
Although the system that you're using will impact how something works.

[Firechanter]

In a nutshell:

PF has higher Floor
3.5 has higher Ceiling

In 3.5, Feats are super important and build-defining. In PF, much less so, and most of what a character can do is hardcoded into the class / archetype. Feats have, for the most part, been watered down a lot. (Note how identical feats that are typically rated as 1-2/5 in 3.5 handbooks often get a 3/4 rating in PF guides)
This makes PF a bit more newbie-friendly because it's harder to gimp a character with sub-optimal feat choices. (But it's still way more complicated than 5E)

3.5 is the edition of PrCs. PrCs don't play a big role in PF, which revolves entirely upon archetypes.

The Tiers remain largely the same in PF as in 3.5. Main difference is, the Full Casters no longer excel at emulating and outshining the Martials at their shtick. A PF Caster is still an excellent Caster but not a better Fighter than a Fighter anymore.

PF class design seems to be governed by a phobia of frontloading. In some cases, it takes a class until level 5 before it's finally able to do what it's supposed to. I can interpret this only as a discouragement from multiclassing, but it makes early game very frustrating for those classes. Likewise, many of the coolest features require 11+ class levels, so you can never combine two of them from different classes.

From here on, differences get more involved, so I'll make a cut here.

[Grim Reader]

So Magus and Alchemist dominate Crusader, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Totemist? They dominate Druid? I wouldn't have guessed that. Please explain.

Magus and Alchemist are in no way Parfinder equvalents of Crusader, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and Totemist. You are comparing apples to linoleum flooring.

However, in our game, which ran to level 7, the Pathfinder Magus did dominate the 3.5 Sorcerer, even while attempting to avoid the Sorcerers spell picks. This was in part a player competence issue, the Sorcerer had been encouraged to migrate to Pathfinder Sorcerer but just wasn't very interested, but mechanically yes the tier 3 outclassed the tier 1. The 3.5 Spirit Shaman would probably have been dominated if not for the fact that the campaign setting featured an environmental breakdown which increased the utility of the Druid list.

The Inquisitor was clearly very strong, but did not overshadow anyone because the player was new and never managed a good grip on the mechanics. The class was still so good that there was always something useful to do. No-one except the Magus had any optimization skill, and the Pathfinder classes, Inquisitor, Magus and Barbarian were clearly above the 3.5 Spirit Shaman, Sorcerer and Rouge.


No, he's saying that PF classes dominate 3.5 classes. Yes, PF fighter is a little better than 3.5 fighter. They get some non-0 stuff on otherwise dead levels. But they are clearly playing the same game. On the same Tier even.

Cosi is right. You are wrong. In the future, please do not do this.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Any class-to-class variation will be vastly overshadowed by variations in build and player skill, and both editions are such terrible mishmashes that it's not like there's a baseline "feel" or power level to disrupt.

I'll agree that, in general, Pathfinder has a higher floor and lower ceiling, but the latter isn't really noticeable at most practical play levels.

[Psyren]

Any class-to-class variation will be vastly overshadowed by variations in build and player skill, and both editions are such terrible mishmashes that it's not like there's a baseline "feel" or power level to disrupt.

I'll agree that, in general, Pathfinder has a higher floor and lower ceiling, but the latter isn't really noticeable at most practical play levels.

Indeed it's not, which is what makes so many of these forum arguments and "community tier projects" and requests for "consensus" so amusing to me. Practical play varies wildly by table, from the likes of Tippy all the way down to first-timers sticking rigidly to core-only adventure paths, so expecting some kind of universal standard or experience for anything other than theory seems to me a futile exercise.