3.5 vs Pathfinder 1e Characters: Who's more powerful when?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

Pathfinder 1e is no longer the newest published edition, and my friend was curious as to which edition produces the more powerful characters. In this, there are two major considerations:

-How well does each character fare in a party in its own rule system with no crossover?

-How well does each character fare in direct PvP with the character from the other system?

We're assuming no loops, no epic/mythic rules, and only base character classes and races that exist in both systems. PrCs, feats, items, skills, etc. in each system are used for the character in that respective system. For example, there's no Archmage PrC in Pathfinder, but there is in 3.5. Thus, a 3.5 character could take the Archmage PrC if he qualified for it, but not a PF character. For another example, 3.5 has no direct analog of an Inquisitor class, meaning no Inquisitors in this comparison. For classes that have near-equivalents in each system (Favored Soul/Oracle, etc.), use your best judgment as to whether these are fair comparisons.

Assume standard wealth by level, all first party materials allowed (including magazines and web material) with the latest errata from 3.5 and the latest FAQ/errata from PF. 3.5 characters get a 36 point buy according to 3.5 rules. PF characters get a 25 point buy according to PF rules.

The check-in levels are these:
-1
-3
-5
-8
-10
-13
-15
-17
-20

The 'major' check-in levels are 1, 5, 10, 15, 17, and 20. All other levels are less important.

And, to clarify, you as the poster choose which classes/builds and comparison levels to use. (Levels 10 and below are probably more meaningful comparisons due to them being the levels where most people play.)

Stuff that was nerfed in Pathfinder like polymorph will, of course, be stronger in 3.5 in builds that use it. Stuff that's simply powerful/useful in PF like a Half-Elf Sorcerer or Oracle casting paragon surge will also favor characters of that system.

If the result is a tie or too close to call, so be it. My friend and I were curious what this part of the Internet thought.

[Kurald Galain]

By and large, barring specific cheese like Pun-Pun, Pathfinder characters are going to be stronger at levels 1 through 12, because of more and better class features, more synergy, and extra feats and traits; whereas 3.5 characters are stronger at levels 13 and up, due to particular prestige class combinations, capstones, and 7th-9th level spells that don't exist in PF.

For a simple example, the 3.5 rogue normally cannot sneak attack undead, constructs, and plants; and gets four "special abilities" (basically rogue-only feats) starting at level 10; whereas the PF rogue can sneak attack all of those by default, and gets fourteen "rogue talents" and "edges" starting at level two, in addition to free weapon finesse and dex-to-damage, and debuffs on a sneak attack. It's pretty obvious that this blows the 3.5 rogue completely out of the water.

[Snowbluff]

For normal character, PF hands down. Mostly through numbers bloat.

There are exceptions for some classes, but those classes would take optimization, and I won't assume a high level of optimization for normal play.

EDIT: Also everyone knows the right rogue can sneak attack undead in 3.5, dex to damage is something you can find via variety of methods, and that Swordsage is a better designed version of Rogue and Rogue combined.

[Asmotherion]

Spellcaster specific estimation:

Levels 1-3 Definitely PF; They both have more or less the same resources but PF has important class features from level 1 and at-will cantrips (wins an attrition warfare by default)

Levels 4-6 is about equal; PF has a slight edge because of more feats and Chaos Shuffle does not come up yet for the 3.5 character.

7-10: More or less equal.

11+: 3.5 wins by far; the amound of crazy spells a caster has access to starting 6th level spells and up is astonishing for the 3.5 caster. Also by that level you can reliably have a PrC capstone or mix-match a couple PrCs... and a lot of 3.5 PrCs give access to incredible power.

[EndlessKng]

From what I've seen, with the general classes, PF has an overall advantage through the early and middle levels, at least comparing class to class. PF classes have fewer dead levels and often more flexibility. My experience also tells me that comparable non-casters are generally better from what I can tell over the long haul. However, the prestige class focus of 3.5 makes the late game harder to predict; casters can eliminate the dead level penalty with the right classes, you can expand your overall options (where archetypes only trade features out).

Also of note - PF background and Favored Class options, if used, allow more flexibility and power both early on and through the build. And PF characters get a couple more feats overall since they get them every other level instead of every third.

In general I would say PF overall, but prestige classes (and added years of optimization guides) can make 3.5 stronger in the long run with certain builds.

[Faily]

What also matters a lot on the lower levels is the generally higher HP value for Pathfinder characters.

d4 HD isn't a thing in Pathfinder. 1/2 BAB? d6 HD. 3/4 BAB is d8, and full BAB is d10 (d12 for Barbarians. Also adding on Favored Class option for HP for those who take that. Which again matters a lot more on the lower levels.

[Kurald Galain]

Also of note - PF background and Favored Class options, if used, allow more flexibility and power both early on and through the build.
What do you mean, "if used"? Those are default rules, not optional ones.


Levels 4-6 is about equal; PF has a slight edge because of more feats and Chaos Shuffle does not come up yet for the 3.5 character.
OP specified "no loops", so Chaos Shuffle is not an option for this thread (and OP should really clarify how much cheese he's willing to allow :smallamused: )


d4 HD isn't a thing in Pathfinder. 1/2 BAB? d6 HD. 3/4 BAB is d8, and full BAB is d10 (d12 for Barbarians. Also adding on Favored Class option for HP for those who take that. Which again matters a lot more on the lower levels.
Right. Wizards getting 4.5 hit points per level instead of 2.5 (before con) is a good thing.

[qstor]

I'd say PF because of the additional hit points and feats. But some of the "broken" materials in 3.x might be the difference.

[Quertus]

By and large, barring specific cheese like Pun-Pun, Pathfinder characters are going to be stronger at levels 1 through 12, because of more and better class features, more synergy, and extra feats and traits; whereas 3.5 characters are stronger at levels 13 and up, due to particular prestige class combinations, capstones, and 7th-9th level spells that don't exist in PF.

For a simple example, the 3.5 rogue normally cannot sneak attack undead, constructs, and plants; and gets four "special abilities" (basically rogue-only feats) starting at level 10; whereas the PF rogue can sneak attack all of those by default, and gets fourteen "rogue talents" and "edges" starting at level two, in addition to free weapon finesse and dex-to-damage, and debuffs on a sneak attack. It's pretty obvious that this blows the 3.5 rogue completely out of the water.

Challenge accepted! (not that I'm good at muggle builds, mind)

Does PF have level adjustment buyoff? Can a PF rogue (say, level 10) compete with a… hmmm… can you combine Dark Quasilycanthrope Necropolitan Whisper Gnome Rogue 10? With Craven, and the ACF / weapon crystals to sneak attack everything? Or with a Dark Petal Rogue 8? Can they out-stealth, out-DPS, HiPS solo equivalent monsters?

Let's take that one step further. Can they UMD? Are there PF items for them to UMD an undead army, a Simulacrum of an Illithid Savant, or PaO into anything?

Or what about party buffs? Does PF have Nightstick wielding Clerics persisting all-day buffs (of self-only spells through a Ring of Spell Storing) to give the PF Rogue anything resembling the bonuses that they can get in 3e?

See, afaict, 3e just has *more*. When you bring all of 3e to play, can of keep up? (Mind you, if all PF had was "Superman", then the answer would be, "no, 3e never catches up")

[Gnaeus]

I think Rogue is a good example really. The PF rogue chassis is better. D8s, more skills (effectively), more class abilities.

A 3.5 rogue, OTOH, can get a ring of blinking and a pile of acid flasks and throw a half dozen sneak attacks at touch per round. As long as he has money to spend his DPR looks like a blaster Alchemist novaing.

It’s really all about optimization level, not class level. PF has a higher floor, lower ceiling. If you ask me which pregenerated rogue I want to play at con? PF by far. Give me a stack of books and tell me to go nuts and 3.5 wins

[Efrate]

Assuming moderate to low op, pf martials are almost strictly better. Casters are a bit behind but close enough through level 7. You lack 3.5 SoL options but get actual class features, more feats and unlimited cantrips. Once polymorph in 3.5 comes online you leave pf behind as a caster.

At higher op, 3.5 wins at nearly all levels. Pf might be better at 1 and 2 but once 3 hits it's largely over.

The exception for casters is druid. 3.5 druid is better than pf druid at all levels. Gutted wild shape, spells, and companion put it firmly behind 3.5 even though it gets wild shape and natural spell each a level earlier.

[Quertus]

So, is it fair to say that Pathfinder not only has less content, but less range of options (higher floor, lower ceiling)?

Has anyone done a competitive tier analysis of PF characters in 3.5 terms? Do the classes also span a more narrow tier range?

[Snowbluff]

Has anyone done a competitive tier analysis of PF characters in 3.5 terms? Do the classes also span a more narrow tier range?
No. As long as there are game breaking tricks, the tiers remain. Summoner, Alchemist, Wizard, Sorc, Arcanist, Cleric, Oracle all span tiers 1 and 2 for sure. Not sure about witch and it's derivatives. (Unless you're a Samasarn Witch, then you have simulacrum at level 7, but builds aren't part of normal class tiering).

Except for Truenamer tier. I don't think any of the PF classes are that dysfunctional.

[Elysiume]

Assuming medium optimization, PF basically has, in descending order for the tiers:

9-level prepared casters: Can solve every problem
9-level spontaneous casters: Can solve every problem, but more build-dependent
6-level casters, good 4-level casters: Good in their niche, solid elsewhere
4-level casters, good martials: Good in their niche and bad elsewhere or mediocre all around
Other martials: Probably okay at hitting something with something
Garbage: Shifter
While the power range and specific abilities will vary between the two systems, structuring the tiers moreso around capability than raw power means they'll end up pretty consistent.

[Snowbluff]

Assuming medium optimization, PF basically has, in descending order for the tiers:

9-level prepared casters: Can solve every problem
9-level spontaneous casters: Can solve every problem, but more build-dependent
6-level casters, good 4-level casters: Good in their niche, solid elsewhere
4-level casters, good martials: Good in their niche and bad elsewhere or mediocre all around
Other martials: Probably okay at hitting something with something
Garbage: Shifter
While the power range and specific abilities will vary between the two systems, structuring the tiers moreso around capability than raw power means they'll end up pretty consistent.

You don't need to make that adjustment. T1 and T2 are just the number ways you can break the game. T3 and T4 are problem solving. T5 and T6 are going into levels of incompetence.

It's a mistake that a lot of people make when they see a T1 caster and assume that because it's a T1 class, it's going to break your game. If they're just doing problem solving within the limits of a game built with the designer's core power level, they're behaving like a T3 class.

[Kurald Galain]

So, is it fair to say that Pathfinder not only has less content, but less range of options
In terms of first-party content, the two are pretty much tied by now. Pathfinder has way more options for anyone who's not a heavy-duty optimizer, such as the aforementioned rogue tricks (from level two instead of ten) and infinite-use cantrips.

There's nothing wrong with builds like the mailman or the king of smack or whatnot, it's just that (a) most players don't play that way, (b) most DMs don't allow that, and (c) most campaigns never get to the level where these builds really take off.

[Crake]

OP specified "no loops", so Chaos Shuffle is not an option for this thread (and OP should really clarify how much cheese he's willing to allow :smallamused: )

Uhh, in what world is the DCFS a loop? In general, a loop is something that is perpetually self-sustained, such as chain gating solars for wishes, but the DCFS is a one-and-done thing, not to mention it costs xp to achieve.

[Elysiume]

Uhh, in what world is the DCFS a loop? In general, a loop is something that is perpetually self-sustained, such as chain gating solars for wishes, but the DCFS is a one-and-done thing, not to mention it costs xp to achieve.I think they're referring to the use of DCFS to swap out temporary or otherwise replaceable feats for permanent feats which is a (potentially) infinite loop. The less cheesy DFCS use of 1:1 feat replacement isn't a loop.

[Efrate]

@quertus There is less 1st party content pf1e than 3.5, but pf 3rd party is fantastic. All of DSP stuff is fantastic, and all of SOP is likewise great. The floor is definitely higher and pf1e characters work better out the box than most of 3.5, and just because it's not become pun pun as soon as you can get a candle in pf, doesn't mean the ceiling is super low. It's just not infinite.

[GrayDeath]

I`ll seperate this into 3 sets of circumstances.

1.: First Party only, regular or "PF Society" allowed Optimization (similar to a harsh no nonsense, RAI 3.5 DM): PF, hands down. With the exception of the Druid and some higher Level spells that have been nerfed (but most of them also carry the risk of being banned and or nerfed on "sensible§ 3.5 tables) PF simply offers more in built, usable, all around Powerful Options.


2.: First and second party, up to medium OP, but no "stupid nonsense " or "needs heavy refluff/retraining/juggling with Templates" or such. PF Levels 1 through 10ish, even between 11 and 13ish, then 3.5.
Prestige Classes, funny Combos, and simply more powerful spells win in this area.
Exception: Pure Psionics and Initiators are simply stronger in PF:


3.: No holds barred, extreme OP with onyl semi infinite and infinte Loops as wella s simply stupid RAW arguments like Chicken infested Commoners etc banned:
PF Levels 1 to maybe 4, 1 to 2 levels overlap,m then 3.5 simply stampedes over PF and elaves crumbling remains behind.


So to sum it up, it heavily depends on how you go to OP it, and what 3rd Party stuff you allow.

Much higher floor and slightly to massivley (very high OP without regards to comkon sense upwards) lower c eiling for PF it is.

[Endarire]

How much do things change with the allowance of psionics, Path of War/Tome of Battle, and Incarnum/Akashic Mysteries?

[MeimuHakurei]

So, is it fair to say that Pathfinder not only has less content, but less range of options (higher floor, lower ceiling)?

Has anyone done a competitive tier analysis of PF characters in 3.5 terms? Do the classes also span a more narrow tier range?

The higher floor in Pathfinder's case means that you have to work more to get a useless character - Brute Vigilante and Oozemorph Shifter are two notable classes known for their absurdly low performance. Also consider that while the core classes have a stronger and more expansive kit in general, many monsters were upgraded too.

Also Pathfinder's tiering is largely identical to 3.5 - notable differences include the Fighter's Advanced Weapon/Armor Training options being so versatile that it's now solidly Tier 4 instead of the Tier 4/5 middle ground and the Rogue being powercrept to sinking into Tier 5 (Trapfinding is less of a hard niche protection and UMD is easier to access for most characters).

I'd probably recommend into looking to make Pathfinder characters (and running/playing games) yourself to have a better idea. I can tell you outright you won't have trouble to play Quertus or Armus in PF as both the Wizard and Commoner still exist in the same tier as always - and because as you noted are largely defined by playstyle and IC behavior and less by their build.

[Unavenger]

I think it depends a lot on optimisation level - even 3.5 builds that I consider relatively casual high-optimisation options (that is, building around known powerful options without a lot of diving for the best feats ever) result in the kind of thing a PF character (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23700517&postcount=416) just can't compete with (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=23704460&postcount=435).

3.5 consistently has a higher ceiling and PF consistently has a higher floor. There are a few exceptions (3.5 has some feats that were broken into multiple feats, or are worse, in PF, that are used in low-OP builds) but for the most part, this remains true.

[Gnaeus]

How much do things change with the allowance of psionics, Path of War/Tome of Battle, and Incarnum/Akashic Mysteries?

Pretty universally the DSP/PF options are just a bit better than the 3.5 versions. But they also cluster pretty tightly around high Tier3. There are some outliers, but a DSP only game is absolutely viable with less power disparity than core,

[Efrate]

I would say PoW is quite a bit better than ToB merely because you have support for wider variety of combat styles including archery. No idiot crusader or "I IHS reality", but your disciplines give you a lot more, and the classes are overall better.

Akashic fixes a lot of incarnums problems. Its pretty much a strict upgrade. Whereas MoI didn't go far enough in many ways, akashic does. Vizier (the 'caster') feels much better than incarnate ever did as it tried to skill monkey plus caster and mostly failed at both. Daevic is a soulborns wet dream and power fantasy in one. Guru is unique in it supportive nature and plays closer to a cleric/monk. There is not a blender equivalent like totemist but for a combat specced pc Daevic is amazing.