I am interested in 3.5/pathfinder but have no clue where to start/don't know the diff

[DrJejMrKek]

I've played 5e for a couple of years and was interested in getting to know pathfinder/3.5e, but I have no idea where to start nor do I know the major differences between 3.5e and pathfinder. Like which one came first? Are the character creator processes similar to one another, both being more complex than 5e? How does XP and feats work? etc.

I've tried getting into 3.5/pathfinder before but the amount of rules and character creation information I sifted through overwhelmed me and I kinda wimped out before I tried searching for games.

If there's a getting started link somewhere on this site or elsewhere then I apologize for overlooking it before making this post, and thanks in advance for any advice given.

[Palanan]

The original 3.0 came out in 2000, and the revised 3.5 version came out in 2003. Pathfinder was an outgrowth of work done in the 3.5 era, and the Pathfinder Core Rulebook (CRB) was first published in 2009. This is Pathfinder First Edition, which ran from 2009-2019. Pathfinder Second Edition is an entirely different beast.

3.5 and Pathfinder 1E are supposed to be interchangeable, although in practice there are countless tiny differences in the rules. If you're new to the system overall, I would start with Pathfinder, since it improves many (though not all) of the longstanding issues with 3.5.

Best way to learn is just dive in and start playing with a group. If you're completely new to the system, I would strongly recommend starting with a first-level character, so you can ease into the rules and start out with a relatively simple build or two.

[Zanos]

3.5 came first, and was made by Wizards of the Coast. Pathfinder is kind of a collection of very popular houserules for 3.5, professionally collected and published as it's own system based on 3.5s publicly available content known as the SRD. It's better in some ways and worse than others; I won't get into that years long debate in this thread. Both are more complex than 5e.
Some Specifics:

The difference between strong and weak characters is very large in these systems. Compare a CR 5 bearded devil (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Bearded_Devil) to a CR 20 https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Pit_Fiend. No number of bearded devils will ever threaten the pit fiend.
Bounded accuracy does not exist. High level characters can have ability scores in the high 30s, or even higher in extreme cases. A 20th level character can slaughter an entire army of low level threats with relatively little risk.
Skills exist with set DCs that are largely not ad-hoc invented by the DM. Characters receive skill points on every level to spend on these, and can more efficiently spend them on skills related to their class.
Proficiency bonuses do not exist.
Many fiddly bonuses exist. In 5e most things are just advantage or disadvantage, a 3.5/PF character might have a bunch of +1/+2 bonuses to some roll.
Magic items are an assumed part of character progression. They are necessary for the math, and most high level characters will have 10+ magic items. Magic items are relatively common and can be purchased for gold in most major population centers.
Spellcasters gain bonus spells per level based on their casting stat, and gain up to a base of 4 spells per level for wizards/clerics and 6 per level for sorcerers at every level. A 20th level wizard with a large intelligence score could have 6 or 7 9th level spells per day.
You do not need to use higher level spell slots to get scaling effects. Damage spells and other spells scale based on your levels in your casting class instead, usually up to a cap. Save DCs do not automatically scale and are based on your spell level instead.
You gain a feat at level 1 and every level divisible by 3(1,3,6,9...etc) in 3.5 and every odd level in Pathfinder. Feats are not an optional variant, but are generally individually less powerful than in 5e.
You gain +1 to a single ability score every four levels. This is in addition to the feat progression.


You get XP by overcoming challenges, which I believe is the same as 5e? It always takes 1000*Current Level XP to reach the next level in 3.5

If you want to get started I'd suggest hunting down a hard copy or PDF of the player's hand book and just reading it.

[Gavinfoxx]

Pathfinder 1e was one of many attempts to 'carry the torch' of 3.5e-style gaming after WotC abandoned the system. A few other systems that attempted to do the same were "Trailblazer", "True20", and "Fantasycraft". Of these, it was Pathfinder 1e that won the popularity contest. Whether it was the system that did the best job of fixing issues or not is difficult to say; most 3.5 veterans would say Pathfinder is just more of the same, with a few tweaks around the edges.

One thing to keep in mind with all of these systems -- 3.5e, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, whatever -- is that they are not balanced. Not like 5e, where there are hard math boundaries for what the system wants to be possible at various points. Essentially, to play a 'fair' game where all the players are on roughly the same level, the players and GM have to come to some mechanism where the table reaches an equilibrium. Further, the systems designed to put together appropriate encounters are complex, but very problematic.

The benefit of this system is that the range of the sorts of things that can happen in game -- from the GM side to the Player side -- is much greater; it's a game that enables stories of gritty mortals barely escaping with their lives (and sometimes not), as well as fantasy silver age superheroes, bending the setting to their whim.

[Firest Kathon]

On 3.5 / PF:
When Wizards of the Coast (WotC) released D&D 4, Paizo decided to update the existing 3.5 ruleset, which was released under the Open Gaming License (OGL), creating Pathfinder. Pathfinder is very close to 3.5, the systems are mostly mutually compatible. Notable differences:

Consolidated skill list
Combat maneuver system unifying grapple, trip, etc. rules
Faster feat progression
Updates to classes, feats, spells, ...
Archetype system mostly taking over the function of 3.5 prestige classes

After the initial release of the core books (other books released by WotC are not under the OGL) Paizo added many more classes to the system.

On chosing which one to start with, I would recommend Pathfinder, as it has more recent content. My suggestion for starting would be to find some experienced players and start to play with a pre-generated character. Paizo has created pre-gens for most classes (https://paizo.com/products/btpy9a64?Community-Use-Package-Pathfinder-Society-Pregenerated-Characters) at levels 1, 4, and 7, available for free. Character building is the more complicated part of the system, I would not recommend creating a character without any play experience.

You may find an online or local group on the Pathfinder Society events page (https://paizo.com/organizedplay/events), but be sure to filter for "Pathfinder Society (first edition)". Paizo has recently released a new edition called "Pathfinder Second Edition", which is not compatible to 3.5/PF1E.

[Zanos]

One thing to keep in mind with all of these systems -- 3.5e, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, whatever -- is that they are not balanced. Not like 5e, where there are hard math boundaries for what the system wants to be possible at various points. Essentially, to play a 'fair' game where all the players are on roughly the same level, the players and GM have to come to some mechanism where the table reaches an equilibrium. Further, the systems designed to put together appropriate encounters are complex, but very problematic.
5e certainly isn't balanced either, considering there are multiple character builds that can deal hundreds and hundreds damage of round that completely break the game because clamping attributes isn't enough to make it 'balanced'. 5e does have the advantage of removing basically everything that isn't for combat though, so luckily there's no more wizards building free piles of masterwork swords to sell for bajillions of gold, but they still haven't stopped using simalcrums to create infinite wish machines. And people still complain about caster supremacy in 5e because mundane characters are still just number piles; they just get to reroll their attacks sometimes. Even worse, many fighters will have a +0 will save even at 20th level.

The balanced edition was 4e and nobody liked it.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx
One thing to keep in mind with all of these systems -- 3.5e, Pathfinder, Trailblazer, whatever -- is that they are not balanced.

I wouldn't disagree in the slightest, but I would also say that discussions of game balance are probably beyond the OP's scope of interest right now.


Originally Posted by Firest Kathon
Character building is the more complicated part of the system, I would not recommend creating a character without any play experience.

I would respectfully differ on this point. Building a character from scratch can certainly be daunting, but it also gives you a better understanding of how the system works than if you're simply handed a pregen sheet.

And if the OP is joining an established group, I would hope they'd guide him through the process. I remember very well how overwhelming feat selection could be, just from the feats allowed in the 3.5 PHB, but taking the time to work through them helps you learn the options and how they interact.

As a result, I'm deeply glad that I built my first 3.5 character according to what I wanted, however wobbly my understanding of the rules, rather than simply being handed something without understanding how it was put together.

[DrJejMrKek]

if its worth anything I don't really care about balance, just as long as each class/archetype/whatever they use has a niche that's unique to them, and one isn't blatantly busted at all stages of the game. Obviously the magical classes will get stronger over time because magic is tied to knowledge and experience and doesn't really have a limit.
A perfectly balanced game can claim its perfectly balanced but it doesn't always mean its fun.

[Kurald Galain]

The key to 3E and PF is realizing that, while they do have tons of rules, you don't need to know almost any of them when you start playing.

Nobody is expecting you to create an optimized level-20 character from scratch. In fact, unlike theory-op discussions on these forums here, your group will probably not do optimization either, AND will most likely never get to level 20. Optimizers will tell you that certain classes are unplayable, but that's not true in practice at most actual gaming tables, so don't worry about it yet.

So what you need to know is basic rules, like how to roll a skill check, the difference between the three saving throws, and how hit points work. That's... really not that hard. Then you find a core class you like (at least, I'd recommend starting with one of the eleven core classes) and you're good to go for your first game. Ta dah!

[Batcathat]

if its worth anything I don't really care about balance, just as long as each class/archetype/whatever they use has a niche that's unique to them

That's what I wish for as well but it's not the case here. Basically, whatever a non-caster class can do a caster can probably do it as well or better.

[Zanos]

That's what I wish for as well but it's not the case here. Basically, whatever a non-caster class can do a caster can probably do it as well or better.
Most classes function in their intended role at the typical 3.5 table. The optimization community spends more time theorycrafting than playing.

[Kurald Galain]

That's what I wish for as well but it's not the case here. Basically, whatever a non-caster class can do a caster can probably do it as well or better.
That's probably true at level 20, or at high level in general. It is certainly not true at the levels that people usually play at (which is 1-10, mostly).

[Batcathat]

Most classes function in their intended role at the typical 3.5 table. The optimization community spends more time theorycrafting than playing.

Sure, but even without ridiculously optimized theorycrafting magic can still do almost anything, including aiding combat, stealth, social situations and whatever else a party might encounter. Meanwhile, a non-caster is lucky to do one of those things well, never mind all of them.

[DrJejMrKek]

Yeah I think I'm going to go with Kurald's suggestion and try to find a game and learn the fundamentals. Thanks again everyone who replied

[Xervous]

You may have better luck seeking out pathfinder as there’s less in the way of standardized houseruling for this and that, but more notably it is the more recently supported game.

[Gavinfoxx]

just as long as each class/archetype/whatever they use has a niche that's unique to them, and one isn't blatantly busted at all stages of the game.

They don't. This system does NOT achieve what you want, without knowing the pitfalls. Not every archetype, class, or whatever, has a niche unique to them, and there are SO MANY that are blatantly busted (overpowered OR underpowered!) at all stages of the game. In Pathfinder AND 3.5e.

That's what I meant when I said it wasn't balanced!

[Kurald Galain]

there are SO MANY that are blatantly busted

That's a wild exaggeration for two of the most widely-played RPGs on the planet :smallamused:

[gijoemike]

I am surprised no one has mentioned this bit yet.

In 5e the unique trick of the character is the archetype/subclass/kit chosen at level 3. That greatly expands the powers of the characters base class. It doesn't replace the powers of the base class nor does it stop the progression of said powers. A rogue who wants to be an assassin is one at lvl 3. Done

In 3.X the way to progress character abilities or kit is to take the requirements for a Prestige class, an advanced class taken well after character creation. These take your character along a new progression path. Your abilities from your base class don't necessary progress. And a character is not limited to 1 or 2 prestige classes. It is usually best to limit oneself to just 1 or 2 but there are builds out there for 3 or 4 different P. classes. Mix and match to your hearts content. 3.X expects nearly all players to enter a P. Class. Straight classing makes mid to high levels way more difficult. The downside to this is before you even roll up stats for the character you have to know about the build path up to at least level 6 so you can get into a P. Class "on time" (they are gated by having a certain base attack value, or access to certain spell levels). Building a good assassin requires several classes and P. Classes. none of which are the actual P. Class called Assassin. It would take me 4 full hours to build a lvl 1 character because I would have to plan the character out to level 10.

In Pathfinder v1 they had a few P. Classes but realized the issues with the prerequisite game and steered away from that. Instead, P v1. has archetypes. Instead of just fighter there are up to 20 different versions where each one can replace certain abilities with new abilities. Such as trading out armor training for new weapons, or limiting weapons for new feats. There are hundreds of choices. This can and usually takes place at level 1, but must be chosen when the first class ability would be switched out. If the first ability is at lvl 3 then as a player you don't have to decide until the 3rd level of that base class. And just like 3.5 they aren't limited to just 1 archetype. As long as the archetypes don't alter the same ability they can be stacked. This can cause a party of say 5 lvl 1 human fighters with the exact same stats and equipment to be radically wildly different in play. Pathfinder really wants a player to stick to 1 or 2 of the base classes ( 1-20 level classes). But all these archtypes means you have analysis paralysis at character creation, which is exactly what is happening to you.


Learning 3.X or pathfinder v1 from scratch at this point is very overwhelming. Both WotC and Pazio printed new feats/spell/items/P.Classes/Base Classes in every book. And unlike 5e there were dozens and dozens of books. They have grown in breadth and depth to almost insane dimensions. Reach out to players and the community when you have these sorts of questions. I always found it helpful to explain a character concept and then have a 3.X expert show you a possible way to build that character at level 3, 10, and 17. That you way see how the character can grow. Also, when you first start playing limit the source material just so you can keep things in scope. It can be expanded in later games.

[Gavinfoxx]

@gijoemike: I'd disagree that there are no Archetypes in 3.5e. They aren't called that, but between Variant Classes, Alternative Class Features, and Substitution Levels, many of the base classes (at least, the ones introduced early in the system, which were well supported) have the equivalent of Pathfinder Archetypes.

[Hish]

Most classes function in their intended role at the typical 3.5 table. The optimization community spends more time theorycrafting than playing.

This is an important point. In practice, the game works a lot better than you would believe from the optimization forums.


I am surprised no one has mentioned this bit yet.
Snip

I was looking through the thread to see if anyone had said this. As I see it, this is the primary gameplay difference between 3.5 & pf. In 3.5, you customize your character through multiclassing and prestige classes. Pathfinder expects you to pick one class and stick with it, and customize via archetype choice.

[Segev]

I was looking through the thread to see if anyone had said this. As I see it, this is the primary gameplay difference between 3.5 & pf. In 3.5, you customize your character through multiclassing and prestige classes. Pathfinder expects you to pick one class and stick with it, and customize via archetype choice.

It is, however, worth noting that multiclassing and prestige classes are options. They just aren't as commonly chosen as archetypes are.

I'm in a game starting this coming Wednesday where one of the PCs is a Bloodrager/Magus. The other two are a Vitalist (mine) and a warforged Investigator. (The game takes place in Eberron, though we're using PF mechanics.)

[Quertus]

if its worth anything I don't really care about balance, just as long as each class/archetype/whatever they use has a niche that's unique to them,


They don't.

Yeah, so… if your *primary* concern is in niche protection, in having a role to play… then you need to explain that to your group, get them on board.

Classes don't have roles, but builds can. For example,

BFC: spiked chain tripper

Healing: radiant servant of Pelor

Striker: übercharger, mailman… maybe Rogue (2-weapon)

Face: Diplomacer

Figure out what role(s) you're willing to play, then (get help to) build something that will fill that role.

Balance to the table. Not every table is suitable for every build. Your table may find a straight Bard or Cleric to make a balanced Face, or just plain human skeletons from a Dread Necromancer may be OP damage / BFC for a given table.

On your own, first time playing, you'll probably make something rather weak; the playground, OTOH, would probably push you towards something rather strong (in theory).

Conventional wisdom is player > build > class. So, it's actually probably good if your 1st character is a bit strong, *if* your group cares about balance. Of course, if they're *good* at caring about balance, they'll look at the final product rather than banning at the individual component level. Don't expect anyone in the former group to recognize that player > build > class and give you any leeway for the "(1st time) player" component.

What else? Hmmm… IMO, "balance" isn't as important as having a role to play. If you've got your "Minionmancy" build, and it's fun for you to play that niche, it shouldn't matter too much if your build is stronger or weaker than the rest of the party. Just metagame like a ************** dolphin - pay attention to the rest of the table, and make sure that they're having fun, too.

So, in summary, pick role(s), make build(s), get group onboard, make sure everyone has fun.

[NomGarret]

The two games are very similar, though as has been stated there are lots of little differences between the two. Would you prefer a unified stealth skill, or separate skills for hide and move silently, for instance? That said, they are both far more different from 5e than they are from each other, and both involve more complexity in the areas of character creation and growth.

In terms of options available, they go very different directions once you leave the core books. 3.5 has more alternative subsystems whereas Pathfinder tends to utilize existing mechanics in new ways and combinations.

Race options are a little different as well, once you branch out of core. Some races are WotC copyright, so they don’t exist in Pathfinder. If you’re looking to find the goliaths and warforged you’ve used in 5e games, you should go with 3.5.

[gijoemike]

@gijoemike: I'd disagree that there are no Archetypes in 3.5e. They aren't called that, but between Variant Classes, Alternative Class Features, and Substitution Levels, many of the base classes (at least, the ones introduced early in the system, which were well supported) have the equivalent of Pathfinder Archetypes.

Yes, but in 3.5 instead of selecting a package of abilities like in PF one chooses a single class feature to alter per ACF. One can easily mix and match ACFs and sub levels. Variant classes are most similar to the archetypes. There is also the dead level substitutions. 3.5 is the more complex game in my opinion due to the character building sub game.

[Gruftzwerg]

imho one of the top reasons why people still play 3.5/PF is because you can replicate almost any kind of character that you can imagine. I didn't played much PF since I disliked some of the changes and our group has low interest for a long time (we had the books, but so far we only played a small campaign and broke up the other that we started in PF). But for 3.5 I can say, for me as someone who likes theory-crafting in games (be it pnp or video games) it's the best system. And as far as I know in this regard, it's better than PF because it doesn't have pseudo balance bottlenecks (that don't work out as intended some times).

Imho you switch to 3.5/pf because you want to play a system where there is no real cap to the power lvl.
Low magic fantasy? You can do it with 3.5 if you want.
High magic fantasy? Also no problem for 3.5
you wanna go "OVER 9000!!!111!1!" ? No problem for 3.5, you can pimp your character beyond god tier if you want to.

If you want a system without any kind of power cap, pick 3.5.

________________

but in the end, stick to that system where you can find enough nice people to play with ;)