New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eastern US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    I've seen a lot of people say Pathfinder is an improvement over 3.5. I've not had the chance to play Pathfinder, but finally got around to sitting down and reading the PHB for it the other day.

    Coming only from an outsider's view, I don't really see an overall improvement. I grant that melee classes get more choices of class features (which is good), but the same broken spells look like they are still there an unchanged.

    Is Pathfinder any more balanced, or is it still Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit?
    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    "Ha ha! Cry some more!"
    - Pathfinder Wizards
    Quote Originally Posted by Dead Levels
    The monk is the only other core class, aside from the barbarian, that has no dead levels. Players always have something to look forward to with the monk, which boasts the most colorful and unique special abilities of all the character classes.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Eldan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Switzerland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    In my opinion? They gave the weaker classes, especially the bard, monk and paladin, a few goodies. Good decision. They made combat maneuvers better. Okay.

    Then they improved sorcerers and wizards. Significantly, in some cases. They nerfed a few broken spells, but not all of them, leaving some of the strongest ones basically the same.

    The problem is that they didn't change enough. Fighters get a little more stuff, but are basically still linear, while wizards are still quadratic. Wizards can still do just about anything, fighters can hit stuff with swords.

    They did a few little things and left the big problems.
    Resident Vancian Apologist

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Banned
     
    Snake-Aes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    R'lyeh
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    As far as the relative power of the classes go, the gap takes a few more levels to be evident, but they remain there. There's really no way to remove it completely without changing the game into something unrecognizable(4e pulled that off).

    I feel the biggest improvement wasn't the class balance, but -everything else-. The review to the skill system made everyone more useful overall, some things were simplified, and the game didn't really lose anything to 3.5
    Unless you're a 8-8-8-16-28-16 wildshape fanatic. Then you're hosed.

  5. - Top - End - #5

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    fighters can hit stuff with swords.
    Well, at least in 3.5 you a fighter can cut a tank in half with power attack shenigans.

    In pathfinder not even that as power attack is extra nerfed.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Well, at least in 3.5 you a fighter can cut a tank in half with katana shenigans.

    In pathfinder not even that as katanas are extra nerfed.
    Fixed.
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kaiyanwang's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Oslecamo View Post
    Well, at least in 3.5 you a fighter can cut a tank in half with power attack shenigans.

    In pathfinder not even that as power attack is extra nerfed.
    You can no longer one-shot things with shocktrooper but PA is better for the casual gamer. Now is 1:3 for Two-Handed, 1:2 for Main Hand, 1:1 for off-hand. Previoulsy, you couldn't even use PA with light weapons.

    TH damage is still solid, you can build a 20 level fighter that deals 300ish damage critting a deadly stroke. TWF is still linked to feats and to full attack, but a fighter has more to hit bonus, and can benefit greatly from critical feats. Stun d4 rounds, blind permanently.. S&B is doable, and is based on control (each hit is a free bullrush).

    Yeah, there is planar binding, gate, wish and so on. Spells has been nerfed, but not completely. Magic is still powerful, even if is less easy to cast in combat, at least at low levels.

    If you liked 3.5, pathfinder core is FAR superior to 3.5 core. Melee vs Caster progression is not changed so much, if you mind it, try something else.

    Myself, I enjoy it very much.
    Last edited by Kaiyanwang; 2010-07-04 at 05:57 PM.
    Warning: my time zone and internet acces may lead to strange/late post answers.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    The rogue isn't really using charisma in melee, the rogue is applying Ability Score #6 to his Type-One attacks.
    Quote Originally Posted by ken-do-nim View Post
    DMing is how you turn D&D from a game into a hobby.
    Quote Originally Posted by Maroon View Post
    Players can see a story where there isn't one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldariel View Post
    For 4.0? I expect them to whine to the DM until he makes the big bad boogeyman go away.

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Saya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Cleric is shoved more into the healbot role with their positive/negative energy bursts and the removal of their heavy armor profs. Domains are now a little weird with two abilities instead of one, which are granted at 1st and 8th level. And turn/command is now a feat instead of a feature.

    Paladins are much more useful as mountless paladins are actually somewhat more viable and smite is much stronger.

    There's also the feat/2 level progression which does funny things.
    Last edited by Saya; 2010-07-04 at 06:07 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Banned
     
    Snake-Aes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    R'lyeh
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Saya View Post
    Cleric is shoved more into the healbot role with their positive/negative energy bursts and the removal of their heavy armor profs. Domains are now a little weird with two abilities instead of one, which are granted at 1st and 8th level. And turn/command is now a feat instead of a feature.

    Paladins are much more useful as mountless paladins are actually somewhat more viable and smite is much stronger.

    There's also the feat/2 level progression which does funny things.
    The "shoving" as you say isn't any different than the 3.5 shape. The spellcasting is almost the same as before. Even thought spells like Divine Power were watered down, they're still incredibly powerful (DP itself is just as powerful as before, but can't stack with stuff like haste). The drop in armor proficiency isn't half as bad as it feels.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Ravens_cry's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    At least in my group, the more feats, and the way the requirements are written, make archer rangers brutal damage dealers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calanon View Post
    Raven_Cry's comments often have the effects of a +5 Tome of Understanding

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Eh do a search for opinions on old topic. IMO pathfinder alpha was horrendously bad, but fortunately they realized it or for w/e other reason removed all the crazy stuff and now there's very little changed from 3.5. So now I don't see why to bother with it.

    And yeah, power attack isn't much without shock trooper or another trick. Otherwise you shouldn't blow more than a couple points if you want to actually hit something with it, unless you're buffed through the roof. In which case it's more thanks to the buffs than PA.
    Last edited by ericgrau; 2010-07-04 at 06:14 PM.
    So you never have to interrupt a game to look up a rule again:
    My 3.5e Rules Cheat Sheets: Normal, With Consolidated Skill System
    TOGC's 3.5e Spell/etc Cards: rpgnow / drivethru rpg
    Utilities: Magic Item Shop Generator (Req. MS Excel), Balanced Low Magic Item System
    Printable Cardstock Dungeon Tiles and other terrain stuff (100 MB)

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Saya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Snake-Aes View Post
    The "shoving" as you say isn't any different than the 3.5 shape. The spellcasting is almost the same as before. Even thought spells like Divine Power were watered down, they're still incredibly powerful (DP itself is just as powerful as before, but can't stack with stuff like haste). The drop in armor proficiency isn't half as bad as it feels.
    I was talking about the domain granted powers, rather than the spells themselves, unless you weren't referring to my post when you were talking about that.

    It just really feels that the new class ability creates a greater sense of "press heal, keep party alive"-ness, with the removal of innate turning abilities kinda reinforcing that idea.

    Also, the armor drop in prof feels bad at low levels, despite at later levels it being a moot point.
    Last edited by Saya; 2010-07-04 at 06:22 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Prime32's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Saya View Post
    Paladins are much more useful as mountless paladins are actually somewhat more viable and smite is much stronger.
    They were already plenty viable with Charging Smite and Divine Spirit. Unless you meant a paladin who has a mount and doesn't use it.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Saya's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Prime32 View Post
    They were already plenty viable with Charging Smite and Divine Spirit. Unless you meant a paladin who has a mount and doesn't use it.
    Sorry, to clarify, I mean a core paladin that chooses to put his/her skill points in something besides ride/handle animal, making it that while yes, they can use the mount in combat, they may or may not run into trouble while using it...

    (Of course, this can possibly further lead to the questions of whether or not you use handle animal... but that's for another thread)

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Quote Originally Posted by Saya View Post
    It just really feels that the new class ability creates a greater sense of "press heal, keep party alive"-ness, with the removal of innate turning abilities kinda reinforcing that idea.

    Also, the armor drop in prof feels bad at low levels, despite at later levels it being a moot point.
    It seems to me that you'll only get that sense if your group already thought of Clerics as healbots. For me, it actually helps relieve the traditional pressure a little bit, because it gives you a separate source of healing (group healing, to boot, which is especially nice since you don't have to wait for or rely on the horrible Mass Cure X spells or burn extra charges from your wands/scrolls/potions of healing.) That means you can go ahead and use your spell slots actively, instead of always worrying that maybe you can't cast that Bless/Shield of Faith/Bull's Strength/Bestow Curse because you might need to flip it into a Cure X.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PId6's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Elemental Plane of Paper
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    My biggest issue with PF is that it had so much potential, but so many things that should have been changed weren't. Why is TWF still three separate feats? Why does Candle of Invocation still exist? Why does sorcerer spellcasting still progress one level behind the wizard's? Why is Mystic Theurge's still so bad? There are enough unresolved issues for every actual fix that I'd rather just play a houseruled 3.5 with sources open than shell out money for a game that I'm going to have to houserule anyway.

    Still, I'd rather play PF than core-only 3.5 if houserules and homebrew aren't allowed. It's at least an improvement on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    In my opinion? They gave the weaker classes, especially the bard, monk and paladin, a few goodies.
    PF improved the bard? Wut?
    Rogue Handbook | Warmage Rebuild | Diablo's Assassin | Revised Classes
    Potpourri Creation Contest II Winner: Desert Martial Adept Substitution Levels
    Potpourri Creation Contest III Best Characterization: Edward the Sly's Lucky Spells
    Prestige Class Contest XXI Submission: Child of the Seelie Court

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Jun 2005

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Based mostly on what I've heard, it's a relatively mild revamp that fixes some issues, introduces a few new ones, and doesn't change enough to really address any central flaws, not that the designers seem to recognize the central flaws anyway.

    Because just one of those apparently wasn't enough for 3rd Edition. (Of course, there are probably plenty of games that are each basically a sort of AD&D 3 floating around out there, too...)
    Quote Originally Posted by icefractal View Post
    Abstract positioning, either fully "position doesn't matter" or "zones" or whatever, is fine. If the rules reflect that. Exact positioning, with a visual representation, is fine. But "exact positioning theoretically exists, and the rules interact with it, but it only exists in the GM's head and is communicated to the players a bit at a time" sucks for anything even a little complex. And I say this from a GM POV.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Orc in the Playground
     
    PirateWench

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    What you get from PF may depend alot on the style of play of your group. for my play group alot of the player favour melee non caster types and It feels alot diferent playing.

    i like the changes to skills alot.

    in our current game the key to success is keeping our fighter alive. though were only level 7 so for all i know it'll change later. But at least at this level the partyy dynamic seems to work alot better than in 3.5

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Pathfinder vs. 3.5

    Saph covered this one.

    To summarize:
    1) PF does not "fix" 3.5. Casters are still Quadratic and Warriors Linear, but the latter are at least less so.
    2) PF is better if you like playing with fewer books, however, because core-only PF is more balanced than core-only D&D.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •