Pathfinder: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

[Talakeal]

So I am considering running pathfinder instead of 3.5 for the next dungeons and dragons game I run. But before I shell out the 50 bucks for the book I am wondering how much of an improvement people actual think it is.

From what I have heard around the forums that they have fixed a lot of the problems (good), left a lot of problems untouched (bad) and tried to fix problems but only end up making them worse (and ugly).

Could someone who read / played the game please tell me what major / crucial changes they have made and what category they fall into?

[Eldan]

You actually best start out just having a look at the pathfinder SRD, which you can easily google. It lists changes to races, classes, spells, skills and feats, at least. There are also a few changes to more fundamental concept, such as levelling and what favoured classes do, but these are hte largest ones.

[Da Beast]

Pathfinder SRD. There's also a topic floating around the boards somewhere with a decent write up of how pathfinder differs from 3.5, but I'm not sure where it got off too...

[Aran Banks]

Pathfiner is Paizo's moneymaking scheme. It's 3.5 with sprinkles, and is in no way superior.

The problems with casting v. melee get expounded. Then it has some fun with feats (though not super meaningfully).

I recommend not buying it.

[arguskos]

Pathfinder SRD. There's also a topic floating around the boards somewhere with a decent write up of how pathfinder differs from 3.5, but I'm not sure where it got off too...

You mean this? That's Saph's write-up, and it's fairly accurate.

[Tyndmyr]

The above is all pretty much correct.

It's not bad. If you enjoy 3.5, you'll enjoy PF. It's very familiar, but there's a few tweaks that are generally accepted as nice(skill system in particular). However, the similarity to 3.5 does mean you have a LOT of overlap in the material.

Better pictures, though. Definitely better pictures.

[Tetsubo 57]

Pathfiner is Paizo's moneymaking scheme. It's 3.5 with sprinkles, and is in no way superior.

The problems with casting v. melee get expounded. Then it has some fun with feats (though not super meaningfully).

I recommend not buying it.

Wow. I am a die-hard 3.5 fan. I consider the SRD/OGL to be the greatest gift that our hobby has ever received. And I think that Pathfinder is unquestionably superior to the core 3.5 rules. Pathfinder makes money because it is a quality rules system that is fully supported. I am currently reading the Advanced Players Guide and I think it is the best book in the OGL family that I have read since the PHB II came out. Excellent work well worth your time and money.

[Talakeal]

You mean this? That's Saph's write-up, and it's fairly accurate.

Thank you, That's pretty much what I was looking for, although I would love to hear what others think. Overall the game looks pretty good to me so far.

[Kylarra]

Pathfinder is okay. It's a lot better than core 3.5, but if you already have a ton of splatbooks for 3.5, then you might as well just save your money and make your own houserules.

[FelixG]

Wow. I am a die-hard 3.5 fan. I consider the SRD/OGL to be the greatest gift that our hobby has ever received. And I think that Pathfinder is unquestionably superior to the core 3.5 rules. Pathfinder makes money because it is a quality rules system that is fully supported. I am currently reading the Advanced Players Guide and I think it is the best book in the OGL family that I have read since the PHB II came out. Excellent work well worth your time and money.

This.

I love pathfinder.

And the Advanced Players Guide is full of just so much fun...

Oh....and better pictures :D

[Leolo]

The good:
- Racial abilities have been reworked and i like the result.
- Pathfinder is still in print, so you might easier find new players
- it is similar to 3.5 and 3.5 is a good system

The bad:
- Pretty much all changes could be described as nice houserules that would have earned many criticism if they would have been posted in a forum like this.
- PFRPG increases the powerlevel slightly. There are options missing, but as a summary the characters are stronger.
- The system is not compatible to 3.5. It can be made, but in fact it is easier to simple take some houserules for 3.5 that already match the system. You should also note that the reason why the balance is not completely of the board is that some options have been removed. Bringing them back into the game via splatbooks from 3.5 increases the power level even more.
- Most of the changes does not even intend to solve problems from 3.5 but could be described as changes with the intend to change something without thinking about the reason for this. For example bards are intended to be skill monkeys in 3.5 but have the problem that they have to maximize an otherwise useless skill to use their class features. And does not have use for high int, so they do not really have that much more skill points than other classes. Pathfinder "solves" this by splitting this otherwise useless skill into multiple otherwise useless skills that now all have to maximized to use all your class features. And by making the skill less useful in general.

Bards might be a bad example - they are nerfed in general. But the same is true for many changes. I would not say that 3.5 does not need to change. But there are very few thoughts feelable about why a single change is a good idea. Polymorph is another good example.

The Ugly:

I have played pathfinder about half an year, and i have had fun with the system. Not that much as when i played 3.5 and not half that much as with 4E, but still fun. But there was one thing that i really do not liked. The characters are streamlined to concepts. Because it is not really a good idea to use PFRPG with 3.5 splat books and material there are much options missing in general. But because of pfrpg buffs/nerfs selective options the builds that are available in the system are streamlined, too.

For example i really liked to play bards in 3.5.

And they where different. A music caster? A juggler and iron bender? A wise loremaster? It is all possible. PFRPG reduces this to the loremaster and nerfs him, too.

In 3.5 my bard knows something about the way to the next town because he have heard some story about the three river maidens living in the river between us and the town, saving people from the local orc tribe from time to time by showing them the hidden path through the forest.

In PFRPG my bard has greater knowledge over the nature than the party ranger or druid. 3 times a day i know more than the cleric about his religion or the wizard about a spell. And i hate it. It kills role playing, because it has nothing to do with my role as a musician or the role of my party members as wise mages or fanatic priests.

Role playing in general has inferior importance for the changes, and this is a shame...because it is the thing that the game should be build arround.

[Kurald Galain]

As said above, Pathfinder is a better starting point than the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB. Also, Saph's guide is the best advice you're going to get on the matter.

PF does not solve the balance issues in 3E, but this is a red herring: game balance is ubiquitously discussed on gaming forums but is really not all that important in actual gameplay. It was never the intent for PF (nor for most other RPGs anywhere) to be completely balanced. Boardgames require balance because they're competitive; RPGs don't require much balance because they're cooperative.

[Snake-Aes]

As said above, Pathfinder is a better starting point than the 3.0 or 3.5 PHB. Also, Saph's guide is the best advice you're going to get on the matter.

PF does not solve the balance issues in 3E, but this is a red herring: game balance is ubiquitously discussed on gaming forums but is really not all that important in actual gameplay. It was never the intent for PF (nor for most other RPGs anywhere) to be completely balanced. Boardgames require balance because they're competitive; RPGs don't require much balance because they're cooperative.

The need for balance is psychological in nature...being cooperative doesn't make most people hand out and accept that they might be playing something weaker

[CapnVan]

It's also worth noting that you don't need $50 for the product. $10 gets you a legal, searchable PDF.

Considering I've had to pay more than that for a number of movies, that's not much of a barrier to entry.

[olelia]

My group has permanently switch to pathfinder and have been happy since. The only major "problem" we keep having is when new rules keep popping up. Luckily Saph was nice and compiled a pretty good changes list.

[Nero24200]

PF does not solve the balance issues in 3E, but this is a red herring: game balance is ubiquitously discussed on gaming forums but is really not all that important in actual gameplay. It was never the intent for PF (nor for most other RPGs anywhere) to be completely balanced. Boardgames require balance because they're competitive; RPGs don't require much balance because they're cooperative.

Not nessicerily true. I like the idea of classes being balanced because it means I can make a character I like without fear that they're uselss in the party. For instance, lets say we have have two uberchargers in the party that can one-shot any boss (likely in a high-op game).

And lets say hypothetically - one could perform an "ubercharge" as an immedaite action (not likely, but I'm exhargerrating a little here to help show my point). What happens to the other? For the majority of encounters in the game the other Ubercharger is pointless, since anything he might be needed to do the other can do better.

This is why I want balance. I hate the idea that I could make an interesting character and - purely because I didn't powerbuild him - find that he's pointless within the party. I play D'n'D to have fun, which for me means not sitting back doing nothing while everyone else has fun with combat - That element of D'n'D which takes up the majority of the rules.

[Snake-Aes]

It's nicknamed 3.75 for a reason, you know. It is made to be usable with 3.5 as seamlessly as possible.
The consequence is, as you'll notice, that the power between classes didn't change much. Most classes got very nice buffs, and deciding between maneuvers like grapple and trip is slightly easier (and dex characters can defend themselves better against those).
Casters still dominate. Melee still doesn't dominate. You can still look at the tier system and not move things around.


Overall, I like it. It's slightly easier to use, the skill mechanics and consolidation improved, and some classes got nice buffs.
The monetary pros to it are:
1) free srd
2) cheap pdf
So you don't have to buy it. Mess around with the srd first.

[Kurald Galain]

Not nessicerily true. I like the idea of classes being balanced because it means I can make a character I like without fear that they're uselss in the party.

There is a huge difference between being unbalanced and being useless.

Playing a 5th level fighter while another player has a 10th level fighter may make you feel useless, because everything you can do the other fighter can do better. In my experience, this is annoying.

Playing a 5th level fighter while another player has a 5th level wizard means you can do things he can't, and he can do things you can't. Neither character is useless. In my experience, this means both players will have fun even if technically speaking, one character is more powerful.

[Leolo]

Balancing is important because it helps to play your role. A Fighter who defines himself as the guy who protect his mage buddy may find his role playing affected if he does not protect him at all.

There are many roles that can be "replaced" by other classes or spells and balancing has to provide some kind of barrier to avoid this.

[Nero24200]

Playing a 5th level fighter while another player has a 5th level wizard means you can do things he can't, and he can do things you can't. Neither character is useless. In my experience, this means both players will have fun even if technically speaking, one character is more powerful.

What about a 5th level fighter and a 5th level DMM battle-cleric? Or cleric using the PF warrior variant? As said in my post, I was exharggeratting to prove my point - very rarely is someone going to be completely uselss, but that doesn't prevent them being overshadowed by quite a bit.

Making the game "perfectly balanced" isn't required to prevent this - Just making it reasonably balanced can be enough in fact.

[DruchiiConversion]

Power attack got nerfed.
Improved Trip got split into two feats.


Wizards now have an ability to cast any spell from their spellbook 1/day, if they feel like taking it.
Clerics now get extra powers, such as a first-level touch attack which removes actions from the enemy with no save, usable 6+ times per day.


Monks are no longer allowed to take improved natural attack, and as such output less damage.
Barbarians can now rage less.


Wizards get a free metamagic ability, if they feel like taking it. Doesn't increase the casting time or spell level, naturally.
Sorcerers also get nifty abilities as they level up, such as decent SR, +6 to an ability score, or just good old-fashioned free metamagic.


I could go on. If any player came on here saying "these are my DM's houserules, do they seem reasonable? I'm noticing balance issues" they would be loudly, and rightly knocked - the only reason Paizo get as much leeway as they do is because they're a publishing company. If balance is a concern for you at all, I'd have to advise against PF. It's even worse for balance than 3.5.

[Kurald Galain]

What about a 5th level fighter and a 5th level DMM battle-cleric?

That strikes me as something that is ubiquitously discussed on gaming forums but is really not all that important in actual gameplay - because most groups in practice do not have a DMM battle-cleric.

Pathfinder's goal has been to fix practical issues, not theoretical ones. Of course, I'm not saying it's fully succeeded at that; my point is that those theoretical issues are a red herring. It's not an issue for PF to fix the heal-by-drowning loophole since pretty much nobody is using that loophole in the first place.

[Saph]

(snipped)

Pretty much everything in Druchii's post is either inaccurate (e.g. the claim about universalist Wizards' metamagic being effective) or misleading (emphasising buffs to one class while ignoring buffs to others). Arguskos and Kurald already linked to the guide I wrote.

Balance-wise, PF is slightly better-balanced than 3.5, but not enough to make a huge difference - if you found 3.5 unplayable you probably won't like PF, while if you're part of the majority who didn't have impossible problems with the 3.5 system you'll probably get on fine with PF as well.

The more significant changes are the greater number of class features each class gets, and the improvements to the skill and combat maneuver systems. I'd say that taken together, they make PF core better than 3.5 core. However, 3.5 has way more books and material to explore, giving it much more variety than Pathfinder has.

My verdict would be:

• Want to play with one book? Use Pathfinder.
• Want to play with 20 books? Stick with 3.5.

[Leolo]

@Kurald: The problem is that this points are not theoretical, at least not all of them. Yes - balancing importance depends on the gaming group. If no one forces the boundaries of the system to harsh it does work sufficient.

But balancing changes is not the only change, and i would (after playing it about half a year) say the changes does affect practical situations.

For example it makes a difference if i can no longer polymorph myself into another person. Or if my bard is now a loremaster if i want it or not.

Or general speaking if a specific character build is heavily nerfed.

[Nero24200]

I think Leelo sums up what I meant pretty well. Even if some balance concearns are red herrings, they shouldn't all be treated that way.

[Kurald Galain]

@Kurald: The problem is that this points are not theoretical, at least not all of them.

I'm not saying that there are no practical points, I am saying that the theoretical points are a red herring.

So I'm much more interested in discussing the practical points (such as the changes to the skill system or to multiclassing) than the theoretical ones (such as claims that "PF sucks because it's unbalanced").

[DruchiiConversion]

Pretty much everything in Druchii's post is either inaccurate (e.g. the claim about universalist Wizards' metamagic being effective) or misleading (emphasising buffs to one class while ignoring buffs to others).

I'm not trying to say PF is unplayable, simply that it is less well-balanced than 3.5. The specific claim you make here is that universalist wizards getting metamagic for free is ineffective - I freely admit that the ability does not compare to, say, Incantatrix, favourably - but still, the idea that it is not a useful ability is simply untrue.

Compare this to what the Monk gets out of Pathfinder. The answer to that is: a few not-so-great feat options, the ability to be slightly (rather than much) worse at combat maneuvers than a fighter, and a few weak abilities tied to a ki pool, some of which he could do before the change.

Maybe I'm just missing something the Monk gets, in which case, I'm happy to be corrected. But if not, I think it's safe to say that the Wizard class received more bonuses from Pathfinder than the Monk did.

Which of those is at the top, and which is at the bottom, or the 3.5 core tier list again?

[Saph]

I'm not trying to say PF is unplayable, simply that it is less well-balanced than 3.5. The specific claim you make here is that universalist wizards getting metamagic for free is ineffective - I freely admit that the ability does not compare to, say, Incantatrix, favourably - but still, the idea that it is not a useful ability is simply untrue.

PF universalist metamagic sucks horribly. Read my guide for a detailed explanation as to why. There is literally no reason to play a universalist rather than a specialist unless you want to deliberately handicap yourself.

The idea that the PF wizard's free metamagic is awesome is one of the enduring myths of Pathfinder. Partly it's due to a holdover from the pre-nerf version in the Beta, where the ability was actually pretty good, and partly it's due to an assumption that any ability that gives you any amount of free metamagic must be great, but mostly it comes down to not running the numbers and figuring out how much more easily you could do it a different way instead.

[liquid150]

This post on another forum sums up how I feel about PF.

Spoiler

Show

I have noticed a disturbingly large number of people making inaccurate statements about Pathfinder. In the interests of keeping 3.5 alive these inaccuracies must be corrected, however it is neither productive nor efficient to continue reviving > 1 month old threads to do so. So instead I will put it all in one easy to read and reference location.

In general, it is important to understand that Pathfinder (henceforth referred to as PF) is all about making wrong or deceptive claims about what they are doing. If they claim they will do x, they will most likely do exactly the opposite, or at least not do x. It is also important to understand none of their developers have any idea what they are doing design wise, and their community is even less skilled than they are. Lastly, it is important to understand another favored tactic of those who wrote PF is to use smoke screen tactics to appear as if they did something meaningful when in actuality they did not.

Here is a not complete list of some of the many things they have done that I will add to as I remember more:

General melee:

All maneuvers nerfed by reducing the success rate drastically, in many cases you will have a 0% chance to succeed when otherwise it would be worth trying. For all practical purposes this only affects the Trip maneuver though as the others were never worth using anyways. However, the Trip maneuver is the only means by which a non spellcaster can even attempt to protect their allies, ergo there is nothing stopping the enemy from calmly walking around them to attack whoever they desire.

Melee damage output drastically reduced by heavily nerfing the feat Power Attack. As it was an uphill battle to do enough HP damage to matter to begin with, and you do not have the option to bypass HP to attack enemies in some other way as you are not a spellcaster...

What exactly are you supposed to do? You can't defend yourself (no change, PF characters are still hit on a 2 and dead in 1-2 rounds in melee combat), you can't defend anyone else (trip nerf), you can't kill the enemy before they kill you, you can only tickle them... why are you even there?

Granted, in 3.5 the same question could be asked of any non spellcasting class who did not put forth an exceptional effort to make themselves relevant and contributing party members, but being able to participate in the game was a possibility at least. And as these things are the foundation for tactics, they affect everything, even the non spellcaster classes that would otherwise be capable of functioning such as the Tome of Battle classes. Sure you could fix the problem by ignoring PF rules, but that's just a point in favor of not using them!

General spellcaster:

Smokescreen tactics employed heavily here. Here are a few examples:

Nerfing select spells - doesn't mean a thing, for as long as there is at least one spell at every level that instantly wins combats the spellcasting classes are no less powerful. There still are, so even if there were fewer it makes no practical difference. Of course they aren't, because the nerfs make no practical difference. Example: Save every round. The soonest they can try to break out is round 2 as you cast the spell on round 1. Most combats are over by then, therefore the end result (enemy neutralized entire combat) remains the same.

Nerfing the spells that were weaker to begin with - Everyone is immune to [Death] at level 13+ if they know what they are doing and if they do not they don't make it to 13+. As a result, making Finger of Death do an inconsequental amount of HP damage instead of instantly killing the enemy makes no difference to its utility, as it was already a spell that was countered as a matter of course and therefore had no effect.

Stealth buffs - particularly when they counter the so called nerfs and then some. New spells that instantly win combats making the alleged nerfs to some of the others irrelevant even if they meant something to begin with, things like free metamagic feats for wizards, all casters automatically getting double wealth due to the crafting system no longer requiring an XP cost... Actually that deserves its own sub section.

Crafting:

*insert humorous yet tasteless picture of trainwreck here*

Now in 3.5, crafting was the way to power. Non casters absolutely required it, as they needed well in excess of 100% wealth by level in order to properly perform their jobs on even a basic level and getting all of their gear cheaper was the only way they could do so without obvious DM pity artifact swords that still likely won't do the job, as the DMs who are lazy enough to try to opt for this don't really understand what it is the non caster classes lack and therefore cannot address their defiencies.

About the only thing that kept it in check was the XP costs. Not because it made you fall behind in levels, it didn't, and it could actually make you higher level if done right. But it did mean you would run out of XP before you ran out of gold, requiring that you spend some of your money purchasing items normally. Yes, I am assuming the existence of magic item shops that will sell you anything and everything you can pay for. They may not be common, but they absolutely must exist for this discussion to take place, therefore the discussion predicates their existence.

Well, no XP costs anymore. Spellcasting classes have double cash by default with no limiting factors. No, don't say time, that's a laughable limiting factor to any competent caster.

Non casters? Still can't make their own items. Many non caster items are more expensive, have been nerfed, or both.

The good just got better, the bad just got worse. Remember this line, it's a recurring theme with their work.

Then you start getting into the classes specifically. And it almost seems like they've gotten better, if you can't identify the stealth nerfs.

Take Rogues for example. I like Rogues, so they're a good starting point.

Their main things are dealing with traps, and sneak attacking. They are capable of other things of course, but those things are not unique and identifying features, and are too subjective to accurately quantify. They also stop mattering around level 5 for the most part.

Traps were either not a big deal, or a big deal but the Rogue could not get them depending on whether it was a mechanical trap or a magical trap. No, falling into a pit is not a CR 10 trap. No, not even if it is a thousand foot deep, covered with spikes on top of spikes, and has a pool of water at the bottom filled with acid breathing sharks with lasers on their head. Everyone is flying, therefore they either never trigger or even recognize that there is a trap there, or they look down while flying over the pit, shake their head in bemusement, and continue on.

The magical traps were capable of actually doing what they are supposed to - threatening level appropriate characters, but take a look at those Search and Disable Device DCs. Chances of getting them? Low. Chances of setting them off with your face? Practically assured. In effect, the Rogue is a Barbarian with far less HP in this regard. By the time the Rogue actually can get them, no one cares because you have long since outleveled them. Which is another thing, traps only go up to level 10. And after about 5, the only ones that still matter are the magical ones which Rogues cannot get, but Detect Magic + Dispel Magic might be able to. Well, at least Warlocks are good for something.

PF? Well, it takes a bunch of lower level traps seemingly at random and makes them higher level without actually improving them in any way, and without any rhyme or reason to their actions. In effect, traps are even less level appropriate than before. And it isn't even as if they're any easier because you still get the AoE save or die traps at 10, just at level 18 you get traps doing 15 HP damage or something similarly ignorable. I suppose I could go off on a side tangent about how you could easily 'power level' off traps because level 3 stuff is tagged as level 18, similar to one of the cheat NWN modules but I'll save the video game talk for discussions of 4th edition where it accurately applies.

Anyways, the other thing is sneak attacks. If you don't read everything, it sounds as if they made sneak attacks better via some vague, but prominent line about SA working on anything. Except the competent Rogues already ignored all sneak attack immunities, so no change. The competent Rogues could also:

Sneak attack enemies standing in a Grease spell.
Sneak attack enemies while under the effect of a Blink spell.
Sneak attack enemies using ranged touch attacks such as from a Ray of Frost wand or by throwing alchemical flasks.

And many others. PF Rogue? Can't anymore, he lost all that. Instead he has to waste the eternity that is a full round moving to flank and attacking once and hope he doesn't die to the follow up full attack before he gets to start doing meaningful amounts of damage with a full attack action worth of sneak attacks. Alternately he does the same thing with a high/very high/practically assured failure rate using the Feint action but never gets to attack more than once and thereby do relevant amounts of damage.

So while before Rogues could be useful members of a party despite not being as good as a spellcaster due to their ability to sneak attack anywhere any time if made right resulting in an average, but reliable damage output (about 400 a round endgame... which is a little low but decent for someone who gets some other stuff) now does about a tenth that number at most, thereby being dead weight.

Don't think it's low? Check enemy HP numbers sometime, starting with the Monster Manual I. Keep in mind you have 1 round to make the enemy die if you're stuck using HP damage to do it. Otherwise they make you dead in one round. Also keep in mind many of those enemies have means of avoiding death by damage other than HP and unbuffed AC.

Now, I'm not going to write the complete breakdown of what's wrong with them right off. Instead I'll leave this long post to give you a sampler, and take requests for parts of their game that they'd like me to analyze and break down exactly what's wrong with it. Just keep in mind it took multiple pages to cover the tip of the iceberg. That alone should tell you all you need to know about PF's quality as a system. And again, I strongly recommend you simply write your own house rules, by yourself in a small amount of your leisure time. Even if you do not understand 3.5, you will still likely do a better job than PF.

Paizo exacerbates the problem by purposefully ignoring constructive criticism of their system, banning playtesters from their forums that show the problems with it, and intentionally keeping only the "yes men" around to make themselves feel good about their poor work.

[Leolo]

The more significant changes are the greater number of class features each class gets, and the improvements to the skill and combat maneuver systems.

I do not think that the skill system is improved at all. Yes - some skills have been merged and this is a good point, but there is also a big design failure from my point of view:

You can no longer take a little amount of skill ranks for flair reasons. I really liked to bring my character history into the game mechanics by gaving my characters a small amount of skill ranks. For example by filling 1 point into appraise to show that i have some background as the local traders assistant.

Or some knowledge about nature and survival to show that my wizard was raised in the forrest.

This is now much more difficult, without improving anything. Instead the already frequent maximizing of single spells is now the default.

Also many problems with the skill system are still untouched. There are still skills like perform that only unlock class features. And of course it is still easier to learn how to read or write a new language than to learn how to climb a tree. (in fact now you learn new languages every time you want to learn how to better decipher old scripts). And there are still redundant skills like knowledge (magic) and spellcraft or survival/nature or ride/handle animal.

The biggest problem remains unsolved and is increased: How to deal with challenges that are too easy for players that are skilled in something and too difficult for all other players.

I would recommend every one to use the old skill system instead. Simple because it is much more well thought.