Pathfinder?

[pilvento]

sry to make a post like this but first i thougt it was a diferent game or edition but now i realiced pathfinder is some kinda expansion for 3.5 right?

can any of u playgrounders introduce me and tell me the basics of pathfinder?

[Kaldrin]

sry to make a post like this but first i thougt it was a diferent game or edition but now i realiced pathfinder is some kinda expansion for 3.5 right?

can any of u playgrounders introduce me and tell me the basics of pathfinder?

3.5 on steroids for the classes. It's basically their own version of 3.5.

[Sillycomic]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...93#post7609693

If you love 3.5 you will like Pathfinder.

Pathfinder says it fixed all of the problems with 3.5... but it really didn't. You still have Angel Summoner and BMX bandit problems, spells are still overpowered and a Wizard can still break the game.

However... the classes are fun to play at every level and most of them are improved. Especially the paladin.

[Calmar]

You can have a look at that stuff in the Pathfinder SRD.

[pilvento]

thanks all then ill go check them at once. one more question who did this, is it official?

[mootoall]

Just a clarification: Pathfinder is *not* an expansion to D&D 3.5. While it uses very similar mechanics, it is published by Paizo, which is in no way affiliated with WotC or, I believe, TSR. However, you will find that most things are compatible. I'd recommend a readthrough of the SRD if you're interested in playing, which, just as D&D is all you really need as a player.

[arguskos]

thanks all then ill go check them at once. one more question who did this, is it official?

3.5 is dead, officially. Paizo, the company that produced the 3.5 run of Dragon Magazine, publishes Pathfinder. It's not WotC D&D official, but it's about as close as you can get.

[Sillycomic]

Since 3.5 was published under an open gaming license, so basically anyone can take the concept and tweak it any way they want and make it official.

Basically Paizo just made a very good tweak and published it. So, it's official in that aspect. It's not a continuation of 3.5 but most people are treating it that way.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pathfinder says it fixed all of the problems with 3.5... but it really didn't. You still have Angel Summoner and BMX bandit problems, spells are still overpowered and a Wizard can still break the game.

However... the classes are fun to play at every level and most of them are improved. Especially the paladin.

Pathfinder didn't fix the problems between, say, fighter and wizard, but it narrow the gap(although ToB probably narrowed it more), especially with the archetypes(sets of alternate class features geared toward a theme) in the Pathfinder advanced player's guide.

[Grendus]

Pathfinder is more balanced than 3.5 (which isn't saying much). A lot of spells got nerfed, and a lot of previously broken material isn't "official pathfinder", which helps (nightsticks, for example, are 3.5). Meanwhile, a lot of melee classes got some interesting buffs or half-buffs, which puts them a little more on par with spellcasters.

The biggest contribution was removal of "dead levels" from core classes. While in 3.5 you multiclassed out as quickly as you could - melee begins dipping into front loaded classes while spellcasters PrC out to get as many class features as possible without losing spell levels. Paizo almost never sees much multi-classing, because you're constantly gaining new and better class features later in the class.

It's a good system, definitely closer to the initial vision for 3.5 than WotC ever got.

[Aidan305]

It's also much better playtested.

[pilvento]

after taking a looki can say, prestiges clases like assasin, arcane archer, arcane trickster or duelist look really nice now. i rememberiallways wanted to play those but after the complete series and other expansions killed those PrC.

also paladin and barbarian are a lor more interesting. no more "lawfull fighter" and "chaotic fighter" like core.

[Sillycomic]

Pathfinder didn't fix the problems between, say, fighter and wizard, but it narrow the gap(although ToB probably narrowed it more), especially with the archetypes(sets of alternate class features geared toward a theme) in the Pathfinder advanced player's guide.

Not sure if I would agree with that, but it's your opinion.

I would say Pathfinder made some classes more fun to play than just dip in for a few levels. (like Fighter and ranger and rogue)

Monk is still useless unless you power optimize and even then only in certain situations.

The martial classes of Pathfinder are better than the martial classes of 3.5.

But, narrowing the gap? Meh, I don't know.

That's like saying 3.5 was a race between a bicycle (fighter) and a jet (wizard)

Pathfinder gave you a really nice Nissan Sentra (fighter) and a jet without as many rockets (wizard)

The fighter's getting to second place a lot quicker than before... but he's still far far behind.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Not sure if I would agree with that, but it's your opinion.

I would say Pathfinder made some classes more fun to play than just dip in for a few levels. (like Fighter and ranger and rogue)

Monk is still useless unless you power optimize and even then only in certain situations.

The martial classes of Pathfinder are better than the martial classes of 3.5.

But, narrowing the gap? Meh, I don't know.

That's like saying 3.5 was a race between a bicycle (fighter) and a jet (wizard)

Pathfinder gave you a really nice Nissan Sentra (fighter) and a jet without as many rockets (wizard)

The fighter's getting to second place a lot quicker than before... but he's still far far behind.

Yeah... you're right, I didn't say it narrowed enough but it did help a little.

[Hazzardevil]

Pathfinder isn't officially DnD.
Though someone said earlier that 3.5 is now open license meaning anyone can use it.
Does that mean that free PDF's on teh internet are legal now and theres nothign wrong with me talking abotu websites that give you free PDF's?

[Arutema]

Pathfinder isn't officially DnD.
Though someone said earlier that 3.5 is now open license meaning anyone can use it.
Does that mean that free PDF's on teh internet are legal now and theres nothign wrong with me talking abotu websites that give you free PDF's?

Parts of 3.5 are Open Gaming License, not all of it.

The parts which are OGL can be found here.

Things not included there are still under a closed license, and not legal for PDF sharing.

Pathfinder (so far) is all OGL, which is a definite advantage over 3.5.

[Yuki Akuma]

I would like to reject the idea that "if you love 3.5 you'll like Pathfinder".

Because I don't.

Thank you, and good night. *scoots*

Pathfinder isn't officially DnD.
Though someone said earlier that 3.5 is now open license meaning anyone can use it.
Does that mean that free PDF's on teh internet are legal now and theres nothign wrong with me talking abotu websites that give you free PDF's?

Absolutely not.

Even if the rules text was all under the OGL now (hint: it isn't at all), the PDFs themselves are copyrighted.

They will become legal in about a hundred years or so depending on exact jurisdiction and how much Disney can get away with.

[pilvento]

(while reading more of pathfinder SRD)

OMG Ranger class in pahfinder looks so much better, new combat styles at last! ill present all this stuff to my gaming group next saturday

[Another_Poet]

Pathfinder is more balanced than 3.5 (which isn't saying much). A lot of spells got nerfed, and a lot of previously broken material isn't "official pathfinder", which helps...

It's a good system, definitely closer to the initial vision for 3.5 than WotC ever got.

It's also much better playtested.

Agreed and agreed.

I enjoy PF a lot, and find it more balanced than 3.5. Clerics are a much more fun class, and the PF Paladin is a ton of fun. Wizards and druids are a little weaker than they used to be. Sorcerers are rich with flavor now. The melee classes got a slight power bump but not much.

The published adventures are often high quality, and there's a lot of product support.

[AslanCross]

Clarifying some things:

3.5 is dead: Since WOTC has officially withdrawn all support for 3.5 and has begun the slow but sure extermination of 3.5 material on their site (All the free adventure PDFs have vanished, for one, and I have a feeling their archives will begin winking out soon), 3.5 is pretty much 'abandonware,' although downloading PDFs of WOTC books is still illegal and as such only the SRD is open for use. (Unless of course, you own the books.)

Pathfinder is 'unofficial': If you read the Pathfinder books, they can't even claim it's D&D. They've used words like "the world's favorite role-playing game," but they can't ever say "This is D&D and we fixed it." Best way I can describe it is as a good-quality, 3rd-party patch for a game that has been discarded by its publisher.

Pathfinder is a 'resurrection' of 3.5: Since Paizo and its affiliates are now actively working on new material for Pathfinder, new books are relatively easy to come by (and you can get PDF versions of them to boot). There's also been a lot of new good material coming out lately (see Psionics Unleashed). I also find that the Pathfinder writers seem to know what they're doing far more than the WOTC writers did.

[Sillycomic]

I would like to reject the idea that "if you love 3.5 you'll like Pathfinder".

Because I don't.

Thank you, and good night.

Really? Wow. That is a first. I've never heard of anyone who enjoyed playing 3.5 and hated Pathfinder with a passion before.

I understand people who only liked 3.5 but saw the glaring holes and don't really enjoy Pathfinder's apparent fixes or improvements, but to simply hate the system?

Why don't you like it? What makes you love 3.5 but hate Pathfinder? Now I'm super curious.

[Starbuck_II]

I would like to reject the idea that "if you love 3.5 you'll like Pathfinder".

Because I don't.

Thank you, and good night. *scoots*

Do tell. Which parts don't you like about it?

[Yuki Akuma]

The "selling someone else's work" part.

Also claiming it's fixed when it doesn't actually address the main reasons why 3.5 is broken.

Oh, and the way the staff acted during beta.

I have nothing against the product itself.

Please don't argue. I don't care. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong to dislike something on personal ethical grounds.

I also don't read certain books or read certain webcomics for similar reasons.

[Mecharious]

I'm a huge fan of Pathfinder. I feel like it succeeded in making all the classes feel interesting, but not all generic like in 4e (my opinion). People complain that they didn't address the biggest balance issues, but honestly, unless your group is full of number-crunching powergamers, the fighter-type characters should seem just about as useful as casters.

[GenPol]

The "selling someone else's work" part.

Also claiming it's fixed when it doesn't actually address the main reasons why 3.5 is broken.

Oh, and the way the staff acted during beta.

I have nothing against the product itself.

Please don't argue. I don't care. You're not going to convince me that I'm wrong to dislike something on personal ethical grounds.

I also don't read certain books or read certain webcomics for similar reasons.

That's fair.

I do like Pathfinder more than 3.5, but I admit I remain blissfully ignorant of all of the above.

[Curious]

Personally, I find Pathfinder much more fun than 3.5 ever was, with the core classes being much more balanced and entertaining to play. The adventure paths are also top-notch, and the artwork in the books is mouth-wateringly good, although that's just aesthetics.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I LOVE PATHFINDER! It's like 3.5 but cooler, unless you're a wizard(not sorcerer!), but they added a few extra things for them too.

[ajkkjjk52]

Personally, I'm a big fan of Pathfinder. We can all argue till our faces turn blue as to whether it made melee characters as powerful as full-casters (it didn't) but it made them a lot more fun to play than they were.

also paladin and barbarian are a lor more interesting. no more "lawfull fighter" and "chaotic fighter" like core.

Yeah, like that.

Pathfinder is a 'resurrection' of 3.5: Since Paizo and its affiliates are now actively working on new material for Pathfinder, new books are relatively easy to come by (and you can get PDF versions of them to boot). There's also been a lot of new good material coming out lately (see Psionics Unleashed). I also find that the Pathfinder writers seem to know what they're doing far more than the WOTC writers did.

One of the big strengths of 3.5 was the huge amount of supplemental material there is. Pathfinder is a much "younger" system, so there's just not as much yet. For that reason, my group (and I think a lot of others) plays a Pathfinder/3.5 hybrid, where you can use almost anything from 3.5, but 3.P rules supersede anything with the same name (meaning virtually anything from Core). That way, you can still play your favorite niche PrC, but your base class is based on the 3.P rules.

The "selling someone else's work" part.

Also claiming it's fixed when it doesn't actually address the main reasons why 3.5 is broken.

Oh, and the way the staff acted during beta.

Hmmm... I can't really speak to any of these criticisms, though I'll admit that I am a tisch uncomfortable about the degree to which large sections are just straight-up 3.5. OGL or not, it's a little shady to make some tweaks (again, mostly to the base classes) and call it a new-ish product. Still, when I'm looking for a good game, Pathfinder is my go-to.

[Dragonus45]

Not sure if I would agree with that, but it's your opinion.

I would say Pathfinder made some classes more fun to play than just dip in for a few levels. (like Fighter and ranger and rogue)

Monk is still useless unless you power optimize and even then only in certain situations.

The martial classes of Pathfinder are better than the martial classes of 3.5.

But, narrowing the gap? Meh, I don't know.

That's like saying 3.5 was a race between a bicycle (fighter) and a jet (wizard)

Pathfinder gave you a really nice Nissan Sentra (fighter) and a jet without as many rockets (wizard)

The fighter's getting to second place a lot quicker than before... but he's still far far behind.

It however much, much easier to patch things up as a dm house rule wise that it was in 3.5.

[AslanCross]

One of the big strengths of 3.5 was the huge amount of supplemental material there is. Pathfinder is a much "younger" system, so there's just not as much yet. For that reason, my group (and I think a lot of others) plays a Pathfinder/3.5 hybrid, where you can use almost anything from 3.5, but 3.P rules supersede anything with the same name (meaning virtually anything from Core). That way, you can still play your favorite niche PrC, but your base class is based on the 3.P rules.

Most definitely, yes. That's what I do as well. It's been a rather slow transition (starting with the PF Rogue due to it being the only class represented in the party). That said, Pathfinder material has been coming out quite rapidly lately.