New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 13 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 389
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Lemonus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Plane of Elemental Pie
    Gender
    Male

    Default Should I get Pathfinder?

    What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.
    Awesome Pony-Chul by slayerx!
    My computer is on the blink. Posting will be affected.
    The endless wisdom that is my extended signature lies here.
    I have Pokemon!

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    hushblade's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    570 PA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    I too am curious about Pathfinder. Are classes that are yet to be remade in PF backward compatable, like 3e is to 3.5?

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonus View Post
    What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.
    If you mean "should I spend my money on Pathfinder?", you shouldn't.
    Last edited by Hiro Protagonest; 2011-12-05 at 09:34 PM.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonus View Post
    What I'm asking here is whether or not there are enough differences between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder to make it worth getting PF, or any other reason why I should (or shouldn't) get PF.
    There's not quite that much difference between the two. Pathfinder is certainly an improvement in at least some respects, but if you've already got books for 3.5 I suggest you stick with 3.5. Incidentally, you can find pretty much everything published for Pathfinder at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

    Quote Originally Posted by hushblade View Post
    I too am curious about Pathfinder. Are classes that are yet to be remade in PF backward compatable, like 3e is to 3.5?
    3.5 classes are generally considered compatible with Pathfinder. Some things (class skills, HD and BAB correlation, etc) may need changing but game balance isn't really affected.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    The books are really nice, but even then I use online resources when I am near a computer so I can do text searches and not have to dig through many hundreds of pages.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    You can always mix the two, there really isn't much adjustment needed for most classes. Non-PF races and classes generally need to be adjusted upward.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Lemonus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Plane of Elemental Pie
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Can you pretty much play PF just using the SRD?
    Awesome Pony-Chul by slayerx!
    My computer is on the blink. Posting will be affected.
    The endless wisdom that is my extended signature lies here.
    I have Pokemon!

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonus View Post
    Can you pretty much play PF just using the SRD?
    Yeah, pretty much. It's even easier than playing with the 3.5 SRD, because PF published their XP, WBL and even point buy charts.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    I prefer using a PF basis and then backporting anything I need from 3.5. Ideally on top of that if there's a PF and a 3.5 thing with the same name (Power Attack comes to mind) I'd consider allowing both.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    From a financial standpoint, if you bought the whole 3E library "starting over" with Pathfinder might see like a waste. However, it's not like you need the whole Pathfinder library.

    You can get by with just the Core Rulebook, which is a PHB and DMG in one. There are significant changes to 3E stuff so that it feels like an update to the 3E system. You also get a sense of what to do to convert your 3E material. True, Pathfinder now has Magus and Oracle to use instead of Duskblade and Favored Soul. If you want to buy Advanced Players' Guide and Ultimate Magic, great, but if you don't and would prefer to stick with Duskblade and Favored Soul so as not to spend more money, you can tell what to do to adapt. Duskblade probably just needs an updated spell list. Favored Soul could be modeled after Pathfinder Sorcerer and have "soul lines". So as not to do much work, you can tag on a bloodline from Unearthed Arcana onto Favored Soul as class abilities and be done. To mirror Pathfinder Sorcerer more just come up with lists of bonus spells known depending on the bloodline.

    If money isn't an issue, then Pathfinder is a good buy. It is an update to the 3E system and has continuing support. It has its fans and detractors; I'm a fan. It will never satisfy those who are enraged by 3E magic, but then nothing short of ending magic will do that (4E). Others take issue with changes in some combat feats. If upon reading them they also bother you, no harm is done to continue using the 3E version for those particular feats.

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    From a financial standpoint, if you bought the whole 3E library "starting over" with Pathfinder might see like a waste. However, it's not like you need the whole Pathfinder library.

    You can get by with just the Core Rulebook, which is a PHB and DMG in one. There are significant changes to 3E stuff so that it feels like an update to the 3E system. You also get a sense of what to do to convert your 3E material. True, Pathfinder now has Magus and Oracle to use instead of Duskblade and Favored Soul. If you want to buy Advanced Players' Guide and Ultimate Magic, great, but if you don't and would prefer to stick with Duskblade and Favored Soul so as not to spend more money, you can tell what to do to adapt. Duskblade probably just needs an updated spell list. Favored Soul could be modeled after Pathfinder Sorcerer and have "soul lines". So as not to do much work, you can tag on a bloodline from Unearthed Arcana onto Favored Soul as class abilities and be done. To mirror Pathfinder Sorcerer more just come up with lists of bonus spells known depending on the bloodline.

    If money isn't an issue, then Pathfinder is a good buy. It is an update to the 3E system and has continuing support. It has its fans and detractors; I'm a fan. It will never satisfy those who are enraged by 3E magic, but then nothing short of ending magic will do that (4E). Others take issue with changes in some combat feats. If upon reading them they also bother you, no harm is done to continue using the 3E version for those particular feats.
    Or, you know, you can get PF stuff except adventure paths and campaign setting books for free on the PFSRD and PRD. And the PFSRD has the campaign setting PrCs and feats.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    TheVileVillain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Pathfinder books are worth every cent if you can afford them. They have allot more content and cost a bit more than 3.5 books. The rules are more streamlined, everything is clarified, and your players will feel like they are getting more from their classes despite the fact that the monsters are still balanced to fight them.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay View Post
    I prefer using a PF basis and then backporting anything I need from 3.5. Ideally on top of that if there's a PF and a 3.5 thing with the same name (Power Attack comes to mind) I'd consider allowing both.
    This. Pathfinder is like a big patch for 3.5; doesn't change much, but has a lot of nice tweaks here and there. I like to say that Pathfinder is about 5-10% better than 3.5 (in my opinion); everyone gets a few more choices and a little more polish. Don't throw out your 3.5 material, just combine the two.

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Real Sorceror's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    As other people have noted, Paizo posts their entire Core line in the PRD for free. This includes: Core Rules, Gamemastery Guide, Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and both Bestiaries (soon to include Bestiary 3 and Advanced Race Guide).

    Its their strategy to avoid internet piracy: give us everything for free so we literally have no reason to steal.

    That said, the books are amazing quality and contain much more information (both fluff and crunch) than any comparable 3.5 volume. At the very least I'd suggest picking up a Core Rulebook.

    Most of the non-core PF material is found on the OGC, which is updated by the fans.

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheVileVillain View Post
    Pathfinder books are worth every cent if you can afford them. They have allot more content and cost a bit more than 3.5 books. The rules are more streamlined, everything is clarified, and your players will feel like they are getting more from their classes despite the fact that the monsters are still balanced to fight them.
    NO.

    Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

    Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    NO.

    Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

    Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.
    While I agree with you for the most part, I would argue that Pathfinder is actually more intuitive in some situations, namely favored class and multi-classing, negative levels, CMB/CMD, and skill list. They certainly didn't fix the system, but I use their rules as a basis to implement 3.5 material, rather than the other way around.
    Prestige Bard, updated for Pathfinder.

    Revamped Spell Resistance system, for use with Spell Points/Psionics.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Real Sorceror's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    NO.

    Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.
    Um, how is a Fighter needing a ranged weapon for fliers a balance issue? Everyone has to do that. Even casters need to prepare ranged spells if they want to hit targets out of reach. Thats how its meant to work...

    The class balance still isn't perfect, but it has been improved upon, even in the Fighter's case.

    Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.
    I found things much easier to understand. Sorry it didn't happen for you. :/
    Last edited by Real Sorceror; 2011-12-05 at 11:35 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    UTC -6

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Sorceror View Post
    Um, how is a Fighter needing a ranged weapon for fliers a balance issue? Everyone has to do that. Even casters need to prepare ranged spells if they want to hit targets out of reach. Thats how its meant to work...
    How many casters prepare primarily touch/close-range offensive spells without preparing Fly as well? And how many feats do they need to spend to get their ranged spells up to the same level as their favored close-range spells?

  19. - Top - End - #19
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Real Sorceror View Post
    The class balance still isn't perfect, but it has been improved upon, even in the Fighter's case.
    Eh, if you compare PF only to 3.5 only, the balance is about the same. Wizards got some spell nerfs early on, but later it's basically the same list. The fighter's main mid-op tactics got nerfed, and their archetypes are nowhere near as good as 3.5's ACFs. Yes, that includes the one that lets you move and attack... at level 20.

    The nice stuff comes in when you combine them. You get to taste the streamlining benefits - skills, combat maneuvers, no god damn 100 gp pearls and important spell slots just to figure out what your equipment might do if it's not especially cursed, agh. I hated that one. Hated DMs who banned artificer's monocle about as much. Where was I? Right, you get to have the little benefits and upgrades and keep the content in 3.5 that made things more interesting and fair for mundanes.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Real Sorceror's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mando Knight View Post
    How many casters prepare primarily touch/close-range offensive spells without preparing Fly as well? And how many feats do they need to spend to get their ranged spells up to the same level as their favored close-range spells?
    It would be odd for a Sorcerer/Wizard not to, but even a high level Cleric or Druid can legitimately fill up all their spell slots for the day without having a ranged attack or a means of reaching the opponent.

    That aside, why is it a bad thing for Fighters to need ranged weapons? Weapons are sort of their thing. Taking their second Weapon Training in bows and grabbing one or two ranged feats seems fine.

    I don't play Fighters myself, but I haven't heard anything but praise from my friends who do.

    edit: On second thought, probably better not to derail the thread in a Fighter debate. I hear those can get pretty long.
    Quote Originally Posted by GoodbyeSoberDay View Post
    Eh, if you compare PF only to 3.5 only, the balance is about the same. Wizards got some spell nerfs early on, but later it's basically the same list. The fighter's main mid-op tactics got nerfed, and their archetypes are nowhere near as good as 3.5's ACFs. Yes, that includes the one that lets you move and attack... at level 20.

    The nice stuff comes in when you combine them. You get to taste the streamlining benefits - skills, combat maneuvers, no god damn 100 gp pearls and important spell slots just to figure out what your equipment might do if it's not especially cursed, agh. I hated that one. Hated DMs who banned artificer's monocle about as much. Where was I? Right, you get to have the little benefits and upgrades and keep the content in 3.5 that made things more interesting and fair for mundanes.
    3.5 was getting so huge that my group stopped using it specifically to avoid bloat and unforseen powergaming options. Still, you're right. Paizo designed it specifically so that the rulesets are still compatible in most cases.
    Last edited by Real Sorceror; 2011-12-06 at 12:04 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Snowbluff's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    I'd download the Core Rulebook, but only because the 3.5 ones are out of print. Everything is almost perfectly compatible.
    Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
    GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
    Quote Originally Posted by Darrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowbluff View Post
    All gaming systems should be terribly flawed and exploitable if you want everyone to be happy with them. This allows for a wide variety of power levels for games for different levels of players.
    I dub this the Snowbluff Axiom.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Leon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    NO.

    Pathfinder does not fix balance problems. Fighters still have to take out their backup ranged weapon when flyers come out. Tier 1 is still very much tier 1. Heck, the only real difference is a good boost to the core paladin, which is now a good tier 4, and a decent boost to the ranger, making them a high tier 4.

    Also, more streamlined and clarified rules? The rules are just as hard to learn as 3.5 rules are. Clarified, maybe, but core 3.5 was about as clarified as well.
    How is that a Balance issue?
    If you have a caster in the group you should be buffing the group with the useful spells than be selfish with things like Fly.

    Tiers are what you make of them - many seem to like them but over all they are but another way of stating what you think is good vs what anyone else thinks is good.

    PF has added quite a lot of nice things to the game and the massive added bonus is that all the important stuff - core rules, classes etc is freely available online.

    If you don't like it for the fact that you believe it didn't fix X,Y or Z then you are valid to not like it but that does not make it any less of a great continuation of D&D 3.5
    Last edited by Leon; 2011-12-06 at 12:27 AM.
    Thankyou to NEOPhyte for the Techpriest Engiseer
    Spoiler
    Show

    Current PC's
    Ravia Del'Karro (Magos Biologis Errant)
    Katarina (Ordo Malleus Interrogator)
    Emberly (Fire Elemental former Chef)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    take this virtual +1.
    Peril Planet

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    If you have a caster in the group
    That's why. Who needs a fighter when an extra cleric can fill the same role not quite as well, but with a ton of healg and the ability to summon more meatshields? Yet a caster is absolutely vital.
    Avatar of George the Dragon Slayer, from the upcoming Indivisible!
    My Steam profile
    Warriors and Wuxia, Callos_DeTerran's ToB setting

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Leon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, Australia
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    That's why. Who needs a fighter when an extra cleric can fill the same role not quite as well, but with a ton of healg and the ability to summon more meatshields? Yet a caster is absolutely vital.
    If you don't have a caster (which is completely possible) then you will find other ways around a problem than a over reliance on magic to solve everything.
    Even if you have another cleric in the group its still a better group that is Supported by the classes than can do so rather than have them be solo paragons.

    Really who needs to play anything.... all classes are valid choices for anyone to play.
    Last edited by Leon; 2011-12-06 at 12:28 AM.
    Thankyou to NEOPhyte for the Techpriest Engiseer
    Spoiler
    Show

    Current PC's
    Ravia Del'Karro (Magos Biologis Errant)
    Katarina (Ordo Malleus Interrogator)
    Emberly (Fire Elemental former Chef)

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    Just play the character you want to play. Don't feel the need to squeeze every point out of the build.
    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    take this virtual +1.
    Peril Planet

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Ravens_cry's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Clerics, even in 3.5, are only a better option as a frontliner in my opinion if you get to spend several rounds buffing or you can use some tricks (Multiple Nightsticks and Divine Metamagic) to make some buffs all day duration.
    That's not always an option because of limited book selection or other tweaks.
    What I like most about Pathfinder is they don't just fire off a base class and forget about it, they continue to offer support with new Archetypes and expanded lists of selectables like Rogue Talents.
    Oh, and they tweaked some famously poor classes to make me, at least, actually want to play them. Monks and Paladins come to mind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Calanon View Post
    Raven_Cry's comments often have the effects of a +5 Tome of Understanding

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Spamalot in the Playground
     
    Psyren's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Pathfinder does not fix 3.5's balance issues. If balance is your primary aim, that's what 4e is for.

    (Or Legend maybe; yeah, give that a go.)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Plague Doctor by Crimmy
    Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Pathfinder Adventure Paths make it worth it. I'm running Kingmaker for the second time. Also, a lot of the Alternate Class Features are really fun to use. There is less emphasis on multiclassing and prestige classes. For the fighter and flying enemies bit, I didn't see it as too much of a limit in normal play.

    Either get a potion of fly, or have an alchemist in the group and drink one of their extracts of fly.

    That said, the Advanced Player's Guide classes are a lot of fun, Alchemist and Witch especially. The Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic classes aren't quite as interesting in my opinion, I'd only get those books for the Alternate Class Features.
    Spoiler
    Show


  28. - Top - End - #28
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Flickerdart's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    It's a real shame that the Pathfinder books seem to have taken the aesthetic philosophy of "exactly like 3.5". 4e has much nicer everything, from art to layout to branding. And the pretty pictures are the only reason to own dead tree material rather than just use the free version.
    Quote Originally Posted by Inevitability View Post
    Greater
    \ˈgrā-tər \
    comparative adjective
    1. Describing basically the exact same monster but with twice the RHD.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artanis View Post
    I'm going to be honest, "the Welsh became a Great Power and conquered Germany" is almost exactly the opposite of the explanation I was expecting

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Real Sorceror's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    It's a real shame that the Pathfinder books seem to have taken the aesthetic philosophy of "exactly like 3.5". 4e has much nicer everything,from art to layout to branding. And the pretty pictures are the only reason to own dead tree material rather than just use the free version.
    Whaaaaaat?
    Wayne Reynolds is god. Shame on you.

    Ok, show of hands here. How many of you have actually played Pathfinder and looked through the Core Rulebook? Because I'm getting the feeling that a lot of you are very unfamiliar with the system and are just going off hearsay or what you saw in Beta testing.

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mnemnosyne's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Default Re: Should I get Pathfinder?

    I don't much care for pathfinder. I looked it over. Some things are "improved." Others aren't. Overall, it simply isn't worth learning the new system for some questionable improvements over 3.5, not when I already know 3.5 and enjoy it just fine as it is.

    If you have some sort of problem with 3.5, maybe pathfinder changes that particular thing, but maybe it doesn't. Look it over and see if it does. But overall, unless you're dissatisfied with 3.5 for whatever reason, I'd just stick with it as is. Well, not only would I, that's what I am doing.

    P.S: 3.5 fixed Fighters. They just misspelled the name of the class when they released the update - it's spelled "Warblade" now.
    -Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
    Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth

Posting Permissions

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