Should I get Pathfinder?

[Lost Demiurge]

Y'know, I've been running Kingmaker for a while now...

The fighter, who optimized, is doing just fine at level 8 as he was at level 1. He's gone up, and his to-hit and damage rolls are a thing of beauty and pain to my monsters. He picked up a level of inquisitor recently, but it's more for special effects really.

The necromancer sorceror's doing okay, better now that she can make skeletal wyverns.

The healbot priest keeps the party held together but is crap at melee fighting, or anything that he can't searing ray.

The archer rogue is coming into her own, with a bow of frost and backup hand-to-hand tricks which she never uses. She'll go shadowdancer soon, for the fun of it.

And the artificer keeps all of them progressing with nifty toys, while slinging around wizard-type boom effects.

They MAUL through most encounters. I have to scale up from the book, usually, to keep them on their toes. Ain't nothing can stand toe to toe for long with that fighter! And he DOES have a backup bow, and he's pretty deadly with it. Not as optimized as the rogue, but that's fine.

They've all got their niches. And it all works.

So yes, OP, I would recommend picking up or getting into Pathfinder. At least up to level 8, it's been more fun than 3.5, and I don't have to worry so much about keeping people balanced artificially...

Of course, it helps that my folks are a group of old friends who know not to min max or give me a hassle. But that goes without saying for any game.

[Tzevash]

@LordBlades

Well...

1) MAD-afflicted classes are more enjoyable to play, and more efficient... and also Sorcerers and Fighters got heavily revamped.
2) Everyone gets more feats, and with this and the traits you have more customization.
3) You can take non-class skills without too much point spending: fighters and such can have Diplomacy, Knowledge and other skills that add color and offer more ways to lead the game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Pathfinder CORE cleans up a lot of worst abuses of 3.5 that are just annoying and stupid, as well as adding a lot of little abilities and options for character classes to make them balanced, playable and fun.

If nothing else, Pathfinder folds a lot of the GOOD ideas from the various 3.5 splatbooks into the CORE rules, allowing much of the flexibility of the splatbooks without the stupidity and abuses.

Then there are the obviously better parts of pathfinder, like the skill system and the Combat Defense (CMD) system, which is almost worth getting the books just so combats will run correctly.

The expanded Pathfinder material tends to start creeping toward splatbook creep, which IMHO was the downfall of 2.0, 3.0, and 3.5. It isn't BAD right now, but much more and there could be problems....

Generally, if you are using 3.5 and your group understands it and isn't abusing it, then don't change. If you find you are playing 3.5 with a lot of house rules so that things run well or aren't abused, then you should probably take a look at Pathfinder.

I hate when people think like this. Sure, with SpC your wizard gets Mindrape. But in core he gets Gate, Shapechange, Dominate Person/Monster, Time Stop, Polymorph, PaO, etc.

Core wizard can be GOD. Core wizard can be Batman. Splats make them slightly more powerful, but the power difference is already so huge it just doesn't matter. Compare to the new options for paladin and ranger spells in SpC.

Oh, and a single 3.5 splatbook did more for melee than PF ever did.

Better skill management, class improvements, more customizing. I really don't catch what are the cons of "D&D 3.75" compared to previous editions.

Just play it!

"Class improvements". Sure, on the surface the new fighter looks all shiny, but his best feats were nerfed. Just buy ToB.



Pros of PF-
Cleaner combat system
Better skills
Combat maneuver users more viable against big opponents
Nerfs to transmutation and battlefield control
Magus
MoMS, Martial Artist, and Quingong monk archetypes
Buffed paladin and ranger

Cons of PF-
No Tome of Battle (this isn't 3.P)
Didn't fix the fighter
Basically all conjuration that isn't BFC is still a big problem
No Battle Blessing
Still has massive balance issues, especially with the new sorcerer

[Psyren]

I prefer an internally-credible world to a balanced one. Yeah, magic-users are capable of more stuff than the muggles are; that's the whole point, it's magic. It's not a bug, it's a feature. If they weren't, what's the point of having magic?

In most settings, the superior power of individual casters is held in check by (a) their grossly fewer numbers compared to mundanes, (b) their antgonism/rivalry towards one another across alignment lines and (c) the large numbers of otherworldly/extraplanar threats that demand their attention.

Harry Potter would be pretty pointless if Dudley could still beat him up after he started attending Hogwarts.

[askandarion]

I think Pathfinder's fine if you're still enjoying 3.5-style play. I like it because it continues that style, actually. Tweaks and changes are nice too, yes, (I like how they touched up most of the classes), but it's still 3.5 and it is fairly easy to import 3.5 into PF and vice versa- but you can also cut out 3.5 and use only PF if you're looking to avoid the splatbloat like my DM. It does enough to feel new without being completely new, so it can be intuitive for those coming over from 3.5. Some folks can't stand that, or that it doesn't address what they specifically disliked about 3.5. Again, that was the point- it's a variation (or refinement, depending on who you ask) on 3.5, not a new system. If the power variance is something you can't stand in 3.5, or other fundamental aspects of the style of the 3.5 system, you still won't stand it here as others have shown. That's what 4th Ed tried to address, so that's your better option (or other systems people throw around, but I haven't played them except for White Wolf, and that system doesn't engender itself towards fantasy I feel).

And yes, everything's pretty much free, so try it out and see what you think. Won't cost nuthin' but time. I kick money Paizo's way so we can continue getting stuff that I like, though.

[Yora]

I go with pathfinder because I prefer to run games with giving the players a single book which they can roam for options. And the PF PHB seems a lot better than the 3.5e PHB. If you already are using 10+ splatbooks, I don't think the advantages of PF are that great.

[Arbitrarious]

We've just started Pathfinder. Overall there isn't anything about pathfinder that is worse the 3.5 and more then a few things that are better. It's been good. I would like to see magic reigned in and more mundane options. ToB did a great job as many disciplines aren't magical in any way but let you do fun things with reasonable investment. Setting Sun is a personal favorite.

[Talentless]

Y'know, I've been running Kingmaker for a while now...

The fighter, who optimized, is doing just fine at level 8 as he was at level 1. He's gone up, and his to-hit and damage rolls are a thing of beauty and pain to my monsters. He picked up a level of inquisitor recently, but it's more for special effects really.

The necromancer sorceror's doing okay, better now that she can make skeletal wyverns.

The healbot priest keeps the party held together but is crap at melee fighting, or anything that he can't searing ray.

The archer rogue is coming into her own, with a bow of frost and backup hand-to-hand tricks which she never uses. She'll go shadowdancer soon, for the fun of it.

And the artificer keeps all of them progressing with nifty toys, while slinging around wizard-type boom effects.

They MAUL through most encounters. I have to scale up from the book, usually, to keep them on their toes. Ain't nothing can stand toe to toe for long with that fighter! And he DOES have a backup bow, and he's pretty deadly with it. Not as optimized as the rogue, but that's fine.

They've all got their niches. And it all works.

So yes, OP, I would recommend picking up or getting into Pathfinder. At least up to level 8, it's been more fun than 3.5, and I don't have to worry so much about keeping people balanced artificially...

Of course, it helps that my folks are a group of old friends who know not to min max or give me a hassle. But that goes without saying for any game.

What point buy are you using for the stats?
I ask this because the first AP i ran for a group I used a 30 point buy for my players (they were new, and i wanted them to feel heroic but...) without reading what the encounters were balanced around (which is 15 point buy). They mauled everything in sight.

Also, your group has an Artificer, which, with Kingmaker's freeform timeline available, they can have a lot of crafting downtime to personalize the gear the group gets to completely optimize the gear rather than just using what loot comes their way.

That said, none of the Adventure Paths are designed to be inherently SUPER challenging.


I'm also going to throw in on the get Pathfinder. While a lot of the 9th level spells are still broken as all hell, a lot of the lower level spells have dropped in power, still good, but not OMGTakethisoryou'restupid like they were in 3.5, and I like a lot of the changes to everything else that has been done.

Note: they still are the best selections for their level, but they aren't so far ahead that you can't get by without them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I prefer an internally-credible world to a balanced one. Yeah, magic-users are capable of more stuff than the muggles are; that's the whole point, it's magic. It's not a bug, it's a feature. If they weren't, what's the point of having magic?

In most settings, the superior power of individual casters is held in check by (a) their grossly fewer numbers compared to mundanes, (b) their antgonism/rivalry towards one another across alignment lines and (c) the large numbers of otherworldly/extraplanar threats that demand their attention.

Harry Potter would be pretty pointless if Dudley could still beat him up after he started attending Hogwarts.

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter. Yet you're far more powerful for the exact same work. You can be a cleric and get far more power with less restrictions than a paladin of the same level with the same amount of work.

It's like trying to play Exalted with two heroic mortals and two solars. The heroic mortals can contribute, but they ould contribute far better as solars.

[Psyren]

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter.

And? The proportion of PCs to NPCs in the world is a minority. It doesn't change the fact that, say, Faerun has tons more warriors than mages.

Taking class levels is a metagame issue. Anybody can pick up a sword, not anybody can master arcane mysteries.

Also, no u.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Taking class levels is a metagame issue. Anybody can pick up a sword, not anybody can master arcane mysteries.

Yeah, because first level spells are totally arcane masteries and that guy who picked up a sword is definitely not just a commoner.

[Real Sorceror]

Then get a new system. In D&D and PF, it's just as easy to be a wizard as it is a fighter. Yet you're far more powerful for the exact same work. You can be a cleric and get far more power with less restrictions than a paladin of the same level with the same amount of work.

It's like trying to play Exalted with two heroic mortals and two solars. The heroic mortals can contribute, but they ould contribute far better as solars.

Y'know, in every one of your posts I get the feeling that you don't actually enjoy playing any of these games. :/

Edit: I'm also gonna lay this out there, since I see lots of people here saying they love ToB: I hate ToB with a passion. It reeks of 4th edition and doesn't fix mundane combat in any way. Instead it adds three more complicated spellcasting classes.

[Lost Demiurge]

What point buy are you using for the stats?
I ask this because the first AP i ran for a group I used a 30 point buy for my players (they were new, and i wanted them to feel heroic but...) without reading what the encounters were balanced around (which is 15 point buy). They mauled everything in sight.

Also, your group has an Artificer, which, with Kingmaker's freeform timeline available, they can have a lot of crafting downtime to personalize the gear the group gets to completely optimize the gear rather than just using what loot comes their way.

That said, none of the Adventure Paths are designed to be inherently SUPER challenging.

Heh. Actually, we did an obscenely good roll for stats. 4d6 and reroll 1's until they're no longer 1's. And you get to roll a new set if your stats added together are less than 80. We've been playing RPG's a long time and like being big damn heroes.

I HAVE had to scale up most of the encounters, mind. But that's fine, scaling is one of my specialties. If the other AP's are lowballed as well, I might have to pick up a few more. I like modules that start off low. You can always raise the difficulty from the set blocks a few notches and customize it to your group, but it's harder to lower it if the blocks are too high.

And yeah, the artificer's downtime combined with kingdom level resources is allowing a silly amount of customizability for their gear. It's pretty fun to watch, and the guy playing the art's taking care not to overoptimize folks. I think his latest project is a suit of platemail for the necromancer's dragon skeleton...

[Mando Knight]

Whaaaaaat?
Wayne Reynolds is god. Shame on you.

He did some 4e art, too (specifically, the covers for the 4e core books are on his site), and he either can't draw ankles and wrists, or thinks that people look better without ones that function.

[navar100]

Fixing the system should not be the DM's job. It should be the job of the people who designed it. The DM's job is to tell a story with the players, and when one player's class is demigodly in its power and the other is pitiful and weak, it limits the range of stories that can be told within that game.

Fortunately the Pathfinder warrior classes are not pitiful and weak and the spellcasters not demigodly in power, nor vice-versa, so there's nothing to worry about.

[Real Sorceror]

He did some 4e art, too (specifically, the covers for the 4e core books are on his site), and he either can't draw ankles and wrists, or thinks that people look better without ones that function.

Hes also done all the covers for the core Pathfinder books as well as all the PF iconic characters. His PF art looks just a bit better to me than his 4e art imo, but that could be because it was done later and artists tend to improve over time. As for bad joints, it doesn't bother me. Hes still vastly superior to the alternatives. If you want we could go back to Crabapple's watercolor art? :P

[Mando Knight]

the spellcasters not demigodly in power,

...Not really. Spellcasters can still cheat death, disable enemies, walk on air, and still have enough spells left per day to teleport away, summon magical armor, or whatever they want to do.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Fortunately the Pathfinder warrior classes are not pitiful and weak and the spellcasters not demigodly in power, nor vice-versa, so there's nothing to worry about.

Casters are still demigods.

Mundanes are tier 4 if you play them right (select correct archetypes, equipment, and feats), meaning they're competent enough to not die. Rogue is pushing tier 3, but isn't quite there. Casters are still tier 1 by a long shot though, and sorcerer got buffs, it's very easy to make case for a human sorcerer with that favored class ARF being 1.

In low-op games, 3.5 is just as good, so why bother? In mid- and high-op games, the problems are still there. PF is good for a better base system and new options, but pure PF is almost as bad as 3.5, worse if 3.5 includes ToB.

[Mando Knight]

Casters are still tier 1 by a long shot though, and sorcerer got buffs, it's very easy to make case for a human sorcerer with that favored class ARF being 1.

Plus, the Sorcerer got a bit of a patch to its known spells problem via the Expanded Arcana feat. Since a Sorcerer now gets bonus feats and everyone gets more feats in general, it's fairly easy to squeeze in a couple of these for the extra spells known.

[Psyren]

Yeah, because first level spells are totally arcane masteries and that guy who picked up a sword is definitely not just a commoner.

Oh, sure they are. "I studied for a century before I even mastered my first 1st-level spell!"

Ok, more seriously: have you read this table? Notice how all three classes that actually need formal education are on the far right? Coinkydink, no?

[Tyndmyr]

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.

Im well into pathfinder books, and I still wrestle with this.

Here's the deal. PF is very, very similar to 3.5. If you have played 3.5, you'll initially open up core PF and wonder why you just rebought the normal core books. There are some differences...but they're akin to a set of house rules scattered throughout the books. Some are great, some are not. Many of the core broken things(Candle of Invocation wish loop, etc) are still alive and well, and magic/melee has, if anything, gotten slightly more imbalanced towards magic.

I feel like they're an aright source to mine for ideas, and to strip things out of for your own games, and a decent source of new campaign material, but not sufficiently different to justify moving away from 3.5.

[LordBlades]

@LordBlades

Well...

1) MAD-afflicted classes are more enjoyable to play, and more efficient... and also Sorcerers and Fighters got heavily revamped.
2) Everyone gets more feats, and with this and the traits you have more customization.
3) You can take non-class skills without too much point spending: fighters and such can have Diplomacy, Knowledge and other skills that add color and offer more ways to lead the game.

1) Apart from Paladin, I don;t think any of the MAD classes got better in any singificant way (not enough to get stuff like monk out of the very low tiers I think). As for the fighter, the heavy nerf on Power Attack means it's actually worse than in 3.5

2) Given, might help in some build, not do much in others.

3) There's already a fighter with diplomacy and whatnot in 3.5 ( and 4+int skills/level). It's called a warblade. As for the PF skill system, it does help some builds, and hinders others. For example one of my current PbP chars (lvl. 1 Archivist)is a wandering sage. As such he has skill points spread among all knowledges. Such a char would not have been possible in PF.

[Helldog]

I feel like they're an aright source to mine for ideas, and to strip things out of for your own games, and a decent source of new campaign material, but not sufficiently different to justify moving away from 3.5.

But you aren't. You are continuing 3.5. It's just tweaked a little. And you get new material, almost for free.

[Curious]

Fortunately the Pathfinder warrior classes are not pitiful and weak and the spellcasters not demigodly in power, nor vice-versa, so there's nothing to worry about.

Really? Are you actually arguing this? It has been proven, time and again, that spellcasters are so much more powerful than mundanes that they have shot off the graph and hit the ceiling. Pathfinder does nothing to change this fundamental imbalance, and anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves or playing with a very low-op group. Although, granted, judging by the op standards of the Paizo boards, that does seem to be their general player base.

[Tyndmyr]

But you aren't. You are continuing 3.5. It's just tweaked a little. And you get new material, almost for free.

Meh. I don't like all the changes. Some are fine. Some...not so much. I don't WANT all the new material.

Instead of starting with PF and porting over 3.5 stuff, I'm much better off playing 3.5, and grabbing the couple things I want from PF.

Also, Curious is correct on the power curve. PF fixes nothing about the general magic/melee balance. Certain classes, like sorc/wiz are arguably better off in proportion to melee than they were.

[Psyren]

Really? Are you actually arguing this? It has been proven, time and again, that spellcasters are so much more powerful than mundanes that they have shot off the graph and hit the ceiling. Pathfinder does nothing to change this fundamental imbalance, and anyone who says otherwise is either kidding themselves or playing with a very low-op group. Although, granted, judging by the op standards of the Paizo boards, that does seem to be their general player base.

If your caster players are going to op-fu the hell out of the game and wreck everything, they'll find a way to do that no matter what you play. The maturity level of that table is the problem here moreso than the system.

I've played plenty of PF games; Saph and others have DMed them too. Somehow, the campaign world hasn't resulted in a singularity and all of us spend more time here than the paizo boards.


System mastery may give you the tools to break the game, but nothing forces a player to use those tools to their potential. Unless that player is an antisocial iconoclast, in which case don't play with him.

[Curious]

If your caster players are going to op-fu the hell out of the game and wreck everything, they'll find a way to do that no matter what you play. The maturity level of that table is the problem here moreso than the system.

I've played plenty of PF games; Saph and others have DMed them too. Somehow, the campaign world hasn't resulted in a singularity and all of us spend more time here than the paizo boards.


System mastery may give you the tools to break the game, but nothing forces a player to use those tools to their potential. Unless that player is an antisocial iconoclast, in which case don't play with him.

I think you've misunderstood me; I'm not saying that casters always break the game, or that you're playing the game wrong if you don't play your character to the maximum power-level possible. I'm just refuting his claim that wizards can't do such things in Pathfinder, when they definitely can.

[MukkTB]

Pathfinder is clearly superior with regard to combat maneuvers and the skill system. Other than that the only thing I can say in its favor is that having nifty little abilities at each level for all classes makes them more fun to play.

Pathfinder fails to fix any significant balance issues. Yeah the paladin is nice. So what? The tier system is still in play and the developers have not really shown any system mastery with regards to their balance, just personal bias. Exactly why did the throwing rogue need nerfed? Did the fighter really need a PA nerf without giving it some other worthwhile goodies? If you want to nerf things shouldn't you spend your time kicking the tier 1 and 2 classes instead of the ones that aren't even magic users?

I repeatedly hear some people on this board treat the pathfinder devs (and players) as clueless pubbies. "We are so much much better then those idiots." Not an appealing sentiment to me. However there is some evidence that the PF devs made some mistakes.

PF is a very minor improvement over 3.5 for the skill system and the combat maneuver system. Everything is compatible but takes a bit of work. Its kind of like having some mostly nice house rules for 3.5. I'd recommend trying it but I don't feel that I can say that its a great improvement.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh, sure they are. "I studied for a century before I even mastered my first 1st-level spell!"

Ok, more seriously: have you read this table? Notice how all three classes that actually need formal education are on the far right? Coinkydink, no?

First part is, V's an elf. It takes a hundred years for them to learn the basics of anything.

Second, that table says you have to be at least 16 to a be a level 1 sorcerer, 16 to be a level 1 fighter, and 17 to be a level 1 wizard, cleric, or druid. It's one year. The longer lived races have more separation, but they live longer anyway. If you have at least 11 in ONE mental stat, why wouldn't you take a casting class? Well, I guess level 1 is where it's roughly 50% depending on who wins initiative, in favor of the warrior due to Grease, Entangle, Sleep, etc. allowing a save.

But seriously, would you rather have a force of 50 1st level fighters, or a force of 50 first level wizards, sorcs, clerics, or druids, with Grease for the wizards and sorcerers who use crossbows, Bless, Bane and CLW for the clerics, and Entangle, CLW, SNA I, and animal companion (riding dog) for the druids. Because it's just as easy to field sorcerers as fighters, and only slightly harder to field the other three.

[MukkTB]

If you assume characters get to choose their class the whole thing gets silly fast. If you assume they don't get to choose their class then how was it chosen?

Options: Bad/Bad