Should I get Pathfinder?

[Hiro Protagonest]

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?

Well, it's not totally plausible for some things, but there is one thing. Everyone that is a paladin could be a sorcadin or cleric, so why would you be a paladin?

As for the others, everyone with 11 charisma can be a 1st level sorcerer, everyone with 11 intelligence can be a wizard, everyone with 11 wisdom can be a cleric or druid. Cleric of war both fills the same spot as fighter, druid fills the same as ranger. Sneaky arcane type can fill the same as rogue, although the first level being rogue for a ton of skill points can be good, but every level after that would be wizard or sorc.

[Dr.Epic]

I never actually played it but I heard it takes the best of 3.5 and 4th edition, and blends them together.

[Blisstake]

I never actually played it but I heard it takes the best of 3.5 and 4th edition, and blends them together.

It's a lot closer to 3.5.

And the best of 3.5 is probably ToB, so I don't think it's that either. Regardless, I still love PF

[Mando Knight]

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.

At level 1, it isn't, but you get the class skill bonus if you have a rank in a class skill. So at first level, you may have a few knowledge skills maximized and several not so much. Then as you progress in levels, you can spread out your skills a little more and have at least a +4 in all your class skills before too long without subtracting too much from your favored skills.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It doesn't have any 4e. It's just heavily house ruled 3.5. They fixed a few things, streamlined the system. ToB did a better job for the goal though: balance. ToB+PF is probably the closest we'll ever get to balance with official books, but full casters are still two tiers ahead (and now the human sorcerer is pushing tier 1 as well), and anyone who says PF is the best thing since sliced bread is wrong.

[Helldog]

and anyone who says PF is the best thing since sliced bread is wrong.

It is the best thing that could happen to a D&Der.

[Hiro Protagonest]

It is the best thing that could happen to a D&Der.

It does not fix the balance problem in any significant way! So now the paladin's as good as the barbarian, and the monk can be with the splatbook support. Who cares? The barbarian's still way behind the wizard! And sorcerer, cleric, and druid!

It is not the Holy Grail of D&D 3.5, it is not the best thing that could happen!

Tome of Battle alone does far more than Pathfinder for balance!

[Helldog]

Could you please chill out for a moment? Where did I say anything about balance?
In contrast to 3.5, PF is still being printed and expanded.
So yeah. My point stands.

[Reverent-One]

It does not fix the balance problem in any significant way! So now the paladin's as good as the barbarian, and the monk can be with the splatbook support. Who cares? The barbarian's still way behind the wizard! And sorcerer, cleric, and druid!

And yet, people still played barbarians, fighters, ect, for years in 3.5 despite the fact that they were so much weaker than the higher tier classes. Obviously that isn't a dealbreaker for a lot of people.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Could you please chill out for a moment? Where did I say anything about balance?
In contrast to 3.5, PF is still being printed and expanded.
So yeah. My point stands.

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.

[Curious]

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.

Perhaps not, but I tend to think that Pathfinder publishing any books at all is a good thing for the continuation of the hobby. Without new books and new customers being injected into the community, 3.x is ultimately doomed to wither. Pathfinder can help extend that lifetime.

Also, I really like most of their splatbook classes. Love me some Witch and Summoner.

[Helldog]

Just because it's still making books doesn't mean it the best thing ever.

Better Pathfinder then nothing at all. And your 3.5 materials will run out, sooner or later.
And what Curious said.

[Blisstake]

It is not the Holy Grail of D&D 3.5, it is not the best thing that could happen!

Tome of Battle alone does far more than Pathfinder for balance!

You're missing the point. A lot of the people who love PF really don't give a crap about the finer points of balance. For example, I don't like how 3.5 added a few classes in ToB that completely obsoleted others, or added classes that never got any attention from other splatbooks (the Shugenja comes to mind), even if that improved balance in the long run.

Personally, I think trying to base PF on the balance suggestions proposed by the optimization community would have made Pathfinder worse, and probably wouldn't sell as well. I can't be certain of course, but it's just a theory of mine.

[Optimator]

My group plays 3.5 but has the Pathfinder books. We use the archtypes, spells, and items from them. Kind of like Unearthed Arcana XL.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Personally, I think trying to base PF on the balance suggestions proposed by the optimization community would have made Pathfinder worse, and probably wouldn't sell as well. I can't be certain of course, but it's just a theory of mine.

Eh? We'd balance everything at tier 3. And do a pretty damn good job of making sure everything was tier 4-2. Nerf problem spells (Polymorph lasting one round per level and Shapechange lasting one minute per level would be a good start, and halving the hit die amount allowed by Planar Ally/Binding lines. Oh, and take out Knock and let people pick Arcane Locks at... +10 DC?), give melee nice things (move+full attack is major, but also give an extra good saving throw, will for barbarians and paladins, reflex for fighters. Oh, and make the nice things class features so melee casters can't use them, at least not without losing CL), and nerf the casting classes themselves a bit (I'd say taking out one spell slots of each level should do it).

[MukkTB]

As for the others, everyone with 11 charisma can be a 1st level sorcerer, everyone with 11 intelligence can be a wizard, everyone with 11 wisdom can be a cleric or druid.

All that proves is that NPCs in most normal campaigns don't actually get to choose their class. Last time I walked down a city street there were a couple city guard (warriors, maybe the chief inspector was a rogue or an expert) some merchants and peasants (commoners or experts) and a guy I think was a thief (rogue). If all that was required for a character to choose a better class was an 11 mental stat I think most of them would have selected one. I'm sure that the ones who didn't have 10 as any mental stat would have at least liked to have chosen rogue or fighter for their class.

EDIT - Also +1 for a balanced set of tier 3/4 classes with which to play the game. Although that's easy enough for a DM to houserule in. Just say "Players can play tier 3 and 4 characters." Making it into an official rulebook would have been nice. Split the spellcasters into their constituent tier 3 components the way the healer/dread necromancer/beguiler/bard have already begun.

[navar100]

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.

Like I said, those who are enraged by 3E magic will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. Have fun with 4E. For the rest of us who don't get apoplectic about it, Pathfinder's take did a good job. I don't agree with all the spell nerfs, but I'm not enraged by them and get over it.

Spellcasters have cool stuff and warriors got lots of love in improvement. There's incentive to stay single-class, prestige classes are specialties, not must have better alternatives, and archetypes lower the need for them. Pathfinder took 3E into a good direction to continue its system.

If you hate 3E, Pathfinder is not for you.

[Aron Times]

Pathfinder's adventure modules are very good. The rules are alright, but nowhere near balanced. If you want a consistent and balanced system, get 4e.

To sum it up:

Pathfinder modules? Worth a buy. Definitely worth a buy.
Pathfinder rulebooks? Hell no.

[Blisstake]

Eh? We'd balance everything at tier 3. And do a pretty damn good job of making sure everything was tier 4-2. Nerf problem spells (Polymorph lasting one round per level and Shapechange lasting one minute per level would be a good start, and halving the hit die amount allowed by Planar Ally/Binding lines. Oh, and take out Knock and let people pick Arcane Locks at... +10 DC?), give melee nice things (move+full attack is major, but also give an extra good saving throw, will for barbarians and paladins, reflex for fighters. Oh, and make the nice things class features so melee casters can't use them, at least not without losing CL), and nerf the casting classes themselves a bit (I'd say taking out one spell slots of each level should do it).

I actually like having classes that are all over the tier list. Without seriously altering the classes, I really don't think there's a way to take down the primary casting classes to tier 3 or moving tier 5 classes higher, without a significant departure from the 3.5 rule set.

Keep in mind that the whole tier system is balanced around optimization in the first place. From my experiences with showing Tome of Battle to players who were new to the game, they all came to the conclusion that the classes in their are incredibly overpowered compared to even the wizard, and we all know that isn't true.

In fact, that's true for pretty much any tier system: it doesn't apply to the majority of players. And that's my biggest issue with the most prevalent complaints toward the balance of Pathfinder: there is no way to balance the system for everyone. I'd honestly rather have a system that's accessible to everyone, rather than one that's balanced around the highest levels of optimization.

That said; yes, I do think there are some balance changes that could have been made to Pathfinder to improve it for everyone (silly things like getting rid of the Candle of Invocation). Or classes that could be a bit better. But all in all, I don't feel class balance should be the main reason to like/dislike Pathfinder.

[sonofzeal]

Like I said, those who are enraged by 3E magic will not be satisfied with Pathfinder. Have fun with 4E. For the rest of us who don't get apoplectic about it, Pathfinder's take did a good job. I don't agree with all the spell nerfs, but I'm not enraged by them and get over it.

Spellcasters have cool stuff and warriors got lots of love in improvement. There's incentive to stay single-class, prestige classes are specialties, not must have better alternatives, and archetypes lower the need for them. Pathfinder took 3E into a good direction to continue its system.

If you hate 3E, Pathfinder is not for you.

Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling. It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

[Flickerdart]

I really don't think there's a way to take down the primary casting classes to tier 3

Beguiler.

or moving tier 5 classes higher

Wildshape/Mystic Ranger, Trickster Spellthief, Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

[sonofzeal]

Beguiler is not a primary casting class.

Anyone who gets 9th level spells is a primary casting class.

Edit: Is dungeoncrasher tier 3?

Debatable. Some of his other examples go from Tier 4 to Tier 3, rather than from Tier 5. But the point, I think, is a good one - class variants routinely change the tier of the class, so what he's discussing is by no means impossible.

[Blisstake]

Beguiler.

Beguiler is nothing like a wizard. I don't think you could actually take a wizard or cleric and change them T3 without turning them into a completely different class (like a Beguiler).

Edit: Yeah, deleted the last post. Had a complete brainfart: It's definitely a primary class.

Wildshape/Mystic Ranger, Trickster Spellthief, Dungeoncrasher Fighter.

I'm actually not familiar where these are in the tier list. Could you fill me in? Also, I don't have access to Dungeonscape; what exactly was changed from the Fighter (all I know is the charge attack).

I heard arguments that the dungeoncrasher was one of those deceptively powerful classes in lower optimization levels, but I can't say for sure.

[MukkTB]

I think most people would be happy with tier 3 and 4 for balance. Just tier 3 is a little restrictive. Trying to tweak everything to be 'exactly tier 3' may or may not be a little hard.

And the beguiler is a solid caster. It gains spells slower than a tier 1 character but that's the whole point of being tier 3: You're not as powerful as tier 1.

EDIT - The idea behind many tier 3 casters instead of just the wizard/cleric/druid is this. Calling up a demon, transforming the enemy into a toad, casting an illusion so some dude steps into a pit thinking its solid ground, turning into a dragon, regenerating health, coming back from the dead, creating undead, throwing lightning bolts, turning into a giant, and foreseeing the future are all fine. But they're not exactly fine when one guy does all of those things at over the course of 10 minutes or so.

Think about the narrative. When is the last time you remember reading about a character villain or hero who could do all those things at the same time? Most magical characters follow themes fairly closely. A necromancer can bring people back from the dead, but he cant throw fireballs. Its not that he chooses not to throw fireballs. He can't throw fireballs because he is a necromancer.

I'd rather split the wizard/cleric/druid up into enough classes to cover the spellcaster archetypes then let 3 classes try to cover all of them and become uber powerful because of their wide variety of abilities.

[Blisstake]

Debatable. Some of his other examples go from Tier 4 to Tier 3, rather than from Tier 5. But the point, I think, is a good one - class variants routinely change the tier of the class, so what he's discussing is by no means impossible.

That's a good point, but I do feel like the Wildshape Ranger is quite a bit different from the original Ranger. When something increases to T3 from a variant, isn't that usually due to an increase in casting abilities or due to other magical/quasi-magic benefits? While it is certainly possible to change something to a more balanced tier, I'm not sure if that would be possible with the core 3.5 ruleset.

Some people would obviously prefer the departure from the familiar for more balanced gameplay. And Pathfinder would be pretty pointless for those people. That seems perfectly reasonable.

Others like familiarity or classes that actually aren't balanced (such as myself). Some people don't care and just want more content to the 3.5 line of products. I think that's who Pathfinder is best for.

I almost said designed for, but to be fair, I have no idea what's up with the developers of the game. I've heard everything from they're complete idiots, to geniuses, to manipulating [expletive].

[Curious]

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

I believe that Pathfinder also has one other redeeming quality; to those new to the game, the simplified rules makes a good springboard into the quantity of 3.5 material available. For those who already play 3.5, euuh.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.

From what I gather Paizo's fanbase plays at low levels and doesn't optimize highly. So they focused on nerfing low-op, low-level stuff like Glitterdust and Wildshape. A noob isn't going to gate loop using Candle of Invocation; he's just going to see that the fighter got more plusses and the low level wizard can't end the encounter in one spell and call it a balanced day.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?

See below.

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling.

I haven't encountered this problem. Examples?

It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

You know what "not worse" means, when the products aren't identical? It means "almost surely better." At least a little better. It's also free online. So yeah.

[MukkTB]

Well there is the cost in effort of learning the new rules. And while people say 'backwards compatible' about half the groups you'll run into play pathfinder only. Even if you try to go backward compatible you have to think about some things. I personally would allow both forms of power attack. Others may house rule other interpretations.

Switching to pathfinder is not without costs. About the same costs as joining a group with some different house rules than you're used to.

[Flickerdart]

You know what "not worse" means, when the products aren't identical? It means "almost surely better." At least a little better. It's also free online. So yeah.

I have a persimmon and a tangerine. They are not identical. One is not worse than the other, but also not better. Difference does not imply a hierarchical distinction in any way, shape or form.

[navar100]

Did a good job... of what, exactly? I mean, they were pretty open about wanting it to be a balance-fix, and you're freely admitting they didn't actually do that.

All I see is that they buffed just about every class by a roughly similar margin and called it a day. Oh hey everyone, play our game and get new toys! Nevermind that the vast majority of it is just window dressing. At least it's not worse... right?

PF still lacks the vast quantity of options and resources that 3.5 has. And while 3.P gets the best of both, it's also awkward and occasionally impossible to integrate the two, given changes to some fundamental systems, without extensive houseruling. It's not terrible, and I'd be willing to play it if my group wanted to, but in general I just don't see why I should make the effort, nor do I understand the fangasms I see for it. My old housemate thought it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and thought it was more balanced, but it was pretty easy to disabuse him of that notion. It's not worse... but that's about all I've seen anyone establish.

Play Our Game: It's Not Worse than the Competition! (tm)

Fangasm? How about balancegasm? All this talk about "balance" I really don't give a damn. What passes for "balance" around here amounts to everyone is the same. Not my cup of tea; hence I don't play 4E. As for the Tier System, it can suck a lemon. It does not dictate The One True Way. Why should it bother you so much people actually like 3E and/or Pathfinder?

Really, it absolutely, positively does not bother me or lots of other people at all that a wizard can cast Gate. We do not run in horror because a fighter needs to take out a bow when the party is attacked by flying creatures. Hip, hip hooray the druid has an Animal Companion. It sure did help us in that battle in the woods. We'll miss his presence as we enter the dungeon walking up and down steps and ropes or spend a few weeks in town.

All that matters is what happens for our particular game, not theoretical potential of what a class can do given every option everywhere. We expect combats to be fun, fair challenges with the occasional easy ones and occasional difficult ones with a DM who doesn't resent having to create such combats based upon what the party can or cannot do.

Such things are irrelevant to the game system used. Relevance is whether a system can deliver. Pathfinder can deliver. 4E can deliver. All that matters is your particular taste.

This is all the OP needs to know:

If you hate 3E, don't get Pathfinder. If you like 3E, Pathfinder is worth the look. It made significant changes in increasing warrior abilities, decreasing some problematic spells, and altered feats and the skill system. Paizo is a company continuing the 3E system line if you're interested in new stuff. If you don't care about that, they offer a free version of its Core rules. You can run a game using it to see if you like the changes or not. It is compatible to use partially if you like some of what it did but prefer the original 3E version of its changes. 3E stuff that has no Pathfinder equivalent will work fine in a Pathfinder game. Pathfinder might inspire you to make your own changes, such as any class with d4 HD becomes d6 and any d6 HD class becomes d8, or maybe not. If you try Pathfinder but just aren't thrilled with it at all, oh well. Using the free version meant you didn't "waste" money.

All talk by anyone if they like or dislike Pathfinder is irrelevant.