So i have a few questions:
1. people who have been playing since 2nd edition, what do you think of pathfinder? Does it feel like classic D&D?
Feels like 3.5 with a cleaner ruleset.
2. How does Item creation work, I LOVE that you do not loose XP now, but what DO you do?
Main difference is no xp. A higher gold cost for some items. And the incorporation of skill rolls to complete magic items. I like the incorporation of skills to create items. That seems appropriate.
3. I am not so big on balancing the rules as I am the flavor of the game and the RP being a good simulation of real life + fantasy. Does the changes to the base classes that were made to make them less weak take away from the realism?
No. All the abilities the classes receive seem appropriate to the classes.
4. How hard is it to use CR on 3.5 monsters with pathfinder. I notice that they do not use CR any more and I am a DM 1st and a player second so if this change is big and for the better I will be excited.
CRs are easier to use.
The power creep for classes is high for some and as expected for others. The Paladin in particular is very powerful against the most important monsters you fight. A paladin will hammer and hammer hard against most BBEG. They are practically immune to high level spells and abilities that require fort and will saves given how high their saves go. They also gain more outright immunities and eventually gain DR. They can lay on hands on themselves more often than before, which makes them very hard to kill. Paladins are beasts in D&D now. Maybe near the equivalent of the old Paladin-Cavalier combo from the
Unearthed Arcana days. I enjoyed that paladin, so I don't mind though I think it makes it hard on a DM to challenge a well-supported paladin.
The strongest damage dealer in the game is the fighter. There are other classes that can deal more damage situationally due to special abilities, but fighters are the true masters of combat. They tear stuff apart. And you can build fighter combat monsters like nothing that has ever been in D&D before as far as the fighter goes.
The rogue is better than it was before, but in our campaign it is still one of the weakest classes in the game. They can deal alot of damage if they get into attack position quickly. But the other melee classes can do alot of damage whether or not they are in position. But as you level their bad will and fort save become a liability as high end casters and creatures start pulling out the big gun spells that target will and fort. Usually leaves the rogue feeling like a chump in our campaigns.
Sorcerers are much more interesting. They have bloodlines that give them alot more than they had before and make for a more potent class.
Wizards have more to them as well. It makes them quite a bit more potent. Though they're nothing like the 3E wizard post-arch mage.
Monk is real cool now too. Feels much more like a martial artist and has some additional ki powers that are fun to use.
Even the bard seems more fun if you like playing a super skill, support class.
Ranger is better too. Still very much like the 3.5 version, but with some improvements and more focus.
Cleric gets more for their domains. They lack that cool lvl 20 ability most of the other classes get, but they're still very potent given the plethora of abilities they get. Wish
Pathfinder had given them a cool level 20 ability as part of a domain power or at least the class.
Haven't messed with the druid too much.
Overall, the classes overpower the monsters. Sort of feels like old school D&D because the characters overpowered the monsters in 2nd edition in my group's campaigns, especially the two weapon fighters and wizards. So if you like characters that eventually become very, very powerful and don't mind coordinated groups smashing your adventures unless you beef them way up, then you'll like
Pathfinder.
