D&D 3E/3.5 3.5 vs. Pathfinder

[Icyshadowlord]

OP, you may want to read this review of Pathfinder. Now, it's the gaming den AND Frank Trollman, so...be warned, they don't have the same politeness rules as ENWorld. But it's a rather entertaining and (IMO) painfully accurate overview of PF and why it's worse than 3E.

That link has all that you need to know. I would have said that stuff myself, but I was too tired and thankfully Frank had already done a better job than I would have done with my own analysis.

 

[IronWolf]

Here is a nice post over on the Giant in the Playground forums on some of the changes:

The 3.5/Pathfinder Handbook - Giant in the Playground Forums

 

[billd91]

OP, you may want to read this review of Pathfinder. Now, it's the gaming den AND Frank Trollman, so...be warned, they don't have the same politeness rules as ENWorld. But it's a rather entertaining and (IMO) painfully accurate overview of PF and why it's worse than 3E.

If you decide to check out this link, don't confine your review of it to just the first page and expect to make any sort of informed opinion on PF. Some of that information was clearly based on the playtest and was made obsolete with the actual publication.

Plus, Frank Trollman's not exactly an unbiased source of information. He was banned from the Paizo site for his rudeness (which you can certainly get a taste of in that thread) and I'm inclined to believe he is unwilling to give Pathfinder a fair shake. People have their opinions about game, game mechanics, and so on. I think a fair reviewer would recognize that there's more than one solution to a design dilemma and that, in many cases, there is no single right answer. I have my doubts Frank is capable of that, or if he is, he's not willing to acknowledge it.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Some of it is outdated, but that doesn't necessarily make the observations invalid, ironically. The part about the opponent's CMD being based on rolling a 15 was changed. But in the final version, you add dex and all kinds of other stuff to CMD that in play it works out to about the same. The last 3 PF characters I've made, including the current one, would actually need an 18-20 (current PC would need a nat 20) on a CMB roll just to hit their own CMD.

Frank's abrasive, for sure. But most of his opinions are pretty sound and well-reasoned, and he does give PF a fair shake in there at least some times. He says the skill system is improved from 3E, while also pointing out some of the flaws of of it, all of which are true.

 

[enrious]

OP, you may want to read this review of Pathfinder. Now, it's the gaming den AND Frank Trollman, so...be warned, they don't have the same politeness rules as ENWorld. But it's a rather entertaining and (IMO) painfully accurate overview of PF and why it's worse than 3E.

Ugh, there are many legitimate criticisms of Pathfinder, but they aren't to be found in that review.

Or rather, the outright dishonesty makes it hard to spot 'em.

That was a review with an axe to grind, not present the information in an objective manner.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I agreed with some of the points about feat nerfing and the like, I found reading that thread to be a chore. Enough of a chore that I couldn't help but discount the opinions of some of the "shoutier" posts as originating from pure haters.

Personally, I find that Pathfinder- like most of the better 3.X RPGs- does have something to offer, but mostly as a source of material to yoink. Of the ones I listed above, True20 & W&W are the only ones I've considered running as is, mainly because they both have modular spell systems available so that players could create their own spells- a key factor in a post-Apocalyptic fantasy campaign I've been working on for some time.

My fave of that list- AE- is very, very cool, but there are many things I'd want to import from standard 3.5Ed (mostly feats). Ditto the rest of 'em.

 

[Gray Lensman]

think I am going into info/opine overload, lol

I did find that link to be a chore too.

altho the GITPG handbook as givin me a few ideas.

Thanks folks.

 

[Icyshadowlord]

My D&D group has tried out both 3.5 and Pathfinder, and they HAVE noticed the feat problems even before I linked that thread to them. What annoyed me was that another DM I know scoffed off EVERY argument they had by just saying "those guys are trolls". They're not trolls, they presented valid arguments done with actual calculations. They might be biased, but they still did the work, and I also tested the same stuff, getting more or less the same results.

Nothing frustrates me more than fanboys...

 

[Androrc]

My D&D group has tried out both 3.5 and Pathfinder, and they HAVE noticed the feat problems even before I linked that thread to them. What annoyed me was that another DM I know scoffed off EVERY argument they had by just saying "those guys are trolls". They're not trolls, they presented valid arguments done with actual calculations. They might be biased, but they still did the work, and I also tested the same stuff, getting more or less the same results.

Nothing frustrates me more than fanboys...

Even if they have a point in that aspect, they are woefully wrong in regards to backwards compatibility, which is the main selling point of Pathfinder to me, as I play 3.5.

 

[Walking Dad]

It's not as bad as the haters say but much worse than the fans on the Paizo boards say.

- grapple is still not easy
- they nerfed cleave but recently introduced the old version a 'Cleaving Finish' in Ultimate Combat.
- Aasimar is totally unbalanced to the Tiefling.
- If you do a called shot (UC) with a touch attack you have to hit normal AC...
- class abilities measured in rounds (rage, bardic music)