Pathfinder 1E give me a reason to like Pathfinder

[GreyLord]

There are several things that I didn't like in 3e/3.5, but were able to be overcome since they included OTHER options. From my perusing of Pathfinder, it seems Pathfinder completely get's rid of these limitations, and instead becomes munchkin heck. We're talking about specifically mentioned options beyond simply saying...rule 0.

However, I may have missed these things...so wondering...

First...everyone can be everything. You have an undead revenant who sold his soul to Baal for revenge and became a half vampire...no problem...he can also be a Paladin.......

That type of thing sort of turns me off. In the DMG it lists the option to have core races that are limited (DM fiat) to certain classes. Maybe the players won't like it, or maybe they will...but there are actual optionary ideas for which races would qualify or at least favor which classes.

In addition the favored class idea, where you can have XP penalties negated if you are in a specific class...but if you're race doesn't have it...then you get the full weight of an XP penalty if your classes are too far apart in levels.

It appears that Pathfinder doesn't have these options...which leads to number 2...

I didn't like class level dipping. I take 1 level of fighter...than 1 level of Druid, then 2 levels of Weapon Master...etc.

AKA...I didn't like the idea of classes as more like skill packages than actual classes where someone studied for years and years to learn...but Joe over there...he takes a week and learns the entire skill of Wizardry where you had to go through an apprenticeship since you were 9 to learn and only graduated as an upper level apprentice when you were 17. Joe on the otherhand after a week is an upper level apprentice and soon to be a journeyman after the next adventure.

Now in the 3e books, originally, it was suggested that you actually couldn't simply switch for no reason, that you'd normally need some reason to switch classes...and even better...to pick up prestige classes. That Prestige classes in many cases were NPC classes...but of course one could take as many as they wanted...BUT DM's could have the option that they required a heck of a good reason.

I didn't see any optional rules against rules dipping per se...though I think I may have seen something on training (though I also houseruled that even with good reasons I personally wouldn't let someone sporadically choose a Prestige class without planning to join a group of them unless they had a dang good rp reason...and then typically they only could get one Prestige class...yeah...I'm a mean DM I guess at times).

And then there was training in 3e. You didn't level up in the dungeon itself...but optionally you could be required to actually train to level up. Makes sense with the years of training you may have had anyways.

The third item was the I want to be a monster syndrome. Everyone could be any monster they want...and of course the townsfolk will respond as if they were normal. Of course that made no sense to me...and I could always stick by the core races in the PHB...with a few optional as listed in the DMG if I wanted. Stats were listed in other books (savage species, MM's later on), but those were really optional, with the Core races being what was considered official and what a DM could use as an optional ruling to back himself up if nothing else.

What or where in Pathfinder does it say Monster PC's are NOT the norm but the odd and rare exception?

Those would be the main things that I'd say convince me to always stick firmly with 3e/3.5 instead of Pathfinder...or even play 4e rather than Pathfinder...but maybe I'm mistaken on how PF handles these items, which is why I decided to post here and maybe give PF a chance.

If you list a counter, please list page numbers and references in the PF guides on where it states these items...so I can stop by the bookstore and verify it actually.

One thing that I had was I didn't think 3.5 actually was all that bad, it was a pretty good system...but PF claimed they would fix certain things. So, I went looking for things that I thought may be nice if they fixed...but didn't see that they actually fixed anything...so here's some more items that I'm wondering about.

Multiclassing spellcaster - Point blank, unless you did certain munckin builds...Multiclassing a spellcaster was a good way to hose your character powerwise...I didn't see anything in PF that fixed this.

Bards - Bards were great at being Jacks of all trades...able to do everything...but not good at anything...which meant that overall they could fill a gap...but were ineffective overall at being a good class since...they weren't good at anything (as I just said). They didn't really even have the synergy to have all things work together to make them better then any other class really, in my opinion. Bards got the short end of the stick in 3e (unless you used the Paragon path option in UA, though in that case that was more because they got a Wizards spell casting option...but a better BAB overall, though still a little underpowered in relation to the Wizard...it made for a good mix). What did PF do to actually FIX the bard to have powerlevels equivalent to everyone else?

CR vs. EL - This thing was always confusing to players...and occasionally flubbed me up with Monsters. This thing needed to seriously get combined into a much easier system overall...workable...but it could get mixed up at times with a bad memory...what does PF do to fix this?

As I said, 3e and 3.5 were great systems. I didn't really see any reason to change...I currently play Castles and Crusades or 4e though. I did stick with the Pathfinder Adventure Paths when they were for 3e and 3.5...but when they switched to PF exclusively...I stopped buying them...as I didn't see the advantage of PF over 3e/3.5 editions. The items I listed above would be items that I had problems with in PF, or that I didn't think PF addressed.

PF added more power to melee classes...but unlike many, I could hit spellcasters where it hurt enough to make Melee classes more relavant (wow...imagine...suddenly there are all these pieces of armor which have an automatic dispel magic field around them...hmm...some really high level wizard must have made an army of fellows in the past that wanted them protected from his enemy wizards or something...if only you were even half the level of that wizard of long ago you might actually have better odds at getting your magic past that protection...stupid DM junk like that)..

BUT I can see their reasonings for that and don't have a problem with that at all. In fact that could be the only bonus I see in PF overall.

So...with that in mind...sell me on PF.

 

[Crothian]

Some of those issues seem to be DM player issues. If you don't want easy multi classing then don't allow it. If you don't want the PCs to be monsters, don't allow it. You don't need a book to run the game for you.

If you are happy with 4e and C&C then be happy with them and play what you know. There is no reason to try something new something you obvously passed on at least once before.

 

[Cor_Malek]

So...with that in mind...sell me on PF.

I'm no shopkeeper so I ain't selling stuff. I might address some of your questions though, especially since my initial stance toward PF was rather hostile as well

There are several things that I didn't like in 3e/3.5, but were able to be overcome since they included OTHER options. From my perusing of Pathfinder, it seems Pathfinder completely get's rid of these limitations, and instead becomes munchkin heck.

As you might see here, simply nerfing the casters is not a viable way to bring balance to 3e classes. Besides, for most players - it never was about casters breaking the game, but rather outclassing other characters and making them redundant. Which is why Paizo decided to only lightly debuff casters, and instead - give more power to lower-tier classes. Hence perceived power creep.
But they retain "less but bigger" splat policy, so it's only initial shock. Classes introduced in APG were focused on flavour not on Power Up for $, which changed "power" equation between PF and 3.5 - core classes are better, but they didn't bring in stuff that makes the core redundant anyways.

First...everyone can be everything. You have an undead revenant who sold his soul to Baal for revenge and became a half vampire...no problem...he can also be a Paladin...

You might recall popular at times threads like: vampire druids or Cedric the rough paladin. So it's hardly anything new, and question whether to allow this (or playing non-human PC's) is as always in DM hands. What Paizo did, was codify it - so if you want to do this - here's how. If you don't - don't bother with this part.

It's still far less ambiguous than what Gary originally intended when he introduced paladins to DnD. Upon reading one of his FAQ threads you'll stumble on how he describes paladin capturing enemies, allowing them to convert - and swiftly slitting their throats to help the avoid caving in to wicked ways again. He was also intended to be lawful only towards law of his god, so again - something many DMs would disallow.

In addition the favoured class idea, where you can have XP penalties negated if you are in a specific class...but if you're race doesn't have it...then you get the full weight of an XP penalty if your classes are too far apart in levels.
It appears that Pathfinder doesn't have these options...which leads to number 2...

PHB p.31
Again, instead of penalty for not following the developers carrot stick, they introduced award for those who do: you gain 1 hp or skill point each level you take your favoured class. Which is quite a big deal, really - you want to have as many skills as you can, especially early on - because of +3 bonus on class skills. And then, it helps to keep up with the spread out skills.
1 hp per level quickly accumulates for low HD classes, quickly emulating permanent "false life" spell.

I didn't like class level dipping. I take 1 level of fighter...than 1 level of Druid, then 2 levels of Weapon Master...etc.

It's still not a good idea to go level dipping in PF, even more so than in 3.5. See, every class has now a lot more class features, but you gain them gradually over the levels. They also scale as you go, so - yeah, you'll get a lot class features as a X lv 2/Y lv1/ Zlv3 - but you'd get nearly as many as X lv 6, and they'd be all much better than what you got.

AKA...I didn't like the idea of classes as more like skill packages than actual classes where someone studied for years and years to learn...but Joe over there...he takes a week and learns the entire skill of Wizardry where you had to go through an apprenticeship since you were 9 to learn and only graduated as an upper level apprentice when you were 17. Joe on the other hand after a week is an upper level apprentice and soon to be a journeyman after the next adventure.

Again, this is not something that has to do with rules, but how you play the game. Even the rule for wizards learning new spells per level was not intended as "Poof! Instant knowledge", but rather as rule explanation for wizard having some knowledgeable master.
Heck, in most games I played in you wouldn't be able to put points in skill you had 0 ranks in even if it was a class skill for you. Same with weapon - I had to use bastard sword in two hands for a while before getting the exotic weapon feat for it.
You want it - you roleplay it. Just as you describe it in two following paragraphs. This is not something where mechanics are to be brought in.

What or where in Pathfinder does it say Monster PC's are NOT the norm but the odd and rare exception?

Seriously, you need that spelled out? Again, it's a setting not a mechanics thing. I remember disclaimers about playing non-human / official races, but it's really not something I'd care for to spend time looking for.
On the contrary, I'd require having it written that if you go into town as member of race people normally would slay on sight - you don't get attacked. And I'd require such rule so I could houserule it back.
But yeah, in PF default setting it's actually spelled out - ie if you go to Cheliax even as a halfling - everyone will assume you're a slave. Go as a tiefling, and everyone will treat you like a dog.

Those would be the main things that I'd say convince me to always stick firmly with 3e/3.5 instead of Pathfinder...or even play 4e rather than Pathfinder...but maybe I'm mistaken on how PF handles these items, which is why I decided to post here and maybe give PF a chance.

I think you rather looked for mechanics spelling out rules that do not belong in rulebook, but in campaign setting description.

If you list a counter, please list page numbers and references in the PF guides on where it states these items...so I can stop by the bookstore and verify it actually.

You either believe me, or not. I won't bother with quotations where rules are of secondary importance anyway. There was one part where it was important - favoured class, so there I mentioned the page (again, core rulebook, p.31)

Multiclassing spellcaster - Point blank, unless you did certain munckin builds...Multiclassing a spellcaster was a good way to hose your character powerwise...I didn't see anything in PF that fixed this.

I'm a bit confused here. So you do or don't like multiclassing? Either way, it's still the same - it's good only as a way to meet prerequisites of PRC's

Bards - Bards were great at being Jacks of all trades...able to do everything...but not good at anything...which meant that overall they could fill a gap...but were ineffective overall at being a good class since...they weren't good at anything (as I just said). They didn't really even have the synergy to have all things work together to make them better then any other class really, in my opinion. Bards got the short end of the stick in 3e (unless you used the Paragon path option in UA, though in that case that was more because they got a Wizards spell casting option...but a better BAB overall, though still a little underpowered in relation to the Wizard...it made for a good mix). What did PF do to actually FIX the bard to have powerlevels equivalent to everyone else?

Bards are not for power players, that's simply not the intention of the class. But with PF skill system, they're far more effective as jacks of all trades. They can make untrained knowledge checks.At 10th level, they can use any class in such way. from 5th level onwards, he can take a "20" on any knowledge check once a day (more as he progresses). On 19th he can take a "10" on any skill.
Bards still get awful rep, but that's mostly due to old habits (similarly I keep hearing from DM's who don't go online that Druid is weak ).
Of course, their relevance to combat scales with the number of party members, as they give bonuses to all allies. So a 3-man group is better off with someone other, but for 5-man group with someone having leadership feat? Power Boost to hell and back. This might have been the reason they seemed "weak" in previous editions - the developers, and hence first testers often preferred having a lot of hirelings around.

CR vs. EL - This thing was always confusing to players...and occasionally flubbed me up with Monsters. This thing needed to seriously get combined into a much easier system overall...workable...but it could get mixed up at times with a bad memory...what does PF do to fix this?

Won't provide any quotation, as I'd have to recount too many, too large chunks of MM and Core Heh, found it while building encounter Core Rulebook p 397+, but yeah - it fixed it. 1st off - CR is what is written. A lot of players were killed, because 3.5 designers though that dragons should be more challenging, and then the DM though the same so he took higher CR to account for it - effectively doubling the handicap. I'll elaborate a bit more below.

As I said, 3e and 3.5 were great systems. I didn't really see any reason to change...I currently play Castles and Crusades or 4e though. I did stick with the Pathfinder Adventure Paths when they were for 3e and 3.5...but when they switched to PF exclusively...I stopped buying them...as I didn't see the advantage of PF over 3e/3.5 editions. The items I listed above would be items that I had problems with in PF, or that I didn't think PF addressed.

Well, 3.X still is a great system. But when returning to 3.X I found that Pathfinder saved me a lot of houseruling, kept the power dispersion at bay, and made my beloved bards actually playable.
I can't see 3.5/PF compatibility as a problem though - it was a move purely to save on space. 3.5/PF monsters are still interchangeable, only if you want to put 3.5 criters against PF PC's - you add one CR.
As a sidenote, because of ease of this conversion, the main reason to buy PF Bestiary is to get the great and easy PF encounter building method. back in a day I was as heavily prejudiced against PF as you appear to be, and I read the books only to see what the fuss about PF encounter building was. Didn't actually win me back (not a big fan of the art direction (at least as far as PC's go - I love many of the monsters), and I thought the initial power boost to martials equalled power creep) at first, but it solves a lot of things in actual play (ie - cantrips seem like no big deal, but they make non-combat problems much more interesting).

But as 3.x was a great system, all it needed was fine tuning, not a revolution. Hence if you want me to provide quotation as to where 3.X problems were addressed? Best I can do is this:
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (core rulebook), 2009, ISBN 978-1-60125-150-3

 

[IronWolf]

I've only skimmed the responses so far, so some of my thoughts may overlap what others have already said.

There are several things that I didn't like in 3e/3.5, but were able to be overcome since they included OTHER options. From my perusing of Pathfinder, it seems Pathfinder completely get's rid of these limitations, and instead becomes munchkin heck. We're talking about specifically mentioned options beyond simply saying...rule 0.

If you only tolerated 3.x then Pathfinder might not be the game for you. Pathfinder has built on top of 3.x (fixed a lot of things in my opinion), but not changed the system so much that the essence isn't 3.5-like.

First...everyone can be everything. You have an undead revenant who sold his soul to Baal for revenge and became a half vampire...no problem...he can also be a Paladin.......

That type of thing sort of turns me off. In the DMG it lists the option to have core races that are limited (DM fiat) to certain classes. Maybe the players won't like it, or maybe they will...but there are actual optionary ideas for which races would qualify or at least favor which classes.

This is a DM call here. The books provide options, if an option doesn't fit the DM's world then it can be limited. I do this all the time, I am a traditional fantasy person and I don't like to have characters be monster races. This is easily accomplished by saying only races from X sourcebook are allowed.

I didn't like class level dipping. I take 1 level of fighter...than 1 level of Druid, then 2 levels of Weapon Master...etc.

There is nothing prohibiting multi-classing in Pathfinder. But Paizo has tried to make much fewer "dead levels" to help combat some of this. With the release of the APG they have also introduced a means to swap in one ability for another to help allow further customization of a character while not needed to accomplish that by dipping into other classes.

Now in the 3e books, originally, it was suggested that you actually couldn't simply switch for no reason, that you'd normally need some reason to switch classes...and even better...to pick up prestige classes. That Prestige classes in many cases were NPC classes...but of course one could take as many as they wanted...BUT DM's could have the option that they required a heck of a good reason.

I didn't see any optional rules against rules dipping per se...though I think I may have seen something on training (though I also houseruled that even with good reasons I personally wouldn't let someone sporadically choose a Prestige class without planning to join a group of them unless they had a dang good rp reason...and then typically they only could get one Prestige class...yeah...I'm a mean DM I guess at times).

This is definitely an area the DM can set the groundwork for, which it sounds like you did. Just be up front with the players that multiclassing requires a good reason and if it is drastically different might require an in-game task or quest to actually accomplish. i.e. they might need to seek out a trainer in some area to get the skills they want.

The third item was the I want to be a monster syndrome. Everyone could be any monster they want...and of course the townsfolk will respond as if they were normal. Of course that made no sense to me...and I could always stick by the core races in the PHB...with a few optional as listed in the DMG if I wanted. Stats were listed in other books (savage species, MM's later on), but those were really optional, with the Core races being what was considered official and what a DM could use as an optional ruling to back himself up if nothing else.

What or where in Pathfinder does it say Monster PC's are NOT the norm but the odd and rare exception?

It doesn't need to say this in the rulebook. This is a decision for the DM. If you don't want monster PCs, then state so up front or/b] make their be serious repercussions for trying to enter a town as a monster race where you will obviously be shunned.

If you list a counter, please list page numbers and references in the PF guides on where it states these items...so I can stop by the bookstore and verify it actually.

Not sure there are a lot of page numbers for things I've listed. The DM's role is to provide the additional framework that the game will run under.


One thing that I had was I didn't think 3.5 actually was all that bad, it was a pretty good system...but PF claimed they would fix certain things. So, I went looking for things that I thought may be nice if they fixed...but didn't see that they actually fixed anything...so here's some more items that I'm wondering about.

Multiclassing spellcaster - Point blank, unless you did certain munckin builds...Multiclassing a spellcaster was a good way to hose your character powerwise...I didn't see anything in PF that fixed this.

If the goal of a spellcaster is to be the most powerful spellcaster they can, then multi-classing is likely a good way to harm that idea. You can't really get the best of both worlds. Depending on what character concept you have in mind there may be ways to accomplish that character goal, but this is too vague to answer well.

 

[Azgulor]

<snip -- lots of stuff>

Given the title & your list, I'm curious -- why do you want to be sold on Pathfinder? As I read through this thread I was left with the following question: If your issues list (real or perceived) is this long, and you're happy with 4e, why are you looking to be "sold"?

If it's strictly a curiosity thing, the Core Rulebook PDF sells for $10.

If you're looking to switch to PF, others have been kind enough to address your issues list point by point, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dandu]

Ok, I'm not exactly a fan of Pathfinder, but seriously, wtf is with your list of 95 complaints?

It's not really a bad system or anything. I personally don't like having to learn a different, yet similar rules set (which will ensure mistakes for years to come) and disagree with some of their changes (both what they did and did not do), but it's ultimately about as good/bad as 3.5 edition.

 

[Cor_Malek]

Ok, I'm not exactly a fan of Pathfinder, but seriously, wtf is with your list of 95 complaints?

It's not really a bad system or anything. I personally don't like having to learn a different, yet similar rules set (which will ensure mistakes for years to come) and disagree with some of their changes (both what they did and did not do), but it's ultimately about as good/bad as 3.5 edition.

It might not seem like it to someone who already knows both, but both 4e and Pathfinder get a lot bad rep. They also get a lot good rep, yeah - but it's a matter of cognitive bias. When you're looking for new system, you're taking into account that you'll mostly read opinions of fans. It seems very logical then, to dismiss their compliments as part of post-purchase rationalisation, and look for counterarguments to what they write to see if it's true.
And that's where it gets ugly. I checked out PF only to implement it's encounter building mechanism to 3.5, and maybe chuckle at it's wicked ways. I was sure that: all art is anime/emo oriented, there's enormous power creep to fit munchkins/power gamers (I'm a low wealth, low magic, low power kinda guy ;-) ), that it took 3.5, sodomized it, painted some fast stripes on the hood and smashed new pricetag on top.
And no, it didn't fade away after initial contact either. Search and thy shall find.

But I gave it a try and it worked like a dream, and even though many dismiss it as heavily houseruled 3.5... it's a Shelby kind of customization ;-)
For example, to limit slayed at 1st level syndrome, in 3.5 I liked to start my players in NPC classes, and during first adventure they'd work their way up to desired class. I liked it (still do!) even as a player, but it's not something that majority of players enjoys.
Changes that Paizo did are more... seamless. By definition, they do not stand out.

I still have a lot of similar prejudices against 4e, which is a reason why I want to join a 4e campaign one of these days - alas, my time table does not allow this. But the only reason why I want to do so - is because I tinkered around it's mechanics and ways to use them in adventures, which got me interested. If I based my opinion on what I see on forums/pick while skimming through PHB - I'd surely avoid it.
Edition warring takes heavier toll than we want to believe.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Pathfinder is, largely, 3e. Of course. Some call it 3.75, or 3.pf. Perhaps 3.666 is appropriate?

If you have issues with 3e, I doubt Pathfinder will appeal very much. Maybe one or two things that you might've found annoying, you'll be pleased they improved in some way or other.

Anyway, as for "selling you on it", I can only tell you why I've come to prefer it to 3e, and why those I've played it with like it as well. . .

* Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins are fun, and quite strong.
* Bards are quite powerful too.
* Sorcerers are interesting.
* Classes are, overall, more balanced.
* . . . as are races - they are all viable.
* Sticking with a single base class actually has real benefits.
* CMB/CMD makes combat options other than "I hit it" easier, smoother, faster.
* Skills are simpler and smoother to deal with, but still just as customisable.
* Feats are, in general, more interesting and more balanced.
* Spells are a bit smarter, better balanced, and less irritating.

Probably a few other things too; that's just off the top of my head, as the saying goes.

And keep in mind, I - along with those I've played it with - don't mind d20 at all, as far as system foundations go. Not everyone feels this way. You might not, for instance.

But yeah, $10 for the corebook PDF is awesome value, ieven if you don't end up liking it enough to play. It might be the best way to know for sure, short of actually buying the hard copy book.

 

[GreyLord]

Given the title & your list, I'm curious -- why do you want to be sold on Pathfinder? As I read through this thread I was left with the following question: If your issues list (real or perceived) is this long, and you're happy with 4e, why are you looking to be "sold"?

If it's strictly a curiosity thing, the Core Rulebook PDF sells for $10.

If you're looking to switch to PF, others have been kind enough to address your issues list point by point, so I'll leave it at that.

Ok, I'm not exactly a fan of Pathfinder, but seriously, wtf is with your list of 95 complaints?

It's not really a bad system or anything. I personally don't like having to learn a different, yet similar rules set (which will ensure mistakes for years to come) and disagree with some of their changes (both what they did and did not do), but it's ultimately about as good/bad as 3.5 edition.

Actually, I had 3 main complaints on 3e, all which had written down in the rules different options which could be implemented instead. When I looked through the books for Pathfinder I could no longer find these options listed as if they had been removed from Pathfinder for some unknown reason...which is why I asked about them.

The other 3 items were items I brought up because Paizo said the changes they were making were to fix problems people had with the system. There were specific problems that I saw people complain about 3.5 that I didn't see fixed/repaired in the Pathfinder rules on my browse through.

So a little less than 95.

I like 3.5, believe it or not. I think it's a great system overall. I think some hold it up too much like a religion instead of a game...and feel any deviation is evil...but that's not me actually.

I really enjoyed the Adventure Paths that Paizo put out, but after Legacy of Fire when they went all full into Pathfinder, I avoided buying any more. I wanted things that were completely compatible with 3.5 at that time, and if it were built more for Pathfinder rather than 3.5, I was unsure of whether the module would be overpowered for 3.5 characters or not.

So why do I want to be given reasons? Face it, the Pathfinder Players Guide is a freakin big book. It looks impressive. It's still a supported system, and still is evolving in various ways with input from fans.

Books for 3.5 are only going to get harder to find, and with the recent commentary on Pathfinder it appears that maybe PF will have the staying power to be around for a long time (hopefully longer than 3e and 3.5 were) in the actual market being published, and probably can outlast 4e along with a myriad of other RPG's. I'm looking for one where new players can actually buy the books at the bookstore (aka...not have to go online if they don't want to, and where the books are always available for new players).

Next, the Advanced Players guide appears to have some interesting things...but I don't want to get that at all if I'm not going to even buy the core rules for Pathfinder in the first place.

So there are reasons for me to get Pathfinder...but there were the three BIG reasons that I listed above...three things that I didn't have problems with in 3.5 because they were actually addressed by literal rules in the actual core rulebooks...aka...even rule lawyers could read them...I feared they were erased from PF with no alternatives to replace them.

In addition, I know from all the discussions (erm arguments?) over Pathfinder in the past that supposedly Paizo was going to address some of the problems people had with 3.5/3e, but in a different and LESS drastic way than WotC did with 4e. Obviously, that would also be something of interest to me to see if they were actually telling the truth...or if Paizo just fed a bait, hook, line and sinker in order to draw people in to buy their books without doing anything or not.

So, yes there is some draw for Pathfinder. I'm already registered at this site, and don't have to go register at another to get my questions asked. I figured people on the PF forums would know more than anyone else about their own systems (instead of asking people who already hate it, they tend to exaggerate on the bad things about a game system...and half the time are ignorant on the ins and outs since they probably don't play it themselves if they hate it that much).

So, I asked here. There are some things that I like about what I've seen about PF...but my core questions that may turn me off about it are what I am asking about.

Of course if the attitude of telling some one requesting info is to tell them to kiss off is indicative of those playing PF in the first place...well...

Actually that has little bearing on me since I will be recruiting my own players to the game...probably not playing with those already playing PF. If that were the case of wanting to play with already experienced PF players, I could just ask them the same stuff as I'm asking here. This is more looking at my own gaming groups and how well I and they may prefer to play PF.

As I said, 3.5 is great...but looking at it's gradual die off...and the ease of getting specific books (I imagine some 3.5 books are eventually going to get prohibitively expensive...though some of the big ones will remain buyable second hand...but many new options can replace those optional 3.5 books via the Advanced Players Guide...which...in a circular reasoning...I've already explained above WHY I don't think I should get it first).

So...as I said, give me a reason to like Pathfinder...aka...more to the point...give me reasons to like Pathfinder by addressing the questions I had or reasoning why they are not as relavant as I would think they are.

 

[pawsplay]

Let me preface by saying I am going to refute a lot of misconceptions you apparently have about Pf. I hope that doesn't come across as confrontational.

First...everyone can be everything. You have an undead revenant who sold his soul to Baal for revenge and became a half vampire...no problem...he can also be a Paladin.......

There are no half-vampires I am aware of in Pathfinder. Anyone can be a Paladin who is LG, which is the same as in 3.5.

That type of thing sort of turns me off. In the DMG it lists the option to have core races that are limited (DM fiat) to certain classes. Maybe the players won't like it, or maybe they will...but there are actual optionary ideas for which races would qualify or at least favor which classes.

That option still remains in Pathfinder. However, the APG supports a softer approach, options available for characters of particular classes and races.

In addition the favored class idea, where you can have XP penalties negated if you are in a specific class...but if you're race doesn't have it...then you get the full weight of an XP penalty if your classes are too far apart in levels.

Frankly, it never worked like it was supposed to in 3.5 anyway.

It appears that Pathfinder doesn't have these options...which leads to number 2...

I didn't like class level dipping. I take 1 level of fighter...than 1 level of Druid, then 2 levels of Weapon Master...etc.

Well, Pathfinder may be right up your alley, then, as it's so single-class friendly it actually hurts some basic multiclass options. Every class has high level abilities. The new favored class rules punishes you for multiclassing.

AKA...I didn't like the idea of classes as more like skill packages than actual classes where someone studied for years and years to learn...but Joe over there...he takes a week and learns the entire skill of Wizardry where you had to go through an apprenticeship since you were 9 to learn and only graduated as an upper level apprentice when you were 17. Joe on the otherhand after a week is an upper level apprentice and soon to be a journeyman after the next adventure.

Now in the 3e books, originally, it was suggested that you actually couldn't simply switch for no reason, that you'd normally need some reason to switch classes...and even better...to pick up prestige classes. That Prestige classes in many cases were NPC classes...but of course one could take as many as they wanted...BUT DM's could have the option that they required a heck of a good reason.

None of that has changed from 3.5.

I didn't see any optional rules against rules dipping per se...though I think I may have seen something on training (though I also houseruled that even with good reasons I personally wouldn't let someone sporadically choose a Prestige class without planning to join a group of them unless they had a dang good rp reason...and then typically they only could get one Prestige class...yeah...I'm a mean DM I guess at times).

Usually, in Pathfinder, people will dip only for good reason. Classes are not all that front-loaded, and as noted above, the system favors sticking with a class solidly. Prestige classes remain optional.

And then there was training in 3e. You didn't level up in the dungeon itself...

Actually, you did, unless you used a common option.

but optionally you could be required to actually train to level up. Makes sense with the years of training you may have had anyways.

True. I would have liked for Pathfinder to keep that as an option, but nothing has really changed. It's still an option, and it still has no set parameters, just as it did not in 3.5.

The third item was the I want to be a monster syndrome. Everyone could be any monster they want...and of course the townsfolk will respond as if they were normal. Of course that made no sense to me...and I could always stick by the core races in the PHB...with a few optional as listed in the DMG if I wanted. Stats were listed in other books (savage species, MM's later on), but those were really optional, with the Core races being what was considered official and what a DM could use as an optional ruling to back himself up if nothing else.

What or where in Pathfinder does it say Monster PC's are NOT the norm but the odd and rare exception?

Everywhere. Apart from the designers stating they are not interested in including new races, you can find numerous references in the rules, including the bit on p.314 of the bestiary warning of mixed groups.

Multiclassing spellcaster - Point blank, unless you did certain munckin builds...Multiclassing a spellcaster was a good way to hose your character powerwise...I didn't see anything in PF that fixed this.

Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, as always.

Bards - Bards were great at being Jacks of all trades...able to do everything...but not good at anything...which meant that overall they could fill a gap...but were ineffective overall at being a good class since...they weren't good at anything (as I just said). They didn't really even have the synergy to have all things work together to make them better then any other class really, in my opinion. Bards got the short end of the stick in 3e (unless you used the Paragon path option in UA, though in that case that was more because they got a Wizards spell casting option...but a better BAB overall, though still a little underpowered in relation to the Wizard...it made for a good mix). What did PF do to actually FIX the bard to have powerlevels equivalent to everyone else?

First, bards were a little soft in 3.0, but in 3.5 were quite capable, even in a main combat role. In Pathfinder, as with most other classes, they've gotten some power ups. They can use their bardic music by the round, for one thing.

CR vs. EL - This thing was always confusing to players...and occasionally flubbed me up with Monsters. This thing needed to seriously get combined into a much easier system overall...workable...but it could get mixed up at times with a bad memory...what does PF do to fix this?

It's gone. CR = EL. On p.314 they lay out a scheme to help monsters keep up with regular characters at higher levels.