Pathfinder vs. 3.5?

[Wulf Ratbane]

KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.

That dude is on the ball.

 

[GlassJaw]

KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.

Great stuff. I was thrilled at the idea of Pathfinder originally but my opinion has changed.

Basically, I think Paizo has created a monster and they can no longer contain or control it. I totally agree about the people gravitating towards PF. The worst thing Paizo did was give the power level an overall “bump” with PF. Now they are picking up the munchkin and powergamer crowd, which can never be pleased (just like powergamers in MMO’s).

 

[azhrei_fje]

Great stuff.

Really? I just trotted over there and read his "three things" and all I thought was, "No need to state the obvious."

Every game is going to have those same three groups. So what?

I can understand if the game designers decide to "bend to the will of the masses" and include things that shouldn't be there then each player of the game has the right to be annoyed. But I haven't seen that. In fact, I've seen comments from the Paizo folks that certain things will NOT change either because of their goal of backward compatibility (as much as practical) or that it would change the feel of the game too much.

All I got out of his blog posting was a nice nap.

 

[smug]

KnightErrantJR posted some concerns and comments in his blog. It pretty well hits on what a lot of people are thinking, judging from the comments in the thread on the Paizo boards.

It's what the people that are concerned about PFRPG are thinking, more or less. I don't have the sense that they are in the majority, though (and KEJr later says he'd be happy if the Beta, pretty much as-is, became the final ruleset; he is mostly worried about potential further changes).

 

[Phlebas]

i'm DM-ing freeport using pathfinder beta - gotta say i dont think the power creep is as big a factor as some make out and conversion time is minimal - in fact often i don't bother unless i want to use pf abilities for npc's.

one thing that does giver me a warm feeling for the final version are the changes jasons posted as design options beyond the beta - changes to animal companions so that they grow in power and size with the druid, changes to the way paladins smite/lay on hands works and a simplifcation of rage points

but the key thing is that the players like the new system and feel its freshened up - for example they had a long discussion on tactics to use against negative channeling clerics which is something new and scary dangerous in the game...

not saying it hasn't got its flaws but no more than ay other system and simple to revert to 3,5 or houserule the sub-system that doesn't do it for you

 

[Pants]

The worst thing Paizo did was give the power level an overall “bump” with PF. Now they are picking up the munchkin and powergamer crowd, which can never be pleased (just like powergamers in MMO’s).

See, here's where I disagree.

Boosting the overall powerlevel of both races and classes is great, because it means that I don't have to hand out as much treasure. A lot (well, more than usual) of the power is contained within the classes as opposed to being contained within their respective trinkets.

Granted, this didn't seem to be one of PF's stated goals, but it's a good thing anyways.

As for the article, personally, there seem to be some good, solid points (not that I agree with all of them, but they were good), however there were too that just seemed kind of... whiny.

One of the most glaring points that I came across was this:

8. While I know that many WOTC PrCs were pretty out there, bumping, say, the Dragon Disciple or the Eldritch Knight to be just as overpowered doesn't seem to be the answer, and taking spells away from the assassin, while logical from a certain point of view, also seems to invalidate a number of 3.5 sources that added assassin spells (I read a lot of comments that never saw any extra assassin spells, but the Spell Compendium, as well as a few of the last WOTC offerings, and Green Ronin's Assassin book all added them into the game, so for someone that is interested in using this material with Pathfinder, you are telling them that they are on their own).

From my understanding, one of the tenets of PF was to stay relatively close to the Core 3.5 rules (if they strayed from that philosophy is a different point). If they concerned themselves with ALL of various 3rd party and non-core WotC releases, nothing would get done. There's just too much stuff out there.

Now, Assassins having spells was one of the things people liked to complain about. Now PF takes away their spells and... people complain because some books had assassin spell lists in them? Buh?

10. Monsters . . . sigh. Again, I understand adding Charisma to intelligent undead for hit points, but it does change a whole lot of monsters that exist in the game. Given that a lot of high HD undead seemed a little out of whack for their CR, I think I could live with that, but the more talk comes out about the monster book, the more I hear about monsters having abilities added that they used to have, changing some of them to match CR, etc.

Some things just can't be fixed without breaking some stuff. Seriously, since they were going to release a monster book, they could A) ignore the various issues, then people would cry with 'but why didnt u guyz fix tihs ting????' or B) Fix issues, to the lamenting discord of people who want PF to 'be just like 3.5 but FIXED' (an utterly impossible situation).

Undead having gratuitous amounts of HD (which caused problems) and pathetic amounts of HP was one such issue. I was a big proponent of the unholy toughness ability back in the MM3 (and the corresponding feat in the ToH3) so I see this as a 'good change.' Even with all of their various immunities, undead just seem to get chewed up really quickly by fighter-types.

I DO agree with his first two points though. I've never been a big fan of the PF wizard and clerics.

Anyways, I'm done rambling.

 

[DonTadow]

I whole heartedly recommend pathfinder over 3.5.

Pathfinder feels like the natural progression of 3.5. We have not had a power with power creep, as we have mostly an rp heavy group. Yeah, some classes are slightly better, but no more so that can break a game. I've run modules, creatures and 3.5 adventures with no more visible easiness than Idid my previous 3.5 campaign. My favorite things.

CMB - really eases up special attacks and aofo, though i would have still wanted auto aofo. In my game i use a 4 for the modifier instead of 1.

Magic users get normal magic use - magic users feel like magic users, always accessto a helpful power as exposed to a cantrip. Unlimited cantrips are a great idea. This has created more focused characters. My sorcerers and clerics don't feel the need to become mildly adequate at something else in order to make their character combat useful at early levels.

Turning is simplified/ useful - the positive energy burst is a real simplistic way to deal with turning and again, more enjoyable. Eliminating the lame charts of a turn check is nice.

Fighter - I like the fighter, but wish it was more interesting like Monte Cooks fighter sin experimental might 2. Which I give my players the option of in my pathfinder campaign.

Spells- Much easier and cleaned up. There was more thoguht put into what would effect what.

Skills- The skill are condensed,smaller and more useful. Allowing players to concentrate on skill based characters if they wished.

 

[Ry]

Having now looked at Pathfinder, I'm decidedly unimpressed. Seems like the design process got pulled off-course at some point, stopped being minimal changes and obvious fixes.

I'll be sticking with 3.5 as E6's base if I do the complete E6 book.

 

[trickybob]

I think the main question you need to ask yourself is what do you like about 3.5.
If its all the prestige classes and the crazy number of splat books and munchkin-ised gaming then PF probably isn't for you unless you convert everything to PF.
However the reverse is also true if you like the feel of 3.5 but want more control over what's allowed in your games.

Ultimately, PF is going to end up a separate game to 3.5. Paizo will need to release Monster books, Game world books, adventures, and splats. But by the time they get there you'll already either be in or out.

Personally, I want a balanced game and you can't have that in 3.5 unless you stay strictly with core...And then you need to look at some of those spells and sort them out. Well there isn't anyone out there that's going to do that for you, you're on your own.
PF, on the other hand, if you stick with only PF stuff, will give you a better balanced game, a fresh look and feel and that's all good to me. But this is just my view.

Honestly though, I already know exactly what I'm going to be playing and GM-ing. I'm going to use the PF Races, Progression, Combat rules and Feats [but not the new Power Attack changes]. I'm using my own Skills list [a mix of PF and 3.5], some house rules, mainly PF spells [with some alterations] and PF Classes but with some alterations. So 80% PF & 20% 3.5.

In short, I'm really enjoying PF but prefer some of the old rules, here and there, to the new ones. I think everyone that doesn't either move to 4.0 or religiously stick with whatever edition they currently play will end up using a combination of PF and 3.5.

 

[roguerouge]

Ryan: please let the community know when you decide to release the E6 book. It's something I would buy, as I find the concept fascinating and the execution elegant, at least what I've seen of it.