Pathfinder 1E Why Pathfinder?

[paladinm]

This is a very sincere question that I hope everyone will take in the spirit intended. I have been involved with D&D (in all its many manifestations) since the LBB's. I suppose my greatest interest has been in BECM, for it's completeness and elegant simplicity, and 3.5 for its greatly streamlined mechanics and character options. Since 4.0 came out, I have still clung to 3.5, but have also gone back to enjoying BECM.

A few years ago, I started checking out Pathfinder. While I appreciate that PF is keeping D20 alive and thriving, my impression of PF has largely been one of power-creep. At least at first glimpse, most of the changes involve giving characters more class features, feats, etc. To be honest, a lot of this seems very unnecessary to me; and the insane proliferation of feats is one thing that eventually turned me off about 3.5.

Other than buffing up characters all along the spectrum, what are some reasons to consider PF? What are some of the things that have been improved or cleaned-up from 3.5?

Gracias!

 

[SteelDraco]

Pathfinder characters are a little more powerful than core 3.5 characters, but I think some of the strangeness of 3.5 has been reigned in significantly, though not outright eliminated.

The classes all reward you for sticking with them. Taking a couple of levels here and there to end up with a character with half a dozen classes, two of which are oddball prestige classes, doesn't happen as much and isn't rewarded by the rules. You can dip for flavor or something useful you need, but generally it's a power hit for flexibility, rather than an overall power increase.

Prestige class bloat is less of a problem. The prestige classes that exist are mostly tied to organizations better. Instead, archetypes mostly replace them. I like archetypes better - they're a set of replacement class features for one of the base classes, swapping out mechanics so that you fit a theme better. For example, Thug and Swashbuckler are two themes for Rogue that adjust the mechanics to fit that concept better than the base class does.

There's more parity between the casters and non-casters, though in the end the casters are still on top in terms of flexibility and overall power. It's less of a gap, but the gap still exists at the higher levels.

Some of the rules have been streamlined in a way that I prefer over 3.5. I like the concept of Combat Maneuver Bonus and Combat Maneuver Defense, for example - it provides a single mechanic for a number of different combat actions. It works well, though there are some cases where it's less than ideal, but i think it's better than 3.5.

There's less general cheesy power exploits available to Pathfinder characters. That's not to say it's impossible, it's certainly not. CharOp people play Pathfinder too. I generally find Pathfinder has less game-breaking stuff than 3.5 did. The quality of the sourcebooks is generally higher, and less of them feels like useless filler.

Golarion is a cool kitchen-sink kind of setting. Just about any high fantasy stuff you can think of is in there, and it all works together pretty well. Lots of good support as well.

The adventure paths are very neat. I haven't played any myself, but I'd like to. Lots of published content out there if you want premade adventures, and Paizo's APs are some of the best adventure content you're likely to find.

 

[pauljathome]

Other than buffing up characters all along the spectrum, what are some reasons to consider PF? What are some of the things that have been improved or cleaned-up from 3.5?

Gracias!

First off, the people who call Pathfinder 3.75 are pretty much right. It has fairly minor changes from the core of 3.5

I think that one of the best things that they did was to remove most of the later 3.5 products and its proliferation of new and over powered base classes.
If you like to use all pf the newer stuff (especially Tome of Battle) then you'll very likely prefer 4th edition to Pathfinder anyway (which is NOT meant to be any kind of jab at anybody. Tastes vary, Pathfinder is NOT for everybody).

I really like the simplification of combat maneuvers. In some places the new ones are a little less "realistic" but the simplicity gained more than compensates for that.

They reined in a lot of the most egregious spells from 3.5. The whole Polymorph chain being a very good example.

I find that I really like the new channeling mechanic for clerics. At least at low to mid levels it means that clerics actually get to use their spells and not just convert everything to cure wounds spells.

The biggest single reason to play it over 3.x is, of course, that it is a well supported system with new material (rules and adventures) coming out constantly and with a lot of 3rd party support.

That plus the fact that Paizo works really hard to deserve your money. They try and be very responsive and open with their customers. They make you WANT to give them money .

I do miss all the prestige classes. Although I think that 3.5 went too far I find that now there are very often NO prestige classes of interest for many characters. But they're coming out with a book this year that may change that .

And there are various places where they made very minor changes for no significant benefit. It isn't a problem for people learning Pathfinder but I find that at least once a session I instinctively rule based on the 3.x rule and not the slightly changed Pathfinder rule.

 

[Spatula]

PF's skill system, while not my personal ideal, is still leaps and bounds better than 3e's.

CMB/CMD replacing the hodge-podge combat modifiers from 3e is also a welcome change.

PF's Fighter is actually a decent class, with actual class abilities and better feat support.

Some of the other classes are just a lot cooler than their 3e counterparts. The sorcerer is a good example.

 

[Gorgoroth]

Pf

skill system is miles more fun than 4e's (ugh), but 4e does dual wielding so much better (no str mod on twin strike). It takes you so many feats to build up TWF, and there is practically no mechanical viability for wielding two longswords. Then again, you can always just refluff a double-sword. I like how in PF axes are pretty decent because there is no proficiency bonus gimping them. +1 To-hit is > +1 damage.

And all the archetypes in PF allow you to run the exact character you want...without multiclassing.

Ok, one or two places, like Lame Oracle dip at level 9 for a barbarian, make sense, which at that point I'd just say as a DM : lose 10 speed and you gain fatigue immunity at level 9. Bam, done.

I will probably end up playing a few dozen of them, because there is so much interesting stuff there. The balance is very well done, and fun, gritty, and dangerous. you might have a powerful guy but he is not invincible in PF. In 4e you can build a wizard that's unhittable and has a huge bag of HP or a rogue that has better defences than a fighter, quite easily.

I don't like how you spend a ton of feats for two weapon fighting and numerically you are doing barely more damage than a greatsword. Suckitude.

 

[billd91]

A few years ago, I started checking out Pathfinder. While I appreciate that PF is keeping D20 alive and thriving, my impression of PF has largely been one of power-creep. At least at first glimpse, most of the changes involve giving characters more class features, feats, etc. To be honest, a lot of this seems very unnecessary to me; and the insane proliferation of feats is one thing that eventually turned me off about 3.5.

Other than buffing up characters all along the spectrum, what are some reasons to consider PF? What are some of the things that have been improved or cleaned-up from 3.5?

To add to what people have already said:

Paladin smites have improved dramatically from being somewhat unreliable to being an impressive benefit.

Barbarian raging rounds may be a bit more fiddly to keep track of but it's a more flexible method of managing the resource than the x times/daily.

Energy drain works better now - no lost experience levels.

DR can be overcome by high (+3 or better) weapons, putting teeth back in the idea of a high plus weapon.

Lots of monsters got make-overs in order to reassess them at their specified CRs. Some of the lower-level petrifying monsters (cockatrice and basilisk) got adjustments to their powers to not be so blatantly deadly to low-level characters.

Fewer creature types immune to sneak attack - less likely to have a weakened rogue for extended periods of time when dealing with adventures were thematically grouped monsters.

I certainly understand disliking a proliferation of feats, but PF does include some nice ones that make it easier for a fighter to suppress a spellcaster.

PF does offer a number of minor power-ups to many classes, more substantial ones to others. But a lot of that comes as different, yet thematically appropriate, things to do that add interesting choices. Barbarian rage powers, spell-like abilities from the clerical domains, school and blood line powers for arcane casters.

 

[paladinm]

Are there any directions for designing 2e-type specialty clerics?

 

[Ogrehatescomputers]

Pretty much what everyone has already said. The thing just feels and plays better. My favorite things are the same as many peoples. Sticking with your class has rewards. They fixed a lot things. The monk is still a little lacking by comparison with other classes but over all he is a much improved character. They gave the clerics ten times the flexibility they used to have.

Something else I love is the skill points being redone. You aren't so insanely penalized for cross class skills. It's what I wish 4e would have been. and to my group (and to many other groups i'm sure) a lot of house rules were no longer necessarily because they fixed some common problems.

0 level spells being a "free" thing is nice too since it was a little absurd that a 20th level Mage would ever be unable to do the simplest cantrips.

 

[Asha'man]

I mostly agree with you, the OP. While I agree that there's a lot more junk out for 3.5 D&D than Pathfinder, there's no rule that you have to use all of it. If you exercise some discernment in what you allow, I think both systems look about equally good. At that point, it's just a matter of taste, and Pathfinder doesn't really suit mine -it's too complex. The one big thing that Pathfinder did well was the new skill system. I play in both D&D and Pathfinder games, and they're both fun, but when I run my own games I prefer to use my own homebrew system, which sits somewhere between (also borrowing elements from retroclones, 2e and even 4e).

 

[paladinm]

What are some of the bonuses that are given to fighters and rogues, for example? Do you think they could be worked into a 3.5 game to balance things out with the spellcasters? I personally don't think the mages and clerics needed any more power, and the new abilities given to paladins and rangers give the impression of, "Oh, we're giving everyone else more power, so we have to do the same for them".

Making all the cantrips and orisons into at-wills seems both a bit much and not enough. I'd just give wizards some sort of eldritch bolt that worked like the cleric's spontaneous healing. Myth & Magic has a pretty good version of this.