Pathfinder 1E Why play Pathfinder?

[kevtar]

Hello all,

This is my first post regarding Pathfinder (so please forgive me if this question has been previously asked or run into the ground), but with all the discussion surrounding D&DNext - people are digging in to their "favorite edition" positions, and one of those isn't a D&D product (it may "be" D&D, but it's not a D&D product, lol).

Anyway, I've played every edition of D&D from Basic up. I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and I've enjoyed playing the various editions of D&D - all of them (some more than others, but I've enjoyed playing D&D). The question I have then, is what makes Pathfinder so special? I've noticed that people who say they play Pathfinder mention that they "play D&D," and that Pathfinder "is" D&D. They also mention they liked 3.5 a lot. So why not then play 3.5?

Why play Pathfinder?

I live in Tongatapu, Tonga, so I don't have a FLGS to visit and read the books for myself, and I have a 256kbps Internet connection, so downloading things (legally or otherwise) is not an option either. So, I leave it to you good folks. Can you please tell me, in a concise paragraph why you play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 or any other official D&D product?

Malo aupito!

 

[Morrus]

Play Pathfinder is (a) you liked 3.5; and (b) you prefer to play a system which is actively supported with supplementary material and adventures. As a third reason, play it if (c) you felt 3.5 could use some tweaks, and you feel those tweaks described by many posters below this post are something you consider an improvement.

 

[billd91]

For my money, Pathfinder is a nice improvement over D&D 3.5. There are some nice feats to give fighters a boost. Balance problems with polymorphing are fixed. Rangers, barbarians, and paladins get some nice boosts. Combat maneuvers are streamlined. Skills are consolidated and recalculated nicely. Some monsters like basilisks and bodaks get nice rebalances. It's a nice evolution of 3.5.

And you don't need to download tons of data to investigate it. Check out Pathfinder OGC. It shouldn't be tons slower than browsing EN World.

 

[Matthias]

I live in Tongatapu, Tonga, so I don't have a FLGS to visit and read the books for myself, and I have a 256kbps Internet connection, so downloading things (legally or otherwise) is not an option either. So, I leave it to you good folks. Can you please tell me, in a concise paragraph why you play Pathfinder as opposed to 3.5 or any other official D&D product?

Malo aupito!

I play Pathfinder because for me, it had tons of more appeal than 4E D&D. PF is what 4th Edition should have been. PF did not walk down the Tabletop MMO road that 4E did, but took the best parts of D&D 3.5 and added more toys for every class. Here are three things I love about Pathfinder:

(1) Every class in pathfinder has more 'goodies' and 'toys' to play with. Fighter is more than just a collection of feats with good BAB and HP; it has weapon and armor abilities, resistance to fear, and other goodies. Paladin, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Wizard, all got more toys.

(2) Pathfinder's combat is more elegant. Special attacks such as bull rushes, grappling, disarming, etc. are all unified under a "combat maneuver" which functions off every character's Combat Maneuver Bonus (and rolls against victims' Combat Maneuver Defense) both of which are separate from the usual BAB and Armor Class.

(3) Pathfinder's core rulebook by itself came with a heck of a lot more feats to play with, than any version of D&D 3.0 or 3.5's player's handbook. This combined with #1 made PCs superbly customizable, even if all a gaming group has is the core rulebook, it will be a while before they run out of unique character builds.

 

[Wycen]

I play it because it is a familiar comfortable game, yet has new features, which sometimes can result in "oops" moments (3E incorporeal rules vs. Pathfinder incorporeal rules as an example) but on the other hand also some "cool" moments.

Also because it is new the fluff is all new and perhaps more importantly, fun to read.

 

[GreyLord]

Several reason, one which will be EXTREMELY unpopular with PF players.

I never considered D&D 3.X as D&D. I thought it was pretty much an aberration and abhorrent to create a completely different game system and then in arrogance because one had bought the name, slap the name of D&D on the game in order to sell it.

Burned me a big one. It basically killed off D&D completely. WotC was supposed to save D&D, not kill it. Instead, they preserved it for a year or two, and then killed it with their own creation, not just killed it, but tried to ignore it ever existed to an extent and replaced the game with their own creation.

Yeah...all the excitement at first turned to ashes pretty quick about the new 3e.

HOWEVER, the game system that they came up with (d20) was extremely solid and a great game in it's own right. My main beef was that it wasn't D&D and shouldn't have that on it.

So...Pathfinder solves that problem right there. It's finally it's OWN game with it's OWN name. And that makes me happy. I now enjoy it completely without that burning anger in the background of someone stealing a name in order to slap it on something they made up in order to sell that instead of the old system.

That said, this isn't the place for flamewars...or edition wars. I am expressing WHY the name change to Pathfinder settles a LOT of ghosts and actually is why I'd choose it any day over 3.X edition. In truth, sometimes I still play the D20 games, but I have PF items rolled into them many times, such as how PF handles skills and other things.

That's the next thing that I like about PF. Skills and classes in 3.X were made to be almost like a Rolemaster Lite...which was fine...but at times confusing. PF slimmed down the skill system, and if anything impressively improved it. I love how the PF skill system works. It's fabulous.

It made more variations on the base classes of Wizards and Clerics. They were varied somewhat in 3.X, but PF makes them have unique abilities that I feel are FAR more varied than what was ever offered with D20, and makes it so that a Cleric of Erastil, or whatever is completely different than a Cleric of another faith. The same could go for Wizards and their schools, or Sorcerers and their bloodlines.

I think PF also stresses the Archtype much more strongly than D20. I think this is a good thing. I particularly like the feel of that idea.

Finally, I actually enjoy their modules and adventure paths, and like how the system works within them.

Basically, PF is a great game these days, and I prefer it over 3.5 for multiple reasons...even if the names were different due to some of the tweaks with the core system..I'd probably still choose PF over 3.5 (let's say it was called D20 fantasy or rolemaster lite or something instead...I'd still choose PF because of the system tweaks) because I think the small changes are truly that good and make that much of a difference.

I ESPECIALLY like what they did with skills. Did I mention that? Can't mention it enough.

 

[delericho]

Well, I still play 3.5e. But Pathfinder has two huge selling points that may mean my games get moved over once the existing campaign is done:

1) The core rulebook is in print. Of my current players, only myself and two others have the 3.5e PHB, and they're not easy to find at a decent price. Although the SRD is pretty good at filling the gap, nothing quite beats being able to get the rules in print.

2) The adventure paths. 3.5 (and Pathfinder) are very math-heavy systems, and even after all these years I still don't find prepping adventures to be particularly easy (or, frankly, fun). Pre-generated adventures bridge this gap quite nicely, and by sparing me much of the effort of statting out the adventure, they free me up to make the game excellent. And, when it comes to pre-gen adventure support, Pathfinder is the best game out there, bar none.

(It's also worth noting that the entire Pathfinder product line is generally excellent, and indeed I consider the rules to be an incremental improvement on 3.5e. What has stopped me moving over thus far is that it's just different enough to negate my hard-won system mastery, while not quite being "better enough" to compel a switch.)

 

[gamerprinter]

Why play any other edition, than Pathfinder, is my question?

I too have played every edition up to 3.5, and while I enjoyed 3.5, after a year+ playing Pathfinder, I never want to play 3.5 again - PF is it's default upgraded replacement, IMO. It's the same, only better.

Going from a Pathfinder Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, and Sorcerer to a 3.5 version is only disappointment. And of the new classes, I love the Magus, Inquisitor, Oracle, Cavalier, Anti-paladin, and Samurai, and there are no effective 3.5 versions of those great classes.

Due to Combat Maneuvers as handled in Pathfinder, now my players eagerly attempt to grapple, when because of the opposing rolls, and the complex nature of 3.5 Combat Maneuvers it was avoided if at all possible.

Haunts, a great mechanic, though could easily be used in a 3.5 game.

While I like the nerfing of most of the Save or Die spells, and the consolidation of skills, most of the rest is only minor adjustments to the game and not particularly compelling one way or the other for me.

I prefer Pathfinder so much, in fact, that it's the first 'edition' that has compelled me to publish something of my own, as in my Kaidan setting. While others above talk about Pathfinder APs, which I think is a good thing, I don't personally need it, as I homebrew almost entirely, and always have - so I don't really need Golarian, nor the APs (although they are good material).

For what it's worth, you can keep 4e, D&DNext, and whatever might come after that away from my table. I'm not even slightly interested.

 

[PatCap]

When D&D went to 4th edition, and made the thousdands of dollars I spent on 3.5 obsolete, I was pissed. I also subbed to Dungeon and Dragon, so was familiar with alot of the Paizo authors, whose work I thouroughly enjoyed. Eric and James did a ton of work I liked, and several things I wanted to run were easily converted to PF. After playing with it for awhile, I noticed a much smoother gameplay. They also stressed the "core" classes, rather than taking 2 levels in this, 3 in that etc...It also did away with the mechanic of all the "splat" books. I did not have the money to buy every one, and had players who would bring these obscure races and classes to the table. Now, I know I could say no, but, that would also limit theur fun.

PF, you can get away with the core book, or if you want, there are not 13 books that have classes and PrC's (which I am glad the de-emphasized). I love the Archetype system, where it adds flavor by just subbing some minor things...

There is alot more, but they are some of my favorite reasons..