Pathfinder 1E Finally Looked at the Pathfinder Rules...

[BryonD]

Niot to train on your parade, but did you happen to read every word on Paladin section?
You no longer fall for major acts anymore (gross violations): now you fall for any violation.
So they upped the Pallys power, but made the restrictions worse.

I'll need to go read through it again. But I'm quite certain this is not the intent.
They have made it clear that they want to increase the options.

Just as an example, the Council of Thieves default PCs includes a LE character and a Paladin. And the LE character is specifically referenced in the paladin summary.

 

[delericho]

Niot to train on your parade, but did you happen to read every word on Paladin section?
You no longer fall for major acts anymore (gross violations): now you fall for any violation.
So they upped the Pallys power, but made the restrictions worse.

Yes and no. The code has also itself been loosened somewhat. So, while the Paladin does indeed fall if she ever tells a lie, the Paladin is also no longer required to refuse to work alongside an Evil PC - alliances for the greater good are now permitted, for example.

So, tighter adherence to a less restrictive code.

 

[Turtlejay]

Wow, I'm right with the OP. Started with 3.5, love it, and only switched to 4e because of. . .group drama. I also love 4e, now that I've played it for awhile, but I was very interested in Pathfinder and downloaded the Alpha and Beta rules to see what they had done. I've also trolled the forums a bit, and looked at the Pathfinder SRD.

I don't think Pathfinder is for me. I don't think upping the power of the base classes and adding a ton of options was the direction I was hoping for. I was more wishing for a rules streamline (which they did somewhat with skills and problem spelss), multiclass fix, and other. . .stuff. Now I have not played it yet, so maybe experience would show me that I'm wrong there.

I'm also kind of confused on how one would integrate 3.5 PrC's and base classes (like Warlocks and Dragon Shamans). That was one of 3.5's strengths, it's huge catalogue of class customizations.

I hope this thread can stay away from Edition Warring long enough for me to see how these things work, from mine and the OP's perspective.

Jay

 

[Gothmog]

I started with AD&D 1e and red box D&D, progressed to 2e (which I thought was a good game, despite the hate it seems to get), progressed to 3.x for a while, and now to 4e. We always had a blast with 1e/2e, but 3e felt hollow and unsatisfying for me and my players. It shifted so far in tone from the games I grew up with and loved (namely that it was focused on mechanical character building and micromanaging resources) that I just couldn't find it a satisfying gaming experience. For me and my players, 4e has brought D&D back to its roots (especially reminescent of the 1e/red box days), and we're having a blast with it.

I tried Pathfinder during the beta period and into the final publication version, in a campaign I played in from levels 3-11 (I had a dwarven cleric). While some things were cleaned up in Pathfinder from 3.x (CMB/CMD, somewhat consolidated skills list, slightly better balanced non-caster classes, spell revisions), these were minor improvements, and the basic problems I had with 3.x were still present in spades in Pathfinder. Casters still rule, magic items ARE the character (Xmas tree syndrome), GM prep time is horrendous, summoning is a pain, the magic/spells arms race between DM and players is still there, the math is still completely wonky, and the highly touted extra options in the system don't really add anything IMO (just more complication). Finally, the high wahoo factor (yes, much higher than 4e IMO), increase in overall PC power, and art for Pathfinder were major turnoffs for me.

If 3e was the bees knees to you, then you'll likely LOVE Pathfinder. Pathfinder isn't a bad game at all- its just not to my tastes. I will say I still buy the PF APs and some modules- they are generally very well done, and have cool ideas to steal for my 4e games. I tried for years to run the kind of games I did in 1e/2e in 3e, and found it was very difficult to do, due mostly to the changes in assumptions of the game 3e made. From what I've seen of Pathfinder, it has exactly the same characterstics, strengths, and limitations as 3e. 4e has brought back the glory days of my 1e/2e games with its different design parameters and more "old school" philosophy, and I'd never go back to 3e/Pathfinder at this point. The few things I didn't care for in 4e we easily houseruled (long-term injuries, more flexible ritual casting rules, and "more magical" magic items), and for my gaming style, 4e is scratching the itch perfectly.

 

[Freakohollik]

I started on 3e and I still like it a lot, don't care for 4e much though. While I like some of the stuff Pathfinder did, enough of it rubs me the wrong that I'd rather just stick with 3.5. Off the top of my head: barbarian rage points, increased stat bonuses and overall character power, fighter forced weapon specialization, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, greater hp, not enough compatibility with 3.5, and reduced multiclassing ability. Also I'm not convinced that the high level fighter is much better off or that the monk still doesn't suck.

 

[GlassJaw]

I started on 3e and I still like it a lot, don't care for 4e much though. While I like some of the stuff Pathfinder did, enough of it rubs me the wrong that I'd rather just stick with 3.5. Off the top of my head: barbarian rage points, increased stat bonuses and overall character power, fighter forced weapon specialization, sorcerer bloodlines, wizard schools, greater hp, not enough compatibility with 3.5, and reduced multiclassing ability. Also I'm not convinced that the high level fighter is much better off or that the monk still doesn't suck.

I would also encourage you to check out Trailblazer if you are looking for some alternate fixes to 3.5. It's available on RPG Now ($5!!) or in print from Amazon. Check out my sig.

What stops me is that I've had time to identify my preferred style, and that style does not enjoy how the 3.5 D&D system handles resource management. The way the system assumes numbers of equivalent encounters per day such that a GM has to calculate their adventures rather than simply creating them as it feels right. And most of all the way class abilities have amounts that assume frequent yet not constant use so that they can never feel like once-an-emergency trump cards or just another tool to make your own.

Trailblazer introduces several new resource management systems that may be to your liking: action points and the 10-minute rest.

Our goal way to introduce another resource for the PCs to manage that the DM can "tax" (action points) and a rest mechanic that keeps the action moving in order to counter the "15-minute adventuring day".

Hope that helps!

 

[Dice4Hire]

A couple of the problems I have with pathfinder are:

1: Making the base classes more powerful did not rally do a ton to make the melee classes more equal to the casters. Casters still dictate the pace of games and many encounters, just like they did in 3.5. Yes, Melee is probably better in a way, but I really like how in 4E, making the melee/magic choice does not automatically make you the leader or second-class citizen in the group when problems crop up. Yes, I know this is not totally true, but in high level play it is more true than not.

2: Who to play with? In the past year or so since Pathfinder came out, I have kept a close watch on the sites where I find groups for internet gaming, and pathfinder game have been very very thin on the ground. 4E is not greatly represented, but there are many more 4E games compared to Pathfinder, and many many more 3.5 games. On those sites, finding a Pathfinder game is as hard as a C&C Shadowrun, Cuthulu or similar game. That does not encourage me to play the game, not when I do 90% of my gaming online. My face-to-face group is not willing to play it, and I am not willing to even try encouraging them to.

So with these two situations as they are, Pathfinder is just not for me.

 

[Vael]

I've looked through some of Pathfinder, and it's just not for me. I miss some elements of 3.5, but Pathfinder doesn't fill the void. It neither goes far enough and yet goes too far from 3.5. To elaborate, it's not close enough to 3.5 that I can use the later expansions, like Tome of Battle or Magic of Incarnum that I really liked without a fair amount of work. And yet, Pathfinder still suffers from most of the same problems that made 3.5 such a headache. So, right now, I see no need to spend money on it. I'll play Pathfinder, but then I'd play 3.5 or Trailblazer too (but not DM) ... but 4e I play, DM and spend money on.

Speaking of Trailblazer ... any possible notes on adapting other 3.5 subsystems (like Psionics, Incarnum or Tome of Battle) to Trailblazer?

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Regarding power and "omg wizards are still better" issues:

Pathfinder improved some classes and weakened others. The goal - to my understanding - was to bring the tiers closer together. Druid, for example, is no longer the ungodly mess he was in 3.5. Clerics have been brought down a notch. The really troublesome spells that wizards had are cut down too.

Meanwhile, fightan classes mostly got improved - especially that paladin you like .

Overall, I'd say it's a success. There are always niggling issues about every edition or game you won't like (I'm not fond of bard/barbarian stuff being per round, and the poor monk still needs help), but overall, it's probably my edition of choice.

 

[Turtlejay]

From my reading of the rules the thing that bothers me most is the indtroduction of new elements that complicate things greatly. Things like the fighter maneuvers and rogue stuff and rage points. Sorcerer bloodlines and stuff. Does it add to the game mechanically, or just make it more complex? 3.5 was plenty complex, a rules update would have been better targeted elsewhere IMO.

And what really about Clerics got nerfed? It seems like domains are more powerful, and turn undead is now a whole lot more powerful, how does that change the balance?

I am interested because one of the groups I'm in (kinda. . .its a long story) is possibly switching to Pathfinder soon, and I need to know whether it is worth the effort to rejoin that group.

Jay