Pathfinder 1E PC power in Pathfinder

[caudor]

I'm just trying to get a handle on this. Please forgive me if this has been discussed before. Just three quick questions:

In relation to 3.5--

Using just the Pathfinder Core Rulebook classes, are the PCs more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts?

Then, moving up to the Advanced Player's Guide. Is this another step up in power here, or does it just add more options?

Finally, what do the Ultimate books add in terms of relative power to the previous material?

Just trying to figure out where the power jump is made. Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[Mad Hamish]

a single classed pathfinder character is probably more powerful than a single classed 3.5 character (with the disclaimer that there was enough stuff released for 3.5 that you could make severely broken characters with the right selection of spells and feats)

How big the difference in power is varies a lot from class to class.
Now with enough 3.X splat books you can probably still build characters who are more powerful than the pathfinder character but it takes a lot of work.

I don't think that the APG & Ultimate Guide offer big increases in power

 

[caudor]

a single classed pathfinder character is probably more powerful than a single classed 3.5 character (with the disclaimer that there was enough stuff released for 3.5 that you could make severely broken characters with the right selection of spells and feats)

How big the difference in power is varies a lot from class to class.
Now with enough 3.X splat books you can probably still build characters who are more powerful than the pathfinder character but it takes a lot of work.

I don't think that the APG & Ultimate Guide offer big increases in power

Thank you! I was reading my Gamemastery Guide and noted advice for upgrading 3.5 monsters to PF's power level. Suggestions include lowering the CR by 1, giving them the Improved Initiative and Toughness Feats.

I'm glad to know that APG & the Ultimate Guides don't further complicate the tweaking 3.5 adventures for PF players. The process seems to be pretty easy.

By the way, since I'm new to Pathfinder I'm sticking with pure Pathfinder material until I learn the ropes. I'm just looking ahead to determine how much of my current 3.5 stuff will be useful.

Thanks again!

 

[Crothian]

Honestly, except for modules I wouldn't use any of the 3.5 stuff.

 

[enrious]

I wouldn't use all of the 3.x stuff (but that's because there was some bad 3.x stuff) but I wouldn't shy away from using something I liked in 3.x.

There's nothing magical about the Pathfinder books - Ultimate Combat has elements that are as bad as anything in 3.5 and Ultimate Magic is only somewhat better, so just having the Pathfinder logo isn't a panacea against bad.

Certainly no more than the 3.x logo was a sign of horrid.

But as was said to you in your other thread, get used to Pathfinder before importing certain elements from 3.5 (although Monsters are something that you could likely start doing from the beginning, although the ones in the Bestiaries are well done they don't cover everything)

In relation to 3.5--

Using just the Pathfinder Core Rulebook classes, are the PCs more powerful than their 3.5 counterparts?

Generally yes - to start with, unlike most 3.x classes, Pathfinder PCs get new abilities every level. Note that the idea was that as 3.x kept going, released classes were suffering from power creep, so classes at the end of the cycle were more powerful than ones in the Player's Handbook. Pathfinder wanted to bump up the core powers to put them on par with those latter classes.

Then, moving up to the Advanced Player's Guide. Is this another step up in power here, or does it just add more options?

Not really a step up in power - in fact, the introduction of Archetypes arguably (especially with later books) introduces a step-down in power.

Finally, what do the Ultimate books add in terms of relative power to the previous material?

As above, some steps down in power if anything.

Just trying to figure out where the power jump is made. Thanks in advance for your help.

Honestly if you're worried about getting used to a certain power level, then CRB + APG is what you need to worry with.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

a single classed pathfinder character is probably more powerful than a single classed 3.5 character (with the disclaimer that there was enough stuff released for 3.5 that you could make severely broken characters with the right selection of spells and feats)

If you do an apples-to-apples comparison (compare the 3.5 class to PF version) the PF version of any core character is definitely more powerful. Broken and 3pp characters may deviate from this.

I was told PF characters are about the equivalent of 3.5 characters of a level higher. So a level 5 PF rogue is about as powerful as a level 6 3.5 rogue. I suspect this may be underestimating PF characters and the disparity may even be greater at higher levels (a level 15 PF rogue may be equal to a level 17 or 18 3.5 rogue).

Also IIRC a PF CR is designed for a group of four PF PCs, where a 3.5 CR is designed for 5 3.5 PCs. I think a PF CR is one lower than a 3.5 CR, so a 5 PF CR designed for four level 5 PF characters is equal to a 6 3.5 CR designed for five level 6 3.5 characters.

Every class gets something every level in PF - there are no dead levels. All characters get a feat every odd level. Many classes get a type of class feat - a rogue talent, a barbarian rage power, etc., every even level. Unlike 3.5 many classes essentially get a feat every level. Classes that don't get a feat every level usually get something of approximately equal power. 3.5 characters get significantly less goodies. Feats also get bumped. For example dodge now grants a +1 dodge bonus to all enemies, whereas previously you had to designate one enemy to dodge. Toughness now gives +3 hp and +1 hp every level after 3, rather than a flat +3 bonus.

As has been the trend since 1E every edition change (1 to 2 to 3 to PF/4) bumps the power level of characters. Characters are increasingly defined by the benefits they pick, rather than penalties incurred in exchange for picking strengths. For example racial modifiers are now +2, +2, -2 rather than +2, -2. Characters get more feats. Characters have incentives to single-class and pick class-skills where they were previously penalized for multi-classing and picking cross-class skills. Increasingly penalties and drawbacks for making choices your character would not naturally excel at are replaced by rewards for build choices your character would excel at. Numbers inflate all-around.

I don't believe 3.5 classes, prestige classes, and possibly feats and races can be integrated into a PF game without serious revamping and a near-professional understanding of how game balance works in both games. Modules are fine, but I'd bump up the power of monsters arbitrarily if the game feels to easy.

4E takes this trend even further and the numbers are on such a different level that, unlike PF, the games are not even remotely compatible. The philosophy of both games is to make PCs (and consequently monsters) stronger and defined by the strengths they choose. The drawback is numbers rapidly inflate, new gamers are frequently overwhelmed by choices and powers and newer games are characterized by increasingly complex PCs. If you want to go in the other direction and dial-back numbers and complexity I'd suggest Castles and Crusades, AD&D or Old-School Renaissance products. Contrary to what you'd expect these games tend to play faster and simpler with much less rules while offering dramatically fewer choices for character customization.

I may have gotten some very specific facts wrong but the jist is essentially true.

 

[Lwaxy]

We still use the 3.5 stuff - to be able to continue using it is one of the advantages of PF.

Seriously, if the players are sensible, nothing gets broken. If they aren't, just say no to the things that would turn out to be broken.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

We still use the 3.5 stuff

What materials do you use? Do you have any conversion rules?

I'd allow spells, feats and races (with an additional +2 to an attribute) in my game after a quick review. If someone wanted to play a 3.5 class/prestige I'd probably give them feats on even levels of some kind of bump. Otherwise I'd imagine there'd be huge disparities in power.

Seriously, if the players are sensible, nothing gets broken. If they aren't, just say no to the things that would turn out to be broken.

You've got a lot of faith in your players...

 

[gamerprinter]

The first year we played Pathfinder, there were lots of elements of 3.5 we brought (converted) to our PF game, and when we were playing 3.5, we incorporated elements of PF.

Now, we don't touch 3.5 with a 10' pole. There is more than enough variety, covering a variety rules (and since I do allow 3pp Pathfinder material, the variety is increased multi-fold.) Today, 3.5 is just a memory

Paizo developers stated that some of the later classes in 3.5 were much more powerful than the 3.5 core classes. So Paizo chose to up the power of their core classes those more powerful 3.5 classes.

If you limit yourself to PF Core, you might be satisfied with it alone. It sounds like however, because of your interest to use your 3.5 material, that you want more variety. By the time you (if you do) purchase the APG, UM, and UC, you might find the variety available there lessens the need for 3.5 legacy stuff. If you're like me and allow 3pp Pathfinder material then definitely 3.5 belongs on a shelf to look at and not play.

But we all have different preferences, and no style of playing is wrong, so there's no telling which you would prefer. In my experience of playing PF, my feelings of this has changed over time, and might change for you too.

 

[enrious]

Also IIRC a PF CR is designed for a group of four PF PCs, where a 3.5 CR is designed for 5 3.5 PCs. I think a PF CR is one lower than a 3.5 CR, so a 5 PF CR designed for four level 5 PF characters is equal to a 6 3.5 CR designed for five level 6 3.5 characters.

In Pathfinder, it is balanced around 4 or 5 PCs, not just 4. And there's no simple CR equivalency - not that there really was on in 3.x either.

Feats also get bumped. For example dodge now grants a +1 dodge bonus to all enemies, whereas previously you had to designate one enemy to dodge. Toughness now gives +3 hp and +1 hp every level after 3, rather than a flat +3 bonus.

Yes and no - other feats got nerfed. The only universal statement you can say with any degree of truth is simply that some feats changed.

I don't believe 3.5 classes, prestige classes, and possibly feats and races can be integrated into a PF game without serious revamping and a near-professional understanding of how game balance works in both games. Modules are fine, but I'd bump up the power of monsters arbitrarily if the game feels to easy.

Couple of things. Just because one person doesn't believe something to be true, OP, doesn't mean that it can't be done. The key is understanding what impact the prior content will have as well as how they will compare to Pathfinder material.

I also find it laughable that it takes a "near-professional understanding of how game balance works" given that at least one of the current Pathfinder developers has said that they purposefully introduced material designed to screw with "balance". And even at that, all it takes is a little intelligence and common sense. At worst, pick up the Trailblazer RPG pdf for $5 and you'll know as much as the big boys about the fundamentals of the system.

In other words, don't feel you must pray at the altar of balance to incorporate material into your Pathfinder game.

It's about what's fun and what works for you and your group.

I may have gotten some very specific facts wrong but the jist is essentially true.

No, and it wasn't true when 3.0 went to 3.5 either. Or when 1e went to 2e for that matter.