D&D 3.x 3.5 E, older D&D and Pathfinder. What do D&D vets think of pathfinder

[Argyle King]

I've thought about picking up PF a few times, but there are still a few things I'm unsure of. A lot of the people who have responded to this thread seem knowledgable about the system, so maybe you can help me out.


How hard is it to convert a 3.5 class to Pathfinder? Pathfinder covers most of the basics, but I also -for an example- highly enjoyed the Knight class from 3.5's PHB2. What changes would need to be made to a class to put it on par with the Pathfinder classes?


Also, while I think 0-level spells being at-will is a good idea. I also see potential for spamming cheese. I have a few players (and I'm one myself) who find some very creative and effective uses for the 0-level spells. Have there been any times when someone being able to spam a spell has created an issue?

 

[White Wizard]

The way pathfinder was designed the non-core classes shouldn't need an update to be balanced. The idea was the classes that were released later saw a power creep as time went on while the original core classes fell behind the curve. You may want to try playing it as is and see how it performs.

The only issue I have is with detect magic on the 0-level spells. It makes it to easy to find hidden magic items, traps, etc. And if you don't reveal it then your just being unfare.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Besides, the greatest power imbalances are still core, at least according to optimizers. If you want to power up a class, you can either throw them some extra bonus like feats or whatnot or allow them access to splat books.

Here's a link to an old Paizo thread that talks about the power level of classes if you're interested.

 

[Argyle King]

Besides, the greatest power imbalances are still core, at least according to optimizers. If you want to power up a class, you can either throw them some extra bonus like feats or whatnot or allow them access to splat books.

Here's a link to an old Paizo thread that talks about the power level of classes if you're interested.

Thanks. It's an interesting read; though, as always, I disagree about how low bards are rated. That's getting off topic though.


At some point I still might pick up PF even if I don't plan on playing it. My first exposure to the system came via a game I played using a different system which used the Pathfinder world and fluff. PF seems to have a lot of good story and background ideas that I would like to use. This is what sparked some of my thought about buying it, but I originally put the idea on the back of the shelf.

What made me consider buying the system more is that I suddenly seem to have a lot of people asking me to play D&D 3rd Edition again; I have a rather hefty 3rd Edition library. I have a few tweaks I've made to the system myself; I was curious what PF was like. It seems to be selling fairly well here in my local area.

The only other question I really have is whether or not saves and BAB are done differently in PF...? One of the alternate 3E rules I liked to use was fractional progressions as presented in Unearthed Arcana. This seemed to touch up multiclassing a little bit, and it somewhat prevented someone from having one crazy good save and one complete crap save due to multiclassing.

Overall, PF looks good, and I like the feel of the setting. I think Paizo did a very good job with their fluff and story. I don't have enough experience with the mechanics to comment on that.

 

[ruemere]

[...]The only other question I really have is whether or not saves and BAB are done differently in PF...?[...]

Link:
Pathfinder Classes.

There were some minor changes to save and BAB progression for some classes, though the base system is still there.

See the link above.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Henry]

I've been playing since Basic D&D in 1981, and I've played almost every edition that exists at some point, particularly a LOT of 1E, 2E, 3X, and 4E.

1) Pathfinder doesn't feel like "classic" D&D to me (in the OD&D, 1E and 2E sense of the term); it feels like 3E (3.0, specifically) but with many of the rough edges filed off that annoyed me. The streamlining of the skill point system, the improved resistance to bleeding to death, and the spell fixes to things like harm, the polymorph spells, etc. do make it a better experience to me.

2) Item creation just costs extra gold now. People won't be making 100% ROI investment for making magic items, which isn't a bad thing.

3) I can't answer that question, as D&D has never been a "simulation of real life + fantasy" to me. It has always had its own eclectic mix of trying to model some things, and totally breezing by others (healing and hit points is a classic example). I will say that the changes that were made in practice don't seem to make a lot of difference with most classes - even the "infinite cantrips" rule (casters can cast their prepared 0-levels all day long). If anything, wizards and druids are toned back in many ways related to spells and spellcasting, and it's a good thing - my fighter in my recent game doesn't feel like a total wuss compared to the spellcasters.

4) That one doesn't make much difference to me, either, because (A) pathfinder has a sliding scale of XP required to level for the DM to use, and (B) I've always been of the opinion that the PCs leveled when it was appropriate to do so - after X number of sessions, unless they were actually just sitting around doing nothing all session.

RANT MODE: In my mind, whether it's solving a puzzle to uncover some hidden cultists, or fighting a level-appropriate fight, they're gaining about the same amount of XP for overcoming an appropriate challenge. CR is a tool (and IMO a bad one anyway above 8th level) for gauging the toughness of a monster in a fight, and mapping it to XP is just one way to abrogate a DM's judgement in how story-appropriate and how well-earned the players were struggling to advance play and plot. I don't care if the 5 kobolds they fought at 3rd level weren't worth a pittance of XP, if the players were struggling against crappy dice rolls all night long, and still managed to pull victory out, I'm giving them a good chunk of XP for their night's adventure, because life's too short to have a bad night at the dice ruin your evening completely.

OK, rant over.

So, long story short, the CRs still seem to map about as well as they ever did against PCs be they pathfinder or 3.5 - if anything, maybe 1/2 a CR lower?

I am an oldschool D&D player at heart, i still play 3.5 and splash elements of 2.0 and even 1.0 into my games. I recently have been considering getting into pathfinder as I love the 3.5 system for the most part, and it appears that Pathfinder has ironed out some kinks from the system. However it seems that several changes in pathfinder arent very "traditional" in that all the races get an extra +2 to a stat now, classes get a TON more abilities and all sorts of other stuff has been changed dramatically.

So i have a few questions:
1. people who have been playing since 2nd edition, what do you think of pathfinder? Does it feel like classic D&D?
2. How does Item creation work, I LOVE that you do not loose XP now, but what DO you do?
3. I am not so big on balancing the rules as I am the flavor of the game and the RP being a good simulation of real life + fantasy. Does the changes to the base classes that were made to make them less weak take away from the realism?
4. How hard is it to use CR on 3.5 monsters with pathfinder. I notice that they do not use CR any more and I am a DM 1st and a player second so if this change is big and for the better I will be excited.

THanks,
Shoe

 

[Emirikol]

I really enjoy the concept of Pathfinder.

You've got an excellent, time-tested system that is still playable at game conventions.

I've been playing since I was 9..that was 1981...

jh

 

[William Ronald]

Currently, I am playing a wizard (diviner) in the Pathfinder Society Organized Play games at a local hobby shop. I am enjoying the system, and it does feel a lot like 3.5 but with a lot of interesting changes.

I like the fact that there is a lot more variety to the classes, and that many classes seem to be more effective. So far, I think Pathfinder is a good system.

As I have played a few 4E games, I can make some comparisons. I think combat flows a bit quicker with Pathfinder, and I feel that there are more opportunities for role playing.

 

[Shoe]

thanks for all the comments and ratings. I think PF may end up as a splat book in my 3.5 game. I like some of the changes (item creation, CMB, easier challange creation) but others seem not so good (Wizards being able to spam L-0 spells, races getting an extra +2 to stats...etc). Seems best as an Unearthed Arcana II for my playstyle anyway.

Please, dont stop giving comparisons of this product to old 3.5, even though I have already decided how much of it I like/dont like each post has molded my feelings toward purchase of the book.

Thanks!
Shoe

 

[Redbranch]

. I like some of the changes (item creation, CMB, easier challange creation) but others seem not so good (Wizards being able to spam L-0 spells, races getting an extra +2 to stats...etc). Seems best as an Unearthed Arcana II for my playstyle anyway.



Thanks!
Shoe

I can't speak for your group, but the +2 to stats really doesn't cause any problems with my group. Although, they NEVER build characters for optimization. They usually try to avoid a negative stat adjustment in any stat and build their characters with a concept and personality in mind. The +2 stat bonus allows them to focus on concept and personality w/o sacrificing survivability and effectiveness. Your mileage may vary. As for the 0 level spell issue, it has not caused a problem at all, many of them are range: Close (25' +5 per 2 caster levels). This puts them close to combat and often within charge range so you can prevent them from too much spamming.