Pathfinder 1E Are there compelling reasons to upgrade to PF1 from 3.0?

[Alzrius]

Thanks so much for the info and the link to the Archives of Nethys. And the Source option is really handy to see what you’re getting before you buy a book.

Sure thing! It's a great resource, and I use it all the time myself.

The vibe I’m getting from the Mythic rules is that you play an almost “super-heroic” character like, say, a Hercules-type. So you are born and grow up as usual and gain experience as usual (levelling up) but you also have awakening “super hero” powers. Would that be a fair assessment of mythic rules?

Yeah, I'd say that's a good summary. It's definitely not something you'd want to use if you were looking to simplify things, as it adds to any given character's power by quite a bit, but it definitely lets you play a superheroic (or even godlike) character in a fantasy setting.

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Keep to 3.0e. Pathfinder 1E is derisively known as Mathfinder because it exacerbates the bonus bunkum that began after 3.0e core. That alone should disqualify it.

 

[Xenolith234]

Keep to 3.0e. Pathfinder 1E is derisively known as Mathfinder because it exacerbates the bonus bunkum that began after 3.0e core. That alone should disqualify it.

Does that mean you prefer 3.0 over 3.5?

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Does that mean you prefer 3.0 over 3.5?

Yes.

 

[amethal]

We tried mythic and ended up being one reason of a couple reasons we stopped playing pathfinder….it was horrible and the other was the 2K in feats and the need of hero labs app to keep up with them all.

There are thousands of feats in Pathfinder, but when I started playing it was Core Rulebook only by necessity - because that was all there was. Each book added new options, and I'd get them when they came out and read them to see what grabbed me.

When we introduce new players to Pathfinder we don't say "here's 2,000 feats; choose which ones you want"; I'm not surprised that doesn't work very well. Instead they say what type of character they want to play and the more experienced players make suggestions based on that.

I've been playing the game since it came out, and the advice threads on the Paizo boards still have loads of feats suggestions that I have to look up because I have no idea what they do.

In fact I'm quite glad Pathfinder 1st Edition is now "finished" (officially, anyway; there are still some 3rd parties making stuff for it). It allows me to dream that at some point I might understand all of it.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I can't imagine a single reason why I'd run 3.0 over PF1 and the absolutely vile skill system in 3.0 is just eww...

Anyway I think PF1 is in some ways quite bloated. Been a long time since I played it, but a lot of optional content should be limited by the GM. I'm talking about things like optional racial traits which as a whole makes char-gen more complicated. Might also be worth thinking about not allowing class archetypes.

 

[payn]

I can't imagine a single reason why I'd run 3.0 over PF1 and the absolutely vile skill system in 3.0 is just eww...

Anyway I think PF1 is in some ways quite bloated. Been a long time since I played it, but a lot of optional content should be limited by the GM. I'm talking about things like optional racial traits which as a whole makes char-gen more complicated. Might also be worth thinking about not allowing class archetypes.

Archetypes are the some of the easiest to apply and best things for flavor in the game!

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Archetypes are the some of the easiest to apply and best things for flavor in the game!

Yeah I personally love them (mmmm my vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist I played was lots of fun) but they can be really difficult to grasp for some people.

I think PF1 benefits heavily from gradually introducing content. Throw everything at new players and their eyes will gloss over.

 

[payn]

Yeah I personally love them (mmmm my vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist I played was lots of fun) but they can be really difficult to grasp for some people.

I think PF1 benefits heavily from gradually introducing content. Throw everything at new players and their eyes will gloss over.

I still think archetypes are of little concern next thousands of feats and multiclassing.

 

[Alzrius]

Yeah I personally love them (mmmm my vivisectionist beastmorph alchemist I played was lots of fun) but they can be really difficult to grasp for some people.

Really? I just call them sub-classes, and if anyone's familiar with that idea from 5E, they instantly get it.