Pathfinder 1E Considering DMing Pathfinder

[Sallin]

I'm just starting with pathfinder.I've played 2nd and 3rd edition. I think going from 2nd to 3rd was a real improvement in terms of rules. I didn't go into 3.5 because I didn't think the changes were worth replacing all the stuff I bought for 3rd. The pathfinder books I have now (Core rules, APG, Bestiary) I like a lot. They give me more the "players should play characters and not builds" feeling from 2nd (it was one of those "ah that was the thing that was missing but didn't realize til now" kind of things).

Regarding the lack of time issue, I have two campains, in one there are 3 DMs that alternate every 3-ish sessions. This works out quite well. We didn't agree on one major story arc at the start, but it's nice to see how other DMs pick up bits of storyline from others or from their previous sessions. (This campain is a blended 3-3.5 game)

For the other game I think I'll run one the pathfinder adventure paths. The players are now around L5, and I'll let the current storyline merge with one of those (probably carrion crown). I was impressed by the completeness, and clarity of the adventure paths. NPCs are well explained and I expect that the prep time will be very reasonable.

I'll have a look at the Hero lab thing. Sounds interesting.

 

[Razjah]

Have you looked at E6? That removes all the problems of gaming above level 6. The monsters rarely go over CR 10 and because a lot of the monsters are higher level you can reskin them.

E6 allows you to capture the fantasy feel of LotR and Connan becuase the players can still do realistic things with their skills. No swimming up a waterfall, the very best jump checks model olympic athletes. I am a huge fan of E6 and find that it is easy to prep, even mages because most people that playe 3.5 and Pathfinder already know the 1st 3 levels of spells.


As a sequel campaign you could say somthing like the gods removed part of the mortal spark for power. Never again will people bring back the dead, teleport, or command dragons. This was punishment for summoning an aspect of a god. Plus if you really need some high powered effect, make it up or use Incantations found on the 3.5 srd. This allows you to turn bug magic effects into plot based adventures.

 

[Herobizkit]

IMXP, Pathfinder is a rule-tinkerer's wet dream. For people who enjoy building characters - inventing creative class/feat/skill combinations, want alternate class rules, or want to be able to go 1-20 without resorting to 3-4 level dips to get exactly what they want - PF is amazeballs.

On the DM's side, though... assume that most monsters are generally less ability-intensive, and thus slightly weaker, than PF characters. But all in all, monsters are there to die, and so don't HAVE to be too fancy. This Is A Good Thing.

 

[Super Pony]

I love Pathfinder but I'm in agreement that it won't be different enough for you. Your players are more likely to to have a blast, as the play experience is changed in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways (to me and mine it is an improvement but YMMV). But from a GM standpoint you are still dealing with every headache in 3.5 (minus a few and add a few different ones).

Have you considered a pitch shift to a different genre from RP fantasy? I GM for my regular group about 75% of the time and I have run up against system fatigue in every game we've played (Pathfinder is no exception and I still love it dearly). So for me I dive into Sci-Fi, Post-Apo, or somesuch. Another option that will change the play experience for you would be to jump into a fantasy game with some thematic and gamestyle changes from d20 (WFRP would be my personal recommendation but that is where I grew up as a gamer so YMMV). C&C may fill that nitch but if you've already got some wary players you could have some table mutiny which always sucks the life out of me having one or two players derail my fun for 20 levels.

 

[Dark Mistress]

My 3.5 campaign is almost over, after five years. (One branch is on the final part of the Freeport Trilogy, where the roguish characters fled to after things went pear-shaped in an early adventure, while the other branch has two adventures to go to save the barony against the local kobold tribe summoning an aspect of Tiamat to lead their army pouring down out of the hills to wipe out the humans, dwarves and gnomes.)

The sequel will not be 3.5. Even at level 6+, things are starting to become a real pain in the rear for me as DM, and I've let it be known that I will be running the sequel (which I've got big plans for, since saving a barony/city will have to be upped with even bigger threats at higher levels) in another system.

My personal preference is Castles & Crusades, partly because I started with 1E, and I love C&C's 1E-reminiscent tone, and partly because it eliminates many of the problems I have with 3.5. But several of my players, who only started D&D with 3E, don't like the return to more traditional D&D multiclassing, and are suggesting Pathfinder. I'm not opposed to Pathfinder, necessarily, if it addresses my problems with 3E:

1) Creating NPCs and monsters is way too time-consuming after level 5 or so. I have a job, a kid and a demanding life. I can't find time to spend several hours to prep adventures, even if I could justify it to myself.

That hasn't really been improved. Which is one reason when i run I just used Pathfinder adventures, they are well written and I don't have time to make up my own anymore.

2) Juggling all of the different feats and sources of magic items from various supplements means being asked to make game balance appraisals all the freaking time, especially given WotC's pretty rocky record with balance for much of the 3E era.

If you just stick with Pathfinder and pathfinder 3pp stuff it is much better balanced this time than things was in 3E. not perfect of course but much better than before.

3) If the sequel campaign goes all the way to 20 -- a not unreasonable scenario, although Gygax only knows how long it'd take for that to happen -- I don't want to have to read through a three-page character write-up for the BBEG, like the Age of Worms featured. That was my first moment that I really realized that I wanted to get out of DMing 3E. Although, obviously, I am responsible for knowing what a major NPC can do, I don't want to have to search through three pages in the middle of play so that I don't miss a major ability, nor do I want to have to rewrite every NPC in a Cliff Notes version.

This hasn't changed at all. High level stat blocks are still very long.

4) The flavor of 3E turned into something unrecognizable to me over time. Some grognards like to say this is an anime-ification, but I really think that D&D had turned into its own genre. I don't know what a character with five different classes, a templated race and a sack full of magic items is supposed to resemble, but I want characters who could rub shoulders with Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or Bilbo or Harry Potter: I want players playing "characters," rather than "builds."

This has been the most addressed part. With the new changes of the core classes getting boosts and other things, it is normally better to stay in your core class unless you have a very good reason to switch or pick up a PrC. Since I started playing Pathfinder i find almost no one switching classes or picking up PrC's anymore, unlike 3e.

Obviously, different strokes for different folks, and there are a lot of people happy with Pathfinder (and 3E and 4E, etc.), but I just want to know if Pathfinder is a good fit for me without dropping $100 and a year of play on it to find out.

Thanks in advance for any help that you can offer.

Well you can check out the PRD which is much like the SRD was and get the rules for free that way. Plus I would also point out all the hardback rule bucks have PDF's for only 10 bucks so you could also check them out that way.

I am honestly not sure Pathfinder has changed enough to make you happy. You also might want to consider checking Sword and Wizardry as well, another retro clone like Castles and Crusades but with some differences.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thanks, guys. I think I might end up splitting the difference: C&C as the spine of the rules but using Pathfinder rules where needed. (In our test game, we already miss spontaneous casting for clerics and I'll likely use both of the forms of spontaneous casting for clerics in Pathfinder, allowing them to both swap spells and burn turn attempts.)

Likewise, I want the melee types to have as much fun as the spellcasters, so I'm thinking of allowing them to swap in feats they would qualify for in Pathfinder for existing class abilities, allowing (theoretically) balanced customization. And after reading a review of the new Dungeon Crawl Classics game, I am considering letting fighters (only) use the Critical Hits deck on a crit, to give them a bit of pleasing (if random) special effects in a critical hit.

 

[Glade Riven]

Nothing wrong with hybridising...

One thing I will note - Pathfinder, as a system, doesn't solve all your concerns. However, the APs can and do help with what isn't addressed with the system in and of itself. While the APs don't necessarally work well with my style of DMing, they are easy to use, easy to read, and easy to modify - even on the fly. Paizo works hard on making a readable stat block - most creatures take a half of a page or a full page. The most I've seen are two page spreads, but those are reserved for special things like dragons and usually have multiple stat blocks.