D&D 3E/3.5 Curious about Pathfinder vs. 3.5E

[gamerprinter]

I wonder whether this will still be the case when Pathfinder has the same years as 3.5 took to build up those choices, or when it has accumulated the same volume of options. Hopefully!

Well considering that Paizo only releases 3 - 4 hard backs a year, it's going to take 3 times as long to match the output of 3.5 material. And I really don't see a match book for book as it had been for 3.5

Is Power Attack an enhancement? A 4th level Fighter who could previously subtract 4 to hit and add 4 damage, and can now subtract 1 to hit and add 2 damage, may not think so. A 5th level who can subtract 2 and add 4, rather than subtract 5 and add 5, may find that a generous tradeoff, but may feel different at 13th level. I prefer the PF approach, especially with a Ranged option having been added, but other opinions must exist.

Power Attack is an untyped bonus, it's not an enhancement. I felt 3.5 Power Attack based on BAB was broken as hell, I much prefer PF's version.

 

[billd91]

Power Attack is an untyped bonus, it's not an enhancement. I felt 3.5 Power Attack based on BAB was broken as hell, I much prefer PF's version.

I'm not entirely sure it was since hit points are pretty cheap on the monster side of the equation. It didn't matter too much if you were hacking them up hard, they usually had plenty.

My biggest issues with 3.5 Power Attack was how much it favored the 2-handed weapon fighters over sword and board or single weapon fighters. I'm glad PF fixed that at the very least.

 

[N'raac]

Well, considering the actual math is one increase for every 4 BAB, and two-handed weapons are now 1 for 3...

I think the 4th level Fighter won't mind -2 for +4 or -2 for +6. There's cases where it's a nerf (much higher accuracy above what I usually see, but I tend to run with low-op people), but from personal experience with most groups they don't come up. Not saying you don't have a point, but it's a peeve of mine all the people I see misquoting PF rules when talking against it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Make it an 11th level fighter who could previously take -11 to hit for +11 damage (and get past damage reduction, or add massive damage to lower AC targets like Giants) and now gets to take -3 to hit for +6 damage, and he may still feel hard done by. At 12th, the difference between -4 TH for +8 Damage may still feel worse than -12 TH for +12 Damage, but at each level where the +4 breakpoint kicks in, the PF version seems perferable.

For a lower level character, it's a better deal (-1 to hit and +2 damage is superior at both 1st and 2nd level).

It is also less flexible - a 20th level fighter can either take -6 to hit and get +12 damage, or make his normal rolls. The FAQ indicates this is a binary choice, so he can't choose to take -3 to hit and get +6 damage.

There's a definite plus in getting 2 extra damage per -1 to hit, so it's not all detrimental.

Overall, I like the PF version much better, although I think it would be further improved by allowing the character to choose his penalty to hit and damage bonus up to the maximum allowed by his level, rather than the FAQ's all or nothing approach.

 

[N'raac]

Power Attack is an untyped bonus, it's not an enhancement.

Hopefully my use of "enhancement" was generally understood to refer to whether the PF version is superior to the 3.5 version, rather than the game mechanic "Enhancement", but I apologize for any confusion my choice of terminology may have caused.

I felt 3.5 Power Attack based on BAB was broken as hell, I much prefer PF's version.

I like the PF version better, especially with the Ranged version of the feat added, although I dislike the "all or nothing" approach taken by the FAQ.

With iterative attacks, I think I'd rather take -4 to hit for +8 damage than -12 to hit for +12 damage. I'm much more likely to land that second and third hit, especially, and 2 hits at +8 will be better than one hit at +12. Which is better depends a lot on the opponent's AC, so whether the 3.5 or PF version is superior depends a lot on the game it's used in.

If your character moves around a lot and uses a 2 handed weapon, 3.5 is probably the clear winner. If he stays in one place and uses iterative attacks, especially against higher AC monsters, maybe not so much, especially if he's sword & board style.

 

[gourdcaptain]

If your character moves around a lot and uses a 2 handed weapon, 3.5 is probably the clear winner. If he stays in one place and uses iterative attacks, especially against higher AC monsters, maybe not so much, especially if he's sword & board style.

Uh, the PF version does also boost on two-handed weapons. You may already know that, but the wording used so far is a bit unsure.

Overall, I like the PF version much better, although I think it would be further improved by allowing the character to choose his penalty to hit and damage bonus up to the maximum allowed by his level, rather than the FAQ's all or nothing approach.

If you do this, make SURE to not allow the Furious Focus feat from PF (ignore Power Attack penalty on your first attack in a round.) Being able to pick any amount to PA by would kinda allow for +60 damage by LV 20 on your first attack if you only got one in a round. That would probably be bad.

I prefer not having to pick the amount to PA by, but that's more due to my obsessive behavior with guessing the best break point to go by versus the loss in accuracy causing a loss in overall damage.

 

[Starbuck_II]

Bad changes:

• Regeneration isn't any simpler and now it makes less sense.
• Barbarians and Bards took inexplicable nerfs to their Rage and Bardic Music abilities.

... and that's all that I can think of for "bad changes". There are no "really bad changes".

Add Rogues have tougher time qualifying for sneak attack.
While less Immunities, you still need to qualify, 3.5 had more qualifiers (Grease, Blink, etc).

 

[N'raac]

Uh, the PF version does also boost on two-handed weapons. You may already know that, but the wording used so far is a bit unsure.

2 handed weapon is always a better advantage, so I picked the best case. Moving around a lot makes 3.5 very preferable, since I don't have to worry about the impact of that BAB drop on my iterative attacks.

If you do this, make SURE to not allow the Furious Focus feat from PF (ignore Power Attack penalty on your first attack in a round.) Being able to pick any amount to PA by would kinda allow for +60 damage by LV 20 on your first attack if you only got one in a round. That would probably be bad.

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the amount of PF Power Attack based on your BAB should be a maximum, rather than binary. That is, if your BAB is +20, you don't HAVE to use Power Attack at -6/+12, but could choose to use it at -4/+8 if you so desire. The FAQ indicates you either use it at full penalty and bonus, or you don't use it at all.

If you prefer never to use it at less than full power, you would still have that choice.

 

[Starbuck_II]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the amount of PF Power Attack based on your BAB should be a maximum, rather than binary. That is, if your BAB is +20, you don't HAVE to use Power Attack at -6/+12, but could choose to use it at -4/+8 if you so desire. The FAQ indicates you either use it at full penalty and bonus, or you don't use it at all.

If you prefer never to use it at less than full power, you would still have that choice.

Yeah, 3.5 version was better in many cases. Furious Focus was really a fix so you can hit and still deal great damage.