D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?

[Keefe the Thief]

I've already said it in this thread, the primary reason Paizo came out with PF was to have a system that supported their APs so they can keep them on FLGS shelves - WotC pulled the 3e books from the distribution channels. PF is the current 3.5 rules to keep them a viable business. Since they had to spend money on a new printing, might as well tweak the rules. It wasn't created to replace 3.5, rather to keep 3.5 as a current system.

And this is exactly why i don´t use Pathfinder:

"Wotc stops printing 3.5!"
"Wow, but we want to write modules for 3.5!"
"Let´s keep 3.5 in print as-is!"
"Great! Now, what do we change?"

If you want to sell 3.5 it´s good to have a ruleset in print. Not needed, necessarily, when there are lots of books on the secondary market. But good.

But "tweaking"? Not necessary. Either incorporate minor errata or SOLVE THE BIG PROBLEMS! Perhaps the market forced them to reprint 3.5. Nobody forced them to fiddle with it. That was their own decision....

Boy, i think we went WAY of track. Sorry for that.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

But "tweaking"? Not necessary. Either incorporate minor errata or SOLVE THE BIG PROBLEMS! Perhaps the market forced them to reprint 3.5. Nobody forced them to fiddle with it. That was their own decision....

Agreed: if their decision had been stated as being wanting a new version of 3.5 that would have been fine. But their desire for "backward compatibility" makes the changes seem pointless.

 

[Voadam]

I haven't read any of the books yet, can someone summarize the differences to me?

Quick summary

Spells: Save or die turned into save or take a bunch of damage.

Spells: Save or suck turned into hold person style save each round.

Spells: Polymorph types split into multiple spells that each give PHII style wildshape form changes (keep your stats but get some mods to them instead of full change to monster stats).

Grapple, bull rush, disarm, etc.: All use one mechanic (grapple attack modifier vs grapple defense modifier), size bonuses reduced from +4 to +1, and language used is less ambiguous.

Skills: No x4 skill points at 1st level.

Skills: Both class skills and cross-class skills costs 1 skill point per rank.

Skills: Class skills get a +3 bonus.

Skills: skill list condensed, stealth is one skill as is perception, diplomacy includes gather info, caster level checks used because concentration was eliminated, etc.

Classes: HD is based on BAB, 1/2=d6, 3/4=d8, 1/1=d10

Classes: Casters get unlimited at will cantrips.

Classes: More class features spread across all levels.

Classes: Classes get powerful high level class abilities to encourage sticking with a class as a good option.

Druids: wildshape reduced.

Cleric: turning = area small healing as default.

Cleric: Only get medium armor as default.

Rogues: Sneak attack everybody, including undead and constructs.

Crafting magic: Does not require xp

Favored Class: It is choice now for everybody and gives bonus +1 hp for each level of class or +1 skill point.

Races: bumped up by giving everybody an extra +2 stat bonus, supposedly to bring them in line with the power of later races such as the ones from Eberron.

Things I think changed but have not looked up:

Multiclassing unevenly does not cause xp penalty

 

[Diamond Cross]

Only a tiny amount of this has actually made it in my games. I incorporated stealth instead of all the sneaking skills and Awareness instead of all the listen look and search skills.

I like the idea of a favored class. Maybe I should incorporate that as a feat for my 3.5 games.

I strongly disagree with giving the Rogue the ability to sneak attack everybody. There are good reasons for those three things to be immune to sneak attack. How do you sneak attack undead that have no organs, how do you sneak attack a column of fire that has no organs, and so on and so forth.

The sneak attack ability is primarily to reflect a knowledge of anatomy and which spots in the being's body is the weakest to attack. Things like undead, constructs, and elementals just don't have this so they are immune.

I also like the idea of no xp for crafting items. I've never really liked that, but the reason there is for some game balance.

It almost sounds like these guys are power gamers.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I started playing BECMI when I was 8 years old, and I know it so well that I keep finding myself going back. I love the range of what a character can do in 3.5E, Pathfinder, and others, because you just don't get that in simpler versions of DnD. But the complexity of the rules and the time spent on combat rounds also pushes me away. The character generation in more complex DnD games are often more fun for me than the play.

Still, I have to admit that both 3.5E and Pathfinder are beautiful games and I appreciate the art of both and what they try to accomplish. But I'm a busy man and don't feel satisfied with game progression when I'm playing for a three hour session just resolving one bit of combat against a beholder and his minions.

 

[Shazman]

3 hours to take out a beholder and his minions in 3.5? I don't buy that. Now if it was 4E, it probably would take 3 hours. I personally have had a number of fairly quick fights in Pathfinder even with lots of PC's and opponents in the fight. It may take longer at higher levels, but I have yet to play high levels in Pathfinder. I personally think that richness and depth of combat options and character build options in 3.5 or Pathfinder make it well worth the occassional "boss fight" that takes a while to resolve. At least it's not 4E, with it's cookie cutter class structure and 1st level encounters that can take an hour and a half or more.

 

[Gimby]

3 hours to take out a beholder and his minions in 3.5? I don't buy that. Now if it was 4E, it probably would take 3 hours. I personally have had a number of fairly quick fights in Pathfinder even with lots of PC's and opponents in the fight. It may take longer at higher levels, but I have yet to play high levels in Pathfinder. I personally think that richness and depth of combat options and character build options in 3.5 or Pathfinder make it well worth the occassional "boss fight" that takes a while to resolve. At least it's not 4E, with it's cookie cutter class structure and 1st level encounters that can take an hour and a half or more.

No, I can believe that. I've seen a single *action* take 45 minutes to resolve in high level 3.5.

 

[joela]

3 hours to take out a beholder and his minions in 3.5? I don't buy that.

I can, having run my share of 3.x games. Had single battles last longer especially at mid-levels.

Now if it was 4E, it probably would take 3 hours.

Seen that, too, but for different reasons.

I personally think that richness and depth of combat options and character build options in 3.5 or Pathfinder make it well worth the occassional "boss fight" that takes a while to resolve. At least it's not 4E, with it's cookie cutter class structure and 1st level encounters that can take an hour and a half or more.

Both systems have "richness and depth of combat options and character build options" but presented in different ways. Having run both as a DM in the RPGA and GM in the PFS, I've found 4e to be easier to teach newbies due to the so-called "cookie cutter" format. I find myself with 3.x/Pathfinder having to hold back more due to the frailty of the 1st level PCs.

 

[Umbran]

Folks, please remember the topic of the thread: "D&D 3.x gamers who skipped 4e, why are you not "upgrading" to Pathfinder?"

The topic of the thread is not, "Those of you who don't like 4e, take potshots at 4e". That you didn't like 4e enough to go to it is already assumed, so it requires nary a mention here.

 

[TarionzCousin]

There is more solid design innovation in the 188 pages of Trailblazer than in everything I own for PF.

Trailblazer fixes most of the things that bother me about 3.5, the rest I fix myself.

I'm not attacking Paizo, but backward compatible was a goal of Trailblazer:

I'm certainly biased, but I think Trailblazer accomplished this goal.

...

Trailblazer matches my grittier style of D&D better and fixes almost every problem I had with 3.5 in a satisfactory way.

There is no doubt that Trailblazer caters to a specific style of play, and attempts to answer a specific set of complaints.

That said, I have added Trailblazer Action Points, Encounter Design (XP Budget system similar to 4E) and XP Awards, Skill Challenges a la 4E and 1hp minions based on an old post somewhere on ENWorld.

Now, had I known about Trailblazer earlier, that might have been something I'd have considered...

A little off topic, but I just wanted to say that like Pathfinder, a Trailblazer game isn't my cup of tea either. But, the analysis you guys did of the chasis...Man, those charts are worth their weight in gold to a tinkerer. The information in those charts is invaluable in keeping my houserules balanced. Thanks for the work you guys did on that, and thanks for publishing that book!

I'm using heavily altered versions of the action point system, 10-minute rests, elite and solo monsters.

And "the spine". Love the work there, worth the price even if you never touch the rest of the book.

I'm using Trailblazer. It cost five bucks. You are never going to find anything this good for this cheap ever again.

Seriously, it's still only five dollars.