Pathfinder 1E Finally Looked at the Pathfinder Rules...

[ProfessorCirno]

From my reading of the rules the thing that bothers me most is the indtroduction of new elements that complicate things greatly. Things like the fighter maneuvers and rogue stuff and rage points. Sorcerer bloodlines and stuff. Does it add to the game mechanically, or just make it more complex? 3.5 was plenty complex, a rules update would have been better targeted elsewhere IMO.

And what really about Clerics got nerfed? It seems like domains are more powerful, and turn undead is now a whole lot more powerful, how does that change the balance?

I am interested because one of the groups I'm in (kinda. . .its a long story) is possibly switching to Pathfinder soon, and I need to know whether it is worth the effort to rejoin that group.

Jay

No more heavy armor, and turn undead is less powerful but more versatile. Instead of just going "lol all undead die why even bother throwing them at me," it's less SoD, more utilitarian.

Honestly, fighter stuff, bloodlines and rogue talents aren't really complex. Rogue talents are no more complex then fighter feats (Which is to say, they aren't at all ;p) and Bloodlines/fighter stuff is basically just an extra ability every so often.

I'll give you rage and bard song being done per round though. I changed that back in my games :[

 

[delericho]

After looking into 4e and playing a little, I concluded that it wasn't for me. After reading Pathfinder, I have almost concluded that it is also not for me. (I do need to play a few test sessions, to see if it plays differently from how it reads, but I don't expect any great surprises.)

For me, there are three issues with Pathfinder:

1) I always found that PC powers got too hard to manage, especially at high levels. It hardly seems to me that the best way to fix this is to engage in yet another round of power creep.

2) The game adds another set of fiddly little rules and powers on top of an already complex rule set. Barbarian rage abilities, sorcerer bloodlines, and similar may all be fine ideas individually, but they are just yet another thing to have to keep track of.

3) Frankly, my tastes in gaming have shifted very strongly towards much more rules-lite systems. Now, 3.5e is most certainly not a rules-light system (in fact, it's right at the top end of complexity for any game I would consider running, even in just the core rules), but I've played it since it was released, and those years of experience make it feel rules-lite. Pathfinder has changed just enough to nullify those years of experience, while leaving the system essentially as complex as it ever was.

Pathfinder is a very fine game. On balance, it's an improvement over 3.5e. And, if I were making a recommendation to a new group as to which "D&D" they should go for, it would be the one I would recommend. But for me, and for my group, it's just not "better enough" from 3.5e to compel us to switch.

 

[Mark Chance]

Casters still dictate the pace of games and many encounters, just like they did in 3.5.

Casters don't dictate the pace of the game. As the DM, I dictate the game's pace.

 

[BryonD]

Regarding power and "omg wizards are still better" issues:

Pathfinder improved some classes and weakened others. The goal - to my understanding - was to bring the tiers closer together. Druid, for example, is no longer the ungodly mess he was in 3.5. Clerics have been brought down a notch. The really troublesome spells that wizards had are cut down too.

Meanwhile, fightan classes mostly got improved - especially that paladin you like .

Overall, I'd say it's a success. There are always niggling issues about every edition or game you won't like (I'm not fond of bard/barbarian stuff being per round, and the poor monk still needs help), but overall, it's probably my edition of choice.

There are certainly other complaints that have been offered that are quite fair. But my experience so far agrees with you that the power creep claim is much over-rated. The racial bumps give a slight edge at very low levels. Beyond that, the same challenges yield the same results.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I would also encourage you to check out Trailblazer if you are looking for some alternate fixes to 3.5. It's available on RPG Now ($5!!) or in print from Amazon. Check out my sig.



Trailblazer introduces several new resource management systems that may be to your liking: action points and the 10-minute rest.

Our goal way to introduce another resource for the PCs to manage that the DM can "tax" (action points) and a rest mechanic that keeps the action moving in order to counter the "15-minute adventuring day".

Hope that helps!

Got your Trailblazer pdf. Its really cheap, so i think its woth a look.

 

[Nai_Calus]

I started with 3.5 and initially hated 4E, largely for fluff reasons, when it came out, but growing dissatisfaction with 3.5 drove me to 4E. I've gotten used to the fluff and find the system itself far far more enjoyable. I have to actively try to make a non-viable character, as opposed to 3.5 where I had to actively try to make one that was viable, especially since I hated playing casters due to the resource management and the pain of trying to keep track of what spells I'd prepared that day. I've actually reached a point at which I refuse to play 3.5 at all anymore.

So I looked at Pathfinder when it came out to see if it had fixed the things I hated, and... No, not at all. The numbers I ran for the combat maneuver stuff mostly came out worse than the same thing in 3.5, the character I converted managed to be worse, Fighter is still garbage next to Wizard, and all those great-concept-but-too-weak-compared-to-core splatbook classes are basically unusable now as they've fallen too far behind. Swashbuckler was already iffy. You couldn't use it anymore unless you wanted to suck horribly or basically re-make the class. Bardic music is in rounds per day now, which is a straight-up nerf considering every single Bard I've played or seen played in 3.5. And from what I've seen, it hasn't fixed at all the major, major problem I had with 3.5, which was that it was utterly miserable to DM.

So for me Pathfinder actually made things worse. I'll stick to 4E, which does everything I want it to do and even handles RPing the characters I want to play better because I no longer have to worry about, say, how the hell I'm going to afford to take ranks in Perform: Singing on a Cleric.

(And I don't feel that Pathfinder's skill system changes went far enough. When I ran 3.5 my skills houserules were even more streamlined.)

 

[BryonD]

it hasn't fixed at all the major, major problem I had with 3.5, which was that it was utterly miserable to DM.

Just to cut to the chase, if anyone is contemplating PF and the terms "major, major problem", or "utterly miserable" apply to your experience with 3X, then PF is NOT for you.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I started with 3.5 and initially hated 4E, largely for fluff reasons, when it came out, but growing dissatisfaction with 3.5 drove me to 4E. I've gotten used to the fluff and find the system itself far far more enjoyable. I have to actively try to make a non-viable character, as opposed to 3.5 where I had to actively try to make one that was viable, especially since I hated playing casters due to the resource management and the pain of trying to keep track of what spells I'd prepared that day. I've actually reached a point at which I refuse to play 3.5 at all anymore.

So I looked at Pathfinder when it came out to see if it had fixed the things I hated, and... No, not at all. The numbers I ran for the combat maneuver stuff mostly came out worse than the same thing in 3.5, the character I converted managed to be worse, Fighter is still garbage next to Wizard, and all those great-concept-but-too-weak-compared-to-core splatbook classes are basically unusable now as they've fallen too far behind. Swashbuckler was already iffy. You couldn't use it anymore unless you wanted to suck horribly or basically re-make the class. Bardic music is in rounds per day now, which is a straight-up nerf considering every single Bard I've played or seen played in 3.5. And from what I've seen, it hasn't fixed at all the major, major problem I had with 3.5, which was that it was utterly miserable to DM.

So for me Pathfinder actually made things worse. I'll stick to 4E, which does everything I want it to do and even handles RPing the characters I want to play better because I no longer have to worry about, say, how the hell I'm going to afford to take ranks in Perform: Singing on a Cleric.

(And I don't feel that Pathfinder's skill system changes went far enough. When I ran 3.5 my skills houserules were even more streamlined.)

So uh, your complaint is "I hate everything about 3.5 so much, and I really hate Pathfinder, too! "

...Um...thanks?

 

[MortalPlague]

I'm running and playing 4th edition at the moment. Recently, we tried to start up a Pathfinder game. We got one session in.

After my cleric (and our party) was level drained and CON-drained by wraiths in encounter one, he then spent most of the second encounter using all his actions to heal the wizards in the party while they did most of the damage. I was less than enthusiastic about the campaign after that.

I'll try it again sometime, and give it a fair shake. The character creation seems very interesting; I like a lot of what they did with the cleric class, and other classes I skimmed. If I ever went back towards 3.5, Pathfinder is probably what I'd try out.

 

[Garthanos]

Casters still rule, magic items ARE the character (Xmas tree syndrome), GM prep time is horrendous, .

Those comments really kill the possibility of Pathfinder for me... Casters ruled in earlier editions (once you got up a few levels before that they sucked)... 4e is the first edition where martial types are awesome.