Malachei
First Post
Thanks, Myth, for your understanding.
Regarding Pathfinder: I think it has some nice improvements. I like the faster feat progression and condensed skills, which I have adapted to my homebrew section. I think you can easily find tons of reviews here or on other sites which add a lot of information on what are generally seen as the benefits / strengths of PF. If you want to compare, look at the PF SRD: http://d20pfsrd.com/
I would have switched to Pathfinder, if not for a few other aspects I don't like so much. I know many actually appreciate sticking to a class, but I liked the Prestige Classes of 3rd Edition, so creating incentives to stay in a class for 20 levels is somehow giving me a tough choice to make. Also, I miss Tome of Battle aspects, as well as Tome of Magic. I think PF would greatly benefit from adding ToB classes. The Fighter has improved, perhaps not as much as some other classes (Rogue). My issue, however, with the Fighter, remains unsolved... I just prefer a different mechanic with a flexible set of options, and the ToB classes give me this. So, while a think the PF Fighter is a good class, in my games, I'd still mostly use it to build NPCs. Personally, I'd probably not consider playing a PF Fighter.
Balance: Some of Pathfinder's material is grossly unbalanced (Summoner... most of the recent supplements), so you can't really say that balance issues have been fixed. I also think it is impossible to fix them, and every game has to find its own balance, whether 3rd Edition or PF -- potentially using sets of houserules. Some spell changes strike me as a bit casual, with some issues fixed but others not addressed. I'd rather have 3.5 spells (and houserule issues), because I feel with PF, I have to review the whole material again.
Regarding Pathfinder: I think it has some nice improvements. I like the faster feat progression and condensed skills, which I have adapted to my homebrew section. I think you can easily find tons of reviews here or on other sites which add a lot of information on what are generally seen as the benefits / strengths of PF. If you want to compare, look at the PF SRD: http://d20pfsrd.com/
I would have switched to Pathfinder, if not for a few other aspects I don't like so much. I know many actually appreciate sticking to a class, but I liked the Prestige Classes of 3rd Edition, so creating incentives to stay in a class for 20 levels is somehow giving me a tough choice to make. Also, I miss Tome of Battle aspects, as well as Tome of Magic. I think PF would greatly benefit from adding ToB classes. The Fighter has improved, perhaps not as much as some other classes (Rogue). My issue, however, with the Fighter, remains unsolved... I just prefer a different mechanic with a flexible set of options, and the ToB classes give me this. So, while a think the PF Fighter is a good class, in my games, I'd still mostly use it to build NPCs. Personally, I'd probably not consider playing a PF Fighter.
Balance: Some of Pathfinder's material is grossly unbalanced (Summoner... most of the recent supplements), so you can't really say that balance issues have been fixed. I also think it is impossible to fix them, and every game has to find its own balance, whether 3rd Edition or PF -- potentially using sets of houserules. Some spell changes strike me as a bit casual, with some issues fixed but others not addressed. I'd rather have 3.5 spells (and houserule issues), because I feel with PF, I have to review the whole material again.
Last edited: