D&D 3E/3.5 Making the switch from 3.5 to Pathfinder

[RUMBLETiGER]

I've found a new group of buddies who have invited me into their Pathfinder game.

I'm looking for factual comparisons of the distinct differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder. I know there are plenty of opinions, feel free to share them in moderation but I really want to know what I need to mentally adjust to in order to play well & not make mechanical assumptions going from one game to the other.

 

[darjr]

This thread has some good advice, plus a link to the gitpg guide

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?312921-How-backwards-compatible-to-3-5-is-Pathfinder

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

Thank you!

 

[Jacob Marley]

Saph's conclusions are generally spot on. I'll add the following opinions from my experiences with Pathfinder....

Bards

• The general changes in Pathfinder to skills coupled with the bard's versatile performances really allow the bard greater versatility than its 3.x counterpart.
• Half-orcs went from being the worst bard race in 3.x to being, arguably, the best bard race in Pathfinder. This is largely due to the half-orc's versatility in applying its ability bonus, and its familiarity with the falchion.
• Mithril breastplate no longer counts as light armor. This is a nerf, though not a crippling one.
• Bardic music now counts in rounds per day. This is a nerf, and is a crippling one at that. My gaming group tends toward running longer encounters. It is common for an average encounter in our campaigns to last 7-8 rounds, with 10+ round encounters not being unheard of. In Pathfinder I am rationing my performances at a far greater frequency than in 3.x.

Paladins

• Every changed made to the paladin is an improvement on its 3.x counterpart.
• The only negative I have concerns the changes made to Power Attack. There is no granularity to Pathfinder Power Attack.

Wizards

• Specialize. There is no downside.
• Some spells have been changed but, by and large, if you enjoy playing battlefield control wizards (and I do!), you should be fine. On the other hand, if you enjoy utility wizards you might find the changes a little more frustrating.
• Half-orcs make good wizards.

I haven't had the opportunity to play any of the other base 3.x classes in Pathfinder. I have played an Inquisitor and enjoyed the experience. If you liked 3.x you should be satisfied with Pathfinder. If you liked optimizing 3.x -- and I think you do -- you should find that Pathfinder presents a new set of challenges. I do miss a lot of 3.x when playing Pathfinder; namely, the prestige classes and some of the protected IP. All in all, I think Pathfinder is a step sideways from 3.x. It offers some new challenges but at a cost. I am happy with playing either game.

 

[Starfox]

Not so sure the bard really got buffed - at least the spell list got reduced a lot. Bards no longer have all the utility and illusion spells they used to have. Their concept has been reduced from maverick know-it-all to something more focused. Of course, this created room for the new semi-spelluser classes Magus, Alchemist, and Summoner. Bardic music was also nerfed in that inspire courage can no longer be kept up indefinitely, and you can never stack two kinds of bardic music. This makes some of the later bardic performances pretty obsolete.

The main strength of the bard these days are Versatile Performance - the bard can now be the prime skill monkey in the group, taking that role from the rogue. Since versatile performance keys of Charisma but allows you to replace some Dex and Wis skills, it also reduces Mad and allows the bard to excel in some unexpected skills.