Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[Stalker0]

I think Pathfinder pushes 3.5 in some good directions, but there are no groundbreaking changes.

If you like 3.5, and there are a few things you would like to see changed and improved, then Pathfinder is a solid product, and has beautiful art!

If you are looking for drastic revamps of the system, aka completely balanced high level combat, fighter/mage balance, then you may be disappointed.


If you prefer 3.5 over 4e and want to stay current, then Pathfinder is a solid way to do that.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Personally, I don't think Pathfinder goes far enough to balance casters and non-casters. Fighters get a few extras thrown their way, but comparing their DR 10/- to something like the benefits a high level shapechanging spell will give you is still a rather bad joke.

Still, I hope it does well and tons of people buy it, since a friend of mine gets paid to work on some stuff related to it.

...Uh, except shapechanging spells no longer work the way they used to :U

So hey.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

...Uh, except shapechanging spells no longer work the way they used to :U

So hey.

And yet, becoming a fire elemental for 10 minutes per level is still a tad better than eating 10 damage.
Shapechange is no longer a gamebreaker in Pathfinder, but it´s still better what a fighter gets at high levels. By far. This is not about balance, btw, but about what kind of fantasy you want to portray. Melee guys fading out of the big picture at higher levels is simply a natural part of 3.x and Pathfinder.
PF shapechange doesn´t make the fighter superfluous at higher levels any longer. It just boosts his inferiority complex a little.

 

[Dannager]

I'm a committed 4E DM and yet the quality of Paizo's products, which I continue to buy, caused me to buy Pathfinder and, I know in my gut, I'll be running it before long even though I really like 4E.

All that rules and edition war nonsense aside, Paizo does support their game with well-written adventures, adventure paths that actually have a coherent story and a great campaign world which is well-supported officially by products and unofficially by fans (check out the wiki) and, IMO, WotC hasn't done those things well so far (check that- I liked both the 4E versions of FR and Eberron but I am making a point about the lack of supporting product).

If Paizo ever works out how to legally produce a character builder and monster builder I think I would change in a flash!

You can enjoy Pathfinder adventures in 4e very easily. See my sig for some examples.

 

[malkav666]

I have been playing Pathfinder since its release last year and have been very happy with it. If you did not really like 3.x then there is a good chance that PF may not be your cup of tea. But if you did (even if you thought it was plagued with imbalances) Pathfinder might be worth checking out. They took a real hard look at the 3.x ruleset and fixed a lot of issues. Do issues still remain? Sure they do. But every set of rules has its issues.

Pathfinder also has a pretty rockin' community. I see their developers, writers, the publisher, the CEO, hell even the shipping golems, interacting with the fans on a regular basis. Giving everything from reasoning on company strategies, to soliciting feedback on future products, to offering houserules advice. They just seem very accessable to the fanbase.

I have been very impressed with the rules, the flavor, and the environment in the Pathfinder camp. Check out the PFSRD, and I beleive that Paizo has a free adventure for download on their site. (You will have to convert grapple to CMB/CMD, but there is a doc on the site telling you how to do it, and after you do one the conversion so simple you will be able to do it in your head on the fly). I suggest you download the adventure and try running it with the new rules and see if you like it.

Then you can use the most informed opinion on Pathfinder that there is on the subject:

Your Own.

I could tell you its the best thing since sliced cheese, but you will just have to try it yourself and make your own judgement. And you can do so for a 0$ investment.

love,

malkav

 

[NewJeffCT]

And yet, becoming a fire elemental for 10 minutes per level is still a tad better than eating 10 damage.
Shapechange is no longer a gamebreaker in Pathfinder, but it´s still better what a fighter gets at high levels. By far. This is not about balance, btw, but about what kind of fantasy you want to portray. Melee guys fading out of the big picture at higher levels is simply a natural part of 3.x and Pathfinder.
PF shapechange doesn´t make the fighter superfluous at higher levels any longer. It just boosts his inferiority complex a little.

I just finished a 2 1/2 year long 3.5E campaign. The players were all level 18 at the end for the final battle. The party fighters were in no way overshadowed by the spellcasters. Maybe I just ran my games improperly?

Now, the party rogue was often overshadowed in combat, as his damage output was often pretty weak compared to the casters and the fighters as he would have to depend on flanking in order to get his sneak attack bonus. Sneak attack bonus wasn't multiplied on crits, either, unlike power attack or smite damage. However, he had his moments as well and often came up with unique moves in combat that really helped the party.

 

[Gort]

...Uh, except shapechanging spells no longer work the way they used to :U

So hey.

You say this as though you are telling me something I don't know.

DR 10/- is a lot worse than the benefits of the high level shapechanging spells.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

I just finished a 2 1/2 year long 3.5E campaign. The players were all level 18 at the end for the final battle. The party fighters were in no way overshadowed by the spellcasters. Maybe I just ran my games improperly?

Now, the party rogue was often overshadowed in combat, as his damage output was often pretty weak compared to the casters and the fighters as he would have to depend on flanking in order to get his sneak attack bonus. Sneak attack bonus wasn't multiplied on crits, either, unlike power attack or smite damage. However, he had his moments as well and often came up with unique moves in combat that really helped the party.

That's been my experience, too. For all the grief about underpowered warriors, it's typically the rogues, bards, and jack of all trade classes that are weakest at higher levels.
Ironically, my last campaign, being high powered gestalt with a big focus towards eventually slaying gods (and thus encountering lots of outsiders and other things with yucky SR), it was almost comical how worthless the two PCs who went dual caster were. They actually complained on several occasions that the people with full BAB or ToB maneuvers were killing everything, while all their spells and SLAs kept failing against SR or the insane saves high powered gestalt tends to lead to...

I mean, the campaign died out at about level 10 before they even started on the plane hopping half of the campaign, those impressions of being impotent were just from normal encounter fare (there was a lengthy tour of the underdark, which has a disgusting amount of things with insane SR, though). If the campaign did continue, they probably would have really been upset.

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

high level fighters

The problem I see at high levels is that martial types become glass cannons...their offensive capabilities are great, but their saves just can't keep up. Having a +10 Will save isn't that great when the DC is 25.

In my mind, high level martial types ought to get extra bonuses to all their saves... Pathfinder does this with fear effects, but other reflex/will saves tend to be poor. The warrior's schtick ought to be that while not as tactically flexible as the wizard, he's much more likely to be the last one standing in a straight up fight.

Ken

 

[I'm A Banana]

Now that Oathbound will be rereleased using the Pathfinder rules, I'm considering giving Pathfinder another look.

Great. Now I have to play it. Oathbound is like a "killer app" for a game system for me.