Pathfinder 1E Opinions on Pathfinder

[qstor]

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.

Wizards get some more perks in Pathfinder than in 3.5. I think there's a certain level of admiration for the Vancian system at the core of Pathfinder. And if your disatisfied with spell casters in 3.5/Pathfinder then 4e is more your cup to tea.

One of the big changes, I've noticed is animal companions for druids. I played a lot of Living Greyhawk 3.5 where the druids animal companion could kick but esp at higher levels. No so much in Pathfinder. You don't have gargantuan T-rex's running around anymore. Animal companions have been cut down in power.

Mike

 

[catsclaw227]

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

I am a big Oathbound fan as well. I may buy Pathfinder just for this.

 

[Undermountain]

We've been running a Pathfinder game for about a year (Rise of the Runelords) and I really like system. It's very similar to 3.5 but what Paizo does the best is the quality of their writing. Their modules are almost as much fun to read as they are to play!

 

[catsclaw227]

We've been running a Pathfinder game for about a year (Rise of the Runelords) and I really like system. It's very similar to 3.5 but what Paizo does the best is the quality of their writing. Their modules are almost as much fun to read as they are to play!

I love the Paizo APs. They do an amazing job, but I got really burned out on 3.5, mostly it being the problem spells in Spell Compendium, the problem items in MIC and the struggles at DMing high level. So I ended up closing my subscription to Pathfinder APs around the end of Curse of the Crimson Throne. (I am mostly a DM, so 3.5 became really tedious to manage. It felt like work.)

I have hopes that maybe the good added to Pathfinder will outweigh the bad that comes from the high level management of the game as a DM.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

I love the Paizo APs. They do an amazing job, but I got really burned out on 3.5, mostly it being the problem spells in Spell Compendium, the problem items in MIC and the struggles at DMing high level.

Just wondering here, but if the main issue you were having are those books why not ban them? If you were having issues sometimes going back to the basics of core works wonders

 

[catsclaw227]

Just wondering here, but if the main issue you were having are those books why not ban them? If you were having issues sometimes going back to the basics of core works wonders

I agree with what you are saying. But it's harder to take away from your group (especially if they are already 2 years into a PC) than to add new stuff.

I hadn't run many games past 12th or 13th level in the later years of 3.x (I did in early 3.0 will less options, and in AD&D), but once I had a group that was exceeding those level ranges, and the players were using the myriad cool options available to them, I started feeling the strain of DMing and a campaign in progress is a bummer to shut down just because it's becoming more like work than fun.

I would posit that 3.5 was definitely a player's game more than a DMs game, so the players want to have many of the great options available.

 

[Herschel]

I am very glad 3E is gone from my table and didn't like the artwork direction for much of it either and am very happy with 4E. With that said, I think Paizo has put out a very good product, especially if you like the system. The core rulebook is nice and beefy and their Adventure Paths look to have some good ideas even if I don't like the system.

So if you like D20 and want a "current" product, I'd recommend it.

 

[Celtavian]

re

I like Pathfinder. They improved and streamlined quite a few rules, the combat maneuver system being the most obvious.

I like what they did with the core classes. They are on par with prestige classes, though the fighter seems a bit tough and the archer ranger or fighter. Most of the other classes are fairly balanced. Just a few combos that are vicious in combat. And the Paladin against evil is very nasty.

I like what they did with dragons.

Alot of like about Pathfinder. It's definitely more my type of game.

 

[Erik Mona]

Just wondering here, but if the main issue you were having are those books why not ban them? If you were having issues sometimes going back to the basics of core works wonders

That's what I did. I banned the broken-ass Spell Compendium from my campaign before Pathfinder was even a glimmer in Paizo's eye.

--Erik

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Just wondering here, but if the main issue you were having are those books why not ban them? If you were having issues sometimes going back to the basics of core works wonders

In my case, I like new options. When those options combine with other previously published options to create broken-ness in ways the author or the DM could not imagine it becomes tiresome to keep fixing things that rear their ugly head. Also, when a system lets you cherry-pick class features at-will things spin horribly out of control each time you add new options. If I didn't want new options I would have kept playing other systems with one (or few) rulebook(s). I much prefer a system that can add new options without breaking the game.