Pathfinder, Trailblazer, and 3e: Opinions, Impressions, and Experiences

[Kcaptar Punch!]

I am considering converting my ongoing 3e campaign to either Pathfinder or Trilblazer. My world is firmly bound in the Greyhawk setting, so the change would be mechanical only.

I am seeking feedback from GMs with experience running either or both variants. Obviously, trying them out myself on the side would be the ideal solution, but I simply don't have the time I feel it would require to make a fair judgement on both.

I have read the rulebooks, and I am impressed with some of the ideas I see. I am curious to know what your experiences have been:

What advantages/improvements have you noted over 3.5?
What drawbacks have you noted over 3.5?
What parts of the game, for better or for worse, run roughly just like 3.5?
How easy/difficult has it been to convert your 3.5 material to the new system?
Do you feel it was worth the change? Why?

Please note if your comments relate to Pathfinder or Trailblazer. If you can speak for both, all the better.

Thanks in advance for sharing your experience and advice!

 

[Ahnehnois]

I've run a game with 3.5 using various houserules, including some PF & TB. Speaking to specific subsystems, I like PF (particularly combat maneuvers) & TB (particularly their iterative attack fix and combat reactions) for combat rules. These make combat more dynamic and also simpler without gutting the system. They're very easy to learn and require little conversion. Neither of them did what I wanted with magic or hit points so I use some modified UA rules for these.

Speaking generally, PF is much more different from 3.5. TB, for instance, doesn't really change the races, but PF powers them up. PF also redid the classes, with IMO mixed results (sorcerer bloodlines great, barbarian rage powers stupid), while TB made less dramatic changes. The classes require significant conversion. It's SRDed, but to really play a PF game you'd probably have to buy some expensive (but excellent) books. PF also has the advantage of ongoing rules support; new products coming out specifically for it if that matters to you. PF is nice in that existing 3.5 prestige classes are now kind of balanced with the full 20-level base classes.

TB is a simple and modular series of fixes. It's easier to use one rule or one chapter and graft it onto an existing 3.5 game. The whole thing is a $5 pdf (or something like $20 for a hard copy off amazon).

So in general I'd say how far do you want to go? PF is a new game and requires more effort and investment; TB is more like a set of houserules made in to a clean and cohesive new campaign guide. Both have their uses and I use both.

 

[Wicht]

I'm using PF for all my games anymore and happy for it. Its not that big a jump from 3.5. In fact most of its pretty intuitive stuff and I've had no trouble using it with 3.5 modules. I don't really have any complaints yet about the Pathfinder ruleset. The fighter and the sorcerer are both much improved. The clerics ability to channel positive energy is such an elegant thing that one wonders it wasn't done to begin with that way.


Besides which, its a beautiful book and the Bestiary is excellent. In fact, I've said before and sitll think, the Bestiary is the best monster book since the AD&D Monster Manual and Monster Manual II.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Pathfinder is much more backwards compatible, to the point where even a moderately experienced DM can run adventures and convert on the fly.

Trailblazer makes deeper changes to the game. It will be more difficult -- but by no means impossible -- to convert on the fly. (On the other hand, I'm in the camp that says, "Why bother converting at all? just run the stat-block, and who cares if the rules are slightly different for the bad guys?")

Pathfinder is infinitely prettier. (This is important to some people, and I'm not ashamed to say that I'm one of them.)

Trailblazer works harder to fix things that are wrong with 3.5. (This is related to backwards compatibility, which was a goal of Pathfinder, and not so much of Trailblazer.)

As someone else said, Trailblazer has many modular rules. For example, when I DM D&D again, I'll use Pathfinder. But I'll almost certainly use Trailblazer's replacement for iterative attacks.

 

[Crothian]

I've read over and have them both. I do like the improvements of the game they offer. However, it seems like more work then its worth to adopt them. There are a number of changes and not all of them are obvous or ones that I would expect to be changed. I found it easier to stick with 3.5 which everyone knows and spend time just having fun with the new campoaign then splitting time between the campaign and making sure everyone including myself all knows and understand all the rule changes. With work and being back in college I'm taking the easy way out.

 

[Voadam]

Skill calculation, much simpler in both PF and TB. No x4 points at 1st level, no half point cross-class skills and straightforward +3 bonus for class skills is an elegant revision to 3.5 skills that allows easier calculation of skills at a glance even for high level multiclass characters. Also allows decent skill at non class skills.

Skill consolidation is great in many instances but I wish they went farther with the physical ones, classic fighters did not gain any real improvements on their skill problems while bards, rogues, and rangers shot even further ahead as skill monkeys.

PF and TB both make sneak attack more broadly applicable which goes a long way to solving the balance/fun problem of rogue big gun attacks being inapplicable to about half the typical opponents: undead, constructs, elementals, etc.

TB makes rogues and monks able to hit high AC opponents by giving them a class bonus to attacks when they don't get a BAB advance. They don't improve their grapple or iteratives but they are not left out of the action against high AC opponents.

In PF clerics get more healing, making having them more important for healing.

TB gives more hp at brief rest making clerics less important for healing.

PF CMB makes size differences less decisive and simplifies the ambiguous 3.5 grapple rules.

PF changes polymorph into nice subspells with a reasonable range of characterisitics instead of full monster stat variation.

PF changes a lot of save or die into damage and save or suck into hold person save each round style spells, a reduction in combat swinginess and an improvement IMO.

PF gives at will cantrips to casters, meaning wizards do minor attack magics at base instead of pulling out crossbows, a big flavor improvement IMO.

TB does a lot for multiclass casters, with a base unified magic system with different classes only providing specific add on benefits (bonus spells prepared vs bonus slots for example) and non magic classes adding in a fractional base magic bonus. PF does not address multiclass casting issues.

TB, though, also throws in everybody knowing everything on their lists and requiring action point spending to prepare big impact spells. Two things I don't like.