Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[thecasualoblivion]

Take Pathfinder away from the whole Edition Wars crap, and objectively how does it compare with 3.5E? Personally, it just seems like some house rules slapped on the core books but I'm a biased soldier on the front lines of the Edition Wars. As a longtime DM/Player of 3.5E D&D, I see a tremendous amount of hassle trying to mesh Pathfinder with all of the D&D splats my games always used, and I'm not sure the new things in Pathfinder really compare well with 3.5E's wealth of choices from books excluded from the SRD.

Eventually it is going to have to establish itself as its own game on its own terms, and it is going to have to compare well against 3.5E D&D to do this. I'm not seeing it.

 

[xechnao]

Eventually it is going to have to establish itself as its own game on its own terms, and it is going to have to compare well against 3.5E D&D to do this. I'm not seeing it.

So for you for now is either 3.5e or 4e? Don't you have any issues with 3.5 or 4e at all? Things that you would like were made better?
Any improvement to the game is an improvement. Don't you see any possible space for improvements for you here regarding Wotc's editions?

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with the OP.

I brought this up on the Pathfinder forums a while ago, but it seems to be changing more 3.5 rules than it really needs to.

One of Pathfinder's stated goals is that it wants to fix the biggest trouble spots with 3.5E. Okay, so grapple gets revised, and so do polymorphing spells - pretty much everyone agrees those need an overhaul. Maybe consolidating the Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently skills too.

Everything beyond that strikes me as going too far, though. Beyond that handful of changes, everyone seems to have a differing opinion about what should be changed, mostly to suit their own personal vision. The Pathfinder forums are filled with people suggesting this or that change, and largely drowning out the people who want a more moderate open playtesting. It's why I stopped posting there.

Pathfinder's other stated goal is to remain easily compatible with 3.5. But every single change it makes to the rules takes it a small step away from that goal. As it is now, Pathfinder seems like it'll be at least as different from 3.5 (if not more different) than 3.5 was from 3.0; and that was a change that required quite a bit of redefinition of terms. It's my hope that the Paizo guys will walk back some of the changes we see in the Alpha 3 rules. I wonder if listening to so many people screaming for more and more changes on their forums are perhaps pushing them too far.

There seems to only be a consideration of how easy it will be to convert 3.5 material to Pathfinder. I think that's a bit too PF-centric. People won't be converting their material to Pathfinder, they'll be converting Pathfinder to run in their existing 3.5 game. And if the game is too different to allow for an on-the-fly conversion right at the game table, Pathfinder will have failed in its goal of 3.5 compatibility.

 

[xechnao]

I agree with the OP.

I brought this up on the Pathfinder forums a while ago, but it seems to be changing more 3.5 rules than it really needs to.

One of Pathfinder's stated goals is that it wants to fix the biggest trouble spots with 3.5E. Okay, so grapple gets revised, and so do polymorphing spells - pretty much everyone agrees those need an overhaul. Maybe consolidating the Spot/Listen and Hide/Move Silently skills too.

Everything beyond that strikes me as going too far, though. Beyond that handful of changes, everyone seems to have a differing opinion about what should be changed, mostly to suit their own personal vision. The Pathfinder forums are filled with people suggesting this or that change, and largely drowning out the people who want a more moderate open playtesting. It's why I stopped posting there.

Pathfinder's other stated goal is to remain easily compatible with 3.5. But every single change it makes to the rules takes it a small step away from that goal. As it is now, Pathfinder seems like it'll be at least as different from 3.5 (if not more different) than 3.5 was from 3.0; and that was a change that required quite a bit of redefinition of terms. It's my hope that the Paizo guys will walk back some of the changes we see in the Alpha 3 rules. I wonder if listening to so many people screaming for more and more changes on their forums are perhaps pushing them too far.

There seems to only be a consideration of how easy it will be to convert 3.5 material to Pathfinder. I think that's a bit too PF-centric. People won't be converting their material to Pathfinder, they'll be converting Pathfinder to run in their existing 3.5 game. And if the game is too different to allow for an on-the-fly conversion right at the game table, Pathfinder will have failed in its goal of 3.5 compatibility.

I disagree with your negativity. Why do BoXM are bestsellers on rpgnow you think?

 

[an_idol_mind]

I think the number of people who ignore that the current Pathfinder release is an alpha version (i.e., try out your craziest ideas and see what works) is pretty staggering.

The beta will be a better way to judge how the game is shaping up.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So for you for now is either 3.5e or 4e? Don't you have any issues with 3.5 or 4e at all? Things that you would like were made better?
Any improvement to the game is an improvement. Don't you see any possible space for improvements for you here regarding Wotc's editions?

Space for improvements equals me houseruling whatever edition I am playing, just as I have always done.

What I am really saying is that Pathfinder needs to be looked at without a grudge for/against WotC. Very few people are doing that right now. After the whole edition change blows over, Pathfinder will either succeed or fail on its own merits.

 

[xechnao]

Space for improvements equals me houseruling whatever edition I am playing, just as I have always done.

What I am really saying is that Pathfinder needs to be looked at without a grudge for/against WotC. Very few people are doing that right now. After the whole edition change blows over, Pathfinder will either succeed or fail on its own merits.

To this I agree more than 1100%.

 

[Alzrius]

I disagree with your negativity. Why do BoXM are bestsellers on rpgnow you think?

I disagree with your characterization of my post as being negative (and of how you're spamming everyone who doesn't share your fanboy-ish enthusiasm).

The BoXM is a book of optional rules that can be used modularly. The PFRPG is a complete game, and its changes can't be so easily modified or ignored. Further, one of its stated goals is compatibility, which is further derailed with every change it makes. I'm not saying it shouldn't make any changes at all, but each one should be carefully weighed ONLY on the question of "does this fix an aspect of 3.5 that is a problem for everyone playing the game?"

Only if the answer is yes should PF make a change.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

I do think that changing the skill list is one of the biggest things that hurts backwards compatibility. It makes it harder to use with 3.5 supplements with NPCs and Monsters. I like how skills are initially chosen, but I think the classes should have been given more skill points rather than cutting down on the skill list. I had done a 1/2e to 3.5e comparison of skill points and realized how underskilled 3.5 characters are compared to their 1/2e counterparts:

http://achan-hiarusa.livejournal.com/141748.html

 

[xechnao]

(and of how you're spamming everyone who doesn't share your fanboy-ish enthusiasm).

So if we were sharing my fanboy-ish enthusiasm you would agree with my spamming?

I'm not saying it shouldn't make any changes at all, but each one should be carefully weighed ONLY on the question of "does this fix an aspect of 3.5 that is a problem for everyone playing the game?"

Only if the answer is yes should PF make a change.

Still I disagree with you and find you negative. I do not know if you think it is because of fanboy-ism but IMO the reason is that my logic tells me that happen to be more than one solutions to 3.5's problems and this creates its own problematic. So what you are asking here is nonsensical by definition of Pathfinder's problematic and so your message can only be sentimental and I perceive a feeling of negativity -if I misunderstand your sentiments here and above I am sorry.