Pathfinder vs. 3.5E?

[CountPopeula]

So yes, if you put ranks into a wide variety of skills, prepare to go through quite a bit of reallocating, since there's a good chance that many of them merged, freeing up skill points which will now need to be put somewhere else.

This seems more like something that would only be an issue with players. I mean, if I wanted to use a printed 3e adventure, would I HAVE to go through and change every monster for the game to run smoothly? It would be incredibly anal retentive to do so, and I don't think anyone would panic if they needed the kobold to make a perception check and they just had a spot skill.

Now, Pathfinder isn't exactly 3.5, but it's compatible with 3.5. I would argue backwards and sideways. I could add the Warlock or a Bo9S character to a pathfinder game and run through Expedition to Castle Greyhawk basically as written, using the Pathfinder rulebook. I would have to wing a few things on the fly, sure, but i don't think substituting "search" for "perception" grinds the game to a halt... I could use the exact same DC and everything.

I think the problem is what Pathfinder is compatible with. It's not (nor does it need to be)compatible with the 3.5 PHB, but it should be basically compatible with all the 3.5 adventures and splatbooks and such.

 

[Zurai]

So you don't think that Spot and Listen, or Hide and Move Silently, were used very often?

Around here nobody bothers with the Stealth skills because they're useless in a party setting: they're limited by the lowest roll in the group, and you're not gonna get the Fighter/Cleric/Wizard to roll above a 10 with any consistency. With Spot and Listen, it's very rare for any single character to have both skills. One or the other, sure. Both? Notsomuch.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Because criticizing its general approach at this point is unfair.

Of course it's fair. The only reason it's not fair is to shut down any opposition to it being a major break with 3.5 until it's too late in the process, and everyone looks back and says "gee, that's what the fans on the forums seemed to think ..."

Alpha tests are not, as a rule, about throwing every possibility at the wall and seeing what sticks. They're a first working draft. If the first draft isn't working, the time to raise objections -- especially if they are major objections -- is now, not later. Because there comes a point of no return, and the longer one waits, the higher the likelihood is that one has passed it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Its funny how some say that Paizo is now changing for the sake of change (just in different words) when 4E has gone well beyond this.

It's not a binary choice between PF and 4E. It's possible that both of them will fail the needs of a given consumer.

 

[joela]

ramped up

If they power up the core PHB classes, for balance/fairness sake

There's a misunderstand here. The PRPG base classes were so-called "ramped up" to match the Complete classes, Bo9S classes, etc. And having played in 3.x D&D RAW campaigns when such classes are -- finally! -- opened to players, the differences are marked.

 

[joela]

changes

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.

Both Erik and Jason have mentioned more than once that many of the suggested changes were to push the 3.x-compatibility envelop. Examples include the classes' new abilities, the skill system, etc. Some have received extremely favorable reviews (Channel Energy), some mixed (there's still fights over the skill system), and some nixed (Combat Feats). I believe it was Erik who said that the Beta, which will be released in August, will be less extreme than the Alpha Releases.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Uh... no. The only change to skills is to do away with the stupid cross-class skill penalty and a bonus on the first rank with a skill IF it's a class skill. There's no "drastic change" to the number of skill points a character has. Actually, there's no effective change to how many skill points a character has.

That is a drastic change.

If the skill consolidation frees up two or more skill points, it is far better to put those two points into two previously neglected class skills, gaining the +3 trained bonus for the first rank.

Even if you don't have any free skill points lying around, you're almost always better off taking 1 rank off the top skill(s) and sharing the love with any untrained class skills.

For the record, though, I think that's a drastic change in the "Great!" direction.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is a drastic change.

If the skill consolidation frees up two or more skill points, it is far better to put those two points into two previously neglected class skills, gaining the +3 trained bonus for the first rank.

Even if you don't have any free skill points lying around, you're almost always better off taking 1 rank off the top skill(s) and sharing the love with any untrained class skills.

For the record, though, I think that's a drastic change in the "Great!" direction.

It's a drastic change I liked. It works very beneficial for (low level) Wizards that want to get the best out of their Knowledge class skills.

I generally liked most of the changes of Pathfinder (well, I still don't get those melee powers for some Sorcerer bloodlines, but...). But I didn't care about backwards compatibility, nor long-term success. I do not expect to play Pathinder Alpha, Beta or final version for long (depending how long the two running Pathfinder campaigns last), and I certainly won't DM it.

It's not a binary choice between PF and 4E. It's possible that both of them will fail the needs of a given consumer.

Yes. There is no "either or" question here. Pathfinder and 4E represent only a subset of the options people have. They might be the most visible at the moment, but there are more. (And even then it's possible that nothing fits... )

 

[Aus_Snow]

der kluge summed it up pretty well, I thought.

Personally, I think there are enough things 'wrong' with 3e that a fair bit of change could be good, and I don't need 'sideways compatibility' in this either.

So, well, I'm a potential customer. I've put a few views across (calmly) over at paizo.com, but I'm not rabidly attached to any of them. Whatever works, really.

And there are some great changes already, IMO. Like making 20 levels in any base class viable - this is still a work in progress, I know, but it appears to be a definite design goal, anyhow - even when alongside crazed splatisms*, obscene dipfests* and/or prestige class orgies*. Uh, something like that.

It's promising, there's comfirmation of third party support already, and I'm looking forward to trying out the beta version soon.


* alongside these in terms of overall power, in general, roughly. Not 1 for 1 precision, blah.

 

[AllisterH]

There's a misunderstand here. The PRPG base classes were so-called "ramped up" to match the Complete classes, Bo9S classes, etc. And having played in 3.x D&D RAW campaigns when such classes are -- finally! -- opened to players, the differences are marked.

As I mentioned before, this is somewhat weird.

For example, take the warblade. Regularly held up as an example of a "more" powerful class but ask the CO-experts on WOTC's own boards and the consensus is that a CORE BARBARIAN simply still outdamages a warblade.

Let's not even get into things like Leap Attack and Shck trooper. Similarly, a fighter is NOT underpowered. In terms of damage, a fighter with just PHB and PHB 2 can match the output of any one class.

What the fighter's problem was the fact that it usually only had one "trick" to bring to a fight.

PF by giving out more feats hasn't touched that problem. I think that's why I look somewhat skeptically at PF. What I see as the problems of 3.x are being "solved" in ways that don't actually touch the root cause.

re: Compatibility
Um, PF has gone WAY beyond the difference between 3.0 and 3.5. For example, what's the difference between the races in the 3.0 PHB and the 3.5 PHB and similarly what about the classes?

Seriously, I think among those two sections, only the ranger actually underwent change.

Compare this with PAthfinder versus 3.5.

Personally, I'm still concerned with the added power of the Pathfinder classes. Make no mistake, the additional feats will INCREASE the offense of the classes but you're not seeing a similar increase in DEFENCE thus, rocket tag will simply occur earlier.

If the sweet spot is levels 5-12 in 3.5, I worry that the sweet spot in pathfinder will be levels 2-10